Tories favour diesel farms over wind farms

Reblogging this from my energy blog….

1dieselgen

There are no sliver bullet solutions to the UK’s current energy problems. Wind power can certainly help, its led to big drops in the UK’s carbon footprint already, but only as part of a balanced energy diet within a grander overall energy strategy. However the Tories are hostile to wind power, preferring instead foreign owned nuclear and fracking, even thought neither is in a position to deliver any significant quantities of energy for some time to come.

This raises the risk of black outs if something isn’t done to plug the gap. So what is the Tory solution to this looming energy gap? Well instead of wind farms they favour diesel farms, clusters of diesel generators in fields up and down the country, subsidised by taxpayers I might add. If you ever want an illustration of everything that’s wrong with UK energy policy this is it, where to start with this one.

2449

Well for starters, diesel generators, while cheap to install are expensive to run. That’s why they are only ever used for generating electricity where there’s no other alternative (e.g. off grid power generation or backup generators). And with oil prices now on the way back up, those costs will start rising. They aren’t very efficient either. Yes a diesel engine in a car is more efficient than a petrol engine. But for power generation CCGT or IGCC plants have significantly greater efficiency. Potentially up to 55% efficient v’s at best 35% for diesel (and more typically 30% once the BoP is accounted for).

This also means that diesel generators are far more polluting, both in terms of carbon emissions and in terms of all the other gunk that comes out a fossil fuel plant. It beggars belief that someone can object to a wind turbine, yet look the other way to a bunch of these noisy beasts belching out carcinogenic fumes morning, noon and night. And again, if you are a UK resident, your paying for em. Carbon capture and storage is also a lot harder to implement with diesel farms than with the aforementioned gas cycle plants. So we lose that option too.

The irony is that I’ve long favoured the idea of distributed power generation, over centralised power stations. However, my preference is for CHP systems. They can run on a variety of fuels, including biomass or hydrogen (as a long term replacement for natural gas). And as we make use of the heat to meet winter heating demand (which represents a greater proportion of the UK’s energy demand than electricity remember), they are much more energy efficient, up to 85% efficiency is possible (so even running on fossil fuels, they’re 2.5 times better than diesel farms and nearly twice as efficient as a gas turbine plant).

So it would be all too easy to alter this policy slightly and achieve a similar result, just one that promotes renewable energy, cuts emissions, lower energy costs and helps keep homes warm in winter. So why is the government opting for diesel farms over CHP? Because CHP plant would be based in cities were the plebs live. You think home county toffs what money spent on keeping the great unwashed warm in winter! When instead they can earn a nice pot of cash putting a few diesels in some idle corner of their estate. Furthermore CHP might actually work (up to 40% of some European countries installed capacity is CHP), hence they’re will be no need for fracked gas or new nuclear plants. They are picking the worst possible energy option not despite it being so awful, but because it is so awful.

Any semblance of sensible energy policy has long been abandoned by the Tories. I think the UK’s post-brexit motto has to be go sell crazy some place else, we’re all stocked up here!

Globalisation and its discontents

A couple of years ago, if you were protesting against globalisation, you were assumed to be an anarchist or an eco-warrior. Nearly every major political party of right and left was signed up to the idea that globalisation was a good idea and that anyone who said otherwise was a wholly eared nutter.

_43002069_ap416behind

Globalisation has many opponents, anarchists, eco warriors, Trump, the far right….clowns, UKIP…..

However we now face the situation where the two major parties in the UK are essentially anti-globalisation (one hard left, the other authoritarian right). In America Trump is running on an anti-globalisation platform, while even Hilary has had to row back from her support of international trade agreements. What went wrong?

Firstly, I think it has to be acknowledged the benefits globalisation has brought. While I’d take the figures below from the world bank with a pinch of salt, it has to be said that globalisation has help lift millions out of poverty. It has helped push forward technological process, introduced us all to new ideas, its brought us multiculturalism, new and exotic tastes from far afield, and countries aren’t fighting world wars anymore (which is just as well given that we now have nuclear weapons). However it also must be said that experiences may vary. A rising tide has not lifted all ships.

inequality_world_bank_2016

This can be illustrated by the next graph, the so called “Elephant Graph” which plots the relative change in income over the last twenty years, depending on whether you are among the world’s poorest or richest. If you a subsistence farmer in the developing world (i.e. the very poorest) you’ve probably seen no change at all. If your one of the 10% of the world’s richest, you’ve had it pretty good over the two last decades. The working class and middle classes in Asia and the developing world have seen the most dramatic improvements of all, going in many cases from poverty to complaining about first world problems. If you are middle class in the West, you’ve seen some benefit, but you’ve probably noticed that others have gotten a lot better off and keeping up with the Joneses is that little bit harder. However, the working class in the West have seen very little change, indeed some are even worse off. This essentially is the heart of the problem.

_91520192_elephant_chart624_arrow

And the problem, I would argue, is that somewhere along the way globalisation got bundled up, much like those toxic CDO’s that brought on the financial crisis, it got repacked with a lot of toxic neo-liberalism and outdated and rotting lassie-faire nonsense. It was then sold on as a complete package. Countries and electorates were told that they couldn’t have one without the other. That they must sacrifice their labour rights, wages, privatise public services and downside the state, all for the sake of globalisation. Now that everyone’s worked out that out that this globalisation CDO is filled with neo-liberal dog shit, people want to throw it away rather than simply unpick the good bits from the bad.

2002-11-1620free20trade20agricultur

Not least because often the very people who sold this toxic CDO were the very neo-liberal types who packaged it up in the first place (i.e. parties like the Tories or the GOP) and the very same who are catching blowback from the consequences. And they are obviously reluctant to admit their error or abandon their long held ideology. Also their lies have started to catch up with them.

For years the go-to lie of many right wingers was to blame foreigners, poor people and organisations like the EU for all the worlds ills. Your local water supply has been privatised? Not our fault (even thought it was in our parties manifesto and one of our donors is on the hook to get the contract), the EU made us do it (only because we got the very legislation passed by them so we could dodge the flak!). Can’t get a hospital bed? that’s not because we failed to fund the NHS to account for an ageing society, its the fault of them nasty evil hobbits foreigners comin over here and overloading local services. Your taxes too high? No, its not because of our failure to make the rich pay their taxes, its them scroungers living on benefits that’s the problem.

So when Corbyn tries to blame globalisation for causing brexit, I would argue that this is not entirely correct. It was this toxic neo-liberal agenda that along the way got mixed up with globalisation that’s the problem, plus the aforementioned lies of the right wing media. Like the boy who cried wolf, unwilling to admit to their error, they proceeded with the referendum. But the pleb’s, who they’d spent the last twenty years telling that everything was the fault of the EU and foreigners, actually voted leave. Confronted with the fact that actually you can’t keep the single market and end free movement, so they’ve doubled down and are going for a hard brexit. Similarly in the US, Trump is the inevitable consequences of this bundling of globalisation with neo-liberalism and the decades of lies told to the public by the right wing media (i.e. blame foreigners, China and poor people for everything….so a guy who blames these for all of America’s problems is suddenly popular!). In both cases baby, bath, water, tub and rubber ducky goes over the side.

There is no reason why we can’t unpick the two things however. The countries that have done best out of globalisation have certainly done so, to varying degrees. Unsurprisingly, communist China does not subscribe to the principle of lassie faire. They will intervene to protect local industries when they feel its necessary. The Germans and many other EU countries have hung on to their welfare state, offering some protection to those effected by the negative consequences of globalisation. They’ve also resisted, to varying degrees, the privatisation of public services (often merely floating public services off into state owned quangos). And they are willing incentivize growth in certain key industries (German renewables for example). Brazil and India have also adopted a policy of resisting privatisation and are trying to build up their welfare states to make sure the benefits are more evenly distributed.

Granted not everything is rosy in these countries, China for example has a lot to do to improve workers rights and there’s still lots of people in India who are desperately poor. The defacto coup by right wing politicians in Brazil (essentially a neo-liberal push back against the aforementioned measures) is hardly a positive. However, one has to compare and contrast with the pre-globalisation situation – workers in China then had no rights period, pretty much everyone in India was desperately poor and Brazil was ruled by a military Junta. But clearly there is no reason for globalisation to remain coupled to neo-liberalism. There is in essence another way. But as noted, the political right, and even some elements of the hard left, are unlikely to do this as this would be a direct affront to their long held ideologies.

_91530997_protectionist_policies_g20_v2

However, rolling back globalisation will have consequences. Already there has been a growing trend of beggar-thy-neighbour style tit for tat protectionism. Unsurprisingly the US, the United States of France (a Time magazine jibe which is actually unfair on the French!) has been the worst offender. These measures however often end up being counter productive. As the BBC reports:

There was an outcry in 2012 when cheap Chinese tyres flooded into the US market, putting the viability of the domestic producers in question.

President Obama responded with punitive tariffs to get China “to play by the rules”.
The protectionist measures were well received in the US, but a study by the Peterson Institute established that the tariffs meant US consumers paid $1.1bn more for their tyres in 2011.

Each job that was saved effectively cost $900,000 with very little of that reaching the pockets of the workers.

Or put it another way, what the Trump’s, Theresa May’s or Corbyn’s of this world don’t tell you is that by opposing globalisation they think that the computer in front of you should cost you two or three times as much. It shouldn’t be nearly as advanced as those available in other parts of the world and it should be less reliable and less energy efficient. Now okay, those on a descent salary, like me, could still afford to pay such prices (or slip one into our luggage when we’re overseas on business). But I suspect those on a lower income will suddenly find that things like mobile phones, TV’s, laptops, cars, central heating, foreign holidays etc. all just became luxuries they can no longer afford. In short, roll back globalisation and suddenly many will find that the UK (or US) just became very unequal and life just became very unfair, very quickly.

The fact is we’ve all benefited from globalisation in ways the elephant graph above perhaps does not capture. I’m not that old and yet I remember when mobile phones were the size of a brick. When cars were so unreliable you had to carry tools around and work time into your morning schedule to account for the inevitable breakdown. When TV’s were so prone to failure some manufacturers made more money selling warranties on them breaking down than on selling TV’s. And your choice of drink in a cafe was builders tea or brown muddy water laughably referred to as “coffee” (Now we have lattes, cappuccinos, green teas and this thing called “salad”). Globalisation and the international competition that it brought forced companies to change. It provided them with the incentive to change, it drove technological progress, allowed them to buy in parts and materials or bring in expertise and investment from abroad to implement these changes.

Yes there were winners but also losers, some jobs did move overseas. Although it has to be said that other countries (not run by neo-liberals) fared better than either the UK or US. And, as I noted in a prior article, a lot of the job losses we blame on globalisation were largely a consequence of increasing automation (the UK now produces nearly as many cars as it did in the 1970’s, but with only a fraction of the work force). And there is little evidence to support the notion that foreigners are taking people’s jobs. Indeed the danger is jobs moving overseas (due to immigration restrictions making it impossible to recruit), or machines taking them. Both these mechanisms are in fact the main reason for the trends in the graph below.

20120414_fbc899_3

Germany & the Eurozone has held on to more of its manufacturing than the UK or US

Restricting immigration and leaving the free market will inevitably mean some companies will leave the UK (or the US in the case of Trump winning). The recent “flash crash” of the pound is a case in point. Its now believed to have been caused by a computer engaged in high frequency trading reading an FT article which had key words like “hard brexit”, “crisis” and “far right” in it, shat its electronic pants and sold everything it had. Now while human traders will be a little more discreet and careful about what they do, but they will essentially do the same….then relocate to Dublin or Frankfurt.

pound_v_dollar_oct_2016

And the decline of 20% in the value of the pound to date essentially means you just lost 2 & a half a month’s salary, once those currency exchange differences work their way into retail and energy prices (oil and natural gas recall are generally priced in dollars). And WTO tariffs would push prices up yet further. A leaked treasury report now suggests brexit could cost the UK treasury £66 billion a year (£1.2 billion a week….rather than the extra £350 million the Brexiters promised).

mind_the_gap-_uk_pension_deficits_have_ballooned_since_the_brexit_vote-line_chart-ft-web-themelarge-600x396

Brexit is already causing major problems, for pension funds for example

Post-brexit the UK will find it increasingly hard to export, given the consequences of tit for tat tariff imposition and the fact that we’ll have cut ourselves off from the rest of the globalised world, which will mean the UK will no longer be able to attract the best and brightest (case in point, the Tories recently announced that no foreigners would be asked to advice on brexit policy, or in other words they don’t want the best and brightest available to advise them!). The country will slip further and further behind to the point where UK companies can’t export, unable to sell outside of the closed shop of the UK economy because anything we try to sell is just Lada like obsolete.

Over a long enough time period, the anti-globalisation brigade may well get their wish – more jobs for British people. Foreign multinationals will be streaming into the country, because the UK will have fallen so far behind that it essentially now counts as a developing world country and these companies will want to exploit an impoverished UK and its cheap labour costs. As Paul Mason puts it:

What happens when the investment banks move to Frankfurt, the carmakers to Hungary, the offshore finance wizards to Dublin, the tech companies to newly independent Scotland? What happens when, instead of Poles, it is poor white English pensioners herded into the polytunnels of Kent to pick strawberries for union-busting gangmasters?

Certainly there is a need to rethink globalisation. It needs to work for the benefit of everyone and we need to quit thinking that this “benefit” is measured in the form of dollar bills. The world faces many major problems, overpopulation, peak oil, climate change, ISIS you name it. These are global problems, they need global solutions, which means international co-operation, not more division.

But we also need to acknowledge that getting rid of globalisation would be a very bad idea. If the neo-liberals were correct, that downsizing government and privatising public services was a good idea, then Somalia, which hasn’t had a functioning government in several decades, would be the richest country in the world (instead its one of the poorest and most dangerous places on the planet). Similarly if the Brexiters (or Trump) are right, then North Korea, the country with the tightest border controls and lest free market trade agreements would be the worlds most dynamic economy….of course the opposite is true!

somalia-1

Opponents of globalisation, simply don’t seem to realise how much the world has changed and hence why we can’t just wind back the clock a few decades. And in many cases the medicine they proscribe would be much worse than what the propose to cure.

 

Brexit betrayals continue

480 (1)

Before the referendum Brexit voters were warned that they were being conned. But Brexit was simply a means to an end for many in the leave camp, the goal being to further their own careers or line their pockets, they didn’t care about the consequences. They would betray the votes as soon as the referendum was over. And indeed time and again this has been proven right. The £350 million a week to the NHS claim didn’t even last 24 hrs. The vote leave website was shutdown and scrubbed clean within hours of the vote. And given the likely impact of Brexit on staffing and NHS costs, its inevitable the current problems in the NHS will only get worse post-Brexit.

One of the main issues during the debate was immigration. We’ll get a points system they were told. As I for one discussed sometime before the vote, no you’re not going to get a points system, because that would be silly and it won’t work. Low and behold, we’re now told we no there’s not going to be a points system. As I pointed out in a recent post, Theresa May has two choices, she can betray the UKIP bigot brigade and keep borders open, or she can betray the middle classes, pensioners and business tycoons who put the Tories in power, by leaving the single market. Given that its quite clear that the three Brexiters in her cabinet have no clue what to do about immigration, it seems increasingly likely she plans on betraying the bigot brigade.

Yes some window dressing will be applied, Theresa May has shown herself to be a masterful user of the so-called dead cat approach (see here and here). There’s talk for example of a rule that EU migrants will have to have job before moving over. Or in other words they do the job search over the internet, come over on a tourist visa for the interview (or do it via Skype) and then apply for residency. No doubt firms offering to “employ” migrants on a zero hours contract (for literally zero hours) for a fixed fee will soon spring up. The same way some fake colleges are being used to help non-EU migrants to come in. In short it will change nothing. In fact given that the UK leaving the EU will make it easier for genuine refugees from within the EU to claim asylum in the UK, and there’s a good chance of current customs arrangements ending in Calais. So its likely more will be coming in not less, post-Brexit.

And given that the UK will essentially be handing over sovereignty for a whole host of areas to the EU, as part of some Norway model plus, its difficult to avoid the argument that the UK will be worse off with less control over its trade policy. And keep in mind that one of the areas where the UK will retain some leeway is in areas such as employee rights. i.e. those pesky EU laws that stop your boss forcing you to retire because your seen as too old, or the laws protecting your right to strike or join a union, or guaranteeing you can’t be forced to work unreasonable hours. Its difficult to see a Tory government resisting the temptation to roll back these laws.

Farmers were warned that leaving the EU would mean an end to farm subsidies. The leave camp were very careful to say that they won’t end subsidies, or that they would, depending on which audience they were talking too. Well now its likely farm subsidies are going to come under a twin pronged attack. On the one hand there is the environmental argument that subsidies should only be paid out if they provide real environmental benefit. On the other hand, its difficult to see the government paying such generous subsidies to such a small group of voters. And wealthy landowners will be well aware that cutting this lifeline would present them with the opportunity to buy up small holdings and add them to their estates (then likely rent it back to the same poor sod!).

And what about those fishermen who sailed boats down the Thames? Well they’ve already been told not to expect any increase in catch quota’s post-Brexit. I was in Norway at the time of the vote and have been in Iceland before. Their main bone of contention with the EU is over fisheries, not because the EU is too strict but that it isn’t strict enough. And the expert advice is that UK fish catch levels should if anything, get cut.

In short, Brexit voters have been conned on a scale unseen in electoral history. Now politicians do tell porkies from time to time, but I’ve never seen such a outright and blatant betrayal of voters. What Brexit voters need to understand is that those when you saw those Tory placards saying “take control” that slogan wasn’t aimed at the common voter, but at other rich and wealthy elites who fund the Tory party, as Brexit is going to allow one of the biggest transfers of power and wealth within the UK for many generations.

Which brings us to the debate over the 4.4 million petition to re-run the referendum. In the absence of that I think it is fair to argue that Parliament should vote on the matter, prior to invoking article 50, it should be free vote, in both houses. After all this is the very job Parliament exists for, to stop the people being conned into doing something that is neither in their best interests nor the country’s.

Non Rio news

Brexit guarantee

Reacting to the wide scale dismay over possible funding cuts, the UK government has committed about £6 billion a year to guarantee post-EU funding in areas such as farming and scientific research. But critics argue it doesn’t go far enough. Indeed, I would argue its very worrying as it suggests the government simply does not get the message.

figure-5

The UK receives billions in research funding from the EU

Take research funding. A clause in the government guarantee implies it only applies to research funding contracts signed before the autumn statement comes out. Given that many of those grants went in the bin on the 24th of June it is highly unlikely they could be resurrected between now and then. That’s not how academia works.

2254-14463807862079654283

For UK farmers subsidies are their main source of income

I’ve been quite busy the last week with resit exam marking, I’ve got viva resits coming up and the start of term. It would be mid-October before I or anyone else in academia could get around a table. And it would then take a few weeks or months for the EU to then okay everything. Keep in mind most of the EU research at risk involves collaborative research projects, across multiple states, so even with Brexit it will involve the EU. And typically the EU will only provide a portion of the funds, we then source the rest from private industry. Naturally the private sector, worried about the economic impact of Brexit might still say no.

And what about freedom of movement? A leave supporting MP only recently realised Brexit might leave EU citizens in limbo, nah you think! If I need to recruit a PhD student or a Research Assistant with a specific and narrow set of skills, its questionable if I can do that if I’m only restricted to the UK. Any doubt about my ability to recruit and the other partners (public and private) in the EU will still be asking me to take my name off the application. The fact that the government doesn’t realise any of this just shows you how out of touch they are.

More importantly this announcement more or less confirms what I’d warned before the referendum. That you can forget about that £350 million a month. The UK will still need to pay the EU for access to the single market. Keep in mind Norway pays something like 90% per capita of what they UK pays, we’ll suffer the drop in tax revenue that comes with leaving the EU (due to reduced trade) and we have to come up with several billion more a year extra too.

In short the UK is already worse off and we’ve not even got to the tricky parts of the negotiations yet (where we have to agree to call Cheddar “reconstituted lard” and English wine as “Du Vin Roast beef”).

China warns the UK over Hinkley C

The Chinese have issued a strongly worded warning to the UK over the threat to the Hinkley C deal. As always, this goes way beyond a simple nuclear power plant. It shows what sort of pressures the UK will face post-Brexit.

Chinese President state visit - Preparations

China unveil’s its prototype reactor at Hinkley point

Leave campaigners, will argue that they can get a trade deal quicker off other countries than the EU can, which often takes years or decades to negotiate a deal. This is true, in much the same way I could buy a car tomorrow in ten minutes flat….if I didn’t mind going to a dodgy Arthur Daley type and taking whatever cut and shut banger he offered! Getting a good deal means haggling and much arm twisting. The EU can do this because they are one of the world’s largest collective economy’s. The UK can’t because the Chinese (or US) will have the UK over a barrel. Its their way or the highway.

Hence, I suspect Hinkley C will still go ahead, regardless. Its an offer the British can’t refuse.

Leave turf war

Speaking of international trade, there’s a bit of a turf war going on between Boris Johnson and Liam Fox. Both argue that they are entitled to negotiate future international trade agreements. I’m wondering if Theresa May has, rather ghoulishly, taken a leaf out of Hitler’s book. In that he would often put people he didn’t like in departments with overlapping responsibilities and then sit back and watch them squabble.

In short one has to wonder if a number of the Brexiter’s are being set up to fail. Hence when the article 50 business is kicked into the long grass and ignored until after the next election, nobody can complain, and its the Brexit camp who will get the blame.

Norwegian…based in Ireland?

I travelled to Scandinavia over the summer. One thing that I found surprising to learn that the budget airline Norwegian is flagged in Ireland. Why? Well simple, because Ireland is in the EU. Norwegian has big plans to expand across the Atlantic and they know how protective the US is of its businesses (land of the free…but only if you contribute to my congressional campaign!).

BN-MD947_norair_P_20160119090332

Norwegian Airlines…..flagged in Ireland

Indeed the Americans have raised concerns about how European budget airlines operate. Its also alleged that Norwegian plan on using air crews hired in from Asia for its Transatlantic operations. While I would tend to agree, budget airlines are pushing things a bit too far, but this is clearly a case of the pot calling the kettle black. American airlines have become notorious for squeezing the margins and pushing their pilots way too hard. There have in fact been several air crashes in the US that are blamed on pilot fatique.

So the reality is, all of this is just excuses, because the Americans realise that Norwegian is the thin end of the wedge. What they really fear is Ryanair bringing its not inconsiderable network and low cost model across the Atlantic (they have plans to do so, although they are currently on hold) and driving their airlines out of business. Who knows, if Michael O’Leary has his way, American cabin crew might have to stop being so rude and bossy to passengers!

But obviously the point is that if Norwegian wasn’t based in the EU, the Americans would have just told them to hit the road. But because they are based in an EU country, they have to at least negotiate. This explains the dilemma faced by Easyjet. Its probable that Ryanair will follow Norwegian and expand into the US market. Easyjet will face the choice of being a short haul British based company (hoping that any restrictions on migrant and travel doesn’t mean a dwindling market share). Or leave the UK, likely register in Ireland themselves, and become an international airline.

Yes, Ireland a nation of 4.5 million could well have more airlines in a few years time than the UK a nation 11 times larger! All thanks to Brexit.

When the generations fall out

An interesting article I came across regarding baby boomers, from another blogger. They enjoy a remarkably good deal. Many managed to buy a large house before such things became expensive, they’ve retired on a final salary pension in their 60’s, when most younger generations (or the generation before them) retired on a less generous settlement later….if at all! And a triple lock on their pensions, plus the ring fencing of certain elements of the NHS budget means they’ve been spared the harsh austerity the rest of society has had to endure.

baby_boomers_housing_affordability

And to cap it all we have the Brexit vote, where baby boomers overwhelmingly voted to leave, a final two fingered salute to succeeding generations. Indeed, its worth noting that baby boomers are also the worst generation for environmental damage and the most likely generation to be climate change deniers…..and likely to be Trump voters.

In short, there’s a very serious risk of the generations falling out. Many of those flocking to labour and Corybn are young (and angry) millennials. While its unlikely they will win this time around, as the baby boomers die off, its inevitable that the younger generations will gain control and suffice to say there will be a day of reckoning.

Recall, as I pointed out in a prior article Brexit does complicate matters as far as national debt. Any default or “haircut” on national debts will hit pensioners, baby boomers in particular very hard. Many could see their income wiped out. The chances that the millennials will see their incomes squeezed yet further to pay off these debts (run up paying for baby boomers cosy life style and a failure of past governments to tax baby boomers more while they were working), after this generational betrayal, its slim to none.

Italian banks

And speaking of which, the trigger event for a sequence of sovereign debt defaults could be about to strike. There’s been further concerns expressed about the health of Italian banks. Italy is at risk of economic turmoil if a referendum goes against the government.

Now any Brexiters who feel smug and say this is why we need to get out of the EU, well no. The entire global economy is interconnected. If Italian banks go down and risk bringing down Italy, the impact will be felt worldwide. And its pensions and savers in the UK who will have to take a hit.

Ultimately, the world’s governments will face a difficult choice, bailout Italy (not an easy thing), or risk a contagion of debt spreading through the whole economy. A default of Italy would of course leave investors worrying about who is next and whether “safe as the bank of England” is really that safe. Which could make things very difficult for governments dependant on credit (such as the UK).

First contact?

Another interesting story revolves around a mystery object exo-planet hunters have discovered. They’ve concluded there’s something odd about a star some 1,000 light years from Earth. Some are arguing that it could be signs of an alien mega structure known as a Dyson’s Swarm. While unlikely, the very fact its being seriously considered is of interest (no scientists wants to be a member of the “I saw a flare” club, so they won’t announce this unless they’ve evidence to back that up). Its good to know there might be intelligent life in the universe…because there’s bugger all down her on Earth!

Trump’s minions

How can you not mention Trump, he’s like a sort of virus. However its more his minions that I want to talk about. Being a spokesman for the cult of Trump has got to be a pretty awful job (worth seeing Trevor Noah’s take on this here). Your boss says the most insane batshit crazy stuff, you have to try and row back on it, no he didn’t say that…..okay he did (after being confronted with a video of him saying it), but that’s not what he was trying to say….Only, for Trump to come out and reverse course again two minutes later. Its likely he’s killed the career of Rudy Giuliani, Chris Christie and Newt Gingrich.

rudy-giuliani-cartoon-cole

However, another tactic of Trump’s minions is to try and out Trump Trump. Take his chief Spokesperson Katrina Pierson. She’s an ex-Tea party candidate who proved to be a little too crazy even for the tea party (she’s wears a necklace….made from bullets!). She’s regularly gone beyond Trump in craziness, recently blaming the US invasion of Afghanistan on Obama (leaving TV journalists speechless). When the insanity of what she was suggesting was pointed out, she tried to blame her microphone (an excuse both she and Trump have used in the past…perhaps we should start a kickstarter fund for her and Trump to buy a hearing aid?).

And Trump has recently announced changes to his campaign team. His campaign chief Paul Manafort, under pressure over payments to him linked to Putin, has been pushed aside. Instead Trump’s brought in the boss of Breitbart (a man referred too as “the most dangerous political operator in America”) and allegedly also ex-Fox News chief Roger Ailes. Which incidentally does raise some awkward questions as to what was going on over at Fox News during that whole Trump v’s Megyn Kelly saga (keeping in mind, Ailes was Meygn’s boss).

One has to worry what sort of fruitcake’s Trump will dig up to form his cabinet, in the increasingly unlikely event of him being elected. Its no wonder some are arguing that Trump doesn’t actually want to be president, he only did it to further his TV career and is now deliberately sabotaging his own campaign.

Let me draw you a picture

One of the problems with climate change deniers is that they will waffle along, making spurious contrarian claims at such a rate one can’t debunk them all, or quote misleading information (often doctored or deliberately misinterpreted). In a recent debate in Australia Brian Cox managed to outwit climate denier and member of the neo-fascist “One Nation”, Malcolm Roberts, by bringing along a graph of the data that he claimed didn’t exist.

_90803947_mediaitem90802983

Naturally this led Mr denier to claim the data, collected by NASA, was “doctored”, leading Brian Cox to question Roberts whether he also believed NASA hadn’t landed on the moon. While this might seem a bit of an unfair jibe, but as I’ve pointed out before the idea that dozens of agencies around the world, universities, NASA, ESA, the Met Office, the Tyndall centre, Scripp’s institute, the US military, etc. could all independently conduct studies (often relying on different data sets gathered in different ways) and reach the same conclusion. This leaves one only one of two alternatives, a) the evidence supporting climate change is rock solid, or b) all of these agencies worldwide are engaged in one massive global conspiracy, that makes faking the moon landing seem simple. So if you believe the climate data is doctored, then it is legitimate to question whether said individual is a tinfoil hat wearing conspiracy theorist.

Also deniers need to realise that they’ve been “found out”. The website “Skepticalscience.com” now has an easy to browse list of many prominent climate contrarians, listing their favoured climate myth and the information to debunk them. They also have a complete list of all climate denier myths along with the counter arguments, filed at a range of different levels (e.g. a simple quick explanation, or the hard scientific one). So in truth all you need to do to combat a climate denier these days is have a smart phone or I-pad and this website open on it.

The future of work

o-ROBOT-WORKER-570

Many from working class areas of Britain voted for Brexit because they fear their jobs are under threat from migrants. Similarly support for Trump has been growing in parts of the US rust belt. And there’s a major divide, both sides of the Atlantic, when it comes to education. If you have a college degree, you are very unlikely to be a Trump supporter and less likely to have voted leave.

brexit-education-regions

trump

Now it has to be said that the argument that migrants are taking jobs isn’t backed up by the facts. A strong leave vote was seen in the parts of the UK with the lowest number of migrants, while places like London with very high rates of migrant tended to vote for remain. Similarly, major US cities, where migrants tend to concentrated tend not to be the places where there is strong support for Trump. So either these migrants are holding down three of four jobs (and presumably being rapist, drug dealers and claiming benefits in whatever limited free time this busy schedule allows them), or the risk they pose is being vastly overestimated.

When I hear the story about how, oh I can’t get a job because the company down the road just hired a load of Poles/Mexicans who will work 60 hours a week for 3 bucks an hour, my response is A) don’t you think you should report that to the proper authorities? because its kind of illegal! B) leaving the EU ain’t going to help, you do realise Switzerland and Norway have more migrants per capita than the UK? C) In a globalised world, restricting the movement of labour will result in jobs moving overseas, so its foreigners staying at home and taking your job we need to worry about (far more jobs have moved overseas than have been taken by foreigners moving here) and D) do you have these guys number? cos I’ve got this bit of decking…..

But there’s an elephant in the room here that I think both sides of the debate are missing – automation and technology. In short, even if it were true that you’re in competition with Poles or Mexicans working for £3 a hour (which you aren’t, its just a neo-fascist myth), how do you expect to keep your job when you are competing against a machine that will do the job 24/7 for nothing?

image

Like the frog in the saucepan, technology has crept up on us and we’ve not noticed. And yes it is changing the workplace as we know it . Think about it, when was the last time you rented a video? I’m guessing you get your video fixes from youtube or netflix these days? In fact when was the last time you saw a video store? Are there any young people reading this who need me to explain what a video store is? How about booking a holiday or flight in a travel agent? And I mean in an actual office, not online? Same with car insurance or other financial products. What about paying your taxes online? don’t tell me you actually take a day off work so you can go down the tax office and do in manually (obviously you’ve way too much free time!).

Online shopping is now much more common. And in shops these days various tasks are becoming more and more automated. We have those self service checkouts. Its conceivable in the not too distant future that shelves could be stacked by machine (we have machines that can do that already) or even provide customer service (yep, they’ve prototype machines that can do that).

Automated cars are now being developed and while I reckon it will be some time before they become a day to day reality (not because the machine’s aren’t smart enough, but because they have to share the road with dumb humans). But they are probably going to happen eventually, which will have numerous implications…. and meaning a whole host of jobs disappearing or changing radically. And there are similar plans to automate entire ships, cargo planes or trains.

Total-Recall_1408116585

Could the Johnny cabs of Total Recall become a thing of the future?

In short technology has changed the world of work and it will continue to do so. There will still be jobs available, but many traditional jobs will disappear, and the skill set you need to get those jobs still available (or the new jobs created by technology) will continue to rise. This is the problem facing certain segments of society. As they see it, the bar keeps going up, they can’t get over it anymore, so they have it in their heads that we can somehow lower the bar again and keep everything the same, but we can’t, not without reversing many recent technological trends and isolating ourselves from the globalised world.

In manufacturing engineering for example, we are well ahead of the curve. There’s still plenty of people working in UK factories and the UK still makes lots of stuff. Prior to the Brexit vote the UK was on course exceed its 1970’s peak in car production by the 2020’s, even though the work force is a fraction of what it used to be (i.e. automation has made a smaller workforce more productive). However, nobody gets a job these days in a factory without some sort of qualification. The days when, like in Bruce Springsteen’s “the river”  (or Jimmy Nail’s “big river) , your dad could have a word with the guys down at the plant and you could walk straight into a unionised job for life are long gone.

460px-PalmercarpenterA

Many traditional jobs will increasingly disappear in future

And my prediction is that this will now roll out across the entire economy. The blunt message I’d give to people is that if you don’t have some sort of third level qualification (a degree or professional qualification of some kind) you will probably struggle to remain employed in future. So for those who voted Brexit, or are thinking of voting Trump, I’d say leave migrants alone, they are not the main threat to your employment, you need to get educated.

BLS_chart_001

And to be honest, you won’t want to be employed in future if you don’t have a qualification. What few unskilled jobs that remain will be increasingly the really crappy jobs that nobody wants, with the highest levels of job insecurity and the worst pay. The sort of jobs which will only be taken by students (who will take anything while they pay their way through college), recently arrive migrants (who just want some cash while they settle in), or those suitably desperate who can’t find anything else. Indeed, the employees of Sports Direct will argue this is already reality for them. You could argue that quite a number of those who voted Brexit (or Trump) are the canaries in the coal mine, as they are already seeing these effects.

CpTsN7mVUAEcje7

Feel worthless at work sometimes? Others have it worse

However, their actions are likely to prove counter productive. Restricting migration does not mean locals will find it easier to get work. What’s likely to happen is employers will just move jobs overseas, or you’ve just given them a very strong financial incentive to find a way of developing a machine to do those jobs instead.

So clearly such a future of work means some profound changes for society. Obviously the costs of third level education means its beyond the reach of many. Hence why I think of all the proposals from Bernie Sanders that Hillary needs to endorse, its reducing college tuition costs. Yes, I realise that won’t be cheap (i.e. can she afford it and still reduce the deficit?), but I suspect it will be a necessity in future, if a massive level of social stratification is to be avoided.

And in the UK far from putting up fees, we need to start cutting them. Is it any coincidence that in countries like Germany where higher education is free, there is less unemployment and less people whinging about migrants?

Education-Chart

And this is not just for the benefit of those who don’t have a degree yet. Even those of us who have one will likely need to return to university to learn new skills from time to time. A recent trend in academia has been a move towards what are called massive online learning courses. And these are mostly aimed at post-grads (rather than undergrads) looking to learn a new skill. I won’t be surprised if a few years from now, the main job of universities is supporting courses like this, rather than teaching degrees to undergrads in RL.

massive-open-online-courses-transform-higher-education-and-science_3

The future of work will likely be a future where we need to accept the fact that change is good, its normal. We need to be intellectually curious and willing to learn new things and try out new ideas. Of course if you’re a conservative voter, changes are you’re not intellectually curious and you don’t want things to change. You are also more likely to reject ideas like global warming and evolution. The roller coaster of technology is going too fast, they want it to stop so they can get off.

SAMSUNG

In the future all of us will need to re-train and change careers from time to time

But getting off the roller coaster would mean giving up what we have. Given that I can’t see us banning the use of the internet for commercial purposes (I mean how would you even police that!) or introducing soviet style jobs for the boys policies (you join one queue and then another), I don’t see how these future trends can be halted. Technology has created many problems for our society (e.g. global warming) and often as not, the solution to these problems is more technology (e.g. renewables, electric cars). So the “getting off the roller coaster” option that conservatives are aiming for would come with a price and I don’t think they understand that this price is probably more than they are willing to accept (you’d have to live sustainably without fossil fuels or renewables…. so basically become Amish!).

Another question we have to ask is whether full employment is a realistic goal for future society. Our entire economic system assumes that anyone who can work will work, but that may not be true in future, there might not be enough jobs to go around in the future.

Now in theory this shouldn’t be an issue. Technology merely means making a smaller pool of workers more productive. In Germany and Scandinavia, yes the manufacturing sectors are smaller than they were a few decades ago. But they avoided the wholesale decimation of working class areas seen in the US or UK, with some districts being reduced to little more than welfare colonies. This I would argue is because the bulk of these job losses were due to miss guided neo-liberal economic policies in the US and the UK. Reversing these policies would seem a sensible solution, although voting for Trump or Brexit amounts to asking for a double helping of more of the same.

So in theory, full employment is still a possibility. But we need to remember that more productivity often means more energy and resource consumption. Now with good recycling policies and a 100% renewable energy grid this shouldn’t be a problem, but we don’t have that yet. So its possible that full employment will not be possible in future (at least for some period of time). Which means some profound changes to society. Given that already the number of workers is falling in Western states thanks to an ageing population, this means even less and less people having to pay more and more of a nation’s taxes to fund the welfare for those who aren’t working.

Social_Security_Worker_to_Beneficiary_Ratio

Migrants are increasingly needed to help fund retirement for an ageing population

And incidentally curbing migration, which means less young people coming into the workforce and paying taxes to fund the pensions and healthcare of retirees, is likely to prove entirely counter-productive. It could well be a recipe for national bankruptcy.

My view is that we may need to change how the entire tax system works. This is one of the reasons I’ve long favoured a system of carbon taxes, or taxes on things that are generally bad for society (e.g. high VAT on alcohol or fatty foods), a Tobin tax (i.e. a tax on financial transactions) and of course higher rates of corporation tax. In all cases, the goal here is to spread the tax net away from simply funding everything off of income taxes and pushing those rates up every time the state coffers run bare. Which of course tends to provoke much whinging from the fewer and fewer workers stuck paying incoming tax.

And as for distributing welfare, well one alternative to the current system is that of a basic national income paid out to everyone. This would be enough to fund housing and keep people out of poverty. You want more money, you want the luxuries, get a job and work for it. No more whining about lazy people on benefits, everyone is on benefits, indeed presumably this system would come with the clause that such payment would be withdrawn if anyone commits anti-social behaviour (e.g. petty crime, dodging taxes via your offshore account, the usual!). Just this year the Swiss at a referendum on implementing this. Now while it was rejected, I think this was because many didn’t understand the underlying issues. So I won’t be surprised if such ideas don’t catch on in future.

So in essence our society is at a crossroads. I’d argue that we are at the end of a 2nd gilded age. Like the first gilded age, this was a time when neo-liberal capitalists ran wild, we all had a big party and nobody complained a lot because everyone was doing rather well out of it (as this moment of Zen from the film Margin Call summarises). But now, like in the 1920’s we’re stuck with the hangover. And like society in the 1920’s we face a choice.

On the one hand we can opt for a new deal of continuing down the path of social and technology progress. And let’s face it, progress is good. The factories of past era’s, yes there was full employment, but they were awful places to work. Repetitive backbreaking labour while being exposed to extremes of heat, noise, toxic chemicals and rotating machinery. Many had to retire from such jobs in their 50’s because their job ruined their health. Technology means that cars and other products these days are safer, more reliable (used to be the best way to make money from TV’s was selling warranties to fix them), more energy efficient and more user friendly. I mean is anyone reading this seriously suggesting that they hate Microsoft/Apple/Google so much that you want your old Commodore 64 back?

Or, as some societies did in the 1920’s and 30’s, we may end up taking the regressive path of fascism, blaming foreigners and other convenient scapegoats for all of our ills, restricting trade, reversing past policies, going backwards and focusing inward….until said leaders realise they need a war to prevent national bankruptcy and likely end up starting world war 3 in the process!

News roundup

The 2nd longest suicide note in history

GettyImages-576778136.0

The Republican national convention is currently kicking off and things aren’t off to a great start. The cops are calling for the state’s open carry law to be suspended (after recent police shootings they’ve come to realise that the solution to a bad guy with a gun is and making sure he’s not armed, and not hiding in a crowd of 100 other armed nutters). And with the cult of Trump in town and lots of angry anti-Trump protesters, trouble is all but guaranteed.

Many leading republicans are skipping the convention (and probably with all the guns are very glad to do so!) as they want to stay well away from the train wreck otherwise known as Trump. As a result the roster of speakers at the convention is a little thin, even Trump’s wife and daughter is having to speak, oh and the boss of the Trump winery (presumably to help push Trump’s merchandise). About the only senior republicans speaking are Paul Ryan (who has to speak, someone from congress had to show up and he drew the short straw), Chris Christie (aka, Trump’s official sidekick) and Newt Gingrich (Trump’s wannabe sidekick).

Meanwhile the policy agenda that will be endorsed at the convention includes a number of extremely conservative positions. For example porn is labelled a “public health crisis, they want to crack down of gays, introduce “gay conversion therapy” (I don’t know either, maybe get them to watch porn…oh no wait didn’t we just ban that?), banning abortion, etc. They’ve even managed to piss off the ADL. Although to be fair, as Israel is not a US state and both Trump and his supporters are clueless to anything outside the US, it would have to be pointed out to them on a map.

The GOP has avoided including such toxic policies in the past, because they know they would never get through congress (even some Republicans would vote against them!) and even then they would likely be struck down by the the Supreme court. All you’re doing is loading a gun with ammo for the democrats to blast away at them with for the next four months. Trump’s manifesto could well go down as the 2nd longest political suicide note in history.

Already comparisons are being drawn to the disastrous convention of 1992. Back then the GOP had spent several years trying to woo white evangelicals such as Jerry Farwell’s “moral majority” into the big GOP tent. Up till then many christian conservatives had not voted because the party of Lincoln was after all the party that freed the slaves, while the democrats had decided that minorities had all sorts of “rights” and you couldn’t like lynch em or burn crosses on their lawns no more (bloody liberals!).

Anyway this plan backfired with the Christian conservatives effectively hijacking the GOP policy committee and forced it to adopt various right wing policies, not unlike those Trump is now endorsing. This appalled many moderate Republicans, who took the view that the GOP was supposed to be the party of small government, not the party that advocates an authoritarian state that dictates what people do in the privacy of their own homes.

Consequently G. W. Bush, whose campaign was already behind due to a struggling economy, was from this point on all but guaranteed to lose to rank outsider Bill Clinton (whom most people had never heard of at the time). And lose by a significant margin he did, becoming one of the few US presidents in recent times not to win a 2nd term in office.

And to make matters worse for the GOP, the fall out from the convention led to a resurgence in support towards the third party campaign of Ross Perot’s. Now while this took as many votes away from Clinton as it did Bush, the fallout carried over into the 1996 election, where again Perot ran on a ticket appealing to small government moderate Republicans, the people edged out or booed off stage in the 1992 convention. And again, he cost the GOP precious votes all but guaranteeing Clinton a 2nd term.

So while this will be an awful sickening coronation of Trump, it also could well be a funeral of sorts for any hope of the Republicans winning diddly squat for a good few years.

Police shootings
Recent police shootings in America are cause for concern, although statistics do suggest that the overall situation isn’t quite as bad as might be thought. Cop killings have been steadily falling for sometime now.

us_police_2016_beeb

However, certainly the toxic atmosphere of recent months means that the police forces in America are loosing public support. It is argued that the police are only police because we the public consent to them their authority to uphold the law. If this consent is withdrawn, well they ain’t much more than a rent-a-cop mall guard. And should any cops be wondering how to tell if you’ve lost the support of the community, well when they start shooting you just for being cops, that’s probably it!

But getting shot at is only the start. And to be honest tighter gun control would solve that problem. Its the inability for police to do their job that’s the danger. If the public don’t trust the police, they won’t rely on them in a crisis, they’ll turn to someone else, likely the local Mr Big. The rise of the Mafia in America, first the Irish mob, then the Italian mob, was borne out of the fact that these immigrant communities did not trust the cops. History is in effect repeating itself.

Trident vote

Submarine

The UK is voting on Trident renewal. The Tories have been accused of only holding it now to help destabilise the labour party. And the price tag? A snip at £205 billion, or to put it in Brexit bus terms that’s £569 million a month for the next 30 years.

However, I cannot help but notice that if the vote were being held north of the border, the result would be very difference. Only one MP is planning on vote for Trident, (David Mundell, the only Tory MP in Scotland), all the rest are either abstaining or voting against it. Is this because the missiles are based in Scotland, while the armchair chicken hawks chatter about it in Westminster, or is it because Scot’s can add and subtract and realise its a complete waste of money?

Indy Ref2 next year?
Theresa May met with Nicola Sturgeon last week to discuss the consequences of Brexit and the possiblity of a further referendum (on the EU or Scottish independence). I assume it didn’t go so well, because within hours of it ending we were hearing murmurings of a possible 2nd Scottish independence referendum in early 2017.

a36

Let us be clear about what is going on here. Yes the SNP want Scottish independence, but unlike Cameron they aren’t morons. Yes, the polls do show that the ground has shifted, with several polls now showing a clear (but sometimes narrow) lead for independence. But you can never guarantee anything leading into a referendum, not unless you are well ahead (and recall remain had a ten point lead at the start of the EU referendum). It would make sense for the SNP to wait as long as possible before calling a referendum. And they also realise that they have to explore every possible alternative before committing to one.

On the other hand, the Tories attempt to stonewall the Scot’s is making it very easy for the SNP. The Tories are trying to ignore this shift in the polls, ignoring the very narrow majority in the EU referendum, not to mention the fact that only 37% of the electorate actually voted for Brexit and many millions (EU citizens and British citizens abroad) were denied the right to vote, as were students not at their term time addresses. And of course an overwhelming proportion of Scot’s voted against leaving the EU.

285

Of course there’s an obvious horse trade here. The Tories allow the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish assemblies some input to the terms of Brexit. And furthermore, a requirement it is ratified either by all four parliaments, or via another referendum. However, the Tories seem to be ignoring this, same way they are ignoring the fact that the EU referendum result is not legally binding and that they may face obstacles getting it through Westminster. As a result the same Tory arrogance that led them into the first inde-ref (and the EU referendum) could well be their undoing this time around.

Vote leave bus rebranded by Greenpeace
Greenpeace have somehow managed to get their hands on the infamous Brexit bus with all of the misleading slogans on it. I was surprised by this, as I assumed that, like the Edstone, it would have been destroyed….ritually burned….presumably with Gove still inside!

cno7fwewgaacyr9

Anyway, it would appear Greenpeace plan to “correct” the messages on it and drive around with it as a “vehicle for truth”.

The Tories thought that they could tell a few lies to the public, so that Boris could get to be PM, but what harm could it do, I mean who remembers politician’s promises? I mean remember when that Clegg fellow made that promise to students about fees, why they forgot about that within a week. No way this £350 million claim will come back to haunt them, next election, would it?….ah no!

The Brexit camp have created a enormous level of distrust by their actions. And yes, this £350 million claim did sway voters, and yes they expect it to be honoured, I had a conversation with someone who repeated the claim a few days ago (he seemed to think taxes were about to go down after Boris told em we’ll not be paying the £350 million anymore). Couple that with the fact that there will be little if any change to immigration rules and you could argue the Tories have made life very tough for themselves. Ironically there are worries for the future of NHS funding post-Brexit.

And if there is another indy-ref next year and project fear is resurrected, what’s the bet that the SNP counter is, these are the same people who told us we could save £350 million a week by leaving the EU. If you could write anything on the Tories party’s tombstone (well aside from ding dong the witch is dead!) it would be this £350 million a week claim.

Mrs Fracking
There are growing concerns about the axing of the DECC, which I discussed in a prior post. But worse the decision to hand over part of its responsibilities to Andrea “Fruitcake” Landsom has been called into question. She’s a pro-Fracking, climate Skeptic known for her extreme views. I could argue that its putting the fox in charge of the hen house, but actually she’d shoot the fox (she’s pro-fox hunting) and burn down the hen house to save it. She’s also on record as arguing against farm subsidies, which is obviously very worrying for farmers, who are already anxious over the consequences of Brexit.

1795

I mean Tim Peake got back from Space, learnt about Brexit, Trump and all that’s happened since he left and tried to rush back into the capsule (okay, not quite!).

The Consequences of Brexit

20640736-mmmain.jpg

I was away on holiday during the vote, I mean I go away for 3 weeks and you lot exit the EU, WTF! Oddly enough I was outside the EU in Norway, basking in land of milk and honey the leave camp promised us?…well actually no.

The Norwegians couldn’t understand why Britain left the EU. They have to pay to be a member of the EEA (one of them was moaning to me about its considerable costs) yet not gain any of the benefits of being an EU member. The main reason why Norway is not in the EU boils down to fisheries. Not because they fear EU regulations, actually they feel the EU doesn’t regulate fisheries enough.

But at least the Norwegians have control over their borders right? No! There are more migrants per capita in Norway than in the UK, about 25% more in fact and they are arriving at a much faster rate than in the UK (nearly 3 times higher per capita faster). At one point (keeping in mind I was in rural areas, small fishing villages, not major towns) I was on a bus, the driver was Chechen, there were several middle eastern gentlemen (who got off at a fish factory, where clearly they were working), quite a few Chinese (and with the prams and shopping bags, I’m guessing they were locals), some tourists like me and perhaps one or two actual Norwegians.

And Switzerland has double the number of migrants per capita that Norway has. The only EEA, non-EU country that has a lower number of migrants than the UK is Iceland (which is only marginally lower). Which probably has less to do with Iceland’s migration policy and everything to do with the name of your country including the word “Ice” in it (hence, migrants tend to give it a wide berth fearful they’ll freeze to death or be eaten by a polar bear). So unless the Brexiters are proposing to rename the UK “Icebergland” or “Monster Island”, its unlikely this will have any impact on migration.

And already a number of the predictions and warnings are starting to come true, the pound has plunged in value, the stock markets were down $2 trillion in just 48 hrs, trading in certain shares was actually suspended at one point. Inflation is likely to rise, food prices will go up and many of those retiree’s and people on low incomes who voted leave will soon themselves considerably worse off and baring the brunt of consequences (as predicted).

Immediately I felt this effect as it meant everything started becoming more expensive. Room’s I’d booked a few days earlier suddenly rose in price rapidly. It was like living in Zimbabwe. I was in a queue waiting to change the last of my Kronor’s in Oslo airport, reading the news when I saw the story about the UK being downgraded by all 3 of the major rating’s agencies, so when I was asked which currency I’d like my money back in I said euro’s, rather than pounds.

Dirty rotten scoundrels – Project Betrayal

On his way out the door Cameron said that the leave camp had a lot to live up to, by which he meant all the insane lies and promises they made prior to the vote. Well less than 24 hrs after the vote they were breaking every single promise made. Apparently they never promised the NHS £350 million a week, despite driving around on a bus with that written on it.

480 (1)

Nor indeed will there be any changes to immigration law, because there’s no proof anyone voted leave due to fears over….despite the leave camp stirring up racial hatred for months (to the point where an MP got murdered). After all if Britain applies such restrictions to other EU states, they’d reply by doing the same to Britain in turn (which would lead to many ex-pats from the UK being forced to return home, and millions of them coming back in all at once would make any current issues regarding migrations seem pretty small).

177763_600

And fishermen have been warned to expect no increases in allowed catches. Indeed, the experts have been warning of over fishing for years, post-Brexit the expert advise would probably by for a complete halt to all fishing in UK waters for a few years.

To EEA or not to EEA?

The crucial question the markets are asking is whether or not the UK will now go for a “Norway model” of EEA membership. This would give the UK access to the single European market and involve the least amount of disruption to the economy.

CZWn5FtWIAAck6Y

However, as noted earlier this represents pretty poor value for money. The UK would still essentially have to pay the EU for the privilege (Norway pays 83% of what we pay now), most of those pesky EU laws the leave camp were hammering on about would remain in place, only now the UK gets no say in any future changes to said laws (our EU parliament members are essentially replaced by fax machine in Whitehall through which future EU dictates will be received and implemented with question). And crucially there will have to be a commitment to free movement of people, the Germans have been pretty clear about that one.

The only reason Norway and Iceland accept these terms (rather than just go the whole hog and join the EU) is because of issues regarding fisheries (as noted), while the Swiss worry about the EU trying to arrest all its bankers and money launderers, if they became a member. So these countries accept these conditions for very specific reasons.

Yes there will be some changes. Much like other EEA countries, EU citizens coming over will have to fill in a few forms, it becomes a bit easier to deny them benefits (until they start working and paying taxes of course). But once they’ve been here long enough it will make no difference in real terms, just more bureaucracy (which of course UK tax payers will be paying for of course). The likelihood is that the result will be (as noted) no decrease in migration. Indeed in certain scenarios it could lead to an increase in migration, as minorities in the EU who currently can’t apply for asylum in the UK will gain that right.

The UK will also be able to pick and chose to keep certain elements of legislation its adopted from the EU. And the main two areas where they will be able to effect change are employment law and the environment. In short, its likely the Tories will now gut employment laws and remove many of the rights and protections that workers, particularly low income workers. have long relied on. By voting for Brexit they have now voted to remove the laws that say, stops you being fired by your boss just because you got sick or insisted on wearing a safety harness to stop you falling to your death. And forget about asking for Christmas day off to be with your family, or for overtime pay.

As for the environment, its now likely the laws here will also be gutted. Its now questionable, if not very improbable that the UK will remain committed to its the promises made during the Paris climate conference. Siemens has already announced it is freezing all wind farm development in the UK. Its also been warned that the £20 billion in new energy infrastructure the UK now needs to keep the lights on may not be build in time. Warnings have also been raised about further delays or a cancellation of Hinkley C.

Rise of UKIP?

Now while the markets, private industry and quite a few in the Tory party are quite happy to push back from the table and take EEA membership as the least worse option, this is very different from the milk and honey” promises made during the referendum. Of the leave camp people, I can count using my thumbs the number who voted leave for reason other than immigration. Many of the Brexit voters, once they realise they’ve been conned on a massive scale, will probably not accept those terms and probably drive for something else. Of course they won’t get it, but they’ll try. As Paul Mason puts it:

What happens when the investment banks move to Frankfurt, the carmakers to Hungary, the offshore finance wizards to Dublin, the tech companies to newly independent Scotland? What happens when, instead of Poles, it is poor white English people herded into the polytunnels of Kent to pick strawberries for union-busting gangmasters?”

But if the Tories think they’ve killed off UKIP, think again. My guess is that whoever emerges from the Tory leadership contest will go to the EU, sign away Britain’s sovereignty in exchange for EEA access, leave the country worse off than it was before. There will be (as noted) no specific immigration restrictions.

UKIP will ignore the reasoning behind this (reason and logic aren’t exactly their strong points) and they will respond to this complete betrayal of every promise made during the referendum by campaigning at the next election on a platform for tearing up any EEA agreement and “shutting the border”. They’ll promise a points system (which as I’ve discussed before, won’t work and ignores certain fundamental facts such as the fact that Canada or Australia don’t apply their points system to their immediate neighbours), and much other silliness. Inevitably they’ll pick up some significant portion of the leave vote and likely split the Tory vote.

In essence all Cameron will have done is guarantee that his warring party will now struggle to ever get a majority in future. They will only ever be able to form coalition governments with either the lib dem’s, labour, or if desperate UKIP.

Labour unity?

Now is the time for labour to take advantage of the political chaos in the Tory party, rise above events and cease the moment…..if they weren’t at war with themselves! Okay, Corbyn could have been a bit more active during the referendum campaign, but to blame him for Brexit is simply not fair. The blame lies squarely with Cameron. Like everything else he screwed it up, holding it at a time of year when the turnout from young voters would be low (as they won’t be at term time addresses, or working, or at Glastonbury) and millions of Brits abroad or EU citizens who’ve lived here all of their lives were excluded from the vote.

BOB281115_3512561b

But such is the labour party’s hatred for their own leader, he can’t do anything right. If he rescued a baby from a burning building, half his team would quit on grounds that he was anti-fire, mocking man’s greatest invention while taking jobs away from hard working firemen.

A labour leadership battle now could not be more ill-timed. And the balance of probability is, either Corbyn will emerge victorious (once the party faithful have another vote) or someone else from the hard left of the party will take over in his place. Granted, labour’s changes at the next election are better with a centrist in charge, but a leaderless, warring labour party has no chance.

Scotland?

1973

As expected, the SNP have suggested a 2nd referendum on Scottish independence is now very likely. 63% of Scot’s voted to stay in the EU, in parts of Edinburgh, the remain vote was as high as 78%. And as also expected, opinion polls are starting to show a lead for independence. A recent poll post-EU referendum suggests a whopping 27% lead to independence, although previous polls suggest a smaller lead.

It would make sense for the SNP to delay any independence vote for as long as possible. Let the economic bad news build, let more of the leave camp realise that they’ve been betrayed and conned by the Tory party, then when the country is nice and angry, call the referendum. While I was minded to support independence last time (but critical of the SNP), but I guessed it probably won’t pass. This time., I’m not so sure. Like I said, it will boil down to timing.

And Sturgeon shows every sign of playing it cool this time. She’s been in talks with Gibraltar, Northern Ireland and even the London mayor about some sort of plan to keep these regions in the EU, but perhaps still in the UK. I’m not entirely sure how that would work, but by going through the motions she can claim that she at least tried.

_90083274_eu_ref_uk_regions_leave_remain_gra624_sorted

She’s also talking to the EU directly (having already been in talks with the Irish) and will be meeting with the EU president shortly. And some of the murmurs coming out of Brussels suggest she made find a sympathetic ear.

If Scotland can get some sort of deal from the EU, either an option to leave the UK and stay in the EU (unlikely, but worth a shot), or some sort of fast track framework to EU membership (keep in mind, leaving the UK will take a few years anyway) then that could dramatically change the outcome of any 2nd Independence referendum. A narrow chance of a Yes suddenly becomes a near certainty.

Currency is an issue too, as it was a key factor last time. I would hope this time the SNP have the sense not to propose keeping the pound, which is falling in value and probably not a very safe bet. Some sort of “Denmark model” for a future Scottish pound is a possibility. It would be pegged to the euro initially (until an independent Scotland is able to find its own feet), then later allowed to float more freely. This would be a much more sellable option that all the if’s and possibly maybe’s from last time.

In short, by England voting for Brexit an independent Scotland looks a lot more likely.

United Ireland?

And in Northern Ireland too, Sinn Fein are already seeking a border poll on uniting the Island. Of all the regions in the UK, Northern Ireland will suffer the worst from Brexit. They have to compete against a Republic of Ireland where taxes are lower, our GDP is higher (so people have more money to spend), we have better infrastructure, more third level graduates, access to the eurozone and now post-Brexit the single market too. Ask yourself if you were setting up a company on the Island of Ireland, which side of the border would you set up in?

2762995

Its worth keeping in mind that Brexit puts the northern Ireland peace process under threat. The lack of border controls, means any attempt to impose any kind of immigration restrictions on EU citizens in the UK will be impossible. All a Polish guy will need to do is get a cheap Ryanair ticket to Dublin, hop on a bus (there are buses direct from the airport) and he’ll be driven straight to Belfast city centre.

Any sort of tariff’s will result in smuggling, which means more money going towards terrorist groups up in the North (this was sort of the whole point in doing away with border controls, eliminate a key flash point!). Putting border controls at northern Ireland ports would be unprecedented (and probably unworkable given the shear volume of traffic they handle). I know of no other country that has border posts within its own national boundaries. They effects on the Northern Irish trade would be considerable, and inevitably drive more towards voting for a united Island.

So the Good Friday agreement will have to be renegotiated and you can bet what Sinn Fein’s demands will now be. Certainly opinion polls, all taken prior to the EU vote I might add, do suggest no appetite for a united Ireland. Even among Northern Ireland Catholic’s its questionable if you’d get a majority. However, I suspect that given time this will change.

It is often forgotten that the silent majority of Northern Irish people are neither strongly unionist, nor republican. They just want to get along and keep their job. Naturally if this majority now start losing jobs, start see their mortgages and living costs rising, then those poll numbers will start to shift and eventually you will probably find that a majority voting for a united Ireland isn’t that unlikely.

Interestingly there’s been a huge rush for Irish passports since Brexit. Being Irish (which fortunately I am) is a sort of post-Brexit hack. You have all the rights of British citizenship, but are also an EU citizen. The Irish passport office is starting to complain about the shear volume it now needs to process. Potentially 6 million in the UK could apply (that’s nearly 10% of the population!).

Certainly one has to say, as I’ve been saying for years, a UK outside of the EU might well mean an end to the UK. Hence why UKIP should really call themselves the UK destruction party.

Indeed, a complete break up of the UK isn’t that unlikely. I don’t think it will happen soon, but it may well now be a medium term inevitability. One could argue that the UK is a pact based on the understanding that the England will not allow overt English nationalism to do anything that would harm the interests of the non-English minorities within the UK. If you take the view that that contract was just torn up on the 23rd, then the pact that has allowed the UK to exist is broken and its very possible the different parts of the UK will eventually go their separate ways.

I mean, even some in London are talking about independence from the rest of the country now!

Economic fallout

cliff

As noted there’s been turmoil on the markets the last few days. And while there’s been something a a rally (which I’d put down to news that Teresa May seems more likely to success Cameron than Boris!), one can expect this to be temporary. With every drip of bad news the markets will gradually drop that little bit further. Already many companies have put in place a hiring freeze, my uni’s already done so, were expecting an announcement as to whether a spending freeze will also now come in.

Obviously a slow down in the economy will produce a bear market, falling stock prices, rising inflation, wages frozen yet the cost of living going up and falling tax revenue. While Osborne has backtracked for now on a post-referendum emergency budget, its difficult to see how some changes won’t be needed.

Deficit-graph-1979-2015

The trouble is Osborne’s already pulled all of the Austerity levers he can. His options now are to either go after areas where he hasn’t cut substantially which is basically those things that benefit pensioners, raise taxes (fat chance of that!) or pull the one lever he hasn’t tried yet – the compulsory enforced retirement of public sector workers above the age of say, 60 (some countries have gone to this extreme already as part of their austerity). And before the many Brexiters who are in this age group start whining about how he can’t do that, why we have rights….oh you mean those rights in EU law you just voted against?

Half a million civil service are believed to be at risk. Bottom line, if you thought things were bad before they are about to get worse and its generally been those who voted for Brexit who will feel the pinch.

The generational gap

_90081129_eu_ref_uk_regions_leave_remain_gra624_by_age

Which brings us to the issue that there was a large generational gap in voting patterns. The old disproportionately voted for Brexit, while the young voted to stay in. Had the turn out of young people been higher (as it would have been had Cameron held the referendum at another time of year) the result could have been different.

cb59d041-3e42-4f28-81e0-25301d2874ee

Some have likened this to a generational betrayal. As Jack Lennard puts it:

“This is a final middle-fingered salute to the young from the baby boomer generation. Not content with racking up insurmountable debt, not content with destroying any hopes of sustainable property prices or stable career paths, not content with enjoying the benefits of free education and generous pension schemes before burning down the ladder they climbed up, the baby boomers have given one last turd on the doorstep of the younger generation”

Or as Nicholas Barrett puts it:

“the younger generation has lost the right to live and work in 27 other countries. We will never know the full extent of the lost opportunities, friendships, marriages and experiences we will be denied. Freedom of movement was taken away by our parents, uncles, and grandparents in a parting blow to a generation that was already drowning in the debts of our predecessors”

Many of the younger generation are now stuck with the reality that Brexit will make it harder for them to get a job and harder to get on the property ladder (yes house prices might fall, but if you can’t get a mortgage or a job to pay for it, what difference does that make!). Inter-generational betrayal could well lead to anger and eventually inter-generational revenge (a scenario, a BBC “if” episode looked into a few years back, where the younger generation rebelled against the generous deal pensioners are getting and voted in politicians who withdrew many of these benefits).

Hence why if the government were to exercise the options I mentioned earlier (gut pensions, withdraw winter fuel payments and free TV licenses, force older workers into retirement) I don’t think there will be a lot of sympathy from the younger generations. And when pensioners start to struggle because a jump in inflation and a bear market has suddenly made it harder to fund their retirement, I suspect many will say, you made your bed now lie in it.

In short anyone of pension age, or approaching it (and you might be retiring a little earlier now than you thought!) who voted for Brexit has just voted for a more scary and unpredictable financial future.

Anti-Intellectualism and racism

We now live in a post-facts era. In the referendum campaign, many facts and certainties (i.e. that the £350 million a week claim was rubbish, that the pound would fall in value, that the UK’s credit rating would be cut, etc.) were simply ignored by leave voters, in favour of lies, myths and half baked bullshit. It is, as Dana Nuccitelli points out, not really surprising to learn that many Brexit voters also happen to be climate change deniers.

So Brexit does suggest the sort of rising anti-intellectualism that we’ve been seeing in America has now spread to the UK. Given how crucial science is to the UK economy, this is a very worrying development. Quite apart from the fact that UK universities and tech companies are highly dependant on EU research funding (as well as access to the EEA for collaborative research purposes), this could well represent a slide backwards for the UK. One could see the UK falling behind in the science race, which will of course eventually have a devastate economic effect on the country.

11a_fp7-funding-chart

And one of the post-referendum effects seems to be that its now okay to be openly racist in the UK. Many ethnic minorities have complained about an upsurge in racist abuse. Least we forget an MP was killed during the campaign. Unfortunately, I don’t think this will prove to be an isolated incident.

And coincidently, the view from abroad isn’t good. Many in the hostel’s in Norway whom I met from around the world took this referendum as being essentially an opinion poll on how racist Britain is. Given that 52% on a turn out of 70% voted leave, some are interpreting this as saying that 37% of British are racists. Britain’s reputation in the world has taken a severe beating as a result.

It worth watching what some of the US media are making of this, here’s Samatha Bea’s take on Brexit, the Daily Show’s and John Oliver’s.

Will German’s still buying Mini’s or Indians buy Jaguar cars they know to have been built by bigots? Will Beefeater Gin (which was being heavily marketed in Sweden while I was there) still be touting their Britishness when most people associate Britain with racism and bigotry? And will high tech firms set up in a country where their ethnic minority workers face racial harassment on the streets and bureaucratic racism from the state just because they had the nerve to come here and push money into the UK economy?

UK Trumped

Donald Trump, who showed all his keen political skills by arriving in the country at the worst possible time. It was a bit like a fan of KISS showing up to a concert the day after when a Baptist prayer group were renting the hall.

Trump did make some noises that he favoured Brexit and would offer the UK a favourable trade deal. Fat chance of that, Trump after all has flip-flopped his way through this whole campaign.

Trump is very much a protectionist and the idea that he would offer the UK a deal that will put his own business and the jobs of those voting for him at a disadvantage is clearly not going to happen. Once all of this is pointed out to him, he’d likely drag his feet on any deal and demand lots of concession, which (given how desperate the UK will be to get a deal) Westminster will have to concede on. He’ll probably insist on Windsor castle being named the Trump palace and putting a golf course across the tops of the cliff’s of Dover.

The UK’s best hope is that Clinton wins and wins big, with her party gaining a majority in Congress. This will cause her to focus on domestic politics and she’ll be anxious to avoid distractions. So she’ll toss the Brit’s a bone and perhaps given in on a few points. However anyone thinking that 60 million can get a better deal from 300 million Americans, than 450 million Europeans can get is clearly living in cloud cuckoo land.

And the UK will also now have to negotiate trade deals with other countries too, Japan, China, India, etc. In all cases they have the UK over a barrel. As noted, already there’s talk of Hinkley C being cancelled because of Brexit and of major infrastructure projects being put off as it is. Many UK jobs are dependant on foreign firms (increasingly owned by Asia) remaining in the UK. So its inevitable that the UK will not get anything like the deal it currently gets from these countries by being in the EU.

Indeed, its the WTO the UK first needs to square the circle with. Technically the UK will now have to join the WTO and its chief has already warned that’s not going to be straight forward, getting more difficult the further the UK drifts from a EEA style Norway model. Without WTO membership foreign trade becomes increasingly difficult.

A second vote?

AdcockHighRes1_5

All of these things explains why several million have signed a petition calling for a 2nd vote. Already several Tories have suggested that there should be a 2nd referendum on the terms of any exit deal, while the lib dem leader is promising to try and stop Brexit and if that doesn’t work campaign on a platform of taking the UK back into the EU.

All of this raises the possibility of a 2nd EU referendum. Which given how dangerously flawed the last one was, its hardly fair that a racist minority (i.e. 37% of the electorate) should be allowed to cause so much damage to the lives of the remaining majority. However there is a rather significant obstacle to any talk of a 2nd vote. The EU itself.

As far as the EU is concerned out means out, as Junker has made very clear. Any idea of informal talks is being denied and the EU is putting increasing pressure on the UK to invoke article 50 and start the ball rolling on its EU exit. Quite simply put, the EU is fed up with pandering to the Brits, you’ve decided to leave, fine piss off then and don’t let the door hit you on the way out.

And keep in mind some eurocrats in Brussels have long favoured some sort of arrangement that demotes the UK to 2nd class status within the EU, so a push towards EEA membership is probably the next least worse option as they see it.

Also by shuffling Britain towards the exit door, the EU knows it makes it more likely that they will get an agreement favourable to them. The UK will have two years to negotiate its exit or risk being chucked out without any agreement, likely provoking a full blown economic crises and mass capital flight (if you thought events on Friday were bad, wait a while). As I pointed out before a future UK PM will come under enormous pressure at this point from the civil service, business, the military and allies to sign any such deal put in front of them by the EU, even if it ultimately leaves the UK worse off that it already is. So Brussels strategy here is sound.

So even in the best case scenario, e.g. the Tory party splits, an early election which a labour and lib dem coalition wins. Along with the pro-EU elements of the Tory party they hold an immediate 2nd referendum and win; I would still expect the EU to insist that the UK need to renegotiate its membership. This means that all of those “reforms” Cameron got will go (they were only there to appease the bigot brigade, which clearly didn’t work, so no point in keeping them) as will likely things like the British rebate. Of course if they are feeling particularly uncharitable they may insist the UK must now accept entry to the EU under the same terms and conditions of a new EU member state (i.e. all of the UK’s opt outs will go, we have to commit to joining the euro, etc.).

In short the UK just said no to the best deal we were ever going to get from Brussels. Any attempt to dither about leaving or re-enter the EU will mean accepting an agreement which leaves the UK worse off than it was before. There is basically no going back from this. If your a regret full leave voter, then your a moron and and idiot, do me a favour and stay away from ballot boxes.

Ignore it?

Another option is that parliament simply ignores the referendum. In theory its not legally binding, both houses (and arguably the Northern Ireland, Welsh and Scottish assemblies) have to approve it and its probable at least one of those will say no (actually all would vote no if given a free vote). In short, Parliament could treat this referendum as if someone just chucked a dead cat in their yard, get a shovel and throw it back over the fence.

However, I don’t think that’s a realistic option politically, nor do I think the EU, nor the markets would except this without some form of 2nd referendum or an early election.

The positives?

Which brings me to at least the one set of positives we can salvage from all of this. Brexit marks probably the end to all of the right’s lies and myths. Like a serial killer they’ve finally managed to act out their twisted fantasy and are now stuck with the consequences of that.

And the consequences are the buck stops here. Pretty much everything bad that happens over the next few years will be blamed (rightly or wrongly) on Brexit. Can’t get a job, or you’ve just lost the one you had, guess who’s fault that is? Not foreigners, not migrants or the EU, but the people like you who voted for Brexit! Your company can’t export overseas anymore because of a loss of free trade deals with the China and the US, guess whose to blame for that one? Your benefits cheque just got cut and you’re in dire financial straits, well you shouldn’t have voted leave then! You’re a pensioner and now can’t afford to heat your home or buy food anymore, well guess whose fault that is? Going abroad is now a pain in the ass because of all the passport controls and red tape, well I suppose you shouldn’t have voted for Brexit should you!

In essence Brexit amounts to the Bigot brigade breaking cover. And out in the open they are now exposed to certain day to day realities in a way they’ve previously managed to avoid. Because unfortunately reality has something of a pro-liberal and pro-progressive bias.

Why we need the EU

_72969302_europarlrexfeatlifeofbrian

Brexit Campaigners on the way to a rally…actually a good monty pythonesque video here, what has the EU ever done for us?

One view I often hear from Euro skeptics is how we don’t need to be lectured to by the EU nanny. That if Europe comes up with something that’s a good idea (regulations on vehicle safety, environmental protection, etc.), we can opt to implement it or maybe not. Why do we need Brussels to tell us these things, why not let us decide? This video blog is a good example of this sort of view. A similar argument is that won’t lose EU grant money, because we pay billions to be a member of the EU anyway (not quite true that one as I discussed in a prior post). This is perhaps a very naïve view of politics and ignores certain realities. And thus it is worth spending some time debunking it.

For starters, the above is a bit of a contrarian argument, you could equally use it to argue in favour of anything, or even use it to argue in favour of getting rid of government altogether. After all think about it, since the UK joined the EU while we’ve paid billions to them to “make up laws” (you know, like ones banning children from working in factories or making sure car are safer). But we’ve equally given trillions to the UK government to do the same. Why do we need the government telling us what to do? I know not to steal or speed, I recycle. Perhaps we should just get rid of government altogether and if we see someone else setting some good life rules to live by, then we are free to copy them if we want. What could possibly go wrong (hmmm….cos there’d be anarchy!).

The fact is that we don’t live in a perfect world, there’s a certain proportion of the population who have to be told to do the right thing and our politicians aren’t perfect (shock horror!). Sometimes people need a bit of a nudge. Take smoking bans in pubs. The evidence that passive smoke is harmful has been around for sometime, yet about ten years ago, you went to a pub and you’d come home smelling like you’d rolled around in an ashtray. And spare a thought for the people who worked in pubs, who had to stand around having smoke blown in their faces all night. In any other industry it would be quickly deemed unacceptable to expose workers to known carcinogenic fumes as part of their job.

140505123311-ireland-smoking-ban-01-horizontal-large-gallery

Now while the EU never banned smoking in pubs (contrary to what Farage might have you believe) they did bring in legislation that obliged member states to protect workers health. This eventually led to smoking bans in many EU states. It hadn’t happened before because governments were reluctant to take on the powerful lobby groups working for publicans and big tobacco. In Ireland for example the idea of either a smoking ban or some sort of segregation within pubs was talked about for years. But every time it was quickly killed off by lobbyists. It is difficult to envisage that such legislation would have been enacted without the EU, even though a majority supported it, simply because politicians were too scared of a very vocal (and well funded) minority.

And European legislation has also improved safety in many jobs, as I discussed in a previous post. In Ireland when I was a lad (which wasn’t that long ago), work place accidents were sufficiently common that you could expect to attend a few funerals every year of some young fellow who had been killed on a building site. Again, governments often failed to act because of pressure from lobbyists. EU legislation gave a sufficient nudge to governments and this has greatly improved work place safety across the EU. This also avoided a “race to the bottom whereby transnational corporations pair one government off against the other in an effort to get them to compete to see who can curb environmental protection or workers pay and rights the most.

Politicians can face pressure not just from corporate lobbyists, but also other special interests. Take the issue of gay marriage. Not only was gay marriage not legal in Ireland (until recently) but until 1993 it was illegal in Ireland to even be gay. As the result of the recent referendum on gay marriage should demonstrate, this was not necessarily a law the majority of the population agreed with. But politicians had dodged the issue for quite sometime, as they were afraid of any criticism from the catholic church, which could cost them votes. The law was only changed because the government realised that this would put it at odds with changes to human rights legislation the EU was then contemplating and they wanted to avoid the embarrassment of being forced into doing it (not least because the law in question was a 1861 act of Parliament….meaning the British Parliament, yes they sat on their hands and let an English law stand for 70 years after independence!).

And some issues are simply too big for any one government to tackle. Climate change is one example. The atmosphere is a global commons and there is little point in one country cutting emissions if the other major powers do not. It is difficult to envisage any progress having been made on this issue, if it weren’t for the EU. And by leading by example, the EU has gradually managed to persuade the American, Russian and Chinese governments to begin to take action. And its no surprise to learn that many leading members of the Brexit camp are also climate change deniers.

CbrEL1RW0AA8lkx

Another example is tax and tax avoidance. For many decades the world’s wealthy have been able to stash their money in offshore tax havens. It was pressure from the EU that has helped wear down many tax havens into signing data sharing agreements that has helped to tackle this. Even Switzerland signed onto another such deal last year (this is the latest in a long line of such deals between the Swiss and the EU). While one can understand Switzerland’s desire to not get cut out of the world’s largest collective economy, its difficult to believe they would have been as open to similar pressure from the UK.

Indeed, its worth contrasting the consequences of finding oneself on the wrong end of the tax authorities in the UK and the US (another large collection of states, not unlike the EU). In the UK you get a series of strongly worded letter from the Inland Revenue asking you to pay, which you will probably ignore (if you’re rich enough), until after a few years they agree to drop the matter on condition you pay half of it. By contrast, in the US, cheat on your taxes and a guy with a badge and gun shows up at your door, tosses you over the bonnet of your merc and hauls your butt in. Indeed, while the response from Cameron is too make excuses regarding the Panama papers, the response of the Americans has been to launch a criminal investigation (and woe to anyone who gets swept up in this dragnet).

This is of course because the US has, by and large, delegated tax collecting authority to the federal government. And ultimately that federal government has a lot more authority and reach than any individual state. While one could accuse the US of often being slow to act on some issues (often there’s various white millionaires they should be arresting, who they don’t….largely because they are a country run by white millionaires!). But it is a generally accepted fact that if you cross the line with the US government, the Fed’s will come after you and there ain’t nowhere on this earth you can hide from them and there’s nobody who is too big for them not to be able to take down (as I suspect Sepp Blatter will be contemplating from his federal prison cell in a few years time!).

artin-shkreli-eace03e3-e554-4251-863e-96753844ff0c

Getting on the wrong side of the Fed’s is not a good idea!

Now while the EU perhaps lacks the teeth of the US federal government (i.e. the guys with a badge and a gun), that’s not to say corporations or the rich and powerful don’t take it seriously. Cross the EU and you run the risk of being locked out of the world’s largest collective economy. There are few who can, or are willing to take that sort of risk. Take for example the recent changes to mobile phone roaming charges. Had the UK or Ireland asked mobile phone companies to lower their rates, they’d have been laughed out of the room. But the EU has managed to get these charges reduced.

I’m not suggesting the EU is a perfect institution. It needs reform, but a lot of the reform would require more European integration and the major obstacle to that are the very eurosceptics who are complaining about the EU. The EU also has perhaps a bit of an image problem. As noted, they often don’t get credit for the positive things they do, but quickly get the blame anytime things go wrong, as national politicians seek to deflect blame from themselves. I recall, an American commenting, upon seeing the EU constitution, that it looked like a telephone directory and read like an insurance policy. He suggested they have another go with a quill pen, some goatskin and start it off with some prose…. such as “we the people”. Of course, one of the complaints about the US constitution is that its far too vague (the 2nd amendment being an excellent example).

And it is interesting to see how the traditional critics of the EU, the hard left, have in this referendum allied with the likes of Osborne and centre right neo-liberals. Why? Because both sides understand that leaving the EU would be throwing the baby out with the bath water. There is only one group throughout Europe who has remained consistently opposed to the EU – Fascists. There reasons are all too obvious, they want to be able to discriminate against one group or another….plus they are all allies of Putin.

And as for leaving the EU saving the UK money, well this assumes there will be no impact on trade or tax revenue, which does seem unlikely. It also ignores that certain key industry’s in the UK get a disproportionate level of funding from the EU. University’s and research institutes in the UK for example get a lot more than others on a per capita basis. UK farmers also get quite a lot of money from the EU, which is often vital to support certain types of farming (notably traditional hill farming).

150306_Open_Europe_Brexit_table

Would the UK government really pick up the tab for these costs (likely putting up taxes or cutting services somewhere else) if the UK left? Probably not. One has to question whether they would be willing to take on such costs given that it would mean cutting back in other areas (e.g. pensions, healthcare, etc.). Consequently it is expected that if the UK does leave the EU, universities will be decimated, many small high-tech start ups will leave and certain types of farming (notably traditional hill farming) will stop altogether.

In short, the whole logic of the EU is that the sum of the parts are greater than the whole.

In defence of EU regulations

b3

Thanks to those pencil pushing killjoy’s in Brussels we’re not allowed to let children work in factories like this anymore!

In amongst the bigoted BS about migrants, the Brexit brigade will often trot out the phrase freeing us from burdensome EU regulations. It was a central part of Michael Gove’s rambling speech (which for some reason reminded me of Marlon Brando’s monologue from Apocalypse Now) regarding Brexit (he also made various wild claims, such as the fantasising that the EU will break up if the UK leaves…and then claim that the UK will get a better trade deal from a now non-existent EU….rather than a worse deal from 24 different countries!).

This is a falsehood, because if there’s one thing that we can guarantee will happen post-Brexit, its that the UK will still be subject to many pages of EU rules (oh, and EU citizens will still be able to come over here in unlimited numbers…oh and we’ll be paying for the EU to administer all of that too). Why? Well firstly because there is no way the EU will sign a free trade deal with the UK if we don’t, nor indeed will any of the other trading blocks. But also because it is in the UK’s interest to keep those rules….unless you fancy turning the country into North Korea!

File_Share of all deaths caused by accidents, EU-28, 2012 (%) Health2015B

Thanks to “burdensome EU regulations” accidental deaths are falling across the EU

What the Brexiters don’t mention is that these “burdensome” EU regulations are mostly devoted to setting safety standards , protecting the environment and workers rights. In other words stopping kids being exposed to dangerous chemicals contained within toys (or air pollution), making sure food doesn’t poison us, preventing workers being maimed at work and making sure you aren’t impaled on the steering column in the event of a car crash. So unless there’s anyone whose okay with taking a few chances (i.e. you want to expose your kids to carcinogens and see workers losing hands and feet at work like back in the old days), I suspect most of these regulations will be staying. Not least because so much trade depends on it.

Let us take the car industry by way of example. Across the EU car makers, or the producers of car parts, are subject to a long list of regulations. These rules keep us safe and mean that despite the fact that year on year the number of cars has been growing, the number of road deaths have been falling for some time now. And as I discussed on my energy blog a few years ago, the benefits of these regulations are all too easy to see.

euroncap3

EU regulations help keep car drivers safe, while also allowing vehicles like this British made car to be exported more easily, while keeping insurance premiums down

I would note that the EU rules relating to vehicle safety are (arguably) weaker than those in the US (we’ll discuss the reasons for that later), notably in that they don’t absolutely require a vehicle crash test (simulations and calculations to prove safety will do) for cars sold in small volumes. This loophole is crucial to many smaller UK car makers (think Caterham, Morgan, TVR, etc.) who rely on it to stay in business (and why importing UK made sports cars into the US is a bit of a minefield).

These rules on vehicle safety are not dictates from Brussels, but are the result of years of negotiation between governments, safety bodies, academics, car makers and insurance companies to try and find a compromise that everyone is happy with. These regulations are important because car companies and insurers rely on them both in terms of setting bench marks for acceptable levels of safety that they can design too (while giving insurers the confidence to insure those cars). But also to back them up in court, they will often cite “complying with all specified safety standards” in the event of a lawsuit. So long as they can prove their car was within the regulations it means that A) a lawsuit is less likely to succeed and B) there are legal liability limits to how much they can be made to pay out. However, if for some reason the court finds that they failed to meet the regulations (as has happened in the past), the sky is the limit. Lawsuits with eyewateringly high pay outs have been the end result.

So if post-Brexit the UK government were to follow Gove’s advice to relax or in anyway loosen the “burdensome” EU rules on vehicle safety, the end result would be the collapse of the UK car industry. Insurers would refuse to insure UK made vehicles, the EU and US authorities would ban the sale of UK made cars or car parts within their borders and the driving public would stop buying them (after all which car are you going to drive your kids around in?). UK vehicle manufacturers would have to move abroad (or ignore the UK rules, adopt the EU rules and pay the costs of arranging for inspection and enforcement themselves).

Similarly the aircraft industry is tightly regulated (and again, the US FAA regulations are arguably stricter than those in Europe). “Airsafe” parts are quite literally “reassuringly expensive” as a result. So much so there’s actually a big black market in counterfeit or non-standard aircraft parts, which the authorities (and the airlines) are trying to crack down on. And again, the airlines, aircraft makers, insurance industry and the regulators themselves (who have been sued in the past for not regulating airlines enough!) all rely on these rules both to protect planes and passengers (airlines don’t like losing aircraft, not a good business model to go around killing your customers!), but also protect themselves from lawsuits and limit their liability in the event of an air crash. If an airline or aircraft maker breaks these rules or is found in non-compliance, the result is usually a massive payout, customers boycotting your planes and usually the collapse of the airline in question.

Economist.planesafety

So again remove these “burdensome” EU regulations and you’d have all of the UK’s aircraft industry and airlines relocating overseas, under threat of them being banned from US or EU airspace if their planes included any cheap British knock off parts. And of course the insurance companies would refuse to insure these aircraft and passengers would likely refuse to fly in them.

Finally, let us consider food. Listen to the Brexiters they’ll have you believe Brussels has 26,000 words devoted to regulating cabbages (not true! As the Beeb’s “more or less” discusses). Farmers represent a problem for the leave camp. Country folk are naturally conservative and distrustful of foreigners, but many farmers are heavily dependant on both EU farm subsidies and trade with the EU. Indeed studies have shown that in the event of Brexit farmer incomes will be on average £34,000 worse off and food prices will increase.

The leave camp have tried to counter this by preposterously suggesting that much of the increased food price will go to farmers (actually it represents an increase in their costs as they find it more expensive to important consumables from the continent) and that subsidies will remain (I’ve yet to hear a single mainstream politician confirm that the UK government can afford to pay such subsidies).

Ignoring such obvious fallacies, the leave camp also try to claim that farmers will be freed from EU “red tape” by voting to leave. In which case, I hope farmers like the taste of their own produce, cos its all you’ll be eating from now on! Much of this “red tape” relate to food safety and environmental protection, so the EU will immediately ban all produce that does not meet its standards (as likely will other trade bloc’s too). And you would even struggle to sell such produce within the UK. Supermarkets know their customers. They know that customers will react to the slightest hint of risk when it comes to food safety by boycotting said products. Customers also demand that products meet various environmental standards (dolphin friendly Tuna, fair trade coffee, free range eggs, no GM crops, etc.). There’s been enough food scares in the past for them to know not to take any chances and the would cease to stock any food that they know that even a minority of customers will refuse to buy.

So I’m afraid, these EU rules and reg’s will be staying and as noted earlier, like Switzerland and Norway, we’ll be paying the EU to send bureaucrats to the UK to make sure we are compliant. Indeed I would argue the other way, in the event of Brexit don’t make our rules weaker than the EU, make them stronger. You will recall I pointed out that in some areas US regulations are actually stricter than those in the EU. In part this is because the US is a more litigious society, so the regulations have been tightened over the years to match this. On which point, the UK tends to be fairly litigious compared to the continent. So post-Brexit we’d expect a natural creep upwards of regulations, rather than downwards.

However, some accuse the US of using its tough regulations on trade as a defacto means of protectionism. They know US firms have to set the bar pretty high to meet the demands of US consumers, so it makes no odds to them if the rules are strict……but it might make a Chinese competitor think twice before entering the US market (or allow them to halt the sale of UK made Cadbury chocolate bars). To those Republicans who say “big government get off my back”, I say can you sign the following legal disclaimer in which you accept full personal liability and responsibility for any injury, death, maiming, disability, dismemberment, loss of livelihood, destitution or HMO refusal (due to “prexisting conditions”) that may impact on you, your family, children, partners, pets or acquaintances from big government getting off your back.

So in a post-Brexit world, I would argue the opposite would be a sensible strategy, make the UK reg’s stronger than the EU’s to protect UK trade. Okay those very same neo-liberal types arguing for Brexit will be rolling around and chewing the carpet when they realise what they’ve gotten themselves in for, companies will whine a lot about red tape and all this form filling, but it would be a entirely rational decision. Of course, push things too far and companies will eventually get the hump and leave the UK for countries that are less heavily regulated.

There is a happy medium between enough regulation to keep us all safe and keeping the insurers and financial services industry happy, but not burdening companies with too much red tape. If only we had some sort of organisation that could find that happy medium?..oh ya we do, its called the EU!

Weekend News Roundup

A budget Enron would be proud of

Osborne has been accused of using accounting tricks to hide a £56 billion hole in his budget. Falling growth and the risk of Brexit over the referendum have all pushed down the economy and this will soon have a knock on effect on tax receipts. Yes, he brought in new taxes, but he’ll have to charge a heck of a lot for sugary drinks to fill a hole this big. Even the Office for Budget responsibility (which he set up) are sceptical, while the IFS has warned of a risk of wages falling and that Osborne is “running out of wriggle room” in terms of his ability to meet his own economic targets.

Cdvt28MWwAAoeDF

As with previous budgets the poorest people in the UK are the worst affected

Furthermore, it is claimed that the numbers in this budget don’t add up and don’t match Osborne’s previous claims. Its considered unlikely he can meet his own fiscal rules, he will not get rid of the deficit, nor run a surplus at any point in the future and will likely have to borrow much of this missing £56 billion. In short, we are seeing the very same thing as seen in other countries who went down the austerity route, stunted growth leading to falling tax receipts. He’s just been a bit better at hiding things.

Cdvw7w-WwAAMWST

And again we see the same game, tax cuts to the wealthy (moving the thresholds for the top rate of tax), while cutting disability allowances, or an across the board cut of £3.5 billion (where that’s going to come from nobody knows, my guess is they’re going to be lifting floor boards and selling off the lead in the roof’s of government buildings). Like I said, Enron would be proud.

The reality of course, is that this austerity was never about getting rid of the deficit, nobody has borrowed more than Osborne, yes he has now borrowed more in a 5 years than the Blair/Brown government did in 13 years. It was always just an excuse through which the Tories could gut public services that their wealthy paymasters didn’t use. While at the same time providing them with tax cuts and the opportunity to buy up public services (such as the NHS) and milk them dry, much like Thatcher did with things like the Railways and power companies.

Screen-Shot-2014-10-06-at-09.36.30

Hinkley C, going full circle

650

Speaking of which, there was both positive and negative news this week regarding Hinkley C. On the one hand, a letter to staff seemed to indicate that its likely to go ahead, despite recent set backs (resignations of senior EDF staff, a halving of the share price, questions about the financial survival of EDF if they proceed). However it also indicated that this is now dependant on French government support. As the chairman of the House of Common’s energy committee pointed out, these latest developments raise serious doubts about the project’s viability. Largely because, as of now, almost every promise we were made about Hinkley C has been broken.

Let us rewind the clock. Originally proposed back under the Blair years (yes, that long ago!) the nuclear industry claimed that Hinkley C would be cheap, competitive, could be built in just 46 months and the nuclear industry actually didn’t want any subsidies. They just wanted the Greenpeace brigade off their back. And indeed a number of very naïve people, such as Monbiot or a number of other pro-nuclear environmentalists, did indeed lobby on this project’s behalf. The government passed various bits of legislation to ease the process of planning and streamline the building of the plant.

Unfortunately, what nobody picked up on was the fact that the nuclear lobbyists blinked three times or rolled up a trouser leg every time they said they didn’t need a subsidy. This was a coded message to indicate that actually they did need one, they just didn’t want to admit it. Eventually, after various abortive attempts (notably trying to turn Green Investment bank into a pro-nuclear slush fund) the previous coalition government worked this one out. And they offered a subsidy at a rate nearly three times higher than what’s on offer for solar (per kWh) and five times the wind power subsidy rate. But we were assured this didn’t matter as nuclear power is a “special” form of power and it would mean no government capital would be put at risk…….

…Only when EDF tried to raise that capital, the markets laughed them out of the room. They were simply unwilling to invest in such a high risk project, particularly as nobody could give them a firm estimate of how much the damn thing was going to cost (its drifted from £6 billion under Blair to £18 billion today and I’d guess more like £20-25 billion myself when its actually finished). Seed money from the state or a state guarantee was needed. And so they got both, the Chinese state nuclear energy company agreed to put up a third of the cash in return for the UK government agreeing to be the guarantor.

From the beginning environmentalists were assured that it wasn’t a case of choosing nuclear or renewables, we could have both. However its clear from recent subsidy cuts that this was a lie. Renewables are being killed off to make room for Hinkley C, as its business model can’t compete with Renewables. Both CCS and coal have also been killed off as alternatives. Yet still the financial industry is not willing to commit to the project. So in desperation EDF have now turned to the French taxpayers to fit the bill.

Getting the French and Chinese taxpayers to do this whole “socialism” thing for us might seem like a good idea, if you’re a Tory and its against your religion of Thatcherism. But its actually a terrible deal for the UK. Recall the UK taxpayer will be liable if the project now falls apart. And the Chinese and French get to charge three times the market cost of electricity for the next 40 years. This is the point the HoC energy committee is making. Even if you are one of the few who thinks this project is a good idea, we’d get far better value for money just buying out 100% of the project and building it as a national infrastructure project.

And least we forget the UK needs at least five Hinkley C’s just to replace its historical maximum nuclear output of 16 GW’s. The follow on plants are unlikely to arrive any time soon, certainly not before the remaining 8 GW’s retires. And with renewables knocked out of the box, its likely to mean a new round of gas fired plants being built, which does not bode well for commitments to cutting green house gas emissions.

In short every promise made by Hinkley C’s supporters, be they Monbiot, Mc Kay, the DECC, the Royal Society, etc. has been broken. By contrast the views put forward by the naysayers, be they the banks, Prof. Steve Thomas, the WNISR authors, the New Economics Foundation or indeed myself, have been proven correct. As I’ve said before, Hinkley is shaping up to be the hill on which the nuclear industry might well die on.

Clarkson backs the EU

Jeremy-Clarkson-500953

Jeremy Clarkson surprised many over the last week by coming out in favour of the UK staying in the EU. Yes, the man who likes to mock the French and German’s relentlessly wants the UK to remain part of the EU….presumably so that he can continue to mock them and make jokes about Agincourt.

Indeed, he actually argued far beyond simply staying in calling for a United States of Europe, much to the horror of many of his petrol head fans I suspect. However, I would take this as admission from Clarkson that most of his show is just an act. And in essence he’s saying a joke’s a joke, but its not funny any more when people’s job’s are on the line.

And of course leaving the EU will have an impact on employment, and what’s left of the UK car industry will take a hammering. Many of the UK’s car companies are foreign owned. Parts are brought in from factories all over Europe (indeed much of the UK car industry is parts for export to Europe) and assembled in the UK (or elsewhere). Something like 75% of UK made cars are built LHD for export. Inevitably post-Brexit, it will be all too tempting to shorten supply lines and move production to the continent.

And of course, its questionable whether his Amazon gambit will work with a reduced audience. And increasingly it looks like a vote for Brexit is a vote for Scottish independence and a vote for Boris “bike” Johnson as PM. Needless to say, Clarkson probably has visions of the M6 being turned into a bikeway! So his position is entirely understandable.

Neo-serfdom

Should you wonder just how crazy, fanatical and heartless the Brexit camp are here’s an example. Brexit will cause all sorts of economic problems, particularly if any form of restrictions to free movement of workers is introduced. While there are unemployment black spots in Britain, generally in ex-industrial areas (devastated by Thatcher) or ex-sea side resort towns (losing out to cheap package deals). But overall there are labour shortages for things like skilled apprentices or farm workers.

A vote to leave the EU will devastate farming, with some farmers claiming they’d be forced to leave crops rot in the field. The Brexit camp solution, oh we’ll get pensioners to go out and pick the crops. Why they’ll need the work and money so badly (given that without the tax receipts from EU citizens its doubtful the UK can pay pensions any more) they can even be paid less than minimum wage. Its the sort of story you read and hope its April fools day!

What this shows is how those behind Brexit are not the champions of British freedom they claim to be. In truth they are the wealthy, the corrupt and the despotic who want to turn the clock back to a time when there was an upper class and everyone else, when the serf’s knew their place.

Indeed case in point, the recent EU agreement with Turkey to stem the flow of migrants. This has been criticised by human rights group for fundamentally altering the status of refugee’s. On the plus side, it should counter the claims that the EU means more migrants coming into the UK. But what is the headline in the Daily stormtrooper Express, they filter down everything said over the last week to one sound-bite by Donald Tusk which they then take way out of context and spin it too suggest that somehow an agreement which sends back refugees will amount to an open door to them, WTF!

What this shows is that Cameron should never have called this referendum. It will not be fought on the issues. It is being fought on whatever outrageous lies and scaremongering that the fascist inclined tabloids can concoct.

Exploitation, Exploitation

A funny spoof from the Guardian website, which mocks the TV show location, location, location. It charts the all too common decisions faced by young millennials trying to find a flat in London. Consider that in London now, you’ll be paying about 3 times the cost per square metre for a house than in the rest of the country….and that’s in a rough area or out in Luton! In the centre of town £100 wouldn’t buy you enough space the size of an oyster card.

paddington

A “compact and cosy” “loft conversion” in London

And as few can afford the hefty deposit that comes with buying in the capital, many are forced into renting, even when they can easily afford mortgage payments. Rents are now so high some are charging £74 a week for essentially a broom cupboard (many spend about £1,000+ a month, often +60% of take home pay on their rent). Ultimately I reckon rent controls are badly needed in London.

To the tower with him

The manager of slave driving sweatshop the firm Sports Direct, conman businessman Mike Ashley has been ordered to appear before MP’s to explain himself. He’s been threatened with imprisonment within the Tower if he doesn’t comply. Apparently there is a rule within Parliament (which is technically a palace of the Queen) that do allow those who are found to be in contempt of Parliament to be imprisoned within Big Ben…although not on the clock face one assumes!

White House security doing its job

Gerry Adams was incensed at being refused entry to the White House on St Patrick’s day. Ya, what where the security guards thinking! Why would you refuse to let in a known bomb maker and IRA commander, currently under investigation over several “disappeared” people.

On the plus side, if Trump was at the event it could be a very easy way of solving lots of problems. Although Obama might have to explain why a small mount has suddenly appeared in the rose garden.

IDS Quits

And last but by no means least, the quitting of the work and pensions secretary Ian Duncan Smith, as I was typing this up last night. He is making clear that his reasons for quitting are the failure of Osborne to suspend cuts to disability benefits.

Apparently he had been lobbying for cuts to benefits given to better off pensioners as an alternative to kicking people out of wheelchairs (personally, I’d rather cut neither, but I appreciate the point he was making that we should be cutting funding from those who can afford it, not those who can least afford it but are politically expendable).

Of course one has to wonder if friction over Europe and the referendum was also to blame. Certainly, the Tory party is increasingly at war with itself.