It's bananas.

Typical BBC.   

Nick Triggle, the BBC Health correspondent, states in a headline in an article this morning that “Tax rises needed 'to prevent NHS misery'” makes them a slave to the Labour party.  If they had said, as Laura Kuenssberg, BBC political editor carefully did in a report this morning on the Today programme, that spending needs to rise, that would have been ok.  Subtle but very important difference.

But the BBC has assumed it knows best and says the way to increase spending on the NHS is to increase taxes.  No it is not.  The other ways are, cut out the waste that already exists in the NHS.  And secondly, cut funding to other less important budgets and transfer the moment to the NHS.    

If you or I all of a sudden needed, for example, to eat more bananas than we did before, while continuing to eat the same amount of other food, we would look at all of our other spending and decide what we could cut back on so that we could have the bananas.  It might mean difficult decisions.  But I am sure none of us would take the decision to go out and rob someone for the price of the bananas. 

Only people like Sir Patrick should have the vote.

So actor Sir Patrick Stewart, who backs the campaign to stay in the EU, said that if people voted to reject the exit deal in a second referendum, the UK would "simply stay" in the EU.  For the record, one million, two hundred and sixty nine thousand, five hundred and one more citizens voted leave than voted remain.

If it had been the reverse at the vote in 2016 and we had been asked do you want to join the EU, there would have been no question as to the outcome if the vote had been Yes.  We would have voted to join all the institutions, the single currency and courts of the EU.  No cherry picking.  

It may have escaped his notice but the people of the UK voted to leave the EU.  That vote is over with.  And the two key things that came from that vote are, one we voted to leave the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice and two, we voted for our UK parliament to be sovereign over our laws.   

The only thing now to consider is what sort of relationship does the remainder of the EU want with the UK.   

Yes, perhaps people don’t like the result.  I often don’t like the result of elections.  But that doesn’t mean you can over turn it just because you don’t like it.   

People like Sir Patrick simply don’t believe in democracy.  They believe they know better than the majority who voted Leave.   

Putting it simply, they believe people who voted Leave are stupid and didn’t know what they were doing when they voted the wrong way.  On that basis we should only allow people like Sir Patrick to vote in elections and to be on juries at trials.  No one else will understand the complexities of the issues to be decided.

The problem with GPS.

Next week I’m going to a meeting in my local Town Hall to learn what NATS are planning to do to the flightpaths around Glasgow Airport.  Big changes to save fuel and pollution is their headline.  (Will our ticket prices be reduced if less fuel is used?  No, I don’t think so either.) 

Anyway, NATS Holdings, formerly National Air Traffic Services and commonly referred to as NATS, are the business that boasts of being the UK's leading provider of air traffic control services.  Each year they handle 2.4 million flights and 250 million passengers in UK airspace.   In addition to providing services to 14 UK airports, and managing all upper airspace in the UK, they provide services around the world spanning Europe, the Middle East, Asia and North America. So a big important business.  And big on keeping our skies safe.

So why is NATS going full steam ahead for GPS based systems?   

Reflect for a momnet back to last June when more than 20 ships on the Black Sea noticed something odd about their satellite-based navigation systems. Instead of being at sea the systems said they were actaully on land.  Instead of their true positions well away from Russia’s south-west border, each ship’s GPS placed it inland at Gelendzhik, a small airport terminal!  

Now, if ships can be miles away from where they thought they were, imagine a plane being disorientated. 

Remember the problems the USA navy has been experiencing with apparently invincible ships hitting commercial ones?  Then there was the US Navy plane that crashed into the ocean southeast of Okinawa, marking at least the sixth apparent accident involving a Navy asset in East Asian waters in 12 months.  

GPS being interfered with? 

One does wonder if our reliance on the ColdWar satellite technology is an accident waiting to happen.

One more thing Sir Vince.....

Too many older people who voted for Brexit were "driven by nostalgia" for a world where "faces were white" Sir Vince Cable also said today at his party conference. 

Maybe it’s just me, but that sounds awfully close to calling 17,410,742 Leave voters racists. 

Sir Vince believes he knows better than 17,410,742 voters.

The Lib Dem leader said today that the votes of the older generation had "crushed the hopes and aspirations of young people for years to come."  Quite hysterical language I dare to suggest. 

17,410,742  million people thought quite the opposite.  That free from the EU they will have greater chances in a bigger world.  His suggestion that because younger people voted to stay is easily countered by the notion that older people are wiser through years more experience and know how bad the EU is to those who transgress it.  See what they did to Greece, Italy and Ireland.

But clearly Sir Vince isn’t really a democrat.  He prefers to think his opinion is more important than a majority of the electorate.  Perhaps that is why his party is in such a state.

Foreign powers

Tony Blair, John Major and Jeremy Corbin.  Two former prime ministers and one who aspires to be pm.   

One does wonder if any are the agents of a foreign power such as the EU.

Does John Major despise the people of the UK? It looks like it.

So John Major thinks British people have “every right” to reverse a democratic vote with further referendum.  No Sir John, they don’t.   That option wasn't on the ballot paper.  

His words are all the more remarkable when you consider that when he thought the Remain camp had it in the bag, he said somthing rather different.   

“There will not be another referendum on Europe. This is it.”  Yip, Sir John Majors own words on 29^th May 2016.   

After he was elected to office I didn’t hear anyone say there should be a right to a second vote to try and oust the Conservatives from power.    

Nor when Tony Blairs government was elected.  What the people do have a right to is, at some time in the future, apply to re-join the EU.  

But that two former prime ministers should be so unwilling to accept the democratic will of the people of the UK is, to put it mildly, unsettling.

What's the point in voting?

If we had been voting on 23 June 2016 on the question “Do you want to join the EU”, there would have been no doubt that a Yes vote would mean we had to join the EU, no picking bits we liked and rejecting  other bits we didn’t.  That’s what happens when you vote in a democracy.   

So what’s so different when we vote to leave the EU?  We are told now by the Labour leader that leave doesn’t actually mean leave.   

Now that Labour, the Liberal Democrats, a number of Conservatives have given up any pretence they are democratic, can they explain to us how ordinary people whose democratic voice they have taken away are supposed to respond?    

One hardly needs to look far in time or distance to see the disasters that occur when the elite believe they know best.

Deal or No Deal.

I went to see Darkest Hour last night.  A most moving and revealing film about Churchill and, among others, Halifax.  It was a story of two ways to deal with a problem.  Negotiate or fight.   

The negotiators led by the persuasive Halifax felt that Hitler had the upper hand and to stand up to him would lead to more deaths.  We can get a negotiated settlement he intoned.  Hitler won’t be that bad to us if we negotiate now.  He will be fair.     

The other side, led by Churchill said, no, Hitler can’t be trusted.  We must fight.  One of the most remarkable scenes is (spoiler alert) when Churchill goes on the London Underground and meets real people.  They overwhelmingly say we must never give in to Hitler.  Never, never, never.  Did that really happen?  Probably not.  But Churchill must have taken "soundings", an early version of the focus groups the Blair government was so fond of.   So on one hand the professional politicians and military who wanted to go one way, and the people who wanted something else.  The people got their way.  And five years later it resulted in victory.    

While there is no comparison of the evil and wickedness of the Third Reich and the EU, it is almost like a parable.  On leaving the EU, politicians on one side say, let us negotiate a deal, I’m sure the EU will be generous and reasonable towards us, let’s trust them.   The other side says, let’s put markers in the sand, lines we will not cross.     

Clearly some people haven’t learned anything from history. As Churchill said, "you can't negotiate with a tiger when your head is in its mouth".

No cliff edge ahead.

When we leave the EU, the question is not trade deal or no trade deal.   

Only those who are either deliberately wanting to sink the only vote that mattered, the vote of the people of the UK that parliament itself set in train, or those who don’t understand how trade works, talk about that so called nightmare scenario.   

But that’s not the way it will be.  If we say our base line is WTO, if the EU cannot come up with a trade deal that is better than what we have under WTO, we go with WTO.   

We should now kick the ball back firmly in the court of the EU and say, we're going with WTO unless you can come up with a better deal.   

Simple.  

A final thought.  On the 29th of May 2019 we leave the EU.  That has already been voted on by parliament.  Unless there is a repeal Bill, and who would introduce that given parliament voted in favour of triggering Article 50, we’re out.

Keeping the poor, poor. It’s what the EU does so well.

You probably have never heard of Ahmed Shiaan.  He is the Maldives’ Ambassador to the UK.   Nice place he comes from you must be thinking.  And it is.  

But paradise comes with its own problems.  The EU causes him and his country problems.  The EU deliberately keeps the people in his country poor.    

EU protectionism has hampered their largest export, tuna, through a 24% tariff – unless, and here is the rub, it is to be processed in the EU.    

He explains how this has harmed economic development in the Maldives and expresses his hope for a Free Trade Agreement with the UK.  Oh yes, the EU generously offers the Maldives a 0% tariff on fresh tuna, provided it  destined for processing in the EU.  The “added value” is made up in the processing.  So by not allowing the import into the EU of tuna unless it is to be processed in the EU means the people of Maldives remain poor.  So the people of Maldives can’t ever get the opportunity to actually make money on the most profitable part of the tuna industry, the processing.   

I wrote about this before in relation to coffee.    

The EU is a protectionist club that destroys opportunity in some of the poorest nations in the world so that its people can make a fortune.    It is morally outrageous.  Yet that is exactly what he EU is doing in your name. 

The EU artificially creates the conditions to capture more of the value chain.  At the same time, it stymies the development of canning facilities in the Maldives by encouraging raw export.  The long-term consequences of this is a lack of development. 

The sooner we are out of this rotten club the better.

Mind your language.

The government doesn’t command an overall majority. There is a small minority party.   

When it comes to votes they “are supporting” the government.    Or perhaps they are “propping up the government”.  What’s the difference?   

Well, on the BBC today the former description as used to describe the relationship between the SNP and the Greens.  The second description was for the Conservative and the DUP.  

It smacks of bias.  Language matters.

"We want the United States of Europe".

It’s a while since the Referendum on whether we wanted to remain or leave the European Union.  It’s a while since we heard much from Martin Schulz.  Remember him?   President of the European Parliament 2012 to 2017.   

Now he is back in Germany serving as Leader of the Social Democratic Party of Germany since March 2017 and a Member of the Bundestag since September 2017.   He was a Member of the European Parliament (MEP) from Germany from 1994 to 2017.  So, putting it mildly, he knows all about the EU and where it;s going.   

Well, today he spoke again.   

And if what he said doesn’t make everyone in the UK sit up and take notice, they must be mad.    

He told the SDP party conference that a new EU treaty should be presented to member states creating a United States of Europe and countries who oppose it must leave the EU.  He demanded “there to be a constitutional treaty to create a federal Europe… the treaty will be presented to the member states and those who are against should just leave the European Union… We want the United States of Europe”.     

And he doesn’t want to hang about.  His plan is for this to come into existence by 2025.  And, remarkably, some Remainers think they have a hope of changing the public’s mind about Brexit.   

Somehow I don’t think we will be seeing his thoughts on the News at Ten tonight.  It's the last thing Remainers would want the people in the UK to hear.

German cars. German profits.

Germany dominates car production across Europe and makes eight of the top selling cars in the UK.  

So says an investigation by car magazine AutoExpress.    

Which, putting it in incredibly simple terms, means Germanys car industry needs the UK.  It makes a fortune here.  They want to sell to us.  We want to buy.   

But if the EU plays its hand the way they are, when we leave the EU, German built cars will be much less of an attractive proposition to UK buyers.  

So, I may be wrong, but I don’t think the board rooms of BMW, VAG and Mercedes will like the idea of the EU and their chancellor punishing the UK.  It will punsh them too and with it take away a rather delicious slice of their profits.  And jobs.

UK dragging its heels? No, it's just Barnier doesn't like the answers.

Why does the BBC appear to continually take the side of the EU?   

Take the headline tonight:  “Brexit bill: Barnier gives UK two weeks to clarify key issues”.  It’s as if Barnier is the one saying the important thing.  The difinitive position.  Talking as if the UK doesn’t have a positon.  As if all the failure is on the UK side.   

Take the UK borders on the island of Ireland between The Republic and Ulster.  Barnier keeps saying the UK has to come up with a solution.  It has, it’s just that Barnier doesn’t like it.   

Similarly on citizens of EU member countries living in the UK.  Barnier keeps saying the UK has to come up with a solution.  It has, it’s just that Barnier doesn’t like it.   

Or on the so called Divorce payment.  Divorce is of course is a ridiculous way to describe leaving a club.  Again, Barnier keeps saying the UK has to come up with a solution.  It has, it’s just that Barnier doesn’t like it.   

So all the blame the BBC headline suggests is to be laid at the door of the UK.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  But when did that stop the BBC form spinning a pro EU angle on a story.

£28b.

In today’s news we have the good news that, “despite Brexit” as those who still haven’t accepted that the vote to leave wasn’t about the economy but the right for our parliament to take its own decisions, Luton could become centre for PSA group’s van growth plans.  In Auto Express it is reported that the Vauxhall/Opel PACE! recovery plan includes strong targets for commercial vehicle growth that could be good news for the Vauxhall van plant in Luton.   

Michael Lohscheller, CEO of Opel/Vauxhall, revealed as part of the PACE! plan that he was targeting an increase in LCV (light commercial vehicle) sales of 25% between 2017 and 2020.   Part of that will come from the new Combo small van, which arrives next year. Like the new Corsa, due in 2019, it will be based on the PSA group small car CMP platform.  And like the Corsa, it will be one of the first fully-electric Vauxhall vehicles with a Combo EV set to be available in 2020.    

The rush to electric is really under way.  So here’s my question for today.  Given that in total, duties on petrol and diesel add up to almost £28bn a year for the exchequer with more than 65% of the cost you pay at the pumps goes to the exchequer, where will that money come from in an electric future?

An electric car charged from the grid will currently generate just 5p in VAT for every pound spent. If the car is charged directly from solar panels on a garage roof, the Treasury is likely to go empty-handed.   £28b to replace that provided to him thorough you filling up at the pump is a big number. 

I wonder if the up coming Budget will begin to show the way?

7.5%

Bank of England believes Brexit could cost 75,000 finance jobs.   So screamed the headline in an article on the BBC today.   It sounds bad news.  But, read on.  

Kamal Ahmed reckons 92.5% of financial services jobs will be safe after Brexit.  He argues that even if 75,000 jobs do go, London would still be by far the largest financial centre in Europe with over one million people employed in financial services in the capital and across the rest of Britain.   

And the UK would still enjoy a healthy trade surplus in financial services with the rest of the EU worth many tens of billions of pounds.    

Many also believe there will be a positive outcome to the EU negotiations as the City supports many governments and businesses on the continent in raising funds and executing global deals.   Those companies and firms would want to keep a close relationship with the UK and its well-developed global markets capacity.   That is what the article says, if you read that far.   

Funny how that side of the story is buried in the article.  92.5% of financial services jobs will be safe after Brexit would be a more honest but less eye catching headline.   

Anyway, the BoE under Mr Carney hasn’t the best of track records in its forecasting of late.

Well said that man.

On Today on BBC Radio 4 on Saturday we had a remarkable self-congratulatory John Humphries and his co-workers (not equal, certainly not in the salary stakes) tell us they really have saved or nation over the years.  They set the agenda, they freely admit that.  Not an action by or a speech by someone setting the agenda.  They, Today, set the agenda.  Big difference.    

So Mr Humphries question to Mr Gove was interesting.   “Isn't there a danger, God forbid, that we make a politician look silly or perhaps a politician makes themselves look silly or contemptible in some way?”.  It was almost as if his aim was to do just with the way and tone he asked the question.    Mr Gove replied:  “Well, I know what you mean.  Sometimes I think that coming into the studio with you John is a bit like going into Harvey Weinstein's bedroom”.     

