Euro 2016 Could Turn EU Referendum Result Upside Down

A political football? Karen Katriyan

By Simon Chadwick, University of Salford

When historians look back at the fact that the Euro 2016 group phase ended the day before the UK’s Brexit vote on June 23, they will think it almost deliberately mischievous. These could turn out to be the finals where British teams entered as fully fledged members of the European Union and then departed in more ways than one.

Uncertain, Nostalgic, Uncomfortable And Bewildered: A Portrait Of The Older #Brexit Backer

Hernán Piñera, CC BY-NC-SA

By Geoffrey Edwards, University of Cambridge

It has been suggested, as the EU referendum approaches, that younger voters are more likely to vote to remain than their older compatriots. A poll conducted in April showed 54% of over 55s back Brexit, while only 30% said they would vote to remain in the EU. It showed almost exactly the reverse among voters aged between 18 and 34. The 35-54-year olds were more evenly split, with 38% saying they’d vote to remain and 42% saying they’d leave.

Is The EU Anywhere Near Getting Its Own Army?

British soldiers on exercises. Ben Birchall/PA Archive

By David J Galbreath, University of Bath and Simon J Smith, Staffordshire University

As part of a warning by a group of former military officers that the European Union undermines the UK’s military effectiveness, former General Sir Michael Rose expressed concern at the EU’s plan to set up its own army.

But in a speech on May 9 outlining why the UK would be more secure if it remained in the EU, the prime minister, David Cameron, said suggestions of an EU army were “fanciful” and that the UK would veto any suggestion of it.

As Cameron pointed out, there is a significant gap between the rhetoric and reality of the establishment of a fully functional European army.

The creation of a European army is a long way off and by no means inevitable. Even the most supportive nations, such as Germany, would acknowledge this reality.

Why Is The Academic Consensus On The Cost Of #Brexit Being Ignored?

A conservative estimate. EPA/Will Oliver/Pool

By Simon Wren-Lewis, University of Oxford

Two issues dominate the EU referendum debate: economics and immigration. When it comes to my field of economics, polling evidence suggests that if people became convinced that they would be worse off by leaving, even if it was by quite modest amounts such as £100 a year, the majority voting to remain would be pretty large. Studies by economists at the highly respected London School of Economics, National Institute of Economic and Social Research, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and the Treasury all suggest that on average we would be worse off by an amount that is more than ten times that £100 figure.

New Mayor Sadiq Khan Bodes Well For London's Global Financial Status

Capital choice. Stefan Rousseau / PA Wire

By Nafis Alam, University of Nottingham

Promoting economic development and “wealth creation” is one of the London mayor’s three main functions – alongside taking care of the city’s social and environmental development. The fact that London regularly tops major rankings of global financial centres is a key pillar of the city’s wealth. It’s a reason why international companies establish headquarters in London, providing jobs and wealth to the UK capital. And the election of Sadiq Khan as mayor bodes well for maintaining London’s status as a global financial centre.

Khan’s manifesto gave some insights into his plans for London’s economic development. He emphasised infrastructure as his main priority – the need to work closely with Westminster to secure big projects and improve the transport networks that will be key for London’s expansion and economic growth.

Fact Check: Will UK Living Wage Cause Rampant EU Migration?

Stampede imminent? Lukasz Stefanski

By Ross Brown, University of St Andrews

The living wage is an excellent policy, but how will you stop it being a big pull factor for uncontrolled EU migration, given that it is far higher than minimum wages in other EU countries?

Boris Johnson speech from May 9

George Osborne’s living wage announcement in July of last year substantially increased the national minimum wage from £6.70/hour for over-25s then to £7.20/hour since April, with a target of £9.00/hour by 2020.

Minimum wages are now in operation in 26 out of the 34 OECD countries, and 22 out of 28 EU member states. Germany only joined the list in January 2015 with a minimum wage of €8.50 (£6.69), while some of the EU members without one – that’s Austria, Cyprus, Italy, Sweden, Finland and Denmark – have sector level collective agreements and wage floors.

Brexiters Need To Stop Scaremongering About Turkey Joining The EU

Esin, CC BY-NC-SA

By David Phinnemore, Queen's University Belfast and Erhan İçener, Bursa Orhangazi University

The anti-immigration rhetoric of the Leave campaign in the Brexit debate has brought to the fore the question of further enlargement of the European Union.

#Brexit: Does Britain Get Its Way At The European Top Table?

By Sara Hagemann, London School of Economics and Political Science

The UK has never been on the winning side when we have challenged the commission in a vote in the council.

Chris Grayling, leader of the House of Commons and Vote Leave campaigner, in a speech on March 10.

Chris Grayling says that our country is never on the winning side whenever there’s a vote at the Council of Ministers when the facts show that we get our way on the vast majority of occasions.

Alan Johnson, former home secretary and leader of Labour In for Britain, the Labour party’s remain campaign, in a speech to the USDAW Annual Delegate Conference, Blackpool on April 26.

The UK is currently the country which most often votes “no” in the EU’s Council of Ministers. But it is wrong to suggest that the UK doesn’t generally “win” in the EU Council; recorded opposition in the council is very rare in the first place, and in most cases governments are able to find compromise solutions. This means that all governments – including the UK – are able to support the vast majority of legislation that comes through the council.

What #Brexit Would Mean For Relations Between India And The UK

Facundo Arrizabalaga/EPA

By Paul James Cardwell, University of Sheffield and Navajyoti Samanta, University of Sheffield

Much of the debate about Britain’s impending referendum on membership of the European Union so far has focused on external trade and the UK’s standing in the world. President Barack Obama intervened to say that the UK would not find new trade deals easy to conclude, even with strong allies. While relations with Canada and China have entered the discussion, little has been said about India.

This is surprising, given India’s strong links with the UK and status as the world’s fastest growing economy and world leader for inward investment.

#Brexit: Big Trouble For British Tourism

Looking back in languor? Cullen in the north of Scotland. Raphaël Chekroun, CC BY-SA

By John Lennon, Glasgow Caledonian University

From the Tower of London to Edinburgh Castle, from Stonehenge to Brighton Pier, tourism is a vital industry for the UK. It is worth £125 billion a year to the economy, constituting 9% of GDP and 10% of total employment.

A big slice of that comes from tourists from other parts of the European Union. In Scotland, for example, where I am based, visitors from the EU account for just over 54% of visits and just under 42% of the £10 billion annual tourism expenditure. In the other direction, the EU is the top destination for 76% of UK holidaymakers and 68% of business travel. A key question, then, is how this will be affected if the UK votes to leave.

Gove’s Vision For The UK Out Of The EU: Welcome To #VoteLeave's Parallel Universe

Gove, multiplied. El Bingle/flickr.com, CC BY-NC

By Michael Dougan, University of Liverpool

Vote Leave has finally set out their plan for the UK’s future trading relationship with the EU, in the event of a vote to leave the Union in the forthcoming referendum. Justice secretary Michael Gove claims that Britain can have its cake and eat it: we can enjoy full trading rights with the EU, without being part of the single market – apparently, just like a host of other European countries which together form some vast free trade area stretching from Iceland to Turkey.

How #Brexit Would Reduce Foreign Investment In The UK – And Why That Matters

Slowing down: the UK’s car industry could suffer from a Brexit. Anna Gowthorpe/PA Wire

By John Van Reenen, London School of Economics and Political Science

Foreign investors love Britain, but Brexit would kill the vibe. According to new research colleagues and I have conducted at the Centre for Economic Performance, leaving the European Union could lead to a fall in inward foreign direct investment into the UK of close to a quarter. This would damage productivity and could lower people’s real incomes by more than 3%.

Case studies of cars and financial services – two UK success stories – show, that Brexit would also lower EU-related output of goods and services, and erode the UK’s ability to negotiate concessions from regulations on EU-related transactions.

According to government body UK Trade and Investment, the UK has an estimated stock of over £1 trillion of foreign direct investment (FDI), about half of which is from the EU. Only the United States and China receive more FDI than this.

What 17th-Century Politics Can Teach Us About The Brexit Debate

Charles I attempts to arrest five members of Parliament in 1642.
(Charles West Cope/Wikimedia Commons)

By Philippa Byrne, University of Oxford

If you heard someone claim that a powerful and unaccountable institution was trying to take control of the law away from the British parliament, you might assume you were talking to a Brexit campaigner in 2016. But you could equally be listening to the complaints of an English lawyer in 1616.

UK: #Brexit Campaign Is Doomed – If Bookmakers Are Right Again

Backed the wrong horse? EPA

By David Bell, University of Stirling

As we edge closer to the EU referendum on June 23, the latest opinion polls put the Remain and Leave campaigns either neck and neck or at least close together.

But the reputation of opinion polls has plummeted following their abject failure to predict the winner of last year’s general election. According to a recent independent review by Professor Patrick Sturgis of the University of Southampton, inadequate sampling procedures led to biased estimates of party support.

The Commonwealth Is Not An Alternative To The EU For Britain

Rose tinted. Eric Fischer, CC BY-SA

By Andrew Dilley, University of Aberdeen

A key question in the debate about Britain’s future in Europe concerns the alternative global economic connections available to the UK. The North American Free Trade Agreement, the European Free Trade Association and free-wheeling bilateralism all have their advocates. Yet one other alternative carries particular emotional resonance: the Commonwealth.

For some Brexiters the Commonwealth is the perfect global trading network for the 21st century. At times this position carries a hint of nostalgia. In the leaders’ debate before the 2015 general election UKIP leader Nigel Farage described leaving the EU as a chance to reconnect with the rest of the world, “starting with our friends in the Commonwealth”. Yet is there in fact such an alternative?

UK: What Has The EU Ever Done For Us?

Just what are the fruits of the union? gemstock/Shutterstock

By Simon Sweeney, University of York

Think labour protection, enhanced social welfare, smoke-free workplaces, equal pay legislation, holiday entitlement, and the right not to work more than a 48-hour week without overtime.

What Leaving The EU Would Really Mean For British Trade Deals

IR Stone / Shutterstock.com

By Paul James Cardwell, University of Sheffield

What would be the impact of staying in or leaving the EU for the UK’s global trade? This has become one of the most talked about questions of the referendum so far.

The various Leave campaigns have claimed that quitting the EU would free the UK from its “shackles”. As one of the world’s largest economies, they claim the UK would be well placed to opt out of the EU’s existing deals with non-EU countries and forge free trade deals of its own.

The Stronger In campaign and other pro-Remain bodies claim Britain has the “best of both worlds” – a full part in the single market, and a place at the EU table in negotiating trade deals.

Arguments on both sides turn on whether the UK can strike free trade agreements with non-EU countries. But “free trade” is not as straightforward as it sounds.

The current deal
Within the EU, member states enjoy largely unrestricted trade in goods and services, which is just not generally available in other trade deals. Agreements with non-EU countries often do not cover economically significant areas, such as financial services or agricultural goods.

According to Article 207 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU, the EU has the legal competence to run external trade policy towards the wider world. This provision has been in place since the original Treaty of Rome in 1957 (long before the UK joined).

The logic is straightforward – if there is a single market within the EU, then member states cannot set up individual deals outside the EU, as the two would be incompatible. Changing this rule was not part of the UK’s demands for a new settlement from the EU earlier this year. In fact, the UK has always supported the external commercial aspect of EU membership.

