The ties that bind could become the rope that hangs

On June 23rd the electorate in Britain will go to the polls to decide the country’s future, or lack thereof, in the European Union.  Already the main story is about which Conservative heavyweights will back their leader’s play and fight to stay in Europe, and which ones will join the campaign to get out.  With all the infighting the actual hard facts and scary truths of the EU referendum stand a good chance of being missed.
Britain is no longer “Great” in the way that the leave campaign would like people to think. We don’t have an empire anymore and no matter how much the man in the street may want one we aren’t going to again. Europe provides us with the best possible outcome in an imperfect world to maintain at least someone dominance in international affairs, as well as relevance.
Trade with the EU counts for approximately 45% of Britain’s total exports and 53% of its imports come from the bloc, based on 2014 figures.  The amount of finance generated by trading with other countries outside the EU pales into insignificance. Leaving the EU will not change the fact that we still need to trade with it, all it will mean is that we have to pay higher rates to do so and have no say in the tariffs and regulations in place which monitor it. British companies will still have to meet EU regulations, however, this time they won’t be able to have a say in what those regulations actually are, inevitably leading to a tiered system which will create immeasurable damage, particularly for small to medium sized enterprises.
There are those who claim that we can cover the trade deficit by increasing exports to non-EU states. While this may seem like a nice idea on paper the practicality is that it will fail. The majority of arrangements we have in place with countries outside of the European Union are based, at least tacitly, on the idea that Britain will act as a gateway to the rest of Europe. An easy option for trading with the whole so to speak. The exogenous impact of leaving Europe is incalculable, not because it doesn’t matter but because it matters so much. Britain would be economically crippled.
The same goes for the financial sector. London acts as a useful node for business not despite its ties to Europe but because of them. France is already punching to have a greater say in global economic affairs and it is not in the least unrealistic to see a shift in dominance from the City to Paris should the UK up and leave.
Then there is the question of security. Out campaigning Works and Pensions Secretary Ian Duncan Smith has claimed that to remain in Europe puts Britain at ever greater risk of a Paris style attack due to open borders. As Britain will always have at least one back door to Europe in Ireland this is a moot point all on its own. Add in the fact that the security arrangements created by our ties to Europe would be weakened and it quickly becomes clear that it is obfuscation at best, lying at worst. Mumbai is not a member of the EU bloc and that didn’t prevent attacks against the city.
The European union is far from perfect it is however here to stay no matter how much the “Out Campaign” may want it to be otherwise. For expats it provides a measure of security which they will not be afforded upon Brexit and for those living in the country it is essential for economic success and security. To think that leaving will mean that we are no longer tied is inconceivable. It just means that the ties which bind us will become the rope which hangs us.

Inclusion trumps isolation in the war on terror.

The events in Paris have simultaneously brought out moments of the best and worst of humanity in the news. The demonstrations of solidarity throughout the world are incredible and should be supported. Never before has the overuse of red, white and blue neon lighting been so welcomed across the world.

Meanwhile, however, there is a growing feeling of isolationism and hatred which has started to take grip. It is no longer a surprise that Republican Presidential nominees have to take an anti-immigration stance if they want to appeal to the vocal right, what has been something of a surprise is just how vile some of the recent comments have been. When Donald Trump suggests that Muslims should have to sign a register or Ben Carson likens them to rabid dogs and they can still stand a chance at winning the nomination then there is something very wrong with the system.

As easy as it is to ridicule the Republicans and their increasingly isolationist ideas it isn’t just the American system of government which is taking an anti-refugee, anti-immigration stance. Across the world the fear of refugees has been growing and the attacks in France have just helped elevate the rhetoric of the right wing to new heights.

It is easy to explain that we should be helping people who need it. It is pretty obvious to most people that the majority for those who are fleeing for their lives are not planning terrorist attacks. The amount of news coverage has made it clear to the majority of semi educated individuals with an average GCSE reading age that the potential proportion of refugees who may harbour jihadist sympathies is such as small fraction as to be mathematically insignificant. Of course the risk of one individual with a bomb must be taken seriously and sensible measures taken to prevent them. Denying millions of the chance of a safe life away from the bloodshed is not the way.

New housing policies in the UK for example, ensuring that landlords have to get specific documentation and id from potential tenants, will not prevent people running to Britain. It may delay them from finding shelter, however, after living rough for months and spending all of their money getting there is unlikely to deter them for long. What it will do though is start to create isolated communities, communities which are willing to only accept people of the same religion, ethnicity, culture. Instead of protecting the country it allows for a sense of isolation to spread and from there the increased risk of radicalisation.

There are many other policies being suggested across Europe and the West and almost all of them will lead to an increase in the threat of radicalisation. Terrorism fails to flourish when people are educated about multiculturalism. It relies on a feeling of persecution and hatred, it is almost impossible for it to spread in an atmosphere of inclusion and understanding.

If governments are serious about stopping the spread of terrorism then they need to dramatically alter their current mindsets. Of course threats need to be identified and stopped but creating a persecution complex is not the way to do it. Only be promoting genuine understanding and tolerance can terrorism truly be defeated. Although isolating some of the Republican Presidential candidates may not be an entirely bad idea.

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.

It's a crisis but not like you think

THE victory of the Syriza party in Greece has led to media reports making it sound as though we are on track for a Mad Max distopia.

