We've paid for it, we have the right to see it.

Tomorrow Sir Jeremy Heywood, KCB, CVO, the most senior British civil servant who has been the Cabinet Secretary since 1 January 2012, will appear in front of Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Select Committee with its formidable chair, Bernard Jenkin.

Why?  Because Sir Jeremy has published guidance relating to information and resources cabinet ministers can and can’t access or use in the run up to the referendum.  You can read his guidance here.

It is important to note that Permanent Secretaries are the non-political civil service heads.

Now, if you or I were to have the privilege of sitting on the committee tomorrow, we could ask Sir Jeremy “who pays your salary?”.  I suspect he may well answer, the government, which of course is nonsense.  The government pays no one’s salary, they simply administer the payment on behalf of the tax payer, you and I in other words.   The tax payer pays the salary.  So the non-political head of the civil service actually works for the tax payer.

I read the guidance he gave.  Basically he is saying that information that has been accumulated, analysed and prepared by people who are paid for by the taxpayer in facilities and using equipment paid for by the tax payer cannot be revealed to the tax payer.

Now I am not naïve enough to think that every government paper should be open to scrutiny, particularly on matters of national security, we should leave that to chairs of committees like Bernard Jenkin who could hold their enquiry in-camera.   But on a matter of national importance, which are rather different from national security, nothing should be hidden.  

This is too big a decision, no matter what side of the debate you are on.  The taxpayer funded civil service cannot take sides on a matter of national importance.

As one minister observed, the Government can be accused of “double standards” because similar restrictions will not apply to pro-EU ministers, adding that Sir Jeremy had not “thought this through”. 

We need this guidance that Sir Jeremy has presented changed forthwith.

Scotland at Six

As with most things tax payer, or in this case, licence fee funded, there is the slip-in remark in the internal BBC 17-page memorandum, which gives running orders for a possible new-look bulletins, noting it will cost an extra £4.5m to £5m per year to produce.   And that money comes from?

What they should have said is “the position will be fiscally neutral and it will not add any cost to the BBC as we will find the £4.5 to £5m from internal savings”.

To think we should be spending up to £5m a year just so we can have a Scottish perspective on international news is narrow-mindedness in the extreme.  Half an hour of UK based and half an hour of Scottish based seems a pretty good balance to me, given we are part of the UK.

So to those politicians who have been advocating this little Scotlander thinking, next time you cry “we don’t have enough money”, first just think where you waste it on vanity projects.

Different rules for different Ministers.

Like a laugh over your cornflakes?

“The principles of impartiality and the proper use of public resources continue to apply to all government communications activity, including activity related to the EU referendum.”  So said Cabinet Secretary Jeremy Heywood.  

Why the hollow laugh?  Because it only applies to one side.  Pro Stay Ministers can use the full resources of government to back up their case including civil servants paid for by you and me.  But pro Leave ministers can't.  Sounds more like One Rule for You, One Rule for Me.

Which comes a day after the revelation that a pro-EU letter supposedly from FTSE 100 bosses was actually drafted by a Downing Street civil servant, paid for by you and me.  

The Prime Minister said Chris Hopkins wrote the letter with his authorisation: “He’s a civil servant working in No.10 and his authority comes from me, and he’s doing an excellent job… the government’s view is that we should Remain in a reformed European Union and the civil service is able to support the government in that role”.

So there you have it.  Level playing field?  Not.

Red Cards and Emergency Brakes.

Only the foolish would say the EU doesn’t have problems.  Everyone acknowledges that fact. But does this renegotiation solve anything?

Well, the Government’s own Office of Budget Responsibility has pointed out that the so called “emergency brake” will have no effect on immigration anyway.  Sir Stephen Nickell CBE, one of the top figures in the OBR, said the Government’s proposals would make ‘not much’ difference to immigration from the EU – and that ‘any changes to benefit rules are unlikely to have a huge impact on migration flows.’  Further, the Government’s own minimum wage policy will completely counter any tiny effect of the emergency brake.  The Government’s whole immigration policy is completely incoherent.

And the ‘red card’ plan?  It is impractical and unworkable.  The new system demands that 55% of EU Parliaments must agree before a law could be blocked.  Amazingly this is much higher than the current threshold of a third of national parliaments and will make the device wholly impractical.  As the former Foreign Secretary, William Hague, has said: ‘even if the European Commission proposed the slaughter of the first-born it would be difficult to achieve such a remarkable conjunction of parliamentary votes’.

And what of the supremacy of European Court. The renegotiation has now been dismissed by a top human rights lawyers for failing to end the supremacy of European Court.  Mr Cameron once pledged to limit the European Court’s powers and to obtain a ‘complete opt out’ from the EU’s Charter of Fundamental Rights which the European Court is using to take more control every week. He hasn’t.

The Prime Minister knows he has a bad deal.  Could that be why instead of talking about the renegotiation he is apparently proud of he is trying to scare you into staying in the EU.  

And using taxpayers money to do so.

EU deal isn't legally binding.

Well, this is all a bit awkward.  It seems that David Cameron has been a little economical with the actualité as Alan Clark would have said.

And it could come back to haunt him.

Despite what Cameron has claimed, as a matter of legal fact, even this new “thin gruel” UK-EU deal is not legally binding.

It was agreed on an intergovernmental basis outside the EU treaty framework.  This means it has no basis in EU law, and is reliant on the adoption of the measures in an unplanned and unspecified future treaty change.

As Ryan Bourne, head of public policy at the Institute of Economic Affairs, points out, this might seem boring, and technical.  But it matters.  It matters big time.  “The pathetic “deal” represents nothing more than a series of clarifications and promises which might never happen, particularly given it relies on future leaders agreeing.  Meanwhile, parts can be amended by the European Parliament or struck down by the European Court of Justice.”

Deal or no deal?  No deal!

So we are simply being asked to trust that it will be delivered if we vote Remain.  Cameron’s misleading words on this do not bode well.  Nor does French President Francois Hollande saying there was “no revision of the treaties planned” or Angela Merkel explaining that it may never occur.

Don’t say you haven’t been warned.

Is it all a con? I'm begining to think so.

Two days have gone by and from where I’m sitting I still can’t see how the Prime Minister’s renegotiation addresses the problems with the UK-EU relationship.

Danish Parliament. The European Court has now issued 79 judgements that completely ignore promises made to Denmark.

The British public want to end the supremacy of EU law and the European Court and take back control over our borders, economy and democracy.  Before the general election, the Prime Minister promised ‘fundamental change’ in our relationship with the EU and ‘full-on Treaty change’ before the referendum.

But the deal is the political equivalent of ‘a very small cheque is in the post’.  Nothing in the renegotiation even comes close to fundamental, ‘full-on Treaty change’. Interestingly the renegotiation states right at the beginning that it is ‘in conformity with the Treaties’.  This reaffirms the supremacy of the EU Treaties over UK law.

The Government is now trying to con you by claiming that the renegotiation is legally binding.  It is not. Depositing it at the UN is a meaningless gesture intended to give the impression of legitimacy.  So don’t be fooled: the Government’s deal is not legally binding.  The only way to make a deal legally binding is to change the Treaties and have this change ratified by all EU members.  This has not happened.  It may never happen.  Nobody can guarantee it will happen.

We don’t even know who might be leading these countries in five years time - never mind what they might agree.  The President of the European Parliament has admitted that nothing is irreversible and that MEPs might reject the deal.  Sir Konrad Schiemann, a former English Court of Appeal and former European Court of Justice Judge, has effectively confirmed this by saying that legally-binding changes can ‘only be achieved by following the lengthy processes in each Member State for ratifying Treaties’.

