The best of Brexit Cartoons

Sometimes we all need a light hearted and satirical view of a serious topic and Brexit is no different. So lets look at some of the best cartoons of the last Six months or so.

 This First one is from Australia and depicts Britain spitting its dummy out and acting like a child.

 One of my personal faves.

Love this, this depicts the reality of the situation.

This final one just about sums it up, an early one, just after the vote.


Jon Davis

Newspaper headlines of the week. Fri 17th march 2017.

Welcome to the rundown of the best and worst newspaper headlines of the week, I hope to make this a weekly feature every Friday. We have 4 papers for you today.

The FT from Thursday lead with the embarrassing U turn on the Budget and really does point to this administrations competence at being able to negotiate their way out of a paper bag, let alone the complexities of a Brexit deal. It also deals with the embarrassment of Phillip Hammond.

The Daily Telegraph on thursday also lead with The Budget U turn, dealing with the fact that Hammond didn't even realise that he had breached their own manifesto promise, until the BBC told him!!

The Express this week spouted its usual utter rubbish regarding the queen signing off the Brexit bill, stating that 'its the moment Britain has been waiting for'? which is a lie. God this paper is awful.

And finally todays Guardian goes with Theresa Mays outrageous blocking of a Scottish referendum, stating that she has sealed the fate of the UK.




More next Friday.


Jon Davis

What on earth is Jeremy Corbyn doing!!!

What is worse than a government bulldozing a Hard Brexit through court and parliament with no idea what they are doing?


The answer is....yes you've guessed it, someone who had the ability to do something about it and doesn't!!!


Jeremy Corbyn! Elected by the Labour party faithful to be a strong opposition leader with forthright views, morals and the ability to hold the government to account, unfortunately he is none of these things and in my opinion he is possibly the worst party leader of any party in history, strong words, I know, but I will explain why.


Being a keen follower of politics, I was interested in finding out about Mr Corbyn when his name was thrown into the hat as a possible leadership contender following the ousting of Ed Milliband after the 2015 general election, what I saw was an idealist who had no credentials whatsoever to lead a major political party, let alone Her majesties opposition.


The thing is, British politics only works if you have strong opposition holding the government of the day to account, it stops it becoming a dictatorship and gives a voice to everyone in the country by challenging unfair decisions, that's democracy in action. Granted we have The Liberal Democrats, who are doing a pretty good job of asking the difficult questions, but at present they have a very small number of seats in parliament and therefore hold little clout, although I think this will change. And the SNP, who are doing a pretty sterling job (forgive the pun).


There is a very long list of awful decisions and (for want of a better phrase) cock ups, that Corbyn has either done himself or presided over, this list is just to long to discuss so I will just discuss his latest pathetic offering.


We all know about Corbyn's whipping of his own politicians to vote for the Brexit bill, that he didn't agree with?? Which is very strange because he said that he wanted to 'Do politics differently' with 'no emphasis on power and corruption' and 'standing up for what he believes' and 'what is right for the country' etc. etc. The list goes on. The thing is, Corbyn is a far left socialist (a communist), or that's what he wants to be and he likes being the dictator of his band of incompetents, so, in order to hang on to any power, he thought that he would pander to the  marginally larger percentage of the voters instead of sticking to his principles, so much for 'no emphasis on power and corruption'.


So after, whipping his party to vote for the Brexit bill with absolutely no opposition at all from the labour benches, you would think he would be championing Brexit, saying what a splendid thing it is!! This isn't the case!! In what has to be the most nonsensical rhetoric I have ever heard, he then starts campaigning against Brexit and the triggering of article 50, I mean you couldn't invent it!!


In other words, instead of making proper grown up decisions in parliament, where it really counts, he hid from it, then makes a big show of being against it after the horse has bolted..it beggars belief.


But the best is saved for last...On Monday 13th March, (one day after the Brexit bill was passed), Mr Corbyn announced a rally....yes, a rally, to object to the amendments to the bill in defending EU citizens living in the UK. The Labour leader had called for supporters to join him at the event in Parliament Square on Monday evening to "defend the rights of EU citizens who have made a life here.". How marvellous.........But he didn't show up to his own rally!!!!!!


I rest my case.


Jon Davis

The Dutch people see sense!

Geert Wilders’s promise to bring a populist “revolution” to Europe fell flat on Wednesday night after his anti-immigrant Party for Freedom failed to live up to supporters’ expectations in a closely-watched Dutch general election.


The possibility that the far-Right firebrand could become the largest party in the Dutch parliament had sent tremors through Europe’s political establishment in recent days fearing yet further destabilisation following the UK vote for Brexit and the election of Donald Trump.


In the event Mr Wilders won just 20 seats, according to several exit polls, and was soundly beaten by Mark Rutte, the incumbent centre-Right Dutch prime minister, whose VVD Party was on track to becoming the largest party in the Netherlands 150-seat parliament with 33 seats.


So what does this mean for Brexit?


Well quite a lot, it makes it harder for the UK to strike any kind of meaningful deal with the EU, in what was going to be impossible anyway. Especially as they will be one of the Major countries that has a vote on any deal that we demand...sorry, negociate. and don't forget 20 out of the 27 countries remaining in the EU have to vote through any deal.


What does this mean for the EU?


France goes to the polls next month to elect a new president, with the far right National Front forecast to increase its vote dramatically.

In Germany, the populist Alternative for Germany (AfD) may win seats in parliament for the first time in September's general election.
 
Mr Rutte's victory was warmly greeted by other European leaders and politicians:

• French President Francois Hollande said he had won a "clear victory against extremism"

• German Chancellor Angela Merkel congratulated Mr Rutte and her chief of staff, Peter Altmaier, tweeted: "The Netherlands, oh the Netherlands you are a champion! Congratulations on this great result"

• Martin Schulz, president of the European Parliament until earlier this year, said he was relieved the Freedom Party had lost. "We must continue to fight for an open and free Europe!" he added on Twitter.

