British Prime Minister Theresa May outlined her government’s vision for Brexit in a speech delivered in Florence on September 22. In a bid to breathe new life into ongoing UK-EU negotiations, she presented proposals regarding the rights of EU citizens living in the UK, the length of a “transition period” after 2019, and the sum Britain might pay during that period. Rather than inspiring counterproposals or constructive criticism from EU leaders, May’s speech generated little more than the same refrain repeated from Brussels since negotiations began: that more “clarity” was needed, and that “sufficient progress” would have to be made before talks could advance. This lacklustre, somewhat apathetic EU position does not look like the result of sincere consideration of May’s proposals, or a constructive attitude towards the talks. Rather, it looks a lot more like a deliberate tactic to either prevent Brexit, or punish Britain.

Some might find this approach perplexing. After all, is it not in both parties’ interests to negotiate a mutually-beneficial outcome? Not necessarily…

To better understand Brussels’ foot-dragging in Brexit talks, it helps to understand the incentives driving it. First and foremost, the EU is a political union. Economic, social, or environmental considerations may all have contributed to the appeal of ever-closer union, but they remain secondary to the very political objective of federal statehood. Indeed, from the days of Jean Monnet and Robert Schuman at the dawn of European integration, to more the more recent mandates of José Manuel Barroso, Viviane Reding, or Guy Verhofstadt, the goal of a pan-European nation state is no secret.

Grasping that European statehood is the EU’s ultimate objective is essential for the UK government’s Brexit Secretary David Davis and his team of negotiators as they engage with their counterparts. It means that, no matter how amenable the UK is to facilitating trade or subsidizing the EU’s budget, the bottom line in Brussels remains the preservation of their political project. The win-win economic gains desired by the UK are not necessarily desired by the EU, for whom a successful Britain would signal there is no longer any economic appeal to remaining in the bloc. A strong UK economy poses an existential threat to European integration.

This explains why trade negotiations have not even begun, despite both parties already sharing near-identical norms and regulations. It is also why the EU seems in no rush to maintain access to the UK’s large consumer market, with Britons buying more from the EU than the other way around. In order to preserve the union, the EU’s only options are to ensure the UK remains inside, or fails outside.

When seen through this lens, the whole exercise of negotiating seems futile. Of course, Britain is right to try, as it shows good faith as good neighbours. But in order to make the most of Brexit, the UK government needs to radically shift its focus to the next chapter of its national history, rather than dwell on the previous one. As championed by major figures in the Leave campaign, Britain should embrace the opportunities afforded to it by its newfound freedom to trade with the world. With Japan, Australia, the United States, Canada, New Zealand and others eager to engage with the UK after it leaves, Whitehall resources would be better spent solidifying the relationships of tomorrow, rather than appeasing the relationships of yesterday.

The good news is that many in Britain already understand this. Recent commentaries by cabinet ministers David Davis, Boris Johnson, and Liam Fox suggest they are well aware of the EU’s motivations. The question is, will the rest of the cabinet, and indeed the rest of Parliament follow their lead and make the most of the incredible opportunities offered by Brexit; or will they remain fixated on negotiations with a counterpart that wants them to fail?

This article is from The Eurosceptic

Veterans for Britain, supported by the Bruges Group, bring an urgent message to Manchester on Monday 2 October: we need full Brexit for defence and an end to recent UK commitments to the EU that have a nasty sting in the tail.

Since the Brexit vote, the UK has given a green light to the juggernaut of EU military schemes on the understanding we would be outside of them.

However, government position papers incredibly propose STAYING IN joint EU schemes on military finance, research and assets.

The schemes, which have never been voted on by MPs, would mean the UK staying in EU Common Defence Policy, the European Defence Agency and even EU defence procurement directives. Norway is the only non-EU country in the schemes and was obliged to accept these rules.

The PM has rightly declared the UK’s unconditional commitment to Europe’s defence via NATO.

However, we fear that MPs and ministers are not aware of the full implications of a Norway-style military union agreement. Many civil servants are aware of these implications and are pushing for UK entry relentlessly.

At the same time as these new EU military finance and structure schemes are being agreed, the EU is growing the remit of its Common Security and Defence Policy in a way that consolidates its control over EU Council-agreed military responses. The EU’s new military HQ, the MPCC, which UK diplomats tried in vain to change, is just a small part of this.

The EU is also tightening defence asset production rules to make an EU defence market in which member state governments will find it impossible to protect domestic defence jobs and industry eg Scottish shipyards in the UK’s case.

Sadly, the Government’s National Shipbuilding Strategy of September 2017 fully adheres to the latest EU rules in cross-border defence tendering – clearly anticipating a future where the UK would need to comply.

It is essential that at the Conservative Party Conference in Manchester delegates are made aware of the risk to Scottish shipyards, particularly Ruth Davidson and her Scottish Conservatives team. The UK is heading towards a scenario where it is dictated by these EU procurement rules which will only become more assertive when the UK is fully committed to them.

‘Dodging the EU bullet’

Speakers: Major-General Julian Thompson, Colonel Richard Kemp, Captain Will Carver & Geoffrey Van Orden MEP

Monday 2nd Oct 11.00 at Manchester Town Hall, Albert Square, Manchester, M60 2LA

For more info on the commitments made by the UK to the EU military juggernaut and the risks posed from the proposal to stay in them, see:

http://veteransforbritain.uk/dexeus-defence-partnership-paper-is-a-grave-mistake-and-gives-the-eu-control/

and

https://www.brugesgroup.com/blog/the-uk-is-stuck-in-a-quagmire-over-eu-defence-union

“People have only as much liberty as they have the intelligence to want and the courage to take.”

― Emma Goldman

The name of a quiet medieval town in Hungary – Visegrad – has in recent times become synonymous with the word “rebellion” in Brussels.

The Visegrad Group, also known as the Visegrad Four, or V4, is a cultural and political alliance of four central European states, comprising, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland and Slovakia, for the purpose of furthering their European integration, as well as for advancing military, economic and energy cooperation with each other. They have always been part of a single civilization sharing cultural and intellectual values and common roots in diverse religious traditions, which they wish to preserve and further strengthen. They have now emerged as the greatest modern defenders of European civilisation by undertaking to deploy armed forces to protect their borders.

The Visegrad Four have mounted their fiercest revolt against the European Union in the matter of the European compulsory allotment of refugees for resettlement throughout the Schengen Agreement, a passport-free arrangement involving most of the EU states.

Now these nations are increasingly consolidating as a bloc and challenging the liberal-internationalist leadership of the European Union, which had traditionally been dominated by Western countries. The Visegrád bloc is increasingly articulating an alternative “conservative” vision of what Europe should be.

The Brexit vote was a shock to the EU, and while it reinforced the V4’s presence, it offered them an opportunity to press for their own interests in Europe. Gradually, Visegrád governments are becoming policy-shapers rather than policy-recipients.

The EU’s inability to handle the immigration crisis, combined with a tilt in the power structure within the Union after the Brexit vote and increasingly bellicose and eurosceptic leaders in Hungary and Poland, has thrust the group to the fore.

Now the EU seeks to force these unlawful immigrants compulsorily on member states in what they call “redistribution”, with heavy fines for non-compliance. This is the sort of punitive action that only occupation governments impose on defeated nations. (Council Decision (EU) 2015/1523, supra.) Denmark and the ex-EU member, the United Kingdom, are not participating in this decision.

In spite of all, the EU has no right to ‘blackmail’ these countries!

The Visegrád leaders have made their voices heard on the EU stage.

CZECH REPUBLIC

The Czech government opposes an EU quota system to redistribute asylum seekers. “Our country simply cannot afford to risk terrorist attacks like those that occurred in France and Germany. By accepting migrants, we would create fertile ground for barbaric attacks,” Jiri Ovcacek said. The president does not agree with any acceptance of migrants in the Czech territory. How can anybody blame them?

POLAND

Poland’s Minister of Justice delivered a scathing response to European Union bureaucrats who are attempting to bully the staunchly anti-migrant country as the battle over ‘refugee resettlement’ quotas rages on.

“I’d like to ask Mr. Timmermans to stop speaking with such insolence and arrogance about Poland, and to Poles, and to the Polish authorities because we deserve respect.”

We expect and demand respect.” Polish Minister of Justice Zbiegniew Ziobro retorted.

Forget that, my friend, you cannot get anything better than that from the arrogant European Union! It is evident that the arrogance of Barroso has been inherited and is seeping through the ranks of the whole European Union.

