Vote To Leave the EU -mmmmmmm

Way back in 1975 I voted to leave the EEC but for me it was a 50 50 decision and I had not made up my mind until I entered the voting booth. My head was telling me to stay in and my heart was telling me to leave. At the time I had lots of friends from Australia and they went some way to convincing me that somehow Britain was letting them and the Commonwealth down.

When I came out of the polling booth I realised that I had made a mistake but it was too late to go back and ask for my ballot paper to be changed. I was glad that Britain voted to stay in the EU.

The nation had made an historic decision, one which should have been final. After the vote it was time to get on with our lives: Britain had made a democratic and sovereign decision to remain with our European partners. I never thought for one moment that we would be having the same arguments again.

After the EEC was formed, in 1957, Britain was left out in the economic cold, so it persuaded states such as Norway and Ireland to join EFTA or the European Free Trade Association to act as a counter balance to the EEC. The EEC, however, forged ahead economically; much more than Britain or EFTA. The British Prime Minister, Harold Macmillan realised that Britain's economic future lay with the EEC and he started negotiations for Britain to Join the EEC. His ambitions were thwarted when in January 1963 General De Gaulle as president of France said "Non".

Many of the same types of people who now want to leave the EU were rather miffed by the dismissal of Britain's application by De Gaulle.  The British view then was:"why should a foreigner tell Britain what it cannot or can do?". Unfortunately,back then as now, Britain was not economically strong enough to impose its will.

Britain finally joined the EEC in 1973 under the Edward Heath government. The arguments in both the the Labour party and the Conservative party did not stop so the Labour Party prime minister, Harold Wilson, called a referendum to satisfy the demands of leave campaigners. The general population including me were quite happy to agree with the status quo and at the time there was not much popular demand for a referendum.

In 1975 the referendum was held to decide once and for all Britain's fate. I accepted that now Britain had to wholeheartedly take its place in the EU and to a certain extent it  did.

Britain has benefited enormously from its membership of the EU it has progressed both socially, economically and politically. I have benefited from marrying a European and I have worked in European Union without restriction and without any bureaucracy to deal with. The EU has also benefited. Britain helped to reform agricultural and fisheries policies and it has promoted free trade without financial and bureaucratic barriers. Britain was a sad inward looking place in the 1960's and early 1970's; we only had the Beatles to cheer about and they had broken up.

Britain is now a socially progressive and economically vibrant country. So is the EU. Both Britain and the EU have their economic difficulties. It is hubristic for "Brexiters" to claim that the UK is now so much better off than the rest of the EU. Our future in or out of the EU depends upon the success of the EU and if they fall then so will we.

If we had not joined the EU or we had left after the 1975 referendum we would probably have been forced by economics to join the EEA: just like Norway. We would have been paying into the EU coffers to achieve a free trade agreement. We would have had to accept free movement of labour and we would have had to accept that we changed our trading laws to meet EU regulations.

The modern day "Brexiter" would have had to have found other reasons to leave the EEA. And,of course, that would have been immigration. The facts of the matter are that immigration  is very difficult to control. More people come to Britain from outside the EU than from within it. We have absolute control over non-EU immigration but the numbers continue to rise. We just have to accept that Britain is going to attract many immigrants so let's get on with our lives and welcome them.

The Vote Leave economic arguments are failing, so I expect them to concentrate on the fear of immigration to achieve their aims. But the British are not fooled that easily. The benefits of free trade are not outweighed by the dis-benefits if immigration.  Immigrants more than pay their way and they have helped to keep our economy growing during hard economic times. They have skills that we cannot survive without . They keep many businesses going and they help to keep the NHS working.
Without immigrants we would be worse off. If we ask our guests  to get get visas  before they live and work in the UK then the EU will reciprocate. We do not want or need to have a "trade war" in people.

It  seems to me that many "Brexit" politicians want to be big fish in a small pond. They want to tell people what to do . They cannot achieve this in Europe so they want to leave the EU so that they are left alone to push the British around. Their promise that they will control immigration is there just to ensure that Britain will leave the EU.  This promise will be broken either because many of the "Brexiters" do not care about immigration or "real politik" economics will demand the free movement of labour between the EU and Britain.

Britain's economy is too intertwined with the EU for us to leave without pain. Likewise, we have too many people from the rest of the EU to play games with their future. Also, we should recognise that we could be playing fast and loose with the future of the many hundreds of thousands of British citizens who have freely chosen to work or live in the rest of the EU.

The best course of action is to vote to remain and let that be the end of  the referendums.

The one reason for remaining in EU which overrides everything else - Peace.

The EEC, now the EU, was formed  by the six original states: France, Germany, Italy, Belgium, Holland and Luxembourg, when they signed the Treaty of Rome in 1957. The EEC officially came into being in 1958.

The reason to create the EEC was not just economic it was also political. It was vital that Europe should not suffer again from the horrors of the two World Wars which started in Europe in the twentieth century. The first world war saw millions of young men dying under horrific conditions in the trenches and front lines. The USA was dragged into the war and so was the British Commonwealth or Empire as it was then.

The League of Nations formed after the First World War failed to prevent the even more horrific and terrifying World War Two. Not only did thousands of service men suffer but millions of civilians suffered death or serious injury. We saw the holocaust where over 6 million innocent Jewish people were murdered because of their race. Hundreds of thousands of innocent Gypsies and Slavic people were murdered because they appeared different. There was an orgy of xenophobic slaughter and war crimes.

Modern day xenophobes would do well to reflect upon this - you could become the victim.

The leaders of Europe did reflect upon this and one of the best ways of preventing the same humanitarian crimes happening again was to form the EEC. The EEC would encourage free trade between the peoples of Europe. Freedom of movement to find work would encourage friendship between the common people of Europe to promote friendship and peace. The ideal was to make war unthinkable not just because the economies of Europe would become intertwined but because the peoples of Europe, at a grass roots level, would create  a political consensus to prevent their leaders from starting unnecessary and cruel wars.

If you look at the last thousand years of European history  we have had uncountable wars culminating in the most cruel war of all: World War Two.  The EU has created an environment of peace between its member states. A peace that has lasted more than fifty years. Britain joined the EU in 1973 and it has enjoyed increasing prosperity and cultural advancement in that time. There have been economic setbacks for both Britain and the rest of the EU. However, in the main, all citizens of the EU have enjoyed peace and security and the prospect of a brighter future if they wanted to work for it.

It is easy for relatively peaceful countries to fall back into war. Yugoslavia and Ukraine are two European examples. When Yugoslavia broke up because of severe nationalist influences we saw war between the former states quickly take hold. We saw war crimes being committed. Within a year a peaceful country had descended into chaos. The former states of Yugoslavia now want to agree a rapprochement. Croatia and Slovenia have already achieved this by joining the EU and now it is the turn of Serbia, Macedonia and Bosnia to do the same.  The EU is their key to achieving peace and friendly national relations again.

Ukraine went from hosting the European football championships one year to waging a civil war a couple of years later. The dangers of disunity and xenophobia are clear to all.

Peace does not come easy and it needs to be worked at. The EU, The Ukraine and Russia must come to an agreement to stop the war in the Ukraine and prevent it from ever happening again. Britain can play a constructive and creative role in achieving a peace settlement to improve the security for all of Europe.

It would be a mistake for Britain to leave the EU as it could encourage disunity not just in Britain itself but also in Europe. Dark forces could arise once more to spoil progress.

In June, we shall be voting to remain or leave the EU; we will not be voting to ban or restrict immigration. I am afraid to say that the British population is being manipulated by fear of immigration to leave the EU.

Of course, the mass migration of people creates problems but schools, hospitals and other infrastructure can be built to mitigate the economic effects of immigration and emigration. We can plan for this. We already have a clear idea of how many people will be living in our country in 2030. We can build our infrastructure based on the extra wealth that immigrants from Europe and other countries create. We are not helpless; we are a resourceful and well organised country and we can easily accommodate the workers coming here if we have the will to do it.

What is the point of complaining about people who come to work in Britain and pay their way and contribute?Why not welcome them and do something to improve their lives? Many of the foreign workers will return home. It would be better if they went home with a good feeling about the British. Economies perform in cycles and our cycle is out of synchronisation with the rest of Europe. One day the tables will be turned and British workers may feel the need to emigrate to the rest of Europe to find employment. Freedom of movement to work is a precious commodity so lets not lose it or waste it because of animosity between neighbours.

It is difficult to mitigate the effects of disliking or even hating people from neighbouring countries and if we allow ourselves and the people of Europe to become xenophobic because of our actions then we are treading into dangerous territory once again.

I say to the people who want to leave the EU because you do not like foreigners that you should think again and be careful what you wish for. Despite the difficulties the future will be brighter for both you and your children and grand children if we stay united to our friends across the channel.

Peace needs hard work. Above, all it needs good will towards your neighbours and a willingness to cooperate with them in a sense of enlightened self-interest. Why not vote for continuing peace?

EU Remain campaign needs some big hitters from all the political parties

The Remain campaign is faltering and is failing to counter much of the propaganda  of the Leave campaigns. " Vote Leave" passion and misrepresentation of the facts is triumphing over reason and a hard headed consideration of why we should remain in the EU out of enlightened self-interest. It appears that the only passionate political voice to remain is coming from David Cameron. No other party leaders are setting aside factional interests to support him. The Labour party leadership is very lukewarm and the Liberal leadership seems embarrassed to raise its voice.

I am fearful that if no other leaders are prepared to make a passionate but cogent and reasoned case for remaining in the EU then Britain will vote to leave. We will then face government by people who have misrepresented the EU and how it operates to the British people.

The EU Commission does not and cannot dictate to any member state what to do. The European Council of Ministers and the European parliament make European Law. The Council of Ministers is the main power broker and it consists of the elected heads of government of all the member states. The EU Commission just acts like the British civil service.

The EU does not dictate to us how we run our affairs; we still retain the Monarchy, the House of Lords, the House of Commons, our own Judicial System, the established Church of England and the NHS. None of these institutions have been in any danger from the EU since we joined in 1973.

Silly myths about EU interference in our major laws or way of life have been perpetrated by malign politicians and newspapers, but now some of these have been debunked by the House of Commons Treasury Committee. The EU has not banned children under 8 from blowing up balloons. It has not banned Britain from re-cycling teabags and it has not legislated for a one size fits all coffin. It is time that we had a grown up debate devoid of pettifogging.

There are many problems which Britain and the EU have to solve. How do we replace the failed economic model of neo-liberalism and with what – Keynesianism, Democratic Socialism or enlightened Capitalism? How do we solve the abuse of corporate power? How do we provide good well paid jobs for all our citizens? How do we provide good health services and how do we pay for them? How do we provide for a good clean environment? How do we maintain the peace that the EU has promoted in Europe for the last 50 years?

We need to solve the problem of refugees. The only way we can stop this humanitarian crisis is to stop the wars. The EU did not start any war and it is disingenuous for “Brexiters” to claim that the EU is responsible for this almost insoluble humanitarian issue.

From a security point of view it is obvious that we need to co-operate fully with our European partners; but we will not be able to do this as effectively outside of the EU.

Britain and Europe are stronger if we tackle our common problems together. We all have a shared history. We share the same, cultural, social and political values.  We can solve all these problems together and make a more prosperous and peaceful future. Where is the “Brexiter” vision of the future? There isn't one. Waving the flag and crying that: “we have got the world’s 5^th biggest economy” is simply not good enough.

If we vote to leave the EU then what guarantee do we have that the politicians that replace David Cameron will pay much attention to Britain and its place in the world? Out of political malice the “Brexiters” might do nothing more than promote their own self-interest. Their political colours and attitudes have been exposed by their egregious misrepresentations.  Britain will be left alone without a vision for its future but worst of all its unemployed, sick and disabled will be left to fend for themselves but without hope.

The Remain politicians must rise to the challenge.  Britain’s future in the hands of the “Brexiters” looks bleak.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  

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

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

EU - positivity

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

Syrian Peace process

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

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

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

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

EU negativity

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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