Letter: We Voted Remain to Preserve Our Jobs

Published on: 15 Jul, 2018
Updated on: 15 Jul, 2018

From J Dickinson

The majority of Surrey residents voted Remain to preserve our jobs – well paid, interesting jobs that generate £billions for the UK economy – and, of course, for our local economy.

David Raison and Stuart Barnes, who have commented on the article: Anne Milton Awaits White Paper Before Deciding Her Stance on Chequers Brexit Deal, may live in the fantasy world inhabited by tabloid journalists, but the majority of Surrey constituents don’t.

Within the last week, we have had Brexit-supporting Ministers like Sam Gyimah sheepishly admitting to a Select Committee that this valuable work done by his constituents has already gone to Europe as a result of Brexit.

He isn’t alone. Most Surrey MPs are members of the Cabinet and so are acutely aware of the impact that Brexit is already having on the livelihoods of their constituents.

Surrey’s residents are watching our MPs very carefully. Words will not be enough. We will hold them accountable if they do not take effective action to reverse the damage being done by Brexit.

Responses to Letter: We Voted Remain to Preserve Our Jobs

John Perkins Reply

July 15, 2018 at 12:36 pm

Extrapolating the vote of the electorate in Guildford to all the residents of the county is simple exaggeration. The electorate in Surrey represented less than 80% of the residents and voted for Remain only by the tiniest of fractions – less than 0.4%, which means a minority of residents (just over 39%) voted Remain.

How lucky J Dickinson is to have a well-paid, interesting job generating so much for others. But it’s fair to ask, if all that valuable work has already gone to Europe, how come he or she is still working here? Those less fortunate saw their jobs go south (or east) quite some time ago.
Jim Allen Reply

July 15, 2018 at 3:50 pm

Back in the 1980s, a friend, based in Scotland worked for a German company which sold sewing machine needles in the textile industry. He was asked to extend his Canada and South Africa territory (which he had along with his UK area around Harrogate) to include Mauritius. Here he met a mutual friend from Scotland. Asked what he was doing in a clothing factory, so far away from his base, he said that he was being paid by the EU to train them up to EU standards so they could export to EU countries. “When done I’m being made redundant in Scotland.”

Nothing has changed in 40 plus years. No one screamed when the textile jobs went to the East.
J Dickinson Reply

July 16, 2018 at 9:01 am

52.2% of Surrey’s residents voted comprehensively to remain. The majority of our boroughs voted to remain, and on high turnouts as well – more than 80% in the case of Mole Valley and Waverley. Clearly, some people are gullible enough to believe the UKIP-style fake news and dodgy statistics, but does John Perkins really think that Surrey’s electorate is that naive?

I doubt if our MPs do. Only a very “special” sort of politician says “F*** business”, knowing perfectly well that actually means “f*** my constituents’ jobs”, with all the knock on effects that will have for the UK economy.

Surrey’s residents are watching our MPs very closely. It’s time they cut the egos of those fantasists down to size. Two years is more than enough time, opportunity and jet-setting jollies to deliver a Brexit roadmap that demonstrates substance and tangible benefits, yet still there is a yawning void, which says it all.
- Jim Allen Reply
  
  July 17, 2018 at 2:22 pm
  
  I think J Dickinson is somewhat adrift in his/her understanding. This was not a ward, borough or county vote, it was a national vote and that is the only measure relevant.
  
  As for ‘fake’ news, those who can read and comprehend do not rely on anyone else’s ‘paid’ opinions and make our own minds up.
  
  I have been making my own mind up for the past 66 years and have often outsmarted so-called “university educated” ‘experts, it is amazing how many times I and my fellow apprentices (those with practical, not theoretical knowledge) been proved right.
  
  MPs should be wise to the fact that economists and accountants have been proven wrong far more times than engineers and blue-collar workers, a point sadly lost on many who think staying in an expensive non-profitable club is anything other than a recipe for the practical disaster it has proved to be.
John Perkins Reply

July 16, 2018 at 4:13 pm

My apologies, I accidentally included districts which are not in Surrey. For the 11 districts of the ceremonial county of Surrey, the correct number in favour of Remain over Leave was indeed 4.32%, not 0.4%. However, it does not change the fact that 52.16% of votes on a 79.09% turnout is only 41.19% of the electorate (or about 30% of the whole population). It’s misleading at best to claim that is, “The majority of Surrey residents”.

More than that, Devon, which is similar in population to Surrey, voted 55% Leave 45% Remain. Are we to believe that Devon is less important than Surrey? Certainly, many Remainers claim that all that matters is their 48% overall vote (35% of the electorate, about 25% of the population). Democracy? “Not as we know it, Jim!”

I agree though that our politicians need to be watched closely and that they are largely fantasists with inflated egos who regard their constituents as naive. Auberon Waugh once said of them: “liars and curs, all”. It takes a degree of confidence to impute any meaning to what they say.
J Dickinson Reply

July 17, 2018 at 7:46 am

We could examine the percentage of the Surrey population who voted UKIP in the EU referendum as well. It would be just as relevant to the debate as the other points that John Perkins has chosen to make.

Surrey’s MPs have been elected on their promise to represent their constituents and their constituents’ interests. If they wish to stand on the Brexiteers’ election manifesto of “F*** my constituents’ jobs”, I hope that they’ve got new constituencies in mind.

Devon might still be nice once it’s EU subsidies run dry. If they wish to stay in place here they will need to demonstrate that they have the backbone to do what we pay them to do.
- John Perkins Reply
  
  July 17, 2018 at 1:29 pm
  
  I agree: the UKIP vote is completely irrelevant, as is that of Devon. Yet no more so than the absurd suggestion raised by J Dickinson that Surrey is somehow special in a national referendum.
  
  One promise Surrey MPs definitely did make was to abide by the referendum result and their party manifesto and take the UK out of the EU.
  
  Changing one MP’s words in a way that suits a particular viewpoint is not convincing.
  
  As EU subsidies in the UK are wholly paid from funds provided by the UK they cannot “run dry”, although it might be possible to increase them by cutting out the middleman.
  
  Quite what is meant by “what we pay them to do”? I doubt the people of Devon or anywhere else in the country regard themselves as employees of “we”, whoever “we” might be. They might consider the suggestion offensive, though.
J Dickinson Reply

July 18, 2018 at 6:25 am

With the Brexiteers’ stated policy is “F*** business and f*** our constituent jobs”, who does John Perkins imagine will then be asked to replace their payments into the UK subsidy pot so that it “cannot run dry”? Doubtless, he will be delighted to have his pension pot raided, and will be first in the queue to cheer on direct tax increases.
John Perkins Reply

July 18, 2018 at 1:39 pm

“Stated policy”? Stated by whom?

As has already been made clear, EU subsidies come wholly from funds paid by the UK – it’s a simple enough concept. In or out of the EU, those funds exist now. UK “negotiators” have offered to donate them to the EU for a short time, although the EU has not agreed yet.

Or perhaps the suggestion is that the UK economy will collapse once outside the EU, just like the economies of all the other non-EU countries in the world.
J Dickinson Reply

July 19, 2018 at 7:18 am

Whilst the UK is in the EU those funds only exist now because of the taxes and tariffs paid by UK residents and businesses, so the very simple enough concept that needs to be grasped is that those currently paying into that pot need to be able to continue to do so.

If Surrey and London’s workers and businesses currently pay disproportionately higher amounts into the pot than workers and businesses in many other UK authorities, and we are already seeing the work that generates the most income being removed into Europe, who in the UK will be making up the difference?

Alternatively, perhaps John Perkins thinks our pensioners and others on benefits will manage on their savings and that public sector workers will be happy to work without wages as well to tide everyone over for the next few decades?

That didn’t go down so well in European countries like Greece which, on the face of it, have many more natural resources to work with than the UK. I ask Mr Perkins to please name these non-EU countries on which he would have us model our economy. Are they also 80% dependent on service industry with virtually no natural resources nor domestic energy sources and thriving by avoiding trade with their nearest neighbours?
John Perkins Reply

July 20, 2018 at 11:37 am

Those currently paying will continue to be able to do so unless the UK economy fails catastrophically (indeed more of their money will be available). There is no sign of that and early indications are that the opposite is true despite the uncertainty (see the latest employment figures). The argument is based on a false premise. Of course, people are free to believe false premises just as cargo cults do.

Where is the evidence that Surrey pays disproportionately more? Why include London? It wasn’t part of the claim before now – the assumption must be that it is a convenience. What is meant by “London” anyway – Greater London or The City?

This alternative is based on the same false premise as the first.

Greece does not have more natural resources than the UK, except perhaps sunshine, though balancing that there is more water in the UK.

Nobody has advocated modelling the UK economy on any other, although there are many successful ones and many more that somehow manage to avoid catastrophe. No EU country matches either, and the EU as a whole is very different. I see no need to give a specific response until my previous question receives an answer.
J Dickinson Reply

July 22, 2018 at 10:39 am

No doubt Mr Perkins will find another excuse to avoid answering the specific questions I asked – it is a Brexiteer trait after all – but here goes…

My comment was about our Surrey MPs representing the constituents’ interests and drew attention to Sam Gyimah explaining what Brexit means for UK space sector: https://parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/a2e83ba2-39cb-4031-8f77-0b827c9730cb.

For the avoidance of doubt, the jobs being discussed on that particular programme, along with the many other space programmes affected by Brexit, are based in Surrey. This exchange focuses on a programme that is important to Surrey Satellites (not the only Surrey employer involved), whose parent company is Airbus ie the company that triggered the “f*** business” remark.

So are there any Surrey’s MPs daft enough to line up behind the standard bearer who thinks “f*** my constituents jobs” is a vote winner? Who knows, but, to quote an extract from Sam Gyimah’s evidence “we see these as critical skills for us to retain in the UK and we are working hard to do so …. I see the know-how and technology as critical to our national infrastructure and so we would do everything we can to keep it here …”. Great!

Similarly, great promises have been made on this and other programmes since before the referendum, as the Lords questions make clear. What matters is the outcomes, and that is how constituents judge their MPs.

Do Surrey residents pay a disproportionately high amount into the UK pot – clearly yes. Our boroughs and county have negative grants https://guildford-dragon.com/2018/07/20/8-5-million-budget-gap-means-more-austerity-ahead-for-guildford-borough/. Our median wages are much higher and so are our GVA statistics, as can be seen from Government statistics https://www.nomisweb.co.uk/reports/lmp/la/1946157331/report.aspx

I am not sure why it matters to you whether Surrey residents do those high-value jobs in Surrey or commute into London. The point is that Surrey and London’s residents vote where they live, and it is nonsense to suggest their views should be discounted if their livelihoods are based in London when they live in Surrey or, as many do, they live in London and commute into Surrey.