Remain Alliance Implodes: Caroline Lucas Reveals Lib Dems Hate Brexiteers

Caroline Lucas in full flow – Picture: s-i.huffpost.com/

Questioned about the prospects of the so – called Remain Alliance in the imminent General Election, Green Party MP and former leader Caroline Lucas delivered a foul mouthed rant attacking Liberal Democrat leader and wee hag fra’ Fife, Jo Swinson, for her manifesto pledge to revoke Brexit if her party is elected to govern us. While speaking to a potential voter Ms Lucas criticised Jo Swinson for insisting that the Liberal Democrats would revoke Brexit if voted into power.

in an interview with UK news and gossip website Joe.co.uk, Ms Lucas was asked a rambling question on the early progress of the Remain Alliance campaign:

“The Liberal Democrats have been the biggest spenders on Facebook so far. I can understand that as [Ms Swinson ] is a new party leader, people don’t know her very well. So it is an opportunity to get her face out there and get her recognised. What do you think Caroline, how are they getting on so far?”

Caroline Lucas replied: “The position of revoking Brexit as a manifesto pledge, at that point I just felt that this is taking party interest above national interest to such an “unforgivable degree. To be honest, if you wanted to send a message to 17.4 million people that you don’t give a f*** about what they voted for, why don’t you just say so?”

Despite the outburst by the respected and popular Green Party MP, viewers of the video were not quick to criticise Lucas.

One Twitter user said: “If that is the case, Caroline, the Greens should break out of the Remain pact with Plaid and the Liberal Democrats and stand in competition against Swinson.

After all, the pact is only a Lib Dem power trip and Caroline Lucas has been totally honest.”

That comment will resonate with many voters who in the referendum supported Remain; they are aware their side lost but claim Leave voters did not understand what they were voting for and have campaigned for another referendum. While Boggart Blog does not agree, having always taken the line that the EU is an undemocratic political organisation committed to establishing a bureaucratic dictatorship in Europe. In 2016 the nation voted by a narrow majority to Leave the EU. It is reasonable for people who voted remain to campaign for ANOTHER VOTE, but utterly unreasonable and hypocritical for the Liberal Democrats to announce that in the (extremely unlikely,) event of their winning a majority in the General Election they would simply ignore that Leave voting majority and cancel Brexit is illiberal and undemocratic.

The Liberal Democrats ceased to have anything in common with the Liberal Party of Lloyd George and Gladstone long ago, but under Jo Swinson they appear to have more in common with Hitler’s National Socialists or Mussolini’s Fascists than with the Liberal Party under any of its leaders.

MORE ON BREXIT

Illiberal Undemocrats Now Hate Catholics As Well As White People, Britain & Heterosexuals

Don’t Pannick, Captain Johnson, Don’t Pannick

EU Brexit organiser & former Chief Phlegm Guy Verhofshit rants about Empires again

Court Overturns Fine Imposed By Biased Electoral Commission On Brexit Supporter.
A large fine imposed by a kangaroo court under the auspices of the UK’s democracy watchdog (allegedly,) The Electoral Commission, on a young, working-class Brexit campaign organiser, Darren Grimes, has been overturned in the law courts. The case, which many Remain campaigners have used in their efforts to discredit and overturn the result of the 2016 referendum on EU membership.

How Much Does The UK Actually Send To The EU

Big kerfuffle this week over Conservative leadership contender Boris Johnson facing trial for his claim, during the EU Referendum campaign, that Britain sends £350million a week to Brussels. Originally the Remainers claimed somebody in the Leave camp had said all the money would go to the NHS. Nobody actually said that but if fanatics want something to be true, they can easily convince themselves it is.

The claim is in fact true but misleading. If the amount paid into the EU budget is taken, then it is close to £350million a week. Our net contribution (i.e. after the amount paid by the EU to fund various EU supported projects means the net amount we contribute to the EU is somewhat less. However that £350million is not the full story:

 

Little Donny Tusk The Polish Has-Been Tells Britain How To Vote.

Donald Tusk, who is the President of the European Council and was the centre-right Europhile Prime Minister of Poland from 2007 to 2014 made the remarks in support of his former Deputy Prime Minister, Anglo-Pole Jan-Vincent Rostowski who is standing as a Change UK candidate in London for Thursday’s election.

Farage Shredded By Welsh Ministry Of Truth Newsman?
An obscure far – left website https://inktank.fi reported that while campaigning for the European Parliament elections in Wales, Nigel Farage was confronted by a BBC Wales reporter, Arwyn Jones, who asked him a question about Brexit, which you’d expect would be easy to answer: Farage didn’t answer, how could anyone answer such a stupid question posed by an idiotic reporter working for an ogranisation tasked by The Fourth Reich’s ruling bureaucracy in Brussels and their puppets in Westminster with presenting pro – EU propaganda as news …

Farage Says New Brexit Party Will Spark “A Political Revolution” And Terrify The Tories

Nigel Farage, who led the successful Brexit campaign, warned backsliding elitist politicians on Tuesday that his brexit Party would spark a political “revolution” – a cliched line but appropriate given the mood of the country – and strike fear into the hearts of ineffectual Tories who have so far failed to deliver on the promise of the Brexit referendum if the UK is forced to contest EU Parliament elections as part of Prime Minister Theresa May’s, the Sun newspaper reports … MORE>>> .

There are sheeple who want to remain in the EU at any price, and then there are people who understand the EU
I am not sure people really are up for reading EU related documents or a whole load more people would be less excited about the EU. If people read the chequers plan and the political declaration they would know the only people who leave the EU are the financial sector. Everyone else stays in without a vote or veto for two years whilst we negotiate the long term deal…

The Daily Stirrer
Climate Lies Composite

Leavers Decry Boris’ Deal But RemainersAre Panicking

 

As Britain gears up for a General Election on December 12, accusations fly from both sides in the Brexit debate about Boris Johnson’s deal.

“It’s a betrayal, not really Brexit, it will leave us still subject to EU laws and trade regulations,” Leave supporters say.

“It will trash our economy, destroy the value of the pound, cause massive increases in unemployment and leave us politically isolated in a hostile world,” say the people who for three years have tried all sorts of stunts to thwart Brexit.

So where does that put the majority of us who voted Leave on the basis of a considered review of evidence rather than some ideological agenda?

No, you can’t always get what you want
aaaah
No, you can’t always get what you want
aaaah
But if you try sometime, you just might find
You get what you need

So sang the rolling stones more years ago than I care to remember. It was good advice that I, as a Leave voter who voted LEAVE (in capital letters), not leave with a dodgy deal, leave but stay in a customs union and subject to EU laws and certainly not “think about leaving and then decide to have another referendum,.” after my experience of working for the EU I wanted a clean break.

But I was under no illusions, you can’t always get what you want annd knowing the political and legal establishment, the media, much of the business community and academe were rabidly pro EU and all that it stands for it would have been unreasonable to expect we’d get clean away.
The EU did not want to let us go, our own political parties and opinion makers were hopelessly divided and gave no leadership, .and when the Conservative Party backroom deal makers shoehorned Theresa May into Downing Street I almost plunged into despair.

Boris’ deal is not great, there are some strings attached that may be hard to break, but unlike the Leavers who are claiming it is a betrayal or it is the same as May’s deal, I’m willing to give him a chance.He called the EU’s bluff and managed to convince them he was serious enough about No Deal to make them reopen May’s surrender treaty and not only secure some concessions but also open a few gates to amending the terms of our relationship with the EU later.

And we have dates at which various states of the transition will be completed.

So let’s not fool ourselves that a ‘no deal’ exit would have meant totally in the EU one.day, totally out the next, that was never going to happen just as when two commercial organisations merge they do not become a new organisation overnight.

I did not get what I wanted, but given that Boris and his team have rescued us from May’s awful deal, I’ll settle for what is on offer for the present and keep working to expose the EU for the Cultural Marxist project it is, hoping that in some small way I can influence our politicians to progressively increase the distance between London and Brussels and encourage voters in other EU states to step up the pushback agains the EU Commission’s imperal ambitions.

After all it might be what we need to strike a bow at the foundations of the European project to create a federal superstate from Europe;s sovereign nations.

MORE on Brexit
Europe Unglues

Amusing Poll On Brexit Preferences

Mike Shedlock of Mishtalk website is an insightful and emtertaining analyst of courrent events and financial affairs whose work we have featured here before.

Today Mike has published an amusing analysis of the current state of Brexit, which, it appears, shows that while everybody knows what they don’t want (Theresa May’s deal,) theres is no majority for any of the alternatives. So in blocking no deal this week, Chlorinated Corbyn’s Labour Party, The Lib Dems (the invertibrate party,) the SNP and Remain supporters in the Conservative Party have effectively blocked any deal, because while the EU know we can’t leave without a deal, they are not going to offer any deal except the one dictated by EU officials to May’s negotiating team.

Authored by Mike Shedlock via MishTalk,

There is still no majority support for anything. Some will never be happy no matter what happens.

YouGov asked UK citizens what Brexit options they preferred that were “realistically possible”.

FIND OUT WHAT THEY SAID HERE

MORE ON BREXIT

The Daily Stirrer

 

 

Chloinated Corbyn & Co Are Shafting The Electorate

Boris Johnson calls Jeremy Corbyn a chlorinated chicken after the Labour leader ducks an election. (Picture: Metro )

Let’s face facts; Corbyn and the rest of the Remain crew in Parliament, Labour, SNP and Lib Dem MPs, are trying to shaft the electorate by overturning the result of a democratic vote and preventing us leaving the European Union as it careers towards the long term goal of the bureaucratic dictatorship that runs the organisation, by turning itself into a pan – European empire, effectively a Fourth Reich.

What triggered Johnson’s insult was Corbyn and his party of cowards after voting down the government’s  propsals to prepare for leaving the EU “without a deal,” the Labour leaders then instructed his party to abstain on a vote to dissolve parliament and hold a General Election. Thus Corbyn became the first opposition leader in the history of British politics to refuse the chance to beat the government in an election. Labour also chickened out of calling for a vote of no confidence to force the government to resign.  The far left party’s positions on Brexit and immigration and their decades long flirtation with anti – Semitism and support for Islamic extremist groups has made the party highly unpopular with working class voters in the core constituencies of the industrial areas. While ducking an election which Labour would almost certainly lose is understandable, Boris has actually painted Corbyn into a corner.

Ducking a fight will almost certainly backfire on Labour when the inevitable election is held.

The people of the UK voted in a democratic process to leave the EU (what is known now as No Deal). We have been told ad nauseum by politicians who wanted to keep us in the corrupt, failing organisation known as the European Union, that we did not know what we were voting for. That is blatantly untrue, nobody I have ever heard or seen speaking or writing in support of the EU referred to “only leaving with a deal,” staying in a customs union (and thus continuing to accept EU law as superior to UK law,) or delaying our leaving indefinitely until a solution to the (entirely imaginary,) Irish border question is resolved. Neither did any of those Leave supporters claim leaving would not cause significant economic and social upheaval. But faced with the prospect of leaving or seeing our nation surrender more and more sovereignty to an authoritarian committee of unelected bureaucrats, we felt the possible difficulties were worth enduring.

The only possible area of dispute here is whether or not the people knew that they were voting for no-deal. And they did. Of course they did. We had a leaflet campaign. This adressed what “leave” meant. The leaflet even took the liberty of advising us how to vote. Vote “remain” is what it advised.

On top of that we had the political campaigns. We had the USA’s cocksucker president Barack Obama lecture us on our duty to advance the causees of globalism and neoliberalism. The BBC ensured that we knew what a Leave vote meant: disaster, catastrophe, death , destruction, economic collapse, mass unemployment, a apate of biblical placgues and more television shows fronted by Prof. Brian Cox. And even the prospective horror of the latter did not put us off voting Leave.

Some time ago last year, I predicted that Parliament would attempt to outlaw a no-deal Brexit (known as Hard Brexit at that stage). I predicted that they would hold try to force another referendum offering the choices Remain, leave with a deal or leave with a customs union. and hope voters were too stupid to notice the absence of their original choice of simply voting to leave, from the first referendum. And as has happened so many times when I have forecast a course of events or an outcome only to be called a conspiracy theorist or a crazy right wing extremist I have been proved broadly correct again.

The result of the 2016 referendum was to Leave The European Union This was rebranded as Brexit which was then split into hard and soft. Hard Brexit was rebranded as No Deal. And now an unholy alliance of Socialist, Liberals, Nationalists and Save-the-two-toed-toad cranks have conspired to ensure that what we voted for, simply to LEAVE, no strings attached, is off the menu.

Well the political, academic and media classes couldn’t let that stand could they, after all, as they have never tired of pointing out, the Leave campaign lied to us (they did, so did the Remain campaign, that is the nature of political campaigns. But while the main lie Remainers have fussed about has now been shown in a court of law to have been not a lie but merely a statement that while true lacked clarity, there also seems some confusion on the facts among Remainers. Nobody ever said that all the £350 million (approx) the UK sends to Brussels would go to the National Health Service, merely that some of it would be available to fund the NHS.

In fact the £350 million is a gross amount, so while Remain supporters tried to claim citing that amount was a lie, it was technically true. A significant amounto of that money comes back to us to pay for EU funded projects, but it has more strings attached than a puppet show. Most people who voted Leave were aware of that, most Remain supporters apparently were not.

As evidence that “the people don’t know what they voted for” media commentators like to cite alleged assurances made by the leave campaign that a deal would be easy. I’d like to remind those people that a Withdrawal Agreement and any future “deal” are two separate things. The Withdrawal Agreement should have been easy and would have been had the EU not insisted on imposing many unacceptable conditions on UK negotiators before they would allow negotiations to begin

EU policy is that on a nation triggering Article 50, negotiations would begin. But it also defied its policy in a very subtle but effective manner by demanding first a “divorce” settlement before negotiations could begin.

But again, the withdrawal agreement is not a trade deal. The trade deal cannot be negotiated whilst the UK is an EU member.

Another point which a surprising number of Remainers do not seem aware of: We cannot negotiate a trade deal with the EU until we have left. That’s the policy of the EU. The UK cannot negotiate a trade deal whilst a member of the EU. Seperate thing. The links you’ve sent are about trade deals.

The withdrawal agreement is a whole other topic. The default is No Deal. Very simple. Those who voted, voted for No Deal. This is the default. We cannot negotiate a deal until we’ve left.

The withdrawal agreement is an attempt to smooth over the No Deal process. It’s a bonus. Something the soft – handed pen pushers and back room deal makers have had three years to sort out. In the withdrawal terms and conditions forced on the negotiating team of Theresa May’s government, and which that government did little to resist, the EU inserted a non – negotiable clause that would tie the UK to the Customs Union. unless te UK was prepared to cede Northern Ireland to The Republic. In doing that, the EU would tie the UK to the law that states that it can’t negotiate trade deals whilst a member of the EU.”

So the so – called Withdrawal Agreement is not a Withdrawal Agreement, it is a surrender document and the traitors who signed it were prepared to turn the UK from an equal member of the EU, along with 27 other participating nations, into a vassal state, subject to EU law and political policies but with not input into shaping those laws or policies.

And Remain supporters think that is an acceptable state of affairs, the snivelling little shit – eaters.

MORE ON BREXIT:
Index of Brexit Posts

Macron nightmare as production plummets in France in threat to euro
British MEP Reveals Undemocratic EU Stitch Up Of Top Jobs

Court Overturns Fine Imposed By Biased Electoral Commission On Brexit Supporter.

A large fine imposed by a kangaroo court under the auspices of the UK’s democracy watchdog (allegedly,) The Electoral Commission,  on a young, working-class Brexit campaign organiser, Darren Grimes, has been overturned in the law courts. The case, which many Remain campaigners have used in their efforts to discredit and overturn the result of the 2016 referendum on EU membership.

Darren Grimes (picture source: bbci.co.uk/)

The Electoral Commission is a supposedly impartial watchdog which has been criticised by Brexit supporters and Conservative campaigners for showing political bias both in the referendum and in cases arising from parliamentary and regional elections, is made up exclusively of pro – EU bureaucrats and former politicians. It’s judicial panel hit Grimes with the maximum individual fine of £20,000 although he is a student whose only income apart from his local authority grant is from a part-time job in a shop. His offence, apart from opposing the official narrative that sovereignty is an anachronism and all government power should be handed to supra national bodies made up of unelected bureaucrats, was based on accusations his youth-focused BeLeave group had been used as a conduit for the transfer of funds to the official ‘Vote Leave’ campaign, enabling it to exceed its spending limits.

After a cursory investigation of the allegations, the The Electoral Commission claimed that Grimes had exceeded BeLeave’s spending limits and wrongly reported them. For this he was reported to London’s Politically Correct Thought Police as well as imposing the excessive fine.

Grimes was adamant the judgement was incorrect and launched an appeal financed by crowdfunding, claiming that evidence had been ignored and his punishment was unjust as well as excessive. His legal fund was swelled by many contributions from individuals who supported Brexit. The arrogant elitists of the Electoral Commission went into overdrive in a bid to destroy an ordinary man for having the audacity to challenge them and proceeded to throw hundreds of thousands of pounds in taxpayer cash into railroading the court to uphold its fine and impose further penalties on Grimes .

