Chris Grayling noted, in his Daily Telegraph article, that the EU is moving towards more integration, including a political union, and that “is a path that the UK will not and should not follow.” In fact, he stressed that “staying in the EU with our current terms of membership unchanged would be disastrous for Britain.”
However, David Cameron’s renegotiation package does not offer a fundamental change in the relationship with the EU, and, even if accepted by all EU member states, it would hardly change the status quo. As Chris Grayling pointed out, the UK “can now be outvoted every time by members of the eurozone on new European laws” and has been unable to defend national interest. The situation would exacerbate while the Eurozone further integrates, towards a fiscal, and political union. By remaining in the EU, bound by the TEU and TFEU, while all the decisions are made in the Eurozone, the UK would find itself in the net of rules it never wanted in the first place, and there would be no safeguards in EU decision-making to suitably protect it from this, as the other EU member states would never agree to give Britain a veto.
The UK would continue to be subject to the EU obligations and legislation as well as to the EU fundamental principles, including supremacy of EU law, direct effect and sincere cooperation under the existing treaties. There is not much the Government can do while QMV and the ordinary legislative procedure are the rule, and this is the main issue, as the UK has been forced to accept EU measures against the national interest. The ECJ will continue to be able to make an extensive interpretation of the existing treaty provisions and secondary legislation, expanding the reach and scope of European law, and pursuing further integration, deeply interfering with the UK legal system, overriding national rules as regards a wide range of EU policies and legislation.
David Cameron’s four demands will do nothing to fundamentally change the relationship between the United Kingdom and the EU, which cannot happen without a profound change in the EU Treaties, dealing with the fundamental structure, which is not on offer. In fact, the other EU member states are unwilling to amend the treaties let alone a fundamental change.
It is already known that Treaty changes, before the referendum, are not on offer, which has become crystal clear after Donald Tusk’s letter to David Cameron and the December’s European Council Conclusions on the United Kingdom. Hence, David Cameron wants to secure “a clear, legally binding and irreversible agreement ”. However, such agreement is not EU law and would have no binding legal effect until it is incorporated into a protocol next time the treaties are changed and ratified by all Member States. Thus, until this happens there is no insurance that the renegotiation package that has been agree will be complied with by the EU institutions and other member, as it could be easily retreat from member states successor governments with different views, in fact it might be challenged by the other member states or struck down by the ECJ after the referendum takes place.
The UK must regain the right to legislate for and govern the British people through the authority of the Westminster Parliament therefore it has to leave.
