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.

We chose, we choose

This post is mainly aimed at the people of the UK and the leaders of EU countries.

Firstly though, I have to say wow, just wow!  A referendum result that has made me very, very happy.  Even more happier than the result of the Scottish Independence Referendum.  Of course there will be  some challenges ahead but we are British, we have overcome challenges before and will do so again.

David Cameron, before he resigned (quit?) said that we are not a nation of quitters and we aren't.  We stick with the right path rather than just taking the easy one.

Anyway...

The people of the UK chose to leave the European Union.  More than 33.5 million of us registered a vote and chose, by a margin of 52:48 to leave.  The majority chose to ignore the merchants of fear and chose to decouple us from the failed European Union project.  We never chose to sign-up to ever political union, we originally chose to join a Common Market but the corporatists and socialists of certain European countries want to become submerged in a political union.  That's their choice - though in typical EU fashion,  their people aren't being asked - but we have chosen a different course.  We wish them well.

Go back to the start of the last paragraph.  The people of the UK chose to leave the European Union.  This was a question put to the whole of the UK and a decision reached by the whole of the UK.  The talk of a second Scottish Independence Referendum, coming from Nicola Sturgeon is anti-democratic and is pure mischief making from her.  I really believe that if she was in a party of three or more enjoying a dinner out and one of the party said 'red or white wine'  and she was in the minority, she would immediately call for her democratic rights be respected and for a new Scottish Independence Referendum to be called.  Opportunist doesn't even come close.

Sturgeon is mischief making.  She knows full well that Foreign Affairs is not a devolved responsibility.  This is a power reserved to the Westminster parliament.  All this talk about asking Brussels to consider an application, from a constituent part of the UK, to join the EU is absolute rubbish.  Typical froth from Bute House.  Sturgeon and her minority devolved government should do what they were elected to do - manage the devolved affairs of Scotland.  They have done a very poor job of that so far - hence why they are now a minority government - but that is what they are there for.  Now is the time for Nicola to shut-up and do her job.

She also knows that the EU will have its hands full in the coming time, trying to make sure that the departure of the UK is achieved in a manner that is mutually acceptable and, perhaps much or most of their focus will be on making sure that no other member country dares to let their population make a choice.  Can't let the democratic will of the people get in the way of the EU project!  

Does anyone seriously think that Spain would let the EU consider, for even a single nano-second, allowing a constituent part of a member country to negotiate its own terms of membership of the EU, while it is still part of its home country?

So we in the UK chose to leave the European Union.  The leaders of the other members states now need to realise that we will also choose, when we leave.  We will invoke Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty (never voted for by the British people, by the way), when we choose to do so.  We will act in the interests of the British people (all of them, Nicola).  That may not sound very communitaire but there you are.  We chose to regain our long-held freedoms and we will choose the timing for when we get these back.

Jean-Claude Juncker, President of the European Commission can huff and puff all he wants.  One of the first things he needs to learn, post June 23, 2016, is that we chose to no longer pay any heed to his demands.  We will choose, we will not be ordered to do anything by an unelected foreigner.  We had the choice and we chose, freedom from such tyranny.  Angela Merkel, Francois Hollande and Co. please take note.

David Cameron was elected as a member of the mother of parliaments and the Conservative Party chose him to lead it and therefore to be our  Prime Minister.  His first act, after the June 23 result, was to decide that on behalf of the people of the UK, he chose to delay invoking Article 50, until after his successor has been elected, because he believes that this is the best course of action he can choose for our country.

Some of my fellow-countrymen and women are now complaining about the result of the referendum. They say that younger people voted predominately for Remain while older people voted in similar numbers for Leave.  The argument seems to be that somehow the votes of these younger people should count for me because they will have to live with the consequences longer.  The latter point is true.  Though since they will enjoy the benefits of our regained freedom, I don't really see their point. Anyway a decision was requested and an answer was given.  As a nation (listening Nicola??) we chose to Leave. That's it.  No need for further referendums - I know that this is how the EU has solved its inconvenient referendum results, in the past but we are British and we understand democracy.  We have been at it longer than any other nation and so perhaps that's why we know how it works.

To all those that chose to Leave and to put their well-founded faith in the British people, I say a heart-felt thanks.   We have chosen freedom and our path will now diverge from our European friends.  We wish them bonne chance and gutes reise but we are off somewhere else.

After the referendum?

This post is mainly addressed to elected MPs of the Conservative persuasion.

Whatever the outcome of the EU Referendum, I really think that David Cameron is peddling pure fantasy if he thinks that things can go back to 'normal'.

The party line is that after the vote, Conservatives will come together , sing a couple of verses of Kumbaya and return to governing the country.  That those people who have been peddling lies, half-truths and highly selective use of statistics will gather around the Cabinet room table, with their colleagues from the Brexit camp, and just 'get along'.

Further that the 150+ Conservative MPs, who support Brexit will become quiescent and follow the Tory party whip.  That these MPs will ignore the distrust that Cameron and Osborne have sewn with their attempts to fix the outcome of the EU referendum.

As said above, I think this is pure fantasy and I think that David Cameron and George Osborne know this.

I posit that Cameron and Osborne are actually planning an exit strategy that has them, and 'their' Remain MPs joining with those Labour Remainers, that are disaffected with the ineffectual and frankly disastrous  Jeremy Corbyn leadership, and forming a new political organisation.

Some will say it is unlikely that Yvette Cooper and Andy Burnham would be prepared to break bread with Cameron and Osborne.  I am not one of them.  Consider, Labour has made lots of noise about 'austerity' and what they call swingeing cuts but they know the reality is that Osborne continues to spend and borrow like the 'reddest' of Labour Chancellors.  Austerity has been a stick to beat each other with but this has been a feebly deployed weapon by both sides.  Don't believe me?  Then explain how the Tories have been 'savagely cutting public expenditure' for the last 6 years and yet the National Debt has more than doubled to £1.6 Trillion.

This all may sound far-fetched but the Tories have a small majority, 12 , I believe and if Cameron cannot govern with an 'unruly' bunch of Brexiteers, then maybe he and Osborne would consider it best to break things up.  Of course it would be dressed-up as them 'not leaving the Conservative Party but the Conservative Party having left them' but the result would be a split.

And frankly,  I can see this happening, whatever the outcome of the vote.

That is, if (hopefully, when) a vote for Brexit is achieved, they and the Remainers would seek to frustrate the negotiations surrounding the Brexit so as to, in some perverted way, bring about the fulfillment of some of their wild referendum campaign claims and to seek a new referendum, where the environment/argument would then be 'we told you so'.

If, heaven forbid, there is a vote to 'remain' then Cameron can expect a leadership challenge and clearly Osborne's chance of succeeding him have evaporated so, why wouldn't they want to get ahead of the field and leave?  For the Labour 'deserters' they will point to the next-to-non-existent referendum campaigning  from Corbyn and his less than whole-hearted support for a clear Labour policy.  They might even call it a National Coalition Party and a coming together to 'heal the wounds and deep divisions that the referendum has created', etc..  With the huge amounts of money that the government spends on 'Special Advisers' (SPADs) you can expect these to come up with all sorts of rational-sounding reasons why it is the 'extremist right wing' of the Conservatives and other 'swivel-eyed loonies' that are at fault and so on.  These people will be called racists, 'little Englanders' etc..

So my advice to the Brexiteers is to get your retaliation in, first.  Disturb the 'peace' of the Conservative Party by initiating a vote of confidence  and a leadership challenge, now - don't wait for the outcome of the referendum.  Distract Cameron and Osborne from their lie-peddling and give them a new focus - their own survival.  Throw them off-balance and change the battleground.

In my view, the future of the Conservative Party, and indeed, Conservative policies, is at stake and the time for a pre-emptive challenge is now.

From Osborne, we have repeatedly seen how when someone pushes back, he folds - look at his tax credit policy, as a prime example.  Same really applies to Cameron - child refugees, anyone?.  Use these weaknesses and, in the process, save Britain.  Cameron and Osborne have adopted the bully boy tactics favoured by the Eurocrats and anti-democrats in Brussels but like all bullies they only attack those who do not defend themselves.  Like all liars and half-truth peddlers, they change the subject when faced with facts or the demand for evidence of their claims.

If Remain wins, it will only be because Cameron has repeatedly lied and stacked the deck against Brexit and has gotten into bed with Socialists and terrorist sympathisers and has called in favours from around the world from members of the 'Elite Club' who see democracy as something to be overcome and cheated against, rather than complied with

Business as usual , after June 23rd?  I don't think so.

Cameron's dodgy dossier

Fed-up with all of the contradictory forecasts and statements about the referendum on Britain's continued membership of the European Union?  You probably should look away.

I would like to see another forecast - I know, that suggests either some kind of a weird fantasy obsession or that maybe I am just sad but let me explain.

The UK Treasury have been burning the midnight oil and going into 'spreadsheet frenzy' to produce forecast after forecast that shows how much the UK economy would suffer if the UK electorate had the nerve/courage to vote for Brexit.  So I am not alone in wanting forecasts!  Maybe not even sad.

The latest forecasts suggests a 12% decline in the value of Sterling, an increase in unemployment of up to 820,000, house price declines of 10-18% and a deep recession as a result of the shock to the economy, from a Brexit.

Now, these Treasury economists are supposed to be smart and I suppose that the reason that they are getting the same 'results' as other forecasting bodies is because they are all using the same economic model.   So rather than being independent verification, as is being touted, we instead have a reiteration of the same result because the 'domesday' data input and the model used is largely the same.  The surprise would be if they came out with a different result.

I would like to see a forecast that looks at the impact of a Brexit, not on the UK economy but rather on the economy of the remaining EU countries.

The doomsayers include in their forecasts projections that immediately a Brexit vote is achieved the four horsemen of the apocalypse will descend.  We will have Pestilence, Famine, Death and of course War.  Additionally, overnight or close to it, the strongest growing economy in the EU will dive into recession.

But...

What about the effect on Germany?  Or on France or the Netherlands?

In 2015, the Germans exported US $100 billion of their excellent cars and other goods and services to the UK.  They then imported just US $46.5 billion from the UK and so enjoyed a surplus of US$ 53.5 billion.

In the same year, France exported US$41.5 billion and imported $27 billion, so having a US$ 14.5 billion trade surplus.  The position for the Netherlands was exports to the UK of US$50.7 billion and imports of $34.2 billion, so a trade surplus of $34.2 billion.  I am not sure if that Netherlands import figure includes items that are 'imported' as part of a trans-shipment process through the Rotterdam super-port but you get the drift.

Now - still with me?- If the Sterling exchange rate did fall by 12% (why not 10% or 15%?) then this would make UK exports cheaper and if proper WTO duty rates, of around 4%,  were used, rather than the extremely high rates used in the Treasury model, then the falling exchange rate would completely eliminate the effect of any duties and would still provide an export boost.

Problem is though, that this 12% fall is one-sided.  It supposes that the other global economies would be okay and stable and only the UK would suffer from a Brexit.  Consider though the effect of the UK retaliating against Germany, France and the Netherlands, if they and the rest of the EU imposed  onerous customs duties on the UK.  If the UK did exactly the same and applied the same rates of customs duties, the economies of these countries would undoubtedly suffer and this would ripple on and impact the Euro exchange rate.   So maybe that 12% decline in Sterling's value is incorrect.

Let's suppose that the USA also followed the EU lead and imposed similar level duties.  Then the US economy and the US $ exchange rate would also suffer as they have a small trade surplus with the UK. Albeit not too much but the impact would not be benign.

We all know D'Israeli's saying about 'lies, damn lies and statistics' however, what we are being presented with are one-sided forecasts that simply serve the UK government's position.  In none of these 'forecasts' do we hear the impact of Britain's reduced contribution to the EU.  This is variously estimated at £55 million per day! Again, this would positively impact Britain and negatively impact the EU.  Those particular coins, unsurprisingly have two sides.  Nor is any of the positive effect of reducing the mountains of 'red tape' that strangle UK and EU business, shown.

Also consider that a fall in house prices would be a boon for all those young people trying to get on the housing ladder.  Yes it would negatively impact those people who speculate in the housing market - foreign flight capital, members of Parliament, etc., but overall, the effect would be positive.

In the past, UK Prime Minister, David Cameron spoke of presenting the case around the referendum to the British people and letting them decide.  Instead of doing this, he and his Chancellor, George Osborne are becoming ever more outrageous in the claims and use of data.  Indeed, they are starting to make Tony Blair's 'dodgy dossier' look like a respectable, sober and credible document!


George Osborne, speaking when he established the Office of Budget Responsibility, said that the need for this organisation, independent of the the government, was because in the past, HM Treasury forecasts were found to be biased and dubious because of the political interference.  So when we see the drivel now emanating from Osborne's Treasury we know that we need to filter any forecasts through the prism of number manipulation so as to achieve a pre-determined outcome.  In other words, don't trust or set any store by what they say - they say what their master - George Osborne - wants them to say.

To close, another forecast.

David Cameron has said today, that the cost of Brexit could add £230 to the cost of a holiday in Europe, for a family of 4.  Of this is a 'could' rather than a 'would' and of course this figure is 'supported' by the usual dodgy statistics and calculations from the widely discredited forecasts publishers.  However, let's say that this time, the number is right, does £57.50 a head sound a high price to pay for the restoration of Britain's long-held democratic traditions?  Britain has paid a far, far higher price to defend its democracy, in the past.  A price in blood and lives, not in £ sterling.

Jean-Claude Juncker, the unelected 'President' of the European Commission, who hails from Luxembourg, has threatened the UK by saying that 'deserters' can expect no assistance from the EU.   Well Mr Juncker, I suggest that you hit the history books.  Go back to the history of the second World War.  In 1940, after the fall of EU members France, Belgium and Netherlands, at the hands of the Nazi hordes, Britain, aided by its colonies and Commonwealth allies, stood alone against the Nazis.  Britain didn't desert Europe's people in 1940 and we won't desert them now or in the future.  Brexit will provide a liberating example for those Europeans now trapped within an anti-democratic EU.  Brexit will allow those countries that suffered under post-war Soviet domination, to experience true freedom and democracy, when the inevitable collapse of the EU occurs.

£57.50 a head for freedom - bargain of the century - where do I send my money?

Vote Brexit, shake off the yoke of anti-democracy which is weighing us down and restore Britain's freedom

The Referendum contradiction

What do you make of all the scare-mongering, AKA Project Fear,  that is coming out of the Remain camp, relating to the European Referendum?

I ask because there seems to be something of a contradiction in the whole thing.

On the one hand, we have David Cameron and his government fulfilling a manifesto commitment and organising a referendum on the UK's continued membership of the EU, following a 'renegotiation' of the terms of membership with other EU members.

On the other hand, David Cameron and his acolytes in the Cabinet and the Remain camp, including some members of the security services and some members of the military, are telling us that if the UK does indeed Brexit, then we will experience:

• Economic dislocation and a contraction in the UK economy

• Immediately depreciating value for the Pound Sterling.  

• The shock effect could lead to serious conflict in Europe - war and such - indeed some have mentioned Brexit being a potential cause for World War 3 starting.  

• The UK would also become immediately more vulnerable to a terrorist attack as the European partners, with which we currently share intelligence, would cut-off cooperation. 

The economic consequences have been batted back and forth and the outcome depends upon the individual's overall view on Brexit.  However, surely a depreciation in Sterling would be expected to make the UK's exports cheaper and so would be a boost for the UK economy.

In terms of the intelligence sharing.  The most effective and important partnership that the UK participates in, is the Five Eyes programme.  This intelligence sharing agreement is between, Australia, Canada, New Zealand , USA and the UK.  You will note the lack of any other EU member.  You will understand that this mutually beneficial cooperation programme will continue whatever the outcome of the EU referendum.  Indeed, you will have heard from Cameron and Co. how the UK's GCHQ intelligence centre is one of, or maybe is the foremost of such centres, in the world.  Indeed, possibly equal to or only just surpassed by the USA's capabilities. A former head of the CIA essentially discounted other European intelligence service capabilities and posited that the EU sometimes get in the way of intelligence gathering and sharing.

In terms of war and peace in Europe (including in the EU countries),  it is NATO that has ensured the peace, for the last 67 years.  Certainly not the EU.  I have posted  on this earlier blog regarding the EU's contribution to the situation in Ukraine.  If this is what EU membership saving us from war is about, then the UK is better-off out rather than running the risk of getting pulled into a European conflict because of the  EU's naive and dangerous meddling.

But back to the contradiction.

If we, for just a single moment, accept the clap-trap that is spewing forth from Cameron and the Remainians, then why on earth is Cameron holding this referendum?  If the risks are so great - don't know about you but WW3 and Armageddon are up there for me - why hasn't the vote been canceled? Indeed, why were none of these arguments put forward by Cameron and Co., before legislation on the EU referendum was put before Parliament?  Or at the very least during those debates on this?.

Call me cynical but I suspect that these 'fears and risks' don't actually exist.  They are just being dreamt-up now.  There will no doubt be more in the days and weeks to come.  I ask you to apply the contradiction test to them.  If Brexit is so dangerous, why are we having the vote?

I suppose we should at least be grateful that the Remainiacs haven't (yet) invoked biblical plagues being inflicted on the UK.  Fire, pestilence, bugs, boils, etc.  There's still time though.

As before, the solution is - Vote Brexit!

EU half-truths

Have you received the propaganda leaflet from the UK government yet?  What did you do with it?  Straight in the bin? Read it?  I tore mine up and sent it back to the Conservative party at their FreePost address.  That way, Cameron’s party can pay 70p for the privilege of getting my response to their one-sided  and factually dubious document.

If you do bother to read this, you will immediately notice the innuendo and half-truths that run throughout.

The document states that 3 million jobs depend on the EU.  That is simply not true.  It has been estimated that 3 million jobs are dependent upon trade with the EU.  The fear that this so called ‘fact’ seeks to generate is that these jobs will disappear if Britons vote to leave the EU.  This is complete poppycock, utter rubbish, totally false – choose your own understanding.  As stated, these jobs are based on trade with the EU.  They are not dependent on membership of the EU.  The EU nations who trade with the UK do so on the basis of merit not charity.  They buy goods and services from the UK because those goods and services are offered at an acceptable level of quality and price.  If you read this leaflet you won’t find that in there.  You will just find the hint that these jobs will suddenly disappear if you vote leave.  This is shoddy and unbecoming a UK government.

The UK has attracted £540 billion of foreign direct investment over the last 10 years.  This  investment came about because of the UK’s pro-business policies not because of the EU. Policies that encourage businesses and allow for things like ‘zero hour’ contracts.  Policies that have led to a diminishing of union power, such that strikes are now a rarity, most obviously within the private sector.  Policies that allow for a reasonable relationship between employer and employee.  In certain EU countries, an employer doesn’t so much employ a worker as adopt them – it can be next to impossible to terminate employees when times get hard.   The UK is also moving towards a low company tax position, which also helps investment, though, meddling with other ‘taxes’ might erode this plus point.

The leaflet suggests that on balance and on the judgment of the UK government, the UK gets a good deal from the EU.  Consider, the UK contributes £350 million each week to the EU budget.  Of this, something less than half returns as grants and subsidies.  That means that around £175 million stays in the EU.  This pays for the fat cat tax free salaries and very generous pensions of the Eurocrats in Brussels.  It also subsidises certain EU industries, particularly otherwise inefficient ones, such as agriculture.  Irony alert.  The EU subsidises EU agriculture and puts trade barriers in the way of imports from developing countries.  Then because these countries, in Africa, for example, cannot export to the EU, their farmers suffer and so the EU then gives them aid.  Lewis Carroll couldn’t have dreamt up such idiocy!

Suppose that this £175 million was instead spent in the UK.  Or rather used to pay down the UK National Debt.  This currently stands at £1.6 trillion.  In a year, the UK could reduce this by £9.1 billion – not a huge amount but a start.  Further reductions could be made, because NHS spending and spending on schools and housing and welfare, would not need to be an increasing spiral to meet the demands of a rapidly rising immigrant influx.  This surely is the best way to secure the future for our children and grand children.  Far, far better a solution than shackling our country to the EU where, in countries such as Spain and Greece, youth unemployment is in excess of 50% - is that the future we want?  The EU is failing the old, failing the taxpayers and failing the youth and future generations.

Much is made by the UK government and various international organisations and of course the world’s former darling, President Obama, of the risk to the world economy from a ‘leave’ vote.  Inflation in the UK is threatened because of the instability.  At other times and when not discussing the EU vote, inflation is being positively encouraged by economists and world leaders as a cure to the stagflation that is facing world economies.  Go figure!

As per the leaflet, supposedly losing the UK’s full access to the EU’s Single Market would make exports to Europe ‘harder and would increase costs’.  Note the conflation of Europe and the EU.  The EU is not Europe it just contains a number of European countries, not all of them.  Note also the certainty.  Not might make exports hard but definitely would.   How on earth can anyone say that?  No discussions on a post-Brexit settlement have been undertaken so how can anyone say with such certainty that this would be the case?  Pure and simple, scare-mongering.

Then the leaflet claims that the rise of budget airlines and cheaper flights is down to the EU.  Even if it were true (and I seem to recall that the USA and Asia have such low-cost carriers without the aid of the EU), does anyone really believe that post-Brexit, airfares throughout Europe will suddenly increase and we would be back to the highly inefficient state-run monopoly airlines, of the past?

Now look at the benefits of the renegotiation that Cameron’s government ‘achieved’.

The UK now has a ‘special status’ in a reformed EU.  This special status means that we will not have to join the Euro.  We will not be part of further political integration, we will be able to impose ‘tough (their words, not mine) restrictions on welfare immigrants who have not contributed to the UK social security system and there is a commitment to reduce ‘red tape’.

When I read of the victories and major concessions I seethe.  That we have come to this.  The UK is allowed to not join the Euro or follow further political integration.  The UK is an independent sovereign nation.  The UK has been such an entity for hundreds of years before many of these countries existed!  But now we are to be allowed.  Excuse me if I sound less than grateful.  The UK doesn’t need to be allowed such concessions.  We have them by right.  They have been hard-won and paid for in blood through wars and struggle.  I hate to hark back to the second world war but the UK then stood alone in Europe, against the Nazis.  Without the UK and its allies from its colonies and dominions, Europe would have been under the Nazi boot, for ever.  No bureaucrat in Brussels or newly established democracy can give us these rights.  Nor can they take them away.

This document has cost something like £9.3 million to publish and distribute.  Cameron’s government spuriously claim that it is not unfair to publish this at taxpayer expense, because the ‘government has a view’ and wants to push that view.  Can you imagine the outcry there would be if, going into a General Election, which is a referendum on the governing party, the government of the day, published, at taxpayer expense, a defence of its policies and its future political programme?  Everyone would see it for what it is.  Government propaganda more usually associated with tin-pot dictators in banana republics.

This leaflet shames British democracy.   In a recent poll by YouGov, 53% of those people that expressed a definite opinion, said that the government’s actions were unfair.  Much is made of Cameron’s public school education (Eton) – well he doesn’t seem to have picked-up the sense of fair play that is supposed to epitomise such institutions.

I suppose, as an ever more committed ‘Brexiteer’, I should be happy.  This document and the secondment of government officials to bolster the ‘In’ campaign speak to the desperation of that campaign.  Lies aren’t working, unfair play isn’t working.  No matter how they bend the rules to try and achieve an ‘In’ vote, the people are stubbornly sticking to their guns.  At the moment, Brexit and In are neck and neck.  More immigration stories and such and the argument swings more and more in favour of the UK regaining control of our country, once more.

The only choice now, is Brexit.  Use your vote and use it correctly.

Scottish life expectancy

What do you think is the life expectancy for a 21st century Scot?  According to official statistics,  the latest averages are 77.1 years for a man and 81.1 years for a woman.


What about a 'generation'.  How many years do you think that might be?  I reckon somewhere between 25 to 30 years.

The reason for these questions is that I am trying to understand why you or I might understand what a 'lifetime' or a 'generation' means and yet this can so escape the mind of Nicola Sturgeon - First Minister of Scotland and Leader of the Scottish National Party and indeed, of all those SNP delegates at a conference, last Saturday, who rose as one to applaud Sturgeon's speech.

Sturgeon has said that later this Summer, presumably after the Euro Referendum, the Scots will undertake an exercise to kick-off a process which would lead to another Scottish 'independence' referendum being held.

What are we to make of this?

When the last referendum was held, the people of Scotland voted by 55% to 45% to remain part of the United Kingdom.  During that referendum campaign and in the aftermath of the result, politicians of all hues and persuasion,  including Nicola Sturgeon and her predecessor, Alex Salmond made clear that this was a 'once in a lifetime opportunity'.

The referendum was held in September 2014, as in 18 months ago.  On what possible measurement can such a short period be considered a 'lifetime' or even a 'generation'?

Wags now dub this the 'neverendum'.  Sturgeon and the SNP have learnt well the lessons of European referendums. If you don't get the answer you want, ask again and keep asking until you do get the answer you want.  Yes it is a very warped version of representative democracy but it really is all of one with socialist politicking.  It is the political elite that knows best.  Those privy to the mind and musings of the leader and her cabal, must be right.

Consider though, what has transpired since that September 2014 referendum.  The SNP made so very much of the very positive impact that 'Scottish oil' would have on the Scottish economy.  At the time, Brent Crude was trading just north of $100 a barrel.  Since that time, oil prices have plummeted and, even though they have recently recovered a bit, now sit around $40 a barrel.  To say that this blows a hole in the sustainability of the finances of an independent Scotland would be an understatement of titanic proportions.

I don't want to bore you with statistics but consider the following:

                                                     £BN           % of UK GDP

Public Revenues                          51.6                 8.0

Public Revenue incl. Oil             53.4                 8.2

Public Expenditure                     68.4                 9.3
               
Deficit                                         13.7                 9.8

Deficit incl. Oil                           11.9                 7.8

The overall UK deficit was 3.3% of GDP

(source GERS 2016)

These figures show one of the greatest benefits of the Union.  Public spending in Scotland, at the above levels, was made possible because people in other parts of the United Kingdom, financed it. Remember too, that these Scottish Public Expenditure figures do not include any allocation of the financing costs for the UK's debt mountain.

The people of Scotland voted, in 2014, to remain part of the United Kingdom.  I believe that the economic uncertainty was a very large influencing factor.  In addition to the precarious nature of 'leaping into the dark' largely based on a single commodity, the other major factor was the post-independence currency.  The UK government had made clear that an independent Scotland could not expect to enjoy a currency union and the SNP could not answer what currency they would use.  There was undoubted fear among the Scottish electorate, that the only choice would be for an independent Scotland to join the Euro.  Sensible Scots had seen, time after time, the failings of this flawed currency and chose to have no part of it.

Nothing about this currency question has changed.

Any future independence referendum, in Scotland, requires an Act of Parliament, passed by the UK parliament.  The one at Westminster.  Nicola Sturgeon and many of those in the SNP, know this. They know that even their 50 Westminster MPs cannot force another referendum through Westminster.  If there was any residual sympathy for another referendum, then this will surely have been discarded when the recent activity of the SNP, at Westminster, has been considered.

I refer to the changes that were proposed to Sunday Trading laws.  These would only affect England and Wales.  They would bring the Sunday Trading laws, in England and Wales, into line that already prevail in Scotland.  Yet, the SNP decided to join with the Labour Party and others, including some Conservative dissenters and so voted out the opportunity.  They came up with the most spurious claim to defend their action but, at the end of the day, they voted on matters that, being an issue that is devolved to the Holyrood parliament, would have absolutely no impact in Scotland.  This was bare-faced political opportunism.

For me the position is crystal clear.  David Cameron should use the next available occasion (Wednesday's Prime Minister's questions?) to make clear that we will not allow a new Scottish  referendum to be on the legislative agenda during the lifetime of this parliament - so not before 2020 -  and that if the Conservatives are re-elected, in 2020, then it would not appear on future legislative programmes.

Knowing that Cameron and Osborne are highly political animals, I think this is a win-win for the Conservatives.  They take this issue off of the table for the immediate future and, more importantly, it will force Scottish electors to focus instead on the appallingly inept management of Scotland that the SNP exercise. The SNP, at Holyrood are failing the Scottish people.  They are failing on health, failing on education, failing on social care and failing the poor and the disadvantaged.

It doesn't take a cynic to suggest that this renewed enthusiasm for a referendum is a classic exercise in deflection.  The SNP don't want the Scots to look at their appalling record in Holyrood because it doesn't stand up to scrutiny.   The SNP want the Scots to go off on some kind of 'Braveheart' fantasy and ignore the wasted last 5 years.

Over to David Cameron.

Oh, and to the people of Scotland, so that they can give Sturgeon and her SNP bigots a very bloody nose.

Cameron leaves Brussels 'empty-handed'

Dateline:  Brussels 02.40 am February 20, 2016

David Cameron has left the Brussels EU summit, empty-handed.  His attempts to reach agreement, with other EU leaders, on what many have described as a seriously weak deal, have failed.

The  main stumbling blocks were the attempt to limit benefits for migrants and the British exclusion from so called ever closer union.

The Eastern European countries of Bulgaria, Poland, Hungary, Romania and Czech Republic formed a bloc to oppose the imposition of the so called Emergency Brake.  While the opposition was not unexpected, that the countries stuck to their position was.  These countries could have easily given in on this because any application of the ‘brake’ would require their subsequent approval and so, just as the so called Brexit people claim, these countries could have applied their opposition at some point in the future. 

They chose not to do so and there is speculation that this was because Germany has been talking of ‘punishment’ for these countries because of their refusal to take in more and more migrants/refugees. Chancellor Angela Merkel is in a bind – she can’t go back on her ‘the party’s at mine’ post on FaceBook, which opened Germany’s doors to a flood of refugees – and after the escalating evidence of sexual violence being committed by the, mostly male, refugees, she is facing a growing backlash, at home and so needs to ‘spread the load’.  Trouble is, most other European countries are putting up barriers to taking in more refugees.  Merkel’s big hope is that Greece fails to meet the recently issued edict on border controls and so Schengen gets suspended, which is a useful stop-gap for Merkel.

So, Merkel’s bluff has been called by the East Europeans and Cameron’s ‘big consensus negotiating success’ evaporated.

Merkel also wasn’t even able to keep France ‘onside’.  President Hollande couldn’t really conceal his anger at the number of French people who have migrated to London and the South East, since his election.  These folks mainly work in the City and the special privileges that he believes will accrue to the City, by the UK avoiding ever closer integration provide a stark contrast between a growing and successful Finance sector, in London, and an increasingly irrelevant French finance market.  

To be fair, Hollande also has to pay attention to the Front National.  Marine Le Pen has made the FN electable and threatens to be a serious contender in the next Presidential election.  The FN is much less enamoured with the EU than either Hollande’s socialists or Sakozy’s Republicans and so he needs to keep a foot, or at least a toe, in the anti-EU camp>  Also, it never does any French politician any harm to have a poke at les Rosbifs. 

So, what now for David Cameron?

The deal was always a weak one and many in his own party were against it.   This failure leaves him severely weakened.   He has staked much on his personal diplomacy and has twisted the arms of his Cabinet colleagues to get behind his deal.  Now he has failed on this, his ‘colleagues’ will be expected to run for cover.

Indeed, it has been suggested, that in order to remain in power, Cameron may just proceed with a June referendum and campaign for a ‘Leave’ result so that his hand is strengthened and he can go back to the EU and now say ‘either you give us this or we will leave’. 

Of course, the above is fiction or maybe, more accurately ‘wishful thinking’. 

Chances are though, Cameron will return and, like Neville Chamberlain before him, will have a 21^st century equivalent to ‘the peace in our time’, piece of paper, which he will then try to sell to the British. 

How though will Tory ministers react? 

George Osborne is said to be the most political of Chancellors.  He probably considers the political implications of what tie or underwear he wears, before leaving the house, each day.  So  will he dare to be bold?  He is the heir-apparent to Cameron, will he make the judgement that now is the time for him to step out of Cameron’s shadow and be his ‘own man’?  Will he judge that the surest way to kill off UKIP is to take the EU away from them and that an EU-less UKIP will not be anywhere near as potent a force?  We can but hope. 

No doubt he will weigh the risk of backing the ‘Stay’ camp but must be concerned at the continuing refugee/migrant crisis and its impact on Conservative fortunes.  He won’t want to be ‘tarred’ with the accusation that by supporting ‘Stay’ he is jeopardising Britain’s economic future, by tying the UK to the floundering EU one, or that he has done a ‘Merkel’ and left Britain’s doors open to masses (can I say swarms) of migrants from the EU and from outside the EU.

We will see.  

Boris Johnson, Osborne’s main rival, remains sitting on the fence.  He needs to get off it and state his position.  No more being coy.

I struggle to say this but it needs to be said.  I hope that Cameron fails, over the next few days.  This might lead to the referendum being delayed but that’s okay.  The EU is a failed project.  This failure will become more apparent over time.  A later vote, maybe preceded by a further migration crisis, can only help  the Brexit side.

Remember, as I have said  here , Vote Leave even if you want to stay in.   Cameron’s deal is very, very weak.

Vote Out - even if you want to stay in!

 We do not yet know what David Cameron’s negotiations with the European Union will bring.  We can though start to see the outline of a deal.

And the word ‘deal’ is appropriate. 

One of, if not the main focal point has been Britain’s insistence on being able to withhold welfare benefits from newly arrived people from other EU member states.  David Cameron has been ‘banging the drum’ on this for some time and talking, not unreasonably, some might say, of the unfairness of people taking from a system into which they have not contributed.  In response, many other EU countries say that such actions would be discriminatory to their citizens.

They are both right, however, this is a ‘false flag’.  An issue designed to get us looking at this matter and forgetting the real issue.

What is really at stake in this referendum is sovereignty.  Who runs Britain.  The elected members of the British parliament at Westminster or the unelected members of the European Commission and the heads of 27 foreign governments?

Returning, for a moment to the benefits ‘deal’.  The outline proposal is that Britain would be able to apply an ‘emergency brake’ to providing benefits to non-Brits if Britain could demonstrate some kind of an inability to cope with a sudden influx.  Oh, and the ‘brake’ has to be approved by all of the other 27 countries!  Does anyone, outside of the con-men in Brussels think that such approval will ever been obtained?  So the ‘brake’ is meaningless and if this is all that David Cameron can get out of the negotiations then Britain must vote for Brexit.

What might Brexit mean?

The ‘Better Off In’ campaign have initiated Project Fear.  This was used most effectively to scare the Scots into voting against independence back in 2014.  In the case of the European Union, the tactic is that Britain doesn’t know what life would be like outside of the EU.  How would we trade, who would trade with us and so on.  Britain would be a tiny  island nation exposed to the harsh realities of a world where trade treaties govern trade and remove barriers etc..  What poppycock!

Britain is the fifth largest economy in the world.  We are projected to become the fourth, in a short space of time (overtaking Germany in the process!).  Britain would have two years, from when they advise the EU that we are leaving, to conclude trade treaties with other nations.  The EU doesn’t even have a trade treaty with the potentially largest trading nation, China, so that represents a great and immediate opportunity. 

Britain has a trade deficit with the rest of the EU – we import more from them, than they import from us.  When you consider that a lot of British trade to the rest of the world, goes through European ports like Rotterdam and this gets counted as British trade with the EU rather than with the end user country, it is clear that the EU has a very strong vested interest in concluding a reasonable trade deal with Britain. 

So the fear of the unknown isn’t really that scary, from a trade and economic perspective.

Indeed, given that remaining in the EU would inevitably lead to ever closer union, we could expect that Britain remaining outside of the failed Euro  project would be impossible to sustain.  The only way that the  Euro could possibly work is if the nations of the EU had common economic policies and that would require political union.  This should be clear to anyone, who has studied this subject. 

That many of the public supporters of the ‘Better Off In’ campaign also wanted Britain to join the Euro, at its outset, and warned of the grave dangers we faced by staying out of the Euro, says a lot. 

Britain’s economy is healthy and growing, that of the EU isn’t.  If Britain had joined the Euro project we would have had to contribute to the bail-out of Greece, Italy, Ireland, Portugal and Spain.  We would have had to adopt anti-growth policies and be tied into an exchange rate that is hampered by strong economies like Germany and Netherlands being held back by weak ones, like Greece, Italy and France.  I would suggest that a contributory factor in Britain’s current growth is that it is not in the Euro.

So would Britain leave? 

My gut feel is that if Britain voted to leave, common sense would prevail, after the initial panic.  By that I mean that firstly there would be a clamour, in other member countries for their own people to be given a vote.  Faced with the loss of a major contributor to the EU budget, the European Commission would have to come to the bargaining table and bring more than threats and meaningless ‘deals’.  Threats wouldn’t work.  The EU has more to lose from Britain’s exit than does Britain.  I would expect that after an Out vote, Britain would be in a very strong position and would actually be able to negotiate terms that would lead to a further referendum.  This second referendum would be as to whether or not Britain should reconsider and remain in the EU, based on the new renegotiated terms or still proceed and exit.  Since we cannot say how those terms might look, we cannot say how we might vote but I would suspect that the new terms would be both meaningful and more in line with Britain’s interests (and, I would suggest in the interest of the European Union, itself).

To me it is now clear that the only way  Britain can remain in the EU is to deploy Project Fear.  However, deploy this elsewhere in the EU.  It is the EU that should be scared of the unknown.  How will they survive a Brexit?  Who will provide such a growing market to which the EU can export their goods and services. 

For years, the EU was characterised by the economic powerhouse of Germany, calling all the monetary shots and the French calling all of the interventionist, centralised, nanny state shots.  Following the election of the frankly crazy socialist Francois Hollande and the global economic crisis, France’s influence within the EU has waned.  They still talk a big game but people aren’t listening so much.  In the harsh economic times, that much of Europe is facing, people are listening to the folks who pay the bills and within the Euro, that means Germany!

Germany’s economy  though, as mentioned earlier, is declining, albeit gradually.  Angela Merkel’s frankly crazy open door invitation to migrants provides a potential boost but I sense that this will be short-lived.  The German people are starting to feel swamped and Merkel is now in political difficulty.  The migrant attacks, in Cologne and other cities are just the tip of the iceberg.  This problem will get much worse before it normalises.  Don’t be surprised if there are terrorist atrocities to follow-on from Cologne.  Maybe in Germany or elsewhere.  (Incidentally, there was a brief news story about one of the terrorists , who was killed in Paris, having German connections but that is no longer being pursued – news management??)

To me the position has become ever clearer but I address this close to the ‘Better Off In’ supporters.  The best way for Britain to benefit from the EU and the best way to guarantee Britain’s membership of a reformed EU is to vote to leave.  Only this will bring the other EU members to their senses and to the bargaining table.

Vote OUT, even if you want to stay in!