At the end of last year, the Global Competitiveness Report ranked the UK as the eighth most competitive country in the world, praising its ‘very well-functioning markets, a top innovation ecosystem and vibrant business dynamism’.

However, the top-performing countries in the 2018 study by the World Economic Forum were dominated by non-EU countries including the United States, Singapore, Switzerland and Japan.

Despite this, politicians, businesses and the media appear to cling on to our ties to Europe. Leaving without a deal with Europe has been brandished as the height of irresponsibility, falling off the cliff edge and other such fearsome but conjectural words. Yet in reality 98 per cent of world trade occurs within the World Trade Organisation (WTO). The UK is a member of this global platform.

For my companies the horizons have always stretched far beyond continental Europe. Corrocoat, for instance, exports 68% of its anti-corrosion products globally and less than 10% of that goes to Europe, whilst Glassflake exports over 80% of its output with only circa 7% to Europe. We have operations in some of the most exciting, fastest-growing places in the world such as South Africa, Indonesia, Thailand, Malaysia, China and the United States.

The EU has stifled growth with its rules and regulations, reduced appetite for competition and hindered the sort of innovation and entrepreneurship that has made both our sister companies Corrocoat and Glassflake success stories.

Companies do need to prepare for a WTO exit, but the myths around a no-deal scenario and fear of the unknown have wrongly led us to believe that vital sectors in our economy are at risk.

In actual fact, departing on WTO terms will act as a catalyst for businesses to become more competitive and more innovative. Gerard Lyons, a leading British economist, has argued that stifling EU regulation has made UK exporters less competitive and less productive in global markets whilst also doing little to increase wages. Only once the UK is open to trade with the world can we reverse this trend.

The IMF estimates that 90 per cent of global growth in the next 10 to 15 years is likely to come from outside the EU. If the UK goes back to bulldog Britain instead of the pussycat Britain it has become under the EU, it can be part of this global success story. We should embrace such an opportunity instead of listening to the hearsay and doom-mongering.

The post Leaving the EU on WTO terms will make our businesses more competitive and innovative appeared first on BrexitCentral.

This is a momentous year in the history of the United Kingdom. The voices of 17.4 million voters who took part in the biggest act of democracy in our history will finally have been heard and in the decades to come, history books will pronounce 2019 as the year that the UK once again became a proud, independent nation.

And it won’t be forgotten that it was the Conservative Party that gave people a chance to give their verdict on the EU in the 2016 referendum, and which entrusted the people with such a momentous decision about our constitution and destiny.

Of course, as we approach the pivotal moment of 29th March when we leave the EU, we are once again being force-fed a diet of doom, gloom and despondency from those who wish the result had turned out differently.

But we must remember that these people have a democratic right to propel these arguments, just as 17.4 million voters had a right to rubbish their claims during the referendum – which they did, resoundingly.

And it turns out that they were absolutely right to do so. This really is a time for hope and optimism, not despair and fear. Since 2016, in spite of dire predictions made during the campaign, we’ve seen a tax windfall, the fastest growth in wages in almost a decade, record employment levels and steady economic growth. Our future has never looked brighter.

If we had have chosen to leave some sort of Utopia, I would understand people’s concerns. But the EU is no Utopia and if it were, voters would have had the wisdom to recognise this during the referendum.

In Italy, months of uncertainty and inconclusive elections have resulted in two populist parties – the anti-establishment Five Star Movement and right-wing League – forming a coalition.

Germany’s far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) entered the federal parliament for the first time last year. As with Italy’s League, it is an anti-euro party and it has strong anti-immigration policies. In 2017, next door in Austria, the Freedom Party (FPÖ) become a junior partner in coalition with the Conservatives and talk of banning headscarves for girls under 10 in schools and seizing migrants’ phones is now a part of mainstream Austrian politics.

In April last year, Viktor Orban secured a third term in office in Hungary with a landslide victory in an election dominated by debates about immigration. Orban once warned of the threat of “a Europe with a mixed population and no sense of identity” – comments unheard of in the UK political context.

The Slovenian Democratic Party (SDS) was the largest party in last year’s general election in Slovenia. Its party leader, Janez Jansa, formed an alliance with Mr Orban in opposing migrant quotas, Poland has also condemned the EU’s handling of the migrant crisis and in Denmark, the police are now allowed to seize migrants’ property to pay for their upkeep and has pledged to boost contraception aid to developing countries to “limit the migration pressure”.

And of course we’ve seen the distressing scenes in France. Weeks of street protests have erupted into a full-on anti-government movement leading to the worst violence in central Paris in a decade.

The EU is not the land of milk and honey many would have you believe. The tide is turning against the EU and the way it does business in scores of EU countries and our friends on the continent are being forced to make their voices heard through the prism of extreme political parties.

Turning to the economy, around 90 per cent of global economic growth will come from outside the EU over the coming years and the EU now accounts for less than half of our overall trade.

The EU’s economic clout is also falling, with its share of the global economy almost halving over the last 30 years. That’s why people voted to Leave so that we could take back control of our trade and regulatory policy and strike trade deals with the emerging powerhouses of the world economy.

And for every unemployed Brit, there are two people unemployed in the euro area. Unemployment is five times higher in Greece, almost four times higher in Spain, double in France and between 17-19 per cent in much of the south of Italy.

As much as my opponents like to whip up a fevered frenzy about Armageddon scenarios, cliff edges and crash outs, the truth is that we are doing well in the UK. We are also lucky to have had a chance to register our discontent in a referendum, and fortunate to be having such a thorough, engaging and relatively peaceful debate about what our post-Brexit future should look like.

We haven’t seen a rise of extremist parties in the UK, nor have we seen riots on our streets. We have simply concluded that the EU is not capable of change and that it doesn’t have our best interests at heart and we’ve done all this without making extreme political choices.

But we must be careful to ensure that we keep our debate within the political mainstream. Many people who voted in 2016 did so for the first time in their lives and there would be disastrous, political consequences if we decided to ignore or reverse the result.

The British people have boldly trodden where no other EU country has yet dared to tread and we are leading in Europe, as we always have done.

Let’s hold our heads up high and show how you can be a proud European nation without belonging to the institutions of the European Union. And let’s lead our friends and allies into the 2020s as we forge a strong, peaceful and prosperous path together.

The post The EU is no land of milk and honey – let’s be optimistic about our future as an independent nation appeared first on BrexitCentral.

The below is an extract from Economists for Free Trade’s new report, No Deal is the Best Deal for Britain

Leaving the European Union without a Withdrawal Agreement under Article 50 is not a step into a legal vacuum. Still less does it amount to going over any kind of “cliff edge”.

What happens is that our international trade with the European Union will become subject to the same legal regime which currently governs the majority of our export trade to the rest of the world. That is trade under the World Trade Organisation rules-based system.

The three key elements of the WTO system that will affect our post-Brexit trade with the EU are its rules on tariffs, its rules on non-tariff regulatory barriers to trade and its rules on the facilitation of customs procedures.

The WTO’s rules on tariffs allow members to charge tariffs on imported goods up to certain limits, but, subject to limited exceptions, any tariffs must be imposed equally on goods from all countries – the so-called Most Favoured Nation (MFN) principle. The EU will therefore impose its standard external tariffs on goods imported from the UK, unless and until a future free trade agreement or interim agreement leading to an FTA is agreed.

This is not a big deal. These tariffs will come to £5-6 billion per year, less than half the UK’s current net budget contribution to the EU.

The UK will be obliged to charge the same level of tariffs on imports from the EU as it does on imports from the rest of the world. But, contrary to much ill-informed comment, the UK is not required to charge the same tariffs on its imports as it currently charges under the EU-mandated Common External Tariff. We will be free to charge lower tariffs, or zero tariffs, as we judge appropriate, so lowering the cost of basics in household budgets.

The WTO agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade will require the EU to recognise UK-based goods certification procedures and allow entry to the EU Single Market for UK goods which comply with UK rules until such time as they are changed to become different from the EU’s rules. At the same time, the Withdrawal Act mandates that the UK shall continue to recognise EU rules and EU certifications on goods unless and until this is changed by secondary legislation. This means for example that medicines made in the EU will continue to be recognised as conforming to the UK’s import rules and arguments that there will be shortages are pure mythology.

The WTO Trade Facilitation Agreement will apply to smooth customs procedures between the UK and the EU. It mandates for example electronic pre-clearance of imported goods, avoiding the need for physical inspections at the point of entry except in exceptional circumstances.

In an ideal world, we would progress forward to a full Free Trade Agreement with the EU. But there is no need to rush it – our trade relations with the EU will operate just fine under WTO rules for as long as necessary.

The post Leaving the EU with No Deal is not a step into a legal vacuum appeared first on BrexitCentral.

If you believed the headlines in the last six months, you would be forgiven for thinking that you would be unable to book a city break in Europe or visit loved ones abroad after the UK leaves the European Union. Apparently, planes will not be allowed to fly or – even worse – land on 30th March if we leave without a Withdrawal Agreement.

We are told this is because we are led to believe the UK does not have the right deals in place, because pilot licences will no longer be valid, British aviation companies will have relocated to Paris and we can’t import enough Mars bars to feed the crew on long-haul flights.

As Chief Executive Officer of a global aviation technology company, I can reassure you that this is not the reality. The UK’s world class aviation industry is not going to sit on its hands after Brexit, let down millions of our customers or allow businesses to go bust.

Many of my colleagues and clients have made the same point. Willie Walsh and Johan Lundgren, the chief executives of British Airways and EasyJet respectively, have both dismissed the prospect of there being no flights between the UK and Europe. Meanwhile the Civil Aviation Authority has branded a Sky News report which suggested as many as 35,000 pilots would need to renew their licences as ‘misleading’, reminding us that the UK is a signatory to the International Civil Aviation Organisation Chicago Convention.

And yet, these stories portray Britain as afraid to stand on its own two feet, begging our European counterparts to allow our planes to land and to renew our licences.

Contrary to these myths, such headlines actually reflect the defeatism that underpins the draft Withdrawal Agreement, certainly not the optimism and resilience of our country and industry.

Since forming Vistair almost two decades ago, we have striven to become a global, innovative business that meets the challenges and opportunities offered by the UK and the world.

I believe that by disengaging ourselves from the restraints and bureaucracy of the EU, these opportunities will multiply. For that to happen, we need a real Brexit: one in which we can strike Free Trade Agreements with the biggest and fastest-growing countries (hint: they are not in Europe), we can compete in our rightful place in the global economy and we can channel the innovation that is shown every year at the Farnborough Air Show.

Rather than letting ourselves be backed into a corner, afraid of the opportunities that a global trading platform like the World Trade Organisation presents, the UK needs to once again become the independent, entrepreneurial trading nation that 17.4 million people voted to see.

The post Brexit can only take off on world trade terms appeared first on BrexitCentral.

When the World Trade Organisation approved the UK’s future membership of the Government Procurement Agreement (GPA), it was barely noticed in Westminster. Yet this piece of good news has significant repercussions for the UK defence industry, particularly those involved in competitions for contracts such as the one for the Royal Navy’s supply vessels, the Fleet Solid Support (FSS) ships.

GPA’s requirement for international tender for government contracts permits a general exemption for defence. This means that the Government can choose to retain defence contracts in the UK’s strategic defence industry if it so chooses. Our allies from the US to Japan and New Zealand all use this facility to the full.

By contrast, the EU Defence Procurement Directive imposes cross-border tendering and provides a tiny exemption for only the most sensitive defence contracts in which provable risks to national security can’t be mitigated by EU protocols – an exemption very often misunderstood and misapplied in Westminster. Stepping out of the EU directive and into GPA would also means that contracts may be awarded with an eye on the retention of jobs, skills and the creation of local economic benefit – none of which are allowable under EU rules.

As the UK Government is the biggest defence purchaser in Europe, this right to exclusivity in defence contracts would be a significant win for UK industry, which needs overall reassurance that it will not be endangered in the future by the Government signing up to the long-term obligations in the EU’s damaging defence procurement directive; removing exclusivity rights for UK companies in UK defence contracts would be a significant blow.

For example, under GPA, the FSS ship contract could be done as a UK-only process, using not only British shipyards and suppliers, but British steel too: welcome news for the remaining British steelyards – a crucial message for shipyards such as those at Appledore and Liverpool.

In a recent report on this subject I and others called on the Government to scrap its proposal to tie the UK to the EU’s new ‘defence architecture’ – including defence policy and central budgets – of which the directive is one of the requirements of attachment. Being a part of the EU directive after leaving the EU stands in real danger of costing the UK innumerable jobs and essential expertise; such UK attachment in defence might well be seen as a sweetener to the rest of the exit deal, but putting control of defence policy and defence industrial policy on the negotiating table without grasping the consequences is dangerous.

The following points outline the scale of the problem, but also provide a way forward for Parliament and those involved in the policy process in Westminster who need a comprehensive understanding of the risk to UK industry from continued attachment to the EU Defence Procurement Directive if we are to ensure we leave it in full.

1. EU Defence integration is accelerating during the process of Brexit. The Government’s current withdrawal proposals actually cement UK involvement, despite consent having been provided on the basis that the UK was leaving.

2. NATO now faces a threat of the EU developing a fully separate military identity and doctrine – a dangerous ambition with far less effective resources.

3. Defence procurement integration is closely and directly associated to the generation of Common EU Defence Policy, structures and budgets. A real danger exists that the MoD is signing up to technical and industrial cooperation without fully appreciating the long-term ambitions, direction of travel, and consequences – a mistake the MoD and the FCO have made numerous times since 1998.

4. Within this wider context, there is a risk that the MoD gradually affiliates to a Single Market in Defence by the back door, which carries considerable political, economic and even social baggage.

5. Core to the process of EU Permanent Structured Cooperation (PESCO) is a central strategic role for the European Defence Agency. This expands on its original role as a procurement hub, but which has already been widening over the last few years.

6. The UK should aim to have a minimalist structural level of engagement with EU Defence after Brexit. This should include observers in the European Defence Agency to identify cooperative work of some mutual interest – which can then be better pursued multilaterally.

7. Helpfully, Item 18 of Annex II of the Council of Ministers agreement establishing PESCO names the multinational non-EU body OCCAR as “the preferred collaborative programme managing organization.” This direction needs to be locked in.

8. The UK should apply the British Army’s Principles of Logistics – Foresight, Economy, Simplicity, Co-operation and Flexibility. These reveal that UK engagement with future European procurement programmes must be entered into on a case-by- case basis; and we must not find ourselves tied into recent developments by default, wishful thinking or ignorance of what is happening.

9. The UK’s position and options would be enhanced by leaving the EU Defence Procurement Directive and stepping into World Trade rules which offer a broad defence exemption under government procurement rules.

10. EU Defence Procurement is currently a potential weak point in UK Brexit planning. But it is readily redeemable.

The post Theresa May’s Brexit deal poses a risk to the UK defence industry appeared first on BrexitCentral.

Home Secretary Sajid Javid kicked off today’s debate…

Mark Francois intervened regarding the Northern Ireland backstop arrangement…

Shadow Home Secretary followed…

And Sir Bernard Jenkin MP followed with his speech…

Mark Francois says the political declaration is the equivalent to ‘I promise to respect you in the morning’

Andrew Rosindell says our membership of the EU was ‘not to be’

Anne-Marie Trevelyan calls the Withdrawal Agreement ‘unacceptable’

 

The post Highlights from the Meaningful Vote Debate II – Day Three appeared first on BrexitCentral.

Just as we thought the orchestrated fog of confusion around the Withdrawal Agreement was about to lift, there were reports that Theresa May might even postpone the meaningful vote again while she seeks “reassurance” from the EU about the Northern Ireland backstop.

Whatever fudge is cooked up in Brussels to try to bolster support for her “deal”, it is very unlikely that the EU will delete the backstop. Why? Because it is a crucial element of the Withdrawal Agreement’s “triple lock” structure designed to stop Brexit. “Withdrawal Agreement” is an Orwellian misnomer, of course. This agreement keeps Britain in chains.

Voters may believe we need it in order to leave the EU. We do not. They could be fooled by the Prime Minister’s repeated claims that there might be “no Brexit” unless it is passed – when of course Brexit will happen by default without it under the terms of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act. Voters might also be forgiven for believing that the Withdrawal Agreement settles our future trade relationship with the EU. Not in the slightest. Future trade talks remain just that – in the future – while May’s “deal” keeps the UK legally shackled to a moribund EU economy which it must attempt to revive with vast sums of British taxpayers’ money for an indeterminate number of years.

Project Fear has been in overdrive since the Withdrawal Agreement was published, with spin, misrepresentation and blatant untruths deployed to sell it to a rightly suspicious nation. But once people open the Withdrawal Agreement tin, they seem more inclined to spit out its contents than swallow them whole. It’s rather like buying a can labelled “tomato soup” and finding it contains a concoction of deadly nightshade.

But credit where it’s due: EU officials (ably abetted by their British allies) have produced a devilishly clever draft treaty which, if passed, would end Brexit and get Britain ready to board the express train to a United States of Europe. The political takeover of the UK represented by the Withdrawal Agreement is an audacious attempt to reverse a damning popular vote of discontent with the European Project and provide fresh impetus for the federal superstate that is the EU’s raison d’être.

The EU’s triple lock guarantee is so constructed that never again will Brussels be troubled by an explosion of democracy in the United Kingdom. Parliament has one last chance to escape total eclipse – and it is now, by rejecting the Withdrawal Agreement in its entirety.

The first lock: the transition period
The first lock is the transition period, which lasts until at least 2021. We must hand over an estimated £39 billion for nothing, be bound by EU law and take orders from an unelected Joint Committee operating under the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice. Will the EU27 agree an equitable free trade agreement before the end of 2020? Unlikely, since all the goodies they want in the “future partnership” are set out in the Northern Ireland backstop, which kicks in automatically on 1st January 2021 unless superseded by a “partnership” agreement. Full ratification by all Member States is required before any such agreement can come into force. Achieving this in time to avoid entering the backstop would be nothing short of miraculous, even if the EU agrees to extend the transition period for one or two years. So it is more pay with no say and a likely doubling of the Brexit bill to £80 billion, to be paid with no reference to British MPs.

The second lock: the backstop
The backstop is intended to be inescapable. It prepares Britain for the final destination set out in the political declaration, as a permanent satellite state of the EU. By which time, of course, it is doubtless hoped that we will be so fed up with our vassalage that we decide to rejoin the EU as a full member – with greatly increased budget contributions and a whole swathe of new EU law to obey. The United States of Europe will have taken shape during our “wilderness years” using our money (“Britgeld” seems to be an appropriate term), but without our political input. No taxation without representation? What a joke.

Not only does the backstop carve out Northern Ireland as an EU province and set a border in the Irish Sea, it creates a partial “customs union” that requires us to implement EU trade tariffs and policy with no decision-making powers. Under highly restrictive “non-regression clauses”, the UK also agrees to implement all EU environmental, competition, state aid and tax harmonisation laws, with the unelected Joint Committee and the ECJ once again able to punish us for any perceived backsliding. British farmers will be locked into a subsidy regime well below support received by EU27 farmers, who nevertheless retain tariff-free access to the UK. British agriculture would be decimated. It means we could not support British businesses, give ourselves a competitive edge in new technologies where we excel, strike independent trade deals or diverge in key policy areas such as goods regulations and tax. Free EU access to UK fisheries is set down as a marker for negotiation in the future “deal”.

The third lock: the “future partnership”
Anyone expecting the EU27 to give up the immense advantages they gain under the backstop is delusional. Retaining tariff-free access to the UK market and effective control of UK trade and competition policy must be nirvana for them. To ensure they reap the full benefit, there is the third and final lock in the Withdrawal Agreement. Unless we agree to a “future partnership” as set out in the political declaration, the backstop will endure in perpetuity.

The Political Declaration replicates all the onerous “non-regression” clauses of the backstop and requires even more surrender of sovereignty via participation in and funding of the EU’s aerospace and defence programmes, free access to UK waters for EU fishermen, a full customs union and common trade policy, free movement by the backdoor under “mobility” clauses, EU control of UK agriculture via the state aid rules and in general full adherence to the acquis communautaire in all policy areas.

Thank you for your triple lock guarantee, M. Barnier. The Withdrawal Agreement cage conforms to the highest EU safety standards.

But could I have my Sovereign Tomato Soup now, please?

The post Don’t be fooled: this Brexit deal creates a triple lock to shackle the UK to Brussels forever appeared first on BrexitCentral.

This week Jonathan Isaby and I spoke to the MP for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland Simon Clarke, to discuss whether MPs were likely to change their minds and back Theresa May’s Brexit deal.

 

You can subscribe to our latest podcasts on iTunes and Soundcloud.

The post Podcast: Are MPs warming to Theresa May’s Brexit deal? appeared first on BrexitCentral.

Environment Secretary Michael Gove opened Day 2 of the debate…

Desmond Swayne MP was quick to intervene…

And John Redwood MP followed… 

Henry Smith MP raised the issue of live animal exports…

And the DUP’s Jim Shannon MP intervened regarding the backstop…

The Shadow Environment Secretary then gave her response…

And Priti Patel MP reminded the House why so many voted to Leave…

John Redwood MP followed with his passionate statement…

And Royston Smith MP gave a heartfelt speech…

Scott Mann MP brought some humour to the debate…

The post Highlights from the Meaningful Vote Debate II – Day Two appeared first on BrexitCentral.

The result of four decades of EU membership is to make fairy tales our ‘lingua dodgy’. That’s alarming for anyone who believes that politicians should focus on the disastrous economic situation of a country which can neither pay its way in the world nor support the level of services an advanced nation needs. It’s the result of the incompetence of our failing political leaders seeking to distract the nation by fairy tales.

The EU’s Fairyland is built on fairy tales like an ever closer union which electors won’t vote for, Germany won’t pay for and component governments don’t agree with. Similarly the euro won’t work: it’s crippled Greece, locked Italy in recession, produced record levels of unemployment in Spain and is pushing euroland into recession. Yet Juncker claims it’s stimulated growth and convergence, though it’s done exactly the opposite. There’s no EU problem so bad that a nice fairy tale won’t disguise it.

British euro-enthusiasts have got the same habit. The first manifestation was the huge effort to persuade us that disaster would ensue if we didn’t join the euro. We didn’t and yet have done better than most EU countries which did. The next fairy tale was the great fear-fest promising disaster if we voted for Brexit. We did. Nothing happened.

Now the EU’s agents in this country are offering another fairy tale festival, promising untold disaster unless we stay in the EU; yet in fact if we come out without a deal – or to put it another way, trade on WTO terms – we wouldn’t have to pay the massive ransom the EU wants and trade on the same terms as everyone else, most of them profitably, unlike us.

Another fairy story is that we’re leaving the biggest market in the world, but we’re not told that we’re in horrendous deficit with it and the rest of our trade is mostly in surplus. Most of our trade doesn’t go to the EU, whose economy is shrinking into recession because of the euro.

The next fairy story is that our trade with the EU will stop if we “crash out”. The average duty will be three percent. Their total cost is less than the membership charges for belonging to this protectionist bloc. Devaluation (inevitable in or out) will give us the competitive advantage to overleap that, provided we plan for it with an industrial policy (prohibited in the EU).

Pundits claim without evidence that “crashing out” (better described as trading with the EU on the same terms as everyone else) would be an economic, social and political disaster. Their vote against preparations to face “no deal” shows there are no lengths to which rampant Remainers won’t go to undermine the Government’s negotiating position and stop Brexit. Yet in fact relations will go on as before. It’s inconceivable that the institution Remainers love so much would set out to destroy us. Medicines wouldn’t stop, people will continue to come and go, food is cheaper outside the EU.

This shift from fairy tales into Hammer horror stories was caricatured by Rod Liddle in the Sunday Times:

“One way or another we will all die, probably at 0900 hours on March 30th, gasping in agony… huge mutant fire eating lobsters will invade the country as a result of Brexit… There will be no Mars bars… flaming chunks of satellites will fall on our heads and kill us…. planes can fly no further than Manchester… your homes will be worthless. There will be nothing to eat. And no lavatory rolls. But as there will be nothing to eat, we won’t need them.”

It’s a pity that the comfortable people, the academics with euro-grants, the politicians with euro-contracts and hopes – and the companies we’ve sold to foreigners to pay our way – can’t argue rationally. Instead, they blame the people for ignorance, and claim that the EU will unleash IRA violence if we leave.

German and French political elites don’t live on fairy tales. They have a shrewd idea of the national interest, are dedicated to pursuing it and have shaped the EU to advance it. Ours are less competent, have no idea of the national interest, don’t understand how business works and have conned us into an institution which drains us of money, jobs and economic demand. Then they tell us we’re stupid, deceived and racist for wanting to leave. More fairy stories to cover their failure and their inability to do anything about it. Which makes it time for the population of the UK to stop believing in fairies.

The post Don’t believe the EU’s fairy stories appeared first on BrexitCentral.




Recommended news

© 2019 Brexit and Ireland - All Rights Reserved. Individual site feeds info belong to individual site holders.

Follow us: