do now, any more than Australia or Canada or India imposes all EU rules on their businesses. ... than the United States
NB some similar questions have been grouped together. 1. How can we make sure EU and UK decision makers listen to the concerns of UK small businesses? Today, those who represent UK small business have extremely little influence. Every time the UK has voted against a measure in the Council of Ministers it has been outvoted. This is happening with increased frequency: of the UK’s 72 defeats, over half (40) have occurred in the last five years. This reflects the UK’s increased marginalisation within the EU as it is forced to accept rules that the Eurozone caucus (which has an inbuilt majority) wants. It now doesn’t matter which way the UK votes - it is the Eurozone states that decide which laws are introduced in the UK. The UK’s representatives are often outvoted in the European Parliament as well. The majority of UK MEPs voted against 576 EU proposals between 2009 and 2014, but 485 still passed. In addition, the UK has been defeated in over 77% of cases in which it has been a party in the European Court. Since the current Government entered office in May 2010, the UK has been defeated on 16 occasions: a failure rate of 80%. If we Vote Leave on 23 June, we take back control. Decisions will be made by UK policy makers, who will be directly accountable to the electorate. Democracy has always been the best system for making sure that decision makers listen to the concerns of the electorate. The only way we can go back to a proper, democratic system is to leave the EU.
2. How can we guarantee that small businesses have access to the necessary skilled labour? After we Vote Leave, no one from other EU countries would be removed from the UK and no UK citizens would be forced to leave other European countries. To say anything otherwise is simply scaremongering. The EU’s own Charter of Fundamental Rights prevents the collective expulsion of British citizens from the EU after we Vote Leave (CFR, art. 19, link). Even the former legal adviser to the EU’s Council of Ministers, Jean-Claude Piris, has said that 'those with permanent residency in EU states could stay' (Financial Times, 12 January 2016, link). We will have a sensible regime for the movement of people that allows us to replace the irrational immigration policy we have now - a combination of an open door for low-skilled labour and convicted criminals from the EU while simultaneously stopping highly skilled people from outside the EU coming to the UK to contribute. Criminals could be banned and we could explicitly fast-track those with skills to come to Britain and work here. This would be good for Britain, Europe, and the wider world. As another billion people are added to the world population and this population becomes more urban and mobile, it is vital for our prosperity and democratic legitimacy that we regain the power to change our immigration policy according to changing circumstances (UN, 29 July 2015, link). After we Vote Leave, the UK Government could introduce an immigration system that is fair and works for the UK’s economic interests. The EU’s immigration system is immoral, expensive and out of control. EU law demands that the UK has an open door to European countries. This has resulted in large numbers of people from across Europe coming to our country. We have very few powers to stop people entering who we think can’t contribute to our economy or have a criminal background (Vote Leave, 11 November 2015, link; Vote Leave, 29 March 2016, link). The pressure that this large inward-migration has put on our
schools and hospitals means that we are now forced to block people from non-European countries who could contribute to the UK from coming here.
Since 2004, net migration from the EU alone has added more than one million people to the UK population (ONS, 2015, link). This is the equivalent of a city the size of Birmingham (ONS, 2012, link). More than a quarter of a million EU migrants came to the UK last year. The ONS estimates the gross level of immigration by EU citizens to be 257,000 in the year ending September 2015 (ONS, 2016, link). This is the equivalent of adding a city the size of Newcastle to the the UK population (ONS, 2012, link). In the year ending September 2015, net EU migration accounted for more than half (53.3 per cent) of overall net migration (ONS, 2015, link).
