Labour's mess calls for early Brexit

 I feel quite conflicted about the omnishambles that is the British Labour Party.  Not sure if I like this, or not.

On the one hand, the mess in which they find themselves augurs well for the Conservative party.  It would seem that the Labourites are in danger of splitting between the Jeremy Corbyn and his allies in the ‘entryist’ Momentum movement, and the remainder of the party, including the overwhelming majority of the party in Parliament. 

As said, a split or further internecine fighting distracts them from performing the role of Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition (though I suppose that Corbyn and the those MPs that do sit in the depleted Shadow Cabinet, do take the extra money that comes with the role).  This itself isn’t good – democracy needs an opposition that can actually oppose and challenge and we all lose out, when we don’t have one. So the ‘brothers’ fighting gives the Conservatives an easy ride to implement policies.  For me, and of course I believe the country, I think it is good that we can get Conservative policies implemented but would prefer that such policies are tested – in the parliamentary sense.

I suppose I can live with that risk, if I had to.  I sense that there is a kind of opposition within the Conservative Party, anyway and maybe they will do the job that Labour are too internally focused to do.

On the other hand, and this really worries me, what happens if new PM, Theresa May, drags her feet on Brexit?  Apart from angering ‘Leavers’ in parliament, this will surely harden opinion in the country, against any Remainers. 

For all those that go on about a second referendum and such, the assumption I believe is that having seen the result, many people who voted Leave will suddenly change and vote Remain.  I know it is moot – we are not having another referendum – but my sense is that Remainers will look at how so many people and organizations are ‘rowing back’ from the Project Fear threats, that they will feel that they were lied to and only voted Remain because of the fear generated and now they see the emptiness of those threats and would vote Leave, if they were given a second chance.

So supposing the PM does drag her feet or has a Brexit outcome that basically puts the country in the same position as it was before the referendum – not being in control of our destiny, having to accept free movement, and so on.  Then the ‘Leavers’ in Parliament might force an election and Theresa May would have to go to the country with a divided Conservative Party and a platform that doesn’t command acceptance with the party’s supporters, in the country.  We would no doubt see Conservative losses, perhaps enough to leave them lacking a parliamentary majority and then we could expect to see UKIP making significant gains in North of England seats, at the expense of a broken Labour Party . 

The upshot? No party with an overall majority and Parliament as divided as the referendum result suggests.  This is not, I would suggest, in our national interest.  One of the things that the Remainers didn’t lie about is that international markets and companies, require stability.  The ‘markets’ know that certainty is elusive but they do look for a platform of one sort or another, around which they can develop their investment strategies.   A divided parliament, as could arise, would be very destabilizing. And, bear in mind, this instability could endure for an extended period of time.  Can you really see Conservative Theresa May sitting down to discuss a coalition with UKIP or with the anti-Corbyn wing of the Labour Party?  Or UKIP sitting down with the Corbynistas or the Anti-Corbyn wing. 

Before Nicola and her stooges jump up and say what about the SNP.  Well at best, you represent less than 10% of the total number of MPs – so hardly meaningful.

I believe that the solution to head-off this catastrophic situation is for Theresa May to fire the starting gun on Brexit, in the very near future – no later than Janury 31, 2017 – she could even commit to the date, as early as the coming days. 

Yes I know that we then have to reach a deal within two years but it’s two years, for heavens sake.  Not two weeks or two months but two years!  And, critically, the duration could be extended, if required (and if approved by all 28 nations) and at the outset we know that in a worst case situation we could utilise World Trade Organization, trade terms if need be. These WTO terms don’t include free movement of people, which takes a lot of the wind out of the sails of the Brexiteer’s opposition.  All those who voted Leave would have their fears of betrayal, assuaged and the internal Conservative opposition would be ‘de-fanged’. 

This would do nothing to resolve Labour’s mess.  I am fast coming to the conclusion that only a split will give those who believe in democratic socialism (the majority of Labour voters) a home, going forward.  The effect of entryism in the Labour Party means that for so very many Labour Party supporters and voters, the only way forward is to breakaway and leave the social justice warriors and Corbynistas to their fate in the political netherworld rather than them dragging the party into the political oblivion that their adherence to the ‘purity of socialism’ will certainly cause.

So over to Theresa!  Save the party, save the country, save the pound and save the economy.

Treachery from No. 10

Some might say that treachery is too harsh a word but I use this with intent.  The dictionary definitions all talk about betrayal of trust, deception, disloyalty and bad faith.  That seems to be a clear description of what has just transpired in London.

Charitably, we might say that the treachery came from over-zealous Number 10 speechwriters though I am minded to think that the words were all pre-approved by David Cameron, himself.

From Barack Obama, I didn’t expect anything positive.  Nothing to represent the wishes of the people of Britain.  After all, he is a strong proponent of the elite running the world rather than the voice of the people being heard.  Consider how he ignores the wishes of the American people and tries to rule by ‘Executive Order’ like a latter-day emperor.  I have long suspected Obama of being anti-British and his latest statements support my belief. 

I suppose he was influenced by his Kenyan father.  An awful lot of Africans raised in the colonial era, turned to the left for their political teaching and sought to blame their previous colonial  for the ills that befell their country, especially, post-independence.  It never occurs, to these people that having now enjoyed independence for 50+ years the mess that their countries are in, can be traced back to the imposition of left-wing ideologies that were not suited to Africa and, being left-wing, were always doomed to failure. 

But I digress.

Obama’s words and particularly the use of the British word ‘queue’, instead of the American ‘line’  are redolent of Cameron’s Project Fear team.  Number 10’s fingerprints are all over Obama’s threat to put a UK trade deal at the back of the line.  This man talks of a ‘special relationship’ and then threatens?  That is not the tone that Americans use, when talking to friends.  Obama’s words shame Americans. 

That won’t come as a surprise to many right-thinking Americans.  The Nobel Peace prize winner has a highly vindictive streak which he has displayed on many occasions, though mostly to his domestic ‘enemies’ (those who dare to disagree with the sainted Barack).

So back to Project Fear.

As has been said before, without a trade deal, UK exports to, and imports from, the US would be subject, under World Trade Organisation tariffs, to rates of 0-4%.  Hardly significant.  Indeed, one might wonder why we would even bother with a trade agreement.  But think of this another way, too.  The UK is the 5^th largest export market for the USA.  Exports total $56.4 billion or 3.8% of total US exports.  Germany represents a $49.9 billion market for American goods or 3.3% of total.  However, the UK exports $58.8 billion to the USA or 2.5% of US imports.  Germany, on the other hand exports $126.5 billion to the USA.  So the UK has a miniscule trade surplus with the USA of $2.4 billion while Germany has a surplus of $76.6 billion.  Put another way, British and American workers benefit, just about equally from the trade between the two countries, however, American workers are severely disadvantaged by the heavy trade imbalance it has with Germany.

Many people who voted Conservative in the May 2015 General Election, will have done so because they trusted the Tories.  They trusted their economic competence, probably above all else.  However,  I am sure that many didn’t migrate in droves to UKIP because they saw that only the Conservatives could actually deliver a referendum on EU membership.  At the same time, they would have expected that when the choice was presented to the British people, then something approaching fair play, would be deployed. 

Instead, we are seeing more and more dirty tricks being used.  Obama’s threat is just the latest in a long line of statements and half truths and out-right lies that are being pedalled by the Remain campaign. 

So let’s be clear, since we are talking about trade and I apologise to regular readers, for having to repeat it. 

Without a formal trade treaty , WTO tariffs apply and these range from 0-4%.

Remainians need to explain why, Germany and France, indeed the  whole EU would not seek to swiftly conclude a trade deal with an independent-again UK.  The UK represents a very large existing export market  for both of those countries.  Who, in their right mind (so that caveat probably excludes the In crowd) would throw away such an advantage?  You will have seen French farmers protesting, in the past and seen how disruptive they are.  Imagine the protests when a major market becomes shut to them, because of a fit of pique from the Eurocrats in Brussels.

The big issue with trade isn’t that a treaty couldn’t be concluded, within the self-imposed 2 year time-frame.  The big issue is why, no preliminary steps are being taken on this matter.  I know that some might say ‘well if we vote to remain, then we will have wasted money’ but please – suddenly we are worried about government waste?  What about flipping that on its head and saying that any prudent government has a duty to consider and plan for all possible outcomes. Instead of Cameron stacking the deck against a Leave vote and seconding civil servants to the In campaign, resources should be assigned to the ‘what if’ camp.  As in ‘what if the UK votes to regain its independence, what are the implications and what do we do’?

Obama has failed in the USA – he has spent the best part of eight years, creating division in America.  Destroying the US economy, politicising appointments and public discourse, like no other President before him.  That is the ‘legacy’ for which he will be remembered.  Fortunately, his term of office has less than a year to run.  You will have noted though, his presumption that even out of office, he can dictate that any UK treaty request will be ‘back of the queue’.  At least he thinks he can.  The problem with jumped-up emperors is that they start to believe their own narrative – there is no delusion like self-delusion.

So Obama’s threat is anyway empty.  It is unbecoming America but there you go.

The treachery from Number 10 is far worse though.  Many Conservatives will struggle to forgive the badly-advised Cameron.  He has said he will resign as PM before the next election – no doubt in time (if he delivers an In vote) to take-up his reward as the next EU President!.  The prospects for George Osborne to succeed him are fading fast.  Theresa May and Philip Hammond too.   Maybe Boris Johnson will get the nod from the Conservative Party, though I wouldn’t discount Michael Gove’s chances.

My advice to Conservative voters, in the upcoming local elections is don’t vote or vote UKIP.  Cameron and his clique do not represent Conservative values and, just as importantly, don’t listen to those that do.  Their actions, since before the launch of the official EU Referendum campaigns has been all about doing what is right for themselves and not doing what is right for the country.  The negotiations were a farce, from start to finish.  The end result? A worthless document that was being rubbished before the press release was even wet off the presses.  And has continued to be down-played by the EU elite, ever since.  You would know this if the UK media hadn’t already bought into Cameron’s lies and deceit, from day one.

The treachery of Cameron and Co. cannot go unpunished.  Patriots who have faith in the UK to stand as an independent nation, as we have done so for so much of our history, only have their vote with which to punish Cameron.  Use it wisely and vote Brexit.  And it wouldn’t be a bad thing to give them a hammering at the local elections, either!

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'