MPs Who Quit Their Party - Traitorous or Principled?

Anna Soubry, Sarah Wollaston and Heidi Allen have today quit the Conservative Party citing Brexit and a lurch to the right. While I fundamentally disagree with their opinions on these matters I applaud and indeed salute their principled stance. They will join with the breakaway Independent Group formed by Luciana Berger, Chuka Umunna, Chris Leslie, Angela Smith, Gavin Shuker, Ann Coffey, Mike Gapes and Joan Ryan who similarly resigned from the Labour Party yesterday, albeit for perhaps different reasons; the Tories not being endemically and systematically anti-Semitic.

I am sure that for all these MPs their decision to realign themselves with a new and fledgling group will have not been easy and I am sure they will know that it may well come at a cost. I believe that principled politicians are to be admired not pilloried. In my opinion those with strong principles must follow them. However, if those same principles put them at odds with the political party on whose support and manifesto they relied upon to get them elected then they must make it clear that they are putting themselves forward for re-election on an independent platform based on the tenets they have espoused. Simply resigning the whip, or leaving the Party, is not enough. Have the courage of your convictions and fight a by-election. 

Whilst I support those who take a moral and principled stand I have nothing but contempt for those who are not brave enough to have the courage of their own convictions. I speak particularly of Dominic Grieve.

The Tories fought the last general election with an explicit promise to take us; out of the EU, out of the Customs Union, out of the Single Market and beyond the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice. Yet, as Theresa May seeks to carry out the will of the electorate, as expressed in the referendum and to fulfil the promises made in the party's manifesto, the self-aggrandising braggadocio Mr Grieve is content to vote against his party and attempt to frustrate them at every turn. Aided and abetted by that other cowardly political pygmy the Speaker of the House of Commons John Bercow.

Obviously, I recognise that on a personal level, Mr Grieve must follow his own conscience and be true to what he believes. However, my problem with his behaviour is that he enjoys a position which requires him to champion not his own opinions but the wishes of those who elected him (and those from the wider electorate who won the referendum). As he is a barrister I am surprised that he appears to be a stranger to this fundamental principle of advocacy. It appears that I am not alone in my stance as Mr Grieve will face a no confidence motion at an annual meeting of Beaconsfield Conservatives on March 29 which will state that the association has no confidence in Dominic Grieve, that he should not stand for re-election at the next general election and the association should commence proceedings for selecting a new candidate.

While I am familiar with Lyndon B. Johnson’s sentiments regarding J. Edgar Hoover ("I'd rather have him inside the tent pissing out, than outside the tent pissing in") I think that if he is not prepared to fulfil his role as an advocate for the people, he should remain firm to his convictions and principles, resign and fight a by-election as an independant.

As The Point Of No Return Approaches Can You Feel The Fear?

As the Brexit negotiations proceed it is becoming ever more clear that their primary intention is to use the divorce settlement as a crude ransom demand. It is obvious that because they believe that the Remoaners are willing to pay any price for a trade deal, and because they think that those Remoanerscan force the government to agree with their position, they are ratcheting up the final figure and trying to force us to pay it as the entry price into trade talks. Meanwhile the likes of George Osborne, Michael Heseltine, Peter Mandelson and Tony B Liar are continuing their campaign of Project Fear in a crude attempt to frighten those they regard as the ignorant poor people who voted to leave to change their minds and simply surrender to all the EU's demands.

What are those demands? They are pretty large. As well as trying to force us to continue to bankroll the PIGS (Portugal Ireland, Greece and Spain), they also want us to carry on paying, in perpetuity, a part the huge pensions of all the European bureaucrats, civil servants, MEPs and associated hangers-on who got us into this mess in the first place. Also they want us to continue to accept the supremacy of the European Court of Justice and the Human Rights courts. They want us to carry on accepting economic refugees from Eastern Europe and take a quota of the tide of illegal migrants flooding, unchecked, across the mediterranean onto the European continent. They want all of these concessions before they will even think about a trade deal.

Let's just stop to consider this for a moment. We give up all our rights to self-government, a shedload of cash up-front and we promise to carry on paying them loads more cash for an indeterminate time into the future. Once we have done this we then start another set of separate negotiation with they same bunch of gangsters and extortioners who have just mugged us. Would you?

Who is to say where they will set the price for access to their so called "Free Market?" I guess that one of the concessions they will ask for is to demand that we remain in the Customs Union and another will be a promise to continue to obey and implement all the regulatory nonsense that will continue to pour out of Brussels. The truth is that if we cave in to just the minimum of what they are asking then how will we have left the European Union.? They will still control our borders, our economy, our laws and our ability to trade freely with the rest of the world. All of this to have nothing more than we started with for a huge price.

Of course I realise that we cannot leave the EU without having to make some concessions. Mrs May has already indicated that we will meet all our legally outstanding commitments, We will continue to offer places to European citizens for them to live, work and prosper here in the UK, We will, where necessary, strive to make the goods and services we supply to them compliant with their standards. We will continue with our policies to offer succor and sanctuary to those who are genuinely fleeing from being persecuted or who fear they will be persecuted on account of race, religion, nationality, and/or membership in a particular social group or political opinion; policies which we have held in place for hundreds of years, before many of the current members of the EU even acknowledged the concept. I don;t think we need to take lessons in compassion or freedoms from the EU; as the people of Catalonia about that.

In order to make any negotiations work both parties must enter into them knowing that "No Deal Is Better Than A Bad Deal". This applies to both sides. If the EU can't succeed in bullying or intimidating us and if they genuinely feel that what we are offering is unacceptable then they too must tell us that they are prepared to walk away.

They have accused us of not offering concessions, "cherry picking" and "wanting to have our cake and eat it: I find it interesting that in such circumstances they have made little or no mention that they might want to end the talks and walk away. If their position is so strong and they can do so well without us why are they bothering to negotiate at all? I am convinced that they need us a whole lot more than we need them and their strategy is based on our desire to be reasonable and polite in a very British sort of way. I believe that they think being British means that we will try to avoid conflict at any cost.

In order to try and browbeat us they have recruited a fifth column of Remoaners, see above, who are seeking to undermine our resolve. Let's remember that we are one of the greatest trading nations in the world, the world's fifth largest economy, that we have a strong and robust economy, and can survive outside of the EU just as well, if not better than we did inside. Let's walk away and then see who feels the cold hand of fear? They'd be back to the negotiating table pretty Tut Suite methinks. 

It's Time To Stop Playing Pattycake With The EU Bullies And Change The Game To Hardball.

We must face up to the fact that leaving the EU will cause a temporary hit to our economy. I knew this when I voted for Brexit, as, I am sure, did the vast majority of Brexiteers.

Following Mrs May's Florence speech it has become obvious that the EU have no intention of negotiating and appear to have no interest in a mutually beneficial trade deal. It seems to me that rather than conciliation their sole aim is to make sure that they hand out a punishment beating to make sure they warn off the remaining 27 countries from any idea of dissent to the increased centralised control the Brussel Bureaucrats want over their laws, economies and governments.

M. Barnier's and Guy Verhofstadt's strategies are obvious. 1) extract as much cash out of the UK as they can to fix the back hole in their bloated budgets. 2) Use the EU citizens who reside here in the UK as hostages to retain the European Court of Justice's (ECJ) hold over our sovereign parliament. 3) Drag out the negotiations to wear down the public's resolve, so that we eventually elect to stay in the EU.

Given their intransigence and obvious desire to cause us as much pain as possible I am coming to the view that the only thing Brussels will understand is our taking the hardest of hard Brexit stands. I think that damage limitation is now the name of the only game in town. The only question left to answer is how do we minimise the pain?

I would prefer the short sharp shock treatment to death by a thousand cuts, implemented over a two, three or four year 'transition period'. It's like taking off a sticking plaster. Do it quick and brutally and get the pain over with in one short sharp shock. The last thing we need is to be half in and half out and continuing to be dictated to.

My negotiating stance would be to tell them, in no uncertain terms, that unless we can begin trade negotiations now and run them in parallel with the divorce bill and if they continue to prevaricate in an attempt to drag out the negotiations, then at midnight on the 1st of April 2019; 1) All payments to the EU will stop. 2) All EU citizens who wish to continue living and working here will be granted full rights, equal to those of any other UK subjects and will be subject solely to UK courts. 3) The UK will no longer recognise the jurisdiction of the ECJ. 4) All EU citizens arriving at our borders will be treated in exactly the same way as any other foreign national. 5) The Irish/UK land border will operate as it does now; restrictions at the air and sea borders will be as point 4. 6) Trade will be conducted under the World Trade Organisation rules unless and until they negotiate a trade deal. 7) The UK will immediately begin to negotiate trade deals with any other country as it sees fit.

As I have said I know that this will cause business and industry some hardship initially. I though, unlike our Quisling Chancellor, think that this arrangement will hurt their trade more than it will hurt ours. I strongly suspect that they will be back to the negotiating  table in short order. It's time to stop playing pattycake with these bullies and change the game to hardball.

Juncker Gives Us Even More Reasons To Realise We Were Right About Leaving The E.U.

Jean-Paul Juncker has delivered his Sate of the Union speech. A cursory glace at it shows that leaving the EU is the only sensible option for any country that wishes to remain an independent sovereign state that has control of its own internal policies, laws and trading relationships with the global economy.

In his speech he called a special summit in Romania on the 30 March 2019, the first day of an EU of 27 member states rather than 28, Juncker said he hoped the continent would “wake up” that day to a new more unified bloc. it seems clear that his call is a warning of the drive toward "ever closer union". Just what does that mean; well he has I think left us in no doubt.

He called for more help for all EU countries to join the euro along with a series of institutional changes, including the creation of an EU finance minister. This means that ultimately individual EU members will have no control over their own interest rates, the prices of their exports, or their own internal spending policies. All fiscal control will be in the hands of the Central European Bank and an unelected EU finance minister who will only be answerable to the unelected EC commission.

He ruled out Turkey’s accession to the EU in the foreseeable future and he called for the presidencies of the European commission and the European council, the body comprised of the leaders of the member states, to be combined in the future. He also called for the adoption of qualified majority voting, rather than unanimity, within the council on foreign policy issues. This is another blatant power grab. Once again Juncker is seeking the centralisation of power into the hands of the faceless Brussels Bureaucrats by suggesting they can overrule a member state's civil rights and foreign policies on the slenderest of votes.

Also, in an apparent attempt to take over military power as well as civilian he is pushing for a continued drive forward in European defence, which is Brussels doublespeak for a European army; again under centralised Brussels control. Just contemplate for a moment; would you want some European admiral ordering our navy to withdraw from Gibraltar so the Spanish can come in and take over?

Given Mr Junckers' megalomania and his obvious desire to be head of a European Super State I can only conclude that we are much better off out of it; and yes, at any price.

Churchill or Chamberlain? May or Corbyn? the choice is yours.

I do not doubt that Jeremy Corbyn is a man of integrity and conviction. Unfortunately, I perceive that among those convictions are pacifism, unilateral disarmament, appeasement and a naive student-union politics type belief that there will always be a way of reaching a consensus which is mutually beneficial to both sides. Sadly, I believe that it is those very attributes which mean he is not the right person to be Prime Minister, particularly at this portentous time.

Given the momentous negotiations that we are about to embark upon as we withdraw from the EU and as we hear the increasingly bellicose and aggressive rhetoric which is emanating from Brussels, I am convinced that what we need right now is a government which is led by someone who will stand up for what’s best for Britain in the face of the hostile punishment beatings Mr Junker and Mr Tusk want to hand out. The last thing we need is a leader who will follow a line of least resistance to achieve “peace for our time” at any cost, as I fear Mr Corbyn will if he stays true to his integrity and conviction.

Churchill or Chamberlain? May or Corbyn? the choice is yours.

Terrorism: No Fear, No Surrender! - So why do they do it?

Yesterday we witnessed another senseless act of terrorism on the streets of London. We are told that the perpetrators of these atrocities do this in the belief that the killing of innocents and an attack on the symbols of our freedoms and democracies will eventually coerce us into abandoning our lifestyles and system of government in favour some other alien belief system. Given that throughout history this approach has never seemed to have worked why do these small fanatical groups keep on trying such an obviously failed tactic?

While I could just possibly understand how an individual could convince themselves that being a martyr to their cause could elicit sympathy for it, I am having trouble figuring out how someone else can radicalise a person to the point where they think that wreaking havoc and visiting carnage and destruction on innocent civilians will bring about change? I suppose though that if we really want to understand how people go about radicalising and recruiting bombers and murderers then perhaps we need to ask someone with experience of doing this how they go about it.Knowing your enemy is the best way of defeating them. 

Sadly, with the very recent demise of Martin McGuinness, we have missed a golden opportunity of maybe getting inside the head of a full on bloody handed terrorist general who has sent out agents to kill and maim in the name of a cause. However, perhaps we could persuade, for a very large fee of course, the war criminal Tony B Liar to speak with his friend Gerry Addams who, based on his not inconsiderable experience, would I'm sure have some valuable tips, trick and insights he could impart? Actually, given that it could be argued that Tony B is largely to blame for the circumstances that have unleashed the dogs of war in the Middle East and brought about the terrorist plague the world now has to endure, maybe he could be persuaded to waive the fee? Okay, maybe not.  

In the meantime let's continue to send out the message that even as we mourn our dead we strengthen our resolve to continue with our lives as normal and let our motto be: Terrorism?: No Fear, No Surrender!

Opinions are like belly buttons. We all have one but they don't count for much and a failed ex-politician's is no better than anyone else's

Those that know me well will be aware that while I have strong opinions I hope that they have been reached after serious thought, research and reflection. I hope that I am not too arrogant to assume that I am always right and I welcome hearing the thoughts and reasoning of others.

I know that Len Harvey is also a man of well reasoned opinions and the fact that we stand on opposite sides of this argument do not mean that either of us should be locked in a room, especially in a democratic country such as ours. Interestingly Rob Jollands and I are also on opposite sides of the Brexit debate yet apparently are united when it comes to thinking that Tony B Liar is neither morally nor ethically qualified to make the statements contained in his speech; fermenting revolution by asking people to "rise up" I din't think is helpful and accusing the electorate of not being intelligent enough to see through the lies of politicians is a bit rich coming from someone who took spin (or lying as most of us would define it) to new heights while in office.

I believe that everyone is entitled to have a say in what kind of Brexit they think is best. The problem appears to be that, informed or not, it appears that a majority of British people have voted for us to take back control of our boarders and refuse the principal of the free movement of people within the EU. This one single fact does have consequences. Once you choose to opt out of one of the four fundamental principles of the EU the ruling Brussels bureaucrats will automatically then seek to bar you from enjoying the privileges of the others (the free movement of goods (the free market), the free movement of capital (excluding the City of London's money markets) and the free movement of services (the European Union;'s custom's union).

This is where I think Mr B Liar's arguments are flawed. It is not Theresa May who is pushing for a hard Brexit or rushing us to a cliff edge but the aforementioned Brussels bureaucrats who will drive us there whether we want to go or not. Theresa May has set out in her speeches and in the white paper submitted to parliament her desire to negotiate access to the free market and the custom's union and to apply for passporting rights for the City of London to carry on trading. It is Brussels who seem implacable in refusing to allow us to take back control of our borders and will also try to force us to stay in the custom's union, which means that we cannot negotiate our own trade deals with other countries.

Now, as a poor boy from a cotton town in lancashire I like to think I have demonstrated that I hav some grasp of the consequences of Brexit and am still some what itate the Tony B Liar should imply that I am too uneducated to have made the decision I did. As I pointed out in the title of this piece Mr B Liar has his opinion of Brexit and of my decision, but like his belly button he should keep it to himself.

An Infinite Number of Monkeys

I guess it had to happen sooner or later. If you accept the proposition that an infinite number of monkeys all sat at typewriters could eventually produce the works of Shakespeare then eventually, I suppose, Jeremy Corbyn was going to say something sensible which I agreed with.

Well you don't have to wait any longer. In a recent speech Corbyn told an audience of Scottish MSPs and activists in Glasgow that "independence would be a serious mistake, and would lead to “turbocharged austerity and a glaring hole in the money required to fund essential services”.

Like I said - If you have an infinite number of monkeys anything is possible.

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.

BBC Beats The Band For Pro Brussels Bias

Just watched the BBC Newsnight item on the Brexit debate. It is patently obvious that Auntie has decided we must stay in the EU and so only arguments that support that view will be given credence.

They spoke of the deal Norway, Switzerland and Iceland had with the EU and were at pains to say how terrible they were. What they failed to mention was that these are comparatively tiny economies with no clout to negotiate terms. If all three of those countries stopped trading with Europe tomorrow they wouldn't even notice.

We are the fifth largest economy in the world. Our financial services are probably the second or third largest. The EU cannot afford for us to cease trading with them so when it comes to a negotiation we are not Norway, Switzerland or Iceland. We will be able to work out a deal that is not like anyone else s. Don't let Auntie fool you; this is not a case of letting go of nurse for fear of finding something worse this is about leaving a dysfunctional family so that we can have a proper grown up relationship not only with Europe but also with the rest of the world.

Forget the socialist party line, we don't need "ever closer union", we don't need "freedom of movement"' we need ever closer ties with global trade and the freedom to move our goods and services with the EU and the the likes of China, the BRICK nations and everybody else without the sheet anchor of an un-elected bloated Brussels bureaucracy. VOTE LEAVE.

Angela Merkel’s Gaffe is Set to Ruin Europe and Continue to Distress Migrants

I believe that Angela Merkel has a lot to answer for with regard to her open offer of settlement, the promotion of "the free movement of people" and open borders. Did she not realise it would be like opening a grocery shop that gave out free food; you'd never be short of customers and many of them wouldn't be there because of need, they'd be there because it was free (see "food banks").

Most of this swarm (word chosen deliberately as it describes a host of individuals intent on improving their own lot without thought care for the inevitable deviation caused) are not fleeing from war or terror, they are moving toward what they perceive to be a promised land flowing with milk and honey (and I'm sure they won't appreciate the Jewish/Christian scriptural reference, but I don't care).

I have heard it said that some people think that most of the migrants flooding out of Africa and Afghanistan are terrorists.  Personally I don't think that "most" are terrorists, but EU figures seem to show that only one in four are Syrians. I would guess that even of that number the bulk are economic migrants rather than destitute downtrodden refugees in the true definition of the term.

The crisis, which Angela Merkel has single-handedly done so much to exacerbate again shows the stupidity of the socialist dream of a federalised, centralised "United States of Europe". The thinking that one policy fits all, be it monetary, diplomatic, asylum seekers or even Health and Safety is patently ludicrous and unworkable. When will she realise that prosperity only lies in a the free movement of commodities, goods, and services across boarders (i.e. a Common Market) and not "Ever Closer (political and monetary) Union?

Miliband Minor Now Tries To Buy The Keys To No:10 With Our Money

Ed Miliband has pledged that LABOUR will introduce a new Home Rule Bill for Scotland within 100 days of being voted into office. He said his party had “delivered the vow” on more devolution, with draft clauses of legislation published last week, ready to be implemented by the new government. Miliband minor has said: “Just as in 1997, devolution will be one of the first things on our agenda for the next Labour Government.” What this really means in practice is that Scotland will get even more subsidy from the rest of the UK only to squander it on an unsustainable so called Socialist utopia.

Now that it looks like the labour Party's bid to weaponise the NHS is failing and people have wised up to the fact that their Mansion Tax will hit the hard working and the aspirational rather than Mephistopheles Mandelson's oligarch pals, they have to woo the Scottish Nationalists at any price. It has also been reported that they are even desperate enough to court the political arm of the IRA, Sinn Fein to join their unholy cabal (See Here). The only good news about the Sinn Fein overtures are that at this stage there doesn't appear to be a fixed monetary price on the sacrifice of scruples but in the murky world of coalition politics no one does anything for nothing .

What is the price we will all have to pay if Labour does get into government on the back of a Scottish Nationalist deal? I have already pointed in previous blogs to the parlous state of the French economy due to their experiment into Socialist anti-austerity economics (See Here) but, actually I could just as well point you to Scotland, which is just as bad as France gets away with its wanton profligacy because of the Barnet Formula and the other trinkets they have pickpocketed from the Westminster purse. Another example perniciously not working in our own back yard is Wales which represents, albeit in miniature, a Labour government without subsidy. If you think the NHS is safe in Labour's hands look at what they have done here. I shudder to even begin to imagine what the rest of the United Kingdom will be like if Red Ed and Balls (by name and nature) have to pay the ransom the SNP will demand for allowing them titular power. Instead of the usual Tax and Spend, Boom and Bust we'll all be subjected to Tax, Borrow and give it away to the Tartan Terrors. 

Labour and the SNP - A Marriage Made In The Fires Of Perdition

The Conservatives are saying that a coalition between Labour and the SNP would mean "chaos for Britain" .

Actually it would only be chaos for England, Northern Ireland and Wales. Scotland would behave like Boarder Reavers and rape and pillage the economy, holding Red Ed's feet to the fire as the price of power 

Should this scenario come to pass (God forbid) Scotland would seek to fuel their delusional Socalist wet dream using sassanach money; living like a bloated parasite draining away our life's blood. Britain would no longer be part of the United Kingdom, we would be part of, and ruled by vengeful Scots (heaven help us).