Sunday, 10 April 2016

We are leaving the EU in any eventuality

The Economist has dropped its commitment to producing interesting and informative articles and has instead geared most of its effort at producing europhile propaganda until June.

It has said "The missing counterfactual is even more problematic in assessing the economic effects of Brexit. Nobody can be sure what access Britain will have to the single market, what its regulatory regime and migration rules will be, or how long any of these may take to negotiate."

While nobody is sure of anything we can make some fairly well educated guesses. For instance, we know that we will not withdraw unilaterally. A repeal bill simply wouldn't pass when MPs are confronted with what that actually entails.

So we do know that the means of exit will be a negotiated exit under the terms of the Lisbon Treaty. We know that there is a two year window for such negotiations. We also know that the uncertainty of protracted talks would be bad for all concerned. Therefore, there will be a scoping agreement before submission of an Article 50 notification to deal only with those instruments specific to our membership of the EU.

The best and only way to ensure talks do not stall is to refrain from opening up each aspect for renegotiation. We will use as many existing legal instruments as possible. The only such agreement that ensures a safe transition is the EEA (European Economic Area) agreement. That means we retain single market access on the same terms and freedom of movement is not threatened. Many will be dissatisfied with this.

The economist says that "One thing both pro- and anti-EU voices can agree on is that the short-term impact of Brexit is likely to be negative". In this I agree, It will cause panic on the currency markets and some investments may go on hold.

There are two reasons for this. Economists are not nearly as smart as they think they are and they believe their own Brexit bullshit, and because they do, market traders do as well. When they start to panic, automated trading algorithms also follow the trends and start dumping currencies and shares. That's how you get overnight crashes and near instant rebounds. We see this quite often where if you went on holiday into the outback for a week, you'd never know it had happened.

The second is reason is that a lot of investors read the Economist and FT, and because they cashed in their prestige to write tawdry pro-EU propaganda without making the distinction between the EU and the single market, many are left believing that exit from the EU means an end to free movement of goods and capital and become dead set against it.

This is why so many politicians and mandarins insist that we stay in the EU. But these are not experts. "Economist" is a job title, not an argument. Whenever you see bickering over trade deficits and percentiles, you can be sure you're looking at deceivers. They know full well trade is mostly unaffected but if we do vote to leave, their credibility and reputations are shot to pieces permanently.

That's why I believe Brexit is such a healthy thing for our democracy in that it will finally expose politicians for what they are. Clueless frauds. And if it means our newspapers and magazines are never trusted in the same way again, we can only have an enhanced democracy in the wake of it.

The bottom line is, the sort of fear mongering we have seen is what will cause major market fluctuations after we vote to leave. It will be temporary, and like most fluctuations in the money markets they have little real world impact on our daily lives. Most people have nothing to lose from it.

I take the view that we should not be held to ransom by the money men and the corporates who insist they will be hurt by Brexit. Especially since these are the corporates with their fingers in the till, fingers in our wallets and put up a wall of automated responders to stop us ever speaking to a human being. We don't owe these multinationals any market stability. Who governs us is none of their business.

What I would say is that short term pain will be worth it. It's worth it alone just to have that shake up of Whitehall and to humiliate our media. It will mark a real shift in the balance of power - away from the ones who have held us prisoner to their ideas for the last forty years. The cultural shift will be bigger than the economic one.

And then there's a little fear-mongering of my own to do. I have my own fears. I watch the EU far closer than most. I listen to the signals. There’s a pervasive sense of anxiety over Europe’s wider future. It knows it has very little mandate. It knows it faces pressures on all sides. It is panicking. The borders are crumbling, freedom of movement is breaking down of its own accord, there are multiple security threats and the Euro is still on life support.

Now I am not saying the EU is in imminent danger of collapsing, but I do believe things are going to get worse. You see, the EU is a political settlement imposed on europe by its hubristic political elites. Nobody specifically asked for it, it's never been especially liked, and it has only managed to evolve as far as it has by deceiving the people over its intent. Much of its fragile support is on the back of bribes of local authorities, universities and those industries it props up. It has never been a solution for Europe.

And if it wasn't the solution to Europe's problems back when this all started, it quite obviously isn't now. It runs at the speed of the slowest ship in the convoy at a time where we need dynamism and agility and most of all, flexibility.

