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
Wednesday, 10 January 2018
Wednesday, 20 December 2017
British Sovereignty
The Bank of England has just announced that European Banks will be allowed to maintain the administrative and commercial status quo when Britain leaves the EU. This means that large European Union based banks will only have to be be represented in London by branches rather than bank subsidiaries which are legally set up in the UK. These branches will be able to keep their assets and liabilities on the books of their Headquarters in Europe. Control of these branches from a risk and liquidity point of view will be from the Head Office in Europe. Britain is too weak to insist that these banks open subsidiaries in the the UK.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-42420829
If Britain leaves the EU, without a banking agreement for the "passporting" of financial services, then UK banks will have to set up subsidiaries in the EU. The assets and liabilities and profits will then become under the domain of the EU country where they are resident. So will the staff. Britain loses out. The EU have made it clear that to gain single market access, to the EU financial services market, Britain will have to agree to free movement of labour. Britain will have little choice: it is not powerful enough to insist that we have have complete access to the single market without accepting freedom of movement.
So much for taking back control and sovereignty. The Bank of England has just ceded control and sovereignty to the EU. Who voted for that?
By remaining in the EU, Britain would have had a big say in how European banks should act, we would have pooled our sovereignty. Now we have lost all say and the European Banking Authority is being transferred from London to Paris, and the Authority will only be wrenched back from Paris with extreme difficulty and only if we rejoin the EU. If you voted leave, well done. You have been duped again and our nation will lose billions of pounds worth of financial trade and influence.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-42420829
If Britain leaves the EU, without a banking agreement for the "passporting" of financial services, then UK banks will have to set up subsidiaries in the EU. The assets and liabilities and profits will then become under the domain of the EU country where they are resident. So will the staff. Britain loses out. The EU have made it clear that to gain single market access, to the EU financial services market, Britain will have to agree to free movement of labour. Britain will have little choice: it is not powerful enough to insist that we have have complete access to the single market without accepting freedom of movement.
So much for taking back control and sovereignty. The Bank of England has just ceded control and sovereignty to the EU. Who voted for that?
By remaining in the EU, Britain would have had a big say in how European banks should act, we would have pooled our sovereignty. Now we have lost all say and the European Banking Authority is being transferred from London to Paris, and the Authority will only be wrenched back from Paris with extreme difficulty and only if we rejoin the EU. If you voted leave, well done. You have been duped again and our nation will lose billions of pounds worth of financial trade and influence.
Monday, 11 December 2017
A wonderful post-Brexit future
What makes anyone think that Britain will be better off if we leave the EU? My experience of working in 30 countries across the world suggests that we shall be in for a hard time.
We shall be throwing ourselves into an environment in which we are not fit to compete. How on earth is Britain going to negotiate and equitable deal with the USA? Britain is a very small nation compared to the USA. Despite the "special relationship", the USA can afford to ignore us. It did not need the UK's support for the invasion of Iraq or Afghanistan. It did not need British support in the Korean war. It would have lost the Vietnam war even if it had British support. The USA hardly needs us and when Britain leaves the EU it won't need us at all. The USA will always look after its own interests just as Britain, France and China do. They will do us no favours when we leave the EU and we should not expect them to. The USA respects power and the UK will have no more power than Malta does when we leave the EU.
American citizens abroad have an easy going self confidence which they know is backed up by a gigantic economic and corporate power. They can fill meetings with experts they can outnumber the British and "outgun us" at anytime. The idea that a "Lord Snooty" or "Roy of the Rovers" character can beat all comers by acting alone is comic book fantasy. The Americans will walk all over us . So will the EU and China; and so will India which is catching up fast with the other economic super-powers.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord_Snooty
http://scotiafile.blogspot.co.uk/2016/04/lord-snooty-and-his-pals-beano.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_of_the_Rovers
How on earth can Britain survive in a cruel hard world when the government has no plan for our future relationship with the EU after we have left? And, no plan for our relationship with the rest of the world for that matter. How on earth can Britain prosper when the government has made no assessments - good or bad- of the economic effects of leaving the EU ? How could a government of this nature be trusted to negotiate with any one? How could a government be trusted to exploit any opportunity arising from leaving the EU?
Out in the big wild world many of our citizens are unfit to compete with the competition on a personal basis. I have worked in many countries and with people from all over the world. I have found that none of these world citizens have a self-satisfied sense of entitlement. They work very hard. Many of my fellow Britons could not spell or write coherent English as well as the Indian citizens that I have encountered. Even Russian and Chinese workers can "out-spell" the British.
I have asked Indian workers to write reports for me which I could deliver to senior management with very little correction or alteration. They seem to know the difference between a "blog" and a business report. English is the business language of the world; so isn't it a shame that many British people are unable to exploit their native language? It helps when you are in another country to be able to speak some of the language even if it is just to say: "thank you" or "good morning". The language skills of British young people are appalling. You are not going to make many sales in Japan or China if you cannot even be seen to be polite. Britons will not only be coming up against tariff and non-tariff barriers they will also be coming up against language barriers.
A metropolitan elite has somehow persuaded the British electorate that Britain can easily survive on its own. The trouble is this elite is decadent and lazy and has an undeserved sense of entitlement and superiority It is just the sort of attitude that ruffles feathers in India, Canada, Australia, Ireland, and the US. This elite is now in control of our future. It is this elite that will be sending their own kind out into the rest of the world to struggle for Britain and with their attitude they are dooming us to failure.
This sense of superiority and entitlement will not serve us well. We are on a downward slope and we shall skid along to disaster if we are not careful. The reality is we need our European friends more than they need us. The EU protects us from failure and gives us the opportunity to compete with the rest of the world on an even playing field. We don't need "Roy of the Rovers" we need a sense of realism and team work to progress.
We shall be throwing ourselves into an environment in which we are not fit to compete. How on earth is Britain going to negotiate and equitable deal with the USA? Britain is a very small nation compared to the USA. Despite the "special relationship", the USA can afford to ignore us. It did not need the UK's support for the invasion of Iraq or Afghanistan. It did not need British support in the Korean war. It would have lost the Vietnam war even if it had British support. The USA hardly needs us and when Britain leaves the EU it won't need us at all. The USA will always look after its own interests just as Britain, France and China do. They will do us no favours when we leave the EU and we should not expect them to. The USA respects power and the UK will have no more power than Malta does when we leave the EU.
American citizens abroad have an easy going self confidence which they know is backed up by a gigantic economic and corporate power. They can fill meetings with experts they can outnumber the British and "outgun us" at anytime. The idea that a "Lord Snooty" or "Roy of the Rovers" character can beat all comers by acting alone is comic book fantasy. The Americans will walk all over us . So will the EU and China; and so will India which is catching up fast with the other economic super-powers.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord_Snooty
http://scotiafile.blogspot.co.uk/2016/04/lord-snooty-and-his-pals-beano.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_of_the_Rovers
How on earth can Britain survive in a cruel hard world when the government has no plan for our future relationship with the EU after we have left? And, no plan for our relationship with the rest of the world for that matter. How on earth can Britain prosper when the government has made no assessments - good or bad- of the economic effects of leaving the EU ? How could a government of this nature be trusted to negotiate with any one? How could a government be trusted to exploit any opportunity arising from leaving the EU?
Out in the big wild world many of our citizens are unfit to compete with the competition on a personal basis. I have worked in many countries and with people from all over the world. I have found that none of these world citizens have a self-satisfied sense of entitlement. They work very hard. Many of my fellow Britons could not spell or write coherent English as well as the Indian citizens that I have encountered. Even Russian and Chinese workers can "out-spell" the British.
I have asked Indian workers to write reports for me which I could deliver to senior management with very little correction or alteration. They seem to know the difference between a "blog" and a business report. English is the business language of the world; so isn't it a shame that many British people are unable to exploit their native language? It helps when you are in another country to be able to speak some of the language even if it is just to say: "thank you" or "good morning". The language skills of British young people are appalling. You are not going to make many sales in Japan or China if you cannot even be seen to be polite. Britons will not only be coming up against tariff and non-tariff barriers they will also be coming up against language barriers.
A metropolitan elite has somehow persuaded the British electorate that Britain can easily survive on its own. The trouble is this elite is decadent and lazy and has an undeserved sense of entitlement and superiority It is just the sort of attitude that ruffles feathers in India, Canada, Australia, Ireland, and the US. This elite is now in control of our future. It is this elite that will be sending their own kind out into the rest of the world to struggle for Britain and with their attitude they are dooming us to failure.
This sense of superiority and entitlement will not serve us well. We are on a downward slope and we shall skid along to disaster if we are not careful. The reality is we need our European friends more than they need us. The EU protects us from failure and gives us the opportunity to compete with the rest of the world on an even playing field. We don't need "Roy of the Rovers" we need a sense of realism and team work to progress.
Wednesday, 6 December 2017
Time to Call Off Brexit
Nearly every prediction that I have made about Brexit is now coming true. Northern Ireland is now the sticking point. When Ireland and Britain joined the Common Market, way back in 1973, very few people believed that European unity would go some way to helping a peace process in Northern Ireland and on the island of Ireland in general. By 1973, the troubles in Northern Ireland were well underway. By the time that the "civil war" had been resolved in 1998 over 1800 civilians had been killed, the majority of whom were residents of Northern Ireland. The conflict, however, claimed civilian casualties in both the Republic of Ireland and Great Britain.
The EU was part of the solution to centuries of conflict. Free movement of people and trade helped to breakdown the social, economic and political divisions. The Republic of Ireland and the UK became equals and this also helped smooth the way to the Republic of Ireland declaring that it no longer had a unilateral claim to achieve a united Ireland. The UK also declared that it had no interest in preserving a union between Northern Ireland and Great Britain against the wishes of a majority in Northern Ireland. The scene was set for continuing peace.
This peace could easily be unravelled. If the UK leaves the European Union customs treaties and the single market then there will have to be a hard border between the UK and the Republic of Ireland. The people of Northern Ireland voted by a small majority (55%) to remain in the EU and therefore by default to remain in the customs union and single market. It looks as though some political elements in both Great Britain and Northern Ireland want to force the people of Northern Ireland out of the EU and its institutions against their will.
The UK is a sovereign state but any state has to exercise its sovereignty carefully. Britain has to consider the views of the Republic of Ireland and it also has to consider the views of a substantial minority of Northern Irish citizens who either wish for a unified Ireland or very close relations with the Republic. It would also seem that many in the loyalist community also want to maintain close relations with the Republic. The EU allowed for these close relations be maintained on an equitable, legal and peaceful basis. The UK could quite easily jeopardise 20 years of peace by quitting the EU.
It is quite clear that the Republic of Ireland is no longer willing to give in to the UK's economic power to dominate events. The EU gives it the power to challenge us. The UK should learn a lesson from this. By being part of a super power the UK is able to influence events and challenge US and Chinese power.
You, mister voter, were given the power in the referendum to influence the future of all of the nations that make up the United Kingdom. You demanded it and, therefore, it was your duty to research the history of our nation and consider the consequences of your decision to leave the EU. Will you ever be forgiven if conflict returns to Northern Ireland and violence returns not just to Ulster but to the Republic of Ireland too; and of course to the British mainland?
The EU was part of the solution to centuries of conflict. Free movement of people and trade helped to breakdown the social, economic and political divisions. The Republic of Ireland and the UK became equals and this also helped smooth the way to the Republic of Ireland declaring that it no longer had a unilateral claim to achieve a united Ireland. The UK also declared that it had no interest in preserving a union between Northern Ireland and Great Britain against the wishes of a majority in Northern Ireland. The scene was set for continuing peace.
This peace could easily be unravelled. If the UK leaves the European Union customs treaties and the single market then there will have to be a hard border between the UK and the Republic of Ireland. The people of Northern Ireland voted by a small majority (55%) to remain in the EU and therefore by default to remain in the customs union and single market. It looks as though some political elements in both Great Britain and Northern Ireland want to force the people of Northern Ireland out of the EU and its institutions against their will.
The UK is a sovereign state but any state has to exercise its sovereignty carefully. Britain has to consider the views of the Republic of Ireland and it also has to consider the views of a substantial minority of Northern Irish citizens who either wish for a unified Ireland or very close relations with the Republic. It would also seem that many in the loyalist community also want to maintain close relations with the Republic. The EU allowed for these close relations be maintained on an equitable, legal and peaceful basis. The UK could quite easily jeopardise 20 years of peace by quitting the EU.
It is quite clear that the Republic of Ireland is no longer willing to give in to the UK's economic power to dominate events. The EU gives it the power to challenge us. The UK should learn a lesson from this. By being part of a super power the UK is able to influence events and challenge US and Chinese power.
You, mister voter, were given the power in the referendum to influence the future of all of the nations that make up the United Kingdom. You demanded it and, therefore, it was your duty to research the history of our nation and consider the consequences of your decision to leave the EU. Will you ever be forgiven if conflict returns to Northern Ireland and violence returns not just to Ulster but to the Republic of Ireland too; and of course to the British mainland?
Thursday, 23 November 2017
Why is Great Britain paying billions to be worse off?
Great Britain is about to pay billions of pounds to the EU, some speculate, 40 billions or more, for the country to be worse off. We have to pay the price of meeting our existing commitments plus an inducement to get some sort of trade deal and transition agreement. Any trade deal that we negotiate with the EU will end up with Great Britain being worse off. The effect of us just saying that we want to leave the EU is already causing the economy to falter. When we actually leave the economy will suffer more. The Eldorado that the Leave campaigners promised us all is nowhere to be seen.
The UK government has just budgeted 3 billion pounds just to organise leaving, and is promising more to cope with further administrative and legal problems that might arise. This 3 billion could have been allocated to the health service.
We are paying billions because you are suffering from the illusion that we can regain our sovereignty, curb immigration and loose ourselves from the ECJ. We already have full sovereignty as no one tried to prevent us from declaring Article 50. If we want to trade with Europe we have to accept that we trade under their laws. The UK economy is modelled on importing skills; we need the doctors, engineers and IT specialists to come from somewhere because we are unable to train and educate enough of these specialists ourselves. Our economy also relies on cheap and mobile labour and the EU provides this. To keep our economy going for the foreseeable future we need immigrants from both the EU and elsewhere. The demographic nature of our country will not change significantly when we leave the EU.
If you voted Leave then you voted to make yourself and most of the rest of us poorer. You voted to spend billions of the country's money to achieve this. You will not get Eldorado.
You voted to reduce the amount of money available to improve the health service and schools. Your job prospects will not improve and there will be no mobility allowances to fund your travel to find a job elsewhere. Social security benefits will be under threat.
The Home Office will have to recruit thousands of workers to register the 3 million EU citizens who are resident legally in our country. Most of these workers will have to come from the EU; the Home Office cannot find British workers to fill the vacancies. You will still have Polish, Romanian and Bulgarian youngsters living next to you.
You think that we will be free from the international law makers "interfering" in our country? Well, for every rule that we lose, by leaving the EU, then we gain another one from the WTO etc.
I don't think that the 16 million who voted to remain in the EU and the 13 million who could not be bothered to vote will be thanking you.
The only people who will not suffer as a result of your vote will be the rich liberal elite from London both "Leavers" and "Remainers".
The EU is the only organisation in the world that accepts freedom of movement to work without visas. You will be denied that opportunity too, and your children, unless you are from Northern Ireland or you have dual EU and British nationality. Your vote is going to make folk from Northern Ireland, who can apply for Irish passports by right, a privileged minority.
You will be stuck in Britain to enjoy your impoverishment.
The UK government has just budgeted 3 billion pounds just to organise leaving, and is promising more to cope with further administrative and legal problems that might arise. This 3 billion could have been allocated to the health service.
We are paying billions because you are suffering from the illusion that we can regain our sovereignty, curb immigration and loose ourselves from the ECJ. We already have full sovereignty as no one tried to prevent us from declaring Article 50. If we want to trade with Europe we have to accept that we trade under their laws. The UK economy is modelled on importing skills; we need the doctors, engineers and IT specialists to come from somewhere because we are unable to train and educate enough of these specialists ourselves. Our economy also relies on cheap and mobile labour and the EU provides this. To keep our economy going for the foreseeable future we need immigrants from both the EU and elsewhere. The demographic nature of our country will not change significantly when we leave the EU.
If you voted Leave then you voted to make yourself and most of the rest of us poorer. You voted to spend billions of the country's money to achieve this. You will not get Eldorado.
You voted to reduce the amount of money available to improve the health service and schools. Your job prospects will not improve and there will be no mobility allowances to fund your travel to find a job elsewhere. Social security benefits will be under threat.
The Home Office will have to recruit thousands of workers to register the 3 million EU citizens who are resident legally in our country. Most of these workers will have to come from the EU; the Home Office cannot find British workers to fill the vacancies. You will still have Polish, Romanian and Bulgarian youngsters living next to you.
You think that we will be free from the international law makers "interfering" in our country? Well, for every rule that we lose, by leaving the EU, then we gain another one from the WTO etc.
I don't think that the 16 million who voted to remain in the EU and the 13 million who could not be bothered to vote will be thanking you.
The only people who will not suffer as a result of your vote will be the rich liberal elite from London both "Leavers" and "Remainers".
The EU is the only organisation in the world that accepts freedom of movement to work without visas. You will be denied that opportunity too, and your children, unless you are from Northern Ireland or you have dual EU and British nationality. Your vote is going to make folk from Northern Ireland, who can apply for Irish passports by right, a privileged minority.
You will be stuck in Britain to enjoy your impoverishment.
Wednesday, 15 November 2017
Lillith the Lynx
It was all very predictable Lillith the lynx, which escaped from a Borth Zoo in Wales, has been shot.
