Brexit: Six months on

This article originally appeared on United Politics on 23/12/2016

It’s six months to the day since the historic vote for the UK to leave the European Union. The intervening months have been, by the expectations set during the campaign, rather uneventful.

Sure, we’ve lost one Prime Minister and gained another (our second female leader to boot), the Government’s been dragged through the courts, Labour had it’s annual leadership election, UKIP ripped itself to shreds and the Lib Dems did, well, whatever it is they do these days. But the British landscape has been curiously devoid of recession, world war three, or the collapse of western civilisation.

Of course, far from having actually left, we have yet to begin the exit negotiations that commence upon the triggering of the notorious Article 50. Some of the blame for this can be laid at the feet of Vote Leave. Whilst it was ultimately a successful campaign, it contained no more substance than Stronger In’s doomed efforts to keep us tied to Brussels.

There was no Brexit plan laid out whatsoever, and whilst it allowed for more maneuverability during the campaign, enabling them to paint Brexit as whatever it’s current audience wanted it to be, it means that there’s been plenty of flapping around since.

This has actually played into the hands of continuity Remainers who wish to see the referendum result ignored.  The lack of any sort of plan allows them to indicate that we’re woefully unprepared for the challenges ahead, and/or push for a Brexit so close to continued EU membership as makes no difference.

The vacuousness of some of Vote Leave’s campaign messages has left Leavers wide open to these criticisms. Touting the £350m figure was a spectacular own goal, as the same point could just as easily be made using the net figure, or even the savings to be gleaned from an EEA/EFTA position.

Not that all of the blame can be laid at the feet of Vote Leave. They were after all only a campaign group, and regardless of how detailed or otherwise any plan of theirs may have been, they were not being elected. A point seemingly lost on Chuka Umunna and his meaningless ‘Vote Leave watch’ outfit.

David Cameron on the other hand, when he called the referendum, should have put more effort into ensuring government and the civil service was prepared for either eventuality, rather than enlisting the machinery of government to campaign for his favoured outcome. The lack of preparation for a Leave vote, and the arrogance that signifies, should mean history sees him vilified, regardless of his other achievements.

This is why, despite the calls to invoke Article 50 immediately, there has been a necessary delay whilst the government finds it’s feet. They’re certainly taking their time, but slowly but surely they seem to be coming to grips with what can and can’t be achieved during the two year Article 50 negotiation period.

But if Vote Leave has been shown to be the shallow campaign it was, Stronger In’s entire case for remain has been utterly obliterated. In the immediate aftermath of the vote they pointed to the fall in sterling as proof positive of the economic ruin that awaited a United Kingdom sans EU membership.

But economists have long been arguing that the pound was overvalued, and a devaluation was necessary and desirable in order to rebalance the economy. This has been demonstrated in both the FTSE 100 and 250 which have soared since the vote in June, now sitting comfortably above their pre-referendum levels.

Nor has there been an exodus of investment. A cursory glance at the ironic #DespiteBrexit hashtag on Twitter unveils a litany of, shock horror, good news in the wake of the referendum result. From car manufacturers (plural), to banks, to supermarkets, a litany of companies have committed to the UK for the foreseeable future.

This is because the UK still remains an attractive place for businesses to invest. Forbes yesterday moved the UK from tenth to fifth in it’s list of the best places in the world to do business. Couple this with the OBR predicting further growth of 1.4% in 2017, returning to the long run average by 2019, as opposed to the -0.7% recession predicted by the Treasury, and the foretold economic armageddon looks as likely as Jeremy Corbyn becoming PM.

All this is taking place alongside a sideshow of various challenges to UK democracy. The high court battle on whether Parliament should vote on triggering Article 50 seems somewhat of a red herring, and has wrongly been shouted down by Brexiteers worried about the result being overturned.

Their fears aren’t completely unfounded, given the ‘March for Europe’ demonstrations in London (they would be much more accurately entitled ‘March Against Democracy‘), the various petitions for a second referendum, and the numerous MPs and political leaders, celebrities, and academics calling for another vote or for the vote to be ignored outright. It’s been quite a spectacularly worrying admonition of democracy.

Those that would seek to subvert the result in this way should perhaps be careful what they wish for, considering the latest poll shows that we’d still vote to Leave were there a second referendum. Given the largely positive economic news since the vote, negating Stronger In’s entire shtick, it’s not exactly difficult to see why.

We’re still three months away from Theresa May’s stated timetable for Article 50 notification. Ministers appear to be catching on to the inevitability of an interim EEA or ‘Norway’ option, as we begin unpicking 40 years of political integration with mainland Europe. Brexit was never going to be an event, it was always going to be a process.


Post-Brexit politics has made the last six months utterly enthralling. But it’s mostly been white noise thus far. Once the Article 50 ball comes loose from the back of the scrum, and negotiations with the EU begin in earnest, things will start to get really interesting. Roll on March 2017.

Sorry Donald, but your victory is the antithesis of Brexit.

Donald Trump winning the US Presidential election is the biggest political upset since, well, only June as it happens. A completely unexpected result, Trump's victory has been likened to the UK vote to leave the EU on June 23, not least by the man himself, who earlier this week described the possibility of him winning as "Brexit plus plus plus."

There's no doubting that both results gave the establishment a bloody nose, but the comparisons between the Donald's rise to the White House and Brexit have been massively overblown. In fact, putting aside the rejection of the status quo, the two are practically antithetical.

For starters, Trump's platform railed against free trade. He constantly denounced NAFTA, and threatened to pull out of the agreement if Canada and Mexico were unwilling to renegotiate it. On top of this, Trump also threatened an all-out trade war with China, suggesting the introduction of tariffs, the bringing of trade cases against the country at the WTO, and labelling it as a currency manipulator.

Compare and contrast those protectionist instincts with the Leave campaign's message on trade. The cornerstone of the Brexiteer's message was the ability, freed from the EU's common external tariff, to sign our own trade deals with countries across the globe. Campaign literature, both official and otherwise, was awash with statistics showing where the current growth was in the world, which emerging economies would be the powerhouses of the future, and how our share of exports with the rest of the world was increasing, whilst that into the EU was in decline. Trump sought to be elected in order to make trade with China as difficult as possible. We voted to leave the EU in order to make it easier.

This isolationism can be found elsewhere in Trump's policies too. The president-elect has described NATO as 'obsolete', and has suggested he would look at pulling the United States out of the agreement. Compare and contrast, once again, with the Leave campaign. On security, one of the main tenants of the Leave position was that the EU's expansionist policies, and plans for an EU army, threatened to undermine NATO. When Remain supporters suggested that peace in Europe since the second world war had been secured by the EU, leavers pointed out that this had much more to do with the North Atlantic alliance than Brussel's bureaucracy. A desire to ensure NATO is maintained as the strongest military alliance in the world, not weaken it exponentially by pulling out of the agreement, was a core part of the Leave position.

Even on immigration Trump and Brexit are worlds apart. Yes, there was a strong part of the leave campaign that wished to control immigration, but the key word there is control. No-one on the leave side advocated closing the borders completely, but rather sought to ensure that the level of immigration into the country was manageable. Moreover, in the wake of the referendum result, Leavers have been just as aghast as Remain supporters at May's refusal to guarantee the rights of EU citizens currently in the UK to remain here. How diametrically opposed is this to Trump's call to deport 11 million people and ban all Muslims from entering the United States? The equivalency is a spectacularly false one.

There is no doubt that both Brexit and Trump were unquestionably votes against the status quo. Both campaigns rightly tapped into an anger at the ruling orthodoxy that for too long had been ambivalent about the concerns of ordinary voters. But that, bar the occasional appearance of Nigel Farage, is all the two events have in common. Trump is a bigoted isolationist, advocating the very worst forms of protectionism. Brexit on the other hand, was always about looking beyond the parochial borders of the EU, and engaging fully with the world, pursuing a free trading, global agenda, working constructively with our friends and allies, both in Europe and beyond. Far from Brexit plus plus plus, Trump is Brexit minus minus minus.

Why Remain really lost the Brexit vote

There's a fascinating piece on Politico this morning from Daniel Korski. Korski was deputy director of Cameron's policy unit, and was intricately involved in both the renegotiation of the UK's EU membership and the subsequent referendum campaign.

It's a long read, covering the renegotiation process itself, as well as the campaign. In it, Korski attempts to identify why Stronger In lost the referendum. Mercifully, it's an in depth analysis forgoing the 'frustratingly simplistic' reasons - as Korski himself points out - that have been mooted for the result thus far.

That said, it still makes some erroneous assumptions and conflations. Most of all though, it gives an incredible insight, seemingly lost on Korski himself, as to an underlying reason that Stronger In lost the referendum, namely, contempt for the electorate.

One of the accusations levelled at Cameron was that the renegotiation was a sham. I too am guilty of making this assumption, though I am happy to have been proven wrong by this piece. Korski describes in great detail the sheer amount of effort it took in order to extract the terms that Cameron did.

"Cameron was tireless; he visited every EU country and spoke to every leader several times. Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond and Europe Minister David Lidington worked with their counterparts, and former Prime Ministers John Major and Tony Blair were brought in to help.
In support of these high-level efforts, we designed a diplomatic campaign for every European country unlike anything the U.K. has conducted since the run-up to the Iraq invasion. Each British ambassador was tasked with taking the argument for reform into the public realm and putting forward the key points in private to the most important decision-makers."

It is clear that far from the sham some ardent eurosceptics would have us believe the renegotiation was, sincere and high level efforts were made to curry favour and to get European leaders on side in order to fundamentally change the nature of the UK's relationship with the EU. Nevertheless, Cameron found himself beating his head against a brick wall.

"Most saw the talks as a nuisance to be dealt with, dangerous to Europe, or damaging to their political careers... Officials in the newly elected Socialist government in Portugal, for example, refused to budge on any of our demands and were deeply skeptical of our motives... Sweden wanted the U.K. to remain in the European bloc, but could under no circumstances agree to what we were asking... the European Parliament saw it as a bid for special treatment and, eventually, as an attempt to violate the EU’s basic freedoms. Juncker seemed to be seeking to give the U.K. a fair deal — as long as it didn’t require too fundamental a reform."

As a result of this obfuscation Korski regards the deal Cameron got as nothing short of miraculous. But it merely serves to highlight just how averse to reform the EU really is. Whilst operating under the assumption Cameron hadn't really tried, one could make the argument that a less europhile Prime Minister may well have extracted more favourable terms for our membership and thus we would not have voted to leave.

However, it is clear reading Korski's piece that Cameron and his team really did try to get clear, fundamental reforms for the UK, and they simply weren't forthcoming. This should really lay to rest any argument that we could have voted remain, in order to reform and reshape the EU in our own image.

As I mentioned at the beginning of this post though, it's the lack of respect for the electorate that really shines through. Korski describes Cameron's emergency brake on EU workers claiming in-work benefits as "too complex to explain to ordinary voters". The condescension is almost unbelievable. Whilst I'm sure no-one would argue that these things are anything but complicated, the assumption that the great unwashed are too thick to comprehend it, especially when faced with arguably the most important plebiscite this country has had in decades, is risible.

The campaign apparently made similar assumptions with regards to the protections secured for the City.

"Unfortunately, Osborne’s deal required a master’s degree in financial regulation to explain. The package was too complicated to become a key part of the campaign. And anyway we were wary of getting boxed into a position where it looked like we had mainly worked to get the bankers in the City a good deal."

Again, one would never assume that these things are anything but highly complicated, but the outright dismissal of using the concessions in the campaign as being over the heads of the electorate doesn't half rankle.

Note also the aversion of wanting to seem like Cameron had worked to secure a deal for the City. The assumption clearly being that the public would not see this as an important safeguard for the most important part of our economy and instead just scream 'ugh, bankers!' whilst ticking Leave in the voting booth.

This cynicism is also highlighted in the, ultimately abandoned attempts, to manipulate the franchise in favour of a Remain vote. There were plans to extend the franchise to 16 year olds, which were discarded for political reasons. Similarly, an attempt to resurrect the Conservative manifesto pledge to extend the vote to Britons overseas was ditched when it ran afoul of the Electoral Commission. No attempt to make the case for EU membership, just an exploration of ways in which to game the system.

There's certainly an element of living in a bubble evident in Korski's account. No more so is this pronounced than in his discussion of the economic dangers of leaving.

The biggest folly of the Remain campaign was the conflation of the EU with the Single Market. Everyone could see that there were plenty of successful countries outside of the EU, including the likes of Norway who are nevertheless members of the Single Market.

This, more than anything, was why the electorate rejected the forecasts of economic armageddon made by Stronger In. Korski claims that they 'did not have to invent the dangers', yet that is precisely what they had done. The assumptions made by their models were refuted almost as soon as they were published.

Yet Korski, and apparently by extension the remain campaign, was so far removed from reality that they believed the economic case was done and dusted. "We won the economic argument so comprehensively and so early that it was seen as a given, rather than core to the decision." The arrogance on display, and sheer detachment from reality, is as hilarious as it is terrifying.

"I think we were right to focus the campaign on the economic case. Where we went wrong was in our inability to connect the economic costs and benefits of the decision to ordinary people’s lives. The European single market was too esoteric a concept.

Meanwhile, Vote Leave happily ignored the facts and distorted the figures. Voters didn’t believe us when we told them that we had calculated that leaving the EU would make the average household some £4,300 worse off. But Leave’s argument that Britain was “sending” £350 million a week to Brussels was believed."

Once again the electorate are dismissed as insufficiently intelligent to grasp the 'esoteric' concept of the Single Market, despite almost every refutation of Stronger In's economic claims centering around the distinction between the the EU and the EEA.

Furthermore, I've yet to come across a Leave voter who didn't know that the £350m figure was a gross figure and thus not an accurate one. They saw the spin and mathematical contortions behind that claim just as easily as they did those behind the £4300 figure. But acknowledging this scuppers the Remainer argument that voters were somehow duped into voting to Leave the EU.

But this contempt with which the government and the remain campaign treated the electorate was pronounced throughout the campaign, and has been in the aftermath. Leavers have been portrayed as everything from knuckle dragging idiots to racist little englanders wanting to retreat from the world.

There's undoubtedly some unsavoury characters within the Brexiteer ranks, just as there is on the other side of the argument. But the overwhelming majority of us want Britain to look outwards to the world rather than being stuck in the parochial EU.

One of the more fascinating and heartening things that has come from the entire debate is the consensus that has grown around removing global trade barriers and pursuing trade deals with as many nations as possible, regardless of whether one believes we are better placed to do that ourselves or as part of the EU. A welcome contrast to, for example, the protectionist instincts currently being displayed by both main candidates in the US Presidential campaign.

Korski laments that "the case that it was possible to be both independent and European was not made." On the contrary, an independant UK co-operating and trading with it's European neighbours whilst not bound by political union, is precisely the case we on the Leave side have been making for years. Thankfully, that was the argument that won out.

A message for Remainers

Dear Remainers,

I know that right now, you don't particularly want to hear from people like me. We voted to leave the European Union, an act you thought, and I'm sure still do, is folly. But the votes have been cast, on an exceptional turnout, and a decision has been made. You might not like it, but that's the way democracy rolls sometimes.

I know you're angry, and upset, and confused, and worried to death about what in the name of all that is holy is going to happen now. If the result had been reversed, I would have been equally despondent this morning. But I ask of you, even though you despair, to not succumb to the urge to label your fellow countrymen as ignorant, racist, bigoted, xenophobic or just plain stupid. Many of us that have voted to leave have done so after reading just as much as you have, after discussing the ideas, exposing the lies on both sides, and simply came to a different conclusion as to what was best for the UK. The notion that having concerns about immigration makes you racist or xenophobic belittles the discourse and does a disservice to the intelligent men and women on both sides who are seeking a solution to those concerns. Indeed, for many of us, immigration wasn't even the deciding factor. Or a factor at all. We thought the economic arguments supported our case, and we were also worried about the democratic deficit at the heart of the EU. So again I ask you, to paraphrase Bob Dylan, not to become your enemy in the instant that you preach. You made sound arguments for being an open and tolerant country. Do not betray those principles by shutting down those that disagree with you over our EU membership with cries of idiocy and being intolerant of a different point of view. Many of us on the leave side share the exact same ideals as you do. We want Britain to be an open, tolerant country. Co-operating with our allies and trading freely with our neighbours. Pursuing a global agenda to tackle the issues that face us all, with the goal of prosperity for everyone.

Because though this vote went against you, this was not a vote against your ideals. It was merely a defeat for your preferred method of pursuing those ideals. We have made a democratic decision that, as a nation, we believe we best pursue those lofty goals as an independent country, outside the political union of the EU. You may not agree with that choice, but it is the one that has been made. Now we need your help. Because there will be people who's goals for our country elevate different priorities, and some of those we know are not beneficial. But this is where the beauty of democracy and the marketplace of ideas will shine through. Because those ideals that we both hold dear, have the arguments behind them, and if we pursue them together, united, we can truly achieve the progressive vision for Britain, Europe, and the world that is our shared ultimate aim.

One of the joys of this referendum campaign, and indeed politics in general, for me, is being able to have prolonged discussions with my friends about the issues at hand. Whether we be exchanging tweets or comments on Facebook, sending texts or WhatsApp messages, conversing on the phone or debating over a pint, it has been thoroughly enjoyable thrashing it out with you. I've learnt a lot from our discussions, and I hope I've perhaps caused you to think differently about some areas too. But the true joy is in how, away from the tawdry headline grabbing of the official campaigns, it has been an incredibly civil affair and has never degenerated into personal insults. I respect each and every person I have discussed this issue with, and though we may disagree, often profoundly, I have absolutely no doubts that you are good people, doing what you truly believe is right. All I would ask is that you extend me and those who voted with me, the same courtesy. There will always be bastards on any side, but they are never, ever representative of the whole.

So let's unite, pull our collective socks up, and make this work. There is plenty to be done, and a long road ahead. By rallying around the EEA option as a starting point for Brexit we can allay the fears over the economy that many people currently have. Then let's use that as a spring board to help this country achieve what we all agree it is capable of.

Brexit it is

I have a confession to make. This entire referendum campaign I have been unbelievably hypocritical. The entirety of my argument was predicated on the belief that the British electorate could be trusted to run our own affairs, and choose the right government, implementing the right policies, to secure a more prosperous, global future for us all. But the entire time I was making this argument, I still expected Remain to win. I trusted the electorate to make the right decisions after Brexit, but I didn't trust them to vote for Brexit itself. I've never been so pleased to have been proven wrong, and I promise never to doubt us again.

The excitement once the results started rolling in meant that I got less than two hours sleep last night and there was a genuine feeling of elation as I walked into work this morning. I genuinely felt giddy, though how much of that was the result and how much was the fatigue I couldn't say. It is a momentous occasion, a decision that will change the course of our country. In many ways it's terrifying, yet also incredibly exciting.

That said, that pleasure in victory has been tempered somewhat by the hysteria that has been seen from Remainers across the media, both mainstream and social. From some of the reactions you would think we hadn't voted to leave a political institution, but instead declared war on China. And Russia. And pledged to fight those wars using nothing but sticks for guns and kitchen utensils for armour. It needs to be reiterated now that absolutely nothing is going to change in the short term. The fall in sterling once the result was clear was entirely expected, as was it's subsequent climb. As soon as the deal with the EU is concluded, assuming it maintains full single market access for the UK as it should, the pound will skyrocket. Also, the fall in the FTSE, far from a crash, was a correction after the markets had gambled on the wrong result, and is now trading at similar levels to how it was in January. Judging the impact of Brexit on the economy after only a few hours is more than a little premature. Some of the blame for the fall can of course be laid at the feet of the Prime Minister, the Chancellor, and by extension the remain campaign too. If Cameron and Osborne had prioritised their offices of state over their views on the EU, they would have reassured voters, and the markets, that they would do everything in their power to minimise any economic impact of a leave vote, and set out beforehand how they would go about doing that. Instead they chose their roles as campaigners over their roles as custodians of our economy, portraying Brexit as a leap into the dark, and thus some of the panic that has ensued this morning is entirely of their own making.

It is for this reason that I am glad Cameron has decided to step down as Prime Minister. I am also glad that he is not doing so right away. We need stability now, to reassure the markets, and it was good to see him attempt to do so in his resignation speech. What happens to Osborne now is up in the air, but he, even more so than Cameron, has to go. His manipulation of the Treasury to his political aims and the threatening of the electorate with his ludicrous 'blackmail budget', has disgraced his office. Add this to his perpetual U-turns, his utter failure to hit any of his austerity targets, and his constant elevation of politicking over fiscal prudency, and I cannot see how he can remain as chancellor any longer.

I also want to take a moment to address the video of Nigel Farage currently doing the rounds. I'm astounded people are so worked up about it, claiming it is a betrayal of everyone who voted leave. For those that haven't seen it, this is what's causing the hubbub:

Interviewer: "The £350 million a week which we send to the EU, which we will no longer send to the EU, can you guarantee that's going to go to the NHS?"

Farage: "No I can't."

Of course he can't! He's not the Prime Minister, he's not the chancellor, the health secretary or a member of the cabinet. Despite repeated attempts, he's not even an MP. More than this though, this referendum wasn't electing Vote Leave (thank Christ), it was whether we remain a member of the EU. Vote Leave are not forming a government, and their suggestions about what to do with the money we will save on our membership fee - which despite the faux outrage now, everyone knows isn't £350 million a week - are just that, suggestions. The point is that it will be up to our democratically elected government to allocate those funds, and they may well choose to allocate them to the NHS. It will be down to us to decide in a general election, and that's what the entire democratic argument of the referendum has been about.

So yes, there are uncertain times ahead. But this vote to leave the EU has shown that we as a country are not afraid to take these challenges head on, and we are confident in our abilities to overcome then. This is just the first step, and I for one, can't wait for what's next.

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 8: Reform

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.

"Britain is better off inside a reformed EU", so says David Cameron. There's every possibility that he's right of course, we'll just never know because a reformed EU isn't even remotely on offer. Preceding this referendum, the PM embarked on a renegotiation with European leaders in an attempt to get better terms for the UK's membership of the European Union. Back in 2013 when Cameron gave his Bloomberg speech in which he promised this referendum, he also set out what he saw as the issues with the EU and what areas he wanted to reform. The PM spoke of the growing frustration of the EU, with it seen as something done to people, rather than something acting in their interests, with decisions taken further and further away from them. He spoke of how the EU "must be able to act with the speed and flexibility of a network, not the cumbersome rigidity of a bloc. Not weighed down by an insistence on a one size fits all approach." He acknowledged that there was no European 'demos', and that "power must be able to flow back to member states not just away from them. It was promised by European leaders a decade ago. It was put in the treaty but it has never been properly fulfilled."

After winning the election, Cameron was given a mandate to go and seek those reforms. On the Marr show in January last year he affirmed his ambition for wide-ranging 'full on' treaty change. The Bloomberg speech also mentioned exemptions for small businesses from EU directives, changes to the working time directive and repatriation of social and employment law - the latter a 2010 manifesto pledge. But with every subsequent reveal it appeared that he was asking for less and less from our European partners. All those exemptions he'd mentioned at Bloomberg were dropped from his negotiations. He didn't even ask for them. Cameron made no attempt to reform free movement, instead opting to focus on in work benefits for migrants. This seemed to be somewhat of an own goal as prior to making it a flagship proposal of his renegotiation it was an issue that barely anyone mentioned.

The Conservative manifesto said: "We will insist that EU migrants who want to claim tax credits and child benefit must live here and contribute to our country for a minimum of four years." It also proposed a "new residency requirement for social housing, so that EU migrants cannot even be considered for a council house unless they have been living in an area for at least four years".
Cameron also wanted to prevent EU migrant workers in the UK sending child benefit or child tax credit money home. "If an EU migrant's child is living abroad, then they should receive no child benefit or child tax credit, no matter how long they have worked in the UK and no matter how much tax they have paid."
Cameron had to compromise on the welfare aspect of his renegotiation quite considerably. The four-year 'emergency brake' on in-work benefits wasn't so much an 'emergency brake' as a light feathering of the throttle, with benefits being phased in over the four years. Cameron failed in his original demand to ban migrant workers from sending child benefit money back home.
The final agreement Cameron secured mentioned no changes to social housing entitlement as they were yet another area he'd dropped before preliminary negotiations began.

So he went from seeking wide ranging reforms and full-on treaty change, to requesting a minor tweak in welfare provisions for EU migrants and even then he had to compromise on that. The vague semantic changes he's been promised about 'ever closer union' and a proposal to reduce the regulatory burden are so vague as to be inconsequential. Moreover, these changes haven't come into force yet, with the PM merely stating that the commitment to these reforms is legally binding. This itself has been shown to be completely false. So there's no guarantee that the pitiful reforms Cameron did manage to secure will ever come into force anyway.

Of course, the fact that the renegotiation has all but been dropped from Remain campaign literature belies how insubstantial it is. Despite this, there's an overarching argument from the In camp that the EU isn't perfect, but we should stay in anyway to help reform it and change it. But if all we can secure is a minor tweak to welfare - itself not guaranteed - when one of it's largest members is threatening to leave, how can we possibly expect to enact the sort of reforms Europhiles claim they want once we've voted to remain fully committed to the project? Indeed, there's evidence to suggest that we could in fact exert greater influence for reform from outside the EU. Australia, by building coalitions on international forums managed to secure greater reform to the EU's CAP than any member state has managed from within. There have been numerous calls for reform throughout the EU's history, yet it has still marched inexorably onwards towards it's stated goal of federalisation.

Because of course none of this means that there won't be changes in the EU. This referendum is not a vote between leaving and maintaining the status quo. There are clear plans to continue towards full political and fiscal union. The Five President's report details the steps to be taken over the next few years to complete this amalgamation. Whilst mainly dealing with the Eurozone, there are several areas in which it specifically pulls in all 28 members, both Eurozone and non-Eurozone countries, particularly in the area of fiscal and banking union. And then, on top of this, there's the talk of tax harmonisation across the Union, as well as a consolidated EU military force. There's no such thing as a qualified Remain vote. Brussels will take a UK vote to stay in the EU as an endorsement of these plans. Given that they're being talked about openly, we cannot plead that we didn't know that that was what we were voting for. Plus thanks to Qualified Majority Voting, we're all but powerless to stop it. 70 times the UK has voted against EU legislative proposals, and 70 times we have been defeated. This is precisely why we should leave. We are on a fundamentally different path to our allies on the continent, and no amount of aspiration to reform the EU will change that.

The EU Referendum is in danger of being illegitimate

If a Leave vote triumphs on June 23rd it will be nothing short of a miracle. Not least because of the gross incompetency of the official Vote Leave campaign, but because, and without wishing to don any tin-foil headgear, there has been attempts to stack the deck in favour of a Remain vote every step of the way.

Firstly we had the wording of the referendum question itself, the original of which the Electoral Commission judged to unfairly favour the Remain side, forcing the government to reword it to it's current format.

Then the government attempted to amend the purdah rules in the run up to the referendum itself, allowing it to use the full force of the government machine right up until polling day. Fortunately, this too was defeated in the house of commons. Not to be outdone of course, the government circumvented this particular hurdle by financing a mailshot - at a cost of £9m to the taxpayer - before the purdah period came into force, despite previously stating that they had no intention of doing any such thing. This came on top of the funding allocated to each camp, in effect doubling the amount of public money spent on the Remain campaign. Despite it's claim to be an impartial leaflet, it was an appalling piece of propaganda, full of half-truths, omissions and outright fabrications.

Furthermore, the government has not shied away from using Whitehall and the civil service to it's advantage. Reports in February detailing how senior civil servants were being issued guidelines banning the disclosure of documents related to the referendum, to pro-Brexit ministers. Moreover, Harry Cole reported in The Sun that the government had enlisted a team of civil servants to prepare all the anti-brexit messages you've been hearing from various world leaders. Or were you under the impression that those warnings had been spontaneously given?

On top of these underhanded tactics, we've been getting increasing reports of activity that undermines the integrity of the franchise itself. The Electoral Commission has admitted that over 3000 EU nationals have wrongly been sent polling cards and postal votes, despite being ineligible to vote in the referendum. Postal voters in Bristol were issued with voting guidelines which seemed to indicate a preference for a Remain vote. Polling cards in Stoke had been found to have been dumped in a field.

