A RAMBLING RANT ON THE EU REFERENDUM

 Campaign Presentation

So the EU has many faults.

Indeed it does. But so do Westminster, Hampshire County Council, Basingstoke & Deane Borough Council, and countless other authorities within the UK. Even parish and town councils are not faultless, although they are the closest to the people and rarely distorted by party politics.

Yes, the main campaign should not have presented the Bank of England household deficit in such dogmatic terms, but at least the information had some expert under-pinning.

That can hardly be said about ongoing statements about £350m being paid to the EU or the likelihood of Turkey sending over millions of migrants in the foreseeable future. And then there’s all those lies about bananas

The Leave campaign beats on about "Project Fear". Sadly, leaving the EU is likely to have a negative impact on many fronts. Is one supposed to ignore such matters when they are a fundamental consideration in making a potentially drastic change to our circumstances?

If We Were to Leave

If Leave were to win, how would any administration in the foreseeable future handle financial management given that virtually every respectable financial forecasting and management authority has been rubbished by them. This includes the IFS, which so many of the Brexiteers were promoting as a responsible reference point until now, not least during the Scottish Referendum. And how is it that so many of these same critics felt it was essential for the UK to remain "Together" and yet the complete opposite applies for Europe? Does that bring us back to the shaky belief that Westminster really does things so much better, like doctors’ contracts, academies, “devolution” and so on.

The Economy

So we have the fifth strongest economy in the world and “could easily stand alone”. But how did we get there? Clearly being a member of the EU has not hampered as and may well have been the engine for such vibrancy. Germany has a substantially better economy than ours. Despite paying by far the most into the EU, It still manages to prosper and does so by selling products all around the world, unconstrained by alleged EU red tape and bureaucracy.

Security and Immigration

And then we have the nonsense of national security and terrorists gaining access to our Scepter’d Isle. The idiot who murdered Jo Cox MP was certainly not of recent migrant stock, Indeed the opposite. Which terrorist acts within the UK have been perpetrated by nationals from outside the British Isles? Of the many which have happened in recent decades, only Lockerbie would seem to get anywhere near.

There is persistent talk of how awful Schengen is. How it is a threat to our security! Since we are sadly not part of the agreement, it hardly seems relevant. The reintroduction of aggressive border controls might just have a miniscule effect on the movement of those with ill intent, but as already suggested, our biggest historical problem has been internal threats. If tighter controls are such a godsend, we should certainly have them for Scotland, Wales, and all the traditional kingdoms within England. Would such greater "security" really improve quality of life?

And then we have the constantly fudged issue of the border between the Irish Republic and Northern Ireland. Borders are only as good as their weakest point. A border left open between north and south would provide easy access to the UK for all and sundry. A closed border – apart from the expense – would have seriously negative impact both socially and politically.

The issue which appears hardly challenged on the migration topic is why, if we were no longer to have free movement of people around the EU, there will be such a massive reduction, given that the non-EU migration is currently at similar levels, despite total control by the UK government. What is more, the leave campaign is not giving a figure for a reduced amount as they do not expect that to materialise.

Even if it were desirable – and one would have to question that given our dependence on immigrants for so many services – there is no way that numbers could be reduced below 100,000 in the foreseeable future. And yet leave continues to promote the myth of a sizeable reduction in migration as a key selling point.

Peace and Climate

Just leaving the lies and distortions behind for a while, nobody can say that relative peace in Europe has come about because of the EU, but the balance of probability points in that direction. That seems a rather large benefit to cast aside.

What is patently unarguable is that the environment does not recognise national boundaries. In my view, climate change is such a big international issue that skirmishes around national borders will eventually be dwarfed by a worldwide need for climate related action. Working together within the EU on such matters is surely a useful, indeed essential, practice run. At the simplest level, air quality control requires joint and even legislation.

What I probably fear most of all if we finish up with a Leave majority, are the consequences beyond. It is indisputable that those on the Brexit side have almost as many views about how the country should be run (from free market to protectionist) that the idea of a well planned, smooth transition is pie in the sky. Furthermore, ideas of welfare, worker protection and human rights fall into every colour in the spectrum.  How will they ever be reconciled?

Democracy

“Give us back our country” is one of the stupid strap lines used by Leave campaigners. There is even A frequent suggestion that seeking to leave the EU is being patriotic. North Korea has almost complete democratic autonomy. Okay, so that is not appealing beyond there but there is no country in the world of which I am aware which does not share some democracy in some respects. To share democracy is a sign of progress and maturity and recognises that no individual has a right to their nation – as tenancy is just an accident of birth. In many respects our democratic links with the EU are more mature than those practiced within the UK. Take proportional representation for a start. No major EU decisions are taken without input from our elected representatives, via the Council of Ministers. It is OUR government which has largely stood in the way of making the European Parliament more representative. For those who are concerned about “getting our country back”, I suggest that they look at where the biggest chunk of power lies, namely big business. Here again, the EU has a much better track record in combating monopolistic tendencies then our UK government.

Why are there so many people around the world who we consider our friends and who just express shock at the possibility of our leaving the EU.

Worthy of mention is the undoubted fact that unraveling existing treaties and seeking to establish new ones will cost a tidy sum.

The Euro

And a final thought. Many knock the Euro.  Would that have perhaps done better if we had joined? And might it yet rise from its rather wobbly base to greater heights as has happened to the £ in the past?

Where to get the nearest possible to untangled facts

BBC Radio4, in conjunction with the Open University, has a long-running series called “More or Less". They have recently done a wide-ranging analysis of major topics/facts/statistics in relation to the referendum. Well worth visiting at:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b006qshd/episodes/player

If you wish to comment and don't have a "Gmail” account, just select "Name/URL" to make your point.

A Shared Responsibility

I do not like to be ashamed of my home country, but currently I fear I am. 

I am particularly ashamed when people who have seriously risked their own safety as translators for our armed forces and other representatives in the Middle East are denied asylum despite being in mortal danger. 

So what’s the problem?

Our government persists in boasting about how economically successful we are and seemingly – at worst – the fifth richest nation on earth. 

And then, we are claiming to be too crowded as an island! Somehow, successful places like Hong Kong appear to be conveniently overlooked. 

In other words, I argue that we have both the natural resources and space to take a fair share of refugees. This means – as a minimum – the sort of numbers suggested by the EU proposals. If that leads to a certain amount of discomfort, I for one am willing to bear it. 

To suggest that people seeking to migrate to Britain are doing so merely to take advantage of our state benefits is patent nonsense. Not only is that concept proven to be false statistically, but most people would normally much prefer to stay in locations where they are familiar with language, customs, climate and, indeed, where their friends and relations are. The number of people currently on the move is only because of extreme circumstances and because they are in situations from which most of us would seek to escape. 

I am sick of hearing about our proud history of being a sanctuary for the oppressed. Yes, we know we provided homes for children escaping the Nazis, but that was not without some of the British media expressing disgust. 

We had better get used to the importance of “neighbourliness" because nations much poorer than us have been coping with millions of refugees over recent years and they can no longer be expected to absorb such volumes of displaced people. Such pressures are also almost certain to increase if the predictions of climate experts come about. 

Will we still sit back in our armchairs and say "What a shame, but not our problem"? The time will then come when the problem could become ours by force rather than consent.

If you wish to comment and don't have a "Gmail” account, just select "Name/URL" to make your point.

In Whose Interests are They Working?

So now both Basingstoke and Deane and the Westminster government have working Tory majorities. 

As we approach the first hundred days of these administrations, how are things looking? 

It is the performance of central government which is proving to be the most disappointing, indeed shocking. As I write these thoughts, the RBS giveaway to banking mates in the city has just been dropped upon us. Of course, time may tell that this was a brilliant strategic move, but I can't help feeling that sufficient clear-thinking experts are expressing doubts about the wisdom of this action for it to leave serious discomfort. 

Where, to my mind, there can be little doubt about completely flawed decision-making is on refugees; (something I intend to return to on a later occasion), "Right to Buy" from housing associations, and the Green Agenda.

The right to buy must be about as stupid as it gets and can only be put down to the most crass of popularism. Here we are with a serious deficit in social housing and the government is going to diminish the pool yet further. The replacement argument is a nonsense as no practical methodology has yet been put forward and even in the council house version of this ruse, the promised replacements have still to materialise. As the private rental arena is so in need of repair, the eventual outcome can only be yet more homelessness. 

The so-called green agenda is both deceitful and tragic. "The Greenest Government Ever" is proving to be the biggest lie ever, despite the fact it was a pretty low target to achieve in the first place. Ministers continue to say that we are world leaders in combating climate change and yet nearly every week takes us a step backwards. One of the biggest deceits is the contrivance that renewable energy generation is taking a disproportionate amount of subsidy when that is emphatically more the case with the nuclear power industry. And we still have no idea how we are going to handle the consequences of waste from nuclear power. Wouldn't it be marvellous if the government poured only a 10th of the subsidy given to nuclear power into energy storage (probably battery) technology instead. That would allow the increasingly efficient solar and wind power industries to become even more relevant. It is ironic that this government is drawing back from green initiatives just as China and the USA are finally taking concrete steps forward! 

Election Aftermath

So the dust of the elections has now settled. 

Like nearly everybody else, I did not expect any party to achieve an overall majority at national level. How wrong we were!

Despite the muc-voiced suggestion that “strong" government is good for the country, I rather prefer coalition. This means that the largest party must take into consideration the views of others, leading to decisions which are more likely to be in line with the electorate at large. Either way, this election has not led to a fair outcome, especially for some of the smaller parties. It is also not fair that the Scottish Nationalists have such overwhelming representation. Whilst I admire the abilities of Nicola Sturgeon, I do not believe that it is healthy for any single political party to have such disproportionate over-representation. It will be amazing if this does not eventually lead to arrogance and possibly corruption. 

As regards the local elections, these were obviously swamped by all the media attention to Westminster and political parties. This did at least lead to a record 70% turnout in Chineham, but did me no favours in seeking re-election. Despite receiving my highest ever vote, I was narrowly pipped at the post by my Conservative Party competitor. As a resident of only nine months, I do not believe her vote was based on local knowledge or engagement, but time will tell as to how she fulfils her new role. 

The election has meant a slightly enhanced Tory majority on the borough council, which again I feel is to the detriment of residents. The borough Conservatives are now slipping back into their old bad habits of excluding opposition members whenever they can. What a shame.

The dust may have settled on the May elections, but nationally Bird to London it is I'm waiting for 3 o'clock the chain compassion was asking for the sake of full time in two minutes magically about I foresee many storm clouds ahead, not least on Europe, devolution, human rights and “right to buy”. 

And locally, where will all the extra houses go as a result of the most shocking legacy of Basingstoke Tory mismanagement, the Local Plan?

If you wish to comment and don't have a "Gmail” account, just select "Name/URL" to make your point.