Nineteen Eighty-Four

    Progressive European Party

One of the things that we can take from George Orwell's 1984 is that if you can control the past by the rewriting of it, then you can control the present. This is what happened to our world in 2016 and it has continued to happen since. Not the rewriting and editing of history as was being done in Orwell’s book. We can after all still read old newspapers and history books and still view old newsreels and documentaries unadulterated.

 

The rewriting that I am referring to has been done by the biased slant put on the social history of the UK from the end of WW2 until today. And on the pre-war era of Empire and global domination that this country prospered by. As well as the war years themselves where it is spun, we were standing alone against tyranny. 

I do not remember any of the anti-European Union spin doctors saying, make Britain great again, but that is what it amounted to. 

Looking at the past through rose coloured glasses and making out that there is a twenty-ninth member of the EU called Brussels that somehow tells all the other member states what to do. An oppressor that dominates our lives and takes away our freedom of choice and self-determination. That holds us back from once again being the greatest nation on earth is what has been spun. 

We can not rerun the 2016 referendum and even if we could the result would probably still be the same. The fact is that if you tell people what they want to hear then they tend to believe you. 

One recent new spin that has been put on our present predicament is that it is the remainers who have taken away the option of a “soft Brexit”. It is our opposition that has made only a hard Brexit now possible. Whereas the truth is no soft opinion was ever put on the table. If there had been a Norway deal on offer I for one would never have gone on all those Marches. 

The past is easily forgotten as it is diluted by the present. The present we have today is dominated by COVID19. The death of thousands of people is always going to be a far worse outcome than the negative effects of leaving the European Union without a pandemic was ever likely to have been. And if we are not careful after the bendy banana day of the First of January the benefits of EU membership will become a distant memory. 

As time goes by the job losses and social deprivation that is happening because of Covid will be hard to distinguish from the similar effects caused by Brexit. 

So how do we make our own spin on events that can distinguish between Covid and the loss of trade that will come about from Brexit? How can we make a new case for EU membership once lorry parks and the end of freedom of movement have become normalised as a part of life?

We took our eye off the ball before and were outmanoeuvred by people who only care about their own prosperity and don’t care at all about their fellow citizens. This was our fault, when were we in parliament square with our EU flags before 2016. Never as far as I can remember. We need to make sure that we do not make the same mistake again. So what should be our next move? As soon as the Covid restrictions are at last over we need to get back on the streets with our flags and never let them forget about the prosperity and economic security that we have lost. 

It is likely, it is almost a certainty, that the EU member states will recover economically from the pandemic far faster than we can by standing alone. They will also be taking an economic hit from Brexit but it will be nowhere as bad as the one that we will be suffering from. Pointing to the EU as an example of where we could be today if we have stayed a member is a good starting point for our campaign. We have to make a strong case that can be distinguished from the downturn in the economy caused by Covid and we need to start doing so now. 

Philip Notley 

ProgressiveEuropeanParty@gmail.com

This is not a democracy

      Progressive European Party

It is shameful to wake up in a world where a bunch of unscrupulous charlatans have taken power and are unashamedly creaming off the country's wealth into their own and their friend’s pockets, sending us all into ruination in the process.

The Progressive Party's call for Direct Democracy would end any possibility of the Citizens of this country being ripped off in this way ever again.  

There would still be elected politicians doing their job just as now however when it comes to voting on policies we would all be participating in the vote. There would, of course, be times like now with the pandemic where a government would need to use emergency powers to take control. But woe betide them if they got it wrong. They could easily be removed from power.

Sadly all we can do today is sit back and wait for four more years and hope the next lot manages better. We are no better off now than we would be if we lived in a dictatorship. This is not a democracy.

Philip Notley 

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/aug/21/reek-corruption-british-politics-discontent-democracy

https://truepublica.org.uk/united-kingdom/corruption-and-dark-money-now-the-life-blood-of-the-tory-party/

https://jacobinmag.com/2020/11/uk-corruption-conservative-party-dark-money-boris-johnson-brexit

Illegal immigration, what is the solution

  Progressive European Party

Some of the people who wish to restrict immigration into the UK and their supporters insist that illegal immigrants receive benefits. Whereas in reality illegal immigrants do not get housed by local authorities or receive any state help. 

The confusion comes from the likes of Nigel Farage and Katie Hopkins, who try to muddy the waters between asylum seekers and illegal immigrants. 

The picture being painted by Hopkins and Farage is that we are soft on refugees. Asylum seekers and illegal immigrants are one and the same thing and they are advocating that we need a regime far severer than the one we have today to deal with them. What can we say, or for that matter do, about this type of fake news? Because the truth is somewhat different.

In May 2009, the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights reviewed the UK and expressed concern “at the low level of support and difficult access to health care for rejected asylum-seekers.” It recommended that the UK “ensure that asylum seekers are not restricted in their access to the labour market while their claims for asylum are being processed” and review the regulation of “essential services to rejected asylum-seekers, and undocumented migrants, including the availability of HIV/AIDS treatment.” In 2010, the UNSpecial Rapporteur on the human rights of migrants endorsed these recommendations and urged the UK Government to ensure “that refused asylum-seekers are not left destitute while they remain in the United Kingdom.”

In other words, despite what Farage and Hopkins may tell their supporters we already treat them badly. Illegal immigrants would most likely be arrested and deported if they did try to claim a benefit and asylum seekers are not here illegally.  

The UK is a signatory to the UN's 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees. There are certain refugee rights that we are obligated to meet as signatories. 

These rights include:

• The right not to be forcibly returned, or refouled, to a country in which the refugee has reason to fear persecution (Article 33)

• The right not to be expelled, except under certain strictly defined conditions (Article 32)

• Exemption from penalties for illegal entry into the territory of a contracting State (Article 31)

• The right to work (Article 17)

• The right to housing (Article 21)

• The right to education (Article 22)

• The right to public relief and assistance (Article 23)

• The right to freedom of religion and free access to courts (Articles 4 and 16)

• Freedom of movement within the territory (Article 26)

• The right to be issued identity and travel documents (Articles 27 and 28)

If Farage thinks that we should leave the convention then that is what he should be campaigning for instead of trying to make out that we are a soft touch. In reality, the UK is not a soft touch for asylum seekers, far from it, in many cases, our provisions for refugees are woefully inadequate.

The type of racist propaganda being whipped up by these zealots has always been around. As anyone who remembers the National Front in the mid-1970s can testify. Today because of modern communications this kind of rhetoric is far more accessible to their supporters. Most of their followers seem to lap it up without attempting to make any factual appraisal, mostly I suspect because of confirmation bias. 

However, we should not let our repugnance for the peddlers of racism distract us from facing up to the immigration problem that we do have. Not the people who come here and then claim asylum, with them there is a set protocol to follow. The problems lie with the immigrants who are living here illegally. Most of whom did not cross the channel in a rubber dingy, but came here legally and then stayed on after their visa had expired. Many of them come from countries that you would most likely not associate with illegal immigration. The United States and Australia for example.

There are countless others brought here by people smugglers and are then forced to work, essentially as slave labour, to pay off the "debt" to their traffickers. Not only do these people not have access to public funds, but health and safety, workers rights or the minimum wage simply don't exist for them. 

It is not known how many illegals there are in the country, estimates put the numbers at anything between five hundred thousand to well over a million. Being part of the black economy no tax revenue is collected from them and most likely not much from their employers either.

What are the solutions?

Boris Johnson has in the past suggested that we should have an amnesty for illegal immigrants. Being Boris Johnson his proposals are low on detail and change what little detail they do have each time he puts the idea forward. His idea is to give amnesty only to people who have lived here for 5,10,12 or 15 years depending on when he said it. This will not solve the problem for anyone arriving in the back of a lorry this week or for most of the ones who have already arrived because they will not have the documentation necessary to prove how long their stay has been.

Talk about a Catch 22, illegals can stay if they have documentation, but they don’t have documentation because they are illegals. 

The only real way of solving the problem is to give amnesty to everyone regardless of how long they have been here. This would give them the right to remain and work here indefinitely so bringing them into the system. With the possibility of over one million people to process, this would have to be very well organised.  

Wouldn't this just give the green light to the people smugglers? A smugglers charter. 

No, in fact, it would put the smugglers out of business. They rely on the people they have brought into the country paying off their "debt" by working for them after they have arrived. This will no longer happen to new arrivals and the ones here now can be set free from their servitude. Hopefully, this will also help to identify and prosecute the people involved in this illegal trade. 

What happens after the amnesty period is over, the smugglers will just go into business again?

Everything will have to be tightened up to stop this from happening. More international cooperation will be needed to track down the criminals. It is also imperative that illegals that are found are treated as innocent victims and given help. Everything should be done to pick apart the organisations that maintain them here. The Chinese cockle pickers who drowned in Morecambe Bay were all living somewhere and working for someone. And temporary visitors will need to register on arrival and be traced so we can be sure that they are all leaving on time.

If we accept that we have a major but mostly unseen problem then the resources will have to be made available to prevent us from getting in this position again. Giving illegals no options other than to remain hidden or be arrested and deported can never be a solution.

Philip Notley

progressiveeuropeanparty@gmail.com

Progressive policies explained: Housing

  Progressive European Party

After the coalition government, it was reported by Nick Clegg that the Conservatives refused to build more social housing because they worried it would create more Labour voters. That is an inhuman point of view, or though it does have some logic to it if you care more about who is in power than the welfare of the citizens they are supposed to be representing. 

The New Labour governments of Blair and Brown built fewer council houses than the Thatcher Government and this was in a boom time when we could easily have afforded to. What excuses did they have?

In today's Britain, there are families with children stuck in bed and breakfast hotels, sometimes for years, and until recently homeless people were sleeping in doorways. This only ended when they were moved to hotels by councils because of Covid19. As no permanent housing has been provided for them presumably when the pandemic has ended many of them will once again be rough sleeping. 

 

It is easy to do what I have just alluded to and blame the politicians. Or blame the politicians and the people who elected them. When the plane keeps crashing do you just keep blaming the pilot and the passengers or do you seek to manufacture a safer design of aircraft. After all, we are constantly being reminded that we can achieve anything because we are the world's fifth largest economy. But somehow we are unable to house the homeless. If this situation is not ringing the alarm bells and showing that our political system is broken and not fit for purpose it is hard to imagine what else could.  

There is also the not so small point that the government is at present spending £25 billion a year on housing benefits. To put this into context our net contribution to the European Union was only £8.6 billion a year. If we provided housing for everyone it would, in the end, save the £25 billion that housing subsidies currently cost and that money could, in turn, be used in a more productive way. The savings are even greater than what could be saved by ending housing benefits when you consider that the civil service machine administering housing benefit would also no longer be needed.     

    

The Progressive Party has a solution to the housing crisis, a solution that would house everyone in need from singles to large families in high quality social housing. And at the same time provide homes for all the first time buyers waiting to get on the housing ladder. This would be done without any cost to the taxpayer. 

How can we house everyone without it costing any money? 

I can give an example of where I live. Over the last few years, disused office blocks have been converted into flats and sold by the developers. This has provided much needed accommodation for a commuter area close to London but has not provided any housing for anyone on the council waiting list. And there is not a solar panel or wind turbine in sight. If instead of private companies doing these developments it had been done by the local council. And a proportion of the new flats, about 50%, were sold to repay the loans the remaining 50% would go to the homeless. At no cost, because the building costs would be met by the sale of half of the flats. 

Building regulations would also need to be updated to make provisions for all new builds and conversions to have a high level of insulation. With solar panels to generate electricity to provide heat and light. This would end fuel poverty and provide high quality housing for the private sector as well as alleviating the council waiting lists. 

Developers like to build three bedroom houses because that is where most profits lie. The trend in society is however towards more people living as singles. Because the social duty of councils is to house everyone on their waiting list and if half of them were singles then half of their new builds would also have to be small one bedroom flats and studios suitable for single person occupancy. The actual needs of society would be met without having to consider how to make a profit from it. 

In some of the less affluent areas it would not be possible to completely repay building loans from just the sale of a percentage of the new builds. However, a proportion of the cost of the loans would still be met and the local authority would be gaining an additional income from the rents. So there would still be no cost to the taxpayer. All monies from the right to buy scheme should also be added to the resources available for the developments. 

How would people who are unemployed or on low incomes pay their rent if there is no longer any housing benefits?

Because we would also replace the antiquated benefit system with a citizens income that is paid to all citizens and that would be sufficient to pay basic rent and living costs.  

With our scheme not only would the visible homeless be housed but we would no longer have to live in a society where an invisible homeless are sofa surfing or living with relatives. Everyone’s housing needs could be met regardless of their circumstances and, as I have said before, at no cost to the taxpayer. 

Philip Notley

ProgressiveEuropeanParty@gmail.com

Progressive policies explained: Direct Democracy

Progressive European Party

The lowering of standards and the reduction of workers rights, as well as the opening up of our economy to the outside world with a zero tariff, free for all, is exactly the purpose of Brexit. This could not be achieved while we were still European Union members. 

The people behind Brexit, who are now running our country, are free-market economy nuts. They had to get us out of the European Union in order to steer the country in the direction of their ideology. They don't want any rules or regulations (red tape) - not even the ones that protect our health, human rights, environment and jobs. Perversely, they want open borders for all products and services while at the same time keeping borders closed against the free movement of people. 

One of the things said back in 2017 by the then international trade secretary Liam Fox was that a free trade agreement with the EU should be "one of the easiest deals in human history" - on the basis that our rules and laws are already the same. Yes fine, it could have been just that if we had stayed in the single market, retained a customs union and accepted the adjudication of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). However, our negotiators do not seem to have the first clue of what the European Union is. They want to deregulate the UK, leave the single market, have no customs union and no adjudication of the CJEU. Yet at the same time, they hope to preserve free trade with the EU: the most regulated trading block on the planet. Lunacy, lunacy driven by an ideology with no consideration of what is practicable or just plain common sense. This is the main problem with ideologies; their inflexibility. 

We, the good citizens of the United Kingdom, were only asked if we wanted to leave the EU or not. We were not asked if we wanted to be in a customs union, the single market, or to retain free movement. We have not been given any opportunity of further input beyond that single binary choice four years ago. This is democracy but only in its most diluted and perfunctory of forms. 

The situation we are in today is an extreme one, and quite unprecedented. Ideologies have, however, always had the effect of suppressing democracy: regardless of whether they were Socialism, Conservatism or Liberalism.

In the recent past, things were no better. We had no vote on whether we should be in the Schengen Area, should adopt the Euro or should be engaged in the Iraq war. These were all important decisions that affected the lives of most UK citizens and yet we were not permitted to have a say. 

The only thing we can do now is to lobby our local MP personally - usually to little effect.

The political ideology of a party that succeeds in gaining office usually becomes entrenched as a form of inflexible dogma. Imagine trying to convince Margaret Thatcher that an unrestricted free market economy had some inherent downsides and needed to have controls in place. Democracy will always take second place to dogma in the minds of the ruling political elite at any particular time. 

Pragmatism is our only ideology.

How then does the Progressive Party develop its manifesto policies if we are not following a Left, Right or Centre ideology? We have a test, we ask is it: Fair? Responsible? Economical? Efficient? This clearly has no foundation in any political ideology or philosophy and is unlikely to produce anything that could turn into an inflexible dogma. Instead for policies to pass the test and become part of our manifesto they, first of all, have to be desirable on a social level and then be workable in a practical sense. 

Our policy that would create the biggest constitutional change in this country is direct democracy. Currently, when voting for a candidate, their party logo is displayed next to their name on the ballot paper. This would no longer be necessary with a system of direct democracy. An elected MP would be a servant of the people, not the representative of the left, the right or the centre ground party. Only after enough time has been allowed for a particular policy to be published and openly discussed would we all get a vote on it. Modern technology makes it very easy to do this safely and with little risk of electoral fraud. 

Imagine a world where we, the citizens of the country, would be the ones to decide if there was to be a High Speed 2 train service. Equally if, after a start had been made, we could decide whether it should be continued in the light of unpredicted spiralling costs and delays to completion. Naturally, competent politicians and professional civil service would still be needed to do all the work. The difference is that we, the people, would be able to give them the instructions about what is to be done. 

Checks and balances are still needed to stop an extremist takeover of the country. A cooling-off period would be required before major changes could be made to how the country is run and a two-thirds supermajority required before constitutional changes were made. A mechanism would also be required to enable any member of the public to put forward proposals for debate. The current petition process of 100,000 votes before it is debated in parliament would be ideal for this. Unlike today, however, we would all be able to vote on the proposal at the appointed time.

These are just a few of our proposals. Much has been said in the past about an ideal government “of the people, for the people and by the people”. Hitherto this has remained merely a notional ideal. What we are proposing can turn it into a practical reality.

Philip Notley

(edited by John Coats)

progressiveeuropeanparty@gmail.com

What would have happened with the current situation of the coronavirus outbreak that would be different if we had a Progressive Party Government instead of today's leadership?

