Re-taking our place in the world

At least a third of voters always planned on leaving the EU and were not going to be persuaded otherwise. This didn’t happen on the back of something written on a bus. This was cumulative. For many the final straw was the Lisbon Treaty which was in effect an EU constitution giving it a legal personality in world affairs.

For something that so radically changed our relationship with what was (and still is) viewed as a trade relationship, it should have been put to a referendum. That our political establishment set about ratifying it, using any means at their disposal to dodge a referendum, was evidence of a political establishment which had long since given up any sense of obligation to seek consent when acting in regard to the EU.

What compounds that act was the fact that those who voted for it had very little idea what they were agreeing to. Remainers often complain that there was no impact assessment for Brexit, yet where was the comprehensive national debate over ratifying Lisbon?

We leavers warned that Lisbon would make EU membership all but impossible to reverse – and to an extent we were right. Brexit is no easy feat – and to do it properly will take more than a decade. Our main concern at the time was that the EU is a long term project which gathers its powers by stealth, creeping ever more toward a federalist entity.

Where possible I have tended to avoid the term “European superstate” largely because that kind of terminology lands you in kipper territory where that kind of hackneyed rhetoric is an instant turn off. But that is exactly what the EU is and though remainers can nominally say that we retain our sovereignty, the question is over what? – and for how much longer?

In that regard you have to look up the chain to see how this affects the UK. As we continue to argue, the centre of the regulatory universe is increasingly Geneva, not Brussels – where the WTO TBT agreement provides the foundation of a global regulatory union.

Critics point out that implementation of this is hotly disputed and that its installation is piecemeal and subject to a number of registered exceptions, but like the EU, it is not the status quo that concerns us, rather it is the direction of travel.

While I have always been opposed to trade being an occupied field, the nature of trade agreements is changing, encompassing ever more regulatory measures extending far beyond what we would traditionally call a trade barrier. In order to eliminate distortions in labour, for example the shipping industry using Filipino slave labour, we increasingly adopt International Labour Organisation conventions in trade agreements.

Superficially there is no reason for alarm but what this means in practice is that for the EU to continue with trade exclusivity it must assume exclusive competence over areas not traditionally concerned with trade. In order to tie up these loose ends and overlaps there will eventually be a need for a new EU treaty which involves another substantial transfer of powers. But in the meantime, the ECJ will be the instrument of integration, confiscating ever more powers by the back door.

The eventual destination in this is the deletion of EU member states as independent actors on any of the global forums, with access to them controlled exclusively by Brussels. We would no longer have a voice in our own right and being bound to the EU customs code we would cease to be an independent country in all the ways that matter. This, to me, is why Brexit is absolutely necessary and the high price is one worth paying.

Remainers would argue that we still maintain significant influence by way of being an EU member. Superficially this is correct and Brexit will, temporarily, lead to a loss of influence. But whose influence is it anyway? We are told that the UK was instrumental in pushing for EU expansion. That remains a bad idea and accession states will remain in a state of limbo until such a point as there is a major political or financial crisis – or they leave of their own accord.

But this goes back to the opening premise. It’s no good to say that we have influence in Europe if we have no influence over our government. What remainers say when they say “we” have influence, they mean our permissive, unaccountable, political élites have influence – but actually only in those instances where their ambitions are in alignment with the ideology of the EU.

As much as Brexit is about severing the political integration of the EU, it is also a slapdown for our political class who have never had any intention of seeking consent – and where the EU is concerned, will tell any lie to that end.

In a lot of respects the classic arguments against the EU are legacy complaints where the damage cannot be undone. Leaving the EU does not reverse or remedy what was done to us and for the most part the UK has adapted to the new paradigm. What concerns us is whether there are the necessary safeguards to prevent yet more sweeping changes in the face of globalisation.

We are told that trade liberalisation is good for us – and on a philosophical and technical level I’m not going to argue, but on the human level, it has consequences that directly impact our lives.  This is something we should have a say in, be it opening our markets to American agriculture or letting market forces eat away at our steel industry. There are strategic concerns as well as the economic – and a dogmatic adherence to the principles of free trade is dangerous.

In recent times we have seen EU trade deals derailed because of concerns like chlorine washed chickens, but one suspects this is largely motivated by an inherent anti-Americanism, and were these topics included in any other trade agreement, nobody would have ever uttered the phrase “chlorinated chicken” – and we’d already be eating it.

The fact is that too much is going on out of sight and out of mind. Brexit is a remedy to that. We have already seen a robust debate on the shape of a future UK-US agreement and I fully expect other deals to come under similar scrutiny. I know the powerful UK agriculture lobby will be watching very closely indeed.

As much as Brexit is necessary as a defensive measure against hyper-globalisation, it is also about restoring the UK as an independent actor. As far as most people are concerned, foreign policy is just who we decide who to drop bombs on and who to dole out humanitarian aid. This is what happens when trade, a crucial element of foreign policy, is broken out of policy making and farmed out to the EU. It leaves all the strands of foreign policy happening in abstract to any coherent agenda while removing one of the more useful leverage tools.

Brexit is a means of reintegrating all of these separate strands so that we can have an effective presence on the world stage without seeking a convoluted compromise through Brussels – assuming we can get permission to act at all. The best part of it is that it does not preclude close cooperation with the EU. Obviously Brexit does not give us a free hand and our legacy ties with the EU will be a constraint, but it opens the way for more imaginative approaches than cumbersome EU FTAs.

One overlooked facet of the Brexit debate is that it gives us the opportunity to reconfigure a lot of the agreements we already have via the EU. In most respects, carrying over EU deals need not be a great headache, not least since we are maintaining existing schedules – but it’s the extras we can reappraise. In the EU-Singapore agreement there is a dedicated section on renewable energy – largely reproducing WTO tract. We could either enhance or delete these sections, establishing new joint ventures and working parities, including a number of sectors not touched on by the EU.

This need not happen in competition with the EU, rather it can be a complimentary strategy where one of Europe’s trading powers is free to explore avenues which could potentially benefit all of the EU. Having a major trading nation not bound by the bureaucratic inertia of the EU could well be a secret weapon for Brussels. That would make future EU-UK relations a strategic partnership rather than a subordinate relationship. There is no reason why Brexit cannot be mutually beneficial. All it takes is a little bit of vision.

Look who’s talking!

A worthwhile article on rare.us gives us some insight into Brexit by asking “How could so many be furious over a female Doctor Who?”. The answer is, they’re not. The author says “I decided to go in search of this misogynistic outrage mob, only to find that it existed mostly in the imaginations of the people mocking it”. This largely confirms what we already know. No-one really cares. This is the fuel of today’s culture wars. Pre-emptive reaction to and satisfaction in the other’s side’s anticipated reaction.

This is interesting because it extends right across the issue spectrum. I’ve seen this exact dynamic mocking a cardboard cut-out Brexiteer who, as far as the wider populace is concerned, doesn’t exist save for a few high profile loonies they coalesce around and elevate to the status of typical. 

The dynamic creates a hyper self-congratulatory, smug and sanctimonious bubble, personified by Nick Cohen and Matthew Parris, spawning their own little bands of acolytes and fan boys on Twitter. Since other hacks lower down in the pecking order like to be in with the gang so as to appear clever, you get a groupthink unable to see outside the walls of its self-satisfaction. And then they wonder why they lost the referendum.

To a point it’s all fair game in that you have the Leave.EU idiots but they speak only to a sub-sect of what was the Ukip vote – which at last polling was far less than 52%. Closer to 6% one suspects. Still, there is enough low hanging fruit to go after.

As much as anything, though, it betrays the intellectual dishonesty of the remain crowd in that there are perfectly well reasoned arguments for Brexit, encompassing issues where even the FT hacks dare not tread. This all contributes to the mythos of Brexit where the silent leavers are left unrepresented and left patiently to endure the ongoing insults. The stereotype of the stupid Brexiteer is well deserved if Brexit ministers are anything to go by but the people very often show more wisdom than those they elect. The on-going condescension is a stark reminder of why it is necessary to put these people in their place.

There are plenty of leavers who are well aware that Brexit comes with trade-offs, who aren’t obsessed with immigration and recognise the need for a transition. Certainly everyone I campaigned with was aware Brexit would have economic consequences but made the decision on balance.  

In this respect, remainers have a little cult of their own going on, mocking the straw man Brexiteer but dishonestly refusing to engage on a more sophisticated level. Certainly the globalisation of regulation is an issue they will go to any lengths to avoid – not least because it is complex, but also because it opens up a debate about the world beyond Brussels which they cannot admit exists or their entire worldview starts to fall apart. The most we get is a nod from the FT to the “Brussels Effect” which they have only half understood – and as to the ecosystem of private authorities they wouldn’t know where to begin.

Over the next few months we can expect a torrent of gloating articles pointing out how many areas of governance will be locked into the existing régime. We are probably looking at being tied to EU tariff rates for a long time to come, and we will likely have to maintain the status quo in agriculture for ten years at least until we have taken full control of our customs régime. This is all besides the point. The fact is, the separation process will mean we have to keep a high level of conformity but this is about ending EU political integration and engineering the EU out of domestic decision making. Nobody was expecting anything to change overnight. They can gloat all they like, but outside the bubble, it is they who look foolish.

Britain needs to play it smarter

There is some chatter on the web as to whether Brexit can be parked. Personally I don’t see that happening. Call it a hunch but I think the process has taken on a life of its own independent of the politicians and they lack the coherence to influence it in either direction. I can, however, see Brexit transmogrifying into something that is neither Brexit nor EU membership.

The repeal bill process is not an afternoon at the photocopier. It’s a major feat of legal engineering and it is going to take years. We can pass certain bills that technically mean we have left but the Brexit limbo could be of such a composition where making the final switchover in various sectors, ending EU supremacy, would be viewed as so destructive that it would go into some sort of review, much like TTIP has, where it exists as a concept but it’s not actually going anywhere until it’s taken off the shelf and dusted down.

We have heard much about the possibility of an accidental Brexit where we crash out without a deal, but there is also a possibility of “accidental remain” where our lack of direction and inability to agree on anything leaves it hanging in the wind.

The only way I see to avoid this fate is for the government to face the reality that the EEA is the fastest and most practical means of leaving the EU. It doesn’t matter if the EEA is suboptimal. It has the singular merit of being out of the EU.

We can quibble until the end of time over the various compromises the UK would have to make but since the advent of the WTO agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade there is little likelihood of reaching that elusive regulatory sovereignty. That issue we can address later. To my mind it is secondary to ending EU political union.

If we do not want to drift into a Brexit limbo then we need to see some decisive action from the government. All we are seeing right now is dithering, pretending it’s all there for the taking when what we’re actually doing is reinventing the wheel – and a poor copy at that.

The basic mistake is the belief that the Brexit process itself is the opportunity to do everything all at once. This is a classic misnomer. If anything the Article 50 process is a lengthy admin chore we must go through before we can start looking at systemic reforms. The only safe and sensible way to leave is by reverse engineering our membership and that means the first step has to be quite close to EU membership. It wouldn’t even matter if post-Brexit absolutely nothing had changed. What matters is that, having completed Article 50, we would have the power to start changing things on our own schedule.

This is the bit where us leavers need to get real. All of us have a strong dislike of the EU, but we cannot say that everything about economic integration is bad. What matters is that we preserve what is worth keeping and build on it. It would be a grave mistake to sacrifice any European trade in the belief that trading with the rest of the world will compensate. It really won’t.

That though, is going to require some adaptation to our ideas. Like it or not, the EU has us over a barrel. As the regional regulatory superpower it does call the shots, and since the EU has a number of other countries hooked into regulatory harmonisation by way of FTAs we are going to find the wiggle room for an independent UK régime will be next to nil.

Ultimately we are going to have to change our attitude to the EU in order to make a success of it. The hostile and confrontational tone is not doing us any good and it’s dangerous because we will need the EU’s extensive assistance in borrowing their third party cooperation agreements and trade deals. Secondly, since we won’t be going all out for regulatory sovereignty, our trade policy will have to be a collaborative and complementary policy to that of the EU.

As we have seen the EU likes to get bogged down in deep and comprehensive bundled deals which take a number of years and very often get tied up in technical detail at the last minute over soft cheeses or formaldehyde content in furniture. Despite this method causing a number of hang-ups for CETA and the demise of TTIP, they don’t seem to have learned. There are other ways.

What we can do is look at effects based trade policy. As a foreign policy objective we want to reduce the push factors that drive migration. In order to do that we need to get the poorest countries trading. We are told by Suella Fernandes that Brexit means we can reduce tariffs for Lesser Developed Countries. This fails on three counts in that for a long time the UK will maintain the existing tariff schedules, LDC’s already have tariff free access under the Anything But Arms agreement – and finally, it’s non-tariff barriers which stand in the way.

Ultimately LDCs struggle to meet stringent standards. Jacob Rees-Mogg and the likes would have it that we can trade away our safety standards but that invites a deluge of counterfeit and dangerous goods. Consumers won’t wear it. Our mission is to use our aid budget for technical assistance to ensure that they can meet regulatory requirements for export. Not only does that improve their ability to trade with the UK it gives them access to the European market as well.

Effectively we would be improving access to the single market for everyone. The benefit to us is the eventual slowdown in migration but also more trade means more opportunities for UK fintech and business services. Something our economy is geared toward in ways that France and Germany are not.

By acting in this way we have no real need to get bogged down in comprehensive bilateral talks as the EU does. What matters is we are enabling trade and paving the way for the EU to forge deals, to which we can be a party. Sector by sector we can improve the viability of African trade at a speed the EU is incapable of.

As much as this approach is in the cooperative spirit, little by little it removes the EU’s excuses for excluding poorer countries and in so doing we make allies and friends with countries with whom we cooperate. From there we can forge sectoral alliances to further pressure the EU into liberalisation and perhaps changing its stagnant trade practices.

All of this is quite futile though if we maintain an adversarial attitude to the EU. If we leave the single market we actually surrender an ace in the hole for our trade strategy while also losing the opportunity to expand and enhance it – and wrest it out of EU control. Moving entirely out of the EU sphere leaves us hobbled in Europe and pecking at scraps elsewhere.

I wish I could report otherwise but it’s time eurosceptics faced facts. The world got complicated while we were in our EU slumber. The beast we helped create is a power in its own right with its own gravitational pull. What is done cannot be undone. What we can do is leverage our position as an agile free trading country to strengthen the global rules based system and drag the EU out of its protectionist instincts. If we can do that we solve a number of problems not only for the UK but Europe as a whole.

Photo by (Mick Baker)rooster

Drifting in Brexit Limbo

It is still government policy to seek a comprehensive partnership agreement with the EU as a third country. Already we are seeing lobbying for pharmaceuticals to continue participating in the single market. The government will concede on this if it does not want to lose our pharmaceuticals industry. No doubt our aviation sector will want to continue participating on more or less the same terms. We will be seeking to ensure manufactured goods and foodstuffs travel unhindered into the EU. The automotive sector will push for whatever it can get to avoid tariffs and rules of origin. And so on and so forth.

By the time this government gets as far as negotiating our future relationship, it will have a long list of things it wants to keep the same. We will also find that the practicalities of intricate policies mean that change is barely possible and largely undesirable. This sets the stage for a long and drawn out negotiation as to our future relationship.

But this time it will dawn on even the thickest of MPs that an interim agreement is necessary. That in itself would be a serious and lengthy undertaking. That is precisely why it is not going to happen. Why should the EU commit ever more of its runtime to negotiating two comprehensive and complex packages – one of which being time limited? The ultimatum will that be that we either drop out with no deal or stay in the EU on more or less the same terms until a future agreement can be concluded.

That is, of course, unless we move into the EEA/Efta position in order to expedite our exit. We will probably find this in itself is a major diplomatic and legal undertaking and once that is done we will find there is actually no point in reinventing the wheel, nor is there any particular obligation for the EU to bother. Moreover, Efta states have little to gain from the disruption for what is only a temporary arrangement. Their view will likely be that we’re either in or out.

It therefore seems obvious that the EEA should be our first port of call with a view to being a long term part of the single market, using the systems within the EEA agreement to tailor it to our needs. The alternative is to stay in the EU in a Brexit limbo, slowly bleeding from uncertainty only for us to pass some years later into an inferior relationship that we will have to rebuild over many years.

It would appear, however, that this realisation eludes the powers that be, and thanks to the power vacuum at the heart of government, we can expect this to drag on, feeding the uncertainty and eroding our choices. With all of our political capital spent, with our minuscule leverage squandered, we will be forced to take whatever we are given. That may even be a conversion of the interim EU membership into the permanent status of being a non-voting member. Precisely where we didn’t want to be.

It was always The Leave Alliance view that the EEA was suboptimal but it does have the chief merit of getting us out of the EU. We also took the view that the EEA, preserving most of the trade integration, would save us from the damage caused by uncertainty and the economic impact of leaving would be manageable. It seems, though, that this message, having met fierce resistance, will not get through.

