EU REFERENDUM – MY FINAL STATEMENT

So, in about 24 hours (depending on when you read this for the first time) the Polling Stations across the UK will be closed and the people will have exercised their right of democracy to cast their votes in the EU Referendum.

Since the date of the referendum was announced by the Prime Minister on Saturday 20^th February after his return from a summit with a deal on Britain’s future role within the European Union (EU), my eyes have been opened to so many things in the intervening 124 days; yes, it’s been that long.

You all know that I can’t cast my own vote.  I’ve been in Spain for longer than the 15 year limit.  I don’t agree with that rule and I’m at a loss to understand why the British government didn’t allow an amendment to the Referendum Bill.  It would’ve meant changing the vital clause by one or two words, would’ve stopped expensive legal challenges and, probably would’ve given the government many more votes for the Remain camp in the process.  Someone will be kicking someone somewhere if the final result is decided by less than a million votes.   We shall know when we’re having our breakfast on Friday morning!

You will know if you’ve been following my posts on Facebook (I make no apology for the amount of them.  I have to read many of yours that I have no interest in! :-) ) that all I have tried to do is to supply and link to information and some backgrounds notes, to expose a lie or two with the facts and figures on BOTH sides of the debate, and to help people who might not have the time or the interest to research to come to their own decisions in this once in a generation event, rather than get propaganda from sensationalist newspapers and TV media outlets with their own differing agendas.

With the odd exceptions among my Facebook friends, you have tolerated, contributed and discussed with the – more or less - utmost of respect for each other’s views and opinions.  Those that took the decision to unfriend me is their loss and says more about them than it does what I and others were writing.

Where my eyes have been well and truly opened over the past four months has been the level of debate across social media.  Rabid dogs would’ve been more courteous to a cat compared to the vile, contemptible, vicious and repulsive words I’ve read.  I haven’t escaped such noxious comments either...and all because my view or opinion, always expressed in the most courteous way, differed from these hateful and intolerant trolls.  I was often left ashamed to think that these were fellow British people.  My plight wasn’t often helped when these people discovered that I lived in Spain.  “Keep your opinions to yourself.  What’s it got to do with you living in your villa?” was possibly the kindest that I would feel happy printing here.

I place the blame for this firmly at the feet of the mainstream media, print, internet and TV, who have pursued their own agendas for many years and in the process have severely poisoned the minds of people who in reality probably had nothing between their ears in the first place.  My recent posting which exposed the workings of Boris Johnson during his time as a journalist proved this, when the newspapers allegedly refused to print anything positive about the EU.  I’m not surprised. The following quote is taken from an article in the wake of the murder of Jo Cox MP and the much criticised poster unveiled by Nigel Farage, but could very easily apply to the media in general:  

When you encourage rage you cannot then feign surprise when people become enraged. You cannot turn around and say, ‘Mate, you weren’t supposed to take it so seriously. It’s just a game, just a ploy, a strategy for winning votes.’

When you shout BREAKING POINT over and over again, you don’t get to be surprised when someone breaks. When you present politics as a matter of life and death, as a question of national survival, don’t be surprised if someone takes you at your word. You didn’t make them do it, no, but you didn’t do much to stop it either.

Sometimes rhetoric has consequences. If you spend days, weeks, months, years telling people they are under threat, that their country has been stolen from them, that they have been betrayed and sold down the river, that their birthright has been pilfered, that their problem is they’re too slow to realise any of this is happening, that their problem is they’re not sufficiently mad as hell, then at some point, in some place, something or someone is going to snap. And then something terrible is going to happen.

Stir up debate, exaggerate the truth, get people arguing, light the blue touch paper and then walk away not taking any of the blame for the consequences.

For a while, it’s been the Daily Mail that is always associated with the politics of hate.  The one newspaper you daren’t admit you read.  Compared to the Daily Express (especially the online version) the Mail is an angel and a Saint.  Since the start of the EU Referendum campaign, they have posted a conveyor belt of “news” on social media based on hearsay, allegations, suppositions and interpretations which have done nothing other than feed the appetite of hate they have themselves slowly drip fed over the months and years attacking both the EU and politicians – David Cameron in particular.  It has been relenting. The public comments both on their online version and the Facebook postings are jam packed full of the vultures baying for blood who have believed every single word this increasingly pathetic excuse of a rag prints. They really could convince their readership that the Earth was flat, and don’t you dare try to prove it otherwise with facts or a picture taken by Tim Peake from space.  You are attacked from all sides quicker than flies attack a dog turd on a summer’s day, and any comment against their policy is often removed post haste. 

I’ve followed both sides of the debate on social media and if I had to be totally honest, it’s about a 90% / 10% split.  Not on the main question itself, but in favour of the Leave camp in respect of the foul, abusive language and personal attacks employed toward those who disagree with them.  They have without doubt been xenophobic and racist to an incredible degree with an unbelievable arrogance and intolerance to anyone with an opposite viewpoint, and unable to respond when they are bombarded with real facts.  Of course, the above doesn’t apply to everyone who supports Leave, many who can justify their position with a passionate and reasoned argument without needing to resort to toxic language.  But they are few and far between.

This unbelievable arrogance also encompasses the current worrying trend to dismiss any advice or recommendations or opinions of “experts”.  I’ve seen a lack of trust in anything uttered or explained by experts and politicians alike.  ‘They must all be in it together or in someone’s pay’, according to this group of people I’ve christened BREXPERTS!  Know-it-all people that base everything they quote and “know” on what they’ve read from other Brexperts or they’ve heard from someone.  It’s obvious that none of them have taken the time to research what is put in front of them for themselves.  I’ve certainly found that my regular postings to these Brexperts of “Could you kindly direct me to the source of this claim?” are greeted with silence OR abuse.  Never with an answer!  The latest has been only this afternoon with someone claiming on Twitter that Sir Bobby Charlton has come out in favour of Leave with the comment: “Put that in your pipe Beckham!”  Banter to some, perhaps. Truth, that is believed, to many others, who don’t look beyond the headlines.

The strange political bedfellows that this EU Referendum has brought together will itself have their consequences whatever the result on Friday morning.  That will be the subject of a future blog.

My final words on this debate are aimed at people that live in, own a property in, or visit Spain for their holidays.  Whatever the result of the Referendum on Friday morning, I will respect that result as the will of the people.  The British people will suffer the consequences of that result whichever way it goes.  BUT, woe betide anyone with the Spanish connections I’ve just mentioned that are sympathetic with or vote to Leave that MIGHT or COULD be affected in a few years time and comes to me to complain about this, that or the other.  I won’t listen.  I WILL walk away from you.

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.  No knowledge is even more so.

A LESSON IN DEMOCRACY

UK OR THE EU – A LESSON IN DEMOCRACY

This is the first in a series of three blogs over the next week or so connected with the forthcoming EU Referendum on Thursday 23 June.  I begin with democracy.

One of the most often used phrases when people complain about the European Union (EU) and equally used as one of the reasons for wanting to leave is the “unelected, undemocratic, unaccountable, dictators with thousands of bureaucrats” running our lives from Brussels.  Those using such language tend to end their rant with: “..and take back control and run our own country.”

You will note in this blog that I won’t be favouring one system from the other.  What I am attempting to do is to highlight just one or two examples that are often forgotten about in the current debate.  Words in yellow are deliberate.....

I’ll begin by explaining how the EU Commission and the European Parliament works alongside some of the other institutions often mentioned.

The European Parliament is made up of 751 directly elected MEPs representing some 375 million eligible voters in 28 different countries.  Based on the population of the member countries, Germany have the most representation with 96 MEPs, Cyprus, Malta, Luxembourg and Estonia have the least with six, while the UK has 73.  All MEPs are elected by a proportional representation system.

The 28 commissioners making up the European Commission (in effect the Cabinet of the EU) are appointed by the Prime Ministers or Presidents of the 28 member countries.  The body as a whole has to be approved by the MEPs.  As an aside, those European countries that have Prime Ministers are individuals not themselves directly elected by the electorate but heads of their respective political parties thanks to the votes of party members.

The European Council is made up of the 28 leaders of the 28 member countries who choose the head of the European Commission and must also approve the members of the European Commission.

The Council of Ministers is made up of one representative of each of the 28 member countries specialising in a particular area of policy.  For example, the Council of Ministers for Defence would currently see UK Secretary of State for Defence, Michael Fallon, as part of that council.

The European Court of Justice (not to be confused with the European Court of Human Rights), formed back in 1951, is now made up of 28 judges each nominated by the 28 member states.  

All the above institutions of the EU are backed up with the support of approximately 42,000 civil servants.

Let’s compare the above organisation with the UK Government.

Currently, the UK House of Commons is made up of 650 directly elected MPs representing some 45 million eligible voters.  All MPs are elected by a first-past-the-post system.  At the 2015 General Election, the Conservatives won 330 seats with 36% of the national vote whereas UKIP won 1 seat with 12.7% and the SNP won 56 seats with 4.7%. 

The British Prime Minister appoints the 21 Cabinet Ministers and the approximately 100 junior ministers.

The Speaker of the House of Commons – officially the senior commoner in the land - is elected by MPs.

Every member of the House of Lords is unelected and appointed.  There are approximately 700 Life Peers and 26 Bishops. Following the House of Lords Act 1999, the number of hereditary peers was reduced to a limit of 90.  When an hereditary peer dies creating a vacancy, their replacement is elected by the remaining unelected members of the hereditary peerage.

These appointed and unelected members of the House of Lords can and do amend and block legislation passed by the elected MPs in the House of Commons.

Each UK government department has at least one appointed Minister of State that is a member of the House of Lords.  These ministers take decisions and formulate the law of the land in the form of Bills and Acts of Parliament. 

Once any Bill has secured its Third Reading, it then passes to the unelected and hereditary Head of State for formal approval – The Royal Assent.

Each UK government department has an appointed Permanent Secretary (every department has a Sir Humphrey Appleby) who has made it to the top of their chosen profession in a career they applied to join.  According to 2015 figures from the annual Whitehall Report the Civil Service is made up of 406,000 people.  Those in the Executive Officer grade and higher are responsible for creating and formulating policy and to offer advice to ministers.

The UK currently has 12 Justices of the UK Supreme Court and 109 High Court Judges, all appointed by the Queen on the advice of the Prime Minister. To quote the official Government page, Judicial Accountability and Independence, “...The truth is that the judiciary is accountable, but in a different manner. The reason for this difference is a fundamental feature of our constitution going to the very heart of our democracy. The difference stems from the need to ensure that judges are impartial and independent of central and local government and from pressures from the media, companies, and pressure groups while exercising their judicial functions. That need is also reflected in the constitutions of all democratic countries. The extent to which the judiciary in England and Wales are accountable, how they are accountable, and why there is a need for judges to be completely independent from Government and other powerful groups, are difficult questions.”

The word bureaucratic is defined as: “Relating to a system of government in which most of the important decisions are taken by state officials rather than by elected representatives.”

Every single word above is a fact. The following is a commentary about those facts.

In the current EU Referendum debate, there are a significant number of people wanting to Remain in the EU that support either a more democratic and elected House of Lords – or even its total abolishment.  Equally, there are many who wish to Leave the EU, citing the “dictators and unelected and undemocratic bureaucracy” as a principal reason but are more than content to keep an unreformed House of Lords and other institutions listed above.

Read the facts again and decide for yourself which organisation is the most democratic, accountable or bureaucratic or are they much of a muchness?

At the end of the day, perhaps British people simply prefer to be governed by “their own” unelected bureaucrats.

 

JOHNNY FOREIGNER OR JUANITO EXTRANJERO?

Maybe, just maybe, I’ve been one of the hundreds and thousands of British people that have had their minds and beliefs poisoned and influenced by the increasingly Pinocchio media on the subject of immigration.  Maybe my views and opinions would have stayed the same if I was still living in London or what was described as the “East End overspill” of Collier Row in Romford but my current, is the word softening, mellowing or even maturing, attitude has more than certainly been influenced by my 27 years in Spain as an immigrant myself and spending more time investigating so-called facts in respect of the EU Referendum.

Yes, as an immigrant.  Not an expat, but an immigrant. The popular dictionary definition of an immigrant is: “a person who comes to live permanently in a foreign country.”  After so many years in Spain, I couldn’t be described in any other way.  I fit it perfectly.   

What about expat or expatriate?  This word is defined as: “to withdraw (oneself) from residence in or allegiance to one’s native country.”  It can also mean; “to banish or to exile.”  Now, I’m not going to deal in semantics but I believe I can only be described as an “immigrant”.  The definition of an expatriate almost suggests that someone has left their native country under some kind of a cloud; that they almost had to leave the country; escaping from it.  The last sentence could certainly be attributed to many but not all!  It also suggests that your allegiance to (in this case) the UK is no more.  If you look not so deeply at word itself, it suggests that you are no longer a patriot of your country of birth and want nothing to do with it whatsoever, and yet a significant number of British people living in Spain simply want to transfer and pick up what they had in the UK and bring it here.  Then what do they do?  Complain about Spain and the Spanish and the laws and the customs; some even want to become local figures of authority and some want to “show these people how to run their country!”  My experience tells me that the biggest complainers about “the bloody Spanish” are the same people who left the UK because of “the bloody foreigners taking over everywhere!”

Many of you would’ve listened to the audio clip from an interview on BBC Radio 5 Live last week featuring “expats” living close to Torrevieja in this part of Spain. They discussed the forthcoming EU Referendum and this particular couple had opposing views on how they would vote.  The husband, voting to remain, said that he’d heard that it would take 10 years to resolve everything so by the time he’d reached 86, it wouldn’t matter what was decided.  She, on the other hand, would vote to leave because of “immigration” and “the benefits problem” in the UK.  Quite quickly, the interviewer suggested that she was no different being an immigrant to Spain.

“Oh no, that’s different, because we bought a house here and spend our pension money here.”  As for “the benefits problem”, she didn’t expand her statement but it was pretty easy to see where she was coming from.

It’s true. Almost 100% of British immigrants living in Spain either sold their house in the UK or had saved up sufficient money in their lifetime to buy property.  Others bought a business with that money and either bought or rented property.  Nobody came here penniless, although some may have left Spain a few years (or even months) later in that state!  Therefore, millions of euro was brought into the Spanish economy, and the immigrants living and working here spent their hard earned savings, monthly pensions and wages locally too.

Does that lady sitting outside the bar in the Torrettas in Spain really believe that it’s only the British that have money and the right to go and live in another country in the EU?  Could she not possibly believe for one minute that the hundreds and thousands (possibly a few million) of immigrants from other EU countries have also entered the UK to live, to buy or rent property, to study, to work and to have a better lifestyle as she and her husband have chosen to do?   Perhaps she’s under the impression that they all go to the UK penniless, get free housing and live a life of riley on benefits?  Maybe, just maybe, she believes the increasingly growing headlines of the UK gutter press and the dumbed-down TV news programmes attempting to appeal to the masses like I used to?  Yes, like I USED to.  I’ve started to research for myself some of the daily headlines that are purported to be facts, and I’ve surprised myself on occasions.

Figures from 2014 and released by the Department for Work & Pensions (DWP) show that there are 1.73m EU nationals working in the UK, equal to 5.7% of all people in work. There are 1.19m non-EU nationals working in the UK, which is 3.9%.   The employment rate for non-UK born workers is 70%, compared to the 73.2% of UK born workers. The employment rate for EU nationals living in the UK is 79%.  The UK is the only EU country to have a lower unemployment rate for migrants than nationals (7.5% to 7.9% respectively), suggesting a key reason for migration to the UK is to find work.

The same report claims that less than 5% of EU migrants are claiming Jobseekers’ Allowance, while less than 10% are claiming other DWP working-age benefits. On top of this, the think tank Class found that of those who claim Jobseekers’ Allowance, 91.5% are UK nationals. Additionally, among unemployed migrants, only 1% claim unemployment benefits, compared to the 4% of unemployed UK nationals who are claimants. Rather than being “benefit tourists”, migrants to the UK make a net contribution, as they pay more in taxes than they take out in benefits.

Current UK rules state that migrants from the EU have to wait three months before they can claim for Jobseekers’ Allowance. This is the same for accessing child benefit and child tax credits. To stay longer than three months, they have to be in work, actively seeking work, or have a genuine chance of being hired. Either that, or they have to prove that they have the resources to remain without being a burden on public services.  EU migrants simply cannot enter the UK without the two proverbial pennies to rub together and claim thousands of pounds in benefits and get a free house in exactly the same way as British migrants couldn’t enter Spain and expect the same.

A complete lack of knowledge and understanding of the subject is confirmed by a recent social media thread I read on the subject of the migrant camps at Calais.  “This shows why we should leave the EU!” said one faceless contributor.  I’m convinced that many thousands in the UK will vote to leave the EU for a similar reason without realising or even sitting down to think for one moment as to why and will simply be picturing those in Calais as they mark their ballot paper.  Now, this may come as a shock to Mr or Mrs Faceless contributor but the people in Calais are NOT migrants from the EU.   If they were, they would already be in the UK after purchasing their ferry or Eurostar tickets for their cars or via the coach journey or indeed have already landed at one of the UK airports.  In the same way as we entered Spain in fact.  They are LEGAL immigrants from the EU.

The thousands of people in Calais and across the continent of Europe staying in other camps are alleged refugees, asylum seekers or economic migrants and have no bearing on the UK’s standing in the EU or out of it, and is another story for another blog on another day.  There are no people fitting those descriptions that come from countries that are members of the EU.  Whether the UK is in the EU or not, and whether they decide to close their borders or not, people from all over the world will still attempt to seek asylum or refuge in the country.  It won’t stop simply because the UK is no longer a member of the EU.

Because there are no real facts available, those British immigrants living in the EU that are eligible to vote on in June are in a kind of limbo as to which box to put their ‘X’ in.  I can’t vote due to living here too long, so I’m something of a neutral in many respects.  As I’ve written in many places before, if I were enfranchised I would have no option other than to vote to “remain”.  Despite all the “facts” thrown my way, I am still not convinced that a vote to “leave” would have no effect and would have nothing to worry about to affect my chosen future to live in an EU country as a British immigrant. 

And this takes me right back to the couple outside the popular Sacko’s Bar near to Torrevieja.  IF the UK voted to leave the EU, helped by the vote of the wife of the couple, and IF her free healthcare and annual pension increases are affected, trust me, she’ll be the first to complain, and all because she didn’t like other people living in EU countries being able to enjoy the same freedom of movement and choice that she and her husband have been allowed to enjoy, and believed all she sees and hears about “the benefits problem”.

Finally, and perhaps more controversially for some, I believe that IF the UK votes to “leave” it will be swayed by people’s views on immigration and no other reason.  They won’t think of their jobs or anything else; and contrary to what the media would have you believe are not members of the compassionate society that care about refugees.  They are in a minority, albeit a significant one.

So, that one single action will prove, in one vote, that a certain Enoch Powell was right.  Right all along that the majority British psyche is, and always will be, anti-foreigner and will never accept immigration on any significant scale.....as long as they are not the immigrants themselves!

WHAT THE GUVNOR'S SAY!

I recently came across some background notes I was putting together as part of a report I was preparing to give to one of the local radio stations I was working for at the time.  Among them were these quotations taken from books about and by Sir Terry Wogan and Sir Jimmy Young – two of the real Guvnors of British broadcasting history.

Their words and observations are just as relevant today as the day they were written and encompass many of my own beliefs on how to be successful in radio.

 We talk of a radio audience as if it were a group, as if it moved on blocks.   There are a million people out there – but they’re all individuals.   When people are listening to the radio, a ripple of laughter does not run around the stalls.   Nobody chortles in Chorleywood because somebody chuckled in Cleakheaton.   Every single radio listener makes up their own mind.

   Radio is the most individual, the most personal medium.   Which is why it’s a terrible mistake for broadcasters to categorise their listeners.   “Radio 2 is for the fifties and over” ignores the basic precept of radio listening.   It’s personal.   What pleases one fifty-year old won’t please another, but may delight a forty-year old.

   So, I take it, when you claim to broadcast to 50 year olds and over, you mean you’re going to play music to suit that one group.   Music from 50 to fade out.   I’ve news for you.   It’s impossible!

   I’m sorry – you cannot heap your grown up listeners into age groups.   God Almighty himself could not devise a music policy to satisfy a national age group as broad as 50 to Curtain Time!   But at Radio 2, you don’t have to………

   Because, and let me break this to you gently, Radio 2 is not a music network.   It never has been.   The vast majority of people who listen to Radio 2 – that is, the people who tune in every weekday from, say 7 in the morning until 7 in the evening, the most loyal, the most consistent group of any in the country, do NOT listen for the music.   I realise this will cause confusion, nay, panic, amongst songwriters, musicians, producers, middle management and even at controller level.

   Radio 2 weekdays is a ‘personality’ network.   People don’t listen to Sarah Kennedy, Jimmy Young or even me for the music.   They listen because they’ve become attached to the person presenting the programme – and, because of the personal, very intimate nature of the radio, for more deeply attached than they would ever become to any presenter on television.   An indication of this is the listeners’ need to fax, to email, to write, to their radio favourite to contribute, to establish a dialogue.   So where does the music come in?   The music matters only when it’s wrong.   When it jars, when it’s inappropriate, when it sits uneasily with the personality of the presenter.

   Radio 2 music should be selected to complement the personality of the presenter and the content of the programme.   My programme differs from Sarah Kennedy’s as much as hers differs from Jimmy Young’s, and his from Ken Bruce’s.   Self-evidently the music should reflect that difference.

   A draconian music policy is a mistake for a national radio station.   Opt for a specific type of music, and you are opting for a ‘niche’ audience.   Now a ‘niche’ audience is fine for a commercial radio station that doesn’t want to compete on the mass market place and attract advertisers to a specific audience.

Sir Terry Wogan – Musn’t Grumble (2006)

Jimmy Young wrote in his book ‘Forever Young’ about popularity of presenters, on his role in the early days of Radio 1 and on the news that his listening figures had gone through the roof.

   Back in 1967, the BBC was taken aback by what was happening to the JY Prog that they commissioned a survey to find out where I was getting my extra millions of listeners from at the unfashionable time of 10am.   What the survey discovered was almost incredible.   It reported that I had changed the routine in countless homes.   It reported people saying that, whereas they used to listen to Housewives Choice and then go out shopping, they were now doing their shopping before or after my programme so they wouldn’t miss me.   I had actually changed their shopping habits.   This was something that neither I nor the BBC had envisaged happening.   If it came as a shock to me, I wondered what the news was doing to Robin Scott.

   Robin had been given the job of creating a Radio 1 that was so hip, with it, so sharp that it could successfully replace the pirates.   But his star had turned out to be a forty-six year old guy playing middle-of-the-road music and reading recipes.   I knew I wouldn’t turn Robin’s hair white because it was famously white already, but I could imagine him tearing out handfuls of it in sheer frustration.   He had wanted to create an overall youthful image for the station and had installed a host of young DJ’s to create it for him.   The trouble was that the public didn’t want them – they wanted me.   I was very much an anachronism.   I was the tail wagging the dog.   But I was the success story that Robin couldn’t ignore.

The BBC didn’t like JY’s success and tried to stop the rot by forcing him to take a holiday.   He continues………..

   Working on the principle that if at first you don’t succeed, try, try again, the BBC wondered if they could stop me in my tracks by making me switch channels.   Accordingly it was decreed that I should broadcast on Radio 1 on Christmas Day and Radio 2 on Boxing Day.  

   On Christmas Day I got twice the audience as the person opposite on Radio 2.   And on Boxing Day I got two and a half times the audience of the person opposite me on Radio 1.

   There is no such thing as network loyalty.   Look what happened to Radio 1 when it dramatically changed its policy.   It lost half its listeners.   Network loyalty is just another planners fantasy.   People don’t have network loyalty.   They have broadcaster loyalty.   I can guarantee that if Terry Wogan left Radio 2 and went to another radio station which had the same signal strength and coverage as Radio 2 he would take most of his audience with him.   Planners hate to admit these kind of things, of course, because by doing so they would be admitting their own weaknesses and the strength of popular broadcasters.   But they all know it to be true.

And finally, Jimmy Young shares another of his broadcasting principles dear to my own heart…

   What is the point of broadcasting if nobody’s listening to you?   Putting bums on seats to listen to, and to take part, is the name of my game.

Some of my final quotes come from a biography ‘Arise Sir Terry Wogan’ by Emily Herbert who again puts across many of my long held views......

   He is aware that his general method of broadcasting is a world away from some of the more vulgar element of today’s media, and that his popularity has soared as a result.   “The generation which I belong to grew up on a diet of radio and television that was universally acceptable”, he says, “But over the past ten years, there has been a complete breakdown into niche broadcasting.   Youth has become more assertive.”

   And, as culture generally has become more youth orientated, so has the media that serves it.   But there’s a very good argument for saying the media is wrong.   Youth-orientated shows, on TV and radio, gain absolutely nothing like the audiences they used to and, while that is partly because there are now so many different channels to watch, it is also because the population is ageing and is simply not interested in what is being broadcast.

   The misapprehension about what people really want stretches right across the media and so it is hardly surprising that one of the few presenters actually coming up with what the public wants should find himself in such huge demand.

I BEG LEAVE TO REMAIN

Unlike Boris Johnson MP, I haven’t been sitting on the fence to publicly declare my position on the forthcoming EU Referendum!  It was a simple choice for me to make although the fact I am in my 27^th year in Spain prevents me from casting a vote for either campaign.

My vote goes to REMAIN.

Now, that might surprise some of you with my well-known views on many matters of current affairs but I simply have to think of my current country of residence.  If I was living full time in the UK I would have no hesitation in voting LEAVE.  I am a firm believer in a country being able to make its own laws and controlling its borders.  I have always been against the obvious underlying plan of eventually creating a United States of Europe.  It’s why I like the USA and Australia in this respect.  They pass a law or a sentence and the only body you can appeal to is the highest court of the land in that country.  In the UK, at present, you have a right of appeal to the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR).  By the way, if the UK voted to leave the EU, it doesn’t automatically mean they would no longer be a signatory to the ECHR.  That would be subject to separate negotiations.   David Cameron has also warned that a vote to leave wouldn’t stem the flow of migrants either.   I believe that.  That situation has simply been allowed to go too far and like anything else, once it’s gone that distance there’s little you can do to stop it anyway. 

Living as I do as an official legal resident of Spain, I and anyone else that fits that description should have no reason to vote other than to remain, and I would cast my vote that way simply and ONLY because the consequences for British immigrants living in Europe are not known.  People in various quarters think they know what would happen, but it all depends on which scaremongering newspaper, TV station or “expert expat resident that knows everything” you speak to.

Will we lose our healthcare benefits or future increases in State pension?  Nobody knows, officially.  Will we need work permits or Visas to be able to live and work legally?  Nobody knows, officially.  Some people will understandably quote the fact that the UK and Switzerland (not in the EU, nor the European Economic Area (EEA)) are linked to the EU by a series of bilateral agreements enabling British citizens there to enjoy the accepted health and pensions benefits as others in the EU, but at this stage nobody knows whether the UK would reach agreements with Spain in these and other areas.  There is a mischievous school of thought suggesting that Spain would be very amenable to all the UK proposals...in exchange for Gibraltar!!

Will we find out the answers to these and other questions (actually, there are no other questions because health, pensions and work are the only concerns if the truth be told) before Referendum day of Thursday 23^rd June?  I don’t know, I doubt it, but one thing I am certain of it’s that rounds and rounds of negotiations between the UK and the other 27 member countries of the EU aren’t going to take place before the outcome of a Referendum is known.  What would it achieve and it would be a waste of time if the result was to remain and we continue to live here under the status quo.

So, to anyone reading this blog living in the EU and outside of the UK, a vote to REMAIN is the only logical and sensible choice.  A turkey wouldn’t vote in November for Christmas....or perhaps even an uncertain delay to Easter.  Think about it!

THANK YOU FOR THE TALK

Just very occasionally, you hear the news of someone famous that has died and not only is it a shock and you can’t quite believe it, but you simply never will.  This is particularly true with people in the media that you've let into your home for many, many years that have almost become members of the family.  Even months or years after their passing, their name is mentioned and you simply don’t associate them with death.   I have that feeling with Bob Monkhouse and Cilla Black.  I know that after today, Sir Terry Wogan will be added to that list.   These people were simply, it appeared, indestructible. They're on the screens or on the airwaves forever.

I first remembered listening to Terry when he started on BBC Radio 2 in 1969 when he presented the 3pm to 5pm show.  I thought it was Eamonn Andrews!  It was around that time that I started to get into radio, listening mainly to Tony Blackburn, Alan Freeman, Jimmy Young and Pete Murray’s Open House during the time when much of the Monday to Friday schedule was shared by Radio 1 & 2.  My dial was automatically tuned to Radio 1, but more and more I found myself retuning to Radio 2, and there it stayed when there was a significant rescheduling in 1972. 

Terry Wogan began his tenure as the host of the coveted Breakfast Show followed by Pete Murray, Tony Brandon and Jimmy Young.  At that time, Brandon was more of a personal favourite than Wogan but all had their unique presentation styles that defined the word “broadcaster” rather than disc-jockey.  When I wasn’t at school, I spent all day listening to the radio.  OK, it was in the days before all-day TV so there was no real alternative, but it was those early listening experiences that gave me the love of radio in those formative years.  School or not, in the evenings I listened to shows like Beat The Record with Don Davis and Late Night Extra from 10pm in bed every night and my first encounter with the Mystery Voice Challenge which fascinated me.

The truly great era of Radio 2 was Wogan following Ray Moore and preceding Jimmy Young.  During the much anticipated handover, Big Alma (Moore’s wife) was often discussed as was the ceremonial arrival of Jimmy Young’s commode in the studio.  It simply became great entertainment.  

The autobiographies of both Ray Moore (Tomorrow Is Too Late) and Terry Wogan (Mustn't Grumble) are simply master classes of radio broadcasting and have been thumbed often.  Many believe that had he lived longer than his 46 years, Ray Moore would've been just as great as Wogan, if not better.  For me, it’s the proverbial cigarette paper...and Moore just wins.   Much that has been said and written about the untimely passing of Sir Terry was said about Ray when he died following a more public battle with throat cancer.  “He was talking to me.”   They both understood what their listeners wanted and they gave it to them.

The formation of the TOGs (Terry’s Old Geezers) took the experience of radio and the interaction between presenter and listener to a completely new level.  Wogan didn't need a team of script writers to fill his show with wit, mirth and merriment.  He used the contributions from his listeners and his loyal and devoted fans and enabled him to create an almost surreal and imaginary world.  The humour displayed by the man on the street often surpasses that of professional writers.  I certainly get more aching belly laughs in the modern world from scrolling through my Twitter feed than watching or listening to any comedians or sit-coms.  Wogan recognised that talent and enhanced and exaggerated that humour.  The listeners themselves created the likes of Chuffer Dandridge, Helen Bach, Mick Sturbs (who created the Janet & John stories), Dora Jarr, and Lou Smorrels to name but a few.  I don’t recall which contributor had the address of 2 Effing Close, Far Corfe!   

Wogan had this ability to make a show with eight million listeners into something of a private club that every person felt was a member, even if they didn't contribute directly themselves.  When he retired (I believe he was pushed) from the Breakfast Show in 2009, the TOGs had nowhere to tune into and still don't.

The much used cliché of “we will never see his like again” is particularly true in the case of Sir Terry.  It’s probably more accurate to say “we will never see his like again because his like will never be allowed to be seen or heard because the new breed of radio bosses and managers don’t understand the value of radio personalities, and the difference between a broadcaster and a DJ.”

I’ll close my own tribute to Sir Terry Wogan with this observation.  Out of all the thousands of words and Tweets and live interviews about his death today, one word has been noticeably missing.  Music.  And this about a man who found fame on one of the most listened to music radio stations in the world.  It proves what I've always believed.  Anyone and I do mean anyone, can sit in front of a microphone and play music with the “that was – this is” style and call themselves a radio presenter and then wonder why they don’t resonate with their listeners or receive any interaction.  I've witnessed it first hand in local radio, but these budding stars and their equally inexperienced managers never see past their own highly inflated egos. People tune in to listen to you and become a fan of yours because of what you say – not what you play.  You nurture your audience of one, you do talk to that one person, and you do become a lifeline to some and a friend to many. 

That was Sir Terry Wogan.

“This is it then this is the day I have been dreading, the morning when you and I come to the parting of the ways, the last Wake Up To Wogan. It wasn’t always thus. For the first 12 years it was the plain old Terry Wogan Show and you were all Twits, the Terry Wogan is Tops Society.  

“When I returned to the bosom of the family you all became Togs, Terry’s Old Geezers and Gals. It’s always been a source of enormous pride to me that you have come together in my name, that you are proud to call yourself my listeners, that you think of me as a friend, someone that you are close enough to laugh with, to poke fun at and just occasionally when the world seemed just a little too cruel, to shed a tear with.  

“The years together with you have not only been a pleasure but a privilege. You have allowed me to share your lives with you. When you tell me how important I have been in your lives it’s very moving, you have been every bit as important in mine.

“We have been though at least a couple of generations together, for many of you your children like mine have children of their own.

“Your support for Children In Need has been consistent and magnificent… If anybody embodies the generous, warm spirit of this country it’s you, my listeners.

“I am not going to pretend that this is not a sad day – you can probably hear it in my voice – I am going to miss the laughter and the fun of our mornings together. I know you are going to welcome Chris Evans with the same generosity of spirit that you have shown me.

“I am going to miss you, until we are together again in February have a happy Christmas. Thank you, thank you for being my friend.”