The Bruges Group spearheaded the intellectual battle to win a vote to leave the European Union and, above all, against the emergence of a centralised EU state.

NOTE! This site uses cookies and similar technologies.

If you not change browser settings, you agree to it. Learn more

I understand

Cookies are a technology which we use to provide you with tailored information on our website. A cookie is a piece of code that is sent to your internet browser and is stored on your system.

Please see below for a list of cookies this website uses:

Cookie name: _utma, _utmb, _utmc, _utmz

Purpose: Google Analytics cookies. Google Analytics is software that lets us analyse how visitors use our site. We use this information to improve our website and provide the best experience to visitors.

Function: These cookies collect data in an anonymous form. Please see Google's privacy policy for further information. To opt out of these cookies, please visit Google's website.

Cookie name: Sitecore

Purpose: Stores information, such as language and regional preferences, that our content management system (the system we use to update our website) relies on to function.

Function: This is a session cookie and will be destroyed when you close your browser. This cookie is essential for our website to function.

Cookie name: ASP.net_session

Purpose: Allows the website to save your session state across different pages. For example, if you have completed a survey, the website will remember that you have done so and will not ask you to complete it again when you view another page on the website.

Function: This is a session cookie and will be destroyed when you close your browser. This cookie is essential for our website to function.

Cookie name: website#sc_wede

Purpose: Indicates whether the user's browser supports inline editing of content. This indicates whether our content management system will work for our website administrators in their internet browsers.

Function: This is a session cookie and will be destroyed when you close your browser. This cookie is essential for our website to function.

Cookie name: redirected

Purpose: Remembers when the site forwards you from one page to another, so you can return to the first page. For example, go back to the home page after viewing a special 'splash' page.

Function: This is a session cookie, which your browser will destroy when it shuts down. The website needs this cookie to function.

Cookie name: tccookiesprefs

Purpose: Remembers when you respond to the site cookie policy, so you do not see the cookie preferences notice on every page.

Function: If you choose to remember your preference with a temporary cookie, your browser will remove it when you shut it down, otherwise the cookie will be stored for about a year.

Cookie name: _ga

Purpose: Additional Google Analytics cookie. Google Analytics is software that lets us analyse how visitors use our site. We use this information to improve our website and provide the best experience to visitors.

Function: These cookies collect data in an anonymous form. Please see Google's privacy policy for further information.


Purpose: Sitecore Analytics is software that lets us analyse how visitors use our site. We use this information to improve our website and provide the best experience to visitors.

Function: These cookies collect data in an anonymous form. When you close your browser, it will delete the 'session' cookie; it will keep the 'global' cookie for about one year.

Facebook cookies

We use Facebook 'Like' buttons to share site feedback. For further information, see Facebook's cookie policy page.

Twitter cookies

We use Twitter 'Tweet' buttons to share site feedback. For further information, see Twitter's privacy statement.

YouTube cookies

We embed videos from our official YouTube channel. YouTube uses cookies to help maintain the integrity of video statistics, prevent fraud and to improve their site experience. If you view a video, YouTube may set cookies on your computer once you click on the video player.

Cookies pop-up

When you close the cookies pop-up box by clicking "OK", a permanent cookie will be set on your machine. This will remember your preference so that the pop-up doesn't display across any pages whenever you visit the website.

Opting out/removing cookies

To opt out of Google Analytics cookies, please visit Google’s website.

You can also control what cookies you accept through your internet browser. For details on how to do this, please visit Please note that by deleting our cookies or disabling future cookies you may not be able to access certain areas or features of our website.

mailing list
donate now
join now

Bruges Group Blog

Spearheading the intellectual battle against the EU. And for new thinking in international affairs.

BBC: The Big Questions Debate

Should the people have the final say on the Brexit deal?​Three leave campaigners, Chloe Westley of TaxPayers' Alliance, Tom Slater of Spiked, and Bruges Group Director Robert Oulds debated the question of a second referendum on BBC's The Big Questions with Nicky Campell on Sunday 18 March. Advocating for a second referendum was Eloise Todd of Best ...
Continue reading
110 Hits

Brexit the Opera: Gutted in Grimsby

On a grey winter day in 1972, Air Force One touched down on Chinese soil. Although little tangible benefit came of President Nixon's surprise visit to Chairman Mao and the impenetrable communist state, it was one of the most theatrical acts of diplomacy in modern history. And it was recognised in the opera 'Nixon in China' by John Adams. Perhaps Ad...
Continue reading
109 Hits

Ireland and EU Defence Integration

​There's been a lot of talk about something called PESCO and whether it breaches the Irish constitution or the concept of neutrality.What is Irish neutrality and what does the Irish constitution say about it?First there's whether Ireland takes part in activity outside of its own territory and second there's whether Ireland permits other countries i...
Continue reading
281 Hits
1 Comment

Borderline Sanity

​Author: Marcus Watney​Source: The feasibility of using technology to avoid a hard Irish border has been confirmed by Lars Karlsson in his excellent study for the European Parliament Smart Border 2.0, published in November 2017. It is available here:
Continue reading
669 Hits

Ways To Make European Travel Easier After Brexit

In the midst of Brexit uncertainty, booking a European holiday has become even more confusing for Brits. As if planning and booking a holiday wasn't stressful enough, UK residents now have to completely revise their usual holiday strategy in order to ensure it doesn't collide with new Brexit negotiations. While Brexit has already proved to affect m...
Continue reading
270 Hits

Brexit Compared: Estonia regains independence and USSR falls

Brexit Compared: Estonia regains independence and USSR falls
Tuesday 20th March 2018, from 1pm - 3pmHow the Brexit negotiations should be handled.The man who delivered the Estonian Unilateral Declaration of Independence in 1991 to Mikhail Gorbachev, the Head of the Soviet Union, advises the UK on Brexit. Location: Committee Room 20The House of CommonsWestminster London SW1A 0AA(via the Cromwell Entranc...
Continue reading
990 Hits

Remainers cannot remain: they must persuade Brits to rejoin

Leavers often wonder whether a Remain win would have aroused anything like the rancour and resistance we are experiencing today. So here's another scenario, as a thought experiment. After a 52-48 verdict to stay in the EU, Cameron's government is riven with internal conflict. A snap election is called, UKIP gets enough votes to hand dozens of seats...
Continue reading
540 Hits

Labour won't win the next election by turning its back on Brexit

​British Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn recently laid out his party's official stance on Brexit. Notably, he announced Labour's commitment for the UK to join the EU in a customs union following the Brexit implementation period. Not only does this stance contravene important aspects of Brexit, but it means the party is turning its back on million...
Continue reading
306 Hits

Martin Selmayr – the EU’s puppet master secures his future

​Jean-Claude Juncker's most senior henchman, Martin Selmayr, has secured his post-Juncker future as the head of the EU Commission's civil service. This is not promotion, only continuity: he has long been the EU Commission's most powerful figure, as well as the link to German policymakers and the real puppet-master of the Brexit talks.A rare spotlig...
Continue reading
1433 Hits

Lobby Your MP: EU Control Over UK Defence

​The UK has continued to enter defence agreements with the European Union following the 2016 referendum, ensuring that the UK will remain closely bound to the EU. The EU, in fact, has been pursuing the establishment of an 'EU Defence Union' to include the UK even after Britain leaves the EU. Send an email to your MP to call for a full Brexit for de...
Continue reading
1853 Hits

Remain professor 2, Leave lecturer 1 (but a moral victory for Brexit)

​For a Brexit-supporting minority in academe, here is an illustration of what we're up against. Last year I was invited by the editor of International Journal of Nursing Studies to write a commentary on Brexit and the NHS. This would be published alongside a staunchly anti-Brexit argument, by Professor Martin McKee of the London School of Hygiene &...
Recent Comments
Dr Anna Bailey
This is indeed a sad illustration of the rabid politicisation of British academia, especially on the issue of Brexit. In a way I'm... Read More
Sunday, 25 February 2018 13:33
Continue reading
951 Hits

EU Exit, the Transition Period and Emerging Light

At a meeting of British business leaders this week an Ambassador of an ASEAN country remarked, "I want the British to come to my country. When we look at the world we compare ourselves as a former French colony to our neighbouring and former British colonies. The difference is very clear. The British took something but left everything. The French t...
Continue reading
584 Hits

May, Munich, and Military Structures

Theresa May's Munich speech suggests UK's continued involvement in EU security structures post-BrexitAuthor: David WilkinsonNever mind the £350m on the NHS, the fundamental promises of Leave have just been betrayed. Saturday 17th February 2018 will be remembered as the date when all hope, all pretence, that Theresa May had any intention, let alone ...
Continue reading
453 Hits

Robert Oulds vs Eloise Todd: A Brexit Debate

Robert Oulds vs Eloise Todd: A Brexit Debate
​Bruges Group Director Robert Oulds appeared on Sky News today during the All Out Politics programme with Adam Boulton. In light of Boris Johnson's speech yesterday, 14th February, Mr Oulds debated Eloise Todd of Best for Britain on the economics of Brexit and the legitimacy of a second referendum. Describing Todd's warnings of a jobs exodus as "Pr...
Continue reading
428 Hits

EU Exit - A Customary Moment of British Divide in Preparation for Unity

Author: Dr. Carl Hunter​We see EU Exit as a moment of great divide. Some of damage, others of hope. All however see it as something of great significance. And it is. Though perhaps not as great as we like to think, and when it comes and passes, something that enabled us to have a new country. We will have the time to reflect on who we were, are now...
Continue reading
598 Hits
1 Comment

Britain's Standing up for Bombardier

Britain's Standing up for Bombardier
A post-Brexit industrial strategy: putting employment in Britain at the heart of economic policy.​​Boeing's threats to jobs in the UKThe US International Trade Commission's recent unexpectedly 4-0 unanimous decision against Boeing has put all eyes on the aerospace giant's next steps.1 Boeing, however, has suspended taking action pending the ITC's...
Continue reading
723 Hits

Peace In Our Time

Author: John Griffing​The readily visible collapse of Brexit negotiations echoes the most significant foreign policy blunders in British history, episodes characterized by the misplaced worship of process over principle and a pathological pattern of "surrender." Such was the case with Neville Chamberlain, a man who genuinely believed a "piece of pa...
Continue reading
571 Hits

The EU's 'Punishment Period' Is An Affront To Our Most Fundamental Democratic & Constitutional Foundations

The EU's 'Punishment Period' Is An Affront To Our Most Fundamental Democratic & Constitutional Foundations
It is widely regarded as a sincere sign of immaturity for one to antagonise & hinder their victor - whether that be in football by accusing the referee of bias, in chess by refusing to shake their opponent's hand or indeed by frustrating the democratic will of a people by political and institutional means.In other words; being a sore loser suck...
Continue reading
3649 Hits
1 Comment

The United Kingdom Can Create Two Special Relationships

The United Kingdom Can Create Two Special Relationships
Politics creates its own "gravity" to use modern coinage. That can attract the body-politic to consume itself on issues that distract from a higher national and international mission. It generates a tendency to avoid confronting "drift" and leads to a certain focus downwards, often "tactical" or operational at best, but strategic it is not. Our peo...
Continue reading
2165 Hits

Common law versus continental drift

​Back in the early days of my mental health career, I first came across common law in the form of two handles on a door. To leave the psychogeriatric ward, both the lower and upper handle (the latter at head height) were operated simultaneously. This ploy was to prevent confused residents from going out and possibly getting chilled to the bone, los...
Continue reading
796 Hits

The Art of the Possible

​By Marcus WatneyFor the past four years and four hundred miles away, an unequal confrontation has been taking place between a tiny country swamped by uncontrolled immigration and the mighty unresponsive EU.Switzerland's population is just 8.5 million, an eighth that of the United Kingdom, of which about two million are foreigners. Of those, 1.4 mi...
Continue reading
828 Hits

There’s nothing open-minded about reversing Brexit

​European Council President Donald Tusk has suggested Britons could have a "change of heart" about Brexit.Photograph: European People's Party, Wikimedia Commons In a recent speech to the European Parliament, European Council President Donald Tusk claimed that Brexit would become a reality unless Britons have a "change of heart". His words echo pers...
Recent Comments
Robert Oulds
Thanks for your thoughtful comment. David Lidington's comments abut re-joining the EU will hardly help the UK in the negotiations.... Read More
Tuesday, 23 January 2018 14:30
Continue reading
808 Hits

British Involvement in EU Security Structures

British Involvement in EU Security Structures
​This short video introduces the series, which discusses various scenarios for defence and security post-Brexit, and the implications not only for Britain, but for the remaining EU member states as well. It provides context on the history of Britain's role as a "friend among nations," recalling specifically Britain's assistance in the Estonian war ...
Continue reading
697 Hits

No Green Light For RED

How Conservative MEPs can stop the EU Parliament breaking its own legal rules. It's easy to forget while the UK Government is engaged in fulfilling the democratic will of the British people – removing us from the European Union – our representative MEPs in Brussels continue to have a seat at the table when and where decisions are made. There are 73...
Recent Comments
James Coghlan
The simple fact that you take issue with the one sentence in all that is rather revealing about you. You failed to address the di... Read More
Wednesday, 10 January 2018 19:37
Continue reading
2905 Hits

European Defence after Brexit - a conversation with Ants Laaneots

European Defence after Brexit - a conversation with Ants Laaneots
Ants Laaneots was commander of the Estonian Defence Forces and is now a member of the Riigikogu, the Estonian Parliament.Theresa May's visit to Poland just before Christmas reminded us of the big realities of Brexit and the EU, realities which are often strenuously ignored.Some of the reporting has, maybe, been wishful of an adoption by HMG of a mo...
Continue reading
927 Hits

EU Defence and Military: An Analysis of PESCO and Other EU Security Initiatives

.      In November 2017 25 leaders signed up to the Permanent Structured Cooperation (PESCO). For the last few years the EU has been building up to a fully operative EU military and realigning member states funding of core projects to permit that to happen through the European Defence Fund (EDF). This is not a new conc...
Recent Comments
James Coghlan If it leads to... Read More
Thursday, 11 January 2018 07:27
Continue reading
1170 Hits

How the EU and Brexit Is Changing Education

It's been one and a half years since Brexit was confirmed by the British vote, but only now are we really seeing the true colours of the bill. While Brexit is predicted to cause a stir in many industries, including trade and even flight, there are now apparent effects on the education system, although these appear both positive and negative. For st...
Continue reading
773 Hits

The EU Empire

The best laid schemes o' mice an' men Gang aft agleyi - Robert Burns After the Second World War and such heavy losses for the Allies, it was perhaps in the interests of their respective peoples for the European Union to develop. The main purpose of which was to limit the circumstances for a resurgence of war. The ideal that was proposed was indee...
Continue reading
946 Hits

Will The UK Get A Visa Process Like The American ESTA?

Will The UK Get A Visa Process Like The American ESTA?
Brexit negotiations are underway, and the future of travel and working in the United Kingdom is a difficult and complex entity. There are numerous news sources and reports suggesting various different factors, and with this uncertainty, many people are left wondering about how they are going to travel to the UK in the future, on business and for pl...
Continue reading
719 Hits

Sweden – More than just Vikings and an Eu State

Sweden has a long and colourful history founded in the 12th Century. It joined the EU on 1 January 1995. Beyond the era of the Vikings (800-1066), it has traded continuously with Denmark, Germany and Norway. Throughout its history Sweden has seen domestic uprisings such as when Valdemar was defeated by Magnus in 1275. In 1814 Norway and Sweden form...
Continue reading
990 Hits

Max Manus OR As the Norwegians Like It

During my Bachelors Degree at Kingston University, I studied History. While studying History I focused on the time period 1870-1945. My research of World War 2 led me to true titans of heroism including the monumental figure that is Max Manus of the Oslogjengen (Oslo Gang). Max Manus was a resistance fighter in Oslo who stumbled into his saboteur r...
Continue reading
793 Hits

Heseltine: A Bridge Too Far

In the last few days while most of us have been enjoying the celebrations with our families, Brexit has come to the fore once again. A bit like left-over Turkey that is 3 days old, many on the right have little stomach for the pro-eu stance of Lord Michael Heseltine. Indeed, Lord Tebbit and other notable Conservatives have insisted that the whip sh...
Continue reading
1166 Hits

Brexit Negotiations

"In negotiations you have to believe you are going to win." - Jacob Rees Mogg Brexit was simply about taking back control of our borders and laws. It was about deciding our own future. Brexit for many is about striding forth into a new world post-Eu. The UK managed to survive without the EU for hundreds of years. After such considerations, it is di...
Continue reading
1109 Hits
1 Comment

The Euro Versus Cryptocurrencies

The dream of the European Union to merge the military, economies and trade has apparently stalled in Eastern Europe. Indeed a closer examination of Eastern Europe shows that the majority of countries that were under Soviet occupation, throughout the Cold War, have failed to adopt the Euro as their currency. Czechia does not have the Euro. Neither d...
Recent Comments
James Coghlan
Indeed. Cryptocurrencies are in their infancy and that does increase risk, BUT they are akin to gold in that they are fewer and s... Read More
Sunday, 24 December 2017 12:40
James Coghlan
As I said CC are the future. If you think about it, people make transactions in the West that are contactless. So, they want quic... Read More
Sunday, 24 December 2017 19:39
James Coghlan
I referenced all my sources. The rest is my own work.
Sunday, 24 December 2017 19:40
Continue reading
889 Hits

Sebastian Kurz: Friend of the Visegard Group (V4)

In the last decade the European Union has become multifaceted in its attempts to consolidate further integration of its component parts. The EU Army, Pesco, migrant quotas, extension of the Euro and other core changes to its members has produced a counter-strategy in the form (like a Phoenix) of the Visegard Group. The Visegard group or V4 as it is...
Continue reading
778 Hits

An Italian Delivery

           ​ Movimento 5 Steile (M5S) is an Italian anti-eu party founded in 2009. It is incredible to think that a country that hosts the euro could in any way, however small be opposed to the rhetoric of the EU. Although Italy was one of the six founding members of the European Commission that evolved into the curren...
Recent Comments
James Coghlan
My writings on here at the moment are focusing on those aiming to change the EU or leave it. The Visegard Group for example. I a... Read More
Tuesday, 19 December 2017 12:53
Continue reading
832 Hits

The Taming of the Polish

  ​ In 2004, I gave a lecture in Poland on the writer Joseph Conrad. He was born in Poland as Jozef Teodor Konrad Korzeniowski. His parents like many others of that era suffered at the hands of Russia. They both died of illness related to their imprisonment in Gulags as a result of being political activists. Fast forward through World Wa...
Recent Comments
James Coghlan
Politics can be influenced by the written word as you are well aware. Poland inspired me as much as Conrad did.
Tuesday, 19 December 2017 12:42
Continue reading
976 Hits

Campaigning for a Clean Brexit

Andrew Roberts asks you to support the Bruges GroupBrexit is under threat. Every day an anti-democratic alliance orchestrated by Tony Blair, senior Labour figures, the Lib Dems, together with their cheerleaders in big business and the media, are working to block delivery of what you, I and 17.4 million others voted for on 23rd June 2016. Every day ...
Recent Comments
Robert Oulds
Thank you for your kind words, many people feel like this and are deeply troubled by the so-called progress made so far.
Monday, 11 December 2017 09:07
Robert Oulds
The EU is considering that the agreement will be binding. Time is running out and we need to move quickly.
Tuesday, 12 December 2017 18:49
Continue reading
1989 Hits

Open letter to the British government: Keep calm and walk away from Brexit negotiations

​Dear members of Her Majesty's Government,In your efforts to ensure the UK's smooth transition away from EU membership, you have met more than one stumbling block. It's still unclear whether the European Court of Justice will maintain jurisdiction in Britain. The amount of money on offer to the EU to "settle your accounts" has only increased, and d...
Recent Comments
Robert Oulds
Thanks for your comment, it is alarming. I think that we have people who are ultimately in charge of the process that do not belie... Read More
Monday, 11 December 2017 09:06
Continue reading
1006 Hits

Brexit, Ireland, and the EU

Submission by Anthony Coughlan to the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee of the House of Commons on North-South border problems in Ireland and the Irish Government's policy response in the context of Brexit.Executive Summary -Logically, there would be no new North-South Border problems within Ireland if the Republic of Ireland should leave the EU i...
Continue reading
922 Hits

The New European: an undiluted Remain hatefest

​The tentacles of the Stop Funding Hate campaign reach far and wide. En route to the station, I would sometimes stop at a nearby café, reading their copies of the Sun and Daily Mail over a coffee. The cafe gets most of its trade from mums on the school run, and you wouldn't think this quintessentially suburban setting would be fertile soil for poli...
Continue reading
1181 Hits

