Am I being stupid here? Matthew Elliott, Chief executive of Business for Britain, has been all over the newspapers in the last 24 hours with his vision for a "Bespoke" relationship for Britain, which he says "would keep us in the EU on our terms."
However, what exactly does this mean? In his piece on Conservative Home http://www.cityam.com/article/british-business-would-thrive-under-bespoke-new-deal-brussels he talks about the relationships the EU enjoys with Norway, Switzerland and Turkey - all of which are structured differently, by the way - with the implication is that the UK should negotiate a one-off deal along similar lines, but tailored to the UK's best needs.
But things start to get confusing here. Neither Norway, Switzerland nor Turkey are members of the EU, so why would Britain be "In" if our relationship consisted solely of a trading arrangment? Is there something deceptive going on here? I ask this because to me, the obvious solution to our problematic relationship with the EU is to leave and strike a simple Free Trade agreement. As long as we can enjoy tariff-free access to the other member states, that is all we need. We certainly do not need to be subject to EU law, with its stifling regulations, or part of the Single Market, with its free movement, not only of goods, capital and services, but of people too.
We joined the EU for the purposes of trade. Few British people have ever been sold on the vison of "Ever Closer Union." With it being widely agreed that some sort of new relationship with the EU is inevitable as the Eurozone integrates, why not just go for this free trade agreement? It would satisfy most of the Business community, apart from those big companies who benefit from EU legislation, as they have the resources to comply with it whereas their smaller rivals don't. There is no reason to stay "in" the EU if we can have this. Hopefully Mr Elliott (whom, up to now, I have always thought of as a reasonably decent chap) will explain more fully what he means, for surely if we can be "in" and have as good a deal as he seems to be sugggesting, being "out" must be better still.
However, what exactly does this mean? In his piece on Conservative Home http://www.cityam.com/article/british-business-would-thrive-under-bespoke-new-deal-brussels he talks about the relationships the EU enjoys with Norway, Switzerland and Turkey - all of which are structured differently, by the way - with the implication is that the UK should negotiate a one-off deal along similar lines, but tailored to the UK's best needs.
But things start to get confusing here. Neither Norway, Switzerland nor Turkey are members of the EU, so why would Britain be "In" if our relationship consisted solely of a trading arrangment? Is there something deceptive going on here? I ask this because to me, the obvious solution to our problematic relationship with the EU is to leave and strike a simple Free Trade agreement. As long as we can enjoy tariff-free access to the other member states, that is all we need. We certainly do not need to be subject to EU law, with its stifling regulations, or part of the Single Market, with its free movement, not only of goods, capital and services, but of people too.
We joined the EU for the purposes of trade. Few British people have ever been sold on the vison of "Ever Closer Union." With it being widely agreed that some sort of new relationship with the EU is inevitable as the Eurozone integrates, why not just go for this free trade agreement? It would satisfy most of the Business community, apart from those big companies who benefit from EU legislation, as they have the resources to comply with it whereas their smaller rivals don't. There is no reason to stay "in" the EU if we can have this. Hopefully Mr Elliott (whom, up to now, I have always thought of as a reasonably decent chap) will explain more fully what he means, for surely if we can be "in" and have as good a deal as he seems to be sugggesting, being "out" must be better still.