British Sovereignty

The Bank of England has just announced that European Banks will be allowed to maintain the administrative and commercial status quo when Britain leaves the EU. This means that large European Union based banks will only have to be be represented in London by branches rather than bank subsidiaries which are legally set up in the UK. These branches will be able to keep their assets and liabilities on the books of their Headquarters in Europe. Control of these branches from a risk and liquidity point of view will be from the Head Office in Europe. Britain is too weak to insist that these banks open subsidiaries in the the UK.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-42420829

If  Britain leaves the EU, without a banking agreement for the "passporting" of financial services, then UK banks will have to set up subsidiaries in the EU. The assets and liabilities and profits will then become under the domain of the EU country where they are resident. So will the staff. Britain loses out. The EU have made it clear that to gain single market access, to the EU financial services market, Britain will have to agree to free movement of labour. Britain will have little choice: it is not powerful enough to insist that we have have complete access to the single market without accepting freedom of movement.

So much for taking back control and sovereignty. The Bank of England has just ceded control and sovereignty to the EU. Who voted for that?

By remaining in the EU, Britain would have had a big say in how European banks should act, we would have pooled our sovereignty. Now we have lost all say and the  European Banking Authority is being transferred from London to Paris, and the Authority will only be wrenched back from Paris with extreme difficulty and only if we rejoin the EU. If you voted leave, well done. You have been duped again and our nation will lose billions of pounds worth of  financial trade and influence.

A wonderful post-Brexit future

What makes anyone think that Britain will be better off if we leave the EU? My experience of working in 30 countries across the world suggests that we shall be in for a hard time.

We shall be throwing ourselves into an environment in which we are not fit to compete. How on earth is Britain going to negotiate and equitable deal with the USA? Britain is a very small nation compared to the USA. Despite the "special relationship", the USA can afford to ignore us. It did not need the UK's support for the invasion of Iraq or Afghanistan. It did not need British support in the Korean war. It would have lost the Vietnam war even if it had British support. The USA hardly needs us  and when Britain leaves the EU it won't need us at all. The USA will always look after its own interests just as Britain, France and China do. They will do us no favours when we leave the EU and we should not expect them to. The USA respects power and the UK will have no more power than Malta does when we leave the EU.

American citizens abroad have an easy going self  confidence which they know is backed up by a gigantic economic and corporate power. They can fill meetings with experts they can outnumber the British and "outgun us" at anytime. The idea that a "Lord Snooty" or "Roy of the Rovers" character can beat all comers by acting alone is comic book fantasy. The Americans will walk all over us . So will the EU and China; and so will India which is catching up fast with the other economic super-powers.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord_Snooty

http://scotiafile.blogspot.co.uk/2016/04/lord-snooty-and-his-pals-beano.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_of_the_Rovers

How on earth can Britain survive in a cruel hard world when the government has no plan for our future relationship with the EU after we have left?  And, no plan for our relationship with the rest of the world for that matter. How on earth can Britain prosper when the government has made no assessments - good or bad- of the economic effects of leaving the EU ? How could a government of this nature be trusted to negotiate with any one? How could a government be trusted to exploit any opportunity arising from leaving the EU?

Out in the big wild world many of our citizens are unfit to compete  with the competition on a personal basis. I have worked in many countries and with people from all over the world. I have found that none of these world citizens have a self-satisfied sense of entitlement. They work very hard. Many of my fellow Britons could not spell or write coherent English as well as the Indian citizens that I have encountered. Even Russian and Chinese workers can "out-spell" the British.

I have asked Indian workers to write reports for me  which I could deliver to senior management with very little correction or alteration. They seem to know the difference between a "blog" and a business report. English is the business language of the world; so isn't it a shame that  many British people are unable to exploit their native language? It helps when you are in another country to be able to speak some of the language even if it is just to say: "thank you" or "good morning". The language skills of British young people are appalling. You are not going to make many sales in Japan or China if you cannot even be seen to be polite. Britons will not only be coming up against tariff and non-tariff barriers they will also be coming up against language barriers.

A metropolitan elite has somehow persuaded the British electorate that Britain can easily survive on its own. The trouble is this elite is decadent and lazy and has an undeserved sense of entitlement and superiority  It is just the sort of attitude that ruffles feathers in India, Canada, Australia, Ireland, and the US. This elite is now in control of our future. It is this elite that will be sending their own kind out into the rest of the world to struggle for Britain and with their attitude they are dooming us to failure.

This sense of superiority and entitlement will not serve us well. We are on a downward slope and we shall skid along to disaster if we are not careful. The reality is we need our European friends more than they need us. The EU protects us from failure and gives us the opportunity to compete with the rest of the world on an even playing field. We don't need "Roy of the Rovers" we need a sense of realism and team work to progress.

Time to Call Off Brexit

Nearly every prediction that I have made about Brexit is now coming true. Northern Ireland is now the sticking point. When Ireland and Britain joined the Common Market, way back in 1973, very few people believed that European unity would go some way to helping a peace process in Northern Ireland and on the island of Ireland in general. By 1973, the troubles in Northern Ireland were well underway. By the time that the "civil war" had been resolved in 1998 over 1800 civilians had been killed, the majority of whom were residents of Northern Ireland. The conflict, however, claimed civilian casualties in both the Republic of Ireland and Great Britain.

The EU was part of the solution to centuries of conflict. Free movement of people and trade helped to breakdown the social, economic and political divisions. The Republic of Ireland and the UK became equals and this also helped smooth the way to the Republic of Ireland declaring that it no longer had a unilateral claim to achieve a united Ireland. The UK also declared that it had no interest in preserving a union between Northern Ireland and Great Britain against the wishes of a majority in Northern Ireland. The scene was set for continuing peace.

This peace could easily be unravelled. If the UK leaves the European Union customs treaties and the single market then there will have to be a hard border between the UK and the Republic of Ireland. The people of Northern Ireland voted by a small majority (55%) to remain in the EU and therefore by default to remain in the customs union and single market. It looks as though some political elements in both Great Britain and Northern Ireland want to force the people of Northern Ireland out of the EU and its institutions against their will.

The UK is a sovereign state but any state has to exercise its sovereignty carefully. Britain has to consider the views of the Republic of Ireland and it also has to consider the views of a substantial minority of Northern Irish citizens who either wish for a unified Ireland or very close relations with the Republic. It would also seem that many in the loyalist community also want to maintain close relations with the Republic. The EU allowed for these close relations be maintained on an equitable, legal and peaceful basis. The UK could quite easily jeopardise 20 years of peace by quitting the EU.

It is quite clear that the Republic of Ireland is no longer willing to give in to the UK's economic power to dominate events. The EU gives it the power to challenge us. The UK should learn a lesson from this.  By being part of a super power the UK is able to influence events and challenge US and Chinese power.

You, mister voter, were given the power in the referendum to influence the future of all of the nations that make up the United Kingdom. You demanded it and, therefore, it was your duty to research the history of our nation and consider the consequences of your decision to leave the EU. Will you ever be forgiven if conflict returns to Northern Ireland and violence returns not just to Ulster but to the Republic of Ireland too; and of course to the British mainland?

Why is Great Britain paying billions to be worse off?

Great Britain is about to pay billions of pounds to the EU, some speculate, 40 billions or more, for the country to be worse off. We have to pay the price of meeting our existing commitments plus an inducement to get some sort of trade deal and transition agreement. Any trade deal that we negotiate with the EU will end up with Great Britain being worse off. The effect of us just saying that we want to leave the EU is already causing the economy to falter. When we actually leave the economy will suffer more. The Eldorado that the Leave campaigners promised us all is nowhere to be seen.

The UK government has just budgeted 3 billion pounds just to organise leaving, and is promising more to cope with further administrative and legal problems that might arise. This 3 billion could have been allocated to the health service.

We are paying billions because you are suffering from the illusion that we can regain our sovereignty, curb immigration and loose ourselves from the ECJ. We already have full sovereignty as no one tried to prevent us from declaring Article 50. If we want to trade with Europe we have to accept that we trade under their laws. The UK economy is modelled on importing skills; we need the doctors, engineers and IT specialists to come from somewhere because we are unable to train and educate enough of these specialists ourselves. Our economy also relies on cheap and mobile labour and the EU provides this. To keep our economy going for the foreseeable future we need immigrants from both the EU and elsewhere. The demographic nature of our country will not change significantly when we leave the EU.

 If you voted Leave then you voted to make yourself and most of the rest of us poorer. You voted to spend billions of the country's money to achieve this. You will not get Eldorado.

You voted to reduce the amount of money available to improve the health service and schools. Your job prospects will not improve and there will be no mobility allowances to fund your travel to find a job elsewhere. Social security benefits will be under threat.

The Home Office will have to recruit thousands of workers to register the 3 million EU citizens who are resident legally in our country. Most of these workers will have to come from the EU; the Home Office cannot find British workers to fill the vacancies. You will still have Polish, Romanian and Bulgarian youngsters living next to you.

You think that we will be free from the international law makers "interfering" in our country? Well, for every rule that we lose, by leaving the EU,  then we gain another one from the WTO etc.

I don't think that the 16 million who voted to remain in the EU and the 13 million who could not be bothered to vote will be thanking you.

The only people who will not suffer as a result of your vote will be the rich liberal elite from London both "Leavers" and "Remainers".

The EU is the only organisation in the world that accepts freedom of movement to work without visas. You will be denied that opportunity too, and your children, unless you are from Northern Ireland or you have dual EU and British nationality.  Your vote is going to make folk from Northern Ireland, who can apply for Irish passports by right, a privileged minority.

You will be stuck in Britain to enjoy your impoverishment.

Lillith the Lynx

It was all very predictable Lillith the lynx, which escaped from a Borth Zoo in Wales, has been shot.

The unfortunate creature decided to take up residence in a caravan park, which was closed in the off- season. The local council authorised the shooting on the lynx on the grounds that it was occupying a tourist area and that it was a danger to the public. The lynx had entered a heavily populated area.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/11/13/escaped-lynx-lillith-could-have-attacked-children-council-says/

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/nov/11/lilith-escaped-lynx-is-killed-over-growing-public-safety-fears

There were reports that the council considered that the lynx would be a danger to children. The zoo claimed that this is untrue. There also reports that the zoo were about to capture the lynx when a council officer accidentally thwarted an attempt to net the animal. This attempt would have been successful.

The killing of the lynx raises a number of issues raise a number of issues:

If the lynx was in a heavily populated area what was a marksman doing loosing off a bullet? A slip of the wrist could have seen a child being injured or even worse killed.

Was the lynx anymore dangerous than a large aggressive dog or an aggressive driver? We do not shoot dogs until they make an attack. Why should the lynx be treated differently?

If the zoo was close to netting the cat, why not allow more attempts especially as a council official  allegedly interfered with the trapping of the feline?

Are children not intelligent enough to keep away from a feral cat? When I was young I knew instinctively to keep away from a hissing and feral domestic cat and likewise the cat knew to keep away from me. I was only ever scratched by a completely domesticated cat but only then, when I annoyed it.

Why are zoos keeping species such as the lynx in captivity? There is no need to do this. The animals suffer because they are solitary and used to roaming long distances when hunting. When they are in captivity they try to hide.  Eurasian lynxes are not threatened world wide so there is no need for a captive breeding programme. However, there is a need for a captive breeding programme to re-introduce the Iberian lynx back into the Algarve.

Why does mankind have to reach for the gun when wild animals somehow present a "problem"? We are doing the same thing in relation to badgers and we reach for the gun often without evidence that the wild animal in question is really a threat. In the case of the wild boars in the Forest of Dean it has become necessary to make a cull but this is based on scientific evidence. The boar population is growing out of control because we have eliminated their predators: wolves, bears and lynxes. It seems that, in this case, the  decision to shoot the lynx was based on convenience, and lobbying from some farmers.

A lynx has never been recorded to willingly harm or kill a human being.  If left to their own devices, in the wild, they will never approach a human being. They will only strike back if we go out of our way to annoy and threaten them or harm their cubs. Even then an attack from lynx is unlikely to be fatal as they are not as powerful as leopards. If the lynx had escaped completely and had established itself in the wild, to lead the true life of a lynx, then it could have been left alone to live out its life in freedom without danger to human life. Lynx hunt deer and they rarely attack sheep.

The plan to re-introduce lynxes into the wild in the UK has been set back by this incident. Their re-introduction, based on scientific evidence, will help restore the balance of nature in areas where damage is caused by wild deer. The lynx preys upon deer and also keeps them on the move. In many areas it is too dangerous to cull the deer because we cannot shoot them if they are too close to heavily populated areas. Re-introducing the lynx will be a humane way of controlling the deer population without danger or excessive costs. The lynx will also attract tourists who will never see them, but these animal lovers can always have their dreams.

My dream is that we only reach for the gun to kill  wild animals when  they are seen to be a real problem based on scientific evidence. My dream is based on rationality but not sentiment or convenience.

 

Brexit now reeks of failure

It was always going to be very difficult to wrest the UK away from the EU without any sort of plan. In my view it was irresponsible to call for a referendum on whether the UK should remain in or leave the EU without an objective assessment of the facts and a recommendation from a Royal Commission. It was naive to insist that a first past the post vote of a 50% +1  majority of those who voted would be sufficient to authorise major constitutional change. Most sensible countries demand at least a 60% majority. It was also irresponsible not to take into account the desires of the individual nations that make up the UK. The fact that Northern Ireland and Scotland voted to remain in the EU should have been sufficient political reason to veto our departure from the EU.

Around 16 million people voted to remain in the EU and over 17 million voted to leave. 13 million people did not vote. Our country is completely divided and will remain so. If we leave the EU to find that we are in economic and political difficulty then all the remain and most of the non-voters will harbour resentment for years. Brexit will have to be a guaranteed success and it will have to deliver El Dorado.

Imagine what could happen if there was a referendum to abolish the monarchy just for Britain to become a republic. 16 million voted to retain the status quo, 17 million voted for a republic and 13 million did not vote. Northern Ireland and Scotland voted to keep the status quo but England and Wales voted for a republic. What would happen if the republic did not work and there was political chaos? To change the constitution in such a cavalier manner risks economic chaos and possible civil war; referendums can be dangerous if they are not managed astutely. Most of the time a simple majority vote is insufficient to prevent dangerous political divisions.

The task of managing Britain's departure from the EU is enormous and might not be achievable in the time available. The divisions within the governing party are preventing a viable plan for the future from being drawn up and agreed. We have no idea what our future relationship with the EU is going to be.  We have made no proposals. We have only made demands, it is the "cake and eat it" approach.

Our government is demanding that we have a completely free trade arrangement in the EU but without having freedom of movement of labour. We are also demanding that we do not have to adhere to the judgements of the European Court of Justice. Our government is demanding all the benefits of being in the customs union whilst being free to negotiate trade deals outside of the auspices of the EU.

The EU is perhaps the only major trading bloc that has  anywhere near free trade arrangements and such arrangements require the free movement people. How could free trade exist between England and Scotland if the Scottish people are denied the right to travel to England?

The EU can only say NO to our demands. We have decided to leave the EU organisation on a voluntary basis; we were not asked to go. We, as a nation, have neither the economic, political or military power to impose our will on the EU. The EU knows that we will suffer economically when we leave and all they have to do is sit and wait. The EU will also be damaged by Britain leaving, both economically and politically on the world stage. The economic damage to the EU, will however, be mitigated by the signing of "free trade " deals with Canada and Japan. Britain will have to re-negotiate all of our existing trade deals that we have as a result of our membership of the customs union. These trade deals could have covered 70% of our world trade. If we damage the EU or other nations as a result of our irresponsibility then we cannot expect any favours in return.

Britain is in a weak negotiating position we have made demands which simple cannot be met. Imagine, if we were to assert our sovereignty and leave NATO and then demand that NATO should protect us if we were attacked. The USA would say no and quite rightly so . If we want the protection of NATO we must pool our sovereignty with the US and other nations and stick to the rules.

The prime minister is in a weak if not impossible predicament. She knows that it could be dangerous to leave the EU but she is having her hand forced. There are conspiracies to replace her within her own party and the opposition parties also want to see her removed. Deposing her will not change the situation. The whole situation is simply unmanageable even Sir Winston Churchill would probably have failed in what the government is trying to do.

Some of the consequences of leaving  the EU  and customs union without a good and close agreement, such as EEA plus, are unthinkable. The following:

1) Administrative chaos: it is quite possible that we will leave the EU but we will have incorporated all of their law into British law with the Exit Bill. This could mean that EU citizens will still be allowed to freely migrate to the UK but British citizens being the denied the right to migrate freely to the EU.

Existing EU Customs Law will apply to the UK. EU goods will be allowed free movement but British goods could be stopped at the border with the EU for checks.

Customs checks on the border at the Channel tunnel will cause huge queues on the M2 and M20 motorways.

2) Commercial difficulties: Many companies will relocate their headquarters to the EU. There will be major job losses. Prices for food will go up. The farming industry will be damaged. We will have balance of payments difficulties, when our former customs union and single market partners impose new tariff and non-tariff barriers on our exports.  The pound will plunge making imports cheaper (if this is not offset by tariffs) but imports more expensive. It will also make foreign currency debt repayments much more expensive.

3) Political difficulties: these will be the worst consequences of all. There has been no solution proposed for Northern Ireland. If there has to be a border between Northern Ireland and the Republic we risk a return to the Troubles of the 70's and 80's - three thousand British citizens died as a result of these Troubles. The DUP will veto an alternative proposal for a border between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK, as they hold the balance of power in parliament. If the Northern Ireland problem cannot be settled then this should be good cause to call off the Brexit venture.

If Brexit fails there will be good cause for the SNP to call for another referendum on Scottish independence. This will cause further divisions and it could be dangerous for Scotland if independence is granted on a slim 52/48% majority.

What happens if the EXIT Bill fails or is amended so much that it becomes powerless.  We will have left the EU but in legalistic limbo. EU law will still apply to the UK but the EU will regard us as a third party nation. Parliament will have to construct some kind of emergency legislation in a rushed manner.

All in all we are facing extreme political, administrative and commercial difficulties. It seems that at the moment that these problems cannot be resolved.

What would Sir Winston Churchill have done? Well, he would not have had the referendum in the first place. What would he have done if he was forced to take over the premiership in the current state of affairs. Well he would have faced down the arch Brexiteers in parliament. He would either have stopped Brexit altogether or commissioned a Royal Commission to analyse the facts and recommend a way forward. He would then let parliament decide on a free vote.

At the moment a small minority of parliamentary hardliners are in control and they are driving the UK over a cliff. Parliament must assert its authority and back a prime minister who can pull us back from the brink. Will this happen? Probably not: only a severe and regrettable financial crisis will save us from even greater trouble. Will this happen before Brexit becomes official? Probably not: the rocks at the bottom of the cliff are jagged and we will be falling on them at break neck speed.

It is time to sop dreaming about El Dorado and face reality.

Poor old Lynx

Lillith the lynx that has escaped from a zoo in Borth has been accused of killing a number of sheep. A farmer from Wales has accompanied the zoo owners to show the corpses of seven dead sheep to them. The lynx apparently trailed the farmer and zoo owners from a distance of 10 meters. This is some brave lynx as at 10 metres a shotgun could be used to blast the feline into cat heaven.

There is no hard evidence yet that Lillith killed these sheep and even if she did this is no reason to stop the the re-introduction of wild lynxes into UK forests. Contrary to what some farmers representatives are saying, the lynx will represent no real danger to sheep.

In the wild young lynxes learn to hunt for deer, foxes and other wild animals at night. They do not learn to attack sheep. Neither will the lynx make an unprovoked attack on a human being. They are clever enough to avoid human contact. A lynx will only be a danger if you corner it or try to molest its young.

The whole purpose of re-introducing the lynx to the UK is to help control the deer population by keeping the deer on the move. Deer are causing considerable damage to parks and farmland. The deer population is growing out of control because we have extirpated their predators - wolves, bears and lynxes. There are not enough experienced hunters to make culling efficient. In many areas it is not possible to loose off bullets without endangering human beings.

The re-introduction of the lynx is a sensible idea to provide a natural solution to deer over population.

There is no need for farmers to fear the lynx or to spread fear stories that these cats will attack the general public. Farmers can easily be compensated for the few sheep that the lynx might take.

Dogs are a far greater danger to sheep.

The lynx is so good at hiding that I doubt that members of the public will ever come across one in the wild. They are difficult to see in a zoo enclosure. It took 5 days for the zoo owners to find out that the lynx had escaped as they were used to it hiding away.

