Once again the human species shows how low it can fall in Syria. The Syrian conflict must be one of the worst civil wars ever. The United States has now suddenly changed its policy and has decided to bomb Syrian airbases because of the use of gas warfare. At the moment, there is no direct proof as to who used nerve gases or chlorine or both against innocent civilians. The United Nations have not yet concluded their investigations. The Assad regime is obviously a suspect but the opposition guerrillas have shown themselves capable of deploying nerve gases too.
Nerve gases should never have been invented and the same should be true for biological weapons. They are a scourge which no human being should ever get involved with. There is something wrong with human thought processes. It was mother nature, or perhaps even God, that gave us intelligence and rationality. The forces of nature ,however, did not deem that our intellectual abilities should have been directed towards making weapons of mass destruction to support tribal divisions and hatred. We have chosen this route ourselves. If we are not careful we will destroy ourselves.
The universe will get along fine without us and we won't be missed.
Friday, 7 April 2017
Monday, 3 April 2017
Let's wave the flag for Gibraltar
The border between Spain and Gibraltar was closed by the Spanish between 1969 and 1985. The border was opened by Spain just before in joined the EEC/EU in 1986. It may have escaped the attention of "Brexiters" that Britain was at liberty to veto the accession of Spain to the the EEC. It was therefore in Spain's interests to open the border with the Rock. It was also in the interests of Gibraltar which has become a rich and easy going country at peace with itself.
Every day 10,000 Spaniards cross the border to work in Gibraltar which has a resident population of 30,000. No one in Gibraltar resents the presence of these "foreigners" and the economy of the Rock is reliant upon labour from neighbouring La Linea and its immediate surroundings. Over 90% of Gibraltarians voted to stay in the EU. Britain and Spain must take this into account when a Brexit deal is negotiated.
A dispute between Spain and Britain over the future of the Rock is in no one's interests.
We now have a former senior British politician invoking the Falkland islands spirit by hinting that a dispute with Spain could be settled by military means . This is laughable or the following reasons.
1) The US would not allow it as it has been opposed to British colonialism since the end of the second world war.
2) Britain does not have the military power to invade anywhere on its own; we have a significantly reduced army and no aircraft carriers with aircraft on them.
3) Spain could easily invade Gibraltar across the isthmus. It would then be almost impossible to retake the peninsula without severe civilian casualties.
Using military force would be a national humiliation and a disaster for Britain and Gibraltar. It is a delusion that we could just raise the flag and Spain would fall into line. Brexit has thrown up another diplomatic and political problem for the UK.
If we are not careful the fall out from Brexit could lead to equally disastrous consequences for Britain on both the domestic and international fronts. Who are the real patriots the flag wavers or the realists?
Every day 10,000 Spaniards cross the border to work in Gibraltar which has a resident population of 30,000. No one in Gibraltar resents the presence of these "foreigners" and the economy of the Rock is reliant upon labour from neighbouring La Linea and its immediate surroundings. Over 90% of Gibraltarians voted to stay in the EU. Britain and Spain must take this into account when a Brexit deal is negotiated.
A dispute between Spain and Britain over the future of the Rock is in no one's interests.
We now have a former senior British politician invoking the Falkland islands spirit by hinting that a dispute with Spain could be settled by military means . This is laughable or the following reasons.
1) The US would not allow it as it has been opposed to British colonialism since the end of the second world war.
2) Britain does not have the military power to invade anywhere on its own; we have a significantly reduced army and no aircraft carriers with aircraft on them.
3) Spain could easily invade Gibraltar across the isthmus. It would then be almost impossible to retake the peninsula without severe civilian casualties.
Using military force would be a national humiliation and a disaster for Britain and Gibraltar. It is a delusion that we could just raise the flag and Spain would fall into line. Brexit has thrown up another diplomatic and political problem for the UK.
If we are not careful the fall out from Brexit could lead to equally disastrous consequences for Britain on both the domestic and international fronts. Who are the real patriots the flag wavers or the realists?
Sunday, 19 March 2017
Referendums and Nationalism
The recent referendums regarding voting systems, Scottish independence and "Brexit" have truly let the curse of excessive nationalism out of the bag. We live in a parliamentary democracy but our politicians have been too weak to make the decisions regarding our constitution. They have absolved themselves of responsibility and now they are reaping the bad harvests sown from the seeds of plebiscites. Any referendum which ends up with an almost a half and half result is bound to create division when only two thirds of the electorate bother to vote. These divisions are not easily mended; friendships and families have been wrested apart.
It is better if we run our country without referendums. Parliament should decide. For major constitutional change there should be a two thirds majority in Parliament - just like the USA and other sensibly run democracies. This would stop division.
In Australia they do have referendums for constitutional change, such as when they wanted to decide whether the country was to become a republic or not. Everyone in Australia is obliged to vote so a referendum could be carried by a simple majority. However, a referendum must be carried in at least four of the six states before the the status quo can be changed. Most referendums therefore fail to change the status quo. There is no whinging if a simply majority fails to carry a referendum and there is therefore not much division in society - everybody gets on with their life.
Under the terms of the Australian referendum system "Brexit" would have failed. Our referendum result did not achieve a majority of electors registered to vote or a majority of the nations comprising the UK. Now we have real and possibly dangerous division facing our nation.
In the case where a nation votes in a referendum to gain independence there should be either a two thirds majority or a simple majority where everyone is legally obliged to vote. This way, for Scotland, Northern Ireland or Wales there could be no doubt of the intentions of the nation's voters: there would be less of a chance of division.
Scotland and Northern Ireland both voted to stay in the EU under a simple first past the post system and England and Wales voted to leave. We have no idea of the opinions that are held by the twenty five percent of the electorate who did not vote in the "EU" referendum. They might have been of the opinion that it was best left to Parliament to decide.
Is it any wonder that there is division and that now Scotland might vote to leave the UK. Is it any wonder that there is now pressure for a border poll in Northern Ireland. How will these two nations be kept on side by England and Wales during the "Brexit" negotiations? How are the conflicting views of Leave and Remain to be resolved?
Disturbingly we are now seeing a rise of English nationalism which was subsumed into a form of British patriotism. The UK was dominated by the English who expected Scotland and Northern Ireland to fall into line; this is no longer the case. We have set up a dangerous precedent with our simple referendum system; so that the nationalists everywhere will expect that a simple majority will prevail - "the tyranny of the majority". Hopefully this will not mean a return to violence in Northern Ireland.
It is likely that "Brexit" negotiations will not meet the expectations of any of the voters of the referendum. Possibly the government will have to settle for membership of the single market to assuage the populations of both Northern Ireland, Scotland and even Wales. Possibly our great British nations will become poorer, more badly governed, and more divided. How will the "English nationalists" feel about that? The cat has been let out of the bag. I can see Scotland becoming independent within twenty years; the issue will not go away now. Neither will the issue of a border poll for Ireland.
Leave voters may get more they they bargained for and they may come to regret that their referendum result was carried by a simple majority of voters and not the whole of the electorate.
For a long time the English have argued against nationalism but they may come to regret that a significant proportion of their own population has become enamoured in the same way as the Scottish nationalists have.
How did we get to this mess?
It is better if we run our country without referendums. Parliament should decide. For major constitutional change there should be a two thirds majority in Parliament - just like the USA and other sensibly run democracies. This would stop division.
In Australia they do have referendums for constitutional change, such as when they wanted to decide whether the country was to become a republic or not. Everyone in Australia is obliged to vote so a referendum could be carried by a simple majority. However, a referendum must be carried in at least four of the six states before the the status quo can be changed. Most referendums therefore fail to change the status quo. There is no whinging if a simply majority fails to carry a referendum and there is therefore not much division in society - everybody gets on with their life.
