Tuesday 31 May 2016

EU REFERENDUM : SOUBRY SLAGS OFF OLDER, WHITE MEN.

Government minister Anna Soubry, a committed 'Remainer', doesn't like the fact that the people who care enough about the country to actually bother to vote in elections and referendums tend to be older, white and male.

Today, in urging younger people to vote to stay in the European Union on 23rd June, she has said "Often it's the case some of these Brexiteers tend to be older, nothing wrong with that, but they do tend to be older, they also tend to be male and they tend to be pale". I may be overly sensitive but being older, male and white, I find this offensive. Indeed, had Ms Soubry said something about young black females being negligent of their civic duty in not voting, she would almost certainly have been hit with a barrage of criticism from all sides.

Soubry's characterisation in this way of those who want to see the United Kingdom regain its sovereignty and independence is appalling. She probably owes her current position as an MP and role as a minster to these same people that she finds so objectionable when it comes to their views on the future of the country which she claims to serve. Perhaps she should consider this next time she asks the electorate to support her.

Today's young tend not to vote but they also tend to have no interest in, or understanding of, political matters; Soubry wants the young to vote because of this innate lack of knowledge and their consequential gullibility. The older generations have experience of the cynical, hypocritical and disingenuous nature of politicians and their acolytes, and tend to vote accordingly, which is not to Soubry's liking. Tough.

I care about my country and my age, gender and colour have nothing to do with it. I will vote, as I always do, and I will VOTE LEAVE.

Sunday 29 May 2016

EU REFERENDUM : VAROUFAKIS SHOOTS BLAIR'S FOX.

This morning on the 'Andrew Marr' show BBC1, we were graced by the presence of one Tony Blair, well, Anthony Charles Lynton Blair actually; the 'Tony' was only ever an attempt to demonstrate that he was a 'man of the people', which he never was.

Anyway, Blair was his usual disingenuous self, not answering questions and simply repeating a mantra about the horrific economic consequences should the UK vote to leave the EU. In his usual style, Blair showed apparent absolute certainty in his views, saying that everyone knew that leaving the EU would have dire consequences, though without providing any evidence. He also said, bizarrely, that the bulk of immigration into the UK was from non-EU countries, a fact which is clearly disproved by the statistics published by the ONS only a couple of days ago. Clearly, Blair believes the old idea that if you say something often enough and with enough apparent authority, people will believe it to be true; sadly, it is often the case and politicians rely on this gullibility of the electorate time after time.

 His comments came after Liam Fox, a dedicated 'Brexiteer' had concentrated his remarks on the issues of sovereignty and immigration and, much more interestingly, were sandwiched between the comments of a genuine economist, Yanis Varoufakis. The last named is a pro-European who believes that the UK should stay within the EU, but he utterly rejects the economic projections put out by the 'Remain' campaign. As an economist, his stance is that no one can possibly know what the consequences of an exit would be as there is no previous experience from which to develop a model, so all of the projections are just as likely to be wrong as right. In fact, they are meaningless and should be ignored.

The 'Remain' campaign has concentrated its fire on their certainty that voting to leave the EU would be catastrophic for the UK and have backed up their claims with reports from a number of supposedly independent and respected economic forecasting bodies, such as the Bank of England, the IMF, the Treasury and the IFS. All of these bodies use the same basic forecasting models and make the same assumptions about a possible future, and all have been wrong many times in the past. The truth is that most economic forecasting is a matter of politics rather than of economics and can be used to support whatever outcome is required. Varoufakis knows this and admits it, Blair also knows it, but will happily lie through his teeth about it.

Leaving the EU will have consequences but so will staying in. Anyone who wants to live in a United States of Europe governed from Brussels should certainly vote to 'Remain'; anyone who wants to live in a free and independent United Kingdom must VOTE LEAVE.

EU REFERENDUM : THE ECONOMIC ARGUMENT FOR LEAVING.

Those who want us to stay within the European Union have been harking on about the potential damage to the UK economy that would be caused if we left. However, they seem to pay no heed whatsoever to the current malaise within the Union.




Unemployment in many EU countries is horrendously high. In Greece it is 24%, in Spain more than 20%; Portugal and Italy are suffering at around 12%, France comes in at 10% and the EU average is at about 9%.. Compare these Euro-land figures with the UK's unemployment rate of about 5% and one wonders what benefit their is for workers from remaining in the Union.





Countries within the EU suffer in other ways to. The Greek economy has been destroyed by its membership of the Eurozone and is currently negotiating, albeit extremely quietly while the UK referendum is the hot topic, for yet another 'bail out'. Billions of Euros have been poured into Greece in a madcap effort to prevent it from being forced to give up on the Euro, a scenario which terrifies the life out of Brussels. In the past, Ireland, Spain and others have also experienced very unpleasant consequences from membership of this club which most should never have joined in the first place.





Although the UK news hasn't said all that much about it, France is currently beset by strikes, with workers across the country protesting about proposed changes to the nation's labour laws. While French workers always seem to be on strike about something or other, it's hard to escape the conclusion that the current drive by the French government to bring French labour laws more into line with their EU counterparts is a significant part of the reason for this latest round of disruption. We also have heard nothing about the degree of compliance with the EU's 'Stability and Growth Pact', a set of fiscal rules designed to keep all member nations within a financial straightjacket.


Thankfully, the UK does not participate in the crazy arrangement and so has been free to deal with the worldwide financial difficulties of recent years in its way; theoretically, those EU countries which
are signatories to the Pact, which is almost all EU member nations', are not so fortunate. This is a major part of the reason why so many have suffered economic chaos in recent years. However, this chaos has also come even though the degree of compliance with the rules has been patchy, to say the least. It goes without saying that countries such as Greece, Ireland, Portugal and Spain have all experienced extreme difficulty in attempting to comply with the Pact, but it may not be so well known that many others have been in the same boat and required to introduce potentially damaging economic measures in order to achieve compliance. Even some of the largest economies have suffered, in particular Italy and France, although the French government has tended to do what it always does and ignore EU rules whenever it can. Nonetheless, Italy has had major problems and France is currently beset by strikes, all courtesy of the EU.


