Interesting Times

Interesting Times

Our friend asked if we preferred “Interesting Times” or “Boring Times”, in the sense of the supposed Chinese malediction. No doubt we each tried to guess what he was getting at; was it the ousting of our prime minister in a back-bench revolt, or the surging number of COVID cases two years after our first lock-down, or the hottest summer on record with spontaneous fires breaking out in British suburbs, or the ghastly truth of Brexit lining up on the Dover road? 

Or was it the combination of all of these? Each challenge, on its own, produces a sense of mild unease, a wobbly feeling, as of a distant earthquake. Each is just beyond the reach of our personal experience, though not beyond imagining. But the combined effect, is distinctly unsettling. 

It called to mind a film I saw recently about the subduction of tectonic plates. And I could imagine jumping ashore from a floating sheet of ice, only to find that I was jumping onto another, equally flimsy, piece of ice. It reminded me of Einstein’s questions as to which frame of reference to use as “our frame” when none is preferred, and each is as “relative” as the other. Who is moving, me or the platform?

The full effect only comes from calling to mind all these wobbles at the same time, for then there springs up the idea of a bigger problem not yet fully visible. Like a ship-wrecked mariner who gradually concludes that he is sitting on the back of a sleeping whale.

The answer to that first question surely depends on your humor; whether you are phlegmatic, choleric, sanguine or melancholic. Though mildly uneasy, I do not fear tomorrow. The new prime minister might be more honest, and might pay more heed to norms and the civil service. We might opt for improving our voting system and strengthening parliament. Perhaps we could use large sheets of reflectant foil to cool the planet down. COVID has become much milder, less scary. Why go to France anyway, when fuel costs are so high?

 Another Scottish Referendum?

     I suppose we have to have another Scottish Referendum. The SNP seem to have won the confidence of the Scottish people. And it seems inherent in the political system we have evolved that the First Minister can bring matters to the Scottish Parliament. They will have to judge the benefits and costs, but if that democratic body votes for a referendum, how can it be denied?

     However, I hope we all agree that the disastrous mistakes of the Brexit referendum must first be noted and then avoided. Namely: 

1. There should be complete clarity as to the implications of each conceivable result, as to whether the government is compelled or merely advised by the result.
2. There must be a  very significant majority, perhaps 2/3, perhaps 3/5,  before any suggestion of significant constitutional change be made. 

     It is widely thought that our sovereign parliament should not be bound by a referendum. But it has become clear that parliament is not sovereign, because it is not proportional; it sways madly from side to side due to the crazy voting system. One proof of this assertion is that a referendum was called for in the first place.

     It is also becoming clear that a question of great magnitude should not rest on a slender 52:48 majority. Such an insignificant majority has split the country so nearly into equal halves that it can be plausibly argued that we have got the wrong result. Proof of this is the desperate refusal of the brexiteers to allow a second Brexit referendum. What if 1% of voters changed their minds? What if, in 2 or 5 years’ time, the removal of older voters and the introduction of younger voters changed the result from “out” to “in”. Would we then reverse the enormous task of reordering the constitution, the government, the law, and the economy and accept that we had frittered away a decade for nothing?

     Let us hope that this is so obvious to everyone that it need not be said. For it has not been said yet. 

'Best for Britain'

'Best for Britain'

Naomi Smith

Best for Britain relaunched itself on Monday 26th April 2021 as a permanent, pro-active, voice advocating an internationalist stance in support of Britain’s best interests. Internationalist patriotism seeks to promote Britain's position in trade, research, openness, democracy, and justice. Britain should aim to be world leading, rather than world beating. By asking the right questions, the new 'Best for Britain' survey makes clear that British people inherently favour inter-national co-operation on issues like climate, science, poverty, communications and trade. 

    Naomi Smith welcomed the following distinguished speakers.

 

Emily Thornberry

We must recognise 3 truths. [1] We are moving on from Brexit and the question of the Customs Union and Single Market; [2] we must now clarify our own priorities, and establish our own standards, and must not lower those; [3] we must seek to facilitate our trade with Europe, for Europe remains our nearest and most important trading partner.

Sir Peter Westmacott

Four points. [1] One lesson to learn from the parallel between the USA and the UK in the last 4 years of Trump/Brexit is that there is work to do on the “home front”; work on stagnant salaries, anger and alienation. [2] We must not overlook, relinquish or jeopardise our existing global status. [3] We must keep working with allies and potential allies on climate, cybercrime, and issues such as China, G7 and COP26. [4] We must not overlook the international importance of the Good Friday Agreement, and peace in Northern Ireland.

Sir David Lidington

Britain’s best interests in this Post-USA era all point to an international stance. This clearly applies to COVID, climate-change, and crime; but also in regard to incorporating Asian countries into the G7 (making perhaps a D10), and helping Africa. It was a wake-up call to learn how dependent we had become on Chinese technologies; we must collaborate better with our European allies.  

  

Caroline Lucas

Global co-operation matters, and this must be stated, for it cannot be assumed. We should ask ourselves the question: How do we want Britain to be viewed by others? Not only in terms of aircraft-carriers, surely!  Under the heading of the Climate and Nature Emergency, what about three tests of true leadership:

[1] Justice, (facing up to our historic role and responsibilities).

[2] Coherence of policy, so not cutting aid while posturing on carbon emissions. 

[3] Climate realism; are we moving fast enough; target not 2050 but 2030?

Similarly with regard to trade, should we not hope to be good citizens, and aim for respect in our pursuit of justice and ethical standards? We should uphold existing obligations, but also recognise new obligations, and define new crimes such as Ecocide. 

Ian West  (27th April 2021)

(Please feel free to comment directly to me at  cawstein@gmail.com)

Why not a Second Referendum?

I suggest something like the following, bearing in mind:

[a]. The question is “What is the best for the country?”,  not “What do I want?”. There is only one “best for the country”.

[b]. This whole exercise needs more spirit of compromise. Think before you cast your vote “What if one option is clearly unpopular? Then why vote for it?"

*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&

We suggest the following as a way forward that might appeal to a majority of MPs and be ‘fair’. Voters are to be encouraged to a spirit of compromise, and to reflect on what is best for the country and fellow citizens rather than the outcome that suits them personally.

[1]   It is widely understood and accepted that Westminster Parliament is sovereign in the United Kingdom, as established in 1649. The Queen and her ministers play an executive role that must ultimately be reversible by Parliament. Parliamentary (i.e. representative) democracy must trump plebiscites or referendums. Referendums are useful as ‘straw-polls to test the weather'.

[2]   It has been argued that the 2016 referendum did not specify sufficiently the terms of exit that would emerge if the country sought to leave the EU. Further, it was not made sufficiently clear to the public that the 2016 referendum was advisory not definitive. Further, there were electoral rules broken. There can be delay and expense but no affront to democracy in asking for another referendum. (The Swiss have frequent advisory referendums; 3 were held in the first 5 months of 2019.) 

[3]   We therefore suggest asking the EU for a 6 month extension (or an indefinite revoking of Article 50), in order to run the following referendum:

[a] UK voters to vote for one only of the following three options:

[i]  Remain in the EU with full existing rights, exemptions, rebates and duties. 

[ii] Leave the EU on Theresa May terms (*One-off divorce bill of 39B£, respect EU-citizen rights reciprocally, transition period, UK leaves Single Market, and Customs Union, and EU institutions, but Northern Ireland stays in the Customs Union if Britain diverges.)

[iii] Great Britain leaves the EU without a deal in place, without a transition period, but presumably with the ability to make deals in the future without prejudice. A hard border is created in Ireland with immediate effect. 

[b] In the event that no single one of the three options exceeds any other by at least 1% of the votes cast the default position is that we retain our present EU membership with full existing rights, exemptions, rebates and duties, as there being insufficient justification for massive upheaval.

. 

[4]   Parliament will be expected, but is not bound, to endorse and enact the result of this referendum.

(*I have not found it easy to find a clear statement of Theresa May’s deal. Something like this would need to be on the ballot-paper)

---

Ian West
9 Thenford Road, Middleton Cheney,
BANBURY, OX17 2NB,

Brexit conciliation

The question of Brexit has proved very divisive and damaging to that feeling of unity and common purpose that carries a country towards progress. There seem to be two 'nations' living in one country, drawing apart in order to vilify each other. Most of the comment on social media is distastefully vituperative, scoffing, and exaggerated. Few participants seem to be aware that they will eventually have to settle down next to their fuming and mud-bespattered targets, to resume normal life; buying, selling, helping and being helped.

