Jim McConalogue: How Europe threatens British national life

Jim McConalogue, Editor of the European Journal, offers a general introduction to what's wrong with our relationship with the EU.

The European Union threatens British national life to the extent that the European Treaties which have led to the creation of a European government subvert the laws, governance and way of life inherent to the British nation state, its laws and its society. This perceived threat is not derived from being sceptical about internationalism, since this is at the heart of being British and neither is it about being sceptical of trading with Europe since it is in Britain’s foremost interest to maintain excellent trading relationships with the rest of Europe and the rest of the world within a low/no-tariff free trade area. But there is a very real threat.

The everyday reality of the threat of Europe on British national life is explained by its negative effect on Parliament, the legislative process, British businesses, Britain’s inability to give a helping hand to the economies of countries in the world less fortunate than our own, a failure to control its trade policy and an inability to control immigration flows:

• Absence of Parliamentary authority: The European Commission which produces 60% of Britain’s statute book has no directly elected officials. Westminster has voluntarily surrendered its authority to Brussels through the European Treaties. Britain is in fact already largely governed by Europe over matters on which it has no say.
• Absence of Legislative Process: The British people no longer have a legitimate reason for electing Members of Parliament to govern their constituencies. Since the European Commission has no elected officials, the people do not legislate in any sense for their own laws and their own society. So, in the last general election, of the 44 million people who were eligible to vote, only 27 million people actually did so, and of the sector of society that has grown up with Europe as an unchallengeable facet of modern government – those between 18 to 25 – only one third bothered to vote at all.
• Failure of British business and enterprise: By its own admission, the Commission has been forced to declare that a massive €600 billion per year is spent on over-regulation of business. The British Chambers of Commerce estimates that red tape has cost British business £55.66 billion in total; and that 72. 5 per cent (£40 billion) of this is derived from EU red tape. Under the tides of EU legislation and bureaucracy, Britain has forced business from its shores.
• Deprivation of the World’s Developing Countries: As a global trading nation, Britain is left powerless to manage its own trade policy since it is now largely in the hands of the EU. So, the European Union, as a customs union, has reduced tariffs for those trading within the EU whilst it has maintained tariffs for poorer developing economies where the economies operate at desperate levels of poverty and deprivation. Since those economies cannot access the European markets, they can earn no money to live, and since they cannot earn the money to live … This is the state of Britain in Europe.
• Control over British Immigration and Asylum: The Labour Government of the past decade has inaccurately reported on the statistics relating to immigration and asylum. Its disastrous relaxation of controls on EU citizens – justified under the “free movement of EU citizens” – created severe problems for Britain’s public services which were put under considerable strain because, for example, no government warning had been provided for a 600,000 influx during 2005-2006.   

These are all matters on which the British people have no say. The threat of the expanding European Union to British national life is real – it is derived from a presentation of the facts. Britain’s place within the European Economic Community, beginning with the Treaty of Rome, was aimed at strengthening our relationship with the European trading zone but became undermined by the creation of a bureaucratic European government leading to an official “Union” as defined under Maastricht in 1992, the creation and accumulation of powers under Amsterdam (1997) and Nice (2001) and the assertion of an undesirable European Constitution for a new Europe, rejected by the French and Dutch by a public vote in 2005 but then asserted by the EU upon the citizens of all 27 states in the form of the Lisbon Treaty (pushed through from 2007-2009). Europe has taken control of: most areas of responsibility of our national Government, our necessity of being represented through our Members of Parliament, vital parts of our immigration system, a new system of rights, European legislation leading to the closure and failures of our businesses, an agricultural policy of providing subsidies (in return for nothing), many aspects of our foreign and security policy, and a national contribution of about £10.7 billion pounds.      

It has long been the British Government’s mission to remain silent on Europe and thereby defend the consensus on the “necessary” European controls over Britain – and the only hope of the battle remains to be through an elected Conservative government, which has historically been the Party of self-government, minimising state interference and promoting the national interest. The current push towards an integrated European government is met with hostility by the British people, since what is needed is a European free trade area to serve the interests of our economy through which Britain and the various nation states of Europe can operate democratically in a looser arrangement of associated nation states. To say that the European Union merely undermines British culture, its taxpayers or businesses is itself an underestimation of the true facts. Europe threatens British national life in a massive and fundamental way. It must be stopped.

Comments

[Tony Makara]

Any European free-trade area should also have the ability to protect its internal market from penetration by the coolie economies of the East. The original concept of the EEC in terms of being a trading block was not a bad one. However the added political superstructure and not protecting European markets has caused great damage since.

[Mr A Pullen]

You appear to have about 16 Conservative MPs who openly agree with you, the rest would appear to be more interested in 'whats in it for them', a la Kinnock.

[Tony Makara]

Mr A Pullen, yes, Neil Kinnock, socialist firebrand and defender of the poor now lapping up a bourgeois lifestyle. I almost saw the slime seeping out of my radio when I heard Kinnock defending the Tony Blair years. If anybody represents double-standards in politics it is Kinnock. He doesn't care about the poor anymore because he's "allllriiiight!"

[Mr A Pullen]

Does anyone actually know what the position of the Tory party is with regards to Europe? Cameron seems to make a few noises on the basis that it is expected to keep the old guard quiet whilst actually going right along with all that is happening. He certainly isn't showing anything that could be regarded as leadership or a definite alternative.
Another example of concensus politics, lack of choice and end of democracy.

[Paul Oakley]

A Pullen Esq - the policy still seems to be the contradictory catchphrase of "in Europe but not run by Europe."

Don't worry though, the BOO soldiers will ultimately prevail.

[Tony Makara]

David Cameron has said that he will support the EU so long as it is in Britain's interest to support it. The Conservative party must call for a post-ratification referendum on the EU treaty which is clearly not in Britain's interest. Such a promise, carried into an election, would set the Conservative party apart on Europe and would re-enforce the party's democratic credentials.

[Mr A Pullen]

Seems that David Cameron is playing politics rather than listening to and acting on the oh so clear wishes of the British people.
If he did become PM, to just keep the pot boiling ready for Labour to serve up at their next opportunity will have achieved nothing.
Fact is that it will never affect this very wealthy man like it would the average Joe, to him it is just a paper exercise that we have to live.
I have never known anyone so lacking in real passion, (Brown excepted).

[IRJMilne]

So what do we get from the EU and does it outweigh the disadvantages? Would the continent cease to trade with us if we stopped letting it take billions of pounds a year from us to redistribute as it saw fit?

What does Mr Cameron plan to do about the EU? He may not like it - what will he actually do about it? It has not been forgotten that the Conservative Party was responsible for the Maastricht Treaty.

[Mr A Pullen]

A Pullen Esq - the policy still seems to be the contradictory catchphrase of "in Europe but not run by Europe."

Don't worry though, the BOO soldiers will ultimately prevail.
--------------------------

I hope so, we have our own locally in Mr P Hollobone and I believe he is sincere but I keep hearing about other Tory MP's who refuse to even discuss the subject of Europe. I feel that they have already been informed of their forthcoming redundancy packages by Europe and they are rather generous, this along with many new opportunities.....

[Tony Makara]

If the EU does not act as an internal market, protecting itself from being overrun by the likes of China and India then I don't see what the point of the EU is? I'm sick being forced to by shoddy goods from China because there is no alternative. My grandad used to say "Made in Hong Kong...broke in a week" that still rings true today.

[Mr A Pullen]

Unfortunately that choice was already made by the consumer who would rather have shoddy affordable Chinese goods than none at all.
Unsure if that is a selfish choice or not, but we will all pay in the end.