The unfortunate creature decided to take up residence in a caravan park, which was closed in the off- season. The local council authorised the shooting on the lynx on the grounds that it was occupying a tourist area and that it was a danger to the public. The lynx had entered a heavily populated area.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/11/13/escaped-lynx-lillith-could-have-attacked-children-council-says/
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/nov/11/lilith-escaped-lynx-is-killed-over-growing-public-safety-fears
There were reports that the council considered that the lynx would be a danger to children. The zoo claimed that this is untrue. There also reports that the zoo were about to capture the lynx when a council officer accidentally thwarted an attempt to net the animal. This attempt would have been successful.
The killing of the lynx raises a number of issues raise a number of issues:
If the lynx was in a heavily populated area what was a marksman doing loosing off a bullet? A slip of the wrist could have seen a child being injured or even worse killed.
Was the lynx anymore dangerous than a large aggressive dog or an aggressive driver? We do not shoot dogs until they make an attack. Why should the lynx be treated differently?
If the zoo was close to netting the cat, why not allow more attempts especially as a council official allegedly interfered with the trapping of the feline?
Are children not intelligent enough to keep away from a feral cat? When I was young I knew instinctively to keep away from a hissing and feral domestic cat and likewise the cat knew to keep away from me. I was only ever scratched by a completely domesticated cat but only then, when I annoyed it.
Why are zoos keeping species such as the lynx in captivity? There is no need to do this. The animals suffer because they are solitary and used to roaming long distances when hunting. When they are in captivity they try to hide. Eurasian lynxes are not threatened world wide so there is no need for a captive breeding programme. However, there is a need for a captive breeding programme to re-introduce the Iberian lynx back into the Algarve.
Why does mankind have to reach for the gun when wild animals somehow present a "problem"? We are doing the same thing in relation to badgers and we reach for the gun often without evidence that the wild animal in question is really a threat. In the case of the wild boars in the Forest of Dean it has become necessary to make a cull but this is based on scientific evidence. The boar population is growing out of control because we have eliminated their predators: wolves, bears and lynxes. It seems that, in this case, the decision to shoot the lynx was based on convenience, and lobbying from some farmers.
A lynx has never been recorded to willingly harm or kill a human being. If left to their own devices, in the wild, they will never approach a human being. They will only strike back if we go out of our way to annoy and threaten them or harm their cubs. Even then an attack from lynx is unlikely to be fatal as they are not as powerful as leopards. If the lynx had escaped completely and had established itself in the wild, to lead the true life of a lynx, then it could have been left alone to live out its life in freedom without danger to human life. Lynx hunt deer and they rarely attack sheep.
The plan to re-introduce lynxes into the wild in the UK has been set back by this incident. Their re-introduction, based on scientific evidence, will help restore the balance of nature in areas where damage is caused by wild deer. The lynx preys upon deer and also keeps them on the move. In many areas it is too dangerous to cull the deer because we cannot shoot them if they are too close to heavily populated areas. Re-introducing the lynx will be a humane way of controlling the deer population without danger or excessive costs. The lynx will also attract tourists who will never see them, but these animal lovers can always have their dreams.
My dream is that we only reach for the gun to kill wild animals when they are seen to be a real problem based on scientific evidence. My dream is based on rationality but not sentiment or convenience.
The unfortunate creature decided to take up residence in a caravan park, which was closed in the off- season. The local council authorised the shooting on the lynx on the grounds that it was occupying a tourist area and that it was a danger to the public. The lynx had entered a heavily populated area.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/11/13/escaped-lynx-lillith-could-have-attacked-children-council-says/
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/nov/11/lilith-escaped-lynx-is-killed-over-growing-public-safety-fears
There were reports that the council considered that the lynx would be a danger to children. The zoo claimed that this is untrue. There also reports that the zoo were about to capture the lynx when a council officer accidentally thwarted an attempt to net the animal. This attempt would have been successful.
The killing of the lynx raises a number of issues raise a number of issues:
If the lynx was in a heavily populated area what was a marksman doing loosing off a bullet? A slip of the wrist could have seen a child being injured or even worse killed.
Was the lynx anymore dangerous than a large aggressive dog or an aggressive driver? We do not shoot dogs until they make an attack. Why should the lynx be treated differently?
If the zoo was close to netting the cat, why not allow more attempts especially as a council official allegedly interfered with the trapping of the feline?
Are children not intelligent enough to keep away from a feral cat? When I was young I knew instinctively to keep away from a hissing and feral domestic cat and likewise the cat knew to keep away from me. I was only ever scratched by a completely domesticated cat but only then, when I annoyed it.
