There will be none if Theresa May, who looks likely to be our next prime minister, has her way. But I do like this post, flagged up by Maria Pretzler.
Mrs May does not acknowledge that the referendum decision is of dubious validity, given that it was obtained by lies about the EU and promises, some of which have already turned to dust even before negotiations to leave have started. But another referendum, which would inevitably also be flawed, is not the answer. Tim Farron has already asserted that the Liberal Democrat manifesto for the next general election will major on a reversal of the decision to leave the EU. However, this bold declaration means nothing unless there is a general election before Article 50 is invoked. "Remainers" in the Commons cannot wait until there is a new leader for the Conservatives because that leader will almost certainly on appointment as prime minister send the letter to the European Council from which there is no going back.
Mark Pack explains how dissolution of parliament can be achieved under current legislation. One would have thought that it was in the interests of both sides of the EU debate to elect a new House - Remainers for the reason above, and Leavers because they will want a favourable Commons when it comes to voting on the terms of leaving the EU. The trouble is that clearly the disunited Labour party will not want to commit electoral suicide by supporting a dissolution.
Thursday, 30 June 2016
Wednesday, 29 June 2016
Article 50
This is the clearest, if detailed, explanation of the mechanism of leaving the EU:
https://epthinktank.eu/2016/06/29/uk-withdrawal-from-the-eu-next-steps/
If you want to hear a discussion between legal experts which builds on the basic facts, I can recommend Joshua Rozenberg's special on Radio 4 yesterday.
https://epthinktank.eu/2016/06/29/uk-withdrawal-from-the-eu-next-steps/
If you want to hear a discussion between legal experts which builds on the basic facts, I can recommend Joshua Rozenberg's special on Radio 4 yesterday.
Our Polish friends
From an interchange following the prime minister's statement to the Commons about the aftermath of the EU referendum:
- May I thank the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition for their condemnation of yesterday’s racist attack on the Polish Social and Cultural Association in my constituency, which I visited this morning? The centre was built almost 50 years ago by the same generation of Poles who fought for this country in the battle of Britain, Monte Cassino and the battle of the Atlantic. Will the Prime Minister express his solidarity with the Poles and all our migrant communities, which are, in the wake of last Thursday’s vote, feeling under threat?
I am very happy to do that. As someone who used to live in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency,
I know some of the Polish centres and restaurants quite well. They have made an amazing
contribution to our country. He mentions the battle of Britain. We should always remember
that—I do every time I go past the Polish war memorial—and we should say to those people,
“You make a great contribution to our country. You are welcome and you can stay, and these
attacks are hateful.”
I know some of the Polish centres and restaurants quite well. They have made an amazing
contribution to our country. He mentions the battle of Britain. We should always remember
that—I do every time I go past the Polish war memorial—and we should say to those people,
“You make a great contribution to our country. You are welcome and you can stay, and these
attacks are hateful.”
It would be a sad day if, in addition to shutting out young Poles who come to the UK only to work (which would be bad enough), we also drove out the long-standing and well-integrated Polish community in West London. (I can vouch for the restaurants, by the way.) The original generation of Poles are those who escaped the Nazi invasion of Poland in 1939 to man a whole Spitfire squadron and play a big part in defeating Hitler. It is understandable that at the end of hostilities they preferred to stay than return to a homeland under communist control.
It seems to me that the thugs who want to racially-cleanse Ealing and Hammersmith are the spiritual descendants of those in the 1930s who cheered on Hitler and were prepared to let him have his will on the continent provided he left us alone.
We should be proud of the citizens of Llanelli (Carmarthenshire has an equally long-standing Polish presence) who pinned this picture to the doors of the Welsh Polish Association in the town:
Tuesday, 28 June 2016
EU referendum: the case against BBC
Chris Dillow has a blog post about BBC's record in covering the EU referendum. I agree with much of it, but most of all Norman Smith's advocacy of a more robust attitude on the part of the BBC in correcting misstatements. Indisputable lies like "Turkey is about to join the EU" were not refuted authoritatively, but instead their rebuttal was attributed to the Leave campaign. At the same time, genuinely debatable assertions like "the EU is a failed project" and "the euro has been a disaster" were accepted as a given, instead of proponents of either or both being given the chance to argue to the contrary.
I would go further than Mr Dillow. I believe the BBC lost the cause of truth about the EU long ago. Lord Reith offered the British people programmes to educate, inform and entertain. With the addition of "and services" after "programmes", this is still the basic mission statement of the corporation today. My contention is that in its news coverage, the BBC is more intent on entertainment than in education. Its news editors have a tabloid mindset.
It is difficult to recall an item in daytime news bulletins on a subject for debate in the European Parliament, except for a couple of Nigel Farage's xenophobic rants. Today's 1 o'clock news was at it again. Contrast that with the excessive coverage given to US politics. We are instructed in the mechanism of selecting presidential candidates and in the internal politics of US parties, neither of which can be influenced by British voters. They do have entertainment value, admittedly.
Instead, the corporation responded to the need for information about EU matters with an occasional short programme put on late at night and in the hands of the Eurosceptic Andrew Neil. BBC-Parliament does now provide raw coverage of some European Parliament proceedings, but it seems only when neither the House of Commons nor the (unelected) House of Lords nor the Scottish Parliament are in session, and when there is no recent unbroadcast footage from the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Recorded-as-live EP debates are all very well, but even people who know a bit about European politics need the sort of guidance as to what is going on which is provided by the BBC in respect of the Senedd or the House of Commons.
The BBC should have been educating the British people regularly about the democratic structure of the EU, including the power that elected national ministers have over policy. It should have highlighted the debates in the EP about matters which affect us, such as mobile telephone roaming charges, vehicle emission limits, curbing bank bonuses and fisheries policy. It should explain the different political forces at work, including those of the UK-based parties and the groups to which they are allied on the continent.
If this had been the case since the UK's accession, the EU referendum vote could have been carried out on the basis of knowledge about the EU rather than on voters' judgments of the personal character of the leaders of each of the campaigns. It is not too late to put European affairs on the same footing as American coverage. Indeed, it is essential if, as is probable, there is a general election this year which is in effect a second referendum on our relationship with the rest of Europe.
I would go further than Mr Dillow. I believe the BBC lost the cause of truth about the EU long ago. Lord Reith offered the British people programmes to educate, inform and entertain. With the addition of "and services" after "programmes", this is still the basic mission statement of the corporation today. My contention is that in its news coverage, the BBC is more intent on entertainment than in education. Its news editors have a tabloid mindset.
It is difficult to recall an item in daytime news bulletins on a subject for debate in the European Parliament, except for a couple of Nigel Farage's xenophobic rants. Today's 1 o'clock news was at it again. Contrast that with the excessive coverage given to US politics. We are instructed in the mechanism of selecting presidential candidates and in the internal politics of US parties, neither of which can be influenced by British voters. They do have entertainment value, admittedly.
Instead, the corporation responded to the need for information about EU matters with an occasional short programme put on late at night and in the hands of the Eurosceptic Andrew Neil. BBC-Parliament does now provide raw coverage of some European Parliament proceedings, but it seems only when neither the House of Commons nor the (unelected) House of Lords nor the Scottish Parliament are in session, and when there is no recent unbroadcast footage from the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Recorded-as-live EP debates are all very well, but even people who know a bit about European politics need the sort of guidance as to what is going on which is provided by the BBC in respect of the Senedd or the House of Commons.
The BBC should have been educating the British people regularly about the democratic structure of the EU, including the power that elected national ministers have over policy. It should have highlighted the debates in the EP about matters which affect us, such as mobile telephone roaming charges, vehicle emission limits, curbing bank bonuses and fisheries policy. It should explain the different political forces at work, including those of the UK-based parties and the groups to which they are allied on the continent.
If this had been the case since the UK's accession, the EU referendum vote could have been carried out on the basis of knowledge about the EU rather than on voters' judgments of the personal character of the leaders of each of the campaigns. It is not too late to put European affairs on the same footing as American coverage. Indeed, it is essential if, as is probable, there is a general election this year which is in effect a second referendum on our relationship with the rest of Europe.
It's what Wales voted for, part 6
The people of Pontypridd, a majority of whom voted to leave the EU, have seen an early casualty of Brexit.
Monday, 27 June 2016
As predicted
There was an immediate plunge in the value of sterling and in the stock market indices after the EU referendum verdict, as was to be expected. The markets do not like uncertainty. Once they had taken stock of the situation, those key indicators settled down. The FTSE 100 is now around the same level as it was before the vote. However, it should be pointed out that the 100 comprises large companies, often foreign-owned, which are not dependent on the single market or are exporters which will benefit from a weaker pound. A better overview of the effect on the British economy is given by the 250 next listed companies:
I am not a financial expert, but it seems to me therefore that pension funds which tend to be invested in the top companies will not suffer much from Brexit. On the other hand, UK-based companies most of whose business is in the UK are going to be under pressure leading to increased unemployment. It could be another case of the retired being better off than the economically-active.
Sterling is at $1.32 as I write, a value last seen 31 years ago. There is no sign of it rising soon; indeed there are predictions that it will decline further. So there will be an immediate effect on the prices of petrol and food, with gas and other imports to follow.
Finally, it remains to be seen whether investors in UK government bonds share the rosy opinion of our prospects outside the EU as Norman Lamont and others. If they do not, then the interest on our debt will rise and the accumulation of debt will accelerate. This is why George Osborne envisioned an extra budget this year, and one which would impact benefits. The question is whether the current cabinet will contrive an early election before then, scuttling out before the next administration has to carry the can.
I am not a financial expert, but it seems to me therefore that pension funds which tend to be invested in the top companies will not suffer much from Brexit. On the other hand, UK-based companies most of whose business is in the UK are going to be under pressure leading to increased unemployment. It could be another case of the retired being better off than the economically-active.
Sterling is at $1.32 as I write, a value last seen 31 years ago. There is no sign of it rising soon; indeed there are predictions that it will decline further. So there will be an immediate effect on the prices of petrol and food, with gas and other imports to follow.
Finally, it remains to be seen whether investors in UK government bonds share the rosy opinion of our prospects outside the EU as Norman Lamont and others. If they do not, then the interest on our debt will rise and the accumulation of debt will accelerate. This is why George Osborne envisioned an extra budget this year, and one which would impact benefits. The question is whether the current cabinet will contrive an early election before then, scuttling out before the next administration has to carry the can.
Fair votes and the referendum
I have written a piece for the local LibDem party blog about the high turnout for the EU referendum. It consists largely of a piece by Anthony Tuffin of STV Action. It was directed largely at Liberal Democrat members and friends, but Anthony has also pointed out there are Labour Party activists who want to introduce fair votes. He said:
There is no need to convince the nationalists. Scotland has had STV in local government for many years now, and their parliamentary elections, while conducted on the same top-up list system as ours in Wales, are at least proportional, unlike those for the Senedd. STV is also Plaid Cymru policy, I believe, as it is for UKIP.
[There is] a link to Owen Winter’s excellent article in Huffington Post here: http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/owen-winter/eu-referendum-brexit_b_10559188.html.
When you read the article, you may also want to like and/or post your own comment.
The e-mail below also contains a link to a Labour Party resolution on electoral reform. Although of special interest to Labour Party members, it will probably also interest other electoral reformers.
Best wishes,
Anthony Tuffin.
https://stvact.wordpress.com Click on “Follow” in the bottom right corner to receive updates of postings.
There is no need to convince the nationalists. Scotland has had STV in local government for many years now, and their parliamentary elections, while conducted on the same top-up list system as ours in Wales, are at least proportional, unlike those for the Senedd. STV is also Plaid Cymru policy, I believe, as it is for UKIP.
Friday, 24 June 2016
Who sponsored the Lockerbie bomb?
There is a review of Kenny MacAskill's book, written from the point of view of an insider to the judicial process, in the current Private Eye. The review reinforces the evidence pointing to agents of the PFLP-GC as the perpetrators, not al-Megrahi put up by Qaddafi as a scapegoat. Given that Syria sponsored the PFLP-GC and that Iran later supported the organisation, and these were not among the West's favourite nations, I wonder why the Establishment was so keen to accept the Libyan explanation.
And were any related papers recovered from the looting which took place after Qaddafi's overthrow?
And were any related papers recovered from the looting which took place after Qaddafi's overthrow?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)