Sunday 26 June 2016
"Are we still capable of governing ourselves?", is the headline of the Booker column today. There could be no better summing-up of the extraordinary situation in which we all find ourselves this weekend, he writes, than the quotation at the beginning of The Great Deception, the history of the EU we wrote a decade ago.
In 1950, when steps were first being made to create a supranational government for Europe, Britain's then-foreign secretary, Ernest Bevin, memorably observed "if you open that Pandora’s box, you never know what Trojan 'orses will jump out".
Says Booker, despite having spent much of the past 24 years trying to explain why Britain's decision to submit to that weird supranational form of government had been, in Lady Thatcher's words, "a political error of the first magnitude", he confesses that on Thursday night he was just as startled as anyone by how the referendum results unfolded.
So dismally had the campaign been conducted by both sides that, right to the end, he was predicting as the best outcome a 48-52 per cent split in favour of Remain – except that it turned out to be exactly the other way round.
Booker, of course, was not the only one to call it wrong, but now we are faced with this Brexit earthquake, Booker is reminded of a scene in a Marx Brothers film where one of them asks a bystander to choose five cards before putting them back in the pack. "Do you want them one at a time" he asks, "or all at once?". When the answer is "all together", he throws the cards up in the air so that they shower all over the place.
Such is our position today – when the cards of Britain's future seem suddenly to have been scattered in all directions. Now Humpty Dumpty has fallen so unexpectedly off his wall, where are all the king's men to put him together again?
The last people to advise on how we should now proceed are those leaders of the Vote Leave campaign, who we all feared would lose us the battle by their refusal to offer a properly worked-out "exit plan": one capable of neutralising Project Fear by allowing us to continue trading, like independent Norway, just as freely with the single market as we do now; but without the political baggage and without having to obey three quarters of the EU's laws.
That, says Booker, is the only intelligent way to go. Yet, as he has asked before, are our politicians and civil servants any longer capable of negotiating such a sensible withdrawal? For decades they have become so used to working within the claustrophobic supranational Brussels system that one has to wonder whether we are any longer capable of governing ourselves.
The real reason why the British people voted as they did, it seems, was not due to the lamentably inadequate arguments put forward by Vote Leave, but by a deep sense that they no longer wish to be ruled by a system they don't understand and by a remote, self-serving political elite, wholly unresponsive to their concerns – exactly that sense of alienation we now see welling up across the EU.
That is why we see crises piling in on the EU from all sides, as that wishful thinking dedicated to suppressing national identity collides with the sense of national interest in all directions – the euro, migration, Ukraine. All these are self-inflicted wounds, and now Brexit adds yet another.
Booker then reminds us that the process of disentangling ourselves from this infinitely complex supranational system will be a much more difficult and lengthier task than most people realise.
"Have we slept so long cocooned in its emasculating embrace that we are no longer capable of rising to that challenge in the grown-up way that it requires?", he asks. Such is the task now before us. Otherwise, having opened Pandora's box, we shall see all those Trojan horses running rings around us – in a way that may cause us to look back on June 2016 as the opportunity we didn't deserve.
Saturday 25 June 2016
Now that we are firmly on the path towards leaving the EU, to focus turns to the divorce settlement. But, as an indication of how unprepared we are, we have the pretender to the throne, Alexander (aka Boris) Johnson, still dickering about the application of Article 50, suggesting that it is not necessary to invoke it.
It really is not good enough to have such a basic matter unresolved at this stage. We were writing about it in 2012 and its application has long since been resolved, by the government and by two of the country's leading constitutional lawyers.
Yet still we're having Johnson, Redwood and sundry others arguing the toss – putting the entire negotiations at risk. After all, if these people can't even deal with the basics, there seems little chance of getting to grips with the more complex matters.
When the Article 50 issue has been so thoroughly aired and apparently resolved, and we're still having to revisit the same sterile arguments, over and over again, it is time to sound the alarm bells. Article 50 is the only lawful way to withdraw from the EU. These people need to accept the unarguable, and move on.
However, this controversy over this apparently minor technical point is but the visible steam on a seething cauldron as the Conservative Party breaks up into warring factions, each seeking to seize the prize of the leadership - and control of the renegotiation process.
That process itself will define the shape of post-exit Britain but itself has the potential to bring chaos and destruction to a level unimaginable in modern European politics. Yet, as the ship as it heads for the rocks, Captain Cameron has abandoned ship and madmen squabble over who holds the wheel.
At the front - for the moment - is the ghastly Johnson making his bid for power, alongside his running-mate Michael Gove. Behind him are men (mostly men - I see no women emerging) whom you would cross the road to avoid. They have ideas so extreme and so devoid of reality that one can scarce believe that what they are pursuing is seriously intended.
These are men with almost autistic characters. They can face down truth with unwavering stares, refusing in any way to accept the consequences of their actions, as they focus manically on their chosen course. And in this case, they are not ruling out unilateral abrogation of the EU treaties - relying on Crown prerogative, which does not even need the assent of Parliament. They would drive us onto the rocks and applaud each other for their skill.
These are worrying times, more worrying than people can imagine - with a power vacuum at the centre which may not hold until October to allow an orderly transfer of power. The referendum has lifted the lid on that seething cauldron. What we see inside is not a pretty sight. It has the potential for much danger.
The referendum has been the cover for a coup. Vote Leave was never about winning the referendum. It was always about taking over the Conservative Party. That's why the Cummings-Elliott axis were happy to let Farage do the preening over the count. They were too busy executing their coup. Now, Cameron has been deposed and the plotters are storming the palace. Cummings is already behaving as if he was chief of staff at No 10.
Corbyn's opposition in disarray, their leader a weak, empty man. With him in place, there is little Parliament can do to stop the zealots taking over. What the plotters can do, and have the potential to do, is not something any sane person would even want to imagine.
With little idea of what is really going on, we thus see some media - dominated by prattling girlies (of both sexes) - on about us being "out of the EU". We're not, and there's a long way to go. There is very little chance of achieving an orderly transition - if indeed that is possible - if the wrong people grab the wheel.
In place of that, we face the possibility of an "association" deal being negotiated. On offer will be a second-class status little different to that of Ukraine, effectively under the control of the EU. It will leave us, as Cameron so often warned, without any seats at any of the "top tables". The worst of all possible worlds.
In the absence of a coherent exit strategy - as Westminster descends into chaos - this option may seem increasingly attractive to many. It will be hailed as a way of reimposing order. But it puts us in the position of supplicants as the siren calls for order and certainty swell in volume. Thus will be the choice - chaos or subjugation, with the idea of freedom a distant memory.
That points the way to a different coup, one being prepared for us in Brussels, with the pressure on to bounce us into early negotiations before anyone is ready. There awaiting us will be a "honey trap" - increasingly attractive compared with the chaos at the centre. We may be watching ourselves leap from a sizzling pan into a roaring fire.
Friday 24 June 2016
While they're sweeping up all those chicken heads, we have Flexcit for you: it's all worked out here
. Just follow the instructions and you won't go far wrong. Written by hundreds, read by thousands (currently over 80,000), this is the definitive exit plan, as noted by The Register
There is also the video
which helps explain some of the issues, and the short version here
Over the next hours, weeks and months we are going to be assailed by ill-informed comment in super-tanker quantities, much of it from the BBC whose David Dimbleby referred to Article 50 as "Chapter 50" - reflecting the degree of knowledge and insight in the institution.
In this and other media organisations - and in government itself - there is terrifyingly little knowledge of the workings of the EU, and next to none about how we should extract ourselves from it. Listening to some of the offerings is painful.
However, with the promised resignation of Mr Cameron as Prime Minister, the excellent news is that he has had the sense to to defer the Article 50 notification to his successor. It will not - as Cameron suggested it might (another example of FUD) - be invoked immediately.
That gives us some time for reflection and planning, and also some mature consideration as to timing.
Key events are the French presidential elections in May next year and the German federal elections, which will be held between 27 August and 22 October 2017. Until those are over, and the new (or existing) German Chancellor is bedded in, there is not much point in invoking Article 50. There will be no-one on the other side of the table, capable of making a decision.
The new prime minister must also decide on whether he (or she) wants the two-year article 50 negotiating period to run into our own general election period. There might be some sense (but also some hazard) in setting the period so that the tail end straddles the election. That way a putative settlement can be part of the election mandate sought.
There are advantages and disadvantages to this, and a national conversation might be appropriate.
Also, we have to deal with the assumption that the negotiation period will necessarily be two years. It can be extended by unanimity. However, there is nothing in the book which says the application for an extension has to be left to the last minute. It could, in fact, be the first order of business. A British government could start the talks with a proposal to extend the period - taking the pressure off negotiators.
And there, we are going to have to see some serious realism. Even with the best will in the worlds - adopting the EEA core acquis
unchanged - concluding the settlement within two years is going to take Herculean effort. We are going to have to throw a huge number of concessions off the sledge to make it happen.
The end result, therefore, is going to be neither pretty nor clean. And there are going to be plenty of naysayers warbling: "I told you so", when we see no immediate savings on contributions, and no immediate cut in immigration.
But even Dan Hannan has managed to understand enough of Flexcit (not that he would ever admit it) to realise that Brexit is a process, not event. By the time he has repeated that point enough times, he will have convinced himself that he invented it, and will dine out on his own cleverness
The crucial element, though, is that the extraction will be phased. The legal-politico task of withdrawing from the EU treaties is only the start of a long process, a means to an end - an opportunity rather than a reward (some more slogans for Mr Hannan to steal). What we do then will determine whether Brexit will have been worth it - there is danger as well as opportunity.
A government and media bereft of ideas, however, will need guidance. And it is a truism that most new policy initiatives come from outside government not within. After all, the very idea of joining the EEC came as a result of external agitation and lobbying. A tolerable post-EU order, therefore, is going to be driven by minds outside the bubble.
Fortunately, so much of the work is already done. It is there to steal, and any number of clever Hannan-clones can read our work and claim authorship. We can't stop them doing it and, if that is what is necessary, some of it will have to be tolerated. Small minds can't cope with "not invented here" syndrome.
Nevertheless, Flexcit is sufficiently well established for many of its readers to recognise the origin or parts when they appear. To see them used will be something of a reward. To know that their users could not bring themselves to acknowledge the origins will tell its own story - one we can see unfolding for our entertainment over the next two years.
A new sport is born - Flexcit spotting. Step forward Mr Hannan. In the meantime, as Mary Ellen says
, we can spend a little time partying.
Friday 24 June 2016
Guest post by Pete North
Well, we've done it. Defying all of my expectations. Firstly, I want to get some things out of the way. Though I was wrong about the result I think the Vote Leave campaign was dismal. I believe it is responsible for this being a slim victory and not a landslide. Those ideas put forth by the leave camp have been wholly disgusting and factually incorrect. I do want to leave the EU but I do not seek the Britain as envisaged by the Tory right, the Labour left or Ukip. Thankfully, reality stands in the way of that.
As campaigner and contributing editor at The Leave Alliance, you should know this. The official Leave campaign was one widely opposed and we never wanted the likes of Boris Johnson or Farage. These are not informed men and they have no idea what they are talking about. Our ethos at TLA was to make a liberal case for leaving the EU, seeking not to dodge the political realities.
To that end, we produced a comprehensive Brexit plan which is rumoured to be required reading in the civil service. We make the case that leaving the EU in a single bound is impossible as it is damaging both to the EU and the UK. And so our recommended path is similar to that of Norway whereby we retain single market membership and freedom of movement.
The funding for the official Vote Leave campaign dries up today and that malign entity will be dismantled. What Ukip says will no longer be relevant. This is now a decision for the adults.
The majority of MPs are opposed to leaving the EU and so they absolutely will not support any moves to leave the EEA as well and so there are democratic safeguards in place to ensure extreme measures are not taken.
We are meeting on Tuesday to discuss future direction. The proposal will be to continue making the case for Flexcit and for Efta membership under the banner of TLA. It sees us as close allies of the EU but not subordinate to it, which I believe is best for the UK. It retains most of the advantages of the EU without requiring a political merger and gives us control of key policy. I think it is the right move.
This is not about hostility to Europeans or Europe. This is hostility to our political class who continued to commit us to further subordination without public consent. One way or another, Britain will remain a liberal and tolerant nation. We are simply choosing a different mode for our relations with Europe.
The EU is based on a dogmatic principle of supranationalism. We are departing from that to a more multilateral mode both in Efta and the WTO. This is not the end of the world and I can assure you Ukip and the likes will not get their way. We know this because they only scored 14% at the general election. There are more of us than there are of them.
As a committed leaver for all of my adult life I detest Ukip and what they stand for. And so do our thousands of supporters. I believe this is the right move because the question is now resolved, we can reboot British politics, redesign British governance and move on from a 40 year quarrel. Politics will be far healthier for it at the end of this process.
In the meantime, nothing happens immediately, there is no need for alarm. Brexit is a process, not an event and we will see in due course that the propaganda spouted by the remain campaign was a gross distortion of the facts.
Though if you wish to guarantee Britain remains a liberal and tolerant country, it will require of you that you maintain current levels of political particpation and speak up for what you believe in. We have been disengaged for far too long which is why we are even here in the first place.
There will be more to discuss and this blog will continue as normal and I expect there is more work to be done. Meanwhile, enjoy the party. You have earned it.
Pete also blogs here, on Pete North's political blog.
Friday 24 June 2016
05:05 We're on 15.2m to 14.2m for the remains ... we're more than a million ahead, going up. Congratulations everybody ... the team. You did us all proud. We did it.
And so to bed. I've been up for 22 hours. I'll pick up when I've had a bit of sleep.
04:55 Keith Vaz says this is a crushing, crushing decision. A terrible decision... "in a thousand years, I would never have believed people would have voted in this way. It's catastrophic". We must now get the best deal in respect of our exit.
04:49 The Eurocrats are now facing a Brexit-coloured wrecking ball smashing through the Berlaymont.
04:38: Remain on 11,944,720. Leave gets 12,751,576 votes. This is an 800K margin, going on 1 million. Dimbleby says there is no way "remain" can win. It looks as if we have reversed the decision of the 1975 referendum. We're out.
04:31: Rumour has it that Birmingham is about to go leave. And we're waiting for Cornwall ... patronising twat called Martin somebody says fishing is a "very emotional" issue. Steve Hilton says the question is no longer about whether we leave but how.
04:20: Count now stands at 10,363,816 for remain and 10,996,500 for leave - a clear 600K advantage. The BBC's Emily Maitlis interviews Will Straw - who looks knackered. Remainers behind him very subdued. But he does not concede defeat. This is a "wake-up call" for the political élites, he says. It's a very close result - there's going to be a "lot of reflection".
Stupid BBC person says that if we leave the EU, we put things like Erasmus behind us. And yet she will pick up her salary cheque this month. Meanwhile, Farage is giving a ranty victory speech. Just as well the polls are closed - that would have cost us a million votes. BBC is saying the "balance of advantage" lies with leave campaign.
I can see dawn from my office window - a new dawn on an independent Britain? Yay! Suck it up guys. The lights are on in the Berlaymont. Hillary Benn says "if you walk away from the world's largest market, you crate (sic) a great deal of uncertainty". Note to Benn ... if we leave, the EU is no longer the world's largest market!
Rossendale in Lancashire delivers 39.3 percent for remain (15,012 votes), while leave gets 60.7 percent (23,169 votes) - at last, we've got something good to say about Lancashire. The discussion about what we might need to do if we vote leave is no longer an academic one. Remain is saying they still think a win is "possible". Leave is on 6 million and the remains are on 5.8 million. And, in the "Asian markets", there is "a real sense of anxiety" ... aw, shucks!
: On a personal level, EUReferendum.com recorded 59,659 hits yesterday and 21,968 already today. With 380 comments on this thread, this sets new records for the blog. My thanks to all readers and supporters.
In high-immigrant Haringey, remain gets 75.6 percent (79,991 votes) while a mere 24.4 goes to leave (25,855 votes). Crawley is an interesting one. Home authority for Gatwick airport, it delivers a remain vote of 41.6 percent (22,388 votes) and leave gets 58.4 percent (31,447 votes).
We have 260 of 382 areas still to declare, so we're not even halfway. But remain is still trailing with 49.8 percent on 4,149,554 votes and leave is still ahead (marginally) on 50.2 percent, with 4,184,849 votes. The country is split down the middle. Dimbleby is trying to pull in extraneous domestic issues and play down the EU element. He doesn't get it.
Nobby Richmond upon Thames delivers 69.3 percent and 75,396 votes for remain and 30.7 percent and 33,410 votes for leave. Nevertheless, the BBC is talking of a "high possibility" of a Brexit by the end of the night. This is something of a turnround - part of the dynamic is that Labour members outside London are telling the party to get stuffed.
286 results left to declare. Leave stands at 3,453,618 votes and remain gets 3,420,957 votes. It's London and Scotland versus the rest of the country, but even London isn't homogeneous. Barking & Dagenham has yielded only 37.6 percent for remain at 27,750 votes, while 62.4 percent and 46,130 votes go to leave.
: Unexpected strength in the North-East is skewing the result in favour of "leave".
: Overall, the English vote stands at "leave" with 324,829 votes and remain at 256,890 votes. For the UK as a whole, remain has gained 344,535 votes. Leave has taken 370,404 votes. There are 367 results yet to declare. The electorate is 46,503,464.
Whoever is going to get a victory, they are having work for the result. Based on current turnout estimates - 67.4 percent - the winning post is set at 16.8 million. As a reminder, the 1975 turnout was 64.5 percent. Peter Kelner is saying the results look much closer now. A remain victory is no longer certain.
Shetland declares remains at 56.5 percent and leave at 43.5 percent. This is an interesting result. Shetland was one of the only two areas in the 1975 referendum which came in with a "no" vote, delivering 56 percent.
: Swindon delivers another possible outlier, with the remains coming in at 45.3 percent (51,220 votes) and leave at 54.7 percent (61,745 votes). Broxbourne gives the remains 33.7 percent and the "leaves" 66.3 percent. There is no clear trend yet emerging from any of these results. That "long night" just got longer.
Dimbleby, talking about the prospects of leaving the EU, starts referring to "Chapter 50". This is the BBC's finest political mind?
: A stonking result from Sunderland. The "remains" get 51,930 votes while the "leaves" pull in 82,394 votes. This is much better than expected. The "remains" are said to be a little nervous. That gives the "remains" 38.7 percent, while the "leaves" have taken 61.3 percent.
Clackmannanshire is also in: Remain 57.8 percent, leave 42.2 percent. This puts the "leave" campaign ahead by 3,200 votes after 5 declarations. Foyle (Northern Ireland) gives the "remains" 78.3 percent. Leave gets 21.7 percent.
Newcastle: first result from England - Remain: 65,404 (50.7 percent), Leave 63,598 (49.3 percent). This is much closer than predicted by the legion of "experts". The "remains" were expecting to have done better. Orkney also in. Remain 63.2 percent, leave 36.8 percent. In 1975, it delivered 62 percent "yes" - the two results almost the same.
: Massive 96 percent vote in Gibraltar in favour of remain - to no one's surprise.
: Speaking to a High Person this evening, his day on the hustings had no one mention the £350 million "savings" as the reason for leaving. One of the biggest handicaps of the entire campaign, he said, was having to talk down the lie, before the discussion could get down to the details. In every way imaginable, the Vote Leave campaign has been a train wreck. If we do actually win, it will have been in spite of, not because, of the efforts of the Vote Leave hierarchy.
: Ipsos Mori offers an "on-the-day" poll with "remain" in the lead with 54 percent and "leave" at 46 percent – closer to my minimum expectation of a ten-point gap.
There is good evidence to support a thesis that a substantial number of people do not actually make up their minds until they have a pencil in their hand and are looking at the ballot paper. It is then that the "fear" motivation is at its strongest. And it is my view that Vote Leave and the other main "leave" campaigns simply failed sufficiently to address the economic impact of leaving.
In fact, by specifically rejecting continued participation in the Single Market, Vote Leave seems to have gone out of its way to ensure that we would lose what I believe was a winnable contest. This crass intervention, in my view, will prove to be the single most important factor in driving voters into the "remain" camp.
: If we have lost, the fight goes on. This hasn't been a free and fair fight, but one characterised by a Prime Minister who has elevated political lying to an art form, starting with his faux
renegotiation and his non-treaty. I feel no obligation to take this result as final, and will continue to work for an independent Britain.
The immediate task will be to identify the reasons why we lost. The official Vote Leave campaign will already be polishing its excuses, ready to come up with the conclusion that its was everybody else's fault except theirs. Pete North, however, has already published two posts, here
, looking at some of the problem areas. It will come as not surprise for you to learn that he (rather like his father) is looking to the execrable conduct of the campaign for his answers.
