Case for Ireland's exit

The country most affected by Brexit, other than the United Kingdom, is likely to be Ireland*.  This is the only nation that shares an actual land border with the UK.  Additionally, the UK is Ireland’s largest export market in the current EU (The exports to Belgium are higher value but most of this is shipped on).

*In truth though, all of the remaining 27 countries will be affected by the UK’s Brexit since Britain is the second largest contributor to the EU budget and either EU spending must be cut or other countries must fill the gap with higher contributions. Or a combination, thereof.  Though how Greece, Portugal, Spain and Italy would be persuaded to fund the EU largesse showered on countries like Poland, I cannot contemplate.

The land border between the UK and Ireland lies between Northern Ireland/Ulster and the Republic.  This was, prior to the 1997 Peace Agreement, a much troubled area, IRA terrorists often visiting death and mayhem on people in Ulster and then fleeing across the border to the Republic in the South.  These same terrorists are now part of the devolved government of Northern Ireland!

What happens to that border, post-Brexit? 

What I am about to suggest will upset some right-thinking people and maybe lead them to believe I propose rewarding terrorists but please stay with me.

I propose two connected actions. 

The Republic of Ireland to also exercise its rights under Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty and leave the EU and the Euro currency, timed to coincide with the final departure date of the UK.

On the date of this departure, the Republic of Ireland to once again become part of the United Kingdom and as a consequence re- join the Commonwealth.  And, as a simultaneous act, Ulster to become part of the devolved government of a united Ireland.  The powers of this united Ireland would be the same as those enjoyed by the devolved government of Scotland – principally responsibility for domestic issues – health, education, social care, policing, etc.  and the ability for limited local tax-raising powers.  Defence and Foreign Affairs as well as overall tax and financial policy to remain with the Westminster parliament.

Okay, so, at first glance this would seem to reward the murderous IRA and give them what they have so long fought for – a united Ireland.  However, this Ireland will be part of the United Kingdom and Ulster’s Protestant majority should be able to take comfort that their traditions will be respected and protected by the government of the United Kingdom.  Perhaps the devolved government can rotate the seat of government between Dublin and Belfast (just like the EU parliament rotates between Brussels and Strasbourg).

For Ireland this would represent an opportunity to protect tariff-free access to a significant export market.  They would also have the opportunity to become a part of the free trade agreement that will be established between the UK (it’s second largest export market) and the USA (Ireland’s largest export market) and the traditional goodwill, extended to the Irish by Americans can only enhance the chances of a good free trade agreement between the UK and USA.

Of course there would be adjustments needed to harmonise social laws and Ireland would need to ditch its policy of neutrality but on the former there is a narrowing gap, anyway.

Ireland is more closely aligned with the Anglo-Saxon approach to market economics than to the European model favoured especially by countries like France.  This would smooth any transition.

In terms of immigration, Ireland wouldn’t seem to be a threat as there has long been unfettered movement of people between the two countries – ever before the European Superstate was even thought of.  

Another thing that occurs to me is that given Ireland has received significant injections of EU provided funds, which have been invested in roads and other infrastructure projects, then this would negate the need for the EU to refund the UK with the surplus contributions it has made, over the years. 

Oh yes, I think, contrary to the fools who think the UK should pay a hefty divorce settlement (£ or €50-60 billion is mentioned), the UK should be compensated, on departure for the assets it has contributed to, which will remain after we leave.  It is ludicrous that when people talk about this ‘divorce’ they talk only of future commitments and turn 27 pairs of blind eyes to all of the assets that were built up, using UK funds, during the ‘marriage’.   

Consider though that this idea isn’t followed. 

There would surely need to be a hard border between Northern Ireland and the Republic.  You can’t have freedom of movement between the Republic and the rest of the EU and an open border.  Similarly a hard border would be required to ensure that trade is administered in accordance with the eventual trade agreement that is reached between the UK and EU. (Scottish Nationalists – do take note that were you to achieve independence and subsequently membership of the European Union, these requirements would also apply between Scotland and England)

From an Irish perspective, they would be sacrificing sovereignty but gain a long cherished dream of a united Ireland and also access to a strong economy and market.  Some would say that the Irish would be dominated by the English but consider too, that the loss of sovereignty needs to be seen in the light of exactly how much sovereignty the Irish really have in a German-dominated EU. 

Another thing that would need to be considered – and this might help assuage the fears of the constituent parts of the UK – is that a parliament for England’s would need to be established.  Right now the English, rightly, feel hard done by as Scotland’s, Wales’ and Northern Ireland’s parliaments/assemblies receive generous subsidies at the expense of the English taxpayers.  This is something that Scottish Nationalists conveniently ignore but if they do hope to achieve independence and to join the EU (bizarrely then relinquishing their newly won independence) then they will need to bridge a current £15 billion annual deficit which would be even higher when a post-independence Scotland also has to take on a share of the UK’s national debt – rough estimate £8 billion a year cost.

