Monday, 31 October 2016

Just a couple of facebook posts I made on Raheem Kassams 'Make UKIP Great Again' page... before he quit :(

The Brexit winning UKIP has done its job - 'steady as she goes', 'safe pair of hands' will just mean it drifts off into twilight years of gradual (or very, very rapid!) decline. Right now there is a huge backlash against the social justice warrior/politically correct malaise that has been sitting over us for years. Students starting at university are seeing where the previous generation of lefty minded debt laden students have ended up - and they don't want to go there... And they have seen Mizzou in the USA on social media and don't want to end up there (if you don't know it, google 'mizzou closing' or 'mizzou enrollment' - google hides it if you just google 'mizzou'... ). Now is the time to bridge the pre-PC generation with the post-PC generation - and create a movement for now, and the future. New blood is a risk - but its a risk you have to take to have a future. If UKIP is to be that bridge and create that generation spanning movement back to 'normality' and a bright new brexit future - I believe it has to have fresh new blood at the top. If Raheem wins, I may even rejoin UKIP - but don't let that put you off!

Raheem will do will with the online crowd - but off-line I am not sure anyone has heard of him! If people really want him elected, they need to evangelise to their branches - get those MUGA crib sheets and hymn sheets out there!

Theresa May? Socialist. She won't get a good #Brexit.

(I found this item on my computer, and couldn't see that I'd published it anywhere... so here it is!)

Theresa May's conference speech made pretty clear that she is a socialist - to the left of Tony Blair, somewhere in Gordon Brown teritory.

She called for government intervention in many areas - perhaps forgetting that government only has the resources and means to intervene if it has first taken those resources from us, the people who she now thinks needs state aid.

As Milton Freeman was keen to point out - pretty much every avoidable problem is cause by state intervention - if not by virtue of the state having taken our money so rendering us in need of its return!

So the centre and centre right cannot trust her in politics generally, and on Brexit having delayed the invoking of article 50 for as long as she could, she has now said that at the end of the two year Article 52 notice period, the 1972 EU Law Supremacy act will be repealed and all EU law in force at the time will be transferred en-mass into UK law.

She confirmed on the Marr show that this would include the law on bananas, sausages and all the other nonsense that is not only nonsense in its own right, but has no place in the law of land. Excepting the most fundamental of safety standards, there is no case for a national law on the shape of a banana or the recipe for a sausage. Keeping EU law would also keep the UK in the common fisheries policy a policy that has already destroyed many British coastal jobs and massacred our fish stocks. If we do not leave the policy on brexit, it is implausible to think the tortuous exercise of extricating ourselves piece by piece will ever happen - and our fishing industry will entirely disappear, as will all of our fish.

We have two years now to identify what specific legal changes we need post Brexit, if it cannot be done in these two years then it is foolish to imagine that it will ever be done - and the 200,000+ pages of EU law will sit in our law books for ever. You surely know of the Barnett Formula - it is the formula used to redistribute wealth between the nations of the UK - it was created as a bodge, a stop gap, pragmatically accepted as everyone knew it was a one off and would be reviewed before the next years budget was calculated... now about 50 years on it has not been reviewed despite everyone agreeing it is flawed. EU law will be the same - the government will never do anything unless it sees profit or benefit for itself in doing so -- it will have no incentive to review EU law unless there is pressing urgent business and even then it will have to happen alongside 'business as usual' and whatever madcap scheme it promised in its manifesto and is desperate to roll out.

This EU Red Tape is exactly what holds the EU back now, and so will hold us back in future if we keep it. The EU Single Market is actually a protection mechanism - it allows the EU to have its red-tape without being destroyed economically by leaner more agile economies. For the UK to venture outside the EU while keeping this Red-Tape, these EU laws it will be economic suicide. Like making a parachute landing behind enemy lines, then refusing to relase the harness and insisting on having the canopy dragging behind you as you look for safety.

It should also be remembered that the UK parliament has in fact had sovereignty all along... it simply chose not to use it -- the '72 act was entirely voluntary and could have been repealed at any time. But our MP's refused to so and blamed the EU for all our woes - but further refused to have a referendum on membership deliberately to frustrate the will of the people. It is our MP's that are called to heel by the EU referendum result. And having called them to heel we cannot let they run away again - we cannot leave any responsibility for action in their hands as we know from bitter experience they will neglect it.

