eurealist.co.uk

A good argument against the assertion that we gain from EU Membership

Tim Worstall: The Economics of EU Membership.

The Economics of EU Membership.

EUPundit applies his rigorous logic to the question of the economic benefits of the UK’s membership of the European Union. Somewhat amusing really:

International economics - at its simplest understandable level - is trade. What does one country produce that another needs, and vice versa? To understand the position of the UK in the EU one has to ask, what does the UK produce that the other countries of the EU need, and, conversely, what do the other countries of the EU produce that the UK needs. Without such complementary needs, trade would be impossible, since there would be nothing to exchange.

At this point I need to point out that as an economist this man seems to be a pretty good lawyer.

Tim Worstall: MORE

The England Project: FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: “EU CONSTITUTION

‘Should the United Kingdom approve the treaty establishing a constitution for the European Union?’. That was the question put to the electorate in 2006 and 68% of voters said NO. So why is the government consistently abiding by every section, paragraph and sentence within the document? Why are elected government ministers sitting on the EU constitutional committee, helping to further add to what is an already weighty document?

We asked one government minister those very questions today and were shocked at his answer.

‘What the electorate said they don’t want, is an approved treaty. Some of them may have thought they were making a decision on whether they wanted an EU constitution or not, but that was not the decision they were making’, says Malcolm Blows, assistant director of the constitutional committee.”

“The question was: do you want to approve the treaty? The answer was no. If you don’t want an approved treaty, then you have a constitution that is used as it is now. If there was some uncertainty in people’s minds, well…,” he shrugs.

The England Project: MORE

German Europe Minister:

EU Constitution “is the birth certificate of the United States of Europe”. Hans Martin Bury, the German Minister for Europe, said in a debate in the Bundestag yesterday that, “This Constitution is, in spite of all justified calls for further regulations, a milestone. Yes, it is more than that.

I think, the EU Constitution is the birth certificate of the United States of Europe.”

We pay the costs they gain the benifits

I have seen several sites which claim that Britain does well out of its membership of the EU, not least BIE which is run for and on behalf of the big business brigade. Who of course feel that their best interests lie with EU Membership, but does the interest of big business mean the that it is also in the interest of the ordinary people, who all have to contribute to our membership, which is then used by big business to make bigger profits for themselves.

These multi-national companies often do not contribute to the taxes of the UK in fact many of them are lining up to take the government to court to claim back taxes they have paid against EU regulations.

BIE have a letter in the FT today commenting on Patricia Hewitt`s disgusting speech when she said those against the Constitution were xenophobic, the letter repeating many of her erroneous claims can be read here, note the worthies who have attached their names and ask yourself if these people speak for the common man in the street and why should we be force to contribute to swelling the coffers of big business …
Vernon Ellis, International Chairman, Accenture
Ken Gilkes, Executive Chairman, Stort Chemicals
Lord Hollick of Notting Hill, Chief Executive, United Business Media
Hugh Morgan Williams, Chairman, Canford Group
Sir Richard Needham, Chairman, Biocompatibles
Sir Gulam Noon, Chairman and Managing Director, Noon Products
Mike Rake, International Chairman and UK Senior Partner, KPMG
Lord Sharman of Redlynch, Chairman, Aegis Group
Sir Martin Sorrell, Group Chief Executive, WPP Group
Peter Sutherland, Chairman, Goldman Sachs

“We believe it is a treaty that British business should welcome, because it will make it easier to do business throughout the world’s largest trading bloc - a market into which more than 50 per cent of our goods are exported and upon which more than 3m jobs in our country depend.

We welcome the signs that the government is now starting to make the patriotic case for Europe and Britain in Europe. It is a campaign in which business must also play its part”

Apart from the claims that 3 million jobs are at stake which is nothing more than propaganda, it may make it easer for big business to trade across the whole of Europe but we are not benefiting from their profits. The argument that over 50% of our goods are exported to the EU is also nonsensical propaganda over 80% of our goods are sold in the UK it is only about 11% which goes to the EU the rest goes to other countries in the world.

Any debate about what we gain and what we loose by membership, is a trade off, the costs against the benefits, as the government have steadfastly refused to do a cost benefit analysis all claims are nothing more than guesses, and are based on the present situation not on the future costs, which can be only increased. The pressure is already there for an increase in the EU budget contributions, while this pressure will in the end increase our contribution.

On the other side there is the pressure to decrease our return also in the FT, Dalia Grybauskaite EU budget commissioner says that the older states are taking to much of the regional aid budget and more should go to the new states Ms Grybauskaite said “a large group of countries” were looking to prise open the Franco-German farm deal, which freezes spending until 2013 at current levels, to take account of the accession of Romania and Bulgaria in 2007.“A gentle reopening could be to include in the ceiling Romania and Bulgaria, which weren’t included in the 2002 Brussels deal,” she said.
That would save €16bn euros from the total planned EU commitments from 2007-13 of €1025bn, or 1.26 per cent of the union’s GDP. France opposes the move.
However France might be swayed if it can achieve one of its other main goals from the budget negotiations: ending Britain’s 20-year-old rebate, which is worth an average of €4.6bn a year.
Ms Grybauskaite said that the rebate, secured by former British prime minister Margaret Thatcher in 1984, was no longer justifiable. “There is a new situation and the reasoning for the rebate has changed,” she said.
“The situation 20 years ago was that the British economy was in a worse position than it was now.”
However she admitted that the Commission’s plan to replace the British rebate with a “general correction mechanism” for all big net contributors to the budget who felt hard done by was opposed by half of all member states.
“The proposed alternative is quite complicated,” she admitted. “It is a good starting point for negotiations, but the outcome could be different.
“We understand we need to find a solution which isn’t hostile to the UK, or makes it difficult for the UK to sign up to the new package.”

So it is clear any comparison between what big business gains by the Constitution, is going to have to be balanced not on the present costs but future costs, with the loss of the Rebate this will easily mean that our contribution will more than double, at the same time the returns from the regional aid package will begin to disappear.

One other claim that BIE are making in their letter is “the election of a Commission committed to competitiveness, growth and jobs show that now, more than ever, the UK needs to be at the heart of Europe” Of course the Commision is not elected but that is a different matter, what BIE are claiming is the with this new Commision we are going to see a more business friendly regime, with less regulation and less intrusive social laws emanating from the EU.

Unfortunately this position is undermined by the EU parliament when the leader of the parliament’s second biggest voting bloc Martin Schulz warned the European Commission that the Socialists mean business. Socialist MEPs have declared the European Parliament’s centre-left as the official opposition to José Manuel Barroso’s administration.
A vote on Barroso’s political programme and legislative agenda for 2005 went to the wire as left-leaning MEPs took a stand against Barroso.
The centre-right Portuguese Brussels chief has been denied a consensus vote on a programme focused on economic growth and reform.
His programme was approved by relatively narrow, in EU terms, majority of 264 to 201 with 37 abstentions.
Socialists are claiming victory and a commission climb down on “important aspects” of Barroso’s agenda.
“After today’s vote, it is clear that the support of the Socialist Group is necessary for future legislation,” said Schulz.
“The right-wing today failed to muster a simple majority of members – 364 – that will be needed for legislation to be adopted.”
“José Manuel Barroso will be well advised to take note of this when he brings legislative proposals to parliament.”
Schulz’s declaration of opposition could herald a departure from the parliament’s traditionally consensus seeking role.
And a new fighting instinct could see key legislation subject to amendment or delay giving a headache to the EU’s behind-the-scenes political fixers and officials.
Socialists are already trumpeting victory over Barroso’s “ultra-liberal approach to public services”.
“I am particularly pleased that we denied right-wing groups the opportunity to carry through their unacceptable approach to public services,” said Schulz.
Socialist vice-president Jan Marinus Wiersma spelt out the political message.
“This has been a parliamentary week in which we as social democrats have marked out our position and defined where we stand as opposed to the right wing,” he said.
“There is a battle going on within this parliament – and we are fully committed to it.”

After arguing that the Government needs us all to carry ID cards to control Terrorist activity Charles Clarke, has admitted the truth that the real reason is so that it would make it easier for the Government to drop border controls.

Mr Clarke said a successful ID card system could change British opposition to Schengen, paving the way for border posts to be swept away

Telegraph | News | Clarke opens door to easing border controls: “An effective identity card system would make it easier for the Government to drop border controls with the rest of Europe, Charles Clarke, the Home Secretary, said in Brussels yesterday.”

At a time when the fixed penalty system under attack because it assumes guilt before conviction, the British Government has now agreed that we peasants should no longer have protection from foreign countries fixed fine systems and will now actively assist other countries to collect their fixed fines.

Telegraph | News | New EU law means no escape for drivers caught speeding abroad: “New EU law means no escape for drivers caught speeding abroad
By David Rennie in Brussels
(Filed: 25/02/2005)

The days when motorists could pick up speeding tickets and other fines on the Continent, then flee for the safety of home, were brought to an end yesterday.

In a major expansion of pan-European law enforcement, EU justice ministers adopted new rules that will oblige member states to enforce each other’s fines and” and court-ordered financial penalties for criminal conduct.

Under the rules adopted in Brussels, a tourist given a fine or fixed penalty notice for any amount over £50 while in another EU country, could face the shock of a court summons, or policeman on the doorstep, long after returning.

The change, proposed by Britain with French and Swedish backing, will mean the authorities in each member state being obliged to seek collection of any fine or penalty over £50, as soon as they are informed that one of their nationals or residents owes the money.

British officials stressed that the main aim was to allow major court judgments and fines to be collected, and to close the “loophole” whereby they are ignored with impunity, simply by fleeing to another EU state.

It will not be a defence to argue that the crime committed while overseas is not a crime back home, for example because drink-driving or speed limits vary from country to country.

National authorities will have limited grounds to decline the task of collecting a fine.

Patricia Hewitt, Mansion House Wednesday, 23 February, 2005

In the speech Hewitt claims “We listened very carefully to the views of business, trade unions and others before we negotiated the Constitution. We set out our objectives. And we achieved every one of them.”

With 275 amendments suggesting changes to the draft by the British government at the convention and only 10 of them accepted, Ms Hewitt has a very strange way of assessing achievement.

Limits on the powers of the European Union. Member states firmly in control. Qualified majority voting in areas where we would make no progress at all without it – like agricultural policy and enforcement of the single market. But the national veto retained in every area where we want it – tax, defence, foreign policy, the financing of the EU.

Hewitt must be reading a different Constitution there is no limit to the power of the Union member states are not in control, QMV removes the power to block regulations in over 60 new areas of authority all of the areas claimed as a veto are under attack and none can be relied on to maintain

British independence. Britain’s ability to block EU legislation will be decreased. Because the threshold number of votes needed to pass legislation falls, the number of votes needed to block legislation increases, so Britain has less of the votes needed to block legislation. When the UK joined the EEC in 1973 it controlled 56 percent of the total number of votes needed to block legislation. We currently have 39 percent of the votes needed. Under the Constitution our share would fall to 31 percent.

A smaller European Commission. More power for national Parliaments. And respect for established liberties of our citizens rather than an open door to create new ones.

From 2009 we will not always have a commissioner but will have to obey all the new laws without any hand in agreeing them in the Commision, There is no new power for national parliaments with the one exception the new power to be ignored. The Charta of Fundamental Rights will enable the ECJ to decide on our basic rights, and the Union has retained the right to removes any rights in the interest of the Union. If the union finds it does not have the power it want it has the right in the constitution to take it, and it also removes the power of our elected parliament to have a say in changes to either QMV or to the constitution itself.

The Treaty means not more Europe, but a better Europe.

More power to the Union less power in the UK and less power to elect our government

the language in the Treaty committing members to support the EU’s common foreign policy in “a spirit of loyalty and mutual solidarity” is lifted straight from the Maastricht Treaty and for ten years has not prevented Britain from acting unilaterally with the United States where we have wanted to.

That was a treaty this is a constitution and will be defined differently apart from that the Constitution has other clauses that require Britain to support the EU Foreign policy The EU will gain more powers over foreign and defence policy, and the ECJ will have new powers to make judgements about the legality of British foreign and defence policy. There are provisions for the new EU Foreign Minister to represent Britain and France at the UN.
The ECJ will become Britain’s de facto Supreme Court with its reach extended in various ways: sometimes clearly but, perhaps more dangerously, it will have a greater role because it is so badly defined in the text. For example, it is explicitly extended to cover some elements of foreign policy but these are badly defined, and it is possible that it will be able to extend its competence: eg. to cover the “solidarity clause” in I-15. It appears that it is not excluded from jurisdiction over the entire Part I of the Constitution which establishes the fundamental basis of the new EU. The Maastricht “pillar structure” is abandoned in the Constitution so home affairs and foreign policy are in principle treated the same way as the Single Market, with EU law explicitly given “primacy” over national law and the ECJ given jurisdiction. Further, Article III-274 says explicitly that the ECJ is responsible for interpreting the Constitution so the ECJ would be responsible for determining its own power – a situation damaging to the rule of law in Europe.

Hewitt also restates the lies about the situation should we leave the Union
a move that would be disastrous for investment, for the City,
for the 3 million jobs directly linked to our membership,
for our influence in the world.
Withdrawal would leave us – like Norway or Switzerland – still trading with Europe. Still paying contributions to Europe. And still bound by all Europe’s single market rules – yet with no say in the rules that Europe adopts.

All of which are either outright lies or subject to negotiation should we leave there will be no loss of jobs because we would still trade with the EU, out influence in the world will be diminished by giving further powers to the Union its influence will be increase British interest will not. There nothing to say we would agree to the same arrangements that Norway or Sweden have our contribution would, even if we did our contribution would not be anything like the amount we pay at present and that is not even counting the increases the Commission wants or the likely loss of our rebate.

There isn’t going to be a renegotiation because no other country wants it.

If they want their Constitution and British does not then they will have to negotiate because we have a veto if we say no then there is nothing the other can do other than negotiate.

Withdrawal from any of our international treaties would require the unanimous support of all other signatories. But no other government, no other political party in Europe is interested in renegotiating a dozen Treaties stretching back thirty years, every one under different Governments endorsed by the British Parliament

But not the British people, we do not need agreement for withdrawal, this power was retained in the British parliament when we entered the Union in 1972. To suggest that we no longer have that power is mendacious but if it were not this would mean that we had in fact given power of the British government to the union and not loaned it this would mean that at some point the British government had acted illegally because they do not own sovereignty they cannot give it away.

A No vote would leave Britain isolated and weakened. Our European partners, understandably puzzled, even angry, that we had rejected a Treaty in which we got everything we wanted, would one way or another move forward without us.

275 suggested amendments to the draft 10 accepted is not getting everything we want. The argument that a no vote would leave us isolated and weakened is ridiculous we will never be isolated other than the continuing trade with the EU we would be free to pursue any agreement we wished and trade with whom we wished, on our terms not those imposed by the union, and we would, far from being weekend be strengthened as we take back the powers to the British government.

What a contrast between the humanity and the idealism of these European leaders, their courage and commitment to the hard slog of economic reform – and the cynicism, the pettiness, the xenophobia of the anti-European movement in Britain.

Xenophobia is a disgusting slur on those who do not want Britain to be submerged in a United States of Europe. This speech is so full of lies misinterpretations and scare tactics it is an insult to the intelligence, but is shows the way the government is going to try to gain a yes vote for the EU Constitution. A Constitution which will pass even more power to the unelected unaccountable EU, Setting that organisation up with its power flowing not from the member states but it own constitution, making that constitution superior to the our constitution and EU law superior to our law.