

EU Referendum: the game stops here 11/01/2016

Follow @eureferendum



The weekend saw a number of pieces suggesting that Mr Cameron's referendum timetable was slipping. But, it only takes Andrew Marr to interview the prime minister, and the gullible hacks obediently step back into line.

All David Cameron has to say is that he is "hopeful" of reaching a deal with European leaders in February and that the vote "would follow" if agreement was reached on his reforms, and the



This is a game that is going to go on and on, until such time as the media gets to the summer. And then, with no referendum, they will transfer their predictions to the autumn.



As for any serious treatment of the issues by the media, forget it. All we get is speculation as to when Mr Cameron will allow his ministers freedom to join the debate, and then questions of whether the government has a contingency plan.



This latter issue is the preoccupation of the



Davis suggests a pessimistic "one in three chance" of us leaving, which is "still a big contingency". Thus, "it is nothing short of irresponsible not to have done any preparation. How on earth can you assess whether Brexit is right or wrong unless you assess how you would do it?" he asks.



Clearly not thinking it through,



Perhaps Andrew Marr and Elliott should spend a little time listening to programmes the BBC produces. They might learn something. And as for Elliott, he might pay attention to David Davis and his question: "How on earth can you assess whether Brexit is right or wrong unless you assess how you would do it?"



Elliott's own Vote Leave organisation has consistently refused to produce an exit plan, but if Davis is asking the question, we can be assured that many voters will also be asking it. In order to assess whether Brexit "is right or wrong", they will be looking to the leave groups to tell them how it would be done.



This makes the ongoing discussions with Leave.eu over their exit plan all the more important. But we have a cautionary word from



The issue is very simple – if we are to secure access to the EU's Single Market and conclude negotiations with the EU in anything like a reasonable time frame, we are going to have to accept free movement of people. The EU has made it abundantly clear that this is non-negotiable.



Maintaining access to the Single Market effectively neutralises the remainers' most potent weapon – fear, to which effect we have little choice but to go down this route if we expect to win the referendum. We will, therefore, have to compromise on free movement for the time being, until we are out of the EU and can then negotiate a longer term settlement.



The end game of our plan is in fact the abolition of the EU's Single Market as we know it, and its replacement with a genuine Europe-wide single market administered by the UNECE based in Geneva.



This was Churchill's original plan in 1948 and one that is taking shape as UNECE gradually takes more and more responsibility from the EU on regulating the single market. With the WTO Agreement of Technical Barriers to Trade also increasing its grip, it is only a matter of time before the bulk of the Single Market acquis is agreed at global or regional level.



With the abolition of the Brussels-centric Single Market, the EU's version of free movement of people also goes, allowing a region-wide renegotiation of the entire concept – and some much needed changes.



But this is not something we can do from within the EU, during Article 50 negotiations. To secure lasting changes, we have to get out first. That has to be the absolute priority. Then we work towards taking back control of our immigration policy – encompassing not only EU law but also the ECHR and the 1951 Geneva Convention on Refugees.



There is no dispute that freedom of movement, as we know it, must end. What we are proposing is a surer, and ultimately faster way of doing this. Sticking out for a "big bang" deal most likely will reduce our chances of ever winning the referendum, and lock us into freedom of movement for the foreseeable future.



Unlike Mr Cameron, therefore, we are not playing games. To win, we need an exit plan – and that will have to include short-term concessions on freedom of movement. Neither is negotiable. The game stops here. All David Cameron has to say is that he is "hopeful" of reaching a deal with European leaders in February and that the vote "would follow" if agreement was reached on his reforms, and the Financial Times rolls over and plumps for a summer referendum.This is a game that is going to go on and on, until such time as the media gets to the summer. And then, with no referendum, they will transfer their predictions to the autumn.As for any serious treatment of the issues by the media, forget it. All we get is speculation as to when Mr Cameron will allow his ministers freedom to join the debate, and then questions of whether the government has a contingency plan.This latter issue is the preoccupation of the Times , which has David Davis saying that the refusal to contemplate leaving was "disgraceful". In his view, "Departure is not difficult, but it is complicated. We should be getting on with this now", he said.Davis suggests a pessimistic "one in three chance" of us leaving, which is "still a big contingency". Thus, "it is nothing short of irresponsible not to have done any preparation. How on earth can you assess whether Brexit is right or wrong unless you assess how you would do it?" he asks.Clearly not thinking it through, Matthew Elliott joined in, declaring: "Whitehall should have a plan for Brexit. It's massively complacent that one isn't being drawn up". The thing is that, in the BBC programme on Brexit last week, we had Gus O'Donnell, former head of the civil service, tell us of his former colleagues: "I will be absolutely sure that they will be hoovering up all of the work that's been done by the outside world".Perhaps Andrew Marr and Elliott should spend a little time listening to programmes the BBC produces. They might learn something. And as for Elliott, he might pay attention to David Davis and his question: "How on earth can you assess whether Brexit is right or wrong unless you assess how you would do it?"Elliott's own Vote Leave organisation has consistently refused to produce an exit plan, but if Davis is asking the question, we can be assured that many voters will also be asking it. In order to assess whether Brexit "is right or wrong", they will be looking to the leave groups to tell them how it would be done.This makes the ongoing discussions with Leave.eu over their exit plan all the more important. But we have a cautionary word from Leave HQ . We are approaching decision time.The issue is very simple – if we are to secure access to the EU's Single Market and conclude negotiations with the EU in anything like a reasonable time frame, we are going to have to accept free movement of people. The EU has made it abundantly clear that this is non-negotiable.Maintaining access to the Single Market effectively neutralises the remainers' most potent weapon – fear, to which effect we have little choice but to go down this route if we expect to win the referendum. We will, therefore, have to compromise on free movement for the time being, until we are out of the EU and can then negotiate a longer term settlement.The end game of our plan is in fact the abolition of the EU's Single Market as we know it, and its replacement with a genuine Europe-wide single market administered by the UNECE based in Geneva.This was Churchill's original plan in 1948 and one that is taking shape as UNECE gradually takes more and more responsibility from the EU on regulating the single market. With the WTO Agreement of Technical Barriers to Trade also increasing its grip, it is only a matter of time before the bulk of the Single Marketis agreed at global or regional level.With the abolition of the Brussels-centric Single Market, the EU's version of free movement of people also goes, allowing a region-wide renegotiation of the entire concept – and some much needed changes.But this is not something we can do from within the EU, during Article 50 negotiations. To secure lasting changes, we have to get out first. That has to be the absolute priority. Then we work towards taking back control of our immigration policy – encompassing not only EU law but also the ECHR and the 1951 Geneva Convention on Refugees.There is no dispute that freedom of movement, as we know it, must end. What we are proposing is a surer, and ultimately faster way of doing this. Sticking out for a "big bang" deal most likely will reduce our chances of ever winning the referendum, and lock us into freedom of movement for the foreseeable future.Unlike Mr Cameron, therefore, we are not playing games. To win, we need an exit plan – and that will have to include short-term concessions on freedom of movement. Neither is negotiable. The game stops here.





