Why us remainers shouldn’t be calling for a second referendum

“But Farage said he would call for a second referendum if remain won by 52%” cry some on the remain side. But does that make it right? No it doesn’t. Hand on heart and be honest, would you be really calling for a second referendum if remain had won by that margin? I know I wouldn’t. It may be a slim majority but it is technically a majority so the politicians have to listen to the people now and trigger article 50 and our exit from the EU. Interestingly though it is not a legally binding referendum and if parliament votes against it, we don’t leave the EU. Bear in mind the majority of MPs in parliament are in favour in staying, this is a distinct possibility. Although if parliament does this, you can imagine the backlash they’ll get and those MPs that voted against invoking article 50 would find it very hard to get re-elected. So it is unlikely to happen.

Is this a horrible result? Yes. Is the future uncertain and precarious? Yes. Does the idea of Boris Johnson being PM make my skin crawl? Absolutely. It is becoming increasingly clear that those on the leave side of the argument have no proper plan in place and have outright lied to the electorate on promises to do with the NHS for example. But what we remainers should be doing is pushing for the government to make sure we don’t get rid of things like the social chapter and environmental standards that we get from the EU. That will be very difficult. Even though there is very likely going to be a general election, I’m very worried whether the Tories will be ousted given that rather than take on the Tories, Labour seem to re-enacting an episode of Game of Thrones by brutally trying to get rid of their leader. It’s all a shambles at the moment in British politics but it is why we need people to remain calm and push for a progressive post Brexit Britain.  

To be honest, the only political leaders that have had any clarity are those pushing for remaining, Nicola Sturgeon and Tim Farron. Sturgeon has said to protect Scottish interests there needs to be a second independence referendum given that the majority of Scotland voted to remain. That makes sense. After all why would you accept leaving an organisation that the majority of your citizens voted to stay a part of? Although Tim Farron has said that in the next general election his party will have staying in the EU as a policy despite the referendum result. I’ve even seen some fellow Green Party members suggest that we make re-joining (through an eventual second referendum) as a manifesto pledge at the next election. Given that could be in a few months, I do worry about that pledge. It will make it look like we are ignoring the majority of the electorate in this country.

In hindsight I do think this referendum was a mistake. There was not a massive appetite to have one. It was only made so Cameron could stop Tory votes going to UKIP. It was also such a complicated issue that barely anyone, including me, fully understood how the EU works. I think what sums this all up is that a day after the referendum, the second most googled thing in Britain was “What is the EU?”  But that is all by-the-by. Even if it was a mistake, the referendum has happened and a slim majority of the electorate have spoken. We now need to live with that. Given that our friends, loved ones and neighbours are now facing torrents of abuse just from being EU citizens we need to help them and make sure we stop any more attacks and make sure that EU migrants are protected from potential deportation. I fear either not going through with Brexit or holding another referendum could further divide our country, cause more anger and resentment and make the situation a lot worse. I know a lot of people on the left of politics that did vote leave, So what I would like to see now is the progressives in politics on either side of the debate build bridges, unite and fight this government's austerity measures, which will sadly only get worse as a result of Brexit.

So stop going on about getting people to sign a petition for another referendum. We need to respect the wishes of a small majority of the electorate who wanted to leave a political union that felt distant to them. We on the remain side failed to put a really positive case for the EU forward. And this is where the EU itself has serious questions to answer as other nations themselves will start questioning their membership of the EU.

The debate surrounding the EU and why I’m voting remain.

So the EU debate. Hands up who cannot wait for it to be over and is sick of it some of the bullshit coming from both campaigns? (Shoots hand up drastically in the air). Well I’m afraid I’m going to be yet another mouthpiece trying to persuade you because this is such a huge decision that will effect all of us. So below I’m going to try and de-bunk some of the leave campaign’s claims and explain why I’m positively voting remain.

Firstly the “Leave” side say that we can get back our sovereignty and not let an undemocratic organisation make our laws. But just how undemocratic is the EU? Well the EU parliament elected by us can amend laws. The EU Commission which co proposes laws with the Council of Ministers (who are elected politicians from each country) is selected by the EU parliament and has a member for every country so no one country dominates the commission. Hope you are following this so far. So just be clear. Council of Ministers are elected politicians from every country. And the EU Commission is appointed by the democratic EU parliament. Compare that to the UK where we have a Parliament elected by us voting on laws that Ministers (elected MPs) come up with and we have an appointed House of Lords that can influence laws. Very similar to the EU. So rather than leave the EU to come up with laws only made in our vaguely democratic system, let’s improve the system in both the UK and EU so they are both more accountable and democratic. The EU does actually promote democracy because any country that wants to be a member has to be a democracy that gives it citizens’ rights and freedoms. Hence why Turkey will not become a member unless it changes its ways drastically regardless of what the leave side have said.

So that is the democracy argument de-bunked. What about our sovereignty? Surely each nation state should be free to make our own laws and regain complete control on any laws that have been made by the EU. Well there is an argument for that but I personally think some laws should be made internationally because that is the best way to make effective change. Climate Change, Air Pollution and Terrorism know no borders so it is good that we can have an international organisation that is partly elected by us coming up with laws to deal with those things. International workers’ rights legislation coming from the EU has raised standards everywhere in the EU (although not enough) and if we enhanced and improved it, it can stop forced migration. So if we have to pool some of our sovereignty as a nation state along with 27 other countries to help come up with legislation to benefit all of us, then that is something I’m quite comfortable with.

The leave side also say we can control immigration if we left the EU. Well considering most immigrants that come here every year, come from outside the EU it won’t make much of a difference to the numbers. (This is from the Office for National Statistics if you wish to look it up). Now the leave side have also said that whilst we should look to make trade deals elsewhere around the world, we can continue trading with the EU because it is in both their and our interests. Sure but if we want access to the single market from the EU, we have to accept freedom of movement as Norway and Switzerland do and how Canada will have to after they’ve signed up to the trade deal they have with the EU. Also if we wanted to amend freedom of movement then we have be a full member because having access to the single market but not the political union itself means we cannot influence any EU rules. The positive case for me though is that freedom of movement has meant that many British people have the opportunity to work and study abroad as well as EU citizens coming here. Ultimately different cultures mixing together makes our and other EU citizens lives more interesting and can create cohesion and understanding and a sense of unity and not division as it has done in London in particular.

The positive environmental case for the EU is also strong. We have laws meaning we have to have cleaner beaches because of the EU. We also have laws protecting our green spaces and making sure we have bio-diversity (i.e. the variety of plant and animal life in the world so that we can survive as a species ourselves). In regards to animals, the leave side have said “Fishing quotas” from the EU have limited the amount we can catch fish thus putting our fishing industry out of business. Well if we didn’t have these quotas, fish would run out quicker and thus that would in the long term put our fishing industry out of business. EU subsidies for “fish farms” means that we can selectively catch and breed fish and make that industry sustainable and protect the different species from going extinct. Bans on animals being used for cosmetic product testing has also come from the EU.

So to sum up. The EU is as democratic as our system but we can improve it. The good that comes from pooling sovereignty and making more effective decisions on animal rights, workers’ rights, protection of our environment and freedom of movement benefits all of us across the EU. So for the reasons above, please vote to remain in the EU on Thursday.

P.S.  Apologies if some of the things I’ve talked about are technical but I felt I need to really take apart the leave campaign’s arguments. If you would like to know more or debate this, please comment below or find me on Facebook or email me at lee.burkwood@gmail.com

London's housing crisis is hitting Redbridge hard. The development on Britannia Music site is doing nothing to help.

This is my first blog of the new year and I hope you all had a good break over the festive period. In my last blog, I wrote about how the housing crisis is affecting the amount of homeless people there are living on the streets on Britain. As the Green Party candidate for Redbridge and Havering, I wish to express my frustration at a new housing development in Ilford. Just to give you a bit of background knowledge, property values in Ilford have risen by 5.71% in the last year, according to Zoopla, and by 24.53% in the past five years. Property industry giants Jones Lang LaSalle claim that of all the areas set to benefit from Crossrail, Ilford will lead the way in terms of price growth. Now, after securing a £25m loan from the Mayor of London's Housing Zones initiative, developers Durkan will be building 354 new homes on the Britannia Music site, which had been lying empty since 2007. Durkan's online advertisement trumpets: "stylish one, two and three bedroom apartments in a fantastic, well-connected location in the heart of Ilford, just 16 minutes by train to Liverpool Street station". This makes it abundantly clear that the developers' prime targets are not local residents at all, but city slickers, themselves priced out of central London.

