The New Federalist, webzine of the Young European Federalist

• A one-way ticket, not a return: David Cameron takes a huge gamble on EU referendum

  27 January 2013  19:40, by Iwantout

  Hello Eurofederalist,

  Here goes and please remember you asked the questions.

  You might remember that Philip Gordon said that it was in the interests of the US to have a strong UK in a strong EU. Nowhere did he say it was in the specific interests of either the UK or the EU. An example for you which illustrates the difference, the US wants Turkey to remain westward looking. The Turks want to join the EU. The only major country supporting this is the UK. Thus it is in the interest of the US to have the UK in the EU campaigning for Turkey, is it in the interests of the EU ?

  1) The “special relationship” (if it really exists) is really a defence / intelligence creature rather than trade. The only trade I am aware of that might be said to be part of a special relationship is that of defence (e.g. BAE systems having access to US technology which was why the US was nervous re the suggested EADS deal). Of course a common language, a similar free market outlook, broadly similar criminal justice system, etc all mean that the US and UK often have a similar world outlook, which can be different from the EU one. That would continue regardless of UK membership of the EU or not. (By the way, a Populus Poll 2012 found that culturally, politically and economically 10% of Britons thought they had most in common with Germany, 11% France, 28% Australia and 49% US)

  2) You assume the business lobby have a single view. The most EU supportive business body is the CBI, it’s Director General John Cridland made the following comment on the day of Cameron’s speech "The EU single market is fundamental to Britain’s future economic success, but the closer union of the eurozone is not for us.” So pro membership of the single market but not much else. The British Chamber of Commerce represents 100,000 businesses takes a different view, 9% want to further integrate, 12% want to leave and 47% want to stay in but with a looser relationship. So there is no single business view, many business people interviewed believe that once outside the EU they would be better placed to create jobs and boost growth. Finally don’t forget 56 business leaders signed an open letter in The Times on 24/01/13 supporting Cameron’s stance of a looser relationship with the EU.

  3) The finance rules coming from Brussels will come regardless of the UK. We have a voting strength of 8% in QMV and from 2014 the change of voting weights agreed in the Lisbon Treaty gives the EZ countries a standing majority in the QMV system, in other words they will be able to impose whatever regulations they wish as they will have a standing majority. Regardless of UK membership of the EU the ECB will attempt to move trade to the EZ (eg 2011 ECB policy paper on clearing houses hand ling more than 5% of market in euro denominated financial products.) Certainly The City could find itself operating as an offshore centre, similar to Singapore or Hong Kong but I would agree it is not ideal, however it is certainly possible and not something that can be ignored. TheCityUK (the body representing the UK Financial Industry) estimate UK Government tax revenue from finance at £61bn. They say £35 - £41bn of this revenue would be unable to leave the UK, £17 – 22bn could but would find it difficult, £3bn would find leaving easy and would be likely to leave quickly. (Please remember it is estimated the CAP alone costs the UK and it’s consumers £10bn per annum) Undoubtedly the City would rather stay in the EU but either way the EU is currently extremely hostile to this industry. (Not that I think they are wonderful either !!!)

  4) Of course the directives will apply to goods exported to the EU, and before you point it out, no we will not have any control (beyond WTO requirements) over those regulations, the same as we have no control over US, Chinese, Indian etc regulations. However none of the regulations need apply to goods traded internally or outside the EU (approx. 87% of our goods), neither will the social legislation apply. Much is said of the Single Market, but here are a few quotes for you from people who have studied it in detail. Prof Iain Begg LSE (Factcheck 31/10/11) an independent cost benefit study of the single market “would probably find that the economic plus or minus is very small.” Wolfgang Munchau FT (26/11/12) “The single market has been an overhyped, but mostly disappointing programme, with no measurable impact on GDP.” UK Govt BIS report 2011 estimates the value of the Single Market to the UK at 0.2 – 0.3% of GDP although this does not cost the impact of EU regulations.

