Brexit is going to be good for Britain and Scotland

[Alastair]

This is a video I created to provide my views on why Brexit is going to be great for Britain.

Alastair

[Alastair]

Re: Brexit is going to be good for Britain and Scotland

No longer bound by anti-innovation EU regulation, the UK can lead the world in Life Sciences and the Bio-Economy.

By George Freeman who has been MP for Mid Norfolk since 2010 and is Chair of the Conservative Policy Forum and founder of The Big Tent Ideas Festival. He served as the UK’s first ever Minister for Life Sciences from 2014-2016 and Chair of the Prime Minister’s Policy Board from 2016-2017.

Having spent fifteen years before coming to Parliament starting companies at the cutting-edge of biomedical innovation, and having served as the first ever Minister for Life Sciences at the Departments of Health and Business, I have seen first-hand the global potential of UK innovation and enterprise.

I voted Remain at the EU referendum because, on balance, I felt it was in the best interests of my constituents. However, I have always been a vocal critic of the way Brussels has approached regulation around science and innovation.

That’s why in the last Parliament I wrote a report on EU Biotechnology Regulation with the Fresh Start Project and the think-tank Open Europe. The report warned of the growing trend towards ‘anti-science’ politics in Europe, and the risk of unscientific regulatory barriers jeopardising the UK’s crucial Life Science sector, and called for the UK to consider withdrawing from EU jurisdiction in bioscience unless the trend could be stopped.

As I highlighted in the report, the growing hostility of the EU to ‘biotech’ has had a hugely damaging effect on the EU Bioscience Economy over the last five years. Just as the genomic revolution has been starting to offer untold opportunities across medicine and agriculture, the EU has been developing an increasingly hostile regulatory framework which has undermined Europe as a hub of biotechnology.

We should be in no doubt how game-changing the biotech revolution is. In cancer, as a result of breakthroughs in tumour genetics, we can now detect, prevent and eradicate cancer tumours in people who 20 years ago would have died.

As a result of stem cell science we can now reverse blindness with one injection. And, as a result of genetic trait science (not ‘GM’), we can now produce disease-resistant crops like the blight-resistant potato which no longer requires 14 applications of toxic fungicide each season. These are stunning UK innovations. Which we could take global and commercialise. But such progress has been held back for too long by anti-innovation EU regulation.

This regulatory hostility to biotech has had its most serious impact in agricultural research, where the EU’s hostility to GM led German-based BASF to announce their withdrawal from Europe in Agricultural Research and Development. That’s a €10 billion disinvestment Europe can ill afford.

As I warned the Commission at the time in a keynote speech as UK Minister for Life Sciences, unless the EU embraced greater flexibility for member states to ‘go it alone’ in designing appropriate regulatory frameworks for GM crops, Europe risked being consigned to the slow lane of the global bio-economy.

Four years on, that warning remains just as relevant now. Across the board in agriculture and genetics, exciting emerging fields like ‘nutriceutricals’ and the use of genomic and clinical patient data in modern biomedical research, the EU has been heading in the wrong direction for decades.

Or consider recent developments in the medical space. This convergence of technologies is transforming – even rendering obsolete – convenient traditional regulatory ‘silos’. We are now living in an age of ‘digital drugs’ like those developed by British start-up Proteus. Or the contact lens that monitors and maintains blood drug levels. Or the personalised algorithmic diagnostic on your watch that connects to an electronic health record and allows you or your doctor or an automated dispenser to release drugs from a sub-cutaneous embedded release device.

All these developments invite further questions: how do the old silo regulatory classifications of ‘drug’, ‘device’, ‘diagnostic’ or ‘data’ apply? In the 21st-century Life Science landscape, technologies are converging to render the old silos redundant. I would have preferred us to use this Parliament to lead reform from inside the EU with a referendum if we couldn’t. But Brexit offers us a unique opportunity to forge our own path, making sure we don’t miss out on the next Industrial Revolution, and the chance to pioneer the new technologies with the potential to help feed, fuel and heal the developing world.

So the task ahead of us is clear. In our trade talks, we need to be negotiating a smooth transition and avoiding a regulatory ‘cliff-edge’ that undermines investor confidence in the UK. But we must also start leading the way on creating a new regulatory framework for 21st-century innovation. That’s why the transition question matters so much.

We mustn’t let the debate on science and innovation be shaped by an ideological fight between Hard Brexiteer ideologues and Remainers: the ‘mods and rockers’ of Brexit. Instead, it needs to be framed by the needs of UK PLC and the industries on whom we all depend. The question of regulatory alignment goes to the heart of this.

There are three central issues.

First, it is clear that we mustn’t have a cliff-edge on day one. The planes need to land. Life-saving drugs need to be available. Food needs to be processed safely. Avoiding a cliff-edge must be our number one priority.

Second, we also need to be strategically clear that we – a modern Conservative Party with an ambitious vision for the 21st century, and for Britain as a crucible of technological leadership – will develop a British regulatory regime which is pro-innovation, pro-consumer, pro-transparency and on the side of innovation rather than cosy cartels of vested power and interest.

Third, we will pay a very real long-term cost if we don’t get this right. If we fail to negotiate short-term continuity and the freedom and terms to create a new regulatory framework, we will miss the opportunity to lead and shape the global bio-economy for decades to come. A once-in-a-generation chance to shape and benefit from globalisation and to maximise our leadership of Europe from outside, as we always used to.

If we get this right, we can make the UK the ‘Gateway Testbed’ for new 21st century technology and appropriate regulation, which the City can then finance to take global. Done properly, we could become the global capital for the research, development and financing of the innovations in the core markets of food, medicine and energy (the ‘science of life’) around the world.

This really could be a win-win moment for the UK to become one of the world’s leading knowledge economies of 21st century agri-tech, med-tech, clean-tech and associated supply chains, supporting rapid development of the fastest-growing emerging markets. That is the prize waiting for us if we get the question of regulatory alignment right and put innovation at the heart of our negotiating strategy.

It is the duty of all of us, no matter how we voted during the referendum, to seize this moment. Future generations will not thank us if we fail.

-----

Britain remains top European hub for tech investors - study

Britain remains the leading European destination for international tech investors, with UK tech companies attracting almost three times more venture capital investment than any other European country over the past two years, according to a study on Friday.

London tech firms are contributing to the growth of the nation’s digital economy, accounting for over 80 percent of all venture capital money invested into the UK since the 2016 EU referendum vote, it added.

Since the decision to leave the EU, according to figures from London & Partners, British tech companies have received over 5 billion pounds in venture capital funding – more than France (£1.55 billion), Germany (£2.15 billion) and Sweden (£644 million) combined.

Major US companies including Amazon.com, Facebook and Google have increased their operations in Britain since the referendum.

London & Partners is the Mayor of London Sadiq Khan’s official promotional agency.

It said global tech investors are drawn to London for its strengths in developing the latest cutting-edge technologies, with the UK capital topping the European investment charts for funding into fast growing sectors such as Artificial Intelligence, cyber security and Fintech.

“London’s tech sector is an important source of jobs and growth for the city’s economy and it is vital that we continue to ensure that we can attract the very best talent and investment from all over the world in the aftermath of Brexit,” said Mayor Khan.

Next week is London Tech Week 2018 in which the city will host over 200 events and welcome over 50,000 entrepreneurs, investors and tech leaders.

------

Trump's tweets spew ire on NATO allies, Trudeau

U.S. President Donald Trump fired off a volley of tweets on Monday venting anger on NATO allies, the European Union and Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau in the wake of a divisive G7 meeting over the weekend.

The escalating clash over trade between Washington and some of its closest global partners cast a cloud over Trump’s efforts to make history in nuclear talks in Singapore on Tuesday with Kim Jong Un of North Korea, one of America’s bitterest foes.

Having left the Group of Seven summit in Canada early, Trump’s announcement that he was backing out of the joint communique torpedoed what appeared to be a fragile consensus on the trade dispute between Washington and its top allies.


“Fair trade is now to be called fool trade if it is not reciprocal,” said Trump, who flew from Canada to Singapore on Sunday to prepare for the first-ever summit between a U.S. and North Korean leader.

“Sorry, we cannot let our friends, or enemies, take advantage of us on trade anymore. We must put the American worker first!”

The communique, which had appeared to have papered over the cracks that surfaced so uncharacteristically at the G7, said the leaders of the United States, Canada, Britain, France, Italy, Germany and Japan were agreed on the need for “free, fair, and mutually beneficial trade” and the importance of fighting protectionism.

Note: Only Britain and Estonia are paying the agreed 2% of GDP in support of NATO Defence. No wonder Trump decides not to keep footing the bill for rich countries such as Germany and France.

-----

There are many reasons we should rejoice at Brexit

AN AIR of deepening crisis now hangs over Brexit. Theresa May’s Cabinet is badly split, her premiership beleaguered. As many Leave supporters begin to despair, the Government is embroiled in continual rows about the withdrawal negotiations.

For two years the Remoaners have told us, with mounting glee, how impossibly difficult it will be for the UK to extricate itself from the EU. But that argument shows how deeply the tentacles of the Brussels bureaucracy reach into every part of our life. EU membership means that Britain is not a sovereign nation at all but rather a province of the Brussels empire. The obstacles in the path of our departure just prove the point.

But the toughness of the job should be a cue, not for surrender, but for greater courage. The potential prize is one of the noblest ideals known to mankind: that of national self-determination. Instead of being intimidated or paralysed by the challenges ahead, ministers should be invigorated by the goal of freedom.

They could make a start in the fightback by crushing the Lords’ amendments in the Commons this week.

There is not a shred of justification for the antics of the Remoaner peers and any MP who respects the democratic verdict of the British people in the 2016 referendum should back the Government.

In fact for all the excitable gossip there is every sign Mrs May will emerge triumphant from her latest ordeal. Apart from the wish of most of her MPs to do their democratic duty, she is helped by two other factors.

One is the profound divisions in the official Opposition.

Anti-Brexiteers had hoped that Labour would by now have become the leading Remain party but that has not happened, largely because there is no support for overturning the referendum result among either the followers of Jeremy Corbyn – a Eurosceptic throughout his career – or the more principled moderates such as former minister Caroline Flint, an eloquent advocate of tougher immigration controls.

The second factor is the surprising popularity and unity of Mrs May's party, despite the travails of her Cabinet. Contrary to all the hysterical talk of imminent collapse, the Government has not actually gone into freefall. One opinion poll last week put the Conservatives on 44 per cent, seven points ahead of Labour.

Nor are there any indicators that the majority of the public has turned against Brexit. On the contrary most voters – including Remain supporters – want the Government to get on with it as effectively as possible. All the snobbish sneers and phoney fears from the pro-EU crowd have had little impact. In the face of Europhile defeatism most British people rightly still have faith in their own country’s capacity for self-governance.

Britain is, after all, the fifth largest economy in the world, the fourth greatest military power and a global leader in language, culture, creativity and manufacturing. The idea that we cannot survive without the control of Brussels is absurd.

As we proved through the Industrial Revolution, the creation of Parliamentary democracy and victory in two world wars, we are a heroically adaptable, forward-thinking and pragmatic nation.

Those terms could not be applied to the EU, which is built on federalist ideology. But Brussels has its own spectacular problems including crippling debt, massive unemployment and the strains induced by reckless immigration policies. As a result, the organisation’s legitimacy is now under attack from the surge in populism, especially across Italy and Eastern Europe. The EU’s weaknesses should embolden Britain’s politicians to stop treating the Brussels machine as some kind of intimidating monolith. In the end, for the sake of its own economy and trade, Brussels will want to reach some kind of mutually beneficial deal. Pragmatism will have the final say.

Brexiteers have every ground for optimism. It is the Remoaners whose cause is lost, for Brexit will happen in some form next March.

Not every Leave voter will be happy with the terms of our departure but the crucial point is that we will be in control of our national destiny once more. We can begin the process of regaining our liberty.

If the electorate had voted to stay in the federal superstate, all hope of self-rule would have gone forever.

-----

Remainer scaremongering is still built on dodgy economics

Professor David Blake is a Professor of Economics at the Cass Business School and a member of Economists for Free Trade.

I recently gave evidence to the House of Commons International Trade Select Committee on the economic effects of trade policy, alongside my Economists for Free Trade colleague Professor Patrick Minford.

As written evidence, I submitted a report titled “How bright are the prospects for UK trade and prosperity post-Brexit?” In it I demonstrate the ways in which the Treasury has overestimated the costs to the UK of leaving the EU by failing to take into account the regulatory burdens of staying in the Single Market or the benefits from reducing tariffs by leaving the Customs Union.

The Treasury overestimates the costs of leaving the EU

The Treasury’s model predicts a 7.7 per cent reduction in GDP in the event of “no deal” in which the UK retained the existing EU Common External Tariffs with the rest of the world, while the EU imposed these same tariffs and non-tariff barriers (NTBs) on trade with the UK. Of the 7.7 per cent reduction in GDP, 1 per cent is due to the new tariffs on trade with the EU and 5.8 per cent is due to the imposition of NTBs. The model also predicts that the maximum facilitation (max-fac) solution preferred by Boris Johnson for avoiding a hard border in Northern Ireland would wipe 1.8 per cent off GDP.

I strongly reject the Treasury’s predictions for a number of reasons. First, NTBs are illegal under World Trade Organisation (WTO) rules which forbid any form of discrimination on standards between home and foreign products or between the foreign products of different countries. So around 75 per cent of the projected reduction in GDP is due to the imposition of illegal NTBs. This will not happen.

Second, even if there will be new and unavoidable frictional costs, the Treasury has grossly overestimated them. Of the projected 5.8 per cent reduction in GDP due to the imposition of NTBs, 1.3 per cent arises from frictional border costs. Yet if the same border costs as in the EU’s trade deal with Switzerland are applied to the UK, these amount to just 0.12 per cent of GDP, more than ten times lower.

The Treasury underestimates the costs of staying in the Single Market

The Single Market is concerned with standardising regulations in the EU. According to Professor Jacques Pelkmans (“The Economics of Single Market Regulation“, 2012) who also gave evidence at this session, regulation is the EU’s core business. Most EU Single Market regulation is risk regulation, covering issues such as safety, health, environment, and consumer protection. While accepting the need for “good” regulation and less “red tape”, Professor Pelkmans also accepts that regulations can be used to raise rivals’ costs and create barriers to competition from third countries.

Since the primary purpose of trade is to make consumers better off, Professor Pelkmans concedes that the Single Market has not been fully successful to date. That is because of local incumbents having market power, discriminatory local regulations, subsidies, transaction costs like languages, and home bias. The evidence for this is that price convergence has been low (the same good should sell at the same price in different parts of the Single Market, but there are still significant price differences) and most firms do not participate in the Single Market.

Federik Erixon and Rosita Georgieva (“What is wrong with the Single Market?“, 2016) argue that:

The more Europe’s economy grows dependent on services and the digital sector, the less Single Market there will be in Europe. Given the vast complexity of regulations in Europe, and the increasing layers of bureaucracy they entail, it is difficult to see how improvements could be made without a vast overhaul of the structure of regulations and the design of the Single Market. As reforms are moving closer to areas like digital services, energy, and advanced business services, it is evident that the improvements that can be made in Europe’s integration is less about classic Single Market reforms and more about building adequate market institutions and advance structural reform.

It is clear from evidence such as this – from strong supporters of the Single Market concept – that the Single Market does not really exist, especially in services. Given that the future of the UK economy is services – 80 per cent of UK GDP is in services, yet only 5 per cent of UK GDP is exported to the EU as services – we should not be worried about leaving the Single Market. The regulatory burden of remaining in the Single Market is equivalent to 2 per cent of GDP. We can reduce this cost by preparing to simplify regulations, while keeping them “good”; simplify product/service standards so they do not impede competition; and building digital services, energy, and advanced business services for the global economy where all future growth is.

The Treasury underestimates the benefits from reducing tariffs by leaving the Customs Union

It is crucial that the UK is free to set is own tariffs outside the Customs Union. However, EU (tariff and non-tariff) barriers on trade in food and manufactures raise their prices by 20 per cent. If these barriers were reduced from 20 per cent to 10 per cent, the UK would be better off and GDP would rise by 4 per cent.

However, the various current proposals for “customs partnerships” and “customs agreements” essentially mean that we are stuck in the Customs Union with these high trade barriers.

While we do need a good trade deal with the EU, the one currently on offer is not good enough. This is a standard free trade agreement with only limited provisions for trade in services. Services would be provided “under host state rules”, meaning complying with different rules in different member states. This would be disruptive for certain sectors – financial services and broadcasting – which currently operate in the EU under domestic rules.

The UK, by contrast, should seek a much more ambitious agreement in services either based on mutual recognition which would allow reciprocal access or based on the acceptance that the regulatory regimes are sufficiently equivalent or aligned. In particular, trade in financial services should be covered by “the principle of mutual recognition and reciprocal regulatory equivalence”.

Another key concern is the EU’s “level playing field” demand. The EU has made it clear that, while it might be willing to consider a “balanced, ambitious and wide-ranging free trade agreement”, this is only “insofar as there are sufficient guarantees for a level playing field”. In particular, the EU wants an agreement to cover “competition and state aid, tax, social, environment and regulatory measures and practices”, preventing the UK from competing “unfairly” against the EU. In other words, the EU does not want the UK to escape from the protectionist “European model”. This is worse than a standard “no compete” clause when a senior employee leaves a company. The EU wants to put the UK on permanent gardening leave. It would effectively prevent the UK from achieving regulatory autonomy or from pursuing an independent trade policy – and needs to be rejected.

The prospects for UK trade and prosperity are very bright post-Brexit

We need to ignore both the Treasury’s scaremongering and attempts by the EU and its supporters in the UK to keep us in the EU in all but name. The EU itself recognises that more than 90 per cent of future global economic growth will take place outside the EU.

The UK’s prospects for trade and prosperity after Brexit will be inversely related to the size of the tariffs on international trade that the UK itself sets. The lower the tariff barriers, the brighter the prospects will be. By leaving both the Single Market with its regulatory excesses and the Customs Union with its high tariffs on imported goods, UK GDP would increase by 6 per cent – in marked contrast to the Treasury’s dire and exaggerated predictions of a 7.7 per cent reduction in GDP. As a comparison, we note that Australia’s trade liberalisation policy – which began in 1986 – increased Australia’s GDP by 5.4 per cent.

-----

Allowing the EU to continue dictating our trade policy would thwart our ambitions to embrace the world

Adam Afriyie has been Conservative MP for Windsor since 2010 and serves as the Prime Minister’s Trade Envoy to Ghana and Guinea. He was formerly London Chairman of Business for Sterling and the ‘No to the Euro’ campaign.

As the Prime Minister’s Trade Envoy to Ghana and Guinea, I have often been asked the same question by Presidents, Trade Ministers, and businesses: “What are the opportunities for us now the UK is leaving the EU?”

Everyone recognises that free-flowing international trade is the best generator of jobs, wealth, health and opportunity known to mankind. With 90% of global economic growth predicted to come from outside the EU by 2050, I would have hoped that the immense opportunities of regaining the power to sign our own trade deals would now be a settled consensus.

So I do worry that some hardened Remainers are finding it hard to even accept the immense opportunities that exists for British businesses to trade with countries outside of the EU. I suspect that it comes down to a bleak, and mistaken, belief that Brexit should only be judged only in terms of its costs, rather than as a balance between cost and opportunity.

The financial geography of the world is undergoing a prolonged and dramatic change, which will see a new world landscape with a few decades from now. The economic transformation that has taken place in Africa and Asia since the 1970s shows no sign of slowing down and the centre of gravity of world trade continues to shift further away from the EU every year.

In 2017 the fastest growing economies were Bhutan, Ethiopia, Ghana, Cote d’Ivoire, and India. Uzbekistan, Myanmar and Tanzania are following close behind. It is crucial that we accept and adapt to these changes by using our new found powers to sign deals, lower tariffs and mutually recognise qualifications with the rapidly growing markets of the future.

So it come as no surprise that even those countries held up as models of a so-called ‘soft’ Brexit have never considered signing away their ability to conduct trade deals. Switzerland, Norway and Iceland are all outside of the Customs Union.

These countries, with their nimble and dynamic economies, have achieved remarkable success. Switzerland and Iceland have already signed free-trade agreements with China: the second largest economy on Earth and likely to surpass the USA in the near future.

And, the USA itself has signed 20 Free Trade Agreements, all with smaller economies than the UK, and has signalled serious interest in signing a similar agreement with the UK as soon as we are free to do so.

In fact, since the EU referendum, dozens of countries have signalled that they are keen to start negotiations with the UK for a free trade deal, including Brazil, South Korea, Japan, China, India, the USA, Australia, New Zealand and Canada.

I am particularly keen to see the UK make the most of our new-found powers to conduct trade negotiations with the rapidly rising economies of Africa.

Just consider for a moment the industries where the UK has a comparative advantage: Financial Technology, Agricultural Technology, the creative industries and financial, professional and legal services to name but a few. These are the kind of industries in which emerging economies are most likely to be demanding high-quality services and expertise.

There are unique opportunities to trade, support and mutually prosper with our friends and allies in Africa, where British goods and services have a reputation for quality and value and our companies have a reputation for dealing honestly and fairly.

It was British steel that laid the foundations for the first railways in Africa; indeed I have a framed picture in my office of the (British-built) first steam train in Ghana, and I very much hope it will be British companies and expertise that lay the foundations for the future railways in Africa.

Regaining control of our ability to negotiate free trade agreements is not a choice: it is at the heart of respecting the referendum result. It is also the key to unlocking the door to a dynamic, outward-facing economy – the cost of locking ourselves into the Customs Union would grow with every year.

Only the naive would deny that leaving the EU Customs Union will require investment and determination to ensure that our ports are able to handle the EU customs checks post-Brexit. But it will be worth the effort and I have no doubt at all that Britain can rise to the challenge.

First, our existing customs system is already rated as being among the most efficient in the world by the World Bank. 98% of containers from outside the EU are cleared within four to five seconds. We start from an extremely good position.

Second, technology is constantly transforming the customs process to make it cheaper and easier to clear goods. Shipments can be electronically cleared ahead of reaching customs, with only 1% to 4% of imports actually being inspected in intelligence-led operations to minimise disruption. Yet taking control of this particular area of policy goes beyond mere efficiency. It is the foundation of building a more open and outward-facing country, trading with the whole world rather than just Europe.

A failure to regain our power to sign free trade agreements would not only be tantamount to locking ourselves out of prosperous world markets, but it would also prevent us from being the outward-looking, internationalist and free-trading country which most of us Vote Leave supporters wanted to see.

-----

27 countries seeking UK Trade Deals



All the countries in which government officials or prominent business figures have declared a desire to secure a post-Brexit trade deal with Britain. Out of the 10 largest economies in the world, just two (France and Italy) have not yet made moves for a deal. Every continent on earth is represented, with 27 countries already signalling their intentions:

Australia
Argentina
Bolivia
Brazil
Canada
Chile
China
Colombia
Ecuador
Germany
Ghana
Iceland
India
Ireland
Japan
Kenya
Korea (Republic of)
Mexico
New Zealand
Pakistan
Paraguay
Peru
Suriname
Switzerland
United States
Uruguay
Venezuela

The total GDP of all of these countries is nearly $50 trillion dollars – 67% of global GDP. In comparison, the EU’s GDP of $16 trillion equates to just 22%. Britain is open for business and Guido will be updating this map over the coming weeks and months.

------

No more Monsieur Nice Guy: it’s time to play Barnier at his own dirty game

Austin Mitchell was Labour MP for Great Grimsby between 1977 and 2015.

The EU is taking its gloves off for the bare knuckle last round. Up to now they’ve had no real need to play the hardman, though they have, nevertheless. Theresa has opted for the nice approach, and accepted their demands: the excessive payments, what they wanted on EU citizens and no customs border with Northern Ireland. The result is that she’s walked into a trap even before the real negotiations begin.

Having got all that, Barnier and his naysayers are moving in for the kill; rejecting Theresa’s plans for a frictionless border in Northern Ireland, announcing that the UK must “accept the consequences of its own actions” (translation: no concessions), a threat to turn us out of Europol and a Galileo project we should never have got into in the first place.

These threats show what’s to come. First threaten us with exclusion. Then announce that they won’t negotiate under threat. Finally say any repayment of our billions paid into their white elephants is “backsliding and unacceptable”.

In other words, all that we’ve paid out for marble palaces in Brussels, bridges to nowhere in Eastern Europe, French farmers, foreign aid fiddles and budget fraud is gone forever. Though we can still be fined billions for missing pollution targets everyone else has also missed.

Don’t ask “who the hell do they think we are to hope we’ll put up with all this”? The EU have formed their impression of a weak nation which can be bullied back, from Britain’s rampant Remainers who think their country is both. Remainers won’t fight for the best possible deal because they prefer the EU to their own country, which entitles them to use every possible trick to undermine our negotiators and collude with the EU.

The aim is, first, to keep us in the Customs Union on the grounds that being an EU colony is better than standing on our own feet, then argue that we might as well go the whole hog, overrule the people and stay in.

The British people might not like the humiliation but the Remainers claim they should have known that the EU would play it nasty. To make that clear they’re boosting Project Fear, predicting ruin and economic collapse as a well-deserved punishment for the stupidity of our people.

Jonah escaped from his more kindly whale by prayer. That isn’t going to work here, leaving only two ways of dealing with the Euro-whale. We could drag things out in the hope that the EU might reform itself along Macron lines by redistributing Germany’s surplus and wealth to the rest. EU evolution is like the Perils of Pauline, so it could save itself, but not until the Ides of Merkel. If ever. There’s no sign that our Remainers want this or will urge it on the EU of their dreams.

So Theresa must tough us out. No payments without a good deal. An immediate stop to all contributions. An early entry to Britain for all agricultural production from developing nations we’ve been forced to exclude. Then trade deals with the old Commonwealth, and threats of high duties on German and French cars, all step by step until we get an acceptable deal.

If the EU is so inflexible and insecure that it turns a negotiation into a punishment beating, claiming that it can’t modify its own “rules” least the whole structure collapses, a proud nation has no alternative but to play Barnier at his own dirty game.

And that is a selection from this weeks newspapers.

Alastair

[Alastair]

Re: Brexit is going to be good for Britain and Scotland

With the current agreement that our PM has negotiated we look to break up the UK with Northern Ireland being treated differently from the rest of the UK. Also the way we are being tied into EU regulations it will be impossible for us to do trade deals with other countries.

The US has reported that if we accept the current offer then they would be unable to do a free trade deal with us AND as this also means our standing in the world would decline we could not offer the US any real support in world affairs.

My whole point in supporting Brexit was so we could do deals with the rest of the world and so the current offering is making us look very weak. Frankly it's humiliating being told what to do by the EU and also means we won't even have a say on any new rules the EU decides to impose on us.

This deal means we will be worse off and frankly our PM is a traitor to the UK. BUT many MP's are also liars as they persuaded us in the last General Election that we would be out of the Single market, out of the Common market and out from under the ECJ.

All of that said if this goes through then all of us are to blame as we voted these MP's in both Conservative and Labour and so we need to ensure they pay the price in the next General Election. I suspect if Labour decided to stick to their pledge to leave the EU as they said in the last General Election they would definitely win.

However for those of us that voted to leave we now have no political party to vote for unless UKIP get moving again. However that would just split the vote for the Conservatives meaning Labour would win.

And I note that even Jacob Reece Mogg has said he'd be prepared to pay the EU 20 billion whereas he was in favour of us just leaving.

Where is the courage and pride in the UK being able to handle a leave without a deal? Frankly all the rhetoric like a no deal would be catastrophic is just project fear again. We need some backbone here but our MP's on the whole simply don't have one.

And it also looks like we'll let down our Fishing industry yet again which is intolerable.

So I say we reject this deal in our next parliamentary vote and we leave with a no deal keeping our hard earned billions to spend in this country for our benefit.

We ignored the Treasury, the Bank of England and the IMF and others when we voted to leave and all the project fear scenarios proved to be total rubbish. So why should we believe them this time?

So come on folks... are you fed up being told what to do? Let's just leave and get on with it. We have everything to gain and really not a lot to lose.

Alastair

[macaverty]

Re: Brexit is going to be good for Britain and Scotland

Now we know most of the facts that were hidden from us at the time of the referendum are you still of the opinion that Brexit will be good for Scotland ?? My personal opinion is that will be as straightforward as a plate of Spaghetti especially with our new PM in place who seems to have found a treasure chest the way he is dishing out the money. !!!! £1.8 billion to the NHS is only enough for a "tart up" to make it even more attractive to Trump and his cronies !!!!

[Alastair]

Re: Brexit is going to be good for Britain and Scotland

I am still convinced that no deal is the way to go. That way we leave the single market and the common market and also get out from under the ECJ. After that we can then decide on what a free trade deal might look like with the EU.

Had we stayed in we would be paying out a lot more money to the EU and being increasingly told what to do even if it is not in the UK's interest.

To me it's all about getting control back and being able to do free trade deals with other parts of the world.

Alastair