Friday, 5 May 2017

Silliness on police, Brexit shows why Tories must win

Labour got itself into a muddle over police funding; the Financial Times produced a preposterous story about the Brexit bill being 100 billion euros. Neither bumbling errors nor fake news will stop Brexit, and only the Conservatives are fit and able to deliver


Euros
Not as much as it looks
6f37592038ebe4c2dc83c06bb82884256d790fa4
John Redwood MP
On 5 May 2017 11:46
This week we saw a couple of sets of fanciful figures intrude on the debate. There was Labour’s 10,000 police at £30 a year salary, hastily adjusted to £8,000 a year, still way below what we normally pay our officers.
Then there was the FT’s take on the EU bill for the UK leaving the Union, at Euro 100 billion.
The first sets of numbers were mistakes, and have been adjusted upwards as much Labour spending will need to be to make it realistic. £300 million a year is nearer the mark.
The second story that the UK owes up to Euro 100 billion is just silly. There are no legal obligations to pay beyond the sums we owe for our regular contributions over the next twenty two months before we leave.
If they want a political deal on money, then of course they would need to knock off our share of the assets. I don’t see that is a sensible or attractive way to proceed for them. They should just accept the Treaty that allows for no special bill.
The UK should continue to be friendly, outward going and positive about it all. We should continue to stress the great deal we are proposing for our future relationship.
Free access to our market for all their exporters. Guarantees for all their citizens living and working in the UK. Continued large UK contributions to the defence, security, research and culture of Europe.
Stable and strong leadership is needed by the UK, to be optimistic but to be firm in resisting silly proposals that have no basis in law or political reality.
The EU's disobliging briefings sound as if they are coming from people who suddenly realise their negotiating strategy of pressurising a member state into seeing it their way is not going to work. The EU thought the UK would want to stay in the Single market Custom Union. They could then seek to charge us for that.
It was always a silly assumption, as the UK clearly wants to make its own free trade agreements with the rest of the world which means leaving the Customs Union. The UK was also clear it wanted to stop paying the money. It is the Commission who are most worried about the loss of the UK’s contributions, as it’s their budgets and salaries that will suffer.
The way countries pay to trade with other reluctant countries is via tariffs. If the EU wants to put tariffs up against us, it can only do so to a limited extent under WTO rules. It would be a lot cheaper than the bills we are hearing about. In return we can impose more tariffs on them given the nature and volume of their exports to us.
That is why I have always thought it likely in the end they will want tariff free trade. It is, of course, always possible they wish to self harm. However, it seems it is more the EU Commission that favours a tough approach as the harm is to the member states, not to the Commission itself.
The member states are more likely to wake up to the harm it could do their export companies and especially their farmers and want a more sensible approach.
If the EU seriously thinks we need to give them money to be able to sell them goods, presumably they would need to give us money to sell us goods. I can’t see that idea catching on.
Mr. Redwood's writing is re-posted here by his kind permission. This and other articles are available at  johnredwoodsdiary.com
http://www.thecommentator.com/article/6567/silliness_on_police_brexit_shows_why_tories_must_win

Wednesday, 3 May 2017

The EU is scared: It knows no deal is better for Britain than a bad deal

The leaks that have emerged from EU Commission president Jean-Claude Juncker since his dinner with Theresa May at Downing Street last week confirm what any realistic observer has known since last June. Juncker & Co are afraid. Very afraid.

Wednesday 3 May 2017 4:59am

Brian Monteith

The 27 Remaining Members Of The European Union Meet To Discuss Brexit
Juncker is scared, very scared (Source: Getty)

I can agree with the president that Theresa May inhabits a different galaxy, but he is looking through the wrong end of the telescope; it is she who is firmly grounded in the mortal world of realpolitik, while the EU leadership at every level lives in an ethereal cosmos of inert gases disappearing up its own black hole.

First, ask any seasoned negotiator about how best to conduct the process of finding a mutually desirable agreement, and they will tell you that, when you walk in to the meeting, you need to know what would make you give up on the talks and walk out again. Theresa May has already worked that out and it scares Juncker and his chief negotiator Michel Barnier.
Second, if the negotiations are in the public eye, then it is often the case that you will be speaking to a number of audiences with different priorities. At home, the British people will be concerned about democratic accountability for what they voted for and the economic prospects that can be secured. Internationally, our friends and rivals will be looking to secure new partnerships or exploit weaknesses.
And while across the table our former EU colleagues will fear losing face, they will also be aware of two huge risks – precipitating by their own intransigence the collapse of the European Project and delivering unemployment to thousands of Europeans whose jobs depend on a harmonious outcome.
It is to address these competing interests that May made it plain in her Lancaster House speech what her main objectives are and that she is prepared to walk away if she does not get them. Unlike the EU, which is still mired in the unproductive language of “punishment”, the Prime Minister has therefore defined in general terms what a bad deal is and it is now the detail and the process (such as the timeline) that she wants to be worked out.
A bad deal would mean failing to secure control of our borders so that economic migration is determined by the skills on offer rather than what country a person comes from. A bad deal would mean leaving EU institutions to control any of our taxes, regulations and laws rather than ensuring our politicians are accountable for them again. And a bad deal would involve facing a continuing bar bill for drinks we never ordered or the stale croissant we will never eat.
When we leave the club, we should not continue to pay a membership fee, or the pensions of staff that are no longer our responsibility, but we can of course pay the green fees as a guest when we choose to access Erasmus or other such facilities.
Leaving without a deal does not unduly worry me for I have confidence in Britain’s prospects for increasing trade in growing markets rather than relying on the stagnating Eurozone.
The people that are worried about “no deal” are the Spanish fishermen who can kiss goodbye to any agreed access to our fishing waters; it is the German car manufacturers who could see themselves priced out of their lucrative market; and it is the French food and drink producers who know only too well we can turn instead to the New World and developing nations in a heartbeat.
Even when it comes to both parties facing a so-called cliff edge without a deal, we have the advantage of a parachute, while the EU does not. We will be free to strike our own advantageous free trade agreements with countries like India – preparing many in advance and grandfathering existing ones, such as the one with South Korea. The EU economy will be stuck behind its protectionist walls, too compromised by having to manage the competing interests of 27 member states to nimbly secure new agreements of its own.
Yes British businesses will have to face some tariffs, but with sterling down since the referendum, these are of less significance than opponents suggest. We should also remember that under WTO rules, the EU cannot single out the UK for unusually punitive tariffs – they must be the same as they are for the US, China and Japan.
Of course no deal will be called a hard Brexit, or even an extreme Brexit, but it would result in Britain operating in a way no different to most other Western countries in terms of control of economic, political and social affairs. And ironically, because a hard Brexit would result in a hard border between England and an independent Scotland, it actually makes Scottish independence less likely than a soft Brexit.
No deal is not in the wrong galaxy. If it comes to it, why have cotton when you can have silk?

Sunday, 30 April 2017

JAPAN TIMES Brexit Headlines: 1 Apr - 30 Apr 2017

The Japan Times
Brexit Headlines

Brexit to dominate as May sets out plans for U.K. re-electionWORLD / POLITICSAPR 25, 2017

BY KYLIE MACLELLAN
Whatever Prime Minister Theresa May's Conservatives promise in their manifesto before a June election, managing Britain's exit from the European Union will limit her opportunity to push wide-ranging radical domestic change. Brexit is already diverting government attention from other, often pressing, issues — the number ...

The 'Brenda factor' and the British election

COMMENTARY / WORLDAPR 24, 2017

BY HUGH CORTAZZI
Prime Minister Theresa May's decision to call a snap election after repeatedly saying she would not do so has dented her reputation for honesty.

EDITORIALS   APR 21, 2017

Prime Minister Theresa May is seeking to strengthen her hand domestically as she 
enters into difficult Brexit negotiations.

British parliament backs May's plan for June 8 snap election

WORLD / POLITICSAPR 19, 2017

Prime Minister Theresa May won parliament's backing for an early election on Wednesday, a vote she said would strengthen her hand in divorce talks with the European Union and help heal divisions in Britain. May surprised allies and opponents on Tuesday when she announced her ...

Saturday, 29 April 2017

UK economy continues to shine after Brexit vote

The British economy is actually growing at a solid pace, despite the dishonest reporting of many in the mainstream media following data last week. Project Fear continues to show a desperation to ignore the reality of a very successful Brexit story after last year's referendum


Flags_latest
Brexit economy flies high
6f37592038ebe4c2dc83c06bb82884256d790fa4
John Redwood MP
On 29 April 2017 10:27
UK GDP continues to advance faster than most advanced countries, at a pace well up with the new official  forecasts of 2 percent growth. In the first quarter of 2017 the economy grew by 0.3%, the same rate of growth as in the first quarter of 2016 before the Brexit vote.
The annual rate was 2.1 percent, a figure some are reluctant to report.
Real incomes were up, and manufacturing and production were up by more than the rate of general growth, thanks to exports and import substitution.
Pessimistic commentators focus on how first quarter growth was lower than fourth quarter 2016, which was a great figure which none of them predicted. Indeed many of them found it uncomfortable given their forecasts of winter recession.
Retail spending was weaker in the first quarter 2017.
Easter was later this year so there may have been some problems adjusting the figures for that effect. Food and beverage spending was well up in contrast.
There is a perpetual spin line that weak sterling will lead to price rises which will squeeze consumption which will damage the economy.
Those who think this need to answer why it is that UK inflation has not gone up by more than Germany and by less than US, and to acknowledge that a large part of the UK price rises so far has come from a much higher international price of oil.
They should also now be saying that given the pound has risen 8 percent from its low against the dollar and the Euro, the two main importing currencies, there should be some improved effect on their analysis as imports get cheaper again.
Mr. Redwood's writing is re-posted here by his kind permission. This and other articles are available at  johnredwoodsdiary.com

http://www.thecommentator.com/article/6560/uk_economy_continues_to_shine_after_brexit_vote

Friday, 21 April 2017

MUST READ: What happened to BBC honest reporting on Brexit?

Sometimes the BBC just doesn't bother to try and hide its institutional bias. Its anti-Brexit pro-EU stance takes the biscuit. John Redwood MP gives us an extraordinary first hand account of a shocking departure from basic journalistic standards


Bbc_newsroom
A very biased newsroom
6f37592038ebe4c2dc83c06bb82884256d790fa4
John Redwood MP
On 21 April 2017 01:12
On Wednesday, I was phoned up and asked onto the BBC Radio 4 Today programme. They said they wanted me to answer questions about how the election would change the UK’s ability to negotiate a good new relationship with the EU.
I was happy to do so, and said I could make any time at their studio. It seemed like a good topic, and central to what the PM said about her reason for calling the election.
They then proceeded to ask me a series of questions all designed to get me to disagree with the UK negotiating position and the Prime Minister. I explained that I supported the PM, agreed with her Brexit White Paper and stated aims, and suggested if all they wanted to do was to criticise her they should approach the Opposition parties.
They continued to try to get me to disagree. They did not seem to have read the White Paper or the PM’s speech on the topic, so I had to tell them what was in them and why I agreed with them.
I explained again that their thesis that the Leave supporting MPs were in disagreement with the PM and were “rebels” was simply untrue. We are not in disagreement with the PM and we have been strongly supporting the government’s statements and legislation on Brexit. She said she would get back to me about the invitation to go on, with the details.
She did not of course bother to, as it was clear I was unwilling to feed their view of what the news should be.
I then found another Leave supporting Conservative MP had been given the same treatment, and he too had thought the BBC were trying to change the news rather than reporting the position.
When I came to do a live interview on some other BBC programme I was faced with the same stupid thesis and had to explain on air how wrong their idea  was.
I do not know who is feeding the BBC this nonsense, but it is frustrating that they do not accept the truth from those whose views they claim to be reporting, and do not bother to get back and openly say they do not want you on because you won’t say what they want you to say.
Mr. Redwood's writing is re-posted here by his kind permission. This and other articles are available at  johnredwoodsdiary.com