Time to admit defeat on Freedom of Movement

With Jeremy Corbyn having called for the Labour Party to reject full membership of the Single Market, and with the Brexit negotiations bogged down over the border with Ireland, now would be a good time to rethink Theresa May's red lines, especially Freedom of Movement. 

Although Freedom of Movement is deeply disliked by some, that dislike is certainly not universal across the entire Leave movement. For some who voted leave, especially Liberal Leavers, it just isn’t an issue at all. 

There would, therefore, be widespread support for the compromise of staying in the Single Market, especially as a medium term transition measure. Perhaps the UK should commit to stay within the Single Market for a period of 10 years.

This would have a number of benefits:

• it ought to resolve the border issue with the Republic of Ireland;
• it would help to heal the divide between leavers and remainers; admittedly, not many would be happy exactly, but at least both sides would see that the other was equally unhappy;
• it provide an opportunity to make a start on trade deals with the rest of the world, even if those deals wouldn’t be as comprehensive as they would if the UK had the freedom to control its own regulations;
• it would allow time to make other geopolitical allies: in particular, the forging of closer relations with other CANZUK countries (CANZUK freedom of movement really should be a priority once a Brexit deal has been resolved);
• it would reduce the scope of a potential future Corbynite government to wreck the economy;
• it would simplify everything enormously, providing the Government with bandwidth to devote to other things;
• the economy would likely take off, perhaps boom even, providing the Government with additional income it could devote to sorting out the deficit and address other pressing concerns, such as housing.

In the longer term, other EU countries are also expressing concern with Freedom of Movement. It is not inconceivable that there might be reforms in the future.

Now, I am no fan of the Single Market. I believe that it benefits large corporate organisations at the expense of smaller ones, and thus stifles innovation. Leaving the Single Market comes at considerable economic cost, however. There would be benefits in the long term, but it would take a very long time to recover from the losses of withdrawal. And that is without taking the risks of the enormous economic damage that would ensue from a Corbynite government.

But if even I can see the advantages of staying within the Single Market, why can't the Government? 

A Different Angle on No Deal versus a Bad Deal

Is there anything about the Brexit negotiations that gets people's backs up so much as the suggestion from anyone remotely connected to the UK government that it would be better not to have a deal at all than to have a bad deal?

And yet how many people have considered the possibility that that might be pretty much the EU's own negotiating position?

The situation prior to the referendum was actually not far from being optimal for the EU: ok, the UK wasn't in the Eurozone nor part of Schengen, but there was substantial trade balance in favour of EU27 countries, the UK provided a large number of employment opportunities for EU citizens, with remittances to support families left behind in the countries of origin, and what's more the UK paid handsomely for the privilege of being in the EU.

From the EU's point of view, therefore, any change is to the EU's detriment, so that is why Brexit cannot be a success.

No-one can argue that the EU position has been anything other than consistent and clear from the outset: in order to get any sort of deal, the UK will have to settle its accounts according to the EU's own interpretation of what the UK's liabilities are, and the UK will have submit to the authority of the ECJ on citizen's rights.

The EU might calculate that the political situation in the UK means that there is only a small risk of such a deal being rejected, but even if the UK government summons the courage to do so, the EU would be reasonably happy to trade with the UK under WTO terms.  They anticipate that we will lower tariffs on 3rd party countries, allowing the EU to take advantage of MFN (most favoured nation) and TBT (technical barriers to trade) rules, without having any need to reciprocate itself. EU importers would have to start paying tariffs, but adjustments to the GBP to Euro exchange rate would likely cancel out most of the effects, and so the total cost of the goods to the EU customers will remain relatively unchanged, with the EU benefiting from the income from import taxes in the process.

The EU would accept reduced exports to the UK as a price worth paying to maintain the integrity of single market, and besides it would be another beneficial crisis to drive further EU integration. They know that there is always the possibility of a trade deal in the future, should circumstances take an unexpected turn, such as exports to the UK collapsing. And they can always blame the British for anything that goes wrong.

This leaves only 2 possible outcomes: No Deal, or acceptance of EU terms with a Norwegian-style arrangement, the latter being a personal humiliation not just for Theresa May, but also for David Davis and Boris Johnson. Those who say we should call the EU's bluff in order to get a better deal have missed the point: they are not bluffing. Looking at it in that light, the PM's Florence offer makes sense - if No Deal is to be a realistic option, the UK needs time to prepare.

You could say that the UK therefore has to do a cost-benefit analysis in order to work out whether it is worth paying the settlement to minimise medium-term disruption, but the trouble is, there are too many unknowns to take into account to be able to do so with any level of confidence.

In my view, the decision will therefore boil down to politics - which option is least likely to result in defeat for the Government at the next election? Safety-first at a substantial price, or a gamble that might pay off handsomely in the long term provided that the Marxists can be kept out of Downing Street?

Reflections one year after the EU Referendum

Below is taken from a tweet storm by Roland Smith, which he invited me to write up, me having expressed the hope that it would be published and read more widely — not that that’s going to be achieved by me publishing it on my own modest blog!

There was always one thing at the root of Euroscepticism: the democracy argument, that the connection between the Government and governed had been blurred. That argument is split into two:

(1) The EU’s existence and modus operandi neutered UK democracy by the direct effect of laws, and by majority voting. This first aspect of the democracy argument has been rehearsed at length many times. It focuses on the shortcomings of the EU itself.
(2) The second part of the democracy argument is that UK politics is itself at fault. It took us into EU and outsourced its functions; then didn’t renew the EU mandate, as became necessary at the time of Maastricht, Lisbon, and the years in between and beyond.

UK politics infantilised itself during this process, gradually descending into empty slogan politics and losing respect along the way. The pro-EU side in the UK, leading this descent, has constantly sold EU membership as something it isn’t: namely economic and transactional, playing down the EU’s influence and reach over years. “It’s only the size of the BBC or Scottish office; few laws come from there”.

Euroscepticism’s case that “we’ve been lied to for years about EU” is entirely valid, but it’s generally not the EU that did the lying. This second aspect of the democracy argument is rarely heard these days because Leave figureheads are themselves politicians, and because Leave politics has itself been drawn into the infantilisation process, led down by the Ukipification of British Euroscepticism.

So the EU Referendum was a battle of SW1 infants. But at least this was surfaced for all to see. The uselessness of SW1 is still illustrated daily.

Also revealed by the EU Referendum (as Remain Ultras ironically sneer) is how hugely integrated into the EU we’ve become, close to point of no exit. Euroscepticism’s longstanding case of being lied to, and the UK being massively integrated, is seemingly proven.

Meanwhile the Remain lobby still sing the old song of economics and a transactional relationship, quietly wondering why it isn’t working. And the relatively recently infantilised Leave movement just wants it all sorted NOW (as infants do) and without serious engagement.

‘Free movement’ is illustrative. The EU locks down a part of UK immigration debate BUT various UK Govts also failed to do what they can. In this sense, Farage has been Westminster’s useful idiot, putting the entire blame for uncontrolled immigration” on the EU.

So Voters in the general election sent an aggregated message to SW1 saying “A plague on all your houses”. And who can blame them?

What the election outcome demands is a more considered approach to Brexit from all parties. Yet they now seem incapable of stepping up.

The bottom line: the rot must be stopped the Government made fully accountable to the governed. That starts with Brexit — howsoever long it takes.

An Enlightened Party for Scotland?

I am not Scottish. I don't even (as far as I know, and I have traced most of my great-great grandparents) have any Scottish ancestors. I have only visited Scotland on a handful of occasions, and to be honest found it to be almost like a foreign country.

And yet for some mysterious reason I have found that I have a great deal of affinity for Scottish people - I have a number of Scottish friends, and a number of the writers I most admire are Scottish, such as Iain Martin, Fraser Nelson, and Graeme Archer, to name just a few. Indeed, during the Independence referendum campaign I became passionate in the cause of unionism, actively supporting my Facebook friends with by posting articles supporting a No vote (quite whether that was actually effective or not I have no idea!).

Ever since the Brexit referendum, however, I have become increasingly uneasy about Scottish Independence. As an ardent Brexiteer, how can I not have sympathy for those who seek self-determination? This is pretty much summed up by this article:

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2017/03/hypocrisy-pro-union-brexiteers/

Unfortunately, however, the sort of independence envisaged by the SNP is likely to be disastrous.

Perhaps what is needed is a new party to champion an enlightened form of Scottish Independence in opposition to the SNP.

My suggestions for policies to set it apart from the SNP would be:

• Free market economics and sound money
• Pro-Brexit
• Pro-CANZUK
• Close cooperation with England, especially on trade 
• Common UK defence, including nuclear deterrent

The free market economic policies would be tempered with Scottish social responsibility, along the lines of the views of the late Michael Novak, which are a natural development of the ideas of the great Scottish father of:economics, Adam Smith:

https://capx.co/the-capitalist-who-knew-capitalism-was-only-a-third-of-what-we-need/

An independent Scotland should seek a leadership position within any future CANZUK union: the Scots were after all at the forefront of the settling of Canada, Australia and New Zealand, and apparently more inhabitants of Canada self-identify as Scottish than do inhabitants of Scotland itself! What would be a more natural capital for a CANZUK union than Edinburgh?

These policies would not only allow independent Scotland to thrive, but also not diminish the rest of the UK.

A party based on this platform would draw inspiration from the great figures of the Scottish Enlightenment itself. Indeed - why not call it the Scottish Enlightenment Party?

