The UK military has operated independently twice in the past 400 years with a 1-1 scoreline. The treasonous war of American so-called "independence", and the Falklands conflict. Otherwise we always operate in an alphabet soup of foreign alliances.
The EU Military staff doesn't directly command troops, who usually (but not always) operate under the auspices of NATO. Most military co-operation in Europe is bi-lateral such as Anglo-French missions to Mali, or multi-lateral and Ad Hoc, like EuroFor. Eurofor, which has deployed several times, isn't an EU army but multi-lateral co-operation between Italy, France, Portugal and Spain, and has mainly operated in the francophone Africa.
The EU battlegroup training on salisbury plain recently isn't a nascent EU army, just one of the alphabet soup of foreign co-operative organisations of which the UK military is part, one which hasn't deployed anywhere, and is a bit like the Allied Rapid Reaction Corps of which the UK has long been the core.
The French, long suspicious of NATO and who want to make the EU a counterweight to EU power, have accepted that while the UK is a member of the EU, an EU army isn't going to happen and rejoined NATO's command in 2009. They pulled out in 1966 arguing (no, seriously...) that NATO (get this, right...) undermined their sovereignty. (Lol).
The EU army isn't going to happen, because the UK has consistently vetoed the formation of an independent EU military command.
Of course were we to leave the EU, then the French would be free to get their way, leaving NATO's command again and possibly taking the Germans with them in time. We must remain to prevent the French using the EU to undermine NATO.
Monday, 23 May 2016
The UK military has operated independently twice in the past 400 years with a 1-1 scoreline. The treasonous war of American so-called "independence", and the Falklands conflict. Otherwise we always operate in an alphabet soup of foreign alliances.
Friday, 13 May 2016
Russia conducted an exercise of 80,000 troops in 2014 simulating an invasion of the Baltic States of Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia. It isn't unreasonable that our Article IV NATO allies and EU partners feel a mite worried about the bellicose behaviour of their nuclear-armed Neighbour, who has 800,000 men under arms. Russia could bring forces to bear, invade, and mop up all resistance in the Baltic states within a week. The only thing stopping him taking back what Putin has described as "not real countries", is the security guarantee they enjoy from NATO, and especially the USA.
Far from being "provocative", the Western alliance has bent over backwards to accommodate Russia's paranoia. No troops have been permanently stationed in the Baltic until recently. There is constant communication (from NATO) in order to prevent misunderstandings. (Much less is forthcoming from Russia). NATO exercises in the region have been no more than a few hundred troops. There is certainly no massing of forces that could possibly threaten Russian territory, and the west has no interest in provoking Russia. The idea that the Association Agreement the EU was to sign with Ukraine was in any way "provocative" to Russia should be met with a snort of contempt and derision, let alone the idea the Euromaidan protests were "anti-russian" or orchestrated by "fascists". (So please don't say so in the comments, I'll simply delete such Putin-toadying).
But the Russian state's default position is Paranoia. In the Siloviki, you have, in effect, a state captured by its spooks. They are in thrall to Alexandr Dugin's doctine of Eurasianism, and feel encircled by enemies, chief amongst which in the Kremlin's demonology are NATO and the European Union. NATO is the shield, but the EU is the means by which we will defeat Putin's eurasianism. By bringing countries like the Baltic states and Ukraine into the European system, we demonstrate the profound failure of Russia as an alternative. Ultimately the Russian people would be better off embracing western values, and without Putin's toxic and paranoid statecraft.
While the world watches Syria, Russia is busy pouring poison into western discourse with the explicit aim of breaking the world order in place since the fall of the Soviet Union in the 1990s. So Putin supports “anti-systemic” parties of left and right. He bankrolls the French Front National and Hungarian Jobbik. Alec Salmond and Nigel Farage were regulars, and well paid, on Russia Today, Putin's toxic little propaganda swamp. Aaron Banks, UKIP and Leave.EU's biggest donor is married to a Russian, and has form for repeating Putinist lies. Jeremy Corbyn regularly used to spout Russian Propaganda, before he was forced by circumstance to converse with grown-ups for a change. Green parties have money siphoned to them (anti-fracking, to support Russian energy interests). Putin is absolutely delighted at the Rise of Donald Trump. It has been alleged Russian Bombing of Aleppo and elsewhere in Syria was undertaken deliberately to create refugees, to further destabilize and undermine the European Union. I suspect, though this was not more than a secondary benefit, to the ultimate goal of making Mr. Putin look good on Russian state TV.
