DR NORTH AND FLEXCIT

Dr Richard North is a leading advocate of leaving the EU. His EU Referendum blog (HERE) is required reading for anyone, and I include myself, trying to follow the Byzantine complexities of Brexit. He has a plan for Brexit, which is available on his blog (407 pages HERE) called Flexcit and constantly referred to as the only possible, workable plan for leaving the EU.  I don't know Dr North personally, but he comes across as a man of absolutely towering arrogance. 

Comments on his posts are made at your peril. The slightest challenge to his opinion or hint of criticism is met by withering sarcasm and devastating put downs, often accompanied by threats to delete the comments and ban the commenter. Even the praise is attacked if it isn't fulsome enough. He examines British and EU documents in forensic detail but Flexcit, his very own plan for Brexit, is never put under the microscope - until now.

To give you some idea of where he's coming from, his Wikipedia entry (HERE) comments on a review of the book he co-authored:The Great Deception: Can the European Union Survive? (2005).  "In the academic journal The Historian described his "skewed portrayal" of European integration "against the will of a bamboozled European public", as "not so much false as ludicrous", noting "the book loses whatever credibility it accrues in its better chapters by its persistently exaggerated language".

His blog has been going for years - the earliest post I can see is this one HERE from New Year's Day 2005 where he admits to being imprisoned twice in the previous twelve months for non-payment of taxes, quotes forecasts of a recession akin to 1929 and a coming energy crisis with the lights going out all over England. He sounds more like an anarchist - "It is only personal fear, and the effects of state violence on my nearest and dearest, that force me to conform with a government I detest – both governments, actually, the one on London and the one in Brussels".

A passionate believer in Brexit, his blog has strangely become de rigueur for all true remainers since it's the only one to cover the subject in depth and contain such excoriating criticism of the government's handling of Brexit. Even his son has a blog (HERE) albeit not a patch on his Dad's, which is far and away the best informed on Brexit - although that's not saying much.

He thinks of himself as omnipotent and totally infallible but he isn't. His blog is probably the best, not always for his own contributions, which have lately descended into rants, but for the comments below, often up to a thousand a day. You can pick up real nuggets of useful stuff from his highly knowledgeable readership - mostly remainers in my opinion.

However, his Flexcit plan is I'm afraid so ludicrous that it's not even fantasy. Frequently referred to by his followers I'm not convinced that any of them have actually read it. You can tell how delusional it is from the first few pages. For example, his Vision (page 3):

"The ability of the people of the United Kingdom to determine their own independent future and use their wealth of executive, legislative and judicial experience to help, inspire and shape political developments through international bodies, and to improve world trade and the wellbeing of all peoples will only be possible when they are free of the undemocratic and moribund European Union.

"The prosperity of the people depends on being able to exercise the fundamental right and necessity of self-determination, thus taking control of their opportunities and destiny in an inter-governmental global future with the ability to swiftly correct and improve when errors occur".

Assuming that after Brexit we will still be able to say we have a wealth of "executive, legislative and judicial experience" without causing uncontrolled laughter, the "intergovernmental global future" he dreams of seems to be receding into the past at a rate of knots. The number of free trade associations, along the lines of the EU is rising all the time. Apart from the EU, we have NAFTA, EFTA, ASEAA, ECOWAS. MERCOSUR and plenty of others (HERE) which contain dozens of nations.  The EU is the logical extension of a free trade area to include close regulatory alignment as well as common external tariffs and commercial policy.

While Flexcit argues for a future of independent nations, reality is bringing nations together into trading blocs.

The process of Flexcit is supposed to occupy six phases the first of which is withdrawal. It discusses three potential options, WTO rules, a Swiss style multiplicity of bilateral agreements or the EFTA/EEA option although they are all just "interim solutions" (page 40) pending what Dr North calls a "long term resolution" of our relationship. And here, nobody could accuse him of lacking ambition. He intends nothing less than a complete re-arrangement of Europe - I kid you not.

The first two withdrawal options are quickly disposed of leaving his preferred option of EFTA then the EEA. But Norway has more or less dismissed this (HERE) anyway so now all of his options seem to be either disastrous, not available or off the table. But let's ignore that inconvenient detail for a minute and go on to his longer term solution also known as phase three:-

"We then propose a third phase, which involves breaking free of the Brussels-centric administration of European trade, building a genuine, Europe-wide single market, with common decision-making for all parties. This will be fully integrated into the global rule-making process, through existing international bodies".

He typically writes in the style of God almighty, re-ordering continental Europe in an image which he finds more amenable, shifting whole countries and trading blocs around as if they're inanimate chess pieces. I'm at a loss to imagine what this "Europe-wide single market" would look like if it wasn't the EU or to understand who would be persuaded to leave the EU to join it. See what I mean about it not even getting to the level of a fantasy? Some of it could have come from the pages of a more benign version of Mein Kampf.

"The greater global influence notwithstanding, we still have to deal with a European trading system dominated by Brussels, in what has been described as a Europe of concentric circles. As long as Brussels remains at the centre and the UK is seen to be on the periphery, its position will be subordinate or inferior. This cannot be acceptable in the longer term so in the following chapter we look at ways of securing a more stable continent-wide market". (Page 13).

His objections seem geographic rather than political. His suggestion seems at first to be that Brussels needs to be moved to the Thames Estuary while London is re-sited half way between Paris and Berlin where we can keep a proper eye on them. But in practice, Dr North plans to reconfigure Europe not from the centre, or even the periphery but by removing us from the EU altogether! It is as if unable to influence things from the boardroom table we plan to flounce out and bellow through the letterbox.

To dream that we will NOT be subordinate to Brussels after Brexit sounds rather fanciful to me but not to Dr North because, in a nod to Yalta and Potsdam, he proclaims:

"Working  at  this  level [rejoining the global trading system],  the UK will  be helping  to dictate  the  global agenda".

"The aim is a community of equals in a "European village", rather than a Europe of concentric circles, using the Geneva-based United Nations Economic Community Europe (UNECE). It would become the core administrative body, on the lines proposed by Winston Churchill in 1948 and again in 1950. Thus, the exit from the EU becomes the start of an ongoing process, the means to an end, not the end itself. Simultaneously, we identify and explore some key areas where independent policy development is required. In phase four, we make a start on this, the work eventually leading to divergence from the EU and the emergence of unique UK policies".

Having re-organised Europe, I assume he then wants his loose collection of independent nations to diverge from each other so we get back to the way things were in 1949 - a sort of year zero for the North doctrine.

And given that the Irish border problem is THE stumbling block, in Flexcit it was dealt with (page 80) rather summarily by this:

"In  the  event  of  the  UK  removing  itself  from  the  Single Market  (Efta/EEA),  there  will  most  certainly  be  requirements  for  sanitary  and phytosanitary  checks  at  the  border,  requiring  permanent  installation  of  Border Inspection  Posts  (BIPs)  or  Designated  Points  of Entry  (soon  to  be  replaced  by Border Control Posts).Given the high volume of traffic carrying animals or plants, or goods of animal or  plant  origin,  including  foodstuffs,  this  could  have  considerable  implications for  the  land  border  between  Ireland  and  Northern  Ireland,  and  for  cross-Channel traffic"

"Considerable implications" is surely the understatement of 2018?

From about page 82 or so we get into a sort of glorified cherry orchard where we are free to pick and choose from just about every possible EU body and agency from the EU Environment Agency, Medicines Agency, Single European Sky, Aviation Safety Agency, Police and Criminal Justice, Joint customs arrangement, Anti-dumping measures, Sanitary and Phyto-sanitary checks, Maritime Safety, etc, etc, etc. It is cherry picking on an industrial scale and is nothing less than membership dressed up in the livery of independence, without the legal encumbrances and only half the money.

In what he calls the hidden hand of global governance (Page 184) he describes the operation of international standards, such as Codex (a WHO system for food standards), which comes down to the UK through the EU but are frequently grumbled about as if they're EU rules. Out of the EU, he readily admits we will have to comply with the same rules anyway. No one will notice any difference in which case the only benefit is in being able to say our rules don't come from the EU - although they're identical in every respect. I struggle to see the point of this as an aim? It's Europhobia plain and simple.

Arguing that Global standards is the future and using the UN Economic Commission for Europe as an example, he points out the great flaw (page 210): "What is currently absent from the UNECE structure is a formal court, with nothing in any way comparable with the European Court of Justice or the EFTA Court", And goes on to answer it with, "One might expect, therefore, the parties to agree a  form  of  dispute  settlement  specifically  to  deal  with  any  enhanced  UNECE agreement".

What he doesn't say is how long it would take for the countries of the UN to (a) come together to agree global standards on everything and then (b) set up a court of arbitration - assuming that any of them actually wanted to do so. Decades? A century?

