|
Europe
Oct00:
delivered in Southwold |
|
Why must Britain
remain a self-governing nation within the European Union? I
believe, as most British people do, that our democratically elected
Westminster Parliament should determine policies on our economy, foreign
affairs, defence, judiciary, immigration and social welfare. We, as
electors, reserve the right, to vote in or vote out, any Government on its
record of managing such essential functions of State. Such control of
executive Government by the electors, is not offered by the
European Institutions as they are constituted. Therefore, British people
must now decide what is in Britain’s best interest? Should Britain be
leading in the development of Europe or should it continue to dither and
sit uncomfortably on the periphery and let the Franco-German axis dictate
the terms? We were invited to join the European Common Market. It
changed its name to the European Economic Community and now it
calls itself the European Union. Clearly, Mr. Delors’s socialist
utopia had a lot to do with such a change of perception. The top
priority for the European Union, I believe, must be to achieve the
open, free, competitive single market for goods and services,
including financial services. We in Britain, wish to see the European
Union develop economically to achieve this single market. We
believe, that at this stage of Europe’s development, achieving the
single competitive market is more important than enlargement. Britain had to bear its own costs when we
privatised our state owned industries in the Thatcher years! Our
people suffered the hardship of unemployment in those years.
Conservatives, under Thatcher and Major, achieved the
economic transformation of our economy so that the sick man of
Europe – as we were known in the 70’s – is today’s Britain with
the best economy in Europe. Britain did not receive, in these years
of hardship, any subsidy or help from the European Union. How will the single market be achieved, if we, at this stage in
Europe’s economic development, accept new applicant countries employing
millions in primitive agriculture? How will the single market cope with
their state monopolies and their state subsidised industries? We, in Britain, agree with the principle of enlargement, as it
would make Europe’s single market the largest and strongest in the
world. However, there must be a serious public debate in Europe
about such a major change. People must know what is involved and how it
will affect their livelihood. Whilst German and French politicians are
pushing for Enlargement and EU institutional reform, taxpaying citizens of
the EU, would like to see the applicant countries transform their
economies from state control to free market. I believe, the EU should require
these applicant countries to bear the cost of such transformation in order
to join. This would link rights with responsibility and re-inforce the
principle that there can be no representation without taxation! European bureaucrats love setting timetables for change. They have
done so for the introduction of the Euro and Enlargement. Applicant
countries like Poland, Hungary, Czech Republic, Estonia, Slovenia and
Malta are expected to be members of the European Union by 2004. Polish agriculture ( 2m farmers in Poland against 9m in the EU
today) cannot shrink in time by 2004. Therefore, if the 2m Polish farmers,
and others from Eastern Europe, will receive agricultural subsidy from the
Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), how will the EU budget be re-arranged?
If the budget is to be substantially increased how much more will Britain
have to pay? Are the British taxpayers ready to pay more to subsidise food
produced abroad when our farmers are going bankrupt, trying to compete
with low price of imported food? No wonder the Spanish and the Irish - net
beneficiaries of the EU today - are already using the language of
Eurosceptics! If these applicant countries shrink their agricultural sector and
privatise their state-owned industries, millions of their people will be
unemployed. Are the European citizens of existing Member States ready to
accept millions of unemployed
East Europeans in search of jobs as they migrate from their countries? Who
will pay for the social services for these migrants with the right to
settle anywhere in the EU? What does Britain pay for its membership of the EU? Who are the net
contributors and net beneficiaries? In Euros, the paymasters are: Germany
9bn; the UK 3bn; France 2bn; Italy 2bn; Holland 1bn. The
beneficiaries are: Spain 3bn; Portugal 2bn; Ireland and Belgium each
collect 1bn. How much voting power do we have in the Council of Ministers which
is the executive Cabinet of the European Union? There are 87 votes for 15 Member
States. A vote of 71% is needed to legislate if voting is by majority. Both this
voting power in the Council and the number of seats in the European
Parliament are weighted heavily in favour of
the smaller countries. At present, the Mediterranean countries have
been able to frustrate the British and the Scandinavians. We, supported by
the Scandinavians, want a looser Europe with a free market without
subsidies, and a more accountable bureaucracy. The beneficiary countries
favour a more bureaucratic federal Europe. Applicant countries joining the
EU, with weaker economies, will want any system that allows them to
squeeze the maximum subsidy for themselves! Poland, with a population of 40m, would qualify for 60 seats in the
European Parliament. If the number of seats in the Parliament is to be
capped at 700, who will give up the seats? Luxembourg, with a population
of half a million, has 6 seats, one Commissioner and voting power in the
Council. Our Region, Eastern Region, with 10 times the population of
Luxembourg, has only 8 seats in the European Parliament, no Commissioner
and no votes in the Council! Luxembourg was a founder Member of the EU!
Sadly for us, this is the cost of joining late! The European Union today, is slowly but surely, developing
institutions that are manifest in any State - a democratically elected
Parliament, a bureaucratic civil service (the European Commission), the
Council of Ministers forming the executive cabinet, a common Foreign and
Defence policy, a European army for peacekeeping, a common arrangement for
immigration and asylum, a Central Bank, a common currency,
a common flag and a common identity. We must recognise that these
manifestations are already in place. Both our Conservative and Labour
Governments, have made these commitments on our behalf. Do we, today, wish to continue to be part of this
European project? If we do – and I believe we must - then we
should take the initiative and seize the lead from the French and
the Germans, in the future development of Europe. In this way, we
can set our agenda in Europe and introduce the changes that suit us
- changes that will promote our idea of a Europe of nation states; a
Europe where diversity and competition are paramount; a Europe where
democracy and public accountability are the hallmarks of bureaucracy; a
Europe where the single market and economic co-operation prevail over
political integration; a Europe that is economically strong and
politically stable; a Europe that we can be proud to lead!
|