Lots of commentators are making the point that there is an air of negativity and fear surrounding both the stay in and leave now campaigns for Britain's future in the EU. For me there is nothing to fear if Britain were stay or leave; our country has the ability to prosper either way.
I would like to think that the EU leaders have a vision for Europe which will improve the cultural, economic and environmental prospects for all of its citizens. That there will be an improvement of the living standards for everyone. Unfortunately no such vision exists any longer.
The EU is no longer an organisation where enlightened self interest drives policies forward. It is now a quasi-state where only self interest dominates the debate. Britain is one of the worst offenders along with some other recent joiners. The refugee problem sums this all up. The refugee crisis is not a crisis for Europe it is only a crisis for the refugees. The problem is easily resolvable if rich European nations are prepared to work together but they are not. Selfishness has turned a humanitarian issue into a "crisis" for Europe because all the nations of the EU do not have the will or moral fibre to resolve problems - we have become decadent. Nations have taken to navel gazing and lashing out at strangers rather than showing the will or ingenuity to work together to solve problems.
Unfortunately, my own country has got involved in intense navel gazing. We are disturbed by Romanians and Bulgarians coming to work in our country under the terms of the freedom of movement treaty. The best resolution to this problem would be to make Romania and Bulgaria and other Eastern European Union countries richer. Most people do not want to leave their homeland, families and friends behind. If we could achieve some form of economic equality then only the adventurous would come to Britain and other European countries. Many adventurous youngsters from Britain would then migrate to Poland, Romania and Bulgaria and there would be a balance or a happy medium.
It is within the power of the EU to create healthy economic, social and cultural conditions in all of our countries. Why is this not happening? It is pure selfishness. We have forgotten the enlightened part of selfishness.
Whilst there are economic imbalances within the EU there will always be movement of people. Britain cannot avoid this whether we are in or out.
It is no use to be negative or fearful so why not work together to play our part in solving the problems of Europe?
Britain is stronger when it cooperates with people that have the same cultural, economic and social interests. We even have very similar political interests. We could be a a powerful voice for peace. With especial regard to Syria, there would hardly be any refugees coming to Europe, Turkey, Lebanon or Jordan if there was no war. This is so obvious. It is also obvious that all the powers involved in the war should set aside their self interest and look to the interests of the common people of Syria not Syria's elite. The warring powers should seek peace immediately. When there is peace, Britain and the EU must play a full part in establishing economic security for Syria. The refugees will then return home voluntarily to rebuild the nation.
Sanctions against people who leave their homeland because of war will not work. Only peace will work; Britain should stop navel gazing and it should work with its European neighbours to ensure that peace and economic security presides both in Syria, the EU and everywhere else for that matter.
Will this happen? I fear not whilst Britain and its fellow EU members wallow in self-interest and navel gazing. This is why there is an air of negativity and fear.
If Britain votes to leave the EU then nothing much will change but the navel gazing will become even more intense. There might be another economic crisis if we vote to leave and then a sudden and national volte- face. Our country could then be left in a weaker position.
If we vote to stay we will remain begrudging members of the EU and in 20 years time there will be another referendum. Nothing will change if we do not change our attitude.
Every now and then a wave of optimism hits me and this is the only reason why I shall vote to stay with Europe; hopefully one day all the negativity will evaporate.
Wednesday, 17 February 2016
Wednesday, 10 February 2016
European Union Referendum - why bother ?
The arguments are beginning to hot up. There are a few realities which have to be faced. There is very little debate about what will happen if Britain decides to leave the EU.
Just like 1975, when we last had a referendum about the EU there are two very vocal camps who want to leave.
There are the traditionalists and the very left wing activists. In 1975 they joined forces to get Britain to leave the EU but of course they had two very different visions for the future. Both camps need a reality check.
Many very left wing activists believe that the EU prevents the UK from becoming a socialist state. If we leave the EU it would be easier to campaign for socialism and achieve it - so they think. Nothing could be further from the truth. Many left wing activists act with almost a religious fervour which is not appealing to the voters of the UK who are rather secularist in their opinions. It is highly unlikely that British people will ever vote for the types of left activists who advocate hard line socialism in a general election. The hard line activists are deluding themselves if they think that leaving the EU will help their cause.
The "hard left" has made an unholy alliance with a group of right wingers who somehow think that Britain can return to its past glories, when Britain ruled the waves and could control what was happening. They believe that everybody except the British should do what they are told. They believe that Britain should dictate the terms in Europe. This, for them, means pure free trade only but free trade based on favourable terms for Britain. Free movement of goods, services and capital but without "johnny foreigner" being allowed to come to Britain and do what he likes or scrounge off us. The Brits should have freedom to travel anywhere they like, however. What these little Englanders have forgotten is that Britain no longer has either the military power or economic weight to influence anybody. Britain cannot push around the USA, China and Russia because they have got bigger nuclear arsenals, bigger armies and navies than us. And, more importantly bigger economies.
We can't even push around the French any more in a military sense. France has got a bigger army than Britain with troops which are just as well trained and equipped. France has got nuclear weapons too. France has got an aircraft carrier with fighter/ bomber jets. Britain has got an aircraft carrier with just helicopters on board. It will be no use sending a gunboat to Calais if the French don't do as they are told.
The harsh reality which everyone in Britain has to face whether they are hard left activists or little Englanders or just middle of the road centrists, is you cannot always get what you want. Sometimes you have to negotiate and sometimes it is best to co-operate with other people who have similar interests to you.
So what happens if Britain votes to leave the EU? There are two possibilities. We join the EEA or we go it alone completely and negotiate trade agreements and freedom of movement with the individual countries of the EU; but that is if the other countries want to play ball.
Joining the EEA is an option and it is probably the preferred option of the government for economic reasons. British industry will be horrified if tariffs are drawn up against us. The finance industry will be wary that large banks etc. will move their head quarters to Frankfurt. Germany would love to see this happening.
If we negotiate to join the EEA then we will have to agree to the free movement of people across the EEA and EU. Xenophobes will be horrified by this. We will have to pay billions into the EU budget to join the free trade area but none of money comes back - much of our contribution to the EU ends up coming back. We shall end up paying more. We shall have to implement EU regulations, just like Norway, with no say how those regulations are formulated. Britain does not really have that much economic power to insist upon better terms especially with disgruntled neighbours. Many Euro-sceptics may insist on another referendum about whether we want to join the EEA or not. It will take years to negotiate our exit from the EU and this negotiation will be added to by an application to join the EEA. Does our nation really want all this?
Do we want Britain to have less power and to implement the regulations of the EU without any say? At the moment Britain has a veto to stop EU regulations which really go against our national intereests. We were not forced to join either the Euro or the Schengen agreement. To join the EEA to protect our economy we might be forced to join Schengen - if it still exists. Heaven forbid, we might be forced to join the Euro.
What happens if we go it alone without the EU or the EEA? Do you really think that we can do what we like ? With regard to migrants, economics will dictate that we shall have to accept a substantial number of EU citizens to help keep our economy going. Britons are reluctant to become farm workers and they don't have the skills. Who is going to pick our strawberries?
We could introduce a work permit and visa system to prevent migration. But, if we introduce a visa system for EU and EEA citizens to be allowed into the country, then do you think that the EEA and the EU will not reciprocate? What happens when British lorry drivers are stuck in long queues having their passports checked? What happens if vital components are stuck in a queue whilst French lorry drivers wait to have their documents checked at Dover? Yes, at Dover, because the French will not implement a treaty which holds up their businessmen and traders on French soil. France will move the British borders back to Dover and Folkstone, if we try to get tough. Belgium will do the same. It is unrealistic to turn the clock back; we have to allow free movement of people whether we are in Europe or not.
Who is going to come to Britain for a holiday if they have to get a visa? I suggest not many. Who is going to have cultural exchanges with us if we have to get visas? No one is.
At the moment all EEA and EU citizens are allowed to open businesses in each others countries and sit as company directors. What will it do for Britain's trade if this stops? It will only decline. What EU or EEA citizen is going to trade with a country which demands work permits and visas and prevents foreigners from easily running a business?
If we leave the EU and EEA we will have to negotiate some form of customs arrangement otherwise vital goods and components will be stuck in the queue whilst customs officers on both sides of the channel examine the documentation -that's good for trade isn't it?
Going it alone and getting tough on migration will not work. You cannot have free movement of goods, capital and services without free movement of people. People drive business and where there are no people there is no business.
Yes, the EU imposes lots of bureaucracy but we will have to impose all sorts of bureaucracy if we cannot negotiate an effective customs union and system for allowing people to move freely.
All in all going it alone will be a terrible option and we would still be forced to accept free movement of people. The xenophobes will be disappointed as they voted for change and they could stir up trouble if they don't get their way.
We will have to negotiate a customs union. We will keep our head of state and drive on the left . We will keep the Houses of Parliament , the Church of England and the judiciary. The major aspects of our life will not change as they didn't when we joined the EU. We will still play cricket and drink warm beer on a Sunday. We will still go to French and Italian restaurants and drink wine instead of beer if we want to. We will still have free speech in or out of the EU.
Nothing much will change.
Of course, leaving will keep the little Englanders happy along with their hard line socialist bedfellows. But, the reality could be that we could be heading for niggling trouble.
If we leave altogether then bureaucrats will see to it that life will be made more difficult for all British and EU citizens. There will be immigration queues where they really check your passports as you go on holiday. Business men and women will end up wasting time in immigration queues. Property rights for British citizens in the EU will be made more difficult. Husbands and wives and children might have to join different queues at borders where one spouse is British and the other is French or German . You will have to pay duty when you come home with a boot full of wine.
If we really get tough and ask all 3 million EU citizens to go home then 3 million British will be sent back. That means that 6 million people and their families will be mighty annoyed with British politicians and the British people in general.
There will be other problems. What happens if Scotland votes to stay in the EU? Will there be another referendum to decide if Scotland leaves the UK? And what happens if it votes to leave? There will more negotiations. Britain leaving the EU and Scotland leaving the UK. This is a recipe for chaos it could take 10 to 12 years to sort out all this mess. Wales could follow suit and Northern Ireland too. Little England could be left out in the cold.
Why not accept your fate and vote to stay in and enjoy free travel and come home with a boot full of wine to drown your sorrows. Why not enjoy your strawberries and cream by courtesy of a Bulgarian farm hand. Just go down the road and enjoy a curry at your local Indian restaurant but courtesy of a Bangladeshi waiter - would your meal be the same if it was served by a disgruntled Brit? And, if you really don't like developments in England then you will still have the right to sell up and move to a forest in France where there is no-one to disturb you; you can have a little England in France.
Just like 1975, when we last had a referendum about the EU there are two very vocal camps who want to leave.
There are the traditionalists and the very left wing activists. In 1975 they joined forces to get Britain to leave the EU but of course they had two very different visions for the future. Both camps need a reality check.
Many very left wing activists believe that the EU prevents the UK from becoming a socialist state. If we leave the EU it would be easier to campaign for socialism and achieve it - so they think. Nothing could be further from the truth. Many left wing activists act with almost a religious fervour which is not appealing to the voters of the UK who are rather secularist in their opinions. It is highly unlikely that British people will ever vote for the types of left activists who advocate hard line socialism in a general election. The hard line activists are deluding themselves if they think that leaving the EU will help their cause.
The "hard left" has made an unholy alliance with a group of right wingers who somehow think that Britain can return to its past glories, when Britain ruled the waves and could control what was happening. They believe that everybody except the British should do what they are told. They believe that Britain should dictate the terms in Europe. This, for them, means pure free trade only but free trade based on favourable terms for Britain. Free movement of goods, services and capital but without "johnny foreigner" being allowed to come to Britain and do what he likes or scrounge off us. The Brits should have freedom to travel anywhere they like, however. What these little Englanders have forgotten is that Britain no longer has either the military power or economic weight to influence anybody. Britain cannot push around the USA, China and Russia because they have got bigger nuclear arsenals, bigger armies and navies than us. And, more importantly bigger economies.
We can't even push around the French any more in a military sense. France has got a bigger army than Britain with troops which are just as well trained and equipped. France has got nuclear weapons too. France has got an aircraft carrier with fighter/ bomber jets. Britain has got an aircraft carrier with just helicopters on board. It will be no use sending a gunboat to Calais if the French don't do as they are told.
The harsh reality which everyone in Britain has to face whether they are hard left activists or little Englanders or just middle of the road centrists, is you cannot always get what you want. Sometimes you have to negotiate and sometimes it is best to co-operate with other people who have similar interests to you.
So what happens if Britain votes to leave the EU? There are two possibilities. We join the EEA or we go it alone completely and negotiate trade agreements and freedom of movement with the individual countries of the EU; but that is if the other countries want to play ball.
Joining the EEA is an option and it is probably the preferred option of the government for economic reasons. British industry will be horrified if tariffs are drawn up against us. The finance industry will be wary that large banks etc. will move their head quarters to Frankfurt. Germany would love to see this happening.
If we negotiate to join the EEA then we will have to agree to the free movement of people across the EEA and EU. Xenophobes will be horrified by this. We will have to pay billions into the EU budget to join the free trade area but none of money comes back - much of our contribution to the EU ends up coming back. We shall end up paying more. We shall have to implement EU regulations, just like Norway, with no say how those regulations are formulated. Britain does not really have that much economic power to insist upon better terms especially with disgruntled neighbours. Many Euro-sceptics may insist on another referendum about whether we want to join the EEA or not. It will take years to negotiate our exit from the EU and this negotiation will be added to by an application to join the EEA. Does our nation really want all this?
Do we want Britain to have less power and to implement the regulations of the EU without any say? At the moment Britain has a veto to stop EU regulations which really go against our national intereests. We were not forced to join either the Euro or the Schengen agreement. To join the EEA to protect our economy we might be forced to join Schengen - if it still exists. Heaven forbid, we might be forced to join the Euro.
What happens if we go it alone without the EU or the EEA? Do you really think that we can do what we like ? With regard to migrants, economics will dictate that we shall have to accept a substantial number of EU citizens to help keep our economy going. Britons are reluctant to become farm workers and they don't have the skills. Who is going to pick our strawberries?
We could introduce a work permit and visa system to prevent migration. But, if we introduce a visa system for EU and EEA citizens to be allowed into the country, then do you think that the EEA and the EU will not reciprocate? What happens when British lorry drivers are stuck in long queues having their passports checked? What happens if vital components are stuck in a queue whilst French lorry drivers wait to have their documents checked at Dover? Yes, at Dover, because the French will not implement a treaty which holds up their businessmen and traders on French soil. France will move the British borders back to Dover and Folkstone, if we try to get tough. Belgium will do the same. It is unrealistic to turn the clock back; we have to allow free movement of people whether we are in Europe or not.
Who is going to come to Britain for a holiday if they have to get a visa? I suggest not many. Who is going to have cultural exchanges with us if we have to get visas? No one is.
At the moment all EEA and EU citizens are allowed to open businesses in each others countries and sit as company directors. What will it do for Britain's trade if this stops? It will only decline. What EU or EEA citizen is going to trade with a country which demands work permits and visas and prevents foreigners from easily running a business?
If we leave the EU and EEA we will have to negotiate some form of customs arrangement otherwise vital goods and components will be stuck in the queue whilst customs officers on both sides of the channel examine the documentation -that's good for trade isn't it?
Going it alone and getting tough on migration will not work. You cannot have free movement of goods, capital and services without free movement of people. People drive business and where there are no people there is no business.
Yes, the EU imposes lots of bureaucracy but we will have to impose all sorts of bureaucracy if we cannot negotiate an effective customs union and system for allowing people to move freely.
All in all going it alone will be a terrible option and we would still be forced to accept free movement of people. The xenophobes will be disappointed as they voted for change and they could stir up trouble if they don't get their way.
We will have to negotiate a customs union. We will keep our head of state and drive on the left . We will keep the Houses of Parliament , the Church of England and the judiciary. The major aspects of our life will not change as they didn't when we joined the EU. We will still play cricket and drink warm beer on a Sunday. We will still go to French and Italian restaurants and drink wine instead of beer if we want to. We will still have free speech in or out of the EU.
Nothing much will change.
Of course, leaving will keep the little Englanders happy along with their hard line socialist bedfellows. But, the reality could be that we could be heading for niggling trouble.
If we leave altogether then bureaucrats will see to it that life will be made more difficult for all British and EU citizens. There will be immigration queues where they really check your passports as you go on holiday. Business men and women will end up wasting time in immigration queues. Property rights for British citizens in the EU will be made more difficult. Husbands and wives and children might have to join different queues at borders where one spouse is British and the other is French or German . You will have to pay duty when you come home with a boot full of wine.
If we really get tough and ask all 3 million EU citizens to go home then 3 million British will be sent back. That means that 6 million people and their families will be mighty annoyed with British politicians and the British people in general.
There will be other problems. What happens if Scotland votes to stay in the EU? Will there be another referendum to decide if Scotland leaves the UK? And what happens if it votes to leave? There will more negotiations. Britain leaving the EU and Scotland leaving the UK. This is a recipe for chaos it could take 10 to 12 years to sort out all this mess. Wales could follow suit and Northern Ireland too. Little England could be left out in the cold.
Why not accept your fate and vote to stay in and enjoy free travel and come home with a boot full of wine to drown your sorrows. Why not enjoy your strawberries and cream by courtesy of a Bulgarian farm hand. Just go down the road and enjoy a curry at your local Indian restaurant but courtesy of a Bangladeshi waiter - would your meal be the same if it was served by a disgruntled Brit? And, if you really don't like developments in England then you will still have the right to sell up and move to a forest in France where there is no-one to disturb you; you can have a little England in France.
Wednesday, 3 February 2016
Cologne - Sexual Assaults on Women
The New Year's eve sexual attacks on women in Cologne raise a number of human rights issues for all European countries.
All women have the right not to be molested by men - or women for that matter. No woman should be a target for assault because she is young or dressed in a particular way. No one should be attacked because of the way they are dressed or because of their skin colour. All this should be obvious.
It should also be obvious that prejudicial behaviour is not just limited to white skinned Europeans. So called "racists" exist in all of the world's communities.
It is clear that only a small minority of the refugees who have fled to Europe are miscreants. The misbehaviour of a small minority migrants should not reflect upon the vast majority of refugees who seek peaceful and lawful sanctuary.
The young females, in Cologne, were targeted by young men who come from societies where women are not allowed to dress as they please - on the streets. In North Africa and the Middle East there is a strict dress code based upon strict religious mores; women who wear revealing clothes are looked down upon. Young women who are dressed in short skirts might even be regarded as prostitutes.