I am myself a natural Europhile, looking a little into the workings of the Union, at the Court, Council, Commission, Parliament, and Bank; wondering who was trying to improve its weaknesses; but generally pleased with its success in transforming and strengthening the Europe of which we are geographically and inevitably a part.

I noted two of today's tweets. Ash Sarkar (@AyoCaesar) bemoaned the lack of conversation and compromise, and asked whether Remainers had a plan for winning over people who voted Leave. Guy Dorrell (@guydorrell1), however, thought that the UK was now #Remain, what with the exploding of the £350m lie, and the introduction of 3-years' worth of fresh young voters since the 2016 referendum, not to mention unease about #darkmoney. No need, he thought, to change the minds of the ideologues. For Guy Dorrell, it would be enough to swing the opinion in the country to 51% remain:49% leave. It seems he would happily ignore the disappointed 16 million, but of course that would leave the country just as riven as at present, but heading in the opposite direction. Ash Sarkar (and I) would prefer a route that could be chosen by most or all of our 46 million electorate.

In the spirit of compromise and conciliation I tried to draft a few 'tweets' that might bridge the divide.
1. The idea that leaving the EU would save us £350m a week turns out to have been a deliberate lie; the truth is complex, what with Thatcher-rebates, EU-funded projects, grants, and collaborative research. Britain does make a small net contribution as Britain is of above-average wealth, but the intangible benefit is in bringing Europe towards a common standard; it is a laudable objective and it applies as much to Cornwall and the Scottish Highlands as it does to Romania.
2. We want the UK to benefit financially from the Common Market, buying and selling across frictionless borders. So, why choose to leave the EU table and lose the moderate degree of control that we are accorded by being a moderately large and moderately wealthy component of the EU?
3. We democratically elect members to the European Parliament, and this country elects its own representatives to Council and Commission. In terms of 'democratic control', the EU is not greatly different from our own government.
4. How could abandoning the regulations imposed by the EU benefit our citizens? That would likely lead to lowered standards of quality, and worker-welfare. It might enrich businesses, but impoverish our citizens.
5. UK retains sovereignty as long as, in the last resort, it can leave the EU. It has become clear that negotiating a sensible and orderly Brexit will require far longer that 2 years, even if we were all pulling in the same direction, and with enthusiasm. Nor is there a need for desperate haste, except in the minds of parliamentarians elected for 4-years.
6. Which of us realised that Brexit would mean severing Northern Ireland from the United Kingdom (leading maybe to a united Ireland)? It might be good for some and bad for others; but it was completely unforeseen.

Would it not be a sensible compromise to delay Brexit for 2 - 5 years, to let Parliament and the Civil Service think more about these complex issues, work out the costs and the benefits, and a plan of action?

An historian's view of Brexit.

The many views on Brexit.

    When the dust has settled, historians will begin to study and debate what happened in the momentous years 2016 — 2019, when parties, elites, and families in Britain were torn apart by the question of whether or not to pull out of the European Union.

    The referendum forced us into two great camps: that of 'Leavers', and 'Remainers'. But in truth there are many little camps, all rather isolated from each other, and in many cases having little internal communication either. (In pubs and cafés, talking about Brexit is taboo for it is easy to cause offence; and pointless anyway, because it is impossible to sway minds. Apart from family and a handful of journalists and politicians, I know few who think as I do. I would love there to be a Remainer's café where I could hang out and discuss strategy.)

    Eventually a party will have to form, a coalescence of groups supporting a single course of action. In the meantime some think Brexit will make them better off, others think the opposite; some would cosy up to USA, others prefer Europe; some think that Britain can make better laws on its own, others that EU laws are better. 

    Let me try and define your particular group. Perhaps:

(1)  You wish to achieve maximum national and personal sovereignty, trading as and when circumstances allow, but contributing as little as possible to world peace, stability, or culture: "little Englanders".  (Perhaps Rees-Mogg?)

(2)  Or you want to "take back control", mistakenly believing that the European Court consistently or repeated over-ruled British laws (actually 72 times out of 34,000 and in those cases on good grounds http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/RP10-62/RP10-62.pdf)

(3)  Perhaps you prefer an alignment with the USA, to one with the EU (dominated as it is by Germany and France), perhaps on the grounds that the USA and UK share a common language.

(4)  Perhaps you think Brexit will allow Britain to trade freely, and gain an advantage over others by lowering standards or loosening restrictions. (Perhaps David Davis?)

(5)  Perhaps you think that Brexit could be a ticket to leadership of the Tory party. (Perhaps Boris Johnson?)

(6)  Perhaps you acknowledge that Brexit looks bad commercially, but believe that it is the duty of Government to deliver a form of Brexit that few (or no-one) voted for. (Perhaps Thersesa May?)

(7)  Perhaps you think that Britain is not ready for the degree of monetary and political integration that is the trend in Brussels, but would nevertheless vote Remain to retain our present position at the European table. (Perhaps George Monbiot.)

(8)  Or you know about the Erasmus scheme and think that Britain benefits financially and culturally from the EU, and you welcome both the supply of labour from the East and the meticulous law-making of 'Benelux'.

(9)  Perhaps you voted remain because you see a united Europe as a potential superpower more akin to British tastes and interests than the combative, exploitative, and increasingly isolated USA. 

(10) There will be those who see Britain as being (for at least the last 1,000 years) consistently and essentially a part of Europe, sharing its history, culture, religion, fighting its wars, exchanging monarchs, migrants and refugees, skills, trades, diseases. Admittedly, this point of view might be restricted to those who speak Latin or two or more of the core European languages. But Kings William I to Henry IV spoke French, while George I & George II spoke German by choice, even if you did not know that; and most of our Kings had a European mother.

    If I have not grasped your position on Europe I would be most grateful if you would tell me, so I can add it to my list. 

--
Cawstein: cawstein@gmail.com 

The New Referendum Question

A Second Referendum is Not Undemocratic

(But what is the Question?)

To resist a second referendum shows a Brexit-inclined insecurity and a willingness to exit the European Union AGAINST the will of the majority. 

"Respecting" the result of the June 2016 referendum does not rule out a second referendum. Were it indeed the current will of the majority to exit the European Union, a second referendum would surely confirm that. But there are many reasons why people could have changed their mind. And this new, better informed, opinion has as much right to be "respected" as the first opinion.

However, there are problems about holding a second referendum, in addition to the cost. One problem, raised by Paul Embery (twitter @PaulEmbery) arises if the second result is 'Remain' but on a smaller turnout than the first. 

Another is the question of the validity of Government by Referenda. Are referenda more than merely advisory; a straw poll for the government? Should we not revert to Parliamentary Democracy?

If we do have a second referendum on Brexit, should it be before or after a General Election? And what should be the question? Perhaps it needs to be in two parts. E.g.:

1. Knowing what you do today, should Britain LEAVE the European Union or REMAIN? (Indicate your preference with a cross X in the appropriate box.)

2. In the event of a clear (5%) majority of leave votes over remain votes in this referendum, would you ACCEPT the government's proposal or REJECT it, and thus force a General Election.  (Indicate your preference with a cross X in the appropriate box.) 

Petition to Rescind Article 50

Over 188,000 people have now signed a petition asking the Government to “Rescind Art.50 if Vote Leave has broken Electoral Laws regarding 2016 referendum”. The Government replied to signatories as follows:

“The British people voted to leave the EU and the Government respects that decision. We have always been clear that as a matter of policy our notification under Article 50 will not be withdrawn. The British people voted to leave the EU, and it is the duty of the Government to deliver on their instruction. There can be no attempt to stay in the EU.  The result of the referendum held on 23 June 2016 saw a majority of people vote to leave the European Union. This was the biggest democratic mandate for a course of action ever directed at any UK Government. Following this, Parliament authorised the Prime Minister to trigger Article 50, passing the EU (Notification of Withdrawal) Act…....”

It is true that the referendum gave a small majority to the Leave campaign (a margin of 1.27 million in an electorate of 46.5 million), and it is understandable that the Government regards it as its duty to deliver Brexit. However, it seems to me that the person who framed the Government’s answer did not understand the complaint being made in the petition. It is being claimed that the 2016 referendum is flawed because the electoral law was broken.  There is no virtue in adhering rigorously to a flawed referendum. 

