I think is, which I spotted yesterday ion Facebook, just about sums up the pathetic position of both the LEAVE and REMAIN camps.
Brexit on and on and on …
Category Archives: current affairs
More Brexit: 8 EU Myths
An update to the theme on the EU referendum …
There’s a graphic floating around the intertubes containing, more or less, the following text which refutes 8 of the top myths about the EU.
It is partisan — but then so is everything! — as it is published by the European Parliamentary Labour Party despite appearing on a Leeds University website.
Items 4 & 6 could be debated as I’ve not checked the data — though I’ve no good reason, other than a general mistrust, to disbelieve it. I doubted item 3 and did check the numbers; it turns out to be correct. The other 5 points also appear to be fairly accurate.
So here are 8 EU myths busted …
- Most of our laws come from Brussels. Just 13.2% of our laws have anything to do with Brussels according to the House of Commons Library. This figure includes everything that mentions the EU, even if it’s just for ‘passing reference’ or a definition.
- European laws are made by unelected bureaucrats. The European Commission only proposes laws. It is the directly elected European Parliament and the Council of the EU (Government Ministers) that debate, amend and ultimately pass European legislation.
- Norway and Switzerland enjoy all the benefits despite not being an EU Members. The Norwegians and Swiss must pay into the EU and also abide by EU Trade Regulations — without actually being able to influence any of them. Norwegians make roughly the same per capita contributions to the EU as Britons.
- EU migrants are a drain on the economy. EU migrants contribute more to the UK exchequer in taxes than they claim in benefits. Economists at University College London estimate that EU migrants contributed over £20bn to the UK economy between 2001 and 2011.
- The EU does nothing to help ordinary people. The EU has ensured safe working hours, introduced higher levels of annual leave and extended parental leave. It was also the EU that established the legal principle that men and women should receive equal pay for equal work.
- Our most important markets are China & the USA. The EU is the world’s largest single market. Half of Britain’s exports go there, accounting for some 3.5 million British jobs.** The UK sells more to the Netherlands alone than to the whole of China.
- European Court of Human Rights forces its will on UK. The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) has nothing to do with the EU. It is part of the Council of Europe — an entirely separate institution that was setup by Britain after the Second World War.
- The British are different. All EU members states have their different languages, cultures, histories and laws. No one joins the EU to lose their identity. In fact, the EU’s motto is ‘United in Diversity’.
Make of it what you will.
** Though note that there is no suggestion all these jobs would disappear if we left the EU, merely that currently they are focussed on the EU.
Brexit Reprise
Following on from my earlier post To Brexit or Not to Brexit, there was an interesting article by Stephen Curry in the Guardian on Monday 23 May under the banner
Why I am wrong about Brexit, and you are too
The crux of his argument is that we can never actually be right, because there are too many variables and unknowns. Indeed it is as he quotes Kathryn Schulz: “the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle of Error: we can be wrong or we can know it, but we can’t do both at the same time“.
In other words we can either “know we’re wrong” or “are wrong but think we’re right” so we have real problems making reliable judgements about anything. Which really goes back to what I’ve always maintained:
- You can never have all the information required to make a decision; if you had all the information it would be a fait accompli not a decision.
- No-one sets out to make a bad (aka. wrong) decision. We make the best decision we can with the information we have at the time. And that information includes the price of herrings, Granny’s favourite breakfast cereal and the predilections of your brain.
As Curry also says: “We are hardwired to make snap judgements based on limited information“.
Ah, you say, but we have experts to guide us. Well yes, up to a point Lord Copper. To quote Curry again:
I don’t have the time to figure all this stuff out for myself, and so I have to rely on the experts … The trouble with experts or authority figures is that people will tend to accept or reject those who are in sympathy with their prejudices … the real aim of [academic experts] is to argue from authority. The same goes for … business leaders … economists, and even … leading luvvies. These messages don’t challenge strongly held views. Rather they offer the comfort of expert blessing … for opinions that are inevitably formed from incomplete information. At best they will nudge a few undecideds from the fence but the rest of us simply feel validated and carry on undeflected.
So the bottom line is that you have to make up your own mind, on incomplete (or even misleading) information, and hope that you’re as little wrong as possible. And Curry helpfully suggests a few websites which appear (and I use “appear” deliberately) to be relatively impartial to help you decide on the facts. The most useful are probably:
Fullfact.org, a non-partisan fact-checking charity, and
the analysis produced by the Libraries of the House of Commons and the House of Lords.
Good luck … you’re going to need it!
To Brexit or Not to Brexit? — Updated
I have, as I promised I would, just added an update to my earlier To Brexit or Not to Brexit? post.
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 …