Please give it some thought and let me know what you think.

Debating lunacy

April 1^st has come early this year.  Or at least it would seem, based on the foolish behaviour of  Britain’s main broadcasters.

It seems that these puffed-up arbiters of what or who  represents  politics in the United Kingdom have decided that they will invite seven party leaders to two TV debates, during the upcoming General Election and if any party refuses then there podium will bear an empty seat.  This threat is an apparent attempt to force the Conservatives to attend as until now they have questioned the format and attendees.

Really!  Who do these broadcasters think they are?    Who elected them!

Consider for a moment who they have selected to attend. 

Conservatives  36.1% in 2010 General Election  (307 parliamentary seats)

Labour  29% (258)

Liberal Democrats 23% (57)

Scottish Nationalists 1.7%  (6)

Greens 1%  (1)

Plaid Cymru 0.6% (3)

UKIP 3.1% (0)

Now consider who they haven’t invited. 

British National Party 1.9% (0)

Democratic Unionist Party 0.6% (8)

Sinn Fein 0.6% (5)

The Scottish Nationalists and Plaid Cymru only put-up candidates in their home territories and their agenda is a national rather than UK one. And yet they will be invited to attend.  Not so though, Ulster’s DUP or terrorist front-men,  Sinn Fein. 

As foul as their policies are, using the warped criteria of the BBC and ITV, shouldn’t the overtly racist British National Party get a seat at the table?

The reality is that the only debates that matter, will be those between Conservative leader, David Cameron and Labour leader, Ed Miliband.  There just might be an argument for having Nigel Farage in the room as well, given the current opinion polling position of UKIP and the UKIP successes in recent local and European elections (though my personal opinion is he should not be invited)  but certainly none of the others should participate. 

To include the others is political pandering.  The BBC and other main stream media have got it into their heads that the SNP will be the king-makers in the next parliament – they will hold the balance of power.

The SNP have stated that they will not form any kind of coalition with the Conservatives.  So that would just leave them with Labour.  The same Labour that they are apparently set to destroy, in Scotland – the very success that makes them a kingmaker comes at the expense of Labour, the only party that they will do a deal with!

Proponents of these debates  suggest that this is a means to aid the democratic process.  That is complete rubbish.  Some things that will be apparent from the debates are;

Labour will not be sufficiently pressed on its Tax, Borrow and Spend policies and exactly how their wild plans can be funded.  In any all-encompassing debate, Labour’s ruinous policies will be supported by the Lib Dems, SNP, Greens, Plaid Cymru and maybe even UKIP who are desperately chasing the working class vote and those of Labour’s client class in local government, the civil service and public sector unions.

Nigel Farage and UKIP will be shown to be isolated on Europe and EU membership because all of the other parties, save perhaps the Conservatives, are openly pro-EU (The EU just adores small parties – all the better to more effectively peddle influence to).  The Conservatives have promised a referendum and such has been opposed by all of the other parties, except UKIP.

No one will have the courage to mention the need to curtail the NHS budget.  All of the serious politicians know that the NHS is a financial black hole – you could feed it the whole of the country’s gross domestic product and it still wouldn’t be enough.  You can feed it your babies and you elderly but the beast will never be satisfied.  But no one will say that.

Immigration will be mentioned but again, only UKIP will have the courage to say what most British people think.  Britain is being swamped by immigrants.  What UKIP won’t say though, is that the cause of this is two-fold.  The complete relaxation of immigration controls, brought in during Labour’s 13 years of mis-rule in 1997 to 2010 and the soft welfare policies that makes the UK an attractive destination and at the same time, provides absolutely no incentive for the native work-shy Briton  to come off of benefits and take-up work.

Only the Conservatives will put forward any kind of policy that recognises the need to exploit, using fracking, the shale resources that the UK enjoys.  The Greens and all the other ‘band-waggon’ jumpers-on will be allowed to get away with downright lies about fracking, because the other parties and the media organisations, simply can’t be bothered to  investigate and develop coherent policies.  The Green ‘Watermelons’ after all, are as red inside as Labour, SNP, PC, LD etc.

David Cameron and the Conservatives must refuse to take part in the proposed debates.  The proposals are farcical and represent a debasement of democracy.  They should be joined, in making this stand, by Labour and Ed Miliband.

The winners from these debates though will be the smaller parties who will carefully craft their responses such that the cost of their idiocies is concealed from the British public and they won’t be effectively challenged because the heavyweight Conservatives and Labour will have been told, by their respective media advisors, that it would be counter-productive to act as the Goliath to the Green or SNP or PC, etc., David.

I predict though, that Cameron and Miliband will conform to previous spineless type and will agree to the broadcasters demands’.  

Yes for Scotland, No for England and Europe

Do you think that the Conservatives, or more accurately David Cameron and George Osborne have some kind of death wish?

I ask because I find it incomprehensible to understand the politics and policies of the Conservatives towards the Scottish, the English and the British.

On September 18, 2014, the voters in Scotland, in a high turn-out, voted No to Scottish independence by a margin of 55%:45%.  Not a resounding victory for the No campaign but enough to show a clear position.

The Conservative Party are poorly represented, in terms of MPs elected to the Westminster parliament, by Scotland.  Only one Tory MP being elected in the last three elections.  In the Scottish Parliament, the Conservatives have just over 10% of the seats and most of these coming arising from the proportional representation system, deployed in those elections.

Why therefore should the Conservatives be so concerned with Scotland?  I will come back to this in a moment but for now, think of it in cold electoral terms.  Scotland brings next to no electoral benefits to the Conservatives.  On the contrary, it elects a huge swathe of Labour opposition MPs.  Though this seems likely to change to Scottish Nationalist MPs at upcoming General Election, there is a very strong socialist and redistributive streak that runs through SNP policies, so there isn't that much difference between them.

So why are the Conservatives pushing for the devolution of further powers to Scotland's parliament?

Powers that will maybe allow Scotland to have all of the essential facets of nationhood, such as full tax raising and spending power, without the responsibilities that go with them.  The UK will still be the lender of last resort for Scotland and will be the backstop for its profligate spending plans.

As a brief aside, do you notice how quiet the Scottish Nationalists have become on the subject of oil revenues?  They were loud and proud when oil was north of $100 a barrel but we here nary a peep now that oil is south of $80 a barrel.  Is there any brave economist out there who could run the numbers and see what difference a >20% drop in the oil price would do to the SNP's already fanciful accounting?  I keep wondering if the Scots have learned from Darien, that it is always better to have someone to run to when the economic tides turn against you while the English are being led by fools who will allow such an imbalance of responsibilities.

These powers still will not address the fundamental 'West Lothian question'.  Scottish MPs will continue to be elected to Westminster, where they can vote on tax measures related to England, Northern Ireland and Wales and yet they will not be able to vote on matters relating to Scottish taxation.  If a minority Tory government, with a strong and overall English-seat majority wanted to propose tax reductions for middle and higher earners, such measures could be defeated by a coalition of English Labour MPs and their Scottish counter-parts and the SNP.  So the Scots have freedom but not the English.

In what world does this make any sense for the English or represent any notion of fair play?

I know that Conservatives will say that we are a United Kingdom and this is a legitimate response to widely-held Scottish opinion but when will they stop to ask the English?  The Scottish 'tail' is well and truly 'wagging' the English dog!

Then we come to Europe.  Here the Tories are losing ground to UKIP.  Here the Conservatives claim that they are unable to put a referendum before the British people until sometime within 2 1/2 years of the next election.

Think about that.  The Conservatives can push through parliament, in the space of a few months, legislation that fundamentally changes the fabric and constitutional settlement of the  United Kingdom and yet legislation related to the EU must wait.  Consider also, that there is no mandate from the British people, nor even the people of Scotland to push through the proposed changes.  Nothing was mentioned, about giving sweeping or indeed, any extra powers to Scotland, in any of the party manifestos, for the 2010 election.

In their haste, the Conservatives are supported by the Labour Party and the Lib Dems.  Both of these parties are pro-Europe and hope to reap some electoral rewards in Scotland as a result of this unjust settlement (though all opinion poll predictions are that both of these parties will go the way of the Tories in Scotland)

I believe that the British public know that all of the main parties want to stay in the European Union.  That all will campaign on that basis in any eventual referendum.  I also believe that the British people want to have a say in the matter.  It is perhaps a sign of the times that the people of Scotland can get a vote on issues like independence but the English cannot.  That Scotland can get local tax raising powers but the English cannot.  Perhaps it is a realisation that given the real powers that actually rest with the European Union, any such local powers, pale into insignificance.  What does it matter what taxes are raised in Scotland, England or the United Kingdom, if un-elected Eurocrats can simply decide that the UK must pay more funds to feed the EU beast?  And that there is nothing that can be done by the Scots, the English or the British to counter the position (and please do not try to use George Osborne's  decidedly dodgy accounting tricks concerning the £1.7Bn, that was recently demanded).

Only UKIP is offering an immediate referendum on EU membership and yet the likelihood of a UKIP parliamentary majority is very slim.  They can damage Conservatives and Labour but are highly unlikely to be the majority party nor to hold the balance of power.  My sense is that UKIP will damage the Tories on Europe and immigration and will damage Labour on immigration.  Labour's (pro) policy on the EU is not something that they really push, though I think that this will be under deeper scrutiny, in the coming months.

So a system of an united governance, for the United Kingdom, that took more than 300 years to develop, can be fundamentally changed in the space of a few months, without the say-so of the people of all of the United Kingdom and yet an alien system, and make no mistake,  the EU's definition of democracy - deals done behind the scenes by un-elected Eurocrats - is alien to British ideas of democracy, cannot be even discussed let alone changed until after years of wrangling.

Forget all the talk about fighting for Britain in Europe, that comes from the mouths of politicians.  That is at best just a soundbite and at worst an outright lie.  Britons fighting in Europe ended in 1945 and since then our democratic freedoms have continuously been whittled away with a rapid acceleration after 1975.

If David Cameron and George Osborne cared a fig for the United Kingdom or even just the Conservative Party, they would put legislation for an EU Referendum, before Parliament immediately.  This would take the wind out of the sails of UKIP and would force Labour and the Lib Dems to show their true colours.  Most importantly, it would give the people of Britain a voice on an issue of truly fundamental importance.

We don't need any fancy propositions or crazy and undemocratic notions - as for example spouted by Nicola Sturgeon, here - a simple Yes or No to continued membership will suffice.  If the result is a Yes, then the strength of the majority will settle things.  If a very strong Yes, then nothing more to be said, Britain succumbs to the EU Superstate.  If the Yes majority is more narrow - say 10% or less, then Britain seeks a re-negotiation of the terms of membership.  If the majority is for No, then we leave the EU, within 12-18 months.

I am not usually one to give out health tips but if you are hoping for a referendum on the EU, don't hold your breath.  Unless UKIP do really break the mould of British politics and achieve a significant breakthrough in 2015, we will see no change in British/EU relations until after the 2020 election and by then it may be too late.

Very depressing that we have come to this and especially so that it is at the hands of the Conservatives.

Sturgeon's idea of democracy

Just in case you have been visiting the International Space Station or trekking through the Amazon or your name is Nicola Sturgeon, I wanted to let you know the outcome of the referendum on Scottish Independence.  The answer was 55.3% of the votes cast said no to independence.  This on a respectable turnout of 84.6%.

If you were on the ISS or seeking new species in the Amazon you could be forgiven for not knowing the result but Nicola Sturgeon is the Deputy Leader of the Scottish Nationalist Party and, following the referendum result and the resignation of Alex Salmond, she is soon to become the leader of the SNP and the First Minister of Scotland.  So clearly she does know the result!

Maybe it is the inappropriate climate in Scotland that causes the SNP vines to yield such sour grapes?  I ask because the latest proposal from Nicola Sturgeon is that in any referendum on the UK's continued membership of the European Union, then the result must not only be a majority over the whole of the UK, but also a majority in each of the constituent nations of the UK.  So if the UK as a whole votes to leave the UK but in Scotland there is a majority to stay in the EU, then the UK would have to stay in the EU!

This is a crazy notion of democracy.  I remind you that Scotland voted to remain part of the UK.  The UK is considered by international bodies as a unitary authority.  When treaties are signed, they are signed on behalf of the United Kingdom, not the constituent member countries but the United Kingdom.  The UK is a member of the United Nations and indeed the EU not the individual constituent nations.

This is fatuous nonsense from Sturgeon and the SNP.

When the SNP were pushing the independence agenda, seeking to divorce Scotland from the rest of the UK, they didn't for one minute consider the thoughts or opinions of the rest of the UK.  Scotland was to have this divorce and Scotland would decide how the fruits of the union would be shared out and the rest of the UK would just have to lump it.  There's a part of me that believes that many people in Scotland saw that such a one-sided approach to a divorce was unrealistic and unfair.  Think of any divorced couple that you know - do you you know of any where one party had to stay silent and accept everything that the other party wanted?  

Think further on Sturgeon's ideas of democracy.  Northern Ireland has an electorate of just over 1.4 million.  In Sturgeons World, if just over half of those voters  - say 706,000 vote no to leaving the EU  in a referendum then this would dictate the outcome for the whole of the UK.  These 706,000 voters would trump whatever the other 45 million voted for!  Of course, it could require even less than these 706,000 votes, since that is based on a 100% turnout in Northern Ireland!

This is blatantly absurd.  Sturgeon knows this but wants to bait the Westminster parliament and is trying to gain independence by the back door.  I guess the rationale at the SNP policy asylum runs something like this.  We will insist, on behalf of the people of Scotland, that any referendum on EU membership must have not only a UK majority but one in the same way in each of the constituent countries.  That way, if England's 38-39 million voters, vote no but just 706,000  people in Northern Ireland vote yes, then it doesn't matter what majority is found in the England part of the UK, the result will be determined by those Northern Ireland Yes votes!  This will really annoy the English and will strengthen UKIP and will lead to calls from the English for them to have independence from the rest of the UK and so, Scotland will be given independence even though it has said (against our strong advice) that it doesn't want it!  Magic!!

Sturgeon and the SNP know that foreign affairs is not a matter that is devolved to the Scottish parliament.  These powers are reserved to the national parliament at Westminster, where members of parliament, elected from across the UK represent the people of the UK.  Sturgeon and the rest of the Scottish parliament should stick to trying to manage Scottish affairs.

Loosely related to this subject, I was reading comments on the BBC about Sturgeon's outlandish proposals (seemed to be the majority viewpoint, there, as well).  Commentators kept referring to someone called Lego man and it took me a couple of minutes to get the visual and the connection - see how long it takes you!

BBC Bias - Use this complaint

The Commentator Blog reminds us that the 'glorious' BBC (a 'national institution' of which we can be justly proud?) failed to show any honour to the memory of victims of terrorist violence on the anniversary of the July 7, 2005 London bombings.

If you share my disgust at this disrespect, please complain to the BBC.   bbc.co.uk/complaints

I am a little shocked by the lack of coverage of the anniversary of the bombing atrocities that were carried out against the people of London on July 7, 2005.  Only a little shocked because frankly it what we have come to expect of the BBC and it's skewed editorial policy. 

Pro anything that is anti British (so play-up stories inspired by the terrorist IRA,  about Blood Sunday) but don't say anything about Muslim terrorists killing and maiming innocents on the streets of London.  Don't initiate any in-depth studies of the criminal terrorist gangs that run Northern Ireland or the fundamentalist gangs that have taken over Islamic student societies in our universities.  Instead, make a big splash about so called rampant neo-fascism  at Euros 2012 and don't worry if the scare-mongering doesn't materialize into fact.

I used to think that it was a left-wing bias that inspired much of the BBC reporting but the closer I examine it, I see that it is actually anti-British and anti all that Britain stands for.  That is why so much air-time is given to people like the Scottish Nationalists and so little to others like UKIP.  So much time to any story that shows the Christian religions in a bad light and so little to any that show all of the good work that these people do.

If the BBC had to operate in a competitive market and fund itself, rather than depend on a TV tax on the people of Britain, you would be out of business in no time.  You don't even have quality TV to boast about, now.

Scotland the brave?

Scotland the brave? 

Or

Scotland the coward?

We hear time and again that Alex Salmond will decide when to call a referendum on independence. 

We also hear much about the SNP mandate for governing Scotland.

So what is stopping the SNP calling a referendum?

Lack of courage or belief that they will get an answer that suits them?  Or, that once called, whatever the outcome, they will have lost their major, indeed only, bargaining chip with the UK Parliament?

I don't know how the Scots would vote.  I sense that they would want to stay with the Union, if given the choice but we may never know because I believe the SNP don't really want a vote.

However, I am not sure that the English would say the same if they were given the choice.  And surely when the question is to break or keep a long-standing union is posed, both parties to the union should be consulted - that is, the Scots and the English.

I think it is time for Cameron and the UK Parliament to 'lance this boil' and call a referendum on both sides of the border and not wait on the whims of the wily Alex.

Then once that is out of the way, if Scotland votes for 'freedom' to quote Mel Gibson, they can go on their merry way to a socialist oblivion and the English can remain the conservative and prosperous nation it always has been.  (Please, if you comment, do not prattle on about 'Scottish oil' and I promise not to give a lecture on Maritime Law and ocean boundaries)

The interesting thing might be, what if Scotland says no to independence and England says yes? 

Scotland decides it wants to stay part of the UK and receive the benefits it now does and England says no we want to have an equal Union where the spend per head in Scotland is equalised to the amount spent in England.
Oh Dear! What then?

Perhaps that's why Alex doesn't want to ask and David is too nice to push him into a corner.

But Alex.  Take care, last week Cameron shows he has 'a pair' when needed so either put up, and call a referendum or shut up and stay in your overpriced Edinburgh palace.