The EU Referendum is approaching, and for those that are still undecided about which way to vote, it is most likely a particularly stressful time. Both campaigns during the Referendum have in some way played a manipulative game, and it has become particularly ugly. At the last stride of the debates, it seems that beyond the economics, the UK people have begun to question, ‘what do we want to stand for, and stand up for?’
It has – to say the least – been an emotive journey, and continues to be so. Not only have the debates gotten heated on our TV screens, but most likely each of us has experienced heated discussions at home and amongst friends. In many ways, regardless of the information and data that have been provided over the past months, it seems that many individuals have already decided which way they will vote, and never had an intention of changing that no matter what information came to the fore. This in itself is particularly telling, in terms of whether democracy is run by informed decision, or simply by re-existing notions of party political solidarity, or long-standing ideologies, irrespective of actual reality.
That said, a recent video on the EU Referendum by Professor Michael Dougan from the Liverpool Law School has been posted online, which appears to clarify points raised by both sides, and rectify inaccurate statements. For those still undecided about which way to vote, it provides a good understanding from a law perspective, and clarifies a lot of concerns regarding solidarity and the common market.
Professor Dougan starts off his talk by a brief introduction of his work, spending an entire 20 odd years of his professional life specialising in European Constitutional Law, the relation between the EU institutions and member states, the single market and movement of persons. Being an expert in more or less ‘everything discussed in this debate’, he has acted as an independent academic advisor and consultant to various different organisations. However, Prof Dougan claims that he has ‘watched with increasing dismay’ as the debate has descended into ‘dodgy statistics’ and ‘dishonesty on an industrial scale’, and is amazed at how common undergraduate knowledge for law students has been ‘so distorted’. Hence, in the video, he has tried to present clear evidence-based information on constitutional law for those who care to listen.
Below is a brief summary of some, but not all, of the issues covered in the talk.
Sovereignty
Prof Dougan notes that ‘sovereignty is not an issue’ in the Referendum, but is rather ‘used as a shorthand to talk about power and influence’. He also clearly states that there is ‘no doubt that the United Kingdom is a sovereign state under international law and that the Parliament of Westminster is the supreme law-making authority in this country’. He then points out that the ‘EU is not a sovereign entity, far from being a sovereign state’, and ‘only has powers given under the EU treaties.’ He points out that any priority given by the UK courts to EU law rather than domestic law is purely because the UK Parliament has given permission to do so. Conversely, the EU is not a sovereign entity and is far from being a sovereign entity, let alone state. He said that if the UK courts sometimes give priority to EU law rather than domestic law, it is because Parliament has expressly instructed them to do so.
Of course, any membership within an international organisation ‘involves a trade-off’, and that trade-off is accepted to exercise a stronger influence in practice, and magnify influence within the organisation and on the world-stage.
Us and Them
‘We refer to the Big Three’ which are the UK, France and Germany, who all have enormous influence in the EU and of which nothing happens without. ‘We are major players’ Dougan says, ‘leading players within the European Union’, so the myth that imposed rules are ‘happening to us’ is wrong. ‘Ninety percent of all decisions’, he continues, ‘happens with the consensus of all member-states, and through compromise and negotiation.’
Evidence-Based Information
While we are told there is not any hard evidence about the EU, Prof Dougan reveals that ‘there is an enormous amount of objective, detailed, hard, scientifically tested evidence about the impact of EU membership on the UK.’ The Balance of Competences Review (2012-14) was the ‘largest ever exercise’ undertaken in the EU and the largest in history undertaken by the UK. It examined absolutely every corner of the EU’s impact: the results of all stakeholders were overwhelmingly in support of the UK’s membership within the EU, with the view that membership brings ‘added value’. The evidence indicates the EU membership ‘is not destroying the country like we are constantly told it is.’
If We Leave
‘The main answer is nobody has a clue’, Dougan says, but that we can ‘identify certain parameters’ and principles to aid us understanding how the future will unfold. There are four particular challenges raised:
- Internally, there will have to be a comprehensive review of the UK legal system which will be an ‘enormous technical undertaking’. Despite this, it will have to be done ‘very, very quickly and not through Parliament’. The only way is through an enormous delegation of power from Parliament to Government, which – of course – puts our democracy in question.
- Also, the Constitutional make-up of the UK will be impacted, and this will be far-reaching, particularly with Scotland and Northern Ireland.
- Externally, the UK will need to reform relations with the rest of the EU. The ‘two year’ figure discussed in the EU debate is not true, Dougan reports, but that is more the time-scale for the ‘divorce settlement’ as he terms it. This is separate from the framework of our relations with the EU.
One of the main concerns to urgently address will be, what do we do with the 3m EU individuals living in the UK, and what do we do with the 2m Brits living in the EU? That will be the main point of contention – what will be their rights? Dougan reports that these things do not take two years to negotiate, but the rough estimate is in fact about 10 years, but most likely longer.
Also, trade relations of course will be amongst the reform. Dougan has said discussion of trade relations has been vague and inaccurate. He notes that the single market is ‘the most advanced trade agreement on the planet’, and offers businesses of all areas a ‘passport’ to external markets that they will no longer have. With each country having different rules for manufacturing and production, and markets, the whole benefit of the single EU market is that it overcomes those regulatory barriers. If the UK wanted to maintain this, it would have to go for the Norwegian model, which is an unattractive deal. A Norwegian model would mean ‘you have to do everything the EU says’, pay a fee, but have no influence at all. Equally, the likelihood of negotiating such a deal would be dependent on our acceptance of the free movement of people. The result is that our market environment would be ‘less favourable’.
- Lastly, our relations with the rest of the world would change significantly and not for the better. It is without doubt that leaving the EU will terminate trade agreements with other countries, meaning that the UK will be ‘back to square one in its trade relations’, and will have to renegotiate all trade agreements. Logistically, Dougan says, the UK ‘does not have the internal diplomatic and civil servant capacity to develop one or two trade agreements at a time let alone 60 or 70’. To add to this, the UK also does not have much to offer in terms of trade relations being that it is ‘a very open economy’ already. As a trade strategy, the UK actually bargains away access to other peoples’ markets (i.e. the Italians, the Portuguese, the Romanians, etc.) as a means to negotiate access to markets. If we are not part of the single market anymore, Dougan announces, we will not have that bargaining power. Other countries have also made it clear they have no real interest to bargain with the UK until they know what our relation will be with the EU. The US, India and China, for example, will want to know what our situation is before developing a trade agreement.
In short, the decision that the UK population will vote on this Thursday is an extremely important decision that will impact the very core of the UK. It is therefore critical that each of us feel that they are making an informed decision, whichever way we choose our future.