Read more: Brexit would not damage UK security
In April, I spoke in Paris on a European Movement platform along with the former Prime Minister of France, Michel Rocard, an old friend and a convinced European federalist, just as I am a convinced anti-federalist for the UK. We both agreed that it is now time for the UK to leave the EU.
The first reason on my part is the introduction of the euro in the first place, along with the total failure to resolve the eurozone crisis that has made the EU seriously dysfunctional. The 19-member eurozone (each state belonging to the 28-member EU) needs as soon as possible to become a fiscal transfer Union. This will change the direction of travel of the EU inexorably towards a United States of Europe; to all intents and purposes, a country. The UK remaining in the EU will become entwined either in this EU “country” capable of sustaining the euro; or within an EU that is plainly not working—nor adequately shielding us from its economic difficulties, though we are not part of the Eurozone.
Outside the EU we will still be traders in Europe but also neighbours, something importantly addressed in Article 8 of the Treaty on European Union, as distinct from Article 50 designed for leaving. Far from any vindictive reprisals Article 8 states “The Union shall develop a special relationship with neighbouring countries, aiming to establish an area of prosperity and good neighbourliness, founded on the values of the Union and characterised by close and peaceful relations based on cooperation.” The more years the UK can have outside the EU before a eurozone collapse, finding new markets under our own laws, the less we will be damaged. Mervyn King argues in his new book The End of Alchemy, that the Eurozone is heading for collapse without fiscal transfers and as the former Governor of the Bank of England he is better placed than most to make that judgement.
The UK up until the eurozone crisis of 2010 would have automatically blocked a fiscal transfer union for fear of presaging too great a degree of political integration. For similar reasons we have not wanted to agree to measures to reduce the democratic deficit in the EU, such as electing a President of the Commission, or the President of the Council composed of Heads of Government, creating a Minister for the Eurozone or giving more power to the European Parliament. Now with the Prime Minister’s failed attempt to make substantive reforms to the EU/eurozone the UK has nevertheless formally abandoned any veto over these matters. Forced economic realism means there now has to be a new political realism in the UK about the greatly increased pressure for a federal eurozone. Prudence dictates that we start this June the transition to get out of the EU in a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to leave.
It was noteworthy that on the 27th of April Michael Heseltine, still a prominent Conservative politician and advocate of remaining in the EU, honestly said "One day we will join the euro. There's no hurry and I don't think it's going to happen in my lifetime" (he's 83.) There are many like him in the Remain campaign who take this view but they now pretend euro entry will never happen, including David Cameron. How does Cameron know how a future UK government might react in an extreme economic crisis? Promises are cheap at this stage in the referendum campaign from people who want voters to ignore the inexorable direction of travel toward a country called Europe. Insisting on freedom of movement of labour and people is not necessary for a single market, though it will be necessary if and when Europe were ever to become a single country and a single currency. That is why German Chancellor Angela Merkel is such a stubborn defender of free movement, despite all the severe social problems it is carrying in its wake.
As the pressure for economic integration develops so the French vision of EU defence is also being revived for its considerable impact on political integration. The leaked reports of a German paper on European defence circulating in Brussels and Berlin make clear Germany has decided to endorse the French demand for detailed plans for a joint EU headquarters and shared military assets, the very thing the US has warned us all in NATO against. It is thought that this would mean a diversion of EU member states’ funds away from Nato.
This plan is being delayed until after the UK referendum to avoid stimulating controversy over a European Army. It is, however, but one of many indicators of the direction in which the European Union, with or without us, is heading.
President Obama in his recent interview for the Atlantic magazine correctly criticised us in Europe for “freeloading” on the NATO defence budget. It is also clearly not tolerable for US voters, Republican or Democrat, to go on paying 73 to 75 per cent of the NATO budget.
An American with great experience of European security John Kornblum argues, whatever the other arguments may be, “Britain’s own security and its role in western defence was likely to be enhanced if it left the EU.” Whether it be in the Balkans, the Middle East, Ukraine, counterterrorism or Russia, Kornblum believes, and I totally agree with him, the EU could not be secure without NATO. Nor has he much regard for drawing artificial lines between hard and soft power. Hard power goes with successful diplomacy. Divorce the two and you make peacekeeping at best a holding operation.
The first phase of European unity was broadly successful from 1957-1992. It has become progressively dysfunctional since the Maastricht Treaty was signed in 1992. NATO, by contrast, is still a unique command and control structure. And it is very far from being dysfunctional. Indeed, it is successful.
A core priority, if, as I hope, the UK leaves the EU, will be for the UK to help strengthen NATO by actions and commitment: in doing this we will remain Europeans. Hopefully we will be able with Canada and France to build in NATO the hard rapid reaction force the UN has needed for a long time. Based around the French and two British aircraft carriers we are building in the UK it could be deployed quickly worldwide and create a new peacekeeping element for the 21st Century.
In April, I spoke in Paris on a European Movement platform along with the former Prime Minister of France, Michel Rocard, an old friend and a convinced European federalist, just as I am a convinced anti-federalist for the UK. We both agreed that it is now time for the UK to leave the EU.
The first reason on my part is the introduction of the euro in the first place, along with the total failure to resolve the eurozone crisis that has made the EU seriously dysfunctional. The 19-member eurozone (each state belonging to the 28-member EU) needs as soon as possible to become a fiscal transfer Union. This will change the direction of travel of the EU inexorably towards a United States of Europe; to all intents and purposes, a country. The UK remaining in the EU will become entwined either in this EU “country” capable of sustaining the euro; or within an EU that is plainly not working—nor adequately shielding us from its economic difficulties, though we are not part of the Eurozone.
Outside the EU we will still be traders in Europe but also neighbours, something importantly addressed in Article 8 of the Treaty on European Union, as distinct from Article 50 designed for leaving. Far from any vindictive reprisals Article 8 states “The Union shall develop a special relationship with neighbouring countries, aiming to establish an area of prosperity and good neighbourliness, founded on the values of the Union and characterised by close and peaceful relations based on cooperation.” The more years the UK can have outside the EU before a eurozone collapse, finding new markets under our own laws, the less we will be damaged. Mervyn King argues in his new book The End of Alchemy, that the Eurozone is heading for collapse without fiscal transfers and as the former Governor of the Bank of England he is better placed than most to make that judgement.
The UK up until the eurozone crisis of 2010 would have automatically blocked a fiscal transfer union for fear of presaging too great a degree of political integration. For similar reasons we have not wanted to agree to measures to reduce the democratic deficit in the EU, such as electing a President of the Commission, or the President of the Council composed of Heads of Government, creating a Minister for the Eurozone or giving more power to the European Parliament. Now with the Prime Minister’s failed attempt to make substantive reforms to the EU/eurozone the UK has nevertheless formally abandoned any veto over these matters. Forced economic realism means there now has to be a new political realism in the UK about the greatly increased pressure for a federal eurozone. Prudence dictates that we start this June the transition to get out of the EU in a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to leave.
It was noteworthy that on the 27th of April Michael Heseltine, still a prominent Conservative politician and advocate of remaining in the EU, honestly said "One day we will join the euro. There's no hurry and I don't think it's going to happen in my lifetime" (he's 83.) There are many like him in the Remain campaign who take this view but they now pretend euro entry will never happen, including David Cameron. How does Cameron know how a future UK government might react in an extreme economic crisis? Promises are cheap at this stage in the referendum campaign from people who want voters to ignore the inexorable direction of travel toward a country called Europe. Insisting on freedom of movement of labour and people is not necessary for a single market, though it will be necessary if and when Europe were ever to become a single country and a single currency. That is why German Chancellor Angela Merkel is such a stubborn defender of free movement, despite all the severe social problems it is carrying in its wake.
As the pressure for economic integration develops so the French vision of EU defence is also being revived for its considerable impact on political integration. The leaked reports of a German paper on European defence circulating in Brussels and Berlin make clear Germany has decided to endorse the French demand for detailed plans for a joint EU headquarters and shared military assets, the very thing the US has warned us all in NATO against. It is thought that this would mean a diversion of EU member states’ funds away from Nato.
This plan is being delayed until after the UK referendum to avoid stimulating controversy over a European Army. It is, however, but one of many indicators of the direction in which the European Union, with or without us, is heading.
President Obama in his recent interview for the Atlantic magazine correctly criticised us in Europe for “freeloading” on the NATO defence budget. It is also clearly not tolerable for US voters, Republican or Democrat, to go on paying 73 to 75 per cent of the NATO budget.
An American with great experience of European security John Kornblum argues, whatever the other arguments may be, “Britain’s own security and its role in western defence was likely to be enhanced if it left the EU.” Whether it be in the Balkans, the Middle East, Ukraine, counterterrorism or Russia, Kornblum believes, and I totally agree with him, the EU could not be secure without NATO. Nor has he much regard for drawing artificial lines between hard and soft power. Hard power goes with successful diplomacy. Divorce the two and you make peacekeeping at best a holding operation.
The first phase of European unity was broadly successful from 1957-1992. It has become progressively dysfunctional since the Maastricht Treaty was signed in 1992. NATO, by contrast, is still a unique command and control structure. And it is very far from being dysfunctional. Indeed, it is successful.
A core priority, if, as I hope, the UK leaves the EU, will be for the UK to help strengthen NATO by actions and commitment: in doing this we will remain Europeans. Hopefully we will be able with Canada and France to build in NATO the hard rapid reaction force the UN has needed for a long time. Based around the French and two British aircraft carriers we are building in the UK it could be deployed quickly worldwide and create a new peacekeeping element for the 21st Century.