The trouble is, though, as I said at the beginning, I am not Scottish: who is going to listen to me?

What Britain Wants: Globalism, Nationalism, Brexit & Grayson Perry

My cousin, who is strongly on the Remain side of the argument, suggested to me that we both take part in Grayson Perry's What Britain Wants project:

http://www.channel4.com/programmes/grayson-perrys-dream-house/articles/all/grayson-perry-what-britain-wants/5037

Grayson will be making 2 pots, one to represent the 52% who voted Leave, and the other, slightly smaller (presumbly 92.7% of the size of the Leave Pot), to represent the 48% who voted Remain. He is planning to put photos of people plus their opinions on the appropriate pot.

I was wondering what I would want to say, so first I want to take a step back an examine the issues afresh.

It is generally accepted that identity was a major factor in the way that people voted at the EU referendum, as outlined by Andrew Lilico:

http://reaction.life/world-needs-britain-today-ever/

Similarly, many of those who voted Remain did so based on their perception of their own identity: they saw themselves are enlightened cosmopolitan internationalists, and detested the thought of the UK retreating and pulling up the drawbridge; they particularly disliked Nigel Farage and his followers, and frankly who can blame them?

A more profound explanation of the basis of these identities can be found in the work of Professor Jonathan Haidt, who explains the divide between Globalism and Nationalism in a couple of excellent essays:

http://www.the-american-interest.com/2016/07/10/when-and-why-nationalism-beats-globalism/

http://www.humansandnature.org/the-ethics-of-globalism-nationalism-and-patriotism

(These cover the similar ground, and there is some repetition, but it is nevertheless worth reading both.)

So Remainers are Globalist and Brexiteers are Nationalists, right?

Not exactly, no.

That is far from the full story; it does not explain the motivation of those who can be categorised as "Liberal Leavers", whose manifesto can be found here:

https://www.adamsmith.org/the-liberal-case-for-leave/

So what's going on here? It is quite clear that Liberal Leavers are not Nationalists at all, but are Globalists. They have identified that the EU is itself parochial, just on a larger scale than the nation state, and they want a better form of Internationalism than the EU offers.

Indeed, populism and identity politics are a long way from providing an explanation:

https://capx.co/dont-blame-populism-for-brexit/


As for myself?

I seem to be somewhat straddling both camps. I am a Liberal Leaver, and yet, being an admirer of Edmund Burke, I have sympathies for parochialism.

My real issues, however, with the EU are practical and philosophical, as expounded by Allister Heath:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/12172429/EU-elites-wrongly-believe-they-have-perfected-government-so-we-should-leave.html

These differences are pretty much the reason why President Charles de Gaulle twice vetoed British entry to the then EEC:

"England in effect is insular, she is maritime, she is linked through her exchanges, her markets, her supply lines to the most diverse and often the most distant countries; she pursues essentially industrial and commercial activities, and only slight agricultural ones. She has in all her doings very marked and very original habits and traditions"

It seems to me that he had it right.

There are also the democratic issues - I agree with both Clement Attlee and Tony Benn, whose views on the Treaty of Rome and the Treaty of Maastricht respectively can be found elsewhere on my blog.

But the thing that really gets my goat is the way that the EU treats countries outside itself:

https://capx.co/how-the-eu-starves-africa-into-submission/

So in summary, my words for the Leave Pot would be:

Coffee and Chocolate.

Clement Attlee on the Treaty of Rome

Tony Benn on the Treaty of Maastricht

It is to my great dismay that UKIP seem to have captured the anti-EU agenda over the last few years. How many young people are aware that it was the left, in the form of men of great integrity, such as Michael Foot and Tony Benn, who were originally against the European project?

Here's Tony Benn's speech from November 1991 when the ratification of the Maastricht Treaty was being debated in Parliament. It seems to me that his arguments are unanswerable.

“Some people genuinely believe that we shall never get social justice from the British Government, but we shall get it from Jacques Delors; they believe that a good king is better than a bad Parliament. I have never taken that view. Others believe that the change is inevitable, and that the common currency will protect us from inflation and will provide a wage policy. They believe that it will control speculation and that Britain cannot survive alone. None of those arguments persuade me because the argument has never been about sovereignty.

I do not know what a sovereign is, apart from the one that used to be in gold and the Pope who is sovereign in the Vatican. We are talking about democracy. No nation – not even the great United States which could, for all I know, be destroyed by a nuclear weapon from a third-world country – has the power to impose its will on other countries. We are discussing whether the British people are to be allowed to elect those who make the laws under which they are governed. The argument is nothing to do with whether we should get more maternity leave from Madame Papandreou than from Madame Thatcher.

That is not the issue. I recognize that when the members of the three Front Benches agree, I am in a minority. My next job therefore is to explain to the people of Chesterfield what we have decided. I will say first, ‘My dear constituents, in future you will be governed by people whom you do not elect and cannot remove. I am sorry about it. They may give you better creches and shorter working hours but you cannot remove them.’ I know that it sounds negative but I have always thought it as positive to say that the important thing about democracy is that we can remove without bloodshed the people who govern us.

We can get rid of a Callaghan, a Wilson or even a Right Hon. Lady by internal processes. We can get rid of a Right Hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr Major). But that cannot be done in the structure that is proposed. Even if one likes the policies of the people in Europe one cannot get rid of them. Secondly, we say to my favourite friends, the Chartists and suffragettes, ‘All your struggles to get control of the ballot box were a waste of time. We shall be run in future by a few white persons, as in 1832.’ The instrument, I might add, is the Royal Prerogative of treaty making. For the first time since 1649 the Crown makes the laws – advised, I admit, by the Prime Minister.

We must ask what will happen when people realize what we have done. We have had a marvellous debate about Europe, but none of us has discussed our relationship with the people who sent us here. Hon. Members have expressed views on Albania and the Baltic states. I have been dazzled by the knowledge of the continent of which we are all part. NO one has spoken about how he or she got here and what we were sent here to do.

If people lose the power to sack their Government one of several things happens. First, people may just slope off. Apathy could destroy democracy. When the turnout drops below 50 per cent, we are in danger… The second thing that people can do is to riot. Riot is an old-fashioned method for drawing the attention of the Government to what is wrong. It is difficult for an elected person to admit it, but the riot at Strangeways produced some prison reforms. Riot has historically played a much larger part in British politics than we are ever allowed to know. Thirdly, nationalism can arise. Instead of blaming the Treaty of Rome, people say, ‘It is those Germans’ or ‘It is the French’. Nationalism is built out of frustration that people feel when they cannot get their way through the ballot box. With nationalism comes repression.

I hope that it is not pessimistic – in my view it is not – to say that democracy hangs by a thread in every country of the world. Unless we can offer people a peaceful route to the resolution of injustices through the ballot box they will not listen to a House that has blocked off that route. There are many alternatives open to us. One Hon. Member said that he was young and had not fought in the war. He looked at a new Europe. But there have been five Europes this century.

There was one run by the King, the Kaiser and the Tsar – they were all cousins so that was very comfortable. They were all Queen Victoria’s grandsons. And there was no nonsense about human rights when Queen Victoria’s grandsons repressed people. Then there was the Russian revolution. Then there was the inter-war period. Then there was the Anglo-Soviet alliance. Then there was the cold war. Now we have a Boris Yeltsin who has joined the Monday Club. There have been so many Europes. This is not the only Europe on offer.

Another way would be to have a looser, wider Europe. I have an idea for a Commonwealth of Europe. I am introducing a bill on the subject. Europe would be rather like the British Common-wealth. We would work by consent with people. Or we could accept this ghastly proposal, which is clumsy, secretive, centralized, bureaucratic and divisive. That is how I regard the Treaty of Rome. I was born a European and I will die one. But I have never put my alliance behind the Treaty of Rome. I object to it. I hate being called an anti-European. How can one be anti-European when one is born in Europe? It is like saying that one is anti-British if one does not agree with the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

What a lot of nonsense it is. I ask myself why the House is ready to contemplate abandoning its duties, as I fear that it is. I was elected forty-one years ago this month. This Chamber has lost confidence in democracy. It believes that it must be governed by someone else. It is afraid to use the powers entrusted to it by its constituents.

It has traded power for status. One gets asked to go on the telly if one is a Member of Parliament. The Chamber does not want to use its power. It has accepted the role of a spectator and joined what Bagehot called the dignified part of the constitution, leaving the Crown, under the control of the Prime Minister, to be the Executive part. If democracy is destroyed in Britain it will be not the communists, Trotskyists or subversives but this House which threw it away. The rights that are entrusted to us are not for us to give away.

Even if I agree with everything that is proposed, I cannot hand away powers lent to me for five years by the people of Chesterfield. I just could not do it. It would be theft of public rights. Therefore, there is only one answer. If people are determined to submit themselves to Jacques Delors, Madame Papandreou and the Council of Ministers, we must tell the people what is planned. If people vote for that, they will all have capitulated. Julius Caesar said, ‘We are just merging our sovereignty.’ So did William the Conqueror.

It is not possible to support the Government’s motion. I have told the Chief Whip that I cannot support the Labour motion. I invite the House to vote against the Government’s motion and not to support a motion which purports to take us faster into a Community which cannot reflect the aspirations of those who put us here. That is not a nationalist argument nor is it about sovereignty. It is a democratic argument and it should be decisive in a democratic Chamber.“