Trade with Iran

Trebles all round as European aerospace manufactures celebrate the order by newly acceptable Iran for no less than 118 Airbus airliners and 40 ATR (French Italian manufacture) 72-600s. Meanwhile, Liam Halligan, writing in the Sunday Telegraph following a week in Iran, salivates at the economic prospects on offer.  It is probably convenient to overlook the threat which a nuclear armed Iran was deemed to pose and that lifting economic sanctions depends upon compliance with IAEA verification that there is no cheating.  With European (French) noses firmly in the Iran trough, let us hope that the ever vigilant Federica Mogherini, High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, does not raise any inconvenient difficulties over Iranian nuclear compliance!

Yorkshire and Humberside Conservative Policy Forum

Yesterday I attended the Yorkshire & Humber Conservative Policy Forum Conference 2016, an interesting and entertaining event for which I thank the organisers most sincerely.

In a varied programme, "The Europe Question" panel discussion was the highlight.  It was stimulating to hear the articulate Philip Davies MP win all the arguments and a poll of delegates revealed an 84% vote in favour of leaving.

What was dispiriting and disappointing was the forlorn argument advanced by the "remain" contingent, Timothy Kirkhope MEP and Graham Postles from the National Council of the CPF, who could not bring themselves to admit that the so-called renegotiation changes absolutely nothing. Neither could they explain why it is, within the EU, we are denied the basic tools of nationhood and will be forever more if we vote to remain.  Indeed, to borrow from Andy Borowitz, listening to the Remain camp destroys my faith in the theory of evolution!

Steven Bell, Vice President of Conservatives for Britain, further disappointed by vigorously defending the Prime Minister's integrity and praising his tireless efforts to secure a deal.  Many see it differently.  The Bloomberg speech promised "fundamental and far-reaching change"  and that prospect kept us in the party quiet for 3 years.  But when it came to negotiation, David Cameron made it clear at the outset that he would campaign to stay in, regardless of the outcome. This completely compromised his negotiating position.  He did not ask for fundamental change; his demands were scarcely worth fighting for, as the other 27 Nations well knew and he returned with nothing, as expected.  Far from showing integrity, the Prime Minister is taking us for fools and his macho antics of staying up all night to negotiate fail to conceal his lack of substance in the first place.

Happily, Janet Daley, despite her punctuation, has he finger on the pulse as usual:

"So if you are happy with things as they are, vote to Remain; if you aren't, vote to Leave, whereupon you will either get something better or you won't, but if you don't you will at least be out of the collapsing European conflagration that is happening before our eyes."

Independence of the ECJ

Amid the claim and counter claim of the legality of David Cameron's deal I was intrigued to note that Donald Tusk, the President of the European Council, had weighed-in saying the deal was "legally binding and irreversible" and that it "cannot be annulled by the European Court of Justice."  So, Donald Tusk claims to be able to predict the future reaction of the ECJ.  However could he manage that?

Military Security and the EU

The letter from retired Chiefs of the Defence Staff  in the Telegraph today argues that we can collaborate more effectively within the EU to confront challenges to European security.  Fine.  However, the letter goes on to say that "our firm veto over EU foreign policy decisions guarantees not only that we will never be forced to join EU initiatives that are against our strategic interest."  Indeed, but what is sauce for the goose also affects the gander and foreign affairs that are in British national interest could equally be vetoed by our EU colleagues.  Far from providing collective strength, EU foreign policy offers only a cat's cradle of national self-interest leading to inaction at worst and insipid compromise at best.  Better the alliance has served us well for over 50 years, NATO, in which we know exactly where we stand!

PS, at least they did not trot out the argument that the EU has been effective in putting out the fire in Ukraine that its own hubristic overtures started in the first place!

Dodgy Deal?

The new edition of The Spectator arrived this morning and added to the seemingly endless media speculation about the current Brussels negotiations. I was struck by the opening paragraph of the leading article:

"David Cameron's attempt to renegotiate Britain's membership has served as powerful reminder of  the case for leaving.  The EU is designed in such a way that almost no sensible proposal can be passed.  If one member state has a good idea, the other 27 members demand a price for approving it, or they demand concessions until it is completely watered down. If the leader of a country protests, the response is clear: What are you going to do? You wouldn't dare."

Quite, and if, as expected, some sort of "deal" is cobbled together later today, what should we do next?

On 23 January 2013, in his EU Speech at Bloomberg, David Cameron outlined his vision for Europe.  Many of us, subsequently classified as swivel-eyed loons who should be ignored by the MPs they assisted to elect, were placated.  We thought David Cameron should be given a chance and that should he be able to deliver meaningful change as outline in his speech then, maybe, he should enjoy our support.  He concluded his speech by saying:

"I know there will be those who say the vision I have outlined will be impossible to achieve. That there is no way our partners will co-operate. That the British people have set themselves on a path to inevitable exit. And that if we aren’t comfortable being in the EU after 40 years, we never will be.

But I refuse to take such a defeatist attitude - either for Britain or for Europe."

The draft agreement of the current negotiations has been described as "thin gruel" and "absolutely nothing." As I write, sticking points are being watered down to accommodate the stately dance so eloquently described in my quote from The Spectator.  It seems likely that there will be some sort of deal but it will rapidly unpick and be exposed as the elegant form of words that it is - an undeliverable and unenforceable load of Euro-babble.  Surely David Cameron could not insult our intelligence by trying to sell us such a dodgy dossier?  Time to admit defeat, honourably? And surely other good men of importance, hitherto holding their peace, who see the folly of tying ourselves to the mast of the sinking EU will now speak out effectively?

The rump of Selby & Ainsty with Elmet and Rothwell Conservative Party Forum, pending official sanction from the national organisation, meets next Tuesday to discuss our response to our respective MPs.  I look forward to a very lively meeting!

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?