The UK Referendum – what’s it really all about? Part 2

The EU Referendum:

Completing this 2 part article, here are the remaining topics:

1. The British EU Referendum – why now?
2. The EU’s Balance Sheet in 2016,
3. Missed Opportunity for Real Reform,
4. The Real Choice facing British Citizens.

And lastly, the question, “Will the British vote to leave?” Of course, the answer to that will only be known on 24 June.

5. The British EU Referendum – why now?

The Conservative Party made the referendum commitment in their May 2015 general election Manifesto. Some claim it’s to “lance the boil” of the ruling Conservative party, with its long-standing schizophrenic attitude towards membership of the EU. Others think the commitment was made to placate Eurosceptic party members before the 2015 general election when the leader wasn’t expecting to win an outright majority so didn’t expect to have to deliver on the ‘promise’. If they had been forced to negotiate another coalition deal with the Liberal Democrats, the EU Referendum would almost certainly have been dropped.

Despite having the second largest economy in the EU (16% of total EU GDP compared to Germany’s 21%), Cameron’s government failed to persuade fellow European leaders of the need for real reforms. The so called ‘reform package’ he brought back in February simply formalises a ‘different’ membership status for Britain. So the ‘one-size fits all’ Spinelli Plan remains the EU’s adopted strategy.

6. EU’s Balance Sheet in 2016 – positive or negative?

The first two decades (1973-93) of EU membership brought significant economic and practical advantages to British citizens and businesses. Amongst them, no tariffs on goods and services imported from or exported to other EU countries and easier travel between member states.  But it’s important to look at the situation today. It’s also important to remember that many of these advantages would have come to us even if we had not joined the EU. This reflects globalisation driven by institutions like the World Trade Organisation over the last 3 decades, with import tariffs falling from typically 15-20% in the 1970’s to 0-5% today in many parts of the world. Today Russians enjoy free travel. They can do business with us and run companies registered in EU states – unheard of back in 1973 unless they had been granted asylum.

Amongst the most valuable benefits claimed by European leaders is the durable peace we’ve enjoyed since the end of WW II. Whilst this is undoubtedly a significant achievement, citizens familiar with history recognise this is more directly attributable to the success of NATO. NATO’s Article 5 defines “collective defence”, which means if one NATO country is attacked then all NATO partners have a duty to support the defence of that member country as if it were an attack on their own sovereign territory. What is conveniently forgotten by some is that NATO was formed in 1949 in the wake of WWII and in response to the new ‘cold war’ between the West and USSR. WWII had been a devastating war between several NATO members fighting on opposing sides. NATO is much bigger than the EU; it includes USA, Canada, Norway and Turkey (comprising a further 442m people). We mustn’t conflate the achievements of this international treaty and organisation, which is separate from and pre-dates the EU.

The EU has brought ‘free’ trade and movement to its members. Whilst this may have reduced risks of conventional wars between EU member states, the modern world faces very different threats. Today we face existential threats from a clandestine enemy. One that practices ‘guerrilla’ style warfare in an effort to destroy the open and pluralistic way of life we enjoy in the West. Events have shown rules that promote free movement sadly leave EU states more exposed to indiscriminate acts of violence by terrorists moving freely across EU borders.

The EU has no effective response to this modern day ‘enemy within’. More disturbing is that EU rules actually tie the hands of member states making it easier for extremists to plan, organise and execute these appalling atrocities. Authorities seem unable to act until atrocities have been executed when they close down transport networks and public spaces. This was evident in the recent Paris and Brussels attacks, which were made worse by ineffective intelligence capture and sharing between member states both before and after these terrorist incidents.

EU rules have other unintended consequences; dividing society along lines of wealth and opportunity in ways not seen since the pre-WWII era. The young, who are particularly disadvantaged by these developments, actually express the strongest support for the EU. We need to understand why?

Many under 35 year olds see the EU through the prism of practical conveniences rather than political ideology – after all many don’t vote in national elections. They are attracted by the freedom to move to other countries that offer the opportunity to live in a pluralistic free society where personal choices and opportunities exist. They recognise the world is shrinking. Ironically many disadvantages and frustrations young citizens experience in Europe are blamed on national governments rather than EU policy failings – such as poor job and housing prospects, wage stagnation and long-term debt problems. Some also see these disadvantages as reversible – perhaps believing their personal circumstances will dramatically improve or government policies will fix the problem before it’s too late. This is optimism triumphing over realism.

The Commission’s lack of pragmatism and modernity show it as a lumbering, centralised and elitist organisation that relies on rigid and inflexible rules to impose conformity and obedience over 500m citizens and businesses. Without substantial reforms, EU institutions are now the prime architects of our modern day problems. Even worse, the EU has shown itself incapable of delivering practical solutions consistent with European values and beliefs – just look at Greek austerity and the EU migration ‘deal’ struck recently with Turkey.

Today’s problems include:

• Democratic deficit making accountability and modernity distant prospects,

• Economic stagnation (reaching a modest 1.8% in 2015 after 7 years of near zero or negative growth compared to long-term trend of 3%+ pa),

• Anti-competitive trade agreements, particularly in agriculture that disadvantage 3rd world developing countries,

• Complex regulations that favour large international businesses over small innovative enterprises, so stifling competition, limiting choice and increasing consumer prices,

• Measures that limit opportunities for small businesses to set-up and grow,

• High levels of unemployment (9% across the EU in 2015), particularly for the under 25’s (averaging 21% with 39% in Italy, 46% in Spain and >50% in Greece),

• Job insecurity, unaffordable housing and deteriorating career and life chances for citizens possessing knowledge based skills rather than asset-based wealth,

• Diminishing public acceptance of EU migrants seeking better economic opportunities in richer EU countries like the UK, which brings depressed wage levels, housing shortages and reduced employment opportunities for indigenous workers, and

• Concerns about refugees fleeing the Middle East who have been infiltrated by extremists who don’t share European values, traditions of pluralism or tolerance and don’t respect individual freedoms or the right to life, yet they gain unrestricted access to EU countries where they actively harbour and spread extremist doctrines or plan and execute terrorist acts.

The Commission has spectacularly failed to tackle any of these problems. This has spawned a culture of ‘non-responsibility’ among national and local governments who frequently hide their own failings behind “EU rules”. Many rules disadvantage small businesses with crippling regulatory costs. EU institutions have slept on the job and ‘permitted’ large organisations (commercial and governmental) to use these rules to strengthen their own positions without appropriate checks and balances to protect the weaker. Codified rules tend to inflate the power of larger organisations. They use them to dictate terms over smaller businesses in their supply chain, all under the cloak of EU regulations. Some rules are not even ‘policed’ competently (e.g. NOx emissions and VW). And this is all happening in a vacuum of justice or remedy for the majority of citizens and small businesses.

The EU refuses to embrace the post-C20th global era. Centralised political and economic institutions reflect an outdated design favoured by powerful Western nations in the mid-C20th, but these structures do not deliver effective cross-border solutions today. This dilemma confounds many international bodies including the IMF, World Bank and the UN, all of which came into being soon after WWII. As international trade and migration become less controllable with tiger economies growing faster than developed European countries, the global status (and relevance) once enjoyed by these Western-centric organisations has irreversibly changed. The EU belongs to a bygone era and has no convincing strategy to modernise and adapt. The EU’s relative size might delay the inevitable, but at what cost to its citizens and businesses?

The EU ‘customs union’ is a protectionist trading block rooted in the 1950's. It protects uncompetitive EU producers by allowing them to trade at higher prices within the EU trading block because more competitively produced imports are inflated above ‘world’ prices (or free-market prices) using import tariffs. We see this particularly in food and clothing where tariffs of 16% apply.

Our entire economic activity (100% of GDP) is currently subject to EU regulations and import tariffs that average 16% on imports from non-EU countries. These all have consequential and inflationary impacts on business costs. But the UK actually exports just 8%-9% of annual GDP to the EU (that’s ￡134bn between March 2015 and February 2016 or about 47% of total UK exports).

Professor Patrick Minford of Cardiff University has simulated the effect of leaving the EU on the average cost-of-living for UK citizens. He assumes we will adopt free trade with the rest of the world, so we buy at tariff free ‘world prices’ (who wouldn’t want to sell to us if we imposed zero import tariffs on them). This would reduce the average cost-of-living for Britons by 8% overnight, especially for foods.

In the absence of an EU Trade deal based on zero tariffs post-Brexit, uncompetitive UK industries selling to EU countries would lose out, because they would be subject to EU customs tariffs designed to protect similarly uncompetitive EU producers. But 92% of UK GDP does not depend on trade with the EU. So removing the cost burden of EU regulations and import duties will boost competition and help reduce prices for UK consumers (particularly food and raw materials sourced from non-EU countries). Our competitive industries (particularly those reliant on imported materials) will be better placed to boost exports to growing economies outside the EU. Minford shows this will drive faster growth amongst world-beating UK businesses freed from the shackles of costly EU regulations and protectionist customs tariffs.

The idea that the EU will impose full customs tariffs on the UK following Brexit is highly unlikely – the balance of trade between the UK and EU is heavily skewed in favour of EU countries (who exported ￡224bn to the UK between March 2015 and February 2016 compared to UK exports to the EU of ￡134bn).

EU policies have created significant socio-economic pressures in what were relatively stable and prosperous countries like the UK. Millions of EU citizens have moved from regions offering few opportunities to more dynamic and successful economies like the UK. The resulting migration has been far greater and faster than predicted.

By 2015, over 3.1 million people born in other EU countries lived in the UK – that’s 4.8% of the total UK population. Of these, 1.9 million worked whilst 1.1 million were economically inactive (dependents, students, the unemployed and retired). During the last decade alone a net inflow of 1.16 million EU born migrants arrived in Britain (1.7% of the total UK population). That’s equivalent to more than 78% of new homes built over the same period (1.47m). Additionally a net inflow of 2.1 million non-EU migrants arrived over the same period (not counting illegal immigrants). The rate of net migration from the EU is also rising (174k in 2014 and 183k in 2015).

Britain’s working population has grown by 10% thanks to migration alone. But this has not boosted average earnings or the standard of living for UK citizens – the paradox of modern economic growth in the EU.

HM Treasury estimate that a further 3 million migrants will arrive by 2030 if the UK remains in the EU (more than 200k per year). This doubles the number that arrived over the last 43 years. Current new house building in the UK is less than 150k units per year, not enough to house new EU migrants arriving in the country never mind address the current housing shortage (1.2+ million homes).

Some free movement was always understood and accepted as a condition of EU membership, but the level of net migration into the UK has created real difficulties for authorities providing local infrastructure, housing, schools, doctors, hospitals and transportation. Whatever the economic advantages of migration, Whitehall had neither the plans nor resources to cater for this dramatic influx. The consequences have been left to local authorities. They are tackling this after suffering more than 40% cuts in central government funding since 2010. This is clearly an impossible ask.

Of course migrants help our economy grow, but they don’t bring the taxes or capital resources needed by local authorities to build new infrastructure or train workers to provide the public services demanded by this influx of people. Unmanaged migration has stretched services beyond their limits. It’s not just a few dozen arrivals per local authority each year – in some the annual increase has been in the thousands.

There’s uncertainty over the length of stay of EU migrants; they have the right to move anywhere within the EU. Unlike non-EU migrant workers they don’t need to be ‘sponsored’ by a UK employer. No local authority can predict the term of residence for EU migrants. But local authorities are expected to provide services to both permanent residents and this transitory influx of EU migrants. Unmanaged migration makes planning future housing, schools, hospitals, health centres and transport infrastructure virtually impossible.

This is producing real strains on local communities. The quality of life for residents is affected – even for migrants. Try getting onto the register of a local GP practice or securing a place for your child in a local school – these are the practical difficulties created by unmanaged migration. Only the elite with private wealth can escape such real-life difficulties.

The ongoing rise in net UK migration means there has been no opportunity to catch-up. The growing housing crisis denies British citizens the opportunity to buy or rent an affordable home of their own - living in house-shares or with parents well into their 30’s. Rising house prices and rents create the illusion of a prosperous economy. In reality housing shortages and the absence of wage inflation is transforming people’s quality of life and futures in the UK negatively.

The failure of UK governments to manage the consequences of excessive migration has produced serious socio-economic problems. It also contributes to the substantial public deficit seen in Britain. Following 2008 these problems were magnified dramatically as more and more migrants moved to larger EU economies able to withstand the shocks of the global economic crisis best. Instead of poorer EU countries being raised to the same level of prosperity as the richest, we have witnessed worrying signs of a collective race to the bottom.

Short-sighted national politicians have been slow to acknowledge growing problems on their watch, claiming that growth in the economy and job numbers benefits us all. Many have not joined up the dots and continue to peddle economic statistics to assure voters that our ‘real life’ experiences must be imagined as they’re not mirrored by official government ‘statistics’. Who do we believe?

Stagnating average incomes across the EU is proof that forces at work are not serving citizens or commerce well. Sustained falls in disposable incomes destroys enterprise and the incentive to work. Leaving aside the significant pay cuts endured by many since the economic crisis, the prolonged absence of inflationary pay awards has triggered fears of deflation. It also explains the sustained lack of productivity growth in Europe. This is now the ‘norm’ and explains the lacklustre growth in per capita GDP and poor progress made to balance the public finances.

Britain still struggles with an annual deficit almost half that seen in 2010. Our public debt levels rise faster each year than GDP growth – the national debt is now almost equal to annual GDP output (￡1,700bn). Servicing this level of debt without drastic cuts to public services depends on maintaining artificially low interest rates long into the future. This may prove impossible to do.

All the confusion and smoky-mirrors over bad EU policies helps the ruling political elite deflect attention from their own failings. As conditions deteriorate, citizens stop believing in conventional political parties, who offer no practical solutions, just excuses as to why things are not getting better. Patience is not limitless.

The growth of extremism is a phenomenon European leaders cannot ignore as they did in the 1920’s and 1930’s. In an environment where citizens are only offered the failed policies of yesteryear, many look to protest groups who challenge the established elites (UKIP secured 3.8 million votes in May 2015). This will grow as a tide of disillusioned people question the relevance of national governments who collaborate with the unelected European Commission in pursuing failed policies.

7. Missed Opportunity for Real Reform:

The deal Cameron struck in February 2016 was to have offered British voters a real alternative to the status quo, so making the decision to remain or leave more a matter of personal conviction. But we’ve been short-changed and the reforms we’re being asked to vote on present a very unpersuasive case to remain in. The alternative is to embrace considerable uncertainty by voting to leave. Some might question whether this was done on purpose or is it simply a sign that the EU Commission holds the British referendum (and voters) in complete contempt and didn’t see a need to offer a positive reform programme to persuade us to remain in?

Whilst the world has become more complex, competitive and unstable, the EU hasn’t acted positively to protect the interests of citizens and businesses. Often the response has been to impose yet more rules and regulations, denying citizens the opportunity to formulate pragmatic solutions to changing local circumstances. Just look at the loss of Steel jobs in the UK over the last 24 months.

There are no new initiatives or ideas to address declining living standards, provide real and sustainable jobs and housing or guarantee a comfortable retirement for an ageing population. This creates real resentment towards both national governments and EU institutions.

There are no credible plans for EU reform.

The EU consists of two groups of nations. One made up of countries that have chosen to adopt the Euro single currency and must accept greater political, fiscal and monetary union. Regrettably this will inevitably involve coming under the direction and control of German policy makers – something that the original EU was designed to prevent. The other group of nations comprises countries that embrace the principles of free trade and (with conditions) free movement of money and people, but who wish to retain a significant degree of political, monetary and fiscal autonomy. Britain belongs firmly to the latter group and we are not alone.

8. The Real Choice Facing British Citizens:

Most British people want the EU to work. A majority would almost certainly vote to remain in the EU – but not the version of the EU on offer. The EU has to work for all citizens, not just the privileged elite and those working for unaccountable EU institutions or national governments.

Media coverage suggests most Britons really don’t have a clear idea whether Remaining In or Leaving is in our best interests. Seeking the views of others, such as employers, isn’t likely to deliver impartial or reliable advice.

Large institutions (governmental and commercial) will favour the status quo, so their existing privileges and status are preserved. Some are very blatant and direct. BMW have written to their UK workforce stating their wish for the UK to ‘Remain In’. The CBI has just asked member organisations to do the same. Other employers are using less transparent but equally crude messages, with ‘unofficial’ threats to jobs and the possible dislocation of jobs by large multi-nationals from UK based head offices to alternative EU cities.

Paris has been mentioned by one large international financial institution; a rather improbable destination in light of the much heavier personal taxes and the excessive levels of social security taxes levied in France. If people were relocated to Paris the salary bill would more than double. No commercial business answerable to shareholders will contemplate such a harmful step in the current climate.

Businesses that claim they will move staff to other EU cities are not being very practical or honest. With UK Corporation tax rates now the lowest in the G20 and not much higher than in Ireland, there is little financial incentive to relocate head offices to the continent or Dublin. Any plan to move people depends on the willingness of key staff to “up-sticks”. It would also rely on the availability of suitably skilled people in EU cities to fill gaps created if large corporations moved to the continent. This would be a brave presumption since labour mobility isn’t assured and some key skills are notoriously immobile and concentrated in global hub cities like London. In addition technology makes the case for re-locating jobs much less persuasive or necessary today.

Furthermore, relocating dozens of corporate offices to what would be just a few alternative cities (Berlin, Amsterdam, Paris, Brussels, Dublin and Frankfurt) will lead to serious skill shortages, a scarcity of suitable housing and office accommodation and significant (double digit) inflationary pressures on businesses moving in as well as those already based in these cities. Will business leaders be brave enough to ‘sell’ this to their shareholders? Can City Mayors explain the impact of higher rents and shortages in housing and public services to existing residents and businesses? Let’s be serious, this isn’t going to happen, not in 2016 or in the coming decades.

Apparently we’re told that if we vote for #BREXIT, our Government would need 10 years to negotiate new trade deals to replace the ones that the EU struck with some of our global trading partners. Over 50% of UK trade is with countries outside the EU. There isn’t an EU trade deal with the USA, India or China so it’s doubtful Brexit would disadvantage the UK in these markets and could improve our trading relations. The same could apply to non-EU countries that entered trade deals with the EU.

If Brexit does occur, any negotiated transfer of powers will take place in a calm and organised way over 2 or more years. Little of substance will change due to the vested interests of both Britain and the majority of EU states. This means nothing will be ‘agreed’ that directly disadvantages the continuation of trade, security co-operation or access to our respective markets. To suggest otherwise is complete rubbish and hyperbole used by politicians living in fear of losing their own positions in the event of a vote to ‘Leave’.

There are many urban myths about what really matters to voters in this type of referendum. Here’s my list:

• being able to rely on the state to protect us from external threats,
• enjoying the same treatment under the law regardless of wealth, ethnicity, religion, gender, disability, sexual orientation or where we live,
• protection of property rights,
• access to good public services according to need,
• world-class education for all,
• criminals punished appropriately to ensure crime does not pay and citizens are kept safe,
• fair taxes that ensure businesses and citizens contribute according to their ability to pay,
• allowing businesses to compete and innovate with the best of global businesses,
• good job prospects for all of working age,
• access to a safe and secure home,
• a safe and comfortable retirement, and
• freedom to pursue our own interests providing we bring no harm to others or infringe their lawful rights.

No one seriously believes #BREXIT will introduce medieval style restrictions on the movement of UK citizens who wish to work for a UK package tour operator in summer holiday jobs on the Mediterranean coast, when large numbers of summer holidays are sold to Britons each year. Likewise opportunities for professionals to work in Europe will not change in practice – you only need to visit Hong Kong, NY, Singapore, Sydney, Tokyo, Amsterdam, Berlin, Madrid, Paris or Rome to understand that the world is getting smaller and transferable skills mean people today can get jobs across the world. The same applies to people with scarce skills wishing to work in the UK, such as construction workers, IT professionals or doctors and nurses.

The Leader of Manchester City Council recently pleaded with local people to vote to Remain, stating major public infrastructure projects funded by the European Investment Bank, including ￡500m to complete modernisation of the city’s tram system, might not happen if we Leave. Of course the truth is more nuanced than that. The UK Government owns 16.1% of the EIB and underwrites this proportion of lending activity undertaken by the Bank across Europe and beyond. Of ￡386bn in loans granted by the EIB at the end of 2015, just 9.6% or ￡48.2bn relates to UK approved projects. Any suggestions that leaving the EU would automatically reduce the British Government’s capacity to fund major public infrastructure projects in Manchester City are laughable. Assuming the same lending rules apply once the EIB’s UK portfolio is repatriated, the British Government could raise at least ￡30bn more for major public infrastructure projects across the UK today without increasing its exposure. In fact it could fund even more as British public sector bodies (including Manchester CC) enjoy a superior financial credit rating to that enjoyed by many Governmental bodies in other EU countries.

The Mayor of Calais’s threat to allow illegal migrants to enter the Channel Tunnel if Britain leaves the EU is designed to scare voters. But EuroTunnel is a company run from Paris that is part-owned by the French Government, so if migrants were given unfettered access to the Tunnel complex in Calais, the British Government would have no alternative but to order its closure. This would do substantial damage to the economy of Calais, as well as France and other EU countries who export goods to the UK via the Tunnel. On the upside, closure should boost alternative cross-channel ferry and freight shipping businesses, including those operated by non-EU companies.

What we should be concerned about is the lack of real and credible EU reform plans rather than the fatuous claims and counter-claims voiced by politicians and institutional leaders. This makes the outlook for an outdated protectionist trading block much less positive and certain in our global world. We should be thinking about how this limits our chances of securing a good job, raising a family, enjoying a safe and secure retirement and owning our home. European governments don’t have a good track record of helping aspiring citizens in the last 20 years. The young are increasingly seeing this from an early age. Unless you are asset-rich, your prospects look increasingly marginal.

Brits face a binary choice between ‘more of the same’ and ‘uncertainty in extremis’. Common sense suggests the uncertainties of leaving are being over-played and exaggerated by people and organisations that want to preserve their current status and privileges. Resorting to threats of dire consequences if we vote for change is as old as democracy itself.

 

Will the British vote to Leave?

It’s clear a lot of Referendum coverage (written and broadcast) is orchestrated by people and organisations that hold privileged positions. Many want the ‘status quo’ to prevail. Some even claim to know what it will cost us if we dare vote to leave.

Reputable organisations have published all manner of figures to persuade us to Remain In or Leave, but much of this amounts to nothing more than crystal ball gazing and a healthy dose of self-serving hyperbole.  If an organisation supports Remain, it’s highly likely any assumptions used to model the consequences of a vote to Leave will be biased to produce a picture that favours Remain. Voters are not much impressed by cynical scare tactics so it’s likely the credibility of many global organisations will be severely damaged along with the reputations of their leaders in the post-Referendum world.

A vote to leave poses a greater threat to the established elite than it does to the majority of citizens. Adapting to change is far more disruptive and painful for leaders, who’ve learnt how to use institutions to advance their own interests and influence. More than anything else, leaders fear exogenous change that’s beyond their sphere of influence. This type of change brings agile newcomers, who can displace the established order along with those occupying positions of power. Supporting the status quo delays change and the opportunity for ‘creative destruction’, which is periodically necessary in democratic civilizations so that the terms by which the majority of citizens accept the rule of a privileged few can be tested and renewed. Thanks to the poor quality of debate seen so far, a vote for the ‘status quo’ may represent the most likely outcome.

The EU Referendum boils down to a choice about how much ‘interference’ and control citizens of a large, prosperous, advanced democratic nation will tolerate from unelected EU institutions pursuing an outdated and undemocratic agenda in collaboration with some self-serving businesses and non-governmental organisations that receive EU funding. Apart from greater certainty about the immediate future, there’s little to excite or motivate anyone except the established elite seeking a vote to ‘Remain In’. It’s hardly compelling for citizens faced by stagnating living standards, growing job insecurity, unmanaged migration, housing shortages and a lack of political ideas to improve our future prospects.

Most Brits enjoy living in a pluralistic society, where people are free to do what they like, provided it’s within the law and does not infringe on the rights of other citizens or dilute their freedoms. But we don’t tolerate organised authority when it tries to tell us what to do and how to do it for the benefit of a few. Having fought for and won many basic freedoms, the British recognise freedom carries responsibilities too. Our history makes us pragmatic people, willing to defend our rights and those of others across the world – Europe in particular over the last 230 years. Whilst we tolerate the need for some irritating regulations and rules, we resist excessive interference in our way of life.

Regrettably the EU’s elite choose to ignore constructive British critique and pragmatism, preferring instead to prescribe ideological dogma.  Sometimes this extends to political leaders of national governments. A recent case is Merkel who is said to have told Cameron to drop his demand for temporary restrictions on the free movement of people to help ameliorate the unexpected and unmanaged consequences of excessive EU migration to Britain. Net migration of 200,000 EU citizens year after year is ample justification for demanding restrictions whilst the country tries to catch up, but dogma has prevailed. The long-suffering British may not allow this to go unchallenged at the ballot box on 23rd June.

Whatever the result of the UK referendum, it is clear that real EU reforms do require the current unelected Commission to be replaced by an elected Executive subject to votes of no-confidence by the 28 national leaders. Sadly, this is like ‘asking turkeys to vote for Christmas’ so it’s not going to happen anytime soon!

Perhaps trusting in our ‘gut instinct’ will prove a more reliable guide than listening to spurious arguments put up by public figures who advocate Remain or Leave.

Author: Simon Rydings

Finance professional, business consultant and change manager. Brought up in Hong Kong, graduated and qualified in finance, worked for large multi-nationals, Whitehall and high growth SME's, with extensive experience helping 'enlightened' leaders introduce positive change into complex organisations. Strong advocate of Keeping It Simple!

Too young to have voted in the 1975 EU Referendum but old enough to know that the 'status quo' serves no one well (not even the ruling elite who care about the legacy they will leave behind).

Change is a natural part of renewal and it's as old as time itself.