The Final Victory of John Enoch Powell

In 1993, the Anti-Federalist League scored a bit of a coup. There was a by-election in Newbury, a rock solid Conservative seat. But since being re-elected the previous year, John Major's government was in stormy waters. The pound had crashed out of the ERM in late 1992, causing chaos on the exchange markets. The economy was suffering, and the passage of the Maastricht Treaty through Parliament had split the Tory party apart. The worst time to hold a by-election, really.

The Anti-Federalist League was an odd organisation. It had been founded in 1991, to protests the Maastricht Treaty of that year, which transformed the European Economic Community into a European Union, and committed the signatories towards a Single European Currency, although Major had secured an opt out for the UK.

The League was led by an ex Liberal Party official called Alan Sked. Sked was a lecturer at the LSE, and was opposed to the political aspects of the EEC. And in 1993, he secured a big speaker to join him on the campaign trail in Newbury. Enoch Powell.

Enoch Powell was one of the most fascinating characters of post-war British politics. His politics were hard to define. He believed passionately in the supremacy of the nation state and the primacy of Parliament. But as well as famously rejecting the EEC, he also rejected the 'Special Relationship' with America, and the ties to the Commonwealth; indeed, Powell made his name denouncing Britain's attempt to put down the Mau Mau uprising in Kenya. He believed the USSR to be a natural ally of the UK in keeping the European balance of power. Powellism also encompassed unilateral nuclear disarmament, support for what came to be known as the permissive society, integrating Northern Ireland fully into the UK, and the free-market economics later pioneered by Mrs Thatcher.

Much of this is forgotten today. Because Powell's political legacy was forged on 28th April 1968, when he got to his feet in Birmingham's Midland Hotel, and gave the single most infamous speech in modern British politics. It has since become known as the Rivers of Blood speech, and it contained an apocalyptic prediction; that, if left unchecked, immigration to the UK would eventually lead to the type of racial conflict then consuming the USA.

The speech ended Powell's political career. The next day, he was sacked from the Shadow Cabinet, although it was clear his support in the country was enormous. In 1974, he even left the Conservative party, advocating a Labour vote as they would allow a referendum on the Common Market. He transferred his allegiance to the Ulster Unionist Party, and spent the rest of his political life arguing for Ulster's integration into the UK.

But the speech also showed Powell had touched a nerve. There were marches in his support. For years, even as his hard political power faded, he remained the most popular politician in the country. His name was invoked by many on the hard-right, and the not so hard right, to justify anti-immigrant rhetoric and feeling.

For years, people complained that immigration was the issue they weren't allowed to talk about. Since Enoch Powell predicted racial violence in apocalyptic terms in 1968, there has been a united front presented by the mainstream political parties in the UK, to not use migration as a political weapon.

It hasn't always been adhered to. For the Conservatives, especially, it was always an attractive weapon. But they always pulled back from the brink.

But now we are over the Rubicon, and it seems that there were good reasons for keeping the cordon sanitaire in place. A fear of the Other was stirred in the EU referendum campaign, and this has been the result:

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/eu-referendum-racism_uk_576fe161e4b08d2c56396075?745i5vqfvfs35l8fr

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36643213

This referendum, with the fear of migrants and anti-Europeanism it has unleashed, is Powell's final legacy to British politics. When he arrived in Newbury in 1993, Powell was collected from the train station by a part time Anti-Federalist League activist. Powell advised the young man to quit stockbroking, and go into politics. Or so he claims.

That man was Nigel Farage. He has succeeded where Enoch Powell failed, at taking Britain out of the EU. I just hope he hasn't brought Powell's racialist scaremongering with him.

Down the Rabbit Hole

I imagine that right now, you're feeling a bit like Alice. Hmm? Tumbling down the rabbit hole?

That's the understatement of the millennium really.

I can't pretend to be anything other than absolutely gutted. I genuinely believe in what used to be called the European ideal. I do think that this week we have made the single greatest foreign policy catastrophe since Neville Chamberlain returned from Munich with his guarantee of peace with Herr Hitler.

But at the end of the day, the Remain side lost. There is no getting around that. I am not going to call for a re-run of the referendum. I am not going to hurl abuse at anyone. I am not going to question the motives of why individuals voted the way they did, or bemoan the demographics of what has happened.

