THE FALL OF SINGAPORE SPIRIT

The aftermath of the Brexit EU referendum victory has witnessed the triumph of the Fall of Singapore Spirit. The Tories have amply demonstrated why Britain is the shadow of the superpower it once was.

Crucially, currently, the EU and genuine Brexit supporters are in full agreement; both wish to conclude Britain's exit from the EU quickly and without a lot of fuss. The EU has made clear that they are prepared to do a deal. Instead of seizing the moment and offer terms for a quick agreement, the Tories are faffing about and waffling, and waffling, and waffling …

There were some during the referendum campaign on the Brexit side who believed that, in the event of a Brexit win, there might be an offer from the EU to meet Britain's objections in an attempt to keep Britain in the EU. That might have been justified speculation then, but it is redundant now. The EU are not interested in keeping Britain in. They are more concerned to deter other countries from holding referendums as a blackmailing manoeuvre, want to conclude Britain's exit without delay, and move on to deal with the substantial problems with the eurozone.

During the referendum campaign, Vote Leave published a 'roadmap' to 'take back control'. Chris Grayling, The Tory Leader of the Commons, said: 'After we vote Leave, the public need to see that there is immediate action to take back control from the EU'. Grayling continued to point out that the negotiation process would be combined with 'legislative changes before 2020'. The steps Vote Leave set out included bills to increase NHS funding, 'to end the automatic right of all EU citizens to enter the UK', a trade bill and, importantly, a 'European Communities Act 1972 (Repeal) Bill' to repeal the act that is 'the legal basis for the supremacy of EU law in the UK' and to ensure that 'The EU Treaties will cease to form part of UK law and the European Court's jurisdiction over the UK will end'.

Now, however, there is a marked reluctance to understand basic English. Despite the EU making it very clear that they want Britain out, the Tories have convinced themselves that there needs to be a whole series of committee meetings, informal talks, and detailed negotiations that are so extensive that the process could take years. We are told that these things cannot be rushed (just like the Chilcot enquiry into the Iraq war). Some Tories are hankering after keeping free movement of people, including one leading Brexit campaigner, reducing immigration as a goal is being disavowed, and others are prattling about staying in the Single Market.

One leading Tory is advocating that the negotiations with the EU should proceed with the outcome being put to the electorate in a second referendum. Jeremy Hunt, who is an expected leadership candidate, wrote: ‘a “Norway plus” option for us - full access to the single market with a sensible compromise on free movement rules’ should be the goal, with there being another referendum ‘before setting the clock ticking’ by triggering Article 50, the EU's own mechanism for a country to exit as per the Lisbon Treaty.

As if all that is not bad enough, the Tories are now in the midst of a ponderous leadership election. David Cameron is simply treading water. There is no leadership and no drive to carry through the referendum decision. It is planned that the Tories will have a new leader by September. In the meantime, the Tories refuse to enact Article 50.

UKIP, as ever, have missed the point. Nigel Farage, the leader, is miffed that he has not been invited to be involved in the hoped for negotiations. In the EU parliament, he launched into an attack on the EU and demanded an adult approach 'as to how we negotiate a different relationship'.

To recap, as Lord Lawson pointed out during the campaign, the alternative to being members of the EU is not to be members of the EU. The referendum decision taken by the people was to leave. The Brexit campaign was specific in saying that Britain would exit the Single Market (they were specific about this) and revert to WTO rules if needs be. A decision to do so has been taken. The EU is prepared to respect this decision and seek an early divorce. There is nothing to be gained by UKIP slanging off the EU, and such is irrelevant. The EU is not the problem. The EU is in favour of Britain leaving.

George Osborne, who is still chancellor despite his behaviour during the campaign, has said that he would be 'strongly arguing' for the 'closest possible ties' with the EU; he said that we should seek to retain the supposed economic benefits of EU membership, including membership of the Single Market; the terms of this, he said, would be decided in the negotiations which would be taking place over the next two years. Osborne's stance reinforces the fact that he needs to be replaced without delay.

As the English Rights Campaign pointed out during the campaign, membership of the Single Market is akin to membership of the EU and is the EU fanatic's fall-back position. Sadiq Khan, the London mayor, has openly called for continued membership of the Single Market even if Britain supposedly leaves.

Membership of the Single Market is harmful to Britain. It includes free movement of people and so mass immigration is unavoidable. Angela Merkel has restated that free access to the Single Market will only be agreed in return for free movement of people; access comes with obligations.

Furthermore, Britain has a massive balance of trade deficit with the EU. This deficit is ruinous and cannot be allowed to continue. Despite free trade economic theories, it is not self-correcting. The trade policy to be pursued should be to bring our trade with the EU back into balance. Britain needs to leave the Single Market and that was the referendum decision.

The Vote Leave Boris Johnson, who has himself been backtracking, is the frontrunner to replace Cameron as the Tory leader. The Tory leadership struggle will dominate as well as delay proper government. If elected leader (and Theresa May, the Remain Home Secretary, has surfaced from her hiding hole as a stop Boris candidate) Boris Johnson will have a short window of enjoying the initiative, especially if Labour are still embroiled in an internal power struggle between social democrats and Trotskyites.

Given the pro-EU majority in parliament, then a general election is a distinct possibility. How that might resolve the impasse is difficult to envisage. Had UKIP any gumption, then a general election would be their best opportunity to finally break through. Although they would need to take a very good look at their ideological stance to succeed.

The idea that leaving the EU is so complicated that there must be years of negotiations is simply a trick to avoid adhering to the referendum decision. It is a ruse. We need to get out at once. We need to stop giving money to the EU and stop further EU laws being imposed upon us. Frau Merkel has made it clear that we will not be allowed free access to the Single Market, and so we should base our future relationship on the WTO rules. The aim should be to have left the EU by Christmas.

To put this into an historical context, after the introduction of the Import Duties Act of 1932, within six months Britain was able to set up the Imperial Preference area for the British Empire at the Ottawa Conference in July/August 1932.

UP YOURS DELORS!

WE HAVE DONE IT!


Happy independence day to all!

QUOTE OF THE MONTH (BONUS)

'There is a very clear choice between those on their [Remain] side who speak of nothing but fear of the consequences of leaving the EU, and we on our side who offer hope. Between those who have been endlessly rubbishing our country and running it down and those of us who believe in Britain.

     They say we can’t do it. We say we can. They say we have no choice but to bow down to Brussels. We say they are woefully underestimating this country and what it can do.

If we vote to leave we can take back control of our borders, of huge sums of money, £10billion a year net, of our tax raising powers, of our trade policy, and of our whole law making system - the democracy that is the foundation of our prosperity. And if we stand up for democracy we will be speaking up for hundreds of millions of people around Europe who agree with us but who currently have no voice.

And if we vote leave and take back control, I believe that this Thursday could be our country's independence day.'

Boris Johnson, making his closing remarks, to a standing ovation, at the end of the EU referendum debate yesterday

 

RACE WAR POLITICS

Above is a poster used during the EU referendum campaign by Operation Black Vote, which described the poster as featuring 'an elderly Asian British woman being berated by an aggressive thug'. The 'aggressive thug' is a tattooed skinhead and English.

 

This is typical of the anti-English race war politics that blights Britain. The Remain campaign have not objected Operation Black Vote and its poster, although they have accused the Brexit campaign as being racist and of causing division. That fact demonstrates the anti-English race war politics that lies at the core of the Remain campaign, the ruling Ponzi class and political correctness.

 

We need to stand up to these evil bigots and Vote Leave.

IMMIGRATION

'But the [immigration] system cannot work without another, vital aspect of the country's immigration policy: the rigorous policing of its borders.
Last year, the then Prime Minister Tony Abbott made a dramatic intervention in the debate over Europe's migration crisis, calling it a 'terrible, terrible tragedy'. He spoke out as more than 1,000 migrants drowned in one weekend trying to cross the Mediterranean. He warned Europe's leaders that only a zero-tolerance policy towards people-traffickers would work …
Australia's approach is certainly tough. So tough that migrants seeking asylum have been rejected while still on Australian Navy ships after their boats were intercepted. In one case, 46 Vietnamese asylum-seekers were refused entry and sent back before they got anywhere near the Australian coast. And 41 Sri Lankan asylum-seekers intercepted on a vessel heading for Australia were assessed on board via video link. They failed, and were handed over to authorities in Sri Lanka in a sea transfer off that country's coast.
Human rights groups and many on the Left deeply object to the policy, arguing that it only worsens the plight of refugees. But whatever its moral rights or wrongs, there is no denying it has saved lives. Abbott's Labour predecessor, Kevin Rudd, operated an open-door immigration policy, and tens of thousands of illegal immigrants set sail for the country from Indonesia. By 2012, the number of illegal migrants reaching Australia had soared. Most came from the Middle East; 51,000 asylum-seekers and 8,400 children arrived in the six years under the Labour government. Many did not make it: 1,200 people drowned as their overcrowded, rickety boats capsized in rough seas, just as they have in the Mediterranean.
But in 2013, when Abbott became Prime Minister, everything changed. He introduced a zero-tolerance policy. Called Operation Sovereign Borders, it was run by the Australian Defence Force under the command of a three-star general, and was designed to turn migrant boats back before they reached Australian waters. He made £200million available to other countries in the region to persuade them to cooperate …
The key principle was to keep traffickers' boats away from Australia's coast and deter migrants from trying to reach the country. The Australian Navy set up what became known as a 'ring of steel' – a force of warships to intercept boats carrying migrants, forcing them to turn back. In some cases, even towing them away.
Sometimes, they transferred migrants to 90-seat, lifeboat style 'survival capsules', which were sent back to Indonesia under armed escort. Any migrant who slipped through the net and made it to Australia was detained at once, rather than being allowed to live in the community, while their asylum application was processed – as happens in Britain, Italy and Greece.
The failed migrant was then taken to places such as Christmas Island, in the Indian Ocean, Nauru in the Pacific, or Manus Island in remote Papua New Guinea, where the Australian government rented land for detention centres. The migrants were housed here while their applications were considered.
These centres have been criticized by Australia's Left-wing media and humanitarian organisations for being dirty and overcrowded. The United Nations Human Rights Committee has accused Australia of subjecting asylum-seekers to 'cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment'.
However, there's no doubt the policy has stemmed the flood. Only three boats have arrived this year and 12 illegal immigrants from Sri Lanka have been sent back. But most important of all, since Operation Sovereign Borders began, there have been no reported deaths at sea …
Word has spread that making it to Australia is no guarantee of being able to settle there. Instead, the prospect of being put in a detention centre on a far-off island has deterred would-be asylum-seekers from paying people-smugglers for the perilous voyage. The people-smugglers, too, have realised that, as far as Australia is concerned, the game is up.'

Roger Maynard, writing recently in the Daily Mail

Instead of adopting a zero-tolerance policy like the Australians, Britain has actually deployed the Royal Navy to the Mediterranean to pick up those immigrants in rickety boats and brought them to Europe, from where they continue their migration, in many cases towards Britain. The people-smugglers, including ISIS, know this and have exploited the situation.

The result is that Britain is less secure. The boats used by the immigrants are overcrowded and flimsy; on occasion the boats sink and lives are lost.

Yet those grandstanding their 'compassion' still demand that even more immigrants are let in. Just what sort of people are these? They are so consumed by a contempt for British interests and puffed up with their own self-righteousness, that they pursue a policy that they know will needlessly cost lives of those about whom they claim to be concerned.

Britain should adopt the same zero-tolerance approach as that of the Australians. 

QUOTE OF THE MONTH (bonus)

'Free imports have destroyed this industry, at all events for the time and it is not easy to recover an industry when it has once been lost. They have destroyed sugar-refining for a time as one of the great staple industries of the country, which it always to have remained. They have destroyed agriculture … Agriculture, as the greatest of all trades and industries of this country, has been practically destroyed. Sugar has gone; silk has gone; iron is threatened; wool is threatened; cotton will go! How long are you going to stand it? At the present moment these industries, and the working men who depend upon them, are like sheep in a field. One by one they allow themselves to be led to the slaughter, and there is no combination, no apparent prevision of what is in store for the rest of them. Do you think, if you belong at present to a prosperous industry, that your industry will be allowed to continue? Do you think that the same causes which have destroyed some of our industries, and which are in the course of destroying others, will not be equally applicable to you when your turn comes? …

     What is the remedy? What is it that the Prime Minister proposed at Sheffield? He said – I am not quoting his exact words – Let us get rid of the chains which we ourselves have forged, and which have fettered our action. Let us claim some protection like every other civilised nation.

     Then we are told that if we do this the foreigners will be angry with us! Has it come to that with Great Britain? It is a craven argument; it is worthy of the Little Englander; it is not possible for any man who believes in his own country. The argument is absurd. Who is to suffer? Are we so poor that we are at the mercy of every foreign State – that we cannot hold our own – that we are to fear their resentment if we imitate their own policy? Are we to receive their orders 'with bated breath and whispering humbleness'? No, if that were true, I should say that the star of England has already set; it would not be worth anyone's while to care to speculate on her possible future. But it is not true. There is not a word of truth in it. We have nothing to fear from the foreigners. I do not believe in a war of tariffs, but if there were to be a war of tariffs, I know we should not come out second best. Why, at the present time ours is the greatest market in the whole world. We are the best customers of all those countries. There are many suitors for our markets. We may reject the addresses of some, but there is no fear that we shall not have other offers. It is absolutely absurd to suppose that all these countries, keenly competitive among themselves, would agree among themselves to fight with us when they might benefit at the expense of their neighbours. Why, at the present time, we take from Germany about twice as much as she takes from us. We take from France about three times as much, and from the United States of America we take about six times as much as they take from us. After all that, do we stand to lose if there is to be a war of tariffs?'

- Joseph Chamberlain, speaking in Greencock as he launched the Tariff Reform Campaign in October 1903

VOTE LEAVE

The public are incapable of making an informed opinion because they are not informed. To this end, the banning of right-wing views and promotion of left-wing views is necessary to inform the public. Western society is so bad that those who seek to destroy it should be actively promoted even if they are in a minority, and the majority support for existing society should be ignored. The majority, who are responsible for the oppression of minorities, should have their civil rights withdrawn.

Normally, one might expect the government to protect the interests and views of the majority; Marcuse, however, seeks to destroy them. He partly justifies this by his sneer at the 'systematic moronization' of society, thus rendering the views held by the majority of ordinary people as not worthy of respect. His language (e.g. his references to 'class structure', 'institutionalized inequality', and 'legalized violence or suppression') is that of a communist.

His remark comparing tolerance to the Right as well as to the Left, along with 'to movements of aggression as well as to movements of peace, to the party of hate as well as to that of humanity' equates the Right with being aggressive and hateful, as opposed to the peaceful humanity of the Left. This absolutist stance, typical for communists, ignores the fact that communism was responsible for the deaths of more than 100million in the 20th century. The Right actually fought against Nazism and the aggression of Japan. The communists actually backed Russia, which had made a pact with Hitler; it was the German invasion of Russia that forced the communists into open opposition to Hitler in WWII. It is Marcuse who displays hatred, not the Right.

… By comparison, however, minorities, who are deemed to be free from false consciousness, are deemed to be oppressed and alienated. Marcuse regards the black population as being a likely source for rebellion. That is to say, he aims to supplement class war politics with race war politics.

There is nothing contentious in highlighting the commitment to race war politics. Marcuse, as well as other members of the Frankfurt School, sets this out in simple language.

The Genesis of Political Correctness: The Basis of a False Morality, by Michael William, available from Amazon, Kindle or direct from CreateSpace

On Sunday, in a telephone conference, Will Straw, the Stronger In's campaign director said:

     'We need to recognise that people have been pulled up short by Jo Cox's death and it is now time to make a very positive case for why we want to be in the European Union … to call out the other side for what they have done to stir division and resentment in the UK.

     That is something we must all do … This is what we think is the closing argument of the campaign, reflecting all the arguments that we have been setting out for many months but also the new context that we're in.

     What we want to say is people should vote Remain on Thursday for more jobs, lower prices, workers' rights, stronger public services and a decent tolerant United Kingdom.'

Stephen Kinnock, a Labour MP and son of the former Labour leader Neil Kinnock, wrote in The Guardian:

     'We must unite and act to defeat the forces of division, intolerance, populism, nationalism and cynicism that have been bubbling under for years, and that have come to the fore in recent weeks.

     This will be a long and difficult journey, but we owe it to Jo to make it. And it's a journey that starts on Thursday.'

Baroness Warsi claimed to have left the Brexit campaign to join the Remain side, complaining: ‘Are we prepared to tell lies, to spread hate and xenophobia just to win a campaign?’ (Few in the Brexit campaign were even aware that she had purported to be on their side.)

In the forefront of this charge to link the Brexit campaign with the evil act of a mental defective was none other than Hillary Clinton who wrote on Twitter on Friday (italics the English Rights Campaign own emphasis): 'It is cruel and terrible that her life was cut short by a violent act of political intolerance'. David Cameron on Friday said: 'Where we see hatred, where we find division, where we see intolerance we must drive it out of our politics and out of our public life and out of our communities'. Also on Friday, the ardent Leftie, Polly Toynbee, wrote in The Guardian: 'There are many decent people involved in the campaign to secure Britain's withdrawal from the EU, many who respect the referendum as the exercise in democracy that it is. But there are others whose recklessness has been open and shocking. I believe they bear responsibility, not for the attack itself, but for the current mood: for the inflammatory language, for the finger-jabbing, the dog-whistling and the overt racism'. There are a number of others, in particular George Osborne (needless to say), who have made similar comments. Focus has centred on a Leave EU/UKIP 'Breaking Point' poster highlighting the EU's failure to manage the immigration crisis, which has been denounced as racist (needless to say). Nigel Farage, the UKIP leader, yesterday said:

     'What we are seeing here is the Prime Minister and Remain campaign trying to conflate the actions of one crazed individual with the motives of half of Britain who think we should get back control of our borders and do it sensibly'.

The killer is someone who has a long history of mental health issues and apparently was in a state of crisis the night before he committed his atrocity. In addition, he had obsessive compulsive disorder and aggressively cleaned himself with Brillo pads. He had acquired a shotgun (of some description) some time previously; in 1999 the killer had bought a manual from a US far-right website that had instructions on how to build a 'pipe pistol'. Those who knew him said that he never discussed politics and did not know what is political views were. The police are treating the murder as an act of terrorism.

After the last few months of the Remain campaign lies, scaremongering, name-calling, phoney allegations, falsified dishonest economic forecasts and reports, the idea that Brexiters have to be moralized at by the Remain side, the Ponzi Class and the politically correct is beyond the pale.

The English Rights Campaign will repeat the point made in the earlier item about the killings in Orlando (see the English Rights Campaign item dated the 15^th June 2016): Political correctness does not legislate tolerance. It is the organization of hatred. The funding of organized crime and terrorist people smugglers, the deaths of immigrants trying to invade the West, the paedophilia, and the killing of Jews and homosexuals are not collateral damage. They are the true face of political correctness. The fight between patriotism and political correctness is the fight between good and evil. It is as clear cut as that.

THE IMF REPORT

In its June report on Britain, the IMF has focused on Britain's referendum on EU membership. Despite being more concise, more readable, and easier to understand than one of George Osborne's efforts, even so, the report has a number of clangers and clearly has Osborne's fingerprints all over it.

 

The Executive Summary is usefully one page long. It defines the alternatives to membership as being becoming members of the European Economic Area (EEA), 'bespoke arrangements', and 'defaulting to the World Trade Organization (WTO) trade rules'. It states that there will be 'tradeoffs between freer access to the EU market and independence from the obligations that come with membership of the single market'. It asserts that: 'Studies that find net gains, or only very small losses, tend to assume the potential for rapid expansion of trade from new trade agreements with other economies or a substantial boost to productivity from reducing EU-sourced regulation. While theoretically possible, in practice the effects on output are unlikely to be sufficiently large to make the net economic impact of exiting the EU positive', as those studies 'tend to assume the potential for rapid expansion of trade from new trade agreements with other economies or a substantial boost to productivity from reducing EU-sourced regulation. While theoretically possible, in practice the effects on output are unlikely to be sufficiently large to make the net economic impact of exiting the EU positive'.

 

The report does openly acknowledge that: 'The economic consequences for other countries would mainly be negative, albeit smaller than for the UK, and concentrated in the EU. Within the EU, losses would vary widely, reflecting variation in trade and financial exposures to the UK. Ireland, Malta, Cyprus, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, and Belgium would likely be most affected.'

 

Therefore, from the outset, the report's flaws are clear. It simply assumes that there will be a reduction in trade with the EU, without explaining from whom consumers alternatively source their demand for goods, and that the reduction in trade is harmful to both Britain and the EU. This is because, we are to believe, that the EU will refuse to roll over existing trade arrangements, albeit with some modifications (for the Common Agricultural Policy or the Common Fisheries Policy, for example), even though there would be adverse consequences for the EU countries of not doing so – as the IMF acknowledges. Meanwhile, Britain would be allegedly unable to increase trade with other countries via new free trade deals and so would suffer a fall in output.

 

To move to the main text, the report ups the ante by alleging that 'the balance of evidence points to notable downward economic risks to the UK economy' stemming from 'reduced trade access' which 'would be magnified if exit from the EU were also accompanied by restrictions on migration'. It asserts that the prospect of deregulation gains are low as Britain is supposedly relatively unregulated already and 'Nor does it seem likely that the UK could quickly establish trade agreements with other countries to substitute for those it has currently via EU membership. The likelihood is therefore that output and employment would be lower should the UK leave the EU than should it remain'. In the short term there would be uncertainty as the 'untested exit process could be damaging for investment, consumption, and employment; the exchange rate could act as a buffer, but not by enough to offset the negative effects on demand and output.'

 

The report rehashes the Osborne/Treasury line that 'The single market is more than a free trade agreement (FTA) or customs union – the intent is a zone in which there are no barriers to the movement of goods, services, capital, and people', emphasizes the EU's trade deals with other countries, and also 'prospective agreements under negotiation with a further 67 economies, including Brazil, Canada, India, Japan, and the US, with the aim of not only removing tariffs, but – more importantly – opening up markets in services, investment, and public procurement. These markets are 10½ times the size of UK GDP.'

 

These prospective trade deals are all pie-in-the-sky and the intended deal with the USA has run into serious trouble stemming from the proposals to allow US corporations to sue if they feel that they have not properly been given contracts. In any event, what matters is not bits of paper about trade deals, but the ability to compete. The most important market is the home market.

 

The report plays up that 'The process for negotiating withdrawal and a new agreement under Article 50 would set off a complicated process that would run through the European Council, European Commission, European Parliament, and Council of the European Union' and that it is unclear whether a new agreement would need unanimity as it 'would depend on the nature of the agreement'.

 

This is hogwash. The renegotiation process should be relatively straightforward, although it would require a British government to have some guts. The first thing would be to offer to the EU to roll over the existing arrangements, albeit with some modifications, and to require the EU to state within a few weeks whether they are agreeable to this in principle. If the EU is agreeable in principle, then detailed technical negotiations can proceed in good faith. If the EU is not agreeable, then there is no need for technical negotiations as we will be defaulting to the WTO rules in the absence of any bilateral agreements. The report itself states Britain 'would be able to set whatever level of import tariffs it wished, but would also face higher export tariffs on some goods and would not have access to the single market', unless Britain made 'a bespoke arrangement with the EU'.

 

Revealingly, regarding trade arrangements with other non-EU countries, the report admits that the British government 'views that it is not possible to apply the principle of “presumption of continuity”,' and hence Britain 'would not be able to ensure continuity by right, and agreements in which it participates via EU membership would be subject to renegotiation'. It is the British Tory government that is asserting this, not the other countries. The Tories are acting against British interests.

 

The report reworks some of the Osborne/Treasury allegations especially about immigration. For example, it alleges that 'Firms that trade externally are likely to have more advanced practices and be more productive. Hence, arrangements that support trade, such as EU membership, also boost productivity'. It does not occur to the IMF that the reason why firms export is because they are already more productive and successful. The IMF is peddling a fundamentalist free trade ideology.

 

Free trade does not necessarily make firms competitive. For example, Britain could enter into a free trade arrangement with India. Would this mean that British steel producers with their green charges, higher electricity costs, higher wages etc. would now be more productive and able to compete with India which uses coal fired power stations, has no green charges, few health and safety regulations, and far lower wages? Of course not. Such a free trade arrangement with India would result in the British steel industry being wiped out. Free trade means that a firm competes, goes out of business, or survives in a truncated form; it does not guarantee that a firm will be competitive. The interpretation of 19^th century free trade theories is wrong.

 

The report even alleges that 'there is little evidence that EU immigrants have caused job losses and lower wages for UK citizens … the evidence seems consistent with the notion that EU migrant labour has allowed UK firms to better match workers to jobs, allowing them to work more efficiently and boosting demand for labour overall'. As far as the IMF is concerned, immigration is an unqualified good thing. This is total bunkum. The IMF completely ignores the strain on public services, the housing shortage, etc. The IMF's convoluted threadbare reasoning strays well beyond its economic remit. They are peddling a Ponzi argument.

 

It is with the issue of the balance of trade deficit that the report does a spectacular belly flop. Given that the IMF once used to advocate sound economics and that countries needed to live within their means, one can only assume that Osborne and the British Treasury have been central to the drafting of this spectacular.

 

The report states 'The UK runs a trade deficit with the EU, whereas it maintains a small surplus with the US and Japan. This deficit is mostly in goods; the UK runs a surplus in services. However, whereas the value of the UK’s exports to the EU is 13 percent of UK GDP, the value of exports from the rest of the EU to the UK is 3 percent of rest-of- EU GDP. Expressed in nominal terms, a quarter of UK imports come from Germany; Germany, France, and the Netherlands account for nearly one-half of imports originating from the EU. Spain, Belgium, Italy and Ireland are also significant trading partners. However, when exports to the UK are expressed as a share of the GDP of the source country, the UK market is most important for Ireland, Malta, Cyprus, Belgium, and the Netherlands'. This is, of course, all a play on statistics. The scale of the imports from Germany should be noted.

 

The report proceeds to claim that 'the financial sector is highly exposed to a loss of access to the single market'. As with the débâcle of Britain rejoining the Gold Standard at pre-war parity in 1925, the interests of the City and bankers have priority. Banking is deemed more important than manufacturing.

 

The report refers to Patrick Minford (one of the Economists for Brexit) and compares his computer models and simulations with those of others. It quietly attacks the suggestion that Britain reduces all tariffs to zero upon leaving the EU and that all production be shifted 'entirely to services, at the expense of agriculture and manufacturing'. It speculates on the consequences of tariffs being imposed on British exports and the prospects of zero tariffs being applied to imports, but does not delve into the consequences of tariffs being imposed on imports, despite the size of Britain's balance of trade deficit. Crucially, it continues (italics the English Rights Campaign own emphasis): 'A permanent reduction in export demand would be associated with a permanent depreciation in the real exchange rate, to eventually restore the current account balance to equilibrium. This would cause imported goods to become more expensive. Exports would be more competitively priced, but not by enough to fully offset reduced export demand from higher trade barriers. Losses would likely be accentuated to the extent that reduced trade brought reductions in productivity and foreign investment. Restrictions on inward migration would also damage not just labour supply but, potentially, skill levels and efficiency'.

 

As it happens, in addition to responding to the Osborne/Treasury reports, the English Rights Campaign recently reiterated the positive effect of bringing the balance of trade with the EU back into balance (see the English Rights Campaign item dated the 15^th June 2016). What the IMF has said is biased, economically and logically illiterate, and is the key item of the report.

 

The exchange rate has failed to redress Britain's balance of trade deficit over the last 30-odd years. Even when sterling fell after the 2008 crash, the fall was insufficient to redress the deficit or return Britain to growth. After the exit from the Gold Standard in September 1931, sterling fell 30% within months; yet still Britain suffered from a trade deficit and it was only tariff reform that restored growth. First, the Abnormal Importations Act, passed in November 1931, allowed import duties of up to 100% on certain goods (in practice, the maximum imposed was a duty of 50%); then, decisively, the Import Duties Act was passed, which placed a 10% tariff on all imported goods apart from those specifically exempted (mainly raw materials, food and Empire primary produce). In April 1932 the nominal rate was doubled to 20% on all items apart from some specifically omitted. By the end of April 1932, only 30% of imports were free of any duty. By the end of 1932 most manufactured and semi-manufactured goods were subject to a 20% tariff with some at a 33⅓% tariff. In 1935, the tariff on iron and steel was increased to 50% to force the European cartel to agree to a quota to be imported into Britain, and the measure was reversed back to the original level of 33⅓% within a few months when agreement was reached. The effect of the tariffs was dramatic. In the 1929-32 slump, output fell in Britain in 1931 by 5.6%. In 1932, Britain's per capita incomes increased by 0.2%, and by 2.5% in 1933, and by 6.3% in 1934. As producers concentrated on supplying the home market, Britain boomed.

 

The IMF report assumes that a depreciation in sterling is sufficient to eliminate the balance of trade deficit, although it does aver that there might be a reversion to WTO rules. It openly assumes that this rebalancing of the economy will be achieved alongside 'restrictions on migration'. In which case, the increase in output, extra exports and/or import substitution, can only be achieved by increased productivity in that the same national population will produce more, and firms will be required to use their existing workforce more efficiently and/or invest in more productive machinery. Despite what the report avers, this is all to the good.

 

What is impossible is for British industry to eliminate the trade deficit with the existing workforce without both a major increase in output (GDP growth) and an increase in productivity and efficiency. If Britain's deficit with the EU is taken to be a ballpark figure of £80billion, then, by definition, British production will increase by £80billion to bridge that deficit. Either we will export £80billion more, or import £80billion less (because we are now buying British goods rather than foreign ones) or, more likely, a combination of both. Those who would now benefit from these extra sales would, in turn, having more to spend, buy more from others, who, in turn, would do likewise. Thus output will increase further (Keynes made much of this multiplier effect).

 

Despite what the IMF says, if the trade deficit is eliminated, then Britain will boom. That is an arithmetical certainty. The government deficit will melt away as increased tax revenues pour in and the Osborne austerity policy will become redundant (it should be noted that Labour prefers to remain in the EU and have Osborne's austerity policy). Britain does not need 'rapid expansion of trade from new trade agreements with other economies'. It is the home market which matters and that market is totally within the domain of the British government. The policy to be pursued on regaining control, is a policy of eliminating Britain's balance of trade deficit. Increased demand from the home market will increase Britain's GDP growth rate.

 

The debate on EU membership is not a debate between free trade economists, engrossed in their computer models and interpretations of 19^th century economic theories to the exclusion of reality and common sense.

 

The whole basis of the dire predictions of a recession is false. Any lost trade with the EU, if there is any, will be more than replaced by increased demand from the home market. The IMF report is both biased and illiterate.

QUOTE OF THE MONTH

'The killer was an Afghan, of Afghan parents, who immigrated to the United States. His father published support for the Afghan Taliban, a regime which murders those who don't share its radical views. The father even said he was running for president of that country.
    The bottom line is that the only reason the killer was in America in the first place was because we allowed his family to come here.
    That is a fact, and it's a fact we need to talk about.
    We have a dysfunctional immigration system which does not permit us to know who we let into our country, and it does not permit us to protect our citizens.'

- Donald Trump speaking recently about the Orlando murders.

VOTE LEAVE

As a result of the deluge of false statistics, bald assertions and outright lies peddled by the Remain side of the referendum campaign, the media have pushed the idea that the Remain side have won the economic argument – as if nonsense and lies are made truth by the sheer scale of which they are asserted.

The Leave campaign has now drawn level in the polls (possibly pulling ahead), and this has been put down to the strength of their arguments regarding immigration, although Boris Johnson has rightly highlighted the Leave campaign's triumph on the issue of democracy, about which the Remain side keep very quiet.

The English Rights Campaign does not accept that the pro-EU Remain side have won the argument on the economy at all. Such a victory should be measured by the sense of the argument and its persuasiveness, rather than by the numbers of entities spouting it or by the noise with which it is spouted.

Increasing attention is being focused on the EU Single Market (and rightly so, given that it is arguably the key issue, a strategic issue, and a Remain fall-back position in the event of a Brexit referendum victory). We are told by Remain that we are lucky to be a member of the Single Market and must stay so. In fact, we do not need to be a member of the Single Market to sell to the EU. Countries across the world sell to the EU. The issue is on what terms trade takes place.

Despite the alleged benefits of membership of the Single Market, Britain has a substantial balance of trade deficit with the EU. Each year, month after month, Britain is having to sell assets to foreigners and borrow from abroad in order to fund that trade deficit. Britain has had a balance of payments deficit with the world since 1983. It is very harmful and, despite economic theory, has not been self-correcting. This is a very serious problem that is getting worse. The Treasury's own long term report itself sets out a table showing that Britain has a trade surplus with the rest of the world (despite the huge trade deficit with China), whereas there is a massive trade deficit with the EU. China and the EU are the problem. Membership of the Single Market has been a disaster for Britain.

Despite a preference to ignore the issue, the Remain side have tried to exploit the trade deficit to their advantage. The Treasury's long term report (entitled: 'HM Treasury analysis: the long-term economic impact of EU membership and the alternatives') states: 'The UK ran a trade deficit of £67.8 billion with the EU (3.6% of GDP) in 2015. This was comprised of a deficit in goods of £88.7 billion (4.8% of GDP), but a surplus in services of £20.9 billion (1.1% of GDP)', and that: 'The UK’s current account deficit means it is also a net borrower from the rest of the world. In turn, this implies the UK is exposed to changes in the perceived riskiness of lending to the UK. This exposure has been noted by the Governor of the Bank of England, who has said “the possibility of a risk premium being attached to UK assets because of certain developments exists, and that plays into the riskiness of the situation”. In other words, if concerns about lending to the UK increase, investors will require a return – or premium – for bearing that risk, making it more expensive for the UK to fund its current account deficit', and that: 'there might be a sudden stop in the UK’s ability to finance its large current account deficit outside the EU'.

