GL-W's WEBlog

The views, reprints & thoughts of Greg Lance-Watkins

Archive for the ‘IEA’ Category

IEA, BrExit, Referendum, UKIP & Christopher Booker’s View

Posted by Greg Lance - Watkins (Greg_L-W) on 27/04/2014

IEA, BrExit, Referendum, UKIP & Christopher Booker’s View

.

Posted by: Greg Lance-Watkins – Greg_L-W.

.

Hi,

with the upcoming EU elections on 22-May-2014 I felt it was apposite to revisit the question on the minds of the majority of Brits which tends to stretch from the simple and in my opinion sensible Leave-The-EU option which in the long term would I believe serve our peoples, our Country and our planet best and the unworkable and dishonest idiocy of re-negotiated terms with the EU as put forward by Tories who quite clearly are either hideously ill informed as to how the EU functions or just obscenely dishonest in pretending they can change the EU and get unanimous support amongst the other vassal states – the precondition for any major change!

Revisiting an article of Christopher Bookers from last summer little or nothing has changed – UKIP still haven’t a clue and have absolutely no exit and survival strategy just a clique squabbling like ferrets in a sack to stay on the gravy train, with the aim to get more MEPs elected but with zero vision and less hope of changing ANYTHING having abjectly failed to do so to date, hence their continued failure in domestic politics!

The Torieas were shocked into a debate in The House of Commons by the Independent MEP Nikki Sinclaire who gathered well over 200,000 signatures and forced the debate to occur, a debate in which David Cameron’s Government was confronted with his largest ever rebellion and was thus forced to make an undertaking to hold a referendum, allbeit he hedged his bets as ever.

 

To carry on the fight for a referendum Nikki Sinclaire formed the ‘We demand A Referendum Now Party’ and is standing for the cause in The West Midlands as an MEP – we can but hope this hard working and refreshingly honest and open MEP is re-elected to continue her patriotic defence of Britain and her constituents.

 

Sadly UKIP having done absolutely zero to support the cause now see this as an apposite band wagon to jump on to get more income by getting more MEPs! However let us not forget thaty UKIP has no ethical leadership, lacks transparency and has such a poor selection rigging process that already candidates are falling by the wayside, exposed as racists, anti homosexual, Islamaphobic and corrupt.

 

Let us not forget that of the 19 MEPs UKIP has had elected their titular leader has subsumed almost all power to himself, controls incomes and appoints his wife and mistresses to the staff! Little wonder that of the 19 elected he has fallen out with at least half and the balance are as much use as a soup sandwich having achieved absolutely nothing of note in their period on the gracy train!

Even Ukip has no idea how to get us out of the EU trap

Our politicians are stumbling around in the dark when it comes to EU rules. There is only one way we can renegotiate our position with Europe to our advantage

Fears over trade are forcing us into a frustrating 'consensus’ position with Europe

Fears over trade are forcing us into a frustrating ‘consensus’ position with Europe Photo: Alamy
 

There is virtually no political issue that generates more ill-informed nonsense than whether or not Britain should stay in the EU. We have those 304 MPs voting for David Cameron’s wish to renegotiate our relationship with the EU and put the results to a referendum no later than 2017. We have Theresa May announcing that she is going to demand a British opt-out from 133 EU regulations on law and order, but then apply to opt in again on 35 of them. We have John Cridland, head of the CBI, repeating yet again the old canard that it would be disastrous for us to think of emulating Norway and Switzerland, the two richest countries in Europe, because although they trade freely with the EU’s single market, they have no say in shaping its rules. On and on goes such grandstanding, not touching reality at any point.

The essence of the problem is that, while the British like some aspects of the EU, other aspects make them deeply resentful, without them ever really understanding the rules or how it works. Thus, for many years, as the EU surges towards “ever closer union”, Britain has, in the words of the late Roy Jenkins, become an ever more “foot-dragging and complaining member”. On one hand, the pollsters report that up to half or more of British voters want us to leave. On the other, we have an establishment “consensus” between most of our politicians, media and big business, claiming that, although the EU in its present form is unsatisfactory and needs drastic “reform”, we must stay in for all the benefits we gain from trading with it, and because it gives us “influence”.

It is this “consensus” position that is so riddled with contradictions that it amounts to no more than multiple wishful thinking. There is no way Mr Cameron could obtain the kind of “à la carte” relationship he hints at, let alone that he could do so if re-elected, in time for a referendum in 2017. First, the rules would necessitate a new treaty, requiring procedures so lengthy that it could not possibly be completed by 2017. Second, the return of powers he claims to want would breach that most sacred principle of EU law, that national powers once surrendered can never be given back.

So, legally and practically, it is impossible that Mr Cameron could get anything of what all those MPs voted for the other day. The only semblance of a realistic understanding of all the issues involved comes from a research paper recently published by the House of Commons Library on what would be involved in a British withdrawal from the EU. This explains, with an authority no MP could muster, that the only way Britain could continue to trade freely within the single market without having to accept so much of the rest of the EU’s political baggage, would be to invoke Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty.

But this, of course, can only be done by a country giving notice that it wishes to leave the EU. This alone can compel its fellow-members to negotiate with it the kind of new relationship Mr Cameron says he wants. And this he could not rule out more emphatically, as again in a recent interview with El Pais, where he said there was no way he could support a vote for Britain to leave.

Regardless of Mr Cameron’s views, however, the Commons researchers then go on to explain how Britain could continue to enjoy full access to the single market by joining Norway and Switzerland as members of the European Free Trade Area (Efta), or, like Norway, as also a member of the European Economic Area. This is precisely the option Europhiles such as Mr Cridland are so desperate to misrepresent, by falsely claiming that Norway has no influence over the single market’s trading rules. Anyone who argues this has no grasp of how the system works. Not only are Efta members fully consulted in the shaping of single market legislation, but much of it now derives from global organisations above the EU, in which Norway has a voice in its own right, exercising more influence than Britain, which too often has to allow the EU to speak for it.

But it is this argument – playing on the fear that unless we remain in the EU we will be without influence and even excluded from trading with it – that would be made the centrepiece of the campaign in any referendum on Britain’s continued membership. So relentlessly would it be put over by supporters of the “consensus”, given full voice by the BBC, Open Europe and others, that it is almost a foregone conclusion that the stay-in vote would win the day.

What has so far been almost wholly lacking from the debate on all this is any properly worked-out alternative vision of what Britain’s future in the world could be if we were to regain our independence by leaving. Equally lacking, although it is again explored in the Commons research paper, is any recognition of just how incredibly complicated a British withdrawal from the EU would be, because we are enmeshed with it by such a mountain of laws and other legal obligations. To disentangle all this would present a challenge so immense that it could only be brought off by a government fully committed to the task and fired up by a vision of how well Britain could thrive outside the EU. This would require a degree of political will which so far simply doesn’t exist.

One of the odd features of this debate is that the only party committed to a British exit from the EU, Ukip, appears to have little understanding of how this could, in practice, be achieved – let alone a positive vision of how well Britain could fare outside it, to counterbalance the relentless defeatism and negativity with which the “consensus” establishment would seek to terrify us into staying in. Too many Ukip supporters take equal refuge from reality by pretending that we could simply wave a magic wand by repealing the European Communities Act. With one mighty bound we would be free. Sorted. These are children.

I confess that when I read that Commons research paper, although it did not say anything new, I did end up depressed. Its calm, common-sense reviewing of the real issues once again brings home just how inane most of the public debate over Britain’s membership of the EU has become. Without the vision and the will to work for a positive alternative, it seems we are doomed just to limp helplessly on as a “foot-dragging and complaining member” of the “European project”, as it itself staggers helplessly on into a drably visionless and ever more uncertain future. So saying, I am off for a few days to Italy to look at 15th-century paintings, from the time when Europe was still in that frenzy of creativity and intellectual engagement that was to make its civilisation the glory of the world.

To view the original CLICK HERE

One thing that has changed since Christopher wrote this article is that a wave of optimism did sweep through the informed as the IEA announced the BrExit prize offering £100K to the winner who came up with the very best and most workable exit strategy to follow the day Britain was announced it would Leave-The-EU.

For a little more detail CLICK HERE
Sadly it transpired that it would seem to have been rigged to suit, it would seem, just one judge who presented a paper immediately before the closing date and would seem to have had a hand in ensuring the apparently pre advised competitors who upheld his unworkable and ill informed paper passed to the final round.
The eventual winner chosen, it would seem by preselection, put forward a particularly ill informed paper which offerd a clearly unworkable solution which was backed by very little refertencing and researching apparent.
To be fair to the IEA they were clearly embarrassed by the exposure of Roger Bootle’s apparent dishonesty and corruption of the process that they withdrew his voting rights as a judge, however the lacked the ethics to denounce him and ensure those who seem to have, either unwittingly or deliberately, cheated were debarred.
I would hazard a guess that there was a pre scan of the 17 finalists and it was suggested that the judges should only bother reading the efforts of the predetermined submissions.
Perhaps I am being a little too harsh, but I did read every submission published and they were weak and unworkable and ill informed thus astonishingly lightweight for  matter of such gravitas.
You may by all means track down the chosen ones via The IEA’s web site and judge for yourself but when compared with the submission I believe to have been the best I would contend there was no competition and even Roger Bootle’s effort was lame in the extreme.
Judge for yourself CLICK HERE
Dr. Richard North’s submission CLICK HERE
It would seem the prize itself has sunk without trace as when you make a Google Search of the issue the media have largely ignored it, no doubt having reached the same conclusion I have here proffered. Further The IEA themselves seem embarrassed by their own apparent dishonesty and have seemingly, having been caught out, dropped the matter like a hot potato in the hope their apparent corruption is overlooked and will not damage their income stream from gullible donors!
IF my conclusion is in some way flawed then perhaps The IEA would care to explain why they, having squandered £100K of donor’s money on their lightweight and unworkable winner have failed to take the matter forward!

.
Regards,

Greg_L-W.
.

Posted by: Greg Lance-Watkins

tel: 01594 – 528 337 –
number witheld calls are blocked & calls are recorded.

Accuracy & Copyright Statement: CLICK HERE
Summary, archive, facts & comments on UKIP: http://UKIP-vs-EUkip.com
DO MAKE USE of LINKS, >SEARCH< & >Side Bars< & The Top Bar >PAGES<
Also:
Details & Links: http://GregLanceWatkins.com
UKIP Its ASSOCIATES & DETAILS: CLICK HERE
Views I respect & almost Totally Share: CLICK HERE
General ‘Stuff’ archive: http://gl-w.blogspot.com
General ‘Stuff’ ongoing: http://gl-w.com
Health Blog.: http://GregLW.com

Skype: GregL-W

TWITTER: Greg_LW

.

 Please Be Sure To .Follow Greg_LW on Twitter. Re-TWEET my Twitterings
& Publicise My Blogs 
To Spread The Facts World Wide
of
OUR-ENEMY-WITHIN
&
To Leave-The-EU
  
 

Posted in BREXIT, BREXIT Prize, Christopher BOOKER;, IEA, QUOTES; Reagan; Thatcher; R.J. Wiedemann; Margaret THATCHER; COLLIER; Geoffrey COLLIER;, REFERENDUM, Richard NORTH, Richard NORTH Dr., Roger Bootle, Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

BREXIT Last Shortlist & The Way Forward

Posted by Greg Lance - Watkins (Greg_L-W) on 27/03/2014

BREXIT Last Shortlist & The Way Forward

.

Posted by: Greg Lance-Watkins – Greg_L-W.

.

Hi,

based on having read Dr. Richard North’s BREXIT submission in full some time ago I felt it was by far the most likely paper to win the BREXIT Prize.

It was detailed, factual and remarkably well researched with literally 100s of sourced documents collated to make a very comprehensive and well informed submission.

That , as Richard announced on his blog which I have featured below, he has not been shortlisted in the final six leaves me with two different thoughts, the first of which is that I am really looking forward to reading those last six submissions and particularly the winner as their submissions must be incredibly inovative and hugely grounded in both law, politics and even the un sccience of economics to have surpased Richard’s submission.

My second reaction, which sadly I fear will prove right, is that Richard’s detailed and inovative submission has far outclassed the other submissions and has proved embarrassing to some of the judges in that it proved challenging to understand in its comprehensive handling and very detailed understanding of not just the EU but the new world of global politics and power. Further that there is a strong possibility that Richard’s submission slaughters the holy cows of misunderstanding of the facts held by some amongst the judges.

I can but hope my fears are not realised and the winner has presented an inovative, practical and informed solution to the challenges posed by the brief of the prize intentions.

I look forward with some concern to 08-Apr-2014 and the results but though my knowledge of all of the judges is limited there are some very large loopholes in the impartiality of the judges – not least that Roger Bootle has recently written and published his own solution to the problems which on just one reading seemed to miss all too many points making it largely unworkable and clearly being so absorbed by economics had little relevance to the realities of disassociation from the EU for these United Kingdoms.

The clash of the views of the judges may well have tainted the validity of their decision making process – unlike Richard I shall await the results with baited breath!

 

BREXIT: entirely unsurprising

 Wednesday 26 March 2014

000a IEA-026 Brexit.jpg

As indicated in my overnight piece, our “Brexit” submission did not make it to the final six. Instead, I got a bland, patronising note from the IEA press person (above), a classic example of rank bad manners. Given the effort all of us put into the competition, at the very least we should have been sent a personal e-mail from the chairman of the judging panel.

Although I could have used the money, not to be included is actually a relief. It frees me from the constraints of the competition and allows me to return to the debate. With that in mind, I am able to publish my submission here (.pdf 98 pages), and will work up some shorter essays for the blog, based on the content. We are also planning a dedicated website, to explore the wider issues involved.

In terms of the content, I feel my single, most important contribution is the observation that “Brexit” is not a single event, but a process. It must be a series of ongoing strategies which allow for a FLexible response and Continuous development.  Thus “Brexit” became “FLexCit”.

The IEA has now issued a press release nominating the six finalists, and the award ceremony will be held on 8 April in London.

Richard North 26/03/2014

Here are details of The IEA’s BREXIT Prize as it moves forward:

The Institute of Economic Affairs is delighted to announce the final six candidates for the IEA Brexit Prize. The Rt Hon Lord Lawson will be awarding the €100,000 prize to the winning entry outlining a blueprint for Britain after the EU on 8 April.

Cash prizes will be awarded to the first, second and third best entries, as judged by the competition’s final judging panel. First prize is €100,000, second prize is €10,000 and third prize is €5,000. There will be a special prize of €5,000 for the best entry from an individual aged 30 or under. The winning entries will be published by the IEA. Judges-decisions are final.

Final shortlist:

·       Rory Broomfield and Iain Murray

·       Prof Stephen Bush

·       Ben Clements

·       Tim Hewish

·       Iain Mansfield

·       Daniel Pycock

Commenting on the release of the final shortlist, Mark Littlewood, Director General at the Institute of Economic Affairs, said:

“The Brexit prize is an essential and timely contribution as we sit at a crossroads regarding our future relationship with both the EU and the rest of the world. Rather than focusing on the pluses and minuses of membership, we urgently need to address how the UK should arrange its affairs if a referendum triggered a Brexit. These final six entries will be key in providing the much needed intellectual backdrop for this.”

Judging panel

·       Nigel Lawson (Chairman), The Rt Hon Lord Lawson of Blaby, former Chancellor of the Exchequer

·       David Starkey, British constitutional historian and a Fellow of the Society of Antiquaries of London

·       Prof. Philip Booth (Facilitator), Institute of Economic Affairs and Cass Business School

·       Roger Bootle, founder of Capital Economics, a Specialist Adviser to the House of Commons Treasury Committee and an Honorary Fellow of the Institute of Actuaries. (Advisor and non-voting member)

·       Tim Frost, a governor of the LSE and director of Markit and Cairn Capital

·       Gisela Stuart, MP for Birmingham Edgbaston and editor of The House Magazine

·       Prof. Martin Ricketts, Professor of Economic Organisation at the University of Buckingham

·       Dr. Stephen Davies, Institute of Economic Affairs

.
Regards,

Greg_L-W.
.

Posted by: Greg Lance-Watkins

tel: 01594 – 528 337 –
number witheld calls are blocked & calls are recorded.

Accuracy & Copyright Statement: CLICK HERE
Summary, archive, facts & comments on UKIP: http://UKIP-vs-EUkip.com
DO MAKE USE of LINKS, >SEARCH< & >Side Bars< & The Top Bar >PAGES<
Also:
Details & Links: http://GregLanceWatkins.com
UKIP Its ASSOCIATES & DETAILS: CLICK HERE
Views I respect & almost Totally Share: CLICK HERE
General ‘Stuff’ archive: http://gl-w.blogspot.com
General ‘Stuff’ ongoing: http://gl-w.com
Health Blog.: http://GregLW.com

Skype: GregL-W

TWITTER: Greg_LW

.

 Please Be Sure To .Follow Greg_LW on Twitter. Re-TWEET my Twitterings
& Publicise My Blogs 
To Spread The Facts World Wide
of
OUR-ENEMY-WITHIN
&
To Leave-The-EU
  
 

Posted in BREXIT, BREXIT Prize, IEA, NORTH Dr Richard, Richard NORTH, Richard NORTH Dr. | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment »

#G330* – £4.8 Trillion DEBT but I Think They Left out PPF Sell Offs During 13 Unlucky Labour Years.

Posted by Greg Lance - Watkins (Greg_L-W) on 23/08/2010

#G330* – £4.8 Trillion DEBT but I Think They Left out PPF Sell Offs During 13 Unlucky Labour Years.

Government urged to reveal 

‘true’ national debt of £4.8 trillion

The Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA) has calculated that the national debt is £4.8 trillion once state and public sector pension liabilities are included, or £78,000 for every person in the UK.

 
Stacks of £50 notes

Stacking up: the national debt equates to £78,000 
for every person in Britain Photo: GETTY IMAGES 
The IEA raised its concerns after the latest public finances data from the Office for National Statistics (ONS) this week, which showed that the total debt, excluding bank bail-outs, is £816bn – itself a record high. However, the figures strip out the state’s pension liabilities in a contravention of standard accounting practices.
Mark Littlewood, the IEA’s director-general, said: “The latest official national debt figure is seriously misleading. Looming in the background are pension liabilities. These should be moved to the forefront.
“The ONS should include these liabilities in their calculations. It is shocking enough to see official figures revealing a jump in national debt over the last year from the equivalent of 48pc of GDP to 56pc, but the grave reality is that our real national debt stands at 333pc of GDP.”
Nick Silver, an IEA research fellow, said the full figure, including the £1.2 trillion public sector pension liability and £2.7 trillion state pension liability, should be published either monthly or annually alongside the net debt data for reasons of transparency.
The ONS has already begun to assemble the data, publishing the full list of Britain’s debts and liabilities for the first time in July, which came to a total of between £3.68 trillion and £4.84 trillion.
Aileen Simkins, ONS director of operations on economic statistics, said the figures would be updated in September and that the ONS plans to compile and release them on an annual basis “to begin with”.
“We are in no doubt that there is a bigger number that is also relevant to public data,” she said. “We think it is important to have more transparency on public sector debt – looking at figures that go beyond standard monthly net debt and include state and public sector pensions.”
The ONS numbers included a £1 trillion to £1.5 trillion liability for the Government’s stakes in the part-nationalised banks, equivalent to the relevant portion of their total liabilities, £1.35 trillion for state pension liabilities, and £1.2 trillion for public sector pensions.

To view the original of this article CLICK HERE

But I Think They Left out PPF Sell Offs During 13 Unlucky Labour Years.

During those unlucky 13 years of Labour economic illiteracy and sell ot to Communism organised by Common Purpose for John Presscot the sale of Public assets was the highest of any peacetime period for well over a Century – Hospitals, Power Stations, Docks, Land, MoD, Government Buildings sold off to cronies under Public Private Financing – Over £200 Million went missing unaccounted in the Dome Swindle and so it goes on!

Add this in and the debt looks more like £13.2 Trillion or £214,500 per man woman and child in Britain!

Not counting more interest each year that would be £21,450 per annum to repay every year for 10 years from YOUR salary after you have paid tax!

“In politics, stupidity is not a handicap.” Napoleon Bonaparte (1769-1821), 

 Regards,
Greg L-W.
for all my contact details & Blogs: CLICK HERE
 
British Politicians with pens and treachery, in pursuit of their own agenda and greed, have done more damage to the liberty, freedoms, rights and democracy of the British peoples than any army in over 1,000 years.

The disastrous effects of British politicians selling Britain into the thrall of foreign rule by the EU for their own personal rewards has damaged the well-being of Britain more than the armies of Hitler and the Franco – German – Italian axis of 1939 – 1945.

Make your vote count vote:
INDEPENDENT Leave-the-EU Alliance
or Write on YOUR ballot Paper 

Posted in Debt, Economy, IEA, ONS | Leave a Comment »

 
%d bloggers like this: