So even the Union of European Ferderalists, headed by the appropriately named Andrew Duff MEP, has recognised that General de Gaulle was right some 50 years ago when he vetoed the British application to join the Common Market (as it then was) on the grounds - to put it simply - that we did things differently over here. De Gaulle rightly perceived that we would always be an uncomfortable member of the proposed European Union. Even under the Europhile Tony Blair, Britain sought far more derogations (exemptions) from European law than any other member state.
So the Union of European Federalists are suggesting that we should be offered "Associate membership" whereby we would be in some sort of outer tier of the EU, exempt from certain as yet unspecified laws, part of the Single Market yet excluded from the decision making process - the European Parliament and the Council.
Such an arrangement, the Federalists hope, would finally stop the British being the awkward squad, always coming out to Brussels to block legislation and to have a moan. However, would this be a good move for Britian? Surely rather than staying in the Single Market and enduring endless hours of deliberation as to which areas of European law should and should not apply in Britain, why not just withdraw from the EU and seek a simple free trade agreement, along similar lines to that struck between the EU and Chile, or that being negotiated between the EU and Canada?
Everyone seeking to change Britain's current relationship with the EU recognises the importance of preserving our trade links with our continental neighbours. The idea that withdrawalists want to retreat into some sort of protectionist "Fortress Britain" is a myth peddled by federalists who have recognised that they are losing the argument. And the arguemnt is pretty straightforward - we don't have to be part of the Single Market to trade with the EU. A simple free trade agreement would give us the same benefits without all the hassle. Most importatnly, we would not have to sign up to the four freedoms of the Single Market - free movement of goods, capital, services and people - in other words, we would not be required to open up to all the Romanians, Bulgarians or Croats who wish to come here. We would regain total control of our borders, and would not be required to pay benefits to non-British citizens. It is true that under a Free Trade agreement, anyone exporting to the EU would still need to ensure that their goods conformed to EU regulations, but then anyone exporting to Japan would need to ensure their goods conformed to Japanese regulations. Companies who do not export (and some 80% of British GDP is actually linked to internal trade) would only need to comply with British law.
So - to reiterate - we don't need to stay within the Single Market to trade with the EU. Even this most trumpeted "benefit" of EU membership is an illusion, as far as Britain is concerned. Furthermore, by leaving the EU, our trade (and the whole economy) would benefit by us being freed from the Working Time Directive, the Temporary Agency Workers' Directive, the Climate Action and Renewable Energy Package and a myriad of other regulations imposed by the EU. Freed the Common Agricultural Policy and the requirement to impose EU-determined tariffs on foodstuffs, we ned not pay as much for our food. The list of benefits is endless....
Those who argue that Britain would not be able to strike good trade deals outside the EU are being very myopic. We could re-join EFTA, whose members (unlike EU member states) have the flexibility either to negotiate trade agreements as a group or as individual countries. New Zealand, whose population is less than 10% of that of the UK, has not felt the need to federate with Australia for fear of losing out in terms of trade deals. Singapore, which was forced out the Malaysian federation in 1965, has never looked back, boasting a thriving economy with the highest percentage of millionaires in the world.
So forget all this nonsense from Ed Miliband and Tony Blair about Britain "sleepwalking" towards the EU's Exit door. We are heading for the open door of less regulation and greater propsperity with our eyes fully open. Bring it on!
So the Union of European Federalists are suggesting that we should be offered "Associate membership" whereby we would be in some sort of outer tier of the EU, exempt from certain as yet unspecified laws, part of the Single Market yet excluded from the decision making process - the European Parliament and the Council.
Such an arrangement, the Federalists hope, would finally stop the British being the awkward squad, always coming out to Brussels to block legislation and to have a moan. However, would this be a good move for Britian? Surely rather than staying in the Single Market and enduring endless hours of deliberation as to which areas of European law should and should not apply in Britain, why not just withdraw from the EU and seek a simple free trade agreement, along similar lines to that struck between the EU and Chile, or that being negotiated between the EU and Canada?
Everyone seeking to change Britain's current relationship with the EU recognises the importance of preserving our trade links with our continental neighbours. The idea that withdrawalists want to retreat into some sort of protectionist "Fortress Britain" is a myth peddled by federalists who have recognised that they are losing the argument. And the arguemnt is pretty straightforward - we don't have to be part of the Single Market to trade with the EU. A simple free trade agreement would give us the same benefits without all the hassle. Most importatnly, we would not have to sign up to the four freedoms of the Single Market - free movement of goods, capital, services and people - in other words, we would not be required to open up to all the Romanians, Bulgarians or Croats who wish to come here. We would regain total control of our borders, and would not be required to pay benefits to non-British citizens. It is true that under a Free Trade agreement, anyone exporting to the EU would still need to ensure that their goods conformed to EU regulations, but then anyone exporting to Japan would need to ensure their goods conformed to Japanese regulations. Companies who do not export (and some 80% of British GDP is actually linked to internal trade) would only need to comply with British law.
So - to reiterate - we don't need to stay within the Single Market to trade with the EU. Even this most trumpeted "benefit" of EU membership is an illusion, as far as Britain is concerned. Furthermore, by leaving the EU, our trade (and the whole economy) would benefit by us being freed from the Working Time Directive, the Temporary Agency Workers' Directive, the Climate Action and Renewable Energy Package and a myriad of other regulations imposed by the EU. Freed the Common Agricultural Policy and the requirement to impose EU-determined tariffs on foodstuffs, we ned not pay as much for our food. The list of benefits is endless....
Those who argue that Britain would not be able to strike good trade deals outside the EU are being very myopic. We could re-join EFTA, whose members (unlike EU member states) have the flexibility either to negotiate trade agreements as a group or as individual countries. New Zealand, whose population is less than 10% of that of the UK, has not felt the need to federate with Australia for fear of losing out in terms of trade deals. Singapore, which was forced out the Malaysian federation in 1965, has never looked back, boasting a thriving economy with the highest percentage of millionaires in the world.
So forget all this nonsense from Ed Miliband and Tony Blair about Britain "sleepwalking" towards the EU's Exit door. We are heading for the open door of less regulation and greater propsperity with our eyes fully open. Bring it on!