Open Europe have released a report outlining what a Brexit would look like economically – and from any sort of Eurosceptic standpoint, it’s not pleasant reading. It outlines four scenarios post-Brexit; they range from economically catastrophic to economically slightly positive. And the one in which Britain fares the best involves deregulating everything and having essentially open borders.
It should be noted here that Open Europe are hardly a bunch of raving Euro federalists by any stretch of the imagination. They are generally seen as mildly Eurosceptic, actually. So for them to be painting apocalyptic Brexit scenarios is particularly interesting. And how bad is the worst case scenario? A loss of 2.23% of GDP; in monetary terms, that’s £60 billion a year. Mats Persson describes this scenario as “mutual destruction” – mutual, because it would damage the single market as well, meaning the pain could be even worse over time.
Another scenario is if Britain somehow manages to “do a Switzerland” as many a Eurosceptic pines for. But even here, Britain would be worse off by £20 billion a year. Added to this, the report makes an interesting observation: “The Swiss model is bilateral, free trade agreements. But they are forced to accept free movement as the prize to get market access to the EU…”
This goes along with what is not mentioned whenever “alternatives” like Norway and Switzerland are brought up by Eurosceptics: both have what amounts to open borders with the EU. The Swiss people voted in a referendum to limit this last year, but even now, it’s still not clear how they can implement this and remain in the single market. As the Open Europe report says: “They are now involved in very complex negotiations with the EU. So far the EU has said we are not going to negotiate over this. Switzerland is in a very tricky position.”
Very few within Eurosceptic circles as they are currently formed will be able to respond coherently to Open Europe’s findings. The only one that springs to mind is actually Douglas Carswell, who will I’m sure rather like the idea of the ex-EU Britain that has grown by 1.55% in terms of GDP, by shrinking the state, deregulating almost everything and basically throwing open the borders to anyone.
What’s very clear is that exiting the EU and shutting the borders would lead to economic suicide for the country. Staying in the single market would be incompatible with shutting down immigration completely. These things were already known to many of us, but given the strength of UKIP style propaganda on these matters, it’s nice for the truth to be pushed more and more often.
It would be expensive, we know; the problem is that the status quo isn’t going to be an option for much longer, either, as the Eurozone must either disintegrate, or integrate more tightly.
So it’s not the case that the choice is between leaving the EU (expensive in money) or staying in the EU as we are now; it’s between leaving the EU, joining the Eurozone and taking more steps along the road to being part of a federal Europe (expensive in sovereignty, and politically unacceptable to the electorate) or finding ourselves with de facto Switzerland/Norway ‘half-in, half-out’ status as the Eurozone (and wannabe-Eurozone countries) forge a tighter union that Britain will be outside.
Basically, Britain doesn’t have to leave the EU. A bit like the old line of ‘i didn’t leave the party, the party left me’, within ten years either the EU will have left Britain, or it will have ceased to exist in anything like its present form.
But the EU already contains both the Eurozone along with the UK and other non-Eurozone countries. If the Eurozone countries choose to integrate more closely, why couldn’t the UK and those other non-Eurozone states continue to co-exist inside the EU, as they do already? The argument against the ‘one size fits all’ version of the EU is a straw man – the EU ceased to be like that long ago.
If the Eurozone countries choose to integrate more closely, why couldn’t the UK and those other non-Eurozone states continue to co-exist inside the EU, as they do already?
Clearly they could, but the meaning of ‘inside the EU’ would have changed: the Eurozone countries would make more and more policy decisions themselves, without reference to or consultation with the UK. They already do some of this; they would do more.
This would effectively mean that the UK would end up in the same position as Norway, or Switzerland, say, is now: no longer in the innermost circle, having to abide by regulations made by other countries in order to trade with the single market.
No, because the UK would have a vote still on EU internal market law, as long as it was an EU Member. It is sometimes assumed that the eurozone states always gang up on non eurozone states but often they disagree among themselves. Look at. Greece and Germany, for instance.
I find the idea that we have to accept dictation from Europe on trading terms one of the best arguments for getting out.
No disrespect to Norway and Switzerland but a UK out of the EU will have a stronger negotiating position as the EU countries will still be very keen to sell to us. And a catalyst like a UK exit might be the wake up call the EU needs.
I fail to see exactly what the difference will be to the UK economy after a ‘Brexit’ other than gaining back 34 million pounds a day, and the ability to restore democracy to voters. Under the terms of the previous (Lisbon) treaty if a country leaves the increasingly tightly integrated EU it can default to EFTA, So basically free trade on the same terms but without wasting time and money attending the EU parliament. The plus is of course you get to decide your laws , economic and monetary policies and wont be forced into failing superstate which will be irreversible leading to currency union for all. The next steps will inevitably be a a European army, and constitution with unstated aims to harmonise (dissolve) national governments. Conceivably it could become it illegal under the likely constitution to secede. Alarmist ? perhaps, but in making a decision to remain, the worst case situation should always be considered and the current situation is unsustainable. Making your own decisions is far better than some collective making them for you. To replace the current situation I would like to see cooperation curtailed to trade, standardisation for manufacturing and environmental matters. A better situation would be to leave and have a referendum on whether to rejoin based on the terms offered rather than go begging for very little and get half of nothing.