Wednesday, 26 October 2016

Shrugging off state law/justice - the sovereignty of a jury of your peers to nullify any/all law.

Jury activism must put an end to judicial activism and an end to stupid politically correct, victim-less crime.

We all like to pretend to believe that out parliament is sovereign (maybe some do genuinely believe this to be true!), however as long as we have trial by jury this is not actually true.

As long as we have jury trials, no law can be enforced other than by the consent of the jury - they have absolute authority to decide whether an accused man deserves to be punished or walk free. It is long established in English law that the jury is entirely unaccountable to the judicial system for their decisions. However courts, judges, the legal system and politicians are very keen to end this, an Englishman's ultimate appeal to natural justice as seen by a jury of his peers. It is vital that no free man lets this liberty go - only a jury can ultimately decide if you have done wrong - anyone else is simply guessing what a jury may say and is simply crystal ball gazing.

No juries decision is ever perverse - it is always correct (based on the information presented) if it appears flawed, then the flaw is in the person observing it!

Jury activism must put an end to judicial activism and an end to stupid politically correct, victim-less crime.

Shrugging off the states nasty sin taxes - Alcohol and Tobacco.

Tax is just tax is just theft. Spinning a story around it so you can save face by pretending to believe it is for a good reason is just part of the fiction of our current every day modern life.

Alcohol and Tobacco are used to justify huge extortion by the state, much to be fed to the tax parasites in unwanted and unnecessary so called 'public health' activities.

So, how do you shrug off this imposition on your freedom to pursue your own happiness (good call USA!)?

Simple - DIY.

Alcohol is not difficult or complex to produce, as any wine/beer makers shop will demonstrate. A bottle of top quality bottle conditioned bitter for around .50p a pint, Lager not far off the same - and no duty to pay on home brew for your own consumption (and your friends/family of course!).

I even posted a crash intro on how do brew your own beer a few years back!
Part 1:
Part 2:
Part 3:

Wine, is no more difficult - actually is probably easier now that you can 'bottle' into 5L 'wine boxes'! The equipment can be had for less that £20 ( - a 5 gallon kit for less than £25 - and either save your commercial bottles for reuse, or pick up some (reusable) boxes (

Your own tobacco takes a bit more planning, as it will be over a year before you can smoke your own grown from seed! However it is possible even in the UK's climate, you just need a bit of growing space (as they are large plants) and somewhere to hang the leaves to cure once cropped.

I don't smoke, but grew a crop just to try it out - it was pretty easy, I got plenty of leaves, but I did fail to get any seed for the next crop, but it only costs a few quid - so that is not a disaster. You'll need about 50 plants to grown enough tobacco to feed a 20 a day habit.

Strictly (due to EU introduced law) duty is payable on tobacco even if you grew it an smoke it yourself - but it is not payable until it is cut/shredded to be a smoke-able substance, and there is no practical way of paying (or the revenue collecting) such small amounts, so you'll almost certainly not be getting a knock on the door.

Saturday, 22 October 2016

Non transferable, zero cost, life time lease on a free Englishman's acre of land - Citizens Income.

It cannot be that man has to be immoral. It must be that a (self) blameless life can be lived.

An average man needs an acre of reasonable land to live self-sufficiently by his own efforts of about 20 hours a week.

If a man is not to be born a slave to others, it must be expected that even with impoverished parents, when he comes off age he can live by his own efforts without the indulgence of others (even his impoverished parents who have nothing to spare for him).

Clearly he requires an acre of land to set his life account balance to zero - so he may (if he chooses) live his life without having call or being a burden on others, nor they on him.

With technology it is clear that one man farming an acre (or more realistically) an independent family of five farming five acres may not be the most efficient method of farming, it may be that the land could be more productive if farmed on a larger scale.

However, it is for the current owners to decide if they would allow this - and it would be stupid to allow someone else to farm their land unless they receive at least as much produce as had they farmed it themselves, and shelter. The price of a perpetual supply of food cannot be less than the supply of perpetual food. And if land ownership is transferable, the price must reflect that it is for ever, not just the life time of the current occupants.

Each free Englishman should receive a non transferable life time lease on one (notional) acre of English soil. Which, if circumstances permit he may choose, instead, to receive the rent from - assured that this will feed and house him. His land generating his citizens income - no favours asked our received.

Who will give him this acre? The free people of England shall. As pointed out right at the start to deprive someone of this is to enslave them, and to jealously guard the tools of an others slavery can have no moral foundation. 80,000,000 people, 80,000,000 (notional) acres - one is yours for life, more than that you must rent from others...

(Note the possibility of one acre per person is a fortunate outcome of the size and population of the UK - and while many acres are not farm-able, other revenues have not been included, nor the seas and their sticks of fish).

In practice each free Englishman receives an equal share of the gross national rent - this would be a citizens income, meaning no centralised benefits would be required.

Existing 'land owners' would need to consider whether they will pay the rent for what they currently control or relinquish that control to others who may want to rent it and are prepared to pay more to do so.

It may be that little changes in practice, other than a rational, practical and moral basis for the citizens income being established..

Banking - Interest Free Loans - The End of Usury.

I am surprised I haven't blogged about this before...

Interest free lending is often misunderstood - and it is assumed that there is no return to the lender, so it must be a waste of time, subsidised or bogus in some other way. However, this is not the case.

Interest free lending means the lender is rewarded in a way other than with interest.

The best set-up I have come across is Jak Bank - the principle is that you can borrow money for a period, but in return you must lend money for a period.

So you may deposit £100 for six months - and this will give you 600 borrowing credits (less a little for admin) which entitles you borrow anything from £1 for 600 months through to £600 for one month.

If you have established a good savings record, you may borrow beyond your earned credits - of course this is subject to some risk/trust etc but that is true of all life - however as loans should not be for speculating, it would be expected that they would mostly be secured on some asset in case of default.

This is effectively giving you a 'time shift' to manage your cash flow, and no one is taking profit, just covering costs. What is not to like?

Friday, 21 October 2016

#Shruggers - shrugging off the state one shrug at a time.

I am not a fan of political labels - man has a tendency to start with a useful label for something, then they get lazy, forget where they started and start trying to fit the label...

I'd broadly accept the labels Libertarian, Ancap (Anarcho Capitalist), Georgist, Anarchist, Conservative, Capitalist, Humanitarian - but only because there are elements associated with these tags that match some of what I believe -- looking into the roots of such labels an be useful as there may be more information relevant to your views.

However, I'd make no effort to fit a label - the "you aren't a real..." or "If you were a real..." don't wash. If you think I am not, you may well be right in your own mind in your own terms... but so what? I have my own beliefs/positions generally (eventually) formed from first principles - I am unique, I am me, I am not trying to fit anyone else's mould, I don't have to consult a book to find out what I should profess to believe (or pretend to know!).

It is almost certain that no individual has ever failed to contradict themselves at some point in time - whether based on new information, a change in circumstances or just the passage of time - so how stupid would it be to cling to one version of what they said and venerate that above what they may have said at another time.

A label is a map, it may or may not be accurate, it may or may not be detailed, it is almost certain not to entirely fulfil all of your requirements.


I am now creating a label - the Shruggers, I am a Shrugger. Linked to Ayn Rands 'Atlas Shrugged' and 'Going Galt'. Shrugging off the dead hand of the state one shrug at a time. And going until the state has no hold on me at all and simply withers and dies.

All men are equal and free: society by nature, and destination, is therefore autonomous and ungovernable. If the sphere of activity of each citizen is determined by the natural division of work and by the choice he makes of a profession, if the social functions are combined in such a way as to produce a harmonious effect, order results from the free activity of all men; there is no government. Whoever puts a hand on me to govern me is an usurper and a tyrant; I declare him my enemy.

Pierre-Joseph Proudhon

There are many shrugs to make, And I don't have them all planned, but bit by bit they will be made - and on the last day the state will have to make the choice as to whether to destroy me or die.

Areas to shrug that I have thought and blogged about include: Parliament, Media, Money, Banking, Healhtcare, Military, Land, Food, Shelter - my thoughts can no doubt be improved upon - but good enough is good enough to get started.


