Northern Ireland. Forget the Sermons - First read the small print.

 

FORGET THE SERMONS - FIRST READ THE SMALL PRINT

 by

Mike Clitherow

Since before the 2016 referendum and continuing non-stop, those against GB leaving the EU, Including -  Joe Biden and other US Democrats , most EU bureaucrats, several European politicians (particularly the French)  and of course our own Re-joiners  - have been pursuing the following rhetoric:

“You must not go against or interfere with the 1998  Good Friday Agreement 

There must be No Hard Border between Northern Ireland and the  Republic thereby ensuring peace “.

Well, we all agree with that don’t we!

 BUT the question is how many of these people have actually sat down and studied

in detail what is actually in this document?.  Given that within the GFA there is a

total lack of references to trade - I suggest not many have actually read it.

They are simply using this agreement to weaponize and  “beat up” the UK  for daring

to leave the EU. Others particularly Sleepy Joe see it as a route to a united Ireland

 The point is that now We the Little people need to ask “where is the evidence that any part of this peace agreement is threatened by the UK not being part of this inward-looking Trade Block called the EU and us wanting the whole of our country to be recognised and operate as a free independent sovereign state making its own laws and trading internally without interference ? ”

Have these people read and understood the GFA?

Having read the agreement some years ago and again recently – On behalf of the Little people I have some queries for the experts to answer.

• QUESTION - Where is trade/commercial activity mentioned in this document?

Yes we were part of the EU free trade area at that the time it was signed but between

the North & South there are already two different - currencies - corporation taxes and VAT rates - As well as different fuel, alcohol and tobacco duties none are mentioned in this agreement.

However, we have manged to work these between our two countries for many years

with little problem.

ANSWER - there is no mention of trade and commercial activity in the GFA.

 The Good Friday Agreement – is a fantastic declaration of peace and disarmament

by both the authorities and the terrorist gangs of both persuasions including release

of prisoners plus the future prosperity of N I.  - That’s it!

 Hard Border -  Part of this disarmament and standing down in this agreement is by implication to get rid of any so-called Hard Border  by withdrawing the military and their infrastructure along the divide between the North and South.

It’s gone!!!  never to return we hope.

 This peace agreement is wonderfully worded over 35 pages and here are some of the clauses that jump out.

·         Recognise the legitimacy of whatever choice is freely exercised by a majority of the people of N I with regard to its status, whether they prefer to continue their support of the Union of GB or a sovereign united Ireland.

·         Democratically elected Assembly in N I - to protect the rights and  interests of all sides of the community.

·         The Westminster Parliament (whose power to make legislation for Northern Ireland would remain unaffected)

·         ….the British Government will pursue broad policies for sustained economic growth and stability in N. I.

Yes very selective quotes but for sure very important as they are about freedom/peace and the NI population’s ability to make choices whilst remaining in the UK for the foreseeable future.

OK included in the GFE is reference to working with the EU but only in as much as a British Irish Council to consider the EU dimensions in relevant matters…... No mention of a role for the ECJ.

 Also, two excellent sections on Decommissioning and Security BUT still no reference to cross border trade.

If you haven’t already done so please read the whole thing yourself then try to figure out how will trading between two countries – one in the EU one out - differ to how smoothly it happens in the majority of the world and how it will it cause murder and bloodshed?

 IN CONCLUSION

We of course all know that North to South checks on goods if kept in line with what

happens in most countries internationally would be approx. 2% of all shipments 

this can mostly be done electronically  and the use of trusted exporter schemes,

Any physical checks if needed can be done prior to shipment or on arrival in the

Republic away from the border.

THIS THEN CAN NEVER BE CONSIDERED AS A HARD BORDER

– check out the Switzerland and Norway interface with the EU.

It’s up to the EU (represented by the Republic Ireland) to sort out the mechanisms if they

don’t trust the UK not to send them products and produce that will harm their population and environment. Plus, the South North movement of goods would be very light touch on the British side.

 We hear the cry  BUT BREXIT has changed everything – NO IT HASN’T  - this agreement is and will be respected in full.  

NOW:  Are all people and groups mentioned in paragraph 1 saying such a system would cause the IRA to start bombing and shooting people again?

 ·         My personal view is No as any shipment delays and refusal of entry would be instigated by the Republic for goods going South. Going the other way would be no real problem.

·         If people really believe yes – then why is the future of 1,900,000+ peoples future for economic growth and the ability to have their own elected politicians  represent them (rather than interference from Brussels and the ECJ) is all about pacifying a small terrorist organisation – makes no sense.

·  The real threat is very rowdy demonstrations by Unionists if we do not stop this nonsense of a  border down the North sea and therefore within our own country.

Of course, all above will be called a simplification of the situation

– BUT STOP and STEP BACK  – perhaps a simple thought process works.

 

Feed-back welcomed.

 

Mike Clitherow

 

Northern Ireland Protocol. By Mike Clitherow

 

N I PROTOCOL

- WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE THAT THIS RULING HAS SAVED ANYONE FROM BEING EXPOSED TO SUB STANDARD/DANGEROUS PRODUCTS???

 

We have heard so much from the EU Big Wigs and European politicians about how important it is to have checks on goods going from one part of the United Kingdom to another – mainland UK to Northern Ireland  - it is therefore vital to actually research  how effective these checks have been.  For example, how many people in the EU 27 and particularly the Irish have been protected from poisoning or their environment contaminated from products or produce shipped from the mainland. Which surely is the whole point of why inspections were demanded - isn’t it ???

 The way to establish this is for the Civil Service to research what percentage of products since the start of this EU operation have been refused entry for being genuinely sub-standard. That is taking aside the nonsense of the wrong colour ink on some of the paperwork or not being give 10 out of 10 by the EU  for other “naughty boy” homework errors in the huge volume of pointless form filling.

 The vast majority of us have no dispute with the theory that this trading block (can’t call it a county just yet) wanting to maintain standards for their member states is an understandable goal. I myself over many years was involved in having products produced in the Far East and then shipping them to several different EU countries. Although it’s worth noting that some of the rules to be able to obtain the laboratory certification (and therefore use the CE marking) for my products were to say the least “over the top” and not in line with other international standards but were certainly expensive and time consuming.

OK that was what was demanded and to complete  sales legally  we went with the flow and had to suffer delays and reduced profit margins – such is business.

Now if the EU protocol for NI is to protect the EU population  and is not there as some devious device to punish us for daring to leave the EU (surely that could not be the case) let’s now see the results of what they have achieved.

I believe this will be a very small percentage, as if products complied before we left the EU it is very unlikely suppliers’ standards would have dropped – realistically the reverse would be true to make sure of supply continuity.

My contention is that these bureaucratic rules have achieved virtually nothing since their introduction in terms of saving people’s health and the environment. Plus, the likely small % of items that may have been rejected are probably only marginally outside the regs. for purely technical/paper work reasons and would have done no harm to anyone anyway if they had not been checked.

 By getting these figures published in the Media the NI protocol  in respect of products/items from the UK will be shown up for  what it is.

 I had an opportunity to put this point to David Frost at the Cons. Conference after his presentation at the Centre for Brexit fringe meeting (he made a great speech BTW) and asked him to release these numbers to the Media.

He acknowledged this could be an important point and would see what he could do. 

I have since dropped him a line to emphasise the importance of testing the validity of these border checks by using the numbers – Of course he is a very busy man - let’s see if he has time to follow this through.

 BTW – has anyone heard in any speech from Mr Sefcovic /other EU bureaucrats or any French  politician utter the words “We acknowledge that Northern Ireland is part of the independent sovereign state of the United Kingdom ”

Don’t hold your breath as for sure they seem not to want to admit this basic fact – perhaps they don’t know.

 Anyway 16 has always been one of my favourite numbers – hope to hear it quoted again soon.

 Your feedback is welcomed.

Mike Clitherow

 

Time for the Conservative Party to be Conservative!

 

AUKUS - Time to raise the Periscope

 AUKUS - TIME TO RAISE THE  PERISCOPE

By Mike Clitheroe

 

Wow so much coverage everywhere of the AUKUS agreement and the indignation in France.

Must be the Remoaners dream to be able once again knock their own country and

cry for an EU member state. “Those naughty two faced Conservatives ” they will scream.

 

For me an important point has been completely missed in all the media coverage.

So now I want to put this into my “simple man’s” understanding of events.

 

As we all know Australia has been under increasing pressure from China for some time about their attempted dominance of the Indo/Pacific region and the threats against Taiwan etc.

Particularly since the Aussies dare challenged them about howCovid 19 originated and why they mislead the world about the whole episode

 -Australia wanted quite rightly to increase their defence capability, to let China and the world know they would not take all this “lying down”.

 

As widely publicised, they set up a deal a few years ago to get Submarines  from France.

However not only did this agreement fall behind schedule the French package  proved to be poor on the technology front particularly the software.  The Australians  realised

(or were reliably informed) what they were dealing with from the French was a dated system which in part uses diesel (not very green?) and there was going to be a lot of money spent and time wasted when this virtually obsolete product finally came into service.

Therefore they would be way behind what was really required to be a meaningful deterrent - given the Chinese  have nuclear  powered subs already - which can stay submerged for muchl onger and were generally more efficient.

So it is fairly obvious the French could not supply the desperately needed 21^st technology.

Obviously they needed to shop elsewhere.

 

With the UK / US deal they get to share the most advanced secret technology and in the

longer term  Cyber, Artificial Intelligence and Quantum Computing for the good of the Free World.

 

NOW!! THE WHOLE POINT IS THAT IT WAS AN AUSTRLIAN DECISION AND ANY CONTRACT/AGREEMENT

WITH FRANCE IS BETWEEN THE TWO OF THEM.

Surely, like any other contract (if there is such a thing between them ) maybe there is compensation to pay

and explained logical reasoning and even an apology. Who knows? but it’s between Australia & France

The UK & US In my view are not the devious guilty parties.

Were we putting forward the opportunities in all our interests for a defence deterrent

– yes of course we were. BUT it was finally an Aussie decision – which was the sensible decision – to pull out of the French deal to get modern, up to date equipment and long term partnerships in defence 

of their country and surrounding regions.

WHY IS THERE THIS BIG DOWN ON THE UK & USA???

FOR ME A “SIMPLE MAN” I CANNOT UNDERSTAND THIS MOCK INDIGNATION.

Simply if one orders anything and it proves to be late and not of the standard required or promised – you cancel it.

 

Were we (the UK) and the Yanks supposed to say

“ We can’t possibly supply you with Subs with our superior technology and build a long term strategic alliance against China because we must not  upset the French”  OF COURSE NOT.

 

For the French its simply about the money as I believe their only vision is the EU and not the rest of world if there is no euros and prestige in it for themselves.

 

Yes people will say this is all over simplification – OK explain why.

 

Mike Clitherow

 

 

Have we all gone mad? Whatever happened to Freedom, Liberty, Justice, and Democracy?

 

Whatever Happened to Freedom, Liberty, Justice and Democracy?

 With thanks to Jimi Cazot and the Telegraph.

 

If you went back five years and asked a friend to predict the next five years and they told you the following, you would think they had gone mad, and yet?

"In the future, many of your national assets will be owned by China.   Most of the goods you buy will be made there too, which you will not purchase from your fellow countrymen, but a sole supplier owned by an American.

 The most successful politicians will not be elder statesmen committed to public service but young upstarts who view the job as a stepping-stone towards tremendous personal wealth in later life.

 Your Government will pass bills to quash peaceful protest.   This won’t be limited to the intelligence services but bodies like the environmental and food standards agencies too. When you ask “why”, nobody will be able to tell you.

 Your Government will set up ‘nudge units’ staffed by unknown behavioural scientists.   They will tell you what to eat, drink and how you should behave.   There will be patronising health and safety signs everywhere you look.

 “The media will grow dependent on Government advertising revenue and cease reporting opinions and events that contradict official narratives.

The internet will be dominated by a small number of big-tech companies who will delete all information that they disagree with.

In the name of safeguarding students from harm, schools and universities will cease debate and enquiry. People with contrary views will be barred from campuses. Even student newspapers will be censored by ‘sensitivity readers.’.

At work, you will be made to undergo psychological re-education.   The people lecturing you will have no knowledge of psychology but nonetheless try to change you at a subconscious level.

 People will be sacked from their jobs for saying there are two biological sexes or for telling an ill-judged joke. They will not be forgiven if they apologise.

Every major institution and employer will sign up to this censorious culture and soon you will censor yourself when speaking to friends and colleagues without even knowing that you have done so.

When a virus emerges that only kills 0.3% of those who catch it – the majority of which older than the average span of a life – you will be bombarded, 24-hours a day, by terrifying public messaging.

 The police will stop you from meeting a friend for a coffee in the park. They will rummage through your shopping bags to make sure you have only bought things that they deem essential.   They will film you as you walk in the countryside and put the footage on the internet so to shame you.

Neighbours will be told to spy on neighbours, and when you have friends round for dinner the police will knock on your door and give you a fine.

You will be told to stay two metres away from other people at all times.   You will be made to wear a facemask even though there is no evidence that they do anything at all.   When this becomes apparent, scientists will say you must wear them so as not to frighten other people.   Your freedom will end where another’s fear begins.

Families will be kept from dying loved ones.   Widows will be denied the comfort of human touch. Daughters will be arrested for collecting their mothers from care homes.

 Vast numbers of children will be sent home from school and denied a proper education just because one classmate lost their sense of smell.

 Weddings will be cancelled.   Nightclubs will be closed.   Churches will be shut.   Singing and dancing will be prohibited.   Lovers will be kept apart.

You will be told to have an anti-virus vaccine although the vaccine isn’t compulsory, yet those who refuse might be sacked from their jobs.  They will be made to queue for longer at airports.   They will be put under house arrest if they come into contact with someone who has the virus, whilst those who have had it will not. They will be stopped from going to bars and stadiums. There will be two classes of people: the clean and the unclean.

Your unassailable and decadent leaders will ignore the rules they set for others again and again, blissfully untroubled by the cries of hypocrisy.

Global leaders, bureaucrats, scientists, royalty, and the super-rich will meet in private to discuss how we all must live. They will say there are too many people and not enough resources, but nobody will ask who we should get rid of and how.   Blinded by hubris, they’ll believe that they alone can bring about a utopian future.   The language they speak will be impenetrable to most, it will be made up of meaningless phrases like ‘stakeholder capitalism’, ‘collectivisation’, ‘sustainable development’ and ‘Build Back Better’.   Every now and then, however, they’ll make things very clear: “You will own nothing.   You will rent everything.   You will be happy.”

Few will question what this means, how it will be brought about or what mandate they have for doing so.   Those who do, or any of the above, will be insulted, ridiculed and so pushed to the margins of society that they are effectively silenced.

Most will stand on their front doorstep at 8pm every Thursday, clapping their hands and bashing saucepans."

 

The Resignation of Theresa May by John Strafford

 

The Resignation of Theresa May

By

John E. Strafford

In the July issue of “The Critic” Christopher Howarth writes in an article headed Mrs May: My Part in Her Downfall:

“The battle to secure a clean Brexit was won only after the European Research Group secretly obtained a copy of the 1922 Committee rules”.

“a striking fact became obvious quite early on.   There were no publicly available rules of the 1922 Committee.   They were discussed, reported on, people believed they knew what they meant but there was no actual copy”.

“I asked some ERG MPs on the 1922 executive to request a copy from Sir Graham Brady, but they were rebuffed”.

“We managed to find a copy of the rules, the only copy in existence outside Sir Graham Brady’s desk.   I guarded it closely”.

“The rules were dynamite: the famous “no contest within a year” guarantee was moonshine”.   The 22 Executive could change the rules in an afternoon to give us another leadership election.   I now knew what I assume only No. 10 and Sir Graham Brady did: if we defeated May we could get rid of her as leader.”

“No. 10 had a plan to deliver Chequers and Believing that Theresa May’s premiership was secure until 12 December 2019 thought they had time to finally force through their deal.   They were wrong, but only three people knew they were wrong.   I was one of them.” 

 I, John Strafford was another of them.   I set out below how the “missing rules” became public:

After the Conservative Party lost the General Election in 2005, the Leader, Michael Howard MP, announced his resignation but at the same time proposed that the Party Constitution be changed so that MPs had the last say on who should be Leader of the Party rather than the ordinary Party members.   I, and many others, opposed this change and the motion for changing the Constitution was defeated.   During the campaign to elect a new Leader I became aware that the rules for selecting the Leader were incorporated in the Rules of the 1922 Committee, so I wrote a letter to the then Director of Campaigning, Gavin Barwell, at CCHQ asking for a copy of the rules.   I received a copy from Sir Michael Spicer who was then the Chairman of the 1922 Committee as shown below.

On Tuesday 9 April 2019 the Bruges Group held a lunch time meeting in London about Brexit.   One of the speakers was Anne Marie Morris MP, who I had met on a previous occasion.   During the course of the meeting the question arose as to why the MPs did not get rid of the Prime Minister, Theresa May.   Anne Marie Morris gave the standard reply that under the Party Constitution there could not be a Leadership Election within 12 months of the previous one.   At the end of the meeting, I spoke to Anne Marie Morris, who was a member of ERG, and told her that the rules relating to a Leadership election were in the 1922 Committee rules which could be changed.   She asked me to write to her.

On 10 April 2019 I sent the following email to her with a copy to Christopher Hope, the Chief Political Correspondent of the Daily Telegraph:

In the morning of 11 April Anne Marie e-mailed me in response to my e-mail:

“John,

I’ve tried to get all to see this.   The media are saying this just gives the power to alter the timing, not trigger an election.   Thoughts?   I need a bit more ammunition as to how this can work!   Thanks.

Anne Marie”

 Anne Marie was interviewed on the BBC World at One programme.   In the afternoon I e-mailed her:

Anne Marie,

Brilliant interview on the World at One.   You could be changing the course of history.   Well done.   The media are wrong, see below:

I then sent to her examples as to how change could be achieved.  

I stated:

“The 1922 Committee is perfectly entitled to make changes.   It’s only obligation under the Party Constitution is that they “shall be determined by the Executive Committee of the 1922 Committee after consultation of the Board”.

If as required the Board is consulted, 1922 Committee can proceed, even if the Board disagrees.

However, if the 1922 Committee does proceed the Party Board using Clause 17 of the Party Constitution can then overturn it.   That would lead to a serious clash, particularly if the 1922 Committee had the support of the voluntary party with it and they were making the Party more democratic, and it could be seen that ordinary Party members were getting more power.   In these circumstances the Party Board would be seen to be out of touch not only with the voluntary party but also the Parliamentary Party.  The whole legitimacy of the Party Board would come into question, e.g., why is the Party Chairman and a Deputy Chairman appointed by the leader and not elected by the members of the Party and accountable to them.   Is the Party Chairman just a spokesman for the Leader and not speaking in the interest of the whole Party?

I am sure in this situation the Party Board would back down.”

At the same time as I emailed Anne Marie Morris MP I also included a copy of the email to Christopher Hope of The Daily Telegraph as he had expressed interest in the idea.   I had already been in contact with him as I was trying to get Dominic Grieve deselected as my MP.

Christopher came back to me very quickly and asked for a full copy of the Rules of the 1922 Committee, which I sent to him immediately.

Anne Marie then emailed me and asked if I would talk direct to journalists/   I said “yes”.

On 13 April Bill Cash MP of the ERG Group telephoned me and we had a long conversation in which he asked me to send him a report on changing the Leadership election rules and for a full copy of the Rules, which I did.

Late on 13 April the Telegraph published an article on its web site by Sir Michael Spicer and Archibald Hamilton saying the rules could be changed. 

On 14 April the Sunday Telegraph printed the article.   The rest is history.

As Christopher Howarth writes: “ The ’22 Executive went from being split on the desire to act, but not knowing they could act, to having clear authority from the last two Chairmen – who had written the rules – that they could and, indeed, should call a new confidence vote.

News of this development was greeted with shock in Downing Street,   Legal threats were made, but went nowhere.   Sir Graham Brady had to deliver the bad news.   Theresa May had to resign.”

After publication by the Sunday Telegraph, I was inundated by journalists who wanted a copy of the Rules of the 1922 Committee.   They had been told I was the only person with a copy!

It is one of the supreme ironies that it was Gavin Barwell who asked Michael Spicer to send a copy of the rules to me and it was the same Gavin Barwell who as Head of Theresa May’s office stopped anyone getting a copy of the rules.

Mrs May announced her resignation as Prime Minister on 24 May 2019

 

 

Climate Change. Who caused it?

 

Checking out at the store, the young cashier suggested to the much older lady that she should bring her own grocery bags, because plastic bags are not good for the environment,.
The woman apologized to the young girl and explained, "We didn't have this 'green thing' back in my earlier days."
The young clerk responded, "That's our problem today. Your generation did not care enough to save our environment for future generations."
The older lady said that she was right our generation didn't have the "green thing" in its day. The older lady went on to explain: Back then, we returned milk bottles, soda bottles and beer bottles to the store. The store sent them back to the plant to be washed and sterilized and refilled, so it could use the same bottles over and over. So they really were recycled.
But we didn't have the "green thing" back in our day. Grocery stores bagged our groceries in brown paper bags that we reused for numerous things. Most memorable besides household garbage bags was the use of brown paper bags as book covers for our school books. This was to ensure that public property (the books provided for our use by the school) was not defaced by our scribblings. Then we were able to personalize our books on the brown paper bags.
But, too bad we didn't do the "green thing" back then. We walked up stairs because we didn't have an escalator in every store and office building. We walked to the grocery store and didn't climb into a 300-horsepower machine every time we had to go two blocks. But she was right. We didn't have the "green thing" in our day.
Back then we washed the baby's diapers because we didn't have the throw away kind. We dried clothes on a line, not in an energy-gobbling machine burning up 220 volts. Wind and solar power really did dry our clothes back in our early days.
Kids got hand-me-down clothes from their brothers or sisters, not always brand-new clothing. But that young lady is right; we didn't have the "green thing" back in our day.
Back then we had one TV, or radio, in the house -- not a TV in every room. And the TV had a small screen the size of a handkerchief (remember them?), not a screen the size of the state of Montana.
In the kitchen we blended and stirred by hand because we didn't have electric machines to do everything for us.
When we packaged a fragile item to send in the mail, we used wadded up old newspapers to cushion it, not Styrofoam or plastic bubble wrap.
Back then, we didn't fire up an engine and burn gasoline just to cut the lawn. We used a push mower that ran on human power.
We exercised by working so we didn't need to go to a health club to run on treadmills that operate on electricity. But she's right; we didn't have the "green thing" back then.
We drank from a fountain when we were thirsty instead of using a cup or a plastic bottle every time we had a drink of water. We refilled writing pens with ink instead of buying a new pen, and we replaced the razor blade in a razor instead of throwing away the whole razor just because the blade got dull. But we didn't have the "green thing" back then.
Back then, people took the streetcar or a bus and kids rode their bikes to school or walked instead of turning their moms into a 24-hour taxi service in the family's £45,000 SUV or van, which cost what a whole house did before the "green thing."
We had one electrical outlet in a room, not an entire bank of sockets to power a dozen appliances. And we didn't need a computerized gadget to receive a signal beamed from satellites 23,000 miles out in space in order to find the nearest burger joint.
But isn't it sad the current generation laments how wasteful we old folks were just because we didn't have the "green thing" back then?
Please forward this on to another selfish old person who needs a lesson in conservation from a smarty young person. We don't like being old in the first place, so it doesn't take much to piss us off... Especially from a tattooed, multiple pierced smarty who can't make change without the cash register telling them how much.

UK Regulation after Brexit by Bruce Goodwin

 

UK regulation after Brexit     by Bruce Goodwin                                                  26^th Feb 2021

 

Firstly, I should declare that I was a Leave voter, but I have always tried to listen to all sides of the debate.

The question always posed by Remainers is ‘can someone tell me exactly what we have gained from Brexit?’

The first thing to address is the notion that Brexit was ‘all about immigration’ as often suggested.   I would certainly recognise that in certain areas of the country this might be true, and I would even go so far as to say it might have been a factor in the ‘swing’ vote, but for me immigration was merely a subset of sovereignty and just one of many reasons why Brexit occurred.   Britain has sat uneasily within the EU for some time & this has been increasingly so since Maastricht & Lisbon.

I think this is important to recognise, particularly for those that believe this is all going to go so badly that the UK will be begging to sign up again soon.

There is something in our history & psyche that does seem to make it more difficult to fit in with the idea of an ever more integrated Europe.   We could point to the stability of our parliamentary system over many centuries as opposed to the turmoil endured by countries such as Spain.   We could look to the more recent crises such as that of 2008 and the ‘left behind’ protest vote.   But I think there is something more fundamental in all of this: the difference in the legal systems.

Common Law starts from the premise that you can do anything you like until a law is passed (often by mandate of elected govt but often by legal precedent) that says you cannot. The ‘acquis communitaire’ inherited from the Napoleonic system upon which the EU functions is a rules-based system with incredibly complex rules that are codified and passed down rigidly from on high.   I think this explains to a large extent the resentment felt toward being ruled from Brussels.

Common Law systems tend to be more flexible & require a certain amount of common sense in enforcement.   I do not think it is by mistake that the world’s most successful financial & commercial centres use it, but I think it goes deeper than that, into the minds of how we see government & how society interacts.   Common Law allows us to have the highest standards but with fewer rules; exemplified by the financial markets but also present in agriculture & green policies.   Society tends to move the law along with it and it is this that I feel makes us more compliant and at ease with our laws.

I have a sense that some of the post-Brexit issues, particularly in respect of the NI protocol, come down to a different mindset now that the UK is free to express itself.   If seed potatoes are exported from GB-NI with vestiges of soil on them, the UK tends not see this as a big deal and that no one else should either so waive it through.   The EU on the other hand is intent on ticking every single rule before agreeing to allow anything to move.   There are other instances such as sandwiches for consumption in transit, or shellfish that we are all familiar with.

The next question becomes whether, in tying us up in rules, the EU is simply doing what the EU does best or whether it is being vindictive?   Is it so worried about the Single Market & an economy on its doorstep that it imposes different standards to elsewhere?   It is true that the UK is not entirely ready for the brave new world, but did anyone think that would be the case after 45 years of working within the bloc, both in terms of customs and statecraft?   I am sure we can point to several government missteps, but it is equally true that having signed a trade deal we might expect that both sides would work together for the common good to ensure no disruption while things bed down.

Here, I am afraid the EU is guilty of cutting off its nose to spite its face.   It seems to care more about ensuring the UK will not prosper outside the EU than doing everything in its power to ensure that its trade surplus and good relations with the UK remain intact.   This I believe is extremely short sighted, given the turmoil within the Eurozone and the difficulties of the current crisis.

It is true that we are going to have some headaches in the near term, but the world is a large place, and we are not working in a sealed tank: things can and will change.

By deliberately making life difficult, the UK, now able to act very quickly in terms of its own trade, will look elsewhere.   We have seen how rapidly so many trade deals have been agreed.   Yes, many are rollovers out of necessity but there is room to improve & broaden them, especially regarding services.   And this is key, given that our economy is far different to the remaining 27.   We have a service-based economy, unlike the EU which is export oriented and one would say mercantilist.   No longer can the EU use the UK’s imports of finished goods as a bargaining chip in trade deals, whereas the UK can now use this in trying to gain access for services in the trade deals that it writes for itself.   It is not by mistake that none of the EU trade deals we were involved in and we did not negotiate excluded services.

