NASA plans to land men and women on the moon in the next five years. They have already learnt how to do this and have the technology. There is no reason why this cannot be achieved. After the next manned landings they intend to develop a permanent moon station.
https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-administrator-statement-on-return-to-moon-in-next-five-years
The moon landings will then be used as a staging post for landing on Mars and build a permanent human presence there.
I am all in favour of of human space exploration and scientific discovery. However, I am not in favour of "terra-forming" Mars to make the whole planet suitable for human occupation. This would be an intensely difficult if nigh on impossible task. Trying it and failing would do immense damage to the planet. Doing it and succeeding would also create immense damage. There is a strong possibility that life existed on Mars; if we contaminate the planet with earth microbes and fungal spores we will destroy any chance of discovering the evolutionary processes which lead to life on the red planet. If life still exists on Mars it is likely that human intervention will destroy any life that has a precarious existence on Mars.
Humans will find all sorts of excuses as to why we should establish a population on Mars.
We are busily setting about making our own planet uninhabitable, we may need to emigrate to a new one. I say fix our own planet before we consider emigrating to a new one. Why spoil another planet? If we fix our own planet then there is no need to go to Mars other than for scientific exploration.
Earth could be hit by an asteroid and be destroyed so we need an escape plan. Well, Mars is equally as likely to be hit by an asteroid and all our good works could be destroyed by a space rock. It might be more economic to develop a means of protecting ourselves from an asteroid hit.
Earth could become over populated and we will need to expand. The way things are going, we will voluntarily cull our population through climate change , pollution and the complete man-made erosion of our soil. It would be far better to maintain a sustainable population on our own planet.
The whole idea of "terra-forming" Mars is a mad and selfish venture. The only question is: when will it start?
Monday, 10 June 2019
Monday, 20 May 2019
Young people make sure you vote for the UK - EU elections 2019
No matter what your opinion, it is important that you vote in the 2019 EU elections for the UK. Many young people believe that it is not worth voting or couldn't care less. You will be voting for your future. It is ironic that older people take the time to vote. I shall be voting I am 68 years of age. I shall be dead before the full effects of Brexit will be felt.There are many things to consider and probably the top most priority is climate change. And following that it is pollution. Do you want to live in a world that can sustain itself? Europe has woken up and is now leading the way politically if not in terms of action. Devising policies for climate change and pollution needs co-operation in Europe and Britain should be part of this. This is good reason enough for remaining as part of the EU.
Do you want the NHS to be privatised? Do you want to eat chlorine washed chicken? Do you want free and easy capitalism designed just for the rich but not for you? Do you want reciprocal measures taken against you to prevent your free movement to work and love in Europe? Do you want the UK government to make it very difficult for you to live in the UK with a foreign partner?
The EU guarantees that you can live in the UK with a foreign partner or spouse without restriction. Do not let prejudice prevent you from having this most basic of human rights.
If you want your life restricted then you know who to vote for. If you want freedom and some sort of chance of a sustainable life then you know who not to vote for to vote for - it is your choice.
The Brexit supporters say as a matter of principle that they do not want to live in a country which is dictated to by un-elected leaders. Well ask them, who elected the head of the World Trade Organisation and who elected the head of Nato? These are two organisations with which we share our sovereignty and to our advantage. We either indirectly or directly vote for the leadership of the EU we have a much greater say in what policies the EU follow.
Who elected our Head of State? No-one, so are Brexiters republicans as a matter of principle? Ask them what are their principles? They have no answers about sovereignty, climate change, pollution and your freedom to chose where you live and with whom.
The EU elections are not another referendum but they are your opportunity to make your views felt. Young people go out and vote for your future .
Do you want the NHS to be privatised? Do you want to eat chlorine washed chicken? Do you want free and easy capitalism designed just for the rich but not for you? Do you want reciprocal measures taken against you to prevent your free movement to work and love in Europe? Do you want the UK government to make it very difficult for you to live in the UK with a foreign partner?
The EU guarantees that you can live in the UK with a foreign partner or spouse without restriction. Do not let prejudice prevent you from having this most basic of human rights.
If you want your life restricted then you know who to vote for. If you want freedom and some sort of chance of a sustainable life then you know who not to vote for to vote for - it is your choice.