: For what it's worth, I think we're going to lose - a prediction where I sincerely hope I'm wrong. To those I've been talking to privately, I've been saying this consistently throughout the campaign. If there is a poll error (YouGov gives "remain" 52 percent and "leave" 48 percent), I think it will be in understating the margin. I expect there to be at least a ten-point gap, and possibly more - closer to the 1975 result.
Then as you will recall, the result was 67.2 percent in favour of continued membership of the "Common Market", with a turnout of 64.5 percent. The registered electorate at that time was 40,456,886 human beings - plus Ted Heath.
: It's going to be a very long night, says somebody. Is anyone recording the cliché rate (measured in clichés per minute - cps)? This is going to be agony - a procession of talking heads on the idiot's lantern, people who I didn't want to listen to during the campaign, and the very people who have nothing to say to me now.
: Polls closed. Why is it that ITV feels the need to have a moronic drumbeat to accompany its announcements?
: The BBC's Nick Robinson is complaining that the referendum campaign has been a "deeply demoralising experience". Both sides, he says, have acted in a "deeply misleading way". When the campaign is over, he adds: "I don't think that we will look back and think that we had a healthy debate of the issues".
: Even the Metro
– via Ben Kelly
- can acknowledge "Flexit" (sic). But not the mighty Telegraph
: Stephen Bush in the New Statesman
has just discovered that the splits in society are not defined by left and right – brought to light by a divisive referendum campaign. To us, it is interesting how many times we have to write that "they catch up eventually. We were writing about this stuff in early 2011
and again later
the same year. And what we were saying then is just as true now, even if it takes this referendum to make people notice.
: Interesting piece by Allister Heath in the Telgraph
. This is Flexcit
by any other name, but nicely sanitised so the ideas don't have to be attributed. I'm told I should be pleased that our ideas are at last "getting out there", and of course I am. And you can't patent or copyright such ideas. But, all the same, while we get that warm glow of satisfaction from seeing them in print, having salarymen plagiarise or steal them doesn't pay the bills. Gradually, stage-by-stage
, Heath is stealing our work. After a few more articles, he will own it.
: I am not sure I can get my head round the idea of legions of clerks, armed with erasers, secretly rubbing out "leave" votes and replacing them with votes for the other side. However, when it comes to the use of pens
, it was instructive to note that we were offered that option at our polling station. I forgot to ask whether one could mark the box in blood … preferably from somebody else.
: "Dougan the Dishonest" has posted a transcript
of his little venture into mendacity. And, on the main webpage
we are told that he "analyses the substance of each viewpoint and delivers an informed assessment of the UK's potential future position, both as a member of the EU and in the wake of a vote to leave".
That, quite demonstrably, is untrue. Self-evidently, the man is not analysing the substance
of each viewpoint. Had that been the case, he would not merely have said of the legal review, "it will have to be done very, very quickly". He would have to have said that "some" (i.e., himself and supporters) thought it would have to be done quickly. Others suggest that it could be done at a more leisurely pace.
Not anywhere, though, is there any attempt to give an assessment of both viewpoints. This is quite clearly advocacy, promoting the "remain" cause.
Then, on the website, we get the disclaimer: "Professor Dougan is an employee of the University of Liverpool. He does not work for, undertake paid consultancy for, or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article".
Yet, he is the holder of a Jean Monnet chair, and the post
is financed by the European Union. For sure, the money is not paid to Dougan directly. It is paid to the University, and they pay him. Why does the University not see fit to state this? What has it got to hide?
: Just been out to vote. The clerks report they've already done more business than they do in a full day. There were queues waiting to get in at five to seven.
: The Electoral Commission reports that 46,499,537 have registered to vote. Most of them are people. This is a record for a UK poll. Early reports have people queuing to cast their votes.
: On this day, in the year 930, the world's oldest parliament, the Icelandic Parliament, the Alþingi (anglicised as Althing or Althingi), was established. Particularly attractive features of this assembly were that it was held in the open air and the delegates were required to stand throughout the proceedings.
: Latest opinion poll from Ipsos Mori (via Britain elects, on Twitter) has the "remains" on 52 percent (up five points) and the "leaves" on 48 percent (down five points). This is a telephone poll and the "don't knows" have been excluded.
Through the day and into the night, on this historic day, I'll keep a running blog going, adding to is as events demand. In the meantime, you are more than welcome to treat this as an open thread. And I'm glad my part in the event is being recognised, at last. I'll let you into a secret ... this North is voting to leave. The North not in the North will as well. The Norths have it?
Interestingly, the dishonest Dougan
spat rumbles on. Last night, we received this (below) from Liverpool University.
This raises an interesting point, as we are sternly told that, even if we disagree with Dougan's view, it is "honestly held". That, by all accounts, makes him an honest man.
One didn't realise quite the degree to which sophistry is part of the academic's armoury these days, combined with an overweening arrogance that elevates them - in their own minds - to demi-god status, superior to us mere mortals. What they never seem to realise is that some of us have been there before, and might know a little bit more than they do. That never even occurs to them. In their reality, it is probably not even possible.
What Dougan - and his employers - are neglecting is that the brave professor is not a common and garden "ordinary man". He presents himself as an expert, implying that he is independent, setting himself up in judgement over the "leave" campaign.
The thing is, the moment you set yourself up as an "expert", the rules change. On the one hand, you are claiming that special status and demanding that your "expert opinion" be respected. But with that status comes special responsibilities. You are not allowed to retreat behind the defence of ignorance, the ignorance of an ordinary man, and claim protection from the charge of "dishonesty" on the basis that you didn't know. You cannot concede that you may be wrong, "but the views were honestly held", if any real expert could recognise the error.
That is the ordinary man's defence. It is not available to the expert. If you claim expertise, then you are expected to project the state of the art. To claim you are an expert and then not give a rounded, expert opinion - instead offering a limited, partisan view - is in itself dishonest. And, with that in mind, I have replied in these (for me) relatively gentle terms.
Dougan, in fact - whether he realises it or not - has stepped off the expert "plinth" and got stuck in the street fight, dishing it out to all and sundry. As such, he cannot claim any special privileges. As an expert, he should have known he was talking rubbish. If he didn't know he was talking rubbish, then he's not an expert. He can't have it both ways.
Thursday 23 June 2016
One of the compulsory course reading books student public health inspectors were presented in my time (and probably still are, as they go to university to take their environmental sciences degrees) was a manual on communicable diseases.
We had to be familiar with the terrors of smallpox, cholera, typhoid and even green monkey disease (which was then emerging as yet another threat – to say nothing of pneumonic plague).
Each disease was summarised in standard format in two pages, with the last category always being the treatment. And as a rule of thumb, the longer the list of cures, the less effective any of them were likely to be. The entries on diseases for which there were certain and effective treatments were usually a model of brevity.
So it is with reasons for leaving the European Union. The longer the list, the less convincing it is – and the easier it is to find excuses for disagreement. But then, we only need one reason to leave. That is good enough – so powerful that it transcends all others.
Essentially, today is our opportunity to correct an historic mistake. Politicians and others in the 1960s and early 70s, looking at the apparent success of Continental economies, and mistakenly believing this to be a function of the then Common Market, made the further mistake of believing that joining this construct would help cure Britain's post-war economic ailments.
Others who were fully aware of the integrationalist agenda, such as Ted Heath, had different ideas. But the fact is most people thought we were joining an economic union.
So prevalent is this myth that, to this day, many Conservative MPs still believe that we joined a Common Market that somehow lost its way – round about Maastricht – and started down the path to becoming a European "superstate".
Myth or not, it is fair to say that there is no popular mandate for joining of putative United States of Europe. And then, on the other hand, there is nothing that could be achieved by way of economic and other forms of neighbourly cooperation that could not have been achieved by other means.
To sum it up in a nutshell, in 1973 we joined a supranational construct, ostensibly to securing economic cooperation, when the same end could have been achieved by intergovernmental means, a looser and healthier form of association.
To have joined a supranational body was a mistake then and - as the Communities have grown to embrace 28 members – that mistake has become even more apparent. And, as we see the march of globalisation, while we are chained to "little Europe" in what is becoming a global backwater, the mistake has assumed colossal proportions.
Thus, today, 23 June 2016, the hundredth anniversary of the battle of Verdun from which came the intellectual driver of the European Union construct, we have the opportunity to correct an error.
In so doing, we are not leaving "Europe" – nor even travelling in a markedly different direction. The image of the signpost (above) sends the wrong signal, which has us going in almost opposite directions.
A better image would be the one below, with multiple trains travelling on roughly parallel tracks. Each is free to travel at its own speed and to stop at stations of their choice. Some may share the same destination, others may not. Still more may share part of the journey, diverging only as they travel on to reach their final destinations.
In fact, there is no destination. The affairs of a nation are a journey. We the people are passengers in a journey through time. We depart and others climb on, then to depart in a never-ending progression. We can decide on the speed and direction – to a certain extent, but never the ultimate destination. That is unknowable.
But if today we decide that it is necessary to travel in a different direction, uncoupling ourselves from the EU train, we should not be concerned with the immediate consequences. Undoubtedly there will be a cost, but it is likely to be minimal and, as we point out in Flexcit
, there is no need whatsoever for leaving the EU to be a leap in the dark.
Neither should we have any false or exaggerated expectations of the outcomes of our choice. Many will argue, for instance, that leaving offers us a chance to restore our democracy, except that this is a country which has barely if at all experience democracy and, with the current London-centric political classes in place, we are hardly ever likely to.
In fact leaving, in itself, achieves nothing and gives us nothing. It is not an end but a means to an end – a change in our status which enables us to make better and different decisions if we choose to do so. It does not guarantee that we will make those decisions or, necessarily, secure us better outcomes.
To leave, therefore, is to open us new opportunities for ourselves as a nation – it is an investment in a future, a better future than can be achieved as members of the European Union. It is an expression of faith and confidence in ourselves.
As such, no one should let themselves be influenced by the official referendum campaigns. Both have been inept neither have even begun to address the issues – the real issue – as to why we should leave. From the mouths of none of the campaigners to I recall having heard the words "supranational" and "intergovernmental".
Yet if we go back to the Parliamentary debates of the 1950s through to the 70s, when we actually joined the EEC, these two terms were the common currency of discourse, with MPs from both sides – and their Lordships – completely familiar with them, their respective meanings and the implications of choosing either.
In that broad historical context, the "remains" are quick to assert that Winston Churchill would have supported our membership of the EU, citing his 1946 Zurich speech
. But here we have Churchill speaking in a 1950 debate
in the House of Commons, on the Schuman Plan.
This is an occasion when MPs are talking about specifics, and the supranational nature of the proposed construct is well recognised – as is its role as a precursor to a "Federal Union of Europe" (to use Churchill's own words). And in that debate, he asked: "what association should Britain have with if such a thing should come to pass in the course of time?"He then answered in these terms:
It has not got to be decided today, but I shall give, with all humility, a plain answer. I cannot conceive that Britain would be an ordinary member of a Federal Union limited to Europe in any period which can at present be foreseen.
Churchill was very much in favour of helping developments on the Continent. We should, he said, "help, sponsor and aid in every possible way the movement towards European unity. We should seek steadfastly for means to become intimately associated with it". But, he said:
We must find our path to world unity through the United Nations organisation, which I hope will be re-founded one day upon three or four regional groups, of which a united Europe should certainly be one. By our unique position in the world, Great Britain has an opportunity, if she is worthy of it, to play an important and possibly a decisive part in all the three larger groupings of the Western democracies. Let us make sure that we are worthy of it.
This was exactly a reflection of his Hague speech in 1948
, where he argued for the United Nations to be the "paramount authority" in world affairs, but with regional bodies as part of the structure. They would be "august but subordinate", becoming "the massive pillars upon which the world organisation would be founded in majesty and calm".
Effectively, a New World Order would comprise a hierarchy of three tiers – national, regional and global. In the European context, this would include all the nations in continental Europe.
While was clearly Mr Churchill's ambition for that moment, what has actually emerged is not a dominant regional but a sub-regional entity. This is the European Union, which has assumed the role and many of the powers of a regional entity, without actually being one.
But, as we point out in Flexcit, that true European regional body does exist in the United Nations Economic Commission Europe (UNECE). Established in 1947, it has as interesting history
, initially under its first executive secretary, Gunnar Myrdal
. In the organisation of UNECE, we now have the a body which could manage a genuine Europe-wide single market, outside the grip of Brussels, run on a truly intergovernmental basis.
That is one of the many options open to us should be choose today to correct that historic mistake. And, to that effect, we need no other reason to cast our vote to "leave". Membership of the European Union is not for us. Joining the EEC in 1973 was a mistake. We would be perpetuating that mistake if we did not leave now.
Wednesday 22 June 2016
When on 19 May Jeremy Paxman opened his programme
on "Who Really Rules Us?", declaring that: "Everywhere you look, the European Union is telling us what to do", he chose to illustrate his point by brandishing a cucumber and regaling us with details of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1677/88.
The very least you would think the BBC might be able to trail in the wake of Huffington Post and revisit its own ignorance. Having made such a meal of the "cucumber regulation, it should now broadcast a report on the blog by UNECE's executive secretary, Christian Friis Bach.
Headed, "Cucumbers: Blame the UN", Bach writes that, as the UK referendum on Brexit approaches, he feels "obliged to stand forward and confess" – something which the BBC is clearly unable to do. The European Union, he says, is often criticized for dealing with ridiculous things such as the shape of cucumbers: banning the curved ones and imposing straight ones on farmers and consumers alike. But, he adds: "this story is wrong for three reasons".
The first and foremost of these reasons is not the European Union that has developed the current standard for cucumbers. It is the UN or to be more specific Bach's organization, the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE).
In fact, he says, the European Union does not have a specific cucumber standard but traders can refer to the UNECE standard to meet the EU's general marketing requirements. Therefore, "don't blame the EU, blame us".
The second reason Bach puts in that the standard does not force all cucumbers to be equally straight. It is correct that an Extra Class or Class I cucumber can only bend 1 centimetre for each 10 centimetres. But a Class II cucumber can actually bend 2 centimetres for each 10 centimetres. There are straight cucumbers and not so straight cucumbers.
But the third and most important reason for why the story is wrong, is because these agricultural standards are very useful and widely used. The standards not only facilitate trade, they also help producers get a better price for better quality.
Traders in the UK can buy cucumbers from Spain or Morocco, or any other country by simply referring to the standard. They will then be able to compare prices, knowing exactly what they will get. There is no need to travel all the way to where the cucumbers are grown to inspect them.
The quality is defined by the standard. So, if you order Class I cucumbers, you will get Class I cucumbers. This is trade facilitation at its best. And the producers of Class I cucumbers, wherever they might be, will get the premium for a Class I cucumber.
But, says Bach, you could argue, why do they have to be straight? What about all the curved cucumbers that are then wasted? Should we not fight food waste?
Bach readily concedes that we should do this. But, he says, this is also part of the logic behind the cucumber standard. Very curved cucumbers are difficult to store in boxes and, when transported, they bump into each other and end up with bruises, especially when travelling longer distances.
This means that they will get soft spots and start rotting before even arriving at the supermarket and will have to be thrown away. Moreover, many cucumbers are processed by machines, and, if they are very curved, they will get stuck in the machine and have to be thrown away.
Finally, experience shows that consumers tend to choose straight cucumbers, so even if the curved ones make it to the shop, some of them will probably be wasted anyway.
It is therefore, Bach says, better to sell and eat curved cucumbers locally in the producing countries. Curved cucumbers are just as delicious as straight ones but not every cucumber is meant to travel and end up in a supermarket. Curved ones can be sold directly by local farms or on local markets or, if no longer edible, they can be collected and used as animal feed or turned into compost.
On that basis, Bach asserts that the cucumber standard is a good standard. And the world needs significantly more cooperation on standards of all kinds, be it in the UN or in the EU. And even if you do not agree, he concludes, then remember if you hear the cucumber critique: do not blame the EU. Credit the UN.
And with this sentiment, we completely agree. Without the predictability that a uniform and enforceable standard gives buyers, trade in cucumbers and the many other products covered by UNECE standards would be far more costly and difficult. Those standards are as important to traders as AAA standards are to battery dealers.
Unfortunately, with the willing complicity of the media, such standards have come to represent the very essence of pettifogging regulation, with the flatulent man-child Alexander (aka Boris) Johnson capitalising on the collective ignorance of the "leavers", poking "fun" at things he clearly doesn't understand.
Through this stupidity, though, he and his ilk have failed to capitalise on one of the most potent weapons available to the "leave" campaign – the globalisation of standards.
The very fact that standards essentially to the conduct of trade are no longer made by the EU but by regional bodies such as UNECE, and global bodies such as Codex, means that we no longer need the EU to drive the development of a European single market.
Right now, a global market is in the making, and as long as we're in the EU, we have no votes at the "top tables". They are no longer in Brussels, but in Geneva, Rome, Paris, Washington, Vancouver, and in cities throughout the world. The cucumber standard is produced in Geneva, but the illustrated brochure is prepared by the OECD in Paris (illustrated).
The "killer point" for the "leave" campaign is that countries like Norway have a vote – but we do not. We have 1/28th of a "common position", which we are obliged to follow. In campaign terms, we've lost a phenomenally important debating point, merely so that "Boris" can indulge his obsession on "bent banana" rules.
Interestingly, I was writing about UNECE and cucumber standards on this blog in June 2014, but our high and mighty "eurosceptic aristocracy" have been far too grand to take notice - or even understand the implications of what I've been writing. Many of them seem to cultivate and take a perverse pride in their own ignorance.
But here we are, with one day to go before polling day and I'm writing about the failure of the "leave" campaign to deploy its resources properly, while no less than the executive secretary of UNECE spills the beans on cucumbers.
Alongside Pete, though, we are aware that such issues are highly sensitive and careless discussion on them might well see another MP slain. When it comes to cucumbers, though, such passions are inevitable.
Nevertheless, win or lose, when it comes to the "debriefing" on this campaign, we won't have to look very far for reasons to explain its poor performance.
Tuesday 21 June 2016
The one thing professor Michael Dougan, of Liverpool University, seems less than keen to reveal is that he is holder of a Jean Monnet chair at the university. It's not that he keeps it a secret – just that he doesn't make a point of declaring it.
However, that means his post is supported by EU funds, typically worth €50,000 over three years. And, while post-holders deny bias, they are in effect paid agents of the EU.
Dougan's recent intervention
in the EU Referendum debate, therefore, is of some significance, and especially when he is accusing the leave campaign of "dishonesty on an industrial scale".
We would, of course, not disagree entirely with that thesis, although an independent commentator would be forced to concede that this defect applied to both sides of the campaign, and especially to our current Prime Minister. But then, Dougan is very far from being independent, admitting to being a "remain" voter.
However, he does purport to have come to his decision to support "remain" as a product of his "independent" academic study. As we will see, however, Dougan himself is no stranger to dishonesty and in his video he puts such familiarity to good use.
Looking at just one segment of this, in what I hope will be an expanding analysis, one sees the gallant professor tackling the situation in the UK, should we decide to vote for Brexit.
His concern here, it would appear, is to spread the uncertainty, in large, measured doses. As to the situation, he says: "I have to say that the main answer is no-one has a clue – nobody has a clue. And if anybody claims they have some detailed or precise understanding of anything that will happen post leaving the EU, then they're probably very seriously deluded".
Of course, there is an element of "straw man" here. No one would claim that they know what will
happen. But, we can offer various ideas as to what could
happen. That is the basis of Flexcit
That much Dougan does concede. There are, he says, "basic constitutional principles of the UK, of the EU, of international law, international trade, which help us identify certain parameters in which the future might hold". These "don't give us many answers but the help at least identify some parameters", he adds.
Of those, he identifies "four particular challenges which will occur in the event of a vote to leave", and I am going – in this post – to look at just one, the first "challenge" that he identifies. Internally, he says:
… there will have to be a comprehensive review of the UK legal system because, for forty years, UK law has evolved in combination with, under the influence of EU law and the two are virtually impossible to distangle (sic).
This will be an enormous technical undertaking... It will have to be done very, very quickly and it will not be done through Parliament. It's simply impossible to imagine a situation in which Parliament can actually undertake a comprehensive review of the entire UK legal system.
So there's pretty strong consensus that the only way this can be done is through an enormous delegation of power from Parliament to the Government and that Government will effectively take an entire range of policy decisions about whole fields of UK law.
Regardless of what else you might think of him, positive or negative, Jeremy Corbyn was completely right when he said that the entire UK legal system will be subject to a very fast, sharp shock review and whole swathes of legislation – be it on workers or consumers, the environment – may well be deeply affected.
In not dissimilar circumstances, confronted with this sort of thing, I have resorted to the use of a very specific technical term: "bollocks". This is pure, unmitigated bollocks, so far from reality that it cannot possibly be accidental. This, to me, seems to be a quite deliberate attempt to spread doubt and uncertainty.
Addressing this, we have to focus on the core of his claim that there will have to be a "comprehensive review of the UK legal system" and it will have to be "done very, very quickly". It is these two claims, juxtaposed, which make the core, and which make the lie.
Of course there will have to be comprehensive review, but there is not a scintilla of evidence or experience to support a claim that it would need to be done rapidly, much less "very, very quickly".
It is not as if we haven't been there before. Typically – and repeatedly – what we see in transitional situations is that the whole of the legal code from the previous administration is re-enacted and remains in force until measures are taken to revise or repeal individual laws. That is most likely what would happen when we leave the EU.
In Flexcit, we report this happening in India, on independence in 1948 and on the independence of the Irish Republic from the UK. Furthermore, a causal romp round the internet will yield many more examples.
For example, as part of the Hong Kong
settlement in 1997, there was between the UK and the PRC a Joint Declaration which guaranteed the continuance of the legal system. Under Article 8 of the Basic Law, the laws previously in force in Hong Kong were to be maintained.
Then, after the fall of the Soviet empire in 1989, the Polish Constitutional Tribunal
decided that existing law created by the Communist authorities did not lose its validity and remained in force.
Although the system was undergoing "progressive erosion", and moves were being made to change the constitution, the appointment of the Constitutional
Tribunal "did not change the face of the system, did not yet mean a dramatic transformation of the system of state, did not set up a state of law".
As to the timing, we had in Flexcit pointed out that, while independence was declared in India in 1948, a law review commission was not set up until 1955 and, so leisurely did it proceed that there are still laws on the Indian statute book that originated in Westminster.
Similarly, of Poland, although the collapse of the Soviet empire occurred in 1989, the Constitutional Tribunal did not make its ruling until 1995.
On the face it, therefore, the UK would follow a well-worn path. It would repatriate and re-enact EU law and keep it in force until such time as appointed panels got round to looking at individual laws, then making their recommendations to Parliament.
This, however, is not something Dougan wants us to consider. Having falsely established the need for urgency, he calls in aid a "pretty strong consensus" to tell us that the only way this can be done is "through an enormous delegation of power from Parliament to the Government", and then adding the dubious authority of Jeremy Corbyn - that well-known expert.
We can see exactly the game Dougan is playing. Those looking for a democratic settlement are being told that things will get worse if we leave. "Government will effectively take an entire range of policy decisions about whole fields of UK law", he says.
Yet this idea of a "consensus" is utterly fraudulent. Over term, there has developed a specialist branch of academia devoted to the study of what they call "transitional governance", which has spawned a massive body of literature, discussing how legal transitions can be achieved.
And from this
, to this
, and by reference to hundreds of other papers, the one thing of which you can be absolutely sure in this field of study – there ain't no consensus.
Here we have, therefore, an academic complaining of the "dishonesty" of the leave campaign, while himself using the prestige and authority of his position to perpetrate his own, studied dishonesty. Under the pretence of independence, this in many ways is even more despicable than Alexander (aka Boris) Johnson's pathetic little lies.
Tuesday 21 June 2016
Perceptive readers will have discerned that I have not written a great deal about sovereignty in the current debate on the EU referendum. Most of the references in this blog are quotes from other people, often added without comment from me.
The reason for my reticence is two-fold. Firstly, there is no clear-cut definition of sovereignty. It seems to be a moveable feast, with different people and bodies defining in separate ways, very often in a way that suits their particular arguments.
The second reason is that, taking my own personal definition of sovereignty, I don't accept that the UK either pools its sovereignty with the EU, or has lost sovereignty to it. In accordance with my definition, the UK is still technically a sovereign state. Thus I do not accept or buy into much of the "leave" rhetoric about the need to regain our sovereignty. We still have it.
Problematically, though, this stance does depend entirely on my definition. If you change the definition, my stance could very well change with it. But it can never really be clear-cut.
The Oxford Dictionary, for instance, offers three definitions. It will have sovereignty mean "supreme power or authority", as in the sovereignty of Parliament. It also declares that it is: "the authority of a state to govern itself or another state", as in national sovereignty. And it then takes the word to mean "a self-governing state".
Here, I don't like the idea of sovereignty being "supreme power or authority". Power (and to the same extent authority) is distinct from sovereignty. You can delegate power and transfer authority, which you cannot do with sovereignty.
Furthermore, in the doctrine of division of powers, a sovereign entity can have absolutely no power in specific domains. The sovereign Queen, for instance, is subject to the rule of law.
I can partially go with: "the authority of a state to govern itself or another state". However, I don't like the word "authority" in this context – for the reasons stated above. And the idea of a "self-governing state" simply will not do. I would argue that we are sovereign, but not self-governing. Government – like authority and power – can be delegated.
In the end, I rely on a variation of the definition offered in Wikipedia - not the best or most authoritative of sources, but one which – when modified – serves my purpose. I thus take sovereignty to mean: "The full right of a body to govern without any interference from external body".
The defining words here are "full right" – akin in earlier terms to "divine right". No definition, in my view, is complete without acknowledgement that sovereignty is a right, an absolute right to govern. It is one that is innate. It cannot be challenged, diluted or "pooled".
In the UK, we express our sovereignty in terms of national sovereignty, which defines the extent and limits of its jurisdiction. And then award the ultimate expression of sovereignty to Parliament. Within its domain, Parliament is supreme.
On that basis, we are indeed still sovereign. Parliament, if it so decides, has the right to abrogate the treaties from which the European Union gains its power in the UK. Without those treaties, there is no supremacy of EU law. Unless Parliament decides otherwise, EU law has no writ in this land.
This we get from the egregious Professor Michael Dougan who argues that the UK is an independent state under international law and Westminster is the supreme law-making authority.
Conversely, he says, there is no doubt whatsoever that the EU is not a sovereign entity. Far from being a sovereign state, he adds, it's not even a sovereign entity. It has only those powers that it's been given under the EU treaties. And if the UK courts sometimes give priority to EU law in the event of a conflict with domestic law, it's purely because our Parliament has expressly instructed them to do so.
So, Dougan asks, "is the UK a sovereign state?" Yes, he says. "Is Parliament our supreme legislative authority?" Yes, he says. This leads him to ask why we keep hearing about sovereignty in the EU Referendum debate. The fact is, he says, "sovereignty isn't really an issue in the debate. It's about power and influence. Sovereignty is being used as a short-hand to talk about power".
In terms of this EU Referendum campaign – and generally – this changes the whole picture. The treaties that have been signed represent successive governments delegating not our sovereignty but Parliament's power – its power to make, modify, refuse and repeal legislation.
Parliament is still sovereign but it has allowed government, though the process of ratification, to delegate much of its power to Brussels and EU institutions. It could have stopped that happening and now, in the face of popular consent it could order government to recover those powers. But it chooses not to. Instead, it stands idle.
And that is where Dougan is actually wrong. Sovereignty is part of the debate. If it so wished, Parliament could exercise its sovereignty, not over Brussels but over our own government, insisting that that it's powers were returned.
Therefore, our argument is not with Brussels. We are held in thrall to the European Union by our governments, but only because Parliament allows it. The people responsible – as a collective – are our MPs. Our argument is with them.
This actually gives this referendum a very special status. It is our opportunity to address not Brussels but the ranks of politicians – the good, the bad and the ugly. They are so indifferent to their loss of powers, increasingly delegating it to Brussels, that it requires us the people to tell them to get off their backsides and recover them.
It ill-behoves these politicians then to blame Brussels for their loss. It was their predecessors who gave their powers away, and they who permit Brussels to continue exercising them. Having lost their powers, they – or some of them – want us to return them to Westminster. They want us to exercise our sovereignty on their behalf.
And this is where The Harrogate Agenda comes in. The group that has been so careless of their powers, and so indifferent to the prospect of recovering them can hardly be trusted to safeguard them for all time, and not to repeat their give-away. Thus, it is we the people who must recover our sovereignty, wresting it from Parliament which has been so reluctant to use it on our behalf.
That is the back story. Parliament is sovereign, supposedly holding it trust for the people. But, in failing to exercise it, the people themselves must act, and demand the recovery of powers that Parliament has so carelessly given away. And then, with the horse firmly back in the stables, we must bolt the door.
We the people, on Thursday, must make a start in recovering our sovereignty – not from Brussels, but from Westminster. We the people are sovereign, and this week we have an opportunity to exercise it. And if we don't, we the people have only ourselves to blame.
Monday 20 June 2016
If leave wins, Britain's partners are likely to offer just three options: the Norwegian model of the European Economic Area (EEA); the Canadian model of a free trade agreement (FTA); and the rules of the World Trade Organisation (WTO). The EU doesn't want to give the UK bilateral treaties (like Switzerland), a customs union (like Turkey) or bespoke arrangements.
Years down the line, after thousands of hours of discussion and millions of words written on the subject, when it comes to our options for leaving the EU, one of the country's supposed leading Europhile think tanks is stuck in tramlines, like the car illustrated above - able to go in one direction only. Having established its basic, simplistic options, it has been able to develop.
Charles Grant, Director of the Centre for European Reform
Where Grant and many others like him fail is in their insistence of looking for an immediate settlement as the first hit. They evidently imagine that we will go to the negotiating tables in Brussels with our end game in sight, seeking to achieve it in the space of the two years allowed in the initial negotiating period allowed by Article 50.
This myopia is all the more remarkable when set against the history of European political integration. The original scope of the Coal and Steel Community, established by treaty in 1950, is very different from that embraced by the Treaty of Rome in 1957. And, 49 years on from that Treaty, the Communities have evolved almost out of all recognition, to become something very different from what was first created.
Yet people like Grant, who writes in The Times alongside colleagues John Springford and Simon Tilford, of their leaden visions, would not seem to allow the United Kingdom the same degree of fluidity and flexibility in ordering their affairs.
Despite being content to allow the European Union to evolve over more than half a Century, they expect a departing UK to rush immediately to a "final solution". Moreover, it is required to do so within a time limit of two years, heedless of the fact that it took the authors of the Lisbon Treaty the best part of eight years to get their creation cranking into action.
With such blinkered vision, we find the same limited set of options on offer, with different casts of characters chewing over the same narrow options. There are only marginal differences between the players. They are all basically trapped in the same unchanging narrative.
Through this means, there has been much discourse about continuing our EEA membership – which would allow us to leave the EU yet remain in the Single Market. This is seen as an attractive option, although it is also seen as of limited attractiveness to some segments of "leave” fraternity, as it would appear to require continued adoption of free movement of people.
If, however, we walk away from this claustrophobic argument where the parameters have been set by our enemies, and take a loftier stance, the horizons expand exponentially.
What we do is separate Brexit into its separate components. Firstly, we have to deal with the politico-legal problem of leaving the EU. Then we have to come up with a measured agreement which will enable us to continue working with the European Union. Thirdly, we need to consider our longer term future.
Never, on the basis of minimal public discourse and a complete absence of government involvement should we even be considering a settlement, negotiated under the artificial constraints of Article 50, to be a one-time deal that will last us for perpetuity. Anything we come up with is going to be an interim deal. Then we look at transitional arrangements.
The moment these points are conceded, everything changes. We need no longer be locked into prolonged and tedious discussions on the relative merits of different options – their advantages and disadvantages. As refugees no more turn their noses up at tents as temporary shelter, we as a nation can afford to look at an interim solution in an entirely different light.
With that in mind, does it really matter that the EEA option is far from ideal? In its alter ego as the "Norway option" it is hated by Norwegian Europhiles because they want to be in the European Union. It is detested by the No2EU campaign because they want a looser, free trade agreement. But, as a halfway house, easing our transition from full EU member to independent state, it has some merit.
The next point we have to deal with is the problem of naming of names. It seems we must have the Norway option (or even a Norwegian model), a Swiss option, a Canadian option, a Turkish option or even, as some have been accused of embracing, an Albanian option.
What no one seems to want to cope with is that the ultimate solution is "none of the above". It's not "options" we want, but solutions. And the solutions we eventually evolve are going to be uniquely British solutions – even if it takes some time to get there.
In fact, we will never get there. From 1950 to the present day, the European Union is work in progress. If it ever gets to be a United States of Europe, it will still be work in progress – just as the United States of America is in a state of constant flux, constantly evolving. Final solutions are for children and demagogues.
In the life of nations, adults commit not to a destination but to the journey – the process, not the outcome. As did none of the founding fathers of the independent United States see the fruits of their endeavours, none of us will ever live to see the final outcome. We can only hope to pass on something of value to our children.
Therefore, it is process that matters. Process is everything. Parliament is not an end state – a museum – but a process. Democracy is not a book or a dry set of rules, but a process. Hence leaving the EU is a process. Once we have departed, the separation and then parallel development will become processes – ever changing and ever-evolving.
Where that will take us, no one knows. The brave visionaries of the 1940s – our parents and grandparents (and for some, great-grandparents) - had no more idea of where there ideas would lead, than we can have when we put in place processes that will lead to our continued life as an independent nation.
However, what we do know is that, as a member of the European Union, we are tapped in an organisation which has as its declared ambition the creation of a United States of Europe and which regards the idea of an independent Britain as an anathema.
That really is the crunch. On Thursday, we will be choosing between a destination and a process: the certainty of a United States of Europe, and goodbye to liberty, or the process of democracy which will take us anywhere our people decide.
And if this means making concessions and compromises to get there, accepting interim solutions and transitional arrangements, so what? Rome wasn't built in a day – and neither will be a free United Kingdom.