EUROPEAN UNION - IN OR OUT ?

As the debate regarding the United Kingdom's membership of the European Union (EU) gets under way, the man in the street can expect to be bombarded with all manner of misinformation. There will be the usual lies, damned lies and statistics so beloved of politicians and their acolytes, much dissembling and plenty of ambiguity.

Despite all of this, there are certain facts which should not be ignored. Firstly, the EU owes its origin to the post-war world of the 1940s and 1950s, the desire of major western European nations to find a means to avoid another continental war and the perceived threats from the military, financial and economic might of the USA and Soviet Union. In 1951, France and West Germany formed the European Coal and Steel Community and in 1958 they were joined by Italy, Belgium, The Netherlands and Luxembourg in creating the European Economic Community (EEC), or Common Market. At this time, the UK opted not to join the EEC and, instead, was a founder member of another free trade area, EFTA, in 1960. However, there was a subsequent change of heart and the UK made 2 attempts to join the EEC during the 1960s, on both occasions having its application vetoed by the French president, De Gaulle.

Eventually, in 1973, the UK was successful in gaining entry at the same time as Ireland and Denmark. However, joining this somewhat exclusive European club meant that the UK's membership of EFTA was terminated and its trade links with the many world wide nations of the Commonwealth also had to be severed; in future, the UK's trade with countries such as Australia, Canada, New Zealand, India and so on, would have to be on terms negotiated by the various organs of the EEC. Over the years, the EEC grew further and transmogrified into the European Union, a body virtually unrecognizable from the Common Market  which the UK had joined in 1973. There are now 28 member states with still more waiting in the wings, vast numbers of officials, huge volumes of legislation, a central bank and even a new currency for many of its members. Member states are bound hand and foot by rules and regulations dreamt up by faceless bureaucrats living and working hundreds and even thousands of miles away.

Those who want the UK to leave this organisation refer to issues of cross-border migration, the lack of transparency, institutional corruption, and its insularity and protectionism. They complain about the way in which national governments have, in effect, become subservient to the whims of distant legislators, most of whom have little concern for the interests of individual nations. The drive for 'ever closer union' and the creation of a 'United States of Europe' is seen as a nightmare scenario.

On the other hand, those who favour the UK's continued membership, seem to have little to support their argument other than nebulous fears about what might happen should the UK vote to leave. They say that the consequences could be dire, that there would be huge costs and job losses, and they've produced figures which they say support their claims. Lord Rose, formerly chief executive of Marks & Spencer and now appointed to lead the 'In' campaign, simply says that "it's not worth the risk" to leave. Again, nothing positive or concrete, just fear-mongering.

Many of those who favour continued membership seem to be executives in charge of large financial and commercial organisations, people who have vested interests in having identical financial, economic and trade regulations across as much of their areas of operation as possible. Others are political figures from a bygone age such as Ken Clarke and Michael Heseltine, people who still live in the past, and Gordon Brown and John Prescott, whose left wing views sit comfortably with the predominantly socialist, centrally controlled nature of the EU.

The truths of all of this are that the EU is a construct of the past. Since its origins, the world has changed out of all recognition and there are now many more nations vying for significant international trade. The UK is one of the biggest economies in the world and, in the event of a 'No' vote, would have little difficulty in establishing its own links with many of these growing countries, as well as remaining a major trader within Europe. The EU itself is an impossible amalgam of such disparate nations, with vastly different histories, cultures and economies, that it cannot survive; it must change or die, whatever its current leaders desire.

If the UK votes to leave the EU, it could well be much more problematic for the future of the EU than of the UK. Indeed, a UK 'No' vote may well be the catalyst for a major rethink amongst European nations that could result in the emergence of a genuinely sustainable European bloc. Only time will tell, but I'll be voting to leave, and the sooner the better.

LABOUR RIPS ITSELF ASUNDER

With more and more of the hierarchy of the Labour Party coming out against the prospect of having Jeremy Corbyn as their new leader, one starts to see how little connection there really is between the 'Party' and its members.

Current polling shows Corbyn with a huge lead over his rivals for the leadership; a YouGov poll today shows that 53% of eligible voters support him against the best of his competitors, Andy Burnham, with 21%. Clearly, Corbyn's campaign and ideology reflects the views of a very large part of the Party's grass roots members, while the ideology of his opponents is seen as vague and non-representative. However, the Party's hierarchy see things very differently and voice their ever-increasing alarm at the prospect of a 'lurch to the left' under Corbyn; they would much rather see a continuation of the bland 'middle-of-the-road' politics espoused by the likes of Tony Blair for the simple reason that that approach won them power. In other words, blow the ideology and the views of Party members, our way gets US into power.

This is not a situation unique to the Labour Party and, indeed, the Conservatives are exactly the same. The Party establishment inevitably opts for the 'safe' alternative whenever a new leader is needed, and the result is usually 'more of the same' rather than any radical thought and real progress. The one shining example of this not happening was in the election of Margaret Thatcher as leader, but then the 'big-wigs' in the party probably saw her as a stopgap who could easily be controlled; after all, she was only a woman.

Electing Corbyn as its new leader may well be problematic for the Labour Party, but it seems that it would be reflective of the views of a majority of its membership. Electing any of Andy Burnham, Yvette Cooper or Liz Kendall, the other candidates, would be reflective of the hierarchy's desire to maintain the 'status quo' and get back into power as soon as possible, without having regard to what the membership wants. Frankly, the Party is 2 parties and needs to accept this truth; if I was Corbyn, I'd be campaigning on behalf of the 'Real Labour Party', and leaving Burnham, Cooper, Kendall and the rest to carry on being 'New Labour'.

Whatever the result and whoever wins, the Conservatives must be licking their lips and laughing all the way to the 2020 polling booths. Labour looks unlikely to mount any form of serious challenge for at least a decade, maybe more.

GREECE MUST LEAVE EUROZONE.

The continuing saga about the Greek economy rumbles on.

Greece is bankrupt and, if it was an individual or company, would be applying for bankruptcy or an IVA. Sadly, such options don't exist in the world of the European Union. Political pressures require that a 'solution' is found which allows the creditors to continue to claim that their money is 'safe', even when it's vanished down the plug hole.

The simple truth is that Greece never should have adopted the Euro but politicians wanted it to and so they fiddled the figures; the current problems all stem from this one action. The Greek economy was a basket case before it joined the Eurozone and, being expected to conform to the same fiscal regime as far more successful economies, notable Germany and France, was always doomed to failure. The consequence is that hundreds of billions of Euros have been given to Greece in attempts to keep it afloat and now another €80-90 billion is on the cards. Little, if any, of this money will ever be repaid and it's odds on that Greece will be back for more within a year or so, unless it dumps the Euro and returns to the Drachma.

Leaving the Euro is, however, politically unthinkable. The Euro project is so beloved of those with the ultimate power that they will try to preserve the integrity of the Eurozone at all costs. This means that the Greek people will be subjected to yet more austerity (the real type, not the imaginary austerity that the UK has experienced in recent years) until they finally explode; there will be blood on the streets in due course. The worst part of the whole scenario is that biting the bullet now would be far less painful for everyone than trying to keep the show on the road with yet another 'bail out'; in a year or so, things will be much, much worse.

To cap it all, even though the UK is not in the Eurozone, it seems that we are being asked to contribute a significant sum, through loan guarantees, to the 'bail out' pot. David Cameron has rightly said that Greece is a Eurozone problem and nothing to do with the UK, but that may well be little more than political rhetoric. It's quite possible that somewhere in the European Union agreements, treaties, rules and regulations that we are required to abide by is a paragraph that says we have no choice. It wouldn't be the first time that a British political leader has told the EU that we won't 'play ball' only to back down a week or two later. We can only wait to see what actually happens.

The real overarching problem is that the EU is a mess. It's a political construct which has grown well beyond its original blueprint to a disastrous extent; its now also well beyond its time. Certain aspects remain valuable but much of its operation is purely feeding the political ambitions of strutting non-entities. In its current form the EU is outdated and needs major reform; the Eurozone is a catastrophic

mistake and should be disbanded. If neither of these things happens, the great post World War 2 project designed to ensure that there would never be another European war may just achieve the exact opposite.

DISINGENUOUS SNP SHOW THEIR TRUE COLOURS.

Everyone knows that politicians are inherently disingenuous but the Scottish National Party really has taken this trait to new levels.

For years, the tiny number of SNP members at Westminster have avoided voting on matters which do not affect Scotland, those matters for which power has been devolved to their own parliament in Edinburgh. However, now having a much larger number of representatives at Westminster, they have decided to take sides in a vote on whether or not the ban on fax hunting should be repealed in England and Wales; their explanation for this wholly unwarranted intervention is that they want to make the Conservative government aware of how small their majority is. This is poppycock; all they want to do is cause trouble.

At the same time, the SNP is railing against the Conservatives' plans to introduce 'English votes for English laws', the equivalent of which the Scots already enjoy for a significant part of their own legislation and for which they will soon be granted much wider powers. The fox hunting debate scheduled at Westminster on Wednesday has nothing to do with Scotland but the Scots MPs will do whatever it takes in an effort to defeat the Government and influence matters in England and Wales.

That this cannot be right is obvious. That the SNP has so quickly reneged on its various commitments not to interfere in matters at Westminster which do not concern it, shows only too clearly that they cannot be trusted and that the people of England and Wales were right to elect a Conservative government. Now it is time for David Cameron to fulfil his pledge and introduce clear and stringent rules to ensure that the SNP are prevented from imposing their ideals on people whom they do not represent and who have no complementary say over people whom they do.

The SNP has one aim. It wants independence for Scotland. I say let them have it and be done with what will otherwise be years, even decades, of pointless and destructive bickering. Fox hunting is just the beginning.

LABOUR LEADERSHIP DAMP SQUIB.

One of the reasons why Labour did so poorly in the recent General Election was almost certainly the electorate's perception of Ed Miliband, the party's leader. He simply didn't look or act like a potential Prime Minister.

Following Miliband's departure, Labour is trying to find a new leader who will be able to convince the public that they are of the right calibre and have the right approach. Sadly for the party, they have a pretty pathetic bunch from whom to choose.

First of all, the Labour party seems to have very few MPs who have any gravitas. Of their major players, almost none are household names; with neither Miliband nor Ed Balls available, who is left ? The one big name that springs to mind is the current acting leader, Harriet Harman, but she also appears to be stepping aside. The result is that the party has a rag-bag of candidates, none of whom exactly throws the Conservatives into a panic.

Andy Burnham seems a nice chap but 'Prime Minister' ? Yvette Cooper, earnest and committed, but also 'Mrs Ed Balls' and again, can anyone really see her representing the UK on either the national or international stage ? Liz Kendall - who ? Ms Kendall has been an MP for 5 years, prior to which she had a variety of 'jobs' as a political 'Special Advisor' and worked for various politically orientated charities. She seems to be something of an empty vessel.

Mary Creagh has, at least, been an MP for twice as long as Ms Kendall, but is another career politician. She has not made much of a splash at Westminster though she has been in the Shadow Cabinet since 2010. In some ways, she may be the most interesting of the declared candidates, though she may not gain the required number of nominations to actually make it to the ballot.

Finally, there is veteran left winger Jeremy Corbin. An MP since 1983, Corbin is of an older and more reactionary generation ; he will, no doubt, have a following amongst those from the more extreme left of the party but would be a return to the days of Michael Foot if he were to succeed Miliband as leader.

Frankly, what a bunch. There does not seem to be anyone here who will be able to galvanise their party, let alone the electorate. Cameron et al must be laughing their socks off.

LABOUR, LIBERALS AND UKIP IN TURMOIL.

Following the surprise election results of last week, the losers have been tearing themselves apart while the winners, the Conservatives and Scottish Nationalists, are simply rising above it all. While Cameron and Sturgeon are appearing in statesmanlike mode, Miliband and Clegg have gone and Farage has gone and returned in the space of a few hours; Labour, the Liberal Democrats and UKIP are all in turmoil.

The departure of Miliband was inevitable after his party failed so miserably. A number of his former colleagues and supporters have come out of hiding and clearly laid the blame for their poor showing fairly and squarely on his shoulders; even his brother has had a dig and left the question of his return to British politics very much open. While he stays in his well paid job in New York, the Labour party is desperately looking for a replacement for young Ed, and has a pretty poor bunch to choose from. So far, the declared runners, Andy Burnham, Yvette Cooper, Liz Kendall and Mary Creagh, hardly inspire excitement. Very curiously, a much stronger runner, Chukka Umunna, announced his candidacy, was declared the bookies' favourite and then withdrew from the race a couple of days later. That Umunna was seen as the front runner must be a comment on the paucity of available talent and one can only wonder what the outcome of the leadership election will now be. For what it's worth, I'd be inclined to look to an older and more experienced hand, such as Alan Johnson, to take the reins for an interim period while one or 2 younger candidates are developed for the future, unless, of course, Miliband major can be enticed back from the USA.

While Labour simply has a paucity of talent and experience, the Liberal Democrats have almost no one left from whom to choose a new leader. The obvious candidate must be Tim Farron but he's not exactly set the world on fire in the past. However, he has only 7 possible opponents, the party having been all but wiped out at Wesminster, and none of them is any sort of 'Big Beast'. Whoever gets the job, it's likely to be a miserable experience for years to come.

While Labour and the Liberal Democrats at least know what the position is, UKIP have made a pigs' breakfast of the whole leadership issue. Having said that he'd resign if he failed to win a seat at Westminster, Nigel Farage did just that, only to have his resignation rejected by the party's national executive; consequently, he's remained as leader but has been subjected to a barrage of criticism and comment from certain party members and supporters. It does seem strange that he didn't argue his corner with the executive and at least push for an election to test the feelings of his party; that the executive, which is only partly elected itself, has denied the membership the opportunity to confirm, or otherwise, it's support for Farage seems wrong. Regardless, UKIP is now in a state of civil war which is doing it no good at all.

Somehow, Natalie Bennett, the hopeless leader of the Green Party, has avoided being sacked and seems likely to remain on our screens for a while yet, as does Leanne Wood, the leader of Plaid Cymru. Whether they or Farage will be around at the next General Election in 2020, is for the future to decide, but we do know that Cameron has said he won't be and we know that Labour and the Liberals will both have new leaders; the only survivor from this time around may well be Nicola Sturgeon - there's a thought.

ELECTION OUTCOME UNFAIR ?

After one of the most astonishing General Elections in memory, the Conservatives have won an absolute majority and can run the country their way, that is, if the Scots don't mind.

The admittedly unwritten British Constitution relies on the notion that the government of the United Kingdom sits at Westminster; any party with an absolute majority, or able to build a workable coalition, makes the rules. Unfortunately, the Scottish Nationalists don't understand this and, despite having their own government in Edinburgh and very significant devolved powers, they seem to believe that they should also take a leading role in the running of the Westminster parliament, including voting on matters which only affect England and Wales. The rhetoric of the likes of Nicola Sturgeon and Alex Salmond also makes clear that they intend to create as much disruption as possible in order to encourage agreement to another independence referendum and, they expect, actual independence for Scotland, sooner rather than later. God help the people.

How the Scottish National Party attained their position of apparent influence is, of course, a consequence of the 'first passed the post' voting system. Having gained only 4.7% of the total votes, they've won 56 seats, or 8.6% of the total. Some consider this to be 'unfair', particularly those whose number of seats won was less than their percentage of the total vote, such as the Liberal Democrats, UKIP and the Greens. Whether or not this is really unfair clearly depends on the viewpoint of the observer and also on what definition one applies to the very vague word 'unfair'. A child will often claim that being refused something they want is 'unfair', while a sports fan may argue that player A has some sort of 'unfair' advantage over player B. In politics, the losers frequently consider it 'unfair' that they didn't win, poor darlings.

The simple facts are that we have the system we have and it's unlikely to be changed in the near future. Neither of the 2 main parties, currently the Conservatives and Labour, are very enthusiastic about changing to proportional representation, the varieties of which are many and confusing, as such systems will tend to work against them. What are existing system does usually produce is majority government and a degree of certainty about the 'direction of travel' for the nation, things which most people, and businesses, prefer over the wishy-washy approach of most coalitions. Long may it continue.