In the short term the support for the anti-austerity platform it campaigned on has already seen fluctuations in the money markets. This is only to be expected though. The thought that the eurozone may be forced to write off €240bn is not a pleasant one, least of all for Germany which has the most to lose.

Statements by newly elected representatives of the party that the debt is unrealistic and should be wiped fail to explain why the country a) needed the loan in the first place and b) why it was issued if it could not be repaid. 

The easy answers are that accumulated mismanagement of fiscal policies led to Greece's collapse and that the debt can be repaid but only through lengthy and painful austerity measures. 

Euclid Tsakalotos', Syriza's economic spokesman, declaration that "nobody believes that the Greek debt is sustainable,"  failed to add the addendum which will have gone through the minds of European Central Bank policy makers. It is only unsustainable if Greece does not radically change its attitude to spending.

A comparison can be drawn by an individual maxing out credit cards, overdrafts and getting into arrears in the mortgage. While they may not be able to pay off the full amount in one go they can look at restructuring the debt, cutting back expenses and paying it off gradually. If they decide not to do this and take out more debt to buy a new television and computers for the kids then the debt is going to be unsustainable.

The key difference, other than the obvious size of the debt, is that it is harder to repossess the Parthenon than somebody's car.

Mr Tsakalotos seems to have forgotten that the €240bn was a loan, not a handout. While he may be correct in thinking that economists would agree that the debt is unsustainable it is only this way because Greek authorities have allowed it to become so.

His belief that the rest of the Eurozone will cave in the face of economic uncertainty, rather than risk a possible, albeit unlikely, exit from the bloc, is a very large gamble to take. Germany has already signalled that it is likely to call Greece's bluff. 

This could be disastrous in the short term as the euro suffers but it would not necessarily mean the end of the eurozone though. In a very simplistic explanation as the euro devalues it will make it cheaper for countries, such as America and the UK, to buy products from the member countries. This in turn increases the amount of foreign capital entering the country and thus begins the long road back to stability and prosperity. The fundamental issue is whether the bloc has sufficient resources to prop itself up in the meantime.

This may well be a risk worth taking though as one of the alternatives is that Syriza gets exactly what it wants. This in turn would provide a boost to other anti-austerity and anti-EU parties, a risky business for the long term survival of the European Union as a whole not just the euro.  

Rise of right down to the fear it creates

WITHOUT realising the world seems to be sleep walking into an era of increasingly right wing and xenophobic principles.

All you have to do is look at the number of people reposting the supposedly harmless links from groups such as Britain First, many doing so without realising what and insidious and dangerous organisation this truly is.

The recent win by the United Kingdom Independence Party of a parliamentary seat in England is yet another sign of the inexorable rise of the right wing and the closing of minds across the world.

It is not just in Britain that this steady rise of the politics of fear and hatred has been seen. It is increasing across the globe, as with it brings a diminishing opportunities for solving the very problems which are pushing people towards the extremes of the spectrum.

Fears over terrorism, economic woes and increasing calls for isolationism are driving the focus of voters while hiding from them the long term impact removal from the international system would have.

Using Nigel Farage's UKIP as an example again, his calls for an exit from the European Union play well with voters but what would it actually mean for the country? Has anyone actually considered why so many countries want to join the bloc? Turkey has been in negotiations to join for years, is this merely because it enjoys the process? Of course not. It is because it knows that the benefits of joining far outweighs the negatives.

"I'm not prepared to wait for three years. I want us to have a referendum on this great question next year and if UKIP can maintain its momentum and get enough seats in Westminster we might just be able to achieve that," Farage told the BBC.

Essentially what he is saying therefore is that he is not prepared to wait until all the facts are in and people have had time to rationally analyse the arguments rather than being pushed into a decision which could, and will, diminish Britain's power in the international system for generations to come.

Parties on the far right play on fear. They attract the dispossessed not because they are any more motivated to move towards them than anyone else but because they make people believe that they are dispossessed. 

It is all too easy to think of xenophobic bigots as tattooed shaven thugs, and some still are. They have learned from the lessons of the past though. They are using social media to get people to share their insidious views, often without realising it, they preach there messages of hate coached in the language of sense by using half truths and distorted facts. They play on ignorance and fear. 

At their very worst, and here we go far beyond the hyperbole of Mr Farage's party of malcontents, and the recruitment by the global far right has much in common with that used by terrorist groups such as that calling itself Islamic State. The truth is that fear one is driving people to support the other. It is only through teaching tolerance and inclusivity that both can be defeated because it surely must happen that go one to go so must the other. 

Strong arming Europe risks British interests

BRITISH Prime Minister has signalled that he is prepared to take on Europe once more as parliament debates limiting the powers of the European Court of Human Rights.

Following his humiliating defeat over the election of Jean Claude Juncker as the head of the European Commission Mr Cameron has seemed determined to demonstrate his strength in defending British rights in the bloc.

The bill, which Mr Cameron claims would 'reassert British sovereignty' could become his most contentious battle to date. Having loaded his cabinet with eurosceptics this week it seems as though it is a battle which he has no intention of backing down from.

If successful it could lead to Britain's expulsion from the Council of Europe, something which opponents of the bill could precipitate a forced withdrawal from the European Union.

Former Attorney General Dominic Grieves, who was replaced as part of Mr Cameron's reshuffle earlier this week, has voiced his concerns of the move, reported by the BBC as saying it could be a "legal car crash with a built-in time delay."

