Deal or no deal? Some thoughts on last week’s meeting

Last week I, along with about 90 other people, attended a conference entitled Deal or no deal – what are the options? hosted by David Campbell Bannerman MEP.  I was very much hoping to hear something of the government’s current thinking about the progress of the Brexit negotiations with the EU.

The opening speaker, Rt Hon Greg Hands MP, gave a very upbeat assessment of our trading opportunities post-Brexit. His department, he assured us, is ready, come what may. Nine new trade commissioners are to be appointed and our new tariff schedules are being prepared for the World Trade Organisation. At a time when protectionism is on the increase, there is considerable enthusiasm in some quarters (which he did not name) for a new independent UK to re-emerge as a champion of global free trade. He was adamant that all the major countries with whom the EU had signed trade deals were keen to continue a similar arrangement with us on Brexit.

One member of the audience expressed concern about how high standards in agriculture could be maintained if trade was to become freer. Mr Hands insisted that there would be no lowering of standards on food quality and we would not be flooded with poor-quality imports (Presumably a reference to chlorine-washed chickens about which there are currently many worries)

David Campbell Bannerman then introduced what he called the “Super Canada” option which, he claimed, was the Government’s  preferred option. This was no surprise, given that a few days beforehand, the EU was widely reported as considering a deal along the lines of CETA, the EU/Canada deal, with the UK. This has been strongly criticised both by the left and by other informed commentators for its inadequacy. Mr Bannerman said that the EU likes the CETA deal and intends to use it as a template for future trade deals with Australia and New Zealand too, Twelve of the 30 chapters in this deal would need no change, he informed us. The others would not be suitable without re-writing, as we would (presumably) wish to protect the NHS  The EU is worried about the future UK attitude towards regulation, as it doesn’t want to see us becoming the Singapore of the North Atlantic, an option enthusiastically supported by, among others, Owen Paterson, whose piece appeared, perhaps coincidentally, on the same day as this conference.

David Davis gave the keynote speech. He stated that he does not want to end up with no deal and is confident that we will get a deal. He pointed out the areas where progress had been made and insisted that our exit will be conducted in a smooth, orderly way.

There was, nonetheless, a possibility that we may not get a deal, but Whitehall was preparing for every eventuality.

Mrs May has consistently rejected using Norway as a model and Helle Hagenau, a familiar face to our more long-standing members, explained some of the pitfalls. Although advising against our staying in the EEA, however, she felt it was worth our re-joining EFTA as we needed some trading arrangement with the four EFTA countries once we leave. Switzerland is our sixth most important trading partner while bilateral trade with Norway  was worth £18.57 billion in 2015. She did, however, mention that although EFTA courts are not bound to implement the ECJ rulings, , they were in fact doing so, even though the ECJ has no direct power to intervene in EEA matters and the actions of the EFTA court was an encroachment on the original basis of the EEA agreement.  With the alleged indivisibility of the “Four freedoms” of the Single Market mentioned on a couple of occasions during the morning, I was surprised that no one mentioned Liechtenstein’s unilateral restriction on free movement of people at this point.

The final speaker was Rt Hon David Jones, who had formerly worked as a minister in DExEU (the Department for Exiting the European Union)  who informed the meeting that any role for the ECJ in our affairs post-Brexit would be totally unacceptable to him and a number of his colleagues. If this meant we would leave with no deal, then as far as he was concerned, so be it.

Interestingly, little was said about the details of any transitional arrangement, which as we have pointed out, the EU is only prepared to offer us under terms which would see us still under the thumb of the ECJ. We can therefore presume that Mr Jones and a number of his colleagues will be  equally opposed to any such arrangement.

Although only billed as a “comment” rather than a speech, the few words shared by Hans-Olaf Henkel of the BDI, the German equivalent of our CBI, were well received. Although he regretted our vote to leave the EU and still hoped Brexit wouldn’t happen,  he was most unimpressed with the way the EU was handling the negotiations. He referred in particular to the “divorce bill” which  he regarded as unacceptable. He also said that Brexit was the fault of Brussels, although his statement that “you joined an EU of sovereign nations and suddenly someone decided to make a United States of Europe out of it” was a rather naive comment given the United States of Europe was always the destination of the European project, right from the days of Jean Monnet.

It was good to meet up with a number of colleagues from other campaign organisations, quite a few of whom I had not seen since the referendum.  It was worth attending this meeting, although I came away with a clear sense that not everyone in the government is singing from the same songsheet, so perhaps the lack of a clear Brexit strategy is understandable given the balancing act required to avoid a massive rebellion on the back benches.

Among the other attendees was Viscount Matt Ridley, whose rather witty comments on the conference may be of interest. They can be found here.

Straws in the wind

Apart from signs of possible movement in the stalled negotiations with the EU on trade, events are beginning to push into reality those matters which have previously been merely the subject of rhetoric and speculation.

Whatever plans the government has, it will have to start giving practical information to businesses in the early new year about its intentions. In our extended article The Complexities of Brexit, we pointed out the urgency of the situation for chemical manufacturers, farmers, food producers and other businesses which have long production cycles or investment programmes which reach into the post Brexit era.

Whilst trade associations like to avoid publicity which might upset the government and to conduct their negotiations in private, the urgency of the situation is pushing these matters into the public sphere. Two articles from City AM of 22nd November demonstrate this.

EASYJET PLAN COULD SHAKE UP SHAREHOLDINGS by Rebecca Smith

EASYJET yesterday set out plans which could force UK shareholders to sell their stakes after Brexit, as it prepares to comply with foreign ownership rules.

Under EU law, the airline needs to ensure majority control and ownership by EU nationals after Britain leaves in order for it to keep operating intra-EU. Yesterday it unveiled plans to amend its articles of association which currently give directors the power to limit the ownership of the firm’s shares by by non UK nationals. Easyjet intends to change this so they apply to non EU shareholders, which will exclude UK shareholders once the UK has left the EU – giving it the power to force UK shareholders to divest their shares if need be.

The airline will put the changes to shareholders at its annual general meeting in February, saying the switch-up will ensure that Easyjet is able to remain EU-owned and controlled at all times after the UK has left the EU.

The carrier said it has “no current intention” of using the proposed powers……

BREXIT BREAKTHROUGH NEEDED BY EARLY 2018 TO HELP BUSINESSES.

By Jasper Jolly & Alys Key

THE GOVERNMENT must secure a Brexit transition deal by the end of the first quarter of 2018 before businesses implement “no deal” contingency plans, according to the head of the Institute of Directors (IoD).

Speaking at the lobby group’s annual dinner last night, IoD director general Stephen Martin said businesses “are concerned about what happens if a breakthrough is not made at the next round of talks in December”.

He said “It’s as simple as this – we are now only 16 months away from leaving the EU. We need the discussion to move on to our future trading relationship and critically what happens when the Article 50 timeline runs out in early 2019.

But he praise IoD members for their “determination” in preparing for every Brexit eventuality, saying that businesses have upheld their end of the bargain and now need the politicians to “deliver” for them.

IGNORANCE ABOUNDING IN HIGH PLACES

A colleague, who has been quietly lobbying trade associations for months, decided it was time to speak to his MP. During the course of their discussion, he mentioned EFTA (The European Free Trade Association) and was astonished to find that this shadow minister did not know what it was. He had never heard of it. Over many years of campaigning, we have often been surprised at the lack of knowledge by MPs of all parties concerning the European project. A national referendum and over a year’s intense debate on the result appear to have been insufficient to disperse the fog of ignorance on even such a basic matter as this.

It is not just politicians either. At a private meeting of senior business people, not one participant raised a hand when asked if they had ever downloaded and skim-read an EU Free Trade Agreement. Former civil servants at the meeting said that this was also true of ministers they had served.

Mind you, half an hour of reading the sort of leaden prose which the EU produces is enough to sap the will to live! Considering the very definitive statements made by leading spokesmen and media personalities, it would be interesting to know how many of their very emphatic opinions were based on direct acquaintance with the text. The Devil is always in the detail.

A WIND OF CHANGE

Commenting on a report of this meeting, our good friend John Ashworth of Fishing for Leave wrote “I haven’t been home long from three days in London and I too can’t say what I have been up to, but I can confirm there is a wind of change. I have a lot of work to do now, but I am happy with the three days, never satisfied enough. But movement is at last happening, so to all readers, keep the pressure up.

“The two factors which had the most effect on them were, on the one hand, a most extraordinary level of ignorance and, on the other, an almost complete inability to listen. If anything, the stories that have leaked out on these aspects are somewhat under-stated” – yes, spot on”.

 

A Customs Union with the EU is a daft idea

The latest pronouncements from Michel Barnier, the EU’s Chief Negotiator, provide little comfort to those of us seeking reassurance that the Government knows how to fulfil its declared aim of leaving the EU in 18 months’ time while avoiding a “cliff edge” for business.

Essentially, the rather tired “having cake and eating it” analogy sums up what Barnier sees as the root of the problem. He talked of a “nostalgia” for the Single Market and made it clear that you cannot be outside the Single Market while continuing to enjoy its benefits.  “This is simply impossible”, he said.

There is a wide range of views among Brexit supporters regarding whether or not we should stay within the Single Market. If there is a non-single market option which could provide us with something as near as possible to the frictionless trade which Business is demanding, the Government is keeping very quiet about it. This in turn is resulting in a concern that our Brexit team – and perhaps the Government as a whole – still does not grasp what it means to be a “third country” for trade purposes.

When it comes to the EU’s Customs Union, however, there is no reason to support our continued membership. It is an open and shut issue. We certainly need a Customs arrangement with the EU or else a massive queue of lorries is going to build up on the M20 immediately after Midnight on March 29th 2019, but that is not the same as a Customs Union.

A Customs Union is an area within which goods can circulate without restriction but which imposes a common external tariff on goods from outside.  The first Customs Union was the German Zollverein, established in 1834 and which gradually included most German states. Significantly, the economic union was followed by political union.

The Treaty of Rome, which established what has become the European Union, proposed the establishment of a Customs Union. By the time the UK joined, it was up and running and we had to impose the common external tariffs on all goods from outside, including those from our Commonwealth friends such as Australia and New Zealand. In other words, we surrendered the freedom to negotiate our own trade deals.

Shortly after the Treaty of Rome, the UK which at the time was not keen on joining the European project instead became one of the founder members of EFTA, the European Free Trade Association, which was not a Customs Union. It thus allowed members to negotiate their own trade agreements if they so desired, although EFTA also has negotiated free trade deals on behalf of all its constituent countries. Significantly, EFTA has never sought to create any sort of political union among its members. It was and is purely about trade.

Why then should a non-EU member want to be associated with the EU’s Customs Union? If you are a micro-state like San Marino or Monaco, you are unlikely to have the resources to negotiate your own trade deals and thus piggybacking on your larger neighbours is the best way of keeping trade flowing smoothy across your borders. This is not the case with Turkey, the only large non-EU country which has a customs union with it.

During last year’s Referendum debate, the so-called “Turkish option” received very little coverage. Being in a similar customs union with the EU was occasionally mentioned as one possible post-Brexit scenario but then almost immediately dismissed as being unsatisfactory. The Turks themselves don’t like it, which is one very good reason for rejecting it.

For starters, being a member of the Customs Union requires accepting the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice. Turkey also may not negotiate trade agreements with non-EU countries but does not benefit from the EU’s Free Trade agreements. Countries who have signed a free trade agreement with the EU can export their goods into Turkey tariff free while imposing tariffs on Turkish goods.

One reason for Turkey accepting this unsatisfactory arrangement was its aspiration to join the EU. We are going in the opposite direction, so there is even less reason for us to adopt it, even as a transitional arrangement.

