Some small items.
The father who was fined for taking his child out of school for a week's holiday has lost his appeal against his fine at the Supreme Court. The main argument was that a child's education can suffer badly even from a week away from school.
Contrast this with an acquaintance of mine whose boy had to be kept at home for about eight weeks following a serious operation because the school wouldn't accept the responsibility for ensuring thet he took his medicine at the appropriate times.
When the father raised the issue of the school giving the lad some work at home so that he could keep up with his studies, the school insisted that the absence would make little difference and that he would soon catch up!
Who is correct? The court in accepting that a child can get behind with a mere week's absence or the school which said a child would soon catch up after 8 weeks absence?
Breitbart reports that former European Union employee Peter Mandelson has urged Prime
Minister Theresa May to pay the £50 billion “ransom” the bloc has
demanded as the price of Brexit.He added that she should deal with the small change of the financial settlement in
the first negotiation as quickly as she can in order to advance in as
propitious as way as she can to the second stage of the negotiation,
which is about the future trade arrangement.
This shows his, and one suspects most Labour MPs', attitude to taxpayers' money. To Labour, £50million is "small change". I wish I had a bit of that small-change in my pocket!
Finally Syria. The consensus of opinion is that Assad was responsible for the sarin gas attack against civilians in Idlib. My question is "Why?". He is winning the war, the 'terrorists' are being pushed back, Trump had recently announced that he no longer considered the removal of Assad was a priority and the attack has changed Trump's attitude as well as, presumably, embarrassing Putin. So I still ask "Why?", could it have been one of the various terrorist groups or even as someone suggested, as a result of a bomb or shell fire on a chemical weapons dump in the city? Hard facts are difficult to get and the BBC initially reported it as a Napalm attack.
I remain undecided.
Showing posts with label Brexit. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Brexit. Show all posts
Thursday, 6 April 2017
Thursday, 30 March 2017
Brexit - Let Battle Commence
It's started. The President of the European Parliament (how many presidents does the EU have or need?) has said that the EU Parliament will veto any deal reached between the UK and the EU negotiators, before the discussions have even started. That's EU democracy for you!
If this report is true, our PM had better send a second letter saying that
a. Any discussions have been rendered pointless by this proposed veto and
b. The UK has no intention of wasting our Ministers' and Civil Servant's time on such pointless discussions because
c. The British public won't tolerate waiting two years for what could be done tomorrow.
d. Therefore she is formally informing them that we will be leaving the EU and reverting to WTO trading rules as soon as possible.
Just to add to the fun, the French President has demanded that we pay the "divorce bill" up front before they will be prepared to start trade talks; as we've said we won't pay it follows that there won't be any trade talks so providing yet another reason for sending a second letter as above.
Meanwhile the German finance minister Wolfgang Schäuble has said he will take the UK to the International court of Justice at the Hague if we don't cough up! At the same time, he says that he has fears that a 'Hard' Brexit will cause a financial crash – which could have dire implications for the struggling Eurozone. Talk about "Cutting off your nose to spite your face" as my old mum would have said!
And for the last laugh, Jean-Claude Juncker has issued a jaw-dropping threat to the United States that EU could break up the US!
All this idiocy would make a good comedy show for television were not the issues so serious. Perhaps it's time for Boris to get involved, I'm sure that he could come up with something equally outrageous!
If this report is true, our PM had better send a second letter saying that
a. Any discussions have been rendered pointless by this proposed veto and
b. The UK has no intention of wasting our Ministers' and Civil Servant's time on such pointless discussions because
c. The British public won't tolerate waiting two years for what could be done tomorrow.
d. Therefore she is formally informing them that we will be leaving the EU and reverting to WTO trading rules as soon as possible.
Just to add to the fun, the French President has demanded that we pay the "divorce bill" up front before they will be prepared to start trade talks; as we've said we won't pay it follows that there won't be any trade talks so providing yet another reason for sending a second letter as above.
Meanwhile the German finance minister Wolfgang Schäuble has said he will take the UK to the International court of Justice at the Hague if we don't cough up! At the same time, he says that he has fears that a 'Hard' Brexit will cause a financial crash – which could have dire implications for the struggling Eurozone. Talk about "Cutting off your nose to spite your face" as my old mum would have said!
And for the last laugh, Jean-Claude Juncker has issued a jaw-dropping threat to the United States that EU could break up the US!
All this idiocy would make a good comedy show for television were not the issues so serious. Perhaps it's time for Boris to get involved, I'm sure that he could come up with something equally outrageous!
Monday, 20 March 2017
Brexit (Continued)
Two points from today's news.
The Daily Mail headlines reveal that Juncker is boasting that no-one else will want to leave the EU after they see how badly the UK is punished for Brexit.
The problems with making boasts like that are twofold:
Firstly, in order to 'punish' the UK it seems likely that the EU would have to do itself more harm than that which it could do to the UK. Will the other countries who sell us their goods support such a crazy idea?
Secondly, What happens if we do well without being in the EU, as I believe we will? Surely this will encourage other countries to follow us.
The other matter reported today is that Theresa May has chosen March 29 as the day she will trigger Article 50 to start leaving the EU.
My only concern is about what appears to be even more delay; why give some Remoaner time to find an excuse to go to the courts and get an injunction for some spurious reason. If Churchill had fought WW2 with all the delays of the present government, the war would probably still be in progress!
The Daily Mail headlines reveal that Juncker is boasting that no-one else will want to leave the EU after they see how badly the UK is punished for Brexit.
The problems with making boasts like that are twofold:
Firstly, in order to 'punish' the UK it seems likely that the EU would have to do itself more harm than that which it could do to the UK. Will the other countries who sell us their goods support such a crazy idea?
Secondly, What happens if we do well without being in the EU, as I believe we will? Surely this will encourage other countries to follow us.
The other matter reported today is that Theresa May has chosen March 29 as the day she will trigger Article 50 to start leaving the EU.
My only concern is about what appears to be even more delay; why give some Remoaner time to find an excuse to go to the courts and get an injunction for some spurious reason. If Churchill had fought WW2 with all the delays of the present government, the war would probably still be in progress!
Sunday, 12 March 2017
Brexit
One of the more interesting items of news this week was the comments by Mervyn King, the previous Governor of the Bank of England, on Brexit. These don't seem to have been widely reported and certainly I didn't hear them on the BBC news.
In essence he said that
"We don't need to negotiate over Brexit, but that the EU needs to negotiate with us".
This is what many of us have been saying for years, that the EU has far more to lose than Britain if no agreement is reached, but up to now, few of those in positions of power have actually said so. Coming from Lord King, it is all the more important as he is an economist, has his place in the Lords and is not beholden to the EU for a pension or anything else.
In a situation where the EU has some three million citizens in the UK as against around one and a half million British citizens in the EU, any threats against our citizens abroad would be rather foolish. Even those living on pensions contribute considerable sums to various countries with their expenditure on goods and services. In terms of the balance of trade, this expenditure is the equivalent of exports to that value as the money is coming in from abroad. I suspect there are very few UK citizens within the EU who are claiming benefits, unlike a large number of EU citizens in the UK. Why the House of Lords is so keen on protecting EU citizens in this country without having any concerns about our citizens in the EU is a complete mystery to me, and I personally take the view that many might regard it as treason!
There is also the matter of trade. At present they sell us more than we sell them which is not in our best interests and they need to realise that when we have free trade, we could source many of the goods that they sell us from elsewhere. (Personally, I enjoy a good Australian red wine far more than bottle of French wine costing the same!)
We also, as a country, should be able to save money by no longer having to obey all the various EU regulations which are quite expensive to implement and enforce.
As Lord King is reported to have said "We don't need to negotiate over Brexit - but YOU do".
The Daily Mail report can be read HERE.
In essence he said that
"We don't need to negotiate over Brexit, but that the EU needs to negotiate with us".
This is what many of us have been saying for years, that the EU has far more to lose than Britain if no agreement is reached, but up to now, few of those in positions of power have actually said so. Coming from Lord King, it is all the more important as he is an economist, has his place in the Lords and is not beholden to the EU for a pension or anything else.
In a situation where the EU has some three million citizens in the UK as against around one and a half million British citizens in the EU, any threats against our citizens abroad would be rather foolish. Even those living on pensions contribute considerable sums to various countries with their expenditure on goods and services. In terms of the balance of trade, this expenditure is the equivalent of exports to that value as the money is coming in from abroad. I suspect there are very few UK citizens within the EU who are claiming benefits, unlike a large number of EU citizens in the UK. Why the House of Lords is so keen on protecting EU citizens in this country without having any concerns about our citizens in the EU is a complete mystery to me, and I personally take the view that many might regard it as treason!
There is also the matter of trade. At present they sell us more than we sell them which is not in our best interests and they need to realise that when we have free trade, we could source many of the goods that they sell us from elsewhere. (Personally, I enjoy a good Australian red wine far more than bottle of French wine costing the same!)
We also, as a country, should be able to save money by no longer having to obey all the various EU regulations which are quite expensive to implement and enforce.
As Lord King is reported to have said "We don't need to negotiate over Brexit - but YOU do".
The Daily Mail report can be read HERE.
Wednesday, 1 February 2017
Demonstrations
It's a great time at the moment for those who like to go to demonstrations, indeed there are so many taking place at the moment that it's hard for them decide which to attend!
It all started with Trump's election in the United States. and the number of reasons to demonstrate seems to be increasing daily.
Indeed, I suppose it started before the election with demonstrations about Trump's attitude to women and what he may or may not have done in the past. Strangely, there was no mention of Bill Clinton's activities whilst he was in the White House. Was that the first time the premises were used for extra-marital sex? If so, perhaps there should be a plaque to mark the event.
Then came the election result with huge demonstrations claiming "Trump's not my President". I can vaguely understand these taking place in America in spite of the factual error; if they were American citizens he was now their President, like it or not. But why the huge demonstrations with the same slogan in London and other cities? I can't imagine there are that number of American expats in London, so if the rest were British, what is the point of having a slogan that is 100% true? Trump isn't their President, unless they believe we are now a state of the USA rather than the EU.
Then the demonstrations followed fast and furiously. One, which apparently had Merkel's approval was against the Great Wall of Mexico, and tended to overlook the fact that some countries within the EU bordering Turkey are building fences and installing razor wire along their borders. I suppose fences are OK but walls are not!
Next came Trump's decision to withdraw funding for some abortions. This angered the feminists in spite of it only being for abortions abroad paid for as part of aid. But why worry that it doesn't affect Americans at home, it's a good reason to go out and have another demonstration.
This was followed by Trump's decision to cut back on funding for some 'green' projects and approve the construction of two oil pipe lines as well as allowing the greater use of coal in industry. Totally logical, you can't make steel without using coal; all that has happened is that jobs were lost in America and industry had to import from elsewhere, usually China. Overall there was no change in global emissions. But does that matter? No, let's go and have another demonstration.
And then, of course there is his most recent decision, to ban people from entering the country who were born in a number of predominately Muslim countries. It is for just 90 days, presumably to give officials sufficient time to devise a stricter vetting process. This immediately started protests with an number of newsworthy people who had been born in these countries promptly complaining that they'd never be able to return to their adopted home. Mo Farah, a Somali who has British citizenship but now lives in the US was affected. No-one ventured to ask why he had apparently returned to Somalia from where he is supposed to have fled in fear of his life. Even though foreign born British passport holders have been assured that they will be allowed to enter the US, the moaning continues.
And whilst on the subject of moaning, these events seem to have totally eclipsed all the EU remoaners, although I expect there will be demonstrations against today's parliamentary vote on Article 50. If I were the sort who organised demonstrations, I would be demonstrating against those MPs who voted to remain regardless of the fact that a huge majority of their constituents voted to leave in the referendum. Taking the Trump slogan, the residents of these constituencies should be out there marching with banners "You are not my MP"!
Oh, I nearly forgot the coming State Visit by Trump and the petition to cancel it. There's now another one asking for the visit to take place and considerable doubt as to the authenticity of many of the signatures for them both. The claim is that Trump is a monster, and in today's Daily Mail, Piers Morgan provides a list of a dozen far greater monsters who have had State Visits during the Queen's reign. Amongst them were two of those that I especially hate, Emperor Hirohito of Japan and President Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe.
I've probably missed some demonstrations, but never mind, it doesn't really matter they're all the same. Many of the demonstrators don't even seem to know why they're there judging by the variety of posters on display.
The only people who don't seem to have had a demonstration are our police forces who are forced to protect these demonstrators. They should be out their campaigning either for more police or a limit on the number of demonstrations that may be held per week.
Happy Demonstrating!
It all started with Trump's election in the United States. and the number of reasons to demonstrate seems to be increasing daily.
