Paul lehmans email: – firstname.lastname@example.org
Brexiteers fail to mention certain facts thereby presenting a deceitful argument and it’s not surprising that they often use insulting language against Remainers. To a man a woman they often use the word “Remoaner” while in response, Remainers never call Leavers by their on-line name of “Deceivers”.
We export over £250bn annually to the EU, a hard-long grind by our sales teams against fierce EU competition, involving tens of thousands of companies and suppliers, where today, our EU export competitors, lobby their politicians to force the UK to crash out and incur crippling WTO tariffs and custom delivery delays, resulting in UK exports pricing themselves out of the market.
My question is, what kind of madness is it for our political brexiteers, on government front and back benches, to side with EU export competitors, against the interests of tens of thousands of British Firms and millions of workers? On the informed web these MPs are known as a 5th Column, supported by four national pro-brexit newspapers, who between them contributed millions of Pounds of free publicity and advertising, by way of daily one, two three, and even four-page anti-brexit spreads, a loophole in the spending limits during the referendum. Technically the referendum was not legal, because the Press breached spending laws, where in a ‘true’ democracy the Press are restricted to “achieving, fairness, objectivity and impartiality” and the four brexit newspapers acted against the principles of democracy.
With regard to travel and trade between Northern Ireland and the Republic, where at the present time transfer between the two are simply crossings, much the same as crossing from one County in England to another, or crossing from England to Wales or between England and Scotland, with no thought or consideration concerning borders of any kind and I put it to political brexiteers, how would people in England Scotland and Wales react to your introduction of the word border, replacing the word crossing. If political brexiteers are unable to grasp the resentment, be advised elements in Northern Ireland and the Republic will deeply resent your introduction of the word “border” and if implemented, however well disguised, will trigger reigniting the troubles.
Now in the matter of another one hundred percent certainty that crashing out of the EU will bring about, and that is, currency speculators, who are sharpening their knives for the brexit bonanza that crashing out of the EU will bring, where Black Wednesday will be repeated, forcing up interest rates to double figures, resulting in ‘negative equity’ in tens of thousands of homes, a social catastrophe on an unimaginable scale. When political brexiteers believe this risk is worth taking, brushing the matter aside as just a temporary short-term fall, raising the question, who do these hotheads think they represent, certainly not householders?
In respect of matters raised here or more important, why are they censored out of public debate, where given the public are given the facts, the brexiteers and their powerful Press, appear to control debate in their drive to force through brexit, regardless of the social and economic chaos that brexit will inflict upon the population.
The following is a detailed study of brexit which is rather lengthy but it’s necessary to unravel the programme in order to make a fair judgment.
When we leave the EU, there are two major threats that should concern all of us. First, reigniting the horrific IRA terrorist war, where since the Good Friday Agreement, improvement in terrorist weaponry will inflict even greater harm than before. and every effort must be made that the open Irish border remains unchanged.
Second, worldwide currency speculators repeating the financial catastrophe of Black Wednesday. Remember George Soros, only next time, there are a greater number of currency speculators sharpening their knives, for the financial bonanza that Brexit presents.
Hard-line political Brexiteers are prepared to filibuster the talks and walk away, thereby automatically setting up a hard border between Eire and Northern Ireland, which is demanded of all EU members. The UK today, operates under these rules and therefor Brexiteers know full well, that claiming there will not be a hard border on the Northern Ireland side, (as if this absolves them), is dangerous deceitfulness beyond imagination. There is no solution to the border problem other than remaining in the EU or the Customs Union.
Just the single word border or inference to the word, or a gobbledygook solution, will unleash a terrorist backlash. After two years the best brains in Britain failed to devise a solution and yet fanatical political Brexiteers refused to accept the only solution is to remain in the EU or Customs Union.
Over the past forty years, the EU has secured 60 profitable ‘advantageous’ additional export outlets and combined with the 27 EU membership tariff free trade, equals 87 export deals, worth over £200bn annually in export revenue. Posing the question, who in their right mind will voluntarily surrender 87 highly profitable trade deals? Brexiteers are delusional in believing our ‘disgruntled’ export teams, from the tens of thousands of exporting firms, can recover forty years of dedicated arduous work, in a short period of time, raising the question, are these people insane?
Eurosceptic claims that they only need to ‘copy and paste’ these 60 EU export agreements, which is utter nonsense. Not one of the 60 nations will allow the UK to just copy and paste the tough terms agreed with the might of the EU trade bloc, whereas, the UK will have to renegotiate with these nations for a fresh deal, which will not be so advantageous from a poor isolated economic and ‘desperate’ position that the UK will find itself in after Brexit.
As for our EU exports, if we incur BTO trade tariffs, we could be priced out of many markets in Europe, costing hundreds of thousands of jobs. This is an undisputed economic fact.
Brexiteers arguments and points of view, stem from a very weak position, hence their sheer desperation in producing, so called ‘solutions’, that are deceptive and ridiculous. For example, they claim that the EU export more to us than we export to them, (inferring they, the EU, have more to lose) which is total rubbish, as the remaining 27 Nations lose one export outlet, worth a fraction of their total EU exports, while we lose 27 tariff free export outlets, plus of course, 60 other export nations, worth over £200bn in export revenue.
These are the facts that political Brexiteers seek to hide from the public and twist the truth to their advantage. Deceitfulness appears to come naturally to these people. For example Brexiteers repeat the claim that “Brexit is the will of the people” which is utter poppycock. they try to imply that 65 million people voted for Brexit whereas in truth only 2% more people voted to leave, or just over one million votes, NOT 65 million. They infer that the 16 million people who voted to remain have no bearing in the matter.
It is a fact that India and China believe imports damage their economies and long put in place documented procedures and customs official practises, to obstruct imports, and after Brexit, our weakened position will allow them to demand and obtain terms that are disadvantageous to the UK.
South American trade block demand return of the Falkland’s, Australia and New Zealand, have smaller economies than London, and the USA’s ‘America First’ position is not so advantageous as Brexiteers will have us all believe. Even Gibraltar will need to come under the ‘protectorate’ of Spain, to remain in the EU and save their economy.
It’s a possibility that Scotland could become independent and join the EU, aided by generous EU grants. Also, Northern Ireland could join a Mutual Economic Pact (MEP) with their neighbour, especially if there is a record breaking rise in interest rates.
When Donald Trump announced his support for UKIP’s Brexit, the alarm bells rang out, premeditating serious economic harm that his policies will inflict upon Britain, in or out of the EU. He is aware that once we leave the EU we will be isolated and desperate to recover loss export revenues, giving him the upper hand to negotiate advantageous trade deals, detrimental to our interests.
Both Russia and Trump’s America, prefer to break up the EU, and Brexit is the first step towards fulfilling their aims. President Trump thrives on controversy and closer dependency on the USA, in preference to the EU, is not a wise choice. Also, it would not be a surprise if Russia had a few ‘Brexit’ agents working for them.
The following are some of the possibilities that will arise after we leave the EU. Should interest rates escalate to defend Sterling, thousands of families will suffer negative equity, unprecedented in modern times. Naturally food prices will increase, motorways to and from our eastern seaports will become log jammed, creating traffic chaos in many cities, obstructing supplies to supermarkets and witnessing panic-buying in many stores. it’s possible food rationing to arise. Even today, in early 2018 prices have started creeping up and as we draw closer Brexit dooms day scenario, prices for goods and services will have escalated out of control.
When we leave, the world economic order will not be as stable as it was during the referendum, especially with the election of President Trump, whose knee jerk behaviour, is not conducive to economic stability and by the time Brexit negotiations are completed, Britain will find itself isolated in a floundering world of economic chaos.
Brexiteers brush aside currency speculators, because they do not have a single answer to prevent a second Black Wednesday, posing the question, why place the country in such a high-risk position and whose interests do they serve, it’s clearly not in the public interest.
Should the Pound crash and we go cap in hand to Donald Trump, who is able to predict what terms will he demand in return, or will he wait for Sterling to crash, causing a massive rise in prices for our imports, thereby increasing the price of exports to the USA, with American First businesses reaping the rewards.
Trump harbours a festering grudge against the British public for opposing his visit and it will not be surprising if his Treasury unloads sterling during the financial crises, escalating the damage, rather than buying Sterling to save the Pound.
When the referendum result came in, it was clear that the workforce, especially in the North East, voted to keep out East European immigrants and nothing much else, and not the peculiar reasons spouted by political Brexiteers, who hijacked the result to serve their own policies, instead of supporting a policy curtailing EU immigration and remaining in the EU.
David Cameron should have returned to Brussels with the powerful Brexit/Article 50 card in his back pocket and secured a deal allowing the UK to control EU immigration and put a stop to free movement of people, until the poorer economies caught up with the most advance economies, such as the UK.
Have you noticed that Brexiteers, to a man and women, when people oppose their views, they instinctively revert to insults, which reveals a lot about them, whereas Remainers do not insult Brexiteers and argue calmly, expressing their reasons why we need to stay in the EU. They never refer to leavers as “deceivers” and refrain from use of insulting language.
For my part I believe that political Brexiteers have a hidden agenda, that are even more suspect as they now oppose people having a vote on the terms or none terms proposed when negotiations come to an end. Brexiteers claim that they want to recover making their own laws, deceitfully overlooking that we make most of our own laws anyway, and any EU laws, we do not like, our MEP’s veto them, so deceivers, remain deceivers to the end.
As for getting back ‘control’, posing the question, control of what? They also claim that it’s a mere formality to replace all the lost exports in a brief period, which is not how trade deals are negotiated and they know it, again overlooking negotiating from a desperate ‘begging bowl’ which will be an isolate position that Britain will find itself in after Brexit.
Jeremy Corbyn was a hardened Brexiteer long before UKIP was extruded from whatever orifice it was squirted out from, and Corbyn failed the workforce, who clearly voted to leave because of immigration, whereas Corbyn failed to pursue a solution for this single problem, blinded by his hardened Brexit views.
Unless he, Corbyn, changes tact, Teresa May’s task to secure a deal to remain in the Customs Union, remains in doubt. His first duty now is to demand that Brussels modifies its unbalanced freedom of movement and if satisfactory to our workforce, we will withdraw Article 50 and return to sanity.
The EU has a major economic flaw with advance and less advance economies, where free movement of citizens allows ‘cheap labour’ to emigrate to the more advanced economies and cause havoc on wage structures and freeze wage rises, and overburden social services, which must be corrected, until such time in the future when all the economies in the EU are more evenly balanced.
Perhaps the more serious cross-party MP’s will form a body to go to Brussels and secure an immigration deal, allowing the UK to prevent free movement of workers, other than people with ‘approved’ work contracts and prevent employers recruiting cheap labour, especially from Eastern Europe, returning with a programme that our workforce will agree and enable the government to withdraw Article 50. Should this occur then and only then, will we get out of this mess we find ourselves in and avoid economic and social chaos.
W E L C O M E
Political Reform Party (PRP)
SAMPLE ELECTION MANIFESTO
1 Proportional representation and the abolition of safe seats. (see policy details)
2 Merging the 600+ constituencies into 300 constituencies, with two representatives elected for lower and upper house and a third deputy MP who remains in his or her constituency to manage constituency complaints and pass the same to MPs and respective committee.
3 Abolishing the House of Lords, replacing it with an upper house of 300 elected members.
4 All 600 lower and upper house MPs will serve on powerful legally backed PCs, replacing unelected, wasteful and expensive quangos.
5 Setting up 10 or more regional authorities (RAs), replacing local and county councils. RAs will take over health and education authorities, police and transport, plus attract business and industry.
