Britain never wanted a United States of Europe?

Posted on 28/06/2016 by Jim Stewart

It’s interesting when you look at the history of the European Union. It came about in the aftermath of some disastrous wars, and the UK was at the heart of it. But it didn’t turn out the way Winston Churchill wanted, and it is still a long way from his vision. I’ve been looking through some of his speeches to see what he proposed. There are two main speeches, one in Zurich and another in The Hague.

In Zurich he starts his proposal:

“We must build a kind of United States of Europe.

In this way only will hundreds of millions of toilers be able to regain the simple joys and hopes which make life worth living.”

He then goes on to set out the way to get there.

“The first step is to form a Council of Europe.

If at first all the States of Europe are not willing or able to join the Union, we must nevertheless proceed to assemble and combine those who will and those who can.”

Some years later this concept started to be realised as a number of European greats met in The Hague.

He sets out his vision:

“The Movement for European Unity must be a positive force, deriving its strength from our sense of common spiritual values. It is a dynamic expression of democratic faith based upon moral conceptions and inspired by a sense of mission. In the centre of our movement stands the idea of a Charter of Human Rights, guarded by freedom and sustained by law. It is impossible to separate economics and defence from the general political structure. Mutual aid in the economic field and joint military defence must inevitably be accompanied step by step with a parallel policy of closer political unity. It is said with truth that this involves some sacrifice or merger of national sovereignty. But it is also possible and not less agreeable to regard it as the gradual assumption by all the nations concerned of that larger sovereignty which can alone protect their diverse and distinctive customs and characteristics and their national traditions all of which under totalitarian systems, whether Nazi, Fascist, or Communist, would certainly be blotted out for ever.”

So there we have his vision:

  • Centered on a legally binding charter of human rights;
  • Mutual economic aid (bail outs);
  • A European defence force;
  • A common political structure.

And to achieve this he recognizes the need to sacrifice some national sovereignty.

At that meeting in The Hague, chaired by Churchill, the framework for this new Europe was set out. The outcome was a call for:

  • The gradual abolition of barriers to trade
  • Working to get rid of unemployment
  • Currency exchange
  • A European Parliament
  • Mobility of the labour force
  • An agreed joint economic policy
  • Some kind of resource planning
  • Pooled sovereignty
  • A charter of Human Rights
  • A European court
  • A European Council
  • A children and youth focus

This falls short of the ideas put forward by Churchill, but most of this has been put into place in the European Union.

So there we have it – the United States of Europe concept of Winston Churchill. Something we are still short of achieving. I find it interesting that one of the main Brexit arguments was that we thought Europe was only ever about a free market – when in fact the UK proposal way back before it started was much, much more. Interesting how we can create the history that supports the future we want.

There is still some way to go to achieve the Churchill vision for Europe.

“Thus for us and for all who share our civilisation and our desire for peace and world government, there is only one duty and watchword: Persevere. That is the command which should rule us at this Congress. Persevere along all the main lines that have been made clear and imprinted upon us by the bitter experiences through which we have passed. Persevere towards those objectives which are lighted for us by all the wisdom and inspiration of the past.”

 

Posted in Uncategorised | Comments Off on Britain never wanted a United States of Europe?

The losses are growing

Posted on 25/06/2016 by Jim Stewart

The way Europe works is really quite complicated. It isn’t just the single market – there is a lot more to it. At the moment I am trying to get some international business and managed to get shortlisted. Normally there would be 28 countries supporting you getting the work, that’s supporting all Europeans trying to get the work. As of today I have one country supporting me getting the work, and other European competitors have 27.

So I’ll still try to get that contract, but in reality the chances are now very, very slim. That’s before Brexit takes effect – it’s just the effect of the vote. It may have cost me a big contract.

Tonight I went to a concert and met a doctor from Uganda. His cancer therapy equipment had failed two months ago and he couldn’t get a replacement. Patients couldn’t be treated. And then reality came back. It wasn’t important. It was only money. The market problems, the exchange rate, in or out, it’s not real, it’s not the value system I choose to live my life by.

A friend posted on their timeline “so what’s the plan”. But to be honest the plan of Boris and Nigel isn’t my plan. Whatever they have in mind it isn’t my value system, it isn’t my plan. Tonight Martyn sang:

And the purpose of power is to give it away;

This is my truth, tell me yours.

And freedom won’t be freedom until poverty has gone;

So Jo your dream’s alive and strong.

And there is the challenge, working to create a society that has different values; there is a plan for the future, not to get caught by a value system that breeds greed, fear and hate, but to change our society into something amazing, a place where Boris and Nigel will feel like foreigners.

Posted in Brexit | Comments Off on The losses are growing

OH gosh what a shock – whatever next?

Posted on 24/06/2016 by Jim Stewart

Are you really surprised?

I know I’ve been saying we should remain, but since coming back from vacation I’ve been telling people I thought we would lose. I popped into the old office yesterday, and when I mentioned I thought the vote would be to leave I got such a look of incredulity: “stupid boy” sort of thing.

Although a lot of Facebook people have been crying out “remain” I have had a real sense that there was a strong feeling that people had reached breaking point. Not the country, but individuals. They had had enough for a number of different reasons, and nobody was offering any answers.

Maybe the first down point was the Cameron negotiations. The poor little boy going cap in hand to his masters in Europe. Oliver asking if he could have some more please. I am no fan of the Iron Lady and her handbag of power, but just think how the situation would have been handled by her. A decision would have been made in Downing Street and a minion dispatched to Europe to help them understand how they would come to terms with it. The weakness shown was unbelievable; if I had been concerned it would have been a performance that would have made my mind up to leave.

So what next? My thoughts. Well, a few negotiations in Europe, and we will be offered an initial tough deal. The idea will be to make us understand that the Brexit campaign was a lie and to make us wonder if our choice was the right one.

Remember the £350 Million a week (which didn’t account for the money we got back), well if we want to have access to the biggest market in the world that is what it will cost – except we will not get our rebate. There will be insistence that we retain an open border and that we comply with all of the EU standards (so we will still need to have un-bent bananas). But it will just be the opening gambit in negotiation. Certainly we will need a strong leader at this point – and I’m sorry DC is just not the man for the job. In the words of Jim Reeves “He’ll have to go”. And my feeling is that this may be more than just the end for DC – but for his party as a whole; I can feel a confidence vote coming on.

One of the first things to go will be inward investment from the EU. Why should they support Welsh development when Wales will be outside the EU by the time the money is spent? Why should they invest in a five year research project with European money when we will be outside Europe before it finishes?

In the meantime I believe we will see a move toward a united Ireland (there have already been calls for it today). After all, that way the people in the North would be able to get what they voted for – a chance to remain.

But I don’t think the fat lady is even on stage yet. One of the biggest issues with this referendum was that people really didn’t know the truth about what they were voting for. It was interesting reading about Google stats and how many people were searching to find out what leaving would mean AFTER the decision had been made. Once the dust has settled and we know exactly what the deal is we will most likely be offered another referendum (yes that can happen). See you here again next year!

Posted in Brexit | Comments Off on OH gosh what a shock – whatever next?

Should I stay or should I go?

Posted on 22/06/2016 by Jim Stewart

I must admit I am shocked at the poor quality information provided by both sides in this Brexit campaign. Don’t just trust me on this – have a listen to a law professor (https://youtu.be/USTypBKEd8Y).

Like him I have worked with Europe for a few decades and find many of the statements, while not wrong, are likely to lead people to believe something is wrong. I have no fear of Europe, I know from experience that the UK has always been able to punch above its weight and more often than not gets Europe to do what we want. In my job I would get agreement from a UK government minister on what we wanted and then devise means to get Europe to do it. At one point I managed to get a member of the European Commission (the so called un-elected rulers) to come and work for me and deliver what the UK wanted. I never failed to get what the UK wanted in Europe. I am happy in Europe because I know we run it most of the time. So what do I think about the arguments (not that it will change anybodies mind)?

 

Europe rules the UK

Not the case. The EU is a club, with rules we have helped to write. Our parliament chose to follow most of these rules on our behalf (we normally don’t make decisions in the UK by referendum – we normally elect people to parliament to make decisions on our behalf). Europe only has the power over the UK that our parliament gives it, and it can be taken back at any time. Take the European Court of Human Rights – we only need to take account of its decision, not obey it. How we do that is our choice, we are not compelled, but in most cases we choose to follow the decision. This is why we are able to have a referendum and choose to leave if we want. If Europe truly ruled us we would not be able to leave.

We pay a fortune to stay in Europe

Okay, on average for every £10 we earn 1p goes to Europe (in comparison about 55p goes to the NHS). We pay the equivalent of a cafe latte a week per person to Europe. You can report numbers in different ways to give different effects. In total it adds up to a big figure (remember the take care of the pennies idea?), but it’s still small compared to the amount of money we have as a country. The effect of staying or leaving is much larger than the direct costs (the so called £350 million a week). The difference between exchange rates in the past week caused by the referendum itself could easily be worth more, the direct costs are simply tiny compared to the potential indirect cost/savings.

We need to align with countries with bigger growth like China.

Normally growth is measured in %. A little bit of maths here. A speed increase of 5mph from 10mph is 50% growth. A speed increase of 10mph from 100mph is a 10% increase. So the 50% increase is actually smaller than the 10% increase. Don’t be surprised that countries with small economies have higher % growth. The economy of China is only half the size of the economy of Europe, and it’s the biggest economy quoted. Quite simply many of the “high growth” economies added together do not have the capacity to replace our trade with Europe.

The EU is a failing region

So how do we define failure? Do we define it by wealth, culture, peace or some other measure. One big issue is the amount of debt – how much do we owe? Well, the UK debt is rising as a proportion of GDP faster than that of the EU; the UK balance of payments is negative and that of the EU is positive; and the EU is investing a higher proportion of GDP than the UK so in relation to wealth the UK is a bigger failure than the EU. Peace, well think of the recent wars – they are taking place up to the border of the EU, but not within. To me this is the main reason for the EU – to create peace among countries that have had the most violent wars for centuries. It is hard to see any significant difference that says the UK is much better than the EU, rather the facts suggest we are marginally worse.

The EU is responsible for mass migration to the UK

The simple fact is that most migrants to the UK do not come from the EU – and so most are subject to UK immigration policy, not the so called open borders of Europe. Each of these people need to apply to the UK government for a visa, and they have granted over 150,000 a year for a while. This is nothing to do with Europe, it is the choice of our government whether to allow them to enter the country or not. The numbers have increased by around 50,000 over the last few years to close to 200,000. Why doesn’t the remain campaign say this? Well it would mean David Cameron admitting that failing to meet his election immigration target was fully in his control and so he has failed.

EU is run by un-elected grey mandarins

There are three organisations in the European legislative structure. There is the parliament, we elect MEPs, and in my experience they are more in touch with their constituencies than MPs. There is the European Commission (the civil service) that cannot create any legislation – they are similar to our civil service. Here I agree with the leave campaign that the Commission could benefit from being cut back (but that is a detail for me, not a reason to run away and hide). And finally there is the Council (that most people have never heard of) which has significant power. The Council is made up from members of each countries parliament, and in some areas we have special votes that gives the UK more say than would be the case with PR. So in the EU there are two elected groups that approve all the legislation. In the UK, of course, we only have one elected body, an un-elected civil service and an un-elected house of Lords. There is a bit of pot and kettle here.

We can still do the same stuff with the EU if we leave

So what is the EU? Well, that is a question I have been unable to get answered from government as yet. My best guess is that it is defined in The European Union (Amendment) Act 2008 which links to the Maastricht Treaty as well as the Euratom Treaty. In other words it is the umbrella treaties – so we would not be committed to withdrawing from the lower tier agreements (except each of these would impose rules on us and claim payment from us – it would be like withdrawing from making the club rules but still paying the dues and obeying the rules). If we leave we are likely to withdraw from the lower tier agreements and set up new agreements, but unlike the scaremongering of the remain campaign these are likely to be easy to put together if we follow the same format as exists with others.

We have a common customs area. This is the area where we can trade without having to fill in pesky customs forms. Leaving the EU would initially mean leaving this area, and we would need to conclude an agreement with the EU to rejoin (like Turkey has), but like the leave campaign say this is likely to be easy (but only if we follow the standard format for such an agreement). An agreement would involve agreeing to the customs tariffs set by the EU, why, because otherwise people would simply send things to the UK and forward them to the EU to bypass their tariffs. So we would need to apply the EU set tariffs, but would not be able to influence them. It is very likely that we would need to follow EU standards, not just for exports to the EU but for all goods –  but would not be able to influence the standards. Why would we need to do this for non-EU goods – well the idea is that all goods within the common area meet the same standard, otherwise each and every shipment crossing a border would need to be checked. So in effect we could probably carry on as we are, but just would have no voice on decisions affecting our industry.

We have free movement of people, even if we are not a full part part of the Schengen area. We want to control this to prevent an influx of low paid workers taking our jobs according to the leave campaign. Britain is full. The only way to control the number of people coming in to your country is to require a visa for specific purposes (with perhaps a visa waiver system for vacations). This is possible, but would cut both ways – if we require EU citizens to have a visa to work here they will ask us to have a visa to work there. And costa del brit would probably be at an end (long term retirement vacations). Ireland have signed up to join the Schengen area (and are in the process of implementing it), and so we have two options there – put a border up between the north and south, or put the border up at the Irish Sea – requiring anybody from Northern Ireland coming to GB to show passports – in my view starting the process of uniting Ireland under Dublin rule. Without a doubt the second option is less costly and less likely to result in a return to the bad old days, restricting the free movement of people is fairly likely to result in leaving Northern Ireland behind as part of a united Ireland.

