LOSING control of our money, borders, laws and trade

Brexit supporters are organised and disciplined in their constantly repeated sound-bites. Almost every day you can hear the mantra “Take back control of our money, borders, laws and trade”.

Constant repetition of this line is aimed at it becoming a commonplace, something that is accepted without discussion.

Yet the assertion is false.

1. Money

The money that the UK chose to spend through the EU amounts to a tiny sliver of overall public spending, as this chart shows:

And spending at European level can save money at national level, through sharing costs, avoiding duplication, or economies of scale (EU research programmes being a good example).

By contrast, leaving the EU will cost us far more money than we could possibly save from our membership dues. Just the need for up to 5,000 extra customs officials and trade lawyers alone will cost £300 million extra per year, according to the head of HMRC.

Above all, the expected reduction of economic growth would mean less tax revenue. The government’s own figures show that, over the next fifteen years, this would be a loss of between 2% (if the UK stayed in the single market) and 8% of GDP (with a no-deal Brexit) potentially costing millions of jobs and up to £80 billion.

2. Borders

We retained full border controls as an EU member — along with Ireland, we are outside the borderless Schengen area. No one can enter the UK-Ireland Common Travel Area without being checked.

Yes, we have agreed arrangements with many countries to allow visa free access to the UK and, for EU citizens, a reciprocal right of residence subject to conditions (that we rarely enforced). But the border is where we police entry, verify entitlement, and where appropriate, refuse admission. We are in fact better able to police our borders as a member of the EU, for three reasons.

  • We are part of the EU’s system of cooperation among police and intelligence forces. This means we get information on certain people when they arrive, from fingerprints to criminal records. It also means we’re in the coordinated fight against international gangs of people traffickers.
  • We can use the Dublin regulation — an EU agreement that asylum-seekers should be dealt with by the EU country in which they first arrive. You can waive that rule, if you want, as Germany did for the Syrian refugees. But Britain currently sends thousands of asylum-seekers back to the EU country they first arrived in.
  • We can maintain our border controls at Calais rather than Dover. This is an agreement with our EU neighbour, France, which means we can process arrivals before they reach the UK. If people arrived at Dover and then were found not eligible to come in, we would have the often difficult problem of deporting them — a problem which we avoid through our partnership with France. Already, even before we’ve left, France has sought changes to this agreement and insisted on an extra £45 million from the UK. Brexit makes it less secure than it was.

Don’t be fooled by soundbites. We control our borders better as an EU member.

3. Laws

Britain’s laws are enacted by its sovereign parliament. That same Parliament has decided that some laws – amounting to about 13 percent of them according to the House of Commons library – should be made jointly with our neighbours in the European Union. Such laws are mostly about common rules for our common market covering such matters as consumer protection, product standards, fair competition rules, and environmental standards where it is simpler and more effective to have a single set of rules rather than divergent ones.

Those laws are not enacted by the European Commission, as some claim.  The Commission only makes proposals. All Commission proposals are first sent to national parliaments, giving them the opportunity to mandate their ministers before they go to Brussels. The proposals only become law after they are debated, amended and passed (or rejected) by the ministers and also by directly-elected MEPs.

Outside the EU, even with a distant relationship to the single market, Britain will still be following many of  those rules. The EU often sets the standard for environmental and consumer protection rules, for competition policy and so on, frequently followed across the world. Even where we might choose to diverge in our national rules, our exporters (the EU is by far our main export market) will have to comply with them for their exports.

But, outside the EU, we will no longer have a say on the decisions that will affect us anyway. We will have become rule takers, not rule makers.

4. Trade

Leaving the customs union would harm our trade in two ways:

  1. For trade with the EU – our main export market – it would put up barriers. Even if the UK negotiates zero tariffs (which is by no means guaranteed), exporting into a customs union from outside entails checks and bureaucratic hurdles because of WTO rules of origin. This will add costs to businesses and disrupt time-sensitive cross-border supply chains.
  2. For trade with the rest of the world, it would mean falling out of or replacing all the trade deals made with countries across the planet by the EU. We would have to re-negotiate dozens of agreements, from scratch and in a hurry. And we would have to do this just as Britain, without the clout of the rest of Europe behind us.

