Why I am voting to REMAIN in the EU

Introduction

Over the past 20 odd years since I have been eligible to vote, I have not always kept a loyalty to the same political tribe.

However, I have always been sort of middle of the road.  When I used to support the Tories a long time ago, my loyalties were always towards the moderate and Pro-European left wing, as opposed to the Thatcherite right.

At times when I have voted Labour, it has been because they were in a cycle of fighting for the middle-ground, and the influence of their left wing was very much reduced.

I have voted Liberal Democrat on some occasions also, and being a centrist was very much at the forefront of my mind when I decided to join the Lib Dems within a week or so of Jeremy Corbyn being elected Labour leader in September of last year.

There is one particular issue in which my views have always been fairly consistent on, and that is Britain's membership of the European Union.  Let there be no misunderstanding here: I have always been pragmatically Pro-European.

I will be VOTING TO REMAIN IN THE EU, and I will now move on to explain why.


Identity

I am proud to be English and British.  I am proud of my family roots in and around Liverpool.  I also have an affinity with Warrington, where I have lived for almost all of my adult life.

But none of the above is a contradiction to being European, and vice versa.  After all, 24 european nations will be participating in the Euro 2016 football tournament this summer in France.  And of course, only 6 of those nations are not members of the EU.


How does the EU work?

In the passing of EU legislation, there are three main institutions.  They are the Commission, the European Council of Ministers (which consists of elected government ministers from across the Member States, who will vary depending upon which topic is up for discussion), and the European Parliament (which elects representatives from across all Member States for five year terms).

The laws are proposed by the Commission.  The Council and Parliament vote to pass the laws.  The Commission subsequently ensures laws are properly applied and implemented.

Another EU institution is the Court of Justice (ECJ).  The ECJ's role is to ensure that European law is interpreted and applied correctly across all Member States.


EU being labelled undemocratic

Some eurosceptics have often made reference to laws being passed by unelected officials.

Whilst I will not pretend the EU is perfect, the brief explanation I have given in the above section does show that laws need to be approved by elected government ministers and MEPS (Members of the European Parliament).

Regards domestic politics in the UK, I am a supporter of reforming the electoral system used to elect MPs to the House of Commons (known as First Past The Post).  There is an important point here regards the argument on democratic deficits, which does link in with the EU.

Amongst the reasons for my viewpoint on House of Commons electoral reform is the low share of the vote needed in some recent general elections for one party to form a majority government. 

Last year, the Conservative Party won a small parliamentary majority with just 37% of the popular vote.  Ten years previously, the Labour Party won an even bigger majority with a smaller share of the vote!

Another reason I would like to see the system reformed is that the majority of people pretty much know who their MP will be as they enter the polling station.  This is due to one party being dominant, and holding a safe constituency seat.

The consequence of an MP holding a safe seat means he or she is more accountable to their local constituency party association than their local electorate!

So how does this issue link into the EU?  The last major reform to British democracy was in 1918, when women obtained the right to vote.

By contrast, the elected European Parliament has gained more powers during the forty three years which Britain has been a member of the EU.

Furthermore, with British MEPs being elected by a system of proportional representation, meaning that a party's share of the national vote closely matches the number of MEPs elected, one can argue that MEPs are potentially more accountable to the electorate than their Westminster counterparts.


The Single Market and the EU

The European Single Market came into force in 1993, enabling EU Member States to be able to trade with each other without restrictions or tariffs.  Citizens of each Member State do not need a work permit to work in another country.

The Single Market has been extended to include Norway, Iceland, and Lichenstein (all non-EU Countries) through agreement in the form of the European Economic Area (EEA).

Switzerland (as another non-EU State) also has access through bilateral treaties.  I will now explain briefly how Norway and Switzerland's relationship with the EU works.


The Norwegian Option

As a member of the EEA, Norway has full access to the European Single Market.  Two notable exceptions though are Agriculture and Fisheries.

As Norway is part of the Single Market, a worker from any part of the Single Market can go to work in Norway without the need for a work permit. 

Despite not being a full member of the EU, Norway still makes significant contributions to the EU budget.

With the Norwegians not being full EU members, there is no Norwegian participation in the European Council of Ministers or the European Parliament.

Therefore, the voting process involved in the passing of EU laws means the Norwegians do not get any say, and European laws will still be applied in Norway.

Norway's current Prime Minister Erna Solberg and her predecessor Jens Stoltenberg (now NATO Secretary General), have both recently gone on record expressing a viewpoint for Britain to remain in the EU.


The Swiss Option

A former Swiss President has described his country's relationship with the EU as complex.  This is because they have around 120 bilateral agreements with the EU.

In simpler terms, the arrangement covers 10 areas.  The Swiss also make significant contributions to the EU budget, and (like Norway) have no say on EU rules.

From a British angle, it is important to note that this bilateral treaty model does not at present permit any cross-border access for financial services, which is a big sector in Britain's economy.

Therefore, comparing Switzerland to the UK is clearly not like for like.

One of those areas in which the bilateral agreements do cover is the Free Movement of People.

In 2014, Switzerland voted in a referendum to limit the freedom of movement of foreign citizens.

If these limits were to be introduced, there could be implications not just for this area of the bilateral agreements, but also for 6 of the other 9 areas within the bilateral agreements.

Should the Swiss enter a re-negotiation of it's entire relationship with the EU, the question to ask is who has the upper hand?

Would that be the country with a population of 8.4 Million, or the block with 500 Million people?


Other post-Brexit options

We could simply do our own trade agreements around the world via the World Trade Organisation.

One issue with doing that is we would have less bargaining power as a nation of 70 Million, as opposed to being part of a 500 Million strong block.

Furthermore, we would be unable to avoid tariffs in our dealings with the EU, who are our closest and largest market.

Other post-Brexit options include the Turkey Customs Union model.  As Turkey see this as a stepping stone to EU membership, I hardly think this route is worthy of any serious consideration.

More generally, I consider that any arguments made by Leave campaigners are devoid of any credible exit plan.


IN SUMMARY

Being European does not need to be a contradiction to being British.

Whilst there is room for improvement in terms of EU democracy, I believe there is even more room for improvement with regards British democracy.

I believe by following the examples like the Swiss or Norwegian models outside the EU, that we would effectively become some EU Associate Member with no voting rights.

Europe is our closest and largest market, and I feel that pro-Brexiteers have no credible exit plan. 

SO PLEASE VOTE TO REMAIN ON JUNE 23.

The stats which undermine Britain's First Past The Post electoral system

When you take a look at Britain's 2015 General Election, there are more than a few disparities between the seats parties won and their share of the vote.

Wasn't it bad enough that the SNP won 95% of the seats in Scotland on 51% of the Scottish vote?  Well, what I am about to say next will really hit.  Did you know that the Conservatives won every Constituency in Cornwall, despite not even gaining 50% of the Cornish vote?

When myself and others who are like-minded on the subject of electoral reform speak of the reasons the First Past The Post electoral system is no longer fit for purpose, a dramatically reduced share of the vote share for the two largest parties is frequently mentioned.

If we compare British general elections over the past 20 years to elections over the 20-25 years since World War II, it is clear that the share of the vote enjoyed by the two major parties has declined from consistently well over 80% to around the mid 60 percentage points.  This is not the most damning statistic though.

In general elections over the last 20 years or so, the winning party has generally achieved a share of the vote which is lower or similar to the party which finished second during general elections in the generation which followed World War II!

So let's look at a few examples of vote share achieved by the two main parties in UK general elections which truly do leave a damning verdict on First Past The Post:

The Conservative Party won the 2015 general election with a small House of Commons majority on just 37% of the vote share!

The Conservatives in 1945 were on the receiving end of a landslide Labour victory, in which Labour gained a parliamentary majority of 145.  The Tories share of the vote was 36% (or 39% if you include the vote share of a Liberal Party breakaway faction who later joined the Conservative Party).

Tony Blair's Labour Party ended 18 years of Tory rule in 1997, winning a stunning Commons majority of 179.  This was despite Labour having a vote share of around 43%!

In fact, Labour gained just under 44% of the vote share in the 1959 general election.  However, that year saw a Tory landslide victory which delivered a 100 seat majority.

THE EVIDENCE IS INCREASINGLY OVERWHELMING THAT BRITAIN'S VOTING SYSTEM IS BROKE, AND DOES NOT WORK FOR THE MODERN DAY.

THE MAIN QUESTION NOW IS HOW LONG SENIOR FIGURES IN THE POLITICAL ESTABLISHMENT CAN PRETEND OTHERWISE?

Sunday Retail Trading Consultation needs family safeguards

Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne has produced a new post-election budget, the first all-Tory budget in the UK for over 18 years.  One particular announcement concerns a consultation over Sunday trading hours.  It may well be that local authorities will be given the power to decide if they want to have longer Sunday trading hours in their own areas.

The announcement appears to have split major retailers.  Some of them consider it to be vital in order to compete with internet traders, whilst other major retailers also have smaller convenience stores which can stay open longer anyway under current rules.  These same retailers with concerns feel the current laws work just fine, and have concerns over staff costs which a longer Sunday operation would entail.

If this is to be a matter devolved for local authorities, then I would suspect that some areas will go with longer Sunday trading, whilst others won't.  For those instances of local authorities embracing the longer trading hours, family safeguards will be an absolute necessity.

We do live in changing times.  These are times in which many people don't work the old traditional hours any longer.  What is unlikely to change though is that children will still go to school Monday to Friday.  I would be very surprised if children start having to go into school on a rota anytime soon!

Any workers with children should be given safeguards which I feel should mean they do not have to work more than every other weekend day.  For me, even workers without children should be given consideration in some circumstances. 

What if someone's partner works Monday to Friday, whilst that same somebody is compelled to work every weekend?  Would such a couple be reasonably expected to just have a day off together when one of them takes a day's holiday?  Not really fair that, is it?

My Electoral Reform passion, inspired by German influences

My Electoral Reform passion

I am passionate to see Britain replace it's current First Past The Post electoral system with a more proportional system.  I believe more voters will be heard, and that less votes will be wasted.

There are of course several different models of Proportional Representation (PR), and since Britain went to the polls nearly two months ago to produce a most disproportionate general election result, I have been taking some time looking at a some of these models.

I very much doubt for instance that I would be upset if Britain were to adopt the Single Transferable Vote system, following a future consultation.  This is a proportional system which returns multiple representatives in large electoral districts, and which considers voter preferences.  It is also the system used in the Republic of Ireland.

My leanings at present are though moving more towards what is known as Mixed Member PR (or MMP).  Different variations of MMP are used in Germany and New Zealand.  Under this type of system a voter would have 2 votes, and parties would roughly earn a number of seats in line with share of the vote earned. 

MMP explained

For a simple example, we will look at the fictitious region of Cazza-Matta, which contains 20 parliamentary seats. 

For the first vote, the voter will vote for the party of their choice.  This vote will determine how many seats a party in Cazza-Matta will win in line with their share of the vote in the region.  So if the Andy Watto Sing Along Party wins 40% of the vote in Cazza-Matta, then the Andy Watto Sing Along Party will win 8 seats.  It is as simple as that!

We will come back to the role of the first vote in a moment.  For now, we will move onto the second vote.  This vote will be used to vote for a local candidate to represent the voter's local constituency, just as one does currently under the First Past The Post system.  Half of the region's 20 seats will be constituency seats.  The Andy Watto Sing Along Party wins 5 of the 10 constituencies.

So now we move back to the first vote, which is used to determine proportionality.  With the Andy Watto Sing Along Party entitled to 8 seats across the whole region, the party will win 3 further seats from what is known as a regional top up list to add to the 5 seats already won in the constituencies.  And the process will continue for Cazza-Matta's other parties.

This kind of system will not only be fair to the voter, but it will also give the voter more choice.  If the voter is not particularly fond of the MP in their local constituency, then they could also choose to take an issue to any of their regional MPs.

My admiration of Germany

It is my admiration of Germany which is at present moving my leanings in the direction of the PR system I favour.  As a football fan, I like the German football club ownership model which ensures a club must have 50% plus one shares held by it's fans in a co-operative.  Dare I confess I also have a little soft spot for the German national football team.  Of course, I am naturally pleased that England's Women beat Germany 1-0 last night to secure 3rd place in the Women's World Cup.

The admiration I have for Germany goes way beyond the football field.  They have been slightly better than us Brits in various economic measures since the end of World War II.  Considering that the election of parliamentary representatives does underpin every policy area, there can be little doubt that Germany's Mixed Member Proportional system has of course played it's part.

A simple comparison of representative government

This year Britain voted in a Conservative majority government with nearly 51% of the House of Commons seats, on just 36.9% of the vote.  Compare that to the German Federal Election of 2009, which saw a Christian Democrats/Free Democrats coalition government being formed with a combined share of 53% of the seats in the Bundestag, on a combined share of 48.4% of the vote.

This next comparison is more significant.  In 1997, Britain's Labour Party won 63% of the House of Commons seats, with just a little over 43% of the vote.  When Germany went to the polls the following year, a Social Democrat/Green Coalition was formed with both parties winning a combined share of 51.5% of Bundestag seats on a combined vote share of 47.6%.

What is also worth highlighting is that Germany tends to get a higher voter turnout on General Election day, compared to us Brits.

A proposed amendment to the German Model

I would personally prefer that the vote in constituencies was to be done by the Alternative Vote system (AV, or Ranked Ballots as North Americans would say).  This would mean that voters can rank candidates to be their local MP in order of preference.  This is the only tweak I would make.

The principle of AV is that when every vote is initially counted on first preference votes, it is established if the candidate with the most votes has 50% of the support in the constituency.  If they don't, then the bottom placed candidate is eliminated, and that candidate's first preference votes would be re-distributed amongst second preference candidates.  This process continues until one candidate has reached 50% of the vote.

I am mindful (having spoken to my father) that some people reading this may feel this may be too confusing and too much change for the voter.  The point about AV is that a voter can rank as many or as few candidates as they want.  Therefore, if someone only wished to vote for one candidate in a constituency, then they can do just that.

I have also considered that even if the constituency element of MMP was kept as First Past The Post, the regional top up list would restore proportionality anyway.  However, there are a couple of reasons why I would use AV for the constituency element.  Firstly, it will enable voters of minor parties the right to express their true political preference, in a contest that their preferred candidate is unlikely to win, without wasting their vote entirely.  Secondly, it would enable independent candidates (who would be unable to appear on regional party lists) a fairer chance of winning a constituency seat.

Above all else, any confusion over change would be overcome with time, especially if MMP (with AV being used for constituency votes) were to become the normal British electoral system, for all types of election.

Don't you always get coalition governments with PR systems?

More often than not you do.  However, suggestions that you generally get no coalitions in the UK, are not quite true.  Britain's system two party dominated system has produced two parties which I would argue are coalitions anyway. 

There has down the years been the odd left-wing Tory and right-wing Labourite alike who have crossed the floor into the other party.  The reason is simply that many people on the Labour Right and Conservative Left sometimes have more in common with each other than with others in their own respective parties. 

Besides, electing a national parliament and government should be very much about reflecting different views, as opposed to being like a knockout football tournament which culminates in the main event as just between two teams.

 

Why First Past The Post is bad for most UK voters!

An online petition has been set up by Owen Winter, a 17 year old student to bring an electoral reform debate to the House of Commons.  When I heard about this petition, I had no hesitation in signing myself.  I have generally always been uneasy with First Past The Post.  Although I will admit that until recent years, the issue of Electoral Reform has not been right at the top of my political concerns.

Having already signed the petition, I later saw a video on Youtube of 17 year old Owen Winter talking about the unfairness of Britain's First Past The Post electoral system.  I found it to be very inspiring.  I am now going to talk through a few scenarios on why FPTP is bad for Britain.


"I live in the safe Labour seat of Liverpool Riverside and vote Labour."

The plus is that you will get the party you vote for representing you at Westminster.  But the 29,835 people who voted for Louise Ellman to be re-elected, are only voting for one member of parliament.  And that is not the only downside.  The election for this seat is a one horse race, and even if there was ever a Tory government that wins a general election by a landslide, Liverpool Riverside would still probably be Labour anyway.

There are too many seats that are either safe Labour and safe Conservative.  I feel it is time to make the case to Labour and Conservative voters in safe seats that they are effectively taking part in a one horse race for one seat.  Whilst many staunch Tories and Labourites may like the idea of an electoral system that is more likely to deliver a single party government, they really need to reflect on the reality that if they are in a safe seat, the current system does not make them powerful voters!

"I live in the marginal constituency of Wirral West and vote Liberal Democrat."

This seat was won narrowly by Labour at the expense of Conservative government minister Esther McVey in this year's election.  But if you wished to vote Liberal Democrat or any party other than Labour and the Conservatives, then you have to accept your vote will be wasted.  Some people in seats like Wirral West will inevitably vote for one of the two big parties, to try and keep the other big party out, even though the vote they have cast does not reflect their true opinion.

This seat is of course not too far geographically from Liverpool.  So why should the Labour voters in this seat be more powerful than the Labour voters in Liverpool Riverside and other safe Labour seats in Liverpool?

"I live in Camborne and Redruth, but am unsure on how I am going to vote."

The good news is your vote should count here, in a seat that has been held in recent times by three different parties.  This seat was billed in the 2015 general election as a four way marginal between the Conservatives, Liberal Democrats, Labour, and the UK Independence Party (UKIP).  Although the Conservative George Eustace increased his majority of just 66 votes in 2010 to a majority of over 7000 in 2015, his share of the vote in this seat was just a little over 40%.  This is now a familiar pattern across the country where many MPs are getting elected on less than 50% of the popular vote.


And there now follows a couple of quotes from prominent politicians, which I feel undermine First Past The Post.

"Here's a thought: on 7th May you could go to bed with Nigel Farage, and wake up with Ed Miliband.  I don't know about you but not one bit of that works for me."

Of course those are the words of David Cameron at the 2014 Conservative Party Conference.  In a bid to appeal to former Tory voters who had moved over to Nigel Farage's UKIP, Cameron gives a reason to not vote for someone else as opposed to why voters should vote for him.  The recent election also saw senior Labour politicians give a similar message to Scottish voters on how voting for the Scottish Nationalist Party will let a Tory government in by the back door.  All very negative really!

"Even if we selected a raving alcoholic sex paedophile we wouldn't lose Grimsby."

Prior to retiring as MP for Great Grimsby after serving the North Lincolnshire constituency for 38 years, it is believed Austin Mitchell made these comments in an interview with a Sunday newspaper.  Although Mitchell later claimed the remark (if he had made it) was a joke, Grimsby has been continuously returning Labour MPs since 1945.


Britain did indeed have an electoral reform referendum in 2011, as part of the coalition agreement between the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats.  Whilst the electorate did vote to stick with the status quo, we have now had another general election under the same existing system which is exposing more problems.  

In the scenarios above, one group of people I did not mention are the voters in safe seats who prefer to vote against the party who always wins.  These people have very little voice and are being failed in a big way.  In fact of the 31 Million people who voted in General Election 2015, 19 Million voted for losing candidates.

I have made noises previously suggesting that electoral reform was not likely in the foreseeable future.  To my pleasant surprise, I may have underestimated a growing feeling of voters across the political spectrum.  If change can be achieved sooner rather than later, then it will in part be a major achievement for Owen Winter.

I say that the good people of Lymm should give Netto a go!

The Cheshire Village of Lymm fits many people's picture of the postcard perfect English Village.  Countless celebrities and footballers have at some stage lived in Lymm.

It would appear the tranquility is currently under threat from news that the site of a rundown petrol station has been leased to Netto, the Danish discount food retailer.

One local Conservative Councillor went on record to state that she had never even heard of Netto!  Other local people have been making noises that they would have expected the old petrol station to have been leased instead to a more upmarket retailer.

My own most vivid memory of Netto concerns someone close to me teaching in a very deprived area of Liverpool.  One day a pupil wrote a poem, which read, "I went to Netto in the  middle of the night and bought a bag of *****."

I must admit that as your average bloke I have had little opportunity to shop in a Netto store down the years, due mainly to geography.  I have though from time to time used other discount retailers.

The hierarchy at Netto are surely not fools.  They will know exactly what kind of area Lymm is.  From their perspective, a move into an area like Lymm could be part of a strategy to target a different type of customer.

As for the good people of Lymm go, it would be worth mentioning that the quaint village does also have a council estate.  Plus, you can't tell me that millionaires never go out of their houses and dress in scruffy clothes.  Oh yes, is someone seriously going to tell me that affluent people will never be tight with their money and shop for a bargain?

I SAY THAT THE GOOD PEOPLE OF LYMM SHOULD GIVE NETTO A GO!

Could Sepp Blatter be the man who splits Football?

A report has been published by FIFA, clearing both Russia and Qatar of any wrongdoing over their successful bids to host the World Cups of 2018 and 2022 respectively.  However, Michael Garcia (the American Lawyer hired by FIFA to investigate the bidding process) suggested the report is incomplete and misrepresentative, in relation to his own investigations.

From the moment Qatar were awarded the 2022 World Cup, I think it is fair to say that millions of people around the world were gobsmacked.  I am not going to offer my analysis of Qatari Politics.  The simple mystery is why a country who has never before qualified for a  World Cup, should be given the privilege of hosting one of the world's greatest sporting events?

Being blunt about it, Qatar is not the footballing minnow which many people have labelled.  Closer examination of their footballing history does show that they have come close to World Cup Qualification on a few occasions, most notably the qualifying tournament for France 98 when a point against Saudi Arabia in a final group match would have taken the Qataris to the World Cup for the first time.

The near miss of France 98 Qualification does not though give the Qataris the platform to suggest they will ever be a world footballing powerhouse.  I have previously written about my own belief that the right to host a World Cup should be based on performance at a World Cup Finals, with a provision that a nation can only host a tournament once every twenty years, and not some silly bid process.

I BELIEVE THAT QATAR 2022 IS A WORLD CUP WHICH THE VAST MAJORITY OF FOOTBALL FANS FROM AROUND THE WORLD DO NOT WANT.  There are a number of reasons for this, and FIFA President Sepp Blatter is a figure in which many people simply do not have confidence in.  The simple facts are that here is a man who was presided over a process to give the honour of hosting a World Cup to a country many people don't want, and subsequently an investigation into that process which has now been questioned by the very man who was carrying out the investigation.

Of course Associaton Football is not the only sport that was invented in England.  Rugby's great split in 1895 saw the emergence of Rugby League, as the Northern Rugby Football Union broke away from the established Rugby Football Union.  The cause was a divide between working class rugby players and more affluent rugby players.  A Football Split is now a possibility at some stage.

The tensions in the football family are more global compared to the English Rugby Split of the late nineteenth century.  Just maybe it could be argued that the more Association Football becomes more global, then the requirement of accomodating different cultures will indeed become more challenging.  For me, all the indications convince me that the longer Sepp Blatter remains at the FIFA helm, then the more likely it is for a split to become reality.