To save United Kingdom, stay in EU

There were several measures outlined in this week’s Queen’s Speech, such as a promised increase in house building, which may improve the quality of life of hard-pressed sections of the population. But a sword of Damocles continues to hang over the poorest, in the form of the still unspecified cuts to the welfare budget. The two proposals in the speech bound to generate most controversy but which will do little to help the worst-off are a referendum on Britain’s membership of the European Union, and the repeal of the Human Rights Act. Both seem likely, on the balance of probability, to leave things largely unchanged. There are still risks attached, however, not least the threat both these proposals present to the unity of the United Kingdom.

The Scottish National Party has asked the key question: what if the referendum outcome is an English-led UK-wide majority vote for leaving the EU, while the Scots, not to mention Wales and Northern Ireland, vote to stay in? Scotland, at least, would press for independence so that it could remain.

Though the substantive issues are different, the same dilemma arises from the proposed replacement of the Human Rights Act by a British Bill of Rights. Suppose the Scots object to Britain withdrawing from the European Convention on Human Rights, which is one possible outcome? Could part of the UK stay in while another part left? And would the constitutional settlements with Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland be affected? Answers to all those questions have been postponed while the Prime Minister concentrates on the EU membership issue, after which they will surely return to bite him.

Mr Cameron has realised that it will not be possible to cut EU immigration into the UK by ending the free movement of labour. Yet continuing to portray the renegotiation of Britain’s terms of membership as another means to reduce immigration relies on the assumption that many EU immigrants are drawn to Britain so they can claim welfare benefits. The evidence does not bear that out except in one respect – income support for those on low wages. But changes here would be relatively minor concessions that Mr Cameron may have to claim as major ones, in order to campaign for Britain to stay in the EU and protect the many benefits of membership.

The economic advantages of free trade across the EU are substantial. Social benefits, such as uniform standards for workplace safety and maximum working hours, are a corollary of free trade but also express solidarity as a moral principle. The more fundamental issues are about Britain’s place in the world. Is it to be an isolated nation state or part of a community of nations that agree to pool a degree of their sovereignty for the greater good? It will be a disastrously missed opportunity if Mr Cameron fails to make that wider case. The answer affects not just membership of the EU but the integrity of the UK.