EU REFERENDUM : NOTHING BUT LIES, CONTRADICTION AND HYPOCRISY.

As the EU Referendum campaign rumbles on, it is increasingly dominated by vitriolic personal attacks and scaremongering of every sort.

Last night, on independent television, a host of 'Remainers', launched personal attacks on Boris Johnson rather than really say much of substance about why we should vote to stay in the Union. Today, a bunch of senior Labour party figures is telling us that a vote to leave will lead to an emergency budget, tax rises, spending cuts, job losses and, quite probably, famine, floods, plagues of locusts and anything else they can conjure up. What a farce !

Meanwhile, another Labour figure, John Mann, and MP who made the news recently for berating Ken Livingstone very much in public, has said theta we should, indeed, vote to leave, and that a "peoples' revolution is under way". If only that were true as it is surely time that voters gave the 2-fingered salute to all of the doom-mongers, liars and self serving elitists who want everything to stay just as it is, with themselves on the top of the pile and the rest of us firmly under control.

It also occurs to me that it's only a few days ago that David Cameron said that "of course" the UK would survive and do well outside of the EU, adding, however, that he thought it would do better inside. Putting the latter sentiment aside for a moment, if his initial remark is true and if his previously expressed position of being fully prepared to campaign to take the UK out of the Union in the absence of an acceptable 'renegotiation' was also a true one, then how can it now be claimed that leaving would be as utterly catastrophic as some are now saying ?

If leaving the EU would lead to national disaster, clearly the Prime Minister should never have indicate that leading the country out of it was an option. If the country can survive quite well out of the EU, why are so many on the 'Remain' side continuing to say that leaving would be so dreadful ? Quite clearly, we have a mixture of lies, contradiction and hypocrisy emanating from the 'Remain' campaign and that, alone, should be enough to convince voters.

VOTE LEAVE.

EU REFERENDUM : WAR IN IRELAND IF WE LEAVE ?

The leaders of the 'Remain' campaign are clearly getting desperate.

Today former Prime Minister John Major was rolled out for the second time this week, along with another former PM, Anthony Charles Lynton Blair. The two former adversaries appeared together to spread more stories to frighten the children; this time it was to tell us all that leaving the European Union would lead to Scotland having another vote on its own independence, and would threaten the 'stability' of Northern Ireland. This last point was subsequently firmly refuted by the Government's own Secretary of State for the province, Teresa Villiers, who stated that the words of the 2 former Prime Ministers were "highly irresponsible". Even without Villiers intervention, the statements of Major and Blair are no more than the utterly unsubstantiated views of 2 dedicated Europhiles, and worthy of little, if any consideration.


While Tony Blair's willingness to prostitute himself in this way is typical of the man, that John Major has now become embroiled in this kind of unsavoury and highly disingenuous misinformation says much for a man of whom I previously had a high regard. That the Government led by David Cameron is prepared to put its name to, and support behind, this kind of outrageous scaremongering shows that Cameron himself is a man who is entirely unsuitable for his role as prime Minister and whom no one should ever trust. It also demonstrates just how desperate the 'Remain' campaigners are becoming.


To my mind, this disgraceful episode tells us one important thing - Cameron and his allies cannot be trusted to tell the truth about anything. They will lie and cheat, fabricate 'evidence' and say anything at all that they think will win the referendum for their preferred option of remaining within the appalling, corrupt organisation known as the European Union.

Show these lying scumbags that we will not be conned. VOTE LEAVE.

EU REFERENDUM : WOLLASTON'S MUDDLED THINKING.

Sarah Wollaston, Conservative Member of Parliament for Totnes in Devon, is a fairly independent minded representative. As such, she has a history of rebelling against her party's leaders on occasion and joined the campaign to leave the European Union from its outset. However, she has now changed her mind and decided that the UK should remain within the Union.

Frankly, her reasoning is pretty odd. It seems that her only real concern is the NHS and the claims being made about future funding possibilities by the 'Leave' campaign. She objects to suggestion that chunks of money which currently find their way to the coffers of Brussels could, instead, be directed to the NHS; she says that such claims are dishonest and that she could not "set foot on a battle bus that has at the heart of its campaign a figure that I know to be untrue". She also now says that there would be a 'Brexit penalty' on the NHS because leaving the EU would hit Britain's economy, something which one has to presume that she didn't previously believe.

Wollaston is a doctor and obviously has a continuation of the NHS in its current decrepit form as a priority in her life. However, one has to wonder why she ever joined the 'Leave' campaign if this single issue is so important to her that it over-rides all else, and why she has suddenly 'discovered' the supposed damage which Brexit might cause to our economy. As an MP, shouldn't she have made sure that she knew enough about a broad range of issues before deciding which side to back ? There is far more to this issue than whether or not the NHS would receive extra funding.

To me, this sudden defection smacks of something more. Has Wollaston been 'got at' by her political bosses ? Has she been promised some form of reward for changing sides, particularly for making such a hot topic as the NHS her rationale ? Maybe she has and maybe she hasn't; either way, her words and action show that her thinking on this vital issue has been muddled and blinkered and certainly doesn't change my mind. VOTE LEAVE !

EU REFERENDUM : BORIS BEATS MAJOR BY A KNOCK OUT.

I have always thought that former Prime Minister John Major was one of the 'good guys', a decent man who has been much maligned for no good reason. Until yesterday, that is.

Major appeared on the Andrew Marr programme on BBC 1 on Sunday morning as a spokesman for the 'Remain' campaign in order, presumably, to add gravitas to their appeal to voters. In the event, all that he did was to repeat the now very tired scaremongering which is all that the 'Remain' side seems to have in its locker, plus threw a substantial amount of abuse at the leaders of the 'Leave' campaign, most notably Boris Johnson. In typical style, Major's abuse was voiced in polite terms but was simply mud-throwing and not at all worthy of the man.

Major called the 'Leave' campaign dishonest and squalid; he accused them of using inaccurate and misleading figures, both on the economy and immigration, giving his own somewhat dubious and nebulous reasons why leaving the EU would harm us and why current economic and migratory issues would just fade away if we stayed in.  He even set up a few 'Aunt Sallys', asking who the 'Leave' side would send back in order to meet their immigration targets, and suggested doctors and footballers might be affected - seriously ? He ended up by saying that David Cameron has reinstated 'subsidiarity', whatever that actually means, and that talk of the EU being run by an unelected elite was 'hogwash'. What he didn't do was give any real idea as to the future of the UK inside an ever expanding and more centrist, protectionist European Union, other than to tell viewers that we were effectively excluded from having to get involved in the difficulties that other member countries have, which really is hogwash.

It later became clear that he had been sent along at the behest of the Prime Minister and had not been particularly keen on the idea, even less so when he discovered that Boris Johnson was also going to appear on the programme and, worse still, was scheduled to appear after Major thus giving him an advantage in the war of words.  

Boris duly made his appearance but refused to be drawn into any tit-for-tat mud slinging. Instead, gave viewers pretty straight answers to Marr's straight questions. He pointed out, quite rightly, that there are parts of our nations economic life over which we no longer have control. He cited the £350m which is paid over to Brussels every week; yes, some of this comes back but not for us to spend freely, instead, we have to spend it on things that EU bureaucrats determine. If we leave the Union, this money, around £10.6bn, would be available for investment in the NHS, for tax cuts or whatever else WE please.

Johnson referred to our lack of control over immigration and asked how the 'Remain' side could possibly think that migration for the EU could ever be controlled if we stayed in. He wondered what their vision of the future was, mentioning housing, the green belt, schools and other public services, in the event of continued uncontrolled immigration.

Johnson went on to confirm that the UK would not be in the 'single market' if we leave, but pointed out that many countries, he said 27, already had better trade with the EU than did the UK. He claimed that regulation costs British business some £600m per week, and said that Europe is the slowest growing continent on the planet, with the exception of Antarctica. Lord Rose, one of the leaders of the 'Remain' campaign has even said that claims of an economic shock if we leave are unfounded and that wages would rise, while many of those now prophesying disaster if we leave are the same 'experts' who told us that not joining the ERM and then the Euro would bring about catastrophe; they were wrong then and they are wrong now. Even David Cameron was on record as saying that, while people would scaremonger about the UK's prospects if we left the Union, we could in fact prosper outside the EU and we would be able to agree free trade deals; this he had said on the very same Andrew Marr show during his renegotiation phase.

Johnson was clear Cameron has failed to deliver on his manifesto pledges about reducing immigration and claimed that this was corrosive of public trust. He said that Cameron claimed to have gained reforms from his EU colleagues but had actually gained nothing. The Eurozone remains in chaos with huge unemployment in many countries, largely because of the way in which the centralised EU bureaucracy sees no differences across the whole Union and tries to impose the same rules and regulations on all. This has led to sever financial and migratory problems.

Johnson ended by reminding viewers that the EU is fundamentally antidemocratic and that its widening has led to increasing federalisation. 60% of our laws are affected by Brussels and we cannot control many of our own policies. While Turkey may not join the Union in the foreseeable future, it increased is Government and EU policy that it should join, and there will be cooperation over the years; Johnson sees no problem in Turkey joining, as long as the UK leaves first. Challenged on his apparent change of mind on the question of the UK's membership of the EU, Johnson made it clear that his view has changed because the EU has changed out of all recognition from what we joined in 1973.

In the end, it seemed to me that while John Major adopted the same scaremongering approach to which the 'Remain' campaign seems wedded, and added some personal invective and abuse for good measure, Boris Johnson was far more positive, voicing confidence in the UK's ability to grow once freed from the shackles of the EU. Major's argument was all about fear, there was no vision; in fact the 'Remain' campaign seems to have no vision of a future inside the EU, only their fears of a future outside it.

Do we really want to be governed by fear ? I don't. VOTE LEAVE.

GIOVANNI RUSSO AND THE BLACK LION AT ST ALBANS.

In 1997 I lost my father and brother within a few weeks of each other - dad died in August and Phil in November. My poor mum was beside herself with grief and I'm sure never really recovered. I did my best to try to support her through what was the most terrible time of her life, even though she'd also had to live through the London Blitz but, in an unusual way, I had help from an unexpected source.

We started going to a local pub / restaurant which mum and dad had frequented but never done more than had an occasional drink. Whenever I visited, which was every 2 or 3 weeks for several days, we would go for a drink and then we started going for a meal on a Friday or Saturday evening. This was at the 'Black Lion' in St Albans, an ancient inn which then was a well known local pub, hotel and eating house. The restaurant was run on a leased basis by Giovanni Russo and was a delight; the food was terrific, Giovanni was always open to suggestions about his offerings, the staff were marvellous and, most importantly, mum was treated like royalty.

We had so many wonderful evenings there, which was exactly what mum needed. Whatever we wanted was never any trouble, there was live music and, in a tiny space, even occasional 'dancing in the aisles'. Giovanni, whom most called John, was a wonderful, loud Italian who ran a superb restaurant but, most importantly, cared for his customers.

Giovanni had a fractious relationship with the owners of the pub and eventually left around 2005, starting up another small restaurant not far away; it wasn't the same, though, and never could be. Sadly the venture didn't last very long as Giovanni was diagnosed with terminal cancer and died not too long after mum, who left me in 2008.

The point of this story is really to say my thanks to Giovanni, even though he's no longer around. He treated my mum as if she was the Queen, as did his staff; I remember Tony and Marco well, and the shy chef whose name escapes me but who cooked our meals to perfection. There were the musicians who played the keyboard, usually Benny but sometimes another whose name is also now lost to me, both of whom were so friendly and so kind.

If I could have my life over again, I would demand that those years at the 'Black Lion' be repeated. They were wonderful and Giovanni's kindness and attentiveness to my mum will be in my thoughts until my dying day. He was one of the unsung heroes of my life.

EU REFERENDUM : DARLING WAFFLES, MINFORD WINS.

It's beginning to look as though the 'Remain' campaigners are getting a little concerned and there's an increasing note of panic in their utterances.

