We must show people how markets can make life better for ordinary families by broadening choice, spurring innovation, and driving down prices.
With a limited number of exceptions such as Euratom, we need to take back control of regulation from continent-wide agencies with which we are a poor fit.
Rather than price caps and nationalisations, there is a chance to help consumers with tax cuts and regulatory reform.
Labour’s handouts must be exposed as a self-defeating deception – as must the danger of what happens when “there is no money left”.
The absence of a comprehensive agreement would not be apocalyptic, but it would involve many complexities.
The basic principles of limited government, economic and civil liberties, freedom and equality under the law are almost entirely absent from her programme.
Regulation without representation would exacerbate the very lack of control that drove voters to choose Leave in the first place. It’s no solution at all.
In her belief in “the good that government can do”, she is quite unique in terms of UK political post-war history.
It is incumbent on all of us who have participated in the EU debate, on both sides, to confess to some sins and omissions.
The EU’s draft document suggests broad agreement on most of what we want. And the three bones of contention are surmountable.
New polling finds that they are proud of Britain’s action on climate change, and want the main EU environment regulations retained after Brexit.
His work provides a firm intellectual foundation for restoring the common law and passing power back to citizens and social institutions.
There is much more to politics than an affordable state and competitive taxes. But both will be indispensible for survival, let alone prosperity, after we leave the EU.
Some might like to table amendments to instantly delete bad EU regulations. But that would be a gift to those who seek to disrupt Brexit.
“It will help to ensure certainty and stability across the board.”