The referendum
In 1975 after Britain had been a member of the EEC for over 2 years we had a referendum about continuing membership.
The overwhelming majority of the country decided to remain as a member state. This should have been the end of the political shenanigans of both the left wing of the Labour Party and the right wing of the Conservative party. It was the end of the matter as far as most of the nation was concerned and to all intents and purposes the vast majority of people got on with their lives as both Britons and Europeans.
A referendum should not be entered into lightly for any political cause as it is a decision which should be made for the generations to come.
I was opposed to a new referendum but I think it is time for the British people to decide once and for all what our future in Europe will be and our relationship with other European states.
It is time for the quiet supporters for Britain's continuing membership of the EU to speak up. Most of the opponents of the EU are spreading fear and exaggerating the costs of EU membership. These costs are minimal when compared to the benefits.
Opponents of the EU are also taking a xenophobic stance and are trying to whip up fear of migration. They are exaggerating the costs of migration from the EU and ignoring the benefits.
Many of the opponents of the EU are also criticising migration in general and are advocating measures which will cause distress to British families who are trying to have their families live with them in the UK - they are trying to deny ordinary British citizens of their rights.
The fallacious arguments of many of the opponents of the EU need to be exposed. There are many genuine people who are opposed to the EU but let them voice their opinions based on facts not myths. Let's have a debate based on reason and evidence not on prejudice.
EU population balance sheet
In 1975 British people could not have cared less how many people came to work in our country from other EEC states and the French , Germans and Dutch etc. welcomed our workers.
As far as the balance sheet is concerned about 2.3 million people from the other EU states have migrated to Britain and 2 million British have migrated to other EU states. I am rather proud of the fact that 2.3 million people want to come to live, work and play in Britain and that 2 million of my fellow citizens find the rest of the EU an attractive place to live, work and play too. It shows a degree of maturity and liberality which is sadly lacking in many, many other countries of the world. All this movement was voluntary. During the 1930s and 1940s millions were forced to move because of violence, war and the abuse of human rights.
A good reason for the EU
One of the primary aims of European unity was to avert the wars which killed millions of Europeans - we cannot afford to slip back to the early-20th century because of xenophobia and this is why I shall vote in favour of remaining in the EU despite its faults.
Immigration and xenophobia
One of the biggest issues, for the UK, concerning the EU is immigration. Many people in Britain perhaps a majority want a control on immigration. It is not possible to prevent EU citizens residing in our country unless they are criminals. We have no choice in this and our EU partners have made it clear that the free movement of people is a fundamental principle which cannot be changed. There are other fundamental principles: the free movement of capital, the free movement of goods and the free movement of services. Britain as a trading nation would be the first to complain if the free movement of goods and capital were violated and quite rightly so. But free movement of people is the quid pro quo which we must accept.
Consequences of leaving the EU and migrants
If we leave the EU we will probably be forced to join the EEA trade block just like Norway; but to join the EEA we would have to accept free movement of labour. The simple real politik of the situation is that we have to accept the free movement labour imposed on us by our partners or risk being isolated from a trading point of view.
What is wrong with EU migrants coming here anyway? My wife came many, many years ago from France. She has made an enormous economic and cultural contribution to our country and our friends no longer regard her as a foreigner. Her case typifies that of the overwhelming majority of EU migrants who chose to remain in the UK because they love the country and feel loyal to it.
Xenophobia against non-EU migrants and its consequences for human rights
With regard to immigration from outside of the EU we face a similar situation. Many of our businesses and public services rely upon migrant labour, we would be in serious economic and social difficulty if migrants were asked to leave or were prevented from coming.
From a social point of view many British citizens have married or plan to marry foreign partners: what sort of society would prevent them living with their partners and children in the UK?
To completely control immigration is simply not possible without jeopardising our economic life or imposing harsh and unreasonable restrictions upon many of our citizens.
Migration is a two way process: 2 million British people have chosen to live and work in other European nations. Should xenophobia deny them that right because we choose as a nation to isolate ourselves from the rest of Europe. Should we deny our citizens the right to move elsewhere because we choose to isolate ourselves?
The fact of the matter is this, all UK governments no matter what their political persuasion will have trouble reducing migration. UKIP will be subject to the same political and economic pressures. To control immigration completely UKIP would have introduce measures which were unacceptable in a truly free and democratic society. Xenophobes should take note of all this.
Of course, no nation state can countenance a complete open door policy but we must take into account the implications of preventing people who now have a right to migrate to the UK from coming.
Money and Power
Many of the opponents of the EU criticise the amount of money that we have to pay towards the annual EU budget. Well they should consider this: Britain's total public spending for 2015 will be £731 billion pounds -this is an awful lot of money. £150 billion is allocated to Pensions.
http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/breakdown
Britain's gross contribution to the EU budget is about 13 billion Euro or about £11 billion . The money that the UK spends on EU membership is dwarfed by the pensions budget; but admittedly it is a lot of money.
Britain gets a rebate on its EU budget which means that its net annual contribution to the EU is about 3.5 billion Euro or around £3 billion. Compared to our national budget it is not a large sum of money. In return for this we gain access to the largest trading block in the world and we have a huge say in how everything is run in this block.
If we were to leave the EU, then we would probably be forced to join the EEA in order to trade with the EU and then perhaps pay more than being an actual member, but if we do this then we shall have no say in how the trading rules are set. Our trade with the EU and the EEA makes Britain hundreds of millions of pounds per year: do we want to jeopardise this?
The budget facts are summarised here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8036097.stm#start
Many opponents of the EU aver that the EU commission is too powerful. Consider this: the total EU budget is around 117 billion Euro per year or around £100 billion. The EU budget is spent by 28 nation states representing over 500 million people. The UK's budget is £731 billion spent by one nation state representing just 62 million people. Where does the real spending power lie, with Brussels or with Westminster? The UK budget dwarfs the whole EU budget. The same applies to Germany, Spain, France, Holland and Italy; so the real economic power wielded in the EU is that wielded by the nation states. Do not be fooled by Eurosceptics on this issue as they are being disingenuous at best.
Where does the real political power lie? It lies with the economic power; the EU commission does what it is told by the nation states and quite rightly so. Most of the mistakes made by the EU are the joint responsibility of the national governments who run the European Council which dominates the European Commission. Most of the mistakes made on the domestic political scene are the responsibility of the national government concerned not the EU.
It is easy to blame the European Commission for domestic difficulties but really the Commission is mostly powerless; it only has influence rather than real power. All national governments blame the European Commission for domestic difficulties which they have brought upon themselves. What a cheek - "johnny foreigner" has told us we have to stop polluting our rivers - how dare he?
https://www.opendemocracy.net/ourkingdom/sarah-wolff/if-not-eu-who-will-britain-blame-for-its-democratic-deficit
Independence
Complete independence is all well and good but sometimes you have to pool your domestic sovereignty and make compromises with your neighbours to promote economic and social welfare for all. It is a big cold, hard and competitive world out there. More powerful competitors are joining the world economy each year, China, India, Russia and Brazil are all vying for economic dominance. Britain may not be better off alone.
Going it alone in 1973
Had we decided not to join Europe way back in 1973 we would have remained a prosperous nation but that would not have meant that the thorny issue of immigration would have gone away. We have spent the last 40 years integrating with Europe so just think for a minute of the difficulties of unwinding all this; we could get into economic and social problems. Why not change what is wrong with the EU from the inside? Many EU citizens that I know, who come from the continental mainland, have the same view, we all want to make our lives better as we have a common European heritage. We all believe in democracy, the freedom of speech and the freedom of conscience and we all believe that the economic well being and peace of our families is of prime importance.
The EU interference myth
None of our neighbours want to interfere with the fundamental aspects of our political or social life. We can keep the Queen as our Head of State and the Church of England as our established religion if we want to. We can keep our jury system of justice. We can even keep miles rather than kilometers and drive on the left if we want to. None of our neighbours want to dictate to us how we run our national life. Does the UK demand that France removes its President and install a monarch? It is none of our business how France or another EU state organises its democracy. It is obligatory that a country is a democratic one before it is allowed to join the EU but that just the way things should be.
The decision
I appeal to everyone to think carefully before they cast their vote and not to get too emotional about the issue of immigration. In the main our EU immigrants have improved the economic and social life of our country. Of course, we have allowed some criminals to enter but we have also exported many of ours so the balance sheet is probably even on the criminality count.
The same reasoning applies to non-EU immigrants. What is wrong with an Indian restaurant employing a Bangladeshi waiter even if he is classified as unskilled? At least a Bangladeshi waiter appreciates good manners - do you really want to be served by a surly local who says "what d'yer wan' for grub guys"?
I am voting for internationalism and live and let live. I rather like mixing and doing business with folk from all over the world not just Europe. I am voting to stay in the EU despite some its faults.
The economic and social balance sheet has been in the favour of all of European citizens who have benefited from membership of the EU or the EEA, so let's not waste it all: it has been a positive sum game.
Wednesday, 17 December 2014
Tuesday, 16 December 2014
Revenge Attacks and Heaven or Hell
Again we are seeing revenge attacks being performed in the name of religion in Pakistan and Australia. In Pakistan, today we have seen attacks against children who are innocent.
We have also seen state sponsored violence in the Middle East. Most of the victims of violence in the 21st Century have been Muslims. Many Christians and Jews have also been victims of revenge attacks.
There is no doubt in my mind that some of the religiously motivated killers believe that child victims do not really die but that they go to heaven after being killed in a form of martyrdom. How can anyone be sure that heaven or paradise exists? There is no evidence to support the existence such places thus the afterlife is based upon a false premise.
The innocent victims of revenge killings have probably been sent to oblivion and their parents, family or friends will never see their dead loved ones again. This is a tragedy. And, this is probably why both religious and irreligious people mourn the deaths of loved ones just out of instinct. To avert this tragedy we should all do our best to preserve the freedom of conscience and to defend the sanctity of life.
One thing is certain, however, if there is a personal God which exists as described in the holy books then he has reserved places for revenge killers in hell.
We have also seen state sponsored violence in the Middle East. Most of the victims of violence in the 21st Century have been Muslims. Many Christians and Jews have also been victims of revenge attacks.
There is no doubt in my mind that some of the religiously motivated killers believe that child victims do not really die but that they go to heaven after being killed in a form of martyrdom. How can anyone be sure that heaven or paradise exists? There is no evidence to support the existence such places thus the afterlife is based upon a false premise.
The innocent victims of revenge killings have probably been sent to oblivion and their parents, family or friends will never see their dead loved ones again. This is a tragedy. And, this is probably why both religious and irreligious people mourn the deaths of loved ones just out of instinct. To avert this tragedy we should all do our best to preserve the freedom of conscience and to defend the sanctity of life.
One thing is certain, however, if there is a personal God which exists as described in the holy books then he has reserved places for revenge killers in hell.
Renovation of the UK Houses of Parliament
I have just seen an article on the BBC Politics Show that posts that the UK Houses of Parliament need renovation but the general public might baulk at the costs.
The Houses of Parliament are an architectural wonder and they symbolise many of the best aspects of British political life. Governments come and go and some are more successful than others and many political,social and economic mistakes have been made; but in general our country is governed quite well compared to many other countries. I have no doubt that the Houses of Parliament are full of well meaning MP's from all parties who are doing their best to preserve freedom of speech, thought and conscience. They are also trying to defend both our democracy and the peace from both internal and external enemies. In these endeavours they deserve public support.
I hope that the general public will support the improvement to the structural integrity of the Houses of Parliament to preserve it for future generations.
The Houses of Parliament are an architectural wonder and they symbolise many of the best aspects of British political life. Governments come and go and some are more successful than others and many political,social and economic mistakes have been made; but in general our country is governed quite well compared to many other countries. I have no doubt that the Houses of Parliament are full of well meaning MP's from all parties who are doing their best to preserve freedom of speech, thought and conscience. They are also trying to defend both our democracy and the peace from both internal and external enemies. In these endeavours they deserve public support.
I hope that the general public will support the improvement to the structural integrity of the Houses of Parliament to preserve it for future generations.
Friday, 24 October 2014
EU and: "but be careful what you wish for" - Politicians take note.
Once again politicians are posturing about leaving the the EU. Here are some facts to digest.
There are almost as many British people living in other EU countries as there are EU citizens living in the UK - about 2 million to 2.3 million respectively but no one knows the true figure.
Britain has 400,000 retired people living in other EU countries.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/5cd640f6-9025-11e3-a776-00144feab7de.html#axzz3H4jHiMNP
There is no doubt that most of the British citizens living in other EU states are happy to do so.
There is no doubt that most of the EU citizens living in the UK are also happy to do so.
Of the 2.3 million EU migrants who live in Britain 3,000 are living off benefits.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/10762942/3000-jobless-European-migrants-on-benefits.html
The overwhelming majority of EU citizens living in Britain are working.
If xenophobia takes command we risk leaving the EU without thinking about the consequences of our actions.
The NHS can hardly cope with the increasing number of older people. If we leave the EU then we face the possibility of 400,000 old people being sent back to Britain, so how will the NHS cope with theses extra numbers?
Most of the EU migrants to Britain are young and healthy and make an enormous contribution to British society including a massive contribution to the NHS in terms of money and labour.
What will happen if 2 million disgruntled people are forced to depart the EU, and leave their jobs and homes behind, to return to the UK? Most of them can vote in the UK and they will not be happy to vote for a party that forced them to uproot themselves.
Most of the EU migrants to the UK are young and share rented flats etc. and they cannot afford to buy homes. The returning UK citizens will want to buy properties and can probably afford to do so. The migration of UK citizens back to Britain will probably cause house prices to soar yet again.
If we leave the EU we might be forced to join the EEA for economic reasons but if we do that we will have to make huge payments to the EU to join their trading group and accept free movement of labour conditions.
If we leave the EU and do not join the EEA for xenophobic reasons then Britain will be left alone in the world. A country which has lost its empire and its economic clout, a country which can no longer afford to project its power by military force. Britain would survive but it would be poorer both socially and economically.
Fortunately it looks as though most British people know where they are best off, please let's keep it that way.
"Support for EU membership highest for 23 years, even as UKIP rises in the polls"
There are almost as many British people living in other EU countries as there are EU citizens living in the UK - about 2 million to 2.3 million respectively but no one knows the true figure.
Britain has 400,000 retired people living in other EU countries.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/5cd640f6-9025-11e3-a776-00144feab7de.html#axzz3H4jHiMNP
There is no doubt that most of the British citizens living in other EU states are happy to do so.
There is no doubt that most of the EU citizens living in the UK are also happy to do so.
Of the 2.3 million EU migrants who live in Britain 3,000 are living off benefits.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/10762942/3000-jobless-European-migrants-on-benefits.html
The overwhelming majority of EU citizens living in Britain are working.
If xenophobia takes command we risk leaving the EU without thinking about the consequences of our actions.
The NHS can hardly cope with the increasing number of older people. If we leave the EU then we face the possibility of 400,000 old people being sent back to Britain, so how will the NHS cope with theses extra numbers?
Most of the EU migrants to Britain are young and healthy and make an enormous contribution to British society including a massive contribution to the NHS in terms of money and labour.
What will happen if 2 million disgruntled people are forced to depart the EU, and leave their jobs and homes behind, to return to the UK? Most of them can vote in the UK and they will not be happy to vote for a party that forced them to uproot themselves.
Most of the EU migrants to the UK are young and share rented flats etc. and they cannot afford to buy homes. The returning UK citizens will want to buy properties and can probably afford to do so. The migration of UK citizens back to Britain will probably cause house prices to soar yet again.
If we leave the EU we might be forced to join the EEA for economic reasons but if we do that we will have to make huge payments to the EU to join their trading group and accept free movement of labour conditions.
If we leave the EU and do not join the EEA for xenophobic reasons then Britain will be left alone in the world. A country which has lost its empire and its economic clout, a country which can no longer afford to project its power by military force. Britain would survive but it would be poorer both socially and economically.
Fortunately it looks as though most British people know where they are best off, please let's keep it that way.
"Support for EU membership highest for 23 years, even as UKIP rises in the polls"
Thursday, 9 October 2014
Bombing the Islamic State is counter-productive
It is my view that bombing the Islamic State will be counterproductive we need a much more clearly thought-out and rational approach. It is clear that Western Governments simply do not understand the culture and politics of the Middle East and the Levant their intervention only makes matters worse. There can only be a regional solution which is brokered by the United Nations. Shooting from the hip is not the best solution.
Saudi Arabia is a key player; the Islamic State has received much intellectual and religious support from Saudi Arabia. The Islamic State has drawn on many of the ideas of punishment and religious advocacy from Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia needs to rein in its devotees.
Turkey and Iran must also be involved in a regional solution as they both have huge armies which could easily be deployed if either country sees its interests as being threatened. We cannot afford a general war within the region. We also have to take into account the sensibilities of Iraq, Israel, the Kurds and Syria. It may be anathema to the Western nations to enter into to talks with Syria but as Churchill said: "Jaw, Jaw is better than War War".
There is a case for the Kurds being allowed their own state or much greater autonomy for their people who live in both Turkey, Iran, Iraq and Syria.
Russia is also an important player which needs to consulted as they have enormous influence on Syria.
The "do as we say" attitude of the Western powers is unhelpful; they need to be honest and impartial brokers of a solution in co-operation with all the other nations that have a stake in the Middle East and the Levant.
The Islamic State needs to be contained but not by war on the part of the Western nations; but of course neighbouring states or communities should not be denied the right of self defence . We need to provide safe havens for refugees.
All dictatorships eventually destroy themselves as a result of their cruelty. Those who have committed crimes against humanity should be hunted down arrested and tried, and if found guilty, they should be imprisoned for the rest of their lives. They should denied the easy option of suicide or death by bombing and should face the magnitude of their crimes in gaol.
Saudi Arabia is a key player; the Islamic State has received much intellectual and religious support from Saudi Arabia. The Islamic State has drawn on many of the ideas of punishment and religious advocacy from Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia needs to rein in its devotees.
Turkey and Iran must also be involved in a regional solution as they both have huge armies which could easily be deployed if either country sees its interests as being threatened. We cannot afford a general war within the region. We also have to take into account the sensibilities of Iraq, Israel, the Kurds and Syria. It may be anathema to the Western nations to enter into to talks with Syria but as Churchill said: "Jaw, Jaw is better than War War".
There is a case for the Kurds being allowed their own state or much greater autonomy for their people who live in both Turkey, Iran, Iraq and Syria.
Russia is also an important player which needs to consulted as they have enormous influence on Syria.
The "do as we say" attitude of the Western powers is unhelpful; they need to be honest and impartial brokers of a solution in co-operation with all the other nations that have a stake in the Middle East and the Levant.
The Islamic State needs to be contained but not by war on the part of the Western nations; but of course neighbouring states or communities should not be denied the right of self defence . We need to provide safe havens for refugees.
All dictatorships eventually destroy themselves as a result of their cruelty. Those who have committed crimes against humanity should be hunted down arrested and tried, and if found guilty, they should be imprisoned for the rest of their lives. They should denied the easy option of suicide or death by bombing and should face the magnitude of their crimes in gaol.
Thursday, 2 October 2014
The Archbishop of Canterbury and Iraq
Last Friday the Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby, made this statement in the House of Lords of the UK parliament.
http://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/articles.php/5391/statement-from-archbishop-justin-on-iraq
The Archbishop supported military action against ISIS in Iraq.
I am not a believer in a personal God therefore I do not believe that Christ was the son of God. I was, however, brought up in a Christian family. I have read the New Testament through and through both at Sunday school and at Secondary school. As far as I can remember, Jesus Christ made no reference to attacking anyone in any of his teaching. In fact Christ always advocated "turning the other cheek". Christ was not even prepared to chastise a naughty child.
Would the Archbishop like to justify his statement in the light of his Christian faith? It is unbecoming of the Archbishop to advocate the bombing of Iraq when he knows that many innocent civilians will be killed by accidental bombing or "collateral damage". Jesus would have been opposed to using violence to settle disputes.
Where is the Archbishop's Christian faith? He does not need to support secular politicians who would just ignore any contrarian view on the matter of bombing Iraq. Perhaps, it would be better if the Archbishop followed Jesus rather than Caesar and advocated the need for peace rather than war.
I am opposed to most forms of religious fundamentalism but if there is one fundamental principle that should be adhered to then it is non-violence. Jesus was right and all Christians and non-believers should take note: if we all adhered to his philosophy then we would live in a more just and peaceful world.
http://www.christiantoday.com/article/isis.debate.justin.welby.supports.military.action.in.iraq/41014.htm
http://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/articles.php/5391/statement-from-archbishop-justin-on-iraq
The Archbishop supported military action against ISIS in Iraq.
I am not a believer in a personal God therefore I do not believe that Christ was the son of God. I was, however, brought up in a Christian family. I have read the New Testament through and through both at Sunday school and at Secondary school. As far as I can remember, Jesus Christ made no reference to attacking anyone in any of his teaching. In fact Christ always advocated "turning the other cheek". Christ was not even prepared to chastise a naughty child.
Would the Archbishop like to justify his statement in the light of his Christian faith? It is unbecoming of the Archbishop to advocate the bombing of Iraq when he knows that many innocent civilians will be killed by accidental bombing or "collateral damage". Jesus would have been opposed to using violence to settle disputes.
Where is the Archbishop's Christian faith? He does not need to support secular politicians who would just ignore any contrarian view on the matter of bombing Iraq. Perhaps, it would be better if the Archbishop followed Jesus rather than Caesar and advocated the need for peace rather than war.
I am opposed to most forms of religious fundamentalism but if there is one fundamental principle that should be adhered to then it is non-violence. Jesus was right and all Christians and non-believers should take note: if we all adhered to his philosophy then we would live in a more just and peaceful world.
http://www.christiantoday.com/article/isis.debate.justin.welby.supports.military.action.in.iraq/41014.htm
Friday, 26 September 2014
The Defence of Europe
The UK parliament is to vote today to resume military action in Iraq. I fully expect that the vote will approve the bombing of military targets occupied by ISIL.
Our politicians are making comments about not repeating the mistakes of the the past and that there is a need to plan for the future. Where is the plan as far as I can see there isn't one? We are almost certainly repeating the mistakes of the past.
The invasion of Iraq under the pretext of deposing Saddam Hussein and removing his "weapons of mass destruction" was a colossal mistake. The Western allies created a power vacuum which was subsequently filled by ISIL. The invasion resulted in many tens of thousands of innocent civilians being needlessly killed. This was claimed to be "collateral damage". Many thousands of civilians would have had their heads blown off by powerful explosions and some of them could even have been vapourised. It is no wonder that many young men from Iraq and the region now seek revenge. Some of these men would also have been brutalised by the war and now seek a violent solution to what they see as an injustice.
The war in Iraq has created a new sort of enemy just like the First World War did. The defeat and humiliation of Germany left a power vacuum which was eventually filled by fanatical extremists who had been brutalised in the trenches. Hitler and his henchmen then created a state which was more brutal than ISIL.
Britain and France were then forced into another bloody war. Have we learnt nothing? Have we forgotten why men and countries go to war?
Nothing much has changed as far as the human condition is concerned; it is just war and more war. I am not a pacifist and would probably have volunteered for the Second World War because my nation was directly threatened by a powerful and brutal neighbour. Britain and France and latterly Russia and the USA were forced to fight.
As far as the Levant , The Middle East and the Maghreb is concerned we have not been forced into a fight and there has been no need for invasions or bombing campaigns. The West should not get involved militarily and we should not attempt to dominate these regions by force. We do not understand the culture and religion so we have made matters worse from a political point of view.We have created more enemies to make life more difficult for ourselves.
With regard to defence, Europe can easily defend its borders from a direct military invasion by ISIL. Where is the real threat?
We have an internal threat but we have sufficient police forces to track down and arrest "terrorists" who are trying to overthrow our states by violence. The police could be helped in their mission by the military if necessary.
I should like to know how many divisions of soldiers ISIL can deploy? How many military jets they can deploy and what is their range? How many ocean going naval vessels they can deploy? I should like to know what the military threat to Europe is and how we can defend ourselves from it? We need to know this before engaging in another bombing campaign.
I should like to know what additional threat there is from internal enemies? So far both the police and secret services have been remarkably successful in defending Europe from murder and treasonable acts perpetrated by the supporters of ISIL and such like.
When I listen to parliament I hear all sorts of accusations that ISIL is a danger to the world on a scale unheard of since the Nazis. This is untrue; ISIL may be equally as brutal as the Nazis but they lack the military power and organisational ability to organise genocide on an industrial scale or to invade Europe. To make a decision to go to war on the basis of these accusations rather than the assessment of the real threat is unbecoming of a rational parliament.
I am also of the view that the threat to Europe's internal security has been exaggerated; so far police action has protected us well . It might be better to invest money in beefing up our national security services rather than commit resources to further bombing campaigns abroad.
ISIL is a brutal regime which must be tackled but the regional powers have a responsibility to intervene. Iran is a regional power and it should be allowed to broker a peace agreement. The regional powers are better able to halt the spread of ISIL and its ideology. It is more practical from a military point of point to allow the regional powers to find a solution.
I fear that more bombing by the Western allies will lead to further destabilisation of the region and more innocent civilians being killed. The deaths of the innocents as a result of "collateral damage" will create further resentment and further justification for young men to take up arms and commit further atrocities.
This evening our MPs will vote for this military action and the bombing will begin shortly afterwards. Our parliamentarians will have made this decision without examining the real military threat and the consequences of further bombing campaigns.
The war will "ramp up": ISIL will melt away into the towns and cities to wait for the opportunity to spread their word and cruel ideology across the whole of the Middle East, the Levant and North Africa. The West is walking into a trap; we have armed the wrong people and we have once again been fooled. Our formers "friends" are now our enemies just because we wanted to depose Assad. The ISIL fighters and regime hail from Syria and it is the West who have supplied them with arms both by design and by accident. This was simply naive of us.
We now face the prospect of British war planes in action again and further revenge attacks upon our innocent civilians and the assassination of aid workers.
The revenge and war will continue until Western politicians can think of something better than bombing to solve the world's problems - there is not much hope of that unfortunately.
Our politicians are making comments about not repeating the mistakes of the the past and that there is a need to plan for the future. Where is the plan as far as I can see there isn't one? We are almost certainly repeating the mistakes of the past.
The invasion of Iraq under the pretext of deposing Saddam Hussein and removing his "weapons of mass destruction" was a colossal mistake. The Western allies created a power vacuum which was subsequently filled by ISIL. The invasion resulted in many tens of thousands of innocent civilians being needlessly killed. This was claimed to be "collateral damage". Many thousands of civilians would have had their heads blown off by powerful explosions and some of them could even have been vapourised. It is no wonder that many young men from Iraq and the region now seek revenge. Some of these men would also have been brutalised by the war and now seek a violent solution to what they see as an injustice.
The war in Iraq has created a new sort of enemy just like the First World War did. The defeat and humiliation of Germany left a power vacuum which was eventually filled by fanatical extremists who had been brutalised in the trenches. Hitler and his henchmen then created a state which was more brutal than ISIL.
Britain and France were then forced into another bloody war. Have we learnt nothing? Have we forgotten why men and countries go to war?
Nothing much has changed as far as the human condition is concerned; it is just war and more war. I am not a pacifist and would probably have volunteered for the Second World War because my nation was directly threatened by a powerful and brutal neighbour. Britain and France and latterly Russia and the USA were forced to fight.
As far as the Levant , The Middle East and the Maghreb is concerned we have not been forced into a fight and there has been no need for invasions or bombing campaigns. The West should not get involved militarily and we should not attempt to dominate these regions by force. We do not understand the culture and religion so we have made matters worse from a political point of view.We have created more enemies to make life more difficult for ourselves.
With regard to defence, Europe can easily defend its borders from a direct military invasion by ISIL. Where is the real threat?
We have an internal threat but we have sufficient police forces to track down and arrest "terrorists" who are trying to overthrow our states by violence. The police could be helped in their mission by the military if necessary.
I should like to know how many divisions of soldiers ISIL can deploy? How many military jets they can deploy and what is their range? How many ocean going naval vessels they can deploy? I should like to know what the military threat to Europe is and how we can defend ourselves from it? We need to know this before engaging in another bombing campaign.
I should like to know what additional threat there is from internal enemies? So far both the police and secret services have been remarkably successful in defending Europe from murder and treasonable acts perpetrated by the supporters of ISIL and such like.
When I listen to parliament I hear all sorts of accusations that ISIL is a danger to the world on a scale unheard of since the Nazis. This is untrue; ISIL may be equally as brutal as the Nazis but they lack the military power and organisational ability to organise genocide on an industrial scale or to invade Europe. To make a decision to go to war on the basis of these accusations rather than the assessment of the real threat is unbecoming of a rational parliament.
I am also of the view that the threat to Europe's internal security has been exaggerated; so far police action has protected us well . It might be better to invest money in beefing up our national security services rather than commit resources to further bombing campaigns abroad.
ISIL is a brutal regime which must be tackled but the regional powers have a responsibility to intervene. Iran is a regional power and it should be allowed to broker a peace agreement. The regional powers are better able to halt the spread of ISIL and its ideology. It is more practical from a military point of point to allow the regional powers to find a solution.
I fear that more bombing by the Western allies will lead to further destabilisation of the region and more innocent civilians being killed. The deaths of the innocents as a result of "collateral damage" will create further resentment and further justification for young men to take up arms and commit further atrocities.
This evening our MPs will vote for this military action and the bombing will begin shortly afterwards. Our parliamentarians will have made this decision without examining the real military threat and the consequences of further bombing campaigns.
The war will "ramp up": ISIL will melt away into the towns and cities to wait for the opportunity to spread their word and cruel ideology across the whole of the Middle East, the Levant and North Africa. The West is walking into a trap; we have armed the wrong people and we have once again been fooled. Our formers "friends" are now our enemies just because we wanted to depose Assad. The ISIL fighters and regime hail from Syria and it is the West who have supplied them with arms both by design and by accident. This was simply naive of us.
We now face the prospect of British war planes in action again and further revenge attacks upon our innocent civilians and the assassination of aid workers.
The revenge and war will continue until Western politicians can think of something better than bombing to solve the world's problems - there is not much hope of that unfortunately.
