question everything

The EU referendum in a nutshell

​

OK, so it's a big nutshell... but short of telling you to just vote 'in' because I said so, this is about as brief a summary as I could manage given the complexity of the debate. If you want a more detailed summary click HERE.

​

God does not play dice
Do you know why we’re having this election? It’s because David Cameron promised one to shut his Eurosceptics up and to stop the popularity of UKIP’s own special brand of racism from handing the Labour party an election win by default.

​

Einstein was wrong as it happens, but what is certainly true is that Prime Ministers shouldn’t play dice – especially when they are betting on the country’s future. Of course Cameron never actually expected to win the 2015 election so he thought it was a gamble worth taking. He reckoned that under another coalition government the plans would be scrapped and he’d come out of it with a couple of scratches and maybe a pair of bruised knees (based on his porcine exploits at Oxford that wouldn’t be the first time then..) but he reckoned wrong.

 

The Conservatives, to everyone’s surprise, won with a majority and now he had to face up to the stark reality of what a referendum might mean for Britain. Many of those close to Cameron, including the Chancellor George Osbourne, warned him not to go ahead with the pledge back in 2013 as it was likely to have disastrous unintended consequences. He ignored them and in doing so he has consigned us all to an uncertain future.

​

So to begin with let’s be clear on the motive, because the motive should immediately give you a different perspective of why you’ve been put in this unfortunate position: this referendum has nothing to do with our government’s concern over the EU (despite what they may tell you), instead it’s been orchestrated purely on the basis of Cameron losing an election bet.

​

Moving on…   

​

The two main issues in this debate are immigration and control. The discussion regarding trade comes as a by-product of these because they are interlinked; but of the three, by far and away the most important is trade. The reason for this is the better our trade arrangements are the more the economy benefits. If we generate more money we then have the ability to deal with the other two issues.

 

It’s like saying your job is the most important aspect of your life. If you have a good job you have the ability to choose where you live, what you buy, whether you can afford to go on holiday or whether or not you need to have a lodger to help you pay the bills. Love, of course, is the most important thing in our lives and whereas money can’t buy you real love, it can still get you laid. So trade is King (or Queen if you prefer).

​

Immigration
In the above example the lodger is our migrants. They boost the economy so are of benefit to us even if they do use up the last bit of milk in the fridge without replacing it and don’t change the toilet roll. So lodgers aren’t without problems, but generally speaking the relationship works for both parties. If someone, however, forced you to have 20 lodgers living in your house you’d soon lose your sense of humour. This is where this debate is leading you down the garden path because the EU hasn’t forced you to take on extra lodgers, the British government has.

​

Back in 2004, when the Eastern European Bloc countries entered the EU Tony Blair was offered a get out clause by the EU (as were all the other member states) that allowed Britain to cap migration levels from the East. He refused the ‘transitional period’ arrangement on the basis that migration would improve the economy. Ever since, successive governments, whilst not being able to back track on the deal offered, have allowed migration to increase exactly for the same reason Blair did in the first place; to boost the economy.

 

On this basis what we’ve seen is an increase in non-EU migration, which the government can control, and this level of migration now exceeds that of EU migration – around 188, 142 people last year (plus a Dachshund called Helmut who apparently snuck in by masquerading as a child’s furry backpack) . And they have done this whilst telling you they were powerless to stop it.

​

Leaving the EU will therefore obviously not stop immigration, because the EU didn’t cause the problem in the first place, our own government did; and since the early 2000’s have refused to reduce levels even though they could. Giving control now back to the government, given their track record on this, would be like putting a drunk in charge of a brewery – 650 drunks to be more precise. It’s planning to fail. No matter what that drunk tells you, you know you’re going to end up with vomit on the floor and a cat with a sore tea towel holder.

​

Control
Much has been said in recent months about the undemocratic nature of the EU and Eurocrat bureaucracy – but it’s arse gravy.

​

The EU is no less democratic than our own government; they are as equally corrupt as each other. Technically our government is accountable to us; but it isn’t. Yes, you can change the party in power but it's the invisible (and unelected) hoards of the civil service that effectively govern the country. The party in power therefore creates a veneer of change, but it’s largely irrelevant. The will of the people is no match for the will of Parliament

​

How accountable have they been over the NHS, teachers and doctor’s pay, housing and benefits? We've had 3 successive changes of governments since the immigration crisis began and they've only made matters worse. Now, either we haven't held them accountable for this mess, or the accountability of government is a fairytale - you decide... 

​

In the EU votes are cast by the elected leaders of each members states and all the MEPs are voted in, not appointed. The only people that hold appointed positions in the EU parliament are the ones who can’t vote.

​

Also contrary to what many people believe, the EU does not control everything we do. Its main work concerns the regulation of markets, consumer standards, environmental standards, foreign trade and aid; this accounts quite naturally for a large amount of regulation and is calculated at around 62% of UK Law. Incidentally, these are laws that if the EU didn’t regulate we would have to regulate ourselves anyway. The issues that matter to most voters (and this really is the most crucial point) – employment, social security, education, health, most taxes etc. etc.  – are handled at national level.

​

This is where this idea of control and British Sovereignty is flawed. Sovereignty in this day and age is relative, it’s never absolute. A country that refuses to pool authority is one that has no control over the effect of its neighbours and how their actions may transcend its boundaries. Regulation and standards be they financial, economic, security related or practical are vital to ensure cohesion rather than division. To live with globalisation is to acknowledge that many laws (both those devised by governments and those which surface as a natural consequence) are here to stay whether we like it or not.

​

Even excluding the EU, Britain is subject to some 700 international treaties involving multi-lateral submissions to multilateral compromises. Its membership of the UN similarly infringes its self-determination (it can be outvoted there just as it can in Brussels). Likewise the WTO, NATO, the COP climate talks, the IMF, the World Bank, nuclear test ban treaties and accords on energy, water, maritime law and air traffic etc. etc. Yet it submits to all of these knowing that, as with the EU, it is free to leave whenever it wants—but at a price not worth paying.

 

If sovereignty is the absence of mutual interference, the most sovereign country in the world is North Korea. Good luck with that…

​

We can puff our chests out as much as we like but the reality is Britain is not now, and hasn’t been for donkey’s years, a sovereign nation; and even if we were to leave the EU tomorrow it would make no difference to that fact.

​

​Trade
Will leaving the EU boost trade? You’ll see lots of models that show you it might, but then you’ll also see lots of models that will tell you otherwise. The reason for this is that what’s being proposed is totally unprecedented; no country has ever left the EU before so we simply don’t know what will happen.

 

BREXIT campaigners will tell you that we can have access to the Single Market whenever we want and it’s just a simple process of striking a few new deals here and there. Don’t be fooled by this rhetoric. It will be a long and painful journey.

​

It's not like we can take the sweaty Sales Manager of EU Ltd out to a titty bar, get him pissed and get him to sign on the dotted line. Each deal would have to be negotiated separately and in most cases would have to be approved by each member state’s parliament and the EU parliament - we're talking about 1000's of pieces of connected legislation here. What do you think the cost of that would be and how long do you think it would take? Even assuming these countries, the EU council and the WTO itself were receptive to our requests. 

 

This is why the vast majority of independent sources suggest that the overall impact on the country’s economy will be negative; but even then no-one knows if it’ll be the equivalent of runny nose or a heart attack. So why would you do it?​

​

Yes, our trade with the EU has decreased but it still accounts for around 45% of all the business we do. It’s incredibly important to our economy and will be for many years to come. The catch all phrase ‘EU trade has decreased’ does not allow you to appreciate the true value. It’s like assuming that just because you’ve bought a more fuel efficient car you won’t have to visit a petrol station anymore. You might visit it less, but without it you’ll grind to a halt at the side of the motorway whilst you’re on your way to catch your cheap European flight to the South of France.

​

​Costs
It’s a bare face and premeditated lie put forward by BREXIT campaigners that the EU costs Britain £350 million a week. It does not. So let’s be clear; that figure is the gross amount - the amount Britain never actually pays. The truth is that once you take account of the various subsidies and reliefs we receive from the EU the ACTUAL cost is around £136 million a week, just about 40% of the amount detailed on the BREXIT Bus. Sure, £136 million is still a shed load of cash to pay out every week so the only way to assess its value is firstly, to look at the benefit, and to secondly, look at the cost of the alternative.

