Here is the Evidence that the UK WILL be better off after BREXIT

Over the last few weeks we have heard a cacophony of vested interests telling us that it was not in THEIR best interests for the UK to leave the EU. From the US President and US treasury, the IMF, the Bank of England and George Osbourne's minions, there has been an orchestrated message of dire warnings about perceived threats to the personal wealth of every man, woman and child in the UK.

But all of these warnings have been predicated on one hypothesis: that if the UK leave the EU, the UK's trade will reduce. This is not a fact, it is a forecast, a prediction, basically a guess. And lo and behold, what is the outcome of this hypothetical scenario? Why we all get poorer.

A reasonable hypothesis you might think, but is it? It is based on us losing, as we are repeated told, an export market of 500 million people. That, of course, is a lie. Nearly 66 million of that 500 million are in the UK market, so we are actually talking about are exports to a market of 430 million people. What the hypothetical models do not take account of is the dynamic between the UK market of 66 million and the other 430 million in the EU.

So let us look at that dynamic: something the EU does not do, because it is only concerned with the whole market, not with the individual members, and least of all individual people like you and me. That is why the EU forces poverty and unemployment on vast swathes of the EU, from Greece to Portugal, young people in particular are suffering from this emphasis on the EU market as a whole, not the wealth of individual countries.

When we joined the EU, in the days of Ted Heath and Harold Wilson, the most important UK national statistic was the Balance of Payments. The difference between what we, the UK, as a nation export in goods and services and what we import. Indeed for many of the post war years, as we struggled to pay off the biggest debts of any nation after WW2 (any nation that actually paid its debts that is), we had import controls, because as a nation, we decided that we could not afford imports.

You rarely hear of the balance of payments these days. Yes, it was mentioned by the Bank of England as the Financial Policy Committee (29/3/16) dutifully trotted out its carefully worded support for REMAIN and the interests of international bankers. But only as a footnote: it merely said it had "concerns" about the UK's balance of payments deficit(1).

Yes, deficit. Because ever since we joined the Common Market, we have had a deficit with the rest of the EU. And as the EU has got bigger and bigger, so too has our deficit with the rest of the EU.

So here's the rub. Here is the evidence that yes, we would be better off if we LEAVE the EU.

In the last three years alone (2013-2015), according to the UK Office of National Statistics(2) , we have had a balance of payments deficit with the rest of the world of £267 billion. Within that, our trade deficit with the rest of the EU has been a staggering £303 billion. Yes, we actually had a modest SURPLUS of trade with the rest of the world outside the EU, of £36 billion.

And that deficit with the rest of the EU is going up, from £89 billion in 2013 to £107 billion in 2015. If we REMAIN, and the status quo does not change, then over the next ten years, based on these figures, we will have a net deficit with the rest of the EU of over ONE TRILLION POUNDS (£1,000 billion).

So, how will we pay for this trillion pound spending spree? Well, the Bank of England told us. As a nation, there are only two ways to pay for this massive trade deficit. Either by flogging off our capital, or, by increasing our debt. Well, our national assets have gone to pay for the profligacy of the past. Margaret Thatcher started it by selling off our North Sea Oil too cheaply, such that last year whilst Shell paid Norway over $4billion, the UK actually paid Shell $123 million in tax rebates(3). Since then the railways, water, utilities and many other public and private assets have been sold and are now owned by overseas, particularly EU interests. The profits from which are, no doubt, squirreled away in Luxembourg tax avoidance schemes set up under the now EU Commission president, Jean Claude Juncker, when he was president of Luxembourg (free the "LuxLeaks" whistle blowers now under arrest in Luxembourg!)

So, as the BoE pointed out, the only way to pay for the £trillion pound balance of payments deficit with the EU expected over the next ten years is by debt. A debt that is frankly, unsustainable.

Yes, if the UK remain in the EU, within ten years the UK will be bankrupt.

So, what is the Brexit alternative? Well one alternative is to stop importing this stuff we don't need and start making ourselves the stuff we do need. We could stop importing quite so much and invest in our own economy instead; in steel, manufacturing, the NHS, local farming etc.. We can say good riddance to all these trade deals like TTIP whose primary purpose is to allow multi-nationals free rein to satisfy their greed for a privatised NHS, schools and other public works.

Another alternative is to stop worshiping consumerism and embrace conservation. We have the opportunity to be world leaders in sensible technology like renewable energy and home insulation.

Investing in the UK will cost us far less than the Trillion pounds the UK will have to find in the next ten years to feed our addiction to EU imports. That is why the world's vested interests are united in spending so much time and money on persuading us that our addiction to EU imports must continue, no matter what the cost to the British people. That Trillion pounds goes into the coffers of those same vested interests and further increases the servitude of debt into which every UK citizen is daily encouraged to fall.

The reality is that, after BREXIT, we will continue to trade with the EU, but on our terms, not theirs. The EU will still want its Scotch and other UK products, but more importantly, the EU cannot afford to lose all of that Trillion Pound bonanza it is expecting over the next ten years. The EU will be falling over itself to strike a trade deal with the UK, because it cannot afford to lose its largest export market. We just need to have faith in ourselves, in our country and have the courage to say NO to membership of the EU and stand on our own feet again.

References:
(1) www.bankofengland.co.uk/publications/Documents/news/2016/032.pdf point 11
(2)www.ons.gov.uk/economy/nationalaccounts/balanceofpayments/bulletins/balanceofpayments/octtodecandannual2015 & previous periods
(3)http://www.standard.co.uk/business/nick-goodway-why-do-we-pay-shell-to-extract-our-oil-assets-a3228751.html

Jeremy Corbyn the Pessimist?

I have never known such a pessimistic Labour Party leader as Jeremy Corbyn. In his lack lustre speech about the reasons for his volte face over Brexit, he talked about the Tories as if they were destined to remain in power forever. He predicted that if we left the EU the Tories would immediately "dump rights on equal pay, working time, annual leave for agency workers, and on maternity pay". Even if we accept that the Tories could get away with such a change without the type of furore that we are seeing over their attack on disability benefits, surely he should be saying that if the Tories were so stupid as to attack the rights of working people, a future Labour Government would restore them and more. After all it was before the UK joined the EU that Barbara Castle championed equal pay!

That is the advantage of Brexit: a future left wing UK government can restore workers' rights and improve them. Compare and contrast EU law and TTIP. It is part of the EU Commission's president Jean-Claude Juncker's mission statement on trade to implement TTIP before 2019 (http://ec.europa.eu/commission/2014-2019/malmstrom_en). It will be done. And what rights do we, the British (or any European) people, have to reject TTIP or a future UK Government to repeal it? Absolutely none: once signed TTIP will remain at the whim of the EU Commission.
It is this lack of democracy and accountability that it is at the heart of Brexit. A Vote to Leave the EU will restore the rights of the British people to make and repeal our own laws at will. A vote for Brexit is a vote for Freedom and that is why I will vote to Leave the EU on 23rd June.

The Case for Green Party Supporters to VOTE FOR BREXIT

I am deeply disappointed with the Green Party over the lack of opportunity to discuss the referendum on Europe. Ever since the referendum has been called, the Green Party has refused to debate how we should campaign in the referendum. Indeed the Green Party broke its own rules on emergency motions to push through a pro-EU vote at the Autumn 2015 conference. A vote in which the vast majority of the 66,000 Green Party members were excluded. Fewer than 1% of members voted for the emergency motion and ever since all debate on whether or not to campaign for or against Brexit has been stifled by the leadership. There was a time when the Green Party refused to have "leaders" and I now understand why. This official censoring of debate is undemocratic and dictatorial.
Mainly because of the more democratic voting system, it is clear that the greatest success that the Green Party of England and Wales has had, has been at the European Elections. The Green Party now has three times as many MEPs than the Liberal Democrats. It does mean, however, that this Europhile tendency does tend to dominate the corridors of power within the Green Party, grouped as it is in the South and East of England.
However, I do feel that in their Euro-enthusiasm, our leaders do tend to forget their own rhetoric.
Perhaps I could remind you of some of the things mentioned in the Green Party manifesto in 2015.
• "We have lost half the wild animals on earth in the past 40 years.
• We lose between 20,000 and 100,000 species every year. This is between 1000 and 10,000 times faster than the natural extinction rate.
• We are causing a ‘sixth extinction’. The other five occurred naturally. This one is down to us.
• We have increased CO2 concentrations from a pre-industrial 280 parts per million (ppm) to about 400 ppm.
• Global temperatures are due to rise between 1.5 and 4.8 degrees C by 2100. And that’s just the internationally agreed range without feedback effects. Many experts are predicting rises as high as 6 deg C.
For the first time in the history of the Earth one species is changing it forever – the human species. They call this new era the ‘Anthropocene’. We now have our very own geological epoch."
Now, such Armageddon type predictions suggest some pretty drastic changes are needed quickly to avoid a global disaster. But:
• you do not get change by voting for the status quo;
• you do not get change by being part of an economic union with economic growth as its over-riding ambition;
• you do not get change by voting for trade agreements like TTIP whose only purpose is to encourage unsustainable economic growth and further domination of the world economies by the increasingly avaricious global conglomerates;
• you do not get change when alternatives to unsustainable growth are not even on the European Commission agenda.
The EU as it is currently constituted is run for and by big business. The European Parliament continues to be dominated by right wing parties, paid for by big business. Even the UK "Remain" campaign is organised and paid for by the bankers and financiers of the City of London. The BSE campaign is financed by Goldman Sachs and J P Morgan and led by the former chair of M&S Lord Rose.
Even the "Vote Remain" campaign material being given out at the Green MEP stalls at Harrogate was paid for by British taxpayers via the EU levy, upon which British people have no vote and no say.
What we need, as the Green Party said at the General Election, is nothing less than a Green Revolution. Again from the 2015 manifesto:
• Make achieving international agreement on limiting climate change to within 2 degrees of warming a major foreign policy priority.

Foreign policy in the EU has been led by un-elected and unknown appointees like Catherine Ashton, who led us into the creation of conflicts in the Ukraine, Syria and Libya, but did nothing to foster international agreement on climate change.
• Invest in a £85bn public programme of renewable electricity generation, flood defences and building insulation creating more than 250,000 good jobs (in the UK).

Such a policy would not be allowed under current EU rules as it would create state subsidised unfair competition to the energy companies, now dominated by French, German and Spanish conglomerates.

• Support local sustainable agriculture, respect animals and wild places.

Again the EU rules do not allow the active support by member state of local food, at the expense of imports. An increase in animal welfare needs cross-EU support, as does the protection of habitats, so will take much longer to achieve within the EU, than if we just did it ourselves.

• Cut emissions by providing cheaper public transport, and encouraging cycling and walking.

The re-nationalisation and subsidy of the railways and bus services is not allowed under EU Directive 2012/34/EU.

The EU is all about economic expansion and enforced austerity, not public investment. Look what has happened to those countries faced with having to have a bail out to remain in the Euro. Massive levels of unemployment in Greece, Portugal and Spain. Even Ireland, touted as a success story, has effectively turned itself into a tax avoidance fiefdom of big business, emulating Luxembourg.
The Green vision for Europe is laid out the Manifesto for a Sustainable Society: the policy of the Green Party written by its members, not its leaders. This says:
EU110 To achieve the Green vision, Europe will need very different structures from those currently in existence. Europe should be made up of overlapping, co-operative, democratic, decentralised groupings of nations and regions.
This is not the EU and will NEVER be achieved with existing EU structures.
EU111 European institutions must be designed with care and with mechanisms for correction, to prevent the drift towards centralism that has repeatedly been seen in history.
The drift towards centralism has been a constant in the sixty year history of the EU and continues today.
EU112 Part of the way to do this is to have a multiplicity of independent bodies with clearly defined areas of responsibility, and with the possibility of membership by different groups of nations and regions. An example is the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe for conflict resolution.
Again, this is not found within the EU and is not part of any European Commission policy being considered .
EU113 Europe must not become a super-state or global power bloc.
But this is precisely how the "Remain" campaign define the EU: as a global power bloc: it is at the very heart of their rhetoric. But a power bloc for whom, comrades? For you? For me? Or a power bloc for the military industrial complex that Eisenhower warned us about?
Why do you think Obama is actively campaigning for the UK to remain in the EU? A single European nation suits the US government, its multinationals and its military. One leader is a lot easier to deal with than many.
Finally, again from the Green Party manifesto (preamble page 8):
The Green Party knows that:
• It’s hard to be a citizen when life tells you that you are a consumer;
It is Green Party policy to persuade the UK to abandon consumerism and back conservation. Conservation of our environment by abandoning waste and the constant search for more and more "things" we do not need or really want. Never mind the quantity, look for the quality of life. Look for sharing the wealth we have, not concentrating it in fewer and fewer hands.
But concentrating power in fewer hands is precisely what the EU is designed to do. Getting change is such a slow process in the EU that in forty years of membership, the UK has failed to change any EU Treaty; absolutely essential if you are to change the EU in the ways envisaged by the Green Party.
So, please, Green Party members, do not just accept the propaganda put out and financed by big business and the EU. Please think for yourselves. Look at Green Party policies and decide whether you want a society dominated by the commercial interests across the EU or an independent UK, where we can campaign for that Green Revolution and the British people can decide for themselves whether to be consumers or conservers.

Green Candidate at last election calls on MP to resign

In this blog, I am not mincing my words. I call on the sitting Richmond MP, Rushi Sunak, to resign for misleading the voters in the Richmond Constituency over fracking under National Parks.

As the Green Party candidate for Richmond (Yorks) at the last general election, I was in an excellent position to hear the promises made by Mr Sunak.

At several public meetings during the election campaign, as well as in his manifesto, Mr Sunak assured people that a Tory Government would not be fracking under our National Parks. However, Mr Sunak has just voted in the House of Commons to do just that.

The vote on the Government’s Draft Onshore Hydraulic Fracturing (Protected Areas) Regulations 2015 will see fracking allowed beneath National Parks, Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs), Groundwater Protection Zones, Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONBs) and World Heritage sites. This could expose many of the UK’s most fragile and treasured landscapes to noise, air and light pollution, resulting from fracking rigs being situated around the edges of protected areas, in order to drill down and then horizontally across to access the shale gas reserves beneath.

The Government had previously committed to an ‘outright ban’ on fracking in National Parks, AONBs and SSSIs. However, the latest regulations attempt to sidestep this by allowing underground drilling in the fissures deep below protected areas. This could lead to thousands of lorry movements to transport equipment and fluids, noise from compressors, and 24 hour floodlighting around the perimeters of these areas – causing pollution to spill over into Britain’s most precious countryside.

SSSIs are conservation areas for wildlife and rare plants. There are around 4,000 in the UK, protecting 8% of land. There are 15 National Parks in England, Scotland and Wales, covering 22,658 square kilometres: more than a tenth of the area of Great Britain.

Greenpeace estimates that 300 square kilometres of the North York Moors could become open to fracking after government consultation, as well as areas near Stokesley in the Richmond constituency.

Mr Sunak and the Conservatives deliberately misled the electorate about their intentions over fracking. Also, the vote this week goes directly counter to the Paris Agreement last week on climate change. To meet those agreed targets it is essential that no fracking takes place, as the Government have also abandoned their proposals for carbon capture.

Any jobs created by fracking will be in the tens, not the thousands boasted by Mr Sunak and will be more than outweighed by those lost to the tourist trade.

Mr Sunak and the Conservatives are cynically putting our environment at risk in pursuit of corporate profit and Mr Sunak should resign for misleading voters in the Richmond constituency.


Sources: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/shale-developments-to-be-banned-in-all-uk-national-parks

http://energydesk.greenpeace.org/2015/08/18/dozens-of-sites-of-special-scientific-interest-in-blocks-offered-for-fracking/

















More Local Privatisation of the NHS

The recent revelation that a proposed private mini-hospital in Catterick Garrison could syphon away at least £1 million a year from Friarage Hospital, is yet another example of the privatisation of the NHS by stealth under the Tories. This undemocratic Conservative administration, elected by just 26% of UK voters, has long had a policy of allowing private NHS providers to "cherry pick" easy to provide services, which undermines the feasibility of public hospitals like the Friarage.

Apparently, the plans for a £4 million extension to the Harewood Medical Practice (Northern Echo 2/11/15) was drawn up without other medical practitioners being aware of it. The Hambleton, Richmondshire & Whitby Clinical Commissioning Group (HRWCCG) is a privatised Tory invention to facilitate this widespread privatisation of the NHS. The expensive process of fragmenting the NHS into privatised bits has directly contributed to the funding crisis in the NHS, along with successive Governments' reluctance to train sufficient UK doctors and nurses to work in the NHS, preferring instead to recruit medical staff overseas and through expensive private agencies.

I urge supporters of the NHS to book themselves onto the next HRWCCG patients forum (held in a Tory supporter's offices in Leyburn) on 25th November by ringing 01609 767600 and telling these running dogs of capitalism what they can do with their privatisation of the NHS.

Come the Revolution?

It is a while since I wrote on this blog. After the disappointing election result, where just 24% of the electorate, (or less than one in five of the population if you take account of those not allowed to vote), managed to vote in yet another Government of the minority under our patently undemocratic winner takes all voting system. Even in the Richmond constituency, where a parachuted in public school Tory was elected with a large majority of those who voted; the Tory still only has the support of just a third of the population.
But the Today programme on Radio 4 this morning, Tuesday 6th October 2015, really, really got my goat.
Reporting from the Tory party conference in Manchester, the BBC once again demonstrated its biased reporting. Time after time, the claims by the Tories to have created a strong economy went unchallenged. Not once, despite having the opportunity many times, notably whilst interviewing the nutty Minority Minister, David Cameroon, did any BBC reporter point out that since coming to power in 2010, the Tories have doubled the public sector debt (from c.£750 billion to £1.5 trillion and still rising): an increase greater than every Labour Government combined.
The balance of payments deficit (the difference between what the UK imports and what we export) was close to £100bn in 2014. That deficit was funded by the ever rising non-government debt: in other words we are all getting deeper in debt. That means that more and more of the UK's capital assets are having to be sold off to pay for that debt. Almost every major non-financial business in the UK is in foreign ownership. Many of these companies are dodging tax, because the Tories have still failed to implement meaningful anti-tax avoidance measurements.
The Tory chancellor, George Osborne was in China recently, kow-towing to the Communist dictatorship that runs that country, in order to get a few scraps from its table. Offering shameless bribes, such as offering more money to China for grass roots football, than the Tory Government spends on sport in North East England.
China produces more than 800 million tonnes of steel a year, over 50% of the world's production, on the back of massive Chinese Government support and low wages. In the UK, in one of the few remaining UK (but foreign owned) steel plants on Teesside; steel workers are being made redundant and receiving little support from the Tory Government.
The message is very clear, but completely over looked by the BBC. The Tories are rubbish at managing our economy and austerity just does not work. Pre-austerity post war Britain had higher levels of economic growth, which were more evenly distributed than today. Since Thatcher broke the post war consensus the UK has had lower growth than previously, as well as the three great post war economic crises: in the early 1980s, the early 1990s (Cameron was culpable in causing Black Monday) and the banking crisis after 2008.
What sense is there in reducing the top tax rate for millionaires down to 45% when you have massive public debt, when even under Thatcher it was 60%? Why hasn't this Government implemented sweeping changes to tax avoidance legislation to stop companies exporting their profits to tax havens? Why are the poor being penalised by reducing benefits and tax credits, whilst the rich get lower taxes? Why is this Government forcing Housing Associations to sell the dwindling stock of social housing, whilst paying massive subsidies to private landlords in the form of housing benefit?
These are the questions the BBC are not asking. The BBC and all the media should be challenging the Public school boys in charge, but instead they are run by them. Which is why the BBC virtually ignored the massive peaceful demonstrations against austerity outside the steel walls erected by the establishment around the ivory tower that is the Tory conference.
The BBC is part of the grand alliance of unaccountable power that rules this country and time is running out if we are to avoid a revolution being the only way to end this injustice.

BBC Continues Bias

BBC Look North from Newcastle continue to have debates from different constituencies that exclude Green Party candidates. In response to a complaint from me the BBC wrote:

We are filming "hot seats" for Look North in four of the region’s marginal constituencies and took the decision - based upon the BBC guidelines - to include UKIP candidates but not to include the Greens. This was based upon current levels of polling and past performance in recent elections. For example, UKIP won a North East seat in last year's European elections as well as coming second to Labour in both the Middlesbrough and South Shields by-elections."

On this basis, why do they include the Liberal Democrats? The Green Party got more votes and more seats than the Liberal Democrats in last year's European Elections, upon which they partially base their decision? The Green Party has more members than either the Liberal Democrats or UKIP and are standing in 90% of the seats in England & Wales.

In addition, their polling, for which no evidence was given and upon which they partially base their decision, will be affected by THEIR OWN DECISION NOT TO BROADCAST DETAILS OF GREEN CANDIDATES AND TO EXCLUDE GREEN CANDIDATES FROM BBC DEBATES!

What right do the BBC, a body paid for by you and me, have to decide who should be represented on their debates and who should be excluded? What price democracy, if the BBC can decide who is to be heard and who is not? In my constituency (Richmond (Yorks), there are two independents with strong followings, but under the BBC criteria they will never be heard. What right has a publicly owned broadcaster have to decide that?

The BBC should and will be challenged for their bias. This political bias is undermining democracy in this country and runs contrary to the BBC charter. Write to the BBC and complain! http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/complain-online/