The 'March for Europe' is a march against democracy

This weekend has seen thousands of Remain voters (or if you prefer, 0.01% of the electorate) descend on London to protest against the referendum result last week. The 'March for Europe' event, is a culmination of a week of anti-democratic, sneering contempt from those on the losing side in the referendum. We have seen over 4 million people sign a petition for a second referendum. Ignoring the fact that that's still roughly 13.4 million short of being even remotely relevant, many of those signatures were found to have been added by bots, including 39,000 from Vatican City, which has a population of 800. This is probably why the petition is being investigated for fraud. Not content with leading the Lib Dems to a glorious 6% in the polls, and abandoning any pretence of being liberal or democratic, Tim Farron announced that his party would stand in the next general election on a platform of taking us back into the EU. David Lammy, a Labour MP, has already called for Parliament to ignore the result, and there has been a wailing across social media, from the public and celebrities alike, for the Government to do just that. Shockingly, the UN Special Representative for International Migration, Peter Sutherland, has said ‘somehow this result must be overturned’. The UN rightly condemns African or Asian dictators who ride roughshod over the will of their populace, yet when it comes to Britain, they're apparently calling for exactly that. The whole thing has been frankly ludicrous. Remainers would be rightly uproarious had the referendum result been reversed and parliament decided to ignore them and leave the EU anyway, but they see no problem in calling for our politicians to ignore the majority of the electorate in this instance. There's a huge irony in these people calling for as many people to register to vote and make their voice heard in the run up to this event, only for them to then call for those voices to be roundly ignored, despite leaving the EU gaining more votes in favour than anything else in British history.

Because if there was one thing that this vote represented, it was the will of the people. The issue has engaged more people in politics than anything I've ever seen. My Facebook feed is usually full of daft (if occasionally hilarious) memes and videos of dogs doing pointless yet adorable things, and yet in the run up to the referendum I saw a plethora of posts and articles from people who are usually much more content informing us all about the make-up of their dinner. This engagement was reflected in the turnout, which was higher than it has been for any plebiscite in over 20 years. Add to that the fact the winning margin was over 1.2 million votes and the claim that there is no mandate for leaving is as accurate as a blind man in a darts competition. The argument that many Brexiteers are now regretting their vote is also laughable when you consider that the source of this argument is a poll stating that 1% of leave voters are unhappy with the result. The same poll indicates that 4% of remain voters are happy with the result, indicating a greater regret about their vote amongst those that voted to remain than those that voted to leave.

Much of the argument has centred around the claim that the Leave campaign was full of lies and voters were misinformed and thus should be ignored. That argument is staggeringly patronising. All of us, on both sides of the debate, had access to the exact same information. Moreover, this wasn't a snap referendum. Cameron gave his Bloomberg speech in which he set out his plans for a referendum in January 2013, over three years ago. The Conservatives won the election last May so from that second we knew a referendum was definitely coming and thus could begin looking into the issue and trying to make ourselves as informed as possible. I'm not for one second claiming that everyone who voted was an expert on the EU, but the insinuation from Remainers that they did their homework and Leavers were somehow brainwashed by propaganda is outrageously arrogant. There were of course lies and misinformation from Vote Leave, but there was just as much from Stronger In, and they had the weight of the Government behind theirs to boot. I personally voted the way I did in spite of Vote Leave, not because of them, and I know many others who are in the same boat. There's something laughable about the suggestion too, given that the title of this protest once again conflates the EU with Europe. It seems churlish to point out, but we are not altering the UK's geography. Not one person on the leave side has advocated cutting ourselves off from the world, turning inwards, or becoming 'Little Englanders'. The argument has always been about a global Britain, looking out towards more distant horizons than those across the English channel. We have always advocated trade and co-operation with our friends and allies on the continent. Ironically, by buying into the notion that the UK is leaving Europe rather than merely extricating ourselves from a supranational political institution, Remainers have succumbed to the very brainwashing they accuse their opponents of. Claiming that one should love the EU if one loves Europe is like claiming I should love Flintshire County Council because I am fond of my home county. It is a nonsense.

There's also an argument that the whole point of the sovereignty of Parliament is to keep a check on the whims of the electorate. Funnily enough, I actually think that it's the whole point of the electorate to keep a check on the whims of Parliament. Ironically, it's precisely this argument which is why people like myself voted to Leave in the first place. The EU was deliberately designed so as to not be susceptible to the populism that brought Hitler to power in the wake of the first world war. But that lack of accountability to the electorate is precisely what's facilitated the rise of populism, both left and right wing, across the continent. When people get angry at those that rule them, and have no recourse through the ballot box to remove them, then they inevitably get drawn to the more extreme ends of the political spectrum. According to polling by both Ashcroft and ComRes, the number one priority for leave voters wasn't immigration, but democracy and sovereignty. This howling against the democratic will of the people is precisely why we voted to leave, so that our law makers and tax raisers would be accountable to us. Advocating parliament to ignore the result of the referendum and plough on with EU membership and all the integration that entails regardless, risks unleashing something very ugly in this country. If lefties hate UKIP now, they would only see the popularity of Farage's party soar in the wake of such an act. It would also exponentially increase the feeling that a vote counts for little and makes no real difference. There were no 'safe seats' in this referendum. Every single vote counted towards the result. If that result is ignored, there could well be riots, or worse, complete and total disengagement and apathy towards politics on a scale we've never seen.

I pushed for a leave vote because I believe that the electorate should decide how we are run, and should take that decision through the ballot box. I believe that Brexit has the potential to truly revolutionise our democracy, getting people more involved in politics and making our politicians more accountable. This idea that our rulers know best and the little people should shut up and let the politicians get on with it is exactly the idea we're trying to defeat.

A final plea on polling day

Today, Britain will go to the polls and decide whether or not we will leave the European Union. The past few months have been one hell of an interesting affair, with wild claims being bandied about on both sides of the argument. There are few people I pity more than those who have been relying solely on the official campaigns for their information, the level of debate has been almost farcical at times and the media spin on all sides has only muddied the issue further still. Given this, I can understand some people making the argument that it's far too complex an issue to be decided by a referendum and that it should be down to our elected representatives to decide. That said, the reason we are having a referendum in the first place is because our elected representatives have ceded power and sovereignty to the EU over the last four decades without once consulting the public, be that in a referendum or making explicit manifesto pledges to do so at a general election.

Fortunately we live in the age of the internet. Of smart phones and social media. This has made it easier to proliferate some of the more questionable claims from both camps, but equally has also made it easier to counter them. Whilst I have been blogging here about the various reasons for leaving as I see them, as well as trying to counter some of the misinformation propagated by both campaigns, I've also spent an inordinate amount of time on social media making the case for a progressive Brexit and countering any misconceptions I've come across. It's felt a little like beating my head against a wall at times (if I see the 'still pay, no say' fallacy about the Norway option one more time I shall need to be escorted to a room with cushioned walls wearing a jacket with extra long sleeves) but by and large the debate has been overwhelmingly civil and some have said that I've helped them understand things they were previously unsure about. It's been humbling, I'm by no means an expert, but I've done as much reading as I can (often hiding out during my day job to peruse articles on global regulatory mechanisms and the various characteristics of the EEA agreement), I feel I've learnt a lot, and I've tried to make a positive, informed case. Before we go to the polls, allow me to briefly summarise it for you.

The EU is an outdated construct. It was formed in an era when trade blocs seemed to be the way forward. But in the modern age of globalisation and the internet, geographical proximity has never mattered less for trade. There is a global single market emerging, with a whole host of regulatory bodies that we do not have an independent vote and veto on thanks to the EU, and indeed our position is often undermined because of our membership. As the 5th largest economy in the world, and using our ties to countries across the globe to build coalitions, we could wield significant influence in the shaping of trade regulations before they get anywhere near the EU, and push for regulatory harmonisation at a global level, facilitating free trade across the world. Freed from the confines of the common external tariff, we can pursue trade deals with the rest of the global markets that are growing exponentially, the benefits of which will be reaped both at home, and world wide. Offering free trade to African farmers for example, will help push down food prices here whilst allowing them to export their way out of poverty, rather than leaving them impoverished by virtue of being unable to compete with European farmers, thanks to the tariffs the EU places on their goods. By removing ourselves from the tariffs the EU imposes on Chinese solar panels, we can more effectively and more cheaply pursue greener energy sources here at home, again driving down the cost of living. Engaging with the world gives us a myriad of these possibilities.

Not that we have to choose between the EU and the world. Because Article 50 only allows for two years in which to negotiate a deal to leave, the only feasible route out is the so called 'Norway option'. This step to the EEA via EFTA maintains full access to the single market, and ensures an economically neutral exit, and a secure platform from which to start disentangling ourselves from the EU. Brexit is a process, not an event, and we cannot undo 40 years of political integration overnight. Contrary to what the Remain side will tell you, this does not mean that we still pay without having a say over the rules. The EEA agreement itself disproves this:

"According to the principle of unanimity applied in the EEA Joint Committee, all the EFTA states must agree in order for new EU legislation to be integrated into the EEA Agreement and for it to apply to cooperation between the EFTA states and the EU. If one EFTA state opposes integration, this also affects the other EFTA states in that the rules will not apply to them either, neither in the individual states nor between the EFTA states themselves nor in their relations with the EU. This possibility that each EFTA state has to object to new rules that lie within the scope of the EEA Agreement becoming applicable to the EFTA pillar is often referred to as these parties’ right of veto.

So far, this right has not been exercised. This is partly because when EU legislation is to be integrated into the EEA Agreement it is submitted to the EEA Joint Committee at the final stage of an extensive process of information and consultation between the contracting parties. The purpose of this process is to ensure that agreement is reached on such decisions. During the negotiations on the EEA Agreement, compromises were found if a state had constitutional objections to the content or could invoke fundamental national interests. Even though constitutional problems are unlikely to arise in the day-to-day EEA work, the will to reach necessary compromises must still be regarded as a basic condition for cooperation." So Norway is consulted regularly via the EEA Joint Committee on any regulations pertaining to the single market and even has access to the EFTA veto.

Nor are their payments anything like as much as ours. Norway's expenditure relating to the EEA consists of several factors. Firstly there is the 'Norway Grants', aid paid by Norway as a form economic rehabilitation of post-Communist countries. These amounted to around €804 million from 2009 to 2014. Most importantly, this money is not paid to the EU.
There are also EEA grants, for which Norway provides 95% of the funding. This brings the total to €1.8 billion for that 5 year period. EFTA contribution to EU programmes affecting the EEA amounted to €1.7 billion, with Norway providing roughly 96% of the cost. Norway also participates in several EU programmes, including Horizon 2020 and the Erasmus research programmes, as well as participating in 26 EU agencies, relating to health, research, and education amongst others.

Norway's contributions are the price paid for a service, and funding is not one way. Norway's net contribution over the period was €620 million, or €90 million per year. Applying this on a pro-rata basis to the UK upon rejoining the EFTA, we would contribute approximately €2.5 billion a year. A large part of this would be for continued participation in many of the same programmes and agencies that we currently enjoy. Finally Norway pays roughly £7 million a year towards the EFTA budget. The UK's contribution in total then, on a pro-rata basis, would be roughly £2.36 billion a year. A saving of nearly £6 billion a year on our current contributions. So whilst being a member of the EEA does involve costs, it still represents a potential 75% haircut on our current financial obligations.
The EEA agreement does maintain free movement - something I'm inherently in favour of, and would like to see an independent UK sign more free movement accords with other countries - but it does offer greater protections than we have now. Article 112 of the EEA agreement gives us access to an 'emergency brake', and Lichtenstein, through various protocols and addendums to the EEA agreement, have set a precedent for quantative restrictions on free movement. Moreover, pursuing independent policies outside of the EU, gives us greater scope to address the push factors that ultimately contribute more to migration.