By page 211 we get to the section on  a "community of equals" and Flexcit begins to talk about the separation of trade and politics:

"In breaking the EU-centricity, and separating political integration from trade, the adoption of UNECE as the administrative body also restores political neutrality to trading agreements. Where the Association Agreement with Ukraine was seen as a "Trojan Horse" for political integration, UNECE-led initiatives have no political overtones. Notwithstanding political relations between, say, Russia and the European Union, trading agreements can proceed independently. Because the relationship is based on geography rather than seeking political integration, there is no conditionality. Vexed matters such as freedom of movement are separated and access to the market no longer relies their adoption".

In essence Flexcit is about breaking up the EU (seventy years in the making) and refashioning it into something that exists in Dr North's imagination.

And finally, for anyone still confused about what he sees as our future leading global role helping to "shape political developments through international bodies, and to improve world trade and the wellbeing of all peoples" we find him fleshing out  what he sees as Britain's rightful place in the world:

"For the UK, outside the EU, it is in a position to raise such issues and place them on the agenda at the United Nations (i.e., global) level. In all instances, the UK might best expend its efforts in brokering agreements between equals, to avoid the perception of more wealthy nations seeking to impose their demands on weaker partners. But that same provision also applies in relations between the UK and the EU".

We seem to become a sort of cross between facilitator and referee, taking over the global leadership role from the USA. I'm sure Washington would be happy to defer to us.  And then another fantasy:

"Any arrangement which casts the UK in a subordinate role, in relation to the EU or any of its member states, is simply not sustainable in the longer term".

Dr North sees us not as one of 28 EU member nations, but as one that is equal to all the other 27 put together.  From being one twenty eighth of the EU - or 15% by population, we suddenly become the equal of them all! And finally, if you had any reservations about his authoritarian agenda what about this (page 14):

"Any settlement must be accompanied by measures which resolve the democratic deficit which allowed politicians to give away the nation's powers. It must also ensure that any future government is not able to repeat the process".

Not only does he want to pull us out of the EU at any cost, he wants to prevent any future government re-entering it, presumably regardless of the wishes of the future populace. Fitting "democratic deficit" into the adjacent sentence requires a bit of chutzpah.

He is utterly opposed to a people's vote and ridicules (HERE) our marches but this wasn't always the case. Flexcit (page 4) says:

"Thus, the first phase is limited to a smooth, economically neutral transition into the post-exit world. It lays the foundations for the UK to exploit its independence, without trying to achieve everything at once. Subject to a referendum to approve the initial exit agreement, the basic withdrawal framework could be in place within two years of starting negotiations".

Funny how ones fondness for referenda fades when you've achieved your objective isn't it? Democracy is just a fleeting thing really.

I want to end with a bit on Dr North's background. His PhD in food safety was gained at Leeds Metropolitan University (now Leeds Beckett) one of the old polytechnics and hardly one of the Russel Group. He gives the impression of having worked for the EU, in fact he was research director for a group of Eurosceptic parties in the EU parliament. He shared an office with Farage and once stood as a UKIP candidate. You can read his full Wikipedia entry HERE.

But note these comments, quoted by Wikipedia, from his critics:

EU politics writer and blogger J. Clive Matthews has argued that North is guilty of "pandering to his audience’s preconceptions and prejudices".  A European Commission official and academic has argued that North and Booker are best seen as "latter-day pamphleteers", who "exaggerate their case", advancing an "all-embracing, Kafkaesque conspiracy, the "System", consisting of an evil partnership between Brussels and Whitehall".

"Princeton University's Andrew Moravcsik, whose research is cited in the book, has accused the authors of "misconstruing" his work as supporting their narrative and failing to demonstrate that there were any viable alternatives to European Union membership, with Booker and North's economics being "even dodgier than their history". He further argues that their "Eurosceptic dogma" of an ""undemocratic" scheme of centralised regulation" is undermined by their own examples; that it is largely "British officials exercising their own discretion" and juggling the fate of special interest groups against the wider economy.

Responding to a question on 'Flexcit' by a supporter of North during a live Q&A on Reddit, the Jean Monnet Chair of EU Law at the University of Livepool Michael Dougan noted that North's "academic work on EU law" was not known to him as it was not published in the mainstream international peer-reviewed journals for the field of European legal studies. Dougan suggested further that it does not meet the "internationally recognised" standards for the discipline.

Yet oddly, I find Flexcit a comfort. It's probably the best and most rigorously researched plan for the UK to exit the EU as painlessly as possible but even this is completely outlandish and wholly unworkable.

Brexit always was and always will be a fantasy.