Cairo used to be a fairly secular society but there were still strong religious and cultural opinions held about how anyone should behave. Young men were expected not to have sex with their girl friends before they got married and couples were often chaperoned. These strictures even applied to Christians. Any form of homosexuality was strictly frowned upon. Christians and Muslims alike would rarely be seen drinking alcohol in public.
Is it any wonder that some young men who come from this type of society might go off the rails when they come to the free and easy West? But young men, tempted to behave badly, should be aware that they do not have the right to assault anyone no matter how they or dressed and no matter how they behave. The young ladies in Cologne were innocently going on a night out and they were entitled to have a good time without being molested.
It should be noted, however, that most attacks against women are committed at home by fathers, husbands and boyfriends. It is probably safer from a statistical point of view for a woman to walk the streets rather than be at home. All men have a duty not molest or assault women.
If young ladies in Cologne have the right not to be molested then so do migrants and refugees have the right not to be attacked. This should also be axiomatic. Revenge and tit for tat attacks are completely unjustified and they should be dealt with firmly by the police and prosecuting authorities. Everyone has a civic duty to show tolerance.
The police should be allowed to report the nature of attacks openly and without political interference for fear of upsetting sectional interests. Let us all know what is happening so that everyone can be treated fairly.
Anyone suspected of assault should be prosecuted and tried. A refugee or migrant who is convicted of a serious crime should be subject to deportation and this should be made clear to him when he arrives.
The refugees from Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan can easily be accommodated by western society even if we have no religion and the migrants do. Equally, all migrants should be aware that they cannot impose their religious and moral views on a secular society. We should all have one value in common and that is the desire for peace.
All women have the right not to be molested by men - or women for that matter. No woman should be a target for assault because she is young or dressed in a particular way. No one should be attacked because of the way they are dressed or because of their skin colour. All this should be obvious.
It should also be obvious that prejudicial behaviour is not just limited to white skinned Europeans. So called "racists" exist in all of the world's communities.
It is clear that only a small minority of the refugees who have fled to Europe are miscreants. The misbehaviour of a small minority migrants should not reflect upon the vast majority of refugees who seek peaceful and lawful sanctuary.
The young females, in Cologne, were targeted by young men who come from societies where women are not allowed to dress as they please - on the streets. In North Africa and the Middle East there is a strict dress code based upon strict religious mores; women who wear revealing clothes are looked down upon. Young women who are dressed in short skirts might even be regarded as prostitutes.
Cairo used to be a fairly secular society but there were still strong religious and cultural opinions held about how anyone should behave. Young men were expected not to have sex with their girl friends before they got married and couples were often chaperoned. These strictures even applied to Christians. Any form of homosexuality was strictly frowned upon. Christians and Muslims alike would rarely be seen drinking alcohol in public.
Is it any wonder that some young men who come from this type of society might go off the rails when they come to the free and easy West? But young men, tempted to behave badly, should be aware that they do not have the right to assault anyone no matter how they or dressed and no matter how they behave. The young ladies in Cologne were innocently going on a night out and they were entitled to have a good time without being molested.
It should be noted, however, that most attacks against women are committed at home by fathers, husbands and boyfriends. It is probably safer from a statistical point of view for a woman to walk the streets rather than be at home. All men have a duty not molest or assault women.
If young ladies in Cologne have the right not to be molested then so do migrants and refugees have the right not to be attacked. This should also be axiomatic. Revenge and tit for tat attacks are completely unjustified and they should be dealt with firmly by the police and prosecuting authorities. Everyone has a civic duty to show tolerance.
The police should be allowed to report the nature of attacks openly and without political interference for fear of upsetting sectional interests. Let us all know what is happening so that everyone can be treated fairly.
Anyone suspected of assault should be prosecuted and tried. A refugee or migrant who is convicted of a serious crime should be subject to deportation and this should be made clear to him when he arrives.
The refugees from Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan can easily be accommodated by western society even if we have no religion and the migrants do. Equally, all migrants should be aware that they cannot impose their religious and moral views on a secular society. We should all have one value in common and that is the desire for peace.
Wednesday, 6 January 2016
United States Gun Law
It seems to me that it is a tragedy that it is so easy to obtain a firearm in the US. Every year thousands of people are killed by firearms in murders, suicides and accidents. The per capita statistics for gun crime and accidents are alarming when compared to the UK.
In the UK 50 murders are committed annually by a gun. In the US murders with guns run into the thousands. Hardly anyone dies as a result of a firearm accident in the UK and there are few suicides using a gun . In the US there are thousands of deaths from suicides and accidents using a gun.
In the UK it is illegal to possess a handgun or a rifle in your on home or out on the street. Shotguns are subject to strict controls and woe betide you if you are seen openly carrying a shotgun in the street.
There is no good reason for anyone to possess a hand gun or a rifle . If you want to shoot a rifle you have to join a gun club where the rifles are held and locked away securely.
Surely, the US constitution conferred the right to posses arms to the people rather than the individual. This right was to allow for militias to defend themselves from tyranny rather than individuals being given the right to roam around freely brandishing handguns and rifles. The founding fathers did not intend that thousands would be killed each year in tit for tat killings , suicides or silly accidents.
When the constitution of the US was first written firearms were like muskets, they were difficult to load and they were single shot. If the founding fathers had envisioned the type of weapons that are available today they might well have changed their minds about including the right to bear arms in the constitution or they would have reworded it.
I have made frequent visits to the US and have always felt uncomfortable that individuals can carry firearms. In one location, many years ago and, at a restaurant in Los Angeles, I saw someone take off his jacket to expose a huge pistol. I was horrified and shouted out "someone has got a gun". Everybody laughed and assured me it was the local sheriff. It was no laughing matter to me and many years later I recall the incident with horror.
Surely, it is time for the majority of American citizens to change their attitude to the possession of firearms. Drugs and other dangerous materials are subject to strict control so why not firearms?
In the UK 50 murders are committed annually by a gun. In the US murders with guns run into the thousands. Hardly anyone dies as a result of a firearm accident in the UK and there are few suicides using a gun . In the US there are thousands of deaths from suicides and accidents using a gun.
In the UK it is illegal to possess a handgun or a rifle in your on home or out on the street. Shotguns are subject to strict controls and woe betide you if you are seen openly carrying a shotgun in the street.
There is no good reason for anyone to possess a hand gun or a rifle . If you want to shoot a rifle you have to join a gun club where the rifles are held and locked away securely.
Surely, the US constitution conferred the right to posses arms to the people rather than the individual. This right was to allow for militias to defend themselves from tyranny rather than individuals being given the right to roam around freely brandishing handguns and rifles. The founding fathers did not intend that thousands would be killed each year in tit for tat killings , suicides or silly accidents.
When the constitution of the US was first written firearms were like muskets, they were difficult to load and they were single shot. If the founding fathers had envisioned the type of weapons that are available today they might well have changed their minds about including the right to bear arms in the constitution or they would have reworded it.
I have made frequent visits to the US and have always felt uncomfortable that individuals can carry firearms. In one location, many years ago and, at a restaurant in Los Angeles, I saw someone take off his jacket to expose a huge pistol. I was horrified and shouted out "someone has got a gun". Everybody laughed and assured me it was the local sheriff. It was no laughing matter to me and many years later I recall the incident with horror.
Surely, it is time for the majority of American citizens to change their attitude to the possession of firearms. Drugs and other dangerous materials are subject to strict control so why not firearms?
Wednesday, 23 December 2015
If I were Polish would I trust the British?
In August 1939 the British signed a defensive agreement with Poland to try to stave off an imminent invasion of our ally. In September Nazi German and the Soviet Union invaded Poland and divided up the spoils. What followed is well recorded and millions of Poles suffered at the hands of the Germans and Soviets - millions died and there was a pogrom against the Jews.
Britain and France declared war on Germany as a result of the invasion of Poland but neither nation had the military power to save Poland.
Many Polish people fled Poland and thousands of Polish servicemen fought alongside the British Army to rid Europe of the scourge of Hitler. Many brave Polish pilots flew alongside the RAF to win the Battle of Britain and save our nation from Nazi tyranny.
At the end of the Second World War the three great powers: the US,GB and the USSR divided up Europe. Poland was to fall under the sphere of influence of the USSR and Stalin's tyranny. The British no longer felt that Poland was worth fighting for and we let them down.
The nation which Britain originally went to war for was left to its own devices.
In 1990 East Germany was absorbed by the West German Federal Republic and millions of East Germans found themselves becoming "citizens" of the European Union. There was no vote and East Germany did not have to make any application. East Germans were free to travel anywhere in the EU including the UK. No-one cared.
In 1990 Poland more or less became a state which was independent of the USSR and of course Polish citizens expressed the desire for their country to join the EU. The Poles had to wait until 2004 to join. It was my view at the time that Poland had as much right to join the EU as East Germany, and that Poland should have been admitted to the EU too, without question. Britain could easily have insisted upon this as a quid pro quo for East German incorporation but failed to do so. Britain was later, however, one of Poland's greatest supporters in its quest to join the EU.
Since 2004 Poland has been a model state within the EU. Many of its citizens have come to Britain to improve not just their lives but the life of Britain as well. Britain has a moral obligation and a duty to welcome our Polish friends as many of their fore fathers gave their lives to help Britain in its hour of need.
There is no excuse for the xenophobia and prejudice which some people in Britain are now showing towards Polish and other European citizens who have settled in Britain. They are entitled to be treated the same as any British citizen. Poland, Romania and Bulgaria expected to be treated as equals when they were invited to join the EU and they were entitled to be. Britain cannot change the rules because of the attitude of xenophobes.
If we did not want Poles, Romanians and Bulgarians to have the right of freedom of movement throughout the EU then we, in Britain, should have vetoed their application to join. We did not do this at the time as we wanted to expand our markets and make money. What sort of country would Britain turn out to be if it only welcomed people's money rather than the people themselves?
The Poles would be right not to trust us as if we let them down again.
Britain and France declared war on Germany as a result of the invasion of Poland but neither nation had the military power to save Poland.
Many Polish people fled Poland and thousands of Polish servicemen fought alongside the British Army to rid Europe of the scourge of Hitler. Many brave Polish pilots flew alongside the RAF to win the Battle of Britain and save our nation from Nazi tyranny.
At the end of the Second World War the three great powers: the US,GB and the USSR divided up Europe. Poland was to fall under the sphere of influence of the USSR and Stalin's tyranny. The British no longer felt that Poland was worth fighting for and we let them down.
The nation which Britain originally went to war for was left to its own devices.
In 1990 East Germany was absorbed by the West German Federal Republic and millions of East Germans found themselves becoming "citizens" of the European Union. There was no vote and East Germany did not have to make any application. East Germans were free to travel anywhere in the EU including the UK. No-one cared.
In 1990 Poland more or less became a state which was independent of the USSR and of course Polish citizens expressed the desire for their country to join the EU. The Poles had to wait until 2004 to join. It was my view at the time that Poland had as much right to join the EU as East Germany, and that Poland should have been admitted to the EU too, without question. Britain could easily have insisted upon this as a quid pro quo for East German incorporation but failed to do so. Britain was later, however, one of Poland's greatest supporters in its quest to join the EU.
Since 2004 Poland has been a model state within the EU. Many of its citizens have come to Britain to improve not just their lives but the life of Britain as well. Britain has a moral obligation and a duty to welcome our Polish friends as many of their fore fathers gave their lives to help Britain in its hour of need.
There is no excuse for the xenophobia and prejudice which some people in Britain are now showing towards Polish and other European citizens who have settled in Britain. They are entitled to be treated the same as any British citizen. Poland, Romania and Bulgaria expected to be treated as equals when they were invited to join the EU and they were entitled to be. Britain cannot change the rules because of the attitude of xenophobes.
If we did not want Poles, Romanians and Bulgarians to have the right of freedom of movement throughout the EU then we, in Britain, should have vetoed their application to join. We did not do this at the time as we wanted to expand our markets and make money. What sort of country would Britain turn out to be if it only welcomed people's money rather than the people themselves?
The Poles would be right not to trust us as if we let them down again.
Wednesday, 16 December 2015
UK Astronaut Tim Peake
Good luck to Tim Peake:I watched him take off for the International Space Station but why was there all the flag waving and hype about his journey in the British press and media? Tim Peake was not making history as over 300 astronauts have already made it to the ISS. He was just making British history.
The UK is no longer a world power in the military or economic sense and it ranks well down the pecking order when it comes to space endeavour. Britain was one of the first countries to launch a satellite into space with a made made rocket but it now lags behind France, India, The US, Russia and China.
Tim Peake's bravery, intelligence and demeanour makes up for the lack of commitment of the UK to make a full contribution to the International space effort. The British government has only committed to one trip for a British astronaut but hopefully it can find the money for more.
It was great to see Tim Peake enter the ISS from the Russian made Soyuz space capsule and no doubt his friends and family were rightly proud of him. Tim is proud of his country and proud to wear the Union Jack. However, was all the flag waving by the British press and media necessary? Tim got there by courtesy of the Russians, the Americans and, dare I say it, our European partners.
If our astronaut had got to the ISS by way of a British rocket and spaceship then our nation would be doing something for which we could be really proud and we could could all wave the flag.
Britain has some great aeronautical engineers and they need our support to get us back into space with our own kit.
Skylon is one such project - the British government is supporting this and hopefully it will be as successful as Tim Peake.
http://blogs.fco.gov.uk/johnpreece/2013/09/06/sabre-skylon-and-the-british-aerospace
http://rocketeers.co.uk/taxonomy/term/42
The UK is no longer a world power in the military or economic sense and it ranks well down the pecking order when it comes to space endeavour. Britain was one of the first countries to launch a satellite into space with a made made rocket but it now lags behind France, India, The US, Russia and China.
Tim Peake's bravery, intelligence and demeanour makes up for the lack of commitment of the UK to make a full contribution to the International space effort. The British government has only committed to one trip for a British astronaut but hopefully it can find the money for more.
It was great to see Tim Peake enter the ISS from the Russian made Soyuz space capsule and no doubt his friends and family were rightly proud of him. Tim is proud of his country and proud to wear the Union Jack. However, was all the flag waving by the British press and media necessary? Tim got there by courtesy of the Russians, the Americans and, dare I say it, our European partners.
If our astronaut had got to the ISS by way of a British rocket and spaceship then our nation would be doing something for which we could be really proud and we could could all wave the flag.
Britain has some great aeronautical engineers and they need our support to get us back into space with our own kit.
Skylon is one such project - the British government is supporting this and hopefully it will be as successful as Tim Peake.
http://blogs.fco.gov.uk/johnpreece/2013/09/06/sabre-skylon-and-the-british-aerospace
http://rocketeers.co.uk/taxonomy/term/42
Tuesday, 8 December 2015
BBC Sports Personality of The Year
We now have another controversy where megaphone protesters are demanding that Tyson Fury is removed from the candidates to become BBC Sports Personality Of The Year.
Tyson Fury is entitled to his opinion and provided he does not try to incite others to commit violent acts or indulge in hate crime then he can say what he likes as far as I am concerned. The same opinions can be heard in pubs and religious establishments all over the country.
It is no use the BBC, however, saying that he is just a sportsman who has won a sporting event. The BBC has turned sport into a pageant and a carnival with its sports review of the year. This annual event is now more of a celebrity forum rather than a celebration of sporting prowess. It is bound to attract criticism when it invites controversial figures to take part in this mawkish nonsense.
Most of the sports people who appear on the programme hardly have strong personalities and every year they mumble the same old platitudes of how they could not have done this or that without the support of their family or a trainer. They do not utter any opinion of real value or controversy.
Why do they appear on this programme where mutual back slapping is the order of the day? They have been well rewarded already with their medals, belts and cups and plenty of money if they are professionals. Why do they need public acclamation and a silver television camera as well?
The programme has got a hackneyed format where sporting professional "luvvies" pat themselves on the back to the sound of schmaltzy music.
Amateur sportsmen and women,who really keep the sporting life of the nation going, never get any real recognition and their opinions do not matter in the age of celebrity culture.
Why doesn't the BBC do us all a favour and stop broadcasting this awful programme every year. No one will really miss anything; as sports fans will have already recorded their favourite sporting event and all that they will be missing is the cheesiness of it all.
The BBC could invite Tyson Fury to defend his opinions on BBC Question Time to see if he can go a few rounds with the real people in the audience. I think that the audience might win on points.
The BBC should replace Sports Personality Of The Year with a re-run of the 2015 Last Night Of The Proms. Marin Alsop's conducting, performance and opinions are worthy of any forum.
http://www.marinalsop.com/news/marin-alsop-returns-to-conduct-the-last-night-of-the-bbc-proms-2015/
Tyson Fury is entitled to his opinion and provided he does not try to incite others to commit violent acts or indulge in hate crime then he can say what he likes as far as I am concerned. The same opinions can be heard in pubs and religious establishments all over the country.
It is no use the BBC, however, saying that he is just a sportsman who has won a sporting event. The BBC has turned sport into a pageant and a carnival with its sports review of the year. This annual event is now more of a celebrity forum rather than a celebration of sporting prowess. It is bound to attract criticism when it invites controversial figures to take part in this mawkish nonsense.
Most of the sports people who appear on the programme hardly have strong personalities and every year they mumble the same old platitudes of how they could not have done this or that without the support of their family or a trainer. They do not utter any opinion of real value or controversy.
Why do they appear on this programme where mutual back slapping is the order of the day? They have been well rewarded already with their medals, belts and cups and plenty of money if they are professionals. Why do they need public acclamation and a silver television camera as well?
The programme has got a hackneyed format where sporting professional "luvvies" pat themselves on the back to the sound of schmaltzy music.
Amateur sportsmen and women,who really keep the sporting life of the nation going, never get any real recognition and their opinions do not matter in the age of celebrity culture.
Why doesn't the BBC do us all a favour and stop broadcasting this awful programme every year. No one will really miss anything; as sports fans will have already recorded their favourite sporting event and all that they will be missing is the cheesiness of it all.
The BBC could invite Tyson Fury to defend his opinions on BBC Question Time to see if he can go a few rounds with the real people in the audience. I think that the audience might win on points.
The BBC should replace Sports Personality Of The Year with a re-run of the 2015 Last Night Of The Proms. Marin Alsop's conducting, performance and opinions are worthy of any forum.
http://www.marinalsop.com/news/marin-alsop-returns-to-conduct-the-last-night-of-the-bbc-proms-2015/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
