Boris, Gove, IDS, Frank Field & Kate Hoey are just the ticket for #brexit

Following on from all the shouting and the often outlandish and frankly ridiculous claims and counter-claims about whether the UK is better off inside or outside the EU (from all sides); the calm, measured and fact-based submissions from Boris, Gove, IDS, Frank Field and Kate Hoey are a more than welcome - perhaps decisive - contribution to the debate.

After decades in which very few people have been given a platform to question the validity of the EU; the benefits or otherwise of our membership; this group of credible, senior, serious people has come together at what I would say is just in time to help take the UK forward in the right direction.

How anyone can suggest that this proud sovereign nation would be better off being governed by people who have little understanding of our concerns, beliefs and values and who we cannot get rid of if we don't agree with their direction of travel, is beyond me but it is essentially the argument that is being put forward by the 'remains'.

I'm not going to trawl through all the arguments as to why we should leave - I have blogged about them for some years and been anti EU since the mid 1980s, so it is a subject that is very dear to my heart. If you are interested there are a couple of pieces you might want to read here (general piece from 2013), here (UK's influence in the world, from 2014) and here (would we really choose to join the club if we weren't already a member? recent).

Oh and a piece about why Mr Farage is not the right man to lead the 'out' campaign here.

Farage is not the right man to lead the 'out' campaign, but he does deserve a great deal of credit for getting us to where we are now - to securing this referendum, this once in a lifetime chance to take back control of our own destiny as a nation state. He's had to shout long and loud about this issue and it has been a long slow process of getting it onto the agenda. His shouting has been returned by the 'in' side whose own claims have often been equally outlandish, controversial or even outright lies, such has been the nature of the debate so far. Farage still has an important role to play, but my hope is that he will recognise that we now have a new forward line, a new team that can score the goals we need to be scored and that his best bet will be to take credit and to admire from the sidelines as a coach and supporter rather than as the star striker.

The 'in's are still mired in this shouting match, this fear-mongering, this 'leap in the dark' nonsense, because essentially it's all they have. I have long said that the facts will out in this debate and the facts quite clearly do not stack up as far as our continued membership is concerned.

What this new team (and there are of course many others who will contribute - half of the Tory parliamentary party for example) does, is it brings sound. measured, credible reasoning to bear. It brings forward the facts that will win the argument not in a party political way, but in a cross-party, nation first way which is a breath of fresh air compared to the increasingly obvious vested interest brigade which makes up the 'in' campaign.

I think people are waking up to this vested interest establishment-driven, EU-funded-BBC-driven 'ordinary people don't matter and shouldn't have a say-driven' Remain position. And unfortunately for Battling Dave and the Remains, it is the people who will decide on this issue and the much brighter future this country will enjoy when we leave the EU in almost every aspect of our lives, from employment and trade to security, border control, making our own laws and controlling our own destiny.

What has Dave said so far?

That we have greater sovereignty if we're governed from Brussels. Really?

That we'll have better security if we rely on Italy, Spain, Greece, Romania and others rather than sorting out our own security ourselves. Really?

That trade sanctions are a risk to British jobs - when we are the Eurozone's biggest customer in the world and they therefore cannot afford not to trade with us. Really?

That we can control immigration by imposing a minor reduction in benefits from 2020 instead of having proper, robust border controls. Really?

That we need to be in the EU in order to have influence on the world - so as an ignored 8% of the EU instead of the world's 5th largest economy. And we've just seen what our influence counts for in the EU haven't we? The square root of sod all.

None of this stacks up in any way. It's time we left the burning building that is the EU for the good of the UK but also for the good of those countries in the Eurozone whose economies have been reduced to basket cases by EU policy and the single currency: - southern Europe in particular where youth unemployment is above 50% and where they cannot devalue their currencies in order to balance their economies. But actually it's not just southern Europe that is suffering massively from EU policies - it is everyone outside of Germany.

The world's only shrinking trading bloc; a plan devised in the 1950s that has been a disaster for most members and whose continuation is based more on the continued employment, status and solid gold pension plans of massively overpaid Eurocrats than what's right for the countries and people they supposedly represent?

I think the team of Boris, Gove, IDS, Frank Field and Kate Hoey will tip the balance decisively in favour of Brexit. It's time to go. June 23rd is probably the last chance we have to shake of the yoke of Germany - sorry the EU - don't let it go to waste.

Thanks for reading.

This is what the BBC thinks Battling Dave has achieved..

Child benefits? Erm no. We can only index link this from 2020. If the EU doesn't dismiss this policy before then. Dave had to drop this proposal in order to get what is laughingly being called  a 'deal'.

Migrant Welfare Payments: The Emergency Brake can only be applied in exceptional circumstances - and who decides what exceptional circumstances are? Erm the EU. So we don't decide when we can apply this brake. Even if we're driving off a cliff. And one would imagine that Frau Merkel's idea of migrant 'emergency' is somewhat different to ours.

Eurozone: We can keep the pound? And pray tell me how this was going to be different before this deal? Anyone who thinks we'd be forced to give up the pound - and more importantly that we'd just meekly go along with this - without this deal, should seek help. And we'll be reimbursed for bailing out EZ countries? Good luck with that. The EU billed us £2billion last year, completely out of the blue, because our economy was doing well - and included our black market and the sex trade in its spurious calculations even though they cannot effectively be measured - by definition, der.

Protection for the city of London: Which is the world's leading financial centre. It would simply ignore EU legislation:- it is regulated internationally, it is a global industry; it does not fall under the remit of the EU or even the UK government to any great extent. So what is the achievement here? And how will protecting the banks who rip-off everyone they touch be seen as a great deal for the UK people?

Sovereignty: The EU could not force us to be part of 'ever closer union' before this deal. The deal gives us absolutely no powers back. There is no repatriation of powers to UK parliament in this deal. Dave will suggest that he's saved us from being forced to speak German by next Thursday - utter nonsense. Effectively what our opt out does is it means we have got off the train, its direction has not been changed in any way, we now have no influence whatsoever over its destination, but we're continuing to pay for the journey.

Red Card for national parliaments: Given that the EU has rejected every single amendment to EU proposals tabled by the UK since 1994 this is a non-event. In order to play our red card we'd have to secure support from 15 other nations for our view. Erm tell me, when has this ever happened in the past. And, in any case, is this special 'deal' really suggesting that if 55% of EU countries currently reject an EU policy that it (the EU) can just carry on regardless? If so that's an even more monstrous rejection of democracy than even I though the EU capable of..

Competitiveness: Meaningless words that appear in almost every EU statement of this kind and has resulted in the square root of fuck all actually being done to achieve this goal. Ask young people in southern Europe where unemployment rates are above 50% about this. There is no content, no solid proposal, not 'action required' in this banal bullshit.

Some limits on free movement? Even the pro-EU BBC is hesitant on this one. Because in practice we continue to have to allow criminals into the UK as part of the EU free movement programme and we cannot seem to deport anyone without years if not decades of legal appeals etc. And without controlling our own borders, how can we possibly stop criminals or terrorists from coming in? This is also meaningless.

And that's it. Battling Dave's deal.

And it has yet to be ratified by the EU.

A much more effective way of achieving all of the above as well as taking back our sovereignty, having the people we vote for (and can vote out) making our laws and controlling our own borders properly instead of trying to become as mean and nasty towards incomers (which is just a stupid and non-British policy) in order to deter them; is to leave. To have the courage of our own convictions, a belief in our own capabilities and ability to run our own affairs and to be able to trade with the whole world rather than just the small-minded, protectionist EU.

And if you think our departure would result in the imposition of trade barriers or a loss of UK jobs, consider this: The UK is the EU's biggest customer in the world. We have a trade deficit with the EU (2014) of £61.6 billion in their favour. There are £61.6 billion worth more jobs relying on trade with the UK in the Eurozone than there are in the UK. If you really think they would jeopardise this by imposing trade barriers in the event of #brexit then I'm not sure economics is the right career path for you.

Do we want to be the world's fifth largest economy, trading with the world including countries with whom we have excellent relationships - like China, India, the Commonwealth and Europe, or do we want to have a shrinking 8.4% share (and almost zero influence) within the world's only shrinking and failing trading bloc?

Time to decide. Time, in my opinion, to get the hell out and watch the EU fall apart under the weight of its own monstrous mismanagement of this doomed United States of Europe project that seeks to make the whole of Europe a single place. In Germany's image.

Thanks for reading.

Dave reckons if we weren't already a member of the EU, we'd vote to join? 'Hell yes'

Makes you wonder really doesn't it? Why Dave thinks that if we weren't already a member, we'd want to join the EU?

Why would we want to join a club when we are trying to secure a legally binding opt-out from its core principle of 'ever closer union'?

Why would we want to join a club when we don't agree with its publicly stated direction of having a single, EU imposed currency, flag, anthem, army, tax regime, employment and pension system?

What exactly would we be trying to sign up to then? An inability to strike our own trade deals with the rest of the world - when the EU has proven to be woefully inept at doing so?

An inability to control our own borders or decide on our own levels of welfare which are paid for by UK taxpayers?

An inability to invest in the levels of public services needed to meet the needs of our population - healthcare, housing, schools, energy and waste provision, transport infrastructure - because we have no idea what that population will be and absolutely no control over the numbers?

An inability to have our own laws made by people for whom we vote (and can kick out if they fail); lawmakers who live here, understand our concerns and values, have actually heard of the city, town or village where we live?

And all this wonderful stuff to be secured at the price of just £28million (net) a day - to help pay for our biggest economic competitor Germany's take-over of Europe and its destruction of the economies of southern Europe with the consequent disaster being visited on employment rates, particularly for young people. We could build a new, fully-equipped NHS hospital every two weeks for that kind of money.

Membership of this club must come with some massive personal benefits for Dave and his cronies in 'the Establishment' for him to be in favour of joining - it seems to have very few, if any, benefits for the people of this country.  

And you are supposed to be working and negotiating in our interests Dave, not your own.

Would we really want to join this club if we were not already a member? Only if we had a genuine desire to diminish and destroy the standing of this once proud nation. To turn the fifth biggest economy on earth into an 8% shareholder (and shrinking), influence-free, part of the world's only shrinking trade bloc:- An organisation whose actions are creating chaos throughout Europe and once again giving rise to serious conflict between, and extremism within, its increasingly disparate and desperate member states.

Hell no Dave. This will be your downfall - and you will get everything you deserve.

'I rule nothing out'? Except doing what is the right thing for this nation and its people.

Not only would we never join this shambles of a club if we were not already a member, we should - and I hope will - do everything we can to get out of it now that we have the chance. It may well be a once in a lifetime chance - quite probably the last chance we will get - given the massive goal-post-moving changes that have been imposed upon us since the last time we got any kind of say in the matter forty years ago.

Don't waste this opportunity. Vote to get out. To take back our sovereignty, control of our borders and our future destiny. Do we really want our future to be decided by unelected muppets in Brussels who rarely if ever take account of the views of the British people in their decision-making? #brexit


Thanks for reading.

Making the UK a nasty, unwelcoming place in order to deter immigrants is utterly stupid

It seems to me that our membership of the EU does one thing above all else: It diminishes us.

As a nation and as a society - as people who are by instinct generous, welcoming, tolerant and who, above all, have a sense of fairness and are concerned about the genuinely needy.

It diminishes us because without being able to control our borders we no longer have the ability to decide who comes to live here: Genuine refugees, in genuine need are shifted down the pecking order in favour of those who are better equipped to play the system and who are able to shout louder for their EU-given 'rights' and 'entitlements'.

And because we're in the EU we cannot exert this much-needed (thanks to Frau Merkel) control over our borders which means we cannot plan to provide the services - schools, hospitals, housing - that will be required to meet the needs of the population. How can we possibly do this when we have no idea what the population will be? And particularly when the numbers are increasing by hundreds of thousands every year, which puts severe strain on the services required by existing and new members of our society.

And because we cannot control the numbers, we have been reduced (diminished) into trying to make this country as mean as possible, as unwelcoming as possible in a futile attempt to stem the tide of immigration that is overwhelming some parts of the country.

We should be helping refugees - we should perhaps be taking many more than we are now - but because there are so many economic migrants flooding into the country, our ability to identify and help the genuinely needy is being diminished. Essentially because of our membership of the EU.

Yes it is ludicrous that we offer free healthcare to non-UK citizens, people who have not made any contribution to the NHS. We don't, as far as I am aware enjoy free healthcare when we travel abroad - we need to have medical insurance to pay for treatment we might need in other EU countries. Why is this not applied in the UK?

My elderly Canadian aunt recently visited us in the UK and managed to break her leg whilst here. She was fully insured and able to pay for her treatment but it simply never came up. She was treated for free by the NHS. Why?

And why are foreign students allowed to study here and then leave the country without paying for their education? I'm all for us having foreign students at UK universities - they are a source of pride to the country - but why are so many allowed to get away without paying? Their bills are ultimately picked up by the taxpayer - the Universities still get their money.

A benefits system that allows foreign workers to claim child benefit here when their kids are living back in Hungary, or Poland etc., is also mad, as is a system where able-bodied, economic migrants can get a home and benefits from day one when millions of existing Brits remain on the waiting list. But these issues need to be fixed in a way which is fair and equitable. They should not be being used as a means (the only tool in the box) of trying to dissuade people from wanting to come and live here.

We should instead be controlling our borders and deciding who comes to live here, based on their refugee status and need or, for others, based on their skills and the contribution they will be able to make to our ongoing prosperity. And when they meet the criteria that we control and agree and accept as a democratic society, and when they become British citizens, we should offer them the same generosity in terms of a welfare safety net which is designed to help until they find work, that is afforded to all other British citizens.

That is how we are as a nation. It is where we have come from, how we have built a successful society and economy. By being generous and rewarding endeavour; not by being a mean, small-minded negative country.

And it might also be worth remembering that there is a difference between genuine refugees and 'illegal' economic migrants, that the Dublin Convention calls for refugees to seek refuge in the first safe country and that we already give more per capita in foreign aid, in aid to Syrian refugees in place and more in charitable aid than any other major country on earth.

I'm not saying 'open the gates' like Merkel: I am saying close the gates, control the borders and then. when that has been successfully and firmly achieved, we can quietly open the smaller door in the castle gate and bring in those people who are in genuine need and who we want to join us because they have the right attitudes and values to become British, just like all of us other migrants and refugees did in the past.

Thanks for reading.

Emergency Brakes, Red Cards and Dave's future

When presented, for the first time in 40 years, with the opportunity to 'reboot' the UK's relationship with the EU, I have to say that I expected a more wide-ranging set of choices, a more fundamental set of questions to be addressed and a more UK-focused approach to the whole subject. We are, after all the 3rd biggest financial contributor to the EU (although I have severe doubts as to whether France does actually contribute {net} more than we do), and the Eurozone's biggest customer for trade on the planet so one would expect us to be able to have some say in the future direction of the European Union from time to time.

Every 40 years or so, for example.

One would also expect our views to be taken seriously by our 'friends' in the EU and that we would be shown considerable respect by Eurocrats, even if they disagree with our views.

So, imagine my surprise to find that what we are actually faced with are a couple of largely meaningless 'initiatives' that might possibly (but by no means certainly) help to address a couple of  issues that have become areas of concern in the EU: immigration and sovereignty.

Clearly both of these issues are important. Fundamentally they are about controlling the destiny of a nation state - a state which has the democratic systems in place to enable it to do just this in the interests of - and with the agreement of - it's inhabitants.

And yet, instead of the 'genuine reforms' we were promised 'in the interests of UK citizens', the measures, on the basis of which we're being asked to vote to remain, are not in our control at all. They will not be enacted on the basis of their being what UK citizens want, but only if the citizens (and actually not really the wider European public but a handful of unelected Eurocrats) of other countries agree to them.

So get this straight: these measures - Red Cards on EU legislation which are subject to our securing agreement from 14 other EU countries (who have almost never supported us in the past) - and an 'Emergency Brake' which is unlikely to be ratified by the EU but in any case will require the EU to agree to a nebulous situation in which we face an extreme threat (which we do not define ourselves), are the most 'solid' reforms that Dave is bringing forward for us to vote on? Really?

So we're the Eurozone's biggest customer, we pay £28m a day (net) into the EU coffers; if we leave it will cause utter chaos in the EU (and probably see the failure of the entire project) and this is all Dave can come up with?

Measures that probably will not reduce immigration anyway but in order to achieve them we will have to go cap in hand to Messrs Junker, Tusk and the other usually sneering EU ministers for agreement?

The talk, for months if not years, has been about our voting to 'Remain' in a 'reformed EU'. What is now being proposed is not, in any way a reform to the EU. At the very most, it is about a reform of our relationship with the EU - but even this is not something that we can control or enact without the support and agreement of people in Brussels, Strasbourg and Luxembourg whose support and agreement we have almost never got in the past.

It's an utter sham and by standing up with a straight face and telling us that this is a good deal for Britain, Dave is undermining everything that he personally and his party collectively has achieved in the last 6 years. I am a fan of Dave, a supporter even, but whether we are governed by the EU or not is much more important than UK party politics. Indeed UK party politics will be largely irrelevant if we vote to 'remain', since the majority of our laws in the future will be imposed upon us from Brussels.

And we (the UK) have consistently stated that we do not share the direction of travel upon which the EU is embarked - i.e. towards ever closer union, a single federal state of Europe, with a single government, flag, anthem, army, financial regime, tax and employment laws. Indeed one of Dave's other 'measures' in this current shambles is about securing an exemption from this direction.

Why do we need to secure a guarantee that we will not be forced to go in the same direction as the EU? And perhaps more importantly, why do we want to continue to be a member - and pay £billions every year for the privilege - of a club whose values, ambitions and actions we do not share - and which have also proved to be disastrous for most of southern Europe?

Why does Dave want us to 'remain' in an organisation that restricts our global status, influence and trading ability? That reduces us from our status as the worlds 5th largest economy to one 28th of the world's only shrinking trading bloc with a diminishing 8% influence?

And why would we British citizens want to 'remain' under the yoke of an EU whose decision-and-law-makers will almost certainly never have heard of where we live, much less understand our lives, concerns, values or ambitions? Have we become so meek, so lacking in confidence that we are now happy for Luxembourgers to impose the parameters under which we live our lives? Have we become so subservient as a nation?

However one looks at it, Dave's deal does not stack up as being in the interests of the UK or its citizens. He held all the cards and asked for the square root of sod all in terms of reforms. If he'd threatened to campaign for brexit the EU would have had to accept almost any demands he put forward - or face disaster, chaos and almost certain failure. He didn't. He has, in my opinion, sold us down the river.

Sadly this will be his Blair 2003 moment, when all credibility will be lost. And if we do manage to wake up in sufficient numbers to secure brexit, Dave will be kicked out in ignominy and judged very harshly by history. Sad for him, but glorious for the United Kingdom and its future prosperity and standing in the world.

Thanks for reading.