It is intriguing to hear Nigel Lawson suggest that the future for the United Kingdom lies outside of the European Union. Perhaps he feels that, having rather foolishly tried to shadow the European Exchange Rate Mechanism when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer, he needs to balance the ledger.
Naturally, the response from those more favourable towards Europe has been swift. Some of it has been personal in nature, which is unfortunate. Other responses have spoken off the number of jobs which depend on our membership of the European Union, figures which may or may not be accurate, may or may not be up to date.
For me, it is a question of honest doubt. There are certain facts that I am confident of, i.e. that non-EU investors wonder why we would leave the EU, and would be more likely to invest and locate inside the EU rather than outside. It is also true that we do an awful lot of trade with the European Union.
There are, however, a whole lot of imponderables. If we left the European Union, would we face tariff barriers when attempting to sell to EU states? What influence, if any, would we have on the future direction of the Single Market? Would potential additional costs make us less competitive? What impact would the loss of freedom of movement within the European Union have? I don't know the exact answers, but I tend towards a particular view.
Given that, when push comes to shove, there is a tendency towards self-interest, it is hard to imagine that we would be able to resume existing trading relationships without there being a price to pay. We would certainly have to compromise in order to comply with relevant European directives, without any credible means of influencing them. Bidding for public sector contracts within the European Union would need to take into account an increased risk of failure.
In our dealings with the rest of the world, why should rival nations and trading blocs treat us with the same, or greater, respect as they currently do if we stand alone? We would fall outside of the increasing number of European Union Free Trade Agreements, and would have to negotiate our own, assuming other nations were willing.
All of these things are doubts, but doubts which cannot be answered with confidence by Nigel Lawson and his sceptic friends.
I am, however, also confused. If the Anglo-Saxon economic model is so wonderful, and the deregulation agenda so seductive, instead of walking away, why can't we persuade our European partners to move that way? Why throw up our arms and concede that it is all too difficult and not worth the effort accordingly?
It is the politics of surrender, of a lack of confidence in our case and our ability to make it. It assumes that Europe cannot be reformed, has no collective identity or purpose, that there is no vision of a democratic, accountable government for Europe.
If Nigel Lawson is to be believed, there is no hope of Camelot, there is no dream of a shining city on a hill, no Jerusalem.
I believe that he's wrong. As a liberal, I believe that decisions should be taken at the most effective level, through structures that are democratically accountable and transparent. The best way to get that is to actively seek the necessary reforms, engaging public opinion and bringing the people with you.
So, I have this to say to Nigel Lawson. In the words of the Reverend Ian Paisley (a former MEP, lest we forget), "No Surrender"!
No comments:
Post a Comment