Brexit We only have ourselves to blame

In February 2016 I attended meeting organised by the Fabian Society in Manchester to discuss the (then) forthcoming referendum on the EU. I asked why the ordinary working person should vote to Remain when they had faced years of stagnating wages and real loss of purchasing power. I remember clearly that the answers given were unsatisfactory – Andy Burnham said they should vote to Remain as the only beneficiary of a Leave vote would be Vladimir Putin?? Others pulled concerned looking faces. I said in aside that if we voted to Leave the rest of Europe would consider the UK a basket case. I voted Remain and happened to be in Oxford on 24th June. Going for a morning swim at the Holiday Inn that day one of the locals (who used the Leisure Club facilities) asked in a very friendly manner “How you doing – alright?” to which I replied “No I am not alright – the lunatics have taken over the asylum!” The friendly local smiled and let me get on with my swim. My analysis of the developing situation thus far is that the failure of Cameron’s reckless gamble to silence the Right Wing ideologues in the Conservative Party has plunged the Country into both a political and intellectual crisis. The politics are fairly straightforward – Brexiteers are overwhelmingly Free Market fanatics who would certainly be no friend or supporter of the ordinary working person no matter what they say before exiting the EU. Intellectually the debate has been appalling. It is not just that the same facts are wilfully mis-interpreted by Leavers and Remainers but that the former consider calling the national interest being a “Little Englander” and the latter believing the national interest to be their private property. Meanwhile the EU negotiators feel perplexity, glee at opportunities to get their own way and that the UK is engineering its own punishment without any help from Brussels all at the same time! On the Remain side the shallowness of the desire to reverse the decision can be seen from the Editorial in The Independent of 26th July. Here the argument is made that free movement of labour must be retained to preserve the NHS even to the extent of accepting a role for the ECJ. Facts do not seem to matter. If there is a need for Doctors and Nurses does anyone think the government is going to say you cannot enter UK because the quota (or whatever) has been reached and British citizens will have worse health provision. This is without indicating financial incentives to attract such staff. Moreover the British people are generous and welcoming – yes the number of EU nationals coming has dropped 25% but I do not believe that the vote has altered attitudes to the extent that EU nationals are no longer welcome. Far from it! In any event as the UK develops its policy on EU nationals I think they will find protection via Treaty and our Supreme Court is a better option than anything the ECJ can offer. The EU proposal to have continuing oversight by the ECJ is completely unacceptable to any sovereign nation and exists no where else despite the protestations of Guy Verhofstadt (aka in local hostelries as that Belgian windbag). I do not want to spend too much time on the bureaucrats view (this is very complicated and requires more of us to deal with it). Suffice to say in my varied experience (some £bn deals) if you pay too much attention to them (bureaucrats) you end up disappearing up your own rectum! On the Leave side the Free Trade fanatics seem to think it will just happen i.e. April 2019 in a couple of weeks all trade will be reorganised and there will just be this short blip. We all know this is nonsense and disruption of that magnitude must be avoided – but you would not think so if you read the Mail and Telegraph or followed the Adam Smith Institute on Twitter (a work of the Devil if ever there was one!) Business says it wants certainty and hopefully continuity and that is the voice of experience and should be given the required level of consideration. The UK is not without many strengths in these negotiations with the EU and we should be prepared to use them all. Just reflect on the Remainers concerns that people (EU Nationals in the UK) were being used as bargaining chips. What do you think now with the EU response to the UK offer. Does not the stench of hypocrisy disturb? Put yourself in the position of Russia. It is said with evidence that Reagan assured Gorbachev that NATO would not expand eastwards! Now see what has happened! So Germany now has a number of “buffer states” between it and Russia and without making the requisite contribution to defence. At the same time as engineering economic dominance of continental Europe. One last thought for this evening would all this have occurred if the UK had been more assertive in European Affairs – probably not – so in may respects much of this is our own fault – mainly sins of omission! Thank you Blair and Cameron.

BREXIT More Analysis and less Hysteria

Another day another round of hysteria and hyperbole from the visual and printed media. Today (27^th April 2017) Chancellor Merkel is reported to have said: “An EU-UK deal can only be discussed once the exit issues - such as UK payments to the EU budget - are resolved, Mrs Merkel told German MPs.”. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-39730326).

Ambrose Evans-Pritchard in the Daily Telegraph (27^th April 2017 Business Comment p.2) suggests that the hardening German attitude means Britain needs a Plan B and his view this could be unilateral Free Trade. Hopefully most will not fall for this idealogical right wing fantasy.

It must be like a never ending Christmas and New Year Party for Journalists – news (very little); opinion and comment (far too much); speculation and conjecture (its an epidemic!); rigorous analysis (hardly any – Economist and Financial Times excepted).

I wonder if all of this has anything to do with:

a) the print and visual media are based in London and by far overwhelm alternative views throughout Britain;

b) many of those who believe BREXIT will affect them adversely are based in London;

c) people in a) and b) above converse with each other all the time hence the agenda is as described – resulting in the Shakespearean “woe is me” syndrome. In the real world also known as running around like a headless chickens.

Now I am not at all complacent about BREXIT negotiations but all we have had at the moment is posturing and sabre rattling. Ever the optimist (not unwisely, I have been involved with some very big negotiations sometimes leading, worth £ ms and in one case£ bns. In the end, on most occasions, rational self interest supersedes the posturing. This is much more difficult where politicians are involved who whilst they do make deals the criteria are not always strictly business oriented. But when analysed does the EU want to end up in a position of mutual financial pain as the price for retaining political union for a little while longer? We shall see. Negotiations start in June this year.

Things to be analysed rigorously:

1) what is the legal basis for the so called exit bill?

2) what evidence can the EU offer to support its claim that it is negotiating in good faith? I would suggest that even allowing Spain to try and include Gibralter in the settlement is not a good sign.

3) How trustworthy is Juncker (you know that jumped up Mayor of Luxembourg who happens to be the Commission President? A man who at best presided over numerous sweetheart tax deals with companies that disadvantaged his fellow EU Members.

4) When is Germany going to admit that the expansion eastwards of the EU following the collapse of the Soviet Empire has provided buffers for them at the expense of those countries once client states of the Soviet Union? Moreover Germany has a security guarantee to which they contribute less than should be the case at the same time as enforcing economic pre-eminence via the EuroZone.

This is painful for me as a Europhile and Remain voter but in these negotiations we have to be as ruthless as we can and need to be so nothing should be off the table.

PS. I’ll still be voting Labour despite JC.

Something really nasty in parts of the British polity

The referendum of 23^rd June this year has unleashed some pretty nasty public displays of bigotry, intolerance if not downright racism and has shown a worrying disregard to facts and logic. Yes I did vote to remain but I fully accept the result and we have to leave the EU. However the reaction to the decision of the High Court (03/11/2016) in some quarters cannot be excused as a mere excess of febrility. Below are some of the headlines (04/11/2016) in the printed media:

Daily Telegraph:-

“The Judges versus the people”

Nigel Farage quoted as saying:

“Voters aren't going to let this incredible

arrogance lie”

Daily Mail:-

“Enemies of the people (Fury over 'out of touch' judges who defied 17.4m Brexit voters and could trigger a constitutional crisis”

Daily Express:-

“We must get out of the EU

Three judges yesterday blocked Brexit

Now your country really does need you...”

Sun:-

“Who do EU think you are?

Judges Brexit blow. Loaded foreign elite defy will of Brit voters”

Some facts:

1) Referendum result: Leave 17,410,742 (51.9%); Remain 16,141,241 (48.1%) (BBC News). So while these newspapers might want you to believe that some great injustice has or is about to be imposed on the British people there are many millions who probably consider this result to be pretty evenly balanced. As for arrogance I think these figures suggest that it would at the very least be mis-placed by either party.

2) The judgement was about process not the substantive issue. In simple terms the exercise of the Royal prerogative is constrained by existing Acts of Parliament (1610) and the Bill of Rights 1688. Membership of the EU conferred on British Citizens rights via the European Act of 1972. It follows that any attempt to remove or contemplate such removal of those rights has to receive the approval of Parliament. Monarchs once claimed the Divine right to rule – 1610 and 1688 said no – Parliament is sovereign!

“(The Lord Chief Justice said the Government’s attempts to trigger Article 50 without consulting MPs were “contrary to the fundamental constitutional principles of the sovereignty of Parliament”. The judgement concludes: “We decide that the Government does not have the power under the Crown’s prerogative to give notice pursuant to Article 50 for the UK to withdraw from the European Union.)” Courtesy Independent 04/11/2016.

Since the judgement is about process Brexit is not blocked!

3) Trust the Sun to nuance dislike and mis-trust of non indigenous British people.

“The People’s Challenge is a crowd-funded coalition of citizens against Brexit, including members who are ex-pats living abroad, as well as citizens in Gibraltar and Northern Ireland. Investment manager Gina Miller and hairdresser Deir Dos Santos were also chief claimants in the case against the Government.”Courtesy Independent 04/11/2016.

4) Speaking as a person residing in the Provinces (Cheshire actually) to hear metropolitan newspapers talk about an elite and out of touch just makes me laugh – they really ought to get out more! Do more real research and analysis and stop portraying gossip as reality.

Declining reputation of Journalism

On 21^st May Amol Rajan (Editor of The Independent) wrote about the confrontations between Donald Trump and Megyn Kelly of Fox News. He made the point, quite rightly, that “..For a civilised society to advance, there needs to be a reasonably settled view of what we call facts: sequential events that we can all agree have taken place.” In saying this Amol Rajan attacked, again quite rightly, Trump's attempts to simply deny and/or ignore facts as we understand them. He goes on to identify that many (not just in the USA) do not believe what the News Media and Journalists in particular tell them. How has this come to pass? Moreover how on earth could a significant minority of people believe/support what Trump says? One could engage in a heavy discussion about truth and meaning in the philosophical sense but where I do agree with Amol Rajan is facts are important and that these are generally accepted events and happenings as well as scientifically based true representations of reality.

It is my view that much of the declining reputation of Journalism is due to two principal reasons: first the expansion of news presentation particularly 24 hour visual media together with the accompanying expansion in the numbers involved – paid and unpaid; and secondly much greater awareness by the general public of the distinction between fact and opinion – not always evident in News and Journalism.

The expansion of news presentation leads to competition for readers/viewers as revenues depend on audience numbers. Slightly different for the BBC but it is clear they still compete for viewers/listeners/readers. In the end News has to be sold! The visual media demands/requires attractive presentation and time constraints which work against rigorous analysis and accuracy . This is a diversion from truth telling and reporting things as they are! The myriad of players (they all term themselves as Journalists but whether they are depends on what they do). Reading the news does not make one a journalist even if you have been trained it should be much more than that! I certainly do not claim to be Journalist only a mere commentator with life experiences. The expansion has seen people pursuing their own stories sometimes admirable stuff sometimes celebrity voyeurism. This expansion therefore leads to confusion as to what is Journalism and what is no more than gossip. It also diverts attention away from the seeking of truth and rigorous analysis.

The absence in much of the media of a clear distinction between fact and opinion has also contributed to the decline in the reputation of journalism. Sometimes the Journalist cannot help themselves particularly if they are “reporting” politics. How often have we heard, “..the agenda has now moved on...”; “..the issue is now...”. It is likely that these ideas were input from an external source maybe sometimes in the media and sometimes from a politician. Remember the old adage: “Just because you say it does not make it so!” Which brings us back to Trump. Don't give up Independent, New York Times, Economist, Washington Post. Trump is an ignorant, loud mouthed, egotistical and dangerous opportunist and while the political elites in both the USA and Europe have much to answer for Trump is not the answer more a nightmare for reasonable discourse.

Labour and Syria November 2015

Jeremy Corbyn is Leader of the Labour Party. In the context of British politics he is of the Left. A Backbencher in the Commons for many years and a serial breaker of the Labour Whip. A couple of years ago the Prime Minister lost a vote in the Commons seeking to extend a bombing campaign into Syria in support of rebels opposing the Assad regime (by any measure a tyrant determined to hold onto power by any means including the use of chemical weapons). Syria was and is allied to Russia.

By general consensus our escapades in the Middle East and North Africa have not been a success. Indeed it could be argued that our actions (with the USA, France and others) have ensured that what we describe as 'failed/dysfunctional states' become ruined 'failed/dysfunctional states'. It can also be argued that, the space created by making a 'failed state' a certainty by our intervention, would be filled by terrorists. This has come to pass. We now have ISIL/Da'esh – an extreme Jihadist organisation which some have described as a death cult in both Iraq and Syria. I agree. Its origins are in the sands of Arabia – but of that more another time. Having filled the space in Iraq they then moved into Syria and we have the catastrophe that now exists. Where are these 'gung-ho' Liberal Interventionists now! Just because it worked in Kosovo does not mean it works everywhere and in all circumstances.

The Prime Minister (a third rate Public Relations person with an attitude of entitlement) is now coming back seeking (or he will when he thinks he has enough votes) the authorization of the Commons for an air Campaign in Syria as well as Iraq against Da'esh. (UK is already operational in Iraq following a request from their Government).

Reading carefully the Prime Minister's statement and the questions from Jeremy Corbyn (Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition) I see that the argument is framed in terms of the protection of UK citizens i.e. security and safety. This is of great importance but we cannot ignore the terrorist murders in Paris on 13^th November nor those in Beirut, Ankara, Baghdad and other places. President Hollande of France is surely correct that what we face is nothing less than the attempted destruction of our civilization. I am with him and all people who desire a free, pluralistic, democratic and worthwhile place in this world. So my first point is that we must stand and act in solidarity with the French and all like minded people. This does mean an air campaign in Syria against Da'esh.

It is disingenuous to query the UNSC resolution 2249 which clearly states:-

“Noting the letters dated 25^th June and 20^th September 2014 from the Iraqi authorities which state that Da'esh has established a safe haven outside Iraq's borders that is a direct threat to the the security of the Iraqi people and territory,….

5) Calls upon Member States that have the capacity to do so take all necessary measures,…...”

This clearly shows that Da'esh (an enemy who we are attacking in Iraq) is now also in Syria. It follows that we should attack them there!. “All necessary measures” could also not be more clear. It is not restrictive nor conditional (save legality under International Law which it would be!)!

We need to be involved showing solidarity with our French cousins and in support of our way of life. The more strength politically and diplomatically we would have if we were also involved militarily. A country cannot be semi-detached militarily but fully attached politically and diplomatically. You may wish it otherwise but that is not the case. Nobody loves or indeed listens to the pontifications of some sanctimonious moraliser who refuses to get his/her hands dirty. So most important are the political and diplomatic positions. Militarily our contribution will be small but the political and diplomatic benefits make it very worthwhile.

What is important is the endgame/exit strategy. We should use are full engagement to ensure, as far as we are able:-

cease fire between Assad and his non Da'esh enemies, creation of safe havens in Iraq and Syria, humanitarian aid, re-construction and sustainable democratic institutions in both countries. This will not be a quick fix but it is better to try than not or even worse just sit on the sidelines carping and wringing your hands.

Then perhaps Labour can get on with its historic task of making this country more equal and an even better place to live.

Why Jeremy Corbyn will deliver the exact opposite of what he wishes

'Were things other than they are': ought to be the motto of Jeremy Corbyn. To read his proposals one would think that all the events of the last 40 years had not occurred and if they are recognised they can be wished away. Dangerous, naive nonsense!