The proposal comes shortly after Mr Cameron helped push through emergency legislation to circumvent a European Court of Justice ruling on the holding of personal data. The speed with which the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Bill has been rushed through parliament has worried some peers in the House of Lords.

Labour peer Baroness Kennedy of the Shaws, a QC and civil liberties campaigner, was reported as saying: "It is a serious abuse of Parliament, and the use of emergency procedures to enact laws that are controversial and have significant impact on individual rights is happening too often."

Meanwhile Mr Cameron's campaign to have newly appointed EU commissioner Lord Hill allocated one of the top spots as discussions on candidates stalled yesterday.

For Mr Cameron taking a strong stance on Europe is key to his election strategy for May 2015. In the wake of losses to the anti-Europe United Kingdom Independence Party in elections earlier this year he is in a desperate race to regain ground. With so much still to be debated in Europe he may find that by rushing legislation through he misses the long term effects on British interests. 

Lesson learned from Tea Party, UKIP threat not passed

A RECENT poll has seen support for the United Kingdom Independence Party plummet but, as shown by the American Tea Party, the threat from the far right may not have passed.

For some observers UKIP's fall from grace signals a coming back to senses of the British electorate after the party's staggering gains in the European Elections. What seems more likely is that it is just a hiatus while the anti-immigration, anti-Europe party marshals its resources ahead of next year's general election.

In 2010 analysts in America predicted that they had seen the back of the grass roots right wing Tea Party movement, which had threatened to do irreparable harm to bi-partisan relationships in both congress and the senate. As evidenced by recent election successes for the group this was more wishful thinking than reality. 

The danger in Britain is that the Conservative party follows the mindset the Republican Party had in America and sits back on its laurels believing the danger had passed.

The Guardian/ICM poll has shown Nigel Farage's UKIP dropping seven points in a month from 16% to 9%. The news for other parties though has not been overwhelmingly positive.

Analysing the results Martin Boon, director at ICM research, said: "We used to talk about parties getting themselves through the 'magic' 40% threshold before they would be in serious contention to win, but less than a year before a general election, both the big parties are currently struggling to get themselves into the middle 30s, which, of course, only the Tories managed in 2010."

Part of the problem is that many people are suffering from election fatigue, having been bombarded by political policies for the last few months. The other is that after a flurry of television and radio appearances Mr Farage is now hard at work undermining the European Union. It would be a mistake to think that he, and his party of malcontents, had disappeared from the political landscape though. 

As with the Tea Party UKIP knows that it needs to manage its resources efficiently to ensure it is prepared for the big battles. For now it just needs to wait in wings until it sees an opportunity. 

"This time last year," explained Mr Boon, "UKIP also dropped to a similar extent, from 18% in the ICM/Guardian May 2013 poll to 12% the following June." 

By loading his new cabinet with eurosceptics and taking a harder line in his negotiations with Europe Prime Minister David Cameron may help to keep the UKIP threat at bay. With ten months still to go until the election, however, it would be a mistake to think that we have seen the last of Mr Farage and his entourage.  

Not so united on EU

DAVID Cameron's humiliating defeat in Europe last week may have failed to cement Britain's position in the bloc but it has reinvigorated the calls for a referendum.

Conservative MP Bob Neill has confirmed that he will be reintroducing the European Union Parliament Referendum Bill in the next parliamentary session, which could see the UK leave the Union by 2017.

Mr Neill has stated that while personally he would prefer that Britain stays within the EU the final decision should be placed in the hands of the electorate.

“I would prefer a successful outcome, but you never go into a negotiation showing your hand or ruling out any course of action.”

He added: “I’d like to vote to stay but I could vote to leave. But I hope we do not come to that situation.”

Meanwhile, having pledged support for the Labour Party at the General Election, Unite leader Len McClusky has added his voice to the debate. Mr McClusky has called on Labour officials to throw their support behind a referendum.

Stating the union's position Mr McClusky said: "It calls on Labour not to box itself in on the referendum question. This issue has bedevilled British politics for decades. For much of that time it has been the Tories who have had to deal with divisions in their ranks over Europe. But the next general election will be different. Both Ukip and the Tories will be offering a referendum on the issue of Britain's membership."

Shadow Chancellor Ed Balls has dismissed the idea as "silly".

Mr Balls told BBC2's Newsnight: "That would be a silly thing for us to say.

"We made a very clear commitment: if there is any proposal in the next parliament for a transfer of powers to Brussels we will have an in/out referendum.

"We are not proposing a referendum now because we think to spend two or three years blighting investment and undermining our economy on the prospect of a referendum which David Cameron says he is going to have after he gets an unknown package of reforms would be bad for jobs and investment.

"If Len McCluskey is supporting the David Cameron position, I disagree with Len McCluskey."

Earlier this week Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg fended off moves by senior members of his party to join with other parties on taking a stance on the referendum.

Speaking in defence of the Deputy Prime Minister's position A senior Lib Dem was reported as telling journalists: "Our views are clear. When the rules of the European Union change there will be a referendum as we have enshrined in law. Some people may think it would be seductive to change our position on Europe but we are not going to spend the next ten months banging on about the referendum bill. We will leave that to others."

While the debate is sure to intensify as the General Election draws closer for now the decision hinges on whether Mr Cameron will continue his campaign in Europe.

