Is Gutter Politics Really the Way of the EU

Since 1st January this year we have witnessed an implosion within the EU demonstrating its true character mainly due to the inept handling of the Coronavirus vaccine crisis by Ursula Von de Leyen, the EU Commission President, exacerbated by their determination to cause many problems for the UK as punishment for BREXIT.  In their arrogance they now find the realisation of their refusal to consider reform proposals by the UK in 2016. Now others see the creeping expropriation plans of the EU Commission as the German Supreme Court bans any further integration of Germany into the grand federal superstate program covertly facilitated within the Lisbon Treaty. I still hold the view that the arrogant nature of this plan will cause the EU to implode in the coming 12-months, especially as debt mounts with no credible means of repayment. If its true that the European Central Bank is looking for consumer and commercial deposits to prop its Balance Sheet the end is nigh.

The startling reality of the behaviour of the EU is the collateral damage inflicted on many millions, if not billions of people throughout the world in need of protection against coronavirus – since when has the EU ever shown any thought towards others. I speak of the gutter tactics to discredit the AstraZeneca vaccine because AstraZeneca did not succumb to the jackboot demands of the EU for supplies which, contractually they were not entitled to. And trying to block the export of vaccine made within the EU but destined for other countries will most certainly send shivers down the spine of external investors considering investment within the EU.

From the beginning of the disastrous EU vaccine strategy Brussels has deployed the most gross of gutter politics to cover themselves with the citizens of the EU who are now paying the price of inept decisions with their health, liberty, and even their lives. We recall the inept Ursula Von de Leyen lashing out at AstraZeneca for breach of contract where the contract clearly states best endeavours. Taking that contract to the High Court would have been a tremendous embarrassment for the powers in Brussels. And of course, the biggest embarrassment for the EU is the vaccine is the result of British research.

Initially we saw Germany attempt to offset the anger of its citizens by declaring the AstraZeneca vaccine unsuitable for the over 65s rather than admit failure to secure supplies. Now they have reversed this political sidestep to find they have seriously impacted public confidence of their people who now show a reluctance to have this vaccine. Supplies are still not remotely enough to service the EU so another gutter tactic to ostracize AstraZeneca for not complying with the demands of those who must be obeyed in Brussels has been launched throughout the EU in the form of the unfounded, and medically unproven scare that AstraZeneca can cause blood clots. The number of so-called cases is well below the normal incidence without a vaccine. This tactic has universally been denounced by scientists and medical professionals including the European Medical Council – the primary body within the EU.

Has anyone in Brussels considered the impact analysis of this tactic on its own citizens, and the collateral damage throughout the world, especially third-world countries in desperate need of a vaccine? This vaccine is by far the cheapest and easiest to transport thus the best choice for the developing world. But how will the vaccination rollout in these countries be affected by the gutter tactics of the EU? How many additional lives will be lost through lack of public confidence caused by inept EU politicians using such gutter political tactics?

OH, WHAT A LOVELY WAR WHEN THE ENEMY DESTROYS ITSELF. But, as history has shown, inept European wars have devastating fallout consequences.

For those with some medical knowledge I have a significant D-dimer reading of 650 ng/L (normal 0 – 285) and a heart condition needing surgery making me very susceptible to blood clots. I had my first AstraZeneca jab 4 weeks ago with no ill-affects whatsoever.

If you find this blog interesting, I would appreciate a thumbs up.

BREXIT: London Evening Standard or should it be Londoner Abend Standard

I had the need to visit London yesterday on medical grounds, collecting a copy of the London Evening Standard to read on my way home. Important editorial warning of the ever-increasing likelihood of London rising to tier 3 because of the rapid increase in Covid-19 infections is consigned to the bottom corner with the blazing headlines and main editorial focused on the doom and gloom of a no BREXIT deal. Whilst I appreciate that, overall, the vote in London to remain in the EU was marginally more than 50%, and the former schoolboy Chancellor now editor George Osborne is heart on sleeve Remainer, what happened to balanced reporting? And, of course, the doom and gloom can only be described as originating from the stable of Lord Haw-Haw.

But who are these people in London who cannot accept that we have already left the EU and now want to ensure that UK sovereignty is not compromised by any future arrangements with the EU? I know that some have vested self-interests which can only be described as selfish and certainly not in the long-term best interests of the UK. Remember the Corn Law wars. Others probably have property within the EU and selfishly do not want any added burden to their usage thereof. But surely there has been enough press on these negotiations to understand that the EU is fearful of the future enterprise of the UK embarrassing the EU and thus want to have the capability to rein in and stifle such economic prosperity as there is no doubt that the UK will certainly lead the EU in technology and innovation. You only need to see how many very bright young people have already departed the EU to the UK, USA, Canada, and Australia to know where they think their future lies.

Let us blow one myth currently touted by Remainer – the people of this country did NOT vote to leave the EU with a Trade Deal, they voted to rid themselves of the shackles of the EU. The current so-called Trade Deal is a blatant attempt by the EU to replace some of the shackles to UK prosperity and well-being all in the name of maintaining the integrity of the Single Market, the most protectionist market in the World. A no-deal BREXIT is by far a better scenario than one which continues to shackle the UK to the delusions of grandeur of the EU elite. Let me make my argument.

The EU, as a trading bloc, is possibly, but not certainly the largest trading partner of the UK as some UK business recorded by the EU is only in transit through the EU to non-EU destinations. These transactions will certainly continue regardless of the outcome of trade discussions. The UK’s largest single trading partner is the USA, and the UK is the third largest export market of Germany. Yesterday a German Minister was reported to state that a no-deal BREXIT will cost some 700,000 jobs in Germany, a serious economic impact.

The current net trade imbalance between the UK and the EU is EUR1 billion per WEEK in favour of the EU. Thus, the UK is an important trading partner for the EU.

The UK imports some EUR37 billion of perishables from France per year. What will happen to this produce if France throws its toys out of the pram and blocks this business, or prices it out of the market with tariffs? The French Government finally alerted producers in France last week that the UK has already sourced some 50% of this produce outside of the EU at cheaper sourcing prices, and the EU is not currently able to absorb this reduction in trade. These are perishable good with a finite usefulness so cannot be stored or held up by unwieldly red tape at ports. We are talking of EUR 700 million per week which is much transport logistics, and many thousands of people’s livelihoods. If these products are not freely and swiftly delivered, I predict the producers and supply chain will be on the streets in French cities, and some will burn.

Another French childish idiosyncrasy is the announcement that UK citizens will only be allowed to visit France for up to 90-days in any 180-day period. Considering that President Macron was a former banker does he not understand that people who choose to have extended visits to France spend money there which probably supports the economies of towns and villages they frequent?

Another announcement that also is absurd. The EU have announced that transport from the UK can only be single destination within the EU, the same with pick-up. Economically and environmentally ridiculous. Have the Londoner Remainers not noticed how may distribution hubs have been built in the UK this past year? The UK can play this silly game by restricting foreign lorries to one of these hubs from where goods will be distributed throughout the UK by local transport thus providing jobs here.

Another myth is there will be significantly more paperwork involved in a no-deal structure. Do the people of London think that UK firms only deal with the EU? Do the people of London think that UK trade with the EU will continue with existing paperwork in the event of an EU trade deal? Trading paperwork will comply with International Standards thus for exporters not wholly exporting to the EU little will change. In any event they will find that astute corporates have already reduced their exposure to the EU.

I heard a cynical so-called expert from the fishing industry (where does the media find these ‘experts’) say there is little or no benefit of UK fishermen resuming control of UK waters because most of the catch goes to the EU who will block trade. I remember when the fishing industry in the UK was decimated by the UK submission to the Common Fisheries Policy. It will take time to rebuild UK fishing fleets. An opportunity exists for existing UK fishing fleets. The shop and restaurants of the EU will still need fish. Where else can they get them? If the EU wants to impose tariffs the cost will be borne by the EU buyers, not the margins of the fishermen.

Another, no doubt, tale to spook is BMW intend to transfer production of the mini to Germany. Good luck with that one. They should learn by the woes of Jaguar Landrover who, a few years back, announced they wanted to build Jaguar cars in the USA, that is until they were told in no uncertain terms by the Jaguar Owners Club in the USA that their members would only buy cars built in the UK. Although Jaguar Landrover may have heeded that warning they decided to build the Landrover Discovery Sports in Croatia only to find that they cannot sell them in the UK. Production is now being transferred back to the UK. No knowledgeable car manufacturer will move production from the UK if they want to sell their vehicles. The Mercedes F1 racing team is not only championed by a British driver; the car is designed and built in Northampton, UK. Only the Mercedes badge is possibly produced in Germany.

The biggest laugh for me is the EU demand to have some regulatory control over the activities of the City of London, the financial capital of the World. I was part of the Passport negotiation with Jacques Delours and Prof Tickle with M. Barnier as a bit player. They came with demands from Germany to levy withholding taxes on trades with German citizens and any trade in German Bund. Delusional. They were told that they comply with International trading rules or go away. They now say the financial community in the City will only have restricted access to the EU. They forget that the Euro is and will remain cleared through London – embarrassing for such an important (in their mind) institution. The EU has no financial capacity to absorb the EU based derivatives so will continue in London. If any member State, or EU corporate wants to raise capital it must come to London. This will not change. So much for the mighty EU.

If I were strategically managing negotiations with the EU, in the event they are not willing to remove all the cynical Sovereign handcuffs from the deal I would concede to a no-deal scenario and prepare for WTO rules. I predict, by first quarter-end 2021 the EU will be back looking for a deal. The UK will have a bumpy transition but would under either scenario, and it’s clear that the Stock Market investors are not concerned either way. Investors are the people who put their money where their mouth is so others should listen. It should also be remembered that losing the UK will have far reaching negative impacts on the EU from which they might not recover. The German economy is built on a similar incestuous model as was seem in Japan in the 1970/80’s until it imploded. The UK does not want to be anywhere close to the EU when this happens. I shall also watch with interest as Putin imposes and interferes with the much-weakened EU, especially because the insane energy policy of Germany leaves them totally exposed to Russia. Without the influence of the UK, I think Putin will become emboldened in his dealings with the EU.

In summary I would suggest that Londoners still sleepwalking wake up to the reality that we have already left the EU. Whether or not we have a trade deal with the EU is of small consequence against our long-term freedom and prosperity. I would suggest when Londoners are free to travel the globe again, they stop someone in the street where they are and ask them a simple question – can you show me on a map where the EU and its capital, Brussels, is located? Then when their confused look diminishes ask them where the UK and its capital, London are located. Then remember what it is to be British and think of that quintessential Englishman, Captain Sir Tom and his true blue British view that tomorrow will be a better day.

Is Populist Democracy an erosion of Democratic Values

Democracy is a given in the Western World – or is it? There is so much debate in recent times about democratic rights of various factions my head is spinning trying to comprehend how this word is being used – or abused.

If we go back to the fundamental meaning of democracy, we need to consider nation States where civil liberties and fundamental political freedoms are not only respected but also reinforced by a political culture based on democratic principles. If we consider the characteristics that should define a democracy, we will see freely elected government representation, respect of civil liberties, an independent judiciary, organised and elected opposition, all enshrined within the Rule of Law.

Being a member of Chatham House I was invited to participate in a session entitled ‘The Pandemic, Populism and the Democratic Recession’ during which Professor Larry Diamond from Stanford University in the USA outlined his argument that, especially during the past 20-years, democracy as we understand it is on the decline as Nation States throughout the World labelled as democracies remove ever more powers from and/or impose more authority over the people, currently Hungary and Poland within the EU. Whereas I fundamentally disagreed with his understanding of both the UK and the EU, both politically and economically, his view that democracy is in recession resonated. I also agreed that the rise of Modern Populism is a major factor in degraded political governance. But what is driving this degradation?

As a Christmas treat in 2004 I took my then 14-year old daughter to Boston and New York City in an attempt to give her some feel for life in the USA using the more sedate and conservative Boston as a marker against the cut and thrust of New York City. Whilst in New York we passed the CBS Building more commonly known as Black Rock. In the window there was a large screen stating, ‘United States of America – the oldest surviving democracy in the World’. This statement, for me, encapsulates the problems encountered by Americans throughout the World. I question whether the USA can consider itself a democracy when I see President Trump with connivance of the Republican led Senate impose their choice of person in the form of Amy Coney Barrett as a Supreme Court Judge for life. This can only be described as political stuffing of the Judiciary where such body is defined as independent within a democracy. Furthermore the turbulence over recent years where the whole Government apparatus becomes stagnant because the Senate and House of Representatives cannot agree a budget suggests the Political System in the USA is in need of structural reform to redefine and enhance democracy to better serve all the people before preaching their form of democracy to others. During my teenage years, segregation was still rife in the USA, and recent events stirring the Black Lives Matter upheaval suggests problems still exist.

