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.

Help needed, I’m not winning the argument.

It really is quite extraordinary.  We have our prime minister inviting leaders of other countries to intervene in a debate that the people of the UK are having.

To me this suggests two things.  First of all, people like Angela Merkel think that they know what is best for UK citizens and effectively is telling us so.  Bit of a slap in the face would you not say to all these UK citizens who have taken the trouble to work out the issues and then decide, either for or against Leaving. But no, she knows best and intervenes in an internal UK issue.  Would she like us to intervene in the next elections in Germany, because the outcome could affect the UK?  No, I don’t think she would like that.

But there is something else.  For our prime minster to call on the help of the German Chancellor is quite remarkable.  He is saying, “I’ve not got any arguments to convince you, but here’s Angela, let’s let her try.”   

When you think about it for more than a few seconds the contempt that our prime minister is holding the UK electorate in is quite something.

The tide has turned.

Well, today was the day the tide turned.

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

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

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

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

It's all Greek to me.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The bar is set too low.

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

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

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

Who do you believe?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bit of an easy one that would you not say?

Living by numbers.

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

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

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

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

The SNP said independence would create 200,000 jobs.

Brown says staying will create 500,000 jobs.

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

Obama recons he created 12,800,000 jobs.

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

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

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

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

The cry wolf chancellor.

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

Go on, guess.

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

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

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

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

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

Prices going down is bad for consumers, apparently.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dear old George really must think we are mugs.

Turkey on the menu.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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