During the days, weeks and months leading up to "The Vote For The End of The World (™)", or as it was more officially known, "United Kingdom European Union membership referendum, 2016"; I spent a lot of time reading...
(Eh, don't you spend almost every hour of the day reading? - book ed),
...not just any old books
(Usually smart thinking, science, history (military, economic, social), with a particular focus recently on The Great Recession; so if you need to know why it happened I now have at least eight different views, depending on which of the expert economists I have last read, probably should do a short [short? Really - sub ed] post on that list - book ed),
...but specifically books about the European Union. (Yes I am that sad - but it is good to be informed - know it all ed)
To help me in my understanding and help me be informed, I purchased at least 8 books (possibly more - 2 are missing so it might be 10), 2 pro Eu, 3 with reasonably well balanced opinions and 3 anti EU and one that was about British Democracy and the EU which I think probably falls either pro or anti depending on your view of British Democracy (Does it exist and is it worth having - ed).
As well as reading them, I devoured newspapers...
(A dash of salt and vinegar and they are almost as tasty a Traditional Fish and Chips, that is very very tasty - fast food ed)
...full of comment, about the good, the bad and the indifferent parts of the EU and what it has done for (to?) the UK.
Books on the EU - pro, con and allegedly neutral
The list of books were:
- Why Europe Matters by John McCormick
- The In/Out Question by Hugo Dixon
- Europe In or Out by David Charter
- Should Britain Leave the EU by Patrick Minford et al
- The Trouble with Europe by Roger Bootle
- The Castle of Lies by Christopher Books and Richard North
- The Great European Rip-Off by David Craig and Matthew Elliott
- The Demise of the Free State: Why British Democracy and the EU don't mix by David G Green
Websites
The BBC website was, as ever, a very good source of facts (Trumpometer - 93 - sadly not 100 as there is some "opinion"), other useful sites were (and still are) The UK in a changing Europe, Europe - Full Fact and InFacts.
What was a surprise, was that the EU provides vast quantities of information and facts on its websites, as well as giving us all access to all of the directives and regulations ...
(Yes, sadly I did read some small parts of some of the regulations - whilst investigating the law making process of the EU and the rules about the Common Tariff area - and you wonder why the blog output went down and with it the last vestiges of my remaining sanity - super sad ed)
Now after reading all the books, newspapers, magazines and websites I finally felt informed enough to cast my vote.
No, I am not telling you how I voted, that is between me and my ballot paper ('bout time you chose something other than simply writing, "None of the above" on it - politics ed)
Sadly this was not the case for the vast majority of the public, politicians, newspaper columnists, or indeed the vast majority of the people involved in the debates. Shame on you all!
Debates
I did watch a couple of the debates, but was disheartened by the appalling quality of the "facts" on offer. Both sides were scoring very low on the Trumpometer and seemed to spend most of the time making fatuous political points - so I soon stopped watching them as them just wound me up (and you really don't want him shouting at the TV - Bridget ed)
Just The Facts Ma'am and getting back to the point...
However, what I did find continually surprising was, that when members of the public were asked their views, by the usual suspects; microphone wielding TV and Radio reporters, the public (no idea which variety they were i.e. the "man on the Clapham Omnibus" or "the great unwashed" varieties - ed ) always seemed to want the "facts".
But all they...
(and by implication, you dear reader - we can safely exclude our overseas readers as they weren't given a vote, but large numbers of non voters from all parts of the world did appear to want to let us know what they thought about how we should vote- ed)
...had to do was to look.
There were copious facts, there were facts enough to drown the entire world in facts. I know, I had a few moments when I felt that I was being overwhelmed by an enormous tsunami of facts.
The real issue, certainly in my mind, was that the, "facts", are not always as clear as people wanted them to be (I am sure that there were a number of voters who just wanted to be told how to vote - perhaps ed)
I have to say that the BBC did very well with the facts, in particular the one about the £350 million (Yes that is a link that is worth clicking - clickbait ed) mentioned on the side of the bus.
It is worth reading that article - as it suggests that the number (if it were not for the rebate) would be £361 million a week (with various caveats depending on year etc).
Excluding the money we get back from the EU - not under the control of Parliament, it appears that one of the numbers we could possibly use is £250 million a week (for crying out loud pick a number, any number - get on with it ed)
Fact Key Point
What it comes down to, is that "facts" are only useful with an appropriate context and a willingness to understand what they mean and their relationship with other relevant facts.
Warning: Large Number Manipulations coming soon (maths safety wear is recommended).
Now most people (apart from the Government and Bankers - International or otherwise - economics ed) think that £350/£250 Million a week is a lot of money (it is a couple of large Euro Lotto rollovers a week - context ed), but I am sad to disillusion you, for our Government, it is a piffling amount (well done, you've never used that word before - literary ed).
It is best seen in the context of, "How much the Government spends each week", and compare the two and perhaps see it as a ratio, or percentage of what they generally spend - so that we can see if it is really a significant amount or not.
It is not a lot of money. (What - you must be kidding - it is an enormous amount - not the economics ed)
How much? You must be joking!
The Government in the tax year 2015-2016 spent £761.9 Billion (didn't get that much in tax - hence the deficit and the increasing National Debt - economical with the truth ed)
Dividing that by 52 weeks gives £14.65 Billion a week (a week, where does it all come from, you and me it appears and very little from large multinational corporations - taxpayer ed).
Remember that a Billion is one thousand million and is usually represented in GBP as £1,000,000,000 (used to be different but the UK switched the the US Billion a while back - economics ed).
So, let's use £250 million a week (which is a nice round number to use, round in the sense that it is a 1/4 of a Billion - maths ed), going to the EU and compare that with the UK Government spending of £14.65 Billion a week.
What is that as a percentage well (250,000,000 / 14,650,000,000) * 100 = (250 / 14,650) * 100 = 1.7% (please correct me if I am wrong - I am trying my best here - long time since I did big sums ed)
But is this 1.7% significant? Well as a part of total Government spending possibly not so much, but if given to a particular spending department, what kind of boost would it give it?
Give the NHS all the money saved
Parts of the leave campaign and the Boris Johnson flavour of it in particular...
(the man who will never be King - politics ed), and you must note there were multitudinous (lots - plain English campaign ed) of organisations campaigning to convince you to vote leave.
(and yes, that means you at the back fiddling with your phone hoping that I will stop wibbling on about that damned vote - but I am sorry to say that is what this post is all about - well about the facts, just the facts ma'am - ed)
... suggested that the money saved could be spent on the NHS (God love her, stalwart of the UK, part of our National Heritage, the saviour of our Nation in dark times, full of hard working underpaid front line staff (what even the consultants?) - take the mickey ed).
Now the figure used above, the £250 million (you are paying attention aren't you - ed), if spent on the NHS per week, would give what kind of boost to the provision of its services.
Well this is not so easy to calculate, but I will endeavour (to persevere, in your best interest and informedness - slave to the blog ed).
I will now wend my merry way to discover how much was spent on the NHS in the period 2015-16 in the UK...
(any time now, off I will mosey to another Chrome tab [other browsers are available] and do some searching, no need to hold your breath, it's coming, almost there, any moment now... ahhh - here it is - keeping you on tenterhooks ed).
...looking here gives an estimated figure of £138.7 Billion. So being clever (where is that calculator to enable me to be clever - maths ed) I surmise that if I divide £138.7 Billion by 52 weeks I will get the amount 138.7 / 52 = £2.667 Billion a week.
So (250,000,000 / 2,667,000, 000) * 100 would give the percentage addition to the NHS weekly budget if all the money purportedly saved by voting leave would give us, and my calculation gives that a 9.37% boost to the NHS spending.
Now even I think that that would be a significant amount, what about you?
Flaw in the plan after the vote
Now there is a flaw in the plan about the £250 million - and remember it was never £350 million, that value is the amount that the UK would have to pay if it did not have the rebate (for those of a curious disposition - worth following that link and reading up on the rebate - extra info ed)
However, it is worth noting that a certain Mr. Blair nearly gave away all of the rebate at one point, but ended up giving away some of it. More importantly it is renegotiated every 7 years and has to be unanimously agreed to continue, who knew? (what something you didn't know, how did that get by me - ed)
Major Flaw
The major flaw in the plan is that the nation's expectations on this additional money to go to the NHS has not been met!
Why not?
Well this money will only potentially be available to spend, once the UK is out of the EU.
Currently we are still in it, and will be until Spring 2019 at the earliest, assuming the Prime Minister, currently Mrs. May) (on this day 9th February 2019, who knows who it will be when you are reading this - a week is a long time in politics ed), triggers Article 50 by the end of March 2017.
What we need to understand is that the government of the day on that date and beyond will decide where the money, no longer being transferred to the EU, is spent (and even that will depend on the negotiations with the EU).
It is worth noting that none of the Leave political groups have party representation in Parliament (despite Mr. Farage's best attempts - ed) (though individually some of the members of them are) and none of of the Leave groups formed or will form a government (though some individuals, who are members of those groups, may hold a position in the government at that time), so they were disingenuous to suggest that it would be spend on the
NHS, as they had no authority or ability to make that kind of commitment.
I believe that many people thought that as soon as the vote was over the NHS would be better funded, but that was simply naive.
UK is not leaving Europe
As an aside, the UK is not leaving Europe, it is planning to leave an international political organisation. Our country will still be positioned as an island off the coast of Europe and that won't change for a few million years depending on plate tectonics.
Addendum
For those of you who were expecting more humour in this blog, apologies, this particular post is a factual one, and possibly trying to make a point, if you can spot that point please let me know and I will update the blog accordingly.
The Infamous, “What’s coming next to a blog near you”
Upcoming is:
“A conversation with Tottenham Hotspur”
Which will be be trialling a post with a slightly different tack. That particular post, will be in the form of a dialogue between two entities, one being a “reporter” and the other the essence of a “football” club.
I have trialled it with Real People (™) in real life and it appears that people quite liked it (well one or more laughed - ed).
“The Life And Times of Beau Geste”
This will be the story, possibly in verse (You have promised verse on so many many occasions, why should we believe you this time? - ed), of the life and times of our recently departed cat, “Beau”.
I have the rough outline in my head, but then there are rough outlines in my head of so, so, so many subjects (not forgetting all those clamouring voices - psychiatric ed)
“Anguish in Aberdeen V (is for vendetta)”
This will (Really? Truly? How can you remember what happened all that time ago - ed) take me from the loss of my mobile phone at a critical juncture as the flight was called at Heathrow Terminal V, through to possibly the three hotel rooms in the same 24 hours in Inverness (water water, everywhere - ed) - but really, I cannot promise how far it might go, who can foresee the future. It appears that history isn't as factual as we are lead to believe.
Post Addendum
One of the things I have understood about writing, is that you have to go where the words take you, so the above list of items is my wish, my hope; but I cannot be held to write them as the Next Thing I Do (™) as there are many other things going on that need my time and attention that generate income (like work? - slave to the keyboard ed).
Feedback
Comments are solicited and are welcomed with open arms and a winning smile, possibly even a hug if they get too near.
Go on, you know you want to reply to some of my witterings.
I really need you to do this, otherwise I end up having to add comments myself and that involves letting the voices out of my head and into my body - and you really do not want that to happen, as that's when Bad Things Happen (™)
No comments:
Post a Comment