Look at the facts about democracy, economics, immigration, security and sovereignty – even if you have made up your mind

Britain’s EU referendum next Thursday is a momentous decision that could have huge implications for the country – and the continent – for years to come.

The choice we must make looks simple enough, but it masks a difficult and complex decision that entails weighing an imperfect status quo against an unknowable alternative future.

Obviously the wilful half-truths, wild extrapolations and baseless assurances both sides have been peddling have not helped. Here are five key questions, on five fundamental issues, worth considering before polling day.

1) Bureaucracy and democracy:

Claim:The European Union is bureaucratic, unaccountable and undemocratic.

But: “Democratic” can be defined in different ways. The EU looks less democratic than most countries, for example. But some might also say a country with a hereditary monarchy, an unelected upper house and a parliamentary majority based on 35% of the popular vote is not very democratic either.

(“Bureaucratic” is also a relative term: the EU has 55,000 civil servants; the UK 440,000.)

But in any case the EU is not a country, so it may not be fair to compare it to one. At the same time, however, it is a lot more than just another international organisation, and is hard to compare to other administrations or bodies – including Whitehall or Westminster.

Brussels works like this: the (unelected) commission, headed by 28 commissioners appointed by the member states, proposes laws, in areas where national governments allow them to. To come into force, these must then be approved by majorities in both the council of ministers, made up of (mostly elected) EU ministers, and parliament (elected).

This certainly constitutes some measure of democratic oversight, although there are legitimate questions about whether it is enough. The accountability of the commission is clearly also a concern.

Many member states have recognised the problem, though, and want change, so this might improve.

Question for voters: The EU is different, and differently democratic. Does this make it undemocratic and unaccountable beyond reform – and if so, would that justify leaving?



2) The economic cost of membership – and of leaving:

Claim: The costs of membership are too high, Britain does not get enough in return, and we can negotiate new trade deals and prosper if we leave.

But: First, the UK does not send £350m a week to Brussels, as claimed by the leave campaign. The actual net cost, taking into account the UK’s rebate (which cannot be changed without the UK’s agreement) and the EU money that is spent here (on farmers, poorer regions and research), is more like £140m a week.



That’s still a lot of money. But in exchange, we are part of the single market, which greatly facilitates Britain’s trade with the rest of Europe: getting on for half its total trade. Almost all economists think membership of the single market has been, and remains, a very good thing for Britain.

Since the UK joined the EU in 1973, its GDP per head has more than doubled. That may not all be due to EU membership, of course, but it would be hard to argue that EU membership has hindered the British economy.

There is nearly unanimous agreement among expert national and international bodies including the International Monetary Fund, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), Bank of England, Treasury, Confederation of British Industry, Institute of Fiscal Studies, London School of Economics, plus most economists, that leaving the EU and its single market would result in short-term economic losses and a probable longer-term slowdown.

How big those losses and that slowdown would be is, of course, unknowable – but the consensus that they would happen is striking.

Facebook Twitter Pinterest The National Football Museum in Manchester is one of the British projects to have received EU funding. Photograph: Christopher Thomond/The Guardian

Once out, negotiating a privileged trade deal with the EU could prove hard, particularly since it now seems likely that a vote to leave the EU would also be a vote to leave the single market.

The talks would be tough. Britain would be negotiating from a weak position both economically and politically: we need their trade more than they need ours, and the UK could expect few favours from an EU intent, among other things, on dissuading other members from leaving.

Negotiating national deals with the rest of the world would also take time, because the global trend is demonstrably towards bigger, over-arching, bloc-to-bloc trade agreements rather than individual treaties.

Question: We do, indeed, pay a lot of money into the EU coffers. In economic terms, is it worth it – and if, as nearly all experts predict, leaving will come at a price, is that price worth paying?



3) Immigration

Claim: Britain cannot control immigration while it remains in the EU, public services are under strain, and high immigration has driven down wages for British workers.

But: Under EU free movement laws, Britain has limited control over immigration from other EU countries (just as other EU countries have only limited control over immigration from Britain).

There are about 3 million EU citizens living in Britain, and more than a million British citizens living in the rest of the EU. Net migration of EU citizens into the UK last year was 184,000; non-EU net migration was 188,000.

Most economists say the overall impact of EU immigration into Britain is positive, as it has been with successive waves of immigrants since the 17th century. The OECD says immigration has accounted for half of UK GDP growth since 2005.

Facebook Twitter Pinterest Immigration enforcement vans. Photograph: Alamy

The best evidence available shows that current immigrants contribute more in taxes than they cost in welfare or public services. Solid evidence also suggests EU immigration has not depressed UK wages or cost British workers’ jobs.