Not the best attempt at humour from Mr Gove you may argue.  Certainly the more sensitive listeners jumped on the band wagon to criticise him.  But he was bang on in his assessment of interview techniques employed on Today.  The aim, more often than not, appears not having the aim of finding the truth but to humiliate the interviewee.    

But Mr Gove remark wasn’t the only one.  Neil Kinnock, who was part of the interviewee cast, interjected.  “John goes way past groping. way past groping”.    Is that not in equally bad taste?   

I’m not defending either Messrs Kinnock or Gove for the words they used.  But is it not a bit odd that people like Ms Sturgeon and Ms Swinson should only criticise the Conservative politician?    

Now, which remark has made the headlines on the BBC web site?  You don’t need to guess.  You know it’s not Mr Kinnocks.  Balance?  Don’t make me laugh.    

In the aftermath of the joke in poor taste Lord Adonis took aim at the BBC for its role in “debasing public debate”.  In a tweet he said “Cloying self-congratulation of @BBCr4today misplaced.  Britain in crisis & BBC shd be asking what part it played in debasing of public debate”.  (sic)   

Well said that man.   

It really was a nauseating self-congratulatory programme.

We are at war now. Apparently.

It was an odd choice of words.  As if he was at war with someone.  Donald Tusk the former Polish prime minister, now the European Council president said the EU will be "defeated" in Brexit negotiations unless it maintains absolute unity.  "If we fail it then the negotiations will end in our defeat," he told MEPs.   

I don’t recall anyone in the UK talking in terms of victory or defeat.  Indeed, Mrs May has been saying quite the opposite.  We want a good deal that satisfies both sides.   

Mr Tusk has effectively ruled out such a position.  For him, victory seems to be the only way ahead.  Which more than ever is suggesting that, if it is indeed the EU stance, no deal will indeed be better than a bad deal for the UK.  Because a bad deal is all they want to offer to gain “victory”.   

It will be a pretty Pyrrhic victory though.  He and his elite colleagues will see their European project of a single European super state still on course.  Meanwhile the businesses and people in the countries they claim to represent will be poorer, have less democratic control and be generally in a worse place.  Just think Greece.

I'll give you five years. Just Do It!

If I told you that 15% of the employees in a vital UK industry that is of critical national importance come from outside the UK you may understandably express surprise.  You may ask why and how did this happen.  And you may well ask what would be the consequences if this 15% went AWOL.  You may also let you mind wander to how could we fix the problem.    

The answer to the last point is pretty easy.  If we are not training enough people that we need to go overseas to find people, let’s invest and train our own, right here in the UK.  Then we won’t need to scour the world to find these people.  Taking them away from countries that could use their skills. Then we can be safe and secure in the knowledge that we are home producing quality people. 

This has all come to a head with some suggesting that the threshold for language skills should be reduced in the nursing sector.   

A spokesman for the Royal College of Nursing said:  “The NHS is struggling to recruit overseas nurses but we would firmly oppose any change just to plug workforce gaps. It must be robust and command the confidence of the public.”    

Jackie Smith, chief executive of the Nursing and Midwifery Council said: “Nurses and midwives trained outside the UK make up around 15 percent of our register. They are vital to the delivery of health and care services across the UK.”   

Can you see any other critical UK business that would allow for such volatility in its recruitment policy?  I can’t. 

And don’t take the intellectually sloppy route and just blame the current government.  They are pumping more money into the bottomless hole that is the NHS at a greater rate than any previous government.   

But is it not time to invest?  Take some of that money and invest in nurse training.  It takes three years to train a nurse.  It is not beyond the wit of man to say, ok, in five years, all our nurses will be home trained.  And totally fluent in English.  I say, Just Do It.

£85,173,454.91

Sometimes a story seems to bounce out of the ether.  Take today’s bold story about how, according to the OECD, the UK is going to be well and truly stuffed when we leave the EU.  Indeed, they rather interestingly claim that only having a second referendum and reversing Brexit will save the British economy from apocalypse. 

Actually leaving the EU is nothing to do with economics.  It’s about regaining the power for people to elect (or unelect) the people who make the laws they are governed by.  That is why we are leaving.  But let's leave that to one side for the moment.  

So, based on the word of the OECE, we should overturn a democratic vote.  They do have form.  Back in the olden days when the elite thought we should join the ERM, “great benefits” for the UK were forecast.  And look what happened.  Then there was the Euro.  Remember the elite telling us it would be disaster if we didn’t join?  Who’s laughing now?  Though sadly the disaster that is the Euro is no laughing matter.   And there was the instant “major negative shock” if the people of the UK had the temerity to vote Leave.  Well we did.  And the major negative shock is still awaited 15 months on.    

Of course these people always rewrite history.  "In spite of Brexit" usually is the theme as they revise their forecast in the opposite direction from their original forecasts.   And, like all good reports, they had a disclaimer. The outcome relating to leaving the EU “could prove more favourable than assumed here”.    The small print.  Tucked away.

Indeed, even the OCED’s most gloomy predictions now still predict the economy will grow in the event of no deal.  

And it is on these predictions that Cardiff Business School professor Patrick Minford has his questions about its modelling and assumptions, saying the OECD's negative findings were at odds with his own and others' workings, including Oxford Economics adviser Graham Gudgin.  "The OECD has always said we shouldn't leave the EU. It's pretty easy to see why, most of their members are in the EU - it's no mystery that they are going to have an institutional bias to find reasons to reject Brexit."

Many other people of sound mind are not enamoured by the OECD. And you can see why.  For example economist Ruth Lea CBE, again, nobody's fool when it comes to economics, thinks the OECD's findings were symptomatic of analysis that was "forever exaggerating the negative".     

Speaking to CityAM she said "I'm getting so tired of all this," adding "They’ve all got themselves in some kind of negative time warp. They were very negative prior to the referendum and can’t get out of that way of thinking. They're locked into this negative way of thinking.”   "A lot if it is because they feel they have to continue with this narrative to justify themselves and have some appearance of consistency. But it’s time they really began to change the narrative, move the dial - this country is leaving the EU and everyone has to now accept that."    

One final wee point.  I may have missed it, but I’m not sure I saw in the report the fact that the OECD has received an incredible £85,173,454.91 from the EU since 2007.  Just thought I'd mentinon it.

Why is the BBC so biased in favour of the EU?

The straight answer is, I don't know.  It all the evidence indicates that the BBC is institutionally biased.  

Take today on the BBC web site.  "Deadlock over UK's Brexit bill, says EU's Michel Barnier".  So shouts the headline on the BBC web site.  Which I find a bit odd.  The British Broadcasting Corporation, funded by UK citizens, is leading with the views, as if they where true, of a man representing foreign governments that are trying to make sure that the UK is punished for having had the temerity to vote, democratically, to leave the EU.    

But why should we be surprised?  An analysis by monitoring group News-Watch looked at Radio 4's flagship morning news programme Today and concluded that there was "overwhelming negativity" about Leaving the EU.     

For example, research shows the indisputable facts that during the six three-hour morning shows from Monday 29 March to Saturday 4 April, The Today Programme fielded 124 guests on Article 50 but only eight, yes eight (6.5%), were "given the space to make substantive arguments that the future for the UK outside the EU would yield significant benefits".  It also claimed that in the survey period BBC correspondents "displayed what can only be described as a strong common editorial bias against Brexit".  The programme coverage was strongly biased against Brexit and made special efforts to illustrate the extent to which leaving the EU could have catastrophic consequences for the UK. There was, by contrast, only minimal effort to examine the potential benefits. These are not opinions about the output that week.  They are facts. It is exactly what happened.

Really, we expect balance from the BBC. Indeed, we used to be able to rely on the BBC for its impartiality and balance.  Sadly, this research and today's story on the BBC web site show these days are gone.

