Today the cost of government borrowing for ten year money has fallen to just 1.29%. Last November and even this January before  Brexit came to dominate much market commentary the cost of UK borrowing was over 2%. It is particularly noteworthy that as the chances of Brexit have risen in the polls and in the betting, so the cost of UK state  borrowing has fallen.

This is of course the opposite of the predictions of the Treasury and the US investment banks. They have been wrong again. UK public finances will obviously be sounder out of the EU, as we will no longer have to pay all that money to them. We will no longer risk being dragged into ever more expensive EU policies trying to offset all the economic damage Euro austerity does.

Last night I put the case for Brexit to a meeting attended by 200 people in the Willink School in Burghfield.

When the Remain side put some of their more absurd fears to the audience, many just laughed.

Project Fear seems to be backfiring.

Those parties the EU would destroy are first driven into coalition. In Germany the old rivals, CDU and SDP are in grand coalition. It is proving especially stressful for the SDP who now wish to differentiate from the government line in a number of areas. The anti Euro AFD is on the rise, rallying the growing number of voters who think the Euro and the open borders are not policies working in Germany’s interest.

The EU’s interference in law making, budget setting and much else is crushing the traditional parties in many European countries. The collapse of the two main rivals is at its  most pronounced in Greece, where the grotesque austerity enforced on the country has removed Pasok as a party of government  (Labour like) and badly damaged New Democracy (Conservative like). In both Spain and Ireland the two traditional parties that contend for power received only around  than 50% of the vote between them in recent elections, leaving their countries without governments.

In the UK being out of the Euro moderates the impact of the EU somewhat. Even here  the vote share of Labour and Conservative together has fallen, but last time there was still a small majority for the Conservatives. However, to get the many EU laws, taxes, budgets and measures through against the opposition of a large number of Eurosceptic Conservative MPs the government has had to rely on Labour and SNP votes, or on their abstention. This reliance is creating tensions within the ruling party and within the opposition.

Now we come to the referendum the same truth underlies the Remain campaign. They can only hope to win if Mr Cameron attracts a majority of Labour and SNP voters to his cause, as many Conservatives are strongly against the EU and its works.

Government coalitions tend to erode confidence and respect for main parties, as the parties have to dump manifesto pledges and compromise principles people thought they held dear. Though many say they would like parties to work together more and find more compromises, in practice the results of that are often perceived as being bad faith and untrustworthiness. This is intensified if the compromises are to accommodate laws and taxes imposed by the EU rather than ones stemming from large bodies of opinion at home.

There are many critics and criticisms of two party choice  democracy. I think it the least bad system.  The problem with  multi party democracy is it can so easily mean weak government or  no elected government, more bureaucratic and EU control, and more scorn for parties who are forced to renege on some their most closely held beliefs and cherished policies. The EU is a creating a crisis of government in its large area. Many people now object to EU policy but have no way of changing it, even when they change their own national government in an attempt to do so. It is also fuelling parties that want to split up their nations, encouraged by the Europe of the regions rhetoric and grant regimes.

I have been sent the results of the votes held at the Thames Valley Business Forum yesterday morning where I spoke for Brexit against a Labour MEP for Remain:

 

 

Arrival poll:-

 

OUT – 34%

IN – 43%

Don’t know – 23%

 

Exit poll:-

 

OUT – 58%

IN – 37.5 %

Don’t know – 4.5%

 

It shows the Business community does have plenty of supporters for Leave who see the damage the EU is doing to many businesses in the UK, or who like many of us want our democracy back.

 

Mrs Merkel tells us that you never get what you want if you are  not in the room, meaning as a full member of the EU.

So she seems to be telling the USA, China, India and the rest that as they are not members of the EU they will never  get what they want from Germany.

That’s not very diplomatic, and not a  good way to make friends.

Normal countries  build friendly relationships with other countries without seeking to put them under the duress of strict special legal structures.

She also seems to believe the UK has to join the Euro, as we are often not in the room on Euro financial matters.

Of course Germany wants us to stay to help her pay all the bills of this increasingly risky and expensive project.

When we leave I know she will be equally keen to keep all the very profitable trade Germany does with us . Then we will be in a new room negotiating as she seeks to retain the trade advantages Germany currently enjoys. The good news for her is the UK does  not want to impose new barriers on German trade with us.

The OMFIF debate drew an audience of 200 to Westminster yesterday.

The vote at the start of proceedings showed 68% in favour of Remain and just 29% in favour of leaving.

Following the debate, led by myself and Gerard Lyons for Leave, with Lord Adonis and Vicky Pryce for Remain, the vote was 38% for Leave and 60% for Remain, a useful swing of 8%

It demonstrates  that even with an audience of well connected establishment figures it is possible to sway opinion if we have a chance to explain our case properly. As latest research  shows, this was a far from representative audience, as Leave is doing well overall and is ahead in recent polls.

The Remain camp is clearly in panic mode. Donald Tusk tells us in future the EU should drop its plans for political union. Yet this is surely the same Donald Tusk who as one of the 5 Presidents wrote and published an official EU Report on the next steps to political union. This advocates a Euro Treasury and much greater EU integration.

 

So which Donald Tusk view is the right one? I still believe the 5 Presidents Report, which stays on the website and is official. The latest Donald Tusk speech is clearly just for the referendum campaign. Why did the media run it without pointing out the original Donald Tusk signed the 5 Presidents Report and does believe in much greater EU integration?

 

If Mr Tusk has truly recanted he should begin by withdrawing the 5 Presidents Report, and replacing it with a vision of a very different EU. That of course would require negotiating an entirely new vision of the EU with all the other Presidents, governments and grandees pressing on for much more EU government.

Now Vote leave is getting some coverage for the many positive things we wish to do for our country once free of EU controls, Norman Smith, Assistant Political editor of the BBC,  pops up to complain that it is as if Brexit is offering some kind of alternative government. He seems to think we are not allowed views on what we do once we are free. On the contrary. The whole point of seeking our freedom is to govern the UK better, spend our own money on our own priorities, set our own taxes and make our own laws. Of course the Leave campaign can and must set out what laws we wish to  change, what taxes we want to  repeal, what spending we will undertake once we are an independent country again.

The policy he most objected to was the new policy announcement of a quota system and points to control numbers of migrants. This approach is designed to be fair to migrants from the rest of the world as well as from the EU. Far from undercutting the present government, leaving the EU is the only way to have a chance of implementing the hugely popular policy of reducing net migration by around two thirds that helped the Conservatives win the last election. Brexiteers wish the government to keep its promise. We have come up with the means to do so. Far from overriding the Conservative Manifesto, we are helping achieve it.

He also seems worried that we want to abolish VAT on certain items. I have news for Mr Smith. Mr Cameron agrees that the tampon tax should go. His problem is the EU still will not let him do that. Again, Brexiteers come to the aid of the government by offering a way for us to simply abolish the tax.

Then there is the VAT on domestic fuel. The Conservatives in the last election campaigned for cheaper fuel, and for measures to boost the living standards of those on low incomes. What better way to achieve  b0th aims than to remove VAT?  We need to leave the EU to do so.

A post Brexit government will of course be different from a Remain government. It will be able to deliver promises made, and be able to boost public services and incomes of people at home when we get our money back to spend as we see fit. We do need to set out what we want to do, and a post Brexit government will need to implement the mandate of the referendum result. Post Brexit, if that is the people’s wish, the government will get on with the 2015 winning Manifesto as strengthened by the proposals mandated by the  Brexit vote.

How many unemployed young people in Greece, Portugal, Spain and Italy will it take to get the left to condemn Euro area policies?

How many general unemployed throughout the whole EU will it take to get the left on the streets in protest against EU policies?

Where are the UK left voices against the deep recession the European Exchange Rate mechanism inflicted on the UK, and against the banking and credit policies on the continent which damaged our own economy in the crash of 2008 and the Euro crisis of 2011?

Why does the left support the European semester, the policy which demands tight control of budgets and annual reporting to the EU to try to get all countries to conform to a one size fits all budget deficit regime?

In the UK it appears that any cut, tax rise or anti jobs imposition that comes from the EU is just fine, but any that is made in the UK is immediately blamed for all the  evils in our society. The left rightly condemns any evidence of unemployment or low wages at home, yet seems to accept them or turns a blind eye when the damage comes from the EU.

Where is the left’s solidarity with the unemployed youth of Spain , or all those made redundant in Greece by the austerity cuts, or with those who have had to accept actual pay cuts in Euro countries?

Where are the cries of anger over the walls and fences the EU is creating to keep migrants out, to balance the anger about Mr Trump’s Mexican wall rhetoric?

It appears that many on the left apply a double standard. They condemn anything done or said in the US and UK, that they sign up to and even welcome if it is done in the name of the EU.

Tomorrow at 6.30 pm I am speaking at the OMFIF debate at the Institute of Civil Engineers in Westminster.

On Thursday I am speaking at a Thames Valley business breakfast at Bearwood Lakes at 8 am, and at a public debate in the Willink School Burghfield, at 7pm.

I have recently spoken at the PLSA, Thomson Reuters, Politeia,  and Variety Club debates. I have also given pro Brexit speeches in Wokingham Town Hall, in Shinfield, and in Henley Town Hall.