From The White Cliffs: Why Britain needs to leave the EU

From The White Cliffs: Why Britain needs to leave the EU

Editor's note: The following article was submitted to GYV by the author's cousin upon his request. Written by a blogger called Oliver Neale, this article first appeared in News-Decoder and was posted June 21. It was slightly edited to fit the AP style of journalistic writing.

 Cover credit:  Oliver Neale

Cover credit: Oliver Neale

On June 23, Britain faces an existential question: “Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?”

Britain faced a similar referendum in 1975 when it was asked whether it wanted to remain in the then European Economic Union (EEC) or “Common Market.” At the time, Britain was “the poor man of Europe.” A yes to membership was portrayed as saying yes to trading and cooperating with our European neighbors – which no reasonable person could disagree with. Concerns about the implications of membership for Britain’s independence and sovereignty were brushed aside, and two thirds of voters voted to remain.

Since 1975, a lot has changed. Britain is now fifth largest economy in the world. Meanwhile, the continent is still recovering from the disaster of the euro, which has helped decimate the economies of Mediterranean countries like Greece, where youth unemployment is at 48 percent.

Nowadays, less than half of British exports go to the EU (44 percent) and that number is declining as modern technology (the internet, cheap flights, Skype) diminishes the importance of geographical proximity.

This is not the European Union we signed up for

Perhaps even more impressive than the economic change has been the political change which has occurred within the European Union.

Contrary to what Britain had hoped, the EU is not a loose arrangement of democratic nation states trading and cooperating together. Instead, it is a political entity centered on the European Project of an ever closer political union with the aim of creating a United States of Europe.

British voters are rightly concerned that the EU should be seeking to acquire the trappings of statehood.

And to a large extent, it has already succeeded. It already has a defined territory, a common citizenship for its population of 508 million, a currency, a president, a criminal justice system, a foreign minister, legal personality, treaty-making powers, a flag and a national anthem.

And it still wants more. The EU agenda is always more Europe. As German Chancellor Angela Merkel puts it, “We need a political union, which means we must cede powers to Europe and give Europe control.”

This is not the Europe we signed up for. Most British people wanted trade, cooperation and good relations between European countries for the benefit of Britain and the Continent – not a political merging of European countries as diverse as Britain, Greece, Portugal and Romania into a superstate governed by a distant elite in Brussels.

The British public should decide on matters that affect it

The EU now influences aspects of our lives we could never have imagined, from opening Britain’s borders to the other 27 EU countries to what parts of Britain’s territorial waters British fishermen can fish in.

Those who defend British membership of the EU say that the EU generally makes the right decisions for us so we should let them get on with it. But that misses the point. This is not about what level of migration is ideal, or who should be able to fish in British territorial waters. The point is that the British public should decide on matters which affect it through its elected representatives in Westminster.

At the moment the House of Commons Library estimates that the EU makes as much as 55% of laws in Britain. What happens when the EU makes decisions we don’t like? When MEPs cannot propose legislation in the European Parliament and when British MEPS are a minority of MEPS, what mechanism do we have for correcting the EU’s mistakes?

We have already witnessed our powerlessness to do anything to re-establish control over immigration from the EU. That may not worry some people, but what will those people do when in the future the EU passes into law something with which they disagree? 

The British public was never told that joining the EU would lead to the erosion of our independence and our sovereignty. In fact, they were explicitly told it wouldn’t. In 1973 Prime Minister Edward Heath made a television broadcast marking Britain’s accession to the EEC in which he said:

“There are some in this country who fear that in going into Europe we shall in some way sacrifice independence and sovereignty. These fears, I need hardly say, are completely unjustified.”

Cameron’s “thin gruel” EU deal backfired

British Prime Minister David Cameron’s recent EU deal was meant to reassure voters by transferring powers from Brussels back to Westminster. But while Mr. Cameron had originally set out for “fundamental treaty change,” he returned from Brussels with only a few minor concessions and non-legally binding promises. The Prime Minister ended up having to boast that Britain wouldn't be made to join the Euro or Schengen – proposals that no one had been making in the first place.

Mr Cameron’s “thin gruel” deal backfired. Instead of demonstrating that Britain had influence in Europe as a member of the EU it showed the opposite: that Britain had given up powers to Brussels which it could not retrieve while remaining a member of the EU. The Prime Minister of Great Britain had gone to Brussels with a clear democratic mandate to return powers to Westminster, and the EU had showed itself indifferent to the concerns of British voters: it was either unable or unwilling to reform.

Those who would like us to stay argue that we should remain in the EU in order to reform it. They must think that the British public has a very short memory indeed.

A vote to remain is a green light to a United States of Europe.

The choice facing us is serious, but not very difficult.

On the one hand, Britain can vote to remain in a dysfunctional EU whose remote elites do not care particularly about the needs and concerns of the British people because they have no emotional investment in our country, which is to become a mere province of the greater European superstate, anyway.

A vote remain is a green light to a United States of Europe – there is no such thing as a qualified remain vote because EU bureaucrats will interpret 'remain' in the way that provides the least obstacle to the fulfillment of their project. Put simply, they’ll hear what they want to.

A vote to remain would also be an endorsement of the Remain campaign, which has consisted of relentless scaremongering about all of the horrors of the earth which will allegedly be visited upon us if we have the temerity to vote to leave – from WW3 and economic ruination to global irrelevance and the universal detestation of Britain, to a coup for ISIS and a delay in finding the cure to cancer…

Alternatively, Britain can vote to regain its sovereignty and once more become an independent country which trades and cooperates with countries in Europe, the Commonwealth and around the world, while living under our own laws. In leaving the EU we would re-join those prosperous and happy non-EU European countries like Norway, Switzerland and Iceland, whose populations all back their respective arrangements with the EU over the EU membership they rejected.

A vote to leave would give a renewed sense of national purpose.

The rest of the world awaits – this is a chance for this trading nation to rediscover its global vocation.

Britain would retain and perhaps even amplify its influence on the world stage.  It is not the small player that 'Remainers' suggest it is. Britain is the fifth largest economy, it has the fourth greatest military, diplomatic clout, it is the world’s number one soft power, it has the world’s most widely studied language, one of the world’s great capitals, one of five permanent seats on the United Nations Security Council, membership of the Commonwealth, membership of NATO, the IMF and host of other international organizations.

A vote to leave would give a renewed sense of national purpose and optimism. It would re-establish and strengthen our democracy while reaffirming our self-belief where a vote to remain would demoralize, perhaps even extinguish, both.

For a Europe of independent, democratically self-governing nation states trading and cooperating together: Vote Leave.

This article is indebted to Daniel Hannan, MEP and author of Why Vote Leave, and employs a number of the arguments he has set out so eloquently in that book. You can find Why Vote Leave here.

'Our ambitions transcend borders – Being in the EU means we can achieve them'

'Our ambitions transcend borders – Being in the EU means we can achieve them'

Interview with MEP Brando Benifei: 'Make unpaid internships for graduates illegal'

Interview with MEP Brando Benifei: 'Make unpaid internships for graduates illegal'