Power grabbing by stealth

The next area of research for this blog is on how the EU is trying to beef up its presence at the UN General Assembly and speak on behalf of EU members as it does on all the regulatory bodies. This upcoming vote on the EU is not a vote on whether we want to stay in the EU as it is but as it is going to be.

The Kippers have only half understood us when we say the EU takes our seat at the top table. As we keep saying, it has advanced observer status on multiple bodies and only has supremacy over those matters where it retains exclusive competence (TFEU1). In those such efforts, the EU commision adopts a position and then we are forced to vote for the common position. In this we have no veto or right of reservation.

There are however other times when a matter is a shared competence between the member states and the EU depending on the context. In this there can be disputes in that adopting regulations is no longer simply a matter of making laws, but instead is seeking regulatory convergence which is central to all new trade deals. That is the pretext under which the EU can seize full control. Where there is a dispute as to whether the instance is an exclusive competence, it is the ECJ who decides.

From that, precedents are set which then grant the EU further powers and so the ECJ is very much an engine of EU integration. That is what the kippers unknowingly mean when they say we are ruled by "unelected judges". As it happens, it would be no more legitimate even if they were elected.

That is in the instances where a Council decision is challenged - which every often they are not. We can find instances of Council decisions granting the EU right of exclusive competence over the Maritime Labour Convention in that some of the provisions under the convention pertain to social security schemes. We find evidence of EU proposals to widen the scope of international conventions in order to gain exclusivity in the vote in this way. Integration by stealth without a treaty.

Anywhere the EU has observer status it is seeking to advance its own agenda to replace member states entirely at the top tables and remove their right of reservation or vetoes. There is no doubt that the EU is power hungry and is seeking to establish the same status as a nation state at the global level. If you are voting to stay in the EU, you are not voting for the EU as it is today, you are voting for the eventual eradication of Britain's voice in the world.

Course, Richard North is keen to make the distinction that while the EU seeks the international status of a nation state it does not seek the same powers in the same regard. He says "The EU has shown no territorial ambitions ... the defining characteristic of a nation state is that is has sovereign rights over territory." The EU is seeking to be the supreme government of Europe but seeks power without responsibility. "As I have said many times, it wants control over the people who empty the dustbins, but it does not want to take the responsibility for actually emptying them."

By the time the new EU treaty comes along, it will have established a great deal of control over eurozone nations, but will not assume responsibility for implementing those measures it sets out. Why take the blame when you don't have to? In this regard the EU has the best of both worlds. It speaks for us at the global level, it implements global conventions on our behalf - off the media radar, and when it comes to the consequences, it can plead innocence. When it comes to deception, the EU is a skilled operator. This is a theme to which we shall return. 

Nothing pacifies resistance like an EU entitlement

SLATUKIP posts the above on Twitter. Presumably, they are in favour of such EU measures. I don't know what motivates Ukip to vote against such measures, but were I an MEP, I think I would as well.

Examining some of my own rhetoric on EU measures, I have been known to say that the EU adopts international codes and laws verbatim. To be more precise, the EU doesn't even copy such measures into its regulations. It writes regulations that refer to ILO and IMO codes, conventions and resolutions by name and serial number. Thus any international measure that creates amendments to ILO measures does, by default, amend EU regulation. We can see one such example here.

The ILO is really the forum where it is important to have our voices heard because its conventions and resolutions are legally binding - where there is no parliament and the UK has only a partial proxy vote with no outright veto. The conventions are put together through a process of negotiation between NGOs, unions and employers associations as well as corporates, coalitions, trade blocs and nation states.

While we have argued that there can never realistically be an injection of true democracy at this level, some is better than none. For that we would have to be out of the EU in order to veto. The left assume that any such power of veto would mean those howwid Tories might block measures that grant us further rights. It may amuse some to learn that the EU blocked ILO measures on labour rights for Women working underground in mines - on the basis of... gender equality! Can't have different rules!

But there is more important point here. The conventions and resolutions are hammered out through a process of negotiation and lobbying, where corporates with highly paid specialist lawyers can and do muzzle the ILO when it comes to agreeing violations of fundamental rights, where otherwise the investigations would feed back into further resolutions. In the context of the above SLATUKIP meme, I will bet that the EUs own resolutions can be traced to an ILO initiative.

The assumption of the left and those like SLATUKIP is that because the gesture politics of the EU are wholesome in intent means that are not corrupted and corruptible. If anything such institutions serve as a safety valve mechanism to prevent workers mobilising. The international matrix of lawmakers and law takers have made us passive receivers of rights. That's a bad thing.

It's true that were we to fully repatriate all such lawmaking from the EU, any government could in theory revoke certain rights and protections. As someone who thinks the UK labour market could be liberalised somewhat, I wouldn't especially mind, but supposing there are protections we did want to keep. We would have to form effective unions and use our votes and demand those rights. We would have to fight for them. And that's no bad thing.

The way in which the EU has turned itself into a benevolent benefactor of the works is how it has bought loyalty with the crumbs from their table and pacified our own unions and quelled any genuine grassroots labour movement. That's why the Labour party is a shadow of its former self.

The principle here is that those rights which are gifted by the international elites can just as easily be revoked without any democratic recourse, usually without a mention in the media since the media is only dimly aware that strata of lawmaking exists. Not even the EU could stop it even if it noticed! The alternative is that we could lose our rights were we to repatriate such law making powers, but those rights which are fought for rather than gifted from above are not so easily taken away.

In fact, I would say that it's not just this strata of law that has made us passive recipients of law and protections, it is most of them and I would say this is a key dynamic in reduced participation in democracy. Why fight for rights when you can just wait by the fax machine to see what the anointed ones have granted us?

If we want a revitalised democracy, then we must have real power. The power to mobilise and the power to affect our own laws. To delegate to the EU and the international stage is to delegate our responsibilities as citizens in a democracy.

Indeed when Juncker made his speech to the world's press over the Greek bailout, which the left called "harsh austerity", Juncker said "There are, as I said, no wage cuts in this package. This was never, never ever on the table. What is on the table is a proposal to modernise the wage grid of the public sector. And, for the private sector, we have agreed to review collective bargaining practices. Our only request has been that this should be done in line with the best European practices in cooperation with the institutions and ILO which are the specialists when it comes to this question."

So there is a schism here. If the EU as an instrument of the ILO is some benevolent protector of rights, the logically it does not follow that the EU imposes harsh austerity on Greeks. It used to be that the left would unite and fight for rights and mobilise to threaten those governments that would take them away. Now it seems they are happy to be passive receivers of rights in place of democratic process, from a global organisation that is very much in the pockets of the lawyers and their corporate paymasters.

