If you still think the BBC should be funded through a state-imposed licence fee which is used to justify the harassment of innocent people, see this
excruciating extract from an interview between a BBC journalist and Elon Musk:

https://twitter.com/i/status/1646337266145705984

Contrast this with the BBC write-up of the same interview:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-65248196

So in summary:

The BBC interviewer lies, gets caught out, can't even comprehend that not
everyone buys into the BBC's narrative, then the BBC write a completely
misrepresentative piece which:

• Completely misses out the parts of this part of the interview because it makes them look stupid
• Adds a bunch of editorial notes to imply that the totally accurate "government-funded media" label is some sort of "issue" which needs correction

I thought the BBC were meant to be proud of "the unique way the BBC is funded".

Surely they have nothing to hide?

This is how to undermine public trust in science.

We've all seen the just how hard the government and mainstream media are pushing the idea that 2 jabs are ineffective against this devastating Omicron variant and boosters will save the day. But what if I told you that they're out on a limb with that particular assertion, and it's there to see for anyone who bothers to read the science they cite?

And before you get the anti-anti-vaxxer pitchforks, let me explain why this annoys me:

• It's wrong to mislead the public
• It's worse to do it by suggesting "the science" or "the data" supports your position when it does not (even if both turn out to be separately correct)
• It undermines the other - good - arguments, and renders them vulnerable to attack by association

As for what I actually think is inconsistent between the government & media's account vs the science, the short version is:

• There isn't enough data to say anything with certainty, but the data which supports the chosen narrative has been cherry picked
• Other data points which were not cherry picked would suggest that
  • The AZ vaccine makes you more vulnerable to Omicron than no vaccine at all
  • You are better off not having the booster if you've had Pfizer recently
• I don't think the above points can be supported at this stage either; my point is to highlight that they're no less legitimate so maybe we shouldn't jump either way
• What data there is seems to suggest that how long protection lasts is a lot more significant than differences between variants

Now, I can sense the eye rolling from here - why am I writing a long post about the minutiae of exactly how far a couple of points in a single technical brief have been stretched? But the principles being broken here are important. This might not be the time it causes a practical problem, but eventually this sort of shenanigans will land us in a mess.

We are working up to a huge decision point for our society on what we collectively accept as the right way to balance individual liberty and the wellbeing of the many. Trust between different sides on polarising issues is already low and we can't afford to let a series of small but important half-truths mean that we've lost that debate before we have even started it.

If you want to know how I came to these conclusions, read on.

The claims

The headlines are full of claims that "two jabs bad, three jabs good":

front pages.

They all cite the same UKHSA technical briefing^[1], and if you take the time to actually read it...then wonder why they got a distracted intern to work out how to present the data...then power through to understand what it actually says, it paints a somewhat different picture.

What the technical briefing actually says

The critical information is figure 7 and the accompanying text (p20-22). Here's a few interesting observations about what you might think if you took this data at face value:

1. There are only two like-for-like comparisons possible: 2-9 weeks after your 2^nd jab vs 3^rd jab for AZ and Pfizer respectively, and they are completely inconsistent.

2. Your best protection from omicron is having had 2 Pfizer shots <10 weeks ago. I.e. if you wanted to jump to a conclusion from that one data point (please don't) then if you'd just had your second Pfizer, you should NOT take the booster (yet).

3. If you have had 2 AZ shots more recently than 25 weeks ago then you are significantly more at risk from omicron than if you hadn't had the vaccine.

4. For any given scenario, protection against omicron is less than against previous variants.

5. The protection against previous variants, and also against omicron for the all-Pfizer case decreases similarly over time.

4 & 5 are unsurprising, but 1-3 should be all over the news shouldn't they?

Q: Why aren't we seeing headlines like these?

After your booster you're less protected against Omicron than after your 2nd jab

Recent AZ jabbees made more vulnerable to Omicron

A: Because it doesn't fit the pre-determined narrative.

(reminder to put the pitchfork down)

I don't want to see those headlines either. The elephant in the room is that there just isn't sufficient data to be confident about anything. It really is based on very small samples (581 Omicron vs 56,439 Delta) Now, I don't mind having inconclusive data; it's still better than nothing. The problem is you can't just dismiss these worrying-if-true aspects then cherry pick something like "76% effective against Omicron" from the same flawed analysis.

This is mainly a problem of how the report is being used, rather than problems with the report itself. There are a few crimes of omission (like pointing out there are only 2 like-for-like 2 doses vs 3 doses data points), and the presentation is truly dreadful (that x-axis should make any self-respecting statistician want to grab their pitchfork). However, the report itself is reasonably transparent about the uncertainties and pitfalls of leaping to conclusions.

There's another key observation on p21/22:

With previous variants, vaccine effectiveness against severe disease, including hospitalisation and death, has been significantly higher than effectiveness against mild disease...It will be a few weeks before effectiveness against severe disease with Omicron can be estimated, however based on this experience, this is likely to be substantially higher...After the emergence of Delta in the UK, early estimates of vaccine effectiveness against mild infection after 2 doses of vaccine were substantially attenuated in comparison to alpha. Analysis of protection against hospitalisation however, showed no diminution of protection when comparing the 2 variants.

In other words, there is some precedent to believe there might be little or no difference in protection between 2 and 3 jabs in terms of protection against serious illness.

That's a pretty big omission for those making claims based on this report; and in my view a negligent one.

Is there a better way?

Yes. And it's simple. The reporting about the significance of this briefing really should have been something more like:

The dataset is so small we know the picture isn't reliable. There are some unusual results around those who have previously had the AZ vaccine, but there is also a consistent indication that while Omicron seems more resistant to the vaccines, that a reasonable level of protection can be achieved by having at least one Pfizer dose. We can't rely on any of these early observations, but will have a clearer picture in the next few weeks when there is more data, in particular around the impact on serious illness.

But that does panic the public or sell papers does it?

Consequences

Right now everyone's overly-focused on a particular variant and a particular booster. Soon it will be the next variant or next booster. There will be much talk of transmission and decreased protection against symptomatic disease, and little talk of protection against serious illness remaining high.

The longer we do this "one more variant; one more jab" dance, the longer we're avoiding the real question:

Do you want to have to take boosters twice a year indefinitely?

I can hear the cries now - why does it matter? We "know" more vaccine is the right answer, don't we? Well, the more you believe you're right, the less scared you should be of letting everyone see the full picture. And if you do want to persuade people that indefinite boosters are the way to go, you certainly won't do it with lies - even ones about data that won't ultimately matter.

It seems clear enough to me that getting 2 jabs into as many people as possible has had a dramatic positive impact on everyone's health. It also seems clear that for most people, getting an up to date jab is an effective way to increase their protection against Covid of all variants.

The problem is that being right overall won't help if you're caught in a lie. What if it turns out AZ actually does make people more vulnerable to Omicron? The anti-vaxxers would have a field day. It would undermine trust in perfectly sound arguments. The vaccine pushers could find themselves stood in front of a bus saying "AZ will save 350 million people from Omicron".

Today brought scenes of illegal, crowded and occasionally aggressive protest in the UK. At a time when the entire country is being asked to act selflessly and put liberty on pause for the greater good; at a time when many are saying that one man's failure to follow the rules could bring the whole fragile arrangement crashing down; at a time where, for reasons yet unknown, people of certain races are statistically more at risk than others; many flocked in their droves to stand shoulder to Covid shoulder and shout (sometimes from uncovered mouth directly at police just in front of them) their protests.

I can understand why people in the US are protesting, and I can understand why they are protesting now. Some of the police response in the US only goes to prove how they have little other choice, and how could they stand by in the face of such very immediate, very violent events?

But the situation over here in the UK is not the same. I don't mean for a second that we don't have to address issues of racism in this country, but where were these protests six months ago, twelve months ago? What has changed? Or do the protesters really think that protesting over here will make the slightest difference in the US? It won't.

If the protesters are aiming at institutional racism, then their timing is deeply misguided. More BAME people will die as a result of these protests than could ever be saved by the impact they're likely to have. I don't mean we can't change things, but the difference made while the Covid risk is so high is surely minuscule. This is not something that can be solved overnight, and I worry that if all these people being so vocal about BLM in the UK right now can't wait 6 months to have this fight, what is the chance they will have the stamina to still be fighting it in 6 months having started now? Unless we're in it for the long haul, it will achieve little.

But waiting isn't even necessary. There are many more forms of protest than taking to the streets. Many are staying inside and taking other approaches, and that seems like a more appropriate approach.

Racism is a great evil, and hopefully one day it will a part of history that needs to be explained to baffled students. When it is, I very much doubt that they will learn that the turning point was when brave protesters widely shared a deadly virus.

From: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-46803112

MPs backed an amendment to the Finance Bill, which would limit the scope for tax changes following a no deal unless authorised by MPs, by 303 to 296 votes.

Not quite the full story. The amendment actually allows for 3 ways for such tax changes to be possible:

1. Agree a negotiated withdrawal agreement
2. Notify the President of the European Council of a request for extension under Article 50(3)
3. Leave with no deal but agree a framework for a future relationship

Focusing on 2: I would love to see Mrs May send a quick email on the 28th March asking for a one day extension. Neither the amendment nor Article 50 say anything about notice, length of extension or it having to be granted. I suspect the country might have a collective sense of humour failure though.

It wasn't clear what people were voting for

"you will hold this country’s destiny in your hands. This is a huge decision
for our country, perhaps the biggest we will make in our lifetimes. And it will
be the final decision... An in or out referendum...if we vote to leave, then we
will leave." [1]

"Leave the European Union." [2]

...so we should have another vote...

"When the British people speak, their voice will be respected – not ignored...There will not be another renegotiation and another referendum...Think very carefully, because this choice cannot be undone." [1]

"A once in a generation decision" [3]

...but leave's spending unfairly influenced the electorate...

The government spent £9.3mn of tax payer's money (not contributions to the remain campaign) on a leaflet to every household in the country. [4]

The remain side spent more. £5mn more [5]. Or £14mn more once you include the leaflet. Over double what leave spent.

And remain still lost.

References

• [1] David Cameron's pre-referendum Chatham House speech 10/11/2015 - https://www.chathamhouse.org/sites/default/files/events/special/20151110DavidCameron (NEW).pdf
• [2] The ballot paper
• [3] Remain government leaflet - https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/515068/why-the-government-believes-that-voting-to-remain-in-the-european-union-is-the-best-decision-for-the-uk.pdf
• [4] https://fullfact.org/europe/whos-getting-taxpayers-money-eu-referendum/
• [5] https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/find-information-by-subject/political-parties-campaigning-and-donations/campaign-spending-and-donations-at-referendums/campaign-spending-at-the-eu-referendum

Since some of you have asked...these are my main reasons.

Labour's Manifesto

Let's get one thing out of the way. Labour's manifesto is not - despite their repeated claims - "fully costed". Far from it. It outlines a huge program of nationalisation, including energy infrastructure. Where is the cost of that? All we get is a headline figure (£250 billion). It would be no small achievement even to guess at how much it would take to nationalise the National Grid. The National Grid has a Net Asset Value of over £20 billion (2017 accounts) and that's before you consider the cost of administration to actually take it into public ownership. I don't actually think it's reasonable to expect a manifesto to be "fully" costed, but claiming it is when it's not is simply a lie (isn't that behaviour meant to be Tory-owned?).

We all want things to be better

Despite the personal attacks, the vast majority of people don't want anyone suffering in poverty or poor health, we just have very different views on who should take responsibility, what gets priority and who should pay. You make a big mistake by ascribing these views to malice and miss any opportunity to alter these views (would you listen to someone who disregarded your true motives and simply called you evil or reptilian?).

Labour want to help people (like me) who don't need it

When Labour push policies that would benefit the minority of people who go to university, or save well-off parents the expense of school meals (paid for by parents who have to pay for school places they don't use), it doesn't exactly say "wise and fair" to me.

Corbyn's lack of leadership

The inability of Corbyn and his close colleagues to lead a vaguely united Labour party since he took his post must be a cause for concern. It doesn't matter how well intentioned they might be; even amazing ideas won't help if you can't deliver them and to do that you have to take people with you. It's all the more worrying with important negotiations looming. Corbyn has been a career-long fervent supporter of unilateral disarmament and has voted against the UK remaining in the European Community in 1975, against the Maastricht treaty and against the Lisbon treaty. And yet he failed to take his party with him on these two significant points of principle and Labour's official policy has been to remain in the EU and secure the future of Trident. That makes him a rather compromised idealist in my view.

His performance over the last couple of weeks has improved dramatically; a change emphasised by May's abysmal campaign performance, but to be honest an election campaign isn't an environment I expected either of them to excel at and ultimately isn't what matters. What matters is what I think they'll really do in office, and I just don't believe Labour's plans are realistic, and I don't believe their leadership can deliver.

Leadership particularly matters in this election as we are about to negotiate Brexit. Added to this is the apparent desire to show the EU all our cards before we even get to the table. Nobody is suggesting we make EU nationals leave, but promising this up-front to the EU without a reciprocal arrangement makes absolutely no negotiating sense. Why not use it for leverage? If the EU are so reasonable, surely a simple reciprocal arrangement on current UK and EU nationals living abroad should be trivial to agree? If not then all the more reason to keep our cards close to our chest. Why tell the EU that no matter what they do we'll take the deal? Enough of the mis-characterisation that "no deal is a good deal". The point is simply to say "there are deals that aren't good enough, there are deals that are, we are prepared to walk away if we have to, so let's sit down and work out something better in our mutual interest". Without the credible threat of walking away there is no negotiation; the EU can simply dictate what they want. They have a lot to lose. We are the 3rd biggest net contributor. They've indicated how much they'd be hurting; to the tune of €100 billion.

May's far from perfect

There's plenty I'm not happy about with May's Conservatives. Her expressed views on the internet and encryption fly in the face of logic. Her suggestions with respect to human rights law were ill-expressed at best. Why on earth - even if she thinks fox hunting is the best thing ever - she would prioritise lifting the hunting ban is beyond me. Which individual votes switch to Tory for that? Net votes even less so.

For a moment I thought she'd made a truly smart move with a policy to stop enabling people to keep hundreds of thousands of pounds worth of house for their children at the expense of the tax payer and instead allow them to pay for their own care, without having to give up anything while they're still alive. Essentially this was taking from the same people that Labour want to take from and giving back to the same people Labour want to give to, but in very fair way and at a time when the people it's most likely to annoy are least likely to vote any other way than Tory. She could have capitalised on opposition hypocrisy. It was a big mistake to backtrack.

The Facebook echo chamber

I've found a lot of the memes (at least I think that's what they are; I slept through that part of my millennial exam) and anti-Tory sarcasm on Facebook pretty disrespectful of the electorate, presuming of course that we don't face a Labour landslide. I appreciate that a lot of this is simply humour and that can be a good way to handle grief and that's fine, but there's a potentially dangerous message if taken too seriously that the Tories are some sort of evil overlords who can't be reasoned with and have an unfair advantage. Are the suggestions that Tories should "remember to vote on Friday" (and I've seen several of these) saying that we must subvert democracy as the only way Labour can win is if they start cheating?

What the best result looks like to me

While I'd like to see a strong Tory lead for the sake of Brexit, a narrow majority and strong opposition would be preferable on pretty much all other grounds. The recent improvement in Labour's campaign is therefore welcome and long may they continue to up their game.

How to vote

Whichever way you vote, be sure you'd defend it if you got what you asked for. No party is perfect, so if you could fast forward and see that they did all the things they might that you disagree with or they failed to deliver what you were concerned they might, would you still consider your decision the right one on balance given the information you had now? It's all relative. You may be uncomfortable with all choices and feel like you're choosing the least bad option. Consider that motivation to try to improve the party you end up choosing, or get involved in politics, or mitigate the downsides somehow. In whatever way makes sense to you take responsibility for your choice (and not voting is a choice, so take responsibility for that too).

And if you vote tactically, don't complain that you're not being listened to when you're not saying what you actually want.

A sense of perspective

Whichever side of the political fence you're on and whatever result you wake up to on Friday morning remember we have it pretty good in the UK by world standards and no result will take away all the opportunities to make things better.

To those crying foul at the PM's announcement today... you're only hurting yourselves.

Theresa May clearly thinks that Parliament will be prepared tomorrow to overwhelmingly (2/3 or more) support an early general election, when not too long ago they agreed that this should only happen by exception, and with both Labour and Lib Dems welcoming the proposal (despite all Lib Dem MPs present voting in favour of the Fixed-term Parliament Bill), she's almost certainly right.

She also clearly thinks that at this time; after prolific Brexit-bashing; after ample opportunity for opponents to highlight parts of the leave campaign they believe may have duped the electorate; after the government has laid out its high level plan, which these opponents say represents a clearly very hard Brexit; after all that she clearly thinks the electorate will not only re-elect the conservatives, but will do so with a greater majority than before.

If she is right, and the election confirms increased support for conservative policy then it may be a good time for the self-righteous outraged left to start listening.

The more you complain, the worse you say the Tories are, and the more you sling emotive pejoratives around; the more implausible it becomes that if it were that simple there would be no effective opposition. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Perhaps it's time to look deep enough to see what you're missing.

Call it populism if you like, but if you don't listen to the other side without snark and with a genuine attempt to comprehend then you are turning your back on an increasing majority of opinion.

For the record, I think she's taking a risk and I don't share her confidence of a decisive win. Opposition to the Tories could well unify behind a common goal precisely because there's no single party effective opposition. Uncertainty and fear could play a big factor in the electorate's decision, and the campaigns could well be messy.

It will be an interesting few weeks. Debate and listen. I challenge you to earnestly seek arguments for the other side.

It is now understood that Khalid Masood had access to paper and may have passed a postbox just before committing his attack. He had access to Royal Mail's service and although there's no way to know whether he posted anything, the police can't act because Royal Mail don't insist on the use of transparent envelopes and photocopy every letter. Clearly they need to take more responsibility for public safety and desist from providing a safe haven for terrorist communication.

Of course warrants can be obtained where there is a legitimate threat, but as Masood was in no way considered a risk by the authorities, surely it would be better if royal mail were more proactive in keeping copies of every unencrypted (can we agree plain English) letter just in case the police need it later? It's their civic duty.

And you needn't worry about UPS, Hermes, Yodel, TNT, ... we'll get to those.

We do however trust those prepared to commit fatal atrocities for which they ultimately cannot be held accountable (due to their own death) to use bona fide UK-based third party services and not employ foreign or illegal services, or make their own private communication arrangements. That is surely a line even they wouldn't cross.

On a similar note there will be no impact on legitimate businesses or private individuals. We are confident that foreign businesses with whom UK companies do business will not be concerned with security, at least since we promise not to look at any of the juicy details without a warrant and neither we nor Royal Mail have ever lost anything.

Of course we would all like to avoid legislation so if we could just persuade everyone to use cellophane envelopes and write in English, that would be just great.

Obviously I'm pleased that the voting population decided to vote to leave the EU.

Now it falls to all of us to ensure that we make it work. We owe it to the other 48% of the electorate to address their concerns.

The politicians need to outline our next steps, and they need to strike a balance between calming fears, settling markets and working towards the transition.

Leave voters need to stay engaged, and consider themselves accountable for the momentous change we've instigated. We need to fight for as many of the opportunities offered by leaving the EU to become reality. We will need to hold our own government more accountable now. We need to listen to what the other side says as the transition unfolds.

And everyone owes it to themselves and each other to collaborate as best we can for as smooth a transition as possible, as positive an end position with respect to the EU, and most importantly do much better at getting the most out of our government.

We've won our democracy; now we need to make it work.

First, what was my starting point?

If you're considering reading this, it might help you put it into context if you know what my starting point was.

When the referendum was announced the only things I was sure about were that

• This is a big deal
• I didn't know enough to vote with any certainty

I decided early on that while specific campaigning points were undoubtedly something I needed to consider, they would not provide that much enlightenment. To make up my mind I would have to do my own research into our relationship with the EU, the facts in relation to the key areas that might be affected, and do some hard thinking.

There have been plenty of people calling for "the facts" and there's no excuse for misinformation and lies (nor for taking them on face value). But let's not forget that the facts only allow you to apply logic, judgement and your own ideology to come to a conclusion.

If extensive, reasoned and rational debate prevailed, we should be able to agree on the facts and the logic. We should be able to respect and recognise different judgements and appeal to rationality and empirical evidence to support or refute them.

If it comes down to differences in ideology then we've done well to agree on the rest and should be happy that the majority vote will reflect the prevailing ideologies and democracy has worked.

Summary / spoilers

Since this is rather long I thought it was only fair to give an indication of where this is going.

• The UK population has less influence over EU policy than UK policy
• Key powers of the European Parliament are blunt instruments: either ineffective or extreme
• It would be a mistake to take preferable rules now for a lot less influence on an ongoing basis
• The EU does not work effectively to the benefit of its members in most need
• The EU is hindering UK trade with Africa; making it harder to trade its way out of poverty
• Every single penny of EU funding coming to the UK was paid for by the UK tax payer
• Our rebate is not protected after 2020
• The right to control immigration is a practical necessity, and we can still allow as much immigration as we like
• EU and non-EU immigration are roughly the same, so immigration figures are not likely to leap down
• The EU is failing and unsustainable if the only answer to a member in difficulty is for its population to leave their homes and seek work elsewhere
• The UK trades successfully with countries where there is no trade agreement
• The UK has a larger trade surplus in services to the US - where there is no trade agreement - than with the EU

Democracy

Far more important than current policy is the way future policy is set, and the best way the world has come up with to do that is through democracy of one form or another. A working democracy means majority opinion prevails, even if that view is to my mind and yours wrong. That can be a difficult pill to swallow, and it's easy to assume to democracy isn't working when you see policies prevail that you deeply oppose. In a functioning democracy you can change those policies if and only if you can sway majority opinion.

We live in a (largely) functional democracy that represents (imperfectly) the views of the UK voting population. It's a representative democracy, first past the post is problematic, constituencies don't exactly cut up the country entirely fairly. However these are all practical concessions and overall it could be a lot worse. Until we have close to 100% voter turnout and people still complaining about a lack of change I think our efforts would be better spent productively engaging with opposing views and trying to influence where we can.

Whatever you think of the EU with respect to democracy, there is no doubt it decreases the influence of the UK voting population on the laws that govern the UK. That's actually the point. The EU is supposed to define rules for the EU based on what the population of the EU think. That doesn't make it less democratic, it just expands the scope of the democracy in which we participate from the UK to the EU. That opens up questions about what you think is ideologically and pragmatically the right boundary for governance. In other words, how nationalist are you? More on that later.

All that said, in my view democracy in EU governance is weaker than that in the UK. The additional layers alone support this.

In the UK:

• We vote for representatives who argue among themselves to agree on our laws.

In the EU:

• The voting public elect their head of state, who sits on the European Council
• The voting public also elect MEPs to represent them in the European Parliament
• The European Council (by majority vote) propose a candidate for President of the European Commission
  which the European Parliament accept or reject (at which point the European Council try again)
• The (other) heads of state propose a Commissioner each (in consultation with the president although he can't technically force their choice)
• The President of the European Commission alone assigns their portfolio
• The members of the European Commission argues among themselves to initiate laws
• The European Parliament can accept or reject these laws

Now I know this is an overly simplistic representation and I've taken some liberties (you really should look up the structure of UK and EU law making machines; I really can't begin to do it justice - budum-tish), but the point is we must lose some level of representation in this process.

There is a big difference in the power to initiate legislation and the power to vote on it. The commission is the only body that can initiate legislation. Consultation gives parliament the opportunity to influence, but it's somewhere between lip-service and the power of a strongly worded letter in terms of contributing to legislation. It leaves them with only a very blunt instrument on legislation - "yes" or "no". It might sound OK that ultimately they can vote legislation down, but you can imagine there's a pretty significant fear of throwing the baby out with the bathwater and pressure to compromise. How bad does it have to be before it's worth actually blocking? Cumulatively, that could let a lot of bad slip through.

It's not just theoretical; there's a clear example of how ineffective blunt instruments of power can be. The Santer commission (95-99) had serious problems with corruption (worth looking this up). Edith Cresson, the French commissioner was called upon to resign but refused. The solution? The parliament can dismiss the entire commission if it has a two thirds majority. Once it became clear it had this majority, the whole commission resigned to somewhat save face. Not what I'd consider a well oiled democracy - because all they had was an extreme option. Compare this with the UK expense scandal (with which there is some resonance), and despite many more MPs being involved it was handled without the dissolution of parliament. The problem is that the European Parliament does not have a range of effective sanctions in its toolkit; more like a quill pen and a nuclear warhead.

Overall I think it's clear to everybody that both the UK and the EU are on the democratic spectrum, and for me it's clear that the UK is to some meaningful extent "more democratic".

Trust in government

I can see why people are frustrated at our government (past, present, likely future). What might not be obvious is the less you feel represented by them the more it makes sense to leave.

If you do trust the UK government to represent us and make the right choices on our behalf, then we don't need the EU to impose the right choices. This isn't in itself a reason to leave, but it's no particular reason to stay.

If the UK government don't do a good job of representing our views nationally, then they certainly won't represent our views well to the EU, and influence the EU in turn to represent them. It takes skill and willing to wield effective influence at a distance, and it's much harder for the voting public to see and understand what's going on.

Where there is tension between the UK government and EU stance, some (many it seems) will prefer the EU stance. There's nothing wrong with that, but it isn't an argument to remain.

If you prefer the EU view to the UK view on a particular issue, it follows that either you hold a minority view in the UK or the government is failing to represent the majority view.

If you're in the minority then EU membership will override the majority view in the UK. Depending on what you think of EU democracy that's either less democratic or a broader democratic base at work. In either case it reduces the influence of the population of the UK on the laws that govern it.

If the majority is not represented, then lessening our influence is no way to solve that. On the next issue, the shoe may be on the other foot and our influence over the EU is undoubtedly less than our influence over the UK government.

I think it would be a mistake to take better rules now for a lot less influence on an ongoing basis.

Nationalism

Now comes a truly divisive point. Do we want to be ruled as the UK or as a part of the EU? Should our laws reflect the values of those in this country or the union? That's what the broadening of the scope of the EU means. It's not a trade agreement or a narrow set of treaties; it's a broad range of areas where national law is superseded, and it has the capability to enact law that binds directly on the UK.

For the record, where someone is born in no way affects their value as a human being.

For better or worse the world is currently arranged into sovereign states. These come with different cultures, economies and standards of living. That diversity makes common rule impractical, but it doesn't prevent successful trade, migration and cultural exchange. The EU is not "one size fits all", and the attempt to make it so has had some dire effects for example on economies like Greece.

The cost of membership and control over spending

Whichever figures you pick, we are significant net-contributors to the EU. That's only a good deal if the intangible benefits of membership outweigh the net financial contribution.

It may be that we are net contributors to the benefit of countries in the EU with a greater need, but there are problems with accepting this altruistic argument.

If we were truly altruistic we'd want our efforts to be as effective as possible and for the beneficiaries to be those in most need globally. The EU is a barrier to that since it imposes tariffs on agricultural imports from Africa which makes it much harder for them to trade themselves out of poverty.

Even for beneficiaries within the EU, the EU isn't good at managing that financial altruism either. From a German study into the Greek bailouts (http://static.esmt.org/publications/whitepapers/WP-16-02.pdf):

"...less than 5% of the overall programme went to the Greek fiscal budget. In contrast, the vast majority of the money went to existing creditors in the form of debt repayments and interest payments. The resulting risk transfer from the private to the public sector and the subsequent risk transfer within the public sector from international organizations such as the ECB and the IMF to European rescue mechanisms such as the ESM still constitute the most important challenge for the goal to achieve a sustainable fiscal situation in Greece."

Those private banks were largely in Germany and France. Some argue the two most influential countries in the EU used EU funds to bail out their own banks to the tune of well over 100 billion Euro. I couldn't possibly comment.

With respect to the cases where the UK public or private sector does receive payments from the EU, consider that every single penny of EU funding coming to the UK was paid for by the UK tax payer.

It is also worth noting that the rebate is not protected permanently by a treaty, but it is negotiated every 7 years as part of EU financial planning (MFF). The next time will be in 2020. The MFF must be unanimously approved, so in theory we have a veto of sorts. Again this is fairly blunt sanction.

Ultimately I think the UK would be better off in the long run taking responsibility for this money itself, for both selfish and altruistic purposes.

Immigration

Given that our EU and non-EU immigration figures are roughly the same, it's hardly credible to suggest our immigration figures would suddenly leap downwards. In fact it suggests that we're unlikely to act radically with the new-found power. The argument is really about whether we have the right to control our EU immigration at all, in the same way as we could currently control non-EU immigration.

The UK is a sovereign state. That means it has a population and that population is governed by laws and supported by measures funded by taxes and national debt. The government must manage that budget. I can't imagine how you can do that effectively without the ability to control immigration. Could you run a company where you had to hire anyone who wanted to work for you? We cannot reasonably expect the government to plan effectively if there is no ability to control immigration.

That isn't to say we shouldn't have immigration, or that immigrants don't contribute, but there is a figure - and nobody knows what it is - beyond which net immigration becomes unsustainable.

If you don't believe this, please humour my somewhat tongue-in-cheek illustration, I can tell you with confidence that the population we can support in the UK is less than 508.2 million people (443.1 million net immigrants). That's the entire population of the EU. The surface area of the UK (let's not get carried away worrying about details like lakes, rivers, walls, roads or other things not good to stand in) is 243,610 square kilometres. Everyone could have an 550 square metre plot. Sadly, you need about 4,856 square metres to sustain an average American lifestyle (or at least it did in 1994 - http://dieoff.org/page40.htm), and North Europeans aren't much different. Now technically as soon as this happened we could just colonise the rest of the EU since there would be nobody there (assuming the Russians didn't get there first). Maybe we leave just enough people behind to maintain their governments. Obviously this is a ludicrous scenario. Can we agree that at some point before that, the country will be worse off with a greater number of people in it? To be clear I'm not offering an opinion on what that number is or whether the country would be better or worse off with more than we have now. Perhaps the ideal is 1 more or 600 million more. Assuming we accept there is some number that would make things worse, we can either suggest it naturally won't happen, or accept it's OK to impose some control. Perhaps there's a natural equilibrium so as we get closer to that number the country gets less appealing, but that doesn't sound great to me.

Instead of worrying about the morality of imposing practical controls, we should think about why people want to come to the UK. For many it will be a choice - much like brits moving to Spain - that is a welcome luxury, but would be no world-ending hardship if they couldn't. For others - where they feel they cannot thrive in their country of origin - wouldn't it be better to address the issues that after all are prevailing in another EU member state? The EU is failing and unsustainable if the only answer to a member in difficulty is for its population to leave their homes and seek work elsewhere.

The right to control immigration into the UK is an opportunity to keep a check on this, and it doesn't oblige us to turn anyone around.

Trade

We already trade successfully in the absence of free trade agreements. The EU does not have trade agreements with US, China, India or Russia, yet these are very significant economies and we trade successfully with them. Our strengths lie in services and we have trade surpluses in services with both the US and the EU, but the surplus is bigger with the US despite the lack of a trade agreement.

The EU have in effect erected a trade barrier on our behalf with every country outside the EU without a trade agreement, in that it prevents us negotiating our own.

Further, the EU imposes tariffs on agricultural imports from Africa which makes it much harder for them to trade themselves out of poverty. The UK's hands are tied by the EU Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), which prevents us trading with Africa more equitably.

In short, I'm not concerned with our ability to trade with non-EU countries provided we leave the EU.

In terms of trade with the EU, why would they make trade more difficult? Spite? The EU is trying to improve its trading with non-EU countries, and unlike those countries the UK is already perfectly aligned with EU regulation:

"The EU has successfully concluded a number of important trade agreements with trading partners and is in the process of negotiating agreements with many more."

(http://ec.europa.eu/trade/policy/countries-and-regions/agreements/index_en.htm) - see also the handy map linked from that page.

I've no doubt we'll have a lot of hard work ahead negotiating new agreements to get the best deals we can, and I'm sure we'll start to do more trade outside the EU.

Closing thoughts

So my decision is to vote for leaving the EU and I think that doing so will empower us to engage with the whole world according to our own priorities. Most of what the EU does for us we can do for ourselves. We will be free of imposed limitations so we can engage better with the rest of the world. We will still be able to engage with the EU and judge the pros and cons of those engagements on merit.

No doubt either victory or defeat can be clutched from the jaws of either result, so once it's done I hope the losing side moves on constructively.