The ties that bind could become the rope that hangs

On June 23rd the electorate in Britain will go to the polls to decide the country’s future, or lack thereof, in the European Union.  Already the main story is about which Conservative heavyweights will back their leader’s play and fight to stay in Europe, and which ones will join the campaign to get out.  With all the infighting the actual hard facts and scary truths of the EU referendum stand a good chance of being missed.
Britain is no longer “Great” in the way that the leave campaign would like people to think. We don’t have an empire anymore and no matter how much the man in the street may want one we aren’t going to again. Europe provides us with the best possible outcome in an imperfect world to maintain at least someone dominance in international affairs, as well as relevance.
Trade with the EU counts for approximately 45% of Britain’s total exports and 53% of its imports come from the bloc, based on 2014 figures.  The amount of finance generated by trading with other countries outside the EU pales into insignificance. Leaving the EU will not change the fact that we still need to trade with it, all it will mean is that we have to pay higher rates to do so and have no say in the tariffs and regulations in place which monitor it. British companies will still have to meet EU regulations, however, this time they won’t be able to have a say in what those regulations actually are, inevitably leading to a tiered system which will create immeasurable damage, particularly for small to medium sized enterprises.
There are those who claim that we can cover the trade deficit by increasing exports to non-EU states. While this may seem like a nice idea on paper the practicality is that it will fail. The majority of arrangements we have in place with countries outside of the European Union are based, at least tacitly, on the idea that Britain will act as a gateway to the rest of Europe. An easy option for trading with the whole so to speak. The exogenous impact of leaving Europe is incalculable, not because it doesn’t matter but because it matters so much. Britain would be economically crippled.
The same goes for the financial sector. London acts as a useful node for business not despite its ties to Europe but because of them. France is already punching to have a greater say in global economic affairs and it is not in the least unrealistic to see a shift in dominance from the City to Paris should the UK up and leave.
Then there is the question of security. Out campaigning Works and Pensions Secretary Ian Duncan Smith has claimed that to remain in Europe puts Britain at ever greater risk of a Paris style attack due to open borders. As Britain will always have at least one back door to Europe in Ireland this is a moot point all on its own. Add in the fact that the security arrangements created by our ties to Europe would be weakened and it quickly becomes clear that it is obfuscation at best, lying at worst. Mumbai is not a member of the EU bloc and that didn’t prevent attacks against the city.
The European union is far from perfect it is however here to stay no matter how much the “Out Campaign” may want it to be otherwise. For expats it provides a measure of security which they will not be afforded upon Brexit and for those living in the country it is essential for economic success and security. To think that leaving will mean that we are no longer tied is inconceivable. It just means that the ties which bind us will become the rope which hangs us.

