'Brexit is only way for UK to get change it badly needs'
Published 23/02/2016 | 02:30
I am a European. I lived many years in Brussels. I rather love the old place. And so I resent the way we continually confuse Europe - the home of the greatest and richest culture in the world, to which Britain is and will be an eternal contributor - with the political project of the European Union. It is, therefore, vital to stress that there is nothing necessarily anti-European or xenophobic in wanting to vote Leave on June 23.
And it is important to remember: it isn't the British people that have changed. It is the European Union.
In the 28 years since I first started writing about the Common Market - as it was then still known - the project has morphed and grown in such a way as to be unrecognisable, rather as the vast new Euro palaces of glass and steel now lour over the little cobbled streets in the heart of the Belgian capital.
When I went to Brussels in 1989, I found well-meaning officials trying to break down barriers to trade with a new procedure - agreed by Margaret Thatcher - called Qualified Majority Voting. The efforts at harmonisation were occasionally comical, and I informed readers about euro-condoms and the great war against the prawn cocktail flavour crisp. And then came German reunification, and the panicked efforts of Delors, Kohl and Mitterrand to "lock" Germany into Europe with the euro; and since then the pace of integration has never really slackened.
As new countries have joined, we have seen a hurried expansion in the areas for Qualified Majority Voting, so that Britain can be overruled more and more often (as has happened in the past five years). We have had not just the Maastricht Treaty, but Amsterdam, Nice, Lisbon, every one of them representing an extension of EU authority and a centralisation in Brussels. According to the House of Commons library, anything between 15pc and 50pc of UK legislation now comes from the EU; and remember that this type of legislation is very special.
It is unstoppable, and it is irreversible - since it can only be repealed by the EU itself. Ask how much EU legislation the Commission has actually taken back under its various programmes for streamlining bureaucracy. The answer is none. That is why EU law is likened to a ratchet, clicking only forwards. We are seeing a slow and invisible process of legal colonisation, as the EU infiltrates just about every area of public policy. Then - and this is the key point - the EU acquires supremacy in any field that it touches; because it is one of the planks of membership, agreed in 1972, that any question involving the EU must go to Luxembourg, to be adjudicated by the European Court of Justice.
It was one thing when that court contented itself with the single market, and ensuring that there was free and fair trade across the EU. We are now way beyond that stage.
Under the Lisbon Treaty, the court has taken on the ability to vindicate people's rights under the 55-clause 'Charter of Fundamental Human Rights', including such peculiar entitlements as the right to found a school, or the right to "pursue a freely chosen occupation" anywhere in the EU, or the right to start a business.
These are not fundamental rights as we normally understand them, and the mind boggles as to how they will be enforced. Tony Blair told us he had an opt-out from this charter.
Alas, that opt-out has not proved legally durable, and there are real fears about the activism of the court. The more the EU does, the less room there is for national decision-making. Sometimes these EU rules sound simply ludicrous, like the rule that you can't recycle a teabag, or that children under eight cannot blow up balloons, or the limits on the power of vacuum cleaners. Sometimes they can be truly infuriating - like the time I discovered, in 2013, that there was nothing we could do to bring in better-designed cab windows for trucks, to stop cyclists being crushed. It had to be done at a European level, and the French were opposed.
Sometimes the public can see all too plainly the impotence of their own elected politicians - as with immigration. That enrages them; not so much the numbers as the lack of control. That is what we mean by loss of sovereignty - the inability of people to kick out, at elections, the men and women who control their lives.
We are seeing an alienation of the people from the power they should hold, and I am sure this is contributing to the sense of disengagement, the apathy, the view that politicians are "all the same" and can change nothing, and to the rise of extremist parties.
Democracy matters; and I find it deeply worrying that the Greeks are effectively being told what to do with their budgets and public spending, in spite of huge suffering among the population.
And now the EU wants to go further. There is a document floating around Brussels called 'The Five Presidents Report', in which the leaders of the various EU institutions map out ways to save the euro. It all involves more integration: a social union, a political union, a budgetary union. At a time when Brussels should be devolving power, it is hauling more and more towards the centre, and there is no way Britain can be unaffected.
David Cameron has done his very best, and he has achieved more than many expected. There is some useful language about stopping "ever-closer union" from applying to the UK, about protecting the euro outs from the euro ins, and about competition and deregulation.
There is only one way to get the change the UK needs, and that is to vote to go, because all EU history shows that they only really listen to a population when it says No. The fundamental problem remains: that they have an ideal that we do not share. They want to create a truly federal union, e pluribus unum, when most British people do not.
It is time for the UK to seek a new relationship, in which we manage to extricate ourselves from most of the supranational elements. We will hear a lot in the coming weeks about the risks of this option; the risk to the economy, the risk to the City of London, and so on; and though those risks cannot be entirely dismissed, I think they are likely to be exaggerated. We have heard this kind of thing before, about the decision to opt out of the euro, and the very opposite turned out to be the case.
I also accept there is a risk that a vote to Leave the EU, as it currently stands, will cause fresh tensions in the union between England and Scotland. On the other hand, most of the evidence I have seen suggests that the Scots will vote on roughly the same lines as the English.
There will be charges that a Brexit would embolden Putin, though it seems to me he is more likely to be emboldened, for instance, by the West's relative passivity in Syria.
Above all, it will be said that whatever the democratic deficiencies, Britain would be better off remaining in because of the "influence" involved. This is less and less persuasive to me. Only 4pc of people running the Commission are UK nationals, when Britain contains 12pc of the EU population. It is not clear why the Commission should be best placed to know the needs of UK business and industry, rather than the myriad officials at UK Trade & Investment or the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills.
If the 'Leave' side wins, it will indeed be necessary to negotiate a large number of trade deals at great speed. But why should that be impossible? We have become so used to Nanny in Brussels that we have become infantilised, incapable of imagining an independent future. The British used to run the biggest empire the world has ever seen, and with a much smaller domestic population and a relatively tiny civil s ervice. Are we really unable to do trade deals? We will have at least two years in which the existing treaties will be in force.
The real risk is to the general morale of Europe, and to the prestige of the EU project. We should take that seriously.
We should remember that this federalist vision is not an ignoble idea. It was born of the highest motives - to keep the peace in Europe. The people who run the various EU institutions - whom we like to ply with crass abuse - are, in my experience, principled and thoughtful officials. They have done some very good things: I think of the work of Leon Brittan, for instance, as competition commissioner, and his fight against state aid.
They just have a different view of the way Europe should be constructed. I would hope they would see a vote to leave as a challenge, not just to strike a new and harmonious relationship with Britain (in which those benefits could be retained) but to recover some of the competitiveness that the continent has lost in the last decades.
Whatever happens, Britain needs to be supportive of its friends and allies - but on the lines originally proposed by Winston Churchill: interested, associated, but not absorbed; with Europe - but not comprised. The British have spent 500 years trying to stop continental European powers uniting against us. There is no reason (if everyone is sensible) why that should happen now, and every reason for friendliness.
For many Conservatives, this has already been a pretty agonising business. Many of us are deeply internally divided, and we are divided between us. We know that we do not agree on the substance, but I hope we can all agree to concentrate on the arguments; to play the ball and not the man.
At the end of it all, we want to get a result, and then unite around David Cameron - continuing to deliver better jobs, better housing, better health, education and a better quality of life for our constituents for whom the EU is not always the number one issue.
This is the right moment to have a referendum, because as Europe changes, Britain is changing too. Britain is a truly great country that is now going places at extraordinary speed.
We are the European, if not the world, leaders in so many sectors of the 21st-century economy; not just financial services, but business services, the media, biosciences, universities, the arts, technology of all kinds; and we still have a dizzyingly fertile manufacturing sector.
Now is the time to spearhead the success of those products and services not just in Europe, but in growth markets beyond. This is a moment to be brave, to reach out - not to hug the skirts of Nurse in Brussels, and refer all decisions to someone else.
We have given so much to the world, in ideas and culture, but the most valuable British export and the one for which we are most famous is the one that is now increasingly in question: parliamentary democracy - the way the people express their power.
This is a once-in-a-lifetime chance to vote for change in Britain's relations with Europe. This is the only opportunity we will have to show that we care about self-rule. A vote to Remain will be taken in Brussels as a green light for more federalism, and for the erosion of democracy.
In the next few weeks, the views of people like me will matter less, because the choice belongs to those who are really sovereign - the people of the UK. And in the matter of their own sovereignty the people, by definition, will get it right. (© Daily Telegraph London)
Boris Johnson is the Mayor of London and a Conservative MP