Brexit: it's not about the prices

If the remainers have to put up with being undermined by Tony Blair, they at least have the consolation that leavers have to suffer the crass behaviour of the "Leave Means Leave" and their attempts to bring about a "plane crash" Brexit.

Clearly not having caught up with the idea that we have won the referendum though, they are still fighting the battle. And their latest stunt is to have The Sun announce: "Brexit to chop food bills", while having Owen Paterson claiming in the Sunday Telegraph that: "Brexit will cut shopping bills by £300 a year".

The real detail comes in The Sun, though, where the graphic (above) illustrates a number of foods and beverages, each with the current "EU price" and the supposed lower "new price" that we will be paying after Brexit. 

For a start, the prices are meaningless. The figure "EU price" for 250gm of butter, for instance, is cited at £1.50, while the "new price" is £1.10. Yet, go to the Morrisons website and the price is £1.08 – without having to wait to leave. The "EU price" of 300gm of bacon is £2.00, against a "new price" of £1.86, but Morrisons offers £1.84 a pack, or two for £3.00. 

Fresh prawns are also on the list. The "EU price" for 165gm is £3.00, with the "new price" at £2.64. This time, Tesco comes to the rescue, with £2.25 for 250gm, equivalent to £1.49 for 165gm. In all three of these cases, shopping around delivers more benefits than Brexit. 

That is not the case, though, with bananas. For a bunch of five (notionally one kilo), the "EU price" is 65p. The "new price" is 55p, giving a differential of ten pence. Yet, such is price volatility of this commodity, that Tesco wants 80p. 

The reason for the 10p discrepancy, we are told, is that after Brexit a tariff on non-EU goods will no longer apply. Cumulatively, removing tariffs could save us "up to £300" on the annual shopping for a family. 

But saving ten pence on a bunch of bananas it not something we want to do – not when you understandthe story which goes back to the "banana wars" and the decision in 2009 when the EU agreed to cut tariffs to €114/tonne by 2017. That works out (at current exchange rates) at 9.8p per kilo. 

The point is that the tariff only applies to MFN bananas (mostly Latin American) – about two-thirds of our imports. Bananas from African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) countries come into the EU tariff-free. Yet, on the supermarket shelves, there is rarely any price differential. 

The reason for that is, as Joanna Blythman explains, that Latin American bananas are cheaper to produce. But this is not for any good reason. They are typically grown on huge plantations owned by transnational fruit exporting companies, or their satellites. Writes Blythman:

the natural landscape will have been flattened to allow for intensive banana cultivation stretching as far as the eye can see. These vast acreages are heavily treated with pesticides, usually by aerial spraying. This is why, in Latin America, the banana is often referred to as "the chemical fruit".

The workers generally live either in lamentable shanty accommodation on site or are bussed in great distances to work a long and punishing day. Paid piece rates, they have to work themselves into the ground to make a living wage.

ACP bananas, on the other hand, tend to be grown by artisan farmers. The communities which depend on them – mainly in the Caribbean – are fragile, and lack resilience. The tariffs offset the worst effects of a historical dependence that needs more time to remedy. 

In this context, even those opposed to tariffs would agree that their precipitate removal would do incalculable harm. It would not be in the UK interest to remove them for the time being – and nor would it be wise to settle on a defined end point. 

That said, as Blythman also wrote, the current price of bananas is scandalously low. Retail prices bear little relation to the cost of production, and are more a reflection on supermarket purchasing power. 

In 2014, you could buy a kilo of bananas for about 68p. Back in 2002 that same bunch would have cost £1.08, 59 percent more. If banana price inflation had kept up with the pace of Mars bars, the fruit would have cost £2.60 a kilo in 2014. Two years later, The Sun has the price at 65p. 

It yesterday's price of 80p holds, it will represents an overdue price adjustment which needs to go much further before sustainable prices are being paid. To argue that, because of Brexit, we will see – or want to see - cheaper bananas is beyond absurd. 

Never let it be said, though, that the Leave Means Leave can't outdo its own stupidity. For this, it picks up on the featured product: lamb chops. These it will have us buy for an "EU price" of £5.00, while the "new price" is £3.35. 

In my survey, the Asda price was £6.00. Tesco came in at £5.50. But the post-Brexit price will be nowhere near £3.35. To get this fictional price, we can see what Leave Means Leave has done. They've applied the third country tariff rate which currently stands at 12.8 percent plus €311.80 per 100 kilos. That is roughly equivalent to a 50 percent tariff. Deduct that from £5.00 and you get your £3.35 (rounded down). 

The thing is, nobody pays this. The countries which export to the EU all have tariff-free quotas. This includes New Zealand, with the largest, at 228,254 tonnes annually – which goes mainly to the UK. Supply exceeds demand, so the quota is unfilled unfilled each year, with New Zealand only taking up 76 percent of its allowance in 2015. Non-quota lamb is so uncompetitive that virtually all sheep meat is sold through the quota. 

What that amounts to is that almost all the lamb sold on the UK market, which is over 90 percent self-sufficient, is quota-free. Post Brexit, prices would only drop if exports to the EU were blocked, diverting export product to the home market and triggering a collapse. 

Clearly, this would only be temporary, but the effect on UK farming - and the countryside, which relies on its "living lawnmowers" to keep vegetation in check – would be drastic and long-lasting. A short-term consumer gain is hardly a welcome benefit, and not one to attribute to Brexit. 

Moving on from lamb, we next find that the "EU price" for lettuce is £1.25, while the post-Brexit price would be £1.12. The question here is why would there be any saving? And the answer is: there isn't.Leave Means Leave have played the same trick that they used with lamb. 

They have taken a 10.4 percent tariff and applied it to total sales. But roughly 55 percent of fresh vegetable consumption is home produced and tariff-free. Of the imports, over 80 percent come from EU Member States, mainly Spain and the Netherlands. They are also tariff-free. 

What is more, most supplies from the rest of the world are currently tariff-free. Thus, the vast majority of fresh vegetables (over 95 percent) attract no tariff at all. The difference, pre- and post-Brexit is hardly measurable – there are no savings to be had. 

If post-Brexit, we impose tariffs on EU produce, prices might actually go up 4-5 percent. But that notwithstanding, after the recent shortage of lettuces when prices soared, levels have now stabilised. A head lettuce can be bought from Tesco for 40p. 

