Remainers who Have Become 'Soft Brexiters' Need to be Careful What They Wish for.

I'll be straightforward on this: I voted remain in the EU referendum. Not because I greatly love the EU - there's no question that it has many flaws that are widely discussed elsewhere - but because it represents a massive step into the unknown, not to mention that, as a British citizen living in France, it has the potential to make life rather more interesting on a personal level than I'd prefer.

That being said, a referendum was had, and the vote came out in favour of leaving the EU (I hate the word  'Brexit' by the way: Possibly the ugliest portmanteau I've ever come across). This means that it is right and proper that the government pursues this direction with conviction and mindful of the future best interests of the UK in this context.

As time has passed since the referendum, there has been a growing clamour from erstwhile Remain campaigners for the so-called 'soft Brexit' option. As this has continued, I am becoming increasingly disturbed by the potential ramifications of going down this path.

Soft Brexit is essentially a proposal to leave the EU as a political entity, but remain members of the single market, on the argument that it will keep our largest market open to us under the current terms. I believe that if the government was to pursue this path then we could easily finish up with a situation far worse than either continuing as we were or pursuing a real Brexit i.e. complete severing of agreements and moving forward under WTO terms.

Why do I think this? For several reasons. Firstly, this approach would inevitably mean that any possibility of the UK pursuing new bilateral trade agreements on its own will be straight out of the window. Immediately, you've destroyed the one most significant potential advantage that Britain can gain from this process. On the other hand, you can argue that we'll still have access to our largest market, while pursuing trade with other nations as we do now, or under the terms of any further FTAs that the EU miraculously manages to agree without at least one member of the EU vetoing the agreement.

However, I think this argument misses a very important point: By pursuing the soft Brexit, we will no longer have a say in future legislation regarding the single market. It wasn't so long ago that the so-called 'Tobin tax' was on the cards - a tax on all currency exchanges. At the time it was proposed within the EU, it was widely considered to be a massive threat to the London financial services industry and could ultimately result in chunks of it moving to the continent. This proposal has not gone away. Angela Merkel was, and remains, a staunch advocate of the idea and without the UK in the ring to influence decision-making, the UK financial services industry could find itself still with the privilege of EU financial services passport rights, but nevertheless with a significant chunk of its activity moving to the continent. I've no doubt that there are a myriad other possibilities where the UK's trading competitiveness within the EU could be steadily eroded in a situation where the UK is impotent to influence the legislation to which it is subject.

Further to this, commencing article 50 negotiations with the EU from a known starting point that the nation is desperate to cling onto access to the single market is a terrible starting point when considering other areas of negotiation, such as free movement, which was undoubtedly something that strongly influenced voters towards a leave vote in the referendum. Starting from this position would be akin to going to a used car dealer on your hands and knees begging him to sell a car to you: You can guarantee you're not going to get a great deal.

We seem to be inundated with reports describing the mess the UK is in following the referendum, yet nothing truly disastrous has actually happened. The pound has had a sharp fall in value, yet Mervyn King has pointed out that this is something the Bank of England has actually wanted for some time and been unable to achieve, along with higher interest rates and lower property prices.

It is very early days, and no doubt the uncertainty surrounding the situation will cause damage, but one way or the other some form of certainty is going to come about. It's important that immediate concerns don't distract from ensuring that the UK's long-term position a non-member of the EU isn't the best it can possibly be. And if, as the two-year mark from the article 50 submission approaches, Britain's post-Brexit future doesn't look like a viable one from the point of view of the British public, then there's still the option of calling another referendum and withdrawing the article 50 notification, but not before the avenue has been explored seriously and with conviction. That much, at the very least, is owed to the people that voted for it.

With Jeremy Corbyn's Leadership Victory, where now for New Labour?

It's difficult to interpret Jeremy Corbyn's convincing first round victory in the Labour leadership race as anything other than the utter rejection of what the New Labour movement was trying to achieve. Given Corbyn's heavy investment in the politics of protest rather than the politics of credible government (he mentioned in his victory speech that he won't be celebrating this afternoon, he's heading off for a protest rally over the refugee crisis) It seems inevitable that the trade unions that crippled the UK in the '70's are set for a massive increase in influence over the party once more, raising concerns that Labour may be an electoral dead duck for years to come.The Labour MPs that recognised the necessary changes to Labour philosophy to make them electable must be feeling pretty desperate having seen all of their reforms effectively destroyed in one fell swoop.

Tim Farron recently made an open offer to Labour MPs, and for those less than enthused with Jeremy Corbyn's victory, there are several reasons why this may be a good idea.

• Politically, New Labour philosophy is quite a good fit with the Liberal Democrats as they stand.
• The Liberal Democrats have just spent five years in government during a particularly difficult time with Britain's economy. Overall, I think it's fair to say that they did pretty well, having more influence on policy than their actual number of MPs would justify. The lack of credibility of the party as a party of government may no longer be an issue for that reason alone.
• A significant number of MPs moving from Labour to the Liberal Democrats would certainly make people sit up and take notice, and potentially make the electorate contemplate the Liberal Democrats more seriously as an alternative party of government, particularly with a significant influx of existing MPs that have government experience from Labour's last term in office.
• It's very hard to see how MPs that were heavily associated with the New Labour movement are going to hold much sway under Labour's new regime.

Certainly from where I'm standing, for any Labour MP that believed in what they were trying to do as New Labour, I'm not sure there's any real alternative if they hope to salvage anything from this earthquake within the Labour Party any time soon.

Why the Lib Dems Have Everything to Play For over the Next Five Years

With the unsettling aftermath of the Scottish referendum, that should have put the issue of Scottish independence to bed for some time, the UK finds itself taking stock after a general election, with a new Scottish separatist presence in Westminster, and Holyrood as all but a one-party soapbox intent on tearing the UK apart. 

The Conservative majority came as a surprise, and one that is fairly good news in terms of the stability of the nation, but the decimation of the Lib Dems in Westminster was unsettling: It’s a shocking indictment of the attitudes of some of the members and voters that abandoned the Lib Dems after they joined the Conservatives in office after the 2005 General election.

Also, it should not be forgotten that the Liberals made the difference between the UK having stable government in a time of great global uncertainty in the aftermath of the 2008 crash.

Labour and, more generally, the Tory-stopping brigade, attacked the Liberal Democrats in droves, not least over the 'betrayal' of students over tuition fees. To be fair, you could argue that it was an idle promise that they never dreamt they would be in a position to actually make decisions over, and Nick Clegg also had the good grace to apologise unreservedly over it, something that doesn’t happen that often. Beyond that there’s room for a certain amount of indignation on their behalf that they were being so viciously attacked by Labour at a time when the country was still reeling from the impact of the 2008 crash, particularly when Labour was the party that introduced tuition fees to the UK in the first place.

The reality is that Labour is a mess that will never be able to properly disentangle itself from the influence of unions in the UK and, while I respect the need for trade unions to represent the people that get most put upon, the nature of global enterprise and the financial pressures on national governments has made their influence on the Labour party positively damaging to the long-term interests of people in the UK. 

Despite the massive setback for the Lib Dems, at least in terms of seats, their time in office could yet prove valuable, both for them and the country: It has been massively beneficial to them in establishing their own identity as a party, in contrast to their prior role as Labour's poodle. The time may be right for them to provide a  credible and coherent  party of opposition in the UK in their own right. This small party has gone through a painful (and unintentional on their part), process of divesting itself of the members that existed solely to attack the Conservatives, and is now left with a kernel of activists with a much more positive idea of what they want.

The Liberal Democrats will very soon have a new leader in parliament and that leader will be  complemented by two excellent leaders in both the Welsh (Kirstie Williams) and Scottish parliaments (Willie Rennie).

If they play their cards right, the Liberal Democrats can seize the initiative here, but it’s essential that they move forward speaking for their own ideas, and do it with the dignity that so many of their MPs have displayed over the years.

As this new chapter begins, with the Lib Dem membership poised to elect a new leader, whoever is elected could have a far greater opportunity than he might think at this point.

The Liberal Democrats may be down for the moment, but they're definitely not out.

Protecting North American Oil and Gas production and how to do it: The pros and cons.

Before I begin my argument here I would like to make clear that it's important for the world to continue to move towards as many alternative energy sources as possible including solar, wind, tidal and nuclear. This is an argument made in acceptance of the fact that our economies are dependent on fossil fuels to sustain themselves and simply will not be able to function without them at the present time.

There is no question that military interventionism in the Middle East has been dictated by the need for oil to fuel our economies and, in turn, this is providing part of a narrative to fuel resentment towards countries like the US, Canada, Europe and Australia that is fuelling terrorism against these countries.

In Europe, the dependence on Russia to provide us with fossil fuels has influenced the attitude towards Russia and a certain timidity in discussing Russia's approach to silencing political opponents of the government there internally and influencing former Soviet States such as Ukraine into submission through cutting off energy supplies.

Similarly we are guilty of abandoning principle entirely in our support of countries like Saudi Arabia in supporting them with arms in exchange for them trading oil in dollars, but also ultimately because while we are dependent on them for oil, our primary concern is the governments there are able to maintain control and stability to allow oil to keep being produced reliably and export it to meet our needs,

The dynamics of global diplomacy have shifted somewhat this year. The boom of shale oil in North America has relieved dependency on both the Middle East and Russia, which is a state of affairs that can allow countries that would otherwise might take a more principled approach to these things, such as more forthright diplomacy and carefully targeted sanctions on Russia to influence the thinking of Putin's government. OPEC has upped production and while this is also impacting Russia, and some argue that this is a Saudi driven move at the behest of the US to impact Russia, some are convinced that it's a move to drive North American offshore production and shale oil and gas out of business by making them uneconomic, in order to reestablish the control of the market by OPEC countries.

It should be observed that if OPEC succeeds in this and production outside of OPEC and Russia is driven out of business then we are back to where we were: Dependent on countries like Russia, Saudi and so on to meet the energy requirements of our nations.

As such, I think countries like the US and Canada, and to a much smaller extent countries like the UK, need to reflect on whether it would be a good idea to actually support shale oil and gas as a necessary evil to make sure that dependence on OPEC and Russia is neutralised to allow us to assert a more passive foreign policy as opposed to the more interventionist one where Western nations are the focus of anger in the Middle East rather than the governments in the Middle East.

As such, I would propose the following: That a minimum price be agreed with the industry in countries like the US and Canada per barrel to allow production there to be economic, and the difference between the global price and the minimum economic production price is paid by government to the producers in order to keep it in business and to avoid returning to the previous status quo. In turn, this could be financed by increased fuel duty at the pumps.

I appreciate that an increase in fuel duty is a very unattractive thing, but I suspect that once the maths was done, it would still be cheaper than what we had before the price plummeted last year. It's also important to note that OPEC cannot possibly sustain this overproduction indefinitely, which will mean they will have to give up their strategy of driving production by more expensive methods out of business. Once they admit defeat, prices production will have to return to more normal levels, the price will rise and production from deep sea platforms and shale oil and gas will be economic again, thus without any need of support.

This also has the added benefit of protecting jobs in the industry.

So there are a few factors to weigh up:
Benefits:

• Protecting domestic production keeps people in work, helping our economies.
• Maintaining domestic production allows our governments to adopt a more passive foreign policy.
• Less of our soldiers get killed
• Adopting a more passive foreign policy reduces the focus on us for terrorists.
• Our societies will be more peaceful internally as a result of being less of a target for terrorists.
• International oil prices will not be entirely out of our control.

Disadvantages:

• Negative environmental impact.

Ultimately though, it's a decision for Canadians and Americans to make as well as the countries that produce oil or gas to a smaller extent: Which is the lesser of the evils? It's up to you to decide. In deciding, don't forget that we're all trying to move away from fossil fuels anyway and I've no doubt you'll all keep pressuring your governments in the right direction anyway.

Cartoons of Muhammad v Burning Poppies

Following on from my argument in defence of freedom of expression, whether or not the expression might offend or not, it got me to thinking about a attitudes to attacking symbols across the board.

On the one hand, we've just seen the murder of some cartoonists at Charlie Hebdo by a handful of extremists for some offensive cartoons of the prophet Muhammad. The attitude of France and the world leaders that joined in the 'Je Suis Charlie' rallies was that Charlie Hebdo had a right to offend anyone it pleased.

There have been a mix of responses from within Islam to this idea. Some have argued that the cartoons don't bother them. Some have argued that they dislike the cartoons, but respect the right of the cartoonists to draw them. Some have used it as a platform to argue for further limits on freedom of expression that would make offensive images of the prophet Muhammad illegal. In response to the last opinion, it's very easy to point at cartoons ridiculing and attacking other faiths, but it occurs to me that there are blind spots in this argument.

In Britain, we have seen small handfuls of angry Muslims burning poppies. This is something I dislike as I have massive respect for the risks our servicemen take serving our nation, whether or not I think our government sending those servicemen into that conflict is a good idea or not. Then again, that doesn't mean to say I think someone should be arrested for burning a poppy, just because the majority, me among them, dislike poppies being burned.

There needs to be a shifting in attitudes away from curtailing everybody from being able to say something for risk of causing offence and moving towards the listener arguing with it or just ignoring it if they don't like it.

There's a nice little quote from the Quran that supports this idea.

And not equal are the good deed and the bad. Repel [evil] by that [deed] which is better; and thereupon the one whom between you and him is enmity [will become] as though he was a devoted friend. 
But none is granted it (the above quality) except those who are patient, and none is granted it except the owner of the great portion (of the happiness in the Hereafter i.e. Paradise and in this world of a high moral character). 

There's also another popular quote from Christianity that supports the idea: 'Turn the other cheek'. There may well be other quotes from other religions and ideologies that support this idea. Basically, the idea is a very good one.

People finding it within themselves not to mindlessly lash out if they are offended is the way to approach these questions, not to prevent things being said in the first place through threat of punishment or murder. To do that completely undermines the principle that was being violated by murdering the Charlie Hebdo staff.

French and British Multiculturalism and why Britain's Future may be a Silent One

The difference between the way that France and Britain have responded to the questions raised over the murder of the Charlie Hebdo cartoonists as a result of the, admittedly vulgar, cartoons directed at the prophet Muhammad, is that France's media has taken the view that because a murder has been committed trying to curtail Charlie Hebdo's freedom of expression by insulting anyone it chooses (and it has been shown that it has drawn no less derogatory cartoons about other faiths or ideas), that the response has been 'someone has tried to force us to stop this, which means that we must keep doing it'. In contrast, in the UK press, the attitude has been very different, with the BBC preventing its journalists from showing the offending cartoons, because of a wish not to offend the Muslim community. The reaction has been similar in the rest of the UK Press.

One reaction from some Muslims has been that they are offensive, so they must be banned. On the other hand, the reaction of some Muslims has been that it's a cartoon, however vulgar, and does nothing to actually tarnish the prophet Muhammad's reputation, thus ignore it. However, the approach taken by the BBC has been, well, it's offensive to some Muslims so it should be banned.

There are multiple flaws in this logic. Firstly, banning it because some Muslims may be offended fails to deal with Muslims as individuals. It doesn't allow for the opinion of the Muslims that are willing to just ignore it as something of no consequence. Some Muslims are angry about it, so you mustn't be allowed to say or do anything that could be considered offensive.

In another area, golliwogs are largely considered off limits because there is a view that they are offensive to black people. That all starts to fall down when Chaka Artwell, who is black, comes along and insists on wearing a golliwog around his neck for a BBC interview because 'this was a popular little guy when he was young' and 'white, middle-class liberal types' had decided his doll was racist and offensive. The BBC didn't interview him because his way of expressing himself didn't fit a presumption of how a black man or woman would react to a golliwog.


The most concerning element in all of this is where it could potentially lead: What if atheists become a 'community', with more extreme elements taking objection to any utterance that forwards the idea that there might be a God, even if more easy-going atheists might not have any issue? Are we then to take the view that some atheists may be offended by anything to do with religion so we should prevent any religious utterances in the media in order not to offend atheists?

This is why responding to anything offensive by demanding a ban is fundamentally flawed. You have to allow for it to be said, even if you don't like it, or the end result will be that nobody can say anything.