His report, commissioned by BiE in the expectation that it would support their view, was on the economic consequences of leaving the EU. I still have a paper copy but have not been able to find it on the web for years, but it may still be available from NIESR.

The Executive Summary states that while there are some 3.5 m jobs involved in trade with the EU (pressumably import as well as export) there is no reason to believe that they would be lost if we left. Their estimate was 50,000 to 175,000 jobs lost, but only briefly while we adjusted to the new circumstances.

At much the same time the IoD published a report, which I still have, pointing out the "Rotterdam Effect", that much of the claimed 60% exports to the EU was shipped to the huge container ports at Rotterdam and Antwerp for onward shipping to the rest of the word – but included in that 60%, so the REAL ratio then was more like 42% – and I recall pointing that out to the Midlands Bank of England Speaker at a Malvern debate when he claimed 60% – a figure he was totally unable to explain or justify!

It may be that in the last few years the new members of the EU have increased that %, – but on the other hand the massive growth in the Far East must have reduced it. The long term trend is clear – the EU's share of world trade is in inevitable long term decline.

In any case, whether 40% or 60%, that is only the % of exports, some 20% of our GDP, as 80% of our trade is still internal and a similar proportion of our businesses is never involved in import or export, but have to put up with regulation.

The late Peter Shore agreed with my point from the floor at a meeting, saying that the only valid reason for the "Common Market" early on was the 30/40/50% tariff levels, but now that the WTO sets maximum levels around 3%, that reason had completely disappeared.

Even the EU admits that the cost of regulations of the single market exceed any possible benefit by a factor of 3 or 4 to 1, and I for one, as a former exporter, would cheerfully pay a 3% tariff in exchange for being freed from the regulations.

In any case, the EU would (will) never dare apply tariffs to our exports, as we buy more from them than we sell to them, so the result of tariffs being applied (tit for tat, both ways) would be a net gain for us.

There can be no doubt whatever that leaving the EU will not much affect the volume of trade, but would be massively beneficial in cost and competitveness terms. Quite apart from the other benefits of democracy, freedom, independence and getting out from under the totalitarian regime that is being erected

Why is no one else making the point you just made? We could leave the EU and we would still have access to most of the single market, because WTO rules would make it illegal to exclude us.

Where is our way out, Mr Redwood? We need to regain our right to independence of nationhood and spirit – why is it so wrong to think of a Great Britain & N.Ireland as independent and strong?

Did Ruth Lea invite Giscard here? If not who did?

And what on earth did she and or they hope to achieve?

Giscard is a known quanity. Opt outs are a known quantity – his angle was predictable – indeed for what it is worth I posted it on the Telegraph before he spoke.

Whose money was wasted on the airfare and on the no doubt very good lunch?

cheers

Idris

There is a new comment on the post “Giscard D’Estaing seeks end to veto”.
http://www.johnredwoodsdiary.com/2008/09/08/giscard-destaing-seeks-end-to-veto/

Author: David Eyles
Comment:
Thank you for that reply. Your last sentence in particular appears to leave the door open by just a smidge. But it reinforces the point of my comment that insufficient effort is being made by the leadership to clarify, loud, repeatedly and clearly the extent of that change in our relationship. Your reply also begs the question of what happens if a referendum is held in the UK and there is a ‘No’ vote. What happens afterwards?
=========================
I have just added this

In response to David Eyles’ reply to JR, on what happens if a referendum is held in Britain and the answer is NO (as it inevitably will be)

Whether in a second referendum in Ireland or a first in Britain, the Lisbon Treaty simply cannot formally come into effect after a No vote, and even the EU would not have the chutzpa to try again. What they will certainly do however is to continue what they have shamelessly been doing since even before the French and Dutch rejected the Constitution, ie putting all the component parts of the Constitution – High Representative, embassies around the world, etc etc – in place piece-meal.

When challenged that they have no legal basis to do this, they either bluster and ignore the complaint, or point at some dusty paragraph in existing Treaties that can be twisted and distorted to give some semblance of authority for what they are doing.

While in principle therefore the rejection of Lisbon would leave in place all the existing Treaties unamended, in practice we will get the Constitution whether we like it or not, but spread over some years instead of the planned big bang. Indeed, I remain mystified why, after 50 years of incremental success using the ratchet method, the EU decided to go for the remaining piece of the State jigsaw, the Constitution, in one big bang rather than by deceit and fraud as usual. The answer surely lies in part with the architect of the Constitution, Giscard, who is known to have wanted his Constitution to be seen as equivalent to that of the USA, and see himself go down in history alongside the drafters of that immeasurably shorter and better document. In other words, hubris on a grand scale.

If however Lisbon is fully ratified by the time Cameron becomes PM – and I can see nothing to stop him now – all existing Treaties cease to exist, and what is now the status quo will not be available to return to if we were to hold a retrospective referendum and vote no.

In this sense and this sense only, Cameron is right to point to the difficulty – or what he and Hague imply to be the impossibility- of holding a retrospective referendum. However, under our Constitutional principle that No Parliament may bind its successor, Cameron is clearly wrong to say that we would not be able to hold a referendum – indeed that is precisely what Wilson DID in 1975, and the effect of a No vote then would have been that Parliament would simply have repealed the ECA1972 and we with one bound we would have been free. Indeed Wilson’s 1975 leaflet stated “Fact No. 3. The British Parliament in Westminster retains the final right to repeal the Act which took us into the Market on January 1, 1973. Thus our continued membership will depend on the continuing assent of Parliament.

In Constitutional terms therefore – and I can copy at least 3 Parliamentary statements from the last 10 years confirming this – there is no doubt whatever that Cameron CAN hold a retrospective referendum. The issue then becomes a referendum on precisely what, and what the consequences of the vote would be.

Let’s be perfectly clear about one thing – whatever the formal referendum question, the referendum itself would INEVITABLY be on whether we stay in the EU or leave, not only because the pre-Lisbon status quo would not be available to return to, but because the europhiles know perfectly well that while they would have no chance whatever of winning a referendum to approve the Lisbon Treaty per se, their only chance of winning any referendum on our relationship with the EU would be to warn throughout the campaign that voting no to Lisbon would mean leaving the EU altogether – and in that they would surely be right. The difference is that they would portray that step as an economic and political disaster while we have to be ready and determined to portray it as salvation. Incidentally, the LibDems started preparing the ground for such a campaign a year ago, as we have all seen.

The real problem however, as has been made clear here, is that no one has the slightest idea what Cameron and Co would do if when they take office after Lisbon has been ratified. Further, they have made it clear that they have no intention whatever of telling us what they will do. Hague has said darkly “we would not let matters rest there” and JR says here “If it is in force we will take other steps to get powers back and change our relationship with the EU.” but (at least from Hague) this is meaningless waffle intended to reassure without making any committment. The same applies (with respect) to JR’s words, though I realise that he has to toe the party line in this respect.

My personal position is therefore absolutely clear – I simply do not trust Cameron and Hague to hold a retrospective referendum, still less to do so while calling for a NO vote. Instead I expect to see a deja vu re-run of Wilson’s pretended renegotiations that fooled me and the 1/3 of the population that changed its mind during the 1975 referendum into believing that we should stay. But that was then and now is now – another devious and dishonest campaign like that of 1975 will not work.

Nor, as previously, do I accept the slightest possibility of any meaningful and lasting concessions in response to “other steps to get powers back and change our relationship with the EU.”. Sorry, but that is not what the EU has been plotting for 50 years and they are not going to change their minds once Lisbon is in place. The only way such demands can work is to accompany them with the explicit threat that unless we get what we want, we will leave, and then when they refuse, as they certainly will, carry out that threat.

Of course leaving now will be much more complicated than it would have been in 1975 – but it takes much less time to repeal laws than to make them! In any case, to those who
say that leaving now would be too difficult, my answer is that the question is not “Is it difficult?” but “Is it necessary?” Dunkirk, D-Day and the Falklands were all difficult, but they were necessary and we did them. Ditto the EU can of worms.

If Lisbon has been ratified by the time, Cameron takes over he will have to decide what to do. There is only one opportunity available to us to express clearly and unambigously our determination to leave the EU, and to do so free of the complications of the whole range of other political issues, including choosing the next government, and that is to vote in the June 2009 European elections for a party whose unequivocal policy is to leave the EU.