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.

Does Brexit really mean leaving the single market?

This article originally appeared on United Politics on 05/12/2016

“Brexit means Brexit.” If there’s one soundbite that exemplifies Theresa May’s premiership thus far it’s that. Once a reassuring riposte to those that seek to subvert our democracy by ignoring the referendum result, or in true EU fashion, making us vote again until we get the ‘right’ answer, it has quickly become a source of frustration. Yes, Brexit must mean Brexit, but what exactly does that entail, besides an increasingly infuriating ouroborus-like argument?

Different leave voters checked that particular box for varying reasons, and varying priorities. Although Brexit does indeed mean different things to different people, there are a few broad areas almost all Brexiteers agree on. We wish to repatriate our trade policy and regain the freedom to strike trade deals with whomever may want one. We wish to see an end to the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice over UK affairs. We wish to have far greater control over immigration than we currently enjoy, and we wish to see an end to obligatory EU budget contributions.

The main point of contention it seems is whether or not we can achieve these various goals by remaining in the single market, otherwise known as the European Economic Area (EEA). This debate is an incredibly important one and has been completely undermined by an unholy combination of hard-headed Brexiteers, Remainers in denial, and clueless politicians.

One point of confusion is the difference between the EEA and the customs union. Far too many politicians and commentators are either wilfully conflating the two or are completely unaware of the differences, or even who is involved in each one.

It’s now been five months since the referendum result, and over a year and a half since the Tories won the general election thus ensuring that a referendum was coming. Despite this, only last week the Guardian has incorrectly reported that Switzerland is a member of the EEA and the BBC erroneously asserted that members of the single market cannot strike their own trade deals. It is no wonder confusion is the order of the day when our media is so woefully uninformed.

Switzerland of course, whilst a member of the European Free Trade Area (EFTA) is not a member of the EEA, and instead has a series of bilateral trade deals with the EU. Meanwhile the remaining EFTA members, Norway, Iceland, and Lichtenstein, are also members of the EEA, yet remain outside the customs union. This gives them maneuverability in pursuing their own trade agreements with the rest of the world.

There is an assumption amongst some politicians that remaining in the customs union is essential to ensure that barriers to trade and customs checks are not erected between the UK and the EU. This too is wrong. The customs union, following the signing of the Treaty of Rome was fully established by 1968, yet internal border checks between member states were still commonplace until the 1980s.

It was the establishment of the single market, and the signing of the Single European Act in 1985, that eliminated these internal border checks, and thus continued EEA membership, not participation in the customs union, is what ensures smooth trade post-brexit.

Furthermore, it is not the customs union that limits our ability to pursue our own trade deals, but rather the EU’s common commercial policy. It is possible to remain in the former and outside the latter, as these areas are covered separately in the Treaty of the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) by Articles 28 and 206/207 respectively, and therefore not reliant on each other.

Turkey of course has an arrangement of this nature, participating in the customs union whilst remaining outside the EU, and having the freedom to pursue it’s own trading arrangements with third parties. Rules Of Origin regulations mean that the duty is collected once the goods move to another member of the customs union.

But this scenario, post-Brexit, would merely serve to add further complications when negotiating trade deals elsewhere. With internal customs checks covered by the single market, there is no discernible advantage to remaining in the customs union, so leaving it must be a part of Brexit.

Turning to the EEA, much of the misinformation can ironically be traced back to Remain advocates trashing this option prior to the referendum. It was commonplace to hear Remainers, including David Cameron, preface their economic doom-mongering with ‘if we leave the single market…’. It was a cunning strawman argument, and a key part of Project Fear, but ultimately irrelevant.

The false conflation of the EU and EEA was the most erroneous aspect of the entire campaign and anyone who did so was rarely pulled up on it. This dishonesty (as well as the voices seeking to usurp the result) has of course now come back to haunt them as they try to make the case for continued membership of the EEA.

Given that the EEA agreement, to which the UK is a signatory, is separate from the EU treaties, it is entirely possible that even if we reached the end of Article 50 negotiations with no deal, we would still remain members of the EEA. Withdrawal could require the separate triggering of Article 127 of the EEA agreement, which can only be done unilaterally. There is no precedent for a country remaining a member of the EEA whilst not also a member of either EFTA or the EU, but it nevertheless remains somewhat of a legal grey area.

These issues would be best overcome by the UK applying to rejoin EFTA. Whilst a contracting party to the EEA agreement moving from the EU side of the two pillar structure to the EFTA side has yet to be done, Austria, Finland, and Sweden all moved in the opposite direction without the need to reapply to join the EEA. The UK could easily pull the same trick in reverse, assuming the other EFTA states were on board. We should be exploring this alongside Article 50 negotiations, and fortunately there has already been some encouragement from the other members.

On a related note, countries that have joined the EU do not automatically become members of the EEA. They must apply to the EEA to acquire contracting status and ratify the agreement accordingly. These differentiations alone technically means that leaving the EU doesn’t equate to leaving the EEA, but let’s explore it further.

Opposition to the EEA option is predicated, primarily, on the desire to limit immigration and the belief that this can’t be done whilst remaining a member. On the contrary, the precedent set by Lichtenstein demonstrates that members can have quantitative restrictions on freedom of movement whilst remaining party to the EEA agreement. By utilising the safeguard measures set out in Article 112, the principality has limited the number of migrants crossing it’s borders since it joined the EEA in 1995.

Moreover Iceland utilised the same safeguard measures in the wake of the 2008 financial crash to restrict the flow of capital. These instances give lie to the notion that the ‘four freedoms’ are non-negotiable, despite what Merkel and EU officials may assert.

Similarly, remaining in the EEA does not mean continued subordination to the ECJ. As the EFTA site points out: “the EEA EFTA States have not transferred any legislative competencies to the EEA institutions and they are unable, constitutionally, to accept direct decisions by the Commission or the European Court of Justice.” This could not be clearer and should be proof that EEA membership is perfectly compatible with the re-establishing of British sovereignty, the number one issue for Leave voters.

What’s more, arbitration for EEA/EFTA states is conducted by the EFTA Court, and unlike the ECJ, it’s rulings are advisory rather than binding, given the UK further flexibility when it comes to single market regulations.

The EFTA site also describes how EEA/EFTA states take decisions relating to EEA legislation by consensus, rather than by majority vote as in the EU, meaning the UK could have a greater say over single market regulations than it currently does, enjoying a de-facto veto at the EEA Joint Committee.

Coupled with regaining an independent voice and veto on global regulatory bodies such as the WTO, UNECE, Codex Alimentarius and a whole host of other industry specific institutions from which the EU increasingly takes it’s cues, the threat of having no say over the rules is an empty one.

This just leaves the matter of budgetary contributions. As well as having no say in the rules, it was often claimed by advocates of the EU that Norway still paid into the EU budget. Like the ‘no say’ assertion, the ‘still pay’ one is also wildly inaccurate.

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. There are also the EEA grants, for which Norway currently provides 95% of the funding. Crucially, not a cent of these grants goes into EU coffers.

Norway does participate in several EU programmes, including Horizon 2020 and the Erasmus research programmes, and pays towards the specific budgets for these programmes. These costs though are essentially for services rendered, and nor is the funding one way.

A thorough breakdown of what Norway contributes, and what similar arrangements for the UK would be, can be found here, but scaled up, total UK expenditure with relation to single market participation would equate to around £8billion. This is still a substantial haircut on the £13bn we paid last year.

Hard Brexiteers may cry foul at this, but participation in any market does not come free.
Customs co-operation costs money and the various decentralised agencies that facilitate the free movement of goods across our continent and with our closest neighbours are essential. Any money saved by extracting ourselves from those arrangements would have to be spent on duplicating them here, as well as beefing up our own border and customs controls. This is as nonsensical as it is inefficient.

The point that the likes of Canada don’t pay for access to the market is also a red herring as they do not co-operate in these customs agencies. Both the US and Canada both spend huge amounts of money on customs co-operation with each other to smooth the movement of goods across their border. This is for exactly the same reason the EU does.

Article 50 gives us two years in which to negotiate our withdrawal settlement from the EU. Given the vast complications that have arisen after 40 years of political and economic integration, a bespoke deal cannot be constructed within that time frame. This is why an interim option, maintaining single market membership for the time being, is a sensible one.

The reticence from some Brexiteers for this option is based upon the fear that there would be attempts to keep us in the EU via the back door, rejoining fully further down the line. The egregious attempts to subvert the largest vote for anything in British history is incredibly troubling. The little faith the public has in it’s politicians, and politics in general, would be wiped out with lord knows what consequences, were the likes of David Lammy successful.

This is why we should have a longer term plan, perhaps based on the Swiss model, for our relations with the EU. The beauty of the EEA option is that it gives us the time and breathing room to evolve our position, whilst freeing us up to pursue trade with the rest of the world, reducing our budget contributions and repatriating multiple policy areas including home affairs, employment, justice, foreign, and defence, as well as ditching the appalling Common Agricultural and Common Fisheries policies, ditching ECJ jurisdiction in the process.

The main goals of Brexiteers of all stripes can be achieved whilst remaining in the single market. The confusion stems from the repeated false conflation of the EU and EEA during the referendum campaign by Remainers.

Those that called that nonsense out at the time, now find themselves making the exact same arguments to Brexiteers who are rightly sceptical. They see the same dishonest people who wanted us to remain in the EU, now make similar statements about leaving the single market, against a backdrop of anti-democratic MPs, commentators, petitions and demonstrations calling for the decision to be overturned.

But provided Theresa May’s government continues to honour the referendum decision, we can trigger article 50, leave the EU, and take back control whilst still remaining party to the EEA agreement. Leavers should not characterise this as a betrayal, but as proof positive that Project Fear’s central tenant – that the EU and the single market were one and the same – was as false as they always claimed it was.

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.

Remainers are paying the price for their dishonesty in the campaign

In the weeks and months following the vote to leave the European Union, much of the debate has centred around precisely what form Brexit will take. The lack of an official Leave plan, coupled with Cameron's arrogance in refusing to lay any groundwork for the eventuality of a Leave vote, means the nature of our withdrawal is still very much up in the air.

Most of this centres around whether or not the UK should remain a member of the EEA, otherwise known as the single market. As I and many others argued relentlessly during the referendum campaign, the EU and the single market are not the same thing, which is precisely why all the protestations of economic doom that the Remain side propagated were a nonsense. From Twitter's echo chamber, to newspaper commentators, right up to the Prime Minister himself, the false conflation of the EU with the single market was one of, if not the, most erroneous facet of the campaign.

Now it seems those chickens have come home to roost. So called 'soft-leavers' such as myself, who see a transitional EEA or 'Norway' style arrangement as a safe, economically neutral means of extracting ourselves from political union with Europe, now find ourselves on the same side as the likes of Nick Clegg and Nicola Sturgeon in arguing for continued single market membership. This is not a good thing. 

Had the Remain side forgone the temptation to depict leaving the European Union as an act of economic self-harm, instead focusing on the arguments predicated upon political union, then now, in the aftermath of a leave vote, they could credibly argue along with liberal leavers, that ok, we shall leave political union, but there is a strong economic case for maintaining single market membership in the short to medium term. 

Ironically, this is far and away the most popular version of Brexit too. A pre-referendum poll had a clear 57% of voters, including 79% of Remainers and 42% of Leavers, backing a Norway style arrangement. Moreover, maintaining current trading arrangements over restricting free movement is the majority opinion too, with a ComRes poll this past week showing a preference for securing trade deals over cutting immigration by 49% to 39%.

This is, as it happens, a false dichotomy. The EEA Agreement contains provisions that can be utilised to curb freedom of movement, giving lie to the need to choose one or the other. Ironically, many leavers now find themselves making this case in order to counter Remainers, our new PM amongst them, who believe their own rhetoric and have taken the Brexit vote as a vote entirely against immigration. Vociferous Kippers aside, this simply isn't the case.

Given the overwhelming support for continued single market membership, this should be an easy case to make. However, the calls by some MPs and commentators to ignore the referendum result entirely and stay in the EU, has meant that the public is sceptical of any arguments from former Remainers to stay in the single market, seeing it as an underhanded attempt to maintain EU membership by the back door. 


Their dishonesty in the campaign has trashed their credibility, regardless of whether their arguments about the UK's continued EEA membership have any merit. As a result, they now fight an uphill battle, and liberal leavers find their cogent arguments weighed down by the baggage of their former adversary's deceit. 

