EFTA/EEA (or, can we afjord to take the 'Norway Option'?)

In a previous post I explained how, from initially holding quite strongly Eurosceptic views, I had come to believe that membership of the European Union does not, so long as the UK is free to leave the EU at any time should it so wish, represent a diminution of the overall sovereignty of the Westminster parliament. It merely involves a pooling of sovereignty in specific areas of policy in order to facilitate a sovereign decision to be part of a 'club' which brings with it the benefits of free trade within a single market.
Recently, however, I have been looking into the possible arrangements being put forward by those campaigning to leave the EU. One such option is for the UK to apply to become a member of the European Free Trade Association (EFTA) and so continue to trade within the European Economic Area (EEA). I have to confess that until fairly recently, although I was aware of the existence of EFTA and the EEA, I did not know much about how they worked, or, to be honest, which countries were involved.
I now know that the EEA countries - Norway, Iceland and Lichtenstein - while not being members of the EU, have an agreement which allows them pretty much full access to the single market. In return they are obliged to mirror most EU legislation, including the requirement for freedom of movement for EU citizens. If this option were on the table at the referendum as the form that a 'Brexit' would take, I can see that it might be very tempting for those like myself (and, I believe, a large proportion of the UK electorate) who are in favour of the single market and open borders within Europe but wary of the more political aspects of the EU and of the concept of 'ever closer union'. (As things stand, most ‘leave’ campaigners seem to be of the view that the UK should negotiate its own specific trade arrangements with the EU rather than take advantage of the existing arrangements within EFTA and the EEA.)
However, as far as I can see, the only real advangtage of trading with Europe through the EEA would be that the UK would retain the ability to negotiate its own Free Trade Agreements with other countries - a role that it currently has to leave in the hands of EU trade negotiators. And some might say that this is not an advantage at all, considering the number of seperate trade deals that the UK would have to negotiate from scratch. There are a few aspects of EU law that we would not be required to implement but, it seems to me, the only particularly significant opt out is the fact that EFTA countries are not part of the Common Agricultural Policy or the Common Fisheries Policy. (I must admit that, as a former Londoner who now lives in the Home Counties, about as far from the sea as it's possible to be in Britain, I really don't have much experience of farming or fishing although I understand that there are both advantages and disadvantages to EU membership for those engaged in these industries.)
The downside of EEA membership is that, although EEA countries are consulted about potential new EU legislation, they do not have a 'seat at the table' when such legislation is made. As one country in 28, the amount of clout that the UK has when it comes to decisions about the final form of new EU laws and directives is debatable but as one of the more economically powerful of the EU countries and with the financial importance that the city of London has, I suspect our influence is very significant. There is no doubt that there is always a danger of increasing centralisation with a supranational body like the EU. There is a kind of gravitational pull exercised by larger political entities over smaller ones, where the powers of the latter are always in danger of being sucked up and taken over by the former. However, to attempt to address this problem by leaving the club is not, in my opinion, the appropriate solution. As we have seen, unless we want to do serious damage to our economy by excluding ourselves from the single market, we will still have to abide by most EU laws whether we are members or not. The best way to ensure that the principle of subsidiarity is adhered to and that the EU does not encroach on areas that are best left to national governments is to foster a strong culture of democratic engagement amongst domestic populations, so that national governments know exactly how much power their home electorates will tolerate being ceded to Brussels and that they will be punished at the ballot box if they do not stand up to the EU where necessary. Without a strong democratic culture, it makes little difference whether we are in or out of either the EU, EFTA or any other political organisation - economic and political elites will have a free hand to act as they wish without any fear of being held to account.

