"Theresa May wins Spain’s support over early deal for rights of expat Brits in Europe"

The title of this article, in quotations, is taken from an article published in the Daily Express newspaper yesterday evening - you can read it here.

I've no idea whether this Daily Express article is authoritative or speculative - it would be helpful to see a similar message in other parts of the mainstream media, not to mention direct quotes from both Mrs May for the UK and Sr Rajoy for Spain in particular, although the article does contain a number of direct statements attributed to a spokesman for Mrs May:

Comments directly attributed to a spokesman for Mrs Theresa May, British Prime Minister: "They both agreed it was an area it would be good to get agreement early on in the negotiations. "He said we need to get an agreement on reciprocal rights. "We are firmly of the opinion that we want this issue that is resolved early. There is some broad agreement across member states but not all of them. "They both agreed it would be an area it would be good to get an early agreement on."

On this basis, these are my remarks on what may have been achieved, but what obviously still requires to be formalised:

This sounds hopeful but I'd be cautious about over-optimism until formal agreement is reached - both the UK and Spain have an interest in resolving this issue quickly, but if Germany and some others remain intransigent, it may not happen so smoothly as this implies - my view is and has always been that the rights of existing EU27 residents in the UK must be protected; it is not the British government that is holding cross-border EU residents to ransom, despite attempts in some parts of the British media to paint this picture, it is countries like Germany.

There should be no illusions about this - Brussels regards Britons in the rest of the EU and residents in the UK from the rest of the EU as bargaining chips in their plans to make the UK's exit (aka 'escape') from the clutches of the EU as painful as possible - the Eurozone is in such a mess that Brussels will go to almost any lengths to keep its banks afloat (notably Deutsche and certain of the French banks, which are heavily exposed in places like Spain, Italy and of course Greece, etc).

Personally I have few qualms about Merkel's 'crazy' immigration policy, because luckily the UK is not a member of the Schengen area, something which is only possible because the UK happens to be comprised of islands off the mainland of Europe (Ireland is also outside of the the Schengen area, it being a practical solution because of its long-standing relations with the UK, but is really for Ireland's convenience, especially given the open border between Ireland and Northern Ireland dating back to, from memory, 1923 - long before either country joined the EEC (now EU).

It is no accident that thousands of prospective immigrants surged through Schengen in to Germany, Finland, amongst other destinations, and to Calais (hoping to smuggle themselves into the UK, until the French government at last took the situation in hand and dispersed them around the country). It is possible that a proportion of the large number of 'immigrants' referred to are genuine 'asylum seekers' to whom refuge must be granted, but it seems to be generally agreed that these represent at most 50% of the total numbers and perhaps considerably less. Although the rules for claiming 'asylum' are that a claim must be lodged in the first 'country of sanctuary' (often Greece or Italy within the EU, but also countries such as Turkey and Lebanon), it has always seemed to me only fair that all EU members should share the burden, certainly financially if not always physically - it is striking that the UK contributes more than the rest of the EU combined to this effort and is second only to the US in this financial assistance. Those 'first sanctuary' countries, all of them, have in my view tried their best to accommodate as many genuine refugees as they can, given their own high levels of unemployment and the fact that their economies are generally much less robust than some of the countries further north in the EU (Austria, Germany, Holland, Finland and of course the UK) and from what I can gather the two of them in the EU (Greece and Italy) had been pleading for help from the rest of the EU, both financial and practical, for some years, but had largely been ignored and left to get on with it as best they could, until the surge of numbers in the summer of 2015 shamed the EU and in particular Germany to accept as many as could travel there - the open Schengen border then (since restricted somewhat in practical terms) made transit across the continent fairly easy, if chaotic - but the drawback was that the huge numbers meant that any real effort to distinguish between 'immigrants' ('economic' or other) and genuine 'asylum seekers' became almost impossible, not aided by the fact that many discarded whatever ID they may have had, or obtained forged documentation from what were considered to be more acceptable 'asylum' countries, such as Syria or Iraq and a few others such as Sudan or South Sudan etc, when many of those concerned probably came from completely different countries, whilch although poor were not in a state of political turmoil requiring 'asylum'. This article is NOT about immigration or asylum, however, but it is impossible not to mention this topic when discussing wider matters relating to EU membership and the rights and responsibilities that status implies.

The UK will always need "immigrants" and generally welcomes them, as we have a robust economy and relatively low unemployment. We also have a long history of accepting refugees in need of asylum and I hope this will continue long into the future, quite apart from our international obligations in this regard. It seems to me that although relatively few genuine asylum seekers arrive direct in the UK from the countries they are fleeing from, even if through equally dangerous countries, that we have to play our part in helping, at the very least financially, those countries where genuine asylum seekers are likely arrive first in Europe. It is certainly unfair to leave it all to Italy and Greece within the EU, or Turkey, Jordan and Lebanon, which already have accommodated large numbers of refugees - and are not wealthy countries themselves - simply because geography places them in the path of these genuine refugees.

Coming back to the main topic of this article, however, I do hope the governments of the EU27 overall (and not just Spain, obviously one of the more important member states) will come to their senses and agree quickly measures to protect both EU27 citizens in the UK and UK citizens in the EU27 - the UK government and now apparently Spain want to get this matter resolved quickly. Let's hope sense will prevail in Brussels (& Germany) so that this agreement can de done quickly. Although I didn't agree with 'remainer' Theresa May's seeming intransigence, I have come to the conclusion her robust, but fair, attitude has been the better course to follow and will in due course stand the best chance of allowing this matter to be resolved in a common sense way. But it needs reciprocal good will from the EU27 too - given that, I do not think the UK will be found wanting. But we have taken the decision to depart the EU and the stamping of feet in frustration and anger by anyone is highly unlikely to change this and given the British nature is only likely to harden attitudes here, which frankly is the last thing I wish to see happen.

(NB/ This article is also cross-posted to my "Spanish" blog casabill - the blog [link] - see also link to relevant article).

Recent developments in 'Brexit' - the planned departure of the UK from the EU

Apart from the 'minor event' [irony alert] across the Atlantic today, with the inauguration of a new President (the 45th, President Trump) in the United States of America, there have been some major developments here too, in relation to the United Kingdom (UK) and its forthcoming exit from the European Union (EU), in the past few months. In October 2016 the Prime Minister Mrs May announced that she would 'trigger' Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty no later than 31st March 2017 - you can read more about this here. Much more recently, on 17th January 2017 she delivered a major speech in which she set out 12 key areas in her plans for implementing our departure, one of which specially pleases me, that we will no longer be a part of the 'Single Market' (aka the 'protectionist cartel' of the EU) - you can read more about this here and here.

The 12 key areas referred to above include:
- 1. Certainty;
- 2. Control of our own laws;
- 3. Strengthen the union (referring to the four nations which together comprise the UK);
- 4. Maintain the Common Travel Area with Ireland;
- 5. Control of immigration;
- 6. Rights for EU nationals in Britain, and British nationals in the EU;
- 7. Protect workers' rights;
- 8. Free trade with European markets;
- 9. New trade agreements with other countries;
- 10. The best place for science and innovation;
- 11. Co-operation in the fight against crime and terrorism;
- 12. A smooth, orderly Brexit.).

Naturally there has been considerable reaction to her speeches, not only within the UK itself (and of course from our 'illustrious' [another irony alert] First Minister in Scotland), but perhaps more relevantly from some leading figures within the EU itself; I don't plan to detail that here, except to observe that most of the 'spluttering' responses from EU functionaries and leaders from other countries has been uniformly negative and frankly intransigent. Perhaps not entirely unexpected, but given the shambles which the EU has got itself into, with its badly thought out policies, is still somewhat remarkable, when subjected to critical analysis. Specially of course the Eurozone of the 'single currency', the Euro, but the general protectionist reality of what is purported to be a 'free market' (aka the 'single market'), but of course is nothing of the kind - it is basically a protectionist cartel, specially in anything relating to food, for the benefit of a few members, but certainly not of the UK.

The high unemployment levels, in particular amongst younger citizens, in certain member-states of the EU, mainly amongst southern countries, appears not to concern the Brussels bureaucracy or the leaders of the few Eurozone member countries which benefit directly from the monetary union represented by the Euro. I find this particularly reprehensible. This is indeed probably the major reason that changed me from being a fervent Europhile to someone convinced we as a country had to get oursleves out of this bizarre mess, which is anything but 'democratic'.

Further thoughts on the EU, "Brexit" and related matters

As we are now at the beginning of September, and the end of the main summer holiday period when many politicians, civil servants and citizens generally will have been on holiday, it is I think now appropriate to write the kind of article I am now writing. As has often been the case in earlier years the month of August has, apart from being an hiatus in 'business as usual' for politics, also been a time when eccentric stories become newsworthy for broadcasters searching for things to write about during the dog days of summer.

For most, probably all, of my adult life I have been strongly supportive of the EEC (later the EU) and of the UK joining it and remaining a part of it. Personal circumstances meant I was not able to vote in the 1975 referendum, two years after the UK joined the EEC, to decide whether the country should remain or leave - I lived then in a place called Djibouti (wedged between Ethiopia/Eritrea and Somalia) in the north-east of Africa, and at that time people living outside the UK could not vote in UK elections, except in very special circumstances. But had I been in a position to vote, I would certainly have voted to remain in the EEC.

Broadly speaking, with perhaps just a few qualms, I supported most of what was done later, where it affected the UK. The Schengen Treaty (from 1985 to 1995 until 1997 when it was incorporated into EU law by the Amsterdam Treaty), did not and does not affect the UK, or as it so happens Ireland (that last bit is really irrelevant to me, of course, because even though it might otherwise affect Northern Ireland, there has been a common travel area between the UK and Ireland for a long time, unaffected by the independence of Ireland from the UK). The fact that the UK is an island nation meant, in my view, that it was practical, if not in the view of some I suppose entirely desirable, not to adopt Schengen. I doubt if it would have been easily do-able if we had land borders other than with Ireland. It is probably no accident either that our decision to remain outside Schengen coincided with plans to build the Channel Tunnel link between the UK and France (constructed between 1988 and 1994) - the value of that decision has perhaps only become more sharply defined by the events of very recent years.

The Single European Act, whose main purpose was to enhance 'free trade', ultimately came into force in 1987, having been delayed in its implementation by actions in Denmark, Greece, Italy and Ireland. Interestingly, it is probably the only piece of EU legislation largely championed from inception to conclusion by the UK. Because the UK has, for decades and indeed centuries, been all about 'free trade'. It did extend QMV ('Qualified Majority Voting') though, as part of the price paid [by the UK] for certain other countries (basically France and a few others) to allow this legislation to pass. The subsequent Treates (Maastricht, Amsterdam and Nice), whilst ratcheting the EU's control a little tighter with each step, seemed to me 'acceptable' in the greater scheme of things.

What really began to make me rethink my view of the fundamental wisdom of the UK being a member of the EU were the referendums on the now-defunct European Constitution held in 2005 in both the Netherlands and France, in which both rejected its proposals (others had already had referendums to ratify it), which effectively halted that particular process, and specifically what followed a few years later; the UK government had earlier promised a referendum, but the rejections by others made that pointless. Having read the draft European Constitution in great detail myself, in anticipation of a referendum being held in the UK, I too would have voted against it had I had the opportunity.

What followed a few years later was the Lisbon Treaty, effectively the European Constitution rewritten, pushed through in spite of being initially rejected in a referendum in Ireland in 2007, later shoved through in that country in 2009 in the face of the economic crisis facing that country after the 'crash' of 2007/2008; but let's face it, no one really cares what Ireland thinks (certainly not most of the other members of the EU, other than the UK), so they were 'prevailed upon' to allow it to pass. The reality is that the UK independently bailed out Ireland during this crucial period, not because of any undue sentimentality (that is not the British way), but simply in a recognition of the historic intertwining links between the British and much smaller Irish economies, although perhaps influenced also by the social and familial links between the two countries. The harsh reality, though, is that without UK support, Ireland would have been 'sunk', as otherwise Ireland would have been consigned to the same 'hell'/purgatory currently occupied by Greece. As for the semi-clandestine ratification by the UK of that Treaty by our then Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, I would prefer to remain silent; the level of contempt I have for that man is infinite and only a modicum of concern about the libel laws of this country will restrain me from writing what I really think about that excuse for a man; as I am also Scottish (and 1/4 quarter Irish as it so happens, with reference to earlier comments) I don't think accusations of 'racism' apply, although I am quite happy to acknowledge that it is my firm belief that the "socialism" that Gordon Brown and those who think like him profess to believe in, is one of the greatest evils that existed when I was born and unfortunately continues, luckily in much reduced form, to this day, I have grown weary of glossing over this basic reality in recent years, so this is the first time, apart from brief allusions to it in Twitter from time to time, that I have really 'let rip' on this issue. Unfortunately there is not a great deal to choose between the destructive effects of the "socialism" offered by Labour ('new', and the 'old' back-to-the-future kind which current leader Corbyn represents) and that offered by the SNP.

