Genetic Explanations

Intersex, hermaphroditism and evolution.


“Intersex” is a modern term for hermaphroditism.  It is used to describe a variety of conditions in which a person is born with a reproductive or sexual anatomy that doesn’t seem to fit the commonly accepted definitions of female or male. For example, a person might be born appearing to have a female on the outside, but having mostly male-typical anatomy on the inside. Or a person may be born with genitals that seem to be in-between the usual male and female types.

There are signs of intersex issues filtering into mainstream life in the same way that transsexual issues did before Caitlyn Jenner’s celebrity transition brought them into the limelight.  An MTV teen show, Faking It, features a character who happens to be intersex.  Intersex or hermaphroditism has been long recognised as a medical condition since ancient times.  What may have changed is society’s recent better acceptance of an indeterminate sex.  Or rather re-acceptance, as indeterminate sex was better accepted in ancient times – along with other un-modern concepts such as eunuchs.  It makes sense to allow an intersex individual to reach puberty before letting them make an informed choice regarding their body’s sex.  We know that the sex of their brain will make a big difference to the sex they will choose their body to be.

The development of the human body and brain into the sexes is a complex process.  This includes the interaction of genes, hormones and environmental factors (e.g. disease, drugs and pollutants) at different times during our development in the womb, immediately after birth and during puberty.  Variations in this elaborate process can cause brain development and body development to fall outside our commonly accepted ideas of gender.  For example a male brain inside a female body (or vice versa) and indeterminate sex organs. To this extent what we currently call “transsexual” and “intersex” have a similar root cause.

In terms of evolution it is important to understand that nature has no intent.  Evolution is not sentient and not trying to be anything.  Evolution is driven by natural selection and to work its magic it needs variation from which to choose.  Variation is driven by random genetic events.  Intersex individuals are therefore not unnatural and are just part of the evolutionary process that provides natural variation without which life on this planet would have stalled at the single cellular stage.  Of course if the natural variation results in a biological format with a reduced ability to reproduce we would expect their numbers to be low.  And in the case of intersex individuals they are relatively rare –  less than 1 in 2000.

If society is able to accept the modern view of evolution by natural selection then intersex individuals should not feel like freaks but simply as normal individuals who are different to the average.

Liberty, Politics and Economics

Liberty, Employee Rights and Mental Health

We now live in a world where employee rights trump good business decisions.  Companies are increasingly forced to accept employees based on our social engineers idea of “equality” and “fairness”.  These misconceived philosophies are based on an assumption that we are all equally capable and any difference in ability is down to racism, sexism or some other type of bigoted discrimination.

Pregnant women must be given equal rights, allowed to leave work for extended periods and demand equal pay when returning to the workplace despite missing out on vital experience in the meantime.  This creates a strain on all businesses but particularly small businesses when competing in world markets.  We are now being asked to relieve the work and make allowances for menopausal women who may have problems concentrating or coping with their symptoms.

There are effectively quotas for gender, and disability and race are increasingly mentioned in order to socially engineer a society with equality of outcome.

Fair enough many would say.  Our businesses are at a disadvantage when competing with China, South East Asia, etc. etc., but the social benefits outweigh the economic cost.

However there has recently been a push to extend the concept of disability to mental health.  We understand that a work place must accommodate a person in a wheelchair for example and we should not fire somebody or discriminate against them because of a physical disability.  But we are now asked to do the same for people with mental health issues.  People with physical disabilities can do almost any job so long as there is some physical help.  This is not true with mental illnesses, whose sufferers often cannot even face going to work. They may have problems processing information, communicating effectively with colleagues and they can be unpredictable and occasionally dangerous.

The idea that a person must be able to do the job they have been hired to do seems no longer applicable.  Nowadays the workplace is not about building a successful and efficient business but about creating secure employment for everybody in society.

However, this politically correct policy carries considerable risks.  The driver of a bin lorry that crashed in Glasgow killing six people and injuring 15 others had deliberately misled doctors over his history of mental blackouts that caused the fatal accident.   The pilot of a Germanwings A320  who deliberately crashed his aircraft, killing all 144 people on board, had previously been treated for suicidal tendencies.  We now understand that half of all fatal air accidents involve some sort of pilot error.   This should strengthen the case for closer monitoring of employees and their mental health — and eventually for removing them from jobs where they may kill or injure others.  We already understand that political correctness in employing people with mental health issues creates a huge economic cost but now we find that it also creates a huge human cost.

