I have, as I promised I would, just added an update to my earlier To Brexit or Not to Brexit? post.
Category Archives: current affairs
Tramps with Bazookas
There was a highly amusing, but actually quite serious, piece in the Guardian on Tuesday (17 May) from comedian Frankie Boyle. It went under the headline
Which tells you precisely what it is about.
It’s well worth reading.
To Brexit or Not to Brexit?
So should the UK stay in the EU or leave? This is the question we are being asked to decide at the referendum on 23 June.
Importantly there is the question of whether anyone can make anything other than an emotional decision. And I suspect the vast majority of the great British public — or at least those who bother to vote — will do just that: make an emotional decision.
How can they do otherwise? Because no-one actually knows the consequences of either staying or leaving, and all we’re hearing is speculation, guesswork and wishful thinking. I have yet to find anyone with a reliable crystal ball.
As I have an almost total mistrust of everything which comes from the mouths of politicians, I’ve been almost completely ignoring the hot air, waffle and rhubarb which is permeating our airwaves.
Nonetheless we do need to try to come to some sort of rational decision, so in the following table I’ve attempted to pull together what little we do know of the facts, for and against, staying and leaving the EU. It isn’t easy, and some of this is still undoubtedly emotionally biassed, although I’ve tried to avoid this.
So this is the state of play as I see it.**
| For | Against | |
| Stay in the EU |
|
|
| Leave the EU |
|
|
That looks to me like a good case for staying in the EU. But of course, you should all do your own research, decide how important you feel each of the factors to be and make up your own minds. All I ask is that you make a properly informed decision — the best decision you can, at the time, with the information you have (and that information includes the proclivities of your brain).
Sadly, though, I suspect the British public will be beguiled by the speculative arguments and sound bites of those campaigning to leave. If they are, it really will be a leap in the dark, because no-one knows what will happen. So gawdelpus!
20/05/2016 Update
I promised updates, so here is the first. In the last few days I’ve come across this graphic from Richard Murphy of Tax Research LLP.
Click the image for a larger view
It appears to refer to the way in which the 2014 “tax take” was used by the government. If we assume the data is correct, then we pay just 0.37% of our taxes to the EU (yes, it’s that tiny figure at 12 o’clock on the pie chart). Now that strikes me as being eminently reasonable.
In fact extrapolating the figures from this recent Daily Telegraph article suggests that the net cost of the EU is in the region of £100 a year per person in the UK. Which again seems to me to be eminently reasonable.
** I will try to update this as we go along if any new evidence (as opposed to spin, myth and guesswork) appears.
British Bill of Rights
A House of Lords European Union Select Committee has been looking at the UK, the EU and a British Bill of Rights. Its report was published yesterday. It is long; it runs to nine chapters and two appendices.
While I’ve understandably not read it all, I have read their Summary of Conclusions and Recommendations. Their Lordships aren’t impressed. Here are what were for me the stand-out points from their 30 paragraph conclusions.
The proposals the Secretary of State outlined did not appear to depart significantly from the Human Rights Act — we note in particular that all the rights contained within the ECHR are likely to be affirmed in any British Bill of Rights. His evidence left us unsure why a British Bill of Rights was really necessary.
If a Bill of Rights is not intended to change significantly the protection of human rights in the UK, we recommend the Government give careful thought before proceeding with this policy.
We call on the Government to explain its grounds for concluding that … the UK public sees human rights as a “foreign intervention”, and how a Bill of Rights would address this concern any more than the Human Rights Act does.
[T]he weight of evidence we received does not support a conclusion that the Court of Justice has sought to expand the reach of EU law over Member States through its judgements on the scope of the EU Charter.
The weight of evidence demonstrates that, were a Bill of Rights to restrict victims’ rights to bring legal challenges under the Human Rights Act, more challenges under the EU Charter in domestic courts would be likely. This, in turn, is likely to give rise to more references from UK courts to the Court of Justice …
The common law would be unlikely to fill the gaps in human rights protection were the Human Rights Act to be replaced by legislation providing a lower level of protection.
The model of the German Federal Constitutional Court, advocated by the Secretary of State … appears ill-suited to the UK’s constitutional context … We question whether this is a model the UK, with its constitutional principle of Parliamentary sovereignty, would want to follow.
We heard concerns that a British Bill of Rights that reduced the UK’s explicit commitment to the ECHR would undermine the UK’s standing …
We call on the Government to state explicitly whether or not it intends that the UK should remain a signatory to the ECHR.
Human rights are entrenched in the devolution settlements of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland in a way that they are not under the UK’s constitution …
The evidence we received from the Scottish and Welsh Governments demonstrates strong support for the role of the European Convention on Human Rights and the EU Charter to be preserved … the vital role being played by the European Convention on Human Rights and the Human Rights Act in implementing the Good Friday Agreement.
The evidence demonstrates that the Scottish Parliament and Northern Ireland Assembly are unlikely to give consent to a Bill of Rights which repealed the Human Rights Act … Were the UK Government to proceed without such consent, it would be entering into uncharted constitutional territory.
And the final turn of the knife between the ribs …
The difficulties the Government faces in implementing a British Bill of Rights in the devolved nations are substantial. Given the seemingly limited aims of the proposed Bill of Rights, the Government should give careful consideration to whether, in the words of the Secretary of State, it means unravelling “the constitutional knitting for very little”. If for no other reason, the possible constitutional disruption involving the devolved administrations should weigh against proceeding with this reform.
Out of the 30 paragraphs of conclusions, I think I spotted just one which could suggest that the proposed Bill of Rights might be a good thing.
That’s a pretty damning condemnation in my book. But then when did governments ever take much notice of Parliamentary Select Committees?
Nanny State
Atlantic Insight has an interesting interview (podcast & transcript) with Christopher Snowdon, Head of Lifestyle Economics at the Institute of Economic Affairs. He’s not at all impressed by the nanny state or public health lobbyists.
It’s worth a read, or listen: Interview with Christopher Snowdon
Opinions
Guys, can we get this one straight once and for all?
Barack Obama is a human being.
As such he is entitled to an opinion on anything and everything.
Moreover he is entitled to express that opinion.
Whether you like this or not is irrelevant.
End of.
Boost for GP Services
NHS in £2.4bn funding boost for GP services in England says the BBC News headline.
So OK, our hard-pressed GPs are going to get a funding increase over the next four years which will pay for 5000 more GPs and the same number of other GP practice clinicians (nurses, pharmacists etc.). There will also be:
– a relaxation of rules to make it easier to renovate premises or build new ones
– a public campaign to encourage junior doctors to become GPs
– the recruitment of 500 doctors from abroad to boost numbers.
While any extra help for GPs is to be welcomed, this does beg lots of questions, including:
- Is this actually new money, or is some other part of the NHS being salami-sliced to find the cash?
- Where does the government think it is going to find 5000 new GPs in four years, especially if only 500 are coming from overseas? Remember, it takes 10 years to train a GP from scratch and at least 4 years if they are already finishing their basic medical training. Oh and we’ve been hearing this “5000 new GPs” for the last 2 years or more, so this isn’t new!
- What good is a public campaign going to be to encourage junior doctors to become GPs? It isn’t the public who need convincing, but medical students.
- It is all very fine relaxing the rules on renovating/building premises, but this doesn’t help unless there is the money to do the work … and there’s no sign of that! [Just as an example, my GP’s have had planning permission for a small extension for 2 years or more, but so far no funding.]
- Yes, we need more GPs, but existing practices also need a general funding boost as they are struggling not just with workload but the ability to pay for all the things they have to do. [You want the phones answered quicker? That means extra reception staff and they have to be paid.]
So yes, good, but …
Many Years On …
A few days ago there was an article in the Guardian under the banner Why it’s time to dispel the myths about nuclear power.
Just a couple of snippets:
Chernobyl was a perfect storm, a damning tale of ineptitude leading to needless loss of life. It was also unequivocally the world’s worst nuclear accident. To many, it is also heralded as proof-positive that nuclear energy was inherently unsafe, a narrative adopted by many anti-nuclear groups … But perception and reality do not always neatly align; in the wake of the disaster, the UN Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) and others undertook a co-ordinated effort to follow up on health effects … Despite aggressive monitoring for three decades, there has been no significant increase in solid tumours or delayed health effects, even in the hundreds of thousands of minimally protected cleanup workers who helped purge the site after the accident. In the words of the 2008 UNSCEAR report: “There is no scientific evidence of increases in overall cancer incidence or mortality rates or in rates of non-malignant disorders that could be related to radiation exposure … The incidence of leukaemia in the general population, one of the main concerns owing to the shorter time expected between exposure and its occurrence compared with solid cancers, does not appear to be elevated”.
… … …
Unlike the accident in the Ukraine, events at Fukushima in March 2011 were not the result of ineptitude but rather a massive natural disaster in the form of a deadly 15-metre high tsunami** … While the world media fixated on the drama unfolding at the plant, it lost sight of the fact that around 16,000 had just been killed in a massive natural disaster. Despite the preponderance of breathless headlines since the reality is that five years later, radiobiological consequences of Fukushima are practically negligible — no one has died from the event, and is it extraordinarily unlikely that anyone will do so in future. The volume of radioactive leak from the site is so small as to be of no health concern; there is no detectable radiation from the accident in Fukushima grown-food, nor in fish caught off the coast.
… … …
It is important also to see these disasters in the wider context of energy production: when the Banqiao hydroelectric dam failed in China in 1975 it led to at least 171,000 deaths and displaced 11 million people … None of this is to denigrate the vital importance of such technologies, but rather to point out that every form of energy production has some inherent risk.
Do go and read the whole article.
** It is worth noting again that the containment at the Fukushima plant worked largely as designed. Excepting the natural disaster, the root cause failure appears to have been one of shortcomings in plant external safety design and process which would be just as likely with any major plant.
Rightly Measured (2)
Following up his Tuesday piece in the Guardian (mentioned here) Simon Jenkins yesterday expanded on his reactions and why current reportage, reaction and policy is so dangerous. As he says in
our current reactions serve only to act as recruiting sergeants for Isis.
Moreover compare the current paranoia with:
During the more dangerous and consistent IRA bombing campaigns of the 1970s and 1980s, Labour and Conservative governments insisted on treating terrorism as criminal, not political. They relied on the police and security services to guard against a threat that could never be eliminated, only diminished. On the whole it worked, and without undue harm to civil liberties.
All in all I find this rather worrying.
Rightly Measured
Simon Jenkins, writing for the Guardian website has a properly measured response to yesterday’s horrific events in Brussels: Our response to the Brussels bombings requires patience and restraint.