02/07/2013
Published yesterday by the House of Commons Library was a research paper on "leaving the EU". The online introduction is
here which offers a download facility for the entire 112-page document. For those who want to look at it without downloading, you can access it
here.
The paper is edited by Vaughne Miller and she tells us that the Treaty on European Union provides for a Member State to leave the EU, either on the basis of a negotiated withdrawal agreement or without one.
If the UK were to leave the EU following a referendum, Miller says, it is likely that the Government would negotiate an agreement with the EU, which would probably contain transitional arrangements as well as provide for the UKâs long-term future relations with the EU. There is no precedent for such an agreement, but it would in all likelihood come at the end of complex and lengthy negotiations.
The full impact of a UK withdrawal, she adds, is impossible to predict, but from an assessment of the current EU role in a range of policy areas, it is possible to identify issues and estimate some of the impacts of removing the EU role in these areas. The implications would be greater in areas such as agriculture, trade and employment than they would in, say, education or culture.
As to whether UK citizens would benefit from leaving the EU, Miller argues that this would depend on how the UK Government of the day filled the policy gaps left by withdrawal from the EU.
She argues that, in some areas, the environment, for example, where the UK is bound by other international agreements, much of the content of EU law would probably remain. In others, it might be expedient for the UK to retain the substance of EU law, or for the Government to remove EU obligations from UK statutes.
Much would depend, Miller concludes, on whether the UK sought to remain in the European Economic Area (EEA) and therefore continue to have access to the single market, or preferred to go it alone and negotiate bilateral agreements with the EU.
And such is the view of a senior researcher in the House of Commons Library. It is not the definitive word by any means, but it is a contribution to a complex subject, where much debate and clarification is needed. At least, it does explore the Article 50 issue, telling us that an EU-exit would not be straightforward and would involve complex and probably lengthy negotiations over the UK's future relations with the EU.
In so doing, several of the more egregious myths are debunked. For instance, the decision to leave, we are told, does not need the endorsement or formal agreement of the other Member States. Withdrawal can happen, whether or not there is a withdrawal agreement, two years after the leaving State notifies the European Council of its intention to withdraw.
Nevertheless, we learn, the terms of Article 50 TEU imply an orderly, negotiated withdrawal, and it is clearly indicated that transitional provisions would have to be agreed, allowing EU law and obligations to continue to apply until all loose ends had been tied up. It would not be possible to withdraw immediately from several policy areas without causing enormous disruption.
In my view, such are the complications that completion of negotiations within a two-year period is unlikely, and we could see the UK â as well as the member states â looking for an extension, before a withdrawal agreement could be finalised, with any side treaties that might be needed.
For all its utility, though, the paper has some huge gaps. There is, by way of one example, virtually no recognition of the effect of globalisation of trade, and the expanding role of international standards-setting bodies which, via WTO, are largely displacing the EU as originators of trade regulation.
In this context, a paper that talks of harmonised rules on type approval of road vehicles, that does not mention UNECE and the World Forum on the Harmonisation of Vehicle Regulations, must be considered severely lacking. There is much of the "little European" in the arguments adduced.
For the moment, though, the paper is probably ahead of the field, which means that many commentators will be struggling to catch up. It gets some attention from the advertising and merchandising conglomerate, the Telegraph Media Group Ltd, which offers
a thin report, homing in on narrow FUD issues. One suspects its author lacks the intellectual framework with which to assess the paper properly.
But then, media interests have shown little ability to deal with the detailed issues attendant on our leaving the EU â and many of the commenters even less so. The House of Commons researchers are better equipped, although one has to say, not that much better. But their contributions do make a start to what is going to be a long haul.
COMMENT THREAD
