Why there should not be a people's vote

Of all people I should be the last one to side with Farage and the like in all matters of Brexit. As a German without a British passport I will lose most of my civil rights on 19th March 2019. However, recently I found myself increasingly frustrated and worried about the calls for a second referendum or people's vote on Brexit. There may be many things wrong with the first Brexit vote, not least our lack of understanding of how social media may or may not have been used (unduly) to influence the outcome of the vote. However, I do not find the various reasons for a second vote convincing. Here is why.

Argument 1: They did not know what they voted on

This is a bad argument to put forward. Not only does it reak of patronising voters it also cuts both ways. If people had really been ignorant of what the referendum question was about (or what a decision either way entailed) then re-running the referendum assumes that voters can only genuinely cast their vote under conditions of absolute knowledge. This strikes me as a ludicrous condition for voting in a democratic society. Whether we like it or not, frivolous voting is a right everyone has in a free country. And so is voting on grounds of self-declared ignorance.

The outcome of the negotiations need to be endorsed by the voters

Well, it does indeed. That's what parliament is for. Referenda are a poor mechanism to discriminate between policy options. And if I remember correctly that was also an argument against the first referendum. I still agree with this and hence a second referendum would solve little that cannot be decided by elected MPs.

We should stop Brexit 

That's probably the most annoying argument and one that is most likely to backfire. There is no guarantee that a second referendum would yield a substantial majority for remaining in the EU. Just think about the difficulty of drafting the referendum question. Would it be a three way choice between 'the deal', 'no deal' and remaining in EU? That would split the 'remain camp' and likely deliver a supporting vote for 'the deal', whatever that may be. So, remainers would not get from such a referendum what they wanted (to preserve EU membership). And why would people 'know' more about 'the deal' or 'no deal' options if they, allegedly, were in a state of fateful ignorance about the benefits of EU membership? Are the ramifications of 'the deal' any simpler to grasp? 

So, why are we talking about a second referendum or people's vote? It may be worthwhile to have a look at who is advocating it. John Harris's podcasts are little windows into our divided soul. And it seems to me that the dividing line between us runs somewhere between London/South of England and the rest of England and Wales. I think it's no surprise that this is also roughly the line that divides the well off from the deprived areas in England, those that have benefitted from, and have accommodated themselves with immigration and a global economy and those that have not.

I accept that Brexit will not rectify the injustices and imbalances between London and the rest of the country. But, living in the North West of England, I also understand those who feel left behind and may now look on with some schadenfreude as London house prices fall and multinational companies start to relocate to other European cities. The movement for the people's vote is born out of a recognition that with Brexit, London and the South of England would suffer (though the rest of England would disproportionately suffer even more). Yet for Londoners who have treated the rest of the country with imperial disdain and contempt for decades, many Northerners thought this was pay back time. And I can't blame them.

In this context, campaigning for a people's vote appears to be counterproductive. It ties up energies that are really needed to argue for a sensible, smooth exit from the EU. It would make more sense to work out how we can get to an EFTA or Norway solution and how to get this through parliament rather than wasting political capital on preventing something that has democratic legitimacy: leaving the European Union.

Zaha Hadid - the tabula rasa architect

So she has finally made it. Recently Zaha Hadid was awarded the most important accolade of the architecture establishment, the RIBA Gold Medal. She is the first woman to get this prize in her own right. Whilst this marks the well deserved culmination of a long and distinguished career, her rise to architectural stardom has had its hiccups.

Zaha Hadid

An early stumbling bloc was the Cardiff Opera house. She won the competition twice, but locals just simply did not warm to her hypermodern design and, in the end it was rejected. The house now standing on the site was designed by Jonathan Adams, whose design is said to be incorporating Welsh elements and reflect Welsh national culture. As a former resident of Cardiff and frequent visitor to the Welsh Millenium Centre, I am actually glad that her design was never built. Whilst the current house certainly has its flaws, its gentle, non-threatening nature is probably right for the city. There is a pedestrian-ness about it, without ever being dull, and it may just be the best design for the Welsh capital.

Hadid's design for the Cardiff Opera House

And therein lies part of the problem with Hadid. Her indisputable genius often appears to be outside of time and context. And so her designs sometimes struggle to latch on to local environments. Her work seems to work best where she can start with a blank sheet of paper. Her most recent work, the Olympic Swimming Pool in the London Olympic Village is a courageous piece of breathtaking curves. Beautiful as it is, its design would simply refuse to relate meaningfully to any other building in the locale. Luckily for Hadid, the building was practically built on wasteland with no context other than its own.

London Aquatics Centre

In a recent interview she mentioned her work for BMW as one of the most gratifying pieces in her portfolio. She may just be one of those architects who thrive on the tabula rasa. As blank spaces are rare in this country, she may come to build even less than previously, which is our loss.

BMW Headquarters in Leipzig

Why the living wage campaign is wrong

The main argument for the living wage is that it lifts people out of benefits. Currently there are thousands of people in the UK who work hard and have full time jobs yet receive housing benefit and other state support since their wages are not big enough to make ends meet at the end of the month. In effect, this shifts the burden from employers (who pay wages and through the work of their employees make profits) to the tax payer. The argument of the living wage campaign is that this is wrong.

However, there is another argument that should make us think twice before we introduce the living wage. The income differential between employees is a product of the type of work they do and their productivity. The living wage would force employers to reduce the income differential substantially between those employees who do different jobs in their company.

Effectively, this would distort the incentives for pre-employment education, training and skills. With the living wage, there would be no difference anymore between somebody who cleans the office and somebody who answers the phones. To pretend that both types of work are of equal value is simply not true. Though both should command our respect for hard work, reducing the income differential between jobs in essence signals to young people that further and higher education does not pay.

The danger would be that education does not look attractive anymore in a society where wages are the same for everyone.

The riots of 2011

With Britain feeling the Olympic wind under her wings, there is currently little appetite to remember the darker sides of last years. One of the low points of public life has been the riots in London and other British cities in 2011. The BBC has now released a documentary on the riots which presents the view of those who took part. The words are spoken by actors but the content originates in interviews that were conducted as part of research commissioned by The Guardian and the LSE. 

The documentary is revealing, if only in its conclusion that there was indeed no single cause why the riots happened. This corroborates social research which points to some evidence that collective action is rarely driven by singular motifs that apply to all participants. In fact, just as with so many other social action, individuals bring their own reasons and motivations to the event. 

There is however a clear reason why the riots spread the way they did. After a demonstration and an initial wave of battles with the police in Tottenham, the riots then spread and lasted full four days and nights. This was unprecedented and the documentary throws some light on why they lasted so long. Law enforcement was mainly absent and the police were standing back rather than confidently tackling the widespread violence. We will have to wait for the next episode of the BBC documentary to hear the police side of the story, but one thing appears to be clear already: as one of the young people said, most rioters looted 'because they can'.

What a transformation! Britain and the Olympic Games

Having written about Britain's litter problem only recently, I shall now eat my words! Arriving in London during the Olympics was like arriving in a different country. Helpful volunteers everywhere with a big smile on their faces (probably thinking of the amazing haul of Gold medals that was lying in wait for Britain!) and trains running on time!

Even Cardiff was presenting itself from its best side, with the city centre cleaned up for spectators of the football tournament and impeccable organisation during match days. What happened?

As so many, I was infected by the constant moaning and criticism that is so characteristic of the tone in the British media. Often the contrast with America couldn't be sharper. While Americans relentlessly celebrate success and effort, the British default sentiment is often latent defeatism or biting sarcasm.

But how things have changed! The Olympics have demonstrated that Britain can really put on world class events and that Brits can be proud of what they have achieved during the Olympics. Not only was this event run with incredible organisational skill, the enthusiasm and pride in British sporting achievements was infectious.

Nicola Adams - First Women's Boxing Olympic Champion

I watched with amazement the fight of Nicola Adams who became the first ever women's boxing Olympic champion and today the fight of Anthony Joshua who, after only 4 years of competitive boxing and at the age of 22, became the Olympic champion in the super-heavyweight category. What an achievement! Not to mention the win of Mo Farrah and the well deserved Bronze medal of Tom Daley.

So credit where credit is due: Britain put on a fantastic Olympic games and can be proud of herself!

Racism at the Met - the never ending story

The Metropolitan Police once again struggles with racism in its ranks. Today the Deputy Commissioner for the Met tried to reassure the public that the force would not tolerate racism by its officers. Few people believe him. The evidence against the Met is stacking up by the hour. More revelations have surfaced today and a total of 10 officers have already been suspended.

The row developed as it emerged that there was audio footage of a black man being racially abused in the most foul language. Shortly afterwards, an officer who was present at the racist incident then physically assaulted a black teenager in custody. The moment was filmed on CCTV but not released. 

What is most disturbing about these incidents is the cavalier fashion in which the Met treated these racist incidents initially. As the original complaints were made, the file was sent to the Crown Prosecution Service which found that ‘there was no reason to prosecute’ despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary. 

It is hard not to think that this was a case of the CPS protecting their chums at the Met. The CPS has now announced an urgent review of the case. The fact is that any inquiry into the Met’s handling of the case wont do. It is the Crown Prosecution Service that has clearly acted improperly and should be investigated by an independent body. 

If you doubted the urgency of this matter, remember that the riots in London started when an unarmed black man in a taxi was shot by officers from the Met in broad daylight and the police then lied to the family claiming the victim had fired a gun at officers. The inquest into the death of the victim, Mark Duggan, recently heard that the police refuse to provide evidence that can be heard in court citing ‘security concerns’. A travesty of justice that beggars belief. 

The shocking complacency of the Met with which it treats racism in its own ranks and the questionable decisions of the CPS make for very disturbing reading. The Met needs to gets its house in order and fast!