There are a number of other bits that we would be leaving behind. There would need to be new agreements put together for things like energy (the electricity we get from France), nuclear non-proliferation (this would involve setting up new agreements with the UN). It is likely that the new nuclear reactors being built would be subject to significant delay or, more likely, be cancelled (that’s £12 billion investment from Europe). Most of our overseas trade agreements are currently negotiated through the EU – leaving the EU would leave these trade agreements. Just to be clear this is Kosovo, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia, Ukraine, Montenegro, Albania, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Faroe Islands, Norway, Iceland, Switzerland, Algeria, Egypt, Lebanon, Jordan, Israel, Morocco, Tunisia, Palestinian Authority, Syria, Ecuador (not yet ratified), Colombia, Peru, Central America, Iraq, Papua New Guinea, Fiji, Korea, Cameroon, Madagascar, Mauritius, the Seychelles, Zimbabwe, Chile, Mexico, South Africa , CARIFORUM States, Turkey, San Marino and Andorra. Plus there are about another 25 agreements waiting for ratification and 25 part way negotiated. That’s 110 trade agreements we would need to negotiate. Leaving the European trade area is not aligning with the rest of the world – it is also leaving trade agreements with over 50 other countries.

There are so many unknowns in the event of leaving – ask most people and they will tell you they don’t know exactly what it would mean. That is the biggest risk to us, two years of panic to untangle ourselves from Europe and another ten years of trying to negotiate our way back to where we currently are.  The cost of this could be enormous – it could even bankrupt our country. Would you invest in a country with no trade agreements in place? This isn’t project fear, it’s simply project I don’t know.

I believe a lot more time and effort should have been put in to prepare facts before a referendum was held. But we have the rush we have because of the desperation of the conservative party to win the last election. This is one of the biggest arguments for voting remain at this time – we don’t know enough to make the change. We are being pressured into making a decision without the real facts.

Call me cantankerous, but if somebody tries to make me make a decision before I am ready to I just plain refuse. And perhaps this is the real way to look at this referendum. The question isn’t stay or leave, it’s whether we risk change or not. Is there enough information to make me change, no. So until somebody can give me real facts – and enough to convince me that such a big change is worth risking I’ll stay where I am.

Posted in Brexit | Comments Off on Should I stay or should I go?

Radical Islam could improve the USA

Posted on 21/06/2016 by Jim Stewart

I have just come back from a long vacation in the USA, where they are starting the long process of deciding who the next president will be. One of the big issues seems to be the use of the term “Radical Islam” or “Radical Muslims”. It’s interesting that an election in the USA has such a strong focus on the use of the English language.

While I was there I saw evidence of radical Islam on the streets of the USA. One guy had the temerity to confront the US military machine and the federal government at the risk of everything he owned and lived to build. In effect to surrender everything in his life for his ideals. People were even on the streets celebrating his achievement! He was a radical Muslim without a doubt. And they laid him to rest in Louisville – Muhammad Ali.

Over the past year I have met similar radical Muslims in different parts of the world. People that have given up on all of their “normal” life in order to provide support for others in need. People that stop caring for themselves for the sake of serving others. That’s radical.

Surely people do not want to exclude them from the USA? But I think they do. You see these radical Muslims are the antithesis of the rich men that build towers emblazoned with their names. The rich men come from dust and will return to dust, their towers will crumble and soon be replaced by a new rich mans tower. They and their achievements will become nothing. As for their greed and the hate and fear they are generating, that is less than nothing. In the balances they are “found wanting”. The lives of the radical Muslims cry out that the emperor has no clothes, they challenge everything the rich men live for, and so will always be hated by them.

Is there violence, aggression and intolerance in Islam: without a doubt, and I have also seen that myself. But I recently also saw a Christian pastor celebrate the killing of 49 people because they were gay.

Are the terrorists all radical Muslims? Well, perhaps we just need to look back at the troubles in Ireland to think about that. Two groups of killers claiming to be Christian. Were the IRA Christian terrorists? No – they were terrorists that claimed to be Christians. Could I say categorically that they were not Christian? No, and their brand of Christianity was leading them to be involved in terrorism. That is why we all need to challenge religious views that offer support to the violent and the haters, whether Christian or Muslim (something I think we are failing to do – but that is another story).

I believe some of the radical Muslims could make a real positive difference in the USA and the country would do well to welcome them. However I have to say I would much rather see the USA improved by radical Christians (well, I would, wouldn’t I?).

And let’s hope the USA eventually learn “radical” can mean good as well as bad.

Posted in Uncategorised | Comments Off on Radical Islam could improve the USA

The problem with european human rights (courts)

Posted on 26/04/2016 by Jim Stewart

Theresa May expressed the importance of getting rid of the European Human Rights because they were problematic. I had a look at the rights to see what was so objectionable. It is hard to see what is so objectionable about the articles. More than that, it is hard to see what we would not still be committed to because of the many conventions we have signed.

After the second world war a universal declaration regarding human rights was drafted – mainly by the UK by all accounts. I have identified rights coming from this declaration as UDHR. Much of this is copied into the european declaration regarding human rights, which I have identified with EDHR. Below is a summary of the various rights coming from these international agreements. Have a look at the ones coming from the european declaration and decide for yourself – which of these are a real problem.

One of the problems often quoted is the difficulty deporting people to countries where they may be subject to the death penalty. The extradition treaty between the USA and UK (2003) contains an article (article 7) that compensates for this – extradition to the USA only takes place of the agreement that the death penalty will not be applied. There are around 85 countries still have the death penalty, 50 of which have not applied it in the last 10 years. So we only have around 35 treaties to negotiate on extradition – most of them in a band stretching from Eastern North Africa/Middle East to China. Not impossible.

No, I feel that the answer as to why so many politicians dislike the act is the fact that they have said they will follow it, and for a change somebody has the power to hold them to account for breaking their promises.

 

European Human Rights

First lets start with the rights in the EDHR. There are around 22 rights granted (I have grouped some that are similar).

1. Everybody has the right to life

EDHR Article 2, UDHR Article 3

2. Torture, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment is prohibited

EDHR Article 3, UDHR Article 5

3. Slavery and forced labour are prohibited

EDHR Article 4, UDHR Article 4

4. Right to liberty and security

EDHR Article 5, UDHR Article 3

5. Right to a fair trial

EDHR Article 6, UDHR Article 10

Abolition of the death penalty

EDHR Protocol 6 Article 1,

Right of appeal in criminal matters

EDHR Protocol 7 Article 2,

Compensation for wrongful conviction

EDHR Protocol 7 Article 3,

Right not to be tried or punished twice

EDHR Protocol 7 Article 4,

6. No punishment for crime unless you break the law

EDHR Article 7, UDHR Article 11

7. Right to respect for private and family life

EDHR Article 8, UDHR Article 12

8. Right of freedom of thought, conscience and religion

EDHR Article 9, UDHR Article 18

9. Right of freedom of expression

EDHR Article 10, UDHR Article 19

10. Right of freedom of assembly and association

EDHR Article 11, UDHR Article 20

11. Right to marry

EDHR Article 12, UDHR Article 16

12. Right to having things put right if the convention is not applied

EDHR Article 13, UDHR Article 8

13. Discrimination is prohibited

EDHR Article 14, UDHR Article 7

14. Right to protection of property and entitlement to its peaceful enjoyment

EDHR Protocol Article 1, UDHR Article 17

15. Right to education

EDHR Protocol Article 2, UDHR Article 26

16. Right to free elections

EDHR Protocol Article 3, UDHR Article 21

17. Imprisonment for debt is prohibited

EDHR Protocol 4 Article 1,

18. Right to freedom of movement

EDHR Protocol 4 Article 2, UDHR Article 13

19. Expulsion of nationals from their country is prohibited

EDHR Protocol 4 Article 3,

20. Collective expulsion of aliens is prohibited

EDHR Protocol 4 Article 4,

Procedural safeguards relating to expulsion of aliens

EDHR Protocol 7 Article 1,

21. Right to equality between spouses

EDHR Protocol 7 Article 5,

22. Discrimination is prohibited

EDHR Protocol 12, Article 1, UDHR Article 2

There are also a number of reverse statements in the EDHR (in other words reasons why the rights might be withdrawn or curtailed, or limits on interpretation). Examples of these include:

Derogation in time of emergency EDHR Article 15

Restrictions on political activity of aliens EDHR Article 16

Prohibition of abuse of rights EDHR Article 17

Limitation on use of restrictions on rights Article 18, UDHR Article 30

 

Universal Human Rights

Several items in the universal declaration (that the UK has signed) do not appear in the European one. However we have agreed to apply these as well. Interestingly this is one of the sources of the right to asylum. Many of these rights are much more socialist than the European rights.

A particular article that I firmly believe should be in the European rights is identified below as K. It effectively says that with the rights comes responsibilities.

A. Right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law

UDHR Article 6

B. Arbitrary arrest is prohibited

UDHR Article 9, (EDHR Article 5)

C. Right to seek and to enjoy asylum

UDHR Article 14

D. Right to a nationality

UDHR Article 15

E. Right to social security

UDHR Article 22

F. Right to work

UDHR Article 23

G. Right to rest and leisure

UDHR Article 24

H. Right to a standard of living adequate

UDHR Article 25

I. Right to freely participate in the cultural life of the community

UDHR Article 27

J. Entitlement to a social and international order

UDHR Article 28

K. Duties to the community

UDHR Article 29

 

Other sources of rights

The UK has been a leading source of rights for people in the world. As a result we have signed a significant number of other conventions that we need to follow.

Examples of these include:

  • International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
  • International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
  • Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women
  • International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination
  • Slavery Convention
  • Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment
  • Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention
  • Convention concerning Forced or Compulsory Labour
  • Convention relating to the Status of Refugees
  • Convention relating to the Status of Stateless Persons
Posted in Brexit | Comments Off on The problem with european human rights (courts)

Fukushima remembered

Posted on 11/03/2016 by Jim Stewart

Five years ago today a tsunami hit the east coast of Japan. It was a Friday. The next day, Saturday, I had just driven my car out of the gate. I was going to pick up a friend and head into the mountains for the last of the snow. I climbed out to close the gate, and was about to turn my mobile off when it rang.

“Can you come in to work tonight?”

As I climbed back into the car I heard the news about the explosion at the Fukushima reactor.

For the next few months I spent several days and nights working in the emergency room. During the nights one of the TVs would be tuned to one of the broadcasts from Japan. It was a strange contrast – being at the center of the interest in the reactor problems and at the same time watching what was going on all over Japan – news that hardly ever got reported in the West.

I remember watching a story about a woman who carried her mother on her back to safety for three days, with nothing to eat except half a biscuit each. I remember the school halls filled with people who had no homes left, and the problems with DVT because of the difficult living conditions.

Early on I emailed a friend in Japan to check on her but got no reply. I looked up her address and discovered it was right in the middle of the worst hit area. No email, no home phone, no work phone, no mobile phone. How do you find out if they are okay? It’s nice having Google Connect to find lost family – but with no internet? This was the situation with so many people in Japan – with no way of finding people they loved (still today there are over 2000 missing). It took more than a week before I got a message through via another friend and got an emailed photo of a partially destroyed office building with a message that it was one of the better buildings.

Japan Today later reported there were around 300,000 people living in shelters, 50,000 of them because of the nuclear exclusion zone two years after the disaster. The more I watched the way Japan responded the more amazed I was at the strength of the people. I wondered how many countries could cope with a disaster of this magnitude. I was left with a deep admiration for the people of Japan.

Today there has been a statement by the head of the UN about our need to learn. I agree. We have become so reliant on a complex infrastructure that a major disaster risks sending regions back hundreds of years. Concepts like just-in-time and economy of scale are seldom questioned. If we can’t order our just-in-time goods because of an infrastructure crash then how do we get them?

Economics of scale is perhaps the one concept that concerns me most as a result of Fukushima. Think about building a dam to provide drinking water. If you build 20 dams with lakes 1m deep it will cost more than one big dam with a bigger 10m deep lake. But think about the effect of a large earthquake – you are less likely to destroy all 20 dams than the one big dam. And I would rather have a 1m flood than a 10m flood. Or perhaps think of the problem rescuing people on top of the world trade buildings.

As we build bigger we save money – partly because we find a way of saying an emergency will never occur because we have built it so safe – that way we don’t need to pay to enhance our emergency services.

I saw an interesting change in the attitude of some emergency planners in Japan. While they still worked at reducing the chance of an emergency they then went on and asked the tough question “Okay, if we are wrong and it does happen what will we do?” I have come to the view that there are some accidents that our society cannot tolerate, and perhaps we should not accept the risk that our safety cases are wrong if they would be the outcome.

Had the wind direction been different during the release from the Fukushima reactors there would have been a possibility that the resulting panic in the Tokyo area would have pushed their economy over the edge – and sent a financial tsunami to the rest of the world.

Today the UK is planning to build very safe larger reactors to replace the smaller ones that have just shut down. I think we need to learn from Fukushima and ask the question “But what if an accident did happen?”

I remember a story about a tower built in a place called Babel.

 

Posted in Uncategorised | Comments Off on Fukushima remembered

Europe is smothering us with rules

Posted on 05/03/2016 by Jim Stewart

One of the big issues in the Brexit discussion is the number of European Rules – and the number affecting small businesses in particular. I decided to do a check today on the rules in the middle of being created.

Lets start with the Bills. Bills are the highest level of legislation – they get discussed several times in both houses of parliament before becoming law. They often will allow ministers to pass lower level legislation like regulations without discussing them in parliament.  So start with what was discussed in parliament today. There were 24 at various stages. None of them had a European origin – all were “Made in Britain”. Eight come from Christopher Chope et al. From what I can tell 7 will affect small business in some way, and two will affect schools.

Next there are treaties becoming law (just because a minister signs a treaty doesn’t make it law in the UK – it has to be cleared in parliament). There are three due in the next two weeks. Two are UK treaties with other countries, one of which will affect small business. The third treaty is a European treaty that allows Switzerland to take part in the new European GPS system.

The bulk of legislation is made in statutory instruments (regulations, orders etc). There are two normal ways for these to go through parliament, negative and positive resolution. The negative is easier than positive in theory, but in reality most SIs get through either way.

There are 10 SIs due to complete their time over the next two weeks subject to negative resolution. 7 out of the 10 are Made in Britain, 1 of them looks like it will affect small business. Of the 3 European based SIs they are all related to international sanctions that the UK would probably put in place anyway.

With positive resolution the easiest way to review these is to look at the numbers passed in the last week. There were 10 passed in the last week, 3 of which affect small business. All were “Made in Britain”.

So in summary there were 47 pieces of legislation that I reviewed that were relevant to today in parliament, 4 of which came from Europe. The 15 pieces of legislation that have particular relevance to small business are all “Made in Britain”.

And while today was a private members bill day (so it was a bit different to other days) I did look back at business this week and it was no significant difference). The evidence suggests that the complaints about too much European legislation isn’t really based on fact – actually it’s the folks in Westminster that seem to be smothering us – and particularly the small businesses.

Posted in Brexit | Comments Off on Europe is smothering us with rules

Closing the doors of Europe

Posted on 26/02/2016 by Jim Stewart
At the moment just a rumour, but one that I expected to see. It is backed by news from the BBC.
The message I got is that Macedonia is restricting entry of refugees to the point that the Greek mainland is having trouble coping with the numbers.
As a result it seems that the ferries will limit the numbers coming from the islands. On the islands the refugees are not fed well by governments or the UN, they are fed by local people like Iokasti Nikolaidi or people that volunteer their time there like Ifty Patel and have been for many months.
I understand that boats with refugees found at sea in the Eastern Aegean will be returned to Turkey, which should help reduce the build up on the islands.
Nevertheless the numbers on the Islands are likely to build up – like they did when I was there. As numbers build tensions rise, the locals find it hard to provide enough food for everybody (remember they can only take out 75 Euros from their bank accounts each day).
It looks like they may need urgent help in the near future.
It is also important to make sure the message goes out to the refugees in Turkey – The borders are closed – stay where you are.
My guess is that this could signal an end to the refugee crisis in the Greek Islands, but not without a bumpy few months to come.
My personal feelings are that stopping this route is the right thing to do. 1 in 200 die as they try to cross the Aegean. We cannot continue to allow the criminals in Turkey to make a fortune out of murder. Yes we all know that these are desperate people that are fleeing from horrific situations, but the Merkel Madness approach of telling people that the first million that can run to your country will get in needs to be relegated to history.
The question is what is the alternative? How many years would you want to sit in a tent relying on handouts? Most Syrians I spoke to want to return to their country. The answer is to take real action to stop the war.
In the meantime we need to be much more pro-active at giving the refugees in the enormous camps a feeling of worth, of value. There are enormous groups of young people that need formal education that can be recognised once this war is over. How do we make sure this happens?
Posted in Refugees | Comments Off on Closing the doors of Europe

Brexit and Migration

Posted on 24/02/2016 by Jim Stewart

One of the first battlegrounds for the referendum has been drawn up as immigration. It’s an interesting subject. Would leaving the EU make a difference to the swarms (the pro-European Cameron term) invading our country?

There are three general groups of people arriving in the UK. There are asylum seekers, there are EU migrants and there are non-EU migrants. An associate issue is how we would control our borders if we were to seek to reduce the number of immigrants.

Asylum Seekers

Typically 500,000 people arrive in the UK each year. Since the mid 2000’s the number of asylum seekers has been 20,000 to 40,000 averaging around 30,000. Many of the asylum seekers in the UK have historical links to the UK, for example the Indian sub-continent accounts for around 10% of asylum seekers over the last 15 years.

In 2015 (excluding December) 12 countries accounted for 75% of asylum seekers: Eritrea, Iran, Pakistan, Sudan, Syrian Arab Rep., Afghanistan, Iraq, Albania, Nigeria, Sri Lanka, India, Bangladesh.

There are some surprising cases, for example the number of Canadians claiming asylum over the last few years has reached double figures (Australia just a few less than this), and the number from the USA now bumping along at around one a week.

The number of asylum seekers may vary with leaving the EU, but the links to the EU are limited and so the overall change in immigration related to asylum seekers is unlikely to change immigration by a significant factor.

EU migrants and non-EU migrants

ONS data is perhaps a little more telling. For example it suggests that around 2/3 of a million people arrived in the UK from abroad in the year to end June 2015, while 1/3 of a million left. The numbers arriving is increasing and the numbers of those leaving is decreasing. As a result there is an increase in the numbers coming to the UK, around half of the people arriving coming from the EU. Overall the number coming to the UK from Europe has been growing since around 2012, and the significant increase relates to Bulgaria and Romania (EU2).

There are two main reasons for people coming to the UK, one being education, the other being work. These account for around three quarters of the people coming to the UK long term.

Education

More than a quarter of the people coming to the UK came for education purposes, and this number has increased recently. This number is likely to link to the overall success of the UK. In other words, the more successful the UK is the more people will want to come her and be educated. There will be dubious cases within this, however the genuine increase in immigration for education is beneficial to the UK.

Leaving Europe could have an effect on these numbers by making it harder for EU based students to come to the UK to study, however the data suggests that 5/6 of students come from outside of the EU. The overall effect of leaving the EU would most likely be small when it comes to education.

Employment

Around half of the UK nationals in the country are in employment, while 2/3 of the EU immigrants are in employment. There are around 2M EU nationals employed in the UK, and 1.2M non-EU nationals employed in the UK. UK unemployment is around 1.7M. In addition there are around 0.7M vacancies in the UK.

Leaving the EU would most likely have little effect on the non-EU migrants, however the change in the number of EU immigrants here for work purposes would become subject to management through a visa system. This offers to be the biggest change to immigration numbers if Britain were to leave the EU.

There are around 1M more people in the UK job market than there are available jobs. Reducing the EU migrant workers by a million would offer the ability for full employment in the UK. However the number of current vacancies has remained constant for a while – suggesting that some jobs may not be very attractive to those unemployed. The reasoning behind this is obviously varied, but it is possible that there are a range of jobs available in the UK that are hard to fill because of a mixture of location and low pay. In addition to this inward control would be outward control, with just under 2M British nationals living elsewhere in Europe, however a lower percentage of these are likely to be workers, with a larger number not in the job market.

An interesting case study could be the recently high profile case of a factory in Derbyshire that employs a significant number of EU immigrants. A recent investigation from the BBC http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-derbyshire-35604776 identified a number of major housing and social issues. The company in question are suggested to offer salary rates for workers equivalent (deductions for things like uniform cost taken into account) to between £3.75 and £6.80 an hour, with lower salaries less than £7000 a year. However a reasonable estimate for factory workers in this area is around £13000 according to reports of pay surveys. Rooms in the area cost from £2500 to £4000 a year, and a one bed house around £4500 to £5750 a year.

One question would then be whether jobs like this would be filled by anyone other than the EU2 immigrants who are prepared to live in difficult conditions, the potential solution would be an increase in the lower salaries of these workers, and a potential ripple effect on other salaries due to increasing prices. Overall, for the benefits to be realised there would probably be an associated improvement in the conditions of lower paid workers in the UK.

A second option would be for the jobs to follow the low paid workers, so if the lower paid workforce were only available in the EU the jobs would follow them. The likely outcome would be a mixture of these changes along with a number of other changes. Whether the net effect would be a benefit to the UK is hard to predict, but it is likely that some benefit would result to those UK nationals willing to replace the EU2 workers.

With respect to migration the question of whether Britain is in or out of the EU is unlikely to result in significant changes to most of society, but the benefits to lower paid workers could be reasonable.

Border Control

The other effect of controlling migration would be the need to enhance border controls.

Contrary to common belief an asylum seeker is not required to claim asylum in the first country they reach. This is an EU rule, and because of our geography effectively offers protection to the UK from large numbers of asylum seekers. If the UK were to join the Schengen area this protection would be enhanced. Asylum seekers should be free to cross borders to claim asylum. The border controls that the UK operates in France ensures that asylum seekers are in France when they present themselves at the UK border – avoiding the opportunity for them to claim asylum on UK territory. It is possible that the UK border controls would no longer be able to operate within France if the UK left the EU. While in theory this could lead to more asylum claims in the UK the need to control security for channel crossings would most likely prevent a significant increase.

In order to control the numbers from the EU2 coming to seek work in the UK there is likely to be the need for stricter entry controls, potentially even vacation visas. If these strict controls are not implemented there would be an associated cost in finding and returning over-stayers. In any case a visa system is likely to be the most effective means of managing a transition period. It would be a disaster to remove 2M employees at one time, many businesses would not be able to cope. As a result a system of short term work visas would be the most effective means of staggering the removal of these workers. The outcome would possibly be the introduction of vacation visas for British nationals visiting Europe even for vacation, and certainly for work.

Neither of these problems would seem to be too significant. The most significant issue for border control will be the land border with the EU, around 500km stretching across Ireland. There is a document describing how this border is expected to operate “Joint Statement Regarding Co-Operation on Measures to Secure the External Common Travel Area Border” produced in 2011. The concept is that there would be a common travel area between the two countries. This can exist while the two countries have the same immigration rules, but if the UK were to leave Europe and place controls on the immigration from states such as the EU2 this would require a review of this open border.

Summary

Overall a bid to restrict immigration is likely to have a small positive effect to people in some of the lowest paid work in the UK. However there would be a balancing effect of some British Nationals being unable to continue work in Europe.

The effect on asylum claims is likely to be minimal and, with the time to fully consider cases taking over a decade for some people, the number of asylum seekers living in the UK is likely to remain fairly constant.

The largest single effect of new immigration controls would come with our relationship to Ireland (and to a lesser extent Gibraltar) where we have a land border with another European state. The potential damage to the positive work carried out following the Good Friday agreement could be significant.

Posted in Brexit | Tagged | Comments Off on Brexit and Migration