BREXIT means FIXIT
History may record that the British vote to leave the EU was just what Europe needed in order to save the European Union.
BREXIT may never happen, because a ‘divorce settlement’ that grants free access to EU markets while blocking free movement of EU workers is unlikely.
But Remainers should not take comfort. Abandoning BREXIT just because we can't reach a deal would still leave Britain divided.
It would also weaken Europe because an over-confident EU bureaucracy puffed up by quelling the British rebellion would have little incentive to reform.
On this page we take a more positive view proposing 'Europe 2.0'
For the sake of argument, wee will assume that BREXIT has to be abandoned.
But using the referendum as a wakeup call, we suggest how it could result in a better Europe for everyone.
1 Simultaneously helping refugees and addressing the European fears about them.
Migration pressures caused by the refugee crisis are a different problem to free EU worker movement. But the problems they cause for the host communities are similar.
We offer a radically different solution to the refugee problem that combines humanitarian values with respect for the fears of host communities.
2 Exploiting EU national differences to make the EU the world's peace
Conventional thinking leads to the conclusion that for the EU to remain influential in world matters it needs to move towards closer unity and probably create a European Army.
We suggest a radically different approach, with the EU becoming the dominant influence in maintaining world peace by tapping into the rich differences between its nation state cultures.
3 Fighting corruption
The EU Commission should set an example to governments throughout the world by having the highest standards of transparency in how its funding is spent.
The invention of the Bitcoin currency suggests a strategy for doing this. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitcoin ]
Blockchains [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Block_chain_(database)] could be used for recording how EU funding flows from the contributing members, right down to the smallest businesses that are the beneficiaries of EU funding.
EU citizens, investigative journalists and others should be able to access the bulk of this information via an official EU website.
Important caveat: It is important to recognise that projects that unexpectedly lose money are not necessarily corrupt. All projects should treated as experiments that might fail. So, if the law has not been broken, the key question is not, "Who should we blame?", but, "What can we learn?"
4 Innovation ‘Apps’.
We suggest a number of business innovations that would work well at a UK level, but even better if adopted by the whole EU.
These 'apps' include a planning tool that will enable the UK to reduce the the number of immigrants needed to fill our skill gaps.
They also include a "Fair Taxpayer" proposal that would encourage companies to pay their fair share of taxes in Europe without the EU Commission meddling in national tax affairs such as happened recently in the case involving Apple and the Irish government.
Our "Fair Taxpayer" proposal is the diametric opposite of the UK governments threat to become an off-shore European Corporation Tax Haven.
Unlike the government threat, it will add to our traditional British moral values, not debase them.
5 A Transport Internet for linking the EU countries
We can strengthen trading ties with the rest of Europe by reducing transport costs and delivery times.
Our low cost alternative to HS2 could form the basis of a Transport Internet that speeds up goods deliveries and reduces traffic on our roads.
6 Creating European wildlife corridors and new job opportunities in rural economies
This proposal will reduce the need for crippling European farming subsidies.
7 Localising the interest rates that control house prices
One of the reasons why the Euro currency is driving the Euro area nations towards federalisation is the necessity for all participating nations to accept a common interest rate. We suggest how the (virtual) impossibility of moving buildings across borders will allow the interest rate system to be tweaked, easing the pressure on interest rate conformity.
8 Latent Power Turbines
This new class of power generators could provide low cost clean energy for the whole of Europe. In particular note Section 2.3 on this linked webpage.
Figure 1. Based on Latent Power Turbines, Greece, Italy, Cyprus, Malta, Portugal and Spain could become the green energy generating sunshine economies of Europe. However, unlike solar panels, LP Turbines extract their energy from warm air. This allows them to generate electricity 24/7 without the need for daylight or winds.
Figure 2. With the exception of Malta, unemployment rates in the sunshine economies are far higher than in the UK. Creating jobs in these countries will reduce migration pressures on the UK. Reducing unemployment would also reduce the internal terrorist threat.
