Autonomous Mind has picked up on this and this, two pieces which explore the problems of leaving the European Union, and the perils of so doing.

In his piece, however, AM extends the critique to the performance of UKIP and, in particular, Nigel Farage. The issue of how we leave the EU, AM says, strikes at the heart of Farage's credibility as a politician and explains why he cannot and will not support UKIP with him as leader. He goes on to say:

Farage's stated position is that the UK should simply up and leave the EU. It is what UKIP says it would do if by some quirk of fate it found itself forming a government. It is a broad stroke of a policy that utterly fails to acknowledge or address the difficulty and consequences of doing so. It demonstrates that Farage has not only failed to grasp the issues at stake but staggeringly, nay, disturbingly, that he has no coherent strategy for extracting the UK from the EU in a manner that protects this country's economic and commercial interests.

Therein lies much of the problem with the eurosceptic community, for if UKIP, as the leading eurosceptic party, cannot offer a credible extract strategy, then the cause is in dire trouble.

View full article here

If we join EFTA, we can tap into all the free trade agreements they have already concluded. There would be very few nations not covered by those, but in the period that we negotiate with the EU under the Art 50 procedure, we will have to run parallel negotiations with those countries that fall through the gaps. As a longstop though, we always have WTO to fall back on.

I am less than impressed by the idea that we can go back to the Commonwealth. Countries like India and Pakistan are no longer natural partnets, and neither are many of the African countries. Rather than go back to the part, I would favour looking at the Cairns group, trying to build up a "third force" in between the EU and the US.

Richard, "UKIP does not "own" this issue, and if it cannot up its game, then it should admit its own incompetence and stand aside. At the moment, it risks doing more harm than good."

Stand aside for who? It's the emotive and the orator of the emotives that's driven this issue to it's present prominance, trying to replace the emotive with the factual and viz the krill analogy will put the desired endpoint back by 20 years at which point 90% will either be programmed or will have totally lost interest. The greatest achievments mankind have made is by concentrating on the concept and dealing with the detail later, if the detail is considered in many cases the concept gets abandoned. Great busnesses have been started on the concept, every detail considered is often a reason to abandon the concept. The eu is no different, it started on a concept, detail came later and this is the only way to end it.
I appreciate your "look before you leap" stategy but always be mindful of "Faint heart never won fair lady" Too much detail and it's dead in the water.

Richard poses some very interesting thoughts on the modus operandi of leaving the EU relatively painlessly.

That the public are beginning to see the ugly side of EU policies is a help and I am aware that true-blue Tories in my circle are wobbling severely. If Cameron has offended too many of them with issues like same-sex marriage and the migration from the EU becomes a painful problem UKIP may gain a huge victory at the 2014 European Elections.

However, UKIP do not have the organisation nor the funds to win (enough) seats 11 months later in the 2015 Parliamentary election to make a difference, so Labour will have a landslide victory and one cannot imagine them backtracking on the EU. The Tories may be forced by its own members and MP's to become a Nationalist party (which appears to have been Farage's aim all along) and join forces with UKIP but it will 2020 before they get a chance to test the public reaction. By that time the "colleagues" will have moved things on further.

Therefore, if UKIP (or other) were to develop Richard's suggestions they do not have the muscle to get into a position to implement them. We can point the finger at Farage for his selfish leadership, which has kept him in power but failed to develop a substantial election-fighting machine. But UKIP now blocks any alternative group.

There are various scenarios being enacted around the world which bear comparison. They all involve the citizens in revolt against their "leaders" and prepared to suffer pain and even death for their cause. Starting with the Club-Med countries like Greece and Spain, will the riots develop until these countries elect nationalist governments prepared to leave the EU ? We can watch developments there to see if they invoke Clause 50. Events in Syria have gone past riots until they now have Civil War with 60,000 dead. Northern Ireland suffered decades of terrorism until the Government was forced to concede some power to the south.

It is clear that the West in terms of the USA and Europe have lost the economic lead they had before WWII and that the lush lifestyle compared with Asia cannot be sustained. This will cause pain in the USA and Europe, especially the EU. I expect Italy, France, Portugal, Ireland, Cyprus to suffer further economic pain resulting in wholesale public resentment of the EU. The key is Germany's ability to prop up the EU. Personally, I do not believe that to be viable for more than a decade. Will the USA backed by a Germany-led EU then find themselves going head-to-head with China, first economically and then militarily ? Obama has moved already !

It will be a race to see whether the bankrupt EU can get all the national ducks in a line before it self-immolates.

I believe that the UK will see a leader from the North of England emerge to weld together the fomenting out of work masses into a movement capable of winnng parliamentary seats and simply putting two fingers up to the EU. They will have nothing to lose, unlike Farage.

As usual the Greeks supply the answer...just do what Alexander did to the Gordian Knot.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gordian_Knot

Telling people we can't leave for 5 or 10 years or more, because we have to obey rules is abject. We run a 16 billion pound trade deficit with the EU and are the 5th largest economy on earth, someone with a clipboard is not going to stop that..

If UKIP was not in place, another party would doubtless emerge to take on the eurosceptic mantle. To a greater or lesser extent, that is happening in most countries in Europe. Thus, there is no obvious successor to UKIP but, should it cease to exist, I am sure people would devise a replacement.

Edited by user 03 January 2013 18:45:52(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

If UKIP collapsed, it would take time for something else to form, with no guarantee it would be better run, or more focused. Much of this is about timing and it looks as if the next few years with the consolidation of the Eurozone will be critical. In most countries in Europe they have some sort of PR system which makes the formation of a new party easier.

My view is that with its many defects UKIP is a card in the hand we've been dealt and we have to play it, not the hand we would like to have been dealt. Timing is critical and there may not be another chance.

That's no reason not to criticise UKIP, but I don't see that its not being there would help.

Thank you for the outline Richard.

In looking to join EFTA though, are we also required to take on board a host of domestic legal requirements or would this simply be a trading arrangement agreeing reciprocal access to our own markets for agreed types of goods?

For instance it seems that most EFTA members are required to allow the free movement of people between their borders who form part of the EEA which appears may also in due course include Turkey. Instead Switzerland trades with Europe via bilateral agreements, rather than EFTA membership AFAIK.

I wonder whether we would also need to subscribe to EU policy in other areas outside of purely trade or free movement of people related issues. I think NAFTA is also a curate's egg for similar reasons.


Regarding the Commonwealth, I became interested in the idea for two reasons. Firstly the practical, in that it seems to offer some economic and strategic benefits, at least in some of its parts. That is why I have been intrigued to read a series of articles in the online magazine The Commentator, one here: http://www.thecommentato...th_a_route_to_prosperity

And secondly for the historical attachment reason. We have strong blood links with Australia, New Zealand and Canada (excl Quebec) but also an Anglophone sphere in many of the other members where if we can help to make parts of the Commonwealth more stable and attractive as nations, then there may be able to be worked some solution to the fact that parts of our own nation has come to sadly resemble instead parts of the Commonwealth. Bradford itself of course is one example here.

Edited by user 05 January 2013 11:55:59(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified