Tuesday, March 08, 2016

A "Must Read" Piece from the Adam Smith Institute

As people who were my mortal political enemies as a student idolised the Adam Smith Institute, I never expected to find myself writing words like "Here is a piece on the ASI website which you really must read."


But if you are either a floating voter in the EU referendum, a "Leave" supporter looking to know how to make your case better, or any other genuine seeker after truth, you really ought to read the article

Ten questions for the Leave campaign

on the ASI blog.

It's not a hatchet job on "Leave" but a listing of some of the main options which Britain might adopt following a vote to leave the EU, a description of some of their characteristics, and some intelligent questions on the advantages and disadvantages of each to which the "Leave" campaign will need intelligent answers to put their case.


They say there is, or will be, a companion article called "Five Questions for Stayers" but I have not yet managed to find it and suspect it may be forthcoming. When it goes up or I find it a link will be added here.

POSTSCRIPT

The companion article is now up and here is the promised link to:

"Five questions for the stay campaign."

2 comments:

Jim said...

Lets take these for now

As this option involves accepting almost all of the EU’s existing acquis, ie, its existing complement of policies (in particular, including free movement of labour and a financial contribution to EU funds), how is the leave campaign to communicate it to the electorate as more attractive than the prevailing position?

Well it does not involve the enire acquis more about 25% of it, but you are right fee movement of labour and a reduced financial contribution to Single Market funds are reqd, we have to communicate it for what it is, its a step on a journey, its not the end point, it never was. You MUST start to understand that brexit is a process it is not a single event, you can not undo over 40 years of EU integration in one fell swoop, what we need to do is take the sensible path and walk towards it, the Norway option is that first step.


Do these arrangements really hold out the prospect of more influence than that enjoyed by the UK at present?
-Yes they do, at the moment most of the EEA acquis comes from global bodies such as UNICE, ISO, CODEX, IPPC, OIE etc. The UK would take its seat at these setting bodies rather than allow the EU to attend for us (with 1/28 of a say) we would have one of our own. Now this does mean that at the EU stage as they are packaged and distributed we would lose our 1/28 of a say in what colour wrapping paper we put them in, but that is not a loss of infulence, its a huge gain.
Is it realistic to accept the contention that this option alone conforms to the Article 50 timetable of 24 months?
Again yes it is, its currently used by 3 states, its an off the shelf option, we will not get better as the the EU would see that as encouraging others to follow, but its very likey the EU would want us to follow this route too. It keeps all trade open and is the clear stepping stone out of the EU. Its very fair to assume that its about the only option that can meet the 2 year time frame.

Chris Whiteside said...

Some good points there. The sad thing is, I bet the official leave campaign, whenever they are designated, if they bother to answer the questions at all, will not provide answers as intelligent as yours.