The Mars One project is planning to send its first crew on a one way mission to Mars in 2024 with a landing in 2025. There is much work and fund raising to be done before the project gets off the ground.
http://www.mars-one.com/mission/roadmap
I am hoping that the project fails to raise the funds for a number of reasons:
It is unrealistic to plan a mission to go anywhere if the explorers have no chance of coming back to tell us in person about their experiences,
It is immoral to persuade young people to accept that they are going on a one way journey from which there is no return and no rescue if something goes wrong,
It is immoral to persuade someone to accept isolation which could lead to a lonely existence millions of miles from their home planet and their family, friends and fellow human beings,
It is immoral to bring children into being in a completely alien world,
The purpose of the colonisation of another planet is of debateable if not dubious benefit to humanity.
All astronauts and cosmonauts are brave people and they accept that their lives are at risk but all missions into space are based on the hope that the explorers will return home safely. When Yuri Gagarin first went into space he did so on the basis that he had a fair chance of returning even though rescue if something went wrong was not possible.
The same applied to Aldrin, Armstrong and Collins when they first travelled to the moon. The pioneers accepted that a rescue mission to the moon was not possible if they became stranded but they always maintained the hope that the mission would succeed and they would return to their families.
When Apollo 13 got into difficulties strenuous and ingenious efforts were made to bring back the pilots safely. It is part of our humanity not to give up hope and we owe it to our fellow humans to try to rescue them when they get into difficulty.
One of the justifications for the Mars One mission is that many people, in the past, have emigrated knowing that they will never see their relatives and friends again and survived. However, there was still hope that fortunes might change and a return would be possible or their friends and relatives could come and join the pioneers in their new country.
Many people in the past have been banished form their country and sent to new continents and survived but this was cruel punishment for what might have been petty crime.
Some explorers got into severe difficulties: the Shackleton Endurance expedition to the South Pole in 1914 saw the team of explorers being marooned in the Antarctic for over a year. In the end Shackleton made strenuous and brave efforts to rescue all his men. It was probably the most valiant rescue mission in history. Where there is life there is hope. Perhaps where there is no hope there can be no life. Read this:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/historic_figures/shackleton_ernest.shtml
At its closest, when both planets are in opposition to the Sun, Mars is 54.6 million km from the Earth. This is a colossal distance. A radio signal would take 3 minutes to reach earth so a reply signal could not be received within 6 minutes. When the Earth and Mars are both at aphelion the distance from each other is 401 million km so a radio signal and its reply would take considerably longer than 6 minutes. No-one has been trained to experience such isolation in terms of distance; we have no knowledge how explorers would react to such a one way trip.
W e have no real knowledge of how anyone would react when they are prevented from seeing and touching their family and friends for such a long time when they are also living in a totally alien environment.
The gravity on Mars is 38% that of the Earth. We have no idea of the really long term effect of reduced gravity on the human anatomy and psychology.
The explorers will be living in a totally artificial environment: apart from the reduced gravity they will be forced to breathe recycled air, drink recycled water and eat recycled food for a very extended period. We have no idea how this will affect their morale and physical and mental well being.
The explorers will have to wear a spacesuit when they leave their habitation. The atmosphere is 95% carbon dioxide at 1% of the pressure of the Earth. Any accident or tear to the spacesuit will probably result in death. The average temperature of the planet is minus 60 degrees Celsius.
The planet's surface is like a desert and dust storms can last for months.
The Mars year is 687 Earth days but the length of day is just over 24 Earth hours - so there is some familiarity on a daily basis.
On Mars there will be no sound of a river or a breeze rustling the leaves of trees. There will be no smell of a wild flower. You will not be able to feel the sun on your skin. You will not be able to taste wild fruits. As Mars is much smaller than the Earth the horizon will be closer.
The outside light will be completely different. The sky will not be blue and there will be no clouds. There will be no rain to sense.
Could virtual reality make up for what you are missing?
In this completely alien world how long would your sanity last when you are completely isolated from your friends and family as well? You might become so homesick that your mental health would really suffer.
Your opportunity to find a lover might be really restricted; you could end up having very little physical contact with your fellow humans. If you do find a lover then what happens if you split up? There maybe nowhere to hide.
What right do you have to have a baby which will be forced to grow up in a totally alien environment? From an evolutionary point of view, a baby will be totally ill adapted to live in such an alien world. What would happen to its physical development when exposed to considerably reduced gravity?
On Mars there will be no enforceable laws so what happens if someone becomes violent or murders someone? Will there be rough justice?
Mental difficulties could easily arise because of the isolation, the alien environment and poor interpersonal relations. There is no hope of relief or even rescue. Is there provision for a mental hospital?
