Daily Debrief May 9th

“Project Fear” scales new heights

In what looks almost like an attempt at self-parody, the Prime Minister makes the most paranoid claim of the Remain Camp so far: Brexit could lead to war.  No doubt he’s saving the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse for the last week of the campaign.  The Telegraph and the Times both lead on the story, which most papers carry.  However the Metro already highlights the back-lash: “PM under fire over EU security”.

Cameron is invoking the standard Brussels propaganda line that “The EU has kept the peace in Europe”.  Of course that’s nonsense.  The major EU economies are now far too closely integrated  to enable (say) Germany to go to war with France (and that degree of integration would have happened with global trade growth anyway, regardless of the EU), and in any case, democracies don’t go to war with each other.  In fact it’s NATO, and the Transatlantic alliance, and mutually assured destruction, and 100,000 GIs in Germany that have kept the peace – and which, with the courage and dedication of people like Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan (and Pope John Paul) led to the demise of the Soviet Union.

The truth is that current moves by the Brussels/Berlin Axis to create a European Army are a deliberate attempt to side-line NATO, and weaken Western defence capability, despite Russian sabre-rattling on the border.

Cameron warns against “turning our back on Europe”.  But of course we don’t want to turn our back on our largest export market (or on anyone else).  We just prefer to be good neighbours rather than bad tenants.  He counsels against “isolationism”, and we agree.  That is why we want to leave the EU’s inward-looking, self-referential and protectionist political structures, and to re-join the rest of the world, where the growth is.

Choreographed moves: Alongside the Prime Minister’s speech (billed as “Churchillian”, by the way) we find that think-tank Chatham House,and a group of WW2 veterans, have declared for Remain. Perhaps the veterans relish the idea of being part of a German-dominated EU Army.

Meantime Julian Lewis MP, who heads the Defence Select Committee, has accused the PM of deliberately orchestrating claims from military and security chiefs.  Few will have difficulty believing that.

Project Fear Part Two

While Cameron warns of Armageddon, Osborne focuses on economic questions.  He predicts that with Brexit, house prices will fall and mortgage rates rise. .  Is he right?  Such prophecies tend to be self-fulfilling, and again, Osborne seems happy to talk up the negatives.  There may be a Brexit impact on the very inflated top-end property prices in London, but few will weep tears about that.  It is difficult to see an impact on ordinary homes.  Of course Brexit would tend to reduce immigration and therefore to moderate demand for housing (and encroachment on the Green Belt), but there is so much pent-up demand that we won’t see an effect on prices any time soon.

And interest rates?  Yes, there will be a flurry of volatility in the markets around Brexit, but as market operators start to see the economic benefits of Brexit, we can expect a period of growth and stability, with increasing confidence in financial markets.

Gove says we’d leave the Single Market

Gove’s comments have been seized upon by the Remain Camp as though they’re an “admission”.  In fact they’re just Common Sense.  Leaving the EU and staying in the Single Market would leave us in the same sort of uncomfortable and ambiguous position as Norway – still subject to EU budget contributions and many EU rules, and probably to free movement of people as well.  Voters might justifiably ask why we’d bothered with Brexit if it leaves so much of the status quo in place.

The paper quotes “EU lawmakers” as saying that Britain “could not expect special treatment”.  In fact we would get special treatment, as an economic imperative, given that we’ll be the EU’s largest export market.  But in any case we simply want to be treated like all those dozens of countries which have free trade deals with the EU.

Slipping briefly from its pro-Brussels line, the FT also quotes Roger Bootle of Capital Economics who says that “the benefits of the Single Market have been greatly oversold”, and points to countries like the USA, Russia and China which have great success exporting to the EU without any special trade terms.

It seems that the Conservatives are starting to believe their own propaganda on the Single Market, which some claim is “their greatest achievement in Europe”.  What is the Single Market?  It’s an old-fashioned 19th century style Customs Union (think Bismarck and Zollverein) overlaid by a stifling level of administration and regulation, and it simply performs less well, in economic terms, that a modern free trade area.  The Remain Camp tries to suggest that in leaving the Single Market we will be prevented from trading with it – but that’s nonsense.  Gove is right.  We want out.

“EU has added £1800 to annual pay”

The pro-EU lobby group London First has issued a study (or perhaps “a wild guess”) that EU membership has added £1800 to average annual pay in the UK as a whole – and for good measure, £3000 in London.  They are also claiming that EU membership has created £4.6 billion more trade than would have been the case otherwise.

Expect to hear George Osborne and the Remain Campaign repeating these figures ad nauseam.  Yet how do they derive them?  I recall that Peter Mandelson when Trade Commissioner estimated that EU membership was worth 1.8% of additional GDP, while his colleague Commissioner Gunther Verheugen estimated the costs of excessive EU regulation at around 5.5% of GDP.  On those figures, EU membership is making us poorer.

Estimates of trade benefits are notoriously unreliable.  First you have to estimate what trade would have been without EU membership – the “counterfactual” – and that estimate is no more than a guess, influenced by the case which the guesser wishes to make.  But the EU is in long-term decline in terms of world GDP and world trade, so arguably we should have done better if we had been outside, more focused on the rest of the world, and less on Europe.

In any case, these guys have taken their guess of the benefits, but as usual have not considered the negatives.  The EU’s failure to establish trade deals with the fast-growing economies of Asia.  The massive regulatory costs.  The vast damage that EU energy policy is doing across Europe (“Creating an industrial massacre” – ask the guys at Port Talbot).  Driving energy intensive businesses off-shore, taking their jobs and their investment with them.  This is the regular pattern of Remain arguments.  Make wildly optimistic estimates of benefits, and simply ignore the negatives.

Bank lowers forecast over EU uncertainty

The Sunday Telegraph reports that the Bank of England is expected to slash its growth forecasts “because of uncertainty over the Brexit vote”. With the Remain campaign persistently talking down the UK economy and talking up the risks of Brexit, this comes as no surprise.  The Bank may simply be responding to the government’s need for pro-Remain propaganda.  Or they may have talked themselves into it.  As Allister Heath wrote (and I Tweeted) recently, “Big firms are the worst scaremongers, and they probably believe their own propaganda”.  Same applies to banks and other financial institutions.

On the same page, Jeremy Warner strikes a much more moderate tone.  Admitting that concerns over Brexit are a factor, he adds “Yet Brexit is clearly not the only, nor even the main, factor at work here.  There’s something deeper going on.  The global recovery is running out of steam”. Really the Bank of England should not be talking down British prospects in the face of global risks.

The Greek €uro crisis

Yesterday I wrote about Juncker’s rose-tinted view of Greek prospects.  Peter Spence in the Telegraph offers a much more considered view. “Greece faces another stormy summer….the government faces running out of cash…in July”.  But here the stage management comes in.  Spence adds “With the Brexit Referendum in the UK looming….EU officials will be keen to keep talk of another Greek crisis quiet”.  This accounts for Juncker’s rose-tinted view.

Meantime 15,000 Greeks were assembling in the streets of Athens and Thessalonica yesterday to oppose further taxes and austerity. Petrol bombs were thrown at police, who responded with tear-gas . The irresistible force of aggrieved public opinion meets the immoveable mass of Brussels obduracy.

Migrants to pay more for the NHS

The Express reports that new proposals will be introduced in the Queen’s Speech requiring migrants to pay for healthcare.This looks like a deliberate attempt by the government to allay public concerns over immigration ahead of the Referendum.  But we have already seen how difficult it is to get the NHS to act as gate-keeper for free medical services.

Paxman Silenced?

The Mail reports that an article by Jeremy Paxman mildly critical of the EU has been withdrawn from the Radio Times (good lord, does the Radio Times still exist?!) under pressure from the BBC, which fears it might jeopardise his neutrality.  But the BBC does not seem to be concerned that it jeopardises its own neutrality with its relentless stream of pro-EU propaganda, or its funding from Brussels.



