Re-taking our place in the world

At least a third of voters always planned on leaving the EU and were not going to be persuaded otherwise. This didn’t happen on the back of something written on a bus. This was cumulative. For many the final straw was the Lisbon Treaty which was in effect an EU constitution giving it a legal personality in world affairs.

For something that so radically changed our relationship with what was (and still is) viewed as a trade relationship, it should have been put to a referendum. That our political establishment set about ratifying it, using any means at their disposal to dodge a referendum, was evidence of a political establishment which had long since given up any sense of obligation to seek consent when acting in regard to the EU.

What compounds that act was the fact that those who voted for it had very little idea what they were agreeing to. Remainers often complain that there was no impact assessment for Brexit, yet where was the comprehensive national debate over ratifying Lisbon?

We leavers warned that Lisbon would make EU membership all but impossible to reverse – and to an extent we were right. Brexit is no easy feat – and to do it properly will take more than a decade. Our main concern at the time was that the EU is a long term project which gathers its powers by stealth, creeping ever more toward a federalist entity.

Where possible I have tended to avoid the term “European superstate” largely because that kind of terminology lands you in kipper territory where that kind of hackneyed rhetoric is an instant turn off. But that is exactly what the EU is and though remainers can nominally say that we retain our sovereignty, the question is over what? – and for how much longer?

In that regard you have to look up the chain to see how this affects the UK. As we continue to argue, the centre of the regulatory universe is increasingly Geneva, not Brussels – where the WTO TBT agreement provides the foundation of a global regulatory union.

Critics point out that implementation of this is hotly disputed and that its installation is piecemeal and subject to a number of registered exceptions, but like the EU, it is not the status quo that concerns us, rather it is the direction of travel.

While I have always been opposed to trade being an occupied field, the nature of trade agreements is changing, encompassing ever more regulatory measures extending far beyond what we would traditionally call a trade barrier. In order to eliminate distortions in labour, for example the shipping industry using Filipino slave labour, we increasingly adopt International Labour Organisation conventions in trade agreements.

Superficially there is no reason for alarm but what this means in practice is that for the EU to continue with trade exclusivity it must assume exclusive competence over areas not traditionally concerned with trade. In order to tie up these loose ends and overlaps there will eventually be a need for a new EU treaty which involves another substantial transfer of powers. But in the meantime, the ECJ will be the instrument of integration, confiscating ever more powers by the back door.

The eventual destination in this is the deletion of EU member states as independent actors on any of the global forums, with access to them controlled exclusively by Brussels. We would no longer have a voice in our own right and being bound to the EU customs code we would cease to be an independent country in all the ways that matter. This, to me, is why Brexit is absolutely necessary and the high price is one worth paying.

Remainers would argue that we still maintain significant influence by way of being an EU member. Superficially this is correct and Brexit will, temporarily, lead to a loss of influence. But whose influence is it anyway? We are told that the UK was instrumental in pushing for EU expansion. That remains a bad idea and accession states will remain in a state of limbo until such a point as there is a major political or financial crisis – or they leave of their own accord.

But this goes back to the opening premise. It’s no good to say that we have influence in Europe if we have no influence over our government. What remainers say when they say “we” have influence, they mean our permissive, unaccountable, political élites have influence – but actually only in those instances where their ambitions are in alignment with the ideology of the EU.

As much as Brexit is about severing the political integration of the EU, it is also a slapdown for our political class who have never had any intention of seeking consent – and where the EU is concerned, will tell any lie to that end.

In a lot of respects the classic arguments against the EU are legacy complaints where the damage cannot be undone. Leaving the EU does not reverse or remedy what was done to us and for the most part the UK has adapted to the new paradigm. What concerns us is whether there are the necessary safeguards to prevent yet more sweeping changes in the face of globalisation.

We are told that trade liberalisation is good for us – and on a philosophical and technical level I’m not going to argue, but on the human level, it has consequences that directly impact our lives.  This is something we should have a say in, be it opening our markets to American agriculture or letting market forces eat away at our steel industry. There are strategic concerns as well as the economic – and a dogmatic adherence to the principles of free trade is dangerous.

In recent times we have seen EU trade deals derailed because of concerns like chlorine washed chickens, but one suspects this is largely motivated by an inherent anti-Americanism, and were these topics included in any other trade agreement, nobody would have ever uttered the phrase “chlorinated chicken” – and we’d already be eating it.

The fact is that too much is going on out of sight and out of mind. Brexit is a remedy to that. We have already seen a robust debate on the shape of a future UK-US agreement and I fully expect other deals to come under similar scrutiny. I know the powerful UK agriculture lobby will be watching very closely indeed.

As much as Brexit is necessary as a defensive measure against hyper-globalisation, it is also about restoring the UK as an independent actor. As far as most people are concerned, foreign policy is just who we decide who to drop bombs on and who to dole out humanitarian aid. This is what happens when trade, a crucial element of foreign policy, is broken out of policy making and farmed out to the EU. It leaves all the strands of foreign policy happening in abstract to any coherent agenda while removing one of the more useful leverage tools.

Brexit is a means of reintegrating all of these separate strands so that we can have an effective presence on the world stage without seeking a convoluted compromise through Brussels – assuming we can get permission to act at all. The best part of it is that it does not preclude close cooperation with the EU. Obviously Brexit does not give us a free hand and our legacy ties with the EU will be a constraint, but it opens the way for more imaginative approaches than cumbersome EU FTAs.

One overlooked facet of the Brexit debate is that it gives us the opportunity to reconfigure a lot of the agreements we already have via the EU. In most respects, carrying over EU deals need not be a great headache, not least since we are maintaining existing schedules – but it’s the extras we can reappraise. In the EU-Singapore agreement there is a dedicated section on renewable energy – largely reproducing WTO tract. We could either enhance or delete these sections, establishing new joint ventures and working parities, including a number of sectors not touched on by the EU.

This need not happen in competition with the EU, rather it can be a complimentary strategy where one of Europe’s trading powers is free to explore avenues which could potentially benefit all of the EU. Having a major trading nation not bound by the bureaucratic inertia of the EU could well be a secret weapon for Brussels. That would make future EU-UK relations a strategic partnership rather than a subordinate relationship. There is no reason why Brexit cannot be mutually beneficial. All it takes is a little bit of vision.

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.

Peer welcomes Repeal Bill but laments ‘costly’ year long delay

THE PRESS OFFICE OF 

The Lord Stoddart of Swindon (independent Labour)   

 

News Release

 

13th July 2017

 

Peer welcomes Repeal Bill but laments ‘costly’ year long delay

 

The independent Labour Peer, Lord Stoddart of Swindon has welcomed the Government’s Repeal Bill but laments that it is “a year late”.

Lord Stoddart said: “I welcome the Government’s Repeal Bill and I sincerely hope that Parliament will now do its duty by the people and pass it through the House of Commons unimpeded.

”It is a great pity that the Bill is a year late as I was advocating that it should happen soon after the referendum result.  The intervening year has been costly because it has allowed unpatriotic and anti-democratic Remain politicians to re-group and begin a determined campaign against Brexit.  The delay has also given us an unwanted and unnecessary General Election, the result of which has been irresponsibly used by Remainers to further their dangerous campaign against the will of the people.

“The Labour front bench has made clear its opposition to the Bill in its present form but where are the Labour Brexiteers?  I am concerned about their continued low profile on this vitally important issue.  When are they going to speak up for the will of the people?  Now is the time.”

 

We must not allow Remainers’ predictions of economic doom to become self-fulfilling

This article by Ewen Stewart of Global Britain first appeared on the Brexit Central website and is used with permission.

The general election has excited the dwindling army of hard core Remainers. A ‘done deal’ is now being challenged with usual suspects claiming that a hung Parliament re-opens the debate about the nature of the UK exiting the EU.

What is clear is that this election was fought largely on domestic issues and not Brexit. While there were differences in the Conservative and Labour approach, both were clear in their manifestos that the UK would leave the EU and the jurisdiction of the ECJ, regain control of domestic borders and withdraw from the Single Market and Customs Unions.

The areas of difference, in terms of policy towards the EU, were largely over employment law and environmental regulations. Thus, those politicians claiming the election result re-opens the debate are trying to subvert an agreed democratic process.

However, while there is no justification for watering down the terms of the exit from the EU, it is clear that Project Fear is rearing its head again. But even if there is a complete breakdown of discussions with the EU, the UK will perform perfectly well so long as confidence holds. Global Britain’s estimate is that even under ‘no deal’ the GDP effect would be negligible.

Why can we be so confident of this?

Those who thought the UK economy would collapse after the referendum were very wrong. They misjudged what the key drivers of the UK economy were and the importance of EU membership in that mix – and indeed the very nature of why trade takes place.

The die-hard Remainers are trying the same trick again with talk of a ‘cliff edge’ and despair. But they misunderstand what makes an economy tick. The primary drivers of the UK economy are monetary policy, consumer spending and public spending. All these factors are largely domestically driven and not materially affected by EU membership.

The impact of slightly higher trade barriers, to the EU, would not be meaningful in the context of the UK economy. Trade is about willing buyers and willing sellers, competitive advantage and innovation, and much less about regulatory framework. Most countries trade with the EU under WTO rules – US, China, Japan and Australia for example – and do so very successfully. Why should the UK be any different?

Moreover, claims that Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) into the UK would collapse have proven unfounded. After the referendum, investment increased, despite investors being well aware that the UK was going to leave the EU. According to UNCTAD, FDI into the UK surged to USD$179bn, the second highest in the world after the US – a marked increase on 2015. The combination of continuing strong consumer growth and substantial business investment has been a primary factor behind the UK’s strong economic performance and record employment levels.

But here is the rub: the constant talking down of the economy, for political reasons, by those trying to unpick the referendum by creating fear, risks becoming self-fulfilling if we are not careful. We must confidently point out that the EU is a fairly low-level factor in the UK’s economic prosperity and the Remainers’ constant doom has been confounded.

We need a rational debate about the nature of the UK economy and not one constantly undermining confidence for political ends. Let us remember that 60% of the UK economy is consumer-orientated. Furthermore, like it or not, government spending accounts for 43% of spending and remains a key driver. It seems likely the Government’s response to the election will be to encourage a modest fiscal expansion. However, perhaps the greatest single influence on the UK economy is neither the Government nor the EU, but the Bank of England, which can choose to stimulate (or not) through monetary policy and possible quantitative easing.

Exports are clearly important but even if talks completely break down and the UK relies on WTO rules (with average tariffs at 1.4%), the reality is that the impact would be fairly minimal. It is simply scaremongering to argue that leaving the EU would have a material impact on growth, unless confidence cracked.

Moreover, the EU has hardly been a success. While the EU’s tail may be up now after President Macron’s election and with slightly improving growth figures, we should remember it has been the slowest-growing region on the planet for over a generation.

Further, its record in signing trade deals is lamentable. It has failed to reach agreements with the US, China, Japan, Brazil and Australia, to name but a few. While the single currency will probably survive, it can only do so by federalising and centralising yet further. The interests of the Eurozone members and the rest will continue to diverge. The UK leaving the EU should be a win-win for both parties: we can follow our global mission encouraging free trade and co-operation and they can focus on their constitutional agreements.

However, we need to challenge those who mislead, constantly blaming everything on Brexit, no matter how tenuous. Ultimately, if we are not careful this could hit confidence. That is why the language of George Osborne and Co is so potentially dangerous, for their deliberate over-emphasis on fear and frankly misleading analysis which may start to worry the bedrock of the UK economy, the consumer. We must point to the facts of the UK economy and why the Remainers were wrong post-referendum and why they are wrong again now. All we have to fear is fear itself

Now available: Brave new Europe by Mick Greenhough

Mick Greenhough, a Committee member of the Campaign for an Independent Britain, has recently published a book called Brave new Europe.  Mick writes:-

I was a committee member on Leave.eu in the run up to the referendum having studied the history of the EU for many years and wrote this book when it became very clear to me that either Remainers were deliberately lying to us or they did not have much idea what the EU is about. The few MPs I spoke to either had a very sketchy understanding of the EU with many blank areas of knowledge or were in a state of complete denial.

The voting public simply did not believe the BBC and the mainstream media who all appeared so biased against Brexit that it caused many to ask; why they are so pro EU?

Much of the information within this book will come as a surprise, even shock to new readers. When you have read it then form your own conclusion as to the nature of the EU and whether the British public were right to reject it.”

The book normally retains at £10. 25, but is currently available at a special discounted price of £6.95 For more information, please see here.

When you don’t understand the question

In the run up to Christmas I went to quite a few parties and social events. I do not mention this to boast about my social life, but because I ran into quite a few Remainers – some were old acquaintances I had not seen for a while, others were new to me. It was an illuminating experience.

Most of them were friendly – one was not, but then I never liked her very much anyway – and the majority accepted that they had lost. Quite a few had voted Remain only because they had been influenced by the speeches by the great and the good, others because they liked going on holiday to Europe, some because they backed the status quo. They had moved on and accepted that Brexit would happen. A few had voted Remain simply because most of the people they knew were voting Remain.

But the ones I found most interesting to talk to were those who had been vociferous Remainers and still believed that Britain should remain in the EU. And especially entertaining were those who did not know that I had spent the campaign working as Campaigns Manager for Better Off Out.

The conversations often revolved around the fact that Leave voters “believed lies”, or rather less politely “were ignorant” or “stupid”. We’ve all heard these unpleasant slanders, but I took the opportunity to probe further. What seemed to be behind these comments were that the Remainers I was talking to felt that the Leave voters had not understood the question posed in the Referendum.

These folks were keen to talk to me about the “real issues” at stake. Each person had their own take on these, but they tended to be variations on the economic issue. They were concerned with trade with the EU. A few of them actually worked for companies that did business in the EU, but most did not. They seem to have bought the line that you need to be in the EU to trade with the EU. They were worried about the economy or jobs. Despite the lack of any economic downturn since 23 June, they were convinced that disaster would strike soon. They felt that leaving the EU was economic suicide. People who voted to leave had, apparently, not understood the economic issues at stake.

They were keen to tell me that the Brexiteers had not understood the question.

But actually, it was my party-going friends who had not understood. The ballot paper asked us if we wanted Britain to be a member of the European Union. It did not ask us if we want to buy cars from Germany, nor if we wanted to sell pizza to Italy (I jest not, I know one company that does).

Of course, trade with the EU will be affected by the terms of whatever trade deal emerges from talks with the EU. But for me at least such issues were unimportant.

Essentially the question on the ballot paper was a constitutional one. Should the UK be an independent sovereign country or a member state of the European Union?

When a Remainer says that Leavers were “ignorant” or “stupid” or “did not understand”, what they really mean is that the leavers did not agree that economics were of prime concern. They are concerned about the money, the cash, the lucre. Not that they would ever admit to anything so vulgar, of course. They talk about the economy, the jobs, the exports, but their concerns always boil down to money.

And money was not on the ballot paper. Freedom and independence was.

Next time a Remainer tells you that Leavers were “stupid”, you know who is really showing their ignorance.