Campaigns

A second Brexit Commons vote

An article in the FT today suggests that Theresa May could press for a second Commons vote if the first fails. This will further dilute the parliamentary time available to pass some of the legislation that we sorely need.

It seems to me that there are at least two types of Brexiteer – one type with whom you can have a reasonable discussion and one with whom any discussion is a waste of both parties’ time.

The first type is comprised of old-fashioned Eurosceptic patriots who have always felt they could get a better deal from the EU but understand that the nation-state cannot provide the answers to global problems. Their only negotiating solution was to threaten to leave, even though many never thought it would happen.

The second type is comprised of  Europhobic nationalists who believe the nation-state could have worked if only the filthy internationalists (like me) had left it alone. For those interested in economics, their approach can be seen as something like the Efficient Markets Hypothesis. These are the real Remoaners because they have never accepted the result of the 1975 referendum, even if they have only learnt about it at school. As their approach is faith-based they will never be convinced by facts.

That is why I now advocate another referendum which will allow the Type 1s to express themselves clearly. The plan that is proposed to the Commons is not just a farce for Remainers,  it’s exactly the opposite of what the Type 1s were trying to achieve. Trying to please the Type 2s is like urinating into a strong wind.

The will of the people – which people?

Carlos Ghosn Chaos

https://www.ft.com/content/d5d2a252-ec54-11e8-89c8-d36339d835c0?hubRefSrc=email&utm_source=lfemail&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=lfnotification#lf-content=239650869:816866269

Ghosn has been pushing for some time for greater integration of Nissan with Renault, which has substantial industrial and financial logic but is politically unpopular with some in France and many in Japan. I presume this has nothing at all to do with the sudden and amazing discovery of hidden corporate assets being used by a director of a multinational company!!

He was sufficiently powerful to give himself a pay rise if it was just a question of disposable income. He seems to be much more interested in power than wealth, and that is more likely to be the line he has crossed. Whatever he may have done, his deeds do not seem to justify any time in any jail anywhere. That is just a means of demeaning him, putting him under pressure and reducing his power base.

I am not and never have been particularly a supporter of Ghosn, but I am now a sympathiser. All international executives should be vigilant. Nationalism is not just someone else’s problem.

Even in Japan, there should be a presumption of innocence. The assumption that any state judicial authority will act in a fair way, without pressure from the state or the media or even from the public is, in my direct experience, a little naive. There are exceptions and maybe Japan is one of them…I don’t know but I am prepared to wait and see.  In the meantime, we must assume that we have just destroyed a career – and maybe a family – for no apparent reason. Was he questioned before the media were involved? Did the authorities really think he was going to go on the run? Was there a better way to handle this?  It looks to me like the aim of this operation was to discredit, disarm and destroy, given that the media were notified of his arrest either before or at the same time as he was arrested.

Commentary on Jo Johnson Article in the FT after his resignation

https://www.ft.com/content/92974b74-e8d9-11e8-885c-e64da4c0f981

I am sure this excellent article will be used in modern history classes in the near future.  But it will also be used in Politics, Philosophy and Economics…..and various other discilplines. My concern is that the Johnson brothers are both too young to remember what the UK was like prior to our  entry into the EEC and the absolute catastrophic economic and social conditions that prevailed in this country at that time. It is also important to underline that it was always the accepted view that UK could not join the EEC without the Republic of Ireland doing so precisely because of the border issue. That was before the Single Market, the Eurozone and the Good Friday Agreement existed! We also tend to forget that the first referendum was held in 1975 and resulted in us remaining in the EEC. To say, as my detractors certainly will, that the EEC was a purely economic construct is to be wilfully blind to the facts. Pro-Europeans at that time were openly proposing a third way between the US and Soviet empires, and one only has to refer to speeches by Churchill and De Gaulle to appreciate some of those arguments.  Indeed, it was some years later that Thatcher and other sceptics tried to dilute the political aspects of the Union by creating the Single Market and by enlargement to the East. Both of those events were, in my opinion (but it is one that is shared by most moderates), outstanding successes that actually increased the political nature of the European Union to the chagrin of many. But that does not mean that the EU was not a primarily political construct before!  So we then come to the second referendum and now the proposal for a third. It is difficult to deny the logic that a third referendum is necessary because the agreement that is now on the table (as opposed to the fantasy presented by the Brexiteers at referendum time) has changed the facts. That would be to try to pretend that the 52% knew that the agreement would end up like this, that they had been informed about the Irish border issue, that they had not been told that billions could be saved and spent on the NHS etcetera. This is all the more logical because of the Brexiteers contention that the 2016 referendum was a recognition that the facts had changed since 1975. The lapse of time might be greater but the facts of the agreement presented are certainly very different to what was presented in the 2016 campaign.

Trump’s Disgusting Press Conference

I have just posted a couple of poems about Trump on the poetry section and what I have said there is, to some extent, a duplication of what I write here. But who cares? Those poems were both written over two years ago but their relevance is extraordinary. He has not become presidential in any way as some of us, including me, might have thought he would.

Trump’s disgusting performance at that now-infamous press conference was mind-boggling. I understand better now, I feel. He thinks that his bullying tactics, that he presumably developed on the Apprentice show which I never watched out of principle – neither the US nor the UK versions – will appeal to his followers. They regard it as a sign of strength. I regard it as a sign of weakness. No wonder the western world is divided!

The two poems dedicated to Donald Trump – one written when he was a candidate, and one post-election – will not appeal to his ardent followers.
It is such a screaming paradox that the US democratic system gave us Barak Obama, the first black head of state of the G7 and a man who the vast majority of Europeans respected, followed by the first genuine white lunatic who makes Democrats nostalgic for George W. Bush and who seems to revel in generating disrespect amongst moderates!

US Mid-term Elections

 

I’ve just been watching Donald Trump on Sky News (please forgive me, but the coverage was good) trying to present the election he just lost as a major victory. He has as much dignity on the rostrum as an out-of-his-mind evangelist who is convinced that some god is on his side. His altercation with the journalist from CNN simply demeaned the Presidency and was totally unnecessary. In reply to a journalist from Sky News, it became clear that he thinks that, now that he can blame the Democrat majority in the House of Representatives for blocking his legislative agenda, he will gain political traction. That remains to be seen – but even if he is right he needs no political traction with his supporters, and that seems to be the only part of the electorate that interests him. He says it’s all about making deals and he seems to despise those of us that believe it might less about making deals and more about finding common ground. He would probably say that’s the same thing, because he does not have enough finesse in his command of language to understand the difference. If I ask someone who doesn’t agree with me to ‘make a deal’, it’s as if I am trying to corrupt his ideals by, for example, trading one of my principles for one of his. However, if I ask someone to help identify common ground, I am trying to get him to set aside our points of disagreement so that we can move forward without abandoning our principles. I think that’s what moderates mean when they talk about bipartisanship.

Brexit Poll

Last night’s emission on Channel 4, wherein the figures from a recent poll on Brexit  – the largest since the 2016 referendum covering the opinions of 20000 and therefeore statistically relevant- suggest that  a new referendum would see a change in opinion was worth an hour of one’s time. Well done Channel 4; again you have done something which could be a game changer! There is concern in certain quarters, however, that the country is divided and that a “People’s Vote” would exacerbate those divisions.

Meanwhile, in the US, we hear the same concerns. A vote against the president – for that’s how the Republicans and Trump now see it – would be divisive. HE is the only one capable of uniting the country, according to him and them.

So when the nationalist/anti-liberal/isolationist minority discover that they do not speak for the majority – many of whom do not vote until they understand the consequences of their actions – they broadcast their own brand of project fear; if we allow the people to accept that they were mistaken when they voted Trump or Brexit, then we are undermining the system. That is surely not most people’s view of democracy.

The fact is that when we ask people to cast a vote on a single topic, whether it be Brexit or the election of a candidate, we do not know why they have made the choice they have. They have, at a specific moment in time, chosen between two options – Trump or Clinton, Brexit or Status Quo. It does not mean that they think that the option they have chosen is eternal perfection. The basis of a democratic system is that the electorate may change their minds once they have seen what the unforeseen consequences of their choice have been. The unique nature of Brexit, however, that it will affect the lives of future generations, is a major constitutional change and is almost irreversable, makes this winner-takes-all-forever attitude absolutely unacceptable.

Farage may say it’s because of the media. Banks may say if had known it was going to be like this he would have voted to remain. Boris may say that he would have done a better job than May. Ultimately, we should be trying to reflect the will of the people based upon the facts as they are and the truth as it is now revealed.

There is a parallel with the appeal system – it recalls the pretence in legal circles that a judge and jury can never get it wrong, when we know that the opposite is true and that an appeal system is essential for any legal system to function properly.

Policing Policy

I heard this morning, on Radio 4, two broadcasts about the justice system that I regard as presenting conflicting views, although none of the journalists concerned seemed to spot the conflict.

Firstly, we were told that a senior police officer has suggested, and I paraphrase creatively, that we get back to basics and concentrate on prosecuting those criminals that commit acts of violence and theft – i.e. the crimes that actually make the man or woman in the street suffer directly.

Secondly, Ben Wallace, Minister of State for Security at the Home Office (https://www.gov.uk/government/people/ben-wallace) announced that they were now going to actively pursue “Organised Criminal Gangs” (that’s prosecution speak for more than one person!) by pursuing apparently ordinary business people who facilitate laundering of money for them, such as private schools, insurance agents and estate agents etcetera. There was no mention of bankers, of course, without whom nothing would be possible. All this despite the official OECD definition of money laundering which the UK authorities wish to be able to ignore when it suits them, as happened in my case.

The conflict is therefore between one view which says that the limited resources we have in the police force should be concentrated on crimes that affect the general public directly and the view of government – stimulated, no doubt by their interest in collecting taxes or reducing them for electoral reasons – that, because we are not prepared to put in place the resources to tackle genuinely organised international crime, we should pursue those “apparently law abiding citizens” that may facilitate money laundering. What is frightening in this approach is that, to convict, we are then going to rely on the notion of knowledge instead of what normal people would call evidence. In other words, the estate agent that does all his checks according to the accepted definition of money laundering is still at risk if the CPS thinks that a jury would convict them on the basis of what they must have or should have known. This is not a slippery slope argument because it is already happening and happened to me. So I am unsure as to whether what Ben Wallace was saying was new!

Paul Gambaccini wins CPS payout over unfounded sexual abuse …

Further proof, if it were needed, that the justice system is broken:

The BBC Radio 2 DJ Paul Gambaccini has won a payout from prosecutors over an unfounded case regarding historical sexual abuse allegations.

The American-born broadcaster was arrested in October 2013 over a claim he sexually assaulted two teenage boys. Gambaccini, 69, spent a year on bail before the case against him was dropped in what he labelled a “completely fictitious” affair.

Confidentiality clauses in the agreement mean the amount paid cannot be disclosed, sources said.

Gambaccini was arrested under Operation Yewtree, which was led by the Metropolitan police in the wake of the revelations about the paedophile Jimmy Savile.

He has described the incident as a celebrity “witch hunt”, and has previously called for rape suspects to be given anonymity until charged.

He said in 2015: “The man on the street is known to the people he has met in his life. The celebrity is known to the people he has met in his life, plus millions of others. So when you invite the public to accuse a celebrity, you have a pool of people who include not only possibly people who have been abused, but many people to whom a celebrity may have satisfied an emotional need throughout the years even without knowing it. And this is precisely what has happened.”

He said he “wasn’t surprised” to be accused, as he had previously spoken publicly about Savile’s crimes and was once pictured alongside him on a newspaper front page, creating an association in the public’s mind.

Gambaccini, who presents BBC Radio 2’s Pick of the Pops, had been a fixture on UK radio for decades before the allegations were made.

A CPS spokeswoman said: “We have reached an agreement without admission of liability”.

“No admission of liability”….astonishing! I wonder why they paid an “undisclosed sum”, then? Must be because they feel deep sympathy for Paul and wish to make a charitable donation?? I heard on Radio 4 this morning that the men in question were not even under age at the time. Who will be punished for this disgraceful act by a public body? Is this another “I was only doing my job” piece of garbage? Will they now clearly state that he is innocent or are they trying to merely imply that they have not found any evidence? In other words what impression are they going to leave with the general public by not admitting liability?

support.theguardian.com/uk