Press release:- The Leave Alliance launches with a definite exit plan

LONDON, 18 March 2016 – The Leave Alliance has launched in London with a definitive Brexit plan and a positive vision for a United Kingdom freed from European Union control.
 
At its official launch in London on Wednesday, representatives of the seven groups that make up The Leave Alliance dismissed as unnecessary and misleading David Cameron’s warnings that jobs, commercial interests and British influence in the world would be lost if the UK voted to leave the EU.
 
The Leave Alliance presented its plan, called The Market Solution, which details how the UK can leave the EU but remain a member of the European Economic Area (EEA, or Single Market) until a more permanent solution can be negotiated.
 
The approach enables trade and commercial links to continue as they do today, providing vital reassurance to business and the markets that Brexit can be de-risked, withdrawing from EU political control without impacting the economy.
 
Anthony Scholefield, the Director of the Futurus think-tank said, “The Leave Alliance is an antidote to the fear, uncertainty and doubt that is being sown by those who want to stay in the European Union. After giving notice to withdraw as set out in Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty, we have shown how we should use the two-year period that follows to negotiate an agreement to remain in the single market after we leave the undemocratic and outdated EU.
 
“Independence will give us real agility in matters of global trade, and restore our voice and vote on the global bodies where rules and regulations are determined before they are given to the EU for implementation. There will be no leap into the dark.”
 
Dr Richard North, political researcher and author of The Great Deception and the specialist blog EUReferendum.com said, “An effective strategy is essential. What sets The Leave Alliance apart is our plan, The Market Solution. It debunks the arguments of those who want to remain, it offers a positive vision for how the UK can leave the EU, and it reassures people that we can withdraw from the EU without the negative consequences David Cameron claims would follow.
 
“Voters are demanding to know how we can leave the EU without harming British interests. Our plan answers that question, removing the fear of Brexit and explaining how we can leave the EU before gradually departing further from the EU’s sphere of influence and control.”
 
ENDS
 

About The Leave Alliance
 
The Leave Alliance (TLA) is made up of seven groups; The Campaign for an Independent Britain (CIB), The Bruges Group, EUReferendum.com, FUTURUS think-tank, Save Britain’s Fish, The Harrogate Agenda and the Blogger’s Army.
 
TLA advocates and promotes ‘Flexcit’, a clear, researched and de-risked six-stage plan for UK exit from the European Union, but remaining a member of the European Economic Area (EEA, also known as the Single Market) until a comprehensive free trade agreement (FTA) can be negotiated.
 
The Market Solution – Flexcit: http://eureferendum.com/Flexcit.aspx
The Market Solution – Flexcit presentation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KfEo_TNllk4
 
TLA is not seeking Electoral Commission designated lead campaign group status and is not competing with any other ‘Leave’ group. It will support and work with any of group that supports the need for a detailed and seamless exit plan and our vision of how we can prosper after leaving the undemocratic and bureaucratic EU.
 
TLA believes it is impossible to reform the EU and for this reason we support invoking Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty, which sets out a two year period to negotiate UK withdrawal. TLA is also clear that we will need to stay in the Single Market for an interim period for two main reasons:
 
(i)             To counter the Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt which the ‘Establishment’ will deploy to try and frighten the electorate into voting to ‘Remain’
(ii)            To ensure our trade and commercial interests are not interrupted while we negotiate for a new free trade deal for the 59 countries of Europe, as opposed to the 28 in the EU.
 
Voters need to be made aware that the EU is now at best irrelevant and at worse a deterrent to trade as global bodies increasingly determine and produce the rules and regulations governing world trade.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
For more information, or interview requests please contact:
 
Contact: John Ashworth
Tel: 01439 770219
  

Could Ireland follow us out of the EU exit door?

Our Chairman, Edward Spalton, spotted this piece in the Irish Times – a paper known for its strong pro-EU stance.  Obviously, it’s only speculation at this stage, but Mr McCoy’s comments do suggest that  Brexit may well cause some other member states to review their stance. He also qustioned the fear tactics being used by David Cameron and his supporters and pointed out that similar tactics were used about the Single Currency – and proved to be unfounded. In view of the number of Irish citizens resident in the UK who are eligible to vite in the referendum, a relatively upbeat assessment of the prospects for an independent UK from an Irish source is very welcome.

The boss of Ireland’s largest business lobby group has said an Irish exit from the EU might become “inevitable” if Britain leaves the union.

Danny McCoy, who has led Ibec {the Irish Business and Employers. Confederation} since 2009, told Germany’s Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung in an interview that Ireland’s departure from the EU could not be ruled out in a “Brexit” situation.

After his election victory last year, British prime minister David Cameron promised an in/out referendum on EU membership by the end of 2017.

“If Britain should decide on an exit, there will definitely be a debate in Ireland on whether we should not do the same,” Mr McCoy told the German paper.

“I can imagine circumstances in which that might become inevitable.”

Mr McCoy’s intervention comes amid a deepening Irish debate on the implications of the looming referendum in Britain.

‘Brexit’ impact on Ireland

He told The Irish Times today that Ireland would have to assess its own position if the referendum in Britain leads it out of the EU.

“The notion that the calculus for Ireland remains unchanged regardless of the decision Britain makes on ‘Brexit’ is ludicrous,” he said.

“If they go, circumstances have changed as a result of that. Keynes said: ‘When circumstances change, I change my opinion. What do you do sir?’”

In the FAZ, Mr McCoy said Ireland could suffer “potentially enormous” damage if Britain post-exit became a magnet for foreign direct investment on the back of lower business taxes and economic deregulation.

Such moves could lead multinationals based in Ireland to relocate to Britain, calling Ireland’s EU membership into question.

“We would prefer if the British remained in the EU. But after a Brexit, Britain could become a very attractive location for business,” he said.

“We would then be in a totally new situation. I’m not so sure if EU membership would be all that important for Irish multinationals,” he said.

Speaking to The Irish Times, he questioned automatic assumptions that the best option for Britain was to stay in the EU.

“Everybody says Britain will lose out by leaving – all based on the assumption that somehow Britain’s decision to leaves would be very costly for them,” he said.

“There’s only one concrete example of this kind in the past. That was in relation to Britain’s decision to stay out of the euro. Britain was told: ‘If you don’t go into euro, London as a financial capital would be diminished.’

“This never materialised and the City of London financial market had strengthened in the period since the single currency was introduced.

“So why should similar threats in relation to Brexit be as clear?”

Photo by Alex Zanutto

How Brexit could save the EU from itself

This article by Allister Heath first appeared in the Daily Telegraph on 14th March. while not addressing the issue of how we withdraw, it does draw attention to the basic failings of the EU project – the fact that the nations of Europe do not constitute a single people which, in the author’s view, dooms the EU to either totalitarianism or collapse.  A UK withdrawal, rather than being seen as a disaster for the EU may be of great benefit to the continent as a whole. 

It is those who love Europe, its diversity, its history and its humanity who should be the most enthusiastic about Brexit. A paradox? Not at all. The European Union, as currently constituted, has run out of road. It is doomed to fail, sooner or later, with catastrophic consequences for our part of the world, and the only way forward is for one major country to break ranks and show that there can be a better alternative consistent with Europe’s core enlightenment values.

It would be far better if we, rather than a more socialist or nationalistic country, were the first to break the mould: Britain would have the opportunity to show that free trade, an open, self-governing society and a liberal approach could ensure the peace and prosperity at the heart of the European dream. Others would soon join us. If we vote to stay, we will lose the moral authority to speak out, and other, less benign, inward-looking, illiberal approaches may triumph instead.

The eurozone is broken, and another, far greater economic crisis inevitable. The next trigger could be a fiscal meltdown in Italy, or another banking collapse, or a political implosion in Spain or France, or another global recession. Nobody can be sure what the proximate cause will be – but there will be one, and the fallout will be turmoil of a far greater magnitude than anything we saw in Greece. At the same time, the tensions fuelled by the migration crisis will grow relentlessly, especially if hundreds of thousands or even millions of people are settled across the continent over the next few years.

