We need to know the risks of Remaining
Three things probably matter the most to voters in the EU referendum: security, immigration and the economy. When discussing these subjects, the Remain campaign has constantly used the word “risk”, suggesting that it would be a leap in the dark to quit the EU. But now the Leave campaign has come forward with an important provocation. They ask: “What risks are involved in staying within the EU?”
Boris Johnson, Michael Gove and Gisela Stuart have written a letter to the Prime Minister in which they agree with David Cameron’s assertion that this national debate should be about facts. Who would not? But the Brexiteers ask two critical questions. Does the Prime Minister still agree with his pre-referendum assertion that the economic state of the EU is poor; and does he really think Britain is well placed to help fix it?
The facts they lay out are troubling. The eurozone endures low growth and high unemployment, hitting 50 per cent among the young on some parts of the Continent. A one-sizefits-all currency has sped the de-industrialisation of Italy and made it harder for Greece to export its way to recovery. There are signs of stagnation and crisis, such as France’s violent chaos over modest attempts at labour reform. Change is theoretically possible – but governments which favour liberalisation within the EU are outnumbered by socialists, populists or bureaucrats with fantasies of a unitary state. The direction of the EU is towards greater integration – and the Leavers boldly claim that Mr Cameron’s renegotiation actually weakened Britain’s ability to stop it.
In short, it is not enough to say that leaving is a risky venture. People want to know what staying means for them and their country. If Britain votes Remain and the European economy worsens, what does Mr Cameron predict will happen? Will it mean a dramatic upsurge in immigration, as people are drawn to Britain to escape recession? Will it mean that Britain has to shoulder higher costs to pay for the EU’s failures, as it has in the past? Will it mean that the UK is locked out of free trade agreements with the outside world, because the EU is unable to conclude them swiftly? And, finally, is there sufficient guarantee that this country won’t be sucked into further integration, regulation and taxes by a metastasizing bureaucracy?
Of course, it could be countered that the new relationship with the EU that Mr Cameron has negotiated does place legal blocks against the UK being integrated further, and that the EU’s economic decline will only be reversed if the UK remains and helps with the reconstruction. Indeed, many voters feel that it’s precisely because Europe is in so much trouble that Britain should reject Brexit. They sense that this is not the time to walk away from friends in need.
Wherever one stands on these issues, the ball is now in Mr Cameron’s court. He has called for a campaign based on data and evidence, and now Leave has challenged him to provide some. We have no doubt about his capacity to rise to the occasion: he is a brilliant political communicator who has courageously thrown himself into this contest. So let him answer the big question Remain has yet to address: what happens if the UK votes to stay in?