The Lion And The Unicorn

The only way to wrest power away from our ruling elite is to take it. Voting to leave the European Union begins the process.

David Cameron has given us the means. Simply by putting an “X” on a piece of paper we can assert our sovereignty.

The box that no one is supposed to put an “X” in—the one that David Cameron wishes he had never put on the ballot—is a box that you may never see again outside a museum.

That box is your sole right to take power over your government.

That power normally only exists over the United Kingdom government. It does not exist for the European Union. No matter who you vote for in a general election, the European Union remains.

This one time you can participate in that most British of political processes—a ballot box revolution; an orderly transfer of power which removes the supremacy of the European Commission and the European Court of Justice from our national life.

Long before this campaign started, just after the Conservative Party’s unexpected election win, Alistair Campbell said on Question Time, “even having the debate is dangerous”. He was right. Democratic and accountable government are the best defence we know of against the hubristic and maladroit.

The absence of democracy across a wide range of policy areas is a feature of the European Union and it has an enormously detrimental affect upon the quality of our public life.

British voters cannot elect a government that can make changes at an EU level because the European Union is above the nation. The supranational character of the European Union excludes British voters from the process.

Do you want our parliament to be able to make laws concerning the areas of policy our politicians have given away to the European Union? If you do then you must instruct our politicians to return our governing power to the British parliament.

You can only do that by voting to leave the European Union.

We The People

Do we wish to be a self-confident, self-governing, free trading nation-state which looks out to the rest of the world as Britain or do we wish to remain subordinate to a supranational EU government which passes decisions over our heads and excludes the people from the democratic process? That really would be a retreat from the world.

The EU is ultimately about one thing. Power. Who has power and in whose interests is that power exercised? The same is true of this referendum.

Will we the people return power to democratic institutions which are accountable to us and therefore capable of reform? Or will we assent to politicians who want to empower the EU to keep power away from the people?

During the course of this referendum, the Prime Minister, most of his ministers and a majority of the MPs in Parliament have set themselves up in opposition to the people. This has not been anything like a “free and fair referendum”. In order for that to have happened, the government would have needed to either fall silent or produce evidence-based reports for both of the two possible outcomes. Instead, Remain-minded politicians have used the machinery of government to produce tax-payer funded propaganda.

In spite of the stacked deck with which David Cameron and George Osborne are playing, we Leavers have more than held our own. Cameron started with a treasury report. Then he put the IMF on the table. That was followed by the OECD and The Bank of England. The President of the United States of America even waded into the debate with Cameron looking on approvingly as he threatened not to do a deal with a post-exit Britain.

How can we few, we happy few, possibly compete with that?

Well, the fact of the matter is that we have, for one main reason, which has nothing to do with the politicians or any of the nonsense we have heard from the designated campaign. Cameron is not playing games against any one of us, he is playing against all of us, and when we the British people speak the politicians will have no option but to listen.

The eyes of the world are upon us. Think about that.

The entire course of enlightened human history is at our backs. The fight for democratic and accountable government is something for which people around the world have laid down their lives. We need only put a cross on a ballot paper. There is nothing to be afraid of. There is no challenge that we the people of the United Kingdom cannot face together.

The start of a process of democratic revival and renewal begins with an assertion of sovereignty and the demand that Parliament return policy-making power to institutions which are accountable to us. If you wish to live in an independent Britain that is self-confident, self-governing, with our minds open to the world and looking forward to the adventures still to come, we must vote to leave the European Union.

A Matter Of Trust

Prior to the start of the referendum campaign Prime Minister, David Cameron, told the House of Commons that: “My argument is not going to be, in any way, that Britain couldn’t succeed outside the European Union. Of course we could. We’re a great country”. The implication is obvious. Leaving the EU is a reasonable option that would not spell disaster for Britain. Although the Prime Minister would prefer that Britain remain in the EU, the choice is yours.

Since the start of the campaign period, however, Cameron and Osborne (arguably even more so) have not argued a positive case for EU governance but have instead issued a series of increasingly hysterical “projections” culminating in threats of a “punishment budget” from Osborne and Cameron’s utterly bizarre insistence that should Britain vote to leave the EU—rather than planning a serious transition from EU Member State to independent self-government—he would “immediately” invoke Article 50 and take Britain out of the Single Market at the point of EU exit.

That would be an extraordinary act of economic vandalism. The fact of the matter is that a vote to leave the EU would signal the start of a parliamentary process. Nothing more. Vote Leave has no mandate to govern and David Cameron is in the midst of a referendum campaign which he is desperate to win. Foolish prognostications about what would happen after a vote to leave the EU can be safely shelved. The most likely outcome in the event of a leave vote is an EEA type transition adapted for the unique circumstances in which Britain finds itself—a kind of “British option”, if you like.

On The Road Again

On Sunday morning the politicians returned to campaigning. A naive person might have expected a calmer more respectful debate. George Osborne’s call for “less baseless assertion and inflammatory rhetoric and more reasoned argument and facts” on the Robert Peston programme hinted in that direction but was accompanied by an article in The Sunday Telegraph written by David Cameron in which he described leaving the EU as “an abject and self-imposed humiliation for a proud and important country like ours”.

There is nothing quite like a Prime Minister who believes in Britain… and David Cameron is nothing like a Prime Minister who believes in Britain. These cynical liars have shamed the great offices of state we have so carelessly allowed them to occupy.