SLOVAKIA

Slovakia, with the support of other eastern member states, went to the European court to block the EU decision to relocate 120,000 Syrian and other asylum seekers. EU judges ruled that even those countries that voted against the plan were bound by law to implement the quota scheme. The Slovak people, in their massive uprising against the usurpation of their homeland, shouted: “Slovakia for the Slovaks” and to the immigrants: “Avoid our country”, while burning the EU flag.

HUNGARY

“Hungary has violated the EU's basic values and should be expelled from the Union”, Luxembourg's Foreign Minister

Jean Asselborn, Luxembourg's Foreign Minister, stated also the accusation. “Hungary has attacked the independence of the judiciary", But the Maltese government has been playing around with the judiciary for years and nobody said anything, or even noted. No need to sing you a lullaby to go back to sleep, I suppose. Mr. Asselborn! I guess you never woke up!

But Croatia has likewise refused access and passage to illegal immigrants.

“No more Third World invaders will be allowed to pass through the territory of Croatia”, its president has announced.

“Croatia will not let migrants pass through its territory, because the borders of neighboring countries are closed and Croatia needs to protect its territory,” she said.

“However, we have to be prepared, and not depend on anyone else,” she continued. “We should be ready to protect our territory and borders.”

So, will Croatia also be kicked out of the European Union?

EU officials have suggested engaging with the “more reasonable” elements within the V4 – Slovakia and the Czech Republic – to separate them from Poland and Hungary whenever possible. The EU should be ashamed of its ‘divide and rule’ policy! Hungarian prime minister, Viktor Orbán, has warned that the EU is targeting Poland as a warning to all others who might follow their lead in standing up to the tyrannical superstate. Haven't we all seen this before…, in the case of Brexit??

If anyone still entertains any doubts about the profoundly undemocratic, totalitarian, authoritarian and arrogant nature of the European Union, one has only to note the treatment that the EU is dishing out against Britain following its decision to quit the EU. This was one of the main reasons that made the British just vote 'leave'.

“Europe is lost.” Rabbi urges Spanish Jews to flee Europe for Israel before it’s too late

“Eritrean migrants warn Germans their days are numbered.”

Austria Police: Dye Blonde Hair Dark and avoid travelling on public transport at night to avoid being attacked by nonwhite invader “refugees.” These are a massive disgusting insults.”

Israel will forcibly deport all non-Jewish illegal aliens after Court ruling

“We don’t want to become Greece. That’s the monster in the corner that you don’t want to become.”

“Ninety percent of all nonwhite invaders entering Europe are using criminal networks and forged documents”, a joint Europol-Interpol report has found.

“What our politicians are giving away now, took over a thousand years to build.”

Do you want this? Not so fast! Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic and Slovakia - so often lumped together in a Euroskeptic club, hostile to closer EU integration, wary of domination by big Western European countries like Germany, and wary of accepting migrants, especially Muslims, don't want it! ‘No refugees, No terror’, they sustain. Definitely also the Austrians really are not so craven and brow-beaten as to accept this.

Why do only these sane man “get it”? What the heck is really going on? Why are so many fools bent on destroying their own nations? It can not be just stupidity, no one can be actually THAT stupid. There is an agenda somewhere for some nefarious reason!!!

Curiously, it is evident that in our tiny, or rather miniscule, island of Malta, none seem to think or bother where this issue is leading us, as no government proves to have the nerve to inform and protect our people from this impending catastrophe. Can Malta be even certain whether it could meet its obligations even if it wanted to? The amount, according to the quota for Malta, would be considerably higher always dependent on the total influx of illegal immigrants entering Europe. Are we supposed to turn our citizens' brains into pink balloons? Are we to be robbed of our identities and memories and to be stunted and rendered devoid of political reflection? None shouted, “Hands off Malta”. Greece is Europe's dumping ground for illegal immigrants and Malta has become a trash can!

Too bad the rest of the world didn’t get the message. How dare do these people use common sense! Don’t they know it’s against EU policy to look after your people and make good decisions! They’ll be invaded by the European army to prevent this common sense tool from spreading to other EU figure-heads, lest they become leaders and find the guts and the courage to stand up.

But it is the political trajectory of “the Visegrad Four that could prove the European Union’s undoing!

Merkel invited the third-world to Germany. She then over-rode the EU’s requirement for asylum application in country of entry. She was not authorised to take such a step.

Her action has been ruled unlawful by a German court.

