Three years ago I touched on the question of Russia's efforts to weaken the UK and the EU through Brexit. It succeeded- although we have seen the invasion of Ukraine galvanising EU unity is its support for Ukraine- and in particular displaced Ukrainians (where the UK's response has been abysmal.I just reread that post. It was long, and some will no doubt find it tedious. But I have reposted it below for those who want to make their own virw how well it has stood the test of time."Andy Riley’s post raises some valid questions about the EU and Brexit – so let’s treat them with the respect they deserve and give a considered, objective, response – point by point. Not least, because it repeats some of the Brexit myths that have misled people (deliberately or otherwise).The UK did not join the EC in 1972. It was 1973 (but not a material point, either way).The 1975 referendum was not a ratification referendum (the UK had already joined the EU). The question was “Do you think that the United Kingdom should stay in the European Community (the Common Market)?”. So it was whether the UK should stay (not ratifying the decision to join). But this is semantics, and again not a material point.The “declaration” to "progress towards an ever closer union" was not made for the first time in 1982 (the Treaty of Lisbon). It was in the preamble of the Treaty of Rome in 1957, the original founding treaty of the EEC (as was then). In fact the opening words of the Treaty of Rome were “DETERMINED to lay the foundations of an ever-closer union among the peoples of Europe”. So this is not (as sometimes presented) something new introduced only after we joined in 1972. It is what we signed up to in 1973, and what we reaffirmed in the referendum in 1975. And it is an aspiration about the “peoples of European”, not about creating a European super state.“If we consider the trajectory of the organisation…” This is the new approach employed by Brexiteers, not arguing about what the EU is (on the basis that most of the arguments presented against the EU have been debunked), but about what it might become in the future. A disingenuous argument, based on inaccurate presentations of what is possible under EU law (see the next point).“we see continuous progression towards….”The Euro. A myth. The UK cannot be required to join the Euro (despite what Esther McVey have tweeted today – which is just untrue). The UK (and Denmark) have a legal “opt out” under the Maastricht Treaty in 1992 (Sweden does not have an opt out, but has still not joined). This is now set out in Protocol 15 of Consolidated Version of the Treaty On European Union which starts with the words “RECOGNISING that the United Kingdom shall not be obliged or committed to adopt the euro without a separate decision to do so by its government and parliament,”, and goes on to say at Article 1 to Protocol 15 to the “Unless the United Kingdom notifies the Council that it intends to adopt the euro, it shall be under no obligation to do so.”Fiscal harmonisation. A myth, depending on what do you mean by this. If you mean that the UK is required to adopt the same fiscal policies as the rest of the EU, you are wrong. Article 3 of the same Protocol says: “The United Kingdom shall retain its powers in the field of monetary policy according to national law.”But if you are referring to the European Parliament’s 2015 resolution (supported by the United Kingdom government) on “bringing transparency, coordination and convergence to corporate tax policies”, to combat aggressive tax avoidance you are correct about “fiscal harmonisation”. Personally, I think this is a good thing, as international tax avoidance cannot be addressed by countries acting alone, so coordinated international policies are necessary. You may disagree.The EU army. A myth. Under EU law, any “operations having military or defence implications” can only be funded with the unanimous consent of all Council members (i.e. of every government). So the UK (like every other country) has an absolute veto. Article 42 allows the EU to engage in “peace-keeping, conflict prevention and strengthening international security in accordance with the principles of the United Nations Charter”. However, it is only permitted to do so where “The performance of these tasks shall be undertaken using capabilities provided by the Member States.” Whereas some decisions of the EU Council of Ministers can be taken by majority decisions, this expressly excludes any matters with “military implications or those in the area of defence”, which can only be taken unanimously.The Border management myth. Otherwise expressed as “taking back control of our own borders”. This is one of the biggest Brexit lies of all. The UK has full control over its borders (when did you last cross a UK border (except into Ireland) without showing your passport?). The UK has a opt out from Schengen (common borders) under the Treaty of Amsterdam of 1997. Our borders are not subject to EU law. (But, one of the “four freedoms” under EU law is the freedom of movement, of work, and establishment – but not to stay without a job after three months).“So firstly one has to decide whether this is desirable or not and if not, how can the UK best stay out of these elements of unification.” The best way to say out of these elements is by staying out. The UK’s right to do so is entrenched in the EU Treaties and so a matter of international law. You can put your concerns there to rest. We have a copper plated, entrenched, legally binding right to stay out of these “elements of unification” that cannot be taken away from us. If this is your reason for supporting Brexit, then please reconsider.Mr Riley also expresses the view that “the nation state is the best guarantor of a peoples liberties”. Respectfully, I disagree (Spain - dictatorship until 1975, Portugal – until 1974, all the EU members that were previously members of the Soviet block until the 1990s). The common values of democracy and liberty embedded into EU law (and a requirement for membership – just one reason why Turkey has not been admitted – despite Gove’s out and out lie on the day before the referendum that an agreement had been reached to admit Turkey which was being kept secret until the day after the vote) are very important, especially in countries that do not have such a long tradition of democracy as the UK. (And as a side note – the argument that we do not need the European Convention of Human Rights (separate, but often confused with the EU) because “we have British human rights” is particularly annoying. Maybe we don’t (but out track record here is not overwhelmingly positive). But many countries do not. The UK’s membership of a club with those common values reinforces those rights in other countries with a weaker tradition of human rights.