On Friday 2nd September our sad excuse for a First Minister in Scotland, Ms Nicola Sturgeon, gave up on her 'day job' of actually running Scotland in accordance with the Scotland Act (as amended), in favour of a pointless resurrection of the obsessive and obsessed SNP policy of wanting to rip Scotland out of the UK, despite very recent opinion polls demonstrating that the people of Scotland, apart from adherents of the 'SNP cult' which Ms Sturgeon leads, have little or no desire for this to happen, and far less desire for the holding of another referendum to try and change the result of the referendum held on the matter as recently as September 2014.

Despite the febrile predictions of those who campaigned vociferously for the UK to remain a member of the EU, the economy continues to be robust and the exchange rate of our currency, the Pound, although somewhat lower than before the EU Referendum (but arguably now at a more sensible level to meet both the needs of exporters and holidaymakers requiring to purchase a foregin currency to help fund their annual vacation abroad), has certainly never been in danger of 'collapse' and indeed in recent weeks has been strengthening somewhat from its low point after the EU Referendum - fine, so long as it does not become too strong and begin to adversely affect exports. As with everything else in life, the level at which the exchange rate hovers is a balance of complex and sometimes conflicting interests.

Now that summer is almost over, and more or less normal business has resumed, one imagines (and hopes) that the government will begin seriously to put in place the process of the UK leaving the EU. I am not one of those people that wants precipitate action, but I do want to see some concrete moves in this direction fairly soon, to give voice to the results of the referendum in June. The attempt in the past few days at a tax grab by the European Commission (EC), against the wishes of EU member state Ireland for whose benefit the EC purports to be acting, is just the latest example of the malign anti-competitive instincts of some EU member states and the bureaucrats of the EC and only reinforces the need for us in the UK to get out of the economic and political dead-end that the EU represents.

Why it became necessary for the UK to vote to leave the EU

An article in this week's Spectator magazine has crystalised many of my reasons for voting as I did in our referendum on EU membership held on 23rd June last.

Dan Hannan (still an MEP), for a former committed "Europhile" such as me, brilliantly nails the lies and deceptions at the heart of the so-called "EU project". I voted Leave on 23rd June and have become more certain since then that it was the correct choice. For me this has got NOTHING to do with 'immigration', despite those who voted Remain presumptuously telling everyone who voted Leave that this was the reason we voted the way we did. Frankly I think this illustrates perfectly the sad beggar-thy-neighbour mindset of many (if I hope not most) Remain voters.

Sovereignty is not some esoteric concept, it is the basic choice as to how we make our laws and who is competent to adjudicate on them.

What really changed my mind about the "virtues" of the EU (which are many) is the callous way it has treated Greece, in the name of "EU solidarity"; Greece is not entirely innocent of course, it is not as straightforward as that, but what its treatment does illustrate is that a supranational body, the EU, is prepared to ride roughshod over the democratically elected government of a small and relatively "unimportant" member state, not for any noble reason, but simply to protect the financial institutions of its most powerful member state, Germany. To be frank, it is a moral outrage. I am equally disgusted by the petty arguments of some of my former "friends" who think the GBP exchange rate is sufficient reason to sell the soul of our country, the UK. I loathe almost everything Gordon Brown ever did as Chancellor and Prime Minister, but the one good thing he ever did was to make it impossible for the then Prime Minister, Tony Blair, to take the UK into the cesspit of the poorly-designed Euro, a continuing shambles, which tries to align the economies of vastly different countries, without the real and necessary mechanisms which make a 'currency union' successful, for example those which allow the US to have a common currency across 50 diverse economies, or the UK to have a similar common currency across its four component parts (and the separate regions of those four component parts).

