Osborne’s Accountancy is VERY Creative

This is a guest post by my friend Benedict White. Unlike me, and George Osborne, he can do sums. He’s very good on twitter. Please give him a follow on @BenedictMPWhite. He also has his own excellent blog which is well worth reading.

Last week the Treasury Report was roundly panned by just about anyone who is anyone in economics, the fact checkers at the BBC and Channel 4, as well as by people like Liam Halligan at the Telegraph. The key claim in George’s rigged report was that each household would be worse off to the tune of £4300 per year by 2030. Now, let’s put to one side the fact that Osborne can’t get his sums right from month to month never mind over 14 years, and look at the claims in a little more detail. Before we do though, I’d like you to consider this nugget, Osborne himself stopped using Treasury forecasters because they were so crap. That’s why today official government economic statistics all come from the Office of Budget Responsibility.

Now, to the substance of the report. One point of contention is that the figures are based on a made up metric of GDP per household which no one uses, or rather no one has used it before, and no one is likely to use again, apart from me, in this article.

The report also assumes that we love all existing EU regulations, would ditch none and make no trade deals apart from those with the EU. This is about as likely as Jim Davidson being asked to be the turn at the Guardian Christmas do, but we’ll run with it for now.

Bear with me here please, this next bit involves sums, but unlike Boy George I can do maths without taking my shoes and socks off. According to Liam Halligan’s article we currently have 27 million households in the UK, and if we remain in the EU the treasury assumes we will have 31 million by 2030. Its £4300 per household figure is based on projected GDP in 2030. It assumes a growth rate of 36% over 15 years in the EU, and 29% out. This is where Osborne attempts to perpetuate his gigantic con on the British public:

• First, the figure £4300 is reached by dividing the projected 2030 GDP by the 27 million households we have today, not by the 31 million households the Treasury assume we will have in 2030. So, the GDP per household the Treasury figure represents is the GDP per household of the 27 million households we have now, not the GDP per household of the 31 million households the Treasury expect us to have in 2030. As we all know Boy George is lousy at maths, but even he should know that that will distort the GDP per household upwards, which if you think about it, is exactly what he wants.

• Second, if I tell you you’re going to be £4300 worse off you immediately look at your bank statement and credit cards and think “Oh ?$*#”. But this is manifestly not what the Treasury report says. Both in the EU and out of the EU we’ll be better off, but according to the dodgy assumptions from the Treasury, which I referred to above, we will be even more better off if we stay in the EU.

If you accept Osborne’s dubious figures, 36% growth if we stay in, 29% growth if we stay out, and then assume a lower growth in households (one of the main reasons for leaving is regaining control of our borders and reducing migration from the EU), and actually use the Treasury’s own figures for projected households if we stay in, the maths work out very differently.

It’s not unreasonable to assume there would be 3 million less households in the UK. The aim would be to reduce immigration to under 100 000 a year, so that would slow down the rise in the number of households considerably. The only way that that would not happen would be if, after Brexit, we opted to join the European Economic Area. Under those circumstances we would still have to allow free movement of people, but we would still have access to all EU markets, so one imagines our GDP would at the very least be no worse than it would be if we remained in the EU.

Now, back to sums, current UK GDP is £1.808 trillion. So in the EU it will rise to £2.459 trillion by 2030. If we leave, it will rise to £2.333 trillion. If we divide £2.459 trillion by 31 million households we get a GDP per household of £79,349. By contrast if we leave, we divide 2.333 trillion by 28 million households, we get a GDP per household of £83,329 or £3,980 better off out. I’m sure that isn’t the number George Osborne wants you to take from his report.

Unlike Boy George, I’m not saying my figures are accurate. As everyone knows there are no one handed economists because there always has to be another hand; and if all the economists in the world were laid end to end they still wouldn’t reach a conclusion. But these figures are at least as plausible as the Treasury’s. And again, unlike them, I’m not saying bet your country’s future on predictions that have as much basis in reality as Mystic Meg’s horoscopes. Even if we will be better off financially when we come out, the real prize is the revitalization of our democracy, the restoration of the rule of law and being in control of our own destiny once more.

EU here are some FACTS

The Perils of Remain 1

A lot has been made of the so called project fear, the way the Remainians are attempting to paint an apocalyptic picture of Britain’s future should we vote to leave the EU. I’m going to decline to play the ‘my crystal ball is better than your crystal ball game’, because the fact is no one really knows what will happen if we leave or remain. Instead I’m going to attempt to provide some of the facts people say they want. As I’m not entirely unbiased they will be facts that support the Brexit cause, but they will be FACTS not interpretations. There’s far too much of this for one blog, so hopefully I’ll add to these later.

The facts I supply in this blog will be grouped into 3 areas:

• EU expansion

• Freedom of movement of people

• Further EU Integration

• The continuing fallout from the Euro crisis

EU Expansion

There are currently five candidate countries for EU accession: Albania, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia and Turkey. Bosnia/Herzegovina and Kosovo are classified as potential candidates. On 10th December 2014, David Cameron said “I’d welcome Turkey into the EU.” Negotiations have already begun with Montenegro, Serbia and Turkey. Negotiations with Turkey are going to be ‘re-energised’ after the EU/Turkey deal in March this year and are due to resume in July. Because negotiations have already begun, I’ll restrict the facts to Serbia, Montenegro and Turkey.

Screen Shot 2016-04-24 at 17.51.06

*I couldn’t find any stats for Montenegro. An EU document I found said “Official statistical data definitely under-estimate the real influence agriculture has on employment, having in mind an estimated number of 60,000 agricultural units, which may also be an under- representation of actual holdings given questionable evidence of further farm fragmentation in the last 15 years.” The same document said “In 1991 Montenegro had a high share of small farms. 86.4% of the total number of holdings was classified as having less than 5 hectares.”

These stats demonstrate these three countries are all poor, not only compared to the UK but also to most other EU states, the only EU states to which they can be compared are countries like Romania and Bulgaria, but even Romania has a higher GDP/Capita than Turkey, £6943. By contrast the UK’s GDP per capita is £31750. Equally, all these countries are low wage economies. By the time they join the EU the UK minimum wage will be at least £9.20.

They all have large agricultural sectors and will expect to participate fully in the CAP.

Freedom of Movement of People

David Cameron won no concessions whatsoever on this issue. His only fig leaf was a restriction to in work benefits. This means any citizen from any of the five EU accession states, once they become members, has the right under EU law to come to Britain to live, to find work and to use our public services, just like any citizen from any of the current EU member states. There is absolutely nothing the UK government can do about migration from EU member states.

Further EU Integration

From its inception the EU has been about the creation of a country called Europe. The father of the European Project was a French Civil Servant called Jean Monnet, he made absolutely clear the aim of the European Economic Community as it was then, was a European Superstate.

Speaking to the US national Press Club in Washington in 1952, he made the following comments about the Schumann Plan for the creation of the European Coal and Steel Community (a forerunner of the EEC) and the Pleven Plan (which aimed for common European Defence.)

“The establishment of the European Coal and Steel Community lays the foundation for a community of federal structure, governed by common institutions, applying common rules, ensuring all the same rights and impose the same obligations at all…

The Schuman and Pleven plans mark the start of a revolution in the political, military and economic and institutional life of Europe…..

A federated Europe is essential to the security and peace of the free world.”

The text of the speech is available here: http://aei.pitt.edu/14364/1/S4.pdf

Europhiles are nothing if not consistent. In the Sunday Times of the 24th April 2016 the following article appeared. http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/plans-drawn-up-for-european-superstate-djj5pvq32?acs_cjd=true

The crux of it said:

“A document signed last September in Rome by the speakers of the national parliaments in Germany, France, Italy and Luxembourg calls for the creation of a full blown “federal union of states”.
The paper says that “concrete proposals” to deepen EU integration will be drawn up at a meeting in Luxembourg next month, raising the prospect of a new row about powers leaching to Brussels ahead of the referendum on June 23.

The joint declaration states: “We are convinced that new impetus must be given to European integration. We believe that more, not less, Europe is needed to respond to the challenges we face.” It says that deeper integration “should not be limited to the field of economic and fiscal matters, or to the internal market and to agricultural policy. It should include all matters pertaining to the European ideal — social and cultural affairs as well as foreign, security and defence policy.”

It adds: “The current moment offers an opportunity to move forward with European political integration, which could lead to a federal union of States.””

David Cameron’s ‘renegotiation’ claimed to have exempted Britain from further steps towards ‘Ever closer union.’

The Continuing Fall Out from the Euro Crisis

A brief precis of the problem is given here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-36090188

The human cost of this particular tragedy is illustrated in this table, showing youth unemployment across southern Europe. (I know France strictly isn’t Southern Europe but a combination of the Euro and socialist economics means they have extremely serious problems too.)

Screen Shot 2016-04-24 at 17.56.33

By comparison, the Youth Unemployment rate in the UK is 13.4%.
The fact is no one knows how the Euro crisis will pan out. But unless you’re a member of the European Commission or Council you can’t help but think sacrificing an entire generation on the altar of saving the Euro will not end well.
Thanks for reading, if anyone has anything they’d like clarified on any of this please leave a question in the comments section. Sorry it’s a bit boring.

How can Honourable Tory MPs Support ‘Remain’? This is a genuine question, if anyone can answer the points made in this blog, write a reply in the comments. I promise I’ll publish them.

On 10th November 2015 David Cameron laid out his goals for his renegotiation of British membership of the EU. He grouped them into four objectives. These are taken word for word from his speech.

• Objective 1: protect the single market for Britain and others outside the Eurozone. What I mean by that is a set of binding principles that guarantee fairness between Euro and non-Euro countries.
• Objective 2: write competitiveness into the DNA of the whole European Union. And this includes cutting the total burden on business.
• Objective 3: exempt Britain from an ‘ever closer union’ and bolster national parliaments. Not through warm words but through legally binding and irreversible changes.
• And objective 4: tackle abuses of the right to free movement, and enable us to control migration from the European Union, in line with our manifesto.

Objectives One and Two are typical politicians’ meaningless gobbledygook and can be finessed to mean virtually anything a skilled political operator like Cameron can want them to mean. Objective 4, is clear and here Cameron failed outright, as Frank Field a Labour supporter of Brexit and a man respected throughout politics states here, http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/02/frank-field-this-deal-is-awful-labour-supporters-should-vote-out/ There’s a great deal more to be said about the failure of the ‘renegotiation’ to wrest border control back from the EU, and the way the government is attempting to mislead the public in it’s £9.3 million propaganda leaflet and I hope I’ll blog about it in the future. But, what I want to focus on in this blog is the second sentence of Objective 3. It mentions “legally binding and irreversible changes.”

The question is, did Cameron actually achieve that. The answer is that he did not and this has profound implications for those Conservatives, particularly MPs, who are campaigning to remain in the EU on what is a false prospectus. Why is that? From the period immediately after the ‘renegotiation’ questions arose about its legality. Beginning with this article in the Independent on Sunday of February 20th. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/eu-referendum-michael-gove-david-cameron-brexit-national-security-a6886711.html Please note, it’s from the Europhile Independent, not the evil Europhobes in the Telegraph, Mail and Express. The vital two paragraphs are these:

“The IoS can reveal that the German Chancellor, Angela Merkel, warned the Prime Minister that his pledge to change the EU treaties to lock in his reforms may never happen. A leaked diplomatic report of the Brussels talks reveals that Ms Merkel told fellow EU leaders not to be overly concerned about Mr Cameron’s demand for treaty changes because “on the question of amending the Treaties, we do not know if we ever will have a change of them”. The revelation undermines a key claim of Mr Cameron’s renegotiation. 
The Prime Minister boasted that Britain would get a special exemption from ever closer union and protections for the City of London guaranteed in treaty change.”

We all know that Angela Merkel is the uncrowned Queen of Europe. We also know that Germany is its chief paymaster and in this leak to the IoS she is effectively saying that Cameron’s ‘renegotiation’ isn’t worth the paper its written on. Let’s get that straight, the most influential (by several light years) politician in Europe says Cameron’s deal is non-binding. Now, it’s just conceivable that Mrs Merkel made a mistake, but this week we have discovered that Mrs Merkel is not alone in her understanding of the non-binding nature of Cameron’s ‘deal’. The Vice President of the European parliament, one Alexander Graf von Lambsdorff announced in an interview with Euractiv, available here, http://www.euractiv.com/section/uk-europe/interview/graf-lambsdorff-eu-clearly-went-too-far-in-brexit-concessions/

“Who counts as the “the European Union” here? Member state leaders have met within the framework of the European Council, but their agreement is in no way a document of the European Union, but a text of hybrid character, which is unspecified and not legally binding…. At the moment, the whole thing is nothing more than a deal that has been hammered out down the local bazaar. The European Union, however, is a community of law, in which there are regulated responsibilities. If the British are going to put all their eggs in one basket, in a promise made like this, which has not yet complied with our clean process of law, then, for me, this process of law is more important and preferable.”

I have to say I find being lectured by a Graf (as in Zeppelin) on the Rule of Law somewhat irksome, after all we did invent it (the Rule of Law that is, not the Zeppelin). But, in fairness, he has a point. The deal is not legally binding. That requires treaty change and there has been no treaty change. It can’t be any clearer. The ‘renegotiation’ was a total failure, there is no reformed EU and we have not fundamentally altered our relationship with it. The Vice President of the EU parliament, who one imagines, is a man of some influence, says Cameron’s ‘deal’ is invalid. The EU has not actually agreed to do anything yet, and it does not have to keep a promise it never made. We are being taken for a ride by our own Prime Minister.

What are the implications of this for Conservative ‘Remainians”? The clauses of the Conservative Party Manifesto on the EU state, on p72 ”We say no to ‘ever closer union’. No to a constant flow of power to Brussels. No to unnecessary interference.” Then on p73 “we want national parliaments to work together to block unwanted legislation. And we want an end to our commitment to ‘ever closer union’ as enshrined in the Treaty to which every EU country has to sign up.”

What Graf von Lambsdorff has done is shown that with respect to the EU, the Conservative Party’s Manifesto commitments in 2015 are worthless. Every Conservative Candidate in the 2015 election stood on that Manifesto. So what? you might ask, since when do politicians keep Manifesto commitments? Well, actually they do. Manifesto Commitments are almost always kept; they just very rarely have the effect their ‘optimistic’ proponents believe. In 40 years of political experience as both an activist and academic, I can’t recall such an act of breath-taking cynicism.

It beggars belief that the Prime Minister and most of the cabinet are attempting to perpetuate such a gigantic fraud on the British electorate. Why then are more than 50% of the Conservative Parliamentary Party, and all but five cabinet ministers going along with this charade? There are three possibilities, and none of them do either the Prime Minister or the Conservative ‘Remainians’ in parliament any credit whatsoever.

The first is the Prime Minister did not expect to win an overall majority (and very few people did expect a Conservative majority government) and he consented to putting the referendum commitment into the Manifesto to grab votes from UKIP and hang on to Tory activists (like me) who might have been tempted by UKIP, had the referendum commitment not been made. The commitment could then have conveniently negotiated away during the talks leading up to a new coalition agreement. When against all the odds the Conservatives won a majority Cameron decided to dispose of the referendum as quickly as possible, accepting the tiniest fig leaf imaginable, to cover his ‘renegotiation.’

The second, is that the PM and most of the cabinet do believe the nonsense being spewed out by ‘StrongerIn’. They honestly believe Brexit really will usher in the apocalypse. I’ll be blogging on that in future, but let’s imagine for the moment Cameron, Osborne and most of the cabinet do believe what they’re saying (difficult I know). In that case promising a referendum to scupper UKIP was an act of almost criminal irresponsibility. The Prime Minister and his cabinet should have been promoting the security Britain allegedly enjoys in the EU. They should have taken the statesmanlike line; “we know the EU is unpopular but it is vital we stay in, it would be catastrophic for us to leave, so we daren’t risk the country’s future on the vicissitudes of the referendum process. We will therefore stick to our guns and insist on staying in the EU, if you don’t like that, you can always vote for the fruitcakes and loonies in UKIP.” They did not do so, instead, in his speech on 10th November Cameron said “if Britain’s concerns [in the negotiations] were to be met with a deaf ear, which I do not believe will happen…then we will have to think again about whether this European Union is right for us. As I have said before – I rule nothing out.” In fact, until the negotiations were complete, the cabinet’s position was probably best summed up in the phrase: “the Brexiteer critique of the EU is right, but let’s stay in anyway.”

The final reason why so many Conservative Cabinet Ministers and MPs are ‘Remainians’ might be out of loyalty to David Cameron. John Redwood made this point succinctly in his his diary on 13th April, when he said “Never has a cabinet risked so much to argue such an unpopular case when so few of them believe in it.” Redwood went on to suggest that the reason for this, and the support of so many backbenchers, was an extensive whipping operation, subtitling his article “The EU is the face that launches a thousand whips.” Party loyalty, even when ‘encouraged’ by the whips is a vital part of government, but it can be disastrous for the long term future of a party, for example the whipping operation over the Norwegian Debate in 1940 was successful enough to persuade 75% of Conservative MPs to vote for Chamberlain, it was not successful enough to save him, and helped tar the Conservatives with the brush of appeasement, and failure to rearm, which proved so disastrous in the General Election of 1945.

Most likely, though, a combination of all 3 factors is keeping ‘Remainians’ on side in a cause that is becoming more dishonourable by the day. We know now, thanks to Mrs Merkel and Graf Von Lambsdorff, that the government ‘renegotiation’ is a fake. We know that, it hasn’t broken the ratchet of further EU integration. All the issues that were explicitly rejected in the Conservative Manifesto of 2015, ‘ever closer union’, participation in Eurozone bailouts, an EU army and quotas for refugees are still on the table. Since then, if anything, things have become worse. The EU is promising ‘re-energised’ talks for Turkish entry to the EU, with all the implications for immigration that entails, and there will be nothing whatsoever that the UK alone can do about it, because despite the PM, deliberately misleading the House of Commons at PMQs on Wednesday 13th April in his reply to Conservative backbencher Jacob Rees Mogg, we have no control of our borders. That would be so even if we accepted the ‘renegotiation’ at face value.

The fact is the ‘renegotiation’ and Britain’s ‘special status’ that allegedly emerged from it, is not only meaningless but demeans the entire political process. It has made liars out of every candidate who stood on the Conservative Manifesto of 2015 and every activist who supported them. The only course for Conservatives now is to put loyalty to an individual, even though he’s PM, aside and instead be loyal to the people who voted for them, on what was a transparently false prospectus. As there have been no “legally binding and irreversible changes” to our relationship with the EU, that should mean ‘Remainian’ MPs resigning and fighting by-elections on the non ‘renegotiation’; or changing sides and supporting Brexit as the government has failed to deliver the promised changes. In my view, those are the only honourable alternatives.

A Pyrrhic Victory at Best

Over the past few days we’ve seen the implosion of the ‘Remain’ campaign. That doesn’t mean Leave will definitely win the referendum, only that if ‘Remain’ do still win the price they pay for victory will be so high that the reputations of the politicians and institutions involved will be too damaged to recover. But before we look at ‘Remain’s’ disastrous week, let’s remind ourselves of the context in which the referendum campaign is taking place.

The referendum was promised in the Conservative manifesto of 2015. It was a potent weapon in persuading wavering UKIP voters to back the Conservatives. If a potential Kipper said, ‘I’m thinking of voting UKIP’ a Eurosceptic Tory canvasser could say to them, ‘look, no one loathes the EU more than me, but I’m working my socks off here to make sure we get our referendum, to get us out of the EU.’ In my opinion it worked more often than not. Slightly less Eurosceptic canvassers could say, ‘we’re going to have a referendum, but only after a full renegotiation and treaty change which will see powers flowing back from Brussels to the UK. So, even if you lose your referendum, the ratchet of EU integration will be broken.’ Once again it was an effective tactic and it was backed up by what was in the manifesto of 2015. What happened was very different, Cameron asked for nothing and received less. The ratchet of European integration has not been broken, Cameron did not take back control of Employment Law as he promised. We are still not in control of our borders and a case can be made that the renegotiation actually weakened some of the protections we previously enjoyed. Most important of all, there is no treaty change and there is absolutely no guarantee that even the pathetic changes Cameron achieved will be accepted by the EU commission and parliament.

It is no wonder that even at the start of the campaign pro-Brexit Conservatives felt they had been betrayed. Cameron’s position always was if he didn’t achieve a viable renegotiation he would recommend vote leave. None of us honestly expected that to happen, but he didn’t even make an attempt to get a viable renegotiation, he cut and ran at the first opportunity. Even Lynton Crosby, the man who really won GE2015 for the Conservatives, told him he was wrong. Crosby recommended that if Cameron did not get a good deal in 2016 to put matters off until 2017, even if just to look as if he was trying. Cameron thought he could take the electorate and his party so much for granted he could not even be bothered to do that. A British Prime Minister, the heir to titans like Palmerston, Disraeli, Churchill and Thatcher, would have sat on Merkel’s lap purring in a red leotard to get any crumb he could, just so that he could sell to the British public that he had a renegotiation.

Now, to the last week. Things began with Cameron’s feeble effort in the Telegraph on Monday. In it he announced ‘Leaving the EU would be an act of economic and political self-harm.’ Conveniently forgetting that at PMQs on January 6th he had said, ‘My argument is not going to be in any way that Britain can’t succeed outside the EU. Of course we could we’re a great country.’ Given the speed social media works these days it’s impossible to get away with a gaffe like that. Within an hour of the Telegraph article appearing Vote Leave had a Photoshop of Cameron facing two ways, one face saying one thing, the other face pointing the opposite direction, saying the other, under the heading “Why is Cameron now doing Britain down?” It was all over Facebook and twitter in no time, and my tweet of it alone was retweeted 84 times and had over 8000 views. The rest of the article was similarly uninspiring with his most effective line being ‘stay in the EU if you want to keep cheap flights.’ Churchillian it wasn’t. However, the worst mistake the Remainians have made came on Wednesday night when they announced £9.3 million of taxpayers’ money would be spent on pro-EU propaganda. They (very unwisely) published this on Facebook and rapidly received over 2000 comments, virtually all of them hostile. And quite rightly so. It was an appalling act by a democratic government. Why it is so appalling is probably best summed up by Thomas Jefferson. ‘To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical.’ What the government is saying to me and everyone else who wants Brexit is, ‘your opinion is valueless, we know best, we will force you to pay for something you detest.’ It is an outrageous misuse of scarce public funds in a time of austerity. Unsurprisingly, the various Leave campaigns made hay again. Boris using it as a fund raising appeal and Leave EU producing a particularly good cartoon of Kim Jong Cameron.

But the worst blow came on Thursday when a sharp eyed researcher discovered that by spending £9.3 million on pro-EU propaganda the government was not following the CODE OF GOOD PRACTICE ON REFERENDA outlined by the Venice Commission of the Council of Europe. It states:

• Equality of opportunity must be guaranteed for the supporters and opponents of proposal being voted on
• Public authorities at every level must not engage in excessive one sided campaigning but show neutrality.

Spending £9m plus of taxpayers’ cash on propaganda for ‘Remain’ affects the perception of legitimacy; even Russia abides by the Venice Commission. Since then the action has also been condemned by the Electoral Commission, the body that regulates elections in the UK, who said, “We don’t think the government should have done it, but it’s not illegal” and warned that such use of public money could give ‘Remain’ an “unfair advantage”. These words are politically explosive.

Let’s place this action in the setting of a General Election. Imagine if in March 2010 two and half months before the General Election of that year, Gordon Brown had gone on TV and said ‘I’m going to spend £9.3 million of taxpayers’ money to persuade the electorate that it’s safer to vote Labour’. There would have been outrage, especially from the leader of the opposition, one David Cameron. It would have been said, rightly, that it’s the type of sharp electoral practice that happens in a banana republic. That is how arrogant David Cameron and his ‘Remainian’ acolytes have become. As a result, even if they win the Referendum the matter will not be closed. The unfair advantage given to ‘Remain’ has seen to that. Brexiteers will move on, and look for other ways to liberate this country from the dead hand of Brussels.

The issue of membership of the European Union has long been an open wound in British politics, especially in the Conservative Party. The referendum was an attempt to heal the wound once and for all. By throwing the might of the government machine behind one side at the expense of the other, and attempting to con the electorate with a fake renegotiation, not only has David Cameron destroyed the legitimacy of the referendum, he has used tactics of which Dr Goebbels would be proud. It means that instead of lancing a boil, Cameron has actually nurtured it. No Brexiteer will now accept a ‘Remain’ victory because it’s clear that ‘Remain’ has had the deck loaded in its favour. The bitterness against Cameron and his cronies is becoming palpable, his formerly loyal lieutenant Michael Gove has contemptuously described the £9 million EU letter as propaganda and, in under a week, the hard back version of Dan Hannan’s book Why Vote Leave has stormed to the top of the Amazon bestseller charts in Politics, while the Kindle Edition is at number 5. Paradoxically, if Cameron had wanted to help ‘Remain’, he would probably have been better advised to give the £9 million plus to Brexit. As the Hannan book shows, Brexit is in the country’s best interests. The only way the Conservative Party can come out of the referendum campaign relatively unscathed is for Brexit to win. For both country and party Conservatives everywhere should vote Brexit.