Fifteen Tory MPs are putting Brexit at risk. What do they believe? I checked out their views on Brexit and their general politics. The recurrent theme is simply misunderstanding the situation, especially UK-EU economics.
The Mutineers:
Ken Clarke
Heidi Allen
Jonathan Djanogly
Vicky Ford
Dominic Grieve
Stephen Hammond
Oliver Heald
Jeremy Lefroy
Paul Masterton
Nicky Morgan
Bob Neil
Antoinette Sandbach
Anna Soubry
Tom Tughendhat
Sarah Wollaston
Tom Tugendhat identifies with helping the global poor, he writes that: "Research shows that trade is one of the best liberators of global poverty". If this were true then countries with a large amount of global trade relative to their GDP should be the richest. In reality it turns out that the relative amount of global trade enjoyed by countries is almost unrelated to poverty. The Research actually shows that stopping corruption and providing
education creates wealth within a country and this provides the ability to
participate in global trade.
Global Trade does not create wealth, good government creates wealth and global trade follows on. Tugendhat believes in doing the right thing - helping the poor - but does not seem to understand that it is nowhere near as easy as global Free Trade Agreements. He also confuses Internationalism and Global Trade. See Summary of Research.
Tugendhat is coy about exposing his actual beliefs on Brexit, except that he supports the Single Market (EU terminology for "Common Market") and issues the standard Banker-Multinational line of Free Trade being the saviour of the world. See Globalization - who benefits?.
Anna Soubry is the second of our mutineers. She believes in protecting the Green Belt but seems to have no idea about the rate of UK population growth and why the population is growing (See Population Growth )
On Brexit she says she is "working with colleagues from all parties in the best interests of my constituents" to keep the UK in the Single Market despite the majority of her constituents voting to Leave the EU. As with the Green Belt issue she has a problem with numbers and proportions, for instance saying on Question Time that exports to the continent will fall to “almost absolutely zero” after Brexit. She had this belief despite the fact that non-EU countries export large amounts to the EU and despite the fact that most UK exports to the EU would have very low tariffs (See Trade and Tariff data). She believed that after a Leave vote the years 2016-2019 would be "absolute chaos" for the UK.
She seems unaware that the predictions of Project Fear, which deal with the period 2016-2019, have not happened and now cannot happen as originally formulated. As a result she seems to still believe her statement that "Leaving the EU is a leap into the dark that would leave Britain's families worse off to the tune of £4,300 a year," even though the IMF and Treasury no longer make that claim (having dropped it a couple of months after the Referendum).
Project Fear had some hugely irresponsible predictions and Anna Soubry clearly took these on board, unlike Osborne and Cameron who thought they would win the referendum and not be caught out by their lies. The predictions were outrageous:
The latest Treasury forecasts are fine but Soubry does not seem to have heard:
Anna Soubry has a problem understanding numbers and trends. She should read WTO, Single Market, UK-EU Trade slowly and carefully.
Apparently she has received death threats from the public for opposing Brexit. We may not like her point of view but it is appalling to threaten anyone for their political opinions. Democracy cannot survive in an atmosphere of violent threats and these must be stopped.
Nicky Morgan makes a point that "We represent not just individuals whose jobs and futures will be affected by Brexit but farmers, businesses, universities and social enterprises who, amongst many others, currently rely on EU funding." This would be a good reason for Remaining in the EU/Single Market if it were not for the fact that this funding (plus £8bn to£12bn extra per annum) originates in the UK.
Morgan is another MP who is still convinced by Project Fear, probably failing to realise that the irresponsible Treasury predictions were for catastrophe now, in the period 2016-2019, not after Brexit (see Treasury Forecast above). In a recent Financial Times article she is quoted as saying: “My concern is that people won’t say: ‘Oh, it’s OK for my household finances to be affected because I’m happy we’ve got our sovereignty back from the EU’. That’s not what the majority of people are going to be saying,”.
She then said: “I don’t want to see the City lose its pre-eminence as the best place in the world to do business.” This suggests that she neither understands the scale of UK Financial Services (Financial Service exports to the EU are under 5% of all exports) nor what the City does - she should read: The City needs the EU like a Fish needs a Bicycle for an in-depth discussion.
She supports the Common Market (Single Market) and sees this as the way forward after Brexit. She seems entirely unaware of the UK-EU Trading position and its significance. Nowhere is there any mention of the effects of the huge UK-EU Current Account and Trade Deficits that, if they are allowed to continue for a decade with continued Single Market membership would cumulatively, severely damage the UK.
Dominic Grieve is one of the most forthright of the mutineers. Grieve is another victim of the suppression of news by the Broadcast Media. He says that "..the economic policy to reduce the Public sector borrowing requirement to zero by 2020 has had to be abandoned" as a result of the referendum but shows no understanding of the fact that a continuing Balance of Payment Current Account Deficit is behind the failure of the UK to fill its coffers and be forced to continue borrowing (See UK-EU Trade Data ). The deficits are appalling and related to the Single Market, not the Referendum.
He
says with disdain that some who favour Brexit want an "external
relationship with a trade agreement that may give us something
far short of full single market access without tariffs or restrictions
on providing services.". He says this without appreciating the scale of
the damage being done to the UK economy by an absence of any
restrictions on trade and capital movements:
This
is cumulative damage, it gets worse year on year. What is interesting
is that Grieve simply assumes that completely open UK-EU Trade and
Capital movement is good for the UK without checking on whether this is
really true (See UK-EU
Trade Data ).
As a lawyer Grieve seems to believe that, provided the EU has a process and form of law that is approved by due process then there should not really be a problem with membership of the EU. This is the substance of his presentation to Cardiff University. He notes that devolution and Northern Ireland are easier to solve within the EU without also noting that the current "solution" is an artefact of being in the EU. Outside the EU we will simply need different solutions - see How to Leave the EU.
Most important of all, despite the fact that the preamble to the EU Treaties includes "Ever closer Union", despite the fact that the Treaties are now largely about the mechanics of the Eurozone, he says that: "The EU is primarily a treaty about creating a single market." It clearly is not! The EU is based on Treaties about creating a Union. He doesn't seem to have noticed that the Eurogroup has already achieved Fiscal Union and is pressing on to Political Union. How would he deal with an EU composed of two nations, the UK and the Eurogroup, with the latter holding 85% of the votes and no vetoes on most matters for the UK? On this he is silent. Perhaps his silence is due to the fact that the broadcast media is suppressing all mention of Eurogroup Union.
Jeremy Lefroy has spent a lot of time out in Africa and sees global trading as a liberator. This is the standard multinational corporate view and is a confusion of cause and effect: eliminate corruption and introduce the rule of law, regulated markets and education then you will have trade, some of which is global trade. Good government allows countries to have global trade but access to countries by multinationals without good government just creates more corruption etc. (See Globalisation - who benefits).
Sarah Wollaston writes a blog in which she rails against the lack of funding of the NHS. However, she does not seem to have read Simon Stevens' explanation of the funding shortfall: growing and ageing population. The IFS has pinned down 60% of increasing costs as due to population growth:
She should discover where this population growth originates.
She also bemoans the lack of cash for essential health services but is unaware of the trade deficit and Twin Deficit Theory being a major cause of austerity.
Wollaston swapped sides in the Referendum because of the statement from the Tory Leave group that £350m a week would be available after Brexit, some of which would be spent on the NHS. She seems unaware of the fact that Project Fear predictions were not just wrong but hopelessly wrong and led to the irresponsible claim that Brexit would cost £2000m a week.
The Project Fear predictions:
The Treasury and IMF came out with new predictions just months after the Referendum:
It
is hard to believe that Wollaston is acting in good faith given that
the Treasury and other Project Fear lies have been fully tested as lies
but the Leave claim of funding the NHS after 2019 is yet to be checked
(although, to be cynical, lets wait and see).
