Memorandum to: Opinion Formers
From Lord Pearson of Rannoch
(Member, Lords Select Committee on the European Communities,
BETTER OFF OUT
It is widely feared that the United Kingdom
has become too insignificant to prosper outside the European
Union, (which we haven't - see points
56-57). We are told that we must therefore be ‘at the
heart of Europe’, and lead it into the paths of righteousness,
(which we can't - see points 8-11).
Most people also assume that the EU will safeguard peace in
Europe, (whereas it may have the reverse effect, see
point 28). Then all our leading politicians and media
say that the advantages of being in the EU are so obvious and
overwhelming that they refuse even to discuss what life might be
like outside it.
So, in an attempt to encourage national
debate on this greatest issue of our time, herewith some of the
case for the United Kingdom to leave the European Union, in 60
simple points, under the following headings:
- History – How did we stray into this
quicksand? (Points 1-12)
- How bad is it now? (Points
- What else do they have in store for us?
- Sixteen common misunderstandings. (Points
- Economics – will EMU fly? (Points
- 'Enlargement' – should the new
democracies of Eastern Europe join the EU? (Points
- The way forward: A Free Trade Agreement
with the EU, and independence. (Points 56-60)
Conclusion: "There is nothing
frightening, ‘extreme’, right-wing, or negative about
leaving the EU and keeping our hard-won right to govern
ourselves. It would be a liberating, positive thing to
do. And we would be very much richer as well."
Qualified Majority Votes
(in the Council of Ministers
from national governments)
members of the European Parliament
(which votes by simple
(who vote by simple
(of the 87 "QMV"s
62 votes are required to pass a law
and 26 votes are required to block one).
- History – How did we stray into
The post-war ideas which inspired
European integration are now obsolete. These were
largely (a) to resist the growing menace of the Soviet
Union, and (b) to stop Germany going to war again. (See
During the 1960s & '70s Britain
had two other reasons for wanting to join what was then
the European Common Market. These were (a) to emulate
Germany's industrial success and (b) as a hedge against
our far left taking power.1 These aims are now also
The 1957 Treaty Establishing the
European Community ("The Treaty of Rome") set
up the Common Market. From the start, this had as its
goal 'the ever closer union of the peoples of Europe'.
The other signatories have always understood this to
mean the gradual creation of an EU megastate. Only
British Governments, both Labour and Conservative, have
consistently fudged the issue.
Edward Heath agreed the Treaty in
1972 and took us into the Common Market, sacrificing our
fisheries behind Parliament's back. 
(See point 22).
During the 1975 referendum, when the
British people voted to stay in the Common Market, the
Labour Government sent a leaflet to every household in
the land, saying: "There was a threat to employment
in Britain from the movement in the Common Market
towards an Economic and Monetary Union. This could have
forced us to accept fixed exchange rates for the pound,
restricting industrial growth and so putting jobs at
risk. This threat has been removed."
Radio 4 has confessed that the BBC
was heavily biased in favour of a 'yes' vote before and
during the 1975 campaign. The 'yes' campaign was also
generously funded by the CIA.
The BBC and Independent Television remain biased in
favour of our EU membership today.
All subsequent amendments to the
Treaty have increased the power of 'Brussels' at the
expense of national sovereignty. These amendments were:
the Single European Act of 1985, the Treaty on European
Union - 'Maastricht' - of 1992, and the Amsterdam Treaty
of 1997, (collectively referred to as the 'Treaty of
Rome'). Thus the original European Common Market has
been subtly changed into the European Union of today,
without the peoples' understanding or consent.
Of all the Treaty changes, the Single
European Act has turned out to be the most destructive,
because it set up the Single Market (not to be confused
with the former Common Market) and gave control of our
industry, commerce and environment to majority voting in
Brussels. (See chart opposite).
There are 87 'qualified majority'
votes among the 15 member states. 62 votes are required
to pass a law and 26 to block one. The UK has 10. This
is the mechanism which has allowed so many British
interests to be damaged or destroyed by Brussels'
harmonising craze. We often cannot muster the extra 16
votes to form a blocking minority because our 'partners'
do not share our international trading perspective.
Current examples of our damaged commercial interests are
our very valuable international art market, thanks to
increased VAT and a levy on the re-sale of art; and our
mergers and acquisitions industry, thanks to the
Other British interests which have
suffered the cancerous influence of "Brussels"
include our air space, armed forces, boat builders,
bridges, cheese-makers, civil service, chocolate,
condoms, dairy farmers, duty-free shopping, euro-bonds,
freedom of religion, hallmarks, hedgerows, herbal
medicines, legal system, lorries, market gardeners, oak
trees, paper rounds, pheasant shooting, ponies, postal
service, race relations, sexual discrimination and
harrassment, slaughter houses, taxation, taxis, waste
disposal, water, whisky, working week, the roast beef of
Old England, the London bus and the excellent lavatory
designed by Thomas Crapper.
John Major believed he had negotiated
a measure of national independence at Maastricht (1992),
when the 'subsidiarity' clause was inserted into the
Treaty. He believed this meant that Brussels would only
dominate when the nation states could not do something
better on their own. He even claimed that 25% of all EU
legislation would be withdrawn under this triumph, but
not one comma has been changed. The catch was in the
third line. The EU agreed to allow the states to do
their own thing only 'in areas which do not fall within
its exclusive competence'.
The question as to whether we should
stay in the EU has scarcely featured in any General
Election campaign since 1983.
- How bad is it now?
The emerging EU megastate already has
its own parliament, executive, supreme court, currency,
flag and anthem. It is planning its own written
constitution, army, foreign policy, police force, legal
and tax systems. (See points 26
The EU is the only institution on the
planet which pretends to be a democracy but whose
bureaucracy, the Commission, has an almost exclusive
right to propose legislation,
and to conduct international affairs. 
The Treaty takes precedence over Acts
of Parliament. So if our Government (the executive) is
outvoted or agrees EU legislation in Brussels, our
Parliament must put it into British law, on pain of
unlimited fines in the Luxembourg Court. 
The number of EU laws in force has
risen from 1,947 in 1973 to more than 25,000 today. Only
a handful of these were even discussed in the UK
The Treaty decrees that once Brussels
has acquired a power from the nation states, that power
is never given back (the 'acquis communautaire', or, in
plain English, the ratchet). 
The Treaty does not contain an exit
clause, and can only be amended by unanimity among all
the member states.
It is therefore deceptive to suggest that we can
're-negotiate the Treaty' unless we are prepared to
leave the EU if our 'partners' don't agree the changes
we need (which they won't).
Most of our foreign policy is now
agreed in 28 EU foreign policy groups meeting in
Our new Regional Development Agencies
cover areas agreed in Brussels and are the blueprint for
Regional Assemblies reporting directly to Brussels, thus
making Westminster even more redundant.
The Common Agricultural Policy is an
environmental disaster, costing British taxpayers around
£6 billion p.a. and hitting every person in the UK with
some £250 p.a. in extra food costs.
The votes to change it cannot be mustered in
Brussels. With the money the CAP costs us we could look
after our farmers and countryside, with billions to
spare for other things.
The Common Fisheries Policy is even
worse. Before we joined it we owned 80% of the fish in
EU waters, whereas now we are allowed to land only some
25% of the permitted EU catch. The policy is hopeless
because the bureaucrats who designed it thought they
could conserve fish by limiting the quantities landed in
port. They did not realize that most fish are dead when
they come up in the nets. So that is why millions of
tonnes of fish are thrown back dead into the sea each
year in the name of EU conservation ('discards'). The
votes to change this policy cannot be mustered in
Brussels. International experience (Canada, Namibia,
Norway) shows that our stocks could be conserved if we
controlled them, satisfied our own industry and market,
and then leased any surplus to other countries.
It is generally agreed that at least
10% of the EU's £60 billion annual budget goes in fraud
The EU's £5 billion annual foreign
aid budget is corrupt and misdirected.
We could spend our £875 million contribution much more
effectively on our own.
Those who work for the EU's
institutions - Commission, Council, Court and Parliament
- are committed to building the EU megastate, and to
marginalise national Parliaments. Every initiative is
pursued, and every problem approached, with that goal in
- What else do they have in store for
The next turns of the screw will be
applied at another Inter-Governmental Conference (IGC)
in Nice in December 2000, when further amendments to the
Treaty will be agreed, (to be known as the 'Treaty of
Nice'). The Government has already said it may surrender
our veto (i.e. give up our sovereignty) in more areas of
transport, the environment and the workings of the
In parallel with this, the Euro-crats plan:
26a An EU army, inspired by
France’s jealousy of the United States and supported
by the Prime Minister. This new force is to be
‘capable of autonomous action’and
will therefore undermine NATO.