Where was Mr Corbyns finger pointing?

In response to the so called lack of progress view perpetrated by the EU, Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn said: "I think it's quite shocking. We're now 15 months on since the referendum and the government seems to have reached deadlock at every stage." 

He is right.  But I hope his criticism is not aimed at the UK government but the foreign governments who, as is their stated aim through Mr Barnier, is to deadlock and frustrate the talks the whole way. 

No deal rather than a bad deal? It's what 74% of the UK want.

Those who think we should remain in the EU at any cost must have thought the public would be on side.   

Sadly for them the vast majority of the public believes quite the opposite.    

A decisive 74% agreed the country should walk away rather than accept a punishment deal. “No deal is better than a bad deal” according to this new Sky Data poll.  Or put it the other way around, only 26% think “any deal is better than no deal”.  What is surprising is the sentiment holds true across the age range.    

For example, amongst 18-34 year-olds support for “no deal is better than a bad deal” is at a remarkable 75%.   These are the people Remainders have told us would be most pro EU.  Moving up the age range, 35-54 year-olds figure is 74%.  And the golden oldies over 55, 76% think “no deal is better than a bad deal”.  So there you have it.  Near universal support for no deal among the public.  

So given no deal is looking the better option as the days go by, why is HM Government not getting on with preparations?    

Certainly the reality is perhaps being understood in the EU.  Michel Barnier, after today’s round of negotiations, said “We've reached a state of deadlock which is very disturbing”.  I bet it is disturbing for him.  Yes, he’s making out that the UK are the problem.  But it is him who is staring down at no deal and no kind of financial agreement.  Not a disaster for the UK in any shape or form. For Mr Barnier, it is a nightmare.  He’s going to have to go back and say to the EU, “sorry, we didn’t force them into a bad deal.  Oh, and by the way, we didn’t get any money out of them either”.

Something that is good for everyone.

Free trade.  It is good for everyone.  Not least the poor.  It lifts people out of poverty.  It transforms communities and nations.   And free trade has arguably created more prosperity than any other concept within economics argues Max Rangeley of The Cobden Centre.  The vision of the centre is “A peaceful, open and free society based on a stable, sustainable economy in which everyone has the opportunity to participate in constantly growing real prosperity”.  That seems not too much to ask for.  Or does it?   

Norway.  Singapore.  Switzerland.  Hong Kong.  Four of the wealthiest countries in the world.  What unites them, apart from being the wealthiest countries on the planet, is they have the freest trade.   Interestingly, none of them are part of any political union such as the EU.   

The European Union-Singapore Free Trade Agreement (EUSFTA) is the first FTA concluded between the EU and an ASEAN country. The agreement will come into force after it is signed and ratified by both parties.  But it is not subject to freedom of movement or the rights of the European Court of Justice taking precedence over the courts of Singapore.   

So, a pause for thought as we consider what is going in in the so called negotiations the UK is having with EU at the moment.  They are not about trade.   They are about political and legal control.   

My question is, why should the UK be treated in any way different to Singapore?  It’s because the EU does not want a relationship based on free trade with its former Member.  It wants to continue a system based on trading in a controlled way across a political union.  But that stifles innovation.   

Free trade has brought about innovation in almost all sectors of the economy. A study by the University of Oslo last year found that free trade brought substantial increases in innovation around the world, benefiting all of us.   

Perhaps most importantly, with trade generally comes peace, and history shows us long periods of peace have mostly been brought about by increasing free trade.    

As we break free from the shackles of the political trade barriers in the EU, let us hope Britain can set an example to the world in how we trade with all nations. Perhaps the rEU will follow our lead, but don't hold your breath!   If the EU has any sense it will immediately prioritise free trade and come back to the politics later.  That’s if it really cares about the prosperity of the people in the rEU.  On its record to date I suspect it doesn't.

European Commission up to same old tricks.

Apparently the people in the European Commission are concerned that the government led by Mrs May could collapse.  Rather endearingly, they expressed concern that this could hamper our negotiations for what sort of relationship we will have once we have left the EU.  How sweet.   

Indeed, their concern apparently is so great that they asked to meet, and subsequently did meet with, Messrs Corbyn and Starmer.  No problem them asking for a meeting.  But that Corbyn and Starmer agreed to one is rather remarkable.  They should have told Mr Barnier to go away.  They should have reminded him that our UK parliament takes decisions now.   And they should also have noted that Mr Garnier is, in effect, a foreign power seeking to undermine the UK.

Seasoned EU watchers will recognise this trap they have laid for Corbyn and Starmer.  Make them feel important.  Hold talks.  Seek to undermine anyone that goes against the EU.  It’s not new.  

Look at Greece.  Brutaly forcing them into submission.   

Look at Italy, replacing a democratically elected Prime Minister with a EU appointee.    

Look at the Republic of Ireland.  The people voted one way. The EU didn’t like it and forced them to vote again so they would get the right result.   

You can see exactly the same tactics here again the UK.  And the fact that they are seducing people like Corbyn and Starmer, as well as the Sturgeons of the world, says it all.  They don't respect our democracy.

But the Corbyns, Starmers and Sturgeons of the world should be very wary.   The EU may be smiling on them at the moment.  But history tells us that the day will come when they too will feel the wrath of the unelected European hierarchy.

Are new cars really safer?

I’m sure that like me you believe that cars are getting safer as the years go by.  It has been a steady progress right through from seatbelts being introduced, airbags, and crumple zones being the standard to follow.  Indeed, you will see car after car achieving 5 stars in the EuroNCAP tests.  Even modestly priced cars strive to achieve good crash ratings.  After all, who can forget the impact that the EuroNCAP crash tests had on the Metro.  When the results came out sales stopped virtually overnight.  It was so bad.  But of course, it wasn’t the only one, it just had the misfortune to be the first test published by EuroNCAP.    

So there we have it, cars are getting safer.  Or are they?  Well, if your intent is ramming a car in to a wall or having a collision with another vehicle, the answer is clearly yes.  The evidence shows it.  But what evidence is also showing is that while you will be able to walk away from a Road Traffic Collision (quite rightly we don’t call them accidents now) that even a few years ago would have ended with pretty serious consequences, the actual business of driving, for the first time since the car was invented, is becoming less safe.  In other words, while you may have a much better of surviving a cash, the chances of ending up in one are also increasing.

The American Automobile Association (AAA) analysed 30 popular new vehicles released in 2017 and found that nearly half had infotainment systems that placed a “very high” demand on their users’ concentration.  Indeed, it argues that sophisticated in-car “infotainment” systems are putting road users' lives at risk and are more dangerous than texting.    

According to their research integrated suites that combine satellite navigation with music and Internet systems are often needlessly complicated and can take drivers’ eyes off the road for a staggering 40 seconds at a time.     

Don’t think this is a problem just in the USA.  Last week the UK Government published statistics on road deaths in 2016 which revealed that deaths from crashes resulting from in-vehicle distractions, infotainment systems to use the jargon, had risen 39 per cent on the previous year to 140.  In other words, 8% of UK road deaths are caused by people operating their infotainment systems.  And another 1,798 seriously injured.  That's a lot.

Next time you pop into a car showroom you will see what I mean.  There is now a complete lack of tactile experience in a car.  In one car I looked at I had to activate a touch screen, visually locate the heating controls that were now controlled by an icon on the touch screen and then gently “turn” it to adjust the temperature.  Three actions.  All the time my eyes were not focused on the road ahead.  In an older car you would have not taken your eyes off the road.  You would have just reached forward and felt a knurled wheel and turned it.   

The RAC Foundation have taken a view:  “We strongly urge drivers to avoid the temptation of engaging with technology that distracts them from the mentally-demanding job of driving,” said road safety spokesman Pete Williams. 

“You could be deemed by a police officer not to be in proper control of the vehicle, be prosecuted for dangerous driving, or worse still be responsible for taking a life."   

I wonder when EuroNCAP will add safety before a crash to their assessments of how safe a car really is?