Shortly before the referendum, Alan Sked delivered a lecture at the LSE arguing that Britain should leave the EU. Ali M El-Agraa rebuts several of his key points.
The main points made by Alan Sked in his LSE lecture on 8 June on why we should leave the EU are either utterly wrong or deliberately misleading.
- He rightly states that the EU is not just about trade, since the EU’s ultimate aim is the creation of a United States of Europe (USE), but he is completely wrong to say that that should be a reason for Brexit. This is because the UK has been granted an opt-out of the principle of ‘ever closer union’, has an opt-out of the euro, is not a party to the Schengen free cross-border arrangement, has been granted the right to deny EU immigrants benefits before they have worked in the UK for four years, has a veto on taxation, enlargement, and so on and so forth. It is therefore simply a red herring to say that if we remain in the EU we would be on our way to becoming a state of a USE.
- He claims that the UK had better rates of GDP growth relative to the Original Six, quoting figures of 7.4% and 6% for the UK. This is utterly wrong. According to the World Bank Development Report of 1980, the figures, in percentage terms and covering the periods 1960-70 and 1970-80 respectively, were as follows: France (5.7 and 3.7), W. Germany (4.4 and 2.4), Italy (5.3 and 2.8), Belgium, which then included Luxembourg (4.8 and 3.3), the Netherlands (5.5 and 3.2) and the UK (2.9 and 2.2)! Indeed, it was the hope that we would be able to emulate the Original Six’s rates of growth that was the rationale for our joining the EEC. He claims that his source for the UK’s growth rates is the ONS, but the ONS’s data, portrayed in their chart for 1955 to date clearly shows that the UK has never exceeded 5% growth rates, and, indeed, achieved just over 2.5% on only 5 atypical situations.
3. He spends almost a third of his talk on the suitability of the EEA as a model for post-Brexit UK: no contributions to the EU budget, consultations on regulations, no CAP, etc. Yet, conveniently, he completely ignores the reason for the creation of the EEA. It is designed to facilitate an easy accession process to the EU for those countries deemed to be on the doorstep to joining. Why on earth would the EU extend this privileged treatment to a ‘quitter’? And he is utterly wrong to say that Norway does not contribute towards EU expenditure, see the relevant Article of the EEA EFTA Treaty.
Just because payments to the EU budget are declared for only the EU member states, that does not mean that Norway does not make a contribution to EU expenditure! The Norwegians themselves clearly acknowledge this.
And even Switzerland, which is not in the EEA, pays huge sums towards EU expenditure.
Moreover, to say that the EFTA members of the EEA are consulted on EU regulations does not mean that they influence regulations. EU law is initiated by the EU Commission, but is enacted jointly, through the ‘ordinary legislative procedure’, by the Council of the European Union and the European Parliament (EP). The Council comprises the relevant ministers from each member nation and the EP consists of persons directly elected by the EU citizens. Thus the UK in a EEA would not have much say on EU regulation.
- He attributes all the economic and social ills of the southern EU nations since 2008 to the creation of the euro. We are all agreed that the euro structure is incomplete since it needs a fiscal union, but there is almost complete consensus among the experts that the ‘misery’ is mainly due to the 2007-8 financial crisis, which originated in the USA and has been the most severe since the Great Depression; see the Appendix to my book (The European Union Illuminated: its Nature, Importance and Future, Palgrave Macmillan 2015) for a full summary of this consensus. Moreover, all indications suggest that the euro area is in the process of recovery and as historical experience clearly shows, the EU has always come out of adversity to prosper even more. Thus to claim that Brexit will make us escape a ‘sinking’ EU ship is sheer nonsense.
- He claims that the EU has not been the driver for EU peace, citing the Baltics incident as evidence. The Baltic nations were then not members of the EU and most of them are still outside it and, vitally, all agree that the Baltic situation was extremely complicated. Add to this his claim that it is NATO which has provided the peace when NATO is an organisation for the mutual defence against an attack on one of its members by an outside force and you can clearly see his advancing red herrings to propagate an unjustifiable Brexit proposition.
- He strongly condemns the EU for its regulations, yet completely fails to give them serious consideration. All experts are agreed that were the UK to Brexit, about 90% of these regulations would remain intact. He chooses as an example the regulation on ‘bullshit’ but conveniently ignores those on cleaner water, the environment, working conditions, equal pay, etc.
I can go on, but it should be clear that both the arguments of his lecture and his fabricated data are utter nonsense.
This post represents the views of the author and not those of the BrexitVote blog, nor the LSE.
Ali M El-Agraa is Emeritus Professor of International Economic Integration at Fukuoka University, Japan.
I implore readers simply to listen to the podcast of my lecture rather than accept this very skewed version of it by a highly disgruntled professional Eurofanatic. Occasionally in the past I have received irate and totally unsolicited e-makes from this man and now he continues to stalk me intellectually by publishing this piece. I might add that the charge that I fabricated evidence is probably libellous but I will deal with that presently. I simply feel sorry for someone who has spent a lifetime making excuses–see his explanation of the failure of the Eurozone and the book he has written on it–for a body that now seems in terminal decline for all the reasons I mentioned in my lecture.