Sardarapat guitar chords (also called Sartarabad / Sardarabad)

I was trying to find the guitar chords for this patriotic Armenian song about a great military victory in 1918 which basically preserved the existence of the Armenian nation. I was unable to find the chords (in spite of the fact that it's been covered by Armenian-American band System Of A Down!) so I worked some out for myself:

(Dm)Երբ չի մնում (F)ելք ու (Dm)ճար,
(F)Խենթերն (Dm)են գտ(G)նում հ(C))նար.
(F)Այսպես (Dm)ծագեց, (G)արե(Em)գակեց
(G)Սարդարա(Am)պատի (F)մարտը (Dm)մեծ:

Զան(F)գեր ղողան(C)ջեք,
Սր(F)բազան (C)քաջեր(Dm)ին (C)կան(F)չեք
(G)Այս ար(C)դար մար(F)տին:
Սե(Bflat)րունդներ դուք ձեզ (F)ճանաչեք
(C)Սարդարապա(F)տից:

Ավարայրից ջանք առանք,
Այստեղ մի պահ կանգ առանք,
Որ շունչ առած, շունչներս տանք
Սարդարապատի պատի տակ:

Զանգեր ղողանջեք,
Սրբազան քաջերին կանչեք
Այս արդար մարտին:
Սերունդներ դուք ձեզ ճանաչեք
Սարդարապատից:

Բայց մենք չընկանք,
Մենք միշտ կանք,
Մենք չհանգանք դեռ կգանք,
Երբ տան զանգը, ահազանգը.
Որ մեր հոգու պարտքը տանք:

Զանգեր ղողանջեք,
Սրբազան քաջերին կանչեք
Այս արդար մարտին:
Սերունդներ դուք ձեզ ճանաչեք
Սարդարապատից:

EU thought experiment

Imagine that the European Union does not exist, and never has done (a nightmare scenario for some, a beautiful dream for others!) Now imagine that another country (let's say Switzerland, for example) offered to pay the United Kingdom £70 billion per year on condition that we copied all of Switzerland's laws and implemented them into UK law - but only in certain fields (say, human rights, health and safety, immigration, employment rights and VAT) and that, following a referendum, the UK agreed to enter into such an arrangement, on the understanding that our parliament could vote to break off this arrangement at any time.
Now, it is perfectly possible that a majority of people in the country might not like one - or even all - of the laws made for us by Switzerland but still choose to retain the arrangement in order to receive the £70 billion annual payoff. And it is equally possible that a majority could decide that the Swiss-made laws were too onerous and no longer worth the money, in which case they would elect a government to take us out of the arrangement with Switzerland.
The point of this analogy is not to argue that the UK benefits financially from the EU (although I am pretty confident that it does, through the single market and its associated advantages) but to show that at no point in the scenario described above, whether the UK public like or dislike the legislation imposed on them by Switzerland, whether choosing to retain or abandon the arrangement with Switzerland, does the Westminster parliament cease to be the sovereign decision-making authority for the UK and at no point does democracy cease to operate or the will of the UK electorate cease to be implemented.
What this shows is that by 'contracting out' some legislative powers to the European Union, the ultimate sovereignty of the UK parliament in Westminster is in no way negated or diminished.

This week I am mostly voting to remain in the European Union

I used to be very opposed to the UK’s membership of the European Union for reasons that I outlined in this post back in May 2013. However, over the last couple of years I have become more sympathetic towards the EU and, as things stand, I intend to vote to remain within the European Union when the referendum on UK membership takes place on 23rd June this year.
In the post linked to above, I gave two main reasons for being opposed to the European Union: Firstly, its size, and the concomitant diminution of my power as a voter (as well as the fact that the size of a government may be inversely proportionate to its efficiency of operation and may also make it more liable to 'capture' by corporate interests which are more capable of lobbying etc. compared to members of the public, for whom a continent wide government seems - and in many ways is - distant and remote). I still think this is a problem, and national governments should, in my opinion, work hard to push back against the inevitable gravitational pull of a large, centralised EU and try to make sure that only those powers which are relevant to the continent as a whole are retained by that institution. However, one of the big issues of our time is the increasing power of transnational corporations and the best chance that people have for holding these institutions to account is through a continent wide approach. The EU population (and therefore the number of consumers in the market) is nearly eight times larger than that of the UK. This means that the EU has eight times the bargaining power (and eight times the clout) of the UK when it comes to negotiating with - and regulating and taxing - the financial powers that be. Also, a united front among European countries when it comes to minimum levels of taxation, health and safety standards and workers' rights is the best way to prevent a race to the bottom as individual countries fight to retain profitable businesses within their own borders. At one time it may have been possible for governments to provide public services by taxing workers’ incomes in order to pay for them. However, over the last 30 years, an increasingly high percentage of the profits of industry and commerce has gone to owners and shareholders as opposed to workers, which means that in order to continue to provide good quality services it will increasingly be necessary for governments to be able to tax companies’ profits at a reasonable level. At a time when the power of corporations is growing, then, transnational unity among governments is surely a rational response.
The second reason I gave for being against the EU was the fact that there is no common language for Europe, which limits the possibilities for continent-wide public debate, so making it harder for the EU electorate to hold the EU institutions to account. I still think this is an issue, but a far less serious one than I used to think. This is because, as long as the UK parliament is the sovereign body in this country, then there is no actual threat to democracy from the EU. If we, as a country, choose to pool some of our sovereignty with other European countries then that is a decision that has been democratically arrived at through our own national institutions and one that we could reverse at any time - again through our own democratic institutions - should we, as a national electorate, so wish. Notwithstanding the fact that George Osborne recently described the upcoming referendum as settling the question of the UK's EU membership (or non-membership) for 'a generation' (and I have heard other politicians describe it as settling the question 'once and for all'), the fact is that even if the forthcoming referendum results in the UK remaining in the EU, should a majority of the UK public decide at any point in the future that it wishes to leave then there is nothing to stop it from voting in a government which would take the country out of the EU. What I am trying to get at is that it is okay to 'outsource' some of the functions of government to an institution which is perhaps less than optimally democratic, provided the decision so to do is arrived at democratically and that there are democratic procedures in place for reversing that decision. (To put it bluntly, if the United Kingdom’s domestic political system is sufficiently democratic that the ‘public will’ is reflected in government policy, then should the majority of the UK electorate at any given time wish to leave the European Union, the government will respond accordingly and implement that wish. In such circumstances, membership of the EU cannot be construed as any kind of threat to the sovereignty or self-determination of the UK and its citizens. However, if the UK’s domestic political system is not sufficiently democratic that the ‘public will’ is reflected in government policy, then to leave the EU with the intention of returning to a more democratic, responsive and popular form of government would be an exercise in fantasy and futility.) Incidentally, I think it is this non-compulsory aspect of EU membership that differentiates the EU from the traditional idea of an Empire and also helps to ensure the principle of subsidiarity – that is, the principle that the EU should only intervene in matters where national governments acting alone would not be sufficiently effective.
The advantages of EU membership in terms of free trade and a single market (and of having a seat at the table that decides on the rules of that single market - rules which are necessary to prevent a race to the bottom in terms of health and safety and working conditions) and in terms of encouraging inward investment into the UK are so great that, in my opinion, it is worth pooling a certain amount of our sovereignty in the manner described above, in order to retain these.
Finally, there are two additional reasons why I would like the UK to remain in the EU. Firstly, I have friends (and will soon have a relative through the marriage of one of my nephews) who are legally resident in this country because of the freedom of movement that our EU membership brings. Even when I was opposed to the EU I was not against the freedom to live and work in the country of one's choice, but I fear that should the UK leave the EU there could possibly be a threat to the right of these friends and relatives to remain in the UK or to become UK citizens should they so wish.
Secondly, there is a very real possibility that, should the UK withdraw from the EU, Scotland would vote to leave the UK. Not only that, but if Scotland were to be admitted to the EU as an independent country while the rest of the UK was outside of the EU, then there could be an actual border complete with customs and the need for passport controls between Scotland and the rest of Britain. A similar situation could obtain with regard to the island of Ireland, where a vote for the UK to leave the EU could result in the reinstatement of border controls between Northern Ireland and the Republic, undoing one of the achievements of the peace process.

Unsafe hospitals and low pay in the NHS

A couple of weeks ago, I heard on the radio that a report by the Care Quality Commission (CQC) has been published which described three quarters of NHS hospitals as unsafe. I work for an NHS Community Trust which was inspected recently by the CQC - we got good marks on everything except patient safety in our bed-based units (community hospitals) for which it was found that improvements were necessary. The reason we fell short on patient safety was the fact that we did not have sufficient numbers of nurses on all shifts. The Trust respnded to this verdict with an intensive recruitment drive, even sending representatives abroad to look for new nursing staff (including, incidentally, to Romania where, some would have us believe, the entire population is desperate to come to the UK) but even after this it was unable to recruit enough qualified staff to maintain the required levels for patient safety. Consequently, the decision was made to close one of the community hospitals, with existing staff having to be relocated to different sites (some simply resigned, exacerbating the problem of low staffing levels) and patients also had to be moved further away from their home area, making family visits more difficult. As a result of the closure of this community hospital there are now less community beds available than previously in the county in which I live and work.
The government claims to hav 'ring-fenced' NHS spending, but by freezing pay for NHS staff year on year* during a time of rising costs of living, a situation has been created in which there are now serious difficulties in the recruitment and retention of staff.
From my own experience working in the NHS I know that another consequence of the difficulty in maintaining staffing levels is that clinical staff often end up having to cancel previously scheduled training in order to stay and help out on wards, particularly when one or more colleagues may be off sick (and of course, sickness levels inevitably increase when staff are under additional stress due to having to work in an inadequately staffed environment); and staff being behind on training is another factor which contributed to hospitals being considered unsafe in the recent CQC report.
Those 'conspiracy theorists' who see a pattern developing in which the government appears to be deliberately making life difficult for the health service, and allowing its reputation with the public to be damaged, in order to make the process of privatisation (which is already underway in one sense**) easier, would certainly not be dissuaded of their view by this situation of wards and hospitals having to close as a result of Trusts' inability to recruit and retain staff, nor by the recent press coverage regarding the high proportion of 'unsafe' hospitals.

*The only reason that nurses and other NHS staff managed to get a 1% pay rise last year was by resorting to strike action - something that is very unlikely to be possible in the future if the government brings in their proposed new anti-trade union legislation.

**40% of new NHS contracts currently go to private healthcare companies.

Why progressive taxation is better than 'People's Quantitative Easing'

Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell and their economic guru Richard Murphy have spoken frequently of their plan to use quantitative easing (increasing the supply of money in the economy) to help fund projects such as housing construction, green energy production, digital infrastructure etc, as a way of creating jobs, getting the economy moving and solving some of the social and environmental problems that we currently face.
While I agree that these are laudible aims, I am not sure that quantitative easing (QE) is the best way for a future Labour government to go about raising revenue.  My reason for this is as follows:
Any increase in the supply of money inevitably decreases the value of money that people already hold, and this affects everyone in equal proportion, eg. a 2% increase in the supply of money means that, all things being equal, the value of all previously existing money decreases by exactly 2%.  In other words, QE operates as if it were a flat tax on everyone, including the low paid and those on benefits.  And since those with low incomes spend a higher proportion of their earnings on essential goods, they are more detrimentally affected by a decrease in the value of their money than those who have more of the stuff. QE, therefore, like VAT, is effectively a form of regressive taxation.
There is an argument, which may well be correct, that as long as there is excess capacity in the economy then increasing the money supply to fund investment should not cause inflation - the increase in available goods and services should counteract it (because the more products that are vying to be bought by those that have money, the greater the demand for money, thus increasing the value of money relative to those products).  However, even if this is the case, it means that, to the extent that the increase in goods and services were to be funded by some other method  - one which did not impact on the low paid - those at the lower end of the economic scale would benefit from an increase in purchasing power, which QE denies them.
For these reasons, I think that a better way to fund necessary and beneficial infrastructure projects would be to use some form of progressive taxation - rather than QE which, as explained above, is effectively a flat tax - so that the real cost of investment is distributed in a way that does not impact disproportionately on the low paid.

The Fiscal Charter: Damned if you support, damned if you oppose

I think John McDonnell and the Labour leadership were right to oppose George Osborne's Fiscal Charter yesterday. It is not the job of the current government to try to impose it's will on future governments. It is for future electorates to decide what kind of government they wish to install in 2020 and beyond, and to decide what type of economic policies to oppose or support.
The Fiscal Charter is clearly nothing more than a publicity stunt designed to either undermine Labour's credibility as an anti-austerity party (had they supported it) or to make them appear economically irresponsible in the eyes of the general public in the event that - as was the case - they opposed it.
Perhaps the best approach would have been a mass abstention on the part of the parliamentary Labour party. This would have avoided disunity in the party ranks while treating the Fiscal Charter with the contempt it deserves.