You could be forgiven for believing that campaigning for the UK to stay in the EU or turn its back on the bloc has been underway since the conclusion of last year’s general election, however, it officially began on Friday and runs for 10 weeks.
The positions of the two sides seem to be clearly defined. Those campaigning for “Brexit” believe that the nation will be stronger, more independent, more “sovereign” better able to control borders and migration and legislation outside the EU. They are quiet about the economic consequences, but have a touching faith that the EU will need the UK every bit as much after a Brexit than before, relying on the idea that the rest of the EU would not turn its back on a major export market and that “somehow” UK exports to Europe would not be affected by leaving.
Those who wish to remain within the Union believe that leaving would be taking a huge and risky step into the dark. They believe that the UK has a stronger voice within the world’s largest trading bloc than it would outside it and can be a voice for reform within the EU whereas Britain would have no say were it to leave the EU. They also argue that the economic prospects for the UK would be harmed both in the short and over the longer terms by Brexit. Those that wish to leave counter that this is “rubbish” or “project fear”, but are woefully unable to mount a credible economic argument.
The UK Treasury has been drawn into the fray and its analysis suggests that the average UK household would be up to £4300 worse off by 2030 following a Brexit – Leave campaigners helpfully claim that this is “completely absurd” and point to 40 years of dodgy Treasury analysis (under Labour, Conservatives and coalition governments), implying that they have a monopoly on economic soothsaying. The Treasury analysis is based on a scenario where the UK has a similar relationship with the EU as Canada enjoys and forecasts a 6% slump in GDP.
If the UK left the EU, but joined EFTA, it would continue to pay a (reduced) subscription to the EU and have to accept EU trade requirements and free movement of EU citizens – in essence the status quo but minus any say in EU affairs. A third scenario would see the UK forced to adopt world trade conditions for its relationship with the EU which (according to Treasury logic) would have a more exaggerated negative effect on UK economic fortunes. The Leave campaign assures Britons that this is not the case and that the nation will be “better off” outside the EU. No external party has endorsed this position, of course. All commentary from outside nation states and international organisations such as the IMF strongly endorse the UK’s remaining at the “heart of Europe”. Despite this, opinion polls tend to show a 50:50 split on the issue amongst the UK electorate – this is hardly surprising since the EU has been the public whipping boy for any ills befalling the UK since it joined the EEC in the first place.