Brexit: lies, damned lies and growing disbelief
I have watched the unfolding of the referendum ‘debate’ with feelings of frustration and growing disbelief. The continual suggestion by commentators and campaigners that the arguments for leave or remain are finely poised, that there are good arguments on both sides has been a significant source of frustration: they are not, and there are not. The degree of misinformation and disinformation has been so great that it has been impossible to know where to start to counter them. This frustration has been coupled with growing disbelief at the prospect of the act of national collective self-harm which we look likely to be about to commit.
The potential trade implications of Brexit have been a recurring theme of the referendum campaign. There is no certainty about this issue, however a clear understanding of the trading arrangements we have with the EU, and how trade relations outside the EU differ to this, helps us to understand the possibilities.
The UK within the EU is part of a single market, not just any single market, the biggest single market [1] . Within the single market we benefit from free movement of goods and persons (including legal persons, companies) and freedom of provision and receipt of services. This latter freedom has proved particularly complex to secure. Notwithstanding the challenges, services liberalisation has been significant, of benefit both to the EU generally [2] , and the UK in particular, given the share of the economy accounted for by services (80% of UK GDP). The EU internal market has achieved far deeper services liberalisation than any other trade bloc. It is stating the obvious to suggest that the UK stands to lose a great deal with Brexit.
It is true that many non-members have trade agreements with the EU, however there are costs to negotiating with the biggest club from the outside: Norway accepts and implements almost the entirety of EU law, without a say in its development; Albania, to whom our attention was drawn by Micheal Gove benefits from free trade in goods, but no liberalisation with regard to trade: not a great example of a future for the UK economy, which is heavily dependent upon services. The majority of trade agreements are focussed upon trade in goods, with little progress on liberalisation of trade in services.
For the UK to seek to secure a trade agreement with the EU post Brexit, we won’t just be negotiating as a weaker partner, but as a weaker partner who is trying to get back into the fringes of a party, having just left the VIP area saying they’d rather be at home washing their hair.
The suggestion that the UK will be able to negotiate multiple trade agreements with both individual states and trade blocs, which would be more beneficial to the UK than EU membership is, at the very least, reliant upon a tremendous leap of faith, and is more likely delusional.
Ultimately, the debate has focussed upon migration, this was foreseeable from the outset, but the ugly depths to which it has plunged were less predictable. The economic case for free movement of persons is strong. The current pressure upon schools, GPs and hospitals is a consequence not of immigration itself, but of the UK Government’s choices about where and how to redistribute the revenue accrued from free movement. The people most in favour of a shrunken state are those leading the charge for Brexit, they are ideologically committed to reducing public services: public services do not have a more secure future under their governance. It is an ugly rhetoric which says we do not welcome strangers, and inexplicable when they contribute to our economy: free movement exists under EU Law for those who are economically active or financially independent: ‘benefits tourism’ is another myth.
When the economic argument fails, Brexiters say that it is not just about economics, it is about sovereignty and democracy. But here again this argument is misconceived. EU law is only created in fields which each and every member state has agreed should be subject to EU Law, and EU law is made by elected representatives. The majority of national law remains outside the scope of EU Law and is made by national parliaments.
The world is becoming ever more interconnected and interrelated, the most effective way to pursue economic development, and sustainable development is in strong partnership with other democratic states. Every time we join a global organisation, whether the EU, the World Trade Organisation, or the United Nations, we agree to be bound by the rules of that organisation: we do that because it is in our interests. The EU is not perfect, but the global challenges facing us, including climate change, food security, energy security and migration, cannot be met by walking away from current partnerships: we must stand together with our EU neighbours, to face and shape our future.
Emily is an Associate Professor in EU Law, University of Southampton. Her primary research interest lies in European Union and international economic law. Her current work addresses the tension between the pursuit of economic liberalisation and the protection of non-economic interests (including environmental and human rights protection), with particular focus upon the lessons for the international community which can be drawn from EU experience in this field.
