Costing more and doing less

A few years ago now, my dad needed a heart valve replacement. As part of the recovery processes it was necessary for him to take regular walks. I would sometimes go with him up to the local park. What was starkly noticeable was how run down it is. It used to have a well kept Victorian greenhouse and well maintained tennis courts. There were flowerbeds the park furniture was well maintained. Not anymore. The playground is shabby and outdated and the benches are broken. They don't even sweep the leaves, leaving a sodden, slimy mess on the paths.

Many would be keen to leap on the austerity bandwagon but this is a result of years of neglect. Half the problem is that the people charged with running the parks do not care about them and do not visit them. As councils have been amalgamated and parish councils stripped of powers and funds, this kind of maintenance falls under estate management, largely to be carried out by private contractors. Parish councils are given pocket money to spend but this is not raised locally.

This is what happens when the link is broken between taxation and local government. We see this dynamic manifesting everywhere. My gran use to bitterly complain that the street furniture in Ripon was ripped up and cannibalised for spares in order to maintain the Victorian look of Harrogate. Little by little, our powers and our collective property are being robbed.

As this dynamic matures, these public spaces become merely assets on a screen and subject to annual budget shaving as funds are directed elsewhere. We have accountants making sweeping decisions over where we live and the things we value. They would argue that money has been invested in the parks, but the money has gone on security fencing and high durability anti-vandal street furniture making them more hostile. Little wonder that few wish to spend their time there.

That is not to say that vandalism is not a problem, but what it means is that maintenance has been abandoned and the procurement policy is to minimise upkeep costs. A downgraded concern. Gone is any civic pride or public will to keep fighting the battle against petty vandalism - and in so doing, the vandals win. Everything is on lockdown and designed for the convenience of the managers.

Part of this mentality is to freeze out the public form the running of public assets. There is no community ownership and consequently no relationship exists between the citizen and the environment. What we get is sterilised public spaces maintained for the sake of ticking a box.

While you might say that public parks are way down on the list of priorities, especially when front line services are stressed, this matters because it is symptomatic of how everything is run now. Local government, which is increasingly not local, is a voracious cash hungry spending machine that never seems to have enough, always costs more but delivers less. Rather than government by the people for the people we have government by call centre where "local" government is more akin with a facilities management corporate. The entire service element of local government is collapsing.

In this respect, as we have become more aligned with the US in terms of outsourcing, what does get done is done according to a procurement plan, where if it's not on the list it doesn't get done. This is highly visible in the US where you see street furniture in a worse state of decay with assets maintained only on an ad hoc basis. You'll see new playground swings in a park full of refuse and disused mattresses.

In this I am reminded of the US hit TV show, The Wire, where a hidden deficit in education spending sees the entire city services assets stripped and key services scaled back to a skeleton crew, including critical police units. By centralising funds and fund management, the cash is always directed at the most politically expedient to the neglect of everything else. This is how cities with billions in turnover can still rapidly decline and turn into slums. In that respect some US suburbs are simply beyond salvation.

Britain, however, is not there yet. We have a choice. Somehow we have to restore the public service ethos and reconnect tax collection and spending with the local community. We need real local democracy. Your local park may not matter to you, and given the omni-shambles unfolding elsewhere, it's a bit of an unusual tangent, but I have a strong feeling that if we fix what is really wrong with our parks, and the mentality behind the symptomatic decay, then we will fix a lot of other things in the process.

A Brexit failure now seems inevitable

I'm hesitant to make predictions. Whenever I do I make judgements based on logic and I often fail to take into account that government by its very nature is an irrational thing. My own calculations prior to the referendum led me to believe that the UK would probably seek to stay in the single market once they came to terms with the size and scope of the task at hand. My working assumption was that our civil service would sufficiently muddy the water and the Brexit zombies would be marginalised.

That hasn't happened. It turns out the civil service doesn't have a handle on it either and mid ranking officials dare not speak up in fear of being replaced. Consequently we have a government with a woefully simplistic view of Brexit, unable to grasp that they have not the time nor the intellectual resource to achieve anything close to what they believe is possible.

I had half expected parliament at some point to assert itself. That was a reasonable bet since Parliament has not in the last two decades ever shown any particular regard to public sentiment. With a remain majority in the House, one might have expected Parliament to moderate the government. It failed.

All of my working assumptions have actually been far too optimistic. You might even say naive. In that respect I feel I have mislead some of my readers. The notion that the government would eventually see sense could well have been wishful thinking.

It seems that only now we are a month away from pushing the button has the media woken up to the realities and even then they do not have a comprehensive grasp of the issues. The media in many respects is the dog that didn't bark. Or rather it went in for pointless incessant barking so that people just tuned it out.

Consequently it now looks like we are going over the cliff. There simply isn't time to negotiate a comprehensive free trade agreement. There is barely enough time even to ratify one. The only way to avoid a crash is to agree inside the framework of Article 50 to maintain EU membership until an FTA can come into force.

As much as that notion will be intolerable to our own government, what is often overlooked is that the EU doesn't have much of a clue either. We are assuming way too much competence on their part. Only when we get the verdict of Commission officials will we know what is possible and I guarantee the government isn't going to like that. A transition will likely mean extensive membership with all the obligations that go with it. It won't be a matter of obstinacy. It will be a matter of law and practicality.

At this point we need to watch out for May and her gang who will likely treat this like a dramatic showdown. We can expect theatricals for the folks back home. She will make empty threats of walking away only to be met with typically nonchalant French shrugs.

As it happens, I don't have any insight as to whether May is serious about not paying a divorce settlement. We have had some indication from Davis that we might but this is really a matter of law and contract whereby the EU will not be minded to haggle. May is pretty much offering up the same sentiment as Trump. "We're going to build a wall and they're going to pay for it".

It all really depends on how seriously the government is taking it. They have been told by their officials not to expect any serious interruption to trade should we walk away. There is a dangerous complacency at all levels of government and industry. Meanwhile, City economists who know little of systems and legal structures will flatulate about tariffs with absolutely no regard to the fact that the EU is a system of government and not just a trade bloc.

One of my working assumptions hitherto now is that if reality doesn't bite before we push the button then it will shortly after. I think possibly that is another assumption I will have to throw in the bin. The whole process could very well be a pathetic political circus that never gets down to the serious details. There has been little in the way of scoping and we have not seen any position papers except for some vague aspirational stuff. There are no contingency plans either.

It would seem that unless there is some kind of adult intervention, where the clock is stopped we may very well sleepwalk into a trainwreck Brexit. It will simply happen and nobody will have the first idea why. The remainers will bitterly complain and gloat, the leavers will stamp their feet and blame the EU. Ultimately though, the blame will lie squarely with this Tory government.

Though a trainwreck is something I have campaigned hard to avoid, I expect in the future I will realise it was daft of me to expect it would go any other way. In some ways though, I am mischievously looking forward to it. As much as it will obliterate the Tories, it will be interesting to see the multifarious ways the system implodes and how we will cope with it. The whole thing turns on an elaborate web of rules and systems within systems. If we unplug it at the wall then things will get very interesting, very quickly. Whatever it turns out to be, it certainly won't be boring.

A cut and paste Brexit?

As you know I am not given over to Brexit optimism. There seems to be far too much complacency in high places. Unless the government has an ace up its sleeve and an amazing plan they are keeping super secret then there is little room for optimism. Meanwhile the debate is now so hopelessly polarised that there is no possibility of a dialogue - and the government is not listening. I'm pretty sure the public don't want to know either.

The more we look into the technical aspects the more the worst case scenario looks singularly unattractive. Should Mrs May walk away from the table then we are going to have to use every emergency measure in the book. It seems pointless to even argue the case now. Everything from race horses through to nuclear energy now looks like it will be adversely affected.

This though does not enter consideration among the great and the good. Graeme Leach of City AM, for example, has it that "if we leave the Customs Union, we can unilaterally under WTO rules impose zero tariffs on imports". There's several problems with this which we need not go over. The gaping question however, is what do we trade with once we have voluntarily surrendered all of our defensive trade measures?

Leach asserts "The idea that we have to be in the Single Market, at all costs, is nonsense. Leaving aside the political reality that Brexit will require an end to the free movement of people, there is the added factor that EU law and regulation is a cost that applies across the whole economy". Except, of course, the costs of not complying with regulations are considerably greater. If you don't conform then you cannot export, particularly when it comes to animal produce.

Whichever way you expect Brexit to go, there will necessarily be a considerable degree of regulatory conformity. Looking at the EU-Singapore FTA, which is already seven years in the making, the basis for free trade is regulatory harmonisation. In just about every comprehensive agreement you will find words to the effect of:

The Parties may agree on taking into consideration the glossaries and definitions of relevant international organisations, such as the CODEX Alimentarius Commission (hereinafter referred to as “Codex Alimentarius”), the World Organisation for Animal Health (hereinafter referred to as “OIE”) and under the International Plant Protection Convention (hereinafter referred to as “IPPC”).

This largely echos the WTO agreement on Technical Barriers to trade which states:

Where technical regulations are required and relevant international standards exist or their completion is imminent, Members shall use them, or the relevant parts of them, as a basis for their technical regulations except when such international standards or relevant parts would be an ineffective or inappropriate means for the fulfilment of the legitimate objectives pursued, for instance because of fundamental climatic or geographical factors or fundamental technological problems.

Which is scarily reminiscent of text found in the chapter on renewable energy in the EU-Singapore FTA:

Where international or regional standards exist with respect to products for the generation of energy from renewable and sustainable non-fossil sources, the Parties shall use these standards, or their relevant parts, as a basis for their technical regulations except when such international standards or relevant parts would be an ineffective or inappropriate means for the fulfilment of the legitimate objectives pursued. For the purposes of applying this paragraph, the International Organization for Standardization (hereinafter referred to as “ISO”) and the International Electrotechnical Commission (hereinafter referred to as “IEC”) shall in particular be considered relevant international standard-setting bodies.

If we take the view that the UK seeks a comprehensive FTA from the EU in two years then it follows that it will comprise of a number of re-usable elements, and as the UK is a signatory of the WTO TBT agreement, the scope for deregulation on exports is somewhere around nil.

It is not yet known whether the UK seeks to replicate cooperation agreements with EU decentralised agencies - but if not, any FTA would need to negotiate recognition of UK authorities in order to produce proof of conformity. If, however, the government maintains involvement in EU agencies then in all likelihood that locks us into a number of administrative systems and the regulations therein.

Should we choose to abandon such agencies then we will need our own systems developed with reference to EU systems, probably in conjunction with the EU in order to maintain maximum trade comparability. That will create red tape and uncertainty of its own.

Where it gets messy is that any FTA with the UK will likely be a mixed agreement whereby Member States can secure their own reservations, blocking UK access to the EU single market. For instance, in the Singapore FTA we see various peculiar reservations along the lines of "Natural persons not having Romanian citizenship and residence in Romania, as well as legal persons not having Romanian nationality and their headquarters in Romania, cannot acquire ownership over any kind of land plots, through inter vivos acts".

To take another example, "Marketing of legal advice services is reserved to lawyers with a Danish licence to practice and law firms registered in Denmark. Requirement of a Danish legal examination in order to obtain a Danish licence".

Very soon what should, in a perfect world, be a straight forward enterprise, is bogged down in minutia and defensive measures which the Commission is no longer in a position to overrule given the recent precedent set by the ECJ. This is also assuming that any Brexit deal does not require ECJ rulings where a legal impasse is reached. What this means is that an FTA will not be completed in two years and Article 50 talks will need to carry over EU membership until the FTA comes into force.

In this respect if the UK wants a deal to be concluded at all it will likely have to accept the foibles of Member States lest the process drag on for years. The UK will have to accept that it will not enjoy the same level of freedoms and will likely have to deal with different strata of law for each member state according to the reservations within the agreement. And this is before we get anywhere near the ratification process where horse-trading could lead to considerably more concessions. This could see us lingering in the EU for years, depending on the shape of the transition agreement.

It is ironic that we should be leaving after the EU Singapore agreement has effectively torpedoed EU trade exclusivity - which was as good a reason to leave the EU as any. This now points to a future where the EU is unable to conclude comprehensive deals leaving it stagnating - while deals under way linger on in uncertainty. This raises massive questions on the future of the EU and its constitution.

Whatever happens, our obligations under international agreements and our Brexit FTA will have significant implications for our ability to trade independently of the EU. Given the nature of the FTAs the EU has with a number of other countries, containing the same regulatory obligations, any future bilateral agreements the UK seeks will be limited to peripheral issues. The scope for horse trading on regulation without going through the international organisations to reach multilateral agreement will be similarly constrained.

To my mind this all points to the obsolescence of the EU. While it is still influential in regulatory affairs, with every agreement it signs, control of the regulatory agenda slips from its grasp. As much as Brexit, and the exclusion of the UK financial markets from any future EU deals, makes the EU as a whole a less attractive target for third countries seeking a comprehensive deal, it would appear that Brussels is no longer the centre of the universe - and if we want to make progressions then we can't wait for the EU to complete ever more complex agreements. Given the high profile failures of late, it could well be that Brexit is the last comprehensive FTA the EU will ever sign - assuming we don't make a pig's ear of it.  

Trade: muddled thinking aplenty

Brexiteers are keen to dream up fantasy trade agendas. CANZUK being one of the dafter ones. As much as they are impractical and serve no real purpose, what is often overlooked is the fact that other countries are busy with other things and so are we.

There are only so many trade negotiators, many of them presently locked into existing efforts or working toward multilateral objectives. Our whole efforts are presently geared toward Brexit and other countries have their own regional agendas. It's cute that Brexiteers think they would be willing to drop everything on our request to talk about an intangible alliance which, so far as I can see, answers no pressing questions.

As previously discussed, any trade policy really needs to be linked to strategic foreign policy objectives. Bilateral deals may offer some marginal improvements in the price of foodstuffs but with tariffs being fairly low, much of the saving are negligible and are nullified by currency fluctuations.

More to the point, bilateral trade deals assume that partner nations can actually supply the demand. Presently China is stockpiling ores from Australia and buying livestock in bulk from New Zealand. UK buyers will find themselves at the back of the queue as suppliers are in no particular hurry to open up new supply chains and certainly not with a country about to send its regulatory regime into chaos.

Further to this, if there were any silver bullets the EU would be at it already. The EU is aggressively seeking deals not least I suspect out of spite in the wake of Brexit. That will naturally comes with obligations that stymie any UK efforts to tinker with regulations and tariffs.

Meanwhile, if you listen to the diplomatic chatter at the WTO, the new religion is trade facilitation - which can mean anything from enhancing customs systems or governance measures to eliminate fraud and corruption.

One major global concern is pharmaceuticals fraud. US pharmaceutical giant Pfizer has found that 69 of its products were falsified in 107 countries in 2014, up from 29 products in 75 countries in 2008 - a doubling of the problem in six years. Over 700,000 deaths per annum from malaria and TB have been attributed to falsified medicines and the Center for Medicine in the Public Interest in the United States estimated that counterfeits cost the global economy around US$75bn in 2010.

As much as this kind of criminal activity seriously hits all Western nations in the wallet it is very much one of the many blights standing in the way of development. If supply chains are known to be corrupt it deters investment.

The World Customs Organization (WCO) and the International Institute for Research Against Counterfeit Medicines (IRACM) announced recently the results of their fourth common initiative in the fight against fake medicines on the African continent. There were record seizures of 113 million illicit and potentially dangerous pharmaceutical products, which took place in the context of Operation ACIM (Action against Counterfeit and Illicit Medicines) in September 2016.

The number of seizures made in joint IRACM-WCO operations has now reached dramatic proportions, with almost 900 million counterfeit and illicit medicines seized at the borders of the continent. “Of the 243 maritime containers inspected, 150 contained illicit or counterfeit products". Staggering. And that's without looking at food fraud.

Cleaning up trade is essential to development, increasing profitability of existing trade and crucially slowing the flow of migration. In this, bilateral agreements between developed nations do little and contribute little to overall trade flows. Only by working with international agencies can we devise an integrated global solution. Such a system would have a number of positive externalities in that effective customs and inspections systems have benefits for other sectors.

As much as this will depend on good science, telecoms and IT, it will also require training and upkeep - which presents many opportunities for UK tech services. This however, can only come about by engaging fully in all of the global bodies and directing our aid spending accordingly. Reverting to mercantilist beggar thy neighbour trade policies will do little more than produce meaningless feel-good headlines. If Britain wants to get serious about trade it will have to move beyond seventeenth century Tory thinking. The world has moved on - and so must our politicians.

It seems there are provisional moves to make this a policy, which is the first glimmer of competence I have come across but whether or not they yet comprehend it must be central to any trade strategy remains to be seen. This is one thing that is largely not dependent on Brexit outcomes so this really is where the effort must go. It will probably be overlooked as Liam Fox's department goes barking after mediocre FTAs. Without a fundamental rethink, with a restructuring of BIS, DfID and the FCO (with the MoD), nothing very much can happen.

Brexit - a responsibility we cannot shrink from

Three years ago I thought I had a solid grasp of the EU as a whole, and a working knowledge of EU law making. That though was insufficient. It's only when you look at the systems and how they really interrelate do you really get a full picture of EU integration.

During the referendum you may well remember that running dispute of what percentage of law was made by the EU. I argued that such a metric was worthless since a domestic bill is far smaller in scope than the implementation of a directive which requires adopting EU law or making laws to an EU specification. As much as it is impossible to tell, a single figure doesn't really tell you anything - nor does it take into account that UK law gives recognition to EU institutions and authorities.

In fact, the one thing that has sunk in on all sides, save for the very dimmest of Brexit zombies, is that Brexit is complex. Remainers are rubbing this in with glee. But this rather underscores the leave position that the UK as a member of the EU is not an independent nation, is bound in what it can do and that real tangible power has been surrendered.

While you can say that in all this time parliament has remained sovereign, parliament has been all to keen to ensure that its own powers remain constrained and over the decades have signed away more powers without any meaningful public consultation.

In that regard, while I lament the Brexit shambles currently under way I must remind myself that had Britain voted to remain we would see a continued trend toward "ever closer union". And though those words to the uninitiated sound fluffy the real world consequence is "ever more integration". That means more power only ever flowing out of the hands of the people and beyond the reaches of democracy. Meaningful change is beyond our reach.

In this estimation we had already reached the point of no return. There is no untangling ourselves from this mess without doing considerable harm to our economy. That is why the means of departure is as significant as the choice to leave.

What we now find is that the system is so complex that our politicians, having had very little input in its creation, have only a very shallow understanding of it and there are few experts in the field who truly comprehend the nature of the beast. Expert testimony in front of select committees has been misleading and often flat wrong.

Between the collective ignorance of parliament and the wilful malice of hard Brexiteers the government now has a gloriously skewed impression of what lies ahead. Today Theresa May asserted that "As far as this Government is concerned we believe it is possible within the two-year timeframe to get the agreement not just for our withdrawal from the EU but also the trade arrangement that will ensure we have a strong, strategic partnership with the EU in the future”. Delusional is something of an understatement.

In the most basic terms we have an entire political order that has abandoned in entirety the real business of governing. Everything from trade to agriculture has been outsourced. This is why our MPs are the very least able to "take back control". Before you can take control of anything you have to understand it - and that's not happening.

Part of the reason is that MPs have been so used to indulging in trivia that parliament has become a hollow shell and a platform for moral showboating. It is why every self-respecting adult in the land despises Westminster and its inhabitants - up to and including our media whose understanding of the issues is in a similarly parlous state.

Therein lies the true cost of our membership of the EU. Political and moral atrophy. Westminster has become a shabby and devalued talking shop unable to focus and ill-equipped to tackle change of this magnitude. The damage cannot be measured in pounds or euros but it should be abundantly clear by now that we cannot go on like this - with parliament reduced to snivelling party hacks and narcissistic prostitutes.

Now that the provisional question of Brexit has been resolved we now face a steep learning curve in order to rebuild domestic institutional expertise. In this we must prune away the wastrels of Westminster and rediscover adult politics. That is not going to happen overnight. Sadly, there is a price to pay for our political indolence and it will be the ordinary voter who pays for their hubris.

