Some photos from the USA 2018
I did not think I would return so quickly to the UK’s in out referendum as a blog topic but here I am. Once again I am heartily sick of this misinformation that is allowed to run across our media outlets without proper questioning.
This week much has been made of the legal status of the agreement with the Council of Europe and whether it is binding. Bottom line on this, in my view, is that the agreement is binding in intent but only becomes formalised after treaty change. As I explained in my previous post, this will require referendums in several other countries. If rejected by the constitutional process in those countries then what?
There continues to be a lack of clarity on many areas of our relationship with the EU regardless of the agreement negotiated. The in/out decision is really about this for most out campaigners. Regardless of the renegotiation details which appear almost to be a side show. I’ll focus on three elements Finance, Security, Rights and Trade.
The UK’s is the 4th largest contributor but the 2nd largest net contributor behind Germany. This net contribution is effectively a membership fee and that contribution is used by the EU organisations to subsidise and support other EU nations of which Poland, in 2013, was the largest recipient. In other words it is overseas aid for the EU. This fee in 2015 was £9 billion based on £18b contribution, £5b rebate (Mrs T) and £4b in farming via Common Agricultural. As a comparison the UK currently pays £43b per year in interest on its National debt of £1.6 Trillion.
The UK is the 5th or 6th largest economy in the world depending on which source you site. G7 membership, G20 membership IMF etc are not dependent on EU membership.
The In campaigners claim we are safer inside the EU. The Out disagree. So facts:
Under Article 51 of the UN charter all nation states have the right to self defence. The UK is a permanent member of the UN Security Council – one of five. Under Article 51 NATO operates its collective defence policy of an attack against one is an attack against all. NATO is the same size as the EU in terms of members, but they do not align. Several EU countries are Neutral (Austria, Finland and Sweden. You can add Ireland based on non-belligerency) therefore they cannot help with that type of security. Of course the USA and Canada are not in the EU but help with security. In/Out this does not change.
Security has other forms. The UK is one of the so-called 5-eyes which share intelligence information this is (CIA, MI5, MI6 , NSA, GCHQ etc with Australia, New Zealand ,Canada and the USA). No other member of the EU is; therefore, there is intelligence information that the UK does not share with those countries. There are separate agreements with some countries (France, Germany, Netherlands etc) and NATO shares some. So much for the contribution to the EU security.
Europol is put forward as a good example of EU security. Norway is mentioned as European, non-EU member that shares information. What is Europol? It has 800 members of staff of which 145 are liaison officers from member police forces. Under 5-eyes MI5 which along with the Met Police has Counter-Terrorism responsibilities, can’t share info with Europol. In fact much activity in 5-eyes is spent spying on our EU partners. Mrs Merkel’s phone for example. Do we really believe that Europol cooperation would stop if the UK left, or would a Norway arrangement be made. Then there is Interpol which is in 190 countries with many of the same aims as Europol. We would still be a member of that.
We are protected by the UN, Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the European Convention on Human Rights. Both predate and are separate from the EU. The European Court of Human Rights is not an EU institution, nor is the War Crimes unit nor the International Court. The EU does have the CJEU or the European Court of Justice which arbitrates on EU law i.e. the rights and wrongs under the treaty. This was the argument on legality disputed by the two sides this week. In effect they are both right. The CJEU could over turn but it has never done so so it will not or might not but could.
Some rights I believe the EU has done a much better job on then the UK authorities. Data protection is one are where the UK’s Information Commissioner has been an abject failure primarily due to the powers granted to the ICO. The EU has been much stronger striking down the pathetic Safe Harbor agreement with the USA as offering no protection. Whether the UK alone would stand up to the USA in these matters is doubtful, given 5-eyes its unlikely. This might mean that in event of an exit the EU may not be able to exchange data with the UK. That will be a major impediment to trade so would need to be addressed. In this case EU protection offers more than just UK.
Following the letter from several major companies promoting stay in the airwaves and print were full of disagreements on what exit might mean. I return to World Trade Organisation, G7, G20 and other agreements. Based on import export the EU needs us in a free trade area more than we need them especially as the EFTA agreements have not fully supported the trade in services. BMW and Audi will not want to lose access to the market. Any hint of trade tariffs or protectionism would just escalate on both sides. The actions of the Eurozone will make this more and more difficult for those members
In or Out
I still don’t know but I want to see much stronger reasons for staying in then I have seen so far. The new agreement does not change that as I cannot see anything fundamental changing. Removing ever closer union from a treaty (if approved) means nothing when the Eurozone is doing just that and has to do that to make the Euro work.
I recently commented on the GoodReads forum http://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/1471999 discussing the subject “Would You Write About Controversy”
I said I might blog so here it is starting with my own comment, I haven’t reproduced others’ comments as I haven’t asked the writer’s permission.
“One of my favourite discussion subjects along with censorship. Freedom of speech in the UK is not as formally protected as it is in the USA, but it is protected. There are always controversial subjects although the USA arguments of religion and politics are not as ribald, neither is abortion.
One of the most interesting controversies, over the years, has been Salman Rushdie’s The Satanic Verses. Irrespective of political viewpoint it is a work of fiction, but look what it led to and that was mostly in a pre-Internet Social Media age. Did this book sell more copies because its opponents were so vociferous in denouncing it and the author? Has Salmon Rushdie sold more of his other books as a result or has he changed writing subjects to avoid further death threats?
In my own work, controversial decisions and some politics are backdrops to my stories. In my first attempt, it was the creation of the dossiers to support the war in Iraq. With Syria going on, the recent UK decision to not support military action can be traced to the Iraq dossier debacle. In my second, I deal with several controversial subjects like rape and summary execution, hidden in a story about survivors. My third has insider trading to generate huge wealth and the misbehaviour of big business. Who knows what I might write next as news stories often provide a creative spark.
At the front of all of my books is a disclaimer. This is a work of Fiction, in other words I made it up, it’s just a story, I don’t necessarily share my characters opinions, although I like to have a basis of fact behind all my stories.”
That said, is controversy useful? In an age of trolls, flame wars, email barrages, and 24/7 media sound and video bites, should a writer of a blog, article or book deliberately try to be controversial. Another quote attributed to Brendan Behan
“There is no such thing as bad publicity except your own obituary.”
In the UK we have had threats of rape caused by promotion of the image on a bank note followed by more threats to female writers and journalists who had the temerity to comment on the threats. Opinion piece writers in newspapers and other media are supposed to be controversial, that’s why they are employed. A newspaper editorial and front page headline are designed to support the political leanings of the newspaper and act as an advertisement for sales.
Let’s be controversial then – Martin Luther King, Jr said
“The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy.”
A nice uncontroversial quote, so lets dissect it.
The ultimate – really this is the ultimate meaning the peak, the top? Are we sure it’s really the ultimate.
Measure – by what metric is this a measurement and to what standard and against what comparitor?
Of a Man – Many commentators would regard this as sexist, but of course at the time of the quote man in this sense meant humankind or to use the terminology mankind still shouldn’t the same measure be used for women?
I’ll stop there I have no wish to denigrate Mr King who was a fantastic orator on the speeches I have seen, I don’t know if he was a good man or not I didn’t know him personally or professionally.
So, if I write about abortion in a novel, will I face controversy and criticism regardless of the viewpoint the character, or characters, propose. Under-age sex or any sex often causes controversy. I’m not sure why, it has always happened and despite sex education, moralistic pronouncements, campaigns and so on it always will. Should I avoid that subject to avoid controversy? Because a character has under-age (a subjective legalistic viewpoint with different morals, laws and conventions around the world) sex in a story should that automatically rate a book as adult only content? If I write about it does that make me a paedophile (another nice controversy there). If I look at a naked woman in a Rueben’s picture in an art gallery that is cultural, if I look at a naked woman on a porn site it’s bad or degenerates women. For women is a Michael Angelo sculpture porn? It’s a naked man! My word we cannot show that on prime time TV and if the man had an erection it would be porn and not suitable for any regular TV viewers. In case nobody noticed the human race has survived and expanded thanks to sex including erect penises. If you don’t want them described in a book or film don’t read or watch, but why would you avoid human nature. I don’t particularly like watching people chew gum, maybe we could censor that, but of course I might just be trying to be controversial so you will read my blog, if I tag it correctly for Internet searches.
If I argue for against creationism, Islam, Christianity, Scientology, Buddhism, etc., etc., will I attract more interest, more blog followers, more complaints, will that sell more of my books. Who knows? There are millions of blogs, tweets, and emails. Thousands of newspaper articles around the world and nearly seven billion people on the planet each with their own opinions and beliefs. Just because a politician, media outlet, or journalist says something in Iran, the UK or the USA does not make it so or true. In general I think there is too much opinion dressed up as facts. If you hear the words common sense, the people believe, it is God’s wish, step back, ask if that is really true is it a fact or an opinion?
If you don’t discuss controversial subjects then you are simply avoiding facts which is often the advice given for polite conversation – no religion, sex, or politics. Whichever side of an opinion you may take, remember it’s an opinion not a fact. I like to argue, I like controversy, I think I’m right and so do you.
Now back to writing my next story about a homosexual atheist who rapes a disabled veteran on his nation’s flag whilst looking at kiddie porn having forced his 14 year old sister to have an abortion only because the father was a black Islamic preacher– or maybe not. Still it’s an idea… now for the tags, light blue touch paper stand back and….