Incidentally, we see a similar tariff dynamic with bacon. We are 55 percent self-sufficient in pig meat (which includes bacon and cured products). The balance is imported mainly from Denmark and Holland. Additional supplies come from Germany, Ireland, France, Spain, Belgium and Poland – all of it tariff-free. Since we pay virtually nothing now, there is virtually nothing to save, post-Brexit. 

It would now be tedious to go though the whole list, just to illustrate how untenable the claim is. But it's intriguing to see the "EU price" for 200gm of carrots reported at 90p, and the "new price" at 78p, when you can have 1Kg from Aldi for 43p, the equivalent 200gm price being 9p. Leaving the EU suddenly doesn't look so terribly exciting, if you're only doing it for the money. 

Some of the entries in any case look rather silly. We are told to consider that the "EU price" of a 75cl bottle of white wine is £5.75, which will drop, post-Brexit to £5.54. But since we pay no tariffs on wines from EU Member States, there will be no difference (one assumes) if we keep buying wines from that source. 

Tariffs on wines, when levied, are charged as a rate per hectolitre. The standard plonk is charged at £117.72 per hl – roughly equivalent to 16p a bottle. The strongest wines can go up to 28p. Theoretically, for many non-EU brands, tariffs will be dropped post-Brexit. Amongst other things, it is reported, that means Brexit will bring flood of cheap Aussie wine to the UK. 

However, one can already acquire a tolerable Australian Chardonnay from Asda for £1.75 a bottle. Even if 16p was shaved of the import price, we would probably see no difference on the supermarket shelves. The cost saving would be absorbed.

Nevertheless, we're told that a 75cl Prosecco bottle has an "EU price" of £7.00. Post-Brexit, it is supposed to drop to £6.80. But once again, a notional tariff is being deducted, despite the fact that we're not paying anything on an Italian sparkling wine with GI status. 

This, of course, is the product that the foreign secretary picked on when he said that Italy would sell less to the UK if the EU did not allow Britain to remain in the Single Market. But if we don't want to stay in the Single Market, one presumes there will certainly be no drop in price, post Brexit. 

That notwithstanding, while Leave Means Leave might want us to pay £7.00 a bottle, Sainsbury's are selling it at the equivalent of £6.00. 

Summing up, the saving from Brexit are being over-stated, and what little can be saved is only a fraction of what most households could save by shopping around. Leave Means Leave's strawberries, with an "EU price" for 400gm of £2.75 and £2.44 "new price", can be bought from Sainsbury's at £2.00. Morrisons sell for the same price, or two packs for £3.00. And the list goes on. 

If you can't afford the luxury of branded products, you can go own-label. A 500gm pack of ketchup costs £1.75. The "new price" is £1.57. But 550gm of Tesco brand ketchup will set you back 63p. Alternatively, you can bulk up. A 2.5Kg bag of washed Maris Piper potatoes costs £2.00. Unwashed, the unit price halves, when bought in quantities of 12.5Kg. 

That apart, shoppers will tell you that prices are going up across the board. Furthermore, pack sizes are shrinking, concealing the scale of the increases. Tiny savings from tariffs are dwarfed by the loss in the value of sterling. It really is not sensible to make such claims about minuscule tariff savings when the overall price trend is upwards and everyone knows it. More to the point, we did not vote for Brexit because we wanted to save a few pence on the food bill. 

In the real world, the survival of the farming industry is much more important. And there is somethingLeave Means Leave needs to get stuck into. It has been learned that the government has commissioned no research in the past six months to inform agricultural policy once the UK leaves the EU. It hasn't a clue where it is going, or what it needs to achieve. 

Messing about with stories about non-existent savings, therefore, is an unwelcome distraction, a waste of everybody's time when the main issues are being missed.

Brexit is the politics of hope

Having faced the horrors of two world wars, our rulers mistakenly thought the eradication of democracy would prevent the rise of popular movements and war. It was an idea born of fear and paranoia. Some forty years after joining what was largely assumed to be a trade bloc, there is now a broad consensus that it doesn't work shared even by those who would have us stay in. It "needs reform" they tell us.

To those of us who have watched the EU for years, learned its political language, its history and its tactics, those words are hollow. We hear the repeated mantras of being leading in Europe and the need to be "at the table" in order to influence it, but what we see in practice is an unreformable institution that couldn't remodel itself if it wanted.

Thus we will see no treaty change, no remodelling of the institutions, no moves to democratise the EU executive, no reform of the interface between member states and global bodies, no opt outs from EU external agreements, no added powers of veto, no real change to freedom of movement, no change in the European Parliament constitution and no new relationship. Not only is our relationship the same as ever it was, the EU remains the same beast throughout.

The prime minister has nothing to show for his efforts. In his own words, addressing the Scottish Conservative conference, he says "In all the things that are so important to us, like the Single Market but carved out of all those things we don’t want any part of. So no euro; no Eurozone bailouts; no European Army; no Schengen open borders; no European superstate. If we left, we would be swapping that certainty for uncertainty."

Weak. Weak. Weak. All he has done is restate things as they are, with a couple of reworked legal instruments, largely unbinding, amounting to absolutely nothing. It should have caused outrage. But having a media so easily distracted, more concerned with the bowel movements of Boris Johnson, they bought the decoy and gave the prime minister a free pass. The negotiations to them are now ancient history as they pick up their next temporary obsessions.

In this, we seasoned EU observers have been wrong-footed. When the prime minister said he was going to attempt reform, we knew he would fail, but we never believed he would expect to walk away with such thin gruel and not be pilloried for it. As transparent as it is, it's a massive insult to our intelligence. But then since it was design for consumption by the media, it wasn't a miscalculation. The clear lesson here is that one should never underestimate the ineptitude of our media.

And so the essence of the PM's message is that we are swapping the status quo for uncertainty. The only tool in their box. Fear. The persistent message of the Remain campaign has bee "nobody really knows what deal UK gets post-Brexit and no existing model seems attractive."

Given that this is likely the last vote we will have for a generation on this issue, there is an instant hole in their argument. The cannot promise us certainty if we stay and they have no idea what Remaining in looks like. They do not know what the next EU wide crisis will be or the response. All we really know, from previous form, is that the response will be a fudge, delivered late, and only after a crisis becomes an emergency. The recurrent symptoms of being an unreformable mess.

And yet somehow, the risible, empty rhetoric, despite the long history of EU failures, is still accepted debating currency. Beggars belief doesn't it? The prime minister will use every opportunity to drop the phrase "reformed Europe" in the same way Osborne repeats "long term economic plan" - but we know this to be entirely hollow and without meaning. Bizarrely, we still have a sizeable constituency of people who believe them.

But what I really dispute is the notion that "no existing model seems attractive". Attraction of course being an entirely relative thing. Otherwise Kim Cardassian wouldn't have a career. To the eurosaurs, the idea of Britain having its own vote and voice at the top tables, asserting its own needs in negotiations, having the right to say no, being in control of fishing, agriculture, energy and environment policy to them is somehow "unattractive".

Breaking free of a stifling and antiquated relic from the last century and stepping up into the global forums to me sounds not only attractive, but also exciting. The possibility of building a global single market and a community of equal voices, none subordinated by corporatist anti-democratic blocs seems to me something wholly ambitious, energising and buoyant.

It seems to me a great deal more attractive than being locked into paralysis of the status quo, with no hint of reform on the horizon. And though we can accept that there will be trade-offs and compromises, the EEA/Efta model, in the very first stage of exit gives us the best of both worlds. Full single market membership but trading autonomy and the right to refuse instructions from Brussels.

And then there's the main selling point. While the model itself maintains the certainty of the single market, it does create uncertainty where uncertainty is needed. Where our future depends very much on how we identify and seize opportunities. This will require businesses break from the euro-parochialism and look outward, monitoring global channels for diplomatic and trading possibilities.

And instead of delegating our aid and trade policy, we can once again take the direct approach, making for a more accountable, more effective trade policy that makes trading partners rather than dependent beneficiaries of the emerging economies. The options are many.

I certainly find that a more enthusing and energising message than the prime minister's message of "can't win, won't try" - living in fear of the bogeyman and scaring half the population into submission. We could instead have a renaissance in diplomacy and a revitalisation of domestic democracy and a new found sense of engagement as we get to choose our own systems of governance and our own spending priorities.

For sure Brexit is not the carte blanche some pretend it is, and there are natural restraints inherent to the proposed solution, but this isn't just about what things look like the day after Brexit. This is about how we learn, grow and evolve out from under the shadow of this redundant twentieth century post-war relic.

In this we embrace the uncertainty and opportunity of the future, being the enterprising souls we have always been. We are a nation of seafarers and explorers, and there is still much to discover about the world and ourselves and we can only hold ourselves back by closing ourselves off from it.

So in the final analysis, when you hear them say "the alternatives don't seem attractive", ask "attractive to whom?". The alternatives don't seem attractive to those peddling fear of change, fear of progress and fear of letting go of the past. It's unattractive to those cynics who believe change is just too complex and too much hassle and "not worth the risk" - and that we wouldn't bother to look after our landscapes and environment without an EU gun to our heads.

These fearful, weedy, pessimistic, tired souls would have us fade quietly into the night, to be subsumed into euro-subordination in the belief that we can't do better and that we shouldn't aspire to more than the persistent mediocrity and incompetence of the EU.

In this referendum, they are the ones in control, they are the ones who have the power and they are asking for your vote for more of the same. So if you're considering voting to remain, you need to ask if more of the same is really what you want and if you really prefer the power residing with these miserablist losers over the British public.

If the public choose to remain in this state of Euro-ennui then I really have little sympathy for the complaints that come thereafter. This is an opportunity of a lifetime and for us to bottle it now makes Britain a place I no longer identify with. And if being grovelling, subservient cowards is what it means to be European, count me out of that too. There is no salvation for a nation that no longer believes it has a right to exist.

Euro-FUD and idle threats

"House of Lords warned EU will punish UK if it votes for Brexit" says Euractiv.com

Translation: Europhile (LibDem) MEP says europhile things in a poorly attended select committee meeting. Air-headed histrionics from a zealot. Catherine Bearder to be precise - a europhile's europhile.

The fact is the EU will enter negotiations in good faith to secure continuity of single market access. Why? Because business won't settle for anything less. Nobody wants a petulant trade war, neither side can afford one, and a recession for us is a recession for them - especially while the Euro isn't out of the woods in the midst of a global slowdown. Moreover, the EU is a rules based organisation. There are constraints.

It is inconceivable that that single market access on the same terms would be abandoned. It is not politically possible. The multinationals won't wear anything else.

There are those who suggest that we would leave in a single break, and some who even demand it, but our own civil servants tasked with Brexit will arrive at the very same conclusion we did. It has to be done in stages and that a market solution is the most readily available stop gap measure to minimise the risk.

That then brings us on to the glorious FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt) of John McFarlane of BT. He says Brexit would cause "uncertainty" and proceeds to waffle about the European market - which we assume to mean single market. (what else could we infer?). It is our view that if McFarlane's political advisers are uncertain then he needs to fire them.

With so much allegedly hinging on single market continuity, with the Remain camps own propaganda saying it has mutual consequences if it is broken, nobody will allow the worst to happen. We suspect a doddering old europhile like McFarlane is being less than honest.

But then just as thought exercise, it is worth entertaining Catherine Bearder's assertions that the EU will punish us as an example. Does she realise what she is saying? That the EU, in light of an expression of democratic will, would risk EU trade to punish us. As reckless as that is, this is not in the spirit of cooperation and democracy we are frequently told the EU upholds.

Since Ms Bearder is a vocal advocate of the EU, her words must now be watched carefully so that she is reminded when she speaks of EU democracy - she, as an MEP, does not think it likely the EU will uphold those values. Is this really a union we want to be in?

What Brexit can do for Britain and the world

Many on the Leave side concentrate on the negatives, often resorting to complaints about the cost of being in the EU. For reasons that escape us we see Daniel Hannan bickering with the Remain campaign over intangible numbers that mean very little to the average voter.

We have maintained from the outset that this is a flawed approach to campaigning. Net contribution to the EU budget comes in at less than £10bn and if it were about saving money, there are probably easier ways of finding such savings than trying to tear ourselves away from the EU in one go. For us it has never been about the money. Brexit is about democracy, the future and our place in the world.

In that, the Remain camp have been goading Leavers as to what Brexit looks like. We have been very vocal in our support of the Norway Option as a transitional mechanism to leave the EU. This prompts the fatuous Remain campaigns to reel off the hackneyed remarks from their Norway Option crib sheets.

We are not saying, as they suggest, that we want to be like Norway. We couldn't if we wanted to. We are simply saying that the legal framework through which Norway relates to the EU political entity is as good as any as safe and easy means of departure. We have already seen experts on both sides of the divide saying that the Norway Option is a safe bet that carries little risk - and today HSBC and Barclays have also implied they could wear it as an option.

The Remain camp will likely say that we still have to pay the same and implement all of the laws. The truth, as always, is very different. Having contacted the EFTA Secretariat, which administers the EEA agreement, they report that 10,862 acts have been incorporated into the EEA Agreement since its inception in 1992.

Very often, though, acts repeal other acts, and some acts are time-limited and cease to have an effect. Taking this into account, there are 4,957 acts remaining in force today. By contrast, the very latest count of the EU laws in force (today) stands at 23,076. As a percentage of that number, the EEA acquis of 4,957 acts currently stands at 21 percent. Moreover, Norway does have a veto.

But actually, it wouldn't matter if the percentage was substantially higher. Probably, by now the bulk of the EEA acquis is made up of global/regional standards. It is very difficult to say exactly how much without doing a detailed analysis, but what we can say with certainty is that globalisation is the direction of travel, and in due course, the majority of EU Single Market law will be based on global/regional standards and regulations.

Consequently it comes back to that question of what we want and why do we want it? If the financial savings are marginal and the opportunities for deregulation are few, what is the point? Well, it's about modernity.


While the Remain camp is looking inward at Europe, we are looking at the revolution in global trade. National borders are becoming increasingly irrelevant to trade and we need a regulatory framework that acknowledges this. In that, the removal of non-tariff barriers is the primary concern of the WTO.

We are seeing innovative measures to enhance global trade which require a great many reforms and modernisation programmes. It requires good governance in developing countries that aligns more closely with our own standards. That is why we see the law making agenda moving up the chain. As global standards and regulations mature incrementally we see the emergence of a global single market much larger in size and potential than the EU.

This is where the EU becomes problematic. Rather than accept global standards as they come, they have to go through the EU mill to be poked at, prodded and delayed until they are so mangled at implementation that they become a protectionist wall for European markets and perversely, EU laws become a trade barriers rather than trade facilitators - making it difficult for Africa to sell to Europe.

Rather than embracing the new paradigm, the EU still thinks only EU nations are convergent enough to share regulations and must set the bar for the rest of the world. Well, the rest of the world has caught up while Europe was sleeping and now we can look seriously about breaking our single market wide open so that anybody can participate. This is something the EU instinctively does not want to do.

Thus, our vision is a Britain functioning as a bridge between the EU internal market and the global single market. The EEA/Efta route is the framework by which we maintain the trade links we already enjoy while having the agility to join the global party. Instead of pleading with the EU to acknowledge our concerns with our external trading partners, we can deal directly.

Moreover, with an independent vote and a veto at the global forums where the rules are made, we have unprecedented leverage that we do not enjoy as EU members. This has the advantage of shaking the EU out of its complacency and may persuade it to be more open to the rest of the world. Perhaps even modernise its attitudes to trade negotiations. The EU is all for big bang deals and grand gestures. The rest of the world has been catching up one small step at a time.

In this we can lend our expertise to the global governance universe, leading at the top tables and leading the EU into the new century by example. It's an exciting prospect. We are used to those in the Remain camp saying we Brits want to have our cake and eat it, but we ask, why the hell shouldn't we? What's the point of having a cake if you can't eat it? At present we have a tasty cake right in front of us and we can't even nibble the icing.

The opportunities of the UK being at the very top of decision making, influencing regulatory decision making before regulations even reach the EU ought to be obvious - especially so for investors. Being the first to implement global standards means we are at the forefront of trade and reaping the benefits of the Trade Facilitation Agreement while the same measures are still choked up in the EU talking shop.

Brexit is not about having less regulation. It's about having more influence in how they are made and having a direct line when we want reform. It's about cutting out the middleman and it's about shaping the world as we have always done. It's about breaking out of the little Europe mentality and reforming the European market from the outside - in ways we have never managed in the last forty years of membership.

David Cameron says he wants a reformed EU but if we really want to be leaders in Europe then we need to be off the EU leash - and that is one reform the EU can never grant us. Snatching more power over decision making is in the DNA of the EU. In any case Cameron's not asking to be free of the leash, but if he did, he wouldn't get it. Nobody would. The only way the EU is ever going to reform and modernise is if we drag it kicking and screaming into the modern world. The only possible way to do that is to leave.

This prompts the Remain camp to say that being outside the EU means we are "isolated". This is nonsense. It means being free to choose alliances according to the type of deal on the table. It means building coalitions of common interests and cooperating freely. Sometimes that means choosing our EU allies, other times we may side with India - with whom we have many important cultural and trade links. If anyone is isolated, it's the EU as it cuts itself off from the global markets - breaking with global standards and erecting more regulatory barriers. Brexit is our statement of intent to the world that we want to be in at the top tables and dealing with the bigger market.

We don't want to be in a subordinate relationship with the EU. We do not want to be told what our agenda is by the EU and we do not want our decisions overturned by them. We want to revitalise our domestic politics which has stagnated as we outsourced the critical functions of it. We want to be re-energised so that our politicians are discussing new and bigger ideas rather than resurrecting the politics of the eighties. We want the EU as a partner not a master.

Brexit is about global participation. It is about shortening the chain of accountability and it is about embracing the future. It's also about letting go of the past. The EU was born from the ashes of the two wars that raged across Europe. The world has evolved since and so has trade. The EU suited the old world and it remedied some of our problems. Now we have to set about building a global community of equals and pulling down barriers. We can't do that from behind the walls the EU erects.

In the final analysis, it's a choice between being a subordinate member of a fearful and timid EU or standing as a bridge between the two worlds and getting the best from both. If that costs more than EU membership, so be it. If it means more but better regulation, so be it. What we get is worth far more than anything the EU can offer - and it's the true reform of Europe that Mr Cameron would never get in a hundred years of trying. This is so much bigger than saving a few quid. Let's go!

Mission report

Last Friday we appealed yet again for more bloggers interested in forming an elite unit to push the progressive Brexit message. We've had about fifteen expressions of interest. That's actually really good.

We have tried this experiment before back in 2006 by creating an aggregator for the team. Had I been a halfway competent web programmer at the time it could have worked, though really the germ of the idea was in essence a variant of Twitter. What made it unrealistic was the level of work involved for something that was never going to make any money.

The problem with with idea was that it was far too labour intensive and we were largely herding cats. We went to considerable efforts to keep people on board. Learning from this, we approach it differently this time. There is no time or room for stroking egos. What we need is self-starters and will not be quick to take offence.

We do not seek to control the content, but we are task focussed and we are immovable in our belief that we must have message discipline. On the core message, there isn't much room for debate. You can see from the comments on Friday's article that we're not messing about. It's too much to ask of us that we sell this to you personally. By now you will have read the posts we linked to in Friday's article and will have made your decision on the basis of that.

Again we stress we are not about bent-bananas and bean-counting over how much we save in EU membership fees. Nor do we see any value in talking about immigration in any sense since the level of white noise on that subject is impenetrable and we can make no guarantees as to what Brexit will achieve. Our statement of values, our strategy and our vision are key to this operation and we expect at the very least that applicant will have read and understood them, and will have read the shorter version of Flexcit.

We are not seeking to be a rival operation to any campaign. We have neither the funds nor the reach and there is no value in yet another generic populist outfit pumping out the same tired material. We can confidently assert that the arguments we have engineered are stronger, more appealing and in every sense better than what the rest of the eurosceptic crowd can offer.

We want to build up a core of voices distinct from the background noise that eurosceptics make. They have to be working to the same set of principles and to the same strategy, because the power comes with coordination.

Our last attempt at this shattered a few assumptions of ours. Certainly I used to think that almost anybody can write and they could become decent bloggers with just a bit of encouragement. It turns out that writing is a rare skill and certainly finding conscientious people who will pay proper attention to formatting and detail is no small undertaking.

Thus we are not discouraged by the small uptake thus far. It's better to get a small cell running to a decent standard that to try to marshal mediocrity. We already have about seven people working together in Twitter, and in the furry of activity just after the election we were successful in planting certain notions and ideas into the political discourse. Working as a task force works.

As a base to start from, that's manageable and we are looking to get new individuals up to spec and working together. In turn, they will be expected to recruit their own cell. We suggest between five and ten per cell. If we have mature and switched on people, they need very little instruction or guidance. In that regard, we want the best.

That said, there is also a place for people who don't feel they can take on such a commitment. It isn't easy, it is time consuming and at times can be wholly demoralising. Why we do it, god only knows. In terms of the flack we get, we get worse from our own side for daring to try. You can contribute to the operation just by retweeting any original content you see from our bloggers on the @eureferendum Twitter account. Just alerting us to possible recruits is of value and tweeting our message at journalists and other opinion formers is a worthwhile contribution.

If by now you are sold and want to participate, you can start by setting up your blog and alerting us to its presence. My advice is to keep it simple and use a minimalist template much like this blog. You can go to town on customising blogger but there is little value in it and it distracts from the core activities. Last time we tried something like this I offered support in the creation of mastheads and banners and tweaking templates. This time, I don't have the time and would rather focus on the task at hand. I can and will help in exchange for a small donation to www.eureferedum.com but good, readable content is more striking than an elaborate site - and the more, the better.

Really we'd rather people had as much autonomy as possible, so we ask you to use your own discretion in what you tweet and retweet and keep in mind that with every post you are adding to, or subtracting from the overall message. Meanwhile, this video gives you some idea of the intellectual tapestry we are weaving. We feel it best to lay down a blanket of posts along this theme that address various aspects of the complexities with a view to making them accessible to a wider audience.

Further updates will appear here and the aim of this blog is to produce a working database of the arguments and how to make them. Feel free to reuse and recycle any material you see here.

Do you have what it takes?

Last month we made an appeal for volunteers to form our elite platoon of bloggers. We've had a few encouraging responses and some disappointing ones. Some people are intractably wedded to the traditional eurosceptic mantras and while they say they understand our mission, in practice they do not. Thus we will have to kiss a few frogs before we get our operation fully mobilised. Consequently we are making a second appeal.

As to the task at hand we have found that spending big bucks on followers and large media interactions has only a limited effect and no real measurable results. Certainly we can't see what kind of impact it is making with real people. That is where our team comes in.

What we need are blogs, each with their own distinct identity, free to write on matters as they see them, writing to their own respective audiences. We do not expect or ask you to be echo chambers for eureferendum.com. Though what we do need is bloggers who subscribe to a set of core arguments and guidelines.

We have made the case that the Brexit plan we have throws up certain political realities that shape the arguments we make for withdrawal. For instance, Brexit will not necessarily mean substantially smaller budget contributions, may not in the short to medium term bring about an end to free movement and pragmatism demands we make regulatory compromises in order to remain part of the single market. We assume that you will have read Flexcit or are at the very least aware of the thesis. That should inform the basis of our arguments.

The message is important. We are entering a crowded marketplace. All the bases are covered for the usual lurid eurosceptic tropes. There is no value in replicating it in that it does not reach new ears. We have to be counter to the usual eurosceptic output. What we are after is new angles and innovative content. We let the cannon fodder take the Yes campaign head on. It's not well directed effort. Most of the keyboard warriors mistake volume of activity for productivity, employing badly made infographics. Most of the time they are wrong and send out the wrong message.

I have set out a statement of values here and I have set out the vision here. That then brings us on to the broader strategy. In so doing we have to do is ditch the eurosceptic baggage. We must adapt or die.

As to the practicalities of this, I will act as a controller and can offer editorial advice. Ultimately, attention to detail and presentation is key to credibility. Posts should preferably carry an illustration or a picture each time. It helps in Google rankings.

It must be said that this is no small undertaking. We are after fully dedicated people and preferably people we don't have to babysit. If you make the grade then we will expect that you in turn will recruit your own cell of bloggers. If that sounds elitist, it's because it is. We should be unashamedly elitist. We don't don't want libertarian ranters or europhobes. The "love Europe, hate the EU" nonsense is no use to us. We don't hate the EU, we just want out of it.

We also need to start acting now. A blog that is well established with a large web footprint will appear in Google results immediately. Those starting up at the last minute will struggle to get any meaningful hits. It is more a matter of establishing a blog for the final three months of the campaign.

Don't be put off by the low numbers of hits. Populist material will generate hits, but we'd rather reach the right ears than be talking to the same old crowd. If we co-ordinate our efforts then we can help you build your own online constituency.

Very few people can spare the time or energy to produce original content every day or even once a week. Twitter means you don't have to if we have an active team who will retweet each other. In that regard we have to rise above the narcissism of small differences. We don't have to agree with each other so long as we are working to broadly the same principles.

That said, a blog must be seen to be active so there is certainly no harm in reproducing each others material. You should be looking to build a twitter audience of at least a thousand followers. This takes time and a burst of concentrated effort. It doesn't happen quickly and it's not very rewarding work. It has taken six months of concerted effort to build two account each with a thousand followers.

However, if we are all retweeting each other, then the original tweet gets weighted by the Twitter engine and is more likely to appear in the top news section on the hash-tag. What matters is the multiplier effect. In that regard, your accounts will grow faster in that we will be promoting them.

Numbers are only a guide though. They are not a measure of productivity. The number of hits you get or the number of followers you have is not paramount. It's a useful target to aim for, but ultimately this operation is about targeted campaigning. Identifying those in your cohort who can be convinced or recruited matters more. You yourself may not have reach but if you can recruit for us then that is even better. It may be that you know some eurosceptics who can be reasoned with in order to moderate their output, which is valuable in itself.

The core mission is to win the intellectual battle. We must influence the influential and we must build a credible case with a viable alternative. The final battle will not be us versus the Yes/Remain campaign. It will be an estimation as to whether the alternative we present is better than Cameron's reforms.

I will be sending out periodic emails and guidelines and instructions in how to argue online. Please do not expect immediate replies to emails, though you can get my attention on Twitter - @petenorth303, or on Facebook at https://www.facebook.com/pete303.

If you are with us, please let me know what your blog is and your Twitter account - and your thoughts and suggestions are most welcome. Let us know if we can help. Be sure also to follow this blog because much of what I say to you will already appear there.

We are going to see a lot of wasted money and misdirected effort from the main campaigns and certainly we do not see Ukip as either an asset or ally in this. In fact the more clear blue water there is, the better. We have to make the progressive case for Brexit and we do not want to be tainted by association. A blunter statement of rules can be found here. The comments as much as anything gives you a clear indication of what we don't want. If you think you make the grade, and you're on board with our message, we would love to hear from you.

mrnorth303@gmail.com

Brexit: the winning strategy

At the very least there is roughly 30% of the electorate who, come hell or high water, will vote to leave the EU regardless of what anybody says. Thus the challenge for the No campaign is how do we reach the other 21%? For starters you have to identify them.

What we can say is that that any message pitched at those who voted Ukip will not reach any new ears. More than likely it will galvanise the 21% against us. Ukip discovered to their cost that taking shortcuts, and sending out dogwhistles to their core brought them onto a battlefield they could never hope to dominate. Their policies stood on a foundation of intellectual sand, and Farage's personal approval ratings plummeted. He is a divisive figure and is more a liability than asset to the No campaign.

It's no coincidence that the media is now soft-pedalling Farage because they recognise what an asset he is to the Yes campaign. The establishment tactic in the 1975 referendum was to make all the weakest players the spokesmen for No. This they will do again. No doubt Farage's galactic ego will play right into the trap.

One thing Ukip complained about was biased media, often misrepresenting what Ukip said. It's a little condescending to believe the public are so bovine that they cannot see through media games and the pubic were far more generous to Ukip in hearing them out. The problem was that that once you cut through the noise, bypassing the media, to take a cold look at Ukip, it was quite obvious we were looking at a band of incompetents winging it at every turn.

Having failed to produce a manifesto until the very last minute, they were left making assumptions and suppositions based on previous policy attempts, leaving them intellectually naked. Theirs was a problem of competence and credibility. In many respects this did not matter to Ukip voters. Plenty of people who voted for Ukip as a protest and the lack of credibility was not a concern. Howesoever, referendums are not elections. Voters will take this decision a good deal more seriously.

Consequently, both voters and the media will be looking at the No campaign looking for intellectual consistency and credibility. That means the message must be crafted according to the political realities of Brexit. It cannot make wild promises about controlling immigration or putting hundreds of pounds back in people's pockets, nor can we make unfounded claims about a bonfire of regulation. Superficially it seems attractive and such a message will get the eurosceptic cyber-flashmob excited and we'll see retweets aplenty, but it won't shift the polls in our favour. It will generate some healthy looking web analytics, but it's still just white noise.

The problem with politics is that you can execute everything exactly as you're supposed to but when it comes to the final vote, it falls to the wisdom of the crowd. The herd instinct. The arguments might be right, and people might well agree, but their gut instinct compels them to vote a different way. Our biggest hurdle is the status quo effect. They are going to look closely at the No campaign. They are going to look closely at the message and the people promoting the message. The kippers on Twitter banging on about immigration, Muslims and British jam are a massive turn-off. Similarly tub-thumping speeches about helicopter safety regulations will make us look insane.

More than that, Brexit is a big risk. There are questions to be answered as to what post-Brexit Britain looks like and whether jobs and trade will be affected. We can trade Top Trumps cards about trade percentages, but as usual this will degenerate into bickering and white noise that our target vote will tune out. Our target vote are not EU obsessives. What we need is guarantees, not speculation. We must have proof that we have the intellectual goods. Our foundation must be solid.

Presently we have the likes of Matthew Elliot on the one hands saying we will continue to participate in EU academic programmes, and have a similar arrangement to Switzerland yet at the same time making will promises about massive budget savings, implying they will be retuned in the form of tax cuts. There are inherent schisms in the message that opinion formers will pick up on. Similarly, it is unclear how Brexit adds any immediate relief to the global migration crisis.

We should not make promises we cannot uphold, and we cannot base our message on speculation. Having done an extensive analysis on Brexit, at best we can say, as far as most people are concerned, it won't actually make much difference. That must be central to our message. It sounds counter intuitive, but it's more credible, and more believable than making wild promises.

The opposition will be engage in irrational scaremongering. We can take the high-ground by firstly not playing the same game. If we avoid fantastical claims, and lampoon their scaremongering then it is the Yes camp who looks irrational. We have to play it measured and cool. The campaign should make strong use of satire in tackling the scaremongering, but must also show a little self-awareness in distancing itself from the kipper constituency.

We can concede that it won't make much in the way of savings, probably won't mean fewer regulations and consequently won't have much of an impact either way on jobs and trade. Consequently we give off a reassuring vibe rooted in pragmatism and practicality.

In essence, we have to abandon the classic eurosceptic riffs, because they're tired and they don't work. We're like the pub DJ who plays the classic anthems and ballads and has the same playlist every single week to an empty dance floor. We need to lay down a few of the B sides and lesser known album tracks.

What that achieves is to set a neutral tone of competence and reassurance. In so doing, we sacrifice a great many of what we believe to be the selling points of Brexit, ie controlled immigration and reduced membership fees etc. It's a gamble but it has more chance of reaching our target vote. What then have to do is answer the question that follows. If leaving the EU doesn't make much immediate difference, then why bother?

That is where the vision comes in. Between now and the last three months of the campaign, the  arguments online will largely be comprise of bickering between those who have already made up their minds and are fighting their respective corners. It goes largely ignored by everybody else. Investing in these pointless skirmishes is wasted energy and will generate more heat than light. The final battle is not going to be over fishing grounds, regulation or the price of cheese. It will be be our vision versus David Cameron's "reformed" EU.

It is a mistake to believe he will not get some worthwhile concessions and the proposals will look just attractive enough to nudge the don't knows into voting Yes. We will look bad if we set expectations low and Cameron returns with something worth having. Caution is advised.

Thus it is Cameron's credibility we must attack, not the EU. In that respect the Yes campaign is a decoy and not the real enemy. If we're invested in rebutting their output then really we're wasting time and resources. The contest will be whether we have an alternative to what Cameron offers and whether can withstand public and media scrutiny.

By this time we will have made the case that Brexit won't be a leap into the dark and that it won't have grave consequences either way, but what we then have to do is sell the opportunities and have a plan also how we can exploit them. We must highlight what those opportunities will mean for business and ordinary Brits. For that we will need a real product to sell. A plan that we can deliver to every voter that is so credible that even if we lose, the campaign material retains momentum and remains in public discourse. That gives us a second crack of the whip. We will have created the demand and people will then understand why the EU is the obstacle to achieving it.

That then puts the Yes campaign in the position of speaking to itself, arguing points we have already conceded. We are then in the position of being able to ignore what they do and focus instead on promoting something new. The Yes campaign is then put in the position of attacking the unfamiliar that they don't have crib sheets for.

In doing this, we will need to have built a campaign from the outset that sees things in a different way. As we have discussed, as much as the arguments matter, the people matter too. Our ambassadors can't be the usual suspects. We don't want Katie Hopkins, Nigel Farage, Daniel Hannan or Owen Jones. We want normal people people who are less concerned with whining about the EU as people who are genuinely excited by the opportunities we are selling. Our watchwords are rational, credible measured and positive. We have to ditch our baggage and learn from previous mistakes.

What this will require is for the No campaign to do what it instinctively doesn't want to do. We have to stop grumbling about the EU for starters. We need to disown the ranters and and the bores, and since Ukip are going to run their own operation preaching to their home crowd, there is no value whatsoever in replicating what they do.

There must be clear blue water between the No campaign and the traditional eurosceptic crowd. They are more liability than asset and a campaign that identifies with them will not reach the 21%. If we are entering the marketplace of ideas then our product must be fresh, innovative and aimed at a market we have thus far never ventured into. We can't sell pipe and slippers euroscepticism to young professionals and entrepreneurs.

This will require message discipline and will need key players to show some self-discipline in not falling back on the old (and failed) eurosceptic ideas. We should show no hesitation in relegating them to the bench if they stop performing, and even if our base does not agree they are going to have to suck it up. Euroscepticism needs its clause four moment. We cannot pander to them, they can't win us the referendum, and if they make up the base then we will give off a tainted vibe. Voters will reject it. It's going to be a big ask, and it's going to ruffle a few feathers, but if we're not going to break out of our comfort zone, we can expect to lose - and we will deserve to.

Defining the Brexit vision

We have spoken this week of the need for a new vision and a better alternative to what David Cameron can offer us. It must be grounded in political reality and it must be convincing.

We've heard critics saying that we must simplify our message, but that does not mean we should dumb it down. To peddle a simplistic mantra is to undermine our own credibility. That means we will have to outline in detail what we want, and where we want to be. Only then can we sell it. The task is to creatively sell the product we have, not the product we wish we were selling.

Before we can sell the product we must define it. Our vision is for the United Kingdom as a self-governing, self-confident, free trading nation state, releasing the potential of its citizens through direct democratic control of both national and local government and providing maximum freedom and responsibility for its people.

The history of Britain for a thousand years has been as a merchant and maritime power playing its full role in European and world affairs while living under its own laws. It is our view that the UK can flourish again as an independent state trading both with our friends in the EU and the rest of Europe, while developing other relationships throughout the world as trading patterns evolve.

For an age the United Kingdom has freely engaged as an independent country in alliances and treaties with other countries. It has a long history of entering into commercial agreements and conventions at an inter-governmental level. We wish to uphold that tradition.

The ability of the people of the United Kingdom to determine their own independent future and use their wealth of executive, legislative and judicial experience to help, inspire and shape political developments through international bodies, and to improve world trade and the wellbeing of all peoples will only be possible when they are free of the undemocratic and moribund European Union.

The prosperity of the people depends on being able to exercise the fundamental right and necessity of self-determination, thus taking control of their opportunities and destiny in an inter-governmental global future with the ability to swiftly correct and improve when errors occur.

Within the United Kingdom, our vision is for a government respectful of its people who will take on greater participation and control of their affairs at local and national level. Our vision fosters the responsibility of a sovereign people as the core of true democracy.

With that in mind, we suggest that leaving the EU alone does not accomplish this, but it is the first step on a long road. For us to embark on this journey we must set out in detail what it looks like and why it's worth the risk.

A simplistic slogan works well on Twitter, but it is for us to provide substance to it in order to convince opinion formers. Primarily we must convince both the public and business that Brexit does not interrupt trade or threaten jobs. In this, guesswork and blind optimism is insufficient. Detail, realism and pragmatism are our watch words. Unless we define what Brexit looks like, the inherent credibility deficit will be our undoing. Winging it did not work for Ukip and it won't work for us.

We are asking for a a big change involving a massive diplomatic effort with a period of some uncertainty, so as much as we must reassure, we must also answer the question of "why bother?".
Where is the value in such an undertaking and what is the incentive?

We can present incentives but they have to be genuine motivators. Saying that families will be £933 better off if they vote out is a wet lettuce of an incentive. We've seen the same stunt pulled in elections and it no more works in a referendum than it does in an election. Also, simply saying we can "trade with the rest of the world" sounds like empty rhetoric because it is empty rhetoric.

Leaving the EU in reality means only marginal immediate benefits and while there are beneficial freedoms it will take time to fully realise them and put them to work. The Yes campaign will succeed in making that case. What have we got that makes it worth the hassle?

While we are in the EU, we are not (as eurosceptics have it) run by the EU. We're just told what to and on what terms. There is no flexibility and there is no redress. Change takes a long time time, and reform proves impossible. This diminishes us and our standing in the world. There is an alternative and it's better than anything Mr Cameron can offer.

