Nigel Lawson nails it. From Lawson, at telegraph.co.uk:
For Britain, the issue in the coming European referendum is not Europe, with its great history, incomparable culture, and diverse peoples, but the European Union.
To confuse the two is both geographically and historically obtuse. European civilisation existed long before the coming of the EU, and will continue long after this episode in Europe’s history is, hopefully, over.
On the European mainland it has always been well understood that the whole purpose of European integration was political, and that economic integration was simply a means to a political end.
In Britain, and perhaps also in the US, that has been much less well understood, particularly within the business community, who sometimes find it hard to grasp that politics can trump economics.
The fact that the objective has always been political does not mean that it is in any way disreputable. Indeed, the most compelling original objective was highly commendable.
It was, bluntly, to eliminate the threat to Europe and the wider world from a recrudescence of German militarism, by placing the German tiger in a European cage.
Whether or not membership of the EU has had much to do with it, that objective has been achieved: there is no longer a threat from German militarism.
But in the background there has always been another political objective behind European economic integration, one which is now firmly in the foreground.
That is the creation of a federal European superstate, a United States of Europe. Despite the resonance of the phrase, not one of the conditions that contributed to making a success of the United States of America exists in the case of the EU.
But that is what the EU is all about. That is its sole raison d’être. And, unlike the first objective, it is profoundly misguided. For the United Kingdom to remain in the EU would be particularly perverse, since not even our political elites wish to see this country absorbed into a United States of Europe.
To be part of a political project whose objective we emphatically do not share cannot possibly make sense. It is true that our present Prime Minister argues that he has secured a British “opt-out” from the political union, but this is completely meaningless.
“But,” comes the inevitable question, “what is your alternative to membership of the EU?” A more absurd question it would be hard to envisage.
The alternative to being in the EU is not being in the EU. And it may come as a shock to the little Europeans that most of the world is not in the EU – and that most of these countries are doing better economically than most of the EU.
Moreover, once out of the EU the UK would no longer have to pay its annual EU subscription of some £10 billion a year and rising for nothing in return – yes, nothing, for the figure is calculated after netting off everything British farmers and scientists and others at present receive from the EU. Nor would UK business and industry have to carry the burden of excessive European regulation, which bears down particularly hard on the small and medium-sized enterprises sector.
To continue reading: The EU exists only to become a superstate. Britain has no place in it
