Article
When I voted for Brexit in 2016 I rejected the misleadingly named “single market”.
This became a massive legislative power grab extending into everything from transport and agriculture to employment and borders policy. I was the UK’s Single Market Minister when they laughingly said we were “completing” the single market. That taught me this was just cover for a long and continuous transfer of more governing authority from member states to the power-mad Commission. As I expected, they did not of course complete the market as promised but have gone on making many new laws in its name as they expand it to increase their grip.
Most of these laws made it dearer and more difficult to make and sell.
They were anti innovation, anti small business and damaging to the consumer interest. We have to watch as the US and China develop the new ideas and dominate new markets. The EU and the UK, which is still running on too many EU laws itself, seek to regulate the results of the US company successes in a way which discourages flourishing wellsprings of innovation at home. EU law means the EU will be a digital colony of the USA. All of the giant companies of the digital age are US or Chinese. Mr Draghi, former head of the European Central Bank and keen Europhile, set this out very clearly in his devastating report on the loss of European competitiveness.
As Minister I saw how the Commission was not that worried over what the initial Directive in an area said or did, as the main aim was to establish “competence” over the topic. They hold to the doctrine of the acquis, the idea that as they legislate in a field so they become the sovereign power over that area of work. The serious over regulation and accompanying charges and taxes then follow with later lengthier more detailed laws. They can get these through as once they have established the area is part of the acquis they can proceed with qualified majority voting rather than needing unanimity.
I tried to stick to the idea of a Common market.
Many people I think voted for that in good faith, not realising it was cover for the transfer of so much government to the EU. All we needed to do to enjoy a common market was to say a business could offer its products for sale in any member state based on the regulation and law in the state that was exporting. That was established through the European Court’s Cassis de Dijon judgement. There was no need to harmonise or replace every law that had any bearing on making, growing and selling things. Member states had roughly similar standards, and consumer choice would make the other key decisions about what to buy based on the labels.
The obvious results of dear energy, excessive regulation and the absence of the dynamic fast growing businesses of the new era are to be seen in the lamentable growth numbers for the EU as a whole and for most of its leading members this century. The USA which started richer has been growing at double the pace. Europe is falling further and further behind.
I saw how the EU net zero policies meant the premature death of the UK’s diesel and petrol car industry, with no obvious popular and affordable battery replacements to see off the Chinese challenge. I pointed out how the dear energy prices EU and UK policy were creating would close many of our factories and plants. I had to watch over the last two years as two of the UK’s six oil refineries shut, our steel industry collapsed, a large fibreglass plant was closed, several ceramics works gave up and many other high energy using businesses ended. It was with disbelief I saw the new government opt for imported LNG rather than more gas from our own fields. This boosts world CO 2 as well as doing us out of well paid jobs and denying us plenty of tax revenue from our own production.
I also voted for Brexit for political reasons. My reading of too much European history had told me that war, death, destruction and slavery had in the past come from the continent on all too many occasions. The joys of our island story came from the wider world, from free trade and from pioneering democracy in a sovereign country. The EU plans a different approach to the past, based on consent and negotiation. The history is however haunting.
At its worst past Europe brought slavery. As recently as the 1940s the German occupation of the Channel islands established slave labour on a British Crown territory. The Romans imposed a military occupation on us for 367 years with slavery as an important part of the economic model. Only full Roman citizens enjoyed the more comfortable lifestyle of the few. The Vikings plundered our coasts and took people into slavery from 793, and occupied Northumbria, Mercia and East Anglia in later years until defeat in 1066. The Normans stole our lands and occupied the country from 1066, introducing feudal serfdom for many Englishmen and women requiring compulsory work on the stolen lands. The invaders could buy and sell the land with the people’s work obligations attached to the contract. When I hear Rule Britannia sung I understand the suffering and heartache many of our ancestors felt over slavery as the chorus line affirms “Britons never will be slaves”. By 1800 we had the naval power to enforce that, but failed in 1940 in Alderney. The Royal Navy had a fine record in leading the attack on the global slave trade in the nineteenth century.
History reminds us that the European continent has been a hotbed of wars, border fights and the centre of bitter disputes over the details and institutions of the Christian faith. It has been prone to manic dictators and aggressive states wishing to dominate it by force and to govern it as a whole contrary to the wishes of the many different countries. Europe is a tapestry of smaller and a few larger states with great cultural and linguistic diversity. To progress the EU needs to respect the differences.
The UK has suffered from too many European invasions, but has often benefitted from its island status in being able to fend off the aggressors. After the big defeats to the Romans, Vikings and Normans the country grew stronger. The English constitution was robust enough to prevent Philip II of Spain, the King of the super power of the age, from annexing England on the death of his wife Queen Mary. Elizabeth I who gained the throne went on to defeat the 1588 Spanish invasion fleet. This finally saw off the big threat Spain posed to our independence. Spain concentrated instead on trying to re conquer the Netherlands which it had carelessly lost.
In the eighteenth and early nineteenth century France was the dominant military power. We were dragged into continental wars or entered them willingly as borders were disputed. Nelson’s stunning victory at Trafalgar and Wellington’s at Waterloo ended the long hard fought attempts of Napoleon to extend and consolidate France’s European empire. In the twentieth century Germany emerged as the strongest military power seeking to unite Europe under its government . By 1939 this was to be based on genocide, slavery and strict enforcement of military rule. Twice the UK joined coalitions to defeat the German armies of occupation whilst seeing off in 1940 the planned Operation Sealion to conquer the UK.
European wars have cost us millions of dead. My two grandfathers spent their late teens in the trenches and my two parents spent theirs in the Navy in the second world war. Their generations made huge sacrifices so the many states of Europe could be free and independent. The UK has flourished on free trade, a free people, a sovereign Parliament and good links with most of the world. The UK is right to belong to NATO and to pledge support for NATO countries in Europe if they are ever threatened by hostile powers.
I wish the EU well in its endeavour to establish friendly co operation between neighbours on a continent congested with many states. The UK’s exit makes that easier as the UK had no wish to join the currency and enter into major budgetary transfers which are clearly needed for a political Union.
The EU does not need an army and does not need to expand its borders by military means. Those member states that also belong to NATO should deal with defence through that crucial alliance, not seeking to establish a European alternative without US support. Duplication of a new European NATO alongside existing NATO wastes energy and resources. The EU would be wise not to seek to maximise its power, tax revenues and controls as that will breed more disappointment and resentment. Its current powers over borders and the movement of people are already causing tensions between member states.
The UK has shown its independence of European political plans, and needs different defence assets to defend our island home rather than the big armies and land fortifications of the continent. The UK’s future lies globally and with the Commonwealth. The EU’s future is easier to arrange without the UK as a dissenting member.
This article was first published on Conservative Home on 26 August 2026
