Britain’s global leadership – the positive future for a UK outside the EU

The Bruges Group firmly believes that we need to reframe the debate to focus on the positives that Britain poses, in particular our excellent global links, higher education, to the City of London and technical brilliance in manufacturing. The UK, when freed from the restraints of the EU, has numerous attributes. Quite simply we do not have to be governed by Brussels to secure our prosperity, in fact far from it. This research, by Ewen Stewart, makes the positive case for independence.

• Inside the EU we are punching below our weight and should do better. Self-belief coupled with a hard analysis of the nexus of power and strategic advantage will lead to this being addressed but that can only be so once we are outside of the EU.

• The Eurocentric orientation of the UK is misplaced. Emerging markets, by 2018 are expected to account for 45% of world GDP and the European Union’s share will have declined from 34.1% to 20.2%, with the Eurozone representing an even smaller 14.6%. China’s share is predicted to surpass the entire Eurozone by 2018.

• Nations that can address this extraordinary shift in global growth will capitalise most effectively on these new trade flows. The attractive European trade bloc, of the 1970’s does not look so attractive in this light, given the Eurozone’s inexorable decline of the share of global GDP. The UK is uniquely well placed to exploit these shifting trading patterns given its global links and its service and financial sector bias.

• Britain is uniquely positioned globally in terms of economic, cultural and soft and hard power assets. The UK is home to the world’s global language, the world’s most global city and many of the most notable global universities and research institutes. British legal ideas and the common law approach is admired the world over. It is the basis of our stability. These advantages would continue irrespective of our membership of the EU.

• British manufacturing remains comfortably within the top ten, in terms of output, globally. The UK is now a net exporter of motor cars with four out of every five cars produced in Britain exported. Britain is the world’s second most significant aerospace manufacturer, possesses two out of the top ten global pharmaceutical companies while also having strong positions in marine, defence systems, food, beverage and tobacco manufacture, off-shore engineering and high-end engineering and electronics. British design, be it in fashion or sports cars, continues to be world beating.

• The UK retains a key skills base and has developed a high-end, high-margin capability. Membership of the EU, with its cost pressures has almost certainly done more harm than good to this capability. Industry has little to fear from withdrawal.

• The UK is a world leader in sport, media and culture. Higher education is also a great strength with British universities ranked amongst the best in the world. This coupled with the growing strength of the English language and our traditional excellent global links gives the UK real influence in world affairs. This will not change once we are outside the EU.

• While the US is the pre-eminent power accounting for 39% of all global defence expenditure and an even greater technological lead the UK’s defence expenditure remains in the global top 4. Technologically too Britain’s forces, while numerically modest, are highly advanced. Technology generally trumps numbers. The UK is perhaps one of only 5 or 6 nations that can still project power across the globe.

• As the world’s 5th largest economy Britain will not be isolated by leaving the EU. On the contrary British power would, in some cases, be enhanced. For example we would swap our 12% EU voting weight at the World Trade Organisation for a 100% British vote.

• The UK is currently estimated to be a member of 96 different international governmental organisations so the loss of one such organisation, albeit a very important one, is unlikely to be damaging. To read the paper on-line, click on the link below:-

BritainsGlobalLeadership

Selling the dream – the case for leaving the EU now

We have it in our power to begin the world over again. (Thomas Paine, 1776, Common Sense)

A future outside full membership of the European Union opens up exciting possibilities unlike the existing increasingly sclerotic situation as the EU expands its role and territory. Ahead could be a new beginning that builds on the best of who and what we (the People) are, to build freedom, democracy, justice, prosperity and a peaceful country in an increasing competitive and dangerous world.

The positive case for leaving the EU could be made by focusing on Unique Selling Propositions (USPs), the major advantages not otherwise available. These USPs really stand out, are instantly memorable and, preferably are scalable in application with little or no change in terminology from personal circumstances, to the local community, and then to our country; as Tip O’Neill said ‘All politics is local’. USPs could come from identifying ‘Great Themes’, that are largely self-evident (or at least everyone can have a coherent view on) and can be expanded in detail as needed. These exist in perpetuity and take cognisance of our ‘bigger picture’ of wishes, needs, fears and circumstances in the light of current knowledge and invention. They are often mutually supportive and sometimes overlap each other. The following are some Great Themes with their associated USPs arising from leaving the EU.

