What would it mean for Britain to leave the EU?

Talking about an EU referendum now is the wrong thing, at the wrong time and for the wrong reasons.

It is truly remarkable to hear the discussion around an EU referendum at this particular moment in time. As the global economy is dealing with problems of Herculean proportions, as the British economy is at the verge of a depression, a small number of nationalist, right-wing politicians and the tabloid press are obsessed with trying to remove the UK from the biggest single market in the world.

Never before has Britain’s membership of the EU been as important. As we fight for market share in an increasingly globalised and competitive world, being part of the biggest trading block offers us clear negotiation advantages. According to the FCO the UK is benefiting already from EU Free Trade Agreements. The recently signed South Korea Free Trade Agreement alone is expected to save European exporters £1.35 billion annually in tariff reductions. It is expected to benefit the UK economy by about £500 million per annum. The EU is also negotiating Free Trade Agreements with India, Canada and Singapore. Completing all the bilateral trade deals now on the table could add £75 billion to Europe’s GDP.

In a time when exports are imperative for the well-being of our economy, being part of the EU’s single market gives our exporters access to 500 million customers across Europe, creating jobs and growth at home. At the same time we are afforded a seat around the table where the common rules of that market are decided.

As a member of the EU the UK gains also in foreign policy terms, has more influence in international forums, like climate change talks or world trade rules, and is a more attractive partner for our American friends.

So it beggars belief that the prime minister and others toy with something as important as the country’s membership of the EU. It is clearly a game of political football, where all parties try to score goals against each other, using the EU question as a ball. But this is highly irresponsible and it does not serve the national interest. It only placates a minority of nationalist MPs and a handful of newspapers which, as the Leveson Inquiry has so clearly demonstrated, have their own agenda when it comes to the EU.

It also contributes to a sense of uncertainty; markets, global investors, our international partners (not least the US) are looking closely and perceive this tendency towards isolationism with concern. Leading figures in the City voiced fears last week that talk about leaving the EU can only damage one of the most important British industries.

The irony is that the prime minister does not want to leave the EU. Nor the majority of Tory MPs, who might dislike the EU but understand the economic benefits that come with it. Even Fresh Start, the eurosceptic group of MPs, accepts that all other available alternatives, including the Norwegian, Swiss and EFTA model, pale by comparison to full EU membership and do not suit Britain. But what they suggest instead, a nebulous and poorly defined re-negation of British membership, is impossible to materialise. In many ways what they are asking for means the unravelling of the single market.
What is to stop other member states from calling for exceptions from core elements of EU legislation? There are member states that wish to protect their national champions from EU competition rules, others that would like to raise barriers to imports. These are all things that will harm the single market (and British interests). So such re-negotiation is not possible and will push the UK towards the exit, something they have admitted they do not wish to happen.

So here we are, engaged in a pointless debate about something that can only harm the national interest. What politicians from across the political spectrum should be doing, what they should have been doing for a while in fact, is engage the electorate about what EU membership actually means.
Instead of allowing the debate to take place on the front pages of tabloid papers or be high-jacked by shadowy vested interests, they should be leading the discussion, not least during local, national and European elections. Openly, fairly and in a manner that aims to inform, instead of grand-standing and trying to score cheap political points, for internal political consumption, before or after EU summits.

The British people rightly want to be involved in what British membership implies. They are not eurosceptic, they do not want to leave the EU. Their appetite for a referendum is born out of a frustration that for far too long their elected representatives have not discussed with them the rights and responsibilities, the many benefits and inevitable costs that emanate from being a member of the EU. The sooner we make that conversation part of the normal political discourse the quicker the debate around EU membership will become a normal political debate and will start focusing on how to make the EU work even better and deliver even more for citizens in all member states. Until that happens we will remain stuck in this perpetual and populist discussion about whether to hold a referendum or not.

Petros Fassoulas is the Chairman of the European Movement UK

 

A press room is seen through an EU flag during a European Summit. Photograph: Getty Images

Petros Fassoulas is the chairman of European Movement UK

GETTY
Show Hide image

Cabinet audit: what does the appointment of Andrea Leadsom as Environment Secretary mean for policy?

The political and policy-based implications of the new Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.

A little over a week into Andrea Leadsom’s new role as Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra), and senior industry figures are already questioning her credentials. A growing list of campaigners have called for her resignation, and even the Cabinet Office implied that her department's responsibilities will be downgraded.

So far, so bad.

The appointment would appear to be something of a consolation prize, coming just days after Leadsom pulled out of the Conservative leadership race and allowed Theresa May to enter No 10 unopposed.

Yet while Leadsom may have been able to twist the truth on her CV in the City, no amount of tampering will improve the agriculture-related side to her record: one barely exists. In fact, recent statements made on the subject have only added to her reputation for vacuous opinion: “It would make so much more sense if those with the big fields do the sheep, and those with the hill farms do the butterflies,” she told an audience assembled for a referendum debate. No matter the livelihoods of thousands of the UK’s hilltop sheep farmers, then? No need for butterflies outside of national parks?

Normally such a lack of experience is unsurprising. The department has gained a reputation as something of a ministerial backwater; a useful place to send problematic colleagues for some sobering time-out.

But these are not normal times.

As Brexit negotiations unfold, Defra will be central to establishing new, domestic policies for UK food and farming; sectors worth around £108bn to the economy and responsible for employing one in eight of the population.

In this context, Leadsom’s appointment seems, at best, a misguided attempt to make the architects of Brexit either live up to their promises or be seen to fail in the attempt.

At worst, May might actually think she is a good fit for the job. Leadsom’s one, water-tight credential – her commitment to opposing restraints on industry – certainly has its upsides for a Prime Minister in need of an alternative to the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy (CAP); a policy responsible for around 40 per cent the entire EU budget.

Why not leave such a daunting task in the hands of someone with an instinct for “abolishing” subsidies  thus freeing up money to spend elsewhere?

As with most things to do with the EU, CAP has some major cons and some equally compelling pros. Take the fact that 80 per cent of CAP aid is paid out to the richest 25 per cent of farmers (most of whom are either landed gentry or vast, industrialised, mega-farmers). But then offset this against the provision of vital lifelines for some of the UK’s most conscientious, local and insecure of food producers.

The NFU told the New Statesman that there are many issues in need of urgent attention; from an improved Basic Payment Scheme, to guarantees for agri-environment funding, and a commitment to the 25-year TB eradication strategy. But that they also hope, above all, “that Mrs Leadsom will champion British food and farming. Our industry has a great story to tell”.

The construction of a new domestic agricultural policy is a once-in-a-generation opportunity for Britain to truly decide where its priorities for food and environment lie, as well as to which kind of farmers (as well as which countries) it wants to delegate their delivery.

In the context of so much uncertainty and such great opportunity, Leadsom has a tough job ahead of her. And no amount of “speaking as a mother” will change that.

India Bourke is the New Statesman's editorial assistant.