What Should Be Happening Post Referendum

Delay and uncertainty are the two biggest threats that our economy faces at the present. The longer we go without the first steps of a BREXIT plan and without the actions and good news that will follow the more time is available for Dissatisfied Remainers and the Sly Remainers (like Osborne) to keep talking the country down and so ensure the good news does not get out.

For a negotiation to stick it must give both sides a WIN. So all negotiations should aim for Win/Win outcomes. Based on what EU politicians have said they are looking for a Win/Loose outcome and so it is pointless to negotiate with them.

Brexit will need action over a number of areas. Thankfully at least one plan for this has existed in the public domain since April 2104 (Institute of Economic Affairs: A Blueprint for Britain: Openness Not Isolation by Ian Mansfield). The document is 69 pages long and I will not repeat it here. But we can do a few things early and well.  So here are my thoughts:

  1. Activate Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty;
  2. Immediately start enquiring of states with whom the EU currently has trade agreements if they wish to continue those agreements with us (following the Vienna Convention on the Succession of States);
  3. Announce the value of each deal and badge these as Wins for the leave policy. Thereby generating good news to counteract the ‘bad news’ being churned out by the Remainers;
  4. Conclude a Letter of Intent to enter into trade negotiations with all those countries who have asked us for a trade treaty but who are not already in a trade agreement with the EU. Make sure an estimate of the value of this trade is entered into each Letter of Intent;
  5. Announce the estimated value of these potential trade deals and badge them as a win for Leave.
  6. Each month issue a cumulative report on the value of trade deals completed and in-progresss. Badge these as wins for Leave.
  7. Quickly pass two Acts both to come into force at the end of the negotiation period unless better deals for the UK have been arrived at. The first, The EU Trade Act, sets out the terms of trade with the EU based on World Trade Organisation rules, the second, The New UK World Immigration Act, setting out the scheme under which immigration would be allowed.
  8. Insist that these two areas must be negotiated separately.
  9. Continue signing more trade agreements.
  10. If European business and agriculture judge that their trade competitiveness in the UK will be adversely affected by the new trade deals in force once the UK leaves the EU they will insist that their politicians negotiate a better agreement than that represented by the EU Trade Act.
  11. If the EU wants a better deal on the movement of labour then we can negotiate on the rights of workers to a work permit in both the EU and the UK who have been resident before 23 June 2016 , the terms of that work permit, the residency rights of retired people and the rights on other matters such as health care, state pensions, schooling/university and training etc.
  12. Remove Osborne and other moaning Remainers from positions of responsibility so that they can no longer continue to sabotage BREXIT by their negative comments, asides and self-justification.

The two Acts each put up the best outcome for the UK and the EU on the basis of International law  and sets the best ‘Win’ for both of us at this point. The essence of this approach is that negotiation to a better position for both parties can start only when EU politicians are prodded by business and agriculture to negotiate on a better WIN/WIN position. Negotiation should only be allowed when the EU wants to negotiate positively for trade in industrial and agricultural products and never on one of these alone.

In the meantime the Leave team can spend their time getting on with the other issues that need to be addressed, especially the internal issues.

What do you think should be the priority internal issues?


Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | Leave a comment

The Prospects for UK Economic Growth outside the EU are Brilliant

The Prospects for growth in the UK economy outside the EU are good despite the Remain campaign’s claim that 9 out of 10 economists support remaining – a statistic that is not true since out of over 4,000 economists polled only 13.6% (about one in seven)said this would be the outcome. In fact over 80% gave no opinion at all, perhaps a realisation by economists of their fallibility.

The growth prospects outside the EU do depend on  competent economic management skills based on the realisation that we are no longer in the EU. Skills that Cameron and Osborne evidently do not posses because all their projections for growth outside the EU depend on absolutely no change being made to current economic polices. In this sense the growth forecasts are uncertain – they depend on competent economic management that does not currently exist  in No.10 and No. 11.

Below I list a selection of the benefits reported by professional economists. In summary the opportunities that present themselves to us out of the EU are huge. With proper economic management the upside, in my view, exceeds the downside.

Under Article 34 of the Vienna Convention of the Succession of States the UK will not need to renegotiate current EU trade agreements with other countries – we need only agree with the other country to continue the trade deal.

“The picture that has consistently emerged throughout this research paper, is one of protectionist EU trade policies actively hindering UK trade. Though the UK’s market is certainly smaller than the EU’s, I have demonstrated that a more nimble Britain would almost certainly be able to negotiate deep and comprehensive deals with the largest economies in the world”

– Brexit and Free Trade – The Bruges Group.

Lawyers for Britain said

“We conclude that fears that the UK would be involved in years of uncertain negotiations after Brexit have no basis in reality”

Open Europe have forecasted that outside the EU the UK GDP could be 1.6% higher than it would otherwise be in 2030. http://openeurope.org.uk/intelligence/britain-and-the-eu/what-if-there-were-a-brexit.

Professor Patrick Minford (one of Margaret Thatcher’s advisors) projects that remaining in the EU will reduce the UK’s growth by 0.5% per year. By 2035 this means that UK GDP could be 9% lower than if we left. In today’s terms this means that if we leave the EU we would have a government tax take of, roughly, some £60bn more – goodbye to austerity.

Minford also puts the annual cost of EU membership at a minimum of 12.5% of national income. Tim Congdon in his 2015 edition of “What does the EU Cost Us” estimates that this is 12% of our national output or about £190 billion.

If all of the costs were removed (be careful here as it would not happen immediately and realistically some would remain) it could result in another £40 billion of taxes raised.

Leaving the EU would decrease unavoidable EU costs thereby allowing the government more leeway in its economic decisions to take advantage of the opportunities that present themselves to the UK in the future. This are also likely to improve our economic performance.

If we leave the EU our trade with other countries will be with tariffs on imports that are lower than those the EU has in its tariff barriers. As a result price levels will be lower than if we remained.

So if we leave the EU we will loose the deadweight costs of the EU in terms of added costs and reduced economic growth. In addition we will gain additional growth through trading with the other 165 counties in the world.

In 1991 the prime minster John Major was advised that the UK should leave the ERM (the European Exchange Rate Mechanism) but refused because the results would be so catastrophic for the UK economy. Later that year the UK was booted out of the ERM by market forces and interest rates were raised to very high levels but by the end of the year the pound was strengthening and the UK was on the start of an economic boom that lasted seven years.

Only recently has the tide of economic voices, surprisingly including the IMF, been enhanced by yet more economists saying that nothing much would change if the UK left the EU. https://heatst.com/uk/senior-french-economists-german-paper-back-brexit-full-text/

Remember that when you cast your vote


Posted in Economics | Tagged | Leave a comment

The EU Was Not Responsible for Creating our Rights – We Were!

Civil liberty and freedoms, democratic representative government and the right to innocence unless proven guilty were either invented, or adopted and improved, in England over the 1200 or so years from their starting point in Anglo-Saxon England to the present period.

They had little existence in continental countries over the same period. Anglo-Saxon England (927AD – 1066AD) was governed by representative councils, or parliaments in today’s language, for nearly 150 years. Both the King of England and the Church had to obey parliament – something that did not exist in continental Europe. With the exception of the Church this continued, more or less, under the Norman kings (who thought that English law and governance was the best in the world) and those who followed. A parliament in 1188AD first set down the principle that approval of taxation could only be done by those who represented those who would pay the tax. The first representatives elected to parliament attended a parliament in 1254. Eventually the English had to execute a King (Charles I in 1643) who thought himself above Parliament and wished to make the people of England subject to the state (ie himself).

England has had the right to be ruled by representative parliaments for 1100 years and the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms that came before that for a further 325+ years – a total of 1450 years!

From this arrangement, and the English Common Law, have come all our rights and liberties. And it is because we are now ruled by an EU system that stands against both of these that we are starting to lose those rights. These rights were restated in Article 2 of the English Bill of Rights 2015 by the Parliament for England http://hertsengdem.org/?page_id=8803.

The European Arrest Warrant has removed two of our most important rights from us. Under it British citizens can, and have been, removed without benefit of legal representation to European jurisdictions where justice can be delayed by 2 – 4 years without any reliable evidence of an offence or even without any offence having been committed!

The EU now makes decisions on VAT, e.g. the tampon tax, and is now busting its way into corporation tax and its rules on the movement of capital and trade means that we can no longer collect the taxes we should from multi-national companies. We have no democratic representation in the making of these decisions In the modern day, Britain introduced the right to holiday pay in 1938, Equal Pay in 1970, Race Discrimination in 1965, Sex discrimination 1975. The maternity grant was introduced in 1911 and the maternity allowance in 1948 and statutory Maternity Pay in 1985. We now have one of the most liberal regimes for maternity leave and maternity pay, and amongst the highest minimum pay levels for those in work and so on. https://twitter.com/GreggatQuest/status/740985267230810113

Only leaving the EU will allow us to regain the lost rights, only leaving the EU will stop us loosing more of these rights and only leaving the EU will guarantee a continued democratic state for our grand-children and beyond!

Posted in Common Law | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Is the EU a Facist State?

If it is then my Vision for England is not possible.

My Vision of an England Out of the EU

Leaving the EU will allow us in England to get back the human and legal rights we gained from the Magna Carta in 1215, the English Bill of Rights 1689 and English Common Law and have lost due to the EU. We will be trading with 160+ countries on mutually agreed terms and not those of the EU. The growth in trade and the ending of mass immigration will mean more jobs, especially for the young and housing and public services will be more easily available. We will be a more dynamic, more free, more exciting and wealthier society for everyone.

How Does the EU Rule

The EU State consists of three main hierarchical political tiers.

The Council of Ministers works on setting EU objectives and is the highest tier . Its civil services prepares drafts for Ministers who rubber stamp an estimated 85% of the proposals. Subsequently these can become UK law as Statutory Instruments which are nodded through by Parliament. None of these proposals are debated and approved by our parliament or any legitimate democratic body.

At this level there is NO democratic process!

The Commission is the EU civil service and is the second level. It drafts EU legislation. The national makeup of its staff will reflect the influence of each nation on that legislation. Britain has around 13% of the EU population. Yet in 2011 the UK had ONLY 4% of the staff! Influence we have NOT. The UK in 2016 has 4 out of the top 37 (10.8%) Commission civil servants and across the top 5 grades we have 384 (down from 458 in 2011) out of a total of 4,801 or 8%. Out of the 13,610 “fast stream” AD staff the UK has 674 or 5%. So Britain’s influence on EU legislation is small and getting smaller as time moves on and higher grades retire and lower grades are promoted to their place. We have an even lower percentage of support staff. http://ec.europa.eu/civil_service/docs/europa_sp2_bs_nat_x_grade_en.pdf

None of this legislation is debated and approved by our parliament or any legitimate democratic body.

So NO democratic representative process here!

The European Parliament, the third level, whilst elected has no power to introduce legislation (the Commission only has this power), none to throw out proposed legislation and limited powers of amendment – described by Janice Atkinson MEP as the power to change the punctuation, only. None of this legislation is debated and approved by our parliament

So NO democratic process at this level.

In other words the citizens of EU countries have no means to exert power on the state, other than through violent means. The citizens are subservient to the State. States where their citizens are subservient to them are FASCIST states.
Continental Europe is the birthplace and home of Fascism. Fascism developed out of Syndicalism, a socialist movement in the early 1900s, that believed in wiping out democracy During the 20th century there were about 10 fascist states in operation at one time or another; they included Germany. Spain. Portugal, Italy, Bulgaria, Rumania, Austria, Albania, Greece, Hungary, Slovakia, Croatia. Many were thankfully short-lived and were closed down when the Allies (for the main part just the USA and the UK) defeated fascism.
The Commission is focused on closer and closer political integration and building the European Super State replete with foreign embassies, its own military with a navy, air force and army gained by eventually taking over the military of its member states. It aims to forbid referendums and make criticism of itself a crime. The EU Super State

“is deeply rooted in the political developments of the last five hundred years”. “The EU. . . embodies in an extreme form the bureaucratic structures of Absolutist France and it aspires consciously to a European Union which, in extent and completeness, exceeds the wildest imperial visions of a Napoleon or a Hitler”.

Both quotes David Starkey in his foreword to “The EU in a Nutshell” by Lee Rotherham 2012.

At an EU sponsored “Citizen’s Debate” in London Viviane Redding, the Luxembourg union boss now vice-President of the European Commission told the debate that British Sovereignty was a myth and that voters here were not qualified to vote in the referendum. Later on discovering her clothes & jewellery had been stolen she said

“It will be really difficult to replace . . . My earrings have been on pictures worldwide”

– How fascist can you get?


So it appears that the EU is a wannabe Fascist Super State, something that our parent’s/grandparent’s generation fought against and in some cases died, to defeat and whose aspirations so evocatively remembered by the white crosses in war cemeteries around the world, we dishonour by remaining a part of.

We should get OUT before we become part of the Fascist State too!

Posted in Democracy | Tagged | Leave a comment

The Coming EU Economic Train Crash

The truth is that the economic foundations of the EU are currently built on sand. Their efforts to alter this are already known. They include:

  • eventually taking over the national government budgets of ALL EU countries, whether they are in the euro-zone or not;
  • they include tight regulation of financial institutions that will cripple the City of London’s ability to compete in world markets;
  • they include ever closer integration of Eurozone countries that will effectively side-line the economies of non euro-zone countries.

There are only two countries, UK and Denmark, that have permanent opt-outs from the euro-zone. This means that in 5 – 8 years we will be only 2 out of 32+ countries.

We will never win or influence a decision where it is 2 against 30. We will be effectively side-lined with no more influence on what happens in the single market than if we were out of the EU. Leaving the EU will have the advantage of insulating us from what is currently forecast as likely to be a mandatory bail-out of the euro-zone.

It also means that this weakness in the EU economy will benefit the UK after leaving the EU in its negotiations over free access to the EU single market without freedom of movement of labour.

“There is an economic and social emergency in France. We face an uncertain economic climate and persistent unemployment”

– Francois Hollande– President of France – BBC News 18 Jan 2016.

Much of the euro-zone is an economic disaster. Greece, Portugal, Italy, Spain and Ireland have been in special measures. Greece is still a mess. On 26 May 2016 Reuters reported on renewed concerns about the health of Spanish banks. Portuguese banks are still suspect (The Independent 22 Feb 2016).

Both Italy and France are currently in a debt trap for which, to escape from, growth in the economy must be at least double the current rate. There is no sign that this will occur.

Unemployment rates remain above 10% overall and youth unemployment is 20%+.

The web site Investopedia.com published an article in March discussing the “6 Factors that Point to A Global Recession in 2016” and, yes, the EU-euro-zone was one of those factors but BREXIT was not even mentioned. On 22nd February The Telegraph published an article stating that a global recession was on its way. This time the economic forces described were so large that the EU was not even mentioned, let alone BREXIT.

The fact is that the EU represents an uncertain future with even greater risks of the UK than exiting it. For one thing if we do leave we will be able to make our own policy decisions in the future and will not be tied to what by then could well be not the EU apron strings, by the EU shackles.

Posted in EU | Tagged | Leave a comment

“Cui Bono” or Who Benefits? The Banks? Big Business? Politicians? Or Us The People

Big business, banks, the IMF, politicians and some economists and Trade Unionists all tell us we must remain in the EU. But can we trust them? Have they ever acted on our behalf or has it always been for their own profit or self-importance? Sadly their record is not good, in fact it stinks.

Let us look at the IMF. Its current leader, Christine Lagarde, faces trial in France over what happened to a pifling amount of €400 million (euros). In January she declared that she wanted to stand for a second term as Managing Director of the IMF and immediately got the support of David Cameron so her support for BREXIT is nothing more than a return of favours. So much for integrity! http://www.reuters.com/article/us-imf-lagarde-mandate-idUSKCN0V00KF (See below for the IMF about-turn).

Lagarde’s predecessor Dominique Strauss-Khan nearly finished up in court over allegations of a rather nasty sex-scandal with a hotel room maid. The case was dropped after doubts of the credibility of the witness but after Strauss-Khan admitted the liaison. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_v._Strauss-Kahn With such a liberal approach to sharing would you really have chosen to leave your country’s affairs in IMF hands?

Joseph Stieglitz one time chief economist of the World Bank and nobel laureate savaged the IMF for the damage its incompetence had done to many economies. You can read about that spat at https://www.theguardian.com/business/2002/jul/06/globalisation.

But hang-on! Reports are coming in that as the day of the referendum approaches

“IMF. . .mindful of their reputation, have come out with a forecast about the UK’s prospects post-Brexit that is remarkably sanguine and, far from saying there will be chaos, have stated that there will probably not be even a recession after Britain votes to leave the EU.”

Senior French Economists, German Paper Back Brexit (Full Text)

Banks will make shed loads of money on Friday 24th June 2016 whatever the outcome of the referendum. Some weeks ago we had to listen to Jamie Dimon, Chairman, President and Chief Executive of JP Morgan a major global banker talking about job losses in his company in the UK if we leave the EU. In 2013 Mr Dimon was accused, in a Senate report of misleading investors and regulators. Is he really believable and is the best Cameron can do is encouraging someone like this to “come out” on Brexit? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jamie_Dimon

Bankers and major investors are notorious for working only for their own and their banks profit. They can make lots of money on a falling market – unlike you or I – and will ‘talk the market down’ to make that profit whatever the real underlying truth. In this sense they are not disinterested observers, what they say is self-seeking and we, the people, are never going to gain from following their precepts because of they gain someone has to loose and we are that sucker!

Big Business loves the easy life, the fine restaurants and wines and the costly homes. The EU makes it very easy for the mangers of Big Business to pay themselves the large amount of money that is required to finance this life style, and to minimise the taxes they pay on it. Whilst all this has been going on their employees have been working on low wages and zero-hour contracts. Surprisingly Lord Rose, head of M & S and leader of the Remain group has told the truth. If we leave the EU wages will go up and nothing much will happen for five years. That is why Remain have sidelined him because Truth is certainly not a weapon in their campaign armoury.

Economists always differ on potential economic outcomes. Remember the long list of economists who wrote to the newspaper telling us Margaret Thatcher’s ideas were dangerous misconceptions that would lead the country to penury, or the long line of economists wha said leaving the ERM would be a disaster – in fact what followed was a seven year boom – or the long line of economists who said that not going into the Euro would lead to the longest period of decline in Britain’s history or the long line of economists who said that foreign investment in the UK would drop disastrously – in fact according to the Office of National Statistics it has gone up since then. And then there is  Remain’s claim that 90% of economists said leaving would be a disaster – a lie as only one in around seven and a half of the economists polled said this.

In fat many economists have said that nothing much would happen over the medium term and that group has just been added to by the IMF and senior european economists – see the Heat Street article above. Economists do not gain by making negative forecasts like this but they still think it will improve their standing in their profession – what a silly group of people they are!

Politicians are notoriously unreliable and well known to feather their own nests at the expense of the public. Think of Neil Kinnock who with his wife was given millions by the European Commissions in salary and allowances – and also had a special rate of tax and a superb private hospital – and has ended up with a combined pension of around £160,000. Whilst he talks about staying in the never declares his own private interest. Think of John Major who allegedly gets £25,000 every time he speaks in favour of the EU. Think about Heseltine who allegedly receives €900,000 a year form the EU CAP, but never mentions that when he encourages us to stay.  Think about Cameron who a few months ago said Britain would definitely be OK outside the EU but now says it would be a disaster. He was lying in one of these statements but which one matters not as he has confirmed himself as being a liar. What has he been promised by Merkel if the EU remains? Presidency of the European Commission perhaps and is this offer the reason for his change in tune?

In the late 1960s I was studying for a Masters Degree at the University of Chicago. During the summer vacation I got the job of Chief Fiscal Officer of the State of Illinois Department of General Services. Attending a committee in the legislature  hearing evidence on the need for greater safety in mines I was surprised to hear a senior union representative arguing against any need. When we left the hearing I asked my colleague why the mine union representative had taken this stance. My colleague shrugged his shoulders and said “I guess the mine owners paid him off”!

Ever since I have had a jaundiced view of union representatives who have argued against the best interests of their members. Since Lord Rose has said the wages will go up  if we leave the EU I cannot believe that any union would argue to remain – yet many do! Their arguments to stay are weak, often based on worker rights, rights that a UK parliament could, and in many cases did, legislate for without any help from the EU. So my question of the unions is “What is in it for you, mate?”.

One thing is certain is that few if any of this merry band of men and women are acting on our behalf. They are all working for themselves. Remember that when you vote.


Posted in EU | Tagged , | Leave a comment