Because the EU cannot act in a timely way we are seeing increasingly unilateral moves by member states, which the EU then ignores - hoping the public won't notice. It's not entirely a bad strategy in that most voters do not look beyond the confines of their own nations. But as an institution, it has its head in the sand. It never acts until crisis becomes emergency. When it finally does act, as it has in relation to Syrian refugees, it tramples on most of its own values then denies the fallout. It is total and rank hypocrisy.

Thankfully for Britain, we are shielded from much of this by the English Channel. Most of what the EU does in that regard does not affect us. But because of this, if we do not leave, we will actually be the last nation on earth that does actually comply with EU rules and upholds those principles of the single market. The EU will have disintegrated in all but name, and the last committed member of the EU will be Britian. So in that regard, the capital city of the United Kingdom will be Brussels. Brussels will be the government that goes to the top tables of international affairs, gets told what to do, then tells London what to do, who in turn tells the rest of us what to do.

So my question to you is why do we need that extra step in the chain? Why not shorten the lines of accountability? Why not have a seat at the top table?

But most of all what I fear is that we could well see a real crisis in the global economy for reasons I have previously outlined. I don't see any encouraging signals. Governments are spending less, individuals are spending less and so is business. The hatches are still battened down from the last storm and we're anticipating another.

I think we are probably going to see another Euro currency crisis sometime in the next five years. Some predict sooner. It may not be the big scary cliff edge we saw in 2011, but we still have a massive debt problem and a crisis of governance in the southern states. Things are improving but at a glacial pace. That will expose the weaknesses in the EU constitution and it will show why the EU needs to consolidate the treaties to ensure the Eurozone economy is managed by a single government. I actually think that needs to happen and I genuinely think it will one way or another.

What that means is a new EU treaty. What that means for Britain is that there will be a ratification referendum. Britain will will vote any new treaty down. That will stall the entire EU project.

Knowing this they may seek to dodge having a referendum by saying it has no power transfers, which will be seen as a massive betrayal, triggering another Brexit referendum. But since a No vote in the treaty referendum will stall the entire EU it could be that we are forced out - or put into some sort of treaty stasis or quarantine. I really don't know.

What I can say is that the EU is stalled for as long as Britain remains a member, and it is at its most vulnerable in its current state by not reforming. It's in a state of deadlock. So we face a future as a seriously marginalised member of the EU, where we will see agitation to leave, or we will be forced out in far less collegial conditions.

The bottom line is I do not see any future where Britain does not leave the EU and in fact Brexit may be the only thing that can save the EU. Unless it is free to reform, it may fall to pieces. What I can say is that a Brexit now is going to be far safer, less turbulent and politically acceptable than a Brexit engineered at gunpoint to be rammed through as fast as possible.

To borrow from the Economist's rhetoric... "Nobody can be sure". What nobody on the Remain side can say is what remaining in looks like or what our future relationship with the EU is going to be. At best we can hope for the status quo where things stay roughly the same as they are. That's on the rather enormous gamble that the EU can continue with its head buried in the sand, and on the off chance there will not be another financial crisis that threatens the integrity of its vanity currency.

Now I know these are all just assumptions and speculative in nature, but the EU is being quite coy in what it has in mind should we vote to remain, yet the rumblings from within are all saying "something has to change". Cameron hasn't reformed the EU. There has been no treaty change. Any MP who pretends otherwise is despicable. There does need to be reform and nobody will say what that looks like or where Britain stands.

Either way we have a gamble. I think if we vote to leave now we are taking a risk, but a calculated risk, with a good idea of the mainly manageable consequences, with no looming cliff edge deadline should we leave via the EEA. That's the bullet we have to bite, but it's not going to be the end of the world and it's going to be the safer of the two choices. It requires that Brits make a pragmatic and adult decision - and if there are costs involved then really the public can only blame themselves for allowing our politicians to do this to us in the first place.

That is why when we do have that discussion about what happens after Brexit we will need some constitutional reforms to make sure these bastards never get to do this to us again. There was always going to be a price to pay for taking us in this direction without a mandate. I say we should pay it now and get it over and done with - because the costs will be far higher if we dodge the decision in June. We are leaving the EU in any eventuality. This referendum is our one chance to decide when and how. If you don't vote to leave, you are leaving that estimation entirely to chance.

1 comment: