The United Kingdom and the EU - 'Becoming like Norway'

One of the more interesting conversations regarding the EU focussed on us 'becoming like Norway'. The reasons for this apparent desire to become a Scandinavian state rather than another star on the US flag or a federal member of the EU interested me greatly, so I asked them to tell me more.

And they did.

Apparently leaving the EU and being like Norway would save us 'billions' and because 'everyone' would want to trade with us our exports would rise and we would, once more, become a sovereign nation.

To become like Norway would mean that we have negotiated trade agreements such that we would have continued access to the single market that is the EU, but of course that's not a done deal and 'negotiate' is an interesting word in this context. But if Norway can do it, why can't we - perhaps there is mileage in this tack.

Another cherry on the cake is the fact that Norway, being outside the EU but trading with them is not subject to EU laws on matters of justice or home affairs and they are no bound by the agricultural policies of the EU laws on areas such as agriculture, justice and home affairs - all of which adds to the positives regarding this proposal.

But of course there's always another side of the debate and it seems that were we to leave we would still be bound by most of the EU laws and directives because we are trading with the  EU but would have no ability to influence them - they would merely be handed down to us.

Not only that but  the ECJ and ECHR (European Court of Juestice and the European Court of Human Rights) would still be exactly as they were with regard to laws and judgements as they are now with us as members of the EU because they are nothing to do with the EU! This means that pretty much all of  the claimed regained sovereignty benefits would be in people's heads and hearts rather than something tangible and concrete - and my conversant's claim that, "We would be free from the working time directive" is also not true either!

Superficially this 'becoming like Norway' thing sounds like a win-win situation but of course that's because of the superficial! Once we get into it we find that we will still need to negotiate new trade deals and I have a nasty feeling that many of the EU nations who have to tolerate and buy from us now might just be a little tardy and perhaps a lot obstructive with regard to terms - after all, there is the US-like issue of protectionism to be considered and there are many European manufacturers keen to rape our export market with regard to replacing them with their own EU manufactured goods.

As for sovereignty, this I fear comes at a price for, outside of the EU, we become less of an important partner for the US in terms of NATO and the like and we will perhaps be signing up to become equally important and influential as Norway - not something the xenophobes and jingoistic post- empire little Britain types would relish I'm sure.

So whilst liking this as a proposal I have to say that we won't be gaining much in the real sovereignty stake but might be losing more as we confirm our small offshore island status to the rest of the world. Let's not kid ourselves regarding 'special status' and 'importer of choice' positioning - as much as I dislike the EU, we are in it and are an influential part of it (some Europeans I know say we (and Germany even more so) are too powerful) and to lose that might be to enter a one-way street to anonymity and the acceptance that neither EU or Commonwealth or the States have much time for us.

Better to be small and insignificant rather than to exist as part of Europe?

Oh yeah, seems immigration, which is what the majority of those who want to leave try to hide as being their real reason for an exit, would decrease - but only because no one would want to come to our piddling little island - so that's another win for the xenophobes innit?

Not as straightforward as I'd like all the EU stuff - two sides to everything as usual and the posturing, personalities and lies aren't helping us :-(

PS the same pretty much applies to becoming like Switzerland and other places - and since we stuffed EFTA when Sailor Ted (Heath) conned us into Europe, not sure the kettle's on there either!

Sadly all I've seen so far, to be brutal, is xenophobia and closet racism neatly packaged as being about issues over sovereignty, borders and trade - all getting tiresome.

Understanding AV - The First shall be Last and the last . . .

Shall win?

Tomorrow we get to vote on how we vote and ignoring the 'handbags at dawn' duel between Huhne and Cameron and ridiculous radio adverts, "I'm intelligent, I can work it out for myself!" I thought the issue needed the clarification that only a Vicar can bring (so best give up now).

The existing system
Apparently no one ever gets the person they voted for and the whole of our electoral system is controlled by candidates in marginal seats, for they hold the balance of power (not the voters). The existing system is wrong because it means people can stay elected for ever even when the majority of the people haven't voted for them. Taking this on board, it is obvious that we need a new system so that everyone who votes sees the person they voted for get elected - this is democracy! Government will be made up of people that everyone have voted for, or at least almost everyone, and so there will be no reason for complaints anymore.

AV
Before too many of you traditionalists get excited, this stands for 'Alternative Voting' not the 'Authorised Version' (sorry if you thought it would mean a fairly elected government and a return to the 1662 BCP).

In the current present system, in a constituency where there are four candidates, when the votes are counted, the result is: Harriet - 34%, Kofi - 30%, Anjit - 19%, and Tom - 17%, the winner is of course Harriet, because she is 'first past the post' (she has the most votes). But this is wrong because Harriet only has 34% of the vote, which means that 66% of the voting public didn't vote for her, so she's not really the people's choice at all, in fact she's been elected by the minority!

To overcome this, we need a system where the person elected gets more than half of the votes so that they are truly representing all the people. To make this happen we ask the voter to not just vote, but score each of the candidates in order of preference.

Now, although Harriet would have won using the old 'unfair' system, now because she hasn't got 51% we drop Tom and look at the preferences of the people who voted for him., assign the votes to their second choice.

When this is done, we find that we have Harriet - 36%, Anjit - 33% and Kofi - 31% and so, we now drop Kofi and take the second choice of those who put him first. This makes the result: Anjit - 53% and Harriet 47% and so Anjit wins because the majority have voted for her!

Simple , isn't it? The person who would, under the old system, have won hasn't and the person who who wouldn't have, wins because this is how democracy works (and it'll be nice to have a BNP member of parliament, won't it?)! It's also Biblical because it does say the first shall be last and the last first and with this system, this can happen!

Now, this is obviously isn't as quick as the 'first past the post' system and although the Australians are using it, they are discussing dropping it because it isn't all that they hoped. Still, when people vote tactically (i.e. put Labour or Conservative last) using AV we will have many more Greens, Lib Dems, BNP, 'No to the trunk road' and other minority groups siting in the House of Commons and will mean hung, no sorry 'balanced' (but impotent and hamstrung) governments, but it might mean Clegg might get a go as Prime Minister!

And for those who will ask why the BNP are urging a 'no vote to AV, it's because they want proportional representation (as do the other minority partis like Lib dem really) because it will mean they get even more members of parliament. The reality is that AV will still benefit them, but not as much and the hope a defeat for AV will bring back the discussion with a PR bias next time.

So, make you're own mind up about AV, but I think we'd be better served if we could get the electorate to be the electorate myself. Problem is that I don't like the Aussie mandatory voting much either.

Pax