Expats healthcare conundrum.

There is a report today that suggests tens of thousands of expat pensioners living in the EU may return to the UK to use the NHS after Brexit - unless a deal can be done to let them keep receiving care abroad, paid for by the UK taxpayer.  So far so good.  If they have paid their taxes, why not. 

But here is where the story goes a bit awry.  The Nuffield Trust estimates the cost to the UK taxpayer of treating them on home soil, rather than abroad, could double the £500m the UK gives a year to EU countries that care for Brits who have retired abroad, to £1bn.  And Brexit will be to blame.  There’s a surprise.  

But doesn’t that all strike you as a bit odd?  It is going to cost double what it costs to have them treated abroad?  Why will it cost double?   Why will it cost so much more to treat the same people with the same issues back here inthe UK?

There really are only two alternatives.  Either the healthcare they are treated to in other EU countries is so poor it only costs half what it does in the UK which as we know is not true.  The French, German, Dutch, Belgian and Spanish healthcare systems are just as good as ours, if not better in some cases.  Or our UK health service is so inefficient that it costs double to deliver the same healthcare that these EU nations healthcare systems provide.  

Ah, but wait a minute.  Is this just another story made up to try to undermine the Brexit negotiations? 

Tucked in at the bottom of the BBC item it noted the Nuffield Trust said there could be gains too post-Brexit.  When the UK leaves the EU it could stop paying EU membership fees.  Money from this saving could be used by the NHS.  Nuffield Trust spokesman Mark Dayan said: "It is possible that extra funds could be found for the NHS from any cancellation of Britain's EU membership fees". 

So why does the BBC lead with the negative angle rather than the positive angle?

Answers on a postcard…..

Plus ça change.

Labour economics.   

Back in the 60’s it was Harold Wilson with his 35% pay rise for coal miners that started the decline, not just of the mines but the economy.  The end result?  A 22% increase in the cost of domestic fuel, which was ok for the miners, they got a free coal allowance.  The price of coal for industrial use rose by over 7%, to generate the extra £370m in revenue to pay for the wage increases.  The increase in wages had to be paid for somehow.  At a stroke it became cheaper to import coal than to produce it at home.  Welcome to Old Labour economics.   

During Thatchers premiership the gap between rich and poor narrowed (it grew again under New Labour) and real poverty in the UK was virtually eliminated, hence the idiotic Labour introduction of relative poverty. The standard of living of the poorest grew more and faster under Thatcher than in other period in British history.   Under New Labour, it fell.  Welcome to New Labour economics.   

And the Corbyn/ MacDonald version?  A mix of the two failed economic strategies of the past.   

Plus ça change.

Tim should have said "I'm out".

“We are leaving the European Union. We want to ensure our departure is smooth and orderly and to agree a deep and special partnership with the 27 remaining member states.”   

The first sentence is a fact; it’s what we voted for in the biggest popular vote the UK has ever seen.   The second sentence is an aspiration; it’s what all reasonable people want us to work towards.  

And how about “the United Kingdom will be a global champion for an open economy, free trade, and the free flow of investment, ideas and information.”  Again, an aspirational statement.  And one applauded by Remainers and Leavers alike.  Well, not all Remainers.   

But the recent YouGov poll shows that now a total of 68 per cent of respondents would like to see Britain withdraw from the EU.  According to YouGov some 45 per cent said they were Eurosceptic, while 22 per cent said they wanted the Government to ignore June's election result.  The 22% democrats?  I think not!   

The interesting thing is, a total of 23 per cent - described as “Re-Leavers” - said that they voted Remain last year, but now believe the government has a duty to carry out the will of the British people.  They are Democrats.  Not just acknowledging the decision of the people of the UK as the LibDems are doing, but accepting it.   

This leaves Tim Farron being in the unenviable position of having a manifesto that, according to YouGov, advocates a position that many people who voted Remain simply don’t associate with.   