Answering MP's questions the Prime Minister said: "I think it is in the national interest to renegotiate our position in Europe, to secure the changes I have set out. I don’t start the negotiations believing we won’t achieve those things, I set out wanting to achieve them… but I will always do what is in the national interest."

British interests linked to Ukraine agreement

SENIOR British politicians have warned Russia of the serious implications if it continues to instigate unrest ahead of Ukraine's historic EU treaty signing today.

Earlier this week Foreign Secretary William Hague was reported as saying: "We urge Russia to take the necessary actions to stop the flow of arms across the border, to stop supporting illegally armed separatist groups in eastern Ukraine, because in the absence of actions by Russia the case for stronger sanctions from European Union nations will of course become stronger.”

Mr Hague's statement on Wednesday came as Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko prepared to sign the controversial  "Association Agreement and Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Area", which will commit Ukraine to EU standards, including new customs regulations, quality controls and free market competition.

Speaking ahead of the signing Mr Poroshenko said: "This is what we have fought for over recent months and years. This work will be as difficult and responsible, but I am confident that we will do it very well."

Russian officials have condemned the signing amid concerns that it could be detrimental to trade between the two countries.

Russian Finance Minister Aleksey Ulyukaev told the media that if Ukraine signed the deal it would become a "second rate EU state".

"By signing the Association Agreement the countries must restructure their laws to comply with European standards and open the markets. However, in return, they don’t receive any influence on European legislation or policy,” Mr Ulyukaev said.

Sergey Glazyev, an economic aide to Russian President Putin warned of dire economic consequences if Mr Poroshenko pushed ahead with the treaty.

“For Ukraine, signing the agreement is economic suicide,” said Mr Glazyev.

“There is no doubt that by signing this agreement it will result in an acute devaluation of the hryvnia, an inflation surge and in turn hyperinflation, and a drop in living standards."

British interests in the region have already been damaged by the ongoing crisis, which has seen sanctions imposed on Russia in retaliation for its support of pro-seperatist groups in Ukraine.

While Britain imports a large proportion of its steel and manufacturing resources from Russia it has a large export trade selling the finished products back to its supplier.

Russia is currently the single largest importer of Ukrainian products, roughly totalling the same as the country's entire trade with the 28 nation EU bloc. Threats from Russian authorities to raise tariffs on imprints and restrict business, in an attempt to stem a potential flow of EU goods across the Ukrainian border, could damage an already unstable economic situation within the country.

The treaty means more than just currency for the Ukranian President, however, having already precipitated the overthrow of Mr Poroshenko's predecessor Victor Yanukovych through his failure to sign the deal in February.

 The European commission president, José Manuel Barroso, has praised the decision to go ahead with the signing.

"The agreements, the most ambitious negotiated so far by the European Union, aim to deepen political and economic relations with the EU," said Mr Barroso. "We will need to remain active and vigilant regarding our eastern neighbourhood, in particular after the signature of the association agreements where our responsibility increases and not diminishes."

Whether or not enhanced trade with the EU will be enough to make up for the loss of its neighbour is yet to be seen. What seems certain, however, is that the increased ties to the rest of Europe will provide Mr Poroshenko with much needed backing as he continues to try and restore stability in his divided country.

Cameron making Britain look like petulant child in EU

BRITISH Prime Minister David Cameron's gamble to claw back a eurosceptic votes looks set to fail today as support disappears from allies.

Mr Cameron has fought an increasingly belligerent battle to block the Prime Minister of Luxembourg Jean-Claude Juncker from becoming the next head of the European Union Commission. With EU leaders meeting today that battle looks all but certain to end in failure and potentially cause long term damage to British influence within the 28 nation bloc. 

With more than 20 years experience in politics, holding influential posts in the EU among others, and as the primary candidate from the largest group within the parliament on paper Mr Juncker's qualifications for the role are indisputable. 

Mr Cameron fears, however, that his "pro-federalist" stance ignores the "pro-reform" message delivered by voters in May's elections.

As well as drawing criticism from fellow European Leaders Mr Cameron's refusal to back down and reach a compromise has drawn the ire of stalwarts in his own government.

Pro-Europe Conservative Kenneth Clarke told the BBC that while Mr Juncker was “not the most vigorous reformer”, he was not an “arch-villain”. 

"No one knows what he’s supposed to have done wrong,” Mr Clarke said.

Business Secretary Vincent Cable added his voice to the condemnation claiming that Mr Cameron's tactics "had not helped Britain punch it's weight in Europe."

The ongoing debate has caused tensions to run high among leaders, with German Chancellor Angela Merkel becoming increasingly exasperated by the British position.

"We have to have a majority vote. It's not a drama if we decide by qualified majorities only," she said during a speech in Berlin this week . "Germany supports Jean-Claude Juncker."

Mr Cameron may have hoped that the increase in anti-Europe feeling among MEP's may have helped his cause. These hopes have been dashed by UKIP MEP, an leader of the right wing Europe of Freedom and Democracy Group (EFD), Nigel Farage.

“The prime minister has gone to war over the appointment of the next commission president -- a war that he’s clearly going to lose,” Mr Farage told Bloomberg news agency.

"There is an increasingly bad relationship between Britain’s leaders and the leaders of many other European countries

“UKIP winning the European elections is putting huge pressure on Mr. Cameron’s position,” Farage said. “In terms of the United Kingdom being able potentially to renegotiate anything of significance, the appointment of Juncker makes that look far less likely.”