26b An EU legal system,
‘Corpus Juris’, which threatens Habeas Corpus and
trial by jury.
26c A written EU Constitution,
known as the Charter of Fundamental Rights, which is to
be justiciable in the Luxembourg Court, and which will
therefore take precedence over all our legislation.
To make the Single Market and EMU
succeed, Brussels now says that tax ‘harmonisation’
is necessary (ie UK taxes up by 20%).
The Treaty allows us to veto this if the Commission
proposes it as a tax measure (like the Withholding Tax,
which threatened our huge euro-bond market). But if the
Commission proposes tax harmonisation as Single Market
legislation, we may well be outvoted. If we then appeal
to the Luxembourg Court, we will lose. (See
John Major’s letter to Jacques Santer of 12/11/96,
- D. Sixteen common misunderstandings
The Euro-philes’ most important
claim is that the EU is essential to keep peace in
Europe. However, democracies do not provoke war, whereas
forced or premature conglomerations of disparate nations
do (eg the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia, and much of
Africa). So the Euro-realist model of Europe’s
democracies retaining their identity, and trading freely
together under NATO, is less likely to end in conflict
than is an undemocratic EU megastate.
The word 'Europe' has been
appropriated by the Euro-philes to mean both the
continent of different nations and the emerging
EU megastate. So when a Euro-realist is rude about
‘Europe’ – referring to a product of the Treaty
and Brussels – he is easily cast as ‘Euro-phobic’,
a ‘little Englander’, or a ‘dangerous
nationalist’ etc. Most Euro-realists love the Europe
of different nations, but hate the Treaty and the
dictats from Brussels.
The Luxembourg Court of Justice is
not a court of law. It is the engine of the Treaty and
must always find in favour of the ‘ever closer union
of the peoples of Europe’ ordained by Article 1. It
can and does overturn British law.
(a) Economic and Monetary Union (EMU)
– the ‘Single Currency’ – is a political project,
designed to force the creation of the megastate. Only in
the UK do politicians pretend it is an economic project.
(b) As at July 2000 the pound is not
‘strong’. It is standing at a 6 year low against the
dollar, and 60% of our exports are dollar related.
The euro is weak against all currencies.
The Prime Minster and other Euro-philes
often claim that ‘nearly 60% of our trade is
with the EU’. Not so. What they mean is that
nearly 60% of our exports of goods goes to
the EU. Only some 40% of our total exports goes
to the EU (goods plus services plus investment income).
But Brussels’ dictats are inflicted
upon the whole of our economy, so the real point
is that only some 10% of our jobs,
and 10% of our Gross Domestic Product,
are involved in trade with the EU (declining and in
deficit). Rather more than 10% of our GDP goes to the
rest of the world (growing and in surplus.) The
remaining 80% of our jobs and GDP depend on our domestic
economy. So the mangy 10% tail is wagging our healthy
We do not ‘trade with the EU’. We
trade with the individual countries of the EU, and do
more trade with the USA than we do with France and
Insignificant amounts of inward
investment into the UK are attracted by our membership
of the EU. Most foreign investment comes here because we
have a large business-friendly economy, with light
regulation, low tax and a reliable workforce; we also
speak English, are free of corruption, and are not in
Measured by earnings, Japan has
accounted for less than 1% of inward investment into the
UK. 66% has come from the USA, 7% from France, 4% each
from Germany and Australia, and 3% from Switzerland.
It is silly to pretend that our 3
million or so jobs which support our trade with the
Single Market would be lost if we left the EU. The trade
would continue, and so would the jobs.
(See point 57).
The World Trade Organisation has
brought average international tariffs down to 3.8%, and
is aiming for zero.
This makes the EU largely redundant commercially,
leaving us only with its dangerous political ambitions.
Contrary to Euro-phile rhetoric, we
have not ceded any of our sovereignty to NATO. We could
leave it at any time, and it does not interfere with our
legislation or taxation.
If the UK were to join NAFTA (the
North American Free Trade Agreement between the USA,
Canada and Mexico), we would not become the USA's
51st state, as Euro-philes often claim. NAFTA
is a free trade area, not a customs union like the EU.
All three countries have retained their currencies,
which float freely. NAFTA relies on inter-governmental
collaboration, and does not employ a single bureaucrat.
There is no such thing as ‘EU
aid’ to the UK. The UK pays about £11 billion
annually to the EU, which is graciously pleased to give
us back some £5.5 billion
for projects designed to improve its own image. We could
spend the whole £11 billion much better ourselves,
without the superfluous, corrupt and bureaucratic filter
UK businessmen say they support the Single
Market because they have not understood the difference
between it and the former Common Market. What
they really support is free trade, which we would keep
if we left the EU. (See point 57).
Leading Conservatives say they
support our membership of the EU because they took us
into it, and politicians are not good at public
confession. That is why they say that a policy to leave
the EU would ‘frighten the horses’. It wouldn’t
frighten the voters (see point 60).
It is not ‘inevitable’ that we
must continue to sleepwalk into the emerging EU
megastate. Our policy toward the EU should be like any
other, and therefore subject to change by Parliament as
the national interest requires.
- Economics – will EMU fly?
Britain’s membership of the
European Exchange Rate Mechanism (ERM) in the
early’90s cost one million jobs and sent 100,000
businesses bankrupt. EMU is the ERM without the escape
EMU's basic flaw is that one interest
rate must fit 11 different and diverging economies,
where mobility of labour is low, there is no common
language, and interstate transfers on the scale
practised in the USA are non-existent. (To hold the US
together, interstate transfers through the federal
budget can reach 20% of a state's GDP. The EU budget is
at present limited to 1.27% GDP)
If EMU survives, the UK does not have
a long-term opt out, because 6 clauses have been left in
the Treaty which commit us to run our economy in a
on pain of unlimited fines in the Luxembourg Court,
(eg for ‘exporting unemployment’ or ‘unfair tax
competition’). Our adherence to the EU's Stability and
Growth Pact ensnares us further. (Major's
letter to Santer 12/11/96 refers).
The UK’s economy continues to diverge
from that of the EU, while it continues to converge
with that of the USA. So the pound has tracked the
dollar naturally, and moved away from the euro.
Hence the idea that we might join a new North Atlantic
Free Trade Area.
Thanks to its labour and social
policies, the EU’s share of world markets is declining
(down 11% over the last ten years), while that of the
North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) is
increasing (up 21% over the last ten years)
The Euro-phile claim that interest
and mortgage rates would fall if we join EMU is
simplistic. We would certainly be forced to accept the wrong
interest rate, risking inflation, unemployment and, in
the longer term, higher rates than if we stay out.
If we join EMU, our eventual share of
our ‘partners’’ unfunded pension liabilities could
amount to at least £20,000 per person or £1.2
There won’t be a referendum on EMU
unless the Prime Minister is fairly sure of winning it.
But the country will go on being sucked into the
quicksand of the rest of the Treaty, which we cannot
avoid while we stay in the EU. (See B & C above).
- ‘Enlargement’ - should the new
democracies of Eastern Europe join the EU?
EU membership would be very damaging
to the new democracies of Eastern Europe, because their
emerging economies cannot afford the EU’s social and
employment policies, nor the rest of the ‘acquis
All that the emerging economies of
Eastern Europe really need is defence through NATO and
access to the Single Market, which is denied them. (But
of course they like their EU subsidies while they queue
Luckily, enlargement of the EU is
unlikely. Existing members cannot agree to share their
benefits under the Common Agricultural Policy, or the
Structural Funds (£20 million per day to the so called
‘4 poor’ - Greece, Portugal, Spain and Ireland, -
who can veto any dilution). The applicant nations are
also waking up to reality.
The Inter-Governmental Conference at
Nice in December, 2000, is billed as preparing the EU
for ‘enlargement’. The Eurocrats in Brussels are
making this the excuse to grab even more power, so that
they can rule over a larger and more disparate empire.
Hence their proposals for the Charter of Fundamental
Rights, an EU army and police force, and tax
harmonisation (see points 25-27
- The way forward: A Free Trade
Agreement with the EU, and then independence.
The UK is a founder member of such
international bodies as the UN Security Council, G7, the
World Trade Organisation, the International Monetary
Fund, the World Bank, the Commonwealth and NATO.
