Remainiacs are a Danger to Britain

Below is the text of a letter sent to The Independent on 15th September 2018. Needless to say it was not published by the paper!

"Dear Sir, 
         Andrew Grice repeats again (May has outmanoeuvred the hard
Brexiteers at last - 15th September 2018) the falsehood that the
electorate was misled and duped in the 2016 referendum. Quite apart
from the astonishing arrogance (intellectual and otherwise) of that
assertion many will recall the very well publicised anti Brexit
statements of the then Prime Minister and Chancellor and all that stuff
from HMG that came through the letter box. Of course such a narrative
as given in the piece fits the Independent's view that there should be
a vote on the terms of any agreement. However to have another vote
would just ensure that this period of uncertainty instead of lasting a
couple of years could stretch into a decade or more! This is what I
hear - talking to people - get it done and honour genuinely the
referendum result. By the way I voted Remain."

I think it is about time for some straight talking and an end to being messed about.
1) The EU's international status in law is problematical (see House of Lords Report and detail in Lisbon Treaty. So the UK should not be feared of threats of legal action. Moreover the lack of trust is two way - see the likely theft of UK intellectual property in relation to Project Galileo and corridor talk in Brussels that the price of Brexit is Northern Ireland!
2) The Northern Ireland Border is a contrived problem and Vradaker will rue the day he shook up Pandora's Box. Many technological solutions exist but spineless Remainiacs refuse to see them. In any event the blind eye for small amounts of trade worked for decades after partition!
3) The Prime Minister must be the worst negotiator ever. The correct response to a possible extension of the Implementation period would be to say ok but no more money and the backstop has the same end date.
4) Keep on telling them (EU) that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed (These are the EU's words in their original negotiating position) and this includes security co-operation.
5) Business dislikes uncertainty but that is normal. However business adapts,adjusts and moves on. Britain should do the same. Ever since Maastricht the establishment has only talked behind closed doors about European federalism. However the majority of the British public have seen through this as a device which did not benefit them economically nor politically. Career politicians, corporatist businesses and actual or quasi bureaucrats (such as Pressure Groups, Lobbyists and so called Think Tanks). have been the beneficiaries - that is why they are screaming so much now with exaggerated and unknowable economic guesses.

A Brexit perspective

Over the past few months I have been trying to put into context this Brexit thing. To do so requires separating off the daily noise of the media and (in many instances their partiality e.g. Daily Telegraph vehemently anti EU compared with The Independent where almost any criticism of the EU is ignored or sidelined). This perspective is, I hope, more contextual in terms of history and accuracy. I think the first substantial rumblings of discontent came from within the Conservative Party on the Maastricht Treaty. It should be recalled that the then Prime Minister (John Major) had considerable difficulty in gaining approval of the treaty in both his own Cabinet, Party and Parliament. Objections centred around actual and implied moves towards integration - sometimes portrayed as the precursor to a Federal Europe e.g. Common Foreign Policy. This was in direct opposition to the basis on which the 1975 referendum was presented in that what was being offered was participation in a Common Market. The Treaty of Lisbon 2007 set the future framework for a "Deeper and Wider Union". So there was the expansion eastwards built on the creation of the Eurozone some 7 years earlier and clear movements towards further integration e.g. European Defence and Security. This was too much for many Tories (and a few on the Labour side) who claimed that they had been deceived by being told that they were joining a Commercial Club only to find that their country was to be absorbed into a super state. The wider geo-political implications of the eastward expansion and Russia's reaction are for another day and time. The other point of real significance is that because of the difficulties in the Tory Party real engagement with EU was absent except in relation to strictly economic matters (it is widely acknowledged that the Single Market was strongly supported by Conservatives). During the period of Labour Government there was strong support for eastward expansion but the then Prime Minister (Tony Blair) could not get his Chancellor (Gordon Brown) to join the Euro (Single Currency). From this it can be seen that the UK was never fully engaged - we seemed to be happy to remain semi-detached but the political mistake of not managing inward migration opened the door for the anti EU people to mount their campaign. Similarly the EU seemed to be saying they were going to integrate no matter what and those that did not wish to do so would remain on the periphery. Given this perspective I am surprised that the majority to Leave was not greater! 

Here are a couple of letters sent to The Independent trying to make the point. They were not published of course as they do not fit their narrative!

11th June 2018

"As Femi Oluwole must surely know answers to questions often
depend on how they are asked and the context. I am clear that the EU
question goes back to the Lisbon Treaty and how the then Major
government dealt with that. Over the years it has become increasingly
obvious that the Lisbon Treaty set the path towards European
integration via a federal arrangement. The bruising passage of approval
of the Lisbon Treaty through Parliament led to the UK not wishing to
engage fully (for fear of Tory backwoodsmen) in the EU and thereby
allowing the Federalists to work away at their project. We could have
been much more active in shaping Europe's future - that awkward old
Parliamentary Democracy on the western margin of the EU - but we did
not! We could have said inward migration is causing great political
problems and we are prepared to take unilateral action to address it -
but we did not! We could have said the continuing annual disappearance
of €500m from EU allocated funds is unacceptable and we will deduct our
share of that amount from our annual contributions - but we did not! We
could have said that the rapid removal of non-tariff barriers was
essential - but we did not! There is more, of course, but Brexit is
largely a problem of our own making. Now the UK and EU political
establishments are perceived both in the UK and in other EU countries
as having tried to surreptiously engineer federalism at the same time
as working people suffer more than a decade of continued austerity and
at best stagnant wages. Given the chance to fight back - why not? even
though I voted remain I understand the alienation that many felt and
feel. To deny the genuine and honest fulfillment of the referendum
result would be a disaster for our democracy and potentially dangerous.
It will take time and patient negotiation for the terms of our exit to
be settled but I am sure that will be well before a reformed EU would
be acceptable to the UK."

20th June 2018

"Following on from Darko Kapor's letter of 20th June regarding Brexit.
I feel it is about time we called the EU's bluff. Ever since the EU 
issued its first negotiating brief (which if you read it is nothing
less than an ultimatum) it has been clear that inflicting pain on the
UK was the objective not sensible negotiations. The UK has offerred a
€40bn financial settlement, unconditional security and defence support,
continued finance for joint UK/EU projects e.g. Galileo and yet Barnier
has the gall to say he does not wish to get into the blame and that
insufficient progress has been made. Of course he does not want to get
into the blame game, as he calls it, because an objective analysis
would show that the EU was and is the problem. Quite apart from the
contrived problem of the NI Border (it is worth recalling that the
Good Friday Agreement is mainly bi-lateral - UK and the Republic - the
EU is not a party to it). Grown up negotiations require reasonable co-
operation on both sides not continual puerile press releases and 
statements. This pains me greatly as a Remain voter but time is up -
nothing is agreed until everything is agreed and as I have said before
you feel so much better when you get up off your knees!"

EU Red Lines

         
         When is a red line not a red line. Apparently when it is a EU
principle. The EU's consistent line is that the UK's red lines make it
very difficult: leaving the Single Market; leaving the Customs Union
and ending the jurisdiction of the ECJ in the UK. Is it not the EU's
insistence on the indivisibility of the "four freedoms" - free movement
of people, goods, services and capital resulting in the Single Market,
Customs Union and the claimed supremacy of the ECJ the biggest red line
of all?
Pragmatism is more than just a word! The UK has just unilaterally
extended the rights of EU citizens to remain in the UK should they
arrive during the transition/implementation period. Evidence of the
EU's claimed pragmatism and political good faith would be shown by
rapid reciprocity for UK citizens going to the EU in that period.

Letter to Independent 1st March 2018

The Independent is Defeatist and probably elitist

I thought it would be useful to publicise this. First the full Editorial and my response. Needless to say the response was not published in the newspaper. So much for their claims of inclusivity!

Independent Editorial

5^th February 2018

The EU is in the driving seat, ditching Theresa May now will change little

Even by the debased standards of the contemporary Conservative Party, it is odd to see Boris Johnson, Michael Gove and Jacob Rees-Mogg being touted as “the dream team”. They are not exactly a reflection of modern British society, for all their fine education. Leaving Mr Rees-Mogg aside – for blessed are the peacemakers – there are very good reasons why neither Mr Johnson nor Mr Gove currently occupy No 10, and it is worth reminding ourselves of some of them.

In the last major Tory leadership crisis, after the departure of David Cameron and the disastrous EU referendum, both men proved themselves demonstrably incapable, if not unworthy, of positions of leadership. In his last-minute act of betrayal of Mr Johnson, Mr Gove proved why both Mr Johnson and he himself were unsuited to the leadership.

Theresa May emerged as the last grown-up left in the room, there to clear up the mess all those silly boys had left behind. Untested in a full leadership contest, taken on trust, she was the least worst option available to them.

