24/02/2014
I'm taking a look at
this nonsense today. It makes a change from the Somerset floods, although it takes a little time to change gear after such an intensive period of study that I've just undergone.
When I wrote the holding piece last night, I observed that we would have to take a gloves-off approach. People gripped by this wilful determination to pursue the idea of reform of the EU, in the face of all the evidence that it simply cannot happen, are clearly suffering from a mental illness. I decided to call it "reform psychosis".
Where this puts newspapers such as the
Express which slavishly follow the
Business for Britain dump, I don't rightly know, other than to demonstrate that there is a ready market for this particular brand of "red tape porn".
Earlier on, I've been handicapped in responding to such pieces, not wishing to give ideas away in the "Brexit" competition, as it is an article of faith amongst many writers that one of the great benefits of leaving the EU is the enormous amount of money we can save by scrapping all this burdensome EU red tape.
In fact, though, the actual amount we would save, at least in the short to medium term, is vanishingly small, not least because much of the legislation highlighted in these exercises tends to originate elsewhere than from the EU. In or out of the EU, we would still have to (or need to) implement the rules, so there would be very little change.
I've
pointed this out before when Matthew Elliott first tried out the list he produces today, but while I note that even Nigel Farage is beginning to notice the impact of international regulation, Elliott is either too thick or arrogant to take the point. Thus, there is no point in repeating the details. Like the
Open Europe Muppets with whom Elliott seems closely associated, he seems incapable of learning.
Mind you, Elliott and his fellow "reform psychotics" are of the belief that, if they bring to the attention of the wider public the supposed cost of EU regulation, this will strengthen their hands in their forlorn quest for reforming the EU.
The likes of the
Express though, along with UKIP which its supports, believe that such information will convince people that they should up sticks and leave the EU. Rarely has the same information been used for such widely different purposes.
While one can see how the psychotic mind can easily fall into the delusion of reform, it is less clear why the "outers" are so keen to fall into the same trap. After all, it is written into the DNA of UKIP that we should rejoin the wider world, and expand our trade internationally.
If we are to be international traders, however, that means accepting the expanding corpus of international regulation, the accumulation of which will, in the end, make the narrow entity of the EU's Single Market completely obsolete.
Counter-intuitively, therefore, a vital part of our "Brexit" strategy should be, in our view, to embrace international regulation, and to take an active part in its formation. Its very existence, handled correctly, wipes out any appeal the EU might have to the trading community.
Perhaps, though, that is why the likes of Elliott are so reluctant to acknowledge the existence of international regulation. They, after all, do not want to leave the EU. Therefore, they must maintain the fiction that the EU is responsible for most of our trading law.
After all, if it became more widely known that the larger part of the regulation on which our trade depends is made elsewhere than Brussels, and that there is no point in seeking "reform" in that quarter, as they have no power to make the necessary changes, then the case for reform â already so weak as to be on its death bed â takes a one-way trip to the crematorium.
Meanwhile, the "red tape porn" merchants continue to ply their trade, oblivious to the nuances, much less the reality of regulatory issues. Their task is not to explain, but to titillate its enfeebled audience. And, as long as no explanation is properly forthcoming, this is a game they can keep on playing for ever more.
