Brexit and my MP - Part 5

Probably a vain hope but here is my latest to the Rt Hon Anne Milton MP:-

Dear Anne

On Wednesday you will have the opportunity to do something courageous. On 23 June 2016 in the advisory referendum on whether the UK should remain in the European Union you voted "Remain" as did the majority of those of your constituents who voted. Nothing I have seen or heard from you since indicates to me that you have changed your view on the fundamentals of the issue. However, it appears that you believe that the wishes of a minority of the electorate (37%) mandates you to support the triggering of Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty. May I remind you that Members of Parliament "have a general duty to act in the interests of the nation as a whole; and a special duty to their constituents."? Please examine your conscience and vote against facilitating the triggering of Article 50.

Yours sincerely

Brexit and my MP - Part 4

Here is the latest from my MP:

Dear Richard

I am writing to update everyone who has contacted me in recent months about the UK's plans for leaving the EU. As you will be aware, the Prime Minister set out her objectives for exiting the EU on Tuesday 17 January. You can read a full transcript of her speech via the following link: http://tinyurl.com/gkqkzwj

You may also be interested to read the debate that took place on 17 January on "New Partnership with the EU", accessible via the following link: http://tinyurl.com/hjmc8kl .

I would like to thank everyone for sharing their views with me. While I have received many supportive and positive comments, I am very aware that some people remain anxious about the impact of leaving the EU. There is no doubt that the political climate in Europe is under immense change and I understand that people want to receive further information about the UK's plans. I do hope that the Prime Minister's speech provided some clarity. However I know that for science and technology businesses, universities and also those businesses in and outside the public sector that rely on workers from abroad, our exit from the EU remains of particular concern.

The important thing is that the Government will put the final deal that is agreed between the UK and EU to a vote in both Houses of Parliament.

The issue of the single market has been raised by a number of people and I do think it is important to emphasise that the UK will be working to establish access to the single market. You may be interested to know that The Rt Hon David Davies MP made reference to this in the debate on 17 January, stating:

"Pretty much every country in the world that is not subject to sanctions has access to the single market. We will have access to the single market. The question is about the terms. My job [.] is to persuade our opposite numbers in Europe that it is also in their interests that we all have equal access to each other's markets, and that is what I intend to do."

In addition, I am pleased to see that the fields of science, research and technology are one of the main objectives of the Government and that there has been a clear pledge for continued collaboration with our European partners. The Prime Minister also stated that we want to guarantee the rights for EU nationals in Britain and British nationals in the EU as early as we can, which I know is an area of importance for many local people. I am proud of the diversity and innovation in our area and I will work hard to see this protected.

As always, thank you for taking the time to contact me.

My best wishes,

Anne

===========================================================

And my response:

Dear Anne

Thank you for your round-robin email of 20 January 2017. One phrase particularly stood out for me: “.....I am very aware that some people remain anxious about the impact of leaving the EU”. You have previously written that it is important to you to understand the thoughts and feelings of your constituents. You need to know, therefore, that the overwhelming emotion that I feel is not anxiety, it is anger.

Inter alia,

• ·         I am angry that the previous Prime Minister bet the country to resolve an internal party dispute;
• ·         I am angry that the advisory referendum was so poorly constructed;
• ·         I am angry at the lies and deceit perpetrated on both sides of the debate but particularly by the “Leave” campaign;
• ·         I am angry at the pathetic nature of the “Remain” campaign;
• ·         I am angry that the word “advisory” has been ignored;
• ·         I am angry that the votes of a minority of the electorate (37%) should be regarded as a mandate from “the people” to trigger Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty;
• ·         I am angry that my ex-pat friends resident in other EU member state had no opportunity to vote on an issue that may be of enormous significance to their lives;
• ·         I am angry that so many of our parliamentary representative who on 23 June clearly believed that the UK’s remaining a member of the EU was in its best interests should now support a position that will deliver something that cannot be better than second best and may well be much worse;
• ·         I am angry that the current Prime Minister had the gall to think that the sovereignty of Parliament could be ignored in triggering Article 50;
• ·         I am angry at the potential loss of opportunity to work and live in other EU countries that will be suffered by my children and their children;
• ·         I am angry at the apparent ineptitude of this country’s “top team”:
• o   Mrs May who gave away a key bargaining position in a casual comment during a Sunday television interview;
• o   Mr Fox who didn’t understand that the UK is barred from negotiating or signing a trade deal while a member of the EU;
• o   Mr Davis who for months appeared to be suffering the same delusion and seemed to have little concept of the enormity of the task he has taken on;
• o   Mr Johnson who wants “to have his cake and eat it”;
• ·         I am angry at the rising tide of open xenophobia;
• ·         I am angry at the idiot who told my father’s Hungarian carer that she was not welcome, causing her to burst into tears;
• ·         I am angry that nobody appears to be fighting my corner, nor that of the other 16.1M people who voted “Remain”

Thank you for your attention. In the meantime I look forward to your responses to my emails of 8^th and 17^th January 2017.

Yours sincerely 

Brexit and my MP - Part 3

This has just been sent:

Dear Anne

Further to my email of January 8th I note the following from the Conservative Party Manifesto 2015:

"We will safeguard British interests in the Single Market"

"We say Yes to the Single Market"

"We want an EU that helps Britain move ahead"

"We want to expand the Single Market"

I would be grateful for your cogent and coherent arguments as to how the above may be squared with the Prime Minister's Lancaster House speech of today.

Yours sincerely

Brexit and my MP - Part 2

Please refer to my post of 28 December 2016.

My response to Anne Milton follows:

Dear Anne,

Thank you for, once again, responding quickly to a communication from me; in this case my email of December 2016. However, sadly, I find the contents of your response distinctly disappointing and below I note particular instances of that disappointment. No doubt you will have heard these arguments before but, as you yourself point out, it is important that you hear your constituents’ views.

<<..... I do feel that to ignore the results of the referendum would be damaging to our democracy ...>>.

Given that Brexit will be a nigh-on irreversible action isn’t it damaging to our democracy that the whim of 17M voters should determine the fate of all 65M of the population? In particular, is not potentially removing all rights currently enjoyed by those 65M through their European citizenship damaging to our democracy?

<<..... committed ..... to respect the outcome of the referendum>>.

The outcome of the referendum was that 37% of the electorate voted “Leave”. 63% did not. This 63% splits into almost 35% who actively voted “Remain” and 28% who did not vote. It is reasonable to conclude that the majority of the latter cohort were content with the status quo ante. The margin of “Leave” votes over “Remain”, at less than 3% of the registered electorate, was a narrow one which, even at that time, could be described as equivocal and as subsequent analysis has show potentially would not be the outcome if the referendum were rerun today. Surely it would be “respecting” the result of the referendum to understand and act to alleviate the varied genuine issues and grievances, many having little or nothing to do with the UK’s EU membership, that motivated many of the “Leave” voters. As I intimate above, invoking Article 50 “respects” the on-the-day views of just 37% of the electorate.

<<I will make sure that the interests of my constituents are raised at every possible opportunity>>.

On what appears to be your reading of the referendum vote, i.e. that only the difference between “Leave” and “Remain” votes counts, then the interests of your constituents should be met by the UK remaining within the EU (the vote in your constituency being approximately 56% “Remain”, 44% “Leave”). I note that the second part of Article 6 of the MPs’ Code of Conduct states that an MP “has a special duty to their constituents”. I have great difficulty in understanding how your vote for invoking Article 50 complies with that duty.

<< ..... invoking Article 50 by 31 March 2017>>.

I have yet to read a sensible rationale for this deadline. As anyone with a modicum of understanding of game theory will know

(a)   giving away gratis details of your position tends to strengthen that of the opposite party, something that has already become abundantly clear in this case; and

(b)   very often delaying tactics are the key to obtaining the optimal outcome to a negotiation.

On the assumption that all arguments for putting a halt to the Brexit process fail I suggest that the multifaceted and complicated negotiations that will be required make delay a particularly important avenue to pursue. To take one instance, the next EU parliamentary elections will take place in mid-2019. Why trigger Article 50 early when by delaying the UK can ensure that it is still an EU member when these elections take place and EU budgets are decided by the Commission, and thus still have considerable negotiating power? This March 2017 date smacks of domestic politics with an eye to the national parliamentary elections in 2020. If this is the reasoning then it is hardly acting in the best interests of the UK.

<<I hope that this response has......answered the questions you have raised>>.

As you did not specifically answer each question I raised I set out below my interpretation of your letter. I would be obliged if you would correct any misunderstanding on my part:

> Do you still believe that remaining in the EU is in the best interests of the UK? From the contents of your letter I surmise that, should the referendum be rerun, you would once again vote “Remain”.

> If not, what fundamental changes have taken place in order for you to alter your opinion? You appear to believe that the on-the-day will of just some 26% of the population trumps the best interests of the UK and you are willing, therefore, to support a process that cannot deliver anything more than second best and may well deliver something very much worse.

> If you do still believe that the best interests of the UK are to remain in the EU will you vote against invoking Article 50 (should you have the opportunity)? No.

> Will you vote against revocation of the European Communities Act 1972? No.

Yours sincerely

Richard Bawden

I rather doubt that this will do any good apart from making me feel slightly better. Hey ho.

Time-of-use Energy Tariff

The FT yesterday carried the following headline: "Households offered first time-of-use energy tariff. Growth of digital smart meters opens up new ways of managing usage". (Note: You may find this article hidden behind a pay wall. Sorry, I can't do much about that).

The first part of this headline is patently untrue as anyone who has used a white meter, or Economy 7, service knows (and which the FT article does belatedly refer to). The new tariff offered by Green Energy UK, however, goes beyond the old white meter scheme in that it has three differently charged time periods:

11pm to 6am charged at 4.99p/kWh;
4pm to 7pm weeknights at 24.99p/kWh; and
all other times at 11.99p/kWh.

This is where the second half of the headline does have some traction. This three part tariff is enabled through a smart meter (better than having an array of black meter, white meter, pink meter - or whatever) and it does suggest that there will be more sophisticated tariffs to come in the future - perhaps even something approaching truly real-time pricing. When this happens will be dependent upon the speed of roll-out of smart meters (and some uniformity in their operation). Roll-out has been painfully slow to date with fewer than 5m being reported as installed and operating in DECC's 2016 Q3 progress report. Furthermore there continue to be problems with compatibility between different supplier/meter combinations. It's a case of "watch this space".