Brexit Means Brexit...But What Does Brexit Mean?

Probably the biggest problem in writing about Brexit is that the second you finish, things change, but not definitively. Everything changes, but nothing changes. Seconds after finishing this, I read that after all four alternative versions of Theresa May's deal had been voted down (Tuesday 2nd April 2019), Labour's Yvette Cooper and the Tory's Sir Oliver Letwin had published a cross-party Bill to force the Prime Minister to table a motion to extend the 12th April Brexit date, with the intention that this be passed through all of its stages on Thursday 4th April. Where this leaves us is anyone's guess.

"Brexit means Brexit," said Theresa May  at the Conservative Party conference back in 2016, and others have parroted the same truism or something similar such as "Leave means leave," regularly ever since the result of the EU Referendum was announced what seems like a lifetime ago but was, in fact, less than three years since. But what does Brexit means Brexit actually mean, apart from the obvious, that the UK will leave the EU? Well, despite the fact that if social media is anything to go by, every one of the 17.4 million people who voted leave knew exactly what they were voting for, very few of them can have known what they were going to get, as is evidenced by the fact that at the time of writing, no one knows the terms on which we will leave the EU, nor when, nor (possibly) even if we actually will. What most of the 17.4 million do know now, however, is that whatever deal is being proposed, it isn't what they voted for.

Theresa May - still looking for a Brexit solution.

While Theresa May has been proving Einstein's theory of madness by bringing what is to all intents and purposes exactly the same deal to the Commons on three occasions (and possibly for a fourth) in the expectation of a different outcome each time, a series of indicative votes have seen defeat for every option - ranging from a customs union to a confirmatory public vote (not to be confused with a second referendum) -  that has been tabled. Over six million people signed the online petition calling on the Government to revoke Article 50 (to no one's surprise, the Government responded by saying "This Government will not revoke Article 50. We will honour the result of the 2016 referendum and work with Parliament to deliver a deal that ensures we leave the European Union." 

Anti-Brexit campaigners have held rallies, as have pro-Brexiteers, while Nigel Farage collected a rag-tag-and bobtail group to march from Sunderland to Westminster in support of his demands that the Government deliver his version of Brexit. While there is no doubting the sincerity of the protesters on each side of the divide, the one thing I cannot say I've seen happening, nor can I see happening, is the likelihood of large numbers on either side changing their mind. That goes for Parliament too, where the possibility of Theresa May getting sufficient support for her deal would most likely only come to pass if sufficient MPs changed their minds on the basis of what was in it for them, be that Mrs May's resignation, their own chances of becoming Prime Minister, or - on the other side of the house - the prospect of a General Election.

Farage's march...sans Faraga, of course.

Assuming that sooner or later Mrs May is supplanted as leader of the Conservatives, her likely replacement will be either Michael Gove, Boris Johnson, Jeremy Hunt or Sajid Javid. Gove and Johnson have not covered themselves in glory over the Vote Leave campaign's cheating during the run-up to the referendum, while Vote Leave's chair, former Labour MP Gisela Stuart has said the Vote Leave campaign cannot prove its innocence in an appeal about breaking electoral law - because it has destroyed all of the data. Regardless of any actual wrongdoing, I am surprised that nothing has been said about how the destruction of such data stands vis a vis data protection regulations.

So far as I can see, there is only one thing that the country is united about; everyone worries that their worst fears about Brexit will be realised. Obviously there are the 16.1 million who voted Remain who want no form of Brexit, but among those who voted Leave, those who favour a soft Brexit will dread the prospect of a hard one, while those in favour of leaving with no deal will be horrified by the prospect of a Norway style deal or Common Market 2.0 The chances are, that of the 33 million who voted in 2016, only a tiny minority are going to be happy with the terms on which the UK leaves the EU.

But, regardless of the terms under which the UK leaves, the influence of the EU will still be felt in this country, either by choice or diktat. Two stories in the Daily Express, a publication that has never flinched when it comes to criticising the EU, illustrate that even outside the union, the UK will probably never be free of its influence.  Firstly, the EU is likely to enforce regulations to have all cars fitted with speed limiters from 2022. This aim, to reduce deaths on the roads, is one that few would argue against, and were the Conservatives to announce this as policy, the Express would be all for it; if proposed by Labour, it would be an example of the 'nanny state' trying to control us, but of course it is completely beyond the pale as it is an EU idea. Then there is daylight saving. A public consultation carried out in August 2018 saw more than 4.6 million people votes - the most ever received by the EU. According to wired.co.uk, it found that "84 per cent of respondents across 28 member states were in favour of putting an end to the bi-annual clock change." There are good reasons why daylight saving should be abolished (see https://www.wired.co.uk/article/daylight-saving-time-european-parliament-vote), but of course the Express sees this as Brussels imposing its will on the UK. As far as the Express, the Daily Mail, The Sun et al are concerned, any idea that the EU comes up with is barmy, or an imposition, even if it's a good idea, even if it is one they might support if put forward by someone else.

Ahh, but what Brexit did you vote for?

The EU is not without its faults, that is clear, but influencing it, having it see the UK's point of view would be easier (not much easier, but somewhat) inside the union than outside it, and outside it the UK will retain many of the obligations that go with membership, whatever type of Brexit we end up with, while having sacrificed the majority of our rights. Despite the 29th March deadline for Brexit having passed, we could be out - deal or no deal - on 12th April, and once we are out, I have a feeling that the vast majority of people - whichever way they voted back in June 2016 - are going to be unhappy, largely because despite the assertion of many that they knew what they were voting for when they voted leave, it is probably not what they are going to get.

Deal, or No Deal?

Comparisons have been made recently between the Millennium (Y2K) bug and Brexit.  Tory MP Sir Bernard Jenkin recently told BBC Radio 4's Today programme: "We will look back and wonder what all the fuss (about Brexit) was about - a bit like the millennium bug, remember all the experts on the millennium bug?" Ah yes, experts, let us not rely on experts if their view does not match with ours; as Michael Gove said, “people in this country have had enough of experts”.

Sir Bernard Jenkins, whose comparison of Brexit and the millennium bug is somewhat wide of the mark.

There undoubtedly are similarities between Y2K and Brexit: In 1999 there were dire warnings of food shortages, the health service in meltdown and planes falling out of the sky. Now, with the United Kingdom set to leave the European Union in March 2019 there are similar predictions, except this time the planes won't be falling out of the sky because they won't be allowed off the ground. There is one major difference between the approach to the dawn of the new millennium and the prospect of the UK outside the EU, and that is as the year 2000 approached, thousands of people in companies large and small, and in government, were working tirelessly to make sure that all of the computer systems, all of the code, and all of the infrastructure was Y2K compliant. I was one of them, and I put in hundreds of hours making sure that the systems within HSBC that I worked on would not collapse in a heap as the date rolled over.

Doom-laden prophesies ahead of 1st January 2000 did not come to pass thanks to
diligent and thorough testing, not through some stroke of luck or because there was no threat.

In contrast, preparations for Brexit can best be described as chaotic. No one knows for sure exactly what this country will be like once it has disentangled itself from the EU; one thing is for sure, things will be different, but how different and how that is dealt with requires clarity of purpose, clear planning and policies, practices and processes being in place to mitigate the risks inherent in what is essentially a step into the unknown. And at present, I feel we should all be more than a little concerned that precious few of these seem to have been talked about, far less made ready for March 2019.

Danny Dyer proved an unlikely sage of Brexit when he said, “Who knows about Brexit? No one has got a f*****g clue what Brexit is.”

Article 50 - the invoking of which starts the process by which a member state may leave the EU -  states that 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. This is done in accordance with Article 218, however the issue with these articles is their utter vagueness, and it is vagueness that has marked the UK Government's negotiations with the EU, while there is similar vagueness within Theresa May's government. Frankly, the process by which one disentangles oneself from a mobile phone contract or gym membership is better written and more water-tight than the one for leaving the EU, although I believe there's a reason for that. It has been said that Article 50 was drafted merely to address the absence in the EU's articles of any procedure that catered for a member state leaving, but that in their arrogance the EU never seriously considered this as a possibility, believing that once a state became a member, they would always be fully committed to an ever closer union and that there be no need for a provision for withdrawal. Thus the vagueness of the article; withdrawal was never considered a possibility and hence the complete lack of specifics about the future state of a nation and its relationship with the EU after withdrawal.


So to a large extent, the EU is as much to blame as the UK Government for the chaos that surrounds Brexit; the EU had no idea what a deal for any country leaving it would be, so how could an individual state, how could the electorate?

Many in the Leave camp, when challenged on the basis that they did not know what they were voting for in 2016, claim that they knew exactly what they were voting for, but how could they? Even two years down the line no one knows what deal the UK will get, so how did these sages know back then? Apart from some vague claims about taking back control, or 'getting our country back' - which mostly seem to entail keeping foreigners out and changing the colour of our passports - no one has adequately explained what deal they thought the UK would get; how could they, no one knows even now.

And talking of deals, the mantra remains that 'No deal is better than a bad deal.'  I'm not sure what the proponents of that idea think it means, but to me no deal will always, in any circumstances, be worse than a bad deal; after all, if there is something that you must have, at any price, then no deal (i.e. where you don't get what you need) must be worse than a bad deal (where you do). But perhaps this is just semantics, and like Humpty Dumpty, who said "When I use a word it means just what I choose it to mean" advocates of 'no deal' mean something completely different from the accepted norm. In the same way,  the awful platitude, "Brexit means Brexit" clearly means something to everyone who utters it, even if they don't have a grasp of the specifics.

The idea of a second referendum - either on the principle of Brexit or on the final deal that is negotiated - is anathema to those who voted Leave, greeted with rebuttals such as, "What part of democracy don't you understand?" Except of course that the right to change one's mind on the basis of new information is an integral part of a democracy - if not women would still not have the vote and the 1732 Act of Parliament that prevented the export of hats  from any of the colonies (including America) -the Hat Act- would still be on the statutes. And the last two years of negotiations count as new information in my book. Another argument against a second referendum that is frequently trotted out is that any such vote would see an even greater majority in favour of leaving the EU, which in itself is the best possible reason for having a second vote; imagine Leave maintaining or increasing their majority, as their supporters believe would be the case, and opposition to Brexit would be all the weaker.

Back in 2016, in the run-up to the referendum, I was conflicted. The arguments from both sides were persuasive, even if the 'facts' being used to support them were unproven, unsubstantiated, and wildly optimistic (or pessimistic); sometimes they were quite obviously wrong, but eventually I sided with Remain, not through any great affection for the EU, but rather on the basis of 'better the devil you know,' and a gut feeling that while Gwyneth Paltrow and Chris Martin might have been able to achieve a 'conscious uncoupling,' the UK's separation from the EU would be much more acrimonious. After the result, I was prepared to accept it in the same way that I've accepted General and Local Election results that were contrary to the way I had voted, give it the benefit of the doubt and hope that a good Brexit deal could be achieved. 

Of course, there could suddenly be a breakthrough in the negotiations; the EU and the UK could agree on an amicable separation, on mutually beneficial terms, but that seems about as likely as Boris Johnson opening his mouth without inserting his foot in it, or Jeremy Corbyn being invited round for tea by the Board of Deputies of British Jews. Sadly, I think that pursuing the 'no deal is better than a bad deal' approach will leave the United Kingdom like the contestant on the game show who declines the Banker's offer and opens a box containing just one penny.

The Sick Man Of Europe

Both sides in the EU referendum debate have been issuing dire warnings of the consequences of not voting their way on 23rd June. Earlier in the week I speculated on what might happen if we vote Remain. In the interests of balance, here's some guesswork on what the outcome could be if we vote to Leave.

This is a work of fiction but Donald Trump could be POTUS come November.

Carefully, Brian put his glass down on the table. Despite having been in The Bell for the best part of half-an-hour, he had barely blown the froth off the top of his beer. Well, at nearly ten quid a pint, you had to make it last.

"Can't believe it's only been five years," Brian said sorrowfully. "I remember all that euphoria, all that hope. And look at us now. I just hope Johnson and Farage are pleased with themselves."

I nodded. Five years after the decision to leave the EU and once again Britain was being called the sick man of Europe. Of Europe, note, because we're still part of Europe if not the European Union. Unemployment hit six million last year and shows no sign of slowing. Brian noted dolefully that we were probably the only two customers in the pub who actually had jobs. Mind you, there were only a half-dozen or so other punters, and those of them who weren't stretching their drinks out to last as long as they could were drinking tap water. Our town used to have five, maybe six pubs, all doing a good trade before 23rd June 2016. Now there's only The Bell, and how that keeps going is a mystery.

I asked him how his job was going and he made a sour face.

"Lucky to have it, I guess. Did sixty-five hours last week," he said. "I was right with Jeremy Corbyn when he opposed the Tories doing away with the Working Time Directive, but thank goodness they did. If I couldn't work all the hours God sends I'd never be able to keep my head above water."