On top of that, the Stronger In and associated social media accounts started to publicise this image.

This marks a new low in the quite extraordinarily low-grade debate that politicians and the legacy media have indulged in.

In contrast, the debate that I have witnessed among ordinary voters has been of an entirely different order. For the most part, civil engagement and a genuine exchange of views has been taking place. Far more so than is typical at the average general election. People understand that this vote really counts.

There is, however, one aspect of that Remain campaign graphic to which I would draw people’s attention and invite them to reflect. The flag is that of the United Kingdom—our country—not that of the EU, a supranational organisation used by politicians to pass decision-making power and policy control over the heads of the British people to unaccountable institutions which do not have to listen to us.

In the end, the choice that we have to make comes down to a matter of trust. Who do you trust to make better decisions about your life and the way in which your country is governed? You and your fellow citizens? Or an international establishment with a vested interest in taking power away from ordinary people? Goldman Sachs? JP Morgan? Morgan Stanley? Do those sound like institutions which have your interests at heart—all have given money to the campaign to keep Britain in the EU.

Look again at the table above.

You are most certainly not alone in holding leading politicians in the same contempt that they have evinced towards us. Aware that his credibility is shot the Prime Minister now condescends people further by saying “all” the experts are on his side and that we should listen to those experts.

This silly rhetoric rings so hollow. Democracy is about government by and for the people not by and for the experts and I would not want it any other way. Indeed, leaving the EU means taking decisions as a country rather than meekly accepting policies agreed in Brussels and imposed from above.

That is why voting to leave the EU is a vote for real change, that is why people who currently occupy positions of power in this country and elsewhere mostly oppose Britain leaving the EU. Leaving the EU would mean British politicians being held to account by we the people.

Talk to your family, talk to your friends. Listen to what they have to say. The politicians and the press want to manipulate you. Those whom you trust want what is best for you. Find out what they are thinking. Don’t vote based on fear. Vote for what you think is right.

Thinking For Ourselves

The Guardian today carries this slightly equivocal anti-Brexit piece written by Andrew Graham. The thesis is one that we have heard a hundred different variants on during the course of the campaign: leaving the EU would diminish British influence in the world.

This is so obviously untrue that refuting it seems almost unnecessary. The EU benefits from Parliament passing policy-making power—and a degree of responsibility for the nation’s international representation—over the heads of the British people to supranational institutions which are not in any real sense of the word democratic.

The upside for all of us of Britain’s national governance being mediated through the EU rather than through politicians who we can hold to account in our democratically elected national parliament is far less clear.

I would put it to you that the trade-offs Britain makes in terms of the autonomy, agility and accountability of our domestic politics are not worth the candle. National democracy is designed to be self-correcting whereas EU governance is designed to remove policy-making power and democratic safeguards from traditional nation-states.

The article begins reasonably enough.

Almost everyone agrees that the EU is not working well. It is also true that on almost any scenario, whether we are in or out, this region will remain our biggest and closest market. Whether it thrives or not is, or should be, of fundamental interest to us. All that matters is whether it thrives more or less by the UK being out or in.

In fact, an earlier post of mine, in which I argue almost the opposite case to Andrew Graham, begins with a similar rejoinder:

The EU is in a pretty bad way. Leavers and Remainers agree on that much, I think.

So, we do indeed agree on that much it seems. Where we begin to disagree is when Mr Graham says, “All that matters is whether it [the EU] thrives more or less by the UK being out or in”. Certainly the rest of Europe doing well is in Britain’s interests, but the suggestion that “all that matters” is the success or otherwise of the EU neglects to address the enormous political question with which the United Kingdom is faced: independent self-governance or supranational subordination?

Should Britain and the British people have the power to hold policy-makers to account in democratic elections which can change the government and with that the direction of the country every four to five years (now every five years under the Fixed Term Parliament Act) or should we accept the authority of a supranational government in which Britain is a constituent part but no longer the supreme law-making authority in the British Isles?

Returning to the case that Mr Graham makes. He continues:

For some, the only way to reform the EU is to break it up by our exit. The optimism of such a view is impressive. History is hardly littered with good examples of destruction leading smoothly to regeneration. Fine, perhaps, for the rich and powerful, who can, and will, ride out the many bumps along the way. But if you have few resources to fall back on and/or need to work, it is a risk you might prefer to avoid.

Once again, I agree with most of that. However, I do not foresee the break-up of the EU if Britain leaves. This report in The Telegraph indicates that “senior diplomatic sources” are increasingly resigned to the prospect of Britain leaving the EU, but they are not prepared to offer further concessions.

This is the kind of pragmatic attitude that one would expect from an official; a far cry from the politicians and journalists who dominate debate in the increasingly disconnected legacy media. The rest of the EU would regard Britain leaving with some regret but Britain’s EU membership has been fractious ever since Edward Heath lied in order to take Britain into what was then the European Economic Community (EEC).

The Telegraph report goes on to say that increasingly EU officials are insisting that the union will emerge stronger than before if its most reluctant member does choose to withdraw following next week’s vote. The commitment of the other EU Member States to “ever closer union” is and always was far more firm than that of Britain, due in no small part to The Great Deception which generations of British politicians have perpetuated.

The EU is not a trade bloc, it is a government, but still the “remain” camp almost exclusively argues its case on the basis of economics and not politics. The few areas of policy which the “remain” side will promote concern workers rights and environmental protections which are associated with the EU simply because that is the legislative and regulatory portal through which Britain accesses those particular global conventions. Outside of the EU, Britain would still be one of the primary framers of those rules-based frameworks, but it would be for Parliament to decide how said provisions would be coded into law.

Staying with the Telegraph article, the reports of “daily calls between European capitals discussing contingency plans for a Brexit” offer further positive signs that the EU is taking this matter seriously and that a managed transition is in the offing. The quoted source continues:

“[Post-Brexit t]he EU will have found an identity and will have moved forward, deepending in key areas like monetary union and defence”

Precisely the areas of policy in which the UK is not involved and is not likely to be. “The source dismissed Britain as ‘not a player’ in core areas of the EU and said that people in Brussels now believe it will ‘be better to have a reluctant player outside the tent'”. Indeed, relations between Britain and the EU have been strained—largely owing to the deception and self-deception of British MPs and cabinet ministers regarding the fundamental nature of the EU project—for a very long time.

To that end, I sometimes find myself agreeing with statements made by EU officials which other Brexiteers highlight as ‘scare stories’.

Do not get me wrong, some of the statements made by EU officials opposing democracy and the nation-state are truly beyond the pale, but others are simple statements of fact. For instance, the infamous Jean-Claude Junker comment that: “There can be no democratic choice against the EU treaties”. All he is really saying here is that EU Member States are legally bound to uphold the agreement that they have signed. In other words, if you assent to be an EU Member State then the supreme law-making authority in your country is the EU—the European Commission is the executive, the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union are the legislature, and the European Court of Justice is the judiciary.

To detour for a moment, that comment is particularly apposite in the case of Britain because it is part of Britain’s political culture to abide by the agreements which we sign. If the agreement is not working in our interest or is not working to advance the public good then we should end the agreement in an orderly fashion. The fact that doing so in the case of the EU is so problematical—made more so by the Prime Minister and the Chancellor’s refusal to engage in rational debate—is again indicative of its unique character in the realm of international affairs.

This is a key reason why the ongoing humbug about “reform” must now stop. Britain and the other EU Member States have a fundamentally different perspective on what the EU is and what the EU should be. Hammering the point home, The Telegraph source says: “Everyone tells us we have given Britain too much, bent the rules too far, they ask us ‘how can you still look at yourself in the mirror’; there is an opt-out for ever closer union and a migration benefits brake.”

This is so far removed from what even “remain” campaigners in the UK, who are now once again proposing that Britain should stay in the EU in order to fight for yet more “reform”, had hoped that the Prime Minister would achieve that there is no way to square that circle. The better option is to abandon the unreality of “reform” and accept that EU structures are not suited to Britain and that they never will be.

Trading and co-operating together does not require common government and nobody can deny it. It is highly irresponsible for the Prime Minister of all people, who one might hope would stand at least a little bit above the fray, to have gone from saying that of course Britain could succeed outside the EU to saying that leaving the EU and the Single Market would “put a bomb under our economy”.

But now, even at this late stage in the campaign, I must turn my ire on Vote Leave. Dominic Cummings’ refusal to recognise the need for transitional arrangements which would safeguard the British economy at the point of exit was entirely needless. A phased transition which recognises the political reality of a “fork in the road” for the eurozone would have made for a much firmer base for a Brexit campaign. Credible reassurance and an alternative vision should have been the Vote Leave watch words.

Not that I personally think—and time may tell on this, when the histories and post-referendum analyses come to be written—Vote Leave has necessarily been a particularly important actor in the rise in support for a “leave” vote. My view is of a piece with that of John Mann, who said on the BBC Daily Politics: “There’s the Vote Leave vs Remain battle and then there’s the real debate in the country”. We shall see, I suppose.

This all throws into sharp relief the next section of The Guardian article: “The alternative view is that the UK could, and should, play its full role as a key leader in reforming the EU.” Frankly, this is absurd. Britain is not in the euro nor Schengen. The idea of Britain “leading” from the periphery is a complete non-starter. It is not a case of “selling ourselves short” to recognise that the EU centres around the eurozone and that outside of that there is no good reason—indeed there are considerable downsides—associated with continuing with an arrangement that takes policy control away from Westminster and Whitehall and substitutes our independent voice and vote at the global level for a “common position” decided by the EU-28 and inevitably dominated by the eurozone core.

Without responsibility for trade, fisheries and agriculture in particular and with a diminished responsibility for foreign and defence policy, which is now partially administered and agreed at EU level, Britain has lost something of the reflex for thinking in terms of our global role.

Outside of the EU, however, joined-up policy-making—which is not possible while Britain has to accept the EU “common position” in trade talks, on global standards-setting bodies and increasingly at the UN—would allow Britain to innovate and introduce new ideas which represent the best that the British people have to offer the world.

Contra David Cameron and George Osborne’s outrageous scare stories, news has been leaking out about civil service plans to leave the EU in a controlled manner. These have even found their way into the legacy press; most notably perhaps on BBC Newsnight.

If you would like to know more about how Britain should and would disengage from EU political union and reorient our relationship with the rest of the EU so that it better suits both Britain and our continental partners, then please dig into the archive on this blog and click-through to the read material produced by the other Leave Alliance bloggers listed in the sidebar.

