Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[The Larch]

Jamaican Government Gives 2025 Timeline to Become Republic

The Jamaican government says it is aiming for the country to become a republic by the time the next general election is constitutionally due in 2025.

The timeline was announced by Minister of Legal and Constitutional Affairs Marlene Malahoo Forte during her sectoral debate on June 7.

The issue of Jamaica's Constitution and removing Queen Elizabeth II as the island's head of state were among the key issues discussed during her presentation.

Minister Malahoo Forte noted that since Barbados became a republic in 2021, the world has been watching and waiting to see which Caribbean country will make the next move.

"The continued symbolic presence of the British Crown in the constitutional make-up of our state and other commonwealth Caribbean states has been repeatedly placed on reform agendas here and across the region," she said.

"With 'Little England' severing ties from Queen Elizabeth "Big England" and establishing the Republic of Barbados in 2021, and Prime Minister Holness 's announcement of his government's intention to move on from a constitutional monarchy, eyes are now focused on the remaining commonwealth Caribbean realms to see who will take the next step when," she added.

In order to become a republic, the Barbados Parliament had to amend the Barbados Independence Order 1966, which required a two-thirds majority.

Minister Malahoo Forte explained that Jamaica's republic process, however, will include a two-thirds majority vote in parliament along with a referendum.

"The reform work to be done in order to achieve the goal of a new Constitution require cooperation between the government and the parliamentary opposition, as well as the seal of the people," she explained.

The timeline for the republic status in 2025, when the next general election is due in Jamaica.

"I have been looking at Jamaica's attitude to referendum because we are going there and we are going there hopefully by the time the next election comes around, unless more pressing matters or something else overtakes [it], but that is the aim," she said.

The minister also announced that the work to be done to reform the Constitution "has formally commenced."

The issue of Jamaica becoming a republic has been hinted at by past prime ministers. However, it came to the fore in 2021, when Barbados became a republic nation.

In March this year, during a courtesy call from Prince William and Kate, the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge who were visiting the island, Prime Minister Andrew Holness announced officially that Jamaica is "moving on" from its colonial past and would be cutting ties with the British monarchy in short order.

[Tamas]

"Johnson says government cannot simply respond to rising inflation by paying people more"

But, apparently, it can respond to rising property prices by giving people more money to buy properties with.

[Sheilbh]

Yeah, I guess the question is: if you sell all the social housing in London, where will the next generation of people who can't afford market rent live? On the street? Or just not in London?

It depends what you mean by social housing though.

Broadly 65% of housholds are owner-occupiers, 18-9% are renting privately and 17% are socially renting from the council, housing associations etc.

But private renters may be receiving housing benefit that pays their rent in part or full. Private or social is more about who owns their property not whether their rent is either reduced or being paid in benefits in some way. But council housing or housing association isn't the limit of social housing, it's more public or sort of public owned housing.

I think the two big ideas from a social housing angle that Johnson's had is basically if you receive/are eligible for housing benefit for rent you should also be able to receive it for your mortgage and it can be part of the affordability criteria. And housing association tenants should have a similar right to buy as council tenants (but Gove has said there'd be some form of rules on replacement properties).

Both of those ideas sound fine to me. But they're not really going to solve much and they're not going to solve the big issue which is undersupply.

[Josquius]

Sure. There's people getting rent support for private housing.
But then this just means the government paying a tonne extra to house someone in what used to be their house.
Wealthy areas need people to do the less impressive jobs and they need to live somewhere. Social housing, owned by the council or a non profit HA, is the best way to do this.

[Sheilbh]

Sure and that's why I think there needs to be a replacement.

My point is just that as with council housing it's not selling off all the social housing. People who are eligible for council/housing association housing benefit would also be eligible for it in the private rented sector.

And on the other hand right to buy gives people a chance to - as Yi says - build up an asset and have their property.

[Josquius]

Sure and that's why I think there needs to be a replacement.

My point is just that as with council housing it's not selling off all the social housing. People who are eligible for council/housing association housing benefit would also be eligible for it in the private rented sector.

And on the other hand right to buy gives people a chance to - as Yi says - build up an asset and have their property.

But how are you going to replace a bunch of houses in a central London Borough where the council has zero land to develop?

[Sheilbh]

Jamaican Government Gives 2025 Timeline to Become Republic

On this, I hope Barbados encourages more countries in the Caribbean to become republics - but I'd note that becoming a republic in the next few years has been the policy of every Jamaican Prime Minister since 1970 so there's a little bit of wait and see I think.

More important than the Queen, in my view, is getting rid of using the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council as the final court of appeal for most of the Caribbean "realms". It's still the final court of appeal for some Commonwealth republics which seems particularly extraordinary - it's maybe led to some good decisions such as striking down anti-sodomy laws and banning the death penalty - but it's an absurdity.

Edit: Just looked up polling and last I could see was 45/55 in favour of becoming a republic which is lower than I expected to be honest.

[Sheilbh]

But how are you going to replace a bunch of houses in a central London Borough where the council has zero land to develop?

Increase density and mandate new developments include council/housing association homes (and stick to it).

I live in a central London borough where the council's building more council flats than any time since the late 70s and it largely funds that precisely through finding pockets of land for private or public development. Plus it's broadly relaxed about skyscrapers. It's nowhere near enough but it's a start.

[Josquius]

Jamaican Government Gives 2025 Timeline to Become Republic

On this, I hope Barbados encourages more countries in the Caribbean to become republics - but I'd note that becoming a republic in the next few years has been the policy of every Jamaican Prime Minister since 1970 so there's a little bit of wait and see I think.

Just one poll that means nothing and I don't particularly believe it...but I do recall it wasn't that long ago there was a poll in Jamaica where a plurality said they should never have become independent. interpreted by flag shaggers as rule britania, more likely meant out of discontent with the current government and some ill thought out belief they'd have been brought up to UK standards. So interesting how times change.

More important than the Queen, in my view, is getting rid of using the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council as the final court of appeal for most of the Caribbean "realms". It's still the final court of appeal for some Commonwealth republics which seems particularly extraordinary - it's maybe led to some good decisions such as striking down anti-sodomy laws and banning the death penalty - but it's an absurdity.

Isn't this seem as an advantage? Gives them a top class highest court without having to invest in it and set one up and mix it up with their politics.

[Sheilbh]

Isn't this seem as an advantage? Gives them a top class highest court without having to invest in it and set one up and mix it up with their politics.

It's a colonial artifact and the court of another country with no ties making decisions that affect them. It's not really an issue of cost/benefit - it's wrong in principle.

[Sheilbh]

Imagining Jos won't like this - but I think the Economist leader on Britain's economy is very good. I've said it before but I think we're at a point where either there'll be an adjustment and gradual shifts now (especially on planning) or a very radical shift soon.

I hope it's a radical shift by Labour but I'm not seeing much evidence of that so it may be whatever the Tories turn into next who deliver it:

Low economic growth is a slow-burning crisis for Britain
It must arrest its economic decline
Jun 9th 2022

Conservative mps' half-hearted vote to endorse Boris Johnson as prime minister, on June 6th, betrayed how deeply Britain's ruling party fails to confront hard choices. A defeat for Mr Johnson would have ushered in a new government, with a chance to prove itself before the next election. A resounding victory would have given him a fresh mandate to show that he had put his transgressions behind him. The irresolute blow the rebels inflicted leaves Britain in the hands of a washed-up cabinet mouthing grandiloquent promises it cannot honour.

This newspaper has long argued that Mr Johnson ought to have resigned for lying repeatedly to Parliament about whether he broke his own laws. But hypocrisy and deceit do not begin to capture the wider problem that he and his country face. Britain is stuck in a 15-year rut. It likes to think of itself as a dynamic, free-market place, but its economy lags behind much of the rich world. There is plenty of speechifying about growth, and no shortage of ideas about how to turn the country round. But the mettle and strategic thinking that reform requires are absent—another instance of Tories ducking hard choices.

Britain's stagnation also holds lessons for other slow-growing countries, many of them in Europe. Lower gdp means declining global influence, faltering faith in free markets and less money for public services. A struggle over fixed resources fires the populism that turns politics into an ugly fight about identity. The shortage of funds for investment entrenches tired and inefficient institutions. Worst of all, the lack of growth limits Britons' scope to flourish.

The idea that Britain has a growth problem is not new. But few realise how deep a hole it is in. Whereas average annual gdp growth over the decade preceding the global financial crisis of 2007-09 was 2.7%, the new normal is now closer to just 1.7%.

Plenty of countries suffered from the financial crisis and covid-19. But Britain's problems run deeper. In 2022 gdp per head will be more than 25% lower than America's, measured at purchasing-power parity. Britain has been declining against America and Germany since the mid-2000s. Average wages now lag behind America's by about as much as Poland's do Britain's.

Underlying this is feeble productivity. In the decade to 2007, British productivity growth was second only to America's in the g7. In the decade to 2019, growth in output per hour worked stalled to just 0.7% a year, making Britain the second-slowest in the g7; only Italy was slower. Had Britain's productivity growth rate not fallen after the financial crisis, gdp per person in 2019 would have been £6,700 ($8,380) higher than it is.

At least in the short run, Brexit has made matters worse. Business investment is lower than when the referendum took place. Since the end of 2020 firms trading with the European Union have faced extra paperwork, customs delays and higher taxes. In the last quarter of 2021 Britain exported 16% less than at the end of 2019. Global goods trade, by contrast, grew by nearly 6%.

The outlook is poor, too. The oecd predicts that next year gdp in Britain will be stagnant. Official forecasts show that real take-home pay will be lower in five years than it is today, eaten away by higher taxes and consumer-price inflation that, at 9%, is the highest among big rich economies.

Part of the problem is that boosterish politicians talk so much nonsense about growth. The statistics are noisy and complex enough for a clever civil servant to find a number that paints Britain in a favourable light. Don't be fooled. Self-delusion stifles fresh thinking about policy, one reason Britain's economic debates have been tangential to growth, harmful even. For most of the 2010s politicians obsessed about cutting deficits. Budget discipline is important, but hardly a cure for Britain's ills. In a speech this week Mr Johnson was to propose unlocking growth by letting people use housing benefits to buy houses.

"Levelling up", a theme of this government, could in theory focus on raising the productivity of workers and capital in Britain's left-behind regions. In practice, it seems to put redistribution before output. That may be the just thing to do, but it is naive to expect that sending pots of public money to Britain's poorer places will increase the size of the national pie.

When it comes to growth, Britain's politicians will the ends but not the means. They run scared of the homeowning elderly, who turn up to vote and make up a growing share of the electorate. So tax rises are heaped on businesses and workers instead, further harming the economy. The government has likewise watered down its plans for reforming the planning system—because elderly homeowners object.

A change of government may not fix the problem. Parts of Labour grasp the challenge. But the party is fixated on outbidding the Tories over levelling up, and is less likely than the Conservatives to reform public services in a way that will lower costs and taxes.

Britain has been here before. In 1979, in opposition, Margaret Thatcher lamented its declining economic standing. "Travel abroad, and see how much better our neighbours are doing," she urged Tory supporters. Her uncompromising reforms led to nearly three decades in which British living standards closed on those in the rest of the rich world.

The stagnation nation

Over the coming months we will look at growth in Britain and how to fix it. Some solutions are familiar but politically difficult, like solving the housing crisis in south-east England and boosting trade with the eu. Others involve fresh thinking to harness the potential of the country's universities and life-sciences firms, and to expose managers to competition.

Britain's advantages, from the English language to the common-law system, have not gone away. However, under the dishonest, unserious—and now politically wounded—Mr Johnson, Britain is at threat from rising barriers to trade, an ageing electorate and rigid planning. Britain suffers from complacency, born of centuries as a first-rank economy, and Johnsonian bluster only exacerbates it. If Britain is to avoid a bleak future it must grasp reform. That will require a once-in-a-generation show of political courage, persuasion and policy ingenuity. Just like four decades ago, there is no alternative.

I'd note the Economist was pretty boosterish about Cameron's government and austerity - so....

But I'd also say that in addition to those advantages there's very good research universities, a strong life sciences and tech sector and an incredibly successful culture sector. It's an indictment of our politics that we have those industries, plus speak the lingua franca, but there's no-one in any of the parties who seems really interested in promoting growth.

There's a few politicians and commentators on both sides who I think get it and talk about the right kinds of ideas but no-one seems to want to spend any political capital on it when they can just bank votes opposing any change.

[Richard Hakluyt]

Yeah, I agree with the article.

I can't see any taste for change though; so we will carry on becoming a stagnant backwater with low productivity growth. The privileged position of the retired, essentially the buying of their votes, needs to be changed but nobody has the balls to do it.

(And I speak as a retired person with a semi-retired partner)

[Josquius]

As I've been saying for a while now it increasingly seems to me that Japan isn't actually all that weird, its merely ahead of the trend and we are going down the same path.... Only with a culture of toxic individualism rather than an ott in/out group outlook.
Britain is a dying country.

Broadly agree there but not this bit

"Levelling up", a theme of this government, could in theory focus on raising the productivity of workers and capital in Britain's left-behind regions. In practice, it seems to put redistribution before output. That may be the just thing to do, but it is naive to expect that sending pots of public money to Britain's poorer places will increase the size of the national pie.

Levelling up is great. It has needed to be done for ages.
What isn't great is pretending to care about it just to win voters.

It isn't just about throwing money at places. It's about sound investments to increase the capability of places to make their own money. It's about enlarging the productive part of the country. You can't cram the entire economy into London and attempting to do this is key to our economic problems.

But yes. The UK has a lot of advantages, though not sure I'd put our universities too highly amongst them. This is what really pisses me off about the country really. We are in such a naturally better position than so many other European countries... Yet manage to piss it all up the wall and just about manage to barely keep pace half a mile behind them.

Also what is annoying about brexit. People are finally slapped into realising something is wrong and we need a change... And that change is to drill another gaping hole in the boat

[Tamas]

The BoE has found that if a major UK bank failed today it could do so safely: remaining open and continuing to provide vital banking services to the economy.

Shareholders and investors, not taxpayers will be first in line to bear the costs, overcoming the 'too big to fail' problem.

Sounds like there is no reason to panic. If a major bank goes bankrupt it won't go actually bankrupt because it will continue to operate as normal, but it will go properly bankrupt as well.

That sounds clear as mud.

[Admiral Yi]

I figure fail in the sense of illiquidity, not insolvency.