This morning, on the 'Today' programme on Radio 4 there was a planned debate between former Chancellor of the Exchequer, Alistair Darling, and renowned free market economist, Patrick Minford. To call this a debate is, perhaps, a little excessive as Darling rattled on and on and on, spouting every ounce of negativity that he could muster, and poor Minford was left with very little time to respond; Nick Robinson, who attempted to manage the discussion, was simply drowned out by Darling's determination to dominate proceedings and reluctance to allow his opponent to be heard.

In truth, all that Darling did was to show frustration, a degree of panic and an utter lack of confidence in the British economy and British workers. He repeated the now familiar mantra that the UK would have a torrid time if it dared to leave the European Union, and largely ignored the few contrary thoughts which Minford was able to voice. What Minford did manage to say made significantly more sense and showed far greater confidence in Britain and the British worker, as well as being far more forward looking, than anything that issued forth from Gordon Brown's former man at the Treasury.

Darling wants the UK to stay within the EU because it's seen as being safe; Minford wants us to leave because that is where the real opportunities are, in the rest of the world. With opportunity may come some risks but there are also risks of not taking opportunities when they arise. Do we want the UK to be an inward-looking nation, falling behind the rest of the world along with the other members of the EU, or do we want it to embrace the whole world, seizing opportunities to forge alliances wherever we please, unencumbered by EU in-fighting, sloth, bureaucracy, red tape, fraud and corruption ?

I know which I prefer. VOTE LEAVE.

EU REFERENDUM : CUT IMMIGRATION & BE REBORN !

At long last, voters have been given a glimpse of a real future by one of the referendum campaigns. On the vexed subject of immigration, the 'Leave' campaign has proposed serious changes to our immigration system in the event of voters choosing separate the UK's from the EU.

At present, EU citizens are entitled to travel anywhere within the Union without limit; they can look for work wherever they like and claim benefits in whichever country they decide to reside. The UK Government has no right to restrict such migrants in any way and hundreds of thousands have arrived in the country in recent years, arguably depressing wages and adding significantly to the pressures on overstretched public services.

Immigrants from non-EU countries are treated very differently, being required to prove that they would bring much needed skills or other benefits to the UK economy through a 'points based system'. Leading names in the 'Leave' campaign are now saying that if the UK votes to leave the EU, the same system could be applied to all migrants, something which would instantly reduce the currently uncontrolled immigration into this country.

Inevitably, representatives of the 'Remain' campaign don't like this idea and say that the proposal would wreck the UK economy and could 'drive up' immigration; what they base this assessment on isn't stated, but it looks like nonsense to me. How could introducing proper immigration controls increase immigration ? Why would a universal 'points based system' wreck our economy ? To my mind, such a change would ensure that the UK is able to compete for the brightest and best from the whole world and is not ham-strung by its enforced adherence to EU rules.

Separately, Frances O'Grady, General Secretary of the TUC, has been heard this morning claiming that leaving the EU would cost UK workers something like £40 per week in lost wages; she bases this wholly unsubstantiated claim on the usual nebulous stuff about lots of economists an their forecasts, which the sane amongst us know is rubbish. Nonetheless, O'Grady rabbited on about the plight of workers in the event of a 'Brexit', quite heedless of the probable benefits to be enjoyed if hordes of low paid eastern European migrants were to be removed from the equation. She said nothing about the current economic turmoil in Greece, Spain, France, Belgium and other EU countries; why ?

The TUC has set out its stall long ago and is hell bent on remaining within the EU, basing their campaign on the same tired and highly questionable economic forecasts as other 'Remainers'. Michael Gove, Boris Johnson, Gisela Stewart and Pritti Patel and the 'Leave' campaign actually have a vision of a brighter future. Yesterday, the 'Leave' campaign drew attention to the fact that, as a member of the EU, we cannot even decide what to tax, highlighting our inability to remove the egregious VAT applied to energy bills because of EU rules; leaving would free us from such restrictive practices.

The 'Leave' campaign is confident and forward looking, not negative and stuck in the past. It sees a brighter future for the UK, while the 'Remain' campaign sees only more of the same, a continuation of what they see as the safe and comfortable world of the European womb.

We must see the light and vote for rebirth. VOTE LEAVE.