With Eurosceptic Tories and Ukip candidates alongside us in this campaign, we need to challenge their assumptions in every all-party panel and debate. Here are a few I’ve found useful so far:
1. To those who say we want a referendum now, or as soon as possible, without waiting for negotiations on EU reform or for the next change in the Treaties: why don’t they say straight out that they want to leave the EU, and not hide behind the call for a referendum?
2. Where do they think Britain will go to when we leave the EU? The Norwegians and the Swiss have warned us about the disadvantages of not having a say in the rules of the Single Market. Would we find closer friends to work with in Saudi Arabia, or Russia, or China?
3. Ukip and the Conservative Right have been telling us for years that ‘we are shackled to a corpse’ inside the EU, and that the future of British trade lies with Asia and Latin America. Yes, we have doubled our trade with China in the last 5 years: it’s now 3% of UK exports, with an enormous gap in China’s favour; exports to the rest of the EU continue to count for nearly 50% of UK foreign trade.
4.Ukip accuses the EU of imposing regulations on Britain, and that leaving the EU would free the British market from regulation. Really? Do Ukip and their free market Tory friends want to get rid of food regulations, which ensure that what we buy in the shops is safe to eat; or regulations on chemicals and poisons which protect people at work from dangerous substances; or health and safety regulations which prevent accidents and injuries at work or in the street? If the UK left the EU we would have to maintain a mass of domestic regulations to protect workers and consumers.
5. The EU is not just a single market. It was always about security as well. It’s a Ukip myth that ‘we were never told it was more than a free trade area’. The threat that Russia poses to Eastern Europe makes the EU key to our security. Reducing the EU’s dependence on Russian gas, and imposing economic sanctions on those close to Putin, contain Russian aggression against its neighbours and beyond.
6. UKIP has persuaded many British voters that the problem of immigration results from EU membership. They are wrong in two respects. First, there are estimated to be 2.4 million citizens from the rest of the EU in the UK, and just over 2 million UK citizens living, studying and working elsewhere in the EU: that’s roughly in balance. If we left, British residents in other EU countries would lose their rights. The long-term problem of migration is from outside Europe, with rising populations in poor and conflict-ridden countries struggling to get across the Mediterranean to find safety and prosperity. And we’re better off managing that in cooperation with our European neighbours, since we all face the same challenge; twice as many refugees and immigrants from outside Europe have arrived in Germany, for example, in the past five years as the UK.
* William Wallace is LibDem peer, a former vice-chair of the Federal Policy Committee and convenor of the party's 1997 manifesto team.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
No Carry Ons: Kenneth Williams's other films
Could Hitler have won?
Say hello to the Act that successfully set rules 1,050 years into the future - Calendar (New Style) Act 1750
Indecision costing the taxpayers millions
Steve J Smith
David Warren
John Barrett
Nonconformistradical
Chloe
12 Comments
There is evidence that the number of UK citizens who spend at least half their time in the rest of the EU is a lot higher than £2million. Perhaps as high as 5million.
Tony Greaves
All very good points.
There are a plethora of other myths, which the Tory right and UKIP propaganda also try to promote.
One is about democracy. A nation state has to be democratic and European before it may join. The elected representatives of each member state sit in its parliament, as MEPS. UK Cabinet ministers decide on all EU laws with their counterparts. The problems are more about political parties like UKIP that fail to turn up, or seem more interested in falsifying their MEP’s restaurant bill expenses for the UKIP Conference in Margate.
Another is about the annual accounts. The EU’s auditing standards are higher than those in individual member states and the reasons for signing off qualified annual accounts is due to individual member states’ failures to provide accounting information to auditors or produce the books properly. Any allegation of fraud should be reported to the EU’s fraud task force UCLAF.
The other area of myths is around immigration and migration. There is plenty of independent research published to disprove many claims made by the far right. A useful summary could be useful on that too.
All very good points.
There are a plethora of other myths, which the Tory right and UKIP propaganda also try to promote.
One is about democracy. A nation state has to be democratic and European before it may join. The elected representatives of each member state sit in its parliament, as MEPS. UK Cabinet ministers decide on all EU laws with their counterparts. The problems are more about political parties like UKIP that fail to turn up, or seem more interested in allegedly falsifying their MEP’s restaurant bill expenses for the UKIP Conference in Margate.
Another is about the annual accounts. The EU’s auditing standards are higher than those in individual member states and the reasons for signing off qualified annual accounts is due to individual member states’ failures to provide accounting information to auditors or produce the books properly. Any allegation of fraud should be reported to the EU’s fraud task force UCLAF.
The other area of myths is around immigration and migration. There is plenty of independent research published on the Internet to disprove many claims made by the far right. A summary of these could be useful too.
William Wallace scores a number of hits here, albeit sometimes at soft targets. There are good and bad arguments advanced by both europhiles and eurosceptics, and he has identified and ably skewered some of the weaker eurosceptic ones.
I do have a suspicion that the Lib Dems might fare better with the public on this issue if they addressed some of the real problems with the EU as well as the mythical ones – but maybe they don’t think there are any, other than process-centred issues about different buildings and rearranging the institutional deck chairs.
Too often the Lib Dem message on the EU seems to amount to a defence of the status quo – dare I say of the establishment that in other contexts the party affects to dislike – rather than an agenda for reform. The net result is that the party regularly gets even more hammered in European elections than it does in other elections.
I think point 1 is the weakest “rebuttal”. The case for a referendum before any withdrawal is the same irrespective of timing. It is a question of legitimacy and getting a specific popular mandate for that course of action. It is not as if UKIP (or hardline anti-EU Tories) are hiding the fact that they want ‘Brexit’, is it? It is their raison d’etre and, along with immigration, it is all they bang on about.
So to imply there is a hidden agenda (“why don’t they say straight out that they want to leave the EU, not hide behind the call for a referendum”) is peculiar. One can be in favour or against referenda as a means of deciding such questions, but not on the basis of timing or whether or not there is a prior renegotiation of our terms of membership.
Why is it necessary to belong to a political union to trade and work in other EU countries – and what kind of democratic politics is it that has people “representing” us who have barely registered an average 5% of votes in their regions? (Under a Closed List, at that)
Why do we have to adhere to any “model” – Norwegian or otherwise?
Why can’t we trade freely with the EU countries and the rest of the world under our own model?
Most regulation relating to hazardous materials is created at a global level with the EU being merely the middle man – and if we are relying on the EU to monitor and regulate the stuff we sell in shops are we to believe that those departments of government in this country are sat on their hands and doing nothing?
The threat from Russia can be contained by resolute backing of NATO – which has already contributed to the downfall of the Soviet Union and, if supported, continue to restrain countries such as Russia.
A lot of the problems in more deprived regions have been caused by interference by the EU – the CAP and overfishing come to mind; when we truly start helping and not exploiting we will alleviate the problems that would-be migrants experience.
I am not a “Lord”, I am one of those plebs that are regarded very sniffily by the Westminster claque, and I realise that the visitors to this site will read this comment, sneer, and move on. But I have a voice, and a cross on a piece of paper, and I in no way wish to belong to an unnecessary and wasteful EU political union.
The way to lance this boil is to have a referendum, and if this country votes to stay in I will just have to accept that; I don’t expect a referendum will happen because the one chance that the EU and this country had to prove that they believe in democracy was blown – the Lisbon Treaty was an affront to democracy; only the wilfully blind fail to see that.
I think the two issues of leaving the EU and treaty reform are quite separate and, if we are to have referendums on them, they should be separate referendums.
If the position is to be that there be a referendum every time the treaty changes, that referendum should be on the treaty change vs status quo, not treaty change vs leaving the UK.
“1. To those who say we want a referendum now, or as soon as possible, without waiting for negotiations on EU reform or for the next change in the Treaties…”
No problem with the premise of not rushing the referendum before we’ve had opportunity to evaluate what britain’s EU future as a euro-out would like like, but just to be clear; are you advocating a referendum once this is know? In a year or two’s time perhaps…
“2. Where do they think Britain will go to when we leave the EU?”
Why do we need to go anywhere? We have been a global trading nation with friends and allies across the world, and we [can] and [will] have free-trade with europe should we choose to leave.
