Our debates are often rooted in “the West”, and the successes of nations outside of this club tend to be passing headlines at most.
Future deals will be important but they should be viewed as a means to an end rather than an end in of themselves
Britons were told the country would be leaving the dangerous European Arrest Warrant system, but its replacement looks suspiciously similar.
Plus: vision from the top for left-behind pupils, a National Education Broadcasting Service, and Alan Turing summer schools.
Fortunately, there are workable alternatives on the table already – see what’s happening at Heathrow and Vienna, and in Iceland.
It would be dangerous for UK business and would leave both Leavers and Remainers dissatisfied. It would leave Britain subject to free movement.
There are indeed mechanisms for mitigating damaging immigration flows, but these are tightly constrained.
In the long-term, we should be pursuing a Canada-style free trade agreement. In the short, we should park ourselves in the EEA.
Within EFTA, there are already two models of relationship with the EU – the EEA and the Swiss model. There is no reason why there could not be a third.
Not being able to blame Brussels for our problems nor look to the EU for solutions will be immensely reinvigorating.
We don’t need a European solution; we need a global solution. We must think independent Anglosphere, not dependent Eurosphere.
They will want to ask themselves if they really want to spurn last year’s referendum result and the Party’s manifesto commitment.
For both sides, this is a new kind of deal-making. Although Britain is still a member, this is not an internal negotiation in which the UK can be outgunned and outvoted:
We are keen to gather views from interested parties (such as businesses, industry groups, politicians, academics and others) about what would happen.
We don’t need more laws with anti-strike provisions – the Government already has the tools to deal with the transport crisis.