Why do we have the Mutineers and such division in British society? I am inclined to blame the Broadcast Media who are suppressing news about UK-EU Trade relations, Eurogroup Union, the fact that most corporation tax avoidance is a property of the Single Market etc... The Journalists have sold out and the Chairman of the BBC during the Referendum was Rona Fairhead who was at the epicentre of the EU Tax Avoidance scandals.
@sarahwollaston
The Mutineers:
Ken Clarke
Heidi Allen
Jonathan Djanogly
Vicky Ford
Dominic Grieve
Stephen Hammond
Oliver Heald
Jeremy Lefroy
Paul Masterton
Nicky Morgan
Bob Neil
Antoinette Sandbach
Anna Soubry
Tom Tughendhat
Sarah Wollaston
18/11/2017
See Why Brexit?
and Funding of StrongerIn
and How to leave the EU
@TomTugendhat
@Anna_Soubry
@NickyMorgan01
The Mutineers:
Ken Clarke
Heidi Allen
Jonathan Djanogly
Vicky Ford
Dominic Grieve
Stephen Hammond
Oliver Heald
Jeremy Lefroy
Paul Masterton
Nicky Morgan
Bob Neil
Antoinette Sandbach
Anna Soubry
Tom Tughendhat
Sarah Wollaston
Tom Tugendhat identifies with helping the global poor, he writes that: "Research shows that trade is one of the best liberators of global poverty". If this were true then countries with a large amount of global trade relative to their GDP should be the richest. In reality it turns out that the relative amount of global trade enjoyed by countries is almost unrelated to poverty. The Research actually shows that stopping corruption and providing
education creates wealth within a country and this provides the ability to
participate in global trade. 
Global Trade does not create wealth, good government creates wealth and global trade follows on. Tugendhat believes in doing the right thing - helping the poor - but does not seem to understand that it is nowhere near as easy as global Free Trade Agreements. He also confuses Internationalism and Global Trade. See Summary of Research.Tugendhat is coy about exposing his actual beliefs on Brexit, except that he supports the Single Market (EU terminology for "Common Market") and issues the standard Banker-Multinational line of Free Trade being the saviour of the world. See Globalization - who benefits?.
Anna Soubry is the second of our mutineers. She believes in protecting the Green Belt but seems to have no idea about the rate of UK population growth and why the population is growing (See Population Growth )
She seems unaware that the predictions of Project Fear, which deal with the period 2016-2019, have not happened and now cannot happen as originally formulated. As a result she seems to still believe her statement that "Leaving the EU is a leap into the dark that would leave Britain's families worse off to the tune of £4,300 a year," even though the IMF and Treasury no longer make that claim (having dropped it a couple of months after the Referendum).
Project Fear had some hugely irresponsible predictions and Anna Soubry clearly took these on board, unlike Osborne and Cameron who thought they would win the referendum and not be caught out by their lies. The predictions were outrageous:
Apparently she has received death threats from the public for opposing Brexit. We may not like her point of view but it is appalling to threaten anyone for their political opinions. Democracy cannot survive in an atmosphere of violent threats and these must be stopped.
Nicky Morgan makes a point that "We represent not just individuals whose jobs and futures will be affected by Brexit but farmers, businesses, universities and social enterprises who, amongst many others, currently rely on EU funding." This would be a good reason for Remaining in the EU/Single Market if it were not for the fact that this funding (plus £8bn to£12bn extra per annum) originates in the UK.
Morgan is another MP who is still convinced by Project Fear, probably failing to realise that the irresponsible Treasury predictions were for catastrophe now, in the period 2016-2019, not after Brexit (see Treasury Forecast above). In a recent Financial Times article she is quoted as saying: “My concern is that people won’t say: ‘Oh, it’s OK for my household finances to be affected because I’m happy we’ve got our sovereignty back from the EU’. That’s not what the majority of people are going to be saying,”.
She then said: “I don’t want to see the City lose its pre-eminence as the best place in the world to do business.” This suggests that she neither understands the scale of UK Financial Services (Financial Service exports to the EU are under 5% of all exports) nor what the City does - she should read: The City needs the EU like a Fish needs a Bicycle for an in-depth discussion.
She supports the Common Market (Single Market) and sees this as the way forward after Brexit. She seems entirely unaware of the UK-EU Trading position and its significance. Nowhere is there any mention of the effects of the huge UK-EU Current Account and Trade Deficits that, if they are allowed to continue for a decade with continued Single Market membership would cumulatively, severely damage the UK.
Dominic Grieve is one of the most forthright of the mutineers. Grieve is another victim of the suppression of news by the Broadcast Media. He says that "..the economic policy to reduce the Public sector borrowing requirement to zero by 2020 has had to be abandoned" as a result of the referendum but shows no understanding of the fact that a continuing Balance of Payment Current Account Deficit is behind the failure of the UK to fill its coffers and be forced to continue borrowing (See UK-EU Trade Data ). The deficits are appalling and related to the Single Market, not the Referendum.
As a lawyer Grieve seems to believe that, provided the EU has a process and form of law that is approved by due process then there should not really be a problem with membership of the EU. This is the substance of his presentation to Cardiff University. He notes that devolution and Northern Ireland are easier to solve within the EU without also noting that the current "solution" is an artefact of being in the EU. Outside the EU we will simply need different solutions - see How to Leave the EU.
Most important of all, despite the fact that the preamble to the EU Treaties includes "Ever closer Union", despite the fact that the Treaties are now largely about the mechanics of the Eurozone, he says that: "The EU is primarily a treaty about creating a single market." It clearly is not! The EU is based on Treaties about creating a Union. He doesn't seem to have noticed that the Eurogroup has already achieved Fiscal Union and is pressing on to Political Union. How would he deal with an EU composed of two nations, the UK and the Eurogroup, with the latter holding 85% of the votes and no vetoes on most matters for the UK? On this he is silent. Perhaps his silence is due to the fact that the broadcast media is suppressing all mention of Eurogroup Union.
Jeremy Lefroy has spent a lot of time out in Africa and sees global trading as a liberator. This is the standard multinational corporate view and is a confusion of cause and effect: eliminate corruption and introduce the rule of law, regulated markets and education then you will have trade, some of which is global trade. Good government allows countries to have global trade but access to countries by multinationals without good government just creates more corruption etc. (See Globalisation - who benefits).
Sarah Wollaston writes a blog in which she rails against the lack of funding of the NHS. However, she does not seem to have read Simon Stevens' explanation of the funding shortfall: growing and ageing population. The IFS has pinned down 60% of increasing costs as due to population growth:
She also bemoans the lack of cash for essential health services but is unaware of the trade deficit and Twin Deficit Theory being a major cause of austerity.
Wollaston swapped sides in the Referendum because of the statement from the Tory Leave group that £350m a week would be available after Brexit, some of which would be spent on the NHS. She seems unaware of the fact that Project Fear predictions were not just wrong but hopelessly wrong and led to the irresponsible claim that Brexit would cost £2000m a week.
The Project Fear predictions:
Why do we have the Mutineers and such division in British society? I am inclined to blame the Broadcast Media who are suppressing news about UK-EU Trade relations, Eurogroup Union, the fact that most corporation tax avoidance is a property of the Single Market etc... The Journalists have sold out and the Chairman of the BBC during the Referendum was Rona Fairhead who was at the epicentre of the EU Tax Avoidance scandals.
@sarahwollaston
The Mutineers:
Ken Clarke
Heidi Allen
Jonathan Djanogly
Vicky Ford
Dominic Grieve
Stephen Hammond
Oliver Heald
Jeremy Lefroy
Paul Masterton
Nicky Morgan
Bob Neil
Antoinette Sandbach
Anna Soubry
Tom Tughendhat
Sarah Wollaston
18/11/2017
See Why Brexit?
and Funding of StrongerIn
and How to leave the EU
@TomTugendhat
@Anna_Soubry
@NickyMorgan01
Comments