If it is proved that electoral law was broken, I would not (myself) ask for immediately reversal of the leaving process, but a pause; and a rethink of the possibility of a second referendum. A second referendum would be enormously expensive and unsettling. But it would in no way disregard or disparage the will of "the people”. The Government maintains that "the people" still want to leave the EU, as was the case in June 2016. Confirming that opinion would enormously strengthen the Government’s position. But reversing the result in a second referendum would suggest that the public had not been adequately informed in the lead up to the 2016 referendum. To suggest that this would lead to a succession of referenda is silly; a clash between the 2016 referendum and a 2018 referendum would only lead to a further referendum if it could be shown that the 2018 result was also flawed, like the 2016.

Yours sincerely, Ian West

---

Ian West

9 Thenford Road, Middleton Cheney,

BANBURY, OX17 2NB,

To Andrea Leadsom, MP

Dear Andrea Leadsom,

You are my MP; you represent me in Parliament. 

I believe that M. Barnier has just put the crucial question in a concise form. Yesterday (20th November), Barnier said: 

“The UK has chosen to leave the EU. Does it want to stay close to the European model or does it want to gradually move away from it? The UK’s reply to this question will be important and even decisive….”. 

That is it in a nutshell. I want regulation and high standards. What do you want? What does Britain want?

According to a good piece in the Guardian, Peter Mandelson added 

that many Brexiters would be “very happy for the UK to become a regulatory satellite of the US”, while “some in the present cabinet barely know what a trade negotiation is, let alone why it is desirable”.

Where do you stand? Close to the USA, or close to Europe?

Yours sincerely, etc.

Brexit Negotiations

    I find stressful, and begin to resent, the shilly-shallying on the Brexit negotiations.   
    Here is a simplifying suggestion.  Britain has offered to honour commitments made during membership.  Barnier wants to know how much that is.  Why not everything that we were paying before the brexit referendum? But during the transition period, we receive all the benefits that we received as a full member before the referendum. (No more closed-door stuff.)
    At least we know how much that was, and that we can afford it; and we know that it is regarded as value for money by 48% of Britons.  
    During the transition period we enter no new commitments, and we pull out, one by one, from the costs and the privileges of membership. The transition ends when the negotiations end. They might take decades.
    Yours sincerely, Ian West
--
Ian West, 9 Thenford road, Middleton Cheney, Banbury, OX17 2NB. (Tel: 01295 713889; mob: 07906 750986)

Nostalgia and Brexit

Nostalgia and Brexit

Nostalgia: “The pain of homesickness”

     I love words and was delighted to learn, recently, that the word ’Nostalgia’ means ‘homesickness’. It is a word concocted around 1688 from the Greek ‘nostos’ = returning home, and ‘algos’ = pain (c.f. neuralgia), to describe “severe homesickness treated as a disease; occasionally with fatal outcome”.

     I had an ‘aperçu’ in the middle of the night, as follows. I watched a film in bed, and my last few wakeful minutes conceived a romanticised image of coal miners in 1970 issuing from their mine at the end of the working day; grimy, tired, cheerful and fulfilled. I woke from a dream with the realization that this type of work is a thing of the past; as dated as horse-drawn vehicles. There are in Britain many thousands of people who, in the seventies, would have felt the cheerful exhaustion of manual work but who now find themselves unskilled for the present, and gloomy about the future. From 1800 to 1950 the North of England was the powerhouse of our economy. You could almost say it was the workshop-of-the-world, as they build railways for Argentine, and wove cotton saris for India.

     That glory has gone. They are left with their allotments, leeks and whippets, watching the Eastern Europeans come over to pick our carrots and mend our ball-valves. We have witnessed in a shockingly short time the redundancy of a whole social class. Could that be the real cause of the startling outcome of the Brexit referendum, at least in the north of England?  

The loss of status.

     There were two quite different reasons for voting “Leave”; but both can be described as nostalgia for lost status.

