This article by Alistair McConnachie giving advice to prospective election candidates on the hustings, appeared in the April 2001 issue of Sovereignty.

The huge burden of EU regulations is a persuasive argument against the EU.
Below: a partially plagiarised snapshot of John Bull(ied) stooping under their weight.

It is the usual practice at "hustings" meetings for each candidate on the platform to introduce themselves and the Party, and to field questions from the audience.

Begin with the personal angle - people want to hear about you, the person. Who are you, what do you do, where do you live, do you have a family? Then introduce the Party you are representing - bearing in mind that some in the audience may never have heard of it. Then explain what it believes, why it believes it, and what it intends to do when in power.

Each person will have his or her own unique personality, experiences, concerns and examples to bring to bear on the issue. Wherever possible, tie your message to local issues to which the audience can relate. The following material is offered as a basic suggestion only:

Ladies and Gentlemen, my name is ... and I'm presently working as a ... I live in ... etc ... and I am representing the ... Party. Our Party was formed in ..., and, since then, has contested every major election.

We advocate "independence" for the United Kingdom, from the European Union. Right now, all of our policies and laws are either decided in Brussels, or have to be framed within the limits allowed by Brussels.

We have a vision of a Europe of friendly, diverse, peaceful, co-operating nation-states.

A vision where countries are free to develop their own policies, make their own laws and control their own economies in response to their own needs.

We want a genuine internationalism between sovereign nation-states. However, the EU is moving towards a United States of Europe, rather than a free association of sovereign states.

This is bad for all the countries in Europe, not only for Britain.

Therefore we call for Britain to leave, and by its own good example, show the way to a new Europe: A Europe of sovereign nation states.

We understand that there is a pressing need for a political structure in Europe which will provide a forum for the nations of Europe to co-operate on issues of mutual concern.

However, the aim of the European Union is to act in the supposed interests of the EU as a whole, and not in the interests of any specific member. It puts the supposed interests of the Community as a whole first and overrides the specific national interest of any member.

As a result, member countries are often compelled to follow policies which are not necessarily in their own interest.

We argue this is bad for democracy, bad for the diversity of a Europe of distinct nation-states, and is especially bad for industry and jobs in this country.

Take democracy: We argue that the maintenance of effective democratic representation can best be guaranteed at the level of the nation-state, rather than at the level of the EU.

Take diversity: In the EU, a rigid conformity prevails where "harmonisation" of policy, laws and economies destroy the diversity of a Europe of distinct nation states, each with their own unique identity and culture. Harmonisation means that Britain will end up looking like France which will end up looking like Germany which will look like Italy which will look like ... everywhere else.

Take industry and jobs: We believe membership of the EU prevents us from responding to our own economic needs.

Under EU treaties, a government cannot favour the set-up of domestic firms by investment. It cannot subsidise existing ones.

It cannot levy taxes to invest specifically in them. Neither can it discriminate in favour of local producers. Nor can it prevent a firm closing down and moving production elsewhere.

In other words, membership of the EU blocks the road forward to rebuilding industry and creating jobs.

Membership of the EU binds the government into EU regulations about trading, which make it very difficult for this government, or any government, to invest in, to support, to protect or to subsidise home industry for fear of breaching EU rules.

So, if we are to maintain any sort of democratic control over the economy, we need to come out of the EU.

Leaving the EU would open up new opportunities for investment and employment that are currently barred under the treaty constraints. Opportunities abound when we base a programme on trade with 200-plus countries world-wide, instead of only 15 in Europe.

Trade with the rest of the EU would continue since we import more from the EU than we sell to it. The figures suggest the EU can't survive without us.

We believe a better future lies outside the EU. It is important for this alternative to be heard. We are not hearing it from any of the main parties.

If elected, we would take this message into mainstream political debate, with far-reaching consequences.

It would set-off a process of positive, progressive change throughout Europe.

We would be sending a clear signal that the Europe of the future is a Europe of sovereign states, which value democracy and diversity, rather than a United States of Europe, that demands rigid conformity.

That's why we call upon Britain to leave the EU and get back into the big wide world again, and that's why we ask for your vote. Thank you

The following are some more suggestions which could be incorporated into your speech or your answers.

FISHING
The damage done by the Common Fisheries Policy to fishing communities and to the environment and fish stocks has been severe. Indeed, the Common Fisheries Policy;
- has resulted in the reduction of the British fishing fleet to one third of its former size;
- has destroyed direct and indirect employment, and is having a devastating effect on coastal communities;
- moreover, the quota system is responsible for the dumping dead of thousands of tons, and billions, of fish a year, and is the principal cause of the overall reduction of fish stocks and pollution of the marine environment.

We advocate the rebuilding of fishing communities and the proper environmental management of fish stocks.

This cannot be achieved by "reforming" the Common Fisheries Policy. The CFP is intended to promote the interests of the EU as a group, and not the interests of any specific member.

Instead, if we are to rebuild fishing communities, ensure proper environmental management of fish stocks, and boost the economy of our coastal areas, we must re-establish control of Britain's 200-mile exclusive fishing zone.

If each country caught fish in areas that were exclusive to itself, it would have an incentive to conserve and nurture fish stocks. We would restore respect for the ocean's providence and we would rebuild fishing communities.

To do this we must withdraw from the Common Fisheries Policy immediately, and leave the EU treaties, altogether.