I can see such a mission quickly becoming a disaster when there is no hope of return. This coupled with the chance of something going wrong with the equipment could lead to a complete catastrophe.
I can see the point of a manned mission to Mars but only for a scientific purpose and only if the explorers have a fair chance of returning home. To persuade young persons to go on a one way trip which they might completely regret is simply immoral.
We do not need to colonise Mars; where are the long term benefits? It is best to make the best of the good Earth and cherish what it has to offer for as long as we are alive.
Thursday, 5 March 2015
Friday, 23 January 2015
Islam does not accept criticism by tradition - really?
Anyone who thinks that the religion of Islam does not accept criticism by tradition should read this article:
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/commentators/islamic-history-is-full-of-free-thinkers--but-recent-attempts-to-suppress-critical-thought-are-verging-on-the-absurd-9993777.html
I have met lots of Muslims in the the course of my work and my family have Muslim friends. All of them are horrified at what happened to the French journalists and Jewish people who were killed in the recent attacks in Paris.
Some of my Muslim friends are not Muslims at all as they are atheists or agnostics but they are reluctant to admit this to their families. I have worked with apostate Muslim colleagues who ignore Ramadan: in the UK and Western Europe they have the perfect right to do so. This right must be defended. Equally the right to worship and to hold the belief in a faith must be defended too.
Only a secular society can defend everyone's right to have freedom of conscience. The opponents of a secular society would do well to consider this. There has been terrible religious repression in Western Europe throughout history; even Christians have been at each others throats. Western European society has had a terrible history and bigots of all kinds have murdered Jews, Muslims and non-believers with equal vigour. Nazism was a kind of religious fervour - Adolf Hitler was impressed by mysticism.
To achieve peace there is a trade off: the religious must accept the rights of the non-religious to criticise belief in a God and religious worship. Murdering people who do not have the same beliefs as you is totally unacceptable and the secular society must be defended at all costs to protect the rights of everyone.
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/commentators/islamic-history-is-full-of-free-thinkers--but-recent-attempts-to-suppress-critical-thought-are-verging-on-the-absurd-9993777.html
I have met lots of Muslims in the the course of my work and my family have Muslim friends. All of them are horrified at what happened to the French journalists and Jewish people who were killed in the recent attacks in Paris.
Some of my Muslim friends are not Muslims at all as they are atheists or agnostics but they are reluctant to admit this to their families. I have worked with apostate Muslim colleagues who ignore Ramadan: in the UK and Western Europe they have the perfect right to do so. This right must be defended. Equally the right to worship and to hold the belief in a faith must be defended too.
Only a secular society can defend everyone's right to have freedom of conscience. The opponents of a secular society would do well to consider this. There has been terrible religious repression in Western Europe throughout history; even Christians have been at each others throats. Western European society has had a terrible history and bigots of all kinds have murdered Jews, Muslims and non-believers with equal vigour. Nazism was a kind of religious fervour - Adolf Hitler was impressed by mysticism.
To achieve peace there is a trade off: the religious must accept the rights of the non-religious to criticise belief in a God and religious worship. Murdering people who do not have the same beliefs as you is totally unacceptable and the secular society must be defended at all costs to protect the rights of everyone.
Wednesday, 21 January 2015
Richest 1% to own more than rest of world by 2016
According to a report by Oxfam the richest 1 % of the world's population will own 50% of the world's wealth by 2016. This figure is probably not totally accurate but I am willing to bet that it is close to the mark.
A good proportion of the world's population live in a democracy. I wonder if anyone read in the manifesto of a political party that it was policy to allow such a small proportion of people to possess so much of the world's wealth. Would anyone have voted for such a policy?
I wonder if the economists, businessmen and politicians at the 2015 Davos conference believe that it is economically sustainable for so few people to possess so much of the world's wealth and income.
Perhaps there will come a time when almost no-one can afford to buy the goods and services being produced by the global economy. If that happens we would all be in trouble both rich and poor.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-30875633
A good proportion of the world's population live in a democracy. I wonder if anyone read in the manifesto of a political party that it was policy to allow such a small proportion of people to possess so much of the world's wealth. Would anyone have voted for such a policy?
I wonder if the economists, businessmen and politicians at the 2015 Davos conference believe that it is economically sustainable for so few people to possess so much of the world's wealth and income.
Perhaps there will come a time when almost no-one can afford to buy the goods and services being produced by the global economy. If that happens we would all be in trouble both rich and poor.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-30875633
Wednesday, 17 December 2014
Let's lay it on the line and have another referendum about EU membership.
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.
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.
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"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