Many in the Remain camp agree that the eurozone requires drastic surgery, but their solution is naive. They believe that even more integration – a pan-eurozone welfare state, greater transfers between countries, central powers over fiscal policy – would help cancel out the currency’s inherent defects. I doubt that this would actually work in purely economic terms, but even if it did, it is delusional to believe that such a model can be politically sustainable.

Democracy, the term, is derived from the ancient Greek: it denotes a system whereby the people (dêmos) are in power or in which they rule (krátos). One cannot, by definition, have a genuine democracy in the absence of a people; and there is no such thing as a European demos. The French are a people; the Swiss are a people, even though they speak multiple languages; the Americans are a people, even though Democrats and Republicans hate each other. But while Europeans have much in common, they are not a people. Danes don’t know or care about Portuguese politics; the Spanish have no knowledge or interest in Lithuanian issues.

One could hold pan-European elections, of course, with voters picking multi-national slates of candidates; but, then, one could also ask every person on the planet to vote for a world president. Such initiatives would ape democratic procedures, but would be a sham. They would be Orwellian takedowns of genuine democracy, not extensions of it. There would be no relationship or understanding between ruler and citizen, zero genuine popular control, nil real accountability; coalitions of big countries would impose their will on smaller nations, and élites would run riot. We would be back to imperial politics, albeit in a modernised form.

Governments can forge cohesive cultures by using state schools, propaganda and government media; they can impose languages and a common, national identity where none existed before. There was plenty of such nation-building in the 19th and 20th centuries, with national cultures created from scratch. Yet to construct a new Euro demos today would be totalitarian: it would require, despicably, wiping out many of Europe’s cultural differences and rewriting history.

Given that there can be no meaningful Euro-democracy any time soon, the only other logical solution would be to ditch the very idea of rule of the people, embrace a radical fiscal and political centralisation of the eurozone, and entrust power to unelected bureaucrats.

Such a solution would have equally disastrous consequences. While retaining a few trivial trappings of democracy, a new, fully integrated eurozone would become a technocracy: a trans-national conglomerate run by officials. Some intellectuals privately argue that the nation state was merely a momentary aberration in humanity’s long history, and that representative democracy is failing.

But the public would rightly reject such nonsense: the real problem is that the people have too little, rather than too much, power. The next European treaty, which will represent another integrationist leap when it is eventually drawn up, will be an almost impossible sell.

We are therefore at an impasse. The EU faces a long-term economic, demographic and cultural implosion, and is staring down the abyss of illegitimacy. A small subset of European countries may be able to pull something off, and merge. I’m sceptical even of that, but it’s certainly one possibility. But we need a new model of European cooperation for those who realise that neither the status quo nor more integration is the answer.

That is where Brexit comes in. A British departure from the EU, if executed correctly, could save Europe from itself: it would create a plan B, a workable alternative for those countries that want to be part of an integrated Europe but are unhappy at the direction of travel.

Within a few years, Britain could be at the head of a network of at least six or seven self-governing but closely integrated countries; these would surely include Norway, Switzerland and Iceland, but others would join in too, including perhaps some non-euro nations such as Denmark and even the Netherlands, an increasingly anti-EU country. As to the eastern Europeans, membership of the EU was the way they redefined themselves as post-Soviet, with Nato membership the route to security.

But if Europe were to split into two, very different groups, a decentralised one led by the UK and another, increasingly integrated bloc controlled by Berlin and Paris, there would suddenly be more than one option. Some Eastern European nations would hopefully end up following Britain.

The UK’s new economic community could even be extended to other, non-EU states in the Mediterranean, such as Israel, or even further afield. Preaching and whining is no longer enough: Britain needs to lead by example, and show our neighbours that being good Europeans no longer requires being part of the EU.

Photo by Jon Ingram

Britain on the brink: A useful link to pass on to the uninformed.

This video was produced a few years ago, but is still a useful tool to enlighten those who are unaware of the true nature of the European project. Speakers include Christopher Booker, Christopher Gill MP, Vladimir Bukovsky and Ian Milne, with an inttoduction by the late Sir Patrick Moore CBE.