We’ve never had an enemy like this before. Russia is a spy agency, which has captured a Nuclear-armed state, but it's not clear Putin is in complete control. The entire apparatus of the state is about creating an alternate reality, in which fact and fiction merge. Maskirovka, raised to a governing philosophy. but with no real end-game in sight. There is something of the Thomas a Beckett about the chaos in Donbass: Putin says "will no-one rid me of this Turbulent Priest" and before you know it, two provinces of Ukraine have declared independence backed by significant invasions of Russian regular soldiers. Putin cannot back down without losing face, but cannot escalate for fear of provoking NATO. The shooting down of MH17 was the moment the Ukrainian donbass separatists over-stepped their mark, but there's no way out for either party. Ukraine faces an existential threat, and the Russian regime is based on never showing weakness.
With a frozen conflict in Ukraine, things can escalate rapidly. It is the Nature of Putin's cult of personality, he needs constant action to keep the narrative of strength going. This was the ultimate reason for the Deployment of Russian Forces to Syria - to get a limited war onto Russian TV that can be used to demonstrate the Greatness of Mother Russia, which makes the sacrifices the long-suffering Russian people worthwhile. But Russian forces have pulled out of Syria, and there's little glory in the stalemate outside Mariupol. What next?
Sweden and Finland, neutral during the cold war, are inches away from Joining NATO, so threatened do they feel. Swedish subs are continuously dealing with Russian incursions. The Russians are actively buzzing US warships in the region. The RAF having to scramble to intercept Russian Nuclear bombers is a weekly occurrence. It’s constant provocation. A Russian flotilla sailed through British waters last week.
Putin may be a master tactician, but he fails as a strategist. This is, to my mind the single biggest risk of the UK leaving the EU. Brexit would send a message (whether or not this is true) that NATO's number two power is no longer serious about its commitments to its allies. He'll have split off Europe's most potent military power from the EU. This will embolden Putin to try to further split the west, because it suggests our Nations' commitments to each other isn't as strong as it was in 1989. This is especially true if there's further success for "anti-establishment" politicians like Donald Trump. If Putin has an opportunity, and he's an expert opportunist, he is likely to take it to try to break NATO, having already broken the EU. We do not want to tempt the Kremlin to gamble on the UK's willingness to spend blood and treasure to defend Narva. Because if the UK won’t, the USA won’t. And if the USA won’t, NATO is finished. And if NATO is finished, the whole of Eastern Europe could well come under Russian suzerainty again. And that, we think (as well as the Survival of one Mr. V.V. Putin) is the ultimate aim of the Russian state.
Now is NOT the time to be upsetting the international institutions which have been so crucial to delivering peace and prosperity to so much of the former soviet empire. “Brexit risks war” isn’t as silly as it sounds.
Wednesday, 20 April 2016
Michael Gove, who is likely to be the person most responsible for setting the parameters of Britain's negotiation with the EU after a leave vote, indicated on the BBC Today programme the UK will not stay in the common market. We would seek a free trade agreement like Albania, or Iceland.
This means the risks of #brexit have gone up. The prospects of a risk-free slip into the EEA have gone. We must therefore run the risk of the foreign investors on whom we rely to cover are triple deficit (current account, fiscal and trade) going on strike.
Where this to happen, In order to tempt them back, the Bank of England would need to raise interest rates , which slows growth. The UK may not be a default risk , but as a country with I need for constant inflows of foreign capital we may need to print more money to cover the bills . Investors will therefore need a higher return to compensate for the risk.
This is one mechanism by which leaving the EU could slow growth. There are others. The UK may become a less attractive place for foreign companies to invest. And not just because of access to the single market. For all its faults, the EU has been consistent in its application of laws surrounding state intervention in business and preventing government's interfering too much in markets. Leaving risks that benign business environment.
The risk therefore of a catastrophic cycle of interest rate hikes and currency issues has to be set against the sheer paucity of the potential benefits from leaving the EU . Just what are we hoping to achieve? Why are we risking prosperity in this way?
An honest answer would make use of Gandhi's aphorism " it is better to be governed badly by oneself, than well by other people." If it is simply about democracy, then supporters of brexit will need to be honest about the potential economic costs.
The post EU UK could become the free market prosperous business-friendly place of brexit fantasy, but it could equally become a paranoid insular protectionist hell hole of UKIPpery, or worse yet, the Labour Party could nationalise everything in sight. These are both outcomes European Union protects us from.
The problem is brexit becomes a tabula rasa on to which everyone can paint their own ideal post EU UK . Then arguing against brexit becomes an argument against everything that person holds dear. Many have spent decades seeking confirmation for a prior belief that the EU is behind all the bad things. Nothing can persuade these people that leaving the EU isn't a panacea to solve all the UK's ills. It's a peculiar Mania.
The lesson of the ERM debacle is not that the EU is evil, but that the UK should not have joined the euro, and we didn't. It doesn't follow we should leave the EU too. The EU is not the enemy. The UK is not going to join the euro. EU is not going to Force the UK into a superstate, a European army, or a single currency.
The European Union is a collection of some the freest, most prosperous and happiest democracies on Earth. The Euro project has impoverished half the continent on the altar of political vanity. But that is not the question we are asking in this referendum. We are asking specifically whether the UK should leave the European Union.
What are the benefits of leaving the EU? If they aren't economic, they seem mostly to accrue to politicians who gain greater freedom to interfere in our lives. And what do we the people gain, to offset the probability of a negative economic outcome?
Will we lose the right to live, work and travel at will from Helsinki to Lisbon and from Warsaw to Dublin? Probably not, but it's a risk. Will UK be better off economically speaking speaking? Probably not. That means people will lose jobs.
The risks are real, the benefits seem ephemeral. And very fact that we are having this referendum now means should the EU develop in a way that is an anathema to British interests, for example if as I am told is "inevitably" going to happen, the Euro is forced upon the UK, we can always leave another time. The very fact of this referendum undermines fatally the sovereignty argument.
Thankfully the polling seems to indicate the remain campaign is winning.
Monday, 4 April 2016
I get the desire to send RAF Typhoons on punitive strikes against the wasteful and absurd Strasbourg Parliament building, with or without the MEPs still inside. I understand the desire to have HMS Dragon, the most modern air-defence destroyer on the sea to be deployed against Spanish fishermen. I get the desire to set fire to French sheep (mainly because you'd get in less trouble than you would setting fire to French farmers). I too deplore the wasteful CAP. Above all, I want the entire commission, parliament and bureacuracy of the EU lined up and bogwashed by the smelliest upper-sixth prefect, one after the other while they practice their English irregular verbs. All right-thinking people agree.
Thursday, 17 March 2016
There is much to like, and much to deplore.
The steady cuts to personal income taxation continue the trend under this Government of moving the tax burden from income to consumption. The continued cuts to corporation tax are welcome, and whatever idiot journalists say are virtually cost-free to the exchequer, as money not paid out in corporation tax mostly ends up in wages (to be taxed more highly) or investment (which everyone says we don't have enough of). Companies don't pay tax, people do, so corporation tax is a fiction and always has been. Did I mention we don't have enough investment? Capital gains tax has been cut. Because taxing capital is silly. And the ISA allowance has been raised for the same reason.
Now the only people who pay capital gains taxes are people with large lump sums outside ISAs. These are people who're so rich they can afford to save more than £15,240 a year, and those who inherited money. So big ISA allowances are moderately progressive.
So far, so good. But there are further disincentives to selling property: namely the increase in stamp duty for buy to let landlords. And there are further tax privileges for the first home in the form of the 'help to buy' ISA into which the Government bungs some taxpayers money to help first time buyers "get on the housing ladder".
The UK's insane system of property taxation of encourages home-hoarding, and entrenches the perverse idea in the British public's mind that your house is an investment, not just something to live in. In most of the world, rent and purchase are more-or-less interchangeable. But in the UK, the disincentives to sell are behind much of the continual ratchet up of house prices. The problem isn't that there aren't enough houses - everyone has a roof over their heads after all. The problem is that the UK housing market is insufficiently assortive: people can't afford the RIGHT housing in the right place and must therefore pay through the nose.
We need to scrap stamp duty on property entirely, and increase the taxation of property values giving empty-nesters an incentive to sell that property on to someone who might value its space higher. Unfortunately council tax, which needs re-banding, is a political third rail.
Families cannot afford family homes, because family homes are being held onto by people whose families have long-since flown the nest. So families are being brought up in rabbit hutches, because Granny has no incentive to downsize. Indeed she has an incentive to rattle around in the big house until she dies, when that house will be once more privileged in the inheritance tax system. She will then pass it on to her children, whose own children will have already flown the nest too, and so the cycle continues.
Meanwhile, the assault on Buy-to-let landlords means the supply of rental homes will dry up too. The "housing crisis" will be made a little worse by this budget.
If a family wants a family house, either Daddy has to be very, very well paid, Granny has to die young, or be very, very generous. And the Tories have a massive blind-spot about people's houses. Thatcher's dream of a "property-owning democracy" casts a long shadow, and measures to facilitate this, are now actually behind the sheer unaffordability of property for the average worker, while working against increasing the supply of reasonably priced rental homes.
One thing I will say for the Chancellor, the Sugar tax has done its job. It's a pissy, regressive, fabian authoritarian little bit of nanny state spite. If you think taxing sugary drinks is about obesity, I've a bridge to sell you. It's a bone thrown to the Daily Mail authoritarians, gets a noisy and oddly influential mockney prat with a fat tongue to support the Government and because everyone's talking about it, It's an effective dead cat, flung on the table to distract from controversial cuts to benefits, income taxes and corporate taxes, which are mostly going unnoticed; as is the "miss" of fiscal targets.
Ah yes, the targets. The worst thing about political journalism is the absurd weight that is put on Office of Budget Responsibility fiscal forecasts. If there's one thing less interesting than the deficit, it's an official guess as to what the deficit might be in 5 years. Then, armed with this utterly fictional state of the finances 5 years out, journalists hyperventilate about whether the Chancellor has "hit" or "missed" his target to balance the books by the end of the parliament, and go on, and on about how much he "has to spend" or "has to find" in the future. So the chancellor puts measures in that may or may not come to to be superseded in future budgets, just to "hit" a "target" that only really still exists in the minds of journalists.
Labour excoriate the chancellor for "missing his own target", while opposing anything that might bring the books into balance. The deficit is falling, perhaps not as fast as many would like, but debt to GDP isn't rising all that much, and may soon start to fall. Thus the deficit is under control, to the satisfaction of international creditors, and there's no risk of a run on Sterling. So the target to balance the books, and get the debt burden down is a noble one, it's also pretty low on a sensible chancellors list of priorities right now. The rabbit he's hoping to pull out in the next few years is a big increase in productivity which will finally close the "output gap" bring down the deficit and raise people's living standards, and cover the "living wage" without increasing unemployment, all in one go.
I don't think there's an awful lot the chancellor can do to increase productivity, though cuts to corporate taxation will help a little. We're still dragging ourselves out of the mother of all balance-sheet recessions, which means investment is low, productivity growth is low, nominal wages aren't rising fast enough, and the economy sits on a permanent risk of deflation.
Personally I think the Chancellor's threading the needle between "stimulus" and Japan-style debt mountain pretty well in what remains an extremely cash-constrained fiscal situation. But let's encourage him to deal with the perverse incentives in property taxation that have long poisoned the British economy, before bleating about fictional forecasts or whining about a silly nanny state sugar tax. The fixation people have on stuff that really doesn't matter is beyond me.
Monday, 7 March 2016
"Immigrants, waaaa!" Most of Britain's migrants come from outside the EU, and under most Brexit scenarios in which the UK retains access to the Single Market, we'd accept free movement. Like the Norwegians. So I don't think #Brexit would have much effect on immigration, unless it caused an economic catastrophe.
"The EU is open in its plans for a Superstate".... and this has been a dream of the more starry-eyed official and Europolitician since its inception, but this has been resisted by... all its nation-state members. The Eurozone may yet become a superstate, if the Germans can be persuaded to allow fiscal transfers to Greece. I'm not holding my breath. As for the UK, we can leave at any time, if the dastardly plot to take over the British army becomes any more than a pipe-dream of a few Brussels eurocrats. An EU superstate, even one which the UK is not a part of, would be harmful to British interests. Staying in, we can continue to prevent it happening.
Wednesday, 2 March 2016
"Has there been a general election, Mr Blackadder" asked Mrs Miggins, unaware, until Edmund points it out, as neither she nor Baldrick have a vote. "Hardly seems fair to me" she says.And that, in a nutshell is the problem with democracy. You simply cannot allow the enthusiasms of the noisier, politically enthused bit of the population to be indulged. The young prats currently cavorting after Jeremy Corbyn and Bernie Sanders seem blissfully unaware of the misery that socialism wrought even within their parents' lifetimes. Nativist chauvinism, a yearning for the "strong leader", the admiration of Vladimir Putin by the likes of Nigel Farage, Donald Trump or Marianne Le Pen: we've seen this before too.
"Of course it's not fair -- and a damn good thing too. Give the like of Baldrick the vote and we'll be back to cavorting druids, death by stoning, and dung for dinner"
This is why "elites", in most of the world limit the choice available to electors to people within the bounds of reasonable discourse. It is possible to expand the bounds of reasonable discourse over time, to move the centre of politics around which that "overton window" opens. Clement Atlee did, Margaret Thatcher did. But what is happening right now, in response to a decade of stagnating living standards, is different.
One way of looking at it is a revolt of the left behind. That is behind the rise of UKIP, Le Front National and Donald Trump. After a hollowing out of the traditional working class, as the most able have moved on and up, and after generations of assortative mating, the shallow end of the British gene pool face competition from far more able and energetic immigrants and they don't like it one bit. If you listen to a 'KIPper, you'll hear that they're "fed up" about "not being listened to" by the "metropolitan elite". Cameron offered these bloody people their referendum. They now hate him even more. This mood cannot be pandered to, because the policy solutions they demand don't work. If your response to a few years of stagnant wages and a Polish couple moving in next door is to try to elect Nigel Farage, then you don't deserve to be listened to. You deserve to be told to shut up and do your homework again. These people have captured the Republican party in the USA, and the party will not elect a president until the "elites" get control back.
And on the left, the highly educated marxists who once would have been guaranteed solid middle-class status as teachers, lecturers and officials, are now competing with self-employed tradesmen who often earn far more, for housing and schools. People, once solidly middle-class find themselves outcompeted by people they regard as inferior, and they don't like it. The erosion of the status of the Nomenklatura vs. "trade" offends their sensibilities, and panders to an old snobbery against grubby money-making. The old socialism espoused by Corbyn plays to these prejudices, offering status at public expense. Thankfully most people going to University ignore the student politics of the hard-left, and seek a qualification to enable them to compete. And in competing they make themselves, and society richer. These student trots who never grew up are creatures of ridicule. They have however completely captured the Labour party, which is finished as an electoral force for at least a decade.
Morons, it seems favour either full socialism, or some form of fascism, because these ideas simple, easy to understand and wrong. It's time for those of us who understand the world to stop imagining the grunting ignoramuses or starry-eyed ideologues have a point at all. They deserve ridicule. Point at the Corbynista or the 'KIPper and laugh for having been taken in by nonsense.
Meanwhile, in the middle you have the broad mass of people doing OK. Unemployment is low. Most people are getting small annual pay rises. Price rises are low, and for capital goods, prices are falling. However people like nominal rises more than they like real rises. And the low-inflation, low interest rate reality means even as people's real wages, even after housing costs (outside London and the south east anyway) are rising strongly. A lack of nominal increases makes people grumpier than they should be. There is sympathy for Farage and Corbyn shaking things up. Thankfully, the broad mass of the basically OK middle are sensible, and when push comes to shove, see the status-quo is far from intolerable. And those doing basically OK are far greater in number than the UKIPish left-behind and the Socialist-minded Corbynista class.Traditional politicians such as Cameron, who can reach out to this broad middle while keeping the coalitions of which their party is made together, will still win elections.
Assuming the Tory Party holds together after the referendum, and doesn't go EuroBonkers, they will need to find another politician who can reach out to the broad centre. If they can, Labour, entirely captured by voter-repellent lunatics, will offer no resistance to another decade in power. Over the pond, Trump will attract a little more than a third of the vote. Everyone else will hold their nose and vote for Hilary Clinton however crap a candidate she may be. And in the rest of the Democratic world, people will flirt with lunatic populists along these lines, but will mostly vote for a steady-as-she-goes mainstream candidates.
Democracy - keeps testing these bad ideas, but mostly seems to work. This madness will pass.
Tuesday, 23 February 2016
I came of political age as the ERM debacle and Maastricht ratification process corroded the Tory party. Saving the pound against its "inevitable" inclusion in the Euro project made me a Eurosceptic. The Queen on the money, the ability of the state to finance itself *is* sovereignty, and the ability to generate our own finance has been the United Kingdom's saviour in three world wars, and it would be a profound piece of treason to give up a world reserve currency.
Next to currency, any other pooling of sovereignty is trivial and easily unwound. NATO which extends from the Arctic to Asia Minor, the area to which the UK MUST respond to any attack is arguably a far greater pooling of sovereignty than what remains of the EU. I will NEVER accept the United Kingdom adopting the Euro and I'd take to the rooftops if necessary to prevent it. I am deeply hostile to the idea of ever closer union, and any conversation with one enthusiastic about a federal Europe often has me reaching for a cudgel. I am a Eurosceptic.
Too many people like me, blooded in politics in those bitter divisive battles which pitched Tory business-toadying against Tory patriotism in a civil war whose skirmishes continue to this day, want to restart the war. For many, trust in the EU forever lost, they have spent 20 years believing every anti-EU pitch from the UK press (however untrue), and simply not considering any benefits of being in the club, hiding in an intellectual jungle pretending like Hiroo Onoda that the war wasn't over. So satisfying, so heady was the victory over the Euro, they now yearn to defeat the EU itself, and so they have worked themselves into a hysteria where the EU is a silent enemy poisoning everything.
All this willful cognitive bias by the 'leave' camp means going into their campaign that they have so long demanded, with some truly dreadful arguments, based on exaggerations, lies and wishful thinking. You can almost hear in their words a background by Elgar, the sound of a merlin engine, the image of a lone Tommy in battledress standing on the white cliffs of dover, fist raised to Europe as the Supermarine Spitfire roars overhead he yells "Very Well, ALONE!"
Tuesday, 16 February 2016
They have. Each and every year.
It's sad that such a central trope from the 'Leave' campaign turns out to be an outright lie, but there you go. I suspect it's because grunting 'KIPpers cannot tell the difference between "material error", around 4.8% (which is lower than the USA's 5% but well over the UK's 1%) and "the auditors not signing off the accounts". But 5% of the money goes missing doesn't make for an easy soundbite, because just 5% going missing sounds like a pretty good job, for a government.
The EU spends its money in places where corruption is rife, and the institutions of Government are weak, like Romania or France, not in places with strong institutions like the UK or Germany. And the European union funds are going into especially corrupt sectors like construction. Perhaps this error rate is understandable. Building roads and airports in Romania is going to help the Romanians, and eventually us. Just as the Marshall plan rebuilt Europe after the Second World War, and gave the USA a rich continent to trade with, rather than a poor continent which needs supporting in a little over a decade, Western Europe should have been MORE generous to the East when the wall came down.
Had Russia been treated after the Cold war like (west) Germany had post 1945, then perhaps Russia would not now be having its tantrum, and threatening to nuke everybody.
So, the closer you look at the arguments being deployed by the 'Leave' side, the worse they get.
- The cost? Non-EU Norway pays 90% of our fees per head for access to the single market (which we want, right...?), UK's EU dues are falling.
- Democracy? The belief the EU rules the UK is overblown fantasy. The UK remains a democracy, in the EU or out. The EU spends 5% or so of UK managed expenditure, and shovels a lot of high-volume, low impact trade law to us much of which we'd implement even if we were out. This really isn't a big deal.
- We'd be free to trade? I think this is the weakest argument of the lot: The EU's trade deal with India was scuppered by, urm.... the UK, citing immigration concerns. You think we could do better alone? Australia and NZ would welcome us back with open arms? Possibly, but they both see the USA as far more important. The USA is ridiculously protectionist, despite which, the EU might get TTIP through. I doubt the UK could do much better. The EU isn't hampering our trade with the USA or Australia. And in any case, the EU is THE champion of free trade in Global fora, mainly because of British influence.
- We'd control our borders? Well most of our immigrants currently come from outside the EU (mainly the Indian subcontinent), where we do in fact have control. I doubt much would change here. In any case the immigration of hard-working polish plumbers is less of a problem to most people than 'KIPpers imagine.
- We don't want to be part of a superstate? And we're not. The Eurozone may become one, but the non-Euro countries will not be part of it.
Tuesday, 9 February 2016
Supporters of the UK leaving the European Union are excitedly sharing the latest YouGov poll which suggests a 4-point lead for leave. Thus Louise Mensch former MP for Corby said Out will win because the PM's deal is so "disastrous". I offered her a bottle of champagne that it won't. The bet is recorded for posterity here.