Operation Hysteria continued yesterday with a pathetically weak and dithery interview on 'Today' by Ben Wallace, before he left to open the International Handcuff Exhibition. Wallace is a minister who struggles to make his presence felt; he must have endured a multitude of social events with his interlocutor's gaze fixed over his shoulder seeking someone more interesting with whom to talk.
'Today' managed to tease from him that Brexit would end the EU wide security agreement under which we exchanged information. But surely we do this already under a number of bi-lateral agreements that would continue? Well, yes. And there will be nothing stopping a security official from the UK picking up the phone to his opposite number to warn of a threat? Well, No. And neither we or our security counterparts in Europe will stand idle and keep silent about a terrorist or security situation? Well, No. So there will be little difference?
It is simply not credible that the UK will leave either itself or other European nations more vulnerable to terrorism by cutting links and co-operation. Brexit or no Brexit, we will share and security and law enforcement professionals in Europe will share with us (except perhaps Germany, which protects herself against the EU by not only having a law that prohibits the export of wealth but also the export of intelligence). What we will escape is the EU laying claim to our formidable strengths in SIS, MI5 and GCHQ, and with a satellite network of our own (the cost of a single year's EU membership) we will stand as a bridge between the US and Five Eyes and the EU. Let us not forget that since the US was enumerated amongst the EU's potential future enemies, we need a fusible link, a filter, that can start to restrict the flow of sensitive defence intel to the EU.
Meanwhile, the markets have shrugged-off the economic hysteria just as our C@W friends said that they would. It also emerged that Carney's Halloween figures were 'scenarios' rather than 'projections'. The difference is as follows. Projections are an honest assessment of the economic effects of various Brexit options, given the likely behaviours of the parties and alternatives available. The Bank's scenarios are based upon there being no alternative goods, services, trade routes, sources, contracts, deals and markets other than those lost through no longer being part of the single market, upon the UK not having one single entrepreneur who will be flexible enough to react, nor a single business that innovates, invents or substitutes and nary a government but one that continues to be hidebound with pettifogging EU rules. In other words it's not worth the paper it was printed on.