Alan Massie: We should be thankful for the so-called EUSSR

It is misunderstood and has been labelled ‘undemocratic’ and ‘monstrously expensive’ by its critics, but the European Union remains a force for good, writes Allan Massie

Resolution of the Eurozone crisis, whatever form this may take, will probably require a new Treaty. All member states, even those which do not use the euro as their currency, would have to agree to its terms. A new Treaty would have to be approved in a referendum here. As Peter Jones reminded us yesterday, this is now “a legislative necessity”. If it was rejected by the British electorate, a second in-out referendum might follow. It is quite possible that there would be a majority in favour of leaving the EU altogether. I suspect that there might not be, but the intensity of hostility towards the EU is undeniable. It is quite common for internet posters to term it the EUSSR, as if this free association of nation states was the equivalent of the old Soviet Union.

Some years ago the novelist Piers Paul Read said that the European Union was the best thing that had happened in his lifetime; he meant, I assume, the best political development. I agree with him. The great Labour Foreign Secretary Ernest Bevin once said his foreign policy was “to be able to take a ticket at Victoria station and go anywhere I damn well please.” Well, this is a reality now. Citizens of member states of the EU may travel, live and work wherever they damn well please within its borders. This represents a great extension of individual freedom.

Piers Paul Read and I belong to the same generation. We were children during the war in which Europe tore itself apart. We grew up in the years when wise European statesmen came together to ensure that this would never happen again. Encouraged by Winston Churchill they embarked on the construction of a union of European States. Sadly - in my view - Britain stood aside. When European leaders met in 1956 to draw up the Treaty of Rome, which became the foundation document of the European Economic Community, the UK contented itself with sending an under-secretary from the Board of Trade. We missed the opportunity to be in from the start. When we eventually joined, we did so hesitatingly, so have always had less influence.

Now, of course, the EU is a reality that is both resented by many and misunderstood. We are repeatedly told, for instance, that it is monstrously expensive. This is nonsense. The EU budget - for 27 member states - is just under 150 billion euros. That sounds a lot - until you reflect that in the UK alone public expenditure for the coming year will be £722 billion. The UK current account deficit for 2011-12 was £94 billion.

Most of the EU budget goes back to the member states in various grants and entitlements. Eleven states are net contributors - paying in more than they get back. They are Denmark, Germany, Italy, France, Finland, the UK, the Netherlands, Austria, Sweden, Ireland and Cyprus. The UK comes seventh in the league table of net contributors, quite a long way behind Denmark and Germany, per capita and as a percentage of GDP. In absolute terms we are the fourth largest net contributor, paying 3.8bn euros, behind Germany (8.7bn), France (6.4bn) and Italy (6.0bn).

A common complaint is that EU regulations stifle business, but the same regulations bind all member states. They are not devised whimsically. It may be that we interpret the regulations more narrowly than some but, if we do, that’s our civil servants at work. We are told that 70 per cent of our laws (or some such figure - it varies depending on the speaker) are made in Europe; but most of these laws are merely such regulations to ensure fair competition - sometimes demanded by the UK. Most of the laws any of us could name are passed in Westminster or Holyrood, and many of them are deplorable.

Tory critics of the EU call loudly for the repatriation of “social” legislation relating to employment - laws which are devised for the protection of those employed. They speak as if national governments have no freedom to revise such laws - yet Germany did exactly that, within the framework of EU law, a few years ago. In any case there are millions of employees here who may be grateful for such protection.

A loud complaint is directed at Human Rights legislation. Setting aside for the moment the proposition that defence of human rights is desirable, this has nothing to do with the EU. The European Convention on Human Rights was drawn up principally by British lawyers for the Council of Europe - a quite separate body - and since the UK is a signatory of the Convention, leaving the EU would not affect our obligations under the Convention.

Those who write about the EUSSR almost in variably attack the adjectives “corrupt” and “undemocratic” to it. There is undoubtedly some corruption and misappropriation of EU funds by their recipients in the member states - misappropriation which it is the responsibility of the member states to deal with, just as they deal with, for example, VAT fraud. But is there no corruption in the UK or other member states? Pull the other one.

The charge that the EU is undemocratic has more weight. The influence of the Commission in framing EU regulations and directives may well be excessive. The European parliament is ineffective - in my view it was a mistake to introduce direct elections to it rather than continuing to have its membership composed of delegates from national parliaments. Yet of course the change was made in the name of developing a European democracy. Actually the important decisions are made in the Council of Ministers - by elected politicians.

Nothing alters my view that the EU is, indeed, a force for good. Perhaps there will be a majority in the UK for leaving it - but where would that leave us in Scotland? However those who vote for exit are fooling themselves if they suppose that we would retain the beneficial aspects of the EU - such as the internal market and the free movement of capital and labour - if we chose to opt out. There would be a price to pay, and it might be a heavy one.