There seems to be a fear that were we to have democratic control then we could possibly lose those rights we have. If that be the case then that is our own fault for allowing ourselves to be so passive and neglected our duty of vigilance. But I don't think that would be the case. Britain has been at the very front lines of the battle for workers rights throughout history and even our cosseted middle classes would rise up were their paid holidays in any way threatened.

The fringe entitlements that the EU bestows upon us would probably be filtered out due to lack of grassroots demand. That in itself creates a better culture in that there is give and take between employer and employee and that not every single transaction is proscribed by the dead hand of authority. What falls between the cracks is ours to fight for.

We cannot say what motivates Ukip in voting down such measures. I expect it's born of some half understood principle that the EU has no mandate in this regard whether the laws are wholesome or not. In that I would probably find cause to agree with Ukip. Democracy means that sometimes rights are lost as well as won. It seems the modern left is happy to dispense with democracy because they don't trust the people. That is a somewhat misanthropic worldview. For sure, democracy means having to fight to maintain our rights, but in the end, we are lost without it.

Europhiles are holding back Britain and all of humanity

The Mirror has given houseroom to Will Straw, campaign directer for the Remains, listing eight ways we are better off in the EU. As we have been keen to point out on this blog, the Remain campaign is merely a noisemaker and what it says is not relevant to what the referendum is actually going to be fought on. Still, it's a Sunday, I'm horribly bored and the weather's crap so I'm going to have closer look at Staw's eight reasons for remaining a subjugated country.

Straw's first claim is that the EU brings us cheaper mobile phone calls. I will momentarily park that because it is linked with the second claim. The second claim is a belter. Straw asserts the EU has brought about the age of cheap flights. Firstly, that really hinges on what you consider cheap. A flight from Bristol to Aberdeen or Amsterdam is still the better part of two hundred quid, the majority of which is taxes, half of which are EU climate change taxes.

In terms new destinations opening up, the European airline market has remained fairly stagnant for the last twenty years. With a bit of market liberalisation more destinations could be opened up with smaller aircraft servicing more destinations. As it stands we are still locked into travelling long distances to large hub airports to travel to other large hub airports nowhere near our actual destination. And intelligently deregulated and liberalised air travel market could revolutionise our economy, but with so much government standing in the way, that's just not going to happen. Certainly not if it threatens the interests of Air France.

Consequently we have an airline market that means though the EU has notionally secured cheaper mobile calls, you would be one of a small privileged minority who actually benefits from this, and with the advent of smartphones and wifi which is free to use, while it's a marginal benefit to have no roaming charges, I don't see why this comes to the top of their list of reasons to stay in the EU. It certainly benefits the eurocrats on large salaries jetting off to Brussels and Strasbourg once a month, but I really couldn't give a tinkers damn.

But then the fact this comes to the top of their list actually tells you something more fundamental about Will Straw and the Remain campaign. I remember well the campaign mounted by the europhiles to get us to join the ill fated euro currency. They pulled the same trick then saying that it would save us all the inconvenience of having to change money when we go on holiday. The message here is that you are an ignorant pleb incapable of understanding the larger ramifications of surrendering our currency and will vote for it on the basis of convenience when we take our package vacations to Spanish seaside resorts. As patronising as it is, is actually shows these misanthropes really do hold us in contempt. Do they really think we're going to base our vote on whether we can make a cheap phone call?

Straw's third meme is the three million jobs riff. Yawn. Possibly three to five million jobs or more depend on trade within the single market. But the the EU is not the single market and leaving the EU does not mean losing access to the single market.

The fourth reason Straw gives is pretty much a variation on the same theme, conflating the single market with the EU in saying that membership of the EU gives us free access to a market of half a billion people. In fact, cutting to the chase, all of Straws claims hinge on conflating the EU with the single market.

Straw's arguments are based on a deliberate deceit, banking on the media's inability to challenge it. I would probably do the same in his position. By making it an economic question he locks the Leavers into bickering over numbers, and protracted arguments over whether the EU saves us thruppence ha'penny per day or whatever. The only normal response for a normal person is to tune out and leave them to it until its time to vote. What Straw does not want is an informed debate with everybody engaged in it.

In that regard the Leave campaign has walked right into the trap and for every claim that the EU saves us money or brings investment, the likes of Leave.EU will be busy crafting counter memes as to how much the EU costs us. Thus we will have two years of bickering, with each side clamouring for prestigious sources to verify their claims.

Will Straw is gambling that people will not be sufficiently well informed for his lies to stick. All he needs do is stick to conflating the EU with "Europe" and continue to conflate the EU with the single market, with the fallback position of the "Norway has no influence" meme and the narrative is set. Certainly his own supporters are barely aware of the difference between the EU and the single market so why indeed would the public?

I can write blogs until I'm blue in the face demonstrating how political union is not required for access to the single market or the EU's proxy trade deals, and I can debunk the Norway myth until my fingers are raw but while we have a Leave campaign determined to fall into all the predictable traps and a media whose own structural ignorance prevents them from communicating the distinctions, the vote will likely go Straw's way. If you repeat a lie often enough, people will believe it.

There is no question that the EU has achieved some great things that are entirely worthwhile but as we have seen with trade, for whatever good the EU has done, it is now the chief inhibitor to more progress because of it's myopic insistence that the world ends at the EU's own borders. In order to advance its statehood ambitions it must stifle the interests of member states and by doing so hobbles all of Europe. If the EU was just the customs union it pretends to be then there might be reason to be in the opposite camp to the Ukip nutters and the Tory dinosaurs.

On paper, it looks like it is reforming, but in practice, while it announces new trade trade initiatives by the day, in practice we get half measures, years late while the rest of the world is overtaking us. That may be sufficient for the likes of Will Straw who are content with mediocrity, men whose ambitions do not extend further than the confines of the EU, but as a global thinker, who sees the vast potential outside of the EU and the many opportunities for Britain in that global marketplace, I cannot be content to sit on the sidelines in the EU and shut ourselves off from the world.

We should have a seat at the top table and we shouldn't be going cap in hand to Brussels to ask permission to get the best for Britain at the global level. I don't see why we should be held back by small men with limited ambitions who are so terrified by the modern world that they cling to the ideas of yesteryear. Especially not those who would tell any lie to preserve the status quo.

We could be out there making sure our phonecalls are cheap wherever we are in the world, making use of our many long abandoned airfields and creating a real open sky with actually cheap fares and opening ourselves up to markets of billions rather than mere millions. We could do so with greater agility and greater democracy. Instead, fearful misanthropic little men like Will Straw will get their way. They are not ready to step out of the last century and let go of their failed ideology. That's a real pity for Europe - and all of humanity.

Europe needs us, but we don't need the EU

We have a bit of a nautical theme on the blog today, me hearties! We're still on the matter of the International Maritime Organisation. Specifically the International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers (STCW), 1978- and subsequent negotiated revisions.

It turns out that it is Norway's observance of this convention that gives it the mutual recognition of standards with the EU so that Norwegian seafarers can work on EU registered ships. Why is that? Because if we look at EU Directive 2008/106 it says "It is therefore essential to define a minimum level of training for seafarers in the Community. That level should be based on the standards of training already agreed at international level, namely the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers, 1978 (STCW Convention), as revised in 1995. All Member States are Parties to that Convention."

Norway is able to independently negotiate the regulations of the STCW by way of its IMO membership. It is presupposed that Norwegian seafarers will be permitted to serve on ships registered in EU member States and thus be issued with an endorsement in accordance with regulation I/10 of the STCW Convention and Directive 2008/106 (125) on the minimum level of training of seafarers.

In addition, Norway has entered into agreements with the flag States of Antigua and Barbuda, the Bahamas, Belize, Hong Kong, Panama, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Singapore and Vanuatu.

Australia is also able to participate by way of the Australian Maritime Safety Authority agreement with the IMO, by way of subscribing to STCW creating mutual recognition of qualifications. It is by far from reciprocal in that some other Countries recognise AMSA Certificates, but AMSA does not recognise theirs. This means that these countries can issue a Certificate of Recognition for an Australian qualification, but AMSA cannot recognise their Certificates.

At this point my regular readers should be hearing pennies drop. This is what we've been talking about when we speak of an emerging global single market based on international conventions, hammered out through inter-governmentalism at the top tables. Regulatory convergence.

In this sector we see multilateral and bilateral agreements not between nations but standards and qualifications boards, working to the STCW convention. A level of global parity has been achieved without either Norway or Australia being asked to surrender their sovereignty or their seats at the top table. We find similar with the Memorandum of Cooperation on Development of Asian Seafarers Between the Department of Labor of the Republic of the Philippines and the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism of Japan.

Thus far on this blog we have focussed on the emerging global single market in automotive components driven by UNECE but for every imaginable aspect of trade there is a top level convention with various bilateral agreements with other national and regional bodies that bypass nations and surpranational blocs entirely. These are lodged with the WTO as readily replicated agreements.

If you're not clear on exactly how it all works, that's actually ok. Nobody does. If you're aware such exists, you're way ahead of the curve. Many of the organisations at the global level are formed for specific purposes, with different origins, endowed with different powers and different responsibilities acting on behalf of amalgamated parties comprising of industry groups, NGOs and nations. Cairns Group is but one of them in Agriculture, but there are many smaller, subregional ones globally in all sectors.

You may be thinking that this all sounds a bit messy with multiple overlaps that are nearly impossible to keep track of. You'd be right, which is why we have a legion of international lawyers and dispute resolutions systems in place of a supranational authority. But what it does do is shorten the chain of accountability for nation states and the organisations acting on their behalf and it gives nations a veto, or right of reservation over measures they do not wish to recognise in the national interest.

You might be thinking that this doesn't make for a particularly good single regulatory framework for a global single market. Well, it doesn't, which is why we see international bodies in negotiations to merge as logic and globalisation and technology leads to natural convergence anyway. The only real benefit to the EU is that by contrast to the global aquis of regulation, the EU is fairly straight forward and transparent.

What it is not is agile, democratic not fast. After the global mechanisms have hammered out what the international standards are, it must spend many years then going through the repeat cycle of the European law making process. This is not great news for those industries where the pace of technology outpaces their law making abilities and certainly useless to emerging markets where the regulatory standards can be inhibitors of growth. When all it is doing is replicating that which already exists, you might wonder if there is any point at all in the EU since plenty nations get along fine without creating their own versions of it. In fact, if the EU did not exist today, even we wouldn't bother to invent it. It's hangover from WW2 war guilt and it's advocates, being only dimly aware of the global frameworks can't see just how redundant it is.

The EU would be far more forgiveable as supranational entity were it actually good at what it does in terms of creating an effective single market internally, but as we can see from this link, it does no such thing, allowing large Eurozone members (France) to get away with murder in not implementing core EU demands. France and Italy both have a poor record when it comes to implementing Single Market governance tools. Meanwhile, the EU makes deep and comprehensive agreements as part of its neighbourhood policy but dds no real pressure to Croatia or Ukraine in modernising their systems and is not forthcoming with the cash so that they can now that Greece is the centre of attention.

In that regard, the EU is just as chaotic, divergent and bureaucratic as the rest of the world and single markets in banking and money transfer exist in name only in Poland and Eastern Europe. As with trade negotiations with the rest of the world, the EU is not that good at what it claims to do best and only a crisis of Greek proportions can bring its best talents to bear.

The bottom line is that the EU has reached its high water mark in what it can achieve by way of treaty internally, except for the obvious next step of improving eurozone governance, and affording itself the powers it needs to bring order to its own chaos. As far as everything else is concerned, we might actually be doing Europe a favour by letting it get on with that while we focus on building and joining alliances, associations and coalitions at the top tables. What is best for Britain is best for Europe, and Britain being a subjugated voice waiting for its agenda to be recognised with in the EU serves nobody. Nor so for Spain in pursuing its potential interests in Spanish speaking South America.

The real question here is whether the EU is relevant to the modern world, whether it is fit for purpose and whether what it will morph into will be something we want to be part of. We can be a second rate voice in a two tier Europe or we can be like any number of freely trading nations participating in all of the global single markets as well as the European single market and nurturing those industries that will best help Europe compete and grow. Europe needs us, but it needs us to be free, doing what Britain has always done - influencing the world.

We have our answer...

One of the great pitfalls of Twitter is the lack of ability to give detailed and worthwhile replies without cluttering up blog space. Howesoever, Jon Worth has responded to my blogpost and I must respond in kind. I don't think a line by line fisking in this context is the right way to go since much of what he says is shrouded in counter rhetoric which is best ignored - and instead we'll look at the distinct arguments.

Worth says he cannot find any mention on my blog of maritime safety issues due to the lack of a search engine. The top bar does indeed have a search function, but that wouldn't have been necessary since the preceding post was in fact all about that very global governance entity, discussing this very topic. Norway's respective influence - or rather the influence we would have outside the EU.

Worth says "The European Maritime Safety Agency lists six major pieces of EU law relevant to shipping here (plus their relevant amendments) – if the UK were in the EEA then it would have to still implement all of that, and would have no say over the amendment of those laws in future.

Indeed it amuses me that the first regulation says "the International Safety Management Code providing for the safe operation of ships and for pollution prevention, hereinafter referred to as the 'ISM Code', was adopted by the International Maritime Organization (IMO) through Assembly Resolution A.741(18) of 4 November 1993 in the presence of the Member States and, through its incorporation into the International Convention on the Safety of Life at Sea 1974, will apply to ro-ro passenger vessels from 1 July 1998;"

Any such amendments in the future would merely be an adoption of further articles of the SOLAS convention, via the IMO - of which Norway is a top table participant. Meanwhile the EU has observer status which means our vote in that body is a proxy vote since we adopt the common EU position where the matter at hand is considered a core EU competence. 

So, yes, this does rather suggest that Worth is oblivious and does not even read the regulations to which he refers. He also makes mention of eAlert emergency devices. These regulations themselves are in fact the product of WP.29, The UNECE World Forum for Harmonization of Vehicle Regulations. Being that this is an area of global regulatory convergence, that makes it an exclusive EU competence - where Norway has a vote - but we don't. As a member of the EEA, we would be full participant with full national sovereignty over our vote.

Worth says that as members of the EU we have some influence in the common EU position and as a major producers of vehicles that is undoubtedly true. But my question is why settle for persuasion at the middle table when you could have an outright veto at the top? And yes, for the record Jon, the emissions regulations adopted by the EU were UNECE. They say so right here. And be under no illusions... Pick any UNECE regulations at random, such as these, and you will see that they are not by any measure some vague UN aspirational tract. They are strongly typed regulations. Laws.

And this really underscores the point that while the EU can tinker with parameters here are then to the exclusion of Norway and other EEA members, it's neither here not there when you have a veto before such measure get anywhere near the European Parliament. Having a fairly good idea of how the EU parliament is likely to tinker with regulations you would veto potentially bad ones well in advance. If you want to shape the substance of the regulation then you need to be at the top tables and you and if you want real influence then you need your bargaining power.

When it comes to bargaining power, a veto in itself is often good enough, but freedom from the EU means freedom to join coalitions at the top tables, joining forces with other global entities, alliances and nations wishing to block bad ideas. The benefit of this means we can cooperate with the EU and indeed assist it in pushing the global agenda toward addressing our own concerns, where there are advantages to doing so, but then teaming up with others when the EU has an otherwise full agenda. 

There are clear democratic advantages, there is greater influence to be had and more global agility, but Worth says "look at an intergovernmental body like the G20, or worse still the UN, to see what intergovernmentalism looks like – it means moving at the speed of the slowest. QMV within the EU might not be to everyone’s tastes democratically as it means that states can be outvoted, but it sure makes decision making more swift as unanimous agreement between 28 states is hellish slow."

Well, that's rather the point isn't it? QMV isn't to our tastes democratically in that we can be overruled. When you are talking about regulations that affect millions of people and their livelihoods, we can hardly call this democracy. Yes intergovernmentalism can often be slower, but that really depends on how you go about it. As we have already discussed on this blog, unbundling on a sector by sector basis is a great deal faster than the EU's stagnant deep and comprehensive methodology that leads to trade deals taking several years only to collapse in the final rounds.

But while intergovernmentalism can be slow, don't forget that The EU as a law-taker, is the recipient of multiple intergovernmental processes, to which it then adds additional time and complexity (and therefore delay). To cut out the EU as a "middle man" would significantly speed up the process. It's no coincidence that even Botswana had regulations on plastic carrier bags long before we did.

Notwithstanding the inherent slowness of intergovernmental processes, there is no evidence that the supranational system is any faster either, not least as it is increasingly having to act in response to international initiatives before it can initiate any action. Initiatives by member states, therefore, are significantly delayed, as they are unable to broker changes directly with international bodies, having first to work through the filter of EU institutions. Inside the EU we cannot secure changes to global conventions nor can we adequately respond to market changes without going through the motions. We lose our global agility. 

Worth, having completely neglected to examine the origins of the regulations he quotes and the context in which they were formed, maintains his original position of ignorance. "The point of my original blog entry then still stands" he says – that "the UK out of the EU and in the EEA would lose political influence and would not gain democratically, even if the economic impact were to be negligible."

Worth points out in his original post EEA membership is the means by which economic impact would be the closest to negligible, and were we to adopt the entire EU aquis as a Brexit mechanism, we can say with reasonable confidence that business would in the short to medium term struggle to notice any difference of substance. However, what we gain is influence at the top table, more democratic decision making and a shortening of the chain of accountability. If we want something we can bypass the EU, pick alliances and go right to the top. 

This however, is of no interest to Worth. He is wedded to his mantra that "Norway has no influence" - a tiresome political meme that simply won't go away. Regardless of how many times it is demonstrated to be false, the factory reset button goes off in the heads of europhiles causing them to repeat the same untruths. It is as we said - a toxic mix of ignorance and self-deception. 

The international elephant in the room

Euroblog blogger, Jon Worth, fancies himself as a bit of a political wunderkind and sees fit to opine on the subject of Brexit. The brevity of his received opinions are worth a fisking since they do seem to encapsulate the basis of the europhile message.

He asserts that "If Britain were to be like Norway – inside the European Economic Area – the democratic gain for the UK is zero. Britain would have to implement the rules of the EU Single Market but would have no say over them. Norway’s Europe Minister Vidar Helgesen has said as much."

What we have here is a piece of political memery. It has no basis in fact which is why it contains a link that appeals to prestige and authority. Readers of this blog by now will be well aware of the many contexts where Norway has a great deal more direct influence in the laws that govern us, from fishing to maritime safety through to the automotive industry. It is the typical little Europe mentality that cannot see beyond the confines of the EU entity. To them, nothing else exists outside.

Indeed, it is now the case, or so says this Efta report, that more than 90 percent of the laws of the single market include policy areas covered by UN or other global bodies. Jon Worth seems to be conflating the EU with the single market. In most EU documentation, the EU aspect of the single market is referred to as the Internal Market - which is the only part of a much larger single market the EU has sole authority over. The overall EEA is but one single market, but there are global single markets which share zero tariffs and a common regulatory framework, which are expanding all the time. 

In fact, such is the nature of global trade now that the real deals, the ones that are often far from the public radar happen between obscure entities that govern standards and practices, with inputs from trade associations and mega transnational NGO's who often wield greater power at the top tables than many nation states.

Those who see the global trading vista in terms of big ticket moves like TTIP and single markets only in terms of the EU are only aware of a small fraction of what goes on on the international governance scene. Their understanding of the subject is breathtakingly simplistic ans superficial. Even those who should know better do not, and if they did, it would suit their purposes not to tell you. 

The real nature of global trade agreements advances by representatives from specific sectors and industries coming together to improve the trading environment and what is agreed by convention, invoking international standards, is merely rubber stamped by middlemen such as the EU. Indeed the EU lacks the manpower or the resources to cover such a magnitude of areas in any real depth. From automotive standards to labour laws, it defers to the international matrix of governance - UNECE to the ILO.

By way of being contrained by the EU we are preventing from chosing alliances and temporary coalitions that benefit our own existing and emerging markets, forcing us to lobby within the EU to raise our needs among many as a trading priority. This is not only damaging to the UK's economic interests it is also harmful to Europe in general since the UK is a driver of European growth.

As the EU clings to obsolete deep and comprehensive, all encompassing agreements forges sometimes over decades, it loses out on the many incremental improvements, and can often be held back by the uncooperative nature of those member states protecting their own interests. In effect there is subjugation to surpranationalism when clearly intergovernmentalism is the model that gets results. Europhiles are only dimly aware of this dynamic but are aware of how potentially damaging it would be to their ambitions were the public informed of it. It is for this reason it is seldom debated or acknowledged by the likes of Jon Worth or the Economist.

Worth goes on to say "the UK would not have to be part of the EU’s CAP and would not contribute to regional funds, so there would be a marginal budget win – that’s of course if all farmers and the UK’s poor regions would cease to be subsidised in a post-EU era (highly doubtful). Also there is free movement of people within the EEA, as there is within the EU, and that’s not going to reassure Tories and KIPpers. Yes, EEA membership would cause the least economic shock because access to EU markets would remain as it is, but if that’s what you want, why not stay in the EU?"

Indeed there is no doubt our agriculture would have continued subsidy and there is no practical reform I can think of that would bring this to an end any time soon, but the model we adopt would be ours to define. That in itself is a power worth having. As to free movement, Brexit does give us marginal extra powers which would need to be exercised along with other major reforms to those mechanisms we already have control over. Freedom of movement though is a concession worth making just to have our voice at the top tables once more. That alone is justification to leave the EU.

Worth argues that the alternative to the EEA, to be further our than Norway is – to have a relationship with the EU that is more like the relationship the United States has with the EU – that means have the power to set new standards for things. That, for example, car emissions standards are set differently. That IT firms data protection standards are different (a Safe Harbour with the UK, anyone?) That safety standards for suntan creme, the plastics used in childrens toys, and the efficiency standards for electric goods would all be different."

Again Worth demonstrates only a very superficial understanding of the available options. For instance, the European emissions standards are in fact made by the UNECE, to which both the EU and has adopted along with many other non-EU countries. It is more than likely that the UK would continue to be a participant at all levels in the UNECE, and could therefore have a mutual recognition agreement with the EU. Continued market access is not contingent on single market membership, even though it is likely that a variant of the EEA model would apply.

As to data protection, Worth is clearly unaware that along with banking rules, the progenitor is the OECD, a forum of more than 30 countries that has developed forward-thinking guidelines on the protection of privacy and transborder data flows. Decisions made within OECD are reached by consensus and commitments which are then usually the basis of intergovernmental agreements. Outside the EU we can participate in shaping such conventions either unilaterally or part of a trade coalition.

In matters such as electrical safety or vehicle emissions, we find the UNEF is involved, working closely with UNECE to provide standards and conventions and indeed strongly typed regulations adopted verbatim both by the EU, Australia and the USA. While the EU certainly has clout in such affairs, trade coalitions of industry groups, trade guilds, NGOs and corporate lobbyists working on a single sector of concern can often have equal or greater say than the EU.

Worth says that "Because these are the sorts of things that being outside the EU would allow the UK to set for itself, the House of Commons would gain new powers. But here the economic impact is much larger. There are basically two standards for car production worldwide – the American standard, and the European standard. Would Sony or Apple like to bear the cost of a UK energy efficiency standard and a different EU one? If – in practice – the EU standards for all these things are going to apply in the UK anyway, then we’re back to the Norway case above – the democratic gain looks theoretical."

Indeed, Mr Worth is so fond of his own superficial opinions that he as not actually read the leading Brexit proposal, where such issues are explored in full. We find many instances where Norway has greater influence and even Mexico is more agile on the global stage than the UK.

Worth concludes that "In short: if the UK wants an exit from the EU to cause as little economic damage as possible, it needs the EEA and will be like Norway. If it wants the full reassertion of sovereignty, then that is going to mean setting new standards for things, and that is going to be economically damaging. Britain can have an economically decent outcome from a Brexit vote, or a democratically decent one, but it can’t get both."

Indeed, most serious Brexit proposals concur that an EEA agreement is the most likely settlement as things presently stand, where Britain would retain full access to markets. The Ukip notion that we would have full sovereignty is one that is deeply flawed but then in the modern age, no individual state, nor indeed the EU has full sovereignty. Full sovereignty is a thing of the past. For sure the economic practicalities mean that we could not unilaterally set new standards, nor is there much reason to.

There is, however, every advantage to be had by having our own voice at the top tables and cutting out the EU middleman. By unbundling trade deals and seeking favourable conditions matching our leading industrial concerns, we can secure both an economical and democratic advantage. We would have the right of veto for starters. Being the fifth largest economy gives us certain leverage.

To think as Jon Worth does, you first have to either be oblivious of, or completely deny, the international dynamic of regulation and trade. Such arguments are made from a position of either ignorance or dishonesty. In recent debates I have found it is both, in that the europhile zealotry of "ever closer union" at any cost overrides any desire to bring about a global single market in a community of equals. For reasons that escape me, they think the subjugation of surpranationalism is preferable to intergovernmentalism. I have yet to hear a compelling reason why that is best for Britain.

Law takers, not law makers

Hereabove we see the European Commission boasting of its regulatory efforts on passenger ship safety. In 1994, the casualty of the ferry Estonia in the Baltic Sea raised particular concern in the Union about the operational conditions of passenger vessels. The Community has since adopted different measures addressing this problem.

In March 1998, Directive 98/18/EC was adopted to introduce a uniform level of safety for new and existing passenger ships and high speed passenger craft engaged on domestic voyages by harmonising safety standards. It incorporated the provisions of IMO's SOLAS convention for the Safety of Life at Sea by establishing detailed technical requirements which focus on vessel construction, stability, fire protection and life-saving equipment. It has been modified several times to reflect developments in the SOLAS Convention and to include specific access and public information requirements for persons with reduced mobility or disabilities.

The original Directive and its modifications were consolidated and codified in Directive 2009/45/EC, which has since been updated by Commission Directive 2010/36/EC.

Again this is another example of the EU being law takers, not law makers, implementing international conventions to the letter. SOLAS is not some generic statement of aims. The SOLAS Convention in its successive forms is generally regarded as the most important of all international treaties concerning the safety of ships.

The first version was adopted in 1914, in response to the Titanic disaster, the second in 1929, the third in 1948, and the fourth in 1960. The 1974 version includes the tacit acceptance procedure - which provides that an amendment shall enter into force on a specified date unless, before that date, objections to the amendment are received from an agreed number of Parties. As a result the 1974 Convention has been updated and amended on numerous occasions. The Convention in force today is sometimes referred to as SOLAS, 1974, as amended.

One issue raised following the Estonia tragedy was to ensure that ro-ro passenger ships had sufficient stability following damage. The Stockholm Agreement of 1996, a regional intergovernmental agreement involving seven Member States and Norway, required additional measures for new and existing ro-ro passenger ships to address the destabilizing effects of the accumulation of water on the vehicle deck. Directive 2003/25/EC and Directive 2003/24/EC, adopted on 14 April 2003, applied these measures to all such vessels throughout the Union engaged on both international and domestic voyages. The measures were later extended by Commission Directive 2005/12/EC to include a new model test method as defined in the IMO Resolution MSC 141 (76) on 5 December 2002.

Here is a prime example of Norway having a seat at the top table to address its own concerns and protect its own safety interests. Britain on the other hand, an island nation somewhat renowned for its seafaring habits does not get an independent voice nor a veto, and must first consult the many landlocked nations of the EU in order to advance its own interests.

Many intergovernmental organisations (IGOs) have concluded agreements with the IMO, including the European Commission, which negotiates on our behalf and by way of having observer status we are forced to vote for the common EU position. What's interesting from that link is that the convention is an agreement of trade associations, NGOs and a number of non-geographically based trading blocs. That is the present and the future, not the EU. In that we need to shorten the chain of accountability and cut out the middlemen.

There is an assumption among europhiles that outside the EU we would lose influence and would not have stringent safety regulations. Here we have Norway at the very top table with its own voice and its own veto coming to the international forum to insist on tougher regulation, exercising that national sovereignty thing. In light of our own Townsend Thoresen disaster, it is likely we would have done likewise. We would now have to ask the EU nicely.

It is as we have always said. The EU is not the top table, it doesn't make the rules, we have more influence outside of the EU - and there is a danger of not getting the best to advance our unique needs as an island nation by way of deferring to nations who do not share those interests. There is a very real risk of being held to ransom by landlocked states over matters not pertaining to maritime safety.

Intergovernmentalism clearly works better than surpranationalism in this context, and we would be in a far stronger position being able to choose which alliances we wish to side with at the top tables. Europhiles need to explain why it is better that an alliance of tiny third rate Caribbean islands has a full vote at the top international tables, but Britain does not.

There are only so many times we can say it

My friend Very British Dude on Twitter points out that the problem 'leave' has, is the Status quo isn't ghastly enough to risk a change. 'Leave' will have to overcome a mountain of apathy, indifference, incomprehension and sell a story to overcome obvious risks.

He is absolutely right. In two tweets he nails it. And the response to this dynamic from the respective leave campaigns is business as usual - demonising the EU, to no real effect, causing people to switch off in droves.

While 35% or thereabouts will alsways vote to leave, there is no particular groundswell to leave as a matter of urgency. It's just that those 35% would vote to leave if given the opportunity. The only groundswell comes in the shape of Ukip who represent less than 13% of the electorate.

Cameron didn't want a referendum, but to win, he conceded. He doesn't want to leave, never did and doesn't think it all that important. Thus both he and the EU are going through the motions in a reform charade they are fairly confident they can win.

So what we have is a vote that is essentially a motion of confidence in the PM at a time when all the economic indicators are improving, the narrative of decline and stagnation doesn't wash and Labour lost the election for the same reason. The miserablist Jerimiah whining about the EU isn't going to cut it and the tabloidesque memes are just going to bore people the people they don't sicken.

Consequently any campaign will have to demonstrate that the risks are manageable and be credible in doing so and must instead promote an alternative. We have to get people to vote to do things a different way and thus we need to demonstrate that we have the intellectual goods and there is another way to do things that doesn't scare the horses and is broadly beneficial with few downsides. 

The end battle is then a choice between two competing visions. The so-called reformed EU as presented by Cameron or our way with our bulletproof method. There is one obvious problem in that the main campaigns are not setting out a vision or a plan. All they a doing is trading facts and figures, fighting the wrong battles and wasting their time and energy.

In this, Ukip has entirely vacated the field only to be replaced by an entity that is every bit as inept and given that they are not open to constructive input, there is very little point in trying to persuade them of anything. The short of it is, we are going to an auction without a product to sell. We're just going to show up and whinge about the quality of the produce up for sale by the competition.

Leave.EU is wholly incompetent but it has money so it has legs, the Elliot effort has establishment prestige so it can go about its business without having to defer to the people, and anyone trying to cut through the noise they create will simply fail.

That is why the Referendum Planning Group has set about putting in a bid for the lead nomination. It is almost certainly going to fail because we have neither SW1 prestige or indeed any money, but it does give us one last opportunity to try and refine the message of the lead campaign, whoever that may be. If our warnings are heeded then we have a fighting chance. If not, we are staying in the EU - and there ends my input in this and politics in general. We will leave the EU eventually, but this will be the opportunity we squandered to do it amicably, carefully and without harming international relations.

Predictable and predicted.

A worthwhile piece appears in euractiv.com setting out the factual errors in Leave.EU's campaign. Course, Michael Emerson, Associate Senior Research Fellow at the Centre for European Policy Studies and former EU Ambassador to Moscow, has got it wrong too and is not being strictly honest.

Those who have read Flexcit will spot the obvious deception at play and why Leave.EU will not be intellectually equipped to counter such an attack. They have already squandered their credibility.

I could go to town on fisking Emerson, but there's little actual merit in doing so since Leave.EU won't learn the lessons and will not modify its approach. Suffice to say a thorough command of the issues and a credible Brexit plan would have saved them such embarrassment, but who are we to question marketing experts? 

I am still certain that Elliot's Vote to Leave operation is not fit to be the lead campaign but Leave.EU seems determined to fall into all the traps without reference to battle at hand. This will be about our prestige versus theirs. By the time it goes to the wire, our reputation will be in tatters. Andy Wigmore isn't up to the job and Mr Banks doesn't know what he's doing. 

Can Andy Wigmore put his ego aside?

"Still, after all these years, there is this confusion between activity and output – this firm belief that it is better to do something than nothing. Any activity, as long as it is activity, is good." says Eureferendum.com

That's really about the size of it. They really are going to bore us all to death with the same old same old when this is an opportunity to inject fresh new material into the debate and put it front and centre.

