Thursday, February 2, 2012

Useful arguments

What am I to say to people who tell me that we need to be in the EU for our economic welfare or, at least, in a greatly reformed EU? This question keeps coming up and it is important. We have not managed to get our message across as successfully as we ought to have done so arguments that we can use against the other side are important.

Here are some in a letter to the Grauniad, signed by many of the usual suspects (though they are not, thankfully, calling for that referendum).
1. We have 3m jobs exporting to the EU but it has 4.5m jobs exporting to us. We are its largest client. 2. The EU has free-trade agreements with 63 countries worldwide and another 63 on the way, so why not with us, on satisfactory terms? 3. Switzerland, not in the EU, exports three times more per capita to the EU than we do. 4. Only 9% of our GDP goes in trade with the EU (in deficit), 11% goes to the rest of the world (in surplus), and 80% stays in our domestic market. Yet Brussels overregulation strangles all 100% of our economy, and handicaps our exports to the countries of the future. Leaving the EU would create jobs, and restore our democracy.
While I have some reservations about the last sentence (leaving the EU will not automatically do either of those things), the four cardinal points made in the letter are not only true but are also useful arguments. Mind you, when one produces them, one still has to deal with the dubious facial expression and a muttered "yes, of course, but even so" from a lot of people.

3 comments:

  1. Thank you for sharing this link. It is surprising, as you say, that the contents of the letter (setting out the economic case) is not more widely disseminated by the free marketers. American free enterprise think-tanks, I believe, may be more politically astute in realising that only when the broadcaster has himself reached the super-saturation point does the message only begin to make itself known to the public.

    Here is an applicable quotation from James Bartholomew:

    <blockquote> The people are sovereign and the only chance we have of holding on to the advantages of capitalism or rolling back the extent of state control is by persuading people of the virtues of capitalism. It is not an easy job. Nor is it a job that can be done once and for all. It is work that will need to be done in every generation. It is work that, ideally, would result in allowing, at least, the pro-capitalist case to be made in schools and universities. At present, school libraries tend to have plenty of books by Marx and Engels but very few by Friedrich Hayek, Milton Friedman or Adam Smith. Indeed, many teachers have not even heard of several of these important thinkers.</blockquote>

    ReplyDelete
  2. Thank you for sharing this link. It is surprising, as you say, that the contents of the letter (setting out the economic case) is not more widely disseminated by the free marketers. American free enterprise think-tanks, I believe, may be more politically astute in realising that only when the broadcaster has himself reached the super-saturation point does the message only begin to make itself known to the public.

    Here is an applicable quotation from James Bartholomew:

    ‘The people are sovereign and the only chance we have of holding on to the advantages of capitalism or rolling back the extent of state control is by persuading people of the virtues of capitalism. It is not an easy job. Nor is it a job that can be done once and for all. It is work that will need to be done in every generation. It is work that, ideally, would result in allowing, at least, the pro-capitalist case to be made in schools and universities. At present, school libraries tend to have plenty of books by Marx and Engels but very few by Friedrich Hayek, Milton Friedman or Adam Smith. Indeed, many teachers have not even heard of several of these important thinkers.’

    ReplyDelete
  3. The pro-EU side lost all of the arguments some time ago. Every single one. Further argument seems futile. UK membership of the EU is not about argument or evidence, in much the same way as the euro is not primarily about economics. I suspect that it's a combination of faith (politicians') and fear (the populace's) that keeps us in. I'm not convinced that in this case faith or fear can be defeated by rational argument. Surely argument would have succeeded by now, or are we just waiting for the right conduit? But without argument, I wonder what are we left with.

    ReplyDelete