Under the terms of the Australian referendum system "Brexit" would have failed. Our referendum result did not achieve a majority of electors registered to vote or a majority of the nations comprising the UK. Now we have real and possibly dangerous division facing our nation.
In the case where a nation votes in a referendum to gain independence there should be either a two thirds majority or a simple majority where everyone is legally obliged to vote. This way, for Scotland, Northern Ireland or Wales there could be no doubt of the intentions of the nation's voters: there would be less of a chance of division.
Scotland and Northern Ireland both voted to stay in the EU under a simple first past the post system and England and Wales voted to leave. We have no idea of the opinions that are held by the twenty five percent of the electorate who did not vote in the "EU" referendum. They might have been of the opinion that it was best left to Parliament to decide.
Is it any wonder that there is division and that now Scotland might vote to leave the UK. Is it any wonder that there is now pressure for a border poll in Northern Ireland. How will these two nations be kept on side by England and Wales during the "Brexit" negotiations? How are the conflicting views of Leave and Remain to be resolved?
Disturbingly we are now seeing a rise of English nationalism which was subsumed into a form of British patriotism. The UK was dominated by the English who expected Scotland and Northern Ireland to fall into line; this is no longer the case. We have set up a dangerous precedent with our simple referendum system; so that the nationalists everywhere will expect that a simple majority will prevail - "the tyranny of the majority". Hopefully this will not mean a return to violence in Northern Ireland.
It is likely that "Brexit" negotiations will not meet the expectations of any of the voters of the referendum. Possibly the government will have to settle for membership of the single market to assuage the populations of both Northern Ireland, Scotland and even Wales. Possibly our great British nations will become poorer, more badly governed, and more divided. How will the "English nationalists" feel about that? The cat has been let out of the bag. I can see Scotland becoming independent within twenty years; the issue will not go away now. Neither will the issue of a border poll for Ireland.
Leave voters may get more they they bargained for and they may come to regret that their referendum result was carried by a simple majority of voters and not the whole of the electorate.
For a long time the English have argued against nationalism but they may come to regret that a significant proportion of their own population has become enamoured in the same way as the Scottish nationalists have.
How did we get to this mess?
Tuesday, 14 February 2017
Cures for homosexuals
Many people from the religious community are advocating that homosexuals could and should be cured from their homosexuality, as if homosexuality is some sort of disease. Clearly, homosexuality is not a disease and there is no scientific evidence to suggest that it is. Prejudice against homosexuality is unjustified and it is an ideological response to discomfort with sexual behaviour which does not fit in with the behaviour of the majority. There is no good reason to subject homosexuals to any form of punishment or discrimination.
Homosexuality is purely a matter of taste or choice just as much as heterosexuality or celibacy. Homosexuals as a group do no more harm or good to society than heterosexuals or celibates. Every society has its own rules against paedophilia but these rules should apply equally to all citizens.
The best way to treat homosexuality in others is to ignore it. What happens behind closed doors is no body else's business as long as the sexual union between two people is based on freewill and mutual respect and that children are not coerced into sexual activity.
Why should homosexuals be treated any differently to anyone else? It is not my choice to be a homosexual but why should I deny that right to anyone else. The sooner the better that we forget about making judgements about a person's character on the basis of their sexuality.
The sooner that we all live in a secular society the better.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/malaysia-gay-conversion-therapy-endorses-lgbt-rights-islam-a7578666.html
Homosexuality is purely a matter of taste or choice just as much as heterosexuality or celibacy. Homosexuals as a group do no more harm or good to society than heterosexuals or celibates. Every society has its own rules against paedophilia but these rules should apply equally to all citizens.
The best way to treat homosexuality in others is to ignore it. What happens behind closed doors is no body else's business as long as the sexual union between two people is based on freewill and mutual respect and that children are not coerced into sexual activity.
Why should homosexuals be treated any differently to anyone else? It is not my choice to be a homosexual but why should I deny that right to anyone else. The sooner the better that we forget about making judgements about a person's character on the basis of their sexuality.
The sooner that we all live in a secular society the better.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/malaysia-gay-conversion-therapy-endorses-lgbt-rights-islam-a7578666.html
Thursday, 22 December 2016
The Arctic and its Climate
Every week there seems to be a new report about climate change in the Arctic. The arctic ice sheet is diminishing rapidly within the next decade or so the ice sheet over the North Pole is likely to disappear completely. If this happens there will almost certainly be a profound effect on our weather and climate. We are already experiencing a disturbance of the jet stream over the North Atlantic. Western Europe is being affected by an increasing frequency of winter storms and rainfall and flooding. 2016 looks like being the warmest year on record.
Many species in the Arctic are coming under threat including the polar bear which relies upon sea ice for its survival. The arctic fox is coming under threat from the larger and more powerful red fox which is able to push further north because of the warmer climate.
Some parts of the arctic north of 80 degrees are recording record high temperatures. The sea ice is melting in some places even in mid-winter.
It is hard to believe that human activity could disturb the global climate but this is what is happening. The evidence is now before our eyes; we no longer need instrumental readings to show us what is going on with the climate.
The polar bear and arctic fox are in danger of extinction by the beginning of the next century. We must be careful that the same thing does not happen to us.
Many species in the Arctic are coming under threat including the polar bear which relies upon sea ice for its survival. The arctic fox is coming under threat from the larger and more powerful red fox which is able to push further north because of the warmer climate.
Some parts of the arctic north of 80 degrees are recording record high temperatures. The sea ice is melting in some places even in mid-winter.
It is hard to believe that human activity could disturb the global climate but this is what is happening. The evidence is now before our eyes; we no longer need instrumental readings to show us what is going on with the climate.
The polar bear and arctic fox are in danger of extinction by the beginning of the next century. We must be careful that the same thing does not happen to us.
Thursday, 15 December 2016
House of Lords Committee on Brexit
All this week the House of Lords, in the UK, are having committee meetings about the implications of the vote to leave the EU.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201617/ldselect/ldeucom/81/8108.htm
They are coming out with some disturbing findings about the legal, constitutional, economic and financial, social and administration implications.
It is a pity that this analysis was not made before the vote.
It is also a pity that there was not a Royal Commission instigated before the referendum. An authoritative Royal Commission would have established the facts and made a cost benefit analysis. Many of the project fear claims and exaggerations made by both sides of the argument would then have been debunked. The population would then have been given a clear basis of facts upon which to base their opinion.
The findings of the House of Lords indicate that we are heading for trouble. I wonder how many in the government, and in the opposition, are secretly hoping that the supreme court will find that it is legally unconstitutional for Northern Ireland or Scotland or both countries to be taken out of the EU without the consent of their respective parliaments. If the supreme court does make this ruling then there may the sound of champagne corks popping in some government circles. It would be the perfect excuse to forget about the whole matter and blame someone else for the debacle.
Full consideration should have been made for the event of Northern Ireland voting to remain. The Northern Irish were largely ignored by the UK government, the press and the leave and remain campaigns. The people of Northern Ireland deserved better consideration.
In Australia a referendum cannot be passed unless a majority of states give voter consent. That means that a referendum to change the constitution requires at least the consent of 4 of the 6 states. Most referendums to change the constitution therefore fail. Australia has ways of preventing the "tyranny of the majority", as John Major describes it. Referendums in Australia are therefore not divisive in character.
Voting is compulsory in Australia so a referendum result can be confirmed by a simple majority. Perhaps we should do something similar in Britain.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201617/ldselect/ldeucom/81/8108.htm
They are coming out with some disturbing findings about the legal, constitutional, economic and financial, social and administration implications.
It is a pity that this analysis was not made before the vote.
It is also a pity that there was not a Royal Commission instigated before the referendum. An authoritative Royal Commission would have established the facts and made a cost benefit analysis. Many of the project fear claims and exaggerations made by both sides of the argument would then have been debunked. The population would then have been given a clear basis of facts upon which to base their opinion.
