Last Friday’s (15^th May 2008) Manx European Union Realists’ Group debate saw the motion: ‘That this house believes that if the UK were to leave the EU the break-up of the UK is inevitable, thus requiring change in the Island's Constitutional Position’, proposed by Professor Charles Cain, and opposed by UKIP MEP Nigel Farage, was defeated by 60 against and only 4 in favour. There were 4 abstentions.

It was four years ago that the last debate was organised by the MEURG, with the two same to protagonists involved, and, perhaps unsurprisingly, taking into account a heavily Euro-sceptic audience, the same winner – Mr Farage.

The event was chaired by Manx Radio’s Roger Watterson, and in his introduction he recounted how the campaigns of many candidates, in the 2006 House of Keys’ general election, were very insular and contained very little international content. Those that did, he said, did not get voted in.

He went on to inform the audience that there are MHKs today who take the view that the EU is nothing to do with us, but there are some people in the Island, such as the MEURG who are concerned; which is why we were having the debate.

First, he introduced Professor Cain as a Manxman, banker, economist and former MHK and said it was his role to persuade the audience to support the motion.

Professor Cain began by destroying a few common misconceptions by pointing out that there is no such thing as ‘UK law’ or the ‘British’. The nearest, he explained, to the latter were the Britons and they lived in Wales. Much of the myth of being ‘British’ was created by Shakespeare, who he described as a Tudor ‘spin-doctor’, and the north/south divide went back centuries and was not a recent phenomena.

“If you work with untrue assumptions you will end up with untrue conclusions” he stated.

His history lecture continued, as he told the audience that the Union was not voluntary but had been effectively enforced. He blamed southern ‘English’ and Norman French imperialism for creating some of the early drivers for union and economic factors and the Empire being responsible later. He pointed out that some of the Scot ‘toffs’ did well out of the deal and that the English had ‘bought’ votes in the Scot’s parliament to secure it.

So having accepted that the Scots did very well out of the Empire he reminded the audience that the Empire has disappeared in the last 50 years; therefore, one of the pillars of support, for the Union, has gone.

Professor Cain suggested that the EU now trumps the UK so the Scots have a choice between the two; and that only inertia and politics are holding the Union together.

He claimed that the Scots are the second class citizens of the Union, with their mineral wealth having being plundered to pay for ‘Domes’ and the like.

So what would happen if the UK withdrew from the EU, he inquired. Well it will not be popular with the Scots, he says, as they can see that Eire and the Isle of Man have managed ok.

Professor Cain was of the opinion that it would be better for Scotland to go alone, and pointed out that the Sovereignty of Tynwald has never been challenged.

He recalled though that in 1997 the IOM had been subjected to the Edward’s review - which he considered an outrageous breach of the constitutional position between the IOM and the UK - but he believed that one, little noticed, part of the report had resulted in a significant benefit for the IOM. This was the recommendation that the Island should represent itself, on the international stage, where it had a clear interest. Subsequently the Island has begun to sign treaties in its own right, which demonstrates that the IOM is within a ‘hairs breadth of full independence’.

In bringing his proposition to a close, and seemingly accepting the inevitability of a break up of the Union, the self acclaimed ‘Scotophile’ declared, “It is far better to align with an independent Scotland rather than a declining United Kingdom”.

Mr Farage, a former businessman, which included a period in the oil industry, commenced his opposition, to the motion, by propounding the theory that Professor Cain, in proposing the motion, had to argue that it would be a bad thing for a break-up of the UK, but that he actually thought that it will be a good thing.

Leaving that aside, he suggested that what really mattered, in respect of a nation state, is do people feel a part of it; and would they be willing to defend it.

He said that over three quarters of the population are concerned about the creation of a Federal Europe; and although there are risks attached with being on the ‘outside’ in his view the risks are worth it.

He reminded that when the referendum was held, in 1975, on membership of the Common Market people were voting to increase the ‘domestic market’ from 55 million to 250 million people.

However, he claimed the UK is now stuck in a customs agreement when there is an even bigger world out there, India and the like; and they are powerless to cut their own deal with these countries. The fourth largest trading economy, in the world, hamstrung by the EU, he exclaimed. We have turned our back on the Commonwealth, he continued, and looked into our own backyard and imported 120,000 pages of closely typed pages of EU legislation.

Mr Farage said this would over-regulate our financial services compared to the USA or Switzerland. He said it is essential that the UK retains its ablity to regulate itself as politically it is a good thing, as democracy is a good thing; and it works, he exclaimed.

He pointed out that the UK didn’t go down the same Fascist route as other European countries but the people had chosen to go down the ballot box route to change governments; and to hold then accountable.

As for the motion, he said you couldn’t possibly support the motion as the only inevitable things in life are death and taxes. It is not inevitable that the UK will break-up, he stated.

He pointed out that Scotland’s First Minister, Alex Salmond works the system very well, but still there is not much evidence in the polls for independence; with at the most a third in favour. He added that Mr Salmond is “taking baloney” as you “can’t have independence and also be a member of the EU”. Faced with this choice he believed that the majority would not support independence.

Mr Farage put to the audience that Eire had done well from the EU but unfortunately with all the east European countries to support and independent Scotland would not get a look in.

The EU has divided the continent into regions, he said, and this is a “divide and rule” ploy by turning people against each other.

The UK’s membership of the EU is bad for the IOM, he declared; and it would be a desirable and good thing, for the Island, if the UK broke away from the EU. “And it is far from likely that Scotland would then breakaway” he said in concluding.