The Catalan independence threat could fade away
Unemployment in the Catalan region is lower than in Southern Spain. This provides the Catalan population with a powerful economic incentive for becoming independent. Latent Power Turbines would bring increased prosperity to all of Spain, but would be especially beneficial in regions where unemployment is high.
The economic imbalance would shrink, and with it, the forces that drive the quest for nationhood
Taming the Russian bear
The Russian military threat to Europe is financed mainly by revenue from the Russian oil and gas industries. Ironically, the EU is a big importer of Russian oil and gas, so it is funding the threat to its own borders. LP Turbines would make Europe energy independent and reduce Russian military funding.
Latent Power Turbines are a British invention that offer a unique solution to otherwise intractable European problems.
If we abandon Brexit, they will enable us to march back into the centre of Europe with our heads held high.
9 Reducing EU bureaucracy and returning powers to the member states
The fear of creeping European legislation and the near impossibility of removing the bad legislation encouraged many small businesses to support BREXIT.
This is a serious problem that must be confronted.
We suggest that there should be a trial moratorium on increasing the burden of EU legislation.
A "one for one" policy should be adapted so that new legislation only comes into law when one piece of old legislation has been withdrawn.
There is sufficient out of date legislation on the books for some of it to be repealed without damaging European values.
In some cases, repeal could take the form of subsidiarity, with individual states having the right to enforce or ignore existing EU regulations.
Cutting back on red tape will stimulate business growth in the Euro zone and reduce the number of European migrants entering Britain to find jobs.
This measure will appease the many European voters who are irritated by Brussels meddling in their national affairs.
To coin a phrase, 'Europe needs better legislation, not more legislation."
A whole swathe of EU legislation relating to energy efficiency and vehicle pollution could be abolished if LP Turbines become the power generator of choice and hydrogen is adopted as the dominant transport fuel. Early abolition of energy efficiency legislation would allow the EU to take the lead in product innovation in an LP Turbine era.
10 European oversight of scientific research integrity
esearch fraud is a growing problembut market forces are discouraging senior management and national bodies from confronting it. This is a worldwide problem and there is no clear solution. As a result, the credibility of science is falling and public spending on science is being wasted.
The EU is in a unique position to police research integrity because it is not hampered by strong nationalistic pressures that favour any one nation.
As a general principle, the author of this webpage does not favour handing over more power to Brussels, but based on his experiences as a victim of British research fraud, he has concluded that there is no effective alternative.
During the next few weeks, The Journal of Biological Physics and Chemistry will publish a paper by the author where draft recommendations for improving research standards will be proposed. These could be used as seed corn ideas for consideration by an EU wide research integrity body.
[Following publication, a copy of the paper will be accessible via this website. Meanwhile, the gist of the proposals can be found here.]
It is important that we Brits take the lead in championing this scientific cause to retain our international reputation.
Because, as you will read in a moment, British science is on the verge of suffering an embarrassing humiliation.
Here is a summary of the authors experience resulting in his call for EU level research vigilance
First, you need to know something positive about a draft EU directive that could have saved lives.
In the mid 1990's the EU proposed that all new cars sold into European markets by 2005 should have soft pedestrian friendly front bumpers.
But there was a problem
because the car makers liked the stiff bumpers that protected their cars in minor collisions.
The author of this webpage came up with a 'smart' solution that kept everybody happy. This won UK government funding and was cited in Hansard. Bill's 'smart' bumper was soft for pedestrian leg impacts, but stiff for other bodywork damaging impacts. Cheshire Innovation, Manchester University and Dow Chemicals were the partners for this project. [Visit our PedSALi webpage for details of how the smart bumper works.]
Unfortunately academic fraud at Manchester University and a subsequent cover-up by the British science establishment including the British government Minister for Science at the time* meant that honest research was never done and the truth was hidden from public view. There was no other technical solution that would keep the manufacturers happy. So following intense lobbying from the car makers, the EU Commission finally watered down its pedestrian protection legislation.
