A Rather Long Response to John Mister

There are many practical reasons for not creating a re-joiners’ party. Or, to put it differently, there is much that can be done to restore a genuinely positive relationship with Europeans which could open the doors to eventual re-joining. This can best be done through working within the existing party framework.

I see huge, so far largely untapped, opportunities for swinging the public mood strongly against the leaders of the Brexit process to a point at which the polls would show a substantial majority emerging in each existing party in favour of assuring that our links with our European neighbours are filled with good will rather than damaged further by mistrust.

I would suggest that, at this stage, the focus of any campaigning should not yet be on re-joining but on highlighting the fact Brexit is not delivering on what many of those who voted to leave Europe were told to expect. They can now see that they have been badly let down on their expectations for frictionless trade, continued cooperation on dealing with crime, ease of access to EU countries, maintaining the global role of the ‘City’ in financial services, collaboration on research and health and other aspects of cooperation that have been essentially benign during our many years of membership.

They could be forgiven for assuming that ‘taking back control’ and restoring sovereignty was all about devolving responsibilities reclaimed from the EU to parliament in Westminster and to the national assemblies. They might now feel betrayed by power grabbing by ‘Number 10’ and the erosion of the role of our elected representatives in ensuring due scrutiny and oversight of government – including parliamentary oversight of the Brexit process itself which has been arbitrarily shut down by the Leader if the House.

It has also become evident that, in spite of the claims of Johnson, Gove and other ‘leave’ stalwarts that we have successfully negotiated a Free Trade Deal with the European Union, we have ended up with a cumbersome trading agreement that greatly complicates the movement of goods and people, adding substantial costs and administrative burdens to most transactions. These bring absolutely no benefits whatsoever to Britain or European countries and have already caused massive economic damage, some of which is irreversible as businesses have gone bust. To put it bluntly, it is a downright stupid deal and it is incredible that it could have been negotiated by British leaders who had promised us ‘frictionless’ trading arrangements.

Surprisingly, it has not yet dawned on many members of a British public (whose thoughts are mainly on how to emerge from the COVID pandemic and to start to return to a ‘normal’ life) that the greatest irony of the Brexit process is that it was born under the emblem of the Union Jack but the deal reached and celebrated by its promoters is now seriously threatening the very unity of our United Kingdom. I suspect that, in spite of the rise in ‘nationalism’ related to each component nation, the last thing that most voters want is to end the of the Union in which we have grown up just because Johnson and his English chums produced and continue to defend a deal that went against the expressed preferences of voters in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales.

We have arrived at a situation in which Brexit is simultaneously damaging British prosperity, reigniting conflict in Northern Ireland and adding momentum to an already strong movement towards Scottish independence. This was not what the majority of British people voted for in 2016, and I am sure that it is not what most want now. We must cease to look a each of these issues separately and alert the public to the collective danger that they pose to the integrity of our country. This danger is real and can only be prevented by an immediate government commitment to reopen negotiations of the Withdrawal Agreement with the European Union.

However, probably the most damaging outcome of the Brexit process has been its systemic undermining and exclusion of almost all the mechanisms through which we have worked fruitfully with our European fellow nations for many years. Our engagement in most of these arrangements for professional, scientific, legal and financial collaboration has not involved ceding any of our sovereignty to ‘bureaucrats in Brussels’. Yet we have had to helplessly watch our government’s hard-line negotiators engage in the deliberate demolition of institutional arrangements that are not just benign but also serve the common good of geographically close nations who face interconnected challenges that can only be effectively handled jointly.

This same team of negotiators allowed their own strongly anti-European convictions to undermine the good will that most British people – even many of those who resent the heavy hand of Brussels – know is so important for the nurturing of mature relationships in Europe. The steps taken, for example, to create formidable obstacles for cultural and artistic collaboration between our country and those across the Channel and to close down Erasmus are far from what was promised in 2016 and bring no gain to anyone.

At times like this, I often think of the sacrifices of my father and mother who lived through two devastating European Wars both of which were ignited because of a breakdown of trust and transparency between the nations from which our continent is composed. I believe that, as they look at the changing international balance of power, many people will be alarmed to see how Britain has not only weakened its own standing in the world through its self-isolation but also damaged the effectiveness of institutions that have contributed to nurturing peace in Europe throughout most of my lifetime.

Just 7 years ago, in his biography of Winston Churchill, Boris Johnson wrote of his mentor that “It was his idea to bring these counties together, to bind them so indissolubly that they could never go to war again – and who can doubt, today, that this idea has been a spectacular success?”

