Thursday, 31 August 2017
Je ne regrette rien
Mr Corbyn has principles and holds to them. Why then does he claim to be for a soft Brexit but tacitly support the jump-off-the-cliff option. For example, in June Mr Umunna, a Labour MP, tried prodding the Conservatives into giving some guarantees over Brexit. His proposed motion of 'regret' said:
[We] respectfully regret that the Gracious Speech does not rule out withdrawal from the EU without a deal, guarantee a Parliamentary vote on any final outcome to negotiations, set out transitional arrangements to maintain jobs, trade and certainty for business, set out proposals to remain within the Customs Union and Single Market, set out clear measures to respect the competencies of the devolved administrations, and include clear protections for EU nationals living in the UK now, including retaining their right to remain in the UK, and reciprocal rights for UK citizens.
Mr Corbyn instructed Labour MPs to abstain from voting on this. He even sacked members of his cabinet who defied him to vote in support of Mr Umunna's motion.
Mr Umunna was only asking for our own government to tell its own citizens what it is planning to do, in the most important economic u-turn we have made in decades.
Not a single Conservative MP supported the motion. Altogether, out of 423 votes, there were only 101 votes for it. Yet the motion was simply stating that in a democracy the people and their representatives should be told what the government is doing and have control over it.
Mrs May's control-freakery won't let her agree to this, and Mr Corbyn's wish for a break with the EU means he is willing to stand by and watch.
Of course, there is the possibility that he will be PM soon. Given his political background and the changes he intends for the British system, he would certainly welcome a culture of more centralisation of power and less interference in politically-driven programmes.
Wednesday, 30 August 2017
Settled status
Imagine this if you can. You are 21, working, and law-abiding. Your grandparents are English, your parents are English, you were born in England and have never lived anywhere else. You have a driving licence, a bank account, and an NI number. Then you receive a letter telling you to leave the UK or be deported.
Why? Because your English grandparents went on holiday to Australia and your mother (who has an English passport) happened to be born while they were there.
Or maybe you came to the UK 24 years ago, studied maths at Cambridge University and married an Englishman. You are a software developer and have two teenage children. You decide to apply for British citizenship post-Referendum - and are refused due to an error at the Home Office, and told you must leave. You are also told you may not discuss your case with anyone else and that you can only communicate with the Home Office by letter. When you make a formal complaint you are told that your complaint does not actually qualify as a complaint.
Both cases are in the news - how many more are not?
The Vote Leave manifesto promised it would treat EU citizens ‘no less favourably than at present’, but Mrs May has ignored this in her plan for "settled status" - a form of second-class citizenship, where the person cannot even work abroad ("Settled status would generally be lost if a person was absent from the UK for more than two years" - from May's proposal) and will have to have an identity card.
All EU citizens now in the UK will have to apply for settled status - even if they already have been granted permanent residency.
As one London businesswoman says, “I work, pay taxes, create jobs, integrate well, respect the culture and laws. If I am not welcome anymore, it's Britain's loss.”
Why? Because your English grandparents went on holiday to Australia and your mother (who has an English passport) happened to be born while they were there.
Or maybe you came to the UK 24 years ago, studied maths at Cambridge University and married an Englishman. You are a software developer and have two teenage children. You decide to apply for British citizenship post-Referendum - and are refused due to an error at the Home Office, and told you must leave. You are also told you may not discuss your case with anyone else and that you can only communicate with the Home Office by letter. When you make a formal complaint you are told that your complaint does not actually qualify as a complaint.
Both cases are in the news - how many more are not?
The Vote Leave manifesto promised it would treat EU citizens ‘no less favourably than at present’, but Mrs May has ignored this in her plan for "settled status" - a form of second-class citizenship, where the person cannot even work abroad ("Settled status would generally be lost if a person was absent from the UK for more than two years" - from May's proposal) and will have to have an identity card.
All EU citizens now in the UK will have to apply for settled status - even if they already have been granted permanent residency.
As one London businesswoman says, “I work, pay taxes, create jobs, integrate well, respect the culture and laws. If I am not welcome anymore, it's Britain's loss.”
Sunday, 27 August 2017
Exceptionalism
Despite its woes, Greece wants to remain in the EU. Russia fomented civil war in the Ukraine fearing their neighbour was heading for EU membership. Ukraine would have joined a throng of Eastern European countries already in the EU - enlargement to the east was something that the UK strongly backed. Most UK MPs backed Remain. Scotland and Northern Ireland voted for Remain. London and businesses voted Remain.
However we are now told that we will be better without the EU. Leaving aside sovereignty and 'control of our borders', both of which we already had, the third argument is economic. We will take a hit to start with, but then we will be able to make trade agreements unfettered by the EU.
These agreements will have to be quite impressive if they are to beat our current deal - tariff-free access to one of the world's largest market. Not only tariff-free but also free of non-tariff barriers. No customs inspections means no delays during transport, while a harmonised market means that whatever we produce can be sold directly into EU markets without any extra cost - with no extra safety testing, no extra labelling, and so on.
So how is it that some politicians believe we are an exception? That we can go it alone with more success than working in a team? Their claim is founded on a rosy view of the British Empire, in two ways. The empire in itself shows how brilliant the British are at trade, while its successor, the Commonwealth, is a huge market whose members will rush to trade with us if only we would let them.
Only 10% of our exports go to Commonwealth countries, compared to 44% going to the EU. So we will have to be as nice as we can to potential partners. Mr Hammond has even said we will need to rely on the generosity of other nations when we deal with them.
So what do our ex-colonies want in return? Err..., easy immigration.
Trade or strong borders? Hmm, haven't we been here before? I feel a referendum coming on.
However we are now told that we will be better without the EU. Leaving aside sovereignty and 'control of our borders', both of which we already had, the third argument is economic. We will take a hit to start with, but then we will be able to make trade agreements unfettered by the EU.
These agreements will have to be quite impressive if they are to beat our current deal - tariff-free access to one of the world's largest market. Not only tariff-free but also free of non-tariff barriers. No customs inspections means no delays during transport, while a harmonised market means that whatever we produce can be sold directly into EU markets without any extra cost - with no extra safety testing, no extra labelling, and so on.
So how is it that some politicians believe we are an exception? That we can go it alone with more success than working in a team? Their claim is founded on a rosy view of the British Empire, in two ways. The empire in itself shows how brilliant the British are at trade, while its successor, the Commonwealth, is a huge market whose members will rush to trade with us if only we would let them.
Only 10% of our exports go to Commonwealth countries, compared to 44% going to the EU. So we will have to be as nice as we can to potential partners. Mr Hammond has even said we will need to rely on the generosity of other nations when we deal with them.
So what do our ex-colonies want in return? Err..., easy immigration.
Trade or strong borders? Hmm, haven't we been here before? I feel a referendum coming on.
Saturday, 26 August 2017
Going it alone
The Brexit white paper includes the line: “Whilst Parliament has remained sovereign throughout our membership of the EU, it has not always felt like that.”
In other words Brexit won't give us sovereignty (we already have it), what it will give us is the feeling of sovereignty.
¿Que?
Clearly, in order to keep this feeling fresh we will need to exercise our sovereignty more robustly. We will have to refuse to pass laws that other nations ask for.
So if we have sovereignty already, why on earth are we passing these laws?
The laws we have adopted from the EU (the ones that will be dealt with by the Great Repeal Bill) are intended to harmonise laws over the whole EU. This is to make trade easier, to protect our rights, and to protect us (e.g. from criminals selling horsemeat as beef).
Leaving the EU means we can assert ourselves:
- Bring back pounds and ounces, feet and inches, grains and ells - though we couldn't sell things in Europe unless we made separate metric packaging, of course.
- Enact Mrs May's Snooper's Charter that the EU struck down due to privacy concerns - allowing the "general and indiscriminate retention of internet data". Take care where you surf!
- Invade Spain - currently rather difficult as Spain is in the EU too, but once we leave the gloves are off. Once Gibralter is sorted then Normandy should be next.
Obviously these are just some ideas that our leaders have had. There is scope for much more.
Of course the downside of going it alone is that if we don't fit in then no-one will play with us. If we want a trade deal with the US then we need to fit in with them and make laws allowing the sale of hormone-laced beef and chlorine-flavoured chicken. If we want to sell financial services to the EU then our banks will need to to fit in and obey EU regulations.
The only truly sovereign country in the world today is North Korea.
Associate Unmembership
David Hills suggests an "associate unmembership" scheme to offer to keen Leavers where the UK remains in the EU but they can have the "benefits" of leaving - e.g. requiring visas and health insurance to visit the EU and a work permit to take a job there. Clearly this is simply a humorous way of presenting the drawbacks of Brexit, as Leavers didn't vote for those. However it does bring up an important point: What would the actual benefits be for the unmembers?
The promises made by the Leave campaign (money for the NHS and reduced immigration, amongst others) seem destined never to be honoured. Which leaves sovereignty.
I understand that to Leavers "sovereignty" means being able to make our own laws, and presumably not having to make laws if we don't want to. Clearly we can and always have been able to make our own laws, so presumably Leavers object to the laws passed by our own Parliament in order to keep us in line with the EU. These are laws which protect human rights and our privacy, and promote trade, so seem odd to object to them - it seems the Daily Mail's alternative facts campaigns worked.
It seems some also object to the fact that British subjects can, as EU citizens, appeal to the European Court of Justice (ECJ)... except that isn't true. The ECJ deals with the application of EU law to national law. It is up to UK courts to refer questions to the ECJ.
The court ordinary people can appeal to is the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) which is nothing to do with the EU. It was established by the Council of Europe, and we will remain a member - irrespective of Brexit. This is the court that generates headlines about repatriating terrorists, so I suppose the Daily Mail editor is actually rather glad we are keeping it. However if sovereignty is important we really do need to give them the heave-ho too.
Maybe we should have a referendum on it.
The promises made by the Leave campaign (money for the NHS and reduced immigration, amongst others) seem destined never to be honoured. Which leaves sovereignty.
I understand that to Leavers "sovereignty" means being able to make our own laws, and presumably not having to make laws if we don't want to. Clearly we can and always have been able to make our own laws, so presumably Leavers object to the laws passed by our own Parliament in order to keep us in line with the EU. These are laws which protect human rights and our privacy, and promote trade, so seem odd to object to them - it seems the Daily Mail's alternative facts campaigns worked.
It seems some also object to the fact that British subjects can, as EU citizens, appeal to the European Court of Justice (ECJ)... except that isn't true. The ECJ deals with the application of EU law to national law. It is up to UK courts to refer questions to the ECJ.
The court ordinary people can appeal to is the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) which is nothing to do with the EU. It was established by the Council of Europe, and we will remain a member - irrespective of Brexit. This is the court that generates headlines about repatriating terrorists, so I suppose the Daily Mail editor is actually rather glad we are keeping it. However if sovereignty is important we really do need to give them the heave-ho too.
Maybe we should have a referendum on it.
Friday, 25 August 2017
Foreign goods
A German supermarket made a valid point when it emptied its shelves of 'foreign goods', replacing them with signs saying things such as "We are poorer without diversity". Some people didn't get it, taking it literally and saying "hey, we want the foreign stuff, it's the foreigners we don't want" - even so it would be great to see a supermarket doing the same here. The hard-of-thinking may not understand, but many will grasp the intended parallel - that a country without immigrants is as limited as a supermarket without overseas products.
Clearly immigration should be restricted, in the same way that supermarkets choose which products to stock. There are even advantages to highly restrictive rules, as the wages of the lowest paid may well go up (though the evidence shows that immigration has almost no effect on wages in general). Of course the people taking those jobs will no longer be immigrants, so either they will have been downsized from better jobs (the fewer people there are in a country the fewer jobs there are) or they will be forced to take the jobs due to benefit cuts (if GDP is lower, the tax take is smaller). Furthermore, the cost of living will be higher, so the higher wages will buy less.
The real question is how much to restrict immigration. Surely the test should be how much we benefit from it (though humanitarian grounds should also be considered, such as spouses and children). Given that EU immigrants contribute more than they take, the demands to throw them out appear to be due to xenophobia rather than economics.
The irony is that we have always had control of immigration - EU members are allowed to deport citizens of other EU countries if they become a burden on the welfare system. In the UK our rules are that EU job seekers cannot claim benefits for the first three months and can be deported after six months if they haven't found a job. So they pay their taxes but we don't pay them benefits.
Free movement of labour means exactly that - it doesn't mean benefit tourism, it means workers getting on their bikes to find jobs. With more workers living and spending in the UK it also means more jobs created, lower taxes, and cheaper services.
Clearly immigration should be restricted, in the same way that supermarkets choose which products to stock. There are even advantages to highly restrictive rules, as the wages of the lowest paid may well go up (though the evidence shows that immigration has almost no effect on wages in general). Of course the people taking those jobs will no longer be immigrants, so either they will have been downsized from better jobs (the fewer people there are in a country the fewer jobs there are) or they will be forced to take the jobs due to benefit cuts (if GDP is lower, the tax take is smaller). Furthermore, the cost of living will be higher, so the higher wages will buy less.
The real question is how much to restrict immigration. Surely the test should be how much we benefit from it (though humanitarian grounds should also be considered, such as spouses and children). Given that EU immigrants contribute more than they take, the demands to throw them out appear to be due to xenophobia rather than economics.
The irony is that we have always had control of immigration - EU members are allowed to deport citizens of other EU countries if they become a burden on the welfare system. In the UK our rules are that EU job seekers cannot claim benefits for the first three months and can be deported after six months if they haven't found a job. So they pay their taxes but we don't pay them benefits.
Free movement of labour means exactly that - it doesn't mean benefit tourism, it means workers getting on their bikes to find jobs. With more workers living and spending in the UK it also means more jobs created, lower taxes, and cheaper services.
Trade deals
The USA seems to be the main hope for a post-Brexit trade deal - rather a concern when we consider who the current president is. In terms of insularity you could argue that his world view matches that of the anti-immigration campaigners who supported Leave, however Mr Trump's focus is on the USA (well, mostly himself but the USA after that), so why would he favour a deal with us?
The Gropenführer (his bedside reading includes a book of Hitler's speeches) has said NATO members have to be fully paid up if they want US troops to defend them. Fair enough, he isn't providing any discounts even if it is the the best interests of the USA. This may prove problematic of course when it comes to trade - he believes the USA has "some of the worst trade deals ever in history". So we shouldn't expect any favours.
He is also rather unreliable, with fake news, false promises (shades of the Brexit campaign) and U-turns (Mrs May would be proud). Our own Mr Johnson claimed we would be first in line for a deal, but Mr Trump has now put the EU first (the EU that we are currently in but are leaving). Hardly surprising as USA-EU trade is around eight times bigger than USA-UK trade.
Though it may be a blessing in disguise if we fail to do a deal. Chlorine-flavoured chicken, hormone-soaked beef, GMO foods, NHS privatisation, higher drug prices - these are all likely consequences of a deal.
Still, with Mr Fox saying that we will need a two-year transition period and given that negotiations can't start till after that finishes, maybe we will be dealing with a new president anyway.
The Gropenführer (his bedside reading includes a book of Hitler's speeches) has said NATO members have to be fully paid up if they want US troops to defend them. Fair enough, he isn't providing any discounts even if it is the the best interests of the USA. This may prove problematic of course when it comes to trade - he believes the USA has "some of the worst trade deals ever in history". So we shouldn't expect any favours.
He is also rather unreliable, with fake news, false promises (shades of the Brexit campaign) and U-turns (Mrs May would be proud). Our own Mr Johnson claimed we would be first in line for a deal, but Mr Trump has now put the EU first (the EU that we are currently in but are leaving). Hardly surprising as USA-EU trade is around eight times bigger than USA-UK trade.
Though it may be a blessing in disguise if we fail to do a deal. Chlorine-flavoured chicken, hormone-soaked beef, GMO foods, NHS privatisation, higher drug prices - these are all likely consequences of a deal.
Still, with Mr Fox saying that we will need a two-year transition period and given that negotiations can't start till after that finishes, maybe we will be dealing with a new president anyway.
Betrayed
Nick Cohen is absolutely correct to say that whatever happens with Brexit there will be cries of 'betrayal'. There is no-one to hold to account for what was promised: the PM who offered the referendum resigned upon hearing the result - the parallel with Pontius Pilate deferring to the mob is inescapable; Vote Leave dissolved; Farage resigned; Johnson returned to the back benches, leaving a Remainer to take the helm of state who is still ineffectually attempting to honour the result.
One of the most prominent Leave campaigners, Gisela Stuart, a Labour MP and a director of Vote Leave, has explained why the question posed on the ballot paper was 'vacuous'. She felt that she had to vote Leave as the better option of the two offered, but that the referendum itself was "an abuse of the democratic process".
For example, members of the Leave campaign made impossible promises - even lied right out - in order to win, and then backtracked as soon as the vote was done. Consider the promised £350 million for the NHS. Someone painted it on the side of the campaign bus, but who? Vote Leave even issued posters emblazoned “Let’s give our NHS the £350m the EU takes every week.” However the leading Brexiteers don't seem to know who said it. Iain Duncan Smith says he never made the claim. Farage said "I would never have made that claim". Stuart herself cannot fudge this as she said in a BBC interview "if I had that control I would spend it on the NHS" - it will be interesting to see if she sticks to this line as a voting MP.
The Leave website was wiped the day following the referendum result - removing this and other promises such as those on immigration (which are also being broken). To see the new line being taken see the Change Britain website. Same people, different promises.
So the likely result is that no-one will get what they thought they voted for. Remainers certainly won't, but nor will Leavers.
However when populists attempt to rally people with the cry 'betrayal', and attempt to blame their chosen bogey men, remember the promises betrayed were the lies of people who refused to take responsibility for honouring them.
One of the most prominent Leave campaigners, Gisela Stuart, a Labour MP and a director of Vote Leave, has explained why the question posed on the ballot paper was 'vacuous'. She felt that she had to vote Leave as the better option of the two offered, but that the referendum itself was "an abuse of the democratic process".
For example, members of the Leave campaign made impossible promises - even lied right out - in order to win, and then backtracked as soon as the vote was done. Consider the promised £350 million for the NHS. Someone painted it on the side of the campaign bus, but who? Vote Leave even issued posters emblazoned “Let’s give our NHS the £350m the EU takes every week.” However the leading Brexiteers don't seem to know who said it. Iain Duncan Smith says he never made the claim. Farage said "I would never have made that claim". Stuart herself cannot fudge this as she said in a BBC interview "if I had that control I would spend it on the NHS" - it will be interesting to see if she sticks to this line as a voting MP.
The Leave website was wiped the day following the referendum result - removing this and other promises such as those on immigration (which are also being broken). To see the new line being taken see the Change Britain website. Same people, different promises.
So the likely result is that no-one will get what they thought they voted for. Remainers certainly won't, but nor will Leavers.
However when populists attempt to rally people with the cry 'betrayal', and attempt to blame their chosen bogey men, remember the promises betrayed were the lies of people who refused to take responsibility for honouring them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)