A weekend is a long time in politics.

What a difference a week end makes.  Last week we were being warned of financial Armageddon.  Today?  Well, it’s a rather different story.

Tohru Sasaki, head of Japan market research at JPMorgan Chase in Tokyo, said falls in European markets would "not cause a financial crisis with the magnitude of the Lehman shock in 2008".

Or how about the thoughts of the Chancellor. In a statement issued before the UK stock market opened on Monday George Osborne said the UK was ready to face the future "from a position of strength".

He also indicated there would be no immediate emergency Budget.  Mr Osborne said there would still need to be an "adjustment" in the UK economy, but added it was "perfectly sensible to wait for a new prime minister" before taking any such action.

Or Mervyn King, former Governor of the Bank of England: "Doom and Gloom... Wildly Exaggerated"

That was a BBC interview and was on their referendum webpage.  But I can’t find it now.  Odd that.

Anyway.  The traffic lights are still working.  So are the hospitals.  The trains are on time.  My bank is still allowing withdrawals.  Last Wednesday night before the vote it felt like if the people voted Leave everything would grind to a halt.   

It hasn’t.

Nicola is wrong. Scotland did not vote to Remain.

Now, here is an interesting set of figures.  

Number who did not vote                  1,319,760    33%
Number who voted to Leave              1,018,322    25%   
Number who voted to Remain            1,661,191    42% 
Total electorate                             3,999,272    100%

What does this mean?  Well it means that only 42% of the total electorate in Scotland voted to Remain.  

Which means when Nicola says that the people of Scotland voted to Remain, it’s not quite true.  In fact, it’s complete not true.  58% either voted Leave or didn’t vote.  She should have said was,  "of those who voted, there was a majority for Remain".  Which is rather different.

So Nicola, I know that your education policy is in a little bit of a problem at the moment, but I’m sure that you can find someone to do the arithmetic.

The first minster should not be so fast and lose with figures at at time like this.

New Leader required.

One person stands out in the contest to replace David Cameron as leader of the Conservative party, and by default, prime minister.  Stephen Crabb.  And the bookies odds are shortening by the day.

Clearly one of the rising stars of the Conservative Party, and the first Conservative cabinet minister for generations to sport a beard, the 43-year-old has a back story to which many Tory MPs are attracted.

Born in Inverness to a Scottish mother, Crabb's upbringing was mostly in Haverfordwest in Wales. Raised by his single mother on a council estate, the Welsh politician has spoken openly about his family's dependence on benefits and the importance of work and education in promoting self-reliance and economic independence. 

He has been the Member of Parliament for Preseli Pembrokeshire since the 2005 general election and was promoted to the Cabinet in 2014 as Welsh secretary.  His profile went up a notch earlier this year when he took over as work and pensions secretary following Iain Duncan Smith's resignation.

The Conservative Party website describes Crabb as someone who "takes a strong interest in international development and believes firmly in the importance of UK aid".   From 2010 to 2012, he led the Conservative Party's Project Umubano, which works in Rwanda and Sierra Leone. 

It remains to be seen whether this opportunity comes too early and whether his support for Britain to remain in the EU will hold him back.

Apparently he is very highly regarded and respected in the corridors of Westminster.

So, assuming he wins, here is my take on what a new Cabinet could look like.

Prime Minister:        Stephen Crabb

Chancellor:              Andrea Leadson

Home Secretary:      Michael Gove

Foreign Secretary:    Philip Hammond

Defence Secretary:   Boris Johnson

Funny old game, football.

1-0 to Wales.  Northern Ireland are furious.

They are demanding the game against Wales be replayed.  

Yes, NI lost, but that’s not the point they argue.  It was the wrong result.   

They think it needs to be played again and again till they get the right result.

A strange view of what is democratic.

There is a bit of sadness in the air this morning.  It seems that a sizeable number of our fellow citizens don’t understand that we live in a democracy.  They are signing up to a petition that calls for the referendum to be re-run.  Don’t they understand that a vote is a vote?  And given the deadline for registering to vote was extended, and everyone who wanted to register to vote did so, the result is the result.

What kind of country do these signing up think we live in?  What kind of education have they had that leads them to think that because a vote didn’t go the way you wanted, you can get it changed?  One where mob rule can overturn a democratic vote.

There is a problem here.  People are being encouraged to believe that they can change a democratic vote.  They in effect are being encouraged to believe in anarchy, unless you get your own way.

There is of course a sub text to this.  One wonders if the dead hand of the EC is lurking in there somewhere.  Who can forget that the Republic of Ireland voted not to join the Euro currency, only to be told, you voted wrong?  Vote again.  Or…..  

Such is the contempt that the European Commission has for democracies they replaced democratically elected governments in Greece, Italy and Portugal.  They would have done the same in Ireland I’m sure.

The wrong result?

So was the referendum outcome the wrong or right result?

In a democratic society, where the electorate have the power to hire and fire its legislators and take decisions in referendums like this one, it was the right result.  Because it was the result of the popular vote.  We the people and all that.

Now you or I may not like the result, but that in no way makes it the wrong result.

So I found Nicola Sturgeons words today rather at odds with the democratic process.  She as good as said it was the wrong result.   "Unfortunately, of course, yesterday's result in Scotland was not echoed across the whole of the United Kingdom. The UK-wide vote to leave the EU is one that I deeply regret," she said.  With the sub text, roll on another referendum.

So basically she is saying any one who disagrees with her is wrong.  Apart from displaying arrogance that the leader of the largest political grouping in Scotland really shouldn’t do, it also leaves her very little wriggle room for future negations or in decisions. 

She should have said “the voters are always right, but I don’t like the verdict they have given.” 

I think we could all cope with that rather than being told we are wrong.

Nicola Sturgeon said it was "democratically unacceptable" that Scotland faced the prospect of being taken out of the EU against its will.  She said she will be talking over the weekend with each EU member state to make clear that Scotland has voted to stay in the EU.   

But hang on, as Tom Harris of Scottish Vote Leave pointed out, "It's not the case that Scotland voted one way and England voted another. The voice of more than a million Scots cannot be simply be dismissed."

Nicola is being more than a little disingenuous for, if I recall correctly, it’s less than 2 years since Scotland democratically voted to remain as part of the UK.  And at the time we knew that there would be a referendum on the EU.

One final point.  People across the nation are tired of referendums.  They are exciting, they stimulating.  But they can be caustic and divisive.  In families.  In businesses.  In clubs.  In wider society.

Even if there was a democratic mandate, which I think there is not, to subject the people of Scotland to a third referendum in six years would be quite irresponsible and damaging to the people who have given her the authority to lead our government.  As we have seen in the last 24 hours, such a mandate is not to be treated lightly for it can be gone in a moment like the morning mist.

Ms Sturgeon must realise that sometimes there are things more important in life than big political ideas. 

A new prime minister.

So, a new prime minister will be in place before the autumn.  But who will it be?

Perhaps it’s time to thank the big beasts of May, Johnson and Osborne for their work and move on to a new generation. 

Stephen Crabb?  He has been the Member of Parliament for Preseli Pembrokeshire since the 2005 general election.  He has been Secretary of State for Work and Pensions since March 2016.  I'd back him.

  

Philip Hammond?  He has been the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs since 15 July 2014. Another good candidate.

Outsiders?  But so was Jeremy Corbyn. 

Nearly two years ago.

Two years ago Scotland voted to remain in the UK, warts and all.  Yesterday the UK voted to leave the EU.

So the reaction by the Scottish First Minister to a democratic vote in the UK that Scotland voted to remain part of?  We need a second referendum.

She said that, on the basis that she believes the people of Scotland voted to remain in the EU, we should get another vote for Scottish independance.

But hang on, its less than two years they voted to reamain part of the UK.  She is not quoting that fact.

I really wish the First Minister would just deliver for the people of Scotland with the mandate she has be given by the people.  

If she does that, and does it well, maybe she will get her wish one day.  But please, for now, just get on with the work that the people have elected you to do.

No negotiations, even if we vote Remain.

“British voters have to know that there will be no kind of renegotiation.  We have concluded a deal with the prime minister.  He got the maximum he could receive and we gave the maximum we could give.  So there will be no renegotiation, not on the agreement we found in February, nor as far as any kind of treaty negotiations are concerned.”  So said Jean-Claude Juncker.

So that’s that.  If we stay, all these people like the prime minister who say we can effect change in the EU if we stay in the EU, will not be able to do so.  

And now we know that in advance.  Before we vote.  So let’s not fool ourselves, Remain means no chance of changing anything in the EU. 

The Truth is out there. At 1hr 19min 17 sec.

1hr 19min 17sec.  That is how long it took in last night’s BBC debate for the truth to come out.

And that truth is that at the end of the day our UK courts and our UK parliament are subservient to the European Court of Justice.  We know that because it is in the Maastricht Treaty undertaken to integrate Europe and signed on 7 February 1992.  If you have the time, go read it for yourself.  It’s all there.

The look on the face Sadiq Khan said it all.  1hr 19min 27sec.  The game was up.

What Boris Johnson said was: “The European Court of Justice is the supreme legal authority in our country.  For which (and he SK) knows that because he is a lawyer, and he would not deny that, would you deny that?”    

Sadiq Khan of course couldn’t deny it. He knows what Boris said was totally true.

And yet, that above everything else, is the most important part of the debate.  Can we eject from office the people who create our laws?  European law comes from two sources.  The European Commission whom we don’t elect.  And the European Court of Justice whom we don’t elect.   (The European Parliament, in spite of its name, doesn’t make laws like our UK parliament does).

It is a very uncomfortable truth for the Remain side.  Which is why Mr Khan had nothing to say.  

Watch it on the BBC iPlayer.

Turkey for Christmas?

Well, maybe not this Christmas.  But possibly a lot sooner than the prime minsiter has been suggesting according to the AFP international news gathering organisation Brussels office.

They report today that the EU will open new membership talks with Turkey, as planned, in a few days, EU diplomatic sources said on today.  Indeed, AFP quote one who says that EU member states will meet on June 30 to agree to open a new negotiating chapter with Turkey on finance and budget affairs. 

 

A British spokesperson in Brussels said the decision was procedural and followed up a pledge made by European Union leaders in March to open another accession chapter with Turkey.

"In March, all member states agreed to open Chapter 33, during the Netherlands (six-month EU) presidency. This is a technical step to implement that agreement," the spokesperson said.

Ruth Davidsons assertiosn in last nights debate are unravelling rather too quickly for the Remain campaigns liking.

So, no Turkey for Christmas this year. But unlike the impression given last night, clearly it is on the menu.

Pass the sugar.

A interesting alliance of business groupings emerged in todays press. Key importers, key exporters and key transport people all say there is nothing to fear and only benefit to gain from regaining our place in the world by moving on from the restrictive EU.

Tate and Lyle Sugars, one of Britain's oldest firms, has written to its 800 employees in support of leaving the European Union.  For those who know the sugar business this is not really a surprise.  

In his letter Senior VP, Gerard Mason said :  “Last year EU restrictions and tariffs pushed our raw material costs up by nearly 40m euros (£31m) alone, turning what should have been a good profit that we would all share into a 25m euros loss".

“We pay as much as 3.5m euros of import tariffs to the European Union on some of the boats of cane sugar that unload at our refinery, only for the European Union to then send that money to subsidise our beet sugar producing competitors in Europe.”

Mr Mason also claimed he had been told by EU officials "that if we lose our jobs then that's democracy because there are more beet producers than cane refiners in Europe”.

He surmised:  “That is not the sort of democracy I want to be part of”.

Then entrepreneur Sir James Dyson renewed his support for Brexit in a piece for The Times.

Sir James Dyson wrote: “I have been manufacturing and exporting globally for 46 years and have 'sat at the table' dealing with European bodies for at least 25 of those.”

“I can confirm that we have no influence whatsoever in the shaping of Europe's protectionist laws and regulations. Believe me, we've tried.”

“There is an entirely misplaced belief in the mythical powers of the single market and its influence and importance to the UK economy.”

“It is simply untrue that Europe is the world's largest market. It represents only 16% of global trade - and its share is contracting according to the IMF.”

“It remains a collection of smaller markets each with its own languages (Belgium has two), laws and cultures, with different plugs, boxes, and advertising.”

He added: “We have nothing to fear by leaving.”

Then a survey of Road Haulage Association members finds an overall majority of thier members in favour of Brexit.  And hauliers are the people who transport goods around the UK.  They provide the logistics that fill our supermarkets with fresh food every day. And they say it is time to return to the big wide world rather than stay in the restrictive EU.

Take a momnet to read the names of the people on the letter today from so called top business leaders, most of whom are hired guns rather than entrepreneurs like Dyson who have sunk their money into their business.  Can you see any in the list who are not beneficiaries of the great EU enterprise defeating machine?  I’m struggling.

So key importers, key exporters and key transport people all say there is nothing to fear by grabbing the oportunites of trading once again withteh world and only benefit to gain.  And why would that be?  Because they are businesses that are not beholden to the EU.  They see it as a burden.  The see the EU as a barrier to trade.

And they are right.  That's why they say vote Leave.

A voice of reason.

I was watching STV news last night.  There was a short debate that involved, amongst others, Tom Harris, the head of  the Vote Leave campaign in Scotland.

It was one little sentence that struck me.  Quietly delivered.  But with the power of a large incendiary device.

"Just remember", he said, "that it’s all the same bright sparks that took the economy to the brink of collapse in 2008 who are now saying it would be a disaster to leave the EU".

And he is right.  The media throw around all these experts who predict doom and gloom.  But they were the ones who largely caused the doom and gloom just 8 short years ago.  And the media are taking these guys seriously?

