Don't worry, this isn't a recipe for a meringue, cream and summer fruit dessert. The mess I refer to is the way things are going with the Conservatives re-negotiation of the terms of membership of Britain's participation in the European Union.
Prime Minister, David Cameron, has started the process of re-negotiation. It is barely a month, since the Conservatives were elected, with a small majority, to the Westminster Parliament. A referendum is promised by the end of 2017 and yet to hear some people, you would think that the vote is around the corner.
On this issue, many people, myself included have some kind of an axe or other, to grind.
How are people better informed about the renegotiation of say free movement of labour and the effect on immigration, if they are distracted by stories of a Tory split or Deutsche Bank's latest view on the precarious economic future for Britain. The distraction from UKIP will, over time become a dull pain. They need to freshen-up their message rather than just saying the same thing over and over and over again. 'UKIP wants Britain out of the EU' - we know, we get it! Change the record!
I know that I have to be patient and await the outcome of these negotiations. Cameron and the other leaders need come to a resolution to very complex matters and I don't expect that these will happen over-night. Even the UKIP, 'Out now' solution, is a bit more nuanced than the phrase suggests.
I would suggest that all British people need to be patient and don't allow ourselves to be swayed by these people who want to bounce our opinion and thus our vote, in one direction or another. I would request that organizations like the BBC, big business and UKIP, just pipe down. We are not fools, we know where you stand, and we want to hear the deal that Cameron eventually gets for us and then we will make-up our minds.
My expectation is that once negotiations are concluded, there would be a period of, say, three months, during which the Yes and No campaign can put out their stalls and seek to persuade one way or another but until we know the deal, any comment seeking to persuade, one way or another is just noise - it might help to inform the debate (as do my 'red lines', I hope) but stirring up trouble and rifts and divisions doesn't help. I wouldn't though suggest that debate is stifled more that it is focused on the real issues rather than just posturing and saying nothing new. I would also say that Opinion Polls, yes the same organisations that got the GE2015 results, so wrong, have a part to play. These could strengthen the hand of Cameron and the negotiating team as they send a message to our EU partners about how seriously the UK wants change.
Talking of the No campaign. There has been mention made that this should be led by Nigel Farage, the leader of UKIP. This would be completely wrong. Farage has done a great job of pushing the need for a referendum but he is very divisive and would likely cause many potential No voters to turn away in disgust and vote Yes, simply because he is there. A far better No campaign leader would be Boris Johnson or Daniel Hannan. The latter has consistency and, as a Euro MP, a long history of opposing and exposing the anti-democratic nature of the EU as it is currently constituted. Johnson has great voter appeal. Cameron is said to expect to work for a Yes vote and so, were Johnson to lead the No campaign then this would suggest an easy transition and change of power, should the Nos prevail. As another possible leader, Sir James Dyson, a dynamic business leader, who is much admired for his entrepreneurial flair and business success. Being a non-politician, he may also be more trusted by the 'man in the street'.
Now my 'red lines'. As with any negotiation, we won't get all that we want but here's the framework.
Free movement of Labour - I must declare an interest as I have benefited from this, during my working life. Therefore, along with other experiences of the benefits, I see this as beneficial to our economy and our country. Yes it potentially means an influx of cheap labour but this is good for the country. There are very definite challenges to be faced - schooling, health systems etc., but these will resolve themselves, over time. A growing and healthy economy can afford such 'problems'.
I find the people that argue against this as somewhat hypocritical. We don't want cheap labour doing jobs that need doing, and we oppose reform of a welfare system which makes it 'uneconomic' for people to come off of welfare and take low paying jobs, seems to be the crux of their argument.
Bureaucracy and Reciprocity - Big words. More simply put, there are areas where the EU isn't needed. Working hours in Britain - that's a matter for the UK parliament, not un-elected officials in Brussels. HSE, Britain not EU, there is a whole raft of EU legislation - or more accurately, legislation that starts out as a Brussels 'directive' and becomes UK legislation because we have no choice but to implement it, under current rules - and this needs wholesale review and likely abolition for the greater parts of it. Foreign relations? Britain doesn't need, except perhaps on areas limited to certain trade discussions, an un-elected commissioner representing her. History has shown that we are quite capable of doing so, ourselves.
Funding - The original benefits of the EU or the Common Market, as it was then called, effectively related to free trade - the sale of goods from one country to another without the imposition of tariffs or other barriers. That is the place to where we should return. Therefore the need for much of the funding for the monolithic bureaucracy and EU organisations would disappear. Why should any country in the EU subsidize another? If I join a club of some sort, I can expect to pay an annual subscription fee for the running and administration of the club. I don't expect to pay based on my income, nor do I expect to pay fees for people that can't afford to be in the club, in the first place. I certainly don't expect to pay their bar tab every single day that they are living beyond their means!
Democracy - Becomes somewhat moot if funding and reciprocity are addressed but this swings two ways. Firstly, the EU Commission, if it is still needed (but I can't think why it would), must be democratically elected - that would suggest it must be appointed by either the people, through direct elections, or through the European Parliament. My own view is that both the Commission and the Parliament should be abolished and much money saved. I can't believe that all that hot air and cant is good for the environment! Neither is the to-ing and fro-ing between Brussels and Strasbourg every month, nor the EU-citizen funded traveling between home country and Brussels/Strasbourg and back, on a weekly/daily basis. Every time I think of that, I think of all those climatologists that attend these conferences in exotic places, traveling by jet - private or commercial - to do so, or Al Gore's house that uses so much hydrocarbon-provided power that it is said to be like the Great Wall of China - visible from space! But I digress. So less democracy in terms of a talking shop in Europe but then democracy in terms of consensus forming decisions and then acceptance by all. So long as the 'club rules' and the 'club charter' aren't being infringed then all governments must accept the will of the majority of voters, with voting rights.
Free Trade - this should form the basis of 'club' membership. Goods and services (see also free movement of labour) can be traded between club members without the imposition of tariffs. That would apply to import tariffs - so no customs duties on equipment manufactured in Germany and sold into Slovenia or Britain, etc. Also though, no hidden tariffs, such as higher rates of local value added taxes on such goods. This wouldn't preclude a state subsidizing its own industry, where that might 'harm' the industry of another 'club' member. So if France wanted to subsidize French sugar beet growers and processors and this allowed these companies to then compete unfairly against German or British growers, then let them. It's France's money to do with as it pleases. It is not for Britain or Germany to say how France supports or doesn't support its rural communities. Equally, it is not for Britain or Germany to pay for France's support for its rural communities. Free Trade also means that 'club' members should be free to trade with non-club members, as they wish. So, if Britain or Germany decided that French sugar beet was too high-priced and they could get it cheaper from say, Turkey, then they would be free to negotiate purchases and set import tariffs as they see fit. If Turkish farmers are able to produce and sell sugar beet cheaper than French farmers, then why should British or German consumers miss out on Turkish efficiency.
In terms of imports from non-club members, these should not be subject to restrictions - individual sovereign states can enter into bi-lateral agreements - except that any onward sale of such imports need to meet certain criteria. This criteria would relate to the value added in the club member state. So if Britain and China concluded a bi-lateral trade agreement with very low import tariffs (or better yet, none) this could not be used as a 'back door' for China to then sell these on to other 'club' members with which it doesn't have a bi-lateral agreement unless a certain value was added in Britain. Let's say 60%. If a UK-based company imported parts from China, assembled these in the UK and then sold them within a 'club' member country, then the UK value added to those parts must be greater than 60% or whatever number is decided upon. We don't want dumping but neither do we want restrictive practices that protect inefficient local industries.
Non-EU wide and other agreements - These would be agreements that are established between sovereign nations - be they 'club' members or not which cover restricted topics. So, if Britain, Germany, Iceland, Australia, Brazil and Norway wanted to establish an agreement that allowed for a fast track extradition process between themselves, then this would be allowed and wouldn't require any input or permission from other 'club' members. It's called reciprocity - 'club' members only need to be involved on matters relating the the raison d'etre of the 'club' - free trade etc., and to not interfere in matters that are decided by other nations and which don't impinge upon these. Such an extradition treaty would be outwith the 'club' charter and so no business of other 'club' members. Similarly, if certain 'club' members wanted to establish a political and fiscal union and even a common currency, then they should be free to do so, so long as they do not seek to impose that union or its effects on other 'club' members. So by all means have a Euro currency but don't expect non-Euro countries, to bail out Euro members! If I join the Royal Automobile Club, I don't expect to be tapped-up by members of the rival Automobile Association, when that organisation runs into difficulties. It's a different 'club', I have chosen to not be a member and so shouldn't be required to pay anything for its failings.
Dear reader, be patient in the coming months. Listen to all of the views, look to the motive of the speaker and then form your own opinion, as I am sure you would anyway. Above all though, let's be patient and simply demand clarity on what the renegotiated deal means for us and our country. Then vote for what is best for Britain. I currently lean towards voting for BREXIT but, in the words of the great Joan Armatrading, I am 'open to persuassion'
Prime Minister, David Cameron, has started the process of re-negotiation. It is barely a month, since the Conservatives were elected, with a small majority, to the Westminster Parliament. A referendum is promised by the end of 2017 and yet to hear some people, you would think that the vote is around the corner.
On this issue, many people, myself included have some kind of an axe or other, to grind.
- The media, particularly the BBC, who receive lavish funding from the EU, are strongly pro-EU and so push an agenda that seeks to promote talk of a Tory split and faction fighting among Tories, David Cameron is accused of issuing ultimatums to Cabinet colleagues about toeing an as yet undefined line! And so on. We also hear that Rupert Murdoch has had a Damascene conversion and now wants Britain to stay in the EU!
- UKIP and noisy people that want out and really want no renegotiation, just out now (or yesterday, if we can 'fix' the records).
- Big business mostly declaring a doom and gloom future if Britain leaves the EU.
- Myself, my axe to grind is that I have my own 'red lines' - more on these shortly - and I don't want these issues to be lost in peripheral matters.
How are people better informed about the renegotiation of say free movement of labour and the effect on immigration, if they are distracted by stories of a Tory split or Deutsche Bank's latest view on the precarious economic future for Britain. The distraction from UKIP will, over time become a dull pain. They need to freshen-up their message rather than just saying the same thing over and over and over again. 'UKIP wants Britain out of the EU' - we know, we get it! Change the record!
I know that I have to be patient and await the outcome of these negotiations. Cameron and the other leaders need come to a resolution to very complex matters and I don't expect that these will happen over-night. Even the UKIP, 'Out now' solution, is a bit more nuanced than the phrase suggests.
I would suggest that all British people need to be patient and don't allow ourselves to be swayed by these people who want to bounce our opinion and thus our vote, in one direction or another. I would request that organizations like the BBC, big business and UKIP, just pipe down. We are not fools, we know where you stand, and we want to hear the deal that Cameron eventually gets for us and then we will make-up our minds.
My expectation is that once negotiations are concluded, there would be a period of, say, three months, during which the Yes and No campaign can put out their stalls and seek to persuade one way or another but until we know the deal, any comment seeking to persuade, one way or another is just noise - it might help to inform the debate (as do my 'red lines', I hope) but stirring up trouble and rifts and divisions doesn't help. I wouldn't though suggest that debate is stifled more that it is focused on the real issues rather than just posturing and saying nothing new. I would also say that Opinion Polls, yes the same organisations that got the GE2015 results, so wrong, have a part to play. These could strengthen the hand of Cameron and the negotiating team as they send a message to our EU partners about how seriously the UK wants change.
Talking of the No campaign. There has been mention made that this should be led by Nigel Farage, the leader of UKIP. This would be completely wrong. Farage has done a great job of pushing the need for a referendum but he is very divisive and would likely cause many potential No voters to turn away in disgust and vote Yes, simply because he is there. A far better No campaign leader would be Boris Johnson or Daniel Hannan. The latter has consistency and, as a Euro MP, a long history of opposing and exposing the anti-democratic nature of the EU as it is currently constituted. Johnson has great voter appeal. Cameron is said to expect to work for a Yes vote and so, were Johnson to lead the No campaign then this would suggest an easy transition and change of power, should the Nos prevail. As another possible leader, Sir James Dyson, a dynamic business leader, who is much admired for his entrepreneurial flair and business success. Being a non-politician, he may also be more trusted by the 'man in the street'.
Now my 'red lines'. As with any negotiation, we won't get all that we want but here's the framework.
Free movement of Labour - I must declare an interest as I have benefited from this, during my working life. Therefore, along with other experiences of the benefits, I see this as beneficial to our economy and our country. Yes it potentially means an influx of cheap labour but this is good for the country. There are very definite challenges to be faced - schooling, health systems etc., but these will resolve themselves, over time. A growing and healthy economy can afford such 'problems'.
I find the people that argue against this as somewhat hypocritical. We don't want cheap labour doing jobs that need doing, and we oppose reform of a welfare system which makes it 'uneconomic' for people to come off of welfare and take low paying jobs, seems to be the crux of their argument.
Bureaucracy and Reciprocity - Big words. More simply put, there are areas where the EU isn't needed. Working hours in Britain - that's a matter for the UK parliament, not un-elected officials in Brussels. HSE, Britain not EU, there is a whole raft of EU legislation - or more accurately, legislation that starts out as a Brussels 'directive' and becomes UK legislation because we have no choice but to implement it, under current rules - and this needs wholesale review and likely abolition for the greater parts of it. Foreign relations? Britain doesn't need, except perhaps on areas limited to certain trade discussions, an un-elected commissioner representing her. History has shown that we are quite capable of doing so, ourselves.
Funding - The original benefits of the EU or the Common Market, as it was then called, effectively related to free trade - the sale of goods from one country to another without the imposition of tariffs or other barriers. That is the place to where we should return. Therefore the need for much of the funding for the monolithic bureaucracy and EU organisations would disappear. Why should any country in the EU subsidize another? If I join a club of some sort, I can expect to pay an annual subscription fee for the running and administration of the club. I don't expect to pay based on my income, nor do I expect to pay fees for people that can't afford to be in the club, in the first place. I certainly don't expect to pay their bar tab every single day that they are living beyond their means!
Democracy - Becomes somewhat moot if funding and reciprocity are addressed but this swings two ways. Firstly, the EU Commission, if it is still needed (but I can't think why it would), must be democratically elected - that would suggest it must be appointed by either the people, through direct elections, or through the European Parliament. My own view is that both the Commission and the Parliament should be abolished and much money saved. I can't believe that all that hot air and cant is good for the environment! Neither is the to-ing and fro-ing between Brussels and Strasbourg every month, nor the EU-citizen funded traveling between home country and Brussels/Strasbourg and back, on a weekly/daily basis. Every time I think of that, I think of all those climatologists that attend these conferences in exotic places, traveling by jet - private or commercial - to do so, or Al Gore's house that uses so much hydrocarbon-provided power that it is said to be like the Great Wall of China - visible from space! But I digress. So less democracy in terms of a talking shop in Europe but then democracy in terms of consensus forming decisions and then acceptance by all. So long as the 'club rules' and the 'club charter' aren't being infringed then all governments must accept the will of the majority of voters, with voting rights.
Free Trade - this should form the basis of 'club' membership. Goods and services (see also free movement of labour) can be traded between club members without the imposition of tariffs. That would apply to import tariffs - so no customs duties on equipment manufactured in Germany and sold into Slovenia or Britain, etc. Also though, no hidden tariffs, such as higher rates of local value added taxes on such goods. This wouldn't preclude a state subsidizing its own industry, where that might 'harm' the industry of another 'club' member. So if France wanted to subsidize French sugar beet growers and processors and this allowed these companies to then compete unfairly against German or British growers, then let them. It's France's money to do with as it pleases. It is not for Britain or Germany to say how France supports or doesn't support its rural communities. Equally, it is not for Britain or Germany to pay for France's support for its rural communities. Free Trade also means that 'club' members should be free to trade with non-club members, as they wish. So, if Britain or Germany decided that French sugar beet was too high-priced and they could get it cheaper from say, Turkey, then they would be free to negotiate purchases and set import tariffs as they see fit. If Turkish farmers are able to produce and sell sugar beet cheaper than French farmers, then why should British or German consumers miss out on Turkish efficiency.
In terms of imports from non-club members, these should not be subject to restrictions - individual sovereign states can enter into bi-lateral agreements - except that any onward sale of such imports need to meet certain criteria. This criteria would relate to the value added in the club member state. So if Britain and China concluded a bi-lateral trade agreement with very low import tariffs (or better yet, none) this could not be used as a 'back door' for China to then sell these on to other 'club' members with which it doesn't have a bi-lateral agreement unless a certain value was added in Britain. Let's say 60%. If a UK-based company imported parts from China, assembled these in the UK and then sold them within a 'club' member country, then the UK value added to those parts must be greater than 60% or whatever number is decided upon. We don't want dumping but neither do we want restrictive practices that protect inefficient local industries.
Non-EU wide and other agreements - These would be agreements that are established between sovereign nations - be they 'club' members or not which cover restricted topics. So, if Britain, Germany, Iceland, Australia, Brazil and Norway wanted to establish an agreement that allowed for a fast track extradition process between themselves, then this would be allowed and wouldn't require any input or permission from other 'club' members. It's called reciprocity - 'club' members only need to be involved on matters relating the the raison d'etre of the 'club' - free trade etc., and to not interfere in matters that are decided by other nations and which don't impinge upon these. Such an extradition treaty would be outwith the 'club' charter and so no business of other 'club' members. Similarly, if certain 'club' members wanted to establish a political and fiscal union and even a common currency, then they should be free to do so, so long as they do not seek to impose that union or its effects on other 'club' members. So by all means have a Euro currency but don't expect non-Euro countries, to bail out Euro members! If I join the Royal Automobile Club, I don't expect to be tapped-up by members of the rival Automobile Association, when that organisation runs into difficulties. It's a different 'club', I have chosen to not be a member and so shouldn't be required to pay anything for its failings.
Dear reader, be patient in the coming months. Listen to all of the views, look to the motive of the speaker and then form your own opinion, as I am sure you would anyway. Above all though, let's be patient and simply demand clarity on what the renegotiated deal means for us and our country. Then vote for what is best for Britain. I currently lean towards voting for BREXIT but, in the words of the great Joan Armatrading, I am 'open to persuassion'
No comments:
Post a Comment