Pragmatism tempers Tory members' support for leaving the EU

There are two ways of reading the answers that Tory members gave to ConservativeHome's questions on the Better Off Out campaign:

• One reading says that 63% of members either support or have sympathy for BOO's campaign to take Britain out of the EU;
• Another reading would emphasise the fact that 66% do not support the campaign - 33% for tactical reasons and another 33% because they want to see Britain remaining in the EU.

Roger Helmer MEP was in no doubt about the meaning of the survey:

"I am impressed that two thirds of Conservatives either support the Better Off Out Campaign, or at least sympathise with it. The case for "Better Off Out" is extremely strong, and I am convinced that support will rise as the campaign progresses."

Philip Davies MP - who launched the campaign - was equally pleased:

"This survey shows that there is a considerable body of opinion within the Conservative Party and across the country for Britain to leave the EU.  The MPs who are supporting Better Off Out are representing that substantial body of opinion. People are increasingly realising that our future prosperity as a Nation depends on trading with countries around the world such as China, India, the US and other emerging markets rather than being tied to a backward looking, inward looking protection racket propping up inefficient continental businesses."

Related link: We must have the courage to break free of the EU, says Philip Hollobone MP.

Editor's note: ConservativeHome would be keen to publish a full argument for why Britain should remain in the EU.  Any offers to tim@conservativehome.com please.

Comments

[Idris Francis]

I could give you a great deal of information on why we would be Better Off Out in economic terms, by £50bn to £100bn pa - but that it to miss the point.

The real issue is FREEDOM. Nothing else matters - freedom from the growing tyranny of the EU, freedom from the oppression and lack of demoracy designed into the EU from its very beginnings.

As Jefferson (I think) once wrote - "Any nation that gives away its freedom in pursuit of economic advantage deserves to lose both."

Or to put it more bluntly - It takes a fool to sell his freedom for perceived economic advantage - but it takes a raving lunatic to pay to have it taken away!

Idris Francis.

[Adam]

China does not have any sort of free trade agreement with the EU - there is a quota on Chinese imports for goodness sake!

It strikes me as bizarre that as soon as we've won the principle of a multi-speed Europe, courtesy of our Euro opt-out, where members can pick and choose how far they integrate, we should decide that's the time to throw in the towel and get out.

Britain does not need to leave the EU and abandon any place at the table that decides what the 3000-odd bits of law it needs to implement are. Britain needs a government that won't sign up to new EU directives, and will start to disentagle herself from the current ones she dislikes.

[David Belchamber]

The advent of DC, I believe, has created one of the most exciting times in British politics for years. Absolutely everything is up for grabs and discussion: immigration, hoodies, Europe etc.
On Europe, we should seize the moment to have a structured debate; why not initially invite simple lists of pros and cons without getting involved in any highly emotive arguments?
The starting point: European countries came together after WW2 to form a community of nations in an attemptto ensure that no European country would ever again wage war on another one.
Then we had the idea of a common market and I feel that, if these two points remain common ground for the majority of people, we can go on to list (i) those good things that some believe have emerged since then and (ii) a list of things that other people dislike.
There could well be lists of yet more things that do not work properly at present but which are worth doing and could perhaps be improved.
Then let the arguments commence, ending up with a referendum.

[RodS]

What do you do when you have a malignant cancer - albeit at an early stage - and you know that surgical removal will be 100% successful.

It is a no brainer for any rational decision maker. The EU is malignant in that it keeps growing (whatever our MEP's say )in its impact and influence. The strategy of the pro-EU camp has been to close down argument until it is too late reverse and that time is rapidly coming. A Pro-EU approach from Labour is understandable - it is socialism by the back door. Why on earth should a conservative party collaborate with corrupt, unaccountable centralism ?

[Jaz]

I'm afraid I'm also part of the conservative section where the Tory party will not get my vote if the leadership suggest EU withdrawal. I find the idea extremist and outrageous. If 24 other countries seem to be able to work things out, so should we. It's plain and simple, EU withdrawal = uncertainty = economic loss. After the fiasco of the ERM, I don't think we should fiddle with our economic policies with the EU, for DC, this is such a dangerous policy and for the conservative party to survive we show that we can be trusted with our economics.

[Denis Cooper]

"Britain needs a government that won't sign up to new EU directives"

Unfortunately most of them are now decided by Qualified Majority Voting, and unless we could assemble enough votes to block the ones we didn't want they would be imposed upon us anyway. There aren't many areas left where we still have a veto, even if we had a government with the will to use it.

