Britain has always been shaped by its relationship with Europe, at least since, or even before, Caesar set foot on these isles. The connection first established then, and later extended by the Saxons, Normans, Vikings and others, helped establish permanent links from Britain to Europe, and London as an entrepôt of global trade. In the past half a century we have moved beyond trade with our European neighbours to tackle, among other things, the existential issues of our time, such as climate change and international terrorism, in the form of the European Union.

The referendum on Britain’s continued membership of the EU boils down to whether we want our relationship with Europe to retreat to a looser arrangement, focusing on trade, or keep the formal relationship we currently have. I believe that Britain benefits from the latter.

Britain is a member of the EU’s single market, which essentially means free trade in goods and incomplete free trade of services among all countries within the EU. Britain pays the EU to access this market and is subject to the market’s regulations. For example, EU state aid rules make it illegal for countries to subsidise companies that establish unfair competitive advantage. Britain benefits from these common rules.

Many believe that Britain can forge stronger relationships with fast-growing economies of the world if it leaves the EU by forming bilateral free-trade agreements. But this ignores the fact that the former is achievable without the latter. International Monetary Fund data shows that Germany exports 4.5 times and France 20 per cent more to China than the United Kingdom. The EU is not the problem; the UK does not produce goods that are particularly relevant to emerging markets, such as German cars and French aircraft. In addition, there is a trend to free-trade deals among groups of countries, think the US-Asia Trans-Pacific Partnership and the US-EU Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership. US trade representative Michael Froman, in an interview with Reuters in October, said that the Obama administration is ‘not particularly in the market for FTAs (free-trade agreements) with individual countries.’ It actually may be less likely that the UK can form free-trade deals with emerging markets by separating from the EU.

If Britain does leave it will still want free trade with Europe. But agreements European countries have with the EU, for example Norway and Switzerland, show that Britain would have to adhere to free movement of people, pay into the EU (the Centre for European Reform estimates that Norway’s contribution was only nine per cent lower per head than Britain’s) and subscribe to regulations. At the same time, Britain would lose the ability to influence these regulations. At present, Britain is trying to establish a complete single market in services, which is where Britain’s comparative advantage lies. Leaving the EU will deny us this opportunity.

The demographics of Britain have changed with free migration from the EU. But Britain has always been open to migrants. Looking at the data, Britain benefits from EU migration: in a study by University College London, EU immigrants ‘contributed about 34 per cent more in taxes than they received in benefits over the period 2001-11.’ Focusing on migration as an argument to leave the EU is thus flawed: controls on migration from the EU is an unachievable ambition and EU migrants provide net economic benefits.

Britain has lost some sovereignty on decision-making, with the European Court of Justice having primacy on final legal decisions. The real impact of the power of the ECJ, however, is relatively insignificant. Over the past five years, less than 10 ECJ judgements have defeated the UK government’s position. Further, House of Commons Library research suggests that only 6.8 per cent of primary legislation and 14.1 per cent of secondary legislation have been influenced by EU obligations. Further, the original reasons to pool sovereignty have been easily forgotten. Pooling can overcome structural barriers to agreement on pan-national issues, avoiding a ‘tragedy of the commons’, best demonstrated by the EU’s world-leading climate change actions. It should be borne in mind in any case that parliament remains sovereign, as expertly outlined here by Carl Gardner – whatever the Eurosceptics may try and tell you.

There are numerous sources that put data to the benefits of common regulation or the impact of the ECJ, and some believe that the case for staying in the EU is finely balanced. However, these negate the uncertainty and risks that exit will bring to the UK. Recently, the pound has fallen precipitously due to investor concerns about the impact of Brexit on the UK. Britain has taken it for granted that ‘strangers’, as described by Bank of England governor Mark Carney, have been willing to finance its current account deficit in part due to its stable polity – this may no longer be the case after the convulsions of leaving the EU. Further, uncertainties about the form of our arrangement with the EU – what regulations will we be held to, how much access we will have to the single market – will come at a cost to business.

Our island nation has thrived because it has taken advantage of connections to Europe. Our participation in the EU allows us to shape the common market and there are opportunities to do so much more. By sharing resources we enable and influence decisions that advantage the continent. Europe shapes us and through the EU we shape Europe – to the benefit of all of us.

———————————

Harmesh Bhambra is a student at the University of Chicago and a Labour party member. He tweets @harmy3000