We are now the world’s 4th
largest economy, after the USA, Japan and Germany,
having just overtaken France. It is absurd to fear that
we would not thrive on our own, after negotiating a free
trade agreement with the EU such as those enjoyed by
Switzerland and Norway, which export more per capita to
the EU than we do. The EU also has free trade
arrangements with countries such as Iceland,
Liechtenstein, Greenland, Turkey and the Channel
Islands. Even Mexico, a NAFTA member, has just
negotiated a comprehensive free trade agreement with the
We have an annual £6 billion trading
deficit with the EU, and a cumulative £350 billion
deficit since we joined in 1973. 
This means that they have many more jobs dependent
on their trade with us than we do on our trade with
The UK would therefore be able to
negotiate a better free trade agreement with the EU than
the agreements reached by less significant markets. We
should then leave the EU, allowing our ‘partners’ to
build their megastate unhindered by recalcitrant Albion.
Contemporarily, if we really are too
frightened to stand alone, (as do Japan, Switzerland and
most other countries in the world), we should decide
whether to join a new free trade agreement between North
perhaps including other English speaking peoples.
Even without negotiating a free trade
agreement, the UK would be some £2 billion p.a. better
off if we exported to the Single Market from outside the
EU, because our contributions to the EU outweigh our
tariff advantages by that amount.
Consistent polls indicate that some
50% of the British people want either to leave the EU,
or to reduce our relationship with it to one of free
At least 60% are against EMU. And this is in spite of
being told by all our leading politicians and media for
25 years that membership of the EU is vital to the
national interest. The case for leaving the EU is much
easier to understand than the complexities of EMU. If
that case were properly explained, popular support for
it would be clamorous.
It is not just that membership of the EU is
wrong for the UK; the Treaty of Rome is a potential disaster for
Europe. But, sadly, most of our ‘partners’ appear determined
to achieve full political union within a failing, sclerotic,
corporatist economy. Unanimity is required to amend the Treaty,
which therefore will not be renegotiated as the UK wants. So,
very soon, we will have to choose – in, or out. Do we want to
become the subservient region of an undemocratic megastate, or
do we want to stand on our own feet and take our rightful place
in the world? There is surely nothing frightening,
‘extreme’, right-wing, or negative about leaving the EU and
keeping our hard-won right to govern ourselves. It would be a
liberating, positive thing to do. And we would be very
much richer as well!
Off Out References
I include below some simplified
extracts of the key parts of the Act and Treaties,
referenced above. For those who wish to acquire a fuller
understanding of the Treaties, I recommend "The
Treaty of Amsterdam in Perspective - Consolidated Treaty
on European Union" (ISBN No. 09520 366 30),
published by the British Management Foundation, Tel 01452
812 837; Fax 01452 812 527;
web site http://www.bmdf.co.uk/.
As far as I know this is the only
publication which allows an ordinary mortal to
understand the Treaties, and the full extent of what has
already been signed away by successive Governments.
Macmillan, in conversation with the author.
Hansard, 12th May 2000, cols 1907 & 1908,
Lord Bruce of Donington:
||"The entry of the
UK into the European Union – then called the Common
Market – was slightly unfortunate in that people were
not fully aware of the Government’s intended actions
in a way that would normally commend itself to people
accustomed to straight talking. We had the deliberate
concealment of the fisheries concession. … A letter
that gave substantial fisheries concessions which
Parliament never had an opportunity to consider was not
disclosed to Parliament and was not, as far as I am
aware, disclosed to the Government."
3.2.00 at 8pm 'Document: A letter to the Times'; , 31st
||Article 5 of
the The Treaty Establishing the European Community (TEC)
- "Subsidiarity"; together with Protocol 30
and Declaration 43 (TEC).
||From Article 5, (second
"In areas which do NOT fall within its exclusive
competence, the Community shall take action, in
accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, only if
and insofar as the objectives of the proposed action
cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States and
can therefore, by reason of the scale or effects of the
proposed action, be better achieved by the Community."