If further proof were needed of this argument, this article on the Kapikule Border crossing between Turkey and EU member state Bulgaria,  shows that a Customs Union with the EU does not result in quick and easy movement of goods across borders.  A Turkish lorry driver is quoted as saying that a mere 14-hour wait at the customs post constitutes a “good day”!

The article goes on to describe how “each driver clutches a sheaf of several dozen documents — an export declaration, a carnet from Turkish customs officers, invoices for the products they are hauling, insurance certificates and, when lucky, a transport permit for each EU nation they will drive through.”

No one in their right minds should be suggesting that any future UK-EU trading relationship be conducted along these lines.  Like it or loathe it, re-joining EFTA as an interim arrangement and thus accessing the Single Market along the same lines as Norway and Iceland would spare us this chaos. Maybe the Government has some better alternative up its sleeve, although if this is the case, it is playing its cards very close to its chest, but we can’t stay in the EU’s Customs Union if we’re not an EU member; we can only make a Customs Union agreement on Turkish lines and evidence strongly suggests it’s not worth the bother.

 

Photo by Peanut99

New government position paper – Enforcement and dispute resolution

This latest Government position paper begins with a phrase we have heard time after time “new deep and special relationship.” This is a most unfortunate term, although at least it makes the point that we don’t want to make enemies of EU-27. Our relationship will certainly be “new” as we will no longer be a member state but “deep and special”? We voted for a looser relationship to enable us to be closer to the rest of the world. It is hard to imagine that in a decade or so, if Brexit is managed successfully we will be any closer to the EU than to our friends in the Commonwealth, for instance. The EU, in other words, will not be particularly special even if we naturally want to work closely with it.

The paper attracted much comment over the future role of the European Court of Justice. Upon its publication, the Government was accused of back-tracking over its commitment to end the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice upon  Brexit. Even the Prime Minister felt obliged to make a statement confirming that this was still the Government’s intention.

The paper says little about one contentious issue – the desire of the EU that its citizens resident in the UK will remain subject to EU law after Brexit. This is a most unreasonable request and flies in the face of our Common Law principle – that the law is the law for everyone from the monarch downwards. Historically, the scope of our Common Law has applied to non-nationals either resident in or visiting the country. We do not hear of the governments of, for example, India, Saudi Arabia, Switzerland or the USA wanting an arrangement whereby their citizens remain subject to the laws of their home country while they reside in the UK, nor would these countries grant UK citizens living abroad the right to be governed by UK law. The EU’s claim to “extra-territoriality” is exactly the same as that which the nineteenth century Imperial powers imposed on China. Under their terms, Citizens of the European states could not be tried by Chinese courts but only in the courts established by the European powers in China. Given that the UK’s legal systems are better than those found in much  of Continental Europe, the EU’s demand should be resisted


As an aside, if the UK rebuffs the EU on the grounds that the same legal system applies to everyone resident in the country,* it does pose the question about the legitimacy of the Sharia courts operating in the UK, which do not have any formal legal status but in reality, make decisions which have a profound impact on the lives of women and children in particular.

The paper leaves open the nature of cooperation between the legal authorities in the UK and the EU in the event of international disputes. It quotes examples of international legal bodies already in existence, including the EFTA court, interestingly enough. The UK government has thus far shown no inclination that it wants to re-join EFTA, but such a move could be helpful in enabling us to take advantage of an existing body which works closely with the ECJ while remaining independent of it.

Like the previous papers, detail is rather limited and although these papers have been produced in theory to guide the next round of Brexit talks which are due to start next week, this topic isn’t going to be discussed any time soon. We need not have agreed with the EU’s demand for progress on the rights of EU citizens living within the EU, the exit fee and the Irish border issues before moving onto discussing the wider Brexit settlement, but David Davis did so. Consequentially, as has been pointed out elsewhere, this paper is really only for domestic consumption only.

 * Obviously, Scotland and Northern Ireland have different legal systems to England and Wales

 

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.

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.