Tuesday, October 30, 2018

Peoples' vote - open letter to Julian Sturdy

Dear Julian,

I strongly believe that there should be a vote at the end of the negotiations so that people can decide what they want.  There are several very powerful reasons for this, and I am sharing some of them with you here.

  • The original referendum was very close.  It was only 52% to 48% which is very close, and now more people have dropped off the electoral register than the majority in the referendum.
  • At the time we did not know what leave would mean.  We were told many things including such things as (many of these come from “Vote leave for a fairer Britain” http://www.voteleavetakecontrol.org/vote_leave_for_a_fairer_britain.html
    • We would be better off with Brexit (all reputable bodies say that we will be worse off under any deal, especially a “no deal” scenario.
    • There will be £350 million a week for the NHS (as the economy is already estimated to be £250 a week smaller than if we had decided to remain this is clearly not true).
    • We would have as good or better trade terms under Brexit (absolutely not true)
    • “Wages will be higher for working people outside the EU… because pay will no longer be undercut by uncontrolled migration.” All economic forecasters are saying that we will be worse off under any Brexit scenario.
    • After we Vote Leave, there won’t be a sudden change that disrupts the economy. – This will clearly not be true if there is no deal, and even with a deal many companies are talking or relocating part or all of their business to Europe.
    • There’ll be no damage to trade with the EU – something which is clearly untrue under any scenario, and disastrously so under a no deal Brexit.
  • Given that only 52% wanted to leave and 48% to remain, it was also clear that there was no uniformity of opinion of what people wanted, going from at one end people who wanted full integration in the “United States of Europe” through reluctant remainers who thought it would on balance be better to reluctant leavers who thought on balance it would be better to leave to hard Brexiters who wanted no deal.  In this situation it is clear that we should be going for the least possible Brexit (in accordance with only 52% wanting it all). But that is not going to be offered.
  • There are around 1 million new adults now entitled to vote
  • In any sensible deal there is a vote to call for negotiations, and then another vote to decide whether people accept the result.  If you think of negotiations between businesses and trades unions there is a vote to empower the trade union to negotiate, and then a vote on whether or not to accept the terms.  NB if the terms are not accepted then the status quo is preserved, not all the workers leave the business.

So, I am asking to press the Prime Minister and Brexit Secretary to support a vote on the results of their negotiations, and to support such a vote.  Anything else would be an abrogation of democracy.

If the Brexit terms agreed are as good as ministers claim then there should be resounding support, and if people do not want whatever have been negotiated they should be allowed to say so. 

Best wishes
Tom.
Tom Franklin

Solar power tariff - open letter to Julian Sturdy MP


Dear Julian,

I am one of the many people who support solar power, to the extent that I have installed solar panels on my roof. Solar energy is supported by the vast majority of the population (something like 6 in 7 people support it). 

The IPCC recently warned that we must drastically cut carbon emissions far more quickly than the government is currently proposing in order to avoid climate breakdown.  I am therefore shocked and appalled that the government is now preparing to remove the final support mechanisms for new solar installations. The export tariff payment currently sits alongside the feed-in tariff subsidy for small scale solar installations. The export tariff pays solar owners in exchange for surplus power exported to the grid for use by others. The export tariff is the supplier buying energy generated by people’s homes, and is in no sense a subsidy.   If it is removed, as proposed, then people will be giving electricity to their electricity supplier, when they generate it, while having to buy electricity when they are not.


I am writing to ask you to urgently write to the minister, Claire Perry, to express your opposition to this removal of the ability of home owners to sell their surplus electricity and ask her to guarantee an ‘export tariff’ for rooftop solar installations after March 2019.


Best wishes

Tom

Tom Franklin