So far its just us that have lost the plot, next stop....The French elections.

Jon Davis

Scotland the Brave?

The union that binds together the four political entities within the United Kingdom has never been more at risk. What nobody in the English political and media class seems to have realised is how badly England will fare if Scotland, which is more than likely, and Northern Ireland, which is plausible though by no means certain, split off.


It will be the end of England - the dominant power of the UK, when the term "Little England" will really come into its own.


Almost exactly two and a half years ago, the Scottish electorate decided against leaving the UK. They were told by pro-union campaigners that if they did vote to leave Britain, they would lose their membership of the European Union.


At the time this was probably true. There was no incentive for European decision-makers to allow accession for Scotland, not least because it would embolden Spanish Catalonian independence, and therefore Spain at least - perhaps Belgium too - would veto Scotland's membership.


Now the circumstances have changed. Britain has voted for Brexit, but Scotland did not, with just 38 percent of Scottish people voting to leave the EU. In contrast, 53 percent of the electorate in England voted to leave.


As Brussels reckons with the result, the European project is looking shakier than ever. What better way to bolster its reputation than for European leaders to say: "Well, England - you voted to leave, and best of luck to you. Scotland, welcome to the party."


Talk of a second Scottish independence referendum is everywhere, and English ministers and officials are now quietly briefing the press that a vote on Scottish independence is "inevitable".
The Labour Party leader, Jeremy Corbyn, has said it would be "absolutely fine" if one took place. The Scottish Nationalist Party leader and First Minister of Scotland, Nicola Sturgeon, has already said a referendum is "highly likely".


Would the independence movement win, though? The prevailing narrative among the chattering classes of London is no; but they are wrong.


They base their arguments largely on the collapse in oil price, an industry upon which the Scottish case for independence had originally rested.


Post-Brexit Scots originally looked as if they would vote pro-union once again in a second referendum but, as the negotiations draw closer, support for independence is now beginning to creep up.


Of course, yes, the oil price has dropped, and of course this means that the presented plans for an independent Scotland look less convincing in the new cheap oil world. But this is easily cancelled out if an independent Scotland has access to the Customs Union, and England does not.


English manufacturers, who are actually benefiting far less from a collapsing pound than was expected, need access to the European single market. Relocating to an independent Scotland, which is close by and helpfully speaks the same language, would be an easy choice.


Unfortunately, for every factory that ups sticks and heads over the border, that is one less factory, and fewer jobs, left in England.


What of Northern Ireland? The case for their independence - or joining Ireland, known as republicanism - is clearly being felt by the public.


The sudden and remarkable rise of Sinn Fein in the recent elections - an explicitly republican party - is perhaps evidence of this. For the first time, parties who want Northern Ireland to remain part of the UK no longer have an effective majority in the parliament.


Even if Northern Ireland does not gain full independence as a result of historic tensions, those same historic tensions may cause the Northern Irish to get a very good deal from the EU after Brexit anyway. This could take the form of custom spot checks, not dissimilar to arrangements between Norway and Sweden, or it could be that Northern Ireland is given special access to the customs union that England will not enjoy.


The other option, less likely but not implausible, is that Brexit pushes Northern Ireland fully out of the UK. If so, no doubt some of those same manufacturers considering a move to Scotland, not to mention financial firms, might alternatively hop across the Irish Sea.


Already, more than 100 major financial firms are said to have made inquiries with Irish regulators about such a move. Either way, uniquely across the UK as it stands, far better access to the largest free trade bloc in the world will be enjoyed by Northern Ireland than by its English counterparts.


What is remarkable about all this is how little interest the London-centric media is showing in the imminent break-up of our country, not to mention that England is facing a long-lasting economic challenge when compared to her national siblings.


There have been some exceptions. Adam Boulton, a high-profile commentator and columnist, noted after the shock gains of the pro-Remain and pro-republican Sinn Fein party in the Northern Irish elections that "the almost complete absence of reports in London-based 'national' newspapers on the Northern Ireland election shows the capital is barely aware of what's going on across the Irish Sea now the bombs aren't going off," predicting that "restless Ulster may beat Scots to the exit".


The increasingly imperious new Prime Minister, Theresa May, also seems oblivious. "Politics is not a game," she jeered when she visited Scotland for her own party's national conference in early March, as if a country that produced the highest turnout in British electoral history since universal suffrage, at the last independence referendum, needed reminding of this. She chided the SNP for wanting another referendum, accusing them of petty electioneering.


The Labour Party were also in hot water for sending their London mayor north to accuse the Scottish independence movement, which is hugely pro-immigration, of playing the same divisive politics as Donald Trump.


The disconnect is extraordinary, but understandable when you consider how Little England increasingly looks in on itself alone, even to the detriment of the other political entities in the UK. Woe betide their boorish arrogance - Little England may end up being the big loser of Brexit.


Many thanks to Alastair Sloan who covers international affairs, politics and human rights for a variety of British newspapers and magazines, for his great article.

A Bleak Week ahead

It is looking increasingly likely that this week could be the week in which the Government triggers article 50. We all knew it would happen at some point and indeed some will be overjoyed, but for how long?


The fact that it was increasingly inevitable shouldn't let you give up though, it isn't that we are leaving the EU that is the main fighting point here, I am far from happy that we are leaving, but we need to now concentrate on how we leave and how as a country we treat people.


It is fairly obvious that we are going to be poorer as a result and anyone who doesn't think so is clearly very blinkered indeed, how much poorer is to be seen.


So we have started the week with Nicola Sturgeon announcing a likely date for a second Scottish independence referendum and although I was opposed strongly to the first one, I really don't blame her for announcing it this time as there is a very strong mandate for one, and I suspect that they will vote to leave the UK and stay in Europe, that puts us in a very bad place and Scotland in quite a strong one.


Also this week sees the debate on the changes to the Brexit bill and its not looking good. Both the House of Commons and House of Lords will debate and vote on the bill starting today. MPs will go first, and if they reverse the Lords changes it will be passed back to peers to decide whether they want to go against the government's plans again.

The bill travels back and forth between the two chambers until both sides agree - Parliament could sit through the night to try to reach an agreement, and time has also been set aside on Tuesday and Wednesday. Once it is agreed, the bill will go for Royal Assent, after which Mrs May can formally tell the rest of the EU that she is ready to start negotiating.


It is likely that MPs would overturn the Lords' amendments to the bill, and it is not looking likely that peers will try to block the bill any further. This could mean it was all done and dusted by midnight on Monday.. Labour has urged the prime minister to consider keeping the "really important" Lords amendments, saying that EU citizens in the UK had been "left in limbo", waiting to hear if they would have the right to stay.


Its a sorry state of affairs and if you want to get foreign currency, I would buy it now before article 50 is triggered.


Jon Davis

Budget 2017, The Hidden bits.

Yesterday, March 8th 2017 saw Chancellor Phillip Hammond deliver his first Budget.


The country waited with baited breath, wondering what safeguards he was going to put in place for Brexit in the very same month that Article 50 is due to be triggered, we waited and waited and....................Nothing! He didn't mention Brexit once, which is a bit strange giving that there is no doubt that the decision of the UK to leave the EU, particularly the EU single market, is the momentous economic decision of the decade.


Hammond's speech made much of the fact the Office for Budget Responsibility had revised upwards its economic forecast for 2017. But that is only the case if you compared it to the dark days of autumn, not the optimism of last spring, when the UK was still firmly embedded in the EU. Although the OBR report forms the basis of the Budget speech, unlike the Tory Chancellor, it has a mandate to tell it straight, without worrying what Brexiteers in the Shires might think.


So lets take a look at the hidden Budget bad news for Brexit.


1. Economic growth has slowed


Much was made of the fact that UK GDP growth has been revised upwards, from 1.4 per cent to 2 per cent in 2017. But this time last year, when the UK was expected to remain in the EU, the forecast for 2017 was 2.2 per cent.


2. A weaker pound is causing prices to rise.


The OBR noted that sterling “remains significantly lower than at the time of the referendum”, and that this is feeding into prices. This time last year, inflation was expected to be less than 2 per cent until 2018. Now, inflation is expected to rise to 2.4 per cent in 2017, and 2.3 per cent in 2018. As a result, the OBR expects us to buy less in the coming years.


3. And it’s not helping exporters


The flipside of falling sterling is supposed to be that it makes our exports more attractive to consumers abroad. However, the OBR expects the boost to net trade to be “relatively modest”, based on what happened in the financial crisis, when sterling also weakened. Most damningly, it states: “This boost is not sufficient to offset the prospective weakening in domestic demand.”


4. But house prices are still rising


For the younger generation, one of the more appetising elements of Brexit was the prediction that house prices would fall, and they might finally get a chance to find an affordable home.
Well, the OBR has some news for you. It expects house prices to continue to outstrip average earnings for the rest of the decade.


5. UK trade is likely to fall


The OBR notes that the UK has been trading with other countries more and more intensely since the Second World War, but predicts that this trend will “reverse for a period”. Although, it adds reassuringly, “by far less than was seen in the interwar years”.


6. The Brexit effect will leave the government with less tax revenue


The OBR said pay-as-you-earn income tax (automatically deducted from employees’ salaries) is the government’s “single most important source of revenue”. However, it has predicted this tax haul could be affected by leaving the EU, because there may be less high earners in sectors such as the financial services, which are deeply connected to the single market.


7. The dependency ratio is about to get worse


The OBR warns that as baby boomers retire, the government must increase its spending in age-related areas such as health, long-term care and the state pension. It states: “Without changes to policy, these pressures would therefore put public sector debt on an unsustainable upward trajectory.”
Why is this relevant to Brexit? Because the government has pledged to reduce immigration – and immigrants tend to be working-age taxpayers who also take on jobs in sectors such as health and social care.

8. Business investment is likely to fall

The OBR expects that however the Brexit negotiations work out, most scenarios are likely to at least temporarily reduce investment. It expects the fall in business investment to be a gradual slowdown over the next few years.


9. Lower immigration will slow down the economy


The OBR highlights the need to companies to attract skilled workers, in order to compete with other major economies such as Germany. When it considers the economic slowdown, it explains: "We have calibrated this slowdown on the basis... the UK adopts a tighter migration regime than that currently in place, but not sufficiently tight to reduce net inward migration to the desired ‘tens of thousands’."


10. Less EU students are coming


Even though EU students are currently treated as “home” students, they contribute to the economy through paying for university accommodation and spending money in student towns.
The OBR has revised down its expectation of students taking up places in English universities (education is a devolved matter). The number of applications in 2017-18 is also lower than it was assumed in November. It states: “Taken together, these changes reduce our student numbers forecast by 14,000 in 2021-22 relative to November. There is significant uncertainty around our medium-term forecast as the UK exits the EU.”


11. The OBR forecast doesn’t include a “Brexit bill”


It looks increasingly likely that the UK will be expected to settle its debts – in effect be presented with a “Brexit bill” – before it can conclude negotiations of a new trade deal with the EU.

Because the OBR doesn’t know the details of this, however, it has made no allowance for any Brexit-related payments. It’s a bit like spending your holiday money without keeping any back to settle your hotel tab.

12. In fact, the OBR can’t really say much about Brexit at all

Several times in its report, the OBR notes that it asked the government for more information about the Brexit negotiations. However, its team of researchers were only allowed to see information already in the public domain.
The OBR notes:

Parliament requires us to produce our forecasts on the basis of stated Government policy, but not necessarily assuming that particular objectives are achieved. With the negotiations over the UK’s exit from the EU yet even to commence, this is far from straightforward.

In other words, we're know we're heading towards the iceberg, but we don't even know how much of it is there.


Jon Davis


Many thanks to Julia Rampen of The New Statesman for excerpts.

Is this the end for the NHS as we know it?

As we all know, the NHS is in serious trouble, decades of mis-management, mis-funding and underfunding have left it in a dire place, so what is to become of it? And is Brexit going to make it better, worse or something else?


When it comes to the NHS, everyone has an opinion on it, and quite rightly so, it is seen as a bastion of national identity, a humanitarian service that provides free healthcare without prejudice and is still seen around the world as a shining light of the way healthcare is provided, just ask Barack Obama, who tried desperately to implement similar services in the US.


Some people say that it needs lots of money, some people say it needs better management and some people say that we should start charging etc. etc. You will also hear them cry, 'there are too many immigrants and it cant cope'! this last one is just plain wrong and really doesn't warrant even bothering about, suffice to say that the vast majority of immigrants actually work and pay their taxes just like anyone else and only equate to 9% of the total population anyway so it definitely isn't immigrants that are causing the problem.


And this is the predicament, it isn't just one issue, it is many, decades of short term fixes for what is a long term mess, successive governments wanting to be seen to be doing the right thing quickly and not tackling the root of the problem.


So what will Brexit mean for this?


We all know about the Lies that were told about the so called £350 Million a week for the NHS, so obviously we know that this wont happen. so what extra money will the NHS have? the answer is none, nothing, zilch. In fact if the Hard Brexit goes ahead the way that Mrs May and her bunch of lap dogs want not only will we have less money for the NHS than we currently do, we will also lose 10% of the staff, as these are the Immigrants that are apparently clogging up the system!! Not only this but £60 billion pounds is being syphoned off the treasury to pay for Brexit as announced only this week by our esteemed chancellor. If you are reading this before todays Budget, then this figure and article may have to be amended depending on that.


This leads me to my theory on what will happen to the NHS under this government.


It will be privatised, bit by bit. Mental health, Equipment purchase, Social Care, Ambulance operations, Accident and emergency - some of it by the back door and some of it blatantly, and the government have a perfect ruse in which to do so - Brexit.


One of the reasons that the government is pursuing a hard Brexit is to provide a perfect foil for placing the NHS in to private hands, or major parts of it. With continued cuts and austerity that the chancellor is proposing plus the overall cost and timescale of Brexit negotiation, we simply cant afford the NHS as it is, now that the referendum has gone the way of leaving the EU. In fact we cant afford it at the moment, already this year there is a 2.5 billion pound overspend based on the allowed budget. and that's before we have even triggered article 50. I suspect there will be a small token amount plugging of the gap, just to make it look like something has been done.


And when the country is up in arms about privatising the NHS, then it can be said that, its the fault of Europe for not giving as a great deal and the Lords for not letting us have the ability to turn down a bad deal etc. etc. Blah blah!!


You heard it here first.


Jon Davis

Why I still cant get my head around why people voted for Brexit

On the Morning of June 24th 2016, I awoke as normal to the Sound of Radio 4's today program, as I open my eyes and started to listen, I heard something that I just couldn't believe, the referendum had gone in favour of leaving the EU.


I sat up and just listened, unable to take it in or comprehend what I was listening to, thinking it must have been some kind of bad dream, but no! It was real.


At first it made me feel sick, then just numb and finally very angry, and this got worse as I realised exactly what had happened. as I travelled to work, people were gloating about it? thinking it was funny? I was fuming at this reaction, and this carried on at work, it was a bad day indeed.


Eight Months on and I am still perplexed and still angry, and it is getting worse. So why am still I so angry and upset?


I think I can break this down into several areas.


1. What made me initially very angry, was that people were talking of 'winning', like it was some kind of game, it was such a flippant thing to say about something so serious that I just couldn't believe it. It also made me realise that sadly, many people didn't realise the implications or the importance of it, if they did then this flippancy wouldn't have occurred, and some of this was from people I know!! Which leads me too number 2.


2. I actually felt let down by friends, some family members, colleagues. people I thought were better, more informed than that, people I respected. it was a massive stab in the arm to realise that people who you know can let you and the country down so badly. It may seem like an over reaction but that is how I felt and to a certain degree still do, don't get me wrong, it wont ruin long standing friendships but it was a genuine shock.


3. I was very disappointed in my former Political Party and I still am, I have been a Tory voter all my life, because I genuinely believe in conservatism, but coupled with the decision to hold the referendum in the first place, the hash of the campaign and then the outright disgusting way in which they have bulldozed their way towards triggering article 50, I no longer support the party after 30 years. They have convinced the general public (or a large percentage of the general public) that this is going to be OK, when it clearly isn't. Over optimistically gallivanting around, playing to the tune of what can only be described as a dictatorship, all in the name of self enhancement and power.


4. Consistently being told by Brexiteers stupid things like 'Get over it, you lost' or 'Everything will get better in the end' or the worst 'its the will of the people' or the even worse 'it was a democratic vote'.

Firstly, no, I will not get over something, that could, and probably will harm my children in the future, especially when we can still make sure that it is done correctly, and we have all lost in this situation, nobody is a winner.

Secondly, Everything will not get better in the end, because there is no end, also all indicators and people in the know, i.e Economists, academics, business leaders etc, point to exactly the opposite!! Only the people in power, and who want to continue in power think anything but that.


Thirdly, It is not the will of ALL the people, it is the will of an increasing small amount of people who voted to leave, 72.2% of the voting public turned out to vote, which means over 27% of people didn't vote, so it isn't their will, furthermore, 46.6% voted against leaving and it certainly isn't their will either. if you then count the further 10% of people who wished they hadn't voted to leave then the saying 'it is the will of the people' is a downright lie!!


Lastly, it was NOT a democratic vote, it was an advisory vote, which by law then needs to be democratically agreed in parliament, which was proved in the recent case, but then the Government and its MP's behaved decidedly undemocratically in the vote in parliament, only the Lords seem to have the backbone to make this a better and more democratic proposition now, which is quite ironic really.


So there you have it, its not an exhaustive list but at least I feel a bit better having written this article.


Jon Davis.

Brexit and Trump

For the most ardent supporters of Brexit, the election of Donald Trump was a mixture of vindication and salvation. The president of the US, no less, thinks it is a great idea for Britain to leave the EU. Even better, he seems to offer an exciting escape route. The UK can leap off the rotting raft of the EU and on to the gleaming battleship HMS Anglosphere.


It is an alluring vision. Unfortunately, it is precisely wrong. The election of Mr Trump has transformed Brexit from a risky decision into a straightforward disaster. For the past 40 years, Britain has had two central pillars to its foreign policy: membership of the EU and a “special relationship” with the US.


The decision to exit the EU leaves Britain much more dependent on the US, just at a time when America has elected an unstable president opposed to most of the central propositions on which UK foreign policy is based. During the brief trip to Washington by Theresa May, the UK prime minister, this unpleasant truth was partly obscured by trivia and trade. Mr Trump’s decision to return the bust of Winston Churchill to the Oval Office was greeted with slavish delight by Brexiteers. More substantively, the Trump administration made it clear that it is minded to do a trade deal with the UK just as soon as Britain’s EU divorce comes through. But no sooner had Mrs May left Washington than Mr Trump caused uproar with his “Muslim ban”, affecting immigrants and refugees from seven countries. After equivocating briefly, the prime minister was forced to distance herself from her new best friend in the White House.


The refugee row underlined the extent to which Mrs May and Mr Trump have clashing visions of the world. Even when it comes to trade, the supposed basis for their new special relationship, the two leaders have very different views. Mrs May says that she wants the UK to be the champion of global free trade. But Mr Trump is the most protectionist US president since the 1930s. This is a stark clash of visions that will be much harder to gloss over — if and when Mr Trump begins slapping tariffs on foreign goods and ignoring the World Trade Organisation. In addition, any trade deal with the Trump administration is likely to be hard to swallow for Britain and would involve controversial concessions on the National Health Service and agriculture. The British and American leaders also have profoundly different attitudes to international organisations.


Mrs May is a firm believer in the importance of Nato and the United Nations. (Britain’s permanent membership of the UN Security Council is one of its few remaining totems of great power status). But Mr Trump has twice called Nato obsolete and is threatening to slash US funding of the UN. The May and Trump administrations are also at odds on the crucial questions of the future of the EU and of Russia. Mr Trump is openly contemptuous of the EU and his aides have speculated that it might break up. This reflects the views of Nigel Farage and the UK Independence party — but not of the current British government. Mrs May knows that her difficult negotiations with the EU will become all-but-impossible if member states believe that the UK is actively working to destroy their organisation in alliance with Mr Trump. Her official position is that Britain wants to work with a strong EU. She probably even means it, given the economic and political dangers that would flow from its break-up.


Not the least of these dangers would be an increased threat from a resurgent Russia. The British government worked closely with the Obama administration to impose economic sanctions on the country after its annexation of Crimea. But Mr Trump is already flirting with lifting sanctions. The reality is that the UK is now faced with a US president who is fundamentally at odds with the British view of the world. For all the forced smiles in the Oval Office last week, the May government certainly knows this. For political reasons, Boris Johnson, the British foreign minister, is having to talk up the prospects of a trade deal with Mr Trump. Yet only a few months ago, Mr Johnson was saying that Mr Trump was “clearly out of his mind” and betrayed a “stupefying ignorance” of the world. Were it not for Brexit — a cause that Mr Johnson enthusiastically championed — the UK government would be able to take an appropriately wary approach to Mr Trump. If Britain had voted to stay inside the EU, the obvious response to the arrival of a pro-Russia protectionist in the Oval Office would be to draw closer to its European allies. Britain could defend free-trade far more effectively with the EU’s bulk behind it — and could also start to explore the possibilities for more EU defence co-operation. As it is, Britain has been thrown into the arms of an American president that the UK’s foreign secretary has called a madman. In the declining years of the British empire, some of its politicians flattered themselves that they could be “Greeks to their Romans” — providing wise and experienced counsel to the new American imperium. But the Emperor Nero has now taken power in Washington — and the British are having to smile and clap as he sets fires and reaches for his fiddle.


Many thanks to Gideon Rachman of the Financial Times for the use of his excellent article.

5 Brexit Lies.

There was no doubt about it, the campaign leading up to the Brexit referendum was one of the worst, most damaging and deceitful in British history, but why?...........Why did the leave campaign see fit to tell over 60 downright lies to voters? The reason why is simple....Power. But I will deal with this in a later post.


Here are the 5 top lies with explanations of the truth (with the Facts).




Turkey will join EU in 2020


Michael Gove said that Turkey is about to join Europe. What he didn't say is that it would first need to prove it is a modern European democracy. That means ticking 35 boxes on everything from human rights to the economy. Even then, we or any of the other 27 members could just say no.
Turkey applied to join nearly 30 years ago, in 1987. Since, then it has ticked just one of the 35 boxes. At this rate, it will join the EU in 986 years.  In the year 3002.