[malcolm]

Why is it extremist and outrageous Jaz?If you are going to make a comment like that I assume you have some very good reasons to back this up.Please tell us what they are.

[Richard]

Jaz, do you think we gain from EU regulations, CAP and the common external tariff?

[Mark Senior]

The manufacturing company I work for exports 60% of it's product to EU countries . Pulling out of the EU would seriously jeopardise the jobs of 150 people who would not be impressed with the Conservative Party .

[Richard]

Mark Senior,

We're not opposed to the free trade aspect of the EU. In fact we dislike the EU's protectionist instincts towards outsiders. Ideally we would like the EU to be a free trade zone and nothing more.

[John Hustings]

Nothing is inherently "extremist". An opinion is "extreme" only in relation to the number of its adherents. By that token, EU withdrawal is not extremist since a large body of opinion supports the idea.

[Valerie]

European Economic Area countries (i.e. Iceland, Norway & Liechtenstein) have to take on EU single market legislation as follows:

freedom of movement of goods (excluding agriculture and fisheries, which are included in the Agreement only to a very limited extent), persons, services and capital. Horizontal provisions relevant to these four freedoms in the areas of social policy, consumer protection, environment, company law and statistics.

[Mark Senior]

I am not sure who the we are that you mention Richard . My impression gained from the thread as a whole is that others want out of the EU whatever the cost to some peoples jobs .

[Julian Morrison]

Mark Senior: you think your company would be locked out of Europe?

I think more likely, with the brakes off our economy and still on theirs, they'd be the ones coming to us on bended knee, looking for business.

[william]

Exporters to EU countries will be better off out, as they can sell to the EU (still a protected marketplace) and yet not suffer all the regulatory costs of membership.

Add to that that we pay about 50% above the rest of the world for manufactured goods into the UK. Maybe Mr senior is worried about that aspect as he might have to compete against cheaper goods?

It depends which business he is in, but most British exporters to Europe would be better off out.

[Valerie]

they (Norway) also have to pay into the EU budget as well, for the structural funds - 227 million euro a year, or about 49 euros per capita.

[comstock]

Est pragmatqiue, ja?

BOO is noo goo der jookle!

[TomTom]

China does not have any sort of free trade agreement with the EU - there is a quota on Chinese imports for goodness sake!

China has MFN status witn the USA and thereby MFN status with the EU. It exports DUTY FREE into the EU.

There is a quota on textiles because of the HUGE increase in Chinese textile exports over a 12 month period - they are devastating the economies of Portugal and Italy.

Still the shops are full of Chinese goods and European goods are full of Chinese sub-assemblies. China's textile exports to EU were worth 10.79 billion dollars in 2004, six percent of the total China-EU bilateral trade, which totalled 177.3 billion dollars, Xinhua said.

The EU grants preferential access to most of its trading partners for some or all imports: in 2002, nine WTO Members are subject to exclusively Most-Favoured-Nation (MFN) treatment in all product categories: Australia; Canada; Chinese Taipei; Hong Kong, China; Japan; Republic of Korea; New Zealand; Singapore; and the United States. These countries accounted for 45.2% of EU’s total merchandise imports in 2001

http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/tpr_e/tp198_e.htm

GSP

China is the second largest beneficiary out of 180 of the EU's Generalised System of Preferences (GSP) scheme, under which the EU grants autonomous trade preferences to imports from developing countries.It has a share of more than 11% of all effective preferential imports under GSP.

http://ec.europa.eu/comm/trade/issues/bilateral/countries/china/index_en.htm

[Denis Cooper]

About 80% of our new laws are now imposed by the EU, but Norway only has to accept one in five of them. So if we were in the same position as Norway, instead of 80 new EU laws for every 20 of our own new laws, we would have 16 EU laws for every 20 of our own, total 36 not 100. That is to say, we would cut the flood of new laws by about two thirds. Must be worth something!

[James Maskell]

Quit the EU...Oh, come on! I know Camerons had some poor policies, but that would be the bad policy to top them off. Its not going to happen. Im calling it. It wont even cross his mind. Im willing to put up money on it. Cameron will not call for EU withdrawal during this (domestic) parliamentary term.

[Geoff]

James, it is a dreadful shame that you are certainly right in saying that it won't be proposed, although calling it a "bad policy" is just plainly wrong as far as many of us are concerned.

Does this mean that you are responding to Tim's challenge and are currently slaving over a red-hot keyboard typing up a justification of staying shackled to our European enemies?

With all due respect, I have still never heard a valid argument for staying in. Wishy-washy hand-wringing lies about turning into a third world economy overnight doesn't balance against actually being able to pass our own laws for a change.

[william]

the power mechanism that keeps us inside the eu is also a bit odd

http://the-tap.blogspot.com/2006/07/murdoch-controls-blairs-eu-policies.html

[Adam]

80% of our new laws are not imposed by the EU. 80% of our new laws are negotiated and signed by the British government in the EU Council of Ministers.

The Norwegians of course, do have a whole raft of laws imposed on them by the EU. Apparently that's a good thing.

[Bill Woodhouse]

The EU was conceived as a Supranational concept which involves destroying the power of the nation state.

This fundamental requirement has always been disguised and achieved step by stealthy step. None have been more duplicitous than the Conservative Party. Labour, especially under Gaitskill, once upon a time told the truth.

People as a whole do not want their nation destroyed so as to be governed by an unaccountable, irremovable elite appointed by self-serving functionaries. We were told we were joining a mutually cooperative trading block. Most of us would gladly accept a European Commonwealth of independent nations.

Until the Conservative Party admits that the supranational soviet that the present EU is intent on becoming is unacceptable it will remain split, fractious and unelectable.

The question then remains do we strive to change the EU into a Commonwealth of Nations or decide it is a lost cause and get out?

With the Constitution rejected and no clear road ahead maybe this is a golden opportunity to change its direction. If we turn our backs the EU might go off in a direction we come to regret as has happened on the Continent so often in the past.

PS If the Conservative Party is still supporting the EU Supranational nation destroying project again come clean and I and many other can save our time and money by ceasing to be members of the Party.

[Denis Cooper]

Adam, the Norwegians have to accept one in five of the EU pieces of legislation. You can call that "a whole raft of laws" if you like, but it's a much smaller "raft" that the one we have to put up with. Given that even the government says that regulations are now costing UK businesses ca £100 billion a year, and even the government admits to about half of them coming from the EU, that's an ongoing cost of at least ca £50 billion a year, of which we would be spared four fifths or ca £40 billion a year if we were in the same happy position as the Norwegians.

[Denis Cooper]

"80% of our new laws are not imposed by the EU. 80% of our new laws are negotiated and signed by the British government in the EU Council of Ministers."

Almost all decided by QMV, no longer with any possibility of a national veto.

[David Belchamber]

I think that Bill Woodhouse @ 10.09 accurately sums up what many of us feel about the EU:
"We were told we were joining a mutually cooperative trading block. Most of us would gladly accept a European Commonwealth of independent nations".
Unfortunately over the years we have been sucked into a gargantuan socialist paradise of bureaucracy, micro-managemnt and waste that has obscured the thoroughly laudable objectives of the founders.
Bill adds: "The question then remains do we strive to change the EU into a Commonwealth of Nations or decide it is a lost cause and get out?"
I suppose that, since we are well and truly in at the moment, we should strive first to make a real effort to reform it from within. If that fails, then the other option must be seriously considered.
As I suggested earlier, it might be helpful first to simply draw up a list of pros and cons for the various options, rather than get involved in heated debate.

[Cllr. Gavin Ayling]

Maybe, as support for the EU is stronger in Scotland and Wales, an independent England could leave the EU?

EU membership is no benefit -- it is not too much to withdraw!

[Tory Solicitor]

I am a eurosceptic and would welcome a decade long cessation of new legislation from the commission (fat chance) but I'm not convinced withdrawal is the answer.

The economic case is difficult, especially as you have esteemed economists on opposite sides of the argument. (Minford being the most famous sceptic economist)I'd be interested to hear people's views on the economic arguments - leaving aside the arguments about democracy and sovreignty

2 other observations:

there is obviously much emotion on this subject, perhaps more so from those who campaigned for and against entry in the 70s

Roger Helmer's treatment seems very unfair. Visit the reinstate website

[Jerry Wraith]

Any submissions as to why Britain shoud stay in the EU MUST be followed by arguments agianst. WHY? Because the Tories have been lYING about the benefits of being in the EU since before we joined.
Jerry

[Anne Palmer]

I cannot understand why Roger Helmer wishes to be re-instated in the Conservatives unless it is to formally resign. To vote for the Conservatives at the next election will be to allow Labour in once more. (Had Mr Cameron fulfilled his promises that encouraged the people to vote for him, the conservatives would have stood a chance, as would our Country of surviving) but there are those that want a federal European Union State, they sit on the opposition front bench. So near and yet so far.

[Greg Lance-Watkins]

It seems very clear that Cameron only represents the 1/3rd. of the party that is foolish enough to wish to remain vassals of the EUropean soviet against all evidence of the damage it does our country, in the light of a total failure to present a single benefit of membership over the last 40 years that even begins to compensate for the costs and down side risks and in the naive and unproven belief that change can be achieved when in the last 40years of membership the British Government (mostly Tory) has not managed to change one single solitary material phrase of EU diktat.
Just how long do you keep digging when you are in a hole?
It is clear that Cameron and his crew have NO deductive ability, little political accumen and no leadership competence - get a leader and get a chance.

[Monday Clubber]

"This important issue here is that we have here is at least 30% unequivocally supporting eu withdrawal. That is major news"

Absolutely right Chad. It should be key to our future EU-withdrawal policy.

The bonus is that we will also lose the dwindling minority of Tory Eurofanatics such as Jaz who are holding us back from making real progress.

They can form a new party with their hero Ken Clarke and sink without trace.

[Anne Palmer]

We have had to virtually destroy our Country to remain in the EU. Change our laws to suit the EU's Corpus Juris, run down our three services that we NEED to DEFEND our Country, pray that we never get sick and have to go in to hospital, pay for Parliamentarians and our Government that can only instigate about 20% of our laws. Watch in horror and humiliation as the European Court of Justice overrules the highest Court in this Land. Do you want me to go on?

[Edward Spalton]

Access to the EU's single market is not dependent on EU membership (as Mexico proves). EU countries sell vastly more to us than we do to them so their own self interest would preclude a customs tariff war. In any case the WTO (to which the EU is signatory) has reduced tariffs to relatively footling levels, compared to the Common External Tariff of around 35% which existed when we joined the EEC. So, economically, the case is altered.

About ten per cent of Britain's GDP (and falling)consists of exports to the EU. Yet the other 90% has to carry all the costs of EU regulation. Even Commissar Verheugen recently admitted that the benefits of the Single Market were outweighed about four times over by the cost of EU regulation.

So the only possible self interest in staying an EU member is political - either a masochistic fondness for being regulated by foreigners in their interests or attachment to the well rewarded careers afforded to the political and official class. As we know from Richard North and others, attachment to EU defence arrangements and equipment procurement is seriously degrading the capabilities of our armed forces. But the MoD was always pretty good at cocking that up without EU assistance.

[Shaun Bennett]

The Conservative leadership have taken the wrong lessons from history. They have seen that any party that campaigns on a Eurosceptic platform is bound to lose (i.e. Labour 1983, Conservative 2001).
But the Eurosceptic platform that William Hague adopted was consistently his most popular policy. The problem was that he went on it too much and the country wasn't yet ready to back the Tories after 18 years of government. The electoral cycle had not yet turned around.
Now we are in a different position. The electoral cycle IS turning in our favour and withdrawel from Europe remains popular. The vast majority of the party membership want to adopt a policy along those lines.
David Cameron doesn't even need to offer a platform of unilateral withdrawel. All he needs to do is promise to set up a Royal Commission to look into the pro's and con's of withdrawel and promise to hold a full national referendum on the issue whatever that commission reports. Then people can make up their own minds.
This would even be a good strategic move because whenever the media try to pin him down on where he stands on withdrawel he can say "we will set up a royal commission, lets see what it says and what the arguments are. We will make our position clear before the referendum". The Eurosceptic vote would still support us because it would be the best possible chance they would ever have of getting what they want! Its WIN, WIN all around.

[Andrew Smith]

Why do so many inpolitics hanker after an association with other economies. Why have they too little self confidence and confidence in Britain to trade and prosper on our own. Of course, no one believes in pulling up any draw bridge.

We are an international trading and investment economy and one of the most significant reasons to leave the EU is its insularity. We do not need to be a member of NAFTA to trade with its members any more than we need to be a member of the EU or a province of Japan to trade there.

Forget about NAFTA or EFTA membership just agree near-free trade and very low tariff deals with all trading countries and carry on as we were the day before we left the EU.

The lower costs and fewer regulations can be implemented within months while the renewed sence of purpose and self respect will make us all 2 inches taller overnight. (That's 50mm, Dave).

[Alan Hobson]

An interesting fact that is usually overlooked is that MORI/Times polls in May 1999 and May 2001 showed that a majority of Conservative voters - around 59% each time - were in favour of withdrawal from the EU. This was widely ignored by commentators and the Conservative Party at the time.

It is a pity more senior Conservatives don't support the very sensible views on withdrawal of the majority of their voters.