Should Britain leave the European Union?
J.R.Hartley
Preface; First and foremost dear reader this was an essay composed for my general studies class however my intention was to add it to this blog, well its 5000 words, i know most of you will not take the time to read this however, i think you, if you do read it all will find it an enchanting read. If you get bored and never read the blog again i have a really good rant about Internet and the death of Industry and the High-street!
Tuesday, May
8th 1945. VE Day. The war in Europe was over. The main belligerents in a variety of ways
were obliterated in a very literal sense the main cities of Britain lay in
piles of rubble, France had been destroyed, and Germany was starving and
obliterated also. Not only was there literal damage to the countries but there
was damage to all of the participants Economies and it would take a monumental
effort and injection of cash to get everything going again.
Just because
the war was over did not mean Britain would automatically return to Ruler of
the waves, the same imperial powerhouse it had been 6 years previous. What
remained of Britain’s factories had been turned into shadow factories for the
duration, for example the car industry had turned into tank and aircraft
manufacturing, silver cross prams made spitfires. And the change from a war
time economy would turn into the Austerity measures of the 1950’s this could
have gone monumentally wrong for Britain like we would see for the Soviet Union
less than 50 years later, it could have ended in collapse of an empire.
Britain was
Bankrupt, we had the potential to go under, just as Prime Minister Winston Churchill pressed President Franklin D. Roosevelt for American help under the Lend-lease programme during the
Second world war, John Maynard Keynes flew over to America to secure
money for Britain’s survival both domestically and overseas. Britain’s labour
government had a decision to make, Welfare reforms and the establishment of the
dole OR continued support for the empire to sustain Britain overseas in places
like India, Australia, Canada and African colonies. Keynes managed to get
£1,075 Million from the USA, This was Britain saving herself for now and the
future, yes we made the mistake of suspending convertibility which in the long
term would be bad for the British Economy but the most important thing was that
we had done it for ourselves and managed to create a solution for our problems
after the war, we kept rationing and the Export or die mentality and managed to
pull ourselves out of trouble. The sun had never set on the British Empire it
was not about to happen now in our darkest hour.
The French, being the French decided to make allies of
past enemies only 6 years after the Germans would have been marching through
Paris, the French foreign minister Robert Schuman formed the European Steel and
Coal Community, and He declared his aim was to
"make war not only unthinkable but materially impossible." And this
was enshrined in the 51 year lasting Treaty of Paris signed in 1951 by France, West
Germany, Italy, The Netherlands, Luxembourg and Belgium. The coal and steel
industries being essential for the production of munitions, Schuman believed
that by uniting these two industries across France and Germany under an
innovative system. Schuman's had another aim: "With increased resources
Europe will be able to pursue the achievement of one of its essential tasks,
namely, the development of the African continent." Industrial cartels tended to impose
"restrictive practices" on national markets, whereas the ECSC would
ensure the increased production necessary for their ambitions in Africa.
In essence Schuman envisioned a common market and pooling of the member nations
coal and steel recourses one to prevent war and two to aid Africa, great, for
1951 they were great aims, focusing purely on a monetary side of things and to
revert back to the original question if the European Union still focused on
Fiscal matters as was set out in 1951 by the ECSE i could see no problem with
continuing our membership in the European Union.
Now back to the history lecture, if David
Cameron can prattle on like a running commentary from a Walsh AS history
textbook, so can I. BEFORE the war we had The League of nations, granted this
was in a time really well before the social revolutions of the war, it was as
it had been for the past thousand years, like the feudal system. The yanks in
their infinite wisdom implemented a UN type treaty, established in the treaty
of Versailles in 1919. The Americans had unleashed a plague of biblical
proportions upon the world, in this new “excellent” way to deal with major
international conflicts. So Excellent in fact that the yanks neglected to join
when offered, they had changed their minds, leaving Europe embroiled in this
great big duvet of red tape, Although established on the Tenth of January 1920,
under a liberal government, this was merely a Wartime coalition, the jumped up
front man may have been David Lloyd George, but the majority of the top jobs
went to Tories, The Tories in effect had signed us up to the worst thing since
open sewers, it enchained us to the great lumbering thing, far too large to be
correctly managed, when I think of The League of nations, I think of British
Leyland in the 1970’s, Rover pitted against triumph, Austin battling Morris,
Jaguar fighting off the large new saloons from Rover and Triumph, Basically, An
establishment formed as a great idea but in practise was far too big to work,
with in competent management, our representative in the League of nations was
always the Foreign Secretary at that time, Which for the Vast majority of the
time between 1920 and 1945 was conservative, excluding the two labour terms
that together lasted 2 years and 11 months. As this was a turbulent time for British
politics the last thing we needed was to be involved with international
idealistic bumf like the league of nations, and more so the worst thing that
could have happened was to put a Tory in charge of relations with other
countries (see Hoare-Lavelle Pact of 1935), Do we see any similarities with
today?
