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?

Living by numbers.

The Fraser Institute is as independent non-partisan research and educational organisation based in Canada.  The Institute 2017 Economic Freedom of the World report has two interesting figures.   

£31,588 and £4,490.   

The difference is, to save you working it out, £27,097.  

So, what are these two magical numbers?  Well, the first is the average income in the most economically free quartile of countries.   

The second figure is the average income in the least economically free quartile of countries.  By economically free we are talking countries that are not socialist state planned economies.  

So why would anyone vote for Labour under Jeremy Corbyn whose whole economic thrust would lead to the latter figure of the average person being £27,097 worse off?

What a speech!!!!

It was brilliant.  Yes, the Jeremy Corbyn speech today in Brighton was truly brilliant.  It shone with clarity.  It told us where he was going.  It left us in no doubt what the future would look like under a government led by him.   

He lauded the public sector workers alone completely forgetting that it is the private sector workers and businesses that actually provide the money for all the things he wants to do.  The people who work for the State are more important was the subliminal message.   

There were promises of a surge in housebuilding and the imposition of State controlled rent controls.  This is an interesting one – something almost every economist on the planet thinks is a pretty daft idea.  Oh, and tenants and leaseholders are to have veto over local redevelopment efforts.  Anything that is not State run in housing is not much off being evil was the subliminal message.  

His whole thrust was that the private sector has totally failed the nation and needs replacing with a totally socialist State solution clearly doesn’t hold much water given it has created 3.5 million jobs since 2010.  But, the State is better than the private sector was the subliminal message.   

Yes, it was a brilliant speech because it left us in absolutely no doubt that he believes that a state controlled and run economy is what is best.   A socalist utopia.

His problem is, such a socialist economy never works.  Look at the evidence.  Look at any nation that has gone down the route Mr Corbyn advocates and you see many things.  Poverty.  Poor services.  Under achievement.  Lack of democracy.  Lack of accountability. Stifling autocracy.  Corrupt bureaucracy.  Failure.  

Gaby Hinsliff of the Guardian unkindly but probably fairly described the second half of his speech as “the Light Ramble Through Areas Of General Interest To Me phase which all Corbyn’s speeches reach eventually” – he looked unelectable.

A good deal is in everyones interest, not least for the rEU.

I’m not sure that Messrs Barnier and Tusk have got the message.  It is in their interest as much as ours in the UK to talk about the future.  Listening to Mr Tusk after his meeting in Downing Street today suggests he is in denial.  

Let’s take trade.  The myth that we won’t be able to trade with the single market.  Well, we won’t be in the single market so it’s true, we won’t be trading in it.  But then, neither is any other country in the world.  So will we be able to buy and sell goods from and to the remainder European Union (rEU)?  You bet we will.  On the same basis as every other non EU country on the planet.  And Messrs Tusk and Barnier can’t stop us.  And they know that.  And we know that they know that we know that.  

Let’s talk money.  The myth that we owe the EU loads of money.  Actually, legally we don’t owe them anything.  Like leaving a golf club, you may have voted for something a few years ago, but the club cannot come to you and say, you voted three years ago for something, you have to keep paying even once you leave.  How ridiculous.  But if they are a nice group of people you may say “well, it was fun when I was a member and you continue to be good friends, so let me make a contribution to the costs of the new clubhouse or whatever”. But it is morally right if we have committed to fund something, we should continue to do so till we leave the EU.  I think Mrs May has made that clear.  And for the duration of the programme if it extends past the date we leave the EU.  But Mr Tusk and Barnier can’t stop us walking away and pay nothing if we so chose to.  And they know that.  And we know that they know that we know that.   

At the end of the day, the UK can walk away as no deal could indeed be better than a bad deal.  And they know that.  And we know that they know that we know that.

Forget the magic money tree, this is a forest.

Do you have a pension?  Well, chances are your pension scheme invests in a lot of household names.  That’s how they grow the money you regularly put into your pension pot.  They look for good businesses and invest.  Then as the business grows they get pay back.  This is your pension.   

So yesterday at the Labour party conference must have had you scratching your head and wondering what would to happen to your pension should John McDonnell become Chancellor of the Exchequer if Labour wins the next general election.  If it didn’t it should have.   

Announcing his plan to in effect nationalise PFI contracts John McDonnell noted that they started under John Major.  True.  But if you want to introduce history to your argument, you have to be consistent.  So he really should have mentioned that the vast majority began under Labour governments. The figures?  604 PFI projects started under Labour.   112 under the Conservatives.  Don't get me wrong.  PFI was perhaps not the best way to find investment.  But it is what successive Labour and Conservative Governments did.  And in many cases the contracts are still in place. 

Mr McDonnell then went on in the same vein in relation to the Utility companies. And this is where you pension becomes very important. So listen up.    

Mr McDonnell does not believe investors in utility companies, your pension fund, would be fully compensated at market value for their shares under Labour’s nationalisation plans.   Instead, as he admitted on Radio 4, share prices would be determined by Parliament according to how MPs perceived the past behaviour of firms:   “The value of any industry which is brought into public ownership is determined by Parliament itself… the perceived behaviour [of companies] affects the price…”   

When asked if shareholders would be compensated at market value, McDonnell replied:   “The market value will be determined by Parliament.”  So in one short sentence he displays total ignorance of how trade works.  The market value of anything is determined in the market place.  Of businesses competing for our spending power. That is why it is called the market value.

So, if Labour doesn’t pay the true market rate but a rate that it as a political party decides it should pay, your pension is well and truly in trouble. 

Not that I’m against a democratically elected government doing such a thing.  He can bring these back on to the public debt book.  They would have a mandate.     

But Mr McDonnell needs to be crystal clear that his policy will destroy the value in your pension fund.  Labour’s economic illiteracy in a nutshell…  And as one commentator put it, “Forget the magic money tree, this is a forest”…

Disruptive technology good. Not paying fair share of taxes bad.

I love disruptive technology like UBER.  But I really don’t like them using a gap in EU and UK tax rules to avoid incurring sales tax on the booking fees it charges drivers in Britain.   

It means I have to pay more tax to keep the hospital, police, fire service, roads, army, etc. going.  In an article in The Guardian a year ago it was noted that “Uber’s main British business paid only £411,000 in tax last year while the commission fees from thousands of drivers in the UK disappeared into a controversial tax structure in the Netherlands”.   

How does Uber do it?  Well, it avoids having to charge British value added tax on its booking fees by treating each driver as an individual business and then billing drivers across EU borders from its Dutch subsidiary, using an EU VAT provision called the “reverse charge”.  Easy when you know how.   

But you and I don’t have that luxury when it comes to choosing how much tax we would like to pay.  And where.  If UBER don’t pay the same taxes as their competitors do, that mean you and I have to pay more to fund nurse’s police etc.   

So disruptive technology, yes.  Creatively playing the tax system that means the rest of us have to pay more of because they don’t. No!

Cliff edge? There is a different view.

From the way it is reported in MSM, the world and its wife thinks leaving the EU is going to be an utter disaster.  Well, it could be if enough people put up obstacles that make the UKs bargaining position utterly compromised.   

Which is what the SNP and Labour seem to be about these days.  One wonders whose side they are on.  For the SNP, that’s obvious, their own narrow agenda of self-rule.  

But Labour, they are in a different space.  They are a UK wide party.  So why are they now turning against the UK and in effect supporting a foreign government?  We might as well start calling the EU a foreign government for that is what they are in effect becoming.   

One Army.  One foreign policy.  One Chancellor of the Exchequer.  One head of state.   

But, not all of the establishment are so enthralled by the undemocratic leanings of the EU and the EC.  And they don’t all think that it’s a cliff edge either.  Some think WTO is just fine, acting in the same way as the USA and China and just about every other nation in the world.  

So why are we not hearing this alternative view more often?  

I think you will have to ask those with an agenda who want to see the worst possible outcome of the “negotiations” so they can say “I told you so.”

Just Do It!!

Europol says an agreement for a future partnership with the UK will take a number of years to negotiate.   My question is “why?”.  Why does anything take a number of years to negotiate?   

The reality is, it doesn’t.  What happens is somebody somewhere says “it will take three years”.  So what happens?  It takes three years.  Even if it could take less.   

The principle that the business community take is much more focused and pragmatic.  Just do it.  Don’t give it a must be done by date.  Just ask, why can’t it be done now?  The reality is, it can.   

Businesses take decision quickly.  They need to.  They would go bust if they took three years to negotiate with thier suppilers or customers. Yes, implementation of decisions can take longer. But the negotiating and decision is taken very quickly.   

But the mind-set of the EC is that it can’t.

Clearly the productive part of the economy, led by people like James Dyson, has much to offer in terms of experience to our negotiators as they battle with the civil servants of the European Commission.