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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reassurance for Irish voters

Historically, Irish citizens resident in the UK have been allowed to vote in our elections. Many will therefore have a vote in the forthcoming EU referemdum.  Besides being subject to Cameron’s fear tactics, they are also having to face a misinformation campaign orchestrated from Dublin.

Dr Anthony Coughlan has produced a list of five reasons why Irish voters resident in the UK have nothing to fear from the UK  leavng the EU.  They are as follows:-

(1) Voting Leave does not mean any change in the long-established Anglo-Irish free travel area which goes back to the 1920s and is a matter exclusively for the two Governments and not an EU competence. Irish people will continue to move freely to and fro between the two islands as they have always done. They need continual reassurance on that score.

(2) Free trade will also continue between Ireland and the UK under all realistic Leave scenarios, so there will be no customs posts on the North-South border within Ireland, no passport controls and the like. All that is just scaremongering by the Remain side.

(3) If the Remain side should win and Prime Minister Cameron’s proposal is implemented that new immigrants to the UK should have lower social benefits than those already there, it will be impossible under EU law to differentiate between Polish, Latvian or French immigrants on the one hand and Irish ones on the other. So Irish immigrants will face cuts in social benefits too in the vote is to Remain In – which is one good reason why Irish people in Britain in general should vote Leave.

(4) As regards Northern Ireland, in so far as that area gets EU subsidies in the form of Regional grants, Structural funds, Farm payments and money for local “peace process” activities, such money is UK taxpayers’ money being recycled through Brussels, to keep the EU bureaucracy in business, for the UK is a major net contributor to the EU budget. Voting Leave would make possible increases, not reductions, in all such funding.

(5) Most Irish voters in Britain are working-class, oriented to Labour. Do Irish people want to be on the same side as that of the real economic/political “fat cats” of our time? It is clearly not in ordinary working people’s interests to line up alongside Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, the EU’s Big Banks, EU-based transnational capital, German Chancellor Angela Merkel and the Brussels bureaucracy, not to speak of Prime Minister Cameron. If the Remain-In side succeeds it means the job-destroying TTIP (Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership) is inevitable, negotiated by the EU on behalf of 28 States, with its dangerous Investor-State Dispute Settlement tribunals, instead of Britain negotiating its own trade treaties with the wide world independently.

Photo by Norman B. Leventhal Map Center at the BPL

What happened to the Sterling exchange rate panic?

Oh dear – the sky will fall in if we leave the EU. That was the message we were given when the pound fell in value against the US dollar, following David Cameron’s return from Brussels and the date for the referendum being announced.

Quite apart from the fact that, as was pointed out by John Redwood, the pound was much lower against the dollar in January 2012  when there was no imminent referendum,  it has since recovered most of the ground it lost.

On 17th February, when Mr Cameron was still “battling for Britain”, the puond stood at $1.426

On 20th February, the day the referendum date was set, it stood at $1.44

On  22nd February, when Boris Johnson announced he would be supporting the “leave” campaign, it fell to $1.388

On 7th March, however, it had recovered most of the lost ground and stood at $1.427, higher than the exchange rate on 17th February.

Has the recovery in sterling received any press coverage? Not to my knowledge and certainly not in connection with the EU debate.

What is more, the pound will actually buy you more euros now than at any time since the referendum date was announced. Today (9th March), £1 was worth €1.297. As with the dollar, the exhange rate did fall on 20th February, but in the period immediately before the referendum date was set, the pound’s highest rate was a mere €1.294.

Much ado about nothing, in other words and a foretaste of what is likely to happen in the event of Brexit – a sudden fall in the value of sterling as lily-livered traders panic, but after the realisation that armageddon hasn’t happened and that the UK economy remains basically sound, the losses will quietly be reversed. Fears of massive price hikes are totally unfounded.

Photo by HowardLake

Associate membership – dead or just sleeping?

The deal on which we wil be voting on June 23rd has been exposed on this website and elsewhere as lacking in substance and entirely conditional on the signing of some future EU treaty – in other words, not worth the paper it is printed on as things stand.

Only a few months ago, it looked like Mr Cameron was going to return from Brussels with at least a commitment to a new treaty formalising the UK’s status as leader of the EU’s Second Division. It became clear by February, however, that the blueprint for this treaty, the Fundamental Law of the European Union, was being kept on the back burner for the time being and was essentially irrelevant as far as our referendum was concerned. Furthermore, both Angela Merkel and France’s President Hollande stated that there was no plan for a new treaty  – indeed Frau Merkel went as far as to say that “on the question of amending treaties, we do not know if we ever will have a change of them.”

Obviously, it is the hope of everyone at CIB that our country will vote to leave the EU in June, but if we don’t, one hint has recently appeared suggesting that a new treaty may be back on the agenda at some point in the future.

William Hague, writing in the Daily Telegraph, discusses Turkey’s relationship with the EU. Hague has been a long-standing supporter of full Turkish membership, but not only does he acknowledge that other EU member states are considerably less enthusiastic than he is, but he admits that Turkey’s “authoritarian direction means that it cannot be a full member of the European Union, and that continued pursuit of that goal, for the time being at least, will achieve nothing.”

Hague therefore proposes “a kind of associate membership. This could involve Turkish membership of the single market and participation in Europe’s trade deals with the rest of the world, but without full freedom of movement of people. It could be based on co-operation in foreign affairs but no linking of criminal justice systems. Like Britain, Turkey would not be committed to ‘ever-closer union’, and there would be no question of joining the euro.”

He then makes the obvious point that associate membership is not yet on offer, but is he right in saying that “the EU….would be frightened to create it”? Hardly. The two-tier Europe of the Fundamental Law  enjoys the support of a number of ardent EU federalists including the UK’s own Andrew Duff, a former Lib Dem MEP. This proposal was doing the rounds in 2014 and 2015 and even its recent quiescence does not imply that the EU has suddenly become running scared of the idea. At some point, by some means or other, the Eurozone wil want to forge ahead with closer integration will inevitably be on the table and whatver Merkel or Hollande may say, the Fundamental Law looks like the obvious starting point.

Hague’s article is headed “Will Turkey”s EU relationship be a model for sceptical Britain?” which suggests that he is fully familiar with the Fundamental Law.  It is possible that other non-EU member states such as Norway and Switzerland could be offered associate membership too.

Hague may just be putting forward his own ideas, but clearly some accomodation will have to be made for Turkey and the prospect of such treaty proposals being dusted down in a few years’ time would, of course, give us a second bite at the cherry. Norway, Iceland and Switzerland are all blessed with well-organised independence movements and are unlikely to take kindly to any attempt to shoehorn them into the EU, even if accompanied by a threat to wind up the EEA, which an unanimous vote by the EU member states could bring about. The EFTA countries will most likely react strongly to such bullying; indeed, earlier this month, the Swiss Parliament finally withdrew its application to join the EU – admittedly only a symbolic gesture as Swiss membership has essentially been void since 1992 anyway.

Whatever form this new treaty takes, however,  it would be hard for any future UK government to avoid offering us a referendum and, working in conjunction with the other non-EU countries, we could well, given a longer timespan, persuade the electorate to reject it, showing how much better life is outside of the EU which could well lead to a renewed opportunity to put UK withdrawal back on the agenda.

This, of course, is hypothetical. Our objective is to secure a “leave” vote on June 23rd, rendering  Hague’s speculations irrelevant, but those of us who have campaigned all these years for withdrawal are not going to go away if Dave’s cut and run campaign succeeds in scaring the electorate into staying in. He might win this battle (although hopefully he won’t) but we will win the war.

Photo by Chadica

John Longworth supports Brexit and resigns from the BCC

Readers may be aware that John Longworth has stepped down as Director General of the British Chambers of Commerce because he supports Britain’s exit from the European Union. Following his resignation, he went on to accuse Prime Minister David Cameron of scaremongering

A video of an interview he gave to the BBC seems to have disappeared, but in the video below, he makes the same point – the UK would be better off leaving the EU .

Mr Longworth denied that he had been put under political pressure to leave, saying that the decision was entirely his.

“I don’t regret making those comments at all,” he told the BBC’s World At One programme. “I made it very clear when I delivered my speech (on Thursday) that there were additional comments that were of a particular and personal nature.”

Ten Years? not likely

It could be a full-time job just to debunk all the nonsense that is doing the rounds at the moment.

The latest scare story to do the rounds is a suggestion that UK withdrawal would trigger “ten years of uncertainty.” This is partly based on fears about the validity of trade deals negotiated by the EU on our behalf (and the other member states too, of course).

Lord Lawson, interviewed on the World At One, disputed this and he is right. At a recent seminar Robert Oulds, a CIB Committee member, explained that there was a “presumption of continuance” when one party to a trade deal underwent a change of circumstances. Thus, we would still be able to participate in such trade deals as those negotiated between the EU and Chile, Mexico and South Korea on leaving the EU. Let’s face it, this is sheer common sense; why would either party not want to continue?  All that would be needed is for the two parties to sign an agreement stating that they wish the deal to continue.

Of course, trading with the EU could be more complex and this is why there has been much support for using the so-called Norway Option (re-joining EFTA to allow sealess access to the EEA) to tide us over. It is possible that the desired Europe-wide genuine Free Trade agreement which would replace the EEA COULD take another 10 years, but as long as trade continues seamlessly throughout the withdrawal period, as it would with the EEA/EFTA secnario, no one need be worried. Indeed, as Richard North has put it, this ten years would be a Decade of opportunity.

While we’re at it,  claims that we need ot stay in the EU for security grounds have also been dismissed by Richard Walton, Scotland Yard’s former head of Counter Terrorism.  According to an article in the Daily Telegraph, he said that reducing terror plots is “absolutely not” dependent on being a member of the European Union. “So let’s not scare the horses with fears about Brexit.”  How many more scare stories are we going to have to debunk?

Returning to the World At One feature, it was correct on one point. An academic was quoted saying that once Article 50 is invoked. “the train has left the station” – in other words, withdrawal MUST happen.

Is this scary? Hardly. If you were told, “After 43 years in prison, we’re going to let you out soon, but beware! Once you go through that prison door, we’re never going to let you back in again”, would you really worry about that?

Photo by infomatique