Wednesday, 2 August 2017

New Zealand proves Brexit isn’t such a bad idea.

Those who want the UK to stay in the UK, i.e. “remainers”, often argue that it is important to be able to trade with countries which are geographically close. As I pointed out here recently, that idea looks a bit silly in light of the fact that the average distance travelled by Australia’s exports and imports is around 6,000 miles. Same goes for New Zealand.

Further significant characteristics of NZ in this connection, are that it has a similar land mass to the UK, it speaks the same language, it has a similar culture plus it is slightly better off than the UK: at least GDP per head is a bit higher. And its population is a mere five million.

Now that all rather blows a hole in the idea that the UK needs a constant flow of immigrants from the EU or indeed from elsewhere. That is, if there was significant net EMIGRATION from the UK for the next twenty years, such that its population declined to five million, it would then be very similar to New Zealand: better off than it is now!!


  1. Brilliant!!! I read this also in the Echo & applauded it, Just as i applaud many of your other posts(in the N.E) It's pointless my attempts to post there as am banned these days:-( (assuming you're the same RM? of course) Take Care & No Surrender:-) pennine:-) (b-m-r)
    Twitter: pennine_rainbows
    Small wall at:

    1. Very interested to hear you've been banned at the Echo. I got the distinct impression I was banned there for the last year or two. I asked them to come clean and confirm or deny that, but they were too dishonest or idle to answer. What evidence do you have that you've been banned? Could just be that the Echo site is chaotic or poorly run.

    2. Aye, i've thought about all that, that they could just be very busy,or could just be a technological hitch& so on.Then i've have tried doing it the old way(sending it via paper mail)They did eventually published it, but they messed what i'd written until it didn't sound like me, they did this a lot years ago(once Peter Sands/Malcolm Warnes left the editor's chair)plus spelling errors that weren't even mine&why i stopped altogether back then. A couple of yrs ago i came in,in defence of cats,then Eric Gendle wrote a particular nasty reply,basically making false accusations about me, i tried to correct this, but it wasn't published.Am not bothered now,but wish their no meant no & yea meant yea, (like your attempt in asking if you were banned or not,just to know where one stands with them) they have a two hundred word limit,yet this rule is selective when it suits them,some letters have been way way well over that limit.We have Twitter,but have you heard of the changes they are making next month? It's going to be like the gestapo pacing about inside our computer,as they forcing cookies onto us and will be able to see what sites we visit and ban us on this basis. I've not anything seedy in here,but i am politically nosy and search for truth &it's these things tptb do not like) also if we have a twitter handle they don't like sound of too,this will get us into hot water with them.I retweeted a couple of tweets about this recently, i gather many will be going over to instead.All this has more to do with the pc diktats rather than any serious attempt in catching jihadi terrorists or pedos etc...Many Thanks for your reply,& nice to meet the author behind the letters i enjoy reading when i see them. Take Care & keep on the writing of good stuff. Kindest from pennine(bethany-megan r)


Post a comment.