The Brexit supporters say as a matter of principle that they do not want to live in a country which is dictated to by un-elected leaders. Well ask them, who elected the head of the World Trade Organisation and who elected the head of Nato? These are two organisations with which we share our sovereignty and to our advantage. We either indirectly or directly vote for the leadership of the EU we have a much greater say in what policies the EU follow.
Who elected our Head of State? No-one, so are Brexiters republicans as a matter of principle? Ask them what are their principles? They have no answers about sovereignty, climate change, pollution and your freedom to chose where you live and with whom.
The EU elections are not another referendum but they are your opportunity to make your views felt. Young people go out and vote for your future .
Tuesday, 7 May 2019
Israel Folau
Israel Folau has been sanctioned by the Australian Rugby authorities for making anti-gay comments. He is reputed to have published the following comment on social media: “hell awaits” for “drunks, homosexuals, adulterers, liars, fornicators, thieves, atheists, idolators”. He encourages those that he criticises to repent and turn to Jesus.
I can't see the problem with fundamental Christians making such comments: they are after all just opinions.
There is no doubt that Israel Folau would consider me to be an atheist and that I am condemned to hell. I don't feel in the least bit offended by this. The only thing I would say to Israel is: where is the evidence that hell exists? And if there is a God, what evidence is there that he or she would send gays or fornicators there? The answer is none. Israel is being irrational. There is no need to take offence.
As long as Israel does not deliberately foul opponents who he believes to be “drunks, homosexuals, adulterers, liars, fornicators, thieves, atheists or idolators”, then I suggest that we let him get along with his game. You are what you do but not what you say. Christianity precludes violence and encourages forgiveness does it not?
He is a great rugby player and his religious opinions are his own and do not need to be taking seriously, just let him play rugby.
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2019/may/07/israel-folaus-rugby-australia-code-of-conduct-likely-to-run-into-fourth-day
I can't see the problem with fundamental Christians making such comments: they are after all just opinions.
There is no doubt that Israel Folau would consider me to be an atheist and that I am condemned to hell. I don't feel in the least bit offended by this. The only thing I would say to Israel is: where is the evidence that hell exists? And if there is a God, what evidence is there that he or she would send gays or fornicators there? The answer is none. Israel is being irrational. There is no need to take offence.
As long as Israel does not deliberately foul opponents who he believes to be “drunks, homosexuals, adulterers, liars, fornicators, thieves, atheists or idolators”, then I suggest that we let him get along with his game. You are what you do but not what you say. Christianity precludes violence and encourages forgiveness does it not?
He is a great rugby player and his religious opinions are his own and do not need to be taking seriously, just let him play rugby.
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2019/may/07/israel-folaus-rugby-australia-code-of-conduct-likely-to-run-into-fourth-day
Caster Semenya
It is both irrational and immoral to ban miss Semenya from running unless she takes medicine that reduces her naturally "high" level of testosterone in her blood. She has been proven to be woman both genetically and physically. The scientific evidence is in her favour. She is not cheating.
All of us have varying levels of both oestrogen and testosterone in are blood and if a natural higher level of testosterone gives an athlete an advantage - then so what. Longer legs give jumpers and advantage. There is no doubt that being tall gave Usain Bolt an advantage. Bolt rarely got beaten; is anyone suggesting that he should have been handicapped to level the field? No one tries to ban men with naturally occurring high levels of testosterone; so why should women?
It would seem that miss Semenya's times come no where near to challenging the times of the elite men in the same events. Why therefore should she be banned fro female competition? There is little evidence to suggest that other female athletes are withdrawing from competition against her. It also seems that male sprinters were not driven out of the the sprinting events because of Bolt's dominance. They just strove harder to compete.
The IAAF and CAS have done their best to eliminating cheating in their sport from athletes using performance enhancing drugs. It is now ironic that they should prevent some athletes from competing unless they take performance reducing drugs. Surely this is both irrational and immoral. Medicine should not be driven to the the cause of administrating unnecessary and possibly damaging treatment.
It is time for a rethink based upon science, evidence and common sense. Miss Semenya should be allowed to run without medical treatment for a condition that does no harm to her or her sport.
https://theconversation.com/caster-semenyas-impossible-situation-testosterone-gets-special-scrutiny-but-doesnt-necessarily-make-her-faster-116407
All of us have varying levels of both oestrogen and testosterone in are blood and if a natural higher level of testosterone gives an athlete an advantage - then so what. Longer legs give jumpers and advantage. There is no doubt that being tall gave Usain Bolt an advantage. Bolt rarely got beaten; is anyone suggesting that he should have been handicapped to level the field? No one tries to ban men with naturally occurring high levels of testosterone; so why should women?
It would seem that miss Semenya's times come no where near to challenging the times of the elite men in the same events. Why therefore should she be banned fro female competition? There is little evidence to suggest that other female athletes are withdrawing from competition against her. It also seems that male sprinters were not driven out of the the sprinting events because of Bolt's dominance. They just strove harder to compete.
The IAAF and CAS have done their best to eliminating cheating in their sport from athletes using performance enhancing drugs. It is now ironic that they should prevent some athletes from competing unless they take performance reducing drugs. Surely this is both irrational and immoral. Medicine should not be driven to the the cause of administrating unnecessary and possibly damaging treatment.
It is time for a rethink based upon science, evidence and common sense. Miss Semenya should be allowed to run without medical treatment for a condition that does no harm to her or her sport.
https://theconversation.com/caster-semenyas-impossible-situation-testosterone-gets-special-scrutiny-but-doesnt-necessarily-make-her-faster-116407
Tuesday, 9 April 2019
UK Parliamentary Sovereignty
In the 2016 Referendum regarding EU membership there is at least one thing that most voters agreed upon: the UK parliament is sovereign. Members of Parliament decide upon the law of the land and can over rule the government. The 2016 referendum was only advisory; the government and parliament were not legally obliged to implement its result. If the referendum had been mandatory we probably would have left the EU by now. Also, the supreme court made clear to the government that the executive could not take the UK out of the EU without the approval of parliament.
It is obvious that referendums should not be mandatory. What would happen if a UK government was mandated by the Northern Irish electorate to arrange for Northern Ireland to be incorporated into the Republic of Ireland and the civil war broke out again? The UK government would be under pressure to revoke such a referendum to ensure the peace.
What would happen if there was a mandatory referendum to abolish the Monarchy and it won by just one vote in a first past the post system. Royalists would quite rightly feel cheated upon especially if a substantial number of people did not vote in such a referendum. How would the Northern Irish feel if England and Wales voted for a Republic but Northern Ireland voted to retain the Monarchy.
Referendums are dangerous if they are not managed properly. The 2016 referendum should only have been made mandatory if there was a super majority to change the status quo and also only if a majority of the constituent nations of the UK voted for it. The 2016 referendum left us with a divided nation and union which is becoming more divided by the minute.
The divisions within the governing Tory party and its reliance upon the DUP have left the Prime Minister in a weak state to negotiate a satisfactory deal with the EU, which is both economically, diplomatically and militarily more powerful than the UK. The withdrawal agreements reflects this balance of power. It binds the UK into the economic and political orbit of the EU without a say in decision making. It is simply a terrible deal for the UK. The DUP are right about at least one thing; it is unacceptable that Northern Ireland should be held in the single market whilst the UK breaks away. Whilst Northern Ireland legally remains in the UK it should not be treated any differently on the international or diplomatic front.
Scotland voted to remain in the EU and its views should be taken into account. It is not lost on Scotland that the Republic of Ireland has now become diplomatically more powerful than the UK as a result of its continuing membership of the EU. Eventually the Scots will vote to leave the UK, if we leave the EU, and they will openly be welcomed by Bruxelles. The EU is now the glue that holds the UK together.
Gibraltar will be in a precarious position if the UK leaves the EU. Gibraltar will then be recognised by the EU as a colony of the UK. Spain will then have the right to call for its decolonisation and the EU will be obliged to follow that decision. Membership of the EU prevents revanchism and its claims.
It is quite possible that a United Kingdom which leaves the EU could be faced with the stresses of deciding a new relationship with the EU whilst negotiating with Scotland after a border poll for it to leave the UK. Add to that the possibility of the troubles starting again in Northern Ireland because the rest of the UK has denied them a say on their future. You then have a recipe for a severe, political, economic and diplomatic crisis.
I surmise that the Prime Minister has contemplated revoking Brexit.
Parliament is sovereign and it has a duty to represent the interests of everyone in the country. This includes the 13 million people who did not vote in the referendum and the youngsters who were not old enough to vote. It is not the will of the people that Brexit should either be executed in full or in disastrous part.
Parliament is quite entitled to change its mind, after it has voted for Brexit to be implemented, especially after the poor deal which has been negotiated. If parliament could not change its mind we would still have badger baiting as a sport. Women would be imprisoned for having back street abortions and you would still be obliged to pay a tax to the Church of England.
A sovereign parliament exists to protect you from stupid actions such as going to unnecessary wars with your neighbours or declaring a Republic based on a one vote majority.
The Prime Minister has looked over the political and economic cliff edge and does not like what she sees. That is why she goes cap in hand to Bruxelles to ask for an extension to EU membership. If the referendum had been mandatory we would already be looking at political, economic, diplomatic, and administrative chaos. Scotland would probably have been on the way out of our precious union.
Parliament has protected us from the worse excesses of Brexit. Hopefully, it will vote to get us the best deal possible which is to Remain in the EU. All this trouble from a poorly conceived and managed referendum and its aftermath - was it really worth it?
It is obvious that referendums should not be mandatory. What would happen if a UK government was mandated by the Northern Irish electorate to arrange for Northern Ireland to be incorporated into the Republic of Ireland and the civil war broke out again? The UK government would be under pressure to revoke such a referendum to ensure the peace.
What would happen if there was a mandatory referendum to abolish the Monarchy and it won by just one vote in a first past the post system. Royalists would quite rightly feel cheated upon especially if a substantial number of people did not vote in such a referendum. How would the Northern Irish feel if England and Wales voted for a Republic but Northern Ireland voted to retain the Monarchy.
Referendums are dangerous if they are not managed properly. The 2016 referendum should only have been made mandatory if there was a super majority to change the status quo and also only if a majority of the constituent nations of the UK voted for it. The 2016 referendum left us with a divided nation and union which is becoming more divided by the minute.
The divisions within the governing Tory party and its reliance upon the DUP have left the Prime Minister in a weak state to negotiate a satisfactory deal with the EU, which is both economically, diplomatically and militarily more powerful than the UK. The withdrawal agreements reflects this balance of power. It binds the UK into the economic and political orbit of the EU without a say in decision making. It is simply a terrible deal for the UK. The DUP are right about at least one thing; it is unacceptable that Northern Ireland should be held in the single market whilst the UK breaks away. Whilst Northern Ireland legally remains in the UK it should not be treated any differently on the international or diplomatic front.
Scotland voted to remain in the EU and its views should be taken into account. It is not lost on Scotland that the Republic of Ireland has now become diplomatically more powerful than the UK as a result of its continuing membership of the EU. Eventually the Scots will vote to leave the UK, if we leave the EU, and they will openly be welcomed by Bruxelles. The EU is now the glue that holds the UK together.
Gibraltar will be in a precarious position if the UK leaves the EU. Gibraltar will then be recognised by the EU as a colony of the UK. Spain will then have the right to call for its decolonisation and the EU will be obliged to follow that decision. Membership of the EU prevents revanchism and its claims.
It is quite possible that a United Kingdom which leaves the EU could be faced with the stresses of deciding a new relationship with the EU whilst negotiating with Scotland after a border poll for it to leave the UK. Add to that the possibility of the troubles starting again in Northern Ireland because the rest of the UK has denied them a say on their future. You then have a recipe for a severe, political, economic and diplomatic crisis.
I surmise that the Prime Minister has contemplated revoking Brexit.
Parliament is sovereign and it has a duty to represent the interests of everyone in the country. This includes the 13 million people who did not vote in the referendum and the youngsters who were not old enough to vote. It is not the will of the people that Brexit should either be executed in full or in disastrous part.
Parliament is quite entitled to change its mind, after it has voted for Brexit to be implemented, especially after the poor deal which has been negotiated. If parliament could not change its mind we would still have badger baiting as a sport. Women would be imprisoned for having back street abortions and you would still be obliged to pay a tax to the Church of England.
A sovereign parliament exists to protect you from stupid actions such as going to unnecessary wars with your neighbours or declaring a Republic based on a one vote majority.
The Prime Minister has looked over the political and economic cliff edge and does not like what she sees. That is why she goes cap in hand to Bruxelles to ask for an extension to EU membership. If the referendum had been mandatory we would already be looking at political, economic, diplomatic, and administrative chaos. Scotland would probably have been on the way out of our precious union.
Parliament has protected us from the worse excesses of Brexit. Hopefully, it will vote to get us the best deal possible which is to Remain in the EU. All this trouble from a poorly conceived and managed referendum and its aftermath - was it really worth it?
Friday, 15 March 2019
The Christchurch Atrocity
How do we stop atrocities such as occurred in Christchurch today from happening. We can start by changing the way we think about race, religion and migrants.
We need to base our thinking upon evidence and our opinions upon defending human rights.
All the scientific evidence points to there being only one human race; from a genetic point of view we are all almost identical. The colour of your skin cannot define you as part of one race or another any more than the colour of your eyes. Possibly the Neanderthals were members of the same species, Homo sapiens, as us, but they were a separate "race". They died out 30,00 years ago to leave just one human race : us. It really is ignorant to believe that your neighbour could be a member of a separate race from you. There can be no white supremacy or black supremacy. Every child at school should be educated to believe that there is only one human race based upon the scientific evidence.
The constitution of the republic of France has been amended to delete all reference to race, to recognise the scientific evidence, but of course the constitution recognises that every citizen deserves the equality of treatment by law.
Human beings originated somewhere in Africa and subsequently spread across the world. This means that every American is an African American by descent and skin colour has nothing to do with this African heritage. Early human beings spread across the world therefore we are all the descendants of migrants, we are all the sons and daughters of immigrants.
To distinguish between individuals based upon the false view of race or immigration status is both irrational and immoral and further more it is dangerous. Let every child be taught this at school and by their parents.
Religion has been with us since humans existed. However, you are not born a Christian, Muslim, Jew, Hindu or Buddhist. Children were being born before any of these religions existed. You are educated and encouraged by the society that you live in to follow a religion. It is, however, a matter of personal choice. You can be forced to show the outward signs of a religious faith but you cannot be forced to believe. There is no doubt that some people can lose their faith and belief. And there has probably been an atheist Pope who was feeling too physically comfortable to resign.
It is your human right to believe in whatever religion you want and to practise that religion. It is your human right not to be persecuted or murdered for your faith. Equally, it is your human right to be a non-believer and it is your right not to be persecuted. It should be your human right not to be punished or persecuted for changing your religion or to become an open apostate. It should be your right to be treated equally to every one else if you are a homosexual.
I am not a believer in any religion but I respect others rights to believe. Sometimes, I go into churches for family occasions and weddings etc. : just for cultural reasons. I am certain that some Muslims and Jews feel the same way as me. In fact I know that they do, I have worked with " Muslims", "Jews" and "Christians" who are atheists but hide it from their families; who am I to expose them.
Most of the worshippers in the mosques in Christchurch were praying for peace and a good life. They were harmless and good people and citizens. Some of the attendees could have been atheists and agnostics but were in the mosque for friendship and solidarity reasons. No one has the right to harm them in a hate filled attack whatever their reasons for being in a place of worship.
Every human being has the right to live in peace, whatever their background, migration status, religion, sexuality or skin colour.
If all of us do not recognise this, there will always be some crazed individual who will ignore the science and the value of human rights, and who will commit atrocities.
Lets change the world and lead our lives according to the scientific evidence and the recognition of human rights.
We need to base our thinking upon evidence and our opinions upon defending human rights.
All the scientific evidence points to there being only one human race; from a genetic point of view we are all almost identical. The colour of your skin cannot define you as part of one race or another any more than the colour of your eyes. Possibly the Neanderthals were members of the same species, Homo sapiens, as us, but they were a separate "race". They died out 30,00 years ago to leave just one human race : us. It really is ignorant to believe that your neighbour could be a member of a separate race from you. There can be no white supremacy or black supremacy. Every child at school should be educated to believe that there is only one human race based upon the scientific evidence.
The constitution of the republic of France has been amended to delete all reference to race, to recognise the scientific evidence, but of course the constitution recognises that every citizen deserves the equality of treatment by law.
Human beings originated somewhere in Africa and subsequently spread across the world. This means that every American is an African American by descent and skin colour has nothing to do with this African heritage. Early human beings spread across the world therefore we are all the descendants of migrants, we are all the sons and daughters of immigrants.
To distinguish between individuals based upon the false view of race or immigration status is both irrational and immoral and further more it is dangerous. Let every child be taught this at school and by their parents.
Religion has been with us since humans existed. However, you are not born a Christian, Muslim, Jew, Hindu or Buddhist. Children were being born before any of these religions existed. You are educated and encouraged by the society that you live in to follow a religion. It is, however, a matter of personal choice. You can be forced to show the outward signs of a religious faith but you cannot be forced to believe. There is no doubt that some people can lose their faith and belief. And there has probably been an atheist Pope who was feeling too physically comfortable to resign.
It is your human right to believe in whatever religion you want and to practise that religion. It is your human right not to be persecuted or murdered for your faith. Equally, it is your human right to be a non-believer and it is your right not to be persecuted. It should be your human right not to be punished or persecuted for changing your religion or to become an open apostate. It should be your right to be treated equally to every one else if you are a homosexual.
I am not a believer in any religion but I respect others rights to believe. Sometimes, I go into churches for family occasions and weddings etc. : just for cultural reasons. I am certain that some Muslims and Jews feel the same way as me. In fact I know that they do, I have worked with " Muslims", "Jews" and "Christians" who are atheists but hide it from their families; who am I to expose them.
Most of the worshippers in the mosques in Christchurch were praying for peace and a good life. They were harmless and good people and citizens. Some of the attendees could have been atheists and agnostics but were in the mosque for friendship and solidarity reasons. No one has the right to harm them in a hate filled attack whatever their reasons for being in a place of worship.
Every human being has the right to live in peace, whatever their background, migration status, religion, sexuality or skin colour.
If all of us do not recognise this, there will always be some crazed individual who will ignore the science and the value of human rights, and who will commit atrocities.
Lets change the world and lead our lives according to the scientific evidence and the recognition of human rights.
Friday, 1 March 2019
Clean Hard Brexit
Surely, whether you are a Brexit supporter or not you must admit to yourself that the whole political process has been a fiasco. We are now 4 weeks away from leaving the EU, and if there is no political intervention to either ratify the withdrawal agreement or delay Brexit then we leave without a deal. We make a clean break.
The short term consequences of a clean break are tremendous. The nation is simply not ready to leave from a legal, economic and administrative point of view.
The long term consequences are worse.
Freedom of movement between the EU and the UK will stop. This does not mean that immigration will either stop or even be reduced as promised; all the evidence suggests that immigration will continue unabated unless there is some sort of economic recession which makes the UK unattractive for economic migrants.
A clean break will mean that people who do not have any means of obtaining dual UK/EU nationality will become second class citizens. Irish citizens will have the right to work and live in the UK and the right to live and work in the EU. Any EU citizen, with UK indefinite leave to remain, will also have the right to live and work in the UK and the EU. British young people who do not have such privileges will be at the back of the queue to work for big international companies. There will be no escaping Britain to go to work in the EU, or anywhere else for that matter, if there is an increase in unemployment.
You had better hope that your son or daughter does not fall in love with a partner from the EU; the EU partner will not be able to come to live in the UK so you might find your son or daughter setting up home in the EU. You might need a visa to go and visit them.
Britain will lose a lot of diplomatic power. The government recently threatened to send an aircraft carrier to the South China sea. In response China broke off trade talks - brilliant.
The USA will take us to the cleaners negotiating a new trade deal, as our country will be almost powerless to resist chlorinated chicken, reduce food standards and the partial privatisation of the NHS by US companies. The UK will have Investor State Dispute Settlements forced upon us - the sovereignty of the UK will be compromised - another broken promise.
If we have a clean break from the EU then we will lose all of the free trade deals negotiated on our behalf by the Commission. Trade deals of which we have had a major say. We lose everything including the free trade deal with the EU, Canada, Japan, South Korea and Mexico etc. We will be left with temporary free trade deals with Switzerland and the Faroe islands. We will have to start from scratch. It will be like committing a trade war against ourselves. It is mad.
When we leave the single market, Japanese investment in UK industry will almost entirely disappear which means most of our car industry will disappear and their ancillary industries. All governments, since the Thatcher government, have guaranteed that the UK will stay in the single market. To the Japanese, the UK will have been seen to have acted in bad faith or even dishonourably. Britain will suffer because of this.
