problem with politics is that taking a political line on something
means that somebody somewhere is going to vehemently disagree with you.
And on a subject as intensely political as the EU, even on our own side
there is going to be serious disagreement. That makes it all the harder
for LeaveHQ to please everybody.
It was never
the intent of this website to be a bland receptacle of eurosceptic
arguments, and even if it were, we would still be pushing a particular
line, thus we cannot always refrain from commenting on the activities of
other players - especially not when it runs counter to our own message.
According to the FT, "Small
business owners who want Britain to leave the EU cite red tape,
immigration and foreign competition as their main reasons for favouring
“Brexit”, a survey has shown. Three thousand entrepreneurs have signed up to support
Leave.eu, a group pressing for the UK to quit the EU in the forthcoming
referendum on membership."
This is an
example of asking questions to produce the answers you want then then
using your influence to plant it in the media. We take the view that
seeking such answers to prime the debate in the media is a tactical
In the first instance
immigration is going to be less of a factor as we run up to the
referendum. Much has been invested by the EU to slow the flow of
refugees and they will spend a great deal more to ensure it stays off
our screens in the run up to the vote. They have a way of pushing it down
Moreover, immigration is
the wrong battlefield to fight on. We comprehensibly lose the argument
when we fight on those grounds. Ukip's election defeat should be the
warning from history. We also note that a hard line on freedom of
movement removes two of the main Brexit option and will box us into an
exit strategy we cannot win with.
it is our own view that reducing regulation and opting for regulatory
divergence is a weak argument. At some point soon, the Remain forces
will get their act together and
start picking our case apart. If our case rests on implausible and
impractical assertions it will not go unnoticed.
The modern argument about regulation is our influence in the making of
it and our right of reservation, opt out and our veto. We have seen a
progressive takeover in this regard, with the EU muscling in and taking
our seat on global regulatory bodies and co-opting our vote - which means we get less of a say in how
they are made - and have a tougher time initiating updates and amendments. That is primarily why we must leave the EU.
The modern way to deregulate is to improve regulation and standardise
it. If we want better regulation then we need to be free of EU influence and engaging at the top tables.
We won't be hacking away the red tape and we won't be having a bonfire
of regulation. Modern developed economies do not function well without
regulation. The "regulation is bad" routine is an argument we will lose.
It has been remarked that we are
over intellectualising on this matter and that the public won't examine
the case in this much detail. That's true, but critics most certainly
will. Those opinion formers watching will report
to the public just how comprehensively our ideas have been dismantled
and there is no coming back from that.
don't have time to research their opinions and thus take their cues
from media and social media from those opinion-givers they trust.
Opinions trickle down through from the top and are battered around in
the crucible of public debate. If prestigious organisations wade in and
point out the obvious irregularities of such an approach then there are
no heavy hitters who can defend the case. We can't because we see no
value in it.
Moreover, the notion that we will start to hack away
at regulation automatically implies that we would leave the single
market. As much as this is politically improbable, the regulations are
not made by the EU and are made at the global level. To depart from such
regulatory codes would be disengaging from the global single market.
That makes life harder for importers and exporters. As an idea, it just
Leaving the single market is most likely economic
suicide, especially if we did it in a rush. More to the point, it is not
the single market we wish to leave. It is the political integration of
the EU that we want to pull away from so that we can have our own voice
in shaping the global single market.
The arguments put forth by
the main campaigns that we are anti-immigration and anti-regulation is
precisely the kind of old fashioned "little-Englander" message that is
anti-ethical to LeaveHQ thus we do not support and cannot endorse it. We
would urge Leave.EU to think again.
The intellectual argument is not one
we have the luxury of losing and we must avoid being perceived as
little-Englanders. We cannot convincingly say we want to "go global"
when the specifics of our collective message suggest otherwise.