 |
| Richard Bacon with Articulate's Jenna Cox |
To the Swan Hotel in Lavenham yesterday morning for a ‘Business
Breakfast’ meeting organised by Articulate HLC.
The theme was the EU Referendum and the speaker the very erudite and
articulate Member of Parliament for South Norfolk, Richard Bacon.
Richard makes no secret of the fact that he is not a great
enthusiast for the European 'project', and, although not one of the organisers of
the Brexit campaign, he is in favour of voting ‘leave’. He gave an interesting, wide ranging, talk
which rested largely on issues of British culture and tradition. He argued that our strong democratic roots,
and long history as an independent nation state, mean that we will not thrive
in an environment where we are ruled from elsewhere. As a nation we have no reason to fear an
independent future and have all it takes to flourish outside the EU. If we remain
in the EU we will in the long term be unable to resist the pressure for ‘ever
closer union’ and this is not something that will sit happily with the British
approach to democracy and way of life.
After his speech Richard was asked questions on all manner
of topics, and there is no room here to go into the detail. However I found his response about the
threats of Brexit to farmers particularly interesting. He conceded that East Anglian grain barons
might be worse off financially if their subsidies are removed, and not replaced
by the UK Government, but he argued that many are still tempted to vote with
their hearts and not with their heads.
For other farmers, and the countryside as a whole, the situation is less
clear. For those interested in the
topic he suggested reading a speech made in January 2016 to the Oxford Farming
Conference, by Owen Patterson, former Secretary of State for Environment, Food
and Rural Affairs. In this Patterson
makes a cogent case that UK agriculture would be better off were we to leave
the EU. The speech can be found in full HERE.
Richard mentioned in passing the two recent BBC documentaries
presented by Nick Robinson, Europe them
or Us which trace the history of the UK’s relationship with the EU. Nick and I have watched these and found them
very enlightening. The message that comes
across clearly is that over time British leaders of all political persuasions have repeatedly been prepared to lie and
cheat and generally manipulate the political process despite evidence of clear popular opposition, to maintain their position within the magic
circle of self-generated importance, and
to keep the European ‘project’ on the road. Even
Mrs Thatcher was guilty of this until she saw the light. Sadly that lying and cheating continues
today.
These programmes can both be watched on the BBC i player,
and will be available for 19 days from today.
I recommend them.
At the beginning of yesterday’s event a vote revealed that
those present were split pretty evenly between ‘inners’ and ‘outers’ with some ‘don’t
knows’. Another vote at the end of the
session showed a clear shift towards support for Brexit. In part of course this was a vote for the
elegance and eloquence of Richard’s performance. However, he made the case for Brexit very
convincingly.
Richard fudged my question about Free Trade Agreements and the damage that UK manufacturing and exporters will face if we are marginalised by coming out the weight of the EU trading block. A few hours later, the President of the United States of America said in his press conference that if the UK exits the EU, then as far as the Trade Agreements are concerned - the UK goes to the back of the queue. The OUT campaign now swiftly move the debate on to immigration and do not satisfactorily address the issue of UK trade and exports and the loss of jobs that UK companies will face when export markets are lost. I would be pleased to receive your comment on this because so far the OUT campaign avoid engagement on this issue. A mutual Free Trade Agreement is based primarily on the weight of trade and being outside of the EU trading block, we will be toast....
ReplyDeleteThe trade question is complex because there are several possible outcomes, from full membership of the single market (which would remove most of the benefits of independence) to falling back on World Trade Agreements, which would increase tariffs with the EU both ways. That said, the proposed US-EU agreement shows little sign of being resolved (and has been rejected in advance by most of the current Presidential candidates), so it seems likely to be a pretty long queue, wherever we find ourselves standing. As far as trade with the EU is concerned, we have a substantial deficit on goods, which it would be in the interest of Germany in particular to maintain. We have a substantial surplus on services, but have consistently failed to get them included in the single market. There would be winners and losers to Brexit but the story is not clear-cut
ReplyDeleteObama's comments about falling to the back of the queue must have been a gift for the remain campaign... personally, I think his remark was misguided... Not all European countries are in the EU... So, are we to believe they all languish at the back of this 'queue'?
ReplyDeleteIt seems utter folly to throw obstacles in the path of free trade... but this is what Obama is suggesting will happen should the UK decide to leave..
I have no idea which side of the fence I am going to tumble... certainly, with all the hyperbole from both sides, deciding is not easy....
As for Richard's talk, I found it eloquent and, not surprisingly, utterly partisan :-) THAT is the problem I have with the debate. It is farcical for either camp to suggest there are not pros and cons on both sides of the argument... How I long for a commentary that lay out just that..... the pros and cons.
Actually it was less of a gift than you might think. All polls since have moved in Brexit's favour according to the wires today.
ReplyDelete