A profound choice

This referendum is the most momentous decision we will take in our lifetimes. The Referendum should be hinging on big questions like our national identity, who governs us and how do we see our place in the world for the next 40 years. There should also be a clear understanding of what the EU's purpose and aims are and whether we share those aims. Perhaps the most succinct statement on this was provided by Francois Hollande, in an exchange with Nigel Farage last Autumn "Do you really want to participate in a common state?"

The EU's aim is a single European State

There should be no doubt that the purpose of the EU is to create a single European state, governed from Brussels, absorbing formerly independent and autonomous nation states. But don't just take my word for it. Here's some quotes from European politicians over the years:

"We have sown a seed... Instead of a half-formed Europe, we have a Europe with a legal entity, with a single currency, common justice, a Europe which is about to have its own defence. " — Valery Giscard d'Estaing, President of the EU Convention, presenting the final draft of the EU Constitution, 13th June 2003

"The proposals in the original constitutional treaty are practically unchanged. They have simply been dispersed through old treaties in the form of amendments. Why this subtle change? Above all, to head off any threat of referenda by avoiding any form of constitutional vocabulary!" — Valéry Giscard d'Estaing, 2007, referring to the the Lisbon Treaty achieving the aims of the rejected EU constitution

"The Constitution is the capstone of a European Federal State." — Guy Verhofstadt, then Belgian Prime Minister, now an MEP.

"The European Union is a state under construction." — Elmar Brok, Chairman of the European Parliament’s Committee on Foreign Affairs

"Of course the European Commission will one day become a government, the EU council a second chamber and the European Parliament will have more powers." — German Chancellor Angela Merkel addressing MEPs,  November 2012.

"We need a true political union ... we need to build a United States of Europe with the Commission as government and two chambers - the European Parliament and a "Senate" of Member States ... European Parliament elections are more important than national elections ... This will be our best weapon against the Eurosceptics." — Viviane Reding, Vice-President of the European Commission, January 2014

“For my children’s future I dream, think and work for the United States of Europe” — Matteo Renzi, Italian Prime Minister, May 2014

Also, we have our very own Kenneth Clarke, in a rare moment of honesty from a British pro-EU politician:

 "I look forward to the day when the Westminster Parliament is just a council chamber in Europe." — Kenneth Clarke, Conservative Chancellor in International Currency Review Vol 23 No 4 1996 

This is reinforced by the proposals for the next EU treaty, The Fundamental Law of the European Union, published by the federalist Spinelli Group of MEPs, through the Bertelsmann  house in late 2013. The pre-amble contains a a telling paragraph:

"This proposal for a Fundamental Law of the European Union is a comprehensive revision of the Treaty of Lisbon (2007). Replacing the existing treaties, it takes a major step towards a federal union. It turns the European Commission into a democratic constitutional government, keeping to the method built by Jean Monnet in which the Commission drafts laws which are then enacted jointly by the Council,representing the states, and the European Parliament, representing the citizens. All the reforms proposed are aimed at strengthening the capacity of the EU to act."

Nor should anyone believe that this is a recent development. The EU was always conceived as a vehicle for supra-national federal union, dating right back to its founding organisation, the European Coal & Steel Community (ECSC) established in 1951:

"Through the consolidation of basic production and the institution of a new High Authority, whose decisions will bind France, Germany and the other countries that join, this proposal represents the first concrete step towards a European federation .."  — The Schuman declaration May 1950

"By the signature of this Treaty, the participating Parties give proof of their determination to create the first supranational institution and that thus they are laying the true foundation of an organised Europe.” — Europe Declaration made on 18 April 1951, at the signing of the Treaty of Paris establishing the ECSC

Supra-national EU erodes national sovereignty

Perhaps the biggest mis-conception in the public mind  is to confuse the EU with other international organisations.  Nothing could be further from the truth.

Organisations such as the UN, NATO, WTO, the Commonwealth and the myriad of organisations making international regulations / standards (e.g. UNECE, Codex Alimentarius, ILO) are inter-governmental. They are based on bi-lateral or multi-lateral agreements between sovereign governments as equals or partners. These agreements will include specific and limited obligations and commitments entered into freely for mutual benefit between the partners (e.g. Nato's mutual defence clause, trade agreements that open markets etc).   Nations are free to co-operate, form alliances and partnerships on an issue by issue basis. Decision making is based on consensus, voluntary opt-in and allows for opt-out or right of reservation. For example, NATO does not have majority voting: each nation makes its own decision regarding military action and is free to leave inside one year under a recognised process - as France did in the 1960's .

The EU is uniquely a supra-national union. The EU treaties create over-arching legislative, executive, and judicial authorities.  Powers or competencies are passed from the member states to the union, and the union then exercises power in these competencies in a sovereign manner. Hence the obligations and commitments made by member states are essentially open-ended. The relationship is hierarchical rather than multi-lateral, as member states are subordinate to the union.  The member states are fixed in a permanent alliance with each other and the Union will tend to represent the member states in international forums. Decision making is by majority rather than allowing voluntary opt-in or right of reservation. If the pro-EU camp are to be believed, leaving the EU is so complicated and fraught as to be practically impossible - although they would wish us to believe that so as to deny us a Leave option.

The argument is often made that there is no such thing as absolute sovereignty. It is certainly true that (i) national decisions are constrained by considerations for neighbours, allies and  other inter-national factors (ii)  joining & co-operating with allies is often necessary.  This of course has always been the case. Sovereignty is not unfettered power, it is the ability to choose our path/allies/commitments and accept the consequences.  But it is clear that membership of the supra-national EU means that we increasingly pass decision making to the EU and are unable to choose our allies from around the globe - that is real loss of sovereignty.

EU institutions & democratic deficit

As indicated by Angela Merkel, Vivian Reding and many others, the EU's political institutions mirror that of a state. There are 2 revising chambers: the EU Parliament representing the peoples of Europe and the and EU council representing the members states.  The EU commission is referred to as a "supreme government" by European federalists but as "just a civil service" by UK Remain campaigners trying to downplay their significance. In fact the EU commission is both civil service AND government.  It has sole power to initiate and propose new or amended legislation (as supreme government) and also undertakes the drafting of all legislation (like a civil service). Commissioners are appointed by national governments and swear an oath of loyalty to the EU.

The European Court of Justice acts as a supreme court for ruling on the EU treaties and EU law. The Lisbon treaty also includes the Charter of Fundamental Rights & Human Rights legislation as general principles of EU law (Article 6). Asylum Law is also included in EU law via Article 18 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. Recent UK government proposals to amend the European Communities Act 1972 and assert Parliament as sovereign were abandoned. The supremacy of European Union Law was established as long ago as 1963, in the "van Gend en Loos" case and subsequent ECJ case history increases the scope of EU judicial supremacy.

This institutional structure is essentially the one proposed by Arthur Salter in his 1931 publication "The United States of Europe", based on the League of Nations (which had a Secretariat, Council of Ministers, Assembly & Court). Crucially, Salter proposed a Secretariat as a permanent body of international civil servants, loyal to the new organisation (not to the member countries) and with supreme authority over national ministers. Salter also suggested splitting up member states into regions to further erode nationalism - all in the name of peace and avoiding further Franco-German conflict. Salter's close friend and former colleague at the League of Nations, Jean Monnet, adopted this blueprint for the EU's fore-runner (the ECSC).

The EU suffers from democratic deficit, not just because of these institutions but also due to the lack of a European identity, or "demos". The EU commission recognised this issue in its white paper on European governance in 2001. Citizens of the member states see democracy in terms of national issues and vote accordingly. There is a continuing decline in turnout for EU parliamentary elections. But what emerges from the white paper is not a proposal to empower the people, or return powers to member states, but an approach to undermine existing national institutions and "europeanise" them. You can read a well-researched  critique of this white paper here  (ghost-written by Dr R North for a younger Nigel Farage before he became pre-occupied with immigration).

It seems clear that there is simply no room for national democratic self-government in the EU. The EU is built upon a plan dating from 1931, when many intellectuals preferred rule by technocrats and had little confidence in democracy. Its anti-democratic nature is hard-wired.

EU's growing competencies erode national governance

The EU's competences, or powers, are defined in Articles 2-6 of the The Treaty of the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) and represents a large range of powers already transferred from the UK:

• The UK  has no power to act in exclusive competences such as commercial/trade policy, tariffs, competition rules etc. 
• The UK can only act in shared competences where the EU has not (yet) legislated. The UK's scope is increasingly restricted as the EU increases its activities. For example, an Energy Union is currently being planned. The UK has a general opt-out of Security & Justice, with 31 specific opt-ins for measures such as the European Arrest Warrant.
• The UK's economic, employment and social policy must fall within EU guidelines and co-ordinate with other member states policies. Despite the € opt-out, the UK is still subject to the EU's competence on economic policy which aims to achieve convergence for monetary union. 
• Even in areas where the UK is not prevented from acting, it is not free from EU actions in the same field to implement programs, conduct common policy or supplement the UK's actions. 