Companies should not be legally forced or morally pressured to employ anybody or retain them unless they believe they can effectively and safely do the job for which they are hired.

Education, Politics and Economics, Religion

How can we tackle Islamic terrorism?

Islam came out of the xenophobic and violent Arab / Bedu culture of Saudi Arabia. It was then spread violently by conquest throughout the Middle East, Far East, North Africa and into Southern Europe.   The sword on Saudi Arabia’s flag celebrates this fact.

We used to say that there was nothing more dangerous than a fool with a cause. But a fool with a cause who believes they are carrying out God’s will is literally capable of anything. Any genocide, any atrocity, any sacrifice.

In Britain we have three pillars of the State – The Monarchy, The Church and Parliament and they are all largely independent.  The Church and Monarchy have been suitable neutered and liberal parliamentary democracy rules supreme.

Islam is not just a religion. In Islamic countries it is not part of the state, it is the state. It is also an ideology that seeks total control over its citizens in their personal life, their economic life and their political life.  In Saudi Arabia, Iran, Qatar, Yemen, Sudan, Pakistan Somalia and Afghanistan Sharia is the only source of legal decisions. Stoning to death, beheading and amputation of limbs remain a legal form of punishment for such crimes as apostasy, blasphemy, adultery, theft and homosexuality.

In the West we value rational, evidence-based debate, democracy and the rule of law.  Much of Islam values only irrational religious doctrine written down over 1000 years ago for goat herders living in a different age.

The problems of the Middle East can be summarised into a series of failed nation states.  The only stable Middle East countries have autocratic leaders and they quickly dissolve into chaos if they are deposed (Iraq, Syria, Libya, Egypt…).  The national borders are contrived and their populations have more loyalty to their tribe and their Islamic religious sect (Sunni, Shia, Wahibists, Aliists…) than they do to their nation state.

The same will be true of many Muslims in the UK.  Some would rather fight and die for their fellow religious sects in Syria and Iraq than their own country.  There is also a deafening silence from the many moderate Muslims who will not criticise their religion’s extremists. A few meager conciliatory words from a couple of media contrived Muslim “leaders” but where are the marches and mass participation campaigns on social media – either in the West or the war ravaged Middle East?  Again they have more loyalty to their religion than their community.

Clearly these values are incompatible with liberal Western values and our idea of the Nation State.

Worse still, these poisonous views have now infested our Western cities where they are passionately held by legitimate Western citizens.

So what is our solution?

Western liberal values and the fear of further provoking these evil extremist groups prevents us from isolating Islam for particular attention. We are a society that is comfortable making “The Life of Brian” but would recoil from considering making the Islamic equivalent.

However we have a long history of neutering the power of religion in order to achieve peace and build our Western democracies.  By religion we meant Christianity, but from now on it must mean all religion.  i.e. any form of irrational, unsubstantiated, superstitious belief.

We can criticise and defeat the generic ideas behind Islam without inflaming and offending one particular religious group.

All religions must pay the price for peaceably neutering the power of extremist Islam, because if we accept the philosophy of one religion we must accept them all.

Firstly we must protect our children from this evil.  Any religious indoctrination should be seen as a form of child abuse.

We do not have ”Conservative children” or “Labour children” or “Socialist Workers children”.  We accept that a child does not have the maturity and knowledge to give their consent to a political ideology.  We do not allow political activity in our schools, do not allow children to join a political party and we do not allow them to vote in a general election.

We believe the same is true of sexual activity.  We do not have “gay children” or “heterosexual children”.  Children cannot give consent to sexual activity until 16.

Restrictions on political and sexual activity is intended to protect naïve impressionable minds from the sinister manipulation of predatory adults.

We should have similar policies towards religion.

How can we have a “Jewish child”, a “Muslim child” or a “Christian child”?  Have they made an informed choice? Given their consent?  The sinister power of indoctrination over young and impressionable minds has been known to Catholics for centuries.  Their priests claiming, “if you give me a child, I will give you the man”.

No child should be forced to adopt any form of religious activity in schools until they are old enough to give their informed consent.  This would eliminate faith schools and the form of religious apartheid that exists in Northern Ireland and Glasgow.  It would starve extreme religions of their future brainwashed, indoctrinated disciples.  All Jewish and Muslim schools would be banned and all forms of religious clothing and adornment could not be worn in schools until the child is old enough to give informed consent.

Britain would still have complete religious freedom of expression, exactly the same as we have political freedom of expression and sexual freedom of expression.  But only when the person is old enough to give informed consent.

Secondly all religious activity must be viewed with suspicion and prevented from spreading its ideas using the machinery of State. No State sponsorship or tax breaks for religious activity.No special treatment for religious groups in our democracy (e.g. no automatic right to bishops in the House of Lords). Furthermore religious belief should have no privileges when drafting laws. No automatic right to Halal or Kosher food and no special exemptions from employment law based purely on religious doctrine. No pandering to religious belief when setting our national curriculum. No politesses when teaching our children the realities of evolution. No laws that hinder free speech for fear of causing offence.

Finally there must be more education and open debate about the dangers of irrational, illogical, superstitious belief.  We should be free to criticise these generic religious beliefs and ridicule and hopefully dissuade all those people that follow them.

This is very unfair on the moderate religions. It is also not a perfect solution but the best available solution.  But we let this evil into our societies and extreme measures must now be taken to keep it under control whilst protecting our liberal Western ideals.

Islam cannot be tackled head on without provoking more violence. But its fundamental tenets can be demolished with allegory, analogy, comedy and satire.  This should be further backed up with an insistence on logical, evidence based debate, democracy and the rule of law.


Does terrorism have anything to do with Islam?

This argument boils down to defining the single, true and pure meaning of a particular religion.  This is an impossible task.  Muslims are as unlikely to agree on the true meaning of Islam as any other religion.  This is despite having a text, written in the original language that they all agree is the word of God.  Shias, Sunnis, Sufis (and at least 8 other sects of Islam) all disagree on its interpretation and within each sect there are many sub-sects.

And even individuals in each sub-sect will disagree on the correct interpretation of any particular passage in the Koran.  I was recently having dinner with a group of 8 Muslim friends (4 men and 4 women) and we discussed a passage in the Koran that allows a man to take up to 4 wives, so long as he treats them all equally.  Bear in mind that polygamy (only for men of course) is legal in all Muslim Countries.  So it seems that this interpretation of the Koran has been universally accepted.  However the next passage in the Koran states “but of course he can never treat them all equally”.  To the women in the group and at least one of the men this changed the meaning to the opposite view i.e. that a man cannot have more than one wife.

The point about anything as irrational, superstitious and unsubstantiated as religious belief is that you can infer anything you want from their ancient texts and then justify your actions by claiming God’s will.  They would not be alone in cherry picking convenient facts to support an entrenched view of the world.  Followers of political and social movements do the same. “In the messenger of God you have a beautiful model of behaviour” states the Koran. It matters just as much to jihadists and “moderate” Muslims who would never contemplate violence that validation for what they do is indeed to be found in biographies of Muhammad. Politicians and journalists who take it on themselves to define what is and is not “authentic Islam” are buying into the notion that such a thing actually exists. Unless one is a fundamentalist believer, it does not.  The concept of accepting that there is a single authentic interpretation of Islam plays into the hands of violent extremists who want the world to believe just that.

In any case, what Islam was meant to be is irrelevant.  I remember having a discussion about the practice of communism in the former Soviet Union with my parents during my philosophically idealistic youth. I felt that it was unfair to dump the extreme human rights abuses of the Soviets on the doorstep of Communism because they weren’t actually following “proper” communism.  It was called the USSR (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) after all.  However my parents dismissed this argument saying that what we saw in Russia and Eastern Europe was practical Communism.  Whatever it was meant to be, this is what you got.

A review of the Muslim world of the last decade or so makes lamentable reading: 9/11 trade center attack; 7/11 tube bombings; Madrid train bombings; genocide, public executions and public beheadings in Syria and Iraq; mass slaughter of Pakistani school children; murder of non-Muslims in shopping malls in Muslim Africa; ethnic cleansing, kidnapping and sex-slavery of school girls in Nigeria; Malaysian nightclub bombings; Bali nightclub bombings; US embassy bombings; USS Cole; Lee Rigby; Russian airline bombing; 2 Paris massacres, massacre at a Kenyan University…..

It seems that Islam is currently more open to a violent interpretation than other mass religions.

We must remember that Islam came out of the xenophobic and violent Arab / Bedu culture of Saudi Arabia. It was then spread violently by conquest throughout the Middle East, Far East, North Africa and into Southern Europe.   The sword on Saudi Arabia’s flag celebrates this fact.  The prophet Muhammad is said to have owned a sword whose name can be translated as “Cleaver of Vertebrae”. We used to say that there was nothing more dangerous than a fool with a cause. Well, a fool with a cause who believes they are carrying out God’s will is literally capable of anything. Any genocide, any atrocity, any sacrifice.

Conversely, the violence we are seeing in the Muslim world may well be against the true meaning of Islam for most of its followers.  But so what?  They don’t have a monopoly on the true meaning any more than their violent, murderous, Jihadi brethren.

What we have around the word is practical Islam.  Whatever Islam was meant to be, this is what you get.

Politics and Economics

A Greek exit from the Euro is now the best possible outcome for Greece and the Eurozone.

The Eurozone nations would be foolish to bail out the Greek Economy without insisting on the structural reforms necessary to stop a repeat performance in a year or two.

And why should only Greece get special access to no-strings-attached free money?  Why should Germans be forced to retire at 67 so Greeks can retire at 55? A Greek bailout at Germany’s expense would cause a landslide of further left-wing governments in Portugal, Spain, Italy and elsewhere with hands outstretched and beaks wide open. The Greek debt is barely manageable by the Eurozone but an emergency bail out of any of the other larger economies would cause a pan-European economic catastrophe.

Greece’s existing deal with its creditors is very lenient.  Its private debts have already been largely forgiven and the remaining €243 billion of debt is to be repaid with outrageously low interest rates over a very long repayment period.  Its interest payments are currently less than 3% of GDP, which is manageable even for Greece.

The sad irony for the Greek people is that their economic fortunes had finally started to recover when Syriza came to power.  For the first time since the first Greek bail out five years ago the Greek Economy showed modest growth and a small budget surplus (excluding interest payment) in 2014.

Syriza should have used this firmer economic base to confront the pervasive tax evasion, abysmal public administration, inflexible markets and rampant corruption to drive further economic gains for the Greek people.  Instead it has embarked on a shambolic campaign to disprove the laws of arithmetic by insisting on implementing fantasy socialist economics without the cash to fund it.  This includes reversals to labour-market reforms and promises to raise the minimum wage to pre-crisis levels, both of which are madness in country with 50% youth unemployment.  They also plan the restoration of pension increases when they should slash early retirement rights to prevent more people switching from employment to dependency.  Their planned rehiring of thousands of public sector workers and the scrapping of privatisation projects is unaffordable and if they cannot collect income tax there is no choice but to raise more VAT, which they also oppose.   Their proposals would both breach Greece’s agreed bail-out terms and wreck the economy.  Since Syriza came to power the economy started shrinking sharply and the small budget surplus has once again descended to a massive shortfall.   This is despite increasingly desperate measures such as raiding the funds of municipalities and delaying payments to suppliers.

In 2001 Greece used some opaque and creative accounting to fool the EU’s auditors into believing it had a budget deficit of only 1.5% of GDP.  It subsequently emerged that the true deficit at the time was more than 8%, which is well above the 3% limit set out in the Maastricht treaty and would have prevented it joining the Euro.   If the Euro is to endure its rules must be enforceable. Mr. Tsipras is still ignoring those rules and he has torn up the legal agreement made by the previous Greek Government with its creditors .

So Syriza have done nothing to rebuild trust and economic credibility and many doubt that Greece would honour any future promises it makes.  Creditors are likely to demand more onerous terms than before and a rigorous inspection process to ensure the terms are honoured.  This is unlikely to be acceptable to the Greek people let alone Syriza.

Syriza’s adolescently amateurish diplomacy has alienated many of the Eurozone countries previously sympathetic to Greece’s plight. Mr. Tsipras’s courting of the sabre rattling Russian regime currently annexing parts of Ukraine, hysterical allegations of criminality against the IMF and revisiting claims of war crimes and demands of reparations from Germany are hardly going to win sympathy and influence with its allies.

Syriza’s conduct sets a poor precedent and if successful would open the door for other states to behave similarly in order to get access to free money from its partners.

Astoundingly these acrimonious economic and political disputes relate to the relatively trivial issue of how to conclude Greece’s second bail-out. Even if a deal is patched-up the funds will be immediately swallowed up.  Greece will still need to negotiate a third bail-out of about €50 billion. And unless Greece makes the much needed but much hated structural reforms this would still not be the end of it.

Compared to the last Greek economic crisis in 2012 the Eurozone is better prepared to manage a Greek exit. Its banks are well capitalised and have virtually no exposure to Greece; a large bail-out fund is established; quantitative easing is supporting bond and equity markets; and the weak euro is boosting exports.  A Greek exit would also dissuade other vulnerable Eurozone countries from dragging their feet on structural reforms and drain support from their extreme populist political parties.

So Syriza’s almost comical diplomatic and economic ineptitude has precipitated a situation where a Greek exit from the Euro and a re-launch of its own currency (the Drachma) is now the only realistic solution for any sort of independent long-term economic recovery.

By restoring the Drachma, Greece could have the flexibility to continually adjust its value on international currency markets to levels that cushion it from the shocks that are currently devastating its economy.

This is how it works:

Suppose on international money markets 100 Greek Drachmas is worth 1 Euro.  So a product that Greece was producing for 200 Drachmas costs 2 Euro in Germany. During a crisis the Drachma can be revalued to 200 Greek Drachmas to 1 Euro. Now when Greece exports its products to Germany its prices are much lower.  A product that costs 200 Drachmas to make is now selling for only 1 Euro, instead of 2 Euros.  This increases exports of Greek products to Germany, which supports Greek businesses and creates employment.  The Greek government gets more tax from successful domestic businesses and has lower costs because there is less unemployment and associated welfare costs.

Of course this also makes Greek imports more expensive.  Now if Greece wants to buy products and raw materials from Germany it has to pay twice as much.  To import a product from Germany which cost 1 Euro is now costing Greek businesses 200 Drachmas instead of 100 Drachmas.  This has the effect of causing Greek consumers and businesses to buy their products and raw materials from within Greece, which further boosts their economy.  It reduces imports and boosts domestic trade.

Furthermore Greek workers are still on the same salaries, which have the same buying power within Greece.  They will not notice a difference to their living standards unless they go on holiday in Germany where they will find prices very high.  This will encourage them to holiday at home further boosting the Greek Economy.  Also Germans will find being on holiday in Greece very cheap, so they will come in larger numbers, further boosting the Greek tourist trade.

So the ability to devalue a currency helps to smooth the problems of an economic crisis in poorly managed economies.

Now let’s consider the options for the Greeks if they share the same currency as Germany.

The Government cannot afford the interest payments on its loans and cannot borrow more so it must reduce Government spending and pay off some of the loans.  It must pay its public sector workers less salary and reduce government spending.  Greek industries are uncompetitive so they must reduce their costs too.  They must pay lower salaries and find further cost saving in its production.  This is not easy and lower salaries in Greece means lower spending by consumers causing the economy to slow further.  Germany has no incentive to buy Greek products or visit Greece on holiday, because it is just as expensive for them.  Unemployment stays high, which increases the costs to the Greek Government in unemployment benefit.  This means less money for investing in Greek infrastructure and industry that is essential to make them more competitive.

The situation is made worse for Greece if the German economy starts booming.  The value of the Euro will rise causing Greek exports to be even more expensive on international markets, which will cause their economy to slow even more.  This is because exchange rates are set at a level appropriate for the larger German Economy, not the smaller Greek economy.

To ensure that countries like Greece do not continue to mismanage their economies and cause future crisis within the single currency it is essential that their tax and spending policies are aligned with countries like Germany. Greece likes the economic security of the Eurozone and the financial protection it offers, but it seems they also do not want to to have their economic policies influenced by larger states.  They cannot have both.

This bailout is no longer working and a Greek exit from the Euro is now the best possible outcome for the Eurozone and Greece.   It will restore to Greece control of its economic destiny and restrict the consequences of its economic policies mainly to Greece.  It will also restrict an economic catastrophe to a mere disaster.

Politics and Economics

The Problem with the Greek Government’s Economic Policies.

Mr. Tsipras and his government are socialists. The basic philosophy of socialism is a strong sense of entitlement to other people’s wealth.

His logic will be the same as any other socialist, who has a strong social agenda but rarely a credible economic one:

i.e. “I need a certain amount of income to live a decent life therefore I am entitled to have it.

If I’m unable to earn this much myself then somebody else must make up the difference:

1.   My employer must pay me more for my efforts (minimum wage)….or……

2.…. my next-door neighbour (who earns more than me) must give me some of their income (intra-generational redistribution of wealth)….or

3.…The Government must borrow more money, give some to me and get my children and grandchildren to pay back the debt (inter-generational redistribution of wealth)…..or…..

4.….a combination of 1,2 and 3.”

As a country Greece cannot demand a salary increase from its employer, although this would doubtless appeal to Mr. Tsipras if it could.  So he is resorting to 2. Expecting his rich European neighbours, such as Germany, to give him money by writing off debt and 3. Taking on more Government debt and expecting his country’s current and future children to pay it back.

Socialism is often merely self-interest justified by ideology and in a normal socialist economy the sense of entitlement to other people’s wealth is legitimised by democracy.  i.e. to claim that most people in the country voted for redistribution of wealth so it is legitimate to implement it.  Mr. Tsipras is using democracy as justification for his current stand.  But he has forgotten that whilst Greece has democratically voted itself the right to more free money, that Germany, as a separate country, is equally democratically entitled to refuse to give it.

It reminds me of the worse days of the trade union excesses of the 1970s when they would decisively vote themselves a 40% wage increase and then were scandalised when their “democratic will” was not fulfilled by “management” or the prevailing government. They failed to understand that voting for something didn’t automatically mean it was practical or affordable.  All the Greeks have done in electing Syriza is to vote for an end to austerity. As did the French in 2012.  Look where it got them.

The concept of earning the money you want to spend does not compute in the socialist psyche.  So Greece has now reached the inevitable fatal flaw with socialism:  Eventually you run out of somebody else’s money to spend.

Politics and Economics

The UK would benefit by leaving the EU

The EU is trying to reconcile the differing social and political aspirations of its diverse 28 member states. The UK has a long, proud and independent history in these areas. It created the model for modern democracy. It initiated and developed common law that protects all and is a model for the rest of the world. It has bravely fought for social justice including establishing trial by jury, abolishing slavery and fighting the Nazis. It is rightly suspicious of delegating these responsibilities to largely unelected and unrepresentative European bureaucracies that do not share its cultural and social heritage.

The UK joined the Common Market when it was primarily a free trade zone. This was for predominantly economic reasons and at a time when it was “the sick man of Europe”. Undemocratic militant unions, the troubles in Northern Ireland and run-away profligate socialism were devastating its economy. These problems have since been solved and it is Europe that is in an economic malaise. The UK’s recovery from the last great recession has been hampered by the poor economic performance of its European partners.

It is right that the people of the UK should be given a choice on whether to continue membership in a referendum. Since it joined the Common Market in 1973 it has morphed from a trading zone to the EU super state, with ambition to dictate social, political, economic and foreign policy. A new democratic mandate is required for this massive change of circumstance.

Few in the debate believe that Britain cannot manage its political, social and foreign policy at least as well as the EU. Sovereignty of its own Parliament can ensure it can tailor these issues to better match the specific will and needs of its electorate, without interference from unrepresentative politicians from other independent states.

It is the UK’s economic future that is driving many to consider staying in the EU. However the UK is still a large economy and one with which many countries would want to trade. As a newly Independent state the UK could set up a new free trading zones and agreements with its more affluent northern European partners – Germany, Netherlands, Scandinavia, Ireland – and any other countries who were competitive enough to join.

The Common Market was set up in an age when geographical proximity was essential for the trading of goods and services.  In the modern, online, connected world physical borders and geographical proximity are irrelevant for much of the world’s trade. The UK’s free trading agreements could therefore be extended to include countries with which the UK has strong language and cultural links but no geographical proximity: Australia, New Zealand, Canada, South Africa and and India. It could further cement its “special relationship” with the world’s biggest market – the USA.

Many of the services in which the UK excels (financial and legal services for example) can be done largely online. Meetings can be held by videoconference. Ideas can be shared online with collaborative software. As can scientific and industrial research. So we can also add digital technologies into the mix: telecommunications, media; advertising; marketing and market research. The UK has unique world-class skills in the production of films, television programmes and computer games. Professional sport is a very affluent and growing industry. Cultural and language links will allow particular benefits in the free trading of all these industries and services – more than could be achieved within the language and culturally diverse European market. The ease with which physical goods are currently circulating between these countries would naturally ensure they were also included in these free trade agreements.

The UK would be further benefited by not being tied to countries creating an economic drag on the EU and consequently the UK: Greece, Spain, Portugal and Italy.  Their expensive social policies and the strait jacket of the Euro will ensure their economic woes will not be quickly or easily be remedied.  Without the EU the UK would be free to open up better opportunities with more diverse economies such as China and Japan.

These new trading blocks and agreements would be based solely on economic free trade. This would eliminate most of the social and political tensions and the subsequent market distortions and bureaucracy created by the EU super state structure and ambition.

Leaving the EU would be a short-term economic risk but with time and ambition the lost economic benefits could be mitigated and then massively exceeded. Over-and-above the long-term economic benefits the UK would also regain the freedom to follow its own unique democratic, political, cultural and social destiny.