This doesn't even cover Cameron's lying to parliament about his pitiful reforms or indeed the prospect of there being no informed consent for either result. The whole exercise has been conducted in extraordinarily bad faith, and whatever the result, it's safe to say that the issue will be far from settled come June 24th.

Why Vote Leave - Part 7: Costs

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.

One of the most prevalent issues pertaining to the UK's membership of the EU is the cost of that membership and whether or not it represents good value for money. This debate has been muddied exponentially between the various use of gross and net figures, the amount of EU expenditure in the UK, the fact that as a net contributor we fund that expenditure, the cost of regulation, what's seen as EU waste and so on. It's difficult therefore to cut through the hyperbole and come to a conclusion as to whether the vast sums we send each year to Brussels constitute value for money.

Let's start with UK budgetary contributions. Vote Leave's headline grabbing figure of £350 million a week is only partially accurate. It is based off of the UK's gross contribution to the EU budget which, last year, was £17,8 billion. However, this does not take into account the UK's rebate, worth £4.9 billion last year, or public sector receipts worth a further £4.4 billion. So the actual cost of UK membership in 2015 was £8.5 billion. This itself is no small sum, but it's indicative of Vote Leave's incompetence that they opted for the gross figure, leaving themselves open to accusations of being misleading, rather than the net figure which few would argue was inconsequential. The UK's net contribution to the EU budget for the period of 2009 to 2014, taking into account rebates and receipts, was £48.6 billion.

So whilst Vote Leave's figure is somewhat misleading, there's no denying that we are a substantial contributor to the EU budget.

Now, opponents of the Norway option claim that despite not being in the EU, Norway still pays around the same for access to the single market. This is just as inaccurate as Vote Leave's £350 million claim, if not more so. 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 eduction 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. Especially with news today that the EU could well be looking to increase our contributions after a Remain vote.

But it's not just the UK's contributions to consider when evaluating how the EU handles it's finances. The EU itself is extremely wasteful, and incredibly opaque when it comes to it's expenditure. Take for example MEP's expenses. European Parliament members can garner huge sums, tax free and without proper scrutiny, on top of their £60k salary in the form of grants and allowances. This doesn't even take into consideration the amount that can be claimed in expenses.

Then there's the travelling circus that once month sees the European Parliament decamp from Brussels to Strasbourg at a cost of around £130 million. This includes loading 5 trucks up full of plastic trunks, that once contained files and papers, but have now been rendered obsolete by email and the internet. It's a perfect example of the EU's general inertia and reluctance to reform it's procedures.

So not only will leaving the EU mean we will pay significantly less for market access, whilst still having - arguably a larger - say over the rules, it will also mean that we can spend money much more wisely, giving greater value to taxpayers.

Why Vote Leave - Part 6: The Environment

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.

One of the less prominent, but no less misleading, arguments in this campaign has been that the EU is an effective protector of the environment. This is no doubt based upon it's various directives and green targets which it imposes on it's members in order to drive down their carbon-footprint. This however only paints part of the picture, and belies the way that the EU actually operates, and what it's priorities are, when setting these policies.

A prime example of this was the adoption of palm oil as a biofuel. The European Commission's Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil scheme contained an association of hundreds of palm oil growers, processors, traders and distributors, as well as some non-governmental organizations working in palm-oil producing nations, such as Indonesia and Malaysia. This lobbying effort eventually resulted in the EU pushing palm oil as an alternative fuel, meaning that the palm oil producers it licenses can qualify for subsidies. An effective effort on the part of the lobbyists. However, palm oil is not an environmentally friendly biofuel. According to Friends of the Earth at the time of the EU's announcement, "Palm oil is driving deforestation, wildlife loss, community conflicts, and accelerating climate change. Instead of greenwashing palm oil, the EU should outright ban its use as a biofuel." Furthermore, Rainforest Rescue have set out the horrendous effects palm oil manufacture and biodiesel refineries have had, from deforestation to human rights violations. Indeed the Commission's own research into palm oil concluded that extra demand for food crops such as palm oil for the production of biofuels can have a significant impact on climate change, forests and peat swamps destroyed to make way for land to grow biomass for fuel can have an even worse impact on CO2 emissions than some fossil fuels, and that palm oil was one of the worst biofuel sources in terms of indirect land use change. But as other's have noted, Brussels is a lobbyist's paradise.

Palm oil is just one example. Only last year we had the scandal of Volkswagon cheating emissions tests. Almost uniquely in the world, the EU had adopted standards that promoted diesel engines, enforcing emissions standards that focused on carbon dioxide (CO2) instead of nitrogen oxide (NO2).
This was a result again of successful lobbying efforts on the part of European car manufacturers to revive their flagging diesel industry. Diesel emits four times more NO2 than petrol and 22 times more of various other pollutants. However, it does produce 15 per cent less CO2 than petrol, so a massive operation was begun to sell the new standard as part of the Kyoto climate change process to reduce CO2 emissions. Health risks were overlooked, and the conversation was skilfully turned to global warming. The European Commission thus prioritised a cut in CO2 emissions over the more immediate health problems caused by exhaust fumes.
According to Simon Birkett, of Clean Air in London: ‘It was practically an order to switch to diesel. The European car fleet was transformed from being almost entirely petrol to predominantly diesel. Britain, Germany, France and Italy offered subsidies and sweeteners to persuade car makers and the public to buy diesel.’ As a result, diesel cars went from less than 10 per cent of the UK market in 1995 to more than half by 2012, with equivalent rises across the continent, and the EU had successfully promoted a dirtier, more environmentally harmful, fuel.

Corporate lobbying has meant that not only does the EU back environmentally harmful policies, but it also works to restrict access to greener alternatives. Thanks to pressure from EU ProSun, a German led alliance of European solar manufacturers, the EU imposes tariffs of up to 68 per cent on Chinese Solar panels. The protectionist nature of the EU has meant that we in Europe are paying unnecessarily high prices for low-carbon technology. This has had a detrimental effect on the industry, with only 7GW of solar power installed in the EU in 2014, down from 21GW in 2011, and employment in the sector more than halving in the same period.

Leaving the EU will give us the freedom to pursue a much more effective environmental policy. We can take a further leading role on the world stage in shaping global regulations that help, not hinder, businesses that are pursuing environmentally friendly solutions to the world's energy problems, and by eliminating punitive tariffs on low-carbon technology, increase the adoption of green energy here at home. Pushing down the cost of living and increasing jobs into the bargain.

Why Vote Leave - Part 5: Security

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.

Over the past week or so the issue of security in a post-Brexit world has been pushed to the forefront of the debate, notable highlights being Cameron's intimation that leaving could be the first step towards World War 3 and that ISIS back Brexit. It's entirely possible to dismiss these claims out of hand as being every bit as ludicrous as they sound of course, but the wider point of whether EU membership is good for our security and whether or not extricating ourselves from the political institutions of Brussels threatens that security is worth answering. Downing Street has orchestrated it so that various foreign intelligence chiefs and military personnel appear to back our continued membership though there's plenty of former intelligence heads and Generals wrongly claimed by the In camp, who conclude the opposite.

Firstly, the point has to be made that the two most important pillars of our national security are our membership of the 5 Eyes intelligence group and NATO. It is these two pillars that, for differing reasons, mean we shall remain as secure (or otherwise) regardless as to whether we stay or leave. Broadly speaking though, the exact same principle that applies to the economic arguments applies to that of security. Namely, both the UK and European nations need each other to help fight off any threats, regardless of whether we're in political union or not. Leaving the EU does not mean we shall cease co-operating with our allies on the continent in matters of national security. It does not mean that we stop presenting a united front against terrorism, or Russian belligerence, or any other threat. Merely that we wish to work with our allies as an independent, sovereign nation, rather than as part of a larger federal group. Indeed, only last month French Prime Minister Manuel Valls, reiterated that relations will remain close between the UK and France in intelligence and security in the event of the British people voting to Leave.

The example of France withdrawing from the integrated military command structures of NATO in the 1960s can be analogous here. Although it had left those structures in order to establish a more independent defence policy, it still contributed heavily to NATO missions. Indeed, in some aspects it had a galvanising effect. Precisely because of doubts about France's commitment to western security, French politicians re-affirmed their loyalty to the alliance and continued to spend heavily on defence in order to counter that impression. There is no reason why a post-Brexit UK would not do the same, loudly trumpeting our commitment to the Western cause whilst maintaining, or maybe even increasing, our defence spending. This would both reassure our allies, and continue to present a strong, united front to our enemies.

Despite Nick Clegg's recent assertion that talk of an EU army was a 'dangerous fantasy', Germany is now pushing for exactly that, and it has been repeatedly called for by numerous EU leaders, not least EU President Jean-Claude Juncker. Britain has long opposed such a move, for good reason, fearing it could undermine it's membership of NATO, as well as the desire to maintain an independent military. However, it's entirely possible that, freed from British opposition, the EU could progress towards it's long sought after operational headquarters, providing the UK with a more effective partner than it currently has. Moreover, without the underlying spectre of joining an EU army, Britain may find it easier to collaborate militarily with it's European allies. As it is, the EU is hamstrung by a unanimity requirement, making it slow to react to security crises. The EEC (and subsequently the EU) came about not to provide peace, but as a consequence of the peace secured on the continent by NATO and the idea that the UK leaving the EU could threaten that peace is preposterous. Constitutional democracies do not go to war with each other.

Of course, it's not just military capabilities that provide our security. On intelligence, the Five Eyes program (between the US, UK, Canada, New Zealand and Australia) provides an invaluable tool in combating global terrorism. An unusually broad agreement, it allows for the exchange of intercepted raw traffic, analysis, work on cryptology, and intercept theory, and has played a role in thwarting numerous attacks, particularly in the post-9/11 era, in which it has become increasingly important. Whilst this does raise questions about privacy, it does show the benefits of co-operating with our Anglosphere allies above our friends on the continent. European intelligence is notoriously leaky, but there are calls for a greater push towards unifying the continent's operations. This poses a direct threat to our involvement in the Five Eyes program, as Washington would be loathe to share information that was at risk of being exposed. Indeed, American intelligence services already see Europol as a liability and regard it as suspect.

So there are questions about what threats continued EU membership poses to our security. Not just on the ramifications of being part of more integrated intelligence and military operations, but also on being party to the consequences of the EU's approach to foreign policy. No-one is excusing Putin's actions in the Crimea, but there is no doubt the EU's expansionist ambitions towards Ukraine inflamed tensions with Russia. Furthermore, the migrant crisis, and the EU's haphazard attempts to deal with it, have exposed some of the problems with free movement across the continent. Whilst the only politically expedient route out of the EU - EEA via EFTA membership - maintains freedom of movement, it does give us access to the EEA's emergency brake, meaning there is a mechanism of dealing with the security threats of mass immigration currently unavailable to us. Were the migrant crisis to flare up again with ISIS looking to take advantage of that, the 'Norway option' does provide us with the tools to respond to such a threat.

So in conclusion, just as leaving the EU does not mean an end to trade with Europe, nor does it mean ceasing co-operation with our allies against external threats. Indeed our current strongest defences are borne out of non-EU alliances and with the greater push towards federalisation, it is voting to stay that offers the greater uncertainty about the future of our national security. The greater threats posed by mass immigration can be mitigated by taking the EEA route out of the EU and utilising that option's emergency brake, and the need to quell any talk of the UK abandoning it's responsibilities in the event of a Brexit vote could well have a galvanising effect on British defence. Leaving EU political union gives us no reason to fear for our national security.

The Government's EU Leaflet Dissected.

I finally received the Government's pro-EU leaflet today (our delivery was postponed here in Wales so as not to interfere with the Welsh Assembly elections). I've already admonished the sending of this leaflet, but this post will take a look at each of it's claims. I must admit that the earlier description of this pamphlet as propaganda may have been somewhat hyperbolic but having read it, it's actually spot on. It's entirely one sided and is often more notable for the information it omits, rather than that which it claims to provide. Regardless, let's get started:

Page 1 - An important decision for the UK

"On Thursday, 23rd June there will be a referendum. It's your opportunity to decide if the UK remains in the European Union (EU).

It's a big decision. One that will affect you, your family and your children for decades to come. 

The UK has secured a special status in a reformed EU:

- we will not join the euro

-we will keep our own border controls

- the UK will not be part of further European political integration

- there will be tough new restrictions on access to our welfare system for new EU migrants

- we have a commitment to reduce EU red tape

The Government believes the UK should remain in the EU.

This leaflet sets out the facts, and explains why the Government believes a vote to remain in the EU is in the best interests of the people of the UK. It shows some of the choices the UK would face if there were a vote to leave.

If you would like further information, please visit the Government's EU referendum website at EUReferendum.gov.uk"

It starts off well, each of the 4 opening sentences are entirely factually accurate. Sentence 5 however is where it starts to fall down. The myth of the UK's 'special status in a reformed EU' is presumably based on Cameron's renegotiation, though it's curious that this renegotiation isn't mentioned specifically anywhere within this leaflet. Cameron's renegotiation goal was pitiful in scope, and the PM achieved even less than that. What meagre reforms he did manage to get an agreement on, have yet to come into effect and - despite lying to parliament about it - are not legally binding. 

The UK not joining the euro is a given. That's an option that we've had since the Maastricht Treaty in 1992, and despite some Europhiles thinking, inexplicably, that it would still be in our long term interests to join at some point, a political party's chances of getting the support of the electorate with that on their manifesto are akin to a cat's chances on the River Styx.

We do indeed keep our border controls, but this in no way exempts us from the freedom of movement that is a necessary part of our EU membership. It's technically true, but is clever wording, omits the fact we're still subject to freedom of movement laws, and is pure spin. A reoccurring theme throughout this pamphlet.

I'm not entirely sure what the claim that the UK will not be part of further integration is based on. Again, it could be alluding to Cameron's claim to have secured an opt-out of 'ever closer union' during his renegotiation, but as these 'reforms' are not legally binding, and amount to nothing more than the tweaking of some wording anyway, it's an entirely fatuous claim. Similarly the 'tough new restrictions' on migrant welfare claims are dependant on the sham renegotiations, and the commitment to reduce red tape is something the EU has been saying it will do for years and yet hasn't managed to do so.

The claim that this leaflet sets out the facts is as accurate as a claim, were it to make one, that it is in fact a banana.