Perhaps, the worse aspect of a hard Brexit will be the damage that will be done to our relationship with Ireland and the Good Friday Agreement. A hard border in Ireland could lead to social disorder and possibly a return to terrorist violence both in Ireland and in the UK . Do we really wan to return to the troubles even if the risk is small?
Brexit could even lead to the dismantlement of the UK. There is a fair chance that Scotland and Northern Ireland will vote for a split from the UK. This will mean further legal, economic and administrative disruption.
The EU has helped maintain the peace in Europe after centuries of warfare. The UK breaking away could inspire others. Disunity in Europe could lead to renewed conflict.
Why should the UK take the risk of Brexit? Brexiter politicians have no plan for what happens after we leave. They have broken their promise that the transition would be smooth. They have no plan to improve the economic, political and administrative position of the UK after we leave.
We are facing chaos.
If the worse comes to the worse then Leave voters will have no moral right to complain. Everyone will suffer excepting the rich elite - Leaver and Remain elites the like. Leave voters voted in the referendum to improve their lives; their hopes will have been dashed. I hope that they demonstrate their disappointment peacefully.
The short term consequences of a clean break are tremendous. The nation is simply not ready to leave from a legal, economic and administrative point of view.
The long term consequences are worse.
Freedom of movement between the EU and the UK will stop. This does not mean that immigration will either stop or even be reduced as promised; all the evidence suggests that immigration will continue unabated unless there is some sort of economic recession which makes the UK unattractive for economic migrants.
A clean break will mean that people who do not have any means of obtaining dual UK/EU nationality will become second class citizens. Irish citizens will have the right to work and live in the UK and the right to live and work in the EU. Any EU citizen, with UK indefinite leave to remain, will also have the right to live and work in the UK and the EU. British young people who do not have such privileges will be at the back of the queue to work for big international companies. There will be no escaping Britain to go to work in the EU, or anywhere else for that matter, if there is an increase in unemployment.
You had better hope that your son or daughter does not fall in love with a partner from the EU; the EU partner will not be able to come to live in the UK so you might find your son or daughter setting up home in the EU. You might need a visa to go and visit them.
Britain will lose a lot of diplomatic power. The government recently threatened to send an aircraft carrier to the South China sea. In response China broke off trade talks - brilliant.
The USA will take us to the cleaners negotiating a new trade deal, as our country will be almost powerless to resist chlorinated chicken, reduce food standards and the partial privatisation of the NHS by US companies. The UK will have Investor State Dispute Settlements forced upon us - the sovereignty of the UK will be compromised - another broken promise.
If we have a clean break from the EU then we will lose all of the free trade deals negotiated on our behalf by the Commission. Trade deals of which we have had a major say. We lose everything including the free trade deal with the EU, Canada, Japan, South Korea and Mexico etc. We will be left with temporary free trade deals with Switzerland and the Faroe islands. We will have to start from scratch. It will be like committing a trade war against ourselves. It is mad.
When we leave the single market, Japanese investment in UK industry will almost entirely disappear which means most of our car industry will disappear and their ancillary industries. All governments, since the Thatcher government, have guaranteed that the UK will stay in the single market. To the Japanese, the UK will have been seen to have acted in bad faith or even dishonourably. Britain will suffer because of this.
Perhaps, the worse aspect of a hard Brexit will be the damage that will be done to our relationship with Ireland and the Good Friday Agreement. A hard border in Ireland could lead to social disorder and possibly a return to terrorist violence both in Ireland and in the UK . Do we really wan to return to the troubles even if the risk is small?
Brexit could even lead to the dismantlement of the UK. There is a fair chance that Scotland and Northern Ireland will vote for a split from the UK. This will mean further legal, economic and administrative disruption.
The EU has helped maintain the peace in Europe after centuries of warfare. The UK breaking away could inspire others. Disunity in Europe could lead to renewed conflict.
Why should the UK take the risk of Brexit? Brexiter politicians have no plan for what happens after we leave. They have broken their promise that the transition would be smooth. They have no plan to improve the economic, political and administrative position of the UK after we leave.
We are facing chaos.
If the worse comes to the worse then Leave voters will have no moral right to complain. Everyone will suffer excepting the rich elite - Leaver and Remain elites the like. Leave voters voted in the referendum to improve their lives; their hopes will have been dashed. I hope that they demonstrate their disappointment peacefully.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
