We see it all around us, governments, political parties and businesses are declining and are now acting against the public good.
The self indulgence of our politicians is staggering. With regard to Brexit they are playing ideological games which could result in disaster. The confusion, indecision and complacency could lead to a political crisis of unparalleled proportions in recent times, this political crisis will then lead to an economic crisis.
The right wing political elements want a society that is almost completely deregulated based on so called free markets. The extreme left wing elements want the reverse. They are using the Brexit crisis to try get their way. Both sides are paralysing effective government at a time of enormous consequence. However, if either side eventually succeeds, Britain's future will depend upon wild swings of public opinion and alternating governments which will impose a regime of constant economic change and instability.
Some British politicians are indulging in the luxury of proselytising economic theories which will weaken our country both economically and politically. It is time for change and for our politicians to wake up: we need constitutional change rather than completely changing our relationship with Europe. We need a constitution which prevents political factions from paralysing good governance.
We need hard headed reform of our system of voting and the appointment and approval of government ministers. We need a system of government similar to the system in the USA but updated and adapted to the situation in Britain.
This week we have learnt that some businesses in the supply and service industries are penalising by increasing the fees for loyal customers but discounting new customers. Most people are too busy to be constantly changing their suppliers by joining tedious switch web sites; they have much better things to do with their time. It is all easy money.
We have also learnt that banks are cashing in when their customers inadvertently go overdrawn when using the internet or cash cards to buy goods and services: it's easy money again.
For years internet companies have been tricking customers into parting with more cash by designing websites which set out to fool customers who simply do not have the time to watch out for scams.
All businesses have a moral obligation not to rip off their customers in this way. Governments also have a moral duty to protect consumers.
How can a parliament which indulges in the luxury of ideological warfare protect voters? It is time for the decadence to stop.
Wednesday, 19 December 2018
Monday, 19 November 2018
Brexit madness getting worse
Fact: The Brexit referendum was advisory. The government or parliament is not legally obliged to implement the result.
Fact: If the referendum had been conducted over a weekend when more workers would have had time to vote the result could have gone the other way.
Fact: A Mandatory referendum might have produced a different result.
Fact: This referendum result cannot be claimed to be the will of the people. The 13 million who did not vote could have been quite happy for parliament to decide. They could even have been politically opposed to referendums.
Fact:The country is now in a political crisis caused by an ill thought out Brexit process.
Fact: Countries such as Australia make voting compulsory. At least four of the six states must approve a change otherwise the result of the referendum is not carried.For these reasons most referendums do not initiate change but no-one gets into a blind rage about it.
Fact: The government did not carry out a cost benefit analysis before the referendum and present the results to the people. The government is still not presenting the full results of post referendum analysis to the people or parliament for that matter. Parliament should have insisted that a Royal Commission was carried out, to make recommendations about the implications of leaving the EU before the referendum.
Fact:Political crises usually result in economic crisis.
Fact: The public are beginning to support remaining in in the EU as a result of the fear of a political and economic crisis. The fear will be exacerbated by future economic problems.
It is time for a re-think: any form of Brexit will weaken the UK economically, diplomatically, socially and legally because of a lack of planning and the lack of a cost benefit analysis. We have no idea of how we can benefit from Brexit.
It is apparent that, now, even Malta has more power to influence diplomatic events than the UK, by shear dint of it being a member of the EU. Ireland has shown that now it can punch above the weight of the UK on the world stage.
If we finally leave the EU completely in two years time, we risk losing free trade deals that cover around 65% of the world's economy. From a position of much greater economic strength the EU is negotiating with India, the US and China to complete free trade coverage with most of the world's economies. We could be part of this and have an equal say in the final agreements. We risk losing all our free trade deals and then having to re-invent the trade scenario we have already got. This will take decades. We have no say in the US congress or the Indian parliament or in the congress of the PRC. We lose our say in the EU. Leaving the EU this way is economic stupidity at best. Do you really trust our government and parliament to negotiate better trade deals than the EU? Look at where parliament has lead us to.
Freedom of movement has played to our advantage. Britain has been able to tap upon resources that it could not supply for itself. The young people coming to the UK help to keep the NHS and Social Services running. They also support the Services and Construction industry.They help keep our high tech industries going. Not only do Europeans do this but young people from all over the world help keep our economy going . Why deny anyone the right to work in the UK?
Freedom of movement helps the exchange of cultural, scientific and engineering ideas to keep our country flourishing and competitive with other nations.
When we leave the EU Britain will become more divided. Northern Irish citizens will be able to obtain dual nationality by getting Irish passports. Their youth will be free to travel to the EU to get jobs; a facility which will denied to our young people from Manchester and Liverpool and Leeds if they cannot obtain dual nationality.
Hundreds of thousands of children who are born of EU parents will also be able to obtain dual nationality which will put our youth from Manchester and Liverpool etc. at further disadvantage.
Scotland voted to stay in the EU.Scotland will see that Northern Ireland will gain advantage from remaining in the Single Market. Scotland will feel aggrieved and will probably leave the rest of the UK to join the EU.
The worst and most disappointing aspect of Brexit will be the way impoverished leave voters have been treated in the past and the way they will be treated in the future. Leave voters did not have much choice; the only way most of them could get noticed was to protest in the referendum. They were treated badly not by the Eu but by their own government. These voters will suffer most from the reduced economic
opportunities, division and poorer social services which will result from Brexit.
Brexit is nonsense and it will lead to a poorer and more divided Britain. It will lead to a less influential Britain that is culturally more isolated.
Brexit should be stopped and it can be stopped. MPs should have the courage to stop this from happening. They can do this by creating alliances across the political parties to stop it in its tracks, they have the majority to do this. If they are too feeble to do this they should be able to have a majority to support remaining in the Single Market and Customs Union to mitigate the worse effects of Brexit.
Some Leavers will complain like mad. Most Remainers will silently cheer. Most of the people who did not vote will be relieved. Most of our young people will cheer aloud. There will be no violence on the streets.
Forget a new referendum. Parliament should have the courage to end the madness now.
Fact: If the referendum had been conducted over a weekend when more workers would have had time to vote the result could have gone the other way.
Fact: A Mandatory referendum might have produced a different result.