The EU also has competence for external affairs, specifically to "define and implement a common foreign and security policy, including the progressive framing of a common defence policy." This policy is defined and implemented by the European Council (Heads of State) and the Foreign Affairs Council (consisting of Foreign, Defence & overseas aid ministers) acting unanimously. So the UK retains a veto (with some exceptions as defined in Article 31). However, the direction of travel is clear:

• The Lisbon treaty established: (i) the "High Representative of Foreign Affairs", essentially the EU's foreign minister; (ii) the European External Action Service (EEAS), essentially the EU's foreign ministry and diplomatic corps. 
• Lord Owen, the former foreign secretary, in a recent speech noted "the range and the activity of the EEAS are inexorably increasing  and so is its cost ... At every stage this creep is resisted by the British government initially and then absorbed. Meanwhile we have seen substantive cuts in the budget of the Foreign Office". 
• There have been many european voices (including President Juncker) calling for an EU army, an EU Defence Union and so on. A highly-informed and balanced analysis on Defence and Brexit can be found at ThinkDefence blog. While he sees little change in the short to medium term, he concludes "the question we should be dealing with, do we want a single EU state with a single EU Navy, Army and Air Force? ... The long term points to ever closer political, and that means military, union."

The EU usurps national representation in international organisations

But perhaps the most dramatic and least understood loss of national power is the way the EU increasingly usurps the role of national governments on the international stage.  The UK is increasingly bound by common policies and the requirements of Article 34, which as a recent blog by LostLeonardo explains, means the loss of influence, vote and right of reservation in international organisations.

With legal identity secured by the Lisbon Treaty, the EU is  keen to upgrade its "limited status" in "organisations and fora where important decisions are taken" (see Vice-President Ashton's Strategy communication to the Commission, dated 20.12.2012). The implication is that member states will be reduced to passive observers and in the fullness of time lose representation entirely. The EU has already assumed competence in the International Maritime Organisation, with predictably negative results (See Pete North Politics blog). Britain is the world's No.2 in services provision, but we have no national representation at the  Trade in Services Agreement (TiSA) negotiations, unlike EFTA states Norway & Switzerland, unlike Commonwealth allies Canada, Australia & New Zealand.

The direction of travel is clear. The UK will end up with as much influence on the international stage as Texas or California.

Conclusion - The honest Referendum choice

Voting to Remain is not a simple "stay as you are option". As Allister Heath states in the Telegraph: "Comfortable, middle-class voters who are considering sticking with the devil they believe they know need to think again. Voting to remain is a far greater leap into the unknown than voting to leave. It’s self-evidently normal to be independent and prosperous: just look at America, Australia, Canada or Singapore. But there are no known examples of a previously independent democracy being subsumed into a dysfunctional, economically troubled technocracy and doing well as a result. As mad gambles go, it is hard to think of anything worse."

We need to recognise the EU for what it is - a political project to create a single state, governed by bureaucracy/technocracy instead of by democracy (the consent of the people). The Referendum can be boiled down to one very simple choice : Should Britain be a self-governing nation, trading and co-operating with nations in Europe and around the world ? Or should Britain be subsumed into an undemocratic United States of Europe ?

Single Market - UK trade with EU

In a series of posts, I'm aiming to discuss the "Single Market", one of the major topics of  the EU Referendum.  In this post, I will be looking at UK trade with the EU.

UK Exports as a proportion of UK economy

The Office for National Statistics (ONS) has analysed the importance of the UK's trade relationship with the EU , which shows for the year 2014:
- UK exports to EU = £227 billion (44.65% of total exports)
- UK exports to non-EU = £281 billion (55.35% of total exports)

However, the ONS figures overstate the real level of UK exports to the rest of the EU, due to 2 separate distortions:
- "Rotterdam-Antwerp Effect" where exports destined for non-EU countries are routed via the ports of Rotterdam or Antwerp and so are recorded as exports to Netherlands or Belgium,
- "Netherlands Distortion", where investments and subsequent income are channeled through  "brass-plate" holding companies for tax purposes by investors domiciled in other countries.

The ONS have not attempted to estimate these effects, but have made reference to these distortions in recent bulletins.  The think tank Global Britain have analysed the effect of these distortions and estimated that over 11% of the trade recorded as exports to the EU was in fact exports to the Rest of the World, which would suggest that the share of UK exports is more likely to be:
- UK exports to EU ~40%
- UK exports to non-EU ~60%

The ONS "Composition of Demand" statistics for 2013 show that UK exports contribute 23% to the UK economy.  Based on this, we can estimate that the contribution to the UK economy from UK exports to EU as 40% x 23% = 9.2%.

UK Trade Deficit with EU

The ONS figures for 2014 show a UK trade deficit with the EU of £61 billion, i.e. we bought more goods/services from EU states than EU states buy from us.  In fact, a trade deficit has been an enduring feature since the UK joined the then common market in 1973 (despite having been in trade surplus with Europe during the 1950's and 60's). The table below is based on ONS statistics and has been extracted from Business for Britains "Change or Go" document. 

This deficit has widened appreciably in recent years, due in part to the on-going Euro crisis, which is depressing demand from most Eurozone states and providing an artificial boost to German export competitiveness.

Although the UK has historically recorded a trade in goods deficit with the EU, its trade in services balance with the EU is much more favorable, running a surplus in each year since 2005, which reached £15.4 billion in 2014.  While the Single Market was theoretically implemented in 1992, there is unfortunately still no effective single market in services and little progress is being made to remove trade barriers in services - which is a particular disadvantage to the UK (ranked number 2 in services globally after the USA).

UK Trade with Rest of the World

By contrast, the UK's trade with the Rest of the World is typically in balance or surplus, as per the ONS seasonally adjusted chart for 2015 Q2 in the diagram at the top of this page.  UK exports have been re-orienting away from the EU and towards the Rest of the World since before the millennium, reflecting the fact that the EU is a declining market place in the world, down to 17% of Global GDP and forecast to fall further.  Global markets provide the best prospects for UK trade growth and trade balance.

Insider Advantage ?

It is an oft-repeated claim that membership of the EU gives the UK an essential trade advantage. However, a detailed analysis of UK export figures 1960 - 2012  (undertaken by Michael Burrage for the cross-party think tank Civitas) shows no positive impact on UK trade with other members. Britain's trade with other EU nations accounts for no more of its trade with all leading economies than it did on joining the European Economic Community in 1973; UK exports to non-EU nations Iceland, Norway and Switzerland have increased enormously over the same period.

".. evidence presented above contradicts again and again those who wish to claim that the UK has enjoyed an insider advantages in the Single Market. The growth of UK exports to other founder members was low when compared with UK exports prior to its launch, low when compared with the exports of goods of 27 non-members to the other founder members of the Single Market, and low when compared with the exports of services of 21 non-members to the other founder members. It was also low when compared with UK exports of goods and services to non-member countries. There was therefore no prima facie evidence that the UK enjoyed any insider advantage, and therefore no obvious place to look for it."

"It is similarly hard to accept the idea that there are disadvantages to non-membership, since the exports of goods and services to the EU of so many ‘voiceless’ and ‘powerless’ nations, both developed and less developed, who had never been ‘at the table’ or even ‘in the overflow room’, have grown faster than those of the UK."

Conclusions

It would be wrong to suggest that the UK's trade deficit is entirely due to membership of the EU. The UK has historically suffered from lower productivity, skills levels and investment compared with the likes of France, Germany, Netherlands etc. UK governments have shown themselves quite capable of pursuing damaging policies without assistance from Brussels.

Nor is trade with the EU the fount of all prosperity that it is often portrayed as.  UK exports to the EU contribute less than one tenth to UK GDP - as per calculations above and in line with a 1999 report from the National Institute of Economic and Social Research (NIESR) which looked at how many jobs were linked to trade with the EU.

The myth of "one-in-ten / 3 million jobs at risk" derives from the 1999 NIESR report.  As reported in the Telegraph, Britain in Europe (campaigners for UK to join the Euro) used this report in 2000 to claim that these jobs "depend on the EU".  Dr Martin Weale, the director of the NIESR, was so outraged by this misuse of his study that he called it “pure Goebbels”, and said “In many years of academic research I cannot recall such a wilful distortion of the facts.”  His report had in fact concluded that almost all of these jobs would exist whether Britain were a member of the EU or not.

