Wisdom from our forebears "A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush" proverb "[He] warns the heads of parties against believing their own lies" Dr John Arbuthnot (1667-1735) "Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one." Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds,Charles Mackay, preface to 1852 edition"Just the place for a Snark!" the Bellman cried,As he landed his crew with care;Supporting each man on the top of the tideBy a finger entwined in his hair."Just the place for a Snark! I have said it twice:That alone should encourage the crew.Just the place for a Snark! I have said it thrice:What I tell you three times is true." The Hunting of the Snark, Lewis Carroll ". they display in particular only a slight aptitude for reasoning, the absence of a critical spirit, irritability, credulity, and simplicity. In their decision, moreover, is to be traced the influence of the leaders of crowds and the part played by . affirmation, repetition, prestige and contagion.
" Psychology of Crowds,Gustave le Bon, ''Electoral crowds''IntroductionThis book grew out of some private research about Britain''s relationship with Europe. Given the risks to the British economy, to the unity of the United Kingdom and to European cooperation, I thought it useful to investigate further. My aim is to provide information and enable the reader to draw logical conclusions, and therefore I have avoided an academic study.Chapter 1 is the key that unlocks the door and therefore the main part of the book. It explains the options that Britain has. These options need to be understood more widely, because the particular course of action chosen by the government leaving everything and trying for a quick, comprehensive free-trade agreement seems dangerous and risky. Because these options are so important, they appear first, with the supporting detail following in later chapters.Chapter 2 discusses Britain''s trade issues in more detail and shows how errors and misconceptions have surfaced.
Chapter 3 covers the non-trade factors, notably how to reunite the United Kingdom following the divisive referendum campaign. Chapter 4 deals with Britain''s mishandled relationship with Europe, chapter 5 looks at the state of the UK and chapter 6 summarises the main points and deals with the political issue.The anti-establishment feeling that is now manifesting itself throughout Europe, as in the United States, can be traced to the failure of Keynesian economic stimulus as the limit to debt creation is reached, together with a new economic cycle driven by central bank monetary policies. I call the limit to debt creation the "financial system limit" and the reader will find this and related economic topics discussed in my other books.In recent months, there have been many claims and counter-claims about the merits of particular relationships between Britain and the rest of Europe. One particularly unusual claim is that Britain will be better off, because countries lacking free-trade agreements with the EU have shown faster growth rates. The claim is based on published statistics, but the countries leading the "we did better" pack are generally low-wage low-price economies: Bangladesh, China, Russia, India, Nigeria, Malaysia, Brazil, Thailand, Indonesia, as examples. Britain is not a low wage economy seeking to industrialise through bargain-basement prices.
As the rising rate of resignations of European doctors and nurses from the NHS has shown, Britain has much to lose from its present infrastructure. The argument that Britain can walk away without economic damage lacks context.The evidence presented in this book shows that Britain should stay inside the single market and inside the customs union. If you disagree with this analysis, do at least read this book to understand why Britain has such difficult choices to make.David KaudersApril 2017 1 Britain''s optionsAlthough the British people spoke on 23rd June 2016 and said "we don''t feel European", it has become clear that the voting public and those spearheading the Vote Leave campaign were confused about what they voted for. There was no plan because Vote Leave did not expect to win and neither Brexiters nor the civil service had anything in place.Despite the appearance of a return to normality with a new British prime minister, there is little evidence that anyone has a clue about what Britain should do now to prevent future economic damage from loss of trade. This chapter sets out a view of what the options appear to be.
Two of the options are fairly standard in terms of European law and existing arrangements between nations; two others need individual design.A good leader will get all alternatives out into the open and attempt to quantify each one of them. Good strategy can be formed by balancing the quantitative case with the qualitative, political and emotional cases before taking any action.The four options are:"Hard Brexit", a complete break with the European Union.A "loose arrangement" requiring continuing negotiation which attempts to mitigate the worst problems with Hard Brexit."Soft Brexit", staying in the single market as a non-EU associate (which may be inside or outside the EU customs union) this is sometimes called "Brexit-lite."A Close Association agreement within the single market and customs union.Timetable for the UK to leave the EUArticle 50 of the Lisbon treaty was drafted in the expectation that it would never be used.
The opening words are:"Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements."A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention. In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union."The key words here are "shall negotiate and conclude an agreement . taking account of the framework for its future relationship." This means that negotiations about the future relationship ought to be separate from exit negotiations.Britain has given notice that it is leaving the EU, using Article 50 of the Lisbon treaty that set the two-year exit clock running. Britain has now lost negotiating power, which is why the rest of the EU have said "no negotiations until you give Article 50 notice.
"Article 50 goes on to specify that the remaining member states will decide what terms to offer, which can then be agreed by qualified majority in the European council and approved by the European parliament. This prevents any one EU member state blocking them, although the parliament might do so. However, negotiating Britain''s ongoing relationship may need a new treaty between the United Kingdom and the other 27 EU member states, which would give every one of the 27 a blocking vote and could take more than a year to ratify once negotiated. This means that such an arrangement must not disrupt any key EU principle such as the four freedoms (see chapter 2), nor must it fall foul of national politics such as Spain''s desire not to encourage separatist movements. It should be obvious that the increasing climate of distrust between London and Brussels makes the chance of negotiating such a treaty and ratifying it within two years rather low. This strengthens the case for being clear about what Britain wants, and obtaining support for it throughout the United Kingdom. It also strengthens the case for the simplest possible Brexit. Otherwise, the remaining 27 member states may spin the process out, refuse any extension, and leave Britain with nothing.
Option 1, a complete break with the EU: "Hard Brexit"The first option is to completely exit the EU, including exiting the single market. There will be only limited negotiation, because the terms will be forced upon Britain. This option would cause obvious disruption: no free movement from exit day, so no passporting of services, which would send work for banks, insurers and airlines straight to other countries, damaging industries relying on imported labour (construction, food processing, security guards, cleaners and care workers) and resulting in even longer waiting times for National Health Service (NHS) appointments as staff depart or choose not to come to Britain to further their careers.This is the option favoured by UKIP and the extreme right wing of the Conservative party. It causes the maximum damage to Britain''s trade, because changing from European trading partners to distant nations will be extremely disruptive for a decade or more.Hard Brexit and the single marketBritain currently has no tariffs or quota barriers on trade with the other 27 EU member states and the three countries that also are parties to the EEA Agreement, i.e. Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein (the single market).
The "Hard Brexit" proposal is to abandon free trade with these 30 countries, hoping to replace this with new free-trade, or nearly free-trade, agreements, both in Europe and elsewhere in the world. Since exports of goods and services to 27 of these 30 countries account for around 12.9% of Britain''s GDP (the share of Britain''s economy, not of its exports, see chapter 2), it should be obvious that any failure to replace free trade with identical volume and value of free trade within the single market or elsewhere, would damage Britain''s economy. World trade is no longer expanding, so anything that reduces Britain''s share of EU trade will give someone else an advantage. This is one reason why some EU member states would be glad to be rid of Britain; Britain''s loss would be their gain.There is a basic problem with Hard Brexit. At 12.9% of GDP, Britain''s exports of goods and services to the EU exce.