For all that has gone so badly wrong since, she still is. If she were not everyone’s second choice, she would not have survived as long as she has. She is there because she is there, it might be said. The Remainers fear the “dream team” as a nightmare for the economy, and rightly so. The Leavers are terrified that the likes of Amber Rudd or Philip Hammond will sabotage their dreams of a clean or hard Brexit. Like John Major before her, and in similar circumstances of deep division, Ms May survives because her many enemies cannot agree on a replacement.

That is not in fact such an unusual phenomenon in political history and most countries survive such periodic pantomimes. The challenges facing Britain, though, are of an unusual order, and the stakes high. It may well be that the only way they should be faced is through a fresh appeal to the country via a general election or a further referendum.

The country, like the Conservatives, will have to get used to “the new normal”. The Prime Minister will continue to be unpopular with voters and unloved by her own MPs. The divisions in her party will make the EU negotiations even more fractious. Policy will continue to be fudged. Rows and gaffes and huffy resignations and backbench revolts and treachery will be commonplace. In a way, none of this will matter that much because the context of all this British instability is European calm. The EU holds almost all of the cards and will make the decisions the British cannot.

The European Commission will before long be giving the British a Norway-style take-it-or-leave it deal. It would do so even if Jeremy Corbyn were in charge – because Mr Corbyn’s policy, though put in nicer terms, is virtually identical to the Government’s. All the wishful thinking about a customs union or a soft Irish border shared by both front benches will not survive the hard language required in a legally binding UK-EU treaty. There is no space for creative ambiguity in such documents. Cakes cannot be eaten in one treaty clause but also preserved and had in another.

The crunch will come later this year, when the Barnier-Davis talks enter their last phases – and it will not matter much who is in No 10, or which party, because Europe can dictate the terms for as long as any form of Brexit is the UK policy. What the EU decides will be the best deal on offer and the British will take it in the end. Outside of the Lib Dems, with just 12 MPs, no dream team is at present available to avert that near inevitability.

Want your views to be included in the The Independent Daily Edition letters page? Email us by tapping here letters@independent.co.uk. Please include your address

Subject: The Independent's defeatism knows no bounds
To: letters@independent.co.uk
Date: Mon, 05 Feb 2018 11:24:22 +0000


Dear Sir, 
         Referring to your Editorial of 5th February I find myself
deeply saddened by the lack of backbone by your Editorial Team in the
past few months! When an opponent in negotiations behaves dis-
honourably as the EU has it is time to reciprocate! Just a few examples
of bad EU behaviour:
EU nationals coming to UK during transition/implementation period to
have the same rights as those arriving prior to March 2019 - this is
specifically covered in the December agreement and makes clear
different arrangements would apply. The status of Gibralter is covered
by the Treaty of Utrecht 1713 (as such it is not a EU matter) - it may
be disputed by Spain but after Catalonia do you really believe
Gibralterians would accept absorbtion by such a state. The Good Friday
agreement is bi-lateral between the Republic and the UK - again this is
not a EU matter. I could go on e.g differential financial provisions
for defence below NATO guidelines - see Germany and some of the Baltic
States yet who is leading in the Baltics (no prizes for saying the UK).
It is time to up the ante as they say and remind the overly
bureaucratic, arrogant and sclerotic EU that they are dealing with real
grown ups here.
Just one last point, I have written to you previously in a similar vein
and it would be nice to have a reasoned response backed by evidence
rather than bluster and if that is not possible please tell me what the
weather will be like in April 2030 as I would like a rain free holiday
in Britain then! 
-- 
Keith Mann

MACCLESFIELD

EU Hauteur is delaying negotiations not the UK - Letter to The Independent 10th October

Referring to your editorial of 10^th October (On Brexit, the EU’s view is the one that counts), I fear you have ignored one of the basic features of negotiation – if you believe you enter the negotiations as a supplicant then that is where you will end up!

The EU is making it difficult as they believe it is in their interest – deter others and make the UK pay. However a more careful analysis will show that the UK has plenty of cards to play even if some think they should not be used (security and defence spring to mind). Moreover the EU has tied its own hands so tightly that they have little flexibility. This can be seen from the Guidelines published 31^st March 2017. This lack of flexibility is reflected in the stances adopted by Barnier and Juncker. The need to accommodate views of 27 countries further restricts the ability to engage in flexible negotiations leading to finding the lowest common denominator (conservative,cautious and very risk averse).

The document of 31^st March is extraordinarily arrogant – just to take three items: Section 11 para. 3 - “The European Council will monitor progress closely and determine when sufficient progress has been achieved to allow negotiations to proceed to the next phase.”; para. 12 - “The Union should agree with the United Kingdom on arrangements as regards to Sovereign Base Areas of the United Kingdom in Cyprus….”; para. 22 - “After the United Kingdom leaves the Union, no agreement between the EU and the United Kingdom may apply to the territory of Gibraltar without the agreement between the Kingdom of Spain and the United Kingdom.

The UK on the other hand (while there are self inflicted difficulties in the government) has to play the cards of reciprocal Citizens Rights, Financial Settlement and preservation of the frictionless border between the Irish Republic and Northern Ireland (it should be noted that the Common Travel Area is nothing to do with the EU!).

As regards reciprocal Citizens Rights this should be solvable via a mechanism whereby the UK Supreme Court and the ECJ consider the views of each other in any dispute. On the Irish Republic and Northern Ireland – Common Travel Area and frictionless border – the provision of electronic pre-registration of individuals, vehicles and goods is already operable elsewhere. So far as a Financial Settlement is concerned I think it is instructive that following the recent 3 hour presentation by UK lawyers as to the legal basis of such claims Barnier could only pull a face (this may be his permanent demeanour). If the EU was sure of its grounds then a reference to International Arbitration would seem appropriate. It is, of course, a nonsense for the EU to suggest such a matter should be determined by the ECJ (the EU’s own court). Reference must also be made to page 1 of the statement of 31^st March – The EU “…will be constructive throughout and strive to find an agreement”. The UK has made substantial offers in these areas it is time for the EU to be constructive.

I have not gone into detail regarding other areas such as security and defence which your editorial suggests should not be on the table. All I would say is be very careful EU in not over-playing your hand – this was done with eastward expansion of the Union leading to difficult relations with the eastern neighbour.

One last thing, I voted to remain but now is a time for re-constructed Remainers and pragmatic Brexiteers to come together to negotiate for the UK. Another referendum is not the answer as we all know it would not end there – a decade of “neverendums” would be the worst of all possible worlds! Outside the London/Westminster bubble (“Isn't outrageous that the plebians have the audacity to reject the wishes of the establishment”) this is the majority view – let’s get on with it!

Brexit We only have ourselves to blame

In February 2016 I attended meeting organised by the Fabian Society in Manchester to discuss the (then) forthcoming referendum on the EU. I asked why the ordinary working person should vote to Remain when they had faced years of stagnating wages and real loss of purchasing power. I remember clearly that the answers given were unsatisfactory – Andy Burnham said they should vote to Remain as the only beneficiary of a Leave vote would be Vladimir Putin?? Others pulled concerned looking faces. I said in aside that if we voted to Leave the rest of Europe would consider the UK a basket case. I voted Remain and happened to be in Oxford on 24th June. Going for a morning swim at the Holiday Inn that day one of the locals (who used the Leisure Club facilities) asked in a very friendly manner “How you doing – alright?” to which I replied “No I am not alright – the lunatics have taken over the asylum!” The friendly local smiled and let me get on with my swim. My analysis of the developing situation thus far is that the failure of Cameron’s reckless gamble to silence the Right Wing ideologues in the Conservative Party has plunged the Country into both a political and intellectual crisis. The politics are fairly straightforward – Brexiteers are overwhelmingly Free Market fanatics who would certainly be no friend or supporter of the ordinary working person no matter what they say before exiting the EU. Intellectually the debate has been appalling. It is not just that the same facts are wilfully mis-interpreted by Leavers and Remainers but that the former consider calling the national interest being a “Little Englander” and the latter believing the national interest to be their private property. Meanwhile the EU negotiators feel perplexity, glee at opportunities to get their own way and that the UK is engineering its own punishment without any help from Brussels all at the same time! On the Remain side the shallowness of the desire to reverse the decision can be seen from the Editorial in The Independent of 26th July. Here the argument is made that free movement of labour must be retained to preserve the NHS even to the extent of accepting a role for the ECJ. Facts do not seem to matter. If there is a need for Doctors and Nurses does anyone think the government is going to say you cannot enter UK because the quota (or whatever) has been reached and British citizens will have worse health provision. This is without indicating financial incentives to attract such staff. Moreover the British people are generous and welcoming – yes the number of EU nationals coming has dropped 25% but I do not believe that the vote has altered attitudes to the extent that EU nationals are no longer welcome. Far from it! In any event as the UK develops its policy on EU nationals I think they will find protection via Treaty and our Supreme Court is a better option than anything the ECJ can offer. The EU proposal to have continuing oversight by the ECJ is completely unacceptable to any sovereign nation and exists no where else despite the protestations of Guy Verhofstadt (aka in local hostelries as that Belgian windbag). I do not want to spend too much time on the bureaucrats view (this is very complicated and requires more of us to deal with it). Suffice to say in my varied experience (some £bn deals) if you pay too much attention to them (bureaucrats) you end up disappearing up your own rectum! On the Leave side the Free Trade fanatics seem to think it will just happen i.e. April 2019 in a couple of weeks all trade will be reorganised and there will just be this short blip. We all know this is nonsense and disruption of that magnitude must be avoided – but you would not think so if you read the Mail and Telegraph or followed the Adam Smith Institute on Twitter (a work of the Devil if ever there was one!) Business says it wants certainty and hopefully continuity and that is the voice of experience and should be given the required level of consideration. The UK is not without many strengths in these negotiations with the EU and we should be prepared to use them all. Just reflect on the Remainers concerns that people (EU Nationals in the UK) were being used as bargaining chips. What do you think now with the EU response to the UK offer. Does not the stench of hypocrisy disturb? Put yourself in the position of Russia. It is said with evidence that Reagan assured Gorbachev that NATO would not expand eastwards! Now see what has happened! So Germany now has a number of “buffer states” between it and Russia and without making the requisite contribution to defence. At the same time as engineering economic dominance of continental Europe. One last thought for this evening would all this have occurred if the UK had been more assertive in European Affairs – probably not – so in may respects much of this is our own fault – mainly sins of omission! Thank you Blair and Cameron.

BREXIT More Analysis and less Hysteria

Another day another round of hysteria and hyperbole from the visual and printed media. Today (27^th April 2017) Chancellor Merkel is reported to have said: “An EU-UK deal can only be discussed once the exit issues - such as UK payments to the EU budget - are resolved, Mrs Merkel told German MPs.”. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-39730326).

Ambrose Evans-Pritchard in the Daily Telegraph (27^th April 2017 Business Comment p.2) suggests that the hardening German attitude means Britain needs a Plan B and his view this could be unilateral Free Trade. Hopefully most will not fall for this idealogical right wing fantasy.

It must be like a never ending Christmas and New Year Party for Journalists – news (very little); opinion and comment (far too much); speculation and conjecture (its an epidemic!); rigorous analysis (hardly any – Economist and Financial Times excepted).

I wonder if all of this has anything to do with:

a) the print and visual media are based in London and by far overwhelm alternative views throughout Britain;

b) many of those who believe BREXIT will affect them adversely are based in London;

c) people in a) and b) above converse with each other all the time hence the agenda is as described – resulting in the Shakespearean “woe is me” syndrome. In the real world also known as running around like a headless chickens.

Now I am not at all complacent about BREXIT negotiations but all we have had at the moment is posturing and sabre rattling. Ever the optimist (not unwisely, I have been involved with some very big negotiations sometimes leading, worth £ ms and in one case£ bns. In the end, on most occasions, rational self interest supersedes the posturing. This is much more difficult where politicians are involved who whilst they do make deals the criteria are not always strictly business oriented. But when analysed does the EU want to end up in a position of mutual financial pain as the price for retaining political union for a little while longer? We shall see. Negotiations start in June this year.

Things to be analysed rigorously:

1) what is the legal basis for the so called exit bill?

2) what evidence can the EU offer to support its claim that it is negotiating in good faith? I would suggest that even allowing Spain to try and include Gibralter in the settlement is not a good sign.

3) How trustworthy is Juncker (you know that jumped up Mayor of Luxembourg who happens to be the Commission President? A man who at best presided over numerous sweetheart tax deals with companies that disadvantaged his fellow EU Members.

4) When is Germany going to admit that the expansion eastwards of the EU following the collapse of the Soviet Empire has provided buffers for them at the expense of those countries once client states of the Soviet Union? Moreover Germany has a security guarantee to which they contribute less than should be the case at the same time as enforcing economic pre-eminence via the EuroZone.

This is painful for me as a Europhile and Remain voter but in these negotiations we have to be as ruthless as we can and need to be so nothing should be off the table.

PS. I’ll still be voting Labour despite JC.