Could there be riots if brexit is delayed?

Could there be disappointment amongst the electorate if we are to delay Brexit. I don't know, but I am sure given the emotion on this issue, the level of confidence we have in our representatives, the self sabotage the MPs have done to themselves it is highly likely.

1. The MPs have openly gone against the “Will of the people”. This is not their job they are there to represent the people.  It is their job, it is what they are paid to do. 
2. The manifestos garnered 80% of all the votes, the manifestos made clear the referendum would be honoured, brexit means brexit. 
3. Compound the issue we the electorate have been told repeatedly that we are stupid, that we got it wrong, that we must vote again.

This really does not inspire confidence for future votes. Anna Sourby can attest to, her members were set on her deselection, the only way to hang in was to go as an independent. For sure, we have heard the last of her.

For the longest time we have been told the referendum has been won on a lie.  I can't for the life of me see where the lie was. Sure the bus, much has been made of this but the NHS have had an increase of some significance. The immigration queues, perhaps this has upset many liberal do-gooders, but the facts are there. By opening up to the Eastern states formerly under Soviet control there was a miscalculation. There was an overwhelming increase from those seeking better prospects and were prepared to come in at a lower pay, reducing salaries, taking jobs and generally swamping our services. This was a benefit to the big corporation not to the average man or women on the street whose overheads are from the UK.

As to the labels that are placed upon us I have to refer back to a speech Mrs Thatcher made, “It's always good when they call you names it means they no longer have a single political argument in which to support their reasoning”.
On that note, I can not for the life of me refer to a single argument for staying in the EU. There is so much out there that shows compelling reasons to leave.

1. Our exports to the EU have shrunk at a time when WTO countries exports to the EU have risen.
2. The EU, euro zone since 2008 has managed only a 2% + growth over that period.  The UK has achieved 8%.
3. Unemployment across the EU is significant it's 7.9% average if you consider the under 25s it is dire.  French unemployment sits at 9.1%, the UK is around 4%.

Investment into the UK since the referendum has so far been so good that we came in ahead of the USA, we were beaten only by China.  Indeed, the investment picture makes leaving even more compelling, as many EU countries and industries are piling money into the UK. There is a strong expectation that leaving will be good for the UK.

1. Our exports to the EU represent just 10% of our GDP, some figures show this as 12% but in reality 2% passes through Rotterdam and Antwerp. 
2. Of course if we avoid the withdrawal agreement as tabled then we regain control of our borders and our laws. Be mindful of article 4 of the withdrawal agreement there is a trap inside this article which will keep us under the ECJ.
3. Regulation has grown enormously and this regulation has to be applied unilaterally across all our manufactured products regardless of the destination. This is a significant unnecessary burden to businesses. After all why is it necessary to warn people that Salmon may contain fish. 
4. Tariffs coming into the UK from farms and producers outside of the EU are absurd. Some dairy products carry a 50% tariff. Confectionery 30%, Frozen prawns 20% which is a recent increase from 14%. Since the referendum there have been 266 new tariffs applied to product and produce coming into the EU. 

When you climb inside this, there appears no rational argument or reasoning for many of these tariffs other than to generate revenue for the EU coffers.

Therefore, we have to ask ourselves what is the argument to stay inside this monstrous authoritarian block. Why do Blair, Clegg, Adonis, Clarke, Major et all. Insist we are at risk if we leave, there are still today no arguments to support remain only vested interests and name-calling.

Mikael Gorbachev once said “The EU is the old Soviet Union in Western clothes”.

Could there be disappointment amongst the electorate if we are to delay Brexit. I don't know, but I am sure given the emotion on this issue, the level of confidence we have in our representatives, the self sabotage the MPs have done to themselves it is highly likely.

1. The MPs have openly gone against the “Will of the people”. This is not their job they are there to represent the people.  It is their job, it is what they are paid to do. 
2. The manifestos garnered 80% of all the votes, the manifestos made clear the referendum would be honoured, brexit means brexit. 
3. Compound the issue we the electorate have been told repeatedly that we are stupid, that we got it wrong, that we must vote again.

This really does not inspire confidence for future votes. Anna Sourby can attest to, her members were set on her deselection, the only way to hang in was to go as an independent. For sure, we have heard the last of her.

For the longest time we have been told the referendum has been won on a lie.  I can't for the life of me see where the lie was. Sure the bus, much has been made of this but the NHS have had an increase of some significance. The immigration queues, perhaps this has upset many liberal do-gooders, but the facts are there. By opening up to the Eastern states formerly under Soviet control there was a miscalculation. There was an overwhelming increase from those seeking better prospects and were prepared to come in at a lower pay, reducing salaries, taking jobs and generally swamping our services. This was a benefit to the big corporation not to the average man or women on the street whose overheads are from the UK.

As to the labels that are placed upon us I have to refer back to a speech Mrs Thatcher made, “It's always good when they call you names it means they no longer have a single political argument in which to support their reasoning”.
On that note, I can not for the life of me refer to a single argument for staying in the EU. There is so much out there that shows compelling reasons to leave.

1. Our exports to the EU have shrunk at a time when WTO countries exports to the EU have risen.
2. The EU, euro zone since 2008 has managed only a 2% + growth over that period.  The UK has achieved 8%.
3. Unemployment across the EU is significant it's 7.9% average if you consider the under 25s it is dire.  French unemployment sits at 9.1%, the UK is around 4%.

Investment into the UK since the referendum has so far been so good that we came in ahead of the USA, we were beaten only by China.  Indeed, the investment picture makes leaving even more compelling, as many EU countries and industries are piling money into the UK. There is a strong expectation that leaving will be good for the UK.

1. Our exports to the EU represent just 10% of our GDP, some figures show this as 12% but in reality 2% passes through Rotterdam and Antwerp. 
2. Of course if we avoid the withdrawal agreement as tabled then we regain control of our borders and our laws. Be mindful of article 4 of the withdrawal agreement there is a trap inside this article which will keep us under the ECJ.
3. Regulation has grown enormously and this regulation has to be applied unilaterally across all our manufactured products regardless of the destination. This is a significant unnecessary burden to businesses. After all why is it necessary to warn people that Salmon may contain fish. 
4. Tariffs coming into the UK from farms and producers outside of the EU are absurd. Some dairy products carry a 50% tariff. Confectionery 30%, Frozen prawns 20% which is a recent increase from 14%. Since the referendum there have been 266 new tariffs applied to product and produce coming into the EU. 

When you climb inside this, there appears no rational argument or reasoning for many of these tariffs other than to generate revenue for the EU coffers.

Therefore, we have to ask ourselves what is the argument to stay inside this monstrous authoritarian block. Why do Blair, Clegg, Adonis, Clarke, Major et all. Insist we are at risk if we leave, there are still today no arguments to support remain only vested interests and name-calling.

Mikael Gorbachev once said “The EU is the old Soviet Union in Western clothes”.

Brexit - Feb 25th Delay really Why? Blair's A Brexiteer

Several headlines captured me this morning. That's my morning as l’m slightly North of Australia.  The one that concerns me the most is of course the possibility of delaying Brexit. Another which is of significance was an article I read on Linkedin. The article referred to the businesses that are struggling due to uncertainty.  They just need that we get on with it and leave, if it's no deal they can plan accordingly.  As I've pointed out in previous papers that I've written, 90% of our manufactured goods go outside of the EU (88% directly out with a further 2% entering the EU and then leaving via Rotterdam), yet we have to apply EU regulation across the board.

The terms that we will trade on need to be clarified and planned accordingly.  The MPs that are frustrating this process are no friend of the British people and should be removed. We are now at a point where a further delay is unacceptable.  With an oncoming recession this could do irretrievable harm to corporate UK.  The EU has been a sick segment of the world for far too long. Their collective growth since 2008 have been poor to say the least, they, the Euro zone have averaged a little over 2% in 9 years. The UK 8.8%, the USA 14.4%. If you show Germany they are at 7.6%, France 4.6%, Greece minus 27%.



Our exports to the EU have underperformed the exports from WTO countries. Businesses need clarity. Are we in are we out? To delay just drops a fog over the British Isles and the United Kingdom.  Soon the remainers will have their way and be able to prove Brexit will have damaged the economy. Yet it's not Brexit that will damage it, it is they! We are where the remainers want us to be! We should have no patience with this.

I also read an article in the Daily Telegraph written by Boris. He refers to the labels that are applied to us Brexiteers. Zealots, Xenophobic, Racist and so on.  That somehow unless you're right wing with fascists tendencies you would want to remain in the EU. Boris makes an excellent point that Tony Blair was a fervent Brexiteer (Although my gut tells me that was him telling us what we wanted to hear in order that he gets his way winning the highest office in the land.  It is also not beyond the realm of being possible that he is angling for Junker's job, but of course we have to remain.  History will go full circle!). But, nonetheless Boris refers to many other lefties that have expressed dis-satisfaction with the EU.



I for one can not be labelled in such terms.  My business is in Asia, it focuses on Indonesia in particular. I stand ready to support Corporate UK to establish a presence in the soon to be 5th largest economy. Who, incidentally trades with the EU on WTO. My wife is a legal and financial expert, and she is Asian. My partners are Asian some are mixed and from many religious beliefs. To label Brexiteers this way is to do the UK an injustice, it is also an insult to our seafaring ancestry.

The facts are clear, regulation is absurd. Tariffs are ridiculous 50% on some dairy products, 30% on others reducing to 18% in some cases.  This is a tax on the people of the UK. It is a tax that benefits Europe and not us Brits!

Leave, and do it on March the 29th at 11pm. Take no nonsense from these vested self interested politician's. A delay is appalling behaviour.

Several headlines captured me this morning. That's my morning as l’m slightly North of Australia.  The one that concerns me the most is of course the possibility of delaying Brexit. Another which is of significance was an article I read on Linkedin. The article referred to the businesses that are struggling due to uncertainty.  They just need that we get on with it and leave, if it's no deal they can plan accordingly.  As I've pointed out in previous papers that I've written, 90% of our manufactured goods go outside of the EU (88% directly out with a further 2% entering the EU and then leaving via Rotterdam), yet we have to apply EU regulation across the board.

The terms that we will trade on need to be clarified and planned accordingly.  The MPs that are frustrating this process are no friend of the British people and should be removed. We are now at a point where a further delay is unacceptable.  With an oncoming recession this could do irretrievable harm to corporate UK.  The EU has been a sick segment of the world for far too long. Their collective growth since 2008 have been poor to say the least, they, the Euro zone have averaged a little over 2% in 9 years. The UK 8.8%, the USA 14.4%. If you show Germany they are at 7.6%, France 4.6%, Greece minus 27%.



Our exports to the EU have underperformed the exports from WTO countries. Businesses need clarity. Are we in are we out? To delay just drops a fog over the British Isles and the United Kingdom.  Soon the remainers will have their way and be able to prove Brexit will have damaged the economy. Yet it's not Brexit that will damage it, it is they! We are where the remainers want us to be! We should have no patience with this.

I also read an article in the Daily Telegraph written by Boris. He refers to the labels that are applied to us Brexiteers. Zealots, Xenophobic, Racist and so on.  That somehow unless you're right wing with fascists tendencies you would want to remain in the EU. Boris makes an excellent point that Tony Blair was a fervent Brexiteer (Although my gut tells me that was him telling us what we wanted to hear in order that he gets his way winning the highest office in the land.  It is also not beyond the realm of being possible that he is angling for Junker's job, but of course we have to remain.  History will go full circle!). But, nonetheless Boris refers to many other lefties that have expressed dis-satisfaction with the EU.



I for one can not be labelled in such terms.  My business is in Asia, it focuses on Indonesia in particular. I stand ready to support Corporate UK to establish a presence in the soon to be 5th largest economy. Who, incidentally trades with the EU on WTO. My wife is a legal and financial expert, and she is Asian. My partners are Asian some are mixed and from many religious beliefs. To label Brexiteers this way is to do the UK an injustice, it is also an insult to our seafaring ancestry.

The facts are clear, regulation is absurd. Tariffs are ridiculous 50% on some dairy products, 30% on others reducing to 18% in some cases.  This is a tax on the people of the UK. It is a tax that benefits Europe and not us Brits!

Leave, and do it on March the 29th at 11pm. Take no nonsense from these vested self interested politician's. A delay is appalling behaviour.

Brexit - The Grim Reaper Has Come Knocking

The benefits of EU and Single Market membership have been illusory, while its costs are real, onerous and unacceptable to the majority of the British people.

Michael Burrage 2017

To remain in the single market the UK must apply all regulations and controls as defined by the EU to its entire economy. So where is the problem? The problem is, only 12% of our total GDP goes direct to the EU, the rest we export to countries outside of the EU. The anomaly in all of this; even from the 12%, approx. 2% travels to Rotterdam or Antwerp for further export leaving the EU. Therefore, you could argue 90% of our GDP carries a burden of EU regulations that are not necessary. This is costly to UK businesses.

Consider rules and regulations governing employment law. Nearly all of our GDP comes from the domestic market: Whether it is health and welfare services, the retail trade, utilities, entertainment, bars and restaurants, services such as dry cleaning and home repairs and maintenance.

The rules and regulations are having and have had a serious impact. Particularly affected by this are the NHS. The EU issued a working hour directive in 2009, limiting the hours a person can work, to 48 hours a week. They must have designated rest periods and regular breaks. Therefore, and as an example, Junior Doctors are restricted as to the number of hours they can work. I can hear you say, so they should be they seem worked to death, but consider that as a Junior doctor you must attain certain skills and experience in order to progress. Individuals are taking much longer to reach the level required, to be proficient, let alone to attain “Consultant” status.  This has a serious impact on staffing levels.  Experience is low, a reduced numbers of Consultants able to practise. This issue is right across the NHS. This is not what a junior Doctor wants when entering this career / vocation.

These rules and regulations apply right across the service sector. A sector that the ‘single market’ has no benefit. It only applies an onerous cost, as Michael Burrage claims refer in the snippet above. 

Membership of the single market is not the same as the customs union. The customs union has been around since the very beginning of the EU, whereas the single market only since 1993. lt is the customs union that decides our tariffs. Within the custom union there are three (3) elements. 

1. Members may not impose tariffs or non-tariff barriers on imports from other member states; 
2. They do, however, impose the centrally agreed tariff rates on imports from the rest of the world, the so-called Common External Tariff (CET); 
3. They give up the ability to negotiate trade relationships with other countries. This power is transferred to the EU. 

Where Theresa May has come unstuck with the negotiation:

1. She wants tariff free trade with the EU whilst not applying tariffs on product and services brought into the UK from the rest of the world. Hence, the cake and eat it scenario. 
2. The election, the result weakened her hand considerably. Although in many ways it should not have done, 80% of the votes were won on a Brexit manifesto.

To achieve 1 above this was always a tall order, a modicum of compromise was always inevitable. But to find ourselves in the situation we are today well, that is due to dishonesty on the part of MPs that have obfuscated beyond their mandate.

For the EU to agree to 1 above this would result in the rest of the world driving their exports to the EU via the UK, therefore avoiding the CET. This would be folly on the part of the EU, not least for the loss of revenue. Of course advocates of the Customs Union are keen we remain a member. But again there are no intrinsic benefits to our membership. Food, clothing and footwear would still have considerable tariffs applied, and of course we would not be able to strike free trade deals from around the world. As I've said before the EU take less of our exports at a time when WTO countries trade has grown substantially. 

Not to make light of the tariffs more to show the bizarre way in which they are applied. Unicycles have a 15% tariff applied, whereby a sub orbital spacecraft has only a 4% levy. Food and beverages are subject to considerably more. Confectionery has a tariff just shy of 30%, some dairy products that's around 50%, Grapes 17% and frozen prawns 20%. If you research the tariff regime it's clear there is no logic to this and nor can anyone explain the rational, it is purely arbitrary. 

I'll leave this blog here. I continue to hope we follow through and free ourselves from these shackles. 

As Margaret Thatcher said:

The benefits of EU and Single Market membership have been illusory, while its costs are real, onerous and unacceptable to the majority of the British people.

Michael Burrage 2017

To remain in the single market the UK must apply all regulations and controls as defined by the EU to its entire economy. So where is the problem? The problem is, only 12% of our total GDP goes direct to the EU, the rest we export to countries outside of the EU. The anomaly in all of this; even from the 12%, approx. 2% travels to Rotterdam or Antwerp for further export leaving the EU. Therefore, you could argue 90% of our GDP carries a burden of EU regulations that are not necessary. This is costly to UK businesses.

Consider rules and regulations governing employment law. Nearly all of our GDP comes from the domestic market: Whether it is health and welfare services, the retail trade, utilities, entertainment, bars and restaurants, services such as dry cleaning and home repairs and maintenance.

The rules and regulations are having and have had a serious impact. Particularly affected by this are the NHS. The EU issued a working hour directive in 2009, limiting the hours a person can work, to 48 hours a week. They must have designated rest periods and regular breaks. Therefore, and as an example, Junior Doctors are restricted as to the number of hours they can work. I can hear you say, so they should be they seem worked to death, but consider that as a Junior doctor you must attain certain skills and experience in order to progress. Individuals are taking much longer to reach the level required, to be proficient, let alone to attain “Consultant” status.  This has a serious impact on staffing levels.  Experience is low, a reduced numbers of Consultants able to practise. This issue is right across the NHS. This is not what a junior Doctor wants when entering this career / vocation.

These rules and regulations apply right across the service sector. A sector that the ‘single market’ has no benefit. It only applies an onerous cost, as Michael Burrage claims refer in the snippet above. 

Membership of the single market is not the same as the customs union. The customs union has been around since the very beginning of the EU, whereas the single market only since 1993. lt is the customs union that decides our tariffs. Within the custom union there are three (3) elements. 

1. Members may not impose tariffs or non-tariff barriers on imports from other member states; 
2. They do, however, impose the centrally agreed tariff rates on imports from the rest of the world, the so-called Common External Tariff (CET); 
3. They give up the ability to negotiate trade relationships with other countries. This power is transferred to the EU. 

Where Theresa May has come unstuck with the negotiation:

1. She wants tariff free trade with the EU whilst not applying tariffs on product and services brought into the UK from the rest of the world. Hence, the cake and eat it scenario. 
2. The election, the result weakened her hand considerably. Although in many ways it should not have done, 80% of the votes were won on a Brexit manifesto.

To achieve 1 above this was always a tall order, a modicum of compromise was always inevitable. But to find ourselves in the situation we are today well, that is due to dishonesty on the part of MPs that have obfuscated beyond their mandate.

For the EU to agree to 1 above this would result in the rest of the world driving their exports to the EU via the UK, therefore avoiding the CET. This would be folly on the part of the EU, not least for the loss of revenue. Of course advocates of the Customs Union are keen we remain a member. But again there are no intrinsic benefits to our membership. Food, clothing and footwear would still have considerable tariffs applied, and of course we would not be able to strike free trade deals from around the world. As I've said before the EU take less of our exports at a time when WTO countries trade has grown substantially. 

Not to make light of the tariffs more to show the bizarre way in which they are applied. Unicycles have a 15% tariff applied, whereby a sub orbital spacecraft has only a 4% levy. Food and beverages are subject to considerably more. Confectionery has a tariff just shy of 30%, some dairy products that's around 50%, Grapes 17% and frozen prawns 20%. If you research the tariff regime it's clear there is no logic to this and nor can anyone explain the rational, it is purely arbitrary. 

I'll leave this blog here. I continue to hope we follow through and free ourselves from these shackles. 

As Margaret Thatcher said:

The EU Single Market Issues

The EU single market

Patrick Minford's - Economist and advocate for free trade explains:

"The Single Market is simply the geographic area within which EU regulation creates ease of doing business and around which the EU creates a protective trade barrier as well as mandating free migration. Thus to be ‘in’ it requires that one submits to the regulation, the protection and the free migration".

To explain in more detail it is a single market that all can sell into provided each market follows the regulations as set out by the EU regulations. It is also a protectionist market that prevents products and produce from landing in Europe undercutting produce grown in the EU. Such as: Oranges from South Africa, Bananas etc. These can be shipped into the EU but are subject to tariffs. Hence, why Jacob Rees-Mogg refers to cheaper food, clothing and footwear. We can lift these protectionist tariffs.

I guess you have to ask was this Baroness Thatcher’s vision as she pushed the single market agenda. The simple answer is no! Baroness Thatcher was an advocate of few regulations and envisaged a market as such. Since the introduction of the single market regulation has gone through the roof.

To be outside we can reduce the burden on business. But! We have to adhere to EU regulation if we are to sell into the EU. This could mean two types of manufacturing process. So why are we leaving? It's simple much of our business is outside of the EU. But currently today we have to adhere to all this regulation, this is a substantial burden on business. Look to our growth with the EU it has been a lack lustre event at best, since 2008 we have dropped from 55% down to 44% of our exports. Meanwhile, WTO countries have increased 27%.

On a point of note, UK exports between 1973 to 1992 grew sharply under the Common Market. Since joining the single market our exports to the EU have declined sharply.

The myth in all of this is the way it's portrayed.  There is a reverence paid to the single market. It's as if, ifwe are not inside we will not be able to trade. Therefore, we should be at least partly in, partly out, or even as though we should have access for parts of the week and not other parts. This is a myth! Everyone has access to the single market, whether it be India, USA or Indonesia.  All trade perfectly well inside the EU.  And, as I've said before they in fact trade better under WTO.

The EU Euro zone GDP is poorly performing and has done so since 2008. Its underperformance is significantly below that of the USA, Canada and the UK. Today it would appear they will slip into recession.

We must leave, and leave cleanly!

The EU single market

Patrick Minford's - Economist and advocate for free trade explains:

"The Single Market is simply the geographic area within which EU regulation creates ease of doing business and around which the EU creates a protective trade barrier as well as mandating free migration. Thus to be ‘in’ it requires that one submits to the regulation, the protection and the free migration".

To explain in more detail it is a single market that all can sell into provided each market follows the regulations as set out by the EU regulations. It is also a protectionist market that prevents products and produce from landing in Europe undercutting produce grown in the EU. Such as: Oranges from South Africa, Bananas etc. These can be shipped into the EU but are subject to tariffs. Hence, why Jacob Rees-Mogg refers to cheaper food, clothing and footwear. We can lift these protectionist tariffs.

I guess you have to ask was this Baroness Thatcher’s vision as she pushed the single market agenda. The simple answer is no! Baroness Thatcher was an advocate of few regulations and envisaged a market as such. Since the introduction of the single market regulation has gone through the roof.

To be outside we can reduce the burden on business. But! We have to adhere to EU regulation if we are to sell into the EU. This could mean two types of manufacturing process. So why are we leaving? It's simple much of our business is outside of the EU. But currently today we have to adhere to all this regulation, this is a substantial burden on business. Look to our growth with the EU it has been a lack lustre event at best, since 2008 we have dropped from 55% down to 44% of our exports. Meanwhile, WTO countries have increased 27%.

On a point of note, UK exports between 1973 to 1992 grew sharply under the Common Market. Since joining the single market our exports to the EU have declined sharply.

The myth in all of this is the way it's portrayed.  There is a reverence paid to the single market. It's as if, ifwe are not inside we will not be able to trade. Therefore, we should be at least partly in, partly out, or even as though we should have access for parts of the week and not other parts. This is a myth! Everyone has access to the single market, whether it be India, USA or Indonesia.  All trade perfectly well inside the EU.  And, as I've said before they in fact trade better under WTO.

The EU Euro zone GDP is poorly performing and has done so since 2008. Its underperformance is significantly below that of the USA, Canada and the UK. Today it would appear they will slip into recession.

We must leave, and leave cleanly!

It is my belief,  and I said this before. If you declare your hand that you are not willing to walk away then you become supplicant to the negotiation and for sure will be doomed to colonial status in perpetuity.

The remainers make great store in regard to our non-compliance in exporting to the EU if we are to leave the Customs Union. Let's deal with this today.

1. If, we are no longer in a customs union then our products that are export to the EU would be covered by an FTA. But of course we won't have one, at least not immediately, depending on the behaviour of the EU lord and masters this could be some time coming. So the remainers have some traction here except:

2. There is a mechanism for WTO countries to comply through what they call MRA’s (Mutual Recognition Agreements). There are many countries which do not have FTAs with the EU these countries trade perfectly well with an MRA in place, including Australia, Japan and the United States. Of course Remainers will obfuscate as the EU could withhold, through some petty squabble such approvals. In which case UK exports to the EU would grind to a halt. This is a nebulas' argument as trade is two-way, and favour the EU.

It is my belief,  and I said this before. If you declare your hand that you are not willing to walk away then you become supplicant to the negotiation and for sure will be doomed to colonial status in perpetuity.

The remainers make great store in regard to our non-compliance in exporting to the EU if we are to leave the Customs Union. Let's deal with this today.

1. If, we are no longer in a customs union then our products that are export to the EU would be covered by an FTA. But of course we won't have one, at least not immediately, depending on the behaviour of the EU lord and masters this could be some time coming. So the remainers have some traction here except:

2. There is a mechanism for WTO countries to comply through what they call MRA’s (Mutual Recognition Agreements). There are many countries which do not have FTAs with the EU these countries trade perfectly well with an MRA in place, including Australia, Japan and the United States. Of course Remainers will obfuscate as the EU could withhold, through some petty squabble such approvals. In which case UK exports to the EU would grind to a halt. This is a nebulas' argument as trade is two-way, and favour the EU.

Is this really what we want for our future within the EU? Hell no!

No comment needed!  Comments courtesy of the 

Three Stooges no coincidence

intended here!

Not really!

No comment needed!  Comments courtesy of the 

Three Stooges no coincidence

intended here!

Not really!

The EU Is No Longer Fit For Purpose - Hell, Recalling Ambassadors!?

Go to Hell

Oh, dear we seemed to have rattled the EU Lords and Masters. I suggest they put this deal to bed in a sensible way, before they implode. Italy and France are fractured, France is faced with industrial strife that will ensure they are relegated to the Southern league of countries. As the economies continue to splutter under the regulatory burden then France's ability to mask their non-compliance with regulations, that they produce will become more visible, fractures will deepen. What on earth France to recall its EU ambassador to Italy. 

The EU is not fit for purpose! Mrs May made clear, WTO rules In her Lancaster House speech are better than a ‘bad deal’. This was widely interpreted as meaning that the UK would be prepared to walk away from the negotiations if an agreement can not be reached. We will rely on WTO rules as a framework under which to conduct trade. This was supposed to strengthen the UK’s negotiating hand because it implied that if the EU did not play ball with the UK there was a perfectly acceptable fall-back position. Then came remainers, doom sayer's creating many synonyms: Crashing Out, Cliff Edge, Falling off a cliff, falling into the clutches of WTO etc. This of course suited their narrative. But it's wrong, its pure sensationalism to distort the facts. For a start the UK was a founding member of the WTO and still holds its seat at the table. 

Only Stupid People Call People Stupid

Such sound bites have in fact influenced the outcome, but not in a way the EU expected. On one hand the EU have taken comfort that the powers will prevent a no deal. Therefore, the EU offered the worst deal possible. Probably encourage by Blair in order that the people of Britain will see the folly of their way and overturn the vote. On the other hand, people have seen through this and reacted to being labelled as stupid little Englanders. The EU should of known, when we are backed into a corner we rarely emerge in a way the opposition expects. Has history taught these guys' nothing. 

WTO as a proposition is perfectly acceptable.

However, that didn't stop eminent vested parties expressing their fear of a no deal outcome. In October 2016, the heads of four industrial lobby groups, the CBI, the EEF, the ICC and techUK, published an open letter to the Prime Minister saying: …

“Every credible study that has been conducted has shown that this WTO option would do serious and lasting damage to the UK economy and those of our trading partners. The Government should give certainty to business by immediately ruling this option out under any circumstances”. 

Again project fear. At no time have they identified what these ‘credible studies’ were. It's as though they want to portray the WTO is some sort of monster organization that consumes its members — especially juicy new ones like the UK. As I said before it is our brainchild, and we have our place at the WTO table.

USA trades with the EU under WTO

US - EU trade under WTO

For the monster that it is the EU trades with 111 countries including China (and Hong Kong), India, Russia, Brazil, Indonesia, Singapore, and the United States they do this perfectly well under WTO. In fact, they do it better, since the formation of the Single Market in 1993, the growth rate of UK exports to these ‘WTO Only’ countries has been four times faster than the growth of UK exports to the EU. Meanwhile, over this same period, the growth rate of exports from the 14 top ‘WTO Only’ countries to the EU has been 27% higher than exports to the EU from the UK. 

If trading under WTO is so scary then let's just rename it to the ‘American Version’ — because America trades with the EU, including the UK, extremely well. In fact, as umpteen countries do. Suddenly it doesn’t sound so disastrous. Indeed, when you examine the facts about different trading relationships, as collated by the redoubtable Michael Burrage,19 ‘WTO Only’ (Micheal Burrage Senior Research Fellow at Civitas) does not sound unappealing at all. Trading on a ‘WTO Only’ basis rely on the rules of the WTO for their trading arrangements and to settle any disputes. The WTO rules dictate only the maximum tariffs that may be applied. It is perfectly possible for a member country to reduce these tariffs or, indeed, to abolish them altogether. 

It shows that ‘the WTO clutches’ are not at all clutch-like.

Go to Hell

Oh, dear we seemed to have rattled the EU Lords and Masters. I suggest they put this deal to bed in a sensible way, before they implode. Italy and France are fractured, France is faced with industrial strife that will ensure they are relegated to the Southern league of countries. As the economies continue to splutter under the regulatory burden then France's ability to mask their non-compliance with regulations, that they produce will become more visible, fractures will deepen. What on earth France to recall its EU ambassador to Italy. 

The EU is not fit for purpose! Mrs May made clear, WTO rules In her Lancaster House speech are better than a ‘bad deal’. This was widely interpreted as meaning that the UK would be prepared to walk away from the negotiations if an agreement can not be reached. We will rely on WTO rules as a framework under which to conduct trade. This was supposed to strengthen the UK’s negotiating hand because it implied that if the EU did not play ball with the UK there was a perfectly acceptable fall-back position. Then came remainers, doom sayer's creating many synonyms: Crashing Out, Cliff Edge, Falling off a cliff, falling into the clutches of WTO etc. This of course suited their narrative. But it's wrong, its pure sensationalism to distort the facts. For a start the UK was a founding member of the WTO and still holds its seat at the table. 

Only Stupid People Call People Stupid

Such sound bites have in fact influenced the outcome, but not in a way the EU expected. On one hand the EU have taken comfort that the powers will prevent a no deal. Therefore, the EU offered the worst deal possible. Probably encourage by Blair in order that the people of Britain will see the folly of their way and overturn the vote. On the other hand, people have seen through this and reacted to being labelled as stupid little Englanders. The EU should of known, when we are backed into a corner we rarely emerge in a way the opposition expects. Has history taught these guys' nothing. 

WTO as a proposition is perfectly acceptable.

However, that didn't stop eminent vested parties expressing their fear of a no deal outcome. In October 2016, the heads of four industrial lobby groups, the CBI, the EEF, the ICC and techUK, published an open letter to the Prime Minister saying: …

“Every credible study that has been conducted has shown that this WTO option would do serious and lasting damage to the UK economy and those of our trading partners. The Government should give certainty to business by immediately ruling this option out under any circumstances”. 

Again project fear. At no time have they identified what these ‘credible studies’ were. It's as though they want to portray the WTO is some sort of monster organization that consumes its members — especially juicy new ones like the UK. As I said before it is our brainchild, and we have our place at the WTO table.

USA trades with the EU under WTO

US - EU trade under WTO

For the monster that it is the EU trades with 111 countries including China (and Hong Kong), India, Russia, Brazil, Indonesia, Singapore, and the United States they do this perfectly well under WTO. In fact, they do it better, since the formation of the Single Market in 1993, the growth rate of UK exports to these ‘WTO Only’ countries has been four times faster than the growth of UK exports to the EU. Meanwhile, over this same period, the growth rate of exports from the 14 top ‘WTO Only’ countries to the EU has been 27% higher than exports to the EU from the UK. 

If trading under WTO is so scary then let's just rename it to the ‘American Version’ — because America trades with the EU, including the UK, extremely well. In fact, as umpteen countries do. Suddenly it doesn’t sound so disastrous. Indeed, when you examine the facts about different trading relationships, as collated by the redoubtable Michael Burrage,19 ‘WTO Only’ (Micheal Burrage Senior Research Fellow at Civitas) does not sound unappealing at all. Trading on a ‘WTO Only’ basis rely on the rules of the WTO for their trading arrangements and to settle any disputes. The WTO rules dictate only the maximum tariffs that may be applied. It is perfectly possible for a member country to reduce these tariffs or, indeed, to abolish them altogether. 

It shows that ‘the WTO clutches’ are not at all clutch-like.

Why WTO is not a problem

WTO Is Perfectly Acceptable.

Critics have painted the WTO option as ‘stepping into the unknown’. Yet the UK currently trades with 111 countries around the world under WTO rules, including China (and Hong Kong), India, Russia, Brazil, Indonesia, Singapore, (until recently Canada) and the United States. Moreover, since the formation of the Single Market in 1993, the growth rate of UK exports to these ‘WTO Only’ countries has been four times faster than the growth of UK exports to the EU. Meanwhile, over this same period, the growth rate of exports from the 14 top ‘WTO Only’ countries to the EU has been 27% higher than exports to the EU from the UK. Of course, this reflects the faster growth of these countries rather than the inherent superiority of a ‘WTO only’ model. But it does at least show that ‘the clutches’ are not at all clutch-like.

Why we shouldn't fear WTO.  The UK currently today trades with 111 countries throughout the world on WTO rules. The growth rate to these countries has been 4 times faster than our growth in trade with the EU. These are countries that include China (and Hong Kong), India, Russia, Brazil, Indonesia, Singapore. Until recently Canada and the United States.

If, you take the top 14 countries their growth in exports to the EU has been 27% higher than the UK's growth to the EU.



So you see we have nothing to fear even after all the obfuscation to damage Brexit from the remainers...... More on the EU and our exports

WTO Is Perfectly Acceptable.

Critics have painted the WTO option as ‘stepping into the unknown’. Yet the UK currently trades with 111 countries around the world under WTO rules, including China (and Hong Kong), India, Russia, Brazil, Indonesia, Singapore, (until recently Canada) and the United States. Moreover, since the formation of the Single Market in 1993, the growth rate of UK exports to these ‘WTO Only’ countries has been four times faster than the growth of UK exports to the EU. Meanwhile, over this same period, the growth rate of exports from the 14 top ‘WTO Only’ countries to the EU has been 27% higher than exports to the EU from the UK. Of course, this reflects the faster growth of these countries rather than the inherent superiority of a ‘WTO only’ model. But it does at least show that ‘the clutches’ are not at all clutch-like.

Why we shouldn't fear WTO.  The UK currently today trades with 111 countries throughout the world on WTO rules. The growth rate to these countries has been 4 times faster than our growth in trade with the EU. These are countries that include China (and Hong Kong), India, Russia, Brazil, Indonesia, Singapore. Until recently Canada and the United States.

If, you take the top 14 countries their growth in exports to the EU has been 27% higher than the UK's growth to the EU.



So you see we have nothing to fear even after all the obfuscation to damage Brexit from the remainers...... More on the EU and our exports