This article isn't going to be as festive as it might initially seem. For those of you unfamiliar with the expression, it means that you support actions that will probably result in your own demise. Moreover, this expression seems fitting in respect of some of the recent decisions of the European Union, decisions which I feel will do more harm than good for Europe economically, and are likely to discourage businesses from investing in Europe as well as encourage those already operating here to consider looking elsewhere.
Europe has a lot in its favour, and of course it would take a lot to encourage European businesses to flee the continent en masse, and similarly businesses from the USA, Asia and elsewhere will take a lot of putting off to avoid investing here. After all, this is a continent of relatively high living standards and political stability (albeit, not as much as before the recent recession), with significant wealth and well-established industries concentrated in Western Europe.
However, renowned for passing daft directives, the European Union has made three decisions recently which are likely to add another setback to the European economy in the short term and, in the longer term, potentially encourage businesses to leave or stay away. Firstly, it was the restrictions placed on which vacuum cleaners can be purchased in Europe due to their wattage. Not only does it give rise to the question of "Can't people be left to decide for themselves what vacuum cleaners?", but more seriously it is interference with the European economy at a time when it is already fragile.
Secondly, there is the cap on bankers' bonuses. Many complain about bankers and their income (which is understandable to an extent, given the role some of them played in financial crisis and numerous scandals- but then again, it's difficult to find an industry that it is unblemished), but ultimately I feel that, as private companies, what they pay their employees is their business- and it's not the government's place to interfere. What harm does it do society if someone is paid £2,000,000 a year instead of £200,000 out of company profits? If anything, it results in larger tax contributions that benefit the masses.
One can see the moral reasons for interference such as the minimum wage at one end of the spectrum- but how does society gain from restricting the pay of those at the other end of the spectrum, except for a childish "serves you right" attitude that doesn't seem to practically benefit anyone. Clearer to see is that banks may well try and get round this by increasing salaries to compensate for the reduced bonuses; an approach which has been criticised because, whilst bonuses can be increased and reduced annually depending on the company's performance, but salaries are expected to increase year-on-year or at least stay the same. So larger salaries commit companies to steadily increasing costs on staff, regardless of company profits, which will either jeopardise company's economic stability or make redundancies more likely. Restrictions on bonuses also hinder Europe's ability to compete in terms of the financial incentives it provides for those working in that sector. Those most successful, looking for higher bonuses, are unlikely to shrug their shoulders and say "that's fair enough"- it could be the motivation behind relocation to similarly well-established and stable economies of Japan or North America, or those with greater growth prospects in South America, the Middle East or elsewhere in Asia.
Finally, there was the announcement that the European Parliament believes the company Google should be broken up for the sake of competition. Whilst there may be merit in the argument, Google can't be broken up because its an American, not a European, company. So it is a decision which can't have much impact on the Google, and yet sends a message of European hostility out to large companies who can play an important role in improving the European economy.
This is why I have described the recent decisions and announcements coming from the European Union as further evidence of the turkeys voting for Christmas: European politicians and civil servants criticising and interfering with the businesses that can speed up Europe's progress towards economic recovery. Instead, with each of these decisions, the EU is effectively adding to an ever-increasing list of reasons why companies should look beyond Europe for somewhere to do business.
Saturday, 29 November 2014
Sunday, 19 October 2014
Proposal for meeting UK government immigration targets
Prime Minister David Cameron's high profile stance on immigration has been to reduce it to the "tens of thousands instead of the hundreds of thousands". Since this announcement, the government has struggled to bring net migration to below 100,000- with figures consistently showing twice this amount. The rise of UKIP has shown that immigration is one of the fundamental concerns of British voters, and will be a key issue at next year's election.
In addition to the current points-based system employed by the government, I would also propose an overall cap of 100,000. What has consistently complicated this debate is that restrictions cannot be placed on migrants from the EU, given that the freedom of movement is a key principle of the organisation (along with the free movement of goods, capital, etc.). In response, I would not propose leaving the EU as UKIP do, but instead adjust the amount of Non-EU migrants permitted to enter the UK- taking into account anticipated migration from EU member states. For example, if 30% of migrants to the UK were from the EU in 2014, to allow for a similar influx the following year, the amount of migrants permitted to enter the UK from outside of the EU should be capped at 70,000 (at allow for an estimated 30,000 EU migrants).
In addition, besides the impact of sheer numbers of immigrants on the UK (concerning housing, public services, jobs, etc.) another reason that this attracts so much attention is because of concern over the success of integration of migrants into the UK. Besides the obligation of fluent use of the English language on migrants (whether to be able to do so in advance of moving to this country, or through compulsory studies and qualifications in English- funded through a student loan), I feel that this can be assisted by prioritising migrants from certain countries. Firstly, due to the cultural similarities (from the English language, to sport, food, religion, and so on) half of non-EU migrant places in the UK should be prioritised to those from Commonwealth countries. This should ease integration, while also demonstrating in deeds (not just words) the value the UK still places on the Commonwealth. Secondly, again due to cultural similarities and historically close bonds, a quarter of migrant should similarly be prioritised to potential migrants from the USA. The remaining quarter would be available for the remaining countries from around the world.
Such caps and prioritisation would control immigration in accordance with public concerns, ease integration of migrants within British society, and cement the three most-valued international relationships for the UK: with the European Union, the Commonwealth, and the "Special Relationship" with the USA.
In addition to the current points-based system employed by the government, I would also propose an overall cap of 100,000. What has consistently complicated this debate is that restrictions cannot be placed on migrants from the EU, given that the freedom of movement is a key principle of the organisation (along with the free movement of goods, capital, etc.). In response, I would not propose leaving the EU as UKIP do, but instead adjust the amount of Non-EU migrants permitted to enter the UK- taking into account anticipated migration from EU member states. For example, if 30% of migrants to the UK were from the EU in 2014, to allow for a similar influx the following year, the amount of migrants permitted to enter the UK from outside of the EU should be capped at 70,000 (at allow for an estimated 30,000 EU migrants).
In addition, besides the impact of sheer numbers of immigrants on the UK (concerning housing, public services, jobs, etc.) another reason that this attracts so much attention is because of concern over the success of integration of migrants into the UK. Besides the obligation of fluent use of the English language on migrants (whether to be able to do so in advance of moving to this country, or through compulsory studies and qualifications in English- funded through a student loan), I feel that this can be assisted by prioritising migrants from certain countries. Firstly, due to the cultural similarities (from the English language, to sport, food, religion, and so on) half of non-EU migrant places in the UK should be prioritised to those from Commonwealth countries. This should ease integration, while also demonstrating in deeds (not just words) the value the UK still places on the Commonwealth. Secondly, again due to cultural similarities and historically close bonds, a quarter of migrant should similarly be prioritised to potential migrants from the USA. The remaining quarter would be available for the remaining countries from around the world.
Such caps and prioritisation would control immigration in accordance with public concerns, ease integration of migrants within British society, and cement the three most-valued international relationships for the UK: with the European Union, the Commonwealth, and the "Special Relationship" with the USA.
Sunday, 12 October 2014
News Round-Up: Police Resources & Party Conference Season Overview
Alice Gross Murder Investigation and the issues it raises concerning Police Resources
Over the past month, the investigation into the disappearance of Alice Gross, which ultimately has evolved into the investigation of her murder, has featured prominently in the UK national news. It is difficult to write this post without appearing cold and harsh, but something that has stood out in this case is the amount of resources that have been used. Of course, it is a tragedy that a young girl went missing- and even more so when it materialised that she had been murdered. However, I can't help but think of Alice Gross' case, which has involved the support of many hundreds of police officers and even the resources of the RAF and has been described as the biggest police operation since the 7/7 bombings in London ten years ago; and then also consider how a friend of mine in the police has described how police resources are overstretched and are even struggling to respond to all 999 calls- let along reaching them promptly.
Tragic as Alice Gross' story has been, I can't help but think that there must be many other tragedies across London and the South-East that also demand police support but this isn't being received because they have been devoted to a single, high profile case. If there police resources were not overstretched then, of course, you would hope that every available officer and all other means would be available for every case. But in these times when resources are stretched, I question (though with some trepidation) how right it is that certain cases can be singled out for extensive resources, whilst those not in the media spotlight do not received the same amount of dedication and attention but are no less important than the case of Alice Gross.
Party Conference Season Overview
Now that the principle parties in British politics have all held their party conferences, it is a good time to review UK politics and even to consider the next general election (taking place in just over 6 months' time). Having said this, in spite of how relatively close the election is, it is very difficult to predict with much confidence how it will pan out. I've always found it challenging to take Ed Miliband seriously, with every word he says sounding disingenuous to me. Ed Miliband started his leadership as a man apparently looking to move Labour from the populism of New Labour back to more traditional Labour values. Though not a supporter of traditional Labour policies myself, I can at least respect it for being distinct and having a vision, rather than constantly shifting to reflect opinion polls and the mood at the time- a stance which lacks vision and often ultimately disappoints the majority. However, Mr Miliband seems to me to have spent his entire leadership so far trying to jump whichever bandwagons contradict the Government's policy: from opposition to spending cuts, to banker-bashing. From personal experience and from what I know historically in British politics, I struggle to think of a party leader who seems so desperate to follow the public mood without principles or a vision of their own. Moreover, given Labour's traditional principles and track record on public spending and immigration, I wonder how anyone can trust them when they say that they can be trusted again with public finances, and they understand concerns with immigration. If a Labour government is elected next year, I would be incredibly surprised if they managed to bring immigration down to the "tens of thousands, not the hundreds of thousands", as the Conservatives previously promised; in addition, a dedication to reduced public spending to confront the government spending deficit also seems incredibly unlikely to me. Considering the bigger picture (not just my opinions!), there seems to be a contradiction in the public's perception of Labour: they are almost always top in opinion polls for overall public support; yet in respect of the economy, and the suitability of their party leader for the position of Prime Minister, (two of the most influential factors influencing voters' choices on election day) Labour consistently come a poor second to the Conservatives.
Then the Conservatives, with whom I tend to have most sympathy, were generally uninspiring at their conference. Two features of their conference stood out for me: on the positive side, I have long agreed with David Cameron's assertion that, in addition to devolution Scotland, there should finally be a settlement to resolve the anomaly that Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish MPs can vote on exclusively English issues, while English MPs are unable to do the same for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. I also agree that, rather than creating an English Parliament (which would be an expensive and unnecessary institution in my opinion), it would be better to simply have exclusively-English issues handled in the Westminster parliament along with British issues, and prevent non-English MPs from voting on English issues. However, another aspect of the conference that stood out to me was when David Cameron appeared physically angry that Labour had accused him of being untrustworthy on the NHS. Mr Cameron said that the NHS was personal to him because of the illness of his son that NHS staff had worked to alleviate. However, it seemed wrong to me to use his son's experience as a weapon against Labour- particularly when deeds and words do not necessarily reflect each other, which unfortunately often seems to be the case with the Conservatives in government. One glaring example is immigration where, as I said above, the Conservatives pledged to reduce overall numbers of immigrants from the hundreds of thousands to the tens of thousands- but has failed miserably, and lost credibility on this issue. Although the excuse of EU immigration being out of the Government's control is often given to explain why immigration continues to increase markedly, non-EU immigration is still very high and is overlooked. Personally I feel that a cap of 100,000 should be placed and the number of EU migrants per year should be deducted from 100,000 and then be used as a guide for the amount of non-EU migrants to enter the country. I also feel that students and tourists should never be used in these figures, considering that they are only supposed to be here for the short-term and shouldn't be classed as long-term members of our society. Meanwhile, although the Conservatives tend to have the most economic credibility, they similarly appear to be failing to reduce the deficit, which continues to undermine the UK's long term recovery. Promises of tax cuts at the conference, while popular, encourage me to lose respect for them, as it seems to demonstrate a neglect the message of long-term fiscal responsibility in favour of short term populism. It seems far too premature to be promising tax cuts when the deficit remains stubbornly high and the global economy is fragile.
Finally, the two parties fighting out to be Britain's "third party": the Liberal Democrats and UKIP. Whilst, in national polls, the Liberal Democrats attract much scorn, where they have been elected historically they tend to retain public support due to personally-popular MPs in individual constituencies- as proven in the Eastleigh by-election not so long ago.Their message of being more fiscally responsible than Labour, and more socially responsible than the Conservatives, could be a popular one were it to be trusted by the public. Meanwhile, UKIP continue to increase their popularity as a party that apparently represents the masses, and fundamentally reflects their stance on immigration- with their supporters presuming they reflect their attitudes on other policy areas too. Their party leader does effectively present himself as more in tune with public opinion and avoids the clinging to the middle ground of the other three parties. He also appears to tap into working class support akin to Thatcherism in the 1980s, that contrasts with the image of posh, out-of-touch, cliquey leaders of the other parties. The fact that they now have an MP (possible another one as well soon), is a major symbolic boost for them, showing that they CAN win seats in parliament. At present, it seems likely that the Liberal Democrats will cling to most of their seats due to local loyalty, while UKIP will undermine Conservative and Labour support (particularly the former), potentially resulting in a Labour-Liberal Democrat coalition next year. We shall see....
Over the past month, the investigation into the disappearance of Alice Gross, which ultimately has evolved into the investigation of her murder, has featured prominently in the UK national news. It is difficult to write this post without appearing cold and harsh, but something that has stood out in this case is the amount of resources that have been used. Of course, it is a tragedy that a young girl went missing- and even more so when it materialised that she had been murdered. However, I can't help but think of Alice Gross' case, which has involved the support of many hundreds of police officers and even the resources of the RAF and has been described as the biggest police operation since the 7/7 bombings in London ten years ago; and then also consider how a friend of mine in the police has described how police resources are overstretched and are even struggling to respond to all 999 calls- let along reaching them promptly.
Tragic as Alice Gross' story has been, I can't help but think that there must be many other tragedies across London and the South-East that also demand police support but this isn't being received because they have been devoted to a single, high profile case. If there police resources were not overstretched then, of course, you would hope that every available officer and all other means would be available for every case. But in these times when resources are stretched, I question (though with some trepidation) how right it is that certain cases can be singled out for extensive resources, whilst those not in the media spotlight do not received the same amount of dedication and attention but are no less important than the case of Alice Gross.
Party Conference Season Overview
Now that the principle parties in British politics have all held their party conferences, it is a good time to review UK politics and even to consider the next general election (taking place in just over 6 months' time). Having said this, in spite of how relatively close the election is, it is very difficult to predict with much confidence how it will pan out. I've always found it challenging to take Ed Miliband seriously, with every word he says sounding disingenuous to me. Ed Miliband started his leadership as a man apparently looking to move Labour from the populism of New Labour back to more traditional Labour values. Though not a supporter of traditional Labour policies myself, I can at least respect it for being distinct and having a vision, rather than constantly shifting to reflect opinion polls and the mood at the time- a stance which lacks vision and often ultimately disappoints the majority. However, Mr Miliband seems to me to have spent his entire leadership so far trying to jump whichever bandwagons contradict the Government's policy: from opposition to spending cuts, to banker-bashing. From personal experience and from what I know historically in British politics, I struggle to think of a party leader who seems so desperate to follow the public mood without principles or a vision of their own. Moreover, given Labour's traditional principles and track record on public spending and immigration, I wonder how anyone can trust them when they say that they can be trusted again with public finances, and they understand concerns with immigration. If a Labour government is elected next year, I would be incredibly surprised if they managed to bring immigration down to the "tens of thousands, not the hundreds of thousands", as the Conservatives previously promised; in addition, a dedication to reduced public spending to confront the government spending deficit also seems incredibly unlikely to me. Considering the bigger picture (not just my opinions!), there seems to be a contradiction in the public's perception of Labour: they are almost always top in opinion polls for overall public support; yet in respect of the economy, and the suitability of their party leader for the position of Prime Minister, (two of the most influential factors influencing voters' choices on election day) Labour consistently come a poor second to the Conservatives.
Then the Conservatives, with whom I tend to have most sympathy, were generally uninspiring at their conference. Two features of their conference stood out for me: on the positive side, I have long agreed with David Cameron's assertion that, in addition to devolution Scotland, there should finally be a settlement to resolve the anomaly that Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish MPs can vote on exclusively English issues, while English MPs are unable to do the same for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. I also agree that, rather than creating an English Parliament (which would be an expensive and unnecessary institution in my opinion), it would be better to simply have exclusively-English issues handled in the Westminster parliament along with British issues, and prevent non-English MPs from voting on English issues. However, another aspect of the conference that stood out to me was when David Cameron appeared physically angry that Labour had accused him of being untrustworthy on the NHS. Mr Cameron said that the NHS was personal to him because of the illness of his son that NHS staff had worked to alleviate. However, it seemed wrong to me to use his son's experience as a weapon against Labour- particularly when deeds and words do not necessarily reflect each other, which unfortunately often seems to be the case with the Conservatives in government. One glaring example is immigration where, as I said above, the Conservatives pledged to reduce overall numbers of immigrants from the hundreds of thousands to the tens of thousands- but has failed miserably, and lost credibility on this issue. Although the excuse of EU immigration being out of the Government's control is often given to explain why immigration continues to increase markedly, non-EU immigration is still very high and is overlooked. Personally I feel that a cap of 100,000 should be placed and the number of EU migrants per year should be deducted from 100,000 and then be used as a guide for the amount of non-EU migrants to enter the country. I also feel that students and tourists should never be used in these figures, considering that they are only supposed to be here for the short-term and shouldn't be classed as long-term members of our society. Meanwhile, although the Conservatives tend to have the most economic credibility, they similarly appear to be failing to reduce the deficit, which continues to undermine the UK's long term recovery. Promises of tax cuts at the conference, while popular, encourage me to lose respect for them, as it seems to demonstrate a neglect the message of long-term fiscal responsibility in favour of short term populism. It seems far too premature to be promising tax cuts when the deficit remains stubbornly high and the global economy is fragile.
Finally, the two parties fighting out to be Britain's "third party": the Liberal Democrats and UKIP. Whilst, in national polls, the Liberal Democrats attract much scorn, where they have been elected historically they tend to retain public support due to personally-popular MPs in individual constituencies- as proven in the Eastleigh by-election not so long ago.Their message of being more fiscally responsible than Labour, and more socially responsible than the Conservatives, could be a popular one were it to be trusted by the public. Meanwhile, UKIP continue to increase their popularity as a party that apparently represents the masses, and fundamentally reflects their stance on immigration- with their supporters presuming they reflect their attitudes on other policy areas too. Their party leader does effectively present himself as more in tune with public opinion and avoids the clinging to the middle ground of the other three parties. He also appears to tap into working class support akin to Thatcherism in the 1980s, that contrasts with the image of posh, out-of-touch, cliquey leaders of the other parties. The fact that they now have an MP (possible another one as well soon), is a major symbolic boost for them, showing that they CAN win seats in parliament. At present, it seems likely that the Liberal Democrats will cling to most of their seats due to local loyalty, while UKIP will undermine Conservative and Labour support (particularly the former), potentially resulting in a Labour-Liberal Democrat coalition next year. We shall see....
Monday, 25 August 2014
Don't be piggy-in-the-Middle (East)
Featuring in the news prominently over recent months has been the influence and progress of the IS (Islamic State): a militant Islamist movement which intends to unite Sunni Muslim countries under a single government. So far, it has extended its control over parts of Iraq- as well as Syria.
From beheading an American journalist, to punishing Iraq's Christian minority, IS does indeed seem to be a menacing force in the Middle East today. However, in this part of the world it is difficult to know who are the forces for right and wrong- with the conflict with IS highlighting this. Not so long ago, the Assad government of Syria and the Ayatollah's regime in Iran were considered some of the Western World's greatest opponents; now, they are implied to be the lesser evil in the face of IS, and potential partners in the fight against IS.
Taking sides in a conflict where both sides are guilty of crimes against humanity does not seem a wise (or moral) move by governments in Europe and the USA. It is difficult to know who really offers the greatest opportunities for the Middle East and, although humanitarian intervention (with UN support) is justifiable in certain circumstances, prolonged and direct involvement seems inadvisable as it is certainly not for the direct benefit of the peoples of the Western World- and may also lead to the empowerment of a new regime which is just as bad, if not worse, than the one it replaces. In addition, hostile rhetoric from Western leaders concerning IS seems to just antagonise them and make them more likely to threaten the West, not alleviate it. Therefore, aside from humanitarian assistance, it would seem best to avoid intervention in such a messy conflict.
From beheading an American journalist, to punishing Iraq's Christian minority, IS does indeed seem to be a menacing force in the Middle East today. However, in this part of the world it is difficult to know who are the forces for right and wrong- with the conflict with IS highlighting this. Not so long ago, the Assad government of Syria and the Ayatollah's regime in Iran were considered some of the Western World's greatest opponents; now, they are implied to be the lesser evil in the face of IS, and potential partners in the fight against IS.
Taking sides in a conflict where both sides are guilty of crimes against humanity does not seem a wise (or moral) move by governments in Europe and the USA. It is difficult to know who really offers the greatest opportunities for the Middle East and, although humanitarian intervention (with UN support) is justifiable in certain circumstances, prolonged and direct involvement seems inadvisable as it is certainly not for the direct benefit of the peoples of the Western World- and may also lead to the empowerment of a new regime which is just as bad, if not worse, than the one it replaces. In addition, hostile rhetoric from Western leaders concerning IS seems to just antagonise them and make them more likely to threaten the West, not alleviate it. Therefore, aside from humanitarian assistance, it would seem best to avoid intervention in such a messy conflict.
Saturday, 2 August 2014
Raise your glass to the new method of tackling alcohol-fuelled crime
For a trial period, London Metropolitan Police are monitoring the success of a new approach to alcohol-related crimes. If successful, the strategy will be enforced long-term, nationwide. Many of those arrested for these crimes in London will now be fitted with a tag around their ankle if they are released from custody- a tag which, if it detects alcohol in the wearers' blood and sweat, will warn the police. This strikes me as a very effective use of modern technology, though I hope that its potential will be deployed usefully with punishments that correspond with breach of the alcohol bans that these tags are intended to monitor for a period of a few months. Hopefully this will act as an efficient deterrent on alcohol-related crime, and result in more serious punishments for recidivists. If successful, I wonder if this would be a practical approach to drug-related crime as well...
Sunday, 25 May 2014
Charles' Dis-Putin with Russia
Last week, on a visit to Canada, Prince Charles commented in a conversation with a member of the public that the actions of President Vladimir Putin and his country, Russia, in Ukraine were comparable to those of Adolf Hitler and Germany in Central Europe, in the lead up to the Second World War. Although these comments were made in a private conversation, there was nevertheless a strong media presence of which the Prince was aware. The comparison that the Prince made had been expressed numerous times in the media already, but he has been amongst the most high profile figures to publicly voice this opinion.
Clearly, comparisons can indeed be drawn between the recent actions of Russia, and past actions of Nazi Germany: a country, run by a leader notorious for stoking aggression and encouraging nationalism, annexes territory that is recognised as part of another country- regardless of whether this can in any way be justified due to the shared nationality of the occupiers and, those in the occupied territory. Moreover, many have expressed agreement with Prince Charles' comparison, including the leaders of Britain's three main political parties.
However, despite being a defender of the royal family and monarchy as an institution, I cannot support the Prince's remarks. Not because I thing his observation is incorrect, but because I think it is inappropriate for him to say this as a head of state-in-waiting. As I have said in previous posts, one of the roles of the British monarch is to act as an ambassador for the UK, and play a crucial role in fostering warm relations with countries around the world. In my opinion, this includes Russia. Foreign affairs is a very fickle business, particularly regarding Russia, with which Britain has had a very on/off relationship for centuries. Anglo-Russian relations are arguably at their worst since the Cold War; but Russia remains an important country in global affairs, and it will always be more beneficial for Russia to be an ally, rather than an enemy, of the UK. When the time comes to try and improve Anglo-Russian relations again, a typical symbol of these efforts tends to be a state visit. One day, whether in the near future or in the longer term, our prospective King Charles III could be asked to undertake such a visit, but these efforts could be undermined from the onset by memories of Charles' comments- particularly if Putin is still Russia's head of state at the time.
Charles is often criticised for expressing his personal opinions on a variety of issues in the UK. Whether one agrees with his opinions or not, he nevertheless does tend to encourage national discussion, debate, and potential action in response to such issues- which can only be a good thing. Sometimes these will be high profile issues already in the spotlight, while others tend to be ignored unless they are highlighted by figures such as Prince Charles. But criticism of other countries and their heads of state undermines the ambassadorial role of the British monarchy, regardless of whether these views are correct, popular or otherwise.
His mother, the current monarch Queen Elizabeth II, was highly praised a few years ago for her sensitivity and dignity shown during her state visit to the Republic of Ireland- a visit which alluded to many controversial occasions in Anglo-Irish relations over the years.
Whilst controversy is something the Queen has successfully demonstrated an ability to help overcome, this is something that Prince Charles has instead encouraged.
Clearly, comparisons can indeed be drawn between the recent actions of Russia, and past actions of Nazi Germany: a country, run by a leader notorious for stoking aggression and encouraging nationalism, annexes territory that is recognised as part of another country- regardless of whether this can in any way be justified due to the shared nationality of the occupiers and, those in the occupied territory. Moreover, many have expressed agreement with Prince Charles' comparison, including the leaders of Britain's three main political parties.
However, despite being a defender of the royal family and monarchy as an institution, I cannot support the Prince's remarks. Not because I thing his observation is incorrect, but because I think it is inappropriate for him to say this as a head of state-in-waiting. As I have said in previous posts, one of the roles of the British monarch is to act as an ambassador for the UK, and play a crucial role in fostering warm relations with countries around the world. In my opinion, this includes Russia. Foreign affairs is a very fickle business, particularly regarding Russia, with which Britain has had a very on/off relationship for centuries. Anglo-Russian relations are arguably at their worst since the Cold War; but Russia remains an important country in global affairs, and it will always be more beneficial for Russia to be an ally, rather than an enemy, of the UK. When the time comes to try and improve Anglo-Russian relations again, a typical symbol of these efforts tends to be a state visit. One day, whether in the near future or in the longer term, our prospective King Charles III could be asked to undertake such a visit, but these efforts could be undermined from the onset by memories of Charles' comments- particularly if Putin is still Russia's head of state at the time.
Charles is often criticised for expressing his personal opinions on a variety of issues in the UK. Whether one agrees with his opinions or not, he nevertheless does tend to encourage national discussion, debate, and potential action in response to such issues- which can only be a good thing. Sometimes these will be high profile issues already in the spotlight, while others tend to be ignored unless they are highlighted by figures such as Prince Charles. But criticism of other countries and their heads of state undermines the ambassadorial role of the British monarchy, regardless of whether these views are correct, popular or otherwise.
His mother, the current monarch Queen Elizabeth II, was highly praised a few years ago for her sensitivity and dignity shown during her state visit to the Republic of Ireland- a visit which alluded to many controversial occasions in Anglo-Irish relations over the years.
Whilst controversy is something the Queen has successfully demonstrated an ability to help overcome, this is something that Prince Charles has instead encouraged.
Saturday, 29 March 2014
TV Debates and the European Union
Last week, we witnessed the first of two televised debates on the European Union, featuring two of the UK's most prominent politicians- two of the leaders of Britain's four main political parties, each representing a party that has a very clear stance on Europe: one of whom is Nick Clegg, Deputy Prime Minister and leader of the Liberal Democrat party, which has long been considered the third party in British politics; while the other is Nigel Farage, leader of the UK Independence Party, a relatively new political party which has nevertheless defeated the established political parties in elections ranging from European to local (though not, crucially, in national, general elections). The UK's foremost party leaders, the Conservative Prime Minister, David Cameron, and Labour Leader of the Opposition, Ed Miliband, have abstained from involvement- though whether this is due being too busy to get involved or concerned with jeopardising their support by engaging in a contentious debate is unclear.
I personally sympathised with points raised by both figures: I agreed with Farage on the principle of British sovereignty, while I agreed with Clegg's economic arguments for remaining within the European Union. I ultimately am in favour of continued membership, and primarily reflect what seems to be the stance of the Prime Minister: the UK remaining part of the European Union, primarily for economic reasons, but also to encourage cooperation with other European countries; whilst wanting to avoid the European Union becoming more of a unified, country-like unit as opposed to an international organisation, and reject the imposition of laws on to countries which disagree with them. Ideally, in terms of legislation, unanimity would seem to be the best approach in order to avoid resentment but, ultimately, member states should be considered capable of making their own laws that are applicable to each country's culture and circumstances. Meanwhile, common sense needs to be entrenched in respect of migration of people within the European Union, with one of the greatest concerning the mass migration from poorer member states to wealthier ones, having negative economic and/or social consequences for all countries concerned. Despite this focus on the negative effects of membership, I consider the EU to be an institution which has bolstered and encouraged democracy across Europe. Its most visible benefits seem to be economic in my opinion, with a common market making Britain a more attractive country to invest in as a gateway into a market of hundreds of millions of relatively-wealthy consumers; it also means that goods can also be accessed more easily, aiding Britain's productivity and boosting manufacturing- a key element in efforts to rebalance the economy away from reliance on the services sector. Despite arguments that European red tape is prohibitive for businesses, it would arguably be more so if businesses had to comply with completely separate laws and regulations if it wanted to deal with Britain, and if it became more difficult to move goods and people to and from Britain via a majority of other European countries. We have already heard in the press of the challenge tourists currently face if they want to include Britain in a trip around Europe due to the visa system, and the consequent loss of tourists to the UK. Due to the aforementioned arguments, I support British membership of the European Union, primarily for economic reasons, though with substantial reforms of the organisation, primarily for the sake of national sovereignty.
One final point I'd like to make concerns the format of the televised debate itself. On the one hand, it is undoubtedly a straightforward format in which to see the different attitudes of parties and individuals on various issues. It's also one of the more effective ways of engaging the public with politics. However, by its very nature, it encourages politicians to resort to catchy soundbites and one-liners rather than potentially less-engaging arguments containing substance and facts- a more populist approach. Moreover, whereas the written word is often a result of lengthy consideration and research, televised debates are more about style and responding to questions on the spot. It can consequently say more about a politicians' effectiveness in improvising than the validity of their argument. If someone becomes flustered and stammers in a debate, it is seen as a sign of defeat and losing an argument, when it might actually just be the individual is less adept at providing speedy, spur-of-the-moment answers.
I personally sympathised with points raised by both figures: I agreed with Farage on the principle of British sovereignty, while I agreed with Clegg's economic arguments for remaining within the European Union. I ultimately am in favour of continued membership, and primarily reflect what seems to be the stance of the Prime Minister: the UK remaining part of the European Union, primarily for economic reasons, but also to encourage cooperation with other European countries; whilst wanting to avoid the European Union becoming more of a unified, country-like unit as opposed to an international organisation, and reject the imposition of laws on to countries which disagree with them. Ideally, in terms of legislation, unanimity would seem to be the best approach in order to avoid resentment but, ultimately, member states should be considered capable of making their own laws that are applicable to each country's culture and circumstances. Meanwhile, common sense needs to be entrenched in respect of migration of people within the European Union, with one of the greatest concerning the mass migration from poorer member states to wealthier ones, having negative economic and/or social consequences for all countries concerned. Despite this focus on the negative effects of membership, I consider the EU to be an institution which has bolstered and encouraged democracy across Europe. Its most visible benefits seem to be economic in my opinion, with a common market making Britain a more attractive country to invest in as a gateway into a market of hundreds of millions of relatively-wealthy consumers; it also means that goods can also be accessed more easily, aiding Britain's productivity and boosting manufacturing- a key element in efforts to rebalance the economy away from reliance on the services sector. Despite arguments that European red tape is prohibitive for businesses, it would arguably be more so if businesses had to comply with completely separate laws and regulations if it wanted to deal with Britain, and if it became more difficult to move goods and people to and from Britain via a majority of other European countries. We have already heard in the press of the challenge tourists currently face if they want to include Britain in a trip around Europe due to the visa system, and the consequent loss of tourists to the UK. Due to the aforementioned arguments, I support British membership of the European Union, primarily for economic reasons, though with substantial reforms of the organisation, primarily for the sake of national sovereignty.
One final point I'd like to make concerns the format of the televised debate itself. On the one hand, it is undoubtedly a straightforward format in which to see the different attitudes of parties and individuals on various issues. It's also one of the more effective ways of engaging the public with politics. However, by its very nature, it encourages politicians to resort to catchy soundbites and one-liners rather than potentially less-engaging arguments containing substance and facts- a more populist approach. Moreover, whereas the written word is often a result of lengthy consideration and research, televised debates are more about style and responding to questions on the spot. It can consequently say more about a politicians' effectiveness in improvising than the validity of their argument. If someone becomes flustered and stammers in a debate, it is seen as a sign of defeat and losing an argument, when it might actually just be the individual is less adept at providing speedy, spur-of-the-moment answers.
Sunday, 9 March 2014
Control of Crimea
In the past week, the Crimea region has been the centre of concern in Europe- and perhaps the world- as tensions between ethnic Ukrainians and Russians within Ukraine have come to blows since the Ukrainian president, Viktor Yukanovych, fled following violent clashes in the Ukrainian capital, Kiev. Crimea is now the focus as the region, which has an ethnic Russian majority, seems inclined to unite with Russia rather than remain part of a Ukraine which now has government with a pro-EU stance, and some argue is backed by Ukrainian nationalists.
Whilst the issue of who will form a legitimate, long-term government in Ukraine will hopefully resolve itself peacefully soon (elections are due in May), the most pressing debate concerns whether Crimea will remain with Ukraine or unite with Russia. Crimean politicians have declared a desire to unite with Russia, and intend to hold a referendum on the issue in a week's time. Despite being officially a part of Ukraine for approximately 60 years, and within Ukraine since it gained independence in the 1990s, Russia has maintained a naval base there since Ukraine's independence, and prior to independence Ukraine was part of the Russian-dominated Soviet Union. While Crimean politicians, and many Crimean citizens, have demonstrated in favour of unification with Russia and asked for Russian support; the new provisional government in Ukraine, and ethnic Ukrainians and other minorities in Crimea, have criticised the moves as dangerous and illegal.
Having never been to Ukraine, and having a limited understanding of the issues debated, my opinion may be of little value. However, from what I understand, I find myself surprisingly disagreeing with the stance of the governments of Britain, the US and elsewhere in the Western world; and supporting those campaigning for independence. I don't necessarily think that Crimea should be independent, but I think that if enough people desire independence, then they should have the opportunity to decide. Moreover, as the Crimean politicians were elected by Crimean citizens, and that they are considering a democratic referendum- if they reach the ultimate conclusion that they want to join Russia instead of Ukraine, then they should be able to pursue that course, provided it has the agreement of the Russian government as well. Having said this, I am also mindful of concerns with the minorities in the region, such as ethnic Ukrainians and Tatars, who are wary of integration with Russia, but I tend to take the view that, in a democracy, the views of the majority should trump those of a minority- though not that minorities should be allowed to be punished or discriminated against as a consequence. I disagree with any aggression on the part of Russian forces, and the thuggery reported of pro-Russians towards pro-Ukrainians, but on the overriding principle of Crimea deciding what fate is best for the majority of its citizens, I think the best stance to take is to respect what the majority there want.
Rushing through a referendum in less than a fortnight is not ideal but, in the current situation, a referendum with a result that is respected, is in my opinion surely the lesser evil of opposing what are essentially democratic processes.
Whilst the issue of who will form a legitimate, long-term government in Ukraine will hopefully resolve itself peacefully soon (elections are due in May), the most pressing debate concerns whether Crimea will remain with Ukraine or unite with Russia. Crimean politicians have declared a desire to unite with Russia, and intend to hold a referendum on the issue in a week's time. Despite being officially a part of Ukraine for approximately 60 years, and within Ukraine since it gained independence in the 1990s, Russia has maintained a naval base there since Ukraine's independence, and prior to independence Ukraine was part of the Russian-dominated Soviet Union. While Crimean politicians, and many Crimean citizens, have demonstrated in favour of unification with Russia and asked for Russian support; the new provisional government in Ukraine, and ethnic Ukrainians and other minorities in Crimea, have criticised the moves as dangerous and illegal.
Having never been to Ukraine, and having a limited understanding of the issues debated, my opinion may be of little value. However, from what I understand, I find myself surprisingly disagreeing with the stance of the governments of Britain, the US and elsewhere in the Western world; and supporting those campaigning for independence. I don't necessarily think that Crimea should be independent, but I think that if enough people desire independence, then they should have the opportunity to decide. Moreover, as the Crimean politicians were elected by Crimean citizens, and that they are considering a democratic referendum- if they reach the ultimate conclusion that they want to join Russia instead of Ukraine, then they should be able to pursue that course, provided it has the agreement of the Russian government as well. Having said this, I am also mindful of concerns with the minorities in the region, such as ethnic Ukrainians and Tatars, who are wary of integration with Russia, but I tend to take the view that, in a democracy, the views of the majority should trump those of a minority- though not that minorities should be allowed to be punished or discriminated against as a consequence. I disagree with any aggression on the part of Russian forces, and the thuggery reported of pro-Russians towards pro-Ukrainians, but on the overriding principle of Crimea deciding what fate is best for the majority of its citizens, I think the best stance to take is to respect what the majority there want.
Rushing through a referendum in less than a fortnight is not ideal but, in the current situation, a referendum with a result that is respected, is in my opinion surely the lesser evil of opposing what are essentially democratic processes.
Sunday, 2 March 2014
In anticipation of the next election...
With just over a year to go before the next general election in the UK, it is in the back of the minds of many of the British public- including me. When I consider the key election issues, I am concerned with the perception of the Government's approach, and the impact this could have on next year's vote.
To me, the most important is almost always going to be the economy: after all, it affects everyone's well-being, whilst also having an impact on government spending: if the economy is weak, and the government has barely enough money to spend, then it is limited in the scope of what it can afford to change in a significant way. On the whole, I'm very pleased with the Government's economic record to date: we have growth rates that are impressive compared with elsewhere in the developed world, despite ongoing economic challenges, whilst there is evidence of success and progress across most economic sectors. In addition, the Government's goal to shrink the size of the public sector without exacerbating unemployment seems to have been successful, with the number of new private sector jobs far outweighing the number of public sector jobs cut. A combination of confidence and assertiveness in light of our economic achievements, yet an avoidance of complacency in terms of Government debt (when this would have been a relatively easy stance to take when there has been a lot of good news on the economy), strike me as a very positive approach- and one I fear would be jeopardised by a potential Labour government in 2015, which could return to inflating the public sector once again without a pragmatic approach to funding it, creating another economic mess.
I support the government's ambitions regarding Europe: staying within the European Union, while hoping to steer our membership towards one that involves cooperation on political issues and close trading ties, as well as keeping interference in national affairs to a minimum and avoiding getting sucked into the difficulties being faced by the Eurozone. Having said this, I don't think that a Labour government would deviate too much from this- but implies it would be more reluctant to assert the UK's interests to the same extent as the Conservatives.
In terms of energy, the Government seems to be taking a sensible, balanced approach- introducing green technology, with its inherent positive impact on the environment, as well as pursuing the pragmatism of nuclear power and an openness to new potential sources, such as fracking. Meanwhile, the Government seems to have had an effective foreign policy: maintaining the "special relationship" with the United States; constructively seeking partners in Europe (most noticeably Germany's Angela Merkel) to achieve common goals in the EU; supporting humanitarian efforts globally, while taking a fair approach to crises around the world (such as Libya and Syria); and making more of an effort with our Commonwealth allies, with some seeming as strong as ever (Australia and Canada), while it seems that other relationships need more work (such as with India).
However, there have been some areas where quite radical ideas have been pursued, including the Education Secretary's reforms to education, the proposed HS2 high speed train line, and the Universal Credit benefits system, and is too early say what impact they will have (assuming they are not stopped or reversed by the government elected in 2015). Meanwhile, the government has received a bad press on the NHS (with numerous scandals in health, such as the level of care offered in hospitals, though my personal- albeit brief- uses of the NHS have almost always been positive) while there seems to have been little progress in terms of immigration.
Though areas of the public sector, such as education and healthcare, generally seem stronger under a Labour government, I fear Labour's potentially negative impact on the economy and even less control of immigration. But with government slip-ups in a number of areas, and the controversy surrounding the government's pro-austerity measures, Labour stubbornly clings to the lead in opinion polls (albeit a weak one) and, with disillusioned voters (particularly those usually supporting the Conservatives) likely to back UKIP as an alternative, I fear these ingredients seem to make a Labour victory likely in 2015 unless there are some significant changes- in spite of clear government success with the economy.
To me, the most important is almost always going to be the economy: after all, it affects everyone's well-being, whilst also having an impact on government spending: if the economy is weak, and the government has barely enough money to spend, then it is limited in the scope of what it can afford to change in a significant way. On the whole, I'm very pleased with the Government's economic record to date: we have growth rates that are impressive compared with elsewhere in the developed world, despite ongoing economic challenges, whilst there is evidence of success and progress across most economic sectors. In addition, the Government's goal to shrink the size of the public sector without exacerbating unemployment seems to have been successful, with the number of new private sector jobs far outweighing the number of public sector jobs cut. A combination of confidence and assertiveness in light of our economic achievements, yet an avoidance of complacency in terms of Government debt (when this would have been a relatively easy stance to take when there has been a lot of good news on the economy), strike me as a very positive approach- and one I fear would be jeopardised by a potential Labour government in 2015, which could return to inflating the public sector once again without a pragmatic approach to funding it, creating another economic mess.
I support the government's ambitions regarding Europe: staying within the European Union, while hoping to steer our membership towards one that involves cooperation on political issues and close trading ties, as well as keeping interference in national affairs to a minimum and avoiding getting sucked into the difficulties being faced by the Eurozone. Having said this, I don't think that a Labour government would deviate too much from this- but implies it would be more reluctant to assert the UK's interests to the same extent as the Conservatives.
In terms of energy, the Government seems to be taking a sensible, balanced approach- introducing green technology, with its inherent positive impact on the environment, as well as pursuing the pragmatism of nuclear power and an openness to new potential sources, such as fracking. Meanwhile, the Government seems to have had an effective foreign policy: maintaining the "special relationship" with the United States; constructively seeking partners in Europe (most noticeably Germany's Angela Merkel) to achieve common goals in the EU; supporting humanitarian efforts globally, while taking a fair approach to crises around the world (such as Libya and Syria); and making more of an effort with our Commonwealth allies, with some seeming as strong as ever (Australia and Canada), while it seems that other relationships need more work (such as with India).
However, there have been some areas where quite radical ideas have been pursued, including the Education Secretary's reforms to education, the proposed HS2 high speed train line, and the Universal Credit benefits system, and is too early say what impact they will have (assuming they are not stopped or reversed by the government elected in 2015). Meanwhile, the government has received a bad press on the NHS (with numerous scandals in health, such as the level of care offered in hospitals, though my personal- albeit brief- uses of the NHS have almost always been positive) while there seems to have been little progress in terms of immigration.
Though areas of the public sector, such as education and healthcare, generally seem stronger under a Labour government, I fear Labour's potentially negative impact on the economy and even less control of immigration. But with government slip-ups in a number of areas, and the controversy surrounding the government's pro-austerity measures, Labour stubbornly clings to the lead in opinion polls (albeit a weak one) and, with disillusioned voters (particularly those usually supporting the Conservatives) likely to back UKIP as an alternative, I fear these ingredients seem to make a Labour victory likely in 2015 unless there are some significant changes- in spite of clear government success with the economy.
Wednesday, 1 January 2014
Thoughts for the New Year (Scottish independence; the English language in the UK; alternative spending of the wealthy's benefits)
All the best for 2014!
To kick the new year off, I'd like to share some thoughts and opinions for the year ahead.
Scottish independence referendum:
Don't be surprised if more posts are made here with regards to this issue. This September, Scotland will vote on whether to be an independent country, or remain a constituent country of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. I personally hope that Scotland will remain within the UK- for both practical and emotional reasons.
In terms of practicality, I have heard many disregard the feasibility of Scottish independence: a strange stance to take, given that countries that are far smaller, and lacking Scotland's stability, have been established over the years- albeit with varying degrees of success. I believe that Scotland could be a wealthy and stable independent country were it to echo the development other countries with relatively great natural resources and small populations, not to mention strong democratic traditions, such as Norway and Sweden. However, the examples of Ireland and Iceland expose the vulnerability of smaller countries, which have experienced dramatic peaks and troughs in terms of living standards and prospects over the years. However, from the point of view of an English Briton, the greatest potential impact for me would me the difficulty surrounding the "divorce settlement" between Scotland and the rest of the UK. Dividing debt, national finances, national institutions, etc., would not be a straight forward process, and I fear that both sides could become bitter and unpleasant during this division process. It is foreseeable that both sides would claim that their side is losing out- potentially undermining relations between Scotland and the rest of the UK for years to come.
Meanwhile, for less practical and more symbolic reasons, I would be very sorry to see the union end. Together the British have fought in wars, made many of the greatest discoveries in the modern world, and produced a powerful and largely effective economy. In the past, British military power, politics and economics dominated the world- whatever one's views on the legacies of the British Empire are, what is undeniable is that its scale and longevity were remarkable. Meanwhile, in recent years, despite being a small country, the UK ranks as one of the world's top 10 economic powers, top 5 military powers, and gains considerable diplomatic leverage as one of the 5 permanent members on the United Nations Security Council. The UK has even been described as a sporting superpower, having come 3rd in the medal table during the 2012 Olympic Games. All these achievements have been made by the United Kingdom, while our success as individual constituent countries is more questionable and less obvious. I for one would miss the relative success and prestige that all Britons have been able to share in over the years- in spite of the dramatic shifts in global power and wealth over the past century. Moreover, though clearly biased, I consider the Union flag to be the most impressive flag in the world, whilst the flags of the UK's individual constituent countries seem much plainer and forgettable in comparison. It is a flag recognised worldwide, well-established over centuries, while its inclusion in other country's national flags, such as Australia's, demonstrates the importance the Union flag plays in not only uniting much of the British Isles, but also uniting the UK with other parts of the world.
I am a great believer in people having control over their own fate, and feel that referendums are a very fair way of trying to accomplish this goal, so I do not oppose the referendum. The great electoral success of the Scottish National Party was evidence enough that this was an important question to be asked and decision to be considered. Nevertheless, I hope that the Scottish vote to also remain British.
English as the truly national language:
As can be seen in the British media, and heard in discussions among its citizens (not to mention on this blog as well), the impact of immigration on the UK is a major issue and debate. For me, one of the most controversial issues concerns language, and how important an ingredient it is to creating a united and successful country. The British are notorious for not learning other languages due to how widely spoken and understood the English language is- a benefit for British tourists and businesspeople, but also a deterrent to most British grasping other languages, consequently isolating the British in this respect when other nationalities will learn each other's languages. However, the irony is that, despite English being the most widely-spoken language in the world, in the UK there are people who are unable to speak the language fluently- if at all. This creates a division between those who have arrived in the UK without being able to speak English effectively, and those who already live here. The process of integrating with the people of a new country and different culture must surely be difficult enough, without this being exacerbated by an inability to communicate with everyone; from officials who are there to assist those settling into this country, to the members of the public whom migrants will want to befriend and work with. In turn, the public are likely to be unsettled by the inability, and sometime just the perceived inability, of fellow UK citizens to communicate with them.
Moreover, this has meant that people have settled here and have been unable to live the quality of life they aim for due to their isolation and inability to communicate when need be. When the different levels of government have made efforts to overcome this, one method they have resorted to is providing translators and/or alternative versions of documentation in other languages. However, I feel that this approach only prolongs isolation and division. What would be best (if not already in place, which it isn't as far as I know...) is if all migrants to the UK had the option upon arrival of taking a course to learn English fluently, overcoming the aforementioned problems. This would also mean that there would no longer be the avoidance of the issue, as well as the extra expense, of trying to accommodate many different languages (through translators and text translations) in favour of universally sponsoring one mainstream, national language. For those who require this service, it could be funded as regular tuition fees are, i.e. the state covers the initial cost in the form of a loan, which is paid back in instalments at a later date.
What to do with benefits for the rich...:
One of the principles of the welfare state is that everyone is entitled to certain benefits, such as state pensions. Whilst this is a very equitable concept, in practice it means that the very richest in the country can and are accessing some of the benefits that they don't need. Many of the wealthiest who do not need these benefits (that they are nevertheless entitled to) would doubtless be happy to sacrifice them if they had the opportunity to reassign the funds entitled to them to another government department, for example education or international development. Thus funds would not be allocated unnecessarily, particularly when the government is looking to reduce its funding deficit, whilst the wealthy (who are generally net contributors rather than net recipients of state funds- the top 1% of earners are said to contribute around 25% of the country's tax revenue) are given a greater stake in the state by given a degree of choice, which would also provide an indicator of the public's priorities, in terms of how state finances should be spent.
Hopefully there is some food for thought to be getting on with for the new year!
To kick the new year off, I'd like to share some thoughts and opinions for the year ahead.
Scottish independence referendum:
Don't be surprised if more posts are made here with regards to this issue. This September, Scotland will vote on whether to be an independent country, or remain a constituent country of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. I personally hope that Scotland will remain within the UK- for both practical and emotional reasons.
In terms of practicality, I have heard many disregard the feasibility of Scottish independence: a strange stance to take, given that countries that are far smaller, and lacking Scotland's stability, have been established over the years- albeit with varying degrees of success. I believe that Scotland could be a wealthy and stable independent country were it to echo the development other countries with relatively great natural resources and small populations, not to mention strong democratic traditions, such as Norway and Sweden. However, the examples of Ireland and Iceland expose the vulnerability of smaller countries, which have experienced dramatic peaks and troughs in terms of living standards and prospects over the years. However, from the point of view of an English Briton, the greatest potential impact for me would me the difficulty surrounding the "divorce settlement" between Scotland and the rest of the UK. Dividing debt, national finances, national institutions, etc., would not be a straight forward process, and I fear that both sides could become bitter and unpleasant during this division process. It is foreseeable that both sides would claim that their side is losing out- potentially undermining relations between Scotland and the rest of the UK for years to come.
Meanwhile, for less practical and more symbolic reasons, I would be very sorry to see the union end. Together the British have fought in wars, made many of the greatest discoveries in the modern world, and produced a powerful and largely effective economy. In the past, British military power, politics and economics dominated the world- whatever one's views on the legacies of the British Empire are, what is undeniable is that its scale and longevity were remarkable. Meanwhile, in recent years, despite being a small country, the UK ranks as one of the world's top 10 economic powers, top 5 military powers, and gains considerable diplomatic leverage as one of the 5 permanent members on the United Nations Security Council. The UK has even been described as a sporting superpower, having come 3rd in the medal table during the 2012 Olympic Games. All these achievements have been made by the United Kingdom, while our success as individual constituent countries is more questionable and less obvious. I for one would miss the relative success and prestige that all Britons have been able to share in over the years- in spite of the dramatic shifts in global power and wealth over the past century. Moreover, though clearly biased, I consider the Union flag to be the most impressive flag in the world, whilst the flags of the UK's individual constituent countries seem much plainer and forgettable in comparison. It is a flag recognised worldwide, well-established over centuries, while its inclusion in other country's national flags, such as Australia's, demonstrates the importance the Union flag plays in not only uniting much of the British Isles, but also uniting the UK with other parts of the world.
I am a great believer in people having control over their own fate, and feel that referendums are a very fair way of trying to accomplish this goal, so I do not oppose the referendum. The great electoral success of the Scottish National Party was evidence enough that this was an important question to be asked and decision to be considered. Nevertheless, I hope that the Scottish vote to also remain British.
English as the truly national language:
As can be seen in the British media, and heard in discussions among its citizens (not to mention on this blog as well), the impact of immigration on the UK is a major issue and debate. For me, one of the most controversial issues concerns language, and how important an ingredient it is to creating a united and successful country. The British are notorious for not learning other languages due to how widely spoken and understood the English language is- a benefit for British tourists and businesspeople, but also a deterrent to most British grasping other languages, consequently isolating the British in this respect when other nationalities will learn each other's languages. However, the irony is that, despite English being the most widely-spoken language in the world, in the UK there are people who are unable to speak the language fluently- if at all. This creates a division between those who have arrived in the UK without being able to speak English effectively, and those who already live here. The process of integrating with the people of a new country and different culture must surely be difficult enough, without this being exacerbated by an inability to communicate with everyone; from officials who are there to assist those settling into this country, to the members of the public whom migrants will want to befriend and work with. In turn, the public are likely to be unsettled by the inability, and sometime just the perceived inability, of fellow UK citizens to communicate with them.
Moreover, this has meant that people have settled here and have been unable to live the quality of life they aim for due to their isolation and inability to communicate when need be. When the different levels of government have made efforts to overcome this, one method they have resorted to is providing translators and/or alternative versions of documentation in other languages. However, I feel that this approach only prolongs isolation and division. What would be best (if not already in place, which it isn't as far as I know...) is if all migrants to the UK had the option upon arrival of taking a course to learn English fluently, overcoming the aforementioned problems. This would also mean that there would no longer be the avoidance of the issue, as well as the extra expense, of trying to accommodate many different languages (through translators and text translations) in favour of universally sponsoring one mainstream, national language. For those who require this service, it could be funded as regular tuition fees are, i.e. the state covers the initial cost in the form of a loan, which is paid back in instalments at a later date.
What to do with benefits for the rich...:
One of the principles of the welfare state is that everyone is entitled to certain benefits, such as state pensions. Whilst this is a very equitable concept, in practice it means that the very richest in the country can and are accessing some of the benefits that they don't need. Many of the wealthiest who do not need these benefits (that they are nevertheless entitled to) would doubtless be happy to sacrifice them if they had the opportunity to reassign the funds entitled to them to another government department, for example education or international development. Thus funds would not be allocated unnecessarily, particularly when the government is looking to reduce its funding deficit, whilst the wealthy (who are generally net contributors rather than net recipients of state funds- the top 1% of earners are said to contribute around 25% of the country's tax revenue) are given a greater stake in the state by given a degree of choice, which would also provide an indicator of the public's priorities, in terms of how state finances should be spent.
Hopefully there is some food for thought to be getting on with for the new year!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)