How we will be better off out

Remain has made a wicked presentation of dodgy forecasts, implying we will be worse off out. Their unlikely estimates all show that over the period up to 2030 we will be better off, whether out or in, than  we are today.What we are arguing about is not a cut in our  income but how big a pay rise we get.

Its my view we can earn a bigger pay rise out than in. Here’s why.


  1. Out of the EU we can spend the £10bn net contribution we send to Brussels on our own priorities. that means more better paid jobs created here at home for UK’s citizens. it means an immediate and continuing boost to our economy, an end to austerity.
  2. Out of the EU we will be able to cut the flow of EU migrants taking low paid jobs and keeping wages down. Pay will go up a bit more when we control migration.
  3. Out of the EU our trade will not be at risk. The rest of the EU sells us so much more than we sell them. They  are not planning new trade barriers as they would damage them more. Anyway we and they belong to the World Trade Organisation which stops higher tariffs on most  things.
  4. Out of the EU the UK can get on with negotiating free trade deals with the large countries like the USA, China, India and Brazil that the EU has no trade deals with. Where the EU does have trade deals with some smaller countries the UK will continue with those in its own right, as will the rest of the EU, when we leave.Under international law where the signatories split all can continue with the treaties until all sides want a change.
  5. Out of the EU we can fit our regulations and laws on goods and services to our needs and the needs of the rest of the world customers for the bulk of our business which is not export to the EU. In the EU we have to apply EU laws and rules to everything.
  6. Out of the EU we will not have to contribute to the growing costs of the failing Eurozone.

The UK did not grow faster in  the EU than before we joined, nor faster than many countries outside the EU. Many countries outside the EU have grown their trade with the EU faster than we have been able to from within.


The EU has become a low growth or no growth area,thanks to the Euro and its legal and bureaucratic burdens. The EU gave us the big recession of the early 1990s thanks to its ill conceived Exchange Rate rigging scheme. It assisted in the creation of the great banking crisis of 2008, along with the UK and U.S. Authorities.


We we will be better off out when we spend our own money, make our own decisions in a fast moving world, and control our own borders. Trying to agree your laws, taxes and policies with 27 other countries leaves you ill equipped to deal with the fast changing conditions we find globally today.


  1. Lifelogic
    May 29, 2016

    Indeed we will be far better off out. Especially if we move to cheap energy, have a bonfire of red tape, have sensible levels of quality only migration, lower and simplify taxes and replace the economic illiterate, central wage controlling, tax until the pips squeek George Osborne with someone competent.

    We will also be have a far more nimble government and will be democratic again.

    1. Hope
      May 29, 2016

      Cameron and Osborne too posh to care about immigration. They can afford private health care, private eduction, cheap nannies to look after their children, live in areas ordinary people cannot afford, away from the every day penalties of their mass immigration policy. They do not have to wait for a GP appointment, they do not have worry if their child cannot get a place in the school year desire even if they lived in the area all their life contributing to the society they want their child to be part of. They do not have to worry if their child’s education is set back because a large proportion of children do not speak English. However most of do!

      Major in his rants today forgets he was the cause for sky high interest rates, the loss of jobs, loss of business and loss of homes for his failed attempt to get the UK to John the ERM, the forerunner to the EURO, which an Italian minister calls a crime against humanity for th misery it has and is causing! Major has a very narrow view on economics and forgets the travesty actually happening in the Eurozone countries right now, again, loss of jobs, loss of homes and loss of business because of the EU and the Euro that he wants us to beau ordinate to and part of! Why does he think 670,000 EU immigrants came here last year, aight seeing? Complete fanatic who has lost leave of his senses.

      May short sighted behaviour surfaces again at our cost. She thinks Sharia courts benefits people in this country! Her very view creates separation of communities, parallel societies and double standards in law! This epitomizes the Balkanisation of our country and prevents integration which we need for community cohesion. One law, one society one nation all based on British values. Not the ones she wishes to give away and then moans she cannot deport terrorists or lost hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants to the system! How can she stay in office for all her failures? (words left out ed)She needs to be sacked ASAP for our country to flourish.

      Our navy currently under the control of an EU bureaucrat helping dinghy death traps. We now read the boats only have enough fuel to reach international waters to be picked up by EU vessels. The EU, we are told is not a country, it is not about becoming a superstate, so explain why Cameron is giving away our military to EU control? Last week the army had EU flags emblazoned on the vehicle doors. Once more, we see the lies told to us.

  2. Lifelogic
    May 29, 2016

    I heard Liam Byrne on radio 4 the other day in an free (one assumes) advert for his book – Dragons: 10 Entrepreneurs Who Built Britain. In the couple of minutes he had he managed convinced me he did not really understand economics, human nature or business at all. Just as one would expect of a Labour politician or indeed of most politicians.

    He was famous for correctly pointing out that there was no money left after Gordon Brown and Labour crashed the economy by bloating the largely incompetent and unproductive government so much.

    Osborne then took over and made the debt far worse. Also he was famous for calling for harsh penalties for motorist and then being fined for using his mobile phone while driving.

  3. bigneil
    May 29, 2016

    I hope the “control our own borders” bit includes deporting the foreign criminals, rapists, murderers and paedophiles who use the HRA to escape sentencing in their own country and brazenly walk our streets in freedom, while their lives are funded by the taxpayer. Throw them out, no matter what they claim they face. We should not be a safe haven for these “humans”.
    And I do mean deporting – not the Jack Straw type of deporting the Stansted hijackers – only for a newspaper to photograph them years later walking in London, parasitically living here, doing nothing, everything found. Crime clearly pays if you’re foreign and in the UK. Anyone who wants to go to Syria etc and join the IS – -LET THEM GO – and then rip up their citizenship and NEVER let them back in.
    Stop treating foreign criminals and spongers better than our own people – and politicians might start to get some respect.

    1. Shane Blanshard
      May 29, 2016


      1. M Davis
        May 29, 2016

        Hear, hear!

        We want a REAL Conservative Government with a spine, instead of the wishy-washy, spineless one that we now have.

  4. Lifelogic
    May 29, 2016

    I see that Steve Hilton, good friend of Cameron for 20 years, has said that he himself is for leave and that Cameron, in his heart, is pro Brexit!

    Mind you Cameron did say he was “at heart a low tax Conservative” yet he has shown us he is clearly neither. No real Conservative could retain a chancellor as foolish & misguided as central wage controlling, IHT ratting, tenant mugging, tax increasing and pension robbing George Osborne.

    Clearly logic & reason point strongly to Brexit and a restoration of some democracy. So if his heart is really pro Brexit too, then what on Earth is the man playing at? Especially as his pathetic long grass renegotiation, rather predictably, achieved nothing of any substance.–if-ever–will-the-real-cameron-stand-up/

    1. alan jutson
      May 29, 2016


      Its a shame Hilton is still not Camerons advisor, he may have been able to talk some sense into him, thought H was very sensible on Question time with his views..

      1. Lifelogic
        May 29, 2016

        I find Hilton rather a typically irritating, out of touch, lefty, PR stunts over substance, Oxford PPE, moderniser myself. But he did sound a bit more sensible on Question Time the other day and has come to the only sensible conclusion on Brexit.

  5. Lifelogic
    May 29, 2016

    Simon Heffer to day also poses the interesting question of where does Corbyn stand on all the dire troubles of the Socialist Paradise of France? IT would be good to know, since he would probably take the UK down the same disastrous path, were he ever given half a chance. Heading toward the delights of a new Venezuela one assumes. A system he seemed to admire until recently.

    1. hefner
      May 30, 2016

      The Socialist Paradise of France? It seems to be good enough for Lord Lawson.

  6. Mick
    May 29, 2016

    Out of the dreaded eu we can be British again without other people dictating what we can say or do, we can spend the billions that we give away as we want without strings and the billions which cost our company’s in red tape, we can say who we want to come here, we can elect who govern us which would change if we stayed in the dreaded eu, we are a friendly open arms country but step on our tail and you will see the other side to us, i still think the vote leave should be more forceful in the debates and yes lye if need be because we are not going to get another shot at this after all it’s not stopping the inners from telling a few porkys

  7. agricola
    May 29, 2016

    The National and International forecasters seem incapable of plausible results for six months ahead, 2030 puts them in fantasy land. I often suspect that they forecast for their preferred outcome or to please their political masters.

    To your admirable list I would add:-
    Support for our dairy farmers who are having a hard time at the moment. Perhaps it could be self financing by cancelling all the payments in support of useless windmills.
    We could re-build our fishing industry in a sustainable way. It would be mostly an export industry due to the limited concept of what fish can be eaten by the great British public.
    We could benefit greatly by standing on our own two feet, no longer the milch cow of the EU. One requisite in this area is far fewer MPs and of greater quality. I would suggest we need a whole new operating system in both houses where time gets wasted all too visibly.
    Your final paragraph confirms my theory that you can run a destroyer on a personal basis far easier than an aircraft carrier. Be aware however that ministries, just like large companies tend to multiply in uselessness. The present system of advisors, inner cabinet, cabinet, government, bloated H o C and grotesquely bloated H o L is not fit for a modern democracy.

  8. agricola
    May 29, 2016

    I would add one further observation to my contribution today.

    In the UK there should be one law which should derive from Parliament and no other source. Not from the EU nor from a religion …….This is contrary to what our Home Secretary appears to believe, in that she does not question the legitimacy of Sharia Courts etc ed
    It is a damning condemnation of where we have arrived in legal terms for a Home Secretary to accept a parallel justice system. Not withstanding her duplicity over EU membership, on the above grounds she should go.

  9. alan jutson
    May 29, 2016

    All good stuff once again John.

    Certainly aware of all of the above, except the last sentence in point 4.

    “Under International law where the signatories split, all can continue with the treaties until all sides want change.”

    Why has this very simple but important point not been argued by the leave camp in all cases where we are constantly being told by remain that all EU treaties with outside Countries will be lost and we will have to renegotiate them.

    Understand perhaps some EU countries may want to put (short term) pressure on us if they want to cut off their noses to spite their faces and lose their own EU jobs, but those Countries outside are unlikely to do the same.

    If the above is true, why is more not being made of this legal fact, to close down this simple lie.

    Reply Yes they are guilty of a simple lie. I have often pointed out that the Treaties continue for the splitting parties. Bear in mind if they did not the rest of the EU as well would lose all its Treaties and have to renegotiate the lot as well!

    1. alan jutson
      May 29, 2016

      reply to reply

      Just love the last sentence of your reply

      “…if they did not the rest of the EU as well would lose all of its Treaties and have to renegotiate the lot as well”

      Given it cuts both ways

      Please, please get the Brexit Campaigners to use this as a standard response to the usual claim that we would have to renegotiate trade agreements with all. !!!!

      Such a simple put down to expose the lie.

    2. Denis Cooper
      May 29, 2016

      I think it would only need an exchange of letters confirming that all the parties to the treaty were content to allow it continue, with none regarding the withdrawal of the UK from the EU as a good cause for its termination, as formalised in Article 62 of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties:

      “1. A fundamental change of circumstances which has occurred with regard to
      those existing at the time of the conclusion of a treaty, and which was not foreseen by the parties, may not be invoked as a ground for terminating or withdrawing from the treaty unless:

      (a) The existence of those circumstances constituted an essential basis of the consent of the parties to be bound by the treaty; and

      b) The effect of the change is radically to transform the extent of obligations still
      to be performed under the treaty.”

      Of course that will depend upon the nature of the trade arrangements between the EU and the UK after its withdrawal. If the present trade arrangements remain effectively undisturbed through the new treaty there should be no problem, but if out of stupidity and spite the governments of other EU countries decide to severely disrupt the present trade between the UK and the rest of the EU that could be a different matter. Then for example South Korea could say that when it entered into the present trade agreement with the UK that was on the assumption that it could use the UK as a convenient entry to the EU, and that was no longer the case now that the EU had decided to issue a modern version of Napoleon’s Berlin Decree banning all trade with the UK for geopolitical reasons.

      1. alan jutson
        May 30, 2016


        Thank you for that reference.

    3. Denis Cooper
      May 29, 2016

      Martin Howe QC knows his stuff, and he confirms that it is a lie.

      But it is a lie which we need to nail.

      1. A different Simon
        May 29, 2016

        Denis Cooper ,

        I’ve almost given the referendum up as as good as lost . It has been a trick .

        Look at the way Cameron has used the machine of Govt and the Civil Service against Britain ? Did the Civil service resist ?

        Almost one third of the work force works for the public sector – one sixth as public sector employees plus another almost sixth working for big companies getting work from the public sector .

        The only sector of Govt which has not ballooned is the armed forces yet nobody ever take Cameron to task for disbanding the British army .

        Blair changed the face of Britain by importing an electorate which is more to the establishments liking than anglo-saxons .

        Also expanding the proportion of people who are dependent on big-govt for their wages and pensions that it’s almost impossible to get a leave vote .

        The only way out is going to be by electing a Govt which wants to leave , not the current one which has less than a football team worth of leavers in it – and no subs .

        Britain is going to have to become a multi-culti socialist hellhole and go through another civil war .

  10. hefner
    May 29, 2016

    One of the problems is that if the forecasts of Remain are dodgy, so are those of Brexit, based on close to nothing. Both camps are as bad in their propaganda, and their respective followers just display the same stupidity.
    Look at some of the comments on this blog, and see what some supposedly intelligent people are writing!

    1. Denis Cooper
      May 29, 2016

      Well, it’s interesting that the media gave much more prominence to the Commons Treasury select committee hammering (some* on) the Leave side over their “We send £350 million a week to Brussels and if we left the EU then we would have all that money to spend as we saw fit” claim, than they gave to the committee also criticising Osborne and the Treasury over their equally incorrect and financially more significant “Brexit will cost every household £4,3oo a year” claim.

      Equally incorrect, insofar as on page 12 of its report:

      the committee says that the money newly available after Brexit would probably be “closer to the UK’s net contribution of £110 million per week than it is to £350 million”, so the Vote Leave claim would be out by a factor of 3.2; but that is after including £79 million per week paid to the private sector and non-governmental organisations, without which it would be £189 million a week, and then the Vote Leave claim would be out by a factor of only 1.9; while on page 21 the committee says that the Treasury’s claim of £4,300 a year lost by the average household should be cut back to “a £1,600 loss in median household disposable income”, therefore as it will be generally understood by the public the Treasury’s claim will be too high by a factor of 2.7. So in both cases, on both sides, the committee has detected a roughly threefold exaggeration in their claims.

      Financially more significant, because in total money terms the Vote Leave claim would be out by about £10 billion a year, while as commonly understood the Treasury claim would out by £72 billion a year – that is, a £2,700 a year error for each of 27 million households = £72 billion a year.

      And that is before we even start on the Treasury’s conclusion that GDP would be cut by 6% if we left the EU Single Market when the government has accepted that its benefit is only a fraction of that, 2% of GDP, and it may well be only 1%, and no account has been taken of any potential benefits of leaving.

      * Not our host on this blog, I hasten to add; in line with the official figures:

      he has consistently said that our net contribution to the EU budget is £10 billion a year, which works out as £192 million a week.

      1. Anonymous
        May 29, 2016

        The caveat to the £350m a week claim is that the EU returns the money to us and tells us how to spend it.

        OK. So I give you a tenner and you give me back six quid, then you tell me to spend it on projects that you like – and then you tell me to put your logo on it to advertise to everyone how munificent you’ve been.

        In this respect the Brexit campaign is correct but I can see how it’s tripped them up.

        1. Denis Cooper
          May 30, 2016

          The first caveat is that we get a rebate, and apparently that it deducted from our contributions before we make them so that money never goes to Brussels. For 2014 that means we sent £14.4 billion to Brussels not £18.8 billion:

          and that means £277 million a week not £362 million.

          I must admit that surprised me, because I was under the impression that our rebate for a particular year could not be worked out until after the year had ended, and then we would get that cash back in the following year, but apparently not.

      2. hefner
        May 29, 2016

        Thanks for all your contributions: the campaign would be so much more interesting if things were properly explained, but most of what we get is pure stupid one-liner propaganda.

        I must admit I am now looking forward to the 24th and seeing, whatever the result, the impact on our dear old Conservative politicians.

  11. boffin
    May 29, 2016

    Dr. Redwood, are you aware of this very recent move by the European Commission towards federal powers for taxation across the EU, here reported:

    Reply Yes, another part of Project Union

    1. Denis Cooper
      May 29, 2016

      Except that it isn’t a very recent move, I find that it’s been brewing up for at least four years, but as is so often the case nobody has actively drawn it to the attention of the British public.

      No doubt if it had been raised then the official answer would have been to deny that anything was happening, and even if something was happening it wouldn’t get anywhere, and in any case “we” would have a veto on it.

      The only problem with that being that the “we” who would be able to use that veto would not be “we, the people”, but “we, the political elite, who know better than you, the people”, and who might well choose to let it happen.

      There was a Commission Communication about it back in June 2012, and a consultation in Feb – May 2013:

      I don’t know the details of the recent vote in the EU Parliament.

  12. Caterpillar
    May 29, 2016

    Peter’s Laws (Diamandis)

    17. The best way to predict the future is to create it yourself!
    21. An expert is someone who can tell you exactly how it can’t be done.
    22. The day before something is a breakthrough it’s a crazy idea.
    28. Bureaucracy is an obstacle be conquered with persistence, confidence and a bulldozer if necessary.

    1. Know-Dice
      May 29, 2016

      And a consultant is someone who tells you what you already know and charges you for the privilege…

  13. Sakara Gold
    May 29, 2016

    A powerful exposition of your Brexit point of view which is, I have to admit, persuasive. Though a sensible Chancellor might prefer to apply the savings to the reduction of our absolutely enormous national debt rather than blowing it on further increases to the NHS budget.

    I would disagree with your analysis of the post ERM recession though. After the Lawson boom years, inflation had reached 15% with mortgage rates following and Thatcher’s Chancellor persuaded her that the financial discipline of membership of the ERM would confine sterling to a narrow range. This was attractive as superficially membership of the ERM put us on the same level as the Germans…..

    Interest rates of 15% slowly reduced inflation, but were critical in causing a collapse in house prices and lower consumer spending. This contributed to the recession of 1991. You obviously did not get repossessed!

    The exit from the ERM and the Soros run on sterling that caused it saw the party spiral into a cycle of reprisals that almost destroyed it, as well as the political careers of Lamont and Major. It was regrettable that you were unable to garnish sufficient support from the party’s rank and file to win the leadership election!

    Reply It was shadowing the DM prior to formal entry into the ERM which caused the inflation!

    1. Lifelogic
      May 30, 2016

      Indeed if only Mrs Thatcher has listened more to her advisor Prof. Alan Walters and less to the incompetent, EURO/ERM driven dopes at the Treasury, with their idiotic & misguided group think.

  14. Anonymous
    May 29, 2016

    Dr Redwood

    Brexit really need to be getting this information to the Daily Mail Group. Particularly the Mail on Sunday which is ‘turning’ towards Remain. It has given a free reign to John Major today and praised him its editorial. It repeatedly criticises Brexit for failure to address economic issues – particularly Vote Leave’s claim that our contribution to Brussels is £350m a week.

    As I have been predicting – since its awful treatment of Nigel Farage in the run up to the last General election. The Mail is a shill for the EU and the Cameron government.

    Where it should be unashamedly biased in its push for Brexit it is doing the Remain’s work for them – in the guise of sceptical reasonableness. I could almost put money on the headline on the eve of the referendum:

    “After careful consideration of the facts we regret that our readers must hold their noses and vote Remain.”

