Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or not? On June 23rd, just shy of one week, the British people will come forth and seal the fate of their country and, perhaps, of Europe as a whole.
During several months of national debate, pro-EU campaigners have supported the idea that the UK will have greater political influence and economic benefits by remaining in the Union. On the other hand, pro-Brexit campaigners have insisted that the ability to operate with looser ties with the rest of Europe will entail both wider political and economic advantages. But how did we get here in the first place?
In January 2013, the British prime minister, David Cameron, promised that, if the Conservative party had been re-elected in May 2015, he would have renegotiated Britain’s membership and would have held an in-out referendum by the end of 2017. The Tories won the election and they now have a mandate to carry out those promises.
Britain has always had its opt-outs.
One might say that David Cameron was forced to march towards a referendum caving to pressure from the right-wing elements of his Conservative Party and from the UK Independence Party (UKIP). The truth is, however, that Great Britain has always been an exception within Europe. Britain has always had its opt-outs; it is not a member of the Eurozone, it is not in the Schengen free circulation zone, it never ratified the EU’s fundamental charter of rights and it also has a flexible opt-out on EU legislation in the area of freedom, security and justice.
On top of that, David Cameron changed the terms of Britain’s EU membership before the referendum following intense negotiations in Brussels on 18th and 19th of February 2016, during which EU leaders achieved a deal which strengthens Britain’s special status in the EU by granting an explicit exemption from the founding goal of an “ever-closer union”, among other concessions; it is a deal which will take effect immediately if the UK votes to remain in the EU.
Part of the deal is to boost the sovereignty of the national parliaments within the EU, so that they could work together to block any EU legislation that they do not want to ratify, to strengthen safeguards for the city of London and other financial centres outside the Eurozone, to improve trade relationships with growing economies and to better protect the rights of non-Eurozone economies and concessions on the welfare rights of migrant workers.
Despite the fact that David Cameron now stresses the benefits of continued EU membership in a reformed EU, his phenomenally victorious deal in Brussels didn’t have strong impact back home. A handful of high-profile political figures, such as the justice secretary, Michael Gove, and London’s mayor Boris Johnson, as well as Nigel Farage, Member of the European Parliament and leader of the UKIP, fanatically support Great Britain’s exodus from the EU camp.
The net contributor
The thorniest issues among the “in” and “out” campaigners include inter alia the issues of financial cost of being a member of the EU, immigration, security, trade and the economy.
The UK is a net contributor to the EU budget, with its contribution reaching £17.8bn in 2015, but the UK rebate, negotiated by Margaret Thatcher, amounts to £4.9bn and, if we include £4.4bn more which is paid back to the UK in the form of farm subsidies and other programmes, the total amount is £8.5bn. The argument of the “out” campaigners, that the UK puts much more money into the EU than it gets back, is outweighed by the benefits to the economy by staying in the EU, as the “in” campaigners proclaim.
The “leave” group also claims that it is impossible to control immigration as a member of the EU and that, in turn, harms UK-born workers in terms of jobs, wages and access to public services, which are under strain because of the huge influx of migrants. There are three million EU nationals living in the UK currently. In 2015 alone, more than a quarter of a million arrived to the UK.
On the other hand, the “stay” group argues that immigrants, especially those from the EU, pay more in taxes than they take out, and they emphasize the two measures of the UK-EU deal related to 1) the amount of child benefits that EU workers can send to their home countries, which will be adjusted according to the living standards of the recipient country and 2) the fact that the UK can pull an emergency “brake” to cut in-work benefits from EU migrants for up to four years.
Exiting the EU would automatically mean that Britain will not have access to the shared intelligence services provided by Europol.
As far as security is concerned, the refugee crisis and the recent terrorist attacks in Brussels last March and in Paris in November 2015 gave ammunition to the “exit-backers” to label the policies of the EU as inadequate to effectively tackle these issues, leaving the member states exposed to criminal and terrorist activities. It would be useful to recall, however, that the UK is not part of the Schengen Area, thus it does not have open borders. At the same time, exiting the EU would automatically mean that Britain will not have access to the shared intelligence services provided by Europol, thus deteriorating the UK’s position against organised cross-border crime.
Being part of the EU, in terms of trade and economy, means that it is part of a single market which allows for the free movement of goods and services. At the same time, it is the bloc that leads trade negotiations with other countries around the world, not individual member states.
Neglecting the no-tariff policy within the EU as well as the fact that about half of the UK’s overseas trade is conducted with the EU, the “out” campaigners strongly support the idea that leaving the economic bloc will give the UK the opportunity to negotiate trade agreements with non-EU countries or other economic blocs on its own terms, while avoiding costly EU regulations regarding consumer protection, product specifications, and health and safety.
The truth is that whether or not Britain is part of the EU, its companies would have to comply with these regulations in order to access to the EU’s single market.
The “stay” group also argues that only through the EU will the UK be able to benefit from future free trade agreements such as the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) currently being negotiated with the United States.
Top economists argue that Brexit will harm the British economy.
According to the biggest survey conducted by Ipsos MORI, nine out of ten of the country’s top economists believe that a Brexit will harm the British economy. The results show that 88% out of the more than 600 economists think that an exit from the EU and the single market would most likely damage Britain’s growth prospects over the next five years. Finally, a Brexit would reduce the attractiveness of the UK for foreign direct investments, as a consequence of losing favourable access to a market made up of 500 million consumers.
Whether a Brexit is coming or not, the polling day has come, and I hope that Britons will vote for the UK to remain in the EU’s fold so as to avoid, as many experts indicate, an “unpleasant divorce” for both sides.
