This weekend I confess to having delivered leaflets through hundreds of letter-boxes in the New Forest which contained an assertion that I would not personally have made in one of my own speeches.
In terms of magnitude however, it was as nothing compared to the hyperbole that we have heard from the Remain campaign about the risks of leaving the EU. Over the last few weeks I have used this column to debunk these ‘risks’ and to show that there is no economic argument for remaining (as, I believe, there was no economic case for joining in the first place).

What the doom-mongers have completely ignored however, are the very significant risks of remaining in the EU.  It is the only trading block in the world that is pursuing the political integration of the nation states of which it is composed. It is the only trading block in the world that has suffered a consistently shrinking share of world trade. It is the only trading block in the world that has attempted to create its own currency.
This, as we know, has been an absolute disaster and has left much of the EU stuck in persistent recession, whilst in Britain we have been enjoying the fastest economic growth of the world’s developed economies. This has, in turn, made our growing employment a magnet for EU job seekers, with consequent severe pressures on housing, schools and healthcare.

Hitching ourselves to this permanent EU recession mechanism is bad enough, but there is potentially an even greater danger: That the EU grasps the nettle and makes the necessary political changes that will enable the Euro to work properly as a single EU currency. This will mean centralising sufficient power in Brussels to control taxation and expenditure in the Euro member states.
Only ourselves and tiny Denmark will ultimately remain outside these arrangements. Do we really think that their design and implementation in the Euro currency block will take account of our very different interests outside of it?
Particularly, given that we have already surrendered any negotiating leverage that we would otherwise have had in this process.
In effect we are being asked to write a blank cheque. We are invited to remain within an organisation which is about to change dramatically, and in a way that we cannot predict, and over which we will have no control.

And for what?

Over the last week we have been told that it is our duty to the rest of Europe to remain within the EU in order to keep Europe strong and under our beneficial influence, and indeed that it has been our destiny to come to the rescue of Europe.
I confess to having some sympathy with the argument. I thought long and hard about this question before deciding to throw in my lot with Vote Leave. The prospect of de-stabilising Europe further at a time when there is already a currency crisis, a migration crisis, and the Russian bear menacing Ukraine, troubled me deeply.

From this international perspective there may have been a more opportune time to hold our referendum, but the time is now, and it may not come again for a generation, or indeed ever.
I accept that we have a responsibility and a duty to Europe as a European power. Our history and culture is deeply intertwined with the European mainland, and I would not wish it otherwise. I have concluded however, that our duty to Europe is best served by leaving the EU.

I believe that the EU is on a disastrous path of increased integration. It is attempting to create a country called Europe with all the trappings of a nation state: a government (the Commission); its own parliament; a supreme court (the ECJ); its own currency; a flag; and a national anthem (Beethoven’s Ode to Joy). Whilst support for the economic benefits of the EU are much more widely perceived on the continent than in the UK, this political process is being driven by the elites and has very little popular support.  Far from creating harmony amongst nations, it is actually generating the very opposite. One need only travel to Greece to feel the palpable and deeply distasteful anti- German sentiment. I have sympathy for both the Greeks and the Germans –it is, after all, the institutional processes of the EU that are driving them asunder.

When they have been given the democratic opportunity to do so, Europeans have voted to halt this process. In April 2005 the French voted in a referendum to reject the European Constitutional Treaty by 55% to 45%. A week later the Dutch rejected it by an even greater margin of 62% to 38%. Never the less, the constitution was ratified as the Treaty of Lisbon a without letting the French or Dutch have another chance. When will they understand that ‘No’ really means No?

The departure of the UK – one of the largest economies, largest financial contributors, a world power with a seat at the UN Security Council and the world’s 4^th largest defence budget – will be, I believe, such a profound shock to the process of European integration as to halt it in its tracks. The best thing we can do to rescue the Europe from its current disastrous course is to vote to leave the EU on 23 June!

 

Over the last few weeks I have used this column to question the economic case for ever having joined the EU in the first place, and to demolish the arguments made by the ‘fear-mongers’ who warn that we will suffer economically by leaving. In or out of the EU, our future prosperity depends upon how competitive we are at producing goods and services.

I have argued that, on the balance of probabilities, we are likely to me more competitive out than in. The world offers no nation a free ride however, and we will have to work to earn our keep. Out – at least, we can do so without one hand tied behind our back.
So, I don’t believe that in order to reclaim our self-determination as a free and independent nation we have to sacrifice any of our prosperity. I know many others however, fearful of the consequences for prosperity, who have therefore, and with a heavy heart, decided to opt to stay in the EU.
As John Adams, one of the founding fathers of the USA, observed: a man who is prepared to sacrifice his liberty for prosperity, deserves to have neither.

In the end the EU is a political institution determined on an ‘ever closer union’ between its member states. Democratically expressed opposition to its proposals have proved completely ineffective: the Irish, the Danes, and Dutch have all voted in referendums to reject the relentless process of integration, only for the proposals to be driven through anyway.
The Prime Minister has negotiated a declaration, to be inserted in any future treaty, that the UK is no longer to be bound by this principle of ever closer union. To secure this concession however, he had to sacrifice our trump card in any future negotiation by signing away our ability to impede further integration within the Eurozone. Without that possibility, we go into negotiations armed with very little that we can bargain with.

The record of our resistance to adverse changes is instructive: on the 74 occasions that we have pushed our opposition to the vote in the European Council, we have been on the losing side on every one of those 74 occasions.
Time and time again, we have been told that the latest concession of power from the UK to the EU represents the high water mark of integration, and that it will go no further. Only for the process to continue relentlessly. If we vote to stay in the EU, I have no doubt that it will give new democratic legitimacy to the project, with renewed and accelerated  impetus to integration. On the other hand, we have on 23^rd June the possibility not just to bring it to a halt, but to put it into reverse.

Take back control!

 

EU,  the wrong club  – 2nd May 2016

Last week economics has finally, if briefly,  broke cover in the referendum debate. We joined a club which promotes trade within the club, and disadvantages trade outside it. Given that the greater part of our trade is outside, for us it was just the wrong club. Additionally, the principal trade within the club is manufactures and food where we have never enjoyed a comparative advantage: Our strength has instead always been in services. Even at the height of our industrial world power we ran a balance of trade deficit, which we made up for with an export surplus of services (principally shipping in those days).  Un

Unfortunately, there is no ‘single market’ for services in this EU club. It is for this reason that the club exports so much more to us. It was in recognition of the fact that membership didn’t work for us that Mrs Thatcher negotiated a rebate. It’s time to recognise reality: Economically the club doesn’t suit us.

 

The UK has committed more to the Syrian emergency that to any other humanitarian crisis ever, and we are the world’s second largest donor. Spent in the region, our money goes much further and helps many more people than it can in Europe. Given the needs of millions, I do not believe that the solution can be resettlement for just thousands.
Never the less, in addition to existing asylum arrangements, the Government is committed to resettle 20,000 Syrian refugees in the UK. Of the 1000 refugees already re-settled under this new scheme in the run up to Christmas, half were children, and this proportion is likely to be maintained. With respect to unaccompanied children however, the advice of the United Nations agencies is that they are better off remaining in the region where they have a chance of being reunited with their extended families. In cases where the UN clearly believes this is not the case and that remaining within the region puts them in greater danger, we have said that we will welcome them.  We have not put a number on it, but I would anticipate something in the low hundreds.
The controversial argument continues with respect to what to do about unaccompanied children who have already made it to the European mainland.  There is an argument that, having reached the safety of Europe, we have to give priority to others remaining in the region who are more vulnerable. Clearly however, as we can plainly see on our TV screens, they are sometimes in conditions in some parts of Europe that we would never tolerate in the UK. Accordingly, we have allocated £10 million to alleviate those conditions.
Fundamentally, the problem is that, if we agree to resettle refugees who are already in Europe, we send a powerful signal to others to pay the traffickers and attempt an all too often fatal crossing. It was for this reason, to break the business model of the traffickers, that we decided to take refugees for resettlement direct from the region and not from Europe. The same applies to unaccompanied children: giving them priority will encourage more parents to send their children ahead, and alone.
The problem is heart-breaking, we have to address it, but in doing so we must ensure that we are not making it worse.

 

 

 

 

We are trading rather well with the USA – with better results than we are with the EU. Our trade with the USA is broadly in balance, whereas with the EU we run a significant trade deficit. The simple lesson of this is that you don’t need a trade agreement to trade successfully in the modern world. In fact, the EU is the USA’s largest trading partner and it doesn’t have a trade agreement. It has been trying to negotiate one for years, this proposal is called the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, and my constituents have emailed by the hundreds in opposition to it!

I believe that trade deals are desirable and can make things better, but the success of the world trading regime, which Britain has done so much to shape through the General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs –now the World Trade Organisation, has ensured that trade is so much easier across the globe even without individual agreements between trading partner nations. Notwithstanding the fact that the EU now officially negotiates for us at the World Trade Organisation, we continue to exert a great influence on it, sending our officials and ministers to shape to its deliberations.

President Obama’s intervention is just tactic in the overall strategy of ‘project fear’. His hypocrisy is breath-taking: the USA wouldn’t for a moment contemplate subjecting its laws to the scrutiny of an external court as we have to in the EU, nor would it dream of giving up control of its borders in the way that it is expecting us to continue to do. It suits the USA to have its principal ally firmly within the EU to continue to shape it. The USA is seeking to disengage from Europe and wants to leave it in safe hands. Its focus is increasingly in the Pacific with the rise and rise of China.  The President needn’t worry. We will continue to co-operate closely with European partners with whom we share an identity of interests, even when we leave the EU, and we will continue to demonstrate leadership through NATO.

Back to trading however, so, the President’s raspberry, is designed to terrify us with the prospect of having neither the USA nor the EU to trade with. It is rubbish: we will continue to trade with the USA as we do now.  As for the EU, given our trade deficit, it’s very much more in their interests to continue to trade amicably. “O, but like Switzerland, we’ll have to pay the EU and accept free movement of people across borders”. Well, Switzerland is a tiny country and I’m confident that we can drive a much better bargain. Incidentally, Switzerland has capped the numbers of EU migrants. It exports 400% more to the EU per capita than we do, and for this privilege it pays only 20% per capita of what we do. If that’s the deal, let’s have one too.

 

After weeks of onslaught against our international aid I think I have just about heard it all. One of the few accurate statements is that we are the world’s second largest donor. Yes we are, and in a world with such evident humanitarian need, I think that is a rank of which we should be proud.

They claim we overspent last year by 0.01% of our national income and that it should be paid back. I am not quite sure how we get it back from hungry children in South Sudan, but that can wait, because it is far too soon to tell. Final statistics are not yet available and all we currently have are estimates. Last year at this stage a similar overspend was estimated, and the year before a bigger one. In the end it was found that we spent exactly the right amount.

They claim that the expenditure is unscrutinised. It isn’t. It’s subject to thorough scrutiny by two parliamentary committees; the Independent Commission on Aid Impact, and the National Audit office. The public can scrutinise it for themselves using the Aid Tracker tool on our website. We are up at the top of the league for transparency.

They claim we rush money out of the door with reckless abandon as the year-end approaches. We don’t. The reality is that large scheduled payments including our contributions to the World Bank and other institutions fall due at that time of year.

They claim we lavish payments on private contractors. We don’t. We drive a hard bargain to get value for money in highly competitive processes, and we have won CIPS awards – the independent organisation for procurement professionals.

The say we are paying Palestinian terrorists: Absolutely untrue. That we built a new palace for the Palestinian Authority in Ramallah: Complete rubbish.

