

EU Referendum: barking Tories 11/06/2016

Follow @eureferendum



With less than two weeks to go to the referendum, there has been so little progress on the fundamental issues relating to our membership of the EU that, in the Telegraph today, we still have Charles Moore discussing the basics – and getting them wrong.

While on the one hand, there is some hope that we are gaining traction on getting the EEA in front of the public (and some of the more informed media), in fact those hopes are probably overly optimistic, and will remain so until the basics are settled. And if Moore is any guide, we have a long, long way to go.



The essential issue – and the conflict at the very heart of the "leave" campaign – is whether we should prioritise on economic stability or on reducing immigration. On the one hand, there are those (including ourselves) who argue that, above all else, we must reassure voters that their the economy will be safeguarded. On the other, we have those who would put immigration first.



The crucial issue, of course, is that the two are mutually exclusive. Ensuring economic stability means safeguarding our participation in the Single Market and it has been made abundantly clear that this requires continued adoption of freedom of movement. Dropping out is not negotiable. Freedom of movement is not an optional extra. It is one of the "four freedoms" – an integral part of the Single Market.



Those who wish to prioritise on immigration, therefore, have to accept that the UK can no longer be part of the Single Market – which most people now accept means taking a financial "hit" – and a quite substantial one, depending on the precise position taken.



On this, some argue that the concern about immigration is so powerful that it will over-ride economic concerns. Their view is that we should hit immigration as hard as we can, and that will win us the referendum.



I think this view is wrong. It seems to me that "concern" has been over-interpreted, and taken to be support for leaving the EU. What polls then to show, though, is that the sentiment is fragmented. Some see the problem as requiring "more Europe", others want the UK Government to do more, and only a minority believe that leaving the EU is the answer to the problem.



On this basis, the



Within the EEA our position is in any case improved, as we have the "safeguard measures" which give us a unilateral "emergency brake" on immigration, if we choose to use it. We can also address issues such as the ECHR and the UN Convention on the treatment of refugees, which also contribute to the migrant problem.



With that lie the baselines of the (as yet unsettled) argument. But at least the parameters are fairly straightforward, summed up as economy or immigration.



But then you get the likes of Charles Moore who, contrary to all experience and evidence, argues that there is no conflict between economy and immigration. We can have the best of both worlds.



To achieve this miracle, Moore suggests we replace the phrase "single market" with "single regulatory regime", having come to the conclusion -



Having thus defined it, the man then makes an incredible leap of faith in asserting that: "Leaving a single regulatory regime cannot be the issue of economic life or death of which Mr Cameron warns. What matters is the capacity of 500 million people to buy our goods and services".



This is almost enough to make grown men cry. How does Mr Moore suppose that UK exporters gain access to the markets of the EU Member States unless the products conform with the requirements of the "single regulatory regime"?



Well, according to The Great Man, all we need is to be able to sell to those 500 million as we do to any other important market. If the EU, hugely in surplus to Britain, were to prevent this, he writes, "it would commit, to use a favourite Cameron phrase, a gratuitous 'act of economic self-harm'".



So that's it, then. Because the EU is in surplus to Britain, the rules-based community will waive its entire acquis and let British goods flood in.



By that token, we do not have to decide, on 23 June, whether to be poor but control our borders, or rich but full of immigrants. Like most modern Western economies, we need immigrants, and we need European markets. But we need, in both cases, to reclaim our right to make our own decisions about them, as any free country should.



This premise is so utterly mad that one would scarcely think it necessary to argue against it, but the very fact that Moore makes it the subject of his column this week clearly demonstrates that the issues are still in dispute.



Similarly, in Mr Redwood's



The Czech and Slovak peoples achieved their split in a matter of months in 1992. The break up of the USSR was also achieved quite quickly and the UK successfully helped pilot through independence in its imperial countries after 1945.



Many of them, he writes, went on to become more prosperous and to become successful democracies, telling us that India "is the world's largest democracy and the fastest growing major economy today thanks to her own efforts freed of foreign rule". On this basis, we should be able to leave the EU in "a friendly, orderly and prompt manner".



Again, you wouldn't think it would be necessary to argue with this dribble. To take India for instance, although it became independent nations in 1948, its new Constitution stipulated the continuation of pre-Constitution Laws (Article 372) until they were amended or repealed.



It then took until 1955 to set up a Central Law Commission to recommend revision and updating of the inherited laws to serve the changing needs of the country. To this day, some of the laws on its statute book were originally passed in Westminster, prior to independence.



The thing is that, if we can't even make progress on the basics, how are we then to deal with the more complex ideas of a phased withdrawal from the EU, with an end game that encompasses the development of a global single market, with a regional administrator based in Geneva.



These barking Tories are exerting an effect on the debate similar to that of an anchor on a ship. We can never get underway until the drag is released – but with only days to go, there is no chance of that happening. Sooner or later, though, we'll have to dump the anchors. While on the one hand, there is some hope that we are gaining traction on getting the EEA in front of the public (and some of the more informed media), in fact those hopes are probably overly optimistic, and will remain so until the basics are settled. And if Moore is any guide, we have a long, long way to go.The essential issue – and the conflict at the very heart of the "leave" campaign – is whether we should prioritise on economic stability or on reducing immigration. On the one hand, there are those (including ourselves) who argue that, above all else, we must reassure voters that their the economy will be safeguarded. On the other, we have those who would put immigration first.The crucial issue, of course, is that the two are mutually exclusive. Ensuring economic stability means safeguarding our participation in the Single Market and it has been made abundantly clear that this requires continued adoption of freedom of movement. Dropping out is not negotiable. Freedom of movement is not an optional extra. It is one of the "four freedoms" – an integral part of the Single Market.Those who wish to prioritise on immigration, therefore, have to accept that the UK can no longer be part of the Single Market – which most people now accept means taking a financial "hit" – and a quite substantial one, depending on the precise position taken.On this, some argue that the concern about immigration is so powerful that it will over-ride economic concerns. Their view is that we should hit immigration as hard as we can, and that will win us the referendum.I think this view is wrong. It seems to me that "concern" has been over-interpreted, and taken to be support for leaving the EU. What polls then to show, though, is that the sentiment is fragmented. Some see the problem as requiring "more Europe", others want the UK Government to do more, and only a minority believe that leaving the EU is the answer to the problem.On this basis, the Flexcit plan argues that we should safeguard the Single Market by staying in the EEA, in order to preserve the economic position and maximise our chances of winning the referendum. Once we are out, we can then start dealing with immigration and look for a longer-term solution.Within the EEA our position is in any case improved, as we have the "safeguard measures" which give us a unilateral "emergency brake" on immigration, if we choose to use it. We can also address issues such as the ECHR and the UN Convention on the treatment of refugees, which also contribute to the migrant problem.With that lie the baselines of the (as yet unsettled) argument. But at least the parameters are fairly straightforward, summed up as economy or immigration.But then you get the likes of Charles Moore who, contrary to all experience and evidence, argues that there is no conflict between economy and immigration. We can have the best of both worlds.To achieve this miracle, Moore suggests we replace the phrase "single market" with "single regulatory regime", having come to the conclusion - like us that it constitutes an agreement to harmonise rules and standards, and to cooperate in the framing of new rules.Having thus defined it, the man then makes an incredible leap of faith in asserting that: "Leaving a single regulatory regime cannot be the issue of economic life or death of which Mr Cameron warns. What matters is the capacity of 500 million people to buy our goods and services".This is almost enough to make grown men cry. How does Mr Moore suppose that UK exporters gain access to the markets of the EU Member States unless the products conform with the requirements of the "single regulatory regime"?Well, according to The Great Man, all we need is to be able to sell to those 500 million as we do to any other important market. If the EU, hugely in surplus to Britain, were to prevent this, he writes, "it would commit, to use a favourite Cameron phrase, a gratuitous 'act of economic self-harm'".So that's it, then. Because the EU is in surplus to Britain, the rules-based community will waive its entireand let British goods flood in.By that token, we do not have to decide, on 23 June, whether to be poor but control our borders, or rich but full of immigrants. Like most modern Western economies, we need immigrants, and we need European markets. But we need, in both cases, to reclaim our right to make our own decisions about them, as any free country should.This premise is so utterly mad that one would scarcely think it necessary to argue against it, but the very fact that Moore makes it the subject of his column this week clearly demonstrates that the issues are still in dispute.Similarly, in Mr Redwood's diary , we have the assertion that: "Getting out of the EU need not take long nor be difficult".The Czech and Slovak peoples achieved their split in a matter of months in 1992. The break up of the USSR was also achieved quite quickly and the UK successfully helped pilot through independence in its imperial countries after 1945.Many of them, he writes, went on to become more prosperous and to become successful democracies, telling us that India "is the world's largest democracy and the fastest growing major economy today thanks to her own efforts freed of foreign rule". On this basis, we should be able to leave the EU in "a friendly, orderly and prompt manner".Again, you wouldn't think it would be necessary to argue with this dribble. To take India for instance, although it became independent nations in 1948, its new Constitution stipulated the continuation of pre-Constitution Laws (Article 372) until they were amended or repealed.It then took until 1955 to set up a Central Law Commission to recommend revision and updating of the inherited laws to serve the changing needs of the country. To this day, some of the laws on its statute book were originally passed in Westminster, prior to independence.The thing is that, if we can't even make progress on the basics, how are we then to deal with the more complex ideas of a phased withdrawal from the EU, with an end game that encompasses the development of a global single market, with a regional administrator based in Geneva.These barking Tories are exerting an effect on the debate similar to that of an anchor on a ship. We can never get underway until the drag is released – but with only days to go, there is no chance of that happening. Sooner or later, though, we'll have to dump the anchors.