This is your choice. Get as informed as you can and make what you think is the right choice.

Here are a few selected posts:

What is the EU? — The EU Is A Government

Why we should leave — The EU Is Anti-Democratic

No future “reform” — Remainers Want To Bury Dave’s Dodgy Deal

An important point of information — The EU Is Not The Single Market

Managing the risks — Running Towards Risk

A gradual transition (a process not an event) — A Transition Plan

Rebuilding the policy framework — Self-Governance And Global Engagement

No quick fix — On Immigration

An international perspective — Thinking Beyond The Bubble

A better way to do trade — The Future Is Multilateral Not Supranational

A positive vision — Rediscovering Our Global Voice

The heart of the matter — A Point Of Principle

A Point Of Principle

It is generally accepted that Britain could succeed outside the EU. Polling data indicates that most people think that over the longer-term Britain would be better off outside the EU. It is only over the short-term that people expect a bit of a wobble. In other words, it is the transition that concerns people.

Indeed, the consensus runs so deep that the Prime Minister, who has since taken to embarrassing himself with silly scare stories which nobody could believe, told the House of Commons earlier this year that: “My argument is not going to be, in any way, that Britain couldn’t succeed outside the European Union. Of couse we could. We’re a great country”.

That magnanimity has been well and truly lost in the heat of referendum battle—I am not sure debate is the right word as no real exchange of ideas is occurring. The Remain side will not recognise that the project which they insist upon promoting in terms of economics is wholly political and that leaving or remaining in the EU is about who governs Britain. Should the United Kingdom be a self-governing democracy or should the United Kingdom be subordinate to a supranational government based in Brussels? That is the question.

The real argument therefore concerns democracy and self-determination, not money nor workers rights. Britain has a proud history of support for working people—rights that were hard-won and are now so ingrained that they are taken for granted. Sure, there are debates around the margins, but it is only in the fervor of a referendum campaign that anybody could argue that entire tranches of policy could be surrendered without any form of defiance. The idea is laughable.

Now, however, the government, in the form of Chancellor George Osborne—supported by former Chancellor Alistair Darling—are resorting to outright threats and intimidation. I do not know anybody committed to leaving the EU who does not acknowledge that there is likely to be some kind of turbulence on the financial markets if the British people hold their nerve and vote for the freedom for which their forebears fought. That has been factored in and is a price that is well worth paying. This goes way beyond that.

George Osborne is now claiming that a vote to leave the EU “would mean less money. Billions less” and that he would raise taxes and cut spending as a result. This is not congruent with the Remain line that leaving the EU would be a “leap in the dark”. When did that change? Or did it? Are voters supposed to think that leaving the EU is economically uncertain or certainly disastrous?

The result is confusion and that I think is the purpose of “Project Fear”. It is not to scare people, as such, it is to bewilder and befuddle. With all of the competing information in the ether how can you possibly trust your own judgement and decide on such an important matter for yourself?

The purpose of The Leave Alliance bloggers throughout this referendum campaign has been to bring some much needed clarity to proceedings—to narrow the plausibility scope with respect to how Britain could leave the EU—in order that the decision facing people may be made comprehensible. Of course there are uncertainties and one has doubts, but that does not mean that you are helpless, a child alone in need of adult supervision and entirely beholden to “experts”.

Ultimately, the decision in this referendum is simple. Either you vote for democracy and accountable government or you submit to people who would bully and cajole you into voting for something else.

To that end, I fear that the lead for “leave” is soft. The Vote Leave campaign is not making the kinds of reassuring noises that people need to hear. We cannot know what “leave” looks like but we can make credible proposals for how Britain could leave the EU with minimal disruption. I have done so and the other Leave Alliance bloggers have done so several times.

Broadly speaking the safe route out of the EU involves seeking to rejoin EFTA in order to use the EEA agreement as a transitional step on the road to something far better—as outlined in the Flexcit plan—a genuine European free trade area. But the Vote Leave campaign is such that the more visionary aspects of what Britain’s future could be outside the moribund EU have of necessity been neglected so as to emphasise the importance of taking that first step on the road to an independent Britain.

I know at least one person who would be voting to leave the EU were Michael Gove making the arguments that I have put to him about an EEA transition. Credible proposals for managing the Brexit transition could make all the difference at this stage. But I can only reach so many.

I have never been in any doubt that I would vote for Britain to leave the European Union on the 23rd June. It was never about the money and I have never needed reassurance about the economy—never in human history has people having more freedom led to less prosperity. Whatever number George Osborne plucks out of the air, democracy and accountable government are worth that price.

Are There Any Credible Reasons To Remain?

The Remainers have had every opportunity to present referendum voters with a positive vision for Britain’s future inside the supranational EU. Yet, I have still not heard a single credible reason to accept that the EU should remain the supreme law-making authority in the British Isles. Everything offered either relates to the Single Market—which non-EU Norway, Iceland and Lichtenstein participate in via the EFTA/EEA agreement—or awards credit for achievements that were hard-won by phlegmatic British people down the ages to the EU bureaucracy.

To that end the dismally negative Stronger In campaign has sought to suborn the British people’s battles for workers rights, our proud history of trades union membership, and solidarity between working people more generally; the fight for women’s rights, from the Suffragettes through to Barbara Castle and the Equal Pay Act 1970, and onward to today; as well as our deep seated commitment to environmental protection, and love of the countryside, given poetic form by Shelly, Byron and Wordsworth, and later legal form in the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949.

What we have witnessed in lieu of a positive future vision is witless abuse, scowling and condescension. Though the words may change, the message is always the same; know your place, the people that matter have already decided for you.

So, it came to be that I found myself reading yet another article written by Simon Tilford, this one petulantly titled, “If we leave the EU, other countries will think we’re a bunch of spoilt children. They’ll be right”. This, ladies and gentleman is what psychologists call “projection”.

Even the thought of Britain leaving the EU—there is still a lot of work to be done—is enough for many people among the Remain contingent to throw their toys out of the pram. Tilford’s article, like so many others, does not make the case for supranational EU government, it is just a litany of self-pity, ennui and despair.

If only everybody else were as “intelligent” or “enlightened” as he. Or could be made to be. Now there is a thought. Why ever address the grubby perspectives of the rabble when supranational institutions above the traditional nation-state can remove the electorate from the equation?

The heart of Tilford’s gripe is the refusal of us lowly plebs to recognise that common government is necessary to access and participate in the Single Market (only, it isn’t):

Although British Eurosceptics are determined to see things differently, the UK does extremely well out of the EU. Thanks to its negotiating skills and brinkmanship it enjoys special status: the country is a full member with unimpeded access to the single market – the most successful bit of the EU – but is not a member of the eurozone, which is without doubt the EU’s greatest failure. The rest of the eurozone has not foisted damaging policies on Britain, as they have on Italy and Greece. Nor is Britain a member of the Schengen passport-free area, though one would be hard put to know this from the hysterical coverage of the refugee crisis in the British press.

Once again we find a Remainer implying that the EU is a trading organisation rather than a government which makes policies for Britain and the other EU Member States— and increasingly seeks to override our independent representation at the international level.

This is also yet another example of a Remainer arguing that the best parts of Britain’s relationship with the EU are the areas in which Britain is less integrated than the other EU Member States. There is a certain logic to that if Tilford cared to follow it to its conclusion.

Remaining in the EU means more remote and less accountable decision-making and if there is a case for imposing a one-size-fits-all policy approach to a vast geographical area as large as the European continent then I have yet to hear it. Indeed, I have not heard anybody in the Remain camp even attempting to make that case.

No, it is all fear, lies and despair. Yet, sometimes in the same sentence as asserting that Britain is too small, too weak and too stupid to exercise the same level of independence as say Suriname, Barbados or Panama, let alone Australia, New Zealand or the USA, Remainers will also say that Britain leaving the EU would bring an end to Western civilisation and provoke a global recession. Where the hell do these people get off telling us that our arguments are not firmly based?

The fact is that Remainers refuse to engage with the best arguments that we have to offer, preferring to spar with the numpties at the heart of Vote Leave.

The rest of the article is yet more tedious and irrelevant allusions to “imperial nostalgia”, as if that means anything to anybody voting in 2016. This is just another rhetorical stick Tilford enjoys using against people with which he is unable to argue.

The article concludes: “The damage Brexit will inflict on the EU and on the broader Western international order will be seen by the EU and the US as an act of strategic vandalism, and the UK will not easily be forgiven for it. The country will rightly be seen as unserious and unreliable.” So here again we have Tilford more concerned about the “damage” that the people of Britain asserting their commitment to nation-state democracy would have upon another sovereign state and a supranational treaty organisation. I am not impressed and nor am I convinced. These petulant bully-boy tactics are really not good enough.

Most countries are not in the EU. The UK has only a limited role in the EU outside of the euro and outside of Schengen and none of the Remainers even attempt to argue otherwise. The purpose of the EU is political and judicial union. Those that wish to amalgamate should be left to do so. Britain will be a far better friend and ally to the EU working as a co-operative partner rather than as a subordinate sub-unit.

Serious countries are self-governing and that is what Britain needs to be.

Running Towards Risk

In 2003, Tim Lister and Tom DeMarco published a book about managing risk on software projects (stay with me!) in which they argued that “running towards risk” invariably yields more productive outcomes and better results than doing the opposite. “Projects with no real risks are losers… Risks and benefits always go hand in hand,” the pair assert.

That does not mean adopting a reckless or cavalier approach to risk-taking—Lister and DeMarco both consult on risk-management—but it does put the lie to the idea that risk is something that should be avoided at all costs. A more positive description of the same idea would be “embracing opportunity”.

So, yes, there are risks to leaving the EU and yes that is what makes embracing the opportunity so worthwhile.

Managing Risk

Effective risk-management involves identifying risks and proposing credible mitigation or avoidance measures. To that end, leaving the EU must be the most painstakingly described “leap in the dark” in the history of the world.

There are serious proposals for how Britain can leave the EU without fear or economic disruption and they have been part of the “leave” conversation from the very beginning. The Remainers have never seriously addressed the case that The Leave Alliance has made because the chancers and blowhards within Vote Leave make for an easier opposition.

Most people who follow these things will now know that Roland Smith’s terrific essay for the Adam Smith Institute, The Liberal Case for Leave, was based on the research of Dr Richard North and the Flexcit plan for a fear free exit. The plan was mentioned on Newsnight recently and it is openly acknowledged that civil servants have been reading Flexcit as part of drawing up contingency plans to be used in the event that the British electorate vote to leave the EU on June 23rd.

Though nobody can say with certainty what “leave” would look like, that does not mean that the “plausibility scope” is limitless. The decision will be constrained by political reality and the default two-year time period for the Article 50 exit negotiation means that the deal will of necessity use as many existing legal instruments as are available. That points very strongly to an EFTA/EEA interim deal.

The consequences of not coming to some kind of an agreement on trade prior to the deadline would be disastrous for both Britain and the EU so we can be confident that such a deal would be done.

Even if the EU decided to play “hardball” the UK would have options. The EU is a rules-based organisation bound by treaty and convention to negotiate in good faith. Article 50 commits the EU to “negotiate” with any departing EU Member State; Article 8 commits the EU to a “good neighbourliness” policy “founded on the values of the Union and characterised by close and peaceful relations based on cooperation”; and Article 3 affirms the EU’s commitment to promoting “free and fair trade”.

The EU will drive a hard bargain but it will not step outside the framework of its own treaties and there would be consequences for the EU if it did.

On this side of the Channel, if anybody wants to make a problem out of the fact that the abysmal Vote Leave is not proposing anything like that, I can only reiterate that this referendum is not about electing Vote Leave, it is about voting to leave the EU. Following a leave vote the position of the UK government will be determined by a parliamentary process; “leave” voters will not call all of the shots and “remain” voters will not be ignored. It is their country too.

The Commons as a whole is “remain”-minded, which, ironically, would provide the necessary ‘ballast’ to ensure that Britain’s economic security is protected at the point of EU exit. According to a very interesting poll commissioned by the Adam Smith Institute, the EFTA/EEA option has overwhelming popular support among “remain”-minded voters (in the event of a leave vote) and, even more importantly, nearly half of all “leave”-minded voters would accept such an outcome, at least for an interim period.

The need for reconciliation and a positive future relationship with our EU partners points almost ineluctably to a phased approach to EU exit—a process not an event—embracing the idea of transitional arrangements which retain Single Market membership at least until Britain has had the chance to rebuild its policy-making capabilities in vitally important areas such as trade, aid, energy, the environment, agriculture and fisheries.

However, that does not mean neglecting immigration as many in the media so often imply. The EEA agreement refers specifically to free movement of “workers” not free movement of “people” so there would be some wiggle room there. The “safeguard measures” in the EEA agreement are also interesting in the sense that the precedent for using them already exists—and there is also scope for a quota-based system to be applied as per “sectoral adaptations” in the EEA agreement. Little Lichtenstein has a brake on free movement of workers and Iceland imposed capital controls in response to the banking crisis. There would be scope to allay the fears of the most concerned.

Questions For Remainers

There it is. The initial phase of the Brexit transition from supranational subordination to independent self-governance. There are risks but there are also contingencies to mitigate those risks and the opportunity to re-engage with the rest of the world, championing the multilateral trading system and promoting trade facilitation to enhance peace, prosperity and well-being is enormous.

What then can the Remainers tell us about what staying in the EU would look like? Do they have the first idea about the plans for further integration that are coming down the pike? Are they capable of speaking honestly about the risks associated with remaining tethered to an EU bloc centred around the euro which substitutes Britain’s global voice in international forums for the “common position” of the EU-28? What kind of a future is that?

If you want to stick your head in the sand and pretend that systemic problems with the euro and the entire EU legislative process can be wished away with some half-hearted incantation about “reform” from people who never really mean it and who would never achieve it then that is your prerogative.

But running towards risk is the inverse of taking a reckless gamble on a genuine unknown. The greater autonomy, agility and accountability that leaving the EU would mean for policy-making in this country represents a real opportunity to bring power closer to the people. Taking responsibility for your actions is the beginning of maturity and it is past time that British politics grew up and started to engage with the real world once again.

Nobody should think that reforming Britain’s governance is going to be easy but we have to start somewhere and returning policy-making power to institutions we can influence begins with Britain leaving the EU.

A Step Into The Light

Untangling 40 years of political and economic integration cannot happen overnight but it can be done in a series of measured steps. The obvious first step is to rejoin EFTA so as to continue to access the Single Market (EEA) on the same terms as today.

Yes, free movement of workers is an intrinsic part of the EEA agreement, however, even exiting to that position would allow more control over immigration than we have today—and as the first phase of a multi-stage process the EEA provides a solid platform on which to build a longer-term settlement that better suits Britain.

First of all, there are so-called “safeguard measures” in the EEA agreement. These are akin to the “emergency brake” which Cameron failed to agree as part of his renegotiation, allowing for the unilateral suspension of any of the four freedoms. Secondly, leaving the EU places responsibility for the current immigration policy squarely where it belongs—at the feet of Parliament and the UK government.

Any post-exit immigration policy would obviously need to accommodate a wide range of voices, not only leave voters, and there would be trade-offs whatever is decided. I can only think that we would see a much more constructive debate as a result.

People need to stop thinking about leaving the EU as a one-time event and understand instead that of necessity it will be a longer-term process. An EEA type deal keeps the rest of the ship steady—retaining the bits that people generally like (i.e the market)—while removing Britain from the political and judicial arrangements of a union which even Remain-minded politicians say Britain should not go further into. See Cameron’s claims about a “special status”.