The political reality is that it will be in everyone's interest to ensure continuity of trade.  If 3m jobs are at risk in the UK, then 5m jobs are at risk in the EU (given the UK's trade deficit with the EU). Furthermore, trade is now incredibly inter-dependent.  For example, the UK manufactures and exports car engines which are often incorporated into German cars subsequently imported to the UK. Complex international supply chains are at the heart of modern commerce.  An abrupt halt to trade between EU and UK would risk a "cardiac arrest" for international trade.

The key question is does trade with the EU have to entail integration in the political structures of the EU ? There are many trade blocks around the world (e.g. NAFTA, ASEAN etc), but only the EU requires political union of its members and removes the right of veto.  Fortunately, membership of the European Union and participation in the Single Market are not one and the same, as we will explore in a subsequent post.

Foundation of the EU - Supra-national not Inter-national

In this post,  I will try to briefly highlight the foundation of the EU and in particular the tension between the "Supra- national" EU and British preference for "Inter-national" co-operation (i.e. an "Intergovernmental" approach).  Once again, I have gleaned this primarily from “The Great Deception” written by Christopher Booker and Dr Richard North –  available to download as a PDF here.

An "intergovernmental" organisation is based on self-governing nation states co-operating willingly - the participating nations states remain independent and autonomous.   By contrast, a "supranational" organisation sits above nation-states - powers and decision making are transferred from participating state to the "supranational" organisation.

Post-war International Co-operation

In the aftermath of World War Two, Britain was at the forefront of international co-operation that led to the founding of many "inter-governmental" institutions, including: 

• United Nations - the successor to the League of Nations, but this time with participation of the USA;
• World Bank & International Monetary Fund (IMF) - to avoid another financial crash that led to the Depression; 
• General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) - to lower tariffs world-wide and avoid the protectionism that prolonged the Depression and also to promote free trade.  GATT was superseded in 1995 by the World Trade Organisation (WTO), another "intergovernmental" organisation to promote free trade around the globe. 

Britain's Intergovernmental Approach to Europe

Contrary to views commonly held today, Britain also played a leading role in the European arena in the post-war world, pursuing an “Intergovernmental” co-operation and “Free Trade” agenda:

• The “Council of Europe”, an intergovernmental organisation proposed by Churchill (1946) and brought into existence by the 1949 Treaty of London.  This organisation was by-passed by Monnet in setting-up the European Coal and Steel Community in 1951.  Nevertheless, Britain signed an agreement of ‘association’ with the European Coal and Steel Community in 1954, with a commitment to friendly co-operation.
• Britain led the creation of the Western European Union (WEU) an "Intergovernmental" organisation and military alliance to provide mutual defence.
• The Organisation of European Economic Co-operation (OEEC) was formed in 1948 to administer the distribution of Marshall Aid.  At the insistence of Britain, Sweden and Switzerland  this was a strictly ‘Intergovernmental’ organisation, controlled by a ‘Council of Ministers’ making decisions on the basis of unanimity. 
• Britain & Ludwig Erhard (German Minister of Economics and "Father of the German economic miracle") proposed using the OEEC as the infrastructure for a Free Trade Area Common Market 
• When this proposal for a Free Trade Area Common Market was rejected, Britain led the creation of the "Intergovernmental" European Free Trade Area (EFTA) – established by the Stockholm Convention in Jan 1960 it comprised 7 countries: Britain, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Switzerland, Austria & Portugal.
• Britain promoted intergovernmental co-operation in a wide range of fields.  For example, in civil aviation (where it was a world leader) : Eurocontrol was agreed in 1960 and provided a Europe-wide system of air navigation safety; the Supersonic Transport Aircraft Committee was established which eventually led to the building of Concorde.

Monnet's Supranational Europe

Britain's "Intergovernmental" approach to Europe was an anathema to Monnet, characterised by his verdict on the OEEC "the OEEC’s nothing: it’s only a watered-down British approach to Europe – talk, consultation, action only by unanimity".  At the end of the 1940’s Jean Monnet renewed efforts to establish a “Supranational” United States of Europe based on the model described by Salter - in diametric opposition to Britain's approach.

A hallmark of Monnet's approach was to use a "beneficial crisis" and then advance his ideas via a public advocate.  In spring 1950, French demands regarding West Germany's coal & steel industries were the "beneficial crisis" and Robert Schuman, the French Minister of Foreign Affairs was his advocate.  On 9 May 1950, Schuman made a declaration (prepared by Jean Monnet) proposing integration of the French and German coal and steel industries: 

"Through the consolidation of basic production and the institution of a new High Authority, whose decisions will bind France, Germany and the other countries that join, this proposal represents the first concrete step towards a European federation ...."

The European Coal & Steel Community (ECSC) was founded by the Treaty of Paris in 1951 when The Six members states (France, West Germany, Italy and the 3 Benelux states) handed over control of their steel and coal industries to this new “supranational” organisation.   “Qualified Majority Voting” was used in the Council of Ministers.  Jean Monnet became the first President of the “High Authority”.

Monnet then proposed a ‘Supranational’ European Defence Community (EDC), with a European Army run by a European minister of Defence and Council of Ministers, a common budget and common arms procurement policy.  Rene Pleven (French Prime Minister) was the public advocate, but the initiative met with sustained opposition and eventually failed.  Consequently, Britain led in the creation of the "Intergovernmental" WEU to provide mutual defence.  It is worth noting that from 2000, the WEU’s capabilities were transferred to the EU and the WEU was wound up in 2011 - there have since been fresh moves within the EU to create a Single European Army.

In response to the rejection of the EDC, there was a change of tactics: the language was changed with phrases such as “European Government” and “Federal” being avoided; as exemplified by the Francois Duchene quote at the start of this blog.  Political integration was to now proceed under the guise of economic integration.

Monnet resigned as President of the High Authority and began work on "economic" integration. Paul-Henri Spaak (Belgian Foreign Minister) composed The “Benelux Memorandum” (based on a draft by Monnet) which called for a Common Market including integration of transport, energy, nuclear energy and social legislation.  Tellingly, the phrase “United States of Europe” in the original draft was removed to give more emphasis to the idea of an “economic community”.

Spaak rejected Britain & Ludwig Erhard's suggestion of a Free Trade Area using the existing OEEC governance, as it  ‘offered no prospect of a European political union’.  Instead, the Common Market was implemented as a Customs Union with a common external tariff wall erected against non-members – i.e. focussing on integration within the European Economic Community rather than an expansion of free trade. 

The Common Market treaty was signed in 1957 in Rome.  Although commonly believed to be a purely economic agreement, the Treaty pre-amble includes the declaration to ‘lay the foundations of an ever-closer union among the peoples of Europe’. 

Subsequent treaties have continued the transfer of powers from the member states to the “Supranational” EU.  Executive power is held by the European Commission, the equivalent to Salter’s “Secretariat”, a body of civil servants who owe loyalty to the EU, not member states.  Most decisions are via Qualified Majority Voting, i.e. national vetoes have been mostly eliminated.   Just as Salter & Monnet envisaged. 

Conclusion

There is a historic difference between the "Supra-national" nature of the EU and Britain's preference for "Inter-national" co-operation, which helps explain why the UK has never felt comfortable inside the EU and why the UK is often seen as the “awkward” member. 

It should also be understood that the EU is something of an anomaly as the only recognised Supranational Union in the world.  By contrast,  the "intergovernmental" organisations created after WW2 are still the dominant global institutions, i.e. UN, NATO (which has been the cornerstone of Europe's defence & security for almost 70 years), IMF & World Bank (which still underpin the world's financial systems) and GATT / WTO, which has been the major force enabling Global trade.  Crucially, the WTO along with a plethora of other "intergovernmental" institutions (e.g. UNECE, ILO, Codex Alimentarus etc) is driving the emerging Global Single Market which has effectively made the EU redundant as a law-maker for the Single Market.

Fundamentally, the choice for Britain in the Referendum is the same as it has been for the last 65 years: 

• Should Britain "Trade and Co-operate" with nations across the Globe  as a self-governing nation-state ? (i.e. an "Inter-governmental" approach)
• Should Britain commit to a "Supra-national" EU, where the EU sits above the member states (as a form of Government of Europe) and where the EU represents the member states around the world ?

Origins of the EU - An Old Idea

In this post,  I will try to briefly highlight the origins of the EU.  I cannot take any credit for the information, I have gleaned this primarily from “The Great Deception” written by Christopher Booker and Dr Richard North – a meticulously researched and detailed account of the European project.  I regard this book as essential reading for anyone who wishes make an informed decision at the EU referendum.  This book is available to download as a PDF here.

