Labour Shortage Post Brexit

A lot has been made of the dire consequences for the soft fruit and vegetable trade and hospitality industries should EU freedom of movement be restricted post Brexit.

This is part of the letter I wrote to The Times yesterday (they didn't publish):

"Your Leader, 18 April, conveniently blames the depreciation in the value of Sterling on the Brexit vote.  As I understand it, the latest inflation figure was 2.3%, the same pace as in the previous month and in line with market expectations ie close enough to the Bank of England target of 2%.  If households really are noticing rising food prices and seen their real incomes harmed, is it not fairer to say that these results are the effect of inflation and the overdue devaluation of Sterling and not, necessarily, the Brexit vote?  To paraphrase your conclusion,  it is past the time that your Newspaper provided the candour that has so far been lacking in this debate.

As for the crisis in the labour market which you forecast to occur once Britain exits the EU and “ends freedom of movement,” perhaps we should be looking to robots to carry out mundane and unskilled tasks?  I for one should be very pleased to have my coffee made and served by a smart, clean and articulate robot that will not be concerned or offended when I tell it what to do with the offer to join the loyalty club."

North Korea

Secluded, isolated and impoverished, North Korea has no other leverage instruments of foreign policy other than a nuclear capability.  Karl Marx wrote that the most effective power is structural because it functions without being used. Nuclear weapons, the ultimate expression of strength, function in exactly this way and provide status in international heirarchies. North Korea accepted the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty in 1985 but withdrew in 2002 (the only country to have done so).  Since 2002, North Korea has conducted numerous nuclear and missile delivery tests (in defiance of the UN).  We now understand that North Korea is on the brink of deploying a ballistic nuclear missile capability with the range to reach the West Coast of the USA.

The US National Security Strategy states that the US must deter and defend against the threat of weapons of mass destruction before they are unleashed.  They will not wait until l they are attacked before acting. President Bush called this a strategy of pre-emption.  However, there is a distinction in international law.  Pre-emption, that is, taking military action to stop an imminent attack is legal under international law.  However, prevention, that is acting against a potential opponent who may or may not have the intention of attacking in the future, is not.

With no evidence that the USA is under the threat of imminent attack, President Trump is taking a position from which preventive action could be possible.

Noises from the White House and the Pentagon seem confident that the US has the capability to eliminate key nuclear and missile capabilities in a series of surgical strikes.  Whilst this would deal with the missile threat for today, unfortunately, it would not neutralise the North Korean regime.  The reaction by a regime stung by the ultimate humiliation of having their offensive nuclear power neutralised is a very big cause for concern for us all.

There is a strong possibility of North Korea taking retaliatory action.  We know that the North has thousands of artillery pieces ranged along the DMZ with South Korea.  Unleashed, this artillery barrage would cause catastrophic damage to the civilian population in Seoul, only 35 miles away.  North Korea could also strike at US bases in Japan, for example, the enormous facility at Kadena would be within range of medium-range missile attack.  The risks of regional escalation would be significant but, of course, would be balanced by the perception of the threat to the US itself.

US military capability, over time, could probably significantly degrade North Korean retaliatory capability.  For example, huge blast bombs, recently demonstrated, and carpet bombing by B-52 aircraft could lay waste to North Korean artillery and retaliatory capability but they would be unlikely to stop it in its tracks.  The US use of tactical nuclear weapons would certainly be considered.

The other factor that must be considered is what happens to North Korea in the meantime.  If the state breaks down millions of starving refuges would flood in both directions, South Korea, and China.  Neither influx would be welcome nor manageable.  China may see the collapse of the North Korean buffer as a threat to its own security.

All of which makes preventive action by the USA a very risky and costly option.

On the other hand, North Korea’s neighbour and sometime ideological partner, effectively underpins North Korean existence.  China buys coal, about the only thing North Korea produces and otherwise bankrolls the North Korean state.  Whilst China could bring North Korea to heel by withdrawing support, such action could result in the breakdown of the North Korean state and provoke the same reaction as military action, albeit with less immediate panic.  There is no win-win course of action for China but it is to be hoped that they will feel the offer of President Trump’s “grand bargain,” – long-term trading partnerships and deals in return for Chinese cooperation in dealing with North Korea is the sensible way forward.

Let us hope so because the build-up of US force looks very much like an option of preventive action.  And bear in mind, for all the regional risks, the only thing that matters to the USA is their own security and you may agree with me that they are likely to act accordingly?

