PRESS RELEASE
A document released by Vote Leave with their suggestions for “establishing a new UK-EU deal after 23 June” has been dubbed ‘a recipe for chaos’ by researchers at the Centre for European Reform.
- Vote Leave argue that “extensive preliminary discussion both in Britain and with European partners should take place before Britain formally initiated the withdrawal process”. But EU member states are unlikely to negotiate any details before the formal Article 50 process, giving Britain two years for its divorce with the EU, is triggered. And the longer Britain postpones formal negotiations, the greater the economic and legal uncertainty for both British and European citizens and businesses.
- Vote Leave claim that they will effectively end the ECJ’s supremacy and repatriate part of the EU budget immediately – i.e. when the UK would still be an EU member. They also say that, before Britain had formally left the EU, the UK should unilaterally repatriate external trade policy, and become an independent member of the World Trade Organisation (WTO). But the UK cannot be a member of the EU’s customs union and be an independent WTO member at the same time.
- Vote Leave claim “it is also in all countries’ economic and political interests for there to be a friendly deal that will increase and improve international cooperation.” But the measures suggested would violate the EU’s treaties, inviting retaliation from the EU and making negotiations over access to the single market difficult.
- Vote Leave claim that “three years and ten months is ample time to negotiate” a new trade deal with the EU, pointing to examples of swift trade agreements between other countries. But in trade talks, size matters. And the UK would be a junior partner in the negotiations with the EU-27. Certainly, the UK has a trade deficit with the EU and so the EU would be interested in striking a deal. But that is not a guarantee that Britain will get its way in the negotiations.
Agata Gostyńska-Jakubowska, a research fellow at the CER said: “The priority for the EU will be to start negotiations quickly and reduce uncertainty. And if Britain refused to accept that, it would further antagonise the EU, with whom it must strike a comprehensive agreement to minimise the economic fallout.”
John Springford, a senior research fellow at the CER said: “If the UK unilaterally withdrew from the EU’s external trade policy it would have to negotiate a new tariff regime with the WTO. That would mean leaving the EU’s customs union, subjecting UK exporters to EU tariffs. And Britain would no longer be party to the EU’s trade agreements. It’s a recipe for chaos.”
Ian Bond, director of foreign policy at the CER said: “The assumption throughout this document is that the rest of the EU will just do it our way if we vote to leave. There seems to be no realisation that until our withdrawal agreement enters into force the Treaties still apply to us, and the Commission can still take us to the European Court of Justice. It is rather delusional.”
CER researchers are available for comment to the media via our press office, on: 020 233 1199 or pressoffice@cer.org.uk.