Having close ties with Switzerland since the late 1970s I recall earlier this millennium being asked by a former Federal Counsellor of Switzerland to review their speech to an upcoming gathering of EU ministers considering the further integration into the EU of the former satellite states of the former USSR. There was a section in this speech lauding democracy, declaring Switzerland as a glowing example of a stable democracy. I could not help but point out that, in Switzerland, the Executive has total control over the judiciary with several recent occasions where the Federal Council has overridden judicial review to protect their own interests. I consider Switzerland as a Police State where people are declared guilty until they prove themselves innocent – hardly democratic. And they clearly have difficulties trying to govern in four different languages and associated cultures.

Countries such as Russia and China are accepted as undemocratic. We have witnessed both Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping engineer their longevity in leadership amending constitutional rules as needed to secure their positions. Opposition is summarily dismissed even using horrendous methods such as Novichok agent with apparent impunity. China’s reversal of democracy in Hongkong with its latest dictum that MPs in Hongkong must be patriotic to Beijing if they want to serve demonstrates blatant disregard for the democratic freedoms afforded the people of Hongkong under the hand-over Treaty with the UK.

The recent elections in Belarus demonstrate that power corrupts leaving most of the former socialist States, even those classified as democratic, revealing the flaws in their leadership determined to retain authoritarian power by any means as the people become more aware of the rights they should enjoy as citizens. And, of course, we should not ignore the corrupt Governments in Africa whose leaders will use any level of guile and oppression to retain their corrupt power.

The citizens of the World are becoming more aware of the concept of democracy and seek to exert their rights within the accepted democratic framework. Authoritarian leaders who cannot easily apply direct oppression are seeking other means to retain their power. Knowing that many people have very little if any understanding of politics or economics they use Modern Populism as a powerful aphrodisiac. Knowing the affection of the people for pop artists and movie stars authoritarian leaders personify themselves as superstars worthy of the embrace of the people. Such charismatic leaders manipulate receptive voters by promising outrageous utopia whilst vilifying opponents using the ever-increasing wealth gap to decry the corruption and self-interest cronyism of the elite. Unfortunately, this works for enough voters to swing elections from capable Government into governments in name only. The star-struck voters get what they deserve, only realising their error when it is too late for 4 – 5 years, or as we are witnessing in countries such as China and Russia, for life of the leader holding the power. Constitutions are revised to cement the power base; democracy becoming no more than a word of convenient political rhetoric. This herald back to kingdoms where the leader has absolute power for life – no matter what.

The recent Brexit debacle in the UK sheds interesting light into this discussion. After the first Brexit Referendum the so-called Remainers – the voters who wanted the UK to remain part of the EU – made many outrageous claims that the Brexiteers were duped by Populism, being too uneducated to understand the issues. This view carried into Parliament where MPs from constituencies who clearly voted to leave the EU chose to ignore their local constituency vote instead voting to stifle the process. It took two further elections and the loss of a number of seasoned politicians and some younger opportunistic politicians to give Boris Johnson a mandate to leave the EU but many Remainers still argue that voters were casting their vote to prevent Jeremy Corbyn from leading a Government, not to leave the EU. Thus, we have a perplexing problem of voters not considered capable of casting a reasoned vote thus voting a Populist ticket, and the losers not accepting the outcome yielding a breakdown in credibility of the democratic system.

An alternate way of reading the last General Election in the UK is that Boris Johnson saw the opportunity to use the voters to disguise the Brexit issue within the Jeremy Corbyn ultra-left-wing Modern Populism and rely on the voters to see reason that the outrageous promises to the voters by a Jeremy Corbyn led Government would condemn the UK to the Dark Ages again. The results tend to suggest even in the more depressed, typically Labour stronghold constituencies of the UK the voters were savvy enough to know what they didn’t want both in Corbyn and the EU.  

One of the long-held complaints with the EU is the unelected but powerful European Commission. How can the EU declare itself founded upon democratic principles? The agenda of the EU is clear to ever more of its citizens. The UK has responded. Who’s next?

The current Presidential election in the USA could be described as Modern Populism versus Pragmatism but look how close the popular vote. If we apply the argument that many voters are not capable of understanding the debate one would expect the vote to be more pronounced in favour of Populism or Pragmatism. I don’t envy President elect Joe Biden who must repair such a polarised nation not least because of no clear Republican or Democrat majority in either House likely creating stagnation in policy agenda. And the losing voters will consider themselves robbed of victory especially if led by Donald Trump when his legal challenges fail.

Why is democracy failing when so many oppressed people in the World crave the liberty and freedoms it promises? I grew up in the aftermath of WWII where people relied on resourcefulness and resilience to survive and thrive. Communities worked together to rebuild their lives. Life was not idyllic, far from it, but an attitude was instilled that essentially meant that if you wanted to achieve you are responsible to make it happen. This attitude accelerated during what I call the Youth Revolution – the period between the 1966 World Cup and the landing of Neil Armstrong on the moon in 1969. Resilience and resourcefulness built in prior years now could be expressed in ways which changed the UK from an essentially conservative Government to a more liberal approach. Much wealth creation during this period across the spectrum of voters – class boundaries fracturing. People felt liberated and empowered to determine their own destiny in the World and demanded a more liberal framework by Governments.

This empowerment led to the people looking to exert their rights to whatever they could get for their votes building a now overburdened welfare state where an attitude of entitlement overshadows the need for resourcefulness among the poorer sectors. For example, could a political party now get elected on a ticket of much needed scale back and structural reform of the NHS to reflect need over want? Resourcefulness has morphed into indoctrinated entitlement. Resilience has morphed into insecurity with a new lexicon of mental disorders amongst younger people. Instead of the resilience to cope, people crumble. Having observed the depressing inability of people to cope with Covid-19 lockdown goodness knows what would happen if the lights went out for any length of time. Today there are still many families who have members who survived some 6 years of WWII in the shadow of bombing raids, losing loved ones, coping with rationing, and extreme workload to support the war effort. Has what I would term as Modern Socialist Populism created a complacency that quietly forgets the price paid for the freedoms they enjoy? Thank goodness for the emergence of heroes like Capt. Tom whose positive resilience injected a much-needed dose of reflection and goodwill.

However, we digress. Or have we? Creating unaffordable expectations among the masses in the pursuit of votes is destined towards a reality check. Corporate taxation at uneconomic levels, and personal taxes at levels significantly affecting quality of life are a formula for disillusionment, recrimination and ill-will towards the Government. Modern Populism hits the buffers. The Government coffers are empty. The people are disillusioned with Liberal Democracy and must pay for their sins with a period of Conservatism to rebuild the economy and reset voter expectations.

Is there not a note of déjà vu in this progression? I remember in the 1970s living under a widespread social engineering period by Labour Governments to support its popularity essentially bankrupting the country in the process requiring some 18 years of Conservative resets to prosperity. Then in 1997 Tony Blair and Gordon Brown emerged with New Labour on a Populist ticket spending a further 10-years of cradle-to-grave social entitlement engineering finally leaving the Government coffers empty in 2007 and so many young people disillusioned with their new but worthless university degrees and massive student debt. Another reset to Conservatism, austerity, and realism. The banking crisis did not help but the coffers were empty in any event. And, just as prosperity and the freedom from the EU were set to propel the UK into a new period of accelerated growth, we are hit with Covid-19. Should China have the moral fortitude to inject $2-3Trillion into the global economy to compensate for its failure to contain this virus we will most certainly see the UK thrive and prosper post-Covid-19 before the next General Election thus thwarting the Populists who will certainly make hay if recovery is still slow. In the event that China fails to stimulate the global markets but seeks to exploit the global economic weakness resulting from Covid-19 I would expect the West to reinvigorate the Marshall Plan along with a healthy dislocation from China from where three serious viruses have emerged in the past twenty years.

So what is different today? Before social media and the degradation of conventional press reporting to satisfy 24-hour news channels using their own brand of sensationalism to compete with online social media, voters could only derive information from a limited number of outlets. Social media has completely changed the dissemination of information; good, bad, or downright false or misleading. Unscrupulous entities from individuals, organisations, and even foreign powers can, in minutes, pollute social media platforms with lies, misrepresentation and complete fabrication intended to sway receptive victims to a desired outcome. I overheard a journalist from a broadsheet newspaper declare that the demand on her for articles each day meant that she had no time to fully research and validate her stories. But who, today, reads the second page corrections if indeed any are printed?

An analysis of which degradation came first would take another essay. But what is clear is we have a collision of culture and belief where national boundaries are blurred by new global organised activism built on conspiracy theories. We experience truth decay where facts no longer matter, and people lie with impunity, some merely to seek their 15-minutes of fame, but others with a more cynical intent. We observe more authoritarian countries attempt to curb access to social media. We also observe Western countries trying to marshal content but with little effect to date. One observation of this proliferation of false or il-considered content is the need of people to feel involved in this new-found freedom of expression which requires instant gratification regardless of consideration lest they be left behind. How many celebrities take the view that they need to be connected until the vitriol received causes them to retreat?

Thus, Populists and their cohorts can exploit the lack of any integrity in published works on any platform. If voters are not happy with what is, they can easily be swayed to the promised land. How such interference in democracy can be regulated will be debated relentlessly with little or no consensus throughout the World. Democracy could well become as toothless as the UN.

I put it to my readers that the degradation of integrity in politics has created a mistrust of democracy. This is a breakdown of social cohesion that amplifies by clever manipulators through social media platforms creating false impression, disenchantment, and social discourse. History repeats itself regarding the few people needed to stoke people into war with insane losses before sanity prevails. Does democracy need to follow the same cyclic course before people understand its values and limitations. It was Winston Churchill who remarked that democracy is the worst form of Government, except for all the others. Is it time to revisit the pillars of democracy, ensure that they are relevant, fully understood and implemented, and then guarded against abuse?

Corbynism -Attack on the Wealthy

Jeremy Corbyn/John McDonnell have announced their brave new world of far-left socialism. What will be the impact of trying to tax the rich and business to engage in unaffordable social engineering and to destroy the UK economy? Let us illustrate this in terms that Labour supporters should understand. It’s a sobering message.

Suppose that once a week, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to £100. If they paid their bill the Corbyn expects to collect our taxes, it would go something like this:

  • The first four men (the poorest; out of work, zero hours, etc) would pay nothing
  • The fifth (labourer) would pay £1
  • The sixth (skilled worker) would pay £3
  • The seventh (professional) would pay £7
  • The eighth (management) would pay £12
  • The ninth (executive) would pay £18
  • And the tenth man (richest) would pay £59

The ten men drank in the bar every week and seemed quite happy with the arrangement until, one day, the owner caused them a dilemma. “Since minimum wage, corporate and income taxes have been increased” he said, “I have to increase the cost of your weekly beer by £20.” Drinks for the ten men would now cost £120.

They realised that £20 divided by five is £4 but if added to everybody’s share then not only would the first five men be drinking for free, but the sixth man would have his contribution increased by 133%!

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. The first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free but what about the other six men – the paying customers? The fifth member was employed by a small business which could not cope with the increases so was made redundant thus joined the first four and paid nothing. How could the remaining five divide the £20 increase so that everyone would pay his fair share?

The bar owner suggested that it would be fairer to increase each man’s bill according to the principle of the new tax system and he proceeded to work out the amounts he suggested that each should now pay.

The result was that the fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (a 100% saving).

  • The sixth man now paid £4 instead of £3 (a 33% rise)
  • The seventh man now paid £9 instead of £7 (a 28% rise)
  • The eighth man now paid £15 instead of £12 (a 25% rise)
  • The ninth man now paid £22 instead of £18 (a 22% rise)
  • And the tenth man now paid £70 instead of £59 (a 16% rise)

Each of the last five was worse off than before with the first five now drinking for free.

But, once outside the bar, the paying men began to compare their rises.

“I paid 33% extra; double the tenth man,” declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, “his share was much less than mine!”

“That’s true!” shouted the seventh man. “Why should he only pay 16% when I paid 28%? The wealthy get all the breaks!”

“Wait a minute,” yelled the first five men in unison, “we can’t get a job because of this new system. This new tax system exploits the poor!”

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up demanding a greater contribution from him.

The following week the tenth man didn’t show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had their beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important – they didn’t have enough money between them to pay for even half of the bill!

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is how the Corbyn/McDonnell tax system will work. The people who already pay the highest taxes will naturally consider their position. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just might not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas, where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier, and take their business with them. This happened in the late 1970s when higher rate tax rates were 83%. Didn’t work then; won’t work now.

Lest we forget when Labour lost the General Election to the Conservatives in 2010. Liam Bryne, Chief Secretary to the Treasury under Gordon Brown, left a note for his successor stating, ‘I’m afraid there is no money.’ This has been the case with every Labour Government since the war.

Any political promises more than 5 years away are pure fantasy because they exceed the term of a Government and thus why spades of such promises are put out there to woo the gullible. As for free broadband (re-nationalise BT with 5G driving future internet access??  – whoops), there is no such thing as a free lunch. Even the air you breath leaves you exposed to pay taxes. Anything for free will be abused, as we see in the NHS. Someone has to pay at the end of the day.

There is also an assumption by Corbyn/McDonnell that the financial community will agree to fund an additional £55 billion p.a. for 10 years – not likely, not least because much of this funding is not directly linked to increased productivity. A more likely consequence of a Corbyn Government would be a downgrade in the UK credit rating which would increase the cost of any available borrowing thus negating the McDonnell argument that borrowing will be cheap. The more modest extra £20 billion p.a. for 5 years spending pledged by the Conservatives will raise eyebrows in the financial markets; even with a majority Conservative Government.

It is only possible to spend if you have a strong underlying economy. Without the rich, and wealthy businesses to provide jobs and generate profits upon which the Government depends to accumulate tax revenues, there is no money to spend.

Is the NHS using BREXIT to hide its own Social Engineering in the limiting of drugs to save costs?

We are currently facing a constant barrage by the NHS through the media regarding the supply of drugs. But for those already experiencing the scarcity of prescription drugs they know that this has been occurring for some time. I have experienced the lack of supply of a particular brand of Omeprazole for some months now. My partner has also experienced the lack of supply of her HRT drugs and, indeed the supply issue is likely to get worse – but not because of BREXIT in any type of exit deal or no deal.

Any self-respecting biochemist will tell you that all drugs with the same name, but different manufacturer, are not the same as small differences in the manufacture process can lead to significant differences in the way the body metabolises the drug. And I’m not suggesting that generics are worse than the original. What matters is that a patient finds the version of a drug which best suits them. Thus, when I found myself needing Omeprazole as a result of the impact on my stomach of an over-prescription of analgesics a few years back, I tested the available versions to see which left me with the least aftereffects. When I changed surgery there was an attempt to wean me onto a generic form which I already knew had uncomfortable aftereffects, but I resisted and stayed with my preferred brand.

Some months ago, when in need of further supply, I was told that there were manufacturing difficulties and thus my brand was in short supply. This situation persists to this day. However, in April this year I underwent heart surgery in a private hospital in London. They wanted to ensure that my gastric acid was kept under control so put me on Omeprazole – the same brand I preferred. I asked the pharmacist if she was aware of any supply difficulties – none.

My partner is on HRT and was told that her preferred version was again experiencing supply difficulties. She has travelled far and wide around pharmacies to fill her prescription with modest success. It was suggested to her that she should come off HRT because of the increased possibility of cancer, using antidepressants as an alternative should the need arise. The NHS have stormed the media with fear propaganda for the past few months to deflect people away from HRT. But why?

My partner is Swiss, and still consults with her gynaecologist in Zurich, who happens to be the top gynaecologist in Switzerland. He provides her prescriptions. She consulted with him regarding the shortage of these drugs. No such shortage; and sent her a supply arriving a few days later.

Coincidence, or social engineering by the NHS purely on a cost basis. Whereas I agree there is a liberal wastage of drugs in the UK, not least in hospitals whose banal pharmacy procedures must waste considerable sums of money every day issuing drugs before need is established. I was in hospital a few years back where I witnessed the wastage of some £3,600 of drugs prescribed for me over just 8 days because of ridiculous pharmacy process.

So what has this lack of supply got to do with BREXIT – NOTHING. It is social engineering in an attempt to curb NHS costs.

BREXIT – The Use and Abuse of Political Statistics

The European Elections delivered a fragmented wake-up call to Brussels; a comfort in political terms, but hardly a vote of unity. As per usual politicians from all factions engaged with the use and abuse of statistics to shed some light on the outcome in their favour, even if only to say their message needs to be clearer.

Within the UK it would be laughable as these inept politicians squirm if the issue upon which they have failed the electorate is not such a challenge to the UK constitution.

What we saw in the UK was a fledgling BREXIT Party who platformed honouring the 2016 Referendum vote to leave Europe with or without a deal. They polled 32% of the vote and won 29 MEP seats. By far the winner. General Elections have been won at this level of vote.

Then we have the Liberal Democrats who platformed a single message of scrap BREXIT and remain in the EU. How a so-called democratic party can ignore a clear democratic referendum outcome is beyond me, but they polled just 20% of the vote and won 16 seats.

Following them we have the Greens which I think is a singular, more idealistic vote. I would suggest, based on the fact that all interviews I witnessed with Green Party officials and candidates regarding BREXIT reverted to climate change within 30 seconds of the interview, that the issue of political remain or leave was not a factor in such votes. If one believes the commentators, the Greens attracted predominately younger voters who may not have a political view/understanding of BREXIT, or are more preoccupied with climate change and want a voice. Thus, I don’t think it statistically robust to consider the Green vote in the leave/remain argument.

I think that the above parties all profited from a unifying sense of belonging to a singular cause.

Of the remainder there will always be the hardcore Labour or Conservative voters who have always voted in a singular way. We don’t know with any reasonable accuracy where any such voter stands on the leave/remain argument.

The remainder of smaller parties are a mix of rebel causes on the fringes of the system. If there is an argument to put any one of these parties in either camp, then you would also argue that the UKIP vote should be added to the BREXIT Party vote. The sum of these votes does not change the political landscape, so again not relevant to the argument.

In 2016 the result of the Referendum was 52% in favour of leaving the EU. The polarised nature of this result has fragmented and frustrated politics since – a clear demonstration that UK politics is neither democratic nor fit for purpose. Why ask for the majority will of the people who turned out in numbers never before seen in any election, and then ignore it? The European Election results would suggest that Nigel Farage is right. Leavers have hardened to some 60%.

Since then the anti-democratic remain side of the argument has tried everything to scupper BREXIT bolstered by Teresa May’s deal that cannot possibly be approved whilst it challenges the sovereignty of the UK. No true, blue-blooded Brit will allow sovereignty to be under the control of Brussels. It is clear that the backstop agreement is fully intended to be activated with the only way out for the UK is to concede Northern Ireland back to the Republic of Ireland – the game that Leo Varadkar has been playing all along. It will be interesting to see how he feels when staring into the face of a no-deal with the consequences to the Republic losing its largest trading partner. Ireland’s economy decimated again? For sure Teresa May will go down as one of the worse Prime Ministers ever, even worse than Tony Blair.

The motion passed through the House of Commons taking a ‘no-deal BREXIT’ off the table was a shambolic demonstration of abuse of the political system. The EU will only capitulate to a sensible deal when they are faced with ‘no-deal’ as the real alternative. As professional negotiators well know all options must be on the table, and it is certain that the EU will capitulate at the eleventh hour if no-deal is the option facing them – with most of the EU either in or approaching recession they cannot afford this outcome. There is no such person as a hardliner Brexiteer. They are the people who understand the protocols of negotiation.

Jeremy Corbyn has always played politics with BREXIT pushing for a General Election rather than respect the BREXIT result, relying on the younger, gullible voter who will believe promises that cannot possibly be delivered. Opportunist indeed, but I think be careful what you wish for. Climate change has captured the imagination of this younger voter so they can easily drift to the Green Party as throughout Europe. Then we have the hardcore Labour constituencies who voted for BREXIT and demonstrated their disdain with their party by voting for the BREXIT Party. If the BREXIT Party do indeed contest a General Election, I would reasonably expect Labour supporter to move to the BREXIT Party thus decimating the Labour Party. Justice indeed.

As for the Conservative Party the ill-consider snap election called by Teresa May without any understanding of her failings in the Party Manifesto find themselves in a difficult position and need to bring their own MP’s fully into line and then attract dissenting Labour MP’s in fear of losing their seats if they are not seen to support BREXIT to restore order to the BREXIT process. Perhaps it’s time to ask local constituency party association officials to encourage their MP to back the party or surrender their seat to someone more understanding of collective co-operation and respect democratic outcomes.

The UK now need a capable Prime Minister who understands how to negotiate with the EU. A no-deal option must be on the table, and a hard position taken with the EU with the certainty that no-deal will be the outcome should the EU not take a more reasonable stance.

Unifying the UK is best addressed once the people see that all the remain fear tactics are nonsense, even with a no-deal outcome. The UK is the fifth largest economy in the World and has global influence the EU can only dream of. The EU cannot ignore the UK.

The European Elections have pushed the real statistics back in support of BREXIT with, or without a deal, knowing an agreeable deal will most certainly be forthcoming from the EU at the final hour. The other statistic that will be interesting to watch is how many of our current MP’s are serving their final term as in the next General Election voters express their wrath with them for failing to respect the majority will of the people.

 

BREXIT: A Pragmatic Message to the EU

The intransigence of the EU, no doubt fuelled by the traitorous people of the UK attempting to overturn Brexit, now requires a firm, but British pragmatic approach. I would propose the following:

Ladies and gentlemen of the EU we find ourselves at an impasse that could lead to unnecessary harm to our great nation States. Today we are faced with the opportunity to show why our nations have survived great turmoil in the past, and that we have learnt the lessons of failure to achieve equitable relationships. During the past two years the UK has been more than conciliatory in its attempt to smooth an orderly exit from the EU. The imbalanced level of consideration provided to the EU has clearly caused irreconcilable division in the UK Parliament resulting in many difficulties for the UK Government. In order to achieve an orderly exit this must change. Having given great thought to what needs to be achieved before the 29th March 2019 I would agree that reopening the Exit Agreement would not achieve the required progress in the time remaining. I propose we bin it. Of course, there are aspects of this Exit Agreement that can amicably and equitably be transposed to a new agreement.

Let me be clear that we will not extend the leaving date as I’m sure that we all consider that enough time an expense has been expended on this project. Other distractions such as revoking Article 50, a further referendum in the UK, any reference to Norway plus, or Canada plus plus are not considerations on which the EU can rely. The only surety is that the failure to achieve a reasonable and, above all, equitable settlement before 29th March 2019 is that the UK will leave the EU and that the £39 billion demand by the EU will then be subjected to International Court of Arbitration scrutiny and ruling. Failure to agree an equitable way forward will certainly cause short-term economic turbulence throughout the member states and the UK Government could better apply the exit amount to smooth such turbulence within the UK economy. During this exit process the UK economy has shown itself to be resilient and indeed buoyant and I fully expect this to continue regardless of what happen on the 29th March 2019.

From the start of the leaving process the UK proposed negotiation based upon a Strategic Alliance. The EU rejected such proposal insisting that the divorce settlement be agreed before any future relationship. This has proven to be a failed approach. Now we must proceed with an inclusive agreement including a future trading relationship as proposed and submitted to the EU in March of this year. As we are looking to replace an existing trading relationship none of the usual procrastinated negotiation of trade deals is either desirable or necessary. We may have to agree to further refinement during a transition period, but this is the nature of the strategic alliance process. Importantly, within the existing proposal are terms that with the installation of additional electronic surveillance on the Irish, Northern Ireland border as proposed by HMRC and declared as workable by the technocrats in Brussels we can completely illuminate the most contentious issue facing us today; the backstop agreement.

No doubt you will resound with protestation that such an agreement cannot be achieved in the time available. We disagree. Most, if not all, of the required components are at our disposal. All we need is the essential component of any Strategic Alliance; the will and commitment to achieve an economic and political relationship in the spirit of friendship and co-operation, and above all of reasonable and equitable benefit to both parties. Any financial settlement will be fully subject to such parameters.

To the heads of the EU member States I would add the following invitation. Should no agreement be achieved and ratified by both sides before the 29th March 2019 then the UK is fully prepared to continue to trade with any member State on existing terms and give priority to such trade over alternate sources if delivery and reciprocity can be assured. Further political posturing will not solve this problem and thus we must each address the realities of no deal in regard to the best interests of the people we each represent.

Why is the UK Government Shambolic?

Well, well, well, the UK Parliament has now completed their demonstration of irrelevance to the people of the UK. IN 2016 the people provided the most conclusive referendum result in British history instructing our politicians to leave the EU. What have our politicians done about it? We have politicians who claim that 17 million people were completely duped into a decision to leave – what an arrogant lack of respect for the people. They further argue that Brexit will make the UK poorer by 3.9% over 15 years. Such economics is not only irrelevant once projections exceed 5 years, but also assume the remainder of the World remains stable – most unlikely. These people are so deluded that they think people care about such minimal projection compared with maintaining their English way of life.

Then we have Teresa May’s idea of a negotiated exit. She tried to be all things to all people and was duped into an exit deal which is meaningless to all with the first attempted sacrifice of national sovereignty in UK history with the so-called backstop. As an experienced negotiator with some 30-years of experience of negotiated deals throughout the world had I been David Davis and found out that she had been agreeing terms counter to my strategy behind my back I would have ripped her throat out. A negotiator goes to the table with a mandate to agree a deal, not play puppet. She should listen to her own words when she has often said that no deal is better than a bad deal. Then she should understand that united, her enemies stand; divided they fall. Her isolationist approach allowed her enemies both in the UK Parliament and the EU to unite against her. About time she studied Sun Tzu’s ‘Art of War’. She listens to civil servants (who were probably remainers) rather than seasoned negotiators. When have such people ever negotiated a good commercial deal – think PFI and MoD procurement over the years. Her track record with the recent Conservative Party Manifesto which so obviously would lose her votes speaks volumes about her approach. Then she tries to apply a hard line by regularly stating that her deal is not only the best deal but the only deal that can be obtained. What an amateur. Who does she think she is kidding? She gives her very soft Brexit stance away when she insists that she is honouring the 2016 Referendum result but safeguarding economic interests. You cannot go to the negotiating table with one foot in each side of the argument and expect to satisfy anyone other than the EU.

