The Holocaust. . . and Refugees?

Today is Holocaust Memorial  Day.

Here is an extract from Primo Levi's dispassionate description of his time in Auschwitz:

. . . .Schonunglsblock means the rest hut, where there are only the less serious patients or convalescents, or those not requiring attention.  Among them, at least fifty more or less serious  dysentery patients. 

These are checked every third day. They are placed in a line along the corridor.  At the end there are two tin-plate pots, and the nurse with a register, watch and pencil.  Two at a time, the patients present themselves  and have to show, on the spot and at once,  that they still have diarrhoea; to prove it they are given exactly one minute.  After which they show the result  to the nurse who looks  at it and judges.  They wash the pots quickly in a wash-tub near by and the next two take over.

Of those waiting , some are contorted in the pain  of keeping in their precious evidence  another ten , another twenty minutes; others, without resources at the moment, strain veins and muscles  in a contrary effort.  The nurse watches, impassive, chewing his pencil, one eye on the watch, one eye on the specimens gradually present him.  In doubtful cases , he leaves with the pot  to show it to the doctor.

If this is a Man, pp59/60, Abacus edition, 2013

I fear I see a similar  lack of empathy - the failure to see other human beings as people like ourselves, with similar thoughts, feelings, hopes, sense of dignity, as ourselves - in our attitude to refugees; not least  the argument by a British politician that rescuing refugees from drowning in the Mediterranean is a bad  idea, because it might encourage others to attempt the crossing.

Man's inhumanity to man is not, sadly, confined to the 1940s, but lives on.

Brexit: the time for pester-power

Now that the Supreme Court has decided that it is up to Parliament, and not the Government, to decide whether or not to trigger Article 50 it is up to us to put the machinery of our much vaunted democracy (of which Brexiteers are so anxious that we should take back control) into action.

Step One: write to your MP.

I've just written to mine as follows:

  * * * * * * * * MP

House of Commons,

London, SW1A  0AA

Dear * * * * *   * * * * **

Now that the Supreme Court has ruled that it is Parliament and not the Government who have the right to decide whether or not to trigger Article 50 I urge you to vote against any such move.  I appreciate your were not an MP at the time the Referendum Bill was passed, so are not personally responsible*, but it was  Parliamentarians, through complacency or negligence who got us into this mess (see points 2 and 4 below)  so it is up to them , now including you, get us out of it.
The grounds for opposition to triggering Article 50 are:

1.  The referendum was not binding but advisory.  This was made perfectly clear to all parliamentarians even if, sadly, not too much was made of it during the campaign.   But the law is the law, and the truth  is that the Government and Parliament have received advice, not an instruction, and it is up to you to decide whether or not to act on it.
2.  Parliament failed to include in the Referendum Bill the supermajority normally necessary for such an important decision.  Organisations as inconsequential as golf clubs and music societies require more than a simple majority to change their constitutions.  All parties were remiss in not including special provisions, such as a two-thirds majority over-all and at least a simple majority in each of the four constituent parts of the UK, for a "Leave" vote to be valid.
3. The Government and other "Leavers" are fond of repeating  that "the people have spoken" but the actual result of the referendum  (37% of the electorate for Leave, 34% for Remain and 27% did not vote) was far from a clarion call that must be obeyed.  The 16-17 age group who, in terms of years, will be most affected by the long term effects of the result, were not allowed to vote.  If those not on the register but who should be are included it is estimated that the actual percentage of the adult population who voted to leave was a mere 28%, barely more than a quarter.  In two constituent parts of the UK, Scotland and Northern Ireland, the majority voted to Remain.
4.  The campaign, without the constraint of any means of challenging misleading statements in the courts such as the provisions of the 1983 Representation of the People Act,  was seriously misleading; on both sides, yes, but most seriously on the Leave side.  Promises made by Leave have been unravelling from day one: there is, for example, no £350m per week for the NHS, and we can't "have our cake and eat it."

As our MP you are elected not as a mandated delegate but as a mature and rational representative expected to use your judgement for the general good. In the present climate I know this will take courage, though it is worth remembering that some 70% of Labour voters voted to Remain**.  We are told that a substantial number of other MPs are contemplating voting against so you will not be alone.  Perhaps you can use your influence to persuade others, in the Lords as well as the Commons.

The tactic of demanding details of the negotiations or inserting provisions about preserving employment and workers’ rights, or even wanting a second referendum on whatever “deal” is finally achieved, is worthy but second best, in that it means you and the political establishment will spend the next two years  haggling over the details of an exit that the majority of you believe shouldn’t happen.  End it now and you can   concentrate on remedying the actual serious problems which face us: growing inequality, housing, low productivity, an alarming deficit on the balance of external payments, race relations etc. But the greatest of which is inequality.

Yours sincerely,

* My MP was recently elected at a by-election held after the Referendum Bill was passed, so, if you choose to use the above as a template, minor alterations will be needed.

**Also she is Labour.  Other points will need to be mentioned to MPs in other parties, very strong ones if the constituency happens to have voted "Remain."

The philosopher A.C. Grayling urges us to go much further, as follows.

Never forget that the referendum was unnecessary. It was an internal party political affair of the Conservative Party. Leave won with 37% of the electorate (a restricted electorate which excluded millions) that had been defined for the
poll. . . . .

The best way to stop Brexit is for our MPs to vote it down in Parliament. . . .

The most effective means of getting your MPs to act is to visit them in their constituency surgeries and to keep on visiting them every week. Crowd their surgeries every week. Demonstrate outside their surgeries every week. Fill their waiting rooms every week. Insist. Do not stop. Keep it up. Do not give up. Do not stop until it is all over.

Support the various legal actions by donating to the crowd-funded resources for them. Stay informed. Argue with Leavers; change their minds. Discuss with those Remainers who have given up the fight: get them back into the fight.

Choose a day, a time and a place, and meet there every week regularly with posters and EU flags. Gather more and more people there every time. Keep it up, rain or shine. In 1989 in the German Democratic Republic what began as a small nucleus of protesters grew until there were millions all over the country, and the government fell.

The EU has its flaws because it is a work in progress. But it is a great work in progress, with immense achievements already to its name in bringing peace, progress and increased prosperity to Europe, along with admirable labour laws, environmental protection, scientific advance, human rights and civil liberty protections, and so much besides. 

SO COMRADES, TO THE BARRICADES. . . .

PS (added 27th January:  I'm pleased to see a clarion call for Labour MPs to vote against from their activist, (and repsected railway expert and oponent of HS2) Christian Wolmer, at
http://labourlist.org/2017/01/christian-wolmar-corbyn-of-all-people-must-realise-this-labour-mps-must-forget-the-whip-and-vote-against-article-50/

Mrs May's embarrassing relationship

Even when the US president was a relatively decent chap, such as Eisenhower, Kennedy, Carter, Clinton (in public) and Obama, the British establishment's  desperate attempts to claim a "special relationship" with the US was a humiliating embarrassment.  Our pretence  was successfully mocked as far back as the 1960s by Peter Cook in his wonderful "Beyond the Fringe"   take-off of  Harold Macmillan.  I can't remember the exact words  but, referring, Britain's attempts to retain relevance by offering to be an "honest broker" between the US and the then USSR it went something like:

"I chaffed him by saying that no nation could be more honest and he chaffed me by saying that no nation could be broker."

Now that the US president's publicly expressed  attitudes are the polar opposite of "decent" it is even more humiliating that our prime minister is so desperate to be seen to claim pre-eminence in our relationship by being the first foreign leader to meet him.  Of course we have to maintain a professional diplomatic relationship with the most powerful country in the world, however dubious the legitimacy and morals of its leader. But surely national self-respect requires that  this should be in a lower key.  Normally I would suggest the foreign secretary but, given that this is Boris Johnson, perhaps it would be best to keep it at the relative anonymity of ambassador level

Tories in "La La Land."

I don't actually know much about La La Land but I do know a great deal about Gilbert and Sullivan operas. In The Mikado the Lord High Executioner, Koko,explains away the fact that he has not actually executed the tenor lead, Nanki-Poo, as follows:

It's like this:When Your Majesty says, 'Let a thing be done' it's as good as done - practically it is done - because Your Majesty's will is law.  Your Majesty says, 'Kill a gentleman' and a gentleman is told off to be killed.  Consequently the gentleman is as good as dead - practically he is dead - and if he is dead why not say so?

 This style of reasoning seems to have afflicted our government:  say something is so and it is so, however absurd and contrary to truth and experience.

In her Brexit  speech Mrs May assures Europe and the world that: "Britain is an open and tolerant country."  This coming from the woman who, as Home Secretary, organised a billboard campaign  telling illegal immigrants to "Go home or face arrest;"  whose government has accepted a derisory number of refugees; and has argued that refugees drowning in the Mediterranean should not be rescued as that might encourage others to try.

The Koko delusion is not confined to the Prime Minister.  Our Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson tells us today that other countries are "queuing up" to sign trade deals with the UK once it leaves the EU, and the whole tone of the Brexit campaigners is that we probably can have our cake and eat it with the EU, and if we can't then there's a bigger and better cake outside.

After the rapid evaporation of the promises made in the referendum campaign itself  we should learn to take these arrogant and unrealistic claims with a pinch of salt. Unfortunately most of our newspapers do not seem to have learned the lesson.

A US/UK Trade Deal - beware!

Our leading Brexiteers are doubtless preening themselves that, with the advent of President Trump the UK is likely to move from the back of the queue (Obama) to the front in the negotiations for a new, bilateral, trade deal.

Well, it's good that we've moved up the queue, but there can be little doubt that any such deal will be on terms dictated by the US.  The EU has been struggling for years to negotiate a deal which takes account of European susceptibilities in  the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership(TTIP).

Even in these negotiations between giants  the EU is finding it difficult to hold its own. A UK/US negotiation will be more a a David and Goliath confrontation in which, in this case, the little man is unlikely to win.

Issues at stake will include:

• the ability of US firms to take over/buy-into to our public services, especially the NHS and our prison services;
• the acceptance of US standards for meat products from animals reared with excessive growth promoting hormones and excessive antibiotics;
• the acceptance of genetically modified (GM) products and products containing them;
• the setting up of Investor Sate Dispute Battlement Courts (ISDSs) to overrule the decisions of our (and their!) sovereign governments

So much for the  much vaunted reclamation of our sovereignty and taking back control.

Brexit: just say "No."

An alternative title to this post could be:  "When you're in a hole stop digging."

As far as I know only two politicians, the Green Party leader Caroline Lucas and the newly-elected Liberal Democrat MP for Richmond Park Sarah Olney, have so far stated bluntly that, given the chance, they will vote against the triggering of Article 50. Others try to face both ways with weasel words on the lines of :" “I am not seeking to reverse the EU referendum result. but . . . "

The case for no Brexit at all is perfectly clear and it is shameful that  our parliamentarians, Lords as well as Commons, who got us into this mess by their negligence, lack the courage to try to get us out of it.

The grounds for opposition to triggering Article 50 are perfectly clear:

1.  The referendum was not binding but advisory.  This was made perfectly clear to all parliamentarians even if, sadly, not too much was made of it during the campaign.   But the law is the law, and the truth  is that the government and parliament have received advice, not an instruction, and it is up to them whether or not to act on it.
2.  Parliament failed to include in the Referendum Bill the higher bar normally necessary for such an important decision.  Organisations as inconsequential as golf clubs and music societies require more than a simple majority to change their constitutions.  All parties, presumably as a result of complacency, were remiss in not including special previsions, such as a two-thirds majority over-all and at least a simple majority in each of the four constituent parts of the UK, for a "Leave" vote to be valid.
3. "Leavers" are fond of mouthing that "the people have spoken" but the actual result of the referendum  (37% of the electorate for Leave, 34% for Remain and 27% did not vote) was far from a clarion call that must be obeyed.  The 16-17 age group who, in terms of years, will be  most affected by the long term effects of the result, were not allowed to vote.  Some argue that the actual percentage of the adult population who voted to leave was a mere 28%, barely more than a quarter. In two  constituent parts of the UK, Scotland and Northern Ireland, the majority voted to Remain.
4.  The campaign, without the constraint of any means of challenging misleading statements in the courts*,  was seriously misleading; on both sides, yes, but most seriously on the Leave side.  Promises made by Leave have been unravelling from day one: there is no £350m per week for the NHS, we can't "have our cake and eat it.".

Our MPs are elected not as mandated delegates but as allegedly mature and rational representative expected to use their judgement for the general good. In the present climate this will take courage, but a united call from a Rainbow coalition of respected  voices ( Ken Clarke, Paddy Ashdown and Ed Miliband perhaps, and  preferably jointly led by  Caroline Lucas and Nicola Sturgeon, two of the most sensible and respected politicians on the scene at the moment,) should  carry sufficient weight to  stiffen the sinews of our cowardly MPs and avert  an error which will harm Britain, Europe and the rest of the world.

Then, instead of wasting time haggling over the details of an exit that the majority of MPs  believe shouldn’t happen, we can concentrate on remedying the serious problems which face our nation: inequality, housing, low productivity, an alarming deficit on the balance of external payments, race relations etc. But the greatest of which is inequality.

Leavers, who cleverly constructed the most persuasive catch-phrases during the campaign ("Take back control,"  obsession with "unelected bureaucrats") are now adept at painting those of us who oppose Brexit as "unpatriotic" and "undemocratic."  This should be vigorously resisted.  It is not unpatriotic to be realistic about Britain's weakness outside the EU compared with our strength and significance within it.  Nor is it undemocratic to argue that our elected representatives should fulfil their obligation to use their judgement for our long-term good.

So, now that we're in a self inflicted hole dug , not for the benefit of or even by demand of the nation, who did not regard our membership of the EU as a top issued for concern**, but for the domestic purposes of the Tory party, we should stop digging

True some MPs may feel that taking a stance and standing up for their beliefs might endanger their seats.  So what? -  a small sacrifice to make to avert the biggest political misjudgement since Lord North lost the American colonies over an argument about the tax on tea.  And, as this article in yesterday's G2 shows, there may be more support for principles over bullying than they suspect.

* In General elections provisions in the Representation of the People Act of 1983 make untruthful statement actionable.  There was not such constraint in the referendum Act.
* * An examination of Ipsos-Mori Issues Indices for the years 2008 to 2016 (and earlier under another format) shows that our membership of the EU did not appear  among the top ten issue which concerned the electorate until July 2014 (at number 9).