Cometh The Hour But Where Is The Man?

People ask Eurosceptics why they continue their fight for the sovereignty of Great Britain.  The answer is simple - they should soon find out if we stopped!

"Project Fear," the council of defeatism and despair, taunts us as we stumble, like a retreating army, towards the mirage of safety at the rear.  Except that it is just that, a mirage.  The possibility of forging our future within a reformed EU has been extinguished - there will be no reform.  Worse, Great Britain will become engulfed by the European federalist dream from which there will be no way back.

And voting to remain is not a safe and low-risk option - quite the contrary.  Europe is engulfed with a migration crisis, largely of Germany's making, and we shall certainly be ordered to "take our share."  The Euro, European banks and national economies are struggling and a new banking crisis, despite much vaunted "stress tests,"  is on the cards.  Indeed, far from being insulated from European banks' problems, the reality is that we would be in it up to our necks and required to support any bail-out measures (as we eventually ended up doing last time, despite our opt out).

Neither would our status and influence improve.  Far from being a strong voice within a reformed Europe we should find ourselves diminished as a result.  Who can doubt that vengeful federalists will take every opportunity for reprisals against "Perfidious Albion." Meantime, with the threat to walk out no longer an option and no eurosceptic electorate at home to placate, our bargaining position would be permanently weakened.  So much for a strong voice in a reformed EU!

Yet, our Prime Minister seems intent upon settling our future in the EU at any price.  The quality of their arguments to remain descending to the farcical with the latest fatuous claims from the Prime Minister that Britain must stay in the EU to help confront the evil of ISIL citing as an example Europe's "fight against the Nazis."  Well, quite apart from the fact the Britain did not declare war on "the Nazis" but upon Germany, it was the USA, the Soviet Union, and  the British Empire, that defeated Germany (unless there is some hidden contribution from Belgium, France, Spain, Italy, etc that history fails to record).  Now we are told that Britain must not leave because it could encourage other sovereign nations to follow suit!

Thus, the endgame is a European strait-jacket for immigration, energy, agriculture, fisheries, trade policy and defence whilst a neutered City of London declines to global insignificance and we surrender to French and other demands for monetary and fiscal union.

Despite the patent disadvantages of remaining in, there is no coherent message defining how Great Britain, with sovereign integrity intact, could forge its future in the world.  The practicality of how we could disentangle ourselves from clutches of Brussels has scarcely been mentioned. An easy-to-grasp picture of what a post exit Great Britain would look like has not been popularly articulated.  I really do not know what the various leave campaigns represent and I am sure I am not alone.  The leave movement, despite the constraints imposed by the PM, needs a leader and a plan.  Grass roots Conservatives are crying out for a rallying point. The stakes could not be higher and time is short: time for some military precision and clear thinking.  In previous times of national crisis, the principles of war have served us well and the leave campaign could do well to study them.  Here is how the recognised principles of war could apply to the political campaign:

 

•  Selection and Maintenance of the Aim.  This is the single most important thing.  Every student at Staff College will have had drummed in to them the importance of the selection and maintenance of the aim (rather like Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya didn't).  Brexit must have a single and unambiguous aim to which all participants in the alliance, particularly cross-party, can subscribe.  Once selected, the aim must be relentlessly pursued to victory.  Looking back on my own time at Staff College perhaps something like, "to ensure the electorate vote to leave the EU," would cover it?
• Maintenance of Morale.  The leadership must maintain the morale of the campaign alliance.  Mutual support for battered combatants will ensure they live to fight another day.  Opposition and the BBC will attempt to expose division - get used to it!
•  Offensive Action.  Given the current parlous state of the EU, Brexit should seize the initiative with a positive message for the future - kick them whilst they are down.  Those who claim that we should be "better off in a reformed EU" should be robustly challenged to quantify their contention. Better off than what would be a good start? There will be no point in having unused arguments in the magazine if the fight is lost.  Further, forget about the constraint of a happy reunion of the combatants afterwards - it's not going to happen! Splits in the grass roots of the Conservative Party appear irrevocable ­- so go for throat!
•  Security.  The establishment, particularly the BBC, will exploit any leaks in security to undermine the central message.  Spokesmen must be very careful to avoid inadvertently revealing strategy through, documents, social media and mobile telephones (I know this will be an anathema to our politicians but they really must try).
• Surprise.  Surprise will engender confusion.  A policy for the deliberate introduction headline arguments designed to wrong-foot the opposition should be devised.
• Concentration of Force.  The leadership must deliver a concentrated campaign with a universal message whilst recognising that, on many occasions, they will be outnumbered.  Where threats emerge or are perceived, decisive and synchronised force should be applied to neutralise them.
• Economy of Effort.  Manpower and resources will be at a premium and it will be vital that all resources are employed in the most judicious manner possible.  This will entail hard and pragmatic decisions at the highest level to target scarce resources to specific tactical aims.
•  Flexibility.  The argument will shift and change.  The leadership and the leadership governance process, must be flexible and responsive to change.
• Cooperation.  Cooperation will be essential and disparate supporters must subjugate their long-term interests to the aim.  For example, UKIP must not be allowed to mis-use the campaign as a means to further their electoral ambitions
• Sustainability.  The referendum may not be the end of the matter.  Following a narrow exit vote the EU would almost certainly return with "concessions" to force encourage a re-run.  The campaign must be established to ensure sustainability following the actual referendum which must include a plan to extricate ourselves from the EU labyrinth once the vote has been won.

 None of the above will happen by accident and it will require the catalyst of a charismatic leader to bring the strands together and mobilise the electorate (this is not a Parliamentary affair).  So far we hear of the possibility of Michael Gove and Iain Duncan Smith breaking cover.  My personal choice, on the basis his intellect and experience, would be John Redwood.  But the dark horse, currently uncommitted, may be Boris.  My advice to him would be to look in the mirror and ask yourself what sort of political future you have as a compliant courtier in the Cameron to Osborne succession oligarchy?  Better, even, to crash and burn as the leader of Brexit than to finish one's career never quite getting there with the Eurocrats?  Cometh the hour, but where is the man?