Remain vs Leave Questions, Options, and Sources
The version of the browser you are using is no longer supported. Please upgrade to a supported browser.Dismiss

View only
NoQuestionTypeChoicesBritain Stronger in EuropeImptIn FactsImptBritish InfluenceImptVote LeaveImptLeave.EUImptBetter Off OutImptInstitute for Economic AffairsWoodfordInstitute for Fiscal StudiesOECDHM TreasuryEconomists for BrexitBBC Reality CheckChannel 4 Fact CheckNon-economic questions
1Leaving the EU would significantly decrease foreign direct investment into the UK.EconomicsYesYes (10)Yes (10)Yes (10)NANA"Concerns about a drying up of foreign direct investment if Britain votes to leave the European Union are somewhat overblown...It is likely Britain would remain a haven for foreign direct investment flows even if it was outside of the European Union. Of course, we could see a period of weak foreign direct investment inflows as the United Kingdom's new relationship is renegotiated. However, if Britain is able to obtain favourable terms, then foreign direct investment would probably recoup this lost ground."
"Brexit would make the UK less attractive for FDI. If access to the Single Market was lost, lower FDI inflows would seem unavoidable, reducing the inflows of new ideas and knowledge into the UK. This would weaken fixed investment, reduce export capacity and hit innovation and productivity (technical progress) over time."
"Trade and investment flows would be lower."
"Overall, as our post Brexit forecast makes clear, growth and investment would rise in the long term, and so we can reasonably project that FDI would rise with it."
"The figures show just under half (48%) of total foreign direct investment in the UK in 2014 was from other EU countries. It is hard to say whether this would be the case were the UK outside the single market. However the common rules in the single market make it simpler for firms to expand across the EU, encouraging investment."

"Whether "much of" the investment in the UK was because of its relationship with Europe or despite it is impossible to say for sure. However, it is clear the UK's role in the EU adds to its appeal as a place to invest."
Yes, because the EU accounts for almost half of foreign investment into the UK.No mentionYes (20)NANANA
Yes, because it will produce a period of uncertainty.Yes (20)Yes (20)Yes (20)NANA
Neutral / Not SureNANANANANA
No, because the single market is not the only reason why firms invest in Britain.NANANAYes (20)No mention (0)Yes (20)
No, the EU foreign investments are surpassed by investments from other countries.NANANAYes. (20) No mention (0)No mention. (0)
NoNANANAYes (10)No mention (0)Yes (10)
2The annual contribution to the EU budget is a bad investment.EconomicsYesNANANAYes (10)Implied (10)Yes (10)No mention."The government may choose to use the £10bn savings from its contributions to the European Union budget to compensate the hardest hit sectors (including some manufacturing industries) and regions, at least in the short term. The extra costs which British exporters would pay in higher tariffs would be less than the savings the United Kingdom would make on its contributions to the European Union – making it feasible for the government to compensate the losers from Brexit, at least in the short term."
"While the mechanical event of Brexit would strengthen the UK's finances, this would likely be offset by reductions in GDP. As a result, the overall effect of Brexit would damage the UK's public finances and require an additional one or two years of austerity to balance the budget."
"Fiscal savings from stopping net transfers to the EU budget are likely to be 0.3-0.4% of GDP per year, which is a relatively small amount...Thus there appears little scope to use the EU budget savings to relax fiscal policy substantially for an extended period, unless there is a decision to adjust other taxes and spending, or to raise the size of the overall budget deficit."
"The negative impact on GDP would also result in substantially weaker tax receipts. This would significantly outweigh any potential gain from reduced financial contributions to the EU. The result would be higher government borrowing and debt, large tax rises or major cuts in public spending. After 15 years, even with savings from reduced contributions to the EU, receipts would be £20 billion a year lower in the central estimate of the EEA, £36 billion a year lower for the negotiated bilateral agreement and £45 billion a year lower for the WTO alternative. £36 billion is more than a third of the NHS budget and the equivalent of 8p on the basic rate of income tax."
"The UK contribution to the EU budget and the receipts that are returned to it represent spending that is expensive, poorly directed, defectively audited and allocated through a process of fiscal churning."

"The inefficiency of EU spending is highlighted by the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). Although agriculture accounts for only around 3% of the EU economy, the CAP still continues to represent almost 40% of the EU budget. It is a poorly focused mechanism for achieving UK policy objectives."
"This is not to say that the IMF is definitely right to say that the economy would grow less following a Brexit - if the economy grew an extra 1% that would also dwarf the budget contribution.
The point is that the contribution to the EU budget is relatively small compared with the size of the UK economy."

"The UK contributes just over £8bn a year to the EU Budget after deducting the rebate and direct payments to public and private sector groups in the UK. Whether that counts as a loss depends on your perspective – that money is spent on running EU institutions, pan-European initiatives and projects in other countries."
"When we raised this with Leave campaigners last year, the suggestion was that the real issue was control: after Brexit, Britain would be able to decide what it spent the money on, rather than having the spending allocated by Brussels. It's possible to argue that the gross contribution minus Britain's rebate – £14.4bn in 2014 – would be available to spend on whatever UK governments wanted in the event of a Leave vote. But the IFS says this only works if two conditions are met. First, the UK would have to negotiate a relationship with the EU after Brexit that did not involve a financial contribution. This could be tricky. If, like Norway, we wanted to continue to have access to the EU's internal market, we might have to pay for the privilege. Second, Britain only gains financially if Brexit does not adversely affect trade, jobs and growth, which is a big “if"."
Yes, because it can be better spent on other British services, like the NHS or schools.NANANAYes (20)Yes (20)Implied (10)
Yes, because the UK gets back less than it pays due to programmes like the cohesion policy.NANANAYes (20)Yes (20)Yes (20)
Neutral / Not SureNANANANANANA
No, because the economic damage of leaving the EU would decrease tax revenue and dwarf any budget savings.NAYes (20)NANANANA
No, because the UK gets this money back through different EU programmes and the economic boost from single-market access.No (20)Yes(20)Implied (10)NANANA
No, because of the UK Rebate, developmental aid obligations, and the amount returned, the UK's contribution is not much different than what it would pay to maintain access to the single market.No (20)Yes(10)Yes (20)NANANA
NoNo (10)Yes (10)Yes (10)NANANA
3Leaving the EU would significantly increase unemployment in the UK.EconomicsYesYes (10)Yes (10)Yes (10)NANA"Fears over the threat of Brexit to trade and resultant employment are often overdone, with some pretty big figures being bandied around regarding the potential loss to the British economy. The most striking – and most inaccurate – is that 3 to 4 million jobs, i.e. the number of people employed in exporting goods and services to the European Union, could be lost through Brexit. Given that this assumes that all exports to the Union would cease if the United Kingdom was to leave, it is a wild overstatement..."
"However, it is unlikely that a decision to restrict the number of (EU) immigrants would have a long-run impact on the unemployment of natives."
"It is a fallacy to say that jobs and investment will be lost as a result of Brexit. In fact Brexit, as described above, constitutes a major economic reform, similar to the many market reforms introduced by UK governments since the early 1980s and recently. Such a reform would benefit industries where we perform best and would remove subsidies from some others: jobs and investment (including foreign direct investment) will expand in the first at the expense of the latter."
"Both the coalition government and the previous Labour government used the figure that more than three million UK jobs are linked to EU membership. Two things to say about this figure: first of all, clearly not all of these jobs are dependent on the UK remaining part of the EU - nobody is suggesting that all exports to other EU countries would immediately stop if the UK left. Secondly, the methodology is a bit suspect. The Treasury worked out what proportion of the country's total economic output is made up of exports to the EU. Then it calculated that proportion of the UK labour force. And that's the answer!"
Yes, because millions of jobs are linked to EU trade.Yes (20)NANANANA
Neutral / Not SureNANANANA
No, but it may lead to lower wages.NAYes (20)NANANANo mention (0)
No, because jobs which depend on EU trade will be unaffected or replaced by new trade opportunities.NANANAYes (20)Implied (15)Yes (20)
No, it is the free movement of labour associated with the EU membership that increases UK's unemployment.NANAYes (20)
NoNANAYes (10)Yes (10)Yes (10)
4The free movement of labour harms the UK's public services and housing market.Economics, ImmigrationYesNANAYes (10)Yes (10)No mention (0)"Since the status quo in relation to labour mobility – remaining in the EU with the existing terms of membership – is optimal, alternative options, such as renegotiating the terms of Britain's membership, leaving the EU and joining the EEA, or leaving the EU and negotiating bilateral agreements with the EU, could not improve on it."
No mention"Immigration is also increasing housing demand, creating upward pressure on house prices, which reduces affordability for first-time buyers. However, the UK faces a longstanding problem of weak housing supply, which would require bolder domestic policies to relax land planning regulations."
"But uncontrolled and unrestricted waves of immigration may have adverse political, social and economic consequences. It goes without saying that this creates the potential for social division, as well as pressure on the UK's infrastructure and ability of public services to handle fiscal provision for migrants."
The claim: Migration to the UK puts a heavy burden on housing stock - we would need to build 240 houses a day for 20 years to cope."

Reality Check verdict: The sums add up. Note that the figures include migration from outside the EU and are a projection based on the past."
"Britain will only be able to slow or halt immigration from the rest of the EU if it pulls out of the “free movement" agreement that lets EU nationals live and work anywhere in the bloc. Even if we vote to Leave on 23 June, this might not happen. Other countries that have chosen to remain outside the union, like Norway and Iceland, have had to accept free movement as the price of access to the EU's internal market. It's possible that Britain might not follow this option, but every serious recent economic analysis of the costs and benefits of Brexit has said that EEA membership is the least risky option."
Yes, EU immigrants' additional demand puts a strain on public services.NANAYes (20)Yes (20)
Neutral / Not SureNANANANA
No, most EU immigrants pay more in taxes than they consume in public spending, and fill vital roles in the public services.NAYes (20)Yes (20)NANA
NoNAYes(10)Yes (10)NANA
5The UK can provide better education for its citizens as an EU member.EducationYesYes (10)Yes (10)Yes (10)NANANo mentionNo mentionNo mention"The money in question comes from the EU's Horizon 2020 programme, which has a budget of almost €80bn over seven years running from 2014 to 2020, or just over €11bn a year. The money is paid to support research and innovation projects in companies, universities and other research organisations."
"Brexit would have an adverse impact on the UK public sector, with universities and Transport for London (TfL) facing greater downside risks through potential loss of EU funding and lower own-source revenues."

Yes, because the freedom of movement is essential for European academics to work in UK universities.Yes (20) No mentionNANANA
Yes, because UK universities receive additional funding from the EU, on top of what the UK government pays.Yes (20)No mentionYes (20)NANA
Yes, because the freedom of movement allows UK students to study anywhere in the EU, in some cases for free.NAYes (20)NANANA
Neutral / Not SureNANANANANA
No, funding will not decrease because the UK can still receive education grants as a non-EU country.NANANANo mention (0)Yes (20)No mention (0)
NoNANANAImplied (10)Yes (10)No mention (0)
6Britain's EU membership harms infrastructure and public services, such as the NHS.HealthcareYesNANANAYes (10)Yes (10)Yes (10)"The British government could save about £10bn per year on its contributions to the European Union's budget if the country left the bloc. On the other hand, a little economic disruption and lower migration as a result of Brexit could offset these savings. The government might also continue to make some contributions to the union if it wanted to preserve single market access... We expect that Brexit would benefit the public finances, but not to a huge degree."
No mentionNo mention"Some migration from the EU is expected but the assumptions behind these population forecasts are very unlikely to be realised. An increasing population would put additional demand on A&E but the extent of that increase has not been demonstrated."
"It's been true for 68 years of NHS history that when the British economy sneezes, the NHS catches a cold and this would be a terrible moment for that to happen at precisely the time the NHS is going to need extra investment."

(NHS England chief executive Simon Stevens)
Yes, an exit would allow public services to focus on British citizens.NANANAImplied (15)Yes (20)"We don't know what deal would be done in the event of a Brexit, but if it is anything like the deals done by Norway and Switzerland it would be a decent chunk. So we don't know how much would be left over to be spent by the government on the NHS, but it is important to bear in mind just how big the NHS is, to get these figures into context."

"Reality Check verdict: Leaving the EU would not give the UK an extra £350m a week to spend on the NHS."
Yes, because the contribution to the EU budget could instead be spent on UK public services and infrastructure.NANANAYes (10)Yes (20)
Neutral / Not SureNANANANANA
No, because the negative impact on the economy from leaving the EU would reduce funding for public services and infrastructure.Yes (20)Yes (20)NANANA
No, because public services benefit from research funding and staffing from the EU.Yes (20)No mentionYes (20)NANA
NoYes (10)Yes (10)Yes (10)NANA
7The European Arrest Warrant benefits the UK's criminal justice system.LawYesYes (10)Yes (10)Yes (10)NANANo mentionNo mentionNo mentionNo mention"The arrest warrant, which came into effect in 2004, was not perfect, but it was immediately useful, leading to the swift extradition of one of London's would-be bombers in July 2005, Hussain Osman, from Italy, where he had fled. The government has since amended it. It is no longer possible to be extradited to face trial for something that's not a UK offence – the so-called dual-criminality provision – and, after some courts became clogged with costly applications to extradite people on minor charges such as non-payment of parking fines, it will only apply to graver offences."

(The Guardian)
Yes, because it compels otherwise reluctant countries to extradite criminals to the UK.Yes (20)Yes (20)Yes (20)NANA"The UK has actively employed the EAW, submitting more than a thousand requests to other member-states from 2010-14. Once outside the EU, the UK would have to negotiate a bilateral extradition agreement with the Union, or individual bilateral agreements with each of the EU's 27 member-states."

(Centre for European Reform)
Neutral / Not SureNANANANANA
No, because it forces UK police to spend resources to pursue petty criminals from other countries.NANANANo mention (0)Yes (20)No mention
No, because it does not give the UK the autonomy to deal with warranted foreign diplomats in its territory.NANANo mention (0)No mention (0)No mention (0)
NoNANANAImplied (10)Yes (10)Yes (10)
8EU trade laws harm the UK more than any new post-exit relationship could.EconomicsYesNANANAYes (10)Implied (10)"In addition, falling tariffs, the decline in manufacturing and Europe's diminishing importance in the global economy mean we doubt that even the absence of a trade deal with the European Union would hurt the United Kingdom's overall exports materially...However, the effects will vary across sectors. "

"Striking new trade deals and, in turn, opening up fast growing markets outside Europe and improving the competitiveness of Britain's manufacturing industry and goods exports would be likely to help rebalance the economy away from its current reliance on services."
"After leaving the EU, the UK would lose unrestricted access to the Single Market, and preferential access to 53 non-EU markets...Bilateral UK-EU trade would contract. Concluding a Free Trade Agreement with the EU... would provide a partial offset for UK trade by 2023. Yet, the costs of accessing the Single Market would still be higher than they are now after that time. The UK would also continue to face additional barriers on third-country markets to which preferential access was lost as a result of EU exit. Negotiating new trade treaties would take time."
"The analysis in this document shows that under all 3 models, the UK’s economic openness and interconnectedness would be reduced. Trade and investment flows would be lower. The UK would be permanently poorer if it left the EU and adopted any of these models."
"The UK does not need a trade deal to trade! The UK already trades heavily with many countries across the globe with which it has no trade deal. We successfully trade with these countries under the rules of the WTO and we can continue to do likewise with EU countries in future. The same is currently the case for the United States, Japan, China, and most of the world."
"But the UK's service sector is about 80% of our economy and the City of London dominates financial services in the EU. In the negotiations that would follow a British exit from the EU everything would depend on the deal the remaining EU members wanted to cut.
And the Remain campaign insists the EU would demand the UK accepts free movement and common regulations in any deal that provides single market access. We do not know what the outcome of such negotiations would be - it is one of the biggest question marks hanging over this referendum."
"Britain can already trade where it likes around the globe – and does so on better terms from within the world's biggest trade bloc. The “Out" campaign's talk of a lone Britain deepening ties with the Commonwealth and the US are unrealistic; these countries are either indifferent, or want Britain to stay in the EU."

(European Council on Foreign Relations)
Yes, because the UK can directly benefit from trade deals with other countries, thereby expanding trade.NANANAYes (20)Yes (20)Yes (20)"And on that matter, for example, I think it's fair to say that maybe some point down the line there might be a UK-US trade agreement, but it's not going to happen any time soon because our focus is in negotiating with a big bloc, the European Union, to get a trade agreement done."

(Barack Obama on UK-US trade post Brexit)
Neutral / Not SureNANANANANA
No, staying in the EU helps the UK secure better trade terms and avoid red tape and tariffs.Yes (20)Yes (20)Yes (20)NANA
NoYes (10)Yes (10)Yes (10)NANA
9Leaving the EU may cause territorial tensions within the UK.SovereigntyYesNAYes (10)Yes (10)NANANo mention"The UK itself would also face the possibility of a break up, with political leaders in Scotland having indicated that they would seek a new referendum on Scottish independence. Such developments would tighten financial conditions further."
No mentionNo mention"Possibly, but it's not inevitable. The question of who has the legal right to call a referendum was never really settled last time. Instead, the governments of Scotland and the UK reached a compromise – the Edinburgh agreement. The UK government could refuse to negotiate this time. If that happened, the Scottish government could try to go ahead and hold another referendum on its own without agreement from Westminster, but this could be challenged in the courts, according to Professor Aileen McHarg from the University of Strathclyde."
"Brexit would likely trigger Scottish independence and fresh violence in Northern Ireland."

"Or, more accurately,for England to cope with – one of the most bankably predictable consequences of Brexit would be an early Scottish vote for independence within the EU, rather than continuing as part of a withdrawn UK."

(European Council on Foreign Relations)
Yes, because it would result in Scotland and Northern Ireland facing political instability with the UK.NAYes (20)Yes (20)NANA
Neutral / Not SureNANANANANA
No, Scotland and Northern Ireland are as eurosceptic as England.NANANANo mention (0)No mention (0)No mention
NoNANANAImplied (10)Yes (10)No mention
10Britain is safer when it partakes in the EU bodies that address terrorism and other security concerns.SecurityYesYes (10)Yes (10)Yes (10)NANANo mentionNo mentionNo mentionNo mention"It's important to remember that Britain does not have an “open border" with Europe in the same way that the Schengen countries – until recently – had with each other. What Iain Duncan Smith appears to be worried about is the prospect of extremists entering other EU countries as migrants and eventually getting citizenship, making it easier for them to live and work in Britain. This is a prediction, so it's impossible to prove him right or wrong. The most we can do is look at recent history, which shows that the threat from within these borders has so far been much greater than terrorists coming here from Europe – but these figures pre-date the recent surge in migration. As we have seen, experts are divided on the impact Brexit would have on the UK's ability to protect itself from security threats."
"Post-Brexit, Britain would find it harder to keep close foreign-policy and security links with the EU, not least because it would no longer be in the room. There is a broader geopolitical point, too. Partly because its foreign-policy role has grown, the EU has become a key piece of the West's defence and security architecture. Brexit would weaken the EU—and so the West."

(The Economist)
Yes, intelligence sharing across Europe helps Britain effectively prepare for security risks.Yes (20)Yes (20)Yes (20)NANA
Yes, and through such system Britain takes a leading role at setting the priorities of EU security strategies.NANo mentionYes (20)NANA
Neutral / Not SureNANANANANA"So my judgement, as Home Secretary, is that remaining a member of the European Union means we will be more secure from crime and terrorism."

(Theresa May, UK's Home Secretary)
No, because countries would have shared this information regardless.NANANAYes (20)Yes (20)No mention (0)
No, because intelligence sharing across Europe is very poor and leaks information.NANANANo mention (0)No mention (0)No mention (0)"The terms on which we exchange data with other European countries are set by agreement within the EU… An agreement reached without us would probably be too restrictive for our needs… this could undermine our ability to protect ourselves."

(John Sawers, former MI6 head, and Jonathan Evans, MI5 chief)
No, because certain EU bodies have been misspending resources on projects that compromise UK's national security.NANANo mention (0)No mention (0)Yes (20)"Whether one is an enthusiastic European or not, the truth about Brexit from a national security perspective is that the cost to Britain would be low. Brexit would bring two potentially important security gains: the ability to dump the European Convention on Human Rights—remember the difficulty of extraditing the extremist Abu Hamza of the Finsbury Park Mosque—and, more importantly, greater control over immigration from the European Union."

(Sir Richard Dearlove, former MI6 head)
NoNANANAYes (10)Yes (10)Yes (10)
11The EU is an undemocratic body that does not represent the UK's voice.Foreign policyYesNANANAImplied (10)Yes (10)Yes (10)No mentionNo mentionNo mention"EU commissioners on the other hand are proposed by national governments and selected by the president of the European Commission. New legislation proposed by the Commission still has to be agreed by the member states and passed by the European Parliament, which is directly elected by EU voters. So it's misleading to say unelected bureaucrats make decisions in the EU. The 28 European commissioners are meant to carry out their responsibilities independently of their national governments. In that sense, they are similar to British civil servants - politically impartial and independent of the government."
"Yet the European “democratic deficit" is a myth. Such riticisms rest on a vague understanding of what the “democratic deficit" is, ignore concrete empirical data about whether one exists, and hold the EU to the impossible standard of an idealized conception of Westminsterian or ancient-style democracy – a perfect democracy in which informed citizens participate actively on all issues."

"The result of this analysis is unambiguous: across nearly every measureable dimension, the EU is at least as democratic, and generally more so, than its member

(Andrew Moravcsik, "The Myth of Europe's Democratic Deficit" )
Yes, because many EU officials and bureaucrats are not elected by the British people.NANANAYes (20)Yes (20)Yes (20)
Neutral. Members of the European Parliament are democratically elected, but other officials are not.NANANANANA
No, because UK citizens elect members of the European Parliament.NAYes (20)Yes (20)NANA
NoNAYes (10)Yes (10)NANA
12Membership in the EU reduces the UK's foreign policy influence.Foreign policyYesNANANAImplied (10)Yes (10)Yes (10)
Yes, because the UK has little influence over EU's development projects abroad.NANANo mention (0)No mention (0)Yes (20)
Yes, because it precludes the UK from direct representation at international bodies such as the World Trade Organisation.NANANAYes (20)Yes (20)Yes (20)
Neutral / Not SureNANANANANA
No, because it gives the UK a voice in more negotiations and organisations.Yes (20)Yes (20)Yes (20)NANA
NoYes (10)Yes (10)Yes (10)NANANo mentionNo mentionNo mention"A British exit from the EU would have major foreign policy consequences – damaging both Britain and the rest of Europe."

"In matters of foreign policy – dealing with an outside world which, year by year, will become an ever-more pressing and vital interest to all Europeans – the single most effective reform of the EU which Cameron could deliver would be fullblooded British re-engagement."

(European Council on Foreign Relations)
13Membership in the EU compromises UK sovereignty.SovereigntyYesNANANAImplied (10)Implied (10)Yes (10)No mentionNo mentionNo mention"The 1972 Act gave direct effect to EU law and meant that if there was a conflict between an act of the British Parliament and EU law, Parliament lost out and EU law prevailed. That meant Parliament was giving up part of its sovereignty. But it remains sovereign because it can repeal the 1972 Act, just as it can repeal any other act it has passed."
"Apart from EU immigration, the British government still determines the vast majority of policy over every issue of greatest concern to British voters – including health, education, pensions, welfare, monetary policy, defence and border security. The arguments for leaving also ignore the fact that the UK controls more than 98 per cent of its public expenditure ... In a world that is more interdependent today than it was when the UK joined the European Economic Community in 1973, the notion of ‘absolute' British sovereignty is illusory. It is also worthless if it limits the ability of future British governments to ensure the security and prosperity of their citizens."

(Chatham House)
Yes, because half of the UK laws are made by EU bureaucrats whom British citizens have never voted for.NANANAYes (20)Implied (15)Implied (15)
Yes, because European Court of Justice can overrule UK laws.NANANAYes (20)No mention (0)Yes (20)
Neutral / Not SureNANANANANA
No, because the UK has a strong voice in the decision-making processes in the EU and can defend its national interests.Implied (20)Implied (10)Yes (20)NANA
No, because the European Court of Justice enforces laws and decisions in other EU countries, benefiting the UK.Implied (10)Yes (20)Implied (10)NANA
NoYes (10)Yes (10)Yes (10)NANA
14EU funding, laws and regulations make valuable contributions to preventing man-made climate change.Climate changeYesYes (10)Yes (10)Yes (10)NANANo mentionNo mention"It could be argued that emissions would have fallen anyway without the intervention of the EU. Many of the cuts have been made possible by technology change and there is a UN Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution (CLRTAP) which covers EU and non-EU states. But it's the EU that has set the legal framework for the UK's emission targets, and the EU also sets environmental standards for goods which have been used to drive emissions down."
"The suggestion is that Britain will “get back" all these things supposedly banned by EU regulations “if we vote out". But a vote to leave the EU will not necessarily mean the end of Britain applying such regulations. No one knows what kind of relationship the UK will negotiate with the EU after Brexit. But if we wanted to pull out of the union but stay in the European Economic Area, like Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway, we would almost certainly still be bound by many EU regulations, as part of the price of continued access to the Single Market."
"The risks of withdrawing from the EU are significant for nature...Judging by the UK government's responses to a range of environmental proposals from the European Commission in recent years, it seems more likely that the current government and possibly its successors would opt for a "less ambitious approach than that adopted by the EU."

(Institute for European Environmental Policy)
Yes, the UK must combat climate change through international cooperation.Yes (20)Yes (20)Yes (20)NANANo mention"Not everything that comes from Europe has been good for the natural world, but on balance membership of the EU has delivered benefits for our environment that would be hard to replicate in the event of the UK leaving."

(Trevor Hutchings, Director of Advocacy, WWF-UK)
Neutral / Not SureNANANANA"The UK's membership of the EU has been a crucial factor in the shaping of its environmental policy since it joined the Union in the 1970s. The overwhelming view of our witnesses was that EU membership has been positive for the UK environment. None of the witnesses to our inquiry, even those who made criticisms, made an environmental case for leaving the European Union."

(Environmental Audit Committee)
No, because man-made climate change does not exist.NANANo mention (0)No mention (0)No mention (0)
No, they just inhibit the UK economy and provide unnecessary red tape.NANAImplied (15)No mention (0)No mention (0)
No, because the solution largely depends on the major polluters - the US and China.NANANo mention (0)Yes (20)No mention (0)
NoNANAYes (10)Yes (10)No mention (0)