Insults and threats during political discourse.

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

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

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

Fining the Homeless -a pointless waste of time and money

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

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

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

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

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

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

Japan and EU trade deal

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

High Rise Buildings and Fire

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

UK hung Parliaments and the EU referendum

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

British General Election

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Vote carefully with both eyes open.

The French are no more cowardly or brave than anyone else

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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