Debating with the Remain campaign and we can see from the outset that they are in a world of their own too, fighting the battle they want to fight rather than the one that is actually happening. The public will rightly switch off if and probably already have. Thus any effort expended in continuing such a pointless endeavour is wasted.

What we need is for our own side to be better equipped to fight the final campaign according to what the real debate will be; Cameron's "new relationship" or our vision - whatever that is.

The intrinsic problem we have means we need a coordinated effort to communicate a complex message. Critics keep telling us that we are over intellectualising the campaign but we're not making something complex - we are saying that it is, as a matter of fact, a complex thing, and our job is to educate the public about it.

That is where we need some sophisticated thinking going on. How do we communicate a complex message that will cut through the white noise? Arron Banks claims to be a marketing expert but thus far we have seen no expertise at all. All we've seen from his campaign is to find out what a large group of eurosceptic people want and give them the product they are likely to buy. That doesn't take any real expertise - just a bulging wallet. Anybody with money can make money - which is why Banks is able to boast that he has made two fortunes from his endeavours.

Course, anybody who has done the math knows that the core of Leavers don't need any encouragement or persuasion. It's the 21% of undecideds we need and nothing in the persistent flow of effluent from Leave.EU is going to reach those people - and the people retweeting that stuff will push them away.

To reframe the debate we must first ensure our own side are better equipped to fight the battle. For that we need first rate material that adds to the debate not the tawdry crap we see from the likes of Leave.EU.

Of course, once again, to point this out is somehow a great sin and we are told that we must "put our egos aside" - and remain silent. Rather than take the above criticism for what it is, it is viewed as a personal attack - and the response of Andy Wigmore will be to ignore it completely - for admitting we're right means admitting his crew messed up. Thus it is his own ego standing in the way of winning this referendum.

I am told that "By being so vocal in your condemnation it is stopping some followers of other campaigns from following you too. No one likes being told what they support is wrong and it takes time to win people over with more complicated and thoughtful arguments."

But we've heard all this before. We can put out all the "thoughtful arguments" in the world but they are ignored because eurosceptics prefer to reside in their comfort zone. We're expected to fall into line and play nice while the main players make a complete pigs ear of it.

What we need to do is sell our alternative along with our Brexit plan so that we have intellectual credibility. It is the prestige of our message that will be pitted against the prestige of the establishment. The tabloidesque bilge from the Leave campaign is not going to cut it - and vanity sites like Leave.EU are worthless. A "marketing expert" is one who can take a product as it is and sell it to a new audience rather than identify an existing audience and sell them a product they already buy. Any idiot can do the latter.

With the time we have left our output needs to focus on reaching those activists who can use their own skills to communicate a specific message. Splattergun anti-EU rhetoric is wholly without value. To do that we need an effective organisation working in conjunction with a competent lead campaign that reinforces the message rather than undermining it.

If Leave.EU is going to spend the whole time chucking out idiotic memes and polluting the debate with crass material then all they are doing is wasting time and money that could otherwise be used to help us win. This is not me once again "attacking my own side". I take the view that those actively undermining our prospects of winning are not on my side. They are on their own side with their own motivations that only coincide with my main ambition - leaving the EU. It would be nice not to have to attack "my own side" - but I don't think I have much choice as things stand at the moment.

Bait and Switch

Arron Banks is a hard man not to like. He does seem to dislike the right people for the right reasons and I have no doubt of his commitment to the cause. He wants to leave the EU. We cannot say the same of the men running Vote to Leave.

That alone though is no good reason to support Leave.EU. His operation is just not thinking. We have warned repeatedly about the need to craft an intelligent and consistent message aimed at tackling the actual opposition. Instead Leave.EU is doing a Ukip and piping out any scrap of generic eurosceptic material to be retweeted without a strategy in mind.

Here above we see a hugely prestigious figure making remarks that seemingly are beneficial to the cause but with a clear caveat. Certainly that is not the message our side wants to promote. Those committed to leaving the EU know full well that the EU is unreformable and would not make the required reforms even if it wanted to.

Moreover, Lord Blackwell is very much in the establishment camp. He is pretending to wait and see, but in the end will say that his criteria for "significant change" has been met by the Prime Minister. Adopting him for our own side therefore is a huge mistake. If he is a totem of our own campaign and then he switches at the last minute then we're standing naked.

All Lord Blackwell is saying here is that the status quo is not sustainable. We know this. Our campaign must be to attack the reforms on offer and the men who will sell the "reforms" as a break from the status quo, among whom will be Lord Blackwell with David Cameron.

Leave.EU is making the classic mistake of running a splattergun campaign, mistaking volume of activity for productivity. Banks thinks this campaign is a marketing exercise and invokes his marketing expertise when faced with criticism. But he and his staff are clearly not aware that referendums are not a marketing exercise. This is real politics, and Banks is no politician. He is not an astute player in this game and Leave.EU is as much a liability as Ukip would have been were they running the campaign.

In Bank's favour, he is one to respond to criticisms and claims he is aware the message needs refining, but there is no evidence his understanding is translating into action. I think this is the only level this operation is capable of operating at and certainly I am running out of patience. Thus far, Mr Banks is stringing a lot of people along with empty promises because he knows his money buys him a certain amount of tolerance for his flaky eccentricity, but we cannot afford for him and Andy Wigmore to up their game because we will be waiting too long.

I spent the entire general election campaign duty bound to point out the manifest failings of Ukip's amateurish operation. I would rather not spend the referendum campaign doing likewise with Leave.EU but it looks like the 1975 referendum is not the only history destined to repeat.

I have a question...

In debating Scientists for EU, the point they make is that Erasmus and Horizon 2020 are essential to British scientific research. Put it to them that membership of the EU is not required for participation in either and their response is that non member states would have no say in the creation of the rules of the system - and no voting rights.

That's interesting because our membership of the EU means no independent veto or voting rights at all of the global bodies that make most of the regulations and rules pertaining to the single market and the global markets. They are exclusive competences of the EU, meaning non EU members can veto global agreements, yet Britain, the fifth largest economy in the world cannot.

So the clear suggestion here is that it's essential to have voting rights over a single inter-EU agreement, yet having influence over critical areas of trade and regulation is not essential - thus implying that Britain's subjugation at the global level is acceptable in order to shape EU scientific research programmes.

Do they understand the gravity of what they are saying? If so, can they please explain why their interest in the EU trumps all other trade concerns internationally?

Ms Williams should be cautious of the "Star Trek state"

Y'know it's actually quite a while since I indulged in any Grauniad bashing. As much as it is now self-parodying, and probably deliberately so, it is now so completely irrelevant to serious political discourse, one forgets it even exists. I've not gone soft on it, it just doesn't register in my world, and if it did I would hold it in no more contempt than any other newspaper.

Since I've specialised somewhat on this blog the opportunities to ridicule the Guardian have been few, but here we have Zoe Williams making the case that the Remain campaign should present the EU as some kind of Roddenberryesque utopia.

It is never wise for commentators to invoke Star Trek unless they are a mega fan. We have already seen how this can land you in trouble. Fans of the franchise will be aware that Deep Space Nine scratches the veneer of the Trek universe to reveal that not only does the Federation routinely breach its own treaties and meddles in the affairs of the Romulan Empire, it also has its own secret police under the guise of Section 31.

Also, in true Kirk form, there are several diplomatic and time travel protocols broken over a span of many years for which nobody is ever punished. Indeed, toward the end, the Romulans were brought into the Dominion war on a false premise manufactured by Captain Sisko with the approval of Starfleet Command, involving the murder of a high ranking Romulan senator and a pretty criminal they use in the process.

We also see how Section 31, in collusion with Starfleet medical is part of a broader conspiracy to commit genocide of the Changeling species by deliberately infecting Odo with a lethal virus. We also see in the feature film, Insurrection, the Federation is willing to forge some highly questionable alliances in exchange for certain resources - culminating in the admiralty conspiring in a forced relocation programme.

In that regard, the EU is already much like the Federation, presenting itself as a benevolent, peaceful entity, when in reality it has an expansionist agenda of its own and is willing to break all its own rules in order to do it - at one point even pillaging sacred relics from Bajor without the consent of the provisional government.

For all the vague promises made to Bajor in the seven years of Starfleet military oversight, we still saw Bajorans squabbling over the use of industrial replicators at a time preceding the Dominion war, which suggests the Federation was not forthcoming with the necessary technology and aid to help Bajor rebuild from the Cardassian occupation. We could stretch the point point further and examine the many breaches of protocol in The Next Generation, but we'll be here all night.

In all of these respects there are a great many parallels with the EU. A technologically advanced, first world empire making huge promises, failing to deliver and being massively hypocritical in the process - forging trade deals in secret, destabilising neighbouring political settlements and persecuting refugee settlements. (The Maquis)

Come to think of it, unless there is something we've not been told about the EU, the Federation is far worse than the EU if you count the attempted mass genocide. Is that what Ms Williams is saying here? That the EU should model itself after the Federation? If so, it's more than halfway there already.

A grown up referendum debate is too much to ask of our media

I suppose I really ought to blog on the day the Remain campaign launches their effort. It's not worthy of too much analysis in that it is what we expected - all the usual faces along with a few more randoms we've never heard, mouthing the same old empty platitudes, no further along in their thinking than the eurosceptic herd.

As EUReferendum observes, the campaign itself is not the real target and is in fact a noise maker to keep the Twitterers busy. It also gives our media something to do, with Newnight filling airtime with Steve Baker and Caroline Lucas - two of the least knowledgeable people in the world on the subject.

What that really shows is that the media has failed to climb out of its default mode. It cannot comprehend that the opinions of MPs are totally irrelevant to this whole process. It is not their vote. It is ours. In that regard, whichever way our MPs swing is neither here nor there. The people are not leaders and we do not follow them. I cannot think of a time when we as a people have been less inclined to show deference to the judgement of MPs - and rightly so.

This is all against a backdrop of white noise media, taking wild and uninformed guesses as to when the referendum will be and who should "lead" the yet to be nominated official Leave campaign. Our hacks are not even aware that the electoral commission selection process even exists and that there is zero practical possibility of a 2016 referendum.

Meanwhile, the only way we've been able to inject any sanity into the mainstream is with this short slot on LBC radio featuring yours truly (for what that's worth). But even when confronted with what is actually happening the presented carried on the debate inside the predefined parameters of what the media thinks is happening. A narrative that is off the script is not permitted.

The mistake is to believe this is media bias. It isn't. It is structural ignorance. Television and radio programmes play out to a particular formula, from which they never deviate. The only way to manage this format is to keep it as shallow as possible, not least to retain viewers. Good forbid voters should be treated as adults and presented with new concepts. In this dynamic, there are few avenues to throw curveballs into the debate thus the debate is centred around hackneyed memes and their equally hackneyed counter responses.

With that in mind the best way to win is not to court the media, but to bypass it altogether. I was actually relieved to see that neither Leave campaign had anything of substance to say for themselves today, because actually, the more they speak with their stupid memes about saving money on budget contributions, the less of a hard time I have in advancing grown up  arguments with the swing voters who will decide this.

The main reason we will probably end up staying in the EU is because our side will fail to communicate what the actual battle is and the significance of the Cameron deception at play. We have a short time to communicate to voters what they are actually voting for and to teach them the issues on which they should vote. With two Leave campaigns barely even aware such arguments exist and lacking the sophistication to present them, the likelihood of this being an informed debate is somewhere around zero.

It is only after the new EU treaty becomes a reality will voters really see what they have voted for. As far as it goes, the very idea that there is a new treaty on the cards is hardly in circulation beyond a small group of bloggers who are squeezed out by the main players. It is made all the more difficult in that voters barely know what our relationship with the EU is now, let alone after a reform treaty.

The most sense I have seen today comes from a Tweet by Helen Szamuely saying "When they say EU leaders meet to discuss Ukraine, they mean Merkel and Hollande meet Putin and Poroshenko". She is not wrong. In a similar fashion, when the fate of the Euro hangs in the balance, Britain is only called when it's time to open our chequebook. Britain has no say now. We are already in the second tier of Europe, the public isn't even interested in the economic, social or political life of the continent and politics nerds can name more US senators than MEPS.

The fact is we already have a remote relationship with the EU, and when it is formalised by way of a new treaty, we are excluded by law from participating in the key economic conduct of the EU while being on a leash to it. Europhiles have been busy running the uncertainty meme, but actually, the certainty is worse - that we will be formally without influence in the EU and formally without influence at the global level where key regulation is made. That is the miserablist certainty they are asking us to vote for.

Personally, I am not convinced this represents a risk free future, nor does that certainty mean the certain outcome - of being marginalised globally and having our growth throttled by the EU are actually good things. If not actually real risks then massively missed opportunities.

Cards on the table, we can either be subjugated, or we can find our own way. That is the choice. The deception in between is Cameron selling the status quo as reform. That should be a very simple premise for an effective campaign to communicate - yet that is precisely what we don't have. We have noisemaking organisations trading pointless facts and figures, completely divorced from the actual question, speaking only to each other and our infantile media, while the rest of us look on with exasperation, dread and resignation. Never in the field of political debate will so much be said by so many, who know so little.