Those mechanisms involve not just "benefits", but "obligations", which means sticking to certain basic rules - which means that countries within the Eurozone which flout the laid-down budgetary deficit rules regularly, rather than exceptionally, need to understand they cannot continue along this path if the currency union is to have any meaning and achieve longevity. This is however merely a symptom of the malaise at the heart of the EU. It seems that certain larger member states think they can flout fiscal and other rules, simply because they are large and economically significant, or powerful politically, whereas smaller states must be punished severely if they step out of line. This is not "democracy". The UK is undoubtedly a "more significant" country economically and politically, along with 3-5 other EU member states, but above all we are a democracy, and have been for quite a long time, and we think we believe in that old-fashioned concept called "fair play", not just "might is right". If I believed that true "reform" of the EU was possible I would have been amongst the first to have argued that the UK should remain a member, but empirical evidence over many years has demonstrated that this is not possible. We can and must leave the EU, and that is what we voted for on 23rd June, to ensure our democratic future as a free and successful economy, not as a vassal member state of the increasingly undemocratic entity that the EU has developed into. Other EU member states, including some if not all of the more powerful ones, have stated repeatedly that they wanted the UK to remain a member of the EU, but have consistently shown that they are unwilling to, or incapable of, making the "reforms" necessary for a true democracy such as the UK to remain. 23rd June 2016 was "crunch time" and the bluffs with which the EU has endeavoured to fob us off for many years have lost their power that day. Personally I very much regret that this decision has been made necessary. I believe that a brighter future for the UK is possible outside what has become the straightjacket of the EU. I wish the EU a bright and successful future too, of course, but am much less sanguine about that.

EU Referendum results - the UK votes to leave the EU

Somewhat surprisingly, the EU Referendum in the UK yesterday, 23rd June 2016, has resulted in a narrow but decisive vote to 'Leave'. Although this is the result I favoured, so am pleased, it has still somewhat surprised me. In due course, quite possibly after a change in leadership of the Conservative Party, as the Prime Minister David Cameron announced this morning that he plans to step down as Leader and therefore as Prime Minister in the expectation that a new Conservative Party leader will be in place for the Autumn Conservative Party conference, to be held this year between 2-5 October in Birmingham, the country's departure from the EU will formally be triggered under Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty, which generally provides for a 2-year period for negotiations by a country wishing to leave, although this period may be extended by mutual agreement.

Full details of the results are available via the BBC EU Referendum microsite here - as mentioned above, the overall result was quite narrow (Leave - 51.9%; Remain - 48.1%) on a turnout of 72.2%.

Within the UK as a whole, the following regional results were declared:

England and Wales both voted to 'Leave':
- England (Leave - 53.4%; Remain - 46.6%; Turnout - 73%)
- Wales (Leave - 52.5%; Remain - 47.5%; Turnout - 71.7%)

Scotland and Northern Ireland both voted to 'Remain':
- Scotland (Leave - 38%; Remain - 62%; Turnout - 67.2%)
- Northern Ireland (Leave - 44.2%; Remain - 55.8%; Turnout - 62.9%)

The only other matter of particular interest is that within England, much of London voted to 'Remain', along with Scotland and Northern Ireland this was insufficient to outweigh the 'Leave' majorities in much of the rest of England and in Wales. In some parts of London, the results were fairly close, but in other boroughs 'Remain' had considerably more votes than 'Leave'

You can find more detailed infrmation about specific areas in the BBC microsite linked above.

It will take a little while to see how this development is going to play out in various ways over the next couple of years. I am cautiously optimistic, overall.

The EU Referendum in the context of Scotland's place in the UK

In my most recent article on the EU Referendum, just over a week ago ("Thoughts on the Pound and the Stockmarkets ahead of the EU Referendum" - link here), I mentioned at the end that I would write about it in the context of Scotland within the UK "hopefully in the next day or so". This is that article.

The reason this article has been delayed for longer than I had originally planned is largely because of personal circumstances (my own travel arrangements and having my partner here for several days after a month apart whilst I was in Spain at my home there), but an additional couple of days were added to the delay because of the shocking incident in which an MP was murdered on the street close by her constituency office. I am not going to comment on what may have motivated the perpetrator - there has been enough of that, much of it hysterical and intemperate, in the media and so-called "social media". The only comment I would make is that the rush to judgement by some has, curiously, overlooked the bile directed at this lady prior to her killing by supposed supporters of the Labour Party, or at least the part of it that is now in charge of its destiny - here is a link to a Tweet in which is embedded some of this bile: https://twitter.com/EnemyWithinn/status/743818860663549952. There are unpleasant people in all political parties of course, and some with no connection to any political party, but a bit of calmness and, above all, objectivity is badly needed.

Anyway, onto the main subject of this article. As I indicated in my last article, referenced above, it was my intention to vote 'Leave', but that article was written whilst I was still in Spain. Since then I have returned back to the UK and waiting for me was my postal vote ballot paper and associated documents (explanatory notes, return envelope, etc) and I mailed off my ballot paper last Monday, having put my 'X' in the 'Leave' box as I earlier suggested I would. I'm not going to rehash all the points I made in my earlier article - I have formed a view, for good or ill, with which some will agree and some will disagree. I believe in a democratic system and will be happy (more or less) to accept the result in due course, whatever it is. Obviously I shall be happier if 'Leave' prevails, preferably by a comfortable margin, but will accept with good grace the decision if it goes the other way to 'Remain', hopefully also with a comfortable margin.

In the context of Scotland, it is the announced intention of the Scottish Government, currently led by the Scottish National Party (SNP), to press for another 'Independence Referendum', should Scotland vote to 'Remain' next week, but the rest of the UK vote to 'Leave'. The last referendum was held in September 2014 and the result was that a comfortable majority of Scots wished to remain within the UK, a decision that pleased me greatly. I wish Scotland to remain in the UK - I am quite comfortable describing myself as British and Scottish, or Scottish and British if you prefer it that way. Many of my friends from other parts of the UK are happy to consider themselves British too, but in addition English, Welsh or Northern Irish as is appropriate - this all seems very normal to me. I have never felt anything other than 'at home' when living in or visiting all parts of the UK and the banter about 'Jocks' and kilts has almost always been completely good-natured. Most from other parts of the UK who live in or visit Scotland feel the same way, in my experience, although it is undeniable that there have been lapses from this good-neigbourliness by a few of my fellow Scots on occasion, generally supporters of the aims of the SNP sadly. Although I would in general have been in favour of voting 'Leave' in the upcoming EU Referendum in any case (but I am not a fanatic about it - I was until a few years ago a strong supporter of UK membership of the EEC/EU, but have gradually changed my views to some extent), it is certainly in my view wise to do my little bit to try and ensure that the margin between how the rest of the UK decides to vote next week and how people here in Scotland decide to vote is not significant, as the opinion polls might lead one to believe may be the case. Opinion polls have seemed to show that there is stronger support for 'Remain' here in Scotland than in the rest of the UK. We won't know how accurate these polls were and are until the 'morning after the night before' (so to say) of the vote on 23rd June.

In the two urban settlements here that I have most recently visited (Nairn, where I live, and Inverness, which is only about 15 miles distant) I have no clear feel for current local sentiment, although those I have spoken to seem to favour 'Leave' and it is the case, which to be honest I find quite bizarre and perplexing, that the only posters I have seen on public display (on lamp-posts and the like) are those favouring 'Vote Leave'; I have not observed any at all which advocate 'Remain' or 'In', in either Inverness or Nairn. As this part of Scotland is now largely represented at both Westminster and Holyrood by SNP MPs and MSPs, who presumably favour 'Remain' in accordance with that Party's policy position, there seems to be a disconnect of some kind. Either the opinion polls are badly wrong or SNP supporters have developed a reticence in displaying their views that certainly never existed in the run-up to the Scottish Referendum in September 2014. Who knows what the truth is, but we will all know overnight next Thursday/Friday how the country (the UK) has voted overall and how the various component parts of it have voted too. It promises to be an interesting week, but I hope it will be reasonably calm and that there will be no more violence of the appalling kind that happened in Birstall, West Yorkshire a few days ago.

Thoughts on the Pound and the Stockmarkets ahead of the EU Referendum

Firstly, the Pound FEX rates simply aren't "collapsing" either against the USD or the EUR in the way ‪the "Remain" side‬ said they would & according them "are"; the stockmarket is reasonably OK too with normal ups/downs. There are lots of economic problems in the world, of course, but my view is that the UK is performing tolerably well and certainly pretty favorably compared to our friends in the Eurozone. Check for yourself. Discount the "propaganda" which purports to tell you a Leave vote will result in disaster, being spewed out incessantly by "Remain".

The markets do not lie - the markets are ultimately interested in only one thing, ensuring that the "bets" made by market players result in net positive results for them (i.e. "profits").

The USD is being bolstered by the recent positive effects of fracking in the US for that country's domestic energy availability, the EUR is being maintained at a reasonably stable level only by the "magic"/skill of the current President of the ECB, Mario Draghi; it certainly isn't happening because of the underlying strength of most of the Eurozone economies, as even some of its major economies (Italy, Spain and France for example) are perilously close to disaster, even if a couple are perhaps headed more or less in the right direction.

However you plan to vote in the EU referendum being held in the UK on 23rd June, don't be scared into a choice to Remain based on this highly prejudiced (aka 'false') economic data. If Remain is your choice, fine, but don't pretend that whether we remain or ‪Leave‬ will result in "economic disaster" either way. As someone who broadly favours ‪Leave‬, I make no claims of "disaster" flowing from a decision to remain, if that's what happens. My view is that after a relatively brief negative "glitch" should we ‪decide to Leave‬, that in the longer term the UK, and the rest of the EU if it learns the correct lessons, will benefit.

My focus in the EU referendum has got little or nothing to do with "immigration", what it does have to do with is the democratic deficit which increasingly exists as a result of our EU membership, where few if any know the names of any of their local regional MEPs, who in any case have little real power - that resides in the European Commission, who aren't elected by anyone. People will refute that by saying it is the European Council (heads of government and ministers in different functions from all the EU member states - all "elected") which ultimately decides, which is partially true, but the reality is that it is the European Commission which sets the agenda for future changes, And anyone who understands anything about organisational dymanics knows it is those who control the agenda that controls the organisation, just as it is those who write the minutes of meetings in any organisation, if not properly monitored and corrected when they make a "mistake", who control what goes into the agenda for future meetings - that is the European Commission in the case of the EU. The European Parliament, where MEPs sit, is not able to introduce any new legislation, only debate what is put forward to it by the European Commission. Don't believe me? Well, in that case I suggest you find out how the protectionist cartel that is the EU really operates. It talks about being a free trade area, which it is internally, but it erects barriers against the outside world to protect inefficient EU domestc producers against more efficient external producers - this affects not only food prices paid by EU consumers, but most other aspects of the EU economy. It is unfortunately no accident that the EU is the poorest performing part of the world in economic terms (I really don't count Antarctica - it survives only as a result of massive state subsidies from those countries which maintain research bases there). For these and some other reasons I shall be voting Leave on 23rd June.

One of these additional reasons has to do with how the result could potentially affect the position of Scotland within the UK, to which I am very strongly committed. As a subsequent article will show, hopefully in the next day or so, this is yet another reason why I shall be voting Leave.

For Europe, Against the EU

The first and most important thing to bear in mind is that Europe is not the EU and the EU is not Europe - Europe is a lot wider than the restrictive 'corset'/'straitjacket' of the EU.

For Europe, Against the EU. It’s not a contradiction in terms. The EU is a deadweight around the neck of this exciting continent, limiting the power of its peoples and submitting its parliaments to petty bureaucracy and diktat. Just ask Italy and Greece! The video embedded below argues that the referendum is an opportunity for the British public to strike out against the risk-averse, technocratic elites of Brussels and Whitehall, and an opportunity to inspire publics across Europe to do the same.

Watch, share and vote Leave on 23 June. Unless you prefer to remain in the gilded cage that is the EU, of course - gilded it may be (for some, at least), but it is still a cage.

Brexit the Movie - essential viewing before you vote in the Referendum on 23rd June

Watch this in full and then decide if you want the ‪#‎UK‬ to remain in the ‪#‎EU‬ - or not:


If you decide, after watching this film (1 hour 11 minutes in length), then at least you won't be walking into the decision completely blind - and will have no excuse for complaint afterwards if we do vote to 'remain' in the EU and things go belly-up, as I fear greatly they will. It'll be too late then to whine "but I didn't realise".

PS/ Just to be clear, I am a supporter of neither UKIP nor its leader Nigel Farage, although he appears in this film, but then so do many others of great reputation and stature.