EU REFERENDUM : IGNORE THE SCAREMONGERS.

We are told, by those who want the UK to remain within the European Union, that a vote to leave will result in horror. We will suffer mightily on issues of trade and security and will still be unable to reduce immigration as we might wish. Is any of this true ?

On the issue of trade, we have a huge trade deficit with the rest of the EU, that is, they sell far more to us than we do to them. Are they really going to suddenly stop selling their cars, wine, cheese, olive oil and all the rest to us, at a huge dis-benefit to themselves ? Of course not. With regard to the USA, we are one of their 2 or 3 biggest trade partners world-wide; would they really refuse to enter into trade agreements with us ? Of course not. On the other hand, leaving the EU would open up massive opportunities for the UK to enter into its own trade agreements with the rest of the world; the countries of the Commonwealth that we treated so shabbily when we joined the EU, and the countries of the developing world, such as China, India, Brazil, Indonesia and so on. To my mind, the trade issue is a one way street - leave, and we benefit.

When it comes to security, it has been said that leaving the EU would be a huge risk and open us up to more terrorist threats. Why ? The EU actually has little to do with matters of security, in fact, the Schengen agreement reduces the ability of European countries to prevent terrorists from moving freely around the continent, as the people of Belgium recently discovered and those of France found out a year or so ago. Security is not one of the main issues handled by the EU; it is Interpol, and cooperation between the police and security services of all nations which provides civil security, while our membership of NATO deals with militaristic matters. Many countries within the EU have poor and inefficient security services of their own and actually rely heavily on information from the British security services; are they likely to risk losing this support / Of course not.

Regarding immigration, our country remains a haven for hundreds of thousands from all over Europe and the rest of the world. We have long accepted immigrants from anywhere and everywhere, but generally in relatively small numbers at a time, though there have been exceptions, notably the influx of Asians from East Africa in the 1960s and 1970s. Today, however, we are confronted with hundreds of thousands of people arriving from all over Europe, primarily for economic reasons of their own; simply put, the UK is a richer country than theirs. The consequences of this mass influx are many and not necessarily all negative, but they include a depressing effect on wages and a vast increase in the pressure on all public services - health, education, transport and housing in particular. As members of the EU, we have no power to control this influx, or its effects; leaving would restore at least some ability to do so.

On all 3 of these critical issues, leaving the European Union will be far less traumatic than the 'Remain' side would have us believe. We must ignore their scaremongering. VOTE LEAVE.

EU REFERENDUM : OPPORTUNITY OF A LIFETIME.

Various names who support the 'Remain' campaign, including the bully-boys of the United States, tell us that voting to leave the European Union would be a huge 'risk' for the UK. They tell us that there 'could be' all manner of terrible repercussions without saying that there 'would be'; the difference between 'could be' and 'would be' is vast and being used purely to frighten British voters into doing what we're told.

In truth, risk has been a central plank of human development and the advance of civilisation and knowledge. The first proto-humans who left Africa some 2 million years ago and ventured into Europe and Asia took an enormous risk, without which we wouldn't be here today. The first humans who returned to our islands after the last ice age took a huge risk, as did the first who took to the seas. Those like Bartolomeu Dias, Ferdinand Magellan, Christopher Columbus, Sir Francis Drake, James Cook and many more took huge risks, sailing enormous distances across the seas without knowing anything about what lay ahead. The explorers who first ventured into Africa, 'The Dark Continent', men such as Mungo Park, David Livingstone, Richard Burton and John Hanning Speke, took risks without which Africa might still be an unknown wilderness.

Many and more mundane things have also been seen as 'risks' at the first time of offering. Riding on a steam train was considered to be so dangerous that one might die, as the human body simply wouldn't be able to survive the enormous speed. The first motor cars were considered so dangerous that their speed was restricted to 4 miles per hour and were required to have a man waving a flag walking ahead to warn pedestrians of their approach. The Wright brothers took a huge risk in daring to fly, as did Louis Bleriot in crossing the Channel, Charles Lindbergh in crossing the Atlantic, Amy Johnson and Amelia Earhart in flying thousands of miles across the globe at a time when flight was far from a safe option. Those who first flew into space, Yuri Gagarin, Alan Shepard, Valentina Tereshkova, John Glenn and all of the rest took their lives in their hands, as did, in an even greater way, those who have flown to the Moon.

Every medical advance is a risk, from the first inoculations by Edward Jenner, through the work of Pasteur, Lister, Koch, Fleming, Chain, Florey and many more. The first X-rays, first attempts at combatting diabetes, the first anti-cancer treatments and the first faltering steps at 'gene therapy; the first heart transplant by Christian Barnard which has led to astonishing advances in transplant surgery and our understanding of the human immune system, was, to say the least, risky, and the recipient died only 18 days later, but what a legacy !

Going to war in 1914 and again in 1939 were 'risks' but we took the decisions to stand up for our principles and on our own two feet. On both occasions, we could have stood by and taken the course of least resistance, but we didn't. We took risks.

Human life and progress is all about risks. Without taking risks there would be no progress, only stagnation such as we are seeing today within the European Union. Leaving the EU will be a risk, but so will staying within it. If we leave, we free ourselves to take the decisions which suit us, to make our own choices and determine our own future, unencumbered by bureaucratic sloth. Indeed, we may even signal a new way forward to the rest of the world, a way which does not rely on evermore subservience to the will of the political classes.

Leaving the European Union is not a risk, it is an opportunity to break new ground. VOTE LEAVE.

OBAMA THE BULLY-BOY

So now we know.

For decades, we've believed that there was a 'special relationship' between the United Kingdom and the United States of America, but no more it seems. President Barack Obama, a man who is in the dead-duck, dying days of his incumbency, has said that if the UK dares to leave the European Union, it can expect no special help from the USA when it comes to matters of trade. If this isn't an attempt to frighten the British people into doing what the yanks want, it's a pretty good bluff.

In truth, Obama doesn't actually have the authority to make any such claims; if we in the UK make the only sensible decision and vote to divorce ourselves from the suffocating and debilitating overlordship of the EU, everything will change. Those who have been doing their best to terrify us into maintaining the status quo will suddenly be confronted with a need to court us; in very many cases, they need our trade and business much more than we need theirs. After all, we import far more in goods than we export - will those exporting countries REALLY want to make life difficult for both us and their own industries ? Frankly, the same applies to the United States, the 'Land of the Free' where exporters will not be at all happy if their government makes arbitrary decisions to penalise both the UK, and them, simply because we haven't done what their leaders want. I can imagine companies such as Google, Apple, Microsoft and others, being less than happy about the idea of being hit with new trade restrictions, tariffs, taxes and a raft of special rules and regulations; Mr President, go boil your head !

Obama will be gone on 20th January 2017 and the future relationship between the USA and the UK, whether we stay in or leave the EU, will be determined by his successor; Obama's views will be largely irrelevant and his influence will be minimal. Indeed, Obama has had a negative approval rating amongst his own people for the last 2 years, according to Gallup Polls, making one wonder how seriously his remarks should be taken anyway; his has been, at best, an undistinguished, even a disappointing, Presidency.

No American would accept being told what to do by the British, and we should not accept being told what to do by the Americans, even if it's by their President. This is true 'bully-boy' tactics and we should tell the bully to 'bully off'. VOTE LEAVE !

OBAMA'S EU HYPOCRISY

United States President Barack Obama thinks that the UK should remain within the European Union, and he's making sure that we know it. An article in the Daily Telegraph plus a forthcoming speech will tell us which way we should be voting on 23rd June.

The blatant hypocrisy of this stance by a President who will be an ex-President in 9 months time, is breath taking but utterly American. Ever since the end of the second world war, when the rest of the western world was bankrupt, the USA has become the major economic and political force in the West, if not globally. It has become used to telling every other nation what to do while doing whatever it wants itself; it has ignored the views of others and batted away all criticism of its own policies and actions.

Over the last 70 years, the USA has engaged in wars, or armed conflicts, all over the world. It has invaded numerous countries, including Grenada, a sovereign territory of the United Kingdom, while it refused to allow British forces access to its bases during the Falklands War. Since 2002, the USA has maintained a gruesome prison facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, a place where hundreds of prisoners have been held without trial, routinely tortured and denied all human rights. The USA has habitually ignored the complaints of the international community about its assorted activities in many places. Would they welcome being told to be subservient to the wishes of, say, a group of other American states such as Canada, Mexico, Honduras, Guatemala, Belize, Nicaragua, Panama, Costa Rica and El Salvador ? Of course not, and they'd be outraged if anyone told them this would be in their own best interests.

However, Obama is quite happy to come to Britain to tell US what we should be doing. How dare he ! The UK is not a dependency of the USA and Europe is not an American fiefdom. What Obama wants, as does every American, is what is good for America, not what is good for anyone else. If Obama thinks that keeping the UK within the European Union is good for the USA, fine, let him say so. What he has no right to say is that it's good for the UK. That is a decision for British voters to make, based on the arguments put forward by British politicians, businessmen and others; it has nothing to do with any nation outside of the European Union and especially nothing to do with an interfering, dead-duck American President.

Mr Obama, give Her Majesty your birthday wishes for her by all means, but stay out of our politics.

EU REFERENDUM INTERFERENCE

It's astonishing how many foreign politicians, diplomats and other 'big names' are joining into the clamour around our forthcoming referendum. The vast majority of these establishment figures are firmly on the side of 'Remain', telling us how terrible a vote for 'Leave' could be.

The sheer brass neck of these people in interfering in our local politics is incredible. Should the UK government try to tell the US administration how it should conduct its affairs, they would be told, very firmly, to shove off. When senior British figures have suggested how French farmers or Spanish fishermen should be controlled, they've been roundly condemned. However, it appears to be perfectly alright for senior US, French and other figures to tell us what we should do and, today, it's the turn of a bunch of former US Treasury Secretaries.

All of these establishment figures have one thing in common and that is that they ARE establishment figures. They all want the continuation of the status quo because that is what they know and can understand; they are all terrified of change and the less well known or, heaven forbid, the unknown. They are reactionary in the extreme and desperate to avoid anything that might lead to them and their like losing control. Very noticeably, none of these people have said that a UK exit from the EU WILL cause mayhem, they all talk only about coulds, mights and maybes.

Well, the more these self-serving members of the self-selected intelligentsia tell me what to do, the more I'll do the opposite. VOTE LEAVE and be rid of them.

EU REFERENDUM - TAKE THE RISK !

Most politicians are naturally risk-averse. They hate uncertainty because they aren't in control and will stick resolutely to the status quo at all costs. When it comes to the EU referendum, many are lining up on the 'Remain' side citing the 'risks' of leaving, even though those risks are unknown, uncertain and, possibly, non-existent.

Yesterday, a life-long Euro-sceptic, Jeremy Corbyn, dramatically changed his tune and spoke out strongly in favour of a vote to  'Remain'; today, Alistair Darling has spoken vehemently about the 'risks' of leaving. David Cameron and others, including a range of bankers, have equally stressed these 'risks' as a major factor in voting to leave, but other than making vague generalisations and frightening noises there is little substance to their words. Indeed, after the banking crisis of 2008, most bankers are probably too frightened of their own shadows to do anything even slightly scary, while Cameron knows his job is on the line if the vote goes against him.

Life is about risk. Every time we venture out, we take a risk; every time we start a new job, it's a risk; every new relationship is a risk, and so on. Driving a car, riding a bike, taking part in sport or any adventure is a risk. Without risk, there is no prospect of change or gain. Maintaining the status quo isn't risk free, though it's always seen as the 'safe option' because it's what we 'know'; really ? Does anyone really know what the consequences of remaining in the EU will be in 5, 10 or 20 years time ? What is certain is that staying in will lead to ever increasing centralisation of power in Brussels, ever decreasing sovereignty and self-governance, increased protectionism and many years of economic unrest and stagnation.

When the UK joined the EEC in 1973, did any of the general population know where it would lead ? Did we understand that the ultimate goal was the sweeping away of sovereign nation states and the political unification of Europe ? Few did, but that was the 'risk' we took, unknowingly, by joining and then failing to vote 'Leave' in the referendum of 1975.

Leaving the EU will be a risk but it's a risk well worth taking. The UK will be free to make its own choices, develop its own laws, trade with whomever it wants free of the shackles of the stifling Euro-bureaucracy. It will be free to spend its resources on projects of its own choosing rather than being 'directed' at every turn by the faceless men, and women, of Brussels. Yes, there may be a period of uncertainty which will cause concern but, ultimately, the rewards will far outweigh any short-term negativity.

Be brave and don't be scared off by these risk-averse, self-serving individuals. TAKE THE RISK and VOTE TO LEAVE !

VOTE LEAVE AND FORGET THE IMF

As the EU debate, or should that be row, rumbles on, a host of major political figures and organisations have lined up to tell us how dangerous a UK exit would be. They tell us all manner of horror stories about what 'could' happen, without any of them saying that these disasters actually 'would' happen.

The latest intervention from the International Monetary Fund warns of the potential 'severe regional and global damage' that BREXIT 'could' cause, as well as saying that it would disrupt established trading relationships. Implicitly, the IMF seems to be acknowledging that a UK withdrawal from this protectionist bloc might result in problems for the bloc itself which others have rather ignored. However, problems for the remainder of the EU would also surely mean that they'd have no choice but to be very cautious about being unfriendly to the UK; in a roundabout way, the IMF is actually implying that a UK exit may well be potentially so disruptive that everyone else would have to treat us with kid gloves in order to avoid global meltdown. The deal we might then get from a position outside of the bloc might well be far better than anyone can currently imagine.

The IMF is, of course, little more than a supra-national company doing its best to maintain the status quo; it doesn't want change and would rather have a stable and stagnant world than a changing and vibrant one; for them, change is dangerous as it's much harder to control than is stagnation. Major change is anathema. the IMF is also renowned for revising its forecasts every 5 minutes, rendering its economic foresight of rather less value than such an apparently august body would like it to be. It's head is a former French Finance Minister, Christine Legarde, raising questions as to its independence when it comes to matters relating to the EU anyway.

The truth is that no one really knows what the consequences of BREXIT would be, but the global establishment would much rather have stability and everything staying as it is than risk the consequences of change. Leaving the EU would undoubtedly test the ability of much-vaunted politicians to manage a tricky situation but it is, without doubt, the only sensible option for the British people to take. Let's leave this suffocating organisation; vote to leave on 23rd June.