Brexit. What every aspiring young footballer should be praying for.

I have just read one of the most compelling reasons why leaving the EU would be a good thing.

More than 100 Premier League “stars” would lose the right to play here automatically, they would have to apply for a work permit.  Nothing unusual about that .  Many people obtain work permits to work in UK businesses.

In their last fixture, Premier League leaders Leicester fielded seven players from outside the UK, while Scottish counterparts Celtic selected four

But here is the really good thing.  While some like No 10 want to put fear in us by feeding us a constant line of scare stories, this is truly a good news one.  In one stroke it would lead to giving home talent a chance.

"Leaving the EU will have a much bigger effect on football than people think," said football agent Rachel Anderson.

"We're talking about half of the Premier League needing work permits. The short-term impact would be huge but you could argue it will help in the long term as it could force clubs to concentrate on home-grown talent."

So every serious football fan or aspiring player should be reaching for the pencil to mark the LEAVE box.  It could be your chance to shine.

But the scaremongers never give up.  West Ham vice-chairman Baroness Karen Brady, the Conservative life peer appointed by David Cameron and the face of the Britain Stronger in Europe campaign (BSE), has apparently already written to club bosses throughout the UK warning them a vote to leave would have "devastating consequences".  

Devastating?  Devastating is what happens when an earthquake kills thousands.  It’s the feeling that overwhelms you when you child is killed in a road accident.  But Karen, seeing some players who get paid as much in a week as it takes a nurse to earn in 5 years, losing their chance to play for big money in the UK is not devastating.

Not surprisingly, supporters of the various Leave campaigns like VoteLeave, Leave.eu and GrassrootsOut,  have dismissed this as scaremongering, with Brian Monteith of Leave.eu telling the BBC a post-Brexit UK would be able to lower freedom-of-movement restrictions on the rest of the world which would "broaden the talent pool, not reduce it".  

So, Karen, write that in your next letter to club bosses.  

And while we are on it, why did the BBC lead with the headline “EU referendum: Brexit could have 'big effect' on football”, with a clearly negative tone rather than “EU referendum: Brexit will give local talent a chance”?

Odd that.

Scrambling for the high moral ground leaves everyone in the gutter.

As of today it is thought that at least 34 people are dead and many hundreds have been injured as a result of the latest Islamist terrorist atrocity – in Brussels, this time.

But apparently – so the liberal tastemakers assure us – it is too early to make political capital out of this.  Really?

Then why have the airwaves been full of people talking of this being an attack of the capital of Europe?  I didn’t know that Europe was a country that required a capital.  

Or the notion that this is not just an attack on Brussels, but the whole of Europe.  Really?  

French President François Hollande, his own country still reeling from the attacks in Paris that killed 130 just four months ago, said: “Through the Brussels attacks, it is the whole of Europe that is hit.”   

Why not say the Benelux.  Why not say western Europe.  Why not say the civilised world which I would have thought would be ideal for the situation.  But no, it is the E word that has to be squeezed in. 

Or how about European Council President Donald Tusk in a statement condemning the bombings and reminding the world of the special role Belgium plays in the EU.

“These attacks mark another low by the terrorists in the service of hatred and violence,” Mr. Tusk said.  “The European institutions are hosted in Brussels thanks to the generosity of Belgium’s government and its people.  The European Union returns this solidarity now and will fulfill its role to help Brussels, Belgium, and Europe as a whole to counter the terror threat which we are all facing.”  

Get that?  It is all about European solidarity.  It is all about the European Union.

It’s the oldest trick in the book.  Scare people by telling them there is a threat and they, the leaders, have to act.  We saw where that can lead with the Patriot Act in the USA which most reasonable observers would say it was anything but patriotic to the constitution of the USA. 

Then we have the UK Prime, Minister David Cameron, criticizing UKIP for exploiting the assaults to make the case for Britain to leave the EU. 

And yet he then goes on to make a very political point himself when, in a rare joint statement, he joined other EU leaders expressing solidarity with Belgium and said they are “determined to face this threat together (as the EU) with all necessary means.”  In other words, the more cynical would say, he is exploiting the assaults to make a case for staying in. "Were all in this together" to use a much over used phrase of recent days.

The truth is, neither side should be doing any exploiting. It is demeaning and fails to recognise the suffering and pain of those caught up in the attacks.

Instead we should be asking, why is Belgium a failed state and then take time to face and some uncomfortable home truths about Europe and Islamism.  That is what the people of Brussels and and the rest of the civilised world should be asking today.

How to influence a democratic vote in a foreign country.

Yet another unelected, non UK citizen has stuck their oar in the EU referendum waters.

A citizen of the USA , Lt-Gen Ben Hodges, head of the US Army in Europe, (now there’s an interesting title, bit of a colonial sound to it) said he was "worried" the EU could unravel just when it needed to stand up to Russia.   And for good measure, he claims if the democratic wish of the people of the UK is to leave the European Union it could have a negative impact on the NATO alliance. Er, what?

Lt-Gen Hodges said if the EU "unravelled" it would affect Nato too

Clearly this is just another day in the coordinated stories that No 10 is putting about.  One scare story a day keeps a Leave vote away.

But here’s the thing.  No country in NATO is there because they are in the EU.  They are members as an individual nations.  So why would the UK leaving the EU make the slightest bit of difference?  It wouldn’t.    

You always know there is weakness in someone’s argument when they have to resort to scare tactics to win.

And a final point, no mater if you are a Leave or a Stay voter, it is a bit of a cheek for a foreign Lt General from the "land of the free [sic]" to be wheeled in to tell us how we should vote. Bit ironic that one, don't you think?  Does remind you of specks and logs in your eye.

We're all turkeys now..........

What is it about these late night deals in the corridors of Brussels?  Do people leave their heads outside the room?

If I get this right the midnight deal struck in Brussels means the EU and Turkey have agreed:

• to return all new irregular migrants crossing from Turkey into the Greek islands with the costs covered by the EU, i.e., you and me.

• to accelerate the implementation of the visa liberalisation roadmap with a view to lifting visa requirements for Turkish citizens at the latest by the end of June 2016.

• the opening of new chapters in the accession negotiations as soon as possible.

So the EU taxpayer is giving Turkey an initial €3 billion in exchange for taking back Syrian migrants, possibly followed by another €3 billion of taxpayers money.   

Then we will lift the visa requirements for Turks entering the EU within three months and will open talks to let Turkey join the EU as soon as possible. 

Are we insane?

It's how you say it.

Stephen Hawking is arguing EU grants helps the UK attract leading researchers.   That was the caption on the picture on the BBC web site. There was then a long article talking up the disaster that would befall the UK science community if there was no money coming from the EU. 

Stephen Hawking is arguing EU grants helps the UK attract leading researchers

But hang on a minute.  Where does the money from the EU come from?  Tucked in at the bottom of the article is a quote from Professor Angus Dalgleish of St George's Hospital, University of London, a pretty eminent chap himself.

Last month, he told the BBC that he believed Britain would be no worse off on the outside.  "We are standing up against what is a very large body of people who feel that if we leave the EU it will be a disaster for funding and collaboration - and we completely refute that." he said.

"The bottom line is that we put far more into Europe than we get out. Any difference we can more than easily make up with the money we would save."

So which view do the BBC lead on with the banner headline?  Balance?  Mmmm.

The BBC could have captioned Professor Hawking differently.   Suppose it had said “grants paid for by the UK tax payer help the UK attract leading researchers”.  It’s the same thing, without the EU propaganda bit.

Or how about if it had said, “we can afford even more grants from the UK taxpayer to help the UK attract leading researchers because we don’t have to send it to the EU only to have it recycled back to the UK, minus a handling charge”.  No, I am not sure the BBC would have printed that one.

We are an independent nation within the EU. Myth

The scaremongering about the consequences of leaving the EU continues.  And no doubt it will for the months ahead.  We better get used to the negative Britain Stronger in Europe campaign.  Unfortunate initials that makes, BSE.

Of all BSE’s claims, the one that says we are an independent nation within the EU, is perhaps the most shameless of all.

The essence of the EU, the thing that distinguishes it from every other international association, is that its laws take precedence over the laws of its member nations.  As Lord Hoffman, the senior judge, put it, “The EU Treaty the supreme law of this country, taking precedence over Acts of Parliament.”  And as pointed out, even the so called renegotiation that David Cameron came back with could legally be over turned by European courts.

BSE brazenly says that the idea that Eurocrats “set our laws” is a “myth”.  In fact, it is anything but a myth.  Everything from what taxes we pay to what we can fish from the sea, from employment law to immigration, we must do as Brussels says.  

But that is all been part of the plan for many years.  Tony Benn believed that at the centre of the EU project it was all about the creation of an empire, and logically all the laws in an empire come from the centre. 

Imagine..............

Imagine you lived in a country where the government controlled every aspect of your life.

Imagine that extended into your family life too.

Imagine that the government introduced a person with the slightly sinister sounding title, The Named Person, who had more control over the life of your children than you did.

Imagine that the The Named Person, for the first 10 days after birth, will be the midwife.  Their view on medical maters counts for more than yours.

Then imagine that until the child goes to school, the role will be undertaken by a health visitor.  Again, you don’t even need to be told what your health visitor is thinking, or reporting back to others.

And imagine that from the age of five till the child reaches 18, the head teacher or a dedicated guidance teacher will be appointed as The Named Person.  Again, you don’t need to be involved or told anything.

North Korea?  Saudi Arabia?  Iran?  Cuba?  Nope, try again.  Scotland.

The key element in the Scottish government’s Getting It Right For Every Child (GIRFEC) social-engineering programme, was introduced under the Children and Young People (Scotland) Act. Although it will not formally be in place until August 2016, it is already being implemented across Scotland.

Let’s look at some detail.  Take the health visitors.  They are required to visit the child eight times during its first 12 months of life and are empowered (yes, that means you and I have to answer the questions) to ask intrusive questions about intimate matters such as “family finances” and even “contraceptive choices”.  Later they can investigate issues such as “sun safety” (in Scotland!) and “screen time”.   Indeed, it really doesn’t take much to stretch the imagination of their involvement in other areas of life.

If for example, the state decided that a parent should not teach children ideas at home that contradicted the official state educational programme, would they seek to remove the children from the parents or implement some legal constraints?

Actually, like so much coming out of the increasingly totalitarian SNP, it won’t work anyway.  Unless the government can stump up the extra £40m required to recruit all the additional heath works required, it won’t happen.  But in its usual style the SNP looks like resorting to shovelling taxpayers’ money at a problem it has created out of thin air, and is using your money and mine to recruit 500 extra health visitors – to do a job other than health visiting.  You can’t make this sort of stuff up.

So basically, Scottish parents are now a subordinate influences in their children’s lives, with a state-appointed guardian having ultimate authority.  Is that the kind of nation you really want to see?

If tomorrow’s appeal by those against the imposition by the SNP government in the UK Supreme Court is unsuccessful it seems likely that those resisting this totalitarian imposition by the SNP will take the case to the European courts.  

As Gerald Warner, a political commentator, said “European law is as much on trial as the authoritarian aspirations of the Scottish government: if it cannot protect families from the effective nationalisation of children and systematic spying on parents it is not fit for purpose”. 

It is a badly thought through bit of legislation about an important issue.  Devoid of foresight and dismissive of the unintended consequences, it is the kind of sloppy legislation not untypical of a unicameral legislature.  (Pity Latin isn’t on most people educational cv these days).     

Yip, he really did say this.

Who said “When it becomes serious, you have to lie”.

Non other than Claude Juncker, President of the European Commission.  

Do you really want to be a member of a club who’s presidents says that?

Mr Juncker played a leading role in the resurrection of the EU constitution in the form of the Lisbon Treaty and advised Gordon Brown, then UK Prime Minister, to mislead the British public over "transfers of sovereignty” with the famous remarks, “Of course there will be transfers of sovereignty. But would I be intelligent to draw the attention of public opinion to this fact?,” he said of Mr Brown and British calls for a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty.

Over 3 million UK jobs are linked to our trade with the EU. Myth.

How often have you heard that figure trotted out.  Probably quite often.  Nick Clegg had it as one of his favorite lines.  But he is not alone.  It has became a mantra, an accepted "fact" when in reality it is no such thing.  It is a myth.

The dishonesty of this claim is staggering.  So why people keep using it, when it has been proved laughable wrong, says volumes about those who want us to Stay.  Generally it is the same people who said it would be a disaster if we didn't join the Euro.

The number is based on the same false idea that Britain would stop trading with the EU if it were not a member. 

But why would we stop trading?  Wouldn't all the businesses in the rEU still want to sell us stuff?

You bet they would which is why there would be a trade agreement on a the table before you could blink.  No one argues that we have to form a political union with, say, Brazil or Russia in order to do business with those countries. 

The economist from whose work the figure was taken, Dr Martin Weale, has called the claim “pure Goebbels”, adding: “In many years of academic research, I cannot recall such a wilful distortion of the facts.”.   

Ouch!

The benefits of staying in the EU are worth £3,000 per year to the average household. Myth.

Stuart Rose, leader of the 'Britain Stronger in Europe' campaign keeps trotting this out.  Like all myths, he clearly thinks if you say it often enough, people will believe it.

Channel 4’s FactCheck

But Channel 4’s FactCheck has called this figure “fiction”, and with good reason.  It comes from a paper by the Brussels-funded CBI.  Apparently the CBI waste its time doing any research.  No, instead, it arbitrarily picked five estimates, evidently chosen because they gave pro-EU findings.  Then they plucked a figure from the top end of the range.  "It did what?" I hear you ask.  Yes, this is the body that claims to speak as the voice of business, big business it has to be said.

As FactCheck says, the CBI number is “way more optimistic than most other estimates, and we can’t / don’t really know how CBI researchers have arrived at this figure”.

For most UK households, the three largest budget items are food, fuel and tax.

All three ought to fall if we leave the EU. Groceries will be cheaper because we will no longer have to subsidise Continental farmers under the CAP (see previous blogs).  Fuel bills will fall without EU rules requiring us to buy more expensive alternative energy.  And the £350 million we send to Brussels every week would be enough to give the entire country a 71 per cent council tax rebate.

No freedom of thought allowed in the pre referendum debate.

What happened when John Longworth, the director-general of the British Chambers of Commerce (BCC) spoke his mind and told the BCC's annual conference on Thursday that the UK's long-term prospects could be "brighter" outside the EU?

Lauded for bringing an additional view to the table?  Er, no.  He was suspended according to the Financial Times.

Seems anyone who wants to express a not unreasonable view given in cautious terms is not allowed to speak anymore.  

So much for a free open debate.

South Africa's judicial system has spoken.

Oscar Pistorius's appeal against his murder conviction is dismissed by South Africa's highest court.  That is it.  It is over.  It now all moves now to the sentencing in April.

Oscar Pistorius Getty Images

Pistorius's lawyers had applied for leave to appeal to the Constitutional Court, the highest court in South Africa, arguing that the SCA had 'acted unlawfully and unconstitutionally'.

But the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA), which opposed the application, said today that the appeal attempt had failed.

Just as well South Africa is not in the European Union for if it were our legal friends would be looking forward to at least one more pay day as the gravy train to European Courts beckoned.

I find it remarkable that some people in the UK have such little regard for our legal systems that think that the European courts are a guardian of our UK freedoms.

Just one more reason to vote Leave.

Tearing up international agreements, the French way.

So our good friends across the channel are wandering into our internal debate, Stay or Leave.

France's finance minister has said his country could end UK border controls in Calais and allow migrants to cross the Channel unchecked if the UK democratically votes to leave the EU. 

