In October 1996, as the launch of the euro came closer, I argued that: “The choice looming for the UK is between being inside the European Monetary Union and being outside . . . It will become a choice between having a voice within the governing arrangements of Europe and not having one. In time, it will be between being inside the EU and being outside it.”
I concluded, for this reason, that the UK should consider joining. Shortly thereafter I changed my mind, arguing that the UK could not thrive inside it. Subsequent events have confirmed this judgment. But my earlier concern has also been vindicated.
Exactly what I said. The EU IS the Euro (in financial terms) and the UK cannot thrive within it. In this case my contention was always that anyone who did not take the Euro would, eventually, be forced to leave. Not actually forced to leave but economically forced to leave because they would not submit.
Just like dealing with the EU from outside, dealing with the Eurozone from the outside puts the outsider at a disadvantage. The huge advantage to the country outside the EU is that the other 180 countries and 4 fifths of the world economy can be traded with and, at the very best, on a level playing field.
This was part of my contention all the time during the referendum and the FT spent all it's time telling me I was wrong. The other part was that the UK was no longer a country in the EU. I wonder if I will see all the countries of the EU publicly vanish in my lifetime. Or whether they will hang on to the fallacy of Nationhood well into the century?
Then the article goes on
First, the UK is a neighbour, a market, a financial centre, a security partner and a link to the wider world.
Sorry I thought the UK had the same world relevance as Guernsey???? What you mean we were lied to? Never!
Followed by
Thus the core challenge for the EU is to make it work — and be seen to work — for the benefit of the great majority of its citizens.
What? You mean it doesn't work today and it would still not be working if the UK had not left??? Does the phrase "sold a pup" mean anything to you??
But even here the writer doesn't understand what the EU really is.
The failure of the EU lies not in its political structures but in its policies. It must secure legitimacy via practical achievements rather than further erosion of national autonomy.
You can only have national policies when you are a nation. We are no longer a Nation we are a "member" state. Read the treaties dear author. When Brexit happens we will be a nation again. Although what it's worth will depend on how much more damage the Bank of England governor does to our economy and our standing in the world. Single Handedly, by taking pre-emptive action to a situation which did not exist at that time, he has caused the panic which never really emerged.
It is also really nice to know that
The paramount example of recent failure lies inside the eurozone. That has nothing to do with the UK. The sad truth is that, far from launching a period of prosperity, the euro has delivered a lengthy period of stagnation and massive divergences in living standards.
And
Even worse, between 2007 and 2016, real GDP per head is forecast to rise 11 per cent in Germany, stagnate in France and fall by 8 per cent and 11 per cent in Spain and Italy respectively.
Something I've been banging on about constantly. The EU plays only to it's strengths and "devil take the hindmost" is not an idiom, it's a mantra.
Finally the Author states
The EU is unlikely to gain the legitimacy that comes from democratic accountability: it is too big and diverse for that. The best route to legitimacy consists, instead, of managing the practical challenges it confronts. Dealing with migration is an extremely important and difficult practical challenge. But making the eurozone prosperous is indispensable. Brexit is a nuisance. The priority is a practical plan for widely shared economic growth.
Well that's all very nice and good. But if the Author had noted the President of the Commission demanding that ALL other countries in the EU join the Euro forthwith; without any reform, he would note that the EU is reverting to form without the interference of the UK. Notably that by bringing everyone into the Euro it is then not possible to compare the EU state differences between Euro and non Euro states. Thus simply burying the problem.
We're better off out. But the reality of that only emerges when we are faced with the actuality of exit. Those who tried to scare us into staying are now telling us why the EU has to reform. Yet they were telling us, only two weeks ago, that the EU was the best we can get and that it was better then being out. Not a word about inequalities or huge structural reform needed.
The lies will out and we're going to see a lot of lies unearthed over the next two years. But you will have to Look and Compare...
