Re-joining The EU – Some Ignorant Thoughts

This was the last article Mike sent for The Steam Room before he died on 1st October 2026. It is published here as he wrote it.

I find it hard to understand the enthusiasm for re-joining the EU; no doubt there are many folk who know more about economics than I do, will apprise me of the benefits of taking such action. My uneducated understanding of trade is the one country produces or owns something another country wants or needs and vice versa. In the past such a principle worked well in, for example, in the UK’s trading relationships with European Free Trade Association (EFTA) and the Commonwealth.

In simple terms the Commonwealth allowed the UK to export Austin A40s in return for, say, raw materials such as tin and rubber from Malaya (as was); coffee from Kenya; sugar from the West Indies; butter and beef from Australia; and Lamb from New Zealand. This largely apolitical relationship worked well for the UK, after all who in Europe would wish to buy an Austin A40? Back then we took misguided pride in products labelled Made in Great Britain while mockingly referring to other nations’ products as being Jerry Built and scorning boxes of matches Made in Hong Kong.

A number of factors may have nibbled away at the comfortable efficacy of Commonwealth trade. First, the underlying post WW2 attitude that we had won the War and therefore the world owed us a living. Second, that winning attitude led to a disregard for quality control – for example wing mirrors, radios and heaters on UK produced cars were extras while German and Japanese manufacturers made them standard fittings; in short it might be suggested that we were producing tat. Third, Trade Union activity exerted a profound negative impact on such key areas as vehicle manufacture, ship building and the Merchant Navy.

Who knows the truth of decision-making but it seems to me that in recognition of the gradual decay of our industrial base in 1960 the UK joined EFTA. It seems likely that other factors influenced the decision to seek other trading relationships such as the predicted diminishment of the Commonwealth relationship. Harold Macmillan’s Wind of Change speech gave impetus to the realisation that the cosy Commonwealth trading relations could not last forever. The impetus for that speech came from President Kennedy who made it clear that the USA wanted an accelerated disposal of the UK’s colonies. In return for that acceleration the UK secured the Polaris missile system. In the light of those factors and doubtless others that have been lazily overlooked here, it seemed sensible to look elsewhere for lasting trade relationships. We settled on EFTA.

Aside from the UK, EFTA membership included: Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Switzerland, Austria and Portugal. In the round we were benefiting from accessing goodies that the UK did not produce such as cheese, wine and instruments like watches and, who knows, perhaps money laundering; it also allowed for us to top up such high demand items as certain fish products and pork. Sweden, with its car and defence equipment manufacturing industries, was the only outlier from the basic trade principle of meeting mutual needs. While many might consider it ironic for a neutral country to boast a thriving defence industry, there’s no doubt Sweden produces some impressive military equipment, indeed the UK purchased many Bofors Air Defence Guns. As for cars, I suspect that with limited production quantities of Saab and Volvo combined with her focus on exports to the USA, the UK did not feel threatened in that sector. Of course Sweden went off the rails in 1967 by deciding that road traffic should drive on the right – early signs of a schism with the UK!

I am not sure what tipped the scales in favour of abandoning EFTA although after a decade of colonial liberation I guess the Commonwealth’s trade patterns were changing, thereby challenging its preferred status as the trading default option. Whatever the reason the Prime Minister – Edward Heath did not dignify the electorate with a Referendum despite vigorous political opposition from the Left. Leading lights of that opposition included Wedgwood Benn and Peter Shore. Despite that opposition Heath also contemporaneously conducted high level negotiations on monetary union that the electorate remained unaware of until 2001 under the 30 Year Rule; as the BBC reported in January 2001 Heath had downplayed sovereignty in his negotiations. The claim that Heath played an underhand game has some validity.

Prior to the belatedly granted Referendum on whether to remain in the EEC a debate took place at the Oxford Union in 1975 at which Peter Shore gave a powerful speech suggesting inter alia the World was a larger place than just the Europe and that Heath had signed the Accession Treaty without consulting the British people. Whether an EU believer or not I strongly recommend viewing his speech at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZoO6146qM5g Shore has proved remarkably prescient.

When Harold Macmillan claimed that the UK had “never had it so good” there may have been a subtle change in attitude in the nation. Instead of all hands to the wheel of productivity perhaps we became more reflective with such thinking as: ‘Now you mention it we did win the war and now it’s payback time’. Such a notion that arguably led to generation of widespread industrial actions that had perhaps been pre-dated by strikes in London Docks with the first taking place in 1889. Union leader Jack Dash build on that history by involving himself in a multitude of strikes between 1949 and 1969; his commitment to such action proved very productive for the workforce who’s wages tripled over thirteen years.

The disposal of the colonies inevitably led to a loss of privileged trade arrangements with them, while in parallel widespread strike action in such elemental manufacturing sectors as shipbuilding and vehicle manufacture took place. Frequent strike action was mirrored on the railways. All of these events were underscored by the Merchant Navy became a shadow of its former self. All this resulted in Trade Union leaders becoming household names, hardly a day went by when newspapers did not mention: Jack Jones (aka as a KJB Agent), Jack Dash, Derek Robinson (aka Red Robbo), Hugh Scanlon, Jimmy Reid etc. In many ways union leaders wielded more power than the politicians.