I want to. Believe me, I do want to. I want to just scream in abject horror.

But that will solve nothing. It will not help to solve the arguments between my friends I have already witnessed. It will not help to heal the chasm that has been opened in the British body politic. It will not solve the divisions that exist between classes, ages, educational groups, regions and countries. So I'm going to bite my tongue.

Neither will I try and speculate on the deeper meanings of what has just happened. Being an historian, I know that there is time for that in the future, when tempers have cooled and perspective has been gained. One day, years from today, I would like to think I will be able to sit down, open a book, turn to a chapter on this week, and relive it all. Then, I may fully understand what has happened. But not now.

I will try and adjust to the post-EU Britain that is coming. It may take me some time. But I am sure I will get there.

I also want to extend an apology. To anyone reading this blog, or the associated Facebook comments and messages, who was offended by me during the EU referendum campaign, I am sorry. I am sorry for all the times I failed to put my points across well, for all the times I seemed to attack people directly, for all the times my frustration at the two Leave campaigns ended up being turned onto individuals.

My one exception to this moratorium on moaning is to do with referenda*. This entire exercise has revealed them to be the single most appalling instrument of democracy. They reduce issues of immense complexity to a simple Yes or No exercise. They let politicians off the hook, by allowing them to duck difficult issues during elections, and between them. They polarise the electorate by shepherding them into one of those two camps, meaning that the defeated side is inevitably bitter and upset. The issue debated is rarely resolved satisfactorily. They bring to the fore the worst part of society: the populists, the demagogues, those who are prepared to say anything to get their side over the winning line. They are also dangerously close to what political science calls 'the tyranny of the majority;' they allow 50% +1 of the population to impose their views upon the remainder, no matter what the consequences.

Millions of people voted on Thursday, with no clear idea about the issues. They had been fed lies from both sides for years, subjected to hysterical campaigning for weeks. Hard, unbiased facts were impossible to come upon. You were either Remain or Leave. No shades of opinion were permitted in this false dichotomy. Instead of doing the job required of them in a parliamentary democracy, our representatives ducked an immensely difficult decision, reduced it to a Yes or No question, and left us all to it.

And it is quite possible that someone died as a result of the emotions stoked.

There should never be another referendum again. I believed that before the vote, when I thought Remain would win. I think it now, when Leave has won. No matter what you think of the result, it is hard to say this was the best way to solve the issue. I am all in favour of democracy. But not when you reduce a complex issue to a tickbox exercise, and sit back to watch the floodgates open.

In a way, I am lucky. Although the British public has delivered its verdict, it does not affect me as much as it effects many others. I can remain a citizen of the European Union. The country of my birth has decided its future does not lie in the Community. But three of my grandparents were born in the Irish Free State, while one (if my dates are correct) was born in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, just prior to the painful separation of Ireland from the Union. The Republic of Ireland remains a member of the European Union. I am entitled to dual citizenship of the UK and Ireland. I think I'd better put my money where my principles are, and go and find those forms.

* The single biggest divide in the future may be between those who say 'referendums' and those who prefer 'referenda'. I've tried to work it out, but for good measure I used this:

http://www.dailyedge.ie/lets-figure-this-out-whats-the-real-plural-of-referendum-261522-Oct2013/

Can things only get better?

On the Saturday night I drowned my sorrows at a friend's party in Bethnal Green and ended up staying the night. The next morning the whole house was woken by a woman screaming in the middle of the Bethnal Green Road. We ran to the window to see what the commotion was.

'You stupid idiots!' she was shouting. 'You stupid fucking idiots! You voted her back in! Can't you see what you've done! You stupid idiots!' Between the ranting she was crying. She did not look like the sort of woman who normally walked in front of oncoming traffic screaming and swearing, but the election result had clearly precipitated some sort of breakdown. One of the girls in the house was shocked. 'I know that woman,' she said. 'She goes to my evening class. She's really quiet and shy.'

But she was only saying what I wanted to say.

Things Can *Only* Get Better by John O'Farrell. This was in the aftermath of the 1987 general election. I can't think of a better summary of how I am feeling.

The Wit and Wisdom of... Ronald Reagan

Next Tuesday is Election Day. 

Next Tuesday all of you will go to the polls, will stand there in the polling place and make a decision. 