6 Parliamentary election held every four years for both houses, with a two-year separation.
7 Introduction of American-style antitrust laws, to phase out all cartels and monopolies and bring in US-style low competitive prices for all goods and services.
8 Introducing fully funded national innovation and business institutions into every RA, with sufficient funds for boards to exploit the best of their projects.
9 Introduction of national emergency tax (NET) for all major business concerns, whereby all trading incomes are subject to NET. note: also, tax avoidance advantage to H M Treasury.
10 Build prisons and introduce a special police force to rid the nation of street crime, including muggings, car theft and burglary.
Paul Lehmans (founder)
The electorate here in the UK and USA have lost faith in politics and are searching for answers preferring any politics other than established politicians or their parties.
PRP has been floating in the wilderness of cyberspace for some years, generally updated from time to time, waiting for the inevitable change when long time established political parties become totally self -serving and blind to the general resentment of the public.
Our policies and measures are of the kind that will appeal to the householder and consumer, with serving politicians rejecting the very idea of the kind of workload and lack of privileges, set out for the modern politicians. . . . . . . . . . . .
PRP’s policies will drag politics out of the 19th century and into the 21st century, starting with Westminster, by introducing modern business-like practices, revamping both houses and, in effect, sweeping the money-changers out of Westminster.
The introduction of American-style antitrust laws, to rid the nation of the high-pricing practices of cartels and monopolies which have grown at an alarming rate, under both Labour and Tory governments, will greatly reduce prices across the board, much the same as Aldi and Lidl which forced the leading group of supermarkets to reduce their prices, regretfully not yet as competitive as Aldi and Lidl.
Another prominent policy is national emergency tax or NET, whereby incoming revenues for all businesses are subject to NET, in a similar fashion as VAT for purchasers. This will not only raise money for the treasury, but will, incidentally, also reduce tax-avoidance benefits. The NET rate is estimated to be 1–5% possibly 5% and fixed by parliament. Had the recent colossal Apple sales for mobile phones been subject to NET, a windfall benefit for treasury coffers would have occurred. For example, Google expect future sales in UK to reach £5bn and a 5% NET = £250m. Also, when prices fall, NET liabilities are reduced. This is a tax at source, thereby avoiding a measure of profit-massaging.
Perhaps of greater interest to consumers and householders are abolishing quangos and introducing powerful legally empowered parliamentary committees (PCs), with powers to legally obtain evidence and documents from bodies or people, called to give account to parliament for their behaviour.
For example, when oil prices increase, the energy firms immediately raise prices, but, when oil prices fall, there is a year or two’s delay in reducing prices. If it is true that energy firms buy their oil a year or two in advance, then price increases should wait a year or so, yet nothing in the press or media seems to highlight this anomaly. Perhaps it is the heavy advertising budgets of these oil companies which have a bearing on soft treatment.
Other corporations and companies with non-competitive cartel and monopoly-type profiteering will not want to be subject to PC probing.
Every constituency should organise itself into PRP constituency committees (PRPCCs) and find suitable candidates to serve voter-consumers and householders in the constituency, by utilising the power of the Internet. Had PRP already established itself today, the following manifesto would be a sample of what voters could expect.
If politicians ever listened to what voters want, they would draw up election manifestos something like the following – and you can be certain that none of these policies will ever appear on the established political party manifestos. They clearly have a different agenda from what voter-consumers and householders want.
Political Reform Party (PRP) proposes a radical change for British politics and introduces policies which are voter-consumer friendly, rather than supplier-big business friendly, which Labour and Conservative governments have supported over past generations. Reference to the recent Royal Mail privatisation clearly demonstrates this, when no party leader spoke out against excluding householders or voter-consumers from buying shares and allowing city institutes (big business/suppliers) exclusivity, other than a small (bribe) share for postal employees, reaping rich rewards for city pals.
