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.
Saturday, 29 March 2014
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)