We have a Parliament populated by a few who understand pragmatic democracy, the remainder being either traitors to both democracy and the people they are elected to represent, or opportunists who care only for power at any cost. Even seasoned politicians such as Ken Clarke fail to respect the 2016 Referendum result. Whatever happened to integrity, honour, servitude, and loyalty to the democratic process? The mandarins in Brussels must be laughing their socks off.  I sincerely hope that the people of the UK remember these traitors at the next General Election and cast then aside.

There is no escaping that the weak position adopted by Teresa May in these negotiations means that the UK has very little substance to show after two years of negotiation. Her stance of an amicable, soft Brexit settlement has led to concession after concession and a large exit bill without so much as a letter of intent regarding a future trade deal when such a deal could so easily be on the table today if the EU wanted such a deal. Whatever happened to “nothing is agreed until everything is agreed”? Had M. Barnier arrived at the negotiating table with a contained mandate that no trade deal could be discussed until the exit terms have been agreed a seasoned negotiator would counter with the proposal that exit terms will only be agreed when a trade deal is part of that process. The EU played well. They used the emotive Northern Ireland border issue with great effect, and May’s secret team fell for it hook, line, and sinker forgetting that it is the EU who are insisting on a hard border, and which is not necessary in any event with a suitable trade deal. The UK is not obliged to install a hard border leaving the Irish Government, hence the EU in a difficult position. And the EU’s stance; the UK wants to leave so it is their problem, and May’s team swallowed it. Negotiation is a war where dignity and respect are maintained throughout, but never accepting any responsibility or compassion for the other side’s position.

The collaborative position of the EU and the UK traitors against an ill-equipped negotiating position have manifested itself into the shambles we have today.

It is perfectly clear that the EU will do anything to avoid losing the control they currently enjoy over the UK. It is devastating to the EU both politically and economically to lose the second largest economy within the EU and to lose the influence that the UK provides in the global arena. And they want to avoid having such a large successful trading nation as a neighbour without any influence over such a nation. And off course they want to avoid losing any other major countries of the EU so must make the UK exit as difficult as possible. And we must include vested national interests such as the opportunist Irish Government seeking to use Brexit to re-unite Northern Ireland with Ireland. The contra of this is that the UK is a significant trading partner in the EU with a net surplus of Euro 1 billion per week in favour of the mainland EU. The UK is the third largest trading partner of Germany in the world, and the largest exporting partner for the German automotive industry. France exports some Euro 37 billion of produce to the UK each year. We have just witnessed how a few thousand angry demonstrators react to (needed) social and fiscal reform in France with President Macron being forced to retreat. Think about the impact of some one million farmers, trucker, and other associated business interests on the streets if told that they can no longer deliver such produce to the UK tariff free. Spain have already declared that their close relationship with the UK predates that with the EU and they have no interest in damaging such relationship. And I think Italy will just ignore Brussels. Therefore, reality will be far more powerful than political posturing. What a strong position for a Brexit negotiation. So why is the UK negotiating team sympathising with these EU realities. They are powerful weapons, and I don’t see the EU having concerns over the impact to UK citizens of their proposed stranglehold over the UK with the current deal.

As much as a no deal scenario is not desirable in the short-term because of the inevitable disruptive impact I have to agree that no deal is better than a bad deal. However, I am equally certain that the more devastating consequences to the EU of no deal would instil a needed dose of reality into this situation with the EU coming to the table with a far more reasonable and conciliatory attitude within weeks, if not days. The EU cannot afford a no deal Brexit, so the negotiating position is still wide open if the UK Government wake up and instil some British backbone into these negotiations. The Lithuanian Prime Minister has inadvertently indicated that the EU expects to concede more.

BREXIT – The EU plan to derail Brexit is exposed

At last the EU has declared their devious hand – let’s make negotiations so difficult for the UK Government that they need to put the deal to a UK vote in order the derail Brexit. Typical EU shenanigans. Ark back to various treaties that required ratification by each member State. If any member State could not get the support of the people the orders from Brussels were go back and keep trying until you get the result we require. The EU are desperate to keep the UK within the EU because of the serious impact to them of losing such a powerful member. And no doubt they have been working with compliant members of the UK Government to spread fear and negative propaganda regarding the impacts of Brexit. Even Christine Lagarde from the IMF was brought out this past week to spread her evil discourse, but she did the same just before the Brexit Referendum and what a total fabrication of economic misrepresentation and lies that was.

The interesting question now is the extent to which Teresa May is complicit with the EU as she did vote to remain in the EU. I hope not but the knowledge that she was secretly negotiating with the EU through a separate team of Government mandarins whilst David Davis was officially in office to negotiate the UK exit deal (and over which David Davis resigned) does give cause for concern. If she fails to stand her ground on a ‘no deal’ Brexit then it is time for her to go. She clearly demonstrated in her disastrous General Election manifesto that she is not a competent leader of the people and I do not think her Chequer’s paper comes close enough to what the majority of the people expect. She has repeated stated that Brexit means the UK is out of the Customs Union, the Single Market, out from under the control of the European Court of Justice, and out of the free movement of EU citizens. I agree with the likes of Boris Johnson, Michael Gove, David Davis and many others that Chequers doe not deliver this. The fact that Michael Gove has stated that a future Prime Minister will need to change her proposed deal speaks volumes.

We also see that the EU is specifically targeting the Irish border issue – probably the most emotive aspect of Brexit but in no way difficult to resolve. The UK has no desire to install a hard border crossing into Northern Ireland – a practically impossible task in any event, and not needed. The electronic border process that exists today can be readily adapted assuming that the EU is prepared to agree a free trade agreement with the UK. As this was the original intent of the EEC all those years ago and to which the UK joined – not political union – then this should be relatively straight-forward except that such an agreement would leave the door open for other member States to leave and this is the crux of the problem. The Irish border issue, and indeed Brexit, are not difficult for the UK, but they are a thorn in the side of the EU as they cannot ignore the serious impact to the EU of a ‘no-deal’ Brexit but have so many other problems that they do not want the UK to be the first of other States who see their future outside of the control of the mandarins in Brussels.

So where now? Obviously over the coming months we will see an avalanche of remoaner attempts to derail Brexit. No doubt the EU will both fuel such dissent and measure the impact as part of their strategy. Could I remind these remoaners that the UK has, for the past 100 years, been called upon to be steadfast against the conflicts within Europe. The UK is under attack from European mandarins who want control of Europe and the diminishing of the power of the UK in the process. This process is far from democratic and does challenge the freedom of the British way of life. I have recently visited with a number of different peoples of Europe who all agree that the general difference between mainland Europe and the UK is that Europe tends to be introspective whilst the UK tends to global in interests and reach. If remoaners need positive guidance they should look at the people who put their money where their mouth is. The UK stock market has been remarkably resilient in the face of substantial challenges since the Brexit vote. They believe in the future of the UK outside of the EU and buy into the UK. We see Apple moving its European headquarters to London as with Goldman Sachs, Microsoft and other major corporations. We also see Deutschebank take 25-year leases on two new office buildings in London. These people know where they need to be to prosper post-Brexit. Can armchair remoaners without such financial commitment challenge such business logic?

We are called upon yet again to be steadfast amidst the likes of well-meaning but unrealistic Lord Halifax and Neville Chamberlain attempting to appease the enemy. They are the enemy within and should certainly reap dire reward for their treachery. If Teresa May cannot stand her ground in the face of the EU shenanigans then she must step aside for the sake of the British people. The dogs are at the door; it is time to deal with their rabid intensions.

Does the UK Party Political System need a ‘Night of the Long Knives’?

 

Brexit has amplified blatant dissension amongst politicians of all persuasions. This not only creates difficulties getting anything done but also makes politics irrelevant as there is no longer the discipline within any party to fulfil manifesto pledges under collective responsibility. As politics in its disciplined form functions on mediocrity what we now have is treacherous chaos.

Having recently watched the ‘Darkest Hour’ account of the challenges faced by Winston Churchill during those dark days of May 1940 dealing with the plotting shenanigans of the fearful pacifists headed by Neville Chamberlain and Lord Halifax (whose view was essentially that he knew better than the people what was good for them). They completely undermined any attempt to deal with the fundamental reality that Adolf Hitler was hell-bent on conquering the whole of Europe, including the UK. Any hope of a peace deal as proposed by Halifax was pure fantasy based only on irrational fear. These people were the remoaners of today. Churchill’s ‘Night of the Long Knives’ came after speaking personally to the ordinary people on a tube train to Westminster and which prompted the courage to deliver his famous oratory to the Houses of Parliament on 4th June 1940. He mobilised the people of the UK to save the UK army stranded on the beaches of Dunkirk and to fight for the British way of life in the face of the overwhelming odds within mainland Europe, and in the face of certain members of UK politics. Sound familiar?

Our party-political system is based on people agreeing a basic ideology and creed regarding how to run a country. Like-minded people then form a party, select constituency representatives to stand as Members of Parliament under an agreed manifesto who, having achieved the majority of MP’s, select a leader who then forms an executive in the form of a cabinet. This cabinet is obliged to execute the manifesto upon which the people voted them into power with the full support of back-bench MP’s.

Think of the UK as a major corporate (UK plc) with a CEO (Prime Minister), Board of Directors (Cabinet), Line Managers (back-bench MP’s) and departmental workers (local constituents). Successful corporates will have competent and capable management resources who co-operate to secure their place in the market. Such corporates have a circular information flow in which strategy is fed from the Board down the ranks, and the ranks feed back the merits of such strategy in terms of execution and benefits. A competent Board will consist of Directors representing different factions of the company each expressing their own views without fear within the confines of the Boardroom. However, once a majority vote has been taken as to strategic direction then each Director, irrespective of their own personal view, is obliged to either diligently implement the agreed strategy, or find another job. Likewise with the Line Managers and departmental workers. Anyone expressing dissent or failing to comply will be quickly dispensed. A successful corporate needs allegiance and loyalty of all involved or it will surely fail.

So why do our politicians think that UK plc does not need the same corporate discipline to be successful? Why is it possible within UK plc to have a small band of Conservative back-bench MP’s who, in spite of their rhetoric to the contrary, are hell-bent on sabotaging Brexit – and think it entirely acceptable to attempt to hold the Prime Minister to ransom if she does not comply with their wishes. These people clearly think they know better than more than 17 million constituents and thus believe they have the right of treachery both to their political party and to the people of the UK.

In the case of Brexit David Cameron asked the people where they stand on UK membership of the EU. They responded in numbers never before witnessed – the majority wanted out. The people have spoken. The Executive has their instruction to leave the EU; the obligation of the back-bench MP’s to support the executive in the process regardless of their personal preference or how their own constituents voted – this was a national referendum; not regional.

So why are these rebels not dismissed? There must be a mechanism to dispense with these people. They are on the wrong side of the argument and are naphtha to the politicians in Brussels fighting to hold their power over the UK including extracting continuing contributions to its failing economy. Complex negotiations for Brexit are difficult enough without having the enemy within your own camp. As a trained negotiator the fundamental mindset is that life is simple, only people make it difficult. Unfortunately, the Churchillian orator powers of Socrates are a scarce resource at present so I fear we need an alternative ‘Night of the Long Knives’ to rid us of this treacherous few so that the people get what they expect. I would certainly like the opportunity in open debate to expose their lack of understanding of the EU venture to the UK people. When do these people wake up to the fact that the UK economy is robust despite the politically motivated propaganda of the likes of OECD and IMF. Of course the EU will trade with the UK on fair and reasonable terms – the trade deficit alone in favour of the EU is Euro one billion each week! Of course the most important centre of Global banking will remain in London (the USA have made several unsuccessful attempts to move this influence to the USA). And history has shown that the UK prospers better when it controls its own destiny.

Just a brief note on the antics of the House of Lords remoaners. Anyone familiar with the Corn Law of 1932 will understand the vested interests of hereditary peers in their fear of losing substantial subsidies under the Common Agricultural Policy that should have been scrapped years ago.

If we go back to 1940 Clement Attlee, the leader of the opposition Labour Party understood the realities within Europe and proposed a grand coalition, but absolutely not under Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain. Today we have a Labour Party in disarray regarding Brexit. Last week demonstrated that the rebels in the Conservative Party could easily be countered by the Brexiteers in the Labour Party. Thus, one remedy to rebels against Brexit would be a grand coalition of MP’s committed to the majority will of the people specifically for Brexit to achieve the best possible terms for Brexit putting Brussels on notice that the UK is united across the major parties in responding to the mandate of the British people. This would change the whole dynamic of negotiations with the EU and result in the effective beheading of the remoaners as would be the case under that greatest of Generals, Sun Tsu. Furthermore it would neutralise irrelevant but mischievous minority parties such as the Liberals and the SNP.