EU referendum: David Cameron’s reform proposals will deliver an EU worth staying in

Britain is stronger in Europe. This is not a blind defence of the status quo but a considered judgement that, as long as the benefits of our EU membership outweigh the costs and further reforms are achievable, it is in our national interest to remain a member of the world’s largest trading bloc.

 

If ever our membership threatened our sovereignty this would not be the case, but the Prime Minister’s reforms, detailed in a speech yesterday, prove that the economic gains which arise from unfettered access to Europe’s single market can be balanced by protection of our independence, and this should not be sacrificed for a leap into the dark.

 

The government’s plans to opt out of “ever closer union” and for Europe to officially self-identify as a “multi-currency union”, so the euro is no longer the EU’s official currency, are vital. This guarantees that we will retain opt-outs on the single currency, defence, foreign affairs, taxation, and crime and justice which ensure we have the best of both worlds: economic partnership but national control where it matters.

 

 

And while further political integration may be necessary for the Eurozone – and indeed in our interests given that we want to ensure the stability of such a prominent trading partner – decisions that affect us cannot be taken for us, so additional protections for non-Eurozone countries are essential.

 

Scare stories that the EU is on an inexorable path to a federal super state are works of Faragist fiction, but the Prime Minister’s reforms strike an important balance.

 

The same is true on migration. While always valuing the contribution of those who come to work and contribute, increased numbers of EU nationals in Britain mean it is right that we seek to limit their access to in-work benefits for reasons of both financial control and simple fairness. 

 

Those who claim they want to leave Europe to end free movement overlook that they would sacrifice access to the single market in exchange and that it would be harder to tackle illegal immigration from outside the EU.

 

 

The Prime Minister has therefore again struck the right balance: controlling immigration while preserving the economic benefits of single market access.

 

Another area ripe for reform is regulation. Smoothing regulatory divergence across 28 nations’ markets is of course why the majority of British businesses have for so long supported EU membership. But while innovation, competition and flexibility are watchwords for business, too rarely can the same be said for the European regulatory regime. Britain has already had some success in reforming this area, however, and we are right to push for more.

 

Equally, it is right that when legislation derives from EU directives our Parliament should have a greater role in its scrutiny.

 

The point that unites these reforms is that they can only be achieved if we are in the room arguing for them. If, like Norway or Switzerland, we were to have a trading relationship without full membership, we would have to accept the rules while having no influence over them. We would pay but have no say.

 

The leave campaigns have alighted on a perverse argument: the Prime Minister cannot achieve ambitious reforms from within and so Britain must leave to get a truly historic renegotiation. This is illogical: they claim that we will wield power on leaving that evades us as members.

 

Only the Prime Minister is now offering a concrete renegotiation package. The leave campaigns’ idea of a free trade agreement sounds nice, but I ask them to be as forthcoming in outlining how exactly it can be achieved, just as the government has now done with its plans. Unless they do so we will conclude that they cannot, which is why they are conducting juvenile stunts. 

 

Since when was Britain’s place in the world reduced to teenagers shouting at Britain’s captains of industry?

 

Are leave campaigners so unconvinced of their own arguments that they have to threaten a “nasty” campaign of intimidation?

 

A defence of Britain’s membership of the EU is an argument for a reformed Europe and a stronger Britain. We would survive outside – we would just be poorer and with less control over our own economic affairs.

 

Britain is a confident country with a bright future – leading in Europe just as we do in the UN, G20 or Nato. Our future is not narrow nationalism or parochial partisan self-interest, it is about making the world work for us – our values and our interests. The Prime Minister’s reforms will help us achieve this balance in Europe, which is why we should get behind them.