Page 2 - A stronger economy

"The EU is by far the UK's biggest trading partner. EU countries buy 44% of everything we sell abroad, from cars to insurance. Remaining inside the EU guarantees our full access to it's single market. By contrast, leaving creates uncertainty and risk.

The EU's Single Market has over 500 million customers and an economy over five times bigger than the UK's. The Single Market makes it easier and cheaper for UK companies t sell their products outside the UK, creating jobs as a result.

Being inside the EU also makes it more attractive for companies to invest in the UK, meaning more jobs. Over the last decade, foreign companies have invested £540 billion in the UK, equivalent to £148 million every day."

This section, like every argument about the economy when it comes to our EU membership, wrongly conflates that membership with access to the Single Market. It is not necessary to be a member of the EU in order to have access to that market, which runs from non-EU Iceland to non-EU Turkey, encompassing every European country bar Belarus and Russia.

It's true that 44% of our exports go to the EU. It's also true that ten years ago this was 55%. Our exports to the EU are declining whilst our exports to the rest of the world are growing, though of course the leaflet neglects to mention this fact. This is precisely why, in a time when globalisation is only increasing, we should leave the EU and rejoin the top tables of world trade. Shackled as we are to the EU's declining share of global commerce, we cannot fully engage on the world stage where our economic growth will come from. I've already expanded on this point in a previous post.

Maintaining access to the Single Market whilst freeing ourselves up to pursue trade agreements elsewhere means that that £540 billion of foreign investment could increase exponentially. This is why I, and many others, advocate the EEA via EFTA exit route, genuinely affording us the best of both worlds.

Page 3 - Improving our lives

"Cost of living

If the UK voted to leave the EU, the resulting economic shock would put pressure on the value of the pound, which would risk higher prices of some household goods and damage living standards.

Losing our full access to the EU's Single Market would make exporting to Europe harder and increase costs.

Travel abroad

Millions of UK citizens travel to Europe each year. The EU has made this easier and cheaper.

EU reforms in the 1990s have resulted in a drop in fares of over 40% for lower cost flights.

From next year, mobile phone roaming charges will be abolished across the EU, saving UK customers up to 38p per minute on calls.

EU membership also gives UK citizens travelling in other European countries the right to access free or cheaper public healthcare.

Some argue little would change if we left the EU. But there are no guarantees UK customers would keep these benefits if we left."

Once again, the leaflet conflates EU membership with access to the single market, leaving the EU using the Norway model as an interim measure negates any possibility of economic shock. Though were there a weakening of the pound this would make UK exports more attractive thus somewhat negating the 'harder to trade outside' argument. As for the higher prices of household items, this is pure speculation again. What isn't speculation is that, thanks to the Common Agricultural Policy, food prices within the EU are roughly 17% higher than they otherwise would be under market conditions. The EU is not just a free trade area but a protectionist customs union. The high tariffs it places on imports from outside the market, keep African farmers (for example) from exporting their produce to Europe at a competitive rate, keeping them impoverished and our food prices higher.

It's true that the EU has made it easier to travel between the continent's various nations, though there is no need to be in political union in order to achieve this. Visa-free arrangements between nations have existed for far longer than the EU has and there is no reason why, outside the EU, we could not seek similar arrangements with our allies across the world. Some have even speculated on a free trade area with free movement in the Anglosphere.

The reduction in flight costs across the continent is down to the Single European Sky initiative, which includes the 28 EU nations as well as non-EU members such as Norway and Switzerland, and is also observed by other nations such as Egypt, Tunisia and Albania. The suggestion that leaving the EU means a hike in air fare then, is nonsense.

As I discussed in an earlier blog post, the removal of mobile roaming charges is down to global initiatives instigated by the International Telephone Users Group and the OECD, not the EU. Far from an argument for continued EU membership, the fact that such regulations are being increasingly made at a global level indicates the importance of our leaving in order to shape these regulations at the top tables before they are implemented by the EU. Furthermore, these being global regulations means that these benefits are indeed guaranteed in the event of a Leave vote.

The European Health Insurance card actually doesn't offer as many benefits as traditional travel insurance, and anyone who has been on holiday to a non-EU country knows that getting such insurance isn't quite as taxing as performing cranial surgery. Though once again, the EEA/EFTA option keeps this benefit in place.

Page 4 - What happens if we leave?

"Voting to leave the EU would create years of uncertainty and potential economic disruption. This would reduce investment and cost jobs.

The Government judges it could result in 10 years or more of uncertainty as the UK unpicks our relationship with the EU and renegotiates new arrangements with the EU and over 50 other countries around the world.

Some argue that we could strike a good deal quickly with the EU because they want to keep access to our market.

But the Government's judgement is that it would be much harder than that - less than 8% of EU exports come to the UK while 44% of UK exports go to the EU.

No other country has managed to secure significant access to the Single Market, without having to:

- follow EU rules over which they have no real say

- pay into the EU

- accept EU citizens living and working in their country

A more limited trade deal with the EU would give the UK less access to the Single Market than we have now - including for services, which make up almost 80% of the UK economy. For example, Canada's deal with the EU will give limited access for services, it has so far been seven years in the making and is still not in force."

As I've already stated, leaving the EU via the EFTA/EEA route eliminates any uncertainty and 'potential' economic disruption. Though it's worth mentioning that Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty states that any member state leaving the union enters a period of negotiation lasting two years. So where the Government has pulled the '10 years (of uncertainty) or more' from I confess I haven't the foggiest of ideas. Any negotiations post-Brexit would need to be completed as quickly as possible to minimise any economic disruption, both to the UK and to the EU. The eurozone is still pretty much stagnant, whilst the UK economy is growing so both sides will be keen to minimise any economic disruption caused by Brexit. This incidentally, is another argument in favour of the Flexcit model.

The leaflet tries to downplay the importance of the UK to the European economy by contrasting the 44% of UK exports (down from 55% a decade ago you'll recall) to the 8% of EU exports to the UK. That 8% that the Government so summarily dismisses is equivalent to somewhere in the region of £60 billion a year. With Greece crippled and in danger of losing it's debt relief, and Italy on it's knees, the EU cannot afford to take a hit of that size by engaging in a trade war with a post-Brexit UK. Both sides will want to secure trade arrangements quickly, regardless of the figures involved.

The text in bold is an attempt to refute the so-called 'Norway option' that I've advocated elsewhere in this post, however it is again misleading due to it's omission of crucial information. The claim of having no say over the rules of the single market in this instance is entirely false. Norway does in fact have input into the rules and regulations of the EEA, but this is increasingly inconsequential. EU regulations are increasingly decided by global trading bodies that Norway has access to. The UK is subject to EU collectivism at these top tables of global trade and so ultimately has less say over the rules. There is an emerging global Single Market in which the EU is an increasingly redundant middleman. We should be taking a lead role in the formation of these regulations, not having our influence undermined by the EU.

Of course, it's worth mentioning that Norway actually only adopts 9% of EU legislation, according to the EFTA Secretariat. For non-EU, single market accessing Switzerland it's precisely 0%. They have to abide by those regulations when exporting to the EU of course, just as they must abide by Indian regulations when exporting to India, yet not having a say over those rules doesn't stop it being the Swiss' second largest export market after Germany.

Norway does not, as the leaflet claims, 'pay into the EU'. It does participate in various EU schemes voluntarily which it pays into, as any intergovernmental scheme would require. However, this is more likely a false conflation of the EEA grants to which Norway is a party, with the UK's own EU membership fee. This money does not go to the EU. You can read more about it here.

Finally on this section, the Government implies that there is a Single Market for services, which there isn't, and then goes on to say that Canada's deal with the EU has limited access for services despite not yet being in effect after seven years of negotiations. Why the failure to secure a comprehensive trade agreement after seven years is an argument for EU membership I haven't the faintest idea.




Page 5 - Controlling immigration and securing our borders

"Securing our borders

The UK is not part of the EU's border-free zone - we control our own borders which gives us the right to check everyone, including EU nationals, arriving from continental Europe.

Immigration

The Government has negotiated a deal that will make our benefits system less of a draw for EU citizens. In future, new EU migrants will not have full access to certain benefits until they have worked here for up to four years. The Government will have greater powers to take action where there is abuse of our immigration system.

Some argue that leaving the EU would give us more freedom to limit immigration. But in return for the economic benefits of access to the EU's Single Market, non-EU countries - such as Norway - have had to accept the right of all EU citizens to live and work in their country.

Keeping us safer

EU membership means UK police can use law enforcement intelligence from 27 EU countries, and will have access to fingerprint and DNA information.

EU cooperation makes it easier to keep criminals and terrorists out of the UK. Since 2004, using the European Arrest Warrant, over 1,000 suspects have faced justice in UK courts and over 7,000 have been extradited."

Again the Government asserts that we control our own borders meaning we have the right to check everyone who arrives, which is true, but doesn't state that we have no right to refuse any EU nationals entry, as is the case.

I've already covered how the Government's renegotiation is a sham and not legally binding so I won't flog that particular deceased equine any more. What can be said however, is that the restriction to in work benefits for EU migrants is such a minor issue that I genuinely can't think of single person, including the most Kippery of Ukippers mentioning it before Cameron made it the flagship goal of his pitiful new deal. As has been well documented, immigration into this country, leaving aside the social aspects for the moment, has been of huge benefit. Migrants take out far less than they put into the system. Moreover, the stronger UK economy and (now even higher) minimum wage act as infinitely stronger pull factors than any in-work benefits migrants may or may not be eligible for. What the 'greater powers to take action where there is abuse of our immigration system' are, I'll be damned if I know. It takes the, hotly contested title, of most unqualified statement within the leaflet.

The European Arrest Warrant is a spectacularly illiberal piece of legislation, allowing for the deportation and imprisonment of citizens without due process. Take the story of Andrew Symeou for example, wrongly extradited to Greece on suspicion of murder to spend a year in a maximum security prison before being cleared of all charges. You can read a more detailed explanation of the problems with the EAW here. Moreover, this fails to acknowledge the role Interpol plays in the cross-border policing of crime. There's also a conspicuous absence of any mention of cross border intelligence sharing. This is presumably due to the ineffectiveness of  the EU's own intelligence service, and the important role that non-EU institutions such as the Five Eyes intelligence sharing service has played in countering international terrorism. There's also no mention of the role NATO has played in securing peace on the continent, something else often falsely attributed to the EU. The EU's freedom of movement rules have also been criticised for facilitating terrorism on the continent.

Page 6 - The benefits of EU membership

"The UK is part of the EU, a group of 28 countries which exists to promote economic security, peace and stability. The EU operates as a single, free-trading market, without taxes between borders.

The UK has secured a special status in the EU. The UK has kept the pound, will not join the euro and has kept control of UK borders. We have ensured that no UK powers can be transferred to the EU in the future without a referendum. The UK will keep full access to the Single Market, with a say on its rules. For every £1 paid in tax, a little over 1p goes to the EU. The Government judges that what the UK gets back in opportunities, job creation and economic security from EU membership far outweighs the cost.

Opportunities for you and your children

EU membership means you and your family have the right to live, work or study abroad in any of the 27 other member countries. It also guarantees many employment rights.

The UK as a leading force in the world

The UK is a strong, independent nation. Our EU membership magnifies the UK's ability to get its way on the issues we care about. EU action helped prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons; and the EU is leading the world on tackling climate change."

Once again we are given the 'special status' myth as well as the disingenuous statement of controlling our borders. We have indeed kept the pound, going against the advice of many of the same people who are currently advocating for our continued EU membership. As I've mentioned, taking the EFTA/EEA route out of the EU ensures we maintain full access to the single market, giving us a say over EEA rules, a right of reservation on the implementation of those rules, and crucially, a say in the formation of those rules at the global level before the EU sets about implementing them. As for cost Norway's EEA grants and so on amount to £134 per head per annum. The UK figure is £252, meaning the EFTA/EEA route offers the same benefits whilst potentially offering a substantial saving in fees. The freedom of movement of UK citizens would also be maintained by the Flexit model. 

Employment rights, like many, many others, are guaranteed by a plethora of ILO conventions to which the UK is a signatory. This is yet another example of regulations being made at the global, not EU, level.

The UK is indeed a strong nation, we're the 5th largest economy in the world, the 4th military power, a member of the G7 and G20, a member of NATO, a nuclear power, and one of 5 permanent seat holders on the UN Security Council. It is because of this strength that those who wish for us to leave the EU believe we will be more than capable of conducting ourselves satisfactorily on the world stage. The assertion that we are currently independent though, would be hilarious if it weren't so risible. The fact Cameron had to go around Europe with a begging bowl in an attempt to secure his measly reforms puts that idea to bed. We have outsourced our trade policy to the European Commission and, far from having our influence magnified, are increasingly marginalised at the global level because of that.

Page 7 - A once in a generation decision

"The referendum on Thursday, 23rd June is your chance to decide if we should remain in or leave the European Union.

The Government believes it is in the best interests of the UK to remain in the EU.

This is the way to protect jobs, provide security, and strengthen the UK's economy for every family in this country - a clear path into the future, in contrast to the uncertainty of leaving.

This is your decision. The Government will implement what you decide.

If you're aged 18 or over by 23rd June and are entitled to vote, this is your chance to decide.

Registration ends on 7th June. Find out how to register at Aboutmyvote.co.uk and register online at Gov.uk/register-to-vote"

The Eurozone is stagnating and if Greece and Italy's woes continue, could well be plunged back into recession. Schengen, the migrant crisis, and the spread of ISIS has rendered Europe less secure than it has been in decades. The UK economy is best strengthened by turning our heads towards emerging global markets rather than remaining fixated on an economy that is the same size now as it was in 2006. There is indeed a clear path into the future of our EU membership, as set out in the Five President's report. This report sets the tone for the next stage of EU integration, aiming for "deeper integration of national labour markets", "coordination of social security systems", and harmonising "insolvency law", "company law" and "property rights". Despite being rubbished as a 'dangerous fantasy' by Nick Clegg just two years ago, there are now open calls for a combined EU army and foreign policy. A vote to remain is not a vote for the status quo but to continue along the path of further political integration. The UK will be much better served by forging her own path, co-operating with her neighbours and allies on the continent, but not bound to the goal of a federal Europe. Remaining is the far riskier option.