The Single Market is just one ingredient to be put into the pot – Telegraph.co.uk

Nor would being outside the Single Market present insuperable barriers to
continued trade with the EU. When we trade with countries outside the EU, we
have to comply with their standards and practices. Being outside the Single
Market would be a hindrance rather than an absolute barrier, as shown by
umpteen “outside” countries, including America and China, successfully
selling into the Single Market.

Of course, the usual business people have lined up on the opposite side,
including some overseas car manufacturers. This echoes their earlier stance
on the importance of British membership of the euro – although they have
gone rather quiet on this lately.

Admittedly, if we were outside the Single Market the car industry probably
would find life more irksome. That is an important consideration. But it
cannot be the be-all and end-all. If being outside brought wider freedoms
and lower costs they might find that the advantages of producing in the UK
even increased. Anyway, countries cannot live by car manufacture alone.

As for the free movement of people, is this an alloyed benefit? The result of
free movement within the EU is that we have completely lost control of
immigration. In our small island, this means that our policies for the
provision of public services, infrastructure and housing are a farce.

We may well soon experience another large influx of people from Romania and
Bulgaria. But what if the EU continues its expansion to the East? More
migrants from the Balkans. What if Turkey gained admission? At one point,
there was even talk of extending the EU to countries in North Africa.
Doubtless this would throw up the prospect of “yet more benefits” from the
free movement of people. One way or another, our relationship with the EU is
going to change. We are either going to be inside it, with various
exceptions that confer special status – or we are going to be outside it,
with various arrangements that confer special status. Accordingly, you could
imagine that it might not make much difference whether we were in or out.

Yet the right way to approach this question is not simply to assess the
various opt-ins/opt-outs, and the current candidates for the repatriation of
powers, but rather to consider what might change after the point of
renegotiation. We are likely to get only one bite at this cherry. If we
re-negotiate our arrangements and then vote to stay in we may well find that
it is subsequently impossible to come out, regardless of what has changed in
the meantime.

And, after all, the EU does have a way of changing. In the beginning, we
joined the Common Market. That became the EC and that then became the EU.
What’s more, the European establishment has a way of proceeding with its
objectives whatever the people of Europe want. The Constitutional Treaty was
voted down by the people of both France and the Netherlands. So what
happened? The Eurocracy ceased to call it a Constitution but implemented it
anyway.

What the UK needs to negotiate to secure its future is not just the
repatriation of powers but also an absolute block on being carried forward
against our will into further forms of integration and harmonisation. And I,
for one, would want control over our immigration policy which, as currently
constituted, would run counter to membership of the Single Market.

The Single Market is not an absolute requirement but rather one issue to be
considered on its merits and put into the pot – along with many others.

Roger Bootle is managing director of Capital Economics