Beware Brexit Sirens

Philip Hammond’s third way compromise, a sort of living dead between in and out, won praise from Liberal Democrats and the BBC so we should be suspicious.  Supported by a barrage of business voices forecasting economic disaster if Britain falls off the EU’s cosy regulatory cliff, we are being brainwashed into thinking that growth of the economy is everything and that everything should be put aside in pursuit of that last decimal point of prosperity progression.  I would make 3 points:

• Firstly, what is the point of economic growth if, in the process of chasing numbers, we allow the balance of our society to change and we lose our national identity?  Remember, another 3 years of the current levels of immigration will generate the requirement for 1.5 new Birminghams (see previous posts).   What chance of meeting affordable housebuilding targets then?
• Secondly, it is disgraceful that we should be so dependent upon immigration to fill basic skills.  What has gone wrong with our education and training system that we cannot rely upon it to fulfil our national economic needs?  We need to remember that the purpose education, primarily, is to replenish our stock of knowledge and ensure that society has the skills it will require in the future.
• Finally, this country will continue to lag in the global race until the problem of our lamentable productivity is addressed.  In, out, or in the middle, increased productivity is the key to our national survival.

More Cock and Bull from the BBC

I do not know whether chlorine-washed chicken, banned by the EU since 1997, is unsafe to eat but I am prepared to give US regulators and consumers the benefit of the doubt. I listened to a chap on Radio 4’s Today programme on Wednesday, desperately attempting to defend UK and EU chicken farming standards.  Despite a very friendly interview by Nick Robinson, he was not in the least convincing and his five minutes of waffle amounted to nothing more than a defence of a good old non-tariff barrier to trade of which the EU seems to be so fond.  But smelling Tory blood, the BBC went further and pursued the animal welfare route.  To make their case, they visited a Southern Counties agricultural show to ask a few loaded questions about cruelty to animals versus the price of a chicken.  Of course, they got the answers they wanted – slam-dunk case proved – if you want to be virtuous about animal welfare (and who would not be) then you must be against chlorine washed chicken.  If you are against chlorine-washed chicken (who could possibly defend this shamefully lazy safety measure) then you must be for the EU!

There have been previous attempts to be virtuous about chicken farming.  Notably Jamie Oliver, in 2008, attempted to persuade people not to eat battery-reared chickens because of the appalling conditions in which these birds lived.  By the way, at the time, British battery chickens were kept in less cramped conditions than EU birds.  Oliver hoped to persuade supermarkets to sell more free range and organic birds.  I have no empirical evidence to show but, looking at the shelves in Aldi and Lidl, he failed to convince the buying public.  Of course, the BBC had no interest in balancing its coverage by pointing out that the price of food is very important to some people.

Meantime, the BBC went after Michael Gove asking whether we would pursue a trade deal with the US at any (animal welfare) cost.  Liam Fox was similarly discomfited in the US.  All of this was gleefully swept up in the Times today under the headline “Cabinet is split as Gove vows to ban US chicken.”

The only grain of common-sense that I saw reported was from Andrew Bridgen who said, “we are talking about a free-trade deal with the largest country in the world – the issue of chlorinated chicken is a sideshow.” Quite!

Through all this, the motives of the BBC are disgracefully transparent.  The Corporation is institutionally against leaving the EU and seems incapable of balanced reporting on the subject.  Their strategy, it appears, is to pursue a relentless drip of stories and tittle-tattle designed to undermine the public’s faith in Referendum decision and foment opposition to the Government’s exit strategy and negotiations.

Shame on you BBC but, on the other hand, where is the Governments robust and coherent response?

And whilst we are about animal welfare, why hasn’t the debate been widened to include some of the disgustingly cruel practices recently reported in Halal (literally “permissible” to Muslims) butchery?

Shocking New Evidence of Confusion Following Brexit

Just happened to get lucky with the shutter yesterday at RAF Cranwell!

Matthew Parris - Change the Record Please

It was nice to read, last week in the Spectator, that Hugo Rifkind will no longer be infuriating us with his incoherent streams of consciousness (although I notice we shall still have to suffer him in The Times).  Not so with the bitter Matthew Parris who really should change his record (“Dear Leavebugs, it’s time to admit your mistake,” Spectator 22 Jul 17). When he does flip to the other side, he will recognise that his argument is based upon the tiresome non sequitur that freeing ourselves from the tyranny of the EU is not worth the risk of some economic sacrifice.  True, nobody wants to be poorer but some things are worth paying for!  Also, if he really does seek to introduce the EU democratic device of forcing voters to keep voting until they get it right, then, in the interests of balance, he might care to introduce the odd argument, social or economic, for sticking with the sinking ship?