To paraphrase Life of Brian, what has Europe ever done for us? In the Monty Python film, the Judeans could grudgingly cite the aqueduct, roads, wine, irrigation, public baths, sanitation, medicine, education and security to acknowledge that being part of the Roman Empire was not entirely without its advantages. But what exactly do we get from our membership of the EU?
Little, say the Eurosceptics. They tend to answer the question in economic terms, pointing to many years of negative trade imbalances with Europe and a substantial net contribution to the budget to show we have had a bad deal. Plenty, say the pro-Europeans. They emphasise half a century of peace on a continent previously ravaged by war – a point made so eloquently by Germany’s foreign minister Guido Westerwelle on a visit to London yesterday – and the importance of being part of a larger political bloc in a globalised world in which size matters.
Who is right? Is it even possible to answer this question? More to the point, why does no one in government ever try to find out? Perhaps they are frightened of the answer. The fact is that next year marks the 40th anniversary of the passage of the European Communities Act; yet in all that time our membership has never been subject to an official cost-benefit analysis.
Certainly, Eurosceptic groups have produced dozens of reports detailing how we have been disadvantaged by belonging to the EU; but no government has ever sanctioned an inquiry to test the case. The lofty view from Whitehall has always been that the benefits of membership are so self-evident that such an exercise would be a waste of time and money.
Most of us have gone along with this over the years – myself included, I must confess – fearful that becoming semi-detached from Europe would adversely affect our standing in the world. But there must come a point when the economic liabilities outweigh whatever political and diplomatic uplift accrues from membership. That time has surely arrived when we are under pressure to stump up (that is, borrow) £25 billion in the middle of a recession to rescue countries made insolvent because they belong to a currency union that we refused to join. Or when our trawlermen are required under the Common Fisheries Policy to work for just 90 days of the year, as agreed at the weekend – the latest devastating blow to a once-great industry.
It is at this timely juncture that the House of Lords is considering whether to set up an independent committee of inquiry to answer precisely the question: cui bono? It would consist of seven people: two in favour of staying in the EU, two who want to leave and two who have no firm view, with an independent chairman. True, this measure is being sponsored by someone who fits firmly into the “let’s get out” camp – Lord Pearson of Rannoch, a Ukip peer and long-standing critic of Britain’s membership. But what do pro-Europeans have to fear from such an exercise? If the virtues of belonging are so obvious, they will be apparent to any inquiry.
More than that, it might provide definitive proof of the case regularly made by pro-Europeans to justify continued membership. Foremost among their points is the negative impact on the economy if we left. It is often said that since 40 per cent of our exports go to EU clients, three million jobs would be jeopardised by withdrawal, a point made once again by business leaders in a letter on this page. But why does one follow the other? Does the fact that so many jobs are linked to trade with European countries mean they would be lost or would the business simply continue? We don’t trade with the EU as an institution, but with its constituent states.
Another claim is that inward investment from, say, Japanese motor firms would dry up. Is that true? With the eurozone in such a mess, and the regulatory burden of the EU hampering growth, a non-member on the periphery of the EU but no longer subject to its rules might actually be attractive to overseas investors. After all, the City of London has developed into the world’s largest financial centre despite the UK being outside the euro.
Here is another question: how many of member states’ laws are imposed by Europe? No one knows for sure; estimates vary from 10 per cent to 80 per cent, though the true figure is probably closer to 50 per cent. In the NHS, working-time restrictions have severely disadvantaged our hospitals and EU directives have impaired clinical research. Protectionism, lack of competitiveness, over-regulation: all these incur serious costs, but the pro-Europeans would argue that they are a small price to pay for access to the single market and a place at the top table of world trade talks. Is that true? And in any case, why would we be excluded from the European market if we were outside the EU? Perhaps someone without an axe to grind could explain.
There is not even agreement on this country’s net contribution to EU coffers, something that should be straightforward. The Treasury says the figure is £7.6 billion, up from £4.7 billion in 2009-10. But the sceptics quote figures from the European Commission’s Pink Book, which reveal that we handed over £18.5 billion last year in various forms and received £8 billion in return for regional aid, agricultural support and other projects. So we do get something back; but it is our own money – and it would probably be cheaper to cut out the middleman. Surely by now the costs have reached the point where it is no longer rational to maintain the same relationship with the EU that we have had for 40 years, any more than an aqueduct and a jug of pinot grigio made Roman occupation palatable to the People’s Front of Judea.