Currently, the EU operates bilateral deals with states across the globe. It has preferential trade agreements with South Korea, South Africa, Mexico, many countries around the Mediterranean, and a customs union with Turkey. A deal with Canada has been agreed, and negotiations with India, Japan, Australia and New Zealand are underway. Many Commonwealth countries in Africa, the Caribbean and the Pacific are also covered by EU deals.

The unknown alone
Could the UK opt-out and go it alone? In theory, yes, but in practice, the picture would be rather different. There are three major obstacles in concluding post-Brexit deals.

The first is that much would depend on what the UK’s relationship with the EU would look like after Brexit. That would take time to resolve but would probably take priority given the UK’s current reliance on the single market. If the UK concludes an agreement to retain access to the single market, like Norway and Switzerland, it would be difficult for it to have separate deals with non-EU member states, as they may conflict. And while the UK might be able to continue to take advantage of existing EU agreements with other countries, it would not have a say in any changes or negotiations over new agreements – for example, with China.

The second is the process, both in terms of the content and the time needed. Trade agreements are complex and take time.

Although negotiating an external agreement as part of the EU means taking account of 28 national interests, there is no guarantee this would be easier as a single state – especially if trying to negotiate multiple deals at the same time within a limited timeframe.

To take an example, the Canada-Korea Free Trade Agreement took 14 rounds of negotiation over nine years to conclude. And as one Eurosceptic MP – who is nevertheless going to vote to remain in – recognises, markets are more global and sophisticated than they ever were, adding to this complexity.

Neither does being a relatively large economy guarantee success. Japan, the world’s fourth largest economy, has only 15 agreements. With a service-based economy, the UK would need to make the case that any agreement was not limited to goods or investment alone for it to be effective in supporting British interests. The need for comprehensive agreements would probably lengthen the process considerably.

US Trade Representative Michael Froman has warned the UK not to expect a special deal. EPA

The third, crucially, is the willingness of other countries to deal with the UK outside the EU. Although a relatively large economy, the UK’s attractiveness to outsiders is largely because of its position within the much bigger single market. Narendra Modi, prime minister of India (the largest country in the Commonwealth) has said as much.

And given the complexities and time involved in these sorts of negotiations, the US Trade Representative has explicitly said that the US is not interested in a separate US-UK deal. His comment confirms the trend for free trade agreements to be pursued collectively by blocs, including the Gulf Cooperation Council and Mercosur, where they exist. The EU has of course led the way in this respect and is still in the process of agreeing the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership with the US.

Therefore, the choice seems to be remaining in the EU with current agreements and negotiations ongoing with other states, or leaving in the hope that states respond positively to the UK seeking an agreement. But there is no evidence yet to suggest that they would do so, and plenty of evidence to the contrary.


About Today's Contributor
Paul James Cardwell, Reader in EU External Relations Law, University of Sheffield

This article was originally published on The Conversation. 

What Would Brexit Really Mean For The UK's Fishing Industry?

Pitamaha / shutterstock

By Bryce Stewart, University of York and Griffin Carpenter, Oxford Brookes University

Fish is as tasty and popular as ever, but no one seems to like the policies that regulate the industry behind it. For decades, European management of fisheries has been lambasted by fishers, conservationists and scientists, including us.

The centrepiece of this system, the EU’s Common Fisheries Policy, is particularly unpopular. Some scientists even argue it is designed to fail. Opponents blame it for not only mismanaging Europe’s highly productive seas, but also for giving away “our fish”, with the subject recently taking centre stage in an unlikely viral Brexit campaign video.

You might think that the chance to take back control of the fish in UK seas would be one of the most solid reasons to vote “Out” in June’s referendum on EU membership. So what’s the catch?

First, the idea that fish in British waters have been fished into near-extinction by pesky foreign boats simply doesn’t match up with reality. At least not anymore.

Yes, fish numbers aren’t what they were in the time of Moby Dick. However, a recent analysis of 118 years of statistics revealed the vast majority of the decline occurred prior to the Common Fisheries Policy’s implementation in 1983. In fact, the policy is now overall helping, not harming, the country’s fisheries.

Since EU policy was reformed in 2002, the health of many fish stocks has improved. By 2011 the majority of assessed fisheries were considered to be sustainably fished. Take the case of North Sea cod: once the “poster child” for overfishing and all that was wrong with European policy, it is now recovering strongly and likely to be certified as sustainable next year.

The EU is now phasing out the discarding of unwanted fish and setting quotas more in line with scientific advice. The aim is to ensure maximum sustainable yield of all stocks by 2020.

Who actually owns “our” fish?
Ownership of UK fishing quotas is controversial and often misunderstood. After total EU fishing limits are decided by the Council of fisheries ministers, it is up to each member state to distribute its share among its own fleet.

The Cornelis Vrolijk catches a good portion of the UK’s entire fish quota.(AlfvanBeem)

This is not an EU decision. The fact that a single giant Dutch-owned vessel nets a quarter of the English quota (6% of the UK total) might be shocking, especially considering the UK’s quota is in theory shared between more than 6,000 vessels, but the UK government could easily change how it allocates fish. In fact, the alternative allocation systems suggested by some pro-Brexit groups are already in place elsewhere in Europe.

Your plaice or mine?

Britain has to share with its neighbours. (Inwind / wiki)

Another common argument for Brexit is that it would give the UK sole control of the fish in its waters. However, these fish are not “British”; they don’t respect national boundaries. 
Mackerel, herring, cod and other commercial species are all highly mobile, and move easily across borders, especially in places such as the North, Celtic and Irish Seas, where “exclusive economic zones” are jammed together like sardines in a can.

So unlike more isolated countries such as Iceland and Norway, the UK was always going to have to share its fish with its neighbours, especially as we moved into an era of global maritime regulation.

Fencing out foreign fishermen
A post-Brexit UK might still have to agree quotas with its neighbours, but could it prevent foreign boats from fishing in its waters? Maybe. But only with huge investment in monitoring and control public bodies such as the Marine Management Organisation (MMO) – organisations which are being cut at present.

Whether the UK would want this sort of escalation is a different question, as it would also mean British boats could no longer fish in the waters of other European nations. This is a major concern in the fishing industry as 20% of the fish caught by the UK fleet is landed elsewhere in the EU.

Dutch herring fleet in the North Sea, c1700, protected by a naval vessel. (Pieter Vogelaer)

The reality is that a Brexit would require a complete re-negotiation of fishing rights, with uncertain outcomes. Some of these rights extend back to the Middle Ages and banning foreign vessels from UK waters may well be incompatible with international law.

Such negotiations may harm trading relationships with Europe. At present the UK exports around 80% of its wild-caught seafood, with four of the top five destinations being European countries.

Remaining in the EU also has big benefits for the marine ecosystems that the fishing industry ultimately relies on. The Habitats Directive protects key habitats and species such as reefs and Atlantic salmon, while the Water Framework Directive and Marine Strategy Framework Directive commit EU members to restore and protect the environment. It seems unlikely that the UK’s current Conservative government, at least, would continue similarly progressive measures after a Brexit.

It’s no surprise the “In” campaign is gaining support from a range of environmental groups – the weight of evidence is on their side. In contrast, many fishermen have strong feelings about the EU, but the main industry organisations and decision makers are remaining neutral.

We’ve come a long way since the bad old days of excessive quotas and widespread illegal fishing. As things become more sustainable, fish numbers are rebounding, leading to increasing UK fishing quotas and growing profits (now the highest in the EU).

The history of the EU’s fishing policy is one of criticism and improvement. It is therefore unclear why the UK would want to abandon ship at this point.


About Today's Contributors
Bryce Stewart, Lecturer in Marine Ecosystem Management, University of York and Griffin Carpenter, Visiting Lecturer in Environmental Economics, Oxford Brookes University

This article was originally published on The Conversation. 

