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 - 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.

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!