Little more needs to be said, because more and more of the British electorate have come to realise that they have been conned into supporting a process, championed by a compulsive liar, that endangers the lives of our children and grandchildren, by taking Britain out of an alliance that he himself has claimed to have assured our peace. He is not helping either himself or us by pretending that all of Britain’s current problems are the result of the Covid pandemic rather than of his pursuit of his personal obsession to become prime minister, regardless of the negative effects on our lives and those of future generations.

The European Movement is starting to lay bare the devastating impact of Brexit on many individuals. Following the recent changes, it has the capacity to play a leading role in building a national consensus that we have been led up the garden path and that we can do much better if we are honest with ourselves and with our allies. Given the growing awareness of massive patronage within government, corruption, irresponsible spending of taxpayers’ money (such as a possible twenty thousand million pounds invested in a failed search and trace system), delays in top-level decision-making that led to needless COVID deaths, and ministerial lying to parliament, this is the right moment for our Movement to pull all the stops out.

Let us give the government due credit for its successful furlough and vaccination programmes but not allow these to cover up the much more fundamental problems that their mishandling of Brexit and their pervasive amorality have created.

Apparently one in 5 people who survive Covid lose their sense of smell. But surely even they can still smell rats.

Published
Categorised as General

As the lies come home to roost, will Brexit surely hit the buffers?

It has become politically incorrect to hark back to the actions of the leaders of the Brexit campaign in 2016. However, it now seems fair to question whether the Government is delivering on the promises that its leaders had made to its supporters almost five years ago.

The underlying message of the ‘leave’ campaign was summed up by Boris Johnson when he memorably assured us that a post-Brexit Britain could ‘have its cake and eat it’. On 16 April 2016, Michael Gove echoed this when he told voters that the UK would be able to trade freely within Europe even if it left the EU. We would have access to the Single Market but be free from European regulation.

This vision of a Britain ‘taking back control’ from the EU but continuing to enjoy what Johnson liked to describe as ‘frictionless’ trade with its members must have swayed many people to vote for ‘leave’. These people now have a right to blame the present government for failing to deliver on their expectations by negotiating a trade deal that deliberately created serious obstacles to the free movement of goods between the UK and EU countries.

Even on 24 December 2020, when Johnson hailed the ‘successful’ conclusion of a deal in a press conference and prepared to rush it through parliament without due scrutiny and debate, he sought to perpetuate the myth that it was an agreement to trade ‘without tariffs, without quotas’. Presumably, the Labour party leadership took this assurance seriously when it called on its MPs to support the agreement.

As soon as UK exporters and importers tried to restart trading with the EU in January this year, they found themselves overwhelmed by having to fill in complicated forms, expose their consignments to lengthy inspections and delays, and face a range of new customs-imposed charges, some of which had to be paid by unsuspecting recipients. ‘Number 10’ claimed that these were ‘teething problems’.

Three months later, the problems are still there. Many small and medium-scale businesses have had to suspend trading with Europe and some have gone bust. The overall impact on business earnings and employment on both sides of the Channel must be vast. There are no winners.

I am a British citizen resident in Italy and, in the last month, have twice been directly affected by the new trading arrangements. In one instance, we sent 12 bottles of local wine to our elder son in England as a birthday present. The courier’s charge had risen by about 30% since Brexit to cover their extra administrative costs and risks of delays and the shipper warned me that Harry would have to pay £28 customs duty on the wine on its arrival. He ended up paying £55.61, consisting of Customs Duty (£0.90), Advance Payments (£11.00), Excise Duty (£26.78) and Value Added Tax (£16.93). The combined effect was to increase the aggregate cost of the delivered wine by over 50% above the pre-Brexit cost for the same transaction!

The second case related a birthday present sent to my wife by her brother in Scotland. It was a hold-all, valued at £50, that weighed less than 1kg, posted via Royal Mail on 12 March at a cost of £13.80. There was no indication to the sender that there would be any other charges. It took four weeks to arrive here and I was required by the Italian postal service to pay €12.65 for VAT and a further €7.50 for their retrieving the parcel from Customs.

These minor brushes with reality have been irritating, but they made me think of the huge scale of the problem. The experience has convinced me that the time has come for the European Movement – and the opposition parties – to vehemently expose the deep flaws in the Trade Agreement and especially the government’s betrayal of its promises that brought so many ‘leave’ supporters on board. We must now also stop letting them continue to use the woes caused by COVID 19 as a cover for the massive economic and political damage being caused by their botched Brexit trade deal.

The first signals of public unwillingness to swallow Johnson’s lies on Brexit customs arrangements are coming out of Belfast. While all political parties in Northern Ireland are condemning the rioters for the violence, they must look themselves in the mirror and accept that their willingness to go along with an unworkable Brexit deal is provoking the unrest. Rather than seek to marginalise, disown and suppress the rioters, perhaps they should listen to their grievances and explore how to respond to them in an honest and transparent manner.

It looks as though the only practical solution to the Irish problem is for the UK government and the EU to agree immediately to turn the clock back to the temporary trading conditions that prevailed in the transition period (up to 31 December 2020), while jointly declaring their intent to embark on negotiating a truly ‘frictionless’ deal that would ensure genuinely free and prosperous trade across Europe. This drastic move would also forestall the real prospect of the break-up of the United Kingdom in the wake of the upcoming elections in Scotland.

Sorry, Boris, it’s high time for yet another U-turn.

Published
Categorised as General

Roger’s Voting Dilemma

Some Thoughts for Undecided Voters

I had an interesting chat today with a neighbour and good friend who could be defined as an undecided voter. Like me, he is in his 70’s. He would like Britain to stay in Europe but is also keen to bring the whole Brexit issue to early closure and so he is quite attracted by the promise of a speedy end implied by Johnson’s ‘Get Brexit Done’. In the past he has normally voted for Labour but does not think that Jeremy Corbyn would make a good Prime Minister. He was, therefore, considering voting for Lib Dems, but, as the campaign has moved forward, he has found Jo Swinson’s party leadership unconvincing. He has little respect for Boris, mainly because he sees him as economical with the truth, but he has not entirely ruled out voting for him and the Tories.

I imagine that there are millions of voters in Britain who face a similar dilemma. Some will ‘make the best of a bad job’ while others may abstain.

Reflecting on this, my advice to Roger (not his real name) would be definitely NOT to vote for the Conservatives for several reasons:

  • “Get Brexit Done” is code for “No Deal” which has already been rightly rejected by Parliament. Many more years of negotiations and uncertainty would be required to work out a new trading and coordination arrangement with Europe whether the next government goes for a deal or no deal.
  • The Conservative Manifesto does not seriously address the economic, environmental, health, education and security policy issues facing Britain. It all about mending potholes in the roads, potholes in the number of nurses and potholes in the size of the police force – all caused by the party’s very own austerity programme.
  • The Conservatives got us into Brexit and have had over 3 years to ‘get it done’ but still cannot tell us what kind of future relationship they want with our European neighbours. Do we want 5 more years of an empty-promise government whose main achievements have been to fan divisions in the country and to leave us poorer.
  • Boris Johnson may be full of bonhomie but he is driven solely by ambition. He is not dependable, as shown by his self-seeking disloyalty to Cameron and May. He may speak of the “will of the people” but interprets this to suit his own designs even if he knows full well his policies would continue to hurt us economically for years to come.

If Roger really wants Britain to stay in Europe, then the first step must be to rule out voting for Boris, however good a person his local Tory candidate may be.

As Roger is quite ambivalent about the main contenders, the most sensible thing would be for him – whatever he may feel about their leaders – to vote for the party that, according to the polls, has the best chance of beating the Conservatives at constituency level. This is especially the case if his constituency is listed as a marginal seat where there is a good chance of keeping the Tory candidate out of office. See https://www.tactical-vote.uk/

There is likely to be a lot of horse-trading between parties in the coming days even in less marginal seats with the aim of consolidating a divided opposition vote around a single candidate. This could lead tactical voting recommendations to change right up to the eve of election day. This means following the situation carefully before taking a definite voting decision. Failure to engage in tactical voting could see opposition parties collectively gaining more votes than the Tories but letting the Boris candidate win the seat in Parliament.

You CAN stop Boris. Make Brexit Stop!

Think Hard before you Vote for the Pothole Party!

Have you bothered to read the Tory Manifesto?

If you haven’t, perhaps you should.

It’s all about how Boris and his merry men are going to fill the potholes that they have created during years of irresponsible government. Let’s call it Boris’ Pothole Manifesto. That sounds good! Sadly, however, it looks like a case of “He who ddealt it smelt it”.

Boris wants to spend £2 billion to fill up the potholes in Englands’s roads. If there are so many potholes, it’s because his party utterly failed to provide money for road maintenance. In Boris’ way of thinking, Britain will be great again when we have smooth roads (plus, of course, his garden bridge in London).

