Right: Nigel Farage, the British EU Parliament member who headed the Leave campaign. After his success, Farage surprised everyone by stepping down as UKIP leader, saying he wanted his life back.
 Found a word you're not familiar with? Double-click that word to bring up a dictionary reference to it. The dictionary page includes an audio sound file with which to actually hear the word said. |
Arguments supporting Britain leaving the European Union
1. Britain will gain greater economic autonomy and boost its economy
It has been claimed that leaving the EU will immediately improve Britain's financial situation as Great Britain will no longer have to contribute to the EU budget. The EU does not have the power to collect taxes directly; however, it requires member states to make an annual contribution to the central EU budget. In 2015, Britain paid in S13bn, but received only S4.5bn worth of EU funding toward services in Britain in return; thus the United Kingdom's net contribution was S8.5bn.
Some of the subsidy arrangements within the EU have been claimed to be particularly disadvantageous to Great Britain. The Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) is cited as a key example. This policy is essentially an EU subsidy for the agriculture industry and takes up around 40% of the entire EU budget. Because the United Kingdom has a relatively small agriculture sector (approximately 0.6% of the economy compared to 3.6% in France for example) this means that CAP costs the United Kingdom rather than benefits it.
Britain would also be free to establish its own trade agreements rather than be bound by those which apply to the EU. Supporters of Brexit have claimed that this could allow Britain to trade on more favourable terms.
Recent economic developments within the EU have led some British economists to suggest that Britain would do better on its own. In a Vox Business and Finance report published on June 25, 2016, it was noted, 'The global recession that began in 2008 was bad around the world, but it was much worse in countries that had adopted Europe's common currency, the euro. The unemployment rate shot up above 20 percent in countries like Greece and Spain, triggering a massive debt crisis. Seven years after the recession began, Spain and Greece are still suffering from unemployment rates above 20 percent, and many economists believe the euro was the primary culprit.'
Britain decided not to adopt the euro and has not suffered the same adverse effects. Some commentators have seen this as a demonstration that Britain's economy would fare better if Britain were able to manage its own economic affairs.
As part of the aftermath of Britons voting to leave the EU the value of the pound has dropped. It has been suggested that this will increase the competitiveness of British exports and act as a spur to the development of export industries. It has also been suggested that foreign investors will become increasingly unwilling to put their money into Britain, making local investment more likely and boosting national savings. It has also been suggested that this investment is more likely to go into export industries rather than housing construction feed by artificially inflated real estate process. These prices might then fall, making housing more affordable.
These developments were summarised in a report written by Edward Chancellor and published by CNBC on June 28, 2016. Chancellor states, 'As sterling falls and currency volatility rises, foreigners will become reluctant to fund the current-account deficit. As a result, savings will have to rise. A cheaper currency means that exports are more competitive. In theory, this means resources will be diverted away from construction towards the traded-goods sector. A higher cost of capital should improve the allocation of capital. In time, this should allow interest rates to normalize.'
It has also been suggested that a reduction in the value of the pound will act a boost to the British tourism industry. In an analysis published in The Telegraph on July 2, 2016, it was stated, 'On the positive side, the pound's weakness should encourage tourists from abroad to visit the UK, providing support for airlines. A rise in inbound tourism and staycations could benefit the likes of Merlin Entertainments, the owner of Madame Tussauds and Legoland, and the rest of the UK's hospitality industry.'
2. Britain will gain greater control of its borders
EU law guarantees that citizens of one EU country have the right to travel, live, and take jobs in other EU countries.
British people have increasingly felt the impact of this rule since the 2008 financial crisis. The eurozone has struggled economically, and workers from eurozone countries such as Ireland, Italy, and Lithuania (as well as EU countries like Poland and Romania that have not yet joined the common currency) have gone in large numbers to the United Kingdom in search of work.
Douglas Murray, a British journalist and Brexit supporter, has stated, 'In recent years, hundreds of thousands of Eastern Europeans have come to Britain to do a job. Brexit supporters argue that this influx of foreign workers has created damaging competition for jobs. Murray has claimed that this competition has 'undercut the native working population'.
The United Kingdom absorbed 333,000 new people, on net, in 2015.
Immigration has become a highly politicized issue in Britain, as it has in the United States and many other places over the past few years. Anti-immigration campaigners such as Nigel Farage, the leader of the far-right UK Independence Party, have argued that the flood of immigrants from Southern and Eastern Europe has depressed the wages of native-born British workers.
EU rules require the United Kingdom to admit all EU citizens who want to move to Britain, whether or not they have good job prospects or English skills. Critics of this policy argue that it puts an unsustainable strain on the British welfare system and that Britain should have a rational system for admitting migrants which factor in their language and job skills.