Now to his points. First the British have been made many promises in the past that EU developments would not affect them. The 1975 White Paper promised that on the basis of the Luxembourg Compromise we could always veto anything that conflicted with our national interest. Well we all know what happened to that. Today we have been outvoted almost 80 times in such cases in the European Council by majority vote. Tony Blair said the Charter of Fundamental Rights would not apply to us. The European Court disagreed. David Cameron’s pathetic reform package has no legally binding authority and failed in any case to protect the City. So it was absolutely right for the British to decide that the only guarantee of protecting their national interests in future was Brexit.
His second point attributes statements to me that I never made. I never said that British economic growth in the sixties and seventies was greater than that of the EEC. Perhaps his hearing is faulty. His research certainly is. I claimed that at certain times British growth was not that far behind and that in key years it was almost 5%, 6% and 7.4%. He claims that it never reached 5%. When I used my figures recently for an article in CityAM they were checked and confirmed by that newspaper. If the aged Europhile–or readers–would like to check he (they) can go to webstchive.nationalarchives.gov where under UK Office for National Statistics, Long-term Profile of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in the UK, Part of Rxplaining National Statistics Released 23 August 2013, Fig. 2 provides a table of Real Annual GDP Growth which confirms my figures as City-AM discovered. It only takes a couple of minutes of research. The sentence above the table begins ‘the highest annual rate of growth was 7.4% in 1974. So if I have ‘fabricated’ figures it is only because the must first have been fabricated by the National Archives and the ONS.
I don’t expect my graceless incompetent critic to post an apology. I merely want readers to understand that his Eurofanaticism impairs his research and objectivity.
As for the EEA, I repeat no EFTA member is forced to pay a membership fee to the EU. Norway pays into schemes of its choice like Erasmus and development aid to South-East Europe. Iceland takes more money out than she puts in.
I don’t understand his point about a Baltic incident. I never mentioned any and indeed I have no idea what he is talking about. Maybe his hearing is at fault again. I did mention the Balkans. Maybe he doesn’t know the difference.
Finally about EU regulations. At present these apply to all UK companies whether they trade with the EU or not. In future the 94% of companies which do not can be freed from almost all of this extremely expensive red tape. Clearly the 6% who do export to the EU will have to abide by EU regulations.
I think I have now dealt with all of the points made to ‘rebut’ me. I am confident that readers will conclude they add up to precisely nothing.
Sorry there are a few typos in my last comment. Most are self explanatory. E-makes should be e-mails. Webstarchive should be webarchive
Your bad spelling is of little worry to me now.
But you could send me a donation to help pay the increase to my daughters course fees that will rise by 26,000 Euro at her EU University?
Thanks mate.
Top UK universities are better and clearly much cheaper– matey.
I do not need to respond to Sked’s comments on my criticism of what he said in his lecture: any one who doubts what I have attributed to him can easily find out the truth by reading the podcast of his lecture.
As to my research competence, it is not for a historian to decide that; only recognised experts in my field should be listened to.
What about your claim that I fabricated figures when the evidence from the National Archives and Office of Natiobal Statistics proves me right and you wrong?
You don’t even have the grace or good manners to apologise after libelling me. That sums up your competence.
Your data is rubbish as the chart from the ONS clearly shows and the ONS and The World Bank are the most authoritative. And you deny the 7.4% GDP growth for the UK in the 1960, but listen to your lecture around 6-8 minutes and see what you say. Talk about incompetence!!
The chart clearly shows the figures I quoted as CityAM confirmed. Now it seems you cannot even read a simple chart.
But given your tone I shall leave you in future to continue this debate with your psychotherapist. I am no longer interested. So sorry you were on the wrong side of history. Goodbye.
As events unfold over the coming weeks, in the UK. Europe and the world, will Alan Sked proudly declare: ” For those who seek my monument, please look about you! ” ( With apologies to Sir Christopher Wren and St. Paul’s Cathedral )
Yes. Any threat to an expanding economy and greater democracy comes from the fascistic reaction of the governing classes whose self-pity and self-righteousness is causing them to condemn the popular majority as uneducated racist scum and persisting with Project Fear. The trouble is they believe their own propaganda. Worse still, they only believe in democracy when it suits them. They would have written off Scotland uncomplainingly if the referendum there had gone 52-48% for independence because they see Scotland as a backwater. And in any case it would have become a separate province of the EU. They would also have acclaimed a 52-48% vote for Remain as a definitive, once in a generation, democratic confirmation of EU membership. But they cannot accept the English (and Welsh) democratically dishing their European masters so they are gearing up–fascistically– to overturn this democratic result. If that happens expect tanks on the streets. Then you can look about you.
Just look at France where the prime minister has by-passed parliament by enacting labour ‘reforms’ by decree. There are street riots there after this new example of European ‘democracy’. God help us if Remain tries to bypass the people here. Chilcot already shows what the people think of their masters.
So I trust after a short period of uncertainty the new government will quickly negotiate Brexit and things will improve with an expanding economy once we start reaping its benefits. Try being a democrat. It really is the best way forward.