If it is not yet apparent to you that Westminster is no longer capable of serving us just wait to see what kind of Brexit this parliament will deliver. We have already seen the feeble attempts at what they call scrutiny. More than likely the Brexit that Theresa May delivers will be all the proof you need that it's time for a clearout.

In this I do not accept that this is an argument for remaining in the EU because that lets the vermin off the hook, to continue playing their infantile and destructive games while Brussels does as it pleases - unwatched by either MPs or journalists. Politics depends on participation. For too long it has been engineered out of the process and in so doing it has turned us into passengers in our own affairs. Unless we the people take back control from the politicians then we sleepwalk into oblivion.

2016 saw the end of an era in Western politics. There are too many stresses and too many threats for the status quo to survive. Institutions and constructs developed for the postwar era no longer serve us in this age of globalisation, internet and unprecedented migration.

The power vested in these institutions has been abused and squandered and in the end have proved incapable of adapting or responding. That is why we need reform and that is why I voted to leave knowing there would be a price to pay.

The EU serves only as a comfort blanket for those still in denial over the need for change. I can even see why. The blissful indifference of political disengagement absolves us of our obligations as citizens. Free to do as we please within our shrinking and gilded cage. Sooner or later though, reality bites. The real world is closing in. Brexit will make us better equipped to handle it when it does. It is a responsibility we cannot shrink from and there is a lot of work to do.

In a world of their own

I have written of the Westminster bubble many times before. It exists in a parallel universe. Never though have I seen it quite so distant from reality - with Keir Starmer boasting that "nagging away" by Labour secured a white paper and a vote from the government. Nevermind that the white paper is a pile of horse shit and that the end vote is an ultimatum.

Worse still Starmer thinks if parliament votes down the deal May can toddle off back to Brussels with more demands. Just what planet are these people on and what sort of game is this? Does Labour honestly believe it has accomplished something of value? What purpose does this self-delusion serve? I have never known anything quite like it.

It would be troubling enough were this just run of the mill cynical presentation politics but I have a horrifying feeling that these people genuinely think they're doing a good job and are on top of the game. The Tories most certainly think they are. When it gets this bad I honestly don't see that the system has that much life in it. We cannot go on like this.

There is now no question in my mind that if we get a deal from the EU at all it will be a substandard one that will cost us greatly. The only thing left is the torrent of excuses from the people who delivered it.

They won't see them as excuses though. They have already set it up with the narrative that the only thing standing between us and a successful Brexit is a failure of the EU to give us everything we demand. Thus, anything short of complete capitulation on the part of the EU will be seen as its contribution to the failure rather than their own total self-absorption and ignorance.

We have already seen how they will play it. Vote Leave never expected to win but now that they have they praise every move they made and credit themselves with the victory. They will use that same talent to deflect the blame. The only question is whether the Brexit zombies will get away with it. This time, somebody in their ranks will have to pay. The liars Baker, Hannan, Redwood and co must be held to account along with this utterly feeble government. If not, we are left with the sour conclusion that parliamentary democracy does not work.

The freedom to die horribly

Brace yourselves. I'm writing about quality standards again. Or rather I am writing about the supercilious twit Tim Worstall, who seems to think it's un-British to prosecute industrial scale food fraud.

Says he: "The point (about the EU) though, not being straight bananas per se, rather a legal or economic system which is so absurd as to apply the criminal law to the straightness of bananas. It’s a gross violation of the basic English (and by extension to the other Anglo Saxon societies) attitude towards law and regulation".

Except of course that the backbone of EU standards evolved from British Standards and have graduated to become the global norm. Setting standards (and enforcing them) is very much a tenet of British legal culture and something we have exported worldwide.

Worstall explains that the British approach is far less formal (which it isn't and never has been) but "Then along comes the European Union. And they see such a standard and make it part of the law. Transactions in bananas may only take place according to these rules. Which isn’t the point at all. In any and every industry we all know that there will be times when you say “Jim, here’s something, got some off spec stuff, want to make make an offer?”

And what does he suppose "Jim" is going to do with that off spec stuff? Bundle it up into gift baskets and distribute them to the elderly? Or are the people who buy "off spec stuff" criminal traders who will re-brand it and sell it on as kosher after tampering with it? I'ma gonna go with the latter.

But then there's something else about standards. Grading. These days there isn't really "off spec stuff" to sell off the back of a lorry. Let's take bananas for an example. What doesn't make the grade for the supermarket shelves is graded as ingredient quality which can go into processed foods like yoghurt. Further down the scale bananas can be processed into extracts etc. 

As Worstall notes, the system of standards is largely there so buyers know what they are getting and can buy in good faith. Since it is impractical for buyers to hop on a plane to inspect the goods we have a global system of standards enforcement which build confidence into the system. If standards are not enforced then buyers are taking a gamble - which removes trust and, crucially, continuity - upon which many jobs depend. Since production lines can be halted by "off spec stuff" at great cost to the producer, we rightly consider interference and wilful subversion of the system as criminal.

Expanding the point beyond bananas though, standards are part of a broader system to prevent a massive multi-billion dollar black market on food. There are many examples of industrial scale manipulation of supply chains. A food fraud scandal came to light in 2008, when over 20 companies were found to have added melamine, a flame retardant plastic, to baby formula in order to fool tests designed to ensure adequate protein content. Around 300,000 babies became ill in China, with tainted formula being linked to 54,000 hospitalisations and 6 deaths from kidney damage and malnutrition.

Additionally, the product category Herbs and Spices is listed as number four in the ranking of most frequent product alerts in the European Rapid Alert System for Food and Feed (RASFF). About 75% of these reports are due to improper composition or contamination, both of which can affect the health of the consumer, as well as damage the brands of those involved in the supply chain. 

In 2005 over 600 finished food products were recalled in Europe and the US due to the presence of the carcinogenic red industrial floor dye "Sudan", which had been added to chilli powder to disguise its ageing.

This though, says Worstall is "unimportant stuff we’ll leave civil society to deal with. That is how we gain a free and liberal society and that is how we allow the room in an economy for innovation to occur, productivity to rise and thus we all get richer". 

Well he's sort of right. Criminal gangs are incredibly innovative, highly productive and somebody at least is getting rich off it. And it's not just food either. When an American Airlines plane smashed into a Colombian mountainside, outlaw salvagers didn't even wait for all 159 victims' bodies to be collected before they moved in.

"Using sophisticated tools, they extracted engine thrust reversers, cockpit avionics and other valuable components from the shattered Boeing 757 and then used helicopters to fly the parts off the steep ridge, U.S. and Colombian sources say. The parts were offered for sale in Miami, a hub of the thriving black market in recycled, stolen and counterfeit aircraft parts. "They wanted to sell the whole lot, including the landing gear," a law enforcement source said, speaking on condition of anonymity."

Parts illegally salvaged from crashes, counterfeit parts and other substandard components regularly find their way into the world's air fleets, sold at bargain prices, often with falsified documents about their origin or composition. The U.S. Customs and Border Protection seized $4 Million worth of counterfeit electronic components in Fiscal Year 2009. According to a 2001 publication produced by Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, “as much as $2 billion in unapproved parts are now sitting on the shelves of parts distributors, airline, and repair stations".