“3. Yes, we have doubled our trade with China in the last 5 years: it’s now 3% of UK exports…”
Sorry, did you imagine that trade in both goods and services would evaporate if we choose to leave? Bearing in mind its declining anyway as a percentage of total trade by about 5% a decade.
“4.Do Ukip and their free market Tory friends want to get rid of food regulations, which ensure that what we buy in the shops is safe to eat…”
Err, yes. I am intensely relaxed at living in a lower regulation society, and yes I accept that it will result in (some) more harm and death. Freedom has a price.
“5. The EU is not just a single market. It was always about security as well. It’s a Ukip myth that ‘we were never told it was more than a free trade area’.”
Two things:
NATO. NATO. NATO. If you’re worried about Russia peeling off peripheral european nations…. NATO!
This pamphlet suggest otherwise – http://www.harvard-digital.co.uk/euro/pamphlet.htm
“6. UKIP has persuaded many British voters that the problem of immigration results from EU membership. They are wrong in two respects.”
I can’t speak for UKIP, but my objection on this score is that completely open borders with a dysfunctional europe has forced the government to appease public concern by choking off commonwealth immigration, people to whom I recognise a sense of kinship and would choose in preference if immigration politics had not made things impossible.
1. Regard it as the UK electorate finally getting it say on all the powers that have already been transferred to the EU.
2. Your views are out dated. Most of the trading rules are now made at UN level where the Norwegians and Swiss have a say but we do not, except through the EU – and then it may be against our interests.
3. Have you looked at the state of the Eurozone? Export to outside of the EU is controlled by the EU.
4. The EU is in control of many aspects of our lives. Your cherry picking of regulations we may wish to keep proves nothing.
5. The threat to Eastern Europe by Russia is a consequence of irresponsible, expansionary EU foreign policy.
6. Shengen and poor border control by EU countries is a major reason for uncontrolled non-EU migrants. EU policy is the reason for uncontrolled EU migrants.
Well said Peter,I completely agree with everything you’ve said,in 1975 the EU referendum was about trade as far as most people were concerned and this what we voted on,little did we know then that powers would be gradually transfered to the EU over the years,I wonder what the outcome of that 1975 referendum would have been had we have been told the truth.
I am in favour of a referendum after negotiations have been held,we cannot turn the clock back to 1975 but we can and should have a say how we wish to see the future of our country,I am quite willing to accept the verdict of the British people,why cannot the political parties do the same,after all that would be true democracy.
I’ve answered the six points specifically in an earlier comment. More generally, I find the above article rather bizarre.
Let’s face it, a referendum on the EU is a democratic necessity and is long overdue. It is nonsense to suggest that it must await the handover of our few remaining remnants of sovereignty to Brussels.
“Where do they think Britain will go to when we leave the EU?” What on earth is that about? Where will the EU go?
“It was all about security as well.” Perhaps between Germany and France after the war, but more generally the EU, with its grand ambitions, is a threat to NATO, a threat to European peace if it continues to absorb former soviet states, and a threat to social cohesion throughout the Eurozone if it keeps replacing democratically elected leaders if they fail to deliver the financial discipline demanded by Germany.
The complacent, unquestioning allegiance to the EU will not win the Lib Dems any votes. It may, however, make a significant contribution to the demise of the party at the next election.
Peter
Let’s have an “in/out” referendum on EU economic and monetary union then.
Whilst we are at it and flirting with the exit could we have a referendum on restricting executive pay and bonuses, please, à la Suisse?
The financial community were due to be given £100bn in bonuses this spring.
NATO and the EU are mutually reinforcing and have been for more than 60 years now. Sadly, once again Russia is in serious danger of shaping up to be a threat to both.
Alex Sabine makes a good point. The first rebuttal is the weakest. Very many people perceive a referendum as fair and sensible, believing that after so many years of membership they should be consulted as to whether they think we should stay in. The case against rests on the premises that the EU is still providing the trade and peace that was originally intended and that we should continue to pursue reform of the EU in a constructive manner, best achieved by a commitment to stay. However, if at some future stage the EU chooses to propose substantial change or absolutely turns its back on reforms that we think are needed in order to continue the implementation of the original aims, then a referendum would be needed.