Adam Afriyie isn't helping the Eurosceptic cause. He should pipe down The greatest risk for Eurosceptics who wish to see a new relationship with Europe is not the recent speech by the Deputy Prime Minister, Nick Clegg, but the amendment proposed to the Referendum Bill by Adam Afriyie. Mr Clegg has reiterated the usual clichés of the pro-Europeans. He thinks that trade with Europe prevents us losing three million jobs. This makes no sense as the United Kingdom imports more than it exports to Europe just from Germany, whose largest trading partner we are: we buy £14.4 billion more in goods and services than we sell. Mr Clegg says that we will be cut out of trade negotiations but the evidence is that the European Union slows down free trade as many member states are historically protectionist. Since 1972 trade liberalisation and the advent of the World Trade Organisation have removed most of the benefits of trade blocs which originated in a world of the Soviet Union and a closed communist China. The other standard argument used by those who want ever closer union is that it will reduce Britain's standing in the world. They never ask what the national interest is. A similar line was taken in relation to Parliament's decision not to bomb Syria but within a week the rest of the world had followed Britain's lead and the chances of a peaceful settlement have risen. The "standing in the world" concern is one of sentimentalists who hark back to an imperial age and can easily mistake the national interest for their own desire to strut the world stage. Nonetheless Mr Clegg's speech is interesting and important because it shows that the pro Europeans will use a negative and fearful campaigning strategy. Poor old Blighty, once able to stand alone but now so enfeebled as to need to rely on the continent. It will have an impact in any referendum campaign as in all such contests fear opposes hope and Eurosceptics have not yet made the case for hope. This is why Adam Afriyie's amendment is so unhelpful. Adam is a man of great charm and intelligence who has been a hugely successful businessman but in this instance his political antennae have malfunctioned. In all constitutional referendums there is a tendency to swing back to the status quo. The recent result in Southern Ireland over the abolition of the second chamber of its Parliament illustrates this point. As late as September 29 a poll put those in favour at 64 per cent but only 36 per cent against. Even including those who were undecided, the abolitionists were 17 per cent ahead. The final result was 51.7 per cent for keeping the second chamber and 48.3 per cent against, a swing in a week of 16 per cent. To avoid this fate those who want to change our relationship with the European Union need to have done their homework. This requires a twin-track strategy, part of which David Cameron has adopted but it remains incomplete. The idea of renegotiation is sensible: it would ensure that the result of a referendum was better than the status quo. That is because even a weak renegotiation would be an improvement on the treadmill which we are currently on. To achieve this and for the electorate to judge its success the aims need to be set out and ought to include at a minimum opt-outs from the common fisheries policy, financial regulation and most importantly the free movement of people. The last of these no longer works for the United Kingdom. The ability of an EU member state national to come to this country has distorted our immigration policy making it hard for Chinese and Indian businessmen to come here but easy for continental criminals. It is an approach that may have worked for a small club but fails a large one and risks cutting Britain off from those parts of the world which are the most likely to prosper in the next hundred years. An end to the free movement of people will be the key test of renegotiation and without it the exercise will be essentially trivial. The second track of the strategy needs to be negotiations and exit under Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union. This allows the transition arrangements to be made and would offer the reassurance the electorate wants that there is little to fear from leaving. It would cover trade issues and would help ensure that a newly independent Britain retained friendly relations with its neighbours. This would be a strategy that was full of hope because it would show that Britain could be more prosperous outside the confines of the European Union. Although renegotiation will probably not see a sufficient return of powers as the Commission seems to have set its face against it, which would make it necessary to leave, nothing could be as antipathetic to the national interest and democracy as the current arrangements. Proceeding too quickly and without proper planning and campaigning risks maintaining the status quo and plays into the hands of those like Nick Clegg who desire a federal Europe. In this context it is necessary to "make haste slowly."