As we look further afield, new markets will open for our financial sector and the effects of Common Law will again come to the fore, giving companies flexibility to be creative.

There are early signs that we are already exporting more to the rest of the world, despite the high-profile problems with the EU in some areas.   And this is being followed by a slowdown in imports, although we need to see post-Covid confirmation of the extent of this. But it seems to me that in being obstructive rather than constructive the EU has indeed more to lose.   Much of what the EU exports to us can be sourced cheaply elsewhere now that tariff barriers are falling, or by import substitution helped by a competitive sterling.   This goes for services too….. increasingly sunseekers will flock to the welcoming arms of the Caribbean rather than the beaches of the Med.   So, making like difficult for travel reps is going to hurt the EU far more than the UK; our business is very mobile.

The other issues revolve around regulations for different markets and building “gold- standards.”   There are a few things to think about here, and I admit I am not an expert, although finance is my background.   We can see already that the extremely short-sighted move to block equivalence can be got around by firms opening offices in each other’s jurisdictions.   This will mostly deal with the retail market, but the bulk of City of London business is wholesale: the huge depth of the UK markets where much of the trading takes place off exchange, dwarfs that of the EU centres.   And it is difficult for derivative markets to flourish without deep underlying cash markets.

This means that the moving of trading to European exchanges is just a small scratch and the moving of funds to Europe matters little if those funds are still managed in the UK where the bulk of the fees are made.   This system already exists globally where most fund managers will have funds domiciled in all sorts of jurisdictions to cater for a diverse base of international clients, but they will all be managed by a team in the UK, US, Singapore etc. Denying EU companies access to UK markets is going to hurt them a great deal and push up costs.

I started my career at a time when London had become a major market for offshore Dollars (the Eurodollar market) partly due to US legislation.   The Eurobond market was a huge offshoot of this, and it will continue to exist for Euro-denominated debt using UK Law.   An offshore Euro market is all but nailed on.

I am less sure about things like chemicals, but industry exports to many different markets and finds solutions.   Multinationals have production facilities in many countries to cover this, regulatory standards may be a different animal, but agreements will no doubt (as part of trade deals) be reached in many parts of the world to recognise the high standards that I am sure the UK will maintain.   Then there is the development of UNICE which along with enhancements in WTO rules (most recently TFA) will move to greater frictionless trade and standards. The EU might just get left behind if it tries to play hard ball and becomes increasingly entrenched in its protectionist cocoon.

In short, putting up trade barriers has never been a successful strategy, whereas free markets have tended to bring wealth and lift countries out of poverty.   Just at a time when the Eurozone needs a shot in the arm it seems intent on building more walls to hide behind and its impending debt crisis will be more difficult to handle.   Some might see fiscal union/federalisation as the way out; this will certainly keep the bloc together, but it will not stop the EU becoming increasingly less significant.

As I said at the beginning, I voted Leave and much of the reason you will find in my comments above.   It is not a decision I made lightly, and I was aware at the time it would be a tough transition.   I might have thought, as many did, that the EU would be less obstructive, but I see nothing yet to make me change my mind.   Indeed, the growth that we need to emerge from this crisis will not be found across the Channel but in the high growth areas elsewhere in the world.

I cannot speak for others, but I suspect the upbringing they have had within a Common Law society will make them view much of what the EU is doing as ‘petty bureaucracy’ and that they simply do not wish to work with us.   As such, I think the mood resulting from things being more difficult than envisaged post Brexit, will be far from everyone screaming to ‘let us back in’!   (Particularly with the penal terms they will undoubtedly try to extract, and to join the Euro), and more one of ‘fine if that’s how you want it’.

More likely there will be a desire to go on holiday elsewhere; buy things from elsewhere and export to places that make it much easier.