Category Archives: EU

Proposal: why a Leave-options referendum just might create a pathway through the Brexit stasis

Steve Beauchampé considers the seemingly intractable political dilemma of Brexit, increasingly concerned by the tensions and intolerances within the UK’s political systems and structures. Although a Leave-options idea been around for a while he suggests that it has hidden merits that have so far been largely overlooked. He writes:

The result of 2016 EU Referendum was incontestably a win for Leave. The total number of votes cast is not in dispute. However, what form of Leave the electorate supported is unknown. Campaigners such as senior members of the Conservative European Research Group and Brexit Party Leader Nigel Farage claim that Leave voters wanted a No Deal Brexit but we cannot know this for certain. 

Whilst the predominant message from Leave campaigners in 2016 was that a No vote meant leaving the European Single Market and Customs Union, there were at times conflicting and ambiguous messages as to the precise definition of Leave. Departing the EU without a deal was certainly scoped out as a possibility but we do not have to examine the arguments made at the time too deeply to appreciate that other Leave scenarios were also suggested, even by high profile figures such as Boris Johnson, Michael Gove and Farage.

It seems reasonable to assume that all Remain voters wished to stay in the Single Market and Customs Union (the obvious consequences of voting Remain), therefore if only 5% of Leave voters supported either of these options then there would be no majority for a No Deal Brexit. However we do not know for certain what the percentages were, either in 2016, or now.

MPs have voted against Theresa May’s Draft EU Withdrawal Agreement on three occasions and there are currently no further plans to bring it back to the House of Commons for a fourth vote. With parliament still unable to agree on how to deliver Brexit the position of many MPs seems recently to have been hardening, either towards backing No Deal or supporting a second, ‘confirmatory’ public vote. There are good reasons to think that the current political stasis could continue whoever succeeds Theresa May as Prime Minister and leader of the Conservative Party and that this log jam might carry on even beyond the next General Election. Given such ongoing paralyses there seems perhaps only one way to resolve the question as to how we leave, whilst potentially allowing the country to move beyond Brexit. That is by asking the public what form of Leave they would support.

To achieve this those at either edge of the debate must compromise. Remainers have to accept that they lost in 2016 with voters promised that the referendum result would be both respected and implemented. This promise was backed up both when MPs overwhelmingly voted to trigger Article 50 (March 2017) and in the Conservative and Labour Party manifestos for the June 2017 General Election. Leavers meanwhile have to accept that they cannot know for certain what form of Brexit the public want because in 2016 the electorate were not asked that question.

This compromise takes the form of a second referendum, but crucially one where Remain is not an option (that having been democratically ruled out in 2016). Instead it proposes three or perhaps four forms of Leave, which roughly reflect what appear to be the most popular Leave alternatives based on House of Commons votes, opinion polls and public discourse. They also cover a broad spectrum of Brexit options.

They are:

No Deal

Draft EU Withdrawal Agreement

Customs Union

European Free Trade Area (aka Common Market 2.0/Norway Plus)

Using a form of Single Transferable Vote (STV), voters list their preferred options from 1-4 with the first to reach 50%+1 the winner.

It is envisaged that the referendum campaign would last approximately six weeks.

Referendum Act 2019 would state that the result of the referendum is binding and will become law.

If No Deal or the Draft EU Withdrawal Agreement were to win then the UK could depart the EU within approximately three months of the vote taking place. If either the Common Market or EFTA options were preferred then a slightly longer period between the poll and the UK’s departure may be required. In all instances other than a No Deal Brexit a transition period of around 21 months, as already laid out in the current Draft EU Withdrawal Agreement, would likely be necessary.

So as to focus concentration on the idea itself I shall for now leave aside the not inconsiderable matter of whether such a Bill would be able to command sufficient parliamentary support or would be acceptable to the EU.

The proposed referendum is designed to give each option a fair and equitable chance of winning, and to avoid the accusations of being ‘fixed’ or ‘loaded’ that have accompanied the People’s Vote campaign, which wants the choice to be between Theresa May’s Deal vs Remain. The above proposal however offers Leave supporters who are so minded the chance to secure a No Deal Brexit whilst taking a second In/Out referendum off the agenda. And it offers Remainers the chance to stop No Deal and provides them with an opportunity for the UK to remain in a Customs Union.