What we have heard much about is the problems that a vote to 'leave' the EU would cause for our international trade. We have been told that leaving the Union would result in hundreds of thousands or even millions of job being lost; this is utter bilge. Does anyone truly believe that European countries which already have economic problems of their own would abruptly stop trading with the UK ? While the EU is the UK's largest trading partner, the balance of trade is heavily weighted towards the rest of the EU - they make much more from us than we earn from them and are hardly likely to want to lose such a lucrative market. The real issue for the UK over trade is the extent to which the EU interferes with our ability to trade with non-EU countries. Much of our international trade is governed by the EU, which negotiates trade arrangements on behalf of all of its members. This means that every agreement has to satisfy the petty demands of every member country, hence agreements can take many years to put into place and every member country suffers. In the event of the UK leaving the Union, we would be free to negotiate our own 'one-to-one' trade deals with whomever we like, unencumbered by the restrictive practices of the EU. Of course, negotiating with the EU itself could be problematic though, as mentioned previously, the EU has a vested interest in maintaining good relations with the UK whatever the outcome of the referendum.


The scaremongers and doomsayers of the 'Remain' campaign would have us believe that leaving the EU would lead to economic catastrophe; they couldn't be more wrong. Staying within the EU will result in stagnation with ever more bureaucracy and red tape. Leaving the EU will free us to expand our horizons and embrace trade with the rest of the world, unencumbered by the need to seek agreement with 27 other nations before entering into any deals. The logic is utterly inescapable.



On 23rd June, whatever else you do, VOTE LEAVE.

Friday 27 May 2016

EU REFERENDUM : G7 HAS ITS TURN.

A group of national leaders have been having a little jamboree on public money in Japan in the last few days. One of those attending this shindig was, of course, our very own boy-wonder, David Cameron, and it comes a no surprise that he's managed to elicit yet another dire warning of the possible consequences of the UK voting to leave the European Union.

The so -called G7 is a group of 7 of the largest world economies, being the 7 leading industrialised nations. It comprises the US, UK, Japan, Germany, France, Italy and Canada; not exactly an independent or impartial group. Following its meeting in Japan, the Group has issued a final statement warning that a UK exit would pose a "serious threat to global growth". They've gone on to say that that a UK exit would reverse the trend of increased global trade, investment and jobs. Shock, horror.

Leaving aside the fact that 1 of those involved in producing this statement is our own dear Prime Minister, 3 are other members of the EU who are terrified of the prospect of 'Brexit' and another is the USA whose pro-EU stance has already been made very clear, what this mob hasn't done is to explain just why the UK leaving the EU would be such a disaster. In truth, if, Please God, we do leave this cesspool of mismanagement and corruption, there is no reason at all why world trade should be affected in any way. It will only be affected if countries such as the members of the G7, G8, G20 and all the other such amalgams of nations choose to cause problems. Of itself, the UK leaving the EU need have no impact at all; indeed, if other nations are sensible, any impact would be positive.

Once again, we have the mighty lining up to maintain the status quo by telling us dumb voters that they know what is best for us. Let's all stand up, take a deep breath and tell them to go to hell.

VOTE LEAVE !!

Thursday 26 May 2016

EU REFERENDUM : IMMIGRATION NIGHTMARE

The Government's own immigration figures, published today by the Office for National Statistics, show a massive net immigration to this country of 333,000 in 2015; terrifyingly, this is only the second highest figure on record.

The figures show that the Government has fallen woefully short of its promise to reduce net migration to below 100,000, a promise it made years ago and has never been anywhere near meeting. It has even failed miserably to reduce non-EU immigration, 149,000 of the total being from non-EU countries. Immigration at such levels is a recipe for disaster and yet successive Governments have done absolutely nothing to curb and actually have no ability to affect the flow from the European Union at all.

The ONS has also forecast that the UK population will increase by 4.2 million over the next 8 years and that the population of London will rise to 10 million. Both of these figures indicate a frightening scenario for our country, with housing, transport and all public services being placed under huge pressure, while native Britons may well find themselves priced out of jobs.

Some people claim that immigration is a good thing for our economy and it is true that some immigration probably is. However, annual immigration of hundreds of thousands a year for decades is not. While small numbers of immigrants can be assimilated fairly easily, large numbers of people who have wholly different languages, religions and cultures cannot be; instead, they tend to colonise areas which become far more similar to their former homes than to anything that a native of Britain would recognise as being part of this country. Many of these migrants have no loyalty to the UK nor any desire to integrate into our pre-existing society, creating their own separate identities; in due course, they will start applying their own laws and customs, something which is already happening in some predominantly Islamic areas.

There is no doubt that the UK Government should stop being so lily-livered and do much more with regard to non-EU immigration but, while we remain a member of the EU, it can do absolutely nothing to affect the migration from other member countries. In order to really have any control over our borders and to prevent the catastrophic increase in our population forecast by the ONS, we must get out.

VOTE LEAVE.

Wednesday 25 May 2016

EU REFERENDUM : A LESSON FROM HISTORY.

In the period immediately around the UK's entry into what was then the European Economic Community, or EEC, my father was a firm opponent of his country getting involved with this organisation. In the lead up to the referendum in 1975. he was clear in his view that we should vote to leave, as was I.

Years later, I was astonished to discover that while I had stuck to my guns and voted to leave, my father had, in fact, voted to stay in. When I asked him why he had made this u-turn, he told me that he had felt that, despite his own concerns, he had to accept the word of those who were seemingly more knowledgeable than he. He said that as most of the leading political figures of the day, and many other public figures, maintained that the UK would be far better off inside than outside of the Community, he had to accept their advice and vote to stay in.

As is happening today, back in 1975 we were given all sorts of stories about the effects of leaving the European Community. Some of these were the usual misleading and selective remarks that are routinely put out by Governments, their apparatchiks, dependants and allies, and some were outright lies. Famously, many years later, the then Prime Minister even admitted that the intention of the EEC was ultimately to create a political union within Europe, something which was never stated, and was even denied, at the time.

In 1975, my father did what he thought was right, but he spent the rest of his life increasingly regretting his decision. He came to realise that he had been coerced and fooled into voting to stay in by people who had few scruples and were more than willing to say whatever they felt would get the population to vote their way. If he was around today, he'd undoubtedly be far more cynical about the efforts of the 'Remain' campaign and would certainly vote to come out.

For those who have yet to make up their minds, this is a salutary story. Don't be fooled and taken in by the scare stories flooding out from the Government and all their pals. VOTE LEAVE.

EU REFERENDUM : IGNORE THE IFS, VOTE FOR THE FUTURE

Another day, another forecast.


Today it's the turn of the Institute for Fiscal Studies to throw its weight behind the 'Remain' campaign. In common with the horde of other public bodies, the Institute claims that a vote to 'Leave' could be catastrophic for the UK economy. Also in common with many of these same bodies, they benefit from public funding, in the case of the IFS its funding from a body called the European Research Council which is an arm of the European Union. Some might claim that the ERC is an independent body, however its €13bn budget comes from the EU, a simple fact which must raise questions about its independence.



Again in common with the claims of many in the 'Remain' camp, the IFS is forecasting immediate horrors in the event of a vote to leave the EU, though it has little to say about the longer term effects. It makes a raft of assumptions about what would happen in the days following a 'Brexit' vote, again much the same assumptions as those made by others, although even then it doesn't actually come to quite the same detailed conclusions; in fact, its numbers are not the same as those produced by the Treasury a few days ago. Nonetheless, it seems that they are doing little more than 'following the 'herd' and it's hardly surprising that they come up with the same broad conclusions.



What they don't seem to have bothered to do is to look with any real interest at the potential longer term effects. Admittedly, the longer term is much more difficult to forecast than tomorrow but leaving the EU is about the longer term and not about tomorrow. Considering what will happen in 10, 20 or 30 years is what this referendum is all about, it is not about next week, next month or even next year.



Forecasting what will happen if we stay in the EU is simple. It will lead to more of the same; more stifling bureaucracy, more economic woe, more protectionism, less autonomy and eventual collapse. Forecasting precisely what will happen and the path that will be followed if we leave is more difficult but it will eventually lead to freedom from all of this, economic growth and a much broader world outlook. The days immediately following a vote to 'Leave' may well be difficult but the ultimate rewards will be well worth the pain.



A vote to 'Remain' is a vote for more of the same, a vote for the 'safe option', a vote for those who are frightened of leaving home and are scared of the dark. A vote to 'Leave' is a vote for change, a vote for self determination and adventure, it is a vote for those who have no fear of the dark but want to find out what is 'Out There'. It is a vote in the tradition of those great explorers of yesteryear without whose courage our modern world would not exist.



There is only one option. VOTE LEAVE. 

Tuesday 24 May 2016

EU REFERENDUM : OLDER GENERATION AND SMALL BUSINESS HAS IT RIGHT.

It's interesting to consider the motivations of the different groups lining up for the forthcoming referendum.

Politicians and officials who love being at the head of vast, bureaucratic and undemocratic organisations are mostly in favour of the UK remaining within the EU. A vote to 'Remain' means that they can all carry on as before, touring around Europe at public expense and looking ever so important. A vote to 'Leave' seriously threatens this, so they will lie, cheat and basically do anything to try to convince us to say in.

The leaders of international companies also want us to 'Remain', though there reasons are quite different. They simply want to avoid any potential barriers to their businesses; they don't like the idea of trade barriers and tariffs, so also much prefer sticking to what we have now rather than risking a trip into the unknown. Meanwhile, small businessmen, who are mostly older people, see a vote to 'Leave' as freeing them from much of the ludicrous and stifling rules and regulations which flow daily from Brussels, and so long for change and an exit.

When we come to the general population, there seems to be a huge divide between younger and older voters. The older members of our society have experienced the European Union at ground level and  in all its full horror for decades and can't wait to leave. They want the UK to reclaim its sovereignty, decide on its own laws and policies, manage its borders properly and so on; they are overwhelmingly in favour of a vote to 'Leave'.

On the other hand, the younger generation, who have little if any experience of either the EU or the real world, want us to 'Remain'. They see staying in the EU as their passport to easy travel and lots of fun; in fact, they have no wider view of things than the borders of their own self-gratification. Thankfully, history tells us that this is the group least likely to bother to vote as they don't really have much interest in anything but themselves and their own pleasures.

This all leaves us with two groups with seriously vested interests, one group which knows how stifling the EU is for small business, one group which is interested only in itself and one group which has a wider view and is genuinely concerned for the future of this country and its people. There is only one choice -VOTE LEAVE.

Monday 23 May 2016

EU REFERENDUM : TREASURY DOES ITS MASTERS' BIDDING.

The shockingly disingenuous nature of the Government's efforts to persuade us to vote to remain in the European Union becomes ever more apparent. Today, we are being confronted with a supposedly independent analysis and report from the Treasury which sets out the latest horror scenario; following the publication of this report, Cameron and Osborne, in an obviously orchestrated move, are appearing at the headquarters of the DIY company B & Q in order to emphasise the potential disaster of a vote to leave. Apparently the choice of venue is some sort of ham-fisted attempt to say something, though exactly what isn't obvious.

All of this has the very nasty taste of a Government stitch up, not to say a serious attempt to feed a load of unprovable 'facts' to the British people. The Treasury is, after all, an organ of the Government and does its bidding; is it surprising, therefore, that its report comes out solidly in support of its masters' view of the world ? Their analysis is based on a large number of assumptions, all, some or none of which may be accurate or true, but they have undoubtedly cherry picked the scenarios which best suit the picture which their bosses want to paint.

It is claimed that the pound will collapse, house prices will fall, prices will rise, thousands of jobs will be lost and we'll have a terrible recession. In truth, this is all economic forecasting which is historically fraught with difficulties and frequently wrong. Years ago, we were told that not joining the European Union's exchange rate would prove disastrous, so we joined; it turned out that joining was actually what was disastrous and we withdrew on the infamous black Wednesday in 1992, along with Italy which had also had enough.(Sadly for them, they later decided to adopt the Euro).

Undaunted, the same people who had advocated joining the ERM went on to tell us that we had to adopt the Euro, or else all hell would break lose - we'd lose, jobs, the pound would collapse, our economy would 'tank'; in the event, it has been those countries which did adopt the Euro which have suffered, some of them very badly indeed. While the British economy has grown and been reasonably healthy in the face of worldwide economic difficulties, the Euro-zone has gone through, and is still going through, an appalling period of turmoil which shows little sign of coming to an end after many years.

Let no one be in any doubt, David Cameron never had any intention of allowing the UK to leave the European Union. His claimed renegotiation was a sham and its outcome was meaningless. He is now engaged on a campaign of disinformation and outright lies aimed at frightening the British population into voting to stay in a corrupt, undemocratic, protectionist, outdated and moribund organisation. In so doing, he is following in the well worn path taken by so many politicians, that of avoiding political change at all cost in order to maintain control and safeguard their own positions.

The EU has become a home for politicians who cannot find a job in their own countries but who fancy a well paid role with lots of expenses and no accountability. It's become a home for bureaucrats who are rarely if ever seen or heard of but who love to tell others what to do. It's become a talking shop in which everything is discussed, often over expensive dinners in the best hotels, but in which nothing positive is ever done. It's an organisation which spends its time working out what next to interfere in, what it can next tell us to do or not to do, always for our own good, of course. It prevents real competition by imposing a 'one rule fits all' policy across an entire continent, an approach which only some countries bother to follow but which the Union 'top brass' turn a blind eye towards.

The EU is a disaster. Voting to leave is the only sensible option but it does not mean we are anti-European, racist, xenophobic or any of the other words which are thrown about. It means that we are anti-EU which is an entirely different thing. There is nothing wrong with European countries working together and they do so in many ways outside of the EU; there is no reason that a withdrawal by the UK would change this. What it would change is the perception that a political union is the only way forward for the disparate countries of Europe and that would be to the benefit of all.

VOTE LEAVE.

Sunday 22 May 2016

EU REFERENDUM : IZZARD CONFIRMS VOTE LEAVE.

Andrew Marr's Sunday morning television programme is rarely very taxing and Marr is not exactly the most probing of interviewers. His political guests tend to have a pretty easy time of it and he also brings in non-politicians to voice their opinions at times.

Today, it was the turn of Eddie Izzard to tell us what a wonderful thing the European Union is. Izzard is a major supporter of the Labour Party, wants to get rid of the monarchy and likes dressing in women's clothing. He appeared this morning smothered in make-up and lipstick, and wearing a bright pink beret; he clearly has gender-identity issues. It's also the case that his socialist and republican standpoint fits perfectly with the centralised, unaccountable and left wing basis of the EU. From his perspective, remaining in the Union will eventually lead to the type of United Kingdom which he wants to see, one in which 'Kingdom' no longer applies and which, presumably, would be the 'United Republic' and subservient to its faceless masters in Brussels.

Why anyone should care what such an odd creature thinks about the EU is a mystery to me; why anyone would be persuaded by his views is an even bigger mystery. Indeed, being confronted by such a peculiar vision spouting Europhile jargon makes me still more determined to VOTE LEAVE.

Saturday 21 May 2016

EU REFERENDUM : RENTS MAY FALL ON BREXIT.

More scare stories.

George Osborne, a pompous man absolutely desperate to be our next Prime Minister but also one who has been shown to be a pretty poor Chancellor of the Exchequer, has been busy telling us that leaving the European Union could lead to a collapse in house prices. While this sounds worrying, all that's actually happened is that Osborne has said this, he hasn't provided any evidence for his opinion.

House prices generally rise over the years but also suffer drops at intervals, sometimes of substantial amounts as happened around 1990. House prices are affected by the availability of credit and interest rates, as well as by the general health of the economy, the strength of sterling and other factors. Osborne believes that he can analyse the overall effect of these assorted factors sufficiently well to tell us that house prices will fall by at least 10% and could fall by up to 18% in the event of a Brexit. Frankly, I'd love to have his crystal ball as I'd then win the lottery every week.

Leaving the EU may, indeed, lead to a fall in house prices, but would that be nationwide or concentrated in specific areas such as London and the South East ? How big would any fall really be ? Would it be a long-term fall or just for a few months ? Would a fall really be such bad news ?

If all prices reduce, it's actually meaningless to most homeowners as the relative values of the properties in their area remains the same; while there could be issues around negative equity for some for a time, this would reverse in due course. Overall, falling house prices have no real effect unless people are borrowing heavily against their property, which isn't a good idea anyway.

There could actually be positive effects from falling house prices in that more people may be enabled to buy a first house, while rents would also be likely to fall in line with the fall in prices. Osborne's effective assertion that a fall in house prices would be a bad thing also flies in the face of numerous Government pronouncements about the problems with the housing market; Osborne has even introduced measures to make it much more difficult for landlords to profit from renting property, action which is specifically aimed at reducing house prices. Leaving the EU could also help to lower rents as reduced demand from EU incomers could prove to be an effective brake. 

To say that our Chancellor speaks with forked tongue is unnecessary. He is doing what all the leaders of the 'Remain' camp are doing - making apocalyptic statements about the horrors that await if we dare to vote to leave this egregious organisation. His statements have little if any evidence to support them other than the output from a variety of economic models, many of which have poor track records and all of which can be countered by other economists with other models.

Staying in or coming out, both have risks. The biggest risks to our nationhood, sovereignty, security, economy and general well-being are unquestionably connected with our membership of the European Union. VOTE LEAVE !

Friday 20 May 2016

EU REFEENDUM : TELL THE LUVVIES TO FIND PROPER JOBS.

Oh, My God ! Now I must rethink everything and vote to 'Remain'. Why ?

Because Jude Law, Keira Knightly, Benedict Cumberbatch and a mish-mash of other 'stars' have said that leaving the EU would damage the creative industries. They claim that "vital EU funding" has been key to an assortment of projects and clearly they're worried about their future careers.

Pardon me, but what do this bunch of egotistical, self-aggrandising, overpaid and grotesquely over-hyped 'stars' know about the European Union ? How dare they witter on about the supposed damage that leaving the organisation would do to their precious industry. These people are among the least talented yet most privileged in our society; few of them ever really act, the musicians amongst them make more noise than music and the so-called artists wouldn't know a genuine piece of art if it bit them on their collective arses.

All this lot want is protection for their own flamboyant lifestyles. They should be told to bugger off and find some proper work.

VOTE LEAVE - TWICE !!

Thursday 19 May 2016

EU PLANS TO BAN WEED KILLER !

Just what will EU bureaucrats do next ?

It's being reported that their latest interference in our lives involves banning the most widely used weed killer in the UK. It seems that there is disagreement amongst member nations with 19 countries, including the UK, wanting to carry on using glyphosate based products, Italy and France opposed and Germany and 6 more planning to abstain from any vote. Apparently, the effect of this mixture of opinions is that the EU licence to market such products, which is due to expire on 30th June, will not be renewed and sale of them will be illegal after that date.

It's reported that there are certain health concerns about glyphosate, specifically that it may be carcinogenic. This view has been formed after experiments with mice, although the World Health Organisation has said that the danger to humans in minimal. Typically, experiments to determine the risks associated with any chemicals are assessed by feeding huge quantities to animals such as mice and observing the effects, often making their relevance to humans questionable. Nonetheless, the EU may well ban the use of glyphosate weed killers, including the very widely used 'Roundup' either by a positive vote to do so or by the inability of member states to agree what to do. Either way, the licence to market these products would expire on 30th June.

Regardless, what on earth can the EU have to do with deciding what weed killers are available in the UK or any other country ? My use of a weed killer in my garden cannot possibly be any business of EU officials; if the stuff is dangerous, it should be for our own government to say so and act accordingly, not for some distant bureaucrats to tell me that I can't use it, even though my own government sees no problem.

Do we really want this type of dictatorship, imposed by unaccountable and faceless bureaucrats in offices hundreds, and even thousands, of miles away ? I don't. VOTE LEAVE !!


Wednesday 18 May 2016

EU REFERENDUM : WHAT IS THE BENEFIT OF 'REMAIN' ?

It is noticeable that David Cameron's much vaunted 'renegotiation' of the UK's terms of membership to the European Union has hardly been mentioned for several weeks. Clearly, the 'Remain' campaigners see no benefit to be gained from continuing to claim that Cameron achieved anything of significance as he patently didn't. It is, perhaps, a little surprising is that those who support the 'Leave' campaign have also said very little about this 'Munich' moment of Cameron, though that may be due to a misguided desire to leave any possible reference to Hitler out of the equation.



What is very obvious is that the 'Remainers' actually have nothing positive to say about the Union but are relying on a torrent of scare stories to encourage voters to accept the status quo. So far, we've been told that leaving the Union 'could' cause economic chaos with huge loss of trade, a collapsing currency, increased interest rates and everyone much worse off, 'could' lead to massive reduction in our safety and security, could lead to problems with our power supplies, 'could' result in terrible difficulties for travellers and Britons who have chosen to live in various European countries, 'could' make cooperation in scientific research much more difficult, 'might' make it difficult for students to gain places at European colleges and universities, 'might' lead to the Scots demanding another independence referendum, and a raft of other things including that it 'could' even cause World War three.



That this is all utter rubbish goes without saying. Of course, there are risks associated with leaving the Union, but there are greater risks if we remain inside this moribund organisation. Inevitably, remaining within the EU will lead to the dreaded 'ever closer union' whether we like it or not. Eventually, we will be forced to accept fully open borders and, quite probably, the Euro. The assorted European institutions will become evermore powerful and our own parliamentary arrangements largely irrelevant; there will be a European foreign policy and defence policy, to both of which we will have to subscribe, and our armed forces will come under the leadership of a pan-European military head. While expanding its borders eastward, the Union will, in reality, become more inward looking and protectionist, its institutions less and less accountable. These are not 'might be's or 'coulds', these are inevitabilities and are the real risks to be considered by voters.

Yesterday, Michael Heseltine, an ardent Europhile,  made an appalling personal attack on Boris Johnson, saying that he has acted irresponsibly and recklessly, and that he has made "preposterous, obscene political remarks" during the referendum campaign. If this is the level to which the 'Remain' side have now sunk, one has to wonder how much of a case they really have. Heseltine, while telling us all that we must stay in the EU seems to have little if anything positive to say about it; in truth, there is nothing positive to say about it. Staying in the EU is the coward's choice; voting to 'Remain' is a vote for a status quo which seems comforting but which will lead to this country having less and less ability to manage its own affairs and more and more subservience to largely unelected, unaccountable, faceless and corrupt bureaucrats somewhere on the European continent.

VOTE LEAVE !









Sunday 15 May 2016

EU REFERENDUM : BO-JO HAS IT RIGHT

Boris Johnson is undoubtedly correct when he says that the aim of the Brussels bureaucrats is the creation of a European super-state, though bringing Adolf Hitler into the argument may not have been the best thing to do.

The EU always has been intended as the forerunner of a United States of Europe, a misconceived and potentially disastrous venture. While David Cameron claims that the UK voting to leave could be a precursor to war, in reality it is the EU itself which is more likely to lead to such an outcome. Twenty eight nations, few of which have any loyalties to each other shoe-horned into a 'one-size fits all' political union simply won't work. The inequalities between the rich and poor nations, the cultural differences between north and south, east and west, the political and economic domination by Germany and, in due course, the demands of an increasingly militant Turkey, will inevitably create massive tensions which will rip Europe apart.

Europhiles seem unable to comprehend that trying to coerce nation states into forming a new super-state simply doesn't work. In the case of the United States of America, it was created as a consequence of the exploration and development of a largely unknown continent; areas were colonised and each made the choice to join the Union in its own time. Europe already has long standing nation states and there is no similarity with the USA. The collapse of the Soviet Union demonstrates only too well how existing nations cannot be forced together for any length of time; in that case, once the political and military might of Russia was removed, the whole edifice fell apart.

Voters in the United Kingdom have been given the chance to make a real difference. If we vote to remain in the Union, we risk increasing loss of sovereignty, stagnation and years of political turmoil; eventually, there will be a monumental breakdown and, quite possibly, war.

If we vote to leave, all of this will be avoided. We will be free to make our own decisions and trade deals, and to determine our own laws. Even more importantly, a UK exit may well trigger a fundamental rethink at the heart of the EU which might just prevent this failed project from ending up in armed conflict. VOTE LEAVE. 

Saturday 14 May 2016

EUROVISION LIVES UP TO EXPECTATION : UTTER CRAP.

Against my much better judgement, I watched chunks of the 'Eurovision Song Contest'. God help me !



Is this really the pinnacle of modern music ? Every 'song' seemed to sound the same, with appalling noise, screaming 'singers', ludicrous costumes and extravagant visual effects.  Sadly, Graham Norton makes a very poor replacement for the late Terry Wogan when it comes to ridiculing this imbecilic contest. Why on earth does the BBC waste its money on this utter rubbish ? If it has an audience, surely that audience belongs on some commercial channel, preferably one that only broadcasts on-line. It certainly isn't anything with which a channel dedicated to the improvement of the nation should have any involvement.



I challenge anyone to find any real merit in any of the offerings. If the visual effects, camera switches and audience participation were removed, was anything left other than NOISE ? I think not.



Pure rubbish.

EU REFERENDUM - EUROVISION POINTS THE WAY.

I've just discovered that Australia is a participant in the latest Eurovision Song Contest. How does that make any sense ?

Of course, non-European countries do already have a history in this musical (?) extravaganza, but Australia is not quite Turkey or Israel which are, at least, within 5,000 miles of the continent. However, it does make me wonder about the pragmatism of nations.

We have been told in terrifying terms about the potential horrors of Brexit; almost everyone with a vested interest in sticking to the 'status quo' has come out and told us how dangerous leaving the EU would be, and yet, when it suits them, a country from the other side of the globe can be counted as a member of the European family.

Does anyone seriously believe that a UK exit from the stifling world of the European Union would lead to disaster ? It might make the EU take a step back and rethink its approach, but would it really have long term damaging effects ? If Australia is so desperate for European involvement, which would it prefer to do business with - a stagnating, corrupt and inward-looking EU, or an outward and forward looking United Kingdom ?

Answers on a post card, please.

VOTE LEAVE !!!!!

PARENTS MUST DO AS THEY'RE TOLD !

There was a time when we elected Governments to deal with matters to do with the running of the country. Those elected dealt with the defence of the realm, the national finance and economy and international trade; they also set overall policies and targets for national services such as health and education. Sadly, those days are long gone, and Governments now increasingly interfere in our everyday lives, claiming that they now what is best for the population who, by definition, must all be morons.

Yesterday, the High Court ruled that a fairly recent initiative that has led to parents being fined and pilloried for daring to take their children out of school during term-time has been wrongly applied. The Court effectively said that the local authorities and school heads, who have been merrily raking in the pennies from parents who have refused to kowtow to the diktats of these petty bureaucrats, have been acting well beyond their powers. One wonders if parents who have been forced to cough up hundreds of pounds may not now be demanding their money back, and one also wonders what the response will be.

Shockingly, the immediate reaction of the Government has been to say that they will have to change the law to ensure that they can continue to tell parents what they can and cannot do regarding their children's school attendance. The current law requires that parents ensure that their children attend 'regularly'; it seems that the Government will now change this to some form of wording which will make it ILLEGAL for children to be taken out of school in term time without absolute proof that the child is ill or for some other 'approved' purpose.

If this isn't dictatorship, I don't know what else to call it. Children are the responsibility of their parents, not of the state. Of course, parents should make sure that their children go to school regularly and the vast majority do; parents tend to have the best interest of their children at heart and know instinctively what is best for them, the Government does not. The Government has no knowledge of individuals and can only set frameworks which, by the very nature of frameworks, must have flexibility and room for manoeuvre. For Government to set down rules which will criminalise parents who refuse to accept life in a state-imposed straight jacket and dare to rebel would, itself, be criminal.

More and more, our personal, everyday lives are controlled by a handful of self appointed experts and by those in power who are sure that they know what is best for the rest of the population. Is it not time that the people who are so put upon make their voices heard and cry 'ENOUGH' ?

Friday 13 May 2016

EU REFERENDUM : LAGARDE HAS HER TURN.

Following Mark Carney's comments yesterday, today it's been the turn of another Europhile mate of Cameron and Osborne to tell us how terrible a vote to leave the EU would be. Christine Lagarde, hardly an impartial commentator though head of the International Monetary Fund, has stuck her neck out at the behest of the 'Remain' campaign and done her best to support it.

However, as with Carney's statements, Lagarde has qualified her remarks with 'could', saying that Brexit "could lead to technical recession". She was rather more definite than Carney and did say that a vote to leave would have "pretty bad to very, very bad consequences" but, in reality, all she's actually done is to reiterate the now rather tired mantra of the 'Remain' campaign. Flanked by her pal, Europhile George Osborne, she added that she had "not seen anything that's positive" about Brexit which, in political speak, actually means that she's avoided looking at anything which doesn't support her own view of things. Exactly like Carney's comments of yesterday, Lagarde has apparently made a damning critique of Brexit while also covering her back in the event of her being wrong.

Those campaigning for a 'Leave' vote have immediately made the obvious riposte that the IMF has been wrong before and it's wrong now. In truth, the IMF's record of forecasting has frequently been wrong, sometimes woefully so, and it has been wrong in most of its recent forecasts regarding the UK's economy. Nonetheless, it seems that Lagarde will have yet another go at frightening the UK electorate just before the referendum and will no doubt make similarly sounding, but in truth highly guarded, remarks.

The question remains about the appropriateness of organisations such as the IMF and other foreign dignitaries and officials interfering in what is an internal matter for the UK. In the case of Mme. Lagarde, her own nationality, past history and impartiality must all be added to the mix. For UK voters, her views must be seen as highly suspect and they should not be deterred. VOTE LEAVE.

Thursday 12 May 2016

CARNEY'S BREXIT WARNING IS MEANINGLESS.

Mark Carney, the Governor of the Bank of England, has decided to make another entry into the on-going EU referendum debate. This time, he is reported to have said that the risks of leaving the EU "could possibly include a technical recession".

Now, Carney is a mate of George Osborne, the Europhile Chancellor of the Exchequer and a man who is desperate to be the next leader of the conservative Party and our next Prime Minister. Osborne is also the man who appointed Carney to his current post in 2012, making his latest intervention all the more suspect. To add fuel to the fire, David Cameron has very quickly leapt into the fray, saying that Carney's remarks amounted to a "very clear message" of  the dangers of so-called BREXIT.

While Osborne and Cameron clearly welcome the Governor's words, they actually amount to almost nothing. In fact, if he was proved to be completely wrong, he could not be criticised as he's said nothing definite. His use of the words "could" and "possibly" place so much qualification on his warning as to make it worthless; qualifying his reference to a recession by prefixing it with "technical" is also clearly calculated to provide cover for him.

The question that arises is why has Carney chosen to make such a statement, hedged around as it is with so many qualifications as to make it meaningless ? The answer can only be that he's been urged to say something by his masters, those with a vested interest in keeping the UK within the EU, but has felt less than comfortable about saying what they want; accordingly, he's made what is, effectively, a non-statement. Cameron and his pals on the 'Remain' side will, no doubt make much of it, but no one should be fooled. This 'warning' is worthless and we should not be diverted from taking the only sensible course. VOTE LEAVE.

Wednesday 11 May 2016

BBC : TIME FOR CHANGE IS NIGH.

The BBC is currently in negotiations with the Government, the objective being to agree upon the corporation's strategy and objectives in the coming years. The government believes that changes are needed while, perhaps naturally, the corporation believes it's wonderful as it is.

Looking at one day's television schedule should tell anyone who's interested where the rights and wrongs of this are. In fact, today's schedule, Wednesday 11th May, will do.

To start with, broadcasting begins on BBC 1 at 06:00 with 'Breakfast'. This pseudo-news programme lasts for over 3 hours with most of it's output being repeated every half hour or so; much of it is dedicated to what amounts to advertising for various special interests, often pop singers or actors, or even the BBC itself, promoting their latest 'blockbuster' songs, tours, shows, films or programmes. The news content is minimal, often much of it is yesterday's news and much is also covered on Radio 4, with the same people being interviewed for the same stories. This whole programme is basically unnecessary and is only on air in order to provide competition for ITV's 'Good Morning Britain' which is equally lightweight and rubbishy.

Following this start to the day, the morning continues with numerous lightweight consumer orientated tripe, much of it repeats. 'Homes under the Hammer', 'Neighbourhood Blues', 'Oxford Street Revisited', and 'Bargain Hunt', before the news at 13:00. Two of these programmes are repeats and none of them while 'Bargain Hunt' also continues the BBC's obsession with antiques programmes which really are well past their time. The 'News' is mostly a rehash of what was broadcast earlier during 'Breakfast'.

Next comes more drivel. 'Doctors', a shockingly 'PC' serial, followed by another obsession - a game show called 'The Code'. Then it's another consumer repeat in 'Escape to the Country' followed by what are three, yes three, more game shows - 'Money for Nothing', 'Put your Money where your Mouth Is', and Pointless'. On this day, two of these afternoon programmes are down as repeats, but there are days when everything seems to be repeated.

The evening schedule, while it tends to be less full of repeats is, instead, full of rubbish. The 18:00 'News' is usually much the same as earlier broadcasts and is followed by 'The One Show', an amalgam of drivel. This is another opportunity for the promotion of those in the media plus assorted 'socially' orientated bits and pieces. 'Lightweight' doesn't suffice, this is really 'flyweight' television. Tonight, we are then treated to the 'Invictus Games' at 20:00, hardly prime time entertainment, and this is followed by 'Nature's Epic Journey's at 21:00. This latter programme is no doubt scheduled on the back of an expected boost to viewer's interest in such programmes because of David Attenborough's 90th birthday, but it's nothing more than yet another wildlife programme, another BBC obsession. Sadly for viewers, this one is presented by Liz Bonnin, a woman who has an incredibly annoying style and voice but who now appears all too often.

At 22:00 it's another opportunity to rehash the, by now, very tired old 'News', though usually with some that's a little more up to date, and then the evening really goes downhill. 'A Question of Sport', a programme that used to be interesting and amusing but is now so dumbed down as to be no more than puerile and crude. After that, it's 'I Want My Wife Back', a new comedy show that has drawn mixed reviews but, on limited viewing, seems to be an excruciatingly dreadful programme and is, anyway, another repeat. Finally, we get to 23:45 and a repeat of more puerile rubbish in 'Live at the Apollo'. For the rest of the night, there is a continuous 'News' broadcast, though one has to wonder why this is necessary.

The story on BBC2 is even worse. This opens up at 06:15 with a repeat of 'Neighbourhood Blues' followed by a repeat of 'Homes under the Hammer'. At 08:00, it's 'Sign Zone' which usually has repeats of old programmes, but with signing for the deaf. 09:00 brings us 'Victoria Derbyshire', why, I have no idea. This is an egregious load of rubbish, part news, part chat and seemingly aimed at a female audience, almost as televised 'Woman's Hour', except that this goes on for 2 hours. Then we get another 30 minutes of 'News', more repeats from earlier on BBC1, followed by the highlight of the day, 'The Daily Politics'. Andrew Neil is, without doubt, the best political broadcaster around and his knowledge and skills are perfectly displayed here; the coverage of 'Prime Minister's Questions' is always interesting if not exciting, but Neil's astute and detailed questioning of his guests is frequently a delight.

Sadly, the rest of the afternoon does not live up to these heights. Repeats of 'Pressure Pad', a game show, 'My Life on a Plate', a celebrity food programme, 'The TV that Made Me' , an opportunity for supposed celebrities to gain media exposure, and 'Holiday of My Lifetime with Len Goodman', yet another programme for pseudo-celebrities - dear, oh dear. 15:45 brings a repeat of 'Indian Ocean with Simon Reeve' followed by 'Great British Railway Journeys' an excellent programme but yet another repeat. This is followed by another repeat of another antiques programme 'Flog It', 'Eggheads' which is more often a repeat than not, and 'Big Blue UK', a wildlife programme and yet another repeat.

Whoopee ! At 19;00 it's not a repeat, but it is another antiques programme, with 'Antiques Road Trip'; then come the evening's highlights, with Horizon looking at research into Alzheimer's disease, followed by Mary Beard's examination of the Roman Empire in 'Mary Beard's Ultimate Rome; Empire without Limit'. Next it's what promise to be a pretty awful piece of so-called comedy with 'Cunk on Shakespeare, and then it's 'Newsnight' which, while not a repeat is usually highly repetitive in its content and coverage of current issues. The night ends with yet more repeats, this time of the 'Hairy Bikers' followed by another foray into 'Sign Zone' until 02:45. At least BBC2 then goes off the air until 06:00 on Thursday.

This diet of repeats, 'celebrity' programmes, outdated topics and rehashed and repeated news surely tells us all we need to know about BBC television. If we exclude news, politics and chat shows, more than 36 hours of broadcasting contains around 10 hours of original programming, much of which is pretty outdated and less than inspiring. That the hierarchy of the corporation can possibly believe that this is a satisfactory or suitable output for a national broadcaster beggars belief. The BBC is ripe for change, and massive change at that.

Tuesday 10 May 2016

EU REFERENDUM : LIES, LIES AND MORE LIES.

As the EU Referendum campaigns continue to develop, we, the poor old voters, are being assailed by regular salvoes of the usual political bilge. We are being fed a diet of the lies, damned lies and statistics, half-truths and distorted 'facts' so beloved of politicians. Worst of all, hordes of foreign politicians, ex-politicians and miscellaneous bureaucrats are lining up to tell us what we should do, what is 'best' for us.

How do voters pick the bones out of all of this ?

The simple answer has to be that we ignore all of the politicians and their assembled acolytes, and look at the real facts. As members of the European Union. the UK is subservient to its assorted organs, whether it be the Commission, Court, Parliament or anything else. While we have representation on these bodies, ours is but one voice amongst 28; we are able to apply a veto in certain areas, but these powers are limited. We are required to abide by a raft of EU rules and regulations, whether we like them or not. Essentially, our sovereignty has been severely comprised by our membership.

Few of us can name our MEPs, and yet these are meant to be our representatives in the European Parliament. These 'representatives' are largely anonymous, few of them seeming to make much real attempt to communicate with their constituents but spending much of their time travelling backwards and forwards to Brussels or Strasburg and claiming considerable expenses in addition to their generous salaries. Exactly what they do is a mystery, certainly to me, as it seems that most of the main decisions are made outside of the Parliament, with MEPs merely required to rubberstamp what their masters have already agreed.

On matters of defence and security which have been raised by both sides in the argument, one has to wonder what role the EU has. Defence is a matter for individual governments and NATO, while security is a matter for individual governments and their respective police and security services. There is no overarching EU security or defence organisation, so why all of the noise about the horrors that would arise should the UK dare to vote to leave ? The normal international cooperation would continue, unhindered, whether the UK is within or without the organisation. David Cameron's recent suggestion that a vote to leave could so destabilise Europe that it might lead to war is so ludicrous as to deserve no further comment beyond saying that he must be incredibly desperate to resort to such hyperbole.

On immigration, while the UK remains within the EU it has no effective control over its borders. All EU citizens have an automatic right of entry here and such a right will also attach to however many migrants from troubles in the middles east, north Africa or wherever else, are granted EU citizenship in the future. Already, migrants from eastern Europe have seriously distorted our economy and placed huge burdens on our public services and housing; thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands, more immigrants could be catastrophic. The issue of assimilation into our society has been far too poorly managed and very many immigrants have established themselves in ways which serve to create separate micro-communities that have little or no interest in, connection with or loyalty towards our nation. Why would we vote to allow this situation to continue ?

Both sides in the debate have made claims about the economic effects of being in or out of the Union.
Many of these claims seems to be designed to terrify us into voting in one way or the other, but the true facts are few and far between. It is a fact that we have to pay a substantial amount of money to the EU every year; we do get some of this back but only to spend as directed by EU officials. We do benefit from being in a 'free trade' area but, as we import significantly more than we export, what credence can be placed in claims that leaving would lead to the imposition of tariffs ? Would Germany or France really risk causing major damage to their car manufacturers, wine growers, cheese makes and other industries, by insisting that tariffs be levied on British imports to the EU, a move that would surely result in retaliatory action by the UK government ? It seems highly unlikely.

It has been suggested by no less a personage than the US President that the UK would not be offered any special treatment by the US  and would find it difficult to negotiate a free trade deal. Given that the negotiations between the EU and US  on a trade deal have dragged on for years and seem now to have stalled, would this really be a problem ? In fact, it would surely be much easier for a UK unencumbered by the rest of the EU to negotiate trade deals all over the world, without having to first agree details with 27 other nations.

Forget the numbers, forget the hyperbole and scare tactics; ignore the rhetoric, half-truths and outright lies. Voting to remain in this stagnant pool is a vote for death by a thousand cuts; there is only one way forward and that is to VOTE LEAVE.