We always get outvoted in Brussels


Boris Johnson said, we always get bossed around by Brussels because we keep getting outvoted. Since 1999, we’ve been on the losing side 56 times in the EU’s Council. What Boris didn't say is how many times we’ve been on the winning side, 2,466 times,  2,466 to 56 is a good score in any sport.


EU needs us more than we need it


Boris Johnson said we’ll get a good trade deal with the European Union because Germany wants to sell us BMWs. What he didn't say is that our exports to the EU are 13% of our economy, while their exports to us are only 3% of their economy. So, we’d be the big losers from a trade war. We need them more than they need us.
Boris also didn't say that many foreign firms, like Nissan, set up shop in Britain because we are a gateway to sell stuff to the whole EU.


We send £350m a week to Brussels.


Boris Johnson said we send £350 million a week to Brussels. But it isn’t true. Margaret Thatcher, famously brandishing her handbag, secured a discount on our payment to the European Union. Funny that Boris, a fans of Maggie’s, had forgotten that.
When you take account of Maggie’s discount and money that comes back to Britain from the EU, our membership costs 30 pence per person per day. That’s half the price of a Mars bar. And we get way more than 30 pence a day back in benefits.


Leaving EU would save the NHS


Boris Johnson and Michael Gove said quitting Europe would save the NHS because we’d get fewer migrants and stop sending money to Brussels. What they didn't say is that, we’d lose full access to Europe’s market. That’s responsible for half our trade.
Boris and Gove also didn't tell you that EU migrants support the NHS. They pay more in taxes than they use public services – partly because they are younger than Brits. What’s more, one in 10 doctors is an EU migrant.


Sad isn't it........ but what is even sadder is that some people genuinely believed it and still do, or are so embarrassed by the way they voted that they wont come clean. but the worst thing is that Brexiteers say this 'The remain camp also told lies', this is even worse than believing the untruths, because they don't care about the lies, they are happy for our country to be worse off. And who will be the worst off of all, a huge chunk of the public who voted leave.....a sad irony!


Jon Davis


Credit - Thanks to INfacts for the figures.
 

The 'I' Word

Immigration and Brexit.............


There is no getting away from it, the single biggest driver of the Referendum vote was and still is Immigration. For rational thinking people, this is still a mystery, as it is actually a relatively small percentage of the overall issue, but driven by a hate filled gutter press and downright lies banded about by power hungry and racist factions, it was the straw that broke the camels back.


But why? Lets examine this and what it really means.


Ending the free movement of people from EU countries after Brexit will almost certainly not result in lower overall migration.


No details on a new immigration system for EU nationals has been released, but the House of Lords EU Home Affairs Sub-Committee says net migration to the UK from outside the EU remains significantly higher than within it, despite non-EU migration already being covered by restrictions.
The wide-ranging assessment says: “Restoration of national control over EU migration is unlikely to deliver a reduction in overall net migration.”


The committee concluded that cutting EU immigration is unlikely to provide a “quick fix” for low wages. The report makes the case for a “two-way agreement” with the EU on migration, which would involve offering preferential treatment to EU nationals in return for reciprocal approach to UK nationals in the EU.


Before the referendum, leading figures in the Leave campaign argued for an Australian-style points-based immigration system, though nothing of that nature has been formally proposed or suggested by the Government. The peers’ report warns that any immigration system “hedged” with exemptions for particular economic sectors or schemes could produce the “worst of all worlds, failing to deliver a meaningful reduction in immigration while also proving more onerous and costly for employers, prospective applicants, and those charged with enforcement”.


Crucial sectors of the economy depend on EU migrant labour, so it is essential that any changes don't endanger the vibrancy of the UK economy


The committee was “struck by the weaknesses and gaps in the UK’s migration statistics”.


So what does all this mean - This passage from The Guardian sums it up :


It is one of the most basic of political lessons to interpret events so that they support your argument. Theresa May has taken this workaday truth and developed it into an overarching narrative for her Brexit strategy. She is well on her way to pulling off an act of national self-harm, and in the total absence of a counter-strategy she is running away with the ball.


Jon Davis


Credits - The Independent and The Guardian

Is Brexit Racist?

The bottom line is that Brexit represents an anti-immigrant movement. It is based on racism, so regardless of how people intended their vote, it will still be a decision that is an attack on immigration.


A crucial concern is that the terms of whatever agreement is reached will set a precedent for anti-immigrant policies that will heighten aggression against ethnic communities.


This concern isn’t unfounded. The National Police Chief’s Council recorded a 58% spike in hate crimes in the week following the referendum. Over the course of the month, this averaged as a 41% increase, compared with the same time the previous year.


The subtext is not only a dissatisfaction with the result of the EU referendum, but the process of the vote itself. It voices a concern heard many times since the vote that a referendum is far too simple a process for a decision of such momentous consequences. It also draws on the gaping hole between people's voting intentions and the policy that is implemented.


This is particularly troubling when the competitive nature of multilateral bargaining allows the government to keep its cards close to its chest on critical issues such as freedom of movement and trade agreements. This is not a democratic process at all.


There does need to be scrutiny and transparency, and an opening up of this question, and attempting to rush it all through by royal prerogative was seriously worrying. There needs to be transparency in everything that is being negotiated and discussed in the public realm.


Attempting to use Royal prerogative was a sinister symbol of the government deciding whatever it likes, without consulting Parliament or voters. especially during the future Brexit negotiations.


Jon Davis


Credits - New Statesman, The Economist, The National Police Chief’s Council.

Brexit and our Holidays (Vacations)

Our most intense engagement with Europe is when we holiday there.


In the short term, the slide in sterling to its lowest level for years means the price of everything from a cup of coffee in a café in Paris to a night in a luxury hotel in the Maldives will rise.
The level of the increase depends on what level the pound settles at: before the referendum, the Treasury predicted sterling would lose 12-15 per cent of its value on a Leave vote.
Longer term, the two key rates are against the euro and the dollar.
The Euro/Pound rate is crucial because we take the majority of our foreign holidays in the single-currency area; the Spanish Costas, the French countryside, the cities of Italy and the islands of Greece.


Further afield, prices in destinations including the US, Dubai and China will rise in proportion with the strength of the dollar relative to sterling; many currencies are locked to the US Dollar.
Even if you never venture beyond Europe, the Dollar/Pound rate is also significant. Oil is priced in dollars, as are aircraft. So a 12 per cent fall in sterling will push up the price of petrol, diesel and aviation fuel, as well as the cost of aircraft for airlines such as British Airways and Easy Jet.


The Package Travel Regulations allow tour operators to impose surcharges when the cost of a package holiday goes up after you booked because of currency fluctuations or rising fuel costs.
The company must absorb the first 2 per cent of any increase, and if the surcharge goes above 10 per cent then you have the right to cancel.


If you have already paid for your holiday in full, it is unlikely that you will need to pay a surcharge.
The company will probably have hedged its currency requirements for paying airlines and hoteliers. Some firms will also have hedged, at least partially, costs for 2017 holidays.


Anyone who has put together their own trip, and has yet to pay for accommodation or a rental car, will find that the cost in sterling terms has risen.


“Open skies” represents one of the most tangible benefits of European Union membership. Since 1994, any EU airline has been free to fly between any two points in Europe.


The freedom to fly allowed Easy Jet and Ryanair to flourish, and has forced “legacy” carriers such as BA, Air France and Lufthansa to cut costs and fares. On any European journey you care to name, the typical fare is around half what it was in the early 1990s - and anyone who can be flexible about timing can save even more.


Before the referendum, some in the Remain camp speculated that open skies would be among the first arrangements to be binned.


If the UK negotiates a similar arrangement to Norway, within the European Economic Area (EEA), then little would change; Norwegian, a non-EU budget airline, flies successfully within Europe and from the UK to the US.


If Britain does not reach such an accord, in theory every route between the UK and the EU might need to be renegotiated on a bilateral basis. The bureaucratic logjam would be immense. Similarly, British Airways and Virgin Atlantic have easy access to America because of an EU-US treaty on open skies.


But given that London is the world hub of aviation, and a key destination for dozens of airlines, it looks unlikely that routes to and from the UK will be affected.


The freedom for British airlines such as Easy Jet to fly within and between EU countries could be curtailed; nations such as France and Italy have in the past been protectionist of their home airlines.
The chance to clip the wings of the likes of Easy Jet could be welcomed by politicians and airlines in other EU countries - if not by travellers. It is likely that airlines will restructure into separate UK and EU-based corporate entities, adding complexity and cost, and reducing flexibility. Immediately after the result, Carolyn McCall, EasyJet's chief executive, said she had written to the UK government and European Commission urging them "to prioritise the UK remaining part of the single EU aviation market".


The EU stipulates care and compensation in the event of disruption for airline passengers (and, to a limited extent, international train and ferry travellers).


These automatic rights would end for UK airlines when flying from British airports, though EU airlines ‒ including Ryanair ‒ would continue to be governed by them. It is possible that a future British government would create its own rules on passenger rights.


Another tangible benefit for EU consumers has been the squeeze on the excessive roaming charges levied by mobile phone companies.


The maximum surcharges phone firms can add for calls, texts and data while abroad have just been reduced again. By next June they will disappear completely; that will happen despite the vote to leave.


Once Britain leaves, it is difficult to imagine any UK government saying to the mobile-phone firms: “As we’re out of the EU now, feel free to bring back excessive roaming charges.”
In addition, mobile phone companies will start demonstrating a year from now that they can survive on zero roaming fees within Europe, and it may be that competitive pressure is sufficient to keep a lid on price rises.


The immediate impact for those who depend on savings or pensions in sterling is that the cost of living will rise; the exact amount depends on how the local currency strengthens against the pound. Longer term, the automatic right to live and work in EU countries will end, but it is likely that long-term expatriates will be able to stay.


European Health Insurance Cards indicate entitlement to public health care on the same basis as local people in EU countries.


But before joining the EEC (as was), the UK had reciprocal health agreements with many European nations.


We still maintain bilateral deals with 16 countries, such as Australia, New Zealand and the former Yugoslavian republics of Macedonia, Montenegro and Serbia.


It is likely that a similar range of deals would be concluded with some or all EU members. If they are not, then the need for travel insurance will increase - and premiums could rise.


In terms of Duty free sales, it is likely that the limits that apply elsewhere in the world will be re-imposed. For alcohol, that means one litre of spirits, four litres of wine and 16 litres of beer.
The tobacco limit will be 200 cigarettes. In addition, a limit of “other goods” of £390 will be imposed.
 
A silver lining for airlines and cross-Channel ferry operators is that proper duty free would return; anyone who currently promises “duty free” for a journey within the EU is fibbing.


There will be no more filling up the boot with cheap claret in Calais. In addition, fuel prices and motorway tolls will be more expensive in sterling terms. Current legislation means any car insured in one EU country is automatically insured to the minimum legal level in any other EU country. This will not apply once the UK leaves the EU, but I suspect many insurers will continue to extend comprehensive cover for short European trips either free or at a reasonable cost.


With weaker sterling, the rest of the world will get more pounds for its euros, dollars, yen, etc, making the UK a cheaper destination to visit.


Conversely, going abroad becomes more expensive for the British traveller, who may then choose to holiday in Cornwall rather than the Costa del Sol.


But it’s more complicated than that, especially in terms of British holidaymakers’ behaviour. Demand for overseas travel is price-inelastic.


If people find foreign holidays significantly more expensive, some may opt to stay in the UK. But between the summers of 2008 and 2009, when the cost of going abroad increased by roughly 25 per cent, the number of overseas trips by British holidaymakers reduced by a much smaller percentage.
Looking at foreign visitors coming here: EU rules allow European citizens to come to Britain with only a national identity card.


The UK government could re-impose the rule that all foreign nationals must have a passport, though the British travel industry would lobby strongly against anything that makes it more difficult for many EU citizens to visit the UK.


Jon Davis


Credit - Simon Calder, The Independent.

Why is Brexit so bad?

Everything or almost everything has been said on the political and economic consequences of Brexit: possibility of Remain, Leave, number of jobs to be lost, falling pound, loss in GDP, borders and end of the European Union as we know it.


Everything, except perhaps, the political coup it represents. Everywhere in Europe, our leaders try to compensate a loss of political legitimacy by emotional blackmail and authoritarian postures. Looking at the campaign arguments on both sides, Brexit looks just like another ideological emotional communication campaign for the masses: “fear or fear not”.


We have to admit that referendum is (or was?) a formidable tool of democracy. Looking at popular initiatives, it allows Italian citizens, Swiss and Austrian, bringing together a predetermined number of signatures to hold a referendum on a proposed text. If the critical number of signature is reached, the Parliament opens the legislative debate by proposing the referendum.


This solution was also implemented in 2009 at EU level by the European citizens’ initiative. This opens the possibility for a million EU citizens to challenge the Commission as part of its prerogatives and to submit a legislative proposal. While being a model of participatory democracy on paper, ICE has quickly disappointed in practice as the Commission remains judge and party in the final decision.
We will see a certain irony in the fact that the Lisbon Treaty, which introduced ICE in European legislation, also opened the possibility for a Member State to withdraw from the Union.
Brexit perfectly illustrates the lack of political responsibility ethics in favour of the illusion of participatory democracy and short term politician strategy.


The British referendum that was held on June 23 was born as a desperate spin from David Cameron during the 2013 campaign. Cornered by both the rise of UKIP and the reactionary nationalist wing of his own party, Cameron had fired at the time his last round of political credibility by promising a vote on the EU.


By inviting people to vote for or against keeping the country in the European Union without foreseeing the consequences in the short and medium term, the Prime Minister had affected not only participatory democracy but also the last vestiges of the European dream in Great Britain.
The referendum allows taking people hostage of a poor decision and monopolizing the political debate to bring them up to the extreme of the political spectrum artificially. The concessions obtained by Cameron since February 2016 were already significant and constitute a blow to the European model and its added value for Britain: reduced access to social benefits of EU citizens resident in the United Kingdom, end of the goal of “ever closer union”, veto power of national parliaments, recognition of several currencies in the European Union and the simplification of regulations with the limitation of the European ambition to one big free market. So what is the real interest, if not to ensure a political victory on the European stage, to propose such a choice to us Brits?


Here lies the real problem with Brexit: it is a very bad idea. There is absolutely nothing good for the UK in leaving the EU, while the EU Institutions are at a turning point in their own history.
Apart from the direct satisfaction of low nationalist instincts forgetful of the interconnection of our modern world, leaving the European Union will not improve the lives of British citizens. It will instead weaken the rights of workers and consumers. In addition, this artificial respiration imposed on partner countries was certainly not needed to renegotiate the terms of an agreement with the EU. In the same way that Brussels has folded on the refugee issue to preserve the scores of the CDU, EU sailed to the rhythm of the internal turmoil to the Conservative party. The 28 nations forming the EU advance in parallel at various paces on complex subjects. All the crises we face today exceed by far the simple power of an isolated nation. Negotiation and dialogue have been at the foundation of this strange assembly, unique in the world: a Union between consenting states, aware of their own limits.
The referendum on Brexit was another form of the nationalist contraction now raging in Europe: a reassuring chimera that avoids complex thinking and refuses to confront the world to come. Energy issues, the great migrations, climatic constraints, the reorganization of the financial markets, the digital transformation of work, finance and the free power of multinationals: how a small country like the UK or France can claim finding on its own positive solutions for its people?


There were only losers on the evening of June 23. A Prime Minister willing to sacrifice the economy of his country and its political legitimacy for what’s left of power to take, a European project destroyed by populist campaigns, and participatory democracy reduced to an illusion. When Europe will cease to exist, populism will have to look for other victims, leading us to a possible Peacexit.


Jon Davis


Research Credit - Huffington Post, The Economist and The Guardian, Alexis Poulin, Journaliste, Le Monde Modern.

Welcome

Welcome to Brexit Ramblings.




I have created this blog quite simply because I refuse to be silenced on my stance that leaving the EU, Single Market and Customs union is a bad idea, a very bad idea. Putting it in a blog will allow people to decide whether or not read it, rather than plastering it all over social media, i.e Facebook. But the links will still be available on Facebook. I will be willing to bet that if you are reading this as a staunch Brexiteer, you will come up with all sorts of reasons why you wont read on, but the usual one will be the same, a blinkered and obtuse view of what is really happening, but I would like to be proved wrong.


I believe (based on facts, research, experience and many years of interest in the topics of politics, socio economic geography and pure applied economics), that not only is Brexit bad for the UK, that it is bad for Europe and indeed the world as a whole. Add to this other issues, such as Donald Trump in the US, the French presidential elections, instability in the middle east and the threat of Putin's Russia and many other issues and we are in for a very rough ride indeed, and that is putting it politely.


In this blog you will find opinion on all things related to Brexit, this will sometimes include sections or parts of other articles and these will always be credited, this opinion will be fact based, not lies or intentional falsehoods that you will find in the quitters .....sorry Brexiteers camp.


So if you are still interested, then read on.