Every week there seems to be a new report about climate change in the Arctic. The arctic ice sheet is diminishing rapidly within the next decade or so the ice sheet over the North Pole is likely to disappear completely. If this happens there will almost certainly be a profound effect on our weather and climate. We are already experiencing a disturbance of the jet stream over the North Atlantic. Western Europe is being affected by an increasing frequency of winter storms and rainfall and flooding. 2016 looks like being the warmest year on record.
Many species in the Arctic are coming under threat including the polar bear which relies upon sea ice for its survival. The arctic fox is coming under threat from the larger and more powerful red fox which is able to push further north because of the warmer climate.
Some parts of the arctic north of 80 degrees are recording record high temperatures. The sea ice is melting in some places even in mid-winter.
It is hard to believe that human activity could disturb the global climate but this is what is happening. The evidence is now before our eyes; we no longer need instrumental readings to show us what is going on with the climate.
The polar bear and arctic fox are in danger of extinction by the beginning of the next century. We must be careful that the same thing does not happen to us.
Thursday, 22 December 2016
Thursday, 15 December 2016
House of Lords Committee on Brexit
All this week the House of Lords, in the UK, are having committee meetings about the implications of the vote to leave the EU.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201617/ldselect/ldeucom/81/8108.htm
They are coming out with some disturbing findings about the legal, constitutional, economic and financial, social and administration implications.
It is a pity that this analysis was not made before the vote.
It is also a pity that there was not a Royal Commission instigated before the referendum. An authoritative Royal Commission would have established the facts and made a cost benefit analysis. Many of the project fear claims and exaggerations made by both sides of the argument would then have been debunked. The population would then have been given a clear basis of facts upon which to base their opinion.
The findings of the House of Lords indicate that we are heading for trouble. I wonder how many in the government, and in the opposition, are secretly hoping that the supreme court will find that it is legally unconstitutional for Northern Ireland or Scotland or both countries to be taken out of the EU without the consent of their respective parliaments. If the supreme court does make this ruling then there may the sound of champagne corks popping in some government circles. It would be the perfect excuse to forget about the whole matter and blame someone else for the debacle.
Full consideration should have been made for the event of Northern Ireland voting to remain. The Northern Irish were largely ignored by the UK government, the press and the leave and remain campaigns. The people of Northern Ireland deserved better consideration.
In Australia a referendum cannot be passed unless a majority of states give voter consent. That means that a referendum to change the constitution requires at least the consent of 4 of the 6 states. Most referendums to change the constitution therefore fail. Australia has ways of preventing the "tyranny of the majority", as John Major describes it. Referendums in Australia are therefore not divisive in character.
Voting is compulsory in Australia so a referendum result can be confirmed by a simple majority. Perhaps we should do something similar in Britain.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201617/ldselect/ldeucom/81/8108.htm
They are coming out with some disturbing findings about the legal, constitutional, economic and financial, social and administration implications.
It is a pity that this analysis was not made before the vote.
It is also a pity that there was not a Royal Commission instigated before the referendum. An authoritative Royal Commission would have established the facts and made a cost benefit analysis. Many of the project fear claims and exaggerations made by both sides of the argument would then have been debunked. The population would then have been given a clear basis of facts upon which to base their opinion.
The findings of the House of Lords indicate that we are heading for trouble. I wonder how many in the government, and in the opposition, are secretly hoping that the supreme court will find that it is legally unconstitutional for Northern Ireland or Scotland or both countries to be taken out of the EU without the consent of their respective parliaments. If the supreme court does make this ruling then there may the sound of champagne corks popping in some government circles. It would be the perfect excuse to forget about the whole matter and blame someone else for the debacle.
Full consideration should have been made for the event of Northern Ireland voting to remain. The Northern Irish were largely ignored by the UK government, the press and the leave and remain campaigns. The people of Northern Ireland deserved better consideration.
In Australia a referendum cannot be passed unless a majority of states give voter consent. That means that a referendum to change the constitution requires at least the consent of 4 of the 6 states. Most referendums to change the constitution therefore fail. Australia has ways of preventing the "tyranny of the majority", as John Major describes it. Referendums in Australia are therefore not divisive in character.
Voting is compulsory in Australia so a referendum result can be confirmed by a simple majority. Perhaps we should do something similar in Britain.
Thursday, 24 November 2016
Vote leave politicians promised you Eldorado
So now we have it ; the first budget statement after the vote to leave the EU. It does not make good reading. Public debt is going to rise to at least 90% of our GDP or nearly 2 trillion GBP. this is 2, 000,000,000,000 pounds. It is a sum of money which is unimaginable. Leaving the EU is going to be costly.
The Office of Budget Responsibility (OBR) has forecast economic growth for next year of 1.4 % rising to 1.7% to following year and then rising again to 2.1% pa after we have left the EU. This is hardly Eldorado. The OBR has not made any prediction that the economy will improve beyond where we are now after we leave. If the OBR is to be believed we are indulging in a very costly exercise for nothing.
The Chancellor must be congratulated for finally recognising that Britain has a problem with its productivity and that we are falling behind our international competitors. He has made a start to redress this issue. To improve our productivity, at a macro economic level, we must provide affordable housing for all workers especially those who want to move location. We need to provide affordable creche facilities for parents who work full time. We must provide full time well paid jobs not badly paid self-employment jobs. We need to get millions of Britons out of the badly paid "gig" economy and into well paid stable permanent employment. To get our economy moving we need employees who have better skills and motivation. We need a better education system. We also need healthy workers.
We need to implement these changes and we can do this if we have the political will. The EU cannot stop us making improvements to our economy and indeed no-one in the EU even wants to do this. To all intents and purposes we are masters of our own economic destiny even if we are in the EU.
Turning the economy around will take decades. If our economy is to grow in the meantime then we need to import more and more workers. These will be young people from the EU and elsewhere who are prepared to live in multiple occupancy flats and dwellings and move around from place to place easily because they have no family roots. After we leave the EU these workers will arrive in similar numbers to what they do now but this time they will arrive as agency workers. They will not pay income tax in Britain but in their home countries. We will have to pay foreign companies to bring in these workers thereby worsening our balance of payments position. In a low productivity economy to achieve growth we have to import foreign labour - it is an economic fact of life. If you voted leave then you have been duped in this matter.
Vote leave politicians have claimed that economic forecasting is often wrong. Yes, it is, but this means that their forecasts for Eldorado could equally be wrong. If Britain leaves the EU on bad terms our economy could take another bad turn for the worse, especially if we are forced to leave the Customs Union exactly two years after Article 50 is invoked. From that day tariffs will be placed on our exports, we could lose all the advantages of the single market, our finance industry could be damaged. The EU will impose customs documentation and there will be long queues at the ports. A hard border will have to be imposed between Northern Ireland and the Republic - and this is the last thing that we should be confronted with.
There will be further damage to our economy; the Chancellor will be further constrained and the budget to improve the productivity of the nation will be limited. The money to improve living standards for the most deprived people and regions will also be restrained. To grow the economy we may have to import more cheap labour.
Leaving the EU could depress most people's living standards, cut the budget available for the NHS and the improvements for the economy. You will have voted for a Brexit " pig in a poke". "The metropolitan elite" will survive all this.
Yes, "the metropolitan elite" has implored you to remain in the EU. But, look into to the background of the vote leave advocates too; most of them are also part of "the metropolitan elite". "The metropolitan elite" has a duty to make the policy fit the evidence not make the facts fit the ideology.
If leaving the EU goes badly wrong, then it is not just the economy that could sag: the peace in Ireland could be sacrificed too. Is it worth the risks just to achieve the illusion that immigration is under control? After two years, from March 2017, it might be too late to change your mind. The ideologues would have won , but harsh reality could mean that you are the loser.
The Office of Budget Responsibility (OBR) has forecast economic growth for next year of 1.4 % rising to 1.7% to following year and then rising again to 2.1% pa after we have left the EU. This is hardly Eldorado. The OBR has not made any prediction that the economy will improve beyond where we are now after we leave. If the OBR is to be believed we are indulging in a very costly exercise for nothing.
The Chancellor must be congratulated for finally recognising that Britain has a problem with its productivity and that we are falling behind our international competitors. He has made a start to redress this issue. To improve our productivity, at a macro economic level, we must provide affordable housing for all workers especially those who want to move location. We need to provide affordable creche facilities for parents who work full time. We must provide full time well paid jobs not badly paid self-employment jobs. We need to get millions of Britons out of the badly paid "gig" economy and into well paid stable permanent employment. To get our economy moving we need employees who have better skills and motivation. We need a better education system. We also need healthy workers.
We need to implement these changes and we can do this if we have the political will. The EU cannot stop us making improvements to our economy and indeed no-one in the EU even wants to do this. To all intents and purposes we are masters of our own economic destiny even if we are in the EU.
Turning the economy around will take decades. If our economy is to grow in the meantime then we need to import more and more workers. These will be young people from the EU and elsewhere who are prepared to live in multiple occupancy flats and dwellings and move around from place to place easily because they have no family roots. After we leave the EU these workers will arrive in similar numbers to what they do now but this time they will arrive as agency workers. They will not pay income tax in Britain but in their home countries. We will have to pay foreign companies to bring in these workers thereby worsening our balance of payments position. In a low productivity economy to achieve growth we have to import foreign labour - it is an economic fact of life. If you voted leave then you have been duped in this matter.
Vote leave politicians have claimed that economic forecasting is often wrong. Yes, it is, but this means that their forecasts for Eldorado could equally be wrong. If Britain leaves the EU on bad terms our economy could take another bad turn for the worse, especially if we are forced to leave the Customs Union exactly two years after Article 50 is invoked. From that day tariffs will be placed on our exports, we could lose all the advantages of the single market, our finance industry could be damaged. The EU will impose customs documentation and there will be long queues at the ports. A hard border will have to be imposed between Northern Ireland and the Republic - and this is the last thing that we should be confronted with.
There will be further damage to our economy; the Chancellor will be further constrained and the budget to improve the productivity of the nation will be limited. The money to improve living standards for the most deprived people and regions will also be restrained. To grow the economy we may have to import more cheap labour.
Leaving the EU could depress most people's living standards, cut the budget available for the NHS and the improvements for the economy. You will have voted for a Brexit " pig in a poke". "The metropolitan elite" will survive all this.
Yes, "the metropolitan elite" has implored you to remain in the EU. But, look into to the background of the vote leave advocates too; most of them are also part of "the metropolitan elite". "The metropolitan elite" has a duty to make the policy fit the evidence not make the facts fit the ideology.
If leaving the EU goes badly wrong, then it is not just the economy that could sag: the peace in Ireland could be sacrificed too. Is it worth the risks just to achieve the illusion that immigration is under control? After two years, from March 2017, it might be too late to change your mind. The ideologues would have won , but harsh reality could mean that you are the loser.
Wednesday, 26 October 2016
Depravity in Syria and the Middle East
It is time, that all the protagonists in the wars in Syria and the Middle East, to consider how low the human species can fall. Time and again in the 20th century we have seen war crimes and crimes against humanity from the death camps of Europe to the massacres in South East Asia.
Why does all this have to be repeated in the Middle East? It is time for the hatred and carnage to stop. The leaders of the world's of most powerful nations must stop the carnage and not exacerbate it by factional infighting. They must task the United Nations with finding a general solution for the Middle East so that all of its peoples including Israelis and Palestinians can live in peace. Above all the wars in Syria and Yemen should be halted immediately.
Why does all this have to be repeated in the Middle East? It is time for the hatred and carnage to stop. The leaders of the world's of most powerful nations must stop the carnage and not exacerbate it by factional infighting. They must task the United Nations with finding a general solution for the Middle East so that all of its peoples including Israelis and Palestinians can live in peace. Above all the wars in Syria and Yemen should be halted immediately.
Tuesday, 30 August 2016
Leaving the EU and Northern Ireland
Northern Ireland's relationship with the Republic of Ireland was hardly discussed in the mainstream media in England and Wales. English and Welsh voters probably ignored what would happen if and when we leave the EU.
The Good Friday Agreement made between the "loyalist" and nationalist communities of Northern Ireland and the British and Irish governments. It has proven to be a big success. Peace has returned to Northern Ireland and the bombs have been taken out of Irish politics. The British mainland has also returned to peace and we on the mainland no longer have to face the reality of being bombed by the IRA.
The Good Friday Agreement was helped by the fact that both the the Republic of Ireland and Britain were members of the EU. Both countries became equals within a confederated organisation which provided a forum for peace. The EU provided good reason for cross border co-operation and co-operation between the communities in Northern Ireland itself. The nationalist community was persuaded that the UK was no longer imposing its will on their community. The Good Friday Agreement encompassed power sharing so that neither the UK nor the "loyalist" community could unjustly impose their will on the minority catholic community.
To assuage the "loyalists" the Irish republic changed its constitution to drop claims of sovereignty over Northern Ireland. The Good Friday Agreement allowed citizens of Northern Ireland to be British, Irish or both. The European Convention on Human Rights was confirmed to be part of the agreement. An Irish-British council was set up to promote joint interests and the Good Friday Agreement recognises the role that the EU plays in promoting peace and development in Northern Ireland.
Northern Ireland voted to remain in the the EU . There is now the possibility that the rest of the UK , save Scotland, will force Northern Ireland out of the EU against its will. It is not only the nationalist community which supports remaining in the EU but a substantial number of so called "loyalists" probably voted to remain too.
Much of the violence prior to the 1998 Good Friday Agreement resulted from the nationalist community being opposed to an English parliament imposing their will from across the Irish sea.
There is still simmering resentment from certain quarters in Northern Ireland as can be seen from press reports of low level violence continuing in Northern Ireland. This resentment is being held in check by legitimate politics.
The rest of Britain may have a legal right to force Northern Ireland out of the EU but does it have the moral right?
I expect that the the legality of Britain being able to withdraw Northern Ireland against its will be to be challenged in the courts and this challenge could go all the way to international arbitration. What will the UK government do if it loses?
If the UK government imposes its will on Northern Ireland what will happen if factions within Northern Ireland return to the gun and bomb to achieve their aims? The British people may have made a big mistake and all of us ,"Remainers" and Leavers, alike should consider this before the Article 50 button is pushed.
The views of the Northern Irish assembly must be taken into account before we invoke Article 50 and this implies that the UK Parliament must consider the implications too. Using undemocratic prerogative powers to execute Article 50 could be a dangerous mistake.
It is my view that the English and Welsh populations voted without considering the constitutional implications for the whole of the United Kingdom and without considering the dangers of using prerogative powers without parliamentary approval both in Northern Ireland and the UK. The British prime minister should consider carefully how using powers, taken from an un-elected head of state, should be used in the the context of Northern Ireland which is composed of a community of around 45% republicans. Behaving like this, was a major influence upon the political violence in Northern Ireland before the 1998; let's not go back to it please.
The Good Friday Agreement made between the "loyalist" and nationalist communities of Northern Ireland and the British and Irish governments. It has proven to be a big success. Peace has returned to Northern Ireland and the bombs have been taken out of Irish politics. The British mainland has also returned to peace and we on the mainland no longer have to face the reality of being bombed by the IRA.
The Good Friday Agreement was helped by the fact that both the the Republic of Ireland and Britain were members of the EU. Both countries became equals within a confederated organisation which provided a forum for peace. The EU provided good reason for cross border co-operation and co-operation between the communities in Northern Ireland itself. The nationalist community was persuaded that the UK was no longer imposing its will on their community. The Good Friday Agreement encompassed power sharing so that neither the UK nor the "loyalist" community could unjustly impose their will on the minority catholic community.
To assuage the "loyalists" the Irish republic changed its constitution to drop claims of sovereignty over Northern Ireland. The Good Friday Agreement allowed citizens of Northern Ireland to be British, Irish or both. The European Convention on Human Rights was confirmed to be part of the agreement. An Irish-British council was set up to promote joint interests and the Good Friday Agreement recognises the role that the EU plays in promoting peace and development in Northern Ireland.
Northern Ireland voted to remain in the the EU . There is now the possibility that the rest of the UK , save Scotland, will force Northern Ireland out of the EU against its will. It is not only the nationalist community which supports remaining in the EU but a substantial number of so called "loyalists" probably voted to remain too.
Much of the violence prior to the 1998 Good Friday Agreement resulted from the nationalist community being opposed to an English parliament imposing their will from across the Irish sea.
There is still simmering resentment from certain quarters in Northern Ireland as can be seen from press reports of low level violence continuing in Northern Ireland. This resentment is being held in check by legitimate politics.
The rest of Britain may have a legal right to force Northern Ireland out of the EU but does it have the moral right?
I expect that the the legality of Britain being able to withdraw Northern Ireland against its will be to be challenged in the courts and this challenge could go all the way to international arbitration. What will the UK government do if it loses?
If the UK government imposes its will on Northern Ireland what will happen if factions within Northern Ireland return to the gun and bomb to achieve their aims? The British people may have made a big mistake and all of us ,"Remainers" and Leavers, alike should consider this before the Article 50 button is pushed.
The views of the Northern Irish assembly must be taken into account before we invoke Article 50 and this implies that the UK Parliament must consider the implications too. Using undemocratic prerogative powers to execute Article 50 could be a dangerous mistake.
It is my view that the English and Welsh populations voted without considering the constitutional implications for the whole of the United Kingdom and without considering the dangers of using prerogative powers without parliamentary approval both in Northern Ireland and the UK. The British prime minister should consider carefully how using powers, taken from an un-elected head of state, should be used in the the context of Northern Ireland which is composed of a community of around 45% republicans. Behaving like this, was a major influence upon the political violence in Northern Ireland before the 1998; let's not go back to it please.
Monday, 18 July 2016
Leaving the EU: a proposal
Remain voters must accept the fact that it is highly likely that Britain will leave the EU but it is not certain.
I was a remain voter but it is nonsense to suggest that I would take any comfort in the possibility of there being a recession as the result of a leave vote and as a result of me being in denial or bereft at the result.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/jul/17/uk-economy-brexit-failed-economic-policies
For me, it was and still is desirable that we should remain members of the the EU for political, cultural and economic reasons which I have laid out already in other blogs on this site. I believe that our nation will be diminished if we turn our backs on our nearest neighbours. But, real politik suggests that we could leave the EU within a short period of time and that other options should be put to the people which should be considered by parliament. I believe that there is another option which both leavers and most of the remain voters could support which would truly represent leave and remain thinking but of course there will be a substantial majority that will not support my proposal but more of that later.
Britain has not considered any sort of plan for what happens after we leave the EU and it is now being left to Leave ideologues to plot our departure. These ideologues must consider the political, foreign policy and economic consequences of Britain leaving the EU. The Prime Minister is duty bound to critically examine their proposals. The Brexit community must be able to demonstrate that Britain will actually be better off by leaving. As any business knows before making a complex and important decision there must be a cost and benefit and risk analysis and a plan. Any form of risk mitigation must be examined to ensure that it will be effective. We are jumping into the unknown and the British people should be fully appraised of any risks they are taking. All options for leaving the EU should be thoroughly and critically examined by parliament and independent economic bodies such as the IFS.
Let us be certain, the EU referendum was not a choice about whether immigration should be curbed or not. Many Leave voters that I spoke to were quite happy to accept free movement of labour from the EU combined with very liberal policies concerning the movement of people from non-EU countries. These voters wanted to leave the EU for reasons of national sovereignty and national independence. It is not possible to assess how many voters were in this category but of course they were in the minority.
It is my view that the overwhelming majority of Leave voters want to either curb immigration or reverse it; all as a matter of policy - not security. The majority of Leave voters, however, do not support forced repatriation of foreigners. The whole issue of immigration is not as simple as ardent Brexiters claim it to be and immigration should not be the primary issue when deciding what option is best for Britain and the rest of the EU.
I am proposing a Norway plus option which we should be able to negotiate and which I shall expand upon later but first some of the reasons why. I examine the issues for my proposal below
Britain's wealth
Brexit campaigners promised that Britain would become more wealthy if we left the EU and the single market. If this is so then they should prove it. It is not obvious. If it is obvious then we should invoke Article 50 of the Lisbon treaty immediately to try to end uncertainty. Business could then plan for the worst case scenario: trade on WTO terms but with reduced immigration but this might not bolster the economy. Brexiters know that we need access to the single market to guarantee our prosperity. The promises that we can negotiate better trade deals for ourselves without using EU negotiators and EU influence must be shown to hold water. I seriously doubt that the Brexit promises of greater wealth can be achieved by a completely go it alone attitude. Britain is now the 6th largest economy in the world as overnight on June 23rd it fell behind France. We are likely to enter a period of recession or seriously impeded economic growth therefore we could fall behind Italy. Our negotiating position becomes weaker as I write.
Our economic future can only be guaranteed in the short and medium term by being a member of the single market. If we leave the single market we face the possibility of an extended period of weak economic growth which will affect our ability to fund public services. The lack of investment will lead to our nation to becoming poorer.
Some of the effects of poorer economic growth will need to be mitigated by a redistribution of wealth as proposed by the new British prime minister but will she be able to deliver? Will the middle classes agree to the tax increases necessary and will corporate Britain comply? There will need to be a new one nation covenant to protect the poor.
Immigration
Whether we like it or not we have to tolerate immigration. Britain's economy is modelled upon importing labour. The economic plan for Britain provides for another million or so immigrants by 2020. It looks as though the EU will not allow Britain access to the single market without accepting free movement of labour. Even if we were to leave the EU we will probably have to be realistic and still allow hundreds of thousands of immigrants to come to Britain from the rest of the world. We might only be able to reduce immigration by tens of thousands. The benefit of reduced immigration will be far outweighed by the cost of leaving the single market.
A cost benefit analysis will probably reveal that we are better off staying in the single market by accepting free movement of labour. This will need to be sold to the general population by explaining the real problem of leaving the single market. The government must then demonstrate a willingness to achieve a one nation covenant to improve the employment opportunities and wages of the poor. To improve the education and skills of the disadvantaged and to improve their housing prospects and public services where immigration levels are high.
Internal politics
Scotland is committed to staying in the EU. There is a serious danger that the UK could break up if their desire to remain in the EU is thwarted . Some may welcome this but I do not. We need to find a way to keep Scotland in the union by maintaining a sufficient level of closeness to the EU so that Scotland will choose to stay in the UK.
Northern Ireland voted to stay in the EU but it is ruled by a party which supported Britain leaving.This might lead to serious political conflict. It is in the interests of Northern Ireland to maintain close economic and social links with Ireland. It is not in the interests of Britain or Ireland to have a "closed" border between our countries by introducing customs or immigration controls. It is essential that the common travel area is maintained.
Wales: recent opinion polls in Wales indicate that the Welsh have changed their minds and that a small majority of the population are now in favour of staying in the EU; now that the full economic implications of leaving are being appreciated. A change of mind in Brexit England could happen as well if there is a recession.
London generates 30% of the tax revenue of the UK and it voted to remain in the EU the government cannot ignore this economic fact. London and the UK need access to the single market if the nation is to flourish. The EU is about to extend the single market to services which make up 80% of our economy. The single market for services will provide an incredible business opportunity for the UK's service providers no matter where they are located. Why throw this opportunity away?
The divisions between North and South an East and West and better off and less privileged need to be healed. The views of Remain must also be taken to account. Also the views of those who did not register to vote or chose not to vote, if registered, must also be taken into account by their MPs. Non-voters made up a substantial minority of the referendum voting population and their views need to be taken into account by parliament.
Foreign affairs
Our nearest neighbours and supporters in Europe, France and Ireland, are disappointed. Ireland especially as they have the most to lose economically from Brexit. Ireland also has to worry about serious political division in Northern Ireland.
France is one of our oldest, closest and important allies. I was in France on June 24th and the idea of Brexit was just as big an issue in France as it was in Britain. My French friends and family were talking about nothing else. One thing is certain, however, the French people will not tolerate French or other EU citizens being turned away from Britain on the French side of the channel. If we impose freedom of movement restrictions on EU citizens then the barbed wire will have to move back to Kent.
The US sees it as being in their geo-political interests to have the UK in the EU or as close as it can be. We would be foolish to ignore the view of the US as they might ignore us in the future and their view of the special relationship might transfer from Britain to Germany and France.
Spain has already posited the view that there should be joint sovereignty over Gibraltar leading to Gibraltar finally becoming united with Spain. This could become a reality especially as Gibraltar has voted overwhelmingly to remain in the EU. Why should the UK let Gibraltar down? Gibraltar is in a strategic position,and probably the US would prefer that the rock stays in British hands.
Poland is one of Britain's strongest supporters so why annoy them by restricting their citizens access to our labour market. Poland's economic power is growing. Poland is a positive ally who will support a good deal for Britain along with France and Ireland.
Defence
Britain has refused the formation of a European army,navy and air force. Donald Trump has indicated that if elected he would reform NATO and expects Europe to pay its way: he is more of an isolationist. We could be forced to review our defence policies and join in with a European defence force if NATO is substantially weakened.
The environment
We all want to breathe clean air and swim in unpolluted and fresh water. The environment does respect political boundaries it is in our self-interest to protect our environment in concert with our European neighbours.
Cultural and family ties
Whether we like it or not there has been substantial demographic change as a result of freedom of movement. Many citizens have chosen to uproot themselves for family, economic, cultural and health reasons. Millions of citizens have migrated both ways so why spoil their lives by forcing them to relocate? Does Britain want to have a million plus disgruntled voters returning to Britain to upset the political apple cart just because we cannot tolerate foreigners in our own country?
My proposal
My proposal is for a Norway plus option as outlined below.
We leave the institutions of the EU but we stay in the single market. For this we accept the freedom of movement of citizens that EEA members enjoy. A substantial proportion of leavers will support this as will virtually all remain voters. Non-voters will probably accept a decision by parliament to approve this. A proportion of xenophobes will reject this completely but they will have to accept it as it is in the economic best interests of our country to be part of the single market.
We negotiate a say in the development of the single market as if we had not left. Britain has a big enough economy to negotiate this and this will be probably be supported by France, Ireland, Germany and Poland. Britain would have to pay into the European budget to gain access to the market but it will be worth the price from an economic point of view. Britain will be able to exploit the upcoming single market for services. Scottish and Northern Irish views will be taken into account.
All this will be in the economic interest of the remaining EU states as well as the UK.
In common with our former European partners, it is in our interests to promote world peace and security along with support for democracy, freedom of speech and human rights. There is no reason why we cannot write a treaty to achieve common interests with full voting rights for Britain: our European partners will probably support this as will the US.
As far as the environment is concerned we should agree a treaty to enact measures which are in the joint interests of both the EU and the UK.
We agree a treaty with Spain and the EU over Gibraltar which will allow a free Gibraltar to maintain its ties with the UK but allow them to join the EU.
Cultural and social ties with the EU, the EEA and Switzerland will be maintained by freedom of movement rights and will remain unchanged and undamaged.
Parliament approval
Of course, my proposals will need to be critically examined for costs versus benefits.
I would prefer it if we stayed in the EU and this might turn out to be best option. The British people might change their mind if there is a recession resulting from the EU referendum and the full consequences of leaving hit home.
If we must leave then I believe that my proposal will meet support from all of the voters who chose to remain in the EU and a substantial number of leave supporters - enough to form a majority of voters. Non-voters will be looking for guidance from parliament so there must be a free vote of MPs before an option is considered and recommended and this should be before we invoke Article 50. Parliament should also approve any agreement negotiated between Britain and the EU after Article 50 is invoked and before we actually leave the EU.
My proposal will satisfy most of the population of the UK as it allows us to leave the institutions of the EU but retain access to and influence over the single market and exploit the new EU single market for services. This will be in exchange for allowing perhaps two or three hundred thousand more people into the country under freedom of movement rules. Britain is a rich enough country to support freedom of movement.
The proposal caters for Scotland and Northern Ireland and our international relations with the EU and the rest of the world. It is a good compromise which should achieve a consensus of support from the electorate of the UK and of course it is in our best economic, social and foreign affairs interests.
I feel sure that our EU partners will accept this positive proposal as it is in all our interests to maintain close relations. Such an agreement could be negotiated quickly as it is very close to the Norwegian option.
I was a remain voter but it is nonsense to suggest that I would take any comfort in the possibility of there being a recession as the result of a leave vote and as a result of me being in denial or bereft at the result.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/jul/17/uk-economy-brexit-failed-economic-policies
For me, it was and still is desirable that we should remain members of the the EU for political, cultural and economic reasons which I have laid out already in other blogs on this site. I believe that our nation will be diminished if we turn our backs on our nearest neighbours. But, real politik suggests that we could leave the EU within a short period of time and that other options should be put to the people which should be considered by parliament. I believe that there is another option which both leavers and most of the remain voters could support which would truly represent leave and remain thinking but of course there will be a substantial majority that will not support my proposal but more of that later.
Britain has not considered any sort of plan for what happens after we leave the EU and it is now being left to Leave ideologues to plot our departure. These ideologues must consider the political, foreign policy and economic consequences of Britain leaving the EU. The Prime Minister is duty bound to critically examine their proposals. The Brexit community must be able to demonstrate that Britain will actually be better off by leaving. As any business knows before making a complex and important decision there must be a cost and benefit and risk analysis and a plan. Any form of risk mitigation must be examined to ensure that it will be effective. We are jumping into the unknown and the British people should be fully appraised of any risks they are taking. All options for leaving the EU should be thoroughly and critically examined by parliament and independent economic bodies such as the IFS.
Let us be certain, the EU referendum was not a choice about whether immigration should be curbed or not. Many Leave voters that I spoke to were quite happy to accept free movement of labour from the EU combined with very liberal policies concerning the movement of people from non-EU countries. These voters wanted to leave the EU for reasons of national sovereignty and national independence. It is not possible to assess how many voters were in this category but of course they were in the minority.
It is my view that the overwhelming majority of Leave voters want to either curb immigration or reverse it; all as a matter of policy - not security. The majority of Leave voters, however, do not support forced repatriation of foreigners. The whole issue of immigration is not as simple as ardent Brexiters claim it to be and immigration should not be the primary issue when deciding what option is best for Britain and the rest of the EU.
I am proposing a Norway plus option which we should be able to negotiate and which I shall expand upon later but first some of the reasons why. I examine the issues for my proposal below
Britain's wealth
Brexit campaigners promised that Britain would become more wealthy if we left the EU and the single market. If this is so then they should prove it. It is not obvious. If it is obvious then we should invoke Article 50 of the Lisbon treaty immediately to try to end uncertainty. Business could then plan for the worst case scenario: trade on WTO terms but with reduced immigration but this might not bolster the economy. Brexiters know that we need access to the single market to guarantee our prosperity. The promises that we can negotiate better trade deals for ourselves without using EU negotiators and EU influence must be shown to hold water. I seriously doubt that the Brexit promises of greater wealth can be achieved by a completely go it alone attitude. Britain is now the 6th largest economy in the world as overnight on June 23rd it fell behind France. We are likely to enter a period of recession or seriously impeded economic growth therefore we could fall behind Italy. Our negotiating position becomes weaker as I write.
Our economic future can only be guaranteed in the short and medium term by being a member of the single market. If we leave the single market we face the possibility of an extended period of weak economic growth which will affect our ability to fund public services. The lack of investment will lead to our nation to becoming poorer.
Some of the effects of poorer economic growth will need to be mitigated by a redistribution of wealth as proposed by the new British prime minister but will she be able to deliver? Will the middle classes agree to the tax increases necessary and will corporate Britain comply? There will need to be a new one nation covenant to protect the poor.
Immigration
Whether we like it or not we have to tolerate immigration. Britain's economy is modelled upon importing labour. The economic plan for Britain provides for another million or so immigrants by 2020. It looks as though the EU will not allow Britain access to the single market without accepting free movement of labour. Even if we were to leave the EU we will probably have to be realistic and still allow hundreds of thousands of immigrants to come to Britain from the rest of the world. We might only be able to reduce immigration by tens of thousands. The benefit of reduced immigration will be far outweighed by the cost of leaving the single market.
A cost benefit analysis will probably reveal that we are better off staying in the single market by accepting free movement of labour. This will need to be sold to the general population by explaining the real problem of leaving the single market. The government must then demonstrate a willingness to achieve a one nation covenant to improve the employment opportunities and wages of the poor. To improve the education and skills of the disadvantaged and to improve their housing prospects and public services where immigration levels are high.
Internal politics
Scotland is committed to staying in the EU. There is a serious danger that the UK could break up if their desire to remain in the EU is thwarted . Some may welcome this but I do not. We need to find a way to keep Scotland in the union by maintaining a sufficient level of closeness to the EU so that Scotland will choose to stay in the UK.
Northern Ireland voted to stay in the EU but it is ruled by a party which supported Britain leaving.This might lead to serious political conflict. It is in the interests of Northern Ireland to maintain close economic and social links with Ireland. It is not in the interests of Britain or Ireland to have a "closed" border between our countries by introducing customs or immigration controls. It is essential that the common travel area is maintained.
Wales: recent opinion polls in Wales indicate that the Welsh have changed their minds and that a small majority of the population are now in favour of staying in the EU; now that the full economic implications of leaving are being appreciated. A change of mind in Brexit England could happen as well if there is a recession.
London generates 30% of the tax revenue of the UK and it voted to remain in the EU the government cannot ignore this economic fact. London and the UK need access to the single market if the nation is to flourish. The EU is about to extend the single market to services which make up 80% of our economy. The single market for services will provide an incredible business opportunity for the UK's service providers no matter where they are located. Why throw this opportunity away?
The divisions between North and South an East and West and better off and less privileged need to be healed. The views of Remain must also be taken to account. Also the views of those who did not register to vote or chose not to vote, if registered, must also be taken into account by their MPs. Non-voters made up a substantial minority of the referendum voting population and their views need to be taken into account by parliament.
Foreign affairs
Our nearest neighbours and supporters in Europe, France and Ireland, are disappointed. Ireland especially as they have the most to lose economically from Brexit. Ireland also has to worry about serious political division in Northern Ireland.
France is one of our oldest, closest and important allies. I was in France on June 24th and the idea of Brexit was just as big an issue in France as it was in Britain. My French friends and family were talking about nothing else. One thing is certain, however, the French people will not tolerate French or other EU citizens being turned away from Britain on the French side of the channel. If we impose freedom of movement restrictions on EU citizens then the barbed wire will have to move back to Kent.
The US sees it as being in their geo-political interests to have the UK in the EU or as close as it can be. We would be foolish to ignore the view of the US as they might ignore us in the future and their view of the special relationship might transfer from Britain to Germany and France.
Spain has already posited the view that there should be joint sovereignty over Gibraltar leading to Gibraltar finally becoming united with Spain. This could become a reality especially as Gibraltar has voted overwhelmingly to remain in the EU. Why should the UK let Gibraltar down? Gibraltar is in a strategic position,and probably the US would prefer that the rock stays in British hands.
Poland is one of Britain's strongest supporters so why annoy them by restricting their citizens access to our labour market. Poland's economic power is growing. Poland is a positive ally who will support a good deal for Britain along with France and Ireland.
Defence
Britain has refused the formation of a European army,navy and air force. Donald Trump has indicated that if elected he would reform NATO and expects Europe to pay its way: he is more of an isolationist. We could be forced to review our defence policies and join in with a European defence force if NATO is substantially weakened.
The environment
We all want to breathe clean air and swim in unpolluted and fresh water. The environment does respect political boundaries it is in our self-interest to protect our environment in concert with our European neighbours.
Cultural and family ties
Whether we like it or not there has been substantial demographic change as a result of freedom of movement. Many citizens have chosen to uproot themselves for family, economic, cultural and health reasons. Millions of citizens have migrated both ways so why spoil their lives by forcing them to relocate? Does Britain want to have a million plus disgruntled voters returning to Britain to upset the political apple cart just because we cannot tolerate foreigners in our own country?
My proposal
My proposal is for a Norway plus option as outlined below.
We leave the institutions of the EU but we stay in the single market. For this we accept the freedom of movement of citizens that EEA members enjoy. A substantial proportion of leavers will support this as will virtually all remain voters. Non-voters will probably accept a decision by parliament to approve this. A proportion of xenophobes will reject this completely but they will have to accept it as it is in the economic best interests of our country to be part of the single market.
We negotiate a say in the development of the single market as if we had not left. Britain has a big enough economy to negotiate this and this will be probably be supported by France, Ireland, Germany and Poland. Britain would have to pay into the European budget to gain access to the market but it will be worth the price from an economic point of view. Britain will be able to exploit the upcoming single market for services. Scottish and Northern Irish views will be taken into account.
All this will be in the economic interest of the remaining EU states as well as the UK.
In common with our former European partners, it is in our interests to promote world peace and security along with support for democracy, freedom of speech and human rights. There is no reason why we cannot write a treaty to achieve common interests with full voting rights for Britain: our European partners will probably support this as will the US.
As far as the environment is concerned we should agree a treaty to enact measures which are in the joint interests of both the EU and the UK.
We agree a treaty with Spain and the EU over Gibraltar which will allow a free Gibraltar to maintain its ties with the UK but allow them to join the EU.
Cultural and social ties with the EU, the EEA and Switzerland will be maintained by freedom of movement rights and will remain unchanged and undamaged.
Parliament approval
Of course, my proposals will need to be critically examined for costs versus benefits.
I would prefer it if we stayed in the EU and this might turn out to be best option. The British people might change their mind if there is a recession resulting from the EU referendum and the full consequences of leaving hit home.
If we must leave then I believe that my proposal will meet support from all of the voters who chose to remain in the EU and a substantial number of leave supporters - enough to form a majority of voters. Non-voters will be looking for guidance from parliament so there must be a free vote of MPs before an option is considered and recommended and this should be before we invoke Article 50. Parliament should also approve any agreement negotiated between Britain and the EU after Article 50 is invoked and before we actually leave the EU.
My proposal will satisfy most of the population of the UK as it allows us to leave the institutions of the EU but retain access to and influence over the single market and exploit the new EU single market for services. This will be in exchange for allowing perhaps two or three hundred thousand more people into the country under freedom of movement rules. Britain is a rich enough country to support freedom of movement.
The proposal caters for Scotland and Northern Ireland and our international relations with the EU and the rest of the world. It is a good compromise which should achieve a consensus of support from the electorate of the UK and of course it is in our best economic, social and foreign affairs interests.
I feel sure that our EU partners will accept this positive proposal as it is in all our interests to maintain close relations. Such an agreement could be negotiated quickly as it is very close to the Norwegian option.
Tuesday, 5 July 2016
Brexit implications
Vote leave supporters may not get what they bargained for. They have probably taken aim at the wrong people and blamed them for the predicament of the country.
Unfortunately, the poor and disadvantaged will not see their lot improving. Since the 1970's there has been a redistribution of wealth. This has been from the poor to the rich. It started when council houses were sold to private individuals and the proceeds of the sales were not re-invested in more council and social housing to replace the properties which were divested. The private sector for housing has never been able to provide sufficient houses for the growing population.
Successive governments have sold valuable government assets such as the railways, the post office and the energy industries to shore up public finances. As Harold Macmillan put it: the nation has sold off the family silver - he was an ex-Conservative Prime Minister. Some industries such as the car industry or telecommunications benefit from privatisation and these sell offs have benefited the economy in general. But the sale of the housing stock and other key industries has only exacerbated transfer of wealth and power from the people to corporate organisations.
The de-industrialisation of the economy has contributed to a loss of real earnings so that wages have hardly risen in 30 years. The transfer of the means of production to other nation states has also resulted in a loss of earning power. Trade union power has been emasculated so that workers rights and living standards have been cut without challenge. Millions of people have been forced into low paid self-employment or zero-hours contracts and they are struggling to just feed their families let alone pay bills. Hundreds of thousands are relying on food-banks to make ends meet.
All in all the re-distribution of wealth and reduced earning power has meant that large sections of our society are living without hope of improvement in their living standards. Millions of our citizens have simply been left behind and they have been failed by both major political parties. Millions of people have been forced to turn to obtaining credit from "loan sharks" to make their lives just about bearable.
They are victims of a lack of social housing so that many have to pay almost un-affordable rents to private landlords to find a place to rest their heads. Millions of working people just want to be able to hold their heads up high. They want decent jobs that pay decent wages so that they can have a half decent life and pay their way without hand outs. It is no wonder that they want to kick out against the establishment.
The EU commission is responsible for none of this - all of our wounds are self inflicted.
The British economy, in general, has prospered in recent years after it came out of the financial crisis of 2007/08.
The British economy in the main, however, is a low productivity one which depends on a source of low paid labour which is flexible and which can survive the economic tribulations of zero hours contracts and lay offs. These low paid workers are young and do not have families. And, like all young people without children they are prepared to move house and live in multiple occupation flats. Only young immigrants can tolerate these working conditions.
There is another British economy which requires high skilled workers in information technology, finance,telecommunications, medicine and aerospace etc. There is a shortage of these skills coming from the indigenous population and the only source of these skills is immigrants.
Oh yes, immigration, half of the voters in the referendum were frightened of it, Some of those voters were just xenophobes and many were racists. The poor and disadvantaged voted leave out of protest. Some of the voters were just interested in sovereignty but they all made common cause believing that reducing immigration would solve all our or their problems. It won't as will be seen over the next five to ten years.
The trouble is Britain's economy sucks in immigrants and it cannot grow without them. The economic model relies on either low paid workers or pinching skilled and well educated people from other nations. The Vote Leave leaders have promised economic sunshine but if their model economy is to grow it has to suck in even more immigrants.
If the Vote Leave project fails then the economy will go into recession and then hurrah most of the immigrants will go home. But then many many British people will lose their jobs and the economy will not be able to afford more hospitals, creches and doctors. The housing market will collapse and there will still be a shortage of social housing. Unemployment will bring down wages and the economy will not be able to afford child benefit. We shall be out of the single market and freedom of movement restrictions will mean that young people will have nowhere to go to find work.
There is only one way to help the poor and disadvantaged and bring down the need to import cheap labour. We need a new economic model which re-distributes the wealth and earnings of the nation in favour of the poor and disadvantaged. This will not be achieved by some sort of dangerous ultra-left wing or ultra right wing revolution. We need one nation type politicians such as Clement Attlee or Harold Macmillan to do something for the poor and the struggling middle classes. We need to build houses, hospitals and doctors surgeries. We need an education system that produces well rounded students. We need creches and good health care for our children.We need a workforce that can afford to move location with their families to fill well paid jobs. We need a more productive society. However, to achieve peaceful and sustainable change it will take years. Some people may not have the patience so we could be in for a rough ride. Some politicians are completely opposed to changing the economic model so the situation could become even worse.