They say we built a shiny new HQ for the Centre for Global Development in the USA.  Actually, we paid for some important health research.

They say that we paid for BBC Somalia to broadcast messages encouraging migration. On the contrary, the message was about the perils of doing so.

I could go on, but you get the gist of it.

We spend 0.7% of our national income on international aid, which means that, as the 5^th richest country in the world, we have 99.3% of our income for ourselves. What really upsets some people that they believe that ‘charity begins at home’. Their fundamental error is thinking of it as charity. It isn’t. It is an investment. It is spent in our national interest in order that we can live in a safer, more stable, and more prosperous world. We spend it for  our benefit. The huge numbers of migrants fleeing poverty, violence, and injustice should bring home to anyone the truth that, unless we invest to deal with their problems at source, those problems are coming in our direction.

As for being one of the largest donors, the UK always takes the lead, it’s what we do. Others follow. Remember that when voting on 23rd June!

I saw David Cameron with the Devil -10th April 2016

 

Whist tax arrangements are in the forefront of our minds it is worth considering the extent to which our tax law is increasingly constrained by Brussels. The fundamental principle of parliamentary sovereignty is expressed in its absolute supremacy over taxation. It was the King’s attempts to raise taxes, without the agreement of Parliament, which sparked the Civil War.

Now however, we only make our tax law by leave of the EU.

A number of corporations have gone to the European Court of Justice to have the tax laws made in Parliament overturned. Taxes raised with parliamentary approval have had to be repaid, costing us – as the rest of the taxpayers – billions of pounds. There are plenty more cases pending, which may cost us billions more…unless, of course, we do something decisive about it on 23^rd June!

 

No, of Course I didn’t. Rather, it was Elizabeth Proctor that Abigail Williams saw with the Devil (along with a host of the other inhabitants of Salem) in Arthur Miller’s 1953 classic The Crucible, about the New England witch craze seen through the perspective of McCarthyism. I have found this powerful drama resonating in my mind all week with the media coverage since the Panama leaks.

It has been a gruesome and unedifying spectacle. I am glad that the Prime Minister has said that he ought to have handled it a lot better, but there is nevertheless something deeply distasteful about the interest in private matters, the assumption of guilt by association, and the attribution of the basest of motives to any action. I was appalled to see Mrs Cameron’s gift to her son described in The Times as a ‘tax dodge’.  No it isn’t, it’s a gift. If his mother survives for 7 years after making it, then it is still a gift, even though it will not attract any tax. That is our law, if we don’t like it, then we can change it, but we shouldn’t criticize people for acting lawfully.

I really dislike the precedent that has now been set. Is there to be no privacy? Are we going to go the way of those Nordic countries that require everyone’s tax returns to be published and available to every nosy parker? Should all our gifts and private arrangements be made public? What on earth are we becoming?

 

Looking at the polling on the EU Referendum I am, thus far, pleasantly surprised at the resilience of those proposing to vote to leave, in the face of the continuing assault of ‘project fear’.

In the 1975 referendum I recall that we began the campaign with a two-to-one poll-lead for leaving the Common Market, but when it came to the actual vote, this was reversed. This time, so far, the polls show little movement in what looks like a much closer race. Perhaps that is why the warnings are ever more incredible. In the last week we have been told that our children’s opportunities will be blighted and that they won’t be able to travel.

Gadzooks, does anyone really believe this guff? It is of course possible, if improbable, that we be hit by an asteroid and vaporised in a nanosecond. Next they will be telling us that the probability is much higher if we leave the EU. Readers may wish to know that on 13^th May I shall be going ‘head to head’ with Vince Cable in the New Milton Memorial Hall at 7.00. It is a ticket affair – they are available from the Memorial Hall and the Town Council. I know that a similar event is being arranged for Fordingbridge and I will investigate the possibilities in Ringwood. I will make details available in this column and on my website.