Which is a shame because Farron, a person most outrageously maligned in recent days by people who should know better, was as an individual head and shoulders above those he shared the ITV Leaders debate stage with last night.   

He must have wondered why he didn’t say before the rather unspring debate, “I’m with Theresa and Jeremy on this, I’m out”.

Which country has the best maternity leave provision? Guess.

Here’s a puzzle for you.  Which country has a statutory 52 weeks maternity leave?  The UK or the EU?  Well?  The EU?  Don’t think so.   

But you would never know that reading the Liberal Democratic Party manifesto. The suggestion is that "the right to 52 weeks’ maternity leave" is "based on EU law".  Really?    

The EU’s statutory minimum period for maternity leave is actually just 14 weeks.  The UKs is 52 weeks.  And people like the LibDems the Greens and the SNP keep wanting us to retain EU rules when they are inferior to ours in the UK.   

One wonders what other untruths are in the document.   

Democratic is an odd word for the Lib Dems to have in their party name for they are anything but.   

Yesterday's manifesto refuses even to accept last year's referendum result, preferring instead just to "acknowledge" it.  So if the Lib Dems win the general election we don’t need to accept it, we just need to acknowledge it.

£46.8b is a lot to take away from spending in local shops.

So Labour has unveiled its pledges for the General Election.  They will cost £48.6bn - to be funded from extra tax revenue - in its election manifesto.   

Now, taking any money out of the consumer economy and handing it to the government of the day to spend is a pretty serious thing to do.   

Every £1 the government takes from you is a £1 you no longer have to spend.  In local food shops.  In clothes shops.  Shoe shops. Bike shops. Car showrooms. DIY stores.  Yes, Labour are proposing that we will have £48.6b less available to spend in the UK economy.  Which might seem good news for those that think that governments know how to spend best our money, but is a disaster for the economy that you and I live in.  How many jobs will be lost by the government taking that £48.6b out of our pockets?   

And of course, the £46.8b doesn’t include buying back the assets that were sold under privatisations or purchased by private investors since they were liberated from state control.  They talk of nationalising the railways.  That includes the trains.  And the trains are owned by a private company that our pensions invest in.  So if Labour decides just to take them into government ownership without paying the market rate, which John McDonnell very noticeably didn't deny could happen, that’s a chunk out of your pension. Indeed, Labour clearly said that a future Labour government would determine what the market price would be.  That one statement shows how out of touch they are.  Logically, it wouldn't be a market price if the government decided what the price was.  Sadly, Labour are still living in an idealistic fantasy student politics land.    

If they did get into power, be sure that the only beneficiaries would be lawyers who would trouser very large sums as the government would have to fight water, rail and other nationalisations through the courts.  

Nice ideas Jeremy.  But utterly unworkable.

When in Rome....

Have another look at these images.  What do you notice?  Every time you see an Italian flag it is always accompanied by a flag of the European Union.  Contrast that with the last picture.  This is one of our embassy in Rome.  A Union Jack flies, all be it without much breeze to show the red white and blue.  But notice, it stands alone.   

And that is what I noticed around Rome these past few days.  Italy is not a nation anymore. It’s always now seen as being a part of something else.  And the prominence of the blue flag with gold stars being flown over all the city just acts as a reminder of that.  Indeed, it’s really propaganda.  Little wonder that they don't understand why the UK voted to leave the EU.  

It even carries on to Italian car number plates where all that is reflected of Italy is the letter “I”, above which the blue is and gold of the EU flag.  The message? The EU is in control.  And given that message is constantly in your face it is little wonder the people of Italy see the EU as a saviour.  Never mind it is the EU that has caused the bankruptcy of this once proud nation.   

All of this is thrown into sharp relief when you go round the ruins of an earlier European empire.  But there is one big difference, that empire actually lasted 507 years and was successful because of two things, good leadership in people like Hadrian and innovation.  Just look a the engineerring and arts of the period.

Unfortunately the EU we see today has neither of these qualities.

Hard brexit? Not as bad as some would have you believe.

So, what is hard Brexit?  It’s a term thrown around a lot by people like Scotland’s First Minister.  The word "hard" makes it all sound rather uncomfortable.   

But where is the evidence behind the rhetoric?  Well for a start, when we leave the EU we will still be trading with rEU.  To put it simply all that will happen is, assuming there is no agreement with rEU, we will do exactly what the rest of the world does when trading with the EU, use WTO rules.  Why wouldn’t we be doing the same?   

So those who say we will fall off a cliff are talking palpable nonsense.  One even said we would fall into the clutches of the WTO.  Really, the clutches?   

Now some people conjure up ideas that WTO rules are somehow bad or at least not good.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  They are a set of rules matured and developed over time for global trade.  And we should know, we virtually wrote the rules!  And we should also know because our trade outside the EU is under WTO rules.  China, USA, India, Brazil, Singapore.  

Some basic numbers to help us here.  About 44% of UK exports in goods and services went to other countries in the EU in 2016 £240 billion out of £550 billion total exports.  So 56% of our trade already is on WTO.  And I don’t hear many businesses complaining.   

There really are only two categories for those who talk about hard brexit with cliff edges and falling into the clutches.  They are either genuine ignorant of world trade or they are of malicious intent and don't want negotiations to succeed.

If it’s the former we can forgive them, though they need to get learning about international trade quickly.  If it’s the latter, well, you decide whose side they are on in this negotiation with rEU. 

We're not stupid, Nicola.

Scotland’s First Minister is either incredibly naïve or she is somewhat disingenuous.  Which do you think?   

Today she suggested that the claims made by Prime Minister May that the EU is trying to interfere with the General Election were simply part of a ploy to get hard Brexit.  Hard Brexit is pretty vacuous term when you spend more than a nano second thinking about it, but let's park that for today.  

But hang on a second.  What did Guy Verhofstadt chief Brexit negotiator for the EU, say today in relation to the presidential election of Macron in France?  “We supported him from the start”.  Er Mr Verhofstadt, you did what?   

Didn’t Nicola notice that the key people in the EU, her new best friends, are indeed seeking to influence the result of elections in different countries?   

Make no mistake, they have track record in getting their way. Ireland, (forced re run of a referendum) Italy, (they forced the replacement of the democratically elected PM with a Brussels appointment) France, (see Ireland), Netherlands, Greece, (read Adults In The Room.  My Battle With Europe’s Deep Establishment by Yanis Varoufakis, at all good booksellers now.)   Really, you couldn't make up the way the elite in the EC have interfered in elections around Europe.

Naïve or disingenuous?  Nicola, naïve ?  Aye, right.

Be careful what you wish for, President Macron.

I was chatting with one of my neighbours earlier today.  She is French.  She voted for Macron so was happy this morning.  

One of the many interesting observations she made was that she liked Macron because he was pro EU and the EU has kept the peace.  And she knows about what war does to a country and its people, her grandfather having been dismissed as Mayor in the French town where she grew up by the Nazis in the 2^nd World War.  So her family knows what suffering political tyranny can bring.   

And this is what I find a bit odd.  We know it was political tyranny that brought about WW2.  And just about any other war you can think of for that matter.  Politicians start wars.  Think Blair and Bush.

I disagree with the notion that the EU and its predecessors are the things that kept the peace over these past 70 years.  Trade has.  NATO too has a strong case for being part of the peace too, much stronger than the EUs case.   

But for me primarily it is trade.  Nations that let trade flourish between them are nations that have respect for each other.  They have a common goal of making things better.  Prosperity.  Freedom.   

You will see few nations who have gone to war that have had excellent trading relationships with those they are now fighting.  It just doesn’t happen.   

My fear with people like Macron is they are so wedded to the idea that the EU really is the great magician that will solve everything by political means that they really don’t see that harmonious trading relations trump everything else if you want peace.  History suggests that solving things by political means by elite rather than by trading brings conflict.  Not peace.     

If people like Macron are serious about making trading difficult between rEU and the UK, the consequences may be a lot worse than French car workers or wine producers losing business and jobs.  He should be very careful what he wishes for.  He and his ilk will be to blame for the consequences if trade is marginalised to the role of being nothing more than a diplomatic tool for politicians to wield.

Warped logic.

Ever wondered if you did the right thing voting to leave the EU?  You should be under no illusion now.  It’s becoming very clear that leaving is a very wise thing to do.   

Just imagine you resigned from your golf club.  After your subscription ended you received a letter saying, “We know you are not a member here now, but we must ask that you continue to pay a contribution to the cost of maintaining the fairways and a similar sum towards the upkeep of the club house”. 

Welcome to the warped logic of those in power in the EU.

What rEU don't understand. We have a choice.

How many times have we heard the ill-informed comment saying we won’t be able to trade with the rEU (remainder EU) after we have left.

Staying is not a democratic option, we took that vote last year.   

All that is left is to ask, do we want to do a deal with the rEU or don’t we.  WTO is one of the options we have, which is fine for us in the UK because 60% of the UKs export trade already uses WTO with no problem.  And if there is no deal with rEU we will just deal with the rEU on these terms.  We will still trade with rEU and the rEU will still trade with us, on WTO terms.   

When you think about it, WTO is the easiest option.  We know the rules.  We use WTO all the time in the UK.  Or do we do a deal with the rEU who will constantly try to make life difficult for us?    

Theresa May is right, WTO is better than a bad rEU deal.  Much better. 

The Nasty Party. Not who you thought it was.

I really hadn’t noticed that the legal system we have in Scotland had changed.  But apparently it has.  

Why else would the first minister launch an outspoken attack of allegations of Tory election fraud during the 2015 campaign, suggesting they could have bought the contest and claiming Theresa May had called a snap election before criminal prosecutions could be brought.   She knew full well that those whe was attacking could not answer back. 

And there was me thinking that the basis of our law in Scotland was presumed innocence until being found guilty.   

Not for Nicola it seems.  Her speech today at the TUC conference in Aviemore was pretty explicit.   

She said: “Whatever else happens in this election we should not allow the Tory party to escape the accountability for any misdemeanours that may have led to them buying the last general election.”   

Yes, she added the word “may” to keep her out of the liable courts.   

But it really was pretty desperate and nasty stuff. 

Scotlands First Minister.

She has a problem.  She is simply incapable of saying anything positive about anything that comes out from Westminster.   

And I think people are really getting a bit fed up with her posturing.   

She will of course want the election fought on how bad Westminster is to us Scots.  And I can see why she will play this diversionary tactic to its full given the state of Scottish Education and the NHS in Scotland.  And what of the impending recession that more than likely will be hitting Scotland in the next quarter while the rest of the UK is actually doing pretty ok thank you.  But it will still be Westminsters fault somehow.

North Korea does a good job of persuading its people they are actually the richest in the world, and they believe it never having had the chance to see the real world outside.  But Nicola’s problem is we in Scotland do see the outside world.  And it’s doing a lot better than Scotland under her watch.

It's a General Election.

Well, surprise surprise.  Out of the blue.   

But did the Prime Minister actually have any other option when Labour said that it would not vote for any agreement on the EU unless it contained all the demands it was making.  Such a position from the main party of Opposition in the UK Parliament hardly gives the PM room for negotiation.  Labour effectively want to tell our EU friends what the final outcome will be.   

We should of course stop referring to this agreement as one we are engaging in to leave the EU.  We’re leaving the EU.  That’s what we voted for.  It is an agreement on what relationship we will have with the EU once we are out. 

Tim Farron, Lib Dem leader, still hasn’t quite got his head round the fact that the people voted to leave the EU.  And as we all knew before we voted, leaving the EU means we are leaving the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice and we are leaving the Single Market.   He can't get his head round that either.

But leaving the EU does not mean we won’t trade with EU on good terms.  Far from it.  We will happily still buy German, Spanish and French built cars.  People in the EU will still buy our engineering and financial products.   

And the only people who will get in the way of that will be politicians.  Like Sir Keir Starmer.  Like Tim Farron.   They are the blockage to a good deal.

I have to say one of the biggest laughs on what was actually a very serious day was the comments from Scotland’s first minister. Ms Sturgeon said the move was an "extraordinary u-turn" by Mrs May.   

Well, if anyone is good at u turns it is Nicola.  A once in a generation referendum on Scottish independence?  Aye right, Nicola.

Hi-jacking an event. Where's your manners?

Under the banner headline “Awkward questions are how the press hold you accountable, Mr Corbyn. Let us do our job” Kate McCann Senior Political Correspondent at The Telegraph suggested that by not answering a question yesterday about Syria he was somehow refusing to answer the question.  It does sound bad.   

Actually, what happened was the media, starting with the BBC, tried to hi-jack a meeting hosted by the Federation of Small Businesses.  The subject of the meeting was late payment.   

Yes, it might sound a bit boring but late payment, largely by bigger organisations, destroys 50,000 small firms a year as a result of unfair and lengthy delays paying what they owe.   (Just imagine for a moment if your employer at the end of the month said, sorry, not paying you for another 60 days.  You wouldn’t be happy I would guess.). Others often have to take out loans to cover the gap.   

Basically small businesses are being asked to act as a bank to lend money to big business.  So with 136 businesses a day going bust because of these practices leaving owners penniless and employees unemployed, what does the BBC ask?  About Syria.   

Nothing to do with what was being discussed.  

It was as if the BBC journalist was not at all interested in what the FSB and Corbyn had to say about late payment.  There are plenty of other opportunities to get answers from Corbyn on Syria.  But no, in the frenzy that is the 24 hour news agenda, the journalist thought it was ok to hi-jack a conference set up to discuss what is really damaging our country, our economy and the jobs of thousands of people for their own self-serving aims.  The BBC, the Telegraph, to name but two media out-lets, really need to employ a better quality of journalist.  With a set of manners.

The police are the public and the public are the police.

Campbell McBryer is a retired counter terrorism officer who served with Sussex police for 23 years.  He went to London today to pay respects at the funeral of PC Keith Palmer.

He said to the BBC: "I'm very proud, but it's very sad. I just sat and cried when I heard the news.  It's just ordinary men and women doing extraordinary things.  (The police) is one big family."

Special sergeant Matthew Warden, from Nottinghamshire, said he had made the journey "because we are all one big family".

Poignant sentiments, particularly as the Officer is laid to rest today.  But fundamentally flawed thinking exists behind them.  PC Palmer was not part of a police family.  There is no such thing according to Sir Robert Peel the founder of the modern police force in England in 1829.  

Known as the father of modern policing, slightly inaccurately as an Act of Parliament in 1800 enabled Glasgow to establish the City of Glasgow Police, (often described as the first professional police force in Britain), Peel did develop the nine Peelian Principles which define the ethical requirements police officers must follow to be effective.  They are taught these when the join the force.  Peel declared: “The police are the public and the public are the police”.    

This is a profound statement in which he stipulated that it was the duty of a police officer to maintain, at all times, a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and that the public are the police.   

All the police are, according to Peel, are “the only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence”.  

PC Palmer was part of the family that is our society, our communities.  He didn’t belong to the police.  He belonged to us all.  Because he was one of us.  

That many police officers of today appear not to recognise this, as was demonstrated sadly today with police officers lining the streets, not the public, they were kept back, undermines confidence we may have in them and showed all too starkly that they do believe they are a family.  A separate group in society.