Fast forward 6 years, and calls on left and right of UK politics are growing to hold a referendum on Britain’s membership of the EU – in or out. I’ve previously argued why Labour should not favour such a referendum and Nosemonkey has taken apart the People’s Pledge arguments.

This post raises a further issue that all ‘we want to leave’ advocates need to answer: what would leaving the EU actually mean? It’s not as simple as it sounds.

It strikes me that the yes answer to a question such as “Should the United Kingdom should remain a Member State of the European Union?” is simple enough – the relationship with the EU remains unchanged, and the UK fights its corner in the EU, winning some fights and losing some, just as it has since 1973.

But what would about no?

I pose this question with complete honesty – I really do not know the exact answer, and would like to hear opinions on this. Because without a definitive answer to this question, how could anyone realistically make up their mind in a referendum? Leaving the answer to this important issue until after a referendum would be irresponsible in the extreme, because even those arguing for withdrawal contend that the UK’s relationship with the EU is an matter of high importance.

Here – in rough terms – are three possible scenarios for how life could be for the UK outside, making the UK’s relationship with the EU similar to that of Norway, Switzerland or the USA, and I would be keen to hear thoughts on these.

If the UK were to have a relationship with the EU similar to Norway’s relationship today (in the EEA), this might be how it could look. The UK would be legally obliged to implement all aspects of EU law as applied to the Single Market, but not to agriculture and fisheries. The UK would have no say over those Single Market laws and would just be expected to implement them. The UK would contribute much less to the EU budget (Norway participates in some EU programmes, so pays a little) as it would not be part of the Common Agricultural Policy, but UK farmers would not receive CAP cash. This however would mean that tariffs would apply to export of UK agricultural goods to the EU. The UK would lose any say over EU foreign policy, and would receive no regional funds.

The Switzerland case (EFTA membership) is similar. Here the UK would not be legally obliged to apply EU law relating to the Single Market, and yet would – as in the Norway case – have tariff free access to the Single Market for everything except agriculture and fisheries. However the UK would be allowed to develop legislation applying to market issues that would be different to EU law (lower recycling standards for goods, or lower sanitary standards for foodstuffs for example). This could be argued to be an extension of democratic control in comparison to the Norway case, but would create non-tariff barriers to trade – manufacturers would have to make different versions of goods for the UK market and the EU market. It is worth noting that Switzerland implements all EU food law precisely to avoid this sort of thing. Agriculture and fisheries, and foreign policy and regional funds would be the same as the Norway case.

The USA case is the most extreme. Here the UK’s trade relationship with the EU would be regulated by international negotiations in the WTO, meaning that – within reason – the EU could impose tariffs on the export of goods and services from the UK to the EU, and the UK impose tariffs in return. Any market standards would be free to develop any way the UK government saw fit, but each development at odds with the EU Single Market would create non-tariff barriers. Importantly in such a case the automatic right of UK citizens to live and work in the EU, and EU citizens to live and work in the UK, would not be guaranteed. Agriculture and fisheries, and foreign policy and regional funds would be the same as the Norway case.

In short the Norway case would cause least disruption to trade, but is questionable in democratic terms – with no seat at the negotiation table in Brussels and a legal obligation to implement EU law this solution is even less democratic than current arrangements. The USA case is the opposite – a win for democracy, but a hit for the economy. The Switzerland case is a bit of both.

Which of these scenarios do those that advocate the UK leaving the EU actually want?

But an In/Out referendum might at least deliver one thing – an honest debate about the EU, its role in global politics and Britain’s role

Now here’s a radical idea. If a referendum is about the voice of the individual voter, how about giving some emphasis to the individual’s representation in the European Union? Fox should have added the words ‘and citizens’ role within it’ to the end of his sentence.

In other words, the phrasing should not be that I am a citizen of Britain, and that Britain is in the EU, but rather a simpler notion that as a Brit I am citizen of the European Union. That I have certain rights and responsibilities, and wield some power and influence, directly as a citizen of the EU.

If we cannot work out what Britishness means, even internally, why do we always bang on about membership of the EU being in our national interest? Strikes me it’s another broken frame in the UK-EU debate.

The only given is that there will be a referendum sometime in this parliament – it’s in the coalition deal. So even if some people have the incentive to stop even that I won’t go into that issue.