I completely support the building of new homes in Ilford. However I am disappointed in the amount of genuinely affordable new homes that will be provided on the Britannia Music site. Out of those 354 homes only 93 will be classed as "affordable". That means that 74% of the homes on this site will not be affordable for Redbridge residents.  Further, given that a lot of the funding for this will come from City Hall, we know that the Mayor's definition of affordable is 80% of the market rate - which really isn't affordable at all for people on low and average incomes. According to the Centre for Cities Think Tank, a quarter of private renters in London claim Housing Benefit - therefore this development has the potential for making the benefit bill even higher. Sadly, most of the homes being built on this are for private rent. However our mayoral candidate Sian Berry has announced a policy whereby every private renter in London will automatically be part of a City Hall funded Renters Union that will provide advice and support including for the residents that will be living on this site. So under a Green administration at City Hall, we can really hold Durkan to account regarding the standards of these homes. 

I am disappointed though that the Labour-led Redbridge Council has completely backed this, given that their Housing Strategy document states that Redbridge is the most expensive Outer London Borough for Housing. As I said in my previous blog, If City Hall worked with Councils, Housing Associations and communities more and took a tougher stance on big developers, we could build more truly affordable homes for residents. This also shows why we need more Greens elected to City Hall and having more genuinely affordable homes built for residents in Redbridge and Havering will be one of my priorities if I am elected to the London Assembly.

The massive problem of homelessness in London and how we can together help eradicate it.

It's that time of year again. You're worried about last minute Christmas shopping, how drunk you'll get at the office Xmas party and of course the possible stress of preparing to see your family over the festive season. For London's 742 homeless (as of 2014) they don't have the luxury of worrying about these things. According to the Department for Local Government this is a 37% increase from the previous year. In a supposedly growing economy with falling unemployment this is an alarming statistic. In 2013/2014 111,960 households across the country applied to their local councils for homelessness assistance. A rise of 26% since 2009/10. Another recent report by Crisis showed that 21% of people that had their benefit sanctioned in the last year were made homeless as a result.

But the problem of homelessness goes much deeper than this. The people I mention above are part of what is called the "statutory homeless" which is officially counted by the government. This does not take into account the 'hidden homeless'. Think about some of the people you see at tube stations or outside the supermarket. According to a GLA report, between April 2014 and March 2015, 7,581 people were seen sleeping rough in London. This is an increase of 16% from 2013/2014.

It is hard to know exactly how many people are homeless at any given point. Independent research carried out for Crisis and the Joseph Rowntree Foundation shows that almost one in ten people in the UK say they have been homeless at some point. That's one in ten of you that read this. There are many complex reasons why people are made homeless. Alcohol and drug abuse, problems at home, a harsh rise in rent, losing their job, benefit sanctions etc. The fact that there are so many that are left for so long is just wrong.

So this all sounds like doom and gloom but what can be done. Well individually we can donate to brilliant charities such as Crisis and Shelter that specifically give advocacy and help to the homeless or individually we can help any homeless person we see by giving them food or a hot drink or by offering to take them somewhere they can get help. The problem is though we as a country are relying too much on individual generosity and charity to help homeless people. We all think we are helping when we do these things and in a way we are. But it is only a sticking plaster rather than a real solution to the homelessness crisis we are facing. The simple truth is, we need to build more social housing for these people to live in.

According to the Mayor's Office, a net of 68,000 new homes were built in London in the last three years. Almost 18,000 of which are apparently "affordable homes". This includes homes to buy. But as a lot of us in London are painfully aware, buying a home in London is rarely affordable. What it doesn't say in the report is how many of these affordable homes that were built were genuinely affordable social housing. What we need in London in particular is for City Hall to be tougher on big developers about the amount the social homes they build and work with councils and community groups more about the type of housing they need in their area rather than just meet the needs of big developers. We also need a genuine collective outreach team at City Hall to help the many homeless people that are being ignored and for central government to give City Hall the power to control rents in the private sector. Additionally, we need the change the culture and thinking in this country that just sees houses as assets to buy rather than a human right. But that is more of a long term aim.

Yes I'm a Green Party candidate for the London Assembly so naturally I will say vote Green in the next election to see proper action on housing and homelessness. Right now though you can individually and/or collectively lobby every level of government about this and support council tenants protecting their homes from being demolished and them being evicted. Currently there is a "Homes for All" campaign in Waltham Forest so that is something to get involved in. People of all political parties and none need to work together to eradicate homelessness once and for all and to not stand by on the other side while our fellow citizens suffer in silence. 

The Living Wage. What is it? Why is it important? What we can all do to make sure everyone is paid it.

According to the ONS, there are around 5.9 million workers in this country not paid the Living Wage.That is roughly a fifth of the workforce. That is scandalous in one of the richest countries in the world.  The Living Wage I’m talking about of course is the one that is defined by the Living Wage Foundation and not the government’s so called “National Living Wage” which is actually over £2 less an hour than the Living Wage in London. The Living Wage in London is £9.40 an hour and for the rest of the country it is £8.25 an hour and is calculated by independent economists as the average cost of living.

Whilst Labour have been rightly talking about the cut in Working Tax Credits next April which is set to make the lowest paid workers over a £1000 a year worse off, the elephant in the room is that a lot of these workers are still paid less than a wage they can live on. What the government have done is arbitrarily cut Tax Credits whilst raising the Tax Free Personal Allowance and creating this “National Living Wage” for anyone over 25 thus apparently making people better off. However this has been quickly rebutted by the IFS who have said their measures will not make the lowest paid better off.

What needs to happen is that every adult that works needs to get paid the Living Wage and anything else they need to cover the cost of living should be provided by Tax Credits. I include under 25s in this.  At the moment they are not even entitled to this new National Living Wage and have to settle for the derisory £6.50 an hour as a minimum whilst of course not being able to claim Working Tax Credits or Housing Benefit if they are under 21. But according to the Tory Employment Minister, under 25s are not worth this National Living Wage as they are not as “productive”. Obviously this is unproven nonsense and regardless of whether under 25s are as productive or whatever experience they have, surely everyone deserves a wage they can live on as a bare minimum.

And it is screamingly obvious that if the Living Wage was introduced as the minimum wage, Working Tax Credits costs to the taxpayer will lower naturally as people will claim less. People will also have more disposable income and this will help the economy as the minimum wage did when it was first introduced. And if there are small businesses or charities that can prove they can’t afford to pay their staff this, this is where Tax Credits come in to top up that staff’s income.

So what can be done to make sure everyone is paid it?

Well there are a number of things we can do. Support the Living Wage Foundation by helping them with their campaigns. Start a campaign in your local area to encourage businesses and councils to pay the Living Wage. What the Green Party will be doing as part of our campaign in the London Assembly elections is create “Calling Cards” to leave to staff in shops to tell us their stories about how low paid they are or what their working conditions are generally like. Putting real-life stories to this campaign will help gain support and pressure the government and businesses alike to pay their staff the Living Wage.  This is something that everyone, regardless of the differences in political views, can get behind.  So what are you waiting for?

My plea to the anti-austerity movement. Don't let your anger ruin what we are building and don’t defend the indefensible.

First of all can I say well done to the 60,000 largely peaceful demonstrators that made it up to Manchester over the weekend. There were some really creative protests such as an anti-austerity rave and a flash mob at Manchester Piccadilly train station to try and make it a fun and inclusive affair. However the protests were overshadowed by a group of idiots that threw an egg at a delegate of the Conservative Party conference, spat at a journalist as they came out of the conference centre and generally being quite aggressive towards the Conference delegates going in and out.

Yet I've seen quite a few people on the left defend this aggressiveness saying that what the Tories are doing is much worse and that the Tory member that got egged had it coming because he was goading the protesters by showing them pictures of Margaret Thatcher. But throwing an object at someone is assault and assault is obviously wrong and against the law, whoever the victim is. The first two articles I saw about the protest could barely get a paragraph in without mentioning the egging so well done to those for making the headlines about that rather than the importance of the protest itself.

Yes I don't expect the majority of the media to be onside with our movement, however by doing what they did, all that these idiots have done is give ammunition to the press to paint the left as militant thugs. Exactly how are we going to build a movement to beat the Tories if we put people off from joining due to this?

Am I making it worse by focusing on the minority of protesters behaving aggressively? I don't know. All I do know is the majority of the public don't really care about politics one way or another and that all they see in terms of the protests is the bitesize headlines and what exactly are those headlines going to be focusing on?

I get that there is a genuine heartfelt anger at what the Tories are doing and believe you me I, like many people, have been negatively affected by austerity. Here's an idea though. How about you channel that anger into positive action against the government. I know that the vast majority people within the movement do this and that there will always be idiots at protests who think they are being funny and clever when they assault someone. However, if you are serious about helping build a strong movement against the Tories, then cut out the puerile, immature and aggressive behaviour and don't create negative headlines that can be avoided. As Jez says, no personal attacks. Thanks and solidarity x.

P.S. Quick message to the police and the government. Please don’t in future intimidate innocent peaceful protesters by having snipers aimed at them. Ta.

Why the Trade Union bill is the biggest attack on workers in a generation and why we must all fight it.

Flashback to the 1970s and apparently the Trade Unions had control of the weak Labour Government. The 3 day weeks and rubbish piled up everywhere was because of constant strikes and lack of communication and negotiations between Government and Trade Unions. So something had to be done supposedly.

Enter stage Margaret Thatcher who basically sold us the idea that the Unions were part of “the enemy within”. So she bought in a raft of anti-union legislation that banned workplace ballots, stopped union members getting paid for going on strike and introduced notice periods for strike action. By the end of 18 years of Tory rule we had the strictest trade union laws in Europe. Whilst New Labour didn't really change anything in regards to Trade Union law, they did bring in a raft of measures that generally helped people at work including the minimum wage and Working Tax Credits.

So flash forward again and it is 2015. After a few years of Tory/ Lib Dem Government there had been a number of strikes in the education sector, the healthcare sector and of course infamous tube strikes because of a change in pay and conditions at work. So now with the Tories in government on their own, they are bringing in further anti Trade Union legislation. Their tightening up of Trade Union rights include a 50% turnout to make any strike eligible, at least 40% support for strike action in vital public services such as education and transport. Furthermore they are increasing the notice period at which you can call a strike from 7 to 14 days and the Government are going to allow companies to hire agency workers to replace striking staff. In addition if a Union official at a picket line isn't wearing an official armband, they could be fined up to £20,000.

So you may be thinking, well what is wrong with having at least half a union turnout to vote for a strike. It makes it more legitimate and the public will more sympathy with them. If the Conservatives actually believe a majority turnout means real legitimacy for a result of a ballot, why are the Local Elections and European Election results, with less than 40% turnout, legitimate? Also the Alternative Vote referendum had barely 30% turnout, yet the Conservatives at the time claimed that the result of that meant a majority of British people supported the current voting system. One rule for Trade Unions, another rule for the British Electorate it seems. Here’s an idea, if you want to increase voter turnout for Trade Union strike ballots, why not bring back workplace ballots or bring in online voting rather than arbitrarily having a minimum turnout. Personally I’d do the same for elections as well.

So increasing the notice period at which a strike can be called may seem reasonable as it means other workers not on strike can make contingency plans in regards to themselves getting into work. However sometimes negotiations take a while and things can be agreed at the last minute and most strikes are called off because of this. If you have to give more notice to strike then that gives the employees less bargaining power when fighting for their rights and means the employers call the shots. Employers bringing in agency staff to cover striking workers may again seem positive on the surface as the company don’t lose productivity and their business activities keep going so therefore this benefits the economy. However this is where the threat of strike action becomes completely pointless. If employers can replace staff like that just for going on strike then they are hardly going to care whether their staff go on strike and once again this gives Trade Unions pretty much no bargaining power when fighting to improve their members pay and conditions.

So to sum up. Yes strike action can annoy and affect a lot of people that are not Trade Union members. It means people are late or can’t get to work at all. However, the rights that we take for granted today weren't given to us willingly by employers and Governments. They were fought for by Trade Unions fighting for individual members pay and conditions as well as taking direct action collectively such as going on strike. Whether it is paid holiday, maternity leave, health and safety in the workplace, Trade Unions have benefited all of us. If we allow the Government to curtail Trade Union activity even more, there is nothing to stop them pursuing a race to the bottom on rights at work and who is going to be able to stand up for us then?

NB: For full disclosure, I am a member of Unite, which is the biggest Trade Union in the country. The Trade Union bill passed it second reading earlier this week. To help fight the bill, lobby your MPs and join the TUC’s campaign