Brussels Attacks: Callous Brexit Tweeters Will Lose The Battle For Hearts And Minds

Commuters react to the Brussels attacks. Anthony Devlin / PA Wire/Press Association Images

By Thom Brooks, Durham University

Within minutes of the first reports of the Brussels attacks hitting the internet the Twittersphere reacted – with grief at the reported casualties, speculation about the extent of the carnage and, sadly but predictably, political point scoring. While world leaders expressed shock and called for calm, some people thought this would be a good time to help promote their political causes in a shocking display of carelessness and a toxic mix of insensitivity and self-righteousness.

Quick off the mark was Daily Telegraph columnist Allison Pearson, who tweeted at 7.45am – only about 20 minutes after news of the attacks had first started to emerge and before news of the attack on the Metro line had been reported – calling Brussels “the jihadist capital of Europe” and mocking what she called “Remainers”.

Pearson was not alone and her tweet was merely the first of many as others leaped at the chance to exploit a still unfolding painful tragedy for partisan political gain.

The UK prime minister, David Cameron, and other party leaders sent messages of support to the people of Brussels. Meanwhile UKIP leader Nigel Farage retweeted Pearson’s message on Twitter, noting his fears for the future just in case someone had the mistaken impression he could act like a statesman.

And, finally, no such moment could be overlooked by the Daily Mail’s columnist Katie Hopkins, who thought now was the time to blame the dead and injured for an unprovoked terrorist attack in a more chilling act of nonsensical chutzpah.

It’s easy to mock America’s pro-gun lobby for its mantra that: “Guns don’t kill people, people kill people” – maybe someone should remind Hopkins that innocent people don’t cause terrorist atrocities, terrorists cause terror. It should be an easy point to grasp, but it appears to have evaded her.

Morally bankrupt
The EU referendum is a very big deal – a once in a generation vote about Britain’s place in Europe, arguably the biggest single issue affecting the British people. As such it causes passions to run high on each side. It’s also an argument that cuts across traditional party lines.

But there is a time and a place for this debate – and most people would consider it morally bankrupt to try to exploit a tragedy such as this even while the body count was still going on. Nor is it appropriate to use such a human tragedy to satisfy personal, political ambitions.

No doubt Brexit campaigners such as Pearson, Farage, Hopkins and the rest will hope that their tweets will have resonated with some people. And make no mistake that there will be some that share their views about Brexit and the EU referendum. But these messages will not influence the way most people think. Such crass “dog whistling” is seen by most people for the political opportunism that it is.

For many people, these tweets are an irresistible – and regrettable – reminder of what can happen when cynicism trumps good sense, something famously seen in 2001 when a spin doctor sent out a message to her department in the wake of the 9/11 attack in New York that: “It is now a very good day to get out anything we want to bury.” There was more than a flavour of this in the Brussels tweets. Lessons have not been learned by all.

Fair-minded people who remain undecided on whether to support the UK’s continued EU membership may share concerns about security in light of events like today, but Brexit campaigners must keep in mind that it’s not just the message that wins, but the messenger. If the public views supporters of one side as political opportunists willing to exploit and twist any tragedy to suit their political ambitions, it will more effectively repel voters than win them over. There remains plenty of time left to draw conclusions about Britain’s place in Europe. But let’s first let the dust settle on this tragedy in Brussels and gather the facts so we can make an informed decision in our collective national interest.

Brexit campaigners have made a big deal out of the way the prime minister is using what they call “Project Fear” to scare people into voting their way. Judging from the Twittersphere, the Brussels attacks have made a lot of them hypocrites.


About Today's Contributor 
Thom Brooks, Professor of Law and Government, Durham University

This article was originally published on The Conversation. 

Breaking News: World War II Is Over, Britain Is A European Country

By Andrew Scott Crines, University of Liverpool

Britain has so far been something of a failure in the European Union. Despite the benefits it has received in terms of investment, social programmes and education, it just doesn’t seem to be part of the club. That’s because the UK has yet to fully appreciate what the EU does.

For decades now, the British right-wing press has presented the UK as a place apart from the EU. It is distant in terms of culture, economy, social beliefs, aspirations and desires. Despite this antagonism, the EU has continued to invest in British infrastructure (look at Liverpool, Manchester, Leeds, Newcastle, Glasgow), in its culture, and, of course, by allowing access to the single market.

The single market is not the sole function of the European Union. Political union has always been on the cards. Opponents to it only failed to notice sooner because they didn’t do their research in the years leading up to 1973, when Britain first joined the EEC. At that point, Britain joined a union of nations that were already sharing sovereignty.

Yet opponents acted surprised when Britain, too, was called upon to share that sovereignity. It is clear from both Labour and Tory leaders at the time that sharing sovereignty was always on the cards.

But we are told continually by those seeking to depart that it is a market place which has grown too big for its boots. This is a failure of imagination from opponents, rather than a failure of the EU to be what it has always sought to be.

The myth that Britain was somehow different from the rest prevented it from getting more involved at that time and has now prevented it from becoming European.

Romantic notions of imperial glory and World War II help embolden that myth in the minds of Brexit supporters. Britain is seen as a unique nation. It is simply better than the other EU member states.

This uniqueness is not only flawed in a historical sense but also in its contemporary value.

We’re just bally different!
Britain romanticises World War II because it stood against Hitler while the rest of Europe fell. As such, it is seen as a moment of supreme victory – something to be proud of.

This is not to suggest that British people shouldn’t be proud of standing up to tyranny, but from Europe’s viewpoint, World War II was a traumatic period. It was a time of occupation, misery, and of course, death.

Get over it, Nigel. PA/Gareth Fuller

This is, of course, a matter of historical record but opponents of the EU seem to be using this period as evidence of Britain’s exceptionalism and defiance. It sends the message that Britain was better than its European neighbours, not only for avoiding occupation, but also for liberating them.

As accurate as some of these points may be, it is important to see how other EU countries view this period and the harmful impact the British attitude will have, not just on European countries but also on its view of itself.

Failing to adapt
While the rest developed a more cohesive sense of European identity, Britain resisted. And to some extent, the introduction of the euro has precipitated a further breaking down of nationalism. Britain, however, remains apart.

Today, the global financial crash and its ongoing consequences have left the eurozone in an economic mess. But the ideas underscoring it were valid. There is nothing inherently wrong with ever closer union. Being closer enables cross country collaborations, freer trade, cultural mixing, and the essential creation of europeanism.

Opponents view this as a betrayal of nationalism. But given nationalism is, by definition, an inward celebration of a nation’s identity, ever closer union can rein in the urge nations have to compete with each other militarily.

British people have forgotten why the European union exists in the first place. I would argue that they never fully understood.

The EU isn’t just a common market of western capitalism. It is an idea. The idea is one of cultural, social, and economic integration to create a better, more prosperous Europe. The alternative is division, competition, and rivalry between former friends.

Since joining in 1973, Britain has enjoyed the benefits of membership while all the time pushing away. It is the sick man of Europe, pushing away the doctor who is trying to cure a worrying case of individualism.

Today, Britain is seeing the fruits of its exceptionalism. It has listened to opponents of the European Union for too long. Now it is time to grow up, move beyond imperialism, stop glorifying a period of massive death and destruction in Europe, and accept membership of a successful union. That union could be even more successful if Britain stopped distancing itself and accepted its place within it.

And, yes, if Britain votes to remain relevant, it should finally take the leap into the light and join the euro. Who knows – that may make it a stronger, more successful currency.


About Today's Contributor
Andrew Scott Crines, British Politics Lecturer, University of Liverpool

This article was originally published on The Conversation.