Negotiating Our EU Exit

The gushingly self-important Anna Soubry, Cassandra-in-Chief, wrote to The Times yesterday demanding that the PM should publish her (Brexit) plan in a White paper and ensure that it is debated in the country at large and in parliament.  One can only speculate at her motives for calling for such a course but she surely cannot believe that involving the dead hand of Parliamentary scrutiny will do anything to speed or enhance the process.  She surely hopes, as the spokesperson of a desperate band of out-of-touch politicians, to use “expert opinion” to frustrate the will of the people.  I think recent evidence suggests that we have had enough of experts.  It is time to stop the debate and the endless virtue signalling and get on with doing what the voters wanted.

Churchill, of course, could be strikingly direct.  In 1942, with the world war going very badly for Great Britain he focussed on North Africa and, on 10 August, wrote to his Commander, Lord Alexander, thus:

“1.          Your prime and main duty will be to take or destroy at the earliest opportunity the German-Italian army commanded by Field-Marshal Rommel, together with all its supplies and establishments in Egypt and Libya.

2.            You will discharge or cause to be discharged such other duties as pertain to your command without prejudice to the task described in paragraph 1, which must be considered paramount in His Majesty’s interests.”

It could be argued that Churchill, safe in his War Room under Whitehall with just a few large-scale maps on the wall didn’t really understand what he was asking.  Indeed, Alexander could have responded:

“Thank you for your most interesting suggestion but I have to say that, whilst such a course may provide some popularity for you at home, it is hopelessly optimistic for execution out here and I must advise you the limits of what is achievable.  You may be choosing to ignore just how strong Rommel is in North Africa.  His men are highly trained, well dug in and well supplied.  Attacking them now would result in a blood-bath.  Indeed, I have been talking to some of our allies, Australians, Canadians, New Zealanders, and Indians and they are telling me that the sort of plan you propose was not what they thought they were getting involved with when the signed up on our side a couple of years ago.  I would need to enlist the help of other Departments and I know the Royal Navy are rather busy over in Greece.  Our light blue friends, cocky as ever, will always have other priorities, I’m afraid. We must also clear the whole thing with the Americans since we do not want to be treading on their toes.  I concede, however, that the Italians are a different matter.  They have got quite a few problems with leadership at home and it may be that we could pick them off cheaply in the medium term.  That would still leave Rommel to be dealt with and for this I suggest some sort of transitional arrangement, perhaps leaving him in place whilst we sort out a territorial accommodation?  I would not underestimate the difficulty even of achieving an interim solution and I suggest the allow at least 10 years for these arrangements to be settled.  Finally, for the avoidance of doubt, when you say “Libya” do you mean the whole of Cyrenaica and Tripolitania including Fezzan in the south?

I am sorry to have written at such length but I feel it is necessary for me to give you the full benefit of my experience in these matters.  No doubt you will wish to discuss my comments in detail and I look forward to your response in due course”

Of course, Alexander wrote no such letter (despite what he must have personally assessed as the difficulties ahead).  Instead, he got on with the job with the resources available and those which he could practicably secure.  Indeed, just under a year later, Alexander replied to Churchill thus:

“Sir, The orders you gave me on 10 August 1942 have been fulfilled.  His Majesty’s enemies, together with their impedimenta, have been eliminated from Egypt, Cyrenaica, Libya, and Tripolitania.  I now await your further instructions.”

Perhaps the PM should issue the Foreign Secretary with some pithy orders:

“You are to complete the disengagement of the United Kingdom from the EU, including all its economic, commercial, political and military impedimenta by 31 March 2019.”

I rather think Boris would relish the challenge!

Inflation Doom Reporting

Not content with their thoroughly negative reporting of the PM's EU speech, the BBC seized on the latest inflation figures as further evidence of the folly of voting to leave the EU.  The phrase "post Brexit fall in the Pound" nicely implies that the currency value change was entirely due to the stupidity of the Brexit vote.  No balancing acknowledgement that the Pound was already significantly over-valued and that a correction would have occur ed sooner rather than later.  Undeterred, the BBC reported with scarcely disguised anguish and hand wringing portents of doom that UK inflation had risen to 1.6%.  No mention that this is, significantly, below the Bank of England target nor that inflation in the model EU economy of Germany is currently 1.7%.

More faked news from the BBC.

The PM's Speech on Europe

According to the Channel 4 and BBC news programmes tonight, nobody thought that the PM had made a good speech setting out a pragmatic way forward.  Even the commentators who felt obliged, in the interest of balance of course, to mention any upside, could not resist leaving the viewers with a hanging question of negative implication.

I think we deserve better from our public service broadcasters.