Brexit trade deal could take 10 years, says UK's ambassador

The BBC understands Sir Ivan Rogers, Britain's ambassador to the EU, warned ministers that the European consensus was that a deal might not be done until the early to mid-2020s. What they’re not telling you up front is this is the same Sir Ivan, who conducted David Cameron's negotiation over the UK's relationship with the EU; and look how that turned out.

I'm sure there are those who will say, with some justification, that his long history of association with the movers and shakers in the EU make him well placed to know how these people think. However, given that his appointments over the years have all been made and supported by most of the greatest Europhiles our governments have ever seen; Kenneth Clarke, Sir Leon Brittan, Tony B Liar and Gordon Brown, to name but four; I have to wonder about how spin free his pronouncement is.

Mr Rogers served in HM Treasury, including as Private Secretary to Kenneth Clarke, when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer. He then was seconded to the European Commission as Chief of Staff to Sir Leon Brittan, returning to be Director, European Strategy and Policy and later Director of Budget and Public Finances under Gordon Brown.

In 2003, Rogers was chosen to succeed Jeremy (later Sir Jeremy) Heywood as the Principal Private Secretary to the Prime Minister, Tony Blair. After three years in this role, Rogers left the service in 2006 to become Head of the UK Public Sector Group at Citigroup. In 2010 Rogers transferred to be Head of the Public Sector Industry Group, UK and Ireland, at Barclays Capital from 2010 to 2011.

In 2012, Rogers returned to government as the Prime Minister's Adviser for Europe and Global Issues and the Head of the European and Global Issues Secretariat, based in the Prime Minister's Office at Number 10, replacing Jon Cunliffe who had become the senior British diplomat at the EU. On Cunliffe's move to the Bank of England the next year, Rogers succeeded him again, moving to Brussels in 2013.

As of 2015, Rogers was paid a salary of between £170,000 and £174,999 by the Foreign Office, making him one of the 328 most highly paid people in the British public sector at that time.
I would guess that he did not support the Brexit camp and I suspect that his dire warnings factor in his personal negotiating “skill” (look at the "deal" he got with Cameron) and whiff strongly of Project Fear?

Richmond shows UK's Europe split as wide and deep as ever (Robert Peston Headline 02/12/2016)

It's not just Robert Peston. All the Remoaner press are claiming that the Lib Dem win In the Richmond Park by-election is a rebuke to the government's plan to exit the EU. Let's look at the facts for a moment rather than the spin.

The seat is set in the heart of the London metropolitan area, which voted overwhelmingly to 'Remain'. The constituency itself also voted overwhelmingly to 'Remain'. I don't find it at all surprising that, at the first opportunity, they voted to ditch their Brexit backing MP. Zac Goldsmith has only himself to blame. What he should have done is put aside his own opinions and party loyalties and done his best to try to represent the will of the majority of the people who elected him or stood aside for someone who would. That's what democracy is all about.

This result is not a straw in the wind for the Remoaners, who should remember one swallow does not a summer make. What actually remains once the smoke and mirrors have been put away and the fog of battle has cleared is that a clear majority of the United Kingdom voted to leave the EU and thankfully, that's what our government are seeking to bring about.

It's impossible to say this this result reflects the mood of the whole country. It's my guess that if we were to hold a by-election in a safe Labour seat in the North of England, where the sitting MP was vocally anti-Brexit, then probably UKIP would walk it with the Conservatives coming a close second, or vise versa.

If strategy were up to me I'd advise Mrs may to press ahead with the invoking of Article 50. Once that has been done and the inevitable withdrawal has begun the immediately call a snap general election. Go to the country asking for a clear parliamentary majority so that she and the government can negotiate the best deal possible; keeping faith with the will of the people to take back control of our borders, our laws and our judicial sovereignty. 

Brexit Remainers Still Seeking To Overturn The Referendum

The remain campaign seem determined to ignore the manifest and expressed will of a majority of voters in the referendum. Having lost the vote and the argument for a re-run they now are seeking to use the Commons and the House of Lords to to keep us in Europe.

Make no mistake all this talk about debating the government's strategy for the negotiation of a withdrawal from Europe has nothing to do with democracy, In fact the very opposite is true. What they are seeking to do is to force the government into adopting a so called "Soft Brexit", by making them promise to keep the UK in the "Single Market" (the SM). They do this knowing that to gain completely unfettered access to the SM we will have to accept the free movement of people, continue our agreement to accept and adopt EU laws, submit ourselves to the authority of the European courts and their unelected lawmakers and also continue to accept the free movement of people. These conditions are of course exactly what the British people voted to get rid of.

This fifth column hiding on the back benches are also trying to force the Brexiteers to reveal their entire negotiation strategy ahead of any negotiations. Anyone who has ever conducted any negotiation process knows that the first rule is that you keep your cards as close to your chest as possible and you never ever reveal ahead of time where your "red lines" are, orwhere you are prepared to compromise. It appears to me that the remain camp are acting as agents for their pals in Europe in trying to uncover our secrets, perhaps so they can exchange them for a seat on the gravy train when we are beaten to the point of surrender because we entered into a negotiation stripped of all our weapons and defences.

I believe that I also detect the odious smell of George Osborne provoking his proxies to act as his cat's paws in still trying to deliver Project Fear. Is George cooking up other machinations, to a recipe he learnt from that master of the dark and devious arts, his friend Peter Mandelson? Chief among these cap's paws is the governor of the Bank of England. During the referendum campaign Mark Carney was a cheerleader for Project Fear and ever since the vote he has continued to talk down our economy and talk up how dire life will be after Brexit. George has also got a number of his colleagues to approach the media in a continued attempt at bringing down Theresa May by death by a thousand cuts.

I think that we should applaud Theresa May's pledge to extricate us from Europe; all the more so because while it may not be something she campaigned for, she has recognised the will of the people and is trying to carry that out. I am sure that she and the ministerial team she has put in place can negotiate us an exit from Europe that will ultimately bring sovereignty and prosperity back to Britain. I don't for one moment think that we will get everything we want; negotiations are never like that. There will be a price to pay, but I'm sure that if the dissenters would accept the democratic decision we have taken, stop trying to keep us in Europe by the back door and above all cease this attempt to hamstring our negotiators before we've even started we can forge a deal that works not only for us but their (and our) friends in Europe.

I think those in parliament should contemplate the consequences of  our being forced by their efforts into becoming a vassal sate of Brussels. Such an outcome would, in the long run, be as bad for Europe as it would be for us. To put it crudely and to paraphrase the old saw; a fudged brexit which shackles us with the free movement of people, EU law and leaves us still making massive monetary contributions to a club we no longer want to be in would leave us in the door of the tent still pissing in. While a clean hard Brexit leaves us outside the tent too busy making our way in the wider world to piss off anybody.

Let's all accept that Brexit is want the country voted for and that"Brexit means Brexit". Let's leave our negotiators to negotiate a clean break and not a fudge and, most importantly, let's not hobble them by having them compose a battle plan in full and open view of the enemy.

Threatening The Grey Panthers. Is This When Dave Lost The Referendum?

Over the last two elections there have been pivotal events which, while small in themselves, have I believe signalled the moment at which that election was lost. For Gordon Brown in 2010 it was the capture of off camera remarks in a taxi when he referred to Gillian Duffy as a "bigoted woman". In 2015 it was when Ed Miliband unveiled the now infamous "Ed Stone". I have been waiting for such a moment to appear in the great referendum debate and I think that it has finally happened.

On Sunday last David Cameron appeared on The Andrew Marr Show. During the interview The prime minister said Brexit could cause a "black hole" in the public finances and that "our economy would be smaller" if the UK left the single market leading to "difficult choices". So far, so much the same old Project Fear. However, he then went on to say something which I believe to be a threat too far and may very well loose him this vote and ultimately his job as Prime Minister.

He said forecasts from the Institute for Fiscal Studies suggested Brexit could lead to a shortfall in the public finances of between £20bn and £40bn which would need to be "filled" - either by tax rises, extra borrowing or spending cuts.

You will remember that In their 2015 election manifesto, the Conservatives promised to extend the so-called triple lock on state pensions, a guarantee that they rise every year by at least 2.5% - or the rate of inflation or growth in earnings if it is higher - until 2020.

With his foot planted firmly in his mouth "Call me Dave" said that while pensioner benefits were a "policy priority" and he was committed to honouring manifesto promises, £90bn was spent on the triple lock every year and it was among many existing commitments that might have to be re-examined in a post-Brexit climate. He effectively threatened pensioners that if they voted for Brexit he would consider cutting their pensions by removing the triple lock.

From what I have seen in the letters columns of various papers today pensioners have not taken kindly to bully boy Dave's gambit. I don't think it could have gone worse for him if he had brought out the Andrex puppy and a revolver and said "Vote IN or the doggie gets it". If the vote goes the way I hope it will I think many in the Remain camp will rue the day that, that young whippersnapper David Cameron threatened the entire pride of grey panthers

What Price The Remain Campaign's Guarantees?

Vote Remain have published a list of things that they will guarantee if we vote to stay in the EU. Let’s take a closer look.

Full access to the EU’s single market.

Our exports to the rest of the world now exceed those to the EU. While a large amount of our foreign trade is still with the EU the fact is that this sector is actually in decline. Part of the reason that our trade with the rest of the world has not grown even larger is that the EU actually represents a barrier to our expanding our trade relationships with countries like China, India, the Commonwealth countries and South America. The simple fact is that access to the EU’s single market costs us more that it gives back.

Workers’ rights protected.

Let’s have a look at The European Working Time Directive which is touted as a flagship policy protecting worker’s rights. The Working Time Directive represents an estimated cost to the UK economy of £4.1 billion a year and the benefits are unknown. In spite of this there is no policy avowed by the Brexit campaigns to repeal any of the existing labour laws. Any changes would be subject to our parliament. Leaving the EU does not represent any threat to any existing workers’ rights.

Keeping the European Arrest Warrant.

Are we sure we want to keep this fundamentally flawed piece of legislation? Under the terms of the European Arrest Warrant (EWA) a British subject could legitimately expect the same treatment at the hands of the courts if charged. The implications of the EWA fundamentally undermine that legitimate expectation. Now at the request of judges in other jurisdictions the UK is willing, indeed obliged, to export its citizens to face charges for offences that may not even be crimes in Britain and before judicial systems we would never endorse in our own country. It could be argued that whatever the technocratic arguments advanced by its advocates at its induction, and now parroted by its defenders, in operations it is fundamentally incompatible with the system of justice with which Britain has prided herself over generations.

A Special status in Europe.

What does this actually mean? David Cameron promised us that he would deliver a deal which would mean significant changes to our position in Europe. It is now widely agreed that the deal he came back with after is negotiations did not amount to anything at all. The so called handbrake to immigration is not ours to control as the hand on the brake is actually that of Brussels. He did not get the restrictions on benefits for EU economic migrants he promised and these paltry concessions, as well as everything else are not yet ratified by the EU and could be overturned after the referendum, even if we stay in. Brussels has already made it very clear that if we do vote to remain then our days of carping about legislation we don’t like are over. How long will it be after the 23^rd of June that treaties are changed to deny us our veto? Voting to remain will give us less of voice for reforms not a greater one.

Stability for our country.

Remaining within the EU is achieving the stability of tying yourself to a supporting column of a car park during a massive earthquake. To be stable any country needs to be able to rely on the firm bedrock of its constitution, its laws, its ability to create wealth, the ability to maintain its sovereignty, the security of its borders and its citizens. The EU is already suffering the sort of minor tremors which often are the heralds of a major earthquake or even a catastrophic seismic shift. The EU imposes regulations and laws which fundamentally change and erode our constitution. They pass into law edicts made by unelected bureaucrats which are forced upon us. The imposition and now protection and maintenance at all costs of the Euro have engendered devastation to the economies of Greece, Italy, Spain and now France. All of these countries are suffering record unemployment and massive civil unrest. Even though we are outside of the Eurozone we are not immune from damage from the aftershocks of its inevitable collapse which will cost us billions; not only in bailouts but also in lost trade. Our membership of the EU restricts our ability to trade with the rest of the world and keeps us poor. The free movement of people means that we can no longer secure our borders while the Schengen Agreement means that potential terrorists are free to sow fear and anarchy throughout the continent once they are past the porous southern frontiers.

In short these so called guarantees are either not guarantees at all, as the power to deliver them is not in our politician’s hands, or they are not things that we would actually want in the first place. Brexit does not come with any guarantees but its prospects are still brighter than the alternatives.

The Referendum - What's It Really All About?

In spite of George Osborne telling us the economic debate is over, there is still much claim and counterclaim from both Brexit and Remain The problem both sides have with their argument over the monetary cost, or benefits, is that no one really knows what would happen should we decide to leave. All either camp can do is speculate.

I believe however that the economic argument is not the one on which the majority of voters are focused. In my opinion the two really big issues of the referendum are "Who makes and enforces our laws" and "How do we control immigration". Of course at a fundamental level the two are inextricably linked. While we continue to be signed up to the EU we have to accept that the free movement of people comes with the deal. It is therefore the EU who ultimately decides who we have to let in. We do get to chose those from outside of EU but given the sheer numbers arriving from our European brothers and sisters (and their families) there is just not that much room left for our Commonwealth cousins, let alone our other foreign friends.

As a nation with a proud history of accepting refugees, asylum seekers and skilled immigrants there are very few people in this nation who could be accused of xenophobia. The problem we have is not one of being anti-immigration but rather one of assimilation and integration. The Blair government's policy of open doors has meant that we have had to absorb too many people too quickly and multiculturalism has compounded this situation by fostering the belief that those coming here do not have to assimilate into the UK's culture and society, which breeds discontent, by both communities.

If we look back at the mass immigration waves which occurred in my lifetime, The Empire Windrush generation from the West Indies, the Asians who were expelled from Idi Amin's Uganda, the Biafran refugees to name but three and not to mention those from Indian and Pakistan who came before, during and after. In all these case we see that they have, largely and successfully, integrated themselves into our society. This is not to say that they haven't kept their own culture alive, but as they arrived we had time to digest the extra numbers and integration was achieved by osmosis rather than diffusion.

As I see it the problem we have with the EU is that it will not allow us to slow the rate of immigration caused by the free movement of people and the EU itself apparently has no policy (or the will) to stop Africa trying to decant itself into Europe. I think that the point must be made that no one in the Brexit camp is saying that we would, or should, ban all immigration from the EU countries, but, while Brussels will not let us make and enforce our own laws that will give us back control of our borders; I must vote for Brexit.

Brexit - Why Won't Either Side Tell Us The Truth?

Two of the big hitters from the EU debate were on TV this morning. George Osborne on ITV with Robert Peston and Michael Gove with Andrew Marr on the BBC. All that seems to have emerged from these interviews is that neither side can say with any certainty what will happen to our economy if were to leave the EU.

Both camps accuse the other of painting a rosy view of their desired outcome, with no hard evidence to support their speculation while predicting a financial apocalypse if we take the opposite course, again without any hard facts to back them up. However, I do believe that there are some things that we can say for sure about what would happen if the ‘Remain’ campaign do win the day.

If we vote Remain then on the 24^th of June the EU legislators and the European Court of Human Rights will have free reign to impose their will without let or hindrance. Every time we raise an objection or attempt to seek allies for change or reform we will be told in no uncertain terms that we have to accept their will. We will be told “You voted to be part of the club – now you have to obey its rules. We will also eventually be forced to pay more to bolster the failing economies of those in the Eurozone and the fees we are already paying to the likes of Albania, Bosnia, Serbia and Macedonia, to help them get ready to join the EU, will only increase.

Then there are the vexed questions regarding Turkey. This non-democratic, increasingly pro Muslim state which is run by a despotic tyrant who persecutes the Kurdish minority and ruthlessly crushes any attempts at opposition and/or free speech, is already holding the EU to ransom over its bungling of the refugee crisis and thereby costing us a fortune. Turkey has already prised open a door to allow visa free travel for 75 million of its citizens and will continue to screw the EU for even more money before it eventually gets free membership.

Make no mistake should we vote to remain we will not have any meaningful voice with regards to reform and we will not be granted any further indulgence when we ask to be excused from regulations, legislation, or increases in taxes or fees.

To return to the area of speculation, I would argue that there will be an economic price to pay for voting to leave. I believe that those running the Out campaign should be honest with us and admit that negotiating trade deals will be tough and things may well get worse before they start to get better. But, any economic price we may have to pay in the short term for voting ‘Out’, will be more than offset in the longer term by our regaining control of our own borders and being able to re-invest our own money in our own economy instead of continuing to fuel the Brussels gravy train. I believe that the British people are big and brave enough to understand that Brexit is not an easy, risk free, option.

We have faced tough times before and stood defiantly alone in order to maintain our freedom and independence and that we can do it again. Let’s hear the truth from the Brexit campaigners and not be afraid of short term sacrifice for freedom. I believe we need to hear the echoes of Winston Churchill saying in effect that:

"I have nothing to offer but blood, toil, tears and sweat."

We have before us an ordeal of the most grievous kind. We have before us many, many long months of struggle and of suffering. You ask, what is our policy? I can say: It is to wage (economic) war, by sea, land and air, with all our might and with all the strength that God can give us; to wage (economic) war against a monstrous tyranny, never surpassed in the dark, lamentable catalogue of human crime. That is our policy. You ask, what is our aim? I can answer in one word: It is victory, victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror (or Project Fear), victory, however long and hard the road may be; for without victory, there is no survival. Let that be realised; no survival for the British People, no survival for all that the British (economy) has stood for, no survival for the urge and impulse of the ages, that mankind will move forward towards its goal. But I take up my task with buoyancy and hope. I feel sure that our cause will not be suffered to fail among men. At this time I feel entitled to claim the aid of all, and I say, "come then, let us go forward together with our united strength."

Brexit will lead to 400 aces leaving Premier League football clubs

The latest horror story from Project Fear predicts the end of football in this country as we know it. From my perspective I say “Bring It On”. The fat cats at the top of the sport are only frightened that their executive, millionaire lifestyles will suffer, as usual they have no thoughts for the fans, only for their continued seat on the gravy train.

Their claim seems to be that if EU players are no longer free to come here then the value of their product will fall thus resulting in football having to revamp its marketing strategy. Suddenly they will have to concentrate on producing UK footballers who are focused on the game rather than those prima donnas who have no loyalty to the club or the fans but will only play for the club that pays the most.

Suddenly the premier league would no longer be able to command obscene television royalties, the majority of which is not invested back into the game but goes to fuel the cycle of funding mainly the top teams so that they attract even more overseas talent and pad the bank accounts of directors, officials and of course Greg Dyke.

Without the foreign players perhaps football could get back to its roots and teams would again be the focus of local support. Today too many of the top teams, particularly those in London, attract designer fans who are more interested in flaunting their wealth by being able to afford a season ticket in the premium seats From what I have seen many of these Yuppies are more interested in going around in gangs exhibiting the sort of behaviour that has gotten the sport a bad name for years than actually supporting their team in a sportsman like manner. It’s as if the club exists only as a vehicle for their image and ego. I don’t believe for one moment that these Hooray Henrys are really football fans but parvenus looking for the latest trendy brand to show how rich they are.

If If football couldn’t employ the EU players then perhaps there would be a loss of revenue and many of the big clubs would be forced to change their business model; however, maybe this could actually be a blessing for the true fan. Those true fans would then have  a local cub with players who were paid salaries they could identify with. Football could bring back a maximum wage, set at a level that would still give the stars a lifestyle to aspire to, without it divorcing them from the realities of the lives of the people coming through the turnstiles and paying their wages. Clubs would be forced to invest in nurturing home grown talent with an incentive to keep them rather than watching them always having an eye on chasing the next big transfer deal.

Sharing out the money more equally between all the levels of the football association could also mean that the gap between the top clubs, who are only the top clubs because they can afford to be so, would narrow. Therefore fighting for promotion or relegation would be based on footballing ability rather than bank balance.


Taking away the EU players wouldn’t harm the game, it would only harm the rich clubs who currently control it, to the detriment of the real football fans.