Category: Thoughts

Thoughts on various subjects

Politics, Thoughts

Brexit freedom from?

| admin

Freedom of choice, freedom of speech, an interesting concept.  Many want freedom but freedom from what? How much freedom can one person gain?

According to Micheal Caine leaving the European union was about freedom.  Freedom from the European Union. Unknown what he meant by that statement.  Requires him to defined what he means by European union. Many Brexitterers want free trade with Europe by adding barriers.  Certain that goes against the definition of free trade. Protectionist trade policies do not equal free trade.  State aid won’t save jobs or create new ones.  Worth pointing out that global rules in place on state aid. For all it faults capitalism markets have not destroyed jobs without creating new ones.

Trading requires considerable confidence in each other. Unfortunately, bodies are required to oversee any deals plus deal with disputes.  Legal standpoint it impossible to be free and trade with Europe.  An outdated inaccurate concept which has not been possible for 400 hundred plus years. The legal system does not work based on feeling less sovereignty.

Which why the current solution exists in legal terms.  European court of justice is that body which deals with trade disputes. United Kingdom government red line is European court of justice acting as that body.  Unknown why this position was taken, red line limits what the United Kingdom can achieve. Forces the creation of new body independent of the European court.  Funny enough adds more red tape many claims they want to remove.

Paradox can’t have absolute legal sovereignty if you wish to trade.  Trading requires you givve up some sovereignty. Which begs the question freedom from what? Freedom from trading with the rest of the world?

Economics, Journal, Politics, Thoughts

Sovereignty and trade thoughts

| admin

Time to talk about sovereignty and trade. The concept of sovereignty causes some rather big problems with trade. Binary version has not existed for hundreds of years.

Hundreds of years nations have transferred sovereignty, allowing standardisation. By doing this allowed nations to trade with each other.  On much smaller scale nations have done the same thing. Towns can trade with each other, reducing barriers causing freedom of capital or labour.  The relationship which has become a permanent feature.  Trade is very closely linked to distance.  Towns miles apart deal more trade with each other.  Local companies trade with each other more over international trade.  Opening up markets have provided them with more opportunities.  Small towns have followed rules set by bigger towns in order to trade. A core principle is required to trade. Standard is set everybody follows that standard to trade. Not by accident can order 10Kg worth of cocoa butter from Japan. Ultimately providing massive wealth to everybody.

Recent years has been calls to restore sovereignty.   Which must mean people want the breakup of the United Kingdom.  Towns split up into groups implement their own parliaments.  Standards disappear due voiding sovereignty.  Trade between towns stops, as a result, everybody gets poorer.  Sovereignty like that is rather outdated, incompatible with any economy.

White paper on Brexit covered the subject of sovereignty. United kingdom just like every town already has absolute sovereignty.

2.1 The sovereignty of Parliament is a fundamental principle of the UK constitution. Whilst Parliament has remained sovereign throughout our membership of the EU, it has not always felt like that.

Government just admitted it straight to the point in absolute certainty. The goal has already been completed yet is included in the aims.

Nobody is calling for the breakup of United kingdom apart from some nationalist parties.  Impact on trade would be massive due to more barriers.  Imagine having to visit customs office every time went into a town. Moving the economy towards the more protectionist model. Many Brexiters claim it would result in a freer trade policy.  Reality would not result in more free trade but less of it.

A couple of questions start to appear.

  • What do people mean by sovereignty?
  • How do people seek to restore sovereignty?
  • How can this policy result in freer trade if we put up barriers?
  • So what do people want to achieve?
  • What does more control mean?

Leaving the European Union seeks to reduce United Kingdom influence.  Transferring sovereignty back reduces direct influence. General public wanted more control, the United Kingdom is getting less. An analogy would be one council leaving a large council group for more funding.  Yet that won’t happen due being a smaller voice. Expect vast majority of people voted with hearts over brain. Obvious that you gain less power/influence. Barriers to trade would cause long term damage and reduce economic growth.  Great act of self-harm which undermines your own desired outcome.

Indicating take back control argument is an emotional cultural response.  Voters wanted to take back control many would be calling for constitutional reform.  The massive amount of mistrust means many don’t trust politicians.  War of misinformation around Europe with over one decade of focus has not helped.  Blaming policy decisions taken in Westminster, on somebody else avoiding blame. Angry at the system lacking trust, that people don’t share the same values or goals.  A massive amount of vision helped create the world around us now many want to set it on fire.

Transferring sovereignty has helped share British values.  Creating wealth for many opening up many opportunities.  Don’t think we need have a debate on the subject. Tackle the problem at its roots. Dealing directly with any grievances.  Requires dealing with the problem not, the symptom.

References

White paper

Journal, Labour, Politics, Thoughts

Brexit – more thoughts this time on the white paper

| admin

The political landscape, defined by a single issue.  Europe has now taken centre stage thanks to David Cameron. Leaving European union likely have major negative consequences.  United kingdom is deeply entangled with European union. The task of leaving won’t be easy or simple.

A single policy defined landscape twice in a row.  The fiscal policy took centre stage defined the decade. Deeply the tight fiscal policy caused long-term economic damage.  Twice the Labour party lost trust on the single issue of the day. Twice Labour lost as the result.  Politicians are betting heavily to be rewarded for supporting this single issue.  History shows us that many are walking into the same traps. Blamed for failures not sharing any success from the policy.  Supporting it but failing to move the overton windows more towards their view.  Ultimately failing to do their job correctly.

MPs who support are faced with explaining negative consequences away.  Voters may not take kindly to falling living standards.  Could end up blaming you for the decision. Being told you voted for it, we knew of the damage it would do but vote for me.  Another side of the table many who support European membership, may take revenge later down the line. Both mainstream leaders could face serious battles over the direction.  Remain supporting MPs in areas voting to leave could lose seats.  Regardless if they support article 50, being blamed for a poor exit.  Future leadership candidates could be defined by how they voted.  Leave supporting MPs could be rejected due to the negative consequences. Iraq war leaves a similar mark on the landscape.

Iraq war was given far more scrutiny.  Misinformation drummed up support, a majority supported the war.  Now that majority has disappeared with many unwilling to challenge the decision.  General public began to mistrust the Labour party as a result. Helped put the Labour party back in opposition. Defining the Labour leadership contest which gave Corbyn power. Conservatives likely suffer the same fate. Conservatives have avoided negative consequences due to fiscal policy. Remains to be seen if the party can repeat that over Europe.

Britain representative democracy elected to make decisions for people. Sometimes going against what popular opinion but is the right choice. The general population are not asked about every single issue. Following an advisory referendum undermines this relationship.  No longer in favour offering any referendums due to volaite natural of them.  Deeply concerning appears populist politics has hit Westminster.  An advisory referendum on capital punishment with the same margin would Westminster be rushing ahead with approving it?  Remember no white paper until after you voted, no overseer of the plan.  The government has published the white paper after the vote. Unknown how prepared white hall is on the subject. Prime minister having full power and control being unchecked.

Against triggering of article 50 for these reasons.

  • Artificial timetable
  • No white paper until after MPs voted
  • No committees debating the white paper
  • No committee overseeing the process during and after
  • No cross-party overseer
  • Lacking answers on various issues around A50. Can it be stopped can we rejoin.
  • Bypassing normal policy creation
  • Advisory referendum
  • Plan is unknown won’t be seen until a deal is made
  • White hall is unprepared and understaffed/funded
  • Devolved administration are excluded n the process
  • Alternative ignores

Artificial timetable done for domestic political reasons.  German/French elections are due to happen this year. Makes no sense to rush ahead given that information.  End up wasting one-quarter of the time given to you. Control is taken away from Britain not given to it.

Sovereignty argument is destroyed by the white paper.

2.1 The sovereignty of Parliament is a fundamental principle of the UK constitution. Whilst Parliament has remained sovereign throughout our membership of the EU, it has not always felt like that.

A goal is already achieved, how can be core principle set out in the white paper. MPs elected represented, decided not use these rights have some say. Not been given further say in the process.  Process on the table excludes them from having any impact.  MPs are running out of time have any real say at all.  Further undermining Britain representative democracy.  So much for giving control back to the people.  Claiming blocking article 50 is undemocratic should look at the undemocratic process ongoing.

Hold out little to no hope that Britain moves towards the fairer better system. Why I expect no social revolution due leaving the European union. British like to kick things down the road no matter the cost. Possible we’re moving closer towards leaving the European union in this case.  Would take decades given deep connections made across institutions. A legal system has become deeply bonded together. Major constitutional problems facing us which we kicked down the road.

Constitutional problems ahead here a list.

  • Devolved administration unequal partners.
  • Lack of check/balances on executive power
  • Process is not clearly defined or strong enough
  • Institutions are not fully independent
  • Margin is not required to rule
  • Advisory referendum can impact policy decisions
  • United kingdom union is at risk

The whole thing looks like one giant political/economical disaster, waiting to happen. Fail to understand how any rational person can support it. Reading the white paper majority of issues, now subject to discussion. White paper fails to offer any real solutions.  Note the united kingdom wants to trigger article 50 in march.  No real scrutiny is being applied to any of this.  British have great habit kicking away awkward questions this no different.

Now time to ask some awkward questions over my support of the European union.  I support the European union due thinking it the natural conservative choice.  How much do I value the union? Unsure of the answer being honest.  Like united kingdom union don’t give it blanket support.  Feel it is important just like Christian values. Not practising Christian for anybody who is curious.   A concept is deeply important to me along with the process.  Unhappy with current European union but current structure does work.  Likewise unhappy with current united kingdom structure.  Yet don’t desire to break up the unions.  Both have been successful even with some poor policy choices. Don’t see how further centralization by leaving the European union would help us.

Looking forward things don’t look so bright.  I see no answers on the table no reason to push ahead.

 

Journal, Thoughts

New year thoughts

| admin
New year thoughts

Another year over, winter is half way done.  Uncertainty a trend going forward for 2017. Politicians had claimed things would get better. Forecasts towards the future show no sign of good times. Warning economic recovery could not appear anytime soon.

Mainstream media concern over the fiscal deficit is nonsense.  The fiscal deficit had increased yet nothing bad happened.  Nothing about the pain caused by this policy choice.  No real economic recovery, debt increased with nothing bad happening.  The coming year looks bumpy with major challenges ahead.

Lost motivation during 2016 never got it back.  The brutal reality of job searching crushed my soul.  Leading me to ask questions over the value of work.  Why should we be so busy working?

Admit not very hopeful going forward.  Do question the method used to complete my own goals. Going to be big winners and losers depending on politics.  Worth remembering that humans are resilenced.  Lottery winners and cancer patients share the same level of happiness.

Last year has given me loads to think about.  Now more thankful for certain things.

Happy new year 🙂

Journal, Thoughts

Fake news and freedom of speech

| admin

Fake news and freedom of speech

Recently mainstream media has focused on news accuracy. Various terms coined newest one is called fake news.  A definition is unclear becoming a catch-all term.

Fake news sources deliberately publish hoaxes, propaganda, and disinformation.

Definition is taken from wiki on fake news sites.

Methods are nothing new, decades have the government using them. Newspapers under state control have released government created propaganda. Disinformation or misinformation has a long history.  Journalists have pushed stories which are inaccurate.  Legal cases against journalists forced to write corrections.  Newest wave is nothing new just technology made it even easier. Everybody becomes an editor with no real filter.  Important challenge incorrect non-mainstream views.  Now of the opinion many mainstreams media outlets fail in that duty.

Homegrown journalists like real journalist lack knowledge on everything.  An obvious example of journalist ignorance over fiscal deficit.  The claim deficit was a source of most economic problems. Dozens of economic journalists failed to explain or challenge the view. United Kingdom fiscal deficit has increased by billions. Same journalists have now fallen silent.

Freedom of speech is a human right. Society can’t allow everything to be treated equally.  Non-mainstream views should not be given equal air time.  Media informing, explaining concepts to the general public. Politicians at the same time should do the same.  The relationship between both has failed.  Freedom of speech should be subject to some censorship.  Used to believe in absolute freedom. Views should not be given equal air time.   Non mainstream views should be challenged.  Informing the public explaining why it does not fit the mainstream view.  Should not disregard opinions finding solutions to any concerns.

Fake news is nothing new.  Plus some brief thoughts on freedom of speech.  Knowledge is power after all.

Journal, Labour, Politics, Thoughts

Brexit same deficit trap again

| admin

Keir Starmer holding government to account over Brexit. Showing how the real opposition would do it.

The whole opposition should be focused solely on Brexit. Not against it, tearing apart the choices made. Turn Brexit into a single issue like the deficit. Can’t discuss anything else until you know about Brexit. Start doing that can rebuild voters trust in the party.

Don’t believe Corbyn is capable or interested. Instead of party making deficit same mistake twice. Leadership including Mcdonnell and Watson should share the blame.

Weakness won’t be rewarded.

Brexit, Journal, Politics, Thoughts

EU referendum day after what would you do?

| admin

EU referendum day after what would you do?

June 23rd 2016 Britain voted to leave European union.  Months later still no clue what leaving means.  Time for uninformed opinion on what politicians should have done.

  • Britain voted for change,  now in hands of politicians.
  • Leaving is complex would take decades.
  • Leaving completely is not possible.
  • Should be reviewed with politicians asking the public at every step.
  • Running commentary should happen.
  • Negotiations should be made public.
  • No fixed timetable, no sudden change in policy.
  • Can’t leave Europe due how gravity works.
  • Process should be started should not take over Government policy.

Journal, Thoughts

Uninformed opinion on globalization

| admin

Uninformed opinion on globalization.

 

Many blame globalization. Unwilling or unable use critical thinking. Lacking knowledge about the subject. Globalization happened due executive deciding it was best option.  Decision ended up creating more wealth.   Average person saw major benefits.  Creating opportunities causing economy to expand. Wealth spread across every major demographics.  Poverty declined across the world.  Economic growth saw new opportunities appear.  Never happened by mistake or accident. Injustice not to tell or explain the choices.   Executive made choices which caused it.  Blaming globalization avoids executive decisions made after globalization.  Executive can make choices, redistribution of wealth.  Creating even bigger opportunities by investment.  Addressing any structural weakness.  Supporting the economy during times of weakness.  Debt mainly government is largely an investment.  Supporting the economy during low growth periods. What matters is how much growth debt fuels.

Globalization was not a bad policy.  Making trade harder won’t bring back jobs. Resistance against technology does not improve lives. Certain choices could be viewed as terrible policy.  Almost decade fiscal tightening major negative economic impact. Causing great pain even hatred of globalization.  Hatred was already present just heighten it. Globalization is culture clash/economic with some identity politics.   Obvious example immigration, concerns based around identity.  Above examples executive does have some power.   Executive has limited control over immigration.

Immigration impossible to cut migration, without negative economic consequences. Directly linked to trade these days.  Trade negotiations non starter without migration rights. Industry demanded access to migrants, lobbying for lighter controls.  Employment rights reduced for workers.  Reducing job security, result was obvious. Limiting migration is not an option. Sectors using migrant Labour could leave without access to them. Certain industries lobbying for worker access. Choices made on shaping migration policy. Uninformed on choices ahead obvious now British public want changes. Stronger worker rights, choices to be made.   Options on the table resetting the migrant policy. Difficult decisions converting vote leave into detailed policy platform.

Executive has control over shape of this policy.  Making immigration more acceptable. Extra funding for public services, higher welfare spending.  Grown up debate required on immigration. Very real debate must be had on nature of work. Public may get frustrated, could be years before any real ground changes happen.  Conversation required, changing the language.  Evidence needed creating sensible policy.  Longest time certain choices removed off the table. Personal opinion liberal flexible immigration policy required. Worker rights must be reviewed.

No escape trade linked with migration. Not a recent trend, historic connection.  When Britain started to trade began to trade with people. Opening up  world created great wealth. Reopening trade barriers won’t bring wealth.  Won’t deal with structural problems would cause damage.  Open business rhetoric is worthless if you add red tape.  Blaming globalization avoids executive decisions made after globalization.  Executive can make choices.

Based my opinion, on knowledge gather together.  Understand that globalization has been a good thing.  May not see all the benefits opens up opportunities.   Immigration with trade being the same. Why are people picking the alternatives?

Alternatives choices which clearly make society worse off. Minority always felt degree of disenchantment.  Media played some role did not cause disenchantment. Reduced knowledge to an opinion over facts. Destroying critical thinking in the process. Political formed opinions painted as the truth. Angry towards globalisation, deindustrialisation.  Elements coming together to complement each other. Voters faced with tough times did not like things as they are. Seeking out the best alternative.

Alternatives been rather ruthless.  Not playing been the normal rules doing whatever it takes. Very real risk everything we hold dear could be destroyed. Forcing many to question what they believe in.  Values held now subject to attacks.  New normal must be tackled head on must offer something. People who voted for the alternative was just looking for answers.  Need an alternative which benefits them.

Brexit, Journal, Politics, Thoughts

Dealing with Brexit

| admin

Dealing with Brexit

Politics is all about choices.  David Cameron made couple choices, regarded as major mistakes. Policy failures having major negative consequences.  Not allowing civil servants to plan for Brexit. Letting Europe dictate party policy.  Theresa may have mishandled Brexit. Making similar mistakes which destroyed David Cameron. Fixed timetable forced both to follow not lead.  Europe could make or break her. 

Regardless if you support in, out reviewed.  Alternatives reviewed seeking ease any concerns.  Subject to scrutiny from institutions designed to make decisions.  Policy rushed or based on public opinion is incorrect.  Public could turn on Theresa may.

What should Theresa may have done?

  • No fixed timetable on article 50
  • Answer questions about article 50 in detail
  • Answer constitutional questions
  • Setup the process about leaving, correct level of preparation.
  • Begin preparation letting civil servants do their job.
  • Have clear plan for every stage

Any speech Theresa may should stated support for Brexit.  Conditions around this support, letting institutions begin work. Stating the Government position review European relations, no changes to relations at the moment.  Realistic rushing would be major mistake.   Theresa wants the Government fully ready. Major preparation required before process can even be started. Preparation required during the article 50 process.  Stability required with public opinion favouring that.  Unwilling to support the process without preparation.  Stating just how difficult the process would be inviting others to join.  

Leading Brexit becoming voice of stability she could be rewarded.   Blank cheque support can see voters turn against you quickly.  

Journal, Labour, Politics, Thoughts

American presidential election

| admin

American presidential election

I’m an outsider when comes to American politics.  Here my opinion on Trump for anybody who cares.

Donald trump won the american presidential election.  Painted as anti establishment candidate the outsider business person.  Trump became the vehicle for that.  Laughable as the establishment put forward, two candidates including Trump. Businessman who would be a fixer.  Trump success came down very clever campaign.   Emotional arguments which captured people. Republicans told a story, democrats defended a record.  People wanted change democrats did not listen. Politics is never certain, voters change direction.  Values may stay the same opinions change constantly.

Government is corrupt close to business not the people.  Rather large paradox many, voted in people they so-called despise.  More about many disregarding past statements. Yet judged other candidates more harshly.  Media did not challenge any cognitive bias.  Failed in own role informing or educating.  Displaying it own cognitive bias as reality.   Expert in all things, impossible dream. Making informed decisions about the future. Nobody expert in all things or everything, to make an informed decision.  Why we choose politicians to make decisions for us. Politicians should follow the will, of the people is nonsense.

Populist politics now here, weak politicians unable to listen or challenge it.   Many politicians have willed to ride the wave.  Unwilling to own up to policy mistakes. Unwilling to defend policy success viewed as failures. Avoiding that difficult thing listening, finding compromise.  Inconvenient truth certain demands are impossible to meet.  Executive failed to deal with concerns.

Negative impacts many feel are result of poor policies, driven by politics over globalization bogeyman. Inconvenient truth populist politicians, caused this mess. Concerned for what this populist wave has in store. Frankly we don’t know what Trump wants to do.  Makes his brand of populist rather damaging/dangerous.  Trump’s campaign material went against American values, liberty, equality, democracy, individualism, unity, and diversity.  Disregarding the rule of law, sounding deeply authoritarian.

Both sides must learn to listen.  Finding a compromise which removes some politics from it.  Clear voters real answers to concerns. Ignoring concerns calling people bigots or racist won’t help. Pitching pie in the sky ideas won’t help.  Retreating into comfort zone, does not help.  Voters want real change which is positive.

Outsiders wonder how can this happen.  Same process currently happening around the world.