EU Sock Puppets in the UK Act Out Brussels Agenda

In the months leading up to United Kingdom's 2016 European Union membership referendum, many "independent" think tanks espoused studies against Brexit.However, these UK-based, pro EU campaigners and their research remain closely linked to Brussels through financial funding. The European Commission's tactic of shelling out millions to pro-EU lobby g...
Continue reading
932 Hits

The European Deadline Diktat and Other Issues

​Donald Tusk gave Theresa May ten days (with less than a week remaining) to offer him much more money and also give him a solution that he likes to the Irish border problem. We should be relaxed about this and either give what is legally due the EU or nothing and sort it out after Brexit.This dictatorial deadline that conflates both the Irish borde...
Continue reading
762 Hits

Post Brexit Britain: In Conversation with Sir Desmond Swayne MP

​Contrary to the mainstream point of view, a post Brexit Britain is an open Britain. While Brexit is portrayed as a very isolationist, nationalist vote, Sir Desmond Swayne MP said it's a very much outward-looking event. "United Kingdom is going to re-establish its place in the world and it's an attempt to actually maximize that," Swayne said. "Rem...
Continue reading
783 Hits

Bordering on Madness

The thing that first drew me to being opposed to our membership of the EU in 1991 was the realisation my elected Government was not in control of our country, that authority had passed to an offshore, unelected and unaccountable body. My awakening came through a letter written to the Chancellor of the Exchequer during the terrible recession of...
Continue reading
553 Hits

​International Brexit: In Conversation with Kate Hoey MP

Euro skepticism and Brexit is synonymous with right-wing politics. The reality is the Leave vote was ushered in by a broad coalition of both left-leaning and right-leaning voters, said Labour Party MP Kate Hoey, a proponent of Brexit. Speaking with Morten Dam of Peoples Movement Against the EU in Denmark, Hoey discussed the position of the Labour...
Continue reading
658 Hits

Rest Assured: There Will Be a Brexit Trade Agreement

​Bruges Group director Robert Oulds assured the possibility of a Brexit trade agreement in an interview with Jeremy Naylor on It was one of the many issues discussed during last Friday's broadcast. Topics ranged from the cost of other trade agreements, need for deregulation, lower taxes, and passporting rights. The term "hard Brex...
Continue reading
829 Hits

​Passporting: Concerns & Realities

The crown of UK is its financial services sector: buying and selling across the EU and the world. Now, fresh fears about the backbone industry of London are on the rise. EU's chief Brexit negotiator Michel Barnier announced last Monday that firms based in Britain will lose their "passporting" rights post Brexit. A "passport" allows financ...
Continue reading
675 Hits

The Merchant of Belfast

The problem of Ireland is one that perplexes both the UK and the EU during Brexit negotiations. Should Northern Ireland have a hard border after Brexit or should it remain as it is - flexible?In considering the Irish Border question I am reminded of The Merchant of Venice or in this case The Merchant of Belfast. The EU after all created Article 50 ...
Recent Comments
James Coghlan
To clarify like Scotland the Irish Pound note is different to the English Pound note.
Sunday, 03 December 2017 18:58
James Coghlan
Perhaps I should have been clearer. Like Scotland Ireland has its own set of notes. They do not ALL say BANK OF ENGLAND!
Sunday, 03 December 2017 18:59
Continue reading
1322 Hits

Send Morrissey to break the impasse

£40 billion isn't enough. The EU, facing a gaping hole in its finances after losing its British cash cow, is extorting to the max. But even the most generous offer from our pathetic political leaders, in return for a few cake crumbs, won't guarantee a mutually-rewarding trade deal. The whole protracted and humiliating process could be voted down by...
Continue reading
891 Hits

Fighting for Brexit on two fronts

​A gathering storm over London.Photograph: Garry Knight, Wikimedia Commons. While the UK's parliament debates the EU Withdrawal Bill, its government is pursuing a post-Brexit deal on the continent. On both fronts, the decision Britons took to leave the EU is under threat. Indeed, their government has precious little wiggle room to deliver, but it s...
Continue reading
755 Hits

5 Reasons To Visit Bruges This Winter

5 Reasons To Visit Bruges This Winter
The historic city of Bruges has long attracted some of the world's leaders, including Margaret Thatcher who made her famous Bruges speech at the College of Europe, which is still considered a political centre today. Bruges has so much to offer visitors, so here's why you should renew your e111 card, pack your suitcase and head to the charming city ...
Continue reading
638 Hits

British people will make their own trade deal

​Cars have always been more than four-wheeled transport; they're status symbols. Owners of a Ford Focus, a 'Chelsea tractor' or a quirky Citroen display something of their character, and their wealth. In the past, cars were also expressions of patriotism. A proud ex-serviceman would insist on a staid black or beige Austin or Hillman, but by the 197...
Continue reading
1410 Hits
1 Comment

How Likely is a No Deal for Brexit?

​The Chancellor, the Right Honourable Philip Hammond MP, recently stated that he would not be providing funds to put in place contingency measures, to prepare for the outcome of the Brexit negotiations being "No Deal".He did not want to spend money that could otherwise be spent on hospitals, schools, defence etc on protection against a merely hypot...
Continue reading
941 Hits

Rt Hon John Redwood MP Discusses Brexit

​Conservative Member of Parliament for Wokingham, Berkshire, John Redwood discussed UK's stance on Brexit negotiations as well as Britain's future relationship with the EU after Brexit. Redwood affirmed that the UK will only make an agreement after examining all the issues instead of settling specific issues as a prerequisite to move forward with a...
Continue reading
957 Hits

Fast Forward to 2020: U.K. Needs to Speed Up Brexit

​It's no secret that deals are an "art form" for U.S. President Donald Trump, who likes making deals, preferably big deals, and promises to cut a very big and exciting trade deal with the U.K. after Brexit. That window of opportunity is quickly closing in the face of slow-moving negotiations with EU and looming uncertainty behind Trump's reelection...
Continue reading
718 Hits

A Historian’s Vision: Post Brexit Britain Will Be Kind and Caring

​Britain's exit from the European Union, ushered by a majority of Leave votes, is an opportunity to build a better Britain. Not a better Britain, according to historian Bess Rhodes, but a kind and more caring Britain. Speaking at the Bruges Group's "Deal or No Deal" conference on Nov. 4, Rhodes admitted she voted to remain in the EU. After the resu...
Continue reading
886 Hits
1 Comment

Here's Why U.K. Should Prepare for "No Deal" on Brexit

​"Deal or no Deal" event speech by Professor D.R. Myddelton.BackgroundGeneral de Gaulle was a difficult Frenchman!In 1963 he rejected Britain's application to join the Common Market – on the grounds that England was too different from the continental countries.I share that political judgement. So I voted in both Referendums – in 1975 and again...
Continue reading
905 Hits

Support for EU membership in Iceland reduced even further

​Two political parties who favour membership of the European Union remain in Iceland's parliament following the general elections that took place in the country on 28 October. Before the elections they were three but one of them, Bright Future, lost all its MPs. The two remaining pro-EU parties, the Social Democratic Alliance and the Restoration Pa...
Continue reading
988 Hits

U.K. Military Autonomy Under Threat

​The Bruges Group hosted Veterans for Britain, a group of 14 Admirals and Generals led by Mag Gen Julian Thompson, who campaigned for Brexit. David Banks spoke on the EU's proposal for a Permanent Structured Cooperation. The agreement binds member states armed forced into a joint single output spearheaded by Brussels for defense. The lack of d...
Continue reading
1699 Hits

The Healthcare Cost of EU Policy

​With plans for an Airbnb-style scheme for National Health Service patients set to roll out as early as next month, the state of NHS hits a new low. The health service will compensate homeowners £50-a-day to host patients in their spare rooms. Overcrowded hospitals and long wait times are a culmination to decades of European Union's open-...
Continue reading
847 Hits

Opening of borders, closing of minds

A clumsy request from a parliamentarian on what is taught about Brexit in universities has caused uproar. Chris Heaton-Harris, MP for Daventry and a junior Conservative whip, was suddenly likened to Senator Joseph McCarthy, who infamously led a campaign to root out 'reds under the bed' in American institutions back in the 1950s. But incredulous cla...
Continue reading
951 Hits

Dr Bess Rhodes - what actually is Brexit?

Dr Bess Rhodes - what actually is Brexit?
Bruges Group ConferenceWill Britain make a Brexit deal with Brussels? What should the UK prioritise? Where should it draw the red lines? When is the cost of any deal too high?Will we get what we actually voted for? This conference will answer those important questions.Saturday, 4th November 2017 ...
Continue reading
1016 Hits

EU will end like the Holy Roman Empire

By Niall McCrae

holyromanempireChief commissioner Michel Barnier wags his finger at the media conference. An uprising in a major European country has forced his hand, as attacks on police and politicians lead to desertions and defections. Unlike the British government, which was pummelled into submission over the Brexit deal, these plucky secessionists are undermining the authority of the formidable Eurocrat. So he threatens to send in the EU Army.

It’s 2027, and the EU is more powerful than ever, yet also more detached. It reigns supreme in the cosmopolitan cities, in the financial centres, and on university campuses: Berlin, Heidelberg, den Haag, Frankfurt-am-Main, Gothenburg, Barcelona, Fiorentina. These islands of the liberal intelligentsia look condescendingly on the masses, whose unpredictable and uninformed votes put progress in peril come each election. The provincial hinterlands are stifled by backwardness, with rising tension between nostalgic nationalism and expanding ethnic enclaves. Among the commoners, rule by Brussels is at best tolerated, at worst despised.

Consulting historians, political commentators begin to see what the EU has become: a latter-day Holy Roman Empire. And Barnier and fellow commissioners are behaving like the ‘enlightened despots’ of the European past.

The HRE was a revival of the old Roman Empire, but with papacy to the fore. Founded in AD 800 when the Pope crowned Charlemagne as emperor, its domain comprised France, Germany and most of modern-day Italy. After the French left in the tenth century, and the Italian parts were given away, the empire centred on Germany. Successive emperors looked east to expand their territory; the pagan Prussians, Slavs and Balts were suppressed by brute force, and fiefdoms were established in Hungary, Poland and Bohemia. But the intent to rule Europe was confronted by the forces of national identity, the Reformation and Thirty Years War, and the HRE gradually retreated to a federation of principalities.

Maintaining order over the many petty oligarchies of the HRE was awkward, but Joseph II, emperor of the late 18th century, had a master plan. He was an arch-centraliser, who cloaked his zeal for control in Enlightenment values. Determined to create a state apparatus that would banish feudalism, Joseph II levied taxes to pay for institutions and representative bodies operating under his jurisdiction.

Just as the European Union is becoming less united, the HRE was not really holy. The rich statelets presented themselves as hubs of intellectual enterprise and the arts, but as the princes sought to fortify their privileged status against popular rebellion, survival was prioritised over aesthetics or virtue. The Vatican with its papal bulls was a hindrance, and religious fervour was regarded from the castle ramparts as dangerous populism. With his Secularisation Decree, Joseph II banished the Jesuits, cut the number of saints’ days, and his anti-clerical stance led to a testy visit by Pope Pius VI. Joseph II didn’t care much for God: leave superstition to the ignorant plebs.

Joseph II overstretched himself. He signed a treaty with Russia and Prussia to divide Poland among the three, but faced serious revolts in Hungary and Belgium. The end came soon after Napoleon declared himself emperor of France. As la Grande Armée marched across Europe, German princes seceded from the HRE to accept Napoleon’s protection, and in 1806 Francis II formally rescinded the empire.

The HRE ended as an embarrassment of corrupted ideals, and the EU may be going the same way. It has extended beyond coherence, having incorporated the same parts of eastern Europe that caused so much trouble for the holy emperors. Economically it is stagnating, and it has created a cultural timebomb with its mass migration from Muslim lands. For now, the EU seems to have strength and resilience: the combined might of France and Germany, its neoliberal multiculturalism an inspiration to youth. But ten years on, and the view from Barnier’s bastion looks less assured.

Breaking news from a burning city: protesters surround the old parliament building, the EU flag is ripped off the pole. Inside, worried officials burst into a wordless rendition of Ode to Joy. The soldiers, experienced only in handing out food tokens to crowds of migrants, are refusing to fight. And this is how the most apparently impermeable and permanent regimes end: not with a bang but a whimper.

This article first appeared in Conservative Woman

Continue reading
1488 Hits


How will the word 'if' be powerful in the context of the EU and Brexit negotiations? As Philip II of Macedon found out, sometimes there are battles that brute force will not win. Battles where threats and punishment do not work against a counterpart. Philip II of Macedon had defeated numerous enemies when he sent the following warning message to an...
Continue reading
1475 Hits
1 Comment

The Brexit Legacy

There are a variety of reasons why the EU has doomed itself following the creation of Article 50. It is akin to Superman building a Kryptonite factory. Perhaps a more apt metaphor would be a fisherman widening the gaps in his nets without quality control checks. Could either the superhero or the fisherman hold a 3rd party responsible for the outcom...
Continue reading
1841 Hits

Bad faith in Brussels: A warning to the UK’s Brexit negotiators

Michel Barnier, the EU’s Chief Negotiator for Brexit.
Photograph: DG EMPL, Flickr

British Prime Minister Theresa May outlined her government’s vision for Brexit in a speech delivered in Florence on September 22. In a bid to breathe new life into ongoing UK-EU negotiations, she presented proposals regarding the rights of EU citizens living in the UK, the length of a “transition period” after 2019, and the sum Britain might pay during that period. Rather than inspiring counterproposals or constructive criticism from EU leaders, May’s speech generated little more than the same refrain repeated from Brussels since negotiations began: that more “clarity” was needed, and that “sufficient progress” would have to be made before talks could advance. This lacklustre, somewhat apathetic EU position does not look like the result of sincere consideration of May’s proposals, or a constructive attitude towards the talks. Rather, it looks a lot more like a deliberate tactic to either prevent Brexit, or punish Britain.

Some might find this approach perplexing. After all, is it not in both parties’ interests to negotiate a mutually-beneficial outcome? Not necessarily…

To better understand Brussels’ foot-dragging in Brexit talks, it helps to understand the incentives driving it. First and foremost, the EU is a political union. Economic, social, or environmental considerations may all have contributed to the appeal of ever-closer union, but they remain secondary to the very political objective of federal statehood. Indeed, from the days of Jean Monnet and Robert Schuman at the dawn of European integration, to more the more recent mandates of José Manuel Barroso, Viviane Reding, or Guy Verhofstadt, the goal of a pan-European nation state is no secret.

Grasping that European statehood is the EU’s ultimate objective is essential for the UK government’s Brexit Secretary David Davis and his team of negotiators as they engage with their counterparts. It means that, no matter how amenable the UK is to facilitating trade or subsidizing the EU’s budget, the bottom line in Brussels remains the preservation of their political project. The win-win economic gains desired by the UK are not necessarily desired by the EU, for whom a successful Britain would signal there is no longer any economic appeal to remaining in the bloc. A strong UK economy poses an existential threat to European integration.

This explains why trade negotiations have not even begun, despite both parties already sharing near-identical norms and regulations. It is also why the EU seems in no rush to maintain access to the UK’s large consumer market, with Britons buying more from the EU than the other way around. In order to preserve the union, the EU’s only options are to ensure the UK remains inside, or fails outside.

When seen through this lens, the whole exercise of negotiating seems futile. Of course, Britain is right to try, as it shows good faith as good neighbours. But in order to make the most of Brexit, the UK government needs to radically shift its focus to the next chapter of its national history, rather than dwell on the previous one. As championed by major figures in the Leave campaign, Britain should embrace the opportunities afforded to it by its newfound freedom to trade with the world. With Japan, Australia, the United States, Canada, New Zealand and others eager to engage with the UK after it leaves, Whitehall resources would be better spent solidifying the relationships of tomorrow, rather than appeasing the relationships of yesterday.

The good news is that many in Britain already understand this. Recent commentaries by cabinet ministers David Davis, Boris Johnson, and Liam Fox suggest they are well aware of the EU’s motivations. The question is, will the rest of the cabinet, and indeed the rest of Parliament follow their lead and make the most of the incredible opportunities offered by Brexit; or will they remain fixated on negotiations with a counterpart that wants them to fail?

This article is from The Eurosceptic

Continue reading
1107 Hits
1 Comment

A History of Brexit

Managing the Brexit negotiations is merely one aspect of Brexit. In the coming years much will be written (presumably by both sides) as to the rights and wrongs of why the UK population by percentage voted to leave the EU on 23 June 2016. You know that books will be written examining why and how Brexit came about. Someone will try and lay the blame...
Continue reading
1612 Hits

Government must scrap its compromises over EU military schemes

eumilitarystaffVeterans for Britain, supported by the Bruges Group, bring an urgent message to Manchester on Monday 2 October: we need full Brexit for defence and an end to recent UK commitments to the EU that have a nasty sting in the tail.

Since the Brexit vote, the UK has given a green light to the juggernaut of EU military schemes on the understanding we would be outside of them.

However, government position papers incredibly propose STAYING IN joint EU schemes on military finance, research and assets.

The schemes, which have never been voted on by MPs, would mean the UK staying in EU Common Defence Policy, the European Defence Agency and even EU defence procurement directives. Norway is the only non-EU country in the schemes and was obliged to accept these rules.

The PM has rightly declared the UK’s unconditional commitment to Europe’s defence via NATO.

However, we fear that MPs and ministers are not aware of the full implications of a Norway-style military union agreement. Many civil servants are aware of these implications and are pushing for UK entry relentlessly.

At the same time as these new EU military finance and structure schemes are being agreed, the EU is growing the remit of its Common Security and Defence Policy in a way that consolidates its control over EU Council-agreed military responses. The EU’s new military HQ, the MPCC, which UK diplomats tried in vain to change, is just a small part of this.

The EU is also tightening defence asset production rules to make an EU defence market in which member state governments will find it impossible to protect domestic defence jobs and industry eg Scottish shipyards in the UK’s case.

Sadly, the Government’s National Shipbuilding Strategy of September 2017 fully adheres to the latest EU rules in cross-border defence tendering – clearly anticipating a future where the UK would need to comply.

It is essential that at the Conservative Party Conference in Manchester delegates are made aware of the risk to Scottish shipyards, particularly Ruth Davidson and her Scottish Conservatives team. The UK is heading towards a scenario where it is dictated by these EU procurement rules which will only become more assertive when the UK is fully committed to them.

‘Dodging the EU bullet’

Speakers: Major-General Julian Thompson, Colonel Richard Kemp, Captain Will Carver & Geoffrey Van Orden MEP

Monday 2nd Oct 11.00 at Manchester Town Hall, Albert Square, Manchester, M60 2LA

For more info on the commitments made by the UK to the EU military juggernaut and the risks posed from the proposal to stay in them, see:


Continue reading
1934 Hits

No Transition is Better than a Bad Transition

No Transition is Better than a Bad Transition
In my last blog post, I made my own personal views on transition clear and I also stated what the government had said that their views on transition were. To summarise, I personally believe that, if a free trade agreement (FTA) between the UK and the EU is agreed by midnight on 29th March 2019 and, if a subsequent transitional arrangement is deemed...
Continue reading
1528 Hits

Signalling a post-Brexit industrial strategy

Supporting Bombardier - Putting employment in Britain at the heart of economic policy.

Robert Oulds

25th September 2017

We are determined that Brexit, if when it eventually happens in earnest, delivers the change we need. One of these new approaches can be in defending British industry, along with its jobs and innovation from unfair actions. But why wait for Brexit? It can begin now!


Bombardier, a major employer in Britain, a new entrant in the plane market, is being threatened by a trade complaint brought by Boeing designed to keep it out of the US market.[i] Theresa May’s government must show that a post-Brexit Britain will use its new-found independence to stand up for UK jobs. A policy area where we would not have to live with pan-EU rules any more. British taxpayers give Boeing hundreds of millions of pounds in defence deals, while at the same time they’re trying to close British factories. That’s not the action of a trusted partner for this country.


What should the Government do?


The Canadian Government of Justin Trudeau has warned Boeing that if it does not stop bullying Bombardier his government will cancel its taxpayer-funded contracts with Boeing.[ii]


Theresa May should follow suit and review all taxpayer contracts with Boeing, until the company withdraws its threat to close British factories. This would be a real show of commitment to a UK-focused industrial strategy.


Some in a resurgent Labour Party at their conference in Brighton are attempting to undermine the spirit of the referendum by keeping the UK tied in as closely as possible to the EU for as long as possible. They seem to be pushing at an open door. The Government has accepted an EU transition with some of the obligations of membership, minus the influence, as proposed by our Prime Minister in her recent speech in Florence.


Taking such an approach to its extremes means not only accepting EU control over trade but also its undue influence over our industrial strategy and EU procurement rules and tendering.


Since the referendum progress has been made. The initial stages of Brexit have already been a boon to employment.[iii] British manufacturing has grown since the referendum.[iv] This has largely been driven by increasing export demand.[v] The rebalancing of the British economy should have little to fear from Brexit. The potential extra costs of tariffs placed on British exports to the EU is more than mitigated by the reduction in the value of the pound.[vi]


Despite this fear still pervade British politics, infecting some areas of business confidence.[vii] Steps were taken to alleviate the naysayers’ predictions of gloom if the UK was fully free to implement its own policies. Some supply side reforms were proposed. Yet, talk of a low tax UK alternative to the dilapidated EU (Franco-German model) has been muted of late. This backtracking away from boldness does little to restore confidence. The other approach now adopted by the Government is one making renewed concessions to the EU. This has problems of its own.


Any half-hearted Brexit, any postponement, any delay is a denial of the referendum result and just as importantly a rejection the opportunities that await UK plc after Brexit. If the rediscovery of Thatcherite classically liberal economic policies is no longer on the agenda then a new approach is needed.


We want to make sure Brexit is a success, but we are now further than before from being able to make the right choices for ourselves. Yet, the Government can show that despite some recent mixed messages, which fail to appreciate the opportunities that await us, there is still another way to signal that it will make Brexit a success.


The Government can restore confidence and outline a better tomorrow by showing that it will protect the employment gains that have recently been won and much more than that protect and enhance high-end manufacturing, creating well-paying jobs that add value to the economy. The government can signal that it will do what is necessary, taking back control must mean something.


To mitigate the fears and genuinely to secure the best outcomes for the British economy a self-governing country will have many decisions to make. Brexit has the potential to be a huge opportunity for many organisations, especially our excellent manufacturers. One of these threatened employers is Bombardier.


Defending a respected company – alongside Canada, a potential new global trading partner - will show that we have much to gain from Brexit. This must begin now and this is a real issue that needs to be addressed, not just for its totemic importance but also because jobs in this country depend upon it.


Bombardier is a well-known maker or trains, which has suffered before because of the UK’s over officious implementation of EU procurement rules awarding contracts to German rivals Siemens. [viii] There is now a new issue where the Government can step in to help its plane-making division in a dispute with American rivals Boeing. Bombardier is trying to break the duopoly of Boeing and Airbus in the production of smaller commercially sold planes. These pricing from there powerful rivals is having the effect of squeezing Bombardier.[ix] [x] What is worse, is that Boeing is trying to push Bombardier out of the US market altogether. The Canadian Government of Justin Trudeau has warned Boeing that if it does not stop bullying Bombardier through the courts his government will cancel its contracts with Boeing.[xi] The British Government should follow suit and review all contracts with Boeing.


Of course, a real solution is only fully achievable when we ae outside of the EU but it can ward off Boeing’s aggressive action and make them think twice about the long term, implications of its legal action in the US courts. Through signalling such an approach the remoaners that fear change, even in the Labour Party will see, that Brexit can be a real opportunity.


British taxpayers give Boeing hundreds of millions of pounds in defence deals, while at the same time they’re trying to close British factories. That’s not the action of a trusted partner for this country. Theresa May, stand up and support workers in the UK.


Its not just about defending Bombardier and the production of its C Series aircraft. There are also over 200 UK suppliers directly provide materials, hardware, equipment, and services for this planes production. The Belfast facility plays a critical role in C Series production and advanced composite wing assemblies.


Boeing’s petition to the US International Trade Commission (ITC) is a direct attack on innovation, competition, and development, which would ultimately harm the industry, consumers, and workers. Boeing’s petition would hinder future investment and domestic job growth in the UK. Northern Ireland leaders have asked Vice President Pence to interject. They fear peace in the region could be in jeopardy over job loss.[xii]


If Boeing is successful, Bombardier’s C-Series aircraft could be pushed out of the American market. The Times wrote “Boeing says it believes that "global trade only works if everyone plays by the same rules of the road. The company [Boeing] should heed its own advice before condemning others.”[xiii]


Theresa May announced that she phoned President Trump to raise concerns over Northern Ireland jobs.[xiv] Yet that is not enough. Theresa May knows what can be done and can follow Canada robust example. Justin Trudeau and Theresa May held a meeting to discuss the Boeing-Bombardier trade dispute in Ottawa on Monday 18th September.[xv]

Boeing’s protectionist complaint is unjustified. If successful, it would lead to job losses in this country, harming UK manufacturing. Taxpayer contracts with Boeing should be suspended until Boeing commits to withdrawing its complaint against Bombardier. The Government must use every weapon in its armoury to protect British workers.


This should be the message of what a post-Brexit Britain will be like. We will then see business confidence return.






[vi] page 32










Continue reading
2845 Hits

Financial Services and Brexit

​Project Fear scaremongered more about financial services than anything else during the EU referendum campaign and this scaremongering has unfortunately continued after the Brexit vote. Remoaners and soft Brexiteers (those who want us to remain members of the European single market after Brexit) now tell us that the reason why there was not an imme...
Continue reading
1608 Hits

Not My Brexit

In the last year we have seen the ordinary person take on the establishment and win. Not just here in the UK, but also across the pond in the USA. Against great odds both Brexit and Trump became victories. The blatant lies that mainstream media carried included the fact there would not be an EU Army. In the USA women who had yelled rape with regard...
Continue reading
1340 Hits

How Much The UK Actually Pays The EU

​It's a highly contested figure both during and in the aftermath of the Brexit referendum. The true cost to Britain being a part of the European Union is close to £661 million per week since 2010, a number hidden from the British taxpayers due to an intricate payments system and largely ignored by the mainstream media. Our estimated figure encompas...
Recent Comments
Robert Oulds
Jon, thanks for engaging with us. The £1.7 billion was still paid in full, when one takes in the reduction in the abatement. That ... Read More
Wednesday, 20 September 2017 15:17
Continue reading
23003 Hits

In Defence of the Visegrád Group

People have only as much liberty as they have the intelligence to want and the courage to take.”

Emma Goldman

The name of a quiet medieval town in Hungary – Visegrad – has in recent times become synonymous with the word “rebellion” in Brussels.


The Visegrad Group, also known as the Visegrad Four, or V4, is a cultural and political alliance of four central European states, comprising, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland and Slovakia, for the purpose of furthering their European integration, as well as for advancing military, economic and energy cooperation with each other. They have always been part of a single civilization sharing cultural and intellectual values and common roots in diverse religious traditions, which they wish to preserve and further strengthen. They have now emerged as the greatest modern defenders of European civilisation by undertaking to deploy armed forces to protect their borders.


The Visegrad Four have mounted their fiercest revolt against the European Union in the matter of the European compulsory allotment of refugees for resettlement throughout the Schengen Agreement, a passport-free arrangement involving most of the EU states.


Now these nations are increasingly consolidating as a bloc and challenging the liberal-internationalist leadership of the European Union, which had traditionally been dominated by Western countries. The Visegrád bloc is increasingly articulating an alternative “conservative” vision of what Europe should be.


The Brexit vote was a shock to the EU, and while it reinforced the V4’s presence, it offered them an opportunity to press for their own interests in Europe. Gradually, Visegrád governments are becoming policy-shapers rather than policy-recipients.


The EU’s inability to handle the immigration crisis, combined with a tilt in the power structure within the Union after the Brexit vote and increasingly bellicose and eurosceptic leaders in Hungary and Poland, has thrust the group to the fore.


Now the EU seeks to force these unlawful immigrants compulsorily on member states in what they call “redistribution”, with heavy fines for non-compliance. This is the sort of punitive action that only occupation governments impose on defeated nations. (Council Decision (EU) 2015/1523, supra.) Denmark and the ex-EU member, the United Kingdom, are not participating in this decision.

In spite of all, the EU has no right to ‘blackmail’ these countries!

The Visegrád leaders have made their voices heard on the EU stage.



The Czech government opposes an EU quota system to redistribute asylum seekers. “Our country simply cannot afford to risk terrorist attacks like those that occurred in France and Germany. By accepting migrants, we would create fertile ground for barbaric attacks,” Jiri Ovcacek said. The president does not agree with any acceptance of migrants in the Czech territory. How can anybody blame them?



Poland’s Minister of Justice delivered a scathing response to European Union bureaucrats who are attempting to bully the staunchly anti-migrant country as the battle over ‘refugee resettlement’ quotas rages on.


I’d like to ask Mr. Timmermans to stop speaking with such insolence and arrogance about Poland, and to Poles, and to the Polish authorities because we deserve respect.”

We expect and demand respect.” Polish Minister of Justice Zbiegniew Ziobro retorted.

Forget that, my friend, you cannot get anything better than that from the arrogant European Union! It is evident that the arrogance of Barroso has been inherited and is seeping through the ranks of the whole European Union.



Slovakia, with the support of other eastern member states, went to the European court to block the EU decision to relocate 120,000 Syrian and other asylum seekers. EU judges ruled that even those countries that voted against the plan were bound by law to implement the quota scheme. The Slovak people, in their massive uprising against the usurpation of their homeland, shouted: “Slovakia for the Slovaks” and to the immigrants: “Avoid our country”, while burning the EU flag.



Hungary has violated the EU's basic values and should be expelled from the Union”, Luxembourg's Foreign Minister

Jean Asselborn, Luxembourg's Foreign Minister, stated also the accusation. “Hungary has attacked the independence of the judiciary", But the Maltese government has been playing around with the judiciary for years and nobody said anything, or even noted. No need to sing you a lullaby to go back to sleep, I suppose. Mr. Asselborn! I guess you never woke up!


But Croatia has likewise refused access and passage to illegal immigrants.

No more Third World invaders will be allowed to pass through the territory of Croatia”, its president has announced.

Croatia will not let migrants pass through its territory, because the borders of neighboring countries are closed and Croatia needs to protect its territory,” she said.

However, we have to be prepared, and not depend on anyone else,” she continued. “We should be ready to protect our territory and borders.”

So, will Croatia also be kicked out of the European Union?


EU officials have suggested engaging with the “more reasonable” elements within the V4 – Slovakia and the Czech Republic – to separate them from Poland and Hungary whenever possible. The EU should be ashamed of its ‘divide and rule’ policy! Hungarian prime minister, Viktor Orbán, has warned that the EU is targeting Poland as a warning to all others who might follow their lead in standing up to the tyrannical superstate. Haven't we all seen this before…, in the case of Brexit??


If anyone still entertains any doubts about the profoundly undemocratic, totalitarian, authoritarian and arrogant nature of the European Union, one has only to note the treatment that the EU is dishing out against Britain following its decision to quit the EU. This was one of the main reasons that made the British just vote 'leave'.


Europe is lost.” Rabbi urges Spanish Jews to flee Europe for Israel before it’s too late

Eritrean migrants warn Germans their days are numbered.”

Austria Police: Dye Blonde Hair Dark and avoid travelling on public transport at night to avoid being attacked by nonwhite invader “refugees.” These are a massive disgusting insults.”

Israel will forcibly deport all non-Jewish illegal aliens after Court ruling

We don’t want to become Greece. That’s the monster in the corner that you don’t want to become.”

Ninety percent of all nonwhite invaders entering Europe are using criminal networks and forged documents”, a joint Europol-Interpol report has found.

What our politicians are giving away now, took over a thousand years to build.


Do you want this? Not so fast! Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic and Slovakia - so often lumped together in a Euroskeptic club, hostile to closer EU integration, wary of domination by big Western European countries like Germany, and wary of accepting migrants, especially Muslims, don't want it! ‘No refugees, No terror’, they sustain. Definitely also the Austrians really are not so craven and brow-beaten as to accept this.


Why do only these sane man “get it”? What the heck is really going on? Why are so many fools bent on destroying their own nations? It can not be just stupidity, no one can be actually THAT stupid. There is an agenda somewhere for some nefarious reason!!!


Curiously, it is evident that in our tiny, or rather miniscule, island of Malta, none seem to think or bother where this issue is leading us, as no government proves to have the nerve to inform and protect our people from this impending catastrophe. Can Malta be even certain whether it could meet its obligations even if it wanted to? The amount, according to the quota for Malta, would be considerably higher always dependent on the total influx of illegal immigrants entering Europe. Are we supposed to turn our citizens' brains into pink balloons? Are we to be robbed of our identities and memories and to be stunted and rendered devoid of political reflection? None shouted, “Hands off Malta”. Greece is Europe's dumping ground for illegal immigrants and Malta has become a trash can!


Too bad the rest of the world didn’t get the message. How dare do these people use common sense! Don’t they know it’s against EU policy to look after your people and make good decisions! They’ll be invaded by the European army to prevent this common sense tool from spreading to other EU figure-heads, lest they become leaders and find the guts and the courage to stand up.


But it is the political trajectory of “the Visegrad Four that could prove the European Union’s undoing!


Merkel invited the third-world to Germany. She then over-rode the EU’s requirement for asylum application in country of entry. She was not authorised to take such a step.

Her action has been ruled unlawful by a German court.


The basic problem is that you can't send refugees rescued in the Mediterranean back to Libya. They can only be brought to a safe haven. Attempts by Germany to find refuge for them in Tunisia or Egypt were rejected by those countries. And Libya hasn't been safe since the days when European bombs helped to topple Gaddafi's regime, nullifying the treaty on refugees which was similar to the one between the EU and Turkey. Western Europe opened the door to this mess and is now powerless to close it again.”


In the first place, do the countries of the Visegrad Group bear any responsibility for the economic backwardness and exploitation which the under-developed and developing countries inherited and which is still prevailing by their colonial past?


Secondly, have these countries ever waged or are waging war in these poor countries, or perhaps instigated internal conflict for selfish ends, as the other Western countries are constantly doing?

Thirdly, they have never practiced nor do they practice any economic exploitation of any countries whatsoever.


But that is another sorrowful story, which surely must be tackled in full later. At least, suffice it to say that African farmers are being condemned into prolonged poverty by EU trade rules and Africa is being starved into submission by its historical trading partners, first and foremost, the European Union.

It is not clear, considering all, how Brussels will be able to hypocritically force those countries to take in refugees against their will. 


Some EU members, including Austria, Hungary, Slovenia, Spain, France and the initially welcoming Denmark and Sweden, have reacted by practically suspending the Schengen Agreement and reinstating border controls.


Perhaps it would be more beneficial for them if the Visegrad nations, together with Austria and other east/central Europe states, would split off from the EU and form their own separate free trade zone.


Finally, please permit me to quote the noble thought expressed by the illustrious Thomas Paine; "If there must be trouble, let it be in my day, that my children may have peace", which I humbly try to emulate.


If you truly want to be respected by people, you must prove to them that you can survive without them.”

Michael Bassey Johnson



Joseph M. Cachia

Freelance Journalist

Email: jmcachia@maltanet.

Pone: 99866151



Continue reading
1065 Hits

The New Project Fear

John Bull280

Since Theresa May's Lancaster House Speech in January of this year, two new Project Fears have sprung up. The first (from The Labour Party, EFTA4UK, Liberal Leave, Leave HQ and Dr Richard North) states that “We need to remain members of the EU's internal market after we officially leave the EU”, even though there are over 50 countries outside of the single market which have free access to it via free trade agreements. The second (from Nick Boles, Lord Hague and Chancellor Philip Hammond) states that “We need to have a transitional period of up to four years during which time we would still be members of the single market and the customs union”.


Before we pay these campaigns and their claims any attention, we should bear in mind just how wrong the previous Project Fears, which were often run by the very same people, really were.


The first Project Fear said “We need to join the European Economic Community (EEC or so-called 'Common Market') and, if we do, we'll export more to the EU”. The exact opposite has happened – we've exported less and less to the EU and, in 2016, we had a record high trade deficit with the EU of £78.1 billion. The second said “We need to join the European Exchange Rate Mechanism (ERM)” but this was then a disaster for us and led to Black Wednesday. The third said “We need to join the Euro and, if we don't, London's business will grind to a halt”. The exact opposite has happened. The fourth said “We need to stay in the EU and, if we don't, there'll be a recession in the immediate aftermath of a leave vote”. We've instead had record levels of prosperity since the Brexit vote.


All of Project Fear's economic predictions were wrong except, I will admit, for their prediction about sterling. They correctly predicted that there would be a significant fall in the value of the pound sterling in the immediate aftermath of a leave vote and the pound has fallen in value by about 15% on average. However, remoaners seem to want to think that the value of the pound is the only, or at least the main, indicator of the strength of the UK economy. This is, as any economist will tell you, nonsense. There are other indicators such as the FTSE 100, the FTSE 250, our output, our exports, our unemployment rate, the amount of foreign direct investment we attract and the rate of our economic growth which are equally as important, if not more important, than the relative value of sterling. All of these factors must together be taken into account before a judgement can be made on the strength of the UK economy.


The FTSE 100 has hit four new record highs since the Brexit vote: in December 2016 (6 months after the Brexit vote), in January 2017 (7 months after the Brexit vote), on 1st March 2017 (9 months after the Brexit vote and 2 months after the Brexit plans' release) and on 17th March 2017 (9 months after the Brexit vote and 2 months after the plans' release). The FTSE 250, which is widely acknowledged as being the best gauge of domestic economic sentiment, also reached a record high on 15th February 2017 (8 months after the Brexit vote and a month after the revelation of the Brexit plans). I include the relative timings in brackets as remoaners constantly told us in the months after Brexit that the reason why there still hadn't been a recession due to Brexit was because the Government hadn't revealed its position on the single market and the customs union and as Article 50 hadn't been invoked yet. However, a year and three months after the Brexit vote, eight months after the Government revealed its Brexit plans in the Lancaster House speech and six months after the invoking of Article 50, we are still waiting for this recession.


We were told that, after a vote to leave, unemployment would rise by 9,000 per month for the rest of 2016 but unemployment has actually fallen by almost exactly that amount and is now at a record low of just 4.4% - the lowest level since 1975. We were told that we would experience two successive quarters of negative economic growth but we actually grew faster in the six months after the Brexit vote than we did in the six months leading up to the vote. At the end of 2016, we finished up as the most successful major economy in the entire world, the fastest growing economy in the entire of the western world and the fastest growing economy in the G7.


The Department for International Trade has attracted £15.8 billion of foreign direct investment (FDI) from August last year to January this year and the UK still attracts more FDI than any other country in the whole of Europe. Since the Brexit vote, we've seen a record increase in financial services trading figures and a record increase in service industries growth. As of 30th June 2017 the UK attracted more FDI in financial services than any other country in the whole of Europe. Developers have continued to press ahead with the construction of more office spaces in London, showing fears of a post-Brexit business exodus (a so-called “Brexodus”) to be yet more scaremongering. UK car sales increased by 3.3% and reached their highest level in 2016 after the Brexit vote. Cake and cheese exports have both increased by 25% since the Brexit vote and the UK now exports more food, drink, bread, cakes, pastries and biscuits than it ever has before. Over the last year UK exports increased by 11.5%. As of 31st July last year, 27 non-EU countries with a combined GDP of over £40 trillion reportedly already wanted to sign new trade deals with the UK once it has left the EU and this potential market rather dwarfs the EU’s internal market which is worth only about £12 trillion.


Even if we are to take the value of the pound sterling in isolation, the remoaners are far from telling the whole story. Firstly, they all just presume that they can *know* for certain that the devaluation was indeed *caused* by the Brexit vote alone. Correlation does not, however, prove causation - it could just be a coincidence or other factors could be involved. Jacob Rees-Mogg MP has pointed out that both the OECD and the IMF said before the referendum that the value of the pound was too high - even strong remainer Ken Clarke MP has admitted this. Lord (Mervyn) King, the former Governor of the Bank of England, has said that the devaluation is a welcome fact. Therefore, a devaluation was only a matter of time and the Brexit vote merely brought forward this already-inevitable devaluation. The columnist Peter Hitchens foresaw a devaluation way before the referendum and states that the devaluation has nothing to do with the Brexit vote and would have also happened if we had voted to remain.


However, remoaners go on to presume that this devaluation has only been a negative thing for the UK economy. This is false. It has not led to out of control inflation as many predicted - inflation actually fell in October of last year, 4 months after the Brexit vote. Jacob Rees-Mogg has pointed out that the last two significant devaluations before the Brexit vote (in 1931 and in the early 1990s) both resulted in lasting periods of prosperity and rising living standards. News of the devaluation has been happily received by UK exporters who have said that the value of the pound has been too high for too long. The devaluation has made their exports cheaper and more competitive relatively-speaking and has consequently increased demand for our exports overseas. In fact, in September of last year, UK exports reached their highest level in 20 years. Finally, remoaners are always negative and pessimistic about our chances of getting a good free trade agreement with the EU agreed by midnight on 29th March 2019. However, even in the most unlikely and worst-case scenario of there being no Brexit deal at all by then, the average ~15% devaluation would easily dwarf an average most-favoured nation (MFN) goods tariff with the EU of just 5%.

Continue reading
1639 Hits

CANZUK - The Genesis of a Post-Brexit Culture

Before 23 June 2016 people toyed with the idea of the UK being free of the EU in trade, economic and immigration policies. However, even if the UK had voted to Remain in the EU, it would not have been able to benefit from such concepts as CANZUK (Australia, Canada, New Zealand and UK group). It is noteworthy that these 4 members are also part of th...
Continue reading
2390 Hits

Fishing: it has to be cast iron guaranteed

All that is required is to exempt any fisheries acquis from the withdrawal bill.

John Ashworth

7th September 2017
Type text for SEO (example Bruges Group : Image Title)

Having spent the past 25 years against the European Union, I never thought I would see the day I would agree with Barnier and Junker, that our side has become an embarrassment.


It is no good expecting the EU to be flexible, where their structure is one of rigidity. Even if Barnier wanted to bow to British demands, he can't, the system doesn't allow it.


On the home front, we now start what was to be called the Great Repeal Bill, and is now called the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill. This is a dangerous bill, not because it is repealing the European Communities 1972 Act and its amendments, but because it is turning the acquis, the 34   individual subject contents, into domestic law on the assumption by doing so, will mean the EU regulations we are presently controlled by will continue from day before today after exit, and create a smooth transition. However, it is not that simple.


The bizarre process then starts. Article 50 has taken us cleanly out of the CFP, and no one EU member can complain because all members have accepted this process by Treaty. Our own Westminster Parliament, by bringing the Fisheries acquis across, our parliament has endorsed   the CFP we have just left, and carried it forward as if nothing has happened, in the process giving 59% of our marine resource away again.


So, we have come out of the CFP, all bar name gone back in with the acquis, and then to come out again a fishiness bill has to be created on time and very accurate to counter the withdrawal bill.


If there is a withdrawal agreement, which is looking highly unlikely because of time, but if there is, it will have to be written to match the fisheries bill.


We are heading to the situation Parliamentarians will have to vote on the withdrawal bill not knowing what is coming up in the Fisheries Bill, nor knowing if a withdrawal agreement will be finalised, thereby giving HMG a blank piece of paper based on trust, where anything can go wrong, and the nations resource could be lost for good whereas all that is required is to exempt any fisheries acquis from the withdrawal bill.


All we know on the fisheries bill, is the regulations will be adjusted accordingly, but we don't know what or how., which bits will be taken out or left in. If all reference to the EU is taken out, such as “member State” “Union” “Commission”, on the main Fisheries regulation 1380.2013 there will be hardly anything left, So why take the difficult route.


When Fishing for Leave campaigned on the subject of the London Fisheries Convention 1964 we did so as a precautionary measurer, so as to avoid legal challenges at a later day.  We appreciate the Minister took that advice.


The same applies to this torturous route HMG are attempting. Our fear, by bringing the fisheries acquis into domestic legislation, the present CFP measures are being endorsed by our parliament, and could run us foul of the Vienna Convention, which convention is about Treaties, and it is not treaties that are being moved into domestic legislation, but regulation, and by de-coupling the regulation from the treaty, the Vienna Convention does not apply.


However, EU regulations take their authority from the Treaties and can't be de-coupled, but the process of the acquis being moved to domestic provides the evidence of our parliament supporting the CFP, and it is the withdrawal agreement (if there is one), which will be a legal agreement, and it is that, that could bring us foul of the Vienna Convention.


Just as our argument over the London Convention was to take a cautionary approach to avoid any legal challenge, the same applies here, why take the risk because if we are faced with a challenge, it could drag on for years, which would see the final nail in the coffin for the British fishing Industry and the inability to rejuvenate our coastal communities.


Just as Barnier is saying the British position lacks detail, so we have the same situation here, you can't expect parliamentarians to vote for something without the detail. The importance of this nation's resource goes beyond “trust” it has to be cast iron guaranteed.

By John Ashworth of Fishing for Leave

Continue reading
1252 Hits

Surrender Is Not Negotiation

In the latest round of Brexit negotiations, the European Union called on Britain to pay a hefty bill before commencing with trade talks. Negotiators are asking the UK to commit paying 14 percent of the EU's budget until 2020, a pledge that could cost British taxpayers billions of pounds.Prominent reclaimer Gina Miller argued Britain shoul...
Continue reading
1137 Hits

Sugar Beets and the Pandemic of Modern Obesity

This country’s change from consuming sugar derived from sugar cane, which Britain historically purchased from its old colonial territories, to consuming sugar extracted from sugar beets from about 1973 onwards has slowly but surely greatly contributed to this country’s obesity problem

S Davies

2nd September 2017
Type text for SEO (example Bruges Group : Image Title)
I pose the question of whether this country’s change from consuming sugar derived from sugar cane, which Britain historically purchased from its old colonial territories, to consuming sugar extracted from sugar beets from about 1973 onwards has slowly but surely greatly contributed to this country’s obesity problem. It is popularly believed that despite us as a nation consuming fewer calories these days than was the case in the 1960's,  obesity has gradually become a real problem. So, is it the EU's forced substitution of sugar obtained from sugar beets rather than sugar obtained from sugar cane making us really fat? 
I suggest that the country's obesity pandemic is partly due to its switch to the creation of sugar from sugar beets, which came about after the UK entered the European Economic Community in 1973. The UK had historically relied upon sugar cane for its sugar, which was a state of affairs that hadn't changed since sugar was first introduced into this country and became more widely available from about the 16th - 17th centuries onwards. In fact beets were not discovered as an alternative to cane until the late 18th century and weren't used in manufacturing until the early 19th century, when they had to be cultivated to yield a higher sucrose content than that which they originally and naturally contained.
The difference in quality between the two types of table sugars is a matter of debate. From a culinary perspective, I personally find sugar derived from sugar cane to be a far superior substance. I find it crisper and that it gives a lighter result. There is no apparent taste to cane sugar, which is just sweet. I personally find that there is an ever so slight aftertaste or noticeable different texture to beet sugar. Cane sugar is the master baker's sugar of choice, whatever the chemists say about it supposing to be the same. Meringues made from sugar cane are crisper and far superior. Cakes don't flop as easily with cane sugar. Yet the scientists say that “sugar is just sugar” and that there is no difference between the two substances. 
So, what is the difference between sugar cane and sugar beets? To look at a 500 gram pack of Silver Spoon (beet sugar) and Tate & Lyle (cane sugar) next to each other, they generally appear to be of the same size, and have the same volume, so there can't be much of a difference regarding the physical density of the product. On closer inspection of the sugar grain or crystals, the beet sugar may seem less crisp and light than the cane sugar. However, I think that to appreciate the difference between them, one needs to look at how the two products are processed, the difference in production being necessary due to their respective botanical composition. 
Sugar beets and sugar cane must be processed differently to achieve apparently the same table sugar. Sugar beets, which are a root crop, are sliced and boiled to extract the syrup. This is then evaporated into crystals. Sugar beets produce two by-products: the beet pulp, from which the sucrose syrup has been extracted, and molasses. The beet pulp is dried into pellets and fed into the human food chain inasmuch as it's then sold on as animal feed. The sugar beet molasses is not fit for human consumption but can and is fed to animals.
Sugar cane, which grows in reeds above the earth's surface for several feet before it's harvested, is sliced and heated in water to extract the sugar syrup. Cane sugar also produces molasses as a by-product. However, this molasses can be used for human consumption - e.g. in the Caribbean it is utilised in the manufacture of rum. The bark or reeds of the sugar cane crop is then either defunct or can be used in the manufacture of baskets and mats etc.
The botanical composition of sugar beets is described on Wikipedia as follows: "The pulp, insoluble in water and mainly composed of cellulose, hemicellulose, lignin, and pectin, is used in animal feed." The botanical composition of sugar cane is described as: "A mature stalk is typically composed of 11–16% fiber, 12–16% soluble sugars, 2–3% nonsugars, and 63–73% water." 
I suggest below that the more resinous nature of sugar beet may have a deleterious effect on the human liver. It must be ground down or processed to such a level in standard sugar production that it is then able to permeate the small intestines and enter the liver via the bloodstream. This can then act as a resinous mist on liver cells and affect their ability to act to their required capacity, so forcing the body to rely on alternative glucose-fuelling sources - i.e. cortisol from the adrenal glands. Perhaps cane sugar, having no inherent resinous qualities, degrades more easily, leaves no residue and is thus less taxing on the human body.
In attempting to explain my theory, I think that it's important to first go through the stages involved in the body's metabolism of food. The human body, and animal kingdom in general, are glucose-driven vessels who rely upon glucose as their primary source of fuel. This contrasts with the plant kingdom, whose primary source of energy is slightly different and is called fructose. This general blood sugar requirement is irrespective of whether the body ingests fat, carbohydrate or protein. 
I initially wondered whether it was fructose, which, as has been noted above, is not the animal kingdom's source of sugar. As a substance, it may impose a bit of a strain on the body because it is not broken down by insulin, as glucose is, and in the usual way. It must be processed in the liver after ingestion, before it's released into the wider bloodstream. It has been suggested that everyone is slightly fructose intolerant, with their ability to break down fructose varying in degree from individual to individual and associations have been made between fructose and fatty liver disease. However, my point here is that where one obtains the fructose or plain sugar from also makes a difference – i.e. whether it’s obtained from sugar beet or sugar cane. 
In fuelling the human body, it is of paramount importance to maintain blood glucose homeostasis - i.e. balance - and therefore blood glucose levels hover within a limited range, with a normal range being 70 to 110 mg/dl (milligrams per deciliter). The body will try and move heaven and earth to achieve this balance and therefore has more than one mechanism to ensure blood glucose stability. For immediate use, it will rely on the glucose stored in the liver. This is termed glycogen. Thereafter, glucose is stored in fat and muscle tissues. 
The body accesses glucose by synthesizing (i.e. creating) and using insulin, which is a hormone produced by the beta cells of the pancreas. Insulin mobilises blood glucose and ensures it reaches the body's cells and muscles. The pancreas also synthesizes another hormone called glucagon, which is something of a mirror-image to insulin. Glucagon senses when blood glucose levels are low and sends negative feedback messages to the liver that this is the case, so instructing the liver to release more glucose, whilst insulin mops up glucose in the bloodstream and either helps the body utilise it immediately or helps to store it as excess fat. 

If glucose or glycogen stores in the liver are low, the body can also produce a hormone called cortisol from the adrenal glands, which lie on top of the kidneys, to remedy the shortfall. However, the body's usual glucose reserves are stored in the liver. If the body is forced to rely on short-term cortisol from the adrenals to release glucose stores from the body’s tissues, this is not the preferred method and long-term use carries its own problems - e.g. high blood pressure, which is associated with an increased cardio-vascular risk, increased risk of stroke, increased risk of diabetes due to cortisol's glucose-raising effects. Cortisol is also associated with obesity because it slows down the body’s rate and generally deteriorates body tissue etc.
So, why would the body choose to use the cortisol hormone instead of the glucagon one? 
Simply because it feels that it has to, to maintain blood glucose balance. Either the alpha cells of the pancreas, which produce glucagon, have become impaired, or the liver's reading of and sensitivity to them has become impaired. The body is then moved into emergency mode and cortisol is forced to take over and aid the release of glucose into the bloodstream where glucagon left off. So, we need to ask ourselves whether the liver cells or even the pancreas cells are being caked up with a resinous substance that hinders its ability to detect blood glucose levels and whether this irritating substance is present in sugar beet.

By S Davies


Continue reading
1272 Hits
1 Comment

The Shape of Gibraltar in the aftermath of Brexit

A Brexit-driven reconfiguration of the UK’s food and agricultural sector suggests that a period of significant transformation lies ahead; but if mapped successfully, can be a positive one.

George Macquisten

31st August 2017

Every civilization that has settled in Gibraltar has thrived, be it the Phoenicians, the Romans, the Ottomans, the Spanish and most recently, the British. Its strategic location and deep water harbour have been the reasons behind this, and enabled them to make it a vital trading hub.

Brexit represents a huge challenge to the future of Gibraltar as an economic centre, since it means losing membership of the biggest trading bloc in the world once the UK leaves in 2019. Gibraltar has experienced similar issues before in the various sieges mounted against it in the War of the Spanish Succession, and most recently during Franco’s blockade. There is certainly plenty to be cautious about, since the territory has become more dependent than ever on the land frontier remaining open to facilitate the movement of tourists, labour and imports.

However, the thriving financial services sector, which is closely aligned with that of the UK, means that the economic outlook is not as bleak as businesses and politicians initially feared, especially since the TiSA negotiations are proceeding well. The symbolic relationship Gibraltar shares with the neighbouring Spanish province of Andalucia means that they cannot function without the other.

Sense between the negotiating parties will prevail, especially since Madrid will not wish to sacrifice the economic well being of 10,000 Spaniards and forego the purchasing power of 30,000 comparatively wealthy Gibraltarians through causing difficulties at the border. If all sides can tone down the sometimes fiery rhetoric, there is every hope for creative solutions to keep the border with Spain open and flowing to the benefit of all.

Continue reading
1142 Hits

How will Brexit affect British Holidays


Brexit could hit UK travellers like a summer storm. But don’t fret – it’s not all bad. Although it is deemed likely that travellers will needs a visa to travel around Europe, mobile roaming data charges are set to be scrapped entirely across the board. If you plan on travelling around Europe this summer, make sure you apply for an E111 card or renew it if you haven’t already to ensure you are eligible to receive medical treatment away.

With the UK scheduled to begin with the process to depart from the European Union under Article 50 at the end of March, it’s time to consider how it could affect your holiday:


Rules regarding duty and tax-free product are likely to make a comeback. Since 1999, travelling within Europe meant that people held no rights against duty or tax-free purchases. But, the separation of Britain and the European Union could mean that the rule is bought back into practice. So if you rely on buying cheap alcohol or tobacco, you will have to revert to buying products in limited quantities just like all non-EU countries.

The EHIC scheme

One of the many perks of being part of the EU is The European Health Insurance Card, more commonly known as the EHIC or E111 card. The card entities all EU citizens to access public health care whilst abroad, on the same basis as citizens of that country. All travellers carrying the EHIC card are eligible for almost free treatment. When the UK leave the EU, this form of healthcare will be scrapped, and a new scheme will be put into practice. For the time being, there’s no need to worry. You will still be able to use your EHIC card abroad. There will be no immediate effect to how you can use it.

Value for money

Since the second day of Brexit negotiations, the pound weakened. The sterling is predicted to be volatile due to the uncertainty of the outcome. Be aware that some airport currency suppliers have the worst rates in the country, even if you place an order in advance. To save money, don’t buy your currency at the airport. You can find some of the best currency exchange rates online.

The weakened pound may result in increased flight prices. If you have already paid for your holiday, you have already protected yourself. For now, it will only affect those paying for accommodation abroad in other currencies, such as Euros. Visiting good value destinations will help you save money. Currently, two of the most cost-effective destinations are Mexico and Tokyo. Despite seeing inflation rise in the UK, most holiday destinations have seen little, if not no change since 2016.

Until the UK officially completes the leaving process no changes will be made. The good news is that this will be no sooner than two years’ time, so people like yourself are still able to hop between the UK and EU countries.

Continue reading
1046 Hits

Is a Transitional Deal Good for Brexit?

illustration 1835916 960 720 

With the Brexit negotiations in full flow, Britain is looking for a way to make the transition away from the European Union run as smoothly as possible while ensuring that Brexit happens unimpeded. There are two possible exits. The first is a clean cut that will come into effect on 29th March 2019. The second option is to negotiate a transition deal that will allow Britain to disengage with the EU over a designated period of time. Here on The Bruges Group we have examined how trade can successfully continue outside of the Single Market. It is just a case of how we get there. In this article we look at the advantages and disadvantages of a transitional deal.


For a Transitional Deal

A big concern amongst some leave voters is that Britain is heading towards a cliff edge scenario where no agreement or deal is reached. Many political and business commentators believe that this would leave Britain in a precarious position as all EU laws and regulations would suddenly cease. It is estimated that over 700 treaties have to be renegotiated, ranging from the airline industry to Britain’s nuclear agreement (Euratom), with the EU. With less than two years till the Article 50 deadline there is a strong argument that it isn’t feasible to negotiate every deal in time. This could leave many UK businesses in difficult positions, as they have to suddenly change from one set of regulations to another.

British trade minister and prominent leave advocate Liam Fox has pushed for a transitional deal. The Irish Times reported that Fox told Andrew Marr that a deal of around two years was necessary to give businesses the chance to adapt. He is quoted as saying: “I want to leave the European Union at the end of March 2019. Now once we have done that, once we have fulfilled our promise to the British people, we can look to see what we are going to do in terms of making that a smooth transition… whether that’s 23 [months], whether that’s 25 [months]." The trade minister reassured leave voters by stating that the transition period would have a limited time scale.


Against a Transitional Deal

There are valid fears that a transitional deal could be used by remainers to keep Britain locked into many EU regulations including the Single Market and Customs Union. Business Insider predicts that a transitional deal could be based on the EEA model which would allow free movement of citizens and require Britain to remain under the European Court of Justice. With Britain replicating the EEA model, remainers in the government could use it as a base to push for a permanent EEA status.

The British Government recognises that the British public voted for a clean cut. FXCM notes that May has clearly laid out the terms of Brexit: “Let me be clear. We are not leaving the European Union only to give up control of immigration again. And we are not leaving only to return to the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice.”

A transition deal could also hinder Britain’s ability to make trade deals with nations outside of the EU. If Britain cannot negotiate trade agreements during the transition, due to EU regulations, businesses in the UK would face even longer uncertainly. For Brexit to be successful. Britain must be able to trade globally without EU interference.



Continue reading
6617 Hits
1 Comment

Brexit will fail if it does not develop a clear vision for the future


Barely one year after the Brexit referendum, and under four months since the triggering of Article 50, the Financial Times has published a “democratic case for stopping Brexit”, adding to a crescendo in overt calls to upend the exit process. How did we get here? The whole point of the EU referendum, just like the Scottish referendum before it, was to bury a longstanding and contentious political issue. In both cases, this has not been so.


In the case of Scotland, it is clear that the opportunism of the nationalists was to blame for reviving the independence issue. Similarly, in the case of Brexit, it is tempting to point the finger at the “Remoaners” who never really accepted the result of the referendum, protesting against the democratic outcome from the get-go. Their scheming has not been particularly covert, with the entire frame of the “hard” vs. “soft” Brexit debate geared towards eventually thwarting the outcome of the vote.


Yet, the blame primarily lies with the pro-Brexit camp. It is no secret that prominent figures in the Leave campaign had no clear plan for victory, themselves appearing flabbergasted by the result. The present situation is the logical continuation of this reckless incompetence.


Beyond hazy generalities, there is little to believe in with Brexit as it stands. As a result, people will increasingly become disillusioned. If a bad deal is eventually struck and it goes to parliament for approval, either a general election or second referendum could become a legitimate vehicle through which to upend the entire Brexit process. With May’s government barely clinging to a majority, it doesn’t require too much imagination to see how persistent Remainers could eventually get their way.


What is needed, if Brexit is to stop haemorrhaging legitimacy, is an ambitious plan. A favourite example of prominent Brexiteers revolves around the promise of the Anglosphere, so why not start there?


Together, the United Kingdom, the United States, Australia, Canada and New Zealand constitute an Anglosphere of over 450 million people. This is more than the population of the EU 27 (without the UK). On top of this, these people are more prosperous than their EU counterparts, and have been for a long time.


Their GDP per capita is significantly higher than the EU average. In fact, in most cases it is even above that of the eurozone’s main economic success story: Germany. Growth rates have been higher too. While such aggregate figures are not the be all and end all of prosperity for the average citizen, they are certainly indicative.


Globally, the EU has been losing in relative economic importance at breakneck speed. The Western European edge of the Eurasian landmass –represented by the core 15 EU Member States– once dominated the global economy, controlling over a third of global GDP at the end of the 1960s. This was well above the US share of just over one quarter. Asia and Oceania stood at around 15% at the time.


Fast forward to 2011 and the EU15 share had tumbled to around a quarter of global GDP, having been overtaken by Asia and Oceania (driven primarily by China), as well as by the USA, whose share remained constant. Europe’s downwards trajectory has only accelerated as the eurocrisis has worn on.


The standard excuse offered up by sclerotic EU bureaucrats is that this march towards oblivion constitutes a natural “rebalancing” process as Asia, particularly China, regained its economic standing in the global economy. This naturally squeezed Europe’s share of global income.


But what is never addressed is why the US, Australia, Canada and New Zealand were all able to hold onto their relative shares of global wealth compared to the EU. In other words, why were they able to grow faster? Why are they more prosperous? It is obvious that the dramatic rise of China had to displace other economic players in relative terms, but why has this decline fallen squarely on the EU’s shoulders, and not on those of the Anglosphere as well?


The “rebalancing” rationalisations for Europe’s terminal decline are most often offered up by those working for institutions obsessed with “relaunching” Europe, “fresh starts”, “no more business as usual”, “delivering European renewal”, “acting now” or otherwise declaring it “time to act”, cooking up plans to make the EU “the most dynamic and competitive knowledge-based economy in the world”, etc. etc. Yet, these are the same people who shrug at the total and unique failure of Europe’s economy to hold its own in the world. You couldn’t make it up!


The EU has achieved unparalleled economic integration compared to any other regional bloc. And Britain was able to be a part of this union with such diverse nations for decades. Why, then, would some scheme for the Anglosphere be so far-fetched? Why would free movement of workers, for example, among countries with such similar needs and concerns –not to mention entwined intelligence services– be so unthinkable? And if it is not, where is the action?


As regards the limitations on Britain’s right to negotiate alternate trade deals while it remains within the EU, Britain must be careful to observe the letter of the law but certainly not its spirit, which is designed to thwart any successful secession. What is needed is a concrete plan that could be signed as soon as Britain is officially out of the EU, to be confidently presented to the public as a vision of the future after Brexit.


Without this, Brexit will surely suffer the same fate as the Remain campaign. Repeating generalities about executing the will of the people is as uninspiring as hypothesising over the future marginal economic costs of leaving the Union. These are not winning arguments. Leave won the campaign because it developed enthusing stances revolving around sovereignty: “take back control”. What does it offer now?

This article is by Daniel Matthews-Ferrero


Continue reading
1141 Hits

Barnier's career of wacky ideas and EU power-grabs

Michel Barnier is quickly becoming a pantomime villain in the UK, with his regular grandstanding and puerile PR stunts. But a lot of British commentators still give him far too much credit - we can only guess they haven't looked into the wreckage of his political career.
(Photograph courtesy of Foto-AG Gymnasium Melle)
Barnier's track record, described below, is marked by wacky EU-federalist ideas which have been his undoing on several occasions.
From his less-than-subtle effort to force the EU Constitution onto all of us through to the range of smaller proposals for EU power-grabs, which resulted in criticism, rebukes and a dismissal.
The Brexit talks show that he might never learn from these errors.
Despite having absolutely no elected mandate in his current role, he is stuck in the EU Commission mindset and trying to boss Britain around.
Any eurosceptic would have known that EU intransigence would soon surface in spite of David Davis's efforts to create an amicable and respectful exchange of views.
We highlight eight of his career low points here:

1. As French Minister for Foreign Affairs...
...he helped write the despised EU Constitution, a massive EU power-grab, that was trashed and rejected by French voters in a referendum and later in a Dutch referendum.

2. Sacked as French foreign minister...
...because his EU Constitution campaign was so roundly trashed in the French referendum. He later complained he was "unfairly singled out" for the referendum defeat, but he still didn't learn his lesson as the next items shows.
3. As French nominee to rewrite the failed EU constitution...
...he was asked to produce a new document to replace the constitution alongside other panellists. An unrepentant Barnier and his colleagues instead produced virtually the same list of power-grabs in the controversial and hated Lisbon Treaty. Co-writer Valéry Giscard d'Estaing confirmed it was "substantially the same as the EU Constitution".

4. As EU Commissioner for Regions...

...he oversaw the EU regional funding team which proposed a much-criticised funding project of more than EUR 60 million to the Spanish enclave of Melilla including millions spent on a luxury golf course next to a refugee fence and refugee reception centre. Although he oversaw the team which wrote the funding proposal and gave the initial approval, final approval to the criticised scheme was by his successor Jacques Barrot.
5. As adviser to José Manuel Barroso...
When asked to look into civil emergency response, he was ridiculed for his proposals for an EU Civil Protection Force which turned into an obvious power-grab for the EU Commission. He is credited with invented the phrase 'the cost of non-Europe' and his civil protection paper includes the bizarre phrase: "As the tsunami so tragically bears out, the price of non-Europe in crisis management is too high". He was also a Barroso adviser when Barroso made his famous gaffe, "the EU is our empire".
6. As EU commissioner for the internal market...
He was criticised repeatedly over: Solvency II insurance regulation; EU Commission power-grabs; toothless bank reform proposals; and half-baked banking reform proposals. He was also criticised by the UK Government for his banking reform proposals and the Alternative Investment Fund Managers' Directive which was especially punitive to the UK financial services industry.
Slammed over the Solvency II legislation process
Criticised for toothless proposals
Criticised for half-baked banking reform proposals:
Criticised by UK gov for his first draft of banking reform
Faced Uk gov criticism over AIFMD
7. As defence adviser to Juncker...
He helped create the concept of the European Defence Fund and the European Defence Action Plan. From 2015 to his appointment as EU Commission Brexit negotiator he helped plan the EU's defence powergrab which was eventually rolled out in a legislative onslaught at the EU Council between November 2016 and June 2017.

8. As co-president of the Albertville Olympic Committee...
...saw the event costs escalate to more than double its intended budget. UK analysts later found the event suffered a cost overrun of a whopping 137%.
 Flyvbjerg, Bent; Stewart, Allison; Budzier, Alexander (2016). The Oxford Olympics Study 2016: Cost and Cost Overrun at the Games. Oxford: Saïd Business School Working Papers (Oxford: University of Oxford). pp. 9–13. SSRN 2804554 Freely accessible.
Continue reading
2089 Hits

Brand Britain Beyond Brexit

When we inevitably run out of a product, we go to the shops and buy a new one. We are not told what to buy. There is no security to ensure we select Brand A instead of Brand B. We have a choice. Product placement is a reality, in many stores, but we have real choices. After Brexit, the EU and UK have very real choices too. They both must win over...
Continue reading
1657 Hits

Debunking the Brexit Myths

During the referendum campaign both sides made considerable remarks (some justified, others less so) about the state of trade, the economy and employment and whether the UK voted Leave or Remain on 23 June 2016. One year on we have learnt many things including the reality of an EU army. We have also learnt that Australia, Canada, New Zealand and th...
Continue reading
1360 Hits

The Will to Act

In the referendum on 23 June 2016 the majority of British people voted Leave. In doing so, they placed the cornerstone of a new future for the U.K. beyond the E.U. Some politicians, mainstream media and many pollsters failed to remember how the will to act had built the British Empire, Commonwealth and NATO. The will to act against questionable ves...
Continue reading
1648 Hits

Brexit under threat

The Union Jack flies over the Houses of Parliament in Westminster.
Photograph: Rian (Ree) Saunders, Flickr

With Article 50 triggered and Brexit negotiations well underway, the UK government looks like it’s carrying out the instructions it received from 17.4 million voters last summer. At best, Britain and the continent will establish a mutually advantageous trade relationship; at worst, the UK and EU will revert to World Trade Organization (WTO) rules, including minor tariffs on the exchange of goods and services. In either case, it seems, the UK will regain control over its finances, its borders, and its laws –all of which are necessary to fulfill the mandate given by voters.

Nevertheless, a growing threat hangs over Brexit Britain.

In hopes of consolidating power, Prime Minister Theresa May called an election in June. Rather than expand her mandate with a comfortable majority in Parliament, May’s Conservatives lost their majority, necessitating the support of Northern Ireland’s Democratic Unionist MPs to govern.

Emboldened by the election result, opposition parties have redoubled efforts to undermine the government’s position in Brexit negotiations. By seeking guarantees that single market access is maintained at all costs, or that, if by March 2019 (the date by which the UK has notified the EU it will leave) negotiations have not born fruit Britain’s current relationship with the EU should be maintained, MPs from Labour, the Liberal Democrats, the SNP and even some Conservatives are undermining the primary objective of last year’s referendum: to leave the EU.

Beyond Westminster, a growing number of voices have added themselves to the anti-Brexit bandwagon.

Devolved administrations in Scotland and Wales have expressed concern over the UK government’s “great repeal bill”, meant to repeal the European Communities Act of 1972, and bring all EU law currently applying to the UK into British statute. Scottish and Welsh first ministers Nicola Sturgeon and Carwyn Jones see the bill as a “power grab” by Westminster, supposedly denying any say to devolved administrations. Despite reassurances from cabinet minister David Davis, the UK’s departure from the EU will likely face many more such episodes from pro-remain Sturgeon and Jones.

A third front of opposition to Brexit has been opened by big business. The British Chamber of Commerce and the Institute for Directors have pushed Theresa May’s government for more clarity regarding the Brexit process, and the importance of avoiding a “cliff-edge” upon expiration of the 2-year transition period triggered in March. Certainty is crucial, but clear pressure is mounting from industry giants not to change the status quo –the very purpose of last year’s Brexit vote.

A fourth, ongoing front against Brexit is from advocacy groups within civil society. Last year’s court challenge of the government’s authority to trigger Article 50, and the persistent efforts of former Prime Minister Tony Blair to slow or stop the UK’s departure from the EU continue to erode meaningful debate on how best to carry out Brexit.

If Theresa May and her government are serious about carrying out the largest democratic mandate in British history, they need to do three things. First, they need to negotiate with the EU in good faith. Taking the first steps on EU citizens’ rights, adopting a constructive, realistic approach to deciding Britain’s share of EU debts, and ensuring the border in Ireland remains open (regardless of what the EU decides to do on its side) will not only give the UK the moral high ground, but also usher in the next part of Brexit talks: trade negotiations.

Second, May and her government need to prepare for the worst. In short, they should assume a “cliff-edge” scenario –involving a complete breakdown of talks– will occur, meaning a reversion to WTO trading rules. Businesses may not like this, but by signalling that no deal is guaranteed to emerge, industry has more certainty, and any future arrangement with the EU will be considered a bonus. This would likely shock the UK economy in the short term, but the ability for businesses and individuals to plan ahead would benefit all in the long term.

Third, the UK must aggressively pursue closer relationships with its international partners. Current negotiations with the EU are important, but Brussels has made clear that they preclude any further talks on a future trade relationship. It seems likely, therefore, that negotiations will start late, and be drawn out. Moreover, the EU has every reason to undermine the UK’s position, so as to discourage other member states from leaving the block. It is therefore quite possible they will negotiate in bad faith. As such, the UK would do far better to direct as many –if not more– resources towards trade with other nations, boosting access to far larger markets than the EU. Hints of this have already emerged, with International Trade Secretary Liam Fox opening discussions with the US, and Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson’s recent visit to New Zealand and Australia. China, Japan and Canada have also expressed interest in trade with the UK, underscoring the enormous opportunity associated with the UK’s newfound sovereignty. Of course, such deals will not be allowed so long as the UK is an EU member state, but they can be arranged for finalisation after the UK leaves, ensuring a smoother transition.

Above all, it must be clear to Britons and the world that there is no going back from last year’s referendum result. Brexit actually does mean Brexit.

This article is from The Eurosceptic


Continue reading
1316 Hits

The Five Eyes - Security after Brexit

The UK will continue to thrive due to its existing linguistic and intelligence connections

1st August 2017
Type text for SEO (example Bruges Group : Image Title)

I come from a family who have served on Five Continents for their country in both military and civilian platforms. As such, I became aware of the Five Eyes as a youngster.  The Five Eyes is a joint intelligence community comprising of Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the UK and the United States.   Initially the Five Eyes or FVEY was formed in 1941. It is therefore arguable, given the geographical locations of its members and their historical endurance, that no amount of pressure from the EU will cause it to falter.


FVEY operates beyond the remit of the EU. All are members of NATO and this will not change irrespective of Brexit. Brexit is inconsequential in matters of Intelligence.  Few in the Remain camp have even acknowledged this central pillar of British government that will endure beyond the legal confinements of any Brexit deal that London has with Brussels, if such a deal is even achieved.  The UKUSA Agreement of 1946 may have evolved, but nevertheless it shall remain a core part of British domestic and foreign security information gathering and sharing post-Brexit.


Cooperation between Five Eyes members will be ongoing, parallel to any changes within the EU.  Whereas some MPs feel that Britain will be left 'out in the cold,' (as if a new Cold War has developed), historical facts and agreements between the Five Eyes members will ensure this does not happen.  Unlike their European counterparts, the Five eyes all share the same language which in terms of intelligence communication can only be of significant benefit to all concerned.


According to James Cox, “Precise assignments are not publicly known, but research indicates that Australia monitors South and East Asia emissions. New Zealand covers the South Pacific and Southeast Asia.  The UK devotes attention to Europe and Western Russia, while the US monitors the Caribbean, China, Russia, the Middle East and Africa.”[1] It is hard to argue in any way that these arrangements will somehow change after the UK formally leaves the EU.


Incidentally, Human Intelligence gathering will not change post-Brexit. Signals Intelligence gathering will also remain unchanged. The other forms of Intelligence gathering will also be unaffected by the process of Brexit.  So too the agencies such as GCHQ, Canadian Security Intelligence Service and Central Intelligence Agency. These pillars will continue to support the national security of their respective countries independently and jointly when necessary.


There are numerous challenges ahead for the Five Eyes, once the UK takes her place back on the International stage.  These challenges will not be compounded by Brexit, but they could be alleviated by them.  Terrorism goes beyond the EU. So, too kidnappings and murders. Crime has become high tech and so too have the agencies targeting them.


Overall, it can be argued that the UK will continue to thrive due to its existing linguistic and intelligence connections. We must remember and acknowledge that the UK's Intelligence community is one of the oldest and most respected in the world, on top of being part of the Five Eyes.


By James Coghlan


[1] Canada and the Five Eyes Intelligence Community, James Cox, Strategic Studies Working Group Papers, December 2012, page 4

Continue reading
2355 Hits

Brexit: the end to austerity

Unlocking the benefits of leaving the EU

By Bob Lyddon

Bob is the author of The UK’s liabilities to the financial mechanisms of the European Union for the Bruges Group, and the Brexit Papers for Global Britain –

23rd June 2017
Type text for SEO (example Bruges Group : Image Title)

The current Government led by Theresa May has noticeably failed to bake any “Brexit dividend” into its policies for the coming 5-year Parliament. This is concerning because it may indicate either that they have not yet figured out the sources and extent of the financial benefits from Brexit, or that they are not going to pursue the negotiations with the EU in order to garner them, or both.


The guideline financial benefit is £50 billion per annum, or £961 million per week: almost three times the “battlebus” figure of £350 million, and approximately the size of the black hole in the Labour Party manifesto pledges for the recent election.


The keys to garnering the difference between the two figures lie in structuring a fair deal on the EU economic migrants already in the UK and on the taxation of corporate profits. “Fair” means fair to the UK population as a whole.


Talk of “a breakthrough” supposedly achieved on the first day of negotiation in the matter of the rights of EU citizens living in the UK must be a concern if this turns out to mean that the status quo is preserved for the 3.6 million citizens of other EU countries now living in the UK, since this heading contains the single largest amount of money connected with these negotiations.


It is vital that real “reciprocity” on this matter is achieved: the same amount of money flowing in both directions and for the same amount of time.


This is not the same as striking a deal that has an equivalence in words but not in figures, applying equally to EU citizens here and UK citizens living elsewhere in the EU. There are only 1.2 million UK citizens so affected, and these bald figures do not reflect either the annual cash value of the services delivered in the UK to EU citizens as compared to those delivered to UK citizens in other Member States, nor the age demographic: for what period will these services need to be provided?


Research based on the UK government’s National Labour Survey and issued by Global Britain indicates that the UK subsidises the public services obtained by each of the EU citizens in the UK by just under £10,000 each per annum. This figure is the difference between (i) their direct and indirect tax payments and national insurance contributions on the one hand and (ii) the costs to the UK state deriving from their usage of public services on the other.


In other words, the annual cash cost to the UK state of the 3.6 million EU citizens currently in the UK is £30 billion per annum. If the trade proposed by the UK government involves the exact same cost per head being spent by other EU Member States on UK citizens, then the annual cash cost on that side would be £10 billion, resulting in a net detriment to the UK under this heading of £20 billion per annum.


There is also the question of demographics: if the average UK citizen involved is a pensioner living in Spain and the average EU citizen in the UK is aged 25, then the cost to the UK will be of far longer duration than the cost to the other EU Member States. Mr Davis’ travelling direct to Spain from the first day of negotiations in Brussels could be taken to indicate that it is exactly this type of UK citizen that constitutes the average, and that the main country with whom a deal needs to be done is Spain.


Whatever has actually transpired so far, the UK government needs to now justify whatever position it has taken in the negotiations by qualifying the computations around which it is proposing a “trade” on this issue, based on:

  • Confirmation of numbers of people involved
  • Age demographic – to indicate for how long the people will be contributing funds and drawing benefits
  • Analysis of usage of public services:

o   in the UK, this would indicate whether the consumption per annum per head is more or less than the £10,500 average

o   in other Member States the figures would need to account for the actual cash value of the public services usage and not assume that the level of the service or the cost are the same as the provision in the UK

  • Analysis of contribution of direct and indirect taxes and national insurance contributions


That analysis will then deliver two figures:

  • Confirmation, or not, of the estimate above that there is a cost to the UK of £30 billion per annum, and for how long that cost will persist;
  • The equivalent figure for the 1.2 million UK citizens living in other EU Member States and for how long that will persist. The assumption made in this article that there is a parity of cost-per-head on both sides is no more than that, although the costs on the UK side are based on research undertaken for Global Britain.


These figures can then be expressed as a Net Present Value, and we can then see what money should flow from other EU Member States to the UK as a lump sum, or in the other direction, for the status quo to be maintained.


There are, of course, other ways of doing it, to ensure reciprocity, but also to cap the liabilities of the rest of the citizenry of the UK. For example, the rights of EU citizens to continue to live here could simply be curtailed as of March 2019, along with their rights to UK benefits and pensions, beyond a single pension transfer payment that buys as many years of entitlement in the state scheme of their home member state as they have paid NI contributions for into the UK scheme:

o   They do not retain an entitlement to the UK state pension;

o   They get as many years’ entitlement in the state system of their home member state as they paid for into the UK scheme.


If this approach were to be adopted, the transfer value of UK citizens’ contributions into the state schemes of other member states must be offset against it and those UK citizens awarded as many years of the entitlement in the UK scheme as they accrued in their host member states while abroad.


Another alternative would be for the 1.2 million UK citizens living elsewhere in the EU to apply for nationality in the member state where they are now living, and to continue to accrue rights in the state system there; when they get foreign nationality, they would surrender their UK passport and the UK would pay over a transfer value to buy them as many years of state pension in their new home country as they had accrued while working here.


Were this to be the arrangement, then the 3.6 million EU citizens would be free to apply for UK nationality, and the UK would have to have a scheme to adjudicate whether those applications are accepted. If they are not, the person would be obliged to return to their home member state, and the transfer value of pension rights would be paid over.


The first key point here is that no-one will have dual nationality. The second key point is that there is always a third-party to the tests of fairness of the arrangements, beyond just the UK government and the individual involved. The third-party is the UK taxpayer, who should not be called upon to subsidise any economic migrant. This has been one of the major failings of the EU from a UK perspective and a main cause of the failure to eliminate the public spending deficit.


After the Eurozone debt crisis of 2011 the UK rose in attraction as a place of employment, and the previous Conservative/LibDem government made great play on the increase in numbers of people employed and the increase in GDP that resulted. Unfortunately, and as the National Labour Survey has shown, these were mainly low-skill/low-wage jobs taken by EU economic migrants, and each such job has cost the country money.


In order to block every breach in the financial dam, the UK’s negotiators need to make sure there is a comprehensive exit on several other issues including:

  • Release from all the contingent liabilities associated with (i) the 2013-2022 Multiannual Financial Framework for the EU Budget and for all preceding budget periods; (ii) the European Central Bank; and (iii) the European Investment Bank – EUR1.3 trillion in all;
  • Buying out the European Investment Bank’s loans into the UK and then offsetting - against the reimbursement to the EIB - the UK’s book of Student Loans to citizens of other EU Member States who have studied in the UK, taken a UK student loan, and returned to their home countries or elsewhere without repaying it;
  • No further payments into the EU Budget after March 2019.


If the EU does not agree to all of the above and to one of the approaches outlined regarding citizens living outside their home EU Member State, the UK’s fallback would be to open the issue of the past – as well as the future - costs of the 3.6 million migrants and their benefits and pensions. If they are to stay in the UK, their home member state should pay that cost in cash every year, with a mechanism to adjust it annually, and make an upfront payment of the retrospective costs that the UK has already shouldered.


For the future we have to have it in our own hands to define our migrant worker regime for workers from anywhere in the world, and the start point can be a fairly easy one:

1.    A maximum six-month visa for seasonal and contract workers, with no access to UK public services: the employer would need to show an insurance policy for healthcare during the worker’s stay in the UK and pay – and show they had paid – the premium upfront;

2.    A work permit for a permanent, salaried position, as long as the salary is on a PAYE basis and is a minimum £50,000 per annum. The person would have full access to UK public services and the direct and indirect taxation and national insurance would certainly be above the £10,500 average consumption of public services.


As for the other elements of the UK’s financial relationship with the EU going forward, these come down to the terms-of-trade.


The two essential elements here are:

  • What replaces our current membership of the customs union and Single Market;
  • How we protect ourselves from predatory tax practices of other EU Member States.


The guiding principle is that it is impossible to remain part of the customs union and Single Market and also preclude predatory tax practices.


To solve the latter issue, the UK needs to rewrite its domestic corporate tax code by drawing up industry templates for cost/income ratios through which HMRC could run the group-wide figures of the likes of Google and Amazon, and the many other companies who benefit from the Freedom of Establishment and the sweeteners embedded in the domestic corporate tax codes of Ireland, Luxembourg and the Netherlands in particular.


Whatever the appearance these companies might present about the extent of their UK business, HMRC would be accorded the right to look through to the substance, and extrapolate the profits of their UK business from the company’s group-level sales and from a template of costs that would apply to a UK company undertaking the same business from a 100% UK base, and not with the activities split between the UK and other EU Member States.


This splitting of activities is underpinned by the implementation of odorous “transfer pricing” that lands the costs in the UK and the profits in Ireland, Luxembourg or the Netherlands. Instead the UK needs a new regime:

  • HMRC can make assumptions about the group’s UK sales from the group’s global Profit&Loss account;
  • Then HMRC can derive their UK costs and their UK pre-tax profits through applying the industry templates for 100% UK-based companies undertaking the same activities;
  • Whatever the company says is the profit of the UK subsidiary, HMRC would then respond with the UK’s official version of their profits, on which they would pay 16-17%, or whatever the standard rate is;
  • HMRC would send the company an Advance Payment Notice for the difference between what is in their own tax return and the UK’s computation, regardless of what tax the company had paid in Ireland, Luxembourg or the Netherlands.


The remaining issue is import/export tariffs. These can be negotiated in the knowledge that the UK exports approximately £280billion of goods and services to the EU now and imports about £360billion, an annual trade deficit of £80billion (Source: Walbrook Economics).


Given this imbalance to the UK’s detriment, the UK should have no qualms about going onto World Trade Organisation terms. If tariffs of on average 10% were applied by other EU Member States to the UK’s exports under these terms, this would amount to a detriment of £28billion per annum. However, the detriments caused by EU membership fees (net £9billion), Freedom of Movement (net £20billion) and Freedom of Establishment (£11billion) total £39billion, and outweigh the tariffs that would be imposed on UK goods and services under WTO rules.


By the same token, if the EU imposed 10% average tariffs on UK goods and services, the UK could do the same in return. In that case HMRC would receive £36billion in customs revenues, enough to subsidise all of our EU exports:

  • Assume an export was to be made for £50,000 and the EU tariffs would have raised this to £55,000;
  • The UK government sets up a scheme allowing the UK exporter to still quote a £50,000 all-in price, but composed of a cash price of £45,454 plus 10% EU import duty of £5,454 = £50,000;
  • The UK government reimburses the UK exporter with the £5,454 of duty so the impact of the duty is neutralised;
  • Even if EU governments did the same in return, the UK as a whole would still be better off by £8billion per annum: 10% of the UK’s negative trade balance with the EU.


On top of that the UK would be able to strike trade deals with non-EU member states at lower tariffs than apply now, when they are set at an EU level.


There is, however, one proviso to the above. The UK government should only reimburse EU import duties to UK exporters where the UK goods and services being exported into the EU have a minimum of 70% UK content. There would be an exclusion where goods/service are prepared mainly outside the EU, imported into the UK for finishing, and then re-exported as UK product i.e. as an EU product. This kind of “trade deal shopping” adds little value to the UK. Where the Confederation of British Industry lobbies for continued access to the Single Market, it would be interesting to know how much usage their members are making of the UK as an entrepot to “game” the Single Market rules, as opposed to their investing and creating proper jobs in the UK: the latter deserves UK government support, whilst the former does not.


The main penalties, then, of the UK negotiators failing to reach any kind of agreement with the EU negotiators by March 2019 can be summed up as:

1.    EU import tariffs being imposed on the UK’s exports of goods and services, which, for purposes of illustration, we have put at a detriment of 10% of £260billion, or £26billion;

2.    The necessity of providing public services for 1.2 million UK citizens living in other EU Member States now, at an assumed cost of £10billion per annum based on parity of cost with that the UK bears now for providing public services to the 3.6million citizens of other EU Member States;

3.    Loss of estimated £5billion per annum of grants from EU bodies into the UK.


The total detriments would thus amount to £41billion per annum.


Were the negotiations to fail in that way, the financial benefits to the UK would be:

1.    Imposition of tit-for-tat import duties on EU goods and services, at the same level as imposed by the EU. If that were at 10% and on the current level of EU imports, the UK would book £36billion of import duties;

2.    Cessation of payment of £14billion per annum EU Member Cash Contribution, out of which the £5billion per annum of grants from EU bodies back into the UK are funded;

3.    Cessation of the need to bear the cost of the public services for the 3.6million citizens of other EU Member States currently in the UK, which is £30billion per annum;

4.    New revenue in Corporation Tax on tax-efficient EU business models where profits are currently concentrated in Ireland, Luxembourg and the Netherlands, calculated by the author for Global Britain at £11billion per annum.


The cash benefits amount to £91billion per annum, as contrasted with the cash detriments of £41billion – a net cash benefit of £50 billion per annum.


The difference expressed as a Net Present Value may well be far higher if one were to calculate the relative periods over which public services would need to be provided to EU citizens in the UK compared to UK citizens in the rest of the EU, based on age demographic.


In addition, the failure of negotiations and the UK’s exit from the Treaty of the Functioning of the EU would release the UK from EUR1.3 trillion of contingent financial liabilities. In order to ensure this release, the UK government should buy out all of the European Investment Bank’s loans into the UK:

  • Adjusting the payment in the EIB’s favour for their loss on redeployment of funds, where the EIB has funded its loans at higher interest rates than prevail now (the loans will be set to those higher rates so the UK would earn this adjustment back over the life of the loans);
  • Offsetting the value of the Student Loans to students from other EU Member States.


This last point could be of course be challenged, with the UK’s position being that allowing these students to study here and take out a student loan here were part-and-parcel of the UK’s membership of the EU and should not survive the UK’s withdrawal.


Apart from that, the UK could simply enact the remainder without striking a Brexit deal in negotiation. This should then be the baseline: the negotiation needs to achieve a better outcome for the UK than the result if no negotiation were undertaken at all.


Since the “no negotiation” route can be expected to deliver £50billion per annum cash benefits and release the UK from (i) EUR1.3trillion of contingent liabilities and (ii) a liability to provide public services to EU citizens of a far longer duration than the likely need to take over public service provision for UK citizens currently in other EU countries, the UK negotiating position is straightforward: the above is a minimum outcome and is completely acceptable. The negotiating task is to improve on that, and walk away if that is all that can be achieved.


The walk-away can deliver £50billion per annum cash benefits: 2/3rds of the UK’s public spending deficit and enough to bring austerity to an end, and without Labour’s Land Value Tax and financial conjuring tricks.

By Bob Lyddon

Recent Comments
Robert Oulds
Per week
Monday, 26 June 2017 13:54
Robert Oulds
Tim Congdon, and a report from the Bank of England, see EU migration as a drain on the economy in terms of the resultant lowering ... Read More
Monday, 26 June 2017 13:55
Continue reading
11917 Hits

The Future is Another Country: Brexit, CAP and the Future of British Agriculture

A Brexit-driven reconfiguration of the UK’s food and agricultural sector suggests that a period of significant transformation lies ahead; but if mapped successfully, can be a positive one.

Richard Ferguson

21st June 2017

The possibility of a Brexit-driven reconfiguration of the UK’s food and agricultural sector suggests that a period of significant transformation and structural adjustment lies ahead. Set against an industry already in the midst of rapid technological displacement, value-chain disruption and regulatory change, a transformative event such as Brexit appears to add to existing uncertainty.

However, while the potential institutional, financial and operating frameworks that will arise from Brexit suggest a wide range of possible outcomes, the process, if mapped successfully, can be a positive one. The UK’s current position is not unique. In the 1980s, the government of New Zealand instigated a reform programme to transform the country’s food and agriculture sector, the results of which were immediate and painful as well as long-term and beneficial.

At the core of the transformation that shook New Zealand’s agriculture sector in the 1980s and 1990s was a pressing need to access new markets in the face of external economic shocks and structural adjustments, such as the UK’s decision to join the then European Economic Community (EEC) in 1973. While there are obvious direct parallels between the New Zealand case study and Brexit, both situations remain distinct and unique. The first section of this report “The past is another country” considers the New Zealand experience and argues that an agenda focused on long-term goals can deliver significant economic and social benefits, but may come with considerable short-term costs. The battle about to commence is set to be as brutal, complex and ideological as that which determined the direction of the British economy in the late-1970s and early 1980s.


The second part of this report “The here and now” considers the Common Agriculture Policy (CAP), the defining policy feature of the UK’s agriculture landscape over the past few decades. The design of any new policy-making framework has to begin with some macro considerations, not least: how relevant is a subsidy-based system of payments in the modern era? Moreover, what is the relevance of food security in a country with a structural trade deficit in food? We must also consider to what extent environmental considerations should influence the policy-making agenda. What is the role of government in terms of regulation, environmental compliance, bio-security and food trust? Alternatively, can a free-market, liberalisation agenda deliver wider social, political and environmental objectives as well as economic goals? Can the UK use its fledgling – and flourishing – agtech knowhow to raise productivity, build exports and deliver value added to the British economy?


The third part of this report “The future is another country” peers into the future, and presents some innovative and strategic thoughts. As a study it is neither exhaustive nor academic, but it does cover many of the key and very real issues that come up time and again in our daily work with clients. It simply considers some of the strategic directions that the UK should consider if it wishes its food and agriculture sector to prosper. A global imperative is: how do we feed a world of 10bn people within a generation when its current needs are delivered by an army of unsophisticated and undercapitalised smallholders? We contend that the Department for the Environment, Food & Rural Affairs (DEFRA) and the Department for International Development (DFID) need to shift their respective – and parallel – focuses on agriculture subsidies and development aid to collude with the Department for International Trade (DIT) and the Foreign & Commonwealth Office (FCO) to bring much of the UK’s technological, commercial, developmental and diplomatic ambitions in food and agriculture under a joint strategy.

Continue reading
2228 Hits

Government Agrees to EU Military

Five concerns for the UK arising from the EU Defence Union

14th June 2017
Type text for SEO (example Bruges Group : Image Title)

There are five main areas which the EU has been pursuing in order to establish what it calls an ‘EU Defence Union’ across the 28 EU countries, including the UK.

1. Procurement policy and incentives

2. Finance

3. Intelligence, Battlegroups and PESCO

4. UK defeat over HQ

5. Contradicting statements over UK involvement.


Since 23rd June 2016, the UK has made commitments in each of these above areas of defence with no debate in the British Parliament. Each one is described in more detail below:


1. Procurement policy and incentives

The UK has agreed to…

  • More power for the EU to enforce EU-wide tendering in defence contracts
  • An expanding remit for the EU over defence industrial strategy and joint-built assets
  • An expanding remit for the EU in purchasing and conduct of joint-owned assets
  • Incentives for UK defence companies to engage long-term with the developing EU-wide industrial strategy


The only reason the UK is permitted to build its own aircraft carriers is by using an exemption to the EU Procurement Directive. The exemption is known as the security clause (Article 346) and is permitted when a member state feels there is a national security reason to reserve production for its domestic market. The European Commission is tightening application of the clause following a review in 2016 and has gained the consent of member states to do so.

(EU Council Conclusions, 14 November 2016)

The EDA and EU Commission have a benchmark of achieving 35% pan-EU equipment procurement.

(EDA Benchmarks)


UK ministers have approved measures that allow the European Defence Agency to have a greater role in standardisation and certification.

(EU Council conclusions in Security Defence, 18 May 2017)


These measures would amplify EU influence in the trading conditions of the defence sector and an additional tool for the enforcement of policy. For example, certification and mutual recognition of standards might be used as a barrier to entry to UK exporters in years ahead in the same way that EU ‘standards’ produce a barrier to non-EU exporters in other sectors. Conversely, certification and standards could be used as an incentive for UK manufacturers and policymakers to adhere to EU policy. Either way, the changes bring a measure of additional control to the European Commission.


The EU refers to EU defence industrial strategy as the European Defence Technology and Industrial Base (EDTIB) and has more recently started using the term ‘Single Market for Defence’. With the objective of ‘reducing duplication, the EU intends to integrate this market under coordinated joint projects and an EU-controlled policy environment. The aim is for the resulting combined EU defence industrial strategy to serve the needs of the EU’s ‘new level of ambition’ in a military context.


This above agreement on standardisation and certification is an additional method of directing the integration of the EDTIB beyond the two already mentioned previously: 1. enforcement of the pan-EU Procurement Directive and 2. financial incentives via the European Defence Fund.


The EU Commission could conceivably tell the UK after Brexit that ‘access’ to its newly coordinated ‘Single Market for Defence’ requires adherence to the Procurement Directive. Also, now that UK participation in the European Defence Fund’s imminent incentive programmes is being concluded, UK ‘withdrawal’ could be viewed by the EU as an act that warrants retaliation or requires UK concessions.


2. Finance

The UK has agreed to…

  • The creation of the EU's first central military budget, the European Defence Fund
  • The use of European Investment Bank money (16% UK shareholding) for the European Defence Fund
  • The creation of a Cooperative Financial Mechanism (CFM) to augment the European Defence Agency
  • The creation of a Coordinated Annual Review of Defence (CARD), a mechanism which sees the EU offer financial incentives for adherence to EU planning over member state defence budgets.


The European Defence Fund will begin with a budget of only a few billion euros, but this money will be dangled in front of policy makers and defence companies to steer them towards joint activity and a policy environment that is under EU authority.


Millions of euros have already been placed into an "unprecedented level of engagement" with defence companies including defence industry conferences in the UK financed by the EU Commission, which started in April (Southampton) and are continuing throughout 2017 (Bournemouth etc).


UK companies are being invited to bid for the first tranche of European Defence Fund money in June 2017, via an EU Commission / EDA programme known as PADR (Preparatory Action for Defence Research). The programme is even being promoted by the UK Defence Solutions Centre, a UK-Government-funded unit which was formed to boost output of UK defence companies.


According to the EU Commission and EEAS, the Cooperative Financial Mechanism “will strengthen the European Defence Agency” as a central EU defence capabilities tool. The mechanism appears to be separate to the European Defence Fund. It is designed to manage member states’ money in a joint budget and will be spent on EDA research projects, military units conjoined under Permanent Structured Cooperation and joint assets.


This added financial firepower for the EDA overrides many years of policy by UK ministers who argued that the EDA’s scope and budget should be restricted.

(European Defence Agency ministerial steering board, 18th May 2017)


The UK Government has a 16% (EUR 39 billion) stake in the EIB, the same as Italy, France and Germany (the four largest shareholders). The EU Commission is changing the lending criteria of the EIB to ensure it supports the European Defence Fund. The EIB is an instrument of the EU and operates in adherence to EU policy. There has been no confirmation of whether the UK will withdraw from the EIB, but to remain a shareholder would mean a level of participation in EU policy. The EIB has placed funds into infrastructure projects in the UK including Crossrail and the Manchester Metrolink.


The UK’s consent to EIB funding for UK defence industries provides the EU with additional locks on UK participation in EU defence policy and on its EIB shareholding. These additional locks were made after the UK’s referendum on EU membership and add to the task of unravelling these links after Brexit.


3. Intelligence, Battlegroups and PESCO

The UK has agreed to…

  • An increased size, scope and infrastructure of the EU’s military intelligence agency as a central ‘hub’.
  • Participation in a 2019 EU Battlegroup under EU Council control. Approval given pre-referendum. No confirmation from MOD about whether it is cancelled or continuing.
  • Drop objections to Permanent Structured Cooperation (first version of permanent military unification) by willing member states. MOD will not confirm whether the UK is staying out or not.


The European External Action Service (the EU’s ‘foreign ministry’) has put forward plans to grow the role of its intelligence agency known as the Single Intelligence Analysis Capacity (SIAC). (EU Council conclusions in Security Defence, 6 March 2017 and 18 May 2017).


SIAC is composed of the EU Military Staff Intelligence Directorate and the 'civilian' EU INTCEN. The EU Council agreed to develop them as an EU "hub for strategic information, early warning and comprehensive analysis".

Member States, including the UK, have been asked to consider initiatives and ways to interact with these plans. (Security and Defence Implementation Plan, 14 November 2016).


The UK was scheduled to lead an EU Battlegroup in Jan-Jun 2019. The MOD will not state whether Britain’s participation will be cancelled or proceed.


4. UK defeat over the HQ

The UK has agreed to...

  • The reordering of EU agencies to include ‘permanent planning’ of EU defence missions and a ‘coordinated military command chain’.
  • The creation of a permanent military HQ with staff responsible for strategy and operations. It was kept as a non-executive function of the EU, but executive power over EU military developments rests with the EU Council and EU Commission.
  • Drop its objections to the wordings that describe the new HQ (May 2017) because previous approval in March 2017 had made later objections invalid.


The EU Council, with UK consent, has agreed to reorder the European External Action Service to "develop the necessary structures and capabilities for the permanent planning and conduct of CSDP missions and operations" with "distinct but coordinated civilian and military chains of command".


These will work under the political control, strategy and leadership of the EU Council's Political and Security Committee.

(EU Council Conclusions, 14 November 2016, with UK ministerial approval. Confirmed by EU Council heads of government conclusions, 15 December 2016)


The plans include the creation of an operational HQ, the Military Planning and Conduct Capability (MPCC). While the UK made an issue of the MPCC being prevented from having executive powers, this was a pointless fight as the executive power over the MPCC’s deployments already resides with the EU Council.

(EU Council Conclusions, 6 March 2017. Confirmed by EU Council conclusions, 18 May 2017)


5. Contradicting statements over UK involvement.

The UK has agreed to...

  • Participate in measures that apply to UK defence without the approval of Parliament, nor even a debate.
  • Participate in developing plans until at least March 2019, possibly March 2022 or even longer.
  • Provide the EU with several new powers over UK defence and a new bargaining chip for the EU.
  • Accept measures that mean a more complicated and time-consuming withdrawal process that the UK didn’t face before the first of the EU Defence Union agreements in November 2016.
  • Provisional statements on PESCO (Permanent Structured Cooperation) while keeping open the prospect of UK participation in PESCO and the EU Council-controlled EU Battlegroups in 2019.


Each time new agreements are made, additional hours will need to be spent on severing EU ties and controls. New agreements are currently being formed in finance, intelligence, regulation, procurement strategy, joint assets, joint missions and research. This will impact upon several departments of government.


The duration of UK involvement might be expected to be until March 2019 (the anticipated end of Britain’s membership) and possibly March 2022 (end of a three-year transition deal which requires adherence to EU policy) and potentially even longer. Until then, even adhering to new EU measures (in finance, intelligence, regulation, procurement strategy, joint assets, joint missions and research) will add complexity to the UK’s exit negotiations, potentially extending the duration of the exit process.


Not a single one of these agreements at the EU Council has ever been mentioned in the House of Commons, let alone subject to a vote by MPs. All defence agreements at the EU Council take the UK further down the road of military integration and have had an immediate effect regarding UK participation. The EU Commission immediately embarked on a dialogue with UK defence companies about incentives to participate in EU defence integration projects.


EU Council conclusions are considered by the EU commission to have been co-authored by UK diplomats. Therefore, if a minister does not raise objection during an EU Council meeting, conclusions are considered to represent a joint direction, or consent, of all member states.


The EU Commission has stated that agreements the UK enters as a member state “must be carried out in full” while the UK remains subject to the EU’s treaties.


In addition, the EU has said it is not willing to even begin to discuss UK withdrawal from EU defence arrangements until a withdrawal agreement has been settled and “all other matters” agreed, because defence is “too important to be a part of the main negotiations”. This means the UK will be obliged to adhere to these rapidly developing measures for at least two years to 2019 and there is a real possibility of the UK being tied in for an additional transition period of three years up to 2022.


The Foreign Office minister Sir Alan Duncan wrote to the European Scrutiny Committee chairman in December 2016 to inform the committee of the plans and agreements the UK was entering, as is required under UK Parliamentary protocols. Sir Alan Duncan told the committee there were parts of the Security and Defence Implementation Plan (SDIP) which his team 'liked' and no decision had yet been made over the quantum of UK involvement and for how long. This may be contrasted with the Foreign Secretary's October and November statements that the UK did not wish to prevent the EU27 from participating in agreements in which the UK had no interest itself in participating.


The European Scrutiny Committee marked Sir Alan Duncan's letter and corresponding agreements as 'politically important' to have them discussed in the relevant Parliamentary Select Committees of Foreign Affairs, Defence and Exiting the EU.


Meanwhile, the EU Commission will know it may now employ all of the UK’s recent set of agreements in defence as a bargaining chip, a threat, a delaying tactic and a deepening ‘binding agent’ to EU membership. It is conceivable that EU officials will cite the example of UK defence companies who have the promise of European Defence Fund money as a means of influencing or undermining perceptions among UK observers or negotiators in the realm of defence.


Finally, an answer we received from the MOD (19 May 2016) said that the British government had not ruled out joining PESCO in spite of its control by EU Council and CSDP:

“Decisions on UK engagement with CSDP after we leave the EU, including with initiatives such as PESCO, will be part of the wider negotiations.”


A UK Rep spokesperson had earlier (18 May 2016) told us the UK might participate in the EU Battlegroups after Brexit, which is also controlled by the EU and CSDP.

By David Banks, Veterans for Britain

Recent Comments
Robert Oulds
You may also be interested in this article: M... Read More
Wednesday, 28 June 2017 11:07
Continue reading
33209 Hits

EU security and counter-terrorism control after Brexit

Dominic Grieve, the Conservative Chairman of the Commons Intelligence and Security Committee, argues that the UK must retain membership of the EU’s law enforcement agency (Europol) after Brexit, even if this means “accepting EU rules and judicial oversight for the European Court of Justice (ECJ).” This is not real Brexit and nor will it make us safer, in fact quite the reverse.

5th June 2017
Type text for SEO (example Bruges Group : Image Title)

Security is the new defining issue of both British and European politics. Even the United States is concerned that Europe’s problem is a danger for us all. It will also form the key issue in the Article 50 Brexit negotiations, or at least so the Government hopes. According to The Daily Telegraph, the Cabinet meeting of 7th March 2017, which approved the strategy for PM Theresa May’s opening gambit in her soon to be sent Article 50 letter mentioned security no less than 11 times.


This was seen as using ‘blackmail’ and ‘threats’ and taking advantage of the fear of Russia. The governments thinking is that security is the ‘defining issue for the EU.’ And that the government believes that this issue gives Britain a ‘very strong hand’ in its forthcoming negotiations with Brussels.[i] It is surprising that a Conservative Government would see benefits in the fact that the EU’s eastern frontier is unstable and, in the view of some, vulnerable to Russian aggression.


Theresa May has not been alone in taking a robust approach to the EU and playing the security card. The Home Secretary, Amber Rudd, has said that the UK could stop co-operation with Europol. Perhaps the British government may even come out of the European Arrest Warrant… but that may be too much to hope for.


The flip side of the Government’s perceived threats not to participate in security measurers, if no trade deal is forthcoming, is that if the EU does acquiesce to Britain’s demands then the UK will support and participate in Brussels ambitions in this area.


The benefit of the European Arrest Warrant and EU led police, judicial and intelligence cooperation is itself highly questionable. There are other ways with which a post-Brexit UK can still cooperate with other nations, and attempt to keep its citizens safe. Click here to read a recent article which details how this can be achieved.


There is a presumption that intelligence and data sharing via the EU is a good thing. This is not necessarily so. Compelling the UK to share information breaches the cardinal rule of intelligence, control over that information. Indeed, the US intelligence agencies drew the ire of the British government after they leaked information on the Manchester terror attack. The BBC reported that police stopped passing America information on the Manchester attack.[ii] Yet, even bigger issues are at stake. The effectiveness of how best to protect people is at stake and the independence of our security services from Brussels.


Dominic Grieve, the Conservative Chairman of the Commons Intelligence and Security Committee, argues that the UK must retain Europol membership after Brexit, even if this means “accepting EU rules and judicial oversight for the European Court of Justice (ECJ)”.[iii] In these times, the European Union is being touted by some unformed remainers as an answer to Europe’s terror threat.


In the referendum, they warned that Brexit will mean that the UK will be outside of Europol. This would not be a bad scenario as its officers are ‘immune from legal proceedings in respect of acts performed by them in their official capacity’. Yet, the Director of Europol, Rob Wainwright, recently stated that a post-Brexit UK can indeed still cooperate with the EU’s law enforcement agency. So, the arguments used by Remain in the referendum were clearly false. Yet, is the EU and coordination of security the answer to our safety? Some would argue that it has exacerbated the terrorist problem we now face.


EU Freedom of Movement was described by Ron Noble, the Head of Interpol, as “like hanging a sign welcoming terrorists to Europe.”[iv] He is not alone in his criticism. Sir Richard Dearlove, the former head of MI6, stated that Brexit is a security gain as it will allow us to have "greater control over immigration from the European Union."[v] Indeed EU Directive 2004/38 stipulates that an immigrants criminal record is not grounds to refuse entry to the UK.


Sir Richard’s assessment of EU security agencies is that "...though the UK participates in various European and Brussels-based security bodies, they are of little consequence." Ultimately his assessment is that these bodies have no operational capacity and are mainly forums for the exchange of ideas.


Just because these bodies are ineffectual is not the only problem. The even more significant issue is that EU led intelligence will detract from Britain’s participation in global bodies such as the ‘Five Eyes’ Intelligence-sharing partnership.[vi]


Another layer of EU bureaucracy taking over intelligence is no substitute for effective national control. Yet this emerging bureaucracy, indeed it has several new tiers, is exactly what Brussels is putting into place. And perhaps even keeping a post-Brexit UK tied into their structure. The EU has created Eurojust, the European Union's Judicial Cooperation Unit, and in 2010, as a part of Europol, they established in 2010 the European Cybercrime Task Force (EUCTF).


Charles Michel, the Prime Minister of Belgium has called for “A European CIA (Central Intelligence Agency).” This is just the beginning the European Commissioner for Migration and Home Affairs, Dimitris Avramopoulos, also called for a pan-European spy agency.[vii] The President of the European Commission is also in favour of the EU coordinating member states secret services.[viii]


What is not realised by many is that these plans are already underway. The EU Intelligence and Situation Centre (EU INTCEN) came into being in 2011 and is the intelligence body of the European Union. It operates under the European External Action Service (EEAS). Along with the European Union Military Staff (EUMS) which handles military intelligence, EU INTCEN is part of the EU’s Single Intelligence Analysis Capacity (SIAC). These bodies are not effective.


Richard Walton, Head of Counter Terrorism Command at New Scotland Yard from 2011-15, is adamant that Britain’s counter-terrorism capability will not be harmed by Brexit.[ix]


Sir Richard Dearlove dismissed the relevance of Brussels security bodies such as Europol, stating they were “of little consequence”. In fact, they are worse, as the fear of leaks is ever present. According to Sir Richard Dearlove British information is not shared throughout the EU as its members are potentially a “colander” for intelligence.[x]


The EU does not have a great track record on security. The EU’s Focal Point Travellers initiative, which seeks to coordinate investigations into foreign terrorist fighters in Europe from places such as Syria and Iraq only has information on 2,000 suspects which is less than half the foreign fighters known to individual EU member-states security services. And of course, this is just a fraction of both the number of people who have recently arrived in Europe from the middle-east and those homegrown people that sympathise with the jihadis. There is an intelligence black hole at the heart of Europe Union.[xi] Europol’s European Counter Terrorism Centre is not making us any safer.


Currently the dead hand of the European Union has been of little benefit tackling the problems that emerge out of places such as Molenbeek, Malmö and the suburbs of Paris, and clearly in the UK as well. Our safety cannot be outsourced to the EU as the likes of Dominic Grieve suggest. Nor is there the need. The UK is an intelligence leader and does not need the control of the European Union. Other states will, and do, want to share intelligence with Britain.


Britain’s intelligence services, along with our armed forces, are areas where we have an important resource which the EU is seeking to co-opt. Brussels is not stopping at the EU developing an intelligence arm. It is also building its military capacity, to back up its foreign policy[xii] and no doubt to establish its power at home and abroad. The plans are already underway.[xiii]


In the Brexit negations, which start on 19th June, the British Government must stand firm against EU attempts to take a measure of control over our excellent military and intelligence resources, and certainly not offer them up as part as some deep and special arrangement with Brussels. We can cooperate with global bodies and individual nations, but more EU bureaucracy in this important area is an unwelcome distraction.















Continue reading
2609 Hits
1 Comment

The deals that may be worse than no deal

How a compromise agreement may keep Britain subject to aspects of the EU.

2nd June 2017


Here we answer your questions on the Article 50 UK/EU Withdrawal Agreement.


- Would it be one big treaty with lots of articles, so one cannot repudiate one article without denouncing the whole treaty?


Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU), which was introduced by the Treaty of Lisbon (and came into effect with the rest of that Treaty on 1st December 2009), provides that the EU and the departing Member State are to enter into an agreement governing withdrawal. However, the Article does not specify very much about the content of the agreement. It is thus possible to conceive of minimalist and maximalist approaches to the content of the agreement. Article 50 TEU states:


2. A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention. In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union. That agreement shall be negotiated in accordance with Article 218(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. It shall be concluded on behalf of the Union by the Council, acting by a qualified majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament.


The wording of Article 50 refers to ‘taking into account the framework’, this is all it says prescribing the content of the withdrawal agreement. Understood textually, this seems to indicate that the withdrawal agreement should set out or at least reflect a general framework of future relations. This seems to indicate the agreement could tend toward a minimalist approach, setting out certain fundamental features of the future relationship, but not necessarily addressing the detail.


The closest precedent in the context of the EU is the secession of Greenland and their subsequent withdrawal in the 1980s from the then European Economic Community (EEC). The resulting agreement between the then EEC (now the EU) and Greenland was quite short, just setting out some basic principles. The EEC/EU later into entered into separate agreements in specific areas with Greenland, mainly to do with fisheries. This practice is consistent with the wording of Article 50 TEU and may well have informed it. 


- Or can we have a series of different agreements, perhaps separate treaties on specific areas or a Memorandum of Understanding(s)?


As discussed above, this option seems open. A main advantage of this option would be that it could help localise disputes in future between the EU and UK, in case a comprehensive treaty would lead to a situation where a dispute between the UK and EU could be used to cast doubt over the continuing validity of the entire Treaty, which could introduce uncertainty into future UK-EU relations.


Any such withdrawal agreement would be subject to the general rules of public international law on treaties. In international law, a dispute about one term or part of a treaty does not generally invalidate or suspend the entire treaty. Normally, in international law, when a State or organisation violates a treaty obligation, the victim state can respond in a proportionate way by suspending its own adherence to relevant obligations (under the law of counter measures and reprisals). There are relatively well established grounds for legitimate repudiation or suspension of the entire treaty, which are quite narrow (they are set out in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties 1969 or ‘VCLT’). However, treaties can provide for this issue by specifying that breach of one provision does not justify repudiation of the entire treaty (see Article 44 of the VCLT). It would be advisable for the UK to specifically deal with this issue in the text of the withdrawal agreement, whether or not the agreement is meant to be comprehensive or just to set a framework for relations between the UK and EU.


An important related issue here is the dispute settlement procedure that the withdrawal agreement would adopt. The comments just made in the previous paragraph (about repudiation/suspension and countermeasures/reprisals) relate to the normal or default rules of international law, but the withdrawal agreement could substitute its own dispute settlement procedure (just in the way the EU Treaties establish their own dispute settlement procedures, chiefly by giving a key role to the Court of Justice). If the UK wants to maximise its influence over the future dispute settlement procedure, it should ensure that the Court of Justice of the EU is not given jurisdiction over future disputes about the withdrawal agreement. The agreement between the EU and New Zealand contains the following dispute settlement clause, which could be a model or precedent for the withdrawal agreement:


Article 54

Modalities for implementation and dispute settlement

1. The Parties shall take any general or specific measures required to fulfil their obligations under this Agreement.

2. Without prejudice to the procedure described in paragraphs 3 to 8 of this Article, any dispute relating to the interpretation or application of this Agreement shall be resolved exclusively through consultations between the Parties within the Joint Committee. The Parties shall present the relevant information required for a thorough examination of the matter to the Joint Committee, with a view to resolving the dispute.

3. Reaffirming their strong and shared commitment to human rights and non-proliferation, the Parties agree that if either Party considers that the other Party has committed a particularly serious and substantial violation of any of the obligations described in Articles 2(1) and 8(1) as essential elements, which threatens international peace and security so as to require an immediate reaction, it shall immediately notify the other Party of this fact and the appropriate measure (s) it intends to take under this Agreement. The notifying Party shall advise the Joint Committee of the need to hold urgent consultations on the matter.

4. In addition, the particularly serious and substantial violation of the essential elements could serve as grounds for appropriate measures under the common institutional framework as referred to in Article 52(1).

5. The Joint Committee shall be a forum for dialogue and the Parties shall do their utmost to find an amicable solution in the unlikely event that a situation as described in paragraph 3 would arise. Where the Joint Committee is unable to reach a mutually acceptable solution within 15 days from the commencement of consultations, and no later than 30 days from the date of the notification described in paragraph 3, the matter shall be referred for consultations at the ministerial level, which shall be held for a further period of up to 15 days.

6. If no mutually acceptable solution has been found within 15 days from the commencement of consultations at the ministerial level, and no later than 45 days from the date of notification, the notifying Party may decide to take the appropriate measures notified in accordance with paragraph 3. In the Union, the decision to suspend would entail unanimity. In New Zealand, the decision to suspend would be taken by the Government of New Zealand in accordance with its laws and regulations.


From the internal perspective of EU law, Article 344 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union might cause a problem. It states that “Member States undertake not to submit a dispute concerning the interpretation or application of the Treaties to any method of settlement other than those provided for therein.” This has bene interpreted extensively by the Court of Justice in its caselaw, and it cannot be excluded that the Court of Justice would decide, irrespective of the text of the future EU-UK withdrawal agreement, that it (i.e. the Court of Justice) should decide any disputes between the EU and UK over the withdrawal agreement. This would be very strained conclusion, but it is certainly possible in light of the overall approach of the Court to legal reasoning. Although the UK would no longer be a Member State at that point, the Court of Justice could not impose its judgment, but it would be a complicating factor for UK-EU relations.


- Can this be done via the Withdrawal Agreement which should follow the Article 50 negotiations?


It seems it could be done by having a general withdrawal agreement and then separate agreements regarding particular policy areas. 


- Or can it be done via the EU itself under its legal personality, or requiring the of all member states national Parliaments, and perhaps even referenda in some EU members?


Article 50 TEU sets out the procedure for the withdrawal agreement. If separate agreements were to be adopted in specific policy areas, it would depend on the decision-making procedure in that area of the Treaty. It is up to each Member State to decide how its positon at EU level is to be determined first at national level. Where unanimity amongst the Member States applies in the Council (of Ministers) (which it generally doesn’t since the Treaty of Lisbon), the EU in its decision-making is to a certain extent hostage to the idiosyncrasies of national procedures (e.g. if Belgium required the consent of the Walloon Parliament or one of the other two regional Parliaments).




Database of EU bilateral agreements with other countries:


By Gerard Conway

Continue reading
3782 Hits

Co-operation after Brexit in the spheres of Justice and crime prevention

The UK should not seek full Europol membership or participation in the flawed European Arrest Warrant scheme.

30th May 2017


One unavoidable fact about the modern world is that criminal gangs and terrorist groups work across national borders.


A concern raised during the EU referendum campaign was that if the UK left the European Union, the UK would not be able to co-operate with other countries and their police forces in these vital areas.


In the wake of the recent terrorist attack in Manchester, it has been claimed by figures such as Dominic Grieve, the Tory chair of the Commons intelligence and security committee; that the UK must retain EUROPOL membership after Brexit, even if this means “accepting EU rules and judicial oversight for the European Court of Justice (ECJ)”.[1] While Sir Hugh Orde, former chief constable of the police service of Northern Ireland has stated that:


“If we don’t have all this, it makes it a lot more difficult to do this crucial work. It is vital that we get to a situation as close to what we have as members of the EU as possible, though it is difficult to see how we do that.”


In this report we will explain how co-operation will indeed continue after Brexit without the need for Europol membership.


Key bodies

The UK has a long record of working internationally with other nations in the fields of Justice and Crime prevention; via the relevant global and regional bodies. In addition, the UK works with other NATO members to detect and prevent terrorist activity.[2]


The UK is currently a member of/signatory to:

  • The International Criminal Police Organization (ICPO)/INTERPOL[3]
  • International Criminal Court (ICC or ICCt)/Rome Statute[4]
  • United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC)[5]
  • World Customs Organization (WCO)[6]
  • Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE)[7]
  • EUROPOL The European Police Office[8]


The UK is also a member of the:

  • Commission on Narcotic Drugs[9] and:
  • The Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice (CCPCJ)[10], both of which are subsidiary Bodies of the United Nations Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC).


Also, the UK is affiliated with the NGO ‘The International Center for the Prevention of Crime’ (ICPC).[11]


Finally, the UK participates in The Council of Europe’s Committee of Experts on the Operation of European Conventions on Co-operation in Criminal Matters (PC-OC).[12]


Of these bodies, clearly the most important is Interpol. Originally established as the International Criminal Police Commission (ICPC) in 1923 it now has 190 member countries[13] and branches in all corners of the globe.


Interpol has huge databases containing millions of criminal records which member states can access 24 hours a day via a system called I-24/7.[14]


To quote their website:

“I-24/7 is the network that enables investigators to access INTERPOL's range of criminal databases. Authorized users can search and cross-check data in a matter of seconds, with direct access to databases on suspected criminals or wanted persons, stolen and lost travel documents, stolen motor vehicles, fingerprints, DNA profiles, stolen administrative documents and stolen works of art. I-24/7 is the foundation of information exchange between the world's police.”



In addition to all the bodies already mentioned, the UK is also a member of the ‘Five Eyes’ Intelligence-sharing partnership.[15]



Co-operation between bodies

The bodies we have mentioned already are connected to each other via a bewilderingly complex web of agreements and partnerships.


Interpol signed a Memorandum of Understanding with Europol in 2011[16] in order to “establish and maintain co-operation between the Parties in combating serious forms of organised international crime…In particular, this will be achieved through the exchange of operational, strategic, and technical information, the co-ordination of activities”[17]


Europol has signed a Co-operation Agreement with the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) in order “to facilitate co-operation between UNODC and Europol in combating serious forms of crime”[18]


Similarly, Europol has also signed a Co-operation Agreement with the WCO.[19]


Likewise, Interpol has signed an ‘Arrangement on co-operation’ with the UNODC[20] and has signed various agreements with the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), World Customs Organization (WCO), Organization for the Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) and the American Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI).[21]



The Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe has 57 participating States[22] including all current EU member states[23]. OSCE dedicates much of its efforts into terrorism prevention.


As the OSCE website states:


“The OSCE promotes a co-operative and co-ordinated approach to countering terrorism at all levels, including co-ordination among national authorities, co-operation among states, co-operation with relevant international and regional organizations.”[24]



Amber Rudd, the Home Secretary has said that: “Europol has played an important role in keeping us safe and we will be having discussions about how to continue some form of involvement within the agencies of the EU that help to keep us safe.”[25]


This does not necessarily mean however; that the UK should seek to continue as a full member of EUROPOL after Brexit.


Several non-EU countries have signed agreements with EUROPOL and so the UK could likely do the same. Examples include the USA, Switzerland, Norway and Canada.


As the EUROPOL website states:

“In general, there are two types of cooperation agreement that Europol can enter into with states and other entities outside the EU: strategic and operational agreements…both types of agreement are aimed at enhancing cooperation between Europol and the country concerned”[26]


At any rate, the importance of Europol is exaggerated. Formed in 1998 it is a relatively young organisation that relies heavily on UK involvement and expertise.


According to media reports:

“Britain is the largest contributor to Europol, sending 35,000 messages last year, and the UK leads the way in Europe in clamping down on cross-border child sexual exploitation and money laundering.


Around 40 per cent of all Europol cases have some kind of UK involvement.”[27]



The EU’s member states are in fact obligated to work with the UK on Transnational Organized Crime as they are signatories to the United Nations Convention Against Transnational Organized Crime (agreed in 2000).[28]


[Interestingly, under Article 103 of the UN charter, in the event of a conflict between the obligations of the Members of the United Nations under the Charter (and by implication, UN Conventions and protocols) and their obligations under any other international agreement, their obligations under the UN take greater precedence.]


The UK is signed up to the world’s pre-eminent crime fighting organisations already. Given the very real threat of terrorism, the EU will seek a new reciprocal bilateral solution with the UK in order to ensure maximum co-operation.


The UK should not seek full Europol membership or participation in the flawed European Arrest Warrant scheme. Instead it should sign a co-operation Agreement with Europol and then either sign a bilateral extradition treaty with the EU or investigate whether we could fall back on the pre-existing European Convention on Extradition (ECE).[29]


Co-operation with the EU’s member states on crime and terrorism prevention will continue largely as it does at present – but there may be a small shift in focus and emphasis from co-operating via EUROPOL to co-operating via INTERPOL and the OSCE.































Continue reading
2950 Hits

Norwegians reject the 'Norway option'

More Norwegians want to see a bilateral comprehensive free trade agreement with the EU replacing Norway's membership of the European Economic Area (EEA) than those who want to hold onto the country's EEA membership according to a new opinion poll. The poll was produced last week by the polling company Sentio for the Norwegian organisation Nei til E...
Continue reading
2288 Hits

Can Brexit be a success?

Reportedly the President of the European Commission, Jean-Claude Juncker, says Britain leaving the European Union cannot be a success. Well, that is quite understandable from the EU's point of view. After all Brussels' idea of a success is not entirely the same as what most Britons have in mind. The most successful outcome of the Brexit talks ahead...
Continue reading
2295 Hits
1 Comment

Scotland, Separation and the Brexit Question

The SNP has abandoned ‘True Independence’ and Sturgeon is forcing Scotland to choose between a more powerful Scotland inside a Federal UK, or a less powerful one inside the EU and most likely the Eurozone.

David Roach

23rd April 2017
Type text for SEO (example Bruges Group : Image Title)

I remember the SNP’s 2015 manifesto commitment very clearly: the more seats they won in Westminster, the more powers they would get back for Scotland. It was not their most original manifesto commitment, but it was consistent with the main theme of Scottish politics for the past few decades: that devolution should bring power closer to the people of Scotland.


It is not an idea which most of us who support devolution tend to argue with, nor was it the majority of Scottish voters who, on 7 May 2015, returned 56 SNP candidates out of a possible 59 to the House of Commons.


It puzzles me therefore, in this Brexit age, why Nicola Sturgeon was so counterintuitively against the United Kingdom leaving the European Union in the referendum last year, and why she is fighting so hard for Scotland to secure a bespoke deal on membership of the EU’s Single Market.


Of course, the First Minister is trying to manufacture a pretext for a second referendum in Scotland. Forget that for a moment: Nicola Sturgeon is playing political games. She has a ‘Party management issue’ following the influx of die-hard nationalists who swelled the SNP’s membership figures after their referendum defeat in 2014. Also, forget (but only for a minute) that since occupying Bute House the SNP has sought to find differences with England wherever there aren’t any; it's all part of the drive towards so called ‘independence’. 


I always imagined that the First Minister after a Leave victory would have been “champing at the bit” to empower her own office and Scotland. After all, she has a manifesto commitment to keep… Alas, no.


Constitutional observers will have noticed in recent years how the SNP has instead empowered the Scottish Government by centralising almost everything – from policing to planning for wind turbine projects – away from local government and into the hands of Edinburgh. Their attack on localism is an idiosyncrasy I fail to understand given their commitment to bring power “closer to The People”. But equally difficult to understand is the SNP administration’s shunning of the opportune moment that Brexit presents to “grab” yet more power.


Perhaps Nicola Sturgeon genuinely believes she can win the second referendum on so-called ‘independence’, despite recent opinion polls consistently showing Scotland would vote to stay part of the United Kingdom. Indeed, the Leader of the Scottish Conservatives Ruth Davidson, in a recent interview in The Daily Telegraph’s Scottish edition, warned the SNP that they would lose a rerun of the 2014 vote by an “even larger margin”.


Yet, despite a recent opinion poll by BMG Research showing that only one in four Scots want a second independence referendum before Brexit talks are complete, the Scottish Parliament voted through a request for a Section 30 order from Westminster, giving the Scottish Government the power to hold a legally-binding referendum on so-called ‘independence’ between the Autumn of 2018 and Spring of 2019.


Theresa May is adamant that there won’t be a second referendum… at least not until after the Brexit negotiations have been completed, and the United Kingdom has left the European Union… So another referendum could still yet take place at some point in the future.


For the sake of this paper, let’s imagine Nicola Sturgeon eventually gets her way, and the UK Government grants the Scottish Parliament’s request for a Section 30 order. What would a second referendum look like?


Timing is everything… And so is the question…

Regardless of your views on ‘independence’, it must surely be fair to both sides of the argument, and most importantly to the Scottish people, that voters be able to make their choice at the ballot box based on full knowledge of how Brexit will work.


As First Minister Alex Salmond was more or less allowed to dictate the terms of the first referendum on Scottish ‘independence’ which was set out in the Edinburgh Agreement of 2012.


I recognise that the Agreement was signed at a time when the SNP had a majority in the Scottish Parliament so it must have been hard for the then Prime Minister David Cameron to reject the Nationalists’ mandate to hold a referendum following the Scottish Parliamentary elections in May 2011. Two crucial things however did disadvantage the Unionist cause.


The first was effectively allowing Alex Salmond to hold a two-year referendum campaign which gave him the time he needed to build support for a Yes vote; a calculation which almost paid off.


The current occupier of Bute House is presumably pushing so hard for a second referendum now because she hopes to benefit from a similar time advantage. Sturgeon has an enthusiastic base of core supporters left over from three years ago, and she no doubt wants to put them to good use instead of waiting, possibly beyond 2020, for her second bite at the cherry.


This time the Nationalist calculation is that a snap poll in the middle of what will of course be challenging Brexit negotiations can exploit apparent ‘uncertainty’ and deliver them victory – before Scotland is ‘dragged out’ of the European Union ‘against her will’.


The UK Government’s position is therefore right. It not only takes away the initiative of the SNP to ‘gerrymander’ the timing in their favour, but it also ensures that any second referendum in Scotland is based on fairness and experience of an independent United Kingdom after Brexit.


The second crucial thing was the question; ‘Should Scotland be an independent country?’ The very word ‘independence’ has a positive and proactive meaning which handed the argument to the Nationalists.


Objectively, few of us would ever choose to be ‘dependent’, and yet as you will read later, it was completely disingenuous for the Yes campaign to argue in the positive that Scotland would have been ‘liberated’ or ‘emancipated’ when ‘true independence’ was never actually on offer.


Undoubtedly, the question handed Nationalists the advantage. Voters were given a binary choice between another Nationalist positive, and a Unionist negative: ‘Yes’ and ‘No’. It was a loaded question, which is exposed as such when compared with the process undertaken to compose the question for the EU referendum.


After much debate, and representations from all sides, the UK’s Electoral Commission ruled that a simple ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ vote would not be fair, nor indeed suffice, in a complex and multifaceted debate on whether we should ‘remain’ or ‘leave’ the European Union. In the end, they came up with a neutral, unemotional question which handed neither ‘Leave’ nor ‘Remain’ the advantage.


And so it must surely be right that if Scotland does hold a second crucial referendum on our constitution, the UK Electoral Commission be handed the responsibility again of writing the question.


The situation is now different from that in 2011: the SNP has no mandate to pursue another referendum, nor a majority in Holyrood. This time, Downing Street is just as entitled to have a say on the timing and question as Bute House.


The UK Government should make it clear that Scottish voters have a right to experience life in a truly independent United Kingdom, both the pros and cons of life after Brexit.


If there is to be a second Scottish referendum, it should only be held two or three years after the United Kingdom has left the European Union. And only then!


But whatever decision the Scottish people make in that ballot, the choices before them will be much more nuanced than last time.


The choices before the Scottish people

At this point it is important to clarify what the SNP mean by ‘independence’. Cast your mind back to the Scottish Government White Paper in 2014 and you will remember that they proposed a formal currency union with the rest of the United Kingdom in the event of a ‘Yes’ vote.


This was soon rejected by the then UK Chancellor George Osborne, forcing the Scottish Government to propose the ‘Sterlingisation’ option which meant unilateral use of the Pound, but with the disadvantage that Scotland would have no control over monetary policy, nor have a Central Bank which could act as a lender of last resort.


In short, what the Yes campaign proposed on the ballot paper was separation, with dependency on the impulses of a foreign power Scotland would have spurned.


Scotland would have been unable to set interest rates, print money, or devalue. Ceding the fundamental levers of power which shape your economy does not allow you to claim true independence.


‘True Independence’, the preferred option of ‘more committed’ Nationalists who make up a significant tranche of the SNP's grassroots, means full fiscal and monetary autonomy; a Scottish currency with its own central bank and interest rate; and the ability to levy taxes and borrow money.


A ‘True Independence’ supporter resists membership of global institutions such as the European Union, some even NATO, and demands a Scottish Armed Forces made up of whatever the UK Government agrees to share with Scotland once she has left the Union. For them her own territorial waters, including the much-discussed North Sea oil and fishing, a land border with the UK and her own immigration policy, are an important part of reclaiming Scottish sovereignty.


Without EU membership, a ‘truly independent’ Scotland would of course not be part of the EU’s Single Market to which she exports £12.3bn of goods and services, but free from the rulings of the European Court of Justice. Perhaps more crucially in financial terms, she would no longer be a ‘member’ of the UK's ‘Single Market’ where her exports are worth £49.8bn.


The path to ‘true independence’ is rocky, and the SNP know this!


It is why when a Currency Union and then Sterlingisation was rejected by the UK Government in 2014, they announced that the latter would be a transition currency. But a transition to what? Official SNP policy up until the 2008 Financial Crash had always been for an ‘independent’ Scotland to join the Euro.


The SNP has rather bashfully always put great faith in the idea that the best path to ‘freedom’ is to separate Scotland from the UK and join a Federal United States of Europe. Its belief has always been that the rights of its citizens, security and economic future can be protected inside a Federal Europe, but you could be forgiven for not knowing this. It's not a policy they advertise with any great enthusiasm.


In fact, since the then First Minister Alex Salmond was forced to drop his much-vaunted idea of an ‘Arc of Prosperity’ (the proposed economic and trading alliance between Ireland, Iceland and Norway), and then subsequently drop formal plans to adopt the Euro, the SNPs silence has been deafening.


Before a second referendum takes place in Scotland, the SNP will need to come clean. If ‘True Independence’ is left off the ballot paper again, then they need to be clear what exactly it is they will be asking the Scottish People to vote for.


To me the choice they want to offer Scots is becoming more and more apparent:


-       Separation from the UK and dependency on the EU

A second Scottish referendum could end up being a hybrid plebiscite, not so much debating ‘independence’, but answering a refined Brexit question. And that is no bad thing for Unionists.


Assuming the Scottish Government were successful, and Spain did not veto their membership, re-entering the EU would mean adopting the Euro – taking the SNP back full circle to 2008; a more honest time for manifesto promises.


There is no avoiding the fact that Scotland would have formally to adopt the currency. Scotland would be forced to inherit the European Central Bank’s interest rate, and a monetary policy geared towards maintaining the success of the German economy. Much like Greece, Scottish jobs and inflation would be secondary concerns.


But all this assumes that Scotland could meet the convergence criteria of a less than 60% debt to GDP ratio, and reducing the deficit to GDP ratio below 3%. Such a feat is likely to take the Scottish Government years. According to the TaxPayers’ Alliance in 2015/16 Scotland had a deficit to GDP ratio of 9.5% – the highest in the EU, twice that of the UK, and even higher than that of Greece. Scotland under the SNP is some way off meeting these targets.


If the timetable remains on track, in two years the United Kingdom will leave the Common Fisheries Policy and Common Agricultural Policy, both of which have caused significant damage to Scotland’s fishing and farming communities. It is clear from reading the Scotland Act that competency over rural affairs and fishing, not to mention the environment, business regulation, and transport, rests with the Scottish Parliament.


There can be no doubt that powers and responsibilities returning from Brussels in these areas are going straight to Scotland. The UK Government is committed to this aim, and I am encouraged that it is right, and will happen.


Having already created the most powerful devolved Parliament in the world, Brexit is going to make the Scottish Parliament even more powerful.


It seems extraordinary therefore that a Party which said in its manifesto, and has argued for decades, that it wants more powers for Scotland, is now committed to giving them away. At a time when the SNP could empower the Scottish Parliament, they are preparing the ground for a referendum which would see them giving newly returned powers back to Brussels. It is a bizarre paradox.


Make no mistake, ‘independence’ would not be on the ballot paper. A vote for the SNP’s interpretation of ‘independence’ would be a vote to make Scotland less powerful. Scotland would be anything but an ‘independent nation’, but instead a small separated one with hardly any voice inside the EU and Single Market, while losing access to the UK’s Single Market and the trade deals which the UK is seeking to sign with the more prosperous parts of the world.


It is why, following the EU referendum in which pro Leave SNP MPs and MSPs were allegedly ‘gagged’, Eurosceptic Nationalists are finding their voice. The SNP’s former Deputy Leader Jim Sillars has said he would not vote for so-called ‘independence’ in a second Scottish referendum if it meant re-joining the EU after Brexit. In a recent interview with The Herald newspaper he said he would abstain and believed many SNP supporters would follow suit:


“I do not want to be run by an unelected, self-serving elite… I, for example, could not vote Yes if on the ballot paper it said, ‘We wish the Scottish state to be a member of the European Union’, and I’m not alone in that… One of the biggest miscalculations by Nicola Sturgeon is to believe that the 1.6m Scots who voted Remain would automatically then vote to go back into the European Union… That means Ruth Davidson, the leader of the Tory party, and all the Tories who voted to Remain, would in fact vote to leave the United Kingdom and take a Scottish state into the European Union. I think that’s fantasy.”


Jim Sillars is not alone. Survation estimates that 34.9% of surveyed voters who backed the SNP in last year’s Holyrood elections voted to leave the EU in the UK-wide referendum, presenting Sturgeon with a difficult conundrum.


As a Leaver, I share Jim Sillars sentiments towards the EU, and as a Unionist I part company with him over ‘independence’. But as someone who fought hard in 2014 to preserve our precious 300-year-old Union I believe the UK Government must do all it can to find a new settlement that Scotland and the Scottish people can be comfortable with; a settlement that has broad support, and longevity.


This is where the second option on the ballot paper can play a significant part in answering the Brexit Question.


-       Staying in an independent Federal UK

This second option should be an invitation to Scottish voters to empower their Parliament through Brexit. Scotland is a divided country so this invitation needs to be open to both Nationalists and Unionists alike. With 45% of voters demonstrating very clearly in 2014 that they are not content with the status quo, it will be hard in the future to maintain the Union without reforming the way that it works for all its people.


The second option needs to say that if it is independence you crave then look no further than the United Kingdom which, having invoked Article 50 on 29th March 2017, is well on the path to regaining hers, and is committed to sharing sovereignty among the family of nations.


The UK constitution has undergone dramatic changes in the last twenty years which has seen the creation of devolution in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, and since then further powers devolved.


The Scottish Parliament is the most powerful devolved parliament in the world. In financial terms, it is more powerful than most federal states with comparative legislatures, including Germany, the United States and Australia.


Brexit presents Scotland with an opportunity to repatriate to existing institutions even more powers over fishing, farming, the environment, business regulations, transport, and the law.


Should Scotland choose this second option she would naturally keep Sterling and continue to be part of the decision-making process which sets interest rates and determines money supply.


She would be protected by HM Armed Forces, remain a member of the Commonwealth, NATO and have access to the 30 or so trade deals on offer to the UK which amount to roughly 60% of the world’s GDP. She would also continue to benefit from the Barnett Formula.


But if Scotland is to benefit from Brexit by staying in the United Kingdom, then others within the family of nations should benefit too by having the same powers and responsibilities.


After years of patchwork reform, we have ended up with a constitutional ‘dog’s breakfast’; an unfair and unclear system where the West Lothian Question remains unanswered and political and democratic inequality exists between the nations.


In November 2014, the Conservative MP Andrew Rosindell sought to rectify this by introducing a Ten-Minute Rule Bill in the House of Commons to create a federal United Kingdom, with separate parliaments for each of the four nations, leaving the UK Parliament responsible for defence, foreign affairs, national security, and the macroeconomy. Unfortunately, his Bill didn’t make progress.


Many nationalists in Scotland however, and not just those who voted Leave, would be attracted by a second option which incorporates this thinking. Federalism would constitutionalise the existing and newly repatriated powers of the Scottish Parliament, and further enhance its role in deciding policies which the governing party believes will directly improve the lives of the Scottish people.


The attraction of the second option to those who up until now have identified themselves as ‘Yes’ voters is an obvious one, as a federal constitutional arrangement inside the UK is a more empowering alternative to the emasculating option that separation and EU dependency offers.


Brexit and Federalism can save the Union

In a post-Brexit, independent Federal UK, the new beginning a second option offers would address the problem of our politics being far too centralised, and our country being far too divided.


Federalism would clearly set out in statute the powers and responsibilities of the Governments of each federal state, be it England, Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland, and of course the principle of pooling resources across the nations of the UK.


There could be no disputes from nationalist governments in the Celtic fringes playing a game of divide and rule with Westminster, and where there might be disputes, these could easily be resolved by The Supreme Court. We would move towards a more harmonious constitutional settlement.


Post-Brexit federalism would see off divisive nationalism and set the glue that would bind us together as one People sharing this new unique island at the centre of the world, and which we all call our home.


So, before Nicola Sturgeon calls for another referendum on so-called ‘independence’, let the people of Scotland, and indeed all the peoples of the nations of the United Kingdom, first experience a newly reformed federal country outside of the European Union, at least for a significant number of years. Let Scots experience just how great it could be, before the SNP plunge them back into a divisive, dishonest referendum.


Like any Conservative, Unionist, or Leaver, I am optimistic about our country’s future; eternally optimistic that our best years are yet to come. And as I weigh up the opportunities that Brexit will bring, I am filled with great optimism that if we combine it with federalism, we won’t just keep our country together, we will have strengthened it for generations to come.

Continue reading
3822 Hits

The truth only Europhiles can tell about the EU

The EU is on the road towards a single state and is already largely there.

30th March 2017
Type text for SEO (example Bruges Group : Image Title)

The European Union is an attempt to unify Europe under one centralised authority in a fundamentally similar fashion as tried for instance by the Roman Empire and Napoleon Bonaparte. The difference is that this time it's being attempted through a different method.


This is not a reference to the words of some eurosceptic as someone might assume. Like for instance a supporter of Britain leaving  the EU. This is on the contrary a reference to a speech by former French President Valéry Giscard d'Estaing, the main author of the European Constitution which was later renamed the Lisbon Treaty and is today the EU's supreme legislation.


The former French President delivered his speech on 29th May, 2003 in the city of Aachen, Germany while accepting the Charlemagne Prize for his contribution to EU integration. His words were meant to describe the EU's future with the then proposed European Constitution in place:


"Our continent has seen successive attempts at unifying it: Caesar, Charlemagne and Napoleon, among others. The aim has been to unify it by force of arms, by the sword. We, for our part, seek to unify it by the pen. Will the pen succeed where the sword has finally failed? In the scales of history, will the feathered quill outweigh the bloodstained blade?"


Last year, during the British EU referendum campaign, now Foreign Minister Boris Johnson pointed out pretty much the same thing while interviewed by the Sunday Telegraph. However, unlike in the case of Giscard d'Estaing Johnson's comments were condemned by EU proponents.


Johnson said European history had seen repeated attempts to unify the continent under a single authority. People such as Napoleon, Adolf Hitler and others had tried this with tragic results. Now it was being done through a different method. While Giscard d'Estaing did not refer to Hitler directly he clearly did so indirectly with the words "among others". Whether intentional or not.


Giscard d'Estaing went on saying he thought this time the unification of the European continent would succeed "because our success today is based on the free choice of the peoples of Europe to organise their common future. We shall have the answer in the months to come."


The EU got an answer when the European Constitution was rejected in referendums in France and the Netherlands in 2005. How did Brussels react to that free choice of the French and Dutch peoples? They decided that the voters of other EU members should not be asked and the European Constitution would be re-branded as the Lisbon Treaty and implemented anyway.


The main force driving the EU integration has indeed been the centuries old desire to create a single European state. With or without public approval. It's actually quite hard to find an EU leader in the last thirty years or so who hasn't called for a single state in one way or another.


This ultimate objective has already largely materialised. While the EU is not yet formally recognised as a single state it can be argued that in many ways the bloc is today more politically centralised than some formal states such as Switzerland. In fact it has been pointed out that in certain areas the Lisbon Treaty entails more centralised authority than the United States Constitution.


However, not everyone can obviously point this out in the eyes of EU proponents. This point can be made in order to justify further EU integration but not to criticise it. That, however, doesn't change the fact that the EU is on the road towards a single state and is already largely there.

Continue reading
2408 Hits