  5) I am sure the UK will want to continue to trade with the EU and just as importantly the EU will want to trade with us. For example we sell approximately 600,000 cars to the EU a year, but we imported 382,000 cars worth €6.8 billion from Germany in the first six months of 2011 alone. (source Statistisches Bundesamt Deutschland) Please remember that Germany exports a total of 75bn euros worth of goods a year to the UK so they are unlikely to want to block trade. I would suggest you look at the FTA struck with Korea in 2011 for the sort of access the UK might expect to gain to EU markets and the reciprocal deal with the EU. Of course one point to remember in all of this is that exports of goods to the EU represents about 13% of UK output of physical items, as Wolfgang Munchau points out in the article referenced above on the single market, “It does not extend to most services, the largest part of the economy” and the section of the economy which is most important in the UK.

  There are a few points you might wish to consider if the UK does leave the EU

  1) While a portion of inward investment to the UK is likely to be lost because of the new situation, do you think the traditionally closed protectionist markets of EU will attract it ? The EU is after all generally seen as lacking the flexibility and free market ethos associated with the UK and is therefore a markedly less business friendly environment for such highly mobile investment.

  2) With the UK outside the EU and not bound by the social legislation do you agree with the estimate from Open Europe (March 2009) that complete freedom from the working time directive would save the UK £9.2bn - £11.9bn per year? (Remembering all the while that only 2% of these costs are due to the 48 hour rule and the remainder to shift restrictions which as a shift worker I can tell you are extremely unpopular and inherently inefficient.)

  3) Once outside the Common External Tariff area do you believe that food prices in the UK will drop significantly when we do not have to support the CAP ? (I see the EP missed another opportunity to reform the system last week.)

  4) With full UK control over the 200 mile territorial waters around the island what impact do you believe this will have on EU fisheries policy ?

  5) Are the Germans likely to be concerned that without a free trade supporting UK they will be constantly outvoted by the ‘Club Med’ element of the EU ?

  6) Do you think Jean Monnet’s comment of 30th April 1952 still hold true “Europe’s nations should be guided towards the super-state without their people understanding what is happening. This can be accomplished by successive steps each disguised as having an economic purpose, but which will eventually and irreversibly lead to federation” ?

  Please stop trying to frighten people, it is not sensible as examination of the real situation is never one sided.

  Most of us believe that the UK is highly unlikely to ever be comfortable member of the political aspects of the EU. If you have a mandate from your people to carry ‘The Project’ forward (and I have yet to see any such mandate) then please feel absolutely free to do so, but why do you think you should be able to incorporate an unwilling UK?

  David Cameron’s speech recognises the fact that the UK population is unhappy with the current situation. While personally I would rather leave the EU entirely and establish a purely trading arrangement as people voted for in 1975, I accept a majority (if the vote ever happens) may wish to remain in the EU. But I simply see no evidence anywhere that the UK would ever vote for or accept a federation. So the three choices seem to be :-

  The UK leaves and we negotiate a mutually acceptable trading arrangement to the benefit of both parties, OR

  The UK attains a looser more comfortable relationship with the EU whilst remaining inside the EU and I accept that this may well be impossible given the desires of other countries, OR

  We all carry on as currently, with the UK causing significant irritation to other members and probably damaging both the EU and the UK in the process before ultimately having to leave or adopt “a different form of partnership” as suggested by Jacques Delors 28/12/12.

  To a large extent the choice is yours.

  Cheers

• A one-way ticket, not a return: David Cameron takes a huge gamble on EU referendum

  26 January 2013  15:54, by a eurofederalist

  My dear Iwantout,

  We, on the continent, have been reading that not only the US government, through the voice of Philip Gordon, but also the business lobby, and the speakers of the City, support the EU membership of the UK.
  1) Doesn’t it matter to you to damage the “special relationship” ?
  2) Does the business lobby not know what’s good for itself ?
  3) What about the City, that all the British Prime Ministers want to defend from the awful rules emanating from Bussels ? Are they masochistic ?
  4) Or did I get any of those piece of news wrong ?

  Besides, all the sources I have heard and read say that the European regulations and directives will still apply on the UK when it withdraws, providing they wanna access the single market.
  5) Do you think this won’t happen, the UK will access the single market but won’t have to follow its rules ?
  6) Or will the UK disregard the single market and won’t try to access it anymore ?
  7) Or all this will happen and it doesn’t matter ?

  Have a nice day

• A one-way ticket, not a return: David Cameron takes a huge gamble on EU referendum

  25 January 2013  20:25, by Iwantout

  The promise of a referendum is based on the Conservatives being returned at the next election and being able to form a government. You are correct in that this is a very long way from being a certainty.

  You remark on the derision from Ed Miliband who stated he is against an in / out referendum, a very clear position. His aides clarified his position before the end of the day, what he apparently meant to say was that he was against a referendum at the moment; so not quite as clear. Additionally much ink has been used today reporting that Labour insiders are suggesting if the election looks close they will support a call for a referendum to win votes, thus more uncertainty. Either way Labour have confirmed they will not repeal the referendum lock so any transfers of power from the UK to the EU will still require a referendum. Therefore even if Labour win, there is not likely to be any forward movement from the UK in relation to the EU.

  Assuming a Conservative Government (or a Labour Government forced to support the call for a referendum) starts a renegotiation I can certainly understand that many (most / all ?) countries would be unwilling to permit the changes that David Cameron has started to sketch out. Clearly this would affect the way people might vote and Cameron would be hard pressed to campaign for the EU with vigor in that circumstance. But even if they did allow some amendments with the 1975 renegotiation example it is highly likely a significant number of people will simply dismiss the ‘concessions’ as untrustworthy. No doubt the eurosceptic campaign will emphasize this fear.

  It is interesting that You Gov showed a majority wishing to stay in the EU. A Populus Poll on the same day shows that once again there is a clear majority to leave. The truth is as we all know these polls will change back and forth as 2017 draws nearer, but have you ever seen a poll which indicates that the British would support the sort of close integration that the 2014 Barroso European Federation paper is likely to suggest? (This paper itself is likely to increase the UK euroscepticism as we face ‘more of the same’ and ‘ever closer union’.)

  Finally, I would urge every reader to read the speech itself rather than relying on any media synopsis. Once you have done that, identify what exactly it is that you object to, the comments on improving competitiveness, flexibility, power moving back to the member states, democratic accountability and fairness, these all seem perfectly reasonable issues.

  Anyway we seem to be one step closer to answering yuor question of the 2nd Septemebr 2012.

• A one-way ticket, not a return: David Cameron takes a huge gamble on EU referendum

  25 January 2013  15:08, by a eurofederalist

  He didn’t say France would roll out the red carpet _for the UK to leave_, he said he would roll out the red carpet _for British businessmen_.

  «L’autre jour, j’étais dans une réunion où il y avait beaucoup de Britanniques, et notamment des Britanniques hommes d’affaires, et je leur ai dit avec une certaine astuce, si la Grande-Bretagne décide de quitter l’Europe, nous vous déroulerons le tapis rouge»

  For the love of God, this is as unprofessional as a Daily Telegraph article.

• Iceland, in or out, please decide

  22 January 2013  00:05, by Iwantout

  Might it not be that the people of Iceland do not believe that the common rules for agriculture and fisheries would operate to their benefit at all? Certainly the people in Norway and Greenland felt that way. The same is obviously true for the people who used to work in the UK fisheries fleet before the CFP saw the destruction of the UK fisheries industry.

  The idea that “the adoption of the euro would have been the perfect deal to solve the country’s debts” should probably be explained to them with Ireland, Portugal, Greece and Spain as examples of what a perfect deal looks like. This would certainly be instructive for them and might shape their ultimate view. Mind you with growth in seven of the last nine quarters and at a rate of 3.5% in the last quarter of 2012 it might be argued that they have little in common with those countries.

  Is it not entirely possible that they have seen what “being in the EU means” and this explains the view of the ordinary people? Certainly their habit of asking the population for their view and acting on it is not something that sits easily in the EU. Neither is the nasty precedent of personally holding a leader to account and prosecuting him for misconduct in office etc. and convicting them (even if no sentence was then passed). Just think of all those allegations of corruption in the EU that could be put through the same process.

• Britain at the crossroads- or is it?

  17 January 2013  21:39, by Iwantout

  An interesting piece and we will have to wait for the speech to learn what he says and probably a long time after that to find out what he actually means.

  But your comment “for Britain, three million jobs depend on trade within Europe in the UK” needs examination. The figure is repeatedly quoted and originates from research commissioned by the pro EU think tank Britain in Europe in 2000 from the European Institute at South Bank University. The University used export figures from 1997 and a variable used in the calculation (import component of exports) dated from 1990! So the figure you are quoting draws its validity from factors almost a quarter of a century old!

  The Bruges Group (obviously the other side of the EU debate and probably just as unreliable) claim that 90% of the UK economy is not involved with trade in the EU at all yet is still impacted by EU legislation. They estimate that up to a million jobs would be created on leaving the EU due to the removal of this legislation.

  The current stance from many independent observer including the National Institutes of Economic and Social Research appears to be that leaving the EU would cause some job turbulence and realignment but is unlikely to impact on the overall employment figures, in other words leaving the EU would have a negligible effect on the number of jobs available. (Although clearly 78 MEPs would be looking for new jobs as would the UK bureaucrats in the EU.)

• In defense of real European parties

  10 January 2013  21:32, by Pietro De Matteis

  Dear Arnaud and Nelly,

  thank you very much for this article. You are 100% right: to develop a truly “European political public sphere” we need some truly European political parties able to understand the needs and the hopes of the European people and transform them into actual policies and visions for the future.

  Therefore, the creation of truly European political parties is key if we want to build a more democratic Europe. In other words, there cannot be a functioning representative democracy at European level if there are no European parties. To think that national parties can become European parties by creating alliances just before the European elections has proved to be a failure. It is time to be bold and make a step forward.

  It is to contribute to the creation of a true “European political public sphere” that we are working within the European Federalist Party/Parti Fédéraliste Européen : a true European party represented in 10 European countries as well as in Asia and in North America.

  I warmly invite you to visit our website and our Facebook page for more information!

  Federalist regards

  —
  Pietro De Matteis, PhD (Cambridge)
  Co-President
  European Federalist Party

• Directly electing the European Commission President?

  5 January 2013  12:16, by Toomas Hendrik Ilves

  The problem with direct elections for the EU President is the same as was faced by Hamilton, Jay and Madison: reconciling the interests of the large with the small. 200 years ago the Federalists understood the fears of the small that the large states would always dominate. Whence the Electoral College, not direct elections to determine who wins the office. And why even today the U.S. does n o t have a directly elected President. Similarly a directly elected EU President will almost inevitably come from one of six large countries. Nor would a candidate, to quote from the article, “If a European Commission President is to be elected in 2014, he or she will have to campaign across Europe” Why? You don’t need to campaign in small countries at all to win. It’s hard to see how small countries could agree to that.

  Thus a genuinely federalist solution in the true sense of the word, and as envisioned in the original Federalist Papers ,would require indirect elections for the office of EU President

• To leave or not to leave – the Shakespearian dilemma for Britain in Europe

  3 January 2013  16:07, by I want out

  Eurofederalist,

  Hello, with regards to the points you raise, I would respond as follows.

  Leveson as you are probably aware has been tasked to review the British media and to consider what controls if any should be put in place. The meatiest section of the Leveson Report you highlight is perhaps 9.53, a lengthy quote from Alistair Campbell (the chief spin doctor for the Blair Government and himself a previous political editor of two national newspapers) detailing ludicrous stories about the EU. Lord Leveson himself declares that Mr Campbell’s ‘evidence may have been exaggerated for effect’. But he does go on to say that reporting should be factually accurate even if it does have an element of editorial comment, no one would disagree with that or the point that Lord Leveson goes on to make that ‘there can be no objection to agenda journalism.’ I would suggest that is precisely where the more thoughtful UK journalists are.

  With regards to your disbelief (understandable) that the British media were ever europhiles, might I point to the eleventh paragraph of your final link, “When Britain last voted on Europe, in 1975, every national newspaper except the Morning Star campaigned for an “In” vote.”

