Mark Wallace of the TaxPayers’ Alliance, writes, at Devil’s Kitchen, thus:
Part of the problem for eurosceptics has been that we have too often only engaged in one half of the argument. To be fair, we’ve all made a pretty good case that the EU is a costly, harmful, antidemocratic monstrosity – so much so that the public are in great majority convinced of that.
It is the second half of the argument which has been somewhat lacking – what is the positive alternative? Convincing people there is a problem with the current situation is not enough; we need to lay out what life would be like without the EU, how things could be better and, crucially, how it is perfectly feasible to get there.
To that end, the TaxPayers’ Alliance is publishing a new book, Ten Years On: Britain without the European Union which lays out a vision of what Britain could be like in 2020, governing ourselves and with the freedom to cooperate and trade with whomsoever we like.
Even better, it is available free to pre-order through this link!
I think this is spot on, not necessarily in the sense that Britain would be better off out of the EU, but in the sense that this is the bit of the argument that has been neglected. After all, the same lying politicians, stubborn bureaucrats, town hall little Hitlers and idiot voters that got us into this mess would still be around to screw up the alternative. So how would being out of the EU necessarily make their position weaker? Might the alternative actually be worse? I believe – partly because I want to believe (see paragraph one of the quote above) – that it would an improvement, but I would like to hear this argument made.
Also, would we, Norway style, still have to endure EUrocrats making our rules for us, for the privilege of trading with the EU? Seems unlikely, but again, I’d like to hear the argument.
So, as Instapundit would say, it’s in the post. The ordering seemed to work very smoothly. Nothing like free of charge to simplify things.
We could, if out, more easily grill and eat our own home-grown Collectivist-bureau-apparatchiks. This is if they still continue to dare to annoy us and erase our traditions and measurements and money in the name of “harmonisation” or any other perverted science. And we’d be able to do it without fear of being invaded by EuroGendarmes.
We could trumpet that we are “asserting our cultural and ethnic identity”.
“So how would being out of the EU necessarily make their position weaker?”
If, at some hypothetical point in the future, the UK had left the EU, then surely the antecedent problem of “lying politicians, stubborn bureaucrats, town hall little Hitlers and idiot voters” would somehow already have diminished substantially?
At least as far as I’m concerned, the EU is not, in itself, the principle target – the target is government and the EU is merely the most monstrous instance of that target.
I cannot order the book since I am no longer resident in Britain, but I hope that their argument makes little or no reference to “making governance more democratic” – if this “the EU is anti-democratic” line is popularized by people like the taxpayer’s alliance then that doesn’t give me much confidence in them at all.
That’s the problem. In principle, I am vaguely “pro-European” in outlook, but I realised a few years ago that the benefits of EU membership (for there are some) are far, far outweighed by the costs, and that hardly any of the pro-EU arguments stack up.
But once you say you would like England to leave the EU, you get derided as [insert insult according to taste]. It is nigh impossible to have a rational debate about costs and benefits with the pro-EU mob because their propaganda is far too all-pervading.
Even if everything in this book is correct (and it might be, it might be not) the pro-EU mob will just disparage it as lies anyway – they will say that [insert insult according to taste] are against the EU in principle and that they are cherry picking and exaggerating.
That hits the nail right on the head. This is exactly the case. We need to eliminate the EU tier of state control so we can concentrate on attacking our home grown statist vermin. Although I am under no illusions as to the minarchist wonderfulness of Nigel Farage (who appears to have no more grasp of economics than Cameron or Brown) and indeed I disagree with the very thing that attracts most people to UKIP (the immigration issue), I urge support for UKIP for the simple tactical reason of getting rid of one set of enemies in Brussels, undermining the statist jackanapes Cameron and possibly realigning UK politics in ways I think that could in the long term advance the cause of liberty.
“It is nigh impossible to have a rational debate about costs and benefits with the pro-EU mob because their propaganda is far too all-pervading.”
They are not essentially a “pro-EU mob”, but they are a mob; they are either Brian’s “little hitlers” who are for the EU because their own identity is seated upon the collectivist premise, or they are wandering bubble heads who don’t know how to judge geopolitical questions by reference to principles.
Aside from the matter of identifying these people correctly, you have the rest of it about right.
“I urge support for UKIP for the simple tactical reason of getting rid of one set of enemies in Brussels…”
Mark Wadsworth’s comments are partly why I don’t have much confidence in UKIP doing well enough at the next general election to wield the kind of influence you are looking for. I’d be stunned if they even got anywhere near the Lib Dems whether that be in terms of seats or even percentage of the vote.