Emmanuel Macron

Er what?  The agreement we have with France is nothing to do with the EU, it’s an agreement between two countries and has absolutely nothing to do with membership (of either side) of the EU.

So is he really saying that if the UK democratically votes to Leave, he will tear up a completely separate international agreement, out of spite one would assume, as the UK will no longer be funding his French farmers through the CAP (idem).

Then Emmanuel Macron also told the Financial Times his country could also limit access to the single market.  Ok, go ahead.  We can happily buy Australian or Californian wine.  We can happily ditch buying Peugeots, Citroens, (and BMWs, Audis, VWs, Opels/ Vauxhalls et al).  I really wouldn’t like to be standing with him on an election platform telling the people who have worked their lives in these great car companies in France that they will be losing their jobs because he, 39 year old Monsieur Marcon, thinks there should be a limit on access.

If you really are looking for something to sway you to Vote Leave, it is words like his.  All he says is all you need to know about why this EU club, so restrictive to us in so many ways, so out of touch with the real world we want to live in. 

The EU really is not the place we should be for a prosperous future.  The world should be our stage.  Not a restrictive and declining market that the EU has become. We are not voting to Leave the EU, rather we are actually voting to claim our place in a much bigger, safer and more prosperous world stage.

Remember the wine lakes and butter mountains?

You are in business.  Along comes the Government and says, “we’re going to take £10 off you. Then we will give you £6 back.  And the other £4 we will give to your competitors.” You would, not unjustifiably, think your leg was being pulled.  But it’s not.

A bit of history.  Back in the good old days of 1962 the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) was adopted by the six founding Member States. The six member states (not including the UK because they wouldn't let us in) individually strongly intervened in their agricultural sectors, in particular with regard to what was produced, maintaining prices for goods and how farming was organised.  Hardly free trade.

Some members, particularly France, and all farming professional organisations wanted to maintain strong state intervention in agriculture.  That could not only be achieved unless policies were harmonised and transferred to the European Community level.  And what happened under such state control?  Butter mountains.  Grain mountains.  Wine lakes.  And you and I the taxpayer paid for it.

Now there was good reasons back in the early 60’s for some sort of supporting subsidy.  It still wasn’t that long since the dark days of the 2nd world war and the impoverished 50’s.  But these days are long gone now.  Those who shout “austerity” clearly haven’t looked at their history books to see what austerity really looks like.

But back to our puzzle of the £10.  Let’s call that the amount we put into the EU CAP pot.  It’s a big pot.  It makes up 40% of all the EU spending.  That is 40% of 142.6 billion euros.  That’s a lot of money. And it's a pot that is used against our farmers.

So given we get only £6 back of what we put in, why not just say, "know what, let’s not send the ten pounds in the first place just to have six of it sent back.  Let’s just use the six to help our agriculture.  And not give our money away to competitors who then undercut us in the market place". 

Unless of course, you still believe that the EU knows best.

You pay more because Vodafone pay less.

I am really not too sure what HMRC will say when they get my letter.  I will be simply explaining to them that I think I am paying way too much tax.  I work in the UK, all my tradeable activity is in the UK.  But as an individual, I think it is time for me to up sticks, tax wise, and head for Luxembourg.

That way I can pay a tax rate of 0.5%.

Now, I know you will say I’m being selfish and irresponsible.  Where is the money going to come from to pay for hospitals, police, roads, military and schools?   

I will gently point out that that is not my problem.  All I’m doing is following others like Vodafone. (Any of you got a Vodafone contract?)  They have just filed their 2015 accounts and guess what, their subsidiary based in Luxembourg pays tax at 0.5%.  And you've guessed it, they don't sell phones there!

Tax should be paid at the point of economic activity.  Not on the basis of where some smart accountant can arrange to have their taxes domiciled.  

That way our hospitals, police, roads, military and schools can be funded.  And you and I will not need to pay so much tax as the Vodafones’ of this world will be paying their proper share.