Leave won the 2019 EU election in the UK.

Yes it did.

What the pro-EU commentary is forgetting is that the Conservative Party's official position on Brexit is Leave, albeit with a deal. Indeed, up until only very recently, Labour's position was the same, albeit arguing over the deal - Labour's position has only recently become more ambiguous.

So take the share of the hard Brexit vote (Brexit Party + UKIP) and one arrives at 34.9%, but add the Conservative share (9.1%), and you arrive at 44% for Leave. There is also an argument for adding in Labour's share of the vote (since their manifesto commitment of less than 2 years ago was to honour the result of the 2016 referendum), and Leave has 58.1% - that's a pretty clear majority, and up 6% on the 2016 referendum.

Compare the equivalent for the Remain parties (LD, Green, SNP, PC and Change UK) and you have only 40.4%. (41.9% if you add in all the other smaller parties and independents - which, btw, are not all Remain.)

This can, indeed, be considered an indicative "2nd referendum" or "Peoples' Vote", and if you are to do so, you have to consider it along the following lines. Indeed the Remainers I have discussed this with agree this approach would be fair, so as not to split the Leave vote:

The choices are:

Leave with a deal
Leave with no deal
Remain

The caveat is that if the combined Leave vote exceeds Remain, then it is accepted that the UK still wants to leave the EU, and then the choice is between Deal or No Deal.

On the results from last week, this would be:

23% Leave with a deal (Combined Labour and Conservative vote)
35% Leave with no deal (Combined Brexit Party and UKIP vote)
42% Remain (Combined Remainder)

Leave wins, and Leave with no Deal wins.

Another, undeniable fact about these results is that there is a clear advance in hard Brexit support since the last EU elections in 2014: then UKIP scored 27% of the vote, but the combined UKIP and Brexit Party vote in 2019 reaches 35% - an increase of 8%.

Any other construction on this is a continuation of the attempt by Extremist Hard Line Remainers (EHLRs) to overturn the 2016 result and pervert democracy to serve their own interests. The spin put, by EHLRs on these EU election results is, in itself, evidence that they will employ selective, subjective statistical analysis and renege on prior assurances to honour the process and outcomes of a public vote.

The anguish, chaos, divisiveness and uncertainty that has prevailed since June 2016, it not the fault of Brexit, nor the fault of Brexiteers. It is, partly, a problem of the inevitable delay from the decision to Leave being made to being implemented. But that situation has being exploited by EHLRs in their flat refusal to accept the outcome - using a shopping list of inconsistent excuses that they only suddenly decided to cite after the event, when they had ample opportunity to address them beforehand.

EHLRs did not accept the 2016 referendum result (despite saying they would). Given that, and this latest spin, there is every reason to believe their reaction to a Leave win in a 2nd Referendum or "Peoples' Vote" would be repeated.

2019s EU election results in the UK clearly demonstrate both that leaving the EU still has a clear mandate and that, no matter how many votes we have on the issue, there is a extremist agenda that will stop at nothing to overturn it.

Brexit Surely Now Has It's Mandate.

The Election result shows there is clear majority public support for Brexit, or certainly little to no appetite for disrupting or attempting to reverse the decision taken a year ago.

Both the Conservative and Labour manifestos indicated their commitment to honouring the result of last year’s referendum, albeit with some differences in approach and what exactly Brexit will entail. Moreover, neither party were offering a 2^nd referendum on the matter: either on a final deal or an option for remaining.

Contrast the Liberal Democrats, SNP and Greens who have been unequivocal in their opposition to Brexit: Both the LibDems and the Greens want a 2^nd referendum and the SNP want a 2^nd independence referendum for Scotland before the UK leaves the EU to gain Scotland the option of remaining.

Having now secured manifesto commitments to leaving the EU in the two most powerful of UK’s political parties, UKIPs raison d’etre is close to extinction. Now styling themselves as the “guard dog of Brexit”, their remaining function is, indeed, to keep watch over the process, with the threat of making a comeback if the government starts conceding too much over the next 2 years. Their electoral fortunes will remain inversely related to the extent to which the UK extricates itself from the EU.

Looking at the result in the context of the above, one can actually discern a uniform swing in last Thursday’s vote: away from those who most vociferously campaigned on both sides of the Brexit argument, to those who have the power and commitment to honour the outcome.

As I said, both Conservative and Labour, are committed, to varying degrees of detail, to securing the UK’s withdrawal from the EU, and, between them, polled 82.3% of the popular vote. (If you add in UKIP and the DUP, you get 85%). If you want to factor in the turnout at this election, which was 68.7%, you get a clear 58% of those eligible to vote, supporting a party that had a manifesto commitment to honouring Brexit.

Now given the apparent consternation at last year’s referendum result, and given there appeared to be no other option on the table of “changing your mind” over Brexit, would now not have been the time to seize this election as the most powerful opportunity to vote for dissent at the outcome of last year’s result?

Yet those parties with the strongest dissenting voices saw a fall in their share of the votes, both individually, and aggregately: the LibDems actually had their worst share of the vote in a General Election ever; the Green Party saw its vote halved since 2015; and Scotland saw a massive 13% swing away from the SNP to the Conservatives.

Now you’d be forgiven for thinking otherwise, with the post-polls media coverage, but this election saw the Conservatives poll their largest share of the vote since the Conservative landslide of 1983. Their vote share increased by 5.5% since 2015, and Labour’s increased by nearly 10%. Both parties were committed to remaining in the EU in their 2015 manifestos, both committed to have Britain leave it in 2017. There’s a correlation that cannot be ignored.

We have had four national votes: one every year since 2014, in which the subject of Britain’s membership of the EU has been either a major, or the only, issue. Under any analysis, the only reasonable and objective conclusion from the results, is that there is a clear mandate for Brexit in principle. The details of what “Brexit” will mean are to be negotiated during the 2 year window period provided for by Article 50 – that’s what it’s there for. Let’s get on with it.

Have a Heart Felt Hug . .

by Phil Cockayne.

Having been addicted to political debate for most of my life, I know very how impassioned it can become. And I know how devastating it can feel, and upsetting it can be, when something you believe in is defeated or overturned and particularly when it comes as a shock.

It is from those very experiences that I evolved my current political belief in Individualism: so if you voted Remain on Thursday, and are angry today, I genuinely understand how you may feel that you've been personally betrayed, that you've not been heard and even that you've had your rights taken away, amongst, I'm sure, many other thoughts and emotions.

This is the price of democracy: you cast a vote in the expectation that it will deliver what you want, yet, often, it delivers victory to your opponent and leaves you wanting. Democracy has its use but it is too often conflated with the concept of Freedom, which is something different. Freedom recognises the sovereignty of you, the individual, over any sovereignty of the majority.

That is why I believe in less government, less laws, less tax. The more control each of us has over our own life, the more the majority of individuals will be happier, and less resentful of each other. There are some areas of the UK that have seven tiers of government. The EU is one of those tiers. Where democracy is expedient, I believe that it should be as close to the people it serves as possible so that it is accountable. Hence, since this is what I believe, it is rational for me to want to start 'at the top' when it comes to trimming down government, which is why I voted Leave this week.

My first thoughts to the angry reaction at Thursday's result, was "accept it and move on", but this isn't helpful to you if you have been, or are still, feeling inconsolable and let down. So if you are still pissed off and feel the need to vent your spleen, do it. Don't internalise it. I genuinely understand how you feel: I have been there many a time myself, and have thrown my toys out of the cot so often in the past, most of them are now broken.

Over time, (and that time will be different for each individual), I am confident that anger and despair will evaporate. The future is always guaranteed to come with a few bumps and difficulties whichever path you choose to take, or whichever road your are forced to travel.

When you are ready, and in your own time, take a deep breath, sit down or go for a walk in a quiet and tranquil place and meditate over what you would do if you had that little bit more control over your own life: for this is where it begins.

UKIP calm and reason with some facts

Why I am voting UKIP on 22^nd May.

Firstly, and most importantly, I don’t agree with UKIP and Farage 100%: I do not agree with the way Farage has used what is, admittedly, a scare-mongering message, over and over again, about “opening our doors” to “29 million Romanians and Bulgarians” or “485 million Europeans”. It’s a bit lazy and crass (and potentially offensive to Romanians and Bulgarians) and whilst I don’t think it’s racially motivated in itself, it is certainly likely to pander to racist sentiment. It’s also not necessary and I think misdirects from what are, otherwise, some very solid arguments he has in other areas for being skeptical about the European Union.

Where I do agree with Farage is on the Euro and the legislative powers of the EU.

The Euro has proved an utter disaster and has left much of Southern Europe in a very desperate situation. A single European Currency, overseen by one bank is (and indeed has proved to be) a very dangerous monopolistic situation. The stability the Euro promised to bring has proved to be precisely the opposite with unsustainable and crippling debt levels leaving people poor and utterly disempowered. The consequences of such have been seen in much unrest across the South of the continent. Nigel Farage correctly predicted almost all of it, at almost every turn.

During the Clegg v Farage debates there was much disagreement about the exact percentage of laws that govern the UK that are made in Brussels. But one irrefutable fact is clear: some are. To me, the principal that unelected, unaccountable institutions can pass laws that tell you and me what to do, without one shred of our consent is nothing short of tyranny. Now, some of these laws may be ‘motherhood and apple pie’ to some people, but, unfortunately, that is not true for all, and, moreover, unless you can get rid of the people who make your laws, they are free to do whatever they like. The European Parliament is only one of the legislative institutions of the EU, the others being the Council of the EU and The European Commission – which are unelected. Now, admittedly, the Parliament has had increasing legislative powers over time (ceded from the Council and Commission), but it is still a very large and remote body – reason tells you that democratic accountability is better served by smaller, local bodies, closer to the electorate and, the problem with the Parliament being granted more powers is that indeed, national (and intra-national/regional and local) sovereignty and answerability will be further eroded, moving power further away from the people whom such entities are supposed to serve.

Let’s now turn to the issue of border controls and free trade.

Ideologically, as a libertarian, I am fully in favour of the free movement of peoples across national boundaries. Moreover, not just within a club of countries (such as the EU), but the world over. There are however and unfortunately, practical obstacles to this. The polarisation of wealth occurs not just the world over, but also within nation states themselves. Now whilst I appreciate that free movement, in the longer term, would go a long way to addressing such imbalances on a supra-national level, it is likely to cause problems and resentment within a single country. The tragedy being that it will not be, for example, the richest in the UK who have their wealth redistributed by cheaper labour from immigrants, but the poorest (who have precious little if any wealth themselves), and the big businesses who profit further from reduced labour costs.

And, I have noticed a conspicuous absence of any mention about the fact that the EU, itself, has border controls. Google “Frontex”, which is the EU’s border control agency, (or “border management” as the preferred phrase) and peruse what you find with interest. The EU accepts that border controls are required and if you are pro-EU 100%, then, by implication at least, so must you. So if wanting border controls is racist, as Farage and UKIP have been accused of, then it is not they who are the hypocrites.

Now, Farage has said he wants the UK to open up trade further with the developing world, so they can trade their way out of poverty and become more self-sufficient. I cannot find how that is remotely racist and I think the idea is entirely laudable. Again, of course, as a libertarian I agree with free trade and would, ideologically, like to see it the world over. And again, the “free trade” we have is restricted inside the EU, with policies, such as the Common Agricultural Policy, and tariffs which prevent poor developing countries from penetrating the wealthier markets of EU nations. The result is the developing world is kept poor, and we inside the EU pay a premium on our goods and services.

When you or I go shopping, we enter into a series of transactions in which we purchase a good or service for a consideration. Every transaction is an agreement between two parties, voluntarily (apart from those paid for by tax). I believe trade and movement of peoples would be a lot freer with a series of bilateral, voluntary agreements which would allow free-market redistribution of wealth from rich to poor on both national and international scales. That is not what we have at the moment: we are inside an entity which is evolving into an authoritarian and protectionist super-state at a very alarming rate.

Frontex Website

Wikipedia on Frontex

Frontex Watch

Human Right's Watch on Frontex

A belated tribute to Tony Benn, in context.

Many statesmen and stateswomen are defined as much by how they are perceived and portrayed as they are by what they say. Moreover the problem with politics, more or less the world over, is that it tends to be very tribal and governed by straw men mentality. That is to say, in isolation, if one broadcasts an agreement with a particular remark made by a well-known politician of the day, one can expect to be labelled with everything that politician stands for.

Further, opinions can, and often are, extrapolated by the recipient to mean something quite different from their basic meaning. For example, Euroscepticism (which is criticism of the European Union) is taken to be anti-European, and even racist (neither of which is true). This is the straw man argument – inferring or exaggerating a point of view to something which it is not. Benn was a Eurosceptic, but, maybe because he was part of the Labour movement and identified with the Left, he was, albeit quite rightly, never accused of being anything more than that.

Notwithstanding the left-wing pigeon-hole that received opinion would place him in, Benn held a number of views which fit quite comfortably in today’s fast-emerging Libertarian movement. Politics would be (and I think is gradually becoming) much more engaging and far less intellectually lazy if we recognise that those who have the courage to challenge the status quo, defy the prevailing orthodoxy, and refuse to be constrained by existing paradigms, may not curry 100% with our own opinion, or existing groupthink, but inspire us to think for ourselves and hold those that govern us to account more often and robustly.

Tony Benn was, like other politicians I admire, outspoken and a ‘convictionist’. For that reason alone, I have always held him in esteem, but, I’m happy to say there are numerous views and sentiments he held with which I agree, which are neatly articulated in his own following quotes:

“It is no good talking about being a good European. We are all good Europeans; that is a matter of geography and not a matter of sentiment. Are the arrangements under which we are governed such that we have broken the link between the electorate and the laws under which they are governed?”

“If one meets a powerful person--Adolf Hitler, Joe Stalin or Bill Gates--ask them five questions: "What power have you got? Where did you get it from? In whose interests do you exercise it? To whom are you accountable? And how can we get rid of you?" If you cannot get rid of the people who govern you, you do not live in a democratic system.”

“I think there are two ways in which people are controlled. First of all frighten people and secondly, demoralize them.”

“First they ignore you, then they say you're mad, then dangerous, then there's a pause and then you can't find anyone who disagrees with you.”

“[Edward Heath], who sold out Britain's interests to the Common Market and gave our sovereignty away without our consent—with support of Mr Thorpe and the Liberals—is not entitled to wave the Union Jack to get himself out of the mess.”

“The key to any progress is to ask the question why? All the time. Why is that child poor? Why was there a war? Why was he killed? Why is he in power? And of course questions can get you into a lot of trouble, because society is trained by those who run it, to accept what goes on. Without questions we won't make any progress at all.”

"Freedom of Choice" - A contradiction in terms?

In pondering economic and political theory, recently, I have reminded myself that all theory is constrained by assumptions. Now, extreme libertarianism, or Anarchism, seems to me to assume that “freedom” is measured, at least in part, by the amount of “choice” an individual has available to them. For example, in a Stateless (Anarchist) Society, individuals would have the freedom to spend all of their income as they choose – not the case currently, as the State takes a considerable percentage of your income by force, in the form of taxation – which, inter alia, is what Anarchists find objectionable.

However, although, under the current regime, you and I are, indeed, denied many choices, in a Stateless one, we would be burdened with innumerable decisions about how best to allocate our financial resources. We would have a limited income and therefore a limited amount to spend (as we do currently) but the difference would be that we would have to make additional decisions about how much we could afford to avail ourselves of amenities, such as parks, waste collection, street lighting, policing, fire service, education and, (for those who aren’t in BUPA) health services, among others.

Going for a walk in a public park is, currently, free at the point of delivery – the decision has been made for you, by the State taking money from you by force (tax) and spending it on maintaining the park. I love going for a walk in the public parks near where I live and one of the great benefits of it is that I don’t have to make a decision as to whether, or not, I can afford it. Denied the option of not paying for it via taxation, I may be – but I am, thereby, relieved of the decision and associated stress.

In a Stateless society, such amenities would be privately owned, either by individuals, or collections or co-operatives thereof. Unless I own the park myself, or have a share in it, I have to pay a fee to use it. And how would such a fee be structured? A flat rate that allowed me access for a day? A pay-by-the-hour fee? Maybe a monthly or annual subscription that would allow me unlimited access? Whichever of those it is, I have the burden of a decision set in the context of all the other expense commitments I have, complicated further by the decision I have to make about which tariff is best.

The burden of such decisions may well serve as a sufficient deterrent from doing something I enjoy (and which doesn’t harm anyone else!) What was a healthy and worthwhile leisure activity, under The State, has, under Anarchism, now become an extravagance. Currently, I might consider ‘a walk in the park’ essential to my well-being; ironically, I would be coerced, in a Stateless Society, into considering that such an activity is a luxury.

Add to this, all the other expenditure decisions I am burdened with. For example, there would be no Police, only private security firms – I would have to decide how much “private security” I could afford and, maybe, whether or not, I could afford it at all, given other commitments. Again, currently, that decision is arrested (pardon the pun!) from me. Consider the implications for all the other services that are currently State provided, and you can see how “Freedom of Choice” may, indeed, be a contradiction in terms.

So, where have I been?

Where indeed? Over the last few years, I have taken the opportunity to re-evaluate where I stand, politically, and am happy to say that I firmly remain a Liberal – although probably not in the sense of the word that fits with mainstream politics. I will admit I have been wrong over certain issues but remain tenacious over others. The Political Compass Test identifies me as a left libertarian; however, one should remember this is only one method of classifying political thought.

Some of my views have changed or evolved and some of them remain the same. Like many who are have been appalled at the excesses of capitalism, over the last few decades, I made the mistake of allowing socialism and statism to get the better of me: regarding Government (or The State) as a force against the polarisation of wealth and a guardian of freedom against large corporations, when, in reality, The State, to varying extents over time, has been either been colluding with conglomerates to deprive the majority of aspects of independence and self-determination, or actually, doing it all by itself.

Hence, over more recent years I have been considering the concept of Anarchism, having been drawn to it by my friend and erstwhile Liberal Democrat colleague, Jock Coats. I should explain that anarchism is a belief in a stateless (not lawless) society and has nothing to do with throwing fire extinguishers through high street store windows. For reasons I may explain in a subsequent article, I have, however, not seen such a belief as a panacea to how people should live. Nevertheless, my contemplation of it, has proved very useful in re-igniting the libertarianism in me which was becoming all but extinguished as an angry reaction to economic and social events that took place over the last 30 years or so.

For now though, I just wanted to focus on one aspect of my opinion: part of which has remained firm and part of which has changed:

I have always been a passionate advocate of small businesses, which, by their very nature, are privately, rather than state-owned, and are a feature of a free market. Albeit rather unconsciously, I have, in the past struggled to reconcile this with an opposition to privatisation and a baulking at the idea of introducing market forces into state-supplied goods such as health and education. More recently, I think I have reached a reconciliation of such a dichotomy by drawing a very important distinction between the free market and capitalism.

Much of the prevailing political and economic opinion (on all sides) seems to assume that the free market and capitalism are synonymous. I maintain they are not. For me, the free market is (or at least should be) an opportunity for the majority of individuals to create wealth for themselves; capitalism is the means by which the majority is coerced into creating wealth, not for themselves, but for a few others. It is the latter that I find repellent – not absolutely, but to the extent that it has been “allowed” to prevail in the way it has.

The aggressive advance of unfettered capitalism has seen certain corporations grow, merge, and grow again, at alarming rates, stifling any competition. With State assistance capitalism cripples and destroys the lifeblood that is small business and, hence, erodes rather than promotes a free market, forcing the majority to pay ever increasing prices for ever deteriorating goods and services, facilitating a self-perpetuating (and very dangerous) polarisation of wealth.

Having made such a distinction and thereby, identifying a problem, one may be part way to suggesting a solution. I am not sure that I have yet, but aim to get there one day. However, I do not see the solution as the removal of The State altogether as I am convinced that capitalism is perfectly capable of thriving without any assistance from Government, notwithstanding that the latter has, indeed, been partly accountable.

This, I grant you, is a very brief overview of some very complex issues and will pose many questions and provide much food for thought. I hope, in future articles, to provide further critiques of “The State” and endeavour to explain why I favour its reform rather than its abolition.