Stop flogging a dead horse, Mrs May.

What do all of the 200 people listed at the bottom of this post have in common?  They run their own successful businesses. Many of them trade globally.  They are the kind of entrepreneurs that keep this country on the move.  They are real people who risk their own money to run real businesses that provides 60% of employment in the private sector.    

One thing they all believe in common?  They believe Britain deserves better than Chequers.

In a letter to the Telegraph today they outline their belief that the Chequers deal “is a muddled compromise that suits no one on either side of the referendum divide.   The “common rulebook” that Chequers accepts offers the EU carte blanche to dictate policy, stifling innovation and leaving us a passive rule-taker”.

In other words, even though we leave the EU, the EU still can veto what the UK wants to do.  How any democrat could come up with such a deal beggars belief.  Add to that, “Chequers also hobbles the greatest economic opportunity of Brexit: that of free trade agreements with old allies and new friends round the world”.

The reaction at Salzburg showed Chequers is doomed.  When you are flogging a dead horse, change horses.  There is no shame in that.   Indeed, it shows courage.    If Mrs May doesn’t show that courage now the result will be more uncertainty and continuing Government paralysis. 

Just remember, Donald Tusk in March 2018 offered an almost identical agreement to the one reached between Canada and the EU.  That deal does not tie Canada into accepting rulings from the ECJ.  

Why is Mrs May so incapable of swallowing her pride and actually doing something that will benefit not just the UK but the EU too?  Why can’t she go back and say ok Donald, bit late, but let’s work on that offer? 

The problem is becoming clearer.  And the problem is Mrs May and her clear desire to continue to be locked into judgements of the European Court of Justice.  I can’t think of any other reason for her behaviour, because it’s certainly not in the national interest.   

Indeed, I believe the 200 below understand more what is in the national interest than people like Mrs May or Mr Oliver Robbins who have never worked in what economists call the productive sector.  The people who make money so that governments, through taxation, can spend their money.

So, next time someone tells you that businesses don't want to leave the EU, don't let them get away with their contribution to Project Fear.  Just remind them of all these successful business leaders that employ so much of the UK workforce want to do just that.  Get out.

Tom Bohills   Co-founder, Alliance of British Entrepreneurs and Head of Legal, Red Deer Edward Harden   Co-founder, Alliance of British Entrepreneurs and Co-founder, JustSeats.org  

Tim Martin   Chairman, JD Wetherspoon

Lord Flight   Former shadow Conservative chief secretary to the Treasury

Chris Kelly   Chairman, Keltruck Limited, West Midlands

William Hynett   Chief Executive, Britten-Norman, London

Anthony Gibbon   Dairy Farmer, Garreg Farm, Carmarthenshire

Geoff Oborne   Owner, Geoff Oborne Gardening Ltd, West Sussex

Nick Cresswell   Managing Director, Glebe Engineering Ltd, Staffordshire

Tim Trotter   Chairman, Glenfern, London

Simon Beart   Director, Guardian, Kent

Lance Forman   Owner, H. Forman & Sons, London

Arabella Arkwright   Partner, Hatton Country World, Warwickshire

Johnnie Arkwright   Director, Hatton Ltd, Warwickshire

Martyn O'Connor   Managing Director, Heatshine, Ceredigion

Alex Bourne   Founder and Director, Hinpack Limited, Suffolk

Rachael Furness   Director, Hitvo Ltd, Cheshire

Trevor Honeyman   Chairman, Honeyman Group Limited, County Durham

William Bavin   Managing director, House of Marbles & Teign Valley Glass, Devon

Darren White   Managing Director, Ibex Risk Management, North Yorkshire

David W Ford   Founder and Director, Ingenica Solutions Ltd & Lightpoint Medical, Hampshire

Jason Mark Rutter   Managing Director, Jason Mark Rutter Ltd, Worcestershire
Miles Brough   CEO, JBM International Ltd, Staffordshire

John Crampton   Owner, JC Fabrications, Surrey

Max Johnson   Director, Johnson Insurance Services, North Yorkshire

Phil Valori   Co-Founder, JustSeats, London

Kevin Davies   Director, KDM Events, UK wide

Colin Low   Founder, Kingsfleet Wealth, Suffolk

Ajay Jagota   CEO, KIS Group & Dlighted, Tyne & Wear

Charles Breese   Director, Personal Capacity, London

John Turnbull    Owner/CEO, M8 Software, Merseyside

John Davies   Owner, Manufexl, West Glamorgan

Roger Hall   Owner, Marlowe James, Derbyshire

Richard Ayres   Director, Maroon Analytics Ltd, London

Nigel Roberts   Managing Director, Megasteel Limited, Wiltshire

Colin Pettit   Proprietor, Miko Coffee, Cambridgeshire

Peter Roberts   Director, Mill-Tek Limited, Devon

Christopher Evans   Director, Ministry Developments Ltd, Wiltshire

Keith Wannell   Director, MM Enviro Ltd, West Sussex

Dr Alan Watt   Owner, Monkey Tower Ltd, Essex

Ben Walker   Owner, MonkeyFist Construction and Precision Planning, South Gloucestershire

Mark Gilbert   Director, MuscleDiet, Staffordshire

Dr Tom Walker   Founder, MyLash, Edinburgh

Ian Harris   Proprietor, N Bloom & Son, London

David Pilsworth   Author, New Novelist

Nigel Green   Managing Director, NLG Associates, London

Alan Graves   Director, Norcon Computers Ltd, Derbyshire

Paul Jenkins   Director, North IT, County Durham

Ross Bland   Director, Oakleys Fuel Oils, West Midlands

Henry O'Lone   Managing Director, Oare Limited, East Sussex

James Bromley   Director, One Ten OneHundred Ltd, Aberdeenshire

Karl Pearsall   Director, Original Thing Ltd, Middlesex

Alistair Bruce   Partner, Original Design Company, Derbyshire

Allison Wild   Managing Director, Oxford Biosciences Limited, Oxfordshire

James Dean   Chairman, Patrick Dean Limited, Lincolnshire

Tim Stephenson   Executive, Personal Capacity - 'Financial Services Recruitment Consultant', UK Wide

Peter Harris   Managing Director, Peter James Group, Dagenham

Tim Price   Managing Director, Price Value Partners, North Yorkshire

Mark Norton   Managing Director, Prima Bakeries Ltd, Cornwall

Gareth Bott   Founder, R.E.P Air Services, Loughborough

David Furness   Director, Rapierstar Ltd, Cheshire

Simon Boyd   Managing Director, ReidSteel, Dorset

Colin Rennie   Principal, Rennie Park Associates, London

Debbie Flint   Founder, Retreats For You, Devon

Ian Goodyer   Director, Reydoog Ltd, East Sussex

Dr Tom Brook   Managing Director, Santel Ltd, London

Neil Sawyer   Director, Sawyers Consulting Limited, Bristol

Manuel Alsoni   Signing in a personal capacity

Justine Thomas   Director, Simrush Ltd, Norwich

Christopher Neal   Non Executive, Director, Sirius Petroleum Plc, London

Mark Rushe   Director, Stonehouse Homes, Lancashire

Barbara Stratton   Director, Stratasys Ltd, Somerset

Oliver Tickner   Founder/Director, Streetwire, London

Bruno Prior   Director, Summerleaze Ltd, Berkshire

Angus Macdonald   Chairman, SWRNewstar, Hampshire

Andrew Hamilton   CEO, Syn2gen Ltd, Essex

Tom Scollen   Managing Director, T&G Training, County Durham

Graham Mitchell   Owner/CTO, T2 Technologies Ltd, Dorset

Mark Foster   Director, Taxhelp Accountants Ltd, East Sussex

Michael Webster   Director, Telum Media, London

Patrick Wallace   Owner and Chairman, The Arkle Group, London

Sir David Ord   Director, The Bristol Port Company, Bristol

Terence Mordant   Chairman, The Bristol Port Company, Bristol

Ken Thomson   Managing Partner, Thomson Harrower Fencing, Dunfermline

John Biggin   Managing Director, TruckEast Ltd, Northamptonshire 

Tony Young   Creative Director, Urban Fires Limited, London

Dr Michael McGetrick   Managing Director, UtterSense Ltd, Hertfordshire

Andy Ockleton   Director, Uttoxeter Brewing Company, Staffordshire

Simon Rowland   CEO, Veritas International, London and Dorset

Nicholas Timms   Managing Director, War on Waste Ltd, Dorset

Bruce Smith   Senior Partner, Westminster Consultants, London

Alistair Macmillan   Founder and Managing Director, White House Products Ltd, Renfrewshire

Steven Farrall   Senior Partner, Williams Farrall Woodward, Ipswich

Peter Thompson   Director, Woodpecker Inn (Estates) Ltd, Cheshire

Stuart Leasor   Managing Director, Woodstock Leasor Limited, London

Daniel Hodson   Signing in a personal capacity

Danny Corrigan   Signing in a personal capacity

Sandra Dangoor   Signing in a personal capacity

Richard Royden   Managing Director, Royden & Co, London
Hunter DuBose   Managing Partner, Spitfire Capital Advisors, London

Matthew Byrne   Director, Greengage Lighting Limited, Greater Manchester

Lord Vinson

Lord Daresbury   Director, Daresbury Estates Ltd, Cheshire

Robert Law   Managing Director, AGD Equipment, Warwickshire

Arthur Jones   Founder, ANJ Executive, London

Jon Moulton   Chairman, Better Capital LLP, Guernsey

Brian Yeardley   Founder, Brian Yeardley Continental, West Yorkshire

Mark Wheatley   Common Councilman, City of London, London

Elaine Harries   Managing Director, County Couriers Ltd t/a Action Express, Northamptonshire

Richard Stoughton   Chairman, Crossflight Limited, Berkshire

Dave Bentley   Owner, Dave Bentley Ecology Services, Greater Manchester

David Kirk   Director, David Kirk & Co, Cheshire

Christopher Nieper   Managing Director, David Nieper Ltd, Derbyshire

Bill Good   CEO, Diverco, Worcestershire

William Jones   Chairman, Global Village, Buckinghamshire

John May   Founder, Hillhouse Nexus, Essex

Graham Hutton   Founder, Hutton Collins Partners LLP, London

Rupert Gather   Chairman, Invest UK, London

Julian Morgan   Joint Managing Director and Owner, KPM-Marine, Birmingham

Tim Parker   Chief Executive, Messels, Surrey

Oliver Hemsley   Founder, Numis Securities, London

Edgar Miller   Managing Director, Palladian  Limited, London

Emma Pullen   Managing Director, The British Hovercraft Company, Kent

Richard Patient   Managing Director, Thorncliffe, London
Ian Herbert   Chief Executive Officer, Vistair Ltd, Bristol

Andrew Kitchen   Director, LK2 Architects Ltd, Lincolnshire

Alastair James Robb   Director, Marlborough Tiles, Wiltshire

Lesley Hollingshead   Director, MPS Financials & Accountancy Ltd, Berkshire

Adrian Hawkins   Chairman, Weldability-Sif, UK Wide

Spencer Clarke   Director, 121prodata Ltd, Gloucestershire

Anthony Smethurst   Owner, A S P Stampwise Rubber Stamp Ltd, Greater Manchester

George Bowen   CEO, Able Lyons Consulting, UK and Australia

Clive Underdown   Chairman, Advantage Group, Suffolk

Stephen Britt   Managing Director, Anchor Storage Solutions, Suffolk

Andrew Dixon   Owner, Andrew Dixon Photography, West Midlands

Angela Cook   Managing Director, Angies Transport Services Ltd, Lincolnshire

Scott Fletcher   Founder, ANS Group, Manchester and London

Colin Penny   Director, APG Equine Limited, Devon

Annette Penny   Director, APG Equine Limited, Devon

Tristan Lee   Director, Archerfield Homes, Surrey

Matthew Snowden   Independent Artist, Matthew Snowden Art, Wales

Philip Brooker   Managing Director, Arun Microelectronics Ltd, West Sussex

Geoff Greenall   Owner, Ascot Shoes, West Midlands

Andy Richards   Director, ASL Catering Agency Ltd, Cheshire

Paul Dorey   Director, Aspidistra Software, Devon

Iain Baillie   Founder & Executive Director, Asset Match, London

Robert Neal   Director, B&N Hydraulics, West Midlands

Neil Ballantyne   Managing Director, Ballantynes of Walkerburn, Scottish Borders

Danny Cox   Owner, Barcs Woodworks, Essex

Mark Fox   Director, BDSX, South Yorkshire

Neville Wright   Director, Beeson Wright Ltd, Cambridgeshire

Charles Buckley   Director, Belport Capital, Oxfordshire

Alistair Emery   Director, Belport Capital, Oxfordshire

Clive Blackman   Director, BHCG Ltd, Hertfordshire

Peter Bishop   Managing Director & Founder, Bishop GmbH, Hamburg
Steve Barson   CEO, Burley Appliances, Rutland

Didier Delmer   Owner, Business Booster 247

Steve Smith   CEO, Buzz Networks Ltd, Dorset

Stephen Wilkinson   Managing Director, CAS Recruitment, South Tyneside

Adam Cleary   Director and Chief Executive, Cavenham Capital, London

Kevin Bell   Director, CDM 2014, Essex

Steven Wake   Managing Director, Chapters Property Development And Investment Limited, Wiltshire

Said Amir Faqirzada   Owner, Chelsea Tailors, London

Chris Hills   Managing Director, Chris Hills Financial Consultancy Ltd, Hampshire

Patrick Hurd   Managing Director, Cintis International Ltd, Farnborough

Steve Ody   Owner, Citrus Travel, Sussex

Steve Hardeman   Managing Director and Co-Owner, Clevedon Fasteners Ltd, West Midlands

Geoff Townley   Owner, Commercial Gas Consultants, Hampshire

Chris Chatfield   Managing Director, Compass Travel, West Sussex

Chris Kirk-Blythe   Director, Complex Legal Limited, Manchester

David Buik   Market Commentator, Core Spreads, London

Guy Cowling   Director, Cowling & Wilcox, London

Gwyndaf Jones   Managing Director, Cwrw Da Cyf, Wales

Gregg Reed   Owner, Damson Square Properties Ltd, West Midlands

Patrick Eatherden   Owner, Dapapod, London

David Campbell   Professor of Law, Lancaster University

David Watson   Owner, David Watson Transport, Norfolk

Michael Bilewycz   Managing Director, Decisis Limited, London

Christopher Gower   Executive Deputy Chairman, Direct Nickel Projects Limited, London

Judith Donovan   Chairman, DIY Direct Marketing, North Yorkshire

FCA Hamilton   Director, Dscribe Ltd, London

Kevin Dowd   Professor of Finance and Economics, Durham University/Economists for Free Trade

Nick Berry   Managing Director, Early Oak Reproductions Ltd., East Sussex

Ivor Chivers   Managing Director, Eco Solutions Limited, North Somerset

Julie Williams   Owner, EdgeC, London and Essex

Richard Debenham   Senior MD, Elevation Lift Services Ltd., Essex

Mick Kelly   Managing Director, Elmesthorpe Projects Ltd, Leicestershire

Dr John Hart   CEO, Endocrine Pharmaceuticals Ltd, Hampshire

James Blott   Former CEO and Entrepreneur, Engineering and Defence Sectors

Eddie Pilsworth  Managing Director, EP Industries, Derbyshire

John Theobald  Managing Director, Erimus Management Ltd, London

Flavius Fernandes   Director, ERPSirius Ltd, Essex

Nick Sellick   CEO, Estate Insurance Group, London

Dermot Glynn   Founder and Senior Advisor, Europe Economics, London

Richard Foleher   Technical Director, Everything Voice Ltd, West Yorkshire

John Fifield   Chairman, Fifield Glyn Ltd, London

Stu Taylor   Managing Director, Firenze Partners, London

Bill Blair   Founder, Fluxible, Lancashire

Amy Folkes   Director, Folkes Holdings Ltd, West Midlands

Constantine Folkes   Chairman and CEO, Folkes Holdings Ltd., West Midlands

Glyn Johnson   Owner and Director, G.H Johnson Plant & Machinery Sales, Derbyshire

The utter incompetence of the CAA

I was at a meeting a few months ago at the Scottish Parliament.  We were talking about leaving the European Union.  Almost everyone around the room was moaning about how they may have to be forced at the last minute to make preparations.   

This was in sharp contrast to the businessman who lives in the productive sector of the economy who told the room, “the moment the vote happened we started preparing, as any prudent business would, for the worst of options.  And we did.  Within six months we were ready for no deal.” 

Now, leaked notes from the Civil Aviation Authority reveal that they are nowhere near ready.  Instead of spending the last two years preparing it appears they have done precisely nothing.   

The documents paint a picture of the CAA being an organisation scrambling to make the necessary preparations for a no-deal Brexit and the UK dropping out of the aviation single market altogether.   

The advice to stakeholders issued by the CAA's head of flight operations, Captain Rob Bishton, says: "If the UK no longer continues as an EASA member, UK issued licences, ratings and certificates may continue to display EASA references beyond 29 March.   In this instance, licences, ratings and certificates will be reissued by the UK CAA."   

This is not news.  This was known two years ago.  So can someone at the CAA explain what they have actually been doing for the past two years.  This should all have been in place a year ago.

All this news item shows is the utter incompetence of the leaders at the CAA and other such bodies.

Just two words.

What two words link Donald Trump, Serna Williams and Remainers?   

“Petulance”.  And “Me, me, me”.  Ok, that’s four words.  But the link is really pretty simple and straightforward.   

They all think only they are right.  And they all want to challenge authority.  And they show a remarkable disregard for the rule of law.  And they all set a terrible example of how to live.    

Trump.  How often has he tried to exceed the powers that the American people allow their president to have.  If he is ever convicted of a criminal offence will he seriously be of the mind that he should pardon himself?  Basically, don't like what people say?  Abuse them. 

Ms Williams.  A liar and a thief she called one of the best umpires on the planet.  So next time a child rocks up to an umpire on a junior tennis tournament and abuses them, you know where their role model comes from.    But I suppose she is just behaving like Trump.  Don't like what people say?  Abuse them.  Welcome to the new America.  A nation of intolerant people.

Remainers.  How many of them want to stage a coup and overturn the democratic wishes of the electorate in the biggest plebiscite the nation has ever seen.   Of course in this case, it is the Remainers who are seeking to be the thief, stealing a democratic vote.  Don't like how voters voted?  Abuse them.

The tide is not for turning.

In today’s Telegraph Justine Greening writes an excellent piece trying to make sense of where Mrs May has got us.  She alludes to the story of the "graceful and magnificent" King Canute, who died on 12th November 1035.  

In the story, Canute was like Mrs May   He had flattering courtiers around him. Call them the Ollys for the sake of a name. The Ollys tried to persuade their master that he had super natural powers, to create amazing deals with the tide no one else could make.  Or in the EU negotiations they could confound economic and legal logic.   

But Canute was wise.  He knew this was rubbish.  And to prove it he plonked a chair in the path of an incoming tide to prove he didn’t have the power to turn it. Point graphically made.   

Mrs Mays problem is she doesn’t realise she is not in control.  And the tide is still coming in.   

Here endeth the lesson for today.

As all good stories begin....

Once upon a time Mr Barnier offered a Canada +++ .  And, surprise surprise, that deal was also wanted by many of those in favour of leaving the EU.  But, even bigger surprise, it was also wanted by many of those who didn’t want to leave the EU, that is, the ones that had accepted the democratic wish of the people.   They realised that Canada +++ is actually a pretty good deal for the EU and the UK.    

And all was fine till Mrs May thought her Chequers proposal would be better.  And so we are in the mess we are in.   

Given no one seems to like Chequers, let’s just do the deal that seems to unite everyone.  Canada +++!

With good will (and yes I think Mr Barnier is a person of goodwill, though a hard negotiator) this can be done and dusted easily by 29th March 2019.  End of story.   

What’s so difficult Mrs May?  

What is so strange in this story is it is Mr Barnier that is leading the charge to a credible Brexit and thus spearheading the democratic mandate given to Mrs May there by creating clean break.  But he is a Gaullist after all, so it makes sense.

24th July, 2018. Remember that date.

Well, it is happening.  The UK and EU have formally started splitting WTO membership agreements.    

So, what happened?  First of all, a reminder that the WTO has 164 nations as members.  Virtually the whole world. 

In two confidential draft membership agreements they began the processes of  separating Britain’s rights and obligations in merchandise trade from the EU’s.    A separate split of services trade is expected to follow.   

Have you heard about this?  Did you hear the British Ambassador Julian Braithwaite talk about it when he said: “It seeks to replicate the concessions and commitments applicable to the UK as part of the EU today.  An important milestone as we prepare for our departure from the EU”.       

So, where does it go from here?  Well, “WTO members will have three months to review the schedule, which will be considered to be approved if there are no objections from other members”.  So said the WTO.      

What does that mean? Well, until now the EU has represented Britain at the WTO, and Britain’s membership rights were not set out distinctly, even though Britain was always a WTO member in its own right. The UKs June 2016 decision to leave the EU meant disentangling their trade rules to allow Britain to act independently. That is now what is happening.   Officially.  At the WTO level.  And, unlike the tortuous conversations with the EU, this will be pretty simple.   And yet it’s more important than the negotiations with the EU as this is about our global opportunities, not our involvement in a declining EU.    

So when key WTO members including the United States, Canada and Australia pour scorn on Chequers they are reminding Mrs May that in the real world over 60% of our trade already goes outside the EU.      

This will force Britain into a wider negotiation, said David Henig, a former British trade official who now leads the UK Trade Policy Project at the European Centre for International Political Economy (ECIPE).     

So Mrs Mays dilemma is simple.  Does she do a restrictive trade deal with the EU and be tied into the ECJ rulings or find opportunities on the growing world stage.    

“As the UK’s first serious trade negotiation in years, many will be watching to see how the UK government performs in negotiating at the WTO, and how they handle the debate domestically,” said Mr Henig.      

“At this stage we see a stuttering start, but this could ironically be the opportunity needed to get on the right track and set a positive path for our future trade policy.”      

My question is, why has this far more important set of negotiations not being talked about in the main stream media?

Glasgow Airport warns of grounded flights.

I have to say, Glasgow Airport are spinning a total scare story.  Even pro remain people must be embarrassed.   

The UK controls all the airspace through which virtually all the air traffic from the EU has to pass through to get to the USA.   

UK Airspace is divided into three FIRs; London, Scottish and Shanwick Oceanic.   The London FIR covers England and Wales. The Scottish FIR covers Scotland and Northern Ireland. The Shanwick Oceanic FIR covers a region of airspace totalling 700,000 square miles over the North East Atlantic.   

Ireland is totally surrounded by UK controlled airspace.      

So, if the EU decided to break international agreements or play a game of obstructing flights from the UK, they could find themselves instantly excluded from UK controlled airspace.   

Yet another scare story from the pro EU lobby that want the thwart the democratic vote of the people of the UK.

Don't forget.....

If you receive this blog on email, you can always see the full version, pictures, videos and all, at A view from the doorstep. 

That "lightbulb" moment.

Did you know that next week sees the great day when the EU will at last bring sense to the lightbulb marker place?  Yes, the sale of halogen lightbulbs will be banned by the EU.   

Now we all know that LED bulbs use less energy.  That’s why many of us, including businesses, long ago decided it was time to change bulbs.  In other words, most people who want to have already changed bulbs, and it’s highly likely that those who need a bulb in the future would buy the one that cost them less to run.  Why wouldn’t they?  

The thing is, given most already have made the switch based on the availability of a new product on the market, why is the EU passing legislation to force something to be done that the market has already dealt with.   

This is just another case of Big State knows best, following what businesses and people already are doing, spending our taxpayers money introducing legislation for something that has already happened, then taking the credit.

The more you think about it......

Canada +++ will do just fine and will benefit the people and businesses of the UK and the EU. 

But it won’t happen because the EU leaders won’t let it happen as it would mean the UK, like Japan, the USA and Australia, would have a trade deal but would be outside the ECJ. 

They spitefully are willing to damage not just the UK but the EU with their regressive and protectionist United States of Europe.

USA, Canada, New Zealand. They say Chequers is dead in the water too.

Talking of countries that are not in the EU that have successful trade deals with the EU but are not subservient to EU law, the US Ambassador to London Woody Johnson has said that a UK-US Free Trade Agreement is now “up in the air” because of the White Paper. 

New Zealand’s former High Commissioner to the UK Sir Lockwood Smith has said that if we follow the White Paper, we “can forget global Britain”. 

On not making our own rules, a Canadian former ambassador to the WTO has stated: ‘either you have the freedom to strike trade deals and manage an independent trade and regulatory policy, or you don’t.’     

The letter does not acknowledge that there is a better alternative.   The UK could negotiate a free trade deal similar to that between the EU and Canada, but with the addition of special rules that would allow British financial firms to retain their automatic access to European markets. Such a deal has been labelled ‘Canada +++’. 

Leaving the EU on WTO terms would allow the UK to make its own laws, agree trade deals with the world outside the EU, and set our own course for a brighter future. It would also prevent undue retaliation from the EU.   

Despite the Prime Minister’s claims that ‘we would still be able to make a competitive offer to new trading partners’, the Chequers plan would actually deny the UK the freedom to do independent trade deals, because regulations need to be on the table in negotiations, and we would not have control over these.   

The White Paper deal is also unnecessary to avoid a ‘hard border’ for Northern Ireland. Both the UK and Republic of Ireland customs authorities have stated that the necessary technological solutions exist without one. Irish PM Leo Varadkar and Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker have both said that even in the event of no deal, there need be no hard border in Ireland. 

The White Paper would see Britain unrepresented in the EU’s law-making institutions but forced to abide by its rules. This means Britain would be governed, to a great extent, by someone other than the British people. So the White Paper is not what anyone would recognise as Brexit – but it is also completely unnecessary. Moving to WTO terms would be a perfectly normal relationship between the two sides.   

The 2017 Conservative manifesto bound the Conservative Party (and the Labour manifesto was also clearly binding to its party) to fully leave the European Union.   

This is not where we are now.

The Government’s White Paper will maintain EU control over Britain

The Prime Minister says the White Paper is driven by the need to ‘put forward proposals they find credible’. But this is the wrong approach. The UK has done nothing wrong by leaving – the point of Brexit is to restore our independent democracy, not to propose things that satisfy the EU.  

The Prime Minister states that the plan takes ‘differing voices’ into account and is a ‘compromise’. However, the White Paper is a compromise simply because in many ways it means we will remain under the EU.   A couple of specific points in this. 

The White paper will prevent independent trade deals and the ‘common rulebook’ is unnecessary.  

The Government has admitted that we will keep single market regulation in goods, but this will also mean other regulations too. When the Prime Minister says we would not want to ‘drop’ standards anyway, she does not mention that we would not be able to improve them either.     

The Prime Minister writes that Britain would be in a ‘free trade area’ in goods with the EU. But free trade does not need harmonised regulations. She claims that this ‘common rulebook’ is needed to ‘move goods without checks’, and that ‘businesses would not need to complete costly customs declarations’. But this also does not need require common rules. Any small border frictions that remain will also be outweighed by the tremendous opportunities for growth out of the EU.     

This EU regulation is getting more burdensome, so it is particularly urgent that we make our own rules and laws again. This plan would prevent that.    

Chequers will tie our economy and our future to the EU indefinitely.   

The White Paper admits that if Parliament tries to make other rules, it will face ‘consequences’. Britain would be under EU rules but without representation in its institutions. We would be handing the EU power over large parts of a major competitor’s economy – our own – and its entire manufacturing sector.   

The EU would have every opportunity to make regulations that discriminate against our companies, and in favour of their own. Even within the EU, Sir James Dyson has described how EU standards discriminate against his innovative products. The Prime Minister claims that ‘the last substantial change’ to these regulations was in 1987, but this is inaccurate. The framework remains the same, but the EU has created thousands of goods-related regulations since then.   

The Prime Minister writes: ‘We will leave the Common Agricultural Policy and Common Fisheries Policy’, but we will not escape EU agriculture regulation, and the White Paper admits that we ‘will continue to work with our European partners to regulate fishing’. As the EU negotiation guidelines link a trade deal to ‘maintaining existing reciprocal access on fish’, this is likely to mean giving foreign boats access to British waters.   

The White Paper admits our country will have to ‘respect the remit’ of the ECJ. Britons may be subject to European Investigation Orders, and UK participation in Europol means being in a body that is expanding, under ECJ jurisdiction, and which the EU can use to request Member States start police investigations.  

Does that happen under the new trade deals with Japan and Canada?  No, of course it doesn't.

The UK will not be in control of its own destiny under the Chequers agreement

On 3rd August, the Prime Minister wrote a letter to all members of the Conservative Party defending the Government’s White Paper aka "Chequers".   Almost everyone, from all parties it would seem, is agreed the letter fails to address several key points and shows that the Government’s plan does not implement the will of the British people.   

So lets take one point.  Why will the UK not be back in control?    

Well,simply, the White Paper does not ‘respect the result of the referendum’ and does not give us control of our borders, laws and money. Ultimately everything depends on our democratic self-government. This means making all our laws, political and economic, in our sovereign parliament and adjudicating and interpreting them in our courts – as the Prime Minister proposed in her Lancaster House speech of January 2017. Tragically, this is not where we are now.   

This deal would prevent taking back control of our borders. Instead, free movement will be replaced by ‘reciprocal mobility arrangements… with other defined provisions’ and ‘the principle of non-discrimination between existing Member States’. This is dangerously close to free movement in new words. Non-discrimination may also allow migrants to claim benefits for their families at UK rates.   

When the Prime Minister writes that ‘EU citizens will no longer have the unfettered ability to come to the UK to seek work’ [our italics], this means they will generally still be able to come to the UK to seek work.   

The deal would prevent control over laws, because it will mean a ‘common rulebook’ for goods, with ‘consequences’ if we diverge. It includes threats of ‘action’ that may result if we do anything to gain an ‘undue competitive advantage’ – in other words what any normal independent nation should be able to do.     

This rulebook means being under all EU laws for goods. But in reality, it means rules for much more, because these rules will cover areas like competition too. It will be decided by majority vote of the other 27 Member States, behind closed doors and with no written record. The UK will not be at the table. The Prime Minister promises a ‘parliamentary lock’ so that our parliament can veto rule changes. But in practise this will be impossible. Norway received a similar promise but cannot diverge from the EU due to threats of consequences.    

And on money?  The Prime Minister writes there will be ‘no more vast annual sums paid to the EU’. But there will still be very considerable annual sums.     

The ‘Brexit bill’ alone would be around £35 billion (four years’ worth of net budget contributions). But this depends on the EU agreeing a deal: so that means being made to pay for a bad deal.      

Afterwards, the deal would prevent control over money because it commits us to continuing annual contributions to things like EU aid, and contributing to defence funding and coordination, which even Jean-Claude Juncker admits are intended to create an EU ‘common army’. 

This is what the Prime Minister means by ‘we will continue to cooperate on security matters’ in her letter. This is an attempt to mollify the EU.  

I thought we lived in a democracy.

In the UK we have jury trials.  Why?  Because we believe that it is the people who decide if the state has proved, or not proved, its case.  There is a reason for that.  It holds the power of the state in control.  No one is literally above the law.  

In the UK we have elections, and on occasion, referenda.  Why?  Because we believe that it is the people who decide who should be given the authority to create law.  There is a reason for that.  We entrust the people we elect.   

So it was in the EU referendum.  We, the people, gave parliament the power that allowed them to call and hold a referendum.  Parliament set up the terms, backed by 90% of the MPs.   

The people voted.  They took a decision.  They voted leave.   

Now we have people coming along and saying, know what, the majority shouldn’t have the final say.  It should be put to a new vote.   To take the logic of that just one step further, every time there is jury trial we don’t like the result of, we should re run it.  Every time there is an election and we don’t like the result of we should re run it.    

People who advocate re running or holding a so called Peoples Vote (wasn’t that what we had when we voted in the referendum?) really are setting in place a very dangerous process.  If they have such scant regard for the democratic and legal process, what next will they try to overturn?

There is no cliff edge.

Those who say otherwise aught to be ashamed. But it goes on.  Scare story after scare story.  Project Fear Mk 2.   

I have absolutely no problem with people who advocate staying in the EU for political reasons.  They want a United States of Europe.  If that is their bag, fine.  Let them argue their case.  It’s a legitimate stance to take and argue for.       

What they can’t argue is that leaving the EU is like a cliff edge.  And the more rational pro EU supporters know that.  Nor would such pro political EU people argue that it is a disaster economically to leave the EU.  They know it won’t be.  It is because they take a principled stance on the political argument, i.e., they think we should be part of a political union that controls everything from foreign affairs, our military, our taxation, our immigration policy, from the EU.       

The more desperate anti Leave people are not so cerebral in their argument.  It’s all cliff edge this, black hole that.  That they try this on with a straight face is amazing.       

Let’s look at the facts.         

First of all, any informed and impartial look would show that there is in reality no such thing as a “no deal”, “cliff edge” or “crashing out”.  It simply doesn’t exist.  And people who talk in these terms should consider the damage their words are causing.       

Putting it simply, if the EU rejects a free-trade deal with the UK, what is described as no deal is not in fact a no deal.  It’s a process where we move to a different deal: trading under WTO rules.   

And that deal is already on the table. So next time someone says to you we will leave with no deal, gently remind that that this is not true, it is simply no deal with the EU.   WTO is a deal already in place.       

The protectionist EU is already losing out to countries that are working under WTO whose figures suggest UK exports to 111 countries under WTO rules grew at a compound annual growth rate of 2.9 per cent, three times faster than exports to the 14 other early members of the single market between 1993 and 2015.       

And what of trading with the EU?  Those trading with the EU on WTO terms saw 135 per cent real-terms growth in goods exports - much faster than the exports of the founder EU members to each other. Most importantly, inside the customs union, UK trade has been steadily declining with the EU since the global financial crisis.     

With facts like that, why would anyone argue we there is an economic reason for staying in the EU? There isn't.  As David Davis points out, opportunity is round every corner once we are out of the protectionist EU.

So if there were to be a second referendum the question should be, do you want to be part of a declining economic power or do you want to be a truly global trading nation again.  Given we are the 5th largest economy in the world, I think the future looks rather bright being out of the EU.

Who said what?

Question.

Who said each of these statements:  Go on, guess.

1. “I do think it’s a most peculiar costume for people to adopt in the 21st century, but that’s not to me for decide, when they’re not engaged in some serious issue such as giving evidence. That’s the bit that I think it’s almost impossible to have a proper trial if one of the persons is in a kind of bag.”
2. “I wouldn’t want my four year old looked after by somebody wearing a burka. I wouldn’t want my elderly mum looked after by somebody wearing a burka. They need to be able to show their face. I wouldn’t mind if they worked in records in the hospital.” 
3. “Would you interview me now if I was wearing a crash helmet with the visor down?”
4. “Denmark has got it wrong.  Yes, the burka is oppressive and ridiculous – but that's still no reason to ban it.”