Featured in the video is Bukovsky’s famous quote: “I have lived in your future and it didn’t work”.

While there is no discussion about the mechanics of Brexit and the debate has moved on since the video was made,  its graphic style pulls no punches when it comes to descibing just how dreadful the EU is and why we need to regain our independence.

Leaving the EU is safe; remaining in isn’t!

‘I really want to leave the EU, but with so many warnings about the dangers, I’m really scared’

Apart from Boris’s boisterous optimism, little is being reported in the media to refute Mr Cameron’s Project Fear and the subliminal message that we are all useless. Also, when European Union (EU)-fanatics sing the praises of perhaps the biggest scam on earth, little is said to show that we can do much better without even trying. Again, we hear a few meek statements along the lines of “we used to manage our affairs before the control-freaks from Brussels arrived” or “we’ve got ingenuity” but that is all. Sadly Leave Campaign leaders appear unaware of any systematic way of proving what we all intuitively realise, that (1) there are no significant risks in leaving the failing EU and (2) if the EU appears to do anything ‘good’, we can do much better.

This country is the world leader in risk management – ahead of America and light years ahead of the vacuous, clueless leaders and bureaucrats of the EU. If they knew the basics, they wouldn’t be repeatedly making disastrous mistakes like, the Euro, debt mountains, stalling competitiveness, and runaway migration which impacts on the most vulnerable in society. Risk, including the likelihood of occurrence and severity of undesirable consequences, can be managed very successfully. Otherwise electricity would be too dangerous to use, air travel wouldn’t get off the ground, money couldn’t be invested and major projects, such as Crossrail’s tunnelling under London, would peter out unfinished.

The inherent problems which the EU suffers trying to get its policies right and fine-tuned cannot be cured. One size does not fit all (28 divergent states or former countries), and the considerable hierarchical and physical distance between them and us means they can only guess what might work, drawing on their Dreamworld ideology of an EU Superstate. By comparison, the SAS (living in the real and dangerous world with serious jobs to do) delegates authority down to the lowest level, nearest the action. And we often know from our personal experiences what havoc distant, out of touch management can create, whereas being close to the action delivers faster moving, better decisions and ultimately, results.

Moving major decisions outside the nation state, with its homogeneity, transparency and democratic accountability, is intrinsically risky. The worst effects of the EU’s many mistakes fall especially hard on ordinary hard working people and the most vulnerable. Yet Mr Cameron and EU-fanatics appear not to understand this. Or they are cavalier in ignoring the obvious? Restoring national policymaking or even localising it further will deliver better results. Not surprisingly the trade deals negotiated by small, independent countries, such as Switzerland, are more numerous and better than the EU’s efforts. There is also a theory, based on the study of many successful innovations from the dawn of civilisation which can predict this, and can be used to repeatedly improve results. There is no ‘leap into the dark’ by leaving the centralised bureaucratic corporatist EU, just a leap into a far less risky, better performing and democratic situation.

We can do better still, taking any risk out of the transition period in leaving the EU. This comes about by managing the processes involved using best practice, arising from current knowledge and invention. Process management for low risk is something the EU is, again, very poor at and Mr Cameron does not appear to know much, if anything, about either. The starting place is to use normal risk management tools, which these days are well refined. We can go further still and build in ways of adapting and self-learning to ensure that anything that hasn’t been thought of in the beginning can be suitably dealt with. This gives the lie to the claim that the EU will not co-operate; it can be made very much in their interests to negotiate a WIN-WIN divorce.

This brief overview cannot go into the details of risk management, process management, collaboration management and low risk innovation. However, the more you drill down into the detail, the more obvious it becomes that we are being deceived. The high risk option is to stay bogged down in the EU-quagmire. The low risk alternative is to leave and thus create a sound basis for our future progress as a nation.

Every example of Project Fear only reinforces the impression that our EU-loving ruling establishment cannot manage risk effectively in its various forms. We, as an independent country, can do much better and achieve vastly improved overall results. Messrs Cameron and Corbyn and your distant EU-overlords, Mr Juncker and (and his boss) Mrs Merkel, please explain honestly to us why we can’t?