Win-Win Relationship with EU – Ability to work with the EU on terms that give us advantages (for example, of free trade with the EU and other countries) without the downside from ever closer political union; the EU can move ahead with fuller integration into a monolithic superstate without our truculent, unstable membership; less effects on us from any future EU meltdown, (economic or political instability), and the EU can ‘fix’ such problems unencumbered by us;

Freedom – Freedom to be ourselves, to live our lives as we choose and to decide what is best for us (put our interests first); Freedom to tackle major problems in our own ways and build better lives and a better country for everyone; Freedom from the EU’s abuses of power and exploitation, mistakes and excesses including waste, corruption, corporatism (government for the favoured few and Big Business), taxes, injustices, ‘one size fits all’ over-regulation, bureaucratic absolutism, and misconceived (madcap) ideologies and economics; Freedom to choose how we protect and defend ourselves, our country, way of life and heritage; Freedom to co-operate with others without EU interference; Freedom to set and enforce our own ethical standards of ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ behaviour;

Democracy – Building government of the people, by the people, for the people at all levels of administration with a focus on bottom up local de-centralisation, rather than remote top down centralisation; building greater participation, democratic accountability and transparency; building a new dispensation, partnership or relationship between a more in-touch and accessible government and governed based on mutual respect, honesty and participation for the benefit of all;

Justice – The rule of our (national) laws based on our standards, heritage and judiciary; protection of our existing freedoms, for example, of speech, of conscience, of the Press, from arbitrary arrest and imprisonment, from fear; protection of our property and wealth from arbitrary, unaccountable confiscation; the advancement of social justice in ways acceptable to the People;

Prosperity – For all from free enterprise, better competitiveness, lower taxes and honest, prudent government; trade, co-operate and work with whoever we choose on mutually agreed terms; safeguard and develop our assets, resources, and enterprises free from the EU’s excesses; support science, innovative and small businesses and start-ups where the EU currently fails; improve public sector procurement practices to facilitate local enterprise;

Futureproofing – Ability to move quickly and appropriately, including allocation of resources; flexibility to develop and implement our own leading best practice; ability to adopt, adapt to our needs and improve best practice from wherever it is available (including on occasion from the EU when it suits us – anything good the EU does, we can do better);

Opportunity and momentum – Lifting the EU’s dead hand holding us back, creates momentum for change, to question how things are done and create opportunities; progress can now happen which before was inconceivable through individual contribution rather than via top-down diktat; the existing management of national decline by the government and EU bureaucrats can be reversed; birth of greater confidence and self-reliance leading to more achievements from individual, community, organisation and national levels (the ‘can do’ or ‘get up and go’ spirit reborn);

Ethical Standards – Remove the corrosive influence on our society of the EU’s poorer standards especially relating to freedom and individuality, democracy, corruption and honesty, waste, taxation, bureaucracy, compassion, property rights and rule of just law;

Inspire The World – As a sovereign nation and free people with our own identity we can be more visible than as a region of an homogenised superstate; our ways of doing things from freedom, through law, culture, heritage, humanity, research, to enterprise etc. can bring a beacon of hope to many;
Why do we need to accept second best or worse, when we can do much better ourselves to realise our dreams or ambitions at individual, community and national levels? Leaving behind a moribund EU is about a future of hope; about releasing the potential that is being repressed; about building on our best; about independence and placing our lives, our country and our future in our hands:

The coming hope, the future day,
When wrong to right shall bow,
And but a little courage, patriots!
To make that future—NOW!
(adapted from The Song of the Future, Ernest Jones, Chartist and poet)

Photo by Hernan Piñera

Mistaken Assumptions about the EU Referendum battle

1. Business supports staying in the EU. WRONG.
Many businessmen make speeches about the advantages of staying in the Single Market. It is perfectly possible to stay in the Single Market and leave the EU, as detailed in the FLEXCIT plan, supported by us. Businessmen do not make speeches about supporting any other part of the EU membership.

2. The referendum is about business. WRONG.
By staying in the Single Market there will be no change to jobs, investment or trade.

3. The referendum is about the UK’s trading arrangements. WRONG.
Staying in the Single Market means there will be no change to jobs, investment or trade. Deciding future trading arrangements will be done at a future date by the democratic discussion in an independent UK.

4. The alternatives are presented as staying in the EU as it is or leaving it for an unknown future. WRONG.
There is no option of staying in the EU as it is. The correct alternatives were put by Jacques Delors, in 2012:: “If the British cannot support the trend to more integration in Europe, we can remain friends
but on a different basis. I could imagine a form such as an European Economic Area or a Free
Trade Agreement.

5. The referendum is about whether or not Cameron’s reforms are satisfactory. WRONG.
The referendum is about ‘remain in’ or ‘leave’ the European Union, not choosing between an ‘unreformed’ and ‘reformed’ European Union.

6. A ‘remain in’ vote proved to be a blank cheque in 1975.
The British government took a ‘remain in’ vote as authority to push through numerous further treaties, further integration and loss of independence. A new ‘remain in’ vote is another blank cheque.

7. The referendum is about British influence and sitting at the ‘top table’. WRONG.
The UK is not, and does not want to be, a member of the inner core of the EU either in the eurozone or the Schengen agreement on open borders. This lack of involvement has not diminished British influence because the EU long ceased to be the ‘top table’ and is nowadays more a transmission belt for regulation from global bodies.

8. It is safe to stay in the European Union. WRONG.
Staying in the EU means the UK is involved in the eurozone crisis and the refugee/migration crisis in the rest of the EU. These crises arise from the supranational nature of the EU and can be termed ‘existential’. It also means that the UK voters proclaiming they are not concerned about these
crises are willingly giving up their strong opportunity to change matters. The EU institutions will conclude they can move towards much faster integration.

The Norway Option DVD

The Norway Option DVD

norway option dvd

Living outside the European Union – Find out how Norway has prospered outside the European Union but part of the “European Economic Area” (EEA). Publicist Peter Troy and director Tony Baker, an experienced political documentary maker together with anti-EU campaigner Richard North visit Norway and meet politicians, journalists and business people to see what we in the UK from the Norwegians. The 35 minute DVD film production is recommended viewing for people interested in the vexed debate on In or Out of the EU.

Click here to view the trailer of the film which is described as “excellent” by Lord Tebbit.

Sadly, Mr Troy died inApril 2015 and it is currently not possible to purchase copies of this DVD directly as his website has been taken down. If you would like to order a copy, please contact [email protected] and we will make a note of your request and when copies once again become available, ensure one is dispatched to you.

 

 

 

Deconstructing the case for staying in the EU

We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow. (Lord Palmerston)

Responding to arguments for staying IN the European Union in the forthcoming referendum will be difficult given the ‘YES’ campaign’s overwhelming ‘firepower’. It is likely that any direct rebuttal of YES claims, however weak and/or disingenuous these IN claims are, will go largely unheard; shut down immediately by much of the media or drowned out by noisy, on-message repetitions from YES supporters. Can anything be done by the OUT of the EU (NO) campaign to effectively expose and disabuse the weaknesses, inconsistencies, contradictions or duplicity of the YES case?

Any attempts to examine YES arguments need to include honest, precise, perceptive analysis and logical conclusions. These efforts should also present a better alternative and realistic implementation plan, and if possible, use the firepower of the YES campaign to validate this dissection. Obviously, just referring to a different politician, expert, news report or study etc. is inviting the YES campaign to respond in kind with their own of these and pile on more of the same using their vastly superior resources. Any examination that stands a chance of helping the electorate reach an informed judgement and further democracy needs to hit the YES arguments where they have difficulty arguing back directly, and if they, do it undermines their overall case.

Expose the missing elements – The YES campaign is likely to present arguments with important elements missing; they are being selective and the items missing are needed to complete the ‘Big Picture’. So, for example, the superficial sound-bite ‘at the heart of Europe’ (and development of this theme) is missing clarity as to what it actually means, why it is important and how best to achieve it compared with alternatives. Also claims that the EU has maintained peace in Europe are unlikely to explain how the EU’s bureaucracy deterred Soviet aggression or a prevented militaristic dictatorship in Germany.

