There is no doubt that since 1973, the country has prospered. Indeed, we joined the Common Market because we thought it was the answer to the economic malaise that had led to Britain being dubbed “the sick man of Europe”.
But all industrialised countries are wealthier than they were then, not just those in Europe. Arguably, the economic and financial changes wrought during the 1980s, together with the decline of trade union power, contributed far more to our GDP growth than membership of the Common Market.
Is it seriously being suggested that had we continued to function as an independent nation for the past 43 years like, say, Australia or Japan, we would today be the impoverished off-shore neighbour of a continental powerhouse? We cannot be sure; but there is no reason to believe so.
We
are told membership is essential because it provides access to a market of 500
million people; yet there is a market of six billion people beyond its borders
and nothing would stop us continuing to trade with Europe anyway. Other non-EU
countries trade more with the single market than we do but don’t have to pay
into the EU budget for the privilege of doing so.
A
world of opportunity is waiting for a fully independent Britain. This country
is a leading economic power, its language is global, its laws are trusted and
its reputation for fair dealing is second to none. To say we cannot thrive free
of the EU’s constraints is defeatist and flies in the face of this country’s
great mercantile traditions.
But
while the economic rationale for membership was the key argument behind the
movement to take us into the Common Market, there were other motivations, too.
After the Second World War and the end of Britain’s role as a colonial power,
the country was politically and diplomatically adrift. Its predicament was
summed up by the US secretary of state Dean Acheson with the phrase: “Great
Britain has lost an empire and has not yet found a
role.”
No comments:
Post a Comment