The smell of sweat
is nothing but sweat
as it floats in the air.
not always smells like sweat.
only smells of flowers.
The smell of sweat
is nothing but sweat
as it floats in the air.
not always smells like sweat.
only smells of flowers.
I truly dislike talking about human beings solely as resources for the economy. We are not just pieces of business machinery. Each one of us has a heart full of aspirations, emotions and memories. We are loving neighbours, mothers, brothers, sons and friends to other people who love us too. We have talent, culture and spirituality, whether it is religious or not. We share humanity with everyone. We are the Rivers of Life feeding the Oceans of Hope.
However, since the debate about migration in this EU referendum has focused mainly on how migrants contribute (or not) to the economy and on how to “control numbers”, often with demeaning language, I feel the need to share with the readers a reflection, primarily in economic terms, about migration. Sadly, these are the parameters of the debate and responses on these grounds are also needed. Unfortunately, the urgency of the situation requires it. The stakes are high.
The referendum campaign has been tarnished by very sad episodes of political abuse and even violence, including the tragic death of Jo Cox, a brave woman who defended noble ideas and values and served her community and the country with diligence and enthusiasm. Leaving the EU, as we may be about to do, led by a right-wing movement that rides high on the back of the beast of media xenophobia, fanatic patriotism, dubious democratic claims and self-interest (a movement whose messages have surprisingly captured the imagination of millions of decent Britons!), will be catastrophic for our country.
The debate about the effects of EU migration on the UK economy is simply misguided. Many Brexiters do not acknowledge that EU migrants fill in positions that the local workforce cannot. Migrants are also consumers, pumping up Britain’s GDP figures. Crucially, reputable studies have demonstrated that the value of taxes paid by EU migrants in Britain outweighs the value of the public services that they receive. It is true that different methodologies to calculate the net contributions throw out different figures. Quantifying this is not easy, as shown in this study of the University of Oxford. However, nobody challenges the fact that EU migration into the UK has been, in fiscal terms, beneficial.
Nevertheless, one of the important points I want to make about migrants’ contribution is that there is a big elephant in the room that nobody talks about in any of the studies cited during this campaign by any of the camps. I call it the “Migrant Premium”, as there is not an easy straight forward term to define it in econometrics, but the premium falls under the well-known category of “human capital gains”. This concept extends beyond any comparison between migrants’ tax receipts and migrant’s use of public services, as it refers to the impact on the wider economy, not just on the public purse (1).
What is the “Migrant Premium”?
If we look at the figures, the cost of bringing up a child in the UK from birth to adulthood is at least £40,000 at 2016 prices. This figure only covers education and health. The cost of state schooling comes to more than £22,000 (2), whilst health costs are in the region of £1,000 a year for younger age groups (3). If we add health and university fees costs for the 19 to 22 year-old group, we have an extra £30,000 on top.
When a young non-university educated migrant comes to Britain, ready to work and pay taxes, he is saving at least £40,000 to UK Plc. If it is a graduate, just with a 3-year degree, that figure goes up to £70,000. This is the replacement cost of that influx of human capital per person.
There are many different ways to calculate the Migrant Premium and I look forward to old and new studies on this matter, but the above estimate is, if anything, on the low side. Bear in mind that we are not including here any other costs, such as maintenance, housing or any other private or public spending that the young person benefited from directly or indirectly in his or her country of origin.
The Migrant Premium surely plays a role in sustaining the U.K. Economy. Our country has been able to increase, on demand, its working and tax paying population without having to invest huge amounts of money. Migrants land in Britain and start paying taxes as they begin consuming and working.
Conversely, the Migrant Premium is a “migrant loss” for the countries whose public services have subsidised the health and education. Basically, the U.K. and other Western economies “import” ready-to-work human capital for free. Germany, when it comes to EU migration, and the United States are our main competitors in attracting human capital. Regrettably, this important asset migrants bring with them to the UK’s economy is not taken into account in any of the calculations disseminated in the media about the benefits of migration. If you find one, please share it in the comments.
Brexiters with an understanding of economics know, in broad terms, about the Migrant Premium, but they don’t want to acknowledge it because it gives breathing space to the opposite camp.
In my discussions with people who intend to vote Leave, whenever I have been successful to demonstrate the immense benefits of migration to the UK, I have then been confronted with other migration-related arguments that would justify leaving the EU. Here they are:
The all-time favourite Brexit icon: an “Australian point-based system”
This system does not stop or reduce migration. It just provides a sense of control and allegedly filters migrants according to their “quality”. This is a very classist and perverse idea, as it could create a two tier workforce: the low-paid workers, made up primarily of UK nationals and some pre-Brexit settled down migrants, (the points system would stop people without high professional qualifications to come to the UK) and the better or well-paid workers, which, as the proposers of the points system acknowledge, will be, proportionally, made up of more and more highly educated workers from abroad. The points system would allow to fish for skills in a wider sea and perpetuate the situation of underinvestment in training and education for professions such as doctors, nurses or teachers. If their governments in their respective countries train them for us for free, why bother? I am afraid, business principles dominate Conservative-UKIP political practice.
What is the other problem with the Boris’ and Nigel’s “Australian system”?
In an economy like ours, or Australia’s, younger workforce is essential. Businesses need it desperately. That is the reason why people come here. Make no mistakes, U.K. Welfare is not available for newcomers and is not good enough in itself to justify coming here, anyway. The freedom of movement provided by membership of the EU enables changes in supply and demand for labour in any country to be self-regulated, without State intervention. Additionally, the EU is a massive space of 500 million people where to find the right professional profiles when needed.
I am not a believer of free markets as the best solution for many human needs in our society, but I have to say that I very much value the freedom of taking up whomever one thinks is best for a job, or choosing for whom one works. If I ever set up a business again and need someone to work for me, the last thing I want is to fill in immigration forms, ask prospective candidates to fill in even more forms and expect Boris Johnson’s army of Whitehall Bureaucrats to make a decision about who I should take on for a job based on the points system they have designed. There is not anything as illiberal and centralising as that. Employers know who they need and why, employees know who they would want to work for. It is their decision. The EU enshrines precisely that principle through the free movement of workers in our common space.
Some people argue in favour of this points-based system by defending that non-EU citizens should not be discriminated against EU citizens, despite the fact that non-EU migration in the UK remains stronger than EU migration according to Migration Watch. Fair enough. Let us create a system that gives non-EU citizens easier access to jobs if needed. But leaving the EU and imposing restrictions on everybody is a massive step backwards that do not really benefit anyone at all.
Undercutting and discrimination of UK nationals
The other argument used by many to defend a vote for Leave is the very legitimate concern about local workers being undercut.
I do believe we should work harder to eradicate any business practice that effectively discriminates local workers. David Cameron stated in PM Questions this week that his Government was taking action against agencies that only recruit foreign workers. This was in response to a question by Labour Leader, Jeremy Corbyn, who has shown that working conditions and rights are again at the heart of Labour’s agenda. The enforcement of a (higher) decent minimum wage should also be pursued. Finally, as a through study by CERIC Leeds shows (4) “The Brexit scenario would have even more detrimental effects on the employment and bargaining rights of both UK nationals and migrants.”
Population growth and public services provision
This is of course an understandable concern. In my view, however, the biggest issue about the UK’s alleged overpopulation is that there are areas in the South of England that are real magnets for UK migrants (internal) and non-UK migrants. Their economic growth out-paces everyone else’s in the country. Other areas, particularly in the North, have registered very slow growth in population recently. Blackpool and Sunderland even lost population between 2007 and 2012 (5). The density of population of the U.K. is not that high at all. We are not even in the 50 most densely populated countries in the world (6).
Obviously, the unbalanced distribution of wealth, opportunities and population in the UK has nothing to do with the EU and is a serious problem that will not be solved by leaving the EU. If anything, the poorer areas of the UK will lose out even more by leaving the EU, as the dependency on manufacturing jobs is much greater there than in the South East and this is one of the sectors who would suffer the most. Successive UK governments in the last 40 years have not done enough to redress or alleviate this imbalance. It is their (our) call.
Insofar as the provision of services, the “Migrant Impact Fund”, which was introduced by labour and withdrawn by the Tories, is back on the cards and should be used as a policy tool to ensure that a higher amount of the taxes generated by new local and foreign arrivals in any given area are dedicated to the public services of that area.
All in all, we should be thankful to our migrants for choosing the UK as a destination for their Migrant Premium. We all know they are also grateful and happy to be welcome amongst us. They could have chosen Germany, Holland or Finland, where in-work benefits, public services and wages are better than here, but in instead they joined us. We must be doing something right as a nation. Let us be proud of it.
Let us remain in the EU.
(1) Methodology: The purpose of this part of the article is to highlight the indisputable existance of a substantial Migrant Premium of at least £40,000 at the time of the arrival of the working migrant in the UK. Therefore, the valuation of that premium has been kept on the low side and “replacement costs”, as suggested by Bowman (below), have been used. This is not a longitudinal study of the actual returns of the human capital brought into the economy by each migrant over time and it assumes that the migrant is ready to take a job. There are longitudinal (over the time) studies about the benefits of migration in terms of human capital, but as I suggest when I discuss the question of tax receipt vs public expenditure (Oxford University study cited), the problem is that there are so many different methodologies used to quantify the flows of capital that we run the risk of not acknowledging the existance of obvious magnitudes such as the Migrant Premium for not having found total agreement amongst economists and statisticians on how precisely to measure it. Two recommended readings for those with a professional interest on this question:
Bowman, M.J. “Principles in the Valuation of Human capital”. Review of Income and Wealth. Volume 14, Issue 3, pages 217-246, September 1968
Schaeffer, P. “Human Capital, Migration and Brain Drain”. Journal of International Trade and Development. Volume 14, No 3, 319-335, September 2005
A friend of mine told me last night that she was recently insulted for being a foreign migrant in the UK. As she had finished a phone conversation during which she had to spell her surname, the man next to her on the bus looked at her full of hate and said something rude suggesting she should go back to her own country.
Another friend of mine, who blindly supports Brexit, had told me few days before this happened, in a conversation about xenophobia and freedom of expression of migrants on the issue of the referendum, that if anyone receives ethnic abuse or violence, they must report it to the police.
This is wishful thinking, and quite frankly, naïve. Our police forces cannot deal effectively with this kind of low level, yet highly perverse and hurtful violence. They are overstretched and they would struggle to catch people like that man on the bus and get any kind of meaningful redress from him. Most people I know share this belief. In fact, I have heard of xenophobic behaviour in the past and I cannot recall one single instance in which ringing up the police was even suggested. To me, if things are getting to a point in which police intervention is needed to tackle xenophobia, yet victims do not feel that bringing the police in would help, it is clearly too late for the politicians and the State to tackle the issue effectively.
Of course, many of these xenophobic rude people must feel that they are just expressing their national anger resulting from the horrible effects of migration and membership of the EU. They replicate, in their own language and code, what the right-wing newspapers have been telling them for the last 20 years about migration and the EU. But the same is true of other Tory and UKIP xenophobes who, as members of the middle classes, have learnt to coach their nastiness towards migrants in a way that would not get them into any kind of trouble. No name calling, no swearing. And, of course, this xenophobia can take many other shapes. Do you remember the French Lady in Question Time last week who was shut down by a fervent audience when she said “well, we are all Brussels”. (She was trying to challenge the belief that there is an evil entity trying to control the UK personified in UK Brexit discourse as “Brussels”).
Are there Brexiters who are not xenophobes?
Of course there are, I know some nice normal people who want to leave the EU, but they should acknowledge that if it was not for all the “patriotic”, anti-EU and anti-migration propaganda of newspapers like The Sun and The Daily Mail over the years, UKIP and the Brexit campaign would not have prospered in terms of number of supporters and voters as much as they have. Perhaps that would give them a better understanding of what type of country they are promoting by supporting Brexit.
What about the Brexit right-wing elites, the ones behind all this, the ones who would never share a bus with the man who insulted my friend?
We must remind them that they have come this far in their political and business aspirations on the back of a rabidly xenophobic horse which their media have spurred. It is their responsibility, more than anyone else’s, to help us to put down the beast they have nurtured as soon as possible. Unfortunately, I don’t think these elites are up to the job. Besides, if Brexit wins, they will be too busy over the next ten years trying to desperately negotiate new business and trade deals, for themselves and/or for the country as a whole, to care about anything else, never mind social cohesion and peace.
Image credits: Hope not Hate
“Ah, thanks to the EU referendum we are going to see some democracy at last. In fact, we are recovering our democracy. We have had enough of the European Union”, said a Leave supporter to me last week.
What a misguided idea!
The EU is an organisation made up by National Governments. All the important EU laws, the EU Treaties, have to be passed by each one of the European Governments, including our own Government in the UK.
It is up to individual countries (the EU has no say on this) to decide how these European Treaties are approved internally, at the national level. In our case, it is our MPs in Westminster who have voted in favour of every single one of the EU treaties, often following tough negotiations, for the last 40 years. The Treaty of Maastricht, The Treaty of Nice, The Treaty of Lisbon were signed by a British Prime Minister following parliamentary debate in the UK.
In other countries like Ireland, for the approval of the EU treaties a popular referendum is required. In the UK, we trust, naively, the solidity and transparency of our national parliamentary system.
People who think that our lack of democracy in the UK comes from being part of the EU do not understand where the problem stems from. Someone said to me recently:
“We (the British) are the architects of democracy”.
I said to myself:
“I can’t see the architects of this fine building in need of serious refurbishment around. They must be dead by the age of the construction. This guy has not ever heard of Private Eye”.
We are at the heart of Europe. That is an economic, social, historical, cultural and political fact that we cannot hide under the carpet by detaching ourselves from the EU. We are no Switzerland or Norway. We are the second largest member of the Union. It is true that we need to build a better EU, but that only can be done from the inside, not by leaving.
And what about our sovereignty?
In order to have a better national democracy and a more effective control of our UK affairs the first thing we need to do is to vote for Remain and don’t distract our attention with painful and economically uncertain renegotiations of trade treaties, which could take many years, and huge internal changes to our EU laws, which frankly, are there for a reason (protecting the environment, consumers, workers…) and do not prevent us from improving our national democracy at all.
This EU referendum is not part of a plan to improve the way the UK political system works. The Tories and UKIP, promoters of this plebiscite, have no intention to hold any more referendums on other matters. If anything, sadly, this “democratic” referendum experience may put people off direct democracy, and democracy altoghether.
Bear in mind that it is very difficult to make an informed and rational decision in complex issues such as leaving the EU in such a short period of time. One thing is voting for your MP, who you can meet and like or dislike. Another is being asked to make a one-off, one-in-a-life-time decision which would test anyone’s combined critical understanding of History, Economics, Politics, Business, Human Geography and Law, all in a UK, European and international context.
The vast majority of people in this country are not used to research, debate and decide anything political. We are only expected to vote every 5 years in the General Elections. Only a tiny minority of people are actively involved in political campaigning and debate. The percentages of participation in the General Elections are not impressive. Around 40% of people don’t bother. In the case of local elections and the referendum on proportional representation (2011) the levels of engagement are simply a shame in our UK political system (around 25% vote in local elections). We live, like in most other Western countries, in a very “laid back democracy”.
For those who believe in democracy, here is our priority:
We must tackle apathy, our democratic institutions need to connect with people, we need to build a better democratic fabric in society, with more direct democracy on issues we can and should have a say like education, jobs, health or transport. Let people take more responsibility on more manageable, tangible, local and national, matters.
Interestingly, progressive popular empowerment is the only way to have UK Governments that have the strength, legitimacy and honesty to defend our interests in Brussels, within the EU, in coordination with other democratic governments and movements of other EU countries.
The last thing we need is a ToryKIP Government, fired up by Brexit, that runs away from the top tables in the World and turns its back on their own people and on the rest of our allies and friends in Europe.
Democracy in the UK is possible, Another Europe is Possible, but only if we vote Remain.
If you love this country and its people, as I do, (not necessarily its political system), don’t vote Leave.
“wert thou the unicorn, pride and wrath would confound thee and make thine own self the conquest of thy fury” W. Shakespeare, Timon of Athens, Act 4, scene 3, c. line 341
Oh Beautiful England,
Have turned you
Into a mirror,
Into a mirror
Of the World,
Tell your sister,
The other England,
Who still believes St George
Was from Windsor
Or St Albans
For our peace of mind,
Who her real parents were.
That it’s millions,
Of all tongues,
Who make you
All her books.
To stop drinking
Gin and tonic and Pimm’s.
To sober up to reality
Her Foreign Kith and Kin.
Copyright © 2016. Tony Martin-Woods
Todos los derechos reservados. All rights reserved.
Painting: Happy unicorn and a naked virgin. Rothschild Canticles. Flanders 14th century. Beinecke Rare Book and Manuscript Library, MS 404, fol. 51r from by Hieronymus Bosch (c. 1450-1516). Source: https://uk.pinterest.com/elenakarasiova/
I have decided to start my own resurrection
before I lose my strength
and sense of humour,
before I am told to go for good,
before the scroungers that await for me to bleed dead
jump on me remorselessly
to celebrate my life
with my bittersweet flesh.
So, this is the plan:
I will get myself out of my current body
(this requires some effort:
you need to do as if you close your anus tightly
pushing yourself upwards
rotating your shoulders
and inserting downwards your neck,
as your new body needs to be born through your head).
Then I will get rid of all the dribble with nice white towels
and get some new clothes that I would have bought for the occasion
(a red t-shirt and black loose very soft trousers, with cotton pants).
I will then leave my corpse lying on the sofa
with the TV on,
and a very hot drink
in a nice stars wars mug
next to me
on the floor.
Then I will go out,
buy the Private Eye,
to see what they say
about the tory hyenas,
the media liars,
the ukip shit
and the bankers who fund them three,
and get a haircut
whilst I read the magazine.
Then go to a shop
and have a coffee,
and a piece of cake.
Drive to the pool,
in my non-resurrected green car,
and have a swim.
I will come out refreshed
I will then buy some Elvis Priestley sunglasses
and some flowers
and stand round the corner of my house
waiting for the ambulance
and the cops
to turn up
to discover my ex
with a calm smile
and his eyes wide open.
I will be the first to show my condolences
and say great things about me
cracking jokes on how I used to be.
I just want to be there, you know I mean?
checking out things,
being in control of my own post-mortem history,
and ready for when my wife and the kids come:
a simple blink of my eye.
over the Elvis sunglasses,
shall suffice for them to know
that the quirky looking guy is me
with no rejections and
no strategic silences any more
free to go, and say and do,
free to start the same revolution,
free not to fall in the same traps,
free to look after my family,
and many good friends and strangers,
free to help them to resurrect,
free to help to save the planet,
and free to bypass
my former enemies,
that I wasn’t so bad.
…Lovely, but too late!
Copyright © 2014. Tony Martin-Woods
Todos los derechos reservados. All rights reserved.
This is a response to the article published in the Telegraph on 24 February 2016 by Gerard Lyons, economic advisor of Boris Johnson, entitled “The EU is like the Titanic, and we need to jump off before it sinks“. The extracts of the text of Dr Lyons are in italics.
The European Union is like the Titanic. Imagine being in Southampton harbour the day the Titanic set sail. Its size gave the impression of invincibility: safe and secure. It wasn’t. Despite receiving warnings of impending danger it didn’t change course, hit trouble and sank.
Because it is huge, some in the UK feel we would be safer and economically stronger in the EU. This is wrong. We now have the opportunity to jump ship to safety. An opportunity we are never likely to have again. Not a leap into the dark, but for those able to look ahead, a move to safety.
It is true that the EU is complex and needs deep reforms for it to be more democratic and effective, but let us ask ourselves this question: who are about to board on a very proud and apparently seaworthy vessel, full of enthusiasm and self-belief, in search for better seas away from the European mainland? The Brexiters.
I love metaphors, but only when they are used with care and wisdom. The Titanic was a British RMS ship.
In so far as the substance of these claims by Lyons, I would say that the EU is home to countries like Germany or Finland where the standards of living are higher than in the UK and whose enterprises in a number of key sectors are better equipped, technologically and financially, than their UK’s counterparts. They have to work under the same EU regulations than us, but they know how to deal with them.
These include returning sovereignty and having a meaningful immigration target that can be met.
On EU matters, sovereignty is shared. By being part of the EU we extend our sovereign powers to the rest of the Union. It is called influence and co-responsibility. EU Treaties are approved by national governments and parliaments, including ours. There is not a single piece of legislation in the EU that does not stem, originally, from a British-backed rule.
Immigration is the result from British firms not being able to find sufficient workers to fill in positions. Immigration is fuelled by the stupidity of our establishment, the functioning of the markets and the inability of successive UK Governments to get things right on a number of policy areas. Here are three sectors, not the only ones, where immigration is a necessity for the UK:
1) Health: The lack of Government investment in training doctors and nurses is the direct result of Britain being a “low tax” country for invisible entities of all types.
2) Services: The wages of UK working classes in relation to the cost of living are very low. A waitressing job in London is only suitable for people who don´t have a family to look after and are “happy” to survive in shared low quality accommodation.
3) Education: The stress of school teachers, widely reported by Unions, and the failure of our system, is motivated by a managerial approach to Education, by an excessive workload and by a plethora of rules and protocols that do not allow the professionals to get on with the jobs of educating young people. These rules do not come from the EU, but from the department that Mr Gove, another Brexiter, was running until not so long, and from previous governments, to be fair on him. Regulatory diarrhea (from the Spanish “diarrea legislativa”, used by the Spanish liberals to mock over-regulation) is also a UK home grown disease. Teachers from abroad are in high demand as UK teachers are increasingly dismayed and not many young people pursue a career in education.
So, will there be an army of UK public servants telling UK employers how many people from abroad they can hire in each case, in each type of business, in each city? Is this the idea of a free-enterprise Britain? How many regulations, quotas and forms will this generate? Will they be second class workers, with less rights for similar positions?
We can focus attention on what is needed for small firms and for ordinary workers across the whole country. Outside the EU we can position the UK to be outward looking.
No way. You cannot trust the Tories on this. Ordinary workers in the Northern and Central countries in the EU are better off than their UK counterparts. If it was not for the European regulations, UK workers would be even worse than now in terms of social rights.
Leaving the EU will come with transition costs. While the UK public may want quick wins, the most important thing will be stability, a road map for the future and a clear strategic vision. Just as a new government may require one or two full terms to implement its manifesto […]
Brexit will be an economic shock. We encounter such events throughout our own lives, when we move house or change jobs. Unless planned for they can be disruptive. That doesn’t mean growth will contract or jobs will be lost, but investment plans may temporarily be put on hold.
Well, at least the author of the article is honest on this, but does he have a figure for the transaction costs? Are we going to pay it pro-rata, or would there be job losses resulting from these costs? Is he offering himself to give up his job as economic advisor of Boris Johnson so that we can cover them?
One way to picture this growth is the letter “V”, or better still, a tick – a short fall in growth followed by a much larger rise. Pre- and post-referendum would resemble the downward stroke of the V. A rebound would follow later.
A Churchillian slip there with the “V”. Perhaps it is a V of another kind what we would get. This is all speculation. Hot wheels on thin ice.
The first stage will be an agreement on our terms of exit. We could invoke Article 50 that triggers a two-year process. Or, depending upon the politics, engage in a major renegotiation. As we are the EU’s biggest export market, economic incentives suggest they will negotiate sensibly and agree a deal on goods and new guidelines on movement of people. However, the EU has not acted sensibly in recent years and they might not do so in any exit negotiations. This fear of a tough negotiation should not be a reason to vote to remain in the EU, but highlights the difficult near-term path ahead. But many countries outside the EU trade with it, we would be another, and one with a very competitive service sector. This renegotiation period also allows time to put in place other necessary Brexit measures. One is a timetable to repatriate powers.
Well, on paper it looks great. It is like one of these rehearsed moves in football. Or like the famous run of the minies out of the Italian vaults with the gold, with the “self-preservation society” song in the background”. Now, the politics of these negotiations are not so cinematographic. This article by Dr Lyons in the Telegraph is being read by thousands of people abroad, including negotiators from other EU countries, so this is no slick cunning secret plan any more, I am afraid.
Also, after so much disrespect shown to EU governments, after so much British supremacist claims about democracy and self-reliance from people like Janet Daley, or so many unfortunate statements like the one by Boris Johnson, who said in his Brexit article of 22 February in the Telegraph that “We have spent 500 years trying to stop continental European powers uniting against us”, does anyone think we can have a normal friendly negotiation on Brexit? It will be harsh. The outrage in the continent about the arrogance of Brexiters is growing. Try to see it from their point of view: Cameron goes to Brussels to meet 27 heads of government. He shows a half-baked shopping list of reforms aimed at appeasing the right-wing media, rather than improving the working of the Union. His vision of the EU membership is purely economicist. He insists on slashing workers rights. Then, on his return to London, half of the country, full of pride, wants to leave, ignoring what the EU means in terms of cooperation, inter-cultural understanding, solidarity and friendship and belittling the efforts that those other governments of those countries have made to allow the UK to get some of its demands, in the way of a especial status, in a complex scenario.
Between 2013-14, Whitehall produced 32 detailed reports on the competences that the UK has transferred to Brussels in different areas. This provides a basis from which to work.
Whitehall? They love regulations as much as the EU Commission. 32 reports! The transferral of powers will be simply a change on the header of the documents from the EU. Rules are necessary, unfortunately. Any exports to the EU, even if we are totally out of the EU, will have to comply with the consumer protection standards and safety rules of the EU. Repatriation of powers is a copy and paste job of EU law.
Another is to how better spend our EU contribution. This should go towards funding our public services properly. We also need to identify areas where EU funding may be withdrawn, such as scientific research, on students and the arts, and ensure this is covered fully with some of our previous EU contribution earmarked for these.
One of the beauties of the EU research funding schemes for universities is that they emphasise cross-border collaboration between different institutions. That type of research is highly valuable because a diverse pool of expertise can be shared at European level. Synergies. Economies of scale. By having UK only research funding, we would be killing another hen of golden eggs. We would end up cooking ourselves in our gravy, freshly prepared in the kitchens of the Titanic, of course (we shall have no stock cubes).
We have a great opportunity to make trade deals that boost exports, but first we would need to rebuild the skill set to do so. Inside the EU our demands are only one of 28 when it comes to trade. Outside, we would have to replicate existing deals, and learn from the likes of South Korea and Singapore, and make trade deals that play to our strengths, that are iterative and are with the fast-growing regions of the world.
Again, this is hot air. It sounds very good, but we have to understand that the success of any trade deals between the UK and other countries is also determined by the deals that those countries have already with our competitors. Brexit means that the list of our rivals will include the EU itself, and everyone else, for that matter. What we need is more influence in the EU to ensure our interests are respected there. But for that to happen, we need to be a serious partner.
With Brexit we have the opportunity to safeguard workers’ rights, ultimately determined by Parliament and by UK voters, not bureaucrats in Brussels. It is not possible to protect workers’ rights with mass migration.
This is the most cynical claim one can imagine. The tendency of the UK Governments since the 1980 has been to stop employment laws from the EU, depriving British workers of rights. Blaming mass migration for the lack of willingness by UK Governments to protect UK workers’ rights is tantamount to racism. It is like saying, “we would give you better rights if we did not have to give those same rights to the foreigner workers in the UK too”.
But low migration does not mean no migration. An excellent Civitas report last December by Cambridge Professor Bob Rowthorn showed mass migration suppresses low-skilled workers’ wages, and adds to pressure on housing and public services. The gains go to the migrants and to the employers. We need to control the scale and ensure we let in only the skilled migrants we need.
As I said before, workers with all types of skill-sets come here insofar as they are actually needed. If there were no jobs, they would not come. Are you going to force employers not to take the best person for the job?
We should not kid ourselves that the City of London is somehow safe in the EU when we did not achieve a veto to protect it from greater control by the eurozone and from decisions of the European Court of Justice. Leaving creates initial challenges over passporting of financial services, and possible loss of euro clearing, but I am optimistic. London is so much more competitive than any other financial centre in Europe, with its concentration of skills, knowledge and expertise. Also, more regulation is being set at an international level, which is important as London’s competition is global.
Well, parts of the City are starting to brexit Brexit. The London Stock Exchange (LSE) is again negotiating a merge with the main German Stock exchange to become one single entity. With the Germanisation of the LSE, as the German partner would have 52% of the shares of the new company, an important British institution will protect itself from Brexit. They are clever. I am sure they have great economic advisors. Will there be other companies, or institutions or people allowed to opt-out Brexit without having to physically leave? I don’t think so.
The vision is to be a globally competitive economy, based on low taxes for firms to succeed, leveraging off our universities and talent, and founded on rising productivity through increased investment, infrastructure and innovation.
Low taxes? For whom? I can see no chance for working people to prosper in a low-tax Brexit. How will investment in education, in infrastructure or in research and innovation be paid for? Those are essential ingredients for increased productivity. Ask the Germans.
Brexit is a neo-victorian, romantic, unrealistic, ill-informed, overconfident outburst of the wrong type of patriotism that has been brewed for a number of years by irresponsible media. Call it off. Let us concentrate our energy and our patriotism in building together a better Britain as part of a better Europe where working people do not see themselves forced to migrate or rely on tax credits to meet ends, a Europe with fruitful and responsible trade focused on innovation, sustainability and quality of life, more democratic European institutions accountable to the European people. This would deliver long-term stability for Britain and the continent. I would be happy to join that romantic, yet safe enterprise. No life jackets required.
Day 2 in the Brexit House. Los medios y los televidentes hemos disfrutado de lo lindo. Seguro que los políticos no tanto.
Boris Johnson, alcalde conservador de Londres, se ha convertido en todo un símbolo del brexismo. La naturalidad exultante de sus ademanes de niño rico travieso que se ha comido la caja de bombones a veces juega a su favor, a veces en su contra. Hoy las cámaras de todos los telediarios le han encontrado a Boris su lado rebelde: A la entrada de Westminster, los periodistas le atosigaban mientras él respondía con chascarrillos. Con su anorak, su bici, su mochila y su gorro del Metro de Londres, Boris se perfilaba tras las lentes mojadas de las cámaras que lo perseguían como un personaje atormentado. Sus tribulaciones: haber roto aún más su partido, enfrentarse a su amigo de la juventud David Cameron, ser acusado de egocéntrico que usa su postura poppulista para promoverse como sucesor de Cameron y haber contribuido al batacazo de la libra esterlina, que hoy alcanzó su mínimo de los últimos 7 años frente al dólar.
Ya los asientos del Parlamento, desde un rincón del gallinero, rodeado de caras expectantes, lanzó su única pregunta al Primer Ministro, su amigo David Cameron, sobre la soberanía británica.
En los labios del adolescente enfadado Boris se leyó muy claramente la palabra “rubbish” (basura) tras escuchar la respuesta.
David Cameron ha sido la antítesis de Boris Johnson: nítido, bien peinado, elocuente, preparado para esta gran ocasión de Estado y hasta sarcástico, en su justa medida. Normalmente gris y sin filo, el Primer Ministro se crece ante la dificultad y puede brillar en su oratoria cuando realmente hace falta.
También ha estado muy bien el líder de la Oposición, el laborista Jeremy Corbyn, que ha recordado que lo importante de Europa no es el acuerdo alcanzado por David Cameron, sino su potencial como espacio de cooperación y comercio. Ha reconocido la necesidad de mejorar la Unión, para que este al servicio de la gente. A pesar de la grosería de un diputado conservador que lo ha interrumpido, Corbyn ha estado a la altura de Cameron y ha demostrado sentido de Estado sin abandonar sus principios socialistas. Todo un ejemplo en Europa.
Por último, la entrevista del genial Jon Snow, de Channel 4, en las afueras del Parlamento, a la Secretaria de Estado de Empresas, Anna Soubry, y a Nigel Farage, el polémico líder del partido brexista y anti-inmigración UKIP. Un cínico desaprensivo disfrazado de tío majo. Se me antojaba un duelo entre iguales, pero Soubry le ha dado un repaso bastante completo a Nigel Farage, cuyo machismo simpaticón de terciopelo no le funciona con mujeres hábiles. Soubry, con una astucia cautivadora, ha sabido plantear muy bien la entrevista y ha dejado a Farage sin argumentos, hasta el punto de forzarlo a decir que ni siquiera quería para Gran Bretaña un estatus de Estado asociado con la UE como el que tienen Noruega y Suiza, que forman parte del Área Económica Europea. “Entonces ¿con quién estaremos aliados en Europa?”, preguntaba la Secretaria de Estado. “Con nadie. Nosotros solos. Independientes”, respondía Farage humillado. La mirada de Soubry merecería un párrafo aparte.
Y es que la principal baza de los Unionistas, o “Remainers” (de “remain”, quedarse), es que la salida abriría un periodo de dos años de gran incertidumbre tras el cual se consumaría la separación y que nadie en absoluto puede predecir con un mínimo de rigor lo que sucedería con las exportaciones británicas, con la copiosa inversión exterior que recibe y en general con su situación geopolítica. Es muy triste que se tenga que polarizar la campaña entre los dos bandos conservadores: el de los nacionalistas románticos desinformados, que se creen que Gran Bretaña es la Hija de la Polla Roja y que serán de nuevo un imperio, como dice la canción de los Nikkis, y los pragmáticos civilizados que apelan a la incertidumbre económica para que nada, o muy poco, cambie en política. Hace falta ilusión por Europa, por una nueva Europa.
En fin, afortunadamente no es Brexit todo lo que reluce, más bien al contrario.
Boris Johnson joins Brexit. Most commentators attribute his decision to the need to assert himself in the race for the leadership of the Tory party against the Chancellor George Osborne, but nobody has reflected yet upon the true economic and political significance of Boris Johnson’s move. As the major of the city that harbours the biggest financial centre in the world, and a declared supporter of its financial industry, it would be have been inconceivable for him, and irresponsible, not to have, at least, gauged the mood amongst the leaders of the City’s institutions before making his mind up. Can anybody imagine a conservative major of London standing against the City of London?
In my view, Johnson’s support for Brexit needs to be interpreted in the light of one of the deals achieved last weekend by David Cameron in Brussels: The British Government will be able to object, and delay, the implementation of measures by Eurozone Governments on Monetary Union matters that affect the rest of members of the Union, but will have no right to veto them.
The ability to block Eurozone integration is something that the financial industry had defended for years and the British Government has tried its best to achieve. The Eurozone, as it has become evident following the Great Recession, requires a revamping of its institutional architecture and a more effective, and far more democratic, governance. There are a number of ideas, more or less developed as specific proposals, that could help the Eurozone to address the political and functional shortcomings of the Monetary Union, bringing prosperity and jobs to the Euro countries and, by extension, to the EU as a whole, including Britain. However, some of these ideas might reduce the ability of many London financial institutions to continue working in the way they have done since the European Monetary Union started. Additionally, the City could be affected by any agreement within the Eurozone that touches, directly or indirectly, upon the question of debt (our public and private debt, which is immense. Remember that in our new world order, money is just debt and debt is a powerful political tool. If you need proof of it, watch 4 Horsemen, Boom, Bust, Boom or read the latest work of any alternative economist).
So, in what way could many operators of the City of London benefit from Brexit? Britain’s departure would make the European Union far more unstable and force everybody to rethink their priorities; the question of regulating the activities of the institutions who brought about financial chaos in 2008 will be left in the back burner. Brexit would certainly bring monetary instability for the euro, and the pound, that many will be already betting for and benefiting from. The turmoil caused by the shock of a victory of the No Campaign would prevent the still immature Monetary Union to advance in the direction it needs.
One may argue that Brexit may be detrimental for the city (no capital) of London, but that would not be so much the case for its financial operators. Severing the links with the EU will no doubt force London-based institutions to redeploy parts of their operations in the continent before Brexit is consummated legally, but with state of art technology and the best paid lawyers, it would be easy to minimise the cost of any relocation. At the end of the day, money, as opposed to people, does not have any national feelings.
Meanwhile, it appears that the big industrial corporations of the U.K. are showing their desire for Britain to remain in the EU. Up to 80 of the FTSE100 companies are reported to support Britain’s membership of the EU. For them, the benefits of sharing a common market and being part of a greater economic entity in today’s world are indisputable. For them, migration has brought about the labour they needed to and migrants are seen as an asset, as they are net contributors to the economy who generate more taxation and more consumption. For them, there is no evidence whatsoever that Brexit would generate more investment and more trade to the country. It is a big gamble. The EU “regulations” that so many people complain about would have to be complied with anyway if these corporations want to continue selling good and services to the continent. And, personally, I think Britain, as much as I love it, is one of the most regulating societies in the world. Leaving the EU would not liberate us from suffocating rules, nor make the rules better, believe me. Look at any other aspect of our life and society (Education is a good example) and tell me hand in heart if we don’t have too many rules, protocols, reports, procedures and measurements of our own creation that have nothing to do with the EU.
I am sure plenty of noble ideological and political reasons will be provided by Johnson justifying his stance in no time (today at 10.00 am in the Telegraph, apparently). Well-known anti-EU conservative discourse is widely available in the shelves of Tesco and other major suppliers in all colours and sizes. It is not that Boris does not have the capacity to elaborate his own narrative, but why bothering reinventing the wheel if the pre-packed patriotic democratic neo-romantic stuff is as good as any? Besides, loads of effort has been put in producing the arguments for Brexit by many politicians and commentators, including himself, over the years. Embracing the collective work, using the words and emotions that best resound in our hearts would bring Boris closer to the common man and woman and facilitate his harmonious contribution to the campaign.
However, no matter how appealing his arguments may appear to be, the decision of Boris Johnson to support Brexit reveals the widening gap between the real economy, the one that produces goods and services, which supports overwhelmingly EU membership, and the financial elites, who have decided to rock the boat, using the British people and sectors of the media as a proxy, in order to maintain and improve their position of dominance over States, industries and people across Europe.
Hoy se ha anunciado la fecha del referéndum en el que los británicos deben decidir si Gran Bretaña abandona la UE o si permanece en ella, bajo las nuevas condiciones que el Primer Ministro conservador David Cameron ha conseguido extraerles al resto de Estados miembros. Será el 23 de junio de 2016.
Destacados miembros del Partido Conservador se han alineado en las dos campañas antagonistas, la del Sí y la del No, las cuales están a su vez divididas en diversas facciones.
Por un lado, dos pesos pesados del Partido Conservador, Michael Gove e Ian Duncan Smith, están desde ayer galvanizando a los numerosísimos militantes y cargos conservadores que reclaman la Brexit (Salida de Gran Bretaña de la UE). El poderoso grupo mediático de Rupert Murdoch y periódicos como el Daily Telegraph no sólo apoyan la Brexit, sino que han contribuido durante años a crear y difundir toda suerte de mitos sobre la UE que han calado profundamente en una gran parte de la sociedad. Los rebeldes conservadores compartirán campaña con el otro partido de la derecha, UKIP, que fue creado precisamente como respuesta anti-europea y anti-inmigración a la tibieza de los conservadores euro-pragmáticos.
Mientras tanto, David Cameron y su Chancellor of the Exchequer, George Osborne, defienden el Sí huyendo instintivamente de aventuras geopolíticas arriesgadas. Recuérdese que hasta Obama va a apoyar la permanencia del país en la UE y que una parte importante de las grandes empresas británicas, hasta un 80% según el Financial Times, va a hacer lo mismo.
El alcalde de Londres, el conservador Boris Johnson, se ha decantado públicamente esta tarde por la Brexit. Su decisión es tremendamente importante no sólo por el gran respeto del que goza en todo su partido y entre parte del público. El pronunciamiento de Johnson nos da una idea de la brecha abierta en la clase empresarial británica en torno a la cuestión europea. Como alcalde de la City of London, mayor centro financiero del mundo, es indudable que Johnson cuenta con el visto bueno de las “instituciones financieras” privadas. La escisión de la clase financiera con respecto a la élite industrial se hace cada vez más patente.
¿Y por qué a los poderes financieros les interesa apoyar la Brexit en estos momentos? David Cameron no ha conseguido en sus negociaciones del fin de semana pasado el derecho a veto de los países de fuera de la Eurozona a las decisiones que se tomen en el núcleo duro de la Unión Monetaria. Eso tiene implicaciones para el sector financiero británico. Tarde o temprano el Euro necesitará una arquitectura política e institucional más firme. Inevitablemente se ejercerán competencias en materias que afectarán a la primacía de Londres como centro financiero en la UE (y que le darían a Frankfurt, su rival continental, el señoreaje que demanda). Además, los intereses de los operadores londinenses, que en realidad carecen de nacionalidad, estarían también en juego si hubiera algún tipo de acuerdo en torno a la deuda entre los países de la Eurozona, lo cual sería posible también sin contar con Gran Bretaña. Por eso, una parte de la City of London, después de muchos años de ambigüedad silente, confirma ahora su órdago secesionista. La reformulación de la gobernanza del Euro aún no ha madurado, la salida de Gran Bretaña provocaría un gran choque que paralizaría la Unión y generaría incertidumbre en torno al euro y a la libra. Debilitar a los Estados es la estrategia de una deudocracia cuyos intereses se alejan cada vez más de los de la economía real.
La única conclusión esperanzadora de todo esto es la constatación, una vez más, de que el “Establishment” o clase dominante de un país no es un bloque homogéneo que actúa siempre con un propósito común. La izquierda en Europa debe aprender a entender y usar estas divisiones.