Britain is not in the euro and not in Schengen and it is not going to be. “Leading in Europe” is unthinkable from such a position and the idea that the UK can “reform” the EU from a position on the periphery is a joke. Remaining at this stage would mean accepting the EU as our interface to the rest of the world even while being marginalised as the eurozone integrates still further (as it must). That really would be “isolating” ourselves and turning our back on the world.

Better to let those countries that want to integrate do so while we step into the second pillar of the two-pillar EEA agreement, EFTA, which is genuinely all about trade, as the EU is still (mostly) being sold to people.

The fact that almost the entire referendum debate has centred on what our future trading arrangement would be—even though the EU is an avowedly political organisation with competency across a vast array of policy areas—is part of the same delusion British politicians have perpetuated since the UK first sought to join the then European Economic Community (EEC). Nowhere else on the continent is this level of deception and self-deception indulged. The EU is not a trade bloc, it is a government, and it is one that, in my view, we do not need nor want.

There is an enormous amount of work to be done to rediscover the art of democratic self-governance. More than almost anybody seems to realise. But I see leaving the EU as an enormously exciting opportunity to reinvigorate our domestic politics and to re-engage with the rest of the world as Britain.

The first practical and pragmatic step, however, is to concede the point on freedom of movement, which is not the same as an “open door”. That is the price the EU will demand for securing our trouble free exit and it is also the only kind of deal that our Remain-centric Parliament will accept. It returns policy control in the areas of trade, aid, energy, the environment, agriculture and fisheries, removes Britain from the jurisdiction of the ECJ, and causes minimal disruption for both sides. That is more than enough to be going on with for the time being.

A process, not an event. That is the key. The EEA is the door. We were taken into the EU one step at a time, we will recover our independence in equally measured steps. Do you want to take that first step?

Vote to leave.

Reading Comprehension

Literary comprehension is one of the skills that the UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) test as part of the application process for the FCO fast-track programme. Presumably this is because understanding the meaning of words is more important than interpreting what you think the words might imply.

If the response of the British legacy media to the comments of German Finance Minister, Wolfgang Schauble, are anything to go by, British journalists would almost universally fail any such test. Reported in Der Spiegel, Schauble’s intervention comes at a time when the idea of using the EEA as a post-exit staging post—which would allow Britain to leave the political and judicial arrangements of the EU while remaining in the Single Market—is beginning to be seriously discussed, in spite of Vote Leave protestations to the contrary.

What the British public may understand but which the Vote Leave campaign and the bubble-based commentariat affect not to is that voting to leave the EU is not the same as electing Vote Leave. Indeed, the rationale that Vote Leave used to use to justify its refusal to present referendum voters with a credible Brexit plan was that only the UK government has the power to determine “what Leave looks like”.

The referendum itself is advisory and the question is commendably specific. There should be no confusion about what the referendum question is asking: “Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?”

Post leave vote the position of the UK government will be determined by a parliamentary process and the need to reconcile the two sides of the debate; Leave voters will not call all of the shots and Remain voters will not be ignored. It is their country too.

The need for reconciliation and a positive future relationship with our EU partners points almost ineluctably to a phased approach to EU exit, embracing the idea of transitional arrangements which retain Single Market membership for a time, at least until the UK has had the chance to rebuild its policy-making capabilities in vitally important areas such as trade, aid, agriculture, fisheries, energy, the environment, justice and home affairs.

To that end, what did Schauble actually say? Asked about the possibility of Britain leaving the EU and remaining in the Single Market—as an aside, the fact that this is so frequently raised as a possibility really puts the lie to the idea that the EU and the Single Market are synonymous—Schauble said:

That won’t work. It would require the country to abide by the rules of a club from which it currently wants to withdraw. If the majority in Britain opts for Brexit, that would be a decision against the single market. In is in. Out is out. One has to respect the sovereignty of the British people.

He did not say that an EEA transition would not be available. What he said was that we the British people would not want it. I rather think that we will make our own minds up about that.

The EU will not do Britain any favours in the exit negotiation but it will act in its own self-interest—and the EU has a massive strategic and selfish interest in continuing to trade with Britain on the same terms as today. Provided that we are willing to compromise on freedom of movement in the short-term, there should be little difficulty coming to a suitable transitional arrangement, pending further discussion on a longer-term settlement that is better suited to a country of the size and power of the United Kingdom.

In the event of any “funny business”, Britain would even be able to draw upon the EU treaties. The EU is a rules-based organisation bound by treaty and convention to negotiate in good faith. As part of that, Article 50 commits the EU to “negotiate” with any departing EU Member State; Article 8 commits the EU to a “good neighbourliness” policy “founded on the values of the Union and characterised by close and peaceful relations based on cooperation”; and Article 3 affirms the EU’s committment to promoting “free and fair trade”.

The EU will drive a hard bargain but it will not step outside the framework of its own treaties and there would be consequences for the EU if it did. So, yes, there is a viable post-exit deal which protects Britain’s economic security, jobs and investment, and yes, we can be confident of achieving an amicable separation.

There is no way to get everything that we might want at the point of exit—40 years of political and economic integration could not and should not (read: won’t) be undone overnight—but the opportunity to revitalise British domestic politics and reimagine Britain’s place in the world is too great to ignore.

A confident step into the light of an EFTA/EEA type relationship takes us out of the EU and from there we can carry on reforming our relationship through active participation in the multilateral trading system and through demands for greater democratic accountability at home.

