Brexit vote makes united Ireland suddenly thinkable - Reuters

Protestant unionists are queuing for Irish passports in Belfast and once quiet Catholic nationalists are openly campaigning for a united Ireland, signs of deep shifts in the United Kingdom's most troubled province since Britain voted to leave the EU. 

Eighteen years after a peace deal ended decades of fighting between mainly Catholic nationalists who favor a united Ireland and mainly Protestant unionists who favor remaining part of the United Kingdom, Britain's Brexit vote is making people on both sides of the divide in Northern Ireland think the unthinkable.

Northern Ireland, like neighboring Scotland, voted to stay in the European Union, with 56 percent in favor, even though Britain as a whole voted to leave the bloc.

"I was always a 'small u' unionist. But I could not in all good conscience say I could vote for Northern Ireland to remain a member of the United Kingdom," said Christopher Woodhouse, a 25-year-old from Belfast. 

"I am softening to the idea of Irish unity, purely on economic issues," he said. "I am a European."

For years, a firm majority of people in Northern Ireland -- many Catholics as well as nearly all Protestants -- have favored continuing as part of the United Kingdom, drawn to the status quo as a guarantee of stability and prosperity.

But that has been jeopardized at a stroke by the prospect that Britain could quit the European Union and Scotland break away from the United Kingdom.

The Brexit referendum suggests a new center ground could form of people from both faith communities who fear the economic uncertainty of leaving the EU.

"People are saying for the first time in their life they would vote for united Ireland, having never contemplated it before," said Steven Agnew, the leader of the Green Party in Northern Ireland.

CORNERSTONE OF PEACE

The membership of both Ireland and Britain in the European Union was a cornerstone of the 1998 agreement that ended the fighting over whether the predominately Protestant six counties of northeast Ireland should be British or Irish.

EU rules ensure free trade and travel, and allow British or Irish citizens to work, claim benefits and be treated in hospitals in either country. People living on either side of the border may hold either passport or both, with little practical effect on how they are treated by either state.

Although Northern Irish citizens are entitled to passports from Ireland, many unionists would not apply for them. But there were several unionists in a queue seeking Irish passport application forms at the main post office in Belfast this week.

One said she was shocked and disappointed by the Brexit vote, and saw an Irish passport as the only way to retain her EU citizenship. None would give their names, as applying for an Irish passport can be controversial among unionists.

COSTS OF LEAVING 

Quitting the EU would have direct costs on a poor province that relies on it more than other parts of the United Kingdom.

Northern Ireland's largest bank, Ulster Bank, said uncertainty around the terms for Britain's exit from the EU could make Northern Ireland a "no-go zone" for some foreign direct investment. Brexit could cause lower growth, higher unemployment and cutbacks in government spending.

"My stomach is churning at all that's happening," said Robert McClenaghan, an Irish Republican Army member turned community worker, describing the potential loss of hundreds of millions of euros of EU funds for former militants, victims groups, and cross-community youth work.

"We are in danger of a return to conflict - at a low intensity level - if those funds are taken away," he said.

Many believe the biggest threat to the peace would be the appearance of some kind of border checks. The huge military checkpoints that dotted the border were dismantled in the wake of the peace deal.

Pro-Brexit politicians have said the Irish frontier would remain open once Britain leaves the EU, but Remain supporters say this would be impossible if Britain wants to limit migration from EU countries whose nationals are free to enter Ireland.

"If they put a border up, the dissidents will blow it up," said Sid Johnson, a 68-year-old unionist Leave voter shopping on Belfast's Shankill Road. If the police are forced to send in armed men to defend the posts, he said, escalation could be swift.

Under the peace deal, the largest nationalist party, Sinn Fein, co-rules the province with the unionist DUP, which campaigned for Britain to leave the EU.

Sinn Fein's party chairman pounced on the Brexit vote, saying it meant Britain had "forfeited any mandate to represent the interests of people here".

The party later cooled its rhetoric, with Deputy First Minister Martin McGuinness saying a united Ireland referendum should be held "at some stage in the future". The party this week held the first of a series of rallies for a united Ireland. 

A united Ireland has been the cherished dream of Irish nationalists since Northern Ireland was formed by Britain to protect the large Protestant community in the island's northeast from the Catholic dominated state formed to the south in 1921. 

More than 3,600 people died in fighting between the late 1960s and late 1990s, between Catholics who said they were denied basic human rights and wanted to join Ireland and Protestants defending the union with Britain. 

Under the 1998 peace deal, the British government was given the power to call a referendum if it appears likely a majority of those voting would seek to form part of a united Ireland.

While higher birth rates among Catholics suggest they will become the majority in Northern Ireland within a generation, opinion polls have consistently shown as many as half of Catholics still favored the stability of the United Kingdom.

But if Brexit makes that Catholic support for the union slip away, a future referendum on Irish unification could be "very, very tight" said Peter Shirlow, head of the Institute of Irish Studies at the University of Liverpool.

"Unionists would have to rely on Catholics not wanting to be part of a united Ireland. That has been the trend up to last Friday," he said. "But I think that trend is now changing."

(Writing by Conor Humphries; editing by Guy Faulconbridge and Peter Graff)

Brexit has exposed how ignorant the educated and cosmopolitan have become about modern Britain - Independent

The final verdict on 23 June 2016 will be pronounced a long way in the future. But future generations may ponder several issues.

The fact that the referendum was ever called will be a cause of bafflement. Conservative leader David Cameron pledged to hold the referendum to placate anti-EU sections of his own party and to out-flank a perceived challenge from Ukip. Given his frequent mention of the risks of Brexit, the wisdom of calling the referendum in the first place remains puzzling.

Cameron, who did much to make the Tories electable and won a famous victory, has gone, leaving behind a divided Conservative party. The Labour Party, too, is. The episode has also left behind a divided country, which will prove difficult to unite or even hold together.

The referendum debate was unedifying; The tone was shrill, lacking civility. The participation of respected analysts, commentators and supposedly non-political public officials brought them no credit. Facts were water-boarded to support partisan positions. A future of economic damnation and a revival of Empire outside the EU are equally illusory.

The response at the result among those who voted to remain is most interesting. The wilful ignorance of the affluent, educated and cosmopolitan on how divided and polarised British society has become is striking. The voting patterns mirrored divisions along the lines of class, economic standing, education, age, residence and ethnicity.

The debate was always between economics and sovereignty (in the guise of immigration and border control). Exaggerated claims of economic losses, based on macro-economic models which have failed repeatedly over recent years, to engender fear were rejected. Some UK regions reliant on exports to the EU voted strongly to leave. For the disenfranchised, the fruits of growth, investment and international trade remain unattainable. Threats – perceived or real – to jobs, and uncertainty about nationality, are powerful forces. The inconvenience of the non-EU line at immigration or the ability to own a holiday retreat on the continent does not concern those who have never had those opportunities.

READ MORE

In Europe, as in life, we cannot have everything we want

The failure of the economic arguments to sway the vote may spell the end of economic rationalism which began with Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan.

It may be that the vote against the EU was, in part, a protest vote against the long-term changes in economic structure of the UK economy, which has destroyed many working and middle class lives. Insofar as the decision represents a retreat to economic nationalism and closed borders, it may highlight the diminishing appeal of globalisation.

Increasing scepticism about experts and expert advice may also be one longer term effect. The views of the governor of the Bank of England and the Archbishop of Canterbury were disregarded equally.

In a pivotal moment in the campaign, challenged to name a single expert who thought that Brexit would economically benefit Britain, Justice Secretary Michael Gove’s defiant response was that: “I think people in this country have had enough of experts.” The reality is that experts no longer relate to ordinary people.

Policy orthodoxy, such as free trade, de-industrialisation and, in the aftermath of the 2008 crisis, austerity and unconventional monetary policy, have not benefitted large parts of the population. Ordinary people’s appetite for sacrifice in return for unquantified future benefits promised by experts has waned.

The gravitational pull of aspiration, central to Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan’s brand of conservatism, has faded as trickle-down economics has betrayed many people.

READ MORE

6 ways the Government can support the economy after Brexit

The immediate effects of the Brexit vote on currencies and interest rates were significant, but it will take time to see whether there are major casualties as a result of the usual highly leveraged bets. The decision to downgrade the UK’s credit rating to a (still very strong) AA will have little effect. The UK’s ability to meet its obligations has not changed.

The real economy and political effects will take time to emerge and is highly dependent on events not yet known. History will have to decide whether the vote was simply a mutiny on HMS Britannia or an influential decision on the shape of the modern world, the structure of society and values which resonate and lead to change in other countries.

If the latter proves correct, then the event will prove truly significant.

The Leave campaign may have won the vote but there is confusion about reshaping the UK’s relationship with the EU. Maintaining continued special access to European markets would require accepting many policies rejected by a majority of those who voted. The prospects of meaningful reform within the EU also seem remote.

Why the Tesla Crash Shouldn’t Put the Brakes On Driverless Cars - TIME

Why the Tesla Crash Shouldn’t Put the Brakes On Driverless Cars Posted: 01 Jul 2016 10:57 AM PDT Electric automaker Tesla is under investigation after what the company says is the first death of a driver using its “Autopilot” mode. That mode offers a limited form of autonomous driving, but requires drivers to remain attentive at the wheel in case they need to take over. The driver (or was he a “passenger”?–such are the many questions ahead as companies from Ford to Google race to deliver driverless technology) was Joshua D. Brown, who died May 7 after his Tesla Model S failed to spot a turning white truck against a bright sky, according to documents reviewed by the Associated Press. (The AP reported Friday that Brown had received eight speeding tickets over the past six years, though it’s unclear if excessive speed played a role in the incident.) Brown’s death is sure to exacerbate fears over driverless vehicles. But tragically, Brown was likely one of the somewhere around 90 people who died on roads that day and every day in the U.S. It does not have to be this way. To be sure, we are still far from having enough data to conclusively prove the relative safety of driverless cars versus those piloted by humans. But early estimates hold that tens of thousands of lives might be saved thanks to driverless technology. Why? Because computers have the potential to be far safer drivers than we are, as a TIME cover story earlier this year argued: [Driverless cars are] superior drivers. These words may grate in the sunburned left ears of car-loving Americans. But the computer is simply a better driver than a human. Better at keeping its eyes on other drivers; better at maintaining a steady cruising speed and thereby maximizing fuel efficiency; better at parsing GPS data, weather data, traffic data–any and all kinds of data, really–and better at making rapid-fire adjustments. The computer doesn’t get distracted by a spouse, kids or the jerk who just made an illegal lane change. It doesn’t sneak a glimpse at Snapchat, or fumble with a leaky burrito, or steer with its knees while playing air guitar. The computer couldn’t blink even if it wanted to. It never says yes to a fourth chardonnay, never convinces itself that weed improves its driving. Asking directions is a computer’s favorite activity, and unless ordered to, the computer never falls asleep. Driverless cars have a long way to go in terms of technology and policy alike. Many struggle in bad weather, for instance, and it’s unclear how they will be insured. But the potential payoff in terms of lives saved down the road means this is not a technology we should walk away from.

The Worst of the Brexit Fallout Is Still to Hit the U.K. - TIME

The Worst of the Brexit Fallout Is Still to Hit the U.K. Posted: 01 Jul 2016 09:38 AM PDT British Treasury Secretary George Osborne warned on Friday that the United Kingdom economy was exhibiting “clear signs of economic shock” in the wake of a majority of voters advocating to leave the European Union, signalling that the fallout from Brexit has begun in earnest. Clear signs of economic shock in aftermath of Leave vote. Will require supreme national effort but we can come through this challenge — George Osborne (@George_Osborne) July 1, 2016 There is indeed clear evidence for some of the shocks. The value of the pound has fallen from $1.49 to $1.33 since the vote, and the FTSE 250 group of U.K.-focused companies fell by more than 7% before staging a slight recovery. But it is not yet clear when the impact will filter down to ordinary people. One clear disadvantage for Britons already apparent is that buying dollars and euros is much more expensive, which will make holidays more costly. The devaluation of the pound will also increase the price of imported goods and anything made from them. John Van Reenen, head of the Centre for Economic Performance at the London School of Economics, said that Britain’s Brexit decision will have both short-term and long-term consequences. “There is a lot of uncertainty about the new arrangements, which will lead to less investment, slower growth, lower pay and higher unemployment. In the long run, we will not have the same access to the European single market, which will mean lower exports, less foreign investments. It will mean that we are all poorer.” Some effects will take months but others will be noticed in days, he said. “The effect on the pound is noticeable now and this will quickly be seen in the price of fruit and vegetables for example. Prices of goods that use foreign components will take longer to increase,” says Van Reenen. There are signs that property prices are set to fall. Singapore-based United Overseas Bank suspended loan applications for London residential properties because of fears that investors could lose money and find it difficult to repay loans. Major developers are also reviewing residential and commercial projects. Mark Farmer, chief executive of Cast, a real estate consultancy, told the Financial Times that most London real estate deals would be reexamined. “The centre of the storm is going to be commercial property and speculative residential for sale,” he said. “Anything that has planning consent that hasn’t been committed, or anything that [has construction ongoing] on site but is a phased project, is in harm’s way at the moment.” Falling property prices are unlikely to benefit ordinary homebuyers in a stuttering economy, Van Reenen says. “A lot of people might say that a fall in property prices is a good thing but the prices will be falling for a bad reason; because there is less money around, property will still be as unaffordable.” U.K. unemployment, which currently stands at 5.1%, is also expected to rise. Soon after the result of the referendum was announced, Siemens suspended plans to export wind turbine blades from a new factory in in the northeastern city of Hull. Juergen Maier, the Siemens UK chief executive, told the BBC that any investment decisions, especially relating to exporting to the E.U. would be “put on ice.” There were also reports of companies such as easyjet, Morgan Stanley and JP Morgan moving headquarters or large numbers of staff from Britain to the E.U. The loss of such jobs combined with a reduction in economic activity, could lead to a decrease in government revenue and force it to cut spending, further depressing the economy. Mark Carney, the governor of the Bank of England, said that many people would feel poorer and less secure. In a speech on Thursday, he said: “Today, uncertainty has meant an inchoate sense of economic insecurity for many people, despite generalised economic prosperity. Across the advanced economies, employment appears less secure, wages more subdued and inequality more pronounced.” The fallout from Brexit could also have a cumulative effect, leading to a vicious circle of consumers reacting to an economic slowdown by consuming less and thus exacerbating the slowdown. Van Reenen concluded: “With the pound falling, this will lead to higher import prices and the cost of living will go up. As our trade goes down this will lead to lower productivity and higher prices. When faced with a crisis, people cut down on demand, which has a multiplier effect leading to greater unemployment, and further pressure on demand.” Osborne said that overcoming the worst of the economic fallout would take a “supreme national effort.” Britain had better hope that whoever takes over from Prime Minister David Cameron in the autumn can rise to the challenge.

Can Brexit be reversed ? - Independent

The frontrunners in the Conservative leadership contest, Theresa May and Michael Gove, have both said they will not trigger Article 50 - the mechanism for Britain to leave the European Union - this year.
That delay could be crucial in halting a Brexit. Crossbench peer and legal expert David Pannick QC believes that new legislation would be needed for the UK to trigger Article 50 because it is 'a notification of 'withdrawal' and does not allow for turning back".
Put simply, that means Article 50 cannot be triggered without MPs voting on it.
But with a delay in triggering Article 50, MPs will not be asked to vote on the UK leaving the European Union until 2017 at the very earliest. That delay is why some experts believe Brexit may still not happen.
As Michael Zander QC, Emeritus professor of the Law at the LSE, writes in today's Times, neither the Lords or the Commons would vote against a Brexit right now. But that could change.

Speaking to Indy100, Professor Zander explained:
If members of parliament feel that circumstances have changed to such an extent that, despite the referendum result, it no longer makes sense to go ahead with Brexit, they have a constitutional duty to refuse to give it effect.
So while that relies heavily on caveats, it is part of the reason why some people believe a Brexit maynot happen despite the Leave vote.

Questions on Brexit answered - BBC News

The referendum that saw the UK vote to leave the EU has left confused waters in its frothy wake.
Here is a look at some of the current key questions surrounding the decision.

When is the UK leaving?

  The referendum result did not automatically mean that the UK would leave the EU. In fact, the result of the vote is not even legally binding.
For the UK to leave the EU, it has to formally invoke an agreement called Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty. No country has ever left the EU, so Article 50 is untested.
Once Article 50 has been invoked in a letter or a speech, the formal process of withdrawing from the EU can begin, at which point the UK has two years to negotiate its withdrawal with the other member states. Extricating the UK from the EU will be extremely complex, and the process could drag on for longer than that.

In his statement on the morning after the referendum, UK Prime Minister David Cameron - who backed Remain - said he would resign in October and leave it to his successor to decide when to trigger Article 50.
Leave campaigners say they want informal discussions with the EU first, but the foreign ministers of France and Germany have called for Article 50 to be triggered as soon as possible to avoid prolonging a period of uncertainty.
There have been questions whether the process can be stopped. A petition to call a second referendum gathered millions of signatures in days, but a second vote is unlikely.
The Liberal Democrats, a party who were a partner in a coalition government before last May but currently have only eight MPs out of 650 seats, have said they will oppose Brexit in the next general election.
But as the BBC's legal expert Clive Colman says it "seems impossible to see a legal challenge stopping the great democratic juggernaut now chuntering towards the EU's departure gate".

Who is in charge?

 The battle to fill the vacancy at the top of British politics has been breathtakingly fast-moving.
David Cameron announced his resignation at breakfast time on the morning after the vote, before most people in the UK had even arrived at work. He will stay in place until October, so for now he is still in charge.
The race to replace him as Conservative Party leader and UK prime minister started straight away.
There are five candidates, but the big surprise came on the day nominations closed. The former London mayor Boris Johnson - long-since tipped to be UK prime minister - pulled out at the last minute, during the speech that was meant to kick-start his campaign.
His Leave campaign colleague, Michael Gove, had announced that very morning that he would run for the leadership. He later said it was because Mr Johnson was "not capable of leading the party and the country in the way that I would have hoped".

UK newspapers compared the fallout between Mr Gove and Mr Johnson to Shakespearean plays and Game of Thrones.
The new favourite to lead is Theresa May, who has been home secretary since 2010. She backed Remain but says the referendum result must be honoured. "Brexit means Brexit," she has said.

What is happening to the opposition?

The vote to leave did not only jolt the Conservative party. It sent the opposition Labour party into a tailspin too.
Waves of Labour's shadow cabinet resigned following the referendum. One after another they quit, leaving party leader Jeremy Corbyn facing an open insurrection.
Many Labour MPs believe Mr Corbyn failed to mobilise Labour voters to support the Remain campaign and would fail to win if a snap general election was called.
But even when MPs voted 172-40 to declare no confidence in him, Mr Corbyn did not resign. He said it would be a betrayal of the party's grassroots members, whose support he still has.
In even rowdier scenes than usual at Westminster's House of Commons, Mr Cameron told him: "For heavens sake, man, go!"
Mr Corbyn is expected to face a formal leadership challenge very soon.
The upheaval in both parties is unprecedented in recent UK political history. "A country renowned for its political and legal stability is descending into chaos," wrote the New York Times.

Could Brexit break up the UK?

Unlike England and Wales, Scotland voted overwhelmingly to remain in the EU, and Scotland's First Minister Nicola Sturgeon says it is "democratically unacceptable" for the country to be taken out of the union against its will.
A second independence referendum for the country is now "highly likely", she says, and recent polls suggest roughly 60% of Scots are now in favour of leaving the UK in order to remain in the EU.
One constitutional expert has suggested Scotland could go further under its law and effectively veto Brexit, although others have dismissed this idea as extreme.
Ms Sturgeon visited Brussels for a series of talks with senior EU officials in the week after the referendum, but the Spanish prime minister and French president both said they were opposed to Scotland negotiating EU membership outside the UK.
Northern Ireland also voted in favour of remaining, and Deputy First Minister Martin McGuinness, of the Sinn Fein party, has called for a referendum on reuniting it with the Republic of Ireland, which is outside the UK and remains in the EU.
But the Westminster-based Northern Ireland Secretary Theresa Villiers has ruled that out, saying there was no legal framework for a vote to be called. Ms Villiers is a Conservative Party MP and campaigned for a Leave vote.
There is uncertainty over whether a so-called "hard border" would have to be put in place between the North and the South if the North exits the EU.

Is the Leave campaign abandoning its pledges?

Within hours of the results, the Leave campaign was being accused of rowing back on several of its key campaign pledges.
Among them, the bold claim that the UK would take back £350m donated to the EU every week and spend it on the NHS. The pledge was widely criticised during the campaign by many who pointed out that £350m is the UK's gross contribution, and that it receives vast sums of money back from the EU.
The Institute for Fiscal Studies calculated during the campaign that of the £360m the UK sent to the EU weekly in 2014, the net contribution was just £109m.
Key Leave campaigners including Nigel Farage, Boris Johnson and Ian Duncan Smith have since distanced themselves from the £350m promise, with Mr Duncan Smith claiming it was a "possibility" rather than a pledge.
Other key campaign pledges have been called into question. Leave promised to "take back control of Britain's borders" and reduce immigration, but several key Leave campaigners have since suggested that the UK may need to accept freedom of movement in order to have access to the single market.
"A lot of things were said in advance of this referendum that we might want to think about again," said Leave campaigner and former Conservative minister Liam Fox.

Is the UK economy falling apart?

Not quite, but things have been eventful.
Markets are not fans of uncertainty and the Leave vote was a big shock, with polls were suggesting the vote would go the other way.
The UK's FTSE 100 index plummeted on the morning after the referendum. It has since rallied, but as the uncertainty continues the market is likely to continue to vary.
Credit agencies have cut their ratings for the UK and for the EU as a whole.
The value of the pound against the dollar dropped to a 31-year low, meaning UK holidaymakers were buying substantially less cash for their travel wallets than they might have expected before hand.
The low value of the pound will adversely affect imports too, and because global oil prices are decided in dollars, prices at UK petrol pumps are likely to go up.
The Bank of England says the growth will be slower than expected next year and stimulus measures may be required.
It will take longer to tell whether house prices will be affected and how the manufacturing and financial service industries will respond.

Has the Leave campaign encouraged racism?

There are no official statistics, but there has been a significant number of reports on social media of racist abuse linked to the Leave win. Some high-profile incidents have been verified by police.
In Hammersmith, west London, on Sunday, suspected racist graffiti was painted on the front entrance of the Polish Social and Cultural Association.
And in Cambridgeshire, police are investigating laminated cards that were posted through letterboxes and left outside a school, which read: "Leave the EU/No more Polish vermin" in both English and Polish.
There has been a stream of reports on social media of people hurling abuse at others they assume to be immigrants. The Leave campaign has faced accusations that it encouraged hostility towards immigrants.

Theresa May - UK's next possible PM - Independent

Like many Londoners, I spent last weekend huddled around a table with worried Remain friends. We were discussing possible permutations of the UK’s political future. Will there be an early general election? Will Corbyn resign? A friend then indicated that she was planning to join the Conservative party in order to vote for Theresa May in the upcoming party leadership contest. When I asked her whether she was still a Labour supporter, she shrugged and said: “Of course. But this is post-truth politics: anyone but Boris.”
I know how she feels. It’s a sentiment that has been echoed at work, at home, and in the editorials that I’m reading with an insistence approaching zeal. Johnson, an erstwhile “progressive” Conservative, the kind of conservative that we metropolitan, multicultural Londoners voted into mayoral power – twice! - has betrayed the very values that we hold dear.
The foppish hair and hopeless zip wire escapade have well and truly lost any bumbling charm they may have held when we thought he was Europe-facing. But while Boris’ flaws are well-documented, Theresa May’s record is being rewritten. She’s now cast as moderate, but has been anything but.

As a Canadian immigrant to the UK who has warily followed May’s choke hold on non-EEC immigration, I feel cold dread creeping down my neck every time May is touted as the more reasonable choice to Boris. Yes, she was quietly supportive of the Remain campaign, but May’s political history is staunchly more conservative, more anti-immigration, and more isolationist than Boris, however angry the 48 per cent is with him right now.
Over the course of her six year tenure as Home Secretary (the longest in history), May’s contentious rhetoric, aimed at pacifying Ukip swing voters, stoked the anti-EU fires long before Boris defected to Leave.
In 2010, she said that the UK could “reduce net migration without damaging [our] economy”.

In 2011, students who had graduated from UK universities found themselves in the crosshairs of May's anti-immigrant vendetta. When before there had been a two-year visa, allowing those who had paid exorbitant international tuition fees for UK degree programmes to stay and work in the UK following their graduation, May revoked this visa type and introduced further restrictions on employers sponsoring new graduates. Her speech explaining this decision was full of fear-mongering, citing a small proportion of students who “took advantage” of the government’s generosity as a reason to axe the full programme.

Those in Cornwall will not have forgotten the plight of the Engels family, caught in the 2012 non-European Economic Area family migrants rules. A UK woman and her young daughter had to move to South Africa because the UK woman’s salary was insufficient to “maintain” her South African-born husband – the minimum salary for maintenance, £18,600, was applied by May equally throughout the country, even though Cornwall has a far lower cost of living, and lower average salary, than elsewhere.
In 2015, May continued to ratchet up the anti-EU sentiment in a fiery anti-immigrant speech, saying that it is “impossible to build a cohesive society” where there is immigration. She also introduced a £200 annual “immigrant health surcharge” for those in possession of work visas. This means that, because the NHS is funded by general taxation, immigrants who are fit and healthy enough to have received a job offer are being double-charged for healthcare, even though study after study shows that working-age immigrants are healthier and draw from the NHS far less than those born in the UK.

Just this year, May set the minimum salary for immigrants who have already lived in the UK for five years to £35,000, if they simply want to continue to do so. These are people who have spent five years paying taxes, doing their jobs, and integrating into the country. The Home Office itself admitted that the health and education sectors, among others, will be adversely impacted by this new salary threshold as it is implemented.
If her record on immigration fails to send a chill down your spine, then consider one of May’s very first acts in the role of Home Secretary: in 2010, she ensured that public bodies no longer had to actively try to reduce inequality.

This departure from a key tenet of the Equality Act was not an isolated step; three years later, May expressed her disdain for the Human Rights Act, telling the Sunday Telegraph that she “personally” felt that it had caused problems in the UK.
And, to the dismay of her party, May spent late April 2016 – the eleventh hour of the EU referendum campaign - saying that the UK should leave the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR), contradicting other Tory MPs and forcing Downing Street to clarify that the Remain campaign was not pushing for this extreme measure. Other Tories came out to say that this opinion was untenable, since the ECHR is a prerequisite for membership in the EU.
Was May really a Remainer, or a closer Leaver? Either way, by staying silent through much of the campaign, she was playing as personal and political a game as Boris Johnson.
Rebecca Glover is a research fellow at the Policy Innovation Research Unit

Why You Can’t Dismiss the Populism Behind the Brexit - TIME

Why You Can’t Dismiss the Populism Behind the Brexit

Posted: 28 Jun 2016 11:54 AM PDT

Foroohar is an assistant managing editor at TIME and the magazine’s economics columnist. She’s the author of Makers and Takers: The Rise of Finance and the Fall of American Business.
I’m really, really sad about Brexit. I spent 10 years living in England, working as a foreign correspondent throughout Europe and the Middle East. My two kids were born in the U.K. We traveled widely and freely and easily throughout Europe. Covering the start of the euro, I felt like I was a part of something amazing — a new kind of globalization that wasn’t being pushed by corporations, but rather invented by a culturally distinct group of people, people who spent the last several hundred years fighting each other, but who nonetheless came together because they all believed in civil society, democracy, freedom, and taking care of one another with a proper social safety net.

So, yes, it’s a blow to think that the U.K. no longer wants to be a part of that experiment. I think it was the wrong decision, economically and politically. But honestly, it’s even more disturbing to me that many European and American leaders, policy “experts” and pundits still don’t get that democracy is democracy, even when you don’t like it. The more you dismiss the “Leave” contingent as ignorant racists who have no idea what’s good for them, the more you’ll get the kind of populism that we’re seeing not just in the U.K., but here in the U.S. too. I couldn’t agree more with this wonderful Matt Taibbi piece in Rolling Stone, with a title that summed it up as well as I’ve seen: “The Reaction To Brexit Is the Reason Brexit Happened.”
The notion that 90% of the population of the U.S. and the U.K. need Very Smart People to make sure they don’t get into trouble by thinking and feeling the wrong things is, quite frankly, B.S. I cover and am close with many of those VSPs, and I can tell you, they make mistakes. Lots of them. Big ones. Remember the financial crisis? That was owed to a system that was invented by elites, and the fact that the cleanup was largely and imperfectly organized by a small and insular group of elites is why we have a bifurcated recovery that has favored Wall Street over Main Street. It’s just so unbelievably arrogant to think that the Leave vote should be tossed out because the VSPs have decided they didn’t like the result.
By the way, this arrogance plays out everywhere, all the time. One of the reasons that we have chaos in the Middle East right now is that for many years, the U.S. and many European nations supported regimes deemed to be appropriate by VSPs, while suppressing those that were more popular amongst local populations but considered less acceptable by elites. The result: truly terrifying terrorists groups like ISIS exploiting the underlying anger of populations unable to make their own electoral mistakes, and move on from them in a less destructive way.
I worry about how the arrogance of the VSPs will play out in this election cycle. It’s not O.K. to just dismiss ideas because we find them offensive. We need to try to understand what’s causing people to have them. (In the case of both Brexit and Donald Trump, it’s a split economy based on rules that need to be tweaked to better ensure shared, sustainable economic growth.) On this note, I’m really glad to see Hillary Clinton on the platform with Elizabeth Warren, someone who, whether you like her or not, certainly understands how to speak to the public in a way that’s straight-forward, honest, and not condescending. Clinton will need to make sure she’s doing that clearly, and effectively, going forward.

Surgeons' letter sums up Brexit - Independent

Brexit, a political movement nurtured by primarily one man for nearly 20 years, has affected the entire country.
While some have been searching for the reason as to why this happened (some concluding mad cow disease) others have looked to how this can be avoided in the future.
Maybe gambling the economy, the state of the union and your job on a plebiscite shouldn't be without serious consequences?
This is the gist of the argument a Times letter writer has contended, comparing the repercussions of politicians to those of surgeons.
It reads:
Sir, 
If a surgeon performed an operation on a patient without fully informed consent, knowingly used inaccurate data about the likely outcome, and then had no idea how to proceed after the initial incision, they would be struck off the medical register and not allowed to practise further. 
Isn't it time politicians too were held properly accountable for their individual actions?
-Tony Weetman, Emeritus professor of medicine, Sheffield


To be completely fair to the man, Cameron has resigned, so far the only major player to do so.
We're still waiting on any consequences for all the others.

Discussing the Australian federal election on July 2 ( Saturday), 2016 - JKHC-NEWS(2)

       Discussing the Australian federal election on July 2

                                     ( Saturday ), 2016

It is again time for Australians to vote in a federal election. It has been a rather frequent affair during the past 5 years. This reflects on the less than ideal political situation in the Australian political scene without a clear majority governing political party. To begin with there is no obvious better choice in terms of a better governing political team on offer.

Nevertheless, voters have to make a pick somehow.

What is a good government ? In my humble opinion, it is one that is fair according to generally accepted standards ( as set out in the United Nations Declaration on Human Rights – see my essay on Universal Standards here :-   http://jkhcforum.blogspot.com.au/2015/12/universal-standards-brief-visit-by-jkhc.html ) and reasonably efficient. In other words, it must not demand from the people more sacrifice than necessary for the achievement of the common goals within a democratic framework. ( See “ Social Contract “ in Wikipedia here :-  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Social_Contract )

To allow the reader to assess whether or not my comments are biased in my own favour  I must declare my own background. I am a retiree with no political affiliation and mainly live on interest income from my own savings and investment income from shares in public companies. I am not on any kind of government subsidies or welfare except Medicare benefits. Having said that we can move on to the main discussion.

(A) Principles relating to public finance or government spending

To assess the aptitude or appropriateness of government spending voters need to learn some basic principles relating to public expenditure. The following is extracted from my own economic essay :- “ 2008 Economic & Financial Tsunami – An Overview for the Lay Person “ in chapter (6) at page 29. ( my full essay can be seen at this link :-  https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=sites&srcid=ZGVmYXVsdGRvbWFpbnxqa2hjbGlmZXN0eWxlfGd4OjY4MWY3YTM5ZDFmY2NmZTU  )

“  ( 6 ) Basic working principles of public or government finance

Governments spend a lot of taxpayers' money in recurrent expenses as well as capital or infrastructure projects. The government budget is of direct relevance to our financial position and that of society as a whole. Citizens are very often asked to pay their share of these spending through the increase of personal income tax or other indirect taxes such as sales tax or GST ( goods & services tax ). Incorrect ways of spending public funds will both do great damages to the economy and will result in great injustice.

Just as in accounting there are some basic philosophies involved in this specialized branch of economics. Let us have a brief look a few more important ones. Before doing so, however, we need to learn about some special characteristics of public finance. The concepts of external economies and diseconomies very often come up in connection with government spending because the government is responsible for many branches of social services. Here the terms economies and diseconomies refer the conditions and effects and not systems as such. A particular economic activity is said to produce an external economy when it can create benefits for other people who are not the intended target of that activity. Take the radio airwave for example. If the government sets up a radio station for its military service everyone else can also enjoy its programs without extra costs on the government. Again, if the government constructs a freeway to make it more convenient for citizens in the outlying areas to get into the city the freeway will also benefit those living along its route. The improved convenience will also lead to the increase in the value of properties in its vicinity. These are extra benefits to be reaped by society. On the other hand, some economic activities can create external diseconomies. For example, an electric power station that runs on coal will give rise to air pollution and will adversely affect the health of citizens living in its vicinity. Besides the moral issue the costs of the resultant long-term health care problems will be ultimately borne by society while the electric company simply makes the profit without bearing the full social costs. Nowadays, social accounting is becoming popular in some countries to find out the ultimate costs of to society. The fundamental lessons to be learned on these special characteristics of public projects are three fold. First, the decision to go ahead with such projects must be based not just on immediate or direct costs and benefits but on all external economies and diseconomies. Secondly, many projects with such special characteristics are very often more suited to public sector management because profit is not the sole consideration for the government. Thirdly, if it is decided that it is more efficient for private corporations to handle such projects strict control must be in place to ensure that costs of external diseconomies if any must be paid for by the private enterprise undertaking the project. Otherwise, corporate greed will again lead to some social costs being passed on by the private enterprise to the taxpayer. However, it must also be borne in mind that others things being equal first consideration should be given to allowing the private sector to take up the project under a market oriented economy to give priority to economic efficiency. The existing size of the public sector must also be considered so as to keep down government's share in the total economy to a reasonable proportion such as below 20 % of GDP ( gross domestic product ).

Very often there is some dilemma facing government in connection with the operation of many public services such as health care and social welfare. How much should the government charge citizens for using such services.  If they are completely free then such services may be abused by those who may not really need them. Thus, it will lead to a waste of precious economic resources. On the other hand, if the charges are too expensive it will be unfair to the underprivileged sector of society who may not be able to afford them thus creating a burden on the poor. Due to the special characteristics of such essential services the strict rules of the price system ( or money vote and by supply and demand ) under capitalism cannot work properly. Here again we encounter situations that cannot be satisfactorily handled by a strict application of the price system ( price to be determined freely by supply and demand ) which is considered to be a sacred institution under capitalism. So, economists have come up with two useful principles that are quite handy in such tricky situations. They are called the ability to pay and benefits received principles in public finance. These two principles are not mutually exclusive but can be used in a certain mix to achieve the optimum balance on fairness and efficient use of economic resources.

The “ ability to pay “ principle requires that due consideration must be given to any hardship that may affect the user's ability to pay for the essential services while the “ benefits received “ principles specifies that users have the basic obligation to pay for any services they receive unless special circumstances warrant otherwise. Applying the above principles to use of the emergency ward of public hospitals an appropriate way to

strike a balance between fairness and efficient use of the emergency facilities would be to charge a fee that will deter non-urgent users ( benefits received principle ) but the charge can be waived by the health authority or borne by the social welfare department in case of citizens already on the welfare system ( ability to pay principle ).

The government's budget can be used very effectively to achieve many economic goals such as creating employment ( through fiscal spending ), redistribution of income on a more equitable basis ( through taxation ), keeping down the inflation rate by a surplus budget ( withdrawing more resources from the economy than putting back into it ) and stimulating consumption in the private sector through a deficit budget ( injecting more into the economy than withdrawing from it ). There is usually no serious problem with a surplus budget except public criticism against the government for not taking better care of the underprivileged sector. However, if a surplus budget is called for to dampen an over heated economy by withdrawing resources from it the foregoing criticism will not stand. On the other hand, there can be a lot of controversy over a deficit budget 
( spending more than the amount of revenue raised during a financial year ). This is because a deficit must be properly funded. There are basically three way of funding a budget deficit. First, the government can simply print more money. This is the worst and most irresponsible way because putting more money into the economy without a corresponding increase in the production of goods and services will simply lead to a higher price inflation which is will lead to hardship for the fixed income earners and reduce the competitive edge of the country as compared to other trading partners. Unfortunately, irresponsible and dictatorial governments such as Zimbabwe are doing exactly that. It had led to a hyper-inflation rate of over 231,000,000% in Zimbabwe in July 2008 as compared to the previous year. The same tragic scenario also occurred in Germany after the First World War. The second way is to raise more taxes which will be a direct burden on the taxpayer and will be unpopular. The third way is to borrow from its citizens and outsiders ( other countries and international corporations ) by issuing government bonds ( national debt ).

There are some particularly tricky problems connected with the question of national debts. First and foremost, borrowing too much will subject the government to the influence of the creditors especially if these are foreign countries or international financing giant corporations. There is always the political consideration that these creditors can put undue pressure on the government to carry out policies to the advantage of the creditors. In extreme cases of excessive national debt the sovereignty of the national may be threatened. In the case of excessive national debt owed to its own citizens there will be a problem of adversely affecting a fair distribution of income. Those citizens who are most likely to buy government bonds are the rich people. Interest payment on bonds will ultimately be financed from taxation. This means that the rich will become richer at the expense of the poor. While only the rich receive interest payment on the government bonds they hold as investment every citizen ( even the less well off ) must be bear the tax burden in respect of that portion raised for the purpose of financing government bond interest payments. The rich are getting richer while the poor have less to spend due to a higher tax burden resulting from the need to pay interest on government bonds.

Then there is the problem with the intergeneration transfer of national debt burden. As many types of government bonds have very long maturity periods this will imply that a substantial amount of money raised by government bonds during the period of their issue will not be due for repayment until decades into the future. As mentioned above in section (4) in connection with the working of the financial market some US treasury bonds have up to 99 years before they are due for repayment. This created the situation of the national debt burden being transferred to future generations while the borrowed funds have been used in the current generation. Therefore, to be fair to future taxpayers long-term government bonds should only be issued to finance long-term infrastructure capital projects such as roads and bridges which have enduring benefits that will extend to future generations. This is the accounting principle of matching capital expenditure ( capital assets ) with long term loans ( or long term liability ) which is also applicable in social accounting to ensure fairness to all citizens. This treatment also reflects the benefits received principle in public finance. By the same token, short term government bonds should be issued to cover a short fall in revenue in a deficit budget for the increased current expenses of a revenue nature.

It will be recalled that there are four major economic goals for the government to achieve. To refresh the readers' memory, these are full employment, low inflation, healthy economic growth ( i.e. increase in living standards over time ) and a fair distribution of national income ( a major proportion of the population being in the average income and wealth bracket ). There is now an urgent fifth goal of environmental protection. The most ideal conditions for the the economy is full employment with an acceptably low rate of inflation together with a healthy rate of growth, little disparity between the rich and poor plus a good and sustainable environment. Unfortunately, some of these economic objectives are not totally compatible. For example, an increase in fiscal spending can create more employment but it will also lead to a higher rate of inflation. Similarly, to achieve a higher rate of growth in a shorter period of time involves higher levels of spending ( both in the public and private sectors ) that will lead to a higher rate of inflation. Of course, the ideal way to achieve a higher rate of economic growth without too much additional spending is to increase personal productivity ( working more efficiently ). Then, a more progressive rate of taxation will lead to a more equitable distribution of national income but it may sometimes reduce the incentive for more personal efforts. Political considerations will also come into play. For example, the best way for the world as a whole to achieve the most efficient use of resources is total free trade to promote competition and higher productivity or efficiency. However, trade unions in many countries where a democratic political system is at work will dictate minimum wage levels and working conditions which can make the work force of that country less competitive. The result is that trade unions in that country will call for more protection ( such as quotas or import tariff ) against cheap labour producer countries. The conflict arises because of different working and remuneration standards between the advanced and developing countries. This is a major problem confronting members of the WTO ( World Trade Organisation ) which was formed to promote free trade on a global basis ( or more popularly known as Globalisation ). A skilful and fine balance must be struck by a capable government to achieve reasonable progress in all five economic goals the latest one of which is environmental protection. ( The 5 objectives for economic policies are (1) Economic growth or betterment of living standards. (2) A fair and equitable distribution of national income and resources. (3) Full employment to give a fair go for everyone (4) Price stability with a tolerable rate of inflation to protect against erosion of spending power for the majority working ( fixed income ) class as well as retirees and the underprivileged class. (5) Environmental protection to ensure the sustainability for our environment which we must protect for our future generations. These economic goals very often works against one another so that a healthy balance must be maintained in the course of achieving them. )

Just one word of reminder regarding government spending in relation to the capitalistic rationale of “ big economy, small government “. In case it is necessary to support a declining economy this can be done fiscally by either increasing public spending or a reduction in taxes. Everything being equal the above capitalistic rationale warrants that cutting taxes should be given priority because the private section is supposed to be more efficient in deciding what to do with the extra money resulting from a tax cut. The public sector, on the other hand, is usually more wasteful because the government does not need to make a profit on its operations. Furthermore, a freedom of choice for the citizens to spend the extra cash from the tax cut in their own chosen way is consistent with the democratic principle.

Having acquainted themselves with the basic working principles of public finance the readers will now be more confident in assessing government policies proposed or taken to combat the E&F T 2008. Hopefully, everyone will become an informed citizen to have a say in these public policies through the vote which all citizens of a democratic country posses to make a difference towards the recovery process. “

Armed with the above basic knowledge to assess the proposals put forward by various candidates of the upcoming election let us try to be an informed voter and hopefully, not to follow the chaotic path of the Brexit referendum.

(B) General characteristics of the political parties running for government in this election

(a)        The incumbent Coalition government between the Liberal Party and the National Party  

Their historical political philosophy is mainly market oriented or capitalistic generally following the former UK iron lady Prime Minister - Margaret Thatcher ( Thatcherism ) way of thinking. She was former Australian PM, John Howard’s idol.

This philosophy is generally pro-business and pro middle class. It holds a conservative attitude towards public spending and tries to shy away from welfare as far as possible. The individual is supposed to work hard to take care of his or her own problems as far as possible. Of course, they not as yet dare to challenge the existing welfare arrangements though constant reviews are in place to tighten them. For example, they have declared a new policy of auditing pensioners’ assets to see if benefits have been over paid previously.

Their election campaign centres on :- (1) A viable economic plan to get out of the huge budget deficit (2) A safe border against illegal immigrants (3) A stable government (4) No changes to Medicare and education policy.

(b)        The Labour Party

Traditionally, its policy is to protect rights and welfare of the working class often willing to go into deficit spending to achieve their goals. It is socialistic in political philosophy meaning that resources should be fairly or evenly distributed even though the policies they adopt to achieve this end may discourage investment in turn adversely affect employment.

As the party needs the strong support from trade unions ( organized working class ) the party very often give favourable treatment to and sometimes even submit to questionable trade union demands. For example, in the latest Victorian fire fighters trade dispute the Victorian Labour government forced through pay and other reforms that favoured the trade union. So much so that State government’s minister resigned in protest of the manifestly unfair reforms. Although the unfair reforms had though passed through State government but verbal and even physical threats are still being dished out by various parties involved in the dispute.

Their election campaign centres on :- (1) Opposing tax reduction for businesses and cuts to medical and family benefits and university fees (2) protect workers’ right and benefits such as retaining weekend wage rates (3) No privatisation of Medicare (4) No reduction in family benefits or increases to university tuition fees.

(c) Green Party

The main party goal is to protect the environment. It also emphasises Australia’s moral obligation towards refugees and  champions the basic rights of the LGBT community. For example, it supports same sex marriage. They are also against globalisation which inevitably harms the environment.

Their campaign centres on :- (1) Protecting the environment such as conservation of the Great Barrier Reef (2) Supports same sex marriage (3) Abolition of all off-shore refugee detention camps.

(d) The independents

These cannot form a government in their own right but are very important because of the very close election resulting in a hung parliament ( no clear majority votes won by any single political party ). The independents and once the Green Party were invited to form a coalition government after a hung parliament was in place due to a very close election.

These independents have their own political calls particular to their constituents. Sometimes, they were able to trade their unique power balancing position to bargain for the realisation of their political goals. They were dubbed the “ king makers “ because of their unique power balancing position. This is clearly unhealthy but it happens at a close election.

(C) What influences my choice in this election

(a)        To start with I do not like the way the LiberaL/National Party Coalition forced this election by a double dissolution motion ( the double rejection by the Senate of their  proposed legislation for the establishment of the ABCC – Australian Building & Construction Commission which is not even in their election campaign anymore ). This is a dirty trip meant to force the law makers into accepting the Coalition’s proposal. The Coalition worked within the law in using the Double Dissolution mechanism but this cannot disguise the blackmail nature of the move. Blackmailing the people’s representatives is an insult to the people and democracy. It is too high handed and so causing the Coalition to lose their moral foothold. Having said that the reality of the huge budget deficit leaves me no choice but to opt for a more prudent fiscal management approach of the ruling Coalition. I will definitely settle the score with Liberal not only on the Double Dissolution but other issues such as the refugee policy as well in the next election. As regards the choice of the Coalition’s cut in spending I do agree that it reflects on the fact that Malcolm Turnbull and his team is slightly out of touch with the common people.

(b)        Under the current adverse world economic climate of China’s recession and now the Brexit turmoil the economy is of top priority. I am not saying that the Coalition is proposing a brilliant economic plan. It is nevertheless a more prudent or conservative one though at the expense of some slight socially undesirable measures on welfare. Labour on the other hand is running 4 years of higher deficits followed by the return to budget balance in the fifth year. To me, this will not be possible unless with increase in taxation or borrowing. We must not forget that the huge black hole in our budget deficit is mainly due to Labour’s imprudent spending. In particular, Kevin Rudd ‘s crazy spending spree set a very bad example on fiscal prudence. I can still vividly remember Rudd’s failed national heating insulation scheme of insulating one million homes in a year which could never be achieved. That led to the death of 4 apprentices who were not well trained enough to handle the job plus billions of dollars down the drain. The scheme was just a wild shot by an ambitious Rudd to become the only government in the free world to be saved from economic recession. To me, some slight recession is not intolerable during the 2008 GFC and there was no need to spend money for spending’s own sake).

(c)         With the Green Party which is on moral high ground most of the time their goals are not really that practical for Australia as a whole especially under the current economic climate.  However, they could be decisive should there be a hung parliament. In my humble opinion they may serve the country better while in opposition as a safe guard against excesses in the incumbent government with regard to the government’s policies.

(d)        The most important external issues that will influence my vote in this election are :- (1) China’s recession leading to another possible world economic down turn (2) Brexit leading to another world financial turmoil (3) General world movement of political opinions to the far right leading to anti-establishment protest votes in many countries.

(D) My predictions of the election results

Originally, I predicted a hung parliament with either the ruling Coalition with some independent forming a government. Less likely, a hung parliament with Labour and the Greens forming a ruling government but now with the Brexit, the Victorian fire fights dispute and the more recently conviction of the former NSW Labour member of parliament Obeid in his corruption case the Ruling Coalition may win out right though with a narrow majority. This is my bold prediction with all the available facts and my own gut feeling. We will get our answer in 3 to 4 days.

Please make your own informed choice in your voting. You must exercise your democratic right to vote and do your duty as an Australian citizen. If you hesitate to exercise your voting right just think of the thousands of freedom loving citizens worldwide who have suffered and even died to try to get the right to vote. Do not waste your precious vote. Just stand up and be counted as a proud Australian citizen.

JKHC

June 29 ( Wednesday ), 2016.