Fact: This referendum result cannot be claimed to be the will of the people. The 13 million who did not vote could have been quite happy for parliament to decide. They could even have been politically opposed to referendums.
Fact:The country is now in a political crisis caused by an ill thought out Brexit process.
Fact: Countries such as Australia make voting compulsory. At least four of the six states must approve a change otherwise the result of the referendum is not carried.For these reasons most referendums do not initiate change but no-one gets into a blind rage about it.
Fact: The government did not carry out a cost benefit analysis before the referendum and present the results to the people. The government is still not presenting the full results of post referendum analysis to the people or parliament for that matter. Parliament should have insisted that a Royal Commission was carried out, to make recommendations about the implications of leaving the EU before the referendum.
Fact:Political crises usually result in economic crisis.
Fact: The public are beginning to support remaining in in the EU as a result of the fear of a political and economic crisis. The fear will be exacerbated by future economic problems.
It is time for a re-think: any form of Brexit will weaken the UK economically, diplomatically, socially and legally because of a lack of planning and the lack of a cost benefit analysis. We have no idea of how we can benefit from Brexit.
It is apparent that, now, even Malta has more power to influence diplomatic events than the UK, by shear dint of it being a member of the EU. Ireland has shown that now it can punch above the weight of the UK on the world stage.
If we finally leave the EU completely in two years time, we risk losing free trade deals that cover around 65% of the world's economy. From a position of much greater economic strength the EU is negotiating with India, the US and China to complete free trade coverage with most of the world's economies. We could be part of this and have an equal say in the final agreements. We risk losing all our free trade deals and then having to re-invent the trade scenario we have already got. This will take decades. We have no say in the US congress or the Indian parliament or in the congress of the PRC. We lose our say in the EU. Leaving the EU this way is economic stupidity at best. Do you really trust our government and parliament to negotiate better trade deals than the EU? Look at where parliament has lead us to.
Freedom of movement has played to our advantage. Britain has been able to tap upon resources that it could not supply for itself. The young people coming to the UK help to keep the NHS and Social Services running. They also support the Services and Construction industry.They help keep our high tech industries going. Not only do Europeans do this but young people from all over the world help keep our economy going . Why deny anyone the right to work in the UK?
Freedom of movement helps the exchange of cultural, scientific and engineering ideas to keep our country flourishing and competitive with other nations.
When we leave the EU Britain will become more divided. Northern Irish citizens will be able to obtain dual nationality by getting Irish passports. Their youth will be free to travel to the EU to get jobs; a facility which will denied to our young people from Manchester and Liverpool and Leeds if they cannot obtain dual nationality.
Hundreds of thousands of children who are born of EU parents will also be able to obtain dual nationality which will put our youth from Manchester and Liverpool etc. at further disadvantage.
Scotland voted to stay in the EU.Scotland will see that Northern Ireland will gain advantage from remaining in the Single Market. Scotland will feel aggrieved and will probably leave the rest of the UK to join the EU.
The worst and most disappointing aspect of Brexit will be the way impoverished leave voters have been treated in the past and the way they will be treated in the future. Leave voters did not have much choice; the only way most of them could get noticed was to protest in the referendum. They were treated badly not by the Eu but by their own government. These voters will suffer most from the reduced economic
opportunities, division and poorer social services which will result from Brexit.
Brexit is nonsense and it will lead to a poorer and more divided Britain. It will lead to a less influential Britain that is culturally more isolated.
Brexit should be stopped and it can be stopped. MPs should have the courage to stop this from happening. They can do this by creating alliances across the political parties to stop it in its tracks, they have the majority to do this. If they are too feeble to do this they should be able to have a majority to support remaining in the Single Market and Customs Union to mitigate the worse effects of Brexit.
Some Leavers will complain like mad. Most Remainers will silently cheer. Most of the people who did not vote will be relieved. Most of our young people will cheer aloud. There will be no violence on the streets.
Forget a new referendum. Parliament should have the courage to end the madness now.
Thursday, 6 September 2018
Brexit and Immigration
I told you so, voting for Brexit will hardly dent immigration numbers. The Government is planning to issue visa to 2,500 non-EU migrant farm workers after Brexit in March 2019.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-45429397
The workers will be allowed in for 6 months. The National Farmers Union has expressed fears that there will be a labour shortage after Brexit because EU workers are deciding to leave the country and probably will not come back. Wages in the rest of the EU are rising faster than in the UK and the fall in the pound makes Britain un-attractive from EU workers point of view.
Farmers will be looking for lower paid workers from other parts of the world.
Other industries will suffer a shortage of staff too and the solution will be the same. There will only be substantial reductions in immigration if the British economy loses momentum; but this would mean that most of us would suffer from a decline in the value of the pound and a failure of the economy to grow. It is more than possible that a no deal Brexit will harm the economy.
Even if there is a deal major international manufacturers will probably not invest in the UK as they will prefer to go to the EU where trading conditions are more stable and where they can lobby the EU and the 27 remaining governments. Even staying in the single market might not protect us from the loss of international manufacturing capacity.
If you voted to leave the EU because you were promised that there would be fewer immigrants and that you would be better off, it might be wise to think again. Perhaps, the costs and risks are greater than the benefits. No-one has explained yet how we can minimise the risks and exploit the benefits; no-one has a plan for leaving.
Leave politicians are due to publish a plan for Brexit soon, some of them have had 41 years to do this and over two years have gone by since the referendum - so far nothing. Can any of their expert predictions be any more certain than the predictions of the remain camp. Predictions can cancel each other out, but how can risks be mitigated if you do not have a realistic plan. It is all too late now, our best course of action will be to call off Brexit. Leave voters have been let down, your economic future is not secure.The immigrants will continue to come for without them our economy could fail completely.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-45429397
The workers will be allowed in for 6 months. The National Farmers Union has expressed fears that there will be a labour shortage after Brexit because EU workers are deciding to leave the country and probably will not come back. Wages in the rest of the EU are rising faster than in the UK and the fall in the pound makes Britain un-attractive from EU workers point of view.
Farmers will be looking for lower paid workers from other parts of the world.
Other industries will suffer a shortage of staff too and the solution will be the same. There will only be substantial reductions in immigration if the British economy loses momentum; but this would mean that most of us would suffer from a decline in the value of the pound and a failure of the economy to grow. It is more than possible that a no deal Brexit will harm the economy.
