Wednesday, 31 May 2017

JAPAN TIMES Brexit Headlines: 1 May - 31 May 2017

The Japan Times
Brexit Headlines


WORLD   MAY 18, 2017

Brexit has forced the European Union to rethink its flagship capital market union (CMU) 
project and urgently look for ways to create an alternative financial market to London, 
according to a draft EU document seen by Reuters. London is the bloc's biggest 
financial market by ...

WORLD / POLITICS   MAY 5, 2017

Britain's governing Conservative Party made strong gains in local elections on Friday, 
suggesting that Prime Minister Theresa May's Brexit strategy is winning over voters 
who should hand her an easy victory in a parliamentary election on June 8. Early 
results in the polls, which voters ...











Monday, 29 May 2017

Angela Merkel: Europe must take ‘our fate’ into own hands

Alluding to difficulties with Donald Trump and Brexit, German leader says EU can’t ‘completely depend on others.’

After a G7 summit haunted by Brexit and dominated by Donald Trump, German Chancellor Angela Merkel is betting on European unity.
“The era in which we could fully rely on others is over to some extent,” Merkel told a crowd at an election rally in Munich on Sunday, before adding, “That’s what I experienced over the past several days.”
German Chancellor and Chairwoman of the German Christian Democrats (CDU) Angela Merkel gestures during a speech at the Trudering fest on May 28, 2017 in Munich | Sebastian Widmann/Getty Images

"We Europeans truly have to take our fate into our own hands — naturally in friendship with the United States of America, in friendship with Great Britain, as good neighbors with whoever, also with Russia and other countries," she said to applause from the Christian Social Union (CSU), the Bavarian sister party to her  Christian Democrats.
"But we have to know that we Europeans must fight for our own future and destiny," she said.
While Merkel has in the past called on the Europeans to take on greater responsibilities, her comments came just a day after her return from the G7 summit in Taormina, Sicily.
There as well as on Thursday in Brussels, European leaders had tense, tense, sometimes awkward interactions with the new U.S. president. At separate events in Brussels on Thursday, Trump publicly lectured NATO allies for not spending enough on defense and called Germany "very bad." Leaders of the G7 group of established democracies failed to reach a consensus on sticking to the 2015 Paris climate accords, with Trump saying he would decide on America's participation in the treaty this coming week.
In power since 2005, Merkel herself faces reelection in September. Over the past two months, she has beat back a resurgent Social Democratic opposition and widened her lead in the polls to double digits.
Despite the lack of a deal on the Paris accord and other disagreements, the German chancellor said she intends to maintain good "neighborly relations" with both Britain and the U.S., and "also with Russia," though she made it clear that from now on Europe would be fighting for its future on its own.
On Saturday Trump posted on Twitter that he would make a decision on whether the U.S. would remain part of the climate change accord next week, once he has returned to Washington. The other six members of the G7 — Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan and the U.K. — reaffirmed “strong commitment” to the agreement, which Barack Obama signed in 2015.
During a meeting with EU leaders on Thursday Trump described Germany as “bad, very bad,” according to according to Der SpiegelNational Economic Council Director Gary Cohn later clarified the comments, saying that the U.S. president was referring to German trade and not condemning the country as a whole.
https://www.politico.eu/article/angela-merkel-europe-cdu-must-take-its-fate-into-its-own-hands-elections-2017/

Friday, 26 May 2017

Brexit, the NHS, and the English language

Foreign doctors are a massive bonus to the NHS. What is dangerous and unfair to all concerned are EU migration rules which mean a European doctor who speaks poor English is given easy access to working in the NHS while a Nigerian doctor who speaks fluent English has a dozen hoops to jump through. Brexit will cure this illness


