Why we should leave the EU

This is a quick post on the issue of the EU, which has been claimed by the right wing as their noble cause, as popularised by UKIP and Tory MPs like Peter Bone. Today former Tory Chancellor Nigel Lawson has called for the UK to leave the EU. I suspect his motives for doing so are questionable, but does he have a point?

The prevailing view on the left seems to be strongly in favour of the UK’s EU membership, with the feeling that leaving would be unthinkable. These seem to be the common arguments in favour of staying in, and why I think they are misguided:

1) EU regulations on employment rights, environmental protections etc would be torn up if we left and it’d be like Victorian Britain all over again. This seems a strange sort of argument to me. Of course, there are a lot of people who would love to tear up a lot of these regulations, but we should have more confidence in our ability to win the argument about the importance of retaining these protections whether inside or outside of the EU. We shouldn’t need an external body to protect us from the more extreme elements on the right.

2) Around 3m jobs would be put at risk if we left the EU. I’ve seen this claim a lot, and I’m not sure where it comes from. Obviously, a lot of people work for companies that trade with the EU, but I think people over estimate the impact on trade our leaving the EU would have. The UK is a huge economy. The idea that the remaining EU nations would not want to trade with us on favourable terms seems unlikely to me.

3) British workers wouldn’t be able to go and work in Europe any more and millions of Brits would have to come home. Again, I don’t think this is as big an issue as it is made out to be. It’s likely there would be new restrictions on labour movements, but skilled workers would always be welcome to work in other countries, as we welcome skilled workers from outside the EU today. People that have retired to Spain are not going to be sent home, as their spending power is a great benefit to the Spanish economy.

Here are some other reasons why our EU membership does not benefit us.

  • There are a lot of things in the various treaties we are signatories to which tie the hands of our government. Deficit limits and the prohibition of using the full power of the central bank severely limit the ability of government to react economic crises. You can argue (maybe rightly) that in a crisis, these rules are routinely ignored, but moves are afoot to make these rules even more binding on nations.
  • State aid rules mean it’s very difficult to implement an active industrial policy, which I would argue is vital for long run growth. Government needs to be able to ‘pick winners’ and nurture their growth. State aid rules don’t allow this.
  • Immigration. Most of the evidence on immigration shows it has a strongly positive impact on the UK economy. This post makes that case wellBut does this mean we should be banned from imposing any limits on immigration from the EU? I don’t think so. It may be that we decide it’s in our interest to let anyone who wants to come here to work do so, but it should be a decision for the national government to make, and they should be free to impose limits if that’s in the best interests of the nation.

Above then are just a few quick points by way of suggesting that although one’s position on the EU seems to have been reduced to a split between left (pro) and right (anti), it shouldn’t be. There are strong arguments against our membership of the EU, and they shouldn’t be dismissed out of hand. As ever, feel free to disagree, or suggest things I’ve missed in the above.


7 thoughts on “Why we should leave the EU

  1. For me the problem is that the EU has been taken over by the neo-liberal right and run as an anti-democratic monster and bureaucratic hell-hole.

    What we need to do is start again. The UK should leave and invite others to join us in a trade block, where inter-state trade is under agreed rules similar to WTO but everything else is up to the nation state and there is no presumption of a supra-national parliament or currency.

    The move in the world is to smaller nimbler states that are highly cohesive and loosely coupled so they can respond flexibly to circumstances in a rapidly changing world. The EU is the exact opposite.

    The EU is yesterday’s solution and it hasn’t worked.

  2. I totally agree with you that ‘It may be that we decide it’s in our interest to let anyone who wants to come here to work do so, but it should be a decision for the national government to make, and they should be free to impose limits if that’s in the best interests of the nation.’ The free movement of labour across the EU, and increasingly within the negotiated FTAs, was/is intended to benefit the ‘owners’ of the means of production, not the ‘workers’.

    However, this is only one aspect of the ‘single’ market which was not designed to the benefit of the peoples of Europe. There is an opaqueness and lack of democracy at the top, as seen in the installation of ex-Goldman Sachs’ technocrats in Greece and Italy… the MEPs have wriggle-room only within the constraints of the GATTS/WTO rules. There is an ideological determination for ‘liberalisation’ and federalisation against the wishes of the individual populations. The current set-up is anti-democratic, and increasingly post-democratic.

    Immigration may indeed be beneficial to GDP but ‘GDP’ can hide a multitude of sins. I am of the left and want close co-operation/solidarity with our neighbours and ordinary people across the globe, but I totally reject the current EU structure. And as for the madness of the Euro and EZ .. Professor Bill Mitchell demolishes the economic arguments brilliantly

  3. A useful side-effect of leaving could be the re-homing of the major powers you’ve outlined in point 1 – we would in effect be forced to have the debates in the open again. The presence of this monolithic EU has meant that the democratic scope in UK elections has been limited, with the left not bothering to engage the public in arguments already won.
    Of course, if the government continue with the sleight of hand, backed by non-coverage agreements in the media, then this could be a massive problem – but it would at least be our problem to fix.

  4. On further consideration, when the most likely outcome is for the whole of the UK to be evn-more beholden to the City, and when we are just concerned citizens of an insane Wild-West town on the edge of Europe, then to get out now would be madness.
    We need to sort our own democracy out first, and with renewed confidence we can then start the brave new world Neil outlines above.

  5. I object to the way floods of EU legislation is roller-coasted instantly, so you only find out about the new laws when you have fallen foul of them. Our own slow cumbersome method of passing legislation for all its faults means there has been public exposure and debate and a chance to mount resistance against laws we do not want.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s