29th June, 2017

UK Spending Cuts


It is understandable that the UK population should feel aggrieved at the extent and duration of austerity, and regrettable that we have to sort out our finances, following the massive spending during the disastrous reigns of Blair and Brown (1997-2010); but neither "Corbynomics," nor McDonnell's Marxist attempts to bring down the Capitalist system are going to help the "workers". The best anyone can hope for with a new, Old Labour (Communist) government would be that we would all become equal - equally poor, whereas the "elites" would live in the lap of luxury - (e.g. Viktor Pshonka - Ukraine tyrant - by Maxim Tucker in Kiev; for Mailonline Published: 08:20, 26 February 2016 | Updated: 11:17, 2 March 2016)

Our country would run out of money for basic provisions and services, and we would at the mercy of our creditors; and the EU.

Though this would probably appeal to a large section of the twisted political left  - who are preoccupied with the notion of a "Revolution", or should I say "Rage" - even though we have already had our Revolution in the Britain, when we rid ourselves of Charles I. We rather like having a tamed Monarchy, and it is good for business. We don't need a Revolution based upon "Class Envy"

That said, we do need a grown-up conversation about how we get rid of the debt that we have inherited from a previous Labour government.

There are two features of the debt to consider: How do we pay it off, and how do we stop it growing out of control? To solve the first one we need a buoyant economy, and to solve the second one we need to avoid electing another  Labour or other liberal Left political party or coalition into government and reduce our obligations - our main, and  most onerous obligations derives from our membership of the EU.

EU Austerity

There is an ongoing austerity programme taking place throughout the EU and President Macron is facing problems in France with its ongoing austerity and financial constraints, which are part of the Eurozone restraints that have been placed upon the members states, as set out in the Maastricht Treaty (1992) which cap the maximum amount of debt and deficit per GDP which are allowed in order to bring countries in line with a 3% of GDP deficit and a 60% of GDP debt allowed by the treaty.

These were originally designed to harmonise finances throughout the EU and ensure that all other currencies converged with the Euro (Article 140 (TFEU))

All EU Member States are obliged to adhere to the Stability and Growth Pact (SGP), designed to ensure price stability and fiscal responsibility, and applies identical limits for government budget deficit and debt as the convergence criteria.

Currently our debt has peaked at 88% of GDP, during this financial year (which does not include the cost of bailing out the banks)  (France ~96%, Spain ~99.8%, Germany ~71%) -  - and our deficit was 2.6% of GDP at the end of March, 2017. It should be noted that £500 m of the UK debt is owed to the Bank of England. The critical problem is the deficit, which is the difference between revenue and expenses - any expenses not covered by the revenue ends up being added to our borrowings - so getting the deficit down is the key to reducing the debt.

An uncontrolled rising population creates the biggest problem for this country - and it is nonsense to claim that immigration from poor countries in Europe or Africa is paying its way, particularly with many claiming asylum and numerous illegals entering - it cannot be true by definition.

When New Labour came to power in 1997 UK debt was 43% of GDP when they were kicked out in 2010 UK debt was 76% of GDP(82% in 2011)

We know from Phillip Hammond's last Budget speech (BBC coverage) that the UK Conservative government is following these same Stability and Growth Pact (SGP) rules - since he stated, during his budget presentation - that Mr Juncker would be pleased that he (Hammond) was complying with the criteria. Our budget constraints are not the only areas of finance that are also under EU control - our International Aid is also under EU control and we are required to build HS2 because the EU wants it as part of its strategic Trans-European Network - was this originally designed for troop transportation across Europe, in order to control occupied countries during WWII?

We also know from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office briefing papers in 1971 (FCO 30/1048) advising Ministers of the consequences of Britain joining the EEC that "After entry (to EEC, 1972) there would be a major responsibility on HMG and on all political parties not to exacerbate public concern by attributing unpopular measures or unfavourable economic developments to the remote and unmanageable workings of the Community". *

As long as we are in the EU we are literally under their control. Under those circumstances our governments, and major political parties are required to protect the EU from scrutiny by the British people! - the same is, presumably, true for any other member state population and their government. This explains why the EU is never really blamed for the misfortune of the millions of unemployed in the EU - resulting from EU (German) doctrine.

The consequences of failing to bring the debt down are well known: reduced credit rating, higher interest charges and increased exposure to the whims of international bankers and investors - who would take control our economy to protect their own interests. That is not to say that we could not get rid of austerity in the short term - but in terms of balancing the books the day of judgement will come sooner or later.

Labour Attitude

John McDonnell has made it clear that his ambition is to bring down the Capitalist system and destroy the UK, Jeremy Corbyn is onside, but more devious, and, in the new recruits to the Labour Shadow Cabinet is Rachael Maskell at Environment - During the migrant crisis she famously stated:-

"Let's keep accepting refugees until Britain breaks" "Britain should continue accepting refugees until our services buckle under the pressure". "Britons should just lie down and accept longer waits for hospital treatment and larger classes in schools in order to accommodate more Syrians and other migrants fleeing conflict overseas." (15th September, 2015)

Rachael Maskell, we understand, later apologised, but it reveals a number of points of interest

  • her words reflect the true attitude of the Labour Party towards the UK and its population
  • they are fully aware that unlimited mass migration will create massive problems for the UK, in terms of infrastructure and public services, housing, social costs etc., and simply do not care
  • they either want to destroy the UK or they do not care about the consequences of their actions or  they hate the indigenous UK population (their current voters) and treat them with disdain and consider them beneath contempt; or all three.
  • Labour do not care that their actions will not only hurt the UK, but also the migrants themselves - since, when the system collapses the migrants will gain nothing either.

Conclusion: Migrants are simply pawns for the Labour party - a means of obtaining and keeping power with what they perceive as a captive voter base - the liberal Left are amoral, and very dangerous - and this almost certainly also applies to the EU - we also know, from the behaviour of New Labour, that the only difference between the various Left wing brands is only in presentation..


The sooner we leave the control of the political EU (Single Market, Customs Union and ECJ/other EU jurisdictions) - the sooner we can expand our own economy - we need to do that, as a matter of urgency, without being tied to future commitments to the EU - which part guarantees the cost of the future expansion of the EU, and which financially supports the poorer populations of the EU - for the benefit of Germany - not for the benefit of the UK.

Anyone wishing to complain about austerity in the UK should be protesting in Brussels (Berlin), since our government is just following orders from the EU! - to which the Labour Party would also be bound, if elected - as Macron has just found.

*As an aside, this might explain why Nick Clegg denied that the EU was planning an EU Army - he knew or should have known - it is in Article 42 of the Lisbon Treaty (2007), but neither he nor Ed Miliband would admit it.

Strangely enough, whenever the EU Army comes up in the press many commentators either suggest it isn't true or still believe Clegg and Miliband - the strange part is that everything that the EU is planning - and the power that it has been given is all contained in a Reader Friendly version of the Lisbon Treaty online - including the actual wording, for example in Article 42, can be easily accessed.

We don't have to ask our politicians about the EU's plans - they are not hidden from view - only deliberately placed within the texts of the Lisbon Treaty (2007) in such a way as to make it difficult to follow and interpret - but not that difficult.


The graph on the left shows the UK government spending (based upon official figures) on the Health Service, Welfare, Education and Protection between 1992 and 2016.

The money spent on Healthcare was reduced between 2012 and 2014 but then rose, approximately parallel with the spending by the earlier New Labour government (1997-2010). For Welfare, Education and Protection (which encompasses  Police, Fire, Prisons, Courts, Public Order and Safety etc.) - they peaked at slightly different dates and then declined, before leveling off, or declining at a reduced rate. In each case the spending post 2010 remains roughly at the 2009 level, apart from the total Protection spending - these charted trends may explain why the national debt is not being reduced at a faster rate - despite the austerity programme over the past seven years - the spending is just holding steady; so the debt is still rising, but at a lower rate. The deficit has been the main target for reduction (cuts).

Copyright © 2015 - 19 euexit.com. All rights reserved.