I think when you make that decision, it might be well if you would ask yourself, are you better off than you were four years ago? 

Is it easier for you to go and buy things in the stores than it was four years ago? Is there more or less unemployment in the country than there was four years ago? Is America as respected throughout the world as it was? Do you feel that our security is as safe, that we're as strong as we were four years ago? 

And if you answer all of those questions yes, why then, I think your choice is very obvious as to whom you will vote for.

If you don't agree, if you don't think that this course that we've been on for the last four years is what you would like to see us follow for the next four, then I could suggest another choice that you have. 

This country doesn't have to be in the shape that it is in.

Governor Ronald Reagan, at the end of the final 1980 Presidential debate with Jimmy Carter, 28th October 1980.

Lessons from last time

A divisive vote on Britain's role in Europe. The Prime Minister didn't really want this vote, but the divisions within his party have made it inevitable, a desperate bid to keep his party. A sham set of negotiations have been completed. The governing party splits, with normal rules of cabinet collective responsibility suspended. The party activists want out, most of the party leaders want in. The opposition lends it support, but there are doubts about the pro-European credentials of the current leader. Instead, they rely more heavily on their previous Prime Minister.

Welcome to 1975, the year that Britain voted 2:1 to remain a member of the EEC.

I'd imagine David Cameron is far too busy at the moment to be reading any history. He is far too busy arsing around the country, throwing everything at a referendum campaign which looks far closer than anyone imagined a year ago. But if he does have the chance, he might ponder the 1975 referendum. He'd do well to fear.

Why? Because the parallels are uncanny. Like Cameron, Wilson hadn't wanted the wretched referendum in the first place. After all, his government had applied for Common Market membership in the 1960s, only to see it flounder on Charles de Gaulle's intransigence.

Ted Heath had then done the hard work of actually negotiating membership during his premiership. When he presented the European Communities Bill to the House of Commons, it exposed deep divisions within Labour. Many on the left of the party opposed membership, seeing the EEC as a capitalist club which would take control away from socialist national governments. But there was a core of Labour members who wanted to join the EEC, and many of them went into the lobbies with the Conservative government. 

Wilson needed a way to patch over this sore before it became a wound. His answer was a referendum. Proposed by several left-wingers, it was designed to take the issue out of Parliament's hands and give it to the people. It also enabled Wilson to silence his critics on both sides of the Europe debate.

So when Wilson was unexpectedly returned to office in March 1974, the wheels were set in motion. The Foreign Secretary, James Callaghan, was sent to 're-negotiate' Britain's membership. Once this exercise in face saving had been finished, Wilson called the referendum. But his government was too divided to arrive at a common position, so Wilson took the unprecedented step of suspending cabinet collective responsibility. Ministers from his government campaigned both for In and for Out.

The thing is, if you took out the word Wilson, and replaced it with Cameron, and changed the dates, this could be Cameron.

But did it work?

Although Harold Wilson won the referendum, and kept Britain in the EEC, it cost his party dearly. The division between the pro- and anti-Marketeers proved toxic. Pro-Europeans like Roy Jenkins and Shirley Williams found that they had more in common with centrists in other parties than with the extremists within their own party. As Labour's Seventies headache continued, the two wings of the party began to pull apart. In 1981, many of the pro-European ministers of Wilson's era walked out of the Labour party, and founded the SDP.

When Wilson had been confirmed in office in October 1974, Labour had won four of the last five general elections. But after 1974, it would lose four elections in a row.  The split that began over the Common Market divided the left fatally. By constantly splitting the vote through the 1980s, the SDP contributed directly to the landslide election victories of Mrs Thatcher. That split locked the left out of power for a generation.

The next Labour Prime Minister after Wilson who won a general election graduated from university during the referendum campaign. That's how long it took Labour to get back to power. And the 1975 EEC referendum directly contributed to those years in the wilderness.

Whatever way the country votes on Thursday, Cameron should be terrified. History is not on his side. In trying to manage the divisions within his party, he may have locked it out of office.

Keep Britain in Europe press conference, featuring the unlikely allies of Jeremy Thorpe (Liberal), Edward Heath (Conservative) and Roy Jenkins (Labour)

Some Thoughts on Yesterday

The EU referendum has been the ugliest political campaign I have any experience of. In Britain, the bile and the rhetoric have been unmatched in recent times, at least outside Northern Ireland at the height of sectarian carnage. The only comparable thing I can think of that matches some of the racist bile seen in the last few weeks is the infamous 1964 election fight in Smethwick. There, the Shadow Foreign Secretary was unseated against the national swing by a Conservative candidate who had run on the slogan 'If you want a nigger for your neighbour, vote Liberal or Labour.'

The Leavers have not been so openly disgusting. But every time they have warned of the dangers of Turkey joining the EU, or blamed the EU for migrants coming here, putting pressure on services, driving down wages and taking jobs, they have been appealing to the same instinct. The fear of the Other. They are appealing to that part of us all that is better left in the dark, in the jungle where it came from.

This has been going on for years. The language changes. But the ideas are the same. It was bogus asylum seekers when I was younger. Then it was Poles. Then Romanians and Bulgarians. Next is Turks, and all Europeans generally. But it is the referendum that has allowed this debate to move into the open, and seen it elevated to top billing in people's minds.

And the solution is billed as simple. Take Back Control. That has been one of the cries of the Leave campaign during the EU referendum. Vote to Leave on June 23rd, and you will get control of your country back. Back from those Others that have wrested control from you.

It isn't a million miles from 'take back control' to 'take our country back' to 'Britain First,' or 'Put Britain first.'

Yesterday, an MP was shot dead in the street in her constituency. She was a mother to two young children, a wife, a charity worker, who sat in Parliament for the town she had been born in, grew up in, and then had represented for a year. She was out in town, doing what all 650 MPs do on a weekend; getting out there and meeting the people who they represent. My heart goes out to her husband and their two children. The loss of any life is crushing, sickening, and wrong.

The man who carried out this act of senseless violence is alleged to have yelled 'Britain first', or 'Put Britain first,' as he delivered the fatal shots. The facts are still not properly established. But as part of my job, I teach children to make inferences from limited evidence. Applying the same logic, what has happened is frighteningly clear. 

For the first time since the IRA killed Ian Gow in 1990, a British MP has been murdered for the views that they hold.

So, my message is simple. Listen up, senior Leave people. You may be as appalled as the rest of us at this tragic act of senseless slaughter.  I heard many of your tributes. I don't doubt you are appalled, and never for one minute wanted anyone to die.

But you are responsible for what happened yesterday. Not directly, as you did not call for violence. But every time you have used the fear of the Other, whoever it is, to try and advance your cause, you have brought this moment a step closer. Each poster about migrants, every hashtag about Taking Back Control, you have allowed this atmosphere of poison to develop. Every time you blame the Westminster elites, or all politicians, for our difficulties, you have helped to create an arena in which politicians are dehumanised and reduced to the scum of the earth. In this setup, it is no surprise that those who are misguided, mentally ill, or just pure evil, have taken the cue and stepped up to the plate.

To borrow from Terry Pratchett, we are out of the history books, and travelling without a map.

I genuinely think that Parliament should be sitting today. That MPs should have been dragged off the campaign trail, to be able to express how they, and their constituents, must be feeling.

And that the referendum should be cancelled.

There are perfectly legitimate reasons for believing that the EU is a terrible thing. I've thought them myself, having seen Greece forced to swallow the IMF's medicine a few years ago, causing immense suffering and hardship. I really hoped this period would see us get to the heart of what it means to be British and European in the third millennium. 

But the debate we are having is not one about the ideals of democracy, and sovereignty, and the place of a post-colonial, post-industrial society in the C21st.

We are having a national debate about migration, and how we feel about people that are not British. And it is stoking fear and prejudice. It is ugly, it is appalling, and it may have just claimed its first life.

No good will come of a decision reached under these circumstances. The polarisation and arguing has gone too far. These wounds opened up will not easily heal. Regardless of who wins, that poisonous atmosphere will remain. And God knows what comes next. Yesterday morning, the idea that a British MP would be slain in their own constituency would have been dismissed as far-fetched. Now it is an historical fact.

If this is what Johnson, Farage and Gove want, if this is the world they believe that they can create through the ballot box, then I do not want to be a part of it.

In the absence of them cancelling the referendum, I'm voting to Remain. Because I will not be party to Johnson's power grab, and Farage's attempt to fulfill his lifetime ambition. They have tried to do so off the back of fear and loathing. It has split the country in a way I thought impossible. The damage, the apaaling attitudes will take years of toil and effort to repair. 

