06/05/2014
A 39-year-old argument is aired by Michael Burrage, writing for
Civitas, and reviewed by the
BBC. This is the one raised by Harold Wilson in the run-up to the 1975 referendum, when he claimed that, inside the Common Market we would "remain part of the worldâs most powerful trading
bloc", and "help to fix the terms of world trade. Outside, he said, "we are on our own".
This is an enduring argument, based on whether participation in the Single Market has been advantageous to the UK. It is this which Burrage addresses, and he does it well, coming to the conclusion that EU membership has not given the UK any "insider advantages" in trade with other European countries.
Burrage finds that trade with EU partner nations makes up no more of the UK's trade with all top economies now than it did when it first joined the EEC in 1973. Furthermore, the benefit of collectively negotiated EU free trade deals is questioned.
As one might expect, the government says the EU share of UK trade has remained consistent because of a huge growth in other markets. In other words, trade with our partners has increased, but trade with non EU members has increased as well. And there, one can argue, that increase came because the UK was part of the EU.
Says the BBC, digging in the knife and twisting it, the Burrrage view also seems to contradict analysis by the Confederation of British Industry, which indeed it does. The CBI would have it that the streets of the Brussels-designed market are paved with gold.
The point, though, it is doesn't matter â should not matter, must not matter. This is not the battlefield on which we should fight. No matter how well Burrage frames his arguments, we cannot afford to get bogged down on the imponderables of whether participation in the Single Market is or is not beneficial.
In terms of the battle to come, we are ready to concede that the Single Market is vital to British interests â whether it is or isn't. Even if it isn't, pro temp we need to stay in it because there is no point in seeking an alternative until we are ready.
Crucially, what we must also do is sidestep the
Hannan prediction that the referendum will be fought on economic issues. In making that prediction, of course, Hannan demonstrates that he has not read
Flexcit, which is exactly what we would expect of him. Just as he never read
The Great Deception, he would never sully his brain with ideas from such a lowly source - especially if they are better than his.
When it comes down to it, though, Hannan has no more idea how to fight a referendum campaign than he does how to organise an exit strategy, relying as he does in the failing
Swiss option. But, between him and UKIP with its "Life On Mars" option, we would be in a pretty poor state if we were forced to rely on them.
It seems, one way or another, that some of the players are determined to lose any referendum we might be given â the very same people who are determined to ignore our "Flexcit" plan. They are incapable of realising that, as it stands, it is the only politically tenable option on offer.
Oddly enough, reading the accounts of the 1975 referendum again, it seems we are set to re-live history. Then the warring "eurosceptic" tribes were split over whether to fight on economic or sovereignty grounds, while none of them managed to come up with a credible alternative to EEC membership.
At least that bit of history is not going to be repeated. We have a credible plan in the making, and we have the internet to distribute and promote it. We are not reliant on the likes of Hannan or UKIP, and will be able to rely on real people forming their own opinions.
From that perspective, there is at least some hope, which is more than we could expect if we were to rely on traditional sources of information, and the deadly dogmas of closed minds.
FORUM THREAD