First let us dispose of the 'motherhood and apple pie':-“...a fairer, kinder Britain...”; “...decent jobs...”; “Fair taxes for all...” etc. etc.. Nobody is against this sort of stuff!

“Growth not austerity”, Jeremy Corbyn has to show that this proposal will retain the confidence of the money markets. He has failed to do so. Markets are less rational than he would believe (strangely common ground with neo-liberals in believing that they are). Academics can produce all the statistics they like about rational behaviour in markets but it is not the whole story. Consider this: a huge house building programme, nationalisation of transport and energy; not replacing Trident, lifelong education. Don't get me wrong these are all proper policies but they are (in our present circumstances) undeliverable for this UK electorate. Moreover the circumstances are not going to change substantially. The globalisation train left the station years ago. World financial markets are very integrated. In that context then how is Jeremy Corbyn going to finance his projects – short answer he cannot – its pie in the sky!

But progress can be made if rolling back neo-liberal excess is what is required and that certainly is the case. Starting at the right place is important – let's take energy and transport. These utilities which are now at best oligopolies require licences to operate, the government has control over that process. Licence conditions as to price increases, customer service, Company Accounts transparency and profit levels are possible as well as extending FOI provisions to them. That these companies would squeal is to be expected – all I would say is that in the short consultation period all representations would have to be made public at the end of the consultation period. This is how to tackle the clear abuse of market position that has occurred with the 'botched' Tory privatisations which assumed that natural monopolies and/or oligopolies would behave differently from the more rapacious examples in the private sector. That sort of naive thinking is of the same ilk as Jeremy Corbyn.

So apart from the unlikely event of Jeremy Corbyn becoming Prime Minister just proposing such policies ensures that Labour cannot win allowing the Conservative Party even more leeway to attack ordinary people. So I would urge all those who have a vote not to use it for Jeremy Corbyn. The road to hell and all that – with the addition of McCluskyite, Moronic, Marxists.

UK Economic Prospects with an Election Coming

At my age I should know better than pay much attention to what Politicians say particularly at the time of an election. However what we have is; Eurozone deflation, Japan in its third decade of stagnation, oil price collapse, political instability in the Middle East and on the Russia - Ukraine border, slowdown in China, UK and Eurozone printing money (asset bubble in the offing yet again!) and UK debt increasing all against the background of increasing inequality in wealth and income. Is it too much to ask for a bit of statesmanship and international vision? The evidence thus far is that I do ask too much. Nevertheless let us analyse what we can in the UK with an eye on international implications.

The Coalition Government has reduced the structural deficit i.e. the amount borrowed to support day to day spending. Yes that's right our day to day expenditure continues to exceed our income!! - the shortfall being made up by borrowing. This Government said that it would have eliminated this deficit by 2014/15 financial year. The Office of Budget Responsibility in December 2014 (Economic and Fiscal Outlook) states that (with a whole load of assumptions about growth performance, tax receipts and commitment from an incoming Government to very large further cuts in Public Expenditure) then this deficit could be eliminated in 2018/19. Who was it who said the best indicator of future performance is past performance! So the past 5 years have seen debt grow not decline. This should put into context any claims that this Government has the nous and will to achieve what is now being claimed.

The Labour Party and the centre Left give the impression that they will be fiscally responsible and the unspoken (or not yet spelt out clearly enough) policy is one of growing the economy out of the doldrums. Yet again we hit the issue of performance. The UK economy has found it very difficult to sustain growth in GDP of 3% per annum without problems - mainly inflation and balance of payments. However past experience does show that a Centre Left government would seriously attempt to do something about the gross and growing inequalities of wealth and income in the UK and other economies seduced by the neo-liberal/conservative supply side/trickle down fantasy.

So on balance I say go for growth (and get the Banks to fully repay their debts to the Country after 2007/8) in concert with other like minded Centre Left parties in Europe and North America.