Why do we stay in?

Given that there are so many reasons for getting out of the European Union (EU), why do we stay in? Why are all the big parties unanimous in their desire too stay in the EU? Surely there must be compelling reasons? However many times you ask, however many people you ask, there are no convincing answers. But here are some of the reasons usually given:

Heseltine, before the 2005 Conservative Party conference, made one point: 'It is inconceivable that we should leave the EU because the United States demanded that we should join, and demand that we stay in, to modify EU behaviour from within'. This may have been true in his time, now long gone.

BUT:

a. Firstly should we abandon our democracy and sovereignty to please the US? However much we value our ties with the US, UKIP would say NO.

b. Secondly can we really act as an American bridge-head in the EU, to push US-friendly policies onto it? With the expansion, we have very little power other than persuasion and example. We could do that just as well in or out. The Europeans are already deeply suspicious of Britain's 'special relationship' and any attempt to manouever the EU into US ways would be more likely to build resistance, not acquiesence.
c. Thirdly the empire building nature of the EU dictatorship in the form of the Commission is more likely to antagonise the US more, the more successful it becomes. The political, commercial and military ouvertures the EU is making to Mercosur could even bring the two entities into conflict.
It is said that the EU is our biggest trading partner, and that, if we left, we would lose billions of pounds worth of trade, and hundreds of thousands of jobs.

BUT:

a. We have a huge trade deficit with the EU. We buy far more from them than they buy from us. Even our too-small export figure is falsified by the EU as much of our 'export to the EU' consists of goods we ship to the rest of the world through European ports, counted as exports to the EU by the EU. Would the EU want to kill trade between us? The EU would have most to lose, as we could buy most of our agricultural goods, raw materials, equipment, textiles more cheaply from our overseas friends, where we currently have a trade surplus.

b. We could still have a functioning trade agreement with the EU as Norway, Iceland, Switzerland and Lichtenstein do now, and would not have to lose any trade at all.

c. The four EFTA countries have export surpluses in their trade with the EU, and are bounding ahead of the EU in all economic indicators, and are now twice as wealthy per head as the EU average. All four are wealthier than every EU country
It is said that we would lose our inward investment if we were out of the EU. The same argument was put by Europhiles for joining the single currency, the Euro.

BUT:

a. We are the second biggest receiver of inward investment in the world after the US. Our proportion of the total inward investment into Europe is greater than ever before. We received 40% of the total new investemnt into Europe last year, even with the accession countries. The reason is that we have not fully implemented all damaging EU policies.

b. If we got out, but retained a trade agreement (like Switzerland and Norway) we would be free to de-regulate, to return to the 'Anglo Saxon' model, and would get even more investment.

c. It is difficult to see why any one outside the EU should invest in it. EU companies are busy dis-investing themselves and moving their industries to less regulated economies outside the EU, to an even greater extent than we are.

d. Every one of our UK 'regions' (you may not know that the EU considers Europe to consist of 256 regions) has lower unemployment than the EU average, and 2 out of 2 of the top regions for unemployment in the whole of the EU are in the UK. Our unemployment is less than half the EU average, because we have not taken great strides in Social Engineering and Job Protection. Unfortunately the New Labour party is hurtling into EU convergence; this lemming rush should be stopped by any politician with the National Interest at heart.
It is said that we need EU regulation and common EU standards to survive in the New Global Economy, with India, China and others making leaps forward. Really! I actually heard a Liberal Democrat candidate state this at the last general election.

BUT: it is the exact reverse of the truth.
a. EU standards (Euro-norms) are glued together by experts from many National Standards bodies (all soon to be subsumed) and are all more complex and time consuming to use, and lead to more expensive products (but no better or safer) than our British Standards.

b. British Standards are widely accepted in the rest of the world, which gives us an advantage we would be stupid to throw away. We at could certainly not sell our product worldwide, as we now do, if we were saddled with Euro-norms in overseas markets. I would guess that all of British Industry would suffer the same problems.

c. The added handicap of EU regulations within our business is already making life difficult for exporters, and the burdens are increasingly harder to bear. In mid 2005 the EU recognised this and cancelled 64 legislative clauses: but they forgot to stop passing new restrictions, and 1000 new clauses have come into effect in the 2 following months.
It is said that we are a small weak nation and we need to pool our military capability with the mighty EU to defend ourselves, to have influence, even to survive.

BUT: of all the falsehoods, this is probably the greatest:

a. Our European friends have not always been the most reliable of allies and their interests are not always the same as ours.

b. Our armed forces are well trained, professional fighting men. We punch above our weight because of the quality of our armed forces, and there are no other such professionals in the whole of Europe.

c. We have many more powerful, more trustworthy, more loyal allies around the world.

d. The truth is that, never in the field of human conflict should we subjugate our troops to EU control, or depend on the EU to defend our vital interests.
With enlargement, the EU has taken on the modernisation of some parts of some of the poorer countries of Eastern Europe. This will no doubt improve the lives of many people; and may also help these countries become better markets for our goods as their economies pick up. Surely this is a good thing? Well, of course it is, for them, but do we have to be in the EU to do this? Of course not: if we had to fund, say, a sewage system for our good friends the Poles (to whom we owe a lot, actually), would any one in their right minds choose to fund it through the sticky filter of the EU commission? It would clearly be better to fund it directly ourselves, and get more bang for our buck, and have our money properly accounted for.

Would this money be charity or investment? A bit of both, really. Surely we should be able to choose the recipients of our funds, and not have them chosen by the unelected, unrepresentative EU commission? And this money comes from a surplus in our home economy, and currently there is no surplus. Almost all the other EU economies are having to borrow, well beyond the Euro regulations allow; and with spiralling public spending and reduced tax revenues here, we are starting to follow Germany and France into the same black hole.

If we got out, and rejoined EFTA, our economy would leap forwards as EFTA economies do (see EFTA). We would soon be back in surplus, and then we could afford both charity and investment overseas, both in Eastern Europe and in the countries of our former colonies and dependencies. Buoyant economies can afford desirable spending; sluggish EU economies cannot.
There is one fair reason for being in the EU, voiced by a good patriot, who fought in the 1939-1945 War in both the European and Far East theatres. His view: Yes, the EU may be inefficient and costly. But we need to avoid another European War at all costs. By binding every European Nation into the EU, a future European War will be avoided. Is this an overwhelming case? DESPITE ALL THE E.U.’S FAULTS, IS IT THE ONLY WAY WE CAN AVOID ANOTHER EUROPEAN WAR?

The founders of the E.U. had this very much in mind. The French were the leaders, and looking back from 1948 to the 3 times they had been invaded in less than a century, one can hardly blame them.

But they were overtaken by events – it is N.A.T.O. that has kept the peace, and was doing so very effectively well before the E.U. had even advanced as far as the Common Market stage.

N.A.T.O. is much more firmly organised and committed than the E.U. N.A.T.O. binds all the main European nations together by Treaty, it has a recognised and experienced command structure, and the various national forces work together well in NATO operations. N.A.T.O. is probably the most effective Alliance in the history of the World.

To drop our reliance on N.A.T.O. in favour of an untried and untested E.U. Defence Force would be folly. Firstly, the U.S. might see it (indeed the French might intend it) as an alternative or even an opposition to N.A.T.O. The U.S. is overwhelmingly stronger and more modern than any E.U. force could be, so to risk losing its cooperation would be a disaster.

Nor is the E.U. defence record – what there is of it – at all convincing. In the first Gulf war some European countries refused to supply ammunition. In the Balkans, different European countries encouraged different sides, and at Srebrenice the abject failure of a European force led to a wholesale massacre of the population. It was not until N.A.T.O. took over and European forces were joined by the U.S. that the Balkan situation was stabilised.

The current attempts to create a Pan European Defence Force, with EU equipment being preferred over better and more economical US/British equivalents, is likely to undermine NATO and make the World, and Europe, less secure, not more secure

To be sure, tying in countries through trade does help to prevent conflicts – but the E.U.is not necessary to this end. Our Northern European neighbours in EFTA maintain these trade links – and prosper economically – without being in the EU.

Finally, security crises and the prospect of conflict can only be dealt with by an established central government which has democratic legitimacy and unquestioned control of all its armed forces. The E.U. is light years away from this position.
So it is baffling, startling even, why, in spite of any good reason to the contrary, all our main political parties conspire to agree on further European Integration. Even Conservative MEPs belong to the federationalist EPP, which helped tp write the constitution and presses hard for its adoption; Labour wants to get to full federation as soon as possible, and the Lib Dems would dive straight in to full Euro membership and full federation regardless. Perhaps there are other compelling reasons:

a. Could it be that all actors, all politicians, are driven to act out their parts on a bigger stage? And that the EU provides such a stage?

b. Or is there a more prosaic reason? Does it just provide career prospects?
The author would be very glad to hear of any genuine reasons for staying in, and for any more genuine reasons for getting out.