 Os ydych yn ymlaen, mae'n cyfrifio'r economiaeth. Mae'r ddweud o'r ddweud o fod yng nghylch y Uniau Oedden a Ieuf oedd yn Brytyn yw unrhyw o'r oes yn ymddangos cychwynol. Ond yna'n gwneud yn ysgrifennu'r gwrthodau sydd yn ei wneud, But, in return we were going to be members of this thriving, prosperous dynamic trade block. No-one still credibly argues for that in Britain anymore. Being part of the EU gives us certainly less self-government, but it also gives us less prosperity. This isn't just about the euro crisis, although I can't help noticing that many people who 10 years ago said we would face economic ruin if we didn't abandon the pound. The same credibility as a Greek government bond. This is about something far more fundamental than simply the Euro crisis. When we joined what was to become the European Union in 1973, it accounted for 40%, almost 40% of global output. Today, it accounts for 25% of global output. By the mid 2020s, it will have shrunk to 15% of global output. So ar y Cynon y Cynonau arweinio, 3% a 3% ddiwethaf wedi 80%, 4% a 4% o Brasil arweinio, yn cyd-gweithdfod o'r boblig oeddenny y rithau ynddysgu, efallai os oes cyd-gweithdau'r boblig oeddenny'r boblig oeddenny'r boblig oeddenny.wn oeddwn i chi'n amesadd eich boblig oeddenny os nid i'ch cyflodiaeth a'i oeddenny'r boblig fel yna llawer o'r boblig oeddenny. Jim O'Neill, y cysylltu'r economist o Goldman Sachs, dwi'n cael ei wneud i'r wneud, yn ymgyrch gyda 4.1%. 4.1%! Mae'r bwysig o'r ysgol yng Nghymru yn y dechrau sy'n dechrau sy'n dechrau, a'r dechrau sy'n dechrau sy'n dechrau sy'n dechrau, mae'n cael ei ddweud o'r ysgol yng Nghymru. Yn ddweud, yw ysgol yng Nghymru sy'n dechrau sy'n dechrau, ac mae'n ddych chi'n ddweud. Yn ymgyrch gyda i'r trwyddon o'r ddweud, yw ysgol yng Nghymrae. A rwy'n dechrau sy'n ddweud, yw'r ddweud o'r ddweud o'r ffordd o'r ddweud sy'n ddweud o'r ddweud o'r ddweud i pan-european gweithiau. Felly, mae ar gwrthwynt pan-european, ddweud o'r ddweud, felly byddwch nhw'n cael ei wneud. Why did the Lisbon agenda a decade or more ago fail? The Lisbon agenda we were told was going to make Europe the most dynamic and competitive region of the global economy? How's that worked out? Now if you listen to the Whitehall man drowners in Britain they will be quick to tell you that trade with the EU remains important. I totally agree. Although with every set of economic trade statistics it becomes clear that Europe is a principal market, no longer the principal market, it's vitally important that we still continue to trade. And that is why we need a free trade agreement with the EU. If South Korea can have a free trade agreement with the eurozone, then Britain ought to be able to have a free trade agreement with the eurozone. If the Swiss are able to do four and a half times more trade with the EU from outside than we manage from within, then by definition we can get a better deal. The UK is Germany's single biggest export market. I think we'll have a lot of clout. Can you seriously imagine that people in Britain are going to not want to buy German produce, German manufacturers, German cars because we're outside? Now, you often hear the establishment views saying, ah, but they would discriminate against us, they would direct tariffs, they would direct barriers. The most trade that Britain does with Europe is already covered by World Trade Organization rules. But even so, just stop and think about it. In 2010 Britain bought 52 billion pounds more goods and services from Europe than we sold to Europe. 52 billion pound of trade deficit. That gives a lie to the myth that EU Member States would want to restrict cross-channel trade from which they are the principal beneficiaries. It is a nonsense. Now, we have to be in a single market, says the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, says the Foreign Office establishment unthinkingly. Really? Imagine if you may very crudely that my hands represent the totality of British GDP of economic output this year. This is 100%. 80% of that 100% is people in Britain buying and selling stocks to people in Britain, people selling haircuts on high streets, taxi rides around British towns and cities. 20% of that 100% hinges on trade overseas. Of that 20%, less than half, 8% of the total hinges on trade with the EU. Why on earth are we 100% complying with rules and regulations when only 8% of the economy hinges on that trade? Surely it's possible to comply with single market rules when you're selling to the single market. Why should a business in my constituency wanting to sell to Russia face obstacles erected in Brussels? Why should a business in London wanting to sell to India or America have to comply with single market rules designed to facilitate trade with Belgium? But business wants it, is the answer I often hear. We hear this again and again, usually from government officials who haven't ever run businesses. And certainly I don't deny that British Confederation of British Industry, the CBI, their leadership does want it. Now, put aside the fact that the Confederation of British Industry and its previous incarnations has been wrong. In the 1920s they were wrong about returning to gold standard. In the 1940s they were wrong about nationalisation. In the 1950s they were wrong about state planning. In the 1970s they were wrong about prices and incomes policies. In the 1980s and 90s they were wrong about the ERF. Put all that aside, the CBI represents a very narrow view of business. Their latest survey asked the opinion of fewer than 400 people. I think instead one should look at an organisation like Business for Britain, a much broader based organisation which after 1000 business leaders in July for their opinion. And they found that in nine key areas business leaders by a clear majority want powers to be returned from Brussels to London. Most want a fundamental renegotiation of new terms, new arrangements. Most found that the cost of complying with the single market outweade the benefit. Even the CBI, if you look at the data in their survey, even the CBI data shows that most members recognise that if they were to leave it would alleviate the regulatory burden on their businesses compared to whether we remain in. Business in Britain is at best divided. I have no doubt there are some big corporate interests who have spent their marketing budgets over the years not trying to persuade willing customers to buy their goods but to buy political draft in Brussels to lobby. I have no doubt that some of those big corporate interests have a vested interest in the Brussels gravy train. And certainly this explains why lobbying is one of Europe's growth industries. But we must not confuse the interests of a few big corporate interests with a dog in Brussels in the Brussels fight with a broader UK commercial interest. Now you probably sitting there by now thinking it's all very well this Caswell fellow telling us all of this. But you're just one back bench MP. Guilty as charged absolutely. I am just one back bench MP. You're correct. But it no longer matters what people like me think or what people like David Cameron think. Ultimately it's a question of what British diplomats think. It's ultimately now a question of what people think. The beauty of a referendum is that what matters is what the whole 60 million British people now think. What chance is there of a referendum? Well when we last met when I last met some of you. Not even David Cameron was on board with the idea. It seemed a very radical ultra non mainstream idea. It's rare now to find someone who actually actively opposes a referendum. I think it's going to happen for the following reasons. Obviously if David Cameron wins in 2015 he said there's going to be one in 2017. But I think the chances are much greater than that of that being a referendum. There's a chance I think Ed Miliband will be forced to concede one before 2015. Even if he doesn't even if he does not concede a referendum in 2015 and even if he does win the general election. I think he's going to be required to hold a referendum of some sort afterwards. The euro crisis means profound changes coming. The core eurozone countries are going to fuse into a block. Banking union is coming. I think Charles was absolutely right when he talked about the situation being dangerously unstable. There is a huge element of instability in the status quo. Britain's current relationship with the Europe that is fusing into this core. That is going to have big implications for Britain's relationship if the rules are changed. Already on the statute books there is a law very clearly that says if there is a change in Britain's relation with the EU there must be a referendum. But fundamentally I think there's going to be a referendum for the same reason that I think David Cameron came around to the idea of a referendum. You're probably told by the sort of people who write the FT that David Cameron was forced to sign a referendum because of beastly backbenchers like me. No, not really. I think he was forced to do it because it's right in principle. It's fundamentally right to have a referendum. Even Labour MPs, true to the tradition of the Labour movement, are starting to recognise that there needs to be a referendum. I think momentum is becoming unstoppable. Those who oppose a referendum look weirdly anti-democratic. If there's one thing I would like to impress upon you, I'm not killing myself that I'm going to convince anyone of my argument here today. But if there's one thing I want to impress upon you, don't make the mistake of believing that the debate about Britain's membership of the European Union is about Tory backbenchers like me. Don't make that mistake. Don't make the mistake of misdiagnosing what Euroskepsism is. This idea that if Euroskepsism fitted the caricature of it being this narrow-minded reactionary force, where does it keep going? British Euroskepsism is not a right-wing phenomenon. It is not a movement that has portrayed caricature. It is not against change. Actually, it is a profoundly pro-change anti-establishment, anti-state-square movement. And it's certainly not anti-foreign. What is British Euroskepsism? It is a skepticism of the idea that the lives of millions of Europeans investly arranged by grand design. It's a doubt about the wisdom and the idea of being beautiful. If individual politics big was beautiful and if ground designs worked, why hasn't Euro created huge prosperity? Why isn't it causing economies to flourish rather than imposing on millions debt and despair? If big was beautiful, why is Singapore so much wealthier than Indonesia? Why is Hong Kong more prosperous than China? Why is Switzerland richer by some measure than the European Union? We skeptics believe that it's the mid-twentieth century assumptions about the size and scale of nations' faiths that are outdated. In the age of the internet, the whole world is about to look away. It is the European Union that is out of date, finding assumptions by gone age. With Amazon and Israel communication, proximity to markets has never in human history been less important. Instead of us asking how we're going to get different member states to use the same currency, I think the digital revolution means the key question is how soon are we going to see multiple currencies being used in any one jurisdiction? I think it is the assumptions about monopoly money that are coming to an end. Modernity, the rise of modernity of the industrial revolution, meant big units, everything got big, architecture got big, bridges got big, countries got big. Those that didn't. The Dutch Republic was superseded by England, which was in turn overshadowed by Prussia and America and Russia. Everything got bigger. I think in the digital age, there's a premium not on a common-day scale. I think the premium is on niche, on flexibility, on niche markets, on niche manufacturing. Euroscepticism, I think, owes much more to the ideas of Hayek.com than Colonel Blimp or Alff Garnett. I think it is about fundamentally changing the way we do government and the way we govern ourselves, and owes much more to questions about what the digital revolution means, the way we organise society than it does to any notions of sovereignty or the constitution. Exiting the EU is a necessary precursor to the changes we want to make at home. We need a, I think, a localist revolution. We don't want to bring powers back to the even festering and white force, so the same incompetence who preside over us in white war can have even greater cause to mess up. We want to bring powers back home so that we can pass them outward and downward. We want to decentralise the British state. The British state, I think, has been catastrophically badly run in my lifetime, in my parents' lifetime, because power has been exercised on account of it. And I think that needs to change. I think the really interesting question is not what the EU is going to look like after a British exit. Instead, it is what is Europe going to look like if more than just one country decides to exit. Will there be a cool Euroland? Will it involve Germany, Austria, the Netherlands perhaps? Will France be part of that call? Would it perhaps be a confederation of smaller states? 50 Singapores across Europe perhaps? How could we safeguard what we want, the free movement of good services and with some caveats people? After the single market, how can we actually go about ensuring we have a proper free market where producers can produce without having to do so under licence? Even if Britain leaves the European Union, we're still going to be there. Europe's still going to be there. We're going to need closer ties and I think we can have closer ties. But I think that needs to be based on three axlids, three non-negotiations. Three things that if David Cameron instantly manages to secure a renegotiations will change my mind. One is we need the ability to negotiate trade deals with the rest of the world on our own. We urgently need to open ourselves up to the world of growth. Secondly, we need to only have to conform to the single market rules when we're selling to the single market. If you go into a shop in most European countries, there are products there made around the world. Yes, if you're selling to a country, you have to conform to local standards. I think if you're selling to the single market, you should have to do so too. And thirdly, I think we need to address the issue of European courts. Actually, in my words carefully, European courts having jurisdiction in Britain. We need to curb judicial fear and bring back the African Union term. I'll finish with these thoughts. What chance of David Cameron getting his new deal? I agree with the chance. I think the chances of anything substantive happening are pretty slender. I will just observe this. First of all, I think David Cameron has left himself quite a lot of wiggle room to come back and say, I tried, didn't get anything, I'm going to leave the outcome pain. Study carefully what he's said with me, but I think he's left himself that wiggle room. Secondly, I think that so long as we leave it to British diplomats and opera officials to try to negotiate a new deal, it ain't going to happen. I simply don't think that they're on the same page. Whatever they're telling you, I think there's a tremendous disconnect between what they may be telling you and the debate that's going on in London. Britain, I think, has been kept in the European Union by stringing us along with the idea that it's about to change. I grew up all my life listening to people saying it was about to come our way. The High Water Mark of Fenderism is about to change. We had that again today. It's not. Once people realise that, I think it's over. I support a renegotiation for a simple reason. 40% of people in opinion polls will vote to come out. 30% will vote to stay in. 30% have been decided. The 30% that are undecided need to come down after the discussion and debate into our column. In order to do that, we need to try and renegotiate in good faith. If we fail to renegotiate in good faith, I think it makes it far more likely that we will achieve the majority we need to win an outfit. There is a profound disconnect in Britain between what the official mind thinks about Europe and has long thought about Europe and what those people outside SW1 think. But it's not an excuse to do British failing. The official mind, the mind of diplomats of officials throughout Europe, is fundamentally undisconnected from the opinions of the countries they report to represent. I think it's a much more profound problem of the disconnect between the official mind who wants a certain arrangement for Europe and ordinary Europeans who don't. I suspect that as digital technology leads to more accountability for those officials who make public policy, it is ultimately the will of the demos that will prevail against those who today have a cratos.