Category Archives: current affairs

current affairs, environment, science

Hinkley Point

After halting everything for a few weeks to allow time for a review, Prime Minister Theresa May has now given the go-ahead for the Hinkley Point C nuclear power station.


And I have to say, about bloody time too!
While I accept that nuclear power presents us with long-term waste storage issues, we desperately need nuclear for electricity generation. Renewables, in my estimation, aren’t going to hack it even if we do cover the country in windmills and manage to constrain our thirst for ever more energy.
No, nuclear isn’t without its challenges, but it is a whole bunch cleaner, less productive of “greenhouse gases”, and indeed overall safer, than coal, oil, gas or even biomass generation.
And yes, like many, I’m not entirely happy with the major involvement of a French energy company (EDF) or the need for Chinese funding and technology — but then we go longer have the skills etc., largely due to past government neglect of science and technology. So I still believe this is, overall, the right decision for both the country and the environment.

current affairs, environment, topographical

Lumley's Folly

So, Joanna Lumley and Thomas Heatherwick’s pet vanity project, London’s so-called Garden Bridge, is coming under increasing scrutiny. And it seems to me rightly so as the whole thing appears to have been stitched up behind closed doors with a total lack of transparency, especially around the financing.
Finally London’s Mayor, Sadiq Khan, has instigated a full review of the project. Khan had previously declined to commit further public money to what is basically a private, commercial, project. The review is to be undertaken by Margaret Hodge MP, the former chair of the House of Commons Public Accounts Committee.
While we don’t know the details of the review’s terms of reference, it has to be a good thing providing Margaret Hodge is, and can remain, independent and unbiased.
Meanwhile London blogger Diamond Geezer has taken a somewhat cynical (and sarcastic) look at the project.
In my view it is high time this appalling project was kicked irredeemably into touch.
PS. I decline to (re)post images of the bridge design etc. but if you want some pictures of the location then do look at Diamond Geezer’s post.

current affairs

Brexiteer Appeasement

There was a scathing article form Nick Cohen on the Guardian website yesterday (so I guess printed in the Observer) pointing out what I said some while back that the EU has no reason to be helpful to the UK leaving the EU. In fact the EU hold all the chips except the timing of invoking Article 50.
I give you a few choice side-swipes …

The lie … which some Leave supporters may even have believed, was that there were no hard choices. We could have it all. Immigration controls, prosperity, access to EU markets, without compliance with EU laws … Whatever we wanted, at no cost at all.
An honest [campaigner] would have gone to the Nissan car workers in Sunderland and said words to the effect of: we may be able to deliver the immigration controls you want if we leave the single market but there is a risk that you will lose your jobs if we do.
We cannot strike agreements with 50 countries currently covered by our EU arrangements until we strike a trade deal with the EU, because everyone else will want to know where we stand.
We won’t strike a deal with the EU, for — what? — three, five 10 years? How many jobs will be lost and foreign investors driven away in the process …
Boris … says we are a great country. Not any more. What greatness we possessed came from our alliances. By voting to leave we have ignored the advice of every friend we had in the world. Now we are asking the countries we spurned to help us and they are finding reasons to look away.
The right says the EU will want to give us a better deal out than we had in because the EU nations will still want their exporters to sell to us. They don’t look at how politically impossible it would be for Europe’s leaders to tear up EU rules when they are having to face down their own xenophobes and Europhobes.

Yes, precisely.
We have shot ourselves in both feet.

current affairs, ramblings

Banking on the Mattress

So a couple of weeks ago the Bank of England reduced interest rates lower than ever to 0.25%.
They hope this is going to stimulate the economy. It isn’t. At least, as Mary Dejevsky pointed out in the Guardian a couple of weeks ago ever-lower interest rates have failed; so why should they work now?
Anyone with a mortgage has never had it so good. They are paying peanuts in interest. Meanwhile those of us who paid off our mortgagees years ago and are now the much vilified savers are being shafted — savings interest is struggling to match inflation.
The banks seem to have forgotten that people like me, the savers, are an essential part of their business. Without our money coming in, they don’t have money to lend. They need us, just as they need the pension funds etc.
But all the banks have ever done is shaft my generation. When we started our mortgage in 1981 we were paying 14.5% interest on it; within six months that was 17.5%. And we were being encouraged to save for our retirement — which we did as much as we could. That was barely sustainable; and totally unsustainable compared with today’s rates. We were being priced out. No wonder the bubble burst and people ended up in negative equity and the banking sector with a merry-go-round of toxic debt.
Having saved, against the odds, we are now being shafted for having done so by not getting a decent return on our investments. We’d almost be as well off with our investments in the Bank of Mattress. And we’re supposed to feel happy about this; go out and spend our money; make the economy grow and recover.
Sorry but why the f*** should I? That money you want me to spend has to support me for maybe another 20 (or more) years. If you aren’t going to give me a decent return on investing it, then I’m going to hold onto it for dear life and milk as much as I can from all of it.
On the same day as Mary Dejevsky’s piece, Simon Jenkins wrote (also in the Guardian):

Want to avoid recession? Then shower UK households with cash.
Just give people the money. Give them cash, dole it out, increase benefits, slash VAT, hand it to those most likely to spend it: the poor. Put £1,000 into every debit account. Whatever you do, don’t give it to banks. They will just hoard it or use it to boost house prices.
Britain is suffering from a classic liquidity trap. There is insufficient demand. Yet all the Bank of England [has done is] wring its hands, blame Brexit and go on digging the same old holes.
They are labelled lower interest rates, quantitative easing and more cash for banks. Those policies have been in place for some seven years. They have failed … Not one commentator … thought cutting interest rates to 0.25% would make any difference to the threat of recession.

And again …

In the present climate, there is not the slightest risk of inflation — the traditional hazard of monetary expansion: £1,000 “printed” and moved from the Bank into every household account would still cost less (at £30bn) than Hinkley Point or HS2 … There could be vouchers, scrappage schemes, Christmas bonuses and, horror of horrors, cash for the undeserving poor. Why not try it? All else has failed.

Yes, and out of the change from cancelling HS2 you could probably give every university student a decent maintenance grant and/or scrap student fees!
It’s a novel idea. Raising saving rates would be another. For indeed all else has failed.
It’s time for a new and different approach.
It might even be a vote-catcher!

current affairs, ramblings

Astute or Stupid?

So Theresa May is now Prime Minister. And one of her first decisions must have taken quite a lot of balls to pull off.
She has named Boris Johnson as Foreign Secretary.


I’m not sure if this is a very stupid, or a very astute, move.
If Boris continues to be a complete clown, regularly tactless and a loose cannon, it could well turn out to be a very stupid move. In such circumstances would you want him dealing with Russia, or China, or Iraq? Or “owning” MI6 or the Diplomatic Corps?
On the other hand there is an argument that if you have a trouble-maker or a loose cannon, you keep them out of mischief by giving them a big job. One where they have to do some work, to behave, to think, to be tactful and diplomatic. And a job where they are close to you, where you can keep them on a short leash and keep a beady eye on what they’re doing. If that’s how this works out it is a very astute move.
But even better than this, it could be Boris’s comeuppance. Maybe someone has finally been able to call his bluff. Because as Foreign Secretary he is going to have to be involved in the Brexit negotiations. And he’ll have to be dealing with his counterparts in Europe, who know full well he is the clown who largely got us into this almighty mess. He could get a very rough ride, especially if he starts being the pillock we know he can be. He might just finally have had his balls nailed to the mast.
I would like to think this is a very astute move by Mistress May. If it is, and if she carries on in this vein, we should expect quite a few more egos having their balls broken. And that could be quite a good thing.
Interesting times we live in!

current affairs

Non-EU Options

Earlier in the week I came across this graphic, which seems to nicely sum up our options for trade arrangements following exit from the EU — and compares them with the EU.

EU_Alternatives
Click the image for a larger view

Is it me, or do none of them look very attractive as trade deals?

current affairs, sexuality, thoughts

MPs with some sense?!

There is hope that some MPs, at least, are beginning to see some sense.
The Commons Home Affairs Select Committee has issued an interim report on possible changes to the law on prostitution with MPs coming down on the side of decriminalisation.


According to a BBC News report they are suggesting that soliciting should no longer be a crime and that the rules on brothel-keeping be relaxed to allow prostitutes to share premises. They are however also saying that using brothels to control or exploit sex workers should remain illegal.
Note though that this is only an interim report and that the committee still needs to do more work on looking at both the Swedish model and the New Zealand model.
But if they make their current suggestions stick it will be a significant victory for common sense.

current affairs

And there's more …

Yes, I’m afraid the fallout from the Brexit vote continues.
Last evening I picked up an interesting item on the BBC News feed in which the EU Trade Commissioner, Cecilia Malmstrom, points out the realities of the UK’s exit negotiations. (The article is short, very clear and worth a 5 minute read.)
The Commissioner is quoted as saying “There are actually two negotiations. First you exit, and then you negotiate the new relationship, whatever that is”. This is because:

  1. Under EU law, the bloc cannot negotiate a separate trade deal with one of its own members, hence the commissioner’s insistence that the UK must first leave.
  2. It is also against EU law for a member to negotiate its own trade deals with outsiders, which means the UK cannot start doing this until after it has left the EU.

So basically we have to negotiate just the exit deal (ie. the transitional arrangements). Then, and only then, can we start negotiations to join the EEA and/or arrange bilateral trade deals with other countries. And I have seen it suggested that negotiation to join the EEA normally takes 5-7 years, and bilateral trade deals aren’t usually a lot quicker.
Meanwhile the UK has to trade (with everyone!) under the WTO rules, which may not be to everyone’s liking or advantage — WTO rules restrict the circumstances in which countries discriminate in favour of each other in trade; they must apply to each other the tariffs they apply against the rest of the world.
Unfortunately many people, including some MPs like Geraint Davies writing in yesterday’s Guardian, clearly have no understanding of this. The two year clock started by invoking TEU Article 50 covers only the exit negotiations, and until that clock expires no other negotiations may legally take place.
So basically, if we trigger Article 50, we’re stuffed for years before we can even start to see a route out of the caldera.

current affairs, ramblings, thoughts

More Brexit Thoughts

1 Comment

A few more (random-ish) thoughts on the machinations behind all the mess of Brexit.

  1. First of all let’s be clear where I’m coming from. At this point I do not care about whether the referendum result is right or not. While I would prefer to remain in the EU, the dice have been thrown and we are where we are. My interest now is a (forensic) understanding of what can, should and will happen especially from a legal and constitutional perspective. I am not an expert in this; I rely on those who are, which is why I have been (and will continue to) try to represent the position as objectively as possible based on the reports available to me. I am trying to avoid speculation and wishful thinking.
  2. Contrary to my previous understanding, legal opinion seems divided as to whether the executive (ie. ministers) can serve notice under TEU Article 50, or whether to do so would require the active advance agreement of parliament via an Act. It all seems to boil down to how you view the use and the reach of prerogative powers by the executive.
    Head of Legal argues that the executive have the prerogative powers. Constitutional lawyer Geoffrey Robertson QC and perhaps our top expert public lawyer David Pannick QC [paywall] disagree.
  3. Pace many politicians and commentators, we appear to be in a very weak bargaining position on the exit deal. It seems to me that the EU hold all the chips, bar one.
    The only chip we hold is the timing of the starting gun.
    The EU hold all the other chips.

    • They can (as they have said they will) decline to enter into informal pre-negotiations.
    • They can continue to arm-twist the UK into issuing a notification under Article 50, although as Jack of Kent and others have pointed out they cannot do anything at law to force this to happen.
    • The EU are in a position to dictate the terms of the deal. What we want is irrelevant; it is all about what they’re prepared to offer; they can say “this is the deal, like it or lump it” because if we don’t agree then exit happens automatically anyway even without a deal. Moreover they have no reason to be overly benevolent towards the UK – apart from securing their own trade position (which they can do by offering membership of the EEA at great cost to us) they have no need to be benevolent.
    • Notice too that the formal exit negotiating period (two years or whatever it turns out to be) allows only for negotiating the exit deal (ie. transition arrangements). It says nothing about what deals might be done on the post-exit arrangements, for example by offering the UK membership of EEA. And the EU have said that the exit deal negotiations are unlikely to include anything on post-exit trade deals which would have to be agreed separately post-exit.
    • Once Article 50 has been invoked there appears to be no way to cancel the process; everyone seems to agree that once triggered we must and will cease to be an EU member. Of course we could then apply to rejoin, but what draconian terms might we be offered?
    • And once we’re out, all bets are off. We have to negotiate completely new deals on just about everything and again from a relatively weak bargaining position.
  4. Do we need to trigger Article 50 or can we leave some other way? Essentially, no, Article 50 is the only accessible exit procedure. Again see Head of Legal.
  5. There seems to be growing opinion that neither Scotland nor Northern Ireland (both of whom voted to remain in the EU) can block the UK from leaving if Westminster is determined to do so. This is nicely summarised over at Legal Business.
  6. Legal Business also has an interesting discussion about the duty of an MP being to vote with his/her conscience rather than trying to reflect the whimsy of their constituents’ desires. The conclusion is that the constitutional principle upon which our parliamentary democracy is based is that MPs betray their constituents if they vote against their consciences (they are representatives not mandated delegates) — which is in turn based on this wonderful passage from Edmund Burke’s speech to the electors of Bristol in 1774:

    It ought to be the happiness and glory of a representative to live in the strictest union, the closest correspondence, and the most unreserved communication with his constituents. Their wishes ought to have great weight with him; their opinion, high respect; their business, unremitted attention. It is his duty to sacrifice his repose, his pleasures, his satisfactions, to theirs; and above all, ever, and in all cases, to prefer their interest to his own. But his unbiased opinion, his mature judgment, his enlightened conscience, he ought not to sacrifice to you, to any man, or to any set of men living. These he does not derive from your pleasure; no, nor from the law and the constitution. They are a trust from Providence, for the abuse of which he is deeply answerable. Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion …
    To deliver an opinion, is the right of all men; that of constituents is a weighty and respectable opinion, which a representative ought always to rejoice to hear; and which he ought always most seriously to consider. But authoritative instructions; mandates issued, which the member is bound blindly and implicitly to obey, to vote, and to argue for, though contrary to the clearest conviction of his judgment and conscience, these are things utterly unknown to the laws of this land, and which arise from a fundamental mistake of the whole order and tenor of our constitution.

    However, again, not everyone agrees with this stance with many of the opinion that an MP is required to reflect the majority wishes of his/her constituents.

More snippets when there is anything useful. This one could run and run!