POLITICS CORNER

[Tizer]

I've been a bit out of touch with OG recently, due to all the issues involved in our house transactions and lots of work sorting our house and its contents. So forgive me if I repeat what anyone else might have already written! A couple of external things have managed to get through to me in all my personal concerns. One is that the business and economics editors of The Times have recently written detailed articles warning of the dire prospects for Britain due to Brexit and to the state of UK politics. The articles stand out from their usual offerings and the authors are obviously very worried about our future and want to make sure we took them seriously.

The other was a brief report on a talk given by Professor Angus Deaton, the Nobel Prize-winning economist. He warns that Britain may be heading for a devastating social crisis if policymakers fail to tackle the decade long stagnation in real wages. He compared Britain's collapse in real pay growth to the crisis among poorly educated, middle-aged white Americans, the people who voted for Donald Trump in America and made him President. He warns that something similar could happen here. But what impressed me most was something that he apparently didn't say, as such, but implied by his use of words and matches my own concerns. We are in this situation now because we haven't educated these people sufficiently; we haven't given them the ability to critically analyse what they see and hear in the news media and from their friends and work colleagues. Now I can go further and risk being called a conspiracy theorist by saying that it is in the interest of people like Trump (and his White House gang, and tyrants worldwide) to make sure as great a proportion as possible of the population are unable to distinguish good from bad and instead simply follow the most loud-mouthed candidate. True democracy cannot function in the absence of good education. Ignorance is the tyrant's most powerful ally.

[Tripps]

Sir John Chilcot has surfaced at last for public scrutiny - or at least for the BBC to ask some questions. Don't you just love his expression 'emotional truthfulness'?

I'm reading 'The End of the Party' by Andrew Rawnsley. I'm only 100 pages into a thick book of 700+ pages, but it seems clear already that Blair's relationship with George W Bush was similar to that of Jack the Patterdale terrier to Stanley.

I noted the extract - " He (Blair) was never going to be minded to to probe the intelligence with any hard questions about its reliability because he wanted to believe the worst about Saddam. He had already arrived at a conclusion about Iraq, and was working backwards from there to try to make a case for confronting the dictator."

You could spend £2.75 (delivered) on worse things - The End of the Party

[Stanley]

Tiz, no need to apologise! Some things are more important than others and there are only so many hours in the day.
I think Professor Deaton is spot on. Piketty has said much the same thing from the point of view of the effects of austerity. I have been arguing for years that more should be put in primary education, the rest follows. I don't think your point about having an ignorant underclass is 'conspiracy' thinking, it looks like common sense to me. It's ironic actually in Trump's case because he seems to me to be ill-educated and boasts he never reads books....
I'm as realistic/pessimistic as both the journalists and Professor Deaton are. I am convinced that the combination of neglect and underfunding of education, the driving down of disposable incomes and a concentration in the upper echelons on grabbing money and power is fracturing society and unrest could be one of the consequences. This will make itself manifest by strikes and public protest at first which will be stamped on by legislation but underneath, and much more seriously, the stress on the poorest will lead to more ill-health, especially mental and emotional problems. May and her cohorts see it as quite 'sensible' to advocate 'sound money and continuing austerity even when confronted by the stark evidence of effects like the Grenfell Tower. They cut education funding and prefer vanity projects like 'Attractive floating targets', HS2 and Trident. (they see productivity actually falling and don't make the connection....)
All this at a time when the clearest possible signals are coming from the EU. I listened to Barnier laying out the consequences of Brexit and stating that any continuing participation in the Single Market and the Customs Union was not going to happen. This will be characterised by the government as unreasonable but is simply logical. You leave the club, you have no access to the benefits. QED.
And let us never forget, this all started with a weak PM and an internal cat fight in the Tory Party.....

[Tizer]

The problems we face here and in the USA are beginning to merge and become more clear. I've mentioned Prof. Deaton's poorly educated, middle-aged white Americans. They, and our equivalent, are being manipulated by those with vested interests in the status quo and those with their own extremist agenda. On both sides of the Atlantic we are faced with lies and misinformation, and here it's most notable from the Brexiteers who are becoming more like Trump's gang every day. This morning on the Today programme Bernard Jenkin said that "Britain voted overwhelmingly to leave the EU". Since when has 52 to 48 been `overwhelming'? Especially on a 72% turnout, which means only 37% of the eligible population voted to leave. A short time later the boss of the Wetherspoons pub chain, Brexiteer Tim Martin, claimed that 90% of British businesses didn't trade with the EU. The Brexiteers like to use this figure but it's based on the number of businesses, not the value, and most British businesses are very small. The important fact is that 44% of British exports are to the EU. Brexiteers or Trumpeteers, call them what we will, they're determined to manipulate the truth for their own gain.

Also on the Today programme was Britain's former Ambassador to Russia talking about Trump, Putin and the future of the civilised world. When asked about his long experience and which period he believes was the most dangerous his answer was swift. `It's never been more dangerous than now'. I wish I could feel more optimistic!

[Tripps]

Bernard Jenkin said that "Britain voted overwhelmingly to leave the EU".

The current 'line to take' seems to be that since 80% voted either Labour or Conservative, in the recent election, and the manifestos of both parties supported the referendum decision to leave the EU, then that currently constitutes a ' massive majority' in favour of leaving.

Does it?

[Stanley]

Of course it doesn't David, you and Tiz are both right. Always look for an ulterior motive and there are many of them!
I heard the ex-ambassador as well, Tiz and the thought that struck me was that there must be a reason why such wise heads are not listened to by government. The nearest I can get to it is that they are like many journalists, don't let the facts get in the way of the story/objective.
I note that now May has realised that her position is safe as leader and she seems to be muddling along, she has swung back into full headmistress mode. She is deluded, disaster is looming. Remember Harold, "Events Dear Boy".

[Tizer]

..don't let the facts get in the way of the story/objective.

Now why does the name Blair come to mind?

[Stanley]

His biggest fault was that he had no concept of the difference between facts and fiction..... As Chilcot said 'emotionally truthful'.
I don't think May has much grasp of reality either. Despite being told clearly that it is not possible for us to make trade deals until we actually leave the EU, she and Trump are making optimistic statements about a trade deal with the US. I think they both need a crash course in real life......

[Tizer]

It struck me this morning that the one advantage of having a political party in power is simply that it keeps out the others! For all we disliked Thatcher she protected us from being exposed to the Labour Party of that time; likewise, for all that Blair and Godron caused us grief, they stopped us being exposed to the antics of the Tories. Just at the moment we are in one of those turbulent times when we're too exposed to both of them! I think what prompted this thought was hearing that Tory backbenchers were saying "Let Corbyn get in so that people will soon want us back".

[Tizer]

The current 'line to take' seems to be that since 80% voted either Labour or Conservative, in the recent election, and the manifestos of both parties supported the referendum decision to leave the EU, then that currently constitutes a ' massive majority' in favour of leaving. Does it?

Owen Paterson is relying on the same argument to counter Vince Cable in this article...
`Brexit may never happen - Sir Vince Cable' LINK
Like Cable, I still think we might end up staying in the EU.

[PanBiker]

Todays breaking news of the number of mobile phones (13,000) confiscated in prisons, thousands of SIM cards and drone delivered drugs and other contraband items is a bit of a puzzle to me. All this could be sorted with a bit of technology in the shape of radio jamming devices, a series of networked frequency hopping hubs would see to any devices utilising the target frequencies. You could render all mobile phone signals useless and have drones falling out of the sky within the range of the signals. It might need a bit of a tweak of legislation but would be an effective way of dealing with the problems, simples.

[Stanley]

Tiz, that was what the Conservatives said in 1945...... If they got in they would have immediately tried to recreate the pre-war mantra of 'sound money' instead of moving forwards. This was exactly what they did after the Great War driving the country into depression, Churchill was Chancellor of the Exchequer. Remind you of anything?
Ian, that's my understanding as well but it would cost money! Remember, there is no money Tree. That is unless one needs the odd £billion or so to bribe the DUP to vote with you.....
Donald Trump is having to explain why Donald Trump Junior had a Russian lawyer who said he had information that could damage Hillary Clinton..... Shades of the slow burn up to Watergate.
Later..... See THIS for a BBC report on Theresa May's attempt to reset her premiership. I'm afraid it's too little too late. In effect it is a plea, first to her own party for support and second to the opposition parties, Labour in particular, to help keep her in post. Her own party have not forgotten and will never forgive her botched policies and the disastrous election. Regardless of what they say in public to give the impression of business as usual they have written her off. The only reason they are not in full cry for her blood is paradoxically, the position she has put them in with a minority government and an impossible Brexit negotiation.
There isn't a cat's chance in hall of Labour helping her. They are in full election mode because their manifesto hit all the buttons and they want to redress some of the worst effects of austerity. Forget the Tory cries of spendthrift Labour and a command economy with more borrowing. In economic terms this is so obviously the right route, sensible deficit financed spending of money at historically low interest rates to get the economy going again. That's the way to the 'Better, Fairer Britain' that May talks about. Forget the money tree, remember the mistakes of the past on 'sound money' and use the same tools we employed to survive WW2. Get the electorate on side and working for fair wages under good employment contracts. The 'gig economy' is in effect more austerity!

[Stanley]

Harold was right, "Events Dear Boy". See THIS report about one loose lipped MP and the consequences. Note also that Bill Cash and John Redwood made no objection to the usage.
So Mrs May's resurrection as a serious player is in trouble before she makes her speech. She's lost one vote. Jeremy Corbyn's response to her initiative in the House yesterday was to offer her a copy of the Labour Manifesto. What did she expect? If the leaked reports of what she has to say are correct it demonstrates her political naivete. The only thing that is keeping her in post is the Tory fear of melt-down if her leadership is challenged. Very shortly they are going to realise that the game is up and then it will get very nasty indeed. The forecast of a General Election in September looks more and more possible.
I note that there is no news of the 'negotiations' with the EU apart from expressions of frustration from Brussels about lack of UK focus or purpose. We are still talking about the unacceptable, EU concessions on trade, free movement and citizen's rights.
Meanwhile, in another part of the forest Trump Junior tries to bluster his way out of the revelations of conversations with the lawyer closely connected with the Kremlin.

[Tizer]

Katya Adler, the BBC's Europe Editor, said this morning that the phrase `Brexit means Brexit' is now widely used in European circles to describe situations where no-one can come up with a solution to a problem. She also said she hasn't met a single European leader who believes Brexit is a good thing. (I notice she didn't add `except for Mrs May'.)

[Bruff]

About sums it up Tizer. We’re a laughing stock now, and not before time.

The latest hilarity is the belated recognition here that when we leave Euratom, and we will as we said we would in the Art50 letter, there will be consequences. Euratom is the European Treaty that deals with nuclear safety and research. It’s separate from the EU, but linked as oversight is by the European Court of Justice (ECJ). As our red line is no oversight from the ECJ, then clearly we will leave Euratom. In addition, the ‘Eur’ at the start is a red rag to the swivel-eyed loons so we’d be off anyway.

So here’s the thing. No one country holds all radioactive nuclides. It makes no sense, there are 100s of them, used for all sorts of medical, imaging, fuel-generating, integrity-testing purposes. Some countries have more of some than others, some have less, some have more than they need and so they are shipped around the world to countries as appropriate. Under international non-proliferation agreements use of this material must be for the purposes stated so that it does not end up being used for some other, undesirable purpose and fall into the hands of say rogue states and terrorists. This is done through Euratom’s ‘safeguards’. Thus, when we are out of Euratom, in the absence of any agreement that replicates this and which is agreed as appropriate by say the IAEA, then we will not be able to ship or receive any nuclear material. And so, very many cancer treatments will not take place. As we lease nuclear fuel from the French under Euratom, fuel will run out. Nuclear research will be hampered And so on.

This was all made clear before the referendum, but unfortunately requires a certain expertise to get across and as we’ve had enough of experts in this country was quite rightly dismissed as scare-mongering and Project Fear. But not to worry. It isn’t something that is insoluble. Poor saps who almost to a person voted Remain will be on hand to sort out the mess for the swivel-eyed nutters (as they will for most things). It’s just there’s not much time, less than 18months. And this is just one of the 720-odd relevant agreements we will have to sort out for everything in the country to keep running as it does (source for the 720-odd, the FT).

The tragedy is the continued ignorance from Leavers when you read their comments on the Euratom Treaty. Despite one article I read making clear what Euratom was, one Charlie dismissed it as scaremongering as we’d just find another big atom to replace this European atom for our nuclear energy, or we’d develop our own atom. Seriously, this person though Euratom was a giant European energy-generating atom! And they’d surely read the column but if not was therefore as good an example of a swivel-eyed nutter anywhere. Someone else said we’d just buy the nuclides from somewhere else and that’d be better as then the EU wouldn’t be bossing us around! Because, you can just go and buy nuclides as that wouldn’t be a problem would it? Others simply dismissed it. I didn’t think it possible such levels of ignorance in the face of clear information was possible in an advanced 21st century country. But then again, I for my sins watch Question Time on the BBC each week so should I really be surprised.

Stop press: reports that the Govt. might be looking at associate status on Euratom (cf. the Swiss). As this would mean oversight by the ECJ, this is the red line crossed. Hmmm.

Mention of the Swiss there is interesting. The Swiss held a referendum on restricting the free movement of EU nationals the other year. This was carried very narrowly. The EU said fair enough, but as free movement is fundamental to all our bilateral arrangements with you, then all these arrangements will end and we’ll have to look to other arrangements, if that’s what you want. Very fair to be honest, as if you agree to arrangements on the basis that free movement is integral to it, you can’t remove free movement and expect still to have the arrangement (which I appreciate is difficult to get across here in England, as it’s seen as bullying us). The Swiss Government thought long and hard and in the end went you know what, we’re going to ignore this referendum as it would knacker us and our economy. And they told the electorate accordingly. It won’t happen here though as politicians lack the guts and frankly, we aren’t fit to engage in the argument

Richard Broughton

[Stanley]

I heard Katya say that as well Tiz. (We listen to the same programmes....) I also heard reports of a comment that the EU isn't convinced that we have a viable government.....
Richard thanks again for clarification. I heard IDS poo-pooing the problem of replacing all the agencies as well yesterday..... I can understand the EU regarding us as being in a parallel universe. The Vince Cable idea of a second referendum may be the only way out!
However, it's quite amazing how a very narrow voting margin can change things. I note the sudden U-turn in the NHS contaminated blood scandal which has been rumbling on under all shades of political persuasion for decades because it such an enormous can of worms. Could this be anything to do with the fact the government could lose any vote on it?
Meanwhile, very gradually, the economic clouds darken and the possibility of an interest rate rise look more and more likely. This has not escaped the knowledge of the city and industry and more voices are raised questioning what will happen. The one thing that seems to be universally accepted is that the Leaver's vision of broad sunlit uplands of international trade, cheap food and increased prosperity is flim flam.
How about setting up an alternative Parliament with two parties, Leavers and Remainers. Let them vote on what to do and make that mandatory.

[Tizer]

`Four explosive lines in Trump Jr emails' LINK
What seems to be missing in the news reports and analysis is the simple fact that Trump's son should have immediately informed the FBI and CIA when he was approached about meeting with the Russian to discuss influencing the US Presidential election. Surely he's damned by that failure alone?

[Tripps]

Thus, when we are out of Euratom, in the absence of any agreement that replicates this and which is agreed as appropriate by say the IAEA, then we will not be able to ship or receive any nuclear material. And so, very many cancer treatments will not take place.

Damien Green standing in at PMQ's for Mrs May, has just denied that this is the case. Perhaps I'll have a look at Hansard later to check for words of the weaselly variety, but that's how it sounded to me.

Here is the Hansard transcript -
I am again genuinely happy to answer this question, because this is a very important issue and there has been some unnecessary worry caused to cancer patients by speculation on it. Let me set out the position.
The import or export of medical radioisotopes is not subject to any particular Euratom licensing requirements. Euratom places no restrictions on the export of medical isotopes to countries outside the EU, so after we leave Euratom our ability to access medical isotopes produced in Europe will not be affected. I hope that clears the matter up and reassures cancer patients around the country that the scaremongering that is going on is unnecessary.

[Stanley]

I have the same misgivings as both of you. We have reached the stage now where no political statement is taken at face value. This is perhaps the most important 'revelation' of all. The only information from public life that I trust are the judges and they are fighting to maintain their reputation for veracity.
Are we sitting though the biggest exercise in disinformation ever?
Today in Parliament could be interesting, the start of the debate on the Reform Bill. The government never published the Bill in draft form for modification so today's publication is the first time the terms are clear. There is much suspicion as to whether any regulations or rights are being watered down. Environment and the rights of workers and the general public are just two major items. How can such a massive piece of legislation be properly scrutinised and modified in the relatively short time allocated. There are also small matters like Euratom, Immigration, European courts etc. This could be a rocky ride!

[Tizer]

Thus, when we are out of Euratom, in the absence of any agreement that replicates this and which is agreed as appropriate by say the IAEA, then we will not be able to ship or receive any nuclear material. And so, very many cancer treatments will not take place.

Damien Green standing in at PMQ's for Mrs May, has just denied that this is the case. Perhaps I'll have a look at Hansard later to check for words of the weaselly variety, but that's how it sounded to me.

Here is the Hansard transcript -
I am again genuinely happy to answer this question, because this is a very important issue and there has been some unnecessary worry caused to cancer patients by speculation on it. Let me set out the position.
The import or export of medical radioisotopes is not subject to any particular Euratom licensing requirements. Euratom places no restrictions on the export of medical isotopes to countries outside the EU, so after we leave Euratom our ability to access medical isotopes produced in Europe will not be affected. I hope that clears the matter up and reassures cancer patients around the country that the scaremongering that is going on is unnecessary.

That's clever, Tripps! How did you manage to ascribe the quote from Bruff's post on Euratom to me? The words in the quote are exactly those of Bruff but the name is given as Tizer and it uses the exact time and date of my brief Trump post. Mind you, I don't object to having Bruff's excellent posts ascribed to me.

I think the Brexiteers have brought in a Dr Who actor to help them take us back in time to the bad old days of a divided Europe. He popped up this morning on the Today programme, a chap called Baker. He too was claiming that the Society of Radiologists were wrong and there was no danger from Brexit to the movement of radionuclides. In fact he wanted to tell us there was nothing to worry about at all, they have it all under control, the Europeans will roll over and do whatever we want them to. As Stanley writes, "Are we sitting though the biggest exercise in disinformation ever?" I think the attempt to make EU laws into UK laws could be the beginning of `The Great Brexit U-Turn' as it will be known in the history books.

[Tripps]

How did you manage to ascribe the quote from Bruff's post on Euratom to me?

Not sure - that was my third attempt, and ' it ' kept doing it. I decided you wouldn't mind too much, so like a gentleman, I finally gave up. Glad you're OK with it.

[Bruff]

Always happy to admit that I’ve not got it right, and my apologies for this. I waded in half-cocked and conflated safeguarding (which is about ensuring there is no misuse, and nuclear material is used for peaceful purposes) with the supply of nuclear material and so segued into the issue of the supply of isotopes for medical use (though leaving Euratom will have safeguarding implications I would have thought). It does not mean though that there are real concerns on the medical front.

The isotopes needed for many cancer diagnoses are Molybdenum 99 and Technetium 99 - isotopes that have half-lives of 66 hours and 6 hours respectively. Their short half-lives are the reason they are used but this also means that any disruption to the supply chain is critical and so hospitals etc. have a continuous supply coming in. These isotopes are made only in about eight reactors throughout the world. The nearest reactors to us are sited in Belgium, the Netherlands and France (which is good, given the half-lives). Which means the isotope supply comes under Euratom, specifically the Euratom Supply Agency, and which we are leaving. The Supply Agency was set up by the EU following a shortage in 2008 which led to loads and loads of cancer screenings cancelled Europe-wide, and their remit is to ensure supply among other things.

In the absence of any arrangements that replicate Euratom and so its Supply Agency on the day we leave, how can any government Minister or spokesperson blithely say in effect that ‘there will be nothing to worry about’, and there will be no disruption? I've also read that there is planned work on some of these reactors during the 2018 – 2022 period and which risks a global shortage just as demand increases because demand for health interventions always increases, particularly for cancers which as primarily a disease of the old, manifest more as we live longer. The global system for nuclear safety etc., of which we are currently part via Euratom, enables this supply risk to be equitably shared. Once out, and in the absence of any replacement, our risk arguably increases.

The clock is ticking; we have 15months. And believe me, this is nuclear material these take years to agree and sort out. It’s not back of a fag packet stuff, for obvious reasons.

Richard Broughton

[Tripps]

Their short half-lives are the reason they are used but this also means that any disruption to the supply chain is critical and so hospitals etc. have a continuous supply coming in.

I worked at Dover Eastern Docks for a while, and many goods imported there had similar 'half lives' - fresh food etc. HMRC are well used to coping with such situations.

Be a little more optimistic - It'll be reet.

[Bruff]

The Art50 letter said we're coming out of the customs union, so there will have to be a whole new system in place with respect to custom checks at Dover and every other entry port as well. Or else there will be chaos.

I read one analysis that said in the absence of this, the delays to freight and goods will mean for example food rationing within 5 days as the supermarket shelves empty. We were within a whisker of this recall when there was the tankers driver strikes during the first Blair Government and the petrol pumps were running out and the food wasn't getting around. No customs agreement is orders of magnitude worse.

I'd like to optimistic believe me.

[Stanley]

All good stuff and it interests me. But..... are we playing into the hands of the disinformation mongers by allowing ourselves to get bogged down in what must be thousands of critical situations. Shouldn't we be cutting the knot like Vince Cable and going for a U-turn? These matters look to me to be suspiciously like 'management by running interference'. "Get the proles arguing about truffles in the supermarkets and while they are occupied, slip the winning pass through".