Why are zoos keeping species such as the lynx in captivity? There is no need to do this. The animals suffer because they are solitary and used to roaming long distances when hunting. When they are in captivity they try to hide. Eurasian lynxes are not threatened world wide so there is no need for a captive breeding programme. However, there is a need for a captive breeding programme to re-introduce the Iberian lynx back into the Algarve.
Why does mankind have to reach for the gun when wild animals somehow present a "problem"? We are doing the same thing in relation to badgers and we reach for the gun often without evidence that the wild animal in question is really a threat. In the case of the wild boars in the Forest of Dean it has become necessary to make a cull but this is based on scientific evidence. The boar population is growing out of control because we have eliminated their predators: wolves, bears and lynxes. It seems that, in this case, the decision to shoot the lynx was based on convenience, and lobbying from some farmers.
A lynx has never been recorded to willingly harm or kill a human being. If left to their own devices, in the wild, they will never approach a human being. They will only strike back if we go out of our way to annoy and threaten them or harm their cubs. Even then an attack from lynx is unlikely to be fatal as they are not as powerful as leopards. If the lynx had escaped completely and had established itself in the wild, to lead the true life of a lynx, then it could have been left alone to live out its life in freedom without danger to human life. Lynx hunt deer and they rarely attack sheep.
The plan to re-introduce lynxes into the wild in the UK has been set back by this incident. Their re-introduction, based on scientific evidence, will help restore the balance of nature in areas where damage is caused by wild deer. The lynx preys upon deer and also keeps them on the move. In many areas it is too dangerous to cull the deer because we cannot shoot them if they are too close to heavily populated areas. Re-introducing the lynx will be a humane way of controlling the deer population without danger or excessive costs. The lynx will also attract tourists who will never see them, but these animal lovers can always have their dreams.
My dream is that we only reach for the gun to kill wild animals when they are seen to be a real problem based on scientific evidence. My dream is based on rationality but not sentiment or convenience.
Monday, 13 November 2017
Brexit now reeks of failure
It was always going to be very difficult to wrest the UK away from the EU without any sort of plan. In my view it was irresponsible to call for a referendum on whether the UK should remain in or leave the EU without an objective assessment of the facts and a recommendation from a Royal Commission. It was naive to insist that a first past the post vote of a 50% +1 majority of those who voted would be sufficient to authorise major constitutional change. Most sensible countries demand at least a 60% majority. It was also irresponsible not to take into account the desires of the individual nations that make up the UK. The fact that Northern Ireland and Scotland voted to remain in the EU should have been sufficient political reason to veto our departure from the EU.
Around 16 million people voted to remain in the EU and over 17 million voted to leave. 13 million people did not vote. Our country is completely divided and will remain so. If we leave the EU to find that we are in economic and political difficulty then all the remain and most of the non-voters will harbour resentment for years. Brexit will have to be a guaranteed success and it will have to deliver El Dorado.
Imagine what could happen if there was a referendum to abolish the monarchy just for Britain to become a republic. 16 million voted to retain the status quo, 17 million voted for a republic and 13 million did not vote. Northern Ireland and Scotland voted to keep the status quo but England and Wales voted for a republic. What would happen if the republic did not work and there was political chaos? To change the constitution in such a cavalier manner risks economic chaos and possible civil war; referendums can be dangerous if they are not managed astutely. Most of the time a simple majority vote is insufficient to prevent dangerous political divisions.
The task of managing Britain's departure from the EU is enormous and might not be achievable in the time available. The divisions within the governing party are preventing a viable plan for the future from being drawn up and agreed. We have no idea what our future relationship with the EU is going to be. We have made no proposals. We have only made demands, it is the "cake and eat it" approach.
Our government is demanding that we have a completely free trade arrangement in the EU but without having freedom of movement of labour. We are also demanding that we do not have to adhere to the judgements of the European Court of Justice. Our government is demanding all the benefits of being in the customs union whilst being free to negotiate trade deals outside of the auspices of the EU.
The EU is perhaps the only major trading bloc that has anywhere near free trade arrangements and such arrangements require the free movement people. How could free trade exist between England and Scotland if the Scottish people are denied the right to travel to England?
The EU can only say NO to our demands. We have decided to leave the EU organisation on a voluntary basis; we were not asked to go. We, as a nation, have neither the economic, political or military power to impose our will on the EU. The EU knows that we will suffer economically when we leave and all they have to do is sit and wait. The EU will also be damaged by Britain leaving, both economically and politically on the world stage. The economic damage to the EU, will however, be mitigated by the signing of "free trade " deals with Canada and Japan. Britain will have to re-negotiate all of our existing trade deals that we have as a result of our membership of the customs union. These trade deals could have covered 70% of our world trade. If we damage the EU or other nations as a result of our irresponsibility then we cannot expect any favours in return.
Britain is in a weak negotiating position we have made demands which simple cannot be met. Imagine, if we were to assert our sovereignty and leave NATO and then demand that NATO should protect us if we were attacked. The USA would say no and quite rightly so . If we want the protection of NATO we must pool our sovereignty with the US and other nations and stick to the rules.
The prime minister is in a weak if not impossible predicament. She knows that it could be dangerous to leave the EU but she is having her hand forced. There are conspiracies to replace her within her own party and the opposition parties also want to see her removed. Deposing her will not change the situation. The whole situation is simply unmanageable even Sir Winston Churchill would probably have failed in what the government is trying to do.
Some of the consequences of leaving the EU and customs union without a good and close agreement, such as EEA plus, are unthinkable. The following:
1) Administrative chaos: it is quite possible that we will leave the EU but we will have incorporated all of their law into British law with the Exit Bill. This could mean that EU citizens will still be allowed to freely migrate to the UK but British citizens being the denied the right to migrate freely to the EU.
Existing EU Customs Law will apply to the UK. EU goods will be allowed free movement but British goods could be stopped at the border with the EU for checks.
Customs checks on the border at the Channel tunnel will cause huge queues on the M2 and M20 motorways.
2) Commercial difficulties: Many companies will relocate their headquarters to the EU. There will be major job losses. Prices for food will go up. The farming industry will be damaged. We will have balance of payments difficulties, when our former customs union and single market partners impose new tariff and non-tariff barriers on our exports. The pound will plunge making imports cheaper (if this is not offset by tariffs) but imports more expensive. It will also make foreign currency debt repayments much more expensive.
3) Political difficulties: these will be the worst consequences of all. There has been no solution proposed for Northern Ireland. If there has to be a border between Northern Ireland and the Republic we risk a return to the Troubles of the 70's and 80's - three thousand British citizens died as a result of these Troubles. The DUP will veto an alternative proposal for a border between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK, as they hold the balance of power in parliament. If the Northern Ireland problem cannot be settled then this should be good cause to call off the Brexit venture.
If Brexit fails there will be good cause for the SNP to call for another referendum on Scottish independence. This will cause further divisions and it could be dangerous for Scotland if independence is granted on a slim 52/48% majority.
What happens if the EXIT Bill fails or is amended so much that it becomes powerless. We will have left the EU but in legalistic limbo. EU law will still apply to the UK but the EU will regard us as a third party nation. Parliament will have to construct some kind of emergency legislation in a rushed manner.
All in all we are facing extreme political, administrative and commercial difficulties. It seems that at the moment that these problems cannot be resolved.
What would Sir Winston Churchill have done? Well, he would not have had the referendum in the first place. What would he have done if he was forced to take over the premiership in the current state of affairs. Well he would have faced down the arch Brexiteers in parliament. He would either have stopped Brexit altogether or commissioned a Royal Commission to analyse the facts and recommend a way forward. He would then let parliament decide on a free vote.
At the moment a small minority of parliamentary hardliners are in control and they are driving the UK over a cliff. Parliament must assert its authority and back a prime minister who can pull us back from the brink. Will this happen? Probably not: only a severe and regrettable financial crisis will save us from even greater trouble. Will this happen before Brexit becomes official? Probably not: the rocks at the bottom of the cliff are jagged and we will be falling on them at break neck speed.
It is time to sop dreaming about El Dorado and face reality.
Around 16 million people voted to remain in the EU and over 17 million voted to leave. 13 million people did not vote. Our country is completely divided and will remain so. If we leave the EU to find that we are in economic and political difficulty then all the remain and most of the non-voters will harbour resentment for years. Brexit will have to be a guaranteed success and it will have to deliver El Dorado.
Imagine what could happen if there was a referendum to abolish the monarchy just for Britain to become a republic. 16 million voted to retain the status quo, 17 million voted for a republic and 13 million did not vote. Northern Ireland and Scotland voted to keep the status quo but England and Wales voted for a republic. What would happen if the republic did not work and there was political chaos? To change the constitution in such a cavalier manner risks economic chaos and possible civil war; referendums can be dangerous if they are not managed astutely. Most of the time a simple majority vote is insufficient to prevent dangerous political divisions.
The task of managing Britain's departure from the EU is enormous and might not be achievable in the time available. The divisions within the governing party are preventing a viable plan for the future from being drawn up and agreed. We have no idea what our future relationship with the EU is going to be. We have made no proposals. We have only made demands, it is the "cake and eat it" approach.
Our government is demanding that we have a completely free trade arrangement in the EU but without having freedom of movement of labour. We are also demanding that we do not have to adhere to the judgements of the European Court of Justice. Our government is demanding all the benefits of being in the customs union whilst being free to negotiate trade deals outside of the auspices of the EU.
The EU is perhaps the only major trading bloc that has anywhere near free trade arrangements and such arrangements require the free movement people. How could free trade exist between England and Scotland if the Scottish people are denied the right to travel to England?
The EU can only say NO to our demands. We have decided to leave the EU organisation on a voluntary basis; we were not asked to go. We, as a nation, have neither the economic, political or military power to impose our will on the EU. The EU knows that we will suffer economically when we leave and all they have to do is sit and wait. The EU will also be damaged by Britain leaving, both economically and politically on the world stage. The economic damage to the EU, will however, be mitigated by the signing of "free trade " deals with Canada and Japan. Britain will have to re-negotiate all of our existing trade deals that we have as a result of our membership of the customs union. These trade deals could have covered 70% of our world trade. If we damage the EU or other nations as a result of our irresponsibility then we cannot expect any favours in return.
Britain is in a weak negotiating position we have made demands which simple cannot be met. Imagine, if we were to assert our sovereignty and leave NATO and then demand that NATO should protect us if we were attacked. The USA would say no and quite rightly so . If we want the protection of NATO we must pool our sovereignty with the US and other nations and stick to the rules.
The prime minister is in a weak if not impossible predicament. She knows that it could be dangerous to leave the EU but she is having her hand forced. There are conspiracies to replace her within her own party and the opposition parties also want to see her removed. Deposing her will not change the situation. The whole situation is simply unmanageable even Sir Winston Churchill would probably have failed in what the government is trying to do.
Some of the consequences of leaving the EU and customs union without a good and close agreement, such as EEA plus, are unthinkable. The following:
1) Administrative chaos: it is quite possible that we will leave the EU but we will have incorporated all of their law into British law with the Exit Bill. This could mean that EU citizens will still be allowed to freely migrate to the UK but British citizens being the denied the right to migrate freely to the EU.
Existing EU Customs Law will apply to the UK. EU goods will be allowed free movement but British goods could be stopped at the border with the EU for checks.
Customs checks on the border at the Channel tunnel will cause huge queues on the M2 and M20 motorways.
2) Commercial difficulties: Many companies will relocate their headquarters to the EU. There will be major job losses. Prices for food will go up. The farming industry will be damaged. We will have balance of payments difficulties, when our former customs union and single market partners impose new tariff and non-tariff barriers on our exports. The pound will plunge making imports cheaper (if this is not offset by tariffs) but imports more expensive. It will also make foreign currency debt repayments much more expensive.
3) Political difficulties: these will be the worst consequences of all. There has been no solution proposed for Northern Ireland. If there has to be a border between Northern Ireland and the Republic we risk a return to the Troubles of the 70's and 80's - three thousand British citizens died as a result of these Troubles. The DUP will veto an alternative proposal for a border between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK, as they hold the balance of power in parliament. If the Northern Ireland problem cannot be settled then this should be good cause to call off the Brexit venture.
If Brexit fails there will be good cause for the SNP to call for another referendum on Scottish independence. This will cause further divisions and it could be dangerous for Scotland if independence is granted on a slim 52/48% majority.
What happens if the EXIT Bill fails or is amended so much that it becomes powerless. We will have left the EU but in legalistic limbo. EU law will still apply to the UK but the EU will regard us as a third party nation. Parliament will have to construct some kind of emergency legislation in a rushed manner.
All in all we are facing extreme political, administrative and commercial difficulties. It seems that at the moment that these problems cannot be resolved.
What would Sir Winston Churchill have done? Well, he would not have had the referendum in the first place. What would he have done if he was forced to take over the premiership in the current state of affairs. Well he would have faced down the arch Brexiteers in parliament. He would either have stopped Brexit altogether or commissioned a Royal Commission to analyse the facts and recommend a way forward. He would then let parliament decide on a free vote.
At the moment a small minority of parliamentary hardliners are in control and they are driving the UK over a cliff. Parliament must assert its authority and back a prime minister who can pull us back from the brink. Will this happen? Probably not: only a severe and regrettable financial crisis will save us from even greater trouble. Will this happen before Brexit becomes official? Probably not: the rocks at the bottom of the cliff are jagged and we will be falling on them at break neck speed.
It is time to sop dreaming about El Dorado and face reality.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