People can create, now we can mix into a station. is the seed of a model.

Gold backed? Nah! Use gold directly!

Zero interest lending.




I am setting up Real Brighton Anarchists - - a group to get together and discuss liberty, ancap stuff - and hopefully get input on my ideas above - maybe there will be some more shruggers soon...

Sin Taxes (tobacco and alcohol duty)


State Law/Justice

Monday, 17 October 2016

Money - Real Money - Not the Governments Wothless tokens - Gold and Silver coins, it's time for a comeback...

Buying precious metals in small, precise units has an overhead compared to the raw metal price, and metals other than gold attract VAT, but that is payment for convenience.

Gold Bars

This represents about £1000 - 25, 1g gold bars.
Supplied in a sheet, they can be broken off individually (still wrapped) so about £40 each.

Silver Bars

1oz about £20 each.

Need less that £20 ? - there is always bitcoin or other electronic crypto-currency.

Worried about forgery? No need to try to bend it with your teeth, there are hand held units for checking now... 
Sell them as silver/gold for government currency? What would you want to do that for? Exchanging between crypto-currency and precious metals keeps your money away from the government... as it should be.

But what happens (say) down the pub when you get a round of drinks in?... Well just ran a tab and pay at the end, or go Japanese style izakaya - fixed price for a fixed time, drinks and/or food included. There are solutions to everything.

Why use a gold (or other) backed currency when you can use the raw material directly?

Gold and Silver coins - it's time for a comeback...

Sunday, 16 October 2016

Law, NAP, Socialism, Climate Change, No these aren't theories of everything, don't make them your god.

When men choose not to believe in God, they do not thereafter believe in nothing, they then become capable of believing in anything .

G.K. Chesterton

Man is a problem solver - those that aren't have been naturally selected out of existence.

Man's thinking power is limited, to make the most of it man likes (find it useful) to reduce solutions to their smallest, most efficient, most widely applicable form.

Generic rules of thumb, generalised equations, ultimately 'theories of everything'.

While this is a useful (and successful) trait it does have flaws, in that man may tend to see pattern where there is none, or apply a rule beyond its applicable domain.

Applying a pattern beyond its applicable domain is a fault that can be very difficult to correct - as once the subject believes they are correct they will question pretty much every thing else first, leaving their simple belief or faith till the very last. This may take a very long time, or be impossible to complete in a life time.

Some examples jump straight to mind (I must have seen a pattern before I even knew it) religion, the non aggression principal, climate change, socialism and law.

Religion (towards a god) is such is clear example, it may be that all these things could actually be described as religions.

Law is probably the most damaging of my examples as it permeates all our lives, and is backed with huge force that is almost impossible to avoid. The acolyte of law is most easily identified by an unwillingness to accept that any right is above the law.

I consider the 'right life' to mean no self-blame can be attached to a man doing all in his power to preserve his own life - even if it means many others die as a result. So a man on death-row could not be blamed for killing all the staff in an attempt to escape.

I consider the right to 'free speech' to allow a man to share any thought that occurs to him and that he chooses to share. Literal speech (talking) live or in recordings, and written communications are included in this without reservation.

Where 'free speech' becomes 'freedom of expression' it is for others to define what they mean by 'expression'.

And while a man is free to offer his thoughts to be shared, no one is obliged to receive them (but equally should not be prevented from doing so should they so wish).

A legal acolyte will likely take issue with these two situations - while I believes the law (to be complete and consistent) should say rights are beyond its domain, they are not beyond its domain simply because they law says so, the law is reflecting this situation, not defining it.

Law is not a theory of everything, do not make it your god.

The Libertarians non aggression principle (NAP) has become a theory of everything to many, causing great harm by being so.

 The principle states that one should not initiate aggression - and by this alone liberty will prevail. However the problem then comes in defining aggression. Once linked to 'property rights' (the transferable right to exclusive control of an item) actions against ones property become aggression and so the theory of everything becomes that all libertarian human interaction is property/aggression based - so all negative human interaction must be a result of breaching the NAP, and we get the social justice warrior world where 'micro aggression' is seen in everything one does not like (words, deeds, colours, shapes everything is a candidate) and as an aggression is now on a par with physical assault and theft etc...

