The Peoples Vote March 20 October 2018

 Progressive European Party

Brexit, who should have the final say?

 Progressive European Party

It will not be easy to persuade parliament to agree to another referendum on our EU membership. Parliament is sovereign, to give the vote to the people takes sovereignty away from parliament and gives it to citizens. This is unconstitutional. The last referendum result is being enforced because David Cameron made the promise that it would be, but constitutionally it is only advisory.

There would never be a second vote in any case just because remain voters did not like the first result. What the so-called second referendum, if it happens, should be is not a second referendum at all but a new referendum on how we should now proceed.

For it to work it would have to be multi-option,

Stay in the EU

Leave the EU but stay in the customs union and single market

Leave the EU but stay only in the single market

Leave the EU but stay only in the customs union

Leave the EU without a deal

Leave the EU with the deal that has been agreed with the EU (when there is one)

Leave the EU but reject the deal and negotiate a new one

Complex yes and highly unlikely to happen that way. So should we be campaigning for a new referendum at all or should we only be campaigning to stay in the EU?

The position of the Progressive Party is simple, one of the cornerstones of Progressive policy is to replace Parliamentary sovereignty with a Direct democracy. Therefore we are supporting the call for a new referendum because that is as close to Direct democracy we can currently get until there is a Progressive administration in power.

Philip Notley

Progressive policies explained: Citizens Income

 Progressive European Party

Citizens Income or CI (sometimes also called a Universal Basic Income or UBI), has been one of the cornerstones of Progressive policy since the late 1990s. The main question that always arises in connection with CI is: How can it possibly be financed?

The introduction of CI would, in fact, generate major savings. In the first place, it would render nearly all other benefit payments obsolete and unnecessary.

Housing benefit alone, for instance, cost the UK £24 billion in 2014/15.

CI, therefore, can be set at a level that covers all reasonable rents.

The inefficient, costly and wasteful bureaucracy that has evolved to maintain the present complicated benefits system can likewise be almost completely dismantled.

Additional monies can be saved by discontinuing tax subsidies that are currently given to businesses and to the wealthy.

Payment of straightforward flat rates of taxation by businesses and by individuals, coupled with savings resulting from the simplification of the benefits system, will yield greatly increased sums available for more pressing social needs. This radical shift in priorities will enable a Progressive administration to give every person in the UK over the age of sixteen an annual Citizens’ Income of £10,000 while all children up to the age of fifteen (or their legal guardians) will receive £5000.

No tax subsidies are proposed by The Progressive European Party in our reform of the taxation system. Instead, all tax will be paid under the streamlined tax mechanisms outlined above. By these means, the payment of CI out of general taxation becomes perfectly feasible.

The high rents charged in today’s economy are a direct result of the acute shortage of housing in the UK. Citizens’ Income, consequently, must be set at a level that is sufficient both to cover accommodation charges and to provide an adequate, if basic, standard of living. It needs, in other words, to be enough for everyone to live on - even when it is their only income.

It is for these reasons that pEp has elaborated a new housing policy to be implemented before CI can be rolled out to all citizens.

Our housing policy is simplicity itself. Local authorities will be allowed to borrow money for the purpose of building new housing. A percentage of these new homes will then be sold to cover the cost of the loans. In this way, approximately 50% of new builds, conversions and refurbishments of existing properties will become available for allocation to all those who are on housing waiting lists. For free.

When I tell people that the Progressive party has a plan to house everyone on the council waiting lists at no cost to the taxpayer, they immediately imagine that I am living in a fantasy world. So I will say it again. We shall be able to house everyone who needs it for free.

It is to be expected that, in some areas, the cost of building new homes will not be fully met by the selling of a percentage of them. Nevertheless, a large proportion of the loan could still be paid off and the local council will simultaneously be gaining an income from the rented properties. In either case, there will be no cost to the taxpayer.

Because we shall be selling homes as well as renting them, this scheme will also provide housing for people who are in a position to buy their own homes. By these means, all housing shortages, both public and private, will be alleviated in a relatively short time span.

When affordable housing reaches a sufficient level it will become possible for CI to be implemented for all citizens. 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Will anyone be worse off?

Inevitably some private landlords will have to reduce their rents in order to compete with the new social housing. Property values may initially stagnate or be reduced by the availability of more homes on the market. It should be remembered, however, that the current high rents and the high cost of housing are artificial products of long-standing shortages. They are an artefact of the markets rather than a true reflection of value.

Poverty and homelessness are a disgrace to our society which should never have been allowed to arise in the first place. The Progressive European Party’s housing policy, together with CI, would eradicate these stains from our social fabric for good.

CI itself does have a downside for another group: the money lenders. Under the new universal credit scheme that is currently being rolled out across the country, there can be a two month delay between joining the scheme and receiving the first payment. This long wait imposes an enormous financial strain on claimants who are already living on the poverty line. Payments are then only received monthly, not weekly. Anyone who has had to live on a low income will tell you that they are obliged to budget from one week to another - and not on a monthly basis. Most people run short of money long before the end of the month. Many citizens who are dependant on the current benefits system are forced to use short-term loans just in order to pay their basic bills. CI, on the other hand, could be paid weekly. Since everyone will receive CI from birth, unfair delays would be avoided.

It may well be asked why a rich person, who has no real need for CI, should be paid the same amount as those who are desperate. CI is for all citizens as a share of the prosperity that our country has built up over the generations. Everyone is entitled to it as a right no matter how rich or poor they may be. CI will not be taxed: whereas earnings over and above CI will be subject to taxation.

Another question about CI is: will it make people lazy and less productive? In fact, the opposite has been found to be true wherever it has been tried. Unemployment is reduced, more new business start-ups are made possible and, rather surprisingly, fewer divorces and family break-ups occur.

People who have the security that financial independence confers are more able to live in a dignified and productive way.

We and our forebears work or have worked in the mines, in the steel mills, on the farms, in the factories, as well as in shops and offices. We and our ancestors have all contributed to the enormous wealth that our country has produced over the centuries. It is only right that we should all now share in that prosperity.

The Progressive European Party’s three reforms of Taxation, Housing and Citizens Income, even though they are separate and distinct policies, work together to create a fairer and more inclusive society in which everyone's worth is properly recognised. 

Philip Notley

progressiveeuropeanparty@gmail.com 

Additional material

John Coats

Happy Europe day

 Progressive European Party

Happy Europe day 😎everyone 

What happens next

 Progressive European Party

Is it time to watch it all unravel

The agreement that is being made for the transition period gives us the right to sign trade deals that will come online when the transition period ends in 2020. We at last can find out if all the talk of “we can trade with the rest of the world” has any substance. Of course we can and will trade with the rest of the world, the test is will any of the deals we get be any improvement on how we trade now.

The time frame of twenty one months from march next year to the end of 2020 is short. Most trade deals take longer than this, therefore because we will be desperate we are likely to be taken to the cleaners by most potential partners who have the luxury of having time on their side. As every month ticks by we will be in a worsening position to make deals from. Almost certainly we will have to take things we wouldn't otherwise want in order to clinch a deal. For example American meat products that are not imported now because they do not pass EU safety and animal welfare standards.

Which then brings us to the border in Ireland. We have also agreed hand on heart, no hard border. This is simply not possible if the standards are not the same on both sides. Electronic tagging is possible like we have in supermarkets when the alarm rings if you try and walk out without paying. But tags can be removed. And how can you stop someone putting a few crates of Irish whiskey unseen in the back a potato truck. It will be easy for someone to put contraband in their shopping bag and take a bus across the border. It is simply not possible to have differing standards with the EU without customs checks. 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------------------------

With Ireland being in the single market they also have the free movement of people from the EU. Without passport controls on the border any and every EU citizen who should wish to can, via Ireland, enter the UK. With an open border, business will be able to work on either side and therefore will have to follow the same standards. In short, we will need to keep EU standards on all imported goods, on our own manufacturing and on all service industries. As well as maintaining the freedom of movement. We will have to remain permanently under the EU’s sphere of influence. This is the only way it is possible to have an open border. 

The biggest trade deal of all we will need to make is with the EU itself. Food security is the biggest concern, a quarter of all our food is imported from the EU and half of all our trade is also with the EU. 

There only seems to be two possible outcomes, we remain within the EU’s sphere of influence. Where everything will be the same as it is now but without us being members. Or we ditch the EU completely and take a cheap as chips option with trading with the rest of the world and in so doing sacrificing our commitment to the Irish border. 

If things do unravel it is of no real benefit to remainers, as in the transition period we will already be outside of the EU. Our Government is only kept in power by the votes of the DUP. When the border problem surfaces they might lose their support, we could be outside the EU and with no Government. Or outside the EU but still following all their rules which will cause the Leave campaigners to go nuts. 

We only have until next March to stop this chaos from happening. But we may well have to endure it as the only way of finally winning our argument.

       Philip Notley      philip@progeuroparty.co.uk

Brexit means (not much will change) Brexit

 Progressive European Party

If you have you seen the film the Producers you will remember that they worked out that if they put on a play that is overprescribed but fails on the first night they can make a fortune because none of the investors would expect any money back. But it all goes terribly wrong because the play is a great success. This reminds me of Brexit because now they have won they have no way of giving anyone what they promised. All they can do is keep being ambiguous and wasting as much time as possible and hope for the best because there is no way they can ever deliver on any of their campaign pledges. 

As Theresa May continues to put forward speech by speech her total lack of a plan where every vague proposal is dismissed out of hand by the EU one comes to realise what a great asset she is to us remainers. I am beginning to think that she is not as incompetent as she looks and is really a highly-trained double agent, skilled in the fine art of deception. Placed there by a secret remain elite to torpedo Brexit right from under the noses of the hard-line brexiteers.

“Alignment” will after all when taken to its logical conclusion produce a Brexit in name only. For the Irish border to be open the same rules have to apply on both sides. With a border running down the Irish sea being totally unpalatable to the DUP and the Northern Irish they represent then the whole of the UK will have to use the same rules. They may not want to, as Corbyn has, call it A Customs union, but that is in essence what it will have to be.

The next Brexit sacred cow to be led to the slaughter could well be immigration. EU immigration has become so vital to our economy and for the smooth running of services, it would be madness to put some arbitrary limitation on it. In any case with our attempt at cherry picking, it is likely that we will be told that we have to take the whole bowl with free movement thrown in.

Brexit, in the end, is likely to be as close to what we have now as is possible. What choice is there other than to try and replicate our EU membership. It is either that or a Liam Fox dystopia.

               Philip Notley          #progEuroparty

Re: Theresa May’s speech

 Progressive European Party

The impression I get from May’s speech is, it's going to be hard, it's going to make problems, but we can get through it. Well we all know that but there is no explanation as to why a prime minister of this country would want to do this to our nation. Where are the benefits. Where is the land of milk and honey, what about the taking back of control, the extra money for the NHS, the regaining of sovereignty, the control of our borders. And all the rest we were promised. There was some vague description of how it might look, what we would stay in and what we would stay out of. But not one word of how any of this would advantage the country in any way.

There is no way we will have regained the control of our borders if the Irish border does stay open. Ireland is not in Schengen, I presume for the same reason that they joined the EU simultaneously to us. In order for our two nations to be in compliance because we have that border. After Brexit there is no reason for them not to join Schengen some time in the future. How will an open border work then. Labour’s vague proposal of us staying in a customs union with the EU is a step forward but would still need passport controls. The border between Norway and Sweden is often put up as an example of how it might work, however they do have the freedom of movement so no passport checks but because Norway is not in the customs union they stop and search vehicles to stop smuggling. Is May’s Government saying that they will turn a blind eye to all smuggling. And what I find the biggest travesty of all she made no mention of the border between Gibraltar and Spain. Make of that what you will

 

   Philip Notley   #progEuroparty