Avoiding the cliff edge?

Brexit news has come thick and fast this past week. While we don’t see the need to comment on every twist and turn, some recent developments have been quite significant.

In particular, following reports of disagreements within Mrs May’s cabinet over how “hard” Brexit should be, we are now informed that the Cabinet is united over the need for a transitional deal pending full departure from the EU.  There has been considerable pressure from business leaders worried about the relatively short timescale to prepare for departing the EU. According to the Daily Mail, Mrs May told a group of senior figures from industry that she wanted to avoid a ‘cliff-edge’ exit from the EU.

The article also said that even David Davis, one of the ministers keenest to leave the EU as soon as possible, is reconciled to a transitional Brexit period lasting until 2022.

Of course, with 2022 is now the new date for the next General Election, this puts a great deal of pressure on the Government to make sure we’re through the transition period before voters go to the polls. A recent survey by YouGov studied the main reasons given by voters for supporting the two big parties in this year’s election. Among Tory voters, Brexit came top of the list with 21% citing it as their top concern. By contrast, Brexit (either supporting or opposing it) did not feature at all in the top 10 reasons why people voted Labour.  Achieving a successful Brexit looks like being essential for the Tories if they are to stand a chance of remaining in power next time round.

One big issue in many voters’ minds was immigration and it is possible from the snippets revealed by a government source that no attempt will be made to restrict migration from the EU during the transition period, although when the BBC reported on this topic, it merely used the term “might be” no restriction. If this is the case, it would confirm Mrs May’s statement earlier this week that whatever the transitional arrangement may be, it is not going to include remaining within the Single Market. If so, what will it include? A safer transitional option, the EEA/EFTA route, would enable us, via the Liechtenstein Solution, to start imposing restrictions  far sooner.

Opposition to housing development in greenfield sites and in small towns is not going to go away either, particularly as an increasing number of people are starting to make the obvious link between housing shortages, concreting over the countryside and immigration. This will only add further pressure on the Tories.

However, if voters may be concerned that the government is kicking its migration target further down  the road, the House of Lords Economic Affairs Committee thinks otherwise, noting that Brexit will encourage firms to replace cheap labour with robots. In a sense, this is nothing more than the House of Lords playing catch-up. Almost two years ago, Andy Haldane of the Bank of England said that millions of jobs would be replaced by robots in the next twenty years. Even allowing for exaggeration and/or technology not developing as fast as suggested by the headline report, if we start to become a world leader in artificial intelligence, we will be struggling to find work for the current immigrants and with the exception of top professionals, certainly won’t want any more.

As the summer recess begins, the government will not have an easy job to  keep everyone happy, be it the many shades of opinion among leave voters, the Business community or even the Cabinet. We are still woefully thin on detail about even its transitional plans, but at least we have now been told that the important players are not only talking to one another but listening and attempting to find common ground that will keep most leave voters and business people on side. That still leaves a lot of concerns unaddressed, but for this small mercy we must be thankful.

Photo by williamcho

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.

Who will blink first?

Our attention has been drawn to an interesting article which appeared on the Conservative Home website. The author, James Arnell, claims that we in the UK have a different mindset when it comes to negotiations. “In the UK”, he claims, “parties generally start from a position which is more or less reasonable on each side and move together to a deal relatively quickly, seeking to avoid unnecessary escalation up the chain of command.”

The Continental approach is very different:- “Negotiations generally start with almost ridiculously extreme positions on each side….It is not at all unusual for these steps….to be accompanied by walkouts, requiring bosses to get things ‘back on track’. Ultimately, this continental form of negotiation culminates in a relatively rapid final phase of negotiations between the ‘head honchos’, in which, after months or years of painful posturing on both sides, points are traded embarrassingly quickly and a deal is sealed.”

Mr Arnell says that we should really start worrying if the negotiations are going smoothly at this stage as it means that the UK side would have been giving too much away.

The author works for Charterhouse, a private equity firm.  His biographical page on that firm’s website states that he is a barrister who speaks French and German fluently. All things considered, this article on ConHome sounds like it has been written by someone with first-hand experience of the Continental mindset with which David Davis and his team are having to deal during the Brexit negotiations. Maybe this is why not a lot is being given away by the UK government. While such tactics may ultimately turn out to be the best way of getting a favourable deal with the EU, as we have pointed out the lack of the details of any Brexit masterplan is causing concern for a number of business figures who are keen to know in far more detail what the government’s exit plans actually are.