The Government’s renegotiation does not restore control over migration policy to the UK. One of the top figures at the independent Office for Budget Responsibility, Sir Stephen Nickell CBE, said the Government’s proposals would make ‘not much’ difference to immigration from the EU – and that ‘any changes to benefit rules are unlikely to have a huge impact on migration flows’ (Vote Leave, 8 December 2015, link). Even if the Government had succeeded in its aim of cutting in-work benefits for migrants, research has shown that the Government’s ‘living wage’ will offset any loss of income that EU migrants face. The UK will remain an attractive destination (Vote Leave, 2015, link). We will take back control of our borders if we Vote Leave. 3. What will the impact be of leaving the Single Market? & To what extent will SMEs have to comply with EU rules after we Vote Leave? Britain will have access to the Single Market after we Vote Leave. British businesses that want to sell to the EU will obey EU rules just as American, Swiss, or Chinese businesses do. Only about one in twenty British businesses export to the EU but every business is subject to every EU law. There is no need for Britain to impose all EU rules on all UK businesses as we do now, any more than Australia or Canada or India imposes all EU rules on their businesses. British businesses that wish to follow Single Market rules should be able to without creating obligations on everybody else to follow them. The vast majority of British businesses that do not sell to the EU will benefit from the much greater flexibility we will have. The idea that our trade will suffer because we stop imposing terrible rules such as the Clinical Trial Directive is silly. The idea that ‘access to the Single Market’ is a binary condition and one must accept all Single Market rules is already nonsense - the Schengen system is ‘Single Market’ and we are not part of that. After we vote to leave, we will expand the number of damaging Single Market rules that we no longer impose and we will behave like the vast majority of countries around the world, trading with the EU but, crucially, without accepting the supremacy of EU law. 4.
What EU legislation is likely to remain in place after we Vote Leave?
The heart of the problem with our EU membership is section 2 of the European Communities Act 1972 that enshrines the supremacy of EU law. It must be repealed but it does not make sense to do this immediately (though it is possible that it could be amended immediately to ensure that some areas of national security are clearly off-limits for EU law, such as counterterrorism). Changing this is entirely a matter of UK law and what Parliament decides - this decision cannot be overruled by Brussels. It would be best to do it as part of an overall agreed transition with our European friends who know that if they are intransigent it can be
done any time we choose. We should repeal this fundamental law while simultaneously incorporating all existing EU law into UK law and beginning the process of sorting EU rules into three basic categories: clearly stupid things that are repealed, things that are amended, things that either make sense or are themselves global rules we would accept anyway (or both) and are kept. This will be a properly democratic process involving those directly affected by the rules. There will also be financial protection for all groups that now get money from Brussels. We are a huge net contributor to the EU budget. In areas such as farming, we will therefore be able simultaneously to a) pay farmers at least as much as they get now, b) get rid of the nightmarish EU payment bureaucracy that bankrupts famers, and c) save money for UK taxpayers. In fields such as science research, we will continue participation in EU schemes, as other non-EU countries do. 5. Can you provide information on the impact to the UK economy of either leaving or remaining in the EU? If we Vote Leave, we spend our money on our priorities. Since Britain joined the EU in 1973, we have paid over £500,000,000,000 into the EU – that’s half a trillion pounds, or one third of our national debt. Over the past decade alone, Britain paid over £150 billion to the EU budget. We send about £350 million to Brussels every week. This is about half the English schools budget, four times the Scottish schools budget, four times the science budget, and about 60 times what we spend on the NHS Cancer Drugs fund. This money is not well spent. Billions are lost to fraud and waste – in 2014 the EU failed to spend €6.3 billion in accordance with its own rules, and was slammed by its own auditors. If we Vote Leave on 23 June, instead of sending £350 million per week to Brussels, we will spend it on our priorities like the NHS and schools. We may also be able to introduce tax cuts. On top of this, EU regulation costs UK small businesses over £600 million every week. If we Vote Leave and take back control, we can reduce this regulatory burden as well if we Vote Leave as a happy byproduct of the process described above. 6. To what extent would SMEs be able to buy goods and services at the same price as they are paying now? & how can we guarantee that the UK will be able to enter into trade agreements with the EU?