A Leave-options only referendum would essentially oblige all sides of the debate to take part in campaigning for their favoured option (not least for fear of ceding the result to an option they likely are desperate to avoid).

Having participated in such a referendum it would be hard for any politician or campaign group to refuse to accept its outcome and seek to overturn the result. Any that did so risk incurring the wrath of the wider public and would hopefully face a career destined to be played out on the margins of UK political life.

With up to four options available to the electorate it is unlikely that any of them would receive sufficient support to win on first preference votes. This means that both voters and campaigners would need to consider what compromises they would be prepared to accept, something which would by definition encourage many from the bunker-like positions in which an increasing proportion of both politicians and electors appear to be placing themselves.

In the almost three years since the 2016 referendum the arguments for and against Brexit have continued unabated. They have become repetitive, divisive and toxic whilst also being a massive turn off for many voters, desperate to move on. Yet the current impasse seems both intractable and unresolvable without one side suffering a humiliating defeat. And that would merely prolong the arguments and result in a simmering anger and frustration whose legacy could dominate and overwhelm UK politics for a generation.

Faced with such an unappetising prospect, a significantly different approach is surely required.

 

May 29th 2019

 

 

 

o

 

Advertisements

Desertions are good for Corbyn

This is Richard House’s challenging assertion as anti-Corbyn Labour MPs deserted the party in recent days. He continues:

“It’s too easily forgotten that the deserters are the same people who never accepted Corbyn’s leadership of the party from day one, and who’ve continually done everything possible – eagerly aided by their establishment media friends – to undermine him at every turn, so making his leadership job quite impossible.

“Remember the attempted MPs’ coup led by these people in their unconstitutional attempt to get rid of Corbyn? – this was long before the Labour Party anti-Semitism hysteria had ever been heard of.

“And having failed to displace Corbyn with their spiteful coup attempt, their fall-back was to concoct a carefully choreographed plan: namely, create a hysterical (but fictional) media storm about anti-Semitism; allow it to rage for a few months; then re-kindle it (literally making it up as they went along); and finally, when the fire was raging again, use this as a baseless pretext for splitting the Labour Party so we can have another five years of heartless Tory rule. Establishment job done.

“These “courageous” people have discharged their quasi-Tory bidding very well.

“Oh, and of course it’s just a coincidence that these deserters are all virulent Remainers who’ve never accepted the democratic result of the EU referendum, and will continue to do anything possible to reverse it.”

“One thing that May and Corbyn do have in common is that at least they’re trying to stay true to the democratic result of the EU referendum.

He concludes that – rather than having to devote huge amounts of time and energy defending themselves from relentless attacks from ‘serial underminers‘ within their own party – Corbyn and his team can now spend all their time on exposing the nation’s headlong social disintegration under Tory austerity.

 

And above all “inspiring us with their stellar policy portfolio”.o

 

Dr Richard House

Stroud, Gloucestershire

 

Source: Western Daily Press, 25 February 2019, p. 16–17

 

 

 

 

0

Farm Groups: No Deal Brexit reckless in the extreme

PRESS RELEASE, 6th March 2019 from Fairness for Farmers in Europe (FFE), an open door federation of farm organisations across GB, the Isle of Man, Ireland north and south.

After their recent meeting in England, the following FFE members supported this statement: Family Farmers Association, Farmers For Action, Irish Creamery & Milk Suppliers Association, Irish Cattle & Sheep Farmers Association, Manx NFU, National Beef Association and Northern Ireland Agricultural Producers Association.

Pictured (l-r ) at Fairness for Farmers in Europe’s recent meeting at the Marriott Hotel in Gatwick– back row  is Andrew Cooper General Secretary Manx NFU, John Enright ICMSA General Secretary, Tim Johnston Manx NFU Vice-President, Sean McAuley NIAPA & FFA and Brian Brumby Manx NFU President.  Front row, Eddie Punch General Secretary ICSA, William Taylor FFA NI and FFE co-ordinator and Patrick Kent ICSA President.

Fairness for Farmers in Europe have delivered the following press release of their agreed statement on the strong possibility of the UK leaving the EU without a deal to Michael Gove MP, Andrea Leadsom MP, Theresa May PM, Neil Parish MP, Sir Vince Cable MP, Sir Keir Starmer MP and Anna Soubry MP with copies sent to the Irish Government, the Isle of Man Government, the Scottish Government, the Welsh Government, EU Commission President Jean Claude Juncker, Council of Ministers President Donald Tusk and European Parliament President Antonio Tajani. FFE members are copying in their MEPs and politicians where appropriate.

The statement 

Fairness for Farmers in Europe (FFE) on behalf of all the family farmer members they represent across these islands, north, south, east and west, must make clear to the UK Government that it would be reckless in the extreme with the impact horrendous for agriculture and food if the UK were to crash out of the EU with no deal on 29th March.

The beef industry, to give one example across these islands is already being devastated due to uncertainty currently with price losses at the farm gate of 10%+, not to mention the add on costs to consumers from the 29th of March.  A no deal on 29th March would by way of UK and EU Customs and Excise administration costs, consequential transport waiting times and WTO tariffs where applicable on lamb, milk, milk products, chicken, pork, beef, vegetables, fruit and other at the UK Northern Irish border with the EU / Southern Ireland Border, UK Dover border point with Calais French EU border and all other food importing/exporting points around and in the UK.

For the sake of commonsense we ask you to draw back from the brink – ask for more time to achieve a successful outcome if a deal cannot be reached by 29th March. 

 

Contact: 56  Cashel Road, Macosquin, Coleraine, N Ireland, BT51 4NU

Tel. 07909744624  Email : taylor.w@btconnect.com

 

 

 

o

 

Gove ‘pledges’ cheaper, unlabelled, gene-edited food in his Brave New World

At a time when apprehensions about low-quality food entering the country post Brexit are rising, the Times reports that Michael Gove, the environment secretary has announced that “Britain will lead an agricultural revolution with the use of gene editing”.

In July, after hearing scientific evidence that gene editing “causes many profound mutations and DNA damage”, the European Court of Justice ruled that food resulting from genome editing would be regarded as genetically modified, which is outlawed in Europe.

The Country Land and Business Association (CLA) is underwhelmed

Disregarding this science-based evidence, Gove pledged, at yesterday’s CLA meeting in Westminster, that scientists and farmers would be freed from this European court ruling. The first report seen however, makes no reference to this exciting prospect, whatsoever.

Genome editing, or genome engineering is a type of genetic engineering in which DNA is inserted, deleted, modified or replaced in a specific location in the genome (genetic material) of a living organism, unlike early genetic engineering techniques that randomly insert genetic material into a host genome.

Support from vested interests

Scientists in the industry, like the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council, funded by the government’s Department of Business believe that the technique will lead to crops and animals with higher yields, resistance to disease and the ability to cope with the effects of climate change.

Emma Hockridge, head of policy at the Soil Association, urged the government to keep the UK aligned with the European court: “Scientific research has long shown that these new gene-editing technologies give rise to similar uncertainties and risks as GM always has. We have always been clear that these new plant breeding techniques are GMOs [genetically modified organisms] and therefore are banned in organic farming and food”.

Bloomberg reports that under the Trump administration, gene-edited foods don’t need to be labelled or regulated and that Zach Luttrell, a principal at industry consultant StraightRow LLC, sees gene-editing as a way to continue lowering costs. 

 

 

 

o

Contingency plan for a no-deal Brexit: proposals to ferry in critical supplies – food, medicines and possibly car parts

The FT reports that David Lidington, Mrs May’s de facto deputy, has briefed the cabinet that under a no-deal Brexit, the Dover-Calais route could be running at only 12-25% of its normal capacity for up to six months.

“Whatever we do at our end, the French could cause chaos if they carry out checks at their end,” said one government official. “Dover-Calais would be the obvious pinch point. The French would say they were only applying the rules.” This would force Britain to seek alternative ways of bringing in “critical supplies”.

Chris Grayling, transport secretary, has discussed with government colleagues the possibility of chartering ships, or space in ships, to bring supplies into other British ports, thus avoiding the Dover-Calais bottleneck.

Government officials say they do not expect to have to use legal powers to requisition ships, although with only five months to go until Brexit on March 29, there is little time to charter ships on the open market.

According to the FT’s George Parker and James Blitz this move was greeted with disbelief at a stormy meeting of Theresa May’s cabinet on Tuesday. The prime minister announced there would now be a weekly cabinet discussion on preparations for Brexit, whether under a deal or no-deal scenario. If Britain left the EU under World Trade Organization rules, the UK and EU would be in different customs jurisdictions and would be expected to carry out checks on trade across the English Channel.

Some 30% of all Britain’s food requirements are met from imports from other EU countries; Dover is a key port of entry, with over 2.5m heavy goods vehicles passing through the port each year.

Pauline Bastidon (sic), head of European policy at the Freight Transport Association, said: “We are open to all kinds of ideas about how to keep supplies flowing in a no deal Brexit. But it’s hard to see where the extra ships would quickly be found. Nor can I see how other UK ports could possibly handle the huge volumes currently going through the Dover strait.”

The Times adds: Dover handles more than 2.5 million lorries a year and has no capacity to hold trucks waiting for advanced customs clearance. Other UK ports (Ed: see map, right) do have that capacity and could be used to take some Dover traffic. And, reassuringly:

“Ministers say that disruption would also damage EU companies and that there would be political pressure from member states for the European Commission to mitigate the most damaging aspects of a breakdown in talks”.

 

 

 

o

Media 84: MSM fails to report pro EU demos: Thatcherite denial of ‘the oxygen of publicity’

o

Following the rejection of Theresa May’s Brexit vision and the resurgence of young voters rejecting a chaotic separation from the EU, Britain for Europe groups from Brighton to Manchester (below) and from Whitehall to Perth rallied to show their support for continued EU membership.

MEP Molly Scott Cato draws attention to the rallies held by the non-party political campaign group, Britain for Europe. 40 affiliated cross-party local groups across the UK sent a message that support for remaining a full member of the EU remains undimmed.

Molly Scott Cato sent news of the South West rally – a display of unity against Brexit: “It was great to join around 2,500 people at the March and Rally for Europe in Exeter last Saturday, part of a national day of action with rallies across the country.

It was encouraging to share the stage with members from Labour, Lib Dems and Conservative Parties, as well as European citizens, student representatives and farmers. The event was organised by Devon for Europe, part of the Britain for Europe network of regional groups.

A full account may be read in The New European, a British pro-EU weekly newspaper launched in 2016 as a response to the United Kingdom’s 2016 EU referendum; its readership is aimed at those who voted to remain within the European Union.

After a year that has seen the value of the pound plummet and repeated warnings from business leaders, universities and healthcare officials, the government continues to hold the country to ransom without knowing their own demands.

London

Speaking on behalf of Britain for Europe’s 40 affiliated groups across the country, National Chair Tom Brufatto commented:

“Theresa May presides over a coalition of chaos. Her lack of control risks turning what was always a national act of self harm into a full-blown disaster. In the face of this, Britain for Europe stands resolute in our determination to oppose Brexit in all its forms.”

“It is now imperative – if only for the sake of parliamentary democracy, but also for our future peace and prosperity – that when the negotiated deal is put to parliament, MPs are granted a free vote which includes the option of continued EU membership.”

“We call on people to join our 30,000 members and supporters and be a part of the change our country deserves. Brexit must be stopped. By working together to hold the government to account, it will be.”

 

 

 

o

FT: Populism is failing, but it is too soon to cheer: tame it and regain control!

The Financial Times’ Philip Stephens focusses on what he calls ‘populism’. He deplores the ‘electoral insurgency’ of the past few years leading to far-left and far-right parties winning significant vote shares across Europe.

After highlighting the failures and inconsistencies of the Trump government and the Brexit negotiations he warns the ‘hardliners’ in Mrs May’s cabinet that their choice is between:

  • swallowing a softer version of Brexit
  • or breaking with the prime minister
  • so risking a general election and a victory for Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour Party.

Adding “It is just possible that Brexit may prove too difficult to actually happen”

Last year Business Insider reported that the former head of the British civil service, Gus O’Donnell, told an LSE event that politicians need to focus on voters’ feelings of wellbeing to counter the rise of populism and win elections.

Linked to http://uk.businessinsider.com/gus-odonnell-focus-on-wellbeing-to-counter-populism-2016-12

His Times colleague, Gideon Rachman adds:The belief that the economic system is unjust has stoked the rise of rightwing and leftwing populism across the west”.

He continued by saying that until the shocks of 2008, centrist politicians in the west were able to offer a morally coherent view of the economy: a free-market economy would reward effort and spread opportunity. The creation of the global market system was reducing inequality and poverty across the world.

After the financial crisis, however, the “globalists” (to use a Trumpian term) began to lose the moral arguments and – Rachman continued – the fact that banks were bailed out as living standards stagnated, offended many voters’ idea of natural justice.

Stephens’ advice: centrist parties will win back support only when they separate populist leaders from their supporters — when they recognise that those voting for extremists are not by and large the “deplorables” described by Hillary Clinton and – belatedly – he admits those voters have real grievances — economic, social and cultural and offers a strategy to win back their lost support:

“Map an alternative route for society’s left-behinds”, not to do them justice, but because it is expedient:

Long-discarded notions should be disinterred:

  • progressive taxation,
  • active competition policy
  • and social equity

He ended lamely by asking: “And what, after all, was actually wrong with the social market economy?”

 

 

 

g

Will the EC impose glyphosate weedkiller, disregarding Article 191’s precautionary principle?

The European Commission’s seventh attempt to get glyphosate’s licence renewed for five years was unsuccessful.

A GM Watch emessage quotes from  a Greenpeace article which points out that the rejection of this latest bid for a 5-year renewal was an even worse result for the Commission than the vote on its previous 10-year proposal.

That bid had the backing of 16 countries but only fourteen voted in favour of the 5-year renewal, with as many either voting against, or, like Germany, abstaining from voting.

The breakdown of the vote reveals that the governments not backing the renewal represent far more of the EU’s population:

  • 14 Member States (representing 36.95% of EU population voted in favour.
  • 9 Member States (32.26% of EU population) opposed relicensing
  • 5 Member States (30.79% of EU population) abstained.

The qualified majority necessary to grant a new EU licence requires support from countries representing at least 65% of the total EU population, but the countries that voted for renewal represent less than 37% of the population.

The UK, which is one of the most committed glyphosate supporters, is preparing to leave the EU. As it has nearly 13% of the EU’s population, with the UK out of the equation post-Brexit, the states currently voting for glyphosate renewal would represent less than a quarter of the EU’s population.

News 24 reports that Luxembourg environment minister Carole Dieschbourg (right) welcomed the outcome when she became one of the first to tweet the result. “Luxembourg voted against renewal and prolongation. Good outcome for our health and environment,” she said.

On 24 October MEPs at the European Parliament voted to restrict its use from 2018 and impose a full ban by 2022.There were 355 votes in favour of banning glyphosate, 204 against and 111 abstentions. MEPs,

The EU Commission will next take its proposal for a 5-year renewal licence for glyphosate to an appeals committee but it is expected to fail to gain enough support in the appeals committee.

However, the Commission has the power to adopt its own proposal without the backing of European governments. Will the EC disregard the precautionary principle detailed in Article 191 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (EU), which aims at ensuring a higher level of environmental protection through preventative decision-taking in the case of risk and covers consumer policy, European legislation concerning food and human, animal and plant health.

Sources:

https://www.news24.com/Green/News/fresh-eu-bid-fails-to-renew-controversial-weedkiller-20171109

http://www.gmwatch.org/en/

http://www.greenpeace.org/eu-unit/en/News/2017/EU-governments-reject-Commission-push-for-glyphosate/

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/summary/glossary/precautionary_principle.html

 

 

 

b

Jeremy Corbyn’s ‘well-received’ address at the CBI’s annual conference

The Financial Times reported on Jeremy Corbyn’s ‘well-received’ address at the CBI’s annual conference in London on Monday.

Mr Corbyn said to the 1,300 delegates that there was “common ground” between business and the Labour party on the threat a “no deal” on Brexit posed to the economy. Guarantees are needed now to stop firms cutting the UK out of their business models. He continued:

“Many of you feel no closer to having the clarity about the direction of travel you so desperately need [than a year ago]” – the cause: “chaos and confusion at the heart of government”.

He added that time is running out and guarantees are needed now to stop firms cutting the UK out of their business models. He said a transitional arrangement was needed immediately “so that businesses know they won’t face a cliff-edge Brexit when the two year negotiating period is up” and that EU citizens working in the UK should be unilaterally guaranteed full rights to remain: “We agree on the need to signal that the UK remains open to the rest of the world, that Europe is not the enemy,” he said.

The FT’s view is that delegates at the conference appeared impressed by Mr Corbyn’s pro-business tone. Consultant Dina Medland said on Twitter that watching Mr Corbyn address the conference was like “switching from a soap suddenly to a hard news story about human issues — extraordinary delivery”.

Others applauded the confidence of his delivery.

Carolyn Fairbairn, CBI director-general, said: “Labour are right that agreeing a transition deal as soon as possible is mission critical to maintain business confidence. There is cross-party agreement on this now and so this is the time for urgent action.”

Mr Corbyn repeated calls for employers to give British workers a pay rise, and said a Labour government would raise taxes and nationalise utility companies. Ms Fairbairn responded: “Industrial strategy and Brexit must be focused on building a fair, innovative and productive UK economy where society benefits.”

Cityam focussed on Ms Fairbairn’s message highlighting the mainstream business belief that “competitive markets are the best way to improve people’s lives. Abandoning this model will hurt those who need help most and make the UK a laggard in the global race for investment”.

The Telegraph’s article said much the same as the FT and the BBC, belying its ‘fake’ headline: “Businesses reject Jeremy Corbyn’s wooing and warn he would trash Britain’s economy”.  

Judge for yourself: see the far more substantial and interesting video or transcript https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hKNQNa_2anI 

Transcript by Press Labour: http://press.labour.org.uk republished on Watershed.

 

 

c

c

EU citizens continue to be harassed despite Theresa May’s reassuring words

A few days ago, Theresa May appealed – in an open letter – to three million EU nationals, asking them to stay in the UK after Brexit. This follows the EU’s refusal to begin trade talks until progress is made on the rights of EU citizens in the UK.

A month earlier this site reported that the Home Office had sent up to 100 letters to EU citizens telling them to leave UK or face removal.

One of these was Eva Johanna Holmberg who has lived in the UK with her British husband for most of the last decade and was threatened with detention under the Immigration Act. Her story was picked up on social media and the Home Office then said the letter had been sent by mistake. When the department called to apologise it did not offer to cover her legal costs of about £3,800.

Further encouragement to stay was given to another widely valued EU citizen, who has lived and worked in this country for years; her (fortunately secondary!) bank account had been blocked.  She couldn’t access online banking nor use the ATM.

When she went in to the local branch they said it was because a bank statement had been returned.

  • She said this was impossible as she only gets online statements.
  • Response to that: “Well it must have been something you’ve done”.
  • To unblock the account she had to provide proof of ID, proof of address, confirm she had paid UK taxes etc …

This is expected to happen more often from next January, as the accounts of ‘identified’ foreign nationals will be closed down or frozen. Even if the people concerned provide a passport or biometric residence permit showing they are lawfully present in Britain, banks have been instructed that such customers should be told to take up the matter with the Home Office – clearly an intent to harass.

Will there be more ‘rebuttals and clarifications’ on the Home Office media blog, as its recent record shows clearly that it cannot be trusted to implement such systems without errors.

Imposition of the forthcoming checks will simply add another category to the stress-inducing procedures incorrectly inflicted on ‘foreign nationals’ who have every right to be in Britain.

 

 

 

 

v