2 min read
Working to influence political opinion both in Westminster and in Brussels certainly gives me a unique view but not necessarily an obvious choice as we approach the EU referendum in June.
Our community has friends across all blocs and parties within the European Parliament, the Commission and the Council and I am proud that the causes I represent have real allies.
It is the case that EU member states who have historical issues surrounding their Jewish communities often strive even harder to protect them today and our communities in the UK celebrate that our rights have been protected for generations. There is no reason to assume that leaving the Union will change that. But there is no doubt that when European colleagues set a precedent for protecting the Jewish community, David Cameron must follow. Who knows what impact French security measures around their synagogues had on our government's decision to award extra funding here in the UK. European influence gives an extra check and balance that has practical benefits on the ground.
When this is compared to the issue of brit milah the opposite is true. Opposition to brit milah often originates from Scandinavia and politicians who look to influence the rest of Europe with humanist agendas that are deeply entrenched within their societies. Recent motions have had a significant impact on milah and there is potential for further threats. The UK is a Christian country and these deep-rooted beliefs lead to a respect for our religious rights. So, a political distance from mainland Europe may minimise negative influences and help to safeguard the practice.
The EU also provides significant challenges to trade with Israel. The issue of labelling items from the disputed territories raised its ugly head again in the autumn and the benefits of being an independent nation seem clear.
There are also not insignificant issues surrounding trading with the EU in general which would be easier to influence and mould if the UK was able to create its own policies. But EU policies have had little real impact up until now and there is no reason to suggest this will change.
Perhaps the most interesting case study is shechita. Over my more than 30 years of campaigning on the issue, we have had significant victories both at home and on the continent. We are all grateful that the current Conservative government has given an iron-clad manifesto promise that shechita will continue in the UK. But this gives us a five-year reassurance. Who knows what the next government will decide?
On surrounding issues such as labelling kosher meat for the wider market and industry standards - where the EU takes the lead - the Commission values religious communities and looks to work with them wherever possible. This shows no sign of changing.
Furthermore, the recent study into labelling showed no appetite to take the issue forward in all 27 member nations. So perhaps a change in governance would have no real impact. But the nature of the EU also means that extreme voices can make a lot of noise without changing policy, this minimises this risk of a complete ban.
New import and export tariffs could have a real impact on those who look to import meat from continental Europe. A large amount of red meat currently comes into the UK from Eastern Europe and Ireland. Changes to import duty could drive prices up or force suppliers to move back to the UK, meaning those who have invested in British meat over the past 20 years may see a real return on their investment.
What makes this decision particularly interesting is that there is no clear answer on any of the questions that matter to our community. There is no obvious Jewish decision. Maybe that's not a bad thing.
Shimon Cohen is campaign director of Shechita UK
