Apart from Boris’s boisterous optimism there is little being reported in the media to refute Mr Cameron’s Project Fear and the subliminal message that we are all useless.  Also, when European Union (EU)-fanatics sing the praises of perhaps the biggest scam on earth, little is said to show that we can do much better without even trying.  Again there are a few meek statements along the lines of ‘we used to manage our affairs before the control-freaks from Brussels arrived’ or ‘we’ve got ingenuity’.   Sadly OUT (Leave) Campaign leaders appear unaware of any systematic way of showing what we all intuitively realise, that (1) there are no significant risks in leaving the failing EU and (2) anything ‘good’ that the EU appears to do, we can do much better.

This country is the risk management world leader ahead of America and light years ahead of the vacuous, clueless leaders and bureaucrats of the EU.  If they knew the basics, they wouldn’t be repeatedly making disastrous mistakes like the Euro, debt mountains, stalling competitiveness and runaway migration which impacts on the most vulnerable in society.  Risk, including the likelihood of occurrence and severity of undesirable consequences, can be managed very successfully. Otherwise electricity would be too dangerous to use, air travel wouldn’t get off the ground, money couldn’t be invested and major projects such as Cross Rail tunnelling under London would peter out unfinished.

The inherent problems the EU suffers as it tries to get its policies right and fine-tuned cannot be cured. One size does not fit all (28 divergent countries), and the considerable hierarchical and physical distance between them and us, means they can only guess what might work drawing on their Dreamworld ideology of an EU superstate.  By comparison, the SAS (living in the real and dangerous world with serious jobs to do) delegate authority down to the lowest level, nearest the action.  And we often know from our personal experiences the havoc that distant, out of touch management can wreck, whilst being close to the action delivers faster moving, better decisions and ultimately, results.

Moving major decisions outside the nation state, with its homogeneity, transparency and democratic accountability, is intrinsically risky. The results of EU mistakes fall especially hard on ordinary hardworking people and the most vulnerable. Yet Mr Cameron and EU-fanatics appear not to understand this.  Or they are cavalier in ignoring the obvious.  Restoring national policy making or even localising it further will get better results. Not surprisingly the trade deals negotiated by small independent countries such as Switzerland are more numerous and better than the EU’s efforts. There is a theory, based on the study of many successful innovations from the dawn of civilisation, which can predict this and can be used to repeatedly improve results. There is no ‘leap into the dark’ by leaving the EU, just a leap into a less risky better performing and democratic situation than that of centralised bureaucratic corporatist control by the EU.

We can go one better again, taking any risk out of the transition period in leaving the EU.  This comes about by managing the processes involved using best practice, arising from current knowledge and invention. Process management for low risk is something the EU is, again, very poor at and Mr Cameron does not appear to know much, if anything, about.  The starting place is to use normal risk management tools, which these days are well refined.  We can go further still and build in ways of adapting and self-learning to ensure that anything that hasn’t been thought of in the beginning can be suitably dealt with.   This makes the claim that the EU will not co-operate absurd; it can be made very much in their interests to negotiate a WIN-WIN divorce.

This brief overview cannot go into the details of risk management, process management, collaboration management and low risk innovation. However, the more you drill down into the detail, the more it becomes obvious that we are being deceived.  The high risk and poor performance is in staying bogged down in the EU-quagmire. The low risk better performing alternative is in leaving and can form a sound basis for future progress, and we can transition at far lower risk than the current EU-dominated situation.  Every example of ‘Project Fear’ only reinforces the impression that our EU-loving ruling establishment cannot manage risk effectively in its various forms.   We as an independent country can do much better and achieve vastly improved overall results. Messrs Cameron and Corbyn, and your distant EU-overlords, Mr Juncker and (and his boss) Mrs Merkel, please explain honestly to us why we can’t.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email