Indeed, I suppose it started before the election with demonstrations about Trump's attitude to women and what he may or may not have done in the past. Strangely, there was no mention of Bill Clinton's activities whilst he was in the White House. Was that the first time the premises were used for extra-marital sex? If so, perhaps there should be a plaque to mark the event.
Then came the election result with huge demonstrations claiming "Trump's not my President". I can vaguely understand these taking place in America in spite of the factual error; if they were American citizens he was now their President, like it or not. But why the huge demonstrations with the same slogan in London and other cities? I can't imagine there are that number of American expats in London, so if the rest were British, what is the point of having a slogan that is 100% true? Trump isn't their President, unless they believe we are now a state of the USA rather than the EU.
Then the demonstrations followed fast and furiously. One, which apparently had Merkel's approval was against the Great Wall of Mexico, and tended to overlook the fact that some countries within the EU bordering Turkey are building fences and installing razor wire along their borders. I suppose fences are OK but walls are not!
Next came Trump's decision to withdraw funding for some abortions. This angered the feminists in spite of it only being for abortions abroad paid for as part of aid. But why worry that it doesn't affect Americans at home, it's a good reason to go out and have another demonstration.
This was followed by Trump's decision to cut back on funding for some 'green' projects and approve the construction of two oil pipe lines as well as allowing the greater use of coal in industry. Totally logical, you can't make steel without using coal; all that has happened is that jobs were lost in America and industry had to import from elsewhere, usually China. Overall there was no change in global emissions. But does that matter? No, let's go and have another demonstration.
And then, of course there is his most recent decision, to ban people from entering the country who were born in a number of predominately Muslim countries. It is for just 90 days, presumably to give officials sufficient time to devise a stricter vetting process. This immediately started protests with an number of newsworthy people who had been born in these countries promptly complaining that they'd never be able to return to their adopted home. Mo Farah, a Somali who has British citizenship but now lives in the US was affected. No-one ventured to ask why he had apparently returned to Somalia from where he is supposed to have fled in fear of his life. Even though foreign born British passport holders have been assured that they will be allowed to enter the US, the moaning continues.
And whilst on the subject of moaning, these events seem to have totally eclipsed all the EU remoaners, although I expect there will be demonstrations against today's parliamentary vote on Article 50. If I were the sort who organised demonstrations, I would be demonstrating against those MPs who voted to remain regardless of the fact that a huge majority of their constituents voted to leave in the referendum. Taking the Trump slogan, the residents of these constituencies should be out there marching with banners "You are not my MP"!
Oh, I nearly forgot the coming State Visit by Trump and the petition to cancel it. There's now another one asking for the visit to take place and considerable doubt as to the authenticity of many of the signatures for them both. The claim is that Trump is a monster, and in today's Daily Mail, Piers Morgan provides a list of a dozen far greater monsters who have had State Visits during the Queen's reign. Amongst them were two of those that I especially hate, Emperor Hirohito of Japan and President Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe.
I've probably missed some demonstrations, but never mind, it doesn't really matter they're all the same. Many of the demonstrators don't even seem to know why they're there judging by the variety of posters on display.
The only people who don't seem to have had a demonstration are our police forces who are forced to protect these demonstrators. They should be out their campaigning either for more police or a limit on the number of demonstrations that may be held per week.
Happy Demonstrating!
Wednesday, 18 January 2017
Theresa May's Vision of Brexit
Yesterday Theresa May made her long awaited statement as to what she meant when she said "Brexit means Brexit". Some say we have had to wait far too long for an indication as to Britain's position, but surely this is Cameron's fault. He was so convinced that the country would vote to remain in the EU that no preparations had been made by the Civil Service for a possible Brexit vote.
Most of the arguments to date have been over the so-called soft or hard Brexit options, the former appearing to me to be almost the same as remaining a member of the EU under a new name. She made it very clear that we wanted to control Britain’s borders and create an immigration system that “serves the national interest”. And whilst we would like free trade arrangements with the EU, this will not be at the expense of us either having free movement of people or paying vast sums into the EU coffers. Most importantly, as far as I'm concerned, is the fact that the UK “will take back control of our laws and bring an end to the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice in Britain”.
She also said that we do not wish to remain in the existing customs union as we would be required to have the common tariffs with the EU which are designed largely to protect various EU producers from world wide competition. She also pointed out that the existing customs union precludes us from negotiating our own trade agreements with other countries.
Most importantly she said that she prefers 'no deal' rather than a 'bad deal'. This, of course is something that Cameron would never have said which was why he got nowhere in his pre-referendum discussions.
Mrs May made it clear that existing EU laws which applied to this country would be enshrined into UK law and any that were no longer required would subsequently be repealed. Whilst this would satisfy those workers who were worried about the possible loss of some rights that they had obtained under the EU, I am sceptical about the subsequent repealing of unwanted rules; no legislation ever seems to get repealed!
She said that she expects co-operation to continue on matters like security and other areas of mutual interest. Surely no one is going to oppose such an idea, although with the EU, who knows?
The Remoaners of course found fault with almost everything that she said. Clegg announced that he would vote down the deal in Parliament before talks have even started. So much for democracy, listening to the debate in Parliament and the electors views, 'No, I will vote it down regardless'. Tory MP Ken Clarke claimed that Britain could still find itself under the jurisdiction of the European Court as part of its new trade deal with the EU. And as usual Queen Nicola of Scotland had her moan about wanting to be consulted. They just won't give up and accept the result of the referendum!
Hopefully, regardless of what the High Court says, I believe that Parliament will vote in terms of allowing Mrs May to send the letter required under Article 50, as the alternative would be a snap General Election at a time when every poll suggests that the Tories would get a large majority.
Most of the arguments to date have been over the so-called soft or hard Brexit options, the former appearing to me to be almost the same as remaining a member of the EU under a new name. She made it very clear that we wanted to control Britain’s borders and create an immigration system that “serves the national interest”. And whilst we would like free trade arrangements with the EU, this will not be at the expense of us either having free movement of people or paying vast sums into the EU coffers. Most importantly, as far as I'm concerned, is the fact that the UK “will take back control of our laws and bring an end to the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice in Britain”.
She also said that we do not wish to remain in the existing customs union as we would be required to have the common tariffs with the EU which are designed largely to protect various EU producers from world wide competition. She also pointed out that the existing customs union precludes us from negotiating our own trade agreements with other countries.
Most importantly she said that she prefers 'no deal' rather than a 'bad deal'. This, of course is something that Cameron would never have said which was why he got nowhere in his pre-referendum discussions.
Mrs May made it clear that existing EU laws which applied to this country would be enshrined into UK law and any that were no longer required would subsequently be repealed. Whilst this would satisfy those workers who were worried about the possible loss of some rights that they had obtained under the EU, I am sceptical about the subsequent repealing of unwanted rules; no legislation ever seems to get repealed!
She said that she expects co-operation to continue on matters like security and other areas of mutual interest. Surely no one is going to oppose such an idea, although with the EU, who knows?
The Remoaners of course found fault with almost everything that she said. Clegg announced that he would vote down the deal in Parliament before talks have even started. So much for democracy, listening to the debate in Parliament and the electors views, 'No, I will vote it down regardless'. Tory MP Ken Clarke claimed that Britain could still find itself under the jurisdiction of the European Court as part of its new trade deal with the EU. And as usual Queen Nicola of Scotland had her moan about wanting to be consulted. They just won't give up and accept the result of the referendum!
Hopefully, regardless of what the High Court says, I believe that Parliament will vote in terms of allowing Mrs May to send the letter required under Article 50, as the alternative would be a snap General Election at a time when every poll suggests that the Tories would get a large majority.
Monday, 16 January 2017
EU Dictatorship
Donald Trump has said that Britain that we will be first in the line for a rapid trade deal with the US. Great, at least he doesn't want to put us at the back of the queue like Obama.
And the EU's response? Don't you even dare think of starting informal talks with the US before Brexit is complete.
Just who do they think they are?
Britain is a sovereign country, and as far as I'm aware we are free to talk to anyone or any country about any subject. Why even Queen Nicola of Scotland is free to go and talk to whoever she likes, even if there were times when I'm sure that many at Westminster would like to stop her!
Mrs May should send our trade negotiators to Washington immediately following Trump's inauguration to start talks. This would at least show the EU that we are serious about leaving and running our own country without EU interference. If all goes well the deal could be in place to be implemented the day we leave the EU.
What is the EU going to do if we ignore their demand? Throw us out?
Yes please, it would be far quicker than lengthy talks and probably considerably cheaper.
I suspect that the French Official who demanded that penalties are imposed on the UK if we leave the EU but who has recently backtracked to say that France would want access to our financial markets might not agree; nor I suspect would the German car industry.
I think that on balance, the UK has a far better hand than the EU, lets hope Mrs May plays her cards wisely.
Sunday, 1 January 2017
Happy New Year
Slightly belated, but I've decided that it's time to start trying to write something at least once a week.
Last year was not a good one for Mrs EP and myself with us both having a number of health problems. Thankfully, the NHS, at long last, appears to have sorted things out for both of us, we are both feeling better and hopefully we can both look forward to 2017 with more optimism.
A slightly disappointing start to the year from a bell-ringer's point of view; this was the first year since WW2 that we have not been able to "Ring in the New Year" at our Parish Church simply because insufficient ringers were available; we now have only eight reasonable ringers along with a couple of 'apprentices' which is not enough for eight bells after allowing for absences due to sickness or other commitments. Only one of the eight ringers has not retired, and some young blood is essential if we are to keep the bells ringing for Sunday Service, weddings and other special occasions.
As far as we both are concerned, the highlight of the year was the vote for Brexit. A majority of those who voted saw through all the gloom, doom and dire predictions. The country is still here, we're not all starving and life seems reasonably normal for all of us except those who have to use Southern Rail. Fortunately, as I can still drive, the only time that I now use public transport is to attend the local hospital using my pensioner's bus pass, so avoiding the £1.50 per hour hospital parking charge.
To me, the most unexpected event of the year was the election of Donald Trump as the new American President. My reaction is that he was the better of the two candidates, but I simply can't understand why a country of some 320 million people couldn't find two better candidates. Nevertheless, we could be in for an interesting year!
The worse aspect of 2016 has been the rise of Islamic terrorism with major attacks in France and Germany. I fear for something similar in this country and am thankful that nothing has happened so far over the Christmas and New Year period.
So much for 2016. I would conclude by wishing my readers a Happy, Safe and Prosperous New Year.
Last year was not a good one for Mrs EP and myself with us both having a number of health problems. Thankfully, the NHS, at long last, appears to have sorted things out for both of us, we are both feeling better and hopefully we can both look forward to 2017 with more optimism.
A slightly disappointing start to the year from a bell-ringer's point of view; this was the first year since WW2 that we have not been able to "Ring in the New Year" at our Parish Church simply because insufficient ringers were available; we now have only eight reasonable ringers along with a couple of 'apprentices' which is not enough for eight bells after allowing for absences due to sickness or other commitments. Only one of the eight ringers has not retired, and some young blood is essential if we are to keep the bells ringing for Sunday Service, weddings and other special occasions.
As far as we both are concerned, the highlight of the year was the vote for Brexit. A majority of those who voted saw through all the gloom, doom and dire predictions. The country is still here, we're not all starving and life seems reasonably normal for all of us except those who have to use Southern Rail. Fortunately, as I can still drive, the only time that I now use public transport is to attend the local hospital using my pensioner's bus pass, so avoiding the £1.50 per hour hospital parking charge.
To me, the most unexpected event of the year was the election of Donald Trump as the new American President. My reaction is that he was the better of the two candidates, but I simply can't understand why a country of some 320 million people couldn't find two better candidates. Nevertheless, we could be in for an interesting year!
The worse aspect of 2016 has been the rise of Islamic terrorism with major attacks in France and Germany. I fear for something similar in this country and am thankful that nothing has happened so far over the Christmas and New Year period.
So much for 2016. I would conclude by wishing my readers a Happy, Safe and Prosperous New Year.
Saturday, 23 April 2016
A Convenient Obama Visit
Clearly President Obama is here to help Cameron in his pro EU campaign. Why else would he come, after all, he appears to dislike this country and all it stands for?
The main outcome of his visit, apart from some photographs with the Queen and Prince George for his album, is that he has shown himself to be a hypocrite and has allowed his dislike of this country to to overcome whatever common sense that he might once have had. His main argument for us staying in the EU seems to be that we will be put at the 'back of the queue' when it comes to discussing trade agreements as the US would rather negotiate with one group of 28 nations than with a single country.
I would suspect that anyone else involved in negotiating with the EU would argue the exact opposite, it is far easier to reach agreement with a single country than with a group where they all individually have to concur with the decisions reached by their negotiators. But that aside, Obama won't be president in eight months time, so he can't possibly predict what a future administration might do.
As reported in Breitbart, his view is also contradicted by an official from their Office of International Trade who, in an e-mail said
In any case, does it matter? We are trading with the US at the moment, apparently without any agreement, and it is difficult to visualise why there should be any change if we left the EU.
Finally, for a laugh, the reply that Obama gave when asked by a student in London what he wanted his legacy to be.
The main outcome of his visit, apart from some photographs with the Queen and Prince George for his album, is that he has shown himself to be a hypocrite and has allowed his dislike of this country to to overcome whatever common sense that he might once have had. His main argument for us staying in the EU seems to be that we will be put at the 'back of the queue' when it comes to discussing trade agreements as the US would rather negotiate with one group of 28 nations than with a single country.
I would suspect that anyone else involved in negotiating with the EU would argue the exact opposite, it is far easier to reach agreement with a single country than with a group where they all individually have to concur with the decisions reached by their negotiators. But that aside, Obama won't be president in eight months time, so he can't possibly predict what a future administration might do.
As reported in Breitbart, his view is also contradicted by an official from their Office of International Trade who, in an e-mail said
“This is the first time I’ve heard of the assertion that the UK is too small to have an FTA with the US… clearly the UK is not too small to have an FTA with the US if we have one with Oman.”But neither is the trade deal with the EU likely in the near future, as Obama told the press that a U.S./EU trade deal is “not going to happen anytime soon”.
In any case, does it matter? We are trading with the US at the moment, apparently without any agreement, and it is difficult to visualise why there should be any change if we left the EU.
Finally, for a laugh, the reply that Obama gave when asked by a student in London what he wanted his legacy to be.
"Saving the world economy from a Great Depression — that was pretty good"I thought that was Gordon Brown's line!
Monday, 18 April 2016
Project Fear continues.with Forecasts
Today we had the Treasury forecast that if Brexit happens, we will all be £4300 per household worse off by 2030.
If this is as accurate as recent Treasury forecasts concerning the country's budget and growth for periods of just one financial year, any forecasts as to what might happen after 16 years are just wishful thinking. A recent statement by the 'Remain' campaigners admitted that wages for the lower paid would continue to be depressed due to the high levels of unskilled immigration, so it would seem that the lower paid lose out either way!
By some convoluted thinking, the Chancellor also suggested that taxes would have to rise if we left the EU because we would no longer be getting the present grants from Brussels. But since we paid them the money in the first place, and they took a large cut before paying back some of it in grants, if we kept our taxes at the present level and paid the grants directly, the Chancellor would have the whole of the cut taken by Brussels to start paying off our debts or allowing more spending on the NHS.
Of course, with proper border control and hopefully less immigration than at present, the strain on the NHS would be significantly reduced, under which circumstances the NHS would probably be able to cope without any major budget increase.
But the Treasury is not the only state organisation to be incapable of economic forecasting; the Bank of England is just as bad. For several years running in their annual forecasts, they have suggested that interest rates would start rising within the next six months, when in fact, as far as both savers and borrowers are concerned they are still falling. Now they have suggested that rates would rise in the event of Brexit; is this forecast any better than their previous ones?
It is also suggested that trade with the EU would decline in the event of Brexit. Why should it? I'm sure that Mercedes, BMW and VW will still want to sell us their cars; if the EU imposes trade sanctions on our exports, we would be free to do the same and the Germans would be one of the biggest losers.
There is also the suggestion last week that Brexit would result in major repercussions and a slump in not just our economy but that of the world at large. However a few weeks previously we had been told that our country is too small 'to go it alone'. These contradictory arguments make you begin to wonder if any of these so called experts have the vaguest idea of what they are talking about. Why should the actions of a 'tiny insignificant country' (their phrase) like ours have any effect on the world economy?
I'm awaiting forecasts from the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries concerning plagues of locusts decimating our crops and the absence of Spanish trawlers from our fishing grounds causing massive problems due to under-fishing.
An afterthought:
Has anyone in the remain side provided a forecast as the increase in the EU budget by 2030? I suspect that the additional cost to each family of belonging will far outstrip the £4300 that Osborne claims will be the cost of Brexit.
If this is as accurate as recent Treasury forecasts concerning the country's budget and growth for periods of just one financial year, any forecasts as to what might happen after 16 years are just wishful thinking. A recent statement by the 'Remain' campaigners admitted that wages for the lower paid would continue to be depressed due to the high levels of unskilled immigration, so it would seem that the lower paid lose out either way!
By some convoluted thinking, the Chancellor also suggested that taxes would have to rise if we left the EU because we would no longer be getting the present grants from Brussels. But since we paid them the money in the first place, and they took a large cut before paying back some of it in grants, if we kept our taxes at the present level and paid the grants directly, the Chancellor would have the whole of the cut taken by Brussels to start paying off our debts or allowing more spending on the NHS.
Of course, with proper border control and hopefully less immigration than at present, the strain on the NHS would be significantly reduced, under which circumstances the NHS would probably be able to cope without any major budget increase.
But the Treasury is not the only state organisation to be incapable of economic forecasting; the Bank of England is just as bad. For several years running in their annual forecasts, they have suggested that interest rates would start rising within the next six months, when in fact, as far as both savers and borrowers are concerned they are still falling. Now they have suggested that rates would rise in the event of Brexit; is this forecast any better than their previous ones?
It is also suggested that trade with the EU would decline in the event of Brexit. Why should it? I'm sure that Mercedes, BMW and VW will still want to sell us their cars; if the EU imposes trade sanctions on our exports, we would be free to do the same and the Germans would be one of the biggest losers.
There is also the suggestion last week that Brexit would result in major repercussions and a slump in not just our economy but that of the world at large. However a few weeks previously we had been told that our country is too small 'to go it alone'. These contradictory arguments make you begin to wonder if any of these so called experts have the vaguest idea of what they are talking about. Why should the actions of a 'tiny insignificant country' (their phrase) like ours have any effect on the world economy?
I'm awaiting forecasts from the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries concerning plagues of locusts decimating our crops and the absence of Spanish trawlers from our fishing grounds causing massive problems due to under-fishing.
An afterthought:
Has anyone in the remain side provided a forecast as the increase in the EU budget by 2030? I suspect that the additional cost to each family of belonging will far outstrip the £4300 that Osborne claims will be the cost of Brexit.
Sunday, 28 February 2016
Logic?
We are warned by the G20 that there will be a "Global Shock" if Britain leaves the EU.
We are also told that we couldn't survive by ourselves outside the EU in spite of our having one of the world's largest economies and more than half our trade being with countries outside the EU.
Surely these two statements contradict each other. If our economy is sufficiently large to cause a "Global Shock" as a result of our leaving the EU, surely it is strong enough for Britain to survive outside the EU? I suspect that the main shock will be to the EU's economy when they discover they will no longer get subsidies from the UK.
We are also told that we couldn't survive by ourselves outside the EU in spite of our having one of the world's largest economies and more than half our trade being with countries outside the EU.
Surely these two statements contradict each other. If our economy is sufficiently large to cause a "Global Shock" as a result of our leaving the EU, surely it is strong enough for Britain to survive outside the EU? I suspect that the main shock will be to the EU's economy when they discover they will no longer get subsidies from the UK.
Sunday, 21 February 2016
Unfit to be Prime Minister
A headline is the "Mail Online" claims
'Even if we leave the EU, we won't be able to control immigration': Cameron's counsel of despair as he turns on rebel Brexit ministers
If this is a true reflection of what Cameron said, in my view he is totally unfitted to be Prime Minister. It is apparently based on his belief that if we are to trade with the EU countries after Brexit, we would be forced to have continued free movement of people. What rubbish, other countries trade with the EU without having EU migrants forced onto them!
If he is admitting that we wouldn't be able to control immigration, what would he say if there was a prospect of war for any reason? "Let's surrender now as there is no prospect of winning"?
The sooner we are out of the EU and have a Prime Minister who genuinely stands up for this country, the better.
'Even if we leave the EU, we won't be able to control immigration': Cameron's counsel of despair as he turns on rebel Brexit ministers
If this is a true reflection of what Cameron said, in my view he is totally unfitted to be Prime Minister. It is apparently based on his belief that if we are to trade with the EU countries after Brexit, we would be forced to have continued free movement of people. What rubbish, other countries trade with the EU without having EU migrants forced onto them!
If he is admitting that we wouldn't be able to control immigration, what would he say if there was a prospect of war for any reason? "Let's surrender now as there is no prospect of winning"?
The sooner we are out of the EU and have a Prime Minister who genuinely stands up for this country, the better.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