Self-Governance And Global Engagement

Britain should leave the EU to make our politics more democratic and our government more accountable. Everything else is a sideshow. Whatever the short-term costs may be, there is nothing that could not be managed better by bringing decision-making power closer to the people and through more active engagement at the global level.

To that end, this post seeks to address many of the points that are often raised with respect to the idea of accepting an EFTA/EEA type of trading relationship as part of a post-exit transition to a longer-term settlement.

Cost

Let’s be serious for a moment. Leaving the EU may not result in any immediate cost-savings. The money that we presently pay into the EU budget would be deferred rather than saved and there is every likelihood that the EU would insist upon budget contributions continuing at the current level at least until the start of the next funding round. The UK government has made commitments and it is because of our respect for the rule of law and the sanctity of contract that Britain heads the world soft power index.

In other words, an independent UK would continue to support British agriculture and provide regional development funds to the underdeveloped parts of our own country as well as to post-Communist Eastern Europe. We would also continue to participate in science and social programmes in collaboration with our EU partners.

There may be savings to be made through more efficient administration and reduced bureaucracy, but cost reduction is not a key reason to leave the EU. I’m not sure it would even make my personal top ten “reasons to leave” list. Even if EU membership cost the country only £9.99 a year, I would still want to leave. It is sacrificing self-governance for supranational subordination that I find objectionable, not the membership fee.

Immigration

With regard to immigration, there is much more that the UK government could and should be doing to reduce the “pull factors” that attract such large numbers of people to this country. Properly enforcing occupancy rules at the local level is just one example of a measure that would help to increase the cost of living for migrants to something like the normal level.

These enforcement issues are as much a matter of political will as anything else. A vote to leave the EU would send a strong signal to the UK government to pay serious attention to people’s legitimate concerns. Leaving the EU also places the responsibility for the current policy squarely where it belongs—at the feet of Parliament and the UK government. Politicians would no longer be able to fob voters off with the bogus notion that the EU “makes us” do such and such. EU membership is an active policy choice made by Parliament, something that MPs impose on us, not something that is imposed upon them.

Free of the EU, Britain would also be empowered to take an independent stance in global forums and to table proposals to reform the conventions that are driving mass migration to unsustainable levels. Immigration is a global concern and should be dealt with at that level as well as at the local, national and regional level. The EU’s “common position” restrains the ability of the UK government to act in the British interest and for the common good.

Regulation

The claim that EFTA/EEA member states have “no say” over what are sometimes called “EU rules” is one of the most egregious lies told by the Remain campaign. It would be true to say that Norway, for instance, has “no vote in EU institutions” but that is not the same as having “no say”.

The EEA agreement has a two-pillar structure in which EU and EFTA members participate. EFTA members also play a full role in joint committees and are equal participants in a process known as “decision-shaping”.

In addition, the EEA acquis is one quarter the size of the EU acquis. Upon leaving the EU, Britain would regain policy control over crucial areas such as trade, aid, agriculture, fisheries, energy and the environment. We would also be free to determine our own level of foreign affairs and defence co-operation.

The so-called “emergency measures” contained in the EEA agreement also allow EFTA members to unilaterally suspend any of the four freedoms for a period. This is akin to the “emergency brake” that David Cameron failed to bring back as part of his “renegotiation”—and it does not require the assent of EU institutions in order to use it.

Taking the point about having a say several stages further, the WTO Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade has changed everything with respect to regulation. Article 2.4 says: “Where technical regulations are required and relevant international standards exist or their completion is imminent, Members shall use them, or the relevant parts of them, as a basis for their technical regulations”. That little word “shall” transforms the relationship between global bodies and the EU, placing independent nation-states at the forefront of the regulatory agenda.

In his Bloomberg speech, David Cameron said: “Our participation in the Single Market, and our ability to help set its rules is the principal reason for our membership of the EU.” The Prime Minister would do well to read my previous post explaining that the EU is not the Single Market. Even more important however is the WTO TBT Agreement and the combined effect of the Vienna and Dresden Agreements which increasingly render the EU obsolete as a vehicle for making our voices heard.

The standards that are translated into Single Market regulations increasingly originate at the global level in bodies such as UNECE, Codex, the ILO, the IMO and the ITU. Independent nation-states have more power in these forums than any EU Member State—all of which are treaty-bound to adopt the EU’s “common position”. The real ‘top tables’ are at the global level and that is where Britain needs to be in order to ensure that British ideas are represented.

Remaining in the EU means sacrificing global power and self-representation in intergovernmental bodies where every vote is respected in return for so-called “influence” in the supranational EU where decisions are taken under a system of Qualified Majority Voting (QMV) in which, if you are in the minority, you can be overruled. That really would be resiling from the world and I fear for what would happen to our much diminished political discourse when it is understood that the politicians lied to us in order to hand policy-making power to people who are not accountable to any electorate.

After Brexit the power to make our own trade, aid, agricultural, fisheries, energy and environmental policies would be returned to Parliament. The greater autonomy and agility of our domestic institutions would force British governance to become more adaptable and accountable to the needs of the people. Indeed, with the ability to sack the government back in British hands, we would have a proper say in setting the agenda at both national and local level, and the politicians would have to listen to us. Moreover, we would have no choice but to get real, focusing on policies and not personalities, changing for the better the culture of debate and deliberation that plays such a crucial part in any self-governing democracy.