Boris and his ministers' claims to have “followed the science” don't mean much - They didn't prepare properly, they were careless & they acted too late

It seems all that any member of the UK government has to do to silence criticism of their handling of the virus epidemic is to say “We were following the science. Are you questioning the expert advice of scientists and medical experts?”. This immediately gets the desired “of course not” response from the journalist, like a hypnotist saying “look into my eyes, you are feeling very sleepy” to someone very susceptible.

Nor are Keir Starmer or the Labour front bench ready to bring up such obvious questions as why, with the exception of 200 British citizens who had been in or near Wuhan, most people flying into the UK from then covid-19 outbreak centres like China, Italy and Iran were not put through mandatory quarantine or testing (1) – (2).

The assumption seems to be that to question any expert’s claims or opinions is to commit the unforgivable sin of “populism” and become a demagogue who ignores facts.

This is based on a view of scientific and medical opinion on any subject as always unified, or that the majority opinion among experts must always be accepted. Yet there are often disagreements among experts. For instance on 12^th March the UK’s Chief Scientific Officer Patrick Vallance held a press conference along with Boris Johnson in which he explained that the government’s strategy was based on spreading the virus through enough of the non-vulnerable population that they would develop “herd immunity” and not pass it on to those most at risk (3).

This was immediately met with criticism by hundreds of experts . Professor Hugh Pennington later said such a strategy was impossible without vaccines, which are likely a year to 18 months from having gone through enough trials to be proven safe and effective. The response was so negative that it contributed to the government disowning herd immunity and claiming it had never been their strategy (4) – (6).

Yet the Chief Medical and Scientific officers who approved that strategy are seen as beyond criticism. So when they tell us that “there is no evidence” that mandatory quarantine and testing of people flying into the country from countries with outbreaks of it would have slowed the spread of covid-19 we’re meant to accept it without question (7).

The other line used was that it had been tried in Italy and failed. This ignores the fact that air travel is the obvious means by which the virus spread so fast. And that Italy brought in a flight ban too late. Yes, many people with covid-19 will have flown into the UK before we knew about it. So maybe it’s too late to make a difference now. But surely if they’d done it early on, reducing the number of additional infected people entering the country would be a way of at least slowing the spread of the virus until we have done enough trials to find effective treatments and/or vaccines for it?

And every government in the world says it’s basing its policies on the science, yet different countries have very different policies. Sweden has no lock-down at all. The UK still has 15,000 people a day flying in even during “lock-down”, while Singapore banned all flights entry except cargo and humanitarian ones. And the UK has also said it plans to implement quarantine on anyone arriving in the country for the second phase of the virus (8) – (9).

 The UK government’s own advisers even disagreed among themselves on what lockdown measures to take, and opinion polls, as much as WHO advice and numbers of deaths and cases, drove changes in policy in mid-March (10).

Then there are Boris’ speeches – like one on 3^rd February in which he said “And in that context, we are starting to hear some bizarre autarkic rhetoric, when barriers are going up, and when there is a risk that new diseases such as coronavirus will trigger a panic and a desire for market segregation that go beyond what is medically rational to the point of doing real and unnecessary economic damage, then at that moment humanity needs some government somewhere that is willing at least to make the case powerfully for freedom of exchange, some country ready to take off its Clark Kent spectacles and leap into the phone booth and emerge with its cloak flowing as the supercharged champion, of the right of the populations of the earth to buy and sell freely among each other. And here in Greenwich in the first week of February 2020, I can tell you in all humility that the UK is ready for that role.” (11).

This sounds like Boris was initially more worried about “over-reaction” to covid-19 harming the economy than he was about covid-19 killing lots of people. The Conservative party from Thatcher on has always prioritised the economy above everything, even when policies based on this actually damaged the economy in practice. Thatcher was strongly opposed to Apartheid in South Africa, not so much because it was racist, undemocratic or morally wrong, but because she saw it as economically inefficient (12).

Add that to the “herd immunity” press conference and the failure to quarantine or test people flying in, and it looks a lot like the UK government’s initial strategy was initially the one it later disowned – “herd immunity” and “letting the virus, as it were, spread through the population” as Boris put it in a daytime TV interview, though he did not explicitly say this was his position, only “one of the theories” (13).

Then, when Professor Neil Ferguson of Imperial College London estimated a worst case scenario of half a million people dying as a result, and the opinion polls on the government’s handling of the crisis didn’t look good,  the government decided it better do something fast (14).

Failures by May’s Government in 2017
– And by Johnson’s in 2020

True the WHO didn’t say covid19 was a pandemic and a serious threat until 11^th of March. But epidemiologists had been warning for years that another respiratory virus pandemic like the Spanish flu of 1918 was only a matter of “when and from where?” not if”, especially after SARS , MERS and Swine flu epidemics (15) – (16).

In 2017 the UK Department of Health rejected advice from its new and emerging respiratory viruses threat advisory group (nervtag) to stockpile personal protective equipment (PPE), for all NHS staff, on grounds of cost. Telling them to change the advice to exclude eye protection on grounds of cost (17).

In the same year the NHS held Exercise Cygnus simulating how it would deal with a respiratory virus epidemic The final report was made classified (18). So it is not credible for the government to claim no one could have predicted this. The only parts that were unpredictable were when it would arrive, and where it would start.

And it was no secret to anyone that the Chinese government’s public statements can’t be trusted, nor that big, powerful countries like China have disproportionate influence in bodies like the WHO. China had previously tried to cover up SARS at first too. So any government that didn’t assume the worst case scenario on covid-19 – and that the reality could well be much worse than the Chinese government or the WHO were saying – was being negligent.

This, again, was excessive faith in experts, and in this case experts operating under major political pressures from the bigger members of their organisation.

Graph - Excess deaths are the amount that deaths in a particular week exceed the average number of people who died in that week in the previous 5 years. Many experts believe this is a good indication of the impact of covid-19, though not all excess deaths will be due to it. Source – Sky News report using data from the EUROMOMO project at the University of Copenhagen.

Trump’s accusations against the WHO, while obviously an attempt to distract from his own failures, have some basis in fact. Taiwan had sent experts to Wuhan to talk with doctors there in January. On January 16th they reported that the virus could be transferred between humans. At the time the Chinese government was still claiming it could only be caught from bats ; although a WHO official had told the press on the 14^th that given the SARs and MERS pandemic, it would not be surprising if it could be transmitted between humans, and that this may have happened in 41 cases. Taiwan being excluded from WHO meetings also helped the Chinese government give a false impression of the threat level from the virus. (19) – (20)

We shouldn’t ignore experts,  but remember views among experts in the same field may differ. Those in official positions working for governments or international organisations may be chosen for having the views those in power prefer to believe. Senior ranks of some expert bodies may be more politicians than experts, willing to modify their views to keep their position, or rise higher. Then CIA director George Tenet’s assurance to President Bush that proving Iraq had weapons of mass destruction would be a “slam dunk” was one example.

And if opinion among the government’s expert advisers is divided, as we know it has been in the UK, the advice is likely to end up being to take less action rather than more, to get concensus.

True, Boris and the current cabinet were not the government in 2017. But they were the government by December 2019, when we first knew of the virus in China. And in late January, when the UK got its first confirmed case.

A study in the Lancet in early as January 24^th warned that the virus could be transmitted between humans, and that the estimated mortality rate of over 3% was similar to that of the Spanish Flu at an estimated under 5%, with both diseases killing so many people because they were so contagious.

On the 31^st of April another study in the Lancet said that ‘Therefore, in the absence of substantial public health interventions that are immediately applied, further international seeding and subsequent local establishment of epidemics might become inevitable. On the present trajectory, 2019-nCoV could be about to become a global epidemic in the absence of mitigation. Nevertheless, it might still be possible to secure containment of the spread of infection such that initial imported seeding cases or even early local transmission does not lead to a large epidemic in locations outside Wuhan. To possibly succeed, substantial, even draconian measures that limit population mobility should be seriously and immediately considered in affected areas, as should strategies to drastically reduce within-population contact rates through cancellation of mass gatherings, school closures, and instituting work-from-home arrangements, for example.’ (21)

A summary of the last sentence was tweeted by the editor of the Lancet, Richard Horton, on the same day.

The first confirmed case of covid-19 in the UK had been 2 days earlier on January 29^th. No serious measures were taken. A month later on 28^th February the first proven case of transmission  between people in the UK. Still no action. The Cheltenham Festival even went ahead in early March (23).

It would be two more weeks before any serious measures were announced. Implementing lock-downs sooner, and making them include more limits on numbers flying in and quarantine of those allowed in, could have contained and slowed the spread of the virus, reducing deaths.

The government claim this would have resulted in people not obeying lock-down measures because some would think it an over-reaction. But New Zealand seems to show otherwise. While its lockdown didn’t come till around the same time as the UK’s, it began it before there were any confirmed deaths in the country – and its public are mostly abiding by it. The government in the UK could have explained the seriousness of the situation at any time by using the Lancet studies and other evidence as back up. They chose not to. It’s hard to believe that Boris’ reckless character and his and his party’s ideological beliefs weren’t a big factor here. It was a huge mistake and many people thought at the time that the government was crazy not to be bringing in more measures sooner (24).

Even on the economic impact the evidence from studies of lockdown decisions by different US cities in the 1918 pandemic is against the idea that there is a trade off between economic impact and avoiding virus deaths. The cities which locked-down soonest and for longest had both the least deaths and the fastest economic recoveries – though most of their lock-downs didn’t last more than 6 weeks (25).

The 1918 pandemic also gives some grounds for hope though. It killed so many people partly due to poor hygiene and not enough social distancing or isolation, especially among patients in field hospitals – things we’re partly avoiding. And the Spanish Flu is thought to have ended not due to immunisation – as it ended before vaccines were available, but because deadlier strains of a virus are less likely to survive as a dead host can’t continue passing the virus on, so evolution favoured mutation into less deadly strains. Might covid-19 do the same? (26)

 

(1) = BBC News 29 Jan 2020 ‘Coronavirus: Britons on Wuhan flights to be quarantined’, https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-51292590

(2) = Daily Mail 22 Mar 2020 ‘Coronavirus chaos at UK borders as flights from Italy, China and Iran - the countries with the biggest coronavirus death tolls - continue to arrive, with up to 7,500 travellers entering Britain in a week’, https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8139529/Flights-Italy-Iran-China-landing-Britain-despite-UK-coronavirus-lockdown.html

(3) = ITV News 13 Mar 2020 ‘UK's chief scientific adviser tells ITV News he hopes Government's approach to coronavirus will create 'herd immunity'’, https://www.itv.com/news/2020-03-13/uk-s-chief-scientific-adviser-tells-itv-news-he-hopes-government-s-approach-to-coronavirus-will-create-herd-immunity/

(4) = Press & Journal 23 Mar 2020 ‘Professor Hugh Pennington: ‘Herd immunity is a crazy idea, not really supported by any sound science’, https://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/fp/news/politics/uk-politics/2093482/professor-hugh-pennington-herd-immunity-is-a-crazy-idea-not-really-supported-by-any-sound-science/

(5) = BBC News 14 Mar 2020 ‘Coronavirus: Some scientists say UK virus strategy is 'risking lives'’, https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-51892402

(6) = Politics Home 15 Mar 2020 ‘Matt Hancock insists 'herd immunity' not part of government's plan for tackling coronavirus’, https://www.politicshome.com/news/article/matt-hancock-insists-herd-immunity-not-part-of-governments-plan-for-tackling-coronavirus

(7) = Telegraph 09 Mar 2020 ‘Banning flights and screening arrivals will not stop coronavirus spread, says Chief Medical Officer’,    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/03/09/banning-flights-screening-arrivals-will-not-stop-coronavirus/

(8) = Metro 18 Apr 2020 ‘Flights still bringing 15,000 people a day to UK with no screening’, https://metro.co.uk/2020/04/18/flights-still-bringing-15000-people-day-uk-no-screening-12574861/

(9) = www.independent.co.uk 27 Apr 2020 ‘Self-isolate for two weeks’: What a new government quarantine policy for arrivals to the UK could mean’, https://www.independent.co.uk/travel/news-and-advice/coronavirus-flights-ferries-tests-heathrow-airport-a9484616.html

(10) = New Statesman 01 Apr 2020 ‘The real reason the UK government pursued “herd immunity” – and why it was abandoned’ , https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2020/04/real-reason-uk-government-pursued-herd-immunity-and-why-it-was-abandoned

(11) = www.gov.uk 3 Feb 2020  ‘PM speech in Greenwich: 3 February 2020’, https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/pm-speech-in-greenwich-3-february-2020

(12) = www.theguardian.com 10 Apr 2013 ‘How Margaret Thatcher helped end apartheid – despite herself’, https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/apr/10/margaret-thatcher-apartheid-mandela

(13) = Full Fact 10 Mar 2020 ‘Here is the transcript of what Boris Johnson said on This Morning about the new coronavirus’, https://fullfact.org/health/boris-johnson-coronavirus-this-morning/

(14) = See (10) above

(15) = The Lancet 01 Jul 2018 , Editorial ‘How to be ready for the next influenza pandemic’, https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(18)30364-5/fulltext

(16) = JAMA 09 May 2007 ‘The Next Influenza Pandemic: Can It Be Predicted?’,
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2504708/

(17) = www.theguardian.com 27 Mar 2020 ‘Advice on protective gear for NHS staff was rejected owing to cost’, https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/27/advice-on-protective-gear-for-nhs-staff-was-rejected-owing-to-cost

(18) = www.telegraph.co.uk 28 Mar 2020 ‘Exercise Cygnus uncovered: the pandemic warnings buried by the government  ’, https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/03/28/exercise-cygnus-uncovered-pandemic-warnings-buried-government/

(19) = The Nation 03 Apr 2020 ‘The WHO Ignores Taiwan. The World Pays the Price’, https://www.thenation.com/article/world/taiwan-who-coronavirus-china/

(20) = W.H.O 27 Apr 2020 ‘Timeline – COVID-19’, https://www.who.int/news-room/detail/08-04-2020-who-timeline---covid-19

(21) = The Lancet 15 Feb 2020 ‘A novel coronavirus outbreak of global health concern’, https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)30185-9/fulltext

(22) = The Lancet 31 Jan 2020 ‘Nowcasting and forecasting the potential domestic and international spread of the 2019-nCoV outbreak originating in Wuhan, China: a modelling study’, https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)30260-9/fulltext

(23) = Metro 19 Apr 2020 ‘When did coronavirus first come to the UK?’,  https://metro.co.uk/2020/04/19/first-case-coronavirus-uk-covid-19-diagnosis-12578061/

(24) = New Scientist 13 Mar 2020 ‘Why is the UK approach to coronavirus so different to other countries?’, https://www.newscientist.com/article/2237385-why-is-the-uk-approach-to-coronavirus-so-different-to-other-countries/

(25) = www.dailymail.co.uk 11 Apr 2020 ‘How lockdowns could also flatten the 'economic damage curve': Study shows cities that cracked down harder during 1918 Spanish Flu pandemic recovered quicker financially than those that didn't’,  https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8210647/Study-suggests-lockdowns-economic-damage-alternative.html

(26) = The Conversation 17 Mar 2020 ‘10 misconceptions about the 1918 flu, the ‘greatest pandemic in history’, https://theconversation.com/10-misconceptions-about-the-1918-flu-the-greatest-pandemic-in-history-133994

Unbiased pros and cons of EU membership : Part 3 – Corrupt and Undemocratic? The EU and UK governments

In this post I’ll explain how decisions are made in the EU,  how democratic or undemocratic it is, and how corrupt (or not) it is ; and then a discussion of the same for the UK government.

How the EU works – How democratic (or undemocratic) is it?

The EU has four main decision making bodies – the European Commission, the European parliament, the European Council and the Council of Ministers.

The European Council is made up of all the elected heads of government (Prime ministers or Presidents) of EU member countries, plus the President of the European Commission.

Candidates to be President of the Commission are selected by the European Council by Qualified Majority Voting (meaning larger countries get more votes based on their population).

Then the European parliament, (made up of MEPs elected in every EU member country, by the Proportional Representation voting system), votes to approve or reject the candidate for President of the Commission.

Then each country’s government gets to put forward candidates to be commissioners. The Commission President assigns potential offices to them (e.g Commissioner for agriculture) and the European parliament votes to approve or reject them, until enough have been approved that all offices are filled.

The Councils of Ministers are made up of ministers from member governments of the EU. E.g The Council of Ministers when dealing with EU agricultural policy or laws would be made up of the Agriculture Ministers of all national governments in the EU. Votes by any Council of Ministers are also usually by Qualified Majority Voting.

The European Commission can put forward proposals for EU laws (regulations).

Usually any EU law (‘Regulation’) the Commission propose has to be voted on by the European Council (if a very controversial or major issue), or else the relevant Council of Ministers, and also by the European parliament.

The European parliament can also vote to amend (propose changes to) the proposed law. If a majority of the parliament and a majority of the Council vote in favour of the law, it becomes EU law. If not, it does not.

This is called the “Ordinary Legislative Procedure” – shown in more detail in the picture at the start of this post - you can click on the picture to enlarge it.

There are some ‘Special Legislative Procedures’ in which the Commission and the Council are the only ones involved in making a decision on an EU Regulation, with the European parliament only consulted on its views. These are only used rarely and can only be used in certain policy areas.

Then there are EU Directives, which are made by the Commission, and in theory require no one else’s approval to enter into force. In practice though national governments can decide how to implement them.

Also in practice a country’s parliament can choose not to implement a Directive by voting to “derogate” from it, as Ireland’s parliament did over the First Railway Directive, although the EU sometimes takes legal action against and tries to sue member governments for not implementing Directives (though the European Court of Justice does not always rule in the commission’s favour).

International Treaties (such as the extremely controversial Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership  or TTIP which the EU and US governments are negotiating on) are negotiated on by commissioners, but on a mandate given to them by the Council and parliament, and must also be ratified by majority votes for them in the European Council and Parliament, and by national parliaments also before they can come into force at EU or national government level.

This is all very complicated, confusing, blurs who is responsible for what ;  and far too much of it happens in secret (with the media banned from most meetings of the Councils and Commission, but allowed in the European parliament).

Even MEPs can’t make any photocopies of documents on the details of TTIP negotiations to show to anyone else for instance (1).

(This resulted in details of the negotiations being leaked – including that they did include the provisions for companies to sue governments for any regulation that limited their profits. (which EU officials had previously denied. (2)

This leak however makes it far less likely any agreement on these terms will be ratified – with the French government already saying it may not ratify TTIP after the leak (3))

However the EU, despite not being nearly as democratic as it should be, is far from being “completely undemocratic” as many of the its critics allege.

Three of the four main decision bodies are elected, and in practice no EU Regulation or Directive can pass without the approval of elected bodies. Nor can “unelected bureaucrats” (i.e European Commissioners) make any decision without elected representatives voting to approve them (or to reject them so they aren’t implemented).

How corrupt or influenced by big banks and firms is the EU?

For instance European Commissioners and their advisers are often former employees of big companies such as Exxon-Mobil – and some of them draw up EU energy and environment policy (4).

The head of the European Central Bank, Mario Draghi, is a former executive at Goldman Sachs bank.

Many other politicians and central bankers in Eurozone countries, have gone back and forth between senior positions in government, and being paid advisers to or executives of Goldman Sachs and other large banks (5).

It seems unlikely to be coincidence that the EU has issued 1 trillion Euros of ‘Quantitative Easing’ money to private banks, but won’t issue any to pay off debts of countries like Greece (6).