And from Protocol
No 30 on the Application of the Principles of
Subsidiarity and Proportionality:
(2) The application of the principles of subsidiarity
and proportionality shall respect the general provisions
and the objectives of the Treaty, particularly as
regards the maintaining in full of the "acquis
communautaire" and the institutional balance; it
shall not affect the principles developed by the Court
of Justice regarding the relationship between national
and Community law, and it should take into account
Article 6(4) of the Treaty on European Union, according
to which "the Union shall provide itself with the
means necessary to attain its objectives and carry
through its policies".
(3)The principle of
subsidarity does not call into question the powers
conferred on the European Community by the Treaty, as
interpreted by the Court of Justice. The criteria
referred to in the second paragraph of Article 5 of the
Treaty (above) "shall relate to areas for which the
Community does not have exclusive competence."
& 249-254 of the TEC.
||From Article 211:
"In order to
ensure the proper functioning and development of the
common market, the Commission shall:
From Article 251:
- Ensure that the provisions of this Treaty and
the measures taken by the institutions pursuant
thereto are applied;
- Formulate recommendations or deliver opinions
on matters dealt with in this Treaty, if it
expressly so provides or if the Commission considers
- Have its own power of decision and participate
in the shaping of measures taken by the Council and
by the European Parliament in the manner provided
for in this Treaty; …"
- "Where reference is made in this Treaty to
this Article for the adoption of an act, the
following procedure shall apply.
- The Commission shall submit a proposal to the
European Parliament and the Council."
300-303 of the TEC.
From Article 300:
"1. Where this Treaty provides
for the conclusion of agreements between the Community
and one or more States or international organisations,
the Commission shall make recommendations to the
Council, which shall authorise the Commission to open
the necessary negotiations. The Commission shall conduct
these negotiations in consultation with special
committees appointed by the Council to assist it in this
Sections 2 & 3 and Schedule 2 of the European
Communities Act 1972:
"2. – (1)
All such rights, powers, liabilities, obligations and
restrictions from time to time created or arising by or
under the Treaties, … are without further enactment to
be given legal effect … and be enforced, allowed and
followed accordingly; ...
- (2) Subject to Schedule 2 to
this Act, at any time after its passing Her Majesty may
by Order in Council, and any designated Minister or
department may by regulations, make provision –
for the purpose of implementing any Community obligation
of the United Kingdom...
3. - (1) For the purposes of all legal proceedings any
question as to the meaning or effect of any of the
Treaties, or as to the validity, meaning or effect of
any Community instrument, shall be treated as a question
of law (and, if not referred to the European Court, be
for determination as such in accordance with the
principles laid down by and any relevant decision of the
Articles 226-229 of
From Article 228:
" ... If the Court of Justice
finds that the Member State concerned has not complied
with its judgment it may impose a lump sum or penalty
payment on it. ..."
Articles 2, 3 & 6.4 of the TEU; (and Protocol 30 of
the TEC - see ref no 4 above.)
"The Union shall set itself the
- to maintain in full the "acquis communautaire"
and build on it ..."
"The Union shall be served by a
single institutional framework which shall ensure the
consistency and the continuity of the activities carried
out in order to attain its objectives while respecting
and building upon the "acquis communautaire".
"The Union shall provide itself
with the means necessary to attain its objectives and
carry through its policies."
48 of the TEU:
government of any Member State or the Commission may
submit to the Council proposals for the amendment of the
Treaties on which Union is founded … The amendments
shall enter into force after being ratified by all the
Member States in accordance with their respective
10 House of Lords Written Answer 3.12.98
11 ‘Better Off Out? The Benefits or Costs of
EU Membership’ by Brian Hindley and Martin Howe; Institute of
Economic Affairs, 1996.
12 Seven Lords Select Committee Reports
1988-99; Lords Hansard 25.11.99 Cols. 630-632.
13 Speech by Clare Short, Secretary of State
for International Development, 28.7.99.
14 Government White Paper: ‘IGC: Reform for
Enlargement’ February 2000.
15 The ‘St. Malo Declaration’ Foreign
16 ‘European Tax Harmonisation & British
Taxes' by Tim Congdon; Politeia, 1999.
17 The Factortame Cases 1989-93 and Sections 2
& 3, & Schedule 2, European Communities Act 1972 (See
quote for Ref. No 7 above).
18 Office for National Statistics (ONS): ‘The
Pink Book’ 1999
dependent is the UK on exports to Europe?’
20 Various DTI White Papers on British
Competitiveness and *Global
Britain Briefing Note No. 7 ‘Inward Investment: the
irrelevance of the Single Market’ 17.3.00.
21 ONS: ‘Foreign Direct Investment’
February 2000 and Global
Britain Briefing Note No. 9: 'Foreign Direct Investment' 30.6.2000.
22 The National Institute of Economic and
Social Research: ‘Continent Cut Off? The Macroeconomic Impact
of British Withdrawal from the EU’. March 2000.
Britain Briefing Note No. 5. ‘The World Trade Organisation’
24 ONS: ‘The Pink Book’ 1999.
and Article 3 of the TEU; and Articles 2, 4, 98 and 99.1
of the TEC.
From Article 2 TEU:
"The Union shall set itself the
following objectives … to promote economic and social
progress which is balanced and sustainable ...through
... the establishment of economic and monetary union..."
From Article 3 TEU:
"...The Union shall in particular
ensure the consistency of its external activities as a
whole in the context of its external relations,
security, economic and development policies."
From Article 2 TEC:
"The Community shall have as its
task, by establishing a common market and an economic
and monetary union ... to promote throughout the
Community a harmonious and balanced development of
economic activities ... a high degree of convergence of
economic performance ... and economic and social
cohesion and solidarity among Member States."
From Article 4 TEC:
"For the purposes set out in
Article 2, the activities of the Member States and the
Community shall include … the adoption of an economic
policy which is based on the close co-ordination of
Member States’ economic policies. ..."
From Article 98
"Member States shall conduct
their economic policies with a view to contributing to
the achievement of the objectives of the Community, as
defined in Article 2 ..."
From Article 99.1
"Member States shall regard their
economic policies as a matter of common concern and
shall co-ordinate them within the Council, in accordance
with the provisions of Article 98."
Britain Briefing Note No. 2 ‘Sterling: the most stable of all
the major currencies’ 10.5.99
27 World Trade Organisation (WTO) Annual Report
House of Commons’ All-Party Select Committee on Social
Security’s Report: "Unfunded Pension
Liabilities in the EU", 23rd October
1996 and 'What's the Bottom Line?', by Graeme
Leach; Institute of Directors, March 2000:
From the Select
"6. An OECD study on the impact of demography on
the levels of saving and government spending on
pensions, health and education commented:
‘It is clear that if present
[public] pension payments are left untouched, the
pension schemes in some countries would impose major
burdens on their societies in the next century,’
... With some understatement, the authors add ‘It
is unlikely that the working population in the early to
middle part of the next century would be willing to
sustain the magnitude of inter-generational transfers
that these burdens imply’
... Taking the authors’ middle assumptions in each
case, the net present value of public pension schemes in
this country is 19 per cent of GDP; in our
largest European partners, on the same assumptions, the
comparative figures are 98% of GDP for France, 113%
of GDP for Italy and 139% GDP for Germany.
The UK’s current national debt is equivalent to about
£5,000 per person. If one added to that the per capita
burden of our unfunded pension liabilities, the total
debt burden in the UK would be some £9,000 per person.
But if we took on also our share of the total unfunded
pension liabilities of the EU, that figure would
increase to some £30,000 of debt for every man, woman
and child in this country. The adoption of a single
currency would entail the adoption of a single
"balance sheet", but the extent of unfunded
pension liabilities in certain of our European partner
countries casts serious doubt upon the long term
sustainability of their finances."
29 ‘A Coming Home: A
Poisoned Chalice?’ by Bill Jamieson and Helen Szamuely; Centre
for Research into Post-Communist Economies, 1998.
Britain Briefing Note No. 8 ‘The Mexico - EU Free Trade
31ONS: ‘The Pink Book’
1999, adjusted for inflation.
32 ‘Britain's Final
Choice - Europe or America’ by Conrad Black; Centre for Policy
33 IMF Direction of Trade
Statistics Year Book 1998, and eurofacts 3.3.00 ‘We’d
be better off exporting to the Single Market from outside’.
34 Mori polls 1977-99;
eurofacts 4.2.00 ‘Attitudes
to the EU & America’.
‘eurofacts’ and *Global Britain Briefing Notes are
Global Britain, Hope House, 45 Great Peter Street, London SW1P 3LT
Telephone: 020 7233 4443
Fax: 020 7233 4446
Web Site: http://www.globalbritain.org/