The EU referendum in the UK (3) : The democratic “deficit”

Against EU : The EU is undemocratic in that the people of the UK do not want Brussels to control numerous policy areas and don’t understand how this happens;  also the European Commission and European Court of Justice are not appointed, yet have huge power to initiate and drive through new law and policy in ways which we cannot predict or challenge effectively.  As a result, the UK government is gradually becoming a body which only implements laws made in Brussels, and ordinary people are becoming more alienated from politics.

For EU : The EU is democratic in that its powers come from treaties which have been signed by the governments of all member states, and most important decisions continue to be made unanimously by all heads of state, including the UK Prime Minister.  Decision making power is shared by the European Parliament, whose MEPs are directly elected, and by the European Commission which can be sacked by the European Parliament.

There are never-ending, passionate debates about whether the EU acts in the interests of the voters, the weaker nations, the bigger nations, the Eurozone nations, lobby groups, big business, and even just the politicians themselves.  One thing agreed is that the democratic organisation of a group of 28 nations which differ widely in terms of culture, language political traditions, size, history, and levels of wealth was never going to be easy.

The EU is a membership organisation of 28 countries which is partly an intergovernmental organisation giving effect to the (mostly) unanimous decisions of heads of states, and partly a supranational body, with sovereign powers over subordinate member states in its areas of competence.  

The legal framework of the EU consists of: 

a) treaties signed by all national governments, 

b) regulations and directives (which implement the treaties) issued by the European Commission (like the civil service) and enacted with the input of directly-elected MEPs in the European Parliament, and 

c) binding decisions of the Court of Justice of the European Union.

Simplifying the issues massively, the EU is responsible mainly for : 

a) the running of the EU-wide single market in goods and services, 

b) setting interest rates and controlling the money supply in the 19 countries which use the euro, 

c) the common travel and asylum policy (covering the so-called “Schengen zone” which excludes the UK), 

d) environmental and consumer standards, common fisheries and agricultural policies including subsidies, and 

e) the allocation of development funds to poorer regions.

The EU treaties are widely drawn for the overall achievement of general purposes rather than tightly-drawn strictly interpreted powers, which is the norm in UK statutes. To a greater or lesser extent, the EU is also involved at the strategic and executive levels in a whole host of other policy areas, and is developing its role in defence and international relations.  

Given that the EU implements its policies and decisions through national governments across a vast array of policy areas and across 28 nations, it is genuinely hard for the average person to understand the processes of the EU, or to feel that they are engaged in them.  This sense of democratic alienation from Brussels is often intensified by a similar sense in respect of national democracies, and there is a widely-accepted mood of cynicism and “anti-politics” sweeping the “first” world.  Look no further than controversial or populist movements like Podemos (Spain), 5 Star (Italy), Law and Justice Party (Poland), UKIP, and radical figures like Donald Trump, Nigel Farage, Viktor Orban (hardline Hungarian PM), and on the left, Jeremy Corbyn and Bernie Sanders. There has been a steady rise in anti-EU sentiment in recent years, in large part related to migration.

The most frequent criticism of EU democracy from “Brexiteers” is that the European Commission, despite being unelected, has and exercises huge power to initiate legislation, which has the effect of needlessly harmonising existing legislation across EU states, thereby overriding national democratic processes.  I have seen estimates that between 15% and 60% of British laws emanate from Brussels.  Michael Gove, the Justice Secretary, who has declared for Brexit, argues that he sometimes cannot deliver manifesto commitments because his civil servants tell him that EU law won’t permit it. 

It is certainly true that the manifesto system in Westminster of spelling out specific commitments before elections, and implementing them through a clear parliamentary majority is much clearer and easier than the complexities of the EU system whose “manifesto” is effectively the widely-drawn aims of the treaties, aimed at the steady political and economic integration of all countries in Europe. 

Even though the big, strategic decisions in the EU are taken by prime ministers collectively, it’s still not surprising then that there is a collision between the ideas of many British politicians who have inherited the traditions of the absolute sovereignty of Westminster, and the radical vision of European integration, which the bulk of the political and intellectual establishments across Europe have signed up to wholeheartedly.  Something has to give and ultimately, we are faced between a choice of sharing / surrendering sovereignty for the sake of the whole of Europe, on a give-and-take basis, or going it alone. 

After 40 years of breakneck political integration and the rapid expansion of the EU in size and policy scope, the decision to leave the EU is now as radical as that of staying. Those who would like a middle way of friendly intergovernmental co-operation, mostly in the area of free trade, will find that this option has never existed. The EU’s radical integrating nature, and its enduring support among the European political establishment (including the UK’s) means that staying and leaving are both radical decisions which will shape our national destiny massively.  

There is however a third way which is to sign up to the EU on paper yet always aim to get “the best deal” for the UK from the EU through opt-outs from specific policy areas which ruling Conservative governments object to; this is seen elsewhere in the EU as the UK’s persistent and selfish obstruction of the aims of political and economic integration, and I will come on to this in more detail when discussing David Cameron’s deal in the last article of this series.  I’ll leave you to chew on the consequences of this possible approach till then!

Verdict

There is universal agreement that the democratic structures of the EU need reform, which in the case of EU-philes means “more EU”, and in the case of Brexiteers, means “less EU”.  Ultimately, the democratic issue is about the big picture vision – what kind of nation and continent do we want? Do we want to muck in and put our efforts into the EU project – which is the only serious European cooperation project in town – and try to make it work for the whole continent? Are we willing to accept that, for this to happen, the UK may eventually become a region, albeit a powerful one, of a United States of Europe?  Or is this too hard to stomach, we should leave the EU to its fate now, and recover our national sovereignty on 23 June before it’s too late? 

The choice is yours but I do recommend a close inspection of the politicians who will lead us down either path at this fork in our national history. And on 24 June 2016, once we know which path we have chosen to follow, we shouldn’t look back.

Week 4: The EU budget

For the EU: the UK’s contribution to the EU budget represents fantastic value for money given that it “buys” access to the biggest single market in the world; money spent on developing the infrastructure of poorer EU regions and nations shows our solidarity and long-term interest in maintaining the political and economic security of the EU.

Against the EU: for every £2 we pay the EU, we receive £1 back. Much of the EU budget is spent on food production subsidies which unfairly penalise British farmers, fishermen and consumers. Structural development funds are spent on projects in countries which we have no natural affinity with, fraud is a significant.

EU Referendum in the UK : (2) Free trade and economic benefits

For EU : The EU facilitates free trade and free movement of money, goods and services across Europe.  The UK would have a much worse deal on these issues post-Brexit and suffer huge damage to its economy.

Against EU : Because of the huge volume of exports to the UK from many EU countries, there is every reason to believe that the UK would continue to have free trade and movement of money, goods and services across Europe post-Brexit, just like Norway, Switzerland and Iceland do.  The UK’s economy would continue to thrive, perhaps even more so.

As a result of EU policy, there is a single market across all EU countries with no tariffs on imports or exports and so there is no doubt that trading barriers have come down hugely as a result of the work of the EU.  This enables European access to UK manufacturers in particular, though access to services is not as free because of long-standing traditions of professional regulation on a national level, e.g. of the legal and accountancy professions.

The UK runs a huge trade deficit (we import much more than we export) with EU countries, especially France, Spain, Italy and Germany, mainly because our economy relies much more heavily on services than theirs.  Conversely, we run a healthy trade surplus with the rest of the world, particularly, US, Can. Aus. and NZ though there is no reason to suggest that this surplus will grow purely by leaving the EU.  Brexit supporters emphasise the fact that the UK’s overall trade with the EU is declining year-on-year (currently around 40% of all exports).

However, the UK probably does gain in some respects from the open EU market as our status as an English-speaking country with global connections, good access to finance, and a stable legal and administrative system means that the UK is an attractive place for multinationals to locate their European operations.  Major political change is always a headache for business, and big business in the UK is mostly in favour of EU membership; this should worry us as they have the resources to relocate. 

On the other hand, many smaller manufacturers complain that the EU generates a huge amount of red tape, which is even more unnecessary if you consider that most small businesses in the UK have mostly UK customers.  They also say that the practical reality is that British companies don’t stand a chance of winning big contracts in other EU countries and beating off local rivals, whereas the reverse is much more likely.  Support for Brexit in the business world mostly comes from smaller businesses, with some big-name exceptions like James Dyson (vacuum cleaners) who started small.

