Negotiating Brexit - the basics

Firstly, some health advice.  Everyone just calm down.  We have had a referendum. We, as the people of the United Kingdom, made a choice and we will live with it.

Also, let's be very clear.  The United Kingdom is still a full and functioning member of the European Union.  We are still subject to all of the rules that membership imposes.  All those people who are accusing the Leave campaign of not fulfilling campaign promises need to understand that no substantive changes can occur while we remain a member of the EU.  Politicians and media commentators already know this and should think very carefully before they, for presumably personal gain, push and publish statements to the contrary.

And think back to last Friday.  Did the sun come up?  Did you go to work and do the same things that you did on Thursday and Wednesday? Was the price to fill-up you car or shopping trolley, the same as the previous time? Has the government suddenly declared we are on a war-footing?  Did Germany stop exporting cars to us and the French, wine?

Wasn't there an old WW2 poster about Keep Calm and Carry On ?

OK, so may as well address the elephant in the room, at the outset.

Nigel Farage should almost certainly take no public part in the negotiation with our (still current) EU partners.  None.  He is far too divisive and incapable of not gloating.

These negotiations are the responsibility of the UK government.  That government is formed by the Conservative Party and currently led by David Cameron.  Cameron has made it clear that he wants someone else to lead his party and the negotiations and so any team-forming must await the outcome of the Tory leadership campaign.  That might frustrate the likes of Jean-Claude Juncker but that's just tough.

I said, at the outset, that Farage should take no part.  Of course that is down to the new Conservative leader but I see no reason for Farage to be a member of the team.  The Conservative Party have a large number of very capable MPs who could participate and anyway, the bulk of the work needs to be carried out by the Civil Service, once they have been given their very clear, marching orders.   The latter point is critical, the Civil Service need to be told, in no uncertain terms that they are to broker a deal that is in the UK's interest and that matches the democratic decision of the people of the UK - a departure (Leave if you will) from all of the institutions of the European Union.

Fundamentally though, it is the Conservative Party that must shoulder the bulk of the work.  They may bring in and take advice from non-Conservative Party advisers but it is the role of the Conservative government to lead and get the job done.

As regular readers would expect, I have a few opinions on the whole process.  Here goes.

Assuming that he isn't chosen as the leader of the Conservative Party, I would propose David Davis, the MP for Haltemprice and Howden, as the leader of these negotiations.  Davis has been a long-time Euro-sceptic but is not so hide-bound that he cannot build bridges across the political spectrum - he was elevated in many people's opinion with his principled opposition to increased detention periods.  He also has a good 'back-story' and has repeatedly shown that he is 'no one's fool' and is not easily brow-beaten.  I would certainly trust him to represent Britain's interests but to do so in a British manner - not rubbing the EU's nose in it.

I believe that the negotiating team would benefit from cross-party participation - Kate Hoey and especially Gisela Stuart were very impressive during the campaign.  Jim Sellars from Scotland and Arlene Foster from Northern Ireland would also be great contributors.  As would Dan Hannan, who could bring his considerable inside knowledge to bear.  Douglas Carswell would also be a sound contributor as would be Suzanne Evans.

As you will note, all are Brexiteers.  It makes little to no sense to have people that passionately believed in Remain, sitting in the team and possibly thwarting the wishes and aims of the people of the UK.

The issues on which we need resolution are clear, and given the febrile atmosphere, now and here isn't the place. to discuss them.

That said, one thing needs to be made crystal clear.  EU migrants, that are now in the UK, should be immediately reassured that there residence is not in jeopardy.  They must be allowed the comfort of knowing we welcomed them before and welcome them now.  This is something that David Cameron can and must state, immediately.

More to follow but for now, let us all remain calm and a British sense of perspective.

EU mess

Don't worry, this isn't a recipe for a meringue, cream and summer fruit dessert.  The mess I refer to is the way things are going with the Conservatives re-negotiation of the terms of membership of Britain's participation in the European Union.

Prime Minister, David Cameron, has started the process of re-negotiation.  It is barely a month, since the Conservatives were elected, with a small majority, to the Westminster Parliament.  A referendum is promised by the end of 2017 and yet to hear some people, you would think that the vote is around the corner.

On this issue, many people, myself included have some kind of an axe or other, to grind.

• The media, particularly the BBC, who receive lavish funding from the EU, are strongly pro-EU and so push an agenda that seeks to promote talk of a Tory split and faction fighting among Tories,  David Cameron is accused of issuing ultimatums to Cabinet colleagues about toeing an as yet undefined line!  And so on.  We also hear that Rupert Murdoch has had a Damascene conversion and now wants Britain to stay in the EU!  
• UKIP and noisy people that want out and really want no renegotiation, just out now (or yesterday, if we can 'fix' the records).
• Big business mostly declaring a doom and gloom future if Britain leaves the EU.
• Myself, my axe to grind is that I have my own 'red lines' - more on these shortly - and I don't want these issues to be lost in peripheral matters.  

How are people better informed about the renegotiation of say free movement of labour and the effect on immigration, if they are distracted by stories of a Tory split or Deutsche Bank's latest view on the precarious economic future for Britain.  The distraction from UKIP will, over time become a dull pain.  They need to freshen-up their message rather than just saying the same thing over and over and over again.  'UKIP wants Britain out of the EU' - we know, we get it!  Change the record!

I know that I have to be patient and await the outcome of these negotiations.  Cameron and the other leaders need come to a resolution to very complex matters and I don't expect that these will happen over-night.  Even the UKIP, 'Out now' solution, is a bit more nuanced than the phrase suggests.

I would suggest that all British people need to be patient and don't allow ourselves to be swayed by these people who want to bounce our opinion and thus our vote, in one direction or another.  I would request that organizations like the BBC, big business and UKIP, just pipe down.  We are not fools, we know where you stand, and we want to hear the deal that Cameron eventually gets for us and then we will make-up our minds.

My expectation is that once negotiations are concluded, there would be a period of, say, three months, during which the Yes and No campaign can put out their stalls and seek to persuade one way or another but until we know the deal, any comment seeking to persuade, one way or another is just noise - it might help to inform the debate (as do my 'red lines', I hope) but stirring up trouble and rifts and divisions doesn't help. I wouldn't though suggest that debate is stifled more that it is focused on the real issues rather than just posturing and saying nothing new.  I would also say that Opinion Polls, yes the same organisations that got the GE2015 results, so wrong, have a part to play.  These could strengthen the hand of Cameron and the negotiating team as they send a message to our EU partners about how seriously the UK wants change.

Talking of the No campaign.  There has been mention made that this should be led by Nigel Farage, the leader of UKIP.  This would be completely wrong.  Farage has done a great job of pushing the need for a referendum but he is very divisive and would likely cause many potential No voters to turn away in disgust and vote Yes, simply because he is there.  A far better No campaign leader would be Boris Johnson or Daniel Hannan.  The latter has consistency and, as a Euro MP, a long history of opposing and exposing the anti-democratic nature of the EU as it is currently constituted.  Johnson has great voter appeal.  Cameron is said to expect to work for a Yes vote and so, were Johnson to lead the No campaign then this would suggest an easy transition and change of power, should the Nos prevail.  As another possible leader, Sir James Dyson, a dynamic business leader, who is much admired for his entrepreneurial flair and business success.  Being a non-politician, he may also be more trusted by the 'man in the street'.

Now my 'red lines'.  As with any negotiation, we won't get all that we want but here's the framework.

Free movement of Labour - I must declare an interest as I have benefited from this, during my working life.  Therefore, along with other experiences of the benefits, I see this as beneficial to our economy and our country.  Yes it potentially means an influx of cheap labour but this is good for the country.  There are very definite challenges to be faced - schooling, health systems etc., but these will resolve themselves, over time.  A growing and healthy economy can afford such 'problems'.
I find the people that argue against this as somewhat hypocritical.  We don't want cheap labour doing jobs that need doing, and we oppose reform of a welfare system which makes it 'uneconomic' for people to come off of welfare and take low paying jobs, seems to be the crux of their argument.

Bureaucracy and Reciprocity - Big words.  More simply put, there are areas where the EU isn't needed.  Working hours in Britain - that's a matter for the UK parliament, not un-elected officials in Brussels.  HSE, Britain not EU, there is a whole raft of EU legislation - or more accurately, legislation that starts out as a Brussels 'directive' and becomes UK legislation because we have no choice but to implement it, under current rules - and this needs wholesale review and likely abolition for the greater parts of it.  Foreign relations?  Britain doesn't need, except perhaps on areas limited to certain trade discussions, an un-elected commissioner representing her.  History has shown that we are quite capable of doing so, ourselves.

Funding - The original benefits of the EU or the Common Market, as it was then called, effectively related to free trade - the sale of goods from one country to another without the imposition of tariffs or other barriers.  That is the place to where we should return.  Therefore the need for much of the funding for the monolithic bureaucracy and EU organisations would disappear.  Why should any country in the EU subsidize another?  If I join a club of some sort, I can expect to pay an annual subscription fee for the running and administration of the club.  I don't expect to pay based on my income, nor do I expect to pay fees for people that can't afford to be in the club, in the first place.  I certainly don't expect to pay their bar tab every single day that they are living beyond their means!
 
Democracy - Becomes somewhat moot if funding and reciprocity are addressed but this swings two ways.  Firstly, the EU Commission, if it is still needed (but I can't think why it would), must be democratically elected - that would suggest it must be appointed by either the people, through direct elections, or through the European Parliament.  My own view is that both the Commission and the Parliament should be abolished and much money saved.  I can't believe that all that hot air and cant is good for the environment!  Neither is the to-ing and fro-ing between Brussels and Strasbourg every month, nor the EU-citizen funded traveling between home country and Brussels/Strasbourg and back, on a weekly/daily basis.  Every time I think of that, I think of all those climatologists that attend these conferences in exotic places, traveling by jet - private or commercial - to do so, or Al Gore's house that uses so much hydrocarbon-provided power that it is said to be like the Great Wall of China - visible from space!  But I digress.  So less democracy in terms of a talking shop in Europe but then democracy in terms of consensus forming decisions and then acceptance by all.  So long as the 'club rules' and the 'club charter' aren't being infringed then all governments must accept the will of the majority of voters, with voting rights.

Free Trade - this should form the basis of 'club' membership.  Goods and services (see also  free movement of labour) can be traded between club members without the imposition of tariffs.  That would apply to import tariffs - so no customs duties on equipment manufactured in Germany and sold into Slovenia or Britain, etc.  Also though, no hidden tariffs, such as higher rates of local value added taxes on such goods.  This wouldn't preclude a state subsidizing its own industry, where that might 'harm' the industry of another 'club' member.  So if France wanted to subsidize French sugar beet growers and processors and this allowed these companies to then compete unfairly against German or British growers, then let them.  It's France's money to do with as it pleases.  It is not for Britain or Germany to say how France supports or doesn't support its rural communities.  Equally, it is not for Britain or Germany to pay for France's support for its rural communities. Free Trade also means that 'club' members should be free to trade with non-club members, as they wish.  So, if Britain or Germany decided that French sugar beet was too high-priced and they could get it cheaper from say, Turkey, then they would be free to negotiate purchases and set import tariffs as they see fit.  If Turkish farmers are able to produce and sell sugar beet cheaper than French farmers, then why should British or German consumers miss out on Turkish efficiency.

