Economic recklessness.

Back in 2012, Geir Haarde, Iceland's former Prime Minister was found guilty of negligence over the country’s 2008 financial crisis.   

At the end of November 2017, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that his conviction over his handling of his country’s financial crisis was fair.   

Given Mrs May and Mr Hammond have been pushing the UK into a financial crisis since the referendum by allowing uncertainty to reign with an estimate subsequent economic hit of £800m per week according to of the Bank of England economist Jan Vlieghe, should Mrs May and Mr Hammond not be prosecuted for economic crimes against the state?     

It is not the prospect of leaving the EU under WTO terms that is causing the problem for businesses.  As the Bank of England’s own report stated, 80% of businesses are ready to leave on WTO. 

Contrast this to a Government that appears to have behaved with nothing short of economic recklessness.

Who is right? Ms Fairbairn, Director General, CBI or Mr Carney, Governor, Bank of England?

It was quite remarkable to hear Carolyn Fairbairn, Director General (sounds a bit of a pompous title in today’s world) of the Confederation of British Industry announce that only 4% of her Membership were ready for the so called no deal BREXIT.  Only 4%!  Good grief.  They have had almost three years to prepare yet 96% are not ready.  What an admission.  What have they been doing?  What kind of leaders have they got leading these so called important companies to the economy?   

The interesting thing is, the Bank of England reckon that 80% of UK businesses are ready to leave with the WTO alternative, also known as the cliff edge by Remainers.   

Ms Fairbairn’s statement bears no reality to the data from this wider survey which showed that around 80% of British businesses believe they are ready for a no deal Brexit as the Bank of England revealed that the economy is accelerating ahead of the UK's scheduled departure from the EU.     

Ms Fairbairn has been rebuked by one of her own Council Members, Simon Boyd, managing director of Reid Steel, a 100 year old business that should know what it is talking about you would have thought. They have been manufacturing and erecting large commercial buildings, aircraft hangars, grandstands, bridges, process plants, car parks and many other steel structures worldwide for over 90 years.  Impressive.

Mr Boyd said no deal was not a “cliff edge” for most companies.  “We should be leaving on Friday night under WTO terms with all the side deals.  It is not BREXIT that has caused the damage to British business but the political classes.  There is no cliff edge, no crashing out.  Some will have to make adjustments but the majority of British businesses will be unaffected.”  Well said that man man from the productive side of the UK economy.

The Promise.

“Ultimately it will be the judgement of the British people in the referendum that I promised and that I will deliver.  You will have to judge what is best for you and your family, for your children and grandchildren, for our country, for our future.  It will be your decision whether to remain in the EU on the basis of the reforms we secure, or whether we leave.  Your decision.  Nobody else’s.  Not politicians’.  Not Parliament’s.  Not lobby groups’.  Not mine.  Just you.  You, the British people, will decide.  And it will be the final decision.”   

I think David Cameron was pretty clear what the referendum was all about.  I hope he now takes time to remind Mrs May the promise he made to the people of the UK.  No betrayal.  No dereliction of duty.

So why has Mrs May instructed Mark Sedwill, the Cabinet Secretary, to tell the civil service to "wind down" worst-case scenario no-deal planning after the European Union imposed a further six-month Brexit delay?   Surely she should be instructing quite the opposite.

Crispin Blunt, MP, said the end of no-deal planning represented a "complete betrayal" of the referendum and described the move as a "dereliction of duty".   

Whether you are a Remainer or Leaver, if you are a democrat, he’s right.

Leaving a Burger King. Easy, isn't it?

If it walks like a duck and sounds like a duck, then it probably is a duck.

What does a nation look like?   

Well, it has quite a few things about it that we would recognise.  Like a parliament that makes law for all its subjects.  Like a judiciary that interprets law.  Like a head of state.  Like an anthem.  Like a flag.  Yes, I think we can all agree these are the obvious symbols of a nation.   

I’m sure it hasn’t escaped your notice that the EU has all of these already.       

How about trade.  No sovereign nation has internal tariff barriers.  Every sovereign nation has freedom of movement within its borders.  And what sovereign state wouldn’t be without its own judicial system.   Well, that is the arrangement Remainers want us to be in with the EU.  Quite the opposite of the SNPs cry that we should be a nation again.  Quite the reveres.  The EU is the nation in this scenario and Scotland is nothing more than a town council, to use Rt Hon Ken Clarkes words. It that really what Ms Sturgeon is fighting for?

So when those Remainers call for freedom of movement and a customs union, they are not arguing for some misty eyed wonderful soft cuddly deal. They are arguing pure and simple for a European super state.  Some of the Remainers realise that.  Most I suspect don’t.    

So while it’s true that no one is saying "We want a European super state" and asking the people "do you approve?", the very mechanisms of that state are being daily created and put into place by the European Commission sided and abetted by the European Court of Justice.   

Now you may think a European super state is a good thing.  And that is a legitimate debate to have.  But creating a super state without specifically asking the people of the states that are within the emerging super state is clearly unacceptable.   

The inconvenient truth is that on 23rd of June 2016 by a majority of 1,269,501, a 4% gap, the people of the UK voted to leave the EU and all its super state pretentions. 

All smiles when abroad.

I don’t know if you have noticed it over the last two days?  Mrs May pictured with the French president.  And the German chancellor.  Notice anything?   

Well, let me put you out of your misery.  They are all smiles.  Kisses to the cheeks.  Arms round each other.  She really looks like she is amongst friends.  And clearly she is.  For te smile in the knowledge that their and the EU’s victory, I really can’t think of any other word for it, in the war to keep the UK shackled to the EU has almost been won.

Back here in the UK her face tells a different story.  She’s clearly feels she is not amongst friends here.  Indeed, she sees people who simply believe that she has got “her” deal badly wrong as the enemy.   

Of course, we know it’s the EUs deal not hers.  She’s just the one making it happen.

Saying different things to different people

Oh dear oh dear.   

“Theresa May has been making a habit of saying different things – sometimes diametrically opposite things – to different people in her increasingly strident attempts to bludgeon down resistance against her toxic Withdrawal Agreement. 

To Remainers she has been saying that voting against her deal will lead to a no-deal exit; while at the same time telling Brexit supporters that voting against her deal will lead to no Brexit, or at least to a long extension.        

The latest example of this kind of tactic came when (The Times, 5 April 2019):     Senior ministers told their Labour counterparts yesterday that Theresa May’s Brexit deal with the European Union already includes a customs union ‘in all but name’.”     

This is the very same deal which Theresa May has spent the last few months assuring Brexit supporters would not require the UK to be in a customs union with the EU and would allow the UK to pursue an independent trade policy.       

It is this persistent but transparent duplicity – transparent in the sense that a 2-year old child could see through it – which has destroyed the credibility of the Prime Minister and eliminated any trust in her on the part of her country, her Party, or for that matter the EU leaders which whom she tries to negotiate.

So which is right?”  Read the whole article by Martin Howe, QC, here.

Criminal!

Isn’t it odd.  Our European partners respect the result of the referendum.   Our choice they say.  They may not think we have voted the right way but “that’s your funeral”.  

Indeed, as we now know, not only do they respect the result, they are ready to implement it.  We are being told time and time again by Michel Barnier, Donald Tusk, Jean-Claude Juncker and Guy Verhofstadt that the EU, as an institution, is ready for the UK to leave without a Withdrawal Agreement.   

And individual countries of the EU respect the vote too.  Interestingly The Guardian reports that France, Spain and Belgium are “ready for no-deal Brexit next week”.    

It seems the only people who don’t respect the outcome of the biggest plebiscite this nation has ever seen are those who lost it.  Well, that’s not quite true.  Not all Remainers are so disrespectful of those who voted Leave.  It is just a small militant cabal.   

So the EU respects our vote.  Nations of the EU respect our vote.  Most Remainers respect our vote.   

Today’s big question for Mrs May and Mr Hammond is, if the EU are well prepeared for us to leave without a Withdrawal Agreement and so are the individual nations of the EU, are we?  I assume we are even though the government won’t admit it so that we are kept in fear.  

 But if we are not ready, after nearly three years, and every other EU institution and nation is, what have Mrs May and Hammond been doing all that time?  If nothing, that’s criminal.

Stupid people.

Charles Moore helpfully reminds us in an article in The Spectator of what happened nearly three years ago.    

A question was asked of the people.  MPs had decided that this was too big a question for them to decide.  So they decided to ask the people to decide. A referendum was called.   

The question that was put, argues Moore, was a classic example of something which is simple but not easy.  The question?  ‘Do you want to be ruled by those you can choose, or by those you can’t choose?’   

Ok, the actual words used were different.  But that is what the question was.  Voters understood this, and gave a clear answer.   

Of course, clever people keep complicating it now after the event by suggesting that the actual wording of the question was ambiguous.  "What did remain or leave actually mean?" they whine.   Then the ridiculous word BREXIT appeared.  Soft Brexit or hard Brexit.  All there to add confusion.  Make the “stupid” people feel even more stupid.   

At the end of the day we the people are the losers now.  No matter how you voted.  Why?  Because the Remainers who could not stomach the result the ballot box provided have poisoned the political discourse by constantly seeking to undermine the democratic wish of the “stupid people”.    

And with that went trust. 

Who makes our laws?

According to BBC Factfinder, if you count all EU regulations, EU-related Acts of Parliament, and EU-related Statutory Instruments, about 62% of laws introduced between 1993 and 2014 that apply in the UK implemented EU obligations.    

So can we expect that the MPs who vote to keep and further expand such control by the EU will have their salaries reduced by the same percentage as they will clearly not be doing what we send MPs to Westminster to do?   

Make our laws.

Well, well, well

So Mrs May says we will be out of the EU and not contesting the EU elections?  Aye, right. 

From documents dated March 2019 it looks like the government are well prepared after all.  For the EU elections!!!! 

“This document applies only to the 23 May 2019 European Parliamentary elections in Great Britain. Our guidance and resources for all other elections can be accessed from our website at:   http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/i-am-a/candidate-or-agent.   

And:  http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0020/163523/EPE-Part-1-Can-you-stand-for-election.pdf    

All this is rather odd because only on the 1st of April we had Rt Hon David Lidington writing to the Electoral Commission confirming spending arrangements in preparation for an election that may not happen.  

It seems the government are happy to spend money on an election that may not happen while the chancellor, Mr Hammond, was extremely reluctant to spend money to prepare to leave the EU. 

How to negotiate, Mrs May.

Say what you like about Mr Corbyn, he knows how to negotiate.   

Unlike Mrs May who gave away all the best cards right at the start of her so called negotiations with the EU, (though remember we didn’t ask her to negotiate anything, just implement the result of the referendum), Mr Corbyn shows he knows how to do it.  He is not giving away his best cards.  Far from it.  Responding to Mrs May's statement, the Labour leader says he's happy to meet the Prime Minister.   

However, the sting was in his negotiating strategy.  "We hold in reserve our right to bring a motion of no confidence in the government if it proves it is incapable of commanding a majority in the Commons: time will tell on that." he said.   

That is how to negotiate Mrs May!

Facts. Not Fiction. Lessons for 1st of April.

Don't you ever wonder why we are right to reject Theresa May’s deal?  And Mrs Mays Withdrawal Agreement ever comes back to the floor of the House, why is right to reject it again?  Well, to help you in here are 7 reasons from the highly respected QC, Martin Howe.  He has a particular expertise in heavy technological cases, such as the internet, computers and IT, broadcasting and telecommunications technology, and biotech and pharmaceuticals.  In other words, he knows what he is talking about, particularly on issues like trade and the EU.  So he is well worth listening to.

1.   A new leader of the Conservative Party (“Superleader”) will not be able to escape by skill or strength of purpose from the fatal restrictions of this deal.

2. The Political Declaration has legal effects because the WA requires the UK as well as the EU to negotiate an agreement in line with it.  It will not be possible for the UK to insist on negotiating a future relationship deal which contradicts the PD.

3.  The PD is clearly incompatible with negotiating a Canada-style FTA with the EU. In the real world, it is only compatible with a customs union and the UK would be forced into one as part of the long term deal.

4. Even Superleader would not be able to escape from the fatal undermining of the UK’s negotiating position once the deal becomes legally binding.  We would be led into a false Brexit in which the benefits of leaving the EU would be sacrificed.

5. Ideas of a future government just busting out of a binding international treaty are fantasies.

6. The deal betrays Northern Ireland and the Union and those who now support it on “pragmatic” grounds risk being complicit in that betrayal.  Why should anyone have confidence that a future Superleader will not concentrate very limited negotiating capital on extracting Great Britain from the backstop and leave Northern Ireland behind?

7.  Fear of the alternatives is a valid point, but the deal leads to a customs union anyway, so what is there to be lost?  If resistance to the deal leads to a long Article 50 extension, that is still miles better for the UK than the deal.

Those who resisted and defeated the deal for the third time were right in principle, but importantly they were also right pragmatically. If it is brought back again, it should be defeated again, in the national interest. 
  
You can read the full article at Lawyers for Britain.