Outside the EU, we would want a free trade deal with the EU.  Interestingly, Switzerland, Norway and Iceland have free trade by virtue of their membership of EFTA.  EFTA and the EU make up the European Economic Area, which the EU runs.   EFTA members contribute to the EU’s costs of running the EEA and EU supporters say that we would therefore not save much of our current contribution if we left, and also lose any influence over the making of the rules of the EEA.  EU supporters also say that it is hard to imagine that, after Brexit, we would get as favourable a deal as we do now, and that other EU countries would probably seek to punish us for abandoning them. 

On the other hand, Brexit supporters say that it is hard to imagine that the UK would negotiate a worse deal with the EU than the small EFTA countries, given our huge amount of imports from the big EU countries. They also say that our influence over EU trade policy is limited in practice because we often take a different view from other nations because of our different economic and political objectives, but are usually overruled.  They say that leaving the EU will mean that we regain our place at the World Trade Organisation where most international trading rules are negotiated, and are in fact later implemented via the EU. The EU currently acts for all EU nations at the WTO.

Without the benefit of a crystal ball, it’s very hard to say what the overall effect on trade will be of leaving the EU.  Estimates from the respected reformist UK-based EU think-tank “Open Europe” are that our economy will shrink or grow by up to 2% either way – stay or leave - and probably by no more than 1%. 

Verdict

I prefer to concentrate on the more neutral figures from Open Europe than the more exaggerated claims of growth and savings touted by the current political campaigns, which are impossible to make sense of. If the Open Europe figures are right, then it gives us a greater ability to base our vote on longer-term political issues.

The pound has lost about 10% of its value against the dollar in recent weeks and we can expect a barrage of claims in this campaign that leaving will cause us economic disaster. I think the reality is that market traders will exploit the political uncertainty in the short-term but that in the long-term, deals will be done to ensure that the current free trade continues, at least to significant extent, for mutual benefit. 

In practice, Europe will still be a very important place to do business after Brexit but will also be a less favourable place because of a loss in goodwill. If we do leave the EU, we need to expect that other EU nations will do us no favours, and be ready to accept some short-term economic pain in the form of more expensive imports and some reduction in exports to the EU; we would also need to be serious about developing our economy in the direction of the rest of the world.  This would be a huge political task requiring great vision, competence and persistence on the part of our politicians.

Next week: The democratic “deficit”

Against EU : The EU is undemocratic in that the people of the UK do not want Brussels to control numerous policy areas and don’t understand how this happens;  also the European Commission and European Court of Justice are not appointed, yet have huge power to initiate and drive through new law and policy in ways which we cannot predict or challenge effectively.  As a result, the UK government is gradually becoming a body which only implements laws made in Brussels, and we are becoming more alienated from politics.

For EU : The EU is democratic in that its powers come from treaties which have been signed by the governments of all member states, and most important decisions continue to be made unanimously by all heads of state, including the UK Prime Minister.  Decision making power is shared by the European Parliament, whose MEPs are directly elected, and by the European Commission which can be sacked by the European Parliament.

My personal guide to the EU issues that voters should know about : Part 1 Peace and Security

Political issues related to the EU are complex because we are talking about political structures which have a significant influence on the lives of more than 300 million people across 28 European countries.  I have identified 6 key issues in the form of “for-and-against” statements which I will then discuss and give my personal verdict on (!). 

These issues are: peace and security in Europe, free trade and economic benefits, the cost of membership, the democratic “deficit”, immigration and the terrorist threat, and David Cameron’s deal.

By the end of the series, I hope you will have a better idea of the issues. The first one is peace and security, and I have also included at the end my “for-and-against” statements for the second issue, which is free trade.

Week 1 : Peace and Security
For EU : The EU has brought European nations together for the last 60 years and so kept the peace in Europe.  Leaving the EU reduces our level of cooperation and so will increase the risk of war.

Against EU : The fact of peace in Europe since WW2 has more to do with globalisation and other organisations like NATO than the EU. Leaving the EU would make no difference.

It is true that there has never been a war between EU member states, and that EU states cooperate with each other more than ever before in issues of trade and competition, foreign policy, environmental standards, free movement of people, etc.  Cooperation between Eurozone countries is even greater because of a shared currency.  It does seem like a war between EU member states is very unlikely, and that the growth in cooperation in numerous policy areas over the lifetime of the EU – the last 50 to 60 years - has to be acknowledged as an important factor.

On the other hand, European nations have long cooperated in numerous other forums such as NATO and the UN, which could also claim to have contributed to peace in Europe since WW2.   The chance of a war between two EU member states is no different to the chance of a war between any EU member state and Norway, Switzerland and Iceland, for example, which are European countries outside the EU. Globalisation and rising living standards have very probably decreased the likelihood of war between first world countries worldwide, regardless of political structures. 

Outside the EU, I believe that the UK would continue to cooperate closely with EU member states on defence and foreign policy through NATO, UN and ad hoc bilateral meetings with the EU and its members.  If anything, the EU’s charge towards political integration is inflaming tensions between some EU member states who want to retain more of their independence than the EU will allow, although we cannot say that a war is likely because of this.

The issue of keeping the peace is important to understand because it reveals the power of the EU’s founding ideology.  The EU was founded mainly in response to the loss of life and destruction caused by two world wars and an understandable desire to permanently prevent another war in Europe.  European political and economic integration is seen as the locking mechanism for further wars to be avoided.  EU leaders really believe in this idea, though you won’t hear this emphasised so much in the UK. 

There has been a relentless increase in the level of political cooperation by EU countries through the institutions of the EU, and this has been driven at least in part by the EU’s founding ideology.  However, in my opinion, EU leaders are apt to overstate the EU’s own contribution to peace in Europe in order to justify its existence and scare people about the prospect of a slide towards war if the EU were to fail. 

My verdict

Overall, the EU has made a contribution to European and world peace however, this should also be credited to the individual countries of the EU, to NATO and the UN.  Numerous cooperation structures for stable cooperation in Europe will continue post-Brexit and there is no serious reason why Brexit will increase the chance of a war in Europe, in my opinion.  Supporters of the EU have other, more persuasive arguments for the UK to "stay", which I will come on to in future articles.

Week 2 : Free trade and economic benefits

For EU : The EU facilitates free trade and free movement of money, goods and services across Europe.  The UK would have a much worse deal on these issues post-Brexit and suffer huge damage to its economy.

Against EU : Because of the huge volume of exports to the UK from many EU countries, there is every reason to believe that the UK would continue to have free trade and movement of money, goods and services across Europe post-Brexit, just like Norway, Switzerland and Iceland do.  The UK’s economy would continue to thrive, perhaps even more so.

Why I am an English internationalist who will vote for the UK to leave the EU in the referendum

In my experience, most committed "Out" activists in England are angry reactionaries who have a poor attitude towards dialogue with other European nations and their leaders.  This includes a number of MEPs.  However, there are a number of reasons why I will be voting "Out", all of which I believe are totally consistent with a highly democratic and internationalist position.

I write only from my perspective as an Englishman.  I do not presume to speak for people from Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland.

For me, the most important reason for voting "Out" is that England's "redemption" from its colonial past has never happened, in or out of the EU.

In my experience, very few people in England have a good sense of the horrors of our colonial past, which included stealing land from other people, killing and enslaving people, and plundering their resources.  In fact, we are often proud of the fact that Britain legislated to abolish slavery sooner than some other nations. If challenged on the issue, many people will also point out the investment in infrastructure of poorer nations that Britain made.  We have "moved on" as a nation, it seems, though by burying our heads in the sand.

The people of England have not really faced up to the colonial past of our nation.  We have not been forced to deal with our national demons, like Germany was in relation to the horrors of Nazism.  In contrast, our energies have been spent seeking to maintain our military and political influence in the UN, and seeking favourable market access conditions, especially in the EU.  The very different focus of the EU itself has run counter to the British international agenda.  British foreign policy remains very much steeped in attitudes inherited from our colonial past, as seen in our desire to retain nuclear weapons, get involved in military intervention alongside the USA, and generally in seeking to remain a global superpower.  In pursuit of this agenda, many of our foreign policy decisions have been wrong, and some colossally so.

With such grandiose, global ambitions, it is hardly surprising that Britain has no real enthusiasm for the EU project, or for working with other EU nations on an equal basis. While Germany has built for itself a positive national identity through the painful process of facing up to Nazism, British national identity (mostly English-inspired) has withered, while trying to cling on to past glories and also somehow pursue its economic agenda in, what is for us, the alien political environment of the EU.