Answers:

1. Conservative Rt Honourable Kenneth Clark speaking about the burka on the BBC in 2013
2. Labours Rt Honourable Emily Thornberry speaking on Question Time in 2013
3. Conservatve Andrew Bridgen, MP, talks burkas on Sky News
4. Rt Honourable Boris Johnson in the Daily Telegraph

The question is, why all the fuss over what Boris said?

Mrs Merkel is right.

Mrs May says “It's up to a woman to decide how to dress; it's not up to other people to tell a woman how to dress.  But obviously these issues are ones that are openly discussed and it's right we have discussions about issues like this.”   

Well, that is a typical Mrs May sentence if ever there was one.  It says nothing.   Vacuous.

On the first point, it’s simply not true that women, or men for that matter, can dress how they want to.   There are laws that forbid certain things.

On the second point, “these issues”, she is clearly out of step with her EU counterparts that she is so enthral with.  What’s happened in France with the burqa?  Banned.  Netherlands?  Banned.  Belgium? Banned.  Spain?  Banned.  Italy? Banned.  Austria?  Banned.  Denmark?  Banned.  Switzerland?  Banned.  Even Turkey?  Banned.   

Former French prime minister Manuel Valls called the burka “the enslavement of women”.  Strong words.

Even in Germany the parliament voted in favour of partial burqa ban with the Interior minister saying it will make "boundaries of our tolerance" clear.  Thomas de Maiziere, the German interior minister, argued that the ban was compatible with integration as debate continues over the arrival of more than a million asylum seekers in the country.  “Integration also means that we should make clear and impart our values and where the boundaries of our tolerance towards other cultures lie,” he said.   

Indeed, Mrs May’s good friend Angela Merkel announced her support for the move saying full-face veils were “not acceptable in Germany” and calling them to be banned “wherever it is legally possible”.   

If you watched BBC news last night, it was virtually inviting the police to have a world with Boris almost, but not quite, suggesting he may have broken the law.    

Which is all very odd.  What has he to apologise for?  He defended people's right to wear the burka which is more than what Mrs Merkel does.  She thinks hiding your face is not appropriate in a free liberal society that prides itself on openness.   

Mrs Merkel has got this one right Mrs May.

Who said it?

Guess who said the following in a speech in 2002?   

"The public are losing faith in politics."   

"Politicians are seen as untrustworthy and hypocritical. We talk a different language. We live in a different world."   
 
"Why has the public become so cynical about politics and politicians?"  

"If we're being honest I think we know the answer. In recent years a number of politicians have behaved disgracefully and then compounded their offences by trying to evade responsibility. We all know who they are."  

"Let's face it some of them have stood on this platform."   

"Promising too much and delivering too little."  

"Spinning and counter spinning."   

"Pursuing our obsessions instead of fighting for the common good."   

"Fewer and fewer people are bothering to vote. Why? Because they think that politicians will do exactly what they like."

I wonder if Mrs May ever reads her old speaches?

Once upon a time..........

Once upon a time, as all good stories begin, in a land and time far far away, there were projections of how many jobs would be lost in the financial services if the people of the UK decided to vote to leave the EU.  It was big numbers.  One widely cited report published in 2016 by Oliver Wyman it was estimated that losses could eventually be as high as 75,000.    Back in these olden days Xavier Rolet, the former chief executive of the London Stock Exchange, predicted job losses of over 200,000.  

Changed days.  Wind forward to 1st August 2018.  It’s a different story now with the much touted scare story of an exodus of bankers and financiers from London has not materialised. One interested observer notes that only 1,600 jobs have been earmarked to move.  That’s quite a different number from 200,000.  

So, what’s happened?  Well, like all the other scare stories and fake news peddled by the then chancellor and a host of others who should have known better, the world simply didn’t believe them.  Neither did the people of the UK who voted to leave the EU.      

Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt told the Evening Standard “Probably the City, as the financier of European business, is the central point to make here.  If it became harder for European businesses to access finance, that is far from trivial.  The City itself would find a way to thrive, whatever the outcome of the Brexit negotiations.”  Interestingly he continued, “If it became a low-tax, low-regulation, offshoot fully outside the EU, it would find a way to thrive in those circumstances. But for European businesses the impact would be profound.”    

And indeed it will, as Lord Mayor Charles Bowman observes in POLITICO, the City’s future will be defined less by Brexit than new developments like the rise of financial technology, or fintech with fintech firms already accounting for around 50,000 jobs in the City out of a total of around 483,000, according to figures from the City of London Corporation.   “If we are to lose some of [the existing] jobs, they are going to be the jobs that probably in five-to-10 years’ time are not going to be around, or are not going to be in the same shape or form as today — because the sort of joining of technology with finance at this moment in time is creating a very different dynamic,” he said.   

So Brexit a big problem for the City?  Well, only if people make it one.   

But as in some stories, sometimes a baddy comes along and tries to destroy everything good.  You can decide who the baddies are this time that want to destroy a democratically voted for Brexit.