Tonnes of British-grown fruit wasted over shortages of EU workers

 Progressive European Party

One of the, what will be many, I told you so moments.

The Government has put itself in a quandary. Many of the leave voters voted out because they are bigoted racists who want to stop the flow of migrants coming into the UK. Making little point in replacing the workers from the European Union with ones from, for argument's sake Bangladesh.

We could easily replace the EU migrant workers by issuing short term work visas to countries outside the EU. But what would the purpose in doing so be when the Governments #Brexit supporters want a slow down of all migrant workers? 

The really big problems will no doubt come from losing the more permanent workers who teach in our schools, work in our health service, manufacturing, infrastructure, building industries, banking and the rest. 

The Japanese, who have traditionally not allowed foreign workers into their country, are having to change their immigration practices to allow them in to support their industries because they are faced with an ageing population. 

Even little Liechtenstein which is not in the EU but is a member of the EEA and Schengen, have 50% of their residents from outside of their country.  

No successful Western state can hope to compete in the world of today without a steady influx of workers. 

Even if we leave with a deal and then make a trade deal with the EU it is never going to be like it is today. We will have to downsize considerably, wages will continue to stagnate, the cost of living will increase and there will be a fire sale of our assets to foreign investors. 

We will have our ‘independence’ but at what cost. 

The Conservatives/the Brexit party and Co. are still saying that we can have a point-based immigration policy like Australia. Julia Gillard who was Australia's Prime Minister from 2010-2013 pointed out on television last week that their immigration policy is designed to increase immigration. Whereas what the Conservatives are proposing is clearly designed to limit it as much as possible. Trying to use the same system to fix opposing ‘problems’ is bound to fail. 

Our EU workforce is self-regulating, if they do not have a job then they go home. There is no need for a points-based system to fill what vacancies there are. 

You may have seen homeless eastern Europeans begging on the streets in London. This is purely a failure of Government in not imposing the regulations that say we can send home anyone who has been out of work for three months. 

All the problems we now have are in fact a failure of Government. Homelessness, food banks, low wages, an underdeveloped infrastructure, the destruction of the high street, the decline of our wildlife and many more. None of these things will be solved by exiting the European Union. In fact, many of them will most likely be exacerbated by it. 

What hope do we now have? It is looking like the only real way out of our steadily deepening political quagmire is a short sharp shock. And Brexit will certainly give us that. Then the false promises of the Leave campaigners will be exposed once and for all. We will have the sovereignty that they have promised us but it will soon be shown to be something completely intangible. Something of no substance at all. Sovereignty will not put food on the table, educate the young or provide jobs. In fact, it will do the opposite of everything promised in the referendum. Then we can be sure that the groundswell of public opinion will take us back into the EU a lot faster than we came out of it.

I am of course fully aware that this is not the kind of rhetoric that you would expect from a pro-European political party. I am not however suggesting that we stop campaigning to remain. There is still, at this late hour, hope that the tables can be turned in our favour. But we have to face the facts, our Government has been taken over by extremists who will use any means fair or foul to get us out without a deal and then ride out the disruption that will follow. 

Brexit is its own worst enemy in that it can never fulfil any of its promises if it should succeed. We have to be prepared to move once this disaster has happened and hopefully make even bigger changes to our system to benefit all citizens, not just the rich and politically elect. 

In the long term, the worst-case scenario is to get a deal, this would give us two years to make a trade deal with the EU and everything else will stay as it is now for those two years. This will mean just a slow decline, whereas a no-deal will bring about an immediate tangible result which will be 100% negative. If we can not swing a remain campaign then a no-deal is the best option. Let Brexit destroy itself and discredit all of its supporters then we can move on to a brave new world of international cooperation and shared values. 

Something I hope every citizen would support and believe in 


Philip Notley

One million plus citizens march for democracy 23 March 2019

 Progressive European Party

What is Progressive politics?

 Progressive European Party

I am asked on occasions what is the definition of Progressive politics. It is a good question and deserves some clarification. The word progressive in a political sense is easy to define. “improvement of society by reform. As a philosophy, it is based on the idea of progress, which asserts that advancements in science, technology, economic development and social organisation are vital to the improvement of the human condition.” To quote Wikipedia. 

The labour party in its origins of campaigning for the political representation of workers was very progressive in its day. Similarly, the movement for women to have the same voting rights as men were of equal importance. In today's political system the only party with an MP that could be called progressive are the Greens. 

The Lib Dems on the other hand just offer improvements to the political system that we have now. Just sticking plasters on a system that is now outmoded.

The Labour party is sometimes called a Progressive party when really they are offering a socialism which is a throwback to the politics of the past. Important in its day but no longer Progressive in its outlook.

Our party advocates amongst other things the introduction of a Direct Democracy. Direct Democracy is not a progressive idea if you live in Switzerland or Liechtenstein but it is here. It can be said that proportional representation, which I believe is supported by the Lib Dems and the Greens is a progressive policy, it is, but really it is just another way of electing MPs to the same system that we currently have without any real change. 

To be really Progressive our system of democracy needs to be transformed. What we currently have has had its inadequacies exposed since the referendum result that shows how inadequate it is for the modern world. 

So I would say that Progressive politics from the point of view of pEp would be the transformation of society and our political system to be something fit for purpose in the twenty-first century. 

Philip Notley

#FBPE

 Progressive European Party

We have dropped the #FBPE from our FB group and Twitter. We think they have served their purpose and we now need to get down to more serious things. The Progressive party is not only about stopping #Brexit. We need to change the broken system that caused Brexit in the first place

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