Tag Archives: FlexCit

My patience is fast running out………

In response to this article I have submitted the following comment, which is subject to moderation:

Referring to your article, as someone whose work has focused on coalition governments and how the Civil Service works with political parties; social housing, green energy and property development sectors; and who has a BA in history and a MSc in Public Policy, would it be impertinent of me to ask how you can write on ‘matters EU’?

I ask the question as the most obvious ‘interim solution’ about which you write is for the UK to move to EFTA/EEA membership – an ‘off-the-shelf’ solution, one which is readily available and which would then allow for time to negotiate a ‘final solution’ – yet you fail to mention it. Why? Why would such an interim agreement be so difficult to achieve?

For those of us who have an understanding on matters EU and Brexit, we are sick and tired of the ‘commentariat’ – of which you are one – publishing ‘opinions’ based on nothing but ‘hot air’.

Have you read FlexCit – come to that have you even heard of FlexCit? If you haven’t, Google it?

Let us see if a response is forthcoming………..

There’s news – and there’s news

The  MSM seem enthralled with the mess that both Labour and the Tories appear to be in – with the former unable to make up its mind what they actually ‘stand for’ on a variety of ‘subjects du jour’, such as [you name it]; and the Tories on the NHS ‘doctors and ACAS‘ problem.

On the latter I reproduce from my time-line on Facebook:

The Book of Jeremy, Chapter 1
And it came to pass that Jeremy, of the tribe of Conservatites, clad himself in gaudy raiment from the Row of Savile and summoned the Disciples of Hippocrates to his tent. For he wished to impart Good News to them.
“Verily, I ask you,” saith Jeremy unto them, “when doth the Festival of Wee-kend beginneth?”
And the Disciples of Hippocrates furrowed their brows in amazement at this parable, for all people who dwell on earth knew the Festival of Wee-kend beginneth at the same time every week, that is to say, on Friday at Five to Five (or, as it is known to those aged over two score and ten, Crackerjack Time.)
And the Disciples of Hippocrates remarked on this to Jeremy and some began to reacheth for the Mental Health Act Papyrus, but then Jeremy spake again.
“Ye may be wise and learned folk,” saith Jeremy, “ but in this case thou art sorely mistaken. For from this day onwards I decree the Festival of Wee-kend shall beginneth at midnight on the Sabbath. Or maybe, in days to come, on Sunday. For I may chooseth to monkey around with it again.”
And the Disciples of Hippocrates were sorely dismayed, for they kneweth that this meaneth a shedload fewer shekels, big time. And their discontent was so great it afflicted their tongues, such that they could not even speak Jeremy’s name correctly.
But then arose amongst them the prophet Malawana, who was in such favour with THE LORD that the Almighty worked a miracle greater than the parting of the Red Sea: He softened the hearts of the Daily Express papyrus merchants so that they supported Malawana. And then Malawana spake thus to his learned tribe: “Let not your hearts be troubled, for I will lead you to the promised land.”
“And what is this land, exactly, squire?” askedeth the Disciples of Hippocrates..
And Malawana looked into their hearts and perceived that though the Disciples of Hippocrates seldom made war, so great was their anger they were now well up for some serious smiting.
And so Malawana loosened his sword in its sheath. And his grim countenance bore an expression that sayeth: Don’t fucketh with me, pal.
“We journey to the Land of Bal-lot,” saith Malawana. And his people followed him there, rejoicing.
And Jeremy, on hearing these tidings, did soil his fine raiment of the Row of Savile
The Book of Jeremy.

Chapter 2:
And it came to pass that the prophet Malawana led the Disciples of Hippocrates to the land of Bal-lot, and there he spake unto them.
“If Jeremy persisteth with his mad design, ye shall have fewer shekels and labour long hours through the night, even unto exhaustion. And when you are so sorely fatigued and maketh a mistake, well, ye knowest where that path leadeth.”
“Where doth it leadeth, squire?” saith one disciple.
“It leadeth to the GeeEm Sea,” saith Malawana.
And the disciples quaked with terror, for no-one who entered the GeeEm Sea was ever seen again.
Then Malawana spake again: “Those disciples who wish to smite Jeremy until he ceaseth this bollocks, casteth down thy stethoscope.”
And lo, the land of Bal-lot did resembleth an explosion in the Littman factory.
When Jeremy heard these tidings, he changed his raiment to brown trousers, so as to disguise his fear, and journeyed to the tent of David, son of Cameron, King of the tribe of Conservatites. And there he found that David had sacrificed a swine, and cut off its head so as to make a burnt offering. At least, that is what David claimeth, but Jeremy believed him not, for David had put his…

(Translators note: the original papyrus has been damaged – possibly intentionally – and the remainder of this verse is indecipherable. Biblical scholars have long debated its meaning. However, the recent paper by Ashcroft raises an interesting theory on this matter.)

“Sire,” saith Jeremy, “the Disciples of Hippocrates are revolting.”
And David agreed, saying they did indeed do unspeakable acts with the Jelly of Kaywhy and the gloves of rubber. For he had seen such abominable things in the land of Holby.
And Jeremy marvelled at his chutzpah, given what David was doing to the aforesaid swine.
“Nay, sire,” saith Jeremy, “I meaneth they striketh.”
“Let not your heart be troubled,” saith David. “For my forebear, the blessed Margaret, Queen of the Conservatites, faced similar strife from those who delve for treasures in the earth. She triumphed by exploiting division within the enemy camp, and I shall do likewise. Those disciples who striketh not shall heal the sick. How many thousands spurned Malawana’s call to arms?”
“Six-” saith Jeremy.
“Only six thousand, and all the rest have forsaken me?” saith David, and his visage did turn ghostly pale, even unto a nice shade of steatorrhoea.
“Not six thousand, sire. Six,” saith Jeremy.
“Six?” saith King David weakly, for he was sorely vexed, and by now approacheth single figures on the Coma Scale of Glasgow.
“Yea, six. The number between five and seven,” saith Jeremy. “And four of them, being of the tribe of Orthopods, ticketh the wrong box by mistake.”
And David fell into a swoon, and on recovering spake thus: “Lendeth me your brown trousers, Jeremy.
Peter Ewing, GP

The point is: which is more important; an internal spat (above) or an external spat, namely sovereignty and who governs our nation. In respect of the latter one cannot but lament the lack of serious coverage by the MSM; and the fact when they do deign to write/speak on that subject, their coverage is minimal and superficial to say the least. It is obviously naive of me to believe that the foremost duty of a nation’s free press’ is to inform their readership of the truth – no more, no less; yet it appears not so. Which begs the question just how much of our supposedly ‘free press’ is subjected to pressure from the ‘government du jour’ in respect of their ‘licence to print’?

The sooner we, as an electorate, get the ability to decide who represents us – and once chosen – can then be ‘fired’, the sooner we may be able to achieve a real state of democracy. Having said that, the ability to ‘hire and fire’ those we elect is but one small part of direct democacy, a system in which the electorate are supreme rather than – as at present under representative democracy – the political class who only promulgate an elective dictatorship.

Among more important aspects of democracy are, for example, the amount of taxation levied upon us and the means by which it is done, together with what wars we enter into; to name but two. Which begs the question, oft repeated on this blog: why is The Harrogate Agenda not being ‘run’ more prominately with FlexCit, a ‘programme’ which would restore ‘sovereignty’ to this nation?

Answers, it would appear, are not forthcoming, unfortunately – and I would suggest the Director of THA needs to ‘go rethink’, especially as commentators appear to have ‘hit the nail on the head‘?

C’mon RPG and THA: you want support? Then hows about a concerted, joined-up, message/campaign – after all, you’ve’ ‘elected’ yourselves to lead and deliver it?

Just saying…………………..?


Some questions

It is always a source of amusement when reading the outpourings of political commentators on the subject of democracy. One only has to consider this from Gabby Hinsliff (and where she is concerned, ‘Gabby’ is so appropriate); or this from Yasmin Alibhai-Brown; or this from Philip Booth.

The first two articles centre on l’affaire Mark Clarke and intimate that young potential politicians, to quote Hinsliff: …..weren’t knifing each other over ways to change the world, but over getting seats, or jobs with MPs, or proximity to power of any kind. Hey, never mind the ‘young’ tag; isn’t that what politicians of all ages do? Alibhai-Brown reckons: degradation of politics by any party disables our democracy, and no party is immune to the effects. Hey, in order to disable democracy, first it is necessary to have democracy. That of Booth’s centres on the fact that: we have representation without taxation and an intrinsic big government bias in the electoral system, while suggesting that: a proper federal structure must be created for the UK.

What we have with all these articles is an extension of the accusatation contained in my preceding article; namely that we are blessed with brain-dead political commentators or ‘hacks’ who know not the meaning of research; who, to quote from a comment from the preceding article: would think that an aspirational writer, looking for another angle to be a little bit original, would seize upon something that is not being discussed by other reporters or columnists.

The answer to all the ‘complaints’ in the linked articles already exists, namely: The Harrogate Agenda.

However this blog – and many of its readers – are slightly puzzled. It has been written:  ……The Harrogate Agenda cannot stand aloof from the anti-EU movement, and wait until it has achieved it aim, in order that we should be able to progress ours; likewise it has been written: ……there is little point in recovering powers from the EU, only to hand them back to the same institutions that gave them away in the first place (FlexCit –  page 375). Neither can it be, as the Director of THA informed me in an email, that once the Referendum Planning Group (RPG) launches, hopefully THA will receive more coverage (my emphasis).

We all know that the European Union is not ‘democracy’ by any manner of means, but then neither is the system of democracy currently prevalent; so: why is THA stage six of FlexCit; why, if there is little point in recovering powers from the EU only to hand them back to the same institutions that gave them away in the first place; and why is it only hoped that once RPG launches, THA will receive more coverage, when it has already been stated The Harrogate Agenda cannot stand aloof from the anti-EU campaign – which it currently does.

The questions in the preceding paragraph have been raised previously on this blog and still no answer (logical or otherwise) has been forthcoming. Bearing in mind the greatest reason given for over a third of the electorate not participating in local or general elections is that for whoever they vote, nothing changes; is not THA the answer to their complaint? It has also been maintained on this blog that reaching that section of the electorate will be crucial to winning the referendum, because if shown that within the EU (and within representative democracy) they can never have a voice, then once that understanding is embedded, the result surely cannot be in doubt.

So I repeat: why is THA stage six of FlexCit?

Readers should know by now that I am behind FlexCit but with one doubt about the ‘stage order’. Let me say at the outset that by raising that doubt does not mean I am being argumentative, working against Brexit or undermining FlexCit or RPG; but is:

Just asking why THA is not being run alongside, but separate to, FlexCit and with equal prominence?






Lies, Damned Lies and Facts

Yesterday, in the House of Commons, David Cameron repeated his dismissal of the ‘Norway Option’ as an alternative form of membership of the European Union, stating that Norway has no seat at the table and no ability to negotiate – something he repeated on Facebook.

Readers will recall my handing David Cameron a ‘dossier, during a meeting at his constituency office in Witney. Readers will also recall that in his response he stated that he could not agree with a number of the points I made, eventually informing me that he was drawing our correspondence to a close. In that dossier facts were presented to David Cameron which showed that Norway does have a seat at top tables and does have the ability to negotiate as a result of being heavily involved in the various stages by which EU law is implemented.

If David Cameron will not take on board my views, then perhaps he will those of the EFTA website and the words of an eminent authority on matters EU. In respect of the latter, permission from that authority was sought and given for me to forward David Cameron a copy of FlexCit. While FlexCit is a comprehensive explanation of how the UK can disengage from the EU, there are further references to fact in relation to Norway’s relationship with the EU. Norway does not have a vote within the EU, that is a well known fact and one that is not disputed; but Norway does not need a vote as by the time the EU implements ‘law’, said ‘law’ has already been agreed within United Nations bodies with Norway having had a seat at the table where such law was formulated; coupled with the fact that the EU is mandated to consult with EFTA on the implementation of EU law. In this regard it is worth mentioning page 204 of FlexCit which provides an example of Norway’s ‘influence’ where the formation of EU law is concerned.

That David Cameron continues to misrepresent the position of Norway in respect of her dealings with the European Union (no, let us be brutally honest: he continues to lie) cannot be allowed to continue. To this end I felt duty bound to yet again email David Cameron; the text of which follows:

Dear Mr. Cameron,

Following my move to Co Durham it is acknowedged that you are no longer my Member of Parliament, however you are the Prime Minister of this country and if we are to have any vestige of democracy then any member of the electorate must have the opportunity of contacting you in order to hold you to account; and expect to receive the courtesy of a detailed reply.

Over the last few days you have been quite vociferous on the question of what is known as the ‘Norway Option’, maintaining that country has no seat at the table and has no ability to negotiate. You are also on record as stating that Norway pays as much per head to the EU as do we.

You and I know that those statements are a misrepresentation of the facts – in truth, ‘misrepresentation’ is perhaps the wrong word to use as it is plain that you have been less than candid.

To deal with the last point first: as has been pointed out elsewhere, the Norwegian government’s own figures show that its total EU mandated payments (gross) are approximately £435m (€600m) per annum. With a population of five million, that is approximately £86 (€120) per head (gross). Net payments, however, are about £340m (€470m) per annum, or about £68 (€94) per head. In 2014, the UK gross contributions to the EU were £19.2bn, less £4.9bn rebate. That gives an equivalent gross payment of £14.3bn. After rebates and other receipts, our net contribution was £9.8 bn. With a population of 64 million, that puts our gross contribution (without rebate) at £300 per head, our equivalent gross payment at £223 per head, and our net per capita payment £153 per annum – more than twice the Norwegian payments.

You are also on record as stating that Norway pays but has no say [on the rules] – that statement competely denies the huge amount of consultation by EFTA states within the EEA decision making process (see attachment)

.You maintain that Norway is not present at the table where decisions are taken. This overlooks the influence that Norway exerts on global bodies – for example UNECE and Codex – which is where law emanates in the form of dual international quasi-legislation, or diqules. These are then handed down to countries and trade blocs, such as the EU, for implementation.

As someone who wishes fervently to cease our membership of the EU it pains me greatly to observe the paucity of the arguments being presented by the, so far, two groups vying to become the ‘lead’ organisation in the forthcoming referendum. Both exhibit a common trait with you, in that none of you appear to know that about which you speak and write.

As a further attachment please find a copy of FlexCit, the work of an eminent authority on the European Union, namely Dr. Richard North. This work explains how this country can exit the EU painlessly (the Norway Option being but the first – and temporary – step, thus allowing businesses to retain access to the single market, while the lengthy process of unpicking 40 years of our enforced membership is carried out).

While FlexCit will undoubtedly increase your understanding of matters EU and global governance, especially where the subject of Norway and her influence is concerned; it will also mean that, having read it, your need to be less than candid will become unnecessary.

Yours sincerely,

David Phipps

Needless to say any response from David Cameron will, as usual, be made public on this blog.

Just who knows what?

Little notice seems to have been paid among ‘the great and the good’ (and the not so good), included in which category is our political class and commentariat, to a recent paper on Brexit. It is indeed surprising, bearing in mind the body from which it comes coupled with the background of the author.

Dealing with the seven legal options once the United Kingdom has left the European Union, the second option – for the UK to join EFTA/EEA(pp 6&7) – is interesting as this option is, in effect, the path proposed by FlexCit. Almost straight away we are informed that these EFTA countries have to follow the evolution of EU legislation concerning the internal market, without having a right to influence much of its content. I will not bore readers by repeating the refutation of such an argument as put forward by Jean-Claude Piris, suffice it to say said rebuttal is contained in this post of mine some time ago – and no, for those interested, I did not receive one reply to the emails quoted.

What ever opinion one may take of Piris’ paper, just compare it to this offering in the Guardian written one day earlier. Bearing in mind that it now seems there will be a referendum on the UK’s memembership of the EU, on such paucity as that offered in the Guardian (and other media publications, not withstanding the waffle also produced by such as Open Europe and Business for Britain) will the British public be led up the proverbial garden path.

The burning question, as a result of the Guardian article is: just what do journalists actually ‘know’ of matters EU; just what do ‘business leaders’ actually know of matters EU; and just what do those in Open Europe and Business for Britain actually know about matters EU?

The Europhile side of the argument about the UK’s membership of the EU appear to be making ‘all of the running’. If there is to be an ‘alliance’ of Eurosceptic groups, is it not about time we heard from them; is it not about time they made their presence felt – at least on social media; is it not about time we were actually informed just who comprises this ‘alliance’? Is it not about time we heard of a strategy – after all, time is passing by; and the way the eurosceptic movement appears to be moving, by the time they do get their act together the referendum will be but a distant memory.

Just saying………….