Because the correct research was never done it is impossible to say for certain how many European pedestrian lives have been lost as a consequence of this fraud. This could amount to several thousand, with many more pedestrians suffering life changing injuries.
The story of this British cover-up is told in detail in a science journal paper that can be read on this linked page.
The UK has a university funded Research Integrity Office (UKRIO) that is supposed to champion research integrity. Sadly, the UKRIO went against its charitable aims and colluded in hiding the Manchester University research fraud.
Our evidence of collusion is also presented in the journal paper.
The author complained to The Charity Commission. He also wrote to the UKRIO trustees, keynote speakers and funding university delegates to the 2016 and 2017 UKRIO annual conferences, urging them to study his evidence and initiate reform. But no action was taken. This suggests that British science only pays lip service to research integrity.
A copy of the journal paper was sent to the House of Commons Science & Technology Committee in December 2016.
The following month,
the Committee announced a parliamentary inquiry into research integrity and called for submissions of evidence.
Cheshire Innovation made a written submission relating to the European car bumper fraud. It also exposed university management collusion to hide botched research into Latent Power Turbines.
As can be seen from Section 8 above, the EU has also been the victim of this Latent Power Turbine research fraud.
or some reason (unlike other submissions), our evidence was never published on the committee's website.
As a substitute, we have published our submission here.
[The inquiry folded when the 2017 general election was announced.]
We need a broader European Research Integrity Office that learns from mistakes and puts the interests of science ahead of saving face at a national level.
* The letter from the Minister for Science to Bill Courtney's MP, where he turns a blind eye to the research fraud is reproduced in Appendix Six on this linked webpage.
The alternative to Britain taking the lead in creating Europe 2.0:
Going boldly forward as an independent Britain
During the pre-referendum campaign, BREXITeers placed great emphasis on Britain's status as the world's fifth largest economy.
But will this be true in twenty years time?
Probably not because twenty of the the emerging nations have larger and younger populations than the UK.
These emerging nations are destined to remove the UK first from its position in the G7 nations, and then the G20 nations.
This is why:
It has taken the UK 300 years of industrialisation to reach its modern level of prosperity, but the emerging nations should be able to achieve this within a generation.
(i) The tropical diseases and intense heat that have historically handicapped the warmer countries are becoming overcome by medicine and air conditioning.
(ii) The expensive landline stage of telephone communications has been bypassed by the development of
(iii) The expensive national grid system of power distribution is being bypassed by the development of local power supplies to help fight the threat of global warming.
(iv) Online learning will allow degree level education to be achieved at a tiny fraction of the cost of attending a traditional university.
(v) These IT savvy graduates will be in a strong position to fight bribery and other forms of financial corruption in developing countries. Their tools will include the online exposure of cheats and the use of blockchains to secure financial transactions [http://wiht.link/blockchain-IG
The big danger for Britain is that by puffing up our own importance and thinking we can make our own way in the world, we will find ourselves at the mercy of our old colonial servants in the second half of this century.
Instead, we need to stay in the EU both for protection in numbers, and to act as a 'midwife', leading these emerging economies towards full democracy.
A question for you to think about.
"What will future generations of Brits think of Brexit?"
The Brexiteers put British interests first; they want to “make Britain great again”. And if other nations benefit, well, that’s just a bonus.
Bill Courtney is a patriotic Brit, but he is also more outward looking. He believes that by striving for a better Europe, and beyond that, for a better world, Britain will gain far more benefits in the long run.
Future generations of Brits will have a lot to be proud of, if we have improved our own lot by bringing the rest of the world with us.
On the other hand, they will look back with embarrassment, possibly even shame, if their own prosperity is based on the selfishness of Brexit.
Brexit is trying to do the same job for British prosperity today, that slavery did for us four centuries ago.
Back to our home page