Progressive European Party

Let us put aside, for the moment, the complete lack of preparation for this (or any other) pandemic. I would hope that a Progressive administration would have known that there were not enough respirators, personal protective equipment, testing kits and hospital beds to meet any possible demand. At the very least, we would have put into action plans to address the shortages long before the present Government. I have no way of knowing, however, if we would have been able to foresee all of the problems that have arisen. Many other developed economies have fallen woefully short in their own preparations. It is possible, therefore, that a Progressive administration would also have been caught off guard. I can, nevertheless, be certain that our economic rescue packages would have been very much more effectively prepared than those that we are seeing now. The present government's response is an ad hoc, improvised, on-the-hoof package. It is cumbersome because it involves different levels of help for citizens who have lost their jobs, been temporarily laid off, or are self-employed and for businesses themselves. Most of these poorly prepared measures would not even have been necessary under the system proposed in our Progressive manifesto. One of the pillars of Progressive Policy is the Citizen's Income. Our existing proposals provide that every citizen should receive an income that is adequate to cover the basic necessities of life, regardless of whether they work or not. There would simply have been no need to give anyone extra money from public funds as a result of this emergency. The situation for businesses would also be very different. Our proposed tax system provides that tax is paid only on profits. There are no additional tax burdens on businesses, no business rates or employers national insurance contributions to pay. Businesses would either still be working, possibly with a temporarily reduced staff, or they might have to close altogether because of COVID-19. In the latter case, however, they would still be in a better position to start again from scratch as soon as this crisis has come to an end. The piecemeal way in which our Government has met this health crisis is not only the result of us being governed by a party which won the recent General Election with nothing but meaningless soundbites and no substantial policies. It is also indicative of the fundamental shortcomings of the current system of democracy in the UK. Like Brexit, COVID-19 shows how far from real democracy our present form of "representative" democracy actually is. Our Government is controlled by an unelected adviser while our Prime Minister (who has no ideas of his own) is nothing more than a role-playing actor and a charlatan. I suppose that it is some consolation that, now that lives are being lost and our economy is so severely threatened, the Government has finally managed to find the magic money tree that was proving so elusive to them in the past. Philip Notley (edited by John Coats)

philip@progeuroparty.co.uk

Is this the end of the remain campaign?

 Progressive European Party

An email came to me today from the Peoples vote campaign

“Hi philip,

We want to pay tribute to the millions of People’s Vote supporters who have worked tirelessly to demand that their voices are heard.

Since the election was called, tens of thousands of grassroots campaigners have mobilised all over the country. With record donations and hundreds of People’s Vote events in the last six weeks alone, it is clear that millions of people remain committed to fighting Brexit-fuelled injustice.

The People’s Vote will now refocus its campaign to concentrate on vital social issues that this government must urgently prioritise in its Brexit negotiations. We will remain a grassroots campaigning group who will act on issues of social inequality. We will put pressure on the government to stop them sacrificing opportunities for the poor and vulnerable, removing citizens’ rights, undermining the NHS and reducing job security in pursuit of a destructive Brexit driven by a hard-right minority.

We urge the government to avoid a hard Brexit that will be a disaster for our country and instead work with our European partners to get the fair deal that British people deserve. The poorest and most vulnerable will be further marginalised if Boris Johnson’s government crashes us out of the EU with no deal.

We will now redouble our efforts to make Johnson’s government accountable to the people, to give assurances that protect the weakest in our society and put the needs of the people above political ideology.

Early next year the People’s Vote campaign will rebrand and reorganise to campaign for a fair deal for Britain.

Kind Regards,

Stuart Hand

Campaign Director, People's Vote”

Not very promising is it, where did it all go wrong, I have, I believe, a clear understanding of why we have failed. At least failed so far in our endeavours to stop Brexit. And unless we change tack soon all that flag-waving speech-making and marching will soon be forgotten. As will the MPs who changed parties or stood as independents, not one of them were re-elected.

Recent history has shown that having a million people march on Parliament (unless they burn it down when they get there) has no effect. The stop the war Coalition did not stop the war and our efforts did not stop Brexit or get a confirmatory referendum

Unless a movement has political representation it will not move anything. 

So far the great opportunity that Brexit offered us has been wasted. Brexit has clearly thrown into great relief the failings of our current political system. It not only exposed the imperfections of our failing democracy it also pointed us in the direction of how it could be changed. 

We came up with the concept of a new Progressive party that would not only keep us in the EU but would also transform society to end the causes of discontentment that the “forgotten” in our country have suffered.
Why not stick with existing parties that want to remain? Because they are a part of the problem. It is easy to forget now that the Liberal Democrats and the Green Party both campaigned for an in-out EU referendum before Cameron put the idea forward. 

If the enormous amount of work campaigning and the not-insignificant amount of money raised had been put into our new movement then maybe we would have made some real progress. Or if we had been waving our flags and celebrating our EU citizenship before 2016 then maybe it would not have happened in the first place. But we can not put the clock back.  

Listening to this https://youtu.be/kVaE61crZDg recent speech by Madeleina Kay you would think that she is singing directly from the Progressive Party’s songbook. But unless Madeleina and people like her are leading members of a Political Party that has representation in Parliament it matters not how brilliant her speech is. The people in power will just ignore her. 

Coming up with the solutions was for us the easy part. The hard bit, convincing the general public, has so far eluded us. And because the biggest names of the remain campaign have made the decision that they and the movement should be apolitical we have not persuaded them either. 

All may not be lost but we are in a far worst place than we were before and the opportunities are far more limited. New opportunities will present themselves, I just hope that this time when they do we can take advantage of them and make it work. 

The phoenix can still rise from the ashes 

Philip Notley