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"

https://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/researcharchive/3463/Support-for-EU-membership-highest-for-23-years-even-as-UKIP-rises-in-the-polls.aspx

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.

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