EU referendum: choice for a better future

Time for a new beginning outside

An independent country should be able to live under laws made by people it elects, and can kick out if it doesn’t like what they are doing. Within the EU, we lack that basic democratic right – a right enjoyed by the peoples of more than 100 independent countries round the world, most far smaller than us economically.

The EU treaties are not like normal international treaties which create external obligations for states – they create EU law, a directly penetrating and ever-expanding system of rules which overrides our laws and the democratic rights of the Westminster and Scottish Parliaments alike. It governs our affairs in matters far beyond anything needed to facilitate trade between ourselves and our continental neighbours.

Minimum alcohol pricing legislation pursues important social objectives squarely within the remit of the Scottish Parliament. Despite the fact that it applies without discrimination to both domestic and imported products, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) in its recent judgment has made it difficult or impossible for elected politicians in Scotland to fulfil their democratic mandate.

The EU now intends to legislate on the sale and use of e-cigarettes, a matter raising important health and social issues which should be squarely within the powers of the member states – and in the case of the UK, within the powers of the devolved legislatures in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

As the ECJ has pointed out in its Op 1/92 judgment, the EU is “a new legal order for the benefit of which the states have limited their sovereign rights, in ever wider fields”.

Nothing in our economic or national interest can possibly justify subjecting ourselves to a system of law which spreads so far beyond trade-related matters. It is absurd that powers which we in the UK have decided, after a democratic process, ought to be exercised at a devolved rather than UK level, are then exercised in Brussels instead.

Political accountability

This invasive system of law corrodes our democracy. Voters cannot hold to account the politicians responsible for making the laws that apply to them, or even know who actually has power to make or amend laws within the labyrinthine EU legislative process. This is why the EU is so loved by large corporations and other special interest groups who have the money and knowledge to lobby the right parts of the machine to get what they want.

What of the “reform” supposedly achieved by David Cameron at the February summit? We have analysed the 36 pages of Presidency Conclusions in detail on our website (www.lawyersforbritain.org/), and I challenge readers with their legal understanding to disagree with our conclusions. The so-called summit “decision” does not bind the ECJ – but that is really a secondary matter because there is so little substance in the actual text agreed, even if it were binding.

David Cameron has simply demonstrated through his efforts that the EU is un-reformable.

Imaginary terrors

The argument for remaining in the EU has sadly reduced itself to conjuring up imaginary terrors. Ludicrous claims are made about EU exit: young people could no longer enjoy Interrail travel – despite the fact that Interrail includes non-EU member countries, and we joined it before we joined the EEC. The word “whisky” would no longer enjoy protection against imitators in export markets – despite the fact that international protection for such distinctive designations stems not from the EU but from a global agreement called TRIPS, which we will continue to belong to after we leave.

The UK is a massive net importer of goods from the EU, and an overall net importer of goods and services. Germany will want all those BMW cars to continue to flow freely into the UK market; this gives us a strong hand to negotiate a trade agreement which maintains free movement of goods and services, and to resist attempted linkages to budget contributions, free movement of persons or political conditions.

But improving the terms of our trading relationship with the dwindling percentage of our export markets represented by the continental EU is not Brexit’s key attraction. It is the ability to reform our laws without EU interference to reflect the democratic wishes of our people and to make our industries more globally competitive. It is the prospect of powering ahead with our worldwide trade through forging new and renewed relationships, no longer shackled to an increasingly moribund, obstructive and slow moving EU. A vote for “Leave” is a vote for a new beginning for our country, and a brighter future for us all.

We need more, not less participation

On 23 June I’ll be voting to stay in the EU, not just because it’s my area of legal practice. As someone just about old enough to remember when we joined the EU, the fallout from a decision to leave would, in all likelihood, keep me busy for the rest of my working life. Nor are my reasons based solely on what the EU has achieved by preventing war in Europe, entrenching democracy, bringing about sustained (across the piece) prosperity, and welcoming in the countries in Eastern Europe after the Berlin Wall fell. Its past achievements are significant, but there’s much more to it than that.

I’ll be voting to stay in because I’m an internationalist. I want to live in a UK, and a Scotland, which celebrates diversity and welcomes those who wish to come here to work. In my view we gain – economically and culturally – from the influx of EU workers. I see the argument that wages at the bottom of the scale are reduced because there are more low-skilled workers. But equally we benefit from the highly skilled, such as software developers and doctors, when UK numbers are insufficient to meet demand. Of course, we need to ensure that low-skilled workers can up their skills at the same time.

I’ll also be voting to stay in because most economists, including the normally rather eurosceptic Treasury, take the considered view that UK citizens will be substantially worse off in the short and the long term if we leave, even if we secure a trade deal with the EU at the most favourable (to the UK) end of the spectrum. Of course, even such a deal would come at the price of accepting many of the rules and regulations Brexiters wish to avoid.

I’ll be voting to stay in because in an increasingly globalised and threatening world, we should be increasing cross-border co-operation, both to reduce trade barriers and to ensure security. It is indeed concerning that terrorists living in Belgium have committed appalling acts in France – but that is a reason to co-operate more, not less.

And it’s democratic

I’ll be voting to stay in because I don’t believe EU laws are inherently flawed just because politicians from other member states are involved in their creation. Granted, the EU decision-making system, involving both the (directly elected) Parliament and the Council (ministers from member state governments), is more complex and involves more negotiation and compromise than the Westminster system. But that does not make it undemocratic. Other than in specified areas such as competition law, the European Commission does not take decisions – it initiates, but does not adopt legislation. And, as regards competition law, it is usual (and, most commentators agree, preferable) for decision-making to be removed from the hands of politicians (as with the CMA in the UK). As for the “unaccountable” European Court, this is as it should be: courts should uphold the law and hold government to account; they should not be beholden to government.

Finally, I’ll be voting to stay in the EU because I want to live and work in a world where we drive standards up, not down. I don’t buy the argument that the UK adheres to EU law whilst the rest of the EU merrily breaches it. The evidence tells us otherwise: in terms of cases against it for applying EU law incorrectly, the UK sits somewhere in the middle. But even if it were the case that other member states were less compliant than us, the implication is clear: the Brexiters want to leave the EU so that they can reduce standards – whether environmental or perhaps even competition law – to our detriment. Of course, if we want access to EU markets, this won’t work anyway, but if it did, that wouldn’t be a good thing.

The EU is not perfect. It could be better in responding, for example, to humanitarian crises. It could be more agile in legislating to capture tax appropriately from companies across borders. And no doubt there are examples of legislation which could be better framed (as can equally be said of domestic law). For me, all of this points firmly towards a pressing need for the UK to participate more actively in the EU legislative process, to be better informed and to work more closely with, not against, our EU partners.