The findings of the House of Lords indicate that we are heading for trouble. I wonder how many in the government, and in the opposition, are secretly hoping that the supreme court will find that it is legally unconstitutional for Northern Ireland or Scotland or both countries to be taken out of the EU without the consent of their respective parliaments. If the supreme court does make this ruling then there may the sound of champagne corks popping in some government circles. It would be the perfect excuse to forget about the whole matter and blame someone else for the debacle.
Full consideration should have been made for the event of Northern Ireland voting to remain. The Northern Irish were largely ignored by the UK government, the press and the leave and remain campaigns. The people of Northern Ireland deserved better consideration.
In Australia a referendum cannot be passed unless a majority of states give voter consent. That means that a referendum to change the constitution requires at least the consent of 4 of the 6 states. Most referendums to change the constitution therefore fail. Australia has ways of preventing the "tyranny of the majority", as John Major describes it. Referendums in Australia are therefore not divisive in character.
Voting is compulsory in Australia so a referendum result can be confirmed by a simple majority. Perhaps we should do something similar in Britain.
Thursday, 24 November 2016
Vote leave politicians promised you Eldorado
So now we have it ; the first budget statement after the vote to leave the EU. It does not make good reading. Public debt is going to rise to at least 90% of our GDP or nearly 2 trillion GBP. this is 2, 000,000,000,000 pounds. It is a sum of money which is unimaginable. Leaving the EU is going to be costly.
The Office of Budget Responsibility (OBR) has forecast economic growth for next year of 1.4 % rising to 1.7% to following year and then rising again to 2.1% pa after we have left the EU. This is hardly Eldorado. The OBR has not made any prediction that the economy will improve beyond where we are now after we leave. If the OBR is to be believed we are indulging in a very costly exercise for nothing.
The Chancellor must be congratulated for finally recognising that Britain has a problem with its productivity and that we are falling behind our international competitors. He has made a start to redress this issue. To improve our productivity, at a macro economic level, we must provide affordable housing for all workers especially those who want to move location. We need to provide affordable creche facilities for parents who work full time. We must provide full time well paid jobs not badly paid self-employment jobs. We need to get millions of Britons out of the badly paid "gig" economy and into well paid stable permanent employment. To get our economy moving we need employees who have better skills and motivation. We need a better education system. We also need healthy workers.
We need to implement these changes and we can do this if we have the political will. The EU cannot stop us making improvements to our economy and indeed no-one in the EU even wants to do this. To all intents and purposes we are masters of our own economic destiny even if we are in the EU.
Turning the economy around will take decades. If our economy is to grow in the meantime then we need to import more and more workers. These will be young people from the EU and elsewhere who are prepared to live in multiple occupancy flats and dwellings and move around from place to place easily because they have no family roots. After we leave the EU these workers will arrive in similar numbers to what they do now but this time they will arrive as agency workers. They will not pay income tax in Britain but in their home countries. We will have to pay foreign companies to bring in these workers thereby worsening our balance of payments position. In a low productivity economy to achieve growth we have to import foreign labour - it is an economic fact of life. If you voted leave then you have been duped in this matter.
Vote leave politicians have claimed that economic forecasting is often wrong. Yes, it is, but this means that their forecasts for Eldorado could equally be wrong. If Britain leaves the EU on bad terms our economy could take another bad turn for the worse, especially if we are forced to leave the Customs Union exactly two years after Article 50 is invoked. From that day tariffs will be placed on our exports, we could lose all the advantages of the single market, our finance industry could be damaged. The EU will impose customs documentation and there will be long queues at the ports. A hard border will have to be imposed between Northern Ireland and the Republic - and this is the last thing that we should be confronted with.
There will be further damage to our economy; the Chancellor will be further constrained and the budget to improve the productivity of the nation will be limited. The money to improve living standards for the most deprived people and regions will also be restrained. To grow the economy we may have to import more cheap labour.
