Europe | Julian Mellor

Might May Make It?

Theresa May faces a vote of no-confidence by Tory MPs this evening. 48 MPs signed a letter that triggered the vote, but there has to be a majority (158 votes will clinch it) to force her out. That is seeming unlikely given today’s high level of condemnation of the Tory party self-indulgent infighting. If she wins she’s safe from any other confidence motion for a year.

If, however, she loses then there will be a leadership election and she will not be allowed to compete. There’s no timetable as yet for an election, but given that it has to include constituencies and Christmas is about to arrive, a decision before mid January seems unlikely. And then there’s the question of who to replace her? There’s no obvious contender given the appalling quality of the individuals in the Cabinet these days. Would they be from the Brexiteer right wing or from the Remainer centre / left of the party? Some are saying a Remainer would stand no chance in the face of UKIP entrants who now seem to dominate the Conservative Party. But if it was a Brexiter, what hope is there? The EC has said there is no chance of renegotiating the withdrawal agreement so the only option seems to be to crash out of the EU with all the damage and chaos that that entails – the Trumpian approach. Unless of course the opposition pulls something out of the bag and forces an election (very unlikely) or a second referendum (more possible, but no telling where it will take us).

In the likelihood that May wins this evening it may, depending on her majority, give her the strength to face down the hard exit right wing in her party and even seek more common ground with the remainers. Although the ERG will have the ability to vote against the withdrawal agreement as and when it comes back to the Commons she could seek to strike a ‘national interest’ alliance in the centre to counter-balance any ERG rebels.

What I hope is that she wins the confidence vote but the withdrawal agreement is voted down and that we then have a second referendum that results in a Remain win and the subsequent fall of the Conservative government. Labour then get elected (alone or in coalition) on a platform of EU reform, from within. Of course, the rest of Europe may not welcome us back given our appalling behaviour over the last 2-3 years so we’ll have to work hard at repairing bridges.

What I fear is that May will win the confidence vote but will somehow manage to bring the DUP and enough of the Tory right wing on board to get the withdrawal agreement passed. That will mean we leave the EU on 29 March, which will be a tragic day, just with less damage than the crash and burn exit. There’s no telling what sort of future relationship we will have with the EU, but we will have lost our citizenship and our freedom to live, work and study anywhere in Europe. That will be a huge loss that will impact on future generations for years and years to come.

Why I’m standing in the Somerset County elections

I’ve decided to stand for the Green Party in this year’s Somerset County Council elections on 4th May.

Green Party Logo

I’m not standing where I live but in another electoral division, Bishops Hull and Taunton West. That may seem strange, but here’s the reasoning.

If I was standing in Wiveliscombe (the Upper Tone division), where I live, I would want to stand to win. But that brings two challenges. Firstly, Wiveliscombe has a strong tradition of electing independent councillors and, at District level, Steve Ross and Eddie Gaines have done a good job. In the last County elections in 2013 Steve stood as an independent candidate and came close to winning. I wasn’t comfortable with the idea of competing with or taking votes from him this time around. The second reason was that I was far from convinced I wanted to be a Councillor. In these troubled times I want to make a difference, I want to try to change the course we’re on. But the demands of being a Councillor that start with endless induction (that takes place at weekends) and continues with either daytime meetings (cost to my business) or evening meetings (cost to my family) was too high to bear.

So if I don’t want to be a Councillor, why stand in Bishops Hull and Taunton West? The answer lies in our electoral system. So often I have found that I haven’t been able to vote for the party I support because no one has offered to stand. So even in the polling station I’m looking, at best, for second best. We don’t have a sensible electoral system where you vote for a party that puts its best candidates into the alloted number of seats. Instead we rely upon each party finding members to stand in as many divisions as possible in the hope that some of them get elected. It’s crazy, and it doesn’t lead to a balanced representative democracy. But it’s what we’ve got. So I decided to offer to stand as a paper candidate in Bishops Hull and Taunton West so that local people would at least have the choice and opportunity to vote Green.

I’m standing for the Green Party because that’s what I’ve belonged to for many years (I first joined in 1981) and it best reflects my views. I don’t agree with it all and I get endless stick from friends who are Labour Party members. But the environment needs more prominence in our decision making and the Green Party offers the best way of achieving that.

This is my election statement:

Election Statement of Julian Mellor

As Green Party candidate for Bishops Hull and Taunton West I am standing, first and foremost, in opposition to Brexit.

I’ve been living near Taunton with my family for the last 13 years. I started my career working as a Chartered Surveyor before moving into planning and economic development, eventually setting up my own consultancy in 2002. Most of my work is with community organisations in the South West, helping them improve the facilities in their local areas.

I have always believed that environmental issues need to be given much more prominence in our decision making but also that people’s rights must be respected. Withdrawal from the EU presents a massive challenge to environmental protection, tackling climate change, preserving workers' and consumers' rights and creating a society that benefits and protects everyone not just the privileged

Brexit and austerity go hand in hand, and both will damage our local services: social care, education, heritage etc. I will urge Somerset to fight Brexit and austerity. Instead of isolation, uncertainty and risk we need to work with, not apart from, our partners in mainland Europe to ensure that our environment, services and children have a better more secure future.

There won’t be any leaflets or door-knocking on my behalf. If I’m invited to take part in a hustings I’ll turn up. And if anyone writes I’ll reply. But otherwise this is it. Vote Green, Vote Mellor!

You’ll be able to click here for the results. And finally, as I don’t expect to have a chance to say it on the day, thank you to Craig and Hannah who proposed and seconded me, to Chantel, Matthew, Vanessa, Natasha, Helena, Mrs Brown, Polly and Roy who nominated me and to John my agent. Top dogs!

Is the Brexit tide turning? Ask the Don’t Knows.

Looking at the latest YouGov survey it would seem that the tide is far from turning. Although there’s some uncertainty.

In June 2016 the UK voted 51.9% to leave and 48.1% to stay. The majority was 1.27million voters. The turnout was 72.2%.

According to YouGov, who have been polling repeated questions since August, 44-46% of people think the result was right while 42-45% of people think it was wrong. 9-14% don’t know.

The gap is perhaps narrowing, but overall people’s views seem very entrenched. It does however indicate that the ‘Don’t knows’ are the people who decide the outcome. In the run-up to the referendum the polls fluctuated enormously with both sides attracting predictions of 39-55% while the don’t knows were anything up to 16%. But it seems that as the referendum campaign ran its course the Don’t Knows gravitated towards the Leave camp, for whatever reason. This is what swung it.

The YouGov polls suggest that the ‘Don’t Knows’ have now returned to their uncertainty. If they represent 10% of the electorate that could be as many as 4.6m people, way more than the Leave majority. Anything that persuades them to crystalise their thoughts will help consolidate the position of one camp or the other. If they vear towards an anti-Brexit position it will be a problem for the Government. Having said that, every opinion poll seems to have 10% don’t knows, so maybe there’s not much hope there.

And to make it worse, another YouGov question finds that even those who didn’t support Brexit now want to see it implemented. Only 21% of people want to see the result ignored.

If the Brexit tide is to turn it is the 25% of Remain voters who must be persuaded to actively oppose it. Talk of ‘the people’s will’ and the national good has, for the moment at least, cajoled them into supporting something they don’t believe in. They need to be persuaded that Brexit is not in the national good and that the referendum result was really down to people making snap decisions on the day, which could so easily have been different on a different day.

In the rest of the questions the UK public seem to take a hard line. They support May’s negotiating approach but think she should be doing it quicker. However, only 30% think a deal where Britain leaves the Customs Union and Single Market and faces customs checks and tariffs would be good for the country. Maybe soft Brexit is where we will eventually land.

I just want some reason and sense to come back into our lives.

This is stolen from Facebook but says it all:

I don’t want a blue passport (at the cost of £500m)
I don’t want Imperial measurements
I don’t want asylum seekers beaten up
I don’t want 92% of European NHS staff to make plans to leave the UK
I don’t want to go to war with Spain
I don’t want to live in some glorious Imperial past that never existed
I don’t want everything to get more expensive
I don’t want to be on the side of Trump, Putin, Wilders and Le Pen
I don’t want to live in an isolated monolingual, monocultural country
I don’t want all this time, money and energy to be spent on this suicidal farce when so many public services are in crisis (and not because of migrants – whatever the Mail says – but because of decades of underinvestment)
I just want some reason and sense to come back into our lives.

Credit: Bev Brown

The language of Brexit suggests we’ll lose the negotiation

It’s interesting to compare the language of Brexit in Britain and the language of Brexit on the continent.

Granted, Theresa May’s Article 50 letter was measured and calm (in an interview last week, Guy Verhofstadt described as a good arguement for staying in the EU), but much of the debate here has been dominated by sound bites, name calling and hyperbole, the calls for military intervention in Gibralter being just one such example. In contrast, the comments coming out of mainland Europe, on the whole, seem to be considered, reasoned, informed and encouraging of debate.

Someone recently wrote (I forget where, but it’s not important) that as the political norm on the continent is for coalition government there is a requirement for people to work together, even if they are sometimes in disagreement, in the interest of their greater aims and ambitions. It’s a strategic approach. In the UK however our government rarely relies on coalitions. Instead it adopts the crude techniques of the debating society, getting the chamber to cheer and jear, verbally hitting any opponent as hard as possible and once they’re down keeping them down. Trying to understand the other side is not a commonly deployed tactic and is instead seen as tedious weak.

So how will this pan out in the Brexit negotiations? One side shouting and brawling, the other trying to explain its thinking and find areas of compromise and agreement. The trouble is, the latter side has 27 members and the former only has one. The likelihood, therefore, is that the brawler will be rapidly ignored and in all likelihood sent to bed without any supper. So will the Brexiters get what they want (whatever that actually is)? Very unlikely.

How Brexit now leads to War

60 years of peace in Europe, and this weekend we see two astounding quotes.

Firstly Aaron Banks, public enemy number one (jointly with Farage), describes the Brexit campaign that he funded and the battle for public opinion as a war from which there is now no turning back.

Secondly, Michael Howard conjours up the Falklands Task Force as a likely reponse to any threats by Spain to Gibralter’s sovereignty.

How did we get here? Was the referendum really about taking us to war? Is this what people voted for? It’s astonishing and frightening that this is even being said, let alone by people who are so influential in the public mind-set.

How to Protect Gibralter

The EU’s Draft Guidelines in response to the UK’s Article 50 letter include the paragraph:

“After the United Kingdom leaves the Union, no agreement between the EU and the United Kingdom may apply to the territory of Gibraltar without the agreement between the Kingdom of Spain and the United Kingdom.”

Gibralter

The meaning needs a little thought but I take it to mean that any agreement made for the UK will not apply to Gibralter unless both the UK and Spain agree to it. This has been interpreted by many, especially the Brexit press, as a threat by Spain to Gibralter’s status as an overseas territory of the UK. So what to do?

Michael Howard has, unfortunately, taken it upon himself to rattle Theresa May’s sabre. Speaking to the BBC he said that Thatcher “sent a taskforce halfway across the world to protect another small group of British people against another Spanish-speaking country. And I’m absolutely clear that (May) will show the same resolve in relation to Gibraltar.”

So is this Howard going off-script, or is he Number 10’s messenger? If the latter this is indeed an unexpected turn for the already fraught Brexit process. Not only are we seeking to do untold harm to our own country, we’re now talking about going to war with one of our allies. How the **** did we ever get here? Was this in the referendum back in June?

Gibralter stronger in Europe Aside from Howard’s outburts, May has made much of ‘defending‘ the sovereignty (that word again) of Gibralter and of stopping the nasty Spanish from getting their hands on ‘our’ rock. Back in 2002 the residents of Gibralter had their own referendum on whether Britian should share its sovereignty with Spain. 98.5% they said ‘no’. Last year they took part in that other referendum. And 92% voted to stay in the EU. So it’s really quite clear; they want to stay part of the UK and they want to stay in the EU. The two are totally compatible and work in the interests of the residents and, I imagine, the surrounding parts of Spain.

So how to avoid this potentially very nasty spat with the Spannish and protect Gibralter? It’s simple. Do what the Gibraltarians want: stay in the EU. Job done.

Bi-lateral treaties took Europe to war

Last October I visited Ypres (or Ieper) in Belgium. In the First World War it was utterly destroyed. Today, standing amongst the war graves at Passchendaele, you can see the spires of the rebuilt churches in Ypres, just six miles away. Over that small space of land, over those fields, hundreds of thousands of lives were lost. And actually, what was it really for?

British cemetary at Passchendaele, Belgium, with the spires of Ypres in the distance

Back in those days the international world was defined by bi-lateral treaties between one country and another. So when Austria declared war on Serbia, after the shooting of Archduke Ferdinand, Germany immediately came in on the side of its ally Austria. Russia then came in on the side of Serbia, because they had their own treaty. France had a treaty with Russia so they then declared war on Germany. And Britain got involved because they had a treaty with France. In no time at all the whole of Europe was at war.

Of course, that is a rather simplified take on how it happened and overlooks the simmering tensions between the great colonial powers as they sought the resources to sustain la belle epoque. But thirty years later they were at it again, with more bi-lateral treaties seeking but failing to secure the peace.

Fortunately the architects of post-war Europe in the 1940s onwards saw things rather differently. No more bi-lateral treaties. Instead they went for one treaty that bound everyone to everyone else. Differences between one country and another would be resolved by everyone, because it was in everyone’s interest to make sure they were resolved. Sometimes that would mean a fudge or a less-than-perfect compromise. But it was better than fighting, and destroying, and killing. Today we know it as the European Union.

So what on earth are we doing, here in 2017, trying to leave the EU and that treaty that binds us all together. And in the US, that man (I can’t bear to write his name) is ripping up multilateral agreements in favour of bi-lateral agreements. We are forgetting our history and being encouraged to pursue what we are told is our own best interest. The best interest of a few maybe, but ultimately it’s you, me and our children who will suffer should war once again ravage our homelands. Co-operation and compromise is so much better than war.

My life with farming, wildlife, the environment and the EU

This is an article written by my friend Paul who has, for some years, worked as environment advisor at the NFU. It clearly sets out why the EU is so important for farming and the environment, and what will be at risk if we Brexit.

The countryside and England mean everything to me and I am blessed that most of my working life has been in and for them. Whether on the downs in Kent and Sussex or the uplands in the SW I have been working with the environment and farmers to try and meet numerous goals for just under a couple of decades (and sneaking in a couple of Masters in the Environment including Environmental Law).

Farmers and landowners are the key to our country and, I think, in many ways the heart of the EU referendum. The Common Agricultural Policy takes a large amount of the money we put into the EU. This money directly supports farmers and also supports our wildlife and environment. In addition it helps pay for rural projects such as tourism or small rural business grants and advice. It also keeps your food price down.

What have I noticed on farming and rural and environment? There is less and less funding to help them and what is there is now is almost solely from the EU. At the same time we need more money and not less. In the last few years the treasury has taken chunks of 30%+ from the Department for the Environment Food and Rural Affairs budgets as part of our national austerity drive.

We are now decreasing areas of land under an environment and wildlife schemes (how funding is given for these goods and services). Without the support of the EU we would have a very different British countryside.

Point 1 – we rely on EU funds for farming, wildlife and rural areas.

Are the funds from the EU easy to access? Of course not. I once put together an EU programme for rural areas and farming. These monies rightly have to have rules and some bureaucracy. Our nation wants our tax monies to be accounted for and not just given away. However, it is down to the country to make things work. The UK notoriously makes things hard and habitually messes up things like IT systems. EU regs tend to be small in page numbers and left to members states to work out. We, UK Plc, work them out to be complicated all by ourselves. However, they are there and are crucial to modernising farming and also helping with all our flora and fauna.

Point 2 – left to our own UK devices we will not make things easier in terms of regulations and bureaucracy. It is not our way. Things will become more complicated rather than less.

Delivery in rural areas and for the environment and farming is complicated. It will always be so because this land is needed to do everything for us. It is called environmental limits. You can add money to the economy but you cant add land to our island. Our food, our tourism and our birds and bees are the obvious things our island provides. It has capacity to do more. But taking it all for granted is not an option. Nor is focusing on single issues such as population the answer. We have to do things better and that means making the most of what we have but allowing for development and growth. That means we need to care for and fund the countryside. We need to focus on quality.

Point 3 – we all need to get involved in valuing the countryside and farming and the environment.

The EU funding is the only way we do this at the moment and there is no alternative model out there.

Regulations and policy are what I do for my day job. We are obscurely supported in protecting property rights through things like the Human Rights Act. We need laws to protect both our private assets and our public assets. Without them we are left with nothing and don’t know how to act and be acted upon. As my old economics tutor said years ago, “the reason why we are great is because we are a lump of coal surrounded by fish”. How poignant is that? We need rules to look after our resources.

Point 4 – regulations are there to protect us from ourselves.

They might not always be perfect and will always need to be reviewed in the light of what we value. Getting rid of them only shows we value nothing. Not helping people work with them only is our national failing. So lets value helping people help us as a society.

I genuinely see nothing in leaving the EU which will protect and grow what I cherish deeply and have worked towards all my working life. I see nothing in the Out campaign about valuing our environment and our island that makes us great.

We, the electorate, are being asked to put a value on our membership of the EU and yet it is being framed on areas that for many of us it’ll make very little difference or we have no real understanding of. The value we place on our environment, food, and wildlife is something we can all understand. So make a stand for that if nothing else. Outside of the EU they are left to the whims of a market or a budget slashing government. In the EU we might have something left for our children. We can push for the top rather than race to the bottom.

Conclusion – when you vote then vote on what you value. We love this country because of its countryside and what that means for OUR heritage and our future. So let’s value that and protect it and make it better. And as it stands that can only be done in the EU. So vote Remain.

What Europe means to me

To me the most important thing that the EU gives is the freedom for me and my children to study, live and work anywhere in Europe. It’s about opportunity, especially for my children, to spread their wings and find a life in the wide variety that is Europe, and not be constrained to a life in just one country. Some people say that won’t go, but I suspect it may become subject to wealth, age, skills or even lotteries. At the moment we can just do it. We need to keep that freedom.

The EU is also about us joining together, sharing, supporting and learning 10931440_10153273917146846_364837178071516664_n from each other. In short, it’s about being a community. For that reason I think the European flag instils in me a much greater loyalty than even the Union Jack. Our own flag hasn’t always been a symbol of good things. But the EU has been built simply on shared dreams and ambitions, not on invasion and intimidation.

But there are other things as well.Roblox Free Unlimited Robux and Tix

I worry that if we leave Europe it will send a message to people in other countries that could encourage them to seek their own referendums on EU membership. If others start to leave it could lead to the fragmentation of Europe. The EU and its predecessors have secured the peace in Europe for over 60 years. We should be very wary of destroying that structure and reeping all its unintended consequences.
I also worry about the economic implications of leaving. Some parts of Europe may want to show that we suffer as a result of leaving – to dissuade others from leaving – so they will block our trade negotiations. Furthermore, I don’t think we’ll be given access to the single market unless we sign up to all the rules, freedom of movement and annual ‘membership’ payments (although this time without any level of representation). In time we might develop increased trade with other countries, but not to trade with your nearest neighbour is just bonkers.
There is also a high chance that leaving would trigger a second Scottish referendum with a SNP pledge to rejoin the EU. That might prove to be decisive. So leaving the EU could mean the end of the UK.
The so called bonfire of red tape which the Brexiters want could also see the end of lots of environmental controls – planning restrictions, habitat protection, water quality, air pollution – all those things could get worse outside the EU. The EU protects us from the extremes of our own governments – and that can only be a good thing.

And then there are the suprious issues that the Brexiters put out:

Migration is the swing issue this week prompting the polls to suggest that we will be voting to leave the EU. Migration is global – it’s not just about the UK. Countries are either losing or gaining populations and the one factor that is facilitating that is the ease and low cost of travel. At the same time, people want to come to Britain because our economy is booming (at least relatively). So there is demand for their labour, and the wages are good. Closing the door and putting up a “No Immigrants” sign will not help our economy. Indeed the pressure for labour is likely to be so high that people will come in anyway. If we don’t we can only expect rising prices (to meet the dwindling supply of willing workers) and falls in productivity. So prices go up in the shops, and employment opportunities decline. That will not be good for our economic outlook and will not be good for ordinary working people.
Some people blame rising house prices and house building on migration. But house prices have been out of control since the late 1980s. Not since the 1990s has the traditional formula of mortgage = 3 x salary been applicable. The driver is not competition from migrants but ease of credit. And as the credit crunch hit the rich cleaned up, accessing their own financial resources and making the most of marginally lower prices. And the need to build more houses comes not from demand from migrants, but the shrinking household size. We live longer, we divorce, we leave home – we want a place of our own. And others want more than one place. Forecasts over the last 20 years have said that we have a crisis of housing supply – migration has only grown in the last 10 years.
The EU can be remote, not only geographically but also conceptually. We don’t often hear about it in positive terms – the media often spin a negative angle. But that is far from the ‘anti-democratic’ description that some people use. I don’t recognise that allegation at all. Indeed our own institutions and practices in the UK could equally be described as anti-democratic and taking power away from people.

For those reasons, I’ll be voting IN. But if the vote on the 23^rd is to leave Europe it will feel that something has been torn from me, something so important that I find it hard to describe it in words. I dread that day. I truly hope it never comes.