“Most remainers I've spoken to seem shy of expressing these, preferring to concentrate on the economic.” Not me. I (a self-confessed, rabid remainer) am more than happy to argue the case for the EU based on sovereignty, human rights, consumer, worker and environmental protection, animal rights, social integration and values, security, law and order, free movement, cultural, freedom of speech, etc. Perhaps the reason that some remainers don’t major on those arguments is that ultimately, they are a matter of opinion – e.g. would you rather exercise nationally sovereignty independently, or would you rather leverage UK power within the largest trading block in the world? (etc.). And these issues are important, but at the end of the day probably not potentially devasting to the UK (although that’s also up for debate if Russia succeeds in weakening the EU through its interference in the Referendum and Brexit). But the economic argument is overwhelming and irrefutable. The UK will be substantially poorer (not just “in the short term” as the Brexiteers are now saying (or worse “there will be some short term chaos”). We will be a lot poorer in the long term. A “no deal” Brexit will be economically devastating to the UK – no serious economist questions that. And the decline is likely to be progressive and long term. Less money for the NHS, for education, for infrastructure, for pensions, for law and order, for defence, etc. etc. All the important things.“Trade agreements should not in principle affect sovereignty as such”. Then you don’t understand trade deals. A trade deal is binding under international law (even “WTO rules – in which the UK has only very minimal input if you want to talk about sovereignty), and are enforceable against the UK. Every international treaty requires a state to comprise its sovereignty to some extent (depending on what you mean by sovereignty). Furthermore, it is cloud cuckoo land to suppose that we will get better trade deals with the rest of the World than we benefit from within the EU (which will terminate overnight when we leave). Trade deals take years, or decades to negotiate (and our current government of second rate incompetents has no chance), and are predatory by nature. What do you think Trump will demand in return for any kind of trade deal?“I suspect membership of the EU is marginal in affecting skills, productivity etc.” You could not be more wrong. People talk about EU workers in agriculture, in coffee shops, Polish builders, etc. But if you walk around the Canary Warf or “Silicon Roundabout” you will see that a large number of highly skilled and educated workers, adding value to the UK economy, are from elsewhere in the EU. Of course, we could open up our doors to highly skilled and educated workers from elsewhere in the World (the so called “level playing field” argument). But do you really think this is going to happen? The UK work permit rules are Kafkaesque, designed to make it as hard as possible to come to the UK, and send a strong message to the rest of the World “we don’t want you”. Even the much maligned stereotype of the “Polish builder” is adding value to the UK housing stock and infrastructure through his labour.Whether or not (as you ask) HS2 is a good investment will be irrelevant, and no longer our decision to make, for the simple reason that we will not be able to afford it.“Is the drive to massively increase the number degrees for young people sensible?” Good question, but nothing to do with the EU.“Does the banking system serve businesses well?” In my personal view – no. But it serves the UK far better as a consequence of EU Directives (for example the Payment Services Directives, promoting “open banking”) then it would on a stand alone basis.The EU and New Zealand are currently negotiating a free trade deal. Trade between New Zealand and the EU is about €9 billion – only about 10% of New Zealand’s trade. The EU represents more than 40% of the UK’s trade in goods and services. The EU is only New Zealand’s third biggest trading partner. It is the UK’s biggest (by far). New Zealand’s population is less than 5 million – ours is about 15 times the size. I am not sure that your reference point of wine (where you are paying less than 10p tariff on a bottle – but what that does mean is that, the producer has to charge at least 10p a bottle (out of perhaps 50p or £1) to be competitive) is at all relevant to the UK’s sophisticated services and manufacturing industries. People sometimes think of trade in goods, but 80% of the UK’s economy is made of services (where tariff and non-tariff barriers are far more problematic, and harder to negotiate away).And we have not “surrendered” our sovereignty to the EU. The UK remains a fully sovereign nation (hence our ability to leave the EU if we so chose, with or without the EU’s agreement). We have however agreed by international treaty to exercise our sovereignty collectively, to leverage the collective power of our closest economic and political allies within the largest trading block in the World.Please think again. The questions you have raised are valid, but all go to show why Brexit is such a bad idea, and founded on myths. To put it bluntly, you have been lied to.
T P Howell ● 1645d