The Principle of Trust under “Cross-fire”

I have argued elsewhere that Western European culture and prosperity is under two severe pressures, from “Slavic racism” and “The Islamic Diaspora”. My military analogy was that under order “cross-fire”, withering fire from both sides causing great losses, only one of the two components must be neutralised for the “cross-fire” to end. My thesis under that analogy was we Western Europeans should seek to neutralise “Slavic racism” first.

I argue here under “The Principle of Trust under ‘Cross-fire’” that we need correct leadership if we, the British people, on behalf of the wider West European peoples, are to successfully withdraw from The European Union. The principle of trust, or an oath to serve, is a bridge across a “fear” below which requires the support of a minimum two pillars. Those two pillars from the perspective of our South American community resident in the UK are “consulates abroad and the supporting infrastructure” and “religious freedoms under the crown”.

There is great uncertainty over what “new geo-political agreements” (or trade deals) the UK would be able to make after withdrawing from The European Union. Clarity on what might be possible is largely impossible because deals are made “in good faith” and few potential trading partners to new agreements will risk undermining their existing investment in trading relations with The European Union on the perilous assumption a plebiscite in the UK on June 23rd will create anything new.  It is this lack of certainty which serves as the main mechanism for the spread of fear, or “Project Fear” as coined by the SNP during The Scottish Referendum of 2014.

In order to trust a leader (or a leadership) most people will require news of some type of solution or evidence of rational planning. Arguably The SNP leadership failed to faithfully stipulate their preferred choice of monetary mechanism post-Exit and consequently the referendum was lost. The people did not lost their faith in the SNP (the election of 54 members to The House of Commons in 2015 testament to that) but rather they had little faith in the SNP plan for a new monetary agreement after withdrawing from the UK, namely staying with the Pound. Events proved it was incumbent upon the SNP to choose one or the other, issuing a new currency or joining The Euro. Any plan is better than none at all and by this measure the SNP leadership failed.

So does “Vote Leave” currently have any plan? The answer must be a resounding no. The purpose of this paper is to correct that. The SNP of course produced “Scotland’s Future” which was a 650 page government white paper published on 26 November 2013 by the Scottish Government under First Minister Alex Salmond. It laid out the case for Scottish independence and the means through which Scotland would become an independent country in personal union with the United Kingdom. Salmond described it as the “most comprehensive blueprint for an independent country ever published”. In hindsight we can therefore quite easily argue that to fail to produce some type of solution or evidence of rational planning to conquer the main mechanism for the spread of fear, or “Project Fear” is to plan to fail. Arguable in hindsight the SNP would have been better served to have either chosen the path of issuing a new currency or joining The Euro and sought to have vigorously defended their position. Anything was better than fudging the issue (“London cannot stop us staying with the pound”) and so permitting the growth of a nebulous fear around it. Again, any plan is better than none at all.

I have already stated the plan I propose, from the perspective of our South American community resident in the UK, is built around “consulates abroad and the supporting infrastructure” and “religious freedoms under the crown”. However it would be simpler to say the plan must effectively specify how a “new UK bill of rights will bypass The ECHR (European Court of Human Rights)”. It is not incumbent on the leadership of “Vote Leave” to provide all the details for such a new bill or act of Parliament, which undoubtedly will require a combined effort of the UK’s best legal brains post exit, but to state clearly the plan for it.

I argue here under “The Principle of Trust under ‘Cross-fire’” that the plan must include a cost-benefit analysis of the UK maintaining “consulates abroad and the supporting infrastructure” and “religious freedoms under the crown”. The latter may seem more closely aligned to the thorny debate over “rights” and “liberties” as one would expect from something replacing The ECHR. However it is our network of consulates abroad, already operating outside the shared visa processing system of Europe (free movement in The Schengen Area) which not only protects those rights and liberties abroad but sustains a plethora of agreements for a small country to act globally. If your son or daughter marries someone abroad, if you lose your passport on holiday, if you seek to export into new markets, if you want to stop us trading with countries which abuse human rights…then how the UK will invest and more importantly improve one pillar of trust in “consulates abroad and the supporting infrastructure” is vital to the success of how our liberties and rights will be defended should we withdraw from The European Union.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *