When are the market and politicians going to learn that access to the Single Market is completely different to being a member of it? The media storm and the devaluation of the pound caused by the Prime Minister's speech at the Conservative Party Conference in October is almost the equivalent of the NUM attempting to grind the country to a halt in the mid-80s just because the government then was embarking on a course of action they disapproved of.
The Lichtenstein model
Realising how close the result was and the reactions to it from those who fiercely campaigned for Stronger In, I wrote an article advocating Britain aspire to adopt a Lichtenstein model for #Brexit. This would mean paving the way for a smooth transition into the European Economic Area thereby guaranteeing continued membership of the Single Market whilst providing countries with the freedom to organise trade deals, implementing sustainable #Immigration policies and preventing the erosion of our sovereignty. It sounds too good to be true, doesn't it?
This option would also resolve the tensions over the border with Gibraltar and silence politicians in the devolved countries and ardent Remainers in Westminster. It would please all parties in the event of a close result.
Alas, the arrogant European politicians are playing the game of one rule for us and a different rule for others. They have made it apparent that there is no possibility of retaining membership of the Single Market without accepting the free movement of people or abiding by Brussels' laws. It is little wonder that May has chosen a literal as opposed to a pragmatic Brexit. The stupidity of our European 'representatives' has guaranteed that our Government has no choice but to quit this dying project altogether, so much so that even Iceland and Norway are flirting with the option of quitting the EEA to escape the interference of secluded and autocratic politicians.
The EEA is not an option
All those who campaigned for Vote Leave have waited contrasting lengths of time to exit the variant forms of European integration they have witnessed throughout their lives. The 'soft' leave option similar to the one I wrote about for Conservatives for Liberty resonates of sensibility at first sight, but admittedly it stinks of over-optimism after hearing statements from the European elite. I have come to the realisation that Brexit must be taken literally. Brexit means what it says on the tin.
To a certain extent, it is understandable why the markets have reacted in this fashion. Thanks to the repressive European Customs Union and tariffs of the Single Market, the latter is our main trading area. Yet it is also obvious that those who have sent the pound plummeting have never studied the complex construction of the EU. Guido Fawkes have recently performed a splendid job of exposing how much money countries like Japan and the United States generate from trading with the EU, yet they are not members of it. As Andrew Neill, the only BBC journalist not undermining the result on June 23rd, suggested: even North Korea can trade with the EU if they so desire.
CETA- implications for us
But what about the collapse of the Canadian trade deal, I hear some Remainers ask? The EU is much more dependent on Britain for trade than Canada. Are they really in a mighty position to punish us only to spite their own face? I'm sure even Wallonia realises they cannot veto a market they are so reliant on.
So let's make this perfectly clear; access and membership of the Single Market are entirely different. Access means ensuring countries can trade with the EU under WTO rules without the cost of high tariffs. Membership of it is different. This dictates that countries must accept the free movement of people and European supremacy over individual nations' laws. #Parliament