Leaving the EU does not mean turning our back on Europe. We will still continue to trade with our neighbours on the continent, and co-operate with our friends and allies to tackle the challenges we all face. But we can do so as an ally, as an equal, not as a subordinate to a supranational institution that itself is pursuing all the trappings of statehood. Because make no mistake, the EU is not standing still. The Five Presidents report explicitly sets out future plans for further political and economic integration, including common EU taxation and harmonisation of welfare systems. Even if you believe that Cameron's opt out of 'ever closer union' is meaningful, the only consequence will be increasing marginalisation within an EU pushing forward with federalisation. As the EU expands, welcoming new countries into it's ranks, our influence will be diluted further still. We are on two fundamentally different paths. Far better to get out now and work alongside the EU as a constructive partner.

But ultimately, the economic arguments, and debate about immigration are secondary to the one of democratic accountability. The EU Commission is the sole legislative arm of the EU, and we do not elect the people that comprise it. There's a fundamental democratic principle that laws should not be passed nor taxes raised except by our elected representatives. At the EU level they would be our MEPs but they have no power to introduce, nor repeal legislation. That is the sole purview of the Commission. There are those that argue that we should stay inside the EU and seek to reform it. I admire their optimism, but even when faced with the potential exit of one of it's most important members, it refused to offer any meaningful concessions. Only yesterday Jean Claude Juncker has said that: "British voters have to know there will be no kind of any negotiation. We have concluded a deal with the prime minister. He got the maximum he could receive, and we gave the maximum we could give, so there will be no kind of renegotiation." I don't see how that can be any clearer. The EU just does not do reform. By restoring the supremacy of the UK parliament we have the chance to reinvigorate our democracy. Our government will no longer be able to shrug at a problem and say it's out of their hands, they will have to get to the real business of actually governing us. Knowing that their votes count for more, people will begin to engage once again. One of the positives of this referendum is just the sheer number of people who appear to be engaged with the issue. If it matters, people will care. Leaving the EU could be the first step in revolutionising our democracy. There is an appetite as a result of this referendum, for greater democratic control and we can tap into that and pursue real reform, in the way we elect our representatives, in the make-up of the House of Lords, and beyond.

Far from being an inward looking, isolationist choice, Brexit is the outward, global option. It has the potential for us to pursue a truly global agenda, pushing for real change both at home and on the world stage, and most importantly, it gives us the ability to vote for a government that will do it. Vote Leave.

The 'Tory Brexit' argument is as nonsensical as it is undemocratic

Increasingly I've been seeing the argument that the EU isn't perfect, but it's better to stay in to prevent the evil Tories from gaining more power. This 'Tory Brexit' argument, as John McDonnell calls it, is the most vacuous I've seen from the remain side. There are sensible, cogent arguments to be made for staying in the EU, but this is not one of them. It's incredibly undemocratic, short sighted, and fantastical.

It misses the entire point of the democratic argument for leaving the EU. Those of us that advocate doing so in order to reclaim power from Brussels, aren't doing so to give that power to the Tories, or Labour, or whatever political party happens to command a majority. It's to give that power back to the UK Government, and by extension, the UK electorate. We do not need a supranational entity comprised of unelected bureaucrats to provide a backstop to the UK parliament, that is the job of us as voters. It is not for Jean Claude Juncker to hold the British government to account, it is for you and me.

The insinuation of course in this line of attack, is that were there a Labour, or left-wing government currently residing in Westminster, then these people would have no problem in voting for Brexit. I'm not entirely sure when these people expect that to happen, especially considering that Labour have seen fit to elect their most euro-sceptic leader in decades and he is still campaigning for remain, and by extension, the overrule of the democratically elected UK government by the unaccountable EU commission. Tony Benn must be spinning in his grave at this betrayal of the left's historical democratic principles. He was a man who could see that the short term fear of the opposition occasionally implementing policies when in government was not enough of a reason to neuter Westminster entirely.

It's also an incredibly short sighted, and indeed selfish, view of the issue. Granting the presumption that everything the UK government currently does is appalling and everything the EU does is wonderful, there is absolutely no guarantee that that will always be the case. If by some miracle Jeremy Corbyn wins the election in 2020, many of the left wing policies he advocates are incompatible with EU law. He cannot offer state aid for the UK steel industry. Nor can he re-nationalise the railways. If the left truly wish to see the back of Cameron and his policies, they should enable a left wing party to do so in the event of it winning an election. But their short-termism in seeking to remain in the EU to apparently muzzle the Tories will not allow them to do that. There is a complete lack of democratic principle in this argument. Were it myself, and we currently had an uber-socialist government being overruled by an uber-libertarian EU commission, I would still vote to leave. The argument for leaving the EU is ultimately not a left wing nor a right wing one. Nor is it a capitalist or socialist one. It is a democratic one. We're not voting to choose a government tomorrow, we're voting on who should have the power to decide a government. It must be us, and only us.

Cameron and Osborne have treated voters with contempt

I'm a skeptic. I like to question everything and for those of you I debate with on social media, you know I can be an argumentative sod at times too. That said, I'm not a cynic. My entire political philosophy is more or less underpinned by the belief that if you take the six billion people in the world and round off the bastards, you're left with six billion. I honestly believe that the overwhelming majority of people are good, honest and decent and want the best for themselves and everyone else. I also believe that if you give people the means to do so, they will try to accomplish exactly that, and look to help those less fortunate than themselves whilst they're at it. This is precisely why I am a small government guy, I have too much faith in humanity to be a socialist. This, perhaps rosy eyed, view of the world even extends to MPs, from those wearing green rosettes to those wearing purple. They may disagree wildly on how to get there, but everyone agrees the destination is the same: peace and prosperity for everyone. And do you know what, I believe the same is true of David Cameron and George Osborne. I do not doubt that they genuinely believe that staying in the EU is in the UK's best interests. But the way they have gone about making their case has shown nothing but contempt for the electorate.

This was evidenced on the special edition of Question Time on Sunday night in which the Prime Minister was subjected to questions from the public. One audience member, when dealing with the issue of Cameron's renegotiation, likened him to Neville Chamberlain waving a piece of paper declaring 'peace for our time' less than twelve months before we declared war on Hitler's Germany. Admittedly, I had low expectations of Cameron's renegotiation, and I fully expected what little reform he did achieve would be dressed up as a much bigger win than it was. That said, I was still amazed, not just at how little reform was achieved, but by how little Cameron was asking for in the first place. The fact that he had to compromise on even that speaks volumes about the EU's aversion to reform, even when faced with the exit of one of it's most important members. But, just like Neville Chamberlain, Cameron returned with these reforms and proclaimed them as a successful renegotiation, albeit, tellingly, without as much fanfare as I was expecting. His claims of a 'special status' because of a few tweaks to migrant welfare is laughable. But by claiming that these reforms are legally binding, he has told a flat out lie. Not just to the electorate, but to parliament as well. And this contempt for voters manifested itself when confronted with the Neville Chamberlain jibe during Question Time. The usually statesman like Cameron got angry and confrontational. He knew he had been rumbled. When Cameron asserted that his reforms, such that they are, were guaranteed (though interestingly he did not use the term 'legally binding') because the other leaders had agreed to them, he was, rightly, openly heckled and laughed at.

But this contempt is not just the purview of our Prime Minister. George Osborne last week threatened voters with an emergency budget in the event of a Leave vote. The chancellor said that a vote to leave would mean a hike in taxes, cuts to NHS spending, the removal of the triple lock on pensions, and a host of other measures. Never mind the fact that over 50 Tory MPs have said that they would block such a measure, it would be completely unnecessary. As I've mentioned many times, the only feasible route out of the EU is via the EEA, aka, the Norway option. Adopting that as an interim measure, not only gives us a stable platform from which to gradually unpick 40 plus years of political integration (remember, Brexit is a process, not an event), but also maintains full access to the single market meaning that, bar some short term instability in the currency markets (which are rarely stable anyway), leaving the EU will be an economically neutral exercise. Even were that not the case, the worst case scenario predicted by the IMF is an incredibly shallow recession of 0.8%, and thus the scale of austerity Osborne claims he would implement is ludicrously unnecessary and economically illiterate. Furthermore, if there is a leave vote on Thursday, absolutely nothing changes. We don't suddenly exit the EU on Friday morning. Life will go on exactly the same, and even if Cameron was crazy enough to execute Article 50 at that time, there is still the two year exit negotiation period to navigate, in which we would still be members of the EU. This means that there is absolutely no need for an 'emergency budget'. I assume Osborne knows all this - and if he doesn't we're in deeper trouble than anyone suspects - so the sole exercise of this intervention can only be to frighten the public into voting the way he wants them to.

Much of the uncertainty in the markets, and indeed the electorate, around the economic question of our leaving the EU has not been a result of the prospect of Brexit itself, but from the claims of economic armageddon from the remain side. Had Cameron and Osborne prioritised their roles in the two highest offices of state above that of their roles as campaigners, they would have sought to reassure both the markets and the electorate that they would seek to maintain access to the single market and the most favourable trade deal possible in the event of a Leave vote and mitigate as far as possible any negative economic consequences. Instead they have sought to hugely exaggerate the economic implications of leaving the EU - Osborne's treasury analysis is a deceptive work of economics on a gargantuan scale - in order to frighten people into voting the way they deem best.

What is heartening though, is that voters have paid no attention to Cameron's claims of economic meltdown, special status in a reformed EU or world war three. Nor have they heeded Osborne's threats of punitive fiscal policies. The electorate have listened to these propositions, examined them, and rightly found to be lacking any substance whatsoever. Similarly, in the name of balance, they are well aware that the £350 million a week Vote Leave claim we pay to the EU, is a gross figure and thus not entirely accurate. Nor are they the xenophobes and bigots some would paint them as. Whilst they worry about the pressure on public services that mass migration entails, they know that on balance, immigration is a huge force for good and are roundly appalled by the likes of Farage's 'Breaking Point' poster. The reaction of the British electorate to the ludicrous claims on both sides of the debate has been the sole shining light in the whole affair, and is precisely why I am entirely comfortable in voting to leave the EU, and trusting them to elect our law makers. I only wish that our political leaders had shown them the same faith.

Why Vote Leave - Part 4: The Democratic Argurment

In the run up to the referendum I intend to post a blog each Sunday detailing the reasons why Britain will be better off outside the European Union. These posts will cover the following topics: the economy, influence, democracy, security, the environment, cost, and reform.

"There can be no democratic choice against the European treaties." - Jean Claude Juncker, EU President.

Of all the arguments about the economy, global influence, sovereignty, immigration and so on, the deciding argument for me is the one of democracy, and the EU's apparent aversion to it. It is apparently somewhat of a running joke on the continent that were the EU applying to join itself, it would be refused on the grounds of being insufficiently democratic.  The European elections that so few of us actually take part in, send MEP's to represent us in the European Parliament. However, unlike every other elected parliament on the planet, this one has no power to introduce, amend or repeal legislation. That is the sole purvey of the European Commission, comprised of unelected officials. Indeed, commissioners are often people who have recently lost elections (Juncker, Peter Mandelson, Neil Kinnock and so on), never mind won them. The lack of any direct responsibility to the people over which they rule - and the lack of power for those people to remove them from office should they be judged to be doing an insufficient job - means that the commission has no backstop, nothing to prevent it from imposing undesirable legislation upon the people of Europe.

"I'm ready to be insulted as being insufficiently democratic, but I want to be serious... I am for secret, dark debates." - Jean Claude Juncker

The EU's aversion to democratic process doesn't rest with the way in which it makes it's laws. On those occasions in which the people of Europe have been consulted, they have often been roundly ignored or indeed, asked again in order that they might produce the 'right' answer. When the Danes voted No in a referendum on the Maastricht treaty in 1992, they were asked to vote again a year later, the subsequent Yes vote leading to riots in Copenhagen. The Irish rejected the Treaty of Nice in 2001 and were made to vote again in 2002, following a sustained pro-EU campaign. Both the French and Dutch electorates voted No to the EU constitution, a clear rejection of the federal European project that document signified. The EU came back with a reworded constitution in the form of the Lisbon Treaty ("the constitution in all but name") and subsequently foisted it on those that had rejected it in it's previous form. The Irish to their credit, again held a referendum and voted against the ratification of the treaty. They were made to vote again.

"If it's a Yes, we will say 'on we go', and if it's a No we will say 'we continue" - Jean Claude Juncker

More recently, 61% of the Greek electorate voted to reject the terms of the euro bailout but were again roundly ignored. It remains to be seen what the EU's response to the recent Dutch referendum will be. Voters there rejected a treaty that would result in closer economic and political ties with Ukraine. Although the treaty has been signed, it has yet to be ratified in the Netherlands. For what it's worth, the Ukrainian President has said that his country will continue to implement the association agreement regardless.

"Of course there will be transfers of sovereignty. But would I be intelligent to draw the attention of public opinion to this fact?" - Jean Claude Juncker

However, it's not just the electorate that the EU considers inconvenient. In 2011, both Greece and Italy saw democratically elected governments removed and replaced with Brussels-appointed technocrats. In Greece, Prime Minister Georgios Papandreou was replaced by former European Central Bank member Lucas Papademus following Papandreou's public commitment to hold a referendum on the EU's bailout proposal. This act of consulting the people was roundly condemned by a whole host of European leaders eventually leading to Papandreou standing down before Papademus was appointed to implement the EU's reform agenda. This so called 'caretaker' government was at least comprised of members of the two largest parties in Greece. The same could not be said for Italy. Following Silvio Berlusconi's resignation after sustained pressure from the EU, former European Commissioner Mario Monti was appointed to introduce a whole range of reforms. His government was entirely technocratic, containing not a single party representative or parliamentarian. 

"We all know what to do, we just don’t know how to get re-elected after we’ve done it."
- Jean Claude Juncker

Regardless of your politics, whether you be left or right wing, a campaigner for the Green party or a member of UKIP, one thing we should all agree is crucial, is the ability of the electorate to hold those with power to account. If we cannot vote to remove the legislators, if they ignore our decisions in referendum, and if they replace democratically elected governments with technocrats in order to implement policies that the people of those countries have not voted for, then we do not have that ability. Tony Benn, a stalwart of the Labour movement, best summed it up with his 5 questions to those in power:

What power have you got?
Where did you get it from?
In whose interests do you exercise it?
To whom are you accountable?
How can we get rid of you?

It is those two final questions where the EU falls catastrophically short. The EU commission is accountable to no-one as they are not an elected body, and because they are unelected, they cannot be removed by the people of Europe. So regardless of how you think governments should run, regardless of your theory of government, regardless of your politics, if you believe in democracy and the power of the people to change their government and to hold their elected representatives to account through the ballot box, voting to leave the EU in June is the only way to safeguard that power.

"When it becomes serious, you have to lie" - Jean Claude Juncker

Why Vote Leave - Part 1: Outlining the case for Brexit

Over the next 8 weeks I intend to post a blog each Sunday detailing the reasons why Britain will be better off outside the European Union. These posts will cover the following topics: the economy, influence, democracy, security, the environment, cost, and reform, but beginning this week with a rough overview of why I shall be voting Leave on the 23rd June.

I got into politics when I was about 14 or 15 years old, and not for any ideological reasons. I used to listen to the likes of The Now Show and Dead Ringers on the radio at the weekend and I merely read the news in order to get the jokes. The side effect of this was my becoming interested in current affairs and, for as long as I've been engaged, the issue of the EU has been one that has garnered the most attention for me. I confess, like most 15 year olds, I didn't really have a clue what I thought or what the issues were. Much of my viewpoints were probably a combination of received wisdom, my dad's influence, and a general vibe picked up from the stuff I read in the news and indeed what I heard on Radio 4 comedy shows. However, I've always been what you would call a Eurosceptic, believing that the EU did more harm than good and was too meddlesome in UK affairs. Whether it be ridiculous stories of outlawing bendy bananas or indeed the impact of immigration, I rarely agreed with EU policy. Interestingly though, as my political beliefs have developed, changed, and (I hope) matured, my opposition to Britain's EU membership has gone from being a vague sense of disdain fuelled by wild (and often inaccurate, as the bendy bananas story was) tabloid journalism to a firm belief that far from being a benign nuisance, the EU is actively harmful to both it's member state's prosperity and, more importantly, to democracy itself.

Whilst it may have been formed with noble intentions, bringing the previously warring nations of Europe together to trade and co-operate, it has morphed into a bureaucratic nightmare. It is no longer a free trade area but a protectionist customs union, marching inexorably along the path to a federal United States of Europe, with a common government, common army, common currency and fiscal policy, common foreign policy, flag, anthem, and all the other trappings of statehood. The people of Europe have rarely been consulted about this plan, and when they have, they have been routinely ignored, the EU swatting aside unfavourable referendum results and forging ahead regardless. Indeed, this anti-democratic nature is bred into the very way the EU is structured. Whilst we may vote for our MEPs, the European Parliament has no power to introduce, repeal or amend legislation. This is all done by the European Commission, an appointed body, not elected. The fact that people have power to introduce laws that affect us all and yet are completely unaccountable to the electorate should be enough of a reason for anyone to vote to leave.

This is, of course, all done in the name of peace and prosperity, but the EU is the slowest growing market in the world and is continuously shrinking as a share of global GDP. This would be of little consequence were it not for the fact that it's members cannot negotiate trade with the other emerging economies of the world, bound as they are to the EU's common trading position. In today's rapidly changing, global economy, it is not large trade blocs that are best equipped to strike deals, but smaller nations, more easily adaptable to the prevailing economic winds, and better suited to pursue their own interests without being compromised by competing interests in the same bloc.

As for peace, one need look no further than the terrorist attacks carried out by ISIS fighters arriving under the guise of the refugee crisis, the rise of far right parties across the continent, or the civil unrest in places like Greece and Spain to see how laughable a proposition the EU fostering unity is.

Despite what the Remain camp profess, it is possible to leave the political institutions of the EU and maintain access to the single market. The European Economic Area runs all the way from non-EU Iceland to non-EU Turkey and leaving the EU to rejoin the EEA via the EFTA (European Free Trade Area) will negate any negative economic effects of withdrawal. From this position we can maintain our trading relationship with our neighbours in Europe whilst forging new trade links with the other emerging economies of the world, and crucially, take our place at the top tables of world trade, helping shape global trade regulations before they are passed down, and indeed watered down, at EU level.

As the 5th largest economy in the world, a permanent seat holder on the UN Security Council, a nuclear power, and a leading member of the G8, linked by history, language, common law and culture to every continent on the planet, freed from the shackles of EU membership, we can wield our substantial influence on the world stage rather than being marginalised in the corridors of Brussels.