MPs have let down businesses.

In what has become the rather predictable style of BBC News, a headline on its web site today asks the somewhat provocative question, “How has business been affected by Brexit so far?”.   The implication in the article by Dharshini David, a BBC Economics correspondent, is that of negativity by business leaders to leaving the EU.   

Which when you think of it for more than a second is the wrong question for him to ask for one very obvious reason, we haven’t left the EU.  Brexit hasn’t happened.   

What is happening is not business leaders reacting to us leaving.  Most sensible business leaders accepted the will of the people and got on with getting their business ready for life outside the EU, the single market, the customs union, the rule of the ECJ over all they do and all the other things that make up the package countries would have to accept if they were to join the EU today.  Indeed, one business I know, within six month of the referendum, was ready to begin trading on the WTO rules.  He contacted his suppliers and customers and worked out what would happen if the EU didn’t come up with a deal as good as WTO, a deal free from ECJ control etc.  It was actually all relatively easy.   

Their frustration is not us leaving the EU.  What these business leaders who did the preparation can’t understand is why the government and the opposition parties have taken so long.  They believed that the peoples vote would be respected and prepared for that.  They are frustrated that MPs having asked the people to take the decision whether to leave are now effectively over turning it.  

In other words, sensible businesses that have prepared for leaving have done so on a false expectation.  They assumed that my word is my bond.  They assumed that triggering Article 50, an Act of Parliament, which explicitly states we leave on a particular date and move to an alternative to EU rules, was for real.   

However, it looks increasingly like their effort was a waste of time.   

What really sticks in their craw is that the very same MPs who voted to give the decision to the people and who triggered Article 50, are now undermining the whole thing.  In the real world they would be sued for breach of contract.

Patronising scare stories about trade gridlock under WTO rules don’t stand up to scrutiny.

If you want to know the truth about trade talk to a business owner who deals in the real world. 

Which is why what Alastair MacMillan has to say in an article on BrexitCentral today is so important.  

Every MP who genuinely seeks wisdom on this subject should read it.   

How to put off customers. Create a queue.

You do wonder sometimes what parallel universe ardent Remainers live in.   

The current scare story reported in the London Evening Standard suggests the European Commission have decreed that UK citizens will no longer be allowed to use lanes allocated for citizens of EU or European Economic Area countries.  So expect queues to form at what is usually a single customs desk at some airports while empty desks sit for non-existent travellers.   

What a nice way to welcome someone to your country who you hope are going to spend lots of money.   

But Portugal, a nation that really needs UK pounds spent within its borders to help its struggling economy has immediately come up with a solution, encouraged no doubt by all the businesses that could suffer if such childish controls were really introduced.    They have announced that they will introduce special passport lanes for British tourists at Faro and Funchal airports.  No wait, no problem.   

Until Brussels intervenes that is.  

EU member states are reminded they could not unilaterally be able to relax rules imposed by Brussels.   

So once again, the truth is out there.  The EU really only want to do one thing.  To punish the UK for having had the temerity to have a free vote that produced a decision to leave the European Union.  And in punishing UK travellers they also punish the poor Portuguese who desperately need tourist income.  Not that the EU seems to care.

Same old threats from Remainers. You think they would at least update the script.

So Airbus once again threatens to stop dealing with the UK after we leave the EU.    Like they have done before.

But, hang on a minute, is this the same Airbus that has a factory in the USA and since 1990, has spent some $200 billion dollars with hundreds of U.S. suppliers – $48 billion in the last three years alone.    I don’t recall the USA being in the EU.   Airbus opened its first commercial aircraft production site in the United States in 2015.  The U.S. Manufacturing Facility, in Mobile, Alabama, produces A319s, A320s and A321s.   

Not only that, Airbus has identified global sourcing as one of its long-term objectives and aims to source 40% outside Western Europe and the U.S. by 2020.   So sourcing outside the closed club that is the EU is something they positively encourage.  Except when it come to the naughty UK.

So the stories about Brexit are laughable at best, or at worst, deliberate industrial sabotage by Remainers.   

But here is the worst thing about it.  It’s not for commercial reasons they are giving the warning.  The reason for the Airbus message is clear.  Punishment.   

They gave the game away when Tom Enders, the Airbus chief executive, said “Of course, it is not possible to pick up and move our large UK factories to other parts of the world immediately”.  So they have no problem dealing with countries that are not part of the EU and would indeed seek to move stuff from the UK to these countries.  It’s just they have a problem with dealing with a country whose people have voted to leave the EU.   

However there is one thing I suspect we would all agree with Mr Enders on.  He said it was a "disgrace" that businesses could still not plan for Brexit.. How true.  And we have no one to blame but those who seek to frustrate the will of the people.  

Why are Remainers are so desperate to keep us in and organisation that is rotten to the core?

What are Remainers really wanting? Political Union.

“It’s the economy stupid”, words often attributed to Bill Clinton.  But in fact they were coined by James Carville who was a campaign strategist of Bill Clinton's in 1992s presidential campaign against sitting president George H. W. Bush.  It worked.    

But the case of the UK leaving the EU, it’s not about the economy.  The idea that the UK will somehow be worse off was finally buried in the snow of Davos by Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development chief Jose Angel Gurría being very relaxed with the idea of  a no-deal with the EU Brexit.  He was pretty emphatic:  “A no deal, WTO rules…the whole world is running by WTO rules these days!”. In other words, why would the UK not want to be on WTO like most of the rest of the world.    

One can hardly get a more senior figure in the world on trade saying don't worry, WTO is not a cliff edge.  And as Brian Monteith, director of communications at Global Britain reminded us in yesterdays CityAM, despite apocalyptic Brexit warnings, the good news keeps on coming.

And even the process of leaving the EU and entering the big wide world will be relatively smooth according to John Manzoni the chief executive of the Civil Service who said they will “not be completely prepared” for a no deal Brexit.   

“Not completely” is the key suggesting they are mostly prepared.  So a bit bumpy?  Yes.  But a catastrophe?  Don’t be daft.  Or as one anonymous but well placed Civil Servant wrote: "Very detailed plans have been proposed, assessed, analysed to death and finally agreed".

Those MPs who keep talking about crashing out are the ones in fantasy land.  Mind you, the damage they are causing is significant.  No wonder people like James Dyson are looking around the globe and asking, is the UK really serious about being a global player?    The way MPs are behaving it sure doesn't look like it.

So, what are Remainers really wanting?  Well, they want to stay in the political European Union.  With all that comes with staying in it.  Let them be a bit more open and honest why they want to stay.  People might even agree with them.  But their constant negativity and misrepresentation of the reality of leaving the EU without a deal with the EU is really getting beyond a joke.

Brexit : les secrets d'un bras de fer historique.

“J’aurais réussi ma mission si, à la fin, le deal est tellement dur pour les Britanniques qu’ils préféront rester dans l’Union.”   

If you look back in the annals of the French current affairs weekly LePoint, in the 28^th November 2018 edition you will see these words attributed to Michel Barnier, the EU’s chief Brexit negotiator, spoken to EU leaders in 2016 after the UK referendum.   

The article adds that most of the leaders in the room shared his view, as well as the words of Jean-Claude Juncker, who said that Brexit must be a form of “punishment” for (these) deserters.  Not the sort of people you want to be your friends.   

Why are Remainers so blind to the reality of the EU and so keen to stay in the EU when this is their behaviour pattern? 

John Curtice speaks.

So, the people want second referendum?  Well, that all depends who you ask.  And what you ask.   

But when the most authoritative voice of reason, John Curtice, Professor of Politics at Strathclyde University, and Senior Research Fellow at NatCen Social Research speaks, people listen.  Or at least you hope they will.   

And what has he had to say today?   Well, nothing particularly surprising in one sense.   

When Leave supporters were asked whether there should be another referendum on the principle of Brexit, only one in eight are in favour.  

In contrast around two-thirds of Remain voters want a second referendum, irrespective of how the question is asked.    

So, either way, the popularity of a second vote is clearly largely confined to those who wish to reverse Brexit.  No surprise there then.  So when remain Campaigners claim 'the people' want a second referendum, but that's not what the polls say.   

So I suppose the second non surprise is that Remainers keep pedalling their propaganda that people want a 2^nd referendum.  Remainers do.  Voters don’t.

Not sure we will see this on the BBC any time soon.

Testing public opinion.