This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

25 Responses to Daily Debrief May 9th

  1. El Inglés says:

    The beauty of the Single Market is that a third country can trade in the market on the same terms as EU members as long as its products comply with the regulations and directives. It just don’t get a voice in the setting of those regulations and directives. It’s why the UK won’t lose its export market to the EU overnight, as its products won’t cease to comply on 24 June and it’s also why a trade deal between the EU and the US on most products doesn’t make sense (as the US can’t offer free circulation even to its domestic industry among the 50 states).

    • Ex-expat Colin says:

      There are exceptions..where an external product(s) might influence the single market. Business isn’t a one way, do what I say all the time. Just cannot be.

      Also, from what I’ve seen of Parliamentary Committees of late most financial regs originated in UK and are adopted by the EU.

      Too much of EU Directive etc output is costly and needless and our voice on Out is stuff your regs. However, if we thought something was helpful we might use it, unlike being ordered to use it.

      I resent the notion that we are incapable…although I often worry about that!

      • El Inglés says:

        Hi Colin

        Indeed, I was generalising. But the rule of thumb is “if you want access to a market of 500 million consumers, these are the rules you need to meet, be it as an EU member or not”.

        I sympathise with your concerns as to whether the UK has the mindset to go it alone, or the infrastructure, having been tied to Brussels for so long. It’s a point I’d like to see examined.

      • Ex-expat Colin says:

        All the 500 million consumer thing means to me is an effective denial of choice. Its certainly a valid way to look at it. Captured Market comes to mind and I certainly don’t like that. Its suits the big boys..I know

        Aside from that they’ve assisted ruination of the southern states economies and go on to ban exports to Russia that those states need. There are the problems in the East also that that they are clearly not competent to handle. And thats where the war thing might enter I think. American NATO fools playing silly games yesterday I think in Moldovian town. Appearing where pro Russian gathering was (Russian WW2 Celebration).

        This is the pro argument I often view:
        “Yet the EU does do the odd good thing in the face of commercial opposition. Look at roaming charges, working time regs, holiday entitlement, airline compensation etc, and I could go on”.

        And thats it…dunno what the “could go on list” is though, as it never gets listed?

      • El Inglés says:

        I think the denial of choice pessimistic, Colin. All countries set rules for the sale of goods on their markets (and sometimes at sub-national level: the US states, the German Länder). Principal theme of the EU product legislation is that a product should be safe and not detrimental to health and I find that difficult to disagree with. It’s a problem of the capitalist market economy that the big boys make the rules (I’m sure you know it’s a myth that big business is against regulation, as long as it can comply relatively easily and its smaller competitors cannot).

        Not disagreement with you at all on the implementation of the Euro, the expansion to the “new” Member States of 2004 and since, or the “fundamental pillar” of the free move of persons.

      • Ex-expat Colin says:

        Indeed I am pessimistic…perhaps overtly so. As someone who has spent my life in engineering from heavy radars up to a few lines of risky code I cannot help myself. Most of the principles of minimum safety requirements have existed long before the EU appeared. What I often notice with products (cars/washing machines etc) is how easily manufacturers have forgotten how to make such simple “safe” things. Thats with existing layers of ISO. IEC. ANSI, ASTM and on and on and on. Plus UK Def Standards/US Mil Standards. Everything via Quality allegedly, and you can gold plate as much as you like. Why we need a bunch of twerps in a Brussels Office to manage that stuff I fail to see. And its failing!

        I’ve been a smaller competitor and undercut some products. That was in electronics and did not compromise safety..its just that they took the p*ss on pricing. I’d do that any time and I hope small business is seeking to do it.,,now! Quality is in the eye of the beholder…so it is and depends on how thick the beholder is.

      • El Inglés says:

        Certainly the EU didn’t invent product safety, but a lot of its member countries were pursuing different national regulations and standards to restrict competition. Hence the idea of the harmonisation directives supported by CEN, CENELEC (and sometimes ETSI) European standards. Product durability is indeed a problem, as it built-in obsolescence, and I’d much prefer to see these tackled by the European Commission and, especially, the Parliament than the rafts of politically-correct initiatives on which they now waste their energies (and our tax receipts).

    • Ex-expat Colin says:

      Odd that, because me and a few of my company colleagues were on a couple of European systems standards committees to align all eligible countries. Primarily IEC EN 61508. That links to a mountain of individual validated standards. Nobody would be able to counter that unless they were outside of the said eligibility. As such their products would be banned….if you can find them (like some China stuff).

      Selling knock off stuff into the M. East and elsewhere via eBay etc remains the major problem I suspect. And when it came round to CE marking…I surrendered.

      This country has been the lead in much of this and in unifying with US standards. We’ve managed this stuff without another layer of predators on top…or so I once happily thought?

  2. Dear Roger Helmer MEP,

    I have left out the Russia from the Saber Rattling at the border on my copy of your blog(Weaver Vale UKIP Facebook), largely because it is the only untrue thing in it. We had agreements with what became the Russian Federation not to expand east to its borders post USSR and have reneged both with EU expansion and NATO expansion to the point today where NATO is deploying trainers in an active conflict zone with ethic Russians (Ukraine),and the Baltic states as well as Poland, Russia borders both. If Russia wanted to, it would turn Europe into radioactive rubble with ease, ABM not withstanding, all this aggression on OUR part has all the signs of trying to fulfill the conditions of the book of Revelation, not a foreign policy.

    You also forget that the USSR also applied to join NATO, was rejected for membership therefore then created the Warsaw Pact as its own defensive alliance. What kept the peace in Europe was a balance of terror between the two for nearly 50 years at which point NATO in 1991 ceased to act as a defensive European alliance and began to act aggressively as though the great game was on again.

    By the way the BAOR expected to survive barely 2 days and East Berlins garrison several hours after which point Europe gets used as an NBC battlefield. War is for suckers.

    Yours Sincerely,

    David Kendrick

    • catweazle666 says:

      Indeed so, David.

      Going by Cameron’s speech here, it looks to me like it is not Putin who is the aggressor, but the EU.

      EU should extend further into former Soviet Union, says David Cameron

      Speaking in Kazakhstan, British PM says European Union should stretch from the Atlantic to the Urals


      THAT looks like deliberate provocation to me, and AFAIK Juncker and his fellow Kommissars and apparatchiks have made similar noises. Seems it is not Putin who is the problem, but the Fourth Reich.

      I believe the last man to attempt to arrange that was an Austrian with a little moustache, and before that, a Corsican gentleman. Both of whose efforts ended very badly indeed.

      Lebensraum, anyone?

  3. wilfredaspinall says:

    This latest frightener from David Cameron about “war in Europe” is beyond credibility for all the reasons you say.
    Don’t forget also that we are all citizens of the EU, although we were never asked whether we wanted that status. Not only that but the EU is not a state. There lies a credibility gap.

    The only path we can take is to Vote to Leave

    Incidentally El Ingles comments are absolutely right.

  4. Shieldsman says:

    David Cameron’s expensive education did not instill any logic or common sense into the mans mind.

    Peace in Europe could be at risk if Britain votes to leave the European Union, David Cameron has warned. Now why should that be?
    NATO to which the British Army of the Rhine has been a part ever since 1945, has ensured peace throughout the COLD War and ever since.
    Has the planned withdrawal of B.O.A.R by 2020 anything to do with Cameron’s peace worries?

    Jean-Claude Juncker in his speech in Rome inferred that Cameron is a part-time European he only wants to be half in, but still have his say. He of course pays full fees for his photo-calls with the other 27 heads of state.
    The president of the European Commission ridiculed British leaders for acting on “national reflexes” and telling voters they had successfully defended the country’s national interest in post-summit press conferences, rather than “speaking over Europe in the proper way”.

    Now what do you read into that? Juncker must be just as much aware as we are that Cameron did not reform the EU, he came away from Brussels with a couple of promises that may not be enacted as they have opposition in the European Parliament.

    Once again the BBC and most of the media are following instructions and ignoring events taking place in the EU, the continuing mass migrant invasion of southern Europe and the Greek EURO bailout, amongst many others.

  5. Derek turner says:

    David Cameron has spent the last couple of years telling us that the eu keeps the peace in Europe, now he’s saying that if we leave it will all disintegrate into unrest and war. He should make his mind up!

  6. MIKE MAUNDER says:

    Well, we have arrived at the point I made over a month ago, except I stated that a leave vote would bring about the Deaths of The First Born ! Cameron has now exceeded the Plagues of Egypt, by his statement that if we leave, we will trigger WW3. – I thought we were too small to go it alone, but here we are, big enough to bring Europe to war ! ? ! If ever a politician needed a dark room and medical attention, it’s this Cameron. Look at it from a distance. Cameron decided to pinch UKIPs cloths, of an in or out referendum, on membership of E.U. and it worked. He got my vote, but only for a referendum. A Tory Government was elected and goodby Lib/Dems., but then he has to make good on the referendum. Lie followed lie, and the problem with lies is that you have to remember each lie, or you trip over what you lied about earlier. I think Cameron’s mind has now gone into overload, and as a result he tries to scare the crap out of us. Problem is nobody is listening except for a few timid maiden Aunts that don’t get out much. The rest of us have total contempt for him, and will VOTE OUT OF THE E.U.

  7. Oliver K. Manuel says:

    I seriously doubt that “Brexit could lead to war” but it would probably be the “first domino to fall” in a chain of events that would reverse seventy years (1946-2016) of worldwide rule by deceit

    • Ex-expat Colin says:

      Thats right and it wasn’t heading for war prior to the EC vote or the later Union hi-jack by the German federalists….. plus little helpers (VI’s).

      Common sense was the Common Market…if anything at all. The Remain whine in UK is about the argument pivoting on Financial issues and should include moral issues more. The moral issue about us borrowing huge sums of money is self evident, but seems to pale?

      Its simply about money!

      • Oliver K. Manuel says:

        We face an international ethics crisis that will be resolved, either peacefully in a way that will advance human evolution or . . .

  8. Shieldsman says:

    I have been waiting since February for someone to call Cameron a liar, that he has not reformed the EU in anyway whatsoever.
    Well it appears BOJO has done it in a speech today.
    The Prime Minister’s much-vaunted renegotiation of the UK’s terms of EU membership amounted to nothing, and to claim otherwise is “an offence against the Trade Descriptions Act”. He explained: It is above all bizarre for the Remain campaign to say that after the UK agreement of February we are now living in a ‘reformed’ EU, when there has been not a single change to EU competences, not a single change to the Treaty, nothing on agriculture, nothing on the role of the court, nothing of any substance on borders – nothing remotely resembling the agenda for change that was promised in the 2013 Bloomberg speech.

    Mr. Johnson pointed out that having been told “there had to be ‘fundamental reform’ and ‘full-on’ Treaty change that would happen ‘before the referendum’ – or else the government was willing to campaign to Leave,” the Government should “logically” be campaigning to leave.

    Taking on Home Secretary Theresa May and her immigration brief, he attacked her inability to meet targets she set herself, saying:
    It is deeply corrosive of popular trust in democracy that every year UK politicians tell the public that they can cut immigration to the tens of thousands – and then find that they miss their targets by hundreds of thousands, so that we add a population the size of Newcastle every year, with all the extra and unfunded pressure that puts on the NHS and other public services.

    Turning to Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne’s financial arguments for staying in the politico-trading bloc, Mr. Johnson attempted to show that arguments in favour of the Single Market “are looking increasingly fraudulent,” saying:
    It has not boosted the rate of British exports to the EU; it has not even boosted growth in exports between the EU 12; and it has not stopped a generation of young people – in a huge belt of Mediterranean countries – from being thrown on to the scrapheap.

    He took on the arguments of the banking industry and big business, saying that we “heard them 15 years ago, when many of the very same Remainers prophesied disaster for the City of London if we failed to join the euro.” Rather than banks fleeing to Frankfurt, as people had warned, he pointed out that “Canary Wharf alone is now far bigger than the Frankfurt financial centre – and has kept growing relentlessly since the crash of 2008.”

    This prompts me to ask, in his desperation is Cameron ‘losing his marbles’?

    How can we continue to have a Public Broadcaster that has lost the confidence of the viewer:
    The BBC will not report on the speech of course, just like it is actively and desperately hiding the disturbing news of social unrest and economic collapse beginning to destroy the EU project.
    So little actual news about the events in the EU, a cynic might think there was a state sponsored news blackout in effect designed to keep the British people in the dark about the terrible reality of the EU project.
    The BBC, half the news half the time and only when that news serves and supports the BBCs own ideological narrative and political agenda. The BBC makes up the news, edits out the bits that may contradict the narrative they wish to promote, deliberately withholds news reports that don’t serve the political narrative they are peddling.
    The BBC, lying conniving biased propagandists.

  9. Jane Davies says:

    There comes a time when all this scaremongering turns into farce and Cameron and his buds clearly do not have the intelligence to see that now, because of this WW3 threat, they have passed this point. The people will be insulted that the incumbents of number 10 clearly think the voters are gullible idiots who swallow the lies. Now this crazy outburst has scuppered any small shred of credibility that Cameron was hanging on to. He, in not being honest and acting like a leader should by putting the pro’s and con’s on the table for the electorate to be able to make an informed decision, has instead made a situation whereby if the Leave vote wins he has made his own position untenable, is he so stupid as to not see that coming?
    When vote leave wins it’s a vote for Cameron to leave too and one of the leave campaigns politicians should become interim PM until an election can be held. Cameron will not only be yesterdays man but also a failure as a leader who by not being neutral on this issue has provided his own noose with which to hang himself.

  10. Shieldsman says:

    Perhaps I have it wrong, but I think BOJO has Cameron hooked and the BREXITEERS would be very stupid to let him wriggle free.

    It was after all a plain straight forward statement, although not using the word liar, it was inferred.
    The Prime Minister’s much-vaunted renegotiation of the UK’s terms of EU membership amounted to nothing, and to claim otherwise is “an offence against the Trade Descriptions Act”. He explained: It is above all bizarre for the Remain campaign to say that after the UK agreement of February we are now living in a ‘reformed’ EU, when there has been not a single change to EU competences, not a single change to the Treaty, nothing on agriculture, nothing on the role of the court, nothing of any substance on borders – nothing remotely resembling the agenda for change that was promised in the 2013 Bloomberg speech.

    We should be shouting it from the rooftops – Cameron did not reform the EU, he is conning the Public.
    EU Referendum: summary and analysis of the new Settlement for the UK in the EU.
    Is the Settlement ‘legally binding and irreversible’?
    It is not a binding EU treaty or EU law in itself. Most legal opinions consider the first part of it, the Decision of Heads of State or Government, to be a binding treaty under international law, largely because the parties to it have declared that they intend it to be legally binding. But even if the Decision binds the parties under international law, it does not bind the EU institutions, and is not necessarily legally enforceable under either EU or domestic law.

    When it says it does not bind the EU institutions, it is referring to the fact it was only a promise by the Heads of State to recommend the two items (emergency brake and red card) to the European Parliament to vote in favour of and only if we remain in the EU. As it stands Brussels is not a done deal and there were no Treaty changes as noted in BRIEFING PAPER Number 7524,
    8 March 2016.
    Then we had two articles on the Brussels meeting:
    Lawyers for Britain – “Ever Closer Union” will remain in the Treaty and the summit deal makes no difference to the UK’s legal obligations.
    EurActiv.com – Cameron’s renegotiation is nothing more than a rebranding exercise

    Cameron’s public debrief on the BBC with Andrew Marr
    AM: It was important. I want to go through some of the detail of the important work, but before we do I thought I’d give you the chance – two million people watching, probably Boris Johnson as
    well, can you tell them why they should be voting to stay in the EU despite all the things they’ve heard against it?
    DC: Well, I want what’s best for Britain, and I think what’s best for Britain is staying in a reformed European Union, because we’ll be better off safeguarding our position in this massive single free
    market that we have in Europe. I think we’ll be stronger in the world, being able to get things done, whether that’s making sure our country is safe and our people are safe, and I think we’ll fight terrorism and criminality better. We’ll be safer inside the EU because we’re able to work with our partners, strength in numbers in a dangerous world. That I think is a positive choice for
    us. I think a leap in the dark with uncertainty already in our world, why take a further risk? You don’t need to. We’ve now got a better deal.
    AM: Now, in terms of the details of the deal, you did promise before the election that no children of EU migrants would be getting benefits as a result of it. You haven’t got that have you?
    DC: Well, what we’ve achieved, which I think is a big achievement is to say that for new arrivals they will get child benefit not at British rates but at a rate that reflects the cost of living in their
    country, and for existing people here, over the next few years we’ll move to a system where they get that lower rate of child benefit too. Now, these are things that many people thought were
    impossible to achieve. Not least your last guest on the programme, who argued for welfare restrictions, said they were very important, and now we’ve got them seems to say they’re

    Non of this has been submitted to or been passed by the European Parliament.

    AM: The benefits deal is now very, very complicated because we’re going to be paying a proportion of benefits paid in 27 different countries at different rates and different times. For a
    Work and Pensions Department which has struggled to introduce universal credit for six years, is this actually plausible?
    DC: Look, all of this is deliverable, otherwise I wouldn’t have agreed to it. And it, I think, meets what we set out in our manifesto, the commitments that we made.

    AM: Isn’t the big truth about this that the old EU with its treaties, the Lisbon treaty and the Nice treaty and all the rest of them, overhanging our laws, and its over-centralised massive,
    blundering machine, imperial in its ambitions, carries on, and because we are still under those treaties we carry on under it?
    DC: Well the difference is that of course now we’re not only out of the euro, out of the no borders agreement, but we’re also out of ever-closer union, so we won’t be part – yes.
    DC: Hold on. First of all, what was agreed by 28 prime ministers and presidents of every EU country on Friday evening, that is in itself an international law decision, a treaty that will be deposited at the UN. And it cannot – it is legally binding, it is irreversible.
    AM: Well, are we? Because this depends upon a treaty of undefined scope, at an undefined time, with new leaders we don’t even know about, so it’s taken on trust.

    It was not really answered

    AM: After your negotiation, sorry, after your negotiation in Brussels you suggested that you were going to introduce some new mechanism or law in this country enhance sovereignty, are you?
    Cameron: Yes. We’re going to set out in the coming days proposals, as I’ve announced I think before on this programme, to make clear that you know the British parliament is sovereign, we
    have chosen to join the EU, would could choose to leave the EU and I think there’s some important work to put that point …

    Where is it?

    • Jane Davies says:

      A lot of talk and no substance and Andrew Marr let him off lightly, British taxpayers money is still going into the pockets of EU migrants disguised as child benefit and as for Cameron’s comment on security “I think we’ll fight terrorism and criminality better. We’ll be safer inside the EU because we’re able to work with our partners.” Who is he kidding?
      Terrorists are allowed free passage into Europe and the UK are not allowed to deport criminals, how does that make the British citizens safer? As for the rest of the interview I would describe it as complete b****cks. Why did Marr not pick out the lies and show Cameron up for what he is……a con artist?

  11. Frances Fox says:

    Just think, “you asked someone to be your friend but tell them they will have to pay you money every day more whenever needed. You will give some money back but you will have to spend it how I tell you to and obey me.” Well that is just like the EU does as a whole to our Country. Agree?

  12. RODNEY OLLEY says:

    We are constantly told by the remainers that being in the EU gives us unrestricted access to 500 million people and this is true. It is also true that EU membership denies us as a nation access to many other populous markets in the world. However as far as the EU is concerned access alone is not beneficial unless the 500 million have money to spend. Italy, Spain, Portugal and Greece are presently impoverished and the East European countries were impoverished when they joined which is why so many of them want to come here. The richest country of them all Germany now has over a million impecunious immigrants which is consuming the wealth at an alarming rate and definitely downgrading Germany’s value as a customer. No new UK industry would focus their primary attentions on the EU there are far more promising customers elsewhere. If we stay we are attaching ourselves to an institution that is cash poor and likely to stay so for the foreseeable future.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s