“We need to eliminate the EU tier of state control so we can concentrate on attacking our home grown statist vermin.”
The EU is dependent upon the acquiescence of the national governments, which themselves are dependent upon the collective smothering of western minds by a dirty pillow of bullshit. I say the imperative is the other way around, and that the time scale for this work is probably a lot longer than the next few elections.
For all his inexplicable loyalty to David Cameron, Daniel Hannan has it spot-on: leaving the EU is simply a means to an end. It’s the first step of a process, not a panacea. We can’t tackle the problem of overgovernment without first dealing with the main obstacle to its reduction.
The E.U. is indeed another layer of government – not just more government spending, but endless regulations.
However, it is more than that – it undermines the historical genius of Europe, the diversity. The harder it becomes to leave the area of control of a government the less restriction there is on the growth of that government.
It is no accident that the Roman Empire meant stagnation and eventual decline. Terrible decline of civil society – long before the successful barbarian invasions. Indeed the barbarian invasion were successful because of the long term decline of civilization that had already taken place. Had the various people who plotted to “unite Europe” or “unite the world” been successful such decline in civilization would have occurred again.
Whatever they thought they were, Philip II, Louis XIV, Napoleon, the Kaiser, “Lenin”, Hitler, Stalin and the rest, were foes of civilization because they sort to dominate Europe (and sometimes had dreams of world domination).
To be pro E.U. is to be ANTI European.
Dan Hannan has reminisced on the exorbitant expenses he was supposed to charge when he became an MEP and the shock and horror when he did not charge them. Rocking the boat and all that.
The EU is another layer of government and is not answerable to the people. NOT having such a monstrosity would seem to be a very big plus.
All statist/control activity is against the liberty of the individual. The free market works just fine if individuals are allowed to engage in free exchange. That of course is all the free market is, individuals freely exchanging.
And as it consists of free individuals using their intelligence it tends to be self adjusting/regulating.
The control urge is the thing that is wrong.
The EU does not need an alternative. It simply should not be. Just let the people get on with producing and exchanging without interference.
Control should be minimized, should be withdrawn.
The whole metacontext/zeitgeist at the present is pro power structures we do not need but the elites do.
The cost and the control are the reasons to reduce, diminish and ultimately quietly withdraw the EU.
To repeat, there is no other structure required.
Of course the opposite will happen and we are heading towards a situation where a technologically empowered elite will be able to control all aspects of its populace down to the finest detail. I imagine monitoring will be achieved and control exercised automatically via a computer controlled system that will raise red flags from time to time and that it will either deal with itself or perhaps even pass on to a human.
As total control is now (almost) possible is it not (almost) inevitable?
But I know you know this already!
Let me take a somewhat contrarian position here.
The history of Europe from at least Roman times up to the end of WWII was a seldom-interrupted cycle of violence. And even calling an end to that cycle of violence after WWII involves averting our eyes from the former Yugoslavia, Northern Ireland, the Basque Country, and calling cards from the Religion of Peace.
It is human nature to take what we have for granted. Several generations of Europeans have come to think of the absence of widespread European violence as normal, instead of the historic anomaly it actually is.
Perhaps there is indeed a valid role for a federal European government — one of strictly limited powers, focused on continuing the historical anomaly of intra-European peace.
It might be more productive for libertarians to focus on how limited that federal European government should be, and on how to prevent it succumbing to the creeping centralization which is destroying the US.
For example, the federal European layer might be forced to rely on donations from national governments — explicitly no power to tax. Single terms for elected representatives and limited employment periods for the strictly limited number of bureaucrats. No pensions. Death penalty for corruption. Etc, etc.
The debate of what powers to grant this replacement for the EU would be a great opportunity for national referenda. And the trickle-down effect on debate about the role of national governments could be very beneficial.
Tangentially related to Perry’s comment above, among others, there are a couple of posts over at The Volockh Conspiracy relating to the disparity in the attention paid to communist atrocities and genocides around the world vs the endless fascination with the horrors of the nazi regime in Germany.
There are a couple hundred comments between the two posts, with the usual bickering between the collectivists and less collectivists about what it all means, if anything, and, of course, repeated disclaimers that modern western collectivists are different somehow from past collectivists.
What is interesting to someone like me is the absence of any recognition that the true villain in all the cases cited, whether communist or fascist or imperialist or religious or some combination of all of them, is illegitimate, expansive, repressive state power.
It is truly as if it never occurs to anyone to stop arguing about the flavor and variation of the repression, and address the crucial and critical commonality—violent state power which has no limits or controls upon it to prevent the trampling and crushing of any and all individual rights and liberties.
It’s a fascinating dance, to a tune I have never been able to hear.
If one was able to eavedrop on a conversation between several doctors arguing about the various symptoms and manifestations of a group of similar diseases, but they never addressed the essential role played by bacteria in each and every illness under discussion, that would be somewhat analogous to reading through all the comments.
As Spock said, “Fascinating”.
In response to Alice’s post, if you’re going to argue for a “limited” European government I would again caution you to examine the history of the United States. We started out just that way, under the Articles of Confederation, with a relatively feeble federal government having no taxing power. That lasted less than a decade. Its replacement, our current Constitution, gave the federal government more power but still limited its taxing authority (“unapportioned” taxes were prohibited, so it relied mostly on import duties and the like). That lasted a bit longer, but within 75 years the “federal” government had become a de facto “national” one, and we haven’t looked back. Its powers (of taxation and otherwise) are now essentially unlimited, and the Constitution is honored more in the breach than in the observance.
No matter how you try to constrain it, my belief is that the arrogation of power by any central authority is inexorable and inevitable. Your proposed limitations will ultimately fail. The only protection is prevention. You must smother it in its crib.
Brian, I have ordered a copy. This is a good move by these guys: focus on the positive. It is a good answer to the politics-as-fear tactics of the EUfederalists, in that they always try to push the idea that Britain will be terribly isolated and alone outside the tent. Nothing could be more misleading. It is not as if the French, Germans etc are going to stop selling us stuff, now is it?
a couple things.
First of all as Laird points out government always grows, even when you have a good system of checks and ballances to try and stop power being grabbed by those at the top it still will always happen. The EU however has no such system, in fact it is the opposite and was designed to stealthily transfer power from the lower levels into itself.
Second the relative peace of the last 60 or so years has very very little to do with the EU. The NATO alliance is the reason for the peace. An organisation which, unlike the EU, has no imperial ambitions of its own.
One poster above write: “The harder it becomes to leave the area of control of a government the less restriction there is on the growth of that government.” I think this is a key point.
All of the problems of creeping centralization, growth of government, etc. could be solve by one simple expedient: make it easy to leave. I would like to see an internationally recognized “right of secession” – any region that considers itself poorly served by a larger government has a right to separate itself from that government.
Note, as well, that this would have eliminated most or all of the recent European wars, which have primarily been wars for regional independence.
Obviously, there are a number of details to work out.
Isn’t it funny how the states from which it is easy to leave are the very ones where most people want to stay? I wonder what that’s all about.
The old Soviet Union erected physical barriers to escape. The current United States erects economic ones, as it asserts the right to tax its citizens anywhere in the world. I guess we don’t care where you are as long as we get your money. Isn’t that special?
RE “Also, would we, Norway style, still have to endure EUrocrats making our rules for us, for the privilege of trading with the EU?”
Good point
Clearly the EU is a mess whether or not one is for integration
I have extensively covered this subject
of alternative forms of European cooperation
http://ceolas.net/#eu1x
Efficient European Cooperation
Introduction: How the EU works.. or doesn’t
Alternative ABC guide to the EU
The Union Breakup Alternative
Reforming the current EU:
A Smaller and More Effective Parliament
The End of the European Commission
The New Axis, European Parliament-Council of Ministers | European Senate
The Head of the European Government
European Budget Efficiency and Local Democracy
An Irish Bedtime Story for all Nice Children and not so Maastricht Adults
————
y thAlice.
The E.U. is nothing to do with keeping the peace – this is the “big lie” that its supporters come out with. They confuse the E.U. with NATO (i.e. the American military).
“Without unity there will be violence”.
And with unity there will be violence – like all those civil wars the Roman Empire had.
Still – of course there is trouble in Classical Greece, or Italian city states, or between the states of 18th century Europe.
Such is life (and death) – get used to it. If you want freedom there is a price – and often that price is death opposing would be unification leaders like Louis XIV.
As for “strictly limited Federal government”.
Please name a Federal government that has stayed limited.
Peter Dublin:
I used to think – about five or six years ago – that a smaller European Parliament might not be a terribly bad thing.
I’ve since changed my mind and repudiate entirely your suggestions for a “smaller and more effective” European Parliament.
What is a Parliament for? It is primarily for legislating ever more restrictions on the freedom of the individual. I don’t believe any of these laws are necessary to prevent the collapse of society, in fact, I think that they are in part the cause of the collapse we have been witnessing.