Even with more time, it is unlikely that the shiny new trade deals promised by Liam Fox would come anywhere near replacing lost trade with our immediate neighbours. Countries across the world have made concessions to the EU in trade negotiations in order to gain access to the world’s largest market. They are unlikely to make commensurate concessions to Britain alone.

As a trading nation, and with trade vital to our economy and food supply, leaving the EU customs union is shooting ourselves in the foot.

We would lose control in negotiating with major trading partners like the US, who would likely refuse to do business with us unless we allowed products that are standard in the US, such as chlorinated chicken and hormone treated beef into our supermarkets. We could also lose control over our trade deals with third countries.

As my Labour colleague Jude Kirton-Darling MEP notes, the European Parliament currently provides democratic oversight for any trade deal carried out between the EU and another country. The government has offered no no assurance that it will allow the Commons to have any similar control mechanisms. Elected representatives will lose control.


As with many of the mantras of the Brexit ultras, their simplistic phrases belie the complicated truth. In international relations, contrary to their assertions, the UK cannot just make demands and expect the EU, or indeed the rest of the world, to give us exactly what we want. Any form of international agreement requires some nominal loss of sovereignty and compromise, but this is balanced with mutual benefits and agreed routes for appeal if either party breaks the rules.

To describe marriage as ‘losing control’ of your right to be single would be seen by most people to be silly. Agreeing a mortgage so that you can live in a home is not ‘losing control’ of your money. Respectfully taking off your shoes when visiting a friend’s house is not ‘losing control’ of your right to own footwear.

Framing cooperation as a loss of control is a populist rhetorical device that is starting to be exposed as such, as the government is finally having to face the hard reality of what Brexit really means – and how much we, as a country, actually stand to lose if we leave the EU.

Posted in:


  1. Richard – great article and very informative. Can you give me a reference for the pie chart you used at the beginning? I showed it to a friend and she wanted to know the source of that information. Assume it is public information but it would be good to have a reference. Thanks.

  2. Bravo! This is such a clear sighted view of the current benefits of being an EU member. It is a shame that this view was not widely discussed in the lead up to the EU referendum.

  3. Great clear article espousing the truth.

    Any chance of keeping the sad comedy routine of the ERG running by inviting a counter commentary from arch Brexit eerie and xenophobe JRM.

  4. Richard, thank you for taking the time to write this excellent analysis. Sadly the history of the last few years is that facts are complicated to explain and are trumped by pithy slogans trump from the extremists. But I am sure the work you are doing is starting to change that.

  5. I’ve only just got round to reading this – Richard has made the clearest and most concise case for EU membership.

    Let’s keep trying to avert the disaster of Brexit.

  6. Thank you for this. It makes a refreshing change to see the benefits of being E.U. members spelled out. Far too much of the pro-Europe debate, both before and since the referendum, has focused on the disbenefits of leaving, allowing the Brexit lobby to cry “scaremongering” at every turn. This is still happening, even with the People’s Vote campaigners, and I think it’s one reason there’s still a large number of people convinced leaving will do us good. If Pro-EU politicians spent more time and energy identifying and talking about all these positive benefits for ordinary people, even down to the level of small communities and indivduals, things might look different now. I wish I could believe it was not too late to change this now, but I fear the global right have clubbed together to win this battle and democracy is lost because we have stood by and let it happen.

  7. Superb article, thank you. I look forward to you being invited onto the Today Programme, Andrew Marr Show etc, to bring your insights to the attention of the general public, or is that rather over-optimistic of me?

  8. Great article and very well explained in every sense. Thank you. I am incredulous that now EU countries are starting to speak out abt what they want in a future negotiatiated settlement, Brexiteers appear to be having a nervous breakdown. What on earth did they expect? Crossing everything that Parliament will stop.Brexit before it breaks the UK.

    • Hope, too, that the U.K. Parliament across the board starts acting responsibly in the national interest. Just saw the film The Favourite this morning – the opposing parties in Parliament mirrors the brexit situation. Queen Anne rules, albeit with some outside female manipulation. Pity our Queen Elizabeth II does not have the power to knock the heads of our elected representatives together so that they begin to act in the best interests of the country and its people!

  9. What a well written, clear and concise piece about why our EU membership is so beneficial. I just wish we had more MEPs like you. I hope you don’t mind me sharing this.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.