EU proponents peddle propaganda to keep Britain in

Cheers erupted in the House of Commons last week as British MP’s voted 304-0 to give a second reading to a private members bill by James Wharton (Conservative - Stockton South), to force an in/out referendum on European Union membership.

The vote essentially moves the bill forward to be considered in committee , debated etc.; although it faces a tough passage as the Conservative Party leadership would prefer a slower approach (in some cases a complete U-turn) and the coalition partner Liberal Democrats are not on board. This was reflected by the fact that only half the MP’s in parliament voted, with most non Conservatives obeying whip rules to stay away. Public opinion is narrowly favouring complete EU exit with many Brits. tired of excessive bureaucracy and the restrictions being forced on sovereign immigration laws. But the proponents of membership understand that in order to stay in they will have to win the ideological battle decisively as hearts are swayed in the other direction. Hence the Confederation of British Industry, a non-profit group representing about a third of British industry and a major player in Brussels, has gone on the offensive. Specifically referencing calls for Britain to adopt the methods of non-EU Norway or Switzerland Katja Hall, CBI Chief Policy Director, said on the organizations website:

---

“Businesses will get behind what’s best for growth, jobs and the long-term health of our economy – retaining access to the single market in a reformed EU… Whether we are in or out of membership we will still need a relationship with the EU. But Norway and Switzerland simply don’t appear to have set-ups the UK should aspire to. They are half-way houses on the margins of Europe with no influence over the market rules under which they operate….The debate now needs to focus on the best way to use our seat at the table and get the wheels turning on the kinds of reform that will make all of Europe more competitive.”

Ms. Hall’s statement is eye opening on multiple counts. The increasingly used ‘reformed EU’ comment is that which has already been advanced by Prime Minister David Cameron while speaking with American President Barack Obama. The idea that Cameron wants out of the EU is laughable when he clearly is pursuing an EU-USA or EU-NAFTA pact. The reform language I suspect is simply buying time as it seems highly improbable that other EU players are going to support a customized relationship for the EU for one member nation. Hall’s statement on Norway and Switzerland is partly true but worded to be partly misconstrued. Norway in particular has negotiated its own standing but does pay for EU access, just like member states do. But the arrangement works nicely for them and Norwegians have repeatedly rejected full membership. The Swiss meanwhile enjoy the bi-federation style approach that sees them negotiate with the EU as an equal partner rather than as a smaller member. Both countries belong to the Schengen treaty (open borders) and the Euro though not national currency is widely used in Switzerland and is pegged to the Swiss Franc. The concept put forward by Hall that debate needs to focus on how to use Britain’s power in the EU misses the point. The UK’s delegations have consistently failed to deliver for its people for decades and there is no reason to believe that there is anything that is about to change that. Currently a member nation simply gets rolled by the majority, an increasing number of whom are second-world states like new boys Croatia. States should be able to individually negotiate the terms they are going to agree to. Organizations like the Confederation of British Industry tend to look at this from a purely business perspective without regard to other factors. That is precisely the mis-directional arguments that the proponents of the EU want to use, highlighting potential job growth while ignoring cultural decay. In response to an open letter from the heads of some of the UK’s biggest companies, which said Britain can't afford to quit a market of 500 million people that buys half of its exports; UKIP leader Nigel Farage said it was a "desperate attempt" by business leaders "to keep their privileged positions", protected from competition by EU regulations. Brits cannot forget that much of their industry is stitched up with Brussels Eurocrats who are quite happy with their lucrative arrangements because they work out nicely for them – regardless of the effect it has on everyday life in Britain. Farage accurately points this out but could go further and say that the UK economy would benefit enormously if it was no longer subsidizing massive bureaucratic industrial waste across the continent. The game is on to decide Britain’s EU future, but it is not so much of an ideological contest as it is one of liberty versus progressivism. Will it be an increasingly state-regulated economy or one that returns power democratically to the will of the people?