#SettledStatus the liberal outcry and some home truths.

Until we actually leave the EU citizens of the EU are free to come to the UK and stay. They can live and work without restriction under the rules of free movement.

However when we leave the EU - free movement will end and thereafter EU citizens wanting to come to the UK to live and work will be subject to new rules.

Therefore there has to be a cut off point to differentiate between those that have come here under free movement rules and those that want to come subsequently.

Currently there is no registration system for EU citizens already here. As they will continue to have full rights to remain in the UK under the same conditions they presently enjoy even after we leave - it is now obviously important to know who they are.

It is clear and obvious the UK needs to establish a list so people can be differentiated from those who come after the UK has left the EU (as they will not automatically share the same benefits).

The formation of this list (of those entitled to "settled status") is set out under The EU Settlement Scheme. It will be fully open from 30th March 2019. EU citizens currently living here will be required to register their right to be here by completing a simple registration process. Their deadline to do so is by the 30th June 2021 (or 31st December 2020 if the UK leaves the EU without a deal.)

So far you would say - perfectly reasonable and understandable - in everyone's interest to form the register.

But no - the fuss it has caused!

Why?

Well - because some of our "liberal" minded lobby feel it is offensive to EU citizens to be required to register.

The narrative goes EU migrants are vital to us, they do so much good, they enhance our society - how dare we make them feel their right to be here is in question.

Examples :-

We condemn the Settled Status scheme for non-UK EU citizens as discriminatory and unnecessary; believes that people who have chosen to make their lives here under the auspices of the EU’s Freedom of Movement should be welcome to stay without any documentation or payment of a fee and should be entitled to retain the rights they currently have after the UK leaves the EU; and calls on the Government to amend the scheme accordingly without delay. 

We have a Tory government that takes any opportunity to make racist policies.

We saw it in the Windrush scandal, and we’re getting it again with their disgusting treatment of European Union (EU) nationals living in Britain.

EU nationals who want to stay in their homes, jobs, communities and with their families are now going to have to register with the state.

The registration will act as a test —based on proof of identity, length of stay and criminal record.

It is crucial that we expose and fight against this anti-migrant policy, and that we support those EU nationals that are feeling scared, angry and confused. Life under austerity is hard enough—being placed on a register is both humiliating and alarming.

Our unions, the Labour Party and all anti-racist campaigners need to take this issue seriously and work together to stop this racist policy.

Tash

Sheffield

The British government has given assurances to EU citizens living in Britain that our rights will be guaranteed after Brexit.

There is one catch—we need to apply for “settled status” and receive a kind of ID document which British citizens don’t need. If we receive the document, we will be deported to our countries of origin after the two-year Brexit transition period

Before that, those without settled status would experience the full force of the Tories’ “hostile environment”. Among other things, we would be denied health care and the right to rent property.

The British government is behaving like a thug. We have to stop that anti-migrant drive in its tracks.

We should fight together against the settled status scheme.

Jacek Szymanski

Yesterday I watched our Home Secretary Sajid Javid being questioned by members of the House of Lords EU Justice Sub-Committee on the matter of the rights of EU citizens post Brexit. It would be hard to find a better example of nauseating virtue signaling by the great and the good - of which Baroness Shackleton's was the most exaggerated.

Basically they gave Mr Javid a hard time - mainly about the "tone" of adverts commissioned by the government to publicise the registration need and process. Baroness Shackleton referred to ads as hostile and pressed the Home Secretary to concede they give an adverse and negative impression to EU migrants here of their value to us. Basically Baroness Shackleton like so many "liberals" insist migrants are here for our benefit and we should be eternally grateful to them for coming here. I think if she could have her way we would pay them for going through the simple process of registering - because they are being inconvenienced for our benefit - not theirs!

Home Secretary Javid rejected the criticism and dismissed claims that the tone of the message was hostile in any way.

He stated the Home Office and UK Government must not repeat the "Windrush generation" mistakes. Windrush was caused by successive governments not documenting arrivals from the Caribbean in the 1950's and 1960's and this led to migrant removals many years later - in error.

Javid said :-

"Whether we like it or not, when we leave the EU, whether with a  deal or no deal, at some point they would have to have proper status, so that they have no problems in the future to live, work and continue their lives here. We cannot have a situation in the future, where we aren't able to identify the cohort of 3 million plus that were here before the exit from the EU or at the end of the implementation period — if we have a deal — and new EU citizens that continue to arrive after that," Javid told the committee."  He added "that if the Home Office message to EU nationals is not clear, the government runs the risk of people feel like there is not much pressure on them and they don't have to do this. To those who criticize the advertising I say the ads contained the correct and factual message and he won't allow the scheme to fail under his watch."

