In the Papers

14th September 1998

THE BIRMINGHAM POST

No British policy has ever been set in stone.   Times change, allegiances change.   As we leave the 20th century, much British political energy is being taken up by all parties on debating whether or not we enter the European single currency, the euro.   I believe that in not many decades from now,  historians will view this brief period as an aberration driven by idealism and a grasp of a reality that was already twenty years out of date.    I believe that twenty or thirty years from now, far from debating the euro, we might well be out of the European Union altogether and into something far more prosperous and constructive.

On the last Thursday of October this year,  I will present a unique Bill before the House of Commons.    It will propose that a Commission be set up to decide whether Britain's best interests really do lie with the European Union or with the North American Free Trade Area instead.

I am no "Little Englander" motivated solely by academic questions of sovereignty.     I want what is best for the economy and people of our country.    I want to see manufacturing jobs being created in the west midlands;    not lost because of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's obsessive and perverted view of European economics.    His dictating inflation targets to the Bank of England in the vainglorious hope of synchronising our economy for the first time in decades with that of Europe's is destroying jobs and our nation's prosperity.

As we enter a new millennium,   we Parliamentarians should not be blinkered in our outlook.    Who knows where Britain's best economic interests might lie in the 21st Century?    At the moment,  most MPs want to remain in the European Union while a minority would pull us out all together to stand alone.   I believe that there is a third option that could be of greater economic benefit to the wealth and well-being of the people of the United Kingdom.

Britain is a global trading nation and shouldn't set its sights on Europe alone.    I know.     Before entering Parliament in 1992,    I ran a broadcast electronics group operating in 48 countries across the globe.     When Britain entered the Common Market in the 1970s we had no option.   America wasn't interested in us.   Poor communications hindered trans-Atlantic trade and Europe would have imposed trade barriers and other sanctions against us if we hadn't joined.

But times have changed.    It is generally cheaper now to phone the U.S. than  France    -    and just as easy with no satellite delays.    Container freighting costs to New Jersey are now similar to those to Hamburg.   Our language is common as is our corporate and commercial law.   Is it surprising that British firms are the largest holders of capital in the United States and vice versa?    And three million British tourists vote with their feet each year by choosing to holiday in America rather than Europe.

Technology and distance are no longer the issue.     Nor are economic sanctions, thanks to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade and the formation of the World Trade Organisation.    Economic and social compatibility are what matter now;    not merely the accident of geography.  Europe cannot refuse to trade with us.   After all, they trade with America now and it isn't a member of the E.U.

Last year,  Gordon Brown listed the five main criteria by which the Treasury would judge whether or not to enter the European single currency.    The euro fails all five tests and is likely to continue to do so because the British economy is permanently "out of synch" with that of Europe.    Interestingly, the US dollar meets all of the Chancellor's criteria.    While I am certainly not suggesting that the dollar replace sterling,  the question has to be asked:    Why should Britain even be considering the euro, a second best alternative?

And if the euro is incompatible, then the European economies are too for the currency of a nation or bloc simply reflects its economy.     It therefore follows that we should consider still closer economic ties with the United States.

The Speaker of the House of Representatives,  Newt Gingrich,  has just invited us to join the North American Free Trade Area.     And now,  Australia and New Zealand are interested in tightening trade agreements with the United States too.

In 1995,  Malcolm Turnbull, the Australian constitutional lawyer said of Britain's decision to join the European Union:     "I think that was a terrible mistake for Britain. Why should you at this point in history, when technology has made distance more irrelevant than ever, suddenly choose to become a political part of Europe?    Technology has made geographical proximity irrelevant, and geographical proximity was the only reason for being part of Europe.  Britain would have been much wiser focusing on and developing closer relations with those countries with which it really did have a lot in common in terms of language, background, human relationships and institutions. And those countries plainly were the Anglo-Saxon countries - the Old Commonwealth and the USA".       

Life has moved on from the European referendum of the 70s.    Technology and opportunity are now opening a window of opportunity which we dare not ignore.    Members of Parliament are stewards of our nation's future.    No avenue towards our nation's well-being and prosperity should be ignored simply in the name of short term political expedience.

I can envisage a golden economic web spanning the globe linking Britain, the United States, Canada and other like-minded and equally wealthy countries like Australia and New Zealand.     It would create a market 20% larger than the European Union though Britain would still be able to trade with the EU.    It's now just plain old fashioned to think of Europe alone.

Because this English-speaking market would not be burdened with unnecessary regulations and all are of similar incomes per capita,  unlike Spain, Portugal or Greece whom we currently have to subsidise,    Britain would not have to pay the multi billion pound membership fees we currently pay the European Union.    Just think about how many extra hospitals and schools that money could build. How many more billions must we pay in the future when Europe is enlarged to include Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic?