Dave's pro-EU leaflet - how does it stack up?

 

OK Dave's leaflet - we've paid £9m in order to be told what to think by Dave and his Remains, might be worth taking a look and assessing how watertight this is? The Remains are, after all, forever describing Brexit as a 'leap in the dark', so let's see how much of this is credible fact or simply fear-mongering speculation.

Left column: is entirely accurate and true. Please do not forget this, it is critical to our future and to the prosperity and sovereign governance of our great nation state.

Middle column: The EU has not been reformed in any way shape or form. So 'Special status' is an entirely moot point. What has changed following Dave's endless and fruitless renegotiations is that we now have a non-legally binding opt-out of the EU's continued goal of ever closer union - which means the creation of the single federal state of Europe - a single state with its own political governance, it's own currency, flag, anthem, army and fiscal systems. This has not changed in any way whatsoever and if we are to 'Remain' inside the EU beyond its (the EU's) target date for 'Completing Europe's Economic and Monetary Union' as described in the 5 Presidents Report, 'by 2025 at the latest' we will have to either give up the pound and accept the Euro, or remain forever outside of the main EU, with little or no influence over its policies or decisions, but we will be governed by EU laws, so we'll have no influence and no means of making our own decisions on issues that effect UK citizens. Pretty much as we are now, only much worse because those inside the Eurozone (single currency bloc) will always outvote the UK on fiscal matters in the future for reasons of vested interests.

Third column: yes we know. We can't understand why, but we do at least know where Dave stands on the issue - with unelected foreigners in the EU rather than the British people.

To be more accurate, it is your chance to hand-over the ability to decide on your own future to unelected Eurocrats in Brussels who you didn't elect, can't get rid of and are people who have almost certainly never heard of the place where you live, much less understand your concerns and issues and whose laws are, by definition, more about people elsewhere in Europe than they will ever be about the UK and you. Alternatively, it is about kicking out these people who govern in their own interests and instead vote for the UK to take back control over its own destiny by standing on its own two feet as a major world player - which is where we belong.

Yes the EU is the UK's biggest customer although the 44% figure is a shrinking one and it does include UK goods that are exported via Rotterdam, Europe's biggest international port, so they do not all go to the Eurozone. The figure is expected to fall to 26% by the mid 2020s at current rates, and would almost certainly fall much more quickly if we were to Brexit. However no-one other than the most blinkered of scaremongers is suggesting that Brexit would result in our being denied access to the European market. The fact, glaring in its omission from the above document, is that while the EU is the UK's biggest market, the UK is also the EU's biggest market/biggest customer on the planet and that in 2015 there was a trade deficit of £89 billion in favour of the EU. That means that we buy more goods, create/sustain more jobs in the EU than it does in the UK - to the tune of a growing £89 billion a year. Simply put, the EU, most of whose members are teetering on the brink of yet another recession, cannot afford not to trade with the UK on the basis of the current open trade agreements which are in place. Any kind of barriers to UK exports would be matched by the UK and that would send the EU spiralling into recession. And this nonsense about us being strong in the service sector but not industrially so that sector is under threat is utter rubbish. As if a British negotiator would allow the service sector to be singled out for EU tariffs compared to other sectors. It is not going to happen. In the short term, Brexit would result in nothing changing: existing trade deals would remain in place until we decided to enter renegotiations - and one would hope that we'd have a negotiator with some balls (for a change) who would ensure that our position of strength would be reflected in the outcome of a new deal. The timing of the start of those negotiations is entirely up to the UK - it would not start on June 24th following a Brexit vote. So it is vanishingly unlikely that our access to the European marketplace will be hindered in any way by Brexit, which therefore means no negative impact on UK jobs or investment and I would suggest that dealing with a single, English-speaking, financially sound, legally correct democracy with full access to the EU will be significantly more attractive to investors than trying to deal with the bureaucratic, financially unsigned-off, corrupt monolith that is the EU and many of its dodgy, non-English-speaking member states. If you were a major international investor which of these scenarios would you prefer?

Indeed. Not dependent on our EU membership, and not under threat from Brexit as previously explained. This is a non-issue - and it is perhaps the strongest argument that Dave and his Remains have. That tells you quite a lot doesn't it?

Left column: Pressure on the pound? This is unknowable. I would expect that Brexit would actually see a strengthening of the pound as uncertainty was eliminated and financial speculators recognised the value of Sterling and the UK's ability to make its own decisions and be an expansionist trading partner with the whole world rather than relying on the EU to make our deals for us. And what shape would Brexit leave the EU in, economically and financially? The departure of its second biggest net contributor? I think the money men would be getting out of the EU pending its imminent collapse following Brexit. A stronger pound would not necessarily be a great thing for the UK, but it would certainly not result in the scaremongering outcomes described above. The fact that the EU is so unstable and financially and economically dodgy (lurching from one IMF-supported criss to another - remember Greece? it's about to come back again), speaks for itself and I think, supports my view of where the strengths and weaknesses of the two currencies would stand following Brexit. We would not lose full access to the market as previously explained.

Centre column: There is no evidence that travel between the EU and the UK would be any more difficult following Brexit. Yes there would be border controls, but that would be a small price to pay for the increased security it affords. There is no evidence that air fares would increase. Roaming charges? For £35million a day (net) contribution? Really. Is anyone going to vote to relinquish sovereignty so they can make a cheaper call overseas? I doubt it and there's no reason why these lower costs shouldn't be delivered post Brexit.

Right column: We currently pay massively more to provide 'free' healthcare to EU citizens visiting the UK than we receive from the EU. So there's aboslutely no reason why this shouldn't be negotiated and continue post Brexit. By the same token, we have to have health insurance when we travel in the EU and have to pay for treatment, but this doesn't seem to happen in the UK. This just doesn't stack up.

'Would risk', 'some'? World food prices are currently around 15% lower than those paid in the EU. The EU is a protectionist marketplace which prevents African countries from trading their way into the first world and keeps European prices higher than they would be otherwise. It is therefore a massive stretch to suggest that household prices would go up - and by the sound of the wording here, even the Remains don't really believe it either. They had 16 pages to make their point and devoted a whole page to this? What does that tell you about the strength of their argument?

Left column: Years of uncertainty? Neither the EU nor the UK can afford 'years of uncertainty' in terms of trading arrangements - and as previously explained existing deals would remain in place until we decided - possibly several years down the line - to negotiate a new deal. It is likely that this new deal would be virtually done even before those negotiations began and that an agreement, based on our membership of EFTA (Euriopean Free Trade Agreement), the WTO (World Trade organisation) etc., would ensure a swift transition to a new - and in the interests of both sides - open and tariff-free trade deal, not on the basis of Canada or Norway, but the UK in its own right and negotiated on the basis that the EU needs trade with us more than we need trade with it. And the trade deal would be the holy grail as far as the UK is concerned: Any ongoing uncertainty in other aspects of our relationship with the EU would be much more about the EU shoring up its own existence than anything we'd really be bothered about. Even Dave has tried to get a legally binding opt-out to the EU's 'ever closer union' mantra so why would we give a damn about any uncertainties caused to the EU by Brexit, so long as the trade deal was in place?

Middle column: This debunked 8% and 44% thing again. The key issue is the deficit in the EU's favour. They simply cannot afford not to trade with us and German industrialists will make sure that Frau Merkel agrees a good deal with the UK in the event of Brexit, because their businesses depend on that happening. 'Significant access' - what does that mean? Weasel words. Of course we have to meet EU standards if we export goods to the EU - that is the case now and will not change. We also have to meet Canadian and US and Chinese standards in order to export to thsoe countries - no change there, this is not an issue at all. Countries outside of Europe don't have to pay in to the EU in order to trade with EU countries and nor do they have to have Europeans living and working (with free access) in their countries - that's just a stupid comment.

Right column: There cannot be a limited access deal because the EU cannot afford to limit our access to its marketplace - for whatever goods or services are on the agenda. The EU can probably survive without doing a deal with Canada, it cannot without doing a free and fair deal with its biggest customer.

'Could'? But almost certainly would not. This is not a deterrent to voting to leave - we will be negotiating from a position of strength and when Dave has gone on June 24th, I'd hope we'd have a negotiator with some backbone to secure a good deal for the UK.

Left column: 'The right to check everyone'? More weasel words - we don't actually do this though do we?. We cannot refuse access to the UK to EU citizens - and that doesn't just mean Poles and Romainians but also potentially Ukrainians and Turks if idiotic current EU policies come into force. This also means that economic migrants, once settled in Germany, France or wherever and processed to the point where they secure EU citizenship, will have exactly the same access to the UK. And the deal which makes the UK less of a draw for EU citizens can only be enacted by the EU in special circumstance which they decide upon - it is not something that is controlled by the UK. How stupid is that? Is Dave really saying we 'do' control our borders? Why then are immigration figures in the hundreds of thousands & not the tens of thousands we were promised?
Middle column: 'Government will have greater powers'? But hasn't at the moment. Might as well say 'hopes to have'. This is meaningless and carries no weight whatsoever. And so what about Norway's deal - we'd be negotiating our own deal for goodness' sake.
Right column: We've all read the comments from leading security experts on how our EU membership does not make us more secure. We have seen the keystone cops in Belgium and the problems of different languages and the guarding - rather than sharing - of information that hampers the EU's security activity. We also know that the EU currently spends more money on propaganda and spin than it does on security and that the UK's membership of the 'Five Eyes' network including Australia, New Zealand, Canada, The USA & the UK is actually the world's best anti-terror and intelligence-sharing network bar none. Our membership of the EU actually led to our being unable to get rid of terrorists like Abu Hamsa - this final point is just plain wrong. It also means that people can be extraditedf from the UK to stand trial in other EU countries where the standards of justice are nowhere near what they are here. And whilst the UK just nods through these requests for extradition, obeying the rules, Germany itself decides whether to pursue an extradition request, Holland doesn't recognise requests which do not corresponde to crimes in Holland and France ignores all requests without penalty from the EU. As usual we obey the rules and the French and others just ignore what it suits them to ignore.

But we cannot refuse acess to EU citizens. A nation that does not have absolute control over who comes in, who lives and works there is not a nation state. EU rules mean we have to refuse entry to a highly skilled person from a Commonwealth country in favour of an unskilled - even criminal - person from an EU country. How mad is that? And without being able to control numbers how can we possibly plan to provide the infrastructure - schools, healthcare, housing, transport infrastructure required to meet the needs of the population? Taking the doors off your house does not make you safer in any way and that's what our membership of the EU effectively means for the UK. Visa-free travel for Ukraine and for 75million Turkish Muslims will not be of benefit to the UK anytime soon.

Left column: Indeed, 28 disperate and diverse countries and economies, 19 of which share the Euro which has been an unmitigated disaster for most of them - all except Germany in fact which has enjoyed boom times because of the exchange rate advantage its membership of the EZ affords it compared to what it would now be facing if it still had the Deutchsmark. Far from existing to protect smaller countries from being bullied by bigger countries in the wake of WW2, the EU has made economic basket cases out of most member states including Spain, Italy, Greece, Eire, Portugal and France for the benefit of Germany. And we've helped to pay for this economic take-over just 70 years after the last unpleasantness. How mad is that? We have no special status other than being an outsider to the project in perpetuity. And this makes us stronger in does it? You can't have it both ways, you cannot possibly be more influential within a club if you have an opt-out to its aims and ambitions and are therefore, by definition excluded from its plans and future processes. And if you think there will ever be another referendum on the EU - even if fundamental transfers of poewer occur in the future, you are dreaming. Any future transfers will be designed to be able to be nodded through in Brussels without any need for a referendum. After all they won't want to have to ignore a referendum again like they have done in Holland just this week. Democrasy?
Middle column: After Brexit we would still keep full access to the single market as previously explained - they cannot afford to impose trade restrictions on the UK without decimating their own economies. So job creation and economic security simply does not arise. And Barclays has today concluded that if the UK leaves it will be a disaster for the EU, but not for the UK. That the pound is likely to syrengthen and the UK become a haven for investment while the EU collapses under the weight of its own corruption and incompetence. More here. The right to live work and study abroad will not be changed by Brexit, it would just be a matter of filling out a few different forms. Once again the quality of UK universities and our economy means that no foreign country will dare put restrictions on these areas because they would be harming themselves more than they would be harming us.
Right column: The UK will not be a strong independent nation if it remains in the EU. That is not just speculation that is fact. It is whast the EU plans. What it wants to achieve with its 5 Presidents programme. It is publicly explicit. The only way the UK can remain as a strong independent nation is to leave the EU. The EU does not magnify our ability to get our own way, quite the opposite. Since the EU has rejected almost every ammendment and policy suggestion we have ever put forward, the EU actually restricts our influence on the world. The fifth largest economy on the planet completely hamstrung by the EU. Now that is the reality. The UN and the USA tackled the Iran nuclear issue not the EU. Oh, and climate change? Oh perleese. The biggest scam in global history - didn't you just know that the EU would be at the very centre of this nonsense - a ridiculous King Knut-esque belief that man can control the climate and in return can milk green energy taxes out of people who can least afford them. Green taxes are a major reason why industry is leaving the UK because of crazy energy prices. And as usual while we obey the rules, countries like France and Germany simply ignore them when they could be damaging to their economies. When will we learn? Actually if we leave we don't need to learn, we can just get out of the whole mess.

Erm no, NATO brings security and peace; our own armed forces and intelligence services bring security and peace. What the EU brings is conflict between nations, 50% unemployment rates among young people in southern Europe and the rise of extreme parties and civil unrest. The EU has brought in uncontrolled migrants and terrorists into Europe and its policy in this area, made on the hoof by Frau Merkel is causing several countries to change the way people live - with German women (for example) told not to go out alone or to wear what they want for fear of it causing offense or, worse, causing them to be attacked by some of the animals that have been allowed in. Who signed up for that by the way? The EU and its immigration policy has in fact become the biggest threat to economic stability and peace in Europe - when there are perfectly sound laws already in place to have headed off this crisis. These have been ignored on a whim by Merkel and the rest has been about playing catch up. There's even talk now about binning the Dublin Agreement on refugees because things are now so out of control. Thanks entirely to the EU.

Left column: Have you noticed how the government and the establishment, from the CBI to the IMF, to Messrs Blair, Mandelson, Kinnock, Clegg are all in favour of our staying in the EU? Why? Because they have no interest in what's best for the people of the UK, just what's best for their own careers or pension arrangements. Looking at those saying we should Remain In the EU should, if you have a brain and the ability to think carefully about the issue, tell you all you need to know - that Brexit is the best way forward for the UK. 'Uncertainty'? Staying in is not a 'certain' situation - look at the changes that have occurred since the last referendum 40 years ago. However staing in does mean that we will be part of the 'completion of economic and monetary union' - which means part of a single European state. If we remain part of it there is no alternative to this conclusion. And we will be tying ourselves in to a disastrous economic bloc - the only failing trading bloc on the planet, undemocratic, dictatorial, a political project that is no longer just about free trade, and a project that is about taking away what makes Europe the wonderful place (its diversity of history, culture, cuisine etc) and making the whole place Germany. No-one wants that - I'd suggest not even the bloody Germans themselves. Staying in means more of the same - the same economic doldrums, the same corruption the same failing economies and centralising governance by failed former Luxembourg politicians whose power has completely gone to their heads and who are much more concerned about their own salaries and solid gold pension funds than they are about the countries they supposedly represent. It's time we got rid of the lot - and the EU is terrified we'll leave, partly because they will almost certainly fail without the UK, but aso because a prosperous UK outside the EU will give all the other members the excuse to get out themselves. That is why Dave is - and the EU are - spending so much money trying to brainwash you into voting to Remain. But it's not about your future, it's about theirs. It's time we kicked them all out.

Indeed it is. The choice is whether that future is decided by ourselves and our representatives - people we can elect and, more importantly kick out if they don't act in our interests - or by people who quite simply - and quite clearly - do not have our interests at heart. It really is that simple. Who would you rather have deciding your future - people who are on your side or people who are not? How anyone can advocate handing over the powers of decision-making - decisions upon which our future prosperity will be based - to unelected Eurocrats in Brussels is quite beyond me. We know we don't want what the EU wants - even Dave, the biggest europhile of them all has tried to get a legally binding opt-out for goodness' sake - we know they ignore and sneer at us whenever we want to make changes; we know they issue bills out of the blue to the UK for doing well economically; we know that the EU has been an economic disaster, why on earth would we want to stay in that environment?

Protecting jobs? No. No pressure on jobs whatsoever from Brexit, quite the opposite as the UK becomes a haven for investors when we're outside the EU (according to Barclays today) and the ability to negotiate on our own behalf, trade deals with the rest of the world, including countries with whom we already have great relationships (that the EU doesn't have).
Stronger economy? No. Leaving will have zero detrimental effect on trade between the UK and the EU (because they - the EU - simply cannot afford for it to be damaged). The EU's economy has been dawdling, bumping along on the brink of recession for decades - it is not the holy grail by any means - we have much more opportunity via trade with growing trade blocs and economies around the world - as the trusted UK rather than the shambolic EU. Particularly if we have leaders who believe in the qualities of the people of this country instead of talking us down all the time like Dave and his Remains are doing.
Providing security? Only someone who has zero understanding of recent events, zero understanding of the threat that uncontrolled, illigal immiration as a vehicle for terrorists and zero understanding of the rise of extremist parties around Europe in response to Angela's follies economically and in terms of migration, could possibly suggest that the EU enhances our security. The EU is becoming the biggest threat to European security and its policies are causing member countries to close their borders and to build walls between each other. How's that cooperation and partnership thing going?

We have very little - almost nothing - to lose by leaving the EU and a great deal to gain in terms of our sovereignty, our status as a global nation state and the ability to be governed in our own interests. The EU is not a modern solution but a 60-year old anacronism that is past its sell-by date. It has delivered almost no benefits to the UL in 40 years of membership and it's time we left them to get on with it - their own plans for the future are not ones that even Dave supports so why he wants us to stay in the club is just crazy.

It's time to believe in ourselves, to believe in this great nation and to take control of our own destiny. I believe Brexit is best for the UK and also that the failure of the EU (which would almost certainly happen if we leave) would also be a fantastic outcokme for most other members of the EU, particularly those in southern Europe, and would give their young people hopefor a future that they do not currently enjoy.

You see I really do believe that voting for Brexit could very well bring about the UK saving Europe once again. From the same threat? That's up to you to decide.

Thanks for reading.