Article from the FT By Robert Skidelsky, a member of the British House of Lords, is Professor Emeritus of Political
Economy at Warwick University.
(ED) I agree with this Professor, for the entirety of his article below, with
the exception of the last line - with Macron in his pesent troubles at home in France!
"Remainers conveniently forget that when Britain voted in 1975 to remain a member of the
EEC — after joining in 1973 — the referendum was based on the "lie" that membership had no
political implications. In fact, the EU’s founders, especially Jean Monnet, saw ever-deeper
economic union as a way to forge ever-deeper political union. In 1986, Thatcher signed the
Single European Act (which set the objective of establishing a single market), apparently
believing that it was only an extension of free trade in goods to services, capital, and labour.
But Britain’s semi-detached status was confirmed by the Maastricht Treaty of 1992, under
which Thatcher’s successor, John Major, obtained (together with Denmark) an exemption
from the requirement to join the euro. More obviously than anything preceding it, the single
currency was a touchstone of willingness to proceed toward political union. After all, as the
events of 2008-09 showed, a common currency without a common government cannot be made
to work.
In the wake of the Brexit decision, Cameron’s hapless successor, Theresa May, has been
caught between the demands of Brexiteers like her erstwhile (ex) foreign secretary, Boris
Johnson, for “control of our borders” and the fears of the Remainers concerning the
economic and political consequences of leaving. She hopes for an exit from the EU whereby
Britain would retain the benefits, but avoid the costs, of membership.
This hope is embodied in the government’s just-published white paper, The Future Relationship
between the United Kingdom and the European Union. In it, the government seeks an “association” that
would leave Britain within the EU’s external tariff area for all trade in goods made in Britain and the
EU, but free to conclude its own free-trade agreements with everyone else. The single market in
services would be replaced by a special agreement allowing EU clients unrestricted access to London’s
financial services, while avoiding a common regulatory system. A new “framework for mobility” would
aim to continue to “attract the brightest and the best, from the EU and elsewhere,” while curtailing (in
unspecified ways) EU citizens’ freedom to work in Britain.
Nothing is more certain than that the white paper’s jejune attempt to have it both ways will fail to
survive serious scrutiny on either side of the Channel. And that means that Britain will leave the EU in
March 2019 without a workable divorce settlement. The only question is whether this outcome will be
the disaster most observers fear.
I am unpersuaded by the Remain argument that leaving the EU would be economically catastrophic for
Britain. The loss of settled EU arrangements would be balanced by the chance for Britain to rediscover
its own way, not least in fiscal and industrial policy. Experience suggests that the British are most
resilient, most inventive, and happiest when they feel in control of their own future. They are not
ready to give up their independence.
My main worry is the loss of the chance for Britain to help shape the political future of Europe. The
organisation Britain will be leaving is far from marching confidently ahead to political union. It is riven
with conflict. German Chancellor Angela Merkel is almost as powerless as May; neo-fascists are in,
sharing, or close to power in several European countries. Almost the entire weight of the European
project rests on the shoulders of French President Emmanuel Macron.
It would have been good to have Britain by his side, rather than drifting out to the Atlantic."