Slaying more EU vote myths

Tags

Brexit, Brussels, Commonwealth, David Cameron, democracy, EU, eurocorps, Europe, France, Germany, jeremy corbyn, Jersey, Mick Jagger, NATO, Nigel Farage, Poland, police, referendum, RMT, Scotland, Stephen Greenhalgh, tax, terrorism

Another Brexit fan

The debate over Britain’s membership of the European Union is picking up speed. With the news last week that railway workers union RMT is backing Brexit while the business is sector is supposedly split, it’s clear that this isn’t a north-south, east-west nor left-right divide.

Mercifully, it isn’t a vote decided by self-interest groups like unions, business federations, nor high-profile celebrities. None of them are accountable for the vote.

But while it remains – and ought to remain – a personal decision for each and every registered voter there is much scaremongering about what a Brexit vote means and it is easy to become strangulated by rhetoric and unsubstantiated statistics.

Even the UK government planning a much-criticised leaflet which hits 27 million doormats this week, expanding on why (on balance) it’s better to stay in the EU, has managed to get embroiled in the controversy over how facts are sold. Balanced is one word which sits uncomfortably in what the government will be telling us.

Sure the government has an official position, albeit ministers individually have theirs. And that official position is to stay in the European Union.

Instead of an unemotional portrayal of facts it will be an additional pro leaflet for the EU. Additional because it will be in addition to for and against leaflets sent by respective camps. Only this £9 million extravaganza will be from taxpayers’ money. And did Parliament approve this extra expenditure or scrutinise it’s content?

Is it so hard to offers facts at taxpayers’ expense which would be a totally fair use of public money?

In Ireland where referenda are common the Referendum Commission would insist on a fair leaflet.

But as the Dutch vote against a trade deal with Ukraine showed last week…things go smoothly before the government speaks up and voters turn the other way!

This was a rocky week for the British Prime Minister David Cameron anyway in relation to his own tax affairs following the “Panama Papers” leaks. Whether we believe that Europe is good or bad for Britain, it is evident that Europe is incapable of policing anything. Firstly, Europe is incapable of preventing offshore bank accounts and tax avoidance or evasion on what was exposed to be an industrial scale. Cameron himself felt the heat from that when politicians on all sides demanded he comes clean about his own offshore assets and tax affairs.

Quite apart from exposing the lack of clout Europe has to police tax and assets, it also undermined Cameron as an honest and upfront fellow. Facts came out over several days of reticence. Not a good advert when he next gets up to publicly say “Trust me on this. Europe is where Britain belongs, at the heart of it.”

He might be better to avoid the word “trust” altogether as it will only draw attention of the wrong kind.

Then there is the security and safety issue. A lot of mud slung in the past 10 days about how staying in Europe will make us more secure. Even Armed forces chiefs have said so. But are they right?

Look around – Germany and France set up their own EuroCorps and that is a club within a club to which others have not subscribed or been invited to subscribe. NATO is the real definition of security and has within it Europe, the United States and other friendly states. A far more probable proposition than investing in Europe alone.

And what about cross-border crime and terrorism? At the very capital of Europe, in Brussels, the police were unable to apprehend terrorists prior to last month’s atrocity at the airport and in the Belgian capital. And once it happened, they were criticised for being unable to capture the offenders. In time they will round them up to face justice, we must hope, but in the meantime it has left an embarrassing episode for Europe to contend with. The level of cooperation with France and other cross-border nations for Belgium has not been an overt success.

There has been talk of tearing down UK borders on the French coastline. As I have said before this is speculation. And for the right price, I am certain the French would not turn away the opportunity to permit the continuation of the current border practices.

Finally, comments from the deputy Mayor of London Stephen Greenhalgh this week clearly were not an echo of what the incumbent Mayor of London Boris Johnson would have said. Both Johnson and his hopeful Conservative Party successor Zac Goldsmith have expressed Brexit tendencies.

But Greenhalgh and others have expressed the view that construction and other jobs would be lost as EU workers would have to go back.

Similarly, the outcry from universities that Britain will lose £800 million a year generated by European students if Britains leaves the EU is totally baffling.

Er, let’s knock all these remarks right on the head. Brexit is not some kind of anti-European crusade. It is not about Britain closing its borders. It is about Britain choosing who to trade with and on what terms beneficial to us.

No one should believe that euro-carrying or EU passport carrying students will no longer be welcome in British universities. The universities need the cash, and in the case of overseas students they get more cash than they do from domestic students. Now that they will be overseas with a capital “O” will only cement that course of funding. Meanwhile, students from France to Japan will still covet a British university education because it opens many doors for their careers worldwide.

And no one, therefore, is suggesting that workers from the EU, especially from Poland, would have to go back to their countries or to other parts of the EU. A huge number of Poles work in Norway – yet Norway is not a member of the EU!

Similarly, the Channel Island of Jersey first admitted Polish workers to its economy back in 2000. It didn’t fear a wave of Poles drowning their small proud territory. Poles did come and did comply with the local laws. Jersey is not a member of the EU either yet had the foresight to admit EU citizens even before they were EU citizens themselves (Poland joined on 1 May 2004 and Britain admitted them for work that day).

Let us not forget that individual European countries have in the past also welcomed workers from Europe and beyond and migration was a policy. We admitted Commonwealth workers in the 1950s and Germany went for a slightly misnamed “guest worker” policy with Turkey in the 1960s.

Last week, Rolling Stone Mick Jagger, himself a former student of economics at the London School of Economics, stated that his “personal, personal view” was that while in the short-term Brexit by the UK from the European Union would be detrimental in a 20-year time frame it would probably be beneficial.

And while everyone wants to see quick successes, the truth is that decisions like these have to be taken for the long-term view, not the short-term jolts.

There will be pain. There will be renegotiation but there will not be famine in order to reach feast. For a start Britain would not exit within days of a Brexit vote on June 23.

Rather, it would involve months of negotiation with the EU about the flavour of exit. There would be a lot to renegotiate – and that could take 3-5 years to complete.

Meanwhile, and therefore in parallel, the UK would commence trading agreement talks with the EU rump as well as with other nations it used to trade directly, such as the Commonwealth (whose population at 508 million is actually larger than that of the European Union at 137 million) as well as the USA and others. For over 40 years Britain, a proud mercantile economy, has had all that decided on its behalf by Brussels.

It is certain that those new trading agreements would take up to three years to establish. Then there would be a transitionary period as we exit EU deals and take on the new deals in parallel. So to talk about shortages, or trading vacuums, is simply a nonsense. It makes the UK look like it is incapable of taking care of its own destiny. Is that how much 43 years in the EU has destroyed our own self-esteem?

As I have said before, not so long ago a referendum would have been thought unthinkable. Now we are conducting one. Then we were threatened this is a no-return poll. Again, total nonsense. If in 10 years’ time Britain feels it made an emotional mistake voting for Brexit I am certain that Europe would be more than happy to readmit “moneybags” Britain.

Both sides have been trading falsehoods about Brexit or Remaining in the EU. And I fear much more is yet to be revealed. But my concern is to set the record straight. If the UK government’s leaflet would not tell people which way to vote but just lay out the facts for and against, it would give people what they definitely need – clarity to judge.

Yet as we have seen with the Scottish Referendum, another bungled voting process right there, voters don’t know the facts and will almost certainly vote with their emotions. It wasn’t necessarily good for the Scottish vote in 2014 and I daresay won’t be good for the EU vote this year either.

You might have noticed that I have taken shots at the Remaining in the EU side. Why not poke the Brexit Brigade too? After all, I readily admit both sides trade propaganda.

Very true but I have always believed it is easier for the status quo to defend themselves. They are able to pass on propaganda as official facts whereas those seeking Brexit are mere amateurs and inexperienced zealots. In a way the status quo has a more chilling authority about themselves.

Indeed that was why in 2014 I was far more critical of the Better Together side than those seeking Scottish independence.

Whatever my own convictions in the matter, I really take offence at any “charade” made of democracy. It is no good Cameron feeling smug that he has hoodwinked the Scots into staying in the union, and now hoodwinking voters into staying in the European Union. It is not about getting people to vote the way he or Nigel Farage or Jeremy Corbyn want. It is about allowing real democracy so that people, armed with facts, can make their own voices heard. That is the real notion of democracy and accountability for it.

As I said with Scotland, I say again with the EU. I really don’t mind what the country decides, so long as it is based on an honest appraisal. And yet we can see that is not going to be allowed to happen. People must not be allowed to have their voice within heard. How utterly depressing is that?

Brexit for Breakfast?

Tags

bailout, Boris Johnnson, Brexit, Brussels, Charles de Gaulle, David Cameron, democracy, EFTA, EU, Europe, European Central Bank, greece, immigration, Michael Gove, referendum, Scotland, subsidise, vote

We all know the traditional British fried breakfast is neither especially good for you, nor a culinary tradition that other nations adopt in Europe. The French like a breakfast-to-go of cafe and croissant, the Italians might just have a Latte and glass of water on the side and the Germans are known to have a cold cut ham and cheese platter in the platz. Everyone has different tastes.

Not even the weather is harmonised in Europe, and I doubt that the hard-up Eurozone can afford the largesse of the days of the Soviet Union when they “controlled” the conditions on May Day by sending Bear bombers to throw out grit in a successful bid to chase clouds away from Moscow. Having bankrupted the system in 1991 it is rather salutary that you can only kid people for so long.

No one is seriously saying that the British fry up is under threat if we stay in Europe. Nor that we are certain that being outside the European Union will be a walk in the park. Nor does anyone much care for my opinion, nor that of London Mayor Boris Johnson who is to decide whether to remain a eurosceptic or not on Monday in a Daily Telegraph article.

And nor should anyone. The decision is very much one for you and you alone. If you have the right to vote, you will be asked to decide on whether Britain should stay a member of the European Union on June 23 this year. British Prime Minister David Cameron has thrashed out a deal with Europe which sees some movement towards meeting our objections about Brussels. But only after those British demands were watered down.

Cameron said he would remain premier even if voters decide to break away from Europe – Brexit. Yes he has had to call the Brexit vote to appease right-wing Conservative backbenchers in Westminster as well as some of his own ministers such as Michael Gove. And he’s had to keep his word made to voters at the last General Election in May 2015.

But it is not the first time people have erroneously written off Cameron as a has-been. I would say he is as shrewd as any premier could be. He is showing his democratic credentials by honouring the vote and he has a smart Australian strategist on board whom he knighted in January. Last year Cameron’s team defied the polls and secured a majority government, albeit small.

Cameron pledged ahead of the 2015 General Election to hold a vote before the end of 2017. By deciding on June 2016 he has deliberately accelerated things.

Although immigration and the mass movement of Arabs from the Middle East has been a huge public spectacle since the summer of 2015, it will only be a minor issue in the decision of voters. By mid-year there will be new issues to handle and the US presidential election and growing prospect of a Donald Trump victory are likely to compete for media attention.

If you want to figure out why the haste, Cameron has worked out that to delay would increase pressure on him to deliver on the pledges that he claims he secured from Europe on Friday.

At this time, he has a deal which curbs benefits-in-work for east Europeans in the UK, but which failed to push back child benefit for children living outside the UK. He had to compromise here otherwise he would not have won over the Visegrad nations.

If a Brexit vote was held in late 2017 by then politicians would want proof the deal with Europe was working. Instead, we have a pledge as good as that on Appeasement in 1938.

Cameron also knows that if he proceeds with a vote now there will be little time to rationally debate and weigh up the benefits of leaving or enough time for those supporting Out of Europe to knock down claims of obstacles in so trying. That means that he undermines those who want to build up a credible argument to leave the EU other than by slogans and emotions.

With a 40-year track record in the EU, the government knows it can convince people to back the UK in Europe.

Lessons from Scottish Referendum

It is a tactic that worked in Scotland. Although many promises were offered to the Scots – and some since forgotten or at best delayed – the main driver to stay in the union was fear of “what if it really is an exit?” It was a close-run thing but Scots voted to stay in the union in 2014.

1975 ballot paper

Brits are now being asked to vote on another union and this one will also use fear to make people sit up and vote to stay in the EU.

Banks have threatened to leave the UK if we Brexit. A lame argument in some cases because hiring English-speaking staff in Germany on such a large scale will prove difficult and we all know that the world’s capital of forex is London.

Companies play politics mostly because they don’t want what could be years of instability for them. And businesses hate instability which inevitably would follow a Brexit yes vote. But will companies really exit the UK? What if quitting the EU means that the UK government can finally offer the tax concessions on investment which Brussels refuses to let one nation introduce? Or we subsidise companies which Brussels says is an anti-competitive practice? Once companies have had a chance to digest the realities of the day they will likely decide to stay in the UK but adjust to the new order.

The Brexit vote will be the first on EU membership since the Labour Government upheld a 1974 election manifesto pledge. And there are some striking similarities. The 1975 referendum was held on 5 June and the summer feel-good factor certainly helped people think of summer holidays in Europe and that remaining “best mates” with Europe was the better policy. It was before they had returned from European holidays furious at the poor service in a Greek hotel or rip-off prices in Spain.

Back in 1975 some 67% of voters backed Yes to stay in the EEC, the forerunner of the EU. The trade unions were opposed to staying in Europe. The trade union movement in 2016 is a very different beast and in any case few workers are unionised anymore.

The 1975 result couldn’t have been more decisive

The language of the ballot paper has been hotly debated since July last year. Should it be a yes to leave or a yes to stay? A no to stay or a no to leave?

While psephologists can argue the semantics of that, the truth is that the vote, sooner or later, is a very healthy thing indeed.

I have previously commented that the Scottish referendum was a healthy poll and that whatever the outcome it ought to be repeated every 10 years to keep politicians on their toes.

Poll state and options after Brexit

The same I feel is true about Europe. We were not born into Europe as a political family. We joined it twenty years after it was created by the Treaty of Rome. It wasn’t even drafted with British interests in mind, even if, initially, French President Charles de Gaulle wanted Britain to join.

It is prudent for us to have an annual health check as individuals. So why not a health check on Europe every decade?

As a democrat, I am totally in favour of regular polls like these. If so many decisions are taken in Brussels that affect our lives we ought to have more to say that simply choosing which party represents us in Strasbourg every four or five years. It is the only way to keep in check the real power in Europe – which is the European Commission in Brussels rather than the European Parliament in Strasbourg.

A touch of deja vu?

Much has been said about how a Brexit would result in British customs on French soil being dismantled at France’s request. This is rather a nonsense given as Britain would pay France handsomely to retain the convenience of such controls. And where the money is right there is always a way.

Several wealthy countries surrounded by the EU are not members. Norway, Iceland, Switzerland, Liechtenstein and Andorra. Depending on interpretation we ought to include Monaco and San Marino.

Many of them have become tax shelters but others have also gained wealth via oil – Norway. And Iceland may have dabbled disastrously with banking in 2007 but it was the first to bounce back after taking some self-imposed draconian measures thanks to being outside the European Central Bank’s straight jacket.

We could do the same as these others. With only Switzerland and Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein left in the European Free Trade Area which Britain belonged to until 1972 our only way forward other than to totally go it alone would be to join up to the European Economic Area with those outsider nations to allow for continued trade but opt out of being a voting member in Europe and be therefore exempt from certain parts of European law and burden.

But cooperation with Europe on security and NATO and other areas of joint interest would continue.

Europe “makes it up as it goes along?”

Moreover, with a vote every decade do we seriously think that a vote to Brexit would conclude everything? That we could never return? We were told that membership of the EU was irrevocable yet now we have our second referendum on the way. So if leaving isn’t so legally difficult neither is returning to the EU should we one day consider it has reformed enough to be a healthy club again.

Seeing how the Eurozone debt crisis was mismanaged made me realise that while on paper it was a good thing, in reality, Europe has never considered the downside of integration. So it was powerless to act when a crisis happened in 2009.

Crisis-hit Ireland was ridiculed by Germany and France for having a depositor protection scheme which they claimed was illegal, as was having a low rate of corporation tax. Yet within a year Germany and France were looking to copy the depositor protection scheme. It just smacked of soured grapes followed by opportunism in Europe.

But if that was not bad enough, consider that since May 2010 Greece, the first country to come unstuck in the debt crisis, has needed three bailouts – the most recent in mid-2015. So you have to ask yourself where did the money go and is the crisis ever going to get resolved?

Although not in the Eurozone Britain has agreed to help support the euro and that means the bailouts too.

But that is my view. What matters is what people collectively decide on June 23. It may be a closer-run vote than in 1975 and possibly in the area of 55% to stay and 45% to Brexit. A form of PR if the deal struck last week proves hollow like much else Europe has promised.