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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)