Leaving the EU could depress most people's living standards, cut the budget available for the NHS and the improvements for the economy. You will have voted for a Brexit " pig in a poke". "The metropolitan elite" will survive all this.
Yes, "the metropolitan elite" has implored you to remain in the EU. But, look into to the background of the vote leave advocates too; most of them are also part of "the metropolitan elite". "The metropolitan elite" has a duty to make the policy fit the evidence not make the facts fit the ideology.
If leaving the EU goes badly wrong, then it is not just the economy that could sag: the peace in Ireland could be sacrificed too. Is it worth the risks just to achieve the illusion that immigration is under control? After two years, from March 2017, it might be too late to change your mind. The ideologues would have won , but harsh reality could mean that you are the loser.
The Office of Budget Responsibility (OBR) has forecast economic growth for next year of 1.4 % rising to 1.7% to following year and then rising again to 2.1% pa after we have left the EU. This is hardly Eldorado. The OBR has not made any prediction that the economy will improve beyond where we are now after we leave. If the OBR is to be believed we are indulging in a very costly exercise for nothing.
The Chancellor must be congratulated for finally recognising that Britain has a problem with its productivity and that we are falling behind our international competitors. He has made a start to redress this issue. To improve our productivity, at a macro economic level, we must provide affordable housing for all workers especially those who want to move location. We need to provide affordable creche facilities for parents who work full time. We must provide full time well paid jobs not badly paid self-employment jobs. We need to get millions of Britons out of the badly paid "gig" economy and into well paid stable permanent employment. To get our economy moving we need employees who have better skills and motivation. We need a better education system. We also need healthy workers.
We need to implement these changes and we can do this if we have the political will. The EU cannot stop us making improvements to our economy and indeed no-one in the EU even wants to do this. To all intents and purposes we are masters of our own economic destiny even if we are in the EU.
Turning the economy around will take decades. If our economy is to grow in the meantime then we need to import more and more workers. These will be young people from the EU and elsewhere who are prepared to live in multiple occupancy flats and dwellings and move around from place to place easily because they have no family roots. After we leave the EU these workers will arrive in similar numbers to what they do now but this time they will arrive as agency workers. They will not pay income tax in Britain but in their home countries. We will have to pay foreign companies to bring in these workers thereby worsening our balance of payments position. In a low productivity economy to achieve growth we have to import foreign labour - it is an economic fact of life. If you voted leave then you have been duped in this matter.
Vote leave politicians have claimed that economic forecasting is often wrong. Yes, it is, but this means that their forecasts for Eldorado could equally be wrong. If Britain leaves the EU on bad terms our economy could take another bad turn for the worse, especially if we are forced to leave the Customs Union exactly two years after Article 50 is invoked. From that day tariffs will be placed on our exports, we could lose all the advantages of the single market, our finance industry could be damaged. The EU will impose customs documentation and there will be long queues at the ports. A hard border will have to be imposed between Northern Ireland and the Republic - and this is the last thing that we should be confronted with.
There will be further damage to our economy; the Chancellor will be further constrained and the budget to improve the productivity of the nation will be limited. The money to improve living standards for the most deprived people and regions will also be restrained. To grow the economy we may have to import more cheap labour.
Leaving the EU could depress most people's living standards, cut the budget available for the NHS and the improvements for the economy. You will have voted for a Brexit " pig in a poke". "The metropolitan elite" will survive all this.
Yes, "the metropolitan elite" has implored you to remain in the EU. But, look into to the background of the vote leave advocates too; most of them are also part of "the metropolitan elite". "The metropolitan elite" has a duty to make the policy fit the evidence not make the facts fit the ideology.
If leaving the EU goes badly wrong, then it is not just the economy that could sag: the peace in Ireland could be sacrificed too. Is it worth the risks just to achieve the illusion that immigration is under control? After two years, from March 2017, it might be too late to change your mind. The ideologues would have won , but harsh reality could mean that you are the loser.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