[Richard]

"If the EU does not act as an internal market, protecting itself from being overrun by the likes of China and India then I don't see what the point of the EU is? I'm sick being forced to by shoddy goods from China because there is no alternative"

Someone could also say "I'm sick of having to pay for more expensive goods and therefore have less to spend on my mortgage/school fees/foreign holiday/Christmas presents etc because a bunch of politicians have used legal force to prevent me from buying cheap goods".

[Dontmakemelaugh]

If the EU does not act as an internal market, protecting itself from being overrun by the likes of China and India then I don't see what the point of the EU is? I'm sick being forced to by shoddy goods from China because there is no alternative. My grandad used to say "Made in Hong Kong...broke in a week" that still rings true today.

Posted by: Tony Makara | January 12, 2008 at 12:30

I am not an economist, Tony, but from what I have read I believe that the great majority of them would disagree with you.
It is generally held that Free Trade greatly increases the weath of nations and vice versa will make us all in the end poorer. How are we to trade with and assist Africa. Didn't Mendalson, the EU minister for trade, have to back down when placing an embargo on Chinese textiles.
It also used to be said after the war that Japan prouced shoddy goods - not any more.

Is there an economist in the house (preferably one that cannot be laid end to end)?

[John Smith]

The Union has always been a dream of pulling together: "Ever closer union" was the line in Rome. It's really quite funny to listen to people screaming "Must have referendum! Okay, we agreed before, but I didn't bother reading the treaties then, so my vote shouldn't count! But I'll get it right this time!"

The lies peddled by the right wing media and the anti-European tide in mainstream politics need to be challenged and destroyed. This article implies that the Commission is some far distant dictatorship that can do anything it likes - the author doubtless knows that no such thing is the case. The Commission is made up of officials appointed by each of the democratically elected Governments of the States, and can do nothing without the consent of both the Council, on which every Government has a veto, and the directly elected Parliament, chosen by the people of Europe. Does it need to improve, with direct elections to the Executive? Of course, but that doesn't make it the monster you want to create.

The Union budget is tiny - less than 1% of national expenditure, implemented by a civil service smaller than that employed by most British County Councils - so the assertion it can single-handedly inflict shedloads of unneeded regulation is similarly humerous. Much of this is first demanded by the national governments, who then decide it looks unpopular and blame the mechanism they chose to implement it - the Union.

Migration and asylum: Unfortunately, this is still governed by the states. Restricting movement is an affront to human dignity, and something that must be torn down. The Union's failure to implement sufficiently open internal borders is hopefully something we can fix in the future - obscenities like sitting outside Schengen have to be ended as soon as possible.

Britain has always stood for freedom. It's simultaneously hysterical and horrifying that people would use its name to scream for a fortress, isolated from our European brothers, devastating our economy and ending all influence we ever had in a world. Traitors such as this author should be ashamed of themselves.

[Tony Makara]

Dontmakemelaugh, 'orthodox' economists do subscribe to the free-trade ethos but theses are usually academic economists who can draw up all manner of conjectural economic models on paper but these do not always reflect the real world. I prefer to subscribe to 'radical' economic thought and believe that markets completely left to themselves can sometimes work against the national interest. In other words I support free-trade so long as it benefits Britain. When it runs counter to the national interest free-trade must be conditional. For example if a nation is being overrun with cheap foreign imports at the cost of jobs at home it is necessary for government to curtail such imports. I believe a nation should only import what it cannot produce itself. This is a political imperative it is true, but one that is necessary. 'Orthodox' economists do not see nations, they only see the free movement of capital.

[Janice Small]

John Smith is obviously not one of us. Restricting movement is an affront to human dignity - tell that to the school in Kent that I visited yesterday where 50% of the children had arrived in the past year from Eastern Europe with no English, rotten teeth and parents with no jobs who now occupy local accommodation, taking up the few places left on HNS dentists' lists and seeking jobs in an area where 50% of the teenagers are unemployed and 1 in 4 adults are unemployed. Add to that a high teenage pregnancy rate; 3rd generation benefit claimants, severe family problems and tell us that we have no right to restrict immigration. It is heart-breaking to see these little immigrant children but the UK cannot afford to deal with EU immigrants when we are not dealing with the indiginous population's problems.

Yes, the Council of Ministers are represented by each member states's country. Unfortunately, our interests have been mis-managed by Labour for 10 years but that is not to say that I am not critical of the previous treaties signed by us. But we are where we are and it is only when a Conservative government represents the UK on the Council and we form a new grouping in the EP that we will have an effective opposition. Added to that we need to reform the working of the European Scrutiny Committee in Westminster to make it more open, transparent, accountable and to stop the fast-tracking of EU directives and over-riding of scrutiny. Westminster has to hold the ultimate sanction on implementing directives.

I am not aware of many of our MPs who are afraid to discuss Europe - most of them and us breathed a sigh of relief that a referendum on the EU Treaty has become such a big issue both in the national media and not just the right wing media and have been actively campaigning in our high streets. And you cannot ignore 80% of the public who also want a referendum.

Are you so afraid that the real message about Europe is now out in the open? The EU has very large media and PR budgets to make its own case which it doesn't seem to be doing very well at.

When Ed Balls described David Cameron as the most EU sceptic Tory leader I thought this should be written on every piece of literature that we produce. Taking such a pro-stance on the EU will not benefit Labour.

The EU can be a force for good however. Instead of being integrationist, interfering, and undermining the nation state, it could use its sheer size and influence to encourage worldwide democracy. Who was it that gave such credence to the gerrymandered elections in Kenya? The EU election officials. Who is proposing that Afghanistan's poppy crop is used for opiate based pharma products? The EU.

Real reform is needed and it is only a Conservative government that can do it.

[Ricky Simpson]

Could you image the power and influence of a European state? It would end the American century.

[Free trader]

The EU is wrong to have tarrifs. They push up the prices for European consumers and reduce their choice of products.The reduction of choice leads to less innovation than if there were more competitiors. Tarrifs give protection to inefficient industries

[Richard]

If tariff protection is beneficial and increases prosperity then it would be logical for every country in the EU to have protective tariffs. Or may every county in the UK? Personally I resent the idea of politicians telling me what sort of product I can or cannot buy, it's just another form of nanny-statism.

http://www.mises.org/rothbard/protectionism.pdf

"In trying to stop this trade, protectionists are trying to stop American consumers from enjoying high living standards by buying cheap and high-quality Japanese products. Instead, we are to be forced by government to return to the inefficient, higher-priced products
we have already rejected. In short, inefficient producers are trying to deprive all of us of products we desire so that we will have to turn to inefficient
firms. American consumers are to be plundered."

[Tony Makara]

Free trader and Richard, I respect individual freedom and the freedom to purchase freely. However there are times when the best interests of the nation as a whole override the rights of the individual. The Americans are starting to see that completely open trade does not always serve the national interest. They have seen their children poisoned with cheap imports from China. As David Cameron so often implies, we do not live in a bubble, we are all interconnected and the national interest must come first. The British economy must be the primary concern here, the individual is second to the nation as a whole. That is as much an economic point as a philosophical one.

[Lindsay Jenkins]

While I broadly agree with Jim McConalogue's comments he writes as if the threat is in the future.

The perceived threat he calls it is already reality.

The UK can scarcely be called a nation any longer. The overwhelming majority of its laws and its governance come from the EU.

We are no longer a parliamentary democracy, despite the lip service of elections.

Heaven knows what David Cameron proposes to do about our lack of nationhood - I certainly don't.

[Free trader]

''the individual is second to the nation as a whole''.

What a horrifying thing to say. The individual must come first after all we are all individuals but not all of us are part of a collective. What is this nation you speak of? Do by nation you mean simply the interests of the government or certain businesses who want protection? This is the same sort of community interest nonsence that was used by Scargill and his goons in the 1980s.

It's because we are interconnected that we must have free trade, its the logical conclusion and it maintains peace in a world where people from very different backgrounds are increasingly coming into contact with one another.

The best way to put the British economy first is to give it freedom. Whitehall pen pushers are inferior to the free market with its price signals.

[Yet Another Anon]

The major problems are that the EU is dominated by a liberal elite, if the UK were to leave the European Court of Human Rights and European Court of Justice, and introduce more stringent measures to deal with terrorists and other criminals whether convicted or simply held pending trial and implimentation of execution or other forms of punishment banned by those organisations. The fact is that the UK's membership of such institutions is hampering the proper maintenance of social order and national security.

In addition there is the fortress mentality of the EU, obsessed by technical arguments over what constitutes Europe, pressuring countries applying for membership to move towards Liberal Social Democratic type political and social systems. The obsession of many politicians in the EU with creating some kind of Christendom recognising the Pope as some kind of authority, the EEC was supposed to be a trading zone, not some kind of method of imposing liberal social policies and reversing the Reformation.

The EU is also operating contrary to principles of Free Trade, hampering the UK's trading relations with other Commonwealth nations and nations across the world. Indeed countries outside Europe are actually far more likely to have products not available inside the UK, most things producable in the rest of Europe are also producable in the UK, there are many foodstuffs that can only be imported from outside Europe.

European priorities in tariffs and other customs have also resulted for example in the blocking of clothing imports into the UK. Ideally the UK should produce a lot of the clothes used here, but the fact is that the UK is reliant on clothing imports, stopping clothes imports from China resulted in shortages in the shops potentially fueling inflation.

The EU allows all it's member states to admit anyone they want, and to make anyone they want an EU citizen. Once an EU citizen they have freedom of movement within the EU - no other nation can object to an EU member state doing this. If there are to be EU Citizens then it is impossible to manage this unless there is some kind of EU wide veto body blocking undesirable people from entry.

In addition the free movement of labour within the EU is a danger to National Security - the UK needs to have total control over who can enter the UK.

[Tony Makara]

Free trader, its impossible to argue that the individual is greater than the nation. That line of thinking would put the criminal above the law and make it impossible for us to act collectively in the event of a war. The individual has rights, of course, but those rights do not supercede the law of the land. Is the individual above the crown? Do we belong to our nation or do we just live here like lodgers? Our nation gives us our identity, our roots and our future. Nationhood is not a throwaway concept. We are part of the nation and our nation is a part of us. We are subject.

[Dontmakemelaugh]

Tony: Thomas Sewell is a black American Republican and economist; he can be found on a very informative website "Townhall". He would agree with Richard and states that protectionism and isolationism are anathema to wealth creation. Vote hungry politicians will exploit some aspects of protectionism: in the USA a large tax was placed on imported steel (from the EU) in order to prop up high cost USA steel production. This affected jobs, profits, and dividends in Britain; it also affected the cost of any manufacture using steel in the USA. This meant American consumers paid high and had less money to spend elsewhere - so who benefited? - the owners and the politicians representing the steel mills, everyone else lost, including, in the long run, workers at the mills (the tariff has since been removed). The EU has its fair share of tariffs (the Commonwealth countries were not amused when we joined) and was due to answer a charge of unfair trading and appear in front the WTO last Friday (unfortunately I cannot remember what for).
Much of our manufacturing base has gone. Should it be economical do do so it will return. Despite the change in our former industries no-one can deny that we are the richer for foreign companies being here and being allowed to import goods even though it meant the demise of some of our own industries, but the adaptability, genius and regeneration of capitalism is astounding.
Sewell stated (from memory - I can't find the book): "economics is; the best use and allocation of scarce resources" - apologies to Sewell. Economics is not a sum zero game.

It is true and I agree that strategic industrials essential for our protection and survival must be protected, but in the main Free Trade should be the order of the day and politicians and the EU (our governors) should keep their noses out of it (some hopes).
The Chinese may make crap toys (we used to make crap cars with BL), but some of their stuff is of good quality and affordable for the majority. How about that new Indian car £1300? (get the wife one - teach her a lesson, get your own back). The Indians (not in the EU) are said to take over Jaguar and Landrover - even I may be able to afford one. You can't please everyone and the Climate Change fantasists will be as sick as a parrots.
Free Trade? Bring it on

[Tony Makara]

Dontmakemelaugh, I certainly understand the points you are making. I think this whole question rests on whether we subscribe to 'Orthodox' or 'Radical' economics. I would challenge the view that Britain is a wealthy country, particularly if we view the nation as a whole rather than those who are successful. As we know wealth creation does not filter down and the gap between rich and poor is wider than ever.

The problem as I see it is that all governments manage the economy rather than making the economy work to the national advantage. I'm not referring to a collectivized socialist economy but rather to creating the conditions that allow business to grow and create work and wares. A government that allows market penetration allows that domestic market to be overtaken and run by foreigners. Why are we not producing goods for ourselves? It is because government does not protect our business community.

We will always need to import certain goods but most we can produce ourselves. A British factory producing British goods provides work for British workers and goods for the nation. We are currently saddled with an enormous welfare state, something that will not go away until we create around a million jobs. Producing for our home market could provide those jobs. This would mean a sea-change in the British economy but I believe such a change is needed.

[Dontmakemelaugh]

..........Migration and asylum: Unfortunately, this is still governed by the states. Restricting movement is an affront to human dignity, and something that must be torn down. The Union's failure to implement sufficiently open internal borders is hopefully something we can fix in the future - obscenities like sitting outside Schengen have to be ended as soon as possible.

Britain has always stood for freedom. It's simultaneously hysterical and horrifying that people would use its name to scream for a fortress, isolated from our European brothers, devastating our economy and ending all influence we ever had in a world. Traitors such as this author should be ashamed of themselves.

Posted by: John Smith | January 12, 2008 at 14:51

Calm down Smithy - there is a cure for premenstrual tension, so all is not lost.

I cannot understand what you are ranting about; you have achieved your hearts desire and our "European brothers", sisters, uncles, aunts, cousins, grandads, grandmas, acquaintances, criminals and uncle Tom Cobblers and all can enter, for all intents and purposes, at any time along with anyone else that fancies it. We have no borders and what will give you even more pleasure, no country of our own any more. The Democracy Deniers have won the day. So stop moaning. The author of the article above that you so despise was merely pointing out that you had won. You should thank him for the reminder. You are not one of those 16 year old potential voters that Harriet Harman wants to have the vote are you? You sound like you are. Take an aspirin or maybe an mustard mouth-swab.

"Britain has always stood for freedom". Since when? It has lost the habit.

[IRJMilne]

"Restricting movement is an affront to human dignity, and something that must be torn down."

What?

[Dontmakemelaugh]

" A government that allows market penetration allows that domestic market to be overtaken and run by foreigners. Why are we not producing goods for ourselves? It is because government does not protect our business community".

Well Tony, what is good for the goose is good for the gander. As I understand it, Britain survives by trading and has one of the largest foreign investment portfolios in the world which earns us much money. If we wish to deny foreigners from investing here then they can do the same to us in their country and much wailing that would bring. If we do not make goods for ourselves it is because it is waste of scarce resources to do so and cheaper (and therefore more economical) to buy elsewhere.

I must disagree with you when you imply the Britain is not wealthy (Brown is the danger). Poverty is relative and at the moment if you haven't got the latest mobile phone or a 42" plasma TV, then yes, you are impoverished (I haven't, but I don't feel impoverished). In Britain you do not even have to go to work and can survive quite comfortably.

I am from (to use a hackneyed, boring description) from a working class family. I have no special talents and poorly educated as you can see. But nevertheless despite living in what you seem to think is impoverished Britain I shall shorty be going on a holiday that not to long ago would only have been under taken by the very rich.
I shall soon be lying on Bondi beach under that big blue Aussie sun-kissed illuminated sky eyeing the birds and cursing that I am to old to remember what I used to do and what happened when I did it and ,oddly enough, cursing the Labour Government . I will have been delivered to this paradise by a sky monster (made in the USA). It will be a wonderful tribute to capitalism and international endeavour. An adventure undreamed of by the working class not to long ago (fancy coming along?).

However, I am a liar. I remember perfectly well what to do with the ladies and it has nothing to do with economics.

Tony (and Tim & Sam and to Jim MacConologue)), thanks for the debate, but that is all I can say on the subject. Thanks.

[Tony Makara]

Dontmakemelaugh, one day hopefully Conservative Home will carry a big debate on this subject. As you point out there are pros and cons on both sides of the argument. I disagree with your point about us being wealthy as a nation. A million people living on forty quid a week dole money and millions of others trapped into debt are not wealthy. Money we spend in this country on imports does not stay in our country, that is an important factor. Buying British made goods gives British entrepreneurs the money to expand, to invest and create more jobs.

Your holiday in Australia certainly sounds good, although being a milk bottle pale redhead who feels like fainting in anything above 70 degrees I'd have to give Oz a miss. Oh by the way if you see the official that cheated us out of our try in the world cup final would you kindly give him a swift kick in the shins from me!

[Alan.S]

I have to agree and disagree with various comments form the other contributers but I do think that we should be more like the French. Before anyone gets upset with me I would like to give examples -
The French generally buy French cars (I do not)
The French seem to ignore EU laws that they do not like - so should we.
The French generally only buy local foodstuffs - so should we
The French do not buy British beef - we should not buy their goods either (if there are only French apples in the shop then I go without.
I know that I seem to have picked on the French but it does apply to other nations.
It all comes down to personal choice of the masses. If we do not buy British then who will ?

[IRJMilne]

The French have a worse economy than us, despite excessive CAP subsidies. Why would we seek to emulate them?

[Eleanor McHugh]

I have a horrible feeling that the Conservative Party could not get elected on a manifesto that included significant Eurosceptic policies, just as it can't get elected calling for cuts in government spending.

That's not because these things are bad but because so much Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt has been instilled in the electorate - most of whom have been taught to believe that spending money is the only way to improve services, that free markets only benefit big businesses, and that the United Kingdom is some kind of historic anachronism unable to fend for herself in the modern world.

The old Eurosceptic slogans may be good for rallying our troops, but they do little to tackle that FUD. What we really need is constructive ideas which lay out a more compelling vision of Europe based on the free market vision of nations trading together for their mutual benefit, but which talks much more about the benefits to the individual and to small businesses. As such our policy on Europe has to be seen hand-in-hand with our domestic policy and with how we rise to the challenges of globalisation.

Above all we need to remind the British electorate that we're not some has-been nation dangling off the arse end of Europe. We're an established member of the global trading community with a proud heritage of making our own way based upon fair dealing and a willingness to engage with the world at large.

We create innovative products, encourage the free flow of capital to developing markets, uphold the cause of genuine democracy and the rule of law, and our language is the lingua franca of the international community. We have so much to be proud of, and yet we sell ourselves so short.

Give the British people back the confidence they have every right to and the clamour to restore our political independence would be deafening!

[prziloczek]

I have read the article and the comments above.
Economically, the battle rages: I think myself that the jury is still out.

What worries me is this:
1. Who chooses the commission and the President under the Treaty of Lisbon when majority voting and the number of commissioners is reduced in a couple of years?
2. What business is discussed in the Commission, since they alone seem to have the right to initiate legislation (even in the Council of Ministers/Europe)? Do they have a Hansard?
3. No European nation (except us) has an unbroken record of democratic rule over the last 10-0 years. It seems to me that when the going gets tough, democracy is simply not in the European tradition at all. When economic disaster strikes, therefore, the Commission can easily turn into a monster, like the Russian Commissars.
4. European/Roman law is completely different to ours. It allows freedoms from on high - and they can be taken back again. Juries, innocence until proven guilty, past precedent, habeas corpus are all foreign to it. This is, to me, the most worrying thing of all.

Does anyone know of a website which addresses any of these questions, please?

[nick chance]

What everyone here seems to forget is the following:

One of the defining features of modern day British government has been the constant attacks on our ancestral rights and liberties as enshrined in the British Constitution.

The British constitution is the set of laws and legal principles that regulate how a country is governed and that ensure that the government acts at all times within the rule of law. The British Constitution ensures that the government serves the people, and not that the people serve the government. That is the safeguard the subjects of this realm have against despotic rule.

These legal rules and laws are contained in documents such as Magna Carta (1215), The Petition of Rights 1628, Habeus Corpus Act 1679, the Bill of Rights 1689, the Act of Settlement 1701, the Act of Union 1707 and the Act of Union 1800. These dates provide the reader with the complete sense of history and safeguards that our forefathers have seen fit to pass on to successive generations.

The two main features of the British Constitution are the Rule of Law and the Supremacy of Parliament.

The Rule of Law requires that the rights of individuals are determined by legal rules and not the arbitrary behaviour of authorities. The Supremacy of Parliament ensures that Parliament can pass, repeal and alter any of Britain’s laws.

Both of these principles have in recent years been denuded and undermined. The Labour and Tory governments have illegally surrendered legislative power to supra-national institutions, (the European Union) thereby underming the supremacy of Parliament and at the same time these Governments have undermined the Rule of Law by allowing Judges to use the European Convention of Human Rights in order to strike down laws passed by Parliament.

Bodies such as the European Court of Human Rights and the European Court of Justice now also have the power to challenge and change British laws and simply bypass Parliament. Our constitutional rights, as detailed above, specifically forbids this to happen, and therefore, the restoration of the powers of the British Constitution as an active principle both in politics and the law, which is the basis of a healthy democracy, is an immediate imperative.

If the government can ignore the laws and rules of the British Constitution then we are all at risk. The rights and liberties as enshrined in the British Constitution were rights and liberties that our ancestors fought and died for. They were hard-gained but are easily lost if we fail to police and enforce that policing.

They are also about the future of the British nation and the British Constitution itself.

Not so long ago these truths about the people's rights were common knowledge as they had been taught and recited in schools for centuries. Strangely, and darkly, the educational authorities have been delinquent in teaching our students the history of their constitutional rights and liberties.

It is widely believed that politicians, civil servants, judges and police officers should be made to take an oath of loyalty to uphold the British Constitution before they are allowed to take office. And breaking that oath will demand punishment of the highest order

It is further widely believed that British citizens should be able to challenge in court any legislation passed by Parliament, any laws imposed by the EU or any legal judgements decided by judges that conflict with the rights and liberties enshrined within the British Constitution itself.

It is a fact that our Constitution demands all laws that have been passed by successive British governments, which have undermined the British Constitution and our ancestral rights and liberties, must be removed from the statute books forthwith.

Laws that have been passed by previous Parliaments that have undermined fundamental rights and liberties enshrined in the British Constitution are unlawful. The Supremacy of Parliament does not allow Parliament to surrender or remove OUR constitutionally protected rights and liberties.
Parliament may add to those rights and liberties, but it may not ever take them away.

[Ian Parker]

I am somewhat bemused by those who state that they do not know Cameron’s position on Europe. It’s perfectly clear; close his eyes, say and do nothing. Since Europe is a fundamental issue challenging our very existence as a sovereign nation, would you not think it strange that somebody would not reveal a stance if they had one?

So, to those misguided souls who still think that Cameron will be some great saviour, sadly I have to say, think again. Therefore, on the one subject of paramount importance to the future of this country, the population is effectively disenfranchised. Whatever happened to the notion of our elected representatives actually representing us?