In essence, the League of nations was an
International Organisation aimed at preventing wars, and improving social
conditions, not an economic pooling of resources or a common market, or even an
encouragement of trade between countries, no, it was purely something to tackle
the social problems of the day, the league of nations ultimately failed in its
aims completely, it had limited successes but when it came to tackling the big
kids like Italy and Japan, the League simply buried its head in the sand the league
pretty much had ran out of steam as the Second World War broke out. So back to
2013, an example of something we as a nation were dragged into and were left
with to eke out whatever successes we could. With as per usual little help from
the French, and at the same time we were really feeling the effects of the
great depression on the other side of the pond. Strikes were rife and
employment was at an all time high in 1932 in some north east England areas, unemployment reached 70% while the national unemployment
level peaked at 22%
Unemployment rife, General strikes, Britain
and its empire was crumbling because of the storm brewing over the pond with
relations with Germany falling lower and lower each from the 30th of
January 1933 when Hitler started a ruthless campaign of re-armament and
expansion of Germany, The league of nations powerless to stop him, the Tory
government undertook a policy of appeasement, what were we to do!
Then the inter war years the economy sunk
lower and lower, in 1936 Britain saw war coming and this was effectively the
beginning of Britain using the last scraps of what gold it had left to finance
a war effort, the war past, the ECSC came and The French and Germans were now
bedfellows, It is said Politics makes Strange bed fellows but this was to the
extreme. Leave it to the Tories of old to make international relations better,
Great stuff.
Again the war was over and communist began
its icy grip on the free world battling it out politically with America, then
in 1950 the world was witness to another war, Korea and the Tory government
sent out poorly trained British chaps into the icy wilderness that is Korea
together with 17 other member nations of the newly established UN, Granted the
war was pointless but we showed that Britain could still be at the forefront of
battle and was able to win collective peace with other nations, The UN had done
its job, kudos. Then came the establishment of the ESCS. The world despite the
treat from the communists was pulling itself forward in a collective effort
with the UN.
Then came the Common Market really came
into play with the European Economic Community (EEC) brought about under the
treaty of Rome in 1957 its founding six founding
members: Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Luxembourg and the Netherlands. Dreaming of Economic integration and the Common Market
The EEC was designed also in part to
succeed the ECSC as the member nations had complain that the ECSC had begun to
infringe their Nations Sovereignty. So even back in the early days of 1958
countries had complained that they were losing power to this great
supranational power, and then left that community to form a committee purely
focused on Economic development and the development of Nuclear Energy through
the other party of the EEC, Euratom, however the very first step in nations
starting to lose control came in 1962 whereby the voting system in the EEC went
from unanimity stopped and the transition came into effect part of this
transiton was that a directive no longer had to be approved by all countries
but only a majority, This was the first step in the EEC and future EU becoming
a complete political power and a bit of a mess at that. It Even scared Charles
De Gaulle for all the mess he made in Vietnam, he did something good, he
withdrew French representation from the committee for 4 years that lead to a
Gentlemen’s Agreement whereby nations could now use the power of a Vito it is
was something of specific and important national interest.
in
1968 the first real success in terms of Economic development in the EEC came to
light as member nations dropped import tariffs for some products, which
included all agricultural products, Hooray! Finally they achieved a goal they
had set out to do only a few years little delayed over what they predicted but
a victory nonetheless!
1973, An excellent year to be British,
Strikes, Unemployment, Blackouts, Miners on strike still, OPEC becomes an
annoying little sod, The three day working week, Britain plunged into darkness,
David bowie, Marc Bolan and Charles De Galle would have turned in his grave, at
the fact that Britain As of the First of January 1973 Britain had become a
member of the common market after two unsuccessful attempts.
The
Prime Minister, Harold Macmillan, was alarmed at the rapid economic
advances made by France and Germany and sought to join the EEC. Britain's
commonwealth ties, domestic agricultural policy, and close links to the US were
obstacles in joining and the French President, Charles de Gaulle,
vetoed Britain's application in 1963. The Wilson government again failed to
take Britain into the EEC in 1967 but Georges Pompidou,
who succeeded de Gaulle, finally relented and Britain joined in January 1973
under the premiership of Edward Heath. Considering the last time Britain entered
Europe we were brandishing machine guns and grenades we were not met with open
arms.
