Brexit would break Britain

THE main problem with the Eurosceptic campaigns is that Britain doesn't deal well with isolation.
Despite its resolute status as an island nation for most of its history the United Kingdom has been reliant on resources outside of its own borders. Culturally and economically it isn't geared towards going it alone.
There are unquestionably some areas of  Britain's membership of the European Union which could potentially do with a bit of a dust down and shake up but for the most part we are better off for our part in it.
The strangely cereal sounding "Brexit" as the tabloids have coined it is not the way though. For all the benefits, of which there are few, which may materialise shortly thereafter the long term damage would feasibly cripple the UK economy. Meanwhile any argument which could highlight the benefits of leaving will automatically be eclipsed by the economic issues surrounding both the in and out campaigns.
The rallying cry of the right "£55million spent daily on EU membership" may make a good Daily Mail headline but it misses a fundamental point of business, you have to spend money to make money.
First off the figure of £55million which has been quoted  by some of those pushing for Britain to jump out of the EU boat is a gross miscalculation of the data. This is primarily as it is taken from gross rather than net figures, which, based on 2012 statistics, placed the net daily contribution at £33million.
Even this figure is heavily skewed as it takes into account non-fiscal factors, or more simply it guesses at possible losses caused by such factors as the Common Agricultural Policy, lost jobs through free trade and labour movement with other EU states and additional costs from regulations.
On a household basis the cost of the EU paid by the government is actually knocked down to approximately  £20million per day.
At this point this amount then needs to be offset against the negotiated rebates Britain already has, roughly £8million, so the figure of £55million is now down to £12million. Even these figures, however, based as they are on EU spending and investment returns can be debated further when compared to United Kingdom Treasury figures, which are based on central government calculations and only factor in “official” government transactions rather than the money saved and spent by British households.
This amount could still be seen as too much by those who want to see an isolated Britain though, after all why spend £12million when you could be spending none and keep that money in your own treasury? Here in lies the crux of the matter the “off the books” money. The EU currently counts for approximately 45% of UK exports, based on 2015 figures. Meanwhile Britain relies on the favourable terms for trade it has with countries in the bloc to facilitate 53% of its annual imports, all of which will cost more following an exit from trade agreements.
Then there is the external trade factors. America, China, India et al have already expressed concern over a British exit. For all its former glory Britain isn’t seen as a key trading partner for non-EU countries because of what it once was. It is seen instead as a gateway to the rest of Europe. Preferential trade agreements are based on the idea that it will smooth the way for larger deals on mainland Europe. Brexit removes this impetus and will rapidly drive foreign direct investment out of the UK and elsewhere.
The long and short of it that leaving the EU may be a boon for some historic ideal of an solitary powerful Britain but it doesn’t face the facts of the current global economy. For Britain to survive it must integrate. Brexit would do nothing more than break Britain.

Who will pay for gun control

ON OCTOBER 1st America reached 1000 mass shootings in the three years since the Sandy Hook massacre, which left 20 young children dead.
The recent headline grabbing attack on a campus in Oregon was number 994, meaning there were a further six on the same day. It was the 294th mass shooting in America this year. Following the shootings, which left nine dead, not including the gunman, United States President Barack Obama gave yet another press conference calling for stricter gun controls.
It isn’t the first time he has made this plea though. The same call for action was made after Sandy Hook, Charleston, Fort Hood... In total President Obama has called for more regulations governing gun ownership fourteen times.
Why then is it that America still won’t give up its arms? One reason is the Republican right, which has viewed the right to carry arms as a constitutional matter and therefore something to be clung onto irrespective of rational arguments against. Perhaps the key case to be made against the second amendment, aside from its ambiguity concerning who can actually carry arms, is that it was written at a time when you had to take a tea break to reload between shots. Guns have moved forward and it is time that legislators came to terms with this.
If the Republican right really believed that handing out more guns would help prevent more deaths then they would only have to look at the statistics for mass shootings on military bases to see the flaw in the argument.
Politics is just the public face of the case against tighter gun control. It is the economics behind the politicians which are the real reason President Obama will inevitably have to give another press conference before his term of office is over.
In 2012 the National Rifle Association was reported as spending approximately  $15million on Republican political campaigns in an effort to thwart President Obama from regaining office. American Presidential campaigns have become known for their multimillion dollar war chests. The size of the NRA’s fiscal support for the pro-gun republicans gives a sense of the money involved though and the scale of the opposition President Obama is facing in his attempt to overhaul gun laws.
While the arms industry is notoriously hard to find exact figures on the Norwegian Initiative on Small Arms (NISA) estimates that American small arms purchases in 2009 accounted for 38% of global total of imports at $1.8billion, more than 47 other leading importers combined. Meanwhile figures given in 2010, relating to 2007, by the US Census Bureau estimate that domestic sales revenue for smalls arms sales could be $2,742 million per year, with a payroll for employees in America of $507million.
The money involved is vast and the interest groups powerful. It isn’t an unwinnable battle though. The government’s long running campaign against big tobacco, and its loosening of the corporation’s stranglehold on politics shows that it can be done. It won’t be through good intentions though and will require a shift in focus for the Republicans, among others. The American constitution has been amended and updated before as circumstances required. There is no longer the same need for armed citizens, forgoing the argument of enhancements to the guns they are carrying. The only thing holding back the debate is the question of who will pay the price, the coffers of the arm trade or the lives of the next victims?

May's speech ignores the facts of immigration

A RISING fear of the impact of migration is starting to give right wing politicians the opportunity they have been looking for to gain votes. Even politicians who had previously styled themselves as appealing to the middle ground have started to shift to an increasingly right wing, anti-immigration stance in an attempt to pander to the fears of the electorate.
On Tuesday British Home Secretary Theresa May demonstrated just how far she was prepared to go in her bid to become the next Conservative leader. Making up for a lack of facts with an over abundance of inflammatory remarks during her speech at the Conservative Party Conference Ms May showed that she is prepared to play to the right and drive a wedge through British society.
Instead of looking at the figures Ms May seemed intent on stereotyping immigrants as coming to Britain to steal jobs and be a burden on the public purse. It didn’t seem to matter to Ms May that this flew in the face of the information generated by a report from her own department which stated: “There is relatively little evidence that migration has caused statistically significant displacement of UK natives from the labour market in periods when the economy is strong.”
This use of refugees as scapegoats is not new, politicians have always looked to shift the blame and focus away from their own incompetence. It is however concerning that in a day and age where information is so prevalent and verifiable that such a senior figure within the British government can think that it is acceptable to mislead the electorate in such a blatant way. Perhaps more concerning is the knowledge that many people will listen and believe it.
Serious studies on the economic impact of immigration show that at worst it makes little to no difference in the structure of a society or its fiscal stability, at best it creates significant further employment opportunities, higher wages, long term growth and increased stability within the structure.
In many European countries an ageing population means that within the coming decades there are quite simply not enough people to do the jobs which need doing. This does not take into account the jobs being created by the influences of skilled migrant workers and the additional revenue to the treasury brought  in over time by through the earnings of new entrants in the labour market.
At its very simplest the migration creates an increase in supply and demand. Through more people entering demand for a good rises. To meet this demand supply needs to be increased and to do this you need people to create the good in the first place. The people doing this earn wages and using these they buy more goods, and so the cycle goes on.
While this is an incredibly simplified explanation, lacking in the nuanced details of economic modelling it is a demonstration of why Ms May is so wrong in her analysis of the situation. Meanwhile statements that immigration drives down wages goes against the figures demonstrating how even low skilled workers help drive up pay in numerous industries.
Immigration reduces the deficit through the increased number of taxes being paid, which in turn is used to prop up the public services Ms May seems so sure will disintegrate under the pressure. As for the argument that it "impossible to build a cohesive society” as Ms May so vilely asserts, that argument has been used before, It was used to argue against equal rights for women, it was used for why the slave trade could not be abolished, it has been used to defend every heinous and reprhensible act committed in the name of preserving the status quo.
Times change, cultures change, people change. Immigration won’t collapse our economy, destroy our culture or threaten our society. Immigration is what sustains these things. Immigration enables us to grow culturally and economically. It creates new opportunities for business and provides a basis for jobs in the future. In short it is the opposite of everything Ms May claims it to be.

Misery for entertainment

A RECENT tourist attraction in Britain has provided one of the most damning critiques of modern life you could ever hope for.
Dismaland was created, at least in part, by the guerilla artist, or vandal depending on your point of view, Banksy. The idea was to create a temporary artistic endeavour revelling in a dystopic version of a well known theme park. Even the four to five hour queues to get in have been suggested by some as part of the experience. One thing which seemed clear was that anyone trying to buy the tickets online were in for a depressing time as payment timed out before you could input details.
The more that people were told the exhibit was designed to be a miserable and depressing event the more they flocked to it.
The thing is that this fascination with misery for entertainment seems to have permeated throughout our entire social structure. The refugee crisis has become a reality show for some. People tuning in to wring their hands and preach while all the while detaching themselves from the reality of the situation.
It is one of the problems of a social media driven 24 hour news cycle. People are saturated by partial information and ever more explosive stories as news organisations fight for the crumbs to gain viewers. As part of this they have moved away from serious news and journalism to entertainment as they dumb down to capture the mindless masses. The viewing public have become the ultimate consumers of misery and human suffering demanding ever  more to satisfy their obscene appetites.
This same approach has encroached into politics, rarely the most pure of professions. As Donald Trump leads the pack to become the Republican party's Presidential nominee it has become clear that it is not because of his well defined policies or engaging personality.
Mr Trump is leading the way because he has tapped into the dissatisfaction of the masses. He has shifted blame to those who cannot defend themselves and away from those who may vote for him. It is a time honoured political approach which keeps working, and likewise being condemned afterwards when it inevitability increases feelings of hatred and bigotry.
While it would be great to hold Trump to account as the figurehead of the growing culture of misery entertainment he has not created it. It is something which had been rising slowly over the years and we haven't done anything to stop it. Instead we have all allowed ourselves to be dragged into its slurry of hate and recrimination.
The recent 75th anniversary of the Battle of Britain showed that this wasn't always the case. There was a time when people came together to fight back against what was wrong. A time when no matter how bad things were you focused on the possibilities, the solutions, you held onto hope and honour. A time when people valued bravery and courage, rather than condemning it as Mr Trump as done in various ways during his campaign.
The human race has not been built on hate or pain. Our humanity came about as we fought to tear these things down. We can no longer view the anguish of others as fuel for our insatiable need for misery. Instead it must stoke the fires of compassion and solidarity and drive us forward to a achieve so much more for the good of all.

Corbynmania is just madness

JEREMY Corbyn's election as the leader of the Labour Party has not come as a surprise to many political analysts. The signs have been there in the polling data, which unlike during the British general election actually appears to be accurate this time round.
Despite the expectations his election has not been roundly welcomed by MP's within his party. He has been accused of being too left wing, of failing to find compromise and of flip flopping on crucial policy areas. For many in his party he has destroyed their chances of regaining power. For his supporters however is landslide victory during the leadership election demonstates an ability to motivate disaffected voters and draw people to the party.
Only one side can ne right though and at the moment the facts seem to favour the pessimists. Mr Corbyn did appear on paper as having mobilised a previously uncounted portion of the electorate which took advantage of the £3 registration fee to sign up and throw their support behind the left winger. If the numbers are taken as a sign that those registered voters who didn't turn out for the last election will vote for Labour then it could mean a parliamentary win.
The reality of the situation is that the areas where Mr Corbyn is drawing non-voters back to the fold are in large part already Labour held. While the party may increase its majority in seats it already holds the drive to mobilise a new base is unlikely to help then win new regions.
The next phase of Mr Corbyn problems is his lack of ability to compromise. By placing the hard left MP John McDonnell, a self proclaimed "enemy of capitalism", in the position of Shadow Chancellor he will have made the chances of reconcilliation within his party that much harder.
Within days of being elected splits were already showing in the shadow cabinet. Shadow Foreign Secretary Hilary Benn pledging Labour's supporter for staying in the EU quickly undermined by Mr Corbyn's speech to the Trade Union Council for example shows a lack of cohesion on key policy matters.
Then there is Mr Corbyn himself. There is something praiseworthy in this day and age of plastic politics for someone to rise to the top on old fashioned principles. The problem is that the old fashioned principles may not be suited for the modern day. The time for Michael Foot's donkey jacket are long gone. People expect certain things from a party leader.
Most notably among these is at least a passing respect for the armed forces and monarchy, whether genuine or just out of professional courtesy. Mr Corbyn's failure to sing the national anthem or confirm that he will wear a red poppy rather than the white will have just as much of an impact on the electorate as his poorly thought through outdated policies.
For now Jeremy Corbyn remains a sideshow to the real running of the country but as he begins to fulfil his role as leader of the opposition he needs to start facing facts. The 1970's are long gone and we live in a different world.  No amount of wishful thinking will bring it back. If Labour are to have a hope for the future they must move with the times not backwards.

The economics show Britain should do more

Despite thousands of refugees dying over the last few months it has taken one heartbreaking picture of a dead child lying abandoned on a beach to make people care. The very same people who were claiming that we shouldn't do anything suddenly switched their views.
While the images of young Aylan Kurdi have prompted a outcry from people who really didn't have a clue when all they could see were statistics, the government's knee jerk response is both irresponsible and dangerous. The pitiful level which it has placed on the number of immigrants allowed into the country, 20,000 by 2020, will not even make a dent in the hundreds of thousands fleeing a war which we are at least partly accountable for. By prioritising certain refugees over others it is likely that families will be ripped apart as they try and save their children. Most importantly though by circumventing the rules for foreign aid and using it domestically to prop up councils the government is saving a penny now only to spend a pound further down the line. The foreign aid budget isn't an ego boost it is a necessary fund which should be used to combat refugee crises at the source and thereby mitigate against a future influx later down the line. Give a man a fish and he will feed himself today. Give him clean water, shelter, security, education and hope and he will feed his family for a lifetime as will his descendants.
That coin you gave to someone sleeping rough to make yourself feel good about how generous you are, this isn't like that. This isn't about handouts as so many on the far right seem to think. This is about building something.
On one side of the argument has been the claim that Britain cannot take anymore refugees. A strange belief that it will create further ghettosiation of specific regions, particularly around London and the South. This claim focuses only on a knee jerk Daily Mailesque reaction to the crisis which fails to accept the statistics and figures covering the crisis.
A well managed programme, such as that being implemented by Germany which accepted 18,000 refugees last weekend, sees family units kept together while also ensuring that no one area becomes saturated.
A carefully drawn up approach allows for thousands more refugees to be allowed into the country, more than that however it actually allows for, over time, a boon to the economy from money being brought in.
A common argument that even when refugees find employment they send money home fails to accept that every sensible study on the issue finds that the amount sent out of the country is minimal when compared to the amount which British citizens, as a whole, take out of the economic flow through savings. It also fails to take into account the fact that per person migrants tend to pay higher rents, money which landlords then put back into the economy. It doesn’t take account of the fact that they still buy food and clothes, in short they live and survive. This money circulates, and for the most part it comes from jobs which British citizens have refused to do, yet which are necessary and provide a foundation for better jobs for others.
As for the argument that migrants cost the government more money than the good hard working British public even a cursory glance at official figures shows how much greater the proportion of Brits living on welfare is compared to migrants, even where data is amended to take into account disparity of population proportion.
Even without this evidence there is one overwhelming fact, people are dying and dying in their thousands. The refugee crisis is no longer about nations and states it is about humanity. As humans it is our duty to help those who need it.

An immigrant by any other name is an expat

THE recent unrest at Calais, and the British government's response, has highlighted the knee jerk decisions politicians are being drawn to.
From the way in which the news portrays the current migrant issues on Britain's border you could quite easily be forgiven for thinking that a rerun of Agincourt was taking place. Images of valiant British longbow archers manning the walls of Castle Eurotunnel holding back the threat of invasion from the onrushing hoardes spring to mind.
Never mind the fact that the thousands of people trying to enter Britain are more likely to be starving, afraid and driven by a desperation to survive, rather than the image of savage criminals being pushed by the right wing.
Having spent some time living abroad my social media feeds are populated by a number of people who have chosen to head in the opposite direction and leave the country for sunnier climates. Fair play and good luck to all who try it.
What is interesting though is the number of people who having decided to leave the country, and in more than a couple of cases still quite happily recieving some form of payments from the British government, condemn the number of immigrants, documented and otherwise, who have chosen to enter it. This is aside from the downright racist attitudes of some to the country they have chosen to live in.
If you told many of these individuals that they were immigrants they would be horrified, and from experience come out with some quite colourful phrases. They are expatriates and proud of it. They are bringing skills and money which other countries must need because they aren't Britain. Obviously the aim of any country is to become a carbon copy of the UK to please those sunburned philanthropic souls who have chosen to head to the sun bringing with them civilisation, lager and beerguts.
The only difference between expats and immigrants is the direction which they are travelling.
Mass immigration is not feasible by any measure but blocking all immigration is likewise pointless. Expats entering the UK bring with them necessary skills and finances, by any genuine balanced measure people coming into the country generate more money for the treasury than they take out of it. They also do not "steal British jobs" they do the jobs which people in Britain aren't. As the old joke goes "If someone entering this country with no qualifications and unable to speak the language can steal your job you may want to seriously look at how badly you were doing it".
Fortunately for those gripped by a UKIPesque fear of immigration, you can normally spot them by the line "I'm not racist but...", the British government is on their side. Legislation to criminalise providing homes to undocumented expats and deporting people who have worked in the country for a set number of years will have the Daily Mail readers rubbing their hands together in glee, nevermind the fact that it will cripple public services such as the NHS and create an atmosphere of legalised discrimination against people who have jumped through the miriad of hoops to live in Britain.
I was mistaken before when I said there was only one difference between an expat and an inmigrant, it is also a state of mind. When terms such as "swarm" are used by the Prime Minister to describe human beings who have crossed thousands of miles, risked starvation and death via multiple means to seek a better life, when men, women and children are perceieved as vermin, when we see other people as somehow less deserving of dignity and respect than ourselves then it is a state of mind which needs changing.
There is no doubt that immigration needs to be managed but to create and atmosphere where one person is viewed as less deserving of the chance to survive than another is not the way.