8. The Elephant in the Brexit Room (TEITBR) - Finances

[Home]
(A work in progress)
Its now been the better part of 3 years, and we are in a worse mess than we were before. Mainly due to politicians trying to engineer a Remain.
One of the primary arguments against leaving, is the damage it will do to the Uk finances.  In order to actually ascertain this, we have an attempt to break this all down, using information to hand, where possible, supplied by the actual organisations.

The finances are complex, so I shall attempt to break them down here, as simply as possible. During this research it has transpired that not only is the EU a major contributor to our woes, but so have been decades of politicians either not understanding, or wilfully taking part in this.

The major elements of EU/UK financials are:

1. The EU Membership fee 
2. The balance of trade between the UK and other EU countries
3. The 'joint' operations.
4. How does the Uk pay for this

1. EU Membership fee
The EU membership fee is largely based on GDP of a country, and varies from year, depending on the previous years figures. The below figures show what we have paid since 1973. This is expected to increase if we remain.
 

In 2017, the figure was decided by the following: 

Proposed contribution    £ 18.6 bn   (the 'magic' £350m per week)
Less the Uk Rebate:       £   5.6 bn
Sub-Total:                       £ 13.0 bn
Less:                               £   4.0 bn EU payment to Public Sector
Total paid to the EU      £   9.0 bn
There is also an amount in research grants, £1.5 Bn in 2015. Have been unable to find the 2017 figure, but even if £2 Bn, that equates to £7 Bn paid net, or £134.5m per week. This equates to 1.75* the amount we receive back, so could easily afford to keep those payments up in the future.

How is GDP measured?
The Uk measures GDP in 3 ways:
- The sum value of goods and services provided minus the sum value of imports at the point of final payment by or to the consumer. 
- Money earned through wages and profits
- The value of goods and services produced.

For EU fee determination, the GDP measurement is based on the Qtr to Qtr method, a join on all 3 of the above.
This graph shows the variances (changes)  from 1955 to 2019:

Ignoring 2008, which was a westernised global fallout, except that EU membership was supposed to help flatten out these issues. This shows that since the early 1990s, when 'further political integration' started, our GDP 'growth' has fallen from ~2.5% per qtr to  ~0.75% per qtr. At the same time as our 'contribution' has increased.
The 2017 figures can be seen here, and these are the comparisons with 2015/16

The Uk contributions for 2010-2016 are here:

These figures show a disjoint between what we should pay, and what we are paying, which is a sub-optimal place to be.

A further caveat with GDP is that while it includes 'wages and profits', as well as inward investment, with the case of foreign companies setting up in the Uk, the 'inward investment' will be offset against tax, the wages will contribute to GDP (increasing our fee to the EU), but the profits will be repatriated to the country of origin, decreasing the taxes we would have had, to pay the extra EU fees.

2. Balance of  Trade
Trade, the whole main selling point if the EEC/EU is more interesting. There has been much said about the 'benefits' of our trade with the EU, but little actual proof of why, and how.

Lets look at Uk alone. This is the balance of Trade in Goods and Services from 1948 - 2017

Understanding that the net effect of Exports (Sales) - Imports (Costs) is how a country actually makes its income. There are those that will debunk this, by saying 'Inward Investment' is  also  a factor in this equation. It is, but it is 'investment' which always expects a return. For a short term, a negative balance, made positive by 'Inward Investment' is valid, however on a longer term it is not.

As the above figures show, from 1948 the Uk essentially broke even over time. However, since 1973/5 we have had an ever decreasing balance of trade.   

Further, looking at these figures for trade as a %age of GDP over  the same period:

We can see, looking at the middle and bottom lines, that since the mid 70s we have been making small losses, and these losses increased from the mid 90s in percentage terms.

We can also look at the actual figures for UK Trade from 1991- 2017, for Goods and Services:

This shows exports grew from £ 141,882m to £ 615,910m. This is where the EU contribution is measured. What is not measured is the imports that grew from
£ 144,500m £ 641,796m. Trade as a %age of GDP grew from 41% -62%, which again increases our 'contribution', while ignoring the fact we are actually making a loss.

Trade with the EU for 2017/18 showed the following:

This is intra and extra EU trade, imports and exports for Jan - Oct 2018 compared to the same figures for 2017. The Uk trade balance was -128bn Euros. Total year would have been ~140bn Euros. The services figure was reported as being +90bn, leaving ~-50bn Euros for 2018.
There were 9 countries out of the EU 28 who actually made a trade profit. These were, for the period shown:
Germany      197.1 bn
Netherlands    52.5 bn
Ireland            40.3 bn
Italy                32.3 bn
Belgium          14.5 bn
Czechia           12.9 bn
Denmark           4.5 bn
Slovenia           1.6 bn
Slovakia            0.6 bn

Uk was the highest loser. France at -67 Bn and Spain at -30 bn were the next highest losers, all the others were 18bn or less.

Ask yourself, who would pay £8-£9bn  pa into a 'trade club' where you actually lose £43bn (Euro 50bn) a year to?

3. Joint Operations
These cover many areas, which have caused a stir in recent years, but has been ongoing for many decades. A lot of these were pre EU like the Large Hadron Collider, although the EU try to say they are invented during the 'process'. The LHC may have been built in 1998, but was actually started at Cern in 1971, and involves European and non European Universities, scientists and engineers.
All of these collaborations come at an extra cost, that we are paying now , so, should we wish, and the organisations agree, we can continue with no difference in outlay.

Simply put:
1. PESCO - Permanent Strucured Cooperation a part of the EU Security and Defence Protocol , enacted in the Lisbon Treaty, and signed up to in 2017.
2. Anglo French Nuclear Agreements - Lancaster House Treaties
3. Scientific Research and Collaboration - Royal Society Breakdown, very informative.
4. Education






Refs: 
Uk payments to EU Budget
UK GDP Measurement
Qtr on Qtr GDP differences
2017 GDPR qtr on qtr figures 
Uk contribution 2010-2016
Uk Trade Figures
EU Trade Figures 2018

7. The Death of Democracy (TEITBR)

[Home]
 
Jan 24th 2017, the day the supreme court gave their ruling on whether the Uk govt can trigger article 50, for leaving the EU, without the need for agreement from Parliament. By a majority of 8 to 3, they ruled the government do need approval from parliament.

So, what this has done, in one fell swoop, is killed democracy in the United Kingdom. Ignore what the case was about and just consider the simple facts:
The Uk had a referendum which was put to the whole of the voting population, with a 'Yes' or 'No' option. The population voted for outcome 'Yes' ... we are ignoring what it was about... it is irrelevant. A group of people didn't like this, brought a case in the High Court that ruled Parliament has to decide. This has now been ratified by the Supreme court. 

 So the people say one thing, and Parliament says another (maybe..).... and the courts have decided that is correct!
Update - the government (House of Commons) ratified a bill to allow the current Prime Minister to enact Article 50. This has now gone before the House of Lords.

Think about that for a minute. 

So, what has been decided now is that any vote put forward by the Uk population can be put before the courts to ratify. This means absolutely everything: 

• General Elections 
• Local elections 
• Nuclear Power Stations
• Railways
• Planning

Every single time you are asked for a vote, it is meaningless unless the courts and parliament agree with you.... or specifically those who have access to the courts and parliament, and the money to influence, can overturn your decision.

Remember this next time you take time off work to vote.. it is pointless. We are now a non-democratic country.
The UK law works on 'case law'. Once a single case has been enacted (like todays), then that can be used as an example, and has now become Uk law.

Specifically for the EU referendum, what should have happened is that the will of the people should have been followed. Those that disagreed should then have started a movement to re-enter the EU, once we had left. Scotland, who voted overwhelmingly to stay, should have gone for independence, and then applied to join as a smaller nation. 
That is the Democratic way. 

Its a sad day for the UK, when the courts now govern everything we do. In fact, not even the 600+ MPS, but 11 people have the final say on any decision that we decide to make. Is this the country you want to live in?       

The MPS should actually vote according to what their constituents say. That will be interesting, as a Liberal has already said he will vote with his heart (a Remainer), despite his constituents voting to leave.

For the record, the actual results, taken form the Office of National Statstics showed the following:
33.5 m valid votes
              Remain                   Leave
              16.14m                    17.41                                    Single Votes
              121                          261        31.59% / 68.15%   Ballot Areas
                   4                             9        30.77%/ 69.23%    15 Group Areas

From Nomura
                39%                        61%                                    Constituencies
                73%                        27%                                    MPS declared voted               
Lets see where this takes us, but it is the death of democracy, whichever way you look at it. In fact.. as an after thought, the PM can actually ignore the Supreme Court, based totally on their own ruling. 
Remember the UK population pay for the MPS, and the Supreme and High Courts. The UK population gave its answer, and those who we pay for have reverted that answer. Try that with your employer :-) 

3. The Elephant in the Brexit Room (TEITBR) - How the EEC changed the game

[Home]
 
So where did the European Union come from?

The EU started as the European Economic Community, 12 years after WWII, in 1957, to try and stop the constant war scenario that was plaguing the 20th century. The EEC was made up of France, West Germany,  Belgium, Luxembourg, Italy and The Netherlands. Britain was vetoed, as President de Gaulle objected to us (for some reason that escapes me... as we housed him, and helped his country where we could from 1939 to 1944). If my memory serves, he saw us as a way in which the USA would gain a foothold in Europe. This was purely an 'economic' setup, to create a 'single market', and 'customs' union.. in other words.. Free Trade.
The EEC came from the ECSC , which was a Steel and Coal agreement, essentially between France and Germany, with the long term intention of making war between those two countries physically impossible, by producing a federal state. The forerunner of the European Commission was the Halstein Commission, headed by Walter Halstein, a major proposer of a federal superstate. 

However, at around the same time, some countries couldn't freely be a part of the EEC, so EFTA was formed. This was formed by the Uk, Switzerland, Norway, Sweden, Austria, Denmark and Portugal. This was simply a Free Trade Agreement, and importantly, had access to the single market of the EEC, on a bilateral agreement. There was no mention in the EFTA agreement of a 'Super State'. It was simply a Free Trade Zone, where the members could still trade and form alliances with other countries outside of this zone.

So, by 1960 we had the nacent EEC, and EFTA, all working well together. However, in 1973 Britain, Denmark and Ireland decided to join the EEC. This was initially done without a referendum, by both the Wilson (Labour) and Heath (Conservative) governments. Wilsons 1974 government actually actioned a 'post action' referendum, with little mention of the 'Federal Europe' goal, and the referendum got passed...as Britain and Ireland joining a larger Free Trade organisation. As a part of the deal Britain had a veto implemented, allowing it to not participate in any number of actions.

In 1993, things changed. The Maastricht treaty was signed, turning the EEC (an Economic Community) into the EC, the European Community. The major difference with the EC was that it moved from being purely 'economic' to working towards a more integrated 'federal' europe. The Maastricht Treaty tried to include additions of foreign policy, security and defence, immigration, criminal and judicial.
Some member states objected to the addition of these, as it was felt that they were too sensitive to local issues, and so better handled by individual governments, so they were 'left out' of the actual treaty, but tacked on as 3 more departments or 'pillars' to the EC.
After Maastricht, a number of changes occurred, making the Parliament have equal powers to the Commission, moving areas of responsibility from the seperate 'pillars' (departments) to the EC, such as the immigration policies.

In 2009, with the Treaty of Paris, the EC was officially disbanded, as were the other Commissions under the EC, and they were all brought under the umbrella of the European Union. Along with that amalgamation came the intention to widen the Community to anyone who was able to join, with the agreement of the members. However some members had more votes than the others, so this was 'lopsided' as a policy.

With this treaty the European Union now became an organisation with the following:
A Parliament - The Single European Act gave Parliament the powers of veto over the commission
A Council
A Commission
A Court
Auditors - who have never agreed a set of accounts for the EU/EEC.

And so we have a scenario, where the original concept of a 'Free Trade Zone' was finally becoming a Federal Zone, covering the majority of Western Europe, with additions of other states as agreed by various members. 
The majority of the member states have enabled this to occur, with no vote on the wider powers by the citizens of those states.  
The Federal Europe, which was originally proposed back in 1950 will include:
- A Parliament 
- A Judiciary System
- An Economic System
- A Unified Military Service
- A Unified Border control Agency
Essentially we are moving towards total political union, where 'Europe' becomes a superstate, and individual sovereignity would be lost, which is not what the populations of those countries were led to believe the process was all about. 

If this is the route that the populations would like to see, then we should be making plans to remove our home grown systems (governments/courts/military/financial), as they will simply become 'rubber stamping' organisations implementing the will of the European Dictums.  

Military Union is the most worrying, and this has already started.  The Uk has also planned that 2 aircraft carriers would be jointly used by the UK and France. However, this project was cancelled by the French in 2013, after the construction had started, leaving the UK to pick up the bill. This shows how the integration will fail.
Add to this that Europe is currently part of NATO, and also the UN (United Nations), a 3rd military force, made up by member states, will have issues. NATO and the UN already use member states to participate, and the 3rd European army will end up with the same scenario a the League of Nations, in the 1920s. It is provably unworkable.

Economic union, is also a misnomer. It requires a central bank, a common currency, and all member states to be with 1.5% of GDP/Debt of the top 3 Nations. So a smaller, less well off nation, will have difficulty reaching that goal, resulting in fines, that it cant afford, and possibly being removed from the central currency, which it also cant afford. We have seen this with Greece, which has been bailed out by the EU 3 times in 5 years, and is still not out of the woods.

Essentially the whole concept of a Free Trade Area has been changed towards a federal state, with the strongest 3 countries being in control. This has been done on the sly, without agreement by the peoples of those nations, and without any say in how the process works, or without any feedback from the very people their taxes pay to report back to them publicly. 

Would you invest in a company like that?




 


   
  


[Home]

6. The Elephant in the Brexit Room (TEITBR) - The Way Forward

[Home]
So we have voted to leave the EU. What now? Lets start with what won't happen:

• Armageddon 
• You won't be banned from travelling in Europe.. tourism is as old as the hills, and they still want your money. You may have to carry a different passport as id, but that will be it.
• You won't be banned from trading with EU countries. Something will be worked out, as they want your money. Switzerland, Norway, Iceland still deal, and we did in the past.. but more on that later.
• World War III
• Joint security operations will still continue, like they did before. Its beneficial all round.
• The french will not dismantle the Severn Bridge and take it back home... at least it will be fun watching if they did.

Lets split this down, and look at what the benefits of being outside the EU are:

1. Geography and Transport
The Uk is ideally placed from a geographic standpoint. If you are in europe, and want to ship product over the atlantic, there are 2 ways to go:
- Through the channel
- Around the Uks northern coast
Either way, you have to hit Uk waters. We also have ports that can handle most cargo, and some passenger liners. 

Similarly, we have airports that are on the most efficient flight paths for East-West travel. We also have the most advanced air cargo terminal in the world, which saves companies time and money, for transhipment. Our investment in airways has been ongoing since  the start of the airplane.

We now have the channel tunnel, giving car and train routes direct access from London to Paris, Brussles, Marseille and other points in france. 

Essentially the UK has many transport links worldwide, making it a great place for companies to invest in.

2. Trade
The Uk has always been a trading nation. Its one of the many things we are good at. The issue with the EU, that didn't exist with the EEC, is that in order to set up trade deals, we have had to include all of the EU, and ever expanding group of countries, making it increasingly difficult to set up these deals. If, for example, Turkey joins, it is highly unlikely we could set up a trade deal with Israel... just would not happen.
Outside of the EU we will be able to set up deals with whoever the Uk wants to. This is already showing signs of happeneing, a matter of 3 weeks after the Referendum. In fact. ARM holdings, one of the UKs major Tech companies, has been sold to the Japanese, at a 50% uplift of a pre referendum price, with the promise of keeping it in this country with further investment in jobs, and infrastructure... a win win. Other countries are queueing up already to do free trade deals with us, when we eventually come out.     
Not only do we have the USA, we also have the old commonwealth countries,like Australia, India, New Zealand, even South Africa as potential people. The UK is the 5th largest economy in the world, people want to trade with us, and, largely, us with them. We have this ability open to us now, or will have once we are out.

As regards the 'single market'.. that will still be open in any different ways. 

• The old EFTA still exists, which already has a trade agreement between the EU and EFTA (Switzerland, Norway, Iceland, and Lichtenstein. We could join them, as we were one of the originators of EFTA, and we would have that access. 
• We could arrange our own deal, the EU will still want/meed to trade with us, but  I suspect the politicians will need to work their socks off for that.
• We could do our own deals individually. Especially as a lot of the countries are now considering what is best for them. This is less likely to happen, as it would be against the EU ruling, but we are now in uncharted territory.

Whatever happens with the EU side of things it is unlikely that, for example, Airbus will move the wing making to Europe from the UK in the near future. Current contracts require the building of one plane every 2 weeks. The wing is owned by Aerospace, they would need to come up with a totally new wing, and manufacture of the same, and fix that into the delivery schedules. Its not simple, or cost effective.
Similarly, we are not about to take back the Severn Bridges, they are managed under contract by a French company. Even when the current contract terminates, it is likely it will be renegotiated with the same organisation. Its just common sense.

3. Finance
Inside the EU, members are limited as to what they are allowed to change, to better their economies. Taxation limits are preset, borrowing is limited. It is very constraining on any country to have these limits put on, as Greece found out.  
Outside the EU we have our own controls. Essentially we can do what we like, in order to keep our economy afloat. 
So, for example, we can actually become a tax haven. This was hinted at by our outgoing Chancellor, but is an idea that would solve a lot of issues. Lets say that we dropped Corporation Tax to 10%, and Income tax to 10%. Sound silly? Nope... not really. This large carrot would need a stick as well, but it would remove a lot  of the reasons for capital, private or corporate, to go outside the Uk, and would probably see a lot pf capital repatriated, generating more investment in this country. We would also be able to remove a lot of the civil servants whose sole job is to chase up unpaid taxes.
By dropping income tax to 10%, companies could reduce costs, and give their employees an automatic raise, all at the same time. This would make the Uk a more attractive place to be as a company, and potential employee. It could even stop the whole Scottish seperatist argument at the same time.
The way taxation works, this would not reduce the amount the government receives, just slow down the rate at which they receive it. I believe that this slow down would be offset by the increased capital coming back into the country.

The other issue is the actual finance markets. One major revenue for the capitalist society has been the money trading markets. For every country joining the EU, and the Euro, that is one less currency out of the market, currently 19 of the 27/8 countries use the euro, and eventually all members will use the euro.  So one of the major money earners for the European countries, is being removed by the same organisation.
By being out of the EU, the Uk can maintain Sterling, and show the way to stopping the regulation of each countries actual currency. 

A secondary direct issue for the Uk and its financial markets, is the London Stock Exchange. This is about to be 'merged' into a new company with the Deutsche Bourse. However, this is not a 50/50 split, but a 51/49 split to the Deutsche Bourse. This will effectively take the oldest, and most active, share trading organisation out of the control of the United Kingdom. By leaving the EU, at worst, the LSE will be in a stronger bargaining position, allowing a 50/50 split to occur, and keep those jobs in the UK, and the revenue it produces, at best it would allow teh LSE to remain a UK organisation, providing much needed income and jobs within the UK, and the wider global community.

Finally, the actual contribution made by the Uk. Now it is hard to get actual figures out of anyone, but the UK is actually responsible for 1/3rd of the EU budget. We contribute £8.1Bn sterling per year (actually £18.1Bn, less the £6bn 'rebate' and ~£4bn in 'grants' giving £8Bn that we get back). This is the magic £370m  per week that was bandied about. This is not an insignificant amount. Effectively, if you look at the £18Bn, we could pay out what we normally get back, and still save £8-9Bn, so we would be ~£153m per week better off. That is a lot of public services/industrial / or infrastructure investment we can make... or simply use it to pay off debts to the rest of the world.


4. Industry  
All member states of the current EU are governed by a set of laws, effectively debarring local governments from supporting their industries. Now, it is arguable if this is adhered to by all members, but it is not necessarily a good thing. There comes a time when all industry may need to expand to meet demand, but is unable to do so, due to financial constraints. Governments can help out here. Now we are not talking the 'bad old days' of Nationalised Industries, and all the inefficiency that went with that, but a way in which Governments could guarantee loans to enable an industry to invest in infrastructure to satisfy demand. This would be a benefit to the whole country, and is doable outside of the confines of the EU.

It is also worth remembering the UK has a long history of innovation, which continues today, in many fields, especially engineering and tech, that we could fully mobilise to a fuller extent, selling that expertise to a wider global market, without constrictions brought on by the red tape involved in the EU. 

5. Social savings - NHS and Social Benefits
Since being a member of the wider EU, the UK has been forced, and mainly due to the weakness of our politicians, to provide benefits and health care to all comers. The Healthcare system is/was one of the best in the world, and we have a ruling that it should be 'free at point of delivery'. This was never designed to be a healthcare system that would be free for the whole world, which is what is happening at present. Essentially, anyone who can get an EU passport can come to the UK, get free healthcare, and go away again, never contributing to the system that provides it. This is palpably unmaintainable. Personally I have witnessed 2 cases of this, and am aware of many hundreds more. Yet again, this is not going 'against human rights.. nor is it xenophobia'... we are simply unable to supply free healthcare to those that do not reside, work or have any contact with the UK. It is paid for out of taxation, and has gone from being the best in the world, to somewhere a lot lower, due to the many non-contributors using the system....as well as a massive dollop of high charges made by Healthcare providers, and inefficient civil servants allowing payments to get out of control, so not solely down to 'misuse' of the system. 
The same can be said for our benefits system. Badly managed internally... plus.. being made available to anyone who claims to be from the EU. The simple fact of coming into teh UK from a EU country is normally enough to get you housing, weekly benefits, food... all gratis, and courtesy of the UK tax payer.

Both of these could be better controlled outside of the EU, when the laws stating we have to provide these services, without charging Brussels, could be done away with, and we could revert to providing solely to those who have contributed, or have lived in the UK for a given period of time, like the other major EU nations do.

There is so much more, if looked at in a positive light, and that may be published here later. All comments welcome, even though I am inviting more vitriol...but heck.. thats life :-)
   

[Home]

5. The Elephant in the Brexit Room (TEITBR) - What the heck just happened?

[Home]
 
Come June 23rd 2016, we all dutifully went to the polls.... well 71.8% of us, nationally. Like all the pundits (and I mean all), I believed the vote would be tight... but essentially, to Remain. Reasons are many, but mainly come down to:

• Our politicians didn't have a Plan B, in case Leave was the result.. so they knew we would Remain.
• I remember Denmark, where they had a vote that said 'Leave' on a 48/52% split. Too close said their government, who had a second referendum 2 weeks later, that came out 52/48% Stay, so they stayed.
• The UK had been told, in no uncertain terms, that we could have 1 vote, and 1 vote only. That was part of the 'deal' Cameron came back with. He was happy with that, so we were going to stay ... weren't we?

So it had to be Remain.

Then I got woken by a message on Skype, from a colleague in Sydney.....what happened? said the message. The vote went 52/48 Leave! The result: Turmoil.

 Ok.. it was a fascinating time.... no one knew how or why.. because very few people actually bothered to look at the country as a whole. Most pundits looked at London, a few looked at other major cities, very very few took the feelings of the country as a whole.
Immediately the blame game started.. promoted by the media, and the politicians. 

• David Cameron resigned, as soon as was possible... by 9:00 am if I remember
• The Labour MPS roundly blamed Jeremy Corbyn, as he didn't take a leading role? Begs the question what they were doing in their own constituencies? They were equally to blame, if thats what it is.
• The younger generations, who managed to vote, blamed the older generations.
• The Scots blamed the English. (to be fair.. if Scotland had been a separate country, they would have remained).  
• The Londonites blamed everybody else, and immediately tried to get a ruling that the referendum was unfair, and needed to be run again. Presumably that would not have occurred if the split had been reversed.

What happened people is this:

• People who don't normally vote....voted. We normally get a 30% turnout... it was 71.8%.. double the number.
• The politics of fear... failed...hugely.
• A lot of people have disliked what the EU has become, and decided to be brave, and voted leave.
• Farmers and Fishermen, both who have suffered under EU control, voted to Leave, except those that had been able to deal with the huge flow of paperwork, and administration taking them away from farming and fishing, and becoming administrators... reducing the quality of the food you and I eat.
• People who should have turned out, who complained the most at the result, didn't.
• The political classes got taught a real lesson, along with people who don't normally vote, that voting can make a difference. 
• Just tripped up on the connundrum of the British Muslims, which is something even I didn't think of.

A look at the statistics here gives a good idea. Scotland had a 50% turnout. If, of the remaining 50% who didn't vote, had turned out, and assuming 80% of those (40% of the whole) would vote 'Remain', then the whole of the Uk would be remaining.
A similar story goes to the 18-24 year olds. We will leave aside the  100 or so Oxbridge final year students, who thought Upticking the Remain Facebook page was an actual vote. 

Its called Democracy. A 4% margin is a margin. If it had been 1% or 0.5% , then there could be an argument for leaving as is. But in reality, the majority of the population has voted to leave.

However.. thats not it.. not by a long way. despite the fact we now have a new Prime Minister, and brand new cabinet and an opposition in complete disarray... we also have a group of people informing us that a referendum is not a legal result that must be followed, headed up by Tony Blair, if that helps anyone. It is simply a device for showing the will of the people.

There are many options open to the new government, which are covered in the final blog post on this issue. 
   
In the cold light of day, it does have to be said, that the English are a group of people that don't like change. In reality, the majority of the 18-44 year olds who actually voted, voted to Remain. These are people, the oldest of whom were 4 years old when the 1975 referendum was held. The youngest had not been born, and most of their parents had not been born either.
They had all been brought up as being a member of the European Union, in various guises. They had not known anything different, and had not been given any facts, on either side, on which to vote. More importantly, they had not been taught what the EU was about, or the history of the countries involved, and how it came about. I actually discovered that my highly educated son in law (an accountant), and his father, an architect, had no idea who Oliver Cromwell was. Based on that, they stated that England had never had a revolution. So in one way, they cant be blamed. However, the son in law voted to leave on the basis of economics alone. In another, simple research would show the following:

• Countries that consistently fought each other over 2000 years+ have little chance of being unified, in the true sense of the word.
• If a group of countries join together, based on receiving more than they pay in, that is unworkable. Simple maths tells you that.
• If you take 27/28 currencies, and increasing, out of the currency trading markets, that market will eventually die. This is part of a financial market that both the UK, and Germany, rely on to bolster their income.
• Further to that, if you expand the 'Superstate' principal, in time Europe would have to combine with someone else... lets say the USA. Then that would have to combine... etc etc. Eventually you end up with 'Earth'..... then what? Enter Star Trek?
•  If your eventual government is made up of faceless people, who do not report back to you, and are effectively unelected, while costing you a small fortune, democracy fails.

 
[Home]

2. The Elephant in the Brexit Room (TEITBR) - Dreaming of Unity in Europe

[Home]
 
Europe has always had issues internally with its neighbours. Whether it was England and France/Spain, Spain with Italy, Italy with Spain, the Austro-Hungarian Empire and France, Norway and Sweden... we just have not got on together.

Sure, we have always traded, and that is good. We have always travelled to each others countries, to learn about the other ways to live, to pass around ideas, to generally co-exist. All that worked. As soon as anyone thought about 'take over'... all hell has broken loose. The list is endless, but to name a few:

- The Romans

- The 100 years war

- The Napoleonic Wars

- World Wars 1 & II

All these have resulted in the upheaval that has caused europe grief and time required to heal. Essentially all of western europe, for at least the last 2000 years, has tried to prove that one country is more powerful than the others..... and failed.

At the end of WW1, the Austro-Hungarian empire was broken down, and Germany was made to suffer horrendous economic hardships, to pay for the damage caused. This led, almost directly, straight to a set of circumstances whose outcome was WWII.