The
1974 Wilson government was unhappy with the terms of EEC membership and held a
referendum in June 1975. A substantial majority voted in favour of continued
membership although Britain consistently resisted supranational industrial,
scientific and social policies.
The 1970’s were coming to an end, and Lady
Thatcher entered the ring, fists up mouth set to shout aloud mode, and Britain
was about to get a shakeup, both nationally and internationally, little did we
know what was about to happen. Now i could write another entire essay on
Thatcher, this will not be the case i shall only talk about her impact on
Britain’s membership in the United Kingdom
Thatcher's attitude toward the European Economic Community
(EEC) was marked by a general dislike. In contrast to her Conservative
predecessors, she opposed closer economic and political ties to Europe, wary
lest Britain lose her identity and independence. Instead, she valued European
unity more as an “arm of anti-Soviet policy rather than economic co-operation” Soon after
her inauguration she opened a campaign against the Common Market, which was
costing Britain roughly £1,000 million a year, in order to
save what she called “my money” After several contentious EEC summits, the
British finally settled on a figure acceptable to Thatcher in June 1984 at a
meeting in Fontainebleau after famously be quoted as saying “I want my money
back”. In the process, she effectively relinquished any claim to British
leadership of the Common Market, probably her greatest foreign policy failure.
It is hard to stress how much of a short term success this was, notice the use
of the words ‘short term’ Long term as i have mentioned it is detrimental,
EUROPE DOES NOT FORGET!! Well unless Britain is liberating it of course, then that
bit of history is conveniently swept under the carpet with the cheese and
bratwurst crumbs
“We are not asking
for a penny piece of Community money for Britain. What we are asking is for a
very large amount of our own money back, over and above
what we contribute to the Community, which is covered by our receipts from the
Community.” – Margaret Thatcher, speaking at a press conference – Dublin, Yes
Thatcher in Dublin. – November 1979
Thatcher came and went, heralded as the most
provocative prime minister of the 20th century – after Churchill,
she was replaced by Major, as in Majorly incompetent; To be frank i know
nothing of the major years, after the thrashing Thatcher did to the country for
11 years Major was just seen as a place filler until the next general election.
Even his own party saw him as a place filler; nothing could follow the wake of
Thatcher. Major surprised them all and got another term.
Then came the Treaty of Maastricht, The treaty led to the creation of the euro, and created what was commonly referred to as the pillar structure of the
European Union. The treaty established the three pillars
of the European Union — the European
Community (EC) pillar, the Common
Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP)
pillar, and the Justice
and Home Affairs (JHA) pillar. The first pillar was where the EU's
supra-national institutions — the Commission, the European
Parliament and the European
Court of Justice — had the most power and influence
Now to go into great lengths about my
issues with the Euro would be absolutely useless as Britain Avoided the Euro
thankfully, however it does have an impact on the European Economy and
therefore the British economy. I have a number of issues with the Euro mostly
being that is like Britain saying we are going to manufacture one type of
toilet from now one, for men, it would be ill fitting for women, this is like
the Euro, trying to apply one currency to the economic powerhouse of Germany
and say that it will work in Greece is very absurd. My second issue also stems
from the Two Speed Europe, The issue is that because currencies rely on GDP and
all sorts of things to decide its actual wealth it is very difficult to pair
countries under one interest rate that are so different, like France and
Portugal it just does not fit! Thirdly there is no scope for devaluation AT
ALL, Since the start of the
Euro, several countries have experienced rising labour costs. This has made
their exports uncompetitive. Usually, their currency would devalue to restore
competitiveness. However, in the Euro, you can't devalue and you are stuck with
uncompetitive exports. This has led to record current account deficits, a fall
in exports and low growth. This has particularly been a problem for countries
like Portugal, Italy and Greece.
Now to really address the question, i have 3 major
problems with the European Union as a whole, Firstly just how large, ill
managed and diverse it is and i do not mean diverse as in covering many
countries, no i mean it in the way of the areas it tries to control as in its
got its fingers in many many pies, for example, there are political, social,
environmental institutions. My second woe with the European union is well
frankly, they have it out for Britain in my opinion, for example take a recent
article in the Telegraph; “UK taxpayers
have been left more than £100m out of pocket after a European court ruled that
the Icelandic government had no obligation to repay Britain and the Netherlands
for rescuing depositors in failed bank Icesave.” – In my opinion if that had
been German money or even French money (not that they would be stupid enough to
full trust the common market and a foreign country with a large amount of their
cash) they would demand it back. My final reason is the European Court of
justice and the laws it peddles on the our green and pleasant land.
