It looks as though we may be neglecting one lever at the moment: even discounting UKIP we have a substantial number of MEPs, who remain in place until we leave.The UK apparently has 73 MEPs – even discounting the UKIP group this is a sizeable wedge   Maybe there are alliances we could make, and maybe we need to explore filibustering/ blocking tactics in case we need that in our negotiation armoury .

Macron wants to reform the EC. As members of the EC until we actually leave, (which may be many years) we would be missing a trick if we did not seriously try to make the EC more like the organisation UK citizens would like it to be, given that it is in any case on the turn;  There are potential allies. And what have we got to lose ? The trouble with the British and the EU is that we never really joined it in the first place.We ignored European politics. Consequently I have never seen a blue-print for our ideal EC.

The arguments for leaving in a hurry look increasingly shaky. The most salient was: “We pay enormous amounts to the EC, and our ability to trade with other countries is restricted. When we get out of the EC and its restrictions we shall be [much] better off.” Both these linked propositions seem to be fading fast. Who believes that now? Actually we are spending vast sums on the bureaucracy of leaving the EC and neglecting other things in consequence.

A second main argument expressed itself as “ We shall regain sovereignty when we leave/ we will get back control over our laws.” No doubt there was a time when a nation-state could make its laws, ignoring all other states, and impose them absolutely in its own territory. We no longer live in that time. Part of our law is dependent on supra-national bodies or conventions (eg the UN Charter or the Geneva Convention, or the1999 Gothebrg Protocol). For instance, we are members of NATO, and under the Nato treaty, if a member state is attacked, we are obliged by treaty to declare war to defend it, Many British people would be shocked to find that this covers not only most Western and central European countries, but also the USA, Canada, Iceland and Turkey. If North Korea attacks the US, we are automatically at war with North Korea, and if Iran or Russia attack Turkey, then we are at war with Iran or Russia. It isn’t a choice: the decision is already made. The implications are rarely discussed. At the same time Britain is covered with US air bases,  vaguely disguised as RAF, but not in fact under our control. Funny that none of the Brexiteers talked about retrieving our military sovereignty from the USA: Wedgie Benn always did. 

Much more of our law depends indirectly on treaties and conventions agreed with other states. At the moment 44% of our trade is with the EU, which means that this part of our industrial export will have to conform to EC regulations if we wish to trade with EC countries. However, whereas at the moment we can influence the shape of EC reg as members by internal political pressure, leaving the EU strips us of ability to influence the making of the law we shall be constrained by.

There is a Left suggestion that EC Law as it stands makes it difficult to extend the role of the individual state (for instance, to nationalise industries or facilities), but this is disputed. What is indisputable is that EC law, like any law, can be changed. However that may be, it looks unlikely that there will be an increase in our freedom, personal or national, as a result of leaving the EU: more likely there will be a decrease.

The third main reason for seeking to leave the EC could be expressed as follows: “We will have full control over immigration and our borders/this is a small nation/we shall control who gets in, and stop our culture being swamped.”

It would be perfectly possible, in theory, to control our population by doing two things: firstly, requiring everyone to own, and carry, an identity card, and secondly, controlling our borders rigorously. The first of these actions would take some years to complete, but once done it would be possible to identify ‘illegals’, and the likelihood of being caught and the impossibility of obtaining social benefits would greatly reduce their number. Naturally this move would spawn a black industry of counterfeiting, and would have to be sophisticated enough to make that industry costly and difficult, which means that the identity cards would themselves have to be sophisticated and therefore expensive. Getting in and out of the country would take more time, and there would need to be an increase in the number of immigration officers. By the same token there would have to be a very great increase of border control officers, aircraft, ships and surveillance systems etc.

There are good reasons to suppose that this sort of increase of control would be resisted or rejected by both Public and MPs. We have already had a debate on identity cards. People don’t much like carrying identification, or being asked for it, and believe correctly that Government (aka Big Brother) will try to intrude further into private life by squeezing more surveillance info out of an identity card, which will inevitably be used for all sorts of reasons other than what it was invented for. If the cards were sophisticated enough to deter low-level counterfeiting they would be be expensive to make and to activate. Who would pay for them?

The issue of cost also looms large in relation to the control of our borders. One serious figure gives the coastal borders of the British Isles as 7,000 miles. We appear to have (according to the Independent) all of three Border Force cutter vessels to patrol it (Italy has 600 vessels and Holland 16). Again (according to the Guardian) “Nearly half of the unmanned seaports on the east coast of Britain were left without a visit from border enforcement officers for more than a year” There are about 8,000 personel in the border force, which looks equally light – leaving out clerical staff it might run to one officer per mile of coastline! As we know from Poldark, (where we rather admire it), the British are as good at people-smuggling as anyone else when we put our minds to it. After all, there is effectively no-one to stop us.

Most of our defence against mass migration, currently surging from the South, is the existence of Europe between us and the Mediterranean. If that cushion, resisting and absorbing the in-flow, fails, then we don’t appear to have much defence to fall back on. In other words, British immigration policy absolutely depends on EU countries

It ought to seem silly to say that a large block like the EU, if it had wise policies, could have some effect on the real causes of mass migration which threaten us all in Europe:  in the long run the remedy will require a sort of Marshall Plan for devastated or impoverished areas. operating over a long period. Move in the investment, and turn refugee camps into NewTowns. The UK on its own can’t and wont achieve this. The May Strategy – make the UK so unpleasant that no-one will want to come here – may be the only practical one left to us.

As to the swamping of our culture, what you might call The Return of Empire – West Indian and Asian immigration – has already had an enormously greater effect on British culture than any European input, though the major Empire surge is past. The Polish inflow has had little effect on our culture, rather than making it a bit easier to buy sauerkraut. There are apparently 270,000 French citizens living in London: point me to London boroughs which are being swamped by French culture?

While the current incompetent government dithers us away from the EU,imaybe MEPs could try to become more forceful and vocal. Anything for focussed political activity.  [Yes, I’m back]

Advertisements