Comments on the Election

Hello readers!

As of this morning, Friday the 13th, the UK General Election 2019 results have been declared. This post will be separated into multiple parts, to account for my predictions before the campaign (spoiler: I was right); to the result here in Scotland; and to the reality in England, and what it will mean for the future. I aim to provide a preliminary analysis of why the results turned out as they did, though we will need more in-depth data to uncover some of the mysteries.

My Predictions

In this post written six weeks before the election, I made three concrete predictions, and raised the point that the NHS would be a major part of the election campaign. The polls agree that, besides Brexit, the NHS was indeed a big part of voters’ concerns.

As for my three predictions, I was correct on all of them, though some were more prescient than others.

Claim 1: “I don’t think the Liberal Democrats are going to do as well its leader, Jo Swinson, hopes.”

This proved fantastically accurate, or dare I say, prophetic. It’s true that the Liberal Democrat vote increased 7.4% to 11.5%, but this did nothing other than gift seats to the Tories. Jo Swinson lost her seat, confirming what I thought and what the polls were saying: no one likes Jo Swinson.

Moreover, judging from the campaign, Jo Swinson’s Lib Dems lost for the exact reasons I predicted: their revoke policy was undemocratic, and a large number of Remain voters (especially we, the young) care about the NHS, education and welfare. Jo Swinson’s record in coalition was less than stellar on those counts.

Claim 2: “the Green Party will do pretty well, though it probably won’t gain any new seats.”

This was precisely correct: the Green vote increased from 1.6% to 2.7% and they retained their 1 seat. The high profile of environmental issues in the media helped them. I should say that Labour would have won some more seats if the Greens had stood down in some constituencies, but hey, who cares about Brexit if we can pretend to save the planet?

Claim 3: “The Conservative Party will be punished hard in Scotland.”

This one turned out to be mostly correct. The Scottish Tories lost 7 of their 13 seats, and their vote share decreased by 3.5%. I was hoping for a wipe-out, but I’m sure my fellow SNP activists are happy with the result.

As for why the Scottish Tories got 25% of the vote, I’ve tried to understand it, and I’ve come to the following conclusion. About half of Scottish Tory voters do see Boris Johnson’s policies on the economy and NHS as being pretty despicable. I think they justify voting for the Tories with the idea that those policies can be fixed, whereas the breakup of the UK—and exit from the EU—are permanent decisions.

The thing with identities is that they are powerful. Unionists in Scotland believe they are British, and it’s incredibly difficult for them to give that up; they will vote to keep it, even if it means enormous child poverty, homelessness, and decimating the NHS.

What will happen to Scotland?

In one word: Independence. In two words: EU membership. The long, in-depth explanation is going to be too complicated to discuss here. The road to independence will be long, hard, and treacherous. An almighty confrontation between the Scottish government and the Tory government in Westminster will be just the start.

I wish I could be optimistic and say that everything will be alright for Scotland. I think it will—in the future. But the next couple of years are going to be chaotic and uncertain. The double whammy of Tory government and Brexit is going to devastate this country.

What happened in England?

I don’t need to tell you this: Corbyn lost and BoJo’s Tories won. But you know who also lost? England, as a nation. British democracy. Rational thought and truth.

As for why this happened, I’m not sure yet. There are many obvious answers: the antisemitism debacle which was parroted by the media ad infinitum—and which Corbyn would have nipped in the bud long ago, if he had any sense. It’s true that the media coverage was pathetic, and incredibly hostile to Labour; but that doesn’t excuse Corbyn for giving them ammunition.

Then there’s Corbyn himself, who could not get across to the electorate like he did in 2017. But hey, I predicted this long ago. I loved most of Jeremy Corbyn’s policies, but I was always sceptical of the man himself; I called him “less than prime-ministerly” and pithily remarked: “Corbyn? Get a tie.”

I was hoping the young were going to save Labour the same way they did last time, particularly since 1.5 million people registered to vote. Source I don’t know what the hell happened. Did the young vote for the Lib Dems and Greens in a grand act of irony? Did we not come out to vote on polling day? Or was it simply not enough to outvote the bloody pensioners and turkeys?

All of this pales in comparison to the biggest reason for why the Tories won the election: “Get Brexit done.” As John Crace has remarked, this was the biggest lie of the election—and it will cost the English dearly. Look, English voters: the Brexit paralysis we have experienced for the past three years has not been because the Tories didn’t have a majority in Parliament. It’s because Brexit is complicated, difficult, and costly.

The media has encouraged this foolish, self-regarding stupidity. Brexit isn’t hard because British Remainers don’t want it. It’s hard because I, along with the 440 million people in Continental Europe, aren’t going to hand your unicorn on a silver platter. Neither will Trump’s America or China. We have our own interests and we are going to protect them.

I repeat: you are not a world power anymore. If you try and force a deal, you will get nothing, and your economy will implode.

I’m going to abandon my normally calm, rational tone and say it like it is. If you voted Tory, you’ve fucked the young. You’ve fucked the disabled, the homeless, and the people on low pay. You put a noose around the neck of the NHS. Don’t come begging to me when Brexit screws you over; I told you so.

The SNP & the Election

Hail reader!

I will be taking a short break from my usual stream of updates regarding Fallen Love and the Vampire Eirik, in order to talk about something else: politics. As usual, I am writing about a specific issue from a specific viewpoint—Scottish independence as a European citizen, to be precise. You American readers may tune in to my existing backlog of posts if this doesn’t interest you; you can take a look at the search bar to the right or the archive on the left.

With that out of the way, let me start with the first piece of big news: I’ve joined the SNP and resigned my Labour membership. Why? Well, I’ve already written a detailed and succinct explanation in my 2-page resignation letter: you can read it here. The short version is that, although I agree with the Labour Party’s policy and direction in England, I support Independence, and that practically means I have to support the SNP—or the Greens.

I did not choose the Greens because, as outlined in a previous post, I think this country has bigger priorities at the moment.

Right! Onto the other topic for today: the December 2019 General Election. I would like to share a few choice observations that have not, to my mind, been sufficiently emphasised in the discourse.

Oldies Don’t Like the Cold

Everybody knows that people aged 50+, and especially those over 65, are by far the biggest supporters of the Tory party. There would never have been a Tory government for the past 9 years if the vote had been decided by the under–40s.

In light of this fact, it may not have been the best decision for the Conservatives to hold the election in December. Old people don’t like to go out in the cold because it hurts their bones, and they are likely to slip and require a hip replacement on the NHS; this article provides a good explanation of the underlying physiology.

Speaking of the NHS

Precisely because of the above reason (and due to some other reasons as well) the NHS is at its most over-crowded and stressed during the winter months. Though the descriptors “over-crowded” and “stressed” don’t really do justice to the situation: NHS England is usually at “breaking point” or “collapse” during the winter. NHS Scotland is managing a bit better, thankfully.

This does not bode well for Boris Johnson’s Conservative party. A couple of alarming headlines, combined with a few angry parents and doctors asking him tough questions on TV, will shift the conversation away from his Brexit and towards the NHS. This will play right into the hands of Labour, and to a lesser extent the SNP as well.

The Psychology of Winter

The UK does not generally hold elections in winter: the dark nights and freezing temperatures reduce turnout, and make campaigning harder. A winter election brings to mind such evocative, poetic one-liners as “The Winter of Discontent” (which brought down the Labour government and ushered in decades of Tory government under Thatcher). It also cost Stanley Baldwin, a Tory Prime Minister, his majority in the 1923 election.

This is the least well-understood factor of the three I have presented here. The majority of commentators interpret winter elections as benefiting the opposition at the expense of the incumbent Government—people are at their most miserable and least optimistic during the winter, and are more likely to punish the Government of the day. On the other hand, the SNP and Labour campaigns rely on optimism to succeed, not misery.

Any Predictions, Alex?

The only predictable thing about this election is that it will be unpredictable. I certainly don’t know which Party will gain a majority—or which will form the government in a hung Parliament. Even so, I am willing to make three predictions.

Firstly, the Conservative Party will be punished hard in Scotland; it is not inconceivable that they will be down to one seat, or even zero—a complete annihilation not seen since 1997. Three factors play into this: the departure of Ruth Davidson; the massive unpopularity of Tory economic policies in Scotland; and Boris Johnson himself, who goes up like a lead balloon with the Scottish electorate.

Secondly, the Green Party will do pretty well, though it probably won’t gain any new seats. This is on account of the high media profile of environmental issues at the moment (which I find somewhat bizarre given the severity of the constitutional and economic crisis the UK is going to find itself in). Thirdly, and finally, I don’t think the Liberal Democrats are going to do as well its leader, Jo Swinson, hopes.

There are two reasons for this. Firstly, Remainers (and plenty of Brexit voters too) have a strong sense of what is right as being democratic. The Liberal Democrats’ policy—to unilaterally abrogate Brexit without a referendum vote—will be seen as arrogant and disrespectful of democracy. (I would also add that it is fantasy: you can’t just roll back the clock to 2015. Too much damage has been to this country’s social fabric, and too many bridges have been burned with our friends in Europe.) Secondly, I think lots of Remain voters—most notably the young—ultimately care more about housing, the NHS, jobs and education.

Intermezzo: The Stupor of Brexit

Hail readers!

Following on from my previous post—that Fallen Love is coming out in December—I can provide you with a short update. I am due to meet with my marketing consultant tomorrow, for my first hour of consultation. Fingers crossed! As for my designer, he is on a trip and will return to work on Monday.

In the meanwhile, I am writing another post, on the subject of the title: Brexit. I will attempt to keep this brief, on account of two things. Firstly, I do not wish to distract too much from the main content of this blog. Secondly, because I fear that a lengthier entry would be a rant as opposed to a rational précis.

Let’s start with the title, shall we? Why the word “stupor”, which the Oxford dictionary defines as “a state of near unconsciousness or insensibility”? There are a million other words I could have used to similar effect: stupidity, insanity, pandemonium, et cetera ad infinitum. The answer is simple—the word most accurately describes the state of the electorate. Not the media or Parliament, mind you; the aforementioned words are appropriate there.

This is an observation I have made while living in Glasgow for the past month. To put it quite bluntly, I do not believe that the electorate actually understands the precariousness of this country’s position. Even the most devoted Remain campaigners have either gone into shock, or have been distracted by other, far less important issues.

I was particularly amused by the climate protests here in Glasgow, which drew a sizeable crowd; a police helicopter and several ambulances; and filled up a square. Readers should not make the mistake of thinking I’m downplaying climate change. Climate change is one of the biggest global issues of the 21st century; it will require a fundamental change in our industry, economy, and livelihoods—it will be a second Industrial Revolution.

But climate change is a global issue, and it will require decades to make these transformations a reality. This country is about to leave the European Union in one month without a deal. Protesting about climate change is like complaining in a burning house—it’s true that erosion from the seafront will make the property collapse in about 100 years, but the house is on fire, right now.

The government’s own documents for No-Deal planning, named Operation Yellowhammer, spells out the inferno in detail. To take but a few examples: medicine shortages; chaos on the motorways; food shortages; and riots. They should also add, to that list, economic implosion. Trade deals that will evaporate overnight. Exporters will go out of business; multinational companies will move their offices (they are already doing this!); layoffs; and Sterling will be nuked. Inflation will rise to levels not seen since the 1970s.

So why are voters not scared about this? Some are fanatics who will want their Brexit unicorn no matter what, and no amount of expert testimony or evidence will convince them otherwise. But this is a minority. Rather, I have come to believe that the majority of the electorate are simply living in denial. And the reason for this denial has to do with something fundamental in today’s politics.

People do not understand the impact of political decisions. They don’t have the background in economics, law or history to understand. Not until something happens—the moment those political decisions start to affect their lives.

I fear that by the time the majority wakes up, it will already be too late. On a personal level, this has two effects. Firstly, I am looking for opportunities to get out of this country as soon as possible: an internship placement, a master’s degree, or boarding the flight to Romania on October 31st—the last resort. Secondly, my sympathy has run out.

It’s your fault, Brits. Wake up and smell the burning building. I’m not hanging around to see it burn.

The General Election 2017: It’s as Simple as ABC

Hello readers!

Today—as you may be able to guess—the subject is the UK General Election. This will not be an analysis piece. The question I wish to answer is simple: how should you vote? The answer is likewise simple: anything but conservative. Of course, this is not a propaganda piece, either; I wish to persuade you, the reader, with sound, factual argument. So buckle up—it’s going to be an interesting ride.

Theresa May: Weak, Dishonest, Out of her Depth

The Prime Minister’s mantra this election has been “strong and stable”. She repeats it at every opportunity (except for debates, of course, because she doesn’t attend those). Indeed, the new mantra has even superseded the old clichés—such as the much-loved magic money tree.

It is said, however, that weak leaders describe themselves by what they hope to represent, rather than what they actually represent. Think of it as being a bit like “the People’s Republic of China”—neither a republic nor of the people. More a statement of ideals, if you will.

Theresa May is, in many ways, politically inept. The commentariat used to believe she was some sort of political genius; how else, they reasoned, could she have toppled Cameron and become PM? (The answer: opportunism and lack of serious opposition.)

The most damning proof of her ineptness is likely the “dementia tax”, so baptised for targeting people in need of social care—aka dementia sufferers—with a tax on the value of their home. The details are problematic enough; the tax is rife with the possibility of abuse. But perhaps more worryingly still, May announced this unpopular policy before the election, U-turned, and then pretended she hadn’t. Hardly the mark of a great statesman or master negotiator.

Speaking of master negotiators, her Brexit approach is... utter shambles. This may surprise some of my readers. After all: they say May is trusted on Brexit. She certainly wants you to believe it. But I shall recourse back to the analogy I gave previously; the People’s Republic of China is as much a republic as Theresa May is a “safe pair of hands”.

Partly this is because of her team. Boris Johnson, the Foreign Secretary, has described the Germans as Nazis—an act of such mind-numbing stupidity, it almost defies comprehension. Then there is David Davies, the Brexit Secretary, who admitted he had made no economic assessment of Brexit—nine months after the referendum! And don’t even get me started on the Secretary for International Trade (or is that Dr?) Liam Fox, who was forced to resign as defence secretary on allegations of corruption.

Then there is May herself. “No deal is better than a bad deal” she proclaimed to thunderous applause, as if the EU negotiations were like buying a carpet at a bazaar, perhaps. And not, you know, a massive constitutional challenge with millions of people’s citizenship rights—on both sides of the Channel—at stake.

So-called “No Deal” Brexit would also be an economic disaster, the likes of which the much-maligned Corbyn would struggle to accomplish. Banks are already making plans to leave, with calamitous consequences for UK tax revenues. Tearing Britain out of the Customs Union will result in huge delays and expenses, destroying pan-European supply chains for British exporters, and forcing business leaders to defer investments or move production elsewhere. The country’s triple-A rating has also been slashed.

Or, in less technical terms: No Deal Brexit will be a shit storm. And the fact that Theresa May is seriously contemplating it should tell you a lot about how competent she really is.

The A-Word

The Tories wanted this to be the Brexit election. Alas, this is not so. The fact of the matter is, this country has not forgotten about austerity; it remains a problem, festering deep beneath a complacent Conservative party. People do care about the NHS, which the Red Cross has deemed to be in “humanitarian crisis”. They do care about schools, which are facing real cuts in funding per pupil. They do care about high energy prices, social care, pensions, and the chronic shortfall in housing.

And if you care about those issues, then don’t vote Conservative. Judge them on their record, as they say. I won’t go into technical details; the effects of their policies are plain for all to see.

It’s as easy as... ABC

It’s easy for me to say “anything but Conservative”, you think. Isn’t Corbyn some swivel-eyed IRA supporter? Doesn’t Tim Farron think gay sex is a sin?

Only, it isn’t as hard as you think. Corbyn has his sore spots, true. But what he may, or may not, have said about the IRA was thirty years ago; this is, after all, 2017 and not 1983. The agonising over whether or not he’ll press the red button is just that—agonising. It’s about as likely as Godzilla jumping from the sea and rampaging through London. (Okay, maybe I exaggerate. But only a little.)

And Corbyn does have the answer to the problems this country faces now. His manifesto recognises the real issues we face, puts forward serious proposals to fix them, and is costed too. (Remember the Tory manifesto? Which party seems more competent, really?)

But why, you ask, should you not just vote for Labour; in other words, why is my motto “anything but conservative” rather than “vote Labour”? The answer is our good old First Past the Post voting system. It is better to vote for a Liberal Democrat, or a Green, if voting Labour means getting Tory. Or in other words: better half a loaf of bread than none at all.

You have every right to doubt the Lib Dems, though.

Tim Farron is the embodiment of hypocrisy. But as I say: sometimes one has to choose the least worst option.

Parting Words

We do not know exactly what will happen on the 8th June. Perhaps we will have a hung parliament; perhaps the Tories will win comfortably. It is even possible that Corbyn will do it, and become Prime Minister.

But let us leave that for later. For now, the message I want to give you is this: we live in on the edge of a very dark time in politics. Hubris, short-sightedness and ignorance could isolate us from Europe, with devastating consequences for the economy and for the people caught in between. The Tories have run down our public services to breaking point; it is only a matter of time before something cracks. Our Prime Minister has shown her weakness to the world.

This is no time for entertaining hypothetical scenarios about Armageddon. This is no time for mud-slinging and personality politics. On the 8th of June, I urge you to vote with a clear head. The future is in your hands... even if it’s cliché.

And a Brexit in a Pear Tree...

Hello readers!

It has been sometime, alas, since I have been active here on the Magical Realm. This is due to several reasons. Firstly, university has taken a great deal of my time: I have two substantial papers to write; there is preparation for two exams; and there are assignments on top of it. The Wednesday of last week also required me to travel in order to be present in a lab session. All in all, this has proven time-consuming and demanding.

I have also been busy with several other necessities, including applying for huurtoeslag (rent benefit), tuition loans, and seeing the doctor.

Anyway, I have found a window of opportunity to write to you, dear readers. The topic of this post? Brexit. (Yes, it’s overdue.) But before I go into that, allow me a quick recap of the writing situation.

The Necromancer and the Ark

I am undertaking a ‘read and review’ session on Goodreads for the Necromancer. This means that I review 4 books from different authors, in the space of about 2 months; in return 4 authors (none of them the ones I’m reviewing) review my own book.

There are two benefits to this approach. Firstly, I get free books. Free books are always great. Secondly: I get reviews from people who are at least half-way competent at reviewing. The downside, of course, is that this process is rather time-consuming.

As for the Ark, I am concocting something special (and surprising). I will say no more than that.

Finally, do remember that the Necromancer will be getting a Kindle Countdown deal on Christmas. As I say—give someone a gift. I’m sure we’ll both appreciate it :)

The Brexit Bus

Some developments have occurred since I last blogged on this issue. Many of them are unsurprising. Theresa May is calling for hard Brexit—just like I said she would. Boris Johnson is making a fool of himself as Foreign Secretary: his undiplomatic remarks regarding Saudi Arabia’s proxy war in Yemen, while justified, are ultimately stupid, since the Tory government policy is to ignore it.

The Brexiters have also managed to come up with some more vacuities (I guess I ought to be surprised, but the Brexiters have shown limitless imagination in that regard.) One such is that the ‘Remoaners’ (what a charming neologism) ought to stop moaning; instead they should keep quiet and work for a successful Brexit.

The idiocy of this viewpoint is too great to unpick point by point; we would be here all day. Instead, it can be illustrated much more simply using an analogy. A bus is driving across a mountain road. Half of the people in the bus are shouting at the driver to drive the bus off the cliff; the other half is begging him not to. The former group, 52% to the other’s 48%, wins out. The bus drives over the cliff, killing most of the people onboard.

You cannot blame the 48% for shouting at the driver. It is not their fault that the bus is lying in ruins and several people are dead. Driving the bus off the cliff was a stupid idea. There’s no such thing as ‘successful Brexit’; it’s an oxymoron.

Another vacuity trotted out—this one favoured by Unionist Brexiters—is that Scotland voted for the UK to remain in the EU. The Unionists then go on to say, through a disingenuous reductio ad absurdum, that if the SNP had their way, why—we’d expect London, Bristol, Oxford, Liverpool and Manchester to split off from the UK!

The first argument is an exercise in desperate pedantry. The second argument is disingenuous because it assumes Scotland is a region, a bit like London or the Midlands—it’s the only way the argument from analogy can work. Of course Scotland is not a region; it is a nation. A nation with hundreds of years of history, its own devolved government, and the right to self-determination.

But how would Scotland, in practical terms, actually manage it? I have not addressed the constitutional, political and economic challenges of continued EU membership for Scotland, until now; and therefore these will be the last topic of this post.

Tough Choices for Scots; but a Bright Future Ahead

Economically, EEA membership and EU membership are, as far as Scotland is concerned, identical. The Accession procedure however is different: to accede to the European Union Scotland must meet the criteria (it already does, obviously); and it must be agreed unanimously by Member States. Some have floated the possibility that Spain might veto Scotland’s entry. I personally am skeptical of this; thankfully, as far as economics is concerned, this shouldn’t be a problem. To join the EFTA (and by extension to participate in the EEA) Scotland’s entry needs only to be agreed upon by Switzerland, Norway, Liechtenstein and Iceland.

These countries have not suggested that they would oppose Scottish membership; indeed, considering the similar size and economies of the countries involved (Scotland has the same population as Norway, and an oil and gas sector) it is probable that such an arrangement would go smoothly. There is good will politically between the countries as well—and that’s just as important.

To be honest, I think most people in Scotland would be happy with this arrangement. The other problem that remains is the same problem that Scotland would have faced had it gone Independent back in 2014: currency.

The rUK has already clearly stated that Scotland cannot use the Pound Sterling. So Scotland has two choices: it can issue its own Scottish pounds, or it can join the euro. (There’s also a possibility that it may have to do the former before it does the latter, but I’m not too sure.) Obviously this decision will have to be thought through, but I think the evidence clearly points to the latter as being a better option.

Scotland would be a small country facing a period of uncertainty: this would likely mean that its currency would start out weak (which would cause problems with inflation) and subject to volatility as international money speculators assess and reassess its position. Moreover, two other serious problems present themselves. Scotland’s oil sector would likely—after the initial years of uncertainty—cause the Scottish pound to appreciate. Scotland will then suffer Dutch disease. On top of that, the volatility would make it more difficult for Scotland to trade with the rest of the EFTA.

Scotland could try and peg its currency to the euro in order to ameliorate these problems, but as Black Wednesday showed us—this is not so easy as it appears in theory. It is the forex that decides exchange rates, not central banks, and especially not the central banks of countries with a few million people.

There’s also a personal side for me. My parents are funding me to study in Amsterdam; I don’t want them to earn a weak Scottish pound. It would be far easier if their salary were paid in euros.

The last economic issue I wish to address is rUK trade. Unionists like Ruth Davidson (and some in my own party) proudly point out that most Scottish trade—64% to be precise—is with the rest of the UK. Presumably UK membership would be more important than EU membership, at least as far as economics is concerned. Right?

Well, not quite. For one, as autonomy Scotland claims, that 62% figure is questionable; it’s very difficult for companies to separate Scottish and rUK business operations. (And it is business operations we’re talking about—exports don’t just include physical goods.)

Leaving that aside, the trouble with percentages is that they can change. The 64% is a metric of Scottish exports now, as they stand with this constitutional arrangement. But may I remind Unionists that the rUK has 60 million people; the rest of the EU has 450 million, and EU trade agreements cover nearly the entirety of the rest of the world (population 6.5 billion, albeit most of them poor).

It is hardly inconceivable that Scottish exporters could export elsewhere—Europe after all is a huge internal market, with a highly streamlined regulatory framework, no tariffs, passporting rights, and countless other benefits the likes of which no other trading zone can match. And it’s close to Scotland too, and already well integrated, unlike Brexiter fantasy trade with countries that are thousands of miles away and lack anything close to what the EU is. (Just look at May’s bumbled trip to India.) Plus Scotland might benefit from rUK companies relocating to maintain preferential EU market access.

Anyway, with that out of the way, let’s look at the deeper questions of politics and constitution.

Clearly, Scotland wants to stay in the EU. And not just for economics—as Nicola Sturgeon has shown us, the EU means more to Scotland. There are, dare I say it, patriotic feelings involved. The EU represents something: the European Dream, openness, human rights, prosperity—take your pick.

So how does Scotland stay in the EU? As I’ve already mentioned, the Accession process requires Scotland to meet criteria (which it mostly already meets since it’s already in the EU, obviously). Some of these of course are to have a government and central bank, and for this reason Scotland would need to be independent.

The other side of the coin is unanimous agreement. Spain might veto Scotland’s entry because of Catalonia; but this should not be taken as granted. I’m sure Rajoy will not veto it if he gets Gibraltar. Or, Scotland can join the EEA and then simply wait. Rajoy’s position as Spain’s head of state is extremely fragile, and he could quite plausibly no longer be head of state within a few years.

Another possibility is that Scotland gets to stay in the EU by becoming the successor state to the UK. Apparently, this is legally feasible.

Anyway, let’s assume Scotland keeps its place in the EU. What about its relationship with the UK? There are some complicated problems to work out. If Scotland joins Schengen, it will have to have border checks with England. If Scotland doesn’t join Schengen, then again—it’s complicated. Scottish citizens would have freedom of movement to the EU, but UK citizens wouldn’t. But would UK citizens have freedom of movement to Scotland?

To be honest, I don’t see why Scotland can’t have its own arrangement with the UK. It could offer UK citizens freedom of movement (though only to Scotland, unless the UK citizens claim dual nationality) and the UK could reciprocate to only Scottish citizens.

Also, bear in mind that freedom of movement does NOT mean there is no hard border; that’s what Schengen is for. When I go to Romania by car, I have to pass border checks. But being a Romanian citizen I obviously have free movement, as do all other EU citizens.

Can Scotland therefore maintain an open border with the UK? I believe the answer is no, for a number of complicated reasons. The UK will likely be out of the customs union, so goods would have to be inspected. As for people, EU counter-terrorism is one thing to think about. Freedom of movement is another: UK citizens could enter Scotland then (if Scotland is in Schengen) head illegally to work in the EU.

Anyway, let’s not get worked up about this. So long as freedom of movement exists between the UK and Scotland, people will be fine to go to either country. A ‘hard border’ sounds scary but it’s really not the end of the world—it’s just formality, no different from passport checks at the airport. I do it all the time. Heck, UK citizens do it all the time when they go to Europe.

Final Thoughts

This has proven a long and complicated post on what is a long and complicated issue. I hope you have found me intelligible (do leave a comment if anything is unclear!) and interesting. Now, work calls. Keep following the Magical Realm for a Christmas special!

Here There Be Politics

Hello readers!

I have, alas, not written a great deal on the Magical Realm as of late. This is, once more, down to the fact that I am in the countryside. Remote Romanian countryside, that is to say. I have had Internet only sporadically—the town hall has Internet, but it’s a fair walk through nearly 40 degree heat.

The infernal heat has also kept me grounded here for an unexpectedly long while. My grandma, you see, does not fancy going back to civilisation; she believes the heat will be even more intolerable in the brick-and-mortar confines of our apartment.

Thus I have not been able to write to you. However, I have taken this opportunity to write about British politics. I will address two topics herewith: the Labour Leadership, and a few more words about the Brexit. In particular, I will answer the following two questions. Is Owen Smith a better candidate than Corbyn? And what of May’s negotiations?

JC Versus Smith

Through the following weeks, Jeremy Corbyn and Owen Smith will engage in hustings. Thursday this week is when the first debate is scheduled. They will then, hopefully, clarify their economic and political positions—I’m talking mainly Smith here—and engage in some healthy debate. They may even argue over a question that I’ve posed to them: you can thank the party’s crowdfunded questions for that.

But before all that, what is my preliminary position? What do I think of Owen Smith? Is he a man to lead party and people—or is he a false flag, a Miliband 2.0?

Well, I can say with a fair degree of confidence that is he probably not a second coming of Ed Miliband. At the very least, his style is very different: where Miliband was timid and shy, almost to the point of unsociableness, Smith is clear, articulate and well-spoken. He does resemble Nye Bevan—a charismatic Welshman with a penchance for socialism. (I am certain Smith will be quite flattered by the comparison; Nye Bevan is his hero.)

As for the concrete details of his policy, there’s not much we can say about that now. The only policy he’s so far advocated is a £200B public investment scheme. Ordinarily this wouldn’t classify him as a socialist in particular, but in the current austerity-dominated political climate—well, it’s more radical than what Miliband proposed, in any case.

I would however be surprised if he doesn’t advocate other socialist policies: nationalisation, increased tax on high incomes and capital gains, clamping down on tax evasion, and the defence of the welfare state. These are all quite mainstream positions—and perfectly reasonable for a leader of the Labour party to support.

I do expect him to go against some of Corbyn’s more extreme, unpopular, or simply irrelevant policies. He’ll keep Trident (he’s said as much), he’ll keep us in NATO, he’ll keep the monarchy, and he won’t compare the Israeli state to Hitler.

That alone will be enough to avoid a good part of the bad press Corbyn’s received. This is not say he won’t get any bad press: Murdoch and Dacre will surely find something with which to smear him. However, at least he’ll avoid the mudslinging from the likes of the Guardian, the Observer, New Statesman, and possibly the Times.

And finally, Smith should be able to do a much better job on the PMQs. This time, Labour will be ready for Cruella Theresa May.

So my message here is pretty clear: I think Smith is a better candidate than Corbyn. This is not to say that Smith will necessarily become the Prime Minister. The battle Labour will have to fight will not be easy—the Brexit electoral landscape, as I’ve said previously, is a difficult one.

This is especially true since Smith—like any serious modern day Labour politician—is a Europhile. I am confident he can take on Farron for the Remain voters; but what of the Leavers? He will have to convince at least some of them to vote Labour in order to win the next General Election.

But for all this, I’m actually pretty confident in Owen Smith. He seems both competent and personable—a plausible contender for PM-in-waiting. And honestly, considering the leadership contenders past—Burnham, Cooper, Kendall—I am confident in saying that he’s probably Labour’s best bet.

May and Brexit

I have to say that May’s Brexit strategy does amuse me, even if it is entirely predictable. Firstly, the appointed BoJo as Foreign Secretary, and Liam the Fox as International Trade Secretary. As an act of internal politics, it is shrewd: she can keep her party united, and the Brexiteer’s (all but inevitable) failure she can blame on them.

But as an act of national and international politics, it is not a good move. Boris has already been called a liar by the French foreign minister; he is not popular across the Channel. And the Fox is both arrogant and delusional: a poor negotiator of the nation’s future.

Then there’s May herself. She, as Home Secretary, was very keen on deportation—she lost multiple court battles over it; and has already stated that she wants net migration in the tens of thousands. The leaders of Europe have made it quite clear that there will be no access to the single market without freedom of movement. So what does May do? On the one hand, she’s not stupid—she knows it is in Britain’s interest to keep its access to the single market. On the other hand, she hates immigration and has strong political pressure to reduce it.

Honestly, I don’t think the future will be pretty.

Parting Words

Well; these are my political musings for the time being. I hope they have been reasonably interesting. And rest assured, also, that I am continuing work on my work-in-progress novel, the Ark. I am halfway through revising part two; I am soon to have completed most of the revision work! Once I’ve done that, I will likely make some more changes following the advice of my beta-readers.

And after that, it’s full steam ahead to write the third and final part—Hope. Then it will be time to look for agents, and go through the slow, difficult but hopefully rewarding process of being published. Wish me luck!

Jo Cox, Brexit, and Nazi Germany

Note: after I wrote this post, it was subsequently released that Jo Cox’s killer had Nazi paraphernalia in his house along with publications from American white supremacist groups. This comes as absolutely no surprise, as my post will show.

Most of you have probably heard of the murder of Jo Cox. If not, the short version is that a Labour MP for West Yorkshire, Jo Cox, was murdered by a 52 year old who is believed to have shouted ‘Britain first!’

The news of course is shocking in itself. Murder is never pleasant, and the murder of a young woman, a humanitarian and a Labour MP makes it all the more disturbing. But this is also an act committed out of ideology—this is important and must be understood.

Of course, the man was a nutter. I will not be so crass as to suggest that he is representative of the whole Brexit movement.

Nonetheless, history has lessons to teach us. The murder of Jo Cox was motivated by nationalism. Nationalism was what fueled the rise of the Nazi party; and indeed many others have committed many much more heinous acts out of a deluded sense of ‘defending the nation’.

And nationalism, I’m sorry to say, is obviously a great motivator for the Brexit campaign. ‘Take it back!’ they cry. (What, you may ask? The nation, of course.) With pictures of Dover and rivers of migrants they speak; their cartoons vulgar and fatuous.

Indeed, Brexit shares many other features with National Socialism. Both blame foreigners for the country’s social and economic ills; both promise that great promise, that great lie—that if only the nation were free from Europe, or the Jews, than the prosperity of the good old days is bound to follow.

In reality this is a delusion. Migrants are not to blame for the country’s unemployment and housing crisis, nor the Jews for the troubles of the Weimar republic. Such problems are the fault of national governments. Blaming the foreigners is no more than a convenient scapegoat; a failure to admit to the sins of one’s own country.

Let us abandon the notion that great invisible forces are conspiring against the nation—either in Brussels or in the international Jewry. Let us instead stick fast to reality and reason. Jews did not cause hyperinflation in the Weimar, nor draft the treaty of Versailles. Europe does not make our houses few and expensive, inflated by artificial limits on building and unprincipled lending by banks. Europe does not make us underfund our NHS or impose draconian contracts on junior doctors.

Let us also not pretend that Brexit is a vote for democracy or the future of Britain. The EU is no less democratic than this country—a country with an unelected House of Lords, until recently hereditary, First-Past-the-Post, and the gall to lecture the European Union on democracy. Let us remember that the EU was created under the principle of democracy: a principle hard fought for in those dark days of WW2.

The European Union is based on solidarity and peace between the nations of Europe. Brexit is based on the age-old trope of violent nationalism. Which would you rather choose?

Note: this is a special post that is not in my usual Magical Realm style. If you want a more pragmatic and detailed argument, see this

Addendum: you may also find my first political poem, That Great Continent, to be of interest.