Britain's redemption is not happening in the EU.  It may not happen outside the EU either but, in my opinion, it can only happen seriously outside the EU.  England needs to set itself at rights with the countries it plundered, including by making serious reparations.  This painful process could pave the way for a more constructive engagement with our European neighbours.

As a believer in real democracy, there are other issues I have with the EU, its founding ideology and working methods.  However, from the English perspective, I believe that we have to put our own house in order first, and that we need the political space to do this outside the EU.  This is an imperative for the nation of England, and not one which can be shared with other EU nations.  This imperative will not disappear as a result of political integration.  The redemption process will also be a long one, and I have no real idea if there will be any interest in it at all. It may be an issue which emerges more clearly as we seek to connect more closely once more with other countries in the world, and as former colonies such as India and Jamaica become more confident in challenging us to acknowledge the crimes of our colonial past.  Our friends in Scotland may also be more willing to engage in this process, and so drag us along, conscious of their status as something of an English colony itself.

As regards our relations with the EU and its member states, our position following an "Out" vote should be, in my view, the maintenance of close alliances alongside a willingness to accept considerable anger from fellow European nations for our persistently poor approach to the EU project over the past 40 years.  In this context, David Cameron's renegotiation efforts are little more than a circus sideshow.

Freedom of movement within the EU : Angela Merkel rejects David Cameron’s proposals

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/nov/02/angela-merkel-warns-david-cameron-german-chancellor-uk-prime-minister-unskilled-migrants

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2817630/Cameron-forced-tear-plan-cap-EU-migration-Merkel-warns-point-no-return-Britain.html

Briefly, Angela Merkel has told David Cameron that she would rather see the UK leave the EU than re-negotiate EU rules to restrict the freedom of EU nationals to work anywhere in the EU.  The above articles from both the Guardian and the Daily Mail report this in substantially the same way.  I cannot criticise the Daily Mail for the tone of their article – it was reasonable.

I am not a politician and, though I am keen to learn more, so far I know only the basics about the EU.  I always thought that membership of the EU involved the fundamental right for EU nationals to work in any other EU country. So I was surprised to see David Cameron making a pitch to limit this right.  This would involve a treaty change and so the consent of every other EU nation.  Some nations require a domestic referendum to approve proposed treaty changes.  So Mr Cameron’s proposals would have required an awful lot of hard work, delicate negotiation and a lot of time.

What Mrs Merkel’s response indicates to me is that David Cameron has shown quite a high degree of political naivete with this policy proposal. The reaction of Mrs Merkel, other senior European politicians and other UK politicians that this idea would never be supported is predictable.  I question Mr Cameron’s ability to build effective relationships with our European partners (whether or not the UK stays in the EU).  

Mr Cameron’s tactics are not improving.  He has already shown his naivete in the areas of the recently requested budget top-up and his isolation in opposing the appointment of Jean-Claude Juncker as the next president of the European Commission.

What is clear is that the free movement of workers is a fundamental principle of EU membership which will not be up for negotiation.  If we leave the EU, it will be up to the British people and politicians what we do about free movement of workers. It is likely that, like Norway, we will still wish to be part of the EFTA common market and this again will involve the same freedom of movement of workers. 

Why I want the UK to leave the EU : my EU-sceptic testimony

I am a 42 year-old married man living in Birmingham.  I am English.  I worked for 12 years as a solicitor and I am now re-training to be a teacher of English to international students.

I am pro-European – there are lots of things I love about Europe.  One of my passions is classical music. I love Saint-Saens (French), Strauss (Austrian), Beethoven (German), Vivaldi (Italian), Rodrigo (Spanish) and Vivaldi (Italian).  All these composers came from countries now in the EU.  I also love the music of Greig (Norwegian) and Tchaikovsky (Russian) who came from countries outside the EU.

When it comes to politics, I am on the centre-left.  During my life, I have voted for the Conservatives, Lib Dems, Labour and Greens.  I am not a member of any party but I will only vote for candidates who are in favour of scrapping Trident which is a very important issue for me, especially now that the next government will need to decide whether to replace Trident at a cost of around £100 bn. 

I also think we should work in a friendly way with other countries in Europe and around the world in areas where it is useful for us and them, like migration, international crime and peacekeeping.  I don’t believe that we need to do this as part of a permanent international organisation made up of 28 very different countries.  This is not because I think that people who work for EU institutions are not professional – I am sure they are -   it is because I don’t believe that the institutions of the EU are democratic enough.

 

For me, it’s not enough to vote for an MEP once every 5 years but then to leave most European decisions in the hands of the leaders of the EU countries and the European Commission.  I like to think I’m well- informed about politics but quite often, I can’t get my head round what the EU is doing at any one moment in time and how this relates to my ordinary life.  Politics can be complex but, for me, if decisions are made too far away from home, then I lose interest. This apathy is a bad sign.  I believe that the institutions of the European Union have too much power in too many areas.  They have bitten off more than they can chew and there is no sign of them wanting to return power to member states.

I recently read in the news that the EU is negotiating a new international trade deal with the USA called the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP). I had not heard about this at the last General Election and I don’t think it was a big issue then. I found out that the TTIP talks were being held by EU and USA officials in secret and without consultation with the people of the EU about various important issues.   It was only when details were leaked that the EU was embarrassed into consulting the public. 

I then found out more about TTIP.  The authority for the deal in the EU came from the Council of Ministers i.e. all the EU leaders.  The details of the deal will be hammered out by EU officials on our behalf and then the European Parliament will only have a vote on whether or not to accept or reject the whole deal.  I know there is controversy about whether or not TTIP will mean that the NHS could be opened up to more privatisation, but even after reading about it, I don’t know if I should be worried or not.  It’s a big unknown as far as I am concerned.  

At any rate, I don’t know how TTIP will impact my life in practice and I fear that I will only really find out several years down the line, by which time it will be too late for me to do anything about it.  This is exactly the kind of “democratic deficit” that makes me feel frustrated and fed up with what the EU does. 

The EU is going one way only – towards further integration.  The UK can try to slow this process down but it doesn’t have the enough influence to do this for very long or to reverse the overall direction.  That's fair enough - we're just one country of 28.  But it's not a price I want us to pay.  Also, the countries who want closer integration are fed up with the UK’s lukewarm approach to the EU. It’s not good for us either.

We need to make up our mind. If we vote to stay in, then we should stop complaining about the EU, embrace the move towards greater political union wholeheartedly and play a constructive part in that process.  Or we should get out while we have the chance and rebuild our relations with EU countries in a positive but different way.  I want us to get out.

There is a crisis in British democracy.  Voting turnouts have been getting lower every General Election in recent years.  More and more people are getting fed up with Westminster politics.  The EU is not the only problem with our democracy but it’s a big part of the problem and if we get the chance to vote to leave the EU, we should take it.  We should bring back democracy to our country and sort out our problems ourselves.  I think leaving the EU will make us better Europeans.

The EU-sceptic pledge

We are people who live in the United Kingdom and want our country to leave the European Union as soon as possible. 

At the same time: 

1. We recognise that the people of the United Kingdom are no better or worse than any other people in Europe or in fact, any other country in the world.
   
   
2. We respect, recognise and appreciate the value of all European peoples, cultures and democratic political traditions. We have much in common with them and will always have much to learn from them.
   
   
3. We recognise the need for the people of the UK to work constructively, honourably and amicably with our European neighbours on many issues for common benefit. We would prefer to do this from outside the European Union.
   
   
4. We recognise that the officials of the institutions of the European Union aim to serve equally all the peoples of the European Union – including the people of the United Kingdom. Our desire to leave the European Union is no reflection on the professionalism, goodwill and dedication of those officials. We are grateful for their efforts to improve the quality of our lives.
   
   
5. We absolutely condemn and oppose all forms of racial discrimination which has no part to play in our political opposition to the UK’s membership of the European Union.
   
   
6. We believe that the campaign for the UK to leave the European Union should be conducted respectfully. We condemn and oppose all personal insults aimed at politicians or officials of the European Union or at any of our political opponents.
   
   
7. While we acknowledge that EU membership is an emotive subject, we reject all forms of sensational comment, exaggeration and overly-emotive reaction to political issues connected with the debate about EU membership.
   
   
8. To reflect our positive attitude towards Europe, we prefer to describe ourselves as “EU-sceptics” and not “Eurosceptics”.
   
    
9. We believe that as soon as the United Kingdom leaves the European Union, the European Union will lose an unhappy member and gain a friendly neighbour.
   
   
10. We look forward to a positive future for the United Kingdom outside the European Union which will include friendly relations with all its member states.