Tuesday, 23 September 2014
Reforming the British Constitution
The recent vote for Scottish Independence resulted in a "No" vote but it seems that many voters only voted "No" because they were promised more powers to be granted to the Scottish Parliament. If the the promise to devolve more power had not been made at the last minute then the result of the referendum would have been closer. A 55% to 45% vote split in favour of Scotland remaining in the Union could have been closer at 52% to 48%. The electorate could have voted for independence but we shall never know for certain.
One thing is certain; the promise made to the Scottish people by all three of leaders of the Conservative, Labour and Liberal parties must be kept. If not the next referendum might see the UK breaking up but most people in Britain do not want to see that happen.
What is uncertain, though, is how those disappointed with the result of the vote will react if further devolution is denied to them: there could be social unrest.
There was a solemn promise made to the Scottish people and this should not be reneged upon by linking Scottish devolution to English devolution. The promise was made to Scotland and not England or Wales and Northern Ireland for that matter.
Constitution reform needs to be carefully thought out and it must be agreed upon by the majority of the electorate and its Members of Parliament.
One quick fix solution has been proposed so far but this would lead to disastrous consequences. This is proposal that Scottish members of the national Union Parliament should be debarred from voting on English only matters. However, English MPs would be allowed the dual function of voting for policy regarding England and policy for the whole of the United Kingdom. This proposal is inherently unfair as there would be a conflict of interests. The national UK Parliament should be a separate body from any devolved Parliament for Scotland, England, Northern Ireland or Wales and MPs should be barred from sitting in both the Union Parliament and a devolved national Parliament. This will help to prevent England completely dominating policy for the Union in general.
I am of mixed Welsh and English descent and regard myself as completely British and for me it would be a political tragedy if our Union broke up.
However, I can see why Welsh people will be very upset if they see that England or Scotland get an unfair advantage arising out of a lopsided constitutional settlement. The Welsh may feel that they are better off being independent so there would be further pressure for the Union to break up. And no doubt feelings in Northern Ireland would be similar.
Any constitutional settlement should be equitable so perhaps there should be a fully federal system. One thing is certain; it must be seen to be fair and any promise that is made should be kept. This is no time to worry about how much it might cost either: the future of the British nation is at stake.
There is also another point which advocates for constitutional reform should bear in mind. The Scots and the Welsh are much more in favour of the EU than many English people are. If the whole of the UK votes to withdraw for the EU then Scotland and Wales may wish to retain their membership and this could be another route to the break up of the UK.
The peoples of Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland have had plenty of time to think of the consequences of devolution and now it is time for the English to get their thinking caps on. It is also time for the English to consider whether they really want to face the future without the rest of the UK, because that would be the consequence of not considering the opinions and feelings of all the British people.
One thing is certain; the promise made to the Scottish people by all three of leaders of the Conservative, Labour and Liberal parties must be kept. If not the next referendum might see the UK breaking up but most people in Britain do not want to see that happen.
What is uncertain, though, is how those disappointed with the result of the vote will react if further devolution is denied to them: there could be social unrest.
There was a solemn promise made to the Scottish people and this should not be reneged upon by linking Scottish devolution to English devolution. The promise was made to Scotland and not England or Wales and Northern Ireland for that matter.
Constitution reform needs to be carefully thought out and it must be agreed upon by the majority of the electorate and its Members of Parliament.
One quick fix solution has been proposed so far but this would lead to disastrous consequences. This is proposal that Scottish members of the national Union Parliament should be debarred from voting on English only matters. However, English MPs would be allowed the dual function of voting for policy regarding England and policy for the whole of the United Kingdom. This proposal is inherently unfair as there would be a conflict of interests. The national UK Parliament should be a separate body from any devolved Parliament for Scotland, England, Northern Ireland or Wales and MPs should be barred from sitting in both the Union Parliament and a devolved national Parliament. This will help to prevent England completely dominating policy for the Union in general.
I am of mixed Welsh and English descent and regard myself as completely British and for me it would be a political tragedy if our Union broke up.
However, I can see why Welsh people will be very upset if they see that England or Scotland get an unfair advantage arising out of a lopsided constitutional settlement. The Welsh may feel that they are better off being independent so there would be further pressure for the Union to break up. And no doubt feelings in Northern Ireland would be similar.
Any constitutional settlement should be equitable so perhaps there should be a fully federal system. One thing is certain; it must be seen to be fair and any promise that is made should be kept. This is no time to worry about how much it might cost either: the future of the British nation is at stake.
There is also another point which advocates for constitutional reform should bear in mind. The Scots and the Welsh are much more in favour of the EU than many English people are. If the whole of the UK votes to withdraw for the EU then Scotland and Wales may wish to retain their membership and this could be another route to the break up of the UK.
The peoples of Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland have had plenty of time to think of the consequences of devolution and now it is time for the English to get their thinking caps on. It is also time for the English to consider whether they really want to face the future without the rest of the UK, because that would be the consequence of not considering the opinions and feelings of all the British people.
Thursday, 18 September 2014
British membership of the EU
Many British politicians are fundamentally opposed to our membership of the EU or wish to repatriate powers. There is even a movement to provide for a referendum on Britain's continued membership of the EU if the government is unable to repatriate some powers.
Many politicians aver that the European Commission interferes too much in British life and is really in control of British legislation.
I would like to ask this question of these politicians, Why they are so interested in Scotland remaining in the UK? Why have they panicked and decamped to Scotland to campaign for the Union? If the EU Commission controls so much of our life it makes no difference if Scotland is part of the UK or not as we are all powerless.
It is clearly untrue that the EU dominates British life to any real degree. It does not dominate the life of any member state.
I have some questions for the EU sceptics and opponents.
Has the EU said that Britain should be a republic?
Has the EU said that France should become a constitutional monarchy?
Has the EU decided that we cannot have a jury system of justice in our courts?
Has the EU told us how many MPs we can elect to our parliament?
Who decided that we would not send troops to invade Syria? Was it the EU or the UK parliament?
Has the EU told us that we cannot have an established church?
Does the EU decide on the budget for Britain's defence, education and NHS?
Has the EU forced the UK or Denmark or Sweden to join the Euro?
Does the EU decide Britain's interest rates or monetary and fiscal policies?
The EU makes policy and laws on supra-national issues such as ecology, free trade and the movement of goods and services,capital and the movement of people. We freely signed a Treaties to allow the EU to have competence in these areas.
The UK government has the power to veto important measures which mitigate against our interests. All the other states of the EU have this power too.
If the EU gets it wrong it is because our national governments have got it wrong.
If the UK government messes up over domestic policy then it is not the fault of the EU. All the true levers of power related to UK economic and social life lie within the hands of the domestic parliament. It is disingenuous to blame the EU for our domestic problems.
We had a referendum in 1973 to remain a member of the EU and this was meant to be a lifetime agreement. The people of Britain were perfectly capable of deciding the policy for future generations at that time.
If we are to leave then lets leave for a good reason such as the EU dictating how often we have elections or dictating that UK should become a republic. We should not leave because EU food standards dictate that we should put meat in our sausages instead of rusk.
Britain could end up leaving the UK without having discussed all the issues thoroughly. We could leave because some elements of our society are xenophobic.
Britain was not forced to allow Scotland to have a referendum on independence; our parliament made the decision as quite rightly it should.
If Scotland votes "yes" then it could end up waiting a long time before being allowed to join the EU as an independent state.
If Britain votes "no" to Europe then we could end up with both Scotland and the remaining part of UK both being outside the EU. What would both countries do then? Would they re-unite ?
It is probably in the best interests of the UK and Scotland to remain united and to remain in the EU. The EU needs reform and a strong United Kingdom in cooperation with many of our friends in Europe, such as Ireland, could drive that reform to everyone's mutual benefit.
Many politicians aver that the European Commission interferes too much in British life and is really in control of British legislation.
I would like to ask this question of these politicians, Why they are so interested in Scotland remaining in the UK? Why have they panicked and decamped to Scotland to campaign for the Union? If the EU Commission controls so much of our life it makes no difference if Scotland is part of the UK or not as we are all powerless.
It is clearly untrue that the EU dominates British life to any real degree. It does not dominate the life of any member state.
I have some questions for the EU sceptics and opponents.
Has the EU said that Britain should be a republic?
Has the EU said that France should become a constitutional monarchy?
Has the EU decided that we cannot have a jury system of justice in our courts?
Has the EU told us how many MPs we can elect to our parliament?
Who decided that we would not send troops to invade Syria? Was it the EU or the UK parliament?
Has the EU told us that we cannot have an established church?
Does the EU decide on the budget for Britain's defence, education and NHS?
Has the EU forced the UK or Denmark or Sweden to join the Euro?
Does the EU decide Britain's interest rates or monetary and fiscal policies?
The EU makes policy and laws on supra-national issues such as ecology, free trade and the movement of goods and services,capital and the movement of people. We freely signed a Treaties to allow the EU to have competence in these areas.
The UK government has the power to veto important measures which mitigate against our interests. All the other states of the EU have this power too.
If the EU gets it wrong it is because our national governments have got it wrong.
If the UK government messes up over domestic policy then it is not the fault of the EU. All the true levers of power related to UK economic and social life lie within the hands of the domestic parliament. It is disingenuous to blame the EU for our domestic problems.
We had a referendum in 1973 to remain a member of the EU and this was meant to be a lifetime agreement. The people of Britain were perfectly capable of deciding the policy for future generations at that time.
If we are to leave then lets leave for a good reason such as the EU dictating how often we have elections or dictating that UK should become a republic. We should not leave because EU food standards dictate that we should put meat in our sausages instead of rusk.
Britain could end up leaving the UK without having discussed all the issues thoroughly. We could leave because some elements of our society are xenophobic.
Britain was not forced to allow Scotland to have a referendum on independence; our parliament made the decision as quite rightly it should.
If Scotland votes "yes" then it could end up waiting a long time before being allowed to join the EU as an independent state.
If Britain votes "no" to Europe then we could end up with both Scotland and the remaining part of UK both being outside the EU. What would both countries do then? Would they re-unite ?
It is probably in the best interests of the UK and Scotland to remain united and to remain in the EU. The EU needs reform and a strong United Kingdom in cooperation with many of our friends in Europe, such as Ireland, could drive that reform to everyone's mutual benefit.
Thursday, 11 September 2014
Scottish Independence
If I lived in Scotland I would vote "No" to independence. But my support for the Union would be weakened by the intervention of the "big guns".
The IMF have said that an independent Scotland would have an adverse effect on financial markets. This is tosh. The GDP of Scotland is almost a triviality when compared to the the GDP of the World as a whole despite what SNP nationalists might say. Why does the IMF have to open its mouth regarding this issue?
If Scotland votes "Yes" to leave the UK then the rest of us should allow it to use sterling in a currency union as long as there is a treaty to ensure that both sides meet their financial obligations to the union.
Scotland and the rest of the UK should also implement a "Common Travel Area" arrangement similar to that of Britain and Ireland. This would mean that Scots would be allowed to vote in British elections when they live in Britain and Britons would be allowed to vote in Scottish elections when they live in Scotland. We would effectively be common citizens of each other's country- just like the British and the Irish. There is no reason why Scotland could not enter into a similar arrangement with Ireland.
What I am proposing will be to the benefit of all of the nations of the former UK and will lead to continued stability.
This would be the common sense approach advocated by the SNP. However, when was common sense applied to politics? It has not been so often.
All of this common sense may not happen if Scotland wants to join the EU. I fear that an independent Scotland will be forced to go it alone for a while. It will be forced to implement its own currency and then be forced to join the Euro in order to join the EU.
It might be forced to join Schengen like all new entrants to the EU and this would mean border controls with the rest of the UK and Ireland.
Scotland will be a small independent country and its negotiating power with the EU will be weak but this flies in the face of what the SNP says.
There is also the possibility that Spain will veto or delay Scottish membership of the EU to try to deter nationalist movements in Catalonia and the Basque country. Catalonia is due to hold an unofficial referendum on independence in November.
This is not scaremongering as all this could easily happen.
The consequences of this type of foreign pressure, if applied, might lead to the Scots to change their mind after a "Yes" vote. If so, the rest of the UK should accommodate them.
In my opinion it would be marginally better to vote "No".
The IMF have said that an independent Scotland would have an adverse effect on financial markets. This is tosh. The GDP of Scotland is almost a triviality when compared to the the GDP of the World as a whole despite what SNP nationalists might say. Why does the IMF have to open its mouth regarding this issue?
If Scotland votes "Yes" to leave the UK then the rest of us should allow it to use sterling in a currency union as long as there is a treaty to ensure that both sides meet their financial obligations to the union.
Scotland and the rest of the UK should also implement a "Common Travel Area" arrangement similar to that of Britain and Ireland. This would mean that Scots would be allowed to vote in British elections when they live in Britain and Britons would be allowed to vote in Scottish elections when they live in Scotland. We would effectively be common citizens of each other's country- just like the British and the Irish. There is no reason why Scotland could not enter into a similar arrangement with Ireland.
What I am proposing will be to the benefit of all of the nations of the former UK and will lead to continued stability.
This would be the common sense approach advocated by the SNP. However, when was common sense applied to politics? It has not been so often.
All of this common sense may not happen if Scotland wants to join the EU. I fear that an independent Scotland will be forced to go it alone for a while. It will be forced to implement its own currency and then be forced to join the Euro in order to join the EU.
It might be forced to join Schengen like all new entrants to the EU and this would mean border controls with the rest of the UK and Ireland.
Scotland will be a small independent country and its negotiating power with the EU will be weak but this flies in the face of what the SNP says.
There is also the possibility that Spain will veto or delay Scottish membership of the EU to try to deter nationalist movements in Catalonia and the Basque country. Catalonia is due to hold an unofficial referendum on independence in November.
This is not scaremongering as all this could easily happen.
The consequences of this type of foreign pressure, if applied, might lead to the Scots to change their mind after a "Yes" vote. If so, the rest of the UK should accommodate them.
In my opinion it would be marginally better to vote "No".
The Dangers of Interfering in the Middle East
It is an axiom of business that messing up is four times as costly as doing things right in the first place. To fix something that goes wrong will take four times as long as doing the right thing in the first place.
Western nations have been interfering in the Middle East for a century since the Ottoman Empire was defeated in the First World War. Britain and France took over the Middle East to gain access to its riches. The trouble is the British and the French did not understand the culture of the people that lived in the region and made no effort to meet their need for nation states that fitted in with the culture and regional politics. Britain and France divided up nations on the basis of lines in the sand.
It is no wonder that the people of the Levant and the Middle East resented the presence of colonial rule and continue to do so. Britain and France messed it up by creating "unnatural" nation states and supporting dictators. It will take a long time to make reparations. Even though Britain and France have almost withdrawn to the sidelines completely, except in the case of Libya, the USA has stepped into the arena. The USA is, however, continuing with the same failed policies.
The USA is messing up not just in Iraq but in Syria as well. Libya is now in chaos. Britain, France and the USA have set the backdrop for so called "Islamic Terrorism" to thrive. We have supported Saddam Hussein and other dictators only for them to become our enemies. We have supported so called freedom fighters who have turned the weapons that we have supplied them back on us.
Perhaps we should leave the Middle East and the Levant alone and let the nations there re-organise themselves. There is no reason why we cannot give peaceful and neutral help to this process via the United Nations.