In many ways society worked round those strike-ridden days with a combination of humour, satire and, of course, resignation. When we took our brand new broken British cars to the garage we were told that we had unfortunately bought a ‘Friday’ or a ‘Monday’ version when the workforce had become careless; dealing with a hangover on the Monday and preparing for the week-end on a Friday had resulted in a diminution of quality control.

Despite these goings-on, armed with our ‘we won the war’ attitude the ‘never had it so good’ generation hankered after the fruits of a better life with foreign travel topping the bill. With the introduction of the Package Holiday, Freddie Laker abruptly brought to end the belief that the Grand Tour was the only form of overseas travel. There were other factors of course like the millions of discharged WW2 service personnel had some experience of the outside world and more technically sophisticated aircraft could carry more passengers. However ease of foreign travel was not confined to Package Holidays; for example we were able to travel around Europe on a seven and sixpence European Passport which I took advantage of in 1961 by spending a month in Paris.

So, on the one hand the more egalitarian nation had reached a point of wanting the good life while the means to pay for it had become a challenge. The politicians therefore sought a way of resolving this dilemma. Since EFTA had proven growth limitations, their beady eyes settled on Europe as a potential saviour. Why not? After all, in 1973 the EEC seemed to be a unqualified success with a healthy 33/34% share of world trade and the temptation to join in the action proved impossible for our political leaders to resist. No other panacea seemed to be on offer, even our percentage of the USA economy had drastically declined, largely, but not exclusively, due to WW2 costs.

Having been denied a Referendum on joining the EEC, in 1975 Harold Wilson eventually agreed to hold one to confirm the Nation’s desire to stay in the Community. In trade terms the Community had performed well and leading industrialists like Donald Stokes, in Kamikaze mode, embraced the EEC. The die had been cast and the Remainers swept to a pyrrhic victory while only Shetland and the Western Isles had the wisdom to say NO.

Within a few years we discovered that other EEC Members were not only manufacturing similar products to ourselves but also rather better versions – certainly in terms of quality of cars and lorries. How ironic that Lord Stokes had embraced joining the EEC while his British Motor Corporation (BBC) manufactured tat such as the Morris Marina that proved to be the longest lasting temporary stop-gap car. Even his successor – Michael Edwardes – the renowned problem solver could not turn the BMC around. White Goods manufacturing felt the same cold wind of change as we discovered that Italy and Germany manufactured better quality goods at more competitive prices. I recall, accurately I hope, the rapid demise of UK-made TVs, refrigerators and vacuum cleaners with South Wales suffering in particular.

So, the UK joined the EEC while it performed well which may have persuaded us to accept the gradual politicising of the EEC as it transmogrified into the European Union (EU). In parallel to that fundamental change of purpose, the EU’s share of world trade dipped and by 2024 it had declined to 15.8% (other statistics seem to suggest a measly 13.4%). Wrapped in ever burdensome Regulations the EU had succumbed to the more successful economic models, characterised by Japan, China, India and even Thailand. This economic decline spawned questions as: why did we give up our fishing rights; why are French farmers prioritised; what do we get back for our crippling EU membership costs; is there really a need for the constant avalanche of new regulations; why did we turn our backs on Commonwealth trade; and whatever happened to the land of milk and honey when we had butter and beef mountains? Perhaps those questions, and others, gave impetus to the Leave Campaign.

Well here we are again seriously considering re-joining the EU but why? With the EU’s declining share of world trade it’s hard to believe that it would offer the UK an economic panacea. In that context I find these statistics to of interest:

“The United Kingdom imports more services and goods from the European Union than it exports to it. Although this has been the case since at least 1999, after 2011, the UK-EU trade balance has been more pronounced, as the present statistic lays out. When it comes to the UK’s trade with non-EU countries, the picture is decidedly different. Since 2012, the value of UK exports to non-EU countries has been higher than the imports, resulting in a trade surplus.” (Source Statista)

Unless I am being even dumber than usual, it would seem that trade with the rest of the world is the better option and that re-embarking on the EU sinking ship makes little sense.

Maybe there are other motivations that stimulate a desire to re-join:

• Equal misery syndrome.
• Ease of travel to Europe particularly for sun seekers (EU facilitates the unfettered movement of migrants while making our travel as difficult as possible. As previously stated in the 1960s I travelled round Europe on a seven and sixpence document).
• An oxymoronic condition of a cohesive Continent that embraces open borders.
• A burgeoning plethora of regulations to ensure all nations are on the same page.
• An additional expensive tier of Government to which we can appeal if dissatisfied with the answers provided by national Governments.
• Erasmus notwithstanding it still functions albeit on a reduced scale.
• A cashless society.
• The diminution of our freedom of speech.
• The creation of a homogenous super-state with individual nation states’ customs and mores withering on the vine.

If there remains a reader he/she may have decided that my dystopian perspective of the EU is not only biased but is also based on an exaggeration of its difficulties. Of course I am guilty of such vices but I take comfort from Ralph Waldo Emerson who said: ‘Every vice is only an exaggeration of a necessary and virtuous function.’