Showing posts with label Brexit. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Brexit. Show all posts

Wednesday, October 9, 2019

STILL TAKING BACK CONTROL?


When it comes to 'Taking Back Control' the key question that still should be asked (and answered) is with whom will the 'taken back control' now reside. Perhaps the real question we should be asking is not about taking back control, but, more to the point just to who, we are about to surrender control too? From the perspective of Cymru / Wales the answer may be certainly not with us. 

Previously an over centralised unionist British State (whether nominally socialist, avidly free market capitalist, or desperate to reduce the day to day impact of the state, they all failed to deliver for Cymru / Wales before - so why is it gong to better this time around!  A re-badged re-centralised ubber unionist Brit State 2.0 is even more unlikely to deliver in any meaningful way for us in the future. 

Previously led by Teresa May (once described by a fellow conservative as Enoch Powell in a dress) and now led by Boris - it should be pretty clear that Cymru / Wales as far as Westminster is concerned no longer counts - economically or politically - particularly if it's left to the likes of Boris Johnson, Gove and their ilk. As we approach however ponderously the threshold of some sort of post BREXIT political and constitutional era, we need to more than every urgently clarify the constitutional position of our parliament in Cardiff. 

Devolution is here to stay, the process remains incomplete and our journey continues - the people of Cymru / Wales not Westminster politicians will decide on the length of the journey and our destination. To paraphrase Abraham Lincoln, you cannot be half devolved - you are either fully devolved or you are not devolved at all - there is no halfway house. The latest on-going cluster ruck over delivering BREXIT had exposed the fundamental difference that lies behind, beneath or within the mind set of the politics, that emanates from and revolves around the House of Jaw (Westminster). 

Our National Assembly should have similar powers to those of Scotland - so it can reboot our economy and our communities, deliver social justice and rebuild our transport network after the damage done by years of neglect, indifference and incompetence from Westminster.  The key point here is that at a fundamental level, Plaid Cymru has long believed that sovereignty lies here in Cymru / Wales with the people of Wales. It does not lie with or within that over expensive crumbling gothic monstrosity on the Thames - the Westminster parliament or its inhabitants. 

This simple all encompassing principle needs to be clearly stated and articulated as often as necessary.  Post BREXIT before the Westminster based centralisers get to work wrecking and undermining our developing democracy (and the other devolved administrations) we seriously need to consider a declaration of sovereignty for laws passed in Cymru / Wales by the National Assembly. This simply is a declaration that will give laws passed in Cymru / Wales ( ‘our own laws’ ) precedence over those that emanate from Westminster.

Friday, August 23, 2019

THE BACKSTOP TO BREXIT?


It's that man again!
One of the key lines being continually pushed by the Brexiters is that the backstop (draft emergency provisions to ensure no hard border between Ireland and Northern Ireland) is fundamentally undemocratic and it has to go. Oddly enough it's not perceived as undemocratic in Northern Ireland - where pretty much every elected politician is in favour of it. Political opposition from within Northern Ireland to the Brexiters position may be one of the reasons why successive Conservative governments have dragged their feet when it comes to helping to restore devolved government in Northern Ireland that and their parties on-going cash induced relationship with the DUP - who themselves have their own reasons for avoiding local democratic scrutiny.

If nothing else this position in relation to the Irish backstop has exposed a few hard truths. It's very clear if not obvious that Brexiters (many of whom hail from a particularly narrow and actually quite unrepresentative narrow elite) have never had any meaningful or realistic understanding of Ireland - North or South or other matters. Not that long ago I can recall overhearing conversations (in another place for want of a better phrase) openly and genuinely bemoaning the fact that Ireland had left the UK and that Hong Kong had to be (sadly) returned to China, etc. This sort of thing, if nothing else displays a lack of understanding of recent and not so recent history, and is perhaps this is the backstop too Brexit. 

What's certainly true is that Ireland never appeared on this elites radar before or during or initially after the referendum campaign - one of the possible  consequences of a return to a hard border is the undermining of the peace process. Then late and very deeply missed Steffan Lewis flagged this up some years ago. Looking dispassionately at the Conservative and Unionist Party's often tortuous relationship with the Irish political dimension in these islands - it's clear that they have been happy from time to time to play the unionist card - with scant of little thought toward the short, medium or longer term consequences - particularly for Northern Ireland or the rest of us.

It should be clear to most people by now that if Boris Johnston had a clear Conservative majority in Westminster and was not dependent upon the support of the DUP then he would have been pushing even harder for a No deal - regardless of the consequences for Northern Ireland and the rest of us. None of this bodes well for the future of devolution in these islands, if the Conservatives don't understand Northern Ireland, are surprisingly indifferent to Scotland and genuinely don't even perceive Cymru / Wales, then they are very different in outlook to their pre 1979 conservative predecessors who could be said to have spoken for the Union as a whole.  

The Brexiter Conservatives are perhaps for the first time in the modern era (or at least since the early 17th century) quite openly focused on England (and its a particularly unrepresentative narrow view of England at that) or perhaps a Greater England. The problem is we are no longer living in the 17th century - the world and these islands have changed. At a very basic level the failure to understand the complexities of situation in Ireland is quite revealing. Unfortunately it masks (barely) what I believe to be a complete failure to accept or understand devolution (or a deliberate choice) in its varied formats across these islands. It gives a focus perhaps to the quietly as yet unarticulated politics and vision of the UK post Brexit - a unitary centralised non devolved state - which is not good for the rest of us on these islands. 

Tuesday, July 16, 2019

DEVO ROLLBACK?


When a failed Conservative leader starts talking about reviewing devolution and strengthening the Union at a time when BREXT threatens to deliver a rollback of powers then any one who believes in devoting powers to the nations and reigns of these islands should be concerned. It's a bit like foxes taking a position on chicken's rights and hen coop security - it's time to sit up and take notice. 

Despite the spin and the claims to the contrary, devolution is not Teresa May’s legacy, her legacy is political chaos and economic uncertainty, and a use of BREXIT to attempt to roll back devolution and strip away powers from Wales and Scotland and to undermine the devolved institutions and constitutional settlement within these islands. As late as the 2005 Westminster general election the Conservatives (and Teresa May) were still publicly uncommitted to devolution for Cymru / Wales. 

The Conservatives have never accepted or respected devolution - and would I suspect would given the opportunity weaken if not abolish devolution in Cymru / Wales and actively work to weaken and undermine it in Scotland. They have also played fast and loose with the political process in Northern Ireland - something that threatens to undermine the hard won peace process. 

For a conservative leader to talk about constitutional diversity is particularly rich. The soon to be former Prime Minister is correct in one key area, the fact that some Westminster government departments have failed to recognise the reality of devolution. The Conservative party, under Cameron and May has reluctantly paid lip service to devolution, but, many suspect that it will actively work to weaken the powers of the devolved governments post BREXIT. 

Simply revitalising the Scottish and Welsh offices is no longer an option, it’s perhaps merely new post Brexit colonial window dressing for seeking to undermine the devolved institutions. What's needed is a single ministry for the nations and regions, which could in terms of status match the Home Office at cabinet level, and rationalise the relationships between the Westminster departments and the other devolved portions of these islands.

None of this is new, back in 2015, after David Cameroon, won his first Westminster majority, and before he messily ended his premiership over BREXIT, there was, at least from this end of the M4 / A55, a faint brief whiff of what could best be described as devo rollback in the air. As the then unconstrained All Con Conservative government settled in at Westminster, what's was in it for Cymru / Wales - potentially nothing good. 

Scotland, as far as the Westminster unionists may have been concerned may be quietly (and honestly) be perceived as a lost cause (perhaps a literal case of 'when' rather than 'if' in relation to independence). Cymru / Wales on the other hand may yet offer far more constitutional room to meddle with, to tinker with or even rollback parts of our deeply flawed constitutional settlement - something that could take us back to pre 1601 and 'England and Wales'.

Here in Cymru / Wales we have all seen the Westminster wobble in relation to the commitment to complete the electrification of the Great Western line to Swansea, the failure to develop the Swansea Bay tidal lagoon, and the threat to cancel promised public borrowing powers after the proposed M4 Relief road was dropped. Our constitutional settlement, such as it is is, even to the disinterested, appears deeply flawed, second rate and simply unfair, not coming remotely close to either Scotland or Northern Ireland when it comes to powers which could be used to influence and shape economic matters. 

The Conservative Party appears to be appealing to the type of nationalism that has seen UKIP grow in the past, and more recently the Brexit Party - it has little place of concern for Cymru / Wales. The ongoing Conservative leadership contest offers little hope or expectation to Cymru / Wales. Boris Johnson and Jeremy Hunt are clearly no allies to Wales. Boris Johnson is on record stating that Westminster is an English Parliament. Our nation, is at best an afterthought and more than likely an irritation to whoever wins the Tory leadership contest. 

Tuesday, July 2, 2019

BREXIT OR THE UNION


We life in interesting times - a YouGov poll of about 900 Tory members found that 63% of those surveyed would prefer Brexit to go ahead even it caused Scottish independence, and suggested 59% would want Brexit even if it led to Northern Ireland leaving the union. Interestingly enough the poll result is consistent with research carried out by academics at Edinburgh and Cardiff universities for the Future of England Study in 2018. Brexit appears to be more important to the bulk of Conservative Party members than keeping the UK united. Such sentiments obviously did not go down well amongst the Tories in Scotland.

Prior to the referendum on independence, perhaps less so since the Conservatives came to power, less and less Scots, can be said to live with the illusion that they had a degree of real partnership within the Union. George Osbourne killed off that illusion, as part of project fear which was rolled out to prevent Scottish independence - rather than indulging in a more rational balanced debate. Scottish election results since 2014 can be said to have reflected a change of attitude towards the relationship and towards those political parties that are based in (and operate out of) Westminster. 

Most people in Cymru / Wales if pressed would probably admit that they never imagined that the relationship between Cymru / Wales and England was anything other than one sided. Despite all the bluster from the Conservative leadership candidates about the union - the bottom, must be that either the Union works for all, or it doesn't. If it doesn't then it's not a beneficial, or  fair and equal Union, then it's a Union of unequals, especially where Wales and Welsh interests are concerned.

Let’s take a look at relatively recent history, Welsh companies have missed out on contracts worth £6.6 billion to build the first phase of England’s high speed rail line, HS2. The contracts, which may support around 16,000 jobs, were awarded to mainly English, Austrian, Swedish and French firms. No Welsh firms were shortlisted and no Welsh firms will participate in any consortia. A study by quantity surveyor Michael Byng, estimated that the cost of building HS2 could reach over £100 billion, making it the most expensive railway in the world.

Public spending on England-only projects  would normally have triggered consequential funding for the devolved nations but as the UK Government designated HS2 as an “England & Wales” project, despite every inch of the railway being in England, this was not the case. Wales was designated a HS2 0% rating at the last Comprehensive Spending Review for Barnett Consequentials whilst northern Ireland and Scotland were rated 100%. HS2 may cost £100 billion if reports are accurate, if the project was correctly labeled as an England-only project, then Wales would be entitled to £5 billion. 

Our share could be used to invest in our own transport infrastructure. What’s going to happen is that our taxes are being used to fund a high-speed line that will solely benefit England. A report published by accountancy firm, KPMG, back in 2010 showed that HS2 will have an overall negative effect on the Welsh economy, resulting in 21,000 fewer jobs in Wales by 2040 as a result of jobs shifting to the English Midlands and the north of England. 

As part of this increasingly unequal Union, Welsh taxpayers will make their contribution towards building possibly one of the most expensive railway in the world, even though not one inch of it being in Wales and the fact that the British Government deliberately avoided giving Wales its fair share of investment in return by describing the project as an “England and Wales” investment even though it is actually having a negative impact on jobs and wages in Wales.  And this will be after the Westminster government's decision to cancel the electrification of the railway to Swansea because it cost too much. 

As for HS2 - the Welsh Labour Government should have ensured that Welsh companies were promoted during the procurement process - it did not. Sadly we should not be surprised by this failure, considering that the Labour Welsh Government’s own deputy economy recent admission that Labour hasn’t known what its doing on the economy for the past 20 years, and that it had run out of ideas and was making it up as it went along. 

This candid remark may well explain much - probably more than a few people have already drawn the conclusion that the Labour Party (in Cardiff Bay and elsewhere) clearly appeared to not be able to accomplish much (even with the fairly limited economic tools at its disposal) - now we know the sad truth - they actually didn't have a clue about what they were doing.

While ineptitude and inaction can cover a multitude of sins or inadequacies - but this may be put down to a case of the Labour branch office in Cardiff waiting for Labour to win in Westminster rather than trying to actually improve our economy with the limited tools, economic levers and ideas they have to work with. There can be no excuse for previous Westminster Governments decision to direct contracts to overseas countries, supporting jobs and wages elsewhere instead of supporting our own companies here in Wales. 

The agreement between the Conservative Party and the DUP included a commitment to invest (a blatant bung to everyone else) an additional £1 billion in Northern Ireland over two years. It is worth noting that funding for devolved nations and regions, including northern Ireland, is usually done through the UK Government’s Barnett Formula based on relative population. Under the Barnett formula, spending in one-nation triggers an increase in funding for other nations, based on relative population. 

It’s important to remember that a £1 billion investment in Northern Ireland would equate to a £1.7 billion increase in the Welsh Government’s funding - but of course there were no magic money trees. It would have only been fair that Wales be given its “rightful share” of the money used to “bribe” Northern Ireland. The £1.7 billion figure based on relative population under the Barnett formula using 65.5 million, 1.8 million and 3.1 million as the population of the UK, northern Ireland and Wales respectively.

It should be clear by now to most impartial observers that Westminster is not clearly working for Wales and neither is the Labour Party - whether in Wales or Westminster. Only Plaid Cymru will stand up and fight for Wales to get its fair share of investment from HS2 and work to make sure that Westminster treats Wales fairly. 

The so-called ‘partnership of equals’ between the four constituent nations is a hollow sham. The Union, as is, can be said to offer all the risk and little or no reward - a situation made worse by a Labour Welsh Government that remains content to simply sits on its hands - and wait for an openly centralist Labour Party - that does not understand or perhaps chooses nor recognise the complex realities of devolution in the 21st century - to win in Westminster.

Wednesday, February 20, 2019

ITMA

It's that man again!

It's That Man Again - for a classic post imperial establishment defence of imperial atrocity look no further than that man - Jacob Rees-Mogg - who justified the Brit State's use of concentration camps to detain the civil population (White and Black) - 'for their own protection' on BBC Question Time last week. The selective interpretation of history did not surprise me - that his statement actually produced some applause from the audience did. 

The war for control of the Orange Free State and the Transvaal (Dutch Republics) was more than anything about extending commercial and City interests and political control of the Rand. In many ways it was the first modern war - with the media playing a key role whipping up public hysteria and enthusiasm for the war. Lloyd George nearly got lynched at a public meeting that was stormed by a mob of jingo's ( think perhaps alt right / ubber Brexiters) in Birmingham.

At the time the principled justification for the war was that the vote was being denied to foreign nationals (including Brits) in the Transvaal. Ironically the franchise in the Boer republic's was probably larger and more inclusive than it was in the UK at the time (at least in terms of male suffrage. Lloyd George  thought the war as about ’45% dividends rather than the franchise.' The war followed the failed Jameson raid - a private commercially sponsored attempt at a coup - the Brits promised to punish the unsuccessful invaders for their illegal activities but subsequently did nothing. 

Jacob Rees-Mogg's suggestion the the use of concentration camps wax to protect the civil population turns reality on its head - they were actually used to remove the civic support from the guerrilla fighters in rural areas - collective punishment (something that was also used in Iraq, Afghanistan, North West frontier and Palestine in the 1920's, 1930's and 1940's)  was also used with 'scorched earth tactics' - the destruction of farms and the means of sustenance as 19th century war literally and figuratively changed  into 20th century war. 

The Brits may not be able to claim the credit for inventing concentration camps - the Dutch in Indonesia, the Spanish / Americans in the Philippines, and the Imperial Germans in South West Africa (Namibia) probably did that first to grim effect. What the Brits added was incompetence, inefficiency and poor organisation. Thousands and White and Black inhabits of the Boer republics died in the camps.

Emily Hobhouse
Perhaps Jacob Rees-Mogg would do well to find out about  Emily Hobhouse and also find a copy of the Fawcett Commission report confirmed almost everything that Emily had courageously reported. After the war the report concluded that 27,927 Boers had died of starvation, disease and exposure in the concentration camps. In all, about one in four of the Boer inmates, mostly children, died. No complete figure was ever recorded for the Black south Africans who died in their camps.

The post BREXIT fantasy is that some form of Brit Empire 2.0 will come to the rescue - economically at least. As a South African friend of mine said ‘Perhaps it would have been nice if they had been asked?. Perhaps what we have seen is part of the on-going campaign (by Jacob Rees-Mogg amongst others) to rehabilitate the Brit Empire and to lay the ground for Brit Empire 2.0 - the problem is that this is part of the politics of fantasy island aside from a display of a poor and questionably selective understanding of history - something that may go some way to explaining the Tory elites failure to understand Ireland (and her relationship with Europe and the Brits).

The option to develop lasting and meaningful trade links with the Commonwealth was  in the late 1960's and early 1970's before entering the then EEC. In 1973 the Brits however rapidly and effectively abandoned any economic links with the Commonwealth - dropping Australia and New Zealand to name but two right in it. They have not forgotten this having to painfully restructure their economies and trading links by dire necessity. Quite simply Brit Empire 2.0 riding to the rescue post Brexit is a pure fantasy. 

Saturday, February 2, 2019

TAKING BACK CONTROL

An expensive crumbling gothic monstrosity...

When it comes to 'Taking Back Control' the key question that should have been and still should be asked (and answered) is with whom will the 'taken back control' now reside. From the perspective of Cymru / Wales the answer may be certainly not with us. Previously an over centralised unionist British State did not deliver for Cymru / Wales before - so why is it gong to better this time around!  

A re-badged re-centralised ubber unionist Brit State 2.0 is even more unlikely to deliver in any meaningful way for us in the future. Led by Teresa May (once described by a fellow conservative as Enoch Powell in a dress) it should be pretty clear that Cymru / Wales as far as Westminster is concerned no longer counts - economically or politically - particularly if it's left to the likes of May, Gove, Corbin, Johnston and their ilk. 

As we approach however ponderously some sort of post BREXIT political and constitutional era, we need to urgently clarify the constitutional position of our parliament in Cardiff. Devolution is here to stay, the process remains incomplete and our journey continues - the people of Cymru / Wales not Westminster politicians will decide on the length of the journey and our destination. To paraphrase Abraham Lincoln, you cannot be half devolved - you are either fully devolved or you are not devolved at all - there can be no halfway house. 

The latest on-going cluster ruck over delivering BREXIT had exposed the fundamental difference that lies behind, beneath or within the mind set of the politics, that emanates from and revolves around the House of Jaw (Westminster). Our National Assembly should have similar powers to those of Scotland - so it can reboot our economy and our communities, deliver social justice and rebuild our transport network after the damage done by Westminster.  

The key point here is that at a fundamental level, Plaid Cymru has long believed that sovereignty lies here in Cymru / Wales with the people of Wales. It does not lie with or within that over expensive crumbling gothic monstrosity on the Thames - the Westminster parliament or its inhabitants. This simple all encompassing principle needs to be clearly stated and articulated as often as necessary.  

Post BREXIT before the Westminster based centralisers get to work wrecking and undermining our developing democracy (and the other devolved administrations) we seriously need to consider a declaration of sovereignty for laws passed in Cymru / Wales by the National Assembly. This simply is a declaration that will give laws passed in Cymru / Wales ( ‘our own laws’ ) precedence over those that emanate from Westminster. 

Wednesday, January 23, 2019

AN UNEQUAL UNION


Research shows worst inequality in Europe is between London and Wales 

Leaving the EU will devastate regional development, Jill Evans MEP

The worst regional inequality in Europe is between London and Wales, new research has found.

The research from the Conference of Peripheral Maritime Regions (CPMR) also found that the UK would be entitled to €13 billion (in excess of £11 billion) of regional development funding for the 2021-2027 cycle. This funding is given to poorer regions in an attempt to boost their economic performance and development. The current funding cycle runs from 2014-2020, during which time Wales is expected to have received £2.06 billion in support from the EU. Based on the CPMR’s research Wales would miss out on around £2.5 billion over the next cycle which runs from 2021-2027.

Plaid Cymru’s MEP, Jill Evans, has said that the research shows that “Brexit and increased inequality are inextricably linked”.

The shocking new figures show that the richest region in the UK, Inner London, has a GDP of 614% of the EU average, compared to the UK’s poorest region, West Wales and the Valleys, with a GDP of 68% of the EU average. This means there is a 546% difference in comparative average GDP between the two regions.

The research shows levels of regional disparities in the UK are worsening, with Wales at the bottom of the table. East Wales, which was considered a 'more developed region', would now be downgraded to a 'transition region'.

Plaid Cymru MEP, Jill Evans said:

"These figures should be a source of shame for the Westminster Government.

“Brexit and increased inequality are inextricably linked. The facts are irrefutable.   

“These figures confirm that like the past decade of austerity, it will not be those that created this chaos that will shoulder its burden, but the communities least equipped to cope.  

“If we want to end this shocking inequality, leaving the EU is the last thing Wales should do. Losing crucial European funding would be devastating for Wales and I have no confidence that Westminster will give us any such support.

"Inequality in the UK is the highest of any member state in the EU. London is overheating, whilst Wales’s economy is weakening.

"Day after day, the terrible effects of Brexit on Wales become ever clearer and the lies of the Brexiteers more exposed. A People's Vote, with the option of remaining in the EU is now necessary for the sake of our democracy, society and economy.”

Questioning the Welsh Government minister for rural affairs during a session in the chamber today Plaid Cymru Shadow Minister for the Economy Rhun ap Iorwerth AM said:

Wales faces losing out on huge sums of money from regional EU funding. The research estimates that if the UK were to stay in the EU it would receive £11.3 bn of regional funding between 2021-27 – a 22% increase compared to 2014-20. Does the minister agree that this strengthens the argument in favour of holding a People’s Vote to plead the case of our rural industries?”

ENDS

Notes

The full research can be found here 


Tuesday, January 22, 2019

A SHAPELESS TRANSFER OF POWER


A shapeless transfer of power from nominated successor to nominated successor within the folds of Cymru / Wales's equivalent of the old unreconstructed barely awake local branch of CPSU (Labour in Wales) is unlikely to encourage any optimism on the part of observers of our fledgling democracy post BREXIT. A former Plaid candidate once to me that to perform the same action time and time again is one thing, but, to do it and to expect a different result is simply foolish.  

To expect Labour in Wales to shake of its self indulgent lethargy (especially having spent years redefining inertia) is similarly foolish. Simply waiting for a Labour government with a majority in Westminster to deliver for Wales (let alone stand up for Cymru / Wales) is just not going to happen. Labour in Westminster (the vast majority of Labour in Wales MP's included) are simply not interested in our national interests and concerns. 

As has been noted elsewhere Kier Hardie and others may (once) have believed in home rule (for Wales and Scotland) as a means of avoiding the bureaucratic centralism that characterised much of the European socialist parties of that time. That, however, that's not what we have ended up with, once Labour fell in lust with the trappings and trimmings of power at Westminster  (in 1824) the dead hand of centralism (and party interest) settled in as the party ethos running through the Labour Party at all levels in our nation and across the various component parts of the UK state.

Labour with a vast majority in 1945 offered, five modest promises: 

  • A Secretary of State 
  • A separate Welsh broadcasting corporation 
  • An end to the forced transfer of labour to England
  • A north - South Welsh trunk road
  • A central body to plan and develop the Welsh economy 

None of them were delivered between 1945 and 1951 even when Labour in Westminster had a vast majority of seats. We have been here more than once - Labour in Wales promises to deliver much for Cymru / Wales in Westminster - with a massive majorities (in 1997 and 2001) they did not deliver for Cymru / Wales. Post BREXIT (if we ever get that far) if the Labour Party in Westminster wins a majority, our national interests will be the least of their concerns. 

Labour in Wales's unnecessary hasty and craven sycophantic repeal of the Continuity Bill (carefully drafted and presented by the late and greatly missed Steffan Lewis) which would have provided a degree of protection in the face of what almost certainly appears to be a post BREXIT attempt to re-centralise power at Westminster should not have been a surprise. This action (not repeated in Scotland) should open people's eyes to the reality of the current Labour administration's (and leaders) bland ambitions or lack of them and is a clear indicator that Labour in Wales remains deeply Brit centralist in nature.

I have little doubt that the re-centralising of Britain will be attempted via combination of undermining / ignoring the existing devolved institutions and seeking to repatriate as many (read all in the case of Cymru / Wales if they can get away with it) of those functions that had drifted to an EU over the previous 50 years.

Now thanks to the newly installed Labour in Wales First Minister we now have no Continuity Bill to even begin to provide a measure of protection from a House of Jaw that appears to be increasingly focused Post BREXIT on re-centralising a Post BREXIT Britain focused on Westminster (and the South Easts needs and interests) at our (Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and relatively distant (at least from Westminster) Northern and South Western England). 

Post BREXIT here in Wales we must find a way to create an open future rather than seek to live in closed nostalgia dominated imitation of the past cynically recast as our future by Labour and Conservative. Those unionist politicians in Wales are too timid, too ambitious to get their noses into the Westminster trough, genuinely limited in outlook or simply utterly bereft of any vision to try to do anything else but repeat the mistakes of our past.  We will never fix our society and re-boot our economy by simply reverting to being Poor humble and obedient West Britons. 

Monday, January 14, 2019

REWRITING HISTORY


Plaid Cymru’s Leader in Westminster, Liz Saville Roberts MP, confronted the Prime Minister in the House of Commons today over her claims of respecting the result of the 1997 referendum on Welsh devolution.

Ms Saville Roberts questioned the Prime Minister during a Statement in the House of Commons on the latest Brexit developments.

Following the Prime Minister’s speech in Stoke-on-Trent this morning where she compared the Leave campaign’s narrow win in the 2016 Brexit referendum devolution, Wales, Westminster,  to the result of the 1997 referendum when the people of Wales voted for the National Assembly for Wales.

During the statement, Liz Saville Roberts said:

“The Prime Minister commands us to honour the result of the referendum.

“Yet, in 1997 she voted against legislation to establish the National Assembly for Wales and in 2005 stood on a manifesto calling for another referendum with the option to overturn the result.

“How does the Prime Minister square her track record on referendums with such command?”

The Prime Minister responded by saying:

“We respect and made clear at the time we respected it, and anybody who sees the Welsh Assembly today and what it has been doing in recent years will recognise that was the right decision.”

Following the exchange, Ms Saville Roberts  raised a Point of Order – a question to the Speaker regarding procedure in Parliament – in the House of Commons, asking for clarification. In the Point of Order, Ms Saville Roberts said:

“The PM responded to my question by saying: ‘we accept the result of the referendum in Wales. We respected and made clear at the time that we respected the result of the referendum in Wales.’

“Her actions and the actions of her party at the time, and later, contradict this assertion.

“I fear the PM has mislead the house and would ask how she might correct the record.”

The Prime Minister left the chamber before listening to the Point of Order and so did not respond.

ENDS

Thursday, December 13, 2018

ENJOYING VASSAL STATUS!


There has been much hot air expended about the future status of the UK state after BREXIT - whether or not it will be a vassal state. The harsh reality is that UK already is a vassal state and has been so for many years, not because of its relationship to Europe, before or after BREXIT, or its military / diplomatic relationship with the USA, but, because it's financial relationship with Saudi Arabia.  

The modern basis of this dubious dependancy relationship is not oil, at least not directly, but the money that the Saudi's have invested and squirrelled away in the UK since before the 1973 oil crisis. The UK state as it lost its empire (and its role in a wider world) was in desperate need of financial salvation - the emphasis should perhaps be on the 'desperate'.

Pandering to world power status (perhaps at best a post imperial vanity project) rather than powering down to develop a more sensible regional North Atlantic/ European approach was and still does not come cheap. The UK states changing role, while driven by harsh economic realities, was somewhat reluctantly embraced by an elite, who to the outside observer, with hindsight, looked out of their depth and floundering.  It was a direct result of poor strategic and financial decisions made, not made or quite frankly fudged, and left the UK state in dire need of hard cash. 

Efforts to lure in Middle Eastern oil money - after the battle to control the oilfields had been lost, had taken place prior to the oil crisis from the 1960's onwards. The 1973 oil crisis, when it came, saw what had been described as the most rapid transfer of economic power that the world has ever seen. The West's trade surplus in 1972 was $10 billion, by 1974 the West had a deficit of $48 billion, and the oil producers had a surplus that was estimated to be some $69 billion. 

This situation was later aggravated still further in the 1980's when Ronald Reagan (whilst making America great again) and Mrs Thatcher (while not making the UK great) cut higher taxes enabling the mega tick to avoid paying their fare share of taxation (monetarism). This plunged the USA and the UK into a deeper public deficit that they have never got back out of since.

The constant spin that has been put on the relationship between the Brits and the Saudi's (actually the ruling House of Saud) has always been that Saudi Arabia is pro-Western. This was perhaps true to a degree by way of comparison with the Colonel Nasser, Saddam Hussein (although from time to time he was the West's golden boy) and Syria - who were at times openly antagonistic to the West. 

The harsh reality was (and is) that Saudi Arabia is pro Saudi first and foremost and the Saudi state's values are directly contradicted by the pluralistic and democratic values of the West. Long before the rapid rewriting the fiscal relationship with the West in 1973/1974 the House of Saud had quietly oenly and consistently funded terrorism and funded a disturbingly fundamentalist interpretation of Islam. 

The ruling House of Saud was and still remains engaged in significant internal oppression and has long been well documented as a violator of human rights. Despite this the UK state (as a loyal and purchased friend) supported Saudi Arabia's membership of the UN Human Rights Council - this perhaps gives life to the old adage that what was once bought stays bought.

By mid 1970's under Conservative (under Heath) and Labour (under Wilson) the Saudis had invested an estimated $9.3 billion. Saudi funds were used to subsidise the old nationalised industries to the tune of $800 million. Some $1.4 billion was also borrowed by the UK's nationalised industries. By the time this financially dependent relationship had developed, the Brits had just lost their place as the preeminent regional (if external) power in region to the USA and were fumbling about on the edge of Europe (neither in nor out).

A visible indicator of the drop in the UK states' status may be reflected in the educational choices made by the Arabian and Gulf elite. Once the children of the Arabian and Gulf elite attended public schools in England's Home Counties, now they are more likely to attend expensive private schools around Washington DC's beltway. 

For the Brit elite taking second place, even as a financial vassal state, must have stung a bit. This relationship (vassal status by any other definition) explains much, especially the repeated failures of the UK to reduce its dependence on oil and gas imports from the Arabian gulf region - and perhaps the failure to push for a renewable energy based form of energy independence. 

It also explains an obvious fact that the UK in relation to foreign policy, had largely and abjectly surrendered effective control of its foreign policy to Saudi Arabia. Saudi interests are effectively Brit interests - it also goes some way to explain the almost complete lack of Brit criticism of some of the more unpleasant public acts of brutality that have been carried out by the Saudi regime over the years.

The Brits for their part have supplied mercenaries to protect the Saudi royal household and supplied troops to fight proxy wars on Saudi Arabia's behalf. In exchange for funds invested the Brits have also helped to arm (to the teeth) one of the worlds more unpleasant regimes in on of the more dangerously unstable regions of the planet - and have happily backed and supported the House of Saud’s not so proxy war with Iran in the Yemen. 

Since the 1970’s in exchange for hard cash the Brits have continued to supply training, weapons, etc to a state, whose defence policy (as noted in February 1975) was based on ‘Jihad’. The Brit elite to be frank knew exactly what it was doing when it signed to an effective one way pact with the House of Saud - an over active developer and exporter  of Wahhabi extremism. 

Short term decisions have long term consequences - Saudi funding of the Taliban trained and educated fighters in Pakistan to fight the Soviet Union, twenty years later the Taliban we doing their best to kill our own soldiers in Afghanistan. Ironically the Taliban used many of the methods they had been aught by the Brits (amongst others) somewhat ironically based upon those methods used against British soldiers in Northern Ireland during the troubles. 

Brit policy was a direct result of the alliance with the House of Saud, and it was profitable, between 1985 and 1988 the Brits sold $15 billion dollars worth of weapons to Saudi Arabia. The ready cash burnt some fingers in BAE and other organisations - but Westminster did nothing to curb the corruption - but acted swiftly to prevent any parliamentary investigation into corruption relating to BAE. These sort of deals appear to have bought silence from successive Westminster governments in relation to the House of Saud’s funding of radical islamic causes in the Middle east and around the world - who were opposed to political pluralism, religious tolerance and women rights. 

Things got much more complicated after Saddam’s invasion of Kuwait (another non democratic hereditary state) and the subsequent war to liberate Kuwait (funded to a degree by $50 billion dollars of Saudi cash) which saw the deployment of 500,000 mostly 'infidel' troops into Saudi Arabia. With Saddam weakened, but, still left in power in Baghdad, Saudi Arabia itself began to suffer from acts of terrorism. Despite this only in 1994 was Saudi funding of Bin Laden reluctantly curbed along with the removal of his Saudi citizenship. 

Before 9/11 the West largely looked the other way in relation the movement of funds for islamic inspired terrorism. The funding continued indirectly via the Pakistani military and private Saudi donors and islamic charities - a 2002 French report noted that $300 million had been moved to Al-Qaidia in recent years. 

The Brits effective economic dependence on Saudi money aside from a failure to deal with money laundering (some parts of the City do very well from this activity) has also led to Brit support for some other fairly unsavoury brutal repressive regimes in the Middle East. Ironically it was perhaps the threat of possible European regulation of banking (including money laundering in the City and off-shore dependencies) may in itself have provided the motivation for the campaign that eventually led to the  BREXIT vote.

Wednesday, December 12, 2018

BLUE ON BLUE


You have to hand it to the Tories, regardless of the circumstances or current political crisis, they do fratricidal blue on blue spectacularly well. It redefines self interest and idiotic in a single breath or single bound.  The fundamental split over Europe that has festered since the days of John Major, partially smothered during the wilderness years, under Michael Howard and IDS and barely papered over during the shambolic Cameron years, is back with a vengeance. Much like is was under John Major, the needs of the peoples of these islands, can go hang. Tory needs, obsessions and minutiae must come first regardless of the cost. Whatever else this self indulgent fiasco might be magnificent, but it is certainly not really meaningful politics, beyond the confines of the gothic monstrosity on the Thames. Just at the time when some real leadership would be useful, we end up here -what a mess! 

Monday, December 10, 2018

RUNNING SCARED


Plaid Cymru’s Westminster leader, Liz Saville Roberts MP said:

“The Prime Minister is running scared. She can only delay the inevitable loss. She made promises that she cannot deliver and now she is coming up against reality.

“The only single person who can stop a No Deal Brexit is the Prime Minister. By delaying this vote she is personally making a No Deal Brexit more likely.

“The Prime Minister wants to deny the public a say in a People’s Vote and now she is trying to deny MPs a vote too. She is denying democracy on all fronts.

“People deserve better than the chaos in Westminster.  

“Now we know the truth about Brexit, people must be given the right to decide whether the reality of leaving the European Union is what they want.”


Sunday, September 30, 2018

THE OLD CENTRALIST ENEMY


The recent Old / former New Labour conference might suggest that Labour has got its mojo back and the party now believes that it can win the next Westminster general election. The bearded one has described himself as a democratic socialist - his unionism (not the Trade variety) is never mentioned. 

To be blunt the articulated vision of a democratic socialist UK which does not have a place for our national interest(s) which don't feature on the centralising statist agenda, that’s like something out of the mid to late 1970’s. The problem is that the bearded one's vision / version is neither that democratic or that socialist, at least from a Welsh or Scottish perspective, and neither is is particularly original, visionary  or new - it also never delivered last time, so why should it this time around?

If it were possible to remove the Scottish parliament and our as yet not fully fledged embryonic parliament, I am sure that JC and his Brit Nat centralist ilk would not hesitate for a moment. They would happily lay down their rhetorical lives for Ireland, or Palestine or other deserving blue water causes whilst quietly pining for a centralised British republic; and maintaining an unhealthy patronising metropolitan scorn for any political aspirations aspired too by any of the other nations that inhabit this often rain swept island archipelago.

Yet these so called democratic socialists remain strangely silent when it comes to matters relating to Wales, Scotland or Cornwall or even England for that matter, along with displaying spectacular perhaps Islington or metropolitan centric ignorance or dismissive patronising contempt (worthy of comparison of the rhetoric used by some Russian nationalists with their patronising dismissal of Ukraine and other historic nations in and around Russia) of any and all devolved matters outside of the M25.

Despite the beardy spin, this is the same old centralist enemy - with the same old rebranded statist solutions - which outside of the short term spectacularly failed to deliver for us last time. We, in Wales, have been here before. The centralists have promised much and delivered little that was lasting, save for a faint echos or faint ghosts of long departed industrial and regional development. 

Don’t get me wrong, ending the ideologically driven idiocy that has reduced our railways to a poor dividend profit driven service would / will be a good thing. The problem is that Westminster can not be trusted to leave any rail service to run itself. 

I would prefer the not for dividend profit but independent of day to day, week to week, month to month interference from Westminster, but democratically accountable and democratically responsive model to any Westminster accountable / controlled reborn version of British rail. Personally I would prefer public sector institutions to be run on a not for dividend profit model and firmly at arms length from Westminster.

Our nation, as one of the poorer parts of the European Union, will have received more than £5 billion in so-called structural funds by 2020. The funding from Brussels has been used for a wide variety of diverse infrastructure projects from the Ponty Lido, Swansea University's Bay Campus, the Heads of the Valleys road, Harbour Way link road and the National Sailing Academy at Pwllheli. 

EU funding has also been used to fund educational and training courses and programmes via our Universities and colleges. I still think that the Welsh government should carry out a fully comprehensive review of just exactly on what and how the money has been spent along with examining in detail how the funds were spent and what the end results were - before any future funds are thrown at any potential problems and projects. 

One of the consequences of BREXIT is that this source of funding will cease. The Conservatives have said the new Shared Prosperity Fund is intended to reduce inequalities across the four UK nations. Thats if you believe them, especially considering that they blocked regional aid to Wales in the 1980’s and early 1990’s and considering that one of the underlying feature of the UK has always been that of it's heavy handed unsubtle centralism. 

This centralism has never really gone away despite the roll out of differing levels of devolution to redress the democratic deficit in the late 1990’s.  The civil service, at least in England and Wales, appears to continue to behave as if devolution has not happened. Until there is a Wales based Cymru / Wales focused civil service this state of affairs is likely to continue. 

Some twenty years down the line of all the devolved nations and provinces Scotland still has the best devolutionary deal, followed in second place by Northern Ireland - even in its current suspended state. Wales trails in a poor third - with  a relatively weak devolutionary settlement - something that suits the majority of Labour in Wales representatives in Cardiff Bay and beyond - who lie awake at night dreaming of Labour in Westminster winning and riding to the rescue. 

It’s important to remember that the last time they were in power at Westminster between 1997 and 2010.  Labour had a sizeable majority and pretty much the power to do whatever they wanted to do. Labour in Westminster didn’t come riding to the rescue then, so don't expect them to do so next time. 

Post Brexit both the Conservatives and the party formerly known as New Labour will eagerly grasp the opportunity to build their vision of a new centralist aggressively Brit Nationalist union. The Brit Nat drum will be thoroughly beaten to drum up Brit Nat sentiment and sentimentality / nostalgic pap to drown out any criticism - constructive or otherwise. We should remember that direct Westminster-rule failed to deliver for much of Wales (beyond the shirt-term) for most of my lifetime. 

Even before I was born the great hopes of the future proved to GD unsustainable beyond the medium term - British Nylon Sunners (in Mamhilad, north of Pontypool (gone), BSC / RTB Llanwern (a remnant), East Moors, on the eastern fringe of Cardiff (gone), etc. Post BREXIT it appears that things are only going to get worse as Whitehall ‘Britocrats’ scramble to protect the City of London at all costs, while our manufacturers and exporters are left to sink, swim or go under.

The post BREXIT domestic settlement offers from the Brit Nat perspective of Westminster a real opportunity to actively work to roll back, weaken or undermine the devolutionary settlements within the UK. Certainly relatively recent developments in relation to repatriated 'powers' being returned from Brussels to Westminster have shown how important it is that we actively resist Westminster’s attempts to roll back devolution through the Withdrawal Bill. Plaid's attempts lead by Steffan Lewis in relation to the Continuity Bill were a vital step to ensure Westminster does not ride rough shod over our hard-won right to run our own affairs.

Now it's not just a case of moaning about the incompetence and injustice of what's gone on in previous years, under previous governments (whether Labour (New, Old or revamped), Conservative or Conservative - Liberal Democrat - that's just what has gone before - that's just history. The days of simply rattling the bars of the cage and occasionally doing well in the odd are over - it's time to change or rewrite the rules of the game. At the most basic level we need devolution to actually deliver for our nation - economically, socially and politically. 

As I have said previously the nation can no more be half devolved than a nation can be half free. We need the devolutionary full measure and the tools to do the job and to deliver economic change for our country. We desperately need to engender the politics of hope and a real belief that things can change and get better. 

The quiet Westminster dogmas of the past have failed us - they did not deliver last time and rebadged / revamped by the bearded one they are incapable of delivering in the future. We urgently need real change, it's time for a real new deal, it's time to be radical, because only radical solutions are going to deliver for our people and our nation. 

Thursday, June 21, 2018

MAKING A CASE FOR INDEPENDENCE


It can be argued that at one level Westminster’s consistent disregard for our nation, our people, our democracy and our national interests is day by day, blow by blow, making the case for independence. Not for nothing did a Plaid Cymru MP recently describe the 18 minutes allocated to debate matters relating to Wales, Scotland and northern Ireland during the recent debate about the EU (Withdrawal) Bill. 

When the Conservatives and the Labour Party openly and actively working to silence our nation’s voice, and simply treating our country as an irrelevance, an afterthought and an inconvenience it does not bode well for our future in a post BREXIT world.

The debate on the EU (Withdrawal) Bill as it relates to the devolved countries was cut short to just 18 minutes last week, following a restrictive programme motion, proposed by the Conservatives and following the insistence of the Labour Party to push 11 amendments to a vote, and thus eating into the time allocated for the debate on the devolved countries, so much for looking after our interests.

Plaid Cymru’s Westminster leader, Liz Saville Roberts MP said:

“Westminster’s disregard for Welsh democracy is endemic. The people of Wales would be forgiven for thinking the Labour opposition and the Tory government are colluding to deny Wales a voice.

“Not only did the Conservative Government succeed last week in placing a restrictive programme motion on the debate, the Labour Party also ensured the debate would be as short as possible by needlessly pressing ahead with 11 consecutive votes, knowing full well that they would lose – all the while eating into time for the debate on the devolved countries.

“When Plaid Cymru argued in favour of staying in the EU, we did so because we believed that small nations like Wales were better served sitting alongside the other successful small nations of Europe, as equals. We argued that the inbuilt inequality of the UK would make Wales expendable political collateral to the over-riding interests of England. And we were right.

“Brexit will be a landmark in the journey Wales takes to our own conclusion that only our own, radical solutions will prove the answer to our needs. Westminster and its parties will always treat Wales like an adjunct, an afterthought, an inconvenience. All this does is make the case for Welsh political independence.”

Tuesday, May 8, 2018

ANOTHER DIFFICULT ANNIVERSARY!


Forgetting anniversaries is a very human thing, we can all occasionally do it - its when the State has selective absences of memory that are deliberate and that it can become a problem. I wonder if the 13th April 2019 will be doubly underlined in the diary of whoever is sitting in 10 Downing Street next year - I suspect that it won't be underlined. The 13th April 2019 will be the 100th anniversary of the Jallianwala Bagh or Amritsar massacre - which was somewhat half-heartedly referenced by then no doubt somewhat embarrassed PM David Cameron as a 'shameful event' -so much for making an attempt at a sincere if somewhat belated apology (back in 2013). Whatever you choose to call it - murder is still murder, an atrocity is still an atrocity, even if it was 99, a 100 or 101 years ago.  Perhaps in the aftermath of BREXIT (more than ever) there is a real need to temper the wave of post imperial Brit nostalgia for empire with some post colonial responsibility. 

Tuesday, April 17, 2018

SECRET TRADE TALKS EXPOSE DESPERATE WESTMINSTER GOVERNMENT


Plaid Cymru urges Westminster U-turn on Customs Union membership

Details from secret trade talks between the Westminster Government and 14 other trade groups have exposed the desperation inside Whitehall and the impact that leaving the Customs Union will have on the economy and consumers.

The details emerged after a Freedom of Information request in the United States revealed details of the UK-USA talks.

The information reveals a desperate Westminster Government sent 27 members of staff from the Department for International Trade (DIT) and the Department for Exiting the EU (DExEU) with no experience of negotiating trade deals to Washington to negotiate with a 77-strong US delegation which included seasoned trade officials with decades of negotiations under their belts. 

Details from the agenda reveal that the so-called trade working group with the USA discussed trade strategy, textiles and apparels, regulatory issues, industrial tariffs and agriculture. Despite the Westminster Government down-playing the significance of the controversy over chlorine-washed chicken, the working group spent two hours discussing "agriculture and SPS" (SPS referring to sanitary and phytosanitary trade issues - such as the controversies over chlorine-washed chicken and hormone-reared beef) - longer than any other sector.

The information will cause particular concern for the agriculture sector in the UK, and Welsh farmers in particular, whose market face being flooded with cheap, lower quality imports, undercutting their prices.

Plaid Cymru says the information confirms the importance of the Customs Union and has urged the Conservatives and the Labour Party to support continued membership of the existing Customs Union.

The UK's membership of the Customs Union gives all UK countries access to free trade agreements with more than 60 other countries around the world - the other Customs Union members and other countries with whom the Customs Union has a free trade agreement - negotiated collectively to improve terms. Leaving the Customs Union means losing all current free trade arrangements and negotiating new deals without the benefit of doing so jointly with our partners, inevitably meaning poorer terms for the UK.

The Government's own analysis shows that every country in the UK will be worse off if we leave the Customs Union, even if free trade agreements are signed.

Commenting, Plaid Cymru's Brexit spokesperson in Westminster, Hywel Williams MP, said:

"This perfectly illustrates why staying in the Customs Union is so important. We already have free trade arrangements with more than 60 countries thanks to our place in the Customs Union - trade agreements that were negotiated collectively, strengthening our hand and maximising the benefits for us from those trade deals.

"These details from the American trade group give us a glimpse of our future outside the Customs Union. A weak, inexperienced and desperate group of civil servants trying to strike a trade deal with markets five times bigger than ours, with experienced trade negotiators. It is simply not possible to replicate what we are able to do as part of the Customs Union, on our own.

"Clearly some sectors will be sacrificed to ensure others are protected and we need only look at Westminster's every-day priorities to see which sectors are set to lose and which will be protected. Particularly concerning is the Westminster Government's insistence on holding these talks in secret - not just in the USA but with the 14 other trade groups across the world. What are they hiding from us?

"This is why Plaid Cymru is adamant that every country in the UK should be involved in these talks, not just England, and that every country should have to sign any deals off before they are implemented, to ensure our own key sectors such as manufacturing and agriculture are protected, not just the City of London.

"Westminster's flat out refusal to treat Wales and Scotland as equals alongside England means there is only one option - for the whole of the UK to stay in the Customs Union and to maintain our strong position as a global trading bloc. 

"Both the Conservatives and the Labour Party must reverse their position and make it clear that we will stay in the existing Customs Union."

ENDS

The Westminster Government had previously admitted to holding secret trade talks with the following 14 groups but had refused to share any information:

  • Andean Community (Peru, Colombia and Ecuador)
  • Australia
  • Canada
  • China
  • Gulf Cooperation Council (Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and UAE)
  • Israel
  • India
  • Japan
  • Mexico
  • New Zealand
  • Norway
  • South Korea
  • Turkey
  • USA

Details from the American Freedom of Information request are available here: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4106923-US-UK-Trade-Meeting-FOIA-Redacted-1.html

Letters sent between the UK and the US agreeing to keep the talks secret are available here: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/arrangement-for-exchanging-information-during-the-uk-us-trade-and-investment-working-group

Monday, January 29, 2018

THE PROBLEM OF FANTASY ISLAND AND TAXATION

You can argue that one definition of taxation is that it’s the fair dues we all (well most of us) pay to participate in our society – to fund significant projects that benefit us all collectively and to provide a safety net for society. Tax is, has and probably always will be (and probably always has been) a subject that stirs people up. Things are not helped by the fact that we in the old West have been collectively been sold a pup when it comes to taxation.

Now, lets be honest, the first step towards noticing that you have been sold a pup, is to actually to notice. The problem is that, the Party formally known and New Labour, the Conservatives and the Lib Dems have been hooked on the idea that either by cutting, reducing taxation for the rich (and corporations) or even perhaps by turning a blind eye to tax evasion, avoidance, etc - that wealth will trickle down from the top to the rest of us. 

This somewhat questionable theory was pumped out by Ronald Reagan (and Mrs Thatcher) in the 1980’s is still pretty dominant; it is not a new theory. US Presidential candidate William Jennings Bryan (in 1896); who noted ‘that if you will only legislate to make the well-to-do prosperous, their prosperity will leak through to those below’. 

The ‘Trickle-down theory’ first appeared in the 1932 US Presidential campaign, when Democrats used it to hammer Republican Herbert Hoover’s plan to engineer economic recovery by making the rich richer into the ground.  Some fifty years later even Ronald Reagan’s supporters struggled to sell the idea to their own party, even George Bush (Senior) openly and publically mocked Reagan’s theories of supply-side economics as ‘voodoo economics’ at least until he got the Vice Presidential slot. 

On this side of the pond there were some monetarists who told Mrs Thatcher straight that the idea was nonsense and that it would not deliver results  - naturally she did not listen. Reagan’s first budget brought in a moderate reduction in the basic tax rate, this was followed by the a drastic reduction of the top tax rate from 70 to 50 percent and later still to 28 percent. 

If the theory was correct then, the public coffers should have swelled with enough extra revenue to balance the budget within one to two years. Unfortunately, the theory was incorrect, within the eight years of Reagan’s Presidency the total Federal deficit soared from around $900 million to some $3 trillion dollars.

What followed has been described as an orgy of speculation in stocks, shares and real estate (this was the era of ‘Greed is good’), ordinary Americans stopped saving and started spending. Through the 1980’s there was a near continuous decline in long-term capital investment – on which economic growth and jobs were dependent.  

To make matters worse the USA went into recession and the Federal Reserve had to raise interest rates to hold down the inflationary consequence of the tax cuts. By the winter of 1981/1982 the unemployment rate in the USA had risen to 10% for the first time since the aftermath of the great depression in the 1930’s.

The gulf between the wealthy elite and the rest of the population now became (and has remained) a chasm, the rich got richer and parallels have been drawn between the 1980’s and the Gilded Age of the 1870’s (income tax was abolished in the US and was only reintroduced during the First World War).  The 1980’s for the mega rich in the USA was an era of conspicuous consumption and extravagance – yet oddly enough very little of this prosperity tricked down to the American middle and working classes.

Interestingly enough average US family incomes did not return to the level they were at in the 1970’s until 1987. While the theory may have sounded good, the harsh economic reality was that Americans were now working harder and longer – in 1973 an average American worker had 26.2 hours of leisure time per week, by 1987 this was down to 16.6 hours per week.

One result was that jobs were also now less secure, Americans now worked on short-term of temporary contracts in increasingly un-unionised working environments. For blue-collar workers the 1980’s were a disaster, wages fell through the decade as employers threatened to move production overseas because the workers had priced themselves out of employment. During the same period in the UK well paid and well pensioned heavy industrial jobs were sacrificed and replaced (to a degree) with less well paid less secure poorly pensioned jobs.  

The right wing, in the US and here in the UK crowed about how government should not interfere with (or regulate very much) the ‘free market’.  This hands off attitude was also duly applied to the US savings and loan industry, laying the groundwork for the collapse that was to follow in 2007. The only exception being that if things went really pear shaped then it was expected that Government would collect the tab. One side effect of all this was fraud, 650 savings and loan companies collapsed, with the $1.4 trillion dollar tab being picked up by the US government.

On this side of the pond, building society after building society were floated on the stock market – and within a few years were readily absorbed by increasingly greedy banks.  In the US, exploitative working practices and sweatshops reappeared encouraged by the effective withdrawal of regulation and inspection. The 1980’s also saw the growth of increasingly powerful media empires and a concentration of power in fewer and fewer hands despite much reputed mantras from government about greater competition and choice for consumers.

We are all still living with the consequences of that period in the 1980’s when an ideologically driven obsession with the ‘free market’ and ‘privatisation’. Heaven help anyone who dare question these sacred truths – the very heavens may fall. The problem is that the market was rather than being ‘free’ it was pretty much increasingly unregulated as Governments in the USA and the UK largely looked the other way – tax collections fell and ironically tax evasion soared.

This state of affairs was tolerated by the long time dying Major Government and largely encouraged by the former New Labour governments of Tony Blair and Gordon Brown and barely mentioned by the former Con Dem government. Even the crash has not really changed things - while there was some talk about tacking tax evasion it was followed and matched by continuing (significant) staff cuts to HMRC.

It is interesting because tax evasion and tax avoidance, at least outside of the UK, is rarely out of the headlines with many heavily indebted governments being particularly keen to hunt down every tax dollar / euro / pound that is owed by tax evaders avoiding (unlike the rest of us) paying their fair dues to society. 

The Westminster elite privately at least regardless of whatever they say publically, appear to pay scant respect to the idea of fair taxation and fair representation. The British state (pre and post Brexit) now appears to be as close as possible to being governed by the sons of bankers and the sons of the City in the interests of the City (of London).

This reluctance to deal with the issue of tax evasion and the questionable money management activities of the city and elements of the elite and the prospects of Europe wide transparency and action against money laundering may have provided the motivation to develop a distracting and ultimately successful anti European campaign (via the well read tabloids) that ultimately led to the Brexit vote. 

The real problem remains that the current UK Government is, like pretty much all previous Westminster governments since the end of Empire, remains in up to its neck when it comes to tax evasion. The UK Westminster government is heavily involved in aiding and abetting tax evasion worldwide. British Overseas territories, including the Cayman Islands, help to hide around trillions from pounds from the different nation’s tax authorities.

Our biggest problem is that deep in the belly of the Westminster beast lies the two way relationship between Westminster and the City of London. This may go a long way towards explaining why the former New Labour governments, the former Con Dem coalition government and the current now weak and wobbly Conservative government (were and) remain reluctant to do anything about the problem of taxation.  

A few but not all of the city banks have been exposed as being are hand in glove with drug dealers, dictators, rogue states and terrorists when it comes to money laundering. The British Overseas territories lie at the heart of a web of money laundering and tax evasion, the inertia or reluctance to do anything about the problem may well be explained by the lure of comfy lucrative seats on the board for former Westminster politicians.