It is commonly believed that the concept of the European Union developed following World War II.  In fact, the essential ideas of the European Union emerged as a response to the horrors of the Great War, for example: 

·     Federal Europe or “United States of Europe”  based on the Amercian model, e.g.:.Giovanni Agnelli published ‘European Federation or League of Nations’ in 1918, the Pan Europa movement founded in 1922, Aristide Briand (French Prime minister) published ‘Memorandum on a European Federal Union’ in 1930.

·     Coal & Steel Union to transfer industries crucial to waging war from nations to a “higher authority” and as a first step to establishing a “United States of Europe”, e.g.: Louis Loucheur (French Armaments minister 1917/8, Minister of Finance 1925/6); Pan Europa; “International Steel Agreement” brokered in 1925.

·     Customs Union or Common Market as a means to achieving economic integration leading to Federation e.g.: Sir Max Waechter (1924); French economist Charles Gide, supported by Pan Europa (1924); Louis Loucheur (1927).

·     Franco-German Collaboration Aristide Briand & Gustav Stresemann (German Foreign minister) shared the 1926 Nobel Peace prize for their work on the Treaty of Locarno (which guaranteed mutual security for France and German) and championed Franco-German economic collaboration and a “United States of Europe”.

However, it was two close friends & senior officials in the League of Nations, the Frenchman Jean Monnet and his British colleague Arthur Salter, who did most to provide a blueprint for the future European Union:

• During his term as the League of Nations deputy-secretary general (1920-23), Monnet became frustrated by member states power of veto and became committed to the idea of an entirely new ‘supra-national’ form of government, beyond the control of national governments, politicians or electorates.
• In 1931, Salter published ‘The United States of Europe’ proposing that the method used to unify Germany in the 19^th century should be used to create a United Europe, i.e. by establishing a Zollverein or  ‘common market’, funded by a common tariff on all goods imported from outside with “a political instrument to determine how the distribution [of those funds] should be made”.
• Salter also proposed an institutional structure based on the League of Nations, with a “Secretariat” as the central source of authority – a permanent body of international civil servants, loyal to the new organisation  (not to the member countries) – essentially government by “Supranational” bureaucracy.

At the heart of these initiatives was an attempt to bind Europe together politically and economically, particularly France & Germany, to avoid another war.  As Churchill put it :

“…the aim of ending the thousand-year strife between France and Germany seemed a supreme object. If only we could weave Gaul and Teuton so closely together economically, socially and morally as to prevent the occasion of new quarrels and make old antagonisms die in the realisation of mutual prosperity and interdependence, Europe would rise again.”

Ultimately, these initiatives failed to prevent World War 2. Nationalist resentment in Germany at the terms imposed by France at Versailles combined with the Wall Street Crash and ensuing Depression provided the platform for Hitler’s rise to power. The world that emerged after World War 2 was a very different one:

• Britain was at the forefront of international co-operation that led to the founding of many institutions: the United Nations; the World Bank & International Monetary Fund (to avoid another Depression); General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) (to the avoid the protectionism that prolonged the Depression).
• Germany underwent dramatic changes.  Prussian militarism was extinguished by the humiliation of Allied occupation and shame as the Nazi's deeds were fully exposed.  The “Wirtschaftswunder” or "economic miracle" ensured a successful social democracy was established in West Germany.
• The Cold War dramatically altered the political landscape.  Germany was split in two (East & West); Western European nations were bound together by the common threat of the Soviet Union and NATO was formed; the Soviet Union became a nuclear power in 1949, ushering in the threat of nuclear Armageddon and “Mutually Assured Destruction”.

In the late 1940’s,  Jean Monnet renewed efforts to establish a “Supranational” United States of Europe, establishing the European Coal & Steel Community (ECSC) in 1951, culminating in the European Economic Community (EEC) established by the Treaty of Rome in 1957, based on the blueprint provided by Salter in 1931.  

However, given the changed reality of the post-war world, was this idea still relevant ? If the ECSC and EEC had not been created in the 1950’s, is it really possible to believe that a new European war would have erupted ? Was the EEC any guarantee of peace in the Cold War between the two super-powers (USA & USSR), which reached a near-disastrous climax during the Cuban Missile crisis ? If NATO had not been formed and the USA had returned to its inter-war "isolationism" would peace have been sustained in Europe and the Soviet threat countered simply because of the formation of the ECSC and EEC ?  If the answer to these questions is no, then it begs the ultimate question :  why do we need a "Supranational" United  States of Europe, a government of unelected bureaucrats with power over nation states ?