He then says that he will fill the gaping potholes in the police force by hiring 20,000 more policemen. Perhaps, like Boris, I have got my facts wrong, but surely it was his Conservatives who relentlessly slashed funding for the police, causing them to cut numbers and leave them short of staff.

Next, Boris tells us that he will fill the nurses pothole by adding 50,000 nurses to the NHS. He seems to have forgotten that the crippling shortage of NHS nurses is wholly due to Tory cuts in support of training for British nurses and to Mrs May’s creation of a hostile environment for migrants: this means that more foreign nurses are leaving than joining the NHS.

Oddly enough, Boris does not say much about the biggest pothole of them all. It is best described as a monster crater that he, Dom, Jacob, Mike, Ian and the boys have been digging for over 3 years. They’ve already spent £8 billion digging and are still pushing forward without a clue as to what it will look like.

We are being kept in the dark. All we know is that they are planning to herd us over the rim of this mystery crater in about 2 months’ time. They’ll be standing to attention on the crater’s edge singing Land of Hope and Glory and declaiming The Charge of the Light Brigade.

This isn’t the future our children want.

Do you really want to entrust 5 years of your life to the Pothole Party?

You CAN Make Brexit Stop. Please vote tactically to keep Boris out, even if it means deserting your preferred party and your pet candidate.

Our Trusting Nature

Why don’t we stop putting our trust in people who are known to lie?

This morning I read an extraordinary article on the BBC website entitled Cryptoqueen: How this woman scammed the world, then vanished.( https://www.bbc.com/news/stories-50435014 )  It told the remarkable story of a glamorous, cosmopolitan and articulate lady who persuaded thousands of people around the world to invest in One Coin, a cryptocurrency that she invented and claimed would out-perform the apparently very successful BitCoin.

Ruja Ignatova, for that was her name, took advantage of the fact that many people are easily lured by the prospect of getting rich quickly and that few of them understand the complex mechanics of cryptocurrency trading systems and the safeguards that assure their smooth operation. Her attractive appearance, combined with her oratory, helped her to draw big crowds at special events. This was sufficient to induce widespread trust in her to the extent that initial investors went on to persuade many of their friends to follow their example and buy into One Coin. The day that she disappeared, they found that they had been duped and would never see their savings again.

This made me think that it comes naturally for us to trust each other and that reciprocal trust is fundamental to the smooth working of the societies in which we live. Trust not only binds together relationships between individuals but is also fundamental to the effective working of the institutions and services on which our daily lives depend and to our confidence in their performance. Unless we are of a sceptical or suspicious nature, we automatically treat other people. even if we don’t know them, as being trustworthy because this is – or perhaps I should say ‘was’ – a behavioural norm.

Most of us were brought up to tell the truth and expect others to do the same. We have grown up with an innate tendency to trust in people who work in institutions that command our confidence, whether doctors, priests, policemen, judges or members of parliament. It is painful and often saddening when we find our trust betrayed.

The most successful fraudsters. like Ruja, manage to remain ‘above suspicion’ for many years before, if ever, being found out. When we learn of their misdeeds our initial reaction is often one of shock and incredulity. If we have been directly affected by the fraudulent behaviour of others, we may even perversely admire their ingenuity and end up blaming ourselves for our naivety rather than them for their deceit! We may even give them another chance!

What is most worrying is that untrustworthiness has become so widespread that it is no longer being automatically condemned: falling standards of integrity seem to be gaining tacit acceptance. This is particularly so in relation to politicians, where there appears to be a growing, but possibly erroneous, public perception that they are all dishonest and that therefore nothing can be done to prevent it.

If we vote for candidates in the upcoming election (however honest they themselves may be) who are members of parties led  by people who have left a trail of broken promises and are recognised as habitual liars, we are increasing the chances that we end up with a prime minister who, to put it mildly, is economical with the truth. Perhaps more seriously, we become complicit in inducing a further decline  in the standards of truth that we have a right to expect from our political leaders.

It would be hugely damaging for Britain’s international reputation – and for our self-respect – if we were to vote into office a Prime Minister who has repeatedly betrayed the peoples’ trust. The implication of putting a known compulsive liar into Downing Street would be that Britain’s electorate had failed to uphold support for truth in politics, making a nonsense of any claim that we can reclaim our national ‘greatness’.

We must not allow ourselves to be seduced by charm and bonhomie and turn a blind eye to the habitual betrayal of trust by a leading politician in the naïve hope of a change in his behaviour. If we were to do so, we could no longer condemn our politicians for letting us down because we would have become accessories to their misconduct.  The answer is to MAKE IT STOP!  by voting tactically even if it means deserting our pet candidate……