It's been a funny few days since the results of the referendum became clear. I stayed up to see the first results come in, and when Newcastle weren't definitively "In" I feared the worst. When I woke up at 5am and went downstairs to watch the ongoing coverage, those fears were confirmed.
Not that leaving the EU will be the worst thing we ever do; in fact I took a test and was advised that I was "60% In", i.e., I can see that there might be benefits in leaving. I just worried that the potential disruption would outweigh any upside, and unfortunately so it has turned out. There really is no plan for an orderly secession and the UK currency and shares have taken a pounding. I'm kind of hoping that is due to the markets betting the wrong way on the outcome and having to unwind their positions, but we'll see - it's only been two whole business days since the result.
Lots has happened though; Cameron resigned on Friday morning even before I started work, and then Sunday and yesterday (Monday) 20 members of the Shadow Cabinet resigned, and there is going to be a vote of No Confidence in Corbyn later today. If that leads to a leadership contest, which is highly likely in my opinion, he will get re-elected by the members and the split between the PLP and the grass roots membership will become more pronounced.
So while the secession is a slow, drawn-out process which will probably last two years or more, there are already casualties to the outcome.
Cameron has said that the incoming PM will be responsible for triggering Article 50, the official notice that we are leaving the EU, but there are some legal opinions advising that we would need to pass an Act of Parliament in order to do that, and since most MPs are anti-Brexit I struggle to see that happening. And someone could run for PM on an anti-Brexit ticket - i.e., promising not to invoke Article 50. Cameron promised that he would give a referendum and he has, now he's resigned and it turns out that the referendum is only "advisory", which means it doesn't have to be implemented. Yes, there would be uproar, but it might be the best of both worlds.
Or, sod it, let's break away, let's not negotiate with the EU, since they're having a hissy fit ("there will be no informal negotiations before Article 50 is invoked"), and let's see how we get on.
But please, not with Boris Johnson at the helm...?
Tuesday, June 28, 2016
Thursday, June 16, 2016
Thursday 16-06-16 Bremain
So I've come to the conclusion that I am going to vote Remain next Thursday; at least, that is the way I feel today. I was considering voting out, mainly to spite Cameron and his lack of vision: I think that the "deal" he secured from the EU before setting the date for the referendum was paltry, and much less than he was aiming for. Plus, I fancied a change. We've been in the EU for 43 years, give or take, and maybe leaving might set light to the entrepreneurial spirit that we (ironically, since "entrepreneur" is a French word) are so proud of.
But then when you look at the people involved in the discussions, it is hard to tell one from the other, and you certainly can't side with anyone without a heavy heart. There's Gove, Priti Patel, Osborne, Farage, IDS, Gisela Stuart, Cameron, Frank Field, Carswell, Johnson... All of them promising this and that, and having no intention of delivering anything at all. Gove and Patel suddenly discovering a long-lost love of the NHS is one of the most bizarre things I think I've seen recently. Johnson looking forward to getting rid of the "burden" of workers' rights is more close to the mark, I think. All of them have, at one point or another, suggested privatising the NHS and adopting an American-style model, where if you use it, you pay for it. So of course that would leave the worst off out in the cold and unable to access help when required.
I just don't like the terms of the debate. The Outers are making wild promises about how we can all benefit if we don't pay this money to the EU, and the Inners aren't making a positive case for staying in. If we still have to raise and spend the money we're already spending, then really, what is going to change? Apart from the fact that now it'll be "our" decision?
And the Inners, oh... All they have is the fear about stepping into the unknown, and the colossal costs that would be involved. We are one voice among 28 when it comes to the EU, and for the last few years we have been electing UKIP MEPs to represent us, who seem to take the cash and not actually represent the British people or participate to any great extent in the European Parliament. It is something we are part of, but something which we don't participate in. And I think that will need to change - if we stay in. And currently that is not looking likely. So if we do stay in, we need to build up and promote European elections as an opportunity to have our voice heard in the European Parliament, not as a chance for some anti-EU diva to swan in, hoover up the cash, and then disappear.
I did think that there would be a swell of anti-EU sentiment which had not registered in Westminster or Fleet Street, and that seems to be becoming more apparent as people declare their voting intention. It's got to be said, Cameron is a bit silly for calling a referendum where he wasn't sure that he was going to get the result he wanted. If we do end up voting "Out" (as a nation), that'll be his legacy.
So I looked at the figures. Currently annual UK govt. expenditure is approximately £750bn a year. The amount we give to the EU is about £13bn. We get some of that back, but since where that money is spent is decided by the EU, I am not taking that into account. So as a percentage of our annual govt. expenditure, the amount we contribute to the EU is 1.7%. With the amount of upset that a Brexit will cause, I'm not sure that leaving is worth it; that is, the confusion caused by Brexit would be disproportionate to the potential benefit. Plus, we can leave only once. If we stay in now, and things change for the worse, then we can always call for another referendum and change our minds then. I do think that if the vote is a close one, and we stay in, we won't have to wait 40 years for the next opportunity to voice our opinions again.
However, I'm not sure that we can change. We've been in the EU for over 40 years, and it's always been something that happened "over there". The laws which the EU passes aren't designed specifically to do Britain down, but unfortunately we have a very efficient legislative body, which gets the laws into our national legal framework promptly and even (sometimes) with an extra bit of gold-plating. Whereas other countries might bury or lose or forget to schedule legislation which they don't agree with... So we have enacted all the legislation we should, whereas other countries may not have done so. But this is legislation intended to make life better, not more onerous - at least not in every instance.
I keep coming back to the fact though, that we are one of twenty eight. And Cameron did not have a successful negotiation. I am not sure that being in the EU is the right thing in the long-term, but I think that leaving now, when every economy seems to be tanking, is not the right thing either. And for the relatively small amount we pay to the EU (in relation to overall government spending), I think it is worth kicking the can down the road a bit longer. Maybe, if we actively participated, we could make the EU (the institution) a better and more responsive organism. However, I think it's unlikely. But if the polls are correct, it looks like we won't need to worry about that anyway...
TTFN.
But then when you look at the people involved in the discussions, it is hard to tell one from the other, and you certainly can't side with anyone without a heavy heart. There's Gove, Priti Patel, Osborne, Farage, IDS, Gisela Stuart, Cameron, Frank Field, Carswell, Johnson... All of them promising this and that, and having no intention of delivering anything at all. Gove and Patel suddenly discovering a long-lost love of the NHS is one of the most bizarre things I think I've seen recently. Johnson looking forward to getting rid of the "burden" of workers' rights is more close to the mark, I think. All of them have, at one point or another, suggested privatising the NHS and adopting an American-style model, where if you use it, you pay for it. So of course that would leave the worst off out in the cold and unable to access help when required.
I just don't like the terms of the debate. The Outers are making wild promises about how we can all benefit if we don't pay this money to the EU, and the Inners aren't making a positive case for staying in. If we still have to raise and spend the money we're already spending, then really, what is going to change? Apart from the fact that now it'll be "our" decision?
And the Inners, oh... All they have is the fear about stepping into the unknown, and the colossal costs that would be involved. We are one voice among 28 when it comes to the EU, and for the last few years we have been electing UKIP MEPs to represent us, who seem to take the cash and not actually represent the British people or participate to any great extent in the European Parliament. It is something we are part of, but something which we don't participate in. And I think that will need to change - if we stay in. And currently that is not looking likely. So if we do stay in, we need to build up and promote European elections as an opportunity to have our voice heard in the European Parliament, not as a chance for some anti-EU diva to swan in, hoover up the cash, and then disappear.
I did think that there would be a swell of anti-EU sentiment which had not registered in Westminster or Fleet Street, and that seems to be becoming more apparent as people declare their voting intention. It's got to be said, Cameron is a bit silly for calling a referendum where he wasn't sure that he was going to get the result he wanted. If we do end up voting "Out" (as a nation), that'll be his legacy.
So I looked at the figures. Currently annual UK govt. expenditure is approximately £750bn a year. The amount we give to the EU is about £13bn. We get some of that back, but since where that money is spent is decided by the EU, I am not taking that into account. So as a percentage of our annual govt. expenditure, the amount we contribute to the EU is 1.7%. With the amount of upset that a Brexit will cause, I'm not sure that leaving is worth it; that is, the confusion caused by Brexit would be disproportionate to the potential benefit. Plus, we can leave only once. If we stay in now, and things change for the worse, then we can always call for another referendum and change our minds then. I do think that if the vote is a close one, and we stay in, we won't have to wait 40 years for the next opportunity to voice our opinions again.
However, I'm not sure that we can change. We've been in the EU for over 40 years, and it's always been something that happened "over there". The laws which the EU passes aren't designed specifically to do Britain down, but unfortunately we have a very efficient legislative body, which gets the laws into our national legal framework promptly and even (sometimes) with an extra bit of gold-plating. Whereas other countries might bury or lose or forget to schedule legislation which they don't agree with... So we have enacted all the legislation we should, whereas other countries may not have done so. But this is legislation intended to make life better, not more onerous - at least not in every instance.
I keep coming back to the fact though, that we are one of twenty eight. And Cameron did not have a successful negotiation. I am not sure that being in the EU is the right thing in the long-term, but I think that leaving now, when every economy seems to be tanking, is not the right thing either. And for the relatively small amount we pay to the EU (in relation to overall government spending), I think it is worth kicking the can down the road a bit longer. Maybe, if we actively participated, we could make the EU (the institution) a better and more responsive organism. However, I think it's unlikely. But if the polls are correct, it looks like we won't need to worry about that anyway...
TTFN.
Saturday, June 11, 2016
Saturday 16-06-11 A Flood
Just as I was about to get on the wagon, TW phones on Friday afternoon at 3pm to advise that the house is flooded; that there is water cascading into the kitchen through the ceiling... Looks like a bad time to give up life's creature comforts!
Luckily, after the initial shock, it doesn't seem too bad; we've restored power and water and gas. But the ceiling will need redoing and the bathroom floor too. Bugger.
Luckily, after the initial shock, it doesn't seem too bad; we've restored power and water and gas. But the ceiling will need redoing and the bathroom floor too. Bugger.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)