FUEL COSTS, especially in rural areas, where transport is a necessity, are an outrage. In some places it takes three-quarters of a tank of fuel just to get to the nearest petrol pump. Public transport is poor and a vehicle is essential to maintain any quality of life, yet petrol in some areas of the Highlands can cost at least 12p a litre (54p a gallon) more than in the Central belt.

People in the North are forced to do more miles than anyone else and are being forced to pay for it through the nose.

Car and lorry owners throughout Britain are the most heavily taxed in Europe. Fuel in Europe is cheaper than fuel in Britain. This is ridiculous considering we are the only oil producing country in the EU.

So, we should be able to correct the disparity in prices by subsidising the relevant sectors appropriately. However, any attempt to do so would immediately put us in conflict with EU rules on competition policy.

ON THE SINGLE CURRENCY
We are against it on principle and for all time. We stand for national control over the national economy. The creation of a single currency under the control of a single bank is political treason. It will mean interest rates, taxes and levels of national spending being set in Frankfurt! Economic and Monetary Union will mean Even More Unemployment.

Tony Blair believes we should only join if it is in our "national economic interest." We believe it will never be in our national economic interest to join the single currency.

Indeed, we believe a single currency is against the national economic interests of all the European countries. A single currency will inevitably mean a single bank controlling a single economic policy for every single country. This will mean that member countries will be compelled to follow policies that are not in their own interest.

This is bad for all of Europe, not just for Britain. Countries must be free to respond to their own particular needs.

In our case, if we never joined, we would continue to trade with every other country in the world just as we do at the moment. We would also be sending the positive message that all the other European countries could do the same.

People who want to send a message against the single currency, and for the national economic sovereignty of both Britain, and the other European countries, must vote for our Party.

We advocate leaving the EU, keeping the pound forever, and showing the way to a new European relationship built on sovereignty, democracy and the diversity of a Europe of distinct nation states.

ON THE TORIES CAMPAIGN TO "KEEP THE POUND"
The Tories are not against a single currency on principle!

The Tories may say they are against the single currency for the lifetime of the next parliament but they are not opposed to it on principle. For example, William Hague is quoted in the Scottish Daily Mail of 19th September 1998 saying "I don't want to rule out joining the single currency for ever." (Hamish MacDonell, "Bosses battle with Hague over single currency poll", p.20)

Well, we are ruling it out forever. We stand for national economic sovereignty and for the principle of democratic control over the economy. We will keep the pound forever and keep democratic control.

PUBLIC FINANCE INITIATIVE (PFI)
We would have more money to spend if we left the EU. In all the debate about the Private Finance Initiative (PFI), it seems to have been forgotten that the reason this government, or any government, is desperately short of funds and is compelled to cutback on public spending, sell off public assets, and invent schemes like the PFI to raise money on the open money markets, rather than through government borrowing, is because it is compelled to comply with the Maastricht Convergence Criteria for the single currency.

This requires that all government borrowing is kept within 3% of Gross Domestic Product.

The government is presently restricted to keeping public spending on schools, hospitals and the elderly very low (within 3% of Gross Domestic Product) because of these low levels of public spending demanded by the EU.

That is why we have things like the PFI, which is an attempt to raise money on the open money markets rather than the much cheaper method of government borrowing.

If Britain left the EU - which in practice simply means leaving a set of treaty arrangements - the government would not be constrained by this requirement and it could spend more on our public services. There would be no need for the PFI scheme in the first place.

A MORE LEFT-WING ANALYSIS
Here are some ideas which I put together when I was asked to address a fringe meeting at the Scottish Trades Union Conference, Glasgow City Halls, 20 April 1999.

Some people in the trade union and labour movement have pointed to the benefits of EU social legislation. These benefits may exist. The question is whether they match what has been lost in terms of jobs and the bargaining power of organised labour.

In terms of jobs, membership of the EU has had a devastating effect on manufacturing industry, and unemployment has risen throughout the EU.

In terms of the bargaining power of organised labour, the process of concentration and monopolisation has undoubtedly weakened it.

The Social Chapter was offered by the Brussels bureaucrats as a sugar-coating. It guarantees little of any value for the labour movement, and nothing at all in such fields as pay and trade-union recognition.

Therefore, the social legislation is no justification for continued membership of the EU.

If we are to achieve any democratic control over the economy, we need to consider how Britain can be independent from a predatory global economy, over which we presently have little control. This means looking at a future outside the EU.

One of the crucial changes in the global economy of the last 20 years has been the deregulation of capital markets. Outside the EU, Britain would be better placed to implement control over the movement of capital - if that were considered necessary.

The state would be able to use its powers to support internal investment and protect home markets. Profits made here could be repatriated and reinvested here.

Economically, Britain could prosper very easily outside the EU. Norway decided not to join in 1995 and is doing well.

Indeed, leaving the EU would open up new opportunities for investment and employment that are currently barred under the treaty constraints.

Trade with the rest of the EU would continue since we import more from the EU than we sell. The figures suggest the EU can't survive without us.

Moreover Britain's position as a net exporter of energy puts it in a strong bargaining position, especially if those assets were in public hands.

Opportunities abound when we base a programme upon trade with 200 countries worldwide, rather than with only 15 in Europe.

Such a move by Britain would set-off a cumulative process of positive, progressive change throughout Europe.

So long as we remain within the EU we remain a prisoner of transnational capital and big business.

A bright new future awaits outside the shackles of the EU.
And for these reasons, we call upon Britain to leave.