But let's be fair to Mr Worstall. In his imagination there is no real societal harm in buying a few bent bananas off the back of a lorry - and that's the fullest extent of the nefarious activity in his world. You can see why he thinks what he thinks. And he probably remembers well how Neil Herron was hounded by Trading Standards for selling in imperial measures. Petty and vindictive enforcement is the problem, not the standards themselves. But guess what? Those were UK officials and petty, vindictive enforcement is also a very British thing.

Being fairer still, the big problem with the EU is that it has poisoned the well of trade regulation with its political agenda. It used economic integration to further its ambitions for political integration. There is good reason, therefore, not to accept all of it is in good good faith. Standards on bananas is one thing but when the rules also encompass requirements to measure carbon footprints and whether the supplier conforms with ILO labour conventions, the whole system begins to creak. 

Further still, as Worstall notes, the standards do not come from Brussels. Marketing standards for veg come either from UNECE or Codex. They are global standards - and the WTO agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade compels us to use them. This is why Canada, New Zealand, Australia, the USA and India have all recently reformed their own food safety laws. So, no, "bendy bananas" are not a good reason to leave the EU because it doesn't actually solve anything. There are good reasons for leaving but this most certainly isn't one of them.

More to the point, the reason the law embodies the global standards is because without a legal compulsion to use one of the recognised bodies the net result is dozens of competing standards which pretty much defeats the point of having them at all. 

Now you could expect this kind of low grade hackery from the media but Worstall is a senior fellow at the Adam Smith Institute. To have come all the way through the EU referendum and still hold the same opinions as your average kiptard displays a resolute determination to stay ignorant. If this is what the ASI uses for researchers, you can see why they need to plagiarise and steal the work of others. They have no talent of their own. 

The longer, harder road to Brexit

I've been trying my best to envisage the form Article 50 talks will take. We know that there must first be an agreement on the divorce and then we talk about future relations and trade. The government has not been clear on what it wants to opt into for the duration of the transitional period and I rather suspect that's because they themselves do not know.

The complexities of the REACH system means we will require an opt in of some kind and we assume the government wishes to keep our arrangements for the aviation industry, along with a number of other concerns which are presently interwoven with the EU.

For those transitional arrangements to be upheld there can be no deviation without consultation with the EU. If we are to have a comprehensive trade agreement then that will comprise of mutual recognition measures and the EU will want to be notified of our intentions in order to confirm among member states whether what we have in mind will be recognised.

In that respect it seems to me that the trade framework must be agreed before any transitional arrangement, which must then be meticulously planned. Corporate scale de-mergers do not happen overnight, nor do regulatory regimes.

The government intends to use the repeal act to ensure there is no cliff edge, and though that seems plausible in theory, reality is sure to throw a spanner in the works. It's no copy and paste job. Any undertaking to transpose such law must first know which components we intend to maintain for the duration of the transition. If the EU is to agree to the final trade deal it will necessarily need to define parameters of what it will accept in terms of the finished Act. Then once we have a comprehensive trade deal, we are not at liberty to diverge outside the parameters of the deal. So not only does the EU get to set the terms of the transition, it also has a long term hold over what we do next.

Then, as much as we are obliged by WTO commitments to uphold global standards, which can be anything from food safety to labour laws, the Brexiteer deregulation fantasy starts to fall apart. What then develops is an asymmetrical relationship where the UK must update its own regulatory codes to keep pace with developments in the EU internal market if it wishes to maintain access.

To a certain extent, the EU must take soundings from any nations it has comprehensive agreements with but ultimately, it controls its own agenda and unless we change along with the EU then we can expect to be gradually excluded. The EU has a gravitational pull of its own and it is likely the UK will not put up any serious fight unless there is an obvious national interest in doing so. Those times, I suspect, will be few.

In this it would actually help if the government had a clear post-Brexit vision and an idea of what it wants to achieve. That would at least give us a clear indication of what we are seeking to negotiate and why, but in terms of strategy the government has nothing - except for a declaration that we will have "some sort of deal" with the US and some vague nonsense about trading with the rest of the world. Without a more informed position, the likelihood is they will agree to many EU terms simply because they don't see why such terms would be an obstacle in the future.

As ever, we remain in the dark because the government simply has no handle on what they are doing or why. All we really can do is restate that which we do not know, and that is quite a long list at present. If we take things at face value, and by now that seems like a wise approach, the EU is not minded to grant our many impractical wishes nor will it allow selective participation in the single market without exacting a price.

In that, Member States want assurances for the future and some would prefer that their citizens retained the ability to live and work in the UK. That's what the EU will be gunning for. So, regardless of the EEA debate, we are still back to a question of how much market participation do we want and what are we willing to give up to get it. Participation does not come without obligations.

That then brings us to a chicken and egg scenario. How do we settle the administrative issues of divorce, not least payments, when we do not know which systems we will retain and roughly what the final trade deal looks like? Each stage impacts on the other in such diverse ways that Inception starts to make sense. Even if trade is separate to the administrative process of Article 50, it's not easy to see where the lines of delineation are. This is a question for the constitutional experts - of which there are few.

As it happens I expect nobody knows for a fact which way this is supposed to work and politics will shape it as much as the letter of the law. That is when things get ever more unpredictable and we won't know what the bridge looks like until we're crossing it. Much of our fate rests on whether the PM is serious about walking away and whether the EU is minded to let the chips fall where they May.

The only thing I can say for certain is that this "clean break" Brexit will be anything other than clean and I rather suspect we will be remaining under EU legal supremacy far longer than anyone anticipated. When this much becomes apparent Brexiteers will come to appreciate the folly of snubbing the EEA option. It ain't perfect - but at least we'd be out.

The Brexit that the Brexiteers deserve

Whenever ignorance is threatened by reality it will very often become more aggressive in reasserting itself. The Brexiteer aristocracy have decided the staying outside the EEA is a sine qua non. What we do not see however is any coherent alternative offered. Certainly nothing that puts any flesh on Mrs May's "British Option".

Almost uniformly though, the point about negotiating retention of the EEA is that it gets us out of the EU while also maintaining the best possible "access" to the single market. Any other way will require first a divorce settlement, a transitional agreement and a final trade deal.

As discussed previously, modern free trade agreements create joint institutions and working groups for continually evolving relations, formalising cooperation on market surveillance, customs, biosecurity, food safety, trade complaints and dispute resolution. Negotiations are about establishing the institutional architecture. We already have that yet now we propose to pull out of it and replace it with nothing - yet without that, the system doesn't work. You don't even have a system.