And that is why they should not be allowed their moment in the sun. To vote out would be to endorse what has been done in the name of Leaving. Can you honestly do that? Because I know I can't.

_______________________________________

N.B. Since I wrote this, but before I shared it, I saw on the Guardian that the man in custody appears to have long standing far right connections, to apatheid South Africa and the American far-right. Just to add a bit of context.

The Wit and Wisdom of... Dag Hammarskjöld, Mk. II

Setbacks in trying to realize the ideal do not prove that the ideal is at fault

Dag Hammarskjöld, UN Secretary-General, receiving the 1961 Nobel Peace Prize

Backs to the Wall

To ALL RANKS OF THE BRITISH ARMY IN FRANCE AND FLANDERS

Three weeks ago to-day the enemy began his terrific attacks against us on a fifty-mile front. His objects are to separate us from the French, to take the Channel Ports and destroy the British Army.

In spite of throwing already 106 Divisions into the battle and enduring the most reckless sacrifice of human life, he has as yet made little progress towards his goals.

We owe this to the determined fighting and self-sacrifice of our troops. Words fail me to express the admiration which I feel for the splendid resistance offered by all ranks of our Army under the most trying circumstances.

Many amongst us now are tired. To those I would say that Victory will belong to the side which holds out the longest. The French Army is moving rapidly and in great force to our support.

There is no other course open to us but to fight it out. Every position must be held to the last man: there must be no retirement. With our backs to the wall and believing in the justice of our cause each one of us must fight on to the end. The safety of our homes and the Freedom of mankind alike depend upon the conduct of each one of us at this critical moment.

Special Order of the Day, by Douglas Haig, 11th April 1918, during the German Spring Offensive.

Britain and the EU: The Political Case for Leaving

After my previous attempt to analyse the economic case for leaving the EU, this time I tried to look at the political arguments for leaving, those which revolve around sovereignty and democracy.

Just a reminder, the reason for focusing on the Leave campaign is because I believe that they have the greater case to prove. We know what life in the EU is like. The impetus is on the Leave campaign to show us how it would be better outside.

Until we leave, we are not a properly sovereign country

Sovereignty is a funny old thing. It is a bit like sex. Everyone agrees that more of it is better, but you have to take claims about how much of it people do or don't have with a pinch of salt.

The Leave camp are making a simple, powerful claim. Their claim is that by being a member of the EU, the UK has surrendered some of its sovereignty. By leaving, we would get that back. No numbers to crunch, no statistics to contend with. By voting Leave, you will help to restore Britain's power. What more can be said to that?

But in every way imaginable, the UK is a sovereign nation. Laws are made by the 'Queen in Parliament'- that is, they are introduced by the government, passed by the House of Commons and House of Lords, and signed off by the Queen. Within this model, there are few constraints on the power of the British state. That is pretty much the textbook definition of sovereignty. The British state has a monopoly of political power within its borders.

As an example, if we wanted to, we could easily use this sovereignty to leave the EU. Tomorrow, if we wanted. All it would take would be for Parliament to repeal the European Communities Act of 1972. This would end our membership of the EU immediately, by rendering Community law unenforceable in the UK. Granted, it would be a chaotic way of leaving the EU, but it is theoretically possible. That is sovereignty right there. Would a non sovereign state be able to do that?

Being part of any international organisation requires the surrendering of some say or power on the part of the state. Our membership of NATO means that we have to accept that, if any NATO member is ever attacked, we have to go their aid, even if it is not within our national interests to do so. Our membership of the UN means that we accept that our soldiers will be placed under international command, and deployed around the world where Britain has no interests, but the world does. The UKUSA agreement means that any intelligence collected by the UK is automatically shared with the USA, Canada, New Zealand or Australia.

Any agreements between countries requires them to accept a limit on their ability to act as they please, in the pursuit of mutual interests. The EU is just another example of this, albeit the most prominent example. The logical extension of the sovereignty argument is that Britain should leave all international organisations, and cut off virtually all ties with the outside world. Then we would have our sovereignty back. But this Britain would be a poorer, less safe, place to live in.

If you want an example of a non-sovereign country, look at Germany's recent past. Until 1990, the highest authority in West Germany and East Germany was the Allied Control Council. In theory, Germany was still under military occupation by the UK, France, the USA and the USSR. Or modern day Bosnia ;the Dayton Accords imposed a political structure on the warring factions in 1995, against the will of many Bosnian Serbs. The head of state is still appointed by the UN, and has not yet been a native Bosnian. Those are countries which are not sovereign, as they lack the ability to act independently. We're nothing like that.

The Westphalian model of sovereignty, of nation-states with untrammeled power, acting in their own interests, is at odds with the 21st century world of inter-connectivity. The idea of sovereignty which many in the Leave campaign argue for was not possible in the 17th century, and certainly will not be possible now. To be concerned about a loss of sovereignty is fine, but you can't pick and choose how you argue that fight. If it is the issue, then we must leave all international organisations and strike out alone. If you think that is the way forward, then do vote to leave. But you can't use the sovereignty argument for the EU alone.

The USA wouldn't accept this loss of sovereignty

This one was trotted out when Barack Obama decided to get stuck in to the referendum campaign. One of the objections raised was that the USA would never stand for the restrictions placed upon it that we do.

Firstly, see back to the idea of unlimited sovereignty. Any state which engages with the rest of the world has to accept limits on its power. Even America.

But the United States of America is engaged in a much bigger loss of sovereignty, one which it undergoes every day.

When the Thirteen Colonies of British America declared themselves to be in rebellion against the Crown, they became independent countries. They chose to co-operate for the purpose of winning the war with Great Britain, but they still became 13 separate countries. When the war ended, they became a confederation, a loose agreement. The United States had no national leader, a toothless parliament, no army, no tax raising powers, no central co-ordination. For the first few years of its existence. During that time, ultimate power rested with the states. Each could set their own laws, elect their own governments, raise their own taxes. They chose to send some money to the centre, to co-ordinate trade and interstate relations. Sound familiar?

It soon became clear that this wasn't working. So a constitutional convention was held. The states decided on a radical course of action. They would pool their sovereignty; each state would surrender it's right to unrestrained autonomous action, to support the creation of a federal government of the United States. George Washington was chosen to lead this federation, and the rest was history.

So, yes the USA would accept this limit on its sovereignty. It is what the modern United States is; the greatest experiment in pooled sovereignty to this day. Rather than spurning their advice, we'd do well to listen to them instead.

The EU is undemocratic

Yes.

Surprised? It'd be hard to claim otherwise. The EU is run by unelected Eurocrats from Brussels, far removed from the people they make decisions for, and impossible to hold to account. This has been one of the oldest arguments against the EU. It was made in the 1975 referendum, and has continued to be made since.

But, unlike the vast majority of international organisations, the EU does have a degree of democracy. When was the last time you voted in a Commonwealth election? Or to the NATO parliament? How about for the UN Secretary-General? You won't have done. Those organisations are run by people appointed by national governments. They may even be appointed internally. They are far less democratic than the EU, which alongside appointments by national governments has elections to the European Parliament. But yet these less democratic organisations are often the ones that the Leave campaign are keenest for Britain to become more involved with.

There is a woeful level of participation in EU elections, right across Europe. But that is partly our fault. Turnout in all elections has been falling across the developed world since the 1990s. When given the chance to elect our MEPs, millions of us just stay at home. We cannot then be complaining that we have not been given a say.

Also, national governments are not much better. Britain has never been a direct democracy, certainly not since the first mass extension of the franchise in 1832. We elect representatives in the form of Members of Parliament, and expect them to sort it all out. Lord Hailsham once described Britain as an elected dictatorship. There is virtually no limit or accountability on the power of the government once it has been elected. And when you go to the polls every half a decade, you are voting for your MP. You are not going to be swayed by every single thing the government or opposition has or hasn't done over the last five years. Anyway, you can hardly vote to punish an MP whose seat is hundreds of miles away for their poor decision some years before, unless you happen to be one of their constituents. Successive British politicians have taken decisions for which they have been held only marginally accountable.

And this presumes that only politicians work for the state. In reality, civil servants enact much of the legislation which is created. And they are protected from elections, to ensure their independence. That is only right, as it separates power between those who make political decisions and those who implement policy. But you can't vote for British civil servants any more than EU ones.

