Full marks for Sturgeon - yet again.

In an earlier post I have applauded Scottish National Party leader Nicola Sturgeon for by far and away the most sensible and constructing economic policy in last year's General Election.

Once again, amid the dreary claims and counter-claims of economic ruin or prosperity beyond compare bandied by the mainstream  "outers" and "remainers"  in England,  M/s Sturgeon has hit the jackpot.  In a speech on Monday she castigates David Cameron for running a "miserable , negative, fear-based" campaign in the referendum and pleads for a "positive and constructive case" for remaining in the EU, and in particular for the protection and improvement of "social benefits and employment rights."

Well, it's certainly wishful  thinking  to expect even a self proclaimed "compassionate conservative" to extol the virtues of social benefits and employment rights, but the rest of us in the "remain" campaign should be doing just that.  Indeed I believe we should go further and extract ourselves from a sterile debate on the economic effects of "in" or "out" and look to the wider implications.

These are set out in a wide-ranging article by  Charles Grant (like Springford and Telford, authors of Prospect article, summarised here, a member of the Centre for European Reform) in the New Statesman  (19th to 25th February, 2016).  Whilst recognising that the EU is far from perfect, indeed a "muddled and messy organisation  but in essence a community of law, [whose] chief mission is to spread the rule of law," Grant highlights that::

1.  The EU is committed to "democracy, liberal values and the rule of law, at home and in the wider world" in a "model of development based on pluralism and human rights."
2. The current refugee crisis clearly demands a co-operative approach which will require [decent] "reception centres. . .[a] scheme for sharing out bona fide asylum seekers" whilst "sending home swiftly" those rejected (unless war is raging in their countries)
3. "EU  leaders must do what they can to tackle the root causes of the refugee flows." 
4. The EU leaders are strong believers in global governance.  The US, because of its greater power, is less enthusiastic.  Hence:
5. European leaders take a pre-eminent role in the UN, WTO  and international financial institutions.
6. "[T]he EU has pioneered global efforts to limit carbon emissions" and on other environmental issues.
7. "The EU and its member states have taken the lead in forging a host of arms control agreements. (The US, Russia and China have boycotted those on landlines and cluster munitions.  The US has not ratified  either the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty or the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea).
8. The EU has played an important role in trying to resolve many foreign policy issues:  Serbia v Kosovo (the UK's Catherine Ashton, as EU High Representative, played an important part in this); Somalia; Mogadishu; abandonment (we hope) of Iran's nuclear programme; Burma.
9.  EU members' internal security is bolstered by Europol and the European Arrest Warrant.scheme.  (From another source I know of something called  Prum. a EU policing database from which can be accessed information, sometimes in seconds, which could take to UK force alone months or even years to discover).

Well, those are some non-economic areas in which  membership of the EU enables us to achieve rather more effectively than we could do on our own.

The article also asks us to consider what so far has not entered into the UK debate to any extent, the effect on the rest of the EU if the UK left.

 Clearly Eurosceptic, and often unpleasantly right wing,  factions in other countries would be energised, and, even if they did not succeed in "exiting" their countries,  the Union would be weakened. Whereas I think the declaration George Osborne says he had no part in engineering at the Shanghai summit of the G20, that a  Brexit could produce a sever shock to the world economy, is ridiculous hyperbole, it is not too fantastic to suppose that our departure might, just might, precipitate the disintegration of the European Union.

So, just 71 years after we congratulated ourselves on playing a noble part in the rescue of Europe from tyranny,  by our selfish chauvinism we could  successfully torpedo  the enlightened  attempts to build a more law abiding, peaceful, co-operative  and creative continent.

Even if the Union survives our departure, without us it will be more politically lopsided.  From the beginning Germany, for understandable reasons,  has tried to avoid a dominant leadership role.  At first a dual leadership of France and Germany was the norm.  After Britain's accession this became a trio (maybe a quad as Italy grew stronger).  But, after re-unification and as a result of their incredibly successful economy, Germany has become immeasurably stronger, and the leadership dominance they have struggled hard to avoid will be thrust upon if the  UK were not  there to help keep the balance.

 "Keeping the balance of power in Europe" has been the object of British foreign policy for centuries.  We should not opt out now.

So rather than a "miserable, negative, fear-based"  campaign, I'd like to see we reaminers adopt an adaptation  of John F Kennedy's famous and inspiring call:


"Ask not what the EU can  do for the UK, but what the UK can do for Europe."

The Falklands: two sides to the story.

 The "comment" by Anonymous to the previous post deserves more than a comment in reply.

Anonymous, and I suspect most people in the UK, see the Falklands War as a source of national pride – putting the “Great” back into Great Britain (which is actually a geographical term, nothing to do with political eminence).

But there’s another side of the story .  

Britian's title to the Falklands, which was claimed as a Crown Colony in 1841, was always a bit dubious,  and disputed by Argentina from the beginning. 

For some years before 1982, when the war took place,  the Britain's Foreign Office had been toying with various options, such as joint sovereignty with Argentine, to extract us from sole responsibility for the Islands.

When the Defence Secretary,  John Nott,  announced in 1981 that HMS Endurance, the only British naval presence in the South Atlantic, was to be withdrawn, the Argentine government , anxious to distract attention from its domestic problems, decided Britain was no longer too bothered about the area and decided to put a toe in the water by organising an allegedly civilian occupation of South Georgia.

Mrs Thatcher certainly showed admirable guts, grit and determination in organising and sticking with her Task Force which would,  of course, been unnecessary but for the wrong signals sent out by  proposed  withdrawal of the Endurance. During the voyage out,  opportunities for a diplomatic compromise were proposed but  these were turned down, and the war was won by  Britain with the human cost of 255 British and 649 Argentinian deaths, most of the latter teenage conscripts.

Mrs Thatcher received her reward in two subsequent election victories.    But the problem remains and the diplomatic solution which the Foreign Office were seeking in the 1970s is still being sought and will eventually be achieved.

To me, after the deaths, innumerable other casualties, post conflict suicides and traumatic stress disorder, the part of the “adventure”  I found then and still find most  distressing is the re- emergence of jingoism – exemplified by the Sun’s “Gotcha” and “Up yours, Galtieri”  headlines.  I thought that, with the demise of the Boys Own Paper and the  post Second World War literature and comic strips on which I fed as a child and adolescent (Achtung!  Schweinhund!) we had grown out of that.  

 Alas no (and I suspect some of it remains and will flavour the Brexit debate)

It’s instructive  to compare our reaction to the Falklands to our supine (but sensible) handing over of Hong Kong to China.  We were fed the myth that the colony was only on a 99 year lease so we were legally obliged to hand it over.  

 But that was not true.  The 99 year lease applied to the New Territories (on the mainland)  but not to the island of Hong Kong, which was  a Crown Colony  and to which Britain had a much stronger title than to the Falklands.

Wisely, Mrs Thatcher sent no task-force to the South China Seas:  instead Chris Patten was sent to haul down the flag. 

 Bullies only enforce their principles when the adversary is weak.

EU debate, the Boris factor

As noted in an earlier post, the trouble with referendums is that people tend to vote on something other than the question on the ballot paper - as often as not to give the authorities a kick in the teeth whatever the actual  issue at stake.

Boris Johnson's carefully choreographed announcement that he is to vote for "OUT" illustrates that this dubiously legitimate use of referendums applies to leading campaigners as well we humble voters.  If Johnson has, as he claims, agonised for weeks if not longer as to which side to come down on, then he must be able to see the pros and cons of both sides and feel that the difference between them is not great.  So his motive for entering the argument with such panache must presumably be other than a firm conviction that it is immeasurably better for the UK to be out rather than in.

Presumably  the scenario he has in mind is that, if the outs win, then Cameron may  resign in disgrace and he, Johnson, hero of the successful out campaign, will be a shoe-in for the next leader of the Conservative Party. Maybe Cameron will resign at once and he, Johnson, will step into his shoes as Prime Minister.

So, as far as Johnson is concerned, the referendum is not really about the merits  of the question of Britain's future in or out of Europe, but of Johnson in or out of 10 Downing Street.

Johnson will certainly bring colour to the campaign, but let's hope the electorate are reasonably quizzical  about the motive for his antics.

EU. . . we're off!

Well, thank goodness Cameron has achieved t his EU deal, has, as predicted,  announced it as a triumph, and off we go for four months of wrangling before we, the public, decide whether to stay in or out.

Cameron has got off to a good start.  Whatever the merits of the deal, (more of which later), he has gained a justified reputation for dogged determination in the negotiations, and has already used his undoubted PR skills, or maybe those of his team, by coining the words "special status" to define our future position in the EU if we vote  to remain in it.

The idea of "special status" suits the British view of ourselves.   Way back in 1930 Winston Churchill declared that "We [British] have our own dreams and our own task.  We are with Europe but not part of it."  In his memoirs (1979) the  formidable Liberal leader Jo Grimond wrote

 ". . .we came out of the [Second World] war being told that we had saved the world by a unique act of courage against fearful odds.  We naturally became convinced  that the world must see that we were natural leaders  of the West entitled by our deeds of valour and skill to rest on oars as far as work was concerned  and owed a debt, indeed a living, by our neighbours."

So "special status" suits the British psyche: we can stand semi-detached, feeling slightly superior, and, as of right, having our cake and eating it.

Cameron's concessions don't amount to much, but that is not the point. He has played exactly the same game that Harold Wilson played in the mid-70s - renegotiated a deal sufficient  to try to convince us that the game had changed sufficiently for continued membership to be worthwhile. It worked, by two to one.

In actual fact I believe all Cameron's concessions are moves in the wrong direction.  He has:

• opted the UK out of "ever closer union."  But the treaty speaks not of  more integration of governments but  "ever closer union of people."  Surely that is a worthy aspiration, the road we should like history to take.  It is an aspiration which for the moment is on the back burner, but the world will be a better and safer place when hopes for it are revived.
• dealt a mean hand for migrant workers, pandering to the "dog in the manger" pettiness of the tabloid press, out to sell newspapers by exploiting the meanest instincts of their readers.
• excluded  the City from financial regulations emanating from the EU.  This is the most brainless of all the concessions.  Surely, after the crash brought about by financial irresponsibility in 2007/8 we need tighter rather than looser regulation.  Not to mention promoting the alleged policies of skewing the UK economy away from excessive dependence on the financial sector and toward a "march of the makers" in a "northern powerhouse."
• secured a say in any decisions regarding the Eurozone which might affect non-members - the illogical position of not wanting to be a member of a club but demanding  a say in how it is run.

In his speech on the deal Cameron included several "nevers" which surprised me.

We shall "never" join the Euro.   "A week is a long time in politics" and "never" is even longer. My own prediction would be that, if the Euro overcomes its short-term difficulties, is reformed with a lender of last resort, along with adequate transfer mechanisms from stronger to weaker economies (as between the American states) then it will survive and we shall go begging to join within 20 years.

We hall "never" join a European army.  Why ever not?  In the long run I'd like to see all national armies ceded to the United Nations as an international armed police force, and a European army could be a step on the way.  We are already, from the Second World War onwards, accustomed to British forces being under foreign command - first Eisenhower then other NATO commanders, so this is nothing new.

There were at lest two more "nevers" but I can't remember what they were.

However, I doubt if the details of the Cameron concessions will feature largely in the referendum campaign.  The  question now is whether we see Britain's future as an isolated island, a rowing-boat bobbing behind the USS United States, or a partner co-operating with our neighbours in culture, politics, philosophy and economics, to help steer ourselves and the world to a saner, fairer, and sustainable  future.

Jeremy Corbyn spot on.

If Jeremy Corbyn has been correctly reported he has said that what David Cameron should really be arguing for  in his negotiations with the other EU leaders is: " democratisation, workers' rights, an end to austerity and a halt to the privatisation of public services."

Well, one wouldn't expect a Troy to be arguing for those, but Corbyn has clearly defined a constructive alternative.  According to the report he goes on to say: "I want a Europe that is one of social justice, that is one that is working together.  I don't want to see one that is only based on a free market.  It has to be based on the rights of people all across Europe."

Well, I can campaign with enthusiasm for all of that, and so, I suspect, can most if not all Liberal Democrats.  Here is a vision worth fighting for.

I cannot understand why the press, including my beloved Guardian, along with half his own party, persist in describing Corbyn as "unelectable" a visionary idealist  "away with the fairies" and without a practical proposal to his name.  The priorities listed above are a refreshing alternative to the alternative  narrow-mindedness verging on xenophobia, and make him the person at the moment best placed to lead a rainbow campaign for a fairer  more   open and more tolerant future.

Liberal Democrat leaders should be loud in proclaiming that these are our priorities too.

EU mini-decision day

Fingers crossed that David Cameron comes out with some sort of decision about Britain's demand for mini-changes in the way the European Union conducts itself, and we can (after a four month delay here in Britain while we argue about the dots on the "i"s and crosses on the "t"s) move on to wrestling with the reallu serious problems which confront our country, the EU and the world.

If there is a decision, than there is no doubt that Cameron will use his PR skills to announce it as a great triumph.   For once his undoubted skills will be on the side of rationality rather than deception so we must be thankful for them.  They will be sorely needed.

There are three major obstacles to be overcome in the referendum debate.

First is the overwhelming anti-EU bias of the majority of our press.  This has little to do with with either the facts of the case or the normal political stance of the newspapers concerned, and all to do with the prejudices of their owners.  Rupert Murdoch, originally Australian but now a citizen of the US, owns The Times, the Sunday Times, the Sun and the Sun on Sunday (formerly the News of the World)  The Barclay brothers, resident in the Channel Islands, own the Daily and Sunday Telegraph, and Lord Rothermere the Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday.   Murdoch, the Barclay brothers and Rothermere are all, for reasons best known to themselves, strongly anti-EU and, though it is denied, this is reflected in the reporting of these newspapers.  That leaves only a minority of the press: largely  the Daily Mirror, the Guardian and Observer, to give a more objective and, I hope, more positive view towards he EU.  The Daily Express will doubtless continue to obsess about the weather and the death of Princess Diana.

So a level playing field of public debate there will not be.  The BBC, alas, allows the print media to define the news agenda on a daily basis so even they are likely to give more airing to the Brexit side of the debate than is merited.

Second, although the British public voted two to one in favour of remaining in the EU in the previous referendum in 1975, today the public mood is much less deferential.  Then we bowed obediently to the collective view of all three major parties and  the business community: today we are much more likely, and with some justification, to give them a kick in the teeth.  That is the problem with referendums: people are likely to vote not on the question on the ballot paper, but as an expression of frustration  with the powers that be.

Third, whereas those of us in favour of remaining in the EU, even becoming enthusiastic members, recognise that the whole  present palaver is merely a device for Cameron to out-manoeuvre his Eurosceptics, dish UKIP and keep his party intact, and so are rather bored by the whole business, the Brexit brigade have fire in their bellies and will fight tooth and nail to achieve what they see as a better yesterday.

So we pro-Europeans must stir our stumps, campaign  with equal or even greater vigour and, after what I fervently hope will be a victory for "Remain," then get on with the very urgent and exceptionally dangerous problems facing the world (the revival of East/West tensions, war in the Middle East, the refugee crisis, the possibility of another banking melt-down, to name but four) and Britain (shortage of affordable housing, a yawning balance of payments deficit, growing inequality, shamefully low productivity, to name but another four.)

Chinese dumping

A friend of mine has a little round dish which looks like an ashtray but is in fact, as it says round the edge, "a round tuit."  I believe it was given to him by his wife on the assumption that now he had got around to it, he had no further excuses for not doing all those little jobs that she felt needed attention.

I have been intending to write a post on dumping in relation to Britain's steel industry for some months, but somehow never got around to it.  To prevent dumping is about the only reason or excuse for interfering with international trade by tariffs or other devices which is undisputedly regarded as legitimate even by the most neo-liberal of economics text books.

Dumping is the selling in a foreign markets of a product at below its cost of production in order to get rid of a surplus of domestic supplies, or, more sinisterly, to put the producers of that product in the foreign market out of business, and then, once the competition is eliminated, hike up the prices.  Dumping is not to be confused with selling a product at a lower price than the foreign market can manage because the exporter is more efficient or, in the jargon, has a "comparative advantage."  That's the basis of all legitimate international trade and from which we all benefit considerably.  (Just think how much bananas would cost if we had to grow them here  in greenhouses.)

So if, as seems certain, China is dumping steel at below cost on the world market, we have every justification of putting up a higher tariff, or other restriction, in order to stop them and preserve our own steel industry, and I have wondered for months why on earth we didn't do it.

The answer is revealed in last Sunday's Observer. Other steel producing  countries in the EU wish to impose a punitive tariff against Chinese steel similar to the 256% duty the US charges  but this is being blocked  by - guess who -  the UK.  Rather than respond with a punitive tariff, the EU is limited to a puny increase from 9.2% to 13%.  The reason appears to be that the UK is anxious not to  upset China or other arrangements may be derailed.

As a result, Tata, the Indian company now responsible for the production of what remains of British steel production, may be forced to further closures.  Tata's domestic government, India, is not so timid, and has slapped significant tariffs on steel imports from both China and Korea.

In Britain it seems that, whereas there is no limit to the measures and finance necessary to rescue and  preserve banking and finance, the steel industry, and the workers in it, are dispensable.

So much, yet again, for all being in it together.