I have long admired France, The US and my own nation but I fear that our foreign policy regarding the Middle East and The Levant is compounding the problems rather than solving them.
Western nations have been interfering in the Middle East for a century since the Ottoman Empire was defeated in the First World War. Britain and France took over the Middle East to gain access to its riches. The trouble is the British and the French did not understand the culture of the people that lived in the region and made no effort to meet their need for nation states that fitted in with the culture and regional politics. Britain and France divided up nations on the basis of lines in the sand.
It is no wonder that the people of the Levant and the Middle East resented the presence of colonial rule and continue to do so. Britain and France messed it up by creating "unnatural" nation states and supporting dictators. It will take a long time to make reparations. Even though Britain and France have almost withdrawn to the sidelines completely, except in the case of Libya, the USA has stepped into the arena. The USA is, however, continuing with the same failed policies.
The USA is messing up not just in Iraq but in Syria as well. Libya is now in chaos. Britain, France and the USA have set the backdrop for so called "Islamic Terrorism" to thrive. We have supported Saddam Hussein and other dictators only for them to become our enemies. We have supported so called freedom fighters who have turned the weapons that we have supplied them back on us.
Perhaps we should leave the Middle East and the Levant alone and let the nations there re-organise themselves. There is no reason why we cannot give peaceful and neutral help to this process via the United Nations.
I have long admired France, The US and my own nation but I fear that our foreign policy regarding the Middle East and The Levant is compounding the problems rather than solving them.
Monday, 25 August 2014
Ukraine Rapprochement
The German Chancellor and the President of Russia are due to meet shortly in Minsk. Let us hope that they can find a settlement to the Ukrainian civil war.
What is wrong with we Europeans? This is the 100th anniversary of the the beginning of World War 1: millions of Germans, French, British and Russians died. The first world War lead directly to the second World War when untold millions died again. Millions of Russian, Ukrainian and Germans perished and most of them were civilians.
Europe has been the most barbaric continent when it comes to war. We have nothing to be proud of in this respect.
Two thousand civilians have been killed in the Ukrainian civil war so far and hundreds of thousands of have been displaced. We should be ashamed ourselves to allow this to happen. The loss of life on both sides is too costly for the war to be allowed to continue.
Eventually there has to be a settlement so why not achieve it immediately?
The Ukrainian government is committing $3 billion to finance the war. This is money it does not have. This is money that should be better spent on repairing the infra-structure of the whole nation. Soon the people of the Ukraine will live in a country, divided or otherwise, which is saddled with intolerable debts.
The Crimea is lost to the Ukraine and Western influence, so why not accept the situation? There is a solution which can be found for the rest of the Ukraine and that is in a confederation.
When peace finally arrives the European Union, Russia and the US will have to show some generosity to help rebuild the whole state. There is no reason why there cannot be free trade and movement of people between the peoples of the Ukraine, the EU and Russia; this is better than war and will ultimately benefit everyone.
The Ukraine and Russia used to be close friends; why not start the process of rapprochement?
Sometimes I despair for the human species, for if we carry on like this there is probably no hope for us and we shall end our brief appearance on the planet in another horrible World War. Remember, we now have nuclear weapons too.
There is no need to plan for a famine, climate change or an asteroid to end our existence; we are perfectly capable of destroying ourselves because we cannot use reason to control our actions.
What is wrong with we Europeans? This is the 100th anniversary of the the beginning of World War 1: millions of Germans, French, British and Russians died. The first world War lead directly to the second World War when untold millions died again. Millions of Russian, Ukrainian and Germans perished and most of them were civilians.
Europe has been the most barbaric continent when it comes to war. We have nothing to be proud of in this respect.
Two thousand civilians have been killed in the Ukrainian civil war so far and hundreds of thousands of have been displaced. We should be ashamed ourselves to allow this to happen. The loss of life on both sides is too costly for the war to be allowed to continue.
Eventually there has to be a settlement so why not achieve it immediately?
The Ukrainian government is committing $3 billion to finance the war. This is money it does not have. This is money that should be better spent on repairing the infra-structure of the whole nation. Soon the people of the Ukraine will live in a country, divided or otherwise, which is saddled with intolerable debts.
The Crimea is lost to the Ukraine and Western influence, so why not accept the situation? There is a solution which can be found for the rest of the Ukraine and that is in a confederation.
When peace finally arrives the European Union, Russia and the US will have to show some generosity to help rebuild the whole state. There is no reason why there cannot be free trade and movement of people between the peoples of the Ukraine, the EU and Russia; this is better than war and will ultimately benefit everyone.
The Ukraine and Russia used to be close friends; why not start the process of rapprochement?
Sometimes I despair for the human species, for if we carry on like this there is probably no hope for us and we shall end our brief appearance on the planet in another horrible World War. Remember, we now have nuclear weapons too.
There is no need to plan for a famine, climate change or an asteroid to end our existence; we are perfectly capable of destroying ourselves because we cannot use reason to control our actions.
Wednesday, 20 August 2014
Gaza
It seems that all peace efforts are doomed to failure and that Gaza will continue to be attacked. I cannot understand why Israel does not show some sort of mercy if not magnanimity.
The Palestinians are defeated and Israel will continue to be dominant for the foreseeable future. The Palestinians have had to suffer exclusion from their original homeland and occupation and victor settlement on the West Bank.
The Gaza strip is blockaded by both Israel and Egypt and this is causing misery for the Palestinians that live there. The inhabitants of Gaza probably feel that they have little to live for. In reality they are almost powerless to improve their living conditions. It is no wonder that there is resentment and resistance.
The Palestinians are behaving in exactly the same way as any other country would behave. They are trying to repel their adversaries as best they can.
During the second Word War, France was invaded by a superior military power and the Maquis used unconventional war to try and defend their nation. Did that make the Maquis terrorists? In the eyes of the invaders - yes. In the eyes of the British and the French it made them heroes.
Of course, it is wrong for Hamas to fire missiles into to Israel to try to kill civilians. However, Israel can defend itself quite well against such attacks. If it is wrong for Hamas to fire missiles into Israel then it is equally as wrong for Israel to counter attack in such a disproportionate manner, so as to kill upwards of a thousand Palestinian civilians.
Israel claims the moral high ground but surely it is time for it to relent and allow the Palestinians to live in some form of dignity and peace.
It is time to lift the blockade of Gaza and negotiate a peace settlement. It is time to withdraw the troops from the West Bank and negotiate further peace. Someone must break the cycle of attack and counterattack and revenge killings. What is wrong with the most powerful combatant doing this? Their security is guaranteed but not their peace of mind.
Unfortunately, the status quo is set to continue and the Palestinians will suffer more and more.
The Palestinians are defeated and Israel will continue to be dominant for the foreseeable future. The Palestinians have had to suffer exclusion from their original homeland and occupation and victor settlement on the West Bank.
The Gaza strip is blockaded by both Israel and Egypt and this is causing misery for the Palestinians that live there. The inhabitants of Gaza probably feel that they have little to live for. In reality they are almost powerless to improve their living conditions. It is no wonder that there is resentment and resistance.
The Palestinians are behaving in exactly the same way as any other country would behave. They are trying to repel their adversaries as best they can.
During the second Word War, France was invaded by a superior military power and the Maquis used unconventional war to try and defend their nation. Did that make the Maquis terrorists? In the eyes of the invaders - yes. In the eyes of the British and the French it made them heroes.
Of course, it is wrong for Hamas to fire missiles into to Israel to try to kill civilians. However, Israel can defend itself quite well against such attacks. If it is wrong for Hamas to fire missiles into Israel then it is equally as wrong for Israel to counter attack in such a disproportionate manner, so as to kill upwards of a thousand Palestinian civilians.
Israel claims the moral high ground but surely it is time for it to relent and allow the Palestinians to live in some form of dignity and peace.
It is time to lift the blockade of Gaza and negotiate a peace settlement. It is time to withdraw the troops from the West Bank and negotiate further peace. Someone must break the cycle of attack and counterattack and revenge killings. What is wrong with the most powerful combatant doing this? Their security is guaranteed but not their peace of mind.
Unfortunately, the status quo is set to continue and the Palestinians will suffer more and more.
Thursday, 24 July 2014
European Beavers and Devon's River Otter
Why not leave the three beavers, who have settled on the river Otter in Devon, alone. Beavers became extinct in England some 500 years ago. And what made them go extinct? It was Homo Sapiens of course and this was not so wise of our species. I cannot think why we should have named ourselves Homo Sapiens.
It seems that the accidental re-introduction of the European Beaver is a matter of worry to farmers, anglers and the Department of Health who fear that our friendly rodents may introduce new diseases.
Why should farmers worry? Beavers are natural flood control experts and maintain healthy water courses.
Why should anglers worry if a beaver dams a stream. European beavers and most species of fish were extant in the UK well before man arrived on the scene and they lived in harmony with one another. Most river systems supported healthy populations of both beavers and fish. The depopulation of our rivers has not been caused by beavers, birds or indigenous (non-human) mammals. It is human beings who have caused widespread death in our river ecosystems.
Farmed animals are more of a danger to human health: how many of us have caught salmonella poisoning from a factory farmed chicken and its products?
European beavers should be part of our natural fauna why should we frightened of them? They are of real economic value to help protect our river systems and to control floods. We should recognise this as they provide their services for free.
Pheasants are of economic value and are left to roam freely but they are an introduced species who would probably never gained access to the UK without help from humans . Why can't beavers be afforded the same consideration?
Perhaps the beavers are in danger because no-one can make a direct profit out of their ecological services - so it is time for the trap or the shotgun.
Just leave them alone please.
http://www.westernmorningnews.co.uk/Removal-beavers-Devon-s-River-Otter-senseless/story-21328623-detail/story.html
http://www.rspb.org.uk/community/wildlife/homesforwildlife/f/905/p/15790/114176.aspx
It seems that the accidental re-introduction of the European Beaver is a matter of worry to farmers, anglers and the Department of Health who fear that our friendly rodents may introduce new diseases.
Why should farmers worry? Beavers are natural flood control experts and maintain healthy water courses.
Why should anglers worry if a beaver dams a stream. European beavers and most species of fish were extant in the UK well before man arrived on the scene and they lived in harmony with one another. Most river systems supported healthy populations of both beavers and fish. The depopulation of our rivers has not been caused by beavers, birds or indigenous (non-human) mammals. It is human beings who have caused widespread death in our river ecosystems.
Farmed animals are more of a danger to human health: how many of us have caught salmonella poisoning from a factory farmed chicken and its products?
European beavers should be part of our natural fauna why should we frightened of them? They are of real economic value to help protect our river systems and to control floods. We should recognise this as they provide their services for free.
Pheasants are of economic value and are left to roam freely but they are an introduced species who would probably never gained access to the UK without help from humans . Why can't beavers be afforded the same consideration?
Perhaps the beavers are in danger because no-one can make a direct profit out of their ecological services - so it is time for the trap or the shotgun.
Just leave them alone please.
http://www.westernmorningnews.co.uk/Removal-beavers-Devon-s-River-Otter-senseless/story-21328623-detail/story.html
http://www.rspb.org.uk/community/wildlife/homesforwildlife/f/905/p/15790/114176.aspx
Monday, 23 June 2014
Is anyone out there?
With the discovery of more and more earth like extra-solar planets many newspapers and magazines are musing whether there is life on other planets within our galaxy or even life on Mars or satellites within our own solar system.
http://press.nationalgeographic.com/files/2014/06/July-2014-Highlights_final.pdf
It is worth reading this article in the National Geographic magazine. According to the Drake equations there are probably many planets which are inhabited by civilised beings who are capable of thought and making advanced tools.
I agree that there are probably thousands if not millions of planets and satellites which support life. However, being intelligent is probably a rare phenomenon. Of the millions of species which have inhabited our own planet few of have developed any form of intelligence: primates are classic examples but whales and related species show some signs of intelligence as do elephants.
The only species which have shown any form of advanced intelligence, communication and forward planning are members of the Homo genus.
The survival of most species on our planet does not depend upon intelligence at all. Most animals can rely upon instinct or autonomic behaviour to survive. Plants, fungi and microbes can survive even without a nervous system. Viruses, if they are alive, can survive perfectly well by using other organisms to ensure their longevity.
It can be argued that human beings are not the most successful creatures on the planet at all and that in terms of numbers and distribution, cockroaches, rats, grass and microbes are much more successful.
In terms of longevity, Homo Sapiens Sapiens has only been on the planet for around 250,00 years and we were preceded by Homo Sapiens Neanderthalensis who originated perhaps 250,000 years earlier if only to die out 30,000 years ago.
It is quite possible that advanced intelligence does not supply the gift of longevity: Homo Erectus and Homo Heidelbergensis died out long ago and their obvious mental capabilities did nothing to help them survive in the long run.
Our own survival might possibly be at stake if we do not learn to use our intelligence wisely. We could quite easily destroy ourselves or our civilisation as the result of nuclear or biological warfare, pollution and climate change. If "advanced beings" on other planets behave like us there could be very few civilisations who have survived long enough to develop the ability to communicate with us.
We could be one of the few species which is capable of thought within a galaxy which is probably teeming with life. It looks as if we shall have to go out and actively find extra terrestrial life rather than wait for it to come to us. It would be a shame if we became extinct as a result of our own actions before we could "shake hands" with a fellow intelligent being from another planet.
http://press.nationalgeographic.com/files/2014/06/July-2014-Highlights_final.pdf
It is worth reading this article in the National Geographic magazine. According to the Drake equations there are probably many planets which are inhabited by civilised beings who are capable of thought and making advanced tools.
I agree that there are probably thousands if not millions of planets and satellites which support life. However, being intelligent is probably a rare phenomenon. Of the millions of species which have inhabited our own planet few of have developed any form of intelligence: primates are classic examples but whales and related species show some signs of intelligence as do elephants.
The only species which have shown any form of advanced intelligence, communication and forward planning are members of the Homo genus.
The survival of most species on our planet does not depend upon intelligence at all. Most animals can rely upon instinct or autonomic behaviour to survive. Plants, fungi and microbes can survive even without a nervous system. Viruses, if they are alive, can survive perfectly well by using other organisms to ensure their longevity.
It can be argued that human beings are not the most successful creatures on the planet at all and that in terms of numbers and distribution, cockroaches, rats, grass and microbes are much more successful.
In terms of longevity, Homo Sapiens Sapiens has only been on the planet for around 250,00 years and we were preceded by Homo Sapiens Neanderthalensis who originated perhaps 250,000 years earlier if only to die out 30,000 years ago.
It is quite possible that advanced intelligence does not supply the gift of longevity: Homo Erectus and Homo Heidelbergensis died out long ago and their obvious mental capabilities did nothing to help them survive in the long run.
Our own survival might possibly be at stake if we do not learn to use our intelligence wisely. We could quite easily destroy ourselves or our civilisation as the result of nuclear or biological warfare, pollution and climate change. If "advanced beings" on other planets behave like us there could be very few civilisations who have survived long enough to develop the ability to communicate with us.
We could be one of the few species which is capable of thought within a galaxy which is probably teeming with life. It looks as if we shall have to go out and actively find extra terrestrial life rather than wait for it to come to us. It would be a shame if we became extinct as a result of our own actions before we could "shake hands" with a fellow intelligent being from another planet.
Wednesday, 18 June 2014
Pope Francis and Atheists
Pope Francis has stated that atheists who do good can be redeemed but they may not be granted salvation. What does this mean? It means nothing. There is no evidence whatsoever that there is a God who is a supernatural being.
I have many friends who are Christian and I was brought up in a Christian family. Many of my friends who are religious can understand perfectly why I would think that this article in the Roman Catholic press is completely irrational and is incoherent gibberish.
http://www.catholicvote.org/what-pope-francis-really-said-about-atheists/
Of course there are many Roman Catholics, Baptists, Calvinists and even Church of England fundamentalists who do believe this nonsense. They would be the dangerous ones if ever Britain were to become a theocratic state again. Atheists, Agnostics, Muslims, Jews, Druids, Witches and Wizards would then suffer from discrimination and possibly persecution at their hands.
Unfortunately the same thing would happen if fundamentalists of any religion were to gain theocratic power. I only feel qualified to comment on this matter because I am an apostate Christian. Whilst I find the non-scientific writings of Richard Dawkins rather tedious and I stopped reading "The God Delusion" on page 10, I would rather have an Atheist in control than a priest.
We are lucky in Europe that the age of reason has produced a liberal secular society which tries to defend the rights of everyone including the religious and which seeks to persecute no-one.
I have many friends who are Christian and I was brought up in a Christian family. Many of my friends who are religious can understand perfectly why I would think that this article in the Roman Catholic press is completely irrational and is incoherent gibberish.
http://www.catholicvote.org/what-pope-francis-really-said-about-atheists/
Of course there are many Roman Catholics, Baptists, Calvinists and even Church of England fundamentalists who do believe this nonsense. They would be the dangerous ones if ever Britain were to become a theocratic state again. Atheists, Agnostics, Muslims, Jews, Druids, Witches and Wizards would then suffer from discrimination and possibly persecution at their hands.
Unfortunately the same thing would happen if fundamentalists of any religion were to gain theocratic power. I only feel qualified to comment on this matter because I am an apostate Christian. Whilst I find the non-scientific writings of Richard Dawkins rather tedious and I stopped reading "The God Delusion" on page 10, I would rather have an Atheist in control than a priest.
We are lucky in Europe that the age of reason has produced a liberal secular society which tries to defend the rights of everyone including the religious and which seeks to persecute no-one.
Tuesday, 10 June 2014
"Trojan Horses" and schools
All the political fuss and agonising about some UK schools and their governance could have been avoided if the state did not fund faith schools. It is the purpose of a school to educate young people to think for themselves not to indoctrinate them with religious or political beliefs. Religious education should be reserved for the private sector where, even there, minimum curriculum standards should be maintained.
No-one should be prevented from sending their children to a synagogue, church or mosque or any other religious place of worship and "Sunday, Saturday and Friday school " activities should not be controlled by the state. Religious practise, however, is best left to the home and the place of worship.
School governors and teachers in state schools should not be selected on the basis of faith or the lack of it but they should be selected on the basis of whether they are qualified to run an educational establishment or teach in one.
School governors and teachers should keep their religious and political views to themselves in state funded schools. Young people should not be subjected to any form of indoctrination.
If someone wishes to pray at school they should be allowed to do so. No young person, however, should be coerced into praying and teachers should not be allowed to inform on pupils who do not wish to pray or wear religious symbols etc.
It is difficult to define British values; some values have been fought for by generations of Britons and these are: the right to have freedom of conscience, the right to free speech, the right to be a member of a religion or to become an apostate without sanction. These values are not unique to Britain.
British society is in the main secular even if the official religion is the Church of England. Contrary to the belief of some religious leaders most secularists do not want to impose restrictions upon religious belief or the right of people to worship. We believe that there is a time and place for everything within the law. The time and place for religion is not in state funded schools.
The best way to defend the interests of the religious and non-religious alike is to support secular state funded schools and a secular society in general. How else can we all live together in peace? Let everyone have equal human rights and obligations with regard to their conscience, freedom of thought and speech. Let us all play by the same rules and then there will be no need for the unfair "Trojan Horse" accusations.
No-one should be prevented from sending their children to a synagogue, church or mosque or any other religious place of worship and "Sunday, Saturday and Friday school " activities should not be controlled by the state. Religious practise, however, is best left to the home and the place of worship.
School governors and teachers in state schools should not be selected on the basis of faith or the lack of it but they should be selected on the basis of whether they are qualified to run an educational establishment or teach in one.
School governors and teachers should keep their religious and political views to themselves in state funded schools. Young people should not be subjected to any form of indoctrination.
If someone wishes to pray at school they should be allowed to do so. No young person, however, should be coerced into praying and teachers should not be allowed to inform on pupils who do not wish to pray or wear religious symbols etc.
It is difficult to define British values; some values have been fought for by generations of Britons and these are: the right to have freedom of conscience, the right to free speech, the right to be a member of a religion or to become an apostate without sanction. These values are not unique to Britain.
British society is in the main secular even if the official religion is the Church of England. Contrary to the belief of some religious leaders most secularists do not want to impose restrictions upon religious belief or the right of people to worship. We believe that there is a time and place for everything within the law. The time and place for religion is not in state funded schools.
The best way to defend the interests of the religious and non-religious alike is to support secular state funded schools and a secular society in general. How else can we all live together in peace? Let everyone have equal human rights and obligations with regard to their conscience, freedom of thought and speech. Let us all play by the same rules and then there will be no need for the unfair "Trojan Horse" accusations.
Friday, 30 May 2014
European War
It is hard to believe that 100 years after the start of World War 1 and 70 years after the D-Day landings , Europe is still at war.
There is the potential for the Ukraine to descend into a full civil war. We Europeans still organise our politics at the point of the gun. Civilians still have to suffer as a direct result of the conflict or because their loved ones choose to fight. There is no need for the killing of either soldiers or civilians a negotiated solution can still be found for the Ukraine. The superpowers have a responsibility to organise this.
Of course there is a lot of discussion about the justification for World War 1 and whether the sacrifice was worthwhile.
From a purely nationalistic point of view, Britain and France and their allies had to fight to defend themselves and their neighbours. Many brave men died or were injured under the most dire of circumstances. Many brave men from the US fought and died for the freedom of France, Belgium and Britain. Russia fought in vain.
My own family lost uncles in the British Army and the Royal Navy. Most families in Britain and France were touched by the War. We must not forget that most families in Germany and Austria were also touched.
Millions of young men from both sides died fighting for their countries.
From a supranational point of view World War 1 was a disaster. The "colonies" of Britain and France were expected to contribute both men and material. Thousands of Australians and Canadians died to defend colonialism.
War became industrialised and mass slaughter became institutionalised. We also saw the beginning of the institutionalised killing of civilians. This led to the industrialised murder of civilians in World War 2.
World War 1 did little to resolve European conflict and this led directly to World War 2 where the carnage was even greater.
The human species has shown itself to be unable control the direction of its ingenuity. We do not have the emotional ability to either stop the killing or limit the means by which we conduct war. Killing has now descended into a type of push button frenzy. We can kill millions by the use of nuclear, chemical or biological weapons and we can kill individuals by using a drone. We cannot avoid mistakes so civilians and non-combatants have to suffer too.
From a nationalistic point of view war has winners and losers and can be justified from the standpoint of defending the homeland. I ask all readers, however, to look at a bigger picture. From the point of view of our species in general war runs the risk of being a complete disaster which could destroy all of us. We should make every effort to prevent war wherever it might arise - in the Ukraine, in Syria, in Afghanistan, the Sudan, Central Africa, Nigeria .......
There is the potential for the Ukraine to descend into a full civil war. We Europeans still organise our politics at the point of the gun. Civilians still have to suffer as a direct result of the conflict or because their loved ones choose to fight. There is no need for the killing of either soldiers or civilians a negotiated solution can still be found for the Ukraine. The superpowers have a responsibility to organise this.
Of course there is a lot of discussion about the justification for World War 1 and whether the sacrifice was worthwhile.
From a purely nationalistic point of view, Britain and France and their allies had to fight to defend themselves and their neighbours. Many brave men died or were injured under the most dire of circumstances. Many brave men from the US fought and died for the freedom of France, Belgium and Britain. Russia fought in vain.
My own family lost uncles in the British Army and the Royal Navy. Most families in Britain and France were touched by the War. We must not forget that most families in Germany and Austria were also touched.
Millions of young men from both sides died fighting for their countries.
From a supranational point of view World War 1 was a disaster. The "colonies" of Britain and France were expected to contribute both men and material. Thousands of Australians and Canadians died to defend colonialism.
War became industrialised and mass slaughter became institutionalised. We also saw the beginning of the institutionalised killing of civilians. This led to the industrialised murder of civilians in World War 2.
World War 1 did little to resolve European conflict and this led directly to World War 2 where the carnage was even greater.
The human species has shown itself to be unable control the direction of its ingenuity. We do not have the emotional ability to either stop the killing or limit the means by which we conduct war. Killing has now descended into a type of push button frenzy. We can kill millions by the use of nuclear, chemical or biological weapons and we can kill individuals by using a drone. We cannot avoid mistakes so civilians and non-combatants have to suffer too.
From a nationalistic point of view war has winners and losers and can be justified from the standpoint of defending the homeland. I ask all readers, however, to look at a bigger picture. From the point of view of our species in general war runs the risk of being a complete disaster which could destroy all of us. We should make every effort to prevent war wherever it might arise - in the Ukraine, in Syria, in Afghanistan, the Sudan, Central Africa, Nigeria .......
Friday, 16 May 2014
Poking the Russian Bear
I have been to Russia and I have worked with many Russian people and some of them are now my friends. I have had many conversations about Russian politics and the relationship of Russia with the West.
Russian people want to be treated with respect and to be treated as equals; they expect nothing more or nothing less. The have an ingrained fear of war. They lost 20 million people in the second world war. They also have a fear of extreme right wing politicians.
The siege of St Petersburgh, or Leningrad as it was called in the the second world war, and the battle of Volograd, formerly Stalingrad, proved that the Russian people would tolerate the most extreme privation to defend their Motherland. During the second world war the Russian people were also prepared to support a tyrant, Stalin, to defend their nation.
The battles of Stalingrad (August 1942 to February 1943) and Kursk in July1943 saw the complete defeat of Hitler's armies in Russia. They were the turning point of the war in Europe. Without Russia's defeat of Germany in these battles the outcome of the war could have been completely different.
Of course, we should not denigrate the war efforts of the Western nations to create second fronts in both Italy and France. But we should understand why the Russian people expect to be treated with respect by its former allies. We should also understand that the Russians are a formidable enemy and in a war it would better to have them on our side than against us. Roosevelt, Churchill and De Gaulle understood the "realpolitik" of this and were prepared to respect Stalin as a result.
Against this back drop, Western politicians should think again about what is happening in the Ukraine as they have badly miscalculated. They will not admit to this in public but behind the scenes they are probably looking for a way out.
The new government in the Ukraine is really not up to the task of handling the crisis that they have created for themselves with Western help. It looks as though the people of Western Ukraine have no more stomach for a fight with Russia than the people of Britain, France and Germany or the US for that matter. If the Russians wanted to they could invade the whole of the Ukraine and takeover almost unopposed.
The quicker a negotiated solution is concluded the better. It looks as though Eastern Ukraine is lost to the West just like the Crimea. Why not try a confederation like Denmark and Greenland. Denmark is in the EU but Greenland, which is officially part of Denmark, is not. The people of Greenland have political autonomy but they are happy, in the main, with their confederal relationship with Denmark.
The rest of the Ukraine does not have to be broken up after the secession of the Crimea but the Russians in Eastern Ukraine will need to be given cast iron guarantees for the security of their budding new "nations". This looks like the best that Western diplomacy can now achieve as there is no military option available and economic sanctions are considered to be an irritation rather than a deterrent.
It might be better to deal with a happy bear than to poke it with sticks which will be useless for defence if it decides to fight back.
Russian people want to be treated with respect and to be treated as equals; they expect nothing more or nothing less. The have an ingrained fear of war. They lost 20 million people in the second world war. They also have a fear of extreme right wing politicians.
The siege of St Petersburgh, or Leningrad as it was called in the the second world war, and the battle of Volograd, formerly Stalingrad, proved that the Russian people would tolerate the most extreme privation to defend their Motherland. During the second world war the Russian people were also prepared to support a tyrant, Stalin, to defend their nation.
The battles of Stalingrad (August 1942 to February 1943) and Kursk in July1943 saw the complete defeat of Hitler's armies in Russia. They were the turning point of the war in Europe. Without Russia's defeat of Germany in these battles the outcome of the war could have been completely different.
Of course, we should not denigrate the war efforts of the Western nations to create second fronts in both Italy and France. But we should understand why the Russian people expect to be treated with respect by its former allies. We should also understand that the Russians are a formidable enemy and in a war it would better to have them on our side than against us. Roosevelt, Churchill and De Gaulle understood the "realpolitik" of this and were prepared to respect Stalin as a result.
Against this back drop, Western politicians should think again about what is happening in the Ukraine as they have badly miscalculated. They will not admit to this in public but behind the scenes they are probably looking for a way out.
The new government in the Ukraine is really not up to the task of handling the crisis that they have created for themselves with Western help. It looks as though the people of Western Ukraine have no more stomach for a fight with Russia than the people of Britain, France and Germany or the US for that matter. If the Russians wanted to they could invade the whole of the Ukraine and takeover almost unopposed.
The quicker a negotiated solution is concluded the better. It looks as though Eastern Ukraine is lost to the West just like the Crimea. Why not try a confederation like Denmark and Greenland. Denmark is in the EU but Greenland, which is officially part of Denmark, is not. The people of Greenland have political autonomy but they are happy, in the main, with their confederal relationship with Denmark.
The rest of the Ukraine does not have to be broken up after the secession of the Crimea but the Russians in Eastern Ukraine will need to be given cast iron guarantees for the security of their budding new "nations". This looks like the best that Western diplomacy can now achieve as there is no military option available and economic sanctions are considered to be an irritation rather than a deterrent.
It might be better to deal with a happy bear than to poke it with sticks which will be useless for defence if it decides to fight back.
Tuesday, 29 April 2014
Prejudice
A UKIP MP is back in the news again. The Independent newspaper has quoted the MEP Roger Helmer: "People should be able to dislike gay people like they do different types of tea"
I am not a homosexual but I see no reason to be prejudiced against someone who is.Whether you like or dislike someone should not be compared to whether you like a particular tea or not; this is an absurd concept.
Homosexuality does not represent any sort of threat to our society. It is perfectly possible for the heterosexual majority to accommodate the social needs of everyone except the violent or child molesters. A homosexual is no more prone to indulge in cruel, criminal or discriminatory behaviour than anyone else.
Often it is not possible to tell whether someone is a homosexual or not. Sometimes, I have been very surprised when a friend or colleague has revealed their sexuality to me. Many homosexuals are simply unrecognisable because they act just like most other members of society and do not try to impose their views about sex on anyone else.
Why can we not let people who are harmless and who are good citizens get on with their lives without constant criticism or condemnation?
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/ukip-mep-roger-helmer-people-should-be-able-to-dislike-gay-people-like-they-do-different-types-of-tea-9300202.html
I am not a homosexual but I see no reason to be prejudiced against someone who is.Whether you like or dislike someone should not be compared to whether you like a particular tea or not; this is an absurd concept.
