Leadsom outlines Brexit benefits

Writing exclusively for Utility Week, energy minister Andrea Leadsom, says that the UK's energy security is threatened by continued EU membership.

On 23 June, millions of Britons will be casting their vote in what is the most momentous decision of our time: is our future brighter in or out of the EU?

For that is the reality of what we are being asked to consider. Do we tie ourselves to the failing project that is the EU, with all the risks associated with a eurozone that must push for complete financial and political union to survive? Or do we have the self-confidence and belief to stand on our own feet and look out across the world, rather than limiting our outlook to the hinterlands of Europe?

I am convinced that our United Kingdom has the brightest future possible ahead of us if we just have the courage of our convictions to vote to Leave.

Why do I think this? Well, a number of reasons.

The UK is the fifth-biggest economy on the planet, and the eighth-largest for manufacturing. We speak the world’s international business language – English. When international companies want to do business, they come to the UK because we have the best contract law anywhere. Our judicial system is consistently viewed as one of the least corrupt. These may be things we take for granted, but they are core reasons why we are so successful.

Not only has London been ranked as the most powerful city on Earth four years in a row, but our financial services sector – “the City” – competes only with New York, Singapore and Shanghai, and completely outstrips its smaller European counterparts.

And, of course, the very real benefits that our historic links of friendship with the Commonwealth bring, as well as the strength of our relationships with the emerging economies in the Asia-Pacific region.

However, in my role as energy minister, there are three considerations that are always at the forefront of policymaking and must be kept in balance. Often referred to as the “energy trilemma”, they are: providing energy security; keeping bills down; and decarbonisation.

These have always been red line issues for us with our energy security being non-negotiable, and when we leave the EU that will not change. But here’s the rub. What isn’t yet well known, if we vote to remain, is that the Commission’s “Winter Package” contains a number of proposals that threaten that security.

Two of those suggestions in particular give me cause for serious concern.

We will be required in future to ask the Commission for approval before negotiating new gas deals, leaving us subservient to a group of bureaucrats who do not necessarily have the UK’s best interests in mind, and slowing down our ability to meet our own gas needs.

There is then a specific pledge by the Commission to require member states to take on legal responsibility for each other’s energy security. The wording of the proposal is clear. If we remain to become part of this “Energy Union”, and one of our partners faces problems with their energy security, we will be required to switch off our own small businesses here at home and to hand our gas over under the instructions of EU bureaucrats.

The tragedy is that this has always been a red line for us: energy security is not negotiable. But soon this will change, and it will be under qualified majority voting. Our 8 per cent representation in a vote will be useless because it’s so clearly in the interests of other member states. Just as when our economy performs better our contributions to the EU budget are revised up, so too will our energy security be compromised by the EU because of the very fact that we prioritise it more than other member states do.

These issues matter to every bill payer, every business, and they’re a very great problem for those who argue that our energy security will be greater if we remain. How are we going to resist this? More to the point, why should we have to?

Andrea Leadsom is also speaking at the Utility Week Energy Summit on 5 July. For more information, visit www.uw-energysummit.net