Shortly after Parliament  gave approval for bombing in Syria the government has to strengthen its military support to the  Afghan government to help in its fight against the Taliban. The UK is also considering what military action it might need to take with its allies in Libya.

The fact that there are conflicts in Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan and Libya should remind us how difficult western military intervention us, and should alert us to the limits of what we can achieve with few ground forces and an understandable reluctance to commit them in any numbers to any of the present war zones in this troubled part of the world.

The government needs to ask itself why has military intervention in Iraq, Libya and Afghanistan failed to create stable peace loving governments in any of those countries?

Why did democracy backfire in Egypt?

What is the prognosis for creating a peaceful government in Syria now we are part of the bombing forces?

It would be helpful if the government would make a statement giving us a more accurate picture of the various extremist, terrorist violent groups in these countries, instead of seeking to claim there is just one extreme enemy, Daesh. It appears in recent days the government has returned to finding the Taliban unacceptable, and presumably the various Al Qaeda affiliates are also still in the extremist lists. They also need to explain what the connections between Daesh in Syria and Daesh in Libya might be and examine how pushing Daesh out of parts of Syria might affect Libya.

We are also due an update on what military and diplomatic action the regional powers are going to undertake. Saudi, Iran and others are crucial to finding a peaceful settlement. They are also well armed, understand more of the languages and culture of the war zones, and should be able to assist or lead.

What is increasingly clear is that modest targetted bombing in a wide range of locations is not about  to make much difference to these complex and violent disputes. The West lacks a vision and a plan for the four Middle Eastern countries currently in turmoil. Can we try and do better in 2016, or be more realistic about our abilities to bring democracy and peace to this region?

We constantly hear those who want us to stay in saying it is time they set out the case. They regularly chastise each other for failing to make the case. They now have plenty of airtime, but each time one appears he or she soon seeks to  ridicule the Out cause, or seeks to spread misleading suppositions about what might happen if the UK voted to  be free.

 

Interviewers usually let them get away with this. Instead they should get them to answer some of these questions:

 

1. Should the UK in due course join the Euro?
2. Has the Euro gone wrong?
3. Why has the Euro area spawned so many recessions and mass unemployment?
4. What would have happened if the UK had joined as many of the pro European wanted us to do in the 1990s?
5. What did they learn from their bitter experience of recommending the Exchange Rate Mechanism to the UK and seeing it destroy our jobs and economy?
6. Do they think the UK should join Schengen?
7. Has Schengen been a success?
8. If Schengen has failed, what do they wish to replace it with?
9. How would the UK be able to control her own borders outside Schengen if we still sign up to freedom of movement?
10. Has the Common Fishing Policy been a success?
11. Why has the UK lost most of its fishing industry under EU regulation and control?
12. Why did it take so many years even to stop the absurdity of throwing dead fish back into the sea?
13. Wouldn’t it be a good idea to guarantee to make the same payments to farmers, scientists etc when we come out of the EU? Isnt that within the UK’s power to do?
14. If they do not like the Euro, Schengen or the Common Fishing Policy, what is the point of belonging to this institution?Why join a football and cricket club if you don’t like either game and don’t wish to play them?
15. Do they really think Germany would want to start a trade war with us if we leave, given the fact she sells us twice as much as we sell Germany. Are the German government liars when they say they would not impose new tariffs on our exports to them as they don’t want us imposing tariffs on them?
16. Why don’t they believe in democracy? Why don’t they want us to take back control?

A Happy Christmas to you all.

I will deal with any comments tomorrow.

Tomorrow I will write about the chronic weaknesses of the Stay in the EU case.

 

WILL SANTA COME TONIGHT?

 

“Will Santa come? Will Santa come tonight?”

“He might. He might.

 If you are good, he might.”

“Can I stay up and see?”

“No. He will not come for you or me

If we do not sleep .

He’s too busy to meet us all.”

“And will he come for us?

If you go to sleep – he does not like fuss.”

 

 

Tonight, by the lights of the tree

There is, at last, some grown up time for me.

The cake is iced

The wine is spiced

The carrots diced.

 

The pudding’s steamed

The brandy butter  creamed.

The turkey prepared  awaits

And yes, I did clean  the plates.

The tree is up, the table laid,

the cards are out , though the credit card’s unpaid!

 

So shall I soon with gifts a plenty

Mount the stairs to deliver twenty?

Do I dare to tread the stair?

And will it creak?

And will it creak?

When can I take a peek?

I need to know if they slumber

Before I arrive with my lumber.

 

If they are still awake

what dreams will go?

What heart might break?

Or do they know?

And is their belief just all for show?

 

So tonight by the magic tree

There is need of more time just for me

I will wait – and struggle to keep open my eyes

And  wrestle with the morality of eating  Santa’s mince pies.

 

My adult mind is full of Christmas chores

The cooking times, and the cards through neighbours’ doors

The parties  with  do not drink and drive in my ears

So the night does not end in tears

Drinks that might have been –  but not that cheap red

Which would give me a headache as soon as I got to bed

 

 I was once a child too excited to sleep

with a torrent of thoughts  about what I might be given

Hoping that it was a toy beneath the wrapping –  should I peep? –

Not more socks or hankies, preferably something to be driven

 

So could Santa still come for me?

Drowsily I dream as if I were eight

Hoping that Santa would not be late

Like every little boy

There is of course a much wanted toy

 

So will Santa come tonight?

He might, He might.

If you sleep well

and if you believe

 

Only if you believe.

 

And only if in your family

Love fills the hours you will be spending.

It could be the true Santa on the stair

Or it could be someone from an  empty chair.

.

So will Santa come?

He will. He will.

 

The Brexit fairy story is also now available for viewing on the Bow Group site:

The Rt Hon John Redwood MP gives his traditional Bow Group Christmas Fairytale, this year with a Brexit theme. Though it has been trailed in the national media, the full version of the reading is available for the first time here: https://youtu.be/U3PP4bX1Fjo

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It comes as no surprise that Mr Hague might vote to stay in the EU. In 1997 when he ran for Leader he would not rule out the UK joining the Euro. It was only later when Leader that we persuaded him to rule that out. He never made a speech saying we would be better off out.

His two reasons are bizarre for staying in. The first is the SNP will not like it. The SNP will use any argument to try to split the UK. This obvious fact cannot stop us doing the right things on important issues.

The second is we are important to democracy in eastern Europe.  The EU has not created democracies in Eastern Europe. The people and politicians of those countries have done that. They will not cease to be democracies if we leave the EU!

Note that his  reasons offer the people of England nothing that we want. Once again those in favour of us being in fail to make a positive case. Mr Hague couldn’t even think up negatives about us outside, but had to resort to negatives for the rest of them if we go!

One of the most bizarre features of the Better Stay in Europe (BSE)  campaign is their wish to line up business and political endorsements for staying in from the very people who have been continuously wrong on the European issue for many years. As the European Exchange Rate Mechanism and the Euro has shown, the UK has been too engaged with the rest of the EU to its own great cost. It has not suffered from  too little engagement.

John Major and the CBI were cheer leaders and prime movers in taking the UK into the European exchange rate mechanism in 1989. They told us that would give us a golden scenario of lower inflation and faster growth. Instead it delivered a devastating boom/bust cycle. Trying to keep the pound down in the early days of membership meant a rapid build up of loans and cash in the economy, boosting inflation. This was followed by the flight from sterling leading to cripplingly high interest rates and a nasty recession.

A few of us opposed it at the time, but were told we were wrong. I wrote a pamphlet explaining how we would either have a run away credit fuelled inflation or a nasty recession from the ERM  – only to find  we got both!

These same people then either recommended the UK join the Euro at its outset, or thought we should keep open the option of joining as they thought it could prove to be a good idea in due course. Fortunately the band of opponents to joining the Euro was larger than the group opposing the European Exchange Rate Mechanism, and we won. Just look at what happened to Ireland going into the Euro. The UK would probably have had a similar boom/bust experience, and may have brought the whole Euro down.  I suspect  they would have refused to support our commercial  banks, with overextended credit thanks to the rules of the Euro and the low interest rates that would have fuelled too much credit growth  in the early days. Ireland and Spain had severe boom/bust cycles thanks to the Euro. The Euro was just like the Exchange Rate Mechanism, with the added nightmare that you could not get out easily.

 

Now the same people, or people with similar views, tell us we must stay in the European Union as it has now evolved. They seek to play down the central importance of the Euro and the common borders to the whole project, deny the Five Presidents work on the need for political union, and try to keep the debate centred over technicalities about how we would carry on trading. They ignore the fact that 170 other countries round the world trade perfectly happily with the EU, and ignore the ability of the UK to regain her own seat on the World Trade Organisation and other bodies to have more influence in the world. The Leave campaign does not need to waste much time on scares about jobs and trade. The Germans have made clear they do not want to impose new tariffs and barriers on trade with us, as they sell us so much more than we sell them, so what is the problem?

Our task is to positive about taking back control. We will regain our freedoms and be better off. As always there is no positive case for membership from the Stay in people. They either spread scares, or spend their time refusing to defend the Euro, the common  borders, the welfare controls and the endless laws and regulations that make up the modern EU.

 

The Partido Popular  (Conservatives) and the Socialist party (Labour) have been the two major parties alternating in government in Spain for many years. Last week-end they managed to secure just one half of the vote between them.  The “winners” got under 29% of the popular vote, and were left well short of a majority of seats.

Two new challenger parties shot to prominence. Podemos is as party of the left against austerity, which also argued for a referendum on Catalan independence. They secured 21% of the vote. Cuidadanos, a party of the centre right, gained 14% of the vote. As a result there is no obvious stable coalition that can form the government. The only two parties with sufficient seats to form a coalition government are the Partido Popular and the socialists.  Unlike Germany where such a grand coalition has been constructed by Frau Merkel, it seems unlikely these two opponents can work together.

Part of the solution to the problem of how to govern Spain now rests in the hands of the Catalans. The attractiveness of the Podemos offer of a referendum on Catalan independence reduced the numbers voting for independence parties. The Republican left of Catalonia won nine seats, and the independence party called Democracy and Freedom secured 8 seats. The Catalan nationalists and their friends in Podemos will presumably try to gain an official referendum on independence as their price for co-operating in any government. Podemos is in the paradoxical position of wanting a referendum but wanting to oppose independence, and now has 12 Catalan seats which places it in the middle of this row.

It seems unlikely that a minority government of PP and Cuidadanos would be willing to do a deal on a referendum for Catalonia, as they are strongly against. This makes it more difficult for them to win votes as they seek to build from their strong minority vote, which would be thirteen short of winning on its own .

In contrast a coalition of the Socialists and Podemos could just get over the line if they could reach agreement with the Catalan parties. That would be no problem for Podemos, but would require a change of heart by the Socialists.

Catalonia may still not get her referendum, but this result has put it back in play. It serves as  a timely reminder of how the EU project can be very destabilising of member states. The dreadful economic performance visited on Spain by the Euro, the austerity policies and the poor regulation of her banks by the Euro authorities has undermined support for the two main pro Union parties. I am myself, of course, entirely neutral on the constitutional future of Spain and Catalonia. It is a matter for them. The recent election has shown yet again how damaging to traditional parties the EU scheme can be, and how that in turn then leads people to question their loyalties to country. It makes working out why these traditional major parties are so keen on this political project, when it does such damage to them as well as to their countries. We saw this in Greece with the collapse of the two main parties there, and may see this spreading to France and elsewhere in the Eurozone.

I am pleased to see the US, the UK Russia and the regional powers have pressed ahead with a peace conference for Syria. When we had the long debate about bombing Syria there was an absence of informed discussion of Syrian politics. The solution to Syria’s woes has to be a new political settlement, where more people will accept the authority of the government and where the government is able and willing to govern by peaceful means, using less force.

There were two obvious reasons why there was little debate about a Syrian political process. The first is all too few UK MPs understand the parties, factions, religious groupings and terrorist cells that characterise modern Syria. Few of us have met any of them, few have visited the country or been able to read definitive briefings on the complexity of Syrian political movements. The second is those who have read a bit have come to understand that the West cannot impose a political solution on the Syrian people. It has to emerge from the parties, factions, cells and armies on the ground when they think it is better to talk than to fight.

This does not mean the West is without power or influence. Recent events have shown that working with allies in the region, and working alongside Russia, it is possible to push forward a peace process. The aim agreed this week is to help Syria move towards elections and a new national government within eighteen months. The West thinks Assad must go to allow this to happen. Russia thinks the Syrian people should be able to decide between Assad and others, but may well privately have come to the same view that Assad has to  be replaced by a less contentious leader. Success is not going to be easy to achieve, but there will be even less chance if no-one tries.

 

Meanwhile I am pleased to see the UK is not undertaking many air strikes against Syria and seems not to have used the Brimstone missiles yet which we heard might be useful. I am glad they are taking care in identifying targets and seeking to avoid civilian casualties. There has been no early pre-emptive move against Raqqa.

As Daesh are a movement which does not recognise state frontiers, the Coalition forces being used against them in Iraq and Syria need to understand that Daesh now has an important stronghold in Libya. It would not improve western security if military action flushed Daesh terrorists out of Raqqa or elsewhere in Syria/Iraq only for them to turn up in  Libya that much nearer to ourselves.

Progress was also claimed in seeking to create a single legitimate government in Libya to replace the competition between two  Assemblies and various military bands. That would also be welcome. The West should not rush to give military aid to any such new government in Libya until it can see that such a government does have decent popular support, and is well enough established. The West should not allow its military resources to be used by one faction amongst many in these civil wars. Only if and when there is a government of Libya with reasonable traction over most of their country should the West consider any request for military assistance.