So, in order for that not to happen again, after WWII it was decided to try to set up a trading bloc, to build co-operation within these warring countries, and so stop the conflicts, that now bring the whole world into  play. A side effect for the USA was to help build a buffer zone against the Eastern Bloc (Russia et all), during the period of what became known as the 'Cold War'. On the Russian side, they formed the 'Warsaw Pact', of the eastern bloc countries, as a counteraction to NATO. So Europe was turned into a big buffer zone, between the USA and the USSR.

Also, after WW1, in order to stop further conflicts, and to resolve disputes via negotiation, the League of Nations was set up. This failed in the 1930s, primarily as it relied on the members to supply the relevant forces to settle disputes that could not be arbitrated. However, as it was these members who failed to arbitrate, then this palpably could not work.

So, after WWII, the League was replaced with the United Nations. Further to this, in 1949 NATO was set up as a military alliance that would help protect all member states.

As a consequence, Western Europe has remained relatively peaceful and prosperous. Those two organisations have helped preserve a European peace, and have helped in other areas as well. Like all large organisations, there have been failures, but also successes. Western Europe has had little military action, apart from the notable exception of Yugoslavia, now Serbia and Croatia. However the existence and help of those two organisations and their member states, did help to contain that conflict.

So it would be fair to say, that for 70+ years the majority of Europe has been able to lead a peaceful existence, while trading within themselves, and with outside nations, guarded by the UN and NATO. As per the original idea, all that is required for a tentative peace, is to enable free trade between the nations, nothing more and nothing less.


These 70 years included a time when the EEC/EFTA et all were being built, but citizens around Europe freely moved, without issue. All they needed was a passport. People in Belgium would regularly drive to Germany to do their weekly shop, the British could start and run companies in Europe, people could buy houses.... we could all do what we do now, with a minimal production of paperwork. So we had peace, and we could trade, and move around, and go on holiday, without the interference of a large group of so called politicians enabling us.... that is until the late 1990s.

For the record, I know this, as I lived in Brussels from 1963-1964, aged 6-7, where my father was working selling telephone exchanges to the Europeans and the Middle East. we took our English car, bought a house, went to a Belgian school (where, incidentally, I asked them to speak to me in French... so I learnt a language in 2-3 weeks without a translator), and we freely travelled to France, The Netherlands, Luxembourg and Germany, with nothing but English Passports. At the same time, my future wife (yes.. I was a toy boy) had an interior design company in Spain and Paris. So this is something else the politicos say they have enabled... while not actually enabling very much.

[Home]  

1. The Elephant in the Brexit Room (TEITBR) - Overview

So here we are, 3 weeks after the UK referendum on membership of the EU, and the negativity continues.  It is absolutely fascinating to see that people on all sides of the argument seem unable to get past the effects of democracy. Don't get me wrong, I was as disappointed as everyone else in the 'politics of fear' that the campaigns (both of them) ran, and as surprised as everyone else that the 'Leave' campaign succeeded.. albeit by a small margin (52:48). However, I wonder, if the result had been the other way, if the vitriolic displays of the 'remain' camp would have been echoed by the 'leave' camp? We will never know.

What is obvious is that peoples capability to do actual research is all but gone. The campaigns themselves were ridiculous, as not a single provable fact was produced, for general public consumption, by either side. Not a single MEP came out in the media, or anywhere else, prior to the vote, to explain the good or bad about remaining or leaving the EU. These people are paid £250k+ expenses per year to be able to do just that, explain what is going on, some have made millions out of their position (Yes Mr & Mrs Kinnock, I am looking at you... you were the leader of the Labour Party back in the day, how does that work?) . What did we get to make a decision on? Nada, Rien, Nout.. not a whimper.
The result of this is that, as per normal in 21st century, we look to the media to give us information. Sadly, if ever the media actually gave a balanced view on anything, those days are gone.. long ago. So we are left with trawling through biased writings from sponsored journalists, or what people are actually believing from what they have heard/read on the various social media sites. These views, unless put forward by people who actually work for the relevant organisations will be just that, a view, similar to this series of blogs, and there is nothing wrong with that, as we live in a free world, where we can express our views without recrimination....except it appears we can't, as TEITBR is not something we can mention.. so we immediately get a distorted view.

So, more to save me repeating myself in various emails justifying my position, I came to write this. It is a series of blogs, explaining my viewpoint, with, hopefully a bunch of facts backing that up. No, there are little if any pretty pictures, graphs or other statistics to back this up, except in order to point out certain facts, and the sources will be declared. Yes, there will a few view points from me, based on personal experience, and also the facts as I see them. Some of these may be seen as 'distasteful' in the 21st Century, but they will be factual.
For each of the subsections below, there will be a link to the blog post that discusses in detail. All these, I feel should be 'put out there' as they are relevant to the final conclusion, and where we should be heading.