As Mr Cameron seeks ever more desperate ways to stop the appointment, including dredging up obscure 1960's decrees to protect "national interests" a Downing Street source has warned that there will be "consequences" if Mr Juncker is confirmed.

“It is a big issue and, if it happens, we do not want to minimise it,” the source said.

“The Prime Minister has been reflecting a great deal on it, there have been a lot of discussions and in terms of his own agenda, the reforms he wants to see in the EU, this is a significant step in the wrong direction.”

For his part Mr Juncker, whose centre right European People's Party won 28 per cent in the parliamentary vote, has remained relatively detached from the debate, other than to say one of his priorities as commission president would be to find a “fair deal” for Britain on its relationship with the EU, saying “we have to do this if we want to keep the U.K. within the European Union -- which I would like to do.”

With defeat looking set to be inevitable the far reaching consequences of the Prime Minister's desperate ploy to appeal to eurosceptics are yet to be seen. What seems certain, however, is that for the time being Britain will be seen as the petulant child of the EU throwing a tantrum when it doesn't get its own way.

Ukraine's tough road to peace

THE decision of Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko to sign a controversial European Union bill could see the crisis in the country enter a new stage.

The failure of former President Victor Yanukovych to ratify the deal was one of the primary instigators leading to his overthrow in February.

The bill is widely unpopular amongst pro-Russian supporters who want to see closer ties with their powerful neighbour, something they fear increased links with the EU would prevent.

President Poroshenko's decision comes along with his announcement of plans to bring the burgeoning civil war in Ukraine to a close.

Announcing a 14 point peace plan the new leader is stepping up attempts to bring the eastern regions of Donetsk and Luhansk back under government control.  

Under his proposals a 'peace corridor' would be set up to allow those who had disarmed to leave the embattled regions, changes to the constitution to decentralise power, an amnesty for anyone "without blood on their hands" and, perhaps most controversially, the closure of the Russian-Ukrainian border.

Without support from Russian President Vladimir Putin, however, it seems unlikely that any moves would help calm the current situation.

World leaders have called on President Putin to help de-escalate tensions and support the path to peace. The pleas may fail to have much affect though as reports warn of an increased build up of Russian forces along the border and Russian tanks being used to support the pro-separatist movement.

NATO Chief Anders Ramussen has warned Russia that any attempt to intervene in the crisis could lead to tougher international sanctions against the country.

Elsewhere in the country a spokesman from the Organisation of Security and Cooperation in Europe has confirmed that they have been in contact with two teams who were abducted in the Eastern region last month. Any chance of a peaceful solution to the situation which meets with international approval may well hinge on the safe return of the OSCE observers.

The United Nations currently estimates that 356 people, including 257 civilians, have been killed in fighting since the 7th May.

President Poroshenko may find that his attempts to bring stability to the country and prevent further bloodshed will be a hard fought battle. His signing of the EU bill on the 27th of June is a strong statement but may be meaningless if he cannot show that a peaceful resolution can be reached with his opponents. 

 

Eurosceptic votes may harm economy

AFTER months of campaigning the results are in for the European Union and the electorate has sent a clear message, that they can’t decide what they want. The much hyped success of the Eurosceptic parties in the European elections may have wider implications on the economy as investors start to lose faith.

European Central Bank President Mario Draghi warned on Monday that they need to be “particularly watchful for at the moment [there] is the potential for a negative spiral to take hold between low inflation, falling inflation expectations and credit, in particular in stressed countries.”

While Mr Draghi was expressing his views the rest of Europe was watching the results of the elections come in. An overall increase in the number of Eurosceptic parties, on both the right and the left, has led to a lack of confidence in the Euro from external investors as the stability of the bloc is called into question.

Mr Drahgi faces an uphill struggle in his aim to achieve his “goal, which is to return inflation towards 2% in the medium-term, in line with our mandate.” With investors watching an increasing number of parties in the EU wanting to see the bloc have less power over the internal affairs of the individual countries than it makes the future of the eurozone look tenuous.

As ‘animal spirits’ diminishes then no amount of monetary policy initiatives will help to increase investment to the levels necessary to raise aggregate demand, and therefore the level of output needed to increase prices.

Mr Drahgi summed up the issues facing the ECB in its struggle: Essentially, we are confronting three issues that might warrant a response. “First, the common effect of exogenous factors, including the exchange rate, on euro area inflation. Second, the asymmetric effect of endogenous developments, such as tight access to credit for parts and sectors of the euro area. And third, the risk that those effects combine to generate a more persistent regime of excessively low inflation.”

The outgoing European Parliament President Martin Schulz gave a voice to the concerns of investors when he said: “"It is a bad day for the European Union when a party with such a racist, xenophobic and anti-Semite program gets 24-25 percent of the vote in France. "But these voters aren't extremists, they have lost trust, they have lost hope." If the rise in euro-scepticism demonstrates the loss of faith from voters then a drop in investment will surely prove the same for foreign investors. 
It is perhaps an irony that it has been the state of the economy which many commentators have blamed for the rise of Euro-scepticism as national parties use unemployment levels and free movement between some EU countries as a rallying point for a fearful electorate.

Pro-Europe parties still hold a majority, however, while the mechanism of the EU Parliament will help to keep dissenting voices from causing too much disruption.