And around a third of European Commissioners, on finishing their time in office, go into jobs working for big banks or firms (7).

These are just examples, not an exhaustive list.

Now how democratic is the UK government? And how influenced by big business?

How democratic (or not) and how corrupt,
or influenced by big business, (or not) is the UK government?

MPs – The House of Commons

The House of Commons – the MPs of the UK parliament - are elected by the First Past the Post voting system, which bins millions of peoples’ votes unrepresented in every election, and lets parties get a majority of seats on a minority of votes (currently the Conservatives have 51% of MPs on 37% of votes) (8).

In theory elected MPs appointed government ministers direct civil servants on what laws to make and parliament votes on whether to amend them, pass them or reject them.

The House of Lords

The House of Lords, though unelected, has little power in practice. It can only send a bill (draft law) back to the elected House of Commons (made up of MPs) twice, with suggested amendments (changes). If the Commons send the bill back a third time the Lords cannot vote against it, even if their amendments have been rejected.

In practice the Lords have helped to prevent Prime Ministers with big majorities for their party in parliament rushing through laws before the public, MPs, or the media have had time to look at what those laws would do in detail – because many MPs just vote whatever way the party leader tells them to most of the time.

The Prime Minister can appoint unelected members of the House of Lords to be government ministers, which is more dubious.

Big banks and Companies’ Influence in government departments

A much more undemocratic – and arguably corrupt – factor - is that big banks and big companies that donate to party funds often second their employees to UK government departments. They then get to influence, write, or scrap, regulations for their industries.

The Ministry of Defence has dozens of staff seconded to it from arms companies it’s giving contracts to . Energy companies second dozens of staff at a time to the Department of Energy and Climate Change – including some from gas companies writing energy policy (9) – (12)

The four largest accountancy firms in the UK also routinely second staff to the Treasury, where they help draft tax laws. They then use the knowledge of tax laws and influence over them which they gain to help paid clients they advise (including big banks and companies) to avoid taxes (13) – (14).

Chancellor George Osborne has even given a job to the former head of the British Bankers’ Association writing tax law at the Treasury. (15)

There are no laws preventing advisers or ministers taking jobs with firms they did favours for in government. And advisers to ministers and Prime ministers are not elected, but appointed. 

In itself advisers being unelected would not be a problem, if so many of them did not have close involvement with private companies who profit from advice they give ministers – and if they did not often then take jobs with those companies.

For instance Sir Stuart Rose, an adviser to Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt, is also a paid member of the Board of Bridgepoint Capital – an investment firm which owns the majority of shares in the private healthcare firm Care UK (16).

Mark Britnell, an adviser to Prime Minister David Cameron on health policy, told a meeting of private healthcare firm executives that the NHS would be shown “no mercy” and that this was a “big opportunity” for them (17).

A year later he went into a job as a lobbyist for a company that lobbies on behalf of private healthcare companies (18).

The former head of HMRC – the Treasury’s tax collecting body – Dave Hartnett, now has a job working for the HSBC bank (19).

Under him HMRC let big banks and firms off with not paying large amounts of tax, without prosecution, in “sweetheart deals”, while aggressively prosecuting people on ordinary incomes for tax evasion (20).

The Campaign Against the Arms’ Trade’s Revolving Door blog shows the many former Ministry of Defence Ministers, advisers and chiefs of staff who have gone on to jobs working in arms companies (21).

Former Conservative Health Secretaries Stephen Dorrell and Andrew Lansley both went into jobs working for private healthcare firms after overseeing the contracting out of NHS services to private companies that donated to Conservative party funds (22) –(23).

Before that New Labour Health Secretaries Patricia Hewitt and Alan Milburn similarly went into jobs with private healthcare firms after also overseeing ‘Public Private Partnership’ contracts going to private firms, and the contracting out of NHS services to private firms.(24).

Again these are just examples, not every instance.

Big Business Influence through donations to party funds

There are no serious restrictions on political donations from big banks, big firms or the very wealthy to political parties.

Banks and hedge funds provided over half of the donations to Conservative party funds in the run up to the 2010 election (25).

The Coalition government including the Conservatives continued New Labour’s policy of massive Quantitative Easing of hundreds of billions of pounds, with every penny going only to private banks  (26).

In 2013 Mark Carney, a former executive at Goldman Sachs bank, was appointed Governor of the Bank of England (27).

Between 2010 and the 2015 election super-rich hedge fund managers donated £10 million to the Conservative party (28).

At the same time Chancellor George Osborne cut the top rate of tax from 28% to 20%, and abolished stamp duty reserve tax on asset management funds – which would include hedge funds (29).

Although he did later exclude hedge funds from a cut in Capital Gains tax for other businesses (30)

Leaving the EU without addressing these problems will not fix them.

It’s private political donations and the revolving door between government and business that are undermining democracy at every level of government.

The Leave Campaign’s leaders – Would they protect the NHS and stop TTIP?