In terms of imports from non-club members, these should not be subject to restrictions - individual sovereign states can enter into bi-lateral agreements - except that any onward sale of such imports need to meet certain criteria.  This criteria would relate to the value added in the club member state.  So if Britain and China concluded a bi-lateral trade agreement with very low import tariffs (or better yet, none) this could not be used as a 'back door' for China to then sell these on to other 'club' members with which it doesn't have a bi-lateral agreement unless a certain value was added in Britain.  Let's say 60%.  If a UK-based company imported parts from China, assembled these in the UK and then sold them within a 'club' member country, then the UK value added to those parts must be greater than 60% or whatever number is decided upon.  We don't want dumping but neither do we want restrictive practices that protect inefficient local industries.

Non-EU wide and other  agreements - These would be agreements that are established between sovereign nations - be they 'club' members or not which cover restricted topics.  So, if Britain, Germany, Iceland, Australia, Brazil and Norway wanted to establish an agreement that allowed for a fast track extradition process between themselves, then this would be allowed and wouldn't require any input or permission from other 'club' members.  It's called reciprocity - 'club' members only need to be involved on matters relating the the raison d'etre of the 'club' - free trade etc., and to not interfere in matters that are decided by other nations and which don't impinge upon these.  Such an extradition treaty would be outwith the 'club' charter and so no business of other 'club' members.  Similarly, if certain 'club' members wanted to establish a political and fiscal union and even a common currency, then they should be free to do so, so long as they do not seek to impose that union or its effects on other 'club' members.  So by all means have a Euro currency but don't expect non-Euro countries, to bail out Euro members!  If I join the Royal Automobile Club, I don't expect to be tapped-up by members of the rival Automobile Association, when that organisation runs into difficulties.  It's a different 'club', I have chosen to not be a member and so shouldn't be required to pay anything for its failings.



Dear reader, be patient in the coming months.  Listen to all of the views, look to the motive of the speaker and then form your own opinion, as I am sure you would anyway.  Above all though, let's be patient and simply demand clarity on what the renegotiated deal means for us and our country.  Then vote for what is best for Britain.  I currently lean towards voting for  BREXIT but, in the words of the great Joan Armatrading, I am 'open to persuassion'

Europe's choice - BREXIT

The leaders of the members of the European Union have made their choice as to who should be the next President of the European Commission.  They have chosen the very heavily pro-federalist Jean-Claude Juncker.  This EU insider is said to have a strong affinity for alcohol.  Like the rest of the politicians at the top of the EU, he is certainly drunk on power.  Other than being 'chosen' by the heads of government, of the member states, this functionary will wield great power over the people of Europe, who have had no say in his election.  The only vote on Mr Juncker was one that was forced upon the leaders by David Cameron, the UK Prime Minister. 

Cameron strongly opposed the elevation of Juncker.  Cameron knows that the re-negotiation of Britain's membership of the EU will be so much harder, with Juncker at the table.  The majority of British people want a smaller EU footprint and greater power resting in the national parliament rather than in Brussels.  Indeed, I would go further and say that people from many other EU countries want a similar loosening of the EU chain around their necks.  Look at the results of the recently held (May 2014) elections to the European Parliament, where there was a very strong swing in favour of anti-EU parties.

So Cameron forced a vote.  This is an almost (perhaps solely) unprecedented step at the top EU table.  Decisions here are almost always made by consensus and no dissent is allowed to filter out.  It seems that while many of the EU leaders were tepid at best, on Juncker's candidacy, all except for Hungary and Britain, supported it in the end.  Italy was said to be opposed, right up until just days before the meeting but then they were thrown an economic  bone or two and so fell into line.  Probably the same happened with other countries.  That's how the EU works!

So, what now?

Firstly, a Private Member's Bill will be re-introduced into the UK parliamentary process.   This would enshrine in law, the right for a referendum on Britain's membership of the EU, being held before the end of 2017.  The previous one failed due to opposition by Labour and Liberal Democratic opposition in the House of Lords.  Labour and the Lib Dems also opposed the legislation in the elected House of Commons.  They did so by tabling masses of amendments and then trying to talk-out the bill.  They failed.  They also, incidentally, failed to vote for the amendments that were  proposed and over which they talked for so long.  Why?  Well they simply didn't have the courage to pin their colours to the EU mast.  They know that the people of Britain want a say.

This time, because of something called the Parliament Act, the Private Member's bill has a better chance of success, as traditionally, the House of Lords should not oppose it.  Wait and see though.  EU federalists are nothing if not incredibly wily!

Let's flip forward and envision a referendum on a British exit (BREXIT) from the EU. 

Already, we can see the arguments from the 'stay' parties.  These will be economic.  They will talk of the UK jobs and export markets that are at risk if Britain left the EU.  They may even remind everyone that this was the reason we joined the then, European Economic Community or Common Market, in the first place.  Britain joined in 1973 and in 1975 held a referendum o the subject. Yes, I know that is the wrong way around but don't expect logic or public engagement, from the political elite! 

So the economic arguments. 

Firstly, Britain is a net contributor to the EU.  This means that Britain puts into the EU cash bucket more than Britain gets out.  That is Britain puts in a huge payment and then some of this is returned to Britain via EU stipends but at the end of the day, Britain puts in, more than it gets out. 

So yes, certain businesses or community organisations or think tanks or whatever, that very much depend upon the largesse of Brussels might see their funding in jeopardy or they might see no change other than from where the payment comes!  Either way, there would be a net boost to the British economy.

Then there's jobs.  The EU represents a large export market for Britain and so jobs might be at risk.  Well let;s think about that.  Why wouldn't the EU negotiate a trade pact with an exiting Britain?  That would secure the export markets for Britain.  I presume that the EU-based purchasers of Britain's goods and services, do so on the basis of economic common sense rather than some kind of altruism - they buy British because the quality and price is acceptable!  Why would the EU sign a trade pact?  Well probably because the rest of the EU enjoys a trade surplus with Britain - they sell us more than we sell them! 

So for me, the economic arguments don't hold water. 

There is also talk about Britain losing its economic clout in the world and not being able to negotiate trade deals on its own.  Simply laughable!  Britain was a major trading nation before some of the EU members were even nations!  Yes, some of that trade was with Britain's colonies and Commonwealth nations but by no means all - statistics show around 27% with former colonies and Commonwealth, 12% with the USA, 43% with Western Europe (including the EC) and 18% with the rest of the  world-  .  In today's world, if you have what people want at the right quality and price, then trade will follow.  The ieconomy doesn't know national boundaries - look at all of the fuss about Amazon and their tax situation!

The EU as a force for peace?  Supporters of this argument point to the absence of continent-wide wars since 1945.  That's true but the EU has been remarkably ineffectual at stopping local conflicts and slaughter - remember Srebrinica?   Or more topically, what is happening in the Ukraine, where the EU has led the people up the path and given them the idea that they should look west to the EU and not east to Russia and then, when Russia flexed its military and gas supplying muscles, the EU abandoned Ukraine.  The Germans couldn't countenance that they couldn't cook Knödel or brew beer using anything other than Russian gas.  OK, so their idiotic closure of all of their nuclear power plants, post-Fukushima, was a monumental error but now they are stuck with Russian gas.  (Note too, that they also oppose Poland exploiting its shale reserves!)

Free movement of people?  Yes, this happens in the EU.  Problem is though, that this has meant a large influx of people into Britain and the indigenous population being squeezed out of employment.  That last comment is a little unfair, so let me explain.  We have seen significant numbers of East Europeans emigrate to Britain.  They have taken low-paying jobs that unemployed British people don't take.  The unemployed locals don't take these jobs because of welfare dependency and the fact that often times, the difference, between wages from employment and dole from the public purse, is not enough to 'justify' work!  If Britain took control of its borders and decided who could come in and who couldn't then Britain could start to tackle the cancer that is welfare dependency!  While the border is open to people who can dramatically raise their living standards by taking low-paying jobs in the UK, then the problem will persist.

