How to destroy hope.

Imagine your business two and a half years ago, was unsuccessful in tendering for a piece of work.   

Suppose you kept saying, “that’s so unfair, we should have won it, we demand that our tender is re-examined and we are given a 2nd chance to win the tender”.   

Meanwhile all the other businesses that had also tendered for the work said, “that is a pity we didn’t win that, let’s move on to winning other ones”.   

Which one would you want to work for?  Which company would still be in business?  

Meanwhile in the defeatist world that Mrs May inhabits, businesses are told to put contingency plans in motion while 3,500 troops will be put on standby.  

Note she doesn’t challenge them to go out and win lots of new work in a new dynamic world opening up in front of their eyes.  

Incredible fatalistic talk from our spineless prime minister. 

It's a bit rich. And I'm not talking about a fruit cake.

Church of England bishops have said they are praying for “courage, integrity and clarity for our politicians” after a week of turmoil over Brexit.   In a joint statement issued today the bishops also urged the country to “consider the nature of our public conversation” and called for more “grace and generosity”.   

The statement echoes concerns raised by the Rt Rev Justin Welby, the Archbishop of Canterbury in the House of Lords yesterday when he stressed the need for reconciliation after a “week of deep division” over Brexit.  He also said it was “central to our future” as a country that the divisions were healed.   

And Amen to that I hear you all say.   

There is however, one slight problem.  It is this Archbishop of Canterbury himself who is the one who, in 2017, compared those who voted leave with those who voted to elect Donald Trump and the rise of Marine Le Pen and Geert Wilders.  Indeed, in his opening address at the Church of England’s Synod in 2017 the Archbishop said: “There are a thousand ways to explain the Brexit vote, or the election of President Trump, or the strength in the polls in Holland of Geert Wilders or in France of Madame Le Pen and many other leaders in a nationalist, populist or even fascist tradition of politics.”   In one sentence he demonised leave voters.   He of all people should know that words matter.

Add that to a joint statement from the Archbishop and the leader of the Evangelical Church in Germany, Bishop Heinrich Bedford-Strohm: “We witness the rise of populism and the emergence of extremist political parties which are being successful at the ballot box. Some of the old certainties are not so certain any more. European relationships are changing, not least as a result of Brexit [Britain’s decision to withdraw from the EU]”.   Again a direct link in one paragraph between extremist political parties and the 17,410,742  people in the UK who voted Leave.   

Now he calls us to pray for healing of division.  Considering he is one of the people who created some of the division with his words, it’s a bit rich. 

Brexit: No visa but Britons will pay €7 to travel to EU countries.

The truth.  The whole truth.  And nothing but the truth?  Well yes and no.   

So, how do you read it?  Every time you board your easyJet flight to the EU you have to pay the equivalent of two Christmas Brulee Latte at Starbucks?  I know, it’s peanuts compared to what you actually will spend for your whole trip.   

But no, you actually don’t have to pay €7 to travel to the EU.  You have to pay €7 for a pass that will allow you, for that one payment, three years of travel.  Pretty good, eh?  

So, assume you go to the EU twice a year, that works out at just over €1 per trip.  And if it is Rome or Barcelona you are going to, that’s a fraction of the Tourist Tax each time and each day you visit these cities.  All those who are saying we couldn’t travel to the EU or go on holiday and so on, what nonsense.

Ah, but can we fly there?  Surely the planes won’t be able to go into EU airspace?  Well, yet another scare story that bears no resemblance to the truth. 

As John Redwood, MP, points out today: “Within the EU the Commission has already made clear that in all circumstances, including a so called No deal (that is no deal with the EU, not No deal) exit, there will be an agreement between the UK and EU after Brexit allowing routine aviation to continue as before between the UK and EU.”  Yet another scare story shot down.

200

It’s the little things that count.  And in the case of her un-resounding win last night when 70% of her backbenchers voted against her in the vote by all Conservative MPs, it was the little things that got her to 200 votes.   

200 is an important psychological number.  Suppose she only had achieved 199 votes.  It would always have been referred to less than 200.   

So that one vote that got her past 199, where did it come from?  That may seem an odd question given all MPs voted.  But it is not so odd when you hear that two MPs who had been suspended from the party whip had, only hours before the vote, their suspensions lifted.  Every vote counts.   

And so it was that Andrew Griffiths, the Burton MP suspended after allegedly bombarding two young women with lewd text messages, voted for Mrs May.  

200 votes.   

Mrs May knew she possibly needed every vote in a secret ballot.  Given the voting ended up being largely down lines of those who support Remain and Leave, hers is, of course, a rather pyrrhic victory.  But she couldn’t be sure of victory.  So this, along with all her other actions of discrediting colleagues and misleading parliament and the public, we see a leadership pattern of behaviour.  

Doesn’t how she achieved last night’s 200 tell you the awful truth about Mrs May’s leadership?  It is rotten to the core.

Golf club rules.

Imagine the scenario.  You are resigning from your golf club.  You want to do other things, spend your money in different ways.  So your letter goes in: “Thanks for all the fun, but I’m moving on. So I’m sorry, I’m resigning.  Hope to see you all again soon.”   

Imagine your surprise when you get a letter back saying: “Thanks for the resignation letter.  Attached is the time table by which we will operate your departure, including what payments you need to make.  And by the way, if you don’t keep to this, and a few other terms and conditions you will also see attached, you can’t leave until we say you can leave.”   

Laughable?  Of course it is.   

And yet that is exactly what Mrs May, and it was Mrs May, not her cabinet, signed up to in 2017 when the European Union insisted on “phasing” the Brexit negotiations and tackling three subjects of interest to the EU first, before the EU would be willing to discuss its long term post-Brexit trading relationship with the UK.   

She should have laughed and said “on your bike”.   

This of course is now one of an increasing number of charges to be laid at Mrs Mays door, and her door alone.   

The latest one being uncovered in the advice of the Attorney General for England and Wales is the scandal over proposing the EU, through its judicial arm, can stop us leaving till we have jumped through all of its hoops.  Mrs May tried to deny this would happen because it is not our intention to get there.  Then why have the so called back stop unless it is there to be used?   

That a UK prime minister could even have thought that was an idea worth testing, never mind inserting it in an international agreement, shows how much Mrs May has gone native in the EU.  It is now abundantly clear who’s side she is on.  And it’s not the UKs, no matter if you voted Leave or Remain.

As Martin Howe, QC, notes in his Withdrawal Agreement: the Northern Irish “Backstop” and the constitution of the United Kingdom paper out today, “The UK should unhesitatingly reject the draft Withdrawal Agreement and make clear that any deal with the EU which seeks to violate the fundamental constitutional integrity of the United Kingdom and overturn the Belfast Agreement will not be accepted. Therefore a different approach from the December 2017 approach must be adopted. That approach should be based on behind-the-frontier enforcement of border controls, and not on the dead-end and insoluble problems of “alignment” of rules.”.

Being positive about Caroline.

I am sure Ms Caroline Lucas, with whom it appears Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg may be debating on television, will be positive and not want to focus on 2nd referendums. I am the eternal optimist. 

However, I’m not so sure she will take that stance given what she said in a speech on 2^nd May 2017.  “Though my party fought hard for Britain to stay in the EU, and I voted against an unconditional triggering of Article 50, we accept, of course, that the referendum was an instruction to the Government to begin Brexit negotiations.  We do not accept, however, that the decision should be irreversible.”   

Which all sounds nice and dandy.  Until the reality sets in.  So, she is quite happy for a small group of people in her constituency of Brighton Pavilion to set about demanding a 2nd vote that would overturn her  win in the General Election  It's absurd.   

Actually, the EU decision is reversible.  If in twenty years’ time people want to re-join the EU, fine, let’s vote again.  But seriously, you can’t keep revisiting votes that have taken place in the past.  

Ms Lucas and other Remainers have two problems.  The first is they can't accept that they lost the argument, and the vote.  The second is they seriously believe that everything about the EU is unquestionable good. Tell that to the farmers in Africa that are kept in abject poverty by the EU.    

You know, if people like Ms Lucas and others like Ms Gina Millar had actually put effort into preparing for the future rather than constantly talking about the negatives, we would perhaps not be where we are today.  All they see is minimising the damage of leaving the EU. Never look at the opportunities.   So I’m sure JRM will insist the conversation is about what we do now were leaving, not looking back and fighting a past battle.   

So little of the debate has been allowed to be on the positives up till now.   This is a chance to make these, without an editor at the BBC closing it down.    

Some of the key points I make when I talk to business leaders leaves them surprised.  They feel they have been misled by all the crashing out terminology once they realise, actually, we won’t be crashing anywhere.  And here is why.   

1. Leaving the EU without a deal with the EU is not leaving without a deal.  It simply is there won’t be a deal with the EU.   Why is that important?  
2. Because there is a deal already in place, one that 60% of UK trade already is conducted under.  Indeed most of world trade is conducted under.  That deal is WTO.   
3. And interestingly, the EU can’t stop us trading with them on WTO terms, from day one.   And for up to 10 years.   

So, where’s the cliff edge?   There isn’t one.    

One point does concern me.   What has the government been doing for 2 ½ years?  They should be totally prepared for leaving under WTO.  What was Ms Rudd doing as Home Secretary for example.  If it turns out that she didn’t do very much, that’s almost criminal.   Indeed, it may be criminal.  

JRM won’t make Ms Lucas look foolish.  He is too much of a gentleman for that.  But he will no doubt make her arguments like chaff in the wind.

Be prepared.

This morning it was being reported that the Prime Minister said the Northern Ireland backstop would not be “automatic” and that she was considering giving MPs a say on whether it came in.   

On BBC Radio 4’s Today programme: she said: “The backstop is talked about as if it’s automatic.  Actually it is not automatic – there is a choice.”   

Well, that was news to the EU.  And they didn’t like it.  “We hope they're not going to try this because it's the same as ripping up the withdrawal agreement.”  Pretty emphatic response one could say.   

So it’s possible we may not have a deal.   

But let’s not panic.  Mrs May and her team have had 2½ years to prepare for leaving without a deal with the EU in place as it was always a possibility.  And as we already have a deal in place with WTO, all the things that will need to be done to tidy up details with the EU will have been done.  Won’t they? 

If not, what exactly have they been doing for these last 30 months?

So you thought Mrs May would comply with the command from MPs? Think again.

I said to a friend, a few minutes after the governments defeat in relation to the legal advice given by the Attorney General in relation to the EU Withdrawal Agreement, that they wouldn't comply.  I mussed that all was not as it seemed and I would bet my house that the government would somehow fudge what they had been asked to do.   

Oh yes. Mrs Leadsom, the Leader of the House, in a great flourish, announced that MPs would regret what they had voted for but the government would comply by 11:30 the following day.  So far so good.   

But clearly the government had no intention of giving the full details.   

Now we see that the copy of legal advice they gave to the House does not fulfil the contempt motion which called for the immediate publication of “the final and full legal advice provided by the Attorney General to the Cabinet concerning the EU.”  What they have given only relates to the backstop. 

So, it would be fair to ask Mrs May, where is the rest of it?   Or is she the "dishonest and duplicitous"  Cardinal Wolsey of our time as David Starkey ponders.

I choose Mrs May rather than The Attorney General  because on the Today programme this morning said she listened to MPs.  Well, clearly not enough to give them what they asked for in a pretty straight forward instruction.  Once again she seems to think if she keeps repeating three banal sentences (as she did four times in the interview this morning much to John Humphries exasperation) we will all come to heel.  

You know, the longer this goes on, you seriously do begin to wonder what Mrs May is seeking to do. It’s almost like something out of a John le Carré novel.  In plain sight the infiltrator does their work.  We need a George Smiley.

 

No comment required. Make up your own.

An inconvenient truth.

Have a look at Paddy Ashdown.  Leave means Leave.  It's pretty clear is it not?

Ms Jo Swinson is my MP.  She is an excellent representative of the community that elected her to represent them in Westminster.  She deals, in my experience, without fear or favour for each constituent.     

Where she falls down is her continued challenging the democratic mandate that was given to the people by parliament in relation to the EU, resulting in the 2016 referendum.   The choice was simple as her party Leader Paddy Ashdown said. It's Leave or Remain.   Winner takes all.  Even if it is by just 1%.

And the government used £9m of taxpayers money to tell us why, in their opinion, Remain was the best answer.   The people chose to differ.  That is democracy.     

This of course is territory the Lib Dems have been keen to talk about before.  But it is an inconvenient truth that their 2010 election manifesto, on which Ms Swinson stood, called for a national vote on the UKs  EU membership.   

Here's what they had to say:  “The European Union has evolved significantly since the last public vote on membership over thirty years ago.  Liberal Democrats therefore remain committed to an in / out referendum the next time a British government signs up for fundamental change in the relationship between the UK and the EU.”   

And there were only three options they thought were appropriate.    (a) remain a member of the European Union on the current terms;  (b) leave the European Union; or (c) re-negotiate the terms of its membership in order to create a new relationship based on trade and co-operation.    

In 2015 Tim Farron and other Lib Dems, with another inconvenient truth, supported the European Union Referendum Bill which passed its second reading on division of 544 to 53.  So, only 6 years after expressing her desire to hold a referendum in her Manifesto commitment, she got her way.  And the people gave an answer.   

We were to Leave.     

She and her fellow Lib Dems didn’t like the result.  What she and her fellow Remainers have done since then is to try and thwart the democratic mandate of the people given to them by parliament.   

Her Exit from Brexit campaign is an insult to all those who voted, irrespective of whether they voted Leave or Remain.   

Which is a pity.   Pooling of minds at a time like this should have been the obvious thinking for all politicians, not to try and undermine democracy or denigrate those who voted leave.    

If she is looking for an answer it is to go back to what President Tusk offered us on 7 March—a wide-ranging free trade deal.  That floundered on the issue of the Northern Ireland border, as will the ludicrously titled backstop. But we all know that using existing techniques and technologies that are available today within the existing customs code, we can resolve the problem of the border and go back and take up that offer.     

Also, when people demonise World Trade Organisation terms they clearly chose to ignore or don’t realise these are the terms on which 164 countries conduct 98% of the total of world trade.  It is absolutely childish to describe this as “leaping off a cliff” and a “catastrophe”. It insults us.  And it insults all of these nations that trade on WTO.   

I do realise that the Lib Dems believe in a European super state.  But with that, as is now clear, comes a single army.  A single foreign policy. A single currency. An anthem. And more.   Only they have consistently supported staying inside the single market and customs union, which the nation voted explicitly to leave in the Peoples Vote in 2016, a stance that didn’t do them much good at the ballot box.  12 seats out of 650 in 2017.

The people of the UK had a look over that cliff and decided no thanks.  We're out..

Own goal.

So, the UK should be able to unilaterally cancel its withdrawal from the EU, according to a top European law officer.  The non-binding opinion was delivered by the European Court of Justice's advocate general.   Think about that for just a second or two.  Yes, a foreign court is telling us what our UK parliamnet can and cannot do.

This case was led by, among others, the SNPs Ms Joanna Cherry, QC, Member of Parliament for Edinburgh South West.  It was being done on the basis of trying to clarify the law.  Of course it was.  The thought that it could then be used to try and put down an amendment to a bill going through the UK parliament in an attempt to stop the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland leaving the European Union never crossed their minds.  Aye, right.

But I do hope she realises what she has just done.  She has used the courts to seek to overturn a democratic vote by the electorate.   

So if she and her SNP colleagues manage to secure a majority at a future referendum in relation to Scotland leaving the UK, she can expect years of court cases ending with the ECJ saying, actually, the vote can be overturned.   

For a QC, that’s a massive own goal she’s just scored.

Something is rotten in the state of Denmark? No. Try No 10.

You know No 10 is well rattled when they start trying to argue against people who present an articulate, accurate and well-argued case against the stance of the government in the so called Agreement.   

No 10 didn’t need to reply.  But they chose to do so with a flurry against Martin Howe, QC.  

Now, you don’t get the opportunity of “taking silk” unless you are right up there with the cleverest of lawyers.   

So you would think No 10, in its rebuttals of Mr Howe's excellent review of the governments position, would at least be articulate, accurate and well-argued and answer the very serious points that were being made by Mr Howe.  With a bit of humility and honestly thrown in.   

Not a bit of it.  It seems a malaise has crossed the threshold at No 10 and it is now incapable of answering things with a straight yes or a no when that is all that is needed.  They use the classic propaganda technique of trying to make it all sound so confusing and difficult.  In other words, they think we are stupid.   

I will let you read for yourself Mr Howe's response to the briefing by No 10 in which he very firmly and forensically puts No 10's response to the sword.  For something so apparently difficult he makes it all rather easy to understand for people like you and me.   

Reading Mr Howe's response makes it ever more obvious of the vacuity and apparent malevolence that now appears to be at the heart of No 10 Downing Street.   

For an authoritative independent view see TheBrexit Withdrawal Agreement: Taking back “control of our laws”? by Mark Elliott, Professor of Public Law at Cambridge University.

Best endeavours. In good faith. The way not to deal with the EU.

Leak Two.  Well, this could be interesting reading: “The Withdrawal Agreement: Legal and Governance Aspects Part One:Overview”.   

And, according to Brexit Central who bring us the Leaked Commons legal analysis of Brexit deal, it vindicates Mr Trump and contradicts Mrs May.    

One of the many things it states is that the UK-EU customs union which would come into effect if the backstop is triggered “would be a practical barrier to the UK entering separate trade agreements on goods with third countries”.  That’s pretty clear.   

So was Mrs May not telling the truth when she stood up in the commons on Monday 26^th of November and said: “for the first time in 40 years, the UK will be able to strike new trade deals and open up new markets for our goods and services”?  They can’t both be right.   

The 27 pages are littered with more questions than answers.   For example it says:

“Both UK and EU are represented on the Joint Committee, so no decision may be made without the UK’s agreement. This may not be the same thing as the two parties having equal power, as the aims of the parties will matter. If the Joint Committee is unable to reach a decision, in some circumstances, that will block next steps. The party that wants those next steps to occur, will then be at a practical disadvantage. By way of example, i) the Joint Committee sets the limits of state aid that can be authorised by the UK for agriculture. If limits are not agreed, state aid may not be authorised.”     

But perhaps the most concerning extract is when it notes:  

“Article184 (of the Agreement) provides for the Parties to “use their best endeavours, in good faith and in full respect of their respective legal orders, to take the necessary steps to negotiate expeditiously the agreements governing their future relationship referred to in the political declaration [to be specified] and to conduct the relevant procedures for the ratification or conclusion of those agreements, with a view to ensuring that those agreements apply, to the extent possible, as from the end of the transition period””.   

When did good faith ever come from the EU?   

A question to ask any Greek you meet on the street today.

It is going to be a week for leaks.

Yes indeed.  And for Leak One, it looks like Mr Oliver Robbins is getting in first with his “It Wisnae Me, Mister. Honest!” as Mrs May, to use her own analogy, looks like she could be on the wrong side of a cricket score.    

Correspondence leaked to the Telegraph shows that he was apparently in fact not the bad guy in all this but the shinning knight.    

So what do these leaks tell us?  Well firstly, Mr Robbins no longer secret warning to Mrs May that the customs backstop is a “bad outcome” for the UK.   

Why?  Well, it’s kind of obvious to the rest of us, no matter if we are Remainers or Leavers.  It will see regulatory checks in the Irish Sea and put security co-operation at risk the leak suggests.      

Is it not quite remarkable that, in the week before the Commons has to take a vote, such evidence is only now coming to light?   In a direct quote Mr Robbins said: “We should not forget that the backstop world, even with a UK-EU customs union, is a bad outcome with regulatory controls needed somewhere between GB and NI, serious and visible frictions and process between GB and the EU, and no security co-operation provided for.”    

Leaks usually are made for a reason  This one to the Telegraph was apparently by a concerned Minister. Or perhaps Mr Robbins is seeing the ship is sinking fast and he doesn’t want to go down with the captain.  Did he know or encourage the selective leak?  His career both in the civil service and the apparent lucrative offers in the City would be well gone.  Hence the “It Wisnae Me, Mister”.

For the sake of clarity.

Mrs May says her deal brings clarity.  What nonsense. The only deal that brings clarity is leaving on WTO terms.  Every exporting and importing business in the UK knows exactly how WTO works as 60% of our trade already done on WTO terms.  The other 167 other nations in the world that are not in the EU know how they work too.

The heart of our nation is our small businesses.

Did you know that 99% of UK businesses are what we call Small Medium Enterprises according to the Hiuse of Commons Library?   Just drive into any small industrial estate.  No multinationals there.  Just honest hard working business leaders who are risking their family homes as they try to make a living for themselves and all the staff they employ.  They can’t just up sticks and move production to where ever in the world labour is now cheapest or the government is offering incentives to them.  No, they are right here, the heart of the nation.   At the core of every UK economy. That is 5.6 million businesses with a turn over of a staggering £2.0 trillion!

So, what of the other 1% of businesses?  They are the big ones.  The multinationals.  The ones that can pack their bags and go to anywhere in the world they want to further their shareholders profits.   

Of course, it is the big multinationals that shall be the beneficiaries of the UK not leaving the EU.  As Nic Elliott, a Business Ambassador for Leave Means Leave, notes, it is the multinationals who want to "stifle competition and discourage new players from entering the market".  Which as we saw in the Dyson case that was Sir James vs the European Super state and its judicial processes that really didn’t like the fact that Dyson was challenging the very court that imposes restrictions on people like him who had innovative ideas that they didn’t like.  

It is always interesting to see what businesses are supporting Mrs May.  The big multi nationals.  Not the home grown like Dyson and international exporting companies like JCB who are British through and through.  JCB chairman Lord Bamford wrote to his company's 6,500 employees in the UK to explaining why he supports leaving the European Union.  In his letter he said he was "very confident that we can stand on our own two feet".  I think my money will always be on the judgement of the person who has built a business from nothing against someone who has never worked in the productive sector in their lives.

The fact is, most SME’s regard WTO as strong and stable as it provides certainty over the confusing and ill-conceived Agreement that Mrs Mays Deal has come up with that seems to provide never ending adherence to rules we will have no part in making.  And know what, all the SME's I come across were ready for leaving within 6 months of the Peoples Vote in 2016.

The real question is, if SME's were ready to leave with no deal with the EU, why in the first two years since the Peoples Vote in 2016 were the people who are supposed to be representing them, like Ms Rudd (Home Secretary), Mr Hammond (Chancellor) and Mrs May (Prime Minister), three of the great offices of state, not doing the same.  Instead they wasted precious month, now years.  It is their deliberate actions that has brought us to where we are today.  As is becoming clearer by the day, they never had any intention of allowing the UK parliament to implement what the people voted for.

In some countries that would be treated as a criminal activity against the state. 

Mr Carney's fantasy world.

Right from the start the Remainers have tried to paint a picture that leaving the EU without a deal with the EU would be bad.  They are of course talking in straight economic terms though you could find economists and business on both sides of that particular argument.   

I can only compare his analogy as going into a car show room and being told that the car on offer is £x.  After negotiations he would, using the methodology he has used, come away paying more than the offer price on the windscreen.  It really was that bad.  Even respected economists who support Remain could be seen cringing.   

Will the UK be worse off in the long term leaving without a deal with the EU?  Possibly.  But in the long term, probably not.   

Will the UK be worse off in the short term leaving without a deal with the EU?  Possibly, but not by much. Certainly not the fantasy Mr Carney portrays. 

Only the extremists on the Leave and Remain camps claim that it will be heaven if they get their way and the other place if they don’t.   

The hard reality is, leaving the EU without a deal with the EU simply transfers us immediately over to WTO.  So we will have a deal with the EU immediately.  Just not the one they want.  

Now given 60% of our trade already is done under WTO and experiences no problems in Just In Time supply chain logistics, why would that be any different when dealing with the EU under the same rules as we do with the rest of the world?    

Well, of course it wouldn’t be, or rather shouldn’t be.  That is unless the EU wants to end up in court for breaching WTO agreements.   

So why did Mr Carney even use the example of there being no trade with both the EU and the rest of the world as one of the possible positions?  Or who told him to say that?

 Ask him, not me.

Wise words for the nation.

"The whole nation and all political parties are divided on the Common Market question.  We must respect the sincerity of those who take a different view from our own. We should all accept the verdict of the British people whatever it is, and I shall certainly do so."  Tony Benn, 1975.   

Perhaps his son should remember what his dad said.

Wrong trousers?

Well, more like Wrong Assumptions for this comedy of errors.  So please indulge me for a moment if I take you back to the Treasury’s record of getting it right.  Or wrong.    

Remember the real gloom felt during the referendum campaign?  Remember the forecast:  ….“Britain’s economy would be tipped into a year-long recession, with at least 500,000 jobs lost and GDP around 3.6% lower, following a vote to leave the EU, new Treasury analysis launched today by the Prime Minister and Chancellor shows.”?   

What has happened in these last two and a half years?  None of that.  Indeed, quite the reverse.  The economy grew, unemployment fell, investment went through the roof.  So not the best of track records.   

So on the latest bad news coming out of HM Treasury, it does need to be taken with a  pinch of salt.  A large one.   

And that is what economist Andrew Lilico did as he pointed out that in its new analysis, the Treasury makes three remarkable assumptions.    

1.  Assumes there is no economic gain at all from controlling our own policy compared with the EU doing it.   

2.   Assumes there is no gain from “Future domestic policy choices.”    

3.  Assumes GDP gains from new trade deals with non-EU countries are only 10% of what the EU estimated those gains would be.    

Any first year university would receive a D minus for such clearly ludicrous assumptions.  No credible economist assumes there are zero economic gains to be made from liberating companies from EU red tape and exposing them to new market opportunities. 

Just as the ECJ is a political court so the Treasury is fast becoming seen as a political tool not a serious economic body.     

And politicians and Civil Servants wonder why there is so much mistrust around.    

So before you accept the word of the Bank of England or indeed of any other forecaster, irrespective if they are for Remain or Leave, ask yourself, "are they being honest with their data".   

The Treasury and the Bank have got almost every big call in relation to leaving the EU wrong up till now.  So why should we have any more trust in them today?   

Can you think of a reason?

The attack dogs are out.

You know Mrs May is on manoeuvres when the attack dogs come out.  Yesterday it was on the economy.  All her faithful entourage wailed gloom and doom.    The BBC.  The Bank of England. They all talked about the worst case scenario as if that was what would happen.  as we saw in yesterdays blog, it won't.  But you can see why she goes into attack mode.  Everything they have worked towards could be undone if it was proved to be wrong.  We might actually leave the EU.   Horror of horrors! 

The problem is, they use only one set of data.  Very conveniently it is the set of data they use that fits the narrative they want.   

Former Brexit Secretary Dominic Raab summed it up well in the quote he gave to yesterday’s Telegraph:   

"There is an economic credibility gap with all these Treasury-led forecasts, based on their track record of failure, the questionable assumptions they rely on, and the inherent challenge of making reliable long-term forecasts. Politically, it looks like a rehash of Project Fear. 

People expect to be inspired, not scared witless into deferring to the government. Whenever Whitehall make forecasts for leaving the EU on WTO terms, it's always the same. 

They rely on the most pessimistic assumptions, and airbrush out the opportunities of leaving with full regulatory control and the ability to strike free trade deals around the world."      

They’re not telling lies.  But they are not telling the truth either.  They are, as is the BBC, certainly being somewhat disingenuous.  

And it is the same with Civil Servants who should know better.   

Take the recent ‘Cross-Whitehall report’ estimated that exiting the customs union would cost the UK economy by between 1.6 per cent and 7.7 per cent of GDP (£32 – £154 billion) over the next fifteen years.   

These figures include effects of likely free trade agreements (FTA) with non-EU countries, migration, and deregulation. In reality, the UK would actually gain something like 7% per cent of GDP (£140 billion), taking into account all these factors.    

This blunder amounting to nearly 15 per cent of GDP (£300 billion) has been exposed in a new report by experts from Economists for Free Trade.   The mistakes the civil servants have made with regard to the costs of leaving the customs union account for almost 11 per cent of GDP – or £220 billion.    

And you wonder why people are saying this is an establishment stitch up.

Not smart.

Looks a bit stark, according to the BBC headlines.

Leaving looks like a bumpy ride.  At least that’s what you would think reading the headline of the article.  But have a closer look at what this is based on.  In other words, what is a 'disorderly Brexit'?

To be fair to the Bank of England they are saying it's all based on assumptions.  But just read the assumptions and you quickly realise something is not right. 

The key ones are:

1.  The UK reverts to World Trade Organisation rules.  Well under leaving without a deal with the EU we would have an immediate deal with the rest of the world, including the EU, through WTO.  So far so good.  No serious economic impact given 60% of our trade is already on WTO.

2.  No new trade deals are implemented by 2022.  Maybe there will be maybe there won’t be.  But one thing is sure, businesses will be wanting the "will be" scenario.  Only a spiteful EU could get in the way.  So it’s really pretty daft to assume there will not be deals.  So again, perhaps a hiccup.  But seriously, businesses love to trade.

3.  The UK loses all access to existing trade agreements between the EU and third countries.  Now, this is where it really does stretch the bounds of probability.  Are they suggesting that all the current trade deals we have with non EU countries will stop?  Well that’s what they have based this on.  And there is actually nothing to stop the UK trading with the EU under WTO from day one.  Indeed, it would be illegal for the EU to not permit it.  So don't worry, you will still be able to get your Mercedes or Audi.

4.  Severe disruption at borders because of customs checks.  Really?  Why?  Today goods arrive and are cleared into the UK form all over the world in seconds under WTO.  All the paperwork is done days, even weeks before it arrives in the UK, and vise versa.  So why should what already happens stop happening? It won't.

5.  Migration reverses from 150,000 a year to falling by 100,000 a year.  Well, who knows.  But in the big scheme of things it’s a pretty small problem compared to losing all our trade under point 3.

Really, the BBC should stop treating us as idiots.

Don't forget......

You can keep up to date with A view from the doorstep by simply putting your email in the little white box to the right.  Go on, do it now!

Then check your in box (and your spam box) and click the link to confirm it is actually you who subscribed.

Enjoy.

Disaster awaits. That's what Remainers said last time too.

Can you remember?  

It’s not that long ago we were told that:  “A vote to Leave will push our economy into a recession. Within two years the size of our economy – our GDP – would be at least 3% smaller as a result of leaving the EU – and it could be as much as 6% smaller."     

And "A direct consequence of a vote to Leave the EU would be significant job losses across the UK. Within two years, at least half a million jobs would be lost… And that’s the lower end of the estimates – across Britain as many as 820,000 jobs could be lost."

Looking back we realise it was all nonsense.  Of course, the economy was not pushed into a recession.  Indeed, the opposite has occurred.   

But what is so depressing about  this new round of scare stories from Remainers like Mrs May is they are not even making the effort to come up with different things to scare us with.  It’s just rehashing the old stories. 

Ms Loophole?

The European Court of Justice is, as you will know, considering a case that even Solomon in all his wisdom would have found tricky.   

If the judges go the way the SNP wish them to, the UK will not have to secure the approval of each of the EU Members states to revoke Article 50.  That would mean any Member State could play a game of let’s trigger Article 50 and try and get some concessions, an angle the top brass in the EU have conceded could destroy the whole European Project (as we now must call it).   

But if the judges side with the existing interpretation, that all EU states must give approval, then the UK parliament cannot just on its own decided that Article 50 is dead.  Tricky.  

One thing is clear from this, no matter how the court swings, they are taking a political decision and by doing so they are in effect, simply another arm of the Commission.   

And no matter the outcome of the deliberation of the judges, one thing is certain.  It is in this very room that ultimately the ECJ will decide, with no course or right of appeal, whether the UK can leave the EU.  This is the ending point in Mrs Mays Agreement.   It's there in black and white.  She can't deny it.  Well, actually, in Questions to the Prime Minister today in answer to Mr Corbyn she did.   She also did so again to Anne-Marie Trevelyan MP (Berwick-upon-Tweed, Conservative.)

So the ECJ, the judicial arm of the European Community, can stop us leaving if they think that we have not fulfilled everything they have demanded of us.  Just reflect on that.  

All Mrs Mays assertions about us leaving rely on one thing.  The ECJ allowing us to. 

And perhaps we should also reflect on the amount of legal processes those who support the UK staying in what is now a European State, complete with its own court that can overturn any UK legislation, have gone through to stop the vote of the majority being implemented. 

It all reminds me of “Mr Loophole”, the well-known lawyer who finds ways through many legal challenges for the wealthy and famous.  Joanna Cherry QC MP seems to be using every legal method to undermine and stop the result of the peoples vote.  Perhaps we should start calling her Ms Loophole.   

Will Ms Cherry be so happy for such behaviour if it comes down to judges being asked to decided whether Scotland can leave the UK?  Answers on a postcard…..

Building to intimidate.

When I was in Barcelona recently I did what all visitors to the capital and largest city of Catalonia do, I visited a number of the works of Gaudi including the Basílica i Temple Expiatoride la Sagrada Família to give it its Sunday title.  

Seeing it was simply a joy.  Breathtaking.  It is big.  Yes, but it doesn’t make you feel small.  Quite the reverse, you almost feel part of the building.  The natural light, the shapes, the astonishing ability of Gaudi to make you feel at home.   

I contrast and compare that with a picture I saw on the news last night of the home of the European Court of Justice in Luxemburg. I’ve never seen a picture of it before, in spite of having referred to it on many an occasion.  It too is big.  But in a different way.  Its scale seems to deliberately be set to make you feel small, subservient, and even afraid.  Even the judges clad in their red robes looked positively insignificant in this vast chamber.  It makes you feel small and intimidated.    

Perhaps that is its purpose, unlike Gaudi’s la Sagrada Família which makes you feel alive and part of something.

Mrs Mays Brexit pitch?

Looks and sounds like it!