Brexit economist dismisses Government Brexit predictions – so why don’t we just use his?

On Monday, in an article in The Telegraph, Brexit economist Patrick Minford said that the Treasury’s projections of the long-term and short-term effect of a Brexit were “flawed”.

He finishes by saying:

The establishment is wrong over Brexit, as it was repeatedly wrong on major UK policy issues in the past 40 years. Brexit will be a major liberal supply-side reform of the British economy. We should embrace it.

So what if we do “embrace” Brexit?

A Brexit view of UK manufacturing

Manufacturing accounts for 44% of UK exports and directly employs 2.6 million people amounting to 10% of the value of what the UK produces. This excludes the services (catering, maintenance, security etc) needed to run a manufacturing industry, if those are added in manufacturing amounts to 19% of what the UK produces.

UK Manufacturing numbers

According to Patrick Minford the loss of this employment isn’t a problem:

Around half of young adults now go to university, ending up in professions such as finance or law, while the making of things such as car parts or carpentry has hugely shrunk — but there will always be jobs for people without sophisticated skills

The Sun – 15 March 2016

So what happens to the 50% of young adults who do not go into higher education or those that do and cannot find employment in professions such as law or finance?

Where will those jobs come from for the “people without sophisticated skills”, as Patrick Minford puts it?

Seems like a good reason to vote to “Remain in the EU” on 23rd June.

Posted in brexit, consequences, employment, Rebutal | Tagged , , , , , | 1 Comment

Leaving the EU – how to understand it…

From Philip Cresswell a member of one of the SY2E – Remain in the EU groups.

You are a member of a golf club. One member is notorious for whingeing about membership fees, the state of the greens and the kind of beer served in the clubhouse but never, ever getting involved in the work required to run the club.

That member suddenly announces that they are planning to leave, because the rules are far too restrictive and the fees poor value and the proceedings at the AGM are undemocratic.

Said member also comments about expecting to be able to play for free in future as a former member and occasional team member and “long-time, dedicated follower of the game”.

Do you

(a) accept a vote to allow that now ex-member special privileges

or

(b) vote to ban that member from club premises in perpetuity?

Posted in brexit, reflections | Tagged ,

TTIP and Public Health Services – Why the EU isn’t a threat to the NHS

Bart Staes, MEP and ENVI (Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety) committee member has reported to the European Parliament that “We cannot afford to sacrifice certain of the European safeguards on the altar of free trade”

Although compromise in some areas has been achieved during TTIP negotiations the EU has adopted a very firm stance on fundamental issues. This includes Public Health Services, the EU has – in line with the views of the public in EU member states – declared that public health services will not be part of TTIP negotiations; the EU public health services, including the NHS, will not be opened up to U.S. companies.

This is not some piece of political maneuvering, a number of EU members have expressed very serious concerns about the protection of Public Health Services from US TTIP proposals.

The US negotiators were surprised about the resistance to their proposals, not being used to having such robust negotiators on the other side of the table.

The EU is protecting it’s citizens rights and privileges (both National and EU) by using it’s political and economic clout to keep European Public Health Services off the negotiating table.

Don’t take my word for it go here where, among other things, the EU discusses Public Health Services in regards to TTIP. Or go here for a post by Steve Peers on his EU law analysis blog.

Posted in EU, TTIP | Tagged , | 1 Comment

EU Referendum franchise challenge – a message from the legal team and Harry Schindler

From Leigh Day – 25th May 2016

So this is the end of the legal battle, we took it all the way to the highest Court in the country but unfortunately we were unable to persuade the Supreme Court justices of what we still believe is a deeply unfair and unlawful decision by the Government to prevent British citizens, who are acutely affected by the EU Referendum, to vote in it.

The five Supreme Court justices – Lady Hale, Lord Mance, Lord Reed, Lord Sumption and Lord Hughes – unanimously rejected our legal challenge. A video of proceedings can be viewed via the link below:

https://www.supremecourt.uk/watch/uksc-2016-0105/240516-am.html

At the conclusion Lady Hale said: “We have decided that it is not arguable that there is an interference with the right to free movement for the reasons given by both the (High Court) and the Court of Appeal in this case.”

She added: “We do have considerable sympathy for the situation in which the applicants find themselves. We understand that this is something that concerns them deeply, but we cannot discern a legal basis for challenging this statute (2015 Act).”

We would like to say how much stronger our case was with such fantastic appellants and with the support of so many of you. Many thanks for all the good wishes, ideas and passion as we battled through the Courts.

We’ll leave the last word to Harry Shindler MBE

“I have a hope, I always have a hope, that at this late hour the Government will act on the basis that the need for UK to remain in Europe is more important than trying to pacify the OUT members of the government.”

Matrix Chambers

Aidan O’Neill QC

Christopher Brown

Anita Davies

Leigh Day

Richard Stein

Rosa Curling

 

Posted in expatriates, VotesforLife | Tagged , ,

Millionaire Leave campaigner Arron Banks would privatise the NHS

Millionaire Leave campaigner Arron Banks on OUR NHS - Stronger In

Millionaire Leave campaigner Arron Banks on OUR NHS – Stronger In

Posted in infographics | Tagged

So the Leavers say the EU is undemocratic. Another Myth debunked.

Thanks to Paula Kirby, a member of one of the SY2E – Remain in the EU groups.

I’d like to correct a very widespread misunderstanding.

It is not correct to say the EU is unelected. It is true that the EU Commission is not directly elected, but its members, the Commissioners, are all nominated by elected national parliaments and then have to be approved by the elected EU Parliament. And it cannot make any laws or regulations. It can propose them, but only the elected EU Parliament and the Council of ministers can approve (or reject) them. The EU Council, consists of the elected heads of the elected national governments. So ultimate control of the EU Commission rests firmly with elected bodies, some of them at national and not even EU level.

It’s also important to understand the areas of responsibility (“competence” in legalese) where the EU makes laws and regulations. All EU members have opted – following votes in their national, elected parliaments – to delegate responsibility for certain (but most definitely not all!) policy areas to the EU. The “competences” delegated to the EU relate to things such as the Single Market – which by definition could not work if each member state made its own rules – and issues that can be far more effectively addressed in collaboration rather than as individual nation states. Things like climate change and counter-terrorism, for instance.

This doesn’t mean that national governments can’t and don’t implement their own specific legislation in these areas to supplement the EU legislation, but it does ensure that certain basic compatibilities are in place so that all EU members really are pulling together and achieving agreed minimum standards on these issues that affect us all. It makes total sense for “competence” for such matters to be at EU level, as that is the only way to ensure cohesion and consistency and therefore far greater effectiveness in dealing with these transnational issues.
And remember that, even in these areas, no legislation or regulation can be passed without the approval of the directly elected EU Parliament and directly-elected-at-national-level EU Council, in both of which we have the same degree of influence and veto as any other EU member, and actually have a strong track record of exerting that influence.
Legislation for the good of the individual countries on issues that have not been delegated to the EU is and remains the responsibility of individual national governments.
I hope that helps to settle your concerns on those issues.

Posted in EU, myths | Tagged , ,

Why do the Leavers think it is OK to abuse people that disagree with them?

Some of you may have seen this photograph of World War One soldiers before.

Yesterday a Brexiteer sent my wife a version of it disfigured with a speech bubble emanating from the soldier in the centre of the photograph.

World War One British Soldiers.

World War One British Soldiers.

The speech bubble said “So, are you telling me that 100 years from now, our descendants are going to hand Britain over to the Germans without lifting a finger??? “.

The blatant racism & xenophobia is bad enough but hijacking the sacrifice of past generations is despicable.

Grahame Pigney – a member of one of the SY2E – Remain in the EU groups.

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

The Brexit campaign goes on about the ‘burden of red tape’ Can anyone give some examples?

ByPhilip Baker a member of one of the “SY2E – Remain in the EU” groups.

The Brexit campaign goes on and on about the ‘burden of red tape’ forced on small businesses by the EU. What they never seem to do is to give examples of what red tape they are talking about.

Until fairly recently I ran a travel company, organising tours in the UK and in continental Europe. I did this for about 10 years. I was not aware of any EU-imposed red tape at all – nothing in fact. Obviously I had to follow the essential and sensible rules for tour operators, and I had to deal with VAT of course. But these were routine matters and not particularly burdensome, and I would certainly have had to do the same if the UK was not in the EU.

So what exactly is all this ‘red tape’ that they say is being imposed on small businesses by the EU? Can anyone give some examples?

Posted in reflections | Tagged