NAP/Property rights is not a theory of everything, don't make it your god.

Socialism is an imposition on others of a political and social system that denies individuals the right to determine their own lives - as any totalitarian system cannot tolerate competition it must stop progress and development - and if life is not about new experience then it is nothing.

Socialism not a theory of every thing do not make it your god.

Climate change... If you have read this far I hope I do not have to much expand on this. There cult of climate science - where it has been decided that man is destroying himself, and each must be micro managed throughout their existence. So evidence is gathered and it's quality assessed how closely it matches the conclusion already decided.

Climate change is not a theory of every thing, don't make it your god.

One of the highest achievements in showing your devotion to your god is to take what otherwise seems the most perverse, irrational, illogical action but which is apparently justified by your faith alone. Suicidal terrorism leaps to mind, none of these new religions have definitive books of rules, they are all works in progress, there is no limit to what they may lead, or what they may lead their acolytes to do.

It seems man needs faith and if God has been banned, will apply it elsewhere - I suggest God (at least the post Jesus Christian god)  was a far, far safer conductor with which to ground this human urge.

Friday, 14 October 2016

Step One to Liquid Democracy?

Step one to liquid democracy...

Let individual constituents cast their vote directly (or by proxy) in parliamentary divisions....

It might be that it could not be entirely anonymous - but a constituent, on any division, giving due notice should be enabled to indicate their vote directly.

For every (say) 60,000 individual votes cast, an additional 'MPs' vote maybe created and counted.

Without some thought it is hard to say if the voters MP's vote should be reduced in weight accordingly - this has merit and drawbacks, but given the arbitrary nature of support for MP's generally this may not be any issue whatsoever.

On the face of it individual votes may seem unwieldy - but in practice would probably resolve to a number of permanent non-geographic constituencies of like minded (but geographically separated) voters or resolve to MP's ensuring their constituents were well enough satisfied as to not bother to vote independently - or a combination of the two.

Worst case is the USA situation where representatives pander to stable majorities and energise them by beating up on the minorities - however with direct voting the minorities would not go unrepresented...

Looks good to me... comments/discussion welcome...

Wednesday, 12 October 2016

Theresa May's #Bexit plans will sink the UK.

UK can fly outside the EU - but...

The EU Single Market exists to protect inefficient EU businesses from external competition - but it is not entirely the EU businesses who are at fault for their inefficiency.

Much of the inefficiency - and so over pricing - is due to EU red-tape and over-regulation. In decades when IT and tech should have been streamlining business 'business at the speed of thought' - the EU have been soaking up any such efficiency gains with evermore pointless regulation - much of which was then gold plated by the UK's own politicians/mandarins when being implemented here in the UK.

Leaving the EU gives us back control or our laws and trade and borders - but we will only benefit from this when the newly returned control is actually used to strip away the many, many layers or anti-competitive, bureaucratic red-tape, controls, directives, standards, that needlessly drag on EU companies.

Unfortunately, Theresa May has indicated that she is to do exactly the opposite of this - she has said that all EU law (over 200,000 pages of it) will be transferred wholesale into UK law, immediately added to - and then over many years is expected to be gradually reviewed.

This will kill the UK - we will have floundered and drowned before even a tiny fraction of the baggage has been removed, it will drag us down.

To get the benefit of Brexit, the UK must have a lean and agile economy - an economy as dynamic, flexible and imaginative as the people of the UK have always been when the state has got out of their way.

Theresa May must be made to change her mind - so by default all EU law should cease on Brexit. Only specific, new, necessary law, compatible with the UK's system of justice should be created - we have two years to specify this law, ready to come into force when Brexit is complete on the expiry of the Article 50 notice period. But this change of mind must be rapid, as time will run out if it is not started ASAP.

Wednesday, 5 October 2016

As Corbyn takes Labour far-left, May takes Conservatives mid-left. - all socialists now.

Don't know about you but this reads 100% Labour (pre-Corbyn obvs) to me...

LibLabCon? Can't get a fag paper between them as the hokey cokey leader of another party once said.


Dear Reader,

Today I set out details of my vision of a country that works for everyone.

The referendum result in June was not just a vote to leave the EU - it was about something much broader. It was about a deep, justified sense that for many people the world works well for a privileged few but not for them.

Our society should work for everyone, but if you can’t afford to get onto the property ladder, or your child is stuck in a bad school, it doesn’t feel like it’s working for you.

Our economy should work for everyone, but if your pay has stagnated for several years in a row and fixed items of spending keep going up, it doesn’t feel like it’s working for you.

Our democracy should work for everyone, but if you’ve been trying to say things need to change for years and your complaints fall on deaf ears, it doesn’t feel like it’s working for you.

We’ve achieved a lot over the last six years to tackle this: the deficit down, more people into work than ever before, the lowest paid taken out of income tax, a new National Living Wage, one and a half million more children in good or outstanding schools, 3 million new apprenticeships.

But more still needs to be done to put government at the service of ordinary working class people – focusing on the good that government can do.

In practice that means things like:

  • Reforming corporate governance - to be announced later in the year – to ensure all businesses are run accountably and with the long-term interest clearly in mind.
  • A proper industrial strategy - identifying the industries that are of strategic value to our economy and supporting and promoting them through trade, tax, infrastructure, skills, training, and research and development policies.
  • Building more houses - meaning that more people have the opportunity to buy a home of their own and that less of the monthly family budget is poured into accommodation costs.
  • Strengthening workers’ rights - as announced on Saturday, we’re going to review our laws to make sure that, in our modern and flexible economy, people are properly protected at work.
  • Bold new education reforms - so that every child has the chance to go to a good, local school and that they are not held back by where they live or how much money their parents have. The Government will end the ban on new grammar schools – as well as a range of other reforms to create more good school places.
  • Getting immigration under control - leaving the EU gives us an opportunity to control the numbers of people coming here from Europe and the Government will be consulting over the next few months on steps to reduce non-EU migration too across work and student visa routes. 
  • Continuing to invest in our NHS - £10 billion extra over this Parliament, which is only possible because of the strong economic foundations we have built. We believe in public service. We believe in investing in and supporting the institutions that make our country great.
  • Protecting those who cannot work - we will end the mandatory retesting of work capability for those with chronic health conditions that only induces stress but does nothing at all to help.
While Labour remain divided and divisive, completely out of touch with the concerns of ordinary families, it is only our party who can make these changes happen. Political visions are not enough on their own - you need to put the hours and the effort in too. But if you do, great things can happen and great changes can occur. Let's rise to this moment together.

Please contribute to our campaign to build a better Britain.

Thank you for your support,
Rt Hon. Theresa May MP
Theresa May
Prime Minister

The #UKIP rollercaster - that was wild! Lets go round again!!

Dianne James has decided not to take up the Leadership of UKIP - a role she ran for and was elected to.

There are some oddities about the candidate list for the Leadership, but ignoring those for now...

Dianne's reasons for backing down are primarily cited around not have authority in the party, not having enough support from the UKIP MEP's and feeling threatened in public (she was spat at on a train shortly after being elected).

The things Dianne cites are exactly what Nigel Farage put up with for many years. Those are all aspects of being the leader of a popular but not yet 'mainstream' party. She should have been well aware of all of these things before putting herself forwards for the role.

It has been suggested (by Arron Banks) that these are also exactly the things that persuaded Nigel to step down (after many years) having achieved his main ambition of getting the people a say over their membership of the UK.

On those candidate list oddities mentioned earlier, it was reported that Dianne's payment and forms to be a candidate were received about 15 minutes before the deadline, this is after Steven Woolf's payment was made, but before his application arrived (20 minutes after the deadline, so excluding him from the contest).

My supposition is that Steven got cold feet at the last moment and decided not to run, his backers needed a new candidate and had Dianne lined up (an application needs something like 50 assentors from 20 different branches, so cannot be done at the last minute) so she was put into the contest and Steven put his papers in late to exclude himself with out losing face. So Dianne had not really expected to run (or though she was not running as Steven was) so was not fully prepared and was called up at the last minute...

However this suggests that pretty much no one really wants to lead UKIP! In fact the only person determined and thick skinned and ambitious enough right now seems to be Douglass Carswell (or his proxy) a man who is blamed by many for being a major and final straw that led to Nigel Farage actually stepping down...

I think UKIP is destined to split - but will the existing infrastructure will be with Carswell for his new model party, or with Faragistas (as a libertarian or soft labour party?) and will those who break away simply scatter, join other parties or form a new one?

If Carswell does form his party (and doesn't instantly fold it back in the conservative party) it may well attract many Conservatives (including Daniel Hannan) which would weaken the conservative party - no bad thing as boundary changes alone suggest they will get an additional 80 seats in the next parliament, and the melt down of Labour under Corbyn should deliver them yet more.

This would make Theresa May, the Snow Queen with unfettered oppressive power in this country - making an independent UK as sad and tragic place as Eire was under deValera when they got their independence, instead of a place of joy an happiness.

With a weakened conservative party - split between the Conservatives and Carswells New Model UKIP Party - and a split Labour party it would be prime time for a new party to emerge - something that Arron Banks is rumoured to have considered, especially as he has deep pockets and an email list of several million pro independence bods as part of his Leave.Eu organisation.

Unfortunately, from my point of view, the soft left would be the 'best' place for a new party to be positioned to ensure it picked up as much labour support as possible as they desert Cobyns Labour party, and reject whatever it is that Blair's cronies may have on offer.

But maybe somewhere in this new political vista there is space for a really libertarian party... maybe New Model UKIP will become so? Or Arrons new party? Or maybe started from scratch - but not a mash up of overgrown school boys wanting to talk 24/7 about cannabis, incest and necrophilia...

Here's hoping...

Monday, 3 October 2016

#Brexit Trade, Law and Sovereignty and The People.


The EU Single Market exists entirely for the benefit of the European Union Commission.

The EU Single Market is the mechanism by which the EU Commission restricts suppliers access to European consumers and restricts European consumers access to suppliers. The EU Commission sells access to suppliers, the Commission skim money in a variety of ways. But primarily it lets producers charge artificially high prices (which EU consumers have no choice but to pay) and takes a cut of this money raised through exploitation of the European people.

Outside the EU Single Market, UK consumers will have a global choice for suppliers - if the EU does have the cheapest suppliers, then UK consumers may chose to continue to use their current suppliers.

If, however, as is likely, produce can be sourced elsewhere more cheaply then the UK consumer can choose to purchase elsewhere. This will result in savings to the UK consumer, an increase in UK trade with 'the rest of the world' and a drop in UK trade with the uncompetitive, price rigged EU.


As a trade body and government the EU has produced a mish-mash of law and trading regulations/standards - this is something that should never have been allowed. Product standards (apart from the most basic safety) is no business of the law makers. A consumer is well capable of deciding what standard/specification of item they require and communicating this to a supplier. And as this specification will form the contract, the only law required is that required to generically enforce contracts, the specifics of the contract are irrelevant.

Whole swathes of EU Law are entirely unnecessary, and worse are damaging to innovation, development and progress - leaving the EU should remove these laws from applying in the UK.

However, Theresa May has already stated that all EU law will be adopted into UK law(!) Even specifically confirming that laws on (bent) bananas, sausages etc will be included. Theresa May has suggested that once transferred each law can be reviewed and a decision made on whether to retain it, repeal it or enhance it. But as we have two years before the EU treaties cease to apply, it seems odd that this work cannot be started now and completed by the time the Article 50 notice period expires. If it cannot be done in two years when it is the governments main focus, How can anyone imagine it will ever be done? It is worth remembering that even the broken, bogus 'Barnett Formula' was a one off temporary fix in the late 1970's that has been in desperate need of revision but now after almost half a century has not be changed, also refom of the house of lords - which has been in progress even longer to no good effect.


In truth the UK parliament has always been soverign - even with the 1972 EU Legal Supremacy act it was only bound to its own choice - it could have repealed it anytime.

The referendum result is not actually about the EU at all - it is about the UK parliament not acting in accordance with the wishes of the British people - for decades our parliament kept us as unwilling victims of the Brussels bureaucracy, and resisted our calls to be heard (by referendum) - now we have spoken and must ensure parliament never again think they can ignore our wishes.