What at first seems like an excellent critique of the EU ends up as a mess of contradictions. Are we prepared to accept undemocratic impositions on our lives, providing they are closer to home? Or speak the same language as us? The answer to Britain's democratic deficit is more democracy, not to leave the UK. Logically, the EU should be treated the same.

That we cannot name our MEPs is our fault, not that of the EU. That we feel we have no control over the EU should not be limited just to that institution. You have very little say over the actions of the British government, NATO, the UN. If the EU is not a democracy, than neither are many things. The answer should be more democratic accountability and engagement, not giving up and walking away.

Most of our laws are made in Brussels

This is often cited as one of the biggest examples of why we should leave the EU. Various suggestions as to how many new laws are made in Brussels are currently swirling, varying from 6% to a whopping 85%.

I can't answer this. In fact, no one can. According to a House of Commons report in October 2010:

there is no totally accurate, rational or useful way of calculating the percentage of national laws based on or influenced by the EU.

In the absence of any actual numbers, this seems like a dead end argument. Instead, I want to look at how EU laws and regulations do affect us, and whether leaving the EU would save us from the diktats of Brussels Eurocrats.

In the area of business, competition, commerce, working, and trade, we have had to accept many EU laws over the years. During the 1980s and 1990s a huge number of laws and regulations were introduced due to the EEC, to enable the creation of the Single Market. The Single Market only functions if we are all on a roughly even footing, and this proved to be a legislative nightmare to achieve. But since then, the number of new EU laws and regulations appears to have gone into steep decline. That makes sense; after the messy business of breaking down trade barriers was done, there would be less need for endless fresh legislation.

But leaving wouldn't necessarily rescue us from all these laws around businesses and working practices. Many Leave campaigners are very keen for Britain to be able to access the Single Market, as Norway, Switzerland and Iceland do from outside the EU. But to retain this access, we would have to agree to abide by the rules and regulations of that market. And what's worse, we would not be able to influence any decisions made by the EU about the rule governing the Single Market. Instead, new rules and regulations would be presented to us to accept, with no chance of amending or blocking them. It seems far better to stay inside and try to change the laws, rather than get out and realise you can't change them.

Then there are certain areas that the EU aims to help national governments co-ordinate policy and legislation, but does not have the power to compel them. These are:

• tax
• defence
• health
• industrial policy
• culture
• tourism
• education
• youth policy
• sport and vocational training
• civil defence
• administrative cooperation

That is a fair chunk of government business in which the EU has no say whatsoever. To those we can add areas such as foreign policy, in which the EU has agreed in principle to work together and has then spectacularly failed to achieve any consensus. So there are already a large number of areas in which the EU won't be making any laws at all.

For the rest, many of the examples often cited as 'EU laws', normally in the same breath as 'political correctness' and 'gone mad', are actually decisions made by the UK government. Health and safety is an excellent example: The Health and Safety at Work Act of 1974 was first introduced to Parliament in 1970, three years before Britain joined the EEC. EU regulations have added extra layers to this, but it is fundamentally a British law. That is the direction we have decided to go in as a society. Blaming Brussels might be easy, but in a lot of cases just isn't true.

The bottom line is, in an ever-interconnected world, it is impossible to prove or disprove the claim that most of our laws are a result of being in the European Union. But what is clear is that, if we do leave, and want to retain access to the Single Market, as many Leave campaigners maintain, we will have to retain much of the legislation and regulation that goes with it. What we will have done is to surrender our ability to influence future changes to the rules and regulations laid down by the EU. Having gone through all that pain, we would see precious little gain.

Summary

Firstly, I'd like to apologise for the fact that this post was very long and rambling. There is no short way to tackle the big questions, and I'd rather ramble and get there than try and cut corners!

I'd also like to apologise for the lack of hard data. Whereas lots of numbers have been hurled around with regards to economics, surprisingly there aren't as many when it comes to calculating the exact loss of sovereignty. Sources and inspiration are still available, they just won't be as comprehensive.

Overall, the Leave campaigners have sound political grounds to attack the EU from. It is undemocratic, and it does involve a loss of sovereignty on the part of the UK. But every single international organisation is the same. In trying to have an element of democracy within it, the EU has shown a way forward. We should be pushing for more democracy in the EU, not turning our back on it and leaving.