You are in:
- EURSOC » Feedback
Reader's Comments
The Independent, obviously rattled by the scale of Britain's anti-EU vote, published a list of how the UK would suffer if we were to withdraw from the European Union.
EURSOC reader Jon Livesey saw through some of the Indie's points right away: The Independent's claims in Italics, Jon's in plain text below.
"British holidaymakers have the right to free health care in any member state with the E111 form."
Yes, and Europeans have the right to free healthcare in the UK, so this is a wash.
"Withdrawal from the European Union would reverse fundamental employment and social welfare rights that UK citizens have enjoyed for more than 30 years."
"Reverse"? Why? These rights are enacted in UK law, so they would not be reversed unless we elected a Parliament with a mandate to do so.
"Workers would be unable to bring sex, race or disability claims against their employers."
Same fallacy. The rights are enacted in UK law. Nothing changes.
"The 48-hour working week, regular breaks between shifts and a minimum 11-hour rest between shifts would also be obsolete. There would no longer be a statutory four-weeks annual holiday."
And again. We can enact or not enact any rights we wish.
"British businesses enjoy tariff-free access to the largest market in the world; 55 per cent of the UK's trade is with the EU. Every year the UK imports £129bn worth of goods from its EU partners and exports £105bn to them; the total is more than half of all our global trade."
So in addition to the $10-20bn we pay them in VAT, we actually run a $24bn trade deficit with the EU. This is a benefit?
"We need the EU more than it needs us: 9.5 per cent of the UK economy is trade with the rest of the EU; the reverse figure is 2.4 per cent."
What a beautiful little fallacy. 9.5% of our single economy versus 2.4% of their joint economy. That says nothing at all about who needs who more.
The real deal here would be that without EU barriers to trade, we would immediately be able to import low-cost products from outside the EU. We would stop being implicated in the EU push to raise living costs in order to support inefficient European producers, and would become truly part of the world-wide economy once more.
"If Britain withdrew, businesses would have to obey EU regulations to trade with Europe, without power to amend them."
Just as we have to obey US regulations to trade with the US, Japanese to trade with Japan...
"An army of lawyers and two or three full parliamentary terms would be needed to disentangle Britain from Europe. No one has any idea of the cost."
Whatever it is, I'll happily pay my share. (Editor's note: Britain is no stranger to long and expensive legal processes - at least this one would have an end in sight.)
"The Government would have to repeal hundreds of EU directives in UK law."
Who says? Notice the contradiction that we "have to obey EU regulations to trade" with "We have to repeal EU directives".
"Britain would have to recall its judges from the European Court of Justice, losing a forum for settling arguments."
A forum that mostly rules against us. Sounds like a positive benefit.
"There are more than 200 EU laws on the environment, ranging from recycling to clean beaches."
None of which we are capable of figuring out on our own, of course. What do we have Greens for, if not to push this kind of thing?
"The cost of electricity to consumers fell by 6.5 per cent between 1996 and 2001."
Due to the EU, or due to privatization and competition? (Editor's note: French electricity bills from state-dominated giant EDF-GDF are two to three times higher than British bills.)
"The European Commission has taken action against the British Government over customs officers stopping travellers bringing unlimited amounts of alcohol and tobacco for their own use into the UK."
So the EU supports legalised smuggling? And what's the cost to the NHS of these "unlimited amounts of alcohol and tobacco?"
"Withdrawal would exclude Britain from future peace-keeping in crisis-hit regions."
No, only from EU peacekeeping, which is pretty ineffective. We'd still be in on NATO and UK/US operations.
"Contracts for military hardware, including the troubled Eurofighter, would be threatened, as would thousands of jobs."
Another blessing in disguise. We're currently locked into buying a ten-year late, out of date aircraft designed to counter a Soviet threat that no longer exists. If Eurofighter came to an end, we could use the money to double our purchase of the JSF, gaining more influence on a UK/US project, and gaining access to more up-to-date technology, as well as having a larger share in an aircraft that has much more export potential than the Eurofighter will ever have.
Keep your letters coming - we are always delighted to hear from EURSOC readers.
Please email us at eursoc-at-noos.fr with your comments, replacing 'at' with '@'.
Any emails sent to EURSOC addresses are assumed to be for publication unless the sender specifies otherwise.
Please note that we have changed our policy and now publish reader's names along with their letters. Please tell us if you prefer that we do not publish your name.
We reserve the right to shorten emails for reasons of space and legibility.
Views published on these pages are not necessarily shared by EURSOC contributors.
