Final summary of the issues

Firstly, I apologise, as I had meant to publish 2 more postings before summarising, but technical difficulties with editing postings on my iPad have very much slowed me down. These were going to be on defence and security, and immigration. Given that there has been so much coverage already, I will simply include a precis of my thoughts in this summary. I hope to keep this summary as brief as possible, as all will be suffering from a surfeit of debate on this matter.

Overall view

The crux of the matter, as I see it, is the fundamental mismatch in needs of member states in the Eurozone and those outside it.

The Eurozone has thus far been an unmitigated disaster, with worse to come. The desperate problems facing Greece have not been solved in any way, but have been pushed further down the road (ie until after the British referendum) by extending the massive loans that are just keeping it above the surface. Italy is not far behind, and when their economy reaches crisis point, the ramifications for all in Europe will be far, far larger than the ripples caused by a small economy like Greece.

The only hope for the euro to survive is for the eurozone members to move quickly towards political and financial union, in effect melding into a new country. This is what Jean Monnet (the EU founder) wanted, this was repeated by Jacques Delors, and indeed this is the outcome of all of the proposals in the Five Presidents' Report last year. Saving the euro is an absolute imperative for the EU, as otherwise total break-up would surely follow.

With the majority of EU members being in the Eurozone, the whole emphasis of all future EU legislation will be to move in this direction as soon as possible. What isn't good for the non-eurozone members will be driven through by the others, and any 'red card' that relies on 55% of member states supporting an objection by Britain will never materialise.

The simple fact is that we are in the wrong club, and we either take this opportunity to leave and flourish outside (and alongside) the EU, or we get swept along with the desperate attempts to save the euro in the flagging EU economy.

What about David Cameron's reform negotiations?

Firstly, it is by no means clear to me that the very little he claims to have achieved will come to pass. Within a week of his announcement, Martin Schulz, President of the European Parliament, said that it was not at all certain that the EP would ratify the deal. Naturally, the EP vote comes after the UK referendum. Indeed, the vice President of one of the larger liberal groupings of MEPs has stated categorically that his bloc will vote against the proposals for restrictions on UK benefits for EU migrants.

All the Prime Minister achieved was the right to protest against things that might not be in Britain's interests, rather than a veto, which is worthless. More to the point, he agreed that "Britain shall not impede the implementation of legal acts directly linked to the functioning of the Euro, and furthermore will not create obstacles and will facilitate such a further deepening."

"Deepening" has real meaning inside the EU, effectively equivalent to moving further down the road to a United States of Europe. This means that we cannot now, in any way, stand in the way of (or even slow down) all of the measures in the Five President's Report. Britain has now effectively stood aside to allow this "deepening", or federalisation, to take place. The EU of the future is very rapidly going to be very different from the status quo.

If this is what Eurozone members want to do, that's fine, but it would be much better for all if we leave and just let them get on with it - even Francois Hollande said this during the February negotiations.

One final comment on the Cameron negotiations: I believe that he achieved nothing by way of significant enduring reform of the EU and its structure, even if the EP votes for the outcome of the negotiations; and for he, and his Remain colleagues, to keep saying that they are "voting to stay in a reformed Europe" could perhaps be described as an oxymoron!

Where does this leave things?

Well, it seems to me that this disparity of needs, and the urgency for the Eurogroup (headed by Donald Tusk, one of the Five Presidents) to force through major structural changes, is the prime argument to Vote Leave. The EU had an opportunity to agree with David Cameron to explore a 2-tier structure in Europe, but chose to bulldoze onwards.

If we vote to remain, this process of "deepening" will be given a huge uplift and momentum, and in any case I can't see how this isn't inevitable. Any thought of remaining and keeping the status quo is for the birds...

Can the UK survive outside the EU?

Of course it can, as was clearly the view of David Cameron until 3 months ago. The UK has the 5th largest economy in the world, having overtaken France (stagnating within the Eurozone) a year or so ago. Britain has unparalleled links around the world, not least through the Commonwealth, the English language and our heritage. Acting alone, rather than as part of a disparate 28 member bloc, we will reach trade deals with the emerging economies in a fraction of the time taken by the EU.

After 40 years of seeing our manufacturing industry decline, as more and more European manufacturing centres on Germany, we should see this trend reversed. Indeed, taking back control of our fisheries could see UK shipbuilding recover. The EU will still want to carry on trading with us as before, given that they export so many of their goods to Britain.

What about our security?

EU freedom of movement laws prevent us from refusing entry to foreign offenders convicted of serious crimes and would-be terrorists. Indeed, Adelhamid Abaaoud, one of the Belgians behind the Paris terror attacks, travelled undetected through Dover last year, despite being subject to an arrest warrant, visiting fellow jihadists and photographing landmarks in the UK.

Indeed, one only has to look at the coverage of the Brussels bombings, which severely criticised the inadequacies of the Belgian police, and described an almost total lack of liaison between Belgian and French security services, to realise how weak the claims of the In lobby are in this respect.

Britain has arguably far and away the best intelligence service of any European nation, and is part of the Five Eyes Security grouping, sharing information with the USA, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. We have far better intelligence interaction with countries in the Middle East, Africa and Asia than other European countries. EU countries rely on us for their intelligence far more than the other way round. There is absolutely no reason why any relevant intelligence cannot be shared with our friends and allies in the EU after Brexit on a mutual basis – that is in everybody’s interest, and to suggest that it will not happen should we leave the EU is simply scaremongering.

To remain in the EU and find ourselves having to pool our intelligence services with all other 27 (and climbing) member states would be to entrust our security to the lowest common denominator. It surely would be crazy to be bound into an open exchange of intelligence with less secure EU members.

These views are very much supported by Sir Richard Dearlove, former head of MI6.

Defence considerations

I had drafted quite a bit on this, but I think at this stage I will keep this fairly short.

Peace in Europe has very much been down to NATO, rather than the EU. The Balkan crisis saw no decisive action by the EU, but rather NATO and the USA had to step in.

The EU now wants to form a EuroArmy (as planned in the Five Presidents Report). The former commander of UK troops in Afghanistan, Colonel Richard Kemp, believes that there would be an absolute certainty that Britain would have to give troops towards an EU army, which would undermine NATO and be very costly, yet act as a paper tiger. He feels that staying in would end Britain’s ability to defend the Falkland Islands, as decisions would have to be agreed between EU member states, and consensus among 28 countries would never be achieved. In a letter to The Telegraph in the last week, 2 French admirals said that they felt much more comfortable with an independent Britain co-operating with its neighbours across the channel, as they had grave concerns about the ineffectiveness of the proposed European Army. And indeed, today, General Lord Guthrie, former Chief of Defence Staff, (who was pushed into signing the Armed Forces letter by 10 Downing Street), has said that he is so concerned about plans for the European Army that he withdraws his support for Remain, and is now for Brexit.

To think that our defence would have to be put into the hands of a committee of getting on for 30 nations, each with a different agenda, could lead to absolute disaster - quite apart from the Army, this is likely to be the case as the EU develops its 'foreign ministry'. One thing is for certain – as the EU dream is pursued and a European Army is formed, if Britain stays in our defence operation will steadily be sucked into the European structure - imagine how quickly a Prime Minister Corbyn would relinquish any responsibility for our army!

Immigration

There is no doubt in my mind that levels of immigration into the EU are simply far too high. In some areas of the country, such as the South East, East Anglia & the Midlands, current levels are putting immense strain on local NHS, education, housing and social services. Remainers are quick to point out that much immigration is from beyond the EU. That may be so, but much is from within the EU, without any control.

Without a doubt, Eastern European immigration has had a restrictive effect on levels of pay. Good for some employers, maybe, but bad for the existing local workforce. Remainers resort to the argument that immigration is good for the economy. Well, I don't buy that sweeping generalisation. The large number of East Europeans here are working for the minimum wage, and thus pay hardly any tax, if at all. In addition, they receive considerable benefits, not just through the tax system, but of course in health care and education. The claims that immigration helps increase our national GDP are ludicrous, as what of course matters for the quality of life is GDP per capita, which certainly does not go up because of immigration.

Looking forwards, it is acknowledged that there are 5 countries (Turkey, and 4 Balkan states) awaiting accession to the EU, with two more Balkan states having been encouraged to join. Turkey has a population nudging towards 80 million, for many of whom a UK job on the minimum wage or, even better, on the National Living Wage of £9 per hour, will be a temptation, regardless of any in-work benefits that they may have to wait a couple of years for. Add to this three other countries, Ukraine, Belarus & Moldova, where ratification for their accession as associate members of the EU has already been passed in the House of Commons (without a debate), and the likely pressure on inward EU immigration is enormous.

In addition, there is the issue of the migration flow into Europe from Syria, Africa and Afghanistan. This desperate situation was wholly exacerbated by Angela Merkel last year, who simply encouraged this mas movement of people. When it became clear that this should be stopped, the EU showed itself powerless to protect its borders. Last autumn, naval patrols were introduced between Turkey and the Greek islands - these patrols were not introduced by the EU, but by the UK and by NATO! Angela Merkel has since been unilaterally talking to the Turks, encouraging them with talk of visa-free access to the EU and speeding up their membership application. David Cameron insists that Turkey will never be a signed up member until 3000 - what claptrap? Either Mrs Merkel is deliberately misleading the Turks or he is wrong; and, given that within the last year he said that he himself "would help pave the way from Ankara to Brussels", how can we possibly believe him?

Leaving the EU would allow Britain to reformulate its immigration policy on a basis that is fair to all who would like to come and work here, regardless of whether they are in the EU or elsewhere. The Australians and others have perfectly reasonable points-based systems and so could we, in order that people of relevant qualifications and abilities can enter the UK on a managed basis. (Remainers say, well, Australia has proportionally higher immigration than the UK - well, that is only because that is where they have currently set the barrier, so this is a spurious argument).

Conclusion

Blimey, we certainly have not seen an edifying intellectual debate in public.

I have to say that I have found the Remain campaign to be very depressing, showing no hope for any bright future, treating the electorate as fools with some of their exaggerated messages of fear and, from a very early stage, resorting to ad hominem attacks on the Outers, ridiculing them wherever possible.

On the Brexit side, I have seen much more in the way of courtesy. I think that all would have liked there to have been more substance given to the shape of a post-Brexit structure, but I can see that at this stage such would only be conjecture, and an invitation to the Remain lobby to try to tear it to pieces.

Anyway, we are where we are. Different people will find positives and negatives in different arguments. If we believe the head of the Remain Campaign, Lord Rose, nothing much is likely to happen for the next 5 years after Brexit. Let's chill...

Why not look briefly at one of the intellectual stars of the debate, Michael Gove, before completing your form, whether by post or at the polling station, to Vote Leave.

If you have time, I would also strongly recommend that you watch the first 30 minutes or so of Lord Owen on https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SWVO2d9Spks, and the amazing Daniel Hannan on https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K6EnXHti3Dw

Thank you so much for your forbearance in getting all the way through my blog, and I hope that I have at least stimulated some thoughts and ideas, whichever way you vote.

Good luck to us all,

Quentin