In political parties backbench MPs and members of the party are usually free to criticise the leadership if they wish, to seek change to policies and to ask for changes at the top. I find it disappointing if not surprising that Mr Farage has reacted so angrily to Mr Carswell’s question as to whether UKIP now needs new leadership with a different approach to its policies and its message.

Mr Carswell is still the only person to have managed to win a Westminster seat in UKIP colours at a General election. It is true he had previously won the seat as a Conservative, and only won again in 2015 for UKIP with a reduced majority. He has, however, both won a by election and a General election for UKIP in a single seat, something which has always eluded Mr Farage. Maybe Mr Farage could learn from Mr Carswell’s different language and approach to politics. If UKIP are sensible  they will not seek to embarrass their only MP through some public denunciation, and will instead invite him into private talks about the direction of their  party.

The crucial task now for UKIP must be to put much else  aside and to help win the referendum for Leave, as that presumably remains their prime reason for existing. For the Out campaign to win, we first need to understand the numbers. Let us begin with current national polling intentions (average of recent polls):

Conservative  39%

Labour   33%

UKIP  12%

Liberal Democrat  7%

 

To win the referendum we need at least 51% of the vote. We should be able to assume that all UKIP voters will vote for Leave. It would  be odd indeed to be a keen supporter of UKIP but not to believe in their central proposition. A majority of Conservatives wish to leave. We need to get the proportion up to 70%, which is roughly  the proportion of Conservative members who wish to leave. Labour is a pro Stay in party, but we should be able to call on at least one quarter of Labour voters, as there is a long standing left of centre anti EU tradition as well. Labour voters do not want the EU’s trade treaty provisions with US corporates and are worried about the influence of big business on EU policy generally. We would then need to pick up 5% from the rest:

Contributions to Leave vote

 

Conservative 51%

UKIP  24%

Labour 16%

Others  9%

 

Possible sources of votes in the overall referendum to win for Leave

Conservative   26%

UKIP        12%

Labour      8%

Others     5%

 

Total  51%

These figures remind us it could be a tight result. It should also warn us that crucial to winning will be reassuring Labour and other voters that voting to leave is safe and sensible, restoring our democracy and returning more of our money to spend as we see fit. That’s why we  now need messages which unite our side, and bring more people to agree with us. The uniting message must be to restore control, to bring back our democracy. There is no point and considerable danger in trying to push out an ever narrower and more sceptic message to the faithful, when we need to win over the waverers.

 

The issue of migration will not go away. Some good questions have recently been asked about the large number of National Insurance Numbers issued to EU arrivals in the last four years, and whether this tallies with the smaller numbers of migrants acknowledged in the workforce. Have a large number come and gone?

The ONS has sought to give us some guidance about the longer term trends. They estimate that the population of 64.6 million in 2014 will grow to 69 million by mid 2024. They think a little over half the growth will come from new migrants. They also expect the newer migrants to boost the birth rate, adding to the natural growth of the population. The ONS is saying that migration will run at an additional 250,000 people a year. This is a drop on the current level, but well above the government’s target rate of under 100,000. Maybe Ministers should ask the ONS why they think the government will fail to limit migration as promised and learn from the ONS about the reasons why migration is still so high. For its part the ONS has to explain why it has been understating the recent rate of increase in its forecast.

It seems likely that the UK will continue to attract substantial numbers of new arrivals, all the time the economy is flexible and growing. The lure of the large number of new jobs the UK creates compared to the stubbornly high unemployment of much of the Eurozone will prove strong, both to the Europeans and to travellers coming through the EU from elsewhere.

Mr Cameron’s renegotiation has as its fourth aim controlling immigration from the rest of the EU. He has stated the need to cut the numbers of people coming into the country pointing out the strains it creates on NHS provision, housing and school places. He wishes to crack down on the abuses of free movement, allowing easier removal of foreign criminals and tightening rules on EU migrants bringing in non EU fiancées.
He seeks a four year ban on EU migrants receiving benefits or having access to social housing.

It is difficult to see how if he were granted all of this it would cut migration back enough to reach the promised levels. Many would still want to come for the jobs and better wages than in their own country. This pressure will be increased by the payment of the living wage. Meanwhile there remain disagreements between the UK and the rest. Most other EU countries wish to preserve freedom of movement, and wish to avoid discriminations between nationals and the citizens of other EU states.

Mr Cameron may end up with compromise which forces the UK to amend its benefit rules to comply. It is possible, for example, that a contribution driven system would be allowed and would keep recent arrivals out of claiming entitlements. The problem with this is could the UK find a way of entitling UK residents, without it being based on their nationality?