There are those that argue that Britain would be better off inside the EU because we would apparently become, in effect, an economic pariah. I will argue that our removal from under the control-freakery of Brussels bureaucracy would be an opportunity.
There is a cost to comply with directives and regulations emanating from Brussels. The Commission, in effect the civil service and the executive of the EU, practice the extent of power that is usually reserved for democratically elected governments; but the EU is undemocratic institution.
It has been estimated, by the EU Commission of all people, that the cost of EU regulation amounts 15% of all EU GDP – the equivalent of the GDP of the Netherlands (The Telegraph). It is called a Single Market but this does not mean that there is less bureaucracy, because it can impose as many regulations as a large state. In fact, there can be more because it is considered necessary to harmonise 28 different countries, so we are getting strangled by regulation designed to bring us into line with the continent.
Regulations in certain areas can effect certain industries negatively. For example, energy intensive industries such as manufacturing are being effected detrimentally by EU energy directives since this is threatening British jobs if companies cannot afford to operate in Britain. Directives intended to increase the proportion of energy from renewables including inefficient wind-farms has put the cost of energy up. According to Business for Britain, a Eurosceptic group, has claimed that this is costing the British economy £93.2 billion pounds a year. Efficient energy- producing plants are being shut down to comply with EU directives. There is generally complaints over the cost of implementing EU regulation.
If we removed ourselves from the EU then we could have the flexibility to create laws or remove certain regulation in order to safeguard British jobs.
There are those that would argue that the EU would not trade with us if left. But this is only scaremongering intended to create a vision of a dystopian vision of our apparent future life in the wilderness. The EU would continue to trade with us because it would against their interests to not to since they run a trade surplus with us – they export more to us than we export to them. With the EU seemingly going back into recession there does not seem to be the prospect that the Eurozone in particular will be awash with the money to buy our exports any time soon.
If this is the case then you would logically increase your trade ties with someone who has the money to buy what you export. If we did this then we could hope to run a trade surplus with the world rather than shackle ourselves with the Brussels based bureaucracy overseeing an economic area that is struggling to grow. We could only be held back. It is difficult to see what benefits EU bureaucracy could provide to outweigh the export market that could be found outside the EU.
Our membership of the EU means that EU rules stop us from establishing trade relations with other countries around the world since any trade relations have to be as part of the EU. The slow nature of the EU, which is the inevitable result of 28 countries trying to act as a single country, means that it is difficult to get anything done as a single voice; the European Central Bank (which oversees monetary policy in the Eurozone has delayed implementing counter-deflationary measures with typical inaction). If we left we would have more flexibility.
So if we left we could still trade with them but there are those that argue that we would be subject to its rules but would not have a voice in Brussels. This argument however wrongly assumes that we have an influence. We can be outvoted so decisions that go against our interests can go ahead which means that all sorts of disruptive directives would start pouring out from Brussels. If we try to press for agendas that are perceived to against the agenda of the EU then we will be ignored or ostracised until we come around so there is no real point being at the table. The ‘point’ of being at the table is so that you can agree with the Commission decisions (which is the result of 28 nations disagreeing and the subsequent need for someone to make a decision) and make it look like those decisions are compliant with your national interests, and that therefore you have an influence. The only countries with an influence are Germany and its lesser partner, France. We might as well adopt a Swiss style relationship which can export to the EU (minus the free movement rule that it is subject to) while having trade deals with economically vibrant parts of the world; like us Switzerland has a large financial centre.
Britain would not necessarily be less bureaucratic than the EU but at least there is an opportunity to instil the right amount or sort of regulations that are in our national interest- an agenda that is not the concern of Brussels which is all about creating a European super-state and extending its control. This is clearly stifling countries in the Eurozone and holding back countries that are not.
It is clear that there are significant costs to being inside the EU and lucrative opportunities outside. It would seem that the best course of action would be to leave, negotiate an exit trade deal and explore the opportunities the world has to offer.
resistancetoantidemocraticleft 