Should it be a vote from the heart or with the head?

I have come to the conclusion that there is no right or wrong answer to the question on how to vote on the 23rd of June.

We will all have to vote in line with our beliefs.

A vote to remain.

If I vote to remain, that is saying yes to the UK staying in a "reformed" EU. But is it reformed? It is not fundamentally changed in the spirit of David Cameron's Bloomberg speech.

So it is sending a message to the EU that the UK wants to stay in the EU without  the need for reform. It can carry on with its plans for ever closer union for those countries in the Euro. And for Britain what does that mean? We stay in the club, but we can no longer influence it, only continue to try and distance ourselves from some of the worst aspects of the EU. But we would still be constrained and unable to be free to develop our trade with other parts of the world, independently from the EU.

In addition, a part of the deal struck by Cameron, we lose the power to influence how the Euro zone develops. We will be unable to veto how they develop.

As a little aside, I have always considered it odd that under David Cameron we have been committed to 1% of GDP to help develop third world countries.  Having worked in Africa for the last 10 years, I have come to realise that it would be far better if we helped them to develop through trade, rather than through charity. But that can't be achieved because the EU is a closed block and the French would not like to open up exposure of their agricultural sector to foreign competition, a sector that could most benefit the wider population in Africa, since mineral extraction only benefits a very narrow section of the population in these countries.

I mention this aside as it plays on my mind. They say we would lose influence in the world if we left the EU. But as with my little aside, we can't influence the world in the right ways. i.e. let African countries develop by trading more easily with us. I just can't get out of mind the issue that I see the EU focuses on the wrong things. It arrives at the wrong decisions. It is not influenced sufficiently strongly by its populations. It is influenced by big business because they have easy and ready access to them. 

Aside from the Euro and the Schengen issues which I regard as flawed decisions, another one is pollution. The French and German car makers lobbied strongly to ensure that EU legislation promoted the wider use of Diesel engines as a means of reducing CO2 emissions, but they collectively ignored th impact to health of Nitrous oxide emissions. The decision is now shown to be flawed with the dangerous levels of pollution in major cities such as Paris and London.

A vote to remain in an organisation that is flawed and shows no inclination towards reform, is quite a dangerous signal to send.

A Vote to Leave

A very difficult one really! It will lead to a period of uncertainty and I can well imagine such a divorce would be acrimonious. And to be complete, it would take 10 years. So what benefit would there be of leaving? There would have to be a collective jolt to the whole economy to ensure that the negatives from leaving were adequately compensated across each section of the economy. 

How many countries use their investment s in the UK economy as a bridge into the EU single market area.

Can we adequately compensate for the change in relationship with the EU that would follow.

The advocates for a vote to leave are not helping the debate really by not being explicit and consistent as to how these issues would be addressed.

Perhaps it is better to stay. Perhaps the Euro will self destruct in the near term. Perhaps the people's of France or Germany will vote in ways that fundamentally change the EU agenda.

Perhaps it is better to stay and encourage the UK government to influence the EU to change.

I know my "perhaps" are a hopeless cop out. The referendum is here to let the people decide on an issue that the politicians have been unable to work through.

We all have to vote with our heads and hearts on the 23rd June.

We have to send a collective signal to politicians in this country and others, but also to the unelected bureaucrats in the EU, that represents the will of the British people.

Not an easy one. But I do think my thoughts are beginning to crystallise.

My heart says a vote to leave is required as I reject the EU as a dangerously undemocratic project that is not necessary. David Cameron's renegotiation of the UKs relationship with the EU shows that they see no need to reform and are not interested in allowing the UK to have control of issues such as immigration that the EU regards  as fundamental in the development of the EU. In my opinion it is necessary to have a Union of Nation States working together to resolve issues where cooperation is required. And this would require some loss of Sovereignty, which I accept.

My head sees David Cameron's negotiation for a reformed relationship with the EU as the best he could achieve in the circumstances. I am concerned that the Euro zone will develop in ways that negatively impact the UK without allowing it the flexibility to adjust and adapt because of the constraints imposed on us by the rules of the EU.

My head also sees that a vote to leave will have a negative impact on the UK economy, certainly in the short term.

The French won't like it. The Germans won't either but they are more pragmatic.

Should the UK voters also be pragmatic and accept the flaws in the EU and keep trying to influence the EU to reform.

Has David Cameron successfully isolated the UK from the imminent changes that are coming for the Eurozone? Maybe the Eurozone will develop into the United States of Eurozone with tax harmonisation and Germans won't mind financing the French and Italian government borrowing. All this in the interests of working together for the common good! Ultimately they want an ever closer union so it would have a shared  debt mountain anyway, effectively.

And perhaps this is the beginning of formalising a two tier Europe.

The referendum question is a binary decision but there are so many subsections to each side that are conflicting.

Perhaps the dilemma is best resolved by trying to second guess how the EU will develop in the next ten years and how the Eurozone will develop as well.

Perhaps we should vote based on the the EU being the second tier and the Eurozone being the first tier where "ever closer union" continues to develop, unabated.

What does continue unabated is the dilemma of how to vote.

Back soon, as ever .....

... The undecided voter!

The French Connection.

 How interesting to read that the French Economics Minister, Macron, visited London, to encourage French entrepreneurs to return to France. They told him that it was easier to start businesses in the UK than France as it has less bureaucracy. He wanted nothing more than for them to come back to France, as France needs them.

France is often described as "dirigiste". Their government does take a controlling interest in the corporate enterprises in the French econmy. And they do not see the advantages in letting the economy loose and trying to step-back and let people get on with their economic lives.

They have also been instrumental in setting the agenda over the last 60 years for the development of EU. And look at that!

It is reading articles like this one, that really focuses the mind on the Referendum. It is definately not about  the UK going its own way. It is about providing a real catalyst for change in Europe. 

George Osborne recently said leaving the UK would be significant shock to the UK economy. I believe it would also be a significant shock to the EU, that would necessitate change. Reform would have to follow.

Today, Yuncker was saying that perhaps the EU has been getting too involved in issues that could be best resolved by National governments. I wonder if the speech only got air-time in the UK.

He is the co-author of the Five Presidents Report that describes the road map to further integration where full EU democracy could only come after complete integration into a Federal Europe. So I doubt very much he really believes what he says about doing less. 

Perhaps a Leave vote would really be the catalylist for change. David Cameron's position has been watered down from his Bruges speech days where he advoctaed that the EU needed to change fundamentally. The potential changes he has negotiated do not adequately reflect his original stance. They have been watered down in ways that reflect what is wrong with the EU, their real desire for ever closer political union. They do not want the type of changes that we see are needed. 

But then perhaps it is not going to be that catalyst..!

....when has a referendum ever prevented the EU from continuing on its path? So perhaps I should not delude myself...!

After this referendum, after the French and Germans get their National Elections out of the way, the agenda of the EU will revert to further Treaty change to allow them to get on with further political and fiscal integration to get the Euro to function properly as a currency. 

Those treaty changes would include the deal made by David Cameron, and it remains to be seen whether they would be watered down further.

Whether we vote to stay in or leave, we will always be trying minmise the impact of EU / Euro on the UK.

Does it really matter which way we all vote.....?

Has David Cameron's deal really only been a damage limitiation exercise? To allow us to continue in an economic club and prevent the further political union that is required to make the Euro work. Perhaps we should vote to remain on this occassion, and if they try to renege on the deal at the next treaty change, leave then.

Who knows.... Back soon ......

.....the undecided voter.

A Tonic to the Politics of Fear

Well my worst fears, highlighted in one  my earliest blogs, have now materialised with the media reporting on how both sides of the debate are resorting to scare tactics.

So it is always quite pleasing,when I am reading in the press, to come across references to other sources of information, that may deliver some real insight and considered thought.

A letter from a reader in The Times mentioned this document below as a good read. It has a good summary and more detail as required on specific topics.

It is a document published by the UK Parliament.

http://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/CBP-7213#fullreport

Happy reading

Back soon .....

.....the undecided voter

Pro-EU Points of view

I have to be honest and say that although I do try and read widely and look at this Referendum from a pro-EU stance, I find that I either get switched off from continuing to read something, or when I do manage to finish, I just look at the article and see it as very poor quality and bland.

The following site is a case in point. It is written by an Amercian professor of EU Politics. On this occassion, I thought I would engage in some dialogue with him. I was left quite unimpressed, to be honest.

http://johnmccormick.eu/2016/03/the-uk-referendum-on-the-eu-eight-tips-for-winning-the-case-to-stay/

My first ever political meeting!

I went to my first ever political meeting, on the 5th October. Firsts are quite rare, these days!

I found the meeting really interesting, and although I am posting a blog quite a long time after, seeing the video of it again, now reminds me of just how thought provoking it was at the time. Oh! And the quality of it is much better than that of the Charles Kennedy Memorial Debate in my earlier blog!

http://www.brugesgroup.com/eu/life-after-the-european-union.htm?xp=speeches

There were two memorable points of the speeches that left their impression on me, for helping make that decision on whether to remain or leave the EU.

The economic arguments for leaving the EU are described in the video by Jim Mellor a very wealthy successful investor, by the sounds of it. He basically said that the main reason to leave was because in 5, 10, or maybe 15 years, France and Italy will go bust from unsustainable levels of debt to private investors, circa 130% of national GDP. Like Greece, they are benefiting from cheap interest rates via the Euro and are not addressing their huge government debts, through lack of political will. It is the size of these two countries debts that make the problem far more significant than the Greek troubles. The size of debts are two big for Germany to fund and Britian would be bound to be sucked into supporting them as one of the biggest Members of the EU. In essence he wants us to leave the EU, and then go back into a reformed EU.

The second speaker was a Conservative MEP, Daniel Hannan. It is quite interesting hearing the arguments against the EU rather than reading them. Basically he was reiterating that the EU has a lack of democracy leading to bad decision-making that does not look after the needs of the population of Europe. Everything is more focused on creation of a Federal Europe, than addressing the needs of the people. He argued that we joined Europe when the UK was the sick man of Europe. "Would we join, now?" Was the thrust of his argument. 

And finally, another notable moment was the reminder by the Chair of the meeting, that the Maastricht Bill was only passed by a  majority of 3 votes in the UK Parliament. How different things might have been since then? On reflection, things would probably not have been a lot as there would have been a later vote, with a later Labour Government who would have gone for another vote. A bit like they did with signing up to the Social Chapter at a later date.

Back soon.....

......the undecided voter

Have the Pro EU supporters resorted to Negative Campaigning already?

William Hague was the one who campaigned to keep the Pound when others wanted to join the Euro.

He is currently saying we should stay in the EU, otherwise it will cause the UK to disintegrate. He does not mention that the long term aim is to do away with the nation state in favour of a supra national Federal State.

And just recently, David Cameron was saying the refugee camps would transfer to Kent from Calais if we left the EU. Yet, the bilateral agreement we have with France for British Border Controls checks to take place on French ground has nothing to do with our membership of EU.

I do think the decision on whether to remain or leave the EU needs to be made on positive grounds. Negative campaigning will be a huge turn off for me when the Referendum campaigning starts in earnest. There needs to positive reasons for staying in the EU.

Alot of the Pro-EU camp believe it will be better to stay in a reformed EU. These reforms do not seem that fundametal.

However, I also think the Leave camp should make a positive case for leaving, and must state its plans for a new relationship with Europe as part of this, in quite some detail.

In the Scottish Referendum, Alex Salmond could not articulate any detail on the significant issues such as which currency he wanted to use. He seemed to want to leave the Uk, keep its currency but stay in theEU , and not join the euro.

Debt Sustainability

My last post, touched on whether countries can afford the debt they have incurred. At what point does it all become unsustainable.

For the UK, we are struggling to get the deficit down to zero. George Osborne now reckons it will be 2020 before we get the deficit down to zero. Only then we will be able to start paying the national debt down. The debt since 2010 has more than doubled to £1.5 trillion. What will it be in 2020?

Politics has prevented the government from cutting in-work benefits, to help reduce the deficit.

A country's debt becomes unsustainable when no-one wants to continue lending to them, and they cannot pay the loan back. And it is the politics that makes this difficult, with a reluctance put up with higher taxes, and a reluctance to give up social benefits, such as healthcare or inwork benefits etc.

The UK debt currently represents 88% of its GDP, its national output.

From my last post, I recall Jim Mellor saying France and Italy were currently running at 130-140% of their respective GDPs. Separately, I read somewhere that France's national debt was currentlly 99% of GDP

Whatever the level, the higher the percentage, the more difficult it becomes to get it under control, because it becomes political impossible to make the decisions.

France certainly seems incapable to develop the poltical will to rectify these problems.

Some people consider that no country ever lowers the debt after 80% of gdp. It just keeps increasing after that.

The web-site gives more information.

http://people.stern.nyu.edu/nroubini/papers/debtsustainability.pdf

Back soon.....

......the undecided voter!