EU - positivity

I am a supporter of the EU as both a political and economic union. I support those political aspects of the Union which improve the living standards of all the citizens of the EU. In many ways political action drives economic action. If a state or group of states has the political will to achieve something then the economics has to follow.

Political will has dominated economic will ever since mankind has been on the planet and before the study of economics was ever invented. Of course economics would always have entered  into a human decision. However, most societies  throughout the world have developed whereby political considerations override economic ones. I include religious considerations as part of the political orbit.  In Muslim countries it is frowned upon to charge interest for a loan and this religious principle influences trading and commercial considerations.

It is only in the last two hundred years or so that limited liability companies have come to the fore. Before the invention of the limited liability company, traders and manufacturers  as individuals were regarded as morally responsible for the activities of  the enterprise. Even in the 19th century a trader or individual could be sent to prison for not meeting their financial obligations. We have progressed substantially since those days both politically and economically.

The EU cannot exist without political considerations being taken into account. I believe that the EU has the responsibility to keep the peace and to promote a secure society where the economy of each individual member state is encouraged to flourish. The member states also have a political duty to work together for peace and security in the rest of the world which cannot flourish without these two vital pre-requisites for health and wealth.

The EU should have a vision of how all this would work. Britain should be able to make a  a major contribution to this, but only if we remain in the EU. We have the opportunity to make much progress if we work together with our European partners rather than squabbling with them or accusing them of ganging up against us.

One of the enormous benefits of the EU is the exchange of ideas and cultural activity. Whenever I meet young people from Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovakia or Romania, I am always enthused by the hopes that they have for themselves and their families. They have come to Britain for the the opportunity to make a better life for themselves and contribute to their new country.. Most of these young people miss their homeland and will return home when circumstances permit. Others will be content to stay.

I have worked, as part of international teams, in many of the countries of the old EU including France, Germany, Italy, Spain and Benelux. I have never felt any animosity towards me because I was British. On the contrary I have felt positively welcomed and I hope that I have made a positive contribution wherever I have stayed. It is time for the British people to recognise Europeans as out friends who wan to work with us and be part of a community of nations working for the common good. The Europeans are not ganging up on us and they are not trying to make life difficult for us by introducing unnecessary bureaucracy or trying to undermine our sovereignty.

On my travels throughout the EU, I have never been subjected to any form of bureaucracy; all I have done is show my passport at the border and that was it. A hotel has never asked to retain my passport for photocopying. When I was running a project in Germany one of the members of my team had to go to hospital; at the end of his stay he just showed his international NHS card and he had nothing to pay. Everything was bureaucracy free. This was not so for citizens who came from South Africa, Russia or India as they had to go through the formalities of obtaining a Schengen visa. The benefits of British citizens being able to  travel visa-free through the EU are enormous; from a business, cultural and social point of view.

Of course these arrangements have to be reciprocal. Why should young people from Britain have obstacles put in their way to being able to broaden their experience and horizons from visa-free travel? Why should young citizens from the EU be prevented from contributing to the British economy? We need them to work for industries where there is a skills and labour shortage. Britain cannot supply enough young people in itself  to pay for the ever increasing numbers of pensioners so we need the youth of Romania, Bulgaria and other countries to come here  to support our economy. As an exchange we should be investing in Romania and Bulgaria to ensure that there is a future for the youth of the new EU members states. Co-operation across Europe will enhance the economic prospects for all.

All of the countries of Europe need to work together to improve the environment because air and water pollution does not respect borders. Britain could be a major contributor to and beneficiary of investment in the environment. Our country is a major research centre. Our language is understood and spoken by most researchers in the EU; we could become leaders in environmental research and development of new resources.

As far as the refugee "crisis" is concerned  the unfortunate victims of war in the Middle East will be coming whether the EU exists or not. Along with the refugees a considerable number of economic migrants are joining in the mass movement. Refugees should be afforded sanctuary without question and they should be looked after properly.

Economic migrants should be treated the same way as citizens from Thailand, South Africa or India so they should be required to have a visa. But, surely we must have a means for dealing with people if they just turn up at the border. If they are prepared to work and can support themselves, why not give them a temporary visa which will allow for them to stay and find a job and sort out the paperwork later? Britain was once a country which had the confidence to act flexibly. We even organised the Olympic games when we were bankrupt after the second World War. Nowadays, we seem to be lost and whenever there is a problem many of our citizens see the solution as just blaming the foreigners and excluding them. This approach will not work. We need to face the problems of the EU has and work with our partners to find solutions.

The issue of migration is caused mainly by war but poverty and abuse of human rights are other factors. The EU should be a force for peace in the world and for improving the economic conditions of the poor. We should listen to our EU partners who are more concerned about this. We have seen the disasters of taking military action in Iraq and Libya without making proper provision for the consequences. The approach of Germany to foreign policy might be a better option. Since the end of the second World War, Germany has been more interested in "real politik" than flag waving and returning to the glories of a colonial past.


Britain should not be too proud to learn the lessons of post war politics. It is not good enough to say: "Britain is great, it has the 5th largest economy and everything will be all right on the night". The leave campaigners have no vision for a post-EU Britain because they all disagree on policy.  What sort of leadership is this?

We need to be full members of the EU if we want our voice to be really heard and we need to be fully committed. We need to be fully involved in leading all the nations of Europe to the peace, security and prosperity that they deserve. We should stop sniping from the sidelines and vote to stay in.

Syrian Peace process

It is essential that the Syrian peace process is successful and that all parties work towards a peaceful resolution to the conflict. I am not confident, however, that the talks will be successful. Some of the adversaries are not included in the peace process.

Perhaps, the leaders of the peace process, the US and Russia, should consider negotiating with Isis and Al Nusra - no matter how distasteful this must seem. The leaders of the latter two groups would then be able to assess the opposition against them and that it is implacable. They might then be prepared to cease hostilities and stand down knowing that in the end they will not be able to achieve their objectives by violence. Any negotiation would have to be carried out by the UN in association with states that tacitly support them.

If the negotiations fail, the war against Isis and Al Nusra could then be resumed but with renewed vigour.

At last Russia and US seem to be on the same side: this war must be stopped but by diplomacy first but backed up by military action if diplomacy fails.