LeaveHQ, 23/11/2015  
 


Much of the outrage over "EU regulation" stems from the classic eurosceptics idea from the 90's as long standing domestic regulatory codes were swept aside in favour of the new order. It was an expensive time for businesses any many did not survive. There was little flexibility in the rules and to compound the issue, our own government used it as an opportunity to consolidate various industries as it did with the British aerospace industry. It would be fair to say that those tough times cannot entirely be blamed on the EU.

But we are twenty years past that and there is no going back. New new rules are in teaching manuals, university syllabuses, and corporate governance. They're here to stay, The eurosceptic assertion that we can have a bonfire of red tape simply doesn't stand up to scrutiny. As much as sifting through them is a complex and expensive task in itself, the nature of modern regulation makes that a false economy.

Good regulation is the product of years of development and is authored by leading experts. Since many of the processes are the same wherever you go, there is good sense in creating a global forum for regulation so that each nation does not have to replicate such expertise only to arrive at largely similar conclusions. In many respects pooling of the regulatory process makes a lot of sense, cuts down on bureaucracy and saves us quite a lot of money. Modern developed economies wouldn't function without it and to diverge in regulation adds confusion and cost. 

If there was a battle to be fought in stopping it, it was twenty years ago. The eurosceptics comprehensively lost it. What matters now is making sure that we have adequate means of reforming regulation and a strong voice in shaping it. The best way to cut red tape is to reform it rather than abolish it. Divergence creates red tape of its own. 

That is why LeaveHQ takes a different pitch to the old guard. We have talked at length about the way in which regulations are now going global and that the EU is not the top table and is just as much a recipient of law as we are. Examining the consultation process shows that the EU routinely usurps our own influence in initiating reforms and often adopts law we would otherwise veto. 

We are no longer a heavy industry economy, we rely on intellectual innovations as our exports and thus industries can spring up out of nowhere. If we want to create the best trading environment for them then we need to be looking out for their interests at the global level and not waiting on the packed time table of the EU's diplomatic service. Our current relationship is a hindrance to our global agility and it is our view that all of Europe suffers for the lack of competitiveness.

In order to get the best for ourselves and Europe, Britain needs to be at the top tables looking after its own interests. What's good for London and our tech industry is good for all of Europe - and it is myopic of the EU not to recognise this. 

Every day we see more evidence of a global single market emerging. Today we see that China has signed up to the ILO convention on Maritime Labour, which is yet another move to achieve global regulatory harmonisation. We can expect to see more and more of these announcements in the coming months and years as the global single market builds and grows incrementally. Meanwhile the EU is still fixated on big bang all at one, deep and comprehensive trade deals, including demands for social reforms on nations ill equipped to implement them. 

As much as the classic eurosceptics are fighting battles of yesteryears, the EU is having similar difficulty accepting the modern paradigm. Just listening to the rhetoic of the Remain campaigns and we see that it is the narratives of yore about being at the top table, when they themselves are oblivious to the fact the EU is nowhere near the top table - and rather than Brexit being "walking away from the table", we, or at least LeaveHQ, is proposing we walk to much bigger tables where we can make our voice heard. 

The EU's own supranational ambitions mean that it will seek ever more presence in these global bodies that shape the modern world. If we remain in the EU we will see our direct access to the top tables diminish. And in so doing we will see less effective decision making as the process becomes more remote and more subject to the EU's own agenda rather than that of facilitating trade. 

Underlying the EU is an ethos that we cannot wield influence outside of the EU, and that democracy is a dangerous thing because we lesser mortals may choose a path other than theirs. As much as it is a bankrupt ideology, it is also one belonging to the previous century. 

The trend does lean toward regional trading blocs but only one operates on the basis of subordinating its members. The EU. It is an outdated construct born of the backward superstition that it is nations acting in their own interests that cause European wars. We cannot think of anything more likely to cause civil disturbances than peoples robbed of their ability to choose. It is a madness.

We would call on those who have yet to decide how they will vote to reject the offerings of the  europhile and eurosceptic dinosaurs. They are each fighting the 1975 referendum for a world that no longer exists. 

This referendum is not a Leave/Remain question. This is about the future. This is the moment where we collectively decide if we will let our politicians help drag this twentieth century idea along for another thirty years until the next referendum, patching it up along the way, or do we break with the old world and step into the new?

This referendum is about something more fundamental than simply whether we belong to this little club. We get to decide whether we are to be a driver or a passenger in the new global order. If we are subordinate to the EU at the top tables, we're sat in the back watching a Bob the Builder DVD with the kids rather than at the wheel where we belong. A vote to remain is a vote to abdicate our future to the euro-elites and to abandon our duty of vigilance, discarding democracy in the process. That would be a travesty. 

Britain has a long tradition of shaping the world and voting to remain in the EU is voting to throw in the towel. Such is a depressing thought. Are we really going to go out like this? Is our place in the world really as a subordinate to the Eurozone EU on a tight leash, asking for permission to go and get the best? That is not how we imagine Britain. We think Britain can, should and will do better. But first we have to leave the EU.






Log in




Sign THA

RBF