Britain should have six-month 'trial separation' from EU
by our secret columnist in Brussels
There are two propositions which can be combined. First: there is no agreement on the consequences of Britain leaving the European Union. Antis foresee the recovery of the national independence, which Britain has surrendered. The United Kingdom would again become self-governing. It would save millions, which it badly needs.
Pros foresee servitude. To maintain access to the single market, Britain would have to keep in force all SM regulations and adopt all new SM and common commercial policy regulations, and decisions, without being consulted on them. It would be 'democracy by fax'. The country would remain largely outside the area of freedom, security and justice - and the inactive Common Foreign Policy.
It would pay a bill towards the cost of administering the single market and towards cohesion money for the less developed European Union member states. It would not pay into or receive from the Common Agricultural Policy. Both arguments are predictive, with no empirical evidence, but there is a constructive way of resolving the argument.
Second: some organisations, including publishers, offer 'trial membership'. Taking up the offer, you pay little or nothing and briefly enjoy membership. Sponsors rely on amnesia or inertia when subscribers forget to cancel the trial - or have not read the fine print conditions - and find that they have overnight become full paying members.
Britain should ask the EU for a six-month 'non-membership trial'. It would withdraw from the European Council and from the European Court of Justice. This would leave for a separate deal with the troublesome European Court of Human Rights. If the EU made difficulties, Britain would point out that the alternative is an early referendum on membership and a predictable 'out' majority. If anybody talked of suing Britain for breaching regulations, the response would be immediate withdrawal.
In the six months of suspended membership, the political community and the voters would learn what it is like to be on the outside. Each side of the division would draw up its balance sheet. The results would be debated in parliament and voted on. By law, there has to be referendum on any new powers conceded to EU institutions. By parity of argument, there might be a referendum on the withdrawal of powers. The people would speak, but with the benefit of experience rather than polarised advocacy.
Depending on the results, Britain would either formally withdraw from the EU and probably negotiate membership of the European Economic Area - or resume membership on the pre-existing terms. For all anyone knows, the result of the Netherlands upcoming general election may set a precedent for a country's withdrawal from the EU. We live in very interesting times.
Continuing to expand the EU's borders by admitting new countries is part of the solution to the region's economic crisis, Stefan Füle said yesterday – as he urged membership candidates to overcome so-called 'enlargement fatigue'
I truly thought the people of Britain had long ago rejected joining the EU. Foolish me. Britain should leave the EU and this is not, Mr. Clegg an 'infantile' position.
Mr. Clegg, you disgust me, your view carries not a wit. Britain must never, ever give up its independence, ever. Never forget history repeats itself.
d shatin - Levittown, PA, USA
Worst idea ever. All you hear about is 'stabilit in the markets is needed'. In what way would this create stability? What is more, this isn't a gym membership you're talking about. This is a major country trying to pick and choose the parts of the EU it wants to be included in.
This is the moral equivalent of Jimmy Carr using the NHS after avoiding tax. You're either part of a community or you're not. You can't just cherry pick and leave the rest to pick up the bill.
Dan - Dundee
Pie in the sky and very provocative. We need allies for change. Not to produce more hostilities by holding countries over a barrel. However, l do feel that net contributors should have a much greater say on how the money is spent.
Mark Johnstone - Uk
