Go Holiday editor David Kernek looks at the case for the UK staying in the EU, and finds it … underwhelming
WITH a Keep Britain in the European Union coalition that includes the President of the United States, the leading bigshots in the 28 member states of the EU, almost all of Britain’s mainstream political parties (Conservative, Labour, Liberal Democrat, and Scottish and Welsh nationalists), a couple of ex-heads of MI5 and MI6, a former boss of Marks & Spencer, major players in the travel and tourism industries and not forgetting former prime minister Gordon Brown and Sir Richard Branson – no scrub that, let’s forget them – should those of us who had been intending to vote for a UK exit from the EU conclude that we are insane, exceedingly dense, or just in need of a cup of tea and a few hours of rest in a dark room, after which we’d realize that all of these eminent people really do know best?
There isn’t time or space enough here to highlight all of the deceptions, exaggerations, and absurd assumptions – and all of the examples of confused thinking – that characterize the Remain discourse, but I’ll have a go.
Never mind that the UK’s prime minister in his negotiation with the EU asked for a few slices of bread and came back with a handful of crumbs, or that in no meaningful sense do the new membership terms he finds acceptable leave us with a ‘reformed’ union.
No matter that British politicians have since 1973 deceived voters – and perhaps themselves – about the fundamental purpose of the Brussels project, which was and remains the creation of a continental superstate, the downsides of which have been inflicted so far chiefly on Greece (where the results of general elections now count for nothing), Italy (where an unelected cabinet was installed to head off a euro debt crisis), Spain, and Portugal.
Let’s not look at the way in which defence and security issues have been hauled in, as if the EU plays any useful part in the military and intelligence alliances that protect these islands … as if the open borders in the useless Schengen Zone have prevented terrorist murders in the capitals of Western Europe … as if a third continent-wide war might or could or possibly be the consequence of leaving what we were told was simply a free trade block, albeit one in which the laws of nation states are secondary to legislation approved by the EU’s Commission and so-called parliament – that’s the parliament that sits at enormous financial cost in both Brussels and Strasbourg. There are, believe it or not, defence experts in both the US and Britain who say a UK exit would have no adverse impact on the Anglo-American alliance.
Don’t give a second thought to the fact that many of the great and the good who are warning of the direst consequences of a British exit were the same great and the good who led the cheerleading for a UK entry into the financial and political swamp that is EU’s single currency zone … or that many of them have in one way or another had – or still have – a first class seat on the Brussels gravy train. When a university or research outfit sings the praises of the EU, ask how much folding money it gets from Brussels, and how much of it came in the first place from UK taxpayers.
Never mind that for every so-called expert who warns of chaos and failure for a Britain outside the EU, I could call in aid an economist, investment specialist, or defence expert to put the counter argument. Here are FIVE of them:
‘1.History amply demonstrates to us that when you impose artificial borders and artificial unity on a group of human beings, it tends to blow up nastily, and usually in your face.’ That was John Stepek, Editor, MoneyWeek
2.‘Contrary to the claims of many authors and commentators, it is probable that the impacts of Brexit on trade would be relatively small. Moreover, it is certainly possible that leaving the European Union would leave the external sector better off in the long run, if Britain could use its new found freedom to negotiate its own trading arrangements to good effect. It is plausible that Brexit could have a modest negative impact on growth and job creation. However it is slightly more plausible that the net impact would be modestly positive. There are potential net benefits in the areas of a more tailored immigration policy, the freedom to make trade deals, moderately lower levels of regulation, and savings to the public purse.’ That was Capital Economics.
3.‘The truth about Brexit from a national security perspective is that the cost to Britain would be low. Brexit would bring two potentially important security gains: the ability to dump the European Convention on Human Rights — remember the difficulty of extraditing the extremist Abu Hamza of the Finsbury Park Mosque – and, more importantly, greater control over immigration from the European Union. Britain is Europe’s leader in intelligence and security matters and gives much more than it gets in return. It is difficult to imagine any of the other EU members ending the relationships they already enjoy with the UK. Richard Dearlove, chief of MI6, 1999 -2004.
4.‘I don't mean to be arguing against the European Union, but with regards to these kinds of questions, the union is not a natural contributor to the national security of each of the entity states. In some ways it gets in the way of the state's providing security for its own citizens.’ General Michael Hayden, former head of the CIA.
5. ‘I am not saying for one moment that Britain couldn’t survive outside the European Union. Of course we could. We are a great country. The fifth largest economy in the world. The fastest growing economy in the G7 last year. The biggest destination for Foreign Direct Investment in the EU. Our capital city a global icon. The world, literally, speaks our language. No one doubts that Britain is a proud, successful thriving country. A nation that has turned round its fortunes though its own efforts. A far cry from the ‘sick man of Europe’ at the time we entered the European Economic Community four decades ago. Whether we could be successful outside the European Union is not the question.’ That, in November 2015, was none other Prime Minister David Cameron, attempting to argue not that Britain would be unsuccessful outside the EU but that it would be even more successful if it stayed in. He declined to offer a guess as to how much more successful – the Treasury has since cobbled up a calculation of how much worse off the average household would be in 2030 outside the Brussels Empire – and has since moved on to prophesying WW3. In doing so, he doesn’t seem to have noticed that the political, economic, and social fissures created by the drive to a United States of Europe has nourished the growth in France, Germany, Austria, Greece and elsewhere of parties at the very unpleasant end of the Right-wing spectrum. He’s now saying the economic consequences would be ‘terrible’; what does he know now that he didn’t in November last year?
Travel, tourism, and holiday companies, and their lobbying organizations, have been vocal in their opposition to the restoration of the UK as an independent, self-governing state. Richard Branson, the Association of British Travel Agents, easyJet, Ryanair have joined in the scaremongering, warning of the end of cheap travel and holidays, visa barriers, and a risk to jobs in the tourism industry. There has been talk of this island being isolated, cut off, and of ‘economic suicide’.
Some people of nervous disposition have been frightened by this tosh. Interviewed on BBC Radio 4 recently, an undergraduate with a nervous disposition said she wouldn’t be able to have inter-rail holidays in Europe. How on earth did she get into a university? My first trip to France was in the late 1960s which, history graduates might know, was when Britain was not a member of the then European Economic Community. I bought my ferry ticket, showed my passport … and I was in. Cheap package holidays in the Spanish Costas began some years before Britain made the mistake of joining the EEC. Visas weren’t needed then: why would they be required if the British vote for independence?
Are the governments of France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Portugal, and the rest likely to put up British Tourists Not Welcome signs? I suspect that’s as improbable as a German chancellor wanting to start a tariff war that would make it much more difficult for the Bayerische Motoren Werke Company to sell its excellent cars in Britain. Now, all that really would be economic suicide. What’s the German – or French – for cutting off your nose to spite your face?
There’s no doubting the economic importance of in-bound tourism to all of the four nations of the UK. The UK tourism industry – accounting for 9.6% of total employment – keeps more than three million in work. What can be doubted are the assertions that a Britain outside the EU would have an adverse on the industry; that, simply, fewer people would want to visit, that airlines would take the country off their destination lists.
There’s no reason to believe that the current passport arrangements with our neighbours in Western Europe would change. The island’s tourism assets – history, heritage, landscapes, Shakespeare, Stonehenge and the rest – would continue to be a major draw, along with, for many, our funny habit of driving on the wrong side of the road and the country’s reluctance to ditch a currency, the roots of which can be traced back to Anglo-Saxon England. The pound sterling is the world's oldest currency still in use. The importance of tourism from EU states can also be exaggerated. VisitBritain reports that the top three markets which have recently shown the highest absolute growth in value (on average during the last five years) are all long haul to the UK: the US, China, and Australia. On what basis can it be feared that a Britain outside the European Union would be of diminishing interest to people in these markets? There isn’t one.
Many of the so-called arguments in favour of Britain’s participation in the dystopian Brussels project are not greatly unlike those heard more than half a century ago, when the original six-nation European Economic Community was created and when in the 1960s, one of the most useful contributions was made by General Charles de Gaulle who as France’s president twice vetoed UK applications to join.
‘Compared with the motives that led the Six to organize their unit,’ he explained, ‘we understand why Britain – who is not continental, who remains, because of the Commonwealth and because she is an island, committed far beyond the seas, who is tied to the United States by all kinds of special agreements – did not merge into a Community with set dimensions and strict rules. In short, the nature, the structure, the very situation that are England’s differ profoundly from those of the continentals.
‘England is maritime, she is linked through her exchanges, her markets, her supply lines to the most diverse and often the most distant countries; she pursues essentially industrial and commercial activities, and only slight agricultural ones. She has in all her doings very marked and very original habits and traditions. The question is whether Great Britain can now place herself like the Continent and with it inside a tariff which is genuinely common, to renounce all Commonwealth preferences, to cease any pretence that her agriculture be privileged, and, more than that, to treat her engagements with other countries of the free trade area as null and void — that question is the whole question.’
The general – whatever else he got wrong – knew it would never work. This referendum – something reckoned unthinkable for Britain’s political class a decade ago – is proof that he was right.
Go Holiday news : www.govillasandcottages.co.uk
All your holiday needs: IN PRINT - ON-LINE - DiGiMAG - SMARTPHONE -TABLET - BLOG - TWITTER - G+ - FACEBOOK
