Tag Archives: Brexit

Fake or Real News and Headlines

Posted on by
2

Fake or real news is seldom out of the headlines. The never-ending debate on Brexit continues to polarise opinion with now the new PM adding to the fray. His request to the Queen to prorogue the UK Parliament has been treated with varying degrees of support or hostility based entirely on the already dived opinion line of Remain or leave. I wish the Remain camp would stop arguing their opposition is against no deal when they voted against a deal negotiated with 27 other countries. At least the Lib Dems are honest enough to admit that.

My concern is in the so called impartiality of figures who should know better and yet claim precedent or lack of it. But I’ll start with the BBC coverage and one headline in particular.
Yesterday BBC news and web site reported the following

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-49493885

“Pound Falls” is the less of a headline than BBC news which headlined at 18:00 “Pound crashes” on news. The web sites now has volatile rather than crashes. So what has happened to the pound this month – think I may have mentioned this before

No headline at all about the pound’s rise against the dollar. In particular, since the 6th August but a half cent drop on one day is a crash. What happened on the 6th? Not a lot as far as I can tell. Personally, it looks great as I’ve just had to buy some dollars for a forthcoming trip and I’ve had a better rate this week than last. When I heard crash I was worried my next purchase would be harder, but the headline means it must be not that. I’m better buying this week than I was at the start of the month – a real transaction by the way.

Really BBC – must do better

Now to the meat of the subject – sorry vegans the main point then… The word unprecedented.(dict’ definition never having happened or existed in the past

As in the Prorogation of Parliament is unprecedented or sometimes with the caveat of in recent history with no definition of recent which given nearly 1,000 years of Parliament is hard to judge.

Prorogue of parliament

https://www.parliament.uk/about/how/occasions/prorogation/

The longest parliamentary sessions since 1945.

This is the amount of time for a parliamentary session i.e. the current session being prorogued is quite long, and the longest since the World War II

The next use of unprecedented refers to the length of time Parliament is Prorogued in this case 23 days. If we caveat with recent. Then the longest most recent was 1997 for 19 days. There have been much longer periods in history. Elizabeth 1st the first had no sitting parliament for over 3 years. 23 days is not unprecedented. Many governments even since universal adult suffrage from 1928 (after the equalisation of the voting ages for men and women) have used various tricks to get their plans through. This has included doing the opposite of now i.e. Prorogation and adding an additional session to prevent House of Lords interference (Labour 1948 to allow nationalisation of Iron and Steel without Lords amendment), or as in the case of 1997, to prevent difficult questions in the House of Commons – The cash For Question Scandal. In both cases, the government did not resign, nor was there an election. After the break, there was a new Queen’s Speech and a new Parliamentary session. As is proposed to start on 13th October, which I believe is still before 31st October and therefore, MPs still have time to pass or amend legislation.

the lack of historical context, despite our long history, continues to be troubling. The NOW generation infects our media reporting. We see this is numerous ways from sports results ignoring decades of previous results just because a competition name changed, to the use of the word democracy, but only when applied to the speaker’s narrow definition of the vote they mean. I.e Johnson is undemocratic because he replace May, whereas Brown replacing Blair, was democratic neither were unprecedented or undemocratic. They are the rules we have lived by for centuries.

In the case of Brexit, the UK Sovereign Parliament voted to leave the EU (without a deal) on 1st Feb 2017 as the European Union Bill. It was supported by the Labour leadership, by 498 votes to 114. This remains the default legal position. Since then the same Parliament has rejected 3 times the negotiated deal, and merely passed a delaying law now to 31st Oct or rather a delay requesting the EU to grant an extension.

But let’s not let facts get in the way of a good story

EU Election – Context

Posted on by
Reply

Now we’ve just had a ridiculous EU election in UK electing 73 MEPS to go back to Brussels (approx cost £150m). 35% turnout is pathetic but not surprising given state of politics.

Result Brexit party formed 6 weeks ago with 32%. Lib Dems (Pro remain) in 2nd with 20%

Lots of rubbish combining variations of votes to show that overall the country believes their own opinion based on zero fact.

No one knows why someone voted a particular way.

Labour, the official opposition lost ground. The Conservatives (allegedly the government) lost even more. The Greens increase (they are remain but for Green)

In reality not all Greens are Remain, not all Conservatives are leave. Labour are all over the place and even the former director of comms for Tony Blair, Alistair Campbell stated he voted Lib Dem because he was remain and he did not know what his own party was for.

UKIP was destroyed (by Brexit party it is presumed)

Scotland voted SNP

Northern Ireland hvoted along sectarian line with some gain for the middle ground Alliance Party but not enough to win a seat. Wales voted Brexit number 1 party

In parliament we’ll have a new Prime Minister soon. The rest of the arithmetic stays the same. Impasse. Next deadline 31st Oct

I have no idea what will happen.

I believe it was the lack of reform, the ever closer union agenda, and the underlying corruption that drove the UK to vote out in the first place.

Remainers continue to claim that immigration was the reason and perhaps it was for some but they miss the point.

The rise of the Greens also reflects society’s concern with real big picture stuff i.e. the fate of the planet. Big increase in Germany and UK from 2014. This has been claimed by Remain as support for that cause. I believe it is wider than that.

The Netherlands appears to have bucked the trend for movement left and right after several recent elections where the right appeared to be gaining, whereas Italy and Spain showed the same hollowing out as UK.

I also compared this EU election with 2009. Nearly all comparisons have been made with 2014. The movement for Lib Dems can then be seen in context.

In 2014 the Lib Dems were badly hurt (as they were in the 2015 General Election) by association with the coalition government and in particular the internal to UK position on Tuition fees. They won 13.3% then and 20.3% this time – a 7% increase. In the 2010 General election they won 22% and the 2015 Gen Election only 7.9% – more a recovery to normality in the longer term.

Brexit did not exit then let alone a party that has just won 32% of the vote. The then exit party UKIP won 16%. Labour in Government under Gordon Brown in 2009 won 15.2% compared to 14.1% this time. Conservatives now in Government (just) won 27.4% compared to 9.1% now. The Greens won 7.8% in 2009 up to 12.1% this time.
Turnout then was 34% and this time 37%

Not quite the sea change being described by Remain (for Lib Dems) or Brexit.

Post Election

Posted on by
Reply

Now it’s post election it’s time to reflect on the UK’s Election or what might become known as Theresa May’s disaster.

Some of this is extracted from a Goodreads forum discussion.

First turnout.

  • Although pleasing the turnout went up 3% since 2015 we still ended up with only 69% bothering to vote or deciding to vote. i.e. nearly 1/3 of electorate did not care or could not decide.
  • 53 to 48% on UK Brexit out on turnout of 72% of which 62% in Scotland voted to remain in EU and 60% in London did the same. EU vote also included Gibraltar
    55 to 45% on Scotland to stay in UK on 84.5% of eligible Scottish voters – no one else got a say
  • 2015 General election 66.4% turnout with wide variation dependent on constituency. The Conservatives won 36% of that which gave them overall majority of 12 seats in House of Commons

May as P.M

IMHO May got exactly what she deserved. 3 unbelievably bad decisions in under 12 months:

  1. No general election after becoming p.m and failing to seek support across parties for Brexit process after referendum and Cameron’s resignation
  2. Triggering Brexit process but not having election whilst clearly knowing there was a 2 year timetable
  3. Changing mind and having election – again this could have been agreed with other parties based on the Brexit timetable – i.e. the alleged reason of a stable government to agree deal on the timeline

If anything proves that May is not fit to be P.M it should be the above – as if her record as an appalling Home Secretary was any justification for making her leader. I think that was the, anyone but Boris Johnson/Michael Gove, vote in action. Luckily I was away for a few weeks of the general election campaign but seldom have I seen such a disastrous rabble as the Conservative attempt – again totally controlled by May’s cohorts, at least some of them have had the dignity to resign. Contrast with Scottish campaign run by Scottish Conservatives 1 MP to 13 is staggering.

Now what – the country will have to carry on with May (or have 4 weeks of leadership election) for a period but expect an autumn election – no party can govern without a more formalised agreement as 2010-15 showed – at least Gov was stable – unlike Lib-Lab pact of 70’s. Despite Progressive Alliance discussion, Labour would need DUP as well as all the other parties to pass any legislation unless they expect Conservatives to vote for their policies – nationalise railways for example?

Labour

Kudos to Corbyn although losing an election is a funny way of claiming victory. The big losers are SNP, but are still the majority in Scotland. My only comment there is if your campaign is entirely based on someone who is not standing i.e. Nicola Sturgeon then don’t be surprised if it gets personal. Ditto for Theresa May but at least she was standing in her constituency. Labour MPs after this election have 10 less than Labour won under Neil Kinnock in 1987. He resigned as it was seen as a disastrous result. Some Labour commentators have managed to mention the fact that Labour lost.

Some realism at last. To win an outright majority Labour need at least another 70 seats. To have a decent majority they need more like another 100. Even with a complete reversal in Scotland (30 back from SNP) a dozen from Wales and no resurgence in Lib Dems, somehow they need another 50 current Conservative seats.

Forecast

If there is another election will Conservatives campaign as badly? Will young turnout (thought to be Labour) be as high will places like Kensington stay with current result. My view:

  • Lib Dems will gain again impact on both Labour and Conservative but only small number maybe another 5-8
  • Labour will hold more easily in North but lose in South end up same
  • Conservatives will regain Southern losts
  • SNP will again slip back to Labour but might re-gain Conservative wins.
  • Net result – same again but might just give Conservatives 8 seats net gain for overall majority.

I cannot see an alternate candidate for P.M – yes I know people talk about Boris but he does not have enough backing. There is no obvious alternate leader in waiting. I think May will survive for a few months, then again I didn’t expect Cameron to resign and her to become P.M. Let alone to blow the election – I had a bet for 50+ majority. This time I won’t put money on it and a lot can happen between now and then

The BBC’s poll of polls tracker actually showed it. The trend for Labour was up just as it had been for the referendum out vote and the 2015 election Conservative win. What Theresa would give for Cameron’s result now.

Tax

One of the problems of most electorates and the promise of jam tomorrow is misunderstanding how the tax system works and what can really be obtained by raising taxes. The Lib-Dem manifesto was at least partly honest by stating that there needed to be a rise in basic taxation to generate the funds needed for higher spending without just adding to the debt. Remember our UK debt interest payments:

” (paying the interest) the public debt amounted to around £43 billion (which is roughly 3% of GDP or 8% of UK government tax income)”

This is roughly the same as the defence budget 2/3 of education spending and 1/3 of NHS. In other words this is a staggering amount of money, which is growing daily and current spending activity despite austerity is just adding to it. i.e. the governments since 2008 have made this worse.

If we want more money for these areas (or anything else) don’t treat public spending as a never ending credit card. The difficult austerity measures of 2010-15 were designed to stop increasing this borrowing and failed. The Labour party campaigned (somewhat successfully whilst still losing) for an end to austerity but unless tax intake goes up substantially the debt will rise as day to day borrowing increases i.e. we add to the debt.

It doesn’t mater what you borrow for (infrastructure, deficit, pay) it all adds up to debt – a failing of virtually every country in the world. It’s called living beyond our means – although in most of advanced world it is its not paying our bills. i.e. if we paid more tax privately or from business we could pay this off. Relying on GDP increase to increase taxation is not working.

The other issue on tax is the fallacy that higher earners are not paying their fair share. 25% of £100k a year is £25k. 25% of £20k is £4,000 – ignoring allowances and higher payments (First £11k free of tax for both and higher rate coming in at higher salary) the higher rate tax payer already pays £21k a year more for the same services. So the richer members of society (everyone that pays tax) already give subsidies to the lower paid. At the same time many richer members of society do not use those services e.g. private education and private health/social care.

The old tale of the taxpayers should always be born in mind – yes its glib. For 10 taxpayers substitute ten companies with corporation tax

10 drinkers in a bar who decide to settle their £100 weekly beer bill roughly the same way we pay our taxes. So, the first four men (the poorest) paid nothing; the fifth paid £1; the sixth £3; the seventh £7; the eighth £12; the ninth £18; and the 10th man, the richest, paid £59.

Then the barman decided to give them a £20 discount for being good customers. The group wanted to continue to pay the new £80 bill the same way as before. While the first four men still drank for free, the other six divided up the £20 windfall by following the progressive principle of the tax system. So the fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing, making a 100 per cent saving; the sixth man paid £2 instead of £3 (a 33 per cent saving); the seventh man paid £5 instead of £7 (a 28 per cent saving); the eighth £9 instead of £12 (a 25 per cent saving); and the ninth £14 instead of £18 (a 22 per cent saving). The 10th man paid £49 instead of £59 (a 16 per cent saving).

The men then began to compare their savings. “I only got £1 out of the £20,” declared the sixth man. He pointed to the 10th man, “but he got £10 – the wealthy get all the breaks!” “Wait a minute,” said the first four men, “we didn’t get anything at all. This new system exploits the poor.” So the other nine men surrounded the 10th and beat him up. The next week he didn’t show for drinks, so the nine sat down and had their beers without him. But when they came to pay, they discovered they didn’t have enough money between them to pay even half the bill.

Inflation

Unless we as a society do some fundamental re-thinking of tax income we are in danger of the rich man/company walking away. The amount of money raised by just increasing higher rates of tax is small because there are so few. This is always going to result in less income as the ridiculous 90% tax applied in the 70s demonstrated. The same applies to rich companies – i.e. those that generate sufficient profits or dividends. If the are publicly owned then those dividends turn into investment income for our pensions – yes the senior executives pay themselves extortionate amounts. The richest companies in the world (Apple etc.) employ hundreds of people to move money around to avoid whichever country tries to get more of the income even under a current system. If you make it more expensive for them to trade the directors will be duty bound (and financially incentivised) to try a way to avoid it. Taking their jobs (from Apple store assistants to financial traders) with them.

By the way increasing wages in any organisation increases costs unless there is a corresponding increase in productivity. Cost = goods / services price rise or cost of service for public sector. Thus either price inflation or more tax required issue. Pay seems to come first, productivity a long way behind, if ever. Have we learned nothing from the high inflation and high interest rates of the 70s and 80s. Of course the young have an excuse. They were promised in Labour’s manifesto free University education, higher wages, and the old more spending on welfare and social care. They are the now generation and have grown up with exceptionally low inflation. This is not a Conservative manifesto it is baic economics. We as a population are childish and naive. We want something for nothing. We all want jam tomorrow. The current political situation is a reflection of lack of honesty from politicians of all parties who have failed to address the major issues of national income and national debt. If we want good health care and good social care then it has to be paid for. That means tax not borrowing. The trident row is another good example, Whatever the merits of a nuclear deterrent the cost argument is farcical. Trident cost is £100bn for whole life i.e. less than the cost of one year’s NHS spending.

I sometimes think the entire population is unable to understand basic mathematics in particular what a percentage is i.e. the tax take example above. If we really want to sort out public finances.Institue of Financial Studies produced this in 2015. Suggested reading

And a quote from that document my emphasis – “Of the big three taxes:
  • a 1 percentage point rise in all rates of income tax would raise £5.5 billion;
  • a 1 percentage point rise in all employee and self-employed National Insurance
  • contribution (NIC) rates would raise £4.9 billion;
  • a 1 percentage point rise in the main rate of VAT would raise £5.2 billion.
If we want £10bn more for the NHS per year we need 2% on basic rate and we will all have less to spend.

Re-Moaners and Trump’eters

Posted on by
2

Re-Moaners and Trump’eters respective terms for Remain campaigners in Brexit and Donald J Trump supporters

Another few weeks drift past and yet the same issues which seem to have been in the news all year, remain.

The US never-ending election still has over 3 weeks to run and just when you think the behaviour and approach of both camps can’t get any worse, they manage to achieve it. If it’s not sexual abuse allegations, it’s more leaked emails. I pity the American voter. I thought our choice this side of the Atlantic was pretty bad, but the candidates there look appalling.

I watched the clip of Gary Johnson who is apparently also standing as a Libertarian Party candidate – I mean really? Over five years into a civil war in Syria and this man who wants to be President of the most powerful nation on earth, does not know what Aleppo is.

At least Trump and Clinton have managed to answer some questions on the subject. It’s not unusual for foreign affairs (not the sexual kind) to play little part in a US election, but one might have expected that confrontations with Russia over Syria, Ukraine and Crimea, to have some impact. Likewise, relations with China over the Spratley Islands rather than ridiculous notions of simplistic arguments over manufacturing jobs in the US should have some policy. It remains completely unreported what either candidate’s plans for North Korea are. Better not ask Trump, but his rhetoric can’t be worse than the accusations from US Security services that NK was behind the Sony attack.

What still amazes many commentators, is that Trump is still popular with large swathes of the US electorate despite all the gaffes. It demonstrates how unpopular Clinton is, but more importantly, how upset many American voters are with the established political class which Clinton embodies.  Here we have some of the parallels with the UK EU debate, despite the referendum.

Although there is an element of the moaning bad loser side in some of the pronouncements from what was the remain side, many did set out the risks to the economy an no-vote would bring. Several senior economists have stated that the currency changes that we have seen since end of June were a long overdue correction to Sterling’s position just exasperated by the vote for exit and on-going uncertainty of what that means. In the percentages shown everything is referred to the currency position post 23rd June, failing as usual to mention that Sterling’s value had risen significantly in the lead up to the vote.

The Euro’s value over 5 years from here shows a different story than the headlines might have you believe. On 19th Oct 2011 the exchange rate was 1.14 and it closed on 14th Oct 2016 at 1.11. In particular, the rise of the pound in 2015 and the lead up to the vote is dramatic. US Dollar to Sterling is a significant fall over the same period 1.57 to 1.21 and the comments on reserve currencies should be concerning, but at the same time interest rates have been signalled upwards in the US, and stay the same or lower in the UK. That does not help Sterling investors. By the way, Euro to US Dollar has gone down from 1.37 to 1.11 in the same time period.

I have picked an arbitrary period but some of us can remember much better and worse Pound to Dollar rates. It reached a low of 1.05 in February 1985 after the ERM fiasco, and was as high as 2.11 in November 2007 as sub-prime crashed the dollar

What do we learn from that brief history? Currencies fluctuate, sometimes by a lot, and thousands of traders around the world make money doing that.

Final discussion for today is on Credit Rating Agencies and their comments. Yes the same folks that branded those sub-prime investment funds as AAA, are doing all their warnings on where the pound might go next. All the discussion is based on what the UK might do as if what might happen in the Euro, (How is Greece by the way and Italy, Portugal, Spain?) will have no impact. Remember Euro zone and other EU exports to the UK, exceed UK Exports to the EU – we both have a lot to lose if we are stupid and put in unnecessary tariffs. World trade will be damaged if Trump introduced tariffs to protect American jobs and cancels NAFTA. Likewise, what will be the impact on the dollar if Trump wins and implements that piece of rhetoric.

Guess what the pound might go up or down or sideways. Can we moan about currency traders instead?

For Oval Office satire try One Morning In The Office

Brexit and Democracy

Posted on by
2

I have managed to not blog on the EU Referendum result or the lead up to it for a couple of weeks. The Brexit and Democracy issue remains. I remained undecided until I walked into the voting booth. I was as amazed as anyone else when the result went through. Even more amazed by the reaction of some remain supporters. Yes, there were some foolish potentially racist comments posted in the aftermath although I was not aware Polish was a race, nor Muslim.

Accusing leave voters of being racists, Nazis, stupid, working class idiots also does not hold good for democracy either. Scotland’s histrionics just add to the noise. Clearly the SNP does not understand what democracy is. Scotland voted to stay in the UK, the UK voted to leave. To claim that the Scottish referendum would have been different if the EU result was known is a great way of re-writing history or wishful thinking. It’s not as if the Conservative Party’s promise to hold an EU referendum was a secret.

Perhaps instead of blaming England the SNP leadership had spent more time in England convincing English voters to Remain the result might have been different; but that’s a lot of votes (1.3m) to change. Isn’t democracy an awful form of government except all the others, to misquote Churchill I think. Could someone please give Donald Tursk and Claude Junker a lesson in how democracy really works. Again, perhaps if they had spent time trying to persuade the UK how great the EU was rather than trying to scare the living daylights out of the electorate the result might have been different. Same for Merkel, Allande etc.

The argument on young people wanting to remain is also difficult to substantiate. Given information is opinion poll based i.e. a good guess, it appears that 65% of the so called 18-24 year old surveyed could not be bothered to vote. Then again 28% of the electorate did not bother either. Compulsory voting anyone?

Yes, I can also calculate that 52% of 72% of the 39.5m voting population of 65m UK (and Gibraltar) total population is not a majority but neither is 48% of the same numbers. The rules were passed in Parliament. Did you campaign for any decision to require 66.6% majority to change or a 75% turnout. Are you aggrieved that a Scottish golf course voted to keep women out because it also had a two-thirds majority rule.

Should we have a two thirds for a new referendum on staying in to reverse this advisory decision? How about two thirds for Scotland to leave UK? I don;t mind but don’t try to change the rules afterwards. I personally think that the England football team should be given a two goal head start for every game and only blind players should be allowed in the opposition team. Unfortunately, those are not the rules. Perhaps I should approach FIFA to get them changed or cheer Iceland on.

Anyway what is done is done, and that is democracy, however flawed – sorry BBC, parliamentarians and so on – so lets have some facts. Could have done with some of these in the debate.

  • The UK has not left the EU, the single market or anything else – yet.
  • It has carried out an advisory referendum which will require a formal notification to the EU Council of Ministers invoking Article 50. According to constitutional experts, to do this will require an Act of Parliament in the UK. No such Act has been added to the Bill list – yet. This is because the EU treaties are enshrined in UK law therefore to break them will require one or more different Acts of Parliament
  • It is for the UK to submit this notice not for the EU other heads of state, or the bureaucrats to demand it as soon as possible or any other time. By having meetings without the UK present you are acting as if it has happened when it has not.
  • The Prime Minister at least for the next few weeks remains David Cameron
  • The leader of Her Majesty’s Loyal opposition at at 2nd July 12:00 BST, remains Jeremy Corbyn
  • The Conservative Government still holds a majority of 12 in the House of Commons
  • George Osbourne is still The Chancellor – doom, gloom, disaster and inaccurate economic forecasts since 2010
  • The UK is still one nation by treaty – and the UK does not consist of London Westminster bubble and Nicola Sturgeon trying to leave it.
  • The UK is still a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council
  • The UK is in, and is the 2nd largest contributor to NATO. Some members of the EU are not in that organisation – so much for helping security
  • The UK has the 5th or 6th largest economy in the World
  • The UK is also a key member of the IMF, WTO, WHO etc.
  • The UK has multiple separate treaties with many if not all EU members most of which pre-date the EU. The immigration treaty with France covering Channel Tunnel etc, is newer but it is not an EU treaty it still applies unless the UK or France wish to cancel it. We have treaties with lots of other countries to
  • London’s financial centre is still the biggest in the world and London is amazingly still in the UK
  • There are 27 other countries in the EU but 180 outside including some not insignificant countries like the USA, China, India etc. The EU has no trade agreement with these. It spent 7 years getting a minor agreement complete with Canada. The UK with Canada could probably agree one in 7 months.
  • The UK is the largest importer of German manufactured auto-mobiles and French Champagne – shall we tariff that?
  • Half of the UK’s net immigration is not from the EU and one of the candidates to be Prime Minister has been in charge of that for years. Net population growth remains the issue, not where the growth comes from.
  • In other news
    • Donald Trump might win the US presidency
    • Migrants are still dying off the coast of the EU
    • IS is still carrying out terrorist attacks
    • The Syrian civil war is going on – still
    • Wales are still in Euros (congrats and please advise England how to play football)
    • Its been raining – a lot – yes I know Wimbledon is on
    • We still pay tax – clearly global companies and the very rich are excluded from the comment – some of them in London finance – they might move
    • We will all die – sometime
    • The sun will rise in the East and set in the West

By the way it was a secret ballot but I will confess to voting out the first and only time I have ever stated who I actually voted for. I am clearly a working class, racist idiot who does not understand anything. I have never voted for Boris as I am not a Londoner or in his constituency, nor can i or could I vote for Corbyn or Cameron as MPs. I could have joined the parties and voted for them but I have better things to do with my life. – like most of the population.

Or maybe I think that the UK Parliament is sovereign for the UK, not 27 other countries who have different legal systems and cultures. I never got to vote to go in, nor did anyone else. I was too young to vote to stay-in, so this was my first ever opportunity to have a say – yours too unless you were over 18 in 1975 . No mainstream political party (ignoring UKIP) has offered this change at a General Election since Labour changed policy at the last referendum (Corbyn has as well despite being an out campaigner for decades).

Is the sun out yet?

Music and Musing – OK, The EU Referendum As Well

Posted on by
Reply

My first creative writing outside school work was actually music lyrics. The words were my first artistic adventures and continued for many years. The few poems on this site are really lyrics for various songs that I have written over the years. Music still inspires me and has the power to move me like no other art form. I like to think I have a wide taste in genres from classical (including some opera) through to modern pop, although rap is a real effort whilst appreciating the skill of the lyricist.

I appreciate art, as in painting and sculpture, in the same way, but I do not find it moves me in the same way as music, likewise theatre. I did write a short story, Landscape, with art as the background attempting to convey my love of some paintings. Musical theatre does have that impact, whereas opera tends to get lost for me except the odd aria. Probably the language barrier but also the variations in the notes – a complaint I have with much Jazz.

The language barrier (not necessarily the artistic barrier – ignore the Eurovision song contest) of course applies to our European colleagues, the focus of much of the debate in the referendum. There is not just a language barrier but also a cultural and legal one. Many European countries have a legal system based on Roman/Napoleonic basis, (France and other codified legal systems) or are federated states (UK has devolved power to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland but not England) as opposed to common law based on precedent with juries. The EU is codified leading I believe, to many of the clashes we have seen with the ECJ and the slow but creeping codification of the UK’s laws driven from the EU – a background driver for the sovereignty debate i.e. where UK precedent can be overruled by a codified European Court causing a codified change to UK law.

I remain undecided. I have written before about my concern with population growth. This issue is mixed up with immigration, asylum and the crisis facing the world (not just the EU) The increase in the world’s population is staggering

Population
World population

As is the UK’s from Migration watch but using ONS numbers

UK Pop
UK population Migration Watch

The future projections which are based on net migration levels plus the impact of the new population having children must be addressed. Regardless of what happens in the referendum, and associated immigration policy, the increases of the last ten years will have a major impact on schools, housing, healthcare, etc. for generations. More cars, more use of public transport, and it takes years to get infrastructure in place to cope from London airport runways to sewer mains.

I grew up at a time when the net birth rate was thought to be falling below 2, i.e. population decline. This has now reversed and we have added a massive increase in life expectancy which impacts the same things plus pensions but with a disproportionate impact on health and social care.

As with many undecided I am annoyed with the quality and tone of the debate making it very hard to decipher fact from fiction or forecasts or the real risks in either choice.

The In campaigners fail to talk about the impact of ever closer union (yes UK may have an opt out) when EU policy is pursued. Especially the efforts of Eurozone countries to support the currency. We will be outside (we already are) that decision process. i.e. if EU funds are used to support an in-crisis Eurozone country ahead of a non Eurozone country purely to help stabilise the Eurozone and prevent another crisis. I have just returned from Greece – that crisis has not gone away. The impact on the UK and the financial systems is there regardless of membership status. Outside the Eurozone the UK has zero ability to influence policy in or out. The only way we could would be to stay in and join the Euro! That is something that has been ruled out by most euro campaigners, which seems illogical if we really want to be at the table and have a say on the future of the EU.

The Out campaigners fail to address the risk and the economic forecasts, ignoring many supposedly qualified commentators. Albeit, being lectured by American bankers (Merrill Lynch) and other big businesses does not go down well. Of course economic forecasters are well known for their accuracy; from the IMF to the Treasury we can clearly believe everything they say. Growth rates, employment rates, financial products. That is sarcasm by the way, in case anyone thought that I think economic forecasting has a better success rate than weather forecasting beyond the next 24 hours.

The pleas from foreign leaders feel forced and in some cases (USA) hypocritical. Of course the USA wants the UK in the EU. It means there is some check from the UK on various EU proposals on trade, data and competition so that USA interests are protected.

For EU leaders, if you are so desperate for the UK to remain, Mrs Merkel, why did you not offer a better reform package to the UK when Cameron was running around Europe before the referendum was announced? Actually, why haven’t you reformed the EU thus making the changes needed before a referendum was called?

I cannot abstain. I believe in voting, there should be more of it. I just do not know what is the best decision, for me, my family, the generations to come and my country. I do believe that the EU would be a worse institution without the UK in it but would the UK be worse? I do not just mean economically, but worse in a generic sense. Would the UK be a worse place to live or better?  If someone can give me a clear answer to that and address the population growth issue (not just the immigration issue) I would be grateful.

Whatever the outcome of the vote, I can still write words and occasionally music. The paintings will remain in the galleries. Life will go on. The world will not stop and the 6.5 billion people who live outside the EU (with or without the UK) will continue to have their lives. The population will continue to increase, and the poor and scared will desperately seek a better life wherever that may be.