     I doubt the ‘manual working classes’ ever thought themselves to be ‘as good as’ the landowners, or factory owners. But they could justifiably think of themselves as ‘utterly essential’ to society; and even (with justification) as ‘carrying the whole of society on their shoulders'. Who, after all, sowed, reaped, and milled the corn, who built the houses, mined the coal? Not the vicar, nor the squire nor the school teacher. Nobody needed to feel equal, because everybody knew they were all family. Today we import much of our food, and 65% of our cars (Of the 2.4 million cars sold in UK in 2015, 35% were made here). Unemployment, at 5%, is not that different from the seventies, and is much less than in the eighties. So there are jobs; but it is not men’s work.  A degree of nostalgia for the lost status of ‘the manual worker’ is very understandable.  

     However, I meet many who admit to voting “Leave”, but who never were employed in manual work, and whose jobs are not remotely under threat from abroad. So they do not fall in that category, and are not nostalgic for a vanished personal status.  Nevertheless, I find that they also are yearning for a bygone era. Someone talked of ‘cricket on the green’, someone else wanted to revive trade with the ‘Commonwealth’. I sense, in this second category of leavers, a nostalgia for the time when this country was know (officially and throughout the world) as Great Britain. 

    

Is this the real Brexit mindset — a desire to restore the fifties, and sixties?  

     Those who voted to leave unified Europe may have made some canny calculations about wages, or realized that we are already severely overcrowded on this little island. But I doubt it. There may be incisive reasons for exit. But I do not hear them. Most ‘Leavers’, though now a little subdued, as they begin to realize the giant task ahead, still re-affirm their commitment to leaving. For them, there never was a reason for leaving, just an emotion. 

The Future

     Whatever the terms of Brexit and whatever the rôle of Britain in the next 20 years, it will NOT be as it was in the fifties, sixties and seventies. 

Letter to a Sanguine 'Leaver'

Dear Max,

You have a very clear head. What you say sounds perfectly straight-forward and, once it is said, it sounds obvious. Brexit terms ‘should’ end up as 'zero tariffs both ways, free movement on reciprocal bases, co-operation on police, security and intelligence'. But:-

[1]  It is largely true (is it not) that the big “Leave” voices have disappeared or gone quiet (Gove, Farage, Leadsom, Boris). We are left with Remainers trying to implement (gestate) the other camp’s baby (May, Hammond, the Civil Service). And why is that??

[2]  It is unfortunate but true; the terms of Brexit will be at least partly determined by the 27 and not by us. So it is reasonable to fear that the Junckery-type people (who were our bogeymen in the first place) will see their job as 'preventing exit from being beneficial’ (in case Europe unravels). (It is a pity we did not have the foresight, force of character, or interest, to curb these people when we had the chance. Whyever is the head of the European Civil service called a President? )

[3]  We look back with pride and astonishment at the first two years of WWII — alone against the fascists. We remember a Commonwealth extending round the world. (People born in New Zealand still referring to Britain as “home”, selling us butter and lamb and buying our cars). But some of this will not come back, because the world has moved on. Some of our capital is spent, some of our coal and oil burnt. India, Brazil, China and the Far East,  have developed. But we also ‘remember’ the long hot summers and the crisp snows of our youth, even though the meteorological tables accuse us of misremembering. 

[4]  Europe took it into its head to include the ex-communist states of eastern Europe and the ‘sunny’ states of southern Europe. We were perhaps doubtful, but saw them as possible markets and went along. The time to object to the extension of Europe to the east was back then, but we missed our chance. They are of course a burden and a problem to which the remaining core states of Europe are bound and with which they are lumbered. We now opt out of Europe and its burdens. But the 27 will (probably) not let us compete using both hands when they have one tied behind their backs. There is (I suppose) an honourable side to trying to weld a cultural entity at considerable personal cost, but the practical English do not see it that way; they see only the costs. And I suppose we on our island never did have to rub shoulders with the Balkans in the way that Austria, Germany, Italy and Poland have been doing for 2 millennia. 

Though I voted 'Remain', I was not over-enthusiastic about remaining in Europe and hope not to lose friends over Brexit. I expect there will be some compensations to counter the loss of influence, status, and wealth that will result from opting from a trading bloc of 360 million to one of 60 million with a GDP resembling the assets of a middle sized commercial company. There is a whiff of excitement, as on beginning any new relationship. But I do not expect the 'long hot summers' and the 'sunny uplands' that some leavers have been dreaming of.