UK referrendum on the EU? Highly risky...but highly necessary

I personally applaud the Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg on his bold campaign to hold a UK referrendum on our country's membership of the EU. This of course would be a highly decisive referrendum - with potenially critical consequences - but as Mr Clegg has aptly pointed out - debates on the EU have 'poisoned' British politics for too long and it is time for Britain to take a firm stance on whether or not its future lies with the EU. In a land rife with euroscepticism (largely fuelled by the all-powerful media), it could be argued that the pro-European Lib Dems are hoisting themselves by their own batard in to proposing such a major referrendum. The chances of a resounding 'no' are clear for all to see. So is it wishful thinking on the Lib Dems' part that when the nitty gritty of treaties and consolidated power are moved aside and the British people are asked to say 'yes' or 'no' to the EU per se, the 'yes' vote will win? Not necessarily... There are of course many arguments in favour of Britain's membership of the EU, and the vast majority of them can be effectively communicated to people in a clear, non-technical manner. Many of these arguments will be economic however and the great danger the Lib Dems face is a counter-campaign that advocates a withdrawal from the EU while remaining in the European Economic Area (EEA) - in other words - ditch the political aspects, but keep the economic benefits. It's easy to see how such an idea could be sold to the British people (indeed it already is), but it conceals a major flaw which must be flagged up by the Lib Dem campaign: in order to remain within the EEA, we would necessarily be subject to a whole host of EU laws (as are current EEA members like Norway and Iceland) - only we would no longer have our all important (and influential) voice in Brussels. Britain would have walked out with its tail between its legs, scraping at a closed door, confined to its island and marginalised in an ever-more globalised world where groupings matter.

A referrendum on the EU would therefore be a bold and risky move, but in stripping the EU debate to its fundamentals, there is chance that the Lib Dems and other EU supporters can reason with and win over the British public. All hands on deck!

For an EU based on subsidiarity

I was somewhat confused and alarmed by Arthur’s Grove’s letter in the WMN from 6 February (see below), which suggests that the vast majority of our MPs in Westminster should be made redundant. For a UKIP member to come out with such a statement strikes me as odd to say the least. Furthermore, the case he builds up against the EU is fundamentally flawed. Subsidiarity is one of the EU’s core principles. While Brussels has undoubtedly gained in influence and power in recent decades as the process of integration has evolved, the Commission has always supported the belief that matters should ideally be handled at the national or local level – hence why many EU laws are implemented as best seen by each individual country. In the world’s largest – and most successful – single market, a degree of standardization and centralization is of course necessary in order to protect our rights as individuals, consumers and businesses across the EU, but to suggest that our own national MPs are superfluous is a point any true believer in democracy will find ludicrous. As for Mr Grove's reference to “surrendering more of British self-government”, let me ask him this – would a withdrawal from the EU make us more free? Certainly not. Many Eurosceptics will doubtless point to Norway, Switzerland and other EFTA countries, who enjoy open trade with Europe, while remaining outside of the political project. Firstly, these countries have to succumb to a whole range of EU laws – the only difference being that they don’t have any real say on EU policy-making! Secondly, these countries may one day join the EU, and Brussels is eager to keep the door open and listen to them. If Britain were to decide to leave, I think the door would be slammed in our face, and we would be surrendering the most important tool of all – our voice in Europe – an asset which any sane economist will tell you we cannot afford to lose. ************* EU REMOVES NEED FOR SO MANY MPS Date : 06.02.08 With regard to Eric Sheppard's letter of January 22 about redundant MPs, I have noticed recently that increasing numbers of people are questioning the need to keep so many MPs at Westminster while at least 70 per cent of laws and directives controlling our lives come from decisions made in Brussels.On reading the excellent book by Richard North and Christopher Booker entitled The Great Deception - not matters of opinion, but historical facts researched in great depth and detail - I was both appalled and furious to learn of the devious methods and complete indifference to the masses shown by the architects of the European Union project. For example the people must be taken in by gradual stages so that they do not realise what is happening to them, and for some years National Parliaments would be left in being in order to lull the populace into thinking they are being governed by those elected to national Parliaments. The corrupt, wasteful system created is therefore in parallel with the devious methods of its creators. It is logical, therefore, to demand a larger reduction in the number of MPs; only a small number are now required to implement EU decisions, As Eric Sheppard states, "make the remainder redundant as they are now surplus to requirements". It is a situation of their own making, brought about by pursuing EU involvement and surrendering our once self-governing democracy, something which belongs to all of us, and is not for the politicians to give away. It is said that the pen is mightier than the sword, and this is shown to be correct. Our political class have undermined our identity and national pride by signing with the pen that which Hitler and other dictators could not achieve with the sword. I have just read Anthony Steen's comments about inadequate allowances for MPs. I suggest therefore that, as a representative of the Tory Party that has been responsible for surrendering more of British self-government to the EU than any other, from Heath to John Major, if he is not satisfied he should place himself among those who have made themselves redundant through EU involvement. Arthur GroveUKIP Newton Abbot