Mr Watterson, having established that the best place for terrorist organisations to operate is in the USA, due to the ‘lax’ regulation of financial services; he invited comments or questions from the audience.

Professor Cain’s response, which drew much laughter, was, “Just because I take a particular line in a debate - it doesn’t mean I believe it!”

He continued that the problem for the Island would be if we were ‘barred’ from access to markets, but it would be fine as long as we had the opportunity to negotiate with members.

He recalled that the driver, for not joining the EU, was the work permit system. He claimed the system does not work; it keeps a few civil servants busy and, in fact, works against the interests of the Island.

Paul Shaw suggested a sense of unity prevailed, that two world wars had proved the support for the Union; and 75% of the people wanted the EU off their back.

Professor Cain agreed that sentiment was an important factor, but that it was being undermined. He used the ‘poll tax’ as an example of where the Scots had been upset “big style”.

Mr Farage said Norway had been mentioned, and pointed out that this non-EU country keeps its own fish, do not pay into the EU but is still allowed, subject to certain standards, to trade with the EU. “It deals with who it wants” he said.

He emphasized the fragility of the financial services sector, which can leave over night; and said three insurance businesses are already heading west to the Bahamas.

Alistair Irving put it to the speakers that if the UK joined the Euro the IOM would be almost obliged to follow and he was worried that the EU would then say the IOM had to join the EU.

Mr Farage concurred that the Euro is the currency of the EU, so it was highly possible that scenario would become a reality; but he assured the audience he would be fighting against such an outcome. Although he admitted that he did not have a conclusive answer, and that he doubted the IOM could be forced to join the EU, he thought that if the IOM adopted the currency it would, de facto, become a member.

Professor Cain said the EU like to “tidy-up” and is putting pressure on places such as Andorra and San Marino. Therefore, he warned that the Island needed to be on its guard and watch the EU “like a hawk”.

Mike Coleman raised the issue of ‘subsidiarity’ and the possible impacts on the IOM.

Mr Farage explained that the Lisbon Treaty is the most fundamental treaty since the Treaty of Rome. It gives the EU ‘legal personality’ so it is a state in its own right, he said. However, he said it is more far reaching than that in that it allows for a ‘self adjustment facility’, whereby the Prime Ministers can amend it in secret and apply the changes across the Union.

He could see the IOM getting dragged along in the wake.

Professor Cain entirely agreed and reiterated the need for vigilance.

He also took the opportunity to make the point that the Scots are not “thicker” than the Manx, so it was deeply insulting to suggest that they couldn’t survive on their own.

Mike Warren was concerned that the IOM relies for two third of its revenue on indirect taxes that are controlled outside of the Island. If the UK broke up he suggested it would lead to the loss of the financial service industry.

Professor Cain thought the Island was well placed by the arrangement it had struck in respect of customs. He pointed to the Freeport as an example and that the “law of unintended consequences”, regarding the withholding tax and the introduction of the 0% corporate tax, had been a good thing for the IOM. He didn’t thing the EU wanted to shut us down.

However, Mr Farage disagreed, and said that the EU hate the ‘Anglo-Saxon’ way of doing financial services; and they were a serious threat to the industry.

June Snow, who was child during the Second World War, reminded people that Hitler had wanted to create a super-state but that Churchill had vowed we would never be slaves; yet here we are handing our countries over voluntarily.

Slightly tongue-in-cheek, Mr Farage quipped “It’s worse, we are paying for them to take us over!”

Mr Watterson interjected that two Germans he had spoken to thought it prevented war it was a price worth paying; but Mr Farage countered by saying they had tried this with Yugoslavia and look what happened.

Donald Whitaker inquired if they thought Gordon Brown would be the last prime minister to preside of a UK with any sovereignty.

Mr Farage replied that the charade would go on, with David Cameron standing on the steps of No 10 proclaiming how proud he is to govern. Utter nonsense, was his considered view.

Paul Fisher wondered if the IOM’s politicians were burying their heads in the sand when it came to the EU, especially as the Chief Minister, Tony Brown had refused to meet with Mr Farage.

Mr Farage said he had been insulted by a lot of people so it was nothing new, but he did think the snub “ridiculous”; and that it was poor show that people didn’t even want to discuss the issues such as tax harmonization.

Professor Cain said that the best way to ‘blow-up’ the EU was to vote for tax harmonization; to which Mr Farage quickly rejoined that he would do just that next week.

Professor Cain thought there were too many potential problems that hadn’t really been thought through carefully enough; but Mr Farage stated that much of what happen, within the EU, was driven by “dreamers” and that we should not “underestimate the ability of the EU to be stupid.”

In the last contribution from the audience, John Ormond said that nothing is inevitable but he could foresee a change in the relationship between England and Scotland. He added that he could see advantages in ‘small units’ so he did not think that an independent England and Scotland would be a bad thing.

Mr Watterson then invited the speakers to wind-up.

Mr Farage suggested that Scotland should become more like Catalonia, but remain under the same sovereignty. However, he returned to the words of Benjamin Franklin and, on that basis, he said he had to oppose the motion; and we would have a huge victory party when the UK leaves the EU.

Professor Cain referred to the changes in Northern Island, and said few would have believed a few years ago what has been proved possible; so it was perfectly possible that the UK would change.

David Cameron should go and talk to Alex Salmond, although he should be wary of the bureaucrats who do not want to loosen the grip on power, as the ‘loss’ of Scotland would be a ‘loss’ of power. In his view leaving the EU will accelerate the break-up of the UK and it would be inevitable if nobody goes to talk to them.