The Tribune

The British will vote on the nation’s place in Europe in the first referendum for 40 years this summer. Peter Young looks at what is at stake and why the case for leaving is gathering strength.

In announcing to Parliament in February that a referendum on Britain’s future relationship with the European Union (EU) would be held on June 23, Prime Minister David Cameron described the issue as “a vital, once-in-a-generation and final decision for the future of our country”. The choice for voters was stark - to stay as a member of the EU or to leave.

This will be the first formal test of public opinion about the nation’s place in Europe since the 1975 referendum and, by any measure, the decision will be momentous.

The Conservative party’s manifesto at last year’s General Election contained a commitment to hold a referendum before the end of 2017 subject to a successful renegotiation of the terms of the nation’s EU membership in the face of growing public concern about the current relationship. That renegotiation has been completed and the die is now cast.

In 1973, the United Kingdom (UK) joined the then European Economic Community which was a trading bloc and customs union of six member states - Belgium, France, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and the then West Germany. In the intervening years the organisation has developed steadily and ineluctably to become the present 28-member EU, with a population of some 500 million, through increased integration and centralisation of power towards the goal of a federal superstate.

Milestones were the Maastricht Treaty in 1992, which formally created the EU and then the single market, and the Lisbon Treaty in 2007, which gave democratic legitimacy to the union and moved power away from national electorates.

These were accompanied by the Schengen zone agreement removing borders between, currently, 26 signatory countries and the euro or single currency to which 19 signed up.

The UK declined to join either.

For some time, fears have been mounting in Britain that what had begun as a common market, conceived as an initial step towards the containment of Germany’s dominance of Europe, has grown by stealth in to a supranational dictatorship run by unelected bureaucrats that disempowers the people, threatens the sovereignty of nation states and, in an effort to impose harmonisation, interferes excessively in their affairs. Critics observe that the EU already possesses many of the attributes of nationhood - a parliament, a supreme court, a passport, a currency, a national anthem, a flag and external borders.

More recently, the rules of free movement within the EU have been placing strain on Britain because of her generous welfare payments, and the never-ending crisis of Syrian and other migration, which is worsening by the day, has drawn harsh attention to the dangers of being unable to control her own borders.

Against this background, Mr Cameron told Members of Parliament that he had finished his renegotiation with the EU, which had covered four areas of reform wanted by the UK - financial protection, competitiveness, migration and powers of the national parliament. He claimed success in all four through agreement that the UK would never join the eurozone and that the Bank of England would remain responsible for supervising the nation’s financial stability; that the single market would be completed in services, energy and capital and that new targets would be set to cut red tape and bureaucracy; that new anti-crime and other measures would be taken to prevent abuse of free movement and to limit migrants’ benefits; and that the UK would be permanently and legally excluded from ever closer union.

He concluded that from now on Britain would be in the parts of Europe which worked for her - the single market and the ability to keep people safe - but out of the parts which she did not want to be involved in - the eurozone and economic bailouts, the passport-free, no borders Schengen area and moves towards ever closer union.

In summary, he said, Britain would be safer and better off by remaining in a reformed EU because of the ability to play a leading role in reaching decisions on trade and security issues and to retain unfettered access to the single market which would bring more jobs and lower prices.

More broadly, the UK would have a stronger influence over global affairs in partnership with the other 27 EU countries. By contrast, a vote to leave - ‘BREXIT’ - would be a leap into the unknown together with a loss of the benefits of the single market and a diminution of the nation’s standing in the world.

Not surprisingly, Mr Cameron’s views have enjoyed widespread support. Commentators recognise the importance of the power of the single market, which ensures free trade in goods and services and the movement of capital, all of which brings freedom, security and prosperity. Supporters also argue that the UK economy has become fully integrated into this European system with 45 per cent of its exports going to the EU.

Moreover, they say, EU membership means more intelligence-sharing and cross-border policing and being better placed, through international partnerships, to fight terrorism and climate change and to enjoy the benefits of free movement throughout Europe for travel and study as well as the exchange of expertise in science and medical research. Such supporters agree with Mr Cameron that the UK’s priorities of prosperity, security and a strong place in the world are best served by staying in the EU.

Powerful as this case seems, inevitably there are also strong arguments in favour of leaving.

For their part, eurosceptics maintain that Britain would be freer, fairer and stronger outside the EU which challenges the nation’s sovereignty by weakening its parliament as well as the independence of its courts, and that such encroachment would only intensify as Brussels moves inexorably towards a federal superstate.

They argue that new laws and centralised regulations (driven by the quest for standardisation across the whole bloc), decided by politicians of other EU countries and by unelected bureaucrats in Brussels are imposed on the UK, and this constrains government ministers from taking appropriate decisions in the interests of their own country.

In addition, since the UK is prevented from securing its own borders, pressure on local housing, schools, hospitals and public services has become unacceptable. The current refugee crisis engulfing Europe has exacerbated the issue which will be further affected by Turkey’s likely admission to the EU and the provisional grant already of visa-free entry to its nearly 78 million citizens.

Those supporting ‘BREXIT’ maintain that Mr Cameron has achieved no real reform, in particular over immigration, and that the concessions which he has won may well unravel following a vote to remain.

They are concerned this would result in Brussels putting more pressure on the UK to integrate, not least in relation to the eurozone which is already faltering and, as a one-size-fits-all currency, is doomed to fail. Furthermore, Germany’s dominance of the single currency project, with its unyielding stance over the debts of Greece and Portugal involving tough austerity measures, has produced the sort of tensions which the whole idea of a united Europe was designed to prevent.

They add that the UK is a net importer of EU goods so that it is unlikely that access to the single market would be significantly restricted following a ‘BREXIT’. Moreover, co-operation on matters like the European Arrest Warrant would not simply cease because that would not be in the interests of any of the countries concerned. They also argue that Britain’s budgetary contribution to the EU of $75 million a day could be better spent domestically, but above all they consider that those who favour the status quo underestimate Britain’s capacity to go it alone - a global power with worldwide economic, diplomatic, military and cultural influence; the world’s fifth largest economy and a trading nation of 64 million people with widespread contacts and links; one of seven nuclear states and the world’s fourth-ranked military power; a leading member of the G8 and G20 and of NATO (responsible for Europe’s defence) and the Commonwealth, and a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council.

Be that as it may, the case for the status quo is strong in an increasingly unstable, dangerous, competitive and interdependent world so that it makes political and economic sense to remain within a powerful and protective grouping of nations which is designed to act together for the benefit of all its members.

If, however, continued membership means subsuming the identities of those disparate countries with varied histories, cultures, customs and interests into a monolithic superstate consisting of regions, the question remains whether the loss of sovereignty can be justified or will be acceptable to those affected.

For many, that is the crux of the issue - sovereignty and control by each country of its own affairs.

Critics ask what is the point of a relatively rich nation like Britain staying in an organisation like the EU and paying high membership dues when the balance of advantage in doing so is at least questionable - and all the more so when she has already opted out of key arrangements like the single currency and the Schengen zone and has made it clear she will not be dragged in to ever closer union.

The arguments are finely balanced.

Current polls suggest that, in troubled times, for a narrow majority the heart may say ‘out’ while the head will say ‘in’ because that seems to be the rational and safer option.

But the ‘BREXIT’ campaign is gathering a head of steam and the odds may change as the debate intensifies and decision day approaches.

So far, it looks too close to call.

• Peter Young is a retired British diplomat living in Nassau. From 1996 to 2000 he was British High Commissioner to The Bahamas.