The Arctic and its Climate

Every week there seems to be a new report about climate change in the Arctic. The arctic ice sheet is diminishing rapidly within the next decade or so the ice sheet over the North Pole is likely to disappear completely. If this happens there will almost certainly be a profound effect on our weather and climate. We are already experiencing a disturbance of the jet stream over the North Atlantic. Western Europe is being affected by an increasing frequency of winter storms and rainfall and flooding. 2016 looks like being the warmest year on record.

Many species in the Arctic are coming under threat including the polar bear which relies upon sea ice for its survival. The arctic fox is coming under threat from the larger and more powerful red fox which is able to push further north because of the warmer climate.

Some parts of the arctic north of 80 degrees are recording record high temperatures. The sea ice is melting in some places even in mid-winter.

It is hard to believe that human activity could disturb the global climate but this is what is happening. The evidence is now before our eyes; we no longer need instrumental readings to show us what is going on with the climate.

The polar bear and arctic fox are in danger of extinction by the beginning of the next century. We must be careful that the same thing does not happen to us.

House of Lords Committee on Brexit

All this week the House of Lords, in the UK, are having committee meetings about the implications of the vote to leave the EU.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201617/ldselect/ldeucom/81/8108.htm

They are coming out with some disturbing findings about the legal, constitutional, economic and financial, social and administration implications.

It is a pity that this analysis was not made before the vote.

It is also a pity that there was not a Royal Commission instigated before the referendum. An authoritative Royal Commission would have established the facts and made a cost benefit analysis. Many of the project fear claims and exaggerations made by both sides of the argument would then have been debunked. The population would then have been given a clear basis of facts upon which to base their opinion.

The findings of the House of Lords indicate that we are heading for trouble. I wonder how many in the government, and in the opposition, are secretly hoping that the supreme court will find that it is legally unconstitutional for Northern Ireland or Scotland or both countries to be taken out of the EU without the consent of their respective parliaments. If the supreme court does make this ruling then there may the sound of champagne corks popping in some government circles. It would be the perfect excuse to forget about the whole matter and blame someone else for the debacle.

Full consideration should have been made for the event of Northern Ireland voting to remain. The Northern Irish were largely ignored by the UK government, the press and the leave and remain campaigns. The people of Northern Ireland deserved better consideration.

In Australia a referendum cannot be passed unless a majority of states give voter consent. That means that a referendum to change the constitution requires at least the consent of 4 of the 6 states. Most referendums to change the constitution therefore fail. Australia has ways of preventing the "tyranny of the majority", as John Major describes it. Referendums in Australia are therefore not divisive in character.

Voting is compulsory in Australia so a referendum result can be confirmed by a simple majority. Perhaps we should do something similar in Britain.

Vote leave politicians promised you Eldorado

So now we have it ; the first budget statement after the vote to leave the EU. It  does not make good reading. Public debt is going to rise to at least 90% of our GDP or nearly 2 trillion GBP. this is 2, 000,000,000,000 pounds. It is a sum of money which is unimaginable. Leaving the EU is going to be costly.

The Office of Budget Responsibility (OBR) has forecast economic growth for next year of 1.4 % rising to 1.7% to following year and then rising again to 2.1% pa  after we have left the EU. This is hardly Eldorado. The OBR has not made any prediction that the economy will improve beyond where we are now after we leave. If the OBR is to be believed we are indulging in a very costly exercise for nothing.

The Chancellor must be congratulated for finally recognising that Britain has a problem with its productivity and that we are falling behind our international competitors. He has made a start to redress this issue. To improve our productivity, at a macro economic level, we must provide affordable housing for all workers especially those who want to move location. We need to provide affordable creche facilities for parents who work full time. We must provide full time well paid jobs not badly paid self-employment jobs. We need to get millions of Britons out of  the badly paid "gig" economy and into well paid stable permanent employment. To get our economy moving we need employees who have better skills and motivation. We need a better education system. We also need healthy workers.

We need to implement these changes and we can do this if we have the political will. The EU cannot stop us making improvements to our economy and indeed no-one in the EU even wants to do this. To all intents and purposes we are masters of our own economic destiny even if we are in the EU.

Turning the economy around will take decades. If our economy is to grow in the meantime then we need to import more and more workers. These will be young people from the EU and elsewhere who are prepared to live in multiple occupancy flats and dwellings and move around from place to place easily because they have no family roots. After we leave the EU these workers will arrive in similar numbers to what they do now but this time they will arrive as agency workers. They will not pay income tax in Britain but in their home countries. We will have to pay foreign companies to bring in these workers thereby worsening our balance of payments position. In a low productivity economy to achieve growth we have to import foreign labour - it is an economic fact of life. If you voted leave then you have been duped in this matter.

Vote leave politicians have claimed that economic forecasting is often wrong. Yes, it is, but this means that their forecasts for Eldorado could equally be wrong. If Britain leaves the EU on bad terms our economy could take another bad turn for the worse, especially if we are forced to leave the Customs Union exactly two years after Article 50 is invoked. From that day tariffs will be placed on our exports, we could lose all the advantages of the single market, our finance industry could be damaged. The EU will impose customs documentation and there will be long queues at the ports. A hard border will have to be imposed between Northern Ireland and the Republic - and this is the last thing that we should be confronted with.

There will be further damage to our economy; the Chancellor will be further constrained and the budget to improve  the  productivity of the nation will be limited.  The money to  improve living standards for the most deprived people and regions will also be restrained. To grow the economy we may have to import more cheap labour.

Leaving the EU could depress most people's living standards, cut the budget available for the NHS and the improvements for the economy. You will have voted for a Brexit " pig in a poke". "The metropolitan elite" will survive all this.

Yes, "the metropolitan elite" has implored you to remain in the EU. But, look into to the background of the vote leave advocates too; most of them are also part of "the metropolitan elite". "The metropolitan elite" has a duty to make the policy fit the evidence not make the facts fit the ideology.

If leaving the EU goes badly wrong, then it is not just the economy that could sag: the peace in Ireland could be sacrificed too.  Is it worth the risks just to achieve the illusion that immigration is under control? After two years, from March 2017, it might be too late to change your mind. The ideologues would have won , but harsh reality could mean that you are the loser.

Depravity in Syria and the Middle East

It is time, that all the protagonists in the wars in Syria and the Middle East, to consider how low the human species can fall. Time and again in the 20th century we have seen war crimes and crimes against humanity from the death camps of Europe to  the massacres in South East Asia.

Why does all this have to be repeated in the Middle East? It is time for the hatred and carnage to stop. The leaders of the world's of most powerful nations must stop the carnage and not exacerbate it by factional infighting. They must task the United Nations with finding a general solution for the Middle East so that all of its peoples including Israelis and Palestinians can live in peace. Above all the wars in Syria and Yemen should be halted immediately.

Leaving the EU and Northern Ireland

Northern Ireland's relationship with the Republic of Ireland was hardly discussed in the mainstream media in England and Wales. English and Welsh voters probably ignored what would happen if and when we leave the EU.

The Good Friday Agreement made between the "loyalist" and nationalist communities of Northern Ireland and the British and Irish governments. It has proven to be a big success. Peace has returned to Northern Ireland and the bombs have been taken out of Irish politics. The British mainland has also returned to peace and we on the mainland no longer have to face the reality of being bombed by the IRA.

The Good Friday Agreement was helped by the fact that both the the Republic of Ireland and Britain were members of the EU. Both countries became equals within a confederated organisation which provided a  forum for peace. The EU provided good reason for cross border co-operation and co-operation between the communities in Northern Ireland itself. The nationalist community was persuaded that the UK was no longer imposing its will on their community. The Good Friday Agreement encompassed power sharing so that neither the UK nor the "loyalist" community could unjustly impose their will on the minority catholic community.

To assuage the "loyalists" the Irish republic changed its constitution to drop claims of sovereignty over Northern Ireland.  The Good Friday Agreement allowed citizens of Northern Ireland to be British, Irish or both. The European Convention on Human Rights was confirmed to be part of the agreement. An Irish-British council was set up to promote joint interests and the Good Friday Agreement recognises the role that the EU plays in promoting peace and development in Northern Ireland.

Northern Ireland voted to remain in the the EU . There is now the possibility that the rest of the UK , save Scotland, will force Northern Ireland out of the EU against its will. It is not only the nationalist community which supports remaining in the EU but a substantial number of so called "loyalists" probably voted to remain too.

Much of the violence prior to the 1998 Good Friday Agreement resulted from the nationalist community being opposed to an English parliament imposing their will from across the Irish sea.

There is still simmering resentment from certain quarters in Northern Ireland  as can be seen from press reports of low level violence continuing in Northern Ireland. This resentment is being held in check by legitimate politics.

The rest of Britain may  have a legal right to force  Northern Ireland out of the EU but does it have the moral right?

I expect that the the legality of Britain  being able to withdraw Northern Ireland against its will be to be challenged in the courts and this challenge could go all the way to international arbitration. What will the UK government do if it loses?

If the UK government imposes its will on Northern Ireland what will happen if factions within Northern Ireland return to the gun and bomb to achieve their aims? The British people may have made a big mistake and all of us ,"Remainers" and Leavers, alike should consider this before the Article 50 button is pushed.

The views of the Northern Irish assembly must be taken into account before we invoke Article 50 and this implies that the UK Parliament must consider the implications too. Using undemocratic prerogative powers to execute Article 50  could be a dangerous mistake.

It is my view that the English and Welsh populations voted without considering the constitutional implications for the whole of the United Kingdom and without considering the dangers of using prerogative powers without parliamentary approval both in Northern Ireland and the UK. The British prime minister should consider carefully how using powers, taken from an un-elected head of state, should be used in the the context of Northern Ireland which is composed of a community of around 45% republicans. Behaving like this, was a major influence upon the political violence in Northern Ireland before the 1998; let's not go back to it please.

Leaving the EU: a proposal

Remain voters must accept the fact that it is highly likely that Britain will leave the EU but it is not certain.

I was a remain voter but it is nonsense to suggest that I would take any comfort in the possibility of there being a recession as the result of a leave vote and as a result of me being in denial or bereft at the result.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/jul/17/uk-economy-brexit-failed-economic-policies

For me, it was and still is desirable that we should remain members of the the EU for political, cultural and economic reasons which I have laid out already in other blogs on this site. I believe that our nation will be diminished if we turn our backs on our nearest neighbours. But, real politik suggests that we could leave the EU within a short period of time and that other options should be put to the people which should be considered by parliament. I believe that there is another option which both leavers and most of the remain voters could support which would truly represent leave and remain thinking but of course there will be a substantial majority that will not support my proposal but more of that later.

Britain has not considered any sort of  plan for what happens after we leave the EU and it is now being left to Leave ideologues to plot our departure. These ideologues must consider the political, foreign policy and economic consequences of Britain leaving the EU. The Prime Minister is duty bound to critically examine their proposals. The Brexit community must be able to demonstrate that Britain will actually be better off by leaving. As any business knows before making a complex and important decision there must be a cost and benefit and risk analysis and a plan. Any form of  risk mitigation must be examined to ensure that it will be effective. We are jumping into the unknown and the British people should be fully appraised of any risks they are taking. All options for leaving the EU should be thoroughly and critically examined by parliament and independent economic bodies such as the IFS.

Let us be certain, the EU referendum was not a choice about whether immigration should be curbed or not. Many Leave voters that I spoke to were quite happy to accept free movement of labour from the EU combined with very liberal policies concerning the movement of people from non-EU countries. These voters wanted to leave the EU for reasons of national sovereignty and national independence. It is not possible to assess how many voters were in this category but of course they were in the minority.

It is my view that the overwhelming majority of Leave voters want to either curb immigration or reverse it; all as a matter of policy - not security. The majority of Leave voters, however, do not support forced repatriation of foreigners. The whole issue of immigration is not as simple as ardent Brexiters claim it to be and immigration should not be the primary issue when deciding what option is best for Britain and the rest of the EU.

I am proposing a Norway plus option which we should be able to negotiate and which I shall expand upon later but first some of the reasons why. I examine the issues for my proposal below

Britain's wealth

Brexit campaigners promised that Britain would become more wealthy if we left the EU and the single market. If this is so then they should prove it. It is not obvious. If it is obvious then we should invoke Article 50 of the Lisbon treaty immediately to try to end uncertainty. Business could then plan for the worst case scenario: trade on WTO terms but with reduced immigration but this might not bolster the economy. Brexiters know that we need access to the single market to guarantee our prosperity. The promises that we can negotiate better trade deals for ourselves without using EU negotiators and EU influence must be shown to hold water. I seriously doubt that the Brexit promises of greater wealth can be achieved by a completely go it alone attitude. Britain is now the 6th largest economy in the world as overnight on June 23rd it fell behind France. We are likely to enter a period of recession or seriously impeded economic growth therefore we could fall behind Italy. Our negotiating position becomes weaker as I write.

Our economic future can only be guaranteed in the short and medium term by being a member of the single market. If we leave the single market we face the possibility of an extended period of weak economic growth which will affect our ability to fund public services. The lack of investment will lead to our nation to becoming poorer.

Some of the effects of poorer economic growth will need to be mitigated by a redistribution of wealth as proposed by the new British prime minister but will she be able to deliver? Will the middle classes agree to the tax increases necessary and will corporate Britain comply? There will need to be a new one nation covenant to protect the poor.


Immigration

Whether we like it or not we have to tolerate immigration. Britain's economy is modelled upon importing labour. The economic plan for Britain provides for another million or so immigrants by 2020. It looks as though the EU will not allow Britain access to the single market without accepting free movement of labour. Even if we were to leave the EU we will probably have to be realistic and still allow hundreds of thousands of immigrants to come to Britain from the rest of the world. We might only be able to reduce immigration by tens of thousands.  The benefit of reduced immigration will be far outweighed by the cost of leaving the single market.

A cost benefit analysis will probably reveal that we are better off staying in the single market by accepting free movement of labour. This will need to be sold to the general population by explaining the real problem of leaving the single market. The government must then demonstrate a willingness to achieve a one nation covenant to improve the employment opportunities and wages of the poor. To improve the education and skills of the disadvantaged and to improve their housing prospects and public services where immigration levels are high.

Internal politics

Scotland is committed to staying in the EU. There is a serious danger that the UK could break up if their desire to remain in the EU is thwarted . Some may welcome this but I do not. We need to find a way to keep Scotland in the union by maintaining a sufficient level of closeness to the EU so that Scotland will choose to stay in the UK.

Northern Ireland voted to stay in the EU but it is ruled by a party which supported Britain leaving.This might lead to serious political conflict. It is in the interests of Northern Ireland to maintain close economic and social links with Ireland. It is not in the interests of Britain or Ireland to have a "closed" border between our countries by introducing customs or immigration controls. It is essential that the common travel area is maintained.

Wales: recent opinion polls in Wales indicate that the Welsh have changed their minds and that a small majority of the population are now in favour of staying in the EU; now that the full economic implications of leaving are being appreciated. A change of mind in Brexit England could happen as well if there is a recession.

London generates 30% of the tax revenue of the UK and it voted to remain in the EU the government cannot ignore this economic fact. London and the UK need access to the single market if the nation is to flourish. The EU is about to extend the single market to services which make up 80% of our economy. The single market for services  will provide an incredible business  opportunity for the UK's service providers no matter where they are located. Why throw this opportunity away?

The divisions between North and South an East and West and better off and less privileged need to be healed. The views of Remain must also be taken to account. Also the views of those who did not register to vote or chose not to vote, if registered, must also be taken into account by their MPs. Non-voters made up a substantial minority of the referendum voting population and their views need to be taken into account by parliament.


Foreign affairs

Our nearest neighbours and supporters in Europe, France and Ireland, are disappointed. Ireland especially as they have the most to lose economically from Brexit. Ireland also has to worry about serious political division in Northern Ireland.

France is one of our oldest, closest and important allies. I was in France on June 24th and the idea of Brexit was just as big an issue in France as it was in Britain. My French friends and family were talking about nothing else. One thing is certain, however, the French people will not tolerate French or other EU citizens being turned away from Britain on the French side of the channel. If we impose freedom of movement restrictions on EU citizens then the barbed wire will have to move back to Kent.

The US sees it as being in their geo-political interests to have the UK in the EU or as close as it can be. We would be foolish to ignore the view of the US as they might ignore us in the future and their view of  the special relationship might transfer  from Britain to Germany and France.

Spain has already posited the view that there should be joint sovereignty over  Gibraltar leading to Gibraltar finally becoming united with Spain. This could become a reality especially as Gibraltar has voted overwhelmingly to remain in the EU. Why should the UK let Gibraltar down? Gibraltar is in a strategic position,and probably the US would prefer that the rock stays in British hands.

Poland is one of Britain's strongest supporters so why annoy them by restricting their citizens access to our labour market. Poland's economic power is growing. Poland is a positive ally who will support a good deal for Britain along with France and Ireland.

Defence

Britain has refused the formation of a European army,navy and air force. Donald Trump has indicated that if elected he would reform NATO and expects Europe to pay its way: he is more of an isolationist. We could be forced to review our defence policies and join in with a European defence force if NATO is substantially weakened.

The environment

We all want to breathe clean air and swim in unpolluted and fresh water. The environment does respect political boundaries it is in our self-interest to protect our environment in concert with our European neighbours.

Cultural and family ties

Whether we like it or not there has been substantial demographic change as a result of freedom of movement. Many citizens have chosen to uproot themselves for family, economic, cultural and health reasons. Millions of citizens have migrated both ways so why spoil their lives by forcing them to relocate? Does Britain want to have a million plus disgruntled voters returning to  Britain to upset the political apple cart just because we cannot tolerate foreigners in our own country?

My proposal

My proposal is for a Norway plus option as outlined below.

We leave the institutions of the EU but we stay in the single market. For this we accept the freedom of movement of citizens that EEA members enjoy. A substantial proportion of leavers will support this as will virtually all remain voters. Non-voters will probably accept a decision by parliament to approve this. A proportion of xenophobes will reject this completely but they will have to accept it as it is in the economic best interests of our country to be part of the single market.

We negotiate a say in the development of the single market as if we had not left. Britain has a big enough economy to negotiate this and this will be probably be supported by France, Ireland, Germany and Poland. Britain would have to pay into the European budget to gain access to the market but it will be worth the price from an economic point of view.  Britain will be able to exploit the upcoming single market for services. Scottish and Northern Irish views will be taken into account.
All this will be in the economic interest of the remaining EU states as well as the UK.

In common with our former European partners, it is in our interests to promote world peace and security along with support for democracy, freedom of speech and human rights. There is no reason why we cannot write a treaty to achieve common interests with full voting rights for Britain:  our European partners will probably support this as will the US.

As far as the environment is concerned we should agree a treaty to enact measures which are in the joint interests of both the EU and the UK.

We agree a treaty with Spain and the EU over Gibraltar which will allow a free Gibraltar to maintain its ties with the UK but allow them to join the EU.

Cultural and social ties with the EU, the EEA and Switzerland will be maintained by freedom of movement rights and will remain unchanged and undamaged.

Parliament approval

Of course, my proposals will need to be critically examined for costs versus benefits.

I would prefer it if we stayed in the EU and this might turn out to be best option. The British people might change their mind if there is a recession resulting from the EU referendum and the full consequences of leaving hit home.

If we must leave then I believe that my proposal will meet support from all of the voters who chose to remain in the EU and a substantial number of leave supporters - enough to form a majority of voters. Non-voters will be looking for guidance from parliament so there must be a free vote of MPs before an option is considered and recommended and this should be before we invoke Article 50. Parliament should also approve any agreement negotiated between Britain and the EU after Article 50 is invoked and before we actually leave the EU.

My proposal will satisfy  most of the population of the UK as it allows us to leave the institutions of the EU but retain access to and influence over the single market and exploit the new EU single market for services. This will be in exchange for allowing perhaps two or three hundred thousand more people into the country under freedom of movement rules. Britain is a rich enough country to support freedom of movement.

The proposal caters for Scotland and Northern Ireland and our international relations with the EU and the rest of the world. It is a good compromise which should achieve a consensus of support from the electorate of the UK and of course it is in our best economic, social and foreign affairs interests.

I feel sure that our EU partners will accept this positive proposal as it is in all our interests to maintain close relations. Such an agreement could be negotiated quickly as it is very close to the Norwegian option.

Brexit implications

Vote leave supporters may not get what they bargained for. They have probably taken aim at the wrong people and blamed them for  the predicament of the country.

Unfortunately, the poor and disadvantaged will not see their lot improving. Since the 1970's there has been a redistribution of wealth. This has been from the poor to the rich. It started when council houses were sold to private individuals and the proceeds of the sales were not re-invested in more council and social housing to replace the properties which were divested. The private sector for housing has never been able to provide sufficient houses for the growing population.

Successive governments have sold valuable government assets such as the railways, the post office and the energy industries to shore up public finances. As Harold Macmillan put it: the nation has sold off the family silver - he was an ex-Conservative Prime Minister. Some industries such as the car industry or telecommunications benefit from privatisation and these sell offs have benefited the economy in general. But the sale of the housing stock and other key industries has only exacerbated transfer of wealth and power from the people to corporate organisations.

The de-industrialisation of the economy has contributed to a loss of real earnings so that wages have hardly risen in 30 years. The transfer of the means of production to other nation states has also resulted in a loss of earning power. Trade union power has been emasculated so that workers rights and living standards have been cut without challenge. Millions of  people have been forced into low paid self-employment or zero-hours contracts and they are struggling to just feed their families let alone pay bills. Hundreds of thousands are relying on food-banks to make ends meet.

All in all the re-distribution of wealth and reduced earning power has meant that large sections of our society are living without hope of improvement in their living standards. Millions of our citizens have simply been left behind and they have been failed by both major political parties. Millions of people have been forced to turn to obtaining credit from "loan sharks" to make their lives just about bearable.

They are victims of a lack of social housing so that many have to pay almost un-affordable rents to private landlords to find a place to rest their heads. Millions of working people just want to be able to hold their heads up high. They want decent jobs that pay decent wages so that they can have a half decent life and pay their way without hand outs. It is no wonder that they want to kick out against the establishment.

The EU commission is responsible for none of this - all of our wounds are self inflicted.

The British economy, in general, has prospered in recent years after it came out of the financial crisis of 2007/08.

The British economy in the main, however, is a low productivity one which depends on  a source of low paid labour which is flexible and which can survive the economic tribulations of zero hours contracts and lay offs. These low paid workers are young and do not have families. And, like all young people without children they are prepared to move house and live in multiple occupation flats. Only young immigrants can tolerate these working conditions.

There is another British economy which requires high skilled workers in information technology, finance,telecommunications, medicine and aerospace etc. There is a shortage of these skills coming from the indigenous population and the only source of these skills is immigrants.

Oh yes, immigration, half of the voters in the referendum were frightened of it, Some of those voters were just xenophobes and many were racists. The poor and disadvantaged voted leave out of protest. Some of the voters were just interested in sovereignty but they all made common cause believing that reducing immigration would solve all our or their problems. It won't as will be seen over the next five to ten years.

The trouble is Britain's economy sucks in immigrants and it cannot grow without them. The economic model relies on either low paid workers or pinching skilled and well educated people from other nations. The Vote Leave leaders have promised economic sunshine but if their model economy is to grow it has to suck in even more immigrants.

If the Vote Leave project fails then the economy will go into recession and then hurrah most of the immigrants will go home. But then many many British people will lose their jobs and the economy will not be able to afford more hospitals, creches and doctors. The housing market will collapse and there will still be a shortage of social housing. Unemployment will bring down wages and the economy will not be able to afford child benefit. We shall be out of the single market and freedom of movement restrictions will mean that young people will have nowhere to go to find work.

There is only one way to help the poor and disadvantaged and bring down the need to import cheap labour. We need a new economic model which re-distributes the wealth and earnings of the nation in favour of the poor and disadvantaged. This will not be achieved by some sort of dangerous ultra-left wing or ultra right wing revolution. We need one nation type politicians such as Clement Attlee or Harold Macmillan to do something for the poor and the struggling middle classes. We need to build houses, hospitals and doctors surgeries. We need an education system that produces well rounded students. We need creches and good health care for our children.We need a workforce that can afford to move location with their  families to fill well paid jobs. We need a more productive society. However, to achieve peaceful and sustainable  change it will take years. Some people may not have the patience so we could be in for a rough ride. Some politicians are completely opposed to changing the economic model so the situation could become even worse.

Unfortunately the "efficient markets" philosophy which has monopolised economic policy since the 1970's cannot provide an economy which provides for the poor and the struggling middle classes as well as for the rich.  Our country has enough resources to provide a decent standard of living for all our poor and disadvantaged people and our immigrants who have contributed enormous sums of wealth to our economy; but our country chooses not to distribute the wealth and income anywhere near equitably.

Vote Leave politicians are going to provide us with more of the same old economic story. We need strong leaders with a completely different vision - come back Attlee and Supermac.

If we cut ourselves off from the European single market to spite our economic faces, in the vain hope of reducing immigration, then we could suffer and the poor will suffer most. There are many Europeans who think the same way as me . It would be better to unite with them to find a better economic solution for all Europeans rather than just carry on with business as usual but without the Bulgarian strawberry pickers. Do you want to see the fruits of an economic recovery left rotting in the field?

The Brexit route to the land of milk and honey and opportunity

I am a Remain supporter. I have no intention of answering any comment from a Leave supporter as I shall not be able to convince you otherwise.

Those wavering about how to vote should consider the following.

In 1975 when we had the last referendum I voted to leave the EEC. It was a fifty-fifty decision for me and when I left the voting booth I realised I had voted with my heart rather than with my head and I had made a mistake.

At the time the vote was considered to be a once in a lifetime event and if Britain had voted to leave I fully expected that to be irrevocable.

In 1975 it would have been possible to disentangle ourselves from the EEC as it was then with relative ease. Now it will be a problem as Britain is intertwined with the EU both economically, socially and culturally.

Before we joined the EEC, in 1973, Britain was considered as the sick man of Europe. We suffered from inflation, balance of payments problems, runs on the pound and industrial strife.

Our country has changed enormously and we have caught up with our European neighbours who before 1973 were surging ahead and out competing us.

Now some members of the political establishment are trying to remove us from the EU project. These members of the establishment have very similar attitudes now as then.  When General De Gaulle said “Non” when we first applied to join the EEC in the 1960s the attitude was: “How dare Johnny Foreigner tell us what to do”? It was the clarion call.

The EU Commission does not dictate policy to any European state. It drafts legislation and implements it. The legal and political decisions are made by the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament. The Council of Ministers consists of the elected heads of government of all EU states and the European Parliament.  Not perfect but consider this: Britain’s House of Lords is not elected. Our Head of State is not elected and anyway all of the monarch’s powers are stripped away to be delegated to the Prime Minister and the Cabinet: without a vote. Where is the British democracy in all this?

We have not lost any sovereignty from being part of the EU. We share our sovereignty. We have shared our sovereignty for years with Ireland since they became independent. We have had a common travel area with Ireland and Irish citizens are legally not regarded as foreigners in the UK and vice versa. We can vote in each other’s elections for parliament when we take up residence. The common travel area has worked well for Britain and Ireland for decades just as the EU has worked well for Britain and all other member states.

We pool our sovereignty with Nato and if Iran attacks Turkey we are legally obliged to come to their assistance; you or your sons and daughters might be called up to die on Turkey’s behalf. I presume “Brexiters” want us to regain our sovereignty and leave Nato too: sorry they don’t and their hypocrisy is exposed.

Britain is an integral part of the EU. Yes, we do contribute 350 million a week to the budget but much of this is returned to us directly. The rest of our money is invested in the EU and we benefit from this indirectly. It is not just us and them as Britain has considerable say on how the EU budget is spent and invested.

Californian citizens contribute more to the USA budget than Wyoming citizens do, but Californians do not whinge about this as the have to foresight and generosity to help poorer states in an enlightened form of self-interest.

Yes, there is free movement of labour and this is a good thing. The EU is based on the principles of free movement of capital, goods, services and labour. You can’t have free movement of capital, goods and services without the free movement of labour. Britain will not get a free trade agreement with Europe unless it agrees to free movement of labour.

David Cameron was right; the EU was formed to promote peace in European after decades of vicious war. The EU works to maintain the peace within Europe’s borders. No two fully democratic states have gone to war with each other. All EU members must be democratic states before they join. The spread of democracy encourages peace.

The EU has been a source of inspiration for Britain since the dark days of 1972 and we are now reasonably well placed economically. But there are clouds on the horizon. If the EU or the US falls then they take us with them. We cannot afford to be hubristic as the difficult days of 2008 and 2009 could return for us and our partners. We need to leverage off the strength of the US and the EU and promote sustainable growth in the West in a spirit of co-operation.

The “Brexiters” have no plan for what will happen if we leave the EU. They are in disagreement about immigration, free trade and freedom of movement and this is not a good prospect for a political and economic settlement with the rest of the EU or the US. I might have been prepared to vote Leave and go for the Norwegian option if it meant that all the squabbling would stop. There is no plan other than it will be alright on the night. Vote Leave is not an option for me.

It won’t be alright on the night. If we impose work permits, visas or restrictions and extra taxes on EU citizens after we leave, then EU will do the same to us. There are hundreds of thousands of UK citizens who live and work or retire happily in the rest of the EU so why make life more difficult for them?

The claim that Britain is the 5^th richest country in the world and that we can do what we like with the EU which will bend over and give us what we want, is rubbish. Since the end of the Second World War our power to act alone has been declining. If you want evidence of this then read the history of the 1956 Suez crisis when the UK invaded Egypt which went against  US geo-political interests. The US forced Britain to withdraw by merely hinting that that they would sell UK government bonds to cause a run on the pound.

 The US sees Britain’s membership of the EU as part of their geo-political interests and they will not take too kindly to us leaving so they will stall a trade agreement.

Wise up - Britain is no longer a global power, we cannot throw our weight around either economically or militarily; we need to be part of strong economic blocks and alliances. We cannot act alone.

If we leave the EU the sun will not shine forever on the British. The promise of economic nirvana with "Brexiters" leading the way is an empty one. 

If you want to see the pound plummet on the 24^th of June 2016 and our financial services industry disappear to Frankfurt and New York then vote leave.

"Brexiter" implies that Britain will be less secure if we leave the EU

A leading "Brexiter" has proposed that prime minister David Cameron should immediately introduce emergency security legislation to protect the security of the UK upon leaving the EU. Why would the prime minister need to do this if, as the "Brexit" campaign contends, Britain will be safer when we leave the EU?

This proposal is ill conceived nonsense.

What are the hidden dangers of leaving the EU ? Please would the "Brexit" campaign like to inform us all?

It is irresponsible that we should break our treaty obligations just to go it alone on security  and immigration during the period when we negotiate an exit from the EU. Who would trust a country that reneges on its treaty obligations? Would the US trust us to be a loyal NATO member? How would reneging on our treaty obligations make us safer?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/pa/article-3577984/Gove-Laws-strengthen-UKs-borders-follow-quickly-Brexit.html

Since 1973, when the UK and Ireland joined the EU, the only EU citizens who have been involved in terrorists atrocities in our islands have been from the United Kingdom or Ireland . Some 3,000 citizens were killed by terrorists related incidents during the Northern Ireland troubles. The victims were killed, in the main, by UK born terrorists. The 2005 terrorists attacks perpetrated in London were were made by UK citizens. Michael Gove seems to have conveniently forgotten this history.

During the Northern Ireland troubles the British and Irish people were sensible enough not to have demanded that we suspended the Common Travel Area between our countries, or that we should have deported British or Irish citizens, or erected a border fence between the North and South of Ireland. The Northern Ireland troubles were resolved by two independent states pooling their sovereignty to cooperate on security and above all to improve the political process that led to peace. If  Britain and Ireland had buried their heads in the sand then the Northern Ireland troubles would have continued until this day.

The overwhelming majority of EU citizens who live in the UK are peaceful and law abiding and they are not a threat to national security. The EU, and its citizens, is no more of a threat to Britain than Ireland is.

In the UK about 6,000 people die from accidents in the home. This means that since 2005 about 60,000 people have died from accidents where they feel safe. It is far more dangerous to stay at home than run the gauntlet of terrorism on the streets of the UK. Who are the real scaremongers the prime minister or the "Brexiteers"? We need to have a sense of proportion about the dangers of terrorism and not use it as part of a political blame culture.

The British police and their colleagues in MI5, MI6 and GCHQ have worked very effectively to keep us safe from malicious terror. We shall be safer still if we co-operate fully with the EU - just as we do with the US and Canada. If we have to pool some sovereignty to do this, just as we pool our sovereignty with NATO, then I am all in favour. Britain makes a considerable contribution to the safety and security of Europe. A safer Europe means a safer UK. The safety of Europe will not be improved by Britain leaving the EU.

Vote To Leave the EU -mmmmmmm

Way back in 1975 I voted to leave the EEC but for me it was a 50 50 decision and I had not made up my mind until I entered the voting booth. My head was telling me to stay in and my heart was telling me to leave. At the time I had lots of friends from Australia and they went some way to convincing me that somehow Britain was letting them and the Commonwealth down.

When I came out of the polling booth I realised that I had made a mistake but it was too late to go back and ask for my ballot paper to be changed. I was glad that Britain voted to stay in the EU.

The nation had made an historic decision, one which should have been final. After the vote it was time to get on with our lives: Britain had made a democratic and sovereign decision to remain with our European partners. I never thought for one moment that we would be having the same arguments again.

After the EEC was formed, in 1957, Britain was left out in the economic cold, so it persuaded states such as Norway and Ireland to join EFTA or the European Free Trade Association to act as a counter balance to the EEC. The EEC, however, forged ahead economically; much more than Britain or EFTA. The British Prime Minister, Harold Macmillan realised that Britain's economic future lay with the EEC and he started negotiations for Britain to Join the EEC. His ambitions were thwarted when in January 1963 General De Gaulle as president of France said "Non".

Many of the same types of people who now want to leave the EU were rather miffed by the dismissal of Britain's application by De Gaulle.  The British view then was:"why should a foreigner tell Britain what it cannot or can do?". Unfortunately,back then as now, Britain was not economically strong enough to impose its will.

Britain finally joined the EEC in 1973 under the Edward Heath government. The arguments in both the the Labour party and the Conservative party did not stop so the Labour Party prime minister, Harold Wilson, called a referendum to satisfy the demands of leave campaigners. The general population including me were quite happy to agree with the status quo and at the time there was not much popular demand for a referendum.

In 1975 the referendum was held to decide once and for all Britain's fate. I accepted that now Britain had to wholeheartedly take its place in the EU and to a certain extent it  did.

Britain has benefited enormously from its membership of the EU it has progressed both socially, economically and politically. I have benefited from marrying a European and I have worked in European Union without restriction and without any bureaucracy to deal with. The EU has also benefited. Britain helped to reform agricultural and fisheries policies and it has promoted free trade without financial and bureaucratic barriers. Britain was a sad inward looking place in the 1960's and early 1970's; we only had the Beatles to cheer about and they had broken up.

Britain is now a socially progressive and economically vibrant country. So is the EU. Both Britain and the EU have their economic difficulties. It is hubristic for "Brexiters" to claim that the UK is now so much better off than the rest of the EU. Our future in or out of the EU depends upon the success of the EU and if they fall then so will we.

If we had not joined the EU or we had left after the 1975 referendum we would probably have been forced by economics to join the EEA: just like Norway. We would have been paying into the EU coffers to achieve a free trade agreement. We would have had to accept free movement of labour and we would have had to accept that we changed our trading laws to meet EU regulations.

The modern day "Brexiter" would have had to have found other reasons to leave the EEA. And,of course, that would have been immigration. The facts of the matter are that immigration  is very difficult to control. More people come to Britain from outside the EU than from within it. We have absolute control over non-EU immigration but the numbers continue to rise. We just have to accept that Britain is going to attract many immigrants so let's get on with our lives and welcome them.

The Vote Leave economic arguments are failing, so I expect them to concentrate on the fear of immigration to achieve their aims. But the British are not fooled that easily. The benefits of free trade are not outweighed by the dis-benefits if immigration.  Immigrants more than pay their way and they have helped to keep our economy growing during hard economic times. They have skills that we cannot survive without . They keep many businesses going and they help to keep the NHS working.
Without immigrants we would be worse off. If we ask our guests  to get get visas  before they live and work in the UK then the EU will reciprocate. We do not want or need to have a "trade war" in people.

It  seems to me that many "Brexit" politicians want to be big fish in a small pond. They want to tell people what to do . They cannot achieve this in Europe so they want to leave the EU so that they are left alone to push the British around. Their promise that they will control immigration is there just to ensure that Britain will leave the EU.  This promise will be broken either because many of the "Brexiters" do not care about immigration or "real politik" economics will demand the free movement of labour between the EU and Britain.

Britain's economy is too intertwined with the EU for us to leave without pain. Likewise, we have too many people from the rest of the EU to play games with their future. Also, we should recognise that we could be playing fast and loose with the future of the many hundreds of thousands of British citizens who have freely chosen to work or live in the rest of the EU.

The best course of action is to vote to remain and let that be the end of  the referendums.

The one reason for remaining in EU which overrides everything else - Peace.

The EEC, now the EU, was formed  by the six original states: France, Germany, Italy, Belgium, Holland and Luxembourg, when they signed the Treaty of Rome in 1957. The EEC officially came into being in 1958.

The reason to create the EEC was not just economic it was also political. It was vital that Europe should not suffer again from the horrors of the two World Wars which started in Europe in the twentieth century. The first world war saw millions of young men dying under horrific conditions in the trenches and front lines. The USA was dragged into the war and so was the British Commonwealth or Empire as it was then.

The League of Nations formed after the First World War failed to prevent the even more horrific and terrifying World War Two. Not only did thousands of service men suffer but millions of civilians suffered death or serious injury. We saw the holocaust where over 6 million innocent Jewish people were murdered because of their race. Hundreds of thousands of innocent Gypsies and Slavic people were murdered because they appeared different. There was an orgy of xenophobic slaughter and war crimes.

Modern day xenophobes would do well to reflect upon this - you could become the victim.

The leaders of Europe did reflect upon this and one of the best ways of preventing the same humanitarian crimes happening again was to form the EEC. The EEC would encourage free trade between the peoples of Europe. Freedom of movement to find work would encourage friendship between the common people of Europe to promote friendship and peace. The ideal was to make war unthinkable not just because the economies of Europe would become intertwined but because the peoples of Europe, at a grass roots level, would create  a political consensus to prevent their leaders from starting unnecessary and cruel wars.

If you look at the last thousand years of European history  we have had uncountable wars culminating in the most cruel war of all: World War Two.  The EU has created an environment of peace between its member states. A peace that has lasted more than fifty years. Britain joined the EU in 1973 and it has enjoyed increasing prosperity and cultural advancement in that time. There have been economic setbacks for both Britain and the rest of the EU. However, in the main, all citizens of the EU have enjoyed peace and security and the prospect of a brighter future if they wanted to work for it.

It is easy for relatively peaceful countries to fall back into war. Yugoslavia and Ukraine are two European examples. When Yugoslavia broke up because of severe nationalist influences we saw war between the former states quickly take hold. We saw war crimes being committed. Within a year a peaceful country had descended into chaos. The former states of Yugoslavia now want to agree a rapprochement. Croatia and Slovenia have already achieved this by joining the EU and now it is the turn of Serbia, Macedonia and Bosnia to do the same.  The EU is their key to achieving peace and friendly national relations again.

Ukraine went from hosting the European football championships one year to waging a civil war a couple of years later. The dangers of disunity and xenophobia are clear to all.

Peace does not come easy and it needs to be worked at. The EU, The Ukraine and Russia must come to an agreement to stop the war in the Ukraine and prevent it from ever happening again. Britain can play a constructive and creative role in achieving a peace settlement to improve the security for all of Europe.

It would be a mistake for Britain to leave the EU as it could encourage disunity not just in Britain itself but also in Europe. Dark forces could arise once more to spoil progress.

In June, we shall be voting to remain or leave the EU; we will not be voting to ban or restrict immigration. I am afraid to say that the British population is being manipulated by fear of immigration to leave the EU.

Of course, the mass migration of people creates problems but schools, hospitals and other infrastructure can be built to mitigate the economic effects of immigration and emigration. We can plan for this. We already have a clear idea of how many people will be living in our country in 2030. We can build our infrastructure based on the extra wealth that immigrants from Europe and other countries create. We are not helpless; we are a resourceful and well organised country and we can easily accommodate the workers coming here if we have the will to do it.

What is the point of complaining about people who come to work in Britain and pay their way and contribute?Why not welcome them and do something to improve their lives? Many of the foreign workers will return home. It would be better if they went home with a good feeling about the British. Economies perform in cycles and our cycle is out of synchronisation with the rest of Europe. One day the tables will be turned and British workers may feel the need to emigrate to the rest of Europe to find employment. Freedom of movement to work is a precious commodity so lets not lose it or waste it because of animosity between neighbours.

It is difficult to mitigate the effects of disliking or even hating people from neighbouring countries and if we allow ourselves and the people of Europe to become xenophobic because of our actions then we are treading into dangerous territory once again.

I say to the people who want to leave the EU because you do not like foreigners that you should think again and be careful what you wish for. Despite the difficulties the future will be brighter for both you and your children and grand children if we stay united to our friends across the channel.

Peace needs hard work. Above, all it needs good will towards your neighbours and a willingness to cooperate with them in a sense of enlightened self-interest. Why not vote for continuing peace?

EU Remain campaign needs some big hitters from all the political parties

The Remain campaign is faltering and is failing to counter much of the propaganda  of the Leave campaigns. " Vote Leave" passion and misrepresentation of the facts is triumphing over reason and a hard headed consideration of why we should remain in the EU out of enlightened self-interest. It appears that the only passionate political voice to remain is coming from David Cameron. No other party leaders are setting aside factional interests to support him. The Labour party leadership is very lukewarm and the Liberal leadership seems embarrassed to raise its voice.

I am fearful that if no other leaders are prepared to make a passionate but cogent and reasoned case for remaining in the EU then Britain will vote to leave. We will then face government by people who have misrepresented the EU and how it operates to the British people.

The EU Commission does not and cannot dictate to any member state what to do. The European Council of Ministers and the European parliament make European Law. The Council of Ministers is the main power broker and it consists of the elected heads of government of all the member states. The EU Commission just acts like the British civil service.

The EU does not dictate to us how we run our affairs; we still retain the Monarchy, the House of Lords, the House of Commons, our own Judicial System, the established Church of England and the NHS. None of these institutions have been in any danger from the EU since we joined in 1973.

Silly myths about EU interference in our major laws or way of life have been perpetrated by malign politicians and newspapers, but now some of these have been debunked by the House of Commons Treasury Committee. The EU has not banned children under 8 from blowing up balloons. It has not banned Britain from re-cycling teabags and it has not legislated for a one size fits all coffin. It is time that we had a grown up debate devoid of pettifogging.

There are many problems which Britain and the EU have to solve. How do we replace the failed economic model of neo-liberalism and with what – Keynesianism, Democratic Socialism or enlightened Capitalism? How do we solve the abuse of corporate power? How do we provide good well paid jobs for all our citizens? How do we provide good health services and how do we pay for them? How do we provide for a good clean environment? How do we maintain the peace that the EU has promoted in Europe for the last 50 years?

We need to solve the problem of refugees. The only way we can stop this humanitarian crisis is to stop the wars. The EU did not start any war and it is disingenuous for “Brexiters” to claim that the EU is responsible for this almost insoluble humanitarian issue.

From a security point of view it is obvious that we need to co-operate fully with our European partners; but we will not be able to do this as effectively outside of the EU.

Britain and Europe are stronger if we tackle our common problems together. We all have a shared history. We share the same, cultural, social and political values.  We can solve all these problems together and make a more prosperous and peaceful future. Where is the “Brexiter” vision of the future? There isn't one. Waving the flag and crying that: “we have got the world’s 5^th biggest economy” is simply not good enough.

If we vote to leave the EU then what guarantee do we have that the politicians that replace David Cameron will pay much attention to Britain and its place in the world? Out of political malice the “Brexiters” might do nothing more than promote their own self-interest. Their political colours and attitudes have been exposed by their egregious misrepresentations.  Britain will be left alone without a vision for its future but worst of all its unemployed, sick and disabled will be left to fend for themselves but without hope.

The Remain politicians must rise to the challenge.  Britain’s future in the hands of the “Brexiters” looks bleak.

Without the EU Britain's power in the world will be seriously weakened

Below is the text of a letter that I sent to a major "Brexit" newspaper; it was not published of course.

The business affairs of Tata Steel UK demonstrate the weakness of Britain’s economic position when it tries to act alone and not in concert with our European partners. China is dumping cheap steel into world markets and this form of commercial activity could destroy steel production in many countries including our own.

The United States has imposed a tariff on Chinese steel to nip dumping onto the American market in the bud. The EU Commission has proposed that the European Union deploys “Trade Defence Instruments (TDI)” to protect our European steel industry. Britain has blocked this. And, of course, the Commission is powerless to over-rule Britain.

Britain has been trying to attract Chinese investment in infrastructure projects in the UK. Perhaps I am being churlish to suggest that Britain’s arm was twisted to block the EU deployment of a TDI against the dumping of Chinese steel.

Tata has decided to abandon steel production in the UK against a backdrop of competing with cheap Chinese steel imports into the EU. Its only interest, quite rightly, is protecting the investment of its shareholders. No amount of flag waving or making claims that Britain has the “5^th biggest economy in the world” is going to cut any ice. Tata would have been expecting Britain to support European measures to ward off steel dumping.

Tata UK would also have been considering the commercial consequences of Britain’s possible exit from Europe. Would its executives be allowed to travel freely in Europe or would they end up in long queues at airports? Worse still, would an EU free of British intervention impose a TDI on British as well Chinese Steel? Tata UK wants to know what Britain’s plans are if we are to exit the EU. “It will be all right on the night” is not good enough. It is no wonder that Tata Steel is quitting Britain; the politicians advocating departure from the EU have no vision or economic strategy for our future outside of Europe.

There is no doubt that potential buyers will be calculating the profits or losses to be made from buying a UK steel industry which is cut off from major markets in Europe, the US, and China either by tariffs, price competition or the restricted movement of its executives. Will a potential buyer take such an investment risk? I fear for the future of steel production in the UK, and I fear for the future of the thousands of jobs and the hundreds of small businesses that depend upon a solution for steel.

Yes, Britain has got the world’s 5th largest economy with a GDP of around USD 3 trillion dollars pa. The US has a GDP of over USD 17 trillion and China over USD 10 trillion pa. Our economy is dwarfed in comparison. Britain on its own has very little economic power to influence events in its own favour.

  

The EU is the 2nd largest economic block in the world with a GDP of around USD 16 trillion pa. If we vote for Brexit the remaining combined GDP of the European Union will be around USD 13 trillion pa. We will be competing against another massive economy. What hope have we got to negotiate more favourable trading terms with these economic giants than we have got now?

Given the enormity of the opposition, would it not be better to remain in one of the biggest economic clubs and co-operate to protect the commercial interests of all member states of the EU? Every citizen of the UK should carefully consider the economic consequences of Brexit.  Flag waving and exaggerated patriotism will not earn us an international crust of bread.

EU - positivity

I am a supporter of the EU as both a political and economic union. I support those political aspects of the Union which improve the living standards of all the citizens of the EU. In many ways political action drives economic action. If a state or group of states has the political will to achieve something then the economics has to follow.

Political will has dominated economic will ever since mankind has been on the planet and before the study of economics was ever invented. Of course economics would always have entered  into a human decision. However, most societies  throughout the world have developed whereby political considerations override economic ones. I include religious considerations as part of the political orbit.  In Muslim countries it is frowned upon to charge interest for a loan and this religious principle influences trading and commercial considerations.

It is only in the last two hundred years or so that limited liability companies have come to the fore. Before the invention of the limited liability company, traders and manufacturers  as individuals were regarded as morally responsible for the activities of  the enterprise. Even in the 19th century a trader or individual could be sent to prison for not meeting their financial obligations. We have progressed substantially since those days both politically and economically.

The EU cannot exist without political considerations being taken into account. I believe that the EU has the responsibility to keep the peace and to promote a secure society where the economy of each individual member state is encouraged to flourish. The member states also have a political duty to work together for peace and security in the rest of the world which cannot flourish without these two vital pre-requisites for health and wealth.

The EU should have a vision of how all this would work. Britain should be able to make a  a major contribution to this, but only if we remain in the EU. We have the opportunity to make much progress if we work together with our European partners rather than squabbling with them or accusing them of ganging up against us.

One of the enormous benefits of the EU is the exchange of ideas and cultural activity. Whenever I meet young people from Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovakia or Romania, I am always enthused by the hopes that they have for themselves and their families. They have come to Britain for the the opportunity to make a better life for themselves and contribute to their new country.. Most of these young people miss their homeland and will return home when circumstances permit. Others will be content to stay.

I have worked, as part of international teams, in many of the countries of the old EU including France, Germany, Italy, Spain and Benelux. I have never felt any animosity towards me because I was British. On the contrary I have felt positively welcomed and I hope that I have made a positive contribution wherever I have stayed. It is time for the British people to recognise Europeans as out friends who wan to work with us and be part of a community of nations working for the common good. The Europeans are not ganging up on us and they are not trying to make life difficult for us by introducing unnecessary bureaucracy or trying to undermine our sovereignty.

On my travels throughout the EU, I have never been subjected to any form of bureaucracy; all I have done is show my passport at the border and that was it. A hotel has never asked to retain my passport for photocopying. When I was running a project in Germany one of the members of my team had to go to hospital; at the end of his stay he just showed his international NHS card and he had nothing to pay. Everything was bureaucracy free. This was not so for citizens who came from South Africa, Russia or India as they had to go through the formalities of obtaining a Schengen visa. The benefits of British citizens being able to  travel visa-free through the EU are enormous; from a business, cultural and social point of view.

Of course these arrangements have to be reciprocal. Why should young people from Britain have obstacles put in their way to being able to broaden their experience and horizons from visa-free travel? Why should young citizens from the EU be prevented from contributing to the British economy? We need them to work for industries where there is a skills and labour shortage. Britain cannot supply enough young people in itself  to pay for the ever increasing numbers of pensioners so we need the youth of Romania, Bulgaria and other countries to come here  to support our economy. As an exchange we should be investing in Romania and Bulgaria to ensure that there is a future for the youth of the new EU members states. Co-operation across Europe will enhance the economic prospects for all.

All of the countries of Europe need to work together to improve the environment because air and water pollution does not respect borders. Britain could be a major contributor to and beneficiary of investment in the environment. Our country is a major research centre. Our language is understood and spoken by most researchers in the EU; we could become leaders in environmental research and development of new resources.

As far as the refugee "crisis" is concerned  the unfortunate victims of war in the Middle East will be coming whether the EU exists or not. Along with the refugees a considerable number of economic migrants are joining in the mass movement. Refugees should be afforded sanctuary without question and they should be looked after properly.

Economic migrants should be treated the same way as citizens from Thailand, South Africa or India so they should be required to have a visa. But, surely we must have a means for dealing with people if they just turn up at the border. If they are prepared to work and can support themselves, why not give them a temporary visa which will allow for them to stay and find a job and sort out the paperwork later? Britain was once a country which had the confidence to act flexibly. We even organised the Olympic games when we were bankrupt after the second World War. Nowadays, we seem to be lost and whenever there is a problem many of our citizens see the solution as just blaming the foreigners and excluding them. This approach will not work. We need to face the problems of the EU has and work with our partners to find solutions.

The issue of migration is caused mainly by war but poverty and abuse of human rights are other factors. The EU should be a force for peace in the world and for improving the economic conditions of the poor. We should listen to our EU partners who are more concerned about this. We have seen the disasters of taking military action in Iraq and Libya without making proper provision for the consequences. The approach of Germany to foreign policy might be a better option. Since the end of the second World War, Germany has been more interested in "real politik" than flag waving and returning to the glories of a colonial past.


Britain should not be too proud to learn the lessons of post war politics. It is not good enough to say: "Britain is great, it has the 5th largest economy and everything will be all right on the night". The leave campaigners have no vision for a post-EU Britain because they all disagree on policy.  What sort of leadership is this?

We need to be full members of the EU if we want our voice to be really heard and we need to be fully committed. We need to be fully involved in leading all the nations of Europe to the peace, security and prosperity that they deserve. We should stop sniping from the sidelines and vote to stay in.

Syrian Peace process

It is essential that the Syrian peace process is successful and that all parties work towards a peaceful resolution to the conflict. I am not confident, however, that the talks will be successful. Some of the adversaries are not included in the peace process.

Perhaps, the leaders of the peace process, the US and Russia, should consider negotiating with Isis and Al Nusra - no matter how distasteful this must seem. The leaders of the latter two groups would then be able to assess the opposition against them and that it is implacable. They might then be prepared to cease hostilities and stand down knowing that in the end they will not be able to achieve their objectives by violence. Any negotiation would have to be carried out by the UN in association with states that tacitly support them.

If the negotiations fail, the war against Isis and Al Nusra could then be resumed but with renewed vigour.

At last Russia and US seem to be on the same side: this war must be stopped but by diplomacy first but backed up by military action if diplomacy fails.

EU negativity

Lots of commentators are making the point that there is an air of negativity and fear surrounding both the stay in and leave now campaigns for Britain's future in the EU. For me there is nothing to fear if Britain were stay or leave; our country has the ability to prosper either way.

I would like to think that the EU leaders have a vision for Europe which will improve the cultural, economic and environmental prospects for all of its citizens. That there will be an improvement of the living standards for everyone. Unfortunately no such vision exists any longer.

The EU is no longer an organisation where enlightened self interest drives policies forward. It is now a quasi-state where only self interest dominates the debate.  Britain is one of the worst offenders along with some other recent joiners. The refugee problem sums this all up. The refugee crisis is not a crisis  for Europe it is only a crisis for the refugees. The problem is easily resolvable if rich European nations are prepared to work together but they are not. Selfishness has turned a humanitarian issue into a "crisis" for Europe because all the nations of the EU do not have the will or moral fibre to resolve problems - we have become decadent. Nations have taken to navel gazing and lashing out at strangers rather than showing the will or ingenuity to work together to solve problems.

Unfortunately, my own country has got involved in intense navel gazing. We are disturbed by Romanians and Bulgarians coming to work in our country under the terms of  the freedom of  movement treaty. The best resolution to this problem would be to make Romania and Bulgaria and other Eastern European Union countries  richer. Most people do not want to leave their homeland, families and friends behind. If we could achieve some form of economic equality then only the adventurous would come to Britain and other European countries. Many adventurous youngsters from Britain would then migrate to Poland, Romania and Bulgaria and  there would be a balance or a happy medium.

It is within the power of the EU to create healthy economic, social and cultural conditions in all of our countries. Why is this not happening? It is pure selfishness. We have forgotten the enlightened part of selfishness.

Whilst there are economic imbalances within the EU there will always be movement of people. Britain cannot avoid this whether we are in or out.

It is no use to be negative or fearful so why not work together to play our part in solving the problems of Europe?

Britain is stronger when it cooperates with people that have the same cultural, economic and social interests. We even have very similar political interests. We could be a a powerful voice for peace. With especial regard to Syria, there would hardly be any refugees coming to Europe, Turkey, Lebanon or Jordan if there was no war. This is so obvious. It is also obvious that all the powers involved in the war should set aside their self interest and look to the interests of the common people of Syria not Syria's elite. The warring powers should seek peace immediately. When there is peace, Britain and the EU must play a full part in establishing economic security for Syria. The refugees will then return home voluntarily to rebuild the nation.

Sanctions against people who leave their homeland because of war will not work. Only peace will work; Britain should stop navel gazing and it should work with its European neighbours to ensure that peace and economic security presides both in Syria, the EU and everywhere else for that matter.

Will this happen? I fear not whilst Britain and its fellow EU members wallow in self-interest and navel gazing. This is why there is an air of negativity and fear.

If Britain votes to leave the EU then nothing much will change but the navel gazing will become even more intense. There might be another economic crisis if we vote to leave and then a sudden and national volte- face. Our country could then be left in a weaker position.

If we vote to stay we will remain begrudging members of the EU and in 20 years time there will be another referendum. Nothing will change if we do not change our attitude.

Every now and then a wave of optimism hits me and this is the only reason why I shall vote to stay with Europe; hopefully one day all the negativity will evaporate.

European Union Referendum - why bother ?

The arguments are beginning to hot up. There are a few realities which have to be faced. There is very little debate about what will happen if Britain decides to leave the EU.

Just like 1975, when we last had a referendum about the EU there are two very vocal camps who want to leave.

There are the traditionalists and the very left wing activists. In 1975 they joined forces to get Britain to leave the EU but of course they had two very different visions for the future. Both camps need a reality check.

Many very left wing activists believe that the EU prevents the UK from becoming a socialist state. If we leave the EU it would be easier to campaign for socialism and achieve it - so they think. Nothing could be further from the truth. Many left wing activists act with almost a religious fervour which is not appealing to the voters of the UK who are rather secularist in their opinions. It is highly unlikely that British people will ever vote for the types of left activists who advocate hard line socialism in a general election. The hard line activists are deluding themselves if they think that leaving the EU will help their cause.

The "hard left" has made an unholy alliance with a group of right wingers who somehow think that Britain can return to its past glories, when Britain ruled the waves and could control what was happening. They believe that everybody except the British should do what they are told. They believe that Britain should dictate the terms in Europe. This, for them,  means pure free trade only but free trade based on favourable terms for Britain. Free movement of goods, services and capital  but without "johnny foreigner" being allowed to come to Britain and do what he likes or scrounge off us. The Brits should have freedom to travel anywhere they like, however. What these little Englanders have forgotten is that Britain no longer has either the military power or economic weight to influence anybody. Britain cannot push around the USA, China and Russia because they have got bigger nuclear arsenals, bigger armies and navies than us. And, more importantly bigger economies.

We can't even push around the French any more in a military sense. France has got a bigger army than Britain with troops which are just as well trained and equipped. France has got nuclear weapons too. France has got an aircraft carrier with fighter/ bomber jets. Britain has got an aircraft carrier with just helicopters on board. It will be no use sending a gunboat to Calais if the French don't do as they are told.

The harsh reality which everyone in Britain has to face whether they are hard left activists or little Englanders or just middle of the road centrists, is you cannot always get what you want. Sometimes you have to negotiate and sometimes it is best to co-operate with other people who have similar interests to you.

So what happens if Britain votes to leave the EU? There are two possibilities. We join the EEA or we go it alone completely and negotiate trade agreements and freedom of movement with the individual countries of the EU; but that is if the other countries want to play ball.

Joining the EEA is an option and it is probably the preferred option of the government for economic reasons. British industry will be horrified if tariffs are drawn up against us. The finance industry will be wary that large banks etc. will move their head quarters to Frankfurt. Germany would love to see this happening.
If we negotiate to join the EEA then we will have to agree to the free movement of people across the EEA and EU. Xenophobes will be horrified by this. We will have to pay billions into the EU budget to join the free trade area but none of money comes back - much of our contribution to the EU  ends up coming back. We shall end up paying more. We shall have to implement EU regulations, just like Norway, with no say how those regulations are formulated. Britain does not really have that much  economic power to insist upon better terms especially with disgruntled neighbours. Many Euro-sceptics may insist on another referendum about whether we want to join the EEA or not. It will take years to negotiate our exit from the EU and this negotiation will be added to by an application to join the EEA. Does our nation really want all this?

Do we want Britain to have less power and to implement the regulations of the EU without any say? At the moment Britain has a veto  to stop EU regulations which really go against our national intereests. We were not forced to join either the Euro or  the Schengen agreement. To join the EEA to protect our economy we might be forced to join Schengen - if it still exists. Heaven forbid, we might be forced to join the Euro.

What happens if we go it alone without the EU or the EEA? Do you really think that we can do what we like ? With regard to migrants, economics will dictate that we shall have to accept a substantial number of EU citizens to help keep our economy going. Britons are reluctant to become farm workers and they don't have the skills. Who is going to pick our strawberries?

We could introduce a work permit and visa system to prevent migration. But, if we introduce a visa system for EU and EEA citizens to be allowed into the country, then do you think that the EEA and the EU will not reciprocate? What happens when British lorry drivers are stuck in long queues having their passports checked? What happens if vital components are stuck in a queue whilst French lorry drivers wait to have their documents checked at Dover? Yes, at Dover, because the French will not implement a treaty which holds up their businessmen and traders on French soil. France will move the British borders back to Dover and Folkstone, if we try to get tough. Belgium will do the same. It is unrealistic to turn the clock back; we have to allow free movement of people whether we are in Europe or not.

Who is going to come to Britain for a holiday if they have to get a visa? I suggest not many. Who is going to have cultural exchanges with us if we have to get visas?  No one is.

At the moment all EEA and EU citizens are allowed to open businesses in each others countries and sit as company directors. What will it do for Britain's trade if this stops? It will only decline. What EU or EEA citizen is going to trade with a country which demands work permits and visas and prevents foreigners from easily running a business?

If we leave the EU and EEA we will have to negotiate some form of customs arrangement otherwise vital goods and components will be stuck in the queue whilst customs officers on both sides of the channel examine the documentation -that's good for trade isn't it?

Going it alone and getting tough on migration will not work. You cannot have free movement of goods, capital and services without free movement of people. People drive business and where there are no people there is no business.

Yes, the EU imposes lots of bureaucracy but we will have to impose all sorts of bureaucracy if we cannot negotiate an effective customs union and system for allowing people to move freely.

All in all going it alone will be a terrible option  and  we would still be forced to accept free movement of people. The xenophobes will be disappointed as they voted for change and they could stir up trouble if they don't get their way.

We will have to negotiate a customs union.  We will keep our head of state and drive on the left . We will keep the Houses of Parliament , the Church of England and the judiciary. The major aspects of our life will not change as they didn't when we joined the EU. We will still play cricket and drink warm beer on a Sunday. We will still go to French and Italian restaurants and drink wine instead of beer if we want to. We will still have free speech in or out of the EU.

Nothing much will change.

Of course, leaving will keep the little Englanders happy along with their hard line socialist bedfellows. But, the reality could be that we could be heading for niggling trouble.

If we leave altogether  then bureaucrats will see to it that life will be made more difficult for all British and EU citizens. There will be immigration queues where they really check your passports as you go on holiday. Business men and women will end up wasting time in immigration queues. Property rights for British citizens in the EU will be made more difficult. Husbands and wives and children might have to join different queues at borders where one spouse is British and the other is French or German . You will have to pay duty when you come home with a boot full of wine.

If we really get tough and ask all 3 million EU citizens to go home then 3 million British will be sent back. That means that 6 million people and their families will be mighty annoyed with British politicians and the British people in general.

There will be other problems. What happens if Scotland votes to stay in the EU? Will there be another referendum to decide if Scotland leaves the UK? And what happens if it votes to leave? There will more negotiations. Britain leaving the EU and Scotland leaving the UK.  This is a recipe for chaos it could take 10 to 12 years to sort out all this mess. Wales could follow suit and Northern Ireland too. Little England could be left out in the cold.

Why not accept your fate and vote to stay in and enjoy free travel and come home with a boot full of wine to drown your sorrows. Why not enjoy your strawberries and cream by courtesy of a Bulgarian farm hand. Just go down  the road and enjoy a curry at your local Indian restaurant  but courtesy of a Bangladeshi  waiter - would your meal be the same if it was served by a disgruntled Brit? And, if you really don't like developments in England  then you will still have the right to sell up and move to a forest in France where there is no-one to disturb you; you can have a little England in France.

Cologne - Sexual Assaults on Women

The New Year's eve sexual attacks on women in Cologne raise a number of human rights issues for all European countries.

All women have the right not to be molested by men - or women for that matter. No woman should be a target for assault because she is young or dressed in a particular way. No one should be attacked because of the way they are dressed or because of their skin colour. All this should be obvious.

It should also be obvious that prejudicial behaviour is not just limited to white skinned Europeans. So called "racists" exist in all of the world's communities.

It is clear that only a small minority of the refugees who have fled to Europe are miscreants. The misbehaviour of a small minority migrants should not reflect upon the vast majority of refugees who seek peaceful and lawful sanctuary.

The young females, in Cologne, were targeted by young men who come from societies where women are not allowed to dress as they please - on the streets. In North Africa and the Middle East there is a strict dress code based upon strict religious mores; women who wear revealing clothes are looked down upon. Young women who are dressed in short skirts might even be regarded as prostitutes.

Cairo used to be a fairly secular society but there were still strong religious and cultural opinions held about how anyone should behave. Young men were expected not to have sex with their girl friends before they got married and couples were often chaperoned. These strictures even applied to Christians. Any form of homosexuality was strictly frowned upon. Christians and Muslims alike would rarely be seen drinking alcohol in public.

Is it any wonder that some young men who come from this type of society might go off the rails when they come to the free and easy West? But young men, tempted to behave badly, should be aware that they do not have the right to assault anyone no matter how they or dressed and no matter how they behave.  The young ladies in Cologne were innocently going on a night out and they were entitled to have a good time without being molested.

It should be noted, however, that most attacks against women are committed at home by fathers, husbands and boyfriends. It is probably safer from a statistical point of view for a woman to walk the streets rather than be at home. All men have a duty not molest or assault women.

If young ladies in Cologne have the right not to be molested then so do migrants and refugees have the right not to be attacked. This should also be axiomatic. Revenge and tit for tat attacks are completely unjustified and they should be dealt with firmly by the  police and prosecuting authorities. Everyone has a civic duty to show tolerance.

The police should be allowed to report the nature of attacks openly and without political interference for fear of upsetting sectional interests. Let us all know what is happening so that everyone can be treated fairly.

Anyone suspected of assault should be prosecuted and tried. A refugee or migrant who is convicted of a serious crime should be subject to deportation and this should be made clear to him when he arrives.

The refugees from Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan can easily be accommodated by western society even if we have no religion and the migrants do. Equally, all migrants should be aware that they cannot impose their religious and moral views on a secular society. We should all have one value in common and that is the desire for peace.

United States Gun Law

It seems to me that it is a tragedy that it is so easy to obtain a firearm in the US. Every year thousands of people are killed by firearms in murders, suicides and accidents. The per capita statistics for gun crime and accidents are alarming when compared to the UK.

In the UK 50 murders are committed annually by a gun. In the US murders with guns run into the thousands. Hardly anyone dies as a result of a firearm accident in the UK and there are few suicides using a gun . In the US there are thousands of deaths from suicides and accidents using a gun.

In the UK it is illegal to possess a handgun or a rifle in your on home or out on the street. Shotguns are subject to strict controls and woe betide you if you are seen openly carrying a shotgun in the street.

There is no good reason for anyone to possess a hand gun or a rifle . If you want to shoot a rifle you have to join a gun club where the rifles are held and locked away securely.

Surely, the US constitution conferred the right to posses arms to the people rather than the individual. This right was to allow for militias to defend themselves from tyranny rather than individuals being given the right to roam around freely brandishing handguns and rifles. The founding fathers did not intend that thousands would be killed each year in tit for tat killings , suicides or silly accidents.

When the constitution of the US was first written firearms were like muskets, they were difficult to load and they were single shot. If the founding fathers had envisioned the type of weapons that are available today they might well have changed their minds about including the right to bear arms in the constitution or they would have reworded it.

I have made frequent visits to the US and have always felt uncomfortable that individuals can carry firearms. In one location, many years ago and, at a restaurant in Los Angeles, I saw someone take off his jacket to expose a huge pistol. I was horrified and shouted out "someone  has got a gun". Everybody laughed and assured me it was the local sheriff. It was no laughing matter to me and many years later I recall the incident with horror.

Surely, it is time for the majority of American citizens to change their attitude to the possession of firearms. Drugs and other dangerous materials are subject to strict control so why not firearms?