Though the ultra Brexiteers share some considerable blame, it is as much the fault of the media who have been unable to grasp the mechanics of Brexit, along with a government which is impervious to messages from the outside. Ultimately this is the result of two factors.

The hard right of the Tory party are wedded to some woefully simplistic ideas as to how trade is done, taking their advice from Legatum Institute who will tell them pretty much whatever they want to hear if it means they get their feet under the table. Collectively they are fixated with tariffs and are unable to see the larger picture, treating non tariff barriers and regulatory systems as a mere afterthought.

In normal circumstances we would have a sufficiently competent media who could rip through this self-delusion, but having pruned their experience journalists, the closest the media gets to expertise is the Financial Times, itself incapable of bringing any clarity to the debate and largely tainted by a metropolitan bias. It has not earned the right to be heeded.

The second factor is that having deleted the discipline of trade from our political horizons by way of being in the EU we simply don’t have an institutional memory of it and our politicians haven’t in any way been connected with the real business of international trade negotiations. This is why we should never have joined.

Further still our post Brexit trade policy will be inept largely because it is viewed as a separate undertaking from politics, foreign policy and international development aid. It stands as an abstract pursuit, largely geared toward the maximisation of trade volumes, divorced from cultural and political objectives. It is an entirely technocratic domain.

Ultimately, Brexit is a mess of difficult choices and trade-offs between commerce and sovereignty. The EU is an elaborate and complex web of rules, many of them protectionist where moving to the other side of those defensive measures harms us considerably. As much as it is difficult to prove that new trade deals will compensate for lost EU trade, the EU has ways of making sure that they won’t. Rules of Origin being one of them. These are the realities we must face up to.

And herein lies the problem. For Conservative leavers who believe in “free trade”, Brexit is an economic venture and a chance to snub the EU. They fail to take account of the fact that the EU is a regulatory and economic superpower and the UK is not. They are working from a faulty definition of free trade and are failing to look at the bigger picture. This is why Brexit will hurt far more than it was ever meant to.

For us realists Brexit was never an economic silver bullet. The Leave Alliance was keen to point out that Brexit would be a process and that there would be an economic cost. The point though, was to end political union with the EU and to put the brakes on “ever closer union”. That is our first objective and the most important one. To end the supremacy of the EU in British affairs and to repatriate decision making. If we can make a good go of trade then that is a happy outcome, but that is more a long term concern. Our first priority is to get out of the EU with our hide intact and to ensure that we do not burn our bridges.

The chances of that now seem ever more remote. The appointment of Steve Baker as junior Brexit secretary, a man who calls for the EU to be “wholly torn down” is entirely the wrong message to send. Not least since he is a devotee of Legatum’s panglossian nonsense. Thanks to the obstinacy and ignorance of the ultra-Brexiteers, Brexit is going to hurt a lot more than it ever should have – if we manage to get out at all.

 

Photo by Smabs Sputzer

Brexit is not enough

Being a realistic leaver is a difficult line to walk. Some think Brexit is a matter of crisis management. Others think it’s an opportunity to be grasped. I think it is both. In this I really don’t think it helpful to pretend Brexit is a walk in the park but it certainly isn’t a catastrophe either. As much as I have to keep making the case for an orderly withdrawal, I have to keep making the case for leaving.

This week I have seen a number of well-argued pieces that Brexit should be called off merely because it’s too expensive for the marginal gains we might make. Again I find myself pointing out that Brexit is not an economic proposition. This is really a matter of individual conscience as to whether you want Britain to be part of a country called Europe. I really don’t for a whole host of reasons.

It is these issues we need to be more vocal about. Remainers tend to view Brexit as an entirely transactional issue with a price tag and that is the only measure of it. We are still not seeing any principled cases presented for full economic and political union. This week presents an ideal opportunity to restate why we don’t want that.

Presently, negotiations are centred around the matter of citizens’ rights. In all the online debates I’ve had this is reduced to just the perks and entitlements dressed up as rights when in fact the very concept of EU citizenship is an extension of EU imperialism and an intolerable incursion on our democracy.

In purely economic terms, free movement of goods, services and people can be achieved by means other than political union. There is every reason to argue for a status that closely matches single market membership, but to extend the concept of EU citizenship is to grant supreme authority to the EU to legislate on matters that pertain to our identity, values and our somewhat unique cultural constitution. These are not irrelevant superstitions of little Englanders. These are major constitutional issues.

While we are told that the EU does not legislate directly in many of these matters, that is not true. Moreover it can “recommend” that we adopt international conventions on things like labour rights – and it can issue directives which form the parameters our policies must follow. These are the invisible goalposts that constrain democracy. As bad as that is, we are finding that ever more regulation pertaining to social issues is touched on by modern trade agreements – and that spells less control in the future.

In this the modern left has an aversion to democracy and sees no real problem with democracy being constrained as the EU is largely a benign technocracy which, in their eyes, curbs the excesses of Tories. What we eurosceptics know, of course, is that the road to hell is paved with good intentions and all too often the law of unintended consequences will inevitably make manageable problems worse.

What makes this difficult to argue is the overall lack of domestic competence and presently a lack of will to diverge significantly from the rights and entitlements we have already established – thus rendering our new-found abilities somewhat inert. Many of the stated advantages of Brexit are only theoretical or conceptual – so they ask why go to all the bother now?

That is a question I often find difficult to argue because most Brits tend to be quite utilitarian about such things. Most people will ask how it directly affects them – and in most instances, the effects of EU policy are insidious, difficult to prove and Brexit is not necessarily a remedy.

The point, however, is that the EU depends on this slovenly utilitarianism to advance its own agenda. A gradual salami slicing of powers may not make much immediate impact but now we are leaving we can see the enormity of precisely what has been handed over while we were sleeping. The point of Brexit is to get out before we reach that point of no return.

Some argue that we are long past that point of no return which is why we shouldn’t bother. Arguably they are half right. What is done is not easily undone – but not actually impossible. We would have saved ourselves a lot of hassle and expense by getting out sooner but the fact is we didn’t because our establishment colluded to deny us having a say in the matter. If there is now a cost then the blame lies squarely with those who did this to us in the first place – not the Brexiteers. This is the price we pay for correcting their mistake.

Ultimately the power that MPs exercise is power held in trust on our behalf. That is the basis of representative democracy. The power is not theirs to give away thus it becomes a matter of necessity that representative democracy is suspended in favour of plebiscite to return those powers. That is why we fought for a referendum. Our trust has been abused and power has been given away by deception.

That though, is not enough for us. Even now we see that die-hard remainers are chomping at the bit for parliament to reassert its supremacy and override the mandate of the referendum. This is why Brexit alone is insufficient. The last four decades have proven that representative democracy as a concept is insufficient democracy – if we can even call it democracy at all. It is clear that we need a revised constitution to ensure they never do this to us again.

A year ago we achieved what many of us have worked tirelessly toward for a very long time. The temptation now is to shut up shop thinking we have achieved our goal. We would point out that we are nowhere close to having completed the task. Leaving the EU is largely an administrative chore. We now face a decades-long campaign to reshape and revitalise our democracy and put the people in control rather than the wastrels and frauds in Westminster. If the power we have fought so hard to return remains in the hands on Westminster then we cannot say that we have taken back control. London has proved time and again that it cannot be trusted with the power that belongs to us.

Brexit was never an economic proposition

If there is one universal truth about we eurosceptics it is that, aside from hating the EU, we cannot agree on anything. Over the last three years I have had more arguments with Brexiteers than I have remainers – and made more enemies on the Brexit side than remain.

The crucial bone of contention is the mode of leaving the EU. Anything that it not “hard Brexit” is denounced. There are many who believe that Brexit is simple and that there is no cause for delay. I wish that were true. Worse than that, though, are those who know it not to be simple but maintain the pretence that it is. I have no time for intellectual dishonesty.

I am also less enthused by Brexiteers who insist that Brexit is an economic miracle waiting to happen. It isn’t. Trade is a fiendishly complex endeavour and we will doubtlessly have to march double time just to get back to where we are. All of our present trade relations are via the EU and restoring and optimising those links will take time.

Personally I see no reason to make an economic argument for Brexit. It is not an economic proposition – and if there is one thing we can all agree on it is that Brexit is ultimately in the interests of democracy. The economy is entirely secondary.