So this morning’s big story is a threat by Amber Rudd with her warning that up to 40 ministers could quit the Government if they are blocked from backing a Brexit delay plan.   

Why stop at resigning from the government I would say?  Resigning as an MP and calling a by-election would be more appropriate given they constantly go on about a 2^nd referendum being needed to test public opinion.  

No, I don’t think they will either.

The Electoral Commission said the Referendum question was "straightforward".

We live in a representative democracy.  That means every time we vote at an election we are giving those who are elected the task and privilege of representing us.  For the period of office, they try and represent us as best they can by taking decisions and implementing laws.  It’s not perfect but it works remarkably well.  And everyone knows that in four years or however long the term they are elected for will come to an end and they will have to stand for re-election.   

But sometimes decisions are so big, so profound, that those we elect wisely come back to us and say, “We can’t take this decision, it’s too big, too long lasting, it’s for keeps”.  And in their wisdom they say to the people who elected them in the first place, you decide.    

So parliament, including Yvette Cooper, voted for a referendum.  And once the decision was taken by the people, parliament said it would implement it.  Indeed, MPs like Yvette Cooper voted to trigger Article 50 which officially set the clock ticking for us to leave the EU.   

So it was rather difficult listening to her negativity on BBC Radio 4 this morning as she presented a totally adjective filled negative approach.  Not once did she acknowledge the peoples vote of 2016.   Instead she posed the question over “The kind of Brexit people want” .  

Which is rather odd as Yvette Cooper voted for the words on the ballot paper which asked the question which provided a very clear answer that she seems to have completely forgotten about.    

The question that appeared on ballot paper in the referendum under the Act was:  “Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?” with the responses to the question to be (to be marked with a single (X)): Remain a member of the European Union or Leave the European Union.  You really can't get clearer than that.

How do we know that?  Because the Electoral Commission confirmed that its recommended question "was clear and straightforward for voters, and was the most neutral wording from the range of options ... considered and tested".

Most of our trade already is on WTO. There is no cliff edge.

There are two battles going on at the moment. 

The first is that being fought by those who believe in the European Project.  The steady move towards a United State of Europe.  The European army.  A single currency.  A single foreign policy.  A single tax system.  

People like the Liberal Democrats think this is the way to go.  And while I disagree with that direction of travel, it is right we should have the debate about that.  We should decide if that is the way we want to go.  That was the purpose of the Referendum.  To decide if we want this to be the direction of travel.  Or not.   

The people decided that was not where they wanted to go when faced with the two options on the ballot paper.  That was, do you want to remain part of the EU or leave the EU.  And people voted to leave.  But the Liberal Democrats didn’t like the result and think the people got it wrong and are keeping up this battle.  

The second battle is by those who are either deliberately or by ignorance re interpreting what was on the ballot paper.  They use explosive language.  They talk of crashing out.  They talk of disaster.  They conjure up scenarios of doom from the ports closing to ships across the Channel to flights not flying.   

But ask any of them to specify exactly why leaving the EU with WTO terms they are stumped.  Yes, they come up with the slogans.  But I have yet to find a single person who can actually explain why companies like JCB who already do about 70% of their trade on WTO terms are going to be worse off with everything being done on WTO.   

The reality is, they can’t. 

MPs in denial over what they actually voted for in massive numbers.

There are three important dates in recent history that MPs must reflect on in the days ahead.       

On 9 June 2015 MPs decided by 544 to 53 votes that the sovereignty granted by the people to parliament to take decisions on their behalf be returned to the people for one specific task: to take a decision on the question, Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?.     

On June 2016 there was a referendum, a peoples vote if you wish.  The result was 17,410,742 voted leave, 16,141,241 voted remain .  Every vote counted.  And to paraphrase the late Lord Ashdown, a true democrat to the last said, “one vote is enough”.     

 On 29 March 2017 MPs, having asked the people for their decision, took the formal step of voted to trigger Article 50.  Article 50 specifically states the date we will leave the EU, with or without a deal with the EU in place.  If no deal is in place, we leave with no deal.  That is exactly what MPs voted for.  That was approved by MPs when they voted by 498 to 114 to trigger Article 50.    

So far so good.   

But many of these same MPs are now challenging the result of the referendum by demanding a second peoples vote.  And many demand the revoking or extending of Article 50, the legislation they voted for in such overwhelming numbers.    

That these MPs are so dismissive, not just of the people who voted leave, but also of themselves and the decisions they took, suggests that some people who sit on the green benches are neither democrats nor parliamentarians. 

Why WTO makes legal sense.

Leaving the European Union without a Withdrawal Agreement under Article 50 is not a step into a legal vacuum. Still less does it amount to going over any kind of “cliff edge”.     

What happens is that our international trade with the European Union will become subject to the same legal regime which currently governs the majority of our export trade to the rest of the world. That is trade under the World Trade Organisation rules-based system.     

The three key elements of the WTO system that will affect our post-Brexit trade with the EU are its rules on tariffs, its rules on non-tariff regulatory barriers to trade and its rules on the facilitation of customs procedures.     

The WTO’s rules on tariffs allow members to charge tariffs on imported goods up to certain limits, but, subject to limited exceptions, any tariffs must be imposed equally on goods from all countries – the so-called Most Favoured Nation (MFN) principle. The EU will therefore impose its standard external tariffs on goods imported from the UK, unless and until a future free trade agreement or interim agreement leading to an FTA is agreed.      

This is not a big deal. These tariffs will come to £5-6 billion per year, less than half the UK’s current net budget contribution to the EU.     

The UK will be obliged to charge the same level of tariffs on imports from the EU as it does on imports from the rest of the world. But, contrary to much ill-informed comment, the UK is not required to charge the same tariffs on its imports as it currently charges under the EU-mandated Common External Tariff. We will be free to charge lower tariffs, or zero tariffs, as we judge appropriate, so lowering the cost of basics in household budgets.      

The WTO agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade will require the EU to recognise UK-based goods certification procedures and allow entry to the EU Single Market for UK goods which comply with UK rules until such time as they are changed to become different from the EU’s rules.  At the same time, the Withdrawal Act mandates that the UK shall continue to recognise EU rules and EU certifications on goods unless and until this is changed by secondary legislation.  This means for example that medicines made in the EU will continue to be recognised as conforming to the UK’s import rules and arguments that there will be shortages are pure mythology.      

The WTO Trade Facilitation Agreement will apply to smooth customs procedures between the UK and the EU. It mandates for example electronic pre-clearance of imported goods, avoiding the need for physical inspections at the point of entry except in exceptional circumstances.     

In an ideal world, we would progress forward to a full Free Trade Agreement with the EU. But there is no need to rush it – our trade relations with the EU will operate just fine under WTO rules for as long as necessary.

The above is an extract from Economists for Free Trade’s new report, No Deal is the Best Deal for Britain.

Vote again. Or else. A story of our times.

Imagine if, following the election of Barack Obama by 52.9% of American voters, the Republican party, which got just 45.7% of votes, demanded another election. 

Imagine if the Republicans described Obama's victory as a "triumph of ignorance" – brought about by an "unspeakable" and "ignorant" mass of people who should have been "swatted away by the forces of the establishment" – and insisted on holding a second vote so that, this time, the voters could "get it right". 

There would have been uproar, outrage, widespread disgust at such elite disdain for the democratic process.  

Well it did happen, back in 2008. Back then in Ireland it was just like today in the UK.  The people voted.  And the political class didn’t like it so set about seeking to overturn the vote.  We know that Irish were told to vote again.   And to get the right answer this time.

As Brendan O’Neill wrote in the Guardian on Saturday 13^th December 2008: “EU officials' (met) behind-doors deal to force a second referendum in Ireland reveals their utter contempt for Irish voters, and for democracy itself.  It is an historic sucker punch against the sovereignty of the people.”   

And Mr O'Neill went on:  “It was widely claimed that the Irish simply didnt understand  the treaty, and may have been confused by its "technocratic, near incomprehensible language" (well, they are ignorant Paddies, after all).  Some claimed that the Irish mistakenly, possibly even illegitimately, had used the referendum to register disgruntlement with their own ruling parties.  Margot Wallström, vice-president of the European Commission, said officials should try to "work out what the Irish people had really been voting against".  I would have thought that was obvious: they were handed the Lisbon treaty; they said no to it.”   

It sounds like the EU and the pro EU project people haven’t even bothered to alter or update the script from 2008.  Basically they think that Ireland voted to reject Lisbon and the UK voted to leave the EU because we are stupid.