The Treasury's short term report ('HM Treasury analysis: the immediate economic impact of leaving the EU') states: 'The UK current account deficit of 7.0% of GDP in 2015 Q4 is high by historical and international standards'. It should be noted that this 7% deficit is double the US deficit which prompted the USA to instigate the Plaza Accord in 1985 (an agreement between France, West Germany, the USA, Britain and Japan to depreciate the US dollar against the Japanese and German currencies). The Plaza Accord was a success and the USA bounced back from a recession as its trade deficit fell.

Yet despite the scale of the escalating trade deficit, the British Ponzi class are more than happy to simply blunder on, consuming assets as income and running up debts along the way – in true Ponzi fashion. They intend to allow the deficit to continue. That is their stated policy. They have not been challenged about this during the referendum campaign. They should have been.

Between 2000 and 2012, tax paid by small businesses rose almost three-fold – despite the lending squeeze caused by the credit crunch. Meanwhile, large businesses were paying 20% less tax despite a 65% increase in profits. Had the tax paid by large businesses increased in line with that of small businesses, then the government would be receiving £50billion a year more in tax. Part of the reason is down to corporate tax dodging, and partly it is down to the scale of the foreign takeovers of British industry.

The Treasury reported that between 1997 and 2007, foreign ownership of quoted British companies rose from 30% to 50%. £440billion worth of British companies were sold to foreigners between 2005 and 2015. In 1991, British pension funds and insurance companies held 50% of British shares long-term. That figure had fallen to 15% by 2015, with foreign ownership increasing to 41%. Those sectors most affected by foreign takeovers were paying lower or virtually the same levels of tax, and thus a falling share of the total. This trend cannot continue indefinitely (see The Ponzi Class: Ponzi Economics, Globalization and Class Oppression in the 21^st Century, by Michael William, chapter 11 – available from Amazon, Kindle or direct from CreateSpace).

The English Rights Campaign supports the policy of balanced trade. On leaving the EU, the policy should be one of implementing a strategy to bring our trade with the EU into balance (and the same policy should be applied towards China). Taking the deficit with the EU to be in the region of £80billion, then, by definition, British production will increase by £80billion to bridge that deficit. Either we will export £80billion more, or import £80billion less (because we are now buying British goods rather than foreign ones) or, more likely, a combination of both. Those who would now benefit from these extra sales would, in turn, having more to spend, buy more from others, who, in turn, would do likewise. Thus output will increase further (Keynes made much of this multiplier effect). Tax revenues will increase.

In the event of tariffs being applied, then the government will receive more tax revenues still from the tariffs on imports, in addition to the extra tax revenues from increased economic growth. Thus, tariffs on foreign goods would help the government finances and help reduce, if not eliminate, the government spending deficit. The Osborne policy of austerity would end. The application of tariffs in 1932 was what propelled Britain into a boom. Although the world has become accustomed to lower tariffs, the fact remains that we should not be frightened of them. They are a tool to be used in the right circumstances. The Remain side's scaremongering about tariffs is tripe.

The wild allegations of Britain's economy going into recession due to a shock are nonsense. The allegations are simply wishful thinking peddled by the anti-British, pro-EU lobby. They should be ignored.

We have nothing to lose on leaving the EU, and have much to gain. We need to hold our nerve, and do what deep down we know needs to be done. Vote Leave.

ORLANDO

'A developed society, politically stable with a prosperous economy, can afford to tolerate alternative lifestyles, atypical activities, and dissent. This does not alter the fact that society did not progress and will not progress by people living in a hippy commune, for example. There needs to be a critical mass of those who are committed to patriotism and the advancement of civilization. No matter how disgruntled some might be at the imperfections of society, they should be on their guard against being used by others to promote dissent; and they should be alert to the consequences of a revolution that might transform Western democracy into, for example, a Sharia state or simply anarchy. Members of a minority should not acquiesce to pressure groups of zealots, corrupted by the receipt of public monies, to agitate endlessly on their behalf. The development of civilization is in the interests of all those who seek a better life.'

The Genesis of Political Correctness: The Basis of a False Morality, by Michael William, - available from Amazon, Kindle or direct from CreateSpace

The recent mass murder in Orlando has, regrettably, once again seen a triumph for the ideology of political correctness. A great deal of effort by the media, politicians and pressure groups has been expended trying to blur the fact that this was an act of terrorism or, if it was an act of terrorism, then it was also a 'hate crime'.

Much of the reporting in Britain on Monday was taken up with a snooty denunciation of Donald Trump. Allegedly, The Donald had responded to the murders in a manner that was not befitting a president; the tone of his response was wrong. In reference to a Donald Trump comment, Ed Miliband, a failed ex-Labour leader, wrote 'Can there be a more heinous, self-serving, disqualifying statement about the murder of 50 people?' A quick answer to the question is to cite the question itself.

In fact, Donald Trump has been proved correct in his determination to confront radical Islam and in his willingness to restrict immigration. This is a common-sense approach rather than a politically correct one. It is also one likely to attract voter support.

On Newsnight, a certain Pedro Julio Serrano (a gay activist from Puerto Rico and a 'senior advisor' at New York City Council) was interviewed. He regarded the mass murder as a hate crime, was hostile towards Donald Trump who he lumped in with those he regarded as perpetuating hate and hence in some way responsible for the hate crime. He pointedly rejected the idea that Donald Trump was right to advocate the restriction of Muslim immigration.

In Britain, one activist terminated a review of the newspapers on Sky and walked out in anger at the murders not being described as homophobic attacks. Another prominent activist has had pictures of him posted on the internet holding a placard proclaiming solidarity with Muslims against the English Defence League (which was formed in response to a demonstration of Muslim extremists as troops paraded after returning home from active service). Do these gay activists actually consider what they are doing?