The basic problem is that you can't send refugees rescued in the Mediterranean back to Libya. They can only be brought to a safe haven. Attempts by Germany to find refuge for them in Tunisia or Egypt were rejected by those countries. And Libya hasn't been safe since the days when European bombs helped to topple Gaddafi's regime, nullifying the treaty on refugees which was similar to the one between the EU and Turkey. Western Europe opened the door to this mess and is now powerless to close it again.”

In the first place, do the countries of the Visegrad Group bear any responsibility for the economic backwardness and exploitation which the under-developed and developing countries inherited and which is still prevailing by their colonial past?

Secondly, have these countries ever waged or are waging war in these poor countries, or perhaps instigated internal conflict for selfish ends, as the other Western countries are constantly doing?

Thirdly, they have never practiced nor do they practice any economic exploitation of any countries whatsoever.

But that is another sorrowful story, which surely must be tackled in full later. At least, suffice it to say that African farmers are being condemned into prolonged poverty by EU trade rules and Africa is being starved into submission by its historical trading partners, first and foremost, the European Union.

It is not clear, considering all, how Brussels will be able to hypocritically force those countries to take in refugees against their will. 

Some EU members, including Austria, Hungary, Slovenia, Spain, France and the initially welcoming Denmark and Sweden, have reacted by practically suspending the Schengen Agreement and reinstating border controls.

Perhaps it would be more beneficial for them if the Visegrad nations, together with Austria and other east/central Europe states, would split off from the EU and form their own separate free trade zone.

Finally, please permit me to quote the noble thought expressed by the illustrious Thomas Paine; "If there must be trouble, let it be in my day, that my children may have peace", which I humbly try to emulate.

“If you truly want to be respected by people, you must prove to them that you can survive without them.”

― Michael Bassey Johnson

Joseph M. Cachia

Freelance Journalist

Email: jmcachia@maltanet.

Pone: 99866151

Malta

Since Theresa May's Lancaster House Speech in January of this year, two new Project Fears have sprung up. The first (from The Labour Party, EFTA4UK, Liberal Leave, Leave HQ and Dr Richard North) states that “We need to remain members of the EU's internal market after we officially leave the EU”, even though there are over 50 countries outside of the single market which have free access to it via free trade agreements. The second (from Nick Boles, Lord Hague and Chancellor Philip Hammond) states that “We need to have a transitional period of up to four years during which time we would still be members of the single market and the customs union”.

Before we pay these campaigns and their claims any attention, we should bear in mind just how wrong the previous Project Fears, which were often run by the very same people, really were.

The first Project Fear said “We need to join the European Economic Community (EEC or so-called 'Common Market') and, if we do, we'll export more to the EU”. The exact opposite has happened – we've exported less and less to the EU and, in 2016, we had a record high trade deficit with the EU of £78.1 billion. The second said “We need to join the European Exchange Rate Mechanism (ERM)” but this was then a disaster for us and led to Black Wednesday. The third said “We need to join the Euro and, if we don't, London's business will grind to a halt”. The exact opposite has happened. The fourth said “We need to stay in the EU and, if we don't, there'll be a recession in the immediate aftermath of a leave vote”. We've instead had record levels of prosperity since the Brexit vote.

All of Project Fear's economic predictions were wrong except, I will admit, for their prediction about sterling. They correctly predicted that there would be a significant fall in the value of the pound sterling in the immediate aftermath of a leave vote and the pound has fallen in value by about 15% on average. However, remoaners seem to want to think that the value of the pound is the only, or at least the main, indicator of the strength of the UK economy. This is, as any economist will tell you, nonsense. There are other indicators such as the FTSE 100, the FTSE 250, our output, our exports, our unemployment rate, the amount of foreign direct investment we attract and the rate of our economic growth which are equally as important, if not more important, than the relative value of sterling. All of these factors must together be taken into account before a judgement can be made on the strength of the UK economy.

The FTSE 100 has hit four new record highs since the Brexit vote: in December 2016 (6 months after the Brexit vote), in January 2017 (7 months after the Brexit vote), on 1st March 2017 (9 months after the Brexit vote and 2 months after the Brexit plans' release) and on 17th March 2017 (9 months after the Brexit vote and 2 months after the plans' release). The FTSE 250, which is widely acknowledged as being the best gauge of domestic economic sentiment, also reached a record high on 15th February 2017 (8 months after the Brexit vote and a month after the revelation of the Brexit plans). I include the relative timings in brackets as remoaners constantly told us in the months after Brexit that the reason why there still hadn't been a recession due to Brexit was because the Government hadn't revealed its position on the single market and the customs union and as Article 50 hadn't been invoked yet. However, a year and three months after the Brexit vote, eight months after the Government revealed its Brexit plans in the Lancaster House speech and six months after the invoking of Article 50, we are still waiting for this recession.

We were told that, after a vote to leave, unemployment would rise by 9,000 per month for the rest of 2016 but unemployment has actually fallen by almost exactly that amount and is now at a record low of just 4.4% - the lowest level since 1975. We were told that we would experience two successive quarters of negative economic growth but we actually grew faster in the six months after the Brexit vote than we did in the six months leading up to the vote. At the end of 2016, we finished up as the most successful major economy in the entire world, the fastest growing economy in the entire of the western world and the fastest growing economy in the G7.

The Department for International Trade has attracted £15.8 billion of foreign direct investment (FDI) from August last year to January this year and the UK still attracts more FDI than any other country in the whole of Europe. Since the Brexit vote, we've seen a record increase in financial services trading figures and a record increase in service industries growth. As of 30^th June 2017 the UK attracted more FDI in financial services than any other country in the whole of Europe. Developers have continued to press ahead with the construction of more office spaces in London, showing fears of a post-Brexit business exodus (a so-called “Brexodus”) to be yet more scaremongering. UK car sales increased by 3.3% and reached their highest level in 2016 after the Brexit vote. Cake and cheese exports have both increased by 25% since the Brexit vote and the UK now exports more food, drink, bread, cakes, pastries and biscuits than it ever has before. Over the last year UK exports increased by 11.5%. As of 31st July last year, 27 non-EU countries with a combined GDP of over £40 trillion reportedly already wanted to sign new trade deals with the UK once it has left the EU and this potential market rather dwarfs the EU’s internal market which is worth only about £12 trillion.

Even if we are to take the value of the pound sterling in isolation, the remoaners are far from telling the whole story. Firstly, they all just presume that they can *know* for certain that the devaluation was indeed *caused* by the Brexit vote alone. Correlation does not, however, prove causation - it could just be a coincidence or other factors could be involved. Jacob Rees-Mogg MP has pointed out that both the OECD and the IMF said before the referendum that the value of the pound was too high - even strong remainer Ken Clarke MP has admitted this. Lord (Mervyn) King, the former Governor of the Bank of England, has said that the devaluation is a welcome fact. Therefore, a devaluation was only a matter of time and the Brexit vote merely brought forward this already-inevitable devaluation. The columnist Peter Hitchens foresaw a devaluation way before the referendum and states that the devaluation has nothing to do with the Brexit vote and would have also happened if we had voted to remain.

However, remoaners go on to presume that this devaluation has only been a negative thing for the UK economy. This is false. It has not led to out of control inflation as many predicted - inflation actually fell in October of last year, 4 months after the Brexit vote. Jacob Rees-Mogg has pointed out that the last two significant devaluations before the Brexit vote (in 1931 and in the early 1990s) both resulted in lasting periods of prosperity and rising living standards. News of the devaluation has been happily received by UK exporters who have said that the value of the pound has been too high for too long. The devaluation has made their exports cheaper and more competitive relatively-speaking and has consequently increased demand for our exports overseas. In fact, in September of last year, UK exports reached their highest level in 20 years. Finally, remoaners are always negative and pessimistic about our chances of getting a good free trade agreement with the EU agreed by midnight on 29th March 2019. However, even in the most unlikely and worst-case scenario of there being no Brexit deal at all by then, the average ~15% devaluation would easily dwarf an average most-favoured nation (MFN) goods tariff with the EU of just 5%.

Brexit could hit UK travellers like a summer storm. But don’t fret – it’s not all bad. Although it is deemed likely that travellers will needs a visa to travel around Europe, mobile roaming data charges are set to be scrapped entirely across the board. If you plan on travelling around Europe this summer, make sure you apply for an E111 card or renew it if you haven’t already to ensure you are eligible to receive medical treatment away.

With the UK scheduled to begin with the process to depart from the European Union under Article 50 at the end of March, it’s time to consider how it could affect your holiday:

Duty-free

Rules regarding duty and tax-free product are likely to make a comeback. Since 1999, travelling within Europe meant that people held no rights against duty or tax-free purchases. But, the separation of Britain and the European Union could mean that the rule is bought back into practice. So if you rely on buying cheap alcohol or tobacco, you will have to revert to buying products in limited quantities just like all non-EU countries.

The EHIC scheme

One of the many perks of being part of the EU is The European Health Insurance Card, more commonly known as the EHIC or E111 card. The card entities all EU citizens to access public health care whilst abroad, on the same basis as citizens of that country. All travellers carrying the EHIC card are eligible for almost free treatment. When the UK leave the EU, this form of healthcare will be scrapped, and a new scheme will be put into practice. For the time being, there’s no need to worry. You will still be able to use your EHIC card abroad. There will be no immediate effect to how you can use it.

Value for money

Since the second day of Brexit negotiations, the pound weakened. The sterling is predicted to be volatile due to the uncertainty of the outcome. Be aware that some airport currency suppliers have the worst rates in the country, even if you place an order in advance. To save money, don’t buy your currency at the airport. You can find some of the best currency exchange rates online.

The weakened pound may result in increased flight prices. If you have already paid for your holiday, you have already protected yourself. For now, it will only affect those paying for accommodation abroad in other currencies, such as Euros. Visiting good value destinations will help you save money. Currently, two of the most cost-effective destinations are Mexico and Tokyo. Despite seeing inflation rise in the UK, most holiday destinations have seen little, if not no change since 2016.

Until the UK officially completes the leaving process no changes will be made. The good news is that this will be no sooner than two years’ time, so people like yourself are still able to hop between the UK and EU countries.

With the Brexit negotiations in full flow, Britain is looking for a way to make the transition away from the European Union run as smoothly as possible while ensuring that Brexit happens unimpeded. There are two possible exits. The first is a clean cut that will come into effect on 29th March 2019. The second option is to negotiate a transition deal that will allow Britain to disengage with the EU over a designated period of time. Here on The Bruges Group we have examined how trade can successfully continue outside of the Single Market. It is just a case of how we get there. In this article we look at the advantages and disadvantages of a transitional deal.

For a Transitional Deal

A big concern amongst some leave voters is that Britain is heading towards a cliff edge scenario where no agreement or deal is reached. Many political and business commentators believe that this would leave Britain in a precarious position as all EU laws and regulations would suddenly cease. It is estimated that over 700 treaties have to be renegotiated, ranging from the airline industry to Britain’s nuclear agreement (Euratom), with the EU. With less than two years till the Article 50 deadline there is a strong argument that it isn’t feasible to negotiate every deal in time. This could leave many UK businesses in difficult positions, as they have to suddenly change from one set of regulations to another.

British trade minister and prominent leave advocate Liam Fox has pushed for a transitional deal. The Irish Times reported that Fox told Andrew Marr that a deal of around two years was necessary to give businesses the chance to adapt. He is quoted as saying: “I want to leave the European Union at the end of March 2019. Now once we have done that, once we have fulfilled our promise to the British people, we can look to see what we are going to do in terms of making that a smooth transition… whether that’s 23 [months], whether that’s 25 [months]." The trade minister reassured leave voters by stating that the transition period would have a limited time scale.

Against a Transitional Deal

There are valid fears that a transitional deal could be used by remainers to keep Britain locked into many EU regulations including the Single Market and Customs Union. Business Insider predicts that a transitional deal could be based on the EEA model which would allow free movement of citizens and require Britain to remain under the European Court of Justice. With Britain replicating the EEA model, remainers in the government could use it as a base to push for a permanent EEA status.

The British Government recognises that the British public voted for a clean cut. FXCM notes that May has clearly laid out the terms of Brexit: “Let me be clear. We are not leaving the European Union only to give up control of immigration again. And we are not leaving only to return to the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice.”

A transition deal could also hinder Britain’s ability to make trade deals with nations outside of the EU. If Britain cannot negotiate trade agreements during the transition, due to EU regulations, businesses in the UK would face even longer uncertainly. For Brexit to be successful. Britain must be able to trade globally without EU interference.

Barely one year after the Brexit referendum, and under four months since the triggering of Article 50, the Financial Times has published a “democratic case for stopping Brexit”, adding to a crescendo in overt calls to upend the exit process. How did we get here? The whole point of the EU referendum, just like the Scottish referendum before it, was to bury a longstanding and contentious political issue. In both cases, this has not been so.

In the case of Scotland, it is clear that the opportunism of the nationalists was to blame for reviving the independence issue. Similarly, in the case of Brexit, it is tempting to point the finger at the “Remoaners” who never really accepted the result of the referendum, protesting against the democratic outcome from the get-go. Their scheming has not been particularly covert, with the entire frame of the “hard” vs. “soft” Brexit debate geared towards eventually thwarting the outcome of the vote.

Yet, the blame primarily lies with the pro-Brexit camp. It is no secret that prominent figures in the Leave campaign had no clear plan for victory, themselves appearing flabbergasted by the result. The present situation is the logical continuation of this reckless incompetence.

Beyond hazy generalities, there is little to believe in with Brexit as it stands. As a result, people will increasingly become disillusioned. If a bad deal is eventually struck and it goes to parliament for approval, either a general election or second referendum could become a legitimate vehicle through which to upend the entire Brexit process. With May’s government barely clinging to a majority, it doesn’t require too much imagination to see how persistent Remainers could eventually get their way.

What is needed, if Brexit is to stop haemorrhaging legitimacy, is an ambitious plan. A favourite example of prominent Brexiteers revolves around the promise of the Anglosphere, so why not start there?

Together, the United Kingdom, the United States, Australia, Canada and New Zealand constitute an Anglosphere of over 450 million people. This is more than the population of the EU 27 (without the UK). On top of this, these people are more prosperous than their EU counterparts, and have been for a long time.

Their GDP per capita is significantly higher than the EU average. In fact, in most cases it is even above that of the eurozone’s main economic success story: Germany. Growth rates have been higher too. While such aggregate figures are not the be all and end all of prosperity for the average citizen, they are certainly indicative.

Globally, the EU has been losing in relative economic importance at breakneck speed. The Western European edge of the Eurasian landmass –represented by the core 15 EU Member States– once dominated the global economy, controlling over a third of global GDP at the end of the 1960s. This was well above the US share of just over one quarter. Asia and Oceania stood at around 15% at the time.

Fast forward to 2011 and the EU15 share had tumbled to around a quarter of global GDP, having been overtaken by Asia and Oceania (driven primarily by China), as well as by the USA, whose share remained constant. Europe’s downwards trajectory has only accelerated as the eurocrisis has worn on.

The standard excuse offered up by sclerotic EU bureaucrats is that this march towards oblivion constitutes a natural “rebalancing” process as Asia, particularly China, regained its economic standing in the global economy. This naturally squeezed Europe’s share of global income.

But what is never addressed is why the US, Australia, Canada and New Zealand were all able to hold onto their relative shares of global wealth compared to the EU. In other words, why were they able to grow faster? Why are they more prosperous? It is obvious that the dramatic rise of China had to displace other economic players in relative terms, but why has this decline fallen squarely on the EU’s shoulders, and not on those of the Anglosphere as well?

The “rebalancing” rationalisations for Europe’s terminal decline are most often offered up by those working for institutions obsessed with “relaunching” Europe, “fresh starts”, “no more business as usual”, “delivering European renewal”, “acting now” or otherwise declaring it “time to act”, cooking up plans to make the EU “the most dynamic and competitive knowledge-based economy in the world”, etc. etc. Yet, these are the same people who shrug at the total and unique failure of Europe’s economy to hold its own in the world. You couldn’t make it up!

The EU has achieved unparalleled economic integration compared to any other regional bloc. And Britain was able to be a part of this union with such diverse nations for decades. Why, then, would some scheme for the Anglosphere be so far-fetched? Why would free movement of workers, for example, among countries with such similar needs and concerns –not to mention entwined intelligence services– be so unthinkable? And if it is not, where is the action?

As regards the limitations on Britain’s right to negotiate alternate trade deals while it remains within the EU, Britain must be careful to observe the letter of the law but certainly not its spirit, which is designed to thwart any successful secession. What is needed is a concrete plan that could be signed as soon as Britain is officially out of the EU, to be confidently presented to the public as a vision of the future after Brexit.

Without this, Brexit will surely suffer the same fate as the Remain campaign. Repeating generalities about executing the will of the people is as uninspiring as hypothesising over the future marginal economic costs of leaving the Union. These are not winning arguments. Leave won the campaign because it developed enthusing stances revolving around sovereignty: “take back control”. What does it offer now?

This article is by Daniel Matthews-Ferrero

4. As EU Commissioner for Regions...

With Article 50 triggered and Brexit negotiations well underway, the UK government looks like it’s carrying out the instructions it received from 17.4 million voters last summer. At best, Britain and the continent will establish a mutually advantageous trade relationship; at worst, the UK and EU will revert to World Trade Organization (WTO) rules, including minor tariffs on the exchange of goods and services. In either case, it seems, the UK will regain control over its finances, its borders, and its laws –all of which are necessary to fulfill the mandate given by voters.

Nevertheless, a growing threat hangs over Brexit Britain.

In hopes of consolidating power, Prime Minister Theresa May called an election in June. Rather than expand her mandate with a comfortable majority in Parliament, May’s Conservatives lost their majority, necessitating the support of Northern Ireland’s Democratic Unionist MPs to govern.

Emboldened by the election result, opposition parties have redoubled efforts to undermine the government’s position in Brexit negotiations. By seeking guarantees that single market access is maintained at all costs, or that, if by March 2019 (the date by which the UK has notified the EU it will leave) negotiations have not born fruit Britain’s current relationship with the EU should be maintained, MPs from Labour, the Liberal Democrats, the SNP and even some Conservatives are undermining the primary objective of last year’s referendum: to leave the EU.

Beyond Westminster, a growing number of voices have added themselves to the anti-Brexit bandwagon.

Devolved administrations in Scotland and Wales have expressed concern over the UK government’s “great repeal bill”, meant to repeal the European Communities Act of 1972, and bring all EU law currently applying to the UK into British statute. Scottish and Welsh first ministers Nicola Sturgeon and Carwyn Jones see the bill as a “power grab” by Westminster, supposedly denying any say to devolved administrations. Despite reassurances from cabinet minister David Davis, the UK’s departure from the EU will likely face many more such episodes from pro-remain Sturgeon and Jones.

A third front of opposition to Brexit has been opened by big business. The British Chamber of Commerce and the Institute for Directors have pushed Theresa May’s government for more clarity regarding the Brexit process, and the importance of avoiding a “cliff-edge” upon expiration of the 2-year transition period triggered in March. Certainty is crucial, but clear pressure is mounting from industry giants not to change the status quo –the very purpose of last year’s Brexit vote.

A fourth, ongoing front against Brexit is from advocacy groups within civil society. Last year’s court challenge of the government’s authority to trigger Article 50, and the persistent efforts of former Prime Minister Tony Blair to slow or stop the UK’s departure from the EU continue to erode meaningful debate on how best to carry out Brexit.

If Theresa May and her government are serious about carrying out the largest democratic mandate in British history, they need to do three things. First, they need to negotiate with the EU in good faith. Taking the first steps on EU citizens’ rights, adopting a constructive, realistic approach to deciding Britain’s share of EU debts, and ensuring the border in Ireland remains open (regardless of what the EU decides to do on its side) will not only give the UK the moral high ground, but also usher in the next part of Brexit talks: trade negotiations.

Second, May and her government need to prepare for the worst. In short, they should assume a “cliff-edge” scenario –involving a complete breakdown of talks– will occur, meaning a reversion to WTO trading rules. Businesses may not like this, but by signalling that no deal is guaranteed to emerge, industry has more certainty, and any future arrangement with the EU will be considered a bonus. This would likely shock the UK economy in the short term, but the ability for businesses and individuals to plan ahead would benefit all in the long term.

Third, the UK must aggressively pursue closer relationships with its international partners. Current negotiations with the EU are important, but Brussels has made clear that they preclude any further talks on a future trade relationship. It seems likely, therefore, that negotiations will start late, and be drawn out. Moreover, the EU has every reason to undermine the UK’s position, so as to discourage other member states from leaving the block. It is therefore quite possible they will negotiate in bad faith. As such, the UK would do far better to direct as many –if not more– resources towards trade with other nations, boosting access to far larger markets than the EU. Hints of this have already emerged, with International Trade Secretary Liam Fox opening discussions with the US, and Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson’s recent visit to New Zealand and Australia. China, Japan and Canada have also expressed interest in trade with the UK, underscoring the enormous opportunity associated with the UK’s newfound sovereignty. Of course, such deals will not be allowed so long as the UK is an EU member state, but they can be arranged for finalisation after the UK leaves, ensuring a smoother transition.

Above all, it must be clear to Britons and the world that there is no going back from last year’s referendum result. Brexit actually does mean Brexit.

This article is from The Eurosceptic