Argument: The EU is a force multiplier

The UK gets more bang for the buck as a result of being a member of the EU. It has representation in more countries as a result of the European External Action Service (equivalent of the Foreign Office) thus extending UK influence to countries where it would not otherwise have representation. For example the EU have representation in Djibouti [1] whereas the UK individually is represented there from neighbouring Ethiopia. [2]

The UK, along with France, and to a lesser extent Germany, leads the EU on foreign policy matters, as illustrated by the first The High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy being a Briton, Catherine Ashton. [3] This means the UK essentially gains from the backing of the other 26 member states giving the UK a much more influential voice globally. For example the EU has a role in the Middle East ‘quartet’ of the EU, USA, Russia and United Nations [4] giving the UK a place at the table on the key issue of Israel Palestine where otherwise it would have none.

[1] ‘Délégation en République de Djibouti’, Délégation de l’Union européenne, http://eeas.europa.eu/delegations/djibouti/index_fr.htm

[2] ‘British Embassy Addis Ababa’, Gov.uk, https://www.gov.uk/government/world/organisations/british-embassy-addis-ababa

[3] ‘The High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy’, Europea Union External Action, http://www.eeas.europa.eu/archives/ashton/index_en.htm

[4] ‘The Quartet’, Office of the Quartet, http://www.quartetrep.org/category.php?id=a374y41844Ya374&amp;c_type=1

Candidate 1: "It is a misconception that any nation has complete sovereignty in the realm of international affairs, the restraints and restrictions as a result of being in or out are simply different. Every foreign policy has to operate within the context of the international system, and the capabilities with which the state has. Leaving the EU will give back certain areas with which the UK can negotiate but at the same time will ensure the UK is a lone voice rather than part of a combined negotiating position. The common foreign policy is just that; 28 countries making the same point, much more difficult for even the biggest nations to ignore. The decision making is done by all the heads of state/government so cannot be said to represent a loss of sovereignty. [1]

[1] ‘Foreign &amp; security policy at EU level’, EUR-lex, updated 8 December 2015, http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=URISERV%3Aai0025"
Candidate 2: "It is undeniable that in some areas the EU is a force multiplier. But many of the issues it uses this leverage on are not areas of concern to a UK that has left the EU; migrants arriving in Greece are of little national interest to the UK. Britain would instead focus its weight on areas that are of direct concern such as terrorism. In other areas the multiplier simply saves the UK a little money; could the UK have an embassy in Djibouti? Certainly if it wished, but it is not an area of primary concern to the UK."
Candidate 3: "As a smaller and less attractive market the UK will inevitably get a less good deal than it could have with the whole of the EU at its back. Moreover if the UK still wants free access to the EU market, which accounts for 45% of UK exports and 53%, [1] it will still not have a completely free hand economically. Norway for example may retain close economic links and freely trade with Europe but does not have any ability to make decisions on EU rules and must accept their regulations – clearly a worse position than the UK now. [2]

[1] Webb, Dominic, and Keep, Matthew, ‘In brief: UK-EU economic relations’, House of Commons Library, Briefing Paper, No. 06091, 19 January 2016, p.3, www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/SN06091.pdf

[2] Eide, Espen Barth, ‘We pay, but have no say: that’s the reality of Norway’s relationship with the EU’, The Guardian, 27 October 2015, http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/oct/27/norway-eu-reality-uk-voters-seduced-by-norwegian-model"
Candidate 4: "Ukraine may not be a high priority itself for British foreign policy but Russia is still a major, possibly the most major, threat. The UK has had very poor relations with Russia for years with various spy incidents such as the murder of Alexander Litvinenko [1] and with Russian bombers regularly being intercepted near the UK, six times in 2015, [2] even before we get onto Russian aggression in Georgia and Ukraine and British and Russian interests in the Middle East often being at loggerheads. The migration crisis may not directly affect the UK but it's cause, Syria and Middle Eastern instability, is a major concern for the UK as a result of UK nationals joining Daesh.

[1] Owen, Robert, ‘Report into the death of Alexander Litvinenko’, The Litvinenko Inquiry, January 2016, https://www.litvinenkoinquiry.org/files/Litvinenko-Inquiry-Report-web-version.pdf

[2] ‘RAF jets intercept Russian bombers heading to UK’, BBC news, 17 February 2016, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-35598892"
Candidate 5: "In the areas of policy where rapid responses are necessary even within the EU the UK retains its freedom of action. The areas where there is joint policy are issues such as trade and environment negotiations which are always slow anyway. Defence and security are areas where power remains with the member states. The only areas of foreign policy where the slow speed of the EU comes up against slow decision making are areas where joint policy is a benefit as in response to the migration crisis; no one nation could have responded alone, even Germany, who take in most migrants needed there to be a path to the country."
Candidate 6: "There are also advantages to this power shift; the UK is less threatened so better able to act. The UK is therefore free to align itself with whichever powers it wishes rather than having alignments dictated by geography and who is threatening the UK. In the past the threat from Germany, and then the USSR, forced the UK into an alliance with France and the USA. When it comes to deciding between the USA, China, and India the UK has a free hand. As a result the UK has a once in a lifetime opportunity to strike new “trade deals with the growth economies around the world”. [1]

[1] Boris Johnson quoted in Erixon, Fredrik, ‘Boris and the Breziteers are talking nonsense about Britain’s trade policies’, The Spectator, 1 April 2016, http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/04/boris-and-the-brexiteers-are-talking-nonsense-about-britains-trade-policies/"
Candidate 7: "The UK has more influence as a power in the second tier being sought after rather than having its voice swamped in the EU where it is but one of 27 voices. The UK will retain its UN Security Council seat and nuclear weapons, it will remain a powerful country that is relevant across all sorts of areas, it will simply be less constrained."
Candidate 8: "The UK will still be part of Europe just not in the EU. It will still be a member of a plethora of other organisations; NATO, OSCE, Council of Europe, European free trade area. Countries like France and Germany are not going to stop listening to the UK because it is no longer a member."

It is undeniable that in some areas the EU is a force multiplier. But many of the issues it uses this leverage on are not areas of concern to a UK that has left the EU; migrants arriving in Greece are of little national interest to the UK. Britain would instead focus its weight on areas that are of direct concern such as terrorism. In other areas the multiplier simply saves the UK a little money; could the UK have an embassy in Djibouti? Certainly if it wished, but it is not an area of primary concern to the UK.