Outside the EU, the UK would also be able to craft its own external trade policy. In this, it could act independently, it could act with other blocs such as EFTA, or we could take collective action through ad hoc alliances. This gives us the agility we presently lack.

There are sometimes gains to be made from negotiating as part of a formal bloc, not least for the protection afforded in times of financial crisis, and on matters of common interest. It is a means of spreading the administrative burden. Sometimes the added strength and resource of the UK, to help further spread the load is advantageous. At other times we need to be doing what's best for our unique emerging industries. While the EU negotiates on our behalf we cannot do this. We cannot get what's best for Britain and we cannot prioritise to our advantage. Nothing David Cameron will propose can speak to that.

There are many disadvantages to formal collective action as we have seen in attempts to reform the CAP. We need the flexibility to make arrangements which give us the benefits of EU membership while minimising the disadvantages. We also need to avoid the disadvantages we might suffer as an independent actor, while making the most of opportunities presented by changes in global trading patterns.

We must offer a solution that allows us to be full participants in the single market but also the freedom to be the architect of a global single market. Mr Cameron can only offer us more of the same. We must offer the best of both worlds. We've been sold the notion that we can't have our cake and eat it. We need to show that we can not only eat our cake, we can have seconds too.

What we cannot afford is a message into which the subtext suggests we're going to take our bat home and shut ourselves off from the EU. We're not looking to make the EU an enemy, we're just looking to redefine our relationship, not only for our own sake but for theirs as well.

That said, this alone is insufficient. As someone who writes on matters of trade and foreign policy it is immensely frustrating getting people engaged. The fact is that most people couldn't give a tinkers damn about trade or foreign affairs. We have delegated such to our politicians and in turn they have delegated it to the EU. Consequently, while important to win the trade argument in order to influence the influential, there needs to be an incentive for ordinary people too.

The EU promotes every day concerns such as roaming charges, visa-free travel and every day practicalities - along with rights and protections that we would otherwise perhaps not enjoy. They are marginal benefits but that is the level on which many will make their choice. People will be worried about their employment protections and basic rights. They worry that Brexit gives the Tories leeway to be as ruthless as legend has it. Again we need not only to reassure but to incentivise.

Consequently we have to build a movement that carries momentum beyond the referendum so that we can make demands once we are out. If we are taking some of the power back for the people, then why not all of it?

That is where we can make the case for a British bill of rights, direct democracy, real localism and constitutional rights. If we're just going to quit the EU and leave it there then we've left the job half done, putting the power back in the hands of the people who did all this to us in the first place. I don't know about you but the prospect of that excites me more than Matthew Elliot telling me I'll have an extra £933 a year.

As much as anything it sidesteps the necessity to take a divisive position on climate change, tax, health, education or the environment. The selling point is that it puts us in control and we get to decide what's best for us - and we own our decisions.

In that regard, we cannot make this referendum EU centric. This is a question about the future, who we are and where we want to be. The final battle in the last three months of the campaign will not be about whether the EU started the conflict in Ukraine, or whether we should take back our fishing grounds or even bent bananas. It won't be us vs. the EU. It will be us vs. David Cameron. The respective merits of the EU will take a back seat. It will be a poll on whether the public believe Cameron has scored a good deal and whether our vision holds water.

We must run a positive and a negative campaign. In so doing we must ignore the Yes campaign. That's a decoy and a fight we don't need to have. We should instead attack Cameron's credibility and trustworthiness, but on the positive side, we show the public that rather than griping about the EU, we have something bigger, bolder, lasting and achievable on offer. We must make Brexit the high watermark for the existing establishment orthodoxy and show that we will go the rest of the way.

If the campaign is instead an all singing, all dancing whinge about the EU, then I need to know now so I can engage in something more profitable and productive. It's boring and it's a losing argument made by losers. Life is too short.

It's NOT the EU, stupid

I found an interesting quote from Lord Hailsham in 1971 in respect to the EEC.

"It is true that the Communities have gone beyond the consortial pattern. There are these common institutions; the Commission, the Assembly, the Ministers, the court. There are fields of common law, very restricted because they are limited to the fields necessary to give effect to the nature of the economic community, but effective because they are enforced either by the legislative power of the individual member States or by the courts of the member States giving direct effect to rules of community law as interpreted by the Community courts. At first sight, this looks like a derogation from sovereignty. But I submit that, on close inspection, one can see that it is nothing of the kind. There is no physical power behind these institutions except the will of the members to keep their bargain, and no legislative or coercive power except the organs of the members to give effect to that will."

And this is the actual truth of the matter. The EU does not dictate in any real sense. Nothing the UK does in respect of EU compliance is not entirely voluntary. We comply because parliament wishes it to be so. In practice that means never saying no - because unlike the French, we hold true to our word.

The great dishonesty in this is that when the state does comply with the EU, for instance recent benefit cuts, it's dressed up as a domestic issue (ie evil Tory cuts). As it happens, I happen to agree with the measures put in place, but there is no democracy at work here. This is a classic instance of conforming to the EU non-discrimination ideal rather than putting our own interests first. Labour have the luxury of whining about it in opposition but they cannot pretend for a moment that they would do a single thing differently.

Thus the dictatorship is not from Brussels. It is from Westminster. Not only will they not confront the EU under any circumstances, they go to extended lengths to downplay or conceal its influence in some bizarre display of collective denial. The EU does nothing to us. We do it to ourselves - and we do it in "partnership" with the French who have absolutely zero intention of following the rules.

As undemocratic as the EU is, it is Westminster who continues to ignore the will of the public and they do in the certain knowledge that the media will not call them out on it because they lack the intellectual equipment to do so.

This should give some pause for thought to those who believe Jeremy Corbyn is a straight talking, principled individual. He speaks with forked tongue on the EU, believing it capable of reform - but given the constraints upon our democracy he has but two options - no domestic policy changes and the status quo, or further EU compliance. In practice that means either firehosing welfare at any hapless biped with an EU passport, or removing benefits altogether. As a populist he will duck the difficult and unpopular road and do precisely nothing. Or we can have David Cameron who will go right ahead and do everything the EU requires of him.

The short of it is, the options available to us are not ones we would ourselves choose, the way we would have it is closed off to us by way of keeping our word, our politicians have little say in it and continue to pretend they are in charge. This is a sham democracy and will remain so as long as we are members of the EU. But like I say, if we want democracy, Brexit is only the very beginning.