The Northern Tory Policy Group has thus far published two articles in a series on the EU referendum debate, with the first by Philip Davies MP (writing for Leave) and the second by Kevin Hollinrake MP (writing for Remain). The biggest difference I noticed between the two was that, although Davies’ article felt more impassioned, Hollinrake’s was supported much more extensively by statistics and polling from respected independent bodies; perhaps an apt reflection of both campaigns as a whole.
The upcoming vote on our relationship with the EU is indeed “an historic and exciting opportunity for this country”, to show that we will not be cowed by fear and isolationism. I couldn’t agree more with the argument that “the UK must stay in the EU for influence – that we need to be at the top table making the decisions”.
However, Davies argues that “this influence is an illusion”, claiming that “over the last Parliamentary Session the UK voted against 23 motions in the EU Council – and yet in every single instance we were outvoted”. The Prime Minister addressed this point directly in his Sky News ‘In or Out’ programme, saying that many countries might express disagreement but allow themselves to be bowled over, whereas the UK will always stand up for what it wants, even if the outcome is seemingly inevitable.
“Instead of being 1 of 9 countries like in 1975, we are now 1 of 28. The EU has grown tremendously over the past 40 years and, with each new country, our influence lessens.”
Philip Davies MP
Curse the nature of democracy!
According to Davies, we have forfeited our sovereignty to the EU, but in reality we have only ever shared it, just like in NATO and the UN. This referendum shows that we will always have the option to take back full ‘control’, regardless of whether it is the right thing to do. Our “inward-facing, backward-looking protection racket” has spread democracy and human rights to the fascist and communist states which formerly surrounded us, and fostered collaboration in working progressively together for the good of the planet as a whole.
The system is very democratically accountable, despite the Leave rhetoric. The EU Parliament is directly elected with proportional representation, the EU Council consists of elected heads of national governments, and the EU Commission is appointed by the Council and approved by the Parliament. I have previously argued the merits of an appointed branch of government, with regard to the House of Lords.
Davies strongly believes that “we do not have the best deal”. But with our budget rebate, treaty exemptions (including from the Euro), enhanced veto, and relatively large representation in Parliament, I would ask in response: who does?
Hollinrake wrote “whatever the public decides on June 23rd, life will go on and we will make the very best of the result”. If the public does decide to leave, it is up to Parliament to decide what happens after the vote. MPs must debate our ensuing relationship with the EU, likely emulating an existing deal to meet the two year negotiation window dictated in Article 50. The prime four possible outcomes following Brexit are the Norway option, the Switzerland option, the Canada option, or the WTO (World Trade Organisation) option. “If we left the EU, there is no guarantee that we could we would have total control over our borders if we want to still trade with the continent” [sic].
Norway is part of the European Economic Area. It pays into the EU budget, has to accept free movement of people, and must implement EU law and regulation without any say on the development or veto on the implementation. Switzerland is part of the European Free Trade Area; its situation is the same as Norway’s, only it has restricted access to the single market.
Canada has a bilateral trade agreement (CETA) with the EU which has been in development for seven years and is still awaiting final approval before it comes into effect. Again, we would have just two years to negotiate a new deal. Under WTO guidelines, all trade would be subject to 10% tariffs, hitting businesses and the economy. Goods imported into Europe via CETA or WTO rules still have to comply with EU regulations without any say over what they are.
Davies states “if we leave the EU, we will regain our power to negotiate our own trade deals with whoever we want”. This may technically be true, but we do currently have a say in trade negotiations as part of a single market of over 500 million people, the world’s largest by GDP. If other countries, such as China, are reluctant to establish a trade deal with such a market, why would they be keener to do so with an isolated British market?
He claims “trade will not be lost in the case of Brexit”. Just “another myth”, he says. Business leaders and experts in the field beg to differ. “But”, he adds as if experiencing some groundbreaking epiphany, “our European neighbours make money from us too!”. Of course they do, and they will continue to do so in the event of a Brexit. “Germany will still want to sell us BMWs” and “France will still want to sell Champagne” but they could be hit by tariffs (depending on negotiations), increasing the price and reducing the quantities sold.
According to the NFU, 70% of farmers are backing Remain. We wouldn’t change regulation on farming or fishing because it’s there to protect the environment and secure the longevity of supply, so any talk of cutbacks in regulation making up for a loss of CAP funding in the event of a Brexit are completely false. Reductions in regulation would also restrict imports to the EU beyond the base loss of trade from leaving.
While 44% of our exports go to the rest of the EU, just 8% of theirs come here (comprising 53% of our imports). Governmental officials across Europe (including the German finance minister, Wolfgang Schäuble) have indicated they would be willing to take the hit on trade and the economy from being harsh on the UK in post-Brexit negotiations in order to prevent future economic catastrophe from the breakdown of the European Union. If they were to grant us favourable terms, other Eurosceptic nations would likely follow suit and decimate the single market.
There is at least an additional 40-60% chance that Brexit “may well lead to a recession”, and “as in all recessions, those suffering the greatest impact would be everyday people”. As Michael Gove said in his ‘In or Out’ programme: “I can’t guarantee that every person currently in work in their current job will keep their job” if we leave the EU.
If our future prosperity really does depend on “trading with China, India, South America and emerging economies in Africa”, we should work with the world’s premier economy (of which we are a part, declining global share or not) to negotiate new trade deals with them. Incidentally, even assuming leaving would have no direct consequences for us, it would mean a significant further reduction in the EU’s GDP. If our neighbours and biggest trading partners are weaker, we are also necessarily weaker. This is why it’s okay to be a net contributor to the EU institutions (actually at £8.5bn per year, not £10bn): we strengthen our continental comrades and therefore strengthen ourselves.
Davies asserts that we have “an immigration policy that discriminates against individuals from outside the EU”, but if this is the case, why is immigration from outside higher than from inside the EU? With regard to it increasing pressure on public services, that may be numerically true, but it also boosts the economy, allowing for more investment (such as the government’s £10bn NHS budget increase). If we were to leave, the pressure may be numerically smaller, but the financial pressure could increase, especially if it triggered another recession.
It’s very questionable whether “our welfare system [is] acting as a draw for people to come to our country”, as Hollinrake believes. The figures show EU immigrants contribute more to the system than they take out, but the changes in the Prime Minister’s renegotiation are welcome nonetheless, and we should continue to strive for a fairer and more pragmatic system.
Hollinrake stated that freedom of movement “is the price all nations pay for access to the single market”, but many would argue this is not a cost, especially when it comes to everyday people with the freedom to travel on holiday. I have addressed the issues of direct control over migration numbers and the effects of wage deflation in my post responding to questions from Boris Johnson.
Going too far, too fast, with a lack of pragmatism is one of the EU’s main problems. Part of our renegotiation codifies the fact that there is variance and imbalance across Europe, the reason why a one-size-fits-all policy just can’t work in the present circumstances. It is not until these things are addressed that the question of further integration (which would require another referendum by law in the UK) should be raised.
“In the ancient past, to keep safe we built walls around our cities. As time went on, we made our communities and country safe through the rule of law; in a world that gets smaller every day, we must continue this work internationally.”
Kevin Hollinrake MP
Ahem, Donald Trump.
I agree that we certainly would survive without being a member of the European Union, but no independent study shows us better off out. Kate Hoey MP, Co-Chair of Labour Leave, said on the Daily Politics that she can’t name any reputable study which shows us better off, or even just the same, if we leave.
As Hollinrake says: “the truth is that neither side can be absolutely certain of the future”, but it is self-evident that if we remain, the national economic success we see now can continue without additional risk. I agree that when we vote to remain, we need to continue “to push for the kind of reforms we would all like to see”.
Andrew Bulman 