The UK Global Links Are The Envy Of The EU.

I have two threads running under this blog title. 1. Brexit, 2. Asia and Asia's Century. Today I will look at the combination of the two and how it matters, of course once we have the courage to finally leave the regulatory constraints of the EU.

The UK has a great deal to be pleased about, we have links throughout the world. Links that have stood the test of time, with many countries that will soon be deemed Goliath’s in terms of their economic capacity.  Then there is NAFTA an association that we would be able to step into with great ease, indeed the door has already been opened. We have the five eyes some of which overlaps with NAFTA, then of course we have the Commonwealth of Nations by all accounts a remarkable progressive group of nations, these in part overlap with NAFTA and the five eyes.

We have allowed this group to fade in our consciousness which has been in a way not helpful in terms of our relationships in or outside of Europe, for these nations economies can no longer be deemed insignificant, India for example will soon become the 4th largest economy. Collectively their GDP represents an enormous opportunity to the UK. This is an organization versed in our legal system making trading easily possible. English is the major language forming excellent communication routes, and of course our Monarch is the head of the Commonwealth. In an illustration below I highlight a book by David Howell a former Conservative Cabinet Minister, titled “Old Links New Ties”. In it he emphasizes that the Commonwealth is a ‘network stretching across 54 independent nations, embracing 16 realms and 38 republics or other monarchies and somewhere above 2 billion people, just about a third of the human race – and on paper at least an economic colossus with 20 per cent of the world’s trade and growth prospects that would make European eyes green with envy’.

I make much of Asia and the growth this region represents and of course our ties are historic throughout this region. For me I have focussed on Indonesia, primarily as this is a country that has captivated me since the early 90s.  But let's be mindful this region whilst it has many ties to the realm of course it is only part of the story.  Several dynamic, economically progressive African nations they to have links to the UK. These bonds surpass cocktail parties and banter amongst the embassy elite, although these are important, these countries armies are plugged into the UK system, from Sandhurst to Whitehall the links are formidable. Then you have health, legal systems, trade practises, monarchy etc. the historic bonds of time are in place and will serve us well for the future. 

Many economic observers foresee the African economies as being on the cusp of significant growth much the same as the tiger economies of the past. Sadly when the UK joined the EU in 1973 our ties were downgraded within the Commonwealth. We deemed the Commonwealth passé perhaps not our smartest endeavour given the stifling regulation that has come down the Euro pipe.

It's not my intention to overplay the Commonwealth. Of course, they are a group of nations not an organized trading bloc within a “Customs union” such that the EU is.  However, David Howell makes a significant point that in today's technological environment such blocs are yesterday's story, the future belongs in the increasingly networked, digital world's that these countries have been at pains to develop as their cities emerged into modern metropolis’.  What the Commonwealth offers its members is a set of connections and linkages that facilitate trade. At the heart of it lies the English language and similar institutional and legal structures based on the British model. There has even been a suggestion of creating a Commonwealth investment bank, a Commonwealth business visa and a Commonwealth airport queue. Even though these do not sound like game-changers, the possibilities from increased Commonwealth trade should not be lightly dismissed. After all, the EU began with the humble-sounding European Coal and Steel Community.

From remain side of the argument there is great store that the UK is too small. We will never be able to go it alone. Then you reference say Singapore, you then have the argument; they are small and dynamic, a niche player if you like you can not compare a UK as though it is Singapore.  It seems the argument is circular, you have to be large or small you can not be mid sized for here we will wither and die. This is a misnomer as the UK is still the 5th or 6th largest economy, it's larger than Russia, Brazil or India. 

It is predicted that the UK will soon be the largest economy in Europe after all since the establishment of the Eurozone our growth has surpassed Germany and is double that of France. As I have said in previous notes the UK population is set to grow and become bigger than that of Germany. 

It is time to show courage and insist we leave, and hope the Eurozone adapts and returns sovereignty to the nation states. But alas if you listen to Verhofstadt his mantra is always to transfer sovereignty into Europe. 

Thank you for reading my ramblings.

I have two threads running under this blog title. 1. Brexit, 2. Asia and Asia's Century. Today I will look at the combination of the two and how it matters, of course once we have the courage to finally leave the regulatory constraints of the EU.

The UK has a great deal to be pleased about, we have links throughout the world. Links that have stood the test of time, with many countries that will soon be deemed Goliath’s in terms of their economic capacity.  Then there is NAFTA an association that we would be able to step into with great ease, indeed the door has already been opened. We have the five eyes some of which overlaps with NAFTA, then of course we have the Commonwealth of Nations by all accounts a remarkable progressive group of nations, these in part overlap with NAFTA and the five eyes.

We have allowed this group to fade in our consciousness which has been in a way not helpful in terms of our relationships in or outside of Europe, for these nations economies can no longer be deemed insignificant, India for example will soon become the 4th largest economy. Collectively their GDP represents an enormous opportunity to the UK. This is an organization versed in our legal system making trading easily possible. English is the major language forming excellent communication routes, and of course our Monarch is the head of the Commonwealth. In an illustration below I highlight a book by David Howell a former Conservative Cabinet Minister, titled “Old Links New Ties”. In it he emphasizes that the Commonwealth is a ‘network stretching across 54 independent nations, embracing 16 realms and 38 republics or other monarchies and somewhere above 2 billion people, just about a third of the human race – and on paper at least an economic colossus with 20 per cent of the world’s trade and growth prospects that would make European eyes green with envy’.

I make much of Asia and the growth this region represents and of course our ties are historic throughout this region. For me I have focussed on Indonesia, primarily as this is a country that has captivated me since the early 90s.  But let's be mindful this region whilst it has many ties to the realm of course it is only part of the story.  Several dynamic, economically progressive African nations they to have links to the UK. These bonds surpass cocktail parties and banter amongst the embassy elite, although these are important, these countries armies are plugged into the UK system, from Sandhurst to Whitehall the links are formidable. Then you have health, legal systems, trade practises, monarchy etc. the historic bonds of time are in place and will serve us well for the future. 

Many economic observers foresee the African economies as being on the cusp of significant growth much the same as the tiger economies of the past. Sadly when the UK joined the EU in 1973 our ties were downgraded within the Commonwealth. We deemed the Commonwealth passé perhaps not our smartest endeavour given the stifling regulation that has come down the Euro pipe.

It's not my intention to overplay the Commonwealth. Of course, they are a group of nations not an organized trading bloc within a “Customs union” such that the EU is.  However, David Howell makes a significant point that in today's technological environment such blocs are yesterday's story, the future belongs in the increasingly networked, digital world's that these countries have been at pains to develop as their cities emerged into modern metropolis’.  What the Commonwealth offers its members is a set of connections and linkages that facilitate trade. At the heart of it lies the English language and similar institutional and legal structures based on the British model. There has even been a suggestion of creating a Commonwealth investment bank, a Commonwealth business visa and a Commonwealth airport queue. Even though these do not sound like game-changers, the possibilities from increased Commonwealth trade should not be lightly dismissed. After all, the EU began with the humble-sounding European Coal and Steel Community.

From remain side of the argument there is great store that the UK is too small. We will never be able to go it alone. Then you reference say Singapore, you then have the argument; they are small and dynamic, a niche player if you like you can not compare a UK as though it is Singapore.  It seems the argument is circular, you have to be large or small you can not be mid sized for here we will wither and die. This is a misnomer as the UK is still the 5th or 6th largest economy, it's larger than Russia, Brazil or India. 

It is predicted that the UK will soon be the largest economy in Europe after all since the establishment of the Eurozone our growth has surpassed Germany and is double that of France. As I have said in previous notes the UK population is set to grow and become bigger than that of Germany. 

It is time to show courage and insist we leave, and hope the Eurozone adapts and returns sovereignty to the nation states. But alas if you listen to Verhofstadt his mantra is always to transfer sovereignty into Europe. 

Thank you for reading my ramblings.

Brexit - Say No To More Delays. Just Leave on WTO

I am not surprised in the slightest this deal was rejected. It was just flowery words around the original, a new jacket for the wolf.  But where does this leave us?

1. I read the term a hard brexit or a soft brexit, use these terms if you must, but, I prefer the term remain which is what a soft brexit has morphed into or leave on WTO.  In fact, I would even argue the reverse a hard brexit would indeed be to remain.

• The EU has failed its southern states, youth unemployment is as high as 30%. 
• The Eurozone has managed a 2% growth over a 10year period.
• Salaries, real time earnings in the EU have seen the lowest increases compared to those countries outside the eurozone.
• Regulation is destroying business, only 10% of our GDP comes from Europe. Yet we apply regulation to the 100%. This is a substantial burden!

2. Delay Brexit! For what Reason? So we can continue to pay billions into EU’s unaudited accounts where billions are unaccounted for.  As Margaret Thatcher once said on referring to charitable donations to a crisis in Africa, “This is poor people giving rich people money”. What would be achieved and what do we risk?

• We risk the same as we've had for the last 2.5 years. Confusion, chaos, uncertainty and an opportunity for remainers to be right.  Our economy will tank, not because of brexit but because of lack of clarity, political infighting, a disconnected government. The tail is wagging the dog and its not even the people's dog.
• So you delay, but you've voted to take no deal off the table. Where does that leave us? Trapped in the EU as per Blair's et al. wishes.
• Subject to regulation, under more control of the EU as the threat of leaving could never be realized again. A European army to quell dissension within a member state who dares autonomy. Look to Catalonia the EU stood by and watched the violence to so called EU citizens.
• Mikeal Gorbachev once said “the EU is the Soviet Union in western clothes”.

3. WTO rules, but then a new set of issue kick in:

• Philip Hammond, he must now demonstrate our willingness, preparations to become a low tax competitive environment based on competitive regulations unlike those placed on us from the EU. We are already experiencing an influx of investment 2nd only to China. Bolster the city of London as it is already the premier Euro clearing house, this will not be challenged.
• Quickly form a relationship with America, China, Indonesia, Japan and India. Just to do one FTA would be a huge boost to the economy.

Perhaps, we should indeed seek advice from the USA on how we can seek retribution from Europe. This has been a mickey mouse negotiation, after all we own a proportion of the assets.

In a recent survey organized by Reuters through their “Convene App” they came down in favour of recommending the UK push for a tax haven status.  David Goldberg QC defined what he considered our status should be.  He concentrated on two features; taxing only income which arises within its own border and that the tax system is clear, concise, easy to operate and can be seen to balance the rights and obligations of the citizens and the state.

In fact, he went further to claim our membership has blighted our integrity.
“It used to be possible to an English common lawyer to go abroad, knowing that he or she came from a country which created the finest legal system the world has ever seen and gave it the guiding principles of the rule of law. We could be proud to fly our flag. Now it is stained by the sins against those beacon lights which are committed presently and most clearly by our tax system and which bring with them the risk of infecting other areas of law…”

– David Goldberg, QC, Gray’s Inn.

I will leave this note here otherwise the blog is too long. I will say that I maintain a belief that we are exactly where remainers want us to be. I will also go so far as to say that we are where Mrs May intended. She will align against no deal and then push to remain but first delay. This is indeed a muddle and an election is needed new MPs elected who represent their constituents if only for this to be completed. I'm sure when we are settled we won't notice their return to self-serving.

I am not surprised in the slightest this deal was rejected. It was just flowery words around the original, a new jacket for the wolf.  But where does this leave us?

1. I read the term a hard brexit or a soft brexit, use these terms if you must, but, I prefer the term remain which is what a soft brexit has morphed into or leave on WTO.  In fact, I would even argue the reverse a hard brexit would indeed be to remain.

• The EU has failed its southern states, youth unemployment is as high as 30%. 
• The Eurozone has managed a 2% growth over a 10year period.
• Salaries, real time earnings in the EU have seen the lowest increases compared to those countries outside the eurozone.
• Regulation is destroying business, only 10% of our GDP comes from Europe. Yet we apply regulation to the 100%. This is a substantial burden!

2. Delay Brexit! For what Reason? So we can continue to pay billions into EU’s unaudited accounts where billions are unaccounted for.  As Margaret Thatcher once said on referring to charitable donations to a crisis in Africa, “This is poor people giving rich people money”. What would be achieved and what do we risk?

• We risk the same as we've had for the last 2.5 years. Confusion, chaos, uncertainty and an opportunity for remainers to be right.  Our economy will tank, not because of brexit but because of lack of clarity, political infighting, a disconnected government. The tail is wagging the dog and its not even the people's dog.
• So you delay, but you've voted to take no deal off the table. Where does that leave us? Trapped in the EU as per Blair's et al. wishes.
• Subject to regulation, under more control of the EU as the threat of leaving could never be realized again. A European army to quell dissension within a member state who dares autonomy. Look to Catalonia the EU stood by and watched the violence to so called EU citizens.
• Mikeal Gorbachev once said “the EU is the Soviet Union in western clothes”.

3. WTO rules, but then a new set of issue kick in:

• Philip Hammond, he must now demonstrate our willingness, preparations to become a low tax competitive environment based on competitive regulations unlike those placed on us from the EU. We are already experiencing an influx of investment 2nd only to China. Bolster the city of London as it is already the premier Euro clearing house, this will not be challenged.
• Quickly form a relationship with America, China, Indonesia, Japan and India. Just to do one FTA would be a huge boost to the economy.

Perhaps, we should indeed seek advice from the USA on how we can seek retribution from Europe. This has been a mickey mouse negotiation, after all we own a proportion of the assets.

In a recent survey organized by Reuters through their “Convene App” they came down in favour of recommending the UK push for a tax haven status.  David Goldberg QC defined what he considered our status should be.  He concentrated on two features; taxing only income which arises within its own border and that the tax system is clear, concise, easy to operate and can be seen to balance the rights and obligations of the citizens and the state.

In fact, he went further to claim our membership has blighted our integrity.
“It used to be possible to an English common lawyer to go abroad, knowing that he or she came from a country which created the finest legal system the world has ever seen and gave it the guiding principles of the rule of law. We could be proud to fly our flag. Now it is stained by the sins against those beacon lights which are committed presently and most clearly by our tax system and which bring with them the risk of infecting other areas of law…”

– David Goldberg, QC, Gray’s Inn.

I will leave this note here otherwise the blog is too long. I will say that I maintain a belief that we are exactly where remainers want us to be. I will also go so far as to say that we are where Mrs May intended. She will align against no deal and then push to remain but first delay. This is indeed a muddle and an election is needed new MPs elected who represent their constituents if only for this to be completed. I'm sure when we are settled we won't notice their return to self-serving.

Brexit - Whose MPs are they? They don't represent me

If you saw Barry Gardiner on questiontime you will see an example of how Blind arrogance attempts to overcome incompetence 

Written below is an exert from the withdrawal agreement, the language is flowery but its intent is quietly serious. Regardless of the backstop, the way we can or can not leave, that part is written such that it is the EU that has to agree that we exit, not us unilaterally. Which of course we all know they would never do as it would never be in their financial interest.  In fact if I were them, I would use it as a model for all states membership. Having 28 subservient states with no say would be perfect for the un-elected autocracy presiding in Brussels.

If you read the withdrawal agreement in particular article 4:

“ARTICLE 4

Methods and principles relating to the effect, 

the implementation and the application of this Agreement

1. The provisions of this Agreement and the provisions of Union law made applicable by this Agreement shall produce in respect of and in the United Kingdom the same legal effects as those which they produce within the Union and its Member States.

Accordingly, legal or natural persons shall in particular be able to rely directly on the provisions contained or referred to in this Agreement which meet the conditions for direct effect under Union law.

2. The United Kingdom shall ensure compliance with paragraph 1, including as regards the required powers of its judicial and administrative authorities to disapply inconsistent or incompatible domestic provisions, through domestic primary legislation.

3. The provisions of this Agreement referring to Union law or to concepts or provisions thereof shall be interpreted and applied in accordance with the methods and general principles of Union law.

4. The provisions of this Agreement referring to Union law or to concepts or provisions thereof shall in their implementation and application be interpreted in conformity with the relevant case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union handed down before the end of the transition period.

5. In the interpretation and application of this Agreement, the United Kingdom's judicial and administrative authorities shall have due regard to relevant case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union handed down after the end of the transition period.”

Not only is it probable that the EU will not agree our departure. If they did they would extract a considerable penalty from us, fishing rights etc. We will still be subject to the ECJ after we have left. This is not Brexit!

If this agreement is signed then it is clear the interest of the populous matters not one jot. It is indeed clear our MPs have a vested interest as they are not acting as our representatives.

Any attempt to run the referendum again allowing 2 options defined as discussed on questiontime is wrong. Should they do this, have these 2 options 1. May's deal 2. Remain this would be a complete travesty of our rights, defying our rich history. In my opinion this would be treachery and completely unacceptable.

We have to leave for all the reasons stated in previous posts. The EU has been strangled by the euro, its regulation and tariffs. Euro zone economic growth is poor, average 2% over 10 years. We've had 8.8%. The EU is heading deeper into recession, their looking to the US to help move them forward, at a time when the US is looking inward. Regulation continues to grow, most of which makes no sense but, burdens businesses. Only 10% of our GDP is from our exports to the EU.

Tariffs continue to grow, seemingly for no reason. Indeed you can not find any rationale as to why some tariffs are applied, for example "frozen prawns" 20% tariff, increased from 14%! What is the purpose? It appears that there is no rational reason for this tariff, let alone the increase.

Raoul Ruparel Head of Economics research, open group and adviser to the government stated in 2016 "Were the UK to strike a Free Trade Agreement (FTA) with the EU, pursues very ambitious deregulation of its economy and opens up almost fully to trade with the rest of the world, UK GDP would be 1.6% higher than if it had stayed within the EU". 



Leave we must. Our politicians have lied far to often and far to much about the negative affects on leaving the EU. The UK is now a euro sceptic country, that will not change anytime soon.

If you saw Barry Gardiner on questiontime you will see an example of how Blind arrogance attempts to overcome incompetence 

Written below is an exert from the withdrawal agreement, the language is flowery but its intent is quietly serious. Regardless of the backstop, the way we can or can not leave, that part is written such that it is the EU that has to agree that we exit, not us unilaterally. Which of course we all know they would never do as it would never be in their financial interest.  In fact if I were them, I would use it as a model for all states membership. Having 28 subservient states with no say would be perfect for the un-elected autocracy presiding in Brussels.

If you read the withdrawal agreement in particular article 4:

“ARTICLE 4

Methods and principles relating to the effect, 

the implementation and the application of this Agreement

1. The provisions of this Agreement and the provisions of Union law made applicable by this Agreement shall produce in respect of and in the United Kingdom the same legal effects as those which they produce within the Union and its Member States.

Accordingly, legal or natural persons shall in particular be able to rely directly on the provisions contained or referred to in this Agreement which meet the conditions for direct effect under Union law.

2. The United Kingdom shall ensure compliance with paragraph 1, including as regards the required powers of its judicial and administrative authorities to disapply inconsistent or incompatible domestic provisions, through domestic primary legislation.

3. The provisions of this Agreement referring to Union law or to concepts or provisions thereof shall be interpreted and applied in accordance with the methods and general principles of Union law.

4. The provisions of this Agreement referring to Union law or to concepts or provisions thereof shall in their implementation and application be interpreted in conformity with the relevant case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union handed down before the end of the transition period.

5. In the interpretation and application of this Agreement, the United Kingdom's judicial and administrative authorities shall have due regard to relevant case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union handed down after the end of the transition period.”

Not only is it probable that the EU will not agree our departure. If they did they would extract a considerable penalty from us, fishing rights etc. We will still be subject to the ECJ after we have left. This is not Brexit!

If this agreement is signed then it is clear the interest of the populous matters not one jot. It is indeed clear our MPs have a vested interest as they are not acting as our representatives.

Any attempt to run the referendum again allowing 2 options defined as discussed on questiontime is wrong. Should they do this, have these 2 options 1. May's deal 2. Remain this would be a complete travesty of our rights, defying our rich history. In my opinion this would be treachery and completely unacceptable.

We have to leave for all the reasons stated in previous posts. The EU has been strangled by the euro, its regulation and tariffs. Euro zone economic growth is poor, average 2% over 10 years. We've had 8.8%. The EU is heading deeper into recession, their looking to the US to help move them forward, at a time when the US is looking inward. Regulation continues to grow, most of which makes no sense but, burdens businesses. Only 10% of our GDP is from our exports to the EU.

Tariffs continue to grow, seemingly for no reason. Indeed you can not find any rationale as to why some tariffs are applied, for example "frozen prawns" 20% tariff, increased from 14%! What is the purpose? It appears that there is no rational reason for this tariff, let alone the increase.

Raoul Ruparel Head of Economics research, open group and adviser to the government stated in 2016 "Were the UK to strike a Free Trade Agreement (FTA) with the EU, pursues very ambitious deregulation of its economy and opens up almost fully to trade with the rest of the world, UK GDP would be 1.6% higher than if it had stayed within the EU". 



Leave we must. Our politicians have lied far to often and far to much about the negative affects on leaving the EU. The UK is now a euro sceptic country, that will not change anytime soon.