Daniel Hannan provides the classic argument for an 'In-Out' choice in this article. Similarly, I attended a talk by Iain Martin of the Telegraph on the need for 're-negotiation in good faith' followed by a referendum if that failed. For people like Hannan and Martin, a referendum would lead to withdrawal due to the electorate's hatred of all things EU, and allow Britain to return to its rightful status as a trading nation able to pursue the emerging markets of the Commonwealth and the BRICS. Additionally, the UK would have access to the European market despite being outside the EU because 'they need us more than we need them' when it comes to trade with the Eurozone. A referendum and subsequent withdrawal is therefore a no-brainer.
Only these people advocating withdrawal are living in a world of fantasy, as Radek Sikorski argues. Firstly, there would be no chance of free-riding on the Single Market. Britain would be in the same camp as Norway, paying for access with no say in its running. The cost of access could even be raised as a result of Britain clearly turning its back on its neighbours, especially if we followed Mr Martin's approach of pissing everyone off before leaving (and no doubt an especially appealing option to France, with its traditional love of all things protectionist). Secondly, the arguments for emerging market access are based on a romantic view of Britain's imperial past. The fact is that the contemporary UK needs EU membership to have any say at all in global affairs, with some arguing that we can hope to influence no more than 10 countries even then. Thirdly, given that the previous two points would certainly take centre stage in an 'In-Out' referendum, there is a much diminished chance that the public would vote for withdrawal.
This would leave us with an 'In' vote and all that entails. Once a country has voted that it wants to be a full member of the EU, it has to be a proper member and accept collective decisions. The scope for British opt-outs would be drastically reduced, and the pressure to go along with the Franco-German position of the day overwhelming. "No more obstruction allowed, you've voted in favour of EU decision-making don't forget", etc.
So no matter which way Britain would vote, we would be in a worse situation strategically. Tory MPs
and media pundits who press for a referendum are not pragmatists but fantasists. The traditional British approach to Europe has been remarkably successful until now, with our ability to opt out of key policy areas while benefiting from the global economic and political clout that comes with EU membership. If the EU were to clearly jeopardise British interests, via financial regulation say, then of course we'll be out like a shot. But until such a clear cost-benefit analysis says leave, jockeying for a referendum on membership is pure stupidity.