A Brief History of Europe (or why it is a dream to head for unity in Europe)

For the last 2000 years+ all countries in Europe have fought each other, whether for marital reasons, land, power, who knows.... but they have. The Romans were the last people to get a United States of Europe. The only clear period, to my knowledge, was during the reign of Queen Victoria, after the Napoleonic wars, when the major countries in Europe were building empires elsewhere, and killing themselves and local inhabitants, in far off lands.
The early 20th century was the proof that it cannot work. We do not get on. We all want to take over, and be the strongest nation. The spirit of co-operation, while it may work at the individual level, will never work at the country level. We just aren't built that way. History proves that. So why try?

What the EU was, is and is not now

There is a lot written on the growth of the current EU here, so is pointless restating that.  The EU came out of the EEC, (which in turn came out of the European Coal and Steel Community ), and was put together in 1951, to try and stop the constant battling, by getting people to trade. Britain was not a member, but did start EFTA as an 'optional' Free Trade Bloc, but still allowing the Commonwealth to exist, and the members to make their own customs arrangements. It was all about Free Trade , a good thing. The EEC, a group of 6 countries, that promoted free trade, or so we thought, had a hidden agenda that we were not aware of. The EEC then carried out that hidden agenda to become the EC and then the EU, the start of a plan to build a 'Superstate', under the auspicies of 'creating a competition bloc against USA/China/India.. or so we are sold (not a typo) by our politicians. It is now in the final stage of becoming that superstate, with monetary, political, legal, and military integration. Is this what we really want?

The 1975 Referendum, The Referendum Party, and the Campaign for June 23rd 2016 

The 1975 Referendum took place 2 years before I was of voting age, and was sold as a 'Free Trade Bloc' to the British public, and was actually after we had joined the EEC. So the referendum was on 'continuing membership' of the EEC. There was a little known or talked about fact, that there was sub-clause stating that members would move towards political, monetary and legal integration as well.
By 1994 it was apparent that this further integration was taking place. It was no longer only about free trade, but about the creation of a 'superstate'. Sir John Goldsmith formed, and financed the Referendum party to stand at the 1997 election on the ticket of only getting a referendum on our further continuation of the EU project. Their proposed referendum question was:

"Do you want the United Kingdom to be part of a federal Europe or do you want the United Kingdom to return to an association of sovereign nations that are part of a common trading market?"

They polled 810,860 votes, coming 4th, and representing 3% of the turnout. John Goldsmith died in July 1997, but his daughter, and other supporters continued the pressure on all governments since then, resulting in the final promise of a referendum, and the June 23rd 2016 vote.
The 2016 referendum campaign was a shocking display of lack of facts, and  complete avoidance of discussion from the very people who have been paid handsomely to give us this information... namely the MEPs . Lies and untruths given on all sides, in order to panic the electorate to vote one way or the other.  

What the Heck Just Happened?
Come June 24th the UK was in general shock. The Leave camp had assumed that Remain would win.. after a healthy fight. Remain camp had assumed they would win. The pundits assumed Remain would win, as did all the statisticians.
They were all wrong (me included ... fwiw).  The fallout has been immense. Everyone is playing the 'Blame' game. Our PM stood down, the opposition went into disarray, the leading politicians in the Leave camp hit out at each other, the old got blamed by the young, England got blamed by the Scottish, Armegeddon is descending on us, affecting our way of life, incomes , children, locusts are coming... OMG! .. well... that shows a nice rounded argument put forward by a group of people that believe Europe can act for the best interests of everyone doesn't it?   

 

Where do we go from here?

Well, its simple isn't it We can either ignore the result of the referendum, its not legally binding anyway, and carry on regardless, or we can actually do what Britain is brilliant at.... profit from it. Change the way we look at the world, make use of what we have, and become something that no other major sovereign nation has done before. Ideas on this blog... and some may say its cloud cuckoo land, but then ... we live in different times.

Is this the death of Democracy and Free Speech
It appears that a group of people with the funds, and the access to senior judges, have brought about a challenge to the government,, in an attempt to halt the process of leaving the EU. This is undemocratic. Surely they should spend their efforts in gaining traction to re-enter the EU after we have left. 
Aside from this undemocratic action, there have been more personal attacks on those that voted to leave. The author has lost more than a couple of 'friends' who no longer want to do business, or even talk, as he voted 'the wrong way'. That is their perogative.... however, it is a sad fact that friendships are lost, and business deals are lost, purely on a thought of how this country should exist. Weird!     

The Finances of the EU deals form a Uk perspective (a work in progress)
This is a breakdown of the financial aspects of the Uks membership of the EU. It is still a work in progress, but exposes the issues as to why the EU has turned out to be expensive from a Uk perspective.. this is also true for other member states, and has been largely hidden from the electorate.