"Yes," I acknowledged. "And when Labour got in last year, everyone expected them to put some sort of workers' rights bill in the Queen's speech, but there was nothing. Was a funny old Queen's speech too, what with the royals decamping to Canada and her delivering the speech by Skype."

Brian shrugged. "Say what you like about Corbyn, and I've said plenty, he's a pragmatist. Workers rights are all very well but there're no good to if you've got no job."

"I know," I said. "All those strikes when the Tories did away with paid maternity leave and sick pay and the unions confident Jeremy would see them right, and what did he say? 'Sorry chaps, no can do, the country can't afford it.'"

" Everything's gone up in the shops and what with interest rates up where they are, most of my money goes on the mortgage," Brian moaned.

"Perhaps you should downsize," I suggested.

Brian snorted derisorily. "Have you seen the housing market? Prices are lower than a dachsund's swingers; I've got negative equity and no flipping chance of moving."

Bob, the landlord wandered over, collecting empty glasses and wiping down tables. "Closing at nine tonight lads," he said.

"Oh it's not power cuts again is it?" moaned Brian.

"Yes, 'fraid so," said Bob. "Three days a week, power off at half-nine."

"So much for the cheap energy from Hinckley Point," I said. "When we pulled out of the EU, China pulled its investment. And gas from Russia's a joke, it's so flippin' expensive. If I didn't have to cook with it I'd have it cut off."

"Yeah, me too," said Brian. "Oh, before I forget, are you going to the bank this week?"

"Yeah, on Thursday," I said. "I've got a day off and I want to talk to them about my pension. Why?"

"Oh, I've got a cheque needs paying in. I'd go myself, but what with the branch closures after all the big banks took their head offices to Frankfurt, I can't find the time or the petrol money to drive fifty miles to my branch. Why do you want to talk to them about your pension?"

"Well, turns out Osborne was right," I said. "Annuity rates are pathetic. My lump sum is going to get me naff all, it's worth about a tenth of what it was before we voted out of the EU. At this rate they'll take me out of work in a box before I can afford to retire. George said it would cost us all thirty-two grand, turns out that was optimistic, more like double that."

"This isn't what Farage and Johnson promised us, is it?" said Brian. "And whatever happened to those two anyway?"

"Boris has got dual American citizenship,"  I said. "Went over the pond and took to the after dinner speech circuit."

"And Farage?"

"Well, you know his wife is German," I replied, "He took off with her to Berlin. I understand he's working for some organisation out there that wants Germany out of the EU. The Deutsche Freiheit Partei I think it's called."

Brian nodded...and winced. "You OK?" I asked.

"Not really," he said. "My back's killing me. Went to the quack last week, he's referred me to the hospital for tests, but apparently what with all those health service cuts and staff shortages after all those nurses were sent back to Europe, there's a six month waiting list."

"Oh great," I said. "Boris and his crew reckoned what with all the money we would save, the NHS would be better off. Ha! What a crock that was!"

There was silence for a while. Brian sipped his pint; I just gazed at mine.

"How's Harry?" I asked. Harry is Brian's son, coming up to eighteen and about to leave school. "Is he going to university or what?"

"He wanted to go to Oxford," said Brian, "But the fees are crippling, especially now you have to pay them up front. Oh for the days of student loans! Then he talked about a gap year, back-packing round Europe, but what with the new Exchange Control regulations, he wouldn't be able to take enough dough to get him much further than Calais, even if he could afford it."

"I wouldn't go to Calais anyway," I said. "Too dangerous, what with the French shooting all of the refugees trying to get into France from Britain."

"I know, ironic isn't it? One thing we were really worried about before Brexit, all that unfettered immigration and now the beggars are queuing up to leave and they can't get out!"

We fell silent again. Behind the bar, the TV was showing the news channel. America President Donald Trump appeared on screen.

The sound was off, but no words were needed to appreciate the fervour with which he was speaking. The ticker at the bottom of the screen said, 'Trump announces start of Mexican Wall construction.'

Brian turned to me, gestured toward the TV, and smiling for the first time that evening, said, "Oh well, it could be worse you know, we could have him in charge!"

"My Fellow Europeans..."

Both sides in the EU referendum debate have been issuing dire warnings of the consequences of not voting their way on 23rd June. Later in the week I'll be speculating on what might happen if we vote Leave, but first here's some guesswork on what the outcome could be if we vote to Remain.

Remember, this is a work of fiction, however EU Directive 89/686/EEC is real, and yes, it does cover oven gloves.

I was talking to my neighbour, Brian, over the garden fence the other day. He's approaching fifty, married, with a son called Harry, who is just coming up to his eighteenth birthday. We were reminiscing about the referendum.

"Hard to believe it's been ten years," I said.

"Yes, a lot of water under the bridge since then," he replied. "I saw that David Cameron on TV last night, flogging his new book and boasting about the brilliant deal he got for Britain when we voted to stay in."

"It was close, wasn't it?" I said. "What was it, 52 to 48 percent? And it wasn't such a good deal in the end either, was it?"

"Something like that," replied Brian, "And no, it wasn't such a good deal."

Brian has been seeing his doctor recently, and I know he's worried. Since the NHS outsourced all GP services to Pfizer (mention TTIP to Brian and he goes a dangerous shade of puce), medical fees have soared, and once he lost his job, Brian struggled to pay his appointment fees.

"I need a scan, apparently," Brian told me. "Trouble is, I can't afford one."

And Brian needs the money for a going away party for Harry anyway. Harry is being conscripted into the European Army in a month or two for his two years of Military Service, and Brian wants to give him a good send off. Naturally Brian is worried about where Harry will end up.

"A nice cushy billet on the Swiss border is what we want," Brian told me. "Not those bloody Turkish-Syrian margins." He shivered theatrically, remembering the body bags and the casual cruelty of the Kobane offensive of 2022.

"I'm sure he'll be OK," I said with more certainty than I felt. "They say it'll all be over by Easter."

Brian snorted, "That's what they said five years ago."

I asked Brian what he was up to now he was out of work.

"Got a voluntary job at the election office this week," he said. "You voting in the local elections on Sunday?"

I looked at him askance; "Got to," I said, "Compulsory now isn't it? EU directive whatever the number is."

"Yes, of course, I was forgetting," said Brian. "Been so many changes, it's hard to keep up."

Compulsory voting came in just a couple of years ago, on pain of a 50 euro fine for failing to attend, vote online or by proxy.

"Mind you, I'm not sure there's much point," I said. "The Greens always win round here, what with Labour and Conservative packing up."

"Remind me, why did the Tories and Labour jack it in?" Brian asked.

"Well, when Brussels accelerated economic and social union they disbanded all national governments. Domestically, what we have now is the equivalent of the old metropolitan or county councils. When they took all of the control to Brussels, they left Westminster with the power to set local community charge rates, how much to fine people for dog fouling and not much else. Johnson and Corbyn tried to carry on, but it was hopeless. No power, no point"

"What year was that? My memory's not what it was."

"2019," I replied. "The same year the pound was abolished. I remember all that kerfuffle with the euro coming in." I smiled, fondly recalling the race to get all the cash handling machines in banks and supermarkets changed over in time for e-Day.

"What happened to Boris and Jeremy anyway?" asked Brian.

"Boris has got dual American citizenship,"  I said. "Went over the pond and took to the after dinner speech circuit."

"And Jeremy?"

"Went off grid, as far as I know. Think he moved to Scotland. Of course, they would have given him a visa, no problem. No immigration checks for people like him."

"Bloody Scots," Brian said. The duplicity of Scots politicians, Nicola Sturgeon in particular, always made his blood boil. "The day that woman convinced us all to vote Remain, then drew up the drawbridge, declared independence and crowed about the North Sea oil revenue was a black day in British history. Still, you'd retired by then hadn't you?" he said, bringing the conversation back to e-Day.

"Yes, not for long though," I replied. "Had to go back to work when that pension pot of mine lost three-quarters of its value when the economy crashed and Brussels introduced those controls on pension funds. The extra European Income Tax didn't help either."

"So what you doing for a living now?" Brian asked.

"EU Directive 89/686/EEC enforcement," I said.

"Oh," Brian replied. "Which one's that again?"

"Oven gloves," I said. "Well, it's more than oven gloves. Basically, I inspect commercial and domestic kitchens to make sure that all PPE - that's personal protective equipment - meets EU standards."

"Interesting, is it?" Brian asked.

"No, it's as boring as sin," I said. "Not found a single non-compliant piece of equipment these last five years. Thought I had found a non-compliant rubber glove last week, turned out to be a false alarm. Still, I do get a company car, nice Volkswagen diesel."

"Didn't diesel's get banned?" asked Brian. He looked puzzled, "I'm sure there was something about emissions."

"They were talking about it. Old Jean-Claude Juncker was spitting feathers apparently, then he came back from a weekend in Wolfsburg and suddenly the EU had signed up for a fleet of Volkswagen diesels for the next thirty years."

"Nice car, is it?" Brian asked.

"It's OK. Mind you, I had the devil's own job learning to drive on the right!" I smiled; "I'll never forget that day we switched from driving on the left to the right! What fun that was!"

Just then, Brian's wife Marion came out, "Brian!" she called, "Mr Bissengaliyev from next door is here, he wants to pick your brains about the election."

" Bissengaliyev?" I asked, "Russian?"

"No, I think he's from Kazakhstan," Brian replied. "Mind you, I could be wrong, what with Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan and Tajikistan all joining the EU this year, it's hard to be sure."

"What's he do for a living?" I asked.

"Works for Sports Direct at that warehouse down the road apparently. He was telling me he wouldn't have come if he'd known how bad it was going to be. Barely makes minimum wage and he's been on a precarious contract since he got here."

"Precarious contract?" I asked, "What's that?"

"Similar to zero-hours," said Brian. "He's on 24/7 call out, but last week he only worked fifteen hours by all accounts. Got called out four times, twice they sent him home."

"I thought zero-hours contracts got banned?" I said.

"They wanted to," said Brian. "Those employers' groups lobbied Brussels and the opposition evaporated. Typical! Anyway, I'd better get in and see Mr Bissengaliyev. I'll catch you later."

"Yes, see you," I said and went indoors. Walking across the living-room, I turned the television on. And was greeted by the grinning visage of George Osborne, President of the United States of Europe.

"My fellow Europeans," he began...

Should I Stay or Should I Go?

Rarely has the aphorism, "there are lies, damned lies and statistics"  been more apposite than among the multitude of facts and figures being pumped out by both sides of the EU referendum debate. Even on the rare occasions where both side agree on a matter of fact as a starting point, they then extrapolate and manipulate to reach wildly different conclusions.

U-turn? What u-turn?

A central plank of the Leave campaign is that we currently pay £350 million per week into the EU budget and that withdrawing would free up this money, which is enough to fund the building of a new hospital every week and pay for 600,000 new nurses for the NHS. Nonsense, claim Remain campaigners. Not only does this figure fail to account for Britain's rebate, it also fails to consider payments made by the EU to the UK. Some claim that our net contribution to the EU actually amounts to 'just' £136 million per week, a still not inconsiderable sum but whatever figure you chose to believe, there are no guarantees on how any money saved would be spent.

The Remainers will point to a report from the independent  research group, the Institute for Fiscal Studies, who say that although withdrawal from the EU would improve UK public finances by £8 billion[1], Brexit could mean two further years of "austerity,"  with a reduction in GDP leading to an increase in our deficit of between £20 billion and £40 billion in 2019–20. But this is just so much speculation; no country has yet exited the EU, there are no precedents to draw on and the effect of Brexit could just as easily be an increase in GDP.

If the value of Britain's contribution - which ought to be verifiable, but clearly isn't - is debatable, then yet more contentious are some of the other figures bandied about, particularly those projected by Chancellor of The Exchequer, George Osborne. Brexit would mean every household in Britain being £4,300 worse off per annum by 2030 according to George, since Britain's withdrawal would cause the economy to shrink by 6% over the next fourteen years. Except of course there is no evidence to support that claim and the £4,300 figure is a representation of how GDP could shrink per head of the population. It is total misrepresentation to claim that everyone will be over four grand a year worse off. It is equally possible that the economy could grow by 6% over the next fourteen years; experience shows that economic forecasts are rarely accurate, there are simply too many variables.

Would you buy a used statistic from this man?

Osborne also claims that Brexit would cost pensioners as much as £32,000. This is based on the assumption that having left the EU, Britain would be faced with rising inflation, falling asset prices and other economic woes which would erode pension values. On the other side of the coin there are pensions experts who predict that pensions would fall if Britain remains in the EU since regulations on the value of cash reserves that insurers are required to keep would drive down the rates on the annuities purchased from pension pots and similarly, final salary pensions schemes would lose out as Brussels introduces controls on them, increasing costs and causing some schemes to close.