Brexit would break Britain

THE main problem with the Eurosceptic campaigns is that Britain doesn't deal well with isolation.
Despite its resolute status as an island nation for most of its history the United Kingdom has been reliant on resources outside of its own borders. Culturally and economically it isn't geared towards going it alone.
There are unquestionably some areas of  Britain's membership of the European Union which could potentially do with a bit of a dust down and shake up but for the most part we are better off for our part in it.
The strangely cereal sounding "Brexit" as the tabloids have coined it is not the way though. For all the benefits, of which there are few, which may materialise shortly thereafter the long term damage would feasibly cripple the UK economy. Meanwhile any argument which could highlight the benefits of leaving will automatically be eclipsed by the economic issues surrounding both the in and out campaigns.
The rallying cry of the right "£55million spent daily on EU membership" may make a good Daily Mail headline but it misses a fundamental point of business, you have to spend money to make money.
First off the figure of £55million which has been quoted  by some of those pushing for Britain to jump out of the EU boat is a gross miscalculation of the data. This is primarily as it is taken from gross rather than net figures, which, based on 2012 statistics, placed the net daily contribution at £33million.
Even this figure is heavily skewed as it takes into account non-fiscal factors, or more simply it guesses at possible losses caused by such factors as the Common Agricultural Policy, lost jobs through free trade and labour movement with other EU states and additional costs from regulations.
On a household basis the cost of the EU paid by the government is actually knocked down to approximately  £20million per day.
At this point this amount then needs to be offset against the negotiated rebates Britain already has, roughly £8million, so the figure of £55million is now down to £12million. Even these figures, however, based as they are on EU spending and investment returns can be debated further when compared to United Kingdom Treasury figures, which are based on central government calculations and only factor in “official” government transactions rather than the money saved and spent by British households.
This amount could still be seen as too much by those who want to see an isolated Britain though, after all why spend £12million when you could be spending none and keep that money in your own treasury? Here in lies the crux of the matter the “off the books” money. The EU currently counts for approximately 45% of UK exports, based on 2015 figures. Meanwhile Britain relies on the favourable terms for trade it has with countries in the bloc to facilitate 53% of its annual imports, all of which will cost more following an exit from trade agreements.
Then there is the external trade factors. America, China, India et al have already expressed concern over a British exit. For all its former glory Britain isn’t seen as a key trading partner for non-EU countries because of what it once was. It is seen instead as a gateway to the rest of Europe. Preferential trade agreements are based on the idea that it will smooth the way for larger deals on mainland Europe. Brexit removes this impetus and will rapidly drive foreign direct investment out of the UK and elsewhere.
The long and short of it that leaving the EU may be a boon for some historic ideal of an solitary powerful Britain but it doesn’t face the facts of the current global economy. For Britain to survive it must integrate. Brexit would do nothing more than break Britain.

Leaving Europe is a bad breakup we don't need

The future of Europe is one of those great discussions where it doesn't appear to actually matter if someone knows what is going on for them to make a contribution.
This is a good thing otherwise I would obviously be unable to wrIte about it.
In recent weeks the call from Conservative MP's to leave the EU, or at least calling for such unacceptable changes to the treaty agreement that they leave little other choice, has grown to more than 100. The Conservatives' For Britain group has appeared in a ghastly parliamentary parody of a bad boyfriend deliberately making unreasonable demand in the hopes that his girlfriend will break up with him and leave him looking like the injured party.
At the time of writing British MP's are debating the European Union Referendum Bill, the legislation required for the much heralded in out referendum to take place in 2017. As forgone conclusions go this was a safe bet. Everyone knows that it will pass. There is just too much pressure for a referendum to take place for it not to. It isn't whether we have a referendum now which matters, it is how we vote in that referendum.
The EU is far from perfect and in many ways could do with significant reform. This won't happen just because Britain stamps it's feet and cries though. It won't happen quickly and it most certainly won't happen in one go. The eurosceptics pushing for a renegotiation of the UK membership, supported by a number of disgruntled failed cabinet ministers looking to put the boot in,  know this. If they don't then they have either deluded  themselves or they really should not be allowed close to the debate. They know that the EU cannot change just because Britain says so. Likewise it won't even consider changing when there is a chance that the UK could leave anyway. International politics is a game and relies on states playing it in order to maximise their own preferences and gains.
The question which should be being debated in parliament is what is in it for everyone else. If we were serious about requesting reforms which would ensure that we stayed in the EU then we should be looking at how other states perceive their positions and what the relative gains will be. At the moment Britain had offered nothing in return for getting everything it wants.
An additional issue, and one which seems to be lost on many eurosceptics, is that leaving the EU will diminish Britain's absolute gains on the international stage. At present the United States sees the UK as a gateway into dealing with the rest of Europe. With its exit Britain's special relationship will sour quickly. This is of course something which will please the more nationalistic elements of the debate and what they are hoping for. The problem is that as the UK loses a great deal of support from America's declining hegemony it will lose its importance on the international stage.
This split will lead to a loss of trade which on its own could have been absorbed. Combined with the loss of trade and resources from Europe however it will prove crippling. Trade with China, based in no small measure with an understanding of Britain's ties to the US and its access to the EU economy, will not take long to dry up.
Britain is no longer an empire and it seems that too many people have forgotten this. We live and work in a globalised networked society. An EU exit has only one possible outcome for the UK, economic isolation and collapse. Better the long crawl to reform than the short sprint to crisis.

Referendum sees Scotland stay

WHILE Scottish unionists plan for the future after defeat over independence Prime Minister David Cameron has promised an English parliament along with devolution.

The result was called after the No lead became unassailable, despite not all of the 32 Scottish councils having called their results. 

With approximately 55 per cent of people voting in favour of remaining part of the United Kingdom, against 45 per cent in favour of independence, the vote was not as close as many had predicted based upon recent polls.  

Scotland's First Minister, and leader of the pro-independence Yes campaign, Alex Salmond, has acknowledged the defeat: "It is important to say that our referendum was an agreed and consented process and Scotland has by a majority decided not at this stage to become an independent country.

"I accept that verdict of the people and I call on all of Scotland to follow suit in accepting the democratic verdict of the people of Scotland."

Meanwhile his former opponent, leader of the No Campaign Alistair Darling, hailed the victory and called upon Scots to work together to heal the divisions in the country.

"It is a momentous result for Scotland and also for the United Kingdom as a whole," he said.

Adding that the result "reaffirmed all that we have in common and the bonds that tie us together", adding: "Let them never be broken."

With the result still a lot closer than many in Westminster would have preferred Mr Cameron will be under pressure to keep to his promises of further devolution of powers to Scotland. 

The proposals made in the dying days of the No Campaign have caused widespread concern among English, Welsh and Irish voters who feel that too much has been sacrificed to keep the union together. Amongst the fears that many have is that Scotland will have too much control over England while being able to deal with their own affairs. 

Mr Salmond has made it clear that despite his side losing the fight has not ended and he wants to ensure that Mr Cameron doesn't back away from his devolution promises.

He told supporters: "The unionist parties made vows late in the campaign to devolve more powers to Scotland.

"Scotland will expect these to be honoured in rapid course - as a reminder, we have been promised a second reading of a Scotland Bill by March 27 next year.

"Not just the 1.6 million Scots who voted for independence will demand that timetable is followed but all Scots who participated in this referendum will demand that timetable is followed."

"Today of all days as we bring Scotland together, let us not dwell on the distance we have fallen short, let us dwell on the distance we have travelled and have confidence the movement is abroad in Scotland that will take this nation forward and we shall go forward as one nation."

Mr Darling appeared to back Mr Salmond's calls for devolution to be pushed forward. During his victory speech the former chancellor said: "More than 85% of the Scottish population has voted. People who were disengaged from politics have turned out in large numbers.

"While they have voted on the constitution, that was not the only or perhaps the major issue that drove them to the polls.

"Every political party must listen to their cry for change, which could be echoed in every part of our United Kingdom but had this opportunity to express itself in Scotland."

Speaking shortly after 7am this morning Mr Cameron spoke of how he was passionate about the country staying together and that what was important now was doing what was right for all countries in the union.

During the course of his speech Mr Cameron made it clear that he would look at creating an English parliament to decide English laws in an shake up of the entire political structure of the union.

Making it clear that he felt the debate for independence had been settled for now Mr Cameron said: "The people of Scotland have spoken and it is a clear result. They have kept our country of four nations together and like millions of other people I am delighted." Adding that now what was needed was a new and fair settlement" for not just Scotland, but also England, Wales and Northern Ireland.

While the battle to keep Scotland in the Union may have ended for now the fight for further Scottish powers begins. With Scotland likely to get substantial new autonomy it is the 'English question' which could turn out to be the bloodier battle for Mr Cameron. 

Passion not politics will decide Scotland's future

IN A SIGN that the pressure is building the leaders of the three main parties will travel to Scotland today to promote the better together campaign.

Forgoing Prime Minister Questions David Cameron, Ed Milliband and Nick Clegg are hoping that by providing a united front they will sway undecided voters to their side.

With eight days to go until the referendum the trio may find that it is too little too late, particularly as in an attempt not to alienate current supporters they will not be appearing on the same platform. Instead the 'united front' will be more of a three pronged attack as they travel to different parts of the country to give impassioned pleas to Scots to remain in the United Kingdom.

In a joint statement yesterday Messrs Cameron, Milliband and Clegg stressed that keeping Scotland in the union was their priority.

"That's why all of us are agreed the right place for us to be tomorrow is in Scotland, not at prime minister's questions in Westminster.

"We want to be listening and talking to voters about the huge choices they face. Our message to the Scottish people will be simple: 'We want you to stay.'"

With recent polls showing the two sides level and the Yes campaign still gaining momentum this last ditch attempt to play on the passions and emotions of voters may not be enough to stave off a split next week though.

Leader of the Yes Campaign Alex Salmond has called the move a sign that the No campaign is panicking as the threat of Scottish independence looms large on the horizon.

 "'I relish David Cameron, Ed Miliband and Nick Clegg coming to Scotland - collectively, they are the least trusted Westminster leaders ever, and this day trip will galvanise the 'Yes' vote.

"No-one believes their panicked pledges - it is a phoney timetable for measly powers. A 'Yes' vote delivers a real timetable for the full powers that Scotland needs."

He added: "The No side have lost their poll lead, and people are switching directly over to Yes - if David Cameron thinks he is the answer to the No campaign's disintegration disarray, let him put his case to the test in a head-to-head debate."

The recent news from polling results will not be adding to the confidence of the No campaign. Having already thrown Gordon Brown into the fight in a desperate bid to appeal to core labour voters they are now showing that they have started to realise that this campaign will be won on emotions rather than logic.

Where the campaign has failed is that it has tried to combat Mr Salmond's passionate patriotic propaganda with rational arguments, most notably about currency. This is not going to be a vote based on the head though. When people vote on independence it will be with their hearts. For months cries of "Freedom" and "Bannockburn" have resonated far more than "the pound" and "taxes". As both sides enter the final leg one day of passion may not be close to enough to save this troubled marriage.

Scots debate needs to be about more than sterling

WITH less than four weeks to go until Scots can decide on the future of the United Kingdom tonight's debate must be about more than just currency.

When Alex Salmond and Alistair Darling last confronted one another it was Mr Darling who many viewers saw as victorious. Despite a hesitant start his pounding away at the question of what would be a "plan B" if Scotland did not get the pound left Mr Salmond bloodied and shaken.

In the proceeding weeks Mr Salmond has continued to fail spectacularly in being able to answer the sterling question. Instead he, and others from the Yes Campaign, has belligerently stuck to his argument that the pound is as much Scotland's as it is England's. With so many questions still unanswered it would appear an irrelevance to attempt to make Mr Salmond see sense and state his back up plan, when he has continued to refuse to do so for so long.

It would seem, however, as another childish tug of war over the pound will be the opening gambit as the first area to debate will be the economy. Instead though it may make sense to discuss the recent revelations that the pro-independence campaign may have vastly overestimated the amount of oil reserves they are relying on. Oil economist and current SNP leader Mr Salmond has argued that his forecasts are correct and an independent Scotland would receive in the region of 7bn of whatever currency seemed appropriate. Meanwhile the head of the Aberdeen based Scottish oil services firm Wood Group, Sir Ian Wood, has warned that actual figures could be half this. If this is the case then it raises serious questions about how an independent Scotland would be sustainable. With Mr Salmond relying on all his predicted oil revenue, and more, to finance his health and education plans any indication that they might not be accurate needs addressing.

"The offshore oil and gas industry cannot figure significantly in Scotland's medium-term economic calculations," Wood said. "Young voters in the referendum will only be in their 40s when they will see the significant rundown in the Scottish offshore oil and gas sector, and the serious implications for our economy, jobs and public services."

Based on the pre-released debate format the two campaign leaders will be limited to what they can discuss by four compartmentalised areas of debate, each started off with a question from the audience. Following the discussion over the economy will be "Scotland at home", "Scotland in the world" before ending on the most important question "what happens after the vote?" 

With a recent YouGov poll giving topline figures of 38% for the Yes Campaign, a three percent increase on previous poll, and 51% to the No Campaign, a four percent drop, it still looks likely that it will be the undecided voters who have the most impact on the referendum. As Mr Darling has already pointed out Mr Salmond is continuing to play to nationalist voters who have already made up their minds. For many this debate will be a crucial factor in their decision making process and as such a clear answer on what will happen after the vote may be the game changer for both sides, not who keeps the pound. 

Not so united on EU

DAVID Cameron's humiliating defeat in Europe last week may have failed to cement Britain's position in the bloc but it has reinvigorated the calls for a referendum.

Conservative MP Bob Neill has confirmed that he will be reintroducing the European Union Parliament Referendum Bill in the next parliamentary session, which could see the UK leave the Union by 2017.

Mr Neill has stated that while personally he would prefer that Britain stays within the EU the final decision should be placed in the hands of the electorate.

“I would prefer a successful outcome, but you never go into a negotiation showing your hand or ruling out any course of action.”

He added: “I’d like to vote to stay but I could vote to leave. But I hope we do not come to that situation.”

Meanwhile, having pledged support for the Labour Party at the General Election, Unite leader Len McClusky has added his voice to the debate. Mr McClusky has called on Labour officials to throw their support behind a referendum.

Stating the union's position Mr McClusky said: "It calls on Labour not to box itself in on the referendum question. This issue has bedevilled British politics for decades. For much of that time it has been the Tories who have had to deal with divisions in their ranks over Europe. But the next general election will be different. Both Ukip and the Tories will be offering a referendum on the issue of Britain's membership."

Shadow Chancellor Ed Balls has dismissed the idea as "silly".

Mr Balls told BBC2's Newsnight: "That would be a silly thing for us to say.

"We made a very clear commitment: if there is any proposal in the next parliament for a transfer of powers to Brussels we will have an in/out referendum.

"We are not proposing a referendum now because we think to spend two or three years blighting investment and undermining our economy on the prospect of a referendum which David Cameron says he is going to have after he gets an unknown package of reforms would be bad for jobs and investment.

"If Len McCluskey is supporting the David Cameron position, I disagree with Len McCluskey."

Earlier this week Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg fended off moves by senior members of his party to join with other parties on taking a stance on the referendum.

Speaking in defence of the Deputy Prime Minister's position A senior Lib Dem was reported as telling journalists: "Our views are clear. When the rules of the European Union change there will be a referendum as we have enshrined in law. Some people may think it would be seductive to change our position on Europe but we are not going to spend the next ten months banging on about the referendum bill. We will leave that to others."

While the debate is sure to intensify as the General Election draws closer for now the decision hinges on whether Mr Cameron will continue his campaign in Europe.

Answering MP's questions the Prime Minister said: "I think it is in the national interest to renegotiate our position in Europe, to secure the changes I have set out. I don’t start the negotiations believing we won’t achieve those things, I set out wanting to achieve them… but I will always do what is in the national interest."

More haste less speed for Ukrainian referendum

AS TENSIONS continue to run high following yesterday's referendums in Eastern Ukraine international observers have warned of the potential for civil war in the country.
With reports this morning of Ukrainian military forces preparing to resume operations in the city of Slavyansk this may not be so far fetched. Governments across Europe have joined with America to condemn the referrendum as illegal and pledged to support authorities in Kiev. Even the pro-seperatists greatest ally, the government of Russian President Vladimir Putin, called for the vote to be postponed to allow the situation to de-escalate.
While the West has continued to threaten further sanctions against Russia it is possible that it may have been the only one suggesting a sensible solution.
The issue is not that regions of Eastern Ukraine may split away from the country, nor even that they may wish to join Russia. The crucial factor is the speed at which they are doing it.
In the United Kingdom the thorny issue of Scottish independence is set to be resolved on September 18th. Groups on both sides of the debate have had months to put forward their opinions.Even the most ardent Scottish nationalists accept that there are complex issues involved in creating a seperate country. The economic implications alone are enough to baffle some of the most educated in the debate and need careful analysis.
In Donetsk, and other Eastern regions, there has not been time for the electorate to fully understand what a call for independence may mean. There has not even been enough time to ensure that the system for voting was set up to be impartial and effective.
Yesterday's referendum highlighted how disorganised the pro-seperatist movement is. Queues outside hastily contructed polling stations feared that they would not have an opportunity to submit their ballot. Security was compromised as results were intercepted and released before voting had been completed. This is completely aside from the obvious implications of bias, which have been so roundly condemned by the West.
What was needed was time. If, as in Scotland, a true referendum had been arranged for a suitable time in the future the West would have little defence to condemn the decison. Even the counting was conducted at speed, with results released showing 89.07 per cent of the turnout voting in favour of leaving Ukraine.
The pro-seperatists aknowledge that the vote will not be recognised by the international community so its purpose is still in question. With a little more time they may have been able to make a case, and in so doing garnered much needed support outside their own borders and diminished the threat of armed conflict.

Posted via Blogaway

Ukrainian referendum takes deadly turn

As Eastern Ukrainians in the regions of Donetsk and Luhansk vote on their future the world watches on and tensions run high. Reports are already coming in of clashes in Krasnoarmeysk leaving one dead and others injured as National Guardsmen open fire.

According to reports from journalists on the ground the bloodshed took place after guardsmen shut down voting in the referendum which could see the region split from Ukraine. The shooting has already started to raise questions about how much control the Ukrainian government in Kiev has over the pro-Ukrainian forces in the region.

Monika Kalinowska,@mkalinowskaa, who was visiting the area, reported on Twitter that she had witnessed the shootings from the Guardsmen. “Before the shooting took place in Krasnoarmeysk people were negotiating with the ‘national guards in the adm building,” she tweeted prior, adding “they have told people that they are here peacefully and were asking for cigarettes, next thing we know they are starting shooting.”

With the voting stations now closed and the counting started there are hopes in the region that the situation will start to calm tonight ahead of tomorrow’s announcement, however, with Ukrainian officials reasserting their stance that the referendums are illegal these hopes seem slim.

“This is a step into the abyss for the regions,” warned Ukrainian acting President Oleksandr Turchynov yesterday (Saturday).

Meanwhile the escalation of fighting in the region comes as reports state that 400 Blackwater Mercenaries arrived in the area to support pro-Ukrainian forces. Blackwater has been surrounded by controversy following accusations of killing civilians while deployed in Iraq.  Western governments’, including America, Britain, France and Germany, have condemned the referendums as illegal and threatened harsh sanctions against Russia if they are allowed to be recognised.

Not everyone in the international community is taking the same stance. Venezuelan authorities have already warned that they will not back any efforts in Ukraine. In a statement released to the media officials from the Foreign Ministry said that they would “not recognise as legal a government that emerged as a result of a state coup. In view of the regrettable developments of events in Ukraine, the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela confirms that it rejects violent processes that, with the support of the United States and NATO, led to the overthrow of the government, jeopardising the peace and the unity of the Ukrainian people as well as the stability of the entire Eurasian region.”

Until the votes are counted and the results announced tomorrow (Monday) both sides of the debate will be left powerless to do anything more than take part in a war of words. For the people on the ground the situation may take a far more deadly turn.