Saturday 25 June 2016


A Time for a Break

Friends, I have decided to take a break from social media for a couple of weeks. The outcome of the EU referendum has meant that I am seeing a great deal of nastiness on Facebook and Twitter. Whilst in the most part my friends have been pretty decent about this, and a special thanks to Josh here for being especially nice despite being on the other side of the vote to me, there have been people sharing posts saying that anyone who is unhappy with the outcome of the referendum is a whinger. This crassly insensitive approach is unnecessary and offensive to me. Had remain won there is no way I would have posted articles or memes telling leavers to stop whinging. People have real concerns about Europe and whilst I do not share those concerns I would never belittle my friend’s worries in such a nasty way. It disappoints me that some friends of mine have done so. On my side I have allowed myself to be provoked by this and responded discourteously which is disappointing. I have heard that there have been many remain voters being unnecessarily rude to leave voters. This is unhelpful, offensive and again unnecessary.




I have also seen a worrying trend in the increase of offensive behaviour by the extreme right who wrongly believe that an out vote is because people share their morally abhorrent views. Some seem to believe that the out vote has somehow given them licence to be racially offensive to people from other countries and Muslims. This is especially apparent on Twitter and the LBC comments where the trolling messages relating to the EU vote have seemed to be increasingly racially charged. I place the blame for this on the leave campaign for their irresponsible rhetoric throughout the referendum where they blamed immigrants for every problem facing the country.
 
A Note to Leave Voters:

Many people I know are scared by the result of the referendum. There is now massive uncertainty surrounding our futures; hence the fall in the pound and the global stock markets. Nobody knows what is going to happen now, anyone that tells you they do know is either fooling themselves or a liar. A senior member of the Leave campaign quite openly said that manufacturing in the UK would go as a result of a vote to leave. If this is true people are going to lose their jobs. Uncertainty in business as a result of this vote could mean less spending from businesses which would mean the potential for lower economic growth. Lower economic growth for ordinary people means further pay freezes more government austerity and less full time jobs as businesses seek to reduce costs. Whilst this is a worst case scenario and I am hopeful this will not happen, we simply cannot be sure. After stagnating wage growth over the last six years, further wage freezes are a real worry for people struggling to pay their bills every month.

You may disagree with these worries and think they are unfounded, but to belittle these views as whinging is at best unpleasant. I ask you to bear with us remain voters. Let us get to grips with the fact that the UK is going to change forever. Change is scary without all of these additional worries that I have highlighted above. Give your friends some license to be upset and support them. Trust me they will appreciate it as I appreciate the support I have been given.

A Note to Remain Voters

Not everyone who voted leave and did so for concerns about immigration is a racist. As an optimist and from experience I would say most UK people are not racist. Now the Leave campaign have won, if there were views that lead your leave voting friends to vote out that you disagree with, take the time to explain in the less charged climate (with a vote no longer imminent) in a patient and friendly way where you disagree. Whilst I believe a second referendum is unlikely, now is a good time to challenge people’s views and point out the lies of the Out campaign as they all unravel.
 
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36628894
 
There is time before the UK leaves the EU. The complete absence of Boris Johnson and Michael Gove from the frontline since the Leave vote went through is because the Leave campaign have no plan for what happens next. Our job is to ensure we play a part in shaping the UK’s future relationship with Europe. Maybe we can model one of the other European countries relationships with the EU in a way that does not restrict trade and free movement so the impact for us and our families is minimal. Whilst I will be sad to lose great MEP’s like Glenis Wilmott (Labour) and Catherine Bearder (Lib Dem) I will be delighted to lose MEP’s like Roger Helmer and Nigel Farage from UKIP who have been absent and/or ineffectual and have teamed up with other European far right political groups.
Finally a positive note:
 

Sunday 19 June 2016

Remain


In the EU referendum next week I don’t think many people will surprised that I am voting in. I have been compelled by many of the positive reasons for staying in the EU; economic, environmental and social. From social media I have seen that many (not all) people who are voting out are doing so on an emotional basis rather than a rational basis. They have a feeling of dissatisfaction with the EU compelling them to vote out rather than a list of positive benefits that will come from leaving the EU. I think this is where the In campaign have been weak, they have provided lists of reasons why people should vote in trying to convince people on a rational rather than an emotional basis.

For me, the EU originally existed to stop European wars. In this it has been successful. People forget that war across Europe were the norm before 1945. However, given the social progression of humanity in Europe, this purpose seems less vital today, as the chance of a pan-European war seems significantly less likely. For me, the EU‘s purpose has evolved so we as a group of countries can face the challenges the world faces together. By working together on issues (such as economics, trade, the environment, energy, technology and science and all of the other things I have not listed) we can find a common solution from a position of strength as a larger group, rather than a disparate group of countries trying to face these problems alone.

I want to be clear, I am not saying all of these things will definitely be lost if we leave the EU. I am saying we will lose a huge chunk our influence in Europe to help ensure these changes happen in a way that benefits us. Decisions will be made, many that we will still have to abide by, that we will have no say in; unlike now where our MEP’s represent us (admittedly some better than others). However, this is not the thing that worries me. For me, our exiting a forum in which we can work with our neighbours on the big problems facing the world would be a much bigger loss.

I was in Europe with work the other week in a meeting with people from a number of different countries. Amongst this group of people was a person from Norway with a sense of humour so dry it would not have been out of place in a desert, a Czech person proud of their countries beer and a Swiss person not eating cakes as they were on a diet. As a group we had many conversations about the countries where we lived, our families and our jobs. Language differences aside, all of these people were no different to British people I have met.

Whenever I have a problem I talk to my friends and family about how to resolve it. Sometimes I need help and it is rare that I have to ask as help is usually offered. From what I have seen, people in other European countries have the same hopes for themselves and their families and the same problems that we do. The challenges currently facing the world as a whole are not going to get any less. For me, staying in the EU and working with our European neighbours gives us the opportunity to face these problems and change how the world works for the better. What could possibly be better than facing these problems with friends? The alternative is sitting moaning on the sidelines as the world passes us by, and let’s face it, no one likes listening to a moaner.

One last thing, a letter reportedly from a Dutch newspaper someone shared on Twitter:
 

Sunday 15 May 2016

Vote Leave - A Critique

I have been searching for a decent article or argument with a compelling reason to exit the EU. After seeing a number of Vote Leave videos and articles, I have been struck by the poor quality of arguments put forward by the pro-exit campaigners. Looking at their key arguments, most seem to be inaccurate or misleading. Therefore, I decided to examine these arguments and below is my analysis of them.

Argument one: Being in the EU means we cannot negotiate any trade deals on our own, we are stuck with whatever deals unelected EU commissioners think is best: This claim is false. Inside the EU British MEPs are involved in decisions on trade deals. From a Pro-EU perspective, being part of a larger union means we are in a much stronger position to negotiate trade deals with other countries. This is due to us being part of a larger, therefore more powerful, group.

A version of the above argument aimed at Labour supporters like me is that being in the EU means we will be stuck with TTIP. This is used as an argument against the left as American companies will be able to bid on contracts to provide health care services in the UK – privatisation of the NHS being something that most left leaning thinkers disagree with. I wrote to my MEP’s and asked them to vote against TTIP for this very reason, I also have been tracking which MEP’s are for or against TTIP. Conservative MEP’s seem to overwhelmingly be in favour of TTIP which means that even if we leave the EU, it is likely a Conservative government in the future will sign us up to a similar trade deal. The difference is we will not be making this deal from a position of enhanced strength within the EU, we will do so on our own. To me this means that we are likely to end up with the same or a worse trade deal as TTIP regardless of whether we stay in the EU.

Argument two: The majority of our laws come from the EU. This claim has been notoriously difficult to fact-check but here is the best one I have found, (https://fullfact.org/europe/two-thirds-uk-law-made-eu/). Regardless of whether this is true, I understand peoples discomfort with the idea of politicians from other countries being involved in writing our laws. However, from what I have been able to see, many of these laws seem to be standards and regulations, and one of the reasons standards are merged across the EU is to make trade easier for us all. One set of standards means any UK manufacturing company can trade across the whole EU and not have to produce products to a whole range of standards depending on which country they want to supply to. This also means that companies wanting to trade with the EU need to produce products to a minimum standard. I have yet to find an example of a European law I am unhappy with, but I have not looked in any great detail so stand to be corrected on this.

Argument three: Being out the EU will save us £18 billion a year and mean we can stop immigration from the EU. I believe both of these are false claims, the first is definitely misleading at best thanks to negotiations on the EU by Thatcher (as a Labour man, crediting her with anything is a little painful!!!). From Factcheck I have the figure the UK paid into the EU last year: “In 2015 the UK government paid £13 billion to the EU budget, and EU spending on the UK was £4.5 billion. So the UK’s ‘net contribution’ was estimated at about £8.5 billion.

Each year the UK gets an instant discount on its contributions to the EU—the ‘rebate’—worth almost £5 billion last year. Without it the UK would have been liable for £18 billion in contributions.


Most commentators agree that the UK will want to remain a part of the single market, we do over 40% of our trade with EU countries tariff free as a result of being in the single market. In order to remain in the single market (if we exit the EU) we will have to pay in like other countries (ie Norway and Switzerland) so how much we may actually save is unclear. From the following article, the suggestion is that we would pay 94% of current costs, and we would have zero influence on the decisions made: (http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/mar/16/eu-exit-norway-option-costs-thinktank). True, 6% is not an insignificant amount of money, but that loss of influence is not insignificant either.

Immigration looked at in purely economic terms is a positive thing, however, many outers point to the strain on internal resources. I do not intend to have that specific argument here as this is covered elsewhere like here: (https://www.cer.org.uk/sites/default/files/publications/attachments/pdf/2013/pb_imm_uk_27sept13-7892.pdf - NOTE I have not read this in detail so this is not an endorsement, just pointing to research being available). Being part of the single market would mean having to sign up to the free travel across the EU as the following shows, “the EU has repeatedly made it clear that free movement of people is the price that must be paid for access to the single market.” (http://openeurope.org.uk/intelligence/immigration-and-justice/norway-and-switzerland/)

Michael Gove has argued that we could exist out of the single market, and leaving would not automatically mean tariffs would be added to trade. This is true, however, tariffs could be added to trade. We cannot say for certain either way, and uncertainty is bad for business.

Final Thoughts: We do not have unelected Bureaucrats making decisions on our behalf. Our MEP’s are thoroughly involved in the decision making process – hence why I wrote to my MEP’s about the TTIP deal. Unfortunately people in the UK are generally apathetic to the EU and voter turnouts are low. This means that we get lumbered with UKIP MEP’s who do a shocking job (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/ukip-meps-attend-the-fewest-european-parliament-votes-of-any-party-in-the-eus-28-countries-10316962.html). Nigel Farage was on the Fisheries panel that we got such a poor deal from as he didn’t even turn up to most of the meetings (http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/media/press-releases/farage%E2%80%99s-voting-record-fishing-%E2%80%98makes-mockery%E2%80%99-new-election-poster-20150408). Just as with local politics, we need people in position who are willing and able to do the job.

A claim levied at the In campaign is that those wanting us to remain in the EU are using uncertainty and doubt to spread fear. This is the one true claim that the Out campaign have made, but that is because there is uncertainty and doubt. The outers cannot tell us what being out of the EU will look like as they don’t know. The IMF, Bank of England, The US President, Frontier Economics and thousands of Independent Economists have all said that being in the EU makes us financially better off and leaving will make us worse off. I am yet to see a single independent study that has given any positive spin to the UK being out of the EU. The harsh truth is that uncertainty is bad for business which will have a negative impact on us all. The only question is how bad that impact will be and who will feel the most pain.

Monday 1 February 2016

Why David Cameron’s “Bunch of Migrants” Comment IS Offensive, But Why His Supporters Won’t Care

I’ve seen a mixed response to this. However a lot of people seem to think this is not offensive. I was thinking about a good way of explaining why it is, and why more people should be offended by it. Having read some Facebook comments, I think I can also explain why people are not offended and why many of his supporters will not be, even if they were to read this. The two comments below sum up what many people seem to think.
 








I agree that the word migrants by itself is not offensive, but then most words are not offensive in isolation, it is all about the context in which they are used. For example; the words ‘dog, lawn and pile’ by themselves are not offensive, but then you link them together with ‘David Cameron is a person with less compassion than a pile of something my dog left on the lawn.’ and the sentence becomes an insult and offensive were it to be said to his face.
 
The reason why many are offended by the use of the word is because it is dehumanising. If we take a look at this next comment, I think it becomes more obvious why this is so. This person defends the use of the term as it can be applied to “bananas”. So these people are not brothers, sisters or children with real complex problems or worries, they are not human at all. Merely a bunch of something just like a bunch of fruit.






The reason why many are not offended is that, to them, migrants are not people at all. To many, they are considered to be aggressive animals that just want to commit crimes and get free stuff from us. The fact that this is not going to be true in 99% of cases, and that these people have escaped horrendous conditions at home looking for a better life at any cost, simply does not occur to these people. The comments below were typical of responses I have seen:




















The commenters above have stopped thinking of these people as people, and thinking of them as somehow less. Never considering an idea beyond greed as to why they are aiming for England; maybe they speak English but not French, German, Spanish or Italian. So when David Cameron uses dehumanising language, it is offensive. At best it shows a lack of understanding, at worst it reveals an absence of compassion on sociopathic levels.

One last thing, if you weren’t convinced by my argument, you have one person on your side anyway…