What do the Tories want? They do not want AV because they think it will not benefit them. They do want a reduction in the number of seats (from 650 to 600) because that will assist them as city seats will be reduced. They want seat boundaries decided according to numbers on the electoral register, not numbers eligible to be on the register, because numbers on the register already are higher in their areas of support. Finally they do not want the referendum on 1st May 2011 as a higher turnout, especially in Scotland and Wales, will assist the Yes side.

What does Labour want? They mildly want AV as it might favour them, and will not favour the Tories. They do not want a reduction in the number of seats. Boundaries decided according to numbers eligible to be on the electoral register would assist Labour as younger voters and ethnic minorities are more likely to vote Labour and numbers on the register now are lowest among those groups. 1st May 2011 for the referendum is OK as it might assist the Yes side, and Labour is moderately in favour of AV.

What do the Lib Dems want? They strongly want AV as election reform has been a core party policy for as long as anyone can remember. They have argued for a reduction in the number of seats to reduce waste, and as they get some support in rural areas it might benefit them electorally too. It’s unclear what their position on the electoral register issue would be – here the Tories seem to be in the driving seat. They want the referendum to be on 1st May because that will boost turnout, and that will assist the Yes side.

What a mess! That’s no way to reform an electoral system…

How would it look if you applied some principles to it, rather than electoral advantage?

For a start you would not bundle the issue of the system and the number of seats together – those would be split as they are two separate issues. So the question would be posed as to what the system would be, and then the second question on whether the number of MPs should be reduced.

The clear, principled position is that everyone’s vote should count equally and that poor levels of electoral registration need to be addressed – so equal sized constituencies on the basis of population eligible to be on the register, not actual numbers on it now, is clearly the principled approach. Same for the referendum date – it should not be 1st May 2011 as this would boost turnout unequally across the country as not all of the country has local or Assembly / Parliament elections at that time.

So – on principle – you should have a referendum with two questions, constituencies on the basis of population eligible to be on the register, and a referendum date that’s not 1st May.

As it stands at the moment we’re going to get precisely the opposite – one question on AV and a seat reduction in the bill, constituency sizes on the basis of those on the register, and a referendum on 1st May 2011.

David Cameron - CC / Flickr

It has been widely trailed that David Cameron is going to outline his new European policy today, after capitulating yesterday on the Treaty of Lisbon issue. The feral members of the Tory Party are baying for blood, so what is Cameron going to give them?

The most likely position that Cameron is going to propose to negotiate a withdrawal of the UK from all EU employment and social legislation, essentially getting out of the Social Chapter that Blair agreed. Any sensible journalist should ask the following two questions if that’s what Cameron proposes:

1. What – in practice – will that mean? What precisely in EU employment and social affairs legislation does the Tory Party disagree with? Does he want to do away with maternity leave? Or the rights of posted or agency workers? None of those things are especially social, and the one thing that would be – the Working Time Directive – is dead at the moment.
2. Does Cameron think the other Member States would allow the UK to negotiate such an opt-out? For its the Member States that would decide that, not some mendacious Brussels bureaucrats as Cameron might try to imply. I don’t reckon he could get 26 other countries to agree to his plans.

In short, if Cameron says that employment and social affairs matters are the big things he’ll deal with, it will be largely symbolic, and will not be achievable anyway.

Cameron could of course adopt the more wide-ranging, harsher line chosen by David Davis in today’s Daily Mail, positions outlined here on Conservative Home. Quoting Davis:

recovering control over our criminal justice, asylum and immigration policies; a robust opt-out of the European Charter of Fundamental Rights; serious exemptions to the seemingly endless flood of European regulations which cost the UK economy billions of pounds each year; a recovery of our rights to negotiate on trade; exemption from European interference into trade in services and foreign direct investment rules; and an exemption from any restrictions on our foreign policy

Essentially that equates to tearing up the rule book of the EU Single Market – do Tories these days not even believe that a Single Market in Europe is a good thing? Even Thatcher agree with that by signing up to the Single European Act in the 1980s. Plus how would the UK negotiate in the WTO (the logical conclusion on Davis’s line on trade)? How could the UK even stay in the EU if UK financial institutions operated according to different rules than ones in other EU Member States.

Plus Davis would fall into the same trap as Cameron: even if the UK held a referendum stating that the UK wanted such opt-outs, could the Tories pick a fight with the EU and 26 other Member States and actually win it? I seriously doubt it.

If the Tories want to be honest and bold they should promise a referendum on Britain’s membership of the European Union, full stop, in or out. But that prospect might be a bit scary; unrealistic, nationalist posturing is of course much more desirable.