EU Referendum: not on our side

12/03/2016

To my knowledge, though, none of those who put that case seem to be keen to tell us what we should do about those who claim to be on our side yet whose interventions are so ill-considered that they do more damage to the cause than the opposition.

One wonders, therefore, at what stage a response might be considered appropriate, or how much we are supposed to suffer in silence while high-profile speakers actively undermine the "leave" case, and provide ready ammunition for the "remains" to use against us.

The context here is quite obviously the idiot Johnson who travelled yesterday to Dartford to make an ill-considered speech supposedly in support of the leave campaign, in which he argued that the UK could use the EU-Canada free trade agreement (CETA) as the UK Brexit model.

Never mind that this has already been demolished, effectively and with good cause, as an entirely inappropriate model, not least on the basis that it took nearly seven years to negotiate, and is still not yet in force – with serious reservations being expressed over its implementation.

Considering the widespread opposition in Canada to the deal, it is by no means certain that it will ever be ratified and, given its nature, there could be no certainty that it or anything like it could be acceptable to the UK public – even assuming that it would be on offer from the EU, which is unlikely.

The net effect of Mr Johnson's fatuous intervention, therefore, is to add to the confusion over where the "leave" campaign stands, and to confirm the view that it is unable or unwilling to come up with a coherent exit plan.

Those who would have us be tolerant of this stupidity might care to reflect that silence almost certainly allows claims of acquiescence and even support, despite our most profound opposition to these ill-thought-out ideas.

In this, there is also a curious double standard. We are supposed to be silent when confronted with such damaging activity – to avoid being "divisive" - yet no-one suggests that Mr Johnson is himself being divisive in making his facile statements without concern for the effects he might have, or the damage he is most certainly doing.

As much to the point, the shambolic approach of the "leave" campaign to a post-exit UK opens the way for charlatans such as Vince Cable, Anna Soubry and Chuka Umunna, who have the gall to accuse our campaign of having "dishonesty at its core".

These are people that represent a "remain" campaign that has poured out a torrent of lies ever since it started and who reply on a Prime Minister who is perpetrating a structured and quite deliberate deception on the British people, pretending that he has brought back a "binding treaty" from Brussels.

Yet, to compensate for the vacuity of the "remains", Mr Johnson has given them the free gift of yet another version of "out", and one that does not stand up to a nanosecond of scrutiny. This enables the Cable trio to assert, with some justice, that:

There is a particular problem with the Brexit campaign in as much as it involves different individuals who have clear but distinct views of what the alternative arrangements might be, which are more often than not inconsistent with each other. We are variously told that free of the shackles of Brussels we can have free markets, including free immigration, closed markets including less immigration, unrestrained capitalism or unrestrained socialism, a continued single market or an end to the single market.

Within that, we are told, the most widely promoted version of the "leave" campaign claims that Britain could retain its place in the EU's "free-trade single market" while not paying a penny into the EU budget, ending free movement and ignoring EU rules.

Rightly, they add: "No other country has such a deal or anything close to it and the French and German governments have been clear that they will not make such an exception for Britain".

In considering this, one further wonders whether Mr Johnson and his supporters in Vote Leave have actually understood that Canada is the other side of the North Atlantic, while all that separates us from mainland Europe is a narrow strip of water called the English Channel (or La Manche if you are on the wrong side of it).

Notwithstanding all the real limitations of the Canada deal, the crucial point – which is actually not so difficult as to prevent entirely Mr Johnson from understanding it – is that we are a near neighbour to the European Union bloc, and thus have far more in common than just a need to conclude a trade agreement.

Amongst many other things, we have a joint interest in managing airspace for the safe and economic transit of civilian airliners, we cooperate on maritime surveillance, better to regulate the flow of shipping through shared waters, and we jointly regulate radio and television frequencies to avoid conflict between services and to ensure equitable distribution of a limited resource, to say nothing of mobile telephones and telecommunications generally.

For better or worse, we have integrated our approval systems for medicines – human and veterinary – medical appliances, pesticides and hazardous chemicals. We have also integrated systems for the approval of road vehicles and aircraft, and both road and aviation safety are areas for joint action.

Our consumer safety systems and approvals have been harmonised, and so has our food safety, whence we enjoy a common (and efficient) safety monitoring system which keeps an eye on our global suppliers.

For worse rather than better, we are fully involved in the Galileo GPS programme, with a very heavy investment in the system – withdrawal from which would involve heavy losses. We are also deeply embedded in the European Defence Agency, which is managing the Airbus A-400 project, on which we depend for our next generation of military transport aircraft.

We work together formally on monitoring the flow of illegal narcotics into the region, and on drug addiction. We cooperate on occupational health and safety systems, research and enforcement, and on improving work environments.

On a wider scale, we work together on weather (and climate) research and monitoring, we have the major research programme and also the schools exchange programme (neither of which actually require EU membership), we are building a system of mutual recognition of professional qualifications – with a harmonisation programme in some specialities.

All these programmes, and many more – including joint action through the numerous executive agencies – far transcend the limited scope of the Canadian free trade deal, and any other deal with a non-neighbour. This makes for an extraordinarily complex relationship, with massive areas of cooperation and joint action that we would want to continue after we leave the EU.

The trade deal alone, therefore, is only the half of it, and that is without taking account the high-level arrangements on defence and foreign affairs, overseas aid, police and customs cooperation, and little matters like extradition – currently managed through the European Arrest Warrant.

Some (but only a fraction) of these issues bleed over into the Canadian deal, which is what makes it a "second generation" trade deal and why it took so long to negotiate (and why it is not yet implemented).

That the Canadian deal took nearly seven years reflects the reality of modern trade deals and, given that the degree of cooperation and integration between the UK and the rest of the EU far exceeds the scope of CETA, a blank sheet of paper exercise could easily take a decade or more, from start to finish.

Anyone who thus asserts that we can go to the table under the pressure of Article 50 negotiations, and expect to agree a massively complex deal which, effectively, amounts to unravelling 40-plus years of integration, and do it inside two years, is not quite right in the head.

For Mr Johnson thus to stand up in a warehouse in Dartford and prattle on about us looking to "strike a deal as the Canadians have done based on trade and getting rid of tariffs" is little short of moronic. It is almost child-like in its naivety and cannot even begin to represent a serious bid for a post-exit settlement. It is an insult to all of us who have worked so hard to give this campaign a sound intellectual grounding.

What then do we have to put up with this man-child prattling his inanities, and why should anyone begin to take him seriously – except the media which has degenerated to an advanced state of infantilisation?

On that basis, can it even be argued that this man is actually on our side? Anyone who takes the podium endowed with such profound ignorance, and inherent contempt for his audience that he does not research his subject or prepare his ground, does not deserve to be treated with respect or any consideration.

When it comes to the vote – when people are in the voting booth - they will be asking themselves whether it is safe to mark the "leave" box. And all this vacuous, vain, facile little man did yesterday was add to the confusion which will make it all the less likely that people will vote in our favour.

In my view, not by any measure is this man on our side. We need to be rid of him – there is nothing he can say or do which is of any value to us. His toxic combination of stupidity, arrogance and vanity is something we can do without.