The time has come for some farmers to stop whinging and accept that re-introducing the lynx might improve our environment according to good scientific research. It is time to put away the gun as far as the lynx is concerned and time to engage the brain. 


https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/nov/07/lillith-the-lynx-blamed-for-seven-sheep-deaths-in-north-wales

Electing public officials and judges; what fool thought of that one?

We heard lots from the official campaign to leave the EU about democracy. Most of it was hypocritical rubbish. We heard that the head of the European Commission was an un-elected bureaucrat who was telling Britain what to do - how dare he? Britain needed to reassert its authority to put this nasty bureaucrat in his place.

No sensible state has an elected head of the civil service. The head of the EU Commission is approved by the the council of ministers and the European parliament. Just like Britain, the head of the civil service or EU Commission is not elected and should never be elected by a popular vote.

If Britain were to elect the head of the civil service then he or she would become like a head administrator and elected president rolled into one. This would lead to a conflict of interest and what would happen if the the head of the civil service disagreed with the prime minister?

The Leave politicians know that it is not possible, in a free society, to have elected officials; what would happen to the political impartiality of the civil service?  Would a Labour elected head of the civil service refuse to implement the policies of a Conservative government or vice versa? This would be a recipe for political chaos. We already have political chaos as a result of the ill conceived referendum. Why pile on more agony by electing the head of the civil service?

If, as a Leave voter, you expect to have elected civil servants then you have been duped. Just like you were duped about promises for £350 million pound per week of extra money for the NHS. Neither of these promises will be delivered by leaving the EU.

Similar accusations were made about the European Court Of Justice being composed of  un-elected judges. What sort of politician proposes that we elect our judges? This would be a recipe for a system of justice based on madness. How could any one contemplate having judges elected on the basis of what political party they support?

Heaven help you if you are a known Green party supporter coming up before a UKIP judge, or even a Conservative party supporter coming up before a Labour judge. Judges must be seen to be politically impartial and must actually be impartial. If as a result of leaving the EU the political classes insist on elected judges then we will soon be on the path to a totalitarian government assisted by a politicised judiciary.  North Korea here we come.

Once again if you voted to leave the EU on the the promise that you would get elected judges then you were double duped. You either won't get what you want, or if you do get what you want,  then you could end up being imprisoned by a judge who does not like your political opinions.

Cull of Wild Boars in Forest of Dean - time for a sense of proportion

I support the re-introduction of some of the mammal and bird species which have been extirpated or driven to extinction in the UK by humans. Wild boars were re-introduced either by accident when animals escaped from farms or by activists who deliberately released them. Wild boars have now reestablished themselves in many areas, including the Forest of Dean where there is a healthy breeding population of around 1500. The Forestry Commission has estimated that a population of 400 is an optimum level. The Commission have decided to cull the wild boars.

There are activists who are opposed to this cull and are taking action to prevent the shooting of these iconic animals.

There needs to be some sort of agreement between the activists and the Forestry Commission. The predators of wild boars have also been eliminated. There is no longer a population of bears or wolves to keep wild boar numbers down or keep the boars on the move to prevent them causing too much damage. The lynx has also been extirpated and these predators would have taken young boars and would have helped to keep herds on the run. There is, therefore, nothing to stop the population of wild boars increasing. The boars are, therefore, free to damage their own environment and the environment of humans. There needs to be some sort of control. Activists who are attempting to  prevent the cull should take this into account. There is no justification for extirpating wild boars again but the Forestry Commission is not proposing this. There must be room for compromise.

A similar situation is being encountered with the deer population. Vast areas of woodland are being damaged by fallow and roe deer. In my own area it is not possible to cull the deer because the parks are too close to human habitation.

Attempts are being made to re-introduce the lynx to help control the deer population and keep it on the move but farmers are in the main totally opposed to the re-introduction of these predators for fear that they will take sheep. The farmers are wrong on this one as lynx rarely hunt sheep.

Human beings have upset the balance of nature in the UK  and it is now time to restore some of this balance. It is too late for the wolves and bears; a re-introduction programme would probably fail except perhaps for the wildest parts of Scotland.

There is very little reason, however, to object to the re-introduction of the lynx, beaver or eagle (to England and Wales). We can afford this and their presence would improve the environment for everyone. However, we need to control the population numbers, based on scientific evidence,
of the introduced species. This means, in the case of the wild boars, a limited cull where the facts justify it.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/oct/12/boar-war-the-forest-of-dean-pixies-fighting-against-the-cull-of-wild-pigs

Yippeeee I've found a way to get the NHS £350 million a week

Yes, I am now a convert to leaving the EU and reasserting our national sovereignty. Let's leave NATO too.

Why should some un-elected American general tell us we should spend 2% of our national budget on defence. That is 38 billion quid a year. Why should Donald Trump tell us we should spend this money? We didn't elect him.

Without NATO we could take back control. I calculate it will be more cost efficient just have a big enough army, navy and air force to protect our national waters, air and land. This should only cost about £20 billion a year. This will free up £18 billion a year or £350 million a week, thereabouts, to invest in our NHS.  Then, we won't need all those nasty foreigners to help cure us, as we could afford to replace them with robot nurses and doctors with a built in human touch.

Leave campaigners from all parties including UKIP should support this idea as it is a matter of principle that we assert our sovereignty and take back control. Perhaps you will join in too.

I wonder what Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin think about this idea? Surely, they would never contemplate invading a fully sovereign country?

Beavers and common sense

At last we have a common sense solution to flooding for some parts of the land. Why not use beavers as natural flood control agents. They do their work for no costs whatsoever. They naturally save people's properties from flooding. They do no harm to the environment, on suitable land; in fact they create an improved environment for other plant and animal species to flourish.

Some of the residents of Lydbrook in the Forest of Dean must be delighted that these harmless creatures will be allowed to manage a flood control scheme.

We should never have extirpated this species just for their fur. I have written about this subject before and never have I been so delighted to say, "I told you so."


https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/sep/16/beavers-uk-flood-defences-forest-of-dean

A Bombardier warning for Brexit

Avid advocates of Britain leaving the EU should heed the warnings of the Bombardier crisis.  The US government is slapping a huge tariff on the importation of Bombardier passenger jets. The Bombardier company is Canadian owned but it makes the wings for its jets in Northern Ireland. The imposition of the tariff by the US government is at the behest of the Boeing aircraft company. The imposition of tariffs is subject to a legal appeal. If the Canadian government loses the appeal in the US then the Bombardier company will be seriously affected and production in Northern Ireland will also be affected. The British government has been making appeals to the US but to no avail. It looks as though the British government is now making veiled threats against Boeing sales in the UK.

Entering into a trade war with the US would be dangerous under the best of circumstances . Britain would lose. After Brexit our position will be weaker;  there will be no EU to back us up.

The US is looking after its own companies first. It always does this no matter who is the president. Britain does this too . So does the EU. After we leave the EU we will get no favours from our erstwhile partners. They will tread on us just like the US and China.

When Britain leaves the EU both the EU and Britain will be weakened economically. Even without the UK the EU will still vie with the US to be the world's largest economy. Britain's economy will be dwarfed by the EU as well as by the US and China. We shall be adding to our trading difficulties.

The big boys will protect their economies and Britain will be left to pick up the crumbs. It is not unpatriotic to point out this fact of life and it is delusional to ignore it. 


https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/sep/27/uk-boeing-contracts-bombardier-us

Insults and threats during political discourse.

Why do some people have to been so insulting and threatening on political blogs and such like? The treatment of political campaigners such as Miss Gina Miller is disturbing. There is no need to insult her, traduce or threaten her no matter what her political opinion is. Miss Miller is always graceful and behaves impeccably when disputing Britain's departure from the European Union with advocates of the opposite. She deserves to be treated with the utmost respect.

The use of threats and insults during political debate demeans all of us. If you are tempted to do so please think twice.

This blog will treat any insult with the contempt it deserves; it will go unanswered and it will be deleted.

Fining the Homeless -a pointless waste of time and money

Oxford City council is considering fining homeless people for sleeping in shop doorways and is pinning notices to that effect on homeless peoples' belongings.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/jul/26/oxford-homeless-people-face-fines-belongings-doorways

This is a completely unrealistic approach to tackling the problem of homelessness. Not many people choose to choose to live rough in the outdoors. Most homeless people are very poor and some of them are younger people who have run away from home as well as being broke.

What is the point of taking homeless people to court to be fined? Most homeless people have got no money. What are the courts going to do if a homeless person cannot pay a fine? Send them to jail for a couple of weeks to keep them off the streets and then land them back in the position from where they started. What a pointless waste of time and money.

Why create even more difficulties for homeless people? Why not solve the problem by providing them with a home from where they can rebuild their lives? Why not help young people to be reunited with their families if they have run away from home and then support them to live together in some sort of dignity?

We are kept being reminded that the UK has 5th or 6th biggest economy in the world. We have an economy which amounts to 2 trillion pounds. Surely, we have enough resources as a nation to cater for the homeless and provide every one with a decent and safe home.

Japan and EU trade deal

It was announced previous to the G20 2017 meeting in Hamburg that the EU and Japan had agreed a free trade deal  which will probably be ratified in 2019. Britain could have benefited from this new arrangement. But if we leave the EU it will not be possible. Part of the new free trade agreement will be the elimination of a 10% tariff on Japanese car imports to the EU. If Britain leaves the EU without a customs union or single market trade deal then tariffs of 10% will be placed on UK exports to the EU. Further, because Britain imports a considerable proportion of car parts from abroad there will be a tariff imposed on these goods . The combined export and import tariffs will make British made cars more than 10%  expensive for the EU to import. British cars will lose their competitiveness. Why then would the Japanese manufacture cars in the the UK and invest in the the production of new vehicles? This will all be result of falling back on World Trade Organisation (WTO) rules. Britain can no more ignore these rules than the rules of the EU. Leaving the EU will not increase our sovereignty as far as trade is concerned.

Australia is also about to negotiate a free trade deal with the EU and Australia  is going to prioritise this deal above any free trade deal with the UK. Britain is no longer in a position to tell Australia what to do and Australia will look after its national interest first. The days of colonial preference and commonwealth solidarity are long gone. India maintains the same attitude.

The UK could get free trade access to the whole of the EU, Canada, Japan and Australia if it retained its EU membership. If we leave the EU, we not only have to spend years and years negotiating our way back to square one  but we also have the problem of getting favourable free trade deals with the US, India and China.

The UK has created an almost insurmountable problem for itself. It is leaving a huge trading block and then trying to force its way back in but with unacceptable conditions on immigration. It is like leaving a football club but insisting on being able to rejoin without paying a membership fee. Britain will be told no.

Australia and India want to negotiate greater freedom for their workers to access the EU job markets. Without the UK, the EU will find it easier to allow India to have freer access for its workers and therefore it will be easier for the EU and India to strike a deal. India will prioritise the EU over the UK.

If we leave the EU, Britain will be in a sorry position regarding world trade. This will be a harsh reality; Britain's prosperity could be severely compromised. We are already seeing the signs of the adverse effects of Britain leaving the EU. The rather inconclusive referendum result has lead to division across the geographic, demographic and political horizon of the UK. Political instability will exacerbate economic doubts and uncertainties. A shrinking economy will be blamed on the decision to leave the EU. Many of the 13 million voters who did not use their vote in the second EU referendum could easily be persuaded to support remaining in the EU if there is an economic crisis.

 All the ingredients for an economic and political crisis have been thrown into the melting pot. This is why there should be a two thirds majority in favour of constitutional  change in any referendum. Sensible countries adhere to this principle.

A political and economic crisis could lead to the British people to demand to stay in the EU or the customs union or single market or both.

The other EU 27 would be within their rights to say no to the UK rejoining; they might be glad to be shot of us.

They will let us stay in the customs union and the single market as we will get no say in how anything is run and we will have paid a 50 billion EUR leaving fee and probably a 5 billion or so continuing membership fee.

Don't be fooled into thinking the UK holds all the cards. The EU will lose its trading relationship with the UK but this is easily made up by the free trade deals with Japan, Australia and Canada.

The EU holds all the big economic cards, so do the USA, China and India. Being just the sixth or seventh largest economy in the world leaves the UK in a seriously weakened position. If you voted for self immolation there is still time to change you mind.

We could jeopardise our economic future probably to just reduce immigration by 20,000 a year - if at all. It is not a good trade off.

High Rise Buildings and Fire

Why doesn't the human race thing again about high rise buildings. Whilst I watched the Grenfell Towers in Kensington London disintegrate before my eyes, my mind went back to the horrors of watching the World Trade Centre disaster. The witness reports were similar.

There is no real need to build skyscrapers and the world could quite easily survive without them. Many tower blocks are built with political and commercial vanity in mind. Many are also built to crowd in the poor to accommodate them in cheap and convenient housing. Some states need to build upwards like Hong Kong but most states do not need to do so.

I have visited many of the great cities of the world and have stayed in some of the highest hotels. I have never felt comfortable sleeping in a room which has sometimes been in the clouds. In one hotel there was a fire and I was on the 18th floor and had to evacuate. I was in the bathroom and had time to get dressed, grab my passport and wallet and make my way down the fire escape. All of the guests in the fire escape could smell smoke but luckily no-one panicked. It took me half an hour to reach the ground and that was without firefighters climbing the stairs because the fire was on the ground floor in the kitchens.

Grenfell Towers had only one fire escape and those evacuating had to rush down against the flow of firefighters running up; the design of the building meant that both the escapees and firefighters were impeded when the fire spread quickly to all floors.

I was witness to a calm and orderly escape from my hotel but afterwards I resolved never to stay  or work in a building above the seventh or eighth floor, as it is easier to escape and easier for the firefighters to reach lowers floors with ladders.

I have no fear  heights and I am able to stand on the edge of a cliff and look over because my feet feel as if they are on solid ground. However, at the top of the Empire State building or the Eiffel Tour I start to feel uncomfortable after admiring the view and I am happy to get my feet back onto the solid ground below. Many of the workers in the twin towers probably felt the same way and many of the residents of Grenfell Towers probably felt the same too.


Whenever there is a disaster in a high rise building we always hear the same response from architects, builders and politicians, that we shall improve things in the future to ensure that such a disaster cannot happen again. It was a one in a million chance. No-one could ever contemplate that the World Trade Centre would ever be attacked in that way or, that even if it was that the buildings would not survive such an attack.

Likewise no-one thought that such a disaster would befall the Grenfell Towers,  all except for the residents whose pleas for the safety of the Towers to be improved were ignored. There are many more residential towers blocks in the UK of the same design so any one living in them is not sleeping so easily. It is time for short term and long term action.

It is time for a change of policy. I am of the view that we should not stop the construction of high rise buildings, but if we do build them then no-one should be forced to live in them as a result of poverty. Equally, no-one should be forced to work in a high rise building. In both cases an alternative home or work situation should be provided. It is a question of human rights -  no-one should be forced to live or work in a high building. If you choose to live or work in a skyscraper, or even visit it, it would then be at your own risk.

Once again, in London, the police, firefighters and ambulance services services rushed to face danger whilst trying to evacuate the public: red hot debris was raining down upon them and the fire fighters had to rush into a  very dangerous building to save people. If, most buildings were no more than seven or eight stories high then the emergency services would not be exposed to such terrible risks.

If we, as a matter of policy, deployed my proposals fewer commercial enterprises would indulge in high rise building vanity projects. The poor would not be ignored and be forced to live in unacceptable tower blocks. Workers would also not be pressurised to to spend a considerable time floating around in mid air. Of course, this will not happen and the world will see further residential tower block disasters. We cannot eliminate the possibility of another terrorist attack on a gigantic skyscraper either. Building lower will save lives.

Steeple jacks love the excitement of working high but there will be a need for more lower rise buildings and the result of falling from one hundred feet is the same as falling from a thousand feet.

My sympathies lie with the poor residents of Grenfell towers. Their articulate and harrowing stories highlighted the terror and anxiety of the disaster. The residents came from a multi-cultural background, some of them were refugees from Syria. Despite their backgrounds they all had one thing in common; they were too poor to move somewhere safer and not powerful enough to have their safety concerns either recognised or acted upon. They all deserve better from a rich society.

UK hung Parliaments and the EU referendum

The UK is now going to face an uncertain future. I have written before about the dangers of a government fighting a General Election on the basis of the popularity of its leader in a presidential style campaign. The Conservative Party's election campaign misfired badly.

Britain is a parliamentary democracy; the Prime Minister is not elected by a popular vote. The UK is not a republic and, like it or not, we are constitutional monarchy with an un-elected Head of State. It is rather presumptuous to believe that the Prime Minister can act like a monarch or be allowed to act thus.

Mrs May commanded a majority of votes - in the June 2017 -  and increased the share of the vote of her party so she must have done something right. Unfortunately , for her, the Labour party did something right, as far as the electorate was concerned, and also substantially increased its share of the vote, This meant that for geographical reasons the Labour party was able to take seats from the Conservatives but not vice versa. In Scotland a similar swing to the Conservatives and Labour took place but the only party that could lose seats was the SNP.

The result of all this means that the party that gained the most votes lost control of the UK parliament. The conservatives now need to operate with the consent of the Democratic Unionist Party  (DUP) of Northern Ireland. The DUP  with  some 300,000 voters obtained 10 MPs. The Green party with over 500,000 votes got 1 MP and UKIP with over 500,000 votes got no MP.

The first past the post system of General Elections does not always ensure that a party with the most votes becomes the party of government because the the system relies upon the distribution of votes across all the constituencies rather than the proportion of votes received by the parties.

The  February 1974 was a case in point; the Labour party won fewer votes but was able to form a minority government. But they had to submit to another General Election in October 1974 which they won with a majority of  just 3 seats. This lead to a serious problem for the Labour party which was severely divided over Britain's membership of the EEC as it was called then: "Leavers" in the Labour party, who were in the majority, were threatening to bring the government down and let the Conservatives win a subsequent election. Harold Wilson, the then Labour Prime Minister, decided to resolve the problem of Europe by organising a referendum which "Remainers" won by about 60% to 40%. Does all this sound familiar except for the referendum majority? The majority for remain shut the "Leavers" up, except for the ideologues, for a long time. However, it did not change the arithmetic in Parliament and the instability of government with a tiny majority led to an economic crisis in 1976 The Labour government had to ask for a loan from the IMF.

Britain now faces a similar position to the Labour government elected in 1974. Problems over Europe and minority or tiny majority government. In 1975  the EEC referendum largely resolved the problems over Europe but minority government lead to an economic crisis.

The 2017 position is now worse than that of 1974 to 1976. We have a minority government, a faltering economy and terrible uncertainty over leaving the EU. We have all the ingredients for a major financial crisis which could be sparked off at anytime before we leave the EU. Business confidence is starting to erode and we need  quick decisions about how we are to leave the EU. However, divisions within the two major parties will prevent this from happening. Perhaps, only a major financial crisis will see the politicians making common sense decisions.

We cannot reverse the decision to leave the EU without the consent of our 27 other EU partner countries. If we walk away from the EU completely along with a minority government, there will be severe economic difficulties facing Britain. We risk losing tariff free access to the Single Market with non-tariff barriers also being imposed on our trade. If we leave the Customs Union we lose free trade agreements with both the EU and 37 other nations states including Canada; all these agreements will take years to replace before we start negotiating new trade deals with the likes of the USA, Australia and India. A politically weakened Britain will be passing around the begging bowl - complete humiliation beckons.

To avert an increasingly likely financial crisis and damaging long term talks and transitional arrangements we need quick decisions. The best way to achieve this would be to stay in the Customs Union and the Single Market. The British electorate must face up to some sort of freedom of movement of people otherwise we face economic problems. We have to act quickly so we have to make leaving the EU as simple as possible. The EU has got the upper hand and quite rightly, from their point of view, they want to "steal" our financial services industry and our manufacturing trade. The British people must face up to this.

Most of all, politicians from all parties must face up to the reality that the first past the post system quite often does not produce the best result. Mrs May has now been weakened by this system even though she won the majority of votes.  The public must face up to the reality that badly organised referendums do not always produce a convenient result which silences opposition. The 2016 EU referendum did not show that there was not an overwhelming majority in favour of change.

I voted to leave the EU in 1975, but a 60% to 40% vote to remain shut me up and I got on with my life. As far as I am concerned the second EU  referendum in 2016 was too close to override the 1975 result and , therefore, it lacks credibility. A substantial proportion of the electorate have now rejected the "no deal is better than a bad deal" nonsense. 57% of electors did not vote for a conservative government or manifesto and their views must be taken into account.

The government must now show the way forward and quickly to take the majority of the population with them. The government  must  make it clear to the population that the only way forward is to accept the free movement of people from the EU to Britain and vice versa. A severe financial crisis might mean that Britain will need to ask for the EU to help us out. We might then see rule from Europe imposed upon us. The humiliation will be complete.

Britain needs to change its attitude. It does not help holding bitter recriminations against Theresa May - she must stay in place even though she made mistakes. She must stay in place at least until the government can publish a how-and-why way forward for the the exit of the EU. A solution which is acceptable to the whole of the British people: leavers, remainers and non-voters alike. It needs to publish a solution which satisfies the needs of the young and the old.

Our nation must reform our winner takes all constitution which is so easily manipulated by ideologues. The policy towards the EU has been manipulated by ideologues within the Conservative, Labour and UKIP parties. The ideologues have never demonstrated that an overwhelming majority of the electorate was in favour of leaving the EU, or the Single Market and Customs Union. It is time for a change and time for these politicians to shut up; but they won't and they now represent a danger to the economic fabric of our state.

Referendums on a first past the post system should be banned. There should be a two thirds majority for change or compulsory voting to show that a majority of the whole electorate is in favour of change.

Unfortunately all the fears that I have expressed about leaving the EU are now coming true. Completely reversing forty years of EU membership has now become much more difficult and dangerous. Don't thing for one minute that it cannot happen here. It is time to learn from history.

British General Election

I have experienced many UK General Elections. In many of them one of the two major protagonists are delusional but it is a rare occasion when both major political parties -Tory and Labour - become delusional.

Both of these parties have committed themselves to negotiating with the EU to obtain something that we have already got, which is free trade for goods and services and free movement of capital. You couldn't make this up; for the first time in history two prospective governments are going to negotiate to get something which we have already got. What the prospective governments don't want is free movement of people. It is not possible to have completely free movement of goods, services and capital without free movement of people. The rest of the EU recognises this but the UK just cannot accept it. Hence the irony implicit in negotiating for something we have already got.

We are going to lose access to the single market with all the difficulties that implies. The EU will also take the opportunity to grab our best businesses and most skillful people. For them no deal will be better than a bad deal.

Western economies are modelled on a kind of Ponzi Scheme; more and more young people need to be born to support the ageing population. The UK is in the position where the birth rate, of the indigenous population, does not keep up with the death rate. As more and more people reach retirement age we need more and more young people to both look after and pay for the aged. Without immigration the younger people in the population will be faced with working longer hours and paying more taxes to support retired people.  Without immigration the country will eventually go broke. Immigration cannot and will not be stopped; the new workers will have to come from somewhere. The alternative solution of remodelling our economic system to be self sustaining without population growth is decades away.

We are faced with the possibility of crashing out of the EU but still having to import hundreds of thousands of foreign workers to bolster our economy. Immigration is a fact of life. It is also a fact of life that we could lose all of the benefits of being in the EU without being able to substantially reduce immigration. Seventeen million people out of a total electorate of Forty Six million people voted for this delusion. There is a fair chance that even more people will vote for this delusion by choosing to vote for both main parties.

Has the thought not crossed your mind that politicians are being disingenuous about immigration policy and that they are pulling the wool over your eyes?

If we are not careful the penny will only drop, after we have left the EU, that we have made an enormous mistake. But, by then, it will be too late to turn the clock back.

Vote carefully with both eyes open.

The French are no more cowardly or brave than anyone else

Leave.eu have once more descended to the depths. They are making untrue and contemptuous remarks about the French who they claim capitulated in the 2nd World War in 1940. Yes, another good old 2nd World War story coming from the British right wing. Leave.eu have of course forgotten their history even if they ever knew it. They also try to distort history. The French army was not the only one to be defeated on French soil in 1940: the British army was defeated heavily too. How do I know? My father was there on the beaches of Dunkirk waiting to be evacuated whilst being shot at and bombed by the victorious German forces. He was lucky to get out alive. The British Expeditionary Force was defeated by a much better equipped army.

He was lucky to be evacuated in time. The French army was fighting the rearguard at the Siege of Lille, May 28th to 31st 1940, where two army corps from the 1st Army held off 7 German divisions including three Panzer divisions. This rearguard action and the further bravery of French and British troops fighting the rearguard nearer Dunkirk, until June 4th 1940, enabled the evacuation of over 300,000 British, Canadian and French troops to Kent. These troops eventually helped defeat Hitler. Many of the soldiers of the French 1st Army were troops from North Africa.

Without this brave French rearguard action Hitler could possibly have won the war especially if he had not invaded Russia. The UK would also have been in real danger of invasion by the Nazis.

The idea that the French were cowards is simply a lie. Many, many French resistance fighters were murdered and tortured by the Nazis during the occupation. The French resistance helped the Allies to liberate France.

The British extreme right wing is getting up close to the French extreme right in 2017; but I wonder who they would have been getting cosy with in 1940. Do not believe their lies and propaganda.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/may/07/british-brexit-supporters-insult-emmanuel-macron-after-presidential-win

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/leaveeu-emmanuel-macron-victory-french-presidental-election-french-surrender-second-world-war-arron-a7723341.html

https://www.revolvy.com/topic/Siege%20of%20Lille%20(1940)&item_type=topic

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=MOalDAAAQBAJ&pg=PT8&lpg=PT8&dq=the+dunkirk+bridgehead+and+french+12th+motorised&source=bl&ots=yo_4UaKai4&sig=BmBRJhTGZXrBrnVhHI2hagHkPYU&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjy4a_M_-LTAhWjCcAKHcW5CoIQ6AEIJjAA#v=onepage&q=the%20dunkirk%20bridgehead%20and%20french%2012th%20motorised&f=false

Personality versus Policy

When electing a president or prime minister it is equally important to consider both aspects of leadership. In the UK we do not directly elect a Prime Minister we vote in the main for a political party. It is the winning party which chooses to select its leader and the leader of the winning party is invited by the monarch to become Prime Minister. Our monarch of course is not elected.

It is an odd system of government which is based on tradition and convention. Because the monarch has no real power, to control legislation or political administration, the Prime Minister  effectively becomes the head of state and head of government rolled into one. The monarch's head of state powers are delegated completely to the Prime Minister. If you started with a blank sheet of paper you would probably not invent such a system of government which invested so much power in one person.

In the UK we have seen the political parties set out their stall for the 8th of June General Election.
The Conservative party are focusing very much on the qualities of their leader because their policies for detaching the UK from the EU are either weak of non-existent.

The Labour party is focusing more on policy because they know that their leader is perceived to be weak but would their policies be any better?

How should a judgement be made? It is a fine balancing act, so should policy be more important than personality? My view is that policy should prevail. A leader could become infirm or even die in office to be succeeded by someone who is stronger or weaker. We give too much emphasis to how a personality appears on television and social media sites.  A politician who is perceived to be strong could easily be allowed by the public to implement weak policies.

It is abundantly clear that the electors and the press must always objectively scrutinise the policies of all leaders to avoid policy mistakes from being made. Our system invests so much power in one individual. The ideal situation for me would be to have a strong leader implementing carefully thought out policies but we rarely achieve this in the UK.  I shall think very carefully before I vote and I hope you will think carefully too.

 

Once again the human species shows how low it can fall in Syria

Once again the human species shows how low it can fall in Syria. The Syrian conflict must be one of the worst civil wars ever. The United States has now suddenly changed its policy and has decided to bomb Syrian airbases because of the use of gas warfare. At the moment, there is no direct proof as to who used nerve gases or chlorine or both against innocent civilians. The United Nations have not yet concluded their investigations. The Assad regime is obviously a suspect but the opposition guerrillas have shown themselves capable of deploying nerve gases too.

Nerve gases should never have been invented and the same should be true for biological weapons. They are a scourge which no human being should ever get involved with. There is something wrong with human thought processes. It was mother nature, or perhaps even God, that gave us intelligence and rationality. The forces of nature ,however, did not deem that our intellectual abilities  should have been directed towards making weapons of mass destruction to support tribal divisions and hatred. We have chosen this route ourselves. If we are not careful we will destroy ourselves.

The universe will get along fine without us and we won't be missed.

Let's wave the flag for Gibraltar

The border between Spain and Gibraltar was closed by the Spanish between 1969 and 1985. The border was opened by Spain just before in joined the EEC/EU in 1986. It may have escaped the attention of "Brexiters" that Britain was at liberty to veto the accession of Spain to the the EEC. It was therefore in Spain's interests to open the border with the Rock. It was also in the interests of Gibraltar which has become a rich and easy going country at peace with itself.

Every day 10,000 Spaniards cross the border to work in Gibraltar which has a resident population of 30,000. No one in Gibraltar resents the presence of these "foreigners" and the economy of the Rock is reliant upon labour from neighbouring La Linea and its immediate surroundings. Over 90% of Gibraltarians voted to stay in the EU. Britain and Spain must take this into account when a Brexit deal is negotiated.

A dispute between Spain and Britain over the future of the Rock is in no one's interests.

We now have a former senior British politician invoking the Falkland islands spirit by hinting that a dispute with Spain could be settled by military means . This is laughable or the following reasons.

1) The US would not allow it as it has been opposed to British colonialism since the end of the second world war.

2) Britain does not have the military power to invade anywhere on its own; we have a significantly reduced army and no aircraft carriers with aircraft on them.

3) Spain could easily invade  Gibraltar across the isthmus. It would then be almost impossible to retake the peninsula without severe civilian casualties.

Using military force would be a national humiliation and a disaster for Britain and Gibraltar. It is a delusion that we could just raise the flag and Spain would fall into line. Brexit has thrown up another diplomatic and political problem for the UK.

If we are not careful the fall out from Brexit could lead to equally disastrous consequences for Britain on both the domestic and international fronts. Who are the real patriots the flag wavers or the realists?

Referendums and Nationalism

The recent referendums regarding voting systems, Scottish independence and "Brexit" have truly let the curse of excessive nationalism out of the bag. We live in a parliamentary democracy but our politicians have been too weak to make the decisions regarding our constitution. They have absolved themselves of responsibility and now they are reaping the bad harvests sown from the seeds of plebiscites. Any referendum which ends up with an almost a half and half result is bound to create division when only two thirds of the electorate bother to vote. These divisions are not easily mended; friendships and families have been wrested apart.

It is better if we run our country without referendums. Parliament should decide. For major constitutional change there should be a two thirds majority in Parliament - just like the USA and other sensibly run democracies. This would stop division.

In Australia they do have referendums for constitutional change, such as when they wanted to decide whether the country was to become a republic or not. Everyone in Australia is obliged to vote so a referendum could be carried by a simple majority. However, a referendum must be carried in at least four of the six states before the the status quo can be changed. Most referendums therefore fail to change the status quo. There is no whinging if a simply majority fails to carry a referendum and there is therefore not much division in society - everybody gets on with their life.

Under the terms of the Australian referendum system "Brexit" would have failed. Our referendum result did not achieve a majority of electors registered to vote or a majority of the nations comprising the UK. Now we have real and possibly dangerous division facing our nation.

In the case where a nation votes in a referendum to gain independence there should be either a two thirds majority or a simple majority where everyone is legally obliged to vote. This way, for Scotland, Northern Ireland or Wales  there could be no doubt of the intentions of the nation's voters: there would be less of a chance of division.

Scotland and Northern Ireland both voted to stay in the EU under a simple first past the post system and England and Wales voted to leave.  We have no idea of the opinions that are held by the twenty five percent of the electorate who did not vote in the "EU" referendum. They might have been of the opinion that it was best left to Parliament to decide.

Is it any wonder that there is division and that now Scotland might vote to leave the UK. Is it any wonder that there is now pressure for a border poll in Northern Ireland. How will these two nations be kept on side by England and Wales during the "Brexit" negotiations? How are the conflicting views of Leave and Remain to be resolved?

Disturbingly we are now seeing a rise of English nationalism which was subsumed into a form of British patriotism. The UK was dominated by the English who expected Scotland and Northern Ireland to fall into line; this is no longer the case. We have set up a dangerous precedent with our simple referendum system; so that the nationalists everywhere will expect that a simple majority will prevail - "the tyranny of the majority". Hopefully this will not mean a return to violence in Northern Ireland.

It is likely that "Brexit" negotiations will not meet the expectations of any of the voters of the referendum. Possibly the government will have to settle for membership of the single market to assuage the populations of both Northern Ireland, Scotland and even Wales. Possibly our great British nations will become poorer, more badly governed, and more divided.  How will the "English nationalists" feel about that? The cat has been let out of the bag. I can see Scotland becoming independent within twenty years; the issue will not go away now. Neither will the issue of a border poll for Ireland.

Leave voters may get more they they bargained for and they may come to regret that their referendum result was carried by a simple majority of voters and not the whole of the electorate.

For a long time the English have argued against nationalism but they may come to regret that a significant proportion of their own population has become enamoured in the same way as the Scottish nationalists have.

How did we get to this mess?

Cures for homosexuals

Many people from the religious community are advocating that homosexuals could and should be cured from their homosexuality, as if homosexuality is some sort of disease. Clearly, homosexuality is not a disease and there is no scientific evidence to suggest that it is. Prejudice against homosexuality is unjustified and it is an ideological response to discomfort with sexual behaviour which does not fit in with the behaviour of the majority. There is no good reason to subject homosexuals to any form of punishment or discrimination.

Homosexuality is purely a matter of taste or choice just as much as heterosexuality or celibacy. Homosexuals as a group do no more harm or good to society than heterosexuals or celibates. Every society has its own rules against paedophilia but these rules should apply equally to all citizens.

The best way to treat homosexuality in others is to ignore it. What happens behind closed doors is no body else's business as long as the sexual union between two people is based on freewill and mutual respect and that children are not coerced into sexual activity.

Why should homosexuals be treated any differently to anyone else? It is not my choice to be a homosexual but why should I deny that right to anyone else. The sooner the better that we forget about making judgements about a person's character on the basis of their sexuality.

The sooner that we all live in a secular society the better.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/malaysia-gay-conversion-therapy-endorses-lgbt-rights-islam-a7578666.html