Ambulance
Speed and spelling
Jh_photo
Joseph Hackett
On 26 May 2017 07:02
Doctors in this country clearly must be able to speak English fluently. This should be basic common sense.
In hospitals and GP surgeries, doctors not being able to fully understand the English language is putting patients’ lives at risk.
Take the case of David Gray, who died in 2008 after being given ten times the normal dose of diamorphine. He had been given the overdose by a German doctor, Dr Daniel Ubani, who was on his first NHS shift.
Dr Ubani, who admitted he had confused the diamorphine with another drug, had originally had an application to practise medicine rejected by the NHS in Leeds due to his inadequate understanding of the English language. He then applied to the NHS in Cornwall, which accepted him... without testing his language skills.
Changes have been made since 2008 to ensure all doctors’ English language skills are up to scratch. However, despite these additional tests, it is clear some doctors with poor English are still in the system, with more arriving every month.
Information acquired by Get Britain Out as a result of Freedom of Information requests has revealed that between 2012 and 2016, 63 disciplinary cases were opened against doctors for ‘inadequate knowledge of English language’.
Stunningly, 46 of those 63 cases involved doctors who were EU nationals, compared to just 7 where the doctor was British, and 7 where the doctor was a non-EU national. In 3 cases the doctor’s nationality was unspecified. This means in 77 percent of cases where the doctor’s nationality was specified, the doctor was an EU national.
EU nationals are only 10 percent of registered doctors in the UK. They make up 19 percent of doctors who faced disciplinary action for ‘fitness to practise’ in general. Compare this to how 77 percent of doctors who have had cases opened against them for poor English are EU nationals.
Clearly there is a problem here. Inadequate English is disproportionately a problem among EU doctors who come here to work.
Why is this the case? The EU’s free movement of people must be the main suspect. Doctors who come here from further afield face vigorous hurdles to even get into this country, including, of course, the need to prove good comprehension of the English language.
Due to the EU’s principle of free movement of people, EU nationals face no such hurdles. In essence, there is an extra safety valve ensuring doctors with poor English coming from non-EU countries, such as China, Brazil, or South Africa, so we cannot get to the point where they practise medicine here, potentially endangering life or causing medical problems because of a lack of understanding of our language.
Due to the European Professional Card, the NHS (including individual hospitals, GP surgeries and the like) is also unable to properly check an EU doctor’s qualifications – or any marks on their records – before hiring them.
There are much more stringent regulations in place before potentially hiring immigrant doctors from outside the EU, as many more checks are required. Foreign documents, including those from the EU, can be difficult to find in the first place, especially when translation is an issue.
But the European Professional Card requiring the NHS to ‘trust’ nobody has slipped through the cracks of the relevant EU Member State’s system – simply because these applicants are coming from EU Member States.
Once we are out of the EU, there are safety valves we can put in place, which will help protect patients, but which we are currently unable to apply to doctors coming from EU.
It is true the number of cases deemed worthy of investigation is small, and Get Britain Out has no objection to good foreign doctors coming to work in the NHS. The vast majority of EU nationals who practise medicine here do have excellent English and make a very valuable contribution to the NHS.
But this is yet another case of how our EU membership stops us from taking a blatantly common sense step to ensure the wellbeing of the Great British Public. We must take back control of who comes to work here, and how we ensure those coming here are qualified to work here.
It would seem sensible, when creating an immigration policy from scratch for those who wish to work and settle here, to require proof of adequate English, particularly for those working in professions where this need is vital.
It is a requirement for a visa to move here for work or study. However, this does not to apply to the citizens of the 27 mostly non-English-speaking EU countries, who get a free pass, whatever their understanding of English.
Nor, for that matter, would anyone devise a system where, as last year, British universities were only allowed to recruit 6,000 new medical students, rejecting hundreds of straight-A students, even though 13,000 new doctors are registered each year. This is ironic considering the shortage of doctors here last year, which led the NHS to hire almost 6,000 foreign doctors.
We need to start training more of our own doctors and medical staff here in Britain, and divert some of the money we currently send to the EU towards this effort. We could also use this money to make working in the NHS a more attractive prospect for English-speaking nurses.
This, combined with the changes to our immigration policy, is how we will solve the staffing shortage in our NHS, without sacrificing patient safety. It would be a much better alternative to the dangerous efforts by some to relax the English language requirement for foreign nurses.
Brexit, thankfully, presents an opportunity for the Government to establish a fair and sensible immigration system, with one rule for all whether you come from Australia, Bangladesh, Belgium, Bolivia, India, Poland – or wherever else. Anybody who wants to settle here should have to prove they have adequate English and the right qualifications – a policy which would not only be fair, but would also help protect NHS patients.
Those who say relaxing English language rules even further is the only way to solve the staffing shortage in the NHS are wrong. We can use the money we currently send to Brussels to resolve these issues while keeping patients safe.
As we Get Britain Out of the EU, we can finally put these common-sense policies into practice.
Joseph Hackett is a Research Executive at grassroots, Eurosceptic campaign group Get Britain Out
http://www.thecommentator.com/article/6590/brexit_the_nhs_and_the_english_language

Brexit, the NHS, and the English language

Foreign doctors are a massive bonus to the NHS. What is dangerous and unfair to all concerned are EU migration rules which mean a European doctor who speaks poor English is given easy access to working in the NHS while a Nigerian doctor who speaks fluent English has a dozen hoops to jump through. Brexit will cure this illness


Joseph Hackett
On 26 May 2017 07:02

Ambulance

Doctors in this country clearly must be able to speak English fluently. This should be basic common sense.
In hospitals and GP surgeries, doctors not being able to fully understand the English language is putting patients’ lives at risk.
Take the case of David Gray, who died in 2008 after being given ten times the normal dose of diamorphine. He had been given the overdose by a German doctor, Dr Daniel Ubani, who was on his first NHS shift.
Dr Ubani, who admitted he had confused the diamorphine with another drug, had originally had an application to practise medicine rejected by the NHS in Leeds due to his inadequate understanding of the English language. He then applied to the NHS in Cornwall, which accepted him... without testing his language skills.
Changes have been made since 2008 to ensure all doctors’ English language skills are up to scratch. However, despite these additional tests, it is clear some doctors with poor English are still in the system, with more arriving every month.
Information acquired by Get Britain Out as a result of Freedom of Information requests has revealed that between 2012 and 2016, 63 disciplinary cases were opened against doctors for ‘inadequate knowledge of English language’.
Stunningly, 46 of those 63 cases involved doctors who were EU nationals, compared to just 7 where the doctor was British, and 7 where the doctor was a non-EU national. In 3 cases the doctor’s nationality was unspecified. This means in 77 percent of cases where the doctor’s nationality was specified, the doctor was an EU national.
EU nationals are only 10 percent of registered doctors in the UK. They make up 19 percent of doctors who faced disciplinary action for ‘fitness to practise’ in general. Compare this to how 77 percent of doctors who have had cases opened against them for poor English are EU nationals.
Clearly there is a problem here. Inadequate English is disproportionately a problem among EU doctors who come here to work.
Why is this the case? The EU’s free movement of people must be the main suspect. Doctors who come here from further afield face vigorous hurdles to even get into this country, including, of course, the need to prove good comprehension of the English language.
Due to the EU’s principle of free movement of people, EU nationals face no such hurdles. In essence, there is an extra safety valve ensuring doctors with poor English coming from non-EU countries, such as China, Brazil, or South Africa, so we cannot get to the point where they practise medicine here, potentially endangering life or causing medical problems because of a lack of understanding of our language.
Due to the European Professional Card, the NHS (including individual hospitals, GP surgeries and the like) is also unable to properly check an EU doctor’s qualifications – or any marks on their records – before hiring them.
There are much more stringent regulations in place before potentially hiring immigrant doctors from outside the EU, as many more checks are required. Foreign documents, including those from the EU, can be difficult to find in the first place, especially when translation is an issue.
But the European Professional Card requiring the NHS to ‘trust’ nobody has slipped through the cracks of the relevant EU Member State’s system – simply because these applicants are coming from EU Member States.
Once we are out of the EU, there are safety valves we can put in place, which will help protect patients, but which we are currently unable to apply to doctors coming from EU.
It is true the number of cases deemed worthy of investigation is small, and Get Britain Out has no objection to good foreign doctors coming to work in the NHS. The vast majority of EU nationals who practise medicine here do have excellent English and make a very valuable contribution to the NHS.
But this is yet another case of how our EU membership stops us from taking a blatantly common sense step to ensure the wellbeing of the Great British Public. We must take back control of who comes to work here, and how we ensure those coming here are qualified to work here.
It would seem sensible, when creating an immigration policy from scratch for those who wish to work and settle here, to require proof of adequate English, particularly for those working in professions where this need is vital.
It is a requirement for a visa to move here for work or study. However, this does not to apply to the citizens of the 27 mostly non-English-speaking EU countries, who get a free pass, whatever their understanding of English.
Nor, for that matter, would anyone devise a system where, as last year, British universities were only allowed to recruit 6,000 new medical students, rejecting hundreds of straight-A students, even though 13,000 new doctors are registered each year. This is ironic considering the shortage of doctors here last year, which led the NHS to hire almost 6,000 foreign doctors.
We need to start training more of our own doctors and medical staff here in Britain, and divert some of the money we currently send to the EU towards this effort. We could also use this money to make working in the NHS a more attractive prospect for English-speaking nurses.
This, combined with the changes to our immigration policy, is how we will solve the staffing shortage in our NHS, without sacrificing patient safety. It would be a much better alternative to the dangerous efforts by some to relax the English language requirement for foreign nurses.
Brexit, thankfully, presents an opportunity for the Government to establish a fair and sensible immigration system, with one rule for all whether you come from Australia, Bangladesh, Belgium, Bolivia, India, Poland – or wherever else. Anybody who wants to settle here should have to prove they have adequate English and the right qualifications – a policy which would not only be fair, but would also help protect NHS patients.
Those who say relaxing English language rules even further is the only way to solve the staffing shortage in the NHS are wrong. We can use the money we currently send to Brussels to resolve these issues while keeping patients safe.
As we Get Britain Out of the EU, we can finally put these common-sense policies into practice.
Joseph Hackett is a Research Executive at grassroots, Eurosceptic campaign group Get Britain Out

