POLITICS CORNER

[Bruff]

Mordaunt’s claim that we have no veto on Turkish membership was one of the more egregious lies of the campaign (why do they treat us with such contempt?). Of course we do. All EU members do. And that includes Cyprus, where the tensions are well-known. The French have a constitutional amendment that requires a referendum on Turkish membership; the Dutch too must hold one. And the Austrians. Let’s be clear: Turkey are not joining anytime soon if ever. She should be more honest and note that historically the biggest, and really only, cheerleader for Turkish membership is the UK! As it was with the accession of the former Soviet and other Eastern European States. ‘Wider not Deeper’ has been UK policy for years and years.

I think one of the problems with this blessed referendum is that the facts are rather dry. The only ‘facts’ that we really have are the EU and its institutions and how they operate and their strategies for the next ‘x’ years and if one can be so bothered, one could consider these against the facts of the UK institutions and how they operate etc. Europa.eu and Parliament.gov.uk give you all the information you will ever need, or you could schlep off to your local Europe Direct office (Preston’s the nearest to Barlick). The question really is though one of the balance of risk.

If we remain, for me, then these risks are known to an extent. I have a pretty good idea of what relationship we have now, how this might develop, what the tensions and pressures are within the EU, our place within the EU and thus our place, as a part of this, in the world. I can see how we might as the UK play a role in managing these risks within the EU and its institutions. Outside of the EU things are much less clear. It is absolutely right that the Remain campaign and many, many other independent folk and groupings are highlighting these risks. Remain would be derelict in their duties if they did not do so.

An example. In 2014 the Swiss held a referendum on limiting EU migration into Switzerland and the restrictions were carried (very narrowly I might add). More or less the day after, the EU downgraded Switzerland from ‘associate’ to ‘third party’ status and ceased all cooperation on science funding. Swiss students had no access to the Erasmus programmes, Swiss scientists had no access to funding and research cooperation. The result was that one of Switzerland’s main sources of expertise – it’s science – was compromised perhaps damaged. The risk is this would happen to the UK. If it did, we do not want a load of folk suddenly moaning because they didn’t realise a ‘no’ vote carried not the slightest consequence whatsoever. Another one. The Maastricht Treaty makes all of us ‘citizens of the EU’ (which I like as I am not a citizen in my own country, I am a ‘subject’). If we leave the EU then we are no longer citizens. The PM is therefore quite right to explain the risks of our leaving to those UK folk resident and working or retired all across the EU. They will no longer be ‘citizens’ of the EU. This might very well have consequences for them. Until something is thrashed out it is quite right to muse as to whether they will indeed carry the same status in their chosen EU country as someone from say, Paraguay.

All this of course, does not detract from what has been a deeply unpleasant campaign nor the rank folly of the PM promising one for Party expediency. The matter is really very simple. Stand on a manifesto promise to repeal the European Communities Act 1972 and then invoke Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty. Yes, that’s right: we are sovereign, Parliament is sovereign. Brussels cannot actually ‘tell us what to do’. I really don’t like referendums at all.

Richard Broughton

[Tizer]

Well said, Richard. Thanks.

[Stanley]

Town Square..... It may be beyond David's remit but I like the idea of TS being a politics free zone, at the moment the media have gone referendum mad.
Like Tizer I welcome Richard's balanced assessment. My version is almost the same, we live in a changing world where 19th century ideas of 'Sovereignty' are out of place. Eventually, if there is going to be any global peace, we are all going to have to work together and I'd rather be inside the tent.....
I watched Crick's TV programme 'Boris and Dave' last night. Interesting insights but what a commentary on how we are conducting one of the most important political decisions of my lifetime, boiling it down to a personal conflict between two over-privileged posh boys who have been louts in their time and still show signs of their past.

[Stanley]

Trump has secured enough caucus support to be the undisputed Republican candidate.... It's a bizarre result and must be causing all sorts of angst in the party. The November vote will be fascinating....
I heard one of the Tory protagonists yesterday saying that the current contest is a debate on the EU and not a fight for leadership of the Tory Party. Oh yeah?

[Tizer]

Gregory Campbell, DUP MP for East Londonderry, was interviewed this morning in a discussion on the Today programme about the EU referendum and its potential effects on Northern Ireland. The Today presenter pointed out all the financial support that NI farmers get from the EU. Supporting Brexit, Campbell said: "But it's our own money being recycled to us". I wonder what Bruff would make of that?

[Tripps]

I noticed this ad on Gumtree today -

"Angazam forta de munca petru santierele din zona Cambridge"

Reading the rest of it - I'm pretty sure it's Romanian. Should this affect the way I vote in the forthcoming referendum?

[Tizer]

You're right - Google Translate recognises it as Romanian and gives a translation: `Committed workforce for construction sites in Cambridge area'. You'll have to vote Stay if you want their services!

[Tripps]

"You'll have to vote Stay if you want their services!"

I don't think so - we could go back to the old system, which worked perfectly well here 15 or so years ago. The local fruit farmer had Ukrainians, Bulgarians etc who came every year for a fixed term under some scheme. I used to see them in Tesco in the evening pillaging the 'reduced' section - competing with me I might add.

They just did the work, lived on site, and then went home. Didn't ask us to house them and their families, educate their children, and provide them with free health care.

For the avoidance of misunderstanding - I interact with immigrants almost every day - Poles, Romanians, Filipinos, Zimbabweans etc etc. I like them all, enjoy speaking to them, and have no problem at all with them being here. Just pointing out the reality of the situation. I think I'd prefer to be able to choose who lives here.

[PanBiker]

I think the term "committed workforce" unfortunately rules out quite a lot of the indigenous population. A lot of the fruit and veg producers could not operate if they did not rely on temporary migrant workers.

[Stanley]

That's true Ian....
It looks as though migration is the flavour of the debate at the moment. I watched a vox pop piece on the vote on TV and was deeply depressed by the shallow answers to questions about what their understanding was of the vote. One woman had no idea what the interviewer was talking about.....The thing that is missing for me is any discussion about the changing nature of the world and the need to be engaged in political change....
Closely related is the deep self-interest that is evident in almost all the argument. No one is mentioning any responsibility we might bear if Brexit terminally damaged the EU. We are not the only member wanting change.

[Tizer]

People have become detached from politics. Mrs Tiz's hairdresser is an intelligent, sociable, responsible young woman with a family, lots of friends and work contacts but when we mentioned having voted in the PCC election she hadn't even heard about it.

Fighting between Trump supporters and protesters in San Diego. It's getting nasty now as the sensible folk realise the danger.

[Tripps]

"A lot of the fruit and veg producers could not operate if they did not rely on temporary migrant workers."

That was the whole point of my post. They once were temporary, but now are not.
From what my son tells me - Australia still has such a scheme for gap year kids to work for a fixed period, then go home.

[PanBiker]

I saw a documentary about it the other week regarding the numbers that come on a temporary basis and those that stay. Migrant as opposed to immigrant. Many of those that come for the pickings follow the crops around the whole continent so are semi nomadic during the spring and summer, a good proportion still do return home with their earnings. Of course there is still the economic immigrants who are looking (or have) full time work just as many of our citizens go to mainland Europe for work. In both cases they are paying taxes to the countries they elect to work in.

[Stanley]

At the root of the early Merkel decision to take in migrants was recognition of the fact that migrants (and they are by no means all labourers, they include qualified people) will help balance the shortfall of younger workers that is looming in most of the 'mature' Western economies. Janet was telling me only yesterday about the number of Indian software engineers she is working with and saying how much she enjoyed the experience. I've never been able to understand why there is this distinction between refugees and economic migrants. Refugees deserve our help on humanitarian grounds and 'economic migrants' are usually the most enterprising and courageous people with much to offer. I hate the 'Little Englander' attitudes that breed these distinctions which in truth are thinly veiled racism.
I don't see any prospect of the debate improving in the next four weeks. This opinion is shared by some commentators who are saying that the damage has been done already to the government and can only get worse. Talk of a vote of confidence on the Cameron Leadership and even some saying that the government is irretrievably broken and the only cure is to have a General Election. I have to say that this scenario is becoming the most likely as it looks as though this administration has already imploded. Can anything good come out of all this? I suppose it's possible if it leads to a fresh start and a re-boot of policies but it's hard to be optimistic.
Meanwhile, despite almost universal protest Ossie crashes on with plans to privatise the Land Registry and this at the time when we need open access to who owns what in the fight against money laundering, especially in London. Remember what the Nigerian President said when his country was described as 'most corrupt'? He said that he wasn't bothered about an apology, just tell us who owns these properties so we can take measures to get them back. It's hard now but will be harder when access to the Land Registry records is restricted and perhaps even censored......

[Tizer]

"Many of those that come for the pickings follow the crops around the whole continent so are semi nomadic during the spring and summer, a good proportion still do return home with their earnings." - Panbiker
That makes me think of the herring girls who used to follow the fishing fleet down the east coast of Britain each year to do the gutting and packing. They went home to their families with their earnings and often with a new member of the family on the way too.

[Stanley]

The Irish men who travelled round following the harvest did the same. I remember in the 1950s the farmers moaning because the price of an Irishman at haytime rose to £50 a month.....

[plaques]

David Cameron coming under a threat of a no confidence vote should he only marginally win the referendum. No Confidence Vote. . This threat may backfire on the 'leave' campaign by making it easier on ones conscience to vote to stay in Europe without appearing to support Cameron. Also, those who would like to see a change in direction of the Conservative party without the financial uncertainties of completely leaving may just chose to stand back a little. This bit of tactical logic has yet to be submitted to the 1922 committee 1922 who will ultimately decide Cameron's fate. And you thought you knew who ran the country, well think again.

[Stanley]

You're quite right P. The men in the grey suits..... I can remember when their leader was Lord Salisbury.....
Of course the problem we face is that while all this internal Tory Party fighting is going on we are not being governed....
The upside is that the next time a Tory describes Labour as being riven by infighting there will be a roar of derision! Roll on the vote, this pantomime has gone on long enough.....

[Tizer]

After all that scare-mongering by Brexiteers about the EU secretly planning to have its own army it turns out to have been simply a discussion about future security of the EU and it wasn't even secret. I saw a comment somewhere asking if the EU did have its own army would it be merged with NATO and called `Euronate'?

[Stanley]

Give a gullible person a scare headline and watch them run. Sad thing is that if I remember rightly it was a senior army officer..... Even the spin doctors are running out of ideas, referendum fatigue is setting in. They are stirring up apathy...

[Stanley]

Immigration, immigration, immigration...... They have run out of ideas and as Bruff says in the referendum topic, the economic arguments for Brexit have been trashed.... How long before it descends into a straight Tory Leadership contest?
Meanwhile, there doesn't seem to be anyone at the helm.....

[Bruff]

Really interesting article

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/j ... ic-incomes

Can’t see much enthusiasm for this here in this country nor could I see us ever being the vanguard for anything like this, as we (well, a lot of us) have been conditioned to seeing anyone receiving a benefit as a skiving scrounger. But this is a serious policy response to a serious emerging issue – increased inequality, robotisation, the future of ‘work’. It’s also rather counter-intuitive. The notion I guess is that if you just give folk 1300 quid a month they’d sit on the backside. But would they? I wager most wouldn’t. I’d certainly not, or if I did I’d soon get fed up. You’d be free to do all sorts of socially useful things, or learn a trade, educate yourself, or otherwise contribute to your community. Indeed, there’s quite a bit of research that shows folk would rather work less hours and get paid less than work more hours and get paid more (and before anyone asks the obvious question, these studies control for current wealth and assets etc. so it’s not just those who ‘can’ so to speak), enabling them to throw off the yolk and do other useful, innovative things. Not too dissimilar then.

Be really interesting to see how these pilots develop.

Richard Broughton

[plaques]

A universal benefit to everybody is one of the old ideas that may be thrust upon us due to climate change. The argument is that at some point in the future we will realize that the World's GDP cannot keep rising for ever. Either we will have run out of materials or that the atmospheric carbon content will be taking us past the 2 degree 'safe' limit. At this point the population will have to shrink, not wholly impossible if antibiotics cease to be effective, or through mass starvation. The more likely alternative is that we will have to make do with less material goods, ie: GDP will turn negative. The logic then reaches the point where people are paid for not working or governments being faced with total revolution.
In the USA and the UK this is seen as creeping communism and must be avoided at all costs. Be prepared for some very long hot and hungry summers.

[Tripps]

"Be prepared for some very long hot and hungry summers"

Can't wait. (Not the hungry bit obviously). The guy next door told me that the temperature today was the same as on last Christmas day, and he has lit his log burner.

[Stanley]

Richard.... interesting article. I've come across this idea before and what strikes me is the fact that we already have a close equivalent called the State Pension. I haven't noted it leading to any moral damage amongst the recipients. Consider also the children of the rich who have independent incomes and don't need to work, how many of them go to the bad? The difference is that the pensioners are seen to have earned their leisure and it's bad form to attack them because they are disadvantaged by age. Younger people are seen to be 'getting something for nothing'. It could be argued that the workless poor are also disadvantaged by neglect of their education and the inability of society to provide work suitable to their abilities. The 19th century concept of 'less eligibility' is still alive and well which gives a spurious moral argument for not financing a life style better than the worst paid workers. Any move towards minimum incomes should be universal and not connected to the perceived moral worth of the recipients. It could only be financed through genuinely progressive taxation and we are back with Piketty and his global wealth tax.
We often hear references to the dangers of 'moral hazard' particularly in the case of questionable financial practices leading to excessive profits. There is a case for applying this concept to the need for principled action to counter poverty and destitution. It could be cheaper in the long run for the wealthy to take the hit now and finance equality. History shows us that in practice this only happens when the condition of the poor starts to impact the the social structure and safety of the rich. Look at the enormous change that followed the Black Death when the labour ran short, the so-called 'municipal socialism' when it was realised that the dire sanitary conditions of the poor were breeding the diseases that killed the rich as well and the shock of the dearth of fit volunteers for the Crimean War that led to the moves to improve the lot of the poor from 1850 onwards. It may be that the driver for policies like minimum incomes will only kick in when the consequences of laisser faire affect the rich. This is the circumstance that P refers to, in this case driven by climate change and a global increase in vast movements of population disrupting everybody's lives, including the rich.
This is why I have always advocated attention to the distribution of wealth and in the last few years. have pointed to the futility of austerity as a financial tool.