And the language is the same.  Back when France rejected Lisbon Andrew Duff, Liberal Democrat MEP, labelled the "rejectionists",  as an "odd bunch of racists, xenophobes, nationalists, communists, the disappointed centre left and the generally pissed off".   He even asked whether it was wise to "submit the EU Constitution to a lottery of uncoordinated national plebiscites".   

Plus ça change!  

I'm with the farmers. Let's get out.

Forget Theresa May's deal and leave on WTO terms, a dozen ex-Conservative ministers urge MPs.  So went a headline on today’s Telegraph.   

And why not.  Any rational economist knows that leaving on WTO will not be a disaster.  Far from it.  It is how the world trades.  We will just be joining international trade free from EU control.  Just as every rational economist knows that leaving the EU will not the utopia land of milk and honey with unimaginable riches. There is the small matter of the EU recognising that under WTO they will have to let us trade freely and unhindered with the EU has to be dealt with.  But in reality there is no such thing as a cliff edge. Never has been.

In trade terms there will be a hiccup while political leaders catch up with businesses who will find ways around any barriers to trade that politicians either side of the Straights of Dover may wish to erect.  Businesses want to trade.  Politicians want to control.  

So it is perhaps no surprise that a group of pretty serious sized farming operations who export hundreds of millions of pounds of agricultural produce to and from the EU warn in a letter to Monday's Daily Telegraph that Mrs May's deal could leave the UK “in limbo for many, many years with damaging uncertainty”.     

They say: “We must have the confidence to be ready to leave on WTO terms”.   They continue: "A managed WTO Brexit may give rise to some short-term inconvenience and disruption, but the much greater risks arise from being locked into a very bad deal.  A managed WTO Brexit will end business and political uncertainty more quickly than any other option.”   

Know what, I’d trust their judgement more than I would Mrs Mays.  She has never run or worked in a business in the productive sector.  As anyone who owns their own business will tell you, they are putting their house on the line every day.  It’s risky running a business.  You could lose everything just because someone doesn’t pay you on time.   

So when it comes to calculation risk, I’m with the farmers.

Doesn’t look good.

So police arrest a man today.  Not for just anything.  But for shouting abuse at an MP, Anna Soubry.  No physical assault.   Just shouting.  But they now dress it up as a public order offence. 

A few weeks ago a man shouted abuse at Mr Rees-Mogg.  On the pavement outside his house.  In other words in a public place.  Indeed, not just at him but his children and their mother.  With a police man but a few feet away who witnessed the whole event.   Arrests?  Er, none.   

It does sound and feel rather uncomfortable.  It seems it’s ok to fire abuse at a child.  But not a grown MP.   

I wonder if it has dawned on anyone in the Metropolitan police what this looks like?  It’s ok to give verbal abuse to children of a Leave supporter.  But not ok to give verbal abuse to Remain politician who is well capable of looking after herself and often has dished out as good as she gets.   

Doesn’t look good.

What did MPs vote for when they enabled Article 50? A better option called WTO.

Do Remain supporting MPs understand what, by voting with a very large majority to enact Article 50, they actually voted for?  I suspect not.

When you read what Parliament approved it was that we leave the EU with No Deal with the EU. That is what MPs voted for.

The only circumstances where it would be different from that would be if the EU itself came up with something better than WTO terms which, as you know, accounts for over 90 % of all global trade.

So the vote to enact Article 50, which received royal assent on 16 March 2017, meant it is WTO terms we will be enjoying as of 11pm UK time on Friday, 29th March 2019.  

Unless the EU, not the UK, comes up with something demonstrably better than WTO terms and to fulfil the mandate given by the people to Parliament, does not hold us to rules or overseen by any EU institution such as the ECJ, leave with the WTO deal that is on the table we must.   MPs voted for it.  And as David Colins, Professor of Internatinal Economic Law at City Universtiy Lonndon explains in an article entilted, Why a no-deal Brexit is nothing to fear:  A viable alternative to an EU trade deal is ready and waiting. "With the WTO option as an entirely acceptable, workable alternative to a trade deal, the UK is truly in a position to walk away.  And that’s a good place to be."

So why is it the UK that is scrabbling around trying to cobble a deal together at the last minute?  No, I don't know either. 

Europe is forming an army

Deal or No Deal.  Noel Edmonds would be revelling in it all.   

But what does it mean?  So much focus has been made on trade.  What will happen at La Manche?  Well, nothing really, as Calais port authorities have said.  They are ready for whatever happens. Mr Jean-Marc Puissesseau made the remarks on BBC Radio 4’s Today programme earlier this week. “We have heard so many things about a hard Brexit. We have been preparing for no-deal for a year in Calais.  For the 29th March, we will be ready.  When the transport minister came to Calais, we told him we would be ready.  We will not check trucks more than we are today with the migrants.  The only thing we will be asking for is the customs declaration but we will not stop or ask more than we are doing today.”

 
That sounds pretty straightforward an answer from the man who controls the port of Calais. Unless politicians want to deliberately make it difficult.

Exporting?  Well, no issue there either.  Just ask the head of the WTO.  So why is all this fuss being made about getting a deal with the EU?   

And the answer is remarkably simple.  Basically Remainers don’t want to leave a political union.  And they throw a smokescreen  of trade uncertainty up to mask their real objectives.  And that is to keep us in a political union with all that entails. Harmonised tax policy, controlled by the EU.  

Same with foreign policy.  

Same with the military.  Remainers real goal is set out for them in German newspaper Handelsblatt in an article entitled “Europe is forming an army”.  Germany’s defence minister Ursula von der Leyen is pretty clear, and she has, in the process, hammered another nail in the Remainers referendum lie that the idea of an EU army was a fantasy.  A “dangerous fantasy” as the LibDems Nick Clegg (50 sec in) disingenuously called it.   

Turns it’s a dangerous reality…

Calling people names.

“A rump of hard right, hard Brexiteers. They should have been booted out by previous leaders. They behave appallingly and only represent themselves and their warped ideology. They need to get a life but they don’t have lives because they’re obsessed with Europe.” In other words, the people who actually support the vote of 17,410,742 people are the bad guys.  It’s all their fault.   

“We reckon that overall 52% voted to leave, but the 48% who voted to remain have been put to one side in this process and ignored. That has to stop. We have to come back together and we have to do the right thing.”  In other words, democratic votes are a waste of time.  The will of the people should be put aside to accommodate those who lost the vote.    If that be the case, should an MP stand aside as they only received 1.5% more of the vote in the 2017 general election than the candidate in 2nd place?  Indeed, in our first past the post system, what if they didn’t even get a majority of the votes cast garnering only 48.2% of votes cast.    

“The problem is they all look and sound like mini Moggs.”  In other words, I can insult you. Given the distinctive physical and vocal features of Mr Rees-Mogg, it’s clear they are ok to insult.  But don’t insult me back seems to be the theme. 

“Frankly racist”.  In other words, if you don’t agree with me, I can call you names.   

Ms Anna Soubry, MP, doesn’t the best of records when it comes to calling names.  Just contrast her with Ms Caroline Flint, MP.

.

Facts. Facts. Facts.

What is the City Momentum Index?  Well, put simply, it is an index that covers 131 major established and emerging markets and tracks a broad range of factors to identify cities that have the strongest short-term socio-economic and commercial real estate momentum, and those that have the future-proofing capacity for longer-term success.   

So with all the government and CBI et al and their efforts to undermine an exit that allows the UK to break free from the uncompetitive EU, London will be no doubt suffering in its position on the index.  Won't it?  

Well, surprise surprise, in the top ten of cities that are in Future Proofing: Top 30 Global cites, there is little old London Town.  At number 4 after San Francisco, Silicon Valley and New York. It's a report one shouldn't take lightly given its by one of the most respected world leaders in real estate, Jones Lang La Salle.

Just compare those like JLL who have a UK base who take a facts based analysis rather than the route taken by hysterical people like Dame Caroline Spelman, the coordinator of a letter from 200 Remain MPs, who talk such nonsense about crashing out.  Their letter says a lot about those who are so focused on undermining the democracy of the UK.  They clearly think their 200 signatures are worth more than 17,410,742 who voted Leave.  Such is the out of touch arrogance that exists in the Westminster bubble.


Serious people who are on both sides of the debate gave up such language a long time ago.  Only those who want to thwart the largest democratic this nation has ever seen want to stop us becoming a truly global nation again.