I was metaphorically furious watching this playout in Parliament. I feel frustrated at the perverse criticism of the Home Secretary from the "liberals" (that pervade our society) and am equally cross with the EU migrants who are kicking up such a fuss over the need to register under the scheme.

Here are some home truths about economic migrants from the EU.

1. There is not a single EU migrant in the UK who is not here primarily for his or her own benefit.
2. Many EU migrants do good work - they contribute but that is not their primary motive for wanting to be here. Their primary motive is their needs - not the UK's.
3. The argument goes migrants create more wealth for the UK than they consume. The average UK citizen rejects that.The average citizen understands the average migrant takes out more from the system in terms of welfare benefits, school places, medical treatment etc than they could possibly pay for by the amount of taxes they pay. We also acknowledge while mass inward migration pushes up our total GDP there are more mouths to feed (to coin a phrase). Consequently our citizens are not actually better off - our per capita GDP is poor. It is also a characteristic of many eastern Europeans (particularly) to send their earnings back to their country of origin - so the UK does not benefit from their spending at all. 
4. The average UK citizen also understands uncontrolled EU migration has had a negative impact on our national infrastructure - housing provision, school places, social services etc etc. In some areas the influx of migrants have upset the balance of communities and far from being enriching is seen as damaging our culture. The UK is overcrowded - particularly the SE. It is affecting our ability to function which is one of the reasons our per capita GDP is so relatively poor.Those liberals that deny all of this do so in the face of commonsense and the real life experience of UK citizens.

UK citizens in the main are sick and tired of economic migrants being put on a pedestal by the liberal elites. I repeat - migrants are primarily here for their benefit not ours. For everyone that leaves there are thousands across the world that would give their right arm to get to the UK for all the benefits that accrue from living here.

The majority of UK citizens believe the experiment of free movement of people has been a massive negative for the UK overall and have voted to stop it. While many would like the majority of EU migrants to return to their country of origin (mainly because they feel our country is creaking under weight of numbers - and cannot cope and because many do not have the skills we actually need) they also have a sense of fair play and respect of the law. EU migrants already here are welcome to stay as long as they abide by the law. It is therefore not unreasonable for EU citizens living here and who wish to remain to be required to register. If it is too much trouble to meet the UK government half way it is hard not to feel they are welcome to go home or be removed - it should be as simple and as clear as that. It will be mainly their loss not ours. The UK will be far better off when we have a managed inward migration system - so we can determine who we need here and not the other way around - as it has been to date, to the nations detriment.

#Brexit Remainers won’t ‘get’ Brexit until they understand their caricature of Brexiteers is entirely wrong - by Tom Harris

I came across this article today. It was written by Tom Harris for Brexit Central. I have to say reading it was a bit of a eureka moment for me. Here is a man intelligent and inciteful enough to articulate an analysis of the real Brexit voter. He has got it right - he certainly has got me right.

It is loathsome to be dismissed by Remoaners as a closet racist, or as a closed minded nationalist looking backwards. It is frustrating to be dismissed as a baby boomer only interested in self when in fact all I am really interested is my offspring and their secure future. It is annoying to be dismissed as gullible - that I didn't understand what I voted for - that I was conned or too slow witted to understand the implications.

Throughout I have felt Brexiteers have been underestimated in their insight, vision and sincerity about what the future can hold and why they voted as they have.

Well done Mr Tom Harris for articulating our rationale so well.


ARTICLE BY TOM HARRIS

These past few weeks I’ve been trying to make sense of why it is our country is so divided. Why don’t Brexiteers and Remainers understand one another? You could write a book on this of course, but I suspect that at least one big aspect of this lies in the fact that the Remainers’ view of Brexiteers would generally cast them as the very opposite of what they generally are.

Are they jingoistic nationalists; intolerant racist little Englanders; tweedy rural conservatives; pensioners intent on stealing their grandchildren’s futures? No, of course not. Yet Remainers will continue to be flummoxed by Brexit until they ‘get’ that Brexiteers are, in the main liberal, tolerant, open-minded internationalists – more so than most Remainers in fact.

But, unlike Remainers, they are usually instinctively rebellious, quite radical, and, in a sense, anti-‘capitalist’. Let me explain by means of a series of statements which challenge the Remainers’ caricature of a typical Brexiteer.

1. Brexiteers are pro-immigration. They are in favour of controlled immigration for skilled people from anywhere in the world but against uncontrolled immigration from just 26 (predominantly white) European countries, regardless of qualifications. If anyone is guilty of racism surely it’s the ones who only want white Europeans to come to our country. That’s not the Brexiteers’ view. We welcome talented people with skills from all over the world who will benefit the UK in many areas of life including the NHS, science and industry.

2. Brexiteers are communitarian. Brexiteers on the whole tend to cherish familiar communities they instinctively recognise through ties of family, village, town, school, language, habit, custom, tradition and loyalty. They resent being told they are not communitarian for their resistance to being educated and conditioned into “loving” a new remote concept of Europeanism which feels artificial and top-down rather than a natural living and evolving state of affairs.

3. Brexiteers are pro-regulation. Markets and businesses work best when they operate in a framework of law and sensible regulation over which voters have some democratic control so that it works in the consumer interest. But Brexiteers oppose regulatory nannying which undermines respect for law (because it cannot be controlled through the ballot box), much of which has been introduced at the behest of industry lobbying by large corporations interested in protecting their market position and eliminating competition (the producer interest).

4. Following from this, Brexiteers are, in one sense, anti-“capitalistism” – that is to say they are hostile to oligopolistic, rent-seeking, multi-national corporatism which thrives in an unholy alliance with politicians who regulate and tax in the producer interest under the influence of industry lobbying. Why do the big banks, large outsourcing contractors, energy suppliers, motor manufacturers and pharmaceutical companies etc. love the EU so much? Because they can afford the cost of the regulations and taxes while smaller competitors can’t. The EU provides a protective comfort blanket not only by means of its Common External Tariff but also by multiple non-tariff barriers to free trade which protect the largest industry players. And EU directives can’t be controlled through the ballot box, so it doesn’t matter if the UK government changes, the taxes and laws stay the same. Brexiteers instinctively distrust green taxes, subsidised energy production, subsidised agriculture and excessive health and safety regulation because they reduce competition and increase prices for UK consumers of goods and services.

5. But Brexiteers are pro-business, entrepreneurship, enterprise, risk taking, competition and free trade. They welcome disrupters, innovators, and new technologies in banking, finance, drug research, clean energy supply and agriculture – businesses which require lower taxes and less regulation and the freedom to hire who they need. These things are the antithesis of corporatist capitalism because they increase competition, increase choice and break up multinational big business oligopolies. Corporate crony capitalism loves the EU because it serves the producer interest. Free markets and low taxes serve the consumer interest. Brexiteers are firmly aligned with the latter.

6. Brexiteers are internationalists. Not just because they welcome immigrants from the whole world but also because they want open frictionless trade with the whole world – not just 26 EU countries. Far from being little Englanders, Brexiteers are internationalist free traders – open, tolerant and welcoming of competition. By contrast the EU is a protectionist customs union. Outside the customs union there will be no Common External Tariff on imported goods from outside the EU making many essentials, like food and clothes, cheaper. Lower tariffs means lower prices.

7. Brexiteers want higher wages for low-skilled workers. Britain outside the EU will deliver higher wages for low-skilled workers because companies will no longer be able to import low-wage unskilled workers, forcing companies to pay a market price for locally-sourced labour. And if the big multinationals don’t like it, so much the better! After all, they want low-wage workers and higher-priced goods. They want more regulation to squeeze out competition from smaller companies which can’t afford to comply. They are corporate rent-seekers. That’s why they love the EU. Brexiteers want the very opposite.

8. Finally, Brexiteers are modernist progressives. Remainers frequently caricature Brexiteers as blimpish fogeys harking back to an imperial British past. But this could hardly be more misleading. Brexiteers aren’t the ones defending the status quo. On the contrary, we’re the rebels! We’re the ones saying that the model is broken and needs modernising. To understand this you’ve only got to list the organisations and people who backed Remain (either explicitly or through their actions): the TUC, the CBI, the Church of England, the Institute of Directors, the Prime Minister, the British Chambers of Commerce, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Bank of England, the London Stock Exchange, the NHS, the Labour Party, the Head of the Civil Service, multiple retired foreign office mandarins, the Liberal Democrats, the House of Lords, the Speaker of the House of Commons, the big banks and the chairmen of countless large multi-national businesses. Not to mention the BBC… That list is surely the very definition of the establishment. All of them scared stiff that the model of public governance established over 46 years and the vested interests that have grown around it – their cosy world – is being overthrown. It is! And that’s why the squealing is so loud.

