There are no discernible benefits to our membership of the EU that could not be achieved by friendly cooperation from an independent position outside the EU.  On the other hand there are a huge number of disadvantages:  great expense that we cannot afford, thousands of regulations we do not need, damage to our agriculture, fisheries and small businesses, threats to our financial markets, proven fraud and incompetence, threats to our cherished legal system, loss of control over immigration – the list is long.  The populace has never had a proper chance to vote (the vote in 1975 was only for a common market, not for "ever closer union"). 

No UK government has ever done a proper reasoned cost-benefit analysis on EU membership.  The Swiss did so and advisedly stayed out.  So did the Norwegians, and these two countries are now the most prosperous in Europe.

Membership of the EU has damaged our relations with Commonwealth countries, inhibited our trade with the emerging big players on the world stage such as India, China and Brazil, and involved us in trade policies such as dumping agricultural surpluses on third world countries to the disadvantage of indigenous farmers.  It has also involved us in great expense because of the global warming fallacy propounded by the warmists in the EU and elsewhere, instead of taking a reasoned approach to these climate issues.

Repeal of the 1972 Act, and friendly bi-lateral relationships with the EU such as many other countries enjoy is obviously the best route for us.  Yet senior politicians from all three of the old parties go along unquestioningly with the EU.  One wonders why.

Why is this idea important?

The idea is important because we need to save the many billions that EU membership costs us, and regain our own sovereignty and democracy and the right to hire and fire those who govern us – which we cannot do when we are governed from Brussels.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *