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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  

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

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

EU - positivity

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

Syrian Peace process

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

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

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

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

EU negativity

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

European Union Referendum - why bother ?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nothing much will change.

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

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

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

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

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

Cologne - Sexual Assaults on Women

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

United States Gun Law

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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