Two thoughts cross my mind.  Why do people have such short memories?.  And why are these people being held up as experts?

Fly to the world. Where Virgin goes.

One does wonder sometimes  why people say things.  Take todays statement by Sir Richard Branson as an example.  He said, "I'm very fearful that if Britain loses the market of 500 million people that it will be catastrophic for Britain."  But, look at the flight map for his airline.  It does not fly to EU countries.

I cannot understand how he thinks we will lose access to the market of 500 million as he suggests.  

The only reason that will happen is if, after leaving the EU, the European Commission decides to introduce some sort of trade barrier.  Note that it will be the European Commission, not businesses that will put up the barrier.  Businesses just want to trade.  So it will be a sort of punishment.   

But the bizarre thing is, given we have a trade deficit with the EU, or what will be rEU, it will actually hurt their businesses more than ours as our businesses only export 43% to the EU.  The rest of ours goes to the rest of the world.  And that is the difference.  The UK is a global trading nation. 

How Angela Merkel will explain job losses at German car plants to her electorate will be interesting to see. 

Inevitably if the rEU puts tariffs on to us, we will put tariffs on to them.  And the rEU will be the losers.

In other words, it is back to the old story of the European Union.   

The EU is basically a law unto itself.  It set the rules, it implements the rules.  And it decides if it has broken its own rules.

We, the people.

The headline of todays Herald is somewhat wearisome.  It may be telling the truth.  But its words should not have been spoken for it will give a bizarre succour to the perpetrator of the crime.  It will show that one man’s actions can influence the public, albeit not in the way he might have been hoping.

The headline?  Jo Cox killing could have “significant effect” on outcome of EU referendum.  These were the words from former first minister Alex Salmond. 

The former first minister also called for an end to what he claimed was “gutter” and “sewer” style campaigning from the Brexit side in the wake of the popular mum-of-two’s high-profile killing. 

He said the “tragic” events surrounding the Labour MP dying from gunshot and stab wounds may give people “pause for thought”. 

A couple of points.   Perhaps Mr Salmond and I have been following different media over the past few days.  The gutter and sewer hasn’t been from Leave.  It has been from Remain who, within an hour, were writing, blogging and tweeting about how the Leave camp was to blame.

But it is the “pause for thought” he talks about.  Is he seriously inviting us to change how we vote on the most important question of our generation because of what one man did?  It certainly looks that way from where I’m sitting; otherwise, for what purpose is he calling us to take time for a pause for thought?

I don’t know about you, but I find that one of the most remarkable and disappointing things I’ve ever heard Mr Salmond say.

What he should have said was “this man should not influence us either way by his vile actions.  We, the people, will decide our future, not him”.   

But he didn’t.

Remember the prime ministers re-negotiation?

As we embark on the final week before we Vote, let’s reflect back on what we’re actually voting on.  Yes, there is the simple question “Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?"

But the foundation for the prime minister saying we should vote remains was based on his re-negotiations earlier this year. So let us reflect of two things about the re-negotiations. 

First of all, the prime minister’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.  

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

As Marina Wheeler, QC pointed out in an article in The Times, “what’s important is its status under EU law: if the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg considers any part of the agreement (or measures taken to implement it) to be incompatible with existing EU law, it can strike them down.”

In other words, even if we vote to remain, there is zero guarantee any of the stuff that the prime minister did bring back will be implemented.  And given the record of the European Commission, they will just ignore a UK vote like they did in Denmark and Ireland and Greece…..  The EU is basically a law unto itself.  It set the rules, it implements the rules.  And it decides if it has broken its own rules.

These are not just technical things for the political chattering classes.  Both of these things directly affect you and me, though we may not realise it.

The Leave movement want a Europe based on free trade and friendly cooperation.   The only people who will block that if the UK decide to vote Leave is the European Commission.  Not the businesses that simply want to trade.

So, No 10 drafting letters for people to sign was true.

Downing Street doesn’t send out letters and ask people to sign them in support of Remain.  That’s what we’ve always been led to believe.  But like you I was always more than a little sceptical about that spin by No 10.

And today our scepticism seems to have been justified.  In today’s Daily Telegraph Field Marshal Lord Guthrie explains why he signed the original letter and why he has now changed his mind and now backs the Leave campaign.

In his interview with the Telegraph he says, in February, he was telephoned by a young military assistant in 10 Downing Street who, like Guthrie himself, had served in the SAS.  The question posed was, would he sign the letter No 10 had drafted?  So, No 10 was drafting letters.

Anyhow, Guthrie agreed, partly out of a feeling of comradeship (he too is SAS). 

But today he says “I regret doing that.  I think I made a mistake.  Now I’ve thought about it some more.”

So, what’s happened in the intervening period? Why has he changed his mind? 

We all know there is a paper circulating with the proposals for the joint EU army that is effectively embargoed until after our referendum.  And it is that paper that Guthrie is very concerned about and the damage it could do to the security of the UK, surely the first priority of any elected government.

His anxiety about a growing EU role in defence, leading to a European Army, leads him to comment:  “I think a European Army could damage NATO. It is expensive.  It’s unnecessary duplication to have it. It would appeal to some euro vanity thing.”

Given he has nothing to gain from his intervention unlike people like people who work for organisations that are so entwined with or rely on the EU for their existence, Lord Guthrie is one person we should be listening to.

Some people live on a weird planet.

It really does make you wonder how low some people will go in the world of campaigning.  As one blogger noted today, “With the blood not yet dry on the pavement the Guardian could not resist making political hay out of this tragedy”.

What did the Guardian do? They used pretty dramatic language.  It was an "attack on humanity, idealism and democracy". Phew.  That’s heavy.

Then the self-proclaimed heavyweight darling of the left, Polly Toynbee, weighed in.

“The mood is ugly and an MP is dead”.  Now what exactly was she saying here?  Was there some not so subtle innuendo? Was she saying that there is a cause and effect?  Was she hinting that someone was to blame other then the person who allegedly did the killing?  Why in the same article did she talk  about Michael Gove, Boris Johnson, Enoch Powell, Sir Oswald Moseley and Hitler?  Not so subtle there.  Phew again.  

An SNP MSP retweeted that “it was a political assassination”.   Phew yet again.

Breitbart London columnist James Delingpole wrote on how the Remain campaign is exploiting the death of Mrs. Cox.

“Is there any depth to which you will not stoop in order somehow to snatch victory in this EU referendum?” he wrote, following a Breitbart London expose of how Remain campaigners were tweeting the blame at the Brexit camp just minutes after the incident was first reported.

But I leave till last the words of the European Union (EU) Commissioner for Migration who claimed that Jo Cox MP was “murdered for her dedication to European democracy and humanity”.

What weird planet are these people on?

Be refreshed.

Fed up with all the negative stuff?  The chancellor saying we are doomed.  The prime minister forecasting every calamity that could befall human kind. Rather pathetic it has all become.

Be refreshed for a few minutes. Listen to one of the most confident, articulate and positive cases for why we should vote Leave that you will ever see.

Michael Gove makes the positive constructive case for why we really need to move onwards and upwards and start engaging with the real world again.

Which is the really scary option?

Well, it’s just over a week to go till we vote.

Perhaps, if we haven’t done much to find out the story behind the headlines, now is the time to look at the EU.

Some would say it’s very scary staying, what with being tied into a shrinking European economy at the expense of trading with the expanding wider world. Then there are things like who will have the finger on our nuclear button in the proposals to set up an EU army which are set to be launched by the EU the day after the vote.  

Or those who say leaving is the scary option given the uncertainty some say it may bring.  “Better what we know” they would say. 

So, is it as scary leaving as it is to stay?  What are some of the real things that really matter? 

Most reasonable commentators eschew the extreme claims from the both camps.  It’s laughable, for example, to suggest we won’t be able to trade with the EU or the Germans will support tariffs against the UK which will actually severely damage their own car industry more than it will ours.   Equally it’s not helpful to over egg the benefits from putting in place a points based system of migration control.  And the chancellors threat today to do an emergency budget to punish us is we vote leave is just so ridiculous. People have given up believing, or indeed trusting, these extreme outbursts.

Some say it really it all boils down to two things.  Democracy and  Accountability. To whom do we want to give the privilege to rule us?

So on that basis it is worth spending time watching this movie about the issues.

Then decide.

What is the EU is hiding till after the Referendum?

Rather a lot actually. But here is one to whet your appetite.

An EU army.   We’ve known about this for some time now.  But for some reason the prime minister doesn’t want to shout about it from the roof tops.  Which is odd because if he genuinely really believes in the EU, he should be telling us the EUs wonderful plans.  We will love them, won’t we?  Yes, it’s the European Commission’s plan for an EU Army.  But for some reason, it’s being kept under wraps till June 24th.  Why would that be?

So like to know more?   Well, according to The Times the plans, the not so secret paper on “foreign and security policy”, was drawn up by the EU’s foreign policy chief.  It foresees the development of new European military and operational structures, including a headquarters.  These proposals are supported and seen by Germany and other countries as the first step towards an EU army.

Still want to vote Remain?

No 10 mulls last-ditch attempt to revisit free movement negotiations.

What did I tell you two weeks ago.....  Read this article in the Guardian.  So predictable.

Think people will be fooled?  Not this time.

Please Sack Me.

If you have not had the chance to read Danniel Hannans excellent book, there is still time to order it.  You can get a copy for for just over £4 and delivered within 2 days from Wordery on Amazon.

'Powerful, intelligent, hard-hitting, well-written ... absolutely required reading for every Briton who is considering voting on 23 June' said Andrew Roberts, a Visiting Professor at the Department of War Studies,King's College London.

And Daniels opening remarks are a bold request, Please Sack Me. The following is a taster of what he has to say:

"I still remember my utter, nerveless shock. It was my first day in Brussels as a Member of the European Parliament (MEP) and, having found my office and done the basic tour, I was invited to hand in my plane ticket for reimbursement. 

When I saw the sum that I was being given, I assumed that there had been some mistake. 

‘No, no,’ I told the helpful lady, ‘I’ve just come from Heathrow.’

‘No mistake, Monsieur,’ she replied brightly. ‘That’s the kilometrage rate from London.’

‘But it can’t be. I mean, there’s no way anyone could spend that sum travelling here from London.’

‘That’s right, Monsieur, that’s how the rate is calculated.’ She went on to explain that, when MEPs travel from their constituencies to one of the two parliamentary locations (the European Parliament meets, at vast expense, in both Brussels and Strasbourg), they are reimbursed on the basis of the priciest notional fare, plus an extra ‘time and distance allowance’. 

Even if you really did travel at the top business class fare, you would make a tidy sum. 

But if you were prepared to fly EasyJet, you could trouser the better part of £800 pounds a week – tax-free, because it counted as expenses rather than income. 

The next desk belonged to the ‘general expenses’ official.  He explained that we were entitled to nearly £3,500 a month as a bloc grant. ‘What, you mean to rent an office with?’ 

‘No, no, we give you offices in Brussels and in Strasbourg.’ 

‘For computers and equipment, then?’ 

‘No, you get that, too. It’s for other incidental expenses like postage and petrol.’ 

‘Seriously? Three-and-a-half grand a month?’ 

‘As I say, sir, it’s an unconditional grant. You don’t have to submit receipts. You just nominate which bank account it goes into.’ 

After him was the staff adviser.  It turned out that we would get more than €12,000 a month to hire people. Which is, if you think about it, more than enough to take on a secretary, a researcher and a press officer, and still have a large dollop left over for your wife."

You can see where Daniel is going with this.  His experience right from the outset is that the EU is not there for people like you and me.  It is made for the people who work there.  The potential for corruption exists from the moment someone engages with the EU.  

Is this really the sort of club you want to be a member of?  

Buy the book.  Read it.  Then let's sack Daniel.

Same speech. Different person delivering it.

There was nothing new in what Donald Tusk said today.  In fact it was almost word for word what I noted back in January that Manuel Valls, the French prime minister, said “The whole of European civilisation is under grave threat and the region must stick together in its own self-defence”, warning that the departure of the UK would be a fatal blow. "It would be a tragedy," he said. 

Really?   Yes, he really did say that, "civilisation is under grave threat".

Now, at the time, I had no idea that the UK was that important, so important that civilisation itself could collapse if we left the EU.  If our remaining was that important the EU would surely have given our prime minister more than the meagre crumbs they left under the table for him at what we can now look back on as laughable “negotiations”

So what did Donald Tusk say? “As a historian I fear that Brexit could be the beginning of the destruction of not only the EU but also of western political civilization in its entirety.”

I can’t help but agree with Priti Patel when she says:  “This is extraordinary language from the EU president, and serves only to reveal his own desperation.  The only thing that is destroying civilizations is the Euro – which has ruined economies and led to youth unemployment soaring to nearly 50% in southern Europe.”

Dyson vs Miliband.

It is interesting to contrast and compare. 

Ed Miliband on the Today programme on BBC Radio 4 stated the reason for Leave doing so well was that we, Remain, “are not getting our message across”.  It clearly has never entered his head that the message is getting across loud and clear, and the electorate don’t like it.

So it was with much relief I read today the breezy, confident and optimistic words of another well-known name, Sir James Dyson.  “The Remain campaign tells us that no one will trade with us if we leave the EU.  That’s absolute cobblers”.

What is the difference between these two people? Dyson has risked all to create a world class company that has created thousands of high skilled, high paid jobs and exports around the globe (81% of his output doesn’t go near the EU). Miliband has spent his life never having worked in the productive sector of the economy earning a living.  Never created a job in his life.

That’s why Miliband is supporting Remain.  And that’s why Dyson is supporting Leave.

Who would you rather follow?

The clunking fist of yesterdays man.