Culture and History?  I hesitate to mention this but I don't think that Britons are Europeans.  Maybe it's because we have been at the democracy game for so much longer (see Daniel Hannan's excellent book - How we invented freedom and why it matters) that we view things differently.  Magna Carta (that's Latin for Great Charter, if you are reading this, Mr Cameron!) was signed in 1215 and this formalised previous English democratic 'institutions' and is part of a long tradition of British democracy.  As said earlier, many of the nations that are in the EU have come recently to the processes of democracy.  Perhaps that's why they accept the 'top-down' and 'centre knows best' that the EU offers - it's what they are used to and for the opposite reason, why Britain strains and rails against the undemocratic EU.  Britons have known what freedom means for so long, we almost take it for granted.  In our lifetime, many people now in the EU, had the Soviet jackboot on their necks.  The velvet-gloved EU hand around their neck which has replaced the boot, therefore appears somewhat more benign!

So, my conclusion is that the EU has gambled that there will be no referendum - since the British Labour party hasn't yet decided if it will offer one, that's a possibility.  If there is a referendum, the EU knows that all of the major parties, yes all, will push for Britain remaining a member of the EU.  Whatever is re-negotiated will be hailed as a significant British victory (even though nothing  will fundamentally change) and will be 'sold' to the British people as such.

I sincerely hope that the British people will be given the democratic opportunity to vote on membership and further, that they decide to leave the anti-democratic and wasteful EU.

What do you think?

 

The power of Twitter and the Anglosphere

I have been thinking about Twitter recently (apologies if not using the copyright symbol is somehow wrong!) and its power for good.

I am also reading a book called "How we invented freedom", by a UK Member of the European Parliament - Daniel Hannan - highly recommend the book and Dan's tweets and articles - very 'sound' on Europe and the freedoms that 'Anglosphere' democracy brings.

The book (is that the right phrase for a Kindle version?  I dislike putting e in front of everything!) brings to the fore all those things which many of us almost take for granted - the primacy of the rule of law, no one being above it,  property rights and the importance of contracts and above all, freedom of speech, religion and assembly.   The book tracks the establishment of common law and the basic principles of same, from the pre-Norman invasion of England  through to the Magna Carta and the Bill of Rights and onto the US Constitution and eloquently shows, the flow of these basic principles runs common to all of these documents and to those ideals that the Anglosphere hold dear.

It seems to me that those basic rights are under threat as never before.  Now the threat isn't National Socialism from the German Nazis or Communism from the Soviet Union, no the threat comes from within.

Part of the threat comes from a comfortable place called complacency - long established rights are taken for granted by 'indigenous' Anglosphere peoples and the slow erosion of these isn't noticed or widely remarked upon.  Arbitrary punishment is meted out by governments , especially the US's, via drone attacks, for example, and people move past that news item or, if they stop to think, justify it on the grounds of national security.  Similarly, people are stopped and searched at airports around the world and have various petty restrictions put upon them, in the name of security.

People are finding that freedom of speech or religion is being curtailed, except that most politicians and main stream media shy away from negatively commenting on Islam and it's adherents.  Look at what happened to Phil Robertson.  He is a reality TV personality on an American TV show called Duck Dynasty.  In an interview he stated, amongst other things, that he wasn't attracted to men and he likened homosexuality to sin.  Cue outrage from the homosexual lobby in the USA and their supporters in the media at his 'hate crime'.  Now, Phil espouses Christian values and for those that believe in the right of free speech - something on which America was founded - his freedom to say such things is exactly that - a right.

A right as in something that he inherently has - not something that he (or you or I) is given. 

I have never seen the Duck Dynasty show but all I have read about Phil Robertson and his espousal of deeply held Christian beliefs suggest to me that nothing that he said, in the magazine interview, could be construed as being in any way surprising or controversial.  Similarly if Ayatollah Khameni, the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Republic of Iran, said the same things I wouldn't be surprised.  In fact the only thing that would surprise me is if the media actually reported or in any way commented upon Khameni's speech.  The teachings of both Christianity and Islam consider homosexuality a sin.  Whether you agree with that or not, is your opinion and I for one am happy to support your right to hold such an opinion - that's what free speech is about!   What free speech isn't about is stifling the saying of things with which you or I disagree. Period as they say in the US!

So back to Twitter and its power for good.  The A&E TV channel that broadcast Robertson's show, suspended him for a period, after disassociating itself from his comments.  Normally, that would be the end of Phil's TV show and fame.  However, right-thinking people got to work on Twitter and brought the story to a far wider audience than would have normally been the case.  A petition was raised and boycotts of A&E and its advertisers and sponsors were organized and, low and behold, Phil's suspension was lifted.  Encouragingly, he did not have to refute his beliefs or sayings, in order to achieve this.  The right to his free expression of speech was met.  In my humble view, Twitter played a great part in spreading the message and generating the climb-down by A&E.  Now I do not think for one single minute that the war is over and the 'powers that be' have seen the light and will 'allow' free expression.  I think that this is a battle won but this will need to be continuously fought for these cherished freedoms to be retained.  Incidentally, the 'allow' with is because I am uncomfortable in considering that someone allows another person to exercise a right.  No one can give you something which you already have!

Problem is though, that Twitter and other social media are under attack.  There are the overt attacks, where those that would deny freedom, talk-up so called trolls and make the attacks from these people, a justification for the curtailment of the liberties of all.  Then there are also the less obvious methods of attack - such as the USA's Internal Revenue Service using social media to identify groups and individuals from the Tea Party or other anti-Obama administration tweets, and then subject them to special attention from their audit teams. 

Dan Hannan, in his book, rightly confronts the facade of rights that some countries have or had and posits that it is the historical depth of these rights, within the Anglosphere, that gives them meaning.  He talks about the constitution of the former Soviet Union granting it's citizens all sorts of rights but no means for the citizen to actually exercise them.  I hope though that he is wrong in suggesting (I haven't yet finished the book, so maybe he does change his view later) that the places where the fundamental human rights can survive are restricted to those places that have historical links back to England and it's Magna Carta and older common law antecedents.  Hope, because these places (and this isn't meant to show an anti-immigration stance) are fast becoming a cosmopolitan mix, where the inhabitants do not all share the historical connection with England.  Hope, because I want those people who look to the UK, America, Canada and Australia and want to emigrate to those countries, look not just at the material benefits that settling in those countries will bring, but also at the traditions of individual freedoms, that have made these countries, what they are!

2014 Predictions

Well, if journalists can do this, why can't I?

Scotland will vote to remain in the UK and not seek independence, though it will be a closer-run thing than many first predicted.  Indeed, (hedging bets here) it may yet go the other way given the lack-lustre performance of the No campaign and the reluctance of the UK parties to engage and promote the Union.

The UK (read South-East England) will not be flooded by Romanians and Bulgarians.  Total immigration will be less than 20,000

Pope Francis will continue to amaze the world with his humility and engagement.

Vince Cable will manufacture an excuse to leave the Coalition, at the start of the second half of the year.  Then he will successfully challenge Nick Clegg for the leadership of the Liberal Democratic Party and lead his party to its eventual near annihilation at the 2015 General Elections.

President Obama's Democrats will suffer heavy poll reverses in the mid term elections.  This despite some Republicans seeming to spend more time attacking Tea Party activists than their liberal opposition.

Calls for a full investigation of the horrific events that occurred in Benghazi will gather strength but until the new members are sworn-in, most of the action will be on Twitter, where the Justice for the Benghazi 4 movement will gain increasing traction.  So Hillary remains safe for now but the eventual investigations will haunt her 2016 bid and make her wish she had got them out of the way, with a more compliant Congress.

In a move to improve efficiency, France's Socialist government will enact legislation to cut out the middle-man and have all wages paid direct to the State's tresor.  Apart from making it easier to identify those that exist or participate in the 'black' economy (not a racist statement, before any liberals complain), this will also reduce stubbornly high unemployment as more tax-collectors are hired.

Greece and Italy decide to not follow the French example - rumours that this is because some many of those countries' politicians operate within the 'black' (still not racist) economy will not actually be proven but nevertheless will abound.

The UK's Labour Party will formally change it's name to the Labour,Welfare and Minority Interests Party and will officially abandon any pretence of representing actual workers.

Ed Balls, in a move designed to avoid being sacked by Ed Miliband, will challenge him for the party leadership role.  In a close-run race, Len McCluskey, leader of the UNITE union,  will emerge as the winner, even though not a participant!

UK Prime Minister, David Cameron will react to Labour's attacks about the Cost of Living 'crisis' by abolishing the so called Green Taxes.  This will anger his Lib Dem partners but Cameron will tell Clegg it is the price to pay for support of Clegg's candidacy for a EU Commissioner role.

Cameron will also face internal opposition from those who accuse him of being a TINO (Tory in name only) and such opposition will increase following the Euro elections at which all parties will do badly, except UKIP, who score spectacularly well.  Indeed, it is only the Euro-sceptic MEPs, like Daniel Hannan, that retain their seats on the Euro-Gravy-Train.

The European Commission and Parliament will continue to enact directives that strengthen, on paper,  the undemocratic nature of their rule and which ignore the voices of the European people, expressed through the ballot boxes. 

 Youth unemployment in Greece, Spain, Portugal and Italy will continue at high levels that will haunt those countries for years to come.  Ireland too will continue to export its problem by large-scale youth emigration and the country will pay its price for EU inspired de-population with large-scale issues around unfunded pension liabilities - as in most countries, pension payments require a working and contributing mass of young people, to be viable!

Moves will continue to seek the impeachment of President Obama but while the mood in America will be marginally in favour, Congress will continue to not represent the will of the people and so Obama will continue in office but will find Congress much less compliant, especially as high-profile cases showing the effects of Obamacare's failures hit the headlines with increasing frequency, as even Obama's media supporters bow to pressure to stop hiding the truth.

China will continue to expand its economy but will be less involved in buying US Treasury bills and funding America's deficit and debt mountains.

Brazil will host the football World Cup but organizational problems will mar the occasion.

Russia will use a very heavy hand to confront their domestic terrorists and will ignore the 'human rights' whining from the West.

Then there are the predictions that are border-line wishes.......

Arsenal confound the doubters and not only win the English Premier League title but also complete a remarkable treble by gaining  victories in the FA Cup and the European Champions League.

David Cameron uses one of the many recesses that the UK parliament enjoys and reads-up on what it means to be a Conservative and then, in an amazing transformation decides to start to implement such policies.  Consequent upon this, Cameron corners Nick Clegg and explains to him the outcome of opposing the changed approach and advises that the Tories will rule in a minority government rather than continue to pander to the idiotic and damaging policies of the Lib Dems.

Notwithstanding the earlier prediction, moves to impeach Obama become a central policy plank and receive wide-spread and united Republican support.  Worried Democrats, pick-up on the public mood and  transfer their allegiance to the camp pushing for the ouster of the would-be Emperor of the Free World.

Difficult to know whether any desires relating to the US Supreme Court, supporting the US Constitution and the American people count as predictions or wishes.  Will they strike down the 'Executive Orders' that are being repeatedly issued by America's ruler, in contravention of the US Constitution or will they continue to pursue a 'leftist' and un-American agenda?

As a choice, this would be a profound wish - that the scales fall from the eyes of politicians around the world and the eco-nonsense ends as soon as possible.  Not only this though, but in an unprecedented attack of common sense, the world's politicians immediately repeal all of the restrictive eco-laws that have so negatively impacted the world.  If, in the process, Al Gore and the climate science lobby were convicted of gross fraud, then that would be an added bonus! 

I could go on.  I have probably thought this before but this time I will say in print, I sense that 2014 will herald some significant changes for America, the UK and Europe.