    The one strength we have is the strong feeling of Mail readers and the motivation to get out and vote.

    This is the ultimate flanking move by the Remain campaign and I’d love to be able to see the money trail.

    1. DaveM
      May 29, 2016

      MoS always gives an opposing view to the DM.

    2. A different Simon
      May 29, 2016

      Anonymous ,

      My brother in law called in at two Waitrose to get something so got two free Sunday papers ; The Observer and the Sunday Mail .

      The Observer was page after page of remainiac nonsense .

      I confirm your assessment that the Sunday Mail is for remaining . They are already demonising Brexiteers for continuing the fight (or dragging them through the mire) after this farce of a referendum .

      As you say a shill . How many others are too ?

  15. graham1946
    May 29, 2016

    Of course we will be better off, either in or out. Even if the Tories are in power until 2030 which is possible given the dire opposition, surely the useless Osborne/Cameron or their successors could not contrive to stop growth for 15 years. Or could they? If the government was just wound up and did nothing for the next 15 years, Business would thrive. They would cope with the insane rules we already have. It is the constant interfering from politicians which causes problems and slows us down. If a man loses a leg, eventually he learns to live with it. But if you keep sowing it back on and cutting it off, then other one, no-one can do that. It is amazing that we are as successful as we are, given the dire quality of the political class we have and their never ending supply of crazy ideas for making us poorer and spending our money on vanity (which they call their legacy) and lost causes like HS2 and Foreign Aid. Who cares who they are, or were. No-one remembers most of them in a year or two anyway, except the greats or the spectacular losers.

    1. Anonymous
      May 30, 2016

      If the result is Remain what do you mean by ‘if the Tories are in power’ ?

      It really won’t matter which party is in power.

      1. graham1946
        May 31, 2016

        I am talking about beyond 2020, which was the subject of the Treasury report up to 2030 as I said in my piece. It does matter which party is in power as they have different priorities.

  16. rose
    May 29, 2016

    “1.Out of the EU we can spend the £10bn net contribution we send to Brussels ” This needs to be explained as the remainders are making a lot of black propaganda with it. They are hiding from the public the fact that the contribution goes up every year while the rebate has come down and is in grave danger of being abolished.

  17. Bert Young
    May 29, 2016

    All the points that John makes in the blog today are valid and convincing ; the “remainers” cannot possibly argue convincingly against them . Boris and Gove also today have highlighted the problem of migrants and the discontent of Conservative MPs who recognise the deceit that Cameron made to the electorate on this issue ; 50 of them have reportedly now signed up to challenge his leadership .

    On Friday I spoke to the recent Chair of my local Conservative Party ; she confirmed that approximately 30% of paid up members have resigned ; she highlighted the discontent was mainly against Cameron and the way he had over-ridden the committee in their selection of the MP candidate . She considered him the worst Prime Minister in living memory .

  18. Javelin
    May 29, 2016

    Cameron’s campaign has (1) been decisive (2) lied and made false assumptions (3) gone in the face of 70% of his party (4) used the full weight of Government against his own supporters.

    Cameron needs to go before the referendum not after it.

    1. Leslie Singleton
      May 29, 2016

      Dear Javelin–That would get my vote–Tomorrow, before he breaks the purdah, which because he is involved is very dodgy at best

    2. Anonymous
      May 29, 2016

      “Cameron needs to go before the referendum”

      That or the eurosceptic Tory MPs. After we’ve lost the referendum will be too late.

      There are plenty of grounds for a re-run.

    3. A different Simon
      May 29, 2016

      I hope Briton’s burn effigies of that man for centuries to come .

      He has sought to do more damage to parliament and Britain than Guido Fawkes .

      I don’t think there has ever been a bigger charlatan or traitor in the history of Britain , not even Blair , Lord Haw Haw or Kim Philby .

      etc ed

  19. Ian Wragg
    May 29, 2016

    Why does the Sunday Mail run 2 pages of drivel by John Major. That man has done more damage to Britain than anyone I know so why give him oxygen.
    He is nothing more than a serial lier and should keep quiet.
    Cameron thinks 600,000 immigrants is a price worth paying for access to trade taxed at 7%.
    Better off out.

  20. Beecee
    May 29, 2016

    The Vote Leave strategy under its Campaign Director is losing the battle hands down.

    Continuing to lead with the £350 million figure was badly thought out and is a busted flush and you need the Farage to play the immigration card – it is his forte!

    Having produced no concept of how we would operate after Brexit has given the Remain Fear strategy the oxygen it needs to bury Leave.

    Do Mr Cummings and his team not read the excellent facts on this blog? Or are they too consumed with their own self importance that they are too proud to accept help and guidance?

    By the time the Leave team wakes up the voters will be totally sick of the claims and counter claims and go with the status quo.

    What a wasted opportunity!

