“After four decades of EU membership, Britain’s formal relationships with the rest of Europe are governed by a tangle of treaties, institutions and laws. The reach of the EU into British life is so far-reaching that Brexit would require a renegotiation of most of Britain’s international obligations. A new trade agreement would have to be signed with the EU—and more than 50 with other countries outside Europe, to make up for those annulled by Brexit. Customs officials, border guards and trade negotiators would have to be hired to regulate and police trade and migration flows. New laws would have to be passed to replace EU regulations. Treaties between Britain and Ireland might have to be rewritten. And Scotland might—probably against its economic interest—leave the UK, which would lead to another round of political and economic turmoil. Given Brexit’s lack of obvious economic benefits, all this might prompt Britons to ask whether it is worth the bother.” (Prospect magazine, December issue).
Unfortunately, the anger that has produced Trump in America is paralled throughout Europe as well, in the rise of right-wing parties (Poland being currently the most disagreeable). People find scapegoats in circumstances of economic stress. I was talking to someone from Holland, explaining that everything that goes wrong in the UK is blamed on Brussels and the EU bureaucracy. “It’s exactly the same in my country as well, ” he replied. Instead of calmly getting together to try to put things right, the loudmouths and hotheads wish to pull it apart, mysteriously disappearing from public view, of course, when whole economies go pear- shaped as a result.
The (Epicurean) objective should be the most pleasant lives of as many people as possible, regardless of origin, gender, class and wealth. Leaving the EU is an emotional reaction to problems that, with judgment, wisdom and thought can be put right. Reform the thing, by all means, by leaving it is monumentally stupid.
The pro-business think tank Open Europe has a forecast of the impact of a British withdrawal from the EU. It has calculated four scenarios. The worst sees Britain losing 2.2% of its GDP (some £56bn) from withdrawal and suffering disruption across the whole span of its economy, from the automotive industry, which would be hit by tariffs for exporting cars to the continent, to London’s financial services industry, which would probably suffer the most. Perhaps the most attention-grabbing conclusion is that in order to attract new trading partners, the UK would have to liberalise its economy yet further and accept “continuing high levels of labour migration”, particularly from India, China and the rest of the world’s other growing economies. “We say there is a life outside the EU,” says Mats Persson, the director of Open Europe. “But it would involve decisions that could be the opposite of what a number of people who want to leave the EU want to see.”
The truth is, EU reform is far harder than David Cameron would have you believe. The EU is a huge organisation that represents 27 different countries with their various conflicts of interest. I think pro EU campaigners, if they wish to be honest, will have to defend the status quo- imperfect as it is- against the potentially catastrophic consequences of Brexit.
We must also stop pretending that there is a political consensus in favour of a ‘reformed’ EU. In reality, the sort of reforms Cameron wants are very different from the reforms the social democratic Left wants. As a social democrat, my priority would be preventing TTIP, allowing the Greeks to pay their debts at a slower rate, homogenising tax rates across the EU to prevent tax avoidance, eveaning out the distribution of refugees so no country is overburdened, and increasing the power of the European Parliament. To the best of my knowledge, none of these things are on Cameron’s list.