Debates on complex and multi-dimensional public policy issues, where facts are scarce, offer fertile ground for the emergence of myths.  Several have emerged in the BREXIT debate: (1) Brexit would mean independence for the UK and the restoration of a much higher degree of national sovereignty; (2) the UK would no longer be required to make financial payments to the EU budget; (3) a trade deal with the EU would be easy to negotiate within a short period; (4) trade deals with other parts of the world would be easy and quick to negotiate; (5) any impact of BREXIT on the EU itself would be of no concern to the UK; (6) there would be greater control over UK borders and immigration; (7) the UK would be free of alleged burdensome EU regulation; (8) BREXIT would free the UK from the commitment to ever-closer union; (9) the European Court of Justice would no longer have authority to over-ride judicial decisions made in UK courts, and (10) the unelected EU Commission determines EU laws.

 

A fundamental trade-off is the choice between maintaining access to the Single Market versus escaping from the three key elements in any trade deal with the EU: freedom of movement of labour, contributions to the EU budget, and regulation. 

 

The debate has been conducted on the basis that there is a simple binary choice: leave or remain. A third alternative strategy, however, has not been discussed and relates to the future evolution of the EU. This third choice would be to remain a member; join forces with like-minded Member States, and then with partners take a more active role in pressing for fundamental reforms. The rider would be that the UK retains the option of a second referendum if reforms are not forthcoming. Whilst a vote to leave is likely to be irrevocable, a vote to remain would not be.

 

Full paper on SUERF