Even if there is a deal major international manufacturers will probably not invest in the UK as they will prefer to go to the EU where trading conditions are more stable and where they can lobby the EU and the 27 remaining governments. Even staying in the single market might not protect us from the loss of international manufacturing capacity.
If you voted to leave the EU because you were promised that there would be fewer immigrants and that you would be better off, it might be wise to think again. Perhaps, the costs and risks are greater than the benefits. No-one has explained yet how we can minimise the risks and exploit the benefits; no-one has a plan for leaving.
Leave politicians are due to publish a plan for Brexit soon, some of them have had 41 years to do this and over two years have gone by since the referendum - so far nothing. Can any of their expert predictions be any more certain than the predictions of the remain camp. Predictions can cancel each other out, but how can risks be mitigated if you do not have a realistic plan. It is all too late now, our best course of action will be to call off Brexit. Leave voters have been let down, your economic future is not secure.The immigrants will continue to come for without them our economy could fail completely.
Saturday, 4 August 2018
The canicule
As far as I am concerned all doubt that human induced climate has been dispelled. This year in the South East of England our weather has changed form much colder than normal in winter - my pipes froze. We then moved to an early spring with more rain than usual. Now we have a canicule. June was the driest on record since 1925. I am now having difficulty reducing the temperature in my bedroom to below 30 degrees celcius.
The climate has changed so that average temperatures in the UK are more than 0.8 degrees celcius higher than the early 20th century.
We are lucky in the UK; the hot weather will break soon and we will get rain. We do not have heavily forested areas like California so forest fires are less of a problem. The UK is surrounded by sea so our canicules are moderated.
It looks as though this year the whole of the Northern Hemisphere is suffering from extremely high temperatures this is unusual.
The Iberian peninsular is sweltering. It looks as though the Sahara desert is travelling northwards. It is quite possible that Southern Spain will become a desert in the next two decades. It is also possible that parts of North Africa will become uninhabitable within the next two decades.
I fear that when temperatures return to "normal" humanity will forget about climate change and do nothing about it.
Do we have to suffer increasing temperatures each and every year before we turn our attention to reducing CO2 emissions? By then it will be too late.
The climate has changed so that average temperatures in the UK are more than 0.8 degrees celcius higher than the early 20th century.
We are lucky in the UK; the hot weather will break soon and we will get rain. We do not have heavily forested areas like California so forest fires are less of a problem. The UK is surrounded by sea so our canicules are moderated.
It looks as though this year the whole of the Northern Hemisphere is suffering from extremely high temperatures this is unusual.
The Iberian peninsular is sweltering. It looks as though the Sahara desert is travelling northwards. It is quite possible that Southern Spain will become a desert in the next two decades. It is also possible that parts of North Africa will become uninhabitable within the next two decades.
I fear that when temperatures return to "normal" humanity will forget about climate change and do nothing about it.
Do we have to suffer increasing temperatures each and every year before we turn our attention to reducing CO2 emissions? By then it will be too late.
Monday, 9 July 2018
Be prepared for a UK political crisis followed by an economic crisis
Don't be fooled by all the hype surrounding the resignation of "the Brexit secretary" and his two junior ministers. It is not a crisis for the government yet but it could quite easily develop into one.
The foreign exchange markets and the FTSE 100 index have reacted positively to the resignations according to the "Independent". Business is encouraged by arch Bexiters removing themselves from government and influence. I would not be too sure,though, the government could be weakened further by more resignations and political squabbling.
It is quite possible that divisions in the ruling party could lead to really unstable government. The money and foreign exchange markets will then react strongly but in the opposite direction.
It is clear that leaving the EU without a good deal will lead to unfavourable short , medium and long term consequences. The government is aware of this. If Brexit goes wrong, 16 million plus remain voters will say I told you so. The danger is that a substantial proportion 17 million leave voters will feel that they have been cheated. The 13 million voters who did not vote, choosing to let Parliament decide the nation's future, might feel even more disenchanted. Public disquiet will lead to further political crisis, and the political crisis will exacerbate the immediate economic problems resulting from a precipitate exit from the EU. If we are not careful we are heading for a severe economic backlash, which will leave the UK in a weaker and weaker position.
The government and parliament must act in the economic interest of the country; the electorate in general does not support such substantial economic and political change, especially if that change leads to bad economic consequences. The EU referendum was only advisory and there was not a super majority for change. Parliament must defend the livelihood of everyone: it is sovereign. The Brexiters are playing with fire; it is time to stop them in their tracks.
The best move would be for Parliament to assert its sovereignty and vote for Britain to remain in the Customs Union. The Brexiters will then be completely defeated and common sense will have to prevail. Brexiters have delivered no plan for Britian's role in the world after leaving the EU. If we leave without a deal we will have to re-negotiate a new trading relationship with the EU, and with the 60 countries that we have free trade agreements with as part of the customs union. We will end up with no trade agreements at all. The UK would then be at the mercy of the EU, China, USA, India and Japan as we scramble to find trade partners. The idea that we can trade in a tariff and quota free world dominated by the UK is fanciful ; this is not going to happen for the UK or anyone else. At the moment the world trading culture is moving towards protectionism. Britain will be the loser. If the UK leaves the EU without a deal we can expect our economy to be hit hard. The consequences are alarming. The only people not to suffer from a hard Brexit will be the rich metropolitan elite who lead the UK into this dilemma.
The UK will have to remain in the single market to solve the Irish problem which no-one wanted to talk about before the referendum. Britain must face this reality, once again we have no choice.
We can leave the EU but we cannot easily leave the single market and customs union without there being severe political and economic dangers. Common sense must prevail before the crisis is truly upon us.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/david-davis-resignation-latest-brexit-uk-market-reaction-pound-sterling-exchange-rate-ftse-100-a8438141.html
It is worth reading the following article in full if you were not around in 1976.
https://www.gresham.ac.uk/lectures-and-events/the-imf-crisis-1976
Thursday, 28 June 2018
Yippee a New Deal Brexit will open up thousands of new opportunites
Why is everyone getting so pessimistic? The new deal Brexit will give a new lease of life to our nation. We can start again from scratch. Here are the opportunities.
After a hard Brexit, we will have a chance to re-negotiate every trade deal we have including the EU, Canada, South Korea and Japan never mind that our existing trade deals cover 70% of the world's GDP. We can spend years training our trade negotiators to do better and then spend years actually re-negotiating free trade. The UK won't be satisfied with getting back to square one, we want to get back to square zero.
Never mind, if Airbus, BMW and Siemens repatriate the work back to France, Germany and Spain but not the British workers. We can re-build the factories on our own and still sell heaps of cars; despite all the tariffs and quotas that will be imposed on our exports whilst we re-adjust and operate under World Trade Rules. We are Britain we can do what we like.
Our migration problems will be solved as no-one will want to come to the UK because there will be no work for them. In fact our population will probably fall; China will gladly accept the British workers who will be unemployed and can't get visas to work in Germany or Roumania. EU car factories will be working full steam ahead but not with British workers.
Pensioners will have the opportunity to find new careers. Depopulation will mean that there are not enough young people to support the ever ageing population so pension payments will fall. Older people will have to work for longer. Pensioners will have to retrain to be doctors and nurses and learn how to treat themselves when they get ill; all good skills to learn for the future - all the EU doctors and nurses will have left or been repatriated.
Our country will become the land of opportunity.
After a hard Brexit, we will have a chance to re-negotiate every trade deal we have including the EU, Canada, South Korea and Japan never mind that our existing trade deals cover 70% of the world's GDP. We can spend years training our trade negotiators to do better and then spend years actually re-negotiating free trade. The UK won't be satisfied with getting back to square one, we want to get back to square zero.
Never mind, if Airbus, BMW and Siemens repatriate the work back to France, Germany and Spain but not the British workers. We can re-build the factories on our own and still sell heaps of cars; despite all the tariffs and quotas that will be imposed on our exports whilst we re-adjust and operate under World Trade Rules. We are Britain we can do what we like.
Our migration problems will be solved as no-one will want to come to the UK because there will be no work for them. In fact our population will probably fall; China will gladly accept the British workers who will be unemployed and can't get visas to work in Germany or Roumania. EU car factories will be working full steam ahead but not with British workers.
Pensioners will have the opportunity to find new careers. Depopulation will mean that there are not enough young people to support the ever ageing population so pension payments will fall. Older people will have to work for longer. Pensioners will have to retrain to be doctors and nurses and learn how to treat themselves when they get ill; all good skills to learn for the future - all the EU doctors and nurses will have left or been repatriated.
Our country will become the land of opportunity.
Saturday, 16 June 2018
EU has contingency plans for UK to postpone Brexit
The EU is making contingency plans for what happens if Britain asks for an extension of membership past the prospective leaving date of March 2019. First of all, all of the remaining 27 EU states will need to approve the extension. Then provision will have to be made for the European parliament elections.
The EU has made contingency planning for all eventualities surrounding Brexit. This will protect the interests of both the EU and the UK. Responsible governments recognise the need to do this.
This is not the case with the UK. The UK has no agreed plan for the negotiation of Brexit. It has no plan for the border with Ireland. It has no plan for leaving in March 2019 without a deal. There are no contingency plans for the borders at Folkestone and Dover etc.. Belatedly, Parliament which is meant to be sovereign is trying to get the government to confront these issues.
Brexit is a complete mess and it could possibly lead to economic disaster.
Populations quite often get the government they deserve. The population has demanded a referendum which is binding, and which they expect the government to implement despite the divisions.
The population has supposedly voted for a completely sovereign parliament but seeks to limit that sovereignty. This is a contradiction and it has lead to this mess.
It is my opinion that referendums should only be allowed to change the constitutional status quo when there is a two thirds majority. In instances where there is a federated system, a majority of the states should also vote for change. Australia does something similar to this and uses a guarded and sensible approach.
The UK has voted very narrowly to leave the EU, in the general vote, but two of our four nations voted to remain. This is a recipe for complete political division. Many remain voters and politicians simply do not accept that an overwhelming number of the population has voted to change the constitutional status quo. For a "first past the post system" it is valid but from a rational and administrative point of view it is simply invalid.
17 million plus voters voted to leave, 16 million plus voters voted to remain and 13 million electors did not vote at all.
It is wrong to say that the opinions of the 13 million minority should be ignored; they might of been of the opinion that parliament should decide: parliament after all is sovereign.
We cannot allow our union to continue with conducting referendums on the basis of those who are "first past the post" will win. The divisions caused by Brexit could lead to a demand in Northern Ireland or Scotland for an independence referendum: or for a union of Northern Ireland with the Republic. What would happen if a referendum was decided by just 1 vote or even a couple of thousand? No doubt, also, there would be a considerable numbers of abstainers to add to the indecision. To change the constitutional status on a "ham-fisted" basis could easily lead to another civil war in Northern Ireland.
All UK voters should consider the dangers of "first past the post" referendums. Brexit is a classic example of what can go wrong.
Parliament is sovereign and it is under no legal obligation to implement the result of a flawed system of deciding the country's future. Maybe we should start again.
The EU has made plans for our departure the UK government has no plans realistic for leaving and no realistic plan for what happens if we leave the EU without a deal. Given that there is so much national division, could we reasonably expect even the most competent government to implement Brexit successfully.
Parliament has the power to solve this impasse and it should have the courage to act in the best interests of our country. If that means another referendum then so be it. But another referendum should be decided on the basis of a super two thirds majority to change the status quo. And, also a majority of our nations -three out of four - should approve the constitutional change. So be it.
The EU has made contingency planning for all eventualities surrounding Brexit. This will protect the interests of both the EU and the UK. Responsible governments recognise the need to do this.
This is not the case with the UK. The UK has no agreed plan for the negotiation of Brexit. It has no plan for the border with Ireland. It has no plan for leaving in March 2019 without a deal. There are no contingency plans for the borders at Folkestone and Dover etc.. Belatedly, Parliament which is meant to be sovereign is trying to get the government to confront these issues.
Brexit is a complete mess and it could possibly lead to economic disaster.
Populations quite often get the government they deserve. The population has demanded a referendum which is binding, and which they expect the government to implement despite the divisions.
The population has supposedly voted for a completely sovereign parliament but seeks to limit that sovereignty. This is a contradiction and it has lead to this mess.
It is my opinion that referendums should only be allowed to change the constitutional status quo when there is a two thirds majority. In instances where there is a federated system, a majority of the states should also vote for change. Australia does something similar to this and uses a guarded and sensible approach.
The UK has voted very narrowly to leave the EU, in the general vote, but two of our four nations voted to remain. This is a recipe for complete political division. Many remain voters and politicians simply do not accept that an overwhelming number of the population has voted to change the constitutional status quo. For a "first past the post system" it is valid but from a rational and administrative point of view it is simply invalid.
17 million plus voters voted to leave, 16 million plus voters voted to remain and 13 million electors did not vote at all.
It is wrong to say that the opinions of the 13 million minority should be ignored; they might of been of the opinion that parliament should decide: parliament after all is sovereign.
We cannot allow our union to continue with conducting referendums on the basis of those who are "first past the post" will win. The divisions caused by Brexit could lead to a demand in Northern Ireland or Scotland for an independence referendum: or for a union of Northern Ireland with the Republic. What would happen if a referendum was decided by just 1 vote or even a couple of thousand? No doubt, also, there would be a considerable numbers of abstainers to add to the indecision. To change the constitutional status on a "ham-fisted" basis could easily lead to another civil war in Northern Ireland.
All UK voters should consider the dangers of "first past the post" referendums. Brexit is a classic example of what can go wrong.
Parliament is sovereign and it is under no legal obligation to implement the result of a flawed system of deciding the country's future. Maybe we should start again.
The EU has made plans for our departure the UK government has no plans realistic for leaving and no realistic plan for what happens if we leave the EU without a deal. Given that there is so much national division, could we reasonably expect even the most competent government to implement Brexit successfully.
Parliament has the power to solve this impasse and it should have the courage to act in the best interests of our country. If that means another referendum then so be it. But another referendum should be decided on the basis of a super two thirds majority to change the status quo. And, also a majority of our nations -three out of four - should approve the constitutional change. So be it.
Friday, 27 April 2018
"Windrush"
Look at how the people from the Caribbean from the Windrush generation have been treated. They are all British citizens but:
Some of them have been illegally deported and falsely imprisoned without judicial intervention.
Some of them have been illegally denied NHS treatment.
Some have been sacked from their jobs because their employers do not believe they are British.
Some have been denied the receipt of benefits to which they are legally entitled.
Some have been denied the right to rent homes because landlords do not believe they are British.
They have been treated as if they are guilty of entering the country illegally when they were invited.
They have been prevented from submitting oral evidence of their right to remain. Friends , family and professionals have also been prevented from submitting evidence to support their claims.
They have had no right of appeal when landlords and the NHS etc. have denied them services.
Policy decisions made by politicians have led to British citizens being confused and associated with illegal immigrants.
The Home office has encouraged an informer society where Banks, Doctors, The NHS and Landlords report people they believe to be illegal immigrants to the police.
The way they have been treated has all the hallmarks of a repressive and authoritarian state. What civilised state deports and falsely imprisons its own citizens?
Why has this happened?
It is apparent that successive British governments have pandered to xenophobic populist opinion in the UK. There is a small but very vocal minority of people who simply either hate or dislike non-mainstream Britons and foreigners and want to see them deported. These xenophobes also want to stop the immigration of workers from anywhere and prevent foreign husbands and wives from joining their partners if the UK.
By pandering to xenophobia, successive governments have developed a "hostile environment" to discourage legal migrants to become British.
The "hostile environment" is also used to ensure that illegal immigrants are flushed out. The problem is the "hostile environment" does not distinguish between British citizens, legal migrants and those not allowed to be in the country. The so called "hostile environment" is really a euphemism for institutionalised racism.
Well meaning public officials cannot be blamed for this; they have been tasked to do this by politicians. They are just implementing policy using unthinking and unsympathetic bureaucracy.
Most of the above will sound horribly familiar to Jews; as this sort of injustice and much worse has been meted out to them throughout European history. Britain was one country, in modern times, where Jews could have felt relatively safe but now they cannot feel so confident.
This type of institutionalised racism could be meted out to anyone who is not white and mainstream British, hence the increasing discomfort in the Jewish, Muslim and Black British communities and the disquiet of European residents.
The toxicity of xenophobia is damaging our country. People are being attacked for their religious beliefs their synagogues and mosques are also being attacked. Our secular society of tolerance is being attacked.
In many countries the behaviour meted out to the Windrush people would have been declared unconstitutional and the minister responsible would either be removed from office or even put on trial.
It is time to stop our country pandering to xenophobia. There is a danger that we could collapse into a nationalistic and authoritarian state which will have unforeseen consequences.
The Windrush scandal only brings shame to our country. Britain wants to be be a global nation that attracts the brightest, best and hard working. The trouble is the "hostile environment" is encouraging them to up sticks and leave. We cannot afford to lose their talents. Worse still, we cannot deprive our own talented and hard working citizens of their rights.
Many of the xenophobes should be aware that global business leaders come from all sorts of creeds and ethnic backgrounds and may be disinclined to invest in a repressive, authoritarian and backward looking country. Stop the fear of foreigners now.
Some of them have been illegally deported and falsely imprisoned without judicial intervention.
Some of them have been illegally denied NHS treatment.
Some have been sacked from their jobs because their employers do not believe they are British.
Some have been denied the receipt of benefits to which they are legally entitled.
Some have been denied the right to rent homes because landlords do not believe they are British.
They have been treated as if they are guilty of entering the country illegally when they were invited.
They have been prevented from submitting oral evidence of their right to remain. Friends , family and professionals have also been prevented from submitting evidence to support their claims.
They have had no right of appeal when landlords and the NHS etc. have denied them services.
Policy decisions made by politicians have led to British citizens being confused and associated with illegal immigrants.
The Home office has encouraged an informer society where Banks, Doctors, The NHS and Landlords report people they believe to be illegal immigrants to the police.
The way they have been treated has all the hallmarks of a repressive and authoritarian state. What civilised state deports and falsely imprisons its own citizens?
Why has this happened?
It is apparent that successive British governments have pandered to xenophobic populist opinion in the UK. There is a small but very vocal minority of people who simply either hate or dislike non-mainstream Britons and foreigners and want to see them deported. These xenophobes also want to stop the immigration of workers from anywhere and prevent foreign husbands and wives from joining their partners if the UK.