So if it isn't to be Efta, for the duration of the transition, the adjudicating authority will most likely be the dreaded ECJ. Negotiating a system to maintain any agreement would be considerably time consuming and there is no reason to believe the cut-off dates for the transition period would not be continually extended as they will fall outside of the Article 50 framework. If you doubt me, just look at any major rollout of any other government scheme. (see Universal Credit)

By the time such arrangements start to take effect it is more than likely the opposition will have got its act together and replaced Corbyn, and Mrs May's popularity will have tanked by then. By 2025 we could very well be looking at a very pissed off electorate and a remain inclined opposition who will seek to leverage the transitional arrangements as a permanent association agreement rather than take the hit of permanently losing market access. That could even end up as Brexit in name only.

By attempting it all in one go the Tories are introducing a number of high risk negotiations where some member states decide that they are only too happy to freeze out UK competition. The risks of talks failing increases where we will then have to plead for emergency measures to stop the whole thing crashing. Even if the government were competent with a handle on what is involved in a comprehensive FTA it would still be a risky business.

If in the slender chance that this government can accomplish an agreement it will likely be several parallel agreements lacking the safeguard measures and opt out inherent to the EEA agreement where we will in future be forced to make concessions to the EU to replace market access we have voluntarily surrendered. In fact, were I a remainer, I would be cautiously cheering on this government in the knowledge that their incompetence will likely see us in the EU for longer - and possibly permanently subject to ECJ decisions without a mechanism for negotiation.

As ever we hear a torrent of demands and assertions from Brexiteers about what they don't want but remain unable to flesh out anything credible as an alternative. It seems the only Nordic option they are willing to consider is Ragnarok.

For people so obsessed with a "quickie divorce" they have bizarrely turned their backs on the on route that gets us out the fastest in favour of seeing us lingering in the EU for a while yet until we sort out all the details. Therein lies the opportunity for remainers. If they get their act together and win power before the process is complete, we could end up half in, half out after all. By then, for all the shortcomings of the EEA, Brexiteers will wish they'd had the good sense to get out while they could.

Why CANZUK is a completely bollocks idea

Rather than focussing on the immediate task at hand, Brexiteers seem to follow any distraction going. The latest empty fad is fleshing out the idea of CANZUK (Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the U.K.). This would be an alliance encompassing freer trade and investment rules, liberalized migration policies, military cooperation, and other forms of close cooperation.

First of all you can't even begin to flesh out what that would look like until you know what Brexit looks like. Brexiteers hold the moronic delusion that there is a cut and run option that sees the UK securing a free trade agreement with the EU and off we go on our merry way with no responsibilities or obligations to our nearest neighbours. 

Unless the Tories make a total balls up of Brexit there is no way Britain walks without considerable EU integration which more than likely requires a high level of regulatory cooperation. That immediately reduces the scope for other agreements. 

But what those Brexiteers in la-la land (Andrew Lilico et al) have not factored in is that CANZUK countries are also tied to the EU and have significantly re-written their own laws in order to secure greater cooperation with the EU. Every CANZUK nation has recently overhauled food safety laws to be more compliant with Codex standards and EU market surveillance systems - not least because the UK is, for the time being, in the EU. Moreover, CETA is not dead yet. 

Further to this, Australia has block supply deals with China and will not necessarily divert any of it s produce as China takes up most of what it can supply. Those supply chains have terms and conditions which limit what they can commit to in terms of a strategic alliance. 

At best there is scope for a symbolic alliance but one would be keen to ask what the point is. Liberalised migration would certainly be nice to have but there is no certainty CANZUK nations would agree, not least with our own borders being so porous with or without freedom of movement. 

At best we might see some tinkering with tariffs but there is no certainty that our own farming lobby would not resist that, and no immediate proof that it would even be desirable. Tariffs, historically low as they are, are not the barrier to trade. Distance and non-tariff barriers are. 

Moreover, if the goal of modern trade is to remove non tariff barriers then operating in geographical alliances makes no sense. If Britain wants freer trade with the rest of the world then it needs to be joining global sectoral alliances to push for greater regulatory harmonisation. Since CANZUK nations are converging on the global and EU standards, a coalition with them is certainly worthy of exploration but why put such static parameters on it? What we need is wider participation for trade liberalisation - as has been done before. 

Effectively, those floating CANZUK have not measured their delusion against the facts on the ground and the systems already in play. CANZUK as an idea is a fashion accessory to be paraded with their Brexit high heels. Sure, it looks good, but isn't practical for getting around town. For all the veneer about being outward looking this is largely just the usual anglosphereic Brexiteer nonsense we have heard for twenty years or so - and as each year passes, globalisation of regulation makes it less viable or productive.

As to military cooperation, it is difficult to see how what's left of our armed services could be more integrated. Regardless of that we still need NATO and Europe for defence cooperation - France especially. Mrs May has pledged not to get into any more wars like Iraq but the legacy thinking from that era has lumbered us with two expeditionary carrier task forces, neither of which will be up to full strength at any given time because of other commitments at sea.

Fisheries protection in local waters will still need to be a collaborative venture, and anti-piracy and migrant patrols will require pooled resources. Though we have shiny new ships, they are only as good as your logistics. There we will need to look to all of our allies.

CANZUK is all part of the the Brexiteer fantasy toolbox whereby Brexit unleashes our trading potential with the world. Like any US comprehensive deal it is big on ambition, short on understanding. I can see why it is an appealing thought because alliances generally are better between culturally aligned states but as much as the geography throws a spanner in the works, if we really want to get the best from Brexit then we have to think about trade in different ways. 

As much as bilateralism has limited uses, any alliances must be with a purpose in mind. I cannot think of any question to which CANZUK really answers. If we want effects based foreign policy then we have to use trade to alleviate the migration crisis in Africa, and in doing that we need to seek out allies in Africa and those nations most affected by the crisis. That then points us back to Europe doesn't it?

Brexiteers have always maintained that "we are leaving the EU, not Europe" but if you examine the Brexiteer rhetoric in any detail, all of what the propose pretty much depends on ending close ties with the Europe by way of giving the EU the two fingered salute. The fact of the matter is that if you want to do business with Europe then you must talk turkey with the EU.

There have been expressions of good will from CANZUK states and we should welcome that - but when it comes to the nuts and bolts, they will find they are constrained in what they can commit to. The best they can offer while talks with the EU are underway is a continuity agreement whereby those deals they already have with the EU also include the UK. Even then, that will largely be contingent on the UK maintaining a degree of EU convergence.

In the end I expect any deals with CANZUK states will run into the usual problems of protectionism even with the best will in the world. Legacy tariffs have withstood several attempts to knock them down and there is no reason to expect anything has changed. All the while we are wasting our time. 

The greater gains can be had by switching focus to trade facilitation. As the Global Enabling Trade Report 2016 points out, improving the efficiency of process and reducing the red tape around cross-border trade remains an easy win for international trade. While progress on multilateral trade talks looks dim and overall infrastructure investment lags, focusing on regulatory efficiency can help governments enable trade quickly, doing more with less. 

According to UNCTAD and OECD estimates, the implementation of the WTO Trade Facilitation Agreement costs between $4 to $20 million per country, while the impact on exports, and hence jobs, would be many times greater. The WTO estimates it could boost developing country exports by up to $730 billion per year - and global GDP by $1.3 trillion.

The obvious easy hits can be found in Africa. As much as that is more pertinent to European food security, it also addresses a very real world concern by removing the push factors that drive the migration crisis. That should be central to our trade and foreign policy, looking to unlock Africa's potential while easing our own immigration concerns. In that we will need African allies to fight back against ruinous EU trade policies.

It cannot be restated often enough but these flights of fancy from free traders are entirely spurious. Picking trade partners like a fantasy football team is simply refusing to engage in the political and economic realities. As is so very typical of Brexiteers it displays a complete inability to focus. CANZUK is bicycle shed syndrome. We have not yet answered the immediate question of what our relationship with the EU looks like moving forward from Brexit. Until that matter is resolved, everything else is just typical Toryboy flatulence.

A masterclass in self-delusion

The Brexit white paper starts off from the misapprehension that regulation functions separately from the EU agencies. It doesn't. We are talking about a system of governance. I will say this until I am blue in the face.

The problem for us is that we don't have the capacity to replace the functionality of those EU agencies, and even if we could it would not give us market access on the same basis. Far from it in fact. The axe will have to fall somewhere eventually. That's where the politics will derail it.

If we are going to negotiate interim membership of EU agencies then it follows that most, if not all regulation will have to be followed and for the duration the EU will insist on ECJ supremacy. There is no way it can work otherwise.

Chances are that interim arrangement will bleed over for a long time. You can only specify a termination date to transitional measures if you know what you are transitioning to and no work has been done in this regard because the government doesn't have a handle on what is involved. 

There will need to be a system and the EU is going to insist on maintaining budget payments throughout - and legally, we will remain under ECJ jurisdiction. Unless there is an agreement to use the EEA secretariat and shadow the EEA then there is no other framework for what is proposed.

We will probably end up formalising interim measures as an association agreement in the future because whoever is in government by then won't dare give up the market access (unless the EU insists otherwise). As M Hollande puts it “Europe isn’t a cash-box, not a self-service restaurant, a Europe where you come and take what you need, where you take your structural funds or get access to the internal market and then show no solidarity at all in return”.

There is no possibility of the Tories pulling this off because they have not understood how the system works or even that it is a system. They want a flat agreement under the assumption that it can stay as it is for the rest of time rather than evolving as the EU changes.

Modern free trade agreements create joint institutions and working groups for continually evolving relations, formalising cooperation on market surveillance, customs, biosecurity, food safety, trade complaints and dispute resolution. Negotiations are about establishing the institutional architecture. We already have that yet now we propose to pull out of it and replace it with nothing.

Without that the system doesn't work. You don't even have a system. We could have our repeal bill transposing EU law into UK law but what happens when the EU has an overhaul? How are imbalances addressed? 

From the government this really is "cake and eat it" stuff and they are in for a rude awakening. The question then is whether there is time to salvage it - and what the price will be. The EU is in no hurry to set up a new framework for the sole benefit of the UK. There is no practicality in it and no reason why they should. It's either Efta or the ECJ - and since David Davis has ruled out Efta, draw your own conclusions. 

What it looks like to me is that the government has painted itself into a corner, keeping us in the EU for longer while we work out the details. This will either lead to an association agreement, where we are gradually sucked back in or accidental Brexit where we crash out with no deal at all. Neither is especially appealing. This is why the EEA would have been the best way forward. It might not be ideal but at least we would be all the way out of the EU and we would keep our preferential trade status.

I'm not making any bets on how it will pan out but we can be assured that the Tories, in their arrogance and naivety will make this more costly than it needs to be for a less favourable outcome. Irony being what it is, the Tory insistence on getting us all out in one go might well be what keeps us stuck in EU limbo. 

The process of leaving is vastly more complex than the Tories believe it is, and the administrative leverage is all in the hands of the EU. We are headed into talks with a woefully inadequate plan and a grossly inflated sense of superiority. Even if the government were correct in its bogus assumptions, the EU is, if nothing else, a rules based institution. It will not break its own rules to accommodate the UK. It has never done this in its relations with anyone holding a comprehensive agreement with it. At best there have been conditional opt outs where there is always a penalty.

The Guardian view is, for once, bang on the money. "The government peddles the fantasy of a tax haven, regulation-lite British lion prowling global markets. It’s a delusion encouraged by ministers who suggest Europe is secretly terrified of dealing with such a beast". That delusion will cost us dearly.

The Brexit white paper is uneducated guesses and blind assumptions

So, the White Paper. I've selected a few bits which should be of interest to readers of this blog.

"It is in the interests of the EU and all parts of the UK for the deeply integrated trade and economic relationship between the UK and EU to be maintained after our exit from the EU. Our new relationship should aim for the freest possible trade in goods and services between the UK and the EU. It should give UK companies the maximum freedom to trade with and operate within European markets and let European businesses do the same in the UK. This should include a new customs agreement with the EU, which will help to support our aim of trade with the EU that is as frictionless as possible."

8.2 We do not seek to adopt a model already enjoyed by other countries. The UK already has zero tariffs on goods and a common regulatory framework with the EU Single Market. This position is unprecedented in previous trade negotiations. Unlike other trade negotiations, this is not about bringing two divergent systems together. It is about finding the best way for the benefit of the common systems and frameworks, that currently enable UK and EU businesses to trade with and operate in each others’ markets, to continue when we leave the EU through a new comprehensive, bold and ambitious free trade agreement.

8.3 That agreement may take in elements of current Single Market arrangements in certain areas as it makes no sense to start again from scratch when the UK and the remaining Member States have adhered to the same rules for so many years. Such an arrangement would be on a fully reciprocal basis and in our mutual interests.

8.42 There are a number of EU agencies, such as the European Medicines Agency (EMA), the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA), the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) and the European (Financial Services) Supervisory 46 The United Kingdom’s exit from and new partnership with the European Union Authorities (ESAs), which have been established to support EU Member States and their citizens. These can be responsible for enforcing particular regulatory regimes, or for pooling knowledge and information sharing. As part of exit negotiations the Government will discuss with the EU
____

The highlighted bit are of interest here. We do not seek a model already enjoyed by other countries. Ok fine. But we do want "frictionless customs".

What makes for frictionless customs is the systems at each end of the supply chain. For that to happen there must be common standards - which are now mandated by the WTO agreement on Technical Barriers to trade. There must also be inspection systems, testing regimes and compatible IT systems for market surveilance.

In order to maintain present levels of market access it is going to be necessary to carry over participation in the EU agencies for at least as long as it takes to devise an alternative. In some respects there is no sense in leaving and certainly no commercial advantage. We will wish to retain air passenger rights, the ability to sell chemicals and be part of the Europe wide food safety system.

In this white paper we have an admission of sorts that a high level of single market particpation is required at least for the time being - and that we won't have a free hand in deregulating and we will make concessions in order to ensure free movement of goods and services. So we are back in cake and eat it territory where the UK seeks to pick and choose the bits of the single market it wants without paying "significant sums to the EU" and taking back total control of immigration.

Effectively we are seeking to negotiate an entirely bespoke agreement which is pretty much single market membership only  we're not calling it single market membership and we're only going to keep the bits we like. All in two years as well.

Except, of course, one of the problems with negotiating compatibility between similar systems is ensuring that they remain compatible in the future. To take food safety for example, it is about to undergo a major overhaul. The goalposts are moving all the time thus, although we have regulatory convergence on day one, as the EU changes and updates its systems, we see increasing divergence unless there is a mechanism for continuous updates. That would have to be something akin with the EEA secretariat - and would likely need an independent court of its own unless we simply abide with diktats from Brussels.

I'm not going to spend too much time dissecting this document because it quite clearly is a calculated insult, knowing that the media doesn't have the wit or the subject knowledge to take it apart in any meaningful way and will not point out the obvious errors, not least the complete lack of understanding as to what the custom union is.

In essence, the government has a wonderland scenario in mind that bears no relationship with reality and thinks all of this will just fall into place without some heavy compromises. It doesn't really address how they intend this system to work nor is there any real indication they understand that they are negotiating a system rather than a flat trade deal. What we have a is a re-hash of the Lancaster House speech announcing that we shall have rainbows and kittens and the EU will bend over backwards to help make that happen.

As much as the EU won't be so accommodating there is absolutely zero chance of negotiating a framework in two years simply because you have to negotiate the scope and nature of the institutions that govern it - unless you opt for systems that already exist. Except that David Davis has said: "membership of EFTA would put us within the reach of European regulations and the European Courts. Frankly, that would take away what influence we do have".

So somehow we have to untangle the Gordian knot of doing what we please while also maintaining convergence with the EU without giving any effect to a body to do that. Presumably by a process of telepathy? Clearly the government has not understood how the system works.

How this will translate in negotiations is anyone's guess. When the cold baseball bat of reality smacks them in the face they will need one hell of a plan B. If it isn't Efta/EEA and Mrs May is sincere about walking away from the table then hard Brexiteers will get their wish after all - and all the misery that goes with it. 

Article 50: Meh.

Well this is fun isn't it? At this point you just have to laugh. UK politics is so hopelessly fragmented that it cannot unite around any single concept. Labour MPs are torn between voting with their conscience and losing their seats - and, hilariously, the Conservative party is, superficially, not split on the issue. For all the noise about parliament having a say, once they were afforded that opportunity they rolled over and gave the government a free pass. What was the point?

A lot of MPs have voted against their conscience. This should have been one of those occasions where they leveraged their collective power to force the government to supply more detail. They failed. They have squandered the opportunity afforded them by Ms Miller. But that is why parliament needed to assert itself in its own right rather than having the law do it for them. To have voted any other way would have enraged an already suspicious public who simply do not trust Westminster.

This is pretty much the consequence of Parliament having done whatever it pleases regardless of public opinion for decades. They painted themselves into this corner. Such is the uselessness of parliamentary democracy.

If we take the view that parliament is a safety mechanism against government excess, then the system as it stands is hopelessly unfit for purpose. Through its own ineptitude parliament has sleepwalked into an ambush. The debate is now muddled beyond all recognition and if we weren't past the point of no return before today then we most certainly are now. All that remains to be seen is Mrs May's white paper to discover just how much of a mess this is going to be.

In all honesty, I am somewhat ambivalent about the whole thing. Brexiteers will be delighted, remainers will be gutted, and I'm just glad to be past this stage of clueless Westminster bickering. Now we get down to the serious business of leaving the EU. Though my hopes for an orderly exit have been dashed, I at least get the entertainment of watching the Tories squirm as their simplistic notions fall apart. Things are, finally, about to get interesting.

Not expecting competence

All the experts have been wrong - or so we are told. Except of course there is a multiplicity of experts each with varying views. Some of them though will never see the light of day because of what they say. The political class does not like to be told that which it does not want to hear and the media is not interested in anything that cannot be neatly slotted into the dismal leave/remain paradigm.

So tiresome is this that I have largely tuned out the media noise and the Brexit debate. It is inconsequential hot air. This though prompts accusations of "arrogance" and that I cannot possibly know for a fact that the Tories will make a pig's ear of it. I disagree.

It's all very well making far flung economic projections and with economies being as diverse as they are even the experts get caught out. Brexit though is a procedural undertaking which can only be as successful as the preparatory work. Of which there is very little.

As much as the MPs know next to nothing about the subject they are taking political advice rather than technical advice. Looking at the Nuclear Industry Association we see the CEO is a former Labour MP who is squealing to remain in Euratom but seemingly does not know the institutional distinctions.

This is not surprising. Leading trade bodies often hire former party hacks for the supposed access they bring, not for what they know. This is not a nation where knowledge is valued.

More to the point, if we wanted to make a decent job of it, we would already have had preparatory talks in terms of fallback positions. So far, talks with Efta have been few and superficial. Real expertise like Ivan Rogers has been purged and only now are they waking up to the possibility that things may not be as simple as anticipated. If there is a collective realisation then it has come far too late. Chances are it will be too much for their tiny minds to comprehend and they will revert to their factory default.

Since the the Brexiteer morons are in charge of this carnival of incompetence there is no way this can go but south. They have convinced themselves that the Repeal Bill covers all of the bases. That was originally proposed in Flexcit as an accompaniment to EEA membership as we would remain participants in the decentralised agencies, without which the imported regulation is utterly meaningless.

The process will still have to be done but the modifications will need to give legal effect to UK bodies which don't actually exist yet - or not in such a form that they can take on the workload imposed on them. What is unclear is whether we can have a trade agreement with the EU until the EU can see what that regulatory constitution looks like and whether or not it can be recognised. We cannot start ramping down single market membership until we have a clear destination and there is no evidence that any thought has gone into that.

Worse still they're consulting ordinary lawyers, none of whom are equipped for this kind of law. You wouldn't get a barrister to represent you at a hearing to renew your abattoir operating licence. Regulatory affairs are an entirely different discipline and due to the considerable ignorance it is treated as a secondary consideration. Since the single market is by definition a regulatory union, regulation is central not only to Brexit but any future trade deal.

Frankly I don't see this being anything other than a total shambles. If Mrs May goes ahead in March then they have only one month left to come to terms with everything the likes of Ivan Rogers have been trying to tell them for the last two years. If the government does have a clue, they are hiding it well. I really wouldn't bet against stupid. At this rate I might actually vote for Corbyn at the next election. If we're going to make a total balls up of everything we might as well go the full Monty.