Monday, June 20, 2016

Brexit? Further personal analysis

Further personal analysis 20/6/16

I have continued following the debate and seeking to find out more on underlying issues. I haven’t identified anything which would change my analysis, although I have acquired more information. The Remain campaign has particularly focussed on economics, minimising or ignoring the sovereignty issues, which could have far greater impact. Even on economics, all is not as they would have us believe, with financial risks of Remaining often simply ignored. Economists have been presented as if they can predict the future. From their past record, they can’t! .

1.       Sovereignty

#         Ambrose Evans Pritchard (Business Editor of the Daily Telegraph) wrote an interesting article on 13 June entitled “Brexit vote is about the supremacy of Parliament and nothing else: Why I am voting to leave the EU” in which he said

”Stripped of distractions, it comes down to an elemental choice: whether to restore the full self-government of this nation, or to continue living under a higher supranational regime, ruled by a European Council that we do not elect in any meaningful sense, and that the British people can never remove, even when it persists in error.

We are deciding whether to be guided by a Commission with quasi-executive powers that operates more like the priesthood of the 13th Century papacy than a modern civil service; and whether to submit to a European Court of Justice (ECJ) that claims sweeping supremacy, with no right of appeal.

The Project bleeds the lifeblood of the national institutions, but fails to replace them with anything lovable or legitimate at a European level. It draws away charisma, and destroys it. This is how democracies die.”

         Aspects where the EU already holds exclusive or shared competency (i.e nations either cannot legislate or must accept supremacy of all EU edicts) include trade, fisheries, social policy, economic, social and territorial cohesion, agriculture and fisheries, environment, consumer protection, transport, energy, tax, migration, crime, civil liberty, security and justice (per Wikipedia). Not a lot left! But there are further plans under consideration including introducing EU taxes on energy, VAT and banks.

         EU lawmaking is cozy and opaque. Lobbying is endemic with the Guardian in 2014 reporting this to be a multi-billion industry employing over 30,000 lobbyists in Brussels alone, influencing 75% of legislation. Business obviously believes this is more effective for them than democracy. The annual output of thousands of laws and regulations is produced behind closed doors with no transparency or reporting on the process and results in decisions which cannot be amended or appealed by any Government or citizen.

However, there seems to be substantial sympathy for this system from politicians, intelligentsia and experts, possibly considering that they should be the decision makers whilst avoiding scrutiny from the public. Unfortunately the schemes of experts often fail to live up to their expectations and it is ordinary people who suffer as a result.

2.       Risks of remaining in the EU

The substantial risks of remaining may not have been sufficiently recognised. It is human nature to take the freedom and economic status we enjoy for granted. It is not and what we think we have may already be in danger. Britain is particularly at risk as our economy and traditions are not in line with most of Europe. For example, our government and courts are different (more democratic), we are far more international in our trade, far more reliant upon services as part of our national economy (and far more likely to be paying in support to the EU).

         The EU struggles to co-ordinate its response to any emerging issue and constantly does so by greater centralisation and diminishing the role of states.

         Rich Eurozone members have ‘walked by’ on the other side whilst economies of southern Europe have been wrecked by misguided EU policies. (The ongoing 40-50% youth unemployment in countries such as Greece, Italy and Spain is a disgrace and a disaster.) European banks and countries are expected to struggle to pay debts and Britain will not be able to avoid fallout when obligations cannot be met.

         EU budget spending is spiralling, with a €20bn budget deficit currently and more to come. Member states cannot paying these costs.

         The migrant crisis is growing and however sympathetic one is to the situation, it has the potential for massive costs and social impact on the EU. In France the army is reported to be already fully deployed in protecting Jewish and other targets against potential terror attacks.

         Uncontrolled migration of European passport holders has a cost for the UK. Even if beneficial for business, this impacts employment housing and services for ordinary people. Given that there is no mechanism of control this could have unforeseeable future consequences.

         Accession of Turkey would be a costly enterprise and given the increasingly repressive and Islamist nature of the Turkish government such aspects of the project are fraught with danger.

         The burden of regulation and tariffs on imports from outside the union consistently decreases efficiency and increases costs for the consumer.

3.       Christian

         Christian groups such as Prophecy Today and Intercessors for Britain have a focus in the hand of God upon nations and from this perspective are in favour of leaving, having consideration for aspects such as sovereignty, the secular nature of the EU project and its growing antipathy to Israel.

# If you believe in the gift of prophecy it is worth considering these excerpts from a prophecy published on the web from David Noakes last December

"Rather than rely on Me and my faithfulness to you, you chose, for worldly purposes, to join yourself to an institution which has denied my Name and refused to acknowledge Me in its councils. My fierce anger is upon that institution on account of its rebellion, its defiant rejection of me and its hardness of heart towards my ancient people Israel.

I warn you now that the European institution will not repent, even though I bring disaster and destruction upon it. I urge you, O Britain still beloved by Me for the sake of your godly forefathers, come out of her, so that you may not be caught up in that same destruction, for I am even now arising in judgment to bring to nothing what she has sought to achieve. If you will separate yourself from her declared rejection of God, I will have mercy upon you and restore my hand of protection; and I will use you once again to bring light to many lost in the darkness which is now steadily increasing.


Hear Me, O once godly nation and respond to my call, or you also will come to ruin in that same judgment of destruction. This is not my will for you, but you must choose the course which you will take. I urge you to respond to Me and choose life under my hand of discipline and protection, rather than death in the disaster which is even now coming upon Europe."

         Since the Magna Carta power has been constrained in the UK and the principles of “no taxation without representation” and checks and balances on exercise of authority have been enjoyed. In the Civil War Cromwell and his model army were primarily non-conformists and sought to establish a system of Government where the people had a strong influence on government and legislation (which we enjoy to this day, with increasing numbers progressively enfranchised). The Christina aspect of this approach is emphasised in the ‘Coronation Oath’ which the monarch takes promising to govern in line with God’s laws. The EU does not begin to acknowledge such principles and was, in fact, designed to bypass the power of electorates (considering that they could not be trusted). Whilst it may be currently be benign, since power is divorced from representation, it is gaining the power to govern as a supra-national dictatorship.

4.       Financial

Warnings from David Cameron and George Osborne have become progressively more strident to the point that fellow Remainers Jeremy Corbyn and Nicola Sturgeon have publically warned them against their exaggeration. Former Tory Chancellors (Nigel Lawson and Norman Lamont) and the former Governor of the Bank of England Mervyn King take a different view and back leaving.

         Lord Rose (Chairman of Remain) told The Times that ‘“Nothing is going to happen if we come out of Europe in the first five years, probably. There will be absolutely no change’.

         Neil Woodford has confirmed that he is standing by his analysis (which I quoted previously) and that in the scale of economic threats, Brexit is not unduly significant and that ultimately he doesn’t expect a material impact one way or the other.

         Michael Geoghegan, former Head of HSBC, wrote in the Telegraph on Saturday ‘Leave: It is absurd to suggest Britain cannot thrive outside the EU' in which he dismisses the alleged benefits of remaining and instead emphases the risks, stating 

“Remaining inside is very worrying for British competitiveness, jobs and prosperity. The financial system, on which everyone in Britain and all its businesses depend, is probably the most vulnerable part of the economy.

Clearly, the headline costs to the taxpayer are going to increase. Brussels is running out of money and that is likely to mean a substantial rise in the UK’s £10bn net contribution.”

Other risks he identifies include costs to support potential Greek debt costs, bank rescues, , underwriting of Eurozone  costs and financial tax transaction costs of £4bn for UK pensioners and savers.

         Norman Lamont recently published an interesting article entitled “Not only can Britain leave the EU and have access to the single market, we'd actually get a better deal” Extracts follow:
“The impression given is that the EU single market is a walled garden and that we and the other members have some special silver key that gives us privileged access to its delights that others cannot access.

But this is wrong. Every developed country has access to the single market. The EU has a relatively low external tariff with the exception of certain goods such as agriculture. The inconvenient truth is that non-members of the EU have often exploited the single market far more successfully than we have.

The importance of trade deals can be exaggerated. Countries primarily succeed with or without trade deals if they produce goods of high quality and services that other countries want to purchase. In the modern world, tariffs between developed countries are low and are small compared with movements in exchange rates. The flawed myth of the single market is that is that it is seriously advantageous to its members. The paradox is that non-members have managed to benefit from it more than members.

There may be arguments for remaining in the EU but they do not revolve around the single market. On trade we have nothing to fear but fear itself. Which is exactly what the Remain campaign has been attempting to stir up.”

An analysis has been issued showing that if we were to export to Europe without any agreement, we could still be better off, in that the minimal tariffs under WTO rules would be less than the membership contributions we currently pay.


Personally I would expect some initial uncertainty if Britain votes to leave, although ultimately there could be significant upsides economically if we can avoid some of the current senseless regulation and put good policies in place (for example removing the tariffs the EU currently requires us to impose, agreeing international deals which the EU has failed to progress over the past 30 years and a introducing an intelligent migration policy). 

Saturday, April 30, 2016

Brexit - a personal analysis


Sovereignty & democracy

Britain fought a civil war and more recent world wars to establish and maintain democratic principles with elected and accountable representatives, national sovereignty and national laws.

In contrast to the system we enjoy in Britain, the EU’s process of government is opaque, complex and cumbersome with minimal accountability and the objective of ‘ever closer union’ with centralised supra-national regulation for all members.

In respect of the UK’s sovereignty and government I see the referendum as the most important vote in a generation.

I am strongly in favour of international co-operation and free trade, having worked worldwide myself.  However, co-operation does not require creation of a super-state and unfortunately the EU often appears to fail in these respects, with bumbling decision making and focusing inwardly with protectionist policies and a ‘fortress Europe’ mentality. The expensive common agriculture policy is an example having raised prices for consumers in Europe whilst excluding products and disadvantaging poor farmers elsewhere.

I see the principle of how we are governed, involving elected representatives whom we can hold to account, as fundamental.

EU laws and regulations take precedent over English laws and we have reached the stage where they comprise possibly the majority of new UK legislation. Apart from direct regulation, the EU also controls what can be decided by our Parliament. A matter as simple as reduction of VAT on sanitary products cannot be decided without special appeal to the EU (VAT is regulated by the EU which generally has a minimum rate of 15% and would like to do away with the UK zero rate). The EU process is complex and technocratic rather than democratic. (Has the EU ever proposed a referendum on key treaty changes?) 

Laws and regulations are prepared by the European Commission, which consists of unelected bureaucrats from the member states. The elected European Parliament does not prepare any laws itself and the highest power is held by the Council of Ministers, which is not directly elected, but involves various groupings of ministers from the EU states. So when we vote for MEPs there is very little they can do to affect the workings of the EU.

Within the EU we cannot control who comes into the country. I am in favour of providing asylum and of migration between states, but believe that immigration should be under national control and a key element of national sovereignty. Within the EU we are currently in the position where we cannot control migration from the EU whilst turning away valuable visitors from elsewhere.

2.    Financial considerations

Whilst I see the democratic principles as the key issue, both sides have promoted misleading claims regarding economic issues. 

'Project fear', spearheaded by David Cameron, George Osborne and the Remain group has issued misleading statements and propaganda at taxpayers’ expense.  The alleged "£4,300 cost per household" made a good headline, but was actually a projection of rather lower growth by 2030 and not an actual cost at all. In fact the difference is well within the margin of error on economic forecasts, so ultimately meaningless. (The analysis was roundly criticised by Nigel Lawson, former Chancellor of the Exchequer and Mervyn King, the previous Governor of the Bank of England, amongst others.)

This analysis did not mention the costs associated with continuing EU membership, including:
  •        The prior Treasury estimate of up to 7% loss due to EU tariffs quotas and restrictions (so avoiding these costs could result in a £4,639 gain per household)!
  • ·       The fact that as one of the strongest economic members of the EU the UK has potential liabilities for European funding mechanisms and banks such as the European Investment Bank estimated to be around €150bn. (By coincidence also a cost of £4,600 per household cost by remaining – although hopefully the liability would not arise in full!)

Meanwhile the Leave campaign has focused on “taking back the £350m sent to Brussels every week” and being better off. As this is not the net contribution this is simplistic, although arguably more related to actual figures than George Osborne’s estimate of the 2030 household position. (Britain is the 2nd greatest net contributor, and would be the greatest but for the rebate, and a net importer of EU goods.)

One of the best financial assessments I have seen has been commissioned from Capital Economics by Neil Woodford, the legendary fund manager. This concludes that leaving would have minimal economic impact but could be beneficial (an extract is shown below). If there were a leave vote, the ultimate economic outcomes would be a reflection of the policies and decisions of the UK government and as such far more under our democratic influence than remaining and relying upon Brussels.

The current EU (even before potential accession of new states) is over-regulated, relatively deficient in external trade, economically sluggish, suffers from structural euro debt issues and appears unable to decisively address key issues ranging from Greek debt to the migrant crisis.

As the world’s 5th largest economy Britain has influence and potentially more so outside rather than inside the EU.

Quote from Capital Economics, The Impact of Brexit 2016

“Although the impact of Brexit on the British economy is uncertain, we doubt that Britain’s long-term economic outlook hinges on it. Things have changed a lot since 1973, when joining the European Economic Community was a big deal for the United Kingdom. There are arguably much more important issues now, such as whether productivity will recover. The shortfall in British productivity relative to its pre-crisis trend is still over 10%, so regaining that lost ground would offset even the most negative of estimates of Brexit on the economy. Based on assessing the evidence, we conclude that:
– The more extreme claims made about the costs and benefits of Brexit for the British economy are wide of the mark and lacking in evidential bases
– It is plausible that Brexit could have a modest negative impact on growth and job creation. But it is slightly more plausible that the net impacts will be modestly positive. This is a strong conclusion when compared with some studies
– There are potential net benefits in the areas of a more tailored immigration policy, the freedom to make trade deals, moderately lower levels of regulation and savings to the public purse. In each of these areas, we do not believe that the benefits of Brexit would be huge, but they are likely to be positive
– Meanwhile, costs in terms of financial services, foreign direct investment and impacts on London property markets are more likely to be short-term and there are longer-term opportunities from Brexit even in these areas
– It is not likely that any particular region or regions of the country would be more adversely affected by Brexit than the country overall. Likewise, we do find support for the notion that Brexit would benefit some sectors more than others, but the range of outcomes for production / manufacturing industries is probably wider than for services


We continue to think that the United Kingdom’s economic prospects are good whether inside or outside the European Union. Britain has pulled ahead of the European Union in recent years, and we expect that gap to widen over the next few years regardless of whether Brexit occurs.”

(Post by Simon)

Tuesday, August 16, 2011

Last weeks in the Falklands




Our July ramble was on a snowy day and we walked from near Mount Harriet down to the coast.

In a small river valley we came to this cave which apparently used to be a popular picnic destination for a day out on foot or horseback from Stanley.

It wasn't quite up to Cheddar or Wookey Hole!

This was the view down the valley towards the coast.

We then had a bit of a scramble. This is Greta and Ross.


Although it was a calm day there were some big waves when we reached the coast as it had been windy the day before.

2 rock shags and an inperial shag on the cliffs.

An imperial shag.

These strange white birds are pale-faced sheathbills. They don't breed here and you see more during the winter than the summer. They nare usually scavenging around other bird or seal colonies.

3 weeks ago we had our last Falklands weekend away. We went with a friend, Greta, to a very comfortable self-catering bungalow on Race Point farm at Port San Carlos. The weather had been very wet so the road was very muddy and rutted.

The Saturday was lovely and sunny and we spent the whole day exploring. Simon enjoyed some very challenging off-road driving and we saw lots of gentoo penguins.

These ones were just heading down to the sea at Rookery Sands.

These had just come out of the sea having been off fishing and we enjoyed watching them porpoising out of the water on their way in.

The farmer's 7 year old daughter riding her quad bike with one of their dogs on the back. This is her 3rd quad bike and it said on it not suitable for under 14s! She seemed very competant and also has 2 ponies. A very different lifestyle to most children in UK.

We were sure we had seen our last Falklands penguins BUT the following weekend whilst walking on the snowy beach at Surf Bay I found this young king. He looked as if a seal had tried to bite him and so he had come ashore for a rest and preen.

Last Sunday we had our last ramble quite near to Stanley. We walked along Wireless Ridge and then down to the Murrell River.


This is where we stopped by the river for elevenses
Following on beside the river.

Looking down the river from our lunch spot.

This causeway was built to take the road over the river to one farm. Before it was built the track forded the river a couple of miles upstream.


I spotted this bead plant (named for its shiny, bright berries) amongst the grass and diddle-dee when we were walking.

Yesterday morning we had a bit of snow and a hard frost last night but this afternoon the sun was warm and it felt quite spring like. There are even a few crocuses coming into flower in the garden.


This pair of ruddy headed geese were enjoying grazing on our back lawn.


They were then joined by these upland geese.

Well it is likely to be a long time until I blog again. I will one day try to post more pictures of the amazing wildlife we have seen and places we have visited here.

We are due to fly from here to Southern Argentina on Saturday. We have a flight booked from Lima to UK on October 26th. In between we hope to do some skiing and visit all sorts of places and take some very long bus journeys. We hope to check our emails from time to time.

Saturday, July 30, 2011

Torres del Paine 1


I started to upload some photos of our trip to Torres del Paine in Chile in March a couple of weeks ago but never finished or wrote about them. We are now in a chaos of boxes and packing and leave the Falklands on Saturday. Our phone and internet will be cut off tomorrow so no time to write much about them.

We caught a bus up to the park and spent the first afternoon walking about 12km towards the mountains. This is beside the Rio Grey


These are some of the views of the mountains we had that first afternoon. On subsequent days we climbed up valleys into the heart of the mountains below some of the peaks.

This is Lake Pehoe which we camped beside the first night.


Our campsite was behind this refugio.


The next day we walked round the edge of the steep mountains until we reached this valley (Valley Francais) which we then climbed up.


As we ascended we had some excellent views of these peaks - Los Cuernos or the Horns.

We set up camp at this small site that does not have any facilities except a river. It was originally established by some British climbers. Then we walked on up the valley to a viewpoint just below Los Cuernos.There were some dramatic views in the evening sunshine.
During the night we had snow and rainn so everything was quite muddy when we packed up after another trip to the viewpoint in the morning.

This is a kind of fungus which grows on some of the trees. It causes the big swelling in the trunk and the white fruiting bodies are edible and called Indian bread but I don't think they have much flavour.

As we were walking back down the valley the next day we suddenly heard this incredibly loud roaring sound and turned to see the whole valley filled with a wall of snow which was coming towards us at an incredible speed. We were on a particularly exposed part of the path so scrambled up a bit and threw ourselves to the ground. Simon managed to get behind a small rock and I grabbed hold of a couple of diddle-dee plants. It was very frightening as the wall of snow hit us accompanied by by a very strong wind which nearly dragged us along and we thought we might be about to be killed. However we survived just battered and quite shaken.

This photo of Simon was taken some time after the avalanche when we were trying to get the snow out that had been driven inside our clothes.

About 15 minutes later snow was still pouring down the mountainside onto a small glacier below.

This view of the other side of the Cuernos was taken as we walked further round the mountain.

I felt exhausted by the time we reached our next camp.

The fourth day we continued along the southern side of the mountains and saw these fire bushes.
We then had another long climb up Valley Ascension towards the Torres or towers. Having set up camp in another wooded and muddy sight we decided to walk on up for another hour, climbing steeply to the viewpoint just below the Torres.


It was as well that we went up in the evening although it is considered best to be there for sunrise when they are lit up by the rising sun. It was very wet during the night but we did get up in the dark and return to the viewpoint by torchlight (I got lost once on the way up!).

Sunrise was obscued by a blizzard!
We then packed up and descended the valley. Some tourists take the easy way up so far before walking. The horses wait until they return.

The tourists have conventional saddles but the guide has a traditional gaucho saddle which are still used here in the Falklands.

We had a long days walk that day after our pre-dawn start but sneaked into a campsite we passedaat lunchtime for a very welcome hot shower before starting off around the eastern side of the mountains.


As it was nearing the end of the season some of the refugios and the facilities at some of the camp sites were closed for the winter however there was a very pleasant grassy field to camp in.

The next day we walked beside this river for a while on our way to camp Dickson which was very nice and friendly.

The highlight for me was that the warden sold loaves of freshly baked bread which was a delicious treat after the stale rolls I had been carrying since the beginning of our walk.

This is Lago (Lake) Dickson which we camped beside. This picture was taken the next day as we started climbing again. There is a glacier flowing into the far end of the lake.


We continued to climb steadily through forests of lengua (beech, but not like English beeches).

For a while we were near this river and waterfall.

Many of the smaller trees have lots of these parasitic plants growing on them rather like mistletoe.

Others had these strange galls.

Well that is the first half of our walk. It may be a long time until the second instalment gets posted!