Negotiating For the Future of the UK

So now we know, the proposed referendum question is to be, yes or no:

"Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union?"

The baseline from which we will be expected to make our judgement will, presumably, be revealed after a period of negotiation with our EU partners.  I think that will be too late.  It seems to me, unless it is our intention to arrive "naked in the conference chamber of Europe," we must previously have prepared a clear position upon what it is we wish to negotiate and the lengths to which we could be prepared to go to get what we want (undisclosed to our European "partners").  Will the Government start from the presumption that we wish to stay in (with some sort of "better" deal) or from a clean sheet of paper upon which there are no preconditions?   There is, obviously, a huge difference between the 2 negotiating standpoints. 

In his book "Why You Lose at Bridge" the great bridge expert, SJ Simon, represented a similar dilemma as the distinction between "the best result possible" as opposed to "the best possible result." The first case is the typical pragmatic negotiation - what could I hope to achieve in the circumstances?  The latter looks beyond current constraints towards the best of all worlds.  In other words, the percentage play versus perfection.  In advising improving bridge players to seek the best result possible rather than the best possible result, there was one vital constraint.  Simon assumed that his aspiring audience wanted to continue to play bridge and that there was no possibility of them resigning from the bridge club and taking up tennis, for example.

If, as Bismarck noted, that politics was the art of the possible and given a predisposition to stay in, it could be possible to represent almost any negotiated settlement as "the best result possible"  and recommend it to the referendum as a triumph of diplomacy and persistence.  Vote "yes" because we are not going to get a better deal in the circumstances!  But this is a non sequitur.

The crucial difference is that we don't have to stay in the EU. For taking up tennis substitute alternative trading arrangements with the rest of the world.  Indeed, we may judge that our economic prospects inside a declining EU are, on balance worse, than going it alone. So it does not follow that the best deal possible, as outlined above, is necessarily the right course for the future.  On the contrary, without a predisposition to stay in, even one implied, we could haggle for the best possible outcome for UK.  Thus our final judgement must be based upon all possibilities and, in particular, the advantages of leaving the EU.  Let us, therefore, start from a clean sheet of paper!

Defence and the Queen's Speech

"My government will undertake a full strategic defence and security review, and do whatever is necessary to ensure that our courageous armed forces can keep Britain safe."

Presumably, "whatever is necessary" is imperative and will take precedence over other things?  We may therefore relax and consider defence "sorted!"  Just shows what a bit of media pressure can do!

The Queen's Speech

On the eve of the new Parliament, this is what our CPF thought should be priorities:

Immigration.       We consider our lack of control over immigration to be the root cause of most of our social or economic problems. Further, we are highly concerned that inadequate border controls make it easy for potential terrorists to travel to our country.  We need urgent measures to regain sovereignty, including, even, a moratorium to demonstrate intent.  Whilst we would have been encouraged by the Prime Minister's later announcements we would have been equally cynical about the reach and practicability of his proposals.

Deficit.        It will clearly take more than lip-service to "the long term economic plan" to insure our financial health against global shocks.  Equally, our productivity must improve if we are to even maintain our lowly position in international competitiveness. We urge decisive action early in the parliament whilst public goodwill will be at its highest and our own benches probably most accommodating. Again, we would have been encouraged by the Chancellor's later commitment to improving productivity and his acknowledgement that "our future prosperity depends upon it."

Defence.     We restate our concern about the prospect of further cuts to the armed forces budget and our contribution to NATO collective security against the background of increasing geo-political instability.  The government must revise foreign policy drivers and funding constraints for Strategic Defence & Security Review 2015. We have previously described the Conservative position on defence as complacent and reckless and we have no reason to change our opinion.

Education.  Our position in international education league tables (lamentable) is incompatible with our ambition for economic survival and regeneration.  We must achieve a dramatic improvement in productivity to make best use of the vast resources devoted to education.  The starting point for this crusade will be standards and discipline. We were dismayed that Michael Gove was moved on after having made such a positive start taking on the education blob and we are not encouraged by the present Secretary of State's lack of reforming zeal.

Boundaries and Regional Empowerment Issues.         The first priority for survival in a hostile terrain is protection and the Government should force through the Boundaries Commission recommendations. Simultaneously, as a matter of fairness to the UK as a whole, given the extent of devolved powers already, the grotesque imbalance of Scottish MPs must be addressed. We do not believe that the SNP, with their declared intention of breaking up the United Kingdom, should be treated with kid gloves.  We continue to believe that further regional empowerment should not be a political priority

Mary Riddell

I am not a great fan of Mary Riddell, believing that she inhabits a different political planet to most rational voices.  However, I eagerly await her regular piece in the Telegraph this week!

Prioities for the new Government

OK, so I had a bet on 301 to 325 seats at 3-1 but it was more wishful thinking than a serious hope of a financial return, as my last post indicated.  Although I lost my money, I was delighted to have been proved hopelessly pessimistic!

The newspapers thereafter have been full of advice on how our "winning" leader should proceed.  Surely nothing need be done on the economy?  Unless we have been mislead, our "long-term economic plan" will see that right.  This should leave plenty of capacity to deal with issues conveniently neglected in the election auction of promises.  Here is my top five:

•  Implement the Boundaries Commission recommendations. The first priority for survival in a hostile terrain is protection

•  Revise foreign policy drivers and funding constraints for Strategic Defence & Security Review 2015.  More protection

•  Revise the Energy Policy to ensure practicability and affordability rather than looking good in Paris

•  Deal decisively with Scotland.  Rather like feeding the crocodile, piecemeal concessions will only encourage greater demands from Nationalists

•  Reinvigorate Gove's education reforms.  Indeed, since the promotion of skills is the fundamental upon which our commercial survival in the global race depends, we must tackle this particular blob with determination. In my opinion, the ever-helpful and multi-faceted Nicky Morgan is quite the wrong person to do this.

My Verdict on the Election

Thank goodness this interminable election campaign is over!  How on earth all political parties have managed to conduct their campaigns without confronting the major issues beggars belief.  How can defence of the realm be ignored in the current geopolitical climate?  How can it be right to advocate more borrowing and load our unjustified profligacy on our children? How can anyone believe that the NHS, confronted with ever more expensive treatments, insatiable public expectation and inexorable longevity, can possibly be funded by fag packet calculation?  How can we maintain our competitiveness in the world's market place and become more productive.  Why is it that businesses need to recruit from abroad because they cannot find the skills they need at home? What is wrong with our culture and pride in our Nation that denigrates past achievement and dumbs-down or ignores anything remotely difficult to comprehend?

The only certainty tomorrow will be the triumphant entry of 650 arm-waving nonentities into the new House of Commons (there are a few with principles, who I would except, but very few).  Now, if the BBC gets its wish, we can look forward to a period of legislative impotence allowing the institutions and vested interests to carry on business as usual.  If we are lucky, the real issues of this election, mentioned above, will simply lie festering in the slender hope that, once the hubris subsides, politics will "get real."  If we are unlucky, and "events" occur, then ever serve us right!