The 'March for Europe' is a march against democracy

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

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

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

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

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

Eurogeddon is cancelled

It has been less than 48 hours since the result of the referendum came in and already Project Fear has been shown to be the ludicrous fear-mongering exercise it was. When the initial result came in, there was an inevitable drop in the value of sterling and a plunge in the markets. This was entirely expected, especially as the markets had been betting on the opposite result so a dramatic correction was inevitable. But despite the cries of doom and 'we told you so' from Remainers (who should have realised that assessing the economic impact of Brexit three hours after the referendum result was a little premature) this state of affairs did not last the day. Sterling rallied to around the same level as it was trading at in February, and the FTSE, despite hitting depths not seen since, err, Tuesday afternoon, closed 2.4% up and recorded it's strongest weekly result in 4 months. Moreover, the Government can now borrow at historically low rates, just 1.08% for 10 years and at under 2% for 30 years. Hardly the Black Friday George Soros was predicting. In the banking sector HSBC chairman Douglas Flint said the bank's "commitment to British businesses, customers and staff in the UK remains undiminished" and a JP Morgan highlighted that they "will continue to serve our clients as usual, and our operating model in the UK remains the same."

But it wasn't just in the financial markets where Eurogeddon failed to materialise. Aston Martin reaffirmed it's commitment to a £200 million investment in a plant in Wales. The CBI, despite it's prophecies of doom going into the referendum, suddenly proclaimed that UK businesses are "used to dealing with challenge and change and we should be confident they will adapt." Barack Obama also pirouetted against his 'back of the queue' comments a few months ago, saying in a statement that: "The special relationship between the United States and the United Kingdom is enduring, and the United Kingdom’s membership in NATO remains a vital cornerstone of US foreign, security, and economic policy.” NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg said "the UK will remain a strong and committed Nato ally, and will continue to play its leading role in our alliance", a position reiterated by our own defence secretary who reassured our partners that Britain would not be "withdrawing from the world."

The sentiment expressed by Obama was echoed by the US state department; "Nothing’s going to change about the deep and abiding relationship we have with the UK, which is a special relationship”, Hillary Clinton, and the GOP who said: "Our friends in the United Kingdom are our indispensable ally, and this is a very special relationship, and that relationship is going to continue no matter what. Period, end of story."

It wasn't just the Americans reaffirming their desire for co-operation. The Canadian President Justin Trudeau issued a statement saying: "The UK and the EU are important strategic partners for Canada with whom we enjoy deep historical ties and common values. We will continue to build relations with both parties as they forge a new relationship." Closer to home, Angela Merkel stressed that "the negotiations must take place in a businesslike, good climate. Britain will remain a close partner, with which we are linked economically", and French President Francois Hollande, describing Britain as a "great, friendly country" in a televised statement, reiterated our historical ties, and confirmed our close relationship, particularly in defence, would be preserved. Paris also reiterated that there would be no changes to the arrangement regarding Calais. Italy's foreign minister Paolo Gentiloni said: "Great Britain will certainly remain our friend and our ally in NATO."

As for trade, German newspaper Die Welt cited a finance ministry paper, and detailed how Germany should offer Britain "constructive exit negotiations" aimed at making the UK an "associated partner country." The German foreign minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier also urged a positive outlook saying: "We have to accept the decision that was made, and not go looking for revenge." The WTO also offered their support with the director general tweeting: "The WTO stands ready to work with the UK and the EU to assist them in any way we can." The Icelandic government is apparently already discussing the possibility of a trade deal with the UK, and will raise the issue with EFTA. Tellingly the country's President Ólafur Ragnar Grímsson discussed in a statement the renewed importance the EEA would have, paving the way for the UK to join them. "Iceland and Norway will now, in a totally new way, become participants in negotiations that must take place between the European Union and the United Kingdom, and the European Union and member states of the European Economic Area with this new triangle of countries in the North Atlantic. Our significance with regards to relations with our neighbours as well as the member states of the EU has undergone positive changes.”

So, just as I and every other person on the Leave side were saying beforehand, we will of course continue to work with our friends and allies across the globe. Leaving political and judicial union with Europe does not mean an end to trade and co-operation, and nor does it mean isolation and withdrawal. The economy will stabilise and will continue to grow, especially once Article 50 negotiations are concluded and a deal is struck (watch Sterling skyrocket when that deal is announced, especially if it's the EEA deal that will maintain full single market access). The campaign, and the rhetoric, is over. Political realities have set in. Life continues, as do our relationships, and we set off on the long road to our departure from the EU. We will leave the same way we went in, gradually and in stages, and the turmoil that Stronger In predicted will fail to materialise. Like every apocalypse, reality never correlates with the prophecy.

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.