Leave campaigners Michael Gove MP, Daniel Hannan MEP and Nigel Farage MEP  say they would increase NHS funding if we left the EU. Yet Gove and Hannan co-authored a book in 2009 which called the NHS “irrelevant to the modern world”. And Hannan told Fox News that the NHS was “a 60 year old mistake”. Farage has been caught twice saying the NHS should be replaced with private healthcare (31) – (33).

Gove , Ian Duncan Smith and Boris Johnson are also members of a Conservative government slashing public health spending so it can say the NHS has “failed” and needs “reforms”, while promising “big opportunities” to private healthcare firms that donate to Conservative party funds (34) – (35).

So are Cameron and Osborne, who are for staying in the EU, but Hannan and Gove’s previous statements suggests they would erode the NHS even more.

Boris Johnson’s supposed opposition to the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership is not credible when he wrote an article praising its “brilliance” in 2014. (36).

So if Boris has his way he will probably just negotiate a TTIP style deal, but between the UK and the US rather than the EU and the US.

Sovereignty here just means Boris and pals handing more power to big business. And these are the people likely to become Prime Minister and government ministers once David Cameron stands down (As he’s said he will before the next General Election) if we leave the EU.

Of course many of the politicians campaigning for remaining in the EU are no more trustworthy – certainly not Cameron or Osborne.

Conclusion – Leave or Remain in the EU?

So the EU and the UK government both leave a lot to be desired. Both should be a lot more democratic than they are. Both are heavily influenced by big banks and big companies through donations to political parties and the revolving door of people going back and forth between government and big business.

Which you choose is up to you. You may decide that getting rid of one level of bad government is an improvement. Or that there is no point in leaving one corrupt and not fully democratic layer of government just to give another that is just as bad more influence – and that remaining to push for reform of both is the best way.

 

 (1) = www.guardian.com 18 Feb 2016 ‘MPs can view TTIP files – but take only pencil and paper with them’, https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/feb/18/mps-can-view-ttip-files-but-take-only-pencil-and-paper-with-them

(2) = www.independent.co.uk 02 May 2016 ‘After the leaks showed what it stands for, could this be the end for TTIP?’, http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/ttip-leaks-shocking-what-are-they-eu-us-deal-a7010121.html

(3) = www.guardian.com 03 May 2016 ‘Doubts rise over TTIP as France threatens to block EU-US deal’, https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/may/03/doubts-rise-over-ttip-as-france-threatens-to-block-eu-us-deal

(4) = Corporate Europe Observatory ‘Brussels, Big Energy, & revolving doors: a hothouse for climate change’, http://corporateeurope.org/pressreleases/2015/11/brussels-big-energy-revolving-doors-hothouse-climate-change

(5) = www.independent.co.uk 18 Nov 2011 ‘What price the new democracy? Goldman Sachs conquers Europe’, http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/analysis-and-features/what-price-the-new-democracy-goldman-sachs-conquers-europe-6264091.html

(6) = BBC News 22 Jan 2015 ‘ECB unveils massive QE boost for eurozone’, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-30933515

(7) = Corporate Europe Observatory 17 Mar 2016 ‘Revolving doors round-up’, http://corporateeurope.org/revolving-doors/2016/03/revolving-doors-round

(8)  BBC News Election 2015 Results,
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election/2015/results

(9) = www.guardian.co.uk 17 Feb 2015 ‘Dozens of arms firm employees on MoD secondments’, https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/feb/16/dozens-of-arms-firm-employees-on-mod-secondments

(10) = www.guardian.co.ujk 05 Dec 2011 ‘Energy companies have lent more than 50 staff to government departments’, https://www.theguardian.com/business/2011/dec/05/energy-companies-lend-staff-government

(11) = www.guardian.co.uk 10 Nov 2013 ‘Gas industry employee seconded to draft UK's energy policy’, https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/nov/10/gas-industry-employee-energy-policy

(12) = Independent 22 Apr 2015 ‘Big Six firms use influence to dictate energy policy, claims leading environmentalist’, http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/big-six-firms-use-influence-to-dictate-energy-policy-claims-leading-environmentalist-10196672.html

(13) = www.guardian.co.uk 26 Apr 2013  'Big four' accountants 'use knowledge of Treasury to help rich avoid tax', https://www.theguardian.com/business/2013/apr/26/accountancy-firms-knowledge-treasury-avoid-tax ( four main accountancy firms in the UK second staff to Treasury to write tax laws, then use knowledge of them to help clients avoid tax)

(14) = House of Commons, Committee of Public Accounts, 15 Apr 2013 ‘Tax avoidance: the role of large accountancy firms ‘, http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmselect/cmpubacc/870/870.pdf

(15) = www.guardian.com 09 Dec 2015 ‘Osborne criticised over Treasury job for former bank lobbyist’, http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/dec/09/former-bank-lobbyist-to-head-treasury-office-tax-simplification (former Chief Executive of British Bankers’ Association given job writing tax law for the Treasury)

(16) = Independent 14 Feb 2014 ‘NHS adviser Sir Stuart Rose has private health link’,
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/nhs-adviser-sir-stuart-rose-has-private-health-link-9129592.html

(17) = www.guardian.co.uk 14 May 2011 ‘David Cameron's adviser says health reform is a chance to make big profits’, http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2011/may/14/david-cameron-adviser-health-reform (for private healthcare firms – also told them NHS would be “shown no mercy”)

(18) = Guardian 23 Nov 2012 ‘David Cameron's former NHS privatisation adviser becomes lobbyist’, http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2012/nov/23/david-cameron-privatisation-adviser-health-lobbyist

(19) = www.independent.co.uk 24 Mar 2015 ‘Former HMRC boss Dave Hartnett forced to defend new job – with HSBC’, http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/former-hmrc-boss-dave-hartnett-forced-to-defend-new-job-with-hsbc-10129195.html

(20) = www.guardian.com 29 Apr 2013 ‘Revealed: 'Sweetheart' tax deals each worth over £1bn’, http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/apr/29/sweetheart-tax-deals

(21) = Campaign Against The Arms Trade – Revolving Door Log,
https://www.caat.org.uk/issues/influence/revolving-door

(22) = www.guardian.co.uk 20 Oct 2015 ‘Ex-health secretary Andrew Lansley to advise firms on healthcare reforms’, http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/oct/20/andrew-lansley-advise-firms-healthcare-reforms

(23) = PULSE 01 Dec 2014 ‘Former health secretary takes up private management consultancy role’,  http://www.pulsetoday.co.uk/political/political-news/former-health-secretary-takes-up-private-management-consultancy-role/20008623.fullarticle (this time Stephen Dorrell MP)

(24) = Guardian 17 May 2011 ‘Former Labour ministers rushing to take private sector jobs, report finds’, http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2011/may/17/labour-ministers-consultancy-private-sector

(25) = Bureau of Investigative Journalism 08 Feb 2011 ‘Tory Party funding from City doubles under Cameron’, https://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/2011/02/08/city-financing-of-the-conservative-party-doubles-under-cameron/

(26) = BBC News 03 Dec 2015 ‘What is quantitative easing?’, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-15198789

(27) = BBC News 30 Jun 2015 ‘Mark Carney takes over as head of Bank of England’, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-23118515

(28) = www.independent.co.uk  04 Feb 2015 ‘General Election 2015: How hedge fund super-rich 'donated £19m to Tory party'’, http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/how-hedge-fund-super-rich-donated-19m-to-tory-party-10024548.html

(29) = www.mirror.co.uk 24 Mar 2013 ‘George Osborne in Budget giveaway to Tory donors in the City’, http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/george-osborne-budget-giveaway-tory-1781551

(30) = Telegraph 17 Mar 2016 ‘Budget 2016: private equity angered at exclusion from capital gains tax cuts’, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/03/17/budget-2016-private-equity-angered-at-exclusion-from-capital-gai/

 (31) = www.guardian.co.uk 16 Aug 2009 ‘Key Tory MPs backed call to dismantle NHS’,
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2009/aug/16/tory-mps-back-nhs-dismantling (Michael Gove MP and Daniel Hannan MEP co-authored book ‘Direct Democracy’ in 2009 which said the NHS is “no longer relevant in the 21^st century”. Hannan also told Fox News that the NHS was a “60 year old mistake”)

(32) = www.guardian.co.uk 12 Nov 2014 ‘Film shows Nigel Farage calling for move away from state-funded NHS’, http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/nov/12/film-nigel-farage-insurance-based-nhs-private-companies

(33) = www.independent.co.uk 20 Jan 2015 ‘Nigel Farage: NHS might have to be replaced by private health insurance’, http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/nigel-farage-nhs-might-have-to-be-replaced-by-private-health-insurance-9988904.html

(34) = www.independent.co.uk 27 Nov 2015 ‘George Osborne actually cut public health budget by 20 per cent despite NHS promises, analysis finds’, http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/george-osborne-actually-cut-health-budget-by-20-per-cent-despite-nhs-promises-analysis-finds-a6751311.html

(35) = see the blog post on this link and sources in it

 (36) = Telegraph 19 Oct 2014 ‘This trade deal with America would have Churchill beaming’, by Boris Johnson,
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/11173369/This-trade-deal-with-America-would-have-Churchill-beaming.html

Unbiased pros and cons of EU membership 2 : Are the EU's actions towards Greece undemocratic? Would the UK leaving the EU help or harm Greeks?

Is the EU’s treatment of Greece democratic or not though? Unelected officials from the ‘Troika’ (European Commission, European Central Bank and International Monetary Fund) were sent to oversee Greek government departments’ spending , with the stipulation that “No unilateral fiscal or other policy actions will be taken by the [Greek] authorities. All measures, legislative or otherwise, taken during the programme period, which may have an impact on banks’ operations, solvency, liquidity or asset quality should be taken in close consultation [with the troika]” (1)

The Greek electorate voted in a party – Syriza – whose manifesto included scrapping EU imposed austerity. Then they were told this would not change the agreements made with the Troika by previous Greek governments.

German and Hungarian government politicians argue that they were representing the electorate of their own countries who were paying for financial support to Greece.

The reality is a lot more complicated than that as Germany benefited most from a free trade zone and single currency with weaker economies like Greece.

Despite myths of Greeks being lazy and tax avoiders, they in fact worked longer average hours than any other country in Europe even before the crisis , with Germans working considerably less hours on average(2) – (3).

And tax avoidance by the very wealthy is hardly something unique to Greece with e.g Switzerland, Luzembourg and the British Channel Islands being notorious tax havens, and many British companies, banks and billionaires avoiding tax in tax havens.

Greeks also had the options of defaulting on their debts and dropping the Euro as a currency and going back to their own currency, so they could issue money themselves, rather than having to ask the European Central Bank to issue them with Euros.

The Syriza Finance minister Yanis Varoufakis favoured at the least threatening to do this, and if necessary, doing. However the Greek government did not do it as the majority of Greeks in polls were against it, fearing that if done during a crisis it would lead to more panic and hyper-inflation.

This is still an option for the Greek government though, if it believes the damage done by EU imposed austerity policies is so bad that the other risks couldn’t be worse.

What there can be no doubt about is that the refusal of the same 50% debt forgiveness that Greece approved for Germany after World War Two, and the austerity policies imposed on Greece are both unfair and completely counter-productive.

Severe austerity cuts on the scale imposed on Greece reduce the size of the economy as a whole by reducing demand for private sector goods and services, reduce growth, and so make paying off any of the debt impossible.

From 2008 on during protests and riots against austerity measures Greek riot police have killed dozens of protesters and rioters, starting with what seems to have been the unprovoked murder of a 15 year old boy by armed police in December 2008 (4).

The EU have demanded that Greece run a budget surplus of 3.5% of GDP by 2018, which is over five times as large as the largest budget surplus that Germany, the strongest economy in the EU has ever had, at 0.6% of GDP in 2015 (5) – (6).

Even the IMF – one part of the Troika – has now said this ridiculous and argues that debt forgiveness and a relaxation of austerity are required for Greece (7).

What they don’t say is that, as Syriza have pointed out, some of the 1 trillion euros of Quantitative Easing money which have been created by the European Central Bank to hand to private banks could be used to pay off much of Greece and Spain’s debt (8) – (9).

Some people would argue that the UK leaving the EU could lead to the collapse of the EU and that this would free Greece from EU austerity policies.

However some Greeks, like Yanis Varoufakis,  a leading critic of EU austerity policies, want the UK to stay in as an ally for reform , arguing that if the EU splits up the result will be chaos and panic, which will be even worse for Greece (10).

He has launched an EU wide movement for democracy and against austerity policies called Diem25.

And the majority of Greeks , while they are angry and unhappy at what the EU has imposed on them, believe they are not in a position to leave the EU or go back to their own currency at the moment.

(1) = Open Democracy 14 aug 2015 ‘Greece has become the EU’s third protectorate’, https://www.opendemocracy.net/can-europe-make-it/jan-zielonka/greece-has-become-eu%E2%80%99s-third-protectorate

(2) = BBC News 26 Feb 2012 ‘Are Greeks the hardest workers in Europe?’,
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-17155304

(3) = OECD Stat Extracts ‘Average annual hours actually worked per worker’, http://stats.oecd.org/index.aspx?DataSetCode=ANHRS

(4) = BBC News 05 May 2010 ‘Three dead as Greece protest turns violent’,
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8661385.stm

(5) = BBC News 22 Jun 2015 ‘Greece spells out terms for debt crisis 'breakthrough'’,
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-33228119 (scroll down to subheading  ‘Greece debt talks : main sticking points’ ‘EU officials say Greece has agreed to budget surplus targets of 1% of GDP this year, followed by 2% in 2016 and 3.5% by 2018; Greece says nothing is agreed until everything is agreed’ )

(6) = AFP 23 Feb 2016 ‘Germany notches up record budget surplus in 2015: stats office’, http://www.newvision.co.ug/new_vision/news/1417803/germany-notches-record-budget-surplus-2015-stats-office

(7) = www.guardian.co.uk 23 May 2016 ‘IMF tells EU it must give Greece unconditional debt relief’, https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/may/23/imf-warns-eu-bailout-greece-debt-relief

(8) = Greek Reporter 28 Jan 2015 ‘Greece: This is SYRIZA’s New Government Plan in Detail - See more at: http://greece.greekreporter.com/2015/01/28/greece-this-is-syrizas-new-government-plan-in-detail/#sthash.ahNA2k1R.dpuf’, http://greece.greekreporter.com/2015/01/28/greece-this-is-syrizas-new-government-plan-in-detail/

(9) = BBC News 22 Jan 2015 ‘ECB unveils massive QE boost for eurozone’, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-30933515

(10) = www.guardian.com 05 Apr 2016 ‘Yanis Varoufakis: Why we must save the EU’,
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/apr/05/yanis-varoufakis-why-we-must-save-the-eu