Homosexuality does not represent any sort of threat to our society. It is perfectly possible for the heterosexual majority to accommodate the social needs of everyone except the violent or child molesters. A homosexual is no more prone to indulge in cruel, criminal or discriminatory behaviour than anyone else.
Often it is not possible to tell whether someone is a homosexual or not. Sometimes, I have been very surprised when a friend or colleague has revealed their sexuality to me. Many homosexuals are simply unrecognisable because they act just like most other members of society and do not try to impose their views about sex on anyone else.
Why can we not let people who are harmless and who are good citizens get on with their lives without constant criticism or condemnation?
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/ukip-mep-roger-helmer-people-should-be-able-to-dislike-gay-people-like-they-do-different-types-of-tea-9300202.html
Tuesday, 15 April 2014
Sheffield half-marathon
The Sheffield half-marathon was a victory for common sense which seems to be totally lacking in today's world of Public Relations dominated activity. On the 10th of April the race was due to be run in Sheffield Yorkshire in the UK. The race was cancelled the very last minute because water supplies for the runners failed to be delivered. The organisers thought it would be better to cancel the race for "health and safety reasons".
The runners themselves decided something different and chose to run despite the best efforts of the organisers to stop them. The police initially decided to unblock the route to motor traffic but changed their mind and allowed the unofficial race to go ahead as originally intended.
Water was supplied to the competitors who need it by spectators along the route.
The sports organisers were described as "risk averse" by a former sports' minister and I agree totally. Every sport has risks attached. Most of the 4,000 or so runners knew what those risks were and decided accordingly.
I am in my sixties and regularly run 10 to 12 k without having to drink any water whatsoever or take glucose tablets. I can run 10 k on a hot summer day and drink my fill after running. If I attempted to run 20 k, then I would probably need to drink some water along the way so I would take supplies with me. I often train on my own and there is a risk that I could trip over and break my leg or even push it too far and get heart tremors.
Most of the competitors for the Sheffield half marathon would have been a lot younger and fitter than me.
I minimise the risk of a heart tremor by not running too fast for my age and pacing myself to run at a constant and comfortable heart rate. I do not need a doctor to tell me what the risks are or how to minimise them. I cannot completely minimise the risk of tripping and breaking my leg but so be it.
If I had been there in Sheffield, I would have made sure that I had trained adequately for the event and would have ran the unofficial race along with the others. I would have stopped or slowed down if I needed to drink and no one from the onlookers had a bottle to give me. It would have been applied commonsense.
The unofficial race has now been run and the residents of Sheffield do not have to put up with the inconvenience of having their roads blocked again for a re-run.
The water suppliers claim that they had a contract where the organisers were obliged to pay for the water before the race was run but no funds were forthcoming. But, the best sort of PR for the water company would have been to supply the water and ask for the cash later. If ,all this is true, then someone has got it badly wrong and no amount of PR waffle will get those responsible of the hook.
At least both the police and the competitors knew how to do the right thing - it is just a small victory for common sense.
http://www.sheffieldmarathon.com/
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-south-yorkshire-26938226
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-26923501
http://www.sheffieldtelegraph.co.uk/news/local/call-to-change-sheffield-half-marathon-organisers-1-6555425
The runners themselves decided something different and chose to run despite the best efforts of the organisers to stop them. The police initially decided to unblock the route to motor traffic but changed their mind and allowed the unofficial race to go ahead as originally intended.
Water was supplied to the competitors who need it by spectators along the route.
The sports organisers were described as "risk averse" by a former sports' minister and I agree totally. Every sport has risks attached. Most of the 4,000 or so runners knew what those risks were and decided accordingly.
I am in my sixties and regularly run 10 to 12 k without having to drink any water whatsoever or take glucose tablets. I can run 10 k on a hot summer day and drink my fill after running. If I attempted to run 20 k, then I would probably need to drink some water along the way so I would take supplies with me. I often train on my own and there is a risk that I could trip over and break my leg or even push it too far and get heart tremors.
Most of the competitors for the Sheffield half marathon would have been a lot younger and fitter than me.
I minimise the risk of a heart tremor by not running too fast for my age and pacing myself to run at a constant and comfortable heart rate. I do not need a doctor to tell me what the risks are or how to minimise them. I cannot completely minimise the risk of tripping and breaking my leg but so be it.
If I had been there in Sheffield, I would have made sure that I had trained adequately for the event and would have ran the unofficial race along with the others. I would have stopped or slowed down if I needed to drink and no one from the onlookers had a bottle to give me. It would have been applied commonsense.
The unofficial race has now been run and the residents of Sheffield do not have to put up with the inconvenience of having their roads blocked again for a re-run.
The water suppliers claim that they had a contract where the organisers were obliged to pay for the water before the race was run but no funds were forthcoming. But, the best sort of PR for the water company would have been to supply the water and ask for the cash later. If ,all this is true, then someone has got it badly wrong and no amount of PR waffle will get those responsible of the hook.
At least both the police and the competitors knew how to do the right thing - it is just a small victory for common sense.
http://www.sheffieldmarathon.com/
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-south-yorkshire-26938226
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-26923501
http://www.sheffieldtelegraph.co.uk/news/local/call-to-change-sheffield-half-marathon-organisers-1-6555425
Wednesday, 19 March 2014
Crimea again
It may be illegal from a Ukrainian point of view and doubtful from an international legal viewpoint but Crimea is now effectively Russian territory. The people of the USA, Canada, Western Europe and the rest of the free world have no stomach to face down Russian irredentism; they prefer HD television sets and satellite broadcast football to confrontation.
In June 1963 President Kennedy visited Berlin after the completion of the wall separating West Berlin from East Berlin and uttered the words "Ich bin ein Berliner". This represented support for freedom and the willingness to stand up against tyranny using force if necessary. Can you imagine any Western politician uttering those words today? This is why JFK was regarded as a hero as he supported freedom not only for his own citizens but for others to. He is a politician who I admire for this reason. We all have short memories.
Western politicians have gravely miscalculated Russia's reaction to the overthrow of President Yanukovich and the unrest in Kiev. The Russian government was prepared to shoot at hapless and helpless Greenpeace activists who posed no real threat to oil drilling operations. How did anyone think that the Kremlin would react to a perceived military threat to its political and economic interests in the Black Sea area.
NATO can only offer moral support to the new government in Kiev and the Kiev government has gravely miscalculated the willingness of Western governments to support them militarily. There will be no"no fly zone" or "boots on the ground" - just words and sanctions with no real teeth. It was plain to see what would happen - what about Georgian sovereignty when it choose to defy the Kremlin? We all have very short memories.
There is only one hope for the people of the rest of Ukraine. And, that is, that there will be completely free and honest new elections and that the people will be free to vote for a President and Parliament that genuinely represents all the people of the Ukraine. It would have been preferable if Russia had stayed its hand and waited until a new Ukrainian government was installed in Kiev. The Crimean people could have then been allowed time to reflect before they voted for independence.
If the people of the rest of the Ukraine vote for and support full democracy then the EU should support them economically but the EU should insist that all the economic support falls into the hands of all the people.This is the only way that there can be true economic growth and development in the Ukraine. Perhaps the Crimea will then want to rejoin the Ukraine or a Ukrainian Commonwealth to share in this prosperity.
The EU can still insist on fair fresh elections and insist that ultra right-wing politicians are not allowed into government unless there is fair electoral support for such a situation. One of the fears of the Crimean people is that of the ultra-right.
I fear for the plight of Ukrainian soldiers left in the Crimea; they are effectively prisoners of war and they should be protected under the Geneva Convention and the European Human Rights Convention. Russia and Ukraine should negotiate their disarmament and their rapid repatriation to the Ukraine if they wish to go back home. There should be no retribution taken against any of these soldiers either in the Ukraine or the Crimea. I fear this will not happen and that they have now become pawns in a superpower struggle.
If the Ukraine or Russia choose to mistreat Ukrainian soldiers or prisoners then the West should take action with real economic sanctions; but a military option is not feasible. The Ukrainian military men and women left behind in the bases in Crimea are on their own and they are at the mercy of the Russians. The West is too weak to support them.
In the wake of President Putin's remarks yesterday about the break up of the Soviet Union I would not sleep so easily if I were an Estonian, Latvian or Lithuanian. Where would NATO draw the line? How much support do the newly independent Baltic states really have? Would the average Joe in the USA, France, Germany or Britain be prepared to fight or risk nuclear war for their independence? We need a new form of realpolitik and diplomacy. It might be better to have a more inclusive attitude to Russia and lock it into fresh trade, economic and political agreements that would be in its interests to maintain rather than break.
In June 1963 President Kennedy visited Berlin after the completion of the wall separating West Berlin from East Berlin and uttered the words "Ich bin ein Berliner". This represented support for freedom and the willingness to stand up against tyranny using force if necessary. Can you imagine any Western politician uttering those words today? This is why JFK was regarded as a hero as he supported freedom not only for his own citizens but for others to. He is a politician who I admire for this reason. We all have short memories.
Western politicians have gravely miscalculated Russia's reaction to the overthrow of President Yanukovich and the unrest in Kiev. The Russian government was prepared to shoot at hapless and helpless Greenpeace activists who posed no real threat to oil drilling operations. How did anyone think that the Kremlin would react to a perceived military threat to its political and economic interests in the Black Sea area.
NATO can only offer moral support to the new government in Kiev and the Kiev government has gravely miscalculated the willingness of Western governments to support them militarily. There will be no"no fly zone" or "boots on the ground" - just words and sanctions with no real teeth. It was plain to see what would happen - what about Georgian sovereignty when it choose to defy the Kremlin? We all have very short memories.
There is only one hope for the people of the rest of Ukraine. And, that is, that there will be completely free and honest new elections and that the people will be free to vote for a President and Parliament that genuinely represents all the people of the Ukraine. It would have been preferable if Russia had stayed its hand and waited until a new Ukrainian government was installed in Kiev. The Crimean people could have then been allowed time to reflect before they voted for independence.
If the people of the rest of the Ukraine vote for and support full democracy then the EU should support them economically but the EU should insist that all the economic support falls into the hands of all the people.This is the only way that there can be true economic growth and development in the Ukraine. Perhaps the Crimea will then want to rejoin the Ukraine or a Ukrainian Commonwealth to share in this prosperity.
The EU can still insist on fair fresh elections and insist that ultra right-wing politicians are not allowed into government unless there is fair electoral support for such a situation. One of the fears of the Crimean people is that of the ultra-right.
I fear for the plight of Ukrainian soldiers left in the Crimea; they are effectively prisoners of war and they should be protected under the Geneva Convention and the European Human Rights Convention. Russia and Ukraine should negotiate their disarmament and their rapid repatriation to the Ukraine if they wish to go back home. There should be no retribution taken against any of these soldiers either in the Ukraine or the Crimea. I fear this will not happen and that they have now become pawns in a superpower struggle.
If the Ukraine or Russia choose to mistreat Ukrainian soldiers or prisoners then the West should take action with real economic sanctions; but a military option is not feasible. The Ukrainian military men and women left behind in the bases in Crimea are on their own and they are at the mercy of the Russians. The West is too weak to support them.
In the wake of President Putin's remarks yesterday about the break up of the Soviet Union I would not sleep so easily if I were an Estonian, Latvian or Lithuanian. Where would NATO draw the line? How much support do the newly independent Baltic states really have? Would the average Joe in the USA, France, Germany or Britain be prepared to fight or risk nuclear war for their independence? We need a new form of realpolitik and diplomacy. It might be better to have a more inclusive attitude to Russia and lock it into fresh trade, economic and political agreements that would be in its interests to maintain rather than break.
Friday, 7 March 2014
Ukrainian Gas
Gazprom, the Russian energy firm, has said that Ukraine owes them 2 billion USD for gas and is threatening to cut off supplies unless they are paid. This has happened before and the last time Russia cut off the gas to the Ukraine the government tapped into the gas line and "stole" supplies destined for Europe. This caused a minor crisis. Lots of people have got very short memories.
The EU, US and the IMF are arranging 15 billion USD in loans for the Ukraine. Some of this money will no doubt be used to pay for Russian gas. So much for the financial sanctions aimed at Russia.
Russia can easily turn off all the gas and make Europe and the Ukraine suffer. Russia can do without BMWs and Consumer goods but Europe cannot do without gas. Trade sanctions will hurt everyone but they will hurt Europe much more. They can break us without having to use military force.
This is why Russia will get away with its technically illegal "annexation" of the Crimea. There is simply nothing that the US or Europe can do about this situation. The Ukraine will not get the Crimea back unless unpalatable concessions are made to Russia. De facto, the Crimea is lost; it seems that only Germany understands the true meaning of Realpolitik.
The West has no choice but to accept a diplomatic solution. The Ukraine may be forced to elect politicians which are more acceptable to the Russians and this will mean that the far right, which the Russians fear so much, will have to be excluded. Someone's calculations have gone badly wrong. It is time for the West to rethink its "carrot and stick" strategy - more of the carrot and less of the stick. The stick is very thin.
The West no longer has the stomach to face down the Russians as John Kennedy did. The West's weakness has been cruelly exposed and it might have been better to have done nothing in the case of Ukraine and leave the showdown for another day. Then, just hope that another crisis about the borders of NATO does not arise again.
Is it not time for Russia to show some true statesmanship and some generosity and make some concessions? A little bit of altruism helps when you hold all of the levers of power. A trade agreement between Europe, Ukraine and Russia might be to everyone's mutual benefit and this could easily be based on the EEA model. It is not too late. Free trade and the free movement of people across Europe and the Asian part of Russia could be the key to a peaceful and prosperous future for us all.
The EU, US and the IMF are arranging 15 billion USD in loans for the Ukraine. Some of this money will no doubt be used to pay for Russian gas. So much for the financial sanctions aimed at Russia.
Russia can easily turn off all the gas and make Europe and the Ukraine suffer. Russia can do without BMWs and Consumer goods but Europe cannot do without gas. Trade sanctions will hurt everyone but they will hurt Europe much more. They can break us without having to use military force.
This is why Russia will get away with its technically illegal "annexation" of the Crimea. There is simply nothing that the US or Europe can do about this situation. The Ukraine will not get the Crimea back unless unpalatable concessions are made to Russia. De facto, the Crimea is lost; it seems that only Germany understands the true meaning of Realpolitik.
The West has no choice but to accept a diplomatic solution. The Ukraine may be forced to elect politicians which are more acceptable to the Russians and this will mean that the far right, which the Russians fear so much, will have to be excluded. Someone's calculations have gone badly wrong. It is time for the West to rethink its "carrot and stick" strategy - more of the carrot and less of the stick. The stick is very thin.
The West no longer has the stomach to face down the Russians as John Kennedy did. The West's weakness has been cruelly exposed and it might have been better to have done nothing in the case of Ukraine and leave the showdown for another day. Then, just hope that another crisis about the borders of NATO does not arise again.
Is it not time for Russia to show some true statesmanship and some generosity and make some concessions? A little bit of altruism helps when you hold all of the levers of power. A trade agreement between Europe, Ukraine and Russia might be to everyone's mutual benefit and this could easily be based on the EEA model. It is not too late. Free trade and the free movement of people across Europe and the Asian part of Russia could be the key to a peaceful and prosperous future for us all.
