William Hague

EU vote: both sides must live with the result

Almost every day at the moment, people from other countries ask me if there will be another referendum on the EU after this one. “No”, I tell them, “whatever the result, that’s it. Even if it’s 51-49 to leave, we’re leaving. And if it’s 51-49 the other way, we’re staying indefinitely.”

I go on to explain that British voters do not take kindly to being asked the same question twice. As for the Conservative Party, while it is true that some people would find it difficult to accept the result either way, the vast majority would have no appetite for going through this experience again once the electorate have spoken.

If I’m right, 25 days from now a lot of people are going to have a lot of accepting to do. Either all the Ukip activists and the many pro-Leave Tories who have campaigned for years as the voice of the people will have to accept that they’re not; or vast numbers of business leaders, economists, security experts and others will have to swallow the fact that voters are happy to ignore their advice.

It’s going to be a humbling moment. And once a few hours of cheers, tears and shock have elapsed, there will suddenly be a task of immense importance facing everyone who cares about this country – which is how to make the best of the result, whether or not we agreed with it.

This will be a different situation from the day after a general election, when the defeated go off to wander the wilderness for a few years. On June 24 there will be defeated members of a serving government who must immediately focus on implementing the opposite of what they wanted.

In the event of a Remain victory, this should involve a swift reshuffle of ministers, with rewards and demotions on both sides, and a clear understanding that serving in Her Majesty’s Government requires an acceptance of the verdict of the country. To mount any kind of challenge to a prime minister who had just won both a general election and a referendum would be the most antidemocratic idea I have ever heard of.

If Leave were to prevail, there would be a corresponding responsibility on all ministers to implement the result, which is why David Cameron has already correctly said he would serve notice under Article 50 of the EU treaties that the UK is leaving. There could be no cabal within the government quietly working to stay in the EU after all.

So what should be the strategy that might work for Britain under each result, and that the losers as well as the winners should and could support? It’s worth thinking about that now, since in less than a month one such strategy will need to be put into action.

If we’re staying in Europe, the next 18 months will be the best chance we ever have to push it in the right direction, culminating in the UK presidency of the EU in the second half of next year. From our referendum to the Austrian presidential election, to the latest Greek bailout and the ongoing migration crisis, the evidence is abundant that changes are needed fast.

Those changes should be built on an explicitly two-tier EU, using as a starting point the agreement by European leaders in February that Britain is not committed to “evercloser union” and that the rights of non-euro countries are protected. The Eurozone should be allowed, even encouraged, to integrate more tightly so that it can survive – although it might need to lose a couple of members to be sure of that.

In return, that inner core of the EU should relax about Britain, the Nordic countries and any others being happier in an outer tier: in Europe, but not part of its more centralising ideas. There should also be a huge drive for more free trade with the rest of the world, a single market in products sold digitally, and a true single market in energy to keep prices down and avoid dependence on Russia.

Defeated Leave campaigners, accepting the wisdom of the voters, should be able to get behind these ideas. But what if the result is the other way?

One of several reasons why a longstanding Eurosceptic like me is going to vote Remain is that those who wish to leave do not really know, or at least agree among themselves, what Britain should try to do if we actually left. It would take the Government and parliament some months to settle on what the objective of the withdrawal negotiations would be – to join the European Economic Area with Norway, have a free trade agreement with the EU or just go entirely – and years to finalise it. All the while, businesses would be holding back on investing and hiring. In the meantime, the Scots, as Alex Salmond has just confirmed, would be talking about leaving the UK.

So there would be a pressing need for a clear and certain British strategy, which could give business some certainty and could be pursued even in the terrible scenario of Scotland severing ties with the rest of us.

The best option would be to try to counteract the economic shocks of withdrawal by cutting as much tax and regulation as possible: reduce corporation tax to 10 per cent; abolish the European Working Time Directive; adopt the financial regulations of the US instead of the EU; declare unilateral free trade with much of the globe and accept skilled immigrants from all over the world to fuel economic growth. With this approach Britain, or what was left of it, would at least have a distinctive pro-business appeal. Without it we would have the worst of all worlds – out of the single market but in limbo with nothing special to offer. To those of us with liberal economic instincts it is the approach that makes the most sense if we found ourselves outside the EU.

Some in the Leave campaign would love the chance to pursue this strategy, but they cannot put it forward because it would divide them, would frighten as many voters as it would inspire, and there is no guarantee that any parliament would vote for such an agenda. If this wouldn’t be our policy, though, what exactly would it be?

On both sides, as the rallies and interviews reach their climax, there needs to be clear thinking about how to live with the result – whatever that might be.