Critics have noted that membership of the EU has placed Great Britain in a situation where it has had to turn away skilled migrants.
Ben Harris, writing for Naked Politics on August 12, 2015, argued, 'Because of the EU's free movement of people policy, member states are unable to place any meaningful controls on EU migrants, meaning that member states may only set a limit on the number of non-EU migrants that are able to enter the country. As a result, the UK has had to turn away skilled immigrants to the UK this year at the same time as being powerless to turn away non-skilled EU migrants.'
It has also been claimed that the influx of migrants from the EU was putting a strain on British schools and health services. There is concern that this influx into Britain will become greater as the EU accepts more member states. Michael Gove, the United Kingdom's justice secretary, and a supporter of the Leave case, has stated, 'Because we cannot control our borders .... public services such as the NHS will face an unquantifiable strain as millions more become EU citizens and have the right to move to the U.K.'
The probability of having to accept larger numbers of refugees if Great Britain remains part of the EU is also a significant incentive for those arguing to leave. On October 1, 2015, the United Nations predicted that some 700,000 migrants and refugees would have reached Europe via the Mediterranean sea by the end of the year and the same amount would arrive again in 2016.
Opponents see the UE's handling of the refugee crisis as irresponsible. The Spectator's editorial of June 18, 2016, states, 'In theory, the EU is supposed to protect its member states by insisting that refugees claim asylum in the first country they enter. In practice, this law - the so-called Dublin Convention - was torn up by Angela Merkel when she recklessly said that all Syrians could settle in Germany if they somehow managed to get there.'
It has also been suggested that improperly regulated borders leave Great Britain at greater risk of a terrorist incursion. Colonel Richard Kemp has stated, 'By leaving, we will again be able to determine who does and does not enter the UK. Failure to do so significantly increases the terrorist threat here, endangers our people and is a betrayal of this country.'
3. British national pride and cultural autonomy will be boosted
Many supporters of the Leave case have argued that Britain is losing its distinct national identity as a member of the EU.
In an analysis printed in Sit & Stand on June 16, 2016, Steven Erlanger stated, 'Pollsters and analysts say that while Scotland and Northern Ireland are expected to vote overwhelmingly to stay in the bloc, England, far more populous, is likely to go the other way, reflecting a broad and often bluntly expressed view that English identity and values are being washed away by subordination to the bureaucrats of Brussels.'
Erlanger went on to suggest, 'England makes up about 85 percent of Britain's population, and so dominates. But the English identity, while subsumed into the British one, is not entirely the same, drawing as it does on its own rich history and deeply embedded political and cultural traditions. In particular, the English are considerably less willing than their fellow Britons in Scotland and Northern Ireland to see themselves as a subset of Europe - there is more nativism and more "Little England" nationalism, which can veer into xenophobia.'
As part of a vox pop conducted in South Benfleet, Robert Baron, 67, stated, 'It's being British. It's knowing that other people can't understand our way of life as well as you can living in your own country."
British actress and Brexit supporter Liz Hurley has similarly stated, 'I yearn for the days when my (gorgeous navy blue) passport got stamped when I went anywhere in Europe.' United Kingdom passports are now burgundy and conform to an EU format.
Some commentators have suggested that many supporting the Brexit movement are nostalgic for the British Empire. Others have suggested that they are looking to consolidate a new set of alliances with English-speaking countries with which Britain has closer cultural ties.
In an opinion piece published in The Financial Times on April 22, 2016, Linda Colley, professor of history at Princeton University, stated, '[M]any in the Conservative party, which is overwhelmingly English, are drawn to the idea of a revived Anglosphere, a union of sorts between the UK, the US, Australia, New Zealand and Canada, which might provide a congenial substitute for the EU.'
4. Britain will be freed of over-regulation
Critics of the EU claim it is a centralised, overly bureaucratised system which imposes burdensome, needless regulations on member countries.
Philip Booth, professor of finance, public policy and ethics at St Mary's University has stated, 'In the centralised EU system, it is relatively easy for countries that want more regulation to combine together and vote for it to be imposed on governments that want light regulation. And the nature of the EU bureaucracy is such that, once given power, it tends to regulate without restraint.'
By way of example of an unnecessary and inefficient regulation imposed by the EU, Professor Booth has noted, 'One indication of the extent of regulation is its length. The 1870 Insurance Companies Act which, in effect, lasted 100 years before we adopted EU insurance regulation in the early 1970s, was shorter than the list of typographical errors alone in one tiny part of the EU's Solvency II regulations entitled "the technical specifications for the preparatory phase" of Solvency II. Another indicator is its cost: preparing for Solvency II cost UK insurers an incredible S3bn.'
One of the leaders of the Brexit movement, former London mayor, Boris Johnson, has similarly stated, 'Sometimes these EU rules sound simply ludicrous, like the rule that you can't recycle a teabag, or that children under eight cannot blow up balloons, or the limits on the power of vacuum cleaners. Sometimes they can be truly infuriating - like the time I discovered, in 2013, that there was nothing we could do to bring in better-designed cab windows for trucks, to stop cyclists being crushed. It had to be done at a European level, and the French were opposed.'
On June 21, 2016, the Austrian Mises Institute published a satirical piece by Louis Rouanet ridiculing the extent of over-regulation for which the EU is responsible. Rouanet writes, 'Martin woke up on his EU regulated bed and looked through his EU regulated window. This night, Martin had slept like a baby thanks to the 109 EU regulations concerning pillows, the 5 EU regulations concerning pillow cases, and the 50 EU laws regulating duvets and sheets. Martin went to brush his teeth with his toothbrush regulated by 31 EU laws.
After that, our EU-regulated man went to his EU regulated kitchen to grab a Class 1 EU regulated apple. For the benefit of society, the EU had defined what a "class 1" fruit actually is: to class a "Red Variety" apple as "class 1" then 50% of its surface must be red.'
Relatedly it has been claimed that the EU's over-regulation is often expensive. Ben Harris, writing for Naked Politics, claimed, 'The EU is wasteful - Vast sums of money have been spent on unnecessary and inappropriate projects such as S760,000 for a "gender equal" cultural centre which was never built, over S350,000 for a project to get European children to draw each other and S155,000 for a Portuguese golf resort.'
5. British democracy will be restored and re-invigorated
There are those who maintain that the vote for Britain quitting the European Union represents a triumph of democracy. This claim is made in part because the majority exit vote was taken despite the opposition of all major parties. It is thus seen by some as a genuine and spontaneous expression of the popular will and a protest against political parties that have not addressed the concerns of much of the electorate.
In an opinion piece published in The Australian on June 11, 2016, (one week before the referendum) Greg Sheridan stated, 'If the British vote to leave, they will have defied bipartisan opposition. Not only Cameron, but Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn as well as the Scottish Nationalist Party, the third largest party in Westminster, and the Greens are all campaigning for remain.'
Sheridan concludes, 'If Britain does leave the EU, it will be a deliberate decision by the electorate to take responsibility for its own destiny, economically and in security terms... Brexit represents a popular assertion of good government against the dishonesty, equivocations and failures of a paralysed governing class.' He described the leave movement as 'one of the few seismic moments in history generated entirely by a democratic movement and an exercise of the ballot box.'
Many commentators have suggested that the willingness of a majority of Britons to vote against the directions of the parties for which they traditionally vote is a marker of their belief that their country's political elites have not been responsive to their needs.
On June 24, 2016, The Guardian published a comment by Giles Fraser. Fraser stated, 'Outside the capital things were different. As if in some parallel universe, the rest of the country saw things differently...They had...been left profoundly unattended by the political process. Taken for granted, patted on the head - by the Labour party as much as the Conservatives - and dumped upon by a financial services industry that never paid the price for its own recklessness, this was an angry roar for attention.'
It has further been claimed that the overriding of British law by laws and regulations formulated within the European Union has undermined democracy in Great Britain.
Euroskeptics emphasize that the EU's executive branch, called the European Commission, is not directly accountable to voters in Britain or anyone else. British leaders have some influence on the selection of the European Commission's members every five years. But once the body has been chosen, none of its members are accountable to the British government or to Britons' elected representatives in the European Parliament.
On June 18, 2016, The Spectator ran an editorial arguing that EU-produced laws were damaging the democratic process in Great Britain. The editorial states, 'The EU has started to deform our government. Michael Gove revealed how, as a cabinet member, he regularly finds himself having to process edicts, rules and regulations that have been framed at European level. Laws that no one in Britain had asked for, and which no one elected to the House of Commons has the power to change. What we refer to as British government is increasingly no such thing. It involves the passing of laws written by people whom no one in Britain elected, no one can name and no one can remove.'
Ben Harris, writing for Naked Politics on August 12, 2015, summed up the situation in this manner, 'The EU undermines British democracy. Because the European Parliament makes laws on an EU-wide basis, we are in the bizarre situation of non-British representatives making laws which affect the UK and likewise British representatives are helping to make laws affecting other member states. For many people opposed to Britain's EU membership, this is a matter of principle - the UK should be governed by British representatives only and the only way to achieve this is by leaving the EU.'