Such appears to be the desperation in the Remain camp it will not be long before they wheel out yesterday’s man, the great clunking fist, Gordon Brown. 

How appropriate it will be for the Remain camp to try and use the man who crashed the UK economy to try and keep us in another basket case economy that will soon be rEU (Remainder European Union).

Civil Service on ball re negotiations with rEU.

It looks like our UK Civil Service is on the ball when it comes to preparing for the leave vote.  Apparently this draft letter is ready to be sent once the result is through.

“Dear President Juncker

You will have noted that the people of the UK decided that what you said 14^th of October 2015 “personally I don’t think that Britain needs the European Union”,  was indeed the truth.  The UK doesn’t need the EU.  So they have voted to leave the political union.

Now I know that we have to tie up some loose ends so here are some thoughts to help us on our way.

Money.  We send you money.  You in return send us money.  So as of today I think we should stop this and here is the easiest way to do so.  First of all we will simply end our standing order to you.  And you, in turn, will cease, as of today, to fund any of the programmes that you currently support in the UK.  But the projects you support don’t need to worry.  With the money we will be saving by not sending it to you, we will fund each of these programmes in their entirety as from today.  This will of course still leave us with quite a bit of a surplus which our UK elected parliament can decide how to use.

Trade.  This really is an easy one.  We both know it is not in the interests of anyone in Reminder EU (let’s call it rEU) to have any problems here.  I’m sure that Angela in particular will not be looking to going into elections in her own country facing uproar because you have imposed tariffs on UK goods coming in to rEU.  You know that we will just retaliate and the German car manufactures will be furious their most profitable market is being decimated.

Laws and workers rights.  Really, there is nothing to negotiate here as our parliament is now back fully in charge of making our own laws.  But I would like an assurance from you that all the excellent laws that you now call your own, though in fact they came from our parliament originally, will continue to be enacted by the rEU. 

Defence and security.  We know intergovernmental relations will continue as before.  Our people will support yours as yours will support ours.  Makes sense.

There are a few other things we can tie up in the next few weeks.  But this idea it will take two years, no, I don’t think so.  You in rEU need the freedom to get on with your project just as we need to get on with re-engaging with the world which has left the rEU way behind.

Best wishes

(Insert name of next UK Prime Minister)

Well well well.

The year is 2026…

What will the future be like if we stay in the EU?  Will Britain bitterly regret voting for Remain?

Well, here is one possible view.  And the interesting thing is, so many of the things that Daniel Hannann refers to are already happening or are in the pipeline.  

Of course, it might not turn out like this.  But is it worth the risk?

Olivers army is here to stay.

I have heard some extraordinary things in this referendum campaign.   One of the most bizarre is we will be safer In.

On what basis I ask?  Because it's better what you know is the standard reply.

And that’s one of the underlying things about this vote.  Both Remain and Leave actually don’t know what will happen.  Though there is more of a clue on the Remain side.

We know for example, the day after the referendum the European Commission will begin to publish a series of document covering areas ranging from a single EU army (who will have the finger on our nuclear deterrent button? I ask). Not so much Elvis Costello's Olivers Army as Jean-Claude Junker's army.

Then there will be propsals for more tax harmonisation where we will no longer be able to set our own tax rates.

And there even greater freedom for the European Court of Justice to override our own UK judicial system without even allowing our own elected parliament to debate laws that will have to be enforced in the UK.

And a unifed foreign policy is on the cards too.  All of which makes our Westmisnter a bit of a waste of space.

Scary?  To me it is.

As Daniel Hannan says in his latest blog, the status quo is not an option in this vote. "In politics, as in life, it’s generally the things we don’t do that we later regret. We have a unique opportunity to stand amicably aside from the merger of Europe’s states, to deal with our allies through a common market not a common government. Are we truly going to be bullied out of doing what we know to be right?"

A hole below the waterline for Remain.

You may remember back at the start of 2015 a cargo ship called Hoegh Osaka ran aground in the Solent. 

It was big news partly because of its cargo.  A single Rolls-Royce Wraith, estimated to be worth about £260,000, was on board, part of a precious cargo that included more than 1,000 Jaguars and Land Rovers, 65 Minis, all destined for Middle Eastern customers.  

JCBs on way to buyers around the world on the Hoegh Osaka.

The ship was also carrying a consignment of more than 100 JCB excavators.

In other words, the ship was full of the pride of UK goods and they were being exported.  Interestingly mostly of the cargo was destined to areas out side of the EU.

And it is the JCBs that come to prominence today with JCB chairman Lord Anthony Bamford telling his 6,000 highly skilled and well paid employees they have “very little to fear” over Britain leaving the EU.

Without a doubt it is aimed squarely at the scaremongering of the people like the prime minister and George Osborne who have little experience in the productive part of the economy.

Lord Bamford said in a letter to his workforce he was confident the UK could “stand on its own two feet” outside the bloc.

So in this cascade of claim and counter claim from each side about will jobs be lost or not, perhaps listening to one of the most successful exporters of our time would be a sensible thing to do.

All the more interesting coming the day after the chief economic adviser at the insurer Allianz, Mohamed El-Erian, claimed Britain leaving the EU could help solve some “fundamental divisions”.

Makes you think.

Now, here is an interesting comment.

“There are two fundamental divisions of the EU:  There’s the British view — that it’s a super free-trade zone, that it’s a destination.  Whereas the Germany-France view is that it’s a means to something else — to an ever closer union.  These are fundamentally two very different views on what the EU is about. 

If the referendum [results in the U.K. remaining in the EU], we don’t resolve these different views.  It means we are going to have tensions over and over again, because they are pursuing two different objectives, within one institutional agreement. 

So, ironically, over the longer term, an exit may actually solve one of the basic inconsistencies of the European Union.”

His argument is that Brexit essentially secures the future of the EU, at short-term volatility cost. Some rogue euro sceptic?  Nope. 

Mohamed El-Erian is the Chief Economic Adviser to Allianz.  They are one seriously big player being the world’s largest insurance and financial services group.  Incidentally, they are also the largest company in the EU.

Somehow I think he knows what he is talking about.  

Missing registration.

And as an addendum to my earlier post on voteres who didn't, we learn the electoral authorities are prepared to extend the registration deadline to facilitate all those who didn't have the common sense to register more than 2 hours before the deadline, but are doing nothing about EU nationals wrongly registered.

Talk about stacking the cards against one side.  I think we can be sure if the vote is close and Remain wins, there will be a judicial challenge.

EU rules sends our fish to landfill.

Sunny Cornwall.  It seems like heaven on earth.  But for the fishing community at Padstow it is anything but. 

Chatting to a boats man at the harbour yesterday about the referendum his response was emphatic.  Virtually every fisherman in the community will be voting to leave the EU.  You can understand why.

The fishing fleet in Padstow has decreased dramatically over the last twenty years, a pattern you can see repeated around the fishing harbours of of the UK. 

Local inshore crabbers Susie Jean PW 372, Dunlin FY 516, Tekapo E 61 and Julia Ann PW 97 unloading at Padstow in June 1985

Grimsby was once the fishing capital of the world.  Locals attribute its demise to the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP).  The CFP, which was adopted in 1983, restricted member nations exclusive fishing rights to a belt of water 12-nautical miles from their own coastlines, leaving the rest of the waters open to all other member-states where quotas were enforced setting limits on the amount of fish every nation could take.

Down in Essex at Ray in Leigh the feeling is the same as his Padstow cousins.  "The impact of Draconian EU rules and quotas have been devastating.  It used to be packed with fishing boats, now they've all gone.", lamented one fisherman last week.

And here is one of the most bizarre facts about the EU and how it imposes solutions that are of no moral sense.   

Remember the old way the EU imposed quotas?  Catch over your quota and you have to throw fish back into the sea.  It meant many dead fish were discarded needlessly.  If that wasn’t bad enough the EU, to address this, introduced a so-called discard ban.  I’m not making this up.  This ban means fisherman must land all their catch even if they go over quotas.  However, some are still alive and would have lived if thrown back.  But now they must be killed and sent to landfill.

When we have people going to foodbanks the EU forces us to dump high quality fish just so we meet the EU imposed quotas. 

No wonder the fishermen of Padstow want out.

Missing the plane.

One does wonder, on occasion, what planet some people are on. 

Let’s assume I go to catch a flight.  I know it leaves at 12:00.  My airline has told me the gates will close at 11:40.  So what do I do?  I get there in plenty of time to board the said flight.

I make sure I consider things like the time that will be spent at security, that’s a big variable at times.

I may also want to visit the loo, buy a coffee.   There are many things you can do on the way to a plane.

But at the end of the day, it’s my choices, my decisions that will mean I catch or miss the flight.

So why on earth is there a clamour for the extension of the deadline for people to register to vote for the upcoming referendum?  Everyone knew when the deadline was.  If people are now saying that didn’t know when the deadline was until 2 hours before the deadline, I simply don’t believe them.

I’m afraid in life if you don’t follow the rules, you miss the plane.  Given the people who were all trying to register at the last minute, literally, were doing so from their devices, it’s not beyond reasonableness to suggest they could have used the said device earlier in the day.  So avoiding the queues at the end.

Those who missed out should just chalk it down to learning a lesson.