WE WILL be asked whether we wish to leave or remain in the EU sooner than we expected. David Cameron has announced that the referendum will be held this coming summer, considerably earlier than his self-imposed deadline of December 2017, and constitutional chaos is therefore an immediate danger.
Firstly, there is a problem regardless of when the EU referendum is held: nations of the UK being dragged out of the EU against the will of their people. The UK Government has steadfastly and stubbornly refused to commit to only withdrawing from the EU if all UK constituent nations vote to leave. It is democratically indefensible that Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland face the potential threat of being forced out of the EU exit door against the wishes of the people.
Another problem is time-sensitive. The early EU referendum will interfere with the devolved parliament elections throughout the UK. The UK Government has pressed ahead for an early referendum in the wake of the prime minister’s rushed renegotiations, doing so knowingly against the wishes of the devolved administrations of the UK. It is utterly disrespectful and represents the last nail in the coffin of David Cameron’s so-called “respect agenda”.
The date is now set and we will be asked whether we wish to leave or remain. Of course, the European Union is not perfect, but whilst people may be somewhat sceptical about it I hope they will exercise caution when considering the precarious case for “Brexit”.
The eurosceptic case to leave is many things to many people. Some say the UK would be the bastion of laissez-faire capitalism. Others believe it would be an isolationist state. The eurosceptic left believe Brexit could lead to a socialist utopia.
If we were to be generous to the “Out” campaign, a campaign that is clearly engulfed by inconsistency and ambiguity, we could say the argument underpinning their cause is that the UK will be “better off” leaving the EU. However, the little-known and seldom spoken-of Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty is the Achilles heel of the eurosceptic case – and people need to know about it before deciding.
This part of the treaty sets out the way in which member states can withdraw from the EU. It is a provision of the treaty completely untried and untested. However, what we do know is that once Clause 4 of Article 50 is triggered, the member state leaving is barred from discussions of the European Council where an exit deal will be hammered out. There is no opportunity for U-turns or back-pedalling – we’re heading for the exit door and we’ve got little or no say on the terms of that exit.
I fundamentally believe that it is in Scotland’s best interests to remain in the EU. The EU may not be perfect, but the benefits of remaining outweigh the unknown costs of leaving. For example, for every £1 the UK contributes to the EU, we get £10 back in trade, investment and jobs, and 46 per cent of Scottish exports are destined for the European single market of more than 500 million potential consumers. We are better off economically and socially for being part of the EU.
The truth is that we simply do not know what the ramifications of a vote to leave the EU would be, both constitutionally and economically. To say so is not political conjecture, but a warning of the reality that we face. However, this is a gamble we need not and should not take.
Boris becomes biggest name to back Brexit
Sturgeon reiterates warning of another indyref in wake of EU exit
The National View: Don’t be fooled ... Brexit Boris is deadly serious
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules here