WHAT PRICE BREXIT NOW ?

It seems that the UK's hopes of leaving the European Union any time soon are receding into the distance. No one likes Mrs May's deal and her chances of gaining Parliamentary approval for it appear remote. Indeed, her chances of remaining in office are shrinking by the day. Nonetheless, she pushes on to what looks like certain disaster.

From the very beginning the government's approach to Brexit was weak. Rather than take the initiative and tell the EU what it wanted, it allowed the EU to dictate terms from the outset. Inevitably,  the resulting 'deal' is heavily weighted against the UK and in favour of the EU. Not only will the UK remain tied to the EU during a transition period, which could be extended, but even after this ends it could still be locked into the farcical arrangement of 'the backstop', in which the UK would be out of the EU but wholly subservient to it.

Today, Philip Hammond, Chancellor of the Exchequer, has been talking about yet more economic analyses which apparently show that the UK will be poorer as a result of Brexit; given the shockingly poor history of such analyses and projections over a period of many years, their reliability must be in question and yet still they are produced. Although Mr Hammond claims to be a supporter of Mrs May's deal, he was and undoubtedly still is, a 'Remainer' and has a vested interest in letting us all know about the potentially dire economic consequences of Brexit, however debatable the forecasts may be. 

Mr Hammond's latest intervention is nothing more nor less than the latest brick in the wall of 'Project Fear'. No matter what his words appear to say, he is, in truth, arguing for staying in the EU, or, at least, remaining very closely tied to it. With there being very little chance of Mrs May's plan gaining approval, politicians have moved rapidly on to the next stage of the process; will it be another referendum or a General Election ? Either way, Mrs May is dead in the water and her 'colleagues' are circling, positioning themselves for the final strike and succession to the throne.

There can be no doubt that 'Project Fear' has won and that Mrs May, intentionally, as a result of incompetence or accidentally, will be the biggest political loser. However, the real losers will be the 17.4 million people who voted to leave the EU back in June 2016. There will be a second referendum which will be won for 'Remain' by the disenchantment, apathy and disgust of voters, exactly as the EU has wanted all along.

Democracy in the UK is dead and the EU will have its corrupt, bureaucratic way.

IGNORE THE BEEB, IT WAS A GOOD BUDGET.

Yesterday's budget speech by UK Chancellor of the Exchequer Philip Hammond included tax cuts, freezing of duties and significant investment. One would think that this was good news for most of our population, but not if you listen to the BBC.

Coverage of the budget by 'Auntie' has been entirely negative, concentrating on 'what if ?' scenarios, the most important being 'what if there is no deal on Brexit ?' Despite the substantial tax cuts and additions to the budgets for universal credit and the NHS, those invited to comment have been overwhelmingly niggardly in their remarks. It smacks of a left wing organisation being very selective in order to ensure that its own views are very much to the forefront.

Assorted Labour and Liberal politicians seem to have been given carte blanche to criticise the Chancellor at length, while a mish-mash of single mothers, nurses, OAPs and others have been trotted out to witter on about how there is nothing like enough to meet their wants and desires. It seems that the vast extension of state support which has been introduced in recent years has caused many people to forget that they have a primary responsibility to look after themselves and that they should not rely on the state to pay for their profligate ways.

The NHS absorbs an ever-increasing amount of money while wasting much of it on useless or cosmetic treatments; it commits resources to IVF for women who have simply not bothered to have children until late in life - why ? Money is pumped into a black hole for mental health services, an area which is largely subjective in nature; why was there so little mental illness when I was a boy but so much now ? It seems to me that much of it is invented by those who profit, that is, the assorted 'professionals' who provide the services they claim are so urgently needed but without there being any real evidence for.

If their presence on the BBC, and in other media, is truly representative of their numbers in society, there must be more single mothers now than at any time in our history; why, when sex education is everywhere and contraception is so readily available ? Are these women simply too stupid to understand the basic biology or to take the simplest of precautions ? Rather than expecting the state to pay for the resulting offspring, where are the fathers ?

Rather than debating these and other issues, the BBC simply puts forward those who bleat for more, in the fashion of Oliver Twist but with far less reason. We are blessed with the wisdom of John McDonnell, would be Labour Chancellor of the Exchequer, who would bankrupt our country but who is allowed to make the wildest of statements virtually unchallenged. Only a few days ago, he was allowed, by, I think, Nick Robinson to get away with saying that spending £90bn on assorted privatisations would be 'cost neutral'. Cost neutral, according to this Machiavellian of the Left, because the cash outlay would be matched in the government's accounts by the purchased assets; no mention was made of the source for the £90bn needed, nor of the need to finance and repay it, and Robinson made no effort to challenge McDonnell on this point, surely a major omission. In common with his Labour colleagues, McDonnell makes the most unsustainable claims and goes virtually unchallenged, while any and every Conservative statement on the economy is questioned, debated and criticised ad infinitum.

The budget was a decent one and the continuation of some small borrowing for a year or two more is of little consequence when set alongside the vast and ballooning deficit left by the previous Labour government and its financial wizard, Gordon Brown. Inevitably, it has taken a long time to bring the economy back into balance but there is now real light at the end of a very long tunnel; those who demand more public spending now, are the same as those who demanded it in the past and where did that lead ? Long before the financial crisis of 2007/8, the seeds had been sown by governments around the world, not least our own which had set upon a path of financial profligacy and state support the like of which had never before been seen. Allowing Corbyn, McDonnell and their friends to have the keys of Nos 10 & 11 would not just return us to those days, but to the dark days of the 1960s and 1970s when the lights went out, rubbish and corpses piled up and Chancellor Healey was forced to go on bended knee to the International Monetary Fund for help.

Once the matter of Brexit has been settled, which it inevitably will be by some fudge or other, the economy will bloom, aided by Chancellor Hammond's relative generosity. At that time, the prospect of a Corbyn led Marxist government will begin to recede into the distance where, with luck, it will simply whither away. 

HAMMOND & LAGARDE : DOOM MONGERS BOTH.

It seems that the big guns really are doing their best to derail Brexit.

Today, Chancellor of the Exchequer has ignored Prime Minister May's stated opinion about Brexit and predicted that a 'No Deal' scenario would bring gloom and misery to the UK's economy, echoing a similar message from Christine Lagarde, managing Director of the International Monetary Fund. 

Of course, both Hammond and Lagarde have been firm opponents of Brexit, of any sort, since Day 1; both have issued similar dire warnings repeatedly over the last 2 years and more. Hammond, like his partner in crime, Mark Carney, has stuck rigidly to a script which forecasts nothing but disaster for the UK in the event of there being no deal, while making no concessions to the views of Brexiteers. Lagarde is a former finance minister of France, a committed Europhile and one who has become totally inured to the workings of highly bureaucratic and centralised organisations such as the European Union. 

Both Hammond and Lagarde can see nothing but good in the EU, and nothing but bad in Brexit. It is in their blood, in every fibre of their being, to oppose Brexit in every possible way. We must not let them win the argument.

BREXIT : WHAT IS NOT TO LIKE ?

It seems that we are in for a further bout of argument about Brexit.

Following Theresa May's visit to China, during which she achieved some valuable new trade agreements, there has been nothing but negativity from many quarters. The media, and particularly the BBC, seems obsessed with digging up every possible story of the Brexit horrors yet to come while advancing no evidence apart from the semi-mystical projections, forecasts and predictions of diehard Remainers. Assorted political figures, with Philip Hammond at the forefront but others such as the arrogant and annoying Vince Cable in tow, keep banging on about the 'type of Brexit' we are going to achieve and talk of staying as close to the European Union as possible; some still campaign for another referendum in the hope of reversing the nation's decision.

On the other side, and do doubt driven by the need to keep true Brexit at centre stage, Jacob Rees-Mogg, Bernard Jenkin and others have felt compelled to voice their concerns about the government's direction and ultimate objectives. They, too, have been drawn into the crazy world that imagines different 'types' of Brexit and are becoming increasingly vocal. The result is that the government, and Conservative Party, appear to be in disarray, something which is meat and drink to their opponents, notably Jeremy Corbyn, who keeps remarkably quiet on the subject of Brexit while simply criticising the government for its apparent indecision.

Amid all of this, what seems to be forgotten is that there are no 'types' of Brexit, only Brexit itself. The United Kingdom will leave the EU at the end of March 2019, when a transition period will begin; this will end on 31st December 2020 at which time we will be finally and fully free of the EU. How close we remain to the countries of the European Union will then depend on whatever trade and other agreements have been reached. We may pay for access to some services or facilities but we will be OUT of the Union, which also means OUT of the customs union, OUT of the single market and OUT of the agreement on freedom of movement. If we are not out of all of these agreements, we will not be out of the EU and Brexit will be a sham.

Those who argued that Brexit would be a catastrophic disaster for the UK have already been proved totally  wrong and yet they continue to forecast a bad outcome. Why ? Even David Cameron, one of the most ardent Remainers, has admitted that voting to leave the EU was not a disaster but, in his words, was a mistake. The UK economy has fared far better than the naysayers predicted and the sky has not fallen in, and yet those such as Philip Hammond and Vince Cable continue to talk it down. It already seems likely that the next round of official government forecasts will revise Hammond's miserable budget predictions from November, increasing predicted growth figures and tax revenues, and finding billions more funding for the NHS.

While our economy may not be booming, it has not collapsed and shows no signs of doing so. Once we are free of the EU and its volumes of bureaucracy, restrictive practices, corruption and simple waste, we will be free to invest as we wish to. We will not have to pay to keep French farmers in business nor allow Spanish trawlers access to our fishing grounds, except on our terms rather than  theirs. We will not have to pay for an entirely unnecessary tier of European government that  encompasses a parliament, commission, courts, ambassadors, council, vast civil service and heaven knows what else. We will make our own laws, free from European Union diktat; we will trade freely with whomsoever we like on terms that suit us, rather than being bound by the grindingly slow processes of EU negotiation.

What can there possibly be about leaving the European Union that is not to like ?

AUTUMN STATEMENT : MORE OF THE SAME.

Today's 'Autumn Statement' and its accompaniments is a prime example of everything that's wrong in the governmental arrangements of our nation.

New Chancellor of the Exchequer, Philip Hammond, made a reasonable job of delivering a difficult statement though it will no doubt eventually be divined that his announcements on spending were mostly, if not entirely, repeats of earlier announcements. Small increases in minimum wages, a slight amendment to benefit withdrawal rates and the freezing of petrol duty will probably be more than cancelled out by the increase in insurance premium tax and the rental increases that will inevitably result from his proposal to ban letting agents from charging fees to tenants. All-in-all, it was the same old mix of playing with numbers and tinkering at the edges.

What followed was almost farcical. Shadow Chancellor, John McDonnell made a rambling and largely incoherent political statement that had little to do with the Chancellor's original. On television, this was followed by interviews with an assortment of figures who expressed varying degrees of satisfaction, understanding, dissatisfaction or outright condemnation. The one thing that was clear was that most of those interviewed were only interested in their own parochial views of the world, the politicians involved being the worst offenders by far.

Our elected representatives do nothing other than promote their own pet projects and political preferences; they do nothing to try to do the best for our country, only the best for themselves. They trot out the same tired old platitudes, make the same protestations and put on the same appearances of outrage and consternation. MPs of all parties do it and none ever shows the slightest sign of living in the same world as the rest of us.

The one thing that's certain after today is that the vast majority of us will be poorer in the years ahead. It's 'deja vu' all over again.