By pandering to xenophobia, successive governments have developed a "hostile environment" to discourage legal migrants to become British.
The "hostile environment" is also used to ensure that illegal immigrants are flushed out. The problem is the "hostile environment" does not distinguish between British citizens, legal migrants and those not allowed to be in the country. The so called "hostile environment" is really a euphemism for institutionalised racism.
Well meaning public officials cannot be blamed for this; they have been tasked to do this by politicians. They are just implementing policy using unthinking and unsympathetic bureaucracy.
Most of the above will sound horribly familiar to Jews; as this sort of injustice and much worse has been meted out to them throughout European history. Britain was one country, in modern times, where Jews could have felt relatively safe but now they cannot feel so confident.
This type of institutionalised racism could be meted out to anyone who is not white and mainstream British, hence the increasing discomfort in the Jewish, Muslim and Black British communities and the disquiet of European residents.
The toxicity of xenophobia is damaging our country. People are being attacked for their religious beliefs their synagogues and mosques are also being attacked. Our secular society of tolerance is being attacked.
In many countries the behaviour meted out to the Windrush people would have been declared unconstitutional and the minister responsible would either be removed from office or even put on trial.
It is time to stop our country pandering to xenophobia. There is a danger that we could collapse into a nationalistic and authoritarian state which will have unforeseen consequences.
The Windrush scandal only brings shame to our country. Britain wants to be be a global nation that attracts the brightest, best and hard working. The trouble is the "hostile environment" is encouraging them to up sticks and leave. We cannot afford to lose their talents. Worse still, we cannot deprive our own talented and hard working citizens of their rights.
Many of the xenophobes should be aware that global business leaders come from all sorts of creeds and ethnic backgrounds and may be disinclined to invest in a repressive, authoritarian and backward looking country. Stop the fear of foreigners now.
Thursday, 12 April 2018
Madness in Syria set to get worse
I wish world leaders would realise that there is only one side in the Syrian conflict and that is the side of peace. It is the side of innocent civilians being protected from the results of a cruel war. It is the side of children being able to grow up without the fear of bombing, shelling and attacks with chlorine and nerve gas.
Western nations are now contemplating further military action in a war situation which sees Russia, Iran Syria, Turkey, Israel, the Kurds, Islamic militants, the US, Britain and France as combatants. Further more Saudi Arabia is also contemplating military action in co-operation with the US.
This war is part of a tragic miasma. Surely, a diplomatic solution must be found.
The use of chemical weapons is a war crime. Would it not be a better solution if the major powers co-operated to identify the suspects and arrest them and then send them for trial at the Hague? This could be done.
The risks are such that the current military action could spread to neighbouring countries and that innocent civilians could suffer not just in Syria but in Israel, Iraq, Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan and Iran. There is also a significant risk of a confrontation between Russia and the US and its allies. The peace of the whole world could be jeopardised.
Syrian civilians will not be helped if the war spreads; their plight could be made worse.
It is time for diplomacy not more war.
Western nations are now contemplating further military action in a war situation which sees Russia, Iran Syria, Turkey, Israel, the Kurds, Islamic militants, the US, Britain and France as combatants. Further more Saudi Arabia is also contemplating military action in co-operation with the US.
This war is part of a tragic miasma. Surely, a diplomatic solution must be found.
The use of chemical weapons is a war crime. Would it not be a better solution if the major powers co-operated to identify the suspects and arrest them and then send them for trial at the Hague? This could be done.
The risks are such that the current military action could spread to neighbouring countries and that innocent civilians could suffer not just in Syria but in Israel, Iraq, Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan and Iran. There is also a significant risk of a confrontation between Russia and the US and its allies. The peace of the whole world could be jeopardised.
Syrian civilians will not be helped if the war spreads; their plight could be made worse.
It is time for diplomacy not more war.
Thursday, 29 March 2018
Is this Taking Back Control ?
The Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration has identified discrepancies in the recording of immigrants, who require visas or have been granted limited stay. Between April 2015 and March 2017 Britain's border control recorded 607 million movements of mainly British and EU citizens.
However, 600,000 people who were stamped in were not recorded to have left the country. 200,000 were stamped out of the country but there were no records for them ever having been admitted to the country. This means that the movements of 800,000 non-British and non-EU citizens ,who do not have the right to reside permanently in the UK, are unaccounted for.
This quite frankly makes a mockery of any idea that the UK has control of its borders. How many of the 200,000 let in without check are terrorists or secret agents hell bent on murdering or seriously injuring our citizens and foreign guests? How many have come to Britain to work in the grey economy? We will never know.
It is quite clear from these statistics that our borders are porous and that the government has no clear idea how to get immigration down to tens of thousands per year. The overwhelming majority of immigrants and visitors come here to work and holiday legally and live peacefully, but it seems that all controls are based on recording those who will gladly and voluntarily show their passport or Id card when entering or leaving the country. We are controlling only the innocent.
There are dozens of small ports dotted around the country where there are no border controls whatsoever. A terrorist, secret service agent or people smuggler can easily gain access to the country.
How did the secret service agents who used nerve gas to poison our Russian visitors and one of our policemen get into and out of the country unnoticed? It seems to me that whilst Border controls were checking the innocents at the front door the miscreants were climbing in and out through the back window.
Many people voted to leave the EU to keep immigrants out and take back control of our borders. The way things are at the moment this will never happen. They voted to leave the EU in vain and for a bad dream. Trying to control immigration with current methods is a completely pointless exercise.
We need immigrants from Europe and other countries to keep our economy and holiday industry going so why make unenforceable laws to keep willing workers out. Why not concentrate our efforts on keeping out terrorists, secret service agents and people smugglers?
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/mar/28/border-exit-checks-records-of-600000-people-missing-watchdog-reveals
However, 600,000 people who were stamped in were not recorded to have left the country. 200,000 were stamped out of the country but there were no records for them ever having been admitted to the country. This means that the movements of 800,000 non-British and non-EU citizens ,who do not have the right to reside permanently in the UK, are unaccounted for.
This quite frankly makes a mockery of any idea that the UK has control of its borders. How many of the 200,000 let in without check are terrorists or secret agents hell bent on murdering or seriously injuring our citizens and foreign guests? How many have come to Britain to work in the grey economy? We will never know.
It is quite clear from these statistics that our borders are porous and that the government has no clear idea how to get immigration down to tens of thousands per year. The overwhelming majority of immigrants and visitors come here to work and holiday legally and live peacefully, but it seems that all controls are based on recording those who will gladly and voluntarily show their passport or Id card when entering or leaving the country. We are controlling only the innocent.
There are dozens of small ports dotted around the country where there are no border controls whatsoever. A terrorist, secret service agent or people smuggler can easily gain access to the country.
How did the secret service agents who used nerve gas to poison our Russian visitors and one of our policemen get into and out of the country unnoticed? It seems to me that whilst Border controls were checking the innocents at the front door the miscreants were climbing in and out through the back window.
Many people voted to leave the EU to keep immigrants out and take back control of our borders. The way things are at the moment this will never happen. They voted to leave the EU in vain and for a bad dream. Trying to control immigration with current methods is a completely pointless exercise.
We need immigrants from Europe and other countries to keep our economy and holiday industry going so why make unenforceable laws to keep willing workers out. Why not concentrate our efforts on keeping out terrorists, secret service agents and people smugglers?
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/mar/28/border-exit-checks-records-of-600000-people-missing-watchdog-reveals
Friday, 9 February 2018
Brexit again
The leaked government report forecasting the drop in performance of the post Brexit economy makes grim reading. The highlights of the report are shown below.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-42977967.
Leave proponents can say what they like about the forecasts which "ceteris paribus" are gloomy. Even if we stay in the single market tens of billions of pounds will be lost to the exchequer. In the event of a Brexit without a deal, on average 8% will be wiped off UK GDP over a 15 year period. For the North East the situation will be worse, at 16%.
Of course, forecasts can be incorrect especially if mitigation is initiated. The Bank of England mitigated the gloomy effects of Brexit immediately after the referendum by reducing interest rates and adding liquidity to the economy to promote consumer spending and economic growth. Payback time will be arriving soon.
Leave proponents have not produced convincing counter arguments to the government report based on evidence. Neither have they produced convincing evidence for their claims that so called global free trade on WTO terms will produce strong economic growth. They have produced no evidence that there will be mitigation of the detrimental effects of leaving the EU.
None of this will cut any ice with the electorate.
As for taking back control, when we leave the EU we will be replacing controls for international driving with controls from a UN Convention. The government is taking legal and contingency steps to ratify the following:
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/679994/MS1.2018_CM9570__Convention_on_Road_Traffic_WEB.pdf
Far from reducing red tape it will increase it.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/feb/08/no-deal-brexit-would-trigger-wave-of-red-tape-for-uk-drivers-and-hauliers
Similarly, we shall replacing one set of rules for another regarding trade. We have less control over WTO rules than we have over the rule making process of the EU. When we leave the EU everything trading rule that we abide by globally will be set by someone else.
Most of what the Leave campaign said about the UK's economic prospects was wishful thinking based on little or weak evidence.
We will still be free to trade with China. British voters, however, might like to ask themselves why Germany is able to export,to China, five times the value of goods and services than Britain? What makes voters think that Britain will better placed to compete with the likes of Germany in international markets. Leaving the EU will not make our competitors go away. If we leave the EU we will lose our competitive edge over exporters to the market that we have just left. We will be competing against the likes of the USA, China, Japan and South Korea who will all be trying to take away our market share. The USA, China, Japan and South Korea could not care less about our balance of payments position - why should they?
The EU negotiated good deals with South Korea, Canada and Japan on our behalf. The Department of Trade will have to renegotiate all of our free trade deals, but it is now receiving criticism from the National Audit office about its efficiency to do this.
https://www.insider.co.uk/news/department-international-trade-brexit-talks-11909044
It is time to stop dreaming about taking back control and how easy it will be to trade as "Global Britain". Wake up before hard reality hits you: it is not too late to change your mind. You voted leave because you did not like globalisation; "Global Britain" is about do give you what you were afraid of , in the first place, but with a vengeance.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-42977967.
Leave proponents can say what they like about the forecasts which "ceteris paribus" are gloomy. Even if we stay in the single market tens of billions of pounds will be lost to the exchequer. In the event of a Brexit without a deal, on average 8% will be wiped off UK GDP over a 15 year period. For the North East the situation will be worse, at 16%.
Of course, forecasts can be incorrect especially if mitigation is initiated. The Bank of England mitigated the gloomy effects of Brexit immediately after the referendum by reducing interest rates and adding liquidity to the economy to promote consumer spending and economic growth. Payback time will be arriving soon.
Leave proponents have not produced convincing counter arguments to the government report based on evidence. Neither have they produced convincing evidence for their claims that so called global free trade on WTO terms will produce strong economic growth. They have produced no evidence that there will be mitigation of the detrimental effects of leaving the EU.
None of this will cut any ice with the electorate.
As for taking back control, when we leave the EU we will be replacing controls for international driving with controls from a UN Convention. The government is taking legal and contingency steps to ratify the following:
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/679994/MS1.2018_CM9570__Convention_on_Road_Traffic_WEB.pdf
Far from reducing red tape it will increase it.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/feb/08/no-deal-brexit-would-trigger-wave-of-red-tape-for-uk-drivers-and-hauliers
Similarly, we shall replacing one set of rules for another regarding trade. We have less control over WTO rules than we have over the rule making process of the EU. When we leave the EU everything trading rule that we abide by globally will be set by someone else.
Most of what the Leave campaign said about the UK's economic prospects was wishful thinking based on little or weak evidence.
We will still be free to trade with China. British voters, however, might like to ask themselves why Germany is able to export,to China, five times the value of goods and services than Britain? What makes voters think that Britain will better placed to compete with the likes of Germany in international markets. Leaving the EU will not make our competitors go away. If we leave the EU we will lose our competitive edge over exporters to the market that we have just left. We will be competing against the likes of the USA, China, Japan and South Korea who will all be trying to take away our market share. The USA, China, Japan and South Korea could not care less about our balance of payments position - why should they?
The EU negotiated good deals with South Korea, Canada and Japan on our behalf. The Department of Trade will have to renegotiate all of our free trade deals, but it is now receiving criticism from the National Audit office about its efficiency to do this.
https://www.insider.co.uk/news/department-international-trade-brexit-talks-11909044
It is time to stop dreaming about taking back control and how easy it will be to trade as "Global Britain". Wake up before hard reality hits you: it is not too late to change your mind. You voted leave because you did not like globalisation; "Global Britain" is about do give you what you were afraid of , in the first place, but with a vengeance.
Thursday, 25 January 2018
The Presidents Club Scandal
We all know about the Presidents Club scandal and the moral outrage. I have some questions to ask.
What was a charity doing organising a rich man's stag party at the Dorchester Hotel which involved the deployment of young women as hostesses dressed in sexy clothes?
Why did the Dorchester Hotel allow such a party to be held on its premises?
Didn't any of these young ladies smell a rat when they were asked to wear sexy clothes, sign no-disclosure agreements and had their 'phones confiscated?
Did any of these ladies find it acceptable to be placed in a predicament where they would be groped by dirty old men? Did any of them volunteer for the job thinking that they would earn lots of money or further their careers?
The whole idea of escort agencies is rather seedy - were any of these ladies forced by traffickers or pimps to attend? Should there be a police investigation?
What are the share holders of the company directors who attended going to do about it?
What is the BBC going to do about it, if some of the people who appear on their shows also attended this stag night?
What are the constituents of any MP who attended going to do about it?
What will the wife of an attendee do about it?
Not every man who attended this seedy event is a dirty old man.
Probably, not every young woman who worked at the stag party is miss innocent. Some of these young women may feel it is their perfect right to ply their trade in any way they see fit; so who am I to judge.
In light of the Hollywood sexual allegations against film directors: one thing is certain; the men who organised and attended this stag party should have had the foresight to realise that it would be infiltrated. An undercover journalist posed as a hostess and was prepared to be groped to expose this silly night out.
The stag party attendees have been exposed as either dirty old men or mugs or both.
Are these men, whose judgement is so poor, fit to be leaders of industry and other organisations?
What was a charity doing organising a rich man's stag party at the Dorchester Hotel which involved the deployment of young women as hostesses dressed in sexy clothes?
Why did the Dorchester Hotel allow such a party to be held on its premises?
Didn't any of these young ladies smell a rat when they were asked to wear sexy clothes, sign no-disclosure agreements and had their 'phones confiscated?
Did any of these ladies find it acceptable to be placed in a predicament where they would be groped by dirty old men? Did any of them volunteer for the job thinking that they would earn lots of money or further their careers?
The whole idea of escort agencies is rather seedy - were any of these ladies forced by traffickers or pimps to attend? Should there be a police investigation?
What are the share holders of the company directors who attended going to do about it?
What is the BBC going to do about it, if some of the people who appear on their shows also attended this stag night?
What are the constituents of any MP who attended going to do about it?
What will the wife of an attendee do about it?
Not every man who attended this seedy event is a dirty old man.
Probably, not every young woman who worked at the stag party is miss innocent. Some of these young women may feel it is their perfect right to ply their trade in any way they see fit; so who am I to judge.
In light of the Hollywood sexual allegations against film directors: one thing is certain; the men who organised and attended this stag party should have had the foresight to realise that it would be infiltrated. An undercover journalist posed as a hostess and was prepared to be groped to expose this silly night out.
The stag party attendees have been exposed as either dirty old men or mugs or both.
Are these men, whose judgement is so poor, fit to be leaders of industry and other organisations?
Wednesday, 10 January 2018
Royal Wedding
There has been speculation in the press about the guest list for the wedding between Prince Harry and Miss Markel. An author has claimed that the President of the US is putting pressure on the UK government to obtain an invite to the wedding in exchange for a trade deal after Brexit. Only a few people can know whether this is true or not and the author is probably not amongst them.
The days have gone when royal marriages were used to arrange or cement international alliances. It is clear that it is a love match between Miss Markle and Prince Harry, and that this marriage has not been arranged or pre-ordained.
I am not expecting an invite to the wedding and I shall not be sending a congratulatory telegram or waving a flag.
I support the notion, however, that Miss Markle and Prince Harry are entitled to ask whoever they like to their wedding. Their marriage should not be used as a matter of improving international relations.
Like it or not, the current President of the US is a divisive character and when he is invited to the UK there will be demonstrations against the visit; which I shall not be attending. The marriage of any couple should not be marred by a demonstration against the visit of a foreign president, however. Therefore, the President should not be invited if it against against the wishes of the couple.
If the couple do feel, without pressure, that they want to invite the President then the marriage should be conducted in a place where all the guests and the flag waving public can be protected from the fury of some protesters.
Harry and his future wife are entitled, of course, to change the arrangements to get married quietly in a registry office and in a country of their choice: the USA even. They will be just as happy if they do this and they will be able to invite whoever they want to the party afterwards.
Miss Markle probably feels that she is not marrying into a dysfunctional family but should she be made to feel that she is "marrying" into a dysfunctional country?
https://news.sky.com/story/trump-royal-wedding-snub-could-hit-post-brexit-trade-deal-11199343
The days have gone when royal marriages were used to arrange or cement international alliances. It is clear that it is a love match between Miss Markle and Prince Harry, and that this marriage has not been arranged or pre-ordained.
I am not expecting an invite to the wedding and I shall not be sending a congratulatory telegram or waving a flag.
I support the notion, however, that Miss Markle and Prince Harry are entitled to ask whoever they like to their wedding. Their marriage should not be used as a matter of improving international relations.
Like it or not, the current President of the US is a divisive character and when he is invited to the UK there will be demonstrations against the visit; which I shall not be attending. The marriage of any couple should not be marred by a demonstration against the visit of a foreign president, however. Therefore, the President should not be invited if it against against the wishes of the couple.
If the couple do feel, without pressure, that they want to invite the President then the marriage should be conducted in a place where all the guests and the flag waving public can be protected from the fury of some protesters.
Harry and his future wife are entitled, of course, to change the arrangements to get married quietly in a registry office and in a country of their choice: the USA even. They will be just as happy if they do this and they will be able to invite whoever they want to the party afterwards.
Miss Markle probably feels that she is not marrying into a dysfunctional family but should she be made to feel that she is "marrying" into a dysfunctional country?
https://news.sky.com/story/trump-royal-wedding-snub-could-hit-post-brexit-trade-deal-11199343
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