The watchdog’s high powered legal team were unsuccessful however, with the County Court completely overturning the Electoral Commission’s fine after examining ALL the evidence in the case, concluding the verdict had been based on an extreme interpretation of a trivial human error.

“I am delighted and relieved that the Court has found me innocent,” Daren told the Guido Fawkes political blog after the verdict was announced, saying the case had “taken a huge toll on myself and my family”.

“The Electoral Commission’s case was based on an incorrectly ticked box on an application form – something that it had been aware of for over two years and had not been raised in two previous investigations,” he said.

“Yet the Commission still saw fit to issue an excessive fine and to spend almost half a million in taxpayer cash pursuing me through the courts… Today’s verdict is a victory against the Remain Establishment which has done all it can to try and discredit the biggest electoral victory in this country’s history,” he added.

“The powerful vested interests in this country don’t like the idea of the people taking back control… There has been a well- funded, coordinated campaign against me and those that have stood up to the Remain Establishment. Well today they have lost.”

N.B. had Guido not broken the story we would not have known of it as, predictably, it was totally blanked by mainstream media.

RELATED POSTS:
div align=”center” style=”border:solid; width: 80%; padding-left:2%;height: 600px; overflow: scroll; color: #000080;background: #CCFFCC;border-left: 2px #000080;border-right: 2px #000080;border-top: 2px #000080;border-bottom: 2px #000080;”>

How Much Does The UK Actually Send To The EU

Big kerfuffle this week over Conservative leadership contender Boris Johnson facing trial for his claim, during the EU Referendum campaign, that Britain sends £350million a week to Brussels. Originally the Remainers claimed somebody in the Leave camp had said all the money would go to the NHS. Nobody actually said that but if fanatics want something to be true, they can easily convince themselves it is.

The claim is in fact true but misleading. If the amount paid into the EU budget is taken, then it is close to £350million a week. Our net contribution (i.e. after the amount paid by the EU to fund various EU supported projects means the net amount we contribute to the EU is somewhat less. However that £350million is not the full story:

Little Donny Tusk The Polish Has-Been Tells Britain How To Vote.
Donald Tusk, who is the President of the European Council and was the centre-right Europhile Prime Minister of Poland from 2007 to 2014 made the remarks in support of his former Deputy Prime Minister, Anglo-Pole Jan-Vincent Rostowski who is standing as a Change UK candidate in London for Thursday’s election.

Farage Shredded By Welsh Ministry Of Truth Newsman?
An obscure far – left website https://inktank.fi reported that while campaigning for the European Parliament elections in Wales, Nigel Farage was confronted by a BBC Wales reporter, Arwyn Jones, who asked him a question about Brexit, which you’d expect would be easy to answer: Farage didn’t answer, how could anyone answer such a stupid question posed by an idiotic reporter working for an ogranisation tasked by The Fourth Reich’s ruling bureaucracy in Brussels and their puppets in Westminster with presenting pro – EU propaganda as news …

Farage Says New Brexit Party Will Spark “A Political Revolution” And Terrify The Tories

Nigel Farage, who led the successful Brexit campaign, warned backsliding elitist politicians on Tuesday that his Brexit Party would spark a political “revolution” – a cliched line but appropriate given the mood of the country – and strike fear into the hearts of ineffectual Tories who have so far failed to deliver on the promise of the Brexit referendum if the UK is forced to contest EU Parliament elections as part of Prime Minister Theresa May’s, the Sun newspaper reports … MORE>>> .

There are sheeple who want to remain in the EU at any price, and then there are people who understand the EU
I am not sure people really are up for reading EU related documents or a whole load more people would be less excited about the EU. If people read the chequers plan and the political declaration they would know the only people who leave the EU are the financial sector. Everyone else stays in without a vote or veto for two years whilst we negotiate the long term deal…

Farage Says New Brexit Party Will Spark “A Political Revolution” And Terrify The Tories

Nigel Farage, who led the successful Brexit campaign, warned backsliding elitist politicians on Tuesday that his brexit Party would spark a political “revolution” – a cliched line but appropriate given the mood of the country – and strike fear into the hearts of ineffectual Tories who have so far failed to deliver on the promise of the Brexit referendum if the UK is forced to contest EU Parliament elections as part of Prime Minister Theresa May’s, the Sun newspaper reports … MORE>>> .

Europe

More on France

Latest posts

Farage Shredded By Welsh Ministry Of Truth Newsman?

Under the headline:

Welsh TV reporter shredding Nigel Farage is the best interview you’ll watch today

An obscure far – left website https://inktank.fi reported that while campaigning for the European Parliament elections  in Wales, Nigel Farage was confronted by a BBC Wales reporter, Arwyn Jones, who asked him a question about Brexit, which you’d expect would be easy to answer:

A video clip of the exchange is going slightly viral on far – left, anto democracy sites such as Facebook and Twitter, with opponents of Brexit claiming Farage was ‘shredded’ by the reporter because he could not answer the question, “Can you name one WTO member nation that does not have a trade deal?

Of course Farage didn’t answer, how could anyone answer such a stupid question posed by an idiotic reporter working for an ogranisation tasked by The Fourth Reich’s ruling bureaucracy in Brussels and their puppets in Westminster  with presenting pro – EU propaganda as news. A quick count suggests the WTO has 170 member (give or take a few to allow for counting errors on my part, many of which are island nations with very small population and some of which few of us have ever heard. Eswatini anyone? Apparently, according to the WTO membership list, Eswatini is a WTO member.

(What? No I hadn’t heard of it either until I looked up the list of WTO members.)
Who knows if Eswatini has a trade deal? Who cares?

And who knew Tonga, (pop 100,000 spread across 36 islands) does not have a trade deal with anybody, not even nearby (well less than 1000 miles away) New Zealand, mainly because the Tongan economy is largely non – monetary. Their main sources of foreign exchange are payments from Britain, Australia and New Zealand, a small tourist industry (only the most intrepid would tracel so far to a place with so little to offer,) and remittances to family members from Tongans working overseas. They have no exports.

I only know this because I am at home on my computer with Wikipedia and Britannica Online at my fingertips. Almost every nation on the planet is now a member of the WTO, why would anyone know off the cuff the foreign trade policies of all of them. What is worthy of note is that no EU member states have trade deals either with each other, non EU trading partners or indeed the EU itself. They are bound by EU rules but those do not constitute a trade deal, free or otherwise. The EU itself is a member of the WTO and as its rules demand that member states surrender political sovereignty over trade policy to Brussels, not only the UK, but Germany, France, Italy, Spain, Poland, Netherlands and the rest of the member states cannot have any independent trade deals

But the item is reassuring in a way. If the Remainers are so far up shit creek with their efforts to get the Referendum overturned or Article 50 revoked they are celebrating imbecility, there’s hope for Brexit yet.

MORE ON BREXIT
The Daily Stirrer

Stupid Remainer Snobs

In the comment thread on a crisis in the Conservative Party because of Theresa May’s inept handling of the Brexit process I came across this exchange of comments, which I think illustrates perfectly why supporters of Britain’s annexation by The Fourth Reich have behaved so obnoxiously towards those of us who informed ourselves of how the EU works , its long and short term policies and its contempt for democracy shown in responses to previous referendums in member states that have not gone te way the EU demanded. Read the original article HERE

Then look at the articulate and well thought out comment by Sally Bettis and the nasty, mean spirited response from a Remain supporter. 

Sally Bettis 7 Apr 2019 2:21PM

Most of the remainer posts on here are positively dripping with the superior, high minded condescension the referendum winners have largely come to expect from hugely embittered referendum losers unable to stomach democracy unless it agrees with their point of view.

They perfectly exemplify the arrogance of the liberal left establishment and EU Bureaucrat elite – the EU has been failing it’s citizens for decades, all the way back to the hugely misconceived project of monetary union. It’s citizens have legitimate reasons to think the EU has been failing, not just on immigration and monetary union, but on its security policy and its policy towards radical islam to.

Look at the situation in Germany today where Merkel tells us that multiculturalism is going well and we just need to change our attitudes – but look at what the consequences have already been of throwing open the gates and embarking on a process of integration which seems to have almost no chance of success. Look at how unsuccessful Northern Europe was in admitting asylum seekers in the 1990’s on a much smaller scale. The unemployment differential between the native born and foreign born in Northern Europe was enormous even before the latest wave of migrations.

Monetary union has been a disaster for all the reasons most US economists and many of us said it would be (but not most UK economists/’experts’, who said it would be a disaster if we did’t join!).

European Security policy with respect to North Africa and the Middle East has been disaster too.

On the migration issue and radical islam issues the EU leadership has got it fundamentally wrong.

The EU elite’s performance over the last two decades has entirely justified the revolt of provincial UK – that was what we saw with Brexit and if the liberal establishment had spent a little time in provincial communities they would have heard this. Provincial UK said you’re arguing that this is all about GDP – it is not, it is about who governs us being democratically elected and being able to make our own laws and control our own borders.

In the midst of all this there has been an endless post mortem on what Cameron got wrong. What he got wrong was not to call the referendum, but when the EU leadership made a totally pathetic, risible offer to him which essentially meant nothing in terms of immigration control; he should have said “sorry that’s not good enough, I’m going to back Brexit” that was the great mistake of his political career and cost him another 10 years in Downing Street.

Flag

5LikeReply

Helen Smith 7 Apr 2019 2:23PM

Well cut and pasted. Skills x

Flag

3LikeReply

Sally Bettis 7 Apr 2019 2:25PM

@Helen Smith All my own work !  Like Brexit you’re going to have to grow a backbone and suck it up !

Flag

3LikeReply

Ian R Thorpe 7 Apr 2019 2:33PM

@Sally Bettis @Helen Smith Have a little generosity of sprit Sally, you should thank Helen for proving the absolute truth of you opening paragraph. I often get the same kind of responses from Remainers to my reasoned arguments in favour of leaving the EU because … well sombody who supported ‘Leave’ could not possibly be capable of stringing a few words together could they? 🙂
All of which serves to harden my conviction that leaving the EU is the only sane course of action. BTW great comment.

Some Questions And Answers On Brexit From Quora

Most questions posed on Quora are posted anonymously, then you see the quality of the questions you will understand why. In this selection on the Brexit topic from the site it is clear that while Remain supporters accuse Brexit supporters of being ignorant, xenophobic, ignorant oiks who are incapable of understanding the issues, most questions on Brexit are clearly posed by Remain supporting trolls and the articulate, reasoned arguments offered in response are from Leave supporters. Draw your own conclusions.

How much more evidence do brexit enthusiasts need to see before they admit it is severely damaging the UK economy?

We are now seeing the services sector contract as well as manufacturing & construction. (See link) It hasn’t even happened yet!

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-47127927

John Gleeson

Answered Feb 5

Most know there will be a hit to the economy and periods of turbulence.

Whenever you change the status quo, that will happen.

But they understand a few profoundly important things remainers don’t seem to be able to grasp or care about.

One is that certain principles, such as our democratic system giving us more control of our lives via the democratic vote than is offered by the EU model is worth the price of leaving in order to preserve it. Particularly when the globalist trend is towards being ever more tightly controlled by the financiers and bankers and technocrats for whom democracy is simply a troublesome thorn in their side.

Two, they understand that there are two major economies in this world. The main one, ran by a small group of wealthy-beyond-imagination banking and finance cartels and heads of big business, dwarfs the scant economy for the rest of the world’s population, the one where a few percentage growth points, bull markets and gdp do not factor and do not trickle down for the most part. See the graph for the transfer of wealth from the middle-class to the mega-rich rulers of the world, the 1% dynasties.

They know the ‘economy’ spoken about in such doomday terms is the economy for the 1% but deceitfully sold to us as being about us and our jobs, the parasitic economy where they cream of the vast majority of profits they make from the workers in the other ‘wage slave’ economy, those who have to put up with austerity measures, high taxes, high cost of living, stagnant wages well behind the rate inflation.

They recognize the difference. The market speculators and investors will have a reaction, there will be a fall out, and they are in panic mode (and have managed to whip up half the country into a panic through their propaganda). Inward foreign investment might stall here and there for a while, but that it will be replaced

In time, as life and trade and building new international agreements and aliances across the globe carry on as normal, there will be new deals and investments, new economic growth engines, and we’ll be a free nation on top of that to make decisions that benefit us.

Did you not watch the program on BBC2 last night about the EU, specifically the Eurozone crisis in Greece? The bailing out of that economy, and how it’s still in a dire state, like many economies in the EU, and how it’s the everyday people of Europe who have to pay the costs through taxes, austerity and such?

A rare factual, warts and all look at the EU as it is, an elite political project built on ideological sand and the central banking pyramid scheme.

That’s what the financiers and mega-rich do. Takes the risks by speculating on the markets, fund borrowing so as to debt enslave entire nations like they did in Greece, and then make all of us foot the bill when it goes wrong, while they still make trillions on the money they loan out. And politicians are in the pocket. In fact the EU was set up for their purposes, not for the rest of us.

We did the right thing to stay out of the Eurozone, when many remainers would have forced us into it.

We did the right thing for the long-term getting out of organization we only ever had very limited power to do anything in, and which will forever be putting its own aims above the people.

If the Brexit turns out to be Armageddon for Britain, what’s your backup plan?

Adrian Patterson, lives in The United Kingdom

Answered Feb 2 · Upvoted by Tony Jackson, lives in The United Kingdom (1981-present)

I’m watching the German justice minister on BBC Breakfast who has UK/German dual nationality. Katarina Varley.

Here’s the EU negotiating position.

Please tell us what you want, because you are the people leaving. This is all your fault.

Britain puts forward a position. Technology away from the border.

The EU: No, you can’t have that. We have always been clear about our “freedoms”.

Conclusion from the EU: Britain’s position is confused and has no plan.

Conclusion from Naga Muchetty interviewing Varley, “Just what is the UK’s position?” Thanks for confirming the EUs propaganda position.

OK, that’s an aside. I work for an organisation that is global. It employs people who communicate across continents, in countries such as the US, India, the UK and China. Information and cash is transferred around the globe in milliseconds. The organisation is HQ’d outside the EU- it could be HQ’d anywhere.

Where does the EU fit into all this? It doesn’t. It’s an irrelevance. Trading blocs, tariffs are irrelevant. Yes, we’re regulated but we’re regulated in some way in every market we operate in. Money moves to the places that have the least burdensome regulations but which protect trade.

So Brexit (and the EU) is an irrelevance in the scheme of things. Does it create disruption? Yes, in the short term. People are focusing on the equivalent of what happens in the aftermath of a divorce. To begin with there is confusion. Life goes on.

Why should there be Armageddon? What are You saying? Every divorce ends up in the kids being butchered?

If British people want “Brexit” so badly, then why did they agree to join the E.U. in the first place?

Ed Holmes, Electronics Engineer

Updated Jan 20 · Upvoted by James Kirk, PHD Politics of the United Kingdom, University of Oxford (2010) and Leigh Jones, lives in The United Kingdom (1982-present)

OK bear with me for a minute. To answer this you need to know why the working class and lower middle class voted for leave and it goes like this:

Leaving was fairly directly a consequence of our country’s neoliberal economic model. Generally it goes like this:

1. Feminism basically doubled the workforce. Supply and demand for jobs meant that overall wages stagnated. Corporations made more money selling the same goods at the same prices but were paying less for labour. This was noted.
2. Globalism widened up the markets, made it easier to sell to much larger audiences. These big worldwide markets made juicy tempting targets for the corporate interests.
3. Unfortunately British wages were still pretty high compared to those in the rest of the global markets which put our corporations at somewhat of a disadvantage. Some dealt with this by outsourcing manufacturing to low wage countries like China, decent wage jobs for the working class started drying up because these jobs were most easily outsourced.
4. Fertility rates decreased due to more people struggling financially and more women spending their most fertile periods studying or climbing career ladders only to have much smaller families.
5. The population started ageing and the pool of workers started to drop. This would have led to a smaller working population and eventually rising wages. Can’t have that. Pressure was applied to open the country up to immigration. Initially to the other developed EU countries which had little effect on anything except helping jobs that required unusual skill sets find people, immigration wasn’t especially fast and had a decent mix of people from different economic levels as there was no massive driving force in either direction immigration wise. People mostly enjoyed this immigration.
6. This didn’t play into the benefits of the aforementioned corporate interests so they pushed for the government to widen it further. Cue the Eastern European countries being given EU membership and open borders.
7. Suddenly we have a whole influx of massive numbers of people from poorer countries able to come to the UK, compete for the low wage jobs (pushing wages down a bit further and satisfying those corporate interests who are now more competitive globally) but coming so quickly they formed their own areas where English was a second language and working class people in the affordable areas these people moved into started being displaced and feeling like they were being replaced.
8. To compound this, the government had basically thrown open the door to non-EU countries as well, basically deciding to allow easy immigration and turn a blind eye to illegal immigration leading to a large influx of people from REALLY poor countries like Somalia.
9. Many of the young men from these places having come from incredibly deprived areas where things are very dog-eat-dog were, by the nature of things, tougher and more aggressive than most of our criminal underclass. They brought the savage survival mentality to London gang cultur,e and stabbings/ knifecrime sky rocketed. This might have been containable but at the same time the government has been defunding the police massively, leaving no resource to prevent this escalating.
10. As countries like China developed they started having a larger skill base than before while retaining lower wages than the UK. This allowed UK companies to outsource more skilled jobs abroad. This further ate into working class and lower middle class incomes.
11. Foreign investment in the UK real estate industry was opened up and allowed to go largely unregulated. This led to massive amounts of UK property being bought up by (particularly Chinese for some reason) foreign interests and was driving prices up massively.
12. The UK public made noise several times about this being unacceptable and the government kept trying to placate the public by noisily going and negotiating with the EU. Unfortunately they didn’t really care about the working and lower middle class so they instead negotiated a bunch of special exemptions in EU rules that did almost nothing for anybody but the rich globalist types who we have already ascertained are the driving force behind much of our government’s decisions.
13. The UK public kept being fed a “Oh we would do something about the fact you are all getting poorer, and can’t afford homes, and crime is (while dropping overall) getting scarily violent when it does occur … But the nasty no-fun people in Brussels keep stopping us. Woe.”
14. Big spate of terror attacks, people getting blown up, shot, run-over, all over Europe. Largely due to the unrest in the Middle East in part thanks to the economic colonialism of the West’s leaders in support of our corporations best interests.

People have been on dropping (real-terms) incomes for decades and can no longer afford to have the basics. We have shocking amounts of people dying over winter from not affording heating for instance. We can’t afford to have families because both prospective parents need to work to make ends meet and by the time they are economically stable the woman’s fertility is declining and a small family is all that is possible. Depression and suicides are at hideous rates.

Our government likes to not do anything about it because it supports neoliberal economics and sees the UK’s success represented by it’s GDP. The British People are effectively only important in so far as they are useful resources for the corporate interests who have all the influence in the parliament. Maintaining low wages with our decently skilled workforce makes those corporate interests more relevant and competitive on the world stage (many of our skilled professions enjoy wages about half those in Germany and about a third of those in the US).

The government likes to then blame the EU for not doing anything about it despite that being patently false, and expects the UK population to simply take this or be placated with promises about welfare when most Brits HATE the idea of living on handouts. (Except the NHS which we are very proud of.) Both labour and the conservatives are steadily eroding funding and privatising while blaming the extra load caused by immigration for it’s slow decay because they are trying to make us lose faith in it so they can sell it off and go to an American model). Effectively, the UK Government likes to treat the UK population as a bunch of mugs and while most can’t tell exactly what is happening they aren’t fooled who’s fault it is.

Brexit was offered as a way to placate the masses because the conservatives thought it could never lose the referendum (because it really does not make sense to leave the EU) but underestimated how many people (particularly the most suffering working class and lower middle class) would seize the chance to throw the whole board over because any chance at escaping the hopeless downward spiral they are caught in is worth seizing. They were offered a blind jump into the unknown or the status quo that was strangling them.

So they jumped.

It’s not about the EU. It’s not about race or religion. It’s not really about immigration as nobody gave a damn when it wasn’t a flood of people moving into all the houses our middle class could no longer afford … It’s about the average person not able to live the life their parents could. Of being told “everything is OK” and “look how well the economy is doing!” while life gets harder year after year after year.

Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. When the average Brit does not have to worry about food, shelter, water, and supporting their family … They can focus on higher things and they (by and large) voted remain.

There is a whole lot of surface level factors to the leave vote and none of them would matter if the bottom half of the population wasn’t getting poorer. People are becoming suspicious and reactionary because they are becoming desperate. They can’t afford to be forgiving and welcoming anymore because they don’t have the margin left to absorb any more hits.

So! Finally bringing this back to your question. None of the above was relevant when Britain joined the EU. While wages had started to stagnate it had not had time to really bite. We had a strong middle and working class, decent incomes and people were hopeful and welcoming. The economy wasn’t doing too great but that’s why all the above has been implemented. All of which has been eroded away by the above economic factors over time.

Hope that answers your question.

Why do some Brexiteers think that everything will remain (mostly) unchanged after hard Brexit? Do you really think that the EU will trade and collaborate with the UK on the same terms even after no deal?

Barney Lane, Pro-Europe, Pro-Brexit

Answered Jan 7 · Upvoted by Tony Jackson, lives in The United Kingdom (1981-present) and David Hurst, lives in The United Kingdom (1953-present)

There was a very interesting piece by leading economist Roger Bootle today in today’s Telegraph.[1] I recommend a read if you have a subscription. For those that don’t, I’ll briefly summarise his main points. Please bear with the off-topic reference to the Euro. It has a point, which will become clear if you read on.

• The Euro, which has been a disaster, was seen by the European elites as a part of the political project of integration, leading eventually to a federal European state
• Although the primary motive for forming the euro was political, before its formation, key European leaders thought a single currency would have major economic benefits. They believed it would bring significant gains through a reduction in transactions costs and uncertainty
• In fact, the Euro currency has been a guarantee of structural domination by Germany and the subjugation of debt-ridden smaller economies on the periphery
• Euro supporters greatly overestimated the gains from reducing transactions costs and uncertainty about currency values. In the modern world, companies are readily able to deal with such costs and uncertainties. The gains from monetary union have been tiny
• Yet prior to the Euro’s birth, many establishment figures in Britain were strongly in favour. Proponents included Tony Blair, the CBI, representatives of big business and the City. They envisaged serious economic decline, or even disaster, if the UK stood aside. We now know that their views were comprehensively wrong
• Yesterday’s “transactions costs and uncertainty” is today’s “border frictions and disruptions”. Yesterday’s supposed need for a common currency in order to make the trading union work is today’s supposed need for a “deal” with the EU in order to enable us to trade with it
• Many Remainers are in blatant denial of the facts. The EU’s economic performance compared with other developed countries has been poor. This is for a good reason. The EU makes bad decisions. Its institutions don’t work very well and its political agenda is oblivious to economic costs
• As the EU elites make ever more disastrous decisions, the EU falls further behind the rest of the world
• We escaped membership of the euro by the skin of our teeth. We now need to grit those teeth to escape fully and finally from the entity that conceived of the euro monstrosity in the first place

That’s Bootle’s assessment. Below is mine.

If we leave the EU without a deal, the main thing that will change is tariffs. In trading with the EU we will face its “Common External Tariff” (CET) schedule. Average tariffs are around 3%.

“Trading frictions” exist in theory, but they are today’s equivalent of yesterday’s transactions costs, when trading across a currency border: existing in theory but in practice virtually irrelevant. We were so worried about transactions costs when deciding whether to join the Euro, just as we are worried about trading frictions today. In regard to trading frictions, consider the following:

• As early as in 2008, 99% of the UK’s non-EU trade was registered and pre-cleared electronically. Filling in an electronic customs registration form takes about 15 seconds
• Around 2% of goods crossings are subject to physical checks. The deputy CEO of the Port of Calais has said that in the event of a no-deal Brexit, 1% of British lorries will be checked[2]
• The CEO of the port of Zeebrugge said new capacity would be needed in the event of a no-deal Brexit but implied this would be a small expansion of existing systems and processes already extensively used to handle non-EU trade, and applying them to the UK. He implied the cost and effort would not be a big deal
• Various worries about the possible impact of a no-deal Brexit have been raised and all of them have been dismissed. The worries about whether flights will land, British hauliers will be licensed, whether the UK will be able to sell financial services to the EU have all been dismissed in memoranda published by the EU, covering its no-deal planning. Separately and some months ago, the EU assured the Irish Taoiseach that it would not require a hard border in Ireland, in the event of a no-deal Brexit
• Worries about food and medical supplies are more easily dismissed since whether we block them is our choice. We’re obviously not going to block imported necessities

Considering the above, the benefits of trading within the EU internal market are overblown and consequently, so are the costs of not trading within it.

Leaving the EU without a deal puts Britain on the same footing vis-a-vis the EU as most other countries already are. Trade works. JIT supply chains work. It operates like clockwork and with huge volumes. Today, 43% of our trade is on WTO terms; that’s about the same as our volume of trade with the EU.

This study of long term comparative economic data finds no benefit of the EU’s internal market versus alternative arrangements. From the perspective of trading with the EU in services, various studies have shown there is no benefit to being inside it versus outside.[3]

During the run up to the referendum, I had many in-depth conversations with a WTO and international trade expert. This individual is a former head of the UK’s government’s international trade policy, a British trade negotiator and one of the architects of the WTO in its current form.

His analysis was convincing and compelling: there’s almost nothing the EU can do to materially impede trade with the UK in the event of a no-deal Brexit, either in goods or services. Some of his views were expressed in an article for BrexitCentral in March last year.[4] I am in the fortunate position of having access to such expertise, as the individual I am talking about is my father.

In November, I attended a seminar hosted by a law firm of the legalities of a no-deal Brexit. The event was amusingly called: “No-deal Brexit: WTO or WTF?” One of the presenters (a senior lawyer who from his nuances was clearly talking from a Remain perspective) said as regards collaborating in financial services, the EU doesn’t really have an option. London is about three times the size of the rest of the EU’s capital markets put together and is deeply entrenched within the EU’s financial system, such that refusal to cooperate on financial services would pull the plug on the majority of the EU’s companies and governments.

To be clear, I do not think the EU will collaborate on the same terms in the event of a no-deal Brexit. It clearly will not. What I do deny is that this will make any practical difference.

Footnotes

[1] Brexit warnings echo the nonsense uttered over the euro 20 years ago

[2] Barney Lane’s answer to Where is the physical bottleneck that will supposedly cause delays at Dover post-Brexit? Why would physical inspection of no more than 2% of incoming vehicles (WTO limit) delay the other 98%?

[3] The EU single market in services barely exists, and has been slowly disappearing since 2010 | BrexitCentral

[4] Government and business should prepare for the advantages of trading under WTO rules | BrexitCentral

Why is Theresa May determined to take Britain to a cliff edge “no deal” Brexit? It seems insane! And why are the British people allowing her to do it?

David Reardon, Political Activst

Answered Dec 28

Judging by the so-called “deal” that Theresa May has secured with the EU, it strikes me that far from being “determined to take Britain to a cliff edge “no deal” Brexit”, May is actually trying to force Parliament to accept a deal that will, in essence, please neither Brexiteer nor Remainer.

This is because the “deal” as it now stands with the inclusion of the so-called “backstop” will mean nothing short of the UK being permanently bound by EU rules and regulations, which will be little different to be an actual EU Member State but without the right to influence how those rules and regulations are drawn up and implemented.

Ostensibly, therefore, there will be no “cliff edge” – a much overused and abused term – because the UK will, in effect, not have left the EU.

As to the “cliff edge”, this merely refers to the UK leaving the EU without a deal and trading with the bloc as it does with the rest of the world. And Remainer claims of the damage this will do bare no basis to reality given that our present trade with the EU is ‘frictionless’, while trade on WTO terms is beset with ‘frictions’. This is a false dichotomy, and intra-EU trading arrangements are not so different from those on WTO terms.

And here’s why:

1. We already have virtually frictionless trade with the rest of the world through electronic customs declarations, goods pre-clearance and trusted trader schemes, all operated under the EU’s Union Customs Code. This would in future apply to our trade with the EU because the only additional physical checks on EU imports after Brexit would be customs duty checks, but they are unlikely to exceed the current threshold – less than 3% of imports are checked on entry. If necessary, the UK could unilaterally suspend duties for a short period to avoid any immediate difficulties. In addition, HMRC is implementing a range of technical solutions to minimise trade frictions.
2. Most UK/EU exporters are already used to Union Customs Code (UCC) export processes, and HMRC has issued guidelines for ‘no-deal’ trading with the EU. The EU has established customs systems (already used on the Swiss border, for example), and new technology is available to trace and identify cargoes.
3. VAT and excise duties are already collected in the UK and the Irish Republic without any border control. A study commissioned by the European Parliament found that ‘international standards and best practices and technologies’ can be used to avoid a ‘hard border’, and this has been confirmed by both Irish and British authorities. Where necessary, inland inspection facilities can be established. Technology exists for tracking cargoes.

So, can we take the risk that next April UK firms will be faced with EU tariffs and potential regulatory checks?

1. Tariffs and regulatory checks could be disruptive for a minority of UK businesses, namely, those connected with dairy products and meat. This works both ways. British producers are likely to increase their share of the domestic market by reducing EU imports subsidised at higher rates than they receive. Moreover, the impact can be mitigated by government action.
2. Most engineering firms will be little affected. Car companies can withstand 10% tariffs on sales into the EU and 4.5% tariffs on components from the EU since they have benefited from a 15% depreciation in sterling. Border checks on their components from the EU will be illegal under WTO rules which prohibit unnecessary checks.

So what about travel and transportation?

1. The EU has already made a reciprocal offer to the UK in respect of air traffic rights and the validity of aviation safety certificates in the event of no-deal.
2. Reciprocal visa-free travel has already been agreed. The EU has announced that the mutual recognition of driving licences and road vehicles will continue. So taking your car abroad or hiring a vehicle on holiday should be no more complicated than it is now.

And what about “frictionless” trade under WTO rules?

1. We already have virtually frictionless trade with the rest of the world through electronic customs declarations, goods pre-clearance and trusted trader schemes, all operated under the EU’s Union Customs Code.
   1. There is no reason to turn back the clock to paper checks when goods arrive at the border, as implied by the ‘cliff edge’ doomsday prophets.
   2. We start from a strong position. The UK (in 2016) was ranked 5th in the world by the World Customs Organisation for the ease of its import and export processes.
   3. Customs can operate with no technology at all using well tried customs techniques including the EU’s own TRANSIT and TRACE systems. The heads of UK and Irish customs concur with this judgement. For example, most goods crossing the Swiss borders use established customs systems (TRANSIT and TRACE systems) to drive through customs without stopping and without any monitoring at the border.
   4. New technology in the form of tamper-proof chips can be used to connect the physical cargo with the import declaration. This would highlight incorrectly declared goods, and allow for differential taxation based on the location/declaration combination.

Then, of course, despite what we are constantly being told, intra-EU trade is NOT without frictions because:

1. EU goods are not exempt from certain controls on import, so there is no truly ‘frictionless’ trade in place even now.
   1. .Targeted checks where criminality is suspected are required even on intra-EU trade. This is to satisfy member states’ obligations to the EU to tackle fraud.
   2. In the Withdrawal Agreement backstop, the EU has mandated the creation of a paper document to accompany all goods traded between GB, NI and the EU. This will in fact add trade friction to an arrangement supposedly designed to avoid the need for border controls.

So what about imports to and exports from the EU under WTO rules? Again, we have nothing to fear because:

1. Less than 3% of total imports are checked on entry into the UK. This percentage is unlikely to change in a no-deal Brexit.
   1. Even in 2008, 99% of goods entering the UK were cleared electronically.
   2. Imports from the EU are already subject to checks.
   3. The only additional physical checks on EU imports after Brexit would be customs duty checks. But these are unlikely to exceed the current threshold required to ensure compliance with our current EU obligations.
   4. 10.5.Given the same level of EU imports after 29 March 2019 as currently, the level of physical checks that will be required on EU imports is unlikely to increase.
   5. HMRC has issued no-deal guidance for exporters.
   6. Exporters to the rest of the world (i.e. the majority of UK exporters) will already be used to the system under the EU’s Union Customs Code (UCC) rules, which will be adapted to UK law.
   7. Traders who currently export ONLY to the EU27 will not be familiar with UCC export processes, so this procedure will be new to them, but this is a very small number of exporters (only 8% of all UK businesses trade with the EU, and of those, many also export to the rest of the world under UCC rules).
   8. However, the EU’s Union Customs Code (UCC) was introduced across the EU on 1 May 2016. Anyone who intends to export to the EU after a no-deal Brexit can find out now about how it works from the European Commission website.
   9. All UCC requirements on UK exporters to the EU will be familiar to the customs authorities in the EU27, since there will be no change other than implementing the existing UCC import procedures for goods from the UK.

And when it comes to no “hard” border’ in Northern Ireland, people should note that:

1. VAT and excise dues are already collected by the authorities in both countries without anyone ever being stopped at the border.
   1. Smuggling and excise fraud already takes place across the NI border, e.g. fuel in tankers disguised as milk lorries, excise goods shipped through bonded warehouses. This is combatted by police and fraud investigators in targeted operations almost always away from the border itself.
   2. WTO rules do not require border checks on goods – that is a matter for each country to decide. The only requirement is to treat all third countries equally (the ‘most favoured nation’ rule -MFN).
   3. Physical checks can be conducted away from the border, as they already are for fraud and other non-duty checks in NI. Inland inspection facilities are now established in mainland UK and could also be set up in NI.
   4. A study commissioned by the European Parliament found that ‘international standards and best practices and technologies’ can be used to avoid a ‘hard border’ in NI.
   5. Technical solutions can ensure no hardening of the Irish border in ways that damage the Belfast Agreement and peace process.
   6. The customs technology to minimise or avoid border checks is available and is being used in many other applications. For example, at both the Norway-Sweden border and the Canada-US border, low friction borders have been created by sharing data and facilities, and the creation of electronic environments for trade and travel.
   7. Both the Irish Republic and HMRC already operate electronic customs clearance systems under the UCC – a key aspect of invisible borders. And HMRC is domesticating UCC provisions into UK law, so procedures will remain the same for customs, VAT and excise.
   8. Ireland has already published guidance with links to electronic systems for no-deal trade with the UK post-Brexit.
   9. The head of UK customs, Jon Thompson, has repeatedly confirmed in UK Parliamentary Select Committee hearings that there is absolutely no need for the UK to erect a hard border under any scenario, including leaving without a deal.
   10. The heads of a number of prominent UK and Irish businesses have asserted that invisible borders are now possible. This can all be achieved with existing technical solutions, and in compliance with the UCC.

As to the claims of chaos at Dover, people should note the following:

1. While queues at Dover are theoretically possible, in practice they are highly unlikely. WTO rules prohibit checks undertaken for political reasons or for competitive advantage. French officials have dismissed fears of a Calais ‘go-slow’ and suggested that as few as 1% of UK lorries would be subject to a physical check. New technology is already being installed at Calais to avoid delays, with automated checks.
2. HMRC is preparing for all scenarios post-Brexit (see further details below), and has set up inland inspection facilities to divert traffic away from Channel ports for targeted checks if necessary. The UK accedes to international transit conventions in its own right, and these enable simplified customs transit procedures right across the world and cover all countries in the EU
3. It would require French customs to instigate unnecessary and excessive checks at Calais and elsewhere. But this is highly unlikely, for several reasons not least because WTO rules prohibit unnecessary checks undertaken for political reasons or for competitive advantage. The UK can maintain de facto alignment with EU for as long as it considers necessary, in order to avoid the need for checks.
4. Even those who maintain that some additional checks would be required accept that these could be limited. There is no legal requirement to inspect more than a tiny fraction of vehicles.
5. French officials have dismissed fears of a Calais ‘go-slow’ and suggested that as few as 1% of UK lorries would be subject to a physical check.
6. Julian Jessop of the IEA has produced a rough calculation: for there to be an additional two-minute delay on average in crossing the frontier, it would require at least 10% of UK lorries to be subject to a new 20-minute check (i.e. ten times more than French officials have indicated will be checked).
7. EU preparations for no-deal only say that checks may be conducted, not that they will be.
8. New technology is already being installed at Calais to avoid delays, with automated checks and a turf war about where lorries might be inspected.
9. A rail freight scanner has already been installed at Fréthun near Calais for unaccompanied rail freight (boosting Eurotunnel’s freight revenues considerably). This allows French customs to scan containers on 30 trains per day without the need for them to stop before they enter or leave the Channel Tunnel.
10. Under the UK’s Transit Regulations (November 2018), the UK accedes to international transit conventions in its own right. These enable simplified customs transit procedures right across the world and cover all countries in the EU.
11. Physical checks that are needed can be conducted away from the border, as they already are in many countries.
12. HMRC is preparing for all scenarios post-Brexit, and has set up inland inspection facilities to divert traffic away from Channel ports for targeted checks.
13. Currently, ‘intelligence led’ inspections by the UK affect only 2% of non-EU goods shipments. The remainder are cleared immediately by computer-based procedures.
14. WTO rules prohibit unnecessary checks, and it is highly unlikely that more than 1% of goods would be checked.
15. Additional customs and regulatory checks could admittedly be disruptive for a minority of UK businesses, namely, those connected with dairy products, meat and fresh foods, which cannot tolerate long delays. But this works both ways as unwarranted regulatory checks at Calais could lead to French importers suffering tit-for-tat delays at Dover. So to avoid this, the French have already installed scanning technology to speed up clearance at Calais.
16. The AEO trusted trader scheme under the UCC should eliminate the need for physical customs checks at Calais, since goods can be pre-cleared for customs electronically.
17. Most engineering firms will be little affected (hence why heads of firms like Dyson, JCB and Northern Ireland’s Wrightbus support Brexit).
18. Car companies can withstand 10% tariffs on sales into the EU and 4.5% tariffs on components from the EU since they have benefited from a 15% depreciation in sterling.

And transportation and travel will not be disrupted because of the following:

1. The EU has already made a reciprocal offer to the UK in respect of air traffic rights and the validity of aviation safety certificates in the event of ‘no deal’.
2. Several French regional airports derive close to 80% of their traffic from UK-owned airlines. Local tourism would be ruined by prohibitions on landing rights.
3. France has passed legislation giving the President decree-making powers to ensure minimal disruption.
4. Reciprocal visa-free travel for trips of up to 90 days has already been agreed between the UK and EU even in the event of “no deal”.
5. In its no-deal preparedness notices on travel, the EU has announced that the mutual recognition of driving licences and road vehicles will continue under the rules of the Vienna Convention on Road Traffic 1968.
6. In March 2018 the British government announced that it would be ratifying the Convention in its own right. This means taking your car abroad or hiring a vehicle on holiday should be no more complicated than it is now.

Solutions being implemented by HMRC to minimise trade frictions as part of no-deal Brexit customs planning:

1. Replicating the rules and procedures in the EU’s Union Customs Code to operate domestically under the Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Act 2018, thus ensuring no unexpected changes for UK importers or for EU exporters to the UK. The first regulations under the Act, including the Import and Transit regulations, were made on 30 November 2018.
2. A new online Customs Declarations System to replace the 25 year-old CHIEF system. Expected to be able to handle up to 400 million declarations a year.
3. Importers will be able to declare import VAT on their VAT monthly return, rather than at the border thus mitigating cash flow and procedural problems.
4. Trusted trader schemes are provided for in the new Import regulations (Part 9). This further minimises paperwork and the need for border controls.
5. Big manufacturers or food importers reliant on just-in-time deliveries from the EU27 should be registered as Authorised Economic Operators (AEOs). This means that freight is pre-cleared electronically (as is currently the case for most rest of the world imports) and not held up for checks at the border.
6. Major supermarkets who import produce from outside the EU will already be familiar with the AEO system. The no-deal UK system will replicate exactly what they are used to under the UCC, and so should enable them to handle produce imported from the EU27 in the same way as they do for produce imported from Africa or South America.
7. Inland inspection facilities to check the small number of consignments that will need to be physically checked have already been set up. Staff are currently being recruited. There is a large facility at Magna Park, Milton Keynes and another at Hayes. This means lorries can be directed away from ports for targeted checks, minimising delays.
8. The Import Regulations mandate electronic pre-clearance for customs as RoRo ports, to avoid delays at Dover.
9. There could be contingency plans to waive checks if required to avoid gridlock for security reasons. The growth in unaccompanied rail freight scanned automatically would also reduce the number of lorries over time.
10. HMRC has already published no-deal notices and guidance for importers and exporters on its website: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/expo…

All of these plans are well advanced. If just-in-time importers get themselves set up and registered as AEOs, their EU imports should not be subject to any delays on entering the UK and vice-versa.

Need I say more?

Why did the British people vote to leave the E.U.? What factors led to the Brexit outcome?

Edward Browning, former Retired Local Government Manager

Answered Dec 7, 2017

Originally Answered: Why did Britain leave the EU? What are the pros and cons of them leaving the EU?

Yes it was all racism however on the basis of over 30 years as a local government manager I can say categorically that the strain on housing and education in the UK is entirely due to immigration. I can back this up but until 1997 I was one of a number of people demolishing modern social housing because it was surplus to requirements. Now the media just scream there is a housing crisis but never say why. As for education we had been closing and some cases demolishing primary and high schools from the 1980s onward because were simply not enough children coming through to fill them. One district I worked in had 3 High schools until 1997 now it has one and suddenly finds it is short of places.

Our politician’s attitude to the immigration stream reminds me of a tragedy that took place in England some years ago. Three boys on holiday with their High School were swept out to sea by a sudden wave and instantly disappeared. When their classmates told the teachers they went into shock and simply got everyone on the bus and drove back to their hotel. All the time the children on the bus were screaming “But Sir X Y & Z have been washed away!” There was absolutely nothing they could have done it happened too quickly but it took them half an hour before they came out of shock and called the authorities.

Our politicians are like that over immigration. They can see the problem but because the reality and the decisions they will have to make are so appalling they just cannot accept it. So they call everyone racists and fascists and somehow hope it will go away.

OTHER BREXIT POSTS:
Brexit Party MEP blasts ‘Pointless’ European Parliament As A Charade
Brexit and Europe

 

 

Most Absurd Brexit Claim Ever: “30-Year Recession, Worse Than 1930s

Ian R Thorpe

Writing in that repository of all left wing and globalist idiocies The Guardian, writer Amelia Hill makes the nonsensical assertion UK cannot simply trade on WTO terms after no-deal Brexit, offering only the opinions of left wing and globalist ‘experts’ in support of her case. Here’s a sample:

The UK will be unable to have frictionless, tariff-free trade under World Trade Organization rules for up to seven years in the event of a no-deal Brexit, according to two leading European Union law specialists.

The ensuing chaos could double food prices and plunge Britain into a recession that could last up to 30 years, claim the lawyers who acted for Gina Miller in the historic case that forced the government to seek parliament’s approval to leave the EU. Anneli Howard, a specialist in EU and competition law at Monckton Chambers and a member of the bar’s Brexit working group, believes this isn’t true, Hill claims

“No deal means leaving with nothing, Sir Ivan Rogers former UK Premanent Representative to the the European Institute said in a lecture that the anticipated recession will be worse than the 1930s, let alone 2008. It is impossible to say how long it would go on for. Some economists say 10 years, others say the effects could be felt for 20 or even 30 years: even ardent Brexiteers agree it could be decades.”

Nobody involved with The Daily Stirrer has seen or heard any Brexiteers hysterical predictions of a thirty years recession, but Remainers are not known for their honesty or level headedness. However Hill was not done with the anti – Brexit hyperbole.

The government cannot simply cut and paste the 120,000 EU statutes into UK law and then make changes to them gradually, she said. “The UK will need to set up new enforcement bodies and transfer new powers to regulators to create our own domestic regimes,” she said.

She’s talking through her posterior orifice again. Those laws are alread in British law and can be undone gradually. That has already been clarified by constitutional lawyers.

Effects Felt for 30 Years

Hill made five references to Anneli Howard, whose CV describes her as a leading junior lawyer in telecommunications law, in the article but the alleged expert’s professional status as a junior lawyer hardly qualifies her opinion as authoritative.

Hill’s moans about a 1930s recession and claims even ardent Brexiters agree it could be decades, in the same paragraph. Again she does not name these Brexiteers. In an linked-to article by The Guardian, titled: Two, 50 or 100 years: when do leavers think Brexit will pay off? writer Emine Saner employs that old trick of a very misleading headline.

This is what Jacob Rees-Mogg, the Brexiteer alluded to actually said: “We won’t know the full economic consequences for a very long time.” That is quite accurate. Benefits accrue every year.

Former Brexit Secretary David Davis said “There is no reason why many of these cannot be achieved within two years.”

Hill managed to take an already purposely-overhyped headline title and turn it into a complete fabricated lie, fake news that links recessions to a 30-year wait for the full benefits to be known.

After 16 paragraphs of total scaremongering and attempted scattering of Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt, Hill mentions the counter-claims.

Economists for Free Trade, a group with links to Jacob Rees-Mogg and David Davis, claims there is “nothing to fear” from leaving the EU without reaching an agreement.

David Collins, a professor of international economic law at City University of London, said: “The UK can trade quite easily on an uncertified schedule.”

However, Collins conceded that an uncertified schedule “might be an indication of that complaining member’s intention to initiate a dispute against the member,” and that “the WTO dispute settlement process can take several years to resolve”.

Thus two correctly cited experts say no problem. Two law experts, not economic experts makes the opposing claim.

Collins, an international economics professor, is certainly correct, but notice the slant of the article and the title.

The idea of a 30-year recession wins first prize for the most stupid statement ever about Brexit, and that is saying quite a lot.

Hill deserves an award herself (for bad journalism of fake news maybe,) for producing an absurd article full of politically biased nonsense, without even properly referencing who one her alleged “experts” is.

The Guardian frequently presents fake news articles with left-wing progressive and anti – Brexit slants. Hill and Saner provide today’s examples.

As for that predicted 30-year recession:

Short-term, the EU will get hit much harder than the UK. Germany will get hit the hardest. At that point the EU, if it survives, will be ready for serious trade agreement negotiations with the UK.

Whistleblower: UK Prepared for ‘No Deal’ Brexit, Scare Stories ‘Absolutely Untrue’

No deal? Leave means leave (Picture: Breitbart )

We did tell you the Remainers and EU fanboys were scaremongering. Now it’s official – well sort of …

A senior civil servant has lifted the lid on a Remainer conspiracy behind Project Fear , revealing that the country is actually well-prepared for a “No Deal” Brexit and scare stories about Britain “crashing out” into “chaos and doom” are “absolutely untrue”. So it’s time we were rid of that weird looking gobshite Hammond and the little Canuk cunt and the Bank Of England, Carney.

The anonymous official, who has been involved in Britain’s preparations for a Brexit on World Trade Organization (WTO) terms — the so-called “No Deal” scenario — revealed in a Telegraph article that there are “hundreds” of plans in place to ensure that outlandish threats of food, water, and medicine shortages will not be realised, and that “it is purely a political decision not to make this clear to the public and nervous backbench MPs”.

“Project Fear Mark (I think) III… claims that we will all ‘crash out’ over the white cliffs of Dover into the Channel at 11 p.m. on 29 March 2019 and wake up to certain chaos and doom… [I]t is absolutely untrue, as anyone who, like me, has been involved in Brexit work for the past two-and-a-half years in Whitehall will tell you,” he scoffed.

Well this blog has been telling you since 2016 that Remainers were a bunch of neo-con globalist authoritarians who would have trashed our country completely rather than give up the dream of a totalitarian world government – towards which a federal Europe was a vital step.

EU Refuses to Block Eurozone Integration to Reach Agreement With UK
Austrian Chancellor Werner Faymann said at the E?U summit on British membership terms that the European Union wants to reach an agreement with the United Kingdom, but it is not prepared to compromise the banking union (financial integration) or the further integration of monetary union (UK being forced to abandon the pound join the Euro?) to achieve this goal.

Cameron’s EU Deal Worthless. It Can Be Vetoed In European Parliament?
Opinion polls show Britain is evenly divided on the question of whether to leave or remain in the EU, though it has been suggested up to 10 million other voters, many of them women, have yet to make a decision. How they cast their vote will shape the future of the world’s fifth largest economy and the EU itself. But what is really at stake is more important than economics …

Obama’s intervention in UK politics triggers angry backlash
Angry Britons have launched a petition calling for U.S. President Barack Obama to be prevented from speaking in the UK parliament on Britain’s forthcoming referendum on European Union (EU) membership.

NATO Rhetoric About Russian Threat is ‘Absurd’

The reasons being given for the latest NATO military buildup in Eastern Europe, the idea that the Russian ‘Russian threat’ to Eastern Europe grows every day is “simply absurd,” according to former US diplomat and Senate policy advisor Jim Jatras. Effectively, Jatras says, the buildup is an attempt by the US to keep Germany and France on board with Washington’s world domination agenda and …

E U To Push TTIP Trade Deal Before Obama Leaves Office

TTIP, the Trans Atlantic Trade And Investment Partnership is being promoted bt the US government and the EU Commission as a free trade deal that will create thousands of jobs and bring economic benefits to partners. It’s critics however claim it is a blatant attempt to shift power from national governments to corporate business.

EU Officials Say Europe Is “Going Down The Drain
Common sense could not slow the charge of politically correct globalist politiciand towards merging the 28 member states of the European Union into a single federal entity, but their attempt to destroy democracy by flooding the continent with illiterate third world peasants has finally awoken the spirits of Europe’s ancient nations.

EU Report Reveals Continent Being Changed By Migration
While political leaders and the mass media constantly preach of the economic benefits and cultural enrichment that sping from mass immigration,EU Report Reveals Continent Being Changed By Migration just a few days ago we reported a study that found the economic benefits are a myth and today a report published by the EUs in house statistical bureau reveals immigrants have an adverse effect socially and culturally.

Major blow for Brexit campaign as US rules out UK-only trade deal?

Michael Froman, the US Trade Representative, said America is “not in the market” for trade deals with individual states and would only consider free trade agreements with blocs of nations. “I think it’s absolutely clear that Britain has a greater voice at the trade table being part of the EU, being part of a larger economic entity,” Mr Froman told Reuters.

RELATED POSTS
More On Brexit

May Nearing A Brexit Deal Breakthrough?
The UK Parliament is rumoured in some quarters to be nearing a breakthrough in negotiations that will enable an altered version of Prime Minister Theresa May’s sellout deal with the European Union to be accepted by elected representatives. It is thought a proposal by Graham Brady, leader of the Conservative rank and file (back benchers) which would throw out the hated ‘Irish backstop’