Big business and city institutions, many of which avoid taxes, command very few votes, whereas voter-consumers command most votes and yet we elect political parties which favour suppliers over consumers. This stark reality must be corrected, before society and the nation are torn apart and widespread apathy allows the status quo to continue, without any opposition.
Cartels and monopolies which ruin the economy and force up prices. For example, antitrust laws will compel the leading group of supermarkets to compete with competitive rival businesses, such as Aldi and Lidl. The same applies to the big six energy companies, where excessive cartel Briefly, we propose introducing American-style antitrust laws, to rid the nation of its many and monopoly-type profiteering flourishes.
Aldi and Lidl conduct their businesses under German-style antitrust laws, similar to those of the US – and their shopping-basket prices reflect the difference.
Also, antitrust laws will make it illegal for all other groups of businesses to operate a cartel or monopoly and will greatly reduce fees, charges and prices across an entire range of trading companies, including finance. Naturally, Labour and the Conservatives oppose the very idea of antitrust legislation, because they have both allowed cartels and monopolies to spread unopposed throughout the land. A politically appointed unelected toothless quango, replacing elected MPs, rather than MPs taking responsibility, is not what the public expects, whereas a PRP government will take an active part in such matters and abolish jobs-for-the-boy’s quangos.
We will outlaw ‘confusion’ prices and charges levied by so many businesses, compelling these companies to provide a no-nonsense single price structure – for example, all domestic energy providers will issue only a single price structure for all customers, while changing suppliers will be simplified, as, indeed, with many other firms, including financial businesses.
When profit-on-turnover (POT) figures reveal excessive profiteering, compared with similar businesses here and abroad, the likelihood is that a cartel or monopoly price-fixing is involved, especially when massaged accounts divert excess profits into subsidiary companies here and overseas. Strange how politicians never mention POT figures, when supposedly condemning high-profiteering companies. Britain’s rip-off reputation is not accidental.
When cartels and monopolies are phased out and eventually abolished, only fiercely competitive businesses will survive and flourish, as witnessed over the years in Germany and the USA.
We will introduce a national emergency tax (NET) – a similar version of VAT, but a tax on trade-till revenues and other income, which will apply to all big businesses. For example, large supermarkets will incur NET, which cannot be passed onto customers – and lower prices will incur lower NET, a form of catch-all tax, before accountancy massaging of profits, such as diverting money to subsidiaries or overseas. NET percentage (yet to be decided), to a degree, will combat all kinds of tax-avoidance schemes, since it taxes at source – and big businesses will strongly oppose this form of catch-all tax. Consumers will also benefit, as lower prices reduce NET.
For example, companies such as Google who expect to earn £5bn in the coming year will pay £2.5bn at 5% NET note: – over ten years the treasury will receive £25bn and not the £130m.
We will reform the House of Commons and drag politics into the 21st century by greatly reducing the members in both houses, operating on a 9am–5pm, five-day week, with all members supplied with contracts of employment and employment duties, laying out working conditions for all candidates applying for the job of MP. This will attract the kind of people who want to serve the nation, rather than, as under the present system, serve themselves. No more bickering or fiddling.
We will introduce 10 or more regional authorities (RAs) and transfer the bulk of Whitehall duties to the RAs, including health, education, law and order, with the RAs programmed to attract industries and businesses into their respective region, while scrapping all not-fit-for-purpose ministries and departments.
The present dissatisfaction with our political system will continue to split whole sections of society apart – and the public simply turns its back on politics.
Under PRP, reducing prices will start from the top, where fiercely competitive businesses will no longer be able to pay themselves phenomenal salaries, expenses, bonuses and private jets as demonstrated by Tesco’s senior executives.
Naturally, every constituency through the land will need people to come forward and form their own constituency organisation, under the PRP banner, and start the ball rolling, where, eventually, we will sweep the money-changers out of Westminster.
Paul Lehmans (founder)
Thanks for joining me!
Good company in a journey makes the way seem shorter. — Izaak Walton