Brexit

The false premise of the EAW; the wrongful assumption of parity of justice across Europe

Tony Edwards / Blog / Brexit, European arrest warrant / 0 comments

13/01/2017

The English and Welsh legal system is one of great history and importance in the development of legal principles across large parts of the globe. Seen from both a criminal and civil law perspective, it is held up by many as the gold standard and in many ways the template for less aged jurisdictions.

The protections and freedoms of the Briton in his court system is ensured by several constitutional safeguards. The upholding of right of Habeas Corpus for example, which large majority parliaments have struggled to infringe in the shadow of even terrorist threat, shows that it is a system which has an enduring central balance. The separation of powers which underpins this, Executive, Legislature and Judiciary, is politically unquestionable for the most part, and politicians in the UK tread lightly here for they know that it a principle which the citizen prizes incredibly highly.

The move towards European integration has demanded that the Union itself has a converging policy for judicial affairs, and central to this policy is an implied parity of justice across the European Union. By inclusion of the Charter of Fundamental Rights in the Lisbon Treaty, the intent was to set the standard in such areas at a parity that was at least an acceptable minimum under which justice could be relied upon. But has it been altogether successful?

Assessing Judicial Effectiveness

One potential indicator in assessing the dedication of the nation state to operating an effective judicial processes, is the manner in which it funds the process itself. When looking at the budget allocated to the Justice system across the EU and further, the European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice report 2014, shows a great disparity across the EU nations. Britain, while not being the highest spender (figures exclude the cost of public prosecutions), is one of the higher spending nations, and certainly above the average. It’s spend is proportionately very high, over 40% of its total budget, to financial aid of the litigant or defendant. We know that with the reduction in the spend on civil litigant support in the legal aid system, that this relates to a very high degree of spending on the legal assistance of criminal defence.

By comparison, all apart from Norway spend a lower proportion of their budgets on legal aid, but Denmark, Sweden, the Netherlands, Finland and Ireland all spend fairly high proportions, over 20%, on legal aid. At the other end of the spectrum, Romania, Poland, Malta, Greece, Bulgaria, Spain, Slovenia, Lithuania, Latvia, Italy and even Austria, spend less than 10% – many of these under 5%.

This would tend to indicate a difference in the balance of public policy priorities between the states – where some have a large funding priority to the prosecution by the state or to the court system itself, but less so to the individual defendant or litigant. In the common law systems such as the UK, there are a smaller number of very qualified judges, and therefore a lower courts wages bill for example, but the defendant is well represented at all stages at the cost of the state in many cases. Inquisitorial systems of course have different structural costs. But how does this imbalance affect the access to justice, and to a reliable defence for those without significant means?

Access to Effective Justice

Fair Trials abroad reports a mixed picture across the EU nations in regards to access to effective justice, and access to a lawyer on detention in particular. Pre Trial detention in some EU states causes particular concern, especially where there is a lack of legal aid or long process due to failure of the courts to pursue matters promptly post detention.

Bulgaria for example, comes in for particular criticism from the US state department in regards to pre trial detention. It complains that prosecutors in Bulgaria bring charges into a heavily backlogged system without sufficient evidence. Where the judicial system acts a check against this error, the Judge must refer the case back for further evidence collection and presentation, but at this point the defendant is still deprived of his liberty. To make this situation worse, the low amount spent on legal aid in Bulgaria means that the defendant will have difficulty in accessing any public defence aid while incarcerated. This would not be the case in the UK, where the defendant should be afforded fairly swift justice, with full legal representation.

The Michael Shields case highlighted the lack of rigour in the Bulgarian legal system, as was widely reported in the press. His was case of mistaken identity, via an identity parade process which would not have been allowed under UK law. Evidence that he was in his hotel, asleep at the time of the incident he was charged for was ignored by the courts, and there was a total absence of forensic evidence. He was fortunate that he had been allowed to serve his sentence in the UK, thereby allowing the then home secretary Jack Straw to intervene (eventually), and Shields was granted a pardon after four years of incarceration for a crime he knew nothing of.

In the 24 months to March 2016, Romania was held to be in violation of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights 19 times, and Article 5 in a further 9 instances. Again, issues of pre trial detention loom large in Romania’s very ineffective legal system, and access to legal advice is again poor. Fair trials abroad note many cases of alleged brutality to extract evidence or confession, which has then been made admissible in court. The US state department notes that “Major human rights problems included Police and Gendarme mistreatment and harassment of detainees”. Prison conditions are also exceptionally poor in Romania, and that the Council of Europe’s Committee for the Prevention of Torture has registered allegations including acts regarded as torture of imprisoned persons as recently as 2012. These include beatings, use of electric shock and stress positioning. The independence of the Judiciary is now also under threat, and political interference is also noted.

Greece, although it has a better record that Romania under at the ECHR with only 8 cases decided against it in the same period, also suffers significant problems with pre trial detention and access to legal representation. What have been described as ‘Chronic delays’ in the courts, an average of 50 months taken to reach a criminal trial verdict, are described in a study by the World Bank. The dire financial mess in Greece has led to concerns of judicial corruption.

The case of Michael Turner, extradited to Hungary in 2009, is shocking in that it is fairly clear that Westminster magistrates court was ‘mislead’ into granting extradition on the basis that the case was ready to go to trial. EAW requests are designed for trial, not for incarceration for investigative purposes. Eventually, after an extended period of alleged mistreatment he was released without charge, only to be hauled back to Budapest in 2012 – only to be found guilty of a trivial fraud of £12,000, which is is appealing. His sentence, non custodial. He suffered months of imprisonment in substandard conditions for a crime punishable only by a fine in Hungarian law.

Even long standing Western EU members are not entirely free from issues though. Austria merits a mention on the Fair Trials International website due to poor police practice in terms of issues that would be covered by the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 – namely that they are not cautioning subjects correctly with regard to right to legal representation. France was also held to be in breach of the ECHR in regards to detention and trial 25 times in the 2007-14 period.

Conversely, the same organisation criticizes the UK in only one respect:

Unjust Extradition from the UK under the European Arrest Warrant.

Protection of the citizen

This paints a worrying picture. The common law system in place in the UK, the separation of powers and the independence of the judiciary, ensure that our system conforms to the highest standards. It is not perfect, but it is built and constituted on the correct foundations. While it seeks to protect the citizenry from the worst elements amongst us through use of a police force and prosecution service, it also seeks to protect us from the will of any government which tries to extend state power beyond the constraints of the law.

Our parliamentary system is also strong, in that we have a committee structure and a revising chamber which has a tendency (with some exceptions of course), to modify or even weed out bad laws at the drafting stage. This again, makes it more difficult for government to extend the power of the state for its own ends. Even with the constraints on spending that have been imposed in recent years, our spending on public defence is the highest by percentage anywhere in Europe, and only outspent by Norway. Many of the countries to which we subject UK citizens simply on request, have none of the evidenciary safeguards afforded by legislation that has been in place here for over 30 years.

Yet despite this, we are asked to accept the EAW on the basis that the ‘aim’ is that all the legal systems across the European Union will someday be in some kind of parity. At the same time, the enforcement process for this parity is creating only the tiniest impact. In some areas, it might be argued that the direction of travel is contrary to that which is desirable as the political scene shifts.

The UK courts must once again be able to differentiate between the standards of justice offered in different jurisdictions, and refuse to extradite to countries under which fundamental rights cannot be guaranteed. At the same time, the presumption to extradite must only be upheld under the 1957 European Convention on Extradition where there is a demonstrable standard of Judicial transparency and independence, and where there is real doubt the right to call for evidence must be restored.

Justice must be equal for all in the UK, it is the fundamental principle in a free society. We must not outsource responsibility for this to other nations in respect of our own citizens or those who seek refuge here. It is not the role of the nation state to offer up its people for summary injustice.

Join Conservatives for Liberty and special guest speakers from inside and outside Parliament, including Steven Woolfe MEP and Jacob Reese-Mogg MP on 28th February as we ask the government to withdraw from the European Arrest Warrant

Read more

Tony is a Luthier by trade, studied law and is an active Brexit campaigner. He blogs at The Brexit Door. Follow him on Twitter here: @TonyE_42

Follow @con4lib on Twitter

Like Conservatives for Liberty on Facebook

The views expressed in this article are that of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of Conservatives for Liberty

The Autumn Statement: A missed opportunity to bolster Brexit Britain

Conservatives for Liberty / Blog / Brexit / 0 comments

25/11/2016

The Autumn Statement contained some positive elements. It was pleasing to hear that the employment rate is at an all-time peak of 74.5% and that unemployment is at an 11-year low. We were happy to see the back of the “rabbit in the hat” political manoeuvres that Osborne was so keen on; every one shifting us leftwards and costing the taxpayer money. It can only be a good thing that the Autumn Statement is to be abolished. It was introduced to give the vainglorious Gordon Brown a platform for political posturing and George Osborne used it as an opportunity to buy off sections of the electorate.

Unfortunately, looming over the entire event is the UK National Debt which stands at a record high of 90.2% of GDP. Over six years George Osborne portrayed himself as austerity personified; the very picture of prudence. The reality is that the deficit got the better of him. The national debt was £1 trillion when he took office and £1.6 trillion when he left. Philip Hammond plans to raise this by £1.95 trillion. We at Conservatives for Liberty have long believed in the necessity of reducing the size and scope of the state, but instead of making difficult decisions about how to reduce spending, the Chancellor chose to rack up more debt. Our grandchildren will pay for it.

As for the Government’s response to Brexit? Weak.

In a remarkable time of our history, with the nation still reflecting on the bold decision taken on June 23rd; this was an unremarkable Autumn Statement utterly lacking in boldness. Had this been a normal year, had the referendum never happened, then this “steady as she goes” statement may well have been what was called for. But this is not a normal year and the Chancellor should have begun implementing radical policies for Brexit Britain. Now the economy will be navigating through the choppy waters of the jittery markets well into 2017; the Chancellor should have opened the sails. We need the Government to be proactive, not reactive.

The inevitable uncertainty created by the anticipation of Article 50 being triggered, and the subsequent negotiation process, is likely to lead to a drop in private investment. This was a missed opportunity to introduce radical tax cuts to encourage investment and get British business booming. We are happy that the planned cuts in corporation tax are going ahead, but the rate is still too high; why not cut deeper? To encourage investment he should have slashed capital gains tax. Rather than tinkering with the housing market, he should have abolished stamp duty; it’s an abysmal tax that reduces homeowner mobility and it’s a contributing factor to the housing crisis.

Imagine the excitement and the positivity that would be generated from brave policies such as these. The markets would respond positively to optimism in tone and confidence of action. Instead, we had no bold tax cuts or major tax reform; all we got was timidity. There was no vision or imagination.

The Chancellor’s cautiousness may be due to a belief that he needs to hold back for now, and play a stronger card later when it is most needed, but why wait? Why be reactive? It simply allows a sense of directionless and creeping negativity to dominate the economic narrative. This is not the time for pessimism; we should be reinvigorated and excited about our future.

Those among us who are buoyed by negative indicators and hoping for bad news will continue to try and shape the national narrative in a gloomy manner; the Government is allowing them to do so, to the detriment of all.

The OBR, the UK’s official economic forecaster, has released figures that have been pounced on by remainers as proof of the damage of the Brexit vote. The OBR, having so little to work with from the Government, has made a series of assumptions; that there will be lower productivity, reduced business investment and more barriers to trade. Based in these assumptions the OBR predicts an extra £59 billion in extra borrowing in the next five years will be directly related to the result of the referendum. Brexit detractors are now citing this as the real cost of the Leave vote and using it as ammunition in their quest to stop the whole thing in its tracks.

However, citing forecasts based on assumptions as if they were facts based on certainties is highly dubious. Remainers with confirmation bias want the public to believe unquestioningly in the figures as the “true cost of Brexit” and to take every piece of bad economic news as directly and solely linked to the referendum, even when we are still clearly suffering from the legacy of the financial crash, and share many of the same problems, such as low wage growth, with much of the West.

Even if we run with the OBR’s pessimistic forecast; the economic impact is nothing like as severe as predicted pre-referendum. Britain will still be growing faster than the Eurozone and the British public will likely be wondering what on Earth all the fuss was about in a few years. The OBR forecasts GDP growth from 2017 to 2021 as follows:

2017 – 1.4%
2018 – 1.7%
2019 – 2.1%
2020 – 2.1%
2021 – 2.0%

These figures are hardly disastrous. The OBR predicts growth will be back to normal after just two years; meaning the negative Brexit effect that the OBR expects will be short lived. It was a decision for the future, for the next 10, 20 to 50 years; in the long run we will be better off than otherwise would have been.

Looking ahead, Brexit will make the British economy more competitive, more dynamic and more open. We should’ve started as we mean to go on. Philip Hammond should have sent a clear signal to the the world about Britain’s exciting direction of travel. By taking the first steps to building a dynamic, free market Britain – preparing to exploit the benefits of its freedom – the Chancellor could have lifted the mood of the nation.

With the Conservatives facing so little resistance; we cannot afford to keep spurning these opportunities. We want a Conservative government that envisions a fairer country based on lower taxes and rediscovers its instinct for frugality. Above all else, we want a Conservative government that inspires a sense of national pride and optimism and embraces our path to national independence.

Remain II: The Revenge of Remain – The Resurgent Europhiles hoping to stop Brexit

Ben Kelly / Blog / Brexit, Remain, stronger in, Tony Blair / 5 comments

21/11/2016

Remain II: The Revenge – The Remain campaign is to relaunch and reinvigorate the British Europhile movement, with Tony Blair launching his comeback to stop Brexit

The Remain campaign is regrouping and preparing for a major relaunch. Well, you didn’t think the Europhile elite was going to give up that easily did you?

The biggest democratic exercise in British history resulted in a vote to leave the European Union, but the anti-democratic paternal instinct of the Europhiles has kicked in; the British people must be saved from themselves.

They may have exercised their democratic right to vote Leave, but they didn’t know what they were voting for. They turned out in huge numbers, but they were beguiled by lies. Millions of people became engaged in the debate and felt inspired to have a say in our politics like never before, but they were too stupid to vote on the matter anyway, and now they must be ignored for their own good. Yes, that is the logic of the Remain campaign mark II.

Open Britain, the successor to Stronger In, will partner with a new campaign set up by Blairite former ministers to form a refreshed Remain campaign with a two-year timeline to stop Brexit.

Tony Blair, undoubtedly a man with quite a severe case of narcissistic personality disorder, has been planning his political comeback for some time. Now he will be the figurehead of an anti-Brexit movement and plans to set up a new political institute to influence the negotiations and help to push for a second referendum; with the aim, ultimately, being to prevent Brexit altogether.

Blair has spotted an opportunity; wounded by becoming one of the most bitterly loathed politicians in Britain, he wants to become the messiah of Remain and EU icon. He is clearly far too manically egotistical and blinkered to realise the revulsion he inspires; the backlash that will likely grow against him will be severely harmful to the cause he cherishes.

One thing that Remain mark II will not be short of is cash; there are plenty of rich donors available amongst the Europhile elite. Richard Branson’s Virgin Group will help bankroll the campaign along with the insurance millionaire Sir Clive Cowdery. The group will be backed to the hilt by powerful political, financial and corporate interests with top-tier business and communications organisations throwing their support behind it.

The group is being set up by Alan Milburn, John Hutton, Douglas Alexander and former advisers to Tony Blair such as Sally Morgan, Peter Hyman and Kat Garvey. The usual Europhile suspects will all be involved; Nick Clegg, Cuka Umunna, Tim Farron and the like.

Of course, we can expect the usual endorsements from rich celebrities such as Bob Geldof and the same old tedious lectures from a variety of actors, comedian and other tedious wind bags with hugely over inflated perceptions of their own importance and political intelligence.

They believe that the public can be persuaded to change their mind and are hoping for economic deterioration to strengthen their hand. Their allies will attempt to sabotage Brexit from within while they run a resurgent Remain campaign in preparation for a second referendum which they believe they can win. This is far from over; Brexit may yet be prevented.

Brexiteers need to regroup and reorganise in a big way, now.

Remain mark II has already secured approximately £1m in funding, and far more is likely to be pledged to fight a two-year campaign to push Britain into a humiliating reversal, whereupon it will return into the EU as a weaker supplicant than ever before. This would be an embarrassment; an abject defeat that would render us marginalised and submissive in an EU buoyed by another defeat of democracy.

If Remain got their way, and Brexit was stopped, British domestic politics would be more toxic than ever as a groundswell of resentment would begin to build up in response. All of those people who turned out because they believed that their vote would finally matter would have effectively have been told that actually, it doesn’t. Eventually the disillusionment and bitterness that would inevitably cause would boil over.

It’s the Europhiles that have to be saved from themselves, and Remain that has to be prevented. The post-referendum funk must be now shrugged off; we need a full-scale revival of the Leave campaign. The debate will continue and we must advance our ideas and arguments to ensure the public continues to support leaving the EU and becomes confident about our future as an independent nation.

Brexiteers assemble!

Ben is the Conservatives for Liberty Director of Online Communications. Follow him on Twitter: @TheScepticIsle

Follow @con4lib on Twitter

Like Conservatives for Liberty on Facebook

The views expressed in this article are that of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of Conservatives for Liberty

Brexit does not mean Brexit if we remain in the Customs Union; beware of the stealth Remain campaign

Ben Kelly / Blog / Brexit, customs union, remain campaign, Trade policy / 0 comments

21/11/2016

The Customs Union has become a contentious issue in the Brexit debate, but leaving it is a must; it’s a red line that cannot be crossed

The post-referendum “phoney war” should have been the beginning of an open, honest and exciting debate about what Britain’s post-Brexit future should look like and what our negotiating strategy should be. Instead, this time has been wasted as Remainers continue to fight the referendum debate; they should have tried to shape how we leave but still too much time is being spent on whether we should leave at all.

I fully expected, and gleefully anticipated, a lively debate on both how we should manage our transition from EU Member State to independent nation state, and how we could exploit the advantages of our newfound freedoms. I expected discussions about the bottom up redesign of our policies for trade, immigration, fisheries, agriculture and foreign affairs. I anticipated a debate on how to engage as an independent player in the plethora of international organisations in which we are currently bound by the EU common position. I looked forward to, naively it seems, a developing excitement about rebuilding Britain, reforming the way we are governed and helping to reinvigorate the global trading system.

Instead, one of the central debates of recent weeks has been on whether or not we should leave the Customs Union. Until very recently I never considered that this would become a point of discussion. The case is already closed; we must leave the Customs Union to regain control of our trade policy, remaining within it is not an option because it would violate the democratic mandate of the referendum.

The case is already closed; we must leave the Customs Union to regain control of our trade policy

Click To Tweet

Let’s be clear; It can be reasonably argued that because the “Leave” movement isn’t a political party, and the referendum result was simply an instruction to leave the EU and nothing more, many details are therefore open to debate.

However, any arrangement that sees us remaining in the Customs Union is not Brexit; it is the worst of all worlds and defeats the object. It would be like being an EU member but with very few of the rights or privileges of membership.

There is a lot of confusion over this issue, and indeed it is complex, but it can be boiled down to one very simple point, which I pointed out in my latest Telegraph article:

“One of the main consequences, and disadvantages, of the Customs Union is that the EU negotiates as a single entity in international trade agreements. Thus, the Commission negotiates on our behalf and we must wait for all 28 member states to agree to ratify before the deal is concluded and we can reap the benefits.”

To regain control of our trade policy, we must leave the Customs Union. There is no minority in the Leave campaign arguing for membership of the Customs Union, there are no fringe Brexit campaigns arguing this case either; it quite simply is not even a grey area. The need to regain control of our trade policy was one of the main arguments of every collective Leave campaign and every individual Leave campaigner. We can therefore say, with confidence, that the 52% who voted to Leave did so with the justified expectation that leaving the EU entailed taking back control of our trade policy.

the 52% who voted to Leave did so with the justified expectation that leaving the EU entailed…

Click To Tweet

If we are still represented by the EU in the multitude of international organisations related to trade, and are not able to pursue and negotiate our own trade agreements; then nobody can reasonably argue that we have satisfied the Leave mandate.

Remaining in the Customs Union was never on the Brexit agenda, it cannot have escaped the notice of anyone that it was barely discussed during the referendum campaign. It was never on the table; it has only been placed there very recently by Remainers, it is the latest attempt to problematise leaving, a major component in the strategy of a growing resistance to Brexit.

Brexiteers have been distracted of late by the High Court ruling that parliament must vote on triggering Article 50. Although the motives of Gina Miller and her allies are clear (they want to stop prevent Britain leaving the EU) having a lively parliamentary debate and a vote on Article 50 is very healthy and democratic (parliament takes back control!) and was always extremely unlikely to lead to a vote against.

MP’s who voted Remain, and still don’t want to leave, will have their say but will ultimately the majority will respect the referendum result at this point. They are compelled by the need to show that they are respecting democracy, and because many of them represent areas where the majority voted to Leave. Few would be so brazen as to blatantly disrespect the will of the electorate by voting against it at the first opportunity; no, the unrepentant Remainers will play the long game.

The sudden noise around the Customs Union is a warning shot; many more spanners will be thrown in the works. The Remain campaign will continue by stealth, and as the negotiations conclude we may witness a full resurgence of the Europhile movement and a concerted effort to subvert the whole process.

The Remain campaign will continue by stealth, and as the negotiations conclude we may witness a…

Click To Tweet

First of all, we have the legal case in the Supreme Court that could lead to a decision on whether Article 50 is revocable. Nicola Sturgeon could choose to instruct the Lord Advocate to seek a reference to the Luxembourg court to get a definitive answer to that question. If the decision is made that Article 50 is revocable; the devolved Assemblies and allied Remainers could effectively gain a veto on Brexit. Voting against the exit settlement would, in effect, revoke Article 50 notification and see us remain in the EU.

Another prime opportunity to derail the process will come with the Great Repeal Bill; just like with any other legislation facing ingrained resistance, opponents will seek to put the brakes on by making amendments thereby tying the Government’s hand and potentially sabotaging Brexit negotiations.

Zealous Remainers are reorganising and will grow in strength. They will fight this every step of the way. Now they argue for remaining in the Customs Union, next they will make more demands, eventually their vision will be little different from being in the EU; finally, they will go all out to stop Brexit altogether.

The referendum was round one; but the war isn’t over.

Ben is the Conservatives for Liberty Director of Online Communications. Follow him on Twitter: @TheScepticIsle

Follow @con4lib on Twitter

Like Conservatives for Liberty on Facebook

The views expressed in this article are that of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of Conservatives for Liberty

Debate: Should parliament have a vote on Article 50?

Phil Myth / Blog / Article 50, Brexit / 95 comments

03/11/2016

No – Chris Manby

Judges in the High Court ruled this morning that the government must consult Parliament before invoking Article 50 and triggering Britain’s withdrawal from the European Union. Since a majority of MPs backed the Remain campaign during the referendum, Leave campaigners have good reason to smell a rat.

The government have vowed to fight the ruling in the Supreme Court. There is every prospect of the decision being reversed. If that doesn’t work, then a snap general election would almost certainly return a huge Conservative majority with a headline manifesto commitment to deliver Brexit. But make no mistake, the Remainers and their lawyers have won a major battle today. They must not be allowed to win the war.

The arguments of the referendum campaign have been reversed. Those who favour EU membership now argue that Parliament ought to determine the terms of Britain’s withdrawal, if only to render Brexit so meaningless that we might as well not even bother. Brexiteers, by contrast, assert that the Parliament they fought so hard to free from the grip of Brussels should have no opportunity to shirk or surrender its new-found responsibilities.

Given the chance, parliamentary opponents of Brexit would seek to kill off the entire process. There is an air of fanaticism about europhile MPs who see their future perks and pensions at risk. It has become painfully obvious that parliamentarians cannot be trusted to rule on their own future. The stark irony of a parliament that does not wish to be sovereign at all should not be lost on anyone.

Parliament is only sovereign because it represents the will of the people. The people have spoken – or at least, a majority of people who felt strongly enough about the issue to turn up and vote. It has become fashionable amongst Remoaners to call the referendum result merely ‘advisory’. Yet the referendum literature clearly stated that “the government will implement what you decide”. That alone ought to have been enough to head off any challenges to the result.

Yet the Remain camp are prepared to fight to the bitter end for the united ‘Europe’ they so love. People like Gina Miller, the investment manager leading the so-called “people’s challenge” against Brexit – a woman who claims the vote made her feel “physically sick” – will never see it as legitimate.

Nor will the likes of Green Party leader and softly-spoken lunatic auntie Caroline Lucas, who described the High Court result as “brilliant news”. Or Labour MP David Lammy, who crowed that “this is what real sovereignty looks like”. Or Tim Farron, who in recent months has set about rebranding the Liberal Democrats as the ‘party of Europe’.

For the last four months we have been told that the vote to leave was racist in origin, that it unleashed a wave of hatred against foreigners, that the people didn’t know what they were voting for, and must have been lied to. The vitriol poured out against the ‘ignorant’ white working classes who dared vote against the expressed opinion of their betters has been shocking.

Brexiteers must be ready to fight even harder to preserve the country we love from parliamentary obstructionists, judicial activists and rich financial sector luvvies determined to reverse the July vote. If we don’t then we will lose everything we have gained, and deservedly so. In the Game of Thrones you win or you die.

Yes – Phil Myth

Today’s supreme court ruling that the government can’t use royal prerogative to invoke Article 50 and instead must put it to parliament has, by and large, been met with consternation from Brexiteers. Given the outpouring since the result from Remain supporters for the result to be ignored or overturned, one can understand why Leavers are worried about this recent development.

There has been a worrying display of anti-democratic sentiment since June 23rd. From petitions calling for a second referendum, to public protests (neither of these garnering anything like enough numbers to match the 17.4m who voted to leave mind you), to outright defiance from MPs such as David Lammy, calling for the biggest vote for any one thing in British history to be ignored by those in power.

That said, the judgement this morning has been met with rather more hysteria from Brexiters than is warranted. Farage has donned the tin-foil head gear, claiming he fears ‘a betrayal may be at hand’, and the likes of Leave.EU are equally unhinged, with founder and UKIP financier Arron Banks stating “Why wouldn’t unelected judges want to preserve an EU system where unelected elites like themselves are all-powerful?”

It’s really quite spectacularly hysterical. Those ‘unelected judges’, as they’ve also been dubbed by David Davis, weren’t upholding the EU system, but rather British constitutional democracy. Sure, it would’ve been nice if we’d had more of that when powers were being handed over to the EU in the first place, but it’s good to see it’s finally kicking in. The judgement today has not subverted democracy, overturned the referendum result, or said that we can’t leave the EU.

The result means that MPs will vote on triggering Article 50. Or to put it another way, our elected representatives will be required to act out the will of the people. This, more than anything else, is precisely what Leavers voted to Leave for. I find myself siding with the Remainer school of thought that it’s ironic that those that campaigned for parliamentary sovereignty are apoplectic about a UK court ruling that parliament will be sovereign on this issue.

Now, there are of course an overwhelming majority of MPs who were in favour of Remain. But that doesn’t mean that they will all be ignoring the referendum result, even if a few noisy ones wish to do exactly that. Former Conservative Party chairman Grant Shapps tweeted to say that, although he backed Remain, he wont be voting to frustrate the will of the British people or his constituents. Jeremy Corbyn too has reiterated that Labour respect the result of the referendum. It’s likely both parties will whip in favour of triggering Article 50.

I have another proposal though. Each MP should do precisely what they were elected to do and represent their constituents. Any MP whose constituency voted to Remain in the EU should be given free reign to vote against triggering Article 50. But those MPs whose constituents voted to Leave the EU should acknowledge the instruction given to them by those who elected them, and vote in favour of the motion.

Unfortunately, the referendum result wasn’t broken down according to Parliamentary constituency, but by local authority area. However some work has been done to extrapolate these results to parliamentary level, finding that of 574 English and Welsh constituencies, 421 probably voted to leave, and of those, 270 definitely did. Conversely, 152 voted to remain, with half (76) almost definitely voting to remain, The result hasn’t been converted for Scotland, but let’s throw Nicola Sturgeon a bone and suggest that all of Scotland’s 59 constituencies voted to Remain. Thus, if MPs vote how their constituents did, as they should in a representative democracy, Article 50 gets triggered by a vote of 421 to 211.

Remainers get to be properly represented in parliament, Leavers get Article 50 triggered, and it’s all done by a sovereign UK parliament according to British constitution. Sounds good to me.

John Simpson is right, the BBC did let audiences down with its EU referendum coverage. But not in the way he thinks

Guest / Blog / bbc, Brexit, eu, EU referendum, european union, john simpson / 0 comments

09/10/2016

BBC editor John Simpson said that in its referendum coverage the BBC had “let our viewers and listeners down”. It did, but not in the way he thinks

By Sam White

BBC world affairs editor John Simpson said in an interview during the One Young World Summit on Sunday that in its pre-referendum coverage the BBC had “let our viewers and listeners down”.

According to the veteran broadcaster, the corporation, due to its obligation “to be balanced between different political ideas and different political viewpoints”, had allowed both Leave and Remain campaigners “to lie their heads off about… what might happen if we left or if we didn’t leave the EU”.

He went on, “if people looked to television and radio for a clear guidance about what to do, we certainly didn’t give them clear enough guidance about the lies that were being told. I suspect that if people had known the facts and had judged in a more balanced way the outcome would have been a bit different”.

This is a patronising analysis and shows that even now, more than a hundred days after the referendum result, there are still influential media figures proving themselves incapable of comprehending the thought processes of ordinary people.

The first problem is with Simpson’s rueful, “we let them down”. The implication is that something undeniably bad has happened, and that we are now lumbered with a national catastrophe. Regretful and distraught, the BBC must shoulder its fair shame of the blame for not averting disaster, and Simpson is a man with integrity enough to begin the flagellation.

The problem with this conclusion is that the majority of voters, obviously, won the referendum. They’re happy, the result is a good one, and the short lived notion of ‘Bregret’ was fabricated anyway. In the absence of a catastrophe—no matter how much some Remainers might be willing one—nobody can have been let down.

The second misapprehension is in saying that had the BBC done its job properly then the result would have been different. But if the BBC had held campaigners to account, fact checked, and reported without favour, then their coverage would have become much less biased toward Remain and more open to the Leave argument. The BBC has hardly been a bastion of impartiality around the subject of Europe, and remains very clearly pro-EU, evidenced in fact by this very interview.

So should it have done its job properly? Absolutely, and that would have meant cutting out the bias for Remain, leading to, if anything, even more people opting for Brexit.

However, that raises Simpson’s other conceit—that a significant number of voters make decisions at least partly based on what the BBC tells them. He condescendingly underestimates us to be a nation of children, whose empty minds are easily manipulated by the lofty-thinkers at the BBC. As mentioned though, the corporation was heavily biased in favour of Remain, and despite that, Leave still managed to take a majority. This is an emphatic sign that when making decisions, nobody gives a second thought to what the BBC might want them to do, and in the referendum an enormous number of people did the precise opposite of what BBC executives had implicitly instructed.

Simpson and others like him are operating under a strange delusion that millions of their fellow citizens are credulous naifs who have gone through their entire lives without noticing that people lie. He also seems to have forgotten that of all the professions, it’s journalists and politicians who are the least trusted by the public. When a journalist interviews a politician, most people’s default setting is to doubt every word they hear.

But Simpson is apparently unaware of this. Or perhaps he thinks the BBC is different. Sure, we might take the red tops with a pinch of salt, and everyone knows the Guardian has an agenda, but the Beeb is a paragon of journalistic virtue, isn’t it? Well, sorry as I am to shatter such illusions, the BBC is about as widely trusted as Michael Gove, and its values are openly at odds with a significant faction of the population.

Simpson is right to say that people have been let down by the BBC, but it’s not in the way that he thinks. If he could identify that audiences have become disillusioned by a lack of balanced reporting, or fatigued by an absurd barrage of unrealistic catastrophising, then he might be on to something.

Those at the top of the corporation have clear ideas about what’s good for people, and in the interests of bringing us up to their virtuous moral standards, they aren’t averse to impartially hectoring their audiences. The good news is, as Brexit showed, nobody is paying a blind bit of notice.

Sam White is a writer and journalist, follow him on Twitter: @SamWhiteTky

Follow @con4lib on Twitter

Like Conservatives for Liberty on Facebook

The views expressed in this article are that of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of Conservatives for Liberty

Phillip Hammond and the new interventionism

Chris Manby / Blog / Big government, Brexit, Chancellor of the Exchequer, Conference 2016, CPC 2016, Interventionism, Keynesianism, Phillip Hammond, tory conference / 0 comments

03/10/2016

There was a lot to like in Phillip Hammond’s first conference speech as Chancellor of the Exchequer. But there was also a much less welcome shift towards further state intervention in the economy.

In stark contrast to Theresa May’s take-no-prisoners approach and Boris Johnson’s optimistic vision, Mr Hammond sounded a much more dour note on the UK economy’s prospects outside the EU.

The Chancellor backed Remain during the referendum and is known to have favoured staying in the Single Market. He made little attempt to disguise his reservations as he pledged to “protect jobs and living standards” from the threat of Brexit.

The process of leaving the EU will be a “rollercoaster” ride, said the Chancellor. “There will be a period of a couple of years or perhaps even longer when businesses are uncertain about the final state of our relationship with the European Union.”

Praising his predecessor as Chancellor, Hammond described the economy as “fundamentally robust.” He mocked former shadow chancellor Ed Balls for predicting in 2010 that cutting public spending would bring about a double-dip recession.

Instead the deficit has been cut by two thirds, the welfare bill reduced, and four million low-income workers taken out of income tax. Yet he abandoned the target of a budget surplus by 2020. Indeed he seemed almost ambivalent about the concept of obtaining a surplus at all.

The best parts of Hammond’s speech came when he lay out what he saw as the key challenges facing the British economy: poor productivity, low wages, and above all a lack of affordable housing.

The Chancellor sees productivity and economic growth as key priorities for the British economy. He also made it clear he sees it as the government’s job to deliver these. “If we don’t do something, if we don’t intervene… in time it would have an impact on jobs and growth”, he said.

“Where we see government interventions that work, we should be prepared to make them”, Hammond argued. He neglected to mention how, exactly, you judge whether an intervention is working or not before making it.

You expect this sort of language from John McDonnell, who only last week made the case for an “entrepreneurial state” funding projects and directing economic growth. You don’t necessarily expect it from a Tory chancellor.

Yet over the last decade, state planning has come back into fashion in a big way as politicians struggle to demonstrate to voters that they are capable of dealing with major economic shocks.

The major difference between Hammond and McDonnell is the extent to which the state should intervene: Labour want a completely state-dominated economy backed by a massive tax-and-borrowing spree. The Tories stand for a less profligate, mildly state-guided approach.

George Osborne was far from innocent in this regard. The so-called Northern Powerhouse and High Speed 2 are testament to that. Indeed, Mr Hammond went out of his way to praise his predecessor’s grand projects, promising to emulate them “across Britain” and joking about the difficultly of coming up with “snappy titles”.

As the Chancellor himself pointed out, Britain became a “hub of tech innovation” because of its “entrepreneurs and scientists”, not state planning. The sorry state of British manufacturing in the 1970s is testament to the inability of government to manage the economy. Keynesian demand management simply does not work.

“Driverless cars, Graphene, the Internet of Things, artificial intelligence, 3D printing, virtual reality, and advanced robotics” would never have existed if the state dominated technology and the internet.

We need a programme of economic liberalisation, not the state picking winners and losers. There is no supporting evidence to suggest that big government can deliver economic growth – quite the opposite. Smaller government; a lower tax and regulatory burden; a stable monetary policy; free trade; and a strong rule of law are the recipe for economic growth.

The Chancellor is known for being a quiet, thoughtful and intelligent man. That came through clearly today. He correctly diagnosed many of the threats facing the British economy. The problem is that he has prescribed the wrong solutions.

Chris believes strongly in individual freedom, personal responsibility, and the power of free markets to eliminate poverty by encouraging wealth creation. Follow him on Twitter: @cjmanby1989

Follow @con4lib on Twitter

Like Conservatives for Liberty on Facebook

The views expressed in this article are that of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of Conservatives for Liberty

Brexit must be carefully engineered: Why there will be no “bonfire of regulations”

Ben Kelly / Blog / Brexit, EEF report, hard brexit, Regulation, single market / 0 comments

22/09/2016

EEF report: Brexit must be carefully-engineered to safeguard industry and secure new trade opportunities

A new report out today from EEF, the manufacturers’ organisation, and Squire Patton Boggs, the global law firm, spells out manufacturers’ key priorities for the upcoming Brexit negotiations and urges the Government to avoid rushing through a ‘clumsy’ Brexit plan which would do lasting damage to UK manufacturing and the wider economy. It is to expertise like this that the government needs to listen, not unreasonable MPs and campaigners calling for a swift clean break and hard Brexit, which would be an act of national self harm.

The report calls for a measured and considered approach and although it doesn’t necessarily demand membership of the Single Market, it pours cold water on the fantasies of those who are calling for an immediate “bonfire of regulations”. Rob Elvin, partner at Squire Patton Boggs, comments that to fulfil the ambition of ‘confirming the UK as one of the great trading nations of the world ‘requires regulatory stability’. Therein lies the key; stability. A smooth transition and stability should be the Government’s priority. We need a soft landing and a secure platform to build on. From that strong position of safety and economic security we can reap the benefits of independence over time.

Britain has undergone forty years of integration with the EU. There is not a single area of Government policy not touched by EU law. Nearly every aspect of the day-to-day business dealings of every sector is affected by EU rules and regulations. Unpicking this is going to be mind bogglingly complex and it is going to take time. This is why, as the report states, manufacturers and exporters would clearly prefer for the UK to absorb much of the existing regulatory framework in the first instance.

Claire Jakobsson, Head of Climate, Energy and Environment Policy at EEF, did say that ‘in the longer term there is clearly an opportunity to pull back from EU regulation where it does not work for the UK’. There will clearly be opportunities to repeal laws and deregulate in some areas; but this requires a careful and considered review of the statute books over time and there will be no dividend in the short term.

Even then, a high degree of regulatory equivalence with the EU will be essential to unhindered trade. The idea that we should repeal and replace EU regulations en masse with UK legislation is nonsense; it would be costly and disruptive for little to no benefit. When surveyed, 73% of manufacturers said that one set of trading rules and regulations across Europe is an advantage, with 71% believing that the single regulatory and legal environment lowers the cost of doing business. Regulatory equivalence facilitates “free” trade thereby increasing prosperity.

While the report recognises the concerns on tariffs, it makes the important point that non-tariff barriers, or “technical barriers to trade” are as significant as tariffs, which is lost on those calling for a hard Brexit. Due to the fact that the EU is a major export destination, it emphasises that unrestricted access to the single market in goods and services is, for EEF members, vital.

It also calls for the Government to maintain the UK’s access and collaborative support for investment and innovation through programmes such as Horizon 2020, even if this means continued payment. This will lead to complaints from the uncompromising Brexiteers, but why? Where international collaboration is mutually beneficial we should continue with it and any payments made pale in comparison to the advantages gained.

Our future relationship with the EU will be a close one of intergovernmental cooperation, continued economic integration and collaboration across a wide range of activities such as security, science, aviation, sport and academia. The extreme Brexiteers and doomsday Remainers who said this will all end are both wrong.

Overall the report was constructive, reasonable and – pleasingly – rather positive. There was no doom and gloom, but plenty to back up the moderate and Liberal Brexiteer’s case, and enough optimism to cheer a worried Remainer of two. Manufacturers are keen to seize post-Brexit opportunities for increased global trade through new free trade agreements. Terry Scuoler, CEO of EEF, said:

‘Manufacturers see great opportunity for jobs, growth and wealth generation from the expansion of global trade outside of the EU. These ambitions tally with those of the Government and the voting public, who want to see post-Brexit Britain exporting and manufacturing more, as well as achieving a better balanced economy’

The UK has a successful and prosperous future ahead of it; but we must ignore the extremists and manage our transition out of the EU sensibly. As long as the Government listens to the sensible voices offering constructive advice and criticism, we will make as success of Brexit.

Ben is the Conservatives for Liberty Online Director. Follow him on Twitter: @TheScepticIsle

Follow @con4lib on Twitter

Like Conservatives for Liberty on Facebook

The views expressed in this article are that of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of Conservatives for Liberty

The #marchforeurope was an hysterical act of mass sycophancy

Ben Kelly / Blog / Brexit, democracy, european union, leave eu, March for Europe, Remain, stronger in, Vote Leave / 0 comments

06/09/2016

“Hey EU, don’t make it bad, sing a sad song, and make it better”.

Yes, during the march for Europe the protesters sang “Hey Jude” by the Beatles, replacing the word “Jude” with “EU”. This is all very amusing, but also utterly cringeworthy. They have pinned all of their gushing idealism and progressive values onto the EU, unquestioningly believing it to be the true embodiment of them.

I am not one to deny the benefits that the EU has brought to Britain and Europe and I do not pretend there are not advantages to membership. I don’t call it the “EUSSR”, believe it is evil or seek to sever all ties and turn away from it; I just made a decision based on my own principles that we should begin the process of leaving and choose a different future.

Such naive devotion to such a powerful, and power hungry, unaccountable and un-transparent organisation is unfathomable to me. This kind of blinkered Europhilia has bought totally into the utopianist vision of the EU as a purely benevolent, peaceful project that always acts in the best interests of its people and tempers the excesses of the nation state for the betterment of all. But who tempers the excesses of the EU?

Political power needs constraining and politicians and officials must be kept in check and held accountable; this is what democracy is for. The sense that the EU was anti-democratic and that the people were increasingly losing power over how they were governed and who governed them was a major factor in over 17 million people in Britain voting to leaving in the biggest democratic exercise this country has ever seen.

The EU is clearly not going to be held to account by the fawning #marchforeurope protestors singing sweet songs of pathetic adulation. Where is the scepticism in individuals who believe the EU is the antidote to nationalism but are happy to slavishly paint their faces with the ring of stars and wrap themselves in the flag of this aspiring state?

We shouldn’t stand for their sanctimony.

They frame the debate as a choice between an independent Britain that is regressive and a European Union that is progressive. This is a powerful supranational organisation that has ruined the economies of Southern Europe and sent youth unemployment soaring because of the ideological zeal for the euro; which was intended to be a catalyst for deeper political integration.

It has sacrificed Greece on the altar of the euro dream and has now turned it into a prison for refugees. It has made amoral deals with the rotten regimes in Turkey and Sudan to do its dirty work out of the view of the European media as it seeks to compensate for its woeful initial response to the refugee crisis. It has pillaged the seas of Africa with its exploitative fishing deals and hindered its development with its bullying and dogmatic trade policies.

Its anti-democratic streak is instinctual. When voters cause problems that obstruct the goals of the project they are overruled. When Denmark voted against the Maastricht Treaty in 1992 and Ireland against the Nice Treaty in 2001 and the Lisbon Treaty in 2008, they were told to go away and come back with the right answer. When France and the Netherlands voted against the European Constitution in 2005, their decision was disregarded. The inevitable consequence of power being so far removed from ordinary people is apathy, resentment and frustration. Ignoring this sentiment will lead to it boiling over, which is very dangerous.

The high minded intentions of creating peace and stability in Europe are threatened by the zealous ideologues uncompromisingly seeking to build a European state. Dissolving democracy, centralising authority within a vast technocracy and making electorates feel increasingly powerless is bound to create bitterness and lead to a backlash.

We have seen rumbles of it in populist uprisings and it threatens to get worse if the EU doesn’t change. I can well imagine that the #marchforeurope protestors rightfully loathe the extremism rearing its ugly head, but they won’t face up the fact that their beloved EU has to take a large share of the responsibility for it.

For being sceptical about the EU one is likely to be dismissed as stupid and probably racist. Most discussions I have with EU devotees on social media begins with them sending me a link and being told “you might learn something”, before the exchange is prevented from becoming a reasonable discussion because of their refusal to believe a Brexiteer can be anything but a moron.

Europhiles believe that it is a necessity for Europe to be bound together in a union under a supranational government in order to foster cooperation and maintain peace. I believe that we should cooperate as a democratic state on a much more equitable, intergovernmental basis and prioritise creating an inclusive cross-border marketplace to increase prosperity in Europe and beyond.

If the EU had concentrated on building a European market for trade and creating unity via intergovernmental forums rather than dogmatically implementing its political project, we would not be having this debate and Europe would be a far happier and richer place. There would have been no referendum in this country either.

But there was. The government sought a democratic mandate for our EU membership and everything that came with it now and in the future. It did not get it. So if the march is an attempt to overturn the result and stop Brexit happening it is very ill advised indeed. The referendum result must be heeded, to overturn it would toxify politics and cause unprecedented instability. It would bring the debate to a raging boiling point and it would empower demagogues, who would exploit the bitterness caused by such a brazenly anti-democratic move.

The protestors claim the moral high ground while holding signs saying things like this:

‘Democracy or a travesty???’

and

‘The monkeys have taken over the asylum!’

While shouting with contorted faces at Brexit supporters and claiming they are too stupid to participate in democracy and must be ignored.

This was, at its heart, a pro-establishment protest. This is what gets me. When I was a fresh faced, angry youngster I was a Leftist and considered myself to be a socialist (hadn’t given much thought) but I was inherently mistrustful of the state and sceptical about its power. Isn’t that what being rebellious and speaking truth to power is all about!?

That’s all the EU really is, after all, the state write large, a supranational extension of governmental power. Bafflingly the protestors are probably far more critical of their national government but hear no evil and see no evil in the vast bureaucracy and developing technocracy in Brussels.

Ben is the Conservatives for Liberty Online Director. Follow him on Twitter: @TheScepticIsle

Follow @con4lib on Twitter

Like Conservatives for Liberty on Facebook

The views expressed in this article are that of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of Conservatives for Liberty

We should guarantee the rights of EU
nationals living in the UK. Now.

Ben Kelly / Blog / Brexit, eu, Nicola Sturgeon, snp / 0 comments

01/09/2016

Sometimes a nation has to set a good example and do the right thing, the moral thing. Although we need all the bargaining chips and leverage we can get for what will inevitably be extremely challenging negotiations with the EU as we seek an exit settlement; we shouldn’t toy with the lives of human beings. That’s why the government should make a clear and unequivocal commitment to protect the status of EU nationals. Those already lawfully resident in the UK should not see a change in their status and must be offered permanent residence.

We must not forget the enormous social and economic benefits of EEA immigration. For the most part we have invited into our country some of the most industrious, entrepreneurial and well-educated people that Europe has to offer. Why on Earth would we not be grateful for that? They have greatly contributed to our society and we must now strive to offer reassurance that the vote to leave the EU is not an act of hostility against them (despite what a tiny minority of xenophobes believe). They are an asset to Britain and they have acquired rights that we absolutely must respect.

In the immediate aftershock, we had the ludicrous news of banks concerned that they’d lose their EU national staff adding to the hysteria. They are not alone, businesses across the country will be concerned about their workforce and our public services too are packed full of hard working migrants from EU countries. At a time of economic uncertainty, this is the last thing we need.

Guaranteeing their rights will be both economically and socially beneficial. Above all else it is the moral and humane thing to do. There are people now feeling nervous and uncertain about their future, unsure how to interpret the referendum result and concerned with that sick minority of racists who wrongly feel emboldened. Let’s stop contributing to their anxiety in the utterly misguided notion that we shouldn’t reveal our hand too early and make a pledge to them.

The current government line is to say that we cannot guarantee their rights until we are sure that other Member States will reciprocate and protect the rights of Britons in the EU. On closer inspection, it is difficult to see how this would work in practice. If France guaranteed the rights of Britons but Spain did not, are we really saying we would therefore treat French nationals different to Spanish? Would we really punish them for their government’s actions? The idea that we would implement mass deportations is ludicrous and ghastly. This wouldn’t work on a practical basis and would be morally repugnant in any case.

A far better policy would be to act now in good faith and guarantee the rights of EU nationals in the UK expectation of reciprocity, which we will almost certainly receive. If, and I don’t for a moment believe it would happen, the rights of UK nationals were not guaranteed in reciprocation then we would have every right to purse their rights in court and would be likely to succeed.

Was the vote to leave an expression by the 52% for EU nationals to leave? The evidence is clear that this is not the case. ICM’s new post-referendum research for British Future that 84% of people (including 77% of Leave voters) want existing EU nationals to stay and any future changes to apply only to new migrants. The British people know that it is the right thing to do. Some of those who have migrated here may intend to return back to their country of origin eventually, as is their prerogative, but many others now consider Britain their home. What kind of a country would we be if didn’t tell say they were very welcome to stay?

Ben is the Conservatives for Liberty Online Director. Follow him on Twitter: @TheScepticIsle

Follow @con4lib on Twitter

Like Conservatives for Liberty on Facebook

The views expressed in this article are that of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of Conservatives for Liberty

Invoke Article 50 now? No. Invoke it when
we’re good and ready

Ben Kelly / Blog / Article 50, Brexit / 0 comments

19/07/2016

The “Invoke Article 50 now” movement is deeply misguided and those leading the charge really need to have a rethink and get a stronger grasp of the issues. On the day Theresa May became Prime Minister protestors gathered at the Downing Street gates to demand the process be instigated immediately; this is most likely a direct response to the anti-Brexit protests and demands to ignore the vote. Although I understand that there is a developing anxiety that the Government will back track, we cannot make any rash decisions just to reassure anxious Brexiteers.

We are seeing the symptoms of a deeply entrenched naivety about what leaving the EU entails. We’re not rescinding our membership of a golf club; we are leaving a political and judicial union that touches upon ever area of British governance. Our economies are deeply integrated as part of a common regulatory area free of technical barriers to trade (which are far more important than tariffs) and we must figure out what our future economic relationship will be and what can be realistically achieved in the first instance.

There is far too much flippancy about the importance of the Single Market to our economy and little understanding that it cannot easily be replicated. A comprehensive trade agreement designed to form a new trading partnership from outside of the Single Market is achievable in the long run, but it will take years and contrary to the myth we cannot just fall back on WTO rules alone in the meantime without severely negative consequences.

Giving notification to the EU that we intend to leave via Article 50 triggers a two-year period in which we will negotiate a settlement for our secession. This initial settlement is critical, it is of huge importance that we get this right and secure our economy because botching this stage of the process could potentially be catastrophic. The first stage of what will be a continually evolving relationship needs to provide trade and business continuity.

Crucially, our Article 50 negotiations are about far more than trade and this is what makes the process inherently complicated and makes an interim solution for trade likely. We are deeply integrated in the Union; there is not a single element of policymaking that is not affected to some extent by EU law. This should tell you something of the difficulties ahead.

We also have a multitude of contractual obligations and are involved in a wide variety of cooperation programmes. We closely cooperate with the EU on defence, security, justice and home affairs, science and academia, aviation and space activities. Every area will need looking at and this will take a huge amount of time and political capital. In this, there will be trade-off and concessions and in some cases we will look to maintain things as they are or defer until later because we only have so much capacity for dealing with all of these issues.

It is abundantly clear that the Government is not remotely prepared for the huge task at hand; officials were prevented from making concrete preparations for Brexit and thus they haven’t done any work on what it will involve. It is clear that the inherent complexities, difficulties and potential pitfalls of this project have not really sunk in and Cabinet Ministers heading up Brexit will need long, detailed sessions with their advisers and legal team before they begin to get to grips with it.

It is a good, positive step to have set up two new government departments to begin work but as yet they have no resources whatsoever. The Government does not, as it stands, have the ability to begin Article 50 negotiations; they don’t have the staff, the expertise or a plan. So demanding the invocation of Article 50 immediately is little more than a childish sulk. Those calling for this may as well stamp their feet, fold their arms and keep quiet if they cannot contribute constructively or try to understand what we are taking on and why it isn’t half as simple as they think or hope.

We don’t currently have an official negotiation position on trade nor any other issue. We don’t have a negotiating team either. The government has not decided between them what our aims are, nor have we settled the best way forward to unify all nations of the United Kingdom. Even when we do clarify some of our aims, we are unsure of the room for manoeuvre we have with other European governments. We haven’t prepared the ground, properly analysed the situation or sounded out other Member States. Thus, we are in no way ready to invoke Article 50. Not by a long shot. And we cannot contemplate doing so until we are good and ready because failure will lead either to severe economic downturn or to the government seeking to pull the plug on the whole process and stay in the EU. We cannot afford to fail, so we must prepare ourselves thoroughly and proceed only when we are good and ready.

First of all we must conduct a scoping exercise. This means preliminary discussions and informal negotiations with other European leaders. We state our position to each Member State and find out their position in response. In doing this we can discover what is open for negotiation and what is not and begin building an agenda. We cannot do this until we are clear on what our objectives are and what compromises we are willing to make and what our “red lines” are.

For this will require many hearings of select committees, expert panels, public consultations and referrals to professional bodies, unions, trade guilds and input from academics. The experts here are most certainly not our Ministers; people like Davis and Johnson might be our figureheads, but they haven’t got a grasp of the details and the technicalities. Over the coming months the hard reality will begin to sink in and the absolute necessity for compromise, transitional solutions and concessions become very clear. This will likely lead to a recalibration of our aims.

Scoping will take six months or more and we have the looming French and German elections which could cause a change in position. It would clearly be reckless to rush this process or make any rash decisions. We really must accept that Brexit is a long process; it is going to take some time to initiate and will be very much ongoing for many years ahead of us. Even after our membership officially ends our legal and constitutional disentanglement will take a very long time indeed.

There have been concerns raised that Article 50 will never be triggered, this is aggravated by Remain supporters and politicians who are very much hoping for and actively seeking this outcome. There is indeed a danger, especially as our politicians really begin to gain an understanding of the sheer magnitude of the task. It may lead to delays. We must therefore be vigilant, politically engaged and ready to object if necessary. However, for our part we must also understand that this is not a small undertaking, there are no shortcuts, no easy ways out. This is not simple, no matter how much we’d like it to be. I’m not over complicating it, as I am so often accused of doing, it is complicated and that’s all there is to it.

There is a minefield ahead of us which we must navigate our way through. This means slowly, carefully, in a measured and planned way; one step at a time. Paranoid demands to “invoke Article 50 now!” are not a helpful contribution to the debate; it simply makes Leavers look clueless, and we don’t exactly have a great reputation for knowing our brief as it is. If Remainers have a duty to accept the referendum result and make a positive construction to the debate, then Leavers have a responsibility to stop oversimplifying this, get to grips with the enormity of it and get involved in the detail, the boring technicalities and grown up politics of Brexit.

After two years of Article 50 negotiations we will officially no longer be members of the EU but it is certain that large parts of our current relationship will have been retained as they are. What we will have developed is a roadmap for our gradual divergence over time. As some political and legal obligations we wish to be free of wind down, and we seek a fully customised trade arrangement, and we begin to review the statute books, our relationship will evolve, we will become increasingly more independent and we will have our so called “British model”; but we’re looking at a 20-year process.

Our main broad aims in the initial exit settlement should be to protect our economy and minimise disruption, which should come down to retaining our trade relationship via the Single Market thus deferring any bespoke trading agreement, and seeking concessions on immigration allowing for better management of the incoming numbers. This stage is all about transition management. It means protecting jobs and encouraging investment, conserving our own Union of nations and giving ourselves a soft landing.

From there we can slowly but surely build the “global Britain” we aspire to, re-engage with the world as an independent nation, develop trade links and restore independent policy making. But this will take time and it will require our patience.

Right now, the timing of when we invoke Article 50 is fully within our control and remains a strong hand in our deck until such a time as we play it. Rash decisions and rushing for the sake of it will lead to a bad outcome. If something is worth doing, it’s worth doing right.

Ben is the Conservatives for Liberty Web Editor. He blogs at The Sceptic Isle. Follow him on Twitter: @TheScepticIsle

Follow @con4lib on Twitter

Like Conservatives for Liberty on Facebook

The views expressed in this article are that of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of Conservatives for Liberty

Brexit: The revolt against the establishment

Chris Manby / Blog / Brexit, eu, Referendum campaign, Vote Leave / 1 comment

02/07/2016

Like many who campaigned to leave the European Union, I wasn’t expecting victory. Neither were the pollsters, the pundits, media commentators, and Nigel Farage. I’ve never been happier to be proven wrong.

Against all predictions, against all odds, Great Britain is leaving the EU and rejoining the world.

The British public have always had an uneasy relationship with the European Project. That was true even when they voted to stay in the Common Market.

In 1975, most people accepted the pragmatic argument for EEC membership that Britain’s ailing economy needed a shot in the arm. But the British never fully embraced the European ideal and have always been downright hostile to the notion of a single European government.

The EU was designed to be the foundation of a united Europe. The brainchild of the enigmatic French diplomat Jean Monnet, it’s whole purpose was to bind the nations of Western Europe into a single economic and political unit.

Europe’s establishment – it’s political class, bankers, big business and fashionable intellectuals – have always been keener on this idea than the hoi polloi.

What has changed since 1975 is not the nature of the EU but it’s steady progress towards an end goal that only a privileged elite ever wanted. Eurocrats actively seeks to thwart democratic decisions when they go against le grand projet.

When France and the Netherlands rejected the proposed Constitution, the referendum results were quietly ignored. When the Irish rejected the Lisbon Treaty they were told they didn’t understand the question and asked to vote again.

When the democratically elected Italian and Greek governments rejected Eurozone bailout deals they were swiftly toppled and replaced with more compliant regimes.

The EU has grown alarmingly in this time. From its humble origins as a Common Market, it become a leviathan with legal supremacy over the laws of its member states. The EU has it’s own social policy, foreign affairs representatives, police force, flag and anthem. It is now a federal state in all but name.

Meanwhile, patriotic working class voters in Britain’s former industrial heartlands have felt increasingly betrayed as the elites embraced anti-democratic multiculturalism and supranational government. Mass immigration has completely transformed the neighbourhoods where they used to live, and put the schools and hospitals they rely on under back-breaking strain. If they dare to complain they are labelled as “bigots”.

This has accompanied a complete change in the nature of British euroscepticism. Once upon a time it was the left who feared the European ‘capitalist club’ and it’s contempt for national democracy. Now they embrace open borders, sneer at the St George’s Cross, and seek to “rub the right’s nose in diversity”.

So committed to the European project was New Labour under Tony Blair that he tried to sign Britain up to the Single Currency – now devastating the economies of southern Europe – and would have got away with it if Gordon Brown had not insisted on imposing his ‘five tests’.

At the same time the Conservative grassroots have become increasingly wary of the European project. The fall of Margaret Thatcher galvanised eurosceptic Tories. The ERM debacle confirmed their worst fears about the ultimate loyalties of their new leaders. John Major’s bitter war against the “bastards” in his own party exposed a growing rift between the Conservative hierarchy and the party base.

It was this febrile atmosphere that gave birth to UKIP. Few political movements have grown so fast and achieved so much. Former Tories and old Labour voters flocked to Nigel Farage’s party because the political class wasn’t listening. Many in the Leave camp are still wary of Farage, but the awkward fact is there would have been no referendum without him.

David Cameron called this referendum to appease his own party and stave off the threat of UKIP. He lost it because the masses do not and never have believed that handing over our government to a foreign power was in their interests or the nation’s.

When campaigning started, the Leave camp appeared fragmented and messy. But they had a coherent message, shaped by decades of opposition to the European Project from across the political divide: Take back control of our democracy and our borders.

The Remain camp, by contrast was split. Were they pro-immigration or anti-immigration? For preserving national sovereignty within the EU, or abolishing it entirely? They didn’t seem sure. All too often Remainers fell back on Project Fear: a scorched earth strategy that insisted in increasingly shrill tones that only ruin awaited Britain outside the warm embrace of Brussels.

Leave won because they were right. The EU has become increasingly over-mighty, concerning itself more with regulating toasters and vacuum cleaners than the messy concerns of the people living under its rule. Last week’s result was the revolt of the forgotten, the dispossessed and the despised.

It turns out we were always the majority. We just didn’t realise it.

Follow @con4lib on Twitter

Like Conservatives for Liberty on Facebook

The views expressed in this article are that of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of Conservatives for Liberty