SYMPATHY WITH HISPANIC COUNTRIES DURING RECESSION

I would like to express particular sympathy for Spain and several other Hispanic countries with the news of Spanish companies being nationalised in South America. I sympathise with Spain, in the sense that the country has already been suffering due to the economic crisis, so it could do without its lucrative overseas businesses being seized and nationalised at this difficult time. Having said this, I can sympathise with Argentina (Falklands aside) and Bolivia in wanting to nationalise these companies, following a similar train of thought as my last post. It is understandable that a country would rather have control of, and keep profits from, its own resources. However, I can foresee a negative consequence of this being that international companies may fear making further investments in South America, due to the greater risk that their investments may similarly be lost because they are nationalised. Though it is better for countries to produce their own wealth, at times of difficulty all income is valuable- and overseas investment in your country is one of them.

ONGOING SALES OF BRITISH BUSINESSES

News today of the sale of the British cereal company Weetabix to Chinese company Bright Food marks yet another sale of a successful, long-established British company being sold off to international companies. Whilst in the short-term it demonstrates an interest in, and the value of, the British economy; in the long-term it can have several negative effects. When owned by a company outside of the UK, the is arguably a greater risk that operations could be completely removed from the UK- jeopardising hundreds of British jobs for certain communities. It also dwindles the impact the British government can have on the company so that it assists national interests, and in cultural terms also represents a loss for the country. Weetabix is the latest of many companies to be sold off, including Abbey National (now owned by a Spanish company), Cadbury (now owned by an American company) and EMI record company (also now owned by an American company.

HOUSE OF LORDS REFORM

It's been a topic that has now dragged on for over 100 years in the UK. There is a broad consensus that the UK's second legislative chamber, the House of Lords, is in need of reform to become more representative, but how this should be achieved has not yet been agreed upon. Proposals generally debate whether a completely elected chamber should be the goal- but then what would differentiate it from the House of Commons to justify its existence, and ensure that one House has more clout than the other?

My personal view is that the House of Lords should be based on a very original concept, with its membership composed of three types of lords/peers: Peoples' Peers, Life Peers and Society Peers.

Peoples' Peers: These would be elected through proportional representation on a UK-wide basis. So if 38% of votes for Peoples' Peers were for the Labour party, approximately 38% of the Peoples' Peers would come from this party. If 8% of votes came from UKIP then they would receive approximately 8% of the House of Lords' Peoples' Peers. As many smaller parties, and their supporters, complain that the First Past the Post System excludes them in the House of Commons, then not only would the House of Lords give them a chance for representation, but would also allow them to establish themselves as credible parties to lead the country and perhaps boost their success in General Elections. They could serve 7-year-long terms (without term limits, as term limits remove the incentive of working hard for the next election)

Life Peers: These would be appointed by the government on the basis of great service to the country in some respect. For example, it is likely that not only former Prime Ministers and high-ranking Civil Servants would be appointed, but also influential inventors, entrepreneurs, scientists and athletes would similarly be appointed for a life-long term (unless their position is revoked due to a scandal).

Society Peers: These would be representatives of various organisations within the UK, thus representing the public in a new and different way. Whilst representatives in the House of Commons reflect the areas people live in, Society Peers would reflect aspects of peoples' lives. So Society Peers could represent religions, causal pressure groups, employers, trade unions and other organisations which include a minimum quota of members, e.g. at least 100,000. Thus representatives of the Church of England, Trades Union Congress and the National Health Service would have seats as Society Peers. The basis of their election/appointment could be decided by the organisations they represent.

I believe this would represent British public opinion in new and original ways, offering even more of the diverse experiences and perspectives of members that the current House of Lords is already praised for today. Its unique configuration would justify its existence and avoid challenging the House of Commons, which it would by sharing a system that is too similar.

The current system doesn't really cause any problems for the public, but there is certainly room for improvement. However, if we're going to bother reforming the House of Lords, let's make it worth doing!

GALLOWAY ON THE FALKLANDS

Controversial Respect MP George Galloway recently made some interesting points regarding the Falkland Islands. Initially sceptical, I was surprised to find that he offered an alternative, yet rational respective on the Falkland Islands' future. Mr Galloway highlighted how the Falklands issue undermines Britain's valuable economic ties, not only with Argentina, but much of Latin America in the short-term. He also drew attention to how the global balance of power is shifting, meaning a repeat of the British victory in the Falklands War in 1982 is becoming increasingly unlikely in the face of a stronger and more united Latin America. Meanwhile support from the USA and EU is likely to be less straightforward for Britain in this scenario.

I believe Galloway's suggestion of bribing Falkland Islanders to relocate to Britain to placate Argentina would be humiliating for Britain, and unfair to the Islanders who would be forced to change their lifestyles due to the whims of politicians. However, his alternative idea of making more compromises and cooperation with Argentina over the Falklands seems much more pragmatic. As the issue of oil around the Falklands seems to have motivated the recent resurgence in tensions, perhaps it would be sensible to negotiate a share of the profits with Argentina, and maybe greater cooperation between Argentina and Britain when Falklands policies are likely to affect Argentina. This would sensibly alleviate tensions with Argentina, and improve Britain's ties with Latin America- and without humiliating Britain on the world stage. What remains awkward however is any concession of sovereignty, with Argentina wanting to make the Falklands part of their country; whilst the Islanders themselves want to remain entirely British, which seem to be mutually exclusive objectives. Hopefully the aforementioned compromises would be enough, though maybe some arrangement to demonstrate shared official control would be more accommodating, with an Argentine Governor working in partnership with the British Governor of the Islands.

PROPOSALS TO IMPLEMENT FAR-REACHING PRIVATISATION OF BRITISH ROADS

As the British government searches for new ways to reduce government debt and boost the economy, their sights have turned to Britain's roads. Already, there are several examples of privately-controlled roads and infrastructure in the UK, e.g. numerous British bridges require a toll to cross. However, there are suggestions that this would be a far more widespread phenomenon with Britain's roads.

I think this would be a very bad and unpopular idea for two reasons. Firstly, when drivers are stopped to pay for the tolls, it may only take 30 seconds, but it's long enough to cause long traffic jams, hindering commuters' progress on the roads. It strikes me that the prolonging of a journey would also have an environmental impact.

Secondly, there are frustrating costs involved: if this is implemented, I can foresee that, as roads would not be completely owned by the private or public sectors, that the public would be charged twice to travel on roads: once for road tax, then again at the tolls. To try and lessen the blow, I can imagine that they would reduce road tax temporarily, but that would rise again in the future; while tolls would also continue to rise, without accountability to the public to prevent it.

We do need to raise more money, but this is not a good idea. Please think again!

THREAT OF UNITE STRIKE DURING LONDON OLYMPICS

The Unite Union, one of the UK's largest trade unions, is threatening to go on strike during the London 2012 Olympics. So they are threatening to undermine what looks like will be one of few occasions for nationwide celebration at the moment, and bring further doom and gloom when we already have enough of that! Not believing the British public are suffering enough with economic concerns and a constant flow of bad news; they want to humiliate Britain on the world stage during one of the few optimistic occasions currently featuring on the evening news- I'm sure the public will be very sympathetic, as they are considering spoiling an event they have paid millions for and have eagerly awaited for several years. And this by people who, in this day and age, are relatively fortunate to have jobs in the first place. If they're not happy with their jobs, I'm confident there are many unemployed across the country who would happily swap places.

I don't oppose protests if they are peaceful and don't punish the public- but they often manage to tick at least one of these boxes. These are often disputes between a union and the government or an employer; yet the general public are the ones who are punished the most. It is a shame they plan to blackmail Britain during a once-in-a-lifetime experience for many people.

ABDELBASET AL-MEGRAHI STILL GOING...

Three years on since his release on compassionate grounds, and Mr Al-Megrahi seems set to outlive many of us, despite only apparently having months, if not weeks, to live on his release. Known as the "Lockerbie bomber", he was imprisoned for coordinating an act of terrorism in 1988 when a plane was detonated in mid-flight, killing innocent passengers aboard, as well as those killed when the plane crashed in Lockerbie, Scotland. It's shameful in the first place that a man responsible for the deaths of many innocent people should be released for political reasons, under the facade of 'compassion'- the man who clearly displayed none during the execution of innocent people. To add insult to injury, he was given a hero's welcome back in Libya and has even outlived the leader, Colonal Gaddafi, who greeted him on his return.

It seems wrong that a man guilty of such terrible crimes should experience generous treatment for political reasons, when others committing lesser crimes have been punished more, all on public display for the families of his victims to see.

ARGENTINA'S CLAIMS THAT BRITAIN HAS NUCLEAR SUBMARINES PATROLLING THE FALKLANDS

Argentina's silliness about the Falklands never ceases to amaze me. This year the Argentine president and government have frequently criticised Britain on her maintenance of the Falkland Islands and military presence there. These criticisms are foolish for a number of reasons. Firstly, the last time Britain de-militarised the Falkland Islands (in 1982) General Galtieri invaded the Islands, so it's not a good idea for us to de-militarise when the Argentine military seem poised to attack them when the next opportunity arises- for the sake of national prestige. Secondly, Argentina has lobbied Latin American countries, including Brazil and Uruguay, to stop ships flying the Falkands' flag from docking at their ports- which was an act of belligerence in the first place. Thirdly, why would Britain want to send nuclear weapons to the Falklands- we're not going to start any wars or conflicts, because the Falklands are currently safe; and Britain has no interest in starting any conflicts with Latin American states, so it wouldn't make any sense.

Fourthly, and most importantly, are the principles of the claims Britain and Argentina have to them. On the surface, it seems absurd that Britain controls these islands on the other side of the world, and just off of the Argentine coast. However, what is important is not the Islands' geography but demography. The people living on the Islands now are of British descent, and consequently want to remain under British influence and protection. If the Islanders were campaigning to become part of Argentina, then the Argentine government's claims would be legitimate, and we should in that situation hold a referendum on the Islands' control- then cede sovereignty if they vote to join Argentina. But this isn't going to happen any time soon, as the Islanders clearly want to remain under the British government. The Islands have been occupied by the British for approaching 200 years, so it wouldn't be right for the Argentine government to displace families who have firmly entrenched roots there and have no wish to leave. If we took on the argument that the British were not the indigenous population of the Islands, so they should go back to Britain (even though generations of Islanders have never been to Britain in the first place), then where do we draw the line as to who different countries' indigenous populations are? Most of the Argentines themselves would have to leave their own country because, just as Falkland Islanders are of British descent, Argentines are of Spanish descent, with Argentina being a Spanish colony until approximately 200 years ago.

The same principle applies with Britain, Spain and Gibraltar too. And it's a great shame. Spain is a fellow member of the EU, and Argentina is a powerful economy, so Britain, as a large economy in the EU, could have had a very mutually beneficial friendship with these states, but has been undermined by silly debates over sovereignty of very small islands. I can't see those of British descent in Gibraltar and the Falklands all emigrating any time soon, so for the sake of diplomacy and constructive relations, Spain and Argentina should accept the reality; start afresh with Britain; and in turn Britain should also be gracious enough to turn over a new leaf.