Our closest friends would like to see an historic wrong righted

Now we are leaving the EU, Brexit provides an opportunity to put right an historic wrong which goes back many years.

Australians, Canadians, New Zealanders and other ‘subjects of the Queen’ are still treated as foreigners when they visit the UK. Whereas our membership of the EU has required us to submit to the EU’s principle of free movement of people, Australians and Canadians, among others, have to apply for a visa.

The Australian Monarchist League has urged Theresa May to address this historic wrong. “Mrs May forgets that many citizens of the Queen’s Realms are domiciled in the UK and have a vote as do many people with relatives and friends in these former British nations”, said a spokesman for the organisation. “It is about time Britain undertook to resolve this situation now.”

The Australian Monarchist League is considering an advertising campaign to make this an issue in the forthcoming election. Philip Benwell MBE, the national chairman, is already in London for meetings with British and European MPs and others to urge that there be established a special entry gate for those countries, such as Australia, who have the Queen as their head of state. He is not suggesting special visa allowances but merely arguing that those from the Queen’s Realms be treated with dignity and not as aliens.

The biggest obstacle Mr Benwell and others have faced in their 20-year campaign has been the negativity of supporters of EU membership in this country. With our country now about to begin the great divorce from the EU, the time is surely right to address this issue.

Mr Benwell will be one of the speakers at the Campaign for an Independent Britain’s annual rally in London on 29th April.

Photo by Tamsin Slater

Will she? Won’t she?

Sections of the press have spent huge amounts of time trying to second-guess Mrs May’s Brexit plan. At last, it seems, instead of speculation we will finally have some detail. The Prime Minister will be making a speech tomorrow which will put some flesh on her oft-repeated phrase that “Brexit means Brexit”.

Has she been dropping any hints? The consensus among the pundits is that she intends to take us out of the Single Market.  However, In an interview with Sophy Ridge on Sky TV, she merely said that we would leave the European Union – big difference! She also denied claims by Sir Ivan Rogers about “muddled thinking” and “lack of a plan”. Indeed, the interview saw her reiterate the point that with David Cameron having undertaken no Brexit planning, she and her team have needed time to study the issue in detail before triggering Article 50.

To suggest these few hints imply leaving the Single Market – alias a “hard” Brexit – is hardly an accurate interpretation. After all, her words were “What I’m saying is that we want the best possible deal, the phrase I’ve used is the best possible deal for trading with and operating within the single European market.”  Perhaps part of the confusion lies in her comment that “We will outside the European Union be able to have control of immigration and be able to set our rules for people coming to the UK from members states of the European Union.” It’s the old have-your-cake-and eat-it conundrum.

Pursuing the Liechtenstein Option would enable us to stay within the Single Market while considerably restricting immigration. Regular readers of this website will know that this is a possibility (Whether they support it or not) and no doubt Mrs May and her advisors also know this is a possibility, given her reputation for detail.  It seems that very few members of the Press are up to speed on this issue.

We are now reading speculation about the EU Customs Union, which is an irrelevancy.  The Customs Union, very different from the Single Market, was a non-issue in the referendum debate. Do some people not realise that it isn’t the same as the Single Market? One wonders. There has certainly been sufficient confusion in the City further to depress the value of sterling in the last week, meaning that consumers and motorists are suffering essentially because of potentially unreliable guesswork – and nothing more.

On the subject if free movement of people, however, Lodewijk Asscher, the Dutch Deputy Prime Minister, recently claimed that support for this cherished principle was eroding in other member states, mainly because of claims that cheap labour from Eastern Europe is enabling companies to reduce wages for native-born workers.  This claim was made in the UK’s referendum campaign and is an indication that the fallout from the Brexit vote  has by no means been dissipated.

But what will be the long-term effects on the EU remains to be seen. We are again in speculation mode and there is all too much of this at the moment.  Tomorrow in one area at least, some clarity will dawn.

Another headache for the EU

Concerns about the EU’s cherished principle of free movement of people is not only confined to the UK. Non-EU Switzerland voted to restrict migration from the EU in a referendum in 2014.

The EU was not happy with the result and has threatened to rescind the bilateral treaties which govern its relationship with Switzerland. but the Swiss have not backed down.   The deadline for an agreement is February next year. The treaties, which cover everything from agriculture to civil aviation and the free movement of people, contain a “guillotine” clause that would nullify all if one is struck down.

Talks are continuing to avoid this impasse.  EU diplomats reacted positively to a proposal to give Swiss job seekers an advantage over foreigners, but many obstacles still stand in the way of an agreement.

Switzerland has less flexibility in restricting migration than the non-EU members of the EEA. Liechtenstein has exercised its freedom to restrict migration. Switzerland will find it a lot harder to obtain concessions form the EU, as free movement of people is a cornerstone of the EU-Switzerland deal, as Swissinfo explains.

With the 27 other EU member states meeting for something of a crisis meeting in Bratislava, Slovakia, the scale of the EU’s problems is being laid bare.  Even within the EU, the Dutch are calling for an “emergency brake” on immigration. The former Soviet bloc countries are not so keen. Another idea being floated around is a distinction between free movement of workers and free movement of people, but some senior figures within the EU are none too happy about this idea. Come what may, however, it is apparent that both within and without the EU, the thorny issue of immigration is not going to vanish frm the headlines any time soon.

BBC muddying the waters

Anyone listening to the BBC news last week would have heard a misleading headline that Germany’s  finance minister Wolfgang Schäuble said that we would not be allowed to stay in the Single market

However, if you listened to the article in full, what he actually said was that if we were to stay in the Single Market, we would have to abide by the rules, including accepting the “four freedoms”. In other words, a bespoke deal isn’t on offer.

This is no great shakes. Whatever the wishes of many “leave” supporters, it will be the government which negotiates our exit strategy and we know that senior civil servants have been downloading Flexcit, an exit strategy document co-authored by, among others, Dr Richard North and CIB Committee member Robert Oulds of the Bruges Group. This advocates remaining in the Single Market by re-joinng EFTA and ths accessing it via the EEA agreement.

Herr  Schäuble’s words on which the BBC based their headline were given in response to the assertion that “Britain could continue to enjoy the benefits of the single market without being an EU member, in the same way that Switzerland and Norway do.” He replied, “That won’t work. It would require the country to abide by the rules of a club from which it currently wants to withdraw. If the majority in Britain opts for Brexit, that would be a decision against the single market. In is in. Out is out. One has to respect the sovereignty of the British people.”

As Dr North pointed out,  “The man thinks the EFTA/EEA (interim) option wouldn’t work. And that is on the basis of his interpretation that a vote for Brexit by the British people necessarily means a rejection of participation in the Single Market….What we have therefore, is an opinion based on an assumption, and nothing more than that – from a politician who is not a head of government, and who may not even be in office by the time Article 50 negotiations start in earnest……The finance minister is just another noisemaker in a debate polluted by noise.

While it is true that the degree of extra control over immigration which the EEA/EFTA route will allow us is not the same as that which may Brexit supporters desire, a recent poll conducted by Opinium, for the Bruges Group,  yielded the following results:

33% = Remain EU and Remain in the Single Market
13% =  Leave EU, join  EFTA, Remain in Single Market
39% = Leave EU, and have a Free Trade Agreement
16% = Don’t Know
Taking out the Don’t Knows, gives:
61% =Options to Leave EU (FTA + EFTA)
39% = Options to remain in the EU

(See here for a more detailed analysis of the result)
The poll shows that so strong is the desire of many to leave the EU that they are not taking much notice of the economic arguments. The “leave” side, however, needs to clean up its act. Recent polls are encouraging, but it would be a shame to lose a winnable referendum when the finishing post is in sight  because we are unable to reassure floating voters concerned about their economic wellbeing that the sky won’t fall in on  June 24th.  EEA/EFTA provides precisely such reassurance.

The only show in town, says Ambrose Evans-Pritchard

Leave camp must accept that Norway model is the only safe way to exit EU

By Ambrose Evans-Pritchard

The Leave campaign must choose. It cannot safeguard access to the EU single market and offer a plausible arrangement for the British economy, unless it capitulates on the free movement of EU citizens.

One or other must give. If Brexiteers wish to win over the cautious middle of British politics, they must make a better case that our trade is safe. This means accepting the Norwegian option of the European Economic Area (EEA) – a ‘soft exit’ – as a half-way house until the new order is established.

It means accepting the four freedoms of goods, services, capital, and labour that go with the EU single market. It means swallowing EU rules, and much of the EU Acquis, and it means paying into the EU budget.

Leavers know that if they gave in to these terms, they would drive away all those other voters who want to slam the door on immigration. So the campaign has been evasive, hoping to muddle through until June 23 with the broadest possible church.

Some Brexiteers have tried to square the circle with blue sky romanticism on trade, or sweeping talk of a ‘Hong Kong’ model, or by suggesting we fall back to the default settings of the World Trade Organisation.

Professor Patrick Minford from Cardiff University was refreshingly candid in proclaiming that his Brexit vision would “eliminate” most of Britain’s manufacturing – what he describes as a Schumpeterian “good shock” to clear away dead wood  – but this is just as Utopian as EU ideology itself. It is no an answer to the politics of Project Fear.

As my colleague Allister Heath argued last week, there are great numbers of middle-class, centrist, Tory-leaning readers of The Telegraph who want Britain to restore sovereign self-government, but have been rattled by the barrage of taxpayer-funded propaganda. They crave reassurance that it really is safe to vote for Brexit.

Prof Minford is right to denounce the Treasury’s document on the short-term horrors of Brexit as “intellectually deceitful”, but his reasons are different from mine. The Treasury claimed that a “vote to leave would cause an immediate and profound economic shock”. The hit to GDP ranges from 3.6pc to 6pc, with a loss of 800,000 jobs in a ‘severe’ scenario, comparable in scale to the collapse of Western banking system in 2008.

What is striking about this ghoulish document is that it did not model the Norwegian EEA outcome, even though this ‘off-the-shelf’ option is the most likely counter-factual. The reason is obvious. Had the Treasury done so it could not have come up with such alarming figures. 

There have been two excellent reports on the EEA option, one by the Adam Smith Institute and another entitled ‘Flexcit’ by Richard North from the EU Referendum blog

The Adam Smith Institute starts from the premise that the EU is “sclerotic, anti- democratic, immune to reform, and a political relic of a post-war order that no longer exists.” It says the EEA option lets the public judge “what ‘out’ looks like” and keeps disruption to a minimum.

“The economic risks of leaving would thus be neutralised – it would be solely a disengagement from political integration. All the business scare stories about being cut off from the single market would fade away,” it said.

The report argues that everybody could live with an EEA compromise, whether the Civil Service, or the US, or the EU itself. Britain would then be a sovereign actor, taking its own seat on the global bodies that increasingly regulate everything from car standards, to food safety, and banking rules.  

“As Britain is already a contracting party to the EEA Agreement there would be no serious legal obstacle,” it says.

David Cameron disparages the Norwegian model as a non-starter. “While they pay, they don’t have a say,” he says.

Actually they do. As our forensic report on Norway by Szu Ping Chan makes clear, they have a de facto veto over EU laws under Article 102 of the EEA agreement. Their net payments were £106 a head in 2014, a trivial sum.

They are exempt from the EU agricultural, fisheries, foreign, defence, and justice policies, yet they still have “passporting” rights for financial services. Their citizens can live in their Perigord moulins or on the Costa Del Sol just as contentedly as we can. 

They do not have to implement all EU law as often claimed. Norway’s latest report shows it has adopted just 1,349 of the 7,720 EU regulations in force, and 1,369 out of 1,965 EU directives. 

The elegance of the EEA option is that Britain would retain access to the EU customs union while being able to forge free trade deals with any other country over time. 

There would be no need for a desperate rush to both reach a modus vivendi with the EU and to renew all the EU’s 80 bilateral deals with other countries and regional blocs before the two-year guillotine fell under Article 50, the EU secession clause. 

Miriam Gonzalez Durantez, a former EU trade official (and Nick Clegg’s wife), argues that Britain is so short of trade expertise that it would struggle to assemble 25 experts even after repatriating staff from the EU. 

In this she is right. Where she is on shakier ground is to claim that we would need 500 officials “working intensely for a decade” to renew our third party trade deals.

Really? There is a simple administrative mechanism for the switch-over. All it requires is a filing at the United Nations under the “presumption of continuity” and trade goes on as before,  a procedure used time and again over the post-war era. 

This is what occurred after the break-up of Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia. It was the formula used for decolonisation in the 1960s. It  would take a willful decision to override this mechanism of international law, and it is hard to see why a close allies such as US, Canada, or Japan would act in such a fashion.

The G20 and the G7 profess to stand for free trade and keep telling us a lurch towards protectionism would shatter the world’s fragile economic order. 

What is true is that any EU state could stop Britain stepping back to the EEA. Hell hath no fury like a union spurned. But Article 3 of the EU’s Lisbon Treaty says the union will uphold “free and fair trade” with the rest of the world, and this has legal force.

 Such vindictiveness would be the quickest and most certain way to tear the EU apart, for would it deeply damage the interests of the Dutch, Nordics, and Germans. It would cut across Britain’s intimate defence ties with France, and across Britain’s NATO pledge to Poland and the front-line states of Eastern Europe.

There may be many powerful reasons why Britain should remain in the EU, whether to ensure the comity of these Isles and show solidarity to Ireland, or to close ranks with our fellow liberal democracies at a time of civilizational threat. One thing that we do not have to worry about is a trade embargo, provided we stick to the safe ground of the EEA.

So we have bizarre situation. The Leave campaign is in effect lying about the Norwegian imperative because it dare not admit that EU migrants will continue coming to work in a post-Brexit Britain; and this in turn allows the Remain campaign to air its lies on economic Armageddon.

Just ignore them both. Every citizen is capable of reaching his or her own verdict on 40 years of EU conduct.

This article first appeared in the Daily Telegraph on 2nd June 2016.