In the current debate, the EU’s single market is the focus of much attention. Allegedly, if we are not members, we will not have “access” to it.

This word “access” is extremely misleading. And so is its derivative, “full access”. Every country has access to the single market.

To sell into it, non-members normally have to pay EU tariffs, submit their goods for inspection at border controls, together with the associated paperwork, and comply with rules concerning the origin of goods and their components.

There is no doubt that not having to bear these various costs and inconveniences is an advantage. So, if this advantage came without any costs, you would of course want to have it.

But that is precisely the point – it comes with umpteen costs: having to impose EU rules across the whole of your economy; having to pay the EU’s annual membership fee; being unable to negotiate trade deals with other countries around the world; having to impose the EU’s external tariffs on imports into your country; and being obliged to take any number of EU citizens to live and work in your country.

So the issue is about weighing up costs and benefits – and how these might change over time.

But it is more of a judgment call than a totting-up of numbers. In trying to make it, I suggest that you ponder three key questions.

First, if the benefits of the single market are so enormous, then why is it that over recent years countries all around the world have increased their exports into the single market at a faster rate than most single market members?

Second, if the single market is of such overwhelming importance, why are so many of its members in a terrible state? Why is the Greek economy not carried forward on a wave of prosperity unleashed by the absence of form-filling and checking at borders?

Third, if trade deals are so important, why does the UK do such a huge amount of trade with countries that it doesn’t currently have a trade deal with – including America? 

Even though I believe that we should leave, I concede that there are some good arguments for remaining in the EU. But the fact that various economic bodies with a less than distinguished record of foreseeing the future warn us against leaving is not one of them.

David Fuller's view

I think Roger Bootle is right on all of the points in this instructive article.  The main reason for voting Remain, I believe, is to remain ‘a good European’ in the eyes of all who fear for the EU, and also wish it well.  As such, the UK can hopefully offer stability and remain a constructive influence.  The risk is that it will remain a costly and frustrating exercise, on an undemocratic and increasingly divisive journey.