  I am sure we would both agree that newspapers and journals are one aspect of the media, but they are generally seen as running behind the TV / radio / internet as informing the public. May I draw your attention then to the fact that two independent reports (one by the MORI polling organisation) into alleged pro EU bias within the BBC discovered what they termed ‘cultural and unintentional bias’. The attached link (apologies about the length) may be of interest to you. http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust…
  This is the BBC that is arguably the biggest player in terms of broadcast / internet media in the UK and therefore very influential.

  Regardless of media bias (pro or anti, deliberate or accidental) there is always the deeper question of whether the media shape the view of the reader / viewer or whether the media itself caters to the views of their readership, that is, do they take a stance which they know is popular with their target market and promulgate it to sell papers, advertising etc. This has been subject to considerable debate within academic and journalistic circles. A classic example is Nigel Farrage v the EU, not in relation to the accuracy or otherwise of what he says, simply the volume of hits both sides of the debate get when they are equally able to put their material in front of the public (that is, what do the public chose to read), the link below is thought provoking in this context. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/b606829e-…

  Finally the comments from The Economist. For it to describe itself as eurosceptic is a little amusing, it has always openly believed that the UK should be a member of the EU and has constantly written in that vein and promoted the cause.

  Figures can be quoted for either side of the economic debate, but here are a few suggesting exit (or a looser partnership as suggested by Jacques Delors 28/12/12) might be beneficial for the UK,

  Cost of EU over regulation to UK – 6% GDP (Treasury Study, author Gordon Brown),
  Cost of loss of UK opt out from working time directive - £20bn (UK Government Dept of Business), Cost of changes to Pregnant Worker’s Directive to UK - £2.8bn (EP FEMM committee impact assessment) etc.

  The economic arguments regarding membership of the EU are obviously important and complex, please do not believe that by using the above examples I do anything other than indicate costs caused by the EU. Ultimately I would point to the second paragraph of my first posting on this topic and wish to stress the last sentence. Also let us not forget that trade figures are fluid as industries / markets develop or decline, look at the way the UK trade figures changed on joining the EU.

  The real reason that a Brexit (horrible word) is becoming more of an issue is not that the UK dislikes the EU any more than it has for a considerable period, it is because the EU is fundamentally changing in order to protect the Euro. You say it yourself, you want to see increasing integration in the EU, the overwhelming majority in the UK do not. Given that, the economic arguments are in fact secondary to the political ones.

  The real question put to the voters in the UK (and perhaps elsewhere if you want to hear the answer) is do you want to be part of an organisation with a single currency, centrally determined budget, common legal system, single army, etc. ultimately a single country, federal or otherwise ? If the answer is no then actually the UK stance makes absolute sense.

  Sorry for the length of this posting but you did ask.

  Cheers

  I want out

• To leave or not to leave – the Shakespearian dilemma for Britain in Europe

  28 December 2012  14:12, by a eurofederalist

  Dear “I want out”,

  I hope you might fall again on this page and see this comment, even after a month. I just came across some very interesting articles, and I’d like your opinion about them. The first one is just a report made by a non-europhile British politician about the deep inaccuracies - not to say the lies - of the English press, in general, in regards to the EU.

  Leveson – “clear evidence of misreporting on European issues”
  http://www.bnegroup.org/blog/archiv…

  Do you really believe that “a eurosceptic British media is in fact a relatively new factor” ?!?! We’ve been talking about this problem for decades on the continent. The power of a EU bashing biased English press has slowly helped increasing the euroscepticism of the English people ever since the beginning.

  What’s more, what do you say about the figures and arguments of the Economist on the Brexit issue ? I’ve never seen such a strong case for the EU made by such a serious and sceptical paper. I admit, it is rather sad to “hide” behind articles made by others, while you handle all the arguments for your position quite well, but my cause is not to keep the UK within the EU, it’s increasing the integration of the EU. Therefore, my case is not as versed as yours on this issue.

  Goodbye Europe
  http://www.economist.com/news/leade…

  Making the break
  http://www.economist.com/news/brief…

  Have a nice day.

< 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 > ...