Unfortunately the "efficient markets" philosophy which has monopolised economic policy since the 1970's cannot provide an economy which provides for the poor and the struggling middle classes as well as for the rich. Our country has enough resources to provide a decent standard of living for all our poor and disadvantaged people and our immigrants who have contributed enormous sums of wealth to our economy; but our country chooses not to distribute the wealth and income anywhere near equitably.
Vote Leave politicians are going to provide us with more of the same old economic story. We need strong leaders with a completely different vision - come back Attlee and Supermac.
If we cut ourselves off from the European single market to spite our economic faces, in the vain hope of reducing immigration, then we could suffer and the poor will suffer most. There are many Europeans who think the same way as me . It would be better to unite with them to find a better economic solution for all Europeans rather than just carry on with business as usual but without the Bulgarian strawberry pickers. Do you want to see the fruits of an economic recovery left rotting in the field?
Unfortunately, the poor and disadvantaged will not see their lot improving. Since the 1970's there has been a redistribution of wealth. This has been from the poor to the rich. It started when council houses were sold to private individuals and the proceeds of the sales were not re-invested in more council and social housing to replace the properties which were divested. The private sector for housing has never been able to provide sufficient houses for the growing population.
Successive governments have sold valuable government assets such as the railways, the post office and the energy industries to shore up public finances. As Harold Macmillan put it: the nation has sold off the family silver - he was an ex-Conservative Prime Minister. Some industries such as the car industry or telecommunications benefit from privatisation and these sell offs have benefited the economy in general. But the sale of the housing stock and other key industries has only exacerbated transfer of wealth and power from the people to corporate organisations.
The de-industrialisation of the economy has contributed to a loss of real earnings so that wages have hardly risen in 30 years. The transfer of the means of production to other nation states has also resulted in a loss of earning power. Trade union power has been emasculated so that workers rights and living standards have been cut without challenge. Millions of people have been forced into low paid self-employment or zero-hours contracts and they are struggling to just feed their families let alone pay bills. Hundreds of thousands are relying on food-banks to make ends meet.
All in all the re-distribution of wealth and reduced earning power has meant that large sections of our society are living without hope of improvement in their living standards. Millions of our citizens have simply been left behind and they have been failed by both major political parties. Millions of people have been forced to turn to obtaining credit from "loan sharks" to make their lives just about bearable.
They are victims of a lack of social housing so that many have to pay almost un-affordable rents to private landlords to find a place to rest their heads. Millions of working people just want to be able to hold their heads up high. They want decent jobs that pay decent wages so that they can have a half decent life and pay their way without hand outs. It is no wonder that they want to kick out against the establishment.
The EU commission is responsible for none of this - all of our wounds are self inflicted.
The British economy, in general, has prospered in recent years after it came out of the financial crisis of 2007/08.
The British economy in the main, however, is a low productivity one which depends on a source of low paid labour which is flexible and which can survive the economic tribulations of zero hours contracts and lay offs. These low paid workers are young and do not have families. And, like all young people without children they are prepared to move house and live in multiple occupation flats. Only young immigrants can tolerate these working conditions.
There is another British economy which requires high skilled workers in information technology, finance,telecommunications, medicine and aerospace etc. There is a shortage of these skills coming from the indigenous population and the only source of these skills is immigrants.
Oh yes, immigration, half of the voters in the referendum were frightened of it, Some of those voters were just xenophobes and many were racists. The poor and disadvantaged voted leave out of protest. Some of the voters were just interested in sovereignty but they all made common cause believing that reducing immigration would solve all our or their problems. It won't as will be seen over the next five to ten years.
The trouble is Britain's economy sucks in immigrants and it cannot grow without them. The economic model relies on either low paid workers or pinching skilled and well educated people from other nations. The Vote Leave leaders have promised economic sunshine but if their model economy is to grow it has to suck in even more immigrants.
If the Vote Leave project fails then the economy will go into recession and then hurrah most of the immigrants will go home. But then many many British people will lose their jobs and the economy will not be able to afford more hospitals, creches and doctors. The housing market will collapse and there will still be a shortage of social housing. Unemployment will bring down wages and the economy will not be able to afford child benefit. We shall be out of the single market and freedom of movement restrictions will mean that young people will have nowhere to go to find work.
There is only one way to help the poor and disadvantaged and bring down the need to import cheap labour. We need a new economic model which re-distributes the wealth and earnings of the nation in favour of the poor and disadvantaged. This will not be achieved by some sort of dangerous ultra-left wing or ultra right wing revolution. We need one nation type politicians such as Clement Attlee or Harold Macmillan to do something for the poor and the struggling middle classes. We need to build houses, hospitals and doctors surgeries. We need an education system that produces well rounded students. We need creches and good health care for our children.We need a workforce that can afford to move location with their families to fill well paid jobs. We need a more productive society. However, to achieve peaceful and sustainable change it will take years. Some people may not have the patience so we could be in for a rough ride. Some politicians are completely opposed to changing the economic model so the situation could become even worse.
Unfortunately the "efficient markets" philosophy which has monopolised economic policy since the 1970's cannot provide an economy which provides for the poor and the struggling middle classes as well as for the rich. Our country has enough resources to provide a decent standard of living for all our poor and disadvantaged people and our immigrants who have contributed enormous sums of wealth to our economy; but our country chooses not to distribute the wealth and income anywhere near equitably.
Vote Leave politicians are going to provide us with more of the same old economic story. We need strong leaders with a completely different vision - come back Attlee and Supermac.
If we cut ourselves off from the European single market to spite our economic faces, in the vain hope of reducing immigration, then we could suffer and the poor will suffer most. There are many Europeans who think the same way as me . It would be better to unite with them to find a better economic solution for all Europeans rather than just carry on with business as usual but without the Bulgarian strawberry pickers. Do you want to see the fruits of an economic recovery left rotting in the field?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
