Civitas
+44 (0)20 7799 6677

Eurosceptic report finds no benefit to UK from EU representation at international organisations

Justin Protts, 28 January 2016

In a Better Off Out report this week, Lee Rotherham explains how, in a world of increasingly globalised markets, the source of much of our legislation is no longer national governments or the EU. It is international organisations that bring together officials and representatives from around the world to suggest improvements and design regulations, standards and laws. These are then often adopted by countries signed up to the organisations and become law. The EU often adopts international standards this way.

Today, the European Commission has published a proposal designed to help tackle tax avoidance and aggressive tax planning by multinational companies that use complex structures to reduce their payments. But this future legislation did not originate from the European Union. It follows proposals put forward last year by the Organisation of Economic Cooperation and Development, illustrating Rotherham’s point.

Those campaigning to stay in Europe have argued that leaving the EU would damage our trade with our European partners, that being signed up to EU regulations is necessary for us export to the EU and that membership gives us more of a say in international negotiations.

In response, Rotherham explores how EU regulations are made, and highlights how decisions on standards and regulation are now set internationally by bodies like the International Standards Organisation, the International Electrotechnical Commission, and UN organisations. He also highlights that, since the Lisbon Treaty, the EU operates as a member of international organisations in its own right; it is able to present a common EU position in negotiations and present proposals to organisations including the UN.

This means that, with a Qualified Majority, the EU can represent views on behalf of nation states that may not reflect the views of all national governments. Decisions are being made where the UK is being represented by EU officials who do not necessarily share the views of the UK government.

Rotherham concludes that, if decisions are being negotiated at a global level, the EU is only serving to add red tape and bureaucracy to a process that would see us accept the same outcomes as countries outside the EU. More than that, outside of the EU, the UK could have its own representatives at the negotiations, and the government would be able to adopt outcomes that it had directly agreed to, rather than having to implement rules passed down from EU institutions.

In the report, John Redwood MP argues that in such a global context the UK, outside of the EU, would find itself signed up to regulations that would allow continued trade with the EU. Britain would remain free to represent itself at international organisations and able to influence global negotiations.

Rotherham’s paper, The Life of Laws, is an important contribution to the EU debate and indicates that the case to remain is limited by a superficial understanding of trade and influence. It provides support for the view that Britain could have a bigger voice in the terms of trade following a Brexit.

Newsletter

Keep up-to-date with all of our latest publications

Sign Up Here