Brexit will deliver a revolution in how we are governed. Like the radical liberals who defeated the Corn Laws and extended the franchise in the 19th Century, Brexiteers know that change will happen even if we can’t yet see how or when. But it will happen in a characteristically British way. Not through extra-parliamentary violence, but within the framework of a reinvigorated parliamentary democracy. We are witnessing a gradual restoration of home rule and confidence in our institutions which have been undermined for half a century. It will take time, but it’s fantastically exciting. It’s liberating. It’s invigorating. And above all it’s necessary. Whatever happens in the next few months, Brexit is unstoppable. The genie is out of the bottle. One way or another Brexit will happen.

#Brexit after the defeat of the deal in Parliament - what happens?

Brexit after the defeat of the deal in Parliament - what happens? ( I am writing this blog mainly for my own amusement/sanity - like watching some dreadful soap play out. The sad thing is while Brexit is proving so torturous and there is so much duplicity and self interest evident - the outcome is really fundamental to our futures.)

My judgement - not based on what I think should happen - but what will happen.

The fundamental question :

CAN PARLIAMENT STOP US DEFAULTING WITH A NO DEAL OR WILL THE EU CONCEDE THE DEAL NEEDS CHANGE TO BE ACCEPTABLE TO THE UK? 

Finer analysis :-

1. TM will survive the no confidence vote today. It is a sideline for Labour Party members benefit.
2. An extension of Article 50, or a second referendum would only happen if the Government fell.
3. While TM says she will consult widely across the House it is obvious she cannot concede her red lines for a BRINO type deal. There is absolutely no point in talking to the labour leadership until they acknowledge publicly you cannot be in a permanent customs union and end free movement, and be able to make our own trade deals with the rest of the world at the same time. (they are only playing self interested political games.)
4. The only chance of a deal with the EU (that will find a majority in the House) is the current deal with the removal of the Irish backstop (and the additional sweetener that half the 39 billion will be dependent on the signing of the new trade deal within the 2 year transition period.)
5. However why would the EU concede the strong upper hand they have secured when it comes to negotiating the future trade agreement?
6. The EU will NOT concede this as long as they believe there is any chance the UK Parliament/country might concede its Brexit red lines and or Brexit be reversed - ie the government might fall, or concede a second referendum, ask to extend article 50 or come back to the EU with a softer Brexit proposal (which will suit the EU).
7. No Deal is the default legal position and we will exit on no deal terms unless a deal is done. (despite Parliament trying to stop it).
8. The EU ultimately want to avoid a no deal Brexit because it will be hugely damaging to the EU and they need our money.
9. However the EU negotiators do not want to make concessions to appease the UK and their tactic (understandably) is to stone wall in order to keep the pressure on the UK.

It therefore comes down to a shoot out with the EU. Who will blink first? It will go right down to the wire. Both parties will plan for no deal and evidence they can live with it. 

Unless the UK folds (the pressure on TM will be enormous) - the EU will blink and concessions within the legally binding withdrawal agreement will be made regarding the back stop and the 39 billion). Parliament will accept it and the deal will be done. I expect this to happen.

Personally I think a clean break no deal exit will be our best outcome - especially in the medium term. We can negotiate our future from strength.

#Brexit the meaningful vote - a message to all MP's

Tomorrow is the "meaningful vote". What are MP's to do?

They need to be brutally honest with themselves and reflect on the following ?

1. Did Parliament vote with a massive democratic majority to give the people the vote on an in out EU referendum?
2. Was it not a binary choice and understood to be such by the nation?
3. Did everyone prior to the referendum vote (including MP's) accept the decision must be delivered - whatever it was?
4. Was the referendum a simple in or out question or was leave conditional on us being better off (or no worse off) economically by leaving (in MP's judgement)?
5. Did everyone understand PRIOR to the vote that leave meant regaining control of our money, laws and borders and being able to trade freely with the rest of the world - and that it was a once in a generation decision. 
6. Is it true that it was only AFTER the referendum that people (who wanted to remain) started to talk about different ways of leaving - ie soft and hard Brexit as a way of mitigating (in their opinion) or frustrating the democratic decision of the majority?
7. Did MP's vote with a massive majority of nearly 400 to trigger Article 50 ? Did they not  therefore vote to leave on 29th March 2019 with or without a deal (ie the legal default is leave with No Deal)?
8. Did both major parties make clear election pledges in their manifesto for the subsequent general election that they would uphold and honour the referendum result?
9. Did 80% of the current MP's stand and get elected on those manifestos ?

MP's you know the points above are true.
 

MP's you all know to uphold our democracy you must deliver the referendum decision. To not do so you are placing economics (in your judgement) or self interested politicking over the moral democratic imperative. Is that not true?

MP's are you preparing to vote to undermine or stop the decision to leave?

MP's have you really thought through the consequences of that to the principals of universal suffrage and democracy that hold our society together?

MP's how do you expect the winning majority to act and respond if you deny them?

#Brexit - I am reposting my 1st Brexit blog 13/5/2016

I am reposting my first Brexit blog - (written before the vote). I know why I voted. I did so in good faith believing in our democracy - it was sacrosanct. I would have accepted defeat. I respect my fellow voters. Democracy is our system. It is the thread that holds us together. Now the losers plan to rob the majority of what the majority voted for. What do they expect to happen? Our forbears gave their lives for universal suffrage. Millions died to uphold our freedom and our democracy. Now it is being trampled on. Our society will never be the same again if they get away with it. All that honourable effort will be squandered. Shame on them.

#EUreferendum reduce inward migration or economic growth - a case for Brexit

The EU referendum debate seems interminable. It is a pity we cannot have the vote tomorrow. The principal arguments are clear :-

To stay -

Our economy will suffer if we leave, (certainly in the short term) and there is uncertainty.

We will be less safe if we leave and will lose influence in the world.

To go -

We can control our borders properly and decide ourselves how many people we want to let in from the EU.

Instead of hiding in the EU we can go out and trade with the world. It will not be easy. There will be setbacks but lots of advantages will accrue in the medium and long-term from the opening up of growing markets.

The democracy argument. We re-establish the sovereignty of our own parliament. We make our own laws.

I shall be voting to leave.

Why?

I do not believe the price we are paying to achieve economic growth within the EU is worth the downside of free movement of people and I do not want to be part of an ever more federal EU because it undermines our democracy.

On the threat to our economy I would say this - money is not everything. Quality of life is much more important. Sustainability is much more important. What the UK needs is a more realistic focus on how we spend (waste) our money and to some extent how money is distributed. I am a capitalist not a socialist but I believe the mad pursuit of economic growth is shortsighted.We need consolidation. We need to do things better. We need to be more efficient. We need to be more realistic. We need to be healthier. We need to be thinking longer-term. GDP is transitory - it should not define us.

I also think that we can trade successfully in world wide markets. It will not be straightforward but there is so much to go at and we are an entrepreneurial nation. There is little to fear from taking real charge of our own future and cutting our cloth accordingly.

I do not believe we will be less safe. Why would being able to better control who comes into our country make us less safe? We will remain in NATO too. We should stop the nonsense of the UK "must punch above its weight" and would prefer us not to be taking such a prominent and interfering role as a world nominal super power as long, as we can defend ourselves.

Why is controlling our borders and bringing an end to the free movement so important? Simply because the numbers coming in are out of control and highly damaging to our way of life and our sustainable future.

Have you ever watched the London Marathon field run by. 50000 people is an incredible number - a mass of competing humanity.According to government accepted net migration figures the net number of people coming in each year is equivalent to between 5 and 6 London marathon fields each year. This is a vast number of people - all who have to live somewhere, can use the NHS for free, will be using our transport system, can call on social services, need to be policed and as many of them are children - will be taking up school places.

But it doesn't stop there. There is a massive disparity between the figures above and National Insurance numbers issued to migrants. The NI figures indicate that up to another 250000 might be coming in each year - so add another 5 marathon fields. This is the people equivalent of establishing 2 new major cities each year - another Newcastle and another Reading - each year - and there is no end to it.

The argument goes this is "good" for the country. It makes us economically more wealthy because these people are coming here to work. It also makes us culturally richer too - all that diversity from different cultures mixing in the great melting pot that we should be proud of.

The stay lobby have no coherent answer to the question "is there any limit to the number of people that the UK can take". Free movement of people is the cornerstone of the EU free market project and it will not change if we remain in the EU. They see this as an acceptable bi product of the wider economic benefit of being in the EU. They argue too that it will find its own natural level.

The reality is we are millions of net migrants away from finding a natural level. Why. Our minimum (living wage) is at least 3 times that paid in many parts of the EU. We offer top quality health care and schools for free to any migrant and their families. There is help with housing. They are accruing pension rights by paying NI. They are able to claim child benefit - and of course we speak English here - everyone's second language. The UK is a magnate and its draw is massive and will not abate unless we do something dramatic.

The South of England is the most densely populated area in Europe. Government predictions is by 2030 we will have the largest population in Europe and our land mass is tiny compared to say Germany, France or Spain. We are overcrowded now, there isn't the room. We do not have the houses or  classrooms or hospital beds or the infrastructure to cope. There is no end to the tide. Build build build to try and keep up.

The UK becomes one gridlocked urban sprawl. What is the point of economic growth if we are living like rats. It is a grim prospect for the future. We need to get out now. We need to be able to shape our own world, look after ourselves, look after our little island - be confident in ourselves - and above all democratically make our own laws - otherwise our culture and way of life will be lost in a tide of mass competing self serving humanity. The great EU project does not make sense anymore - if it ever did.

#Brexit - I am reposting my 2nd Brexit blog 19/5/2016

I am reposting my 2nd Brexit blog - (written before the vote). I know why I voted. I did so in good faith believing in our democracy - it was sacrosanct. I would have accepted defeat. I respect my fellow voters. Democracy is our system. It is the thread that holds us together. Now the losers plan to rob the majority of what the majority voted for. What do they expect to happen? Our forbears gave their lives for universal suffrage. Millions died to uphold our freedom and our democracy. Now it is being trampled on. Our society will never be the same again if they get away with it. All that honourable effort will be squandered. Shame on them.

#EUreferendum it is about more than GDP surely?

So much of the debate so far has been disputing the effect of staying or going on our economy. Personally I am prepared to except that leaving the EU will have some adverse effect on the performance of the UK economy in the short term. Those that level at the leave campaign that they cannot forecast exactly what will happen are right - it is impossible to know. At the same time as a staunch leave voter I would argue it is impossible to be sure how things are going to work out in the EU if we stay. Clearly the Euro is still in trouble and the problems with indebtedness in the southern EU countries has only been kicked into the long grass for a while. The debt problem has not been resolved by any means and still hangs like a massive black cloud over EU future prosperity.

I could also argue that a freed up UK economy will be energised and revitalised without the dead weight of EU restriction and as an entrepreneurial nation we can go out an create a good living for ourselves as a nation with confidence. In the medium and long term I have no concerns and believe we will be better off. However enough about economic matters and GDP.

My point in this blog is we should be thinking about much bigger and more significant issues when deciding to vote than the short term level of GDP. It is not all about economic performance.

I believe the big question is what sort of society do we want to live in.

It is clear to me our country is overcrowded. It is very clear the principle of free movement of people and the inward migration of people to the UK as a result, is massively and madly out of control and there is no end to it. It is clear we do not have the land, the houses, the infrastructure, the health system, the schools system or the social services system to cope. The answer is build build build - more roads, more motorways, more airports, more rail lines, more housing estates, more schools, more hospitals, more power stations, more intense farming. They will all need more people - so no problem with even more migration. At current rates of net migration the UK - particularly southern England is going to be one vast urban sprawl and the UK the most densely populated country in Europe (despite its size). This is no way to live. It is a horrible prospect for the future. Migration might be marginally making us wealthier (although there is plenty of evidence it is not - see house prices) but even if it is - it is not worth it. Inward migration is destroying our country rapidly - and there is no end to it. Weight of numbers are changing our way of life - undermining it.

We are also bound by EU laws - EU regulation. We have given up our precious and hard fought for democracy to the undemocratic EU. It is scandalous and unprincipled. The move towards a more federal Europe will definitely gain even more momentum from a UK vote to stay.

So if you want to increasingly live in an overcrowded urban jungle, where your lifestyle and traditions are swamped by migrants whose only loyalty to the UK is their economic progress and to a society who has given up its democratic principles to the EU - then vote stay.

#AndyMurray

Andy has announced today he continues to play in pain and at the very best he will retire at Wimbledon this year.

Already tributes are pouring in.

All I want to say is I have watched sport all my life. I have followed many careers.

Andy you have been outstanding. I find it hard to think of someone I admire and respect more both as a sportsman and as an individual.

I will leave it there for now.

Thank you.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/tennis/46834942

#willpower and the value of competition

The other day I watched an episode of "Trust me I'm a Doctor". This is a lifestyle programme - primarily about achieving health and fitness.

The feature I watched was about willpower and exercise. The premise was "willpower" diminishes - so if you only exercise because of the strength of your willpower (ie. you would rather not do it - but you are forcing yourself) - eventually your willpower will run out and you will stop exercising. The logical conclusion - and the one they arrived at - was find a way to exercise that does not require just willpower to make you do it - then you are more likely to continue.

This conclusion made me smile. After a life time of exercise and playing sport I have my own insight. Here are my personal thoughts :-

• On willpower. Two voices in the head. For example - one is saying you should go out for a run tonight. The other - no I don't fancy it tonight - all sorts of self excuses can come to mind - go tomorrow! I know from bitter experience there is the potential here for a lose lose situation - ie you don't do the exercise - but also you don't enjoy the evening because you know deep down you have lacked willpower and caved in. Not a good feeling. Over the years you learn there is the potential for a win win too. Do the run. Win one - it usually turns out that it was good to be out there and you have got the exercise in the bank - but win 2 - probably just as significant - you feel good because you know you were tested but found the willpower to make yourself go out. Of course this can be hard to maintain - sometimes you don't - but understanding the lose lose win win consequence and outcome usually does it for me. May be another way of referencing it is to do with self esteem - no point in cheating yourself.

• If you exercise just for exercise sake you are making it hard for yourself. Some people appear to manage to find sufficient willpower to put the effort in and exercise for purely health reasons - although I suspect many are driven by vanity - the gym thing - looking good - mirrors everywhere. Many people keep it up of course - but many people use the gym intermittently - a burst of activity in the new year but it wanes.

• I believe science can evidence exercise releases into the body chemicals that your body can find addictive. I think they might be endorphins? I am sure this is right. However I think I would say that you have to be exercising at quite a high level of intensity over a long period for this to get a real hold. I think this might be a part explanation for excessive exercise. You can see it at the local running club. Some people just cannot stop running. Like anything to excess - I think there are concerns to be reflected on here.

• One technique that works is to give yourself no option. This is why squash or organised team sport is good. You can cry off - you can pull out but it is harder to do when it involves disappointing or letting someone else down..

• Another technique I use which works when jogging - is find a route where there are no shortcuts back. For this reason I like running along the coast. It is out and back - you can't cut the corner. The out part is usually less of a mental challenge because you are not as tired and you have no option but to run home and get there. A good circuit can work well in the same way. When I was training for my marathon I did a prep run at Bramley that was 2 circuits - 10 miles and 20 miles. The sport Centre finish for the 10 miler (hot shower - cup of tea!) was the start for the 20. You can imagine the mental torture!

• The Clipper leg across the N Pacific now comes to mind. It was tough at times horrid - at times scary. Would we have ever given up - no. However it helped in practical terms there was no such option when you are thousands of miles from land! Hobsons choice - you have to keep going.

• For me the best route to a consistent exercise regime has been by finding competition and playing games - participating in sport. When you are playing rugby or football - or tennis or squash - you are not specifically thinking about the act of exercising even though you are. It is a test of willpower but not in the very narrow sense. Competing requires so much more and that so much more fills your mind and makes the function of exercising your body so much easier - it makes it a multi dimensional challenge where willpower as a consideration becomes blurred. It can make exercise fun.When you are competing in a game the competition, your opponent, the rules, tactics, the skills, ball watching , the concentration required, the result etc etc must be foremost in your mind - it is cerebral not just physical. Even better if you are part of a team. Letting yourself down is one thing - letting your team down is another level. You have to put the effort in - there is no option - so exercise becomes much easier - ha! It is not just about narrow personal willpower. You do not have time to think about how you are feeling. You do not have time or scope to be wimpy - to let the negative demons get a hold.  

So there we are - a few thoughts about how to exercise without going full frontal with will power every time you do it. But it is still not easy. Christmas has a lot to answer for. You might stop. It is hard to get going. You feel sluggish after the excesses. It becomes even harder to get going! Same every year.