  21. APL
    May 29, 2016

    Vote remain leaflet handed to me yesterday makes the claim among others:

    “EU action making it cheaper to use your [mobile] phone abroad”

    Would seem to be false. The EU was first asked to abolish roaming charges, by the International Telephone Users Group (INTUG) in 1999.

    Seventeen (17) years later and it hasn’t complied with the request yet, roaming charges in the European Union won’t be abolished until next year.

  22. DaveM
    May 29, 2016

    Im going to start suggesting more slogans in the hope that some publically broadcast Leave campaigners pick up on them. Today’s, in response to glum forecasts and ‘a leap into the unknown’ is nice and simple and might resonate with those of us remaining English folk who aren’t timid and scared and lacking confidence in themselves;

    “Who Dares Wins”

    1. sjb
      May 29, 2016

      I think better particulars would be more persuasive than slogans. For instance, perhaps getting our major trading partners to confirm the terms of trade will indeed be those put forward by the Leave campaign.

      Perhaps if David Price is reading this he could let us know how his successful commercial technology sales to Australia, China, Japan, Taiwan and the US[*] would be affected.


      1. DaveM
        May 30, 2016

        You’re right, but good luck getting them published in the MSM! I’m suggesting soundbites aimed at those millions of voters who won’t read what you suggest.

  23. Denis Cooper
    May 29, 2016

    I see Priti Patel has quite rightly had a go over certain unnamed people for being born with silver spoons in their mouths and therefore not being too bothered about the adverse effects of mass immigration on the plebs. The mass media assume that she means Cameron and Osborne, and maybe she does; but I’ve just been looking at the background of Jeremy Hunt, who now wants to shut down local chemists across the country no matter how that makes life difficult for millions of people, and surprise surprise he is another one of them.

    May 29, 2016

    It is to be hoped we will be better off out of the EU by then having free-speech.

    One should not forget the Politically-Correct brigade; the Professionally Offended group who frightened even their own work colleagues into silence. Or made monkeys out of them obliging them to make opaque go-with-the flow compliments to “diversity” and such.
    How breathing one word against immigration led to taunts of “Racist” , “Fascist” and “Nazi”. Those insults came from invited guests on mainstream media, senior journalists, politicians, “charitable” groups; individuals who are “always on telly” famous for being famous heading some pressure group or other.
    Even now, particularly Labour senior politicians who have one or two mean-minded followers and voters feel it necessary to proclaim: “No, it’s not racist to speak about immigration, really..” ( heard said by both Rt Hon Mr Miliband and Rt Hon Mr Burnham )
    There is much hate out there and quite a bit of it is generated by the Left against free-speech. Any view other than their own…even within their own Labour ranks. Note the hate mail and more, received by those Labour MPs perceived as being on the Right.

    Remain or Leave, more than ever, many British people have developed a refined criticism of British media other than “You can’t believe what the papers say., hahahahaha “. It is now an increasing belief that British media is a deliberately manipulated news source and not just sensationalist headlining journalism. Something quite insidious.

    1. Anonymous
      May 29, 2016

      The supposedly ‘unifying’ EU has the nation split down the middle. At least one half is going to be very unhappy after the 23rd.

      It has spread discontent throughout Europe.

    May 29, 2016

    On Brexit, many EU gravy-trainers will need to return to the UK and hopefully gain infinitely more productive employment. Their “work” histories may go against them however. They must not be tempted in making creative CVs to get a job. The very fact they are coming from abroad without verifiable evidence of one jot of work should enhance their chances competitively against other British workers.

    May 29, 2016

    I think EU citizens cannot claim asylum in other EU nation state. On Brexit our laws will need changing stopping EU migrants claiming asylum here with all the UN-backed Human Rights cobwebs. Eternal legal wrangling allowing them to stay in the UK and paid by us for ever. With the Labour Party conducting local campaigns after 5 years of illegal residence because “They are part of the community. ”
    The SNP will obviously also be up to no good and dressing every Italian in a kilt and sporran, being serenaded by his “local community” amateur band of bagpipe players.

  27. Dennis
    May 29, 2016

    “Out of the EU we can spend the £10bn net contribution we send to Brussels on our own priorities. that means more better paid jobs created here at home for UK’s citizens.”

    As that stands how does that work? Spent on house building – how many jobs? Better paid means more expensive production. Isn’t at least some of it going to the NHS, farmers (dairy) , fishing etc., etc.

    Could be a good thing but what’s the plan for this £10bn?

  28. Denis Cooper
    May 29, 2016

    “3. Out of the EU our trade will not be at risk. The rest of the EU sells us so much more than we sell them. They are not planning new trade barriers as they would damage them more. Anyway we and they belong to the World Trade Organisation which stops higher tariffs on most things.”

    Well, according to press reports, notably in the strongly pro-EU FT, Boney’s successor Hollande is already working up a modern, presumably WTO-compatible, version of the Emperor’s Berlin and Milan Decrees:

    “The decree forbade the import of British goods into European countries allied with or dependent upon France, and installed the Continental System in Europe. All connections were to be cut, even the mail. Any ships who had been discovered trading with Great Britain were liable to French maritime attacks and seizures.”

    It didn’t work, by the way:

    “The Continental System eventually led to economic ruin for France and its allies.”

    No matter that according to the IMF and now the G7 disruption of the existing trade between the UK and the rest of the EU could not only damage them as well as us, but could precipitate a global economic meltdown; the essential point is that the British must expect severe reprisals if they dare to exercise their democratic right and vote to leave the EU, not least to deter others from trying to follow them out of the wonderful EU.

    I have asked before: why the hell put an exit clause into the EU treaties, if some of the member states are going to go crazy if any country decides to make use of it?

    But I’ve had a really brilliant idea about this: after we have voted to leave the EU, the UK government should propose the addition of a new protocol to the EU treaties to prevent any other country ever leaving, as that seems to be their big worry.

    At present there are 37 protocols attached to the treaties, so this could be:

    “Protocol (N0 38) on shutting the stable door after the UK horse has bolted”

    Or maybe:

    “… on slamming shut and locking the prison door after the UK has escaped”

    It would only need to be a short protocol, saying that Article 50 TEU is hereby repealed, with effect from the date that the UK finally leaves, and henceforth no member state may ever leave the EU under any circumstance or pretext whatever and all member states permanently waive any sovereign right which might otherwise be invoked.

    After all, there were some objections back in 2003 after Giscard first proposed the inclusion of an exit clause in the EU Constitution; although Peter Hain, the British government representative, called the proposal “excellent”:

    the French government representative, Pascale Andreani, felt that “unilateral right of retreat” would make the Union more fragile:

    Well, get rid of it, then, but only after we have left; and surely that would be a much better alternative than potentially wrecking the world economy by imposing trade sanctions on us as if we were some rogue state?

  29. Jack
    May 29, 2016

    The other £240m contribution due to the EU that nobody talks about (mainly because barely anyone understands monetary operations at the central bank). Everyone seems to mention the £350m a week that we pay directly, but not the cost of our lack of monetary sovereignty due to the EU.

    May 29, 2016

    Just who and what is to inform us reliably if we will be better off in or out of the EU?

    1. We have seen especially during the advent of the Greek economic crisis in 2010 (?) world economists and Business and Financial experts soundly condemn the EU project on the economic level as fundamentally flawed. They disagreed only on the timescale of the ultimate demise of the EU. It’s economic disintegration.

    2. In the last few months and weeks, even days, we have seen a total reversal in “opinion” without any reference whatsoever to previous generally accepted accurate analyses.
    The UK government’s’ Remain Campaign is an unholy stitch-up.
    All we hear is nonsensical economic “arguments” from the CBI, The City, and a multitude of “Economists” . who have suddenly developed massive psychic powers and fortune telling abilities way beyond their genuine competence. Even the BoE at close quarters cannot present an economic case for Remain which can hold up to professional scrutiny and can only point to the “remit” of the BoE which renders it utterly blind of Commodity fluctuations and assessment and pro-active market speculation because “it is not part of our models ”

    Given the evident sychophantic behaviour ( a major problem in itself ) of the present momentary stances of “The Knowledgeable” we must necessarily have faith in their previous assessments of the EU where their Point of Entry into the analyses were sober and not career-threatening.

  31. Denis Cooper
    May 29, 2016

    Blair tries to float the idea that all EU citizens already settled here would be deported:

    Green MLA states that 100,000 married couples in London would be broken up when the spouses who are EU, but not UK, citizens are deported:

    The one is as bad as the other, dregs.

  32. BOF
    May 29, 2016

    Lifelogic, unfortunately, what we see is the REAL David Cameron fully exposed in this, his dangerously rigged referendum campaign, and the consequences will be felt by both sides for years to come.

  33. Sean O'Hare
    May 29, 2016

    The rest of the EU sells us so much more than we sell them

    3% of their export trade is to the UK as against 44% of ours to the UK. Doesn’t look so good put that way though does it?

    They are not planning new trade barriers as they would damage them more.

    They do not need to erect new trade barriers! The one they already have in place will apply once we leave.

    Anyway we and they belong to the World Trade Organisation which stops higher tariffs on most things

    The EU is recognised by the WTO as a Regional Trade Area and as such that are able to impose tariffs. The UK on the other hand is not an RTA and must obey WTO rules.

    Also tariffs are neither here nor there nowadays, it is the non-tariff barriers we need to concern ourselves about.

    I am a ‘Leave’ activist JR, but I can’t understand why you don’t cover the full facts about trade with the EU as I’m sure you have done your research and are fully aware of them. Is it because you think it over complicates matters? That may be so, but it leaves the ‘Leave’ campaign open to ridicule, which is what is happening with Vote Leave at the moment.

  34. Alexsandr
    May 29, 2016

    Its not just economics
    its the democratic defecit of the EU

    Ask Tony Benns powerful five questions:


    Reply As I have often spoken and written about. see my puppet Parliament speech.

  35. Chris
    May 29, 2016

    With regard to our future taxes and staying in the EU, it is well worth reading this article in S Express, quoting Steven Woolfe, who sits on the E Parliament Economic and Monetary Affairs Committee:

    EU plots new ID cards to TAX YOU in ‘another signpost to Superstate’
    EVERY working person in the EU is to be given a personal European Taxpayer Identification Number under plans by Brussels.

    The move, dubbed “yet another signpost to Superstate”, followed the decision by the EU Parliament’s economic affairs committee to rubber stamp a plan by Commissioners to create a “common corporate consolidated tax base”.

    In the biggest threat to sovereignty, the plan also calls for the EU to take over member states’ corporate taxation powers with a common corporation tax base, banning sovereign states from increasing their competitiveness by cutting corporation tax below 15 per cent.
    Speaking last night Steven Woolfe MEP, UKIP’s financial affairs spokesman who sits on the Economic and Monetary Affairs Committee of the European Parliament, said: “After months of keeping their Superstate ambitions under wraps, the mask has finally slipped.

    “These plans demonstrate the risks of remaining in a club which has grand plans to supersede nation states and create a United States of Europe with a fully-fledged continental wide tax system.

    “If we stay in the EU, we will be forced to pay a European tax. Plans for an EU taxpayer ID system – effectively a new continental National Insurance number – demonstrates their real ambitions for further integration. They are laying the foundations for an EU tax system.

    “The EU wants to know how much tax we pay, decide how much tax we pay and know exactly what possessions each of us own. The only way to guarantee this does not happen is by voting Leave on June 23rd.”…..”

  36. Anonymous
    May 29, 2016

    Dr Redwood

    Could you please explain how Vote Leave etc came to the £350m a week figure as I’m having an awfully difficult time arguing the point against Remainers.

    They mention the rebate and that lots of the money is spent in the UK, but when I say “Yes. But we have little control over how it’s spent” It seems a little flimsy to say the least.

    And when I google ‘£350m a week’ all I get is pages of Remainers deriding it and not one Brexit group defending it.

    Reply Its nonsense from the Remain side. I and others have always pointed out it is the gross figure, and have made clear the extra money we can spend here is £10bn a year. The rebate has been cut in recent years and could be cut again, and the money spent I. The U, is their priorities, but the big issue is the net amount we do not get back in any form. no need to defend a lie as Vote Leave has not lied . this is an accurate gross figure. unlike the lies In The Remain figures.

    1. Anonymous
      May 29, 2016

      Reply to reply

      Thank you

      I replied to Denis Cooper that it was thus:

      I give you ten quid, you give me six back. Then you tell me to spend the six quid on stuff you like, and that I have to put your logo on it to show everyone how munificent you’ve been.

      The money comes back with conditions. But the fact is that it does come back – and this is not clear on the side of the campaign bus. Can you see how it may look misleading, even if it isn’t ?

      Everywhere is banging on about this – including the Mail on Sunday.

    2. Anonymous
      May 29, 2016

      PS, The Financial Transaction Tax (Tobin Tax) rears its ugly head in June.

      Do you know if this is after or before the referendum – arranged in seeming haste ?

  37. Chris
    May 29, 2016

    A huge health warning about claims from the Remain side, and apparently the BBC and The Guardian:
    An article entitled “Economists overwhelmingly reject Brexit in boost for Cameron” in The Guardian makes dramatic claims about economists supporting Brexit:
    “Economists overwhelmingly reject Brexit in boost for Cameron
    Poll shows 88% of 600 experts fear long-term fall in GDP if UK leaves single market, and 82% are alarmed over impact on household income”

    HOWEVER, when you read the footnote at the end of the Guardian article, the “truth” of these claims is exposed – only 17% responded to the survey so how on earth can that be regarded as authoritative?
    “In total, 639 respondents completed an online survey, sent to non-student members of the Royal Economic Society and the Society of Business Economists, between 19 and 27 May 2016: A RESPONSE RATE OF 17%. Data is unweighted and reported figures should only be taken as representative of the views of those who responded”.

  38. hans christian ivers
    May 30, 2016


    I think it is rather sad, how you distort the facts about how easy it will be for us to negotiate new trade deals around the world.

    THe WTO has made it very clear we will have to renegotiate 58 separate trade deals that the EU has under the frame-work of the WTo. This will take 5 to 10 years , so we canot just assume that we will be first in the row for new trade deals with larger countries.

    You are very god and coming up with comments on the in-campaigne statements but your laternatives afte an exit are vague and very weak.

    This seems to have been that case for many years in your posturing against the EU.

    Can we please have some more informed debate from your side.

    Hans Chrsitian Iversen

    Reply Simply untrue – the trade deals novate to the separating partners. Are you saying the rest of the EU, a new entity, also has to renegotiate all those deals?

    1. alan jutson
      May 30, 2016


      Suggest you look at Dennis Coopers posting earlier in this thread.

      Vienna Convention on Trade Treaties 1969.

      Also look at Johns answer to my earlier posting of today.

      The only distortion is by the Remain Side.

Comments are closed.