Britain has the fourth lowest unemployment rate in the EU, and never in history have more British people been in work (albeit many in jobs less secure than they would like). And while it plainly increases demand on public services such as schools, housing and healthcare, EU immigration also boosts the amount of money available to pay for them.

This is not, of course, to deny the real issues many people in Britain have with large-scale EU immigration in certain hotspots. But the effects of globalisation, along with underinvestment and poor management of immigration, are arguably more at fault than immigration itself.

Moreover, leaving the EU may not reduce EU immigration. If Britain remains part of the single market, it will have to accept some freedom of movement. And even if it doesn’t, the problems governments have reducing non-EU immigration strongly suggest EU immigration will not disappear.

Question: Britain has both a high level of immigration and a thriving economy. Assuming that leaving the EU would allow it to significantly reduce EU immigration, which is by no means certain, is a Brexit the right answer to real, but mainly local, problems?

4) Security and defence

Claim: Being part of the EU exposes Britain to greater danger from terrorists and foreign criminals, 75 million Turks are coming, and Europe is planning a European army.

But: Britain is not a part of the Schengen passport-free area, so it has retained its own border controls. People with EU passports or national ID cards need to show them at UK border control to enter the country.

Britain is, though, a member of the Schengen Information System, meaning it exchanges information with countries that are part of Schengen. It has also opted in to other European collective security arrangements such as the European arrest warrant, European criminal records system and Europol.

It is hard to see how leaving the EU would reduce the threat: the UK Border Agency has every right to refuse entry to convicted EU criminals if it deems them a serious risk, and has turned away 6,000 EU nationals since 2010. Responsibility for Britain’s borders lies with the UK Border Agency, not with freedom of movement rules.

(Turkey, which has featured heavily in the security debate, will not be a member of the EU soon: it has been “joining” since 1987, and has completed only one of the 35 tests it needs to pass in order to show it is fit to do so. And when the time comes, existing members states – including the UK, if it still is one – have a veto.)

As for the European army, it is true that Europe has a common defence policy, but it remains firmly in the hands of European governments, not the EU executive. One or two federalists may dream of a European army, but they have no backing among member states and there are no plans to create one.

Question: Would leaving the EU really help Britain maintain domestic security, and what evidence is there that an EU army is on the way?

5) Regulations, laws – and sovereignty

Claim: EU membership subjects Britain to a huge amount of costly and unnecessary regulation, too many British laws are made in Brussels, and by “taking back control” on leaving the EU, Britain would regain sovereignty.

But: For all Britain’s complaints of over-regulation, the OECD says the UK has the least regulated labour market and second least regulated product market in Europe. That suggests that many EU regulations would need to be replaced by UK regulations – because they are necessary.

Calculating the percentage of British laws “made in Brussels” is complicated. Over the past decade or so, only about 13% of UK acts of parliament and statutory instruments implemented EU laws. Include EU regulations – which become law automatically – and the proportion jumps to more than 50%.

It is fair, though, to say that a great many EU regulations do not affect the UK despite theoretically being law here and that in many important areas, of social policy in particular – including social security, healthcare, education and criminal law – the EU has little or no direct say.

Furthermore, EU voting records show that since 1999, the British government has voted no to proposed legislation 57 times, abstained 70 times, and voted yes 2,474 times.

Facebook Twitter Pinterest Members of the European parliament take part in a voting session. Photograph: Frederick Florin/AFP/Getty Images

That means the UK has been on “the losing side” in Brussels on just 2% of occasions in 17 years. It is hard to escape the conclusion that almost always, Britain agrees with legislation Brussels proposes.

And yet. For many of those who want to leave the EU, the only real issue – the one for which they would be prepared to pay a high economic price – is sovereignty. The UK, they say, must take back control.

But it is unclear what this would actually mean. At a global level, sovereignty today means less than it once did: globalisation, the mobility of international capital, the power of multinationals, means that economically and fiscally, it is hard for countries to do much radically different.

Britain’s sovereignty is already pooled, in many areas, in the form of 14,000 treaties signed with international organisations including the United Nations, Nato and the World Trade Organisation. In the face of global problems – south-north migration, climate change, Islamist terror – that is no bad thing.

Paradoxically, within the EU Britain has retained significant aspects of sovereignty: it controls tax and spending, because it is not part of the eurozone; it maintains border controls because it is not part of Schengen. And it will not have to surrender any more power because it is excluded from ever closer union.

Rather than an abdication of power, therefore, it could reasonably be argued that EU membership, for Britain, is actually a pretty effective exercise of power. The notion that in a globalised world, Britain could somehow enhance its standing on the world stage by standing alone seems fanciful.

Question: The evidence suggests Britain is not excessively regulated or dictated to by Brussels: mostly, it gets what it wants. Since power in the modern world is relative and often shared, how much real extra sovereignty would it gain from leaving the EU?