Tuesday, 4 March 2014
UKRAINE Crisis
The Ukrainian people were naive if ever they thought that Russia would not intervene to maintain its influence in the Crimea. They are also naive if they think that that Western nations will give them direct military help in the form of troops, air strikes or naval operations. Western governments and their electorates have no stomach for this. The Ukraine is on its own as far as military action is concerned.
Europe will also be reluctant to enter into a trade war with Russia as the European economies as so reliant on Russian oil and gas. All the high cards are in Russia's hands.
The Western powers have a habit of backing the wrong politicians when they try to advance democracy in other countries. General Noriega of Panama comes to mind - along with the Shah of Iran and Pinochet etc.
It is time that the Western powers stood up for democracy wherever it has the support of the majority of the people. They expect nothing less from a US President, a French President or a Germany Chancellor and a British Prime Minister.
It is almost as if democracy can only belong to an exclusive club. How many votes would the current leaders of the Ukraine get in an election in Germany or France? I think that French and German voters would get the impression that some of the current leaders of the Ukraine like the deposed president are unfit for public office. The Ukrainian people deserve better.
Instead of the governments of the West and Russia throwing accusations and counter accusations at each other, would it not be better if they sat down and negotiated a solution? A genuine constitution could easily be established in the Ukraine with the help of UN institutions.
This constitution could provide for the pluralistic and regional political rights of all of the people of the Ukraine. It could also provide for political parties which encourage membership from all the various cultural groups which make up Ukrainian society - just like the Conservative, Liberal and Labour parties do in the UK.
The constitution should also allow for the impeachment of the President if he misbehaves. A democratically elected president or constitutional monarch or head of state should never be overthrown by violence. All government ministers should either be appointed by election or their appointments approved by a democratically elected parliament.
Putin has said he agrees that the Ukraine should be free to determine its own destiny democratically. Let us see him put his money where his mouth is and allow John Kerry and Sergey Lavrov to negotiate a deal backed by the US President. This deal should take into account real democracy for the Ukraine and the interests of its neighbours.
There is nothing to prevent the Ukraine from being a neutral state which should be allowed to make trade agreements with the EU - just like Switzerland. The Ukraine could also negotiate trade agreements with Russia. Such a deal would be to the benefit to us all. It is time to stop the posturing and seek a diplomatic solution.
What is good for France, The USA, Germany and the UK should be also be good for the Ukraine. Let the Ukrainian people freely select leaders who have the genuine interests of all the people at heart. That is why there were protests on the streets in the first place.
Europe will also be reluctant to enter into a trade war with Russia as the European economies as so reliant on Russian oil and gas. All the high cards are in Russia's hands.
The Western powers have a habit of backing the wrong politicians when they try to advance democracy in other countries. General Noriega of Panama comes to mind - along with the Shah of Iran and Pinochet etc.
It is time that the Western powers stood up for democracy wherever it has the support of the majority of the people. They expect nothing less from a US President, a French President or a Germany Chancellor and a British Prime Minister.
It is almost as if democracy can only belong to an exclusive club. How many votes would the current leaders of the Ukraine get in an election in Germany or France? I think that French and German voters would get the impression that some of the current leaders of the Ukraine like the deposed president are unfit for public office. The Ukrainian people deserve better.
Instead of the governments of the West and Russia throwing accusations and counter accusations at each other, would it not be better if they sat down and negotiated a solution? A genuine constitution could easily be established in the Ukraine with the help of UN institutions.
This constitution could provide for the pluralistic and regional political rights of all of the people of the Ukraine. It could also provide for political parties which encourage membership from all the various cultural groups which make up Ukrainian society - just like the Conservative, Liberal and Labour parties do in the UK.
The constitution should also allow for the impeachment of the President if he misbehaves. A democratically elected president or constitutional monarch or head of state should never be overthrown by violence. All government ministers should either be appointed by election or their appointments approved by a democratically elected parliament.
Putin has said he agrees that the Ukraine should be free to determine its own destiny democratically. Let us see him put his money where his mouth is and allow John Kerry and Sergey Lavrov to negotiate a deal backed by the US President. This deal should take into account real democracy for the Ukraine and the interests of its neighbours.
There is nothing to prevent the Ukraine from being a neutral state which should be allowed to make trade agreements with the EU - just like Switzerland. The Ukraine could also negotiate trade agreements with Russia. Such a deal would be to the benefit to us all. It is time to stop the posturing and seek a diplomatic solution.
What is good for France, The USA, Germany and the UK should be also be good for the Ukraine. Let the Ukrainian people freely select leaders who have the genuine interests of all the people at heart. That is why there were protests on the streets in the first place.
Monday, 17 February 2014
Scottish Independence
The Scottish people have a big decision to take. At least they know now that the rest of the UK will set them adrift as far as the pound is concerned - no matter how unfair this may seem.
An independent Scotland could also find it difficult to become a member of the EU. Spain might well veto Scotland's accession or severely delay it. The fact that Scotland was already a member, because it was an integral part of the UK, might not cut any ice with Spain who are trying to block Kosovo's membership of the EU. Spain does not recognise Kosovo as an independent state.
http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/referendum-news/barroso-in-kosovo-warning-on-hopes-of-eu-membership.23445822
It is not a preposterous notion that Spain will baulk at Scotland joining the EU. This is the harsh reality of politics which is quite often not based on idealism.
Spain does not want to encourage the secession of Catalonia or the Basque country. This is the type of realpolitik that the voters of Scotland have to take into account. Scotland is a small country and in a weak position.
Even if Scotland is granted admission to the EU , it might well be forced to join the Euro along with all other new member states.
Scotland cannot rely upon the rest of Britain either supporting its entry to the EU or its entry without having to accept the Euro. Britain has its own difficulties with the EU and vice versa so why worry about an independent Scotland?
Scotland may well be forced to join the EEA and maintain its own currency - in which case it will pay for the privilege of joining the European free trade area but having to obey EU rules without having a say in how those rules are set.
There is no doubt that Scotland will continue to prosper no matter what the outcome of the the independence vote. But the Scottish people must realise that they will become a small nation with very little say in international affairs. They will have no more power in Europe than Lithuania does. This is the painful reality and it cannot be glossed over by those who support independence.
Why not see the benefits of saying united with the rest of Britain? We are your friends and life will become more difficult outside of the family rather than at the heart of it.
An independent Scotland could also find it difficult to become a member of the EU. Spain might well veto Scotland's accession or severely delay it. The fact that Scotland was already a member, because it was an integral part of the UK, might not cut any ice with Spain who are trying to block Kosovo's membership of the EU. Spain does not recognise Kosovo as an independent state.
http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/referendum-news/barroso-in-kosovo-warning-on-hopes-of-eu-membership.23445822
It is not a preposterous notion that Spain will baulk at Scotland joining the EU. This is the harsh reality of politics which is quite often not based on idealism.
Spain does not want to encourage the secession of Catalonia or the Basque country. This is the type of realpolitik that the voters of Scotland have to take into account. Scotland is a small country and in a weak position.
Even if Scotland is granted admission to the EU , it might well be forced to join the Euro along with all other new member states.
Scotland cannot rely upon the rest of Britain either supporting its entry to the EU or its entry without having to accept the Euro. Britain has its own difficulties with the EU and vice versa so why worry about an independent Scotland?
Scotland may well be forced to join the EEA and maintain its own currency - in which case it will pay for the privilege of joining the European free trade area but having to obey EU rules without having a say in how those rules are set.
There is no doubt that Scotland will continue to prosper no matter what the outcome of the the independence vote. But the Scottish people must realise that they will become a small nation with very little say in international affairs. They will have no more power in Europe than Lithuania does. This is the painful reality and it cannot be glossed over by those who support independence.
Why not see the benefits of saying united with the rest of Britain? We are your friends and life will become more difficult outside of the family rather than at the heart of it.
Friday, 14 February 2014
Scottish Independence and the Pound Sterling
If I lived in Scotland I would vote No in the independence referendum. I believe that the UK should remain united even if there is a degree of self government for both Scotland and Wales and what could be wrong with a degree of autonomy for the English regions? Northern Ireland has also benefited from a form of self government and even shared sovereignty with Ireland.
I see no reason why the issue of Scotland remaining in the "Sterling Area" should be used as a type of political football.
At one time during the past, when the pound was under threat, the Scottish Nationalists were quite happy to traduce the pound. They have changed their minds for fear that the Scottish people might vote No if they are deprived of their Sterling.
UK national politicians from the major political parties have now joined in the argument saying that it would be impossible for Scotland to join in a currency union if it were to secede from the UK: it would not be to the economic benefit of either Scotland or the remaining parts of the UK if there were to be a currency union.
I presume that the Liberal party no longer supports British membership of the European Currency Union for the same reason. It is quite possible that the Euro nations will return to prosperity and that the Euro will again become a success and it could become an attractive possibility for Britain to join in the future.
It is nonsense to suggest that Scotland should not join the UK in a currency union if they were to become independent. Britain and Ireland effectively had a currency union between 1928 and 1978 and this was reasonably successful.
If Scotland were to join in a currency union a treaty could be used to decide on what settlement risk Scotland should take on but depending on the size of its population or its economy. An independent Scotland would probably maintain similar fiscal rules to the UK as both economies would have a similar structure.
It is disingenuous of UK national politicians to put pressure on the Scottish electorate so a currency union should be negotiated if and when Scotland votes for independence. The Scottish people would be natural allies and partners of the rest of the UK.
Whatever will be proposed next? Is the UK to deny the Scottish people a "Common Travel Area" arrangement like we have with Ireland? Are we going to erect border posts and deny Scottish people a vote if they move to England, Wales or Northern Ireland? Are we going to take "sour grapes" that far?
Scotland, if left to its own devices, could choose to use the pound Sterling as its currency for all transactions including taxation on a semi-official basis. The downside of this decision would be that the Scottish treasury could not set its own national interest rate independently.
Many countries have decided to use a foreign currency in this way. And many countries use the dollar in a process of "Dollarization" or Currency Substitution. Montenegro uses the Euro as its national currency even though it is not a member of the EU.
Scotland could choose to join the Euro or even use its own currency if allowed - there are many options available and no doubt Scotland would continue to prosper.
There are dangers that Scotland would be forced to re-apply for membership of the European Union. Spain is likely to insist on this in order not to set the precedent of a seceding nation being granted automatic membership of the EU on existing terms. Spain is wary of Catalonia seceding from Spain.
Scotland might face the possibility of being forced to join the Euro but perhaps this would be an entirely acceptable solution.
It is preferable that Scotland does not leave the Union; the whole of the UK including Scotland will be stronger if we remain united. This does not mean that the rest of the UK should pressure the Scots not to vote Yes and that we should not help them if they do.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Currency_substitution
http://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/currency-substitution.asp
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/1740493.stm
http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/moving_country/moving_abroad/freedom_of_movement_within_the_eu/common_travel_area_between_ireland_and_the_uk.html
http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/moving_country/moving_to_ireland/introduction_to_the_irish_system/right_to_vote.html#l862a3
I see no reason why the issue of Scotland remaining in the "Sterling Area" should be used as a type of political football.
At one time during the past, when the pound was under threat, the Scottish Nationalists were quite happy to traduce the pound. They have changed their minds for fear that the Scottish people might vote No if they are deprived of their Sterling.
UK national politicians from the major political parties have now joined in the argument saying that it would be impossible for Scotland to join in a currency union if it were to secede from the UK: it would not be to the economic benefit of either Scotland or the remaining parts of the UK if there were to be a currency union.
I presume that the Liberal party no longer supports British membership of the European Currency Union for the same reason. It is quite possible that the Euro nations will return to prosperity and that the Euro will again become a success and it could become an attractive possibility for Britain to join in the future.
It is nonsense to suggest that Scotland should not join the UK in a currency union if they were to become independent. Britain and Ireland effectively had a currency union between 1928 and 1978 and this was reasonably successful.
If Scotland were to join in a currency union a treaty could be used to decide on what settlement risk Scotland should take on but depending on the size of its population or its economy. An independent Scotland would probably maintain similar fiscal rules to the UK as both economies would have a similar structure.
It is disingenuous of UK national politicians to put pressure on the Scottish electorate so a currency union should be negotiated if and when Scotland votes for independence. The Scottish people would be natural allies and partners of the rest of the UK.
Whatever will be proposed next? Is the UK to deny the Scottish people a "Common Travel Area" arrangement like we have with Ireland? Are we going to erect border posts and deny Scottish people a vote if they move to England, Wales or Northern Ireland? Are we going to take "sour grapes" that far?
Scotland, if left to its own devices, could choose to use the pound Sterling as its currency for all transactions including taxation on a semi-official basis. The downside of this decision would be that the Scottish treasury could not set its own national interest rate independently.
Many countries have decided to use a foreign currency in this way. And many countries use the dollar in a process of "Dollarization" or Currency Substitution. Montenegro uses the Euro as its national currency even though it is not a member of the EU.
Scotland could choose to join the Euro or even use its own currency if allowed - there are many options available and no doubt Scotland would continue to prosper.
There are dangers that Scotland would be forced to re-apply for membership of the European Union. Spain is likely to insist on this in order not to set the precedent of a seceding nation being granted automatic membership of the EU on existing terms. Spain is wary of Catalonia seceding from Spain.
Scotland might face the possibility of being forced to join the Euro but perhaps this would be an entirely acceptable solution.
It is preferable that Scotland does not leave the Union; the whole of the UK including Scotland will be stronger if we remain united. This does not mean that the rest of the UK should pressure the Scots not to vote Yes and that we should not help them if they do.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Currency_substitution
http://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/currency-substitution.asp
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/1740493.stm
http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/moving_country/moving_abroad/freedom_of_movement_within_the_eu/common_travel_area_between_ireland_and_the_uk.html
http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/moving_country/moving_to_ireland/introduction_to_the_irish_system/right_to_vote.html#l862a3
Thursday, 6 February 2014
Climate Change and the UK floods and Beavers
Meteorologists have been at pains to point out that the recent floods in the UK cannot be attributed to climate change despite comments by David Cameron, the UK Prime Minister, and the Prince of Wales. Of course there is no direct evidence. But David Cameron only said he "suspected" that climate change was linked to the abnormal weather events.
We would all do well to listen to this. There is a connexion between the weather and the climate and that is why it rarely rains at the South Pole. The south polar climate is in general too cold for rainy weather. Weather is what happens on a short timescale and climate dictates the weather on a long timescale.
If the Antarctic ice cap melted completely it would have serious and noticeable effects on the weather in the southern hemisphere and its long term climate.
It is a scientific fact that the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere affects the climate. These facts were ascertained by scientists such as James Tyndall in the 19th century. Tyndall proved that there was a greenhouse effect caused by an increase to concentration of carbon dioxide and other gases such as methane in the atmosphere. Much of this proof was obtained by his work on absorption spectroscopy. He also ascertained that water vapour was the principal greenhouse gas in the Earth's atmosphere.
Svante Arrhenius was one of the first scientists to make the calculations regarding the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide. He worked out that if the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere doubled then there would be in increase of 5 to 6 degrees Celsius in surface temperatures on the Earth.
We would all do well to listen to this. There is a connexion between the weather and the climate and that is why it rarely rains at the South Pole. The south polar climate is in general too cold for rainy weather. Weather is what happens on a short timescale and climate dictates the weather on a long timescale.
If the Antarctic ice cap melted completely it would have serious and noticeable effects on the weather in the southern hemisphere and its long term climate.
It is a scientific fact that the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere affects the climate. These facts were ascertained by scientists such as James Tyndall in the 19th century. Tyndall proved that there was a greenhouse effect caused by an increase to concentration of carbon dioxide and other gases such as methane in the atmosphere. Much of this proof was obtained by his work on absorption spectroscopy. He also ascertained that water vapour was the principal greenhouse gas in the Earth's atmosphere.
Svante Arrhenius was one of the first scientists to make the calculations regarding the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide. He worked out that if the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere doubled then there would be in increase of 5 to 6 degrees Celsius in surface temperatures on the Earth.
Equally, if the concentration of carbon dioxide were to be halved surface temperatures would be reduced.
Why cannot climate change deniers accept these facts? If we were to take measures on an industrial scale to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere completely we would have a catastrophe on our hands. Our atmosphere would freeze and so would the oceans; we would all die. No sane person would advocate that we did this.
Unfortunately, we are doing the exact reverse as we are pumping industrialised quantities of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. We are heating the planet up.
Much of the heat has gone into the oceans and warmer oceans mean more water vapour in the atmosphere and what does more water vapour do? It causes more rain and it also causes the atmosphere to heat up further. The additional energy in the atmosphere helps to generate more wind. We can expect more "abnormal" or "unusual" storms in the future. David Cameron's suspicion could easily become a dreadful reality.
I am not advocating that anyone should take any action to reduce their own emissions of carbon dioxide. I am only advocating that we at least admit that there might be a problem. We need to be aware that the climate is going to change and we need to take action to mitigate the problems of increased flooding and storms.
Nothing is going to be done to reduce our usage of fossil fuels. We will still have fracking and exploration of oil in the Arctic. The concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is going to double from what it was at the end of the last ice age and this will happen sooner than you think.
It will take a catastrophe which kills hundreds of thousands of people to make the human species sit up and take note but by then it could be too late.
So what can the people of the UK do to protect themselves from the floods? We could abandon such areas as the Somerset levels and evacuate everybody and leave it all to nature but the upheaval and distress caused would be unbearable.
We could learn some lessons from the indigenous people of South East Asia who live in areas of heavy rainfall. They build Kampung houses on stilts. These types of house are often built on the sea shore. We could do something similar on our flood plains.
We could also learn to work with nature instead of against it and restore deciduous forests to the hill side water catchment areas above and near the flood plains. I was amused to see that some local authorities were chopping down trees to damn up streams in the catchment areas to act as buffer systems to assist natural and gradual drainage. Beavers do this and it doesn't cost a penny.
It is as shame that we have chopped down nearly all of our forests and shot all the beavers; they could have provided cost free and very effective flood protection schemes. We have been very stupid not to have protected our environment and to have chopped down or killed any plant or animal which has got in our way.
We need to be more imaginative about how we treat our environment and we need both short term and realistic long term solutions. The use of the bulldozer, chain saw and shotgun (to kill beavers etc.) is no longer a solution.
We also need to listen to Prince Charles; for on this issue he is right. As a constitutional prospective Head of State and Monarch he is expected not to intervene in national politics. But the dangers of global climate change transcend national politics and I am glad that he has reminded us of our responsibility to protect our planet and our living space..
Friday, 24 January 2014
British European Union Angst
Britain joined the Common Market on the 1st January 1973 along with Ireland and Denmark. In 1975 we had a referendum about whether we should remain members. The referendum was called to resolve political infighting within the governing Labour party. Many labour party MPs from both the left ad the right of the party were opposed to British membership of the Common market. The left believed that it would become a rich man's club and some on the right of the party were concerned about a loss of sovereignty.
There was a campaign coalition between business interests, the majority of the Conservative party and the whole Liberal party who argued for Britain remaining within the Common Market. Many senior members of the Labour government also campaigned for Britain to remain.
There was intense and intelligent debate about the issue and every one could see the pros and cons of membership; the decision was not a black and white one. Britain could have survived and prospered without being a member of the Common Market. However, the economic benefits were mostly clear and the vote to remain in the Common market won the the day as 67% of the British people voted to stay in with a turnout of 65% of the voting population.
This was the first National Referendum. All of us who voted believed that we had made a once and for all decision about the future our Nation. My own opinion was that it was a 50:50 decision and I did not finally make my mind up until I entered the polling station. I reserve the right not to reveal how I voted.
The referendum should have been the end of the matter and for a decade or so our country got on with the business of being a fully committed member of the Common Market. We embraced the freedom of movement of people, capital, goods and services. Our country prospered and grew and we became as wealthy as our German and French partners.
Our nation has adapted itself to the ways of the Common Market and latterly the EU. It would now be very difficult to unwind ourselves without considerable cost and to little benefit.
We should be very careful about blindly accepting the criticisms of Euro-sceptics and secessionists.
When I voted I was worried about the loss of national sovereignty but my fears have been allayed.
I ask everyone to to consider where the EU has impinged upon the sovereignty of the UK and where it has impinged adversely on the important rights of the individual.
Has the EU insisted that we should become a republic rather than a constitutional monarchy?
Has the EU dictated to us how we should conduct National and Local elections?
Did the EU prevent us from have a referendum on proportional representation?
Has the EU interfered in the right of the Scottish people to decide their future as part of the UK or as an independent state?
Has the EU interfered with our judicial system and the right to a fair trial and to be tried by a jury?
Has the EU interfered with the appointment of senior government ministers, law officers etc.?
Has the EU tried to interfere with the rights of the Church of England or any other religion in the UK?
Has the EU interfered with the UK's schools policy, the National Health or our Defence policy?
Has the EU interfered with the individual's right to own property, start a business, join a football club, go to the theatre or to see a film, go to the pub, to play cricket or rugby, to drive a car, to move around freely or to worship or not worship?
I think you will find that the EU has not impinged upon most aspects of our national political, cultural and social life.
Why is this? It is because we share common cultural values with our French, German, Spanish and Dutch neighbours. We all believe in democracy, the rule of law, freedom of speech and movement. We share common cultural values we play similar sports we like to go to the theatre, to watch films and go to rock concerts and classical music concerts. We all love family life and like to go for a drive or train trip on a Saturday but above all we do not want to interfere in the national lives of our neighbours.
The people of the UK do not want to impose a constitutional monarchy on the French anymore than the French want to impose a republic on us. All of the Nations of the EU have a live and let live attitude to one another.
The EU Commission does not rule us and neither does the European Parliament both; institutions have very limited powers. Most of the power of the EU resides in the Council of Ministers and for big decisions a national government is empowered with a veto. If the EU has impinged upon your rights then your national government is responsible.
The UK and Denmark have chosen not to join the Euro. No European state tried to to force us to join monetary union. The UK and Ireland have chosen not to join the Schengen agreement and no European state tried to force us to do so.
The EU Commission and Council has limited its activities to trying to improve the commercial life of EU members but not always successfully. It has messed up Fishery and Agricultural policies but this situation can be improved by negotiation and co-operation but not by threatening to leave the club.
In other areas the EU Commission and Parliament have succeeded improving such items as water and air quality in the member states. They have also improved the mobile telephone usage and reduced roaming charges etc. They have not always been a failure. They have also tried to improve food standards.
There have been very many benefits to EU membership. All of our economies have become more competitive and diverse. Europe has become a very desirable place to live and Britain has become part of this, that is the reason why so many people want to emigrate to Europe. Do we want to make our countries so bad that no one wants to come?
Before we decide, in the UK, to leave the we need a proper debate; one which is based on reason and objectivity and consideration of the possible consequences of secession.
We should not leave because we do not like foreigners, or immigrants or because "johnny foreigner" has decided we should have meat rather than rusk in our sausages. Unfortunately this is the level of debate.
Consider this: more than 40% of our trade depends upon the European Union, We export more to Germany than to the US. More than £400 billion of trade relies upon the EU.
One million UK nationals reside in Germany, Spain and France many of them are over 60 so if they were forced to return home, how would we look after them. The immigrants to Britain are mostly young and are not such a burden on the National Health and only 1.7% of them claim benefits. The overwhelming majority of EU immigrants make an economic contribution to our country so we can afford the extra schools needed etc.
Consider this also: the influx of French, Germans, Spanish and Italians etc. has improved our cultural life and improved the diversity of our nation without affecting the culture peculiar to Britain. You can still watch Coronation street or play cricket if you want to or eat Bacon and Eggs for breakfast. But you could even try a tasty Italian recipe from Nigella Lawson.
If we leave the EU we will probably be forced to join the EEA just like Norway and Iceland and for the same economic reasons. Norway has 5 million people and it must pay 300 million Euro pa to join the EU trading club. Norway has to obey European trading laws but it has no say in how those laws are formulated. Norway has to accept the freedom of movement of EU and EEA member nationals.
Britain would probably be forced to adopt a similar position to Norway but pro-rata we would have to pay more - something like 3 billion Euro pa . Britain's net contribution to the EU budget is around 3 billion pa. We would have no say in how European Union law is formulated just like Norway. We would still have to accept the free movement of people and "johnny foreigner " will still be saying we must put meat in our sausages.
Many people in Europe value our membership and value what we have to say and they all want to speak our language.
It is cold outside the tent - so maybe it would be better to stay inside it and warm our hands around the stove with "johnny foreigner" and eat real sausages rather than ones filled with gristle and rusk.
So please be careful what you wish for and think carefully before you vote.
There was a campaign coalition between business interests, the majority of the Conservative party and the whole Liberal party who argued for Britain remaining within the Common Market. Many senior members of the Labour government also campaigned for Britain to remain.
There was intense and intelligent debate about the issue and every one could see the pros and cons of membership; the decision was not a black and white one. Britain could have survived and prospered without being a member of the Common Market. However, the economic benefits were mostly clear and the vote to remain in the Common market won the the day as 67% of the British people voted to stay in with a turnout of 65% of the voting population.
This was the first National Referendum. All of us who voted believed that we had made a once and for all decision about the future our Nation. My own opinion was that it was a 50:50 decision and I did not finally make my mind up until I entered the polling station. I reserve the right not to reveal how I voted.
The referendum should have been the end of the matter and for a decade or so our country got on with the business of being a fully committed member of the Common Market. We embraced the freedom of movement of people, capital, goods and services. Our country prospered and grew and we became as wealthy as our German and French partners.
Our nation has adapted itself to the ways of the Common Market and latterly the EU. It would now be very difficult to unwind ourselves without considerable cost and to little benefit.
We should be very careful about blindly accepting the criticisms of Euro-sceptics and secessionists.
When I voted I was worried about the loss of national sovereignty but my fears have been allayed.
I ask everyone to to consider where the EU has impinged upon the sovereignty of the UK and where it has impinged adversely on the important rights of the individual.
Has the EU insisted that we should become a republic rather than a constitutional monarchy?
Has the EU dictated to us how we should conduct National and Local elections?
Did the EU prevent us from have a referendum on proportional representation?
Has the EU interfered in the right of the Scottish people to decide their future as part of the UK or as an independent state?
Has the EU interfered with our judicial system and the right to a fair trial and to be tried by a jury?
Has the EU interfered with the appointment of senior government ministers, law officers etc.?
Has the EU tried to interfere with the rights of the Church of England or any other religion in the UK?
Has the EU interfered with the UK's schools policy, the National Health or our Defence policy?
Has the EU interfered with the individual's right to own property, start a business, join a football club, go to the theatre or to see a film, go to the pub, to play cricket or rugby, to drive a car, to move around freely or to worship or not worship?
I think you will find that the EU has not impinged upon most aspects of our national political, cultural and social life.
Why is this? It is because we share common cultural values with our French, German, Spanish and Dutch neighbours. We all believe in democracy, the rule of law, freedom of speech and movement. We share common cultural values we play similar sports we like to go to the theatre, to watch films and go to rock concerts and classical music concerts. We all love family life and like to go for a drive or train trip on a Saturday but above all we do not want to interfere in the national lives of our neighbours.
The people of the UK do not want to impose a constitutional monarchy on the French anymore than the French want to impose a republic on us. All of the Nations of the EU have a live and let live attitude to one another.
The EU Commission does not rule us and neither does the European Parliament both; institutions have very limited powers. Most of the power of the EU resides in the Council of Ministers and for big decisions a national government is empowered with a veto. If the EU has impinged upon your rights then your national government is responsible.
The UK and Denmark have chosen not to join the Euro. No European state tried to to force us to join monetary union. The UK and Ireland have chosen not to join the Schengen agreement and no European state tried to force us to do so.
The EU Commission and Council has limited its activities to trying to improve the commercial life of EU members but not always successfully. It has messed up Fishery and Agricultural policies but this situation can be improved by negotiation and co-operation but not by threatening to leave the club.
In other areas the EU Commission and Parliament have succeeded improving such items as water and air quality in the member states. They have also improved the mobile telephone usage and reduced roaming charges etc. They have not always been a failure. They have also tried to improve food standards.
There have been very many benefits to EU membership. All of our economies have become more competitive and diverse. Europe has become a very desirable place to live and Britain has become part of this, that is the reason why so many people want to emigrate to Europe. Do we want to make our countries so bad that no one wants to come?
Before we decide, in the UK, to leave the we need a proper debate; one which is based on reason and objectivity and consideration of the possible consequences of secession.
We should not leave because we do not like foreigners, or immigrants or because "johnny foreigner" has decided we should have meat rather than rusk in our sausages. Unfortunately this is the level of debate.
Consider this: more than 40% of our trade depends upon the European Union, We export more to Germany than to the US. More than £400 billion of trade relies upon the EU.
One million UK nationals reside in Germany, Spain and France many of them are over 60 so if they were forced to return home, how would we look after them. The immigrants to Britain are mostly young and are not such a burden on the National Health and only 1.7% of them claim benefits. The overwhelming majority of EU immigrants make an economic contribution to our country so we can afford the extra schools needed etc.
Consider this also: the influx of French, Germans, Spanish and Italians etc. has improved our cultural life and improved the diversity of our nation without affecting the culture peculiar to Britain. You can still watch Coronation street or play cricket if you want to or eat Bacon and Eggs for breakfast. But you could even try a tasty Italian recipe from Nigella Lawson.
If we leave the EU we will probably be forced to join the EEA just like Norway and Iceland and for the same economic reasons. Norway has 5 million people and it must pay 300 million Euro pa to join the EU trading club. Norway has to obey European trading laws but it has no say in how those laws are formulated. Norway has to accept the freedom of movement of EU and EEA member nationals.
Britain would probably be forced to adopt a similar position to Norway but pro-rata we would have to pay more - something like 3 billion Euro pa . Britain's net contribution to the EU budget is around 3 billion pa. We would have no say in how European Union law is formulated just like Norway. We would still have to accept the free movement of people and "johnny foreigner " will still be saying we must put meat in our sausages.
Many people in Europe value our membership and value what we have to say and they all want to speak our language.
It is cold outside the tent - so maybe it would be better to stay inside it and warm our hands around the stove with "johnny foreigner" and eat real sausages rather than ones filled with gristle and rusk.
So please be careful what you wish for and think carefully before you vote.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