In finance though it is not always about the reality of the situation as much as it is about the perception. With candidates across Europe echoing the words of United Kingdom Independence Party Leader Nigel Farage: "The whole European project has been a lie. I don't just want Britain to leave the European Union, I want Europe to leave the European Union," the future of a strong trading alliance looks risky. With stronger markets emerging elsewhere investors may just decide to hedge their bets on a more stable opportunity. If this happens then Mr Draghi’s concerns about the potential for deflation may become a dangerous reality.

.

Far right politics could make EU uncomfortably close

WITH voting having already taken place in the UK and Netherlands and set to continue across Europe until Sunday there is already growing concern that the balance of power will shift to the right.
In Britain the anti-Europe United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP) looks almost certain to take the majority of seats. Meanwhile in the Netherlands the far right Freedom Party (PVV) is so certain of victory that leader Geert Wilders is already acting as though his party has won.
Both parties have campaigned on a strong anti immigrant platform playing to the fears of an electorate still recovering from the financial crisis which rocked the world. Claims that immigration has harmed local nationals chances of finding work have played well with many in their respective countries.
In France the National Front Party proclaim “Yes to France, No to Brussels”, while in Hungary the Jobbik party achieved 20 per cent of the vote in April’s parliamentary elections, despite battling accusations of anti-semitism and racism against the ethnic Roma population.
In Britain UKIP’s lead in the EU elections doesn’t necessarily translate into either the local or general elections according to the most recent polling data. It is in Europe that it poses the most serious threat though. A European Parliament controlled by the far right, as seems increasingly likely, is not a parliament which is likely to look favourably on unified interests.
The swing to the right has been partially influenced by high unemployment across Europe and a scapegoat approach by the far right. It is more likely, however, that apathy in the system amongst voters will lead to their victory. Parties, such a UKIP, PVV, Greece’s Golden Dawn et al, have mobilised their voters through impressive rants and strong slogans. A carefully oiled campaign has all but ensured their success over more centrist main stream parties, which have relied on explaining policies and presenting a professional political demeanour.
Behind their smiles and rousing speeches though these parties share a commonality, a lack of sustainable policies. Other than blaming Europe and immigrants for the woes of their respective countries there has been very little substance shown in any arguments. While this may shatter the chances of the far right against more experienced parties across Europe in internal elections it may be just what the voters are looking for in the EU ones.
Many have seen the elections as a form of protest to demonstrate their feelings ahead of parliamentary elections. What they may not be aware of is that according to the Lisbon Treaty the results of the election must be taken into account when picking the next EU President. With the EU Parliament likely to swing to the right the future of Europe those voters who were so keen to leave may not be as free and fair as they have been promised.

 

Lost spirit in politics

WITH polling stations across the country gearing up for a lacklustre turnout tomorrow there is concern that Britain is losing its political spirit.
Thursday's local and European Union elections are expected to be a defining moment for the three main parties, ahead of next year's General Election, as they battle the political encroachment of Nigel Farage's United Kingdom Independence Party.
Apart from a drop to 24.02 per cent in 1999 overall voter turnout to the EU elections has remained relatively stable at the mid to high 30 per cent mark for the last 25 years. Despite being lower than many EU countries the stability of the figure has been used to demonstrate that it is a national malaise about the particular elections, rather than in politics in general. For Britain the EU elections have been seen as something unnecessary and tedious.
As Europe take a more prominent place in the public consciousness, and with local elections taking place on a national level, this may be about to change. A low turnout tomorrow could be indicative of a larger problem with British politics according to some spectators.
For the last decade there has been a gradual rise in the number of spoiled ballot papers being submitted as people use the opportunity to protest against the political establishment. Between EU elections in 2004 and 2009 the number of invalid votes jumped from 1.76 per cent to 3.18 per cent.
The rise of the right wing UKIP has highlighted the growing discontent the public have with their political peers. Part of the driving force of the party's surge to the lead has been an increasing concern about the immigration issue, in large part created by UKIP's own members.
It's growth, however, is being seen by some in the political system as just another sign that the EU elections are used as an outlet for protest, stating that it is the local elections which will give a clearer image of the state of British politics. With UKIP, on 17 per cent, lagging behind the Conservatives and Labour according to the latest ComRes survey they seem unlikely to create a significant shift in the political landscape.
Tomorrow may demonstrate a lack of faith in the system by voters, however, based on the evidence it is unlikely to generate any surprises for the future of the British political spirit.

Posted via Blogaway

Time please for EU elections

DRIVING through the small village of Walton in Somerset the placards for the United Kingdom Independence Party are the only ones to be seen.
Somerset provides a snapshot of the dissatisfaction voters are feeling with the main parties. Following the devastating floods which hit the county during the winter residents protested about the lack of action the government had taken to prevent the chaos.
As politicians enter the final day of campaigning ahead of local and European elections polls have shown UKIP looking set to win tomorrow's elections.
Despite a number of high profile scandals, accusations of racism and yesterday's carnival debacle the inexperienced party's lead seems undiminished.
For a party to come from relative obscurity, and with little in the way of workable policies, would have seemed unlikely only a matter of years ago. Some commentators have referenced discontent among the electorate as the primary cause of the party's dominance. Looking at the comparison in data between people's choice for the EU elections and the General Election in 2015 it seems clear that it may only win as a protest against the other parties.
A lack of serious opposition from Labour and the Conservatives seems likely to have shifted the balance of power though. From the electorates perspective only Nick Clegg's Liberal Democrat party has really taken on Nigel Farage's UKIP, splitting the choice into a clear pro or anti Europe stance.
Already the main parties have geared up for the election in 2015, leaving the battlefield of the local and EU elections relatively unopposed. While Nigel Farage has become a near permanent fixture on the news, Prime Minister David Cameron and Labour leader Ed Miliband have remained relatively quiet.
Political parties know that they have to marshal resources where they are going to be most effective. Based on current trends it seems as though they are happy to leave Europe to the right wing party and focus on ensuring that it does not gain any more power within the country.
With Europe becoming an ever more contentious issue among voters a decision on Britain's future in the Union will be a key area of debate in 2015. By ignoring tomorrow's elections the main parties could be playing a dangerous game handing a win to UKIP for the future of Britain.

Posted via Blogaway

The threat from UKIP falters as inexperience shows through

WITH little more than a week until voters cast their ballots in European and local elections new polls show a shift in the views of the British electorate.
Two seperate polls have placed the Conservative party ahead of opposition Labour for the first time in two years. ICM has placed the Tories ahead with 33 per cent of the vote, compared to Labour's 31 per cent. Meanwhile a second poll commissioned by Lord Ashcroft has Labour lagging two points behind its Conservative opponents on 32 per cent.
It is the place of the Liberal Democrats and the United Kingdom Independence Party which has been most notable, however. Nick Clegg's Liberal Democrat party has seen its place as Britains' third party threatened by the right wing UKIP, under the leadership of Nigel Farage. In three out of four key polls the Liberal Democrats have failed to break the two digit mark while UKIP have accrued between 14 and 15 per cent of the vote.
Despite appearing flustered on the BBC Sunday Politics programme over his party's manifesto promises Mr Farage has dominated the news in recent weeks with his anti-European rhetoric. A recent poll ahead of the European elections put UKIP ahead with 31 per cent of the vote.
While UKIPs rise has concerned some political commentators its inexperience and right wing views may not translate as well in local, and particularly general, elections as they do for those in Europe, seen by many in Britain as an opportunity for a protest vote without affecting the country.
The apparent inability of some members of the party to engage in the political process and face opposition comments has highlighted the lack of ability the party actually holds in more mainstream politics.
Emphasis has been placed on the lack of political sense by some members of UKIP, which claims in its manifesto that it wants to see more front line policing and prioritises fighting crime, after one of its councillors called the police on blogger Michael Abberton for posts he made on social media. Officers informed Mr Abberton that they had to respond to the complaint despite no laws being broken and requested that he remove the tweets, something he was unable to do after they have been reposted by numerous others.
The posts allegedly relate to Mr Abberton posting a political swipe at UKIP in which he highlighted potential reasons to vote for them including its pledges to raising income tax for 88 per cent of the poorest in society and scrapping paid maternity leave.
Recently Mr Farage has attempted to reinvigorate the party's reputation as a political force by refuting accusations of insitutional racism within its ranks. UKIP, which campaigns on an anti EU, anti-immigrant agenda has been wracked by racist comments from its members and allegations of xenophobia over its attitudes to anyone entering Britain. These claims have been further supported by the departure of one of its youth members Sanya-Jeet Thandi today.
Ms Thandi has been used by UKIP as a figurehead in its campaign to appear inclusive. Leaving the party today, however, she stated of concerns over its "aggressive anti-immigrant rhetoric."
Writing in the Guardian newspaper Ms Thandi stated: "The direction in which the party is going is terrifying. UKIP had descended into a form of racist populism that I cannot bring myself to vote for."
In a further damaging statement Ms Thandi urged UKIP supporters to not vote in the upcoming European elections.
Despite recent populist polling figures it appears as though reality is catching up with Mr Farage's party. As the cracks appear it seems more likely that once people have used it to highlight their discontent with the establishment it will sink into obscurity once more.

Posted via Blogaway

A political presence

The United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP) has had to cancel its Freepost service after receiving faeces to their offices. While I disagree with UKIP on almost every topic this was never going to be the way to make a political statement.

We are fortunate in Britain that we are able to have freedom of speech, to hold widely differing views and to argue those views. We live in a democracy where we can choose our elected representatives based on what they stand for, something denied to millions of people around the world. It is this which gives us the ability to participate in such childish pranks but it is also this we gives us a moral duty to not do so.

In our political system if you disagree with someone’s point of view then you are free to debate it with them. Changing minds through discourse, that is surely the basic premise of any free thinking political system. Sadly, however, we as a populace seem to have forgotten how to hold an argument, how to hold a view for that matter. We seem to be only interested in meeting the intellect of the lowest common denominator. We have dumbed down our society so much that we have forgotten the very principles upon which it was founded.

We have forgotten that millions of men and women have fought and died to preserve our right to free speech and freedom of political protest. We have forgotten that our leaders used to be intelligent men, and rightly so. We valued honour and intellect. We may have disagreed with someone’s views but we had the character to respect their right to have them. All of that seems to have been lost somewhere along the way.

Instead we now have celebrities telling us that the system is broken and we should stop voting. We should stop voting? We should sacrifice the right which so many people would still die to just have a glimpse at, which so many already have, as a form of protest. If the system is broken then the way in which we change it is by voting, by choosing better leaders.

Nigel Farage’s greatest selling point is his “voice of the common man” approach. People like him because he makes them feel on the same level. Surely our leaders should be the best and the brightest. They should be men and women of conscience and intellect, they should be brighter than the majority and we should feel that we can respect them.

As it stands at the moment we have very few such politicians in place. This is not the fault of the system though, this is the fault of us the electorate. We voted these people in. We chose them, we gave up on wanting the best.

If you want to prove that UKIP is wrong, something which does not take the best and the brightest by any means, then join in the debate. Show how flawed their ideals are, show why they are wrong, show that you have a better plan, don’t act in a way which would have your peers in primary school look down at you for immaturity.

Catching up for festive period

Well it’s that time again when we say goodbye to one year and welcome in another and what a year it has been for all of us here in wet and soggy Somerset. Looking back it has seemed like the better half, little bit and I have barely had a chance to stop. First off we celebrated Liz’s Diamond Jubilee, 60 years in the same job and no matter what Charles says she doesn’t look like she has any plans to retire yet.

Everyone threw a big party for her which was all going swimmingly until Philip had to be taken off to hospital, he really hasn’t been well this year.

Sports day went brilliantly, you may have caught some of it yourselves. Cousin Mo really showed his stuff and Jess won gold in her events. Bradley, you remember him he was the one who got the new bike last year, has had a brilliant year in cycling.

It hasn’t been all smooth sailing, well apart from for Ben but enough of sports day for now. Aunty Beeb has been having a few troubles again this year. It looks like Jimmy, he was the one who always smoked those foul cigars and wore too much jewellery, and some of his friends have really gotten out of line. Beeb had tried to keep it out of the press but as Uncle Rupert found out last year that doesn’t work. It turns out that quite a few of the people who belong to their club have being having a spot of bother but we try not to get involved in all that sort of thing.

In a slightly better turn of events Paul finally managed to get most of the squatters out of his father’s house earlier this year, although some of his friends and family weren’t too happy with the decision I can tell you.

Mark’s little internet venture has had a few problems. It seems that some of his investors weren’t too pleased with their payoff. That is just the way this year though, no-one seems to have enough money to around. Then again what’s new about that?

After last year’s holiday debacle in Syria, we checked into it but decided not to go again this year, we thought that a quiet cruise would be nice. Next year I think we are just going to stay at home, it was an absolute disaster. Mind you the captain did seem like a decent enough chap.

I mustn’t forget to tell you the good news it looks like Will and Kate, they were that nice couple I mentioned in last year’s letter, are expecting a baby. It made up for some fiasco earlier in the year when some pics of Kate were doing the rounds we heard.

Anyway that pretty much sums up everything got to crack on with sending out the rest of the cards. That couple we met in America a few years back for instance are still contacting us, apparently he has done well for himself becoming President of something or other, it may have been his golf club for all I know. It amazes me how many people contact you around this time of year with all sorts of info you wouldn’t care about. Anyway bye for now.

EU-broke or just bust

There is something to be said for the recent contretemps which has caused friction between Britain and the rest of the European Union. Then again perhaps the standoff between David Cameron and Angela Merkel over EU spending is not such an unforeseen event.

Cameron has already demonstrated that he is prepared to take a firm stance when it comes to Europe. Likewise Ms Merkel has postured plenty of times before in the belief that she who shouts loudest lasts longest.

The current friction between the British and German leaders is, perhaps one of the more predictable that have been faced over recent years. With so much uncertainty surrounding the euro, and the lack of fiscal control being demonstrated by other EU countries, it is not surprising that Cameron has promised to use the United Kingdom’s veto any type of deal that does not impose a total freeze on spending.

What has struck the writers of this blog, as well no doubt as it has the policy makers at Number 10, is that if Ms Merkel does attempt to cancel next month’s EU budget summit then she will be demonstrating exactly why the Prime Minister, on one of the rare occasions, is right to stick to his guns.

The question must be asked as to what Ms Merkel hopes to gain from cancelling the summit, other than to stoke her not inconsiderable ego, that Mr Cameron could not achieve by implementing his veto. At worst she would leave the EU without any clear direction to focus its energies, at best cancelling the summit could ensure that Cameron’s position is strengthened by demonstrating that he has the power, albeit by proxy, to influence the entire bloc just by threatening a course of action.

What the whole debacle has clearly demonstrated is that the EU is clearly being run by school yard rules writ large. Whereas Ms Merkel could have used the summit as a place whereby leaders could debate their opinions and hope to turn people to their sides through reasoned debate she has decided to take the stance that if people won’t play by her rules then she will take the ball away and ruin the game for everyone.

Whether Cameron actually would use his veto is a matter which can only be judged after the fact. He has already demonstrated that he is not afraid of alienating EU leaders, and UK politicians, over his stance to the bloc. All Merkel has managed is to push him into a corner whereby his only option is to use the veto no matter when or where the summit is hosted. Rather than creating an atmosphere of discussion she has generated a toxic scenario where no-one will achieve anything. If she had taken the wiser path then a reasoned debate could have taken place instead of posturing and strong arming. This unfortunately has become the norm within the EU and its governance. It is also perhaps one of the most crucial reasons why any economic decisions involving the bloc must  be treated with scepticism by the individual states. Ms Merkel has argued to cancel the summit if she does not get her own way, Cameron has argued to veto any decision which is not in line with his feelings, with two out of the 27 acting in such a way how can the EU ever be trusted to succeed on solving an economic debacle on the scale that it is supposed to be tackling?