A little extra piece of detail did emerge yesterday morning. According to Open Europe, Theresa May was adamant that even any transitional deal would not involve membership of the Single Market.  “We said we would no longer be members of the single market because we will no longer be members of the European Union.,” she said. Fair enough, but if there is another plan, not only organisations such as the Campaign for an Independent Britain but more importantly, some big names in the business world are straining at the leash for some reassurance.

Some confirmation of Mr Arnell’s analysis of the Continental mindset has surfaced in the shape of a  reference document of the Workshop on “Common Fisheries Policy and BREXIT” held on 21th June 2017, by the European Parliament’s Committee on Fisheries.  Concern has already been voiced about our denunciation of the 1964 London Fisheries Convention, an agreement which pre-dated our joining the EU allowing limited access to vessels from other Western European nations to certain areas of the waters between 6 and 12 nautical miles from our coastline.

As the wording of the original document was vessel-specific and no boats permitted to access our waters in 1964 are likely still to be active, denouncing this Convention could turn out to have been little more than a precautionary measure. The message it conveyed, however, was that the UK is serious about regaining control of all of our waters right up to the 200 nautical mile/median point limit and it was not well received. The response of Geert Bourgeois, the Flemish Prime Minister, was to wave around an ancient charter signed by Charles II in 1666 allowing fifty herring boats from Bruges “eternal rights” to fish in UK waters.  A bit of research showed this action to be nothing more than sabre-rattling. Even nearby Zeebrugge, a far more important fishing port than Bruges these days, could only muster 43 fishing boats in total four years ago.

So it comes as no surprise that the European Parliament is keen to see EU boats continue to plunder our waters. Although trade and fisheries will be handled separately, the report says, “The fact that these issues will be negotiated in separate legal frameworks should not lead to the fragmentation of fisheries issues, which should be addressed in their entirety and together, so as to ensure that the free movement of fishery products is linked to free access to waters and resources and vice versa”. As John Ashworth of Fishing for Leave commented, “The EU will want to tie the whole package together using blackmail on trade” –  In other words,  let us fish in your waters more or less as before or we’ll make it hard for you to sell fisheries products in the EU.

John has studied the issue of historic rights and has concluded that we can take back control of our waters without being open to a legal challenge over this issue. Nonetheless, the European Parliament document says “These historical fishing rights should be taken into account in the negotiations to facilitate preferential access by Member State fleets.” I shan’t repeat his rather forthright comments about this for fear of offending anyone’s sensitivity, but suffice it to say that he is distinctly unimpressed with the reasoning of the European Parliament! As an aside, it is worth pointing out that the European Parliament has a relatively minor role to play in the Brexit process, but its attitude is unlikely to be different from that of other EU institutions.

The bottom line is that if there is no agreement on fishing, the EU will be the clear loser. We would have full control of our waters right up to the 200 nautical mile/median point on Brexit day and no EU vessel would be able to fish anywhere within it. The loss of access to EU waters by our fishermen would be more than compensated by having exclusive access to our own.

This, or course, assumes that Michael Gove does not blink first and give way. The denunciation of the 1964 Convention was a move in the right direction, but the howls of protest from across the Channel are a warning to him that he will need to hold his nerve.

Indeed, it may not just be Mr Gove who needs to take James Arnell’s advice on board. Yanis Varoufakis, the former Greek Finance Minister has written a book called Adults in the Room based on his personal experience of how awkward he found EU officials to be.  On the other hand, while we have the upper hand on fisheries, we certainly don’t when it comes to other important areas of trade. Our negotiators must hold their nerve and not be intimidated, but they know that the mantra “no deal is better than a bad deal” is no more rooted in reality than the prospect of fifty 350-year old herring boats from Bruges suddenly appearing in the Channel demanding their eternal rights to fish in our waters.

Photo by waltercolor

Cameron’s legacy of confusion

David Cameron didn’t expect to lose last year’s referendum and banned the Civil Service from devising any exit strategy. That became an excuse for a nine month gestation period by Mrs. May which delivered only repetitions of “Brexit means Brexit”. The official leave campaign, vote.leave, refused to devise an exit strategy either. The only serious research on offer before the referendum which charted a comprehensive exit strategy was Flexcit, which recommended the EEA/EFTA route as a transitional arrangement. Since the referendum, only one further independent, detailed attempt has been made to tackle the issues involved – the Bruges Group’s What will it look like? which claimed that another exit route was possible within the time limit, while recognising a number of potential obstacles.

A recent post by Sir Jeremy Heywood, the Cabinet Secretary and head of the Civil Service painted a very upbeat picture of the work being done by the newly-created Department for Exiting the EU but he didn’t go into any detail about exit strategy. This department has far more staff available than the Bruges Group so it is rather worrying that we still know so little.

As our Chairman, Edward Spalton, has pointed out, when we joined the EEC in 1973, businesses were being briefed over a year in advance about the forthcoming changes.  Recently, a number of businessmen  who  met with government ministers, including the Brexit secretary David Davis, were very concerned about the lack of  detail they had been given. Similar reservations have come from groups ranging from the chemical manufacturers and the Federation of Small Business – the latter including a number of long-standing Brexit supporters.

Mr Davis unquestionably feels very confident about the UK’s prospects outside the EU. In the long term he could well be right. To be free of control by Brussels and able to manage our own affairs will be an inestimable benefit – but only if we are able to chart a sensible course through the choppy waters of what are shaping up to be far more complex negotiations than many Brexiteers ever imagined.

The stakes could not be higher for Mrs May and the Conservative Party.  There will be no backing out of Brexit.  Even though only a minority of MPs campaigned for leave, the majority of her party’s activists are staunch leavers and would not countenance any sort of betrayal. The unexpectedly strong showing by Labour in last month’s General Election only adds to the pressure. Any failure to deliver a competent Brexit as good as guarantees Mr Corbyn the keys to No. 10 in 2022 – or perhaps earlier.

Leaving  the EU  is the biggest challenge Mrs May and her team will face. We do not know what is going on behind the scenes but  the government  needs to have sufficient known policies in view to reassure the public, to avoid disrupting  economic expectations  and to deny traction to the campaign to rejoin the EU. Advice to all industries concerning the effects of government plans needs to be given in plenty of time for them to adjust.

To put it another way, our EU membership has been like a malignant, cancerous tumour. Untreated, it would have led to certain death. That’s why we were right to vote to leave. However, the complex task of cutting it out should  be done by a team of top surgeons who not only know what they are doing but can communicate their knowledge and confidence to the people. At the moment, even though there seems to be a growing agreement that some sort of transitional deal is necessary, no details at all have emerged.

Membership of the Single Market, even as an interim arrangement, has been ruled out and significantly, it was the Chancellor Philip Hammond, one of the “doves” in government, who stated this explicitly on the Andrew Marr show last Sunday. So what will it include? Catherine McGuinness, the de facto leader of the City of London’s municipal body, says Britain and the EU must agree the outlines of any transition before the end of the year or as many as 15,000 banking jobs could leave London.

The sense of lack of concentration was not helped by a picture of Michel Barnier and his EU team turning up  for the second round of Brexit talks with  great thick folders of notes while David Davis and his associates had none.

So will some positive signal emerge to calm worried businesses  – and indeed, worried Brexit supporters? If so, the sooner the better, as the opponents of Brexit are gleefully cashing in on the  lack of direction,  communicated by default.   Most people just want to see Brexit done and dusted with reasonable assurance of that steadily performing  economy on which all our livelihoods depend.

 

E50bn EU Brexit bill request – or investing in European Democracy and liberation?

Is there a way the UK can negotiate the EU request for UK funds to help liberate Europe from the EU and boost economic growth? I believe so. What if the UK were to pay money but only in return for the restoration of democracy, self-government and prosperity in Europe?

The UK voted to leave the EU, and to end its net contribution to the budget, which hasn’t been signed off by auditors for over 15 years. Since joining the EU, the UK has contributed £130bn net to the EU and had a cumulative £400bn trade deficit with EU countries. The EU has spending plans for countries, since the people in these other countries avoid paying the taxes they are supposed to pay and then vote for corrupt and/or incompetent politicians who waste their money. These countries could easily afford the money if they had better habits – and also if there was no €uro, with  exchange rates reflecting the competitiveness of each economy and competence of each country’s politicians.

The areas the EU feels the UK owes them money

  • EU infrastructure projects, road and rail, in other countries
  • Other investment projects after Brexit, for less developed countries
  • Pensions for UK Eurocrats
  • Liabilities for loans that fail with other countries
  • Relocation costs of EU agencies to other EU countries

Firstly, adopting a fast track approach to Brexit could help, i.e. to get 70% of what the UK wants in 3 months:

  • During Brexit negotiations, switch to EFTA/Single Market from current EU/Single Market
  • Allowing the UK to freely negotiate trade deals with any country around the world
  • UK having a seat on the WTO and other world organisations and voting
  • Having a veto of any new regulations, for implementing in the UK
  • Amend and repeal any EU and EEA regulations that are unnecessary for the UK
  • Single Market regulations only affect the 9% of the economy that exports to the EU
  • Controlling agriculture, fisheries, home affairs and justice
  • No ECJ, with rulings and arbitration through the EFTA Court
  • No EAW (European Arrest Warrant)
  • Any UK aid goes to other EU countries directly, on a matched funds basis with the recipient country, i.e. no matching funds, no project
  • New Eastern European immigrants get a 1 working year visa, points system for staying longer
  • Other EU countries have free movement, unless unemployment over 7%, then only have a 1 year working visa, points system for staying longer
  • Similarity between EFTA and EU Free Trade Agreements

(For more information on this point, compare the EFTA FTAs with those negotiated by the EU.)

People may be wandering why the EU is asking for any money at all. After all, the UK has helped Europe over the last more than 200 years, saving it from the actions of French and German politicians taking away the self-government of other European countries in the areas of: political decision making, foreign policy, taxation levels, regulations, judiciary control, media control, currency control, movement of people across borders, control of military in other countries. So what has changed after each conflict? Have German – and to some extent – French politicians finally learnt to respect the self-government of other European countries? – freedoms which Britain played a lead role in restoring, paying dearly both in lives lost and also financially. And now they want the UK to pay for upgrading to a self-governing democracy? Pay for the incompetence and corruption in other countries? Pay funds to help with vote buying in corrupt countries, and give an electoral advantage to politicians in power and so distort electoral outcomes? Have they no conscience or moral compass? Clearly not. Appeasement doesn’t work.

The EU is a symptom. The problems are caused by the failure of political systems in the various countries and also the censoring media that covers up what is really happening, and side effects of policies. How about offering to pay the EU some money if they upgrade their political systems?

€5bn – each country which has the €uro to have binding referendums on switching to original currency, implemented within 3 months of a referendum result, starting with the Deutsche Mark being the currency for other countries to peg their currencies to, starting with +/- 3% band, for first 3 months, +/- 6%, next 3 months, +/- 10% next 3 months, +/- 15% next 3 months, +/- 22% next 3 months, +/- 30% next 3 months, then float freely. Worth remembering, that the currencies are indicators of how well a country is run.

€5bn – Denmark, Finland, Austria, Netherlands, Sweden, Ireland have referendums on whether to switch to EFTA/Single Market

€5bn – the Single Market/EEA (European Economic Area), now becomes  only an area for the free movement of goods, services and capital. The articles covering free movement, social policy and environment are repealed/deleted.  These  become each countries choice and also bilateral

€5bn – each EU country has a new law allowing petition/referendum for any treaty, agreement or any international laws, to do with other countries, e.g. trade in goods, services, capital and movement of people. Example 2% sign petition, binding referendum held within 2 months of petition, implemented within 3 months of result

€5bn – East Germany has a referendum to choose to become an independent sovereign nation, with own currency. Bavaria has a referendum to become an independent sovereign nation, with own currency, e.g. Bavarian Mark. Implemented within 3 months of referendum result.

€5bn – if all the above are done

Paid over 5 years. From a current £9bn net EU contribution per year.

What would the benefits of this expenditure be?

  • Re-implementing national currencies will remove the price distortion by having an overvalued or undervalued exchange rate, thus removing the misallocation of resources, and allowing for more productive investments. Currently Germany has an artificially undervalued exchange rate and is thus able to sell more to other EU countries, so denying other countries within the Eurozone the ability to grow and use funds to invest in more productive assets and improving competitiveness. A booming European economy can only help UK exports. A booming European economy is less likely to see mass immigration, as many immigrants move for economic reasons – not because of the colder northern European weather!
  • Britain’s traditional role has been in restoring self-government in European countries, after it has been taken away by other European countries. By having referendum processes in place, the root causes are being addressed – so reducing future possible problems.
  • The side effects of the EU are addressed, i.e. Eastern European countries losing huge amounts of skilled and motivated workers, who they have educated. Also the EU is about centralising power and we can see that also leads to centralising of wealth in many countries, at the expense of the low income people.

In summary, there is an opportunity to turn the EU request for funds into an opportunity to restore self-government in all European countries. If Germany, France and EU want UK money, then the UK can choose the terms, including restoring liberty and prosperity in Europe. Or no money.

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