Matthew Elliot is often referred to as the EU referendum mastermind. He is the man who pulled the strings behind the scene. In late 2015 Mr Elliot, as CEO of "Business for Britain", a pro Brexit lobby group, published a thousand page document entitled Change or Go, which was the most detailed document produced by either side during the campaign. He has just been ordered by the Charity Commission to repay £50,000 that he raised for charity which was used to pay for it, although I imagine he will still believe it was money well spent.
I usually think of it as the leavers Bible. The whole thrust of his arguments (not very intellectually rigorous and I'll blog about that another time) is that the EU should "Change" and if not we should "Go". It takes him 1032 pages to say it since he is even more long winded than I am. The essence of it is captured on page 213, which says Britain should only stay in an EU that has "substantially reformed".
I usually think of it as the leavers Bible. The whole thrust of his arguments (not very intellectually rigorous and I'll blog about that another time) is that the EU should "Change" and if not we should "Go". It takes him 1032 pages to say it since he is even more long winded than I am. The essence of it is captured on page 213, which says Britain should only stay in an EU that has "substantially reformed".
But wait - are we about to see that substantial reform Mr Elliot craves? On March 3rd 2017 in Versailles, the big four of the EU - Germany, France, Italy and Spain met and agreed a future concept where individual countries would be able to pursue greater integration but at their own pace. In effect a multi-speed Europe. The website Politico has the story HERE. You can see a link to their site on the right hand side bar. It's a useful source of current EU thinking.
This is what Mr Elliot had to say in item 6.1.1: "This is an approach that has (as a ‘multi speed Europe’) been applied in the past, allowing states opt-outs as further integration has occurred for others. It has led to national opt-outs from the single currency, defence cooperation, and justice and home affairs. The argument put forward by Eurosceptic politicians in the 1990s to make this a permanent structure has, however, not been accepted".
But it seems it may be accepted now. If the EU agrees to formalise this in a treaty change would this be a reason to remain? It may be that both sides of the referendum argument would then have something to agree on and could come together again. Brexit would have achieved something but not the complete separation of the UK from the EU.