‘Every silver lining has a cloud’ could also potentially be true. So, for example, the full story and downside may be missing as part of manipulating and deceiving the electorate, or through following secret agendas. The ultimate truth is admitted only as actions on the ground become visible and irreversible.

Find, understand and challenge underlying paradigms – A paradigm or conceptual framework, in this context, is the collection of ideology, aspirations, knowledge and assumptions that are present and influence a relevant analysis, action, opinion, policy and priorities, etc.. (The terms ‘paradigm’ and ‘paradigm shift’ were used by Thomas Kuhn in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, to explain how dramatic changes occur in science.) Highly influential paradigms relate to this country, the EU and the future.

One major UK focused paradigm predicating the YES case can be characterised by the decline, humiliation and failure of our country as a sovereign and trading nation – consequently we need membership of the EU whatever its shortcomings in order to stop or delay our national and economic decline, accept whatever humiliation the EU inflicts on us, and recognise we’d be failures (at almost everything) without subservience to the ‘benign’ EU. Unfortunately this paradigm is self-fulfilling when the Establishment manages this country in accordance with it, which is what they are actively doing.

One major EU focused paradigm predicating the YES case can be characterised by the More EU the Better (perhaps with some minor fine-tuning or renegotiation). Consequently, acceptable, or even desirable, are: more EU integration and homogenisation; EU expansion into different areas of centralised top-down control; loss of individuality and freedom; omission of democratic accountability and transparency; increase of injustice and redistribution of jobs/people; high levels of taxation, corruption and waste; implementing destructive EU favoured ideologies without compassion.

A YES campaign’s paradigm of the future is very much steady state – the future needs the slow moving, orthodox, grandiose and regimented solutions of the past (such as the EU) to fix its problems or create opportunities. Consequently, acceptable are fixing the wrong problems or ones that no longer exist; losing competitiveness, missing fast moving opportunities and being left behind; discouraging spontaneous, informal, voluntary initiatives and collaborations (outside official channels); creating unintended or unwanted societal and economic side effects.

There are major problems in the EU, not least political, economic and demographic. It is difficult to see how being a part of this grandiose and costly experiment to create a European Superstate is in our interests. Rudyard Kipling in The Elephant’s Child has given us the succinct questions to deconstruct the YES/IN campaign:

I keep six honest serving-men
(They taught me all I knew);
Their names are What and Why and When
And How and Where and Who.

Photo by Horia Varlan

Spreading Alarm and Despondency amongst British Expats

Whilst we know that politicians are not on oath to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, they are not entitled to misinform people either recklessly or deliberately. This is particularly true for those who speak from a position of apparent experience or authority which lends weight to their views.

You would expect a lawyer and former Crown Law Officer to be aware of this responsibility. Yet Dominic Grieve, the former Attorney General and a practising barrister did not live up to this standard.

In the run-up to the election, the Guardian reported him saying that 2 million UK citizens working in the EU would become illegal immigrants overnight if Britain were to leave the EU. This is a massive untruth. People who have acquired rights of residence will still have those rights even if the EU treaties cease.

They are known as “acquired rights”, “executed rights” or “vested rights”. They are so firmly established that they have acquired the status of “customary law” which means that they stand as a fundamental principle of international law, not needing a specific treaty to confirm them. There is even a parliamentary briefing note about it, so Mr. Grieve has no excuse.

On 26 May I was surprised to see a report on RT (Russia Today) giving credence to this scare in a report about worried British expatriates living in France. Now RT is generally a far more sceptical reporter of EU affairs than the BBC but they seemed to have swallowed the British government story hook, line and sinker. There were some very distressed people with established businesses, fearful that they would be forced to leave and preparing to put their homes on the market.

We can expect much more of this style of panic mongering from the British government as the date for the British EU referendum approaches and it was surprising that RT had unwittingly stoked up unnecessary distress for these people.

There is a perfectly feasible way for the UK to leave the political structure of the EU and retain its trading and other relationships without any significant disruption. You can read it here and can listen to a half hour introduction it here

Photo by James O’Gorman