​

​EU membership benefits us to the tune of around £210 billion a year, and around 4 million jobs supplying both goods and services (directly and indirectly) are dependent on servicing this arrangement; the benefits therefore easily outweigh the costs.

You may still be thinking that it’s a huge amount of money to pay, and it is, but not when put in context. The cost, minus the subsidies and rebates, equates to around 1.3% of public spending (so 1.3p for every £1 of tax you pay) and yet the benefit equates to around 13% of Britain’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP) - this is the ratio that economists look at to assess a country’s economic strength and resilience. Given the value it’s peanuts and probably doesn’t even come close to the House Of Common’s weekly Gin bill.

​

​The point is this; if we didn’t pay the EU for the benefits we receive we would have to pay out that money anyway to manage things ourselves. This would be more expensive than you imagine. As the head of the WTO (World Trade Organization) said last week; the cost of establishing new trade agreements on exports he believes (and he should know because he’s the guy we would be dealing with if we left the EU) would cost us £9 billion in export tariffs and a further £4 billion on imports. So not only would we not save money, it would cost us more money than our current membership. And that’s just regarding trade; forget the cost of managing a new immigration policy and paying back the subsidies the EU covers for us.

​

​The NHS will NEVER see any money as a result of us leaving the EU, and if you believe it will you need a good old fashioned shoeing.

​

In sickness and in health
Really all the rhetoric regarding our apparent dislike of the EU can be dealt with just by looking at how often we all agree on the same things. If we truly did have a problem with EU membership it would manifest itself in constant disagreements and conflict. This is where the famous BREXIT campaign lie of the 72 votes comes in. ‘We’ve voted 72 times and on each occasion we’ve been told NO!’ they protest. True, but you’ll see it’s ballcock and bummarage when put in context.

​

The number of ‘no’ votes are irrelevant when looked at as a percentage against the total number of votes we have participated in during our membership of the EU. When you do this you’ll see that of the 2,466 votes we’ve participated in on less than 2% of the occasions have we disagreed with whatever was being proposed (that’s the 72 votes). We’ve also abstained from voting 3% of the time. What this means therefore, is that 95% of the time we agree with EU law and policy.

 

Now doesn’t that turn things on its head? It should do, unless of course you don’t want to be confused by the facts.

​

In essence it’s a bit like saying a couple should divorce after 43 years of happy marriage just on the basis of a few minor arguments and because their families don’t always see eye to eye. Sure the in-laws can be a bit strange from time to time, but as your Uncle Nigel smells of piss and fags it’s a fair compromise.

​

So there you have it; there’s not one compelling or justifiable reason as to why we should leave the EU. But worse than that, the arguments that have been presented to you as to why BREXIT is important are mostly based on bare faced lies and misrepresentations.

​

​There is not a single European or Global leader that thinks Britain leaving the EU is a good idea. Whereas they all looked on in slight bewilderment at the Scottish referendum that’s not what’s happening now. Our decision here is not only of National concern, because it will affect every single one of us, it’s also of Global concern. No-one understands why we would ever countenance leaving the EU; least of all the Europeans themselves.

​

​If BREXIT campaigners had a cohesive argument as to the reasons for exit and the prospect of what Britain’s trade and Immigration deals would look like after leaving, my view would be different. But they don’t; all they have are projections based on something that hasn’t happened yet and moreover are based on something that hasn’t happened at any time, ever, since the EU was founded. It's a bit like trying to predict what the weather will be like this time next year in Grimsby at around tea time.

​

​But perhaps the most compelling point (that no-one really seems to be talking about) is that views from BREXIT campaigners are conflicting; on the one side they have a view that is centred on stopping immigration, which has a natural tendency to make lucrative trade arrangements more difficult to negotiate -  and on the other they have those that want Britain to throw the doors open wider to Global trade without boundaries. If you research the latter, it will show you that it would inevitably mean increasing net migration (even excluding EU migration) because it has to allow the freer movement of workers and citizens.

​

​In other words if BREXIT don’t know what they want to achieve how can they achieve it?

​

​Please vote ‘in’ on the 23rd, and if you are still unsure, please don’t vote at all - it’s far too important a decision to just guess at.