Issues in the 2016 United Kingdom European Union membership referendum

According to a poll by Ipsos MORI released on 18 May, issues identified by voters as being very important to them in deciding which way to vote were headed by the impact on Britain's economy (33%), the number of immigrants coming to Britain (28%), and Britain's ability to make its own laws (15%).^[1]


Issues identified as important by voters who said they were likely to vote leave were headed by the number of immigrants coming into Britain (49%), Britain's ability to make its own laws (30%), the impact on Britain's economy (25%), the cost of EU immigration on Britain's welfare system (16%), impact on public services/housing (11%), the number of refugees coming to Britain to claim asylum (10%), Britain's ability to trade with countries in the European Union (9%), cost of EU membership fees (9%), regulations by the European Union on British businesses (8%), the impact on British jobs (7%), and Britain's status in the world (7%).^[1]


Issues that had been identified as important by voters who were likely to vote remain included the impact on Britain's economy (40%), the number of immigrants coming into Britain (15%), Britain's ability to trade with countries in the European Union (12%), the impact on British jobs (11%), the impact on the rights of British workers (10%), Britain's relationship with other countries (7%), the impact on British national security (7%), the ability to travel in the European Union (7%), the ability of British citizens to live and work in other European countries (6%), and Britain's status in the world (6%).^[1] Other issues were identified by 5% of respondents or less.^[1] This collection of issues is broadly in line with the findings of other surveys published during the campaign.^[2][3]

Security, law enforcement and defence[edit]

In February 2016, thirteen of Britain's most senior former military commanders urged voters to back EU membership to protect British national security.^[52]


Also in February 2016, Rob Wainwright (head of Europol) said that "a U.K. departure from the EU could inhibit police cooperation and cross-border investigations in Europe, at least until an alternative arrangement is agreed".^[53] Speaking to Police Professional, he said that "if the UK was to vote to leave, it would no longer have direct use of pan-European databases or the ability to automatically join intelligence projects such as the European Migrant Smuggling Centre, the European Counter Terror Centre and the European Cybercrime Centre".^[54]


Some EU counter-terrorism experts, British police and intelligence agencies have suggested that inter-agency co-operation across the EU could be improved in the light of the Schengen Agreement (even though the UK is not in Schengen).^[55] They added that the UK had a single, well-policed border and better intelligence, and that neither was a result of belonging to the European Union.^[55]


On 21 February 2016, Work and Pensions secretary, Iain Duncan Smith, who was a Eurosceptic as early as 1992,^[56] opined that remaining in the EU would make it more difficult to prevent terrorist attacks, because only by leaving the EU can the UK regain control of its borders.^[57] He went on to suggest that the terrorists of the November 2015 Paris attacks had travelled to France from war-torn Syria and neither France (an EU member) nor the EU itself had been able to prevent the attack.^[57] Shortly after the remarks, Shadow Home Secretary Andy Burnham deplored what he called "highly irresponsible comments" and "inaccurate to boot" as the UK is not in Schengen.^[56] Meanwhile, Conservative MEP Timothy Kirkhope retorted that Duncan Smith was "categorically wrong about security post Brexit".^[57] Similarly, Labour MP Dan Jarvis went on to suggest that Duncan Smith's remarks were "misjudged and wrong", adding "This type of scaremongering should have no place in the vital debate about our country's future that will take place over the coming months".^[57] Labour MP Tristram Hunt agreed with Jarvis and called the remarks "baseless scaremongering from a man who knows he's on the wrong side of the argument".^[56] Moreover, Jonathan Evans, the former Director-General of MI5, dismissed Duncan Smith's remarks, arguing once again that EU membership kept the UK safe.^[57]


On 26 February 2016, head of Counter Terrorism Command Richard Walton argued that the UK's security depended on many different factors, but membership of the EU was not necessarily one of them.^[58] Pointing out that Europol was irrelevant to day-to-day operations within the counter-terrorism sphere, and that the Schengen Information System did not necessarily control the movement of terrorists across the borders, Walton said that Britain did not need to stay in the EU to use it. Walton argued that perhaps the only security benefit of Britain being inside of the EU was European Arrest Warrant (EAW), but EAW was a mechanism to deal with serious and organised crime, rather than terrorism.^[58]


Major-General Julian Thompson wrote in an article for the Daily Telegraph that the EU should have nothing to do with the UK's national security, which Boris Johnson echoed.^[59] He claimed that during the Cold War, it was NATO which prevented the Soviet Union's attack.^[60] Thompson claims that the EU played no role in reaching peace in the Troubles in Northern Ireland during 1968–1998.^[60] By contrast, Enda Kenny, Taoiseach of Ireland, claimed that EU membership played a significant role in ending the Troubles and achieving peace in Northern Ireland, and that a withdrawal from the European Union would put the Northern Ireland peace process at risk.^[61]


Two days after 2016 Brussels bombings, former head of MI6 Richard Dearlove suggested that the UK's security would be improved by leaving the EU, arguing that leaving the EU would enable Britain to dump the European Convention on Human Rights and have greater control over immigration from EU.^[62] Although Home Secretary Theresa May cited European Arrest Warrant as a reason for her backing the Remain campaign, Dearlove argued that the importance of European Arrest Warrant was exclusively related to crime.^[62]


On 25 March 2016, former Central Intelligence Agency chief Michael Hayden said that EU was not a natural contributor to national security of each of the entity states and in some ways got in the way of the state providing security for its own citizens, pointing out that national security was a national responsibility, and that EU states' intelligence agencies were very uneven.^[63] Hayden argued that France and Britain had very good and aggressive intelligence services, and Scandinavian countries small and still good services, while most of the rest of the European countries had small services, adding that Belgium had small, under-resourced and legally limited services.^[63]


On 17 June 2016, Field Marshal Lord Guthrie argued that a European Army, which the EU wanted to have, would damage NATO, pointing out that NATO made everything peaceful, and that Britain needed the Americans when things got really serious.^[64] Pointed out that a European Army was unnecessary duplication, a massive waste of money, and inefficient in terms of its decision-making, Lord Guthrie concluded that from Britain's national security perspective, leaving the EU was better.^[64]

Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP)[edit]

The proposed Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) deal between the EU and the US has been a particular source of contention during the EU referendum. Although the deal is still in the relatively early stages of drafting, particular concerns have been expressed about the Investor state dispute settlement provisions, under which foreign corporations would be allowed to sue a national government in special courts over government regulations that could adversely impact their profits.^[73]


The government has argued that in the long run, the proposed pact could add £10m annually to the British economy.^[74] Critics of the proposed deal, such as Peter Lilley, have argued that even free-trade advocates should be very wary of endorsing TTIP, and both the Remain and Leave campaigns should look very carefully at TTIP's implications for the UK's EU membership. Pointing out that the average tariff imposed by the US government on goods from Europe was just 2.5 per cent, Lilley argued that the special provisions proposed to protect corporate interests, and their possible implications for public services like the NHS were far more significant than the tariff reduction.^[73] If the UK was in EU when TTIP and Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement were ratified, Lilley argued, the UK would be bound jointly and could not renegotiate these international agreements without the consent of every EU state and the European Commission.^[73]


Jude Kirton-Darling, a Labour MEP who sits on the EU Parliament's trade committee, has argued that the prospective contents of TTIP are still in the balance. According to Kirton-Darling to gain an agreement that is "progressive, fair and beneficial to ordinary European citizens" requires "engaging, persuading and building alliances with our European colleagues". For her the referendum choice is "between having a say in our future or watching from the sidelines".^[75] The Socialists and Democrats group to which British Labour are affiliated are often portrayed as the swing votes on TTIP issues in the European Parliament.^[76]


On 19 May 2016, Peter Lilley, backed by other Eurosceptic Tory MPs took proposed a rebel amendment to the Queen's Speech, over fears that the US-EU pact could lead to the privatisation of some NHS service provision by paving the way for American health providers in the UK.^[77] Lilley said that TTIP would grant American multinationals the right to sue the British government over any regulations which affected their profits, and questioned why the British government had not tried to exclude the NHS from TTIP. Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn backed the amendment, saying that his concerns about TTIP were not just about the impact on the NHS but also the Investor-state dispute settlement which would enfranchise global corporations at the expense of national governments.^[77]


In response to the rebellion, David Cameron's spokesman denied that TTIP could affect the NHS, pointing out that in the House of Commons on 4 May 2016 Cameron made a comment that the UK's public health system was completely protected under TTIP.^[77]


Although the British government agreed to amend the Queen's Speech, there was a question of whether this amendment guaranteed that the British government would legislate to ensure that the NHS was protected from TTIP.^[78] Assistant general secretary of Unite Gail Cartmail said that this amendment gave MPs a unique opportunity to prevent the irreversible privatisation of the NHS and to neutralise the NHS as an EU referendum issue. Tory MP William Wragg said that if the UK were to stay in EU, the British government could do nothing to prevent the partial privatisation of the NHS. Tory MP Steve Baker said that the British government had admitted that EU was a threat to the NHS, adding that voting to leave EU in the referendum was the only way to protect the NHS from TTIP.^[78]


Director of Global Justice Now Nick Dearden said that TTIP had been an important issue in referendum debate, and MPs were right to push the issue over the need to protect the NHS and other important public services from TTIP, pointing out that the British government had not taken any steps to explicitly exclude the NHS from the TTIP negotiations.^[78]


On 2 June 2016, Jeremy Corbyn pledged to veto the TTIP, saying that many thousands of people had written to Corbyn with their concerns about TTIP's negative impacts on the UK's public services, consumer rights, food safety standards, rights at work, environmental protections.^[79] However, Labour MP Kate Hoey argued that it was impossible for Britain to veto TTIP under EU rules, adding that trade deals were normally decided by Qualified Majority Voting in the European Council.^[79]


Nobel-prize winning economist Joseph Stiglitz said in March 2016 that if TTIP was signed he would reconsider his view that the UK's membership of the EU was a good thing.^[80] Stiglitz argued that if TTIP were implemented in its proposed form the British government could be sued by corporations every time it imposed a regulation which affected their profits, including regulations aimed at discouraging smoking or barring the use of asbestos. However, Nick Dearden argued in a Guardian article that even if the UK left the EU, the UK would be required to accept many of TTIP's provisions to access the single market.^[81]

Science and universities[edit]

Science is an issue in the referendum because scientists in the UK receive funding from the EU, take part in EU-wide collaborations and are subject to EU regulations. Scientists are also used to a free flow of labour within the EU, often recruiting scientists into British universities from other EU countries. Most of the scientists who have taken a public stance on the UK's membership of the EU have done so to warn that exit would harm the science sector, although some object to European regulations.^[82][83]


Although the UK is a net financial contributor to the EU, it is a net beneficiary of the research budget,^[84] contributing £4.3 billion from 2007 to 2013 while receiving £7 billion back.^[85] British universities get around 16% of their funding from the EU, and more European Research Council-funded researchers are based in the UK than in any other EU member country.^[82] Fifteen percent of researchers at British universities are EU nationals from outside the UK.^[82]


In April 2016, the cross-party Science and Technology Committee of the House of Lords published a report on the effect of EU membership on British science. It had taken eighty written submissions and heard from thirty expert witnesses including the Government's chief scientist Mark Walport.^[83][86] The submissions from the science community overwhelmingly presented EU membership as beneficial for the UK. The committee's report highlighted free movement and collaboration as "perhaps the most significant benefit" to British science and research. It found that the EU's principle of free movement "is of critical importance to the British science community, including academia, businesses and charities". It said that EU regulation "clearly [has] a detrimental effect on UK and EU science" but that harmonising regulation across the EU could be beneficial.^[86] The report considered that, in the case of Brexit, the UK could become an Associated Country—the status held by Switzerland—but concluded that this was seen as a high-risk strategy, likely putting the UK in a weaker position.^[86] The existing situation, according to the committee, gives the UK a strong role in setting science policy: "UK scientists in various EU fora act to ensure that the UK’s voice is clearly heard and that the EU remains aligned with the advancement of UK science[.]"^[86] The committee said that Brexit would likely result in a loss of funds for British science, as future governments would be unlikely to replace the level of funding coming from the EU.^[85][87]


One hundred and fifty fellows of the Royal Society, including Stephen Hawking and Martin Rees the Astronomer Royal, have publicly backed the Remain campaign, saying that Brexit would be "a disaster for UK science and universities".^[88][89] One hundred and three leaders of British universities backed a separate statement saying that exit from the EU "would undermine the UK's position as a global leader in science, arts and innovation."^[90][91] A survey by Nature, published in March 2016, polled 907 active science researchers based in the UK. Of these, 78% said exit from the EU would be "somewhat harmful" or "very harmful" for British science, with 9% saying it would be "somewhat beneficial" or "very beneficial". Asked, "Should the UK exit the EU or remain?" 83% chose "remain" and 12% "exit".^[92]


On 9 June 2015, Angus Dalgleish, a professor at St George's, University of London, argued that leaving the EU would not damage UK's science as European collaboration in science, such as CERN and European Space Agency, had existed long before the Lisbon treaty was ratified, adding that it was a myth to think that if Britain left the EU, Britain would not be part of the collaborations, which already included many non-EU countries, such as Israel, Switzerland and Norway.^[93] If Britain left the EU, Dalgleish argued, reduction in opportunities for students to travel and study elsewhere in Europe would not make any difference: as far as education was concerned, a negative side to being in the EU was that it discriminated against students coming to Britain from non-EU countries. Dalgleish argued that a focus on British researcher's success in winning EU research grants ignored Britain's overall higher contribution to the EU budget and criticised some EU funded positions in academia, saying that the role of Jean Monnet Programmes was to "politicise universities and push EU principles"^[93]


On the 7th of September 2023 as part of Post Brexit renegotiations which amended the Northern Ireland protocol and helped to improve relations between the EU and the UK it was announced by the UK government that the UK was re-joining the Horizon Research Scheme, Which allowed for Scientists and Universities within the UK to apply for access to £81 Billion (€95Bn) worth of funding provided by both EU states and associate states across Europe. It was also announced at the same time that the UK would be re-joining the Copernicus Scheme which is an Earth observation program with the aim to gather data on the planet. ^[94]