It is now reported that the killer, who was from a wealthy family, had once been on an FBI watch list due to suspected extremism. The killer's father fancies himself as being the president of Afghanistan (from where he originates) and has released extremist videos on YouTube ('Our warrior brothers in [the] Taliban movement and national Afghan Taliban are rising up' and, just after the murders, 'God will punish those involved in homosexuality'). The killer rang the police three times just before and during the murder spree claiming allegiance with Islamic State and al-Nusra extremists, and was 'laughing frantically' as he murdered.

The killer is further alleged to have been using gay dating websites, and to have frequented the homosexual club involved where he had been trying to pick up gay men. In which case, the killer was not only a Muslim extremist but also an aspiring if not active homosexual – despite being married.

The evidence points towards the murders being either another act of radical Muslim terrorism, or else an extreme gay-on-gay act of violence, with the perpetrator being of dubious mental stability. It was not a homophobic attack by society in general on an oppressed gay community.

The attempts to impose a politically correct interpretation of what happened is wrong and must be resisted. It is the same reflex to impose dogma that led to the authorities, including the police, tolerating mass paedophilia in Rotherham; that has led to judges corrupting human rights legislation to facilitate people smuggling, despite the people smugglers including organized criminals and terrorists (including ISIS); that has led to mass immigration despite the deaths of immigrants trying to invade the West and despite the known hostility of many of those immigrants to certain groups in particular, such as Jews and homosexuals, and the West in general. The politically correct treat these consequences as being nothing more than collateral damage. For the communists, the revolution is all that matters.

Those gay activists who support other minorities in a hoped-for common cause against the host society, and hence support mass immigration of those who openly mean them harm, should take the trouble to rethink their political correctness. Those they claim to represent are being very poorly served. It is time that state funding for gay pressure groups was ended.

Political correctness does not legislate tolerance. It is the organization of hatred. The funding of organized crime and terrorist people smugglers, the deaths of immigrants trying to invade the West, the paedophilia, and the killing of Jews and homosexuals are not collateral damage. They are the true face of political correctness.

The fight between patriotism and political correctness is the fight between good and evil. It is as clear cut as that.

VOTE LEAVE

The Vote Leave Team (Andrea Leadsom, Gisela Stuart and Boris Johnson) did an excellent job last night in a full on debate against the Remain side (Amber Rudd, Angela Eagle and Nicola Sturgeon). The Vote Leave Team complemented one another and got their points across well. At one point it looked as if they might be flummoxed, but Gisela Stuart rallied to point out that it has been the ability of British car manufacturers to produce cars that people want that has revived the British car industry – not the Single Market (which is of course the whole point).

It was striking that the more the Remain side lost the argument the nastier they got, and they had a warped view of reality. Amber Rudd had the quaint notion that the Single Market ‘makes us more prosperous at home’ and was deeply impressed with the opinions of ‘experts’. One assumes that she is unaware of the scale of Britain’s balance of trade deficit with the EU. Angela Eagle parroted the Treasury/Osborne allegation that a vote to leave will cause a recession.

Both Angela Eagle and Nicola Sturgeon were delusional regarding the state of Britain’s finances. For example, Angela Eagle was pushing for a Migrant Impact Fund (the English Rights Campaign item on immigration dated the 4^th June deals with this) whereas Nicola Sturgeon, who was very spendthrift with English taxpayers’ monies in her solutions, was advocating that the government should ‘invest’ more in the NHS rather than control immigration.

But where are the resources to come from? Are the Remain side unaware of the scale of the government’s debts or the size of the balance of trade deficit? The idea that resources are finite and have to be prioritized is alien to the Remain camp.

By comparison, the Vote Leave Team rammed home the message that we could divert extra resources to the NHS if we stopped giving money away to the EU.

This was a definite victory for Vote Leave.

THE EU

Once again, Sir John Major has surfaced to make a fool of himself in his attempts to bolster the struggling Remain campaign (an analysis of an earlier effort is dealt with in the English Rights Campaign item dated 21^st May 2016). This time it was in an interview on the Andrew Marr Show.

 

Sir John, said that the Leave campaign was a 'deceitful', was 'verging on the squalid', and was 'depressing and awful' regarding immigration. He dismissed the notion that the EU is run by 'unelected elites' as 'another piece of copper-bottomed Leave nonsense'. He went so far as to accuse the main Leave leader, Boris Johnson, of being a 'court jester' with whom, along with Michael Gove and Iain Duncan Smith, the NHS would be as safe as a 'pet hamster would be with a hungry python'.

 

Regarding his pet topic of Turkey, Sir John said 'Turkey will not be in the European Union for a very, very long time, if ever, and the Leave campaign know that. That's the point, they know that'.

 

It has emerged that Downing Street put Sir John up to this outburst. One can imagine the desperation that the Ponzi Class must be in that they should stoop so low. One assumes that we are supposed to be impressed with Sir John's knighthood rather than his record or his pronouncements.

 

Despite what Sir John baldly asserts, the EU is run by 'unelected elites', and it is the determination of those elites, and the British Ponzi Class in particular, to get Turkey in the EU as soon as possible. As Lord Owen recently pointed out, only a few weeks ago David Cameron signed a document committing Britain to speeding up Turkish accession. Sir John is being dishonest.

 

As for Sir John's adverse criticism about the accuracy of the Leave campaign, before anyone on the Remain side tries to take the moral high ground, they should apologise for the deluge of outright lying spewed out from the Treasury and a variety of supposed economic experts, who have simply invented allegations and fiddled their forecasts to try and frighten us.

 

Sir John and the rest of the Remain camp want Britain in the EU regardless of the merits. They are a dishonourable disgrace.