Project Fear - what Dave is basically saying is he is a crap negotiator

 As Dave used to be fond of saying: 'We can't go on like this'. We can't continue to allow this utter bollocks to be put forward as a credible argument for 'Remain'.

It just doesn't stack up in the real world and while Dave is clearly trying his best to pull the wool over our eyes, he can't be allowed to spout this utter rubbish unchallenged.

If you look at all of this nonesense, what he is essentially saying is that he would not be able to negotiate a decent, proper and beneficial deal on our behalf in the event of a Brexit vote by the good people of the UK.

That is a pretty damning assessment of his qualities as a politician or as someone who ought to have the interests of the UK at heart. What he is essentially saying is that we'd be powerless under his leadership, to negotiate a good deal in the event of a vote to leave.

I think, if one understands and accepts this position (which I do), that it becomes crystal clear that he wasn't the right man for the job of renegotiating our membership in the first place and will certainly not be the right person to put

forward our interests in the future.

Not a single airline has suggested that Brexit would mean a reduction in the routes they currently fly. These are commercial organisations who, by definition, operate on an international basis, not on the basis of a mickey mouse protectionist local marketplace.

Beef? Telecoms? Automotive? Noone is saying these markets are under threat from Brexit. Is Dave really suggesting that the EU, far from being a facilitator of 'free trade' is actually the controller of who can and cannot trade in Europe?

If so that goes way beyond its remit and against everything that 'free trade' stands for. And in any case, outside the cloying red tape of the EU we would retain (regain) our place at the top table of the World Trade Organisation and the European Free Trade Agreement (EFTA) as a matter of course (because the EU cannot afford not to have its biggest customer as a trading partner - it really is a simple as that).

Dave also seems to be suggesting that leaving the EU would be tantamount to leaving 'Europe' as a continent and eliminating our ability to trade with our nearest neighbours. That is just plain silly and ridiculous. Trade, by definition, is a

two-way street.

In the event of Brexit we would continue in the immediat term, to trade with the EU and the Eurozone on exactly the same basis as we do today, because there is an existing trade agreement in place which would continue to be in force until a new one was negotiated. And remember that as the EU's biggest customer and a trading partner that takes £89billion a year more in goods from the EU than we export to the EU, we would inevitably be negotiating from a position of strength.

 If the EU imposes tariffs on UK exports we would obviously respond in kind - and that would do far more damage to the EU which is currently teetering on the brink of yet another recession, than it would to the UK, although the damage on both sides would be significant and unwelcome - and therefore vanishingly unlikely to come about.

'In the hope of renegotiating a new agreement'. A forlorn hope if one listens to Dave and the Remain camp. Why? Why on earth would the world's 5th largest economy and the EU's biggest customer not be able to negiotiate a new trade deal that is to the benefit of both parties in the event of Brexit. Unless we had a moron as our head of negotiations?

And why cite Canada as an example of the future

deal we might strike? With all due respect to Canada, we are not Canada, we have a much more rounded economy and much more to offer in terms of custom and products than Canada - or Norway or Switzerland - has to offer. We would not be doing a "Canadian' deal. We would be doing a UK deal, taking account of everything - including financial services - that we have to offer.

And to talk about British steel as if its current problems are lessened because we are in the EU, is just plain Blair-esque 'tell the big lie' bollocks. It is shameful that a UK Prime Minister would stoop so low as to try to portray this as a genuine factor, when it is plain to see that our EU membership is part of the problem, not part of the solution, particularly in the realm of the EU-driven energy prices that are hamsrtinging UK industry at tis time.

'Economic and political self harm'? Well I've dealt with the economic issue - there isn't one. There is no way we would not enjoy free trade with the Eurozone and the rest of our friends and trading partners in Europe in the event of Brexit. They simply cannot afford for that to happen. But Dave mentions 'political self harm'. Political? The only mention in the piece and yet he and all commentators now agree that the EU is no longer a trade organisation, but a political project. A project whose goal is the creation of a single European state. A sinle place with a single government, currency, army, flag, anthem, political system, tax regime, working directives, retirement age etc.

That's not speculation it is made explicit by the EU in the 5 Presidents Report which was published in 2014 and is the 'bible' for the EU. Have a read sometime, and tell me how it does not explicitly state that if we remain In the EU we will have to relinquish our use of the pound by 2025 at the very latest?

Let's just finish with a look at what the Remains are saying. The slogan is 'Stronger, Safer, Better Off in a Reformed E'U.

'Stronger' is difficult to define (deliberately, obviously). But it refers to our influence in the world. The suggestion being that we are more influential as a nation because we are in the EU. Well if we were a leading influencer of the EU and its policies that would be an arguable point. But we are not. Of the 55 ammendments to EU laws we have put forward since 1996, none - not a single one - has been adopted.  In order to get oiur views agreed we have to secuure the support of 27 other nations. How likely is that? Well it hasn't happened yet, so maybe you could explain how this will be different in the future? Dave?

In addition, our position as a member of the EU but outside of the single currency means that the 19 Eurozone (currency) members will always have a majority and will always outvote the UK on issues of importance - because they have a vested interest in doing so and also because most of them are so in thrall to Germany, so dependent on their financial largesse, that they can't take a piss without Frau Merkel's say-so. And I include France in this assessment.

'Safer'? When Merkel has imported over a million muslims including tens of thousands of known terrorists into Europe in the past year; where Sweden and Germany are now having to change their laws and ways of life to accommodate a different culture (when did anyone sign up to that), and where we have no control over who eventually comes into the UK. That makes us safer then does it Dave? Living in a house with no doors? Relying on the keystone cops of places like Beligium for our safety? I think not and I think saying so has become utterly rejected by anyone in the know.

'Better Off'? Being tied in to the world's only shrinking trade bloc. A protectionist, inward-foussed bloc that imposes tariffs on Africa that perpetuate its poverty and third world status rather than allowing it to trade its way into the first world? Tied to a state which is an economic basket case, where youth unemployment in southern Europe is around 50% with no prospect of imporvement? Where economic migrants are swamping our workforce, using our benefits system and healthcare system without paying anything in? How can we possibly be better off in this environment - when leaving would not affect our ability to trade with Europe but would free us to trade more efficiently with the rest of the world including many countries with whom we already have excellent relationships?

But the above three elements are actually made utterly redundant by the final - and crucial - part of the slogan: 'In a reformed EU'. Even if one could be persuaded (and believe me it ain't happening anytime soon as far as anyone with a brain is concerned) that we could possibly be 'stronger, safer and better off in a reformed EU' it is not a valid argument for the simple reason that we are not dealing, in any way whatsoever, with a 'reformed' EU.

Dave's negotiations have made miniscule changes to our relationship with the EU. They have not made any changes to the EU, to its direction of travel, to its goals or aspirations or policies. They have not made a single change to accomodate the UK's concerns. None at all - and that should really answer whatever questions you might have about our level of influence on this club.

And why would Dave seek to get a legally binding (it isn't) deal to opt out of the major part of the EU programme (ever closer Union), when he wants us to remain in the club? Why would anyone want to be a member of a club whose policies and rules and objectives one did not agree with - to the extent of trying to get a legal opt-out? That's just utter madness.

OK the fianl par. 'We can choose to shape our world, not be shaped by others'. I'm sorry but this is the exact opposite of the reality. Inside the EU we have laws imposed upon us by people we didn't elect and can't get rid of if we disagree with them.

People who have probably never heard of the place in which you live, much less understand your issues or concerns. This phrase is just the big lie and Dave should not be allowed to get away with it.

'Choose to stay in the biggest suingle market on earth'. No-one is suggesting that we would leave this market, just that we would be independent of the political project that surrounds the EU - not cutting off trade with said market. Another scurroulous lie in Dave's project fear bollocks.

'Economic security'? Tell that to Greece, Italy, Spain, even France, all of whom are turning into economic basket cases under the yoke of the EU - and they're the more successful economies in the group. Our economic strength (unbalanced and imperfect though it undoubtedly is) has been achieved despite the cloying, inflexible, slowly grinding gears of the EU not because of them. Outside it, we would be able to be bright, nible, entrepreneaurial, fast-moving, none of which long-renowned British qualities are possible within the EU - and at the same time we would continue to enjoy our status as a free trading partner with the EU - just not controlled by it.

'Unnecessary leap in the dark'? There is no 'dark', it's all light. It's all on our own terms. It's all positive and leaving the EU would secure a permanent opt out from the ever closer union that Dave has sort of negotiated in his half-arsed not legally binding way. Staying in means that his opt-out is very time-limited and will result, as night follows day, in the further loss of sovereignty including our own currency in due course - and by 2025 at the very latest.

There are no downsides to our leaving the EU. There may be economic bumps in the road ahead, but we will be much more able to get over them as a single strong international nation able to take its own decisions and operate in its own interests rather than in the many and varied and often incompatible ineterests of 27 other nations.

Think of it this way: The UK is much better able to respond to and withstand economic problems on its own than it would be tied to a number of failing, struggling, corrupt and frankly piss-poor economies across the channel. Why should we continue to bail them out when they always ignore our concerns and reject our influence? It'll be a cold day in hell when Italy, or France or Romania helps to pull us out of an eceonomic hole.

Still who knows? Maybe the 75 million Muslim Turks who seem ready to swarm over to help us out when they become EU members will solve all our problems. Good luck if you believe that to be the case.

Staying in means the UK, a proud global nation, being controlled and governed in the future by the EU. It means having no proper borders. It means throwing in our lot with Romania and probably Turkey. It involes providing financial support to an EU which operates almost exclusively in the interests of Germany - our biggest competitor.  Not sure about this? Consider that it took Dave months to negotiate and come back with the square root of sod all in terms of changes to our relationship witht he EU. Yet Merkel could impose an all-new migration deal with Turkey and Greece overnight without any recourse to an EU vote. Go figure.

Staying in means remaining in an EU which has hitherto seen fit to throw the rest of the continent to the wolves when it suits Germany. Just look at Greece.

It would also mean being tied in to a governance position where we have almost no influence on the future. The fifth largst economy on earth, one of the world's great nations and global advancers of trade, prosperity, the rule of law, fairness and peace, reduced to a bit-part player tied in to the rag-bag of nations that make up the EU. - which is iteslef sliding from one major crisis to the next, from immigration to unemployment, terrorism to rising extremism.

We'd be utterly mad to stay in such an organisation. Particularly on the basis of the sort of scaremongering bollocks that Dave continues to spout.

After a Brexit vote we will be able to negotiate a great deal for the UK, with the EU and the rest of the world. And we won't have such a negative - and quite frankly pathetic - negotiator representing us when that happens. 

Thanks for reading.