When Britain voted on the EU in 1975 it was membership of the Common Market that we were considering. The Common Market was little more than a glorified trade bloc, but one that had delusions of grandeur, and having transmogrified itself into the European Union, it is now an organisation that its detractors claim interferes in too many aspects of our daily lives. EU supporters will claim that it has protected and improved workers' rights throughout the continent with directives such as The Working Time Regulations, however trade union officials both in the UK and outside  consider the EU to be anything but a workers' paradise. Enrico Tortolano, campaign director for Trade Unionists Against The EU says that the case for Britain to leave is stronger than ever, while Norwegian trade unionists believe that they have enjoyed many additional rights and privileges as a direct result of Norway remaining outside the EU. In Sweden workers who saw their terms and conditions of employment deteriorate found that their case went unsupported in the European Court of Justice, who according to the Morning Star, "made it explicit that business and employers’ freedoms trump all workers’ protections."

"A resounding No to continued membership of the EU should be coming from the working-class socialist movement"  Enrico Tortolano.

Ah, say some, but remaining in the EU surely must be good for the NHS, which remains one of this country's most prized assets. NHS England chief executive Simon Stevens has warned that Brexit would be extremely harmful to the NHS, with a possible recession damaging investment in the health service. It is possible, however that our continued membership of the EU might force the break up and privatisation of the NHS through the implementation of the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP).

Last week an article in the Evening Standard suggested that Britain could lose control of Gibraltar in the event that we vote to leave the EU, if combined with a victory for the centre-right Partido Popular in the Spanish elections on 26th June. It is of course, equally possible to argue that our continued membership of the EU makes a decision from Brussels to hand control of the Rock over to the Spanish just as likely.

But what about all that pettifogging red tape that Brussels insists in wrapping business up in? Is it really essential for there to be 109 EU laws regarding pillow cases, or 52 relating to toasters (if there are that many for pillow cases, I would have expected the total for toasters to be greater), or 1,200 about bread, or 12,000 concerning milk? Who knows, because is it really possible to keep abreast of that number of directives? Freed from these bureaucratic shackles, which apply whether a company trades with the EU or not, British companies could flourish. Or that is one argument; another would be that they would still have to comply with all of these directives if they traded with the EU, so Brexit would not significantly reduce the amount of red-tape. And anyway, as successive British administrations have proved, Whitehall is equally as adept at passing legislation that companies claim strangles their business.

Unlike General Elections, whatever decision we reach on 23rd June is not one we are likely to be able to reconsider in five years time and reverse if we are unhappy with the outcome. Which is why, in order to make an informed decision, we need facts not speculation and thoughtful consideration of potential outcomes rather than the hyperbolic  purple prose employed by both sides in this debate.

Jeremy Corbyn voted out in 1975 and would be likely to do so now if he were still a back bencher claims his long-time friend and journalist Tariq Ali. Corbyn now backs the Remain campaign.

In the 1975 referendum,  it was 67% to 33% in favour of staying in the Common Market but polls suggest that this time round it will be a lot closer. As many as 20% of voters remain undecided on which way to cast their vote, and I include myself among them. Making my mind up is proving difficult, because frankly I don't know which side to believe - most of the time I don't believe either of them. The scaremongering and peddling of the most dubious of 'facts' has been on a scale unprecedented in any political campaign I can remember. If you believe some of the stories from the Remain camp, without the EU to wipe our noses and ties our shoelaces, Britain will be like a weak and frightened child in a bewildering adult land, while the Leave supporters forget that the world is a very different place from what it was before we joined the Common Market and that disentangling ourselves from and subsequently dealing with the EU may make the most acrimonious of divorces seem like a genteel tea party.

All I know is that this is the most important decision the public have been asked to make since, well 1975 probably, and I hope and pray we make the right one - whatever it is.

---

[1] See http://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/8296

In Out, In Out, Shake It All About!

At some point in the next couple of years we are going to have the opportunity to vote on whether or not Britain remains a member of the European Union. If that vote was today, which way would you vote? If you know, then good for you;  I have yet to make up my mind.

The problem is that I find myself swayed by the arguments of both sides, depending on who is doing the talking. If we were to exit the EU, goes the argument, we could still retain our trading links with Europe, as do the Norwegians, the Swiss and Turkey, all of whom are outside the EU. The Norwegians, for example, have access to the single market  (with the exception of some financial services), but are free from EU rules on agriculture, fisheries, justice and home affairs. Sounds good; rid ourselves of the pettifogging bureaucracy and the loony policies on the angle of bend of a banana and the like but retain the benefits of trading with mainland Europe. Except of course that  Norway (and Switzerland) have to abide by many EU rules but have no influence over how those rules are set, and they still have to pay to access the single market. Successive Prime Ministers, from Thatcher, through Blair, Brown and now Cameron, have made pledges to go to Brussels and renegotiate Britain's deal with the EU with limited success. And that's fighting for a better deal from inside the group; imagine how much success they would have had trying to bargain from outside the European clique?

What about employment, jobs, then? Leave the EU, the argument goes and freed from the petty red tape of EU regulations, firms would be able to expand with those who trade outside the EU benefiting most. But on the other hand, how many jobs would be lost through companies moving their operations to lower cost EU countries? And what about financial services? Chances are that many of these would relocate to Europe, specifically Frankfurt which is already a major competitor to London in terms of financial services. HSBC for example indicated that they may move their headquarters away from London in the event of Britain leaving the EU; they would not be alone.

Other factors that weigh heavily in the pros and cons of EU membership include the immigration issue. That is something that I see as being wholly separate given the state of affairs with the number of migrants currently making their way into Europe. With Britain not being a member of the Schengen Area and with the Channel forming a greater physical barrier to free movement than exists between the mainland European states, immigration, especially in respect of refugees and asylum seekers, is increasingly becoming beyond the control of existing EU legislation. Germany's decision to close its borders recently suggests that open borders do not work in these circumstances, even if Angela Merkel's government promises that border controls are only temporary. Future agreements on border controls will have to be negotiated whether or not Britain remains in the EU and the fact that as an existing member, Britain is outside the Schengen agreement indicates that EU membership is not the most important factor in the matter.

The EU horror stories so beloved by the tabloid press are generally gross exaggerations designed to provoke Angry of Tunbridge Wells into a blood vessel bursting invective over his cornflakes. "EU to ban selling eggs by the dozen," was a story that surfaced in the press...in 2010. Last time I looked, Tesco were still selling eggs by the dozen or half dozen. Similarly, stories that the EU had plans to ban coffee makers, British number plates, double decker buses and Prawn Cocktail crisps have all been proven to be nonsense. Another story was that the EU would ban bagpipes on the grounds of noise pollution. Sadly that one was a myth too.

 

Stuart Rose, formerly chairman of Marks & Spencer is leading the Britain Stronger In Europe group.

Ukip MP Douglas Carswell unsurprisingly backs the side campaigning for Britain to leave the EU.

At least the official launch of the campaigns to get voters to make up their minds, with "Britain Stronger In Europe" on one side and "Vote Leave" and "Leave.EU" on the other, has taken our minds off the crisis that engulfed the nation last week when the 5p charge was introduced on the use of carrier bags in supermarkets and other large retailers. "Supermarket 5p A Bag Chaos Fears" screamed the Daily Mirror headline, while the Daily Mail warned that "Plastic Bag Chaos Looms." And as if to prove their point, these papers, and others, carried stories of shoppers arguing over the 5p charge, being stopped from carrying their shopping to their cars in supermarket baskets, of overcharging (one shopper was charged £3 a bag in error), of stores putting security tags on bags, of shoppers stealing bags. Given the literally millions of supermarket transactions undertaken every day, the fact that there are so few stories proves that this is very much a non-story.  

The EU debate and the refugee crisis in Europe, both considered less important than having to pay 5p for a carrier bag.

Supermarkets haven't always given away carrier bags at the check outs; my Mother used to go shopping with a proper shopping bag or two, and in her later years used a trolley, not free carriers.We will get used to paying or taking our own bags quicker than the tabloids give credit for. The whole industry around stories about 5p carrier bags is pretty pathetic, and at a time when there are much more serious things with which we ought to be occupying our thoughts, insulting of our intelligence. I think I have been in a supermarket pretty much every day since the charge came in and not yet seen even a discussion between shoppers and staff about the charge. Still, as they say, the papers rarely let the facts get in the way of a good story.

Not sure which one of the Kardashians this is, but I don't think it is the one married to Kanye West.

But, to return to the EU referendum issue. Whether Britain would benefit from continued membership of the EU or would be better of pulling out is an impossible question to answer with any certainty as there are no precedents; no one has as yet withdrawn from EU membership. So, In or Out? I don't know, but at least I have plenty of time to shake it all about and make up my mind, with no date as yet fixed for the referendum. In the meantime it will be a case of sifting the wheat from the chaff in the media...assuming they can tear themselves away from stories about carrier bags and those aliens from Star Trek, the Kardashians.