Opinion – Pro-EU MPs could stage guerrilla campaign to reverse Brexit decision | Politics | The Guardian – John Gelmini

An HDR image of Parliament and Westminster Bridge

An HDR image of Parliament and Westminster Bridge (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

I totally disagree with this Guardian article brought by Dr Alf. Parliament and MPs, thinking about “waging guerilla warfare against a Brexit decision or watering down the effect of a vote to leave the EU, are playing a very dangerous game.

As it is, politicians in this country and throughout the world are rightly held in contempt for “Only being in it for themselves”, representing the interests of plutocrats, tax avoiders like Vodaphone who have paid no Corporation Tax in the past 11 years, criminals, money launderers and unpleasant Wahibi regimes, like Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Jordan and Kuwait.

People trying to earn a little on meagre savings find themselves at the wrong end of buy to let legislation at the same time as the Land Registry is to be sold off—A licence for drug barons and criminals to engage in what Dr Alf calls “financial irregularity” on an industrial scale and with impunity as no-one will know what land they actually own.

The decision for BREXIT or Remain, with the latter being the likely option, has to be respected but if the vote is close then legitimate concerns of the opposing side such as where to build extra houses and infrastructure, trade with the EU”passporting” rules for investment banks, concerns about future Eurozone bailouts,proposals to create a European army,lost trade etc have to be taken into account and dealt with properly.

If people are ignored completely, which is what the Guardian is suggesting, and what these MPs are suggesting then the consequences will be to bring the entire system into even greater contempt than it already is. That is going to mean more tax evasion, more criminality at a low level which the police cannot be bothered to deal with and a bloody minded attitude from the dispossessed and marginalised.

As it is, I question seriously why we need more than 200 MPs because a great many of them are pretty useless and not required, why too do we need a House of Lords when a slimmer senate would do? Also why do we need such an expensive Monarchy which holds £trillions GBP in land and monies overseas when it could be stripped of its powers and made to deliver value for money?

Certainly, if we do become part of a United States of Europe then the case for large Government and a Monarchy and layer upon layer of local authorities, overmanned constabularies,quangos and fire commands gets diminished rather than increased?

People need to be careful what they wish for,respect democracy and remember that guerilla warfare is a two-way street.

John Gelmini

Opinion – The Leave campaign can’t keep dodging the biggest question – The Telegraph – William Hague – John Gelmini


English: William Hague at the U.S. Deptartment...

English: William Hague at the U.S. Deptartment of State (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

As Dr. Alf knows, William Hague did not always talk this way, he was in favour of keeping the pound and was semi Euro-skeptic.

Now he tells us a different story, based on our trade links with Europe and the costs.

Apart from our nett budget contributions of £12 billion GBP, we also pay £16 billion GBP in foreign aid much of which is stolen by corrupt African dictators and foreign despots, never reaching the intended recipients. Much of that money is allocated under strictures from the EU, which under German tutelage sees itself as a sovereign state.

In terms of trade, we do very little with the EU and the bulk of that is with the Irish Republic which we had to bail out at great cost after the engineered banking crisis. That does produce some foreign exchange but we lose more than comes in by dint of too many firms basing themselves for tax purposes in the Dublin Financial District.

Some of these firms like HSBC PLC and BT PLC(I visited both buildings in 2013) plus State Street, which administers the Government’s new workplace pension scheme, should be in the UK tax net and could be compelled to do so because the Government has shares in the case of BT PLC, awarded the contract, in the case of State Street and is the regulator in the case of BT PLC and HSBC PLC in this country.

The EU trades with us mostly via Germany which sells us engineered goods and luxury cars and this amounts to £10 GBP in imports versus £1 GBP in exports offset by Corporation Tax losses via Dublin.

Thus, the UK gets no economic benefits from the EU at all and it gets economic disbenefits.

These disbenefits are:

1)Increased housing and infrastructure costs through net EU migration of 300,000 people a year,current NI figures are fiddled by the Government to make the figure appear less than it really is.
2)The costs of EU regulation plus Whitehall gold plating
3)Higher energy costs due to the forced closure of coal-fired power stations and their replacement with nuclear power stations courtesy of the Chinese and the French Government /EDF
4)Costs for bailing out Greece and future unquantified costs of future bailouts of that and other poorly performing EU countries.

People would “not come here anyway” if the NHS was to reduce the dropout rate of nurses and doctors in training and if schools would reintroduce discipline so that indigenous teachers remained in the profession. Action to raise UK worker productivity coupled with threats to automate if they failed to raise their game plus a ban on strikes in essential public services would be a start.

Tough action against malingerers and hypochondriacs in doctors surgeries would reduce demand on the NHS lessening the need for foreign doctors and an uncompromising approach to obesity and sugar and salt content in food plus gastric band treatment and stomach stapling for the worst cases would reduce it further.

People here would find these measures uncomfortable but they would be needed to compliment an “Australian-style points system” that William Hague says will not do the job.

Export performance in this country has been abysmal for years so BREXIT would be the starting gun and the bunsen burner applied to the posteriors of Britain’s complacent senior executives who by and large are lazy,risk averse,complacent,featherbedded and unwilling to get out from behind their desks and get onto planes and sell things that people want and are willing to pay for.

What these people need are a shock to galvanise them and their workforces and the 2 year transition period under which we would leave the EU under Brexit would be the time to read them the “Riot Act” and impose necessary change.
These executives are also unwilling to invest or acquire overseas unlike the Chinese and Temasek plus other foreign competitors.

The tax system can be changed so that there are accelerated writing down allowances for expansion and automation/robotics and there is an American device which fits into one’s ear the size of an oxo cube which enables 2 people to speak to each other in different languages but hears only their own.

Export income could be taxed at a lower level and domestically derived income taxed at a higher level with safeguards and new accounting rules to prevent fiddling.

John Gelmini