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

Four times Owen Smith has made sexist comments

The Labour MP for Pontypridd and Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour leadership rival has been accused of misogynist remarks. Again.

2016

Wanting to “smash” Theresa May “back on her heels”

During a speech at a campaign event, Owen Smith blithely deployed some aggressive imagery about attacking the new Prime Minister. In doing so, he included the tired sexist trope beloved of the right wing press about Theresa May’s shoes – her “kitten heels” have long been a fascination of certain tabloids:

“I’ll be honest with you, it pained me that we didn’t have the strength and the power and the vitality to smash her back on her heels and argue that these our values, these are our people, this is our language that they are seeking to steal.”

When called out on his comments by Sky’s Sophy Ridge, Smith doubled down:

“They love a bit of rhetoric, don’t they? We need a bit more robust rhetoric in our politics, I’m very much in favour of that. You’ll be getting that from me, and I absolutely stand by those comments. It’s rhetoric, of course. I don’t literally want to smash Theresa May back, just to be clear. I’m not advocating violence in any way, shape or form.”

Your mole dug around to see whether this is a common phrase, but all it could find was “set back on one’s heels”, which simply means to be shocked by something. Nothing to do with “smashing”, and anyway, Smith, or somebody on his team, should be aware that invoking May’s “heels” is lazy sexism at best, and calling on your party to “smash” a woman (particularly when you’ve been in trouble for comments about violence against women before – see below) is more than casual misogyny.

Arguing that misogyny in Labour didn’t exist before Jeremy Corbyn

Smith recently told BBC News that the party’s nastier side only appeared nine months ago:

“I think Jeremy should take a little more responsibility for what’s going on in the Labour party. After all, we didn’t have this sort of abuse and intolerance, misogyny, antisemitism in the Labour party before Jeremy Corbyn became the leader.”

Luckily for Smith, he had never experienced misogyny in his party until the moment it became politically useful to him… Or perhaps, not being the prime target, he simply wasn’t paying enough attention before then?

2015

Telling Leanne Wood she was only invited on TV because of her “gender”

Before a general election TV debate for ITV Wales last year, Smith was caught on camera telling the Plaid Cymru leader that she only appeared on Question Time because she is a woman:

Wood: “Have you ever done Question Time, Owen?”

Smith: “Nope, they keep putting you on instead.”

Wood: “I think with party balance there’d be other people they’d be putting on instead of you, wouldn’t they, rather than me?”

Smith: “I think it helps. I think your gender helps as well.”

Wood: “Yeah.”

2010

Comparing the Lib Dems’ experience of coalition to domestic violence

In a tasteless analogy, Smith wrote this for WalesHome in the first year of the Tory/Lib Dem coalition:

“The Lib Dem dowry of a maybe-referendum on AV [the alternative vote system] will seem neither adequate reward nor sufficient defence when the Tories confess their taste for domestic violence on our schools, hospitals and welfare provision.

“Surely, the Liberals will file for divorce as soon as the bruises start to show through the make-up?”

But never fear! He did eventually issue a non-apology for his offensive comments, with the classic use of “if”:

“I apologise if anyone has been offended by the metaphorical reference in this article, which I will now be editing. The reference was in a phrase describing today's Tory and Liberal cuts to domestic spending on schools and welfare as metaphorical ‘domestic violence’.”

***

A one-off sexist gaffe is bad enough in a wannabe future Labour leader. But your mole sniffs a worrying pattern in this list that suggests Smith doesn’t have a huge amount of respect for women, when it comes to political rhetoric at least. And it won’t do him any electoral favours either – it makes his condemnation of Corbynite nastiness ring rather hollow.

I'm a mole, innit.