http://www.thecommentator.com/article/6590/brexit_the_nhs_and_the_english_language

Wednesday, 24 May 2017

Every reason for optimism on UK-EU Brexit deal

Even though Britain would be fine if it walked away after Brexit without a deal, the EU has every reason to forge a good one. But isn't it strange how rump Remain has such low expectations on decent behaviour in the talks by their beloved EU

May_and_juncker
May and Juncker. Warmer than it sometimes seems
6f37592038ebe4c2dc83c06bb82884256d790fa4
John Redwood MP
On 23 May 2017 08:39
Those who fear no deal or a bad deal are too pessimistic. They exaggerate the importance of government, treaties and rules. They underestimate the energy, good will and positive approach of most people on both sides of the Channel.
The first thing to grasp is the UK will not be on her own. Under WTO rules which govern the EU as well as us, the EU cannot do anything adverse to us that it does not also do to the USA, China, India and the other major countries of the world.
Similarly, under international law, the EU cannot pick on UK people, evict our citizens from their homes on the continent, or impose special taxes and requirements on UK people and companies that it does not also apply to Americans, Chinese and all other non EU citizens and companies.
The second thing to grasp is many people and governments on the continent think it a good idea to get on with their neighbouring states, particularly where they sell lot of goods and services. Just in case they don’t, the Treaty they all drafted and signed makes them pursue good relations and trade with the neighbours.
I always find it odd that the people who most love the EU have such a low view of the way it will behave, expecting it to be petty, nasty and to seek to operate outside international law and outside the norms of civilised behaviour.
I think many of them are better than that, and those who might fall short have self interest to push them to keep open their access to the UK.
The third thing to grasp is all those companies on the continent wanting to carry on selling us goods and services, all those individuals wanting to come to the UK to take skilled job or to study, will still be a pressure on the governments of the EU.
Just as there are many people in the UK who value their ability to travel on the continent, to study there, or to trade there, so there are many people on the continent wanting the same access to the UK.
Of course the EU institution will try it on and ask for lots of money from us, as they will miss our large contributions. They also know there is no legal basis or political reason why we should pay them any special extra payment on leaving.
They also know that in the end, after much huffing and puffing, they need a deal. We know we can get on fine under WTO terms, if they really do want to be difficult.

http://www.thecommentator.com/article/6587/every_reason_for_optimism_on_uk_eu_brexit_deal

Wednesday, 17 May 2017

Tories must use victory to revolutionise UK economy

While mad Jeremy Corbyn appears to advocate an Anglo-Saxon version of North Korea, Theresa May needs to use the thumping majority she is likely to get at the election to reduce the state and reinvigorate free market values and practices. A Tory victory is a necessary but not sufficient condition for UK economic success


Theresa-may
A more powerful woman on June 8
28afeec47808a46741242eeecfe39bbc94ff3741
Daniel J. Mitchell
On 17 May 2017 12:25
There’s an election next month in the United Kingdom, though there’s not much political suspense.
The Labour Party is led by Jeremy Corbyn, a crazed Bernie Sanders-style leftist, and British voters have no desire to become an Anglo-Saxon version of Venezuela
Or, since Corbyn’s main economic adviser actually has said all income belongs to the government and Corbyn himself has endorsed a maximum wage, maybe an Anglo-Saxon version of North Korea.
Given the Labour Party’s self-inflicted suicide, it is widely expected that the Conservative Party, led by Theresa May, will win an overwhelming victory.
But what difference will it make? Will the Tories have a mandate? Do they actually want to change policy?
Let’s start by asking whether policy should change. The good news is that the United Kingdom is ranked #10 according to Economic Freedom of the World. That means the U.K. is more market-friendly than the vast majority of nations (including the United States, I’m sad to report).
The bad news is that the U.K.’s score has been slipping throughout the 21st century. Basically, there were a lot of great reforms during the Thatcher era, but policy in recent years has been slowly deteriorating.
More worrisome is that the U.K. – like most developed nations – has a demographic problem.
In the absence of reform, the burden of government automatically will increase.
And that’s a big problem in a nation where a majority of people already are net dependents. In a column for the Telegraph, Daniel Mahoney of the Centre for Policy Studies analyzes this major threat to the U.K.
"This week, the Office for National Statistics published figures showing the level of net dependency on the UK state. …The figure now stands at 50.5 per cent. In the 1980s and 1990s, this figure was just over 40 per cent – that is to say that around four in ten households received more in benefits than they paid in taxes. But this dramatically changed in the New Labour era, which left office with well over half of the population being deemed net dependent on the state.
"…Labour’s enormous increase in spending on public services and welfare was equally responsible for this worrying trend. Public spending grew from just 34.5 per cent of GDP in 2000 to 41% of GDP just before the financial crisis hit the UK… There has been some progress in recent years, …but levels of net dependency remain too high. Over half of households are still net dependent on the state. …It is important for the next Government to reduce dependency further."
But rather than move policy in the right direction, there’s considerable concern that Theresa May is a British version of George W. Bush.
Thatcherites are worried.
"Theresa May has been warned not to abandon Margaret Thatcher’s free market economics as she prepares to reveal the most interventionist Tory manifesto for generations. …The Prime Minister has already announced an energy price cap and is expected to clamp down on executive pay and empower workers on boards in her election pitch. …cabinet ministers who served under Mrs Thatcher were scathing of the Prime Minister’s energy price cap when speaking off the record.
"One said it would create “incredible distortions” in the energy market, while another warned that Government cannot “force water uphill” by trying to stop free-market forces."
If you’re curious about May’s energy policy, Rupert Darwall has a helpful article in The Conservative.
"For some time, politicians of all parties have been imposing policies that force up energy costs. Now they want to cut the energy bills that have been driven higher by their own policies. …the Competition and Markets Authority noted the role of decarbonisation policies in pushing up costs. “Pressure on prices is likely to grow in the future, due in part to the increasing costs imposed by climate and energy policies,” the CMA stated.
"…BEIS ministers have convinced themselves that there is widespread popular support for the aggressive decarbonisation policies that are making energy more expensive. They should have the courage of their convictions and acknowledge that high and rising energy bills are a consequence of the decarbonisation policies they claim are so popular. Once they’ve done that, we can have an honest debate."
Sounds like a classic example of Mitchell’s Law. Politicians pursue a policy (green energy or decarbonisation) that leads to higher prices. They then respond to the problem created by their intervention with another form of intervention (energy price caps).
All of which will cause bigger problems in the future.
But for purposes of today’s column, what matters is that this bad policy is being pushed by the leader of the (supposedly) Conservative Party.
To be sure, it’s possible that this bad policy is just a gimmicky election promise and won’t be implemented. It’s also possible that it will be implemented but will be offset by better policy in other areas.
What matters is whether the overall burden of government is expanding or receding. Maybe May will cap spending (an area where her predecessor did a good job his last few years in office). Maybe she will cut tax rates (the corporate rate already has been slashed and will be reduced to 17 percent over the next few years).
At this stage, there’s no way to predict the direction of policy. But there is reason to worry because there aren’t enough people in the U.K. making the principled case for economic liberty.
Allister Heath explains what is needed to rejuvenate his country.
"Britain needs a new movement to sell free-market ideas. It is the only way that this country’s slow drift Left-wards, which began in 1997, will be halted and reversed. It’s the only way that Labour, which has reembraced Marxism under Jeremy Corbyn, and the Tories, which have fallen back in love with old fashioned economic interventionism, will ever see sense again.
"…Tories gave up fighting for free markets years ago, when David Cameron was elected leader…he decided…to accept all of Labour’s increases in state spending and regulation, including environmental and labour market rules…when the financial crisis struck, the Tories joined in the banker-bashing."
But it’s not just that the Tories did bad things.
They also failed to do good things.
"…they didn’t fight from the bully pulpit. They didn’t stand up and explain the merits of low taxes, which boost incentives. They didn’t shout from the rooftops that we need entrepreneurs to create wealth, and that people who make money by selling their wares to the public are performing a public service. They didn’t defend privatisation. They failed to make the case for profits…
"They conceded too much, including the destructive idea that the private sector is less moral and less law abiding than the state sector. They deferred to egalitarians and class warriors… When the financial crisis came, the Tories didn’t explain that much of it was actually caused by misplaced government intervention, including guarantees extended to financial institutions, pro-sub prime policies in the US, moral hazard and cheap money injected into the system by over-confident central banks. …We now have Mayonomics, a continuation of this trend, and its embrace of Ed Miliband-style energy price caps and yet more interventionism."
So Allister is urging a campaign for economic liberty.
"The campaign must explain why private companies that compete against one another always generate better outcomes than public sector monopolies. …All of the lessons that became part of the political conventional wisdom after the 1970s need to be relearnt and retaught, and we need a new generation of pro-free market activists to lead this struggle. It’s time for supporters of capitalism to stand up and be counted."
Sadly, the business community is unwilling to lead.
"The big business lobby groups are not up to the task… With a few exceptions, they don’t support real, genuine, free-markets."
For all intents and purposes, Allister is making the argument that Britain needs to become a more ethical society. In other words, he wants a campaign  to inform and educate about the value of liberty qua liberty. A belief in self reliance, work, and individual responsibility. Characteristics that could be considered part of social capital or cultural capital.
And I think he’s spot on.
worry a lot about the erosion of social capital in America. But if the polling data is accurate, the problem is much bigger in the United Kingdom.
P.S. Brexit is a wild card in this discussion. I supported the decision to leave the European Union in large part because of my hope U.K. policy makers would feel pressure to shift policy in a more market-oriented direction.
Daniel J. Mitchell, a long standing contributor to The Commentator, is a Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute, the free-market, Washington D.C. think tank. His articles are cross-posted on his blog by agreement
http://www.thecommentator.com/article/6584/tories_must_use_victory_to_revolutionise_uk_economy

Saturday, 13 May 2017

Author Ian McEwan urges second referendum on Brexit

London (AFP) - The award-winning author of "Atonement", Ian McEwan, said Friday there should be a referendum on Britain's final Brexit deal with the European Union, arguing it was still possible to stay in.


Alice TIDEY

British writer Ian McEwan, pictured in 2010, campaigned for Britain to remain in the EU before 52 percent of the electorate opted to leave last summer (AFP Photo/STR)
McEwan, who campaigned for Britain to remain in the EU before 52 percent of the electorate opted to leave last summer, also said politicians had forgotten which side they supported in the vote.
"In two years, a deal will be before us or not done at all and such an outcome demands general assent," McEwan said at a conference entitled "Brexit and the Political Crash" in London.
Since the vote, Britain has been behaving "like a depressed teenage self-harmer" that at first "takes out a razor to our forearm and now contemplates its own throat", he said.
The 68-year-old writer argued that it was still possible for Britain to change its mind.
"Take another look at Article 50: it's written in plain language, it's very short, it does not say -- in fact it does not even address -- that once initiated by a nation, that nation must leave," he said.
Article 50 of the EU's Lisbon Treaty explains the formal process for a member state leaving the bloc, but McEwan accused politicians who now embrace Brexit of abandoning so-called "remainers".
"Politicians who so recently spoke for the EU now occupy the highest offices in the land and are driving us out," he said.
- 'Angry old men' -
"A gang, comprising many angry old men, irritable even in victory, are shaping the future of the country against the inclinations of its youth," he said.
Irish musician and activist Bob Geldof, also attending the conference, said Brexit needs to be prevented "at all cost" as the EU's unravelling would lead to nations "scrapping at each other".
"Will I vote for my children to go to war? Potentially my grandchildren? I will not, ever," the Boomtown Rats singer said, mentioning the possible repercussions for his native Ireland.
The Republic of Ireland, an EU member state, is in the south, while Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom and is thus on course to leave the EU.
"We cannot have it. This is a critical issue," Geldof said, noting concerns that a hard border might be imposed on the island.
Singer Jarvis Cocker also spoke at the event.
"It feels like the extremist minority is being allowed to dominate the conversation," the Pulp frontman said, denouncing the divisive rhetoric that emerged following the referendum result.
"There is no us and them, goodies or baddies," he said.
https://ca.news.yahoo.com/author-ian-mcewan-urges-second-referendum-brexit-220429703.html