The tide has turned.

Well, today was the day the tide turned.

It was the day when instead of the Leave campaign being the one playing second fiddle being on the back foot and having to reply to accusations from Remain, the tables turned.  

For the first time it is Leave who are in the lead when comes to driving the agenda and it is Remain having to resort to calling the Leave camp names.  

And the opinion polls, never to be relied on of course, have seen a significant shift. A trend actually that has been slowly building.

So I think when we look back after a Leave vote we will see the 31^st of May was the date the tide turned.

It's all Greek to me.

I was out on the door step the other night I was canvasing for Leave.  At one household, the lady said she was not registered to vote.  She was Greek. “I wish I could vote to get the UK out” she said.  “The EU has destroyed my country (Greece).  Driven us to poverty”.  There were tears in her eyes.  She has seen first hand how the country, where the term democracy was first used thousands of years ago, could have its democracy destroyed by the EU.  All because Greece had the temerity to stand up to the unelected European Commission.  

Probably more than any one I’ve met, she persuaded me that voting to Leave is the right thing to do.

Remember, at the end of the day, forget everything people throw at you on opinions, theories, and projections.  There is only one question you need to answer.

Do you want the laws that govern you made by people you elect and can kick out of office at the next election if you don't like what they are doing? Then vote LEAVE.

Or do you want laws that govern you made by people you didn’t elect and can’t kick out of office at the next election if you dont like what they are doing becasue they have never actually stood for a democratic mandate in an election in the first place?  Then vote REMAIN.

The people of Greece tried to exercise their own democratic authority against the EU and failed.   

They had a government imposed on them over the wishes of the electorate by the EU, as did Italy. 

That’s the way it will always be in the EU.  And you want to remain?

No taxation without representation. But the EU wants to tax us directly.

To whom do we pay taxes?  Well, that’s an easy one to answer.  To the government we have elected. 

But how do you fancy paying taxes to someone you didn’t elect and can’t get rid of?  Not like that idea? Me neither.

So what if I was to tell you that the EU has had a bright idea.  How about I told you that the EU is aiming to introduce a centrally planned National Insurance-style numbers for every taxpayer in Europe?  Yip, that is one of the facts that seems to have accidently slipped out in recent days.

It is called, rather chillingly, a ‘European Taxpayer Identification Number’ to keep track of every EU citizen.
And here are the facts in words.  The official European Commission text:

“Proper identification of taxpayers is essential to effective exchange of information between tax administrations. The creation of European Taxpayer Identification Number (EU TIN) would provide the best means for this identification.  It would allow any third party to quickly, easily and correctly identify and record TINs in cross-border relations and serve as a basis for effective automatic exchange of information between member states tax administrations.”

But we don’t pay our taxes to the EU.  We pay our taxes to our elected UK government that then sends, with our effective agreement, payments to the EU.  So why would we need this European Taxpayer Identification Number, Mr Cameron?  I don't recall you waving that bit of paper arriving back from Brussels.

One of the other things the EU wants to do is take over member states’ corporate taxation powers.  This would mean we would have a common corporation tax base across the EU.  So we would not be able to adjust our tax rates if it was going to be useful or advantageous to do so.  If that is not a direct assault on our sovereignty I am not sure what is.

It seems the people in the EC have learned nothing from the debacle that is the Euro.  It was this same size fits all economies that is the death knell of the Euro.  It has been a disaster for the poorest nations in the EU.  And when you crush economies like that, you build up resentment.  And we all know where that can lead.

The bar is set too low.

I spent hours on the doorstep yesterday.  Knocking on doors, chatting to people, finding out how they would vote in the referendum.  There were two recurring themes.  The first was. “I really don’t know how to vote.  I’m not happy with the EU, but could it be the safer option?”   Not so much a statement of endorsement, more a plea for people to offer an alternative to an EU that only one person out of my door stepping actually approved of.  And he was a Lib Dem voter.

But the altogether overwhelming, and more disturbing, view was that the Prime Minister and the Chancellor were, to use a more charitable word than that used by a good number, charlatans.  “They are saying things just to win the vote” said one.  “Funny, there wasn’t any mention of world war three in the renegotiations that happened a few weeks back” said another. 

But most damming of all, "if they thought people didn’t trust political leaders before, they certainly don’t now”.  And that last comment is so sad.  People in a position of power demeaning themselves.  Setting the bar so low that one person compared our leaders to those in a well-known “corrupt state” before finally musing “perhaps that’s why they like the EU so much……”

Who do you believe?

It is funny.  Well, its not really funny given the context, but I am sure you know what I mean.

One day someone says we will be £3800 worse off of we leave.  The next day someone says we will be £3,000 better off if we stay in the medium term.  

Then there is the health of our people.  One side says the NHS will be safer if we leave the EU.  And another responds, no, we will be less well provisioned in our health care as the cost of drugs could rise.

And so it goes on. You do really have to start agreeing with Nicola Sturgeon when she says, in effect, “get a grip boys and girls, start trying to win people by arguments, not nonsense, scare stories and trivia".  She is right.  Both sides.  Though I do have to say Remain has a worse record of trying to scare people to vote their way.

But sometimes there is good debating stuff coming into the public domain.

Are we safer in or out?  And here there is actually some good input.  Not the rather childish world war three stuff David Cameron delivered. 

No, more the kind of measured input you would expect from a former senior public servant like Sir Richard Dearlove, former head of MI6.

As a European Commission report revealed the new EU deal struck with Turkey means terrorists are more likely to attack European countries.  The plan will give 75 million Turkish citizens access to the Schengen visa-free area in the EU, effectively creating a border free zone from the English Channel to the warzones of Syria and Iraq.  Not find that disturbing?

EU leaders have admitted that terrorists and criminals are ‘expected’ to seek Turkish passports as soon as the visa-free access comes into force in order to travel throughout Europe.  And they will.

Sir Richard warned that these plans would make the UK less safe.  Indeed, he described it as ‘perverse’ and like ‘storing gasoline next to the fire we’re trying to extinguish’.  Challenging words.

The former spy chief went on to say that we do not have to be in the EU to cooperate with our European partners on security issues.  Indeed, he stated that many European countries look to the UK for training on counterterrorism and intelligence matters.

So far from the UK becoming more vulnerable if we leave, Sir Richard argues quite the reverse.  

So, in whom do you put your trust?  A politician climbing the ever more greasy pole?  Or a retired senior intelligence person who has no axe to grind?  

Bit of an easy one that would you not say?

Living by numbers.

A contributor to order-order.com today summed up the cynicism that is now greeting statements from David Cameron and George Osborne.

“This morning Javid said leaving would cost 500,000 jobs.

Now the Treasury says leaving will cost 820,000 jobs. (That’s quite a jump in 3 hours!)

Clegg in 2011 said leaving would cost 3,000,000 jobs. (So why the 2.5m differnce to Javid?)

The SNP said independence would create 200,000 jobs.

Brown says staying will create 500,000 jobs.

Brown said he'd create 100,000 jobs in 2009. In the "New Deal".

Obama recons he created 12,800,000 jobs.

Cameron said he'd create 2,000,000 jobs 2015-2020 (in the General Election campaign).

Labour said 1,000,000 new "high tech" jobs 2015-2025. (in the GE campaign).

Lib Dems said they'd "campaign for" 1,000,000 new jobs. (in the GE campaign).”

Why do these people think the general public are fed up with them?  Or perhaps it has never crossed their minds that the “little people” are indeed beginning to revolt.

The cry wolf chancellor.

So, todays quiz is, who said “the UK would do okay outside the European Union”?

Go on, guess.

And part two of the quiz?  Why did the chancellor say today that 820,000 jobs would be threatened if we were to leave the EU?  Mr Osborne also said the UK economy could be plunged into a recession if Britain cut ties with Brussels.  

I don’t know why he said that except as a scare point because the opposite position could equally reasonably and vociferously be made by the LEAVE camp with the potential for jobs growth away from the failing economy of the EU being much more likely.

The answer to the question one of the quiz is, of course, David Cameron.  He said this while on LBC Radio.  To be accurate he said: “I think Britain of course could survive outside the EU. We’re an amazing country, the fifth largest economy in the world.”

So should he not be calling off his attack dog chancellor who is beginning to look a bit like the boy who cried wolf in Aesop fable.   

The moral being, even when liars tell the truth, they are never believed.  And the chancellor is coming dangerously close to being that boy.

Prices going down is bad for consumers, apparently.

These days we are told falling prices are good for the economy.  Petrol down in price.  Good news.  Price of train fares down.  Good news.  Price of anything down.  Good news.

So it was an odd one from George Osborne when he said prices of one particular thing would go down if we left the EU.  He said it was bad news. He was talking about house prices.

Now I don’t know if you are like me and sometimes wonder exactly who benefits from the rise in house prices.  Well, there is the obvious one set of people, children selling their parents’ house when they pass away.  But beyond that, who benefits?

Well, it’s not you and me, that’s for sure.  If you discover the value of your house has gone up you may be able to sell for a lot more money than you paid.  But unless you want to live in a tent or considerably down size, you won’t be able to buy a house in the same town and have a wee bit left over because the value of all the other properties has also gone up.

So who does benefit?  Well, it is not the people who want to get on the so called property ladder. They can't afford the higher prices.  

Well, who benefits from higher prices?  Let’s start with Lenders.  A higher price generally will mean you will have to borrow more.  That’s good business for banks and building societies. The friends of remaining in the EU.  Surprised?  Me neither.

Then there are the support services.  Estate agents?  If you do a percentage deal, your costs will go up.  Lawyers?  Higher value, your costs will go up.

The government.  Yes, some houses can be out-with the taxation applied to most house purchases. But in general, the higher the price the more tax the government takes out of your pocket.  Oh yes, and more income from taxing the increased profits of these lenders and services.

So next time someone says, "magic, the value of my property has risen”, ask them who exactly will that benefit.  Cos it sure won't be them.

And when you hear the chancellor saying it will be bad news if house prices drop, ask, for whom?  I think we know the answer.  The Lenders, the estate agents, the lawyer.  And of course HM Treasury. 

Dear old George really must think we are mugs.

Turkey on the menu.

So Turkey is on the menu again.  Can we or can we not put a red card up to Turkey joining the EU?

Well, to be honest, it depends who you listen to.  And that is the problem.  There are various interpretations of what the UK could and could not do.

But our prime minister David Cameron has said claims the UK would not be able to block Turkey joining the EU are "very misleading", insisting the UK retains a veto.  So he didn’t say it wasn’t true.  Just very misleading.

Something is either misleading or it’s not.  So to be very misleading says something different.  It’s saying, well, it’s partially not misleading but substantially it is very misleading.  So, what are the bits that are not misleading?  It is usually just a useful phrase for not telling the truth. 

Defence minister Penny Mordaunt said the migrant crisis would hasten talks over Turkey's EU bid and the UK was powerless to stop it.  The EU referendum was the "only chance" for the UK to have its say, she said.

It would be "literally decades" before Turkey was ready to join, Mr Cameron retorted.  But when has that stopped the EU doing something before it was ready and right to do so?   Let’s see, the EURO, yip, that was one.  That ended in a shambles and unemployment and poverty for millions across the euro zone, though not in the UK as you may have noticed.

Encouraging the Ukraine to look to joining the EU and wave a red matadors cape at Moscow?  Yip that was another.  I could go on.  Not a particularly good track record one would have to say.

It is not right vs right.

Although the media seem to be furthering the rather once sided view of saying the Referendum is all about divisions internal to the Conservative party, they couldn’t be more wide of the mark.  
 

“Staying in the EU means hitching ourselves to an undemocratic project run by and for a remote elite”, says Larry Elliott in theGuardian.  And he is right.  Well, actually, he is left leaning politically.  And that’s the point.  This characterisation of it being a problem for the right is a myth.  And a pretty cynical one at that.  It distorts the debate.  It stifles conversations.  And it means the electorate are really being fed, and this what it amounts to, a rather biased and ultimately disrespectful discourse from the Remain camp.

 

So what does Larry Elliott have to say from a left of centre stance?  Well, the first thing is a fact.  Not an opinion.  The Eurozone is dying.  Anyone who says otherwise is living with their head the sand. 

The only options on the table are, stay in the EU and try and reform the Eurozone.  Or, leave the EU and let our businesses and industries free from the restrictions the dying embers of the Eurozone are still trying to set as the way ahead.

So is Brexit the best answer to a dying Eurozone?  Quite possibly.  Sometimes the only way to jog someone out their problems is for a sharp wake up call.  Brexit could be just what rEU needs.

A nation of shopkeepers who can't sell.

You own a shop.  You make and sell some rather nice things.  And people like what you make and sell, and they like to buy it at the price you are selling it.

That is how trade works the world over.

Now, imagine one day somebody walks by your shop window and says, “That looks nice, nice price too.  I will have one of these”.  So they walk in to your shop and up to your counter.  “I’d like one of these please”, they say.

Your reply?  “Sorry, do I know you; I don’t think I can sell to you.  You see, I’m only allowed to sell to certain people, it’s the club rules.”

“But I want to buy what you are selling” replies the person standing on the other side of your counter.

“Sorry”, you say.  “I think the club is negotiating with your people to see if we can sell to you. Until that is agreed, I’m afraid I can’t sell to you.”

Now, if that scenario happened in your shop, you would laugh.  Ridiculous.  It couldn’t happen.  But it does.  Day after day in the real world. 

Welcome to the world living inside the restrictive and economically fading EU. 

Won't exports be harmed if we LEAVE?

The idea that most of our exports go to the EU is just plain wrong.  Trotted out time and time again by the REMAIN camp, they assume we don't do the basic fact checking that is so easy these days.

So we will our exports be damaged if we leave the EU?

Let us start with a fact.  Most of our exports don’t go to the EU.  Only 41% goes to the EU according to the House of Commons Library.  And they are rarely wrong.

And the EU is a big exporter to the UK.  So breaking it down, the EU accounts for 41% of the UK’s goods exports and 47% of goods imports. 

So who needs who the most?  Well, put it this way, I really wouldn’t like to be the German chancellor or the French president telling their fellow citizens that for no reason other than spite, they were going to increase the costs of trading with the UK.  I really don’t think Peugeot, Mercedes, Citroën, Audi and the rest would allow that to happen.  Do you?

The EU would be criminally insane to spitefully punish its own people by creating unemployment in its key areas of manufacturing just because the UK dared to say "it's time to leave".

Odd company for the chancellor to keep.

You have to admit, George Osborne is a remarkable operator.  He can say things that would make a normal person blush with embarrassment.  He can conjure up black as white.  He can, well, you get the drift of where this is going.

Today was no exception.  Bold as brass.  Declaring that the economic case for REMAIN had been won. 

Really?  I can think of many economists who would beg to disagree. Indeed, the letter in today’s Telegraph also suggests 300 leading business leaders would also disagree.

Which leaves me with three options for his embarrassing behaviour with Vince Cable and Ed Balls today.  Yes, Cable and Balls, which is hardly the company I would want to be keeping if I wished to make a serious economic point. Was it not Labour’s disregard for taxpayers’ money that left the UK with the worst deficit of any country in the G20 and left us spending more on debt interest than we spend on schools, the police, or defence?

Anyway, back to Mr Osborne and our three options.

Option One.  Well, I’m afraid he has been listening to his spin doctors rather too much of late.  And is starting to believe them.

Option Two.  And this is what I’m really uncomfortable about, he actually believes it.  For if he does, I’m worried that such a man is at the wheel of our nations finances.

Option Three.  There is of course a third explanation which is even more unpalatable.  He’s telling lies and he knows it.  Now, that would be serious!

The case against polititians.

It was a beautiful day on Saturday in Glasgow.  Buchanan Street was full of the bustle that retailers delight in.  And the street cafes were doing a roaring trade.

So there was I with some with some friends out “selling” the case for freedom.  Or for leaving the shackles of the EU.

There were three kinds of people I spoke with.  There was around 1/3 each for Leave, Remain and Don’t Know.

Now, I know that this was not a scientific survey but it was revealing none the less. 

There was the number of SNP supporting people who really couldn’t get their head round why we would want to leave the UK but be shackled to an even less free EU.  There was much sympathy for the excellent performance on BBC Question Time last Thursday by Jim Sillars.  They got his point.  And were convinced by it more than the increasingly “hysterical” (not my words) utterances of Ms Sturgeon.

Labour supporters were interesting too.  They couldn’t understand why they would be supporting a Conservative Prime Minster who was clearly talking more and more rubbish as the campaign continues.

So, where does that leave things?  Well, one thing it is leaving is a very bad taste in peoples mouths.  They “don’t trust” politicians whose position has become even more exaggerated.  They think they are just telling us lies and it’s all those with vested interests who want us to stay.

Couldn’t have said it better myself.

Can you guess who supports REMAIN?

An easy question.  But if you are struggling, here is a table that indicates what a number of organisations recieved from the EU over the last 9 years.

http://order-order.com/2016/05/13/eu-paid-e160-million-to-pro-remain-groups/

USA investors hold key to NHS future.

We all love our NHS.  So opinion polls keep telling us.  But will it remain our NHS if we vote to REMAIN?  Good question.  And it is one that Greenpeace in the Netherlands have been keen to get an answer to, amongst other things.

They have managed to acquire a bundle of documents from the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership talks.  And they make uncomfortable reading.  Part of them suggests that the result will be, when ratified, any public sector activity could be under threat from the USA.  Privatisation if you like of areas like the NHS.

So, how would all this work?

Well, one of the proposals from the USA is to have a committee with representatives from Washington and Brussels to meet each year “to review state-owned enterprises and monopolies” which would include the NHS. 

But there would be no guaranteed a representative from Britain would be on this committee, a committee that was requested by American investors. They will meet with EU officials once a year to decide the fate of our NHS.  So who would be speaking up for the NHS when it was most needed?  Someone from Belgium, France?  You can be sure of one thing, they won’t be elected to the post by a popular vote.  

Do you know what it means for something to "distort the market"?  Well, just about anything taxpayer funded it seems some in the USA camp are arguing.  Which is why the EU and USA would seek eventually to end all forms of state intervention in competition with the private sector.

It says: “The parties acknowledge that anti-competitive business practices and state interventions have the potential to distort the proper functioning of markets and undermine the benefits of trade liberalisation.”

I think in anyone’s language, that is a pretty clear message.

Opponents of TTIP have long argued that including healthcare in the treaty will force the privatisation of the NHS or at least make the process impossible to reverse.

EU officials claim they will have wording that allows for the NHS to be protected but have so far failed to provide a full exemption. But that will be challengeable in court by USA businesses.

If you are willing to trust the EU, good on you.  You have more faith in this corrupt institution called the EU that I have.