After we Vote Leave, we will continue to trade with other EU members and enjoy tariff-free access to the ‘single market’, but we will no longer be subject to the supremacy of EU law or the jurisdiction of the European Court. There is a European free trade zone from Iceland to Turkey which the UK will be part of. The EU has a substantial trade surplus with the UK. In 2015, EU member states sold the UK £67.8 billion more in goods and services than the UK sold to EU member states (ONS, 31 March 2016, link). In addition, the UK is the EU’s largest single export market, bigger even than the United States (European Commission, March 2016, link). This means that it is in the EU’s interests to strike a free trade deal as soon as possible, as many pro-EU campaigners have admitted:
The Prime Minister, David Cameron, has said: 'If we were outside the EU altogether, we’d still be trading with all these European countries, of course we would... Of course the trading would go on. Sometimes … There’s a lot of scaremongering on all sides of
this debate. Of course the trading would go on' (Andrew Marr Show, 6 January 2013, link). The UK's former Ambassador to the EU and leading supporter of BSE (Britain Stronger in Europe), Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, has admitted 'there is no doubt that the UK could secure a free trade agreement with the EU. That is not an issue' (Lords Hansard, 2 November 2015, col. 1492, link). The pro-EU CBI has said 'the UK is highly likely to secure a Free Trade Agreement with the EU, and such an agreement would be likely to be negotiated at an extremely high level of ambition relative to other FTAs' (CBI, 4 November 2013, link). The pro-EU Centre for European Reform has accepted that 'given the importance of the UK market to the Eurozone, the UK would probably have little difficulty in negotiating an FTA’ CER, June 2014, link). HSBC has said 'we think it is fair to assume that the UK and the EU would continue to enjoy thriving and tariff-free trade in goods' (HSBC, 'A very British dilemma', February 2015, p. 2).
After we Vote Leave, we will negotiate a new UK-EU deal based on free trade and friendly cooperation. We will carry on trading with Europe but we will also be able to negotiate trade agreements with other countries outside the EU. This will help our economy grow and create more jobs. Many other countries have negotiated free trade deals with the EU. Countries as far away as Australia have mutual recognition agreements with the EU that deal with complex customs (and other ‘non-tariff barrier’) issues (European Commission, 11 February 2016, link). We will take the best elements from the deals other countries have achieved and build on them. We will have our own, unique trading relationship with the EU. We are the second biggest economy in Europe with unique historical ties to Europe. We are also the fifth largest economy in the world (World Bank, 2014, link). We will negotiate our own deal borrowing some of what is in other deals but adapting things to suit us and our European friends. Switzerland trades more with Europe than we do but they don’t think they need to be in the EU to do so (European Commission, 27 October 2015, link). The deal with Canada shows we can have a comprehensive free trade agreement covering goods and services without accepting the supremacy of EU law, the free movement of persons or paying billions to Brussels each year (European Commission, February 2016, link). We are not saying we would have exactly the same deal - our economy is very different from Canada’s - but it shows much of the scaremongering is simply false. It is untrue to claim that it will take years to secure a new deal. Greenland left the EU in less than three years. It voted to leave the then European Economic Community on 23 February 1982 and the new Treaty was signed at Brussels on 13 March 1984 (SI 1984/1820, 22 November 1984, link). It entered into force on 1 February 1985 and provided for the abolition of tariffs, quotas and measures equivalent to quotas on Greenland’s principal export, fish (Irish Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 2010, link; Protocol (No 34) to the EU Treaties, link). It is overwhelmingly in everyone’s interests, particularly Germany’s, to negotiate a friendly UK-EU free trade deal quickly. The vast majority of EU member states sell us far more than we sell them (ONS, Pink Book, 2015, link). It simply isn’t in their interests to put up tariffs. Further, the EU’s own treaties oblige the EU to develop good relations with its neighbours, which is what will happen after we Vote Leave (TEU, art. 8, link).
We have nothing to fear from voting to leave the EU. The ‘single market’ has failed to generate the benefits that were forecast thirty years ago.The EU’s own figures show that, since 1999, intra-EU trade has even slightly declined (Eurostat, 2016, link). After 40 years of membership, only around 6% of British companies export to the EU, but all have to comply with the full burden of EU law (Business for Britain, January 2014, link). This is damaging. After we Vote Leave, investment into the UK from the EU will continue. Surveys of international investors show that they want the UK to have looser links with the EU (EY, 2013, link). The pro-euro campaign made all sorts of claims that investment would collapse unless we joined the euro (BBC News, 12 May 2003, link). It didn’t happen then and it won’t happen if we Vote Leave. International investors know all about the damaging effects of EU regulation and want a new relationship: Single Market rules recently led to the high-tech company BASF leaving the EU for America because of stupid regulations (Kellogg Insight, 25 January 2012, link). The Minister for Life Sciences, George Freeman MP (who supports the BSE campaign) recently warned that EU regulation risks putting the EU in a ‘dark age’ regarding the development of high technology (Financial Times,11 November 2015, link). Third-country trade agreements currently applicable to the UK would not come to an end as soon as we Vote Leave. The European Union Referendum Act 2015 creates a consultative referendum (European Union Referendum Act 2015, link). A vote to leave will, in and of itself, have no legal consequences for the continued applicability of third-country trade agreements to the UK. The best way to give effect to the result of the referendum will be a matter for the British Parliament and Government to decide, whether by way of article 50 of the Treaty on European Union or by other means (TEU, art. 50, link). There is no fixed timescale. After we Vote Leave, the UK will be able to begin negotiations to maintain existing thirdcountry agreements or improve upon them immediately. The Government has asserted that: ‘While these [EU withdrawal] negotiations continued, we would be constrained in our ability to negotiate and conclude new trade agreements with countries outside the EU’ (HM Government, February 2016, link). This is highly misleading. While the UK’s new trade agreements could not enter into force until after it left the EU, there would be nothing to stop it immediately after a vote to leave beginning negotiations to enter into trade agreements to come into force after the UK left the EU. There are 1,720 civil servants in Whitehall who specialise in trade policy who could be deployed during this period to ensure a smooth transition (Business for Britain, 2015, link). It will be in the interests of third countries to maintain existing agreements with the UK. If the UK makes clear it wants existing agreements to be maintained on current terms, there is little cause to think any third country with which the EU currently has a free trade agreement would disagree. The UK is, after all, the fifth largest economy in the world (World Bank, 2014, link). There is no reason why third countries would want to cut off access to the UK market. The Executive Director of BSE, Will Straw, has said that free trade agreements with third countries could continue, stating: ‘either eventuality could come to pass’ (Evidence to Treasury Committee, 2 March 2016, link). This was a welcome admission. World leaders are increasingly making clear that the suggestions that free trade deals would necessarily end are false. The Prime Minister of Iceland, Sigmundur Davíð Gunnlaugsson, has said: ‘The UK is one of our most important trading partners and whatever you decide to do we would like to have a free trade deal with you’ (Daily Telegraph, 9 March 2016, link).
The Prime Minister of New Zealand, John Key, has said: ‘we would want to preserve both our existing position with Great Britain and continue to grow that relationship. We would need to find a way through that. The reality is there are a number of mechanisms where that would be possible’ (Daily Telegraph, October 2015, link). The European Commission has admitted that it would be in the EU’s interests for third country trade agreements to continue to apply to the UK in the event of a leave vote. Ahead of Greenland's withdrawal from the then European Economic Community, the European Commission stated that if third country trade agreements ceased to apply to Greenland on its withdrawal, it was an open ‘question whether the Community would have to negotiate with its partners compensation for the rights and benefits which those countries would lose as a result of the “shrinking” of the Community’ (European Commission, 2 February 1983, link). This implies the EU might have to compensate countries like South Korea or Mexico if the UK left the EU and third-country trade agreements ceased to apply to the UK. The UK would also improve upon the trade agreements that the EU has negotiated, which have generally proved of limited benefit to British companies. EU trade representatives have to deal with an unresponsive 1950s bureaucracy and 28 sets of competing special interests. The EU’s trade deals are relatively unlikely to include services. Whereas 90% of Chile, South Korea, Singapore and Switzerland’s free trade agreements include services, just 68% of the EU’s trade agreements do (Civitas, January 2016, link). The rate of the UK’s export growth to third countries with which the EU has a trade agreement has fallen in the case of two out of every three free trade agreements that the Commission has negotiated (Civitas, January 2016, link). 7.
How can we guarantee access to non-EU countries?
After we Vote Leave, the UK will take back control of powers to secure its own free trade agreements. The majority of our trade now comes from countries that are not members of the EU. In 2015, 43.7% of UK goods and services exports went to the EU (£223.3 billion), while the remaining 56.3% of UK goods and services exports went to the rest of the world (£288.2 billion). The UK imported £291.1 billion from the EU in 2014 in goods and services and imported £257.1 billion from other countries around the world (ONS, March 2016, link). Polling and surveys show that businesses favour taking back control of the power to make trade agreements from the European Commission. Polling by Perspective Research Services in August 2015 found that, by 74% to 22%, SMEs want the UK Government, not the European Commission, in charge of negotiating free trade agreements (Business for Britain, September 2015, link). This has been clear for over a decade. In 2004, ICM found that 73% of British businesses thought that Britain would be more prosperous and secure if it took powers back from the EU, including the power to make our own trade agreements (ICM, April 2004, link). The EU has proven very poor at negotiating trade deals with third countries. The EU has failed to negotiate a free trade agreement with China, and the Commission is hostile to the idea of such a deal (Euractiv, 3 December 2013, link). By contrast, both Iceland (which has a population of less than half a million) and Switzerland have negotiated free trade agreements with China (Icelandic Ministry for Foreign Affairs, 15 April 2013, link; Swiss State Secretariat for Economic Affairs, 2014, link). We stand a far greater chance of striking free trade deals if we take back control.
The UK is likely to conclude far more valuable free trade agreements outside the EU. In 2015, the aggregate GDP of all the countries with which the EU had a trade agreement in force was $7.7 trillion. By contrast, the aggregate GDP of all countries with which Chile had trade agreements was $58.3 trillion. The figure for South Korea was $40.8 trillion and for Switzerland it was $39.8 trillion (albeit these all include the EU with a GDP of $16.7 trillion) (Civitas, January 2016, link). If we Vote Leave, we will gain the power to strike our own trade deals, creating new business opportunities and creating more jobs. It is likely that new agreements will be concluded relatively rapidly. The US-Australia Free Trade Agreement, for example, was concluded in less than two years. Formal negotiations for a free trade agreement began in Canberra on 18 March 2003 (Library of Congress, 3 August 2003, link). The agreement came into effect on 1 January 2005 (Australian Government, 2016, link). The US Government states that: 'as a result of the U.S.-Australia Free Trade Agreement, tariffs that averaged 4.3 percent were eliminated on more than 99% of the tariff lines for U.S. manufactured goods exports to Australia' (US Government, 2011, link). Likewise, the Switzerland-China free trade agreement was negotiated in a little over two years. There were 9 rounds of negotiations between April 2011 and May 2013 which 'produced a deal praised by both sides for its quality and its breadth, covering goods, services, investment, and competition’ (Centre for Security Studies, February 2014, link). The agreement entered into force on 1 July 2014 (Swiss State Secretariat for Economic Affairs, 2016, link). If we vote to remain, the UK will be unable to make trade deals with the rest of the world as the Eurozone economy stagnates. This means that the UK may well remain unable to trade on favourable terms with major emerging economies in the years ahead, while remaining tied to the failing Eurozone. The percentage of UK exports going to the EU has been in decline for a decade (ONS, 26 June 2015, link). If we vote to remain, we will tie ourselves to a shrinking market. 8.
What will happen to EU funding?
Overall, we will save a huge amount of money after we Vote Leave and we will be able to keep supporting people like farmers, universities, research institutions and museums while also saving money for the taxpayer. Regional funding will also continue, with the money under democratic control and better spent.