At one point I might have made the case that Brexit will bring about cheaper food, clothing and much else – but I now have serious doubts about this. Trade in the modern global system is a lot like whack-a-mole and not every thread is one you necessarily want to pull on. There are no sweeping unilateral measures we can take and and every measure we do take will have consequences. Everything we do must be done carefully and with due consideration as to the potential fallout.

If Britain is to make a success of Brexit we will need to seek out sector specific alliances and work through the multilateral system and use collective pressure to bring about the changes we want to see. There is only so much we can do unilaterally.

This is why I believe an Efta EEA Brexit would be the more intelligent path in that Efta with the UK would make the fifth largest bloc in the world and one which could bring to bear considerable pressure on the EU to drop some of its protectionist measures. In some circumstances we are more likely to achieve EU reform from the outside. Failing that, Britain is going to find it difficult going it alone.

There are some who still believe we can pick up where we left off with old allies but the old rule is still the same; twice the distance means half the trade. To an extent the internet and trade in services breaks this rule but New Zealand and Australia are in a different sphere of regulatory influence. We on the, other hand, will still be in the EU’s gravitational pull come what may.

More to the point, any alliances we make must be toward addressing particular problems – and our most pressing being that of the migration crisis where all our efforts must be focussed on those trade measures which best eliminate the push factors in Africa. We are going to have to coordinate our efforts with the EU and we will still need close cooperation in order to make an impact. We may leave the EU but we cannot turn our backs on Europe.

I take the view that Article 50 talks and any subsequent trade talks must not be viewed as a chance to get one over on the the EU. If we play that game we will lose. We have to take a more collaborative approach and for the time being we are in a mode of damage limitation. We should leave the radicalism until we have left the EU. Brexit is radical enough for the moment.

The short of it is that we need to be more honest and realistic about what Brexit will achieve economically. We are certain to take a hit and it is insulting to pretend that we won’t. We all knew Brexit would have economic consequences – and if we are honest, none of us cared. We would have voted to leave regardless.

Primarily our future prosperity depends on fixing our politics here at home. That is what Brexit is about. Our politicians continue to abdicate from their responsibilities, handing to Brussels enormous areas of policy while they tinker on the sidelines. We continue to kick the can down the road on serious economic reform and and we have only really dabbled in “austerity”. Since our politicians have been incapable of making the hard choices, we have forced their hand. Vanity spending will have to be cut, electoral bribes will have to be slashed and white elephants will have to go on the barbecue.

In this we will have a reckoning with the wastrels, posers and charlatans of Westminster. We will have some almighty rows and we will tear the status quo apart. That is primarily what I voted for. I am under no illusions that it will come at great cost, I am as worried as any remainer about what it holds for the immediate future, and I am troubled by the wrong-headed approach to Brexit. All I know for certain is that this is a thing we must do and there can be no turning back.

At heart I am a libertarian. I take the view that every entitlement from government comes as a moral cost – and everything we get from government comes at the expense of certain liberties. There is no greater means of controlling a population than to make them dependent on government.

This is the paradigm we have had ever since World War Two. It has crushed our self-reliance, it has weakened our entrepreneurial flair and it has corroded society in all manner of pernicious ways. It has made Britain a spoiled, selfish and lazy country. It has made us a command and control economy with a cosseted middle class propped up by state spending and our whole economy is a house of cards. A Ponzi scheme. And Ponzi schemes always fail.

This is why Brexit is a revolution. It is the economic and moral revival we have been unable to secure by other means. We will prosper from Brexit not because of any direct consequence of leaving the EU but by tearing down the ossified structures of yore and rediscovering ourselves.

Shortly before the referendum I was out talking to people about Brexit. I asked a lady why she was voting to leave. I told her that we probably would take an economic hit but her reply was quite simple. “Something has to change”. And that is what gives me confidence.

We were not hoodwinked by the Boris bus, we were not fooled by Russian interference or computer algorithms. We went into this with our eyes wide open. Let us not patronise or pretend. Let us say it out loud that this is not an economic venture. This is purely political and the economy must be subordinate to political concerns – otherwise we might as well go the whole hog and abolish elections.

I did not vote for Brexit to spend £350m on the NHS. I don’t think Brexit is a free trade miracle. I just know that our politics is spent and if our politics is spent then so is our economy. We cannot fix the economy until we fix our politics. Let no man or woman interfere with that. If we do not see this through then we are not deserving of prosperity.