Allow me to go in to detail about the First reason why we
should not pander to the EU, Europe is EXPENSIVE and that is because frankly it
is a big fat slab of rich Belgian butter spread across the continent to all of
its peoples, and to provide this butter Britain must stump up the cash whether
we like it or not, to quote Adam Ant “I’m the dandy highwayman who you’re too
scared to mention, Spend my cash on looking flash and grabbing your
attention.....’Stand and deliver, your money or your life” to reiterate my
point, i know not of the inner works of the EU i have at least a modicum of
life left in me nor do i wish to read into it, but frankly i know that there
are VAST institutions and consultation boards and directives and these people
may as well burn Beluga Caviar to heart their offices, light cigarettes with
£50 pound notes, these are the sorts of institutions that rule of Britannia and
spend time considering laws for example ( and these are all real considerations
of the EU i do not know if they are ongoing or not but to spend more than 20
pence thinking about them is completely absurd )
·
There was a suggestion that all road users should
have headlights on at all times,
·
That all vehicles should carry a Hi-visibility vest
and car jack by law,
·
May direct your attention to COMMISSION REGULATION
(EC) No 2257/94 of 16
September 1994 laying down quality standards for bananas (they cannot have an
unsightly curve, neither can cucumbers) – this is appalling considering there
is so much starvation in the world and the EU MAKES us bin this perfectly good
produce
·
Headline from the Telegraph 18th November
2011 “EU bans claim that water can prevent
dehydration Brussels bureaucrats were ridiculed yesterday after banning drink
manufacturers from claiming that water can prevent dehydration.” This was
brought into law after a 3 YEAR, YES THREE YEAR consultation process.
·
A story cited from The Sun March 20th
2006 “The reported directive: The EU proposed that the name of the popular snack mix, "Bombay
Mix" should be renamed to banish the ghost of British colonialism.” –
Unfortunately i have no backing up evidence to this, but if Journalists do not
have to ratify their sources any more neither do i
·
They made
it illegal for prunes to be marketed as a food that helps bowel
movements. Having investigated the effects of the food, the EU
concluded: "The evidence provided is insufficient to establish a cause and
effect relationship between the consumption of dried plums of 'prune' cultivars
and maintenance of normal bowel function." – This was after another
lengthy consultation
My second point for dismissing the EU, ‘They have it
out for Britain’ I have cited the Telegraph in the case of the European court
ruling that no one is to blame for £100 million losses of taxpayers’ money in
the collapse of the Icelandic bank Icesave. My first point on this matter is
that we EMBRACED Europe, as the Germans, French and Belgians have wanted us to
do, i think that if we did not send and money to be stored aboard Johnny
Foreigner would get their knickers in a twist. The next point to my argument in
the case of Icesave is that, with embracing Europe and then it blowing up in
our face is fine frankly, we lose money over here, the big American bank Lehman
Brothers had go under, the world’s finances were going insane, it is the fact
that years later when the economies of a good deal of European countries has
improved and then we are asking for something back, anything or an explanation
and the Belgians have ruled a resounding No. Where is Thatcher when you need
her?!
My Third and final point is the most aggravating and
annoying in my opinion, When Britain joined the EEC, simply by doing this the government put
European law above British law. Though the Treaty of Rome has no validity in
itself, what it stated was brought into British law by an Act of Parliament –
the European Communities Act – in 1972. Therefore, all British
domestic law has to be in synch with European Union law. The European Court
will decide if it is or is not. The first time this affected Britain was in
1991 when the House of Lords used the 1972 Act to adjudge the 1988 Merchant
Shipping Act to be contrary to European Union law (known as the Factortame Case). The summary of that case is
blunt: "The
EEC Treaty is the supreme law of this country taking precedence over Acts of
Parliament. Our entry into the EEC meant (subject to our undoubted but probably
theoretical right to withdraw from the Community all together) Parliament
surrendered its sovereign right to legislate contrary to the provisions of the
Treaty on matters of social and economic policy."
The issue of
whether the UK Parliament or the European Court of Justice has ultimate
sovereignty over European Community laws which apply to the UK is still an area
of intense legal debate and conflicting views. In current practice, the UK
recognises the primacy of the European Court of Justice for those areas of law
in which the EU has competency. However, in Macarthys Ltd v Smith, Lord Denning said, "If the time should come
when our Parliament deliberately passes an Act — with the intention of
repudiating the Treaty or any provision in it — or intentionally of acting
inconsistently with it — and says so in express terms — then . . . it would be
the duty of our courts to follow the statute of our Parliament” and i have only
two words to say to this man. Here Here.
Now i advocate for the death penalty,
Britain abolished the death penalty in 1969 (after a trail of 5 years from the
1965 Murder –abolition of the death penalty- Act 1965) Following
the abolition of the death penalty for murder, the House of Commons held a vote
during each subsequent parliament until 1997 to restore the death penalty. This
motion was always defeated, but the death penalty still remained for other
crimes: Treason, Piracy with violence,
espionage, Causing a fire or explosion in a naval dockyard, Ship, Magazine or
warehouse, Now Britain herself had chosen herself to only use the death penalty
in the extremist of cases, but then Brussels comes swanning in with the European Convention on Human Rights (1998)
and says no you cannot have it at all even if you want it, Tough.
Another one of those EU laws i
have issues with is the European convention of human rights, first the law
itself Article Three Prohibits torture, or “inhuman
or degrading treatment or punishment” Which on the face of it does sound fine,
yes i agree it is not right to torture people, however it is the wording in the
article that creates a legal loophole that then allows people to claim asylum
in this country and be spoon fed tax payers money like it is going out of
fashion “The Court has also held that states cannot deport or extradite individuals who might be subjected to torture, inhuman or
degrading treatment or punishment, in the recipient state” And then you get the
now are getting out of hand, I was reading in the Telegraph on i believe Tuesday
5th November 2013 about a Iranian Asylum seeking family who moved
into one of the most expensive boroughs of London, the house they had been
placed in cost £7,800 a month to rent, however they complained after 3 years
and wanted a better house in a better London borough, they have lived in the UK
for 3 years and the parents are on very large benefits having never ever paid
into the system, had everything handed to them on a silver platter because
politicians are too weak, and Europe just loves to use the UK as a holding pen
for these people, it makes me sick to know that one day i will be paying taxes
to house these very lucky people, i am British and i am not set to get any
luxury treatment like that any time soon.
I have issues with article Four which
forbids slavery, which is as it should be, however it expects prisoners from
this (very good, they have enough rights as is) but if a country has National
service, this Article does not prevent them from doing that national service,
what if you were in some horrid old Eastern Bloc country where they would go
and force you to work in a sulfur mine or some such other horrid thing, it
should protect everyone, or no-one.
Article 9 is also an article i dislike, it
allows for free practise of religion, i do not follow a religion, sure practise
your religion, enjoy it if you want and so forth, but the wording of this
Article allows terrorist groups, and other militant forces to seek refuge in
the United kingdom under the guise of religion.
Article 12 is so annoying, as is with the
rest of the EU. I hardly think i need to mention it in Modern Europe but Article 12 provides a right for “women
and men of marriageable age to marry and establish a family.” – I think the
EU could be spending our money on better things than making sure people can get
married, in Europe we are starting to see vastly increasing numbers of
homelessness frankly that should be higher on the agenda than whether Mr and
Mrs John Q. Public can get married, notice how they do not protect same-sex
couples, in my opinion its one rule for all or none.
In conclusion, we can
see a vivid pattern with history that Europe co-operating is bad for Britain,
and the way the European Union is currently established Bankrupts Britain of
her Sovereignty and in my opinion when we signed up for the common market in
1973 it was purely a from a monetary stance and today the European Union has
evolved in the this great big lumbering snarling beast that should be banished
from the British thought, HOWEVER, that is a provisional statement. I do not
feel that complete withdrawal from the European Union is the best plan of
action, purely because if and when the economy gets cooking again The continent will need bankers and that we
have plenty of in Britain, i would advocate huge reforms in Britain’s
membership in the EU. Last time it was calculated, in 2008, the
European Union was costing us £65 billion gross every
year. That's
about £1,000 each every year for every man, woman and child in the UK. It
increases every year, so it will be a lot more now. And does that just not make
you sick? People may say however in return that if we have a half membership of
sorts like Norway that we will be stuck in the common market but we will have
no input at all on its law and regulation and i would respond with since when
has Britain ever had any control upon what goes on across the channel?
With this long essay coming to a close i would like to
compliment the EU for one thing and one thing only, their national anthem, it
is Beethoven - Ode to joy. And leave with one of my favourite Headlines of all
time taken from the Daily Herald 29th November 1931
“Storm in Channel, Continent Isolated.” – Lets keep it
that way.
Please i would love to hear your comments on this issue!