The claim that ‘being deposited at the United Nations’ makes the renegotiation ‘legally binding’ is a fiction.  The UN accepts all sorts of documents being deposited - it says nothing about their legal status.  Further, even if the UN were to claim that the deal is binding in international law, the European Court has already made clear that it is not bound by international law.

So, is there history in the EU breaking its promises?  You bet!

The EU made similar promises to Denmark in 1992 when it promised to respect national citizenship laws.  Brussels told the Danish people that these changes would be ‘legally binding’.  They lied.  The European Court has now issued 79 judgements that completely ignore the promises made to Denmark.  Are they are now trying to play the same trick on us? The track record says, yes they are.

Don’t let them con you.

Just think about this.....

Fact.  The Government’s renegotiation is not legally binding because it cannot be - the only way to make things legally binding is to change the Treaties. This hasn’t happened and nobody can guarantee it will happen.

Fact.  The European Court is in charge of exactly the same things after the Government’s renegotiation as it was before, and it can bin concessions made to Cameron the day after we vote.

Fact.  The Prime Minister promised he would get a ‘complete opt-out’ from the EU’s Charter of Fundamental Rights - he has completely ditched this promise.

So basically, all the promises are not worth the paper they were written on.

What are the important issues we should be talking about?

Well, here we are, in a few months’ time we will all have the opportunity to decide whether the UK should stay in the European Union or leave.

So would we be freer, fairer and better off outside the EU?

Let’s forget about the deal the Prime Minister came back with.  It’s rather irrelevant. We all know he achieved little because he asked for little.  But he issues we should be discussing are far more important than can we save £30m on one area of expenditure, which, in effect, is all the Prime Minister has come back with.

Let’s start at the beginning. Do we believe that the decisions which govern all our lives, the laws we must all obey and the taxes we must all pay should be decided by people we choose and who we can throw out if we want change? For me that is the fundamental question

To quote Michael Gove, “If power is to be used wisely, if we are to avoid corruption and complacency in high office, then the public must have the right to change laws and Governments at election time”.

Let’s put some facts on the table: 

1.         Our membership of the European Union prevents us being able to change huge swathes of law and stops us being able to choose who makes critical decisions which affect all our lives. 

2.         Laws which govern citizens in this country are decided by politicians from other nations who we never elected and can’t throw out. 

3.         We can take out our anger on elected representatives in Westminster but whoever is in Government in London cannot remove or reduce VAT, cannot support a steel plant through troubled times, cannot build the houses we need where they’re needed and cannot deport all the individuals who shouldn’t be in this country.

Forget everything else, these are the important issues.

And as far as I can see, the Prime Minister has not delivered a single thing on these.

Project Fear underway

So the Prime Minister stands in Downing Street.  And what does he do?  Does he tell us the wonderful things he has done for us at the negotiations?  Did he tell us how he has been successful in his campaign to transform our reltionship with the EU?

Er, no.  All he did was fire the starting pistol on what is clearly going to be Project Fear.  A set of meaninless statements that he will no doubt hope that the more often he says them, people will start to believe him.  I think we all know where we have seen such tactics before.  Keep saying it often enough and a lie becomes the truth.  And your literary question for today, in what book did that scenario happen?

David Davis really summed the ridiculousness of what the Prime Minister has achieved in the really imposrtant areas.  Nothing.

Who do you think you are kidding Mr President?

The president of the European Parliament, Martin Schulz, today told the UK Prime Minister that 'We'll kill any deal that is good for Britain' and that his proposal will be ripped up if leaders agree to curb migrant benefits.

And he suggested that Britain and the rest of the EU would 'be left to drift into the insignificant backwaters of the world political scene' if voters decided to leave.

I have to admire the sheer bravado of people like Mr President.

Perhaps they haven’t noticed that the UK is the 5^th largest economy in the world.  It’s a Permenant Member of the UN Security Council.  It’s a member of the G8.  A leading member of NATO.  None of these are anything to do with being a member of the EU.

And on trade, the UK only is exposed to 40% of its trade being done in the EU.  Yes, 60% of our trade already is on the global stage outside the EU.  With places where economies are growing, unlike rEU.

So, people asked Nigel Lawson,the former UK Chancellor, “what, then, is your alternative to being in the European Union?” A more foolish question is hard to imagine. The alternative to being in the European Union is not being in the European Union. Most of the world is not in the European Union – and most of the world is doing better than the European Union.

So, who do you think you are kidding Mr President? 

Negative interest rates? You extracting the Michael?

Let us say I have a £1,000.  What do I do with it?  I could lock it in a safe in the house and spend it when I need to.  Or I could go to someone and say, look, I’ve got some money that I don’t need to use at the moment.  Could you use it?  If you can use it and if I lend it to you, let us agree a rate of interest that you will pay me for lending you the money.  We shake hands and I give some of my money away.

That in effect is the relationship you and I have with the banks.  We are lending them our money.  But they twist it round to make it sound like they are doing us a favour, providing services and so on.  When the reality is, it basically is us lending money to the bank.

So when we read in today’s papers about negative interest rates could be coming to a bank near you soon, what does that mean?  A negative interest rate means the central bank and perhaps private banks will charge negative interest: instead of receiving money on deposits, depositors must pay regularly to keep their money with the bank.

In other words, it would be better to buy a really good safe and take all you money out of your bank.  Keeping it in the bank will just cost you money.  Or perhaps that’s what the banks should be doing too until they can get their act together and provide proper safe, reliable banking services.

You could of course go somewhere else like one of the increasing number of organisations like GCU, the largest credit union in the UK, which offers loans, savings policies and mortgages to people who live/work in the greater Glasgow 'G' postcode. They are doing ethical and sensible services for  people like you and me. With much less risk. 

GCU are savings and loans company with a difference. Established in 1989 they are the largest and most successful credit union in the UK.  Fully authorised by the Prudential Regulation Authority and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority and the Prudential Regulation Authority.

Maybe we should start to look for better places to keep our money.

A false prospectus

So the Prime Minister will be announcing on Friday the date for the referendum. Or so some pundits are suggesting.

But given there actually is no agreement going to be in place before a referendum that will have been ratified by all the other EU countries, what if even one of them says, "nope, you’re not on".

Will the referendum result then be challenged?  It should be because we will have voted on a false prospectus.

An Imposed Contract

Well, the dust has settled, for the moment anyway.  So perhaps now is a good time to have a look at what has actually been imposed on “junior” doctors.

Let’s start with the money.  Though I actually don’t know any doctor (or any nurse for that matter) who is really in it for the money.  But let’s put the figures on the table anyway.  The basic starting salary after the Imposed Contract is implemented will now be £27,000 compared to £22,636 presently paid, an 18.9% increase.  And no matter what way you look at it, three quarters of doctors will receive a take home pay rise.

So, what’s the catch, the trade off?  Well, it’s difficult to see what negatives exist.  Yes, there is the issue of Saturday working.  But it looks like some sort of compromise was in the mind of the English Health Secretary when he came up with what would be in the Imposed Contract.

Doctors currently receive time plus 30% for any hours worked between 5pm-9pm on Saturday and 7am-9pm on Sunday.   But balance that with the Imposed Contract where Doctors working one in four Saturdays or more will receive a pay premium of 30% for all Saturday hours.  And Doctors receive time and a half for any hours worked Monday – Sunday between 9pm – 7am.  I’m not sure what the Doctors problem is there.

But perhaps the most crucial area is safety.  And that is all down to Working hours. 

Well, under the Imposed Contract the maximum number of hours worked every week by junior doctors will fall from 91 to 72.  And the maximum number of consecutive nights a doctor can work will be cut from seven to four.  And no doctor ever rostered two weekends in a row.  That’s sounds like the doctor you or I will see will generally have been working less hours and therefore be more able to take a decision relating to our health.

But will it work? Well, every hospital is to have a safety guardian to monitor safe working.  And back to finance, there will be penalties for hospitals that breach safe working hours to be paid to the safety guardian and reinvested in junior doctors education and training. 

I’m sure some junior doctor could come right back at me with a view in total contrast to what I’ve just given. 

But from where I’m standing, the Health Secretary is at least trying to get a grip on an NHS that is badly out of control.  I’m sure what he is doing is not perfect.  But for me, those who simply say that anything the government is trying to do is wrong are missing the point.  There is something far wrong with the NHS.  And at least someone is trying to have a go at taking it forward against all the key players, the BMA and the Unions who are a barrier to reform and change.

One final point.  All these doctors who say they will up sticks and go to Australia, good luck to them, if they get in.  They will find a private insurance based system.

How do conflicts begin?

I was off skiing at Glenshee on Saturday with my best friend.  Great snow, blue sun filled skies.  Yes, it was just like France.  And reflecting on that on the chairlift the topic turned to Europe.  In or out?  And among the myriad of other things we considered about the European Coal and Steel Community which became the European Economic Community which became the European Union, we asked "has it kept Europe war free"?

Good question.  Because if it has, it’s a good reason to stay in.  So, has the ECSC / EEC / EU been a cause of peace in Europe, or a consequence of a peace built on the defeat of fascism, the spread of democracy and the security of NATO?

Let’s look back to when it was created in the agreement signed on 25 March 1957 by founding members Belgium, France, Italy, Luxembourg, The Netherlands and West Germany.  All countries the UK helped liberate in the 2nd World War.

If the ECSC had been set up to prevent war, why were some of these founding members so keen to keep out of their new club the nations like the UK who had been at the forefront of bringing to an end the dark days of the Nazi empire.  The ones trying to bring peace to Europe.  That not strike you as a trifle odd?

Yes, I know, it’s all hypothetical now.  But let’s try to look at it in a different way.

Does jamming different nations together in a single political union typically make them get on better or worse?  That is the real question.  Well, if you look at the conflict zones around the planet, from Chechnya to South Sudan, from Kashmir to Ukraine, you do question whether it does.

By far the most common cause of unrest is people’s sense that they have been excluded from decision making and included, as it were, in the wrong state.

Or closer to home, ponder the effect that the euro has had on relations among its participant states.  Listen to the way Greeks now talk about Germans and vice versa.  

Is economic and political integration quelling or stoking animosities among Europe’s peoples?  History tells us that it is from animosities, a feeling of powerlessness or a groundswell of feeling marginalised, that conflicts begin.

Let's change the way we do tax.

Well, the story of Google and its tax arrangements seems to be dimming from our newspapers, for the moment.  But it will be back. 

One of the issues that people perceive is the unfairness of what Google, (and others), are doing.  But as we are constantly reminded, what they are doing is perfectly legal.  And if a business trades across the globe, why can’t it chose, as the rules allow, for them to domicile their profits wherever they choose for tax purposes.  Who can blame them for doing so.

These businesses have played by the rules.  So perhaps it’s the rules that need to be looked at again. 

So how does it all work?  Businesses trade, they make a profit, then the export the profits to limit tax liability.  So let’s say a business selling goods and services in the UK and on a turnover of £1m makes a profit of 10%.  Tax is levied on that profit.   So in the UK let’s say tax is 20%.  It means the government will raise £20,000 from that business to help fund nurses, doctors, policemen, firemen, and so on.  But if the company off-shores that profit, the UK receives next to nothing as the taxation is done elsewhere.  Like offshore tax havens.

So, how can we do things differently?

Well, why not change the basis of taxation.  Let’s not tax them on the basis of profits which can be off-shored.  Let’s tax them on the basis of economic activity in the county where the trading actually takes place.   And as we know, there is already a mechanism for taxing economic activity; it’s called VAT. So why not scrap corporation tax altogether, and transfer the tax burden on to VAT?

So what would the impact be of such a radical change in taxation policy?

Wouldn’t prices go up? Well, no, they wouldn’t.  For UK businesses it will be fiscally neutral.  And it would be fiscally neutral for you and I the consumer too.

What about prices of imports? Yes, they may rise.

And the overall outcome?   It would improve the competitiveness of British companies, simplify the tax structure, mean there was only one easily understood level, and ensure that international corporations could not escape a fair level of taxation.

There, that was easy.  Next question?

The EU track record is poor on fulfilling promises.

Well, there we have it.  Forget the Brakes and all the other stuff that the pro EU spin doctors are pushing out this afternoon, the real meat is the agreement says Mr Cameron's demand to exempt Britain from the EU principle of "ever closer union" between member states would be written into a future treaty. 

And there’s the nub of this debate.  A promise to do something, but yet to be put into practice.  If it was written into a future treaty before a referendum, all well and good.  But as we all know a promise isn’t always a promise in the corridors of the EU. So why would we believe a future treaty actually would include it?  Surely the best evidence would be for the EU to get such an agreement in a treaty in place before our referendum, then we would know they were being honest to their word.

And my evidence for such skepticism? What of the Red Card proposal.  Well, we’ve seen this before, the smoke and mirrors.  As Leave chief executive Matthew Elliott notes, "These gimmicks have been ignored by the EU before and will be ignored again as they will not be in the EU treaty."  And sadly he is right.

Only the most naive of our fellow UK citizens would think the idea we are being sold that a joint 'red card' is some sort of victory. It is not, it’s just frankly ludicrous  to suggest otherwise.

What of Britain Stronger in Europe? Their take is the "red card" proposal and the plans to curb benefits "or equivalent concessions" would "represent a significant victory for the prime minister and underline that Britain is stronger in Europe".

Given the EU desperately don’t want us to leave, (and you can see why, as trade will continue unabashed whether we are in or out, businesses will see to that), all the cards were in Mr Cameron hand for him to come home with a genuine offering.  Instead, when he  was dealt all thirteen spades in a game of Bridge, he has somehow done the impossible and ended up losing.  How and why he did it, perhaps we’ll never know.

Time for the facts

So, yet another big inward investing company has made its positon clear about a possible exit of the UK from the EU. 

Boss of Japanese industrial giant describes Britain as an “open” country and says Hitachi will continue to do business in UK regardless of whether it is a member of the European Union. 

They’re not the first to express such a view and they certainly won’t be the last.  Which is not surprising.  All the UK would be doing is leaving the EU project, which is a project that focuses on political union.

What those in Brussels lack is experience of working in real business that make their money (and the profits that are taxed to actually pay for the EU institutions) through trading internationally. 

When people tell me that the UK would suffer economically with an exit is say three letters.  BMW.  But I might as well have said Peugeot, or Ford, or Opel/Vauxhall, or Mercedes, or VW, or Audi, or Skoda, or Seat, or….  You get the message.  Why on earth would these companies turn their back on selling into their most profitable market, the UK.   

They wouldn’t of course.  The moment the UK voted to exit from the EU, these businesses would ensure a new trade agreement was in place within hours. 

What people choose to spend money on.

What can you do with £1 billion.  That is £1,000,000,000.

Quite a lot when you put your mind to it.  Employ 35,486 nurses for a year.  Or how about just over 200,000 hip operations.  Or why not provide 40 million hours of care for the elderly.  Or may be  paying 38,134 police officers for a year takes your fancy . 

There is however, an alternative.  The English Premier League spending on transfers in a single season could break the £1bn mark for the first time.

Mind you, that pales in to insignificance when you consider the annual wage bill for Premier League players is £1,867,800,000.

What kind of country do we live in that spends that kind of money on people kicking a ball?