Julian Mellor

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.

Mistrust is the New Propoganda

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2017/jan/19/in-the-post-truth-era-swedens-far-right-fake-fact-checker-was-inevitable

“Traditional propaganda focuses on trying to create a new narrative favourable to its practitioner’s interests. But building a new dominant narrative is hard, and it has to compete with the other side’s propaganda. (Vladislav) Surkov realised that it is just as effective to knock down all the other narratives, and leave those you are trying to sway or control unsure of what the truth is, or who to trust.

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.

If the under 45s vote then we’ll remain in the EU

Interesting interview with Dr Michelle Harrison, Global Head of Public Affairs at Kantar on the Today programme this morning.

There is obvious confusion amongst much of the electorate. People want facts – but what facts are there when the issues demand speculation about the future?

People understand the key issues but don’t know what they should believe. And with a background of distrust of politicians they don’t know who to believe either. In fact people don’t really see the relationship with the EU as an issue – it’s not high up on their agenda and is instead driven by Westminster not the electorate. So disengagement and confusion is not surprising.

37% of people in the UK think that the EU is working for them – marginally higher than in Germany (36%) and France (30%). And yet we have the referendum. So it’s something driven by the politicians, but they’re not trusted. Hmm. Maybe that’s why people’s awareness (or ‘cut through’ in the jargon) of the campaigns is low.

On the theme of immigration and border control – 20% think it’s an issue but a similar percentage think it’s not an issue. But it is an explosive issue. And an issue full of contradictions – people’s personal experience of immigrants (positive) is not the same as media coverage (negative).

Turnout is critical. Polls say there is a slight lead for remain. But that majority disappears amongst those likely to turnout. Over 45s are more likely to want to leave and they are also more likely to vote. It will come down to each of the campaign’s ability to get their vote out. If turnout of under 45s is low then the Remain camp’s lead in the polls is eroded.

Some people may believe that if we leave and then decide it’s not working then we can rejoin. But that may be another ‘join the back of the queue’ scenario. If we leave, someone in their 20s today might be in their late 40s by the time they get back into the EU with all its opportunities. That’s their early and formulative working life defined and gone.

Older people have benefitted from free higher education, house price inflation, secure employment and guaranteed pensions. Meanwhile young people are paying for their education, they’re employed on temporary contracts, they can’t afford their own homes and their pensions are far from certain. The decision on 23 June could be yet another example of the old stuffing the young. The vote will affect young people for most of the 30+ years of their working lives while for older people this is mostly already over. Older people may carry the vote to leave, but young people will bear much more of the impact. The young only have one opportunity to avoid being stuffed again – turnout and vote on the 23rd.

The EU’s a bargain – only £1.70 per week!

The EU publishes revenue and expenditure by subject and by country. So here’s a summary for the UK:

What does it cost?

In 2014 the EU’s total budget was €142bn. Towards this, the UK contributed €14bn (10%) [1]. This equates to £216m (GB Pounds, not Euros) per week.

Germany contributes more of the budget (20%) as do France (15%) and Italy (11%).

The total population of the EU’s 28 member states is 507m people (2014 estimate) of whom 64m (13%) live in the UK.

EU pop = 507m UK pop = 64m (13%) — UK population as % of EU population

So the UK has 13% of the people but pays 10% of the cost. In 2014 the EU cost each European citizen €280 (budget / population). The UK’s contributions cost each UK citizen somewhat less at €220 (or £175 per person).

In 2014 the Gross National Income (GNI) of all EU states was $18tr (€16.2tr). Of this the GNI of the UK was $2.8tr (€2.5tr or 15% of the EU total).

Germany’s GNI (€3tr) is much larger than the UK’s but France’s is the same and Italy’s is much smaller (€1.6tr).

The EU’s GNI equates to €31,300 per capita. The UK’s GNI equates to a higher €38,000 per capita. So UK citizens are wealthier. However, while EU citizens pay 0.9% of the per capita GNI towards the European budget, UK citizens pay less at 0.6% of per capita GNI towards the European budget.

So we have more of the people, we’re better off but we pay less.

What do we get back?

The EU budget isn’t just about what you put in. It’s also about what you get back.

Of the EU’s total expenditure in 2014, €7bn (4.9%) was allocated to the UK [2,3]. Countries that receive more than 5% of the EU’s budget are: Germany (8.1%), Greece (5%), Spain (8.1%), France (9.5%), Italy (7.5%) and Poland (12.2%).

So in cash terms, the UK puts in (€14bn) more than it gets out (€7bn). The net cost to the UK is €7bn [4], or €110 per person.

This equates to £1.70 per week per person [5].

A form of taxation?

An established role of taxation is to redistribute wealth. This should be from the rich to the poor although there have been instances of the opposite being the case.

If the net contribution of the UK and other ‘rich’ countries is seen as a form of taxation with the aim of redistributing wealth then it is entirely justified. It is no different to London and the South East contributing more in net terms to the Government’s coffers than the North East or N.Ireland.

Is it worth it?

Putting aside the redistribution of wealth argument, membership of the EU has a net cost in cash of £1.70 per person per week. For this we get:

The political stability and security of having all 28 states economically and socially linked to one another, thereby securing the longest ever period of peace in Europe
Visa free travel across 28 states
No customs duties when travelling between EU states
Rights to study, work and live in 28 states
The ability to hire or employ anyone from any of those states
Common standards across Europe protecting consumers
CE mark on products to show they meet safety, health and environmental standards
Protection of 26,000 natural habitats and landscapes across Europe, backed up by the European Court
Recycling standards on electrical goods
Employment rights including maximum working hours
The Charter of Fundamental Rights protecting citizens’ rights across the EU
Clean air and water regulations
And more.

Of course, BrExit campaigners will argue that we might get more benefits by saving our £1.70s and spending them on something else. Really?

Notes

[1] National Contribution plus Own Resources. The UK Government has a different figure. They say that the contribution was €17.8bn. Some of the difference can be explained by the EU figures being the budget while the UK figures are the outturn. UK GNI was also higher than forecast. However, the UK Government formats the figures differently to the EU. In particular there’s €2bn of VAT and GNI adjustments that show in the Government’s figures but not in the EU’s. Using the Government’s figures the UK contribution equates to £274m per week or £2.57 per person. This figure is the same as the EU’s final budget for 2013.

[2] The EU budget allocates expenditure against each country although it stresses that this is an accountancy exercise only as it does not take account of the indirect and non-financial benefits of membership.

[3] UK Government figures again differ. They show public sector receipts of €5.7bn. The Government acknowledges that these omit some payments made “directly to the private sector, for example to carry out research activities. These payments do not appear in the public sector’s accounts. It is estimated that in 2013, these receipts were worth £1.4 billion.” This would lift the expenditure benefiting the UK to €7.1bn.

[4] This is a rather simple calculation. The EU has something more complex which results in an operating balance (or cost) for the UK of €5bn.

[5] Using the Government’s figures for contributions to and receipts from Europe, the cost per person per week is £2.57. This figure is the same as the EU’s final budget for 2013.

Forced Academisation

The Government’s 2016 Education white paper says that every school must be an Academy (or on the way to converting) by 2020. In press releases and the mutterings of Nicky Morgan, the Education Secretary, the reasons for this change seem to be this:

Inefficiency of two parallel systems – academies and maintained schools
School leadership needs to be higher skilled
Put the Heads and teachers in control

But there is nothing fundamentally wrong with the system as it stands. Granted, a few schools may need some improvement, but the vast majority are, in Ofsted’s judgement (for all of that system’s flaws), either outstanding or good.

Critics of the proposals identify many objections:

Questionable capacity of the DfE to manage the conversions
Lack of national budget to fund the conversions
Parents may have no involvement in the running of schools
The lack of local accountability – complaints have to be made to the DfE
Schools are being turned into corporations
Privatisation of public assets
Reliance on private sector support services at higher cost than current County / LEA support services
Small rural schools will be at greater risk of closure – but by unaccountable Boards as opposed to elected County Councillors

But despite the political debate, school governors are having to consider their next step. Refusing to cooperate is, possibly, an option but not many are likely to take it. So what do they do?

Becoming a freestanding academy is no longer an option – the Government deems these to be orphans without the capacity to deliver both the savings and the improvements required. So schools have to join together either in Multi-Academy Trusts (MAT) or by joining one of the chains of operators.

The school where I am a Governor is faced with the option of either joining an existing MAT, forming one with an existing Academy, or forming a new one with schools that are not (yet) Academies. Whichever the option there are many questions we have to ask ourselves:

1. Form Follows Function: Decide what you want to achieve and then decide what structure will best secure and deliver your aims.

2. Benefits: What are the expected benefits of converting to a MAT? Is conversion the only and the best way of securing those benefits?

3. Who to partner with? Do you know and trust the schools and individuals you’ll be pairing with? Explore all options.

4. Control and Protection: Who will be in control of the MAT? How will those individuals be appointed? What protection will there be against other parties (e.g. an aggressive chain) taking control?

5. Accountability: To whom? How will accountability work in practice? What role should parents have?

6. Subsidiarity: Should everything be done at the lowest (most local) possible level?

7. Process: Be clear about the application process is and who needs to do what by when. Rushing things is not wise. Take time and do it properly.

8. Legal Structure: Need full and open discussion about the options and the preferred structure. DfE website provides only two options (ordinary and cooperative) – are there others?

9. Business Plan: Before committing to particular partners and a particular structure there needs to be a full business planning exercise to establish all the costs that you will have to bear and how these will be funded. Projections for the first five years need to be shown with commentary on all assumptions, their sensitivity and your confidence levels. The business plan needs to reference back to costs currently incurred so that it is clear where additional expenditure or savings will be made under a MAT structure. The business plan needs to show projections for the MAT itself and for the individual schools.

10. Funding per school: You need to understand how funds are divided by the MAT between the schools. What is taken into account? Will funding account for age of buildings, local deprivation etc? What happens if one school already has a budget deficit – will the others have to pay it off?

11. Risk Analysis: Before committing you need a full risk analysis – identifying short and long term risks and showing how they will be mitigated.

12. Due Diligence – each member of the MAT should commission its own independent assessment of the proposals and the other partners to ensure that there are no hidden risks etc.

13. Eject Button / Exit Strategy – in case things do not go the way you want, you should retain the power to withdraw.