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.

The enemy of my enemy

BRITISH Prime Minister David Cameron drew ire this week after daring to suggest that his responsibility to the UK outweighed his views of Saudia Arabian human rights issues.

The simple fact is that ethics do not come into the relations between states in the international system. The concept of human rights abuses, which in and of itself is a matter for contention in the face of different legal systems and philosophies, is only a matter of debate for state leaders if they lead to fundamental instability within the country which can destabilise the international system. 

This doesn't make it right, it doesn't act as justification, it does mean that larger interests and the security of international States can be maintained. 

This is not to say that human rights abuses should be ignored. They must, however, be placed in context of the norms governing the situations. Transnational advocacy networks, groups such as Amnesty International and the Red Cross, humanitarian agencies and even international organisations, such as the United Nations, have a clear responsibility to address these issues, while also placing them in the context of the cultural and legal positions within the states themselves.

It is clear though that Mr Cameron's primary responsibility is to the United Kingdom, preserving its security, maintaining its position in the international system and, where appropriate, increasing its global power position. It would be wrong to assume that he should risk the safety of his own state to condemn the legal system in another. 

This however is what his critics currently want. In his defence Mr Cameron was reported as saying: "I can tell you one time since I've been prime minister, a piece of information that we have been given by that country has saved potentially hundreds of lives here in Britain.

"Now, you can be prime minister and say exactly what you think about every regime in the world and make great headlines, and give great speeches.

"But I think my first job is to try and keep this country safe from terrorism and if that means you have to build strong relationships sometimes with regimes you don't always agree with, that I think is part of the job and that is the way I do it. And that is the best way I can explain it."

If we were to condemn all our allies for failing to uphold the ideal of humanitarian values we would expose ourselves to not only the same scrutiny and condemnation but also to an increase in threats against us. 

Our ability to protect the citizens of the United Kingdom would be irreparably damaged if we were to base our foreign policy decisions purely on ethics and morals rather than logic and reason. Our key ally America would be the first we would have to distance ourselves from and with it Israel, Jordan et al. 

International relations is not a kind game. It is not about only playing with the nice kids. It is about taking the action needed to preserve the power and security of the state. It is for this reason that organisations such as Amnesty International are so important. When states cannot act others must be able to.

Ukraine crash is an early test for Hammond

BARELY having had time to move into his new office Foreign Secretary Phillip Hammond is already facing a serious test of his ability in the role.

Yesterday's devastating crash of Malaysian Airlines flight MH17 has led to recriminations from both sides of the Ukraine crisis amid fears that an already tense situation could lead to all out civil war.

Among the 298 dead passengers and flight crew lie the bodies of nine Britons. Their deaths may mean that Mr Hammond is pushed into taking a more direct response to the conflict which has engulfed Ukraine.

Speaking ahead of the European Council meeting earlier this week Prime Minister David Cameron told leaders that there needed to be a tougher stance on Ukraine. 

"There are important discussions here today, perhaps the most important is that the situation in Ukraine is unacceptable. The territorial integrity of that country is not being properly respected by Russia," he said.

"We can send a very clear message with clear actions at this council."

Following the latest dramatic events Mr Hammond will be under scrutiny to see how he can follow through on his leader's directive.

In evaluating the British stance Mr Hammond is up against conflicting statements and unconfirmed rumours regarding the cause of the crash. With a full investigation yet to be carried out mechanical failure, or pilot error cannot be totally ruled out. 

Blaming pro-Russian separatists Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko said it was an "act of terrorism".

Meanwhile separatist leader Alexander Borodai blamed Ukrainian government forces. Russian President Vladimir Putin, who has been accused of helping to supply hi tech  weapons to the rebels, laid responsibility for the crash with the Ukrainian government, saying: This tragedy would not have happened if there were peace on this land, if the military actions had not been renewed in southeast Ukraine.

"And, certainly, the state over whose territory this occurred bears responsibility for this awful tragedy."

No matter who finally faces responsibility for the crash Mr Hammond must be ready to deal with the escalating crisis in the region. His decision may be further complicated by the aggressive stance taken by the United States, which has already called on European nations to take a harder line in relation to the conflict.

Commenting on the tragedy U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry said:

"We are horrified by the crash of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17. There are no words adequate to express our condolences to the families of the nearly 300 victims. We offer our sympathies and support to the Governments of Malaysia and the Netherlands at this difficult time, as well as to all those whose citizens may have been on board. We are reviewing whether any American citizens were aboard the flight.

"The United States Government remains prepared to assist with a credible, international investigation any way we can, and we will continue to be in touch with all relevant partners as we seek the facts of what happened today."

The British government has already called for an emergency meeting of the United Nations Security Council to discuss the crash. For Mr Hammond, however, it is the rapidly evolving situation which will determine how the world sees him in his new role, rather than any agreement reached by the UN. 

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.

Time to talk about a problem like Ed

LABOUR's recent boost in the polls may not be enough to counteract the "Ed Miliband problem" according to political analysts.

In the latest survey conducted by polling agency YouGov Labour had a six point lead with 38 per cent of the vote, compared the the Tories 32 per cent.

While this is being hailed as a sign of support for the party's policies there are fears that if Ed Miliband remains as leader the results will not translate into a General Election victory.

Mr Miliband is currently at his lowest point in ratings according to the alternative Guardian ICM poll at the weekend, which saw his satisfaction rating drop from -25 to -39, lower than Liberal Democrat Leader Nick Clegg at -37.

Despite the results Mr Miliband still appears to have the support of party stalwarts to keep threats of a leadership contest at bay.

Rachael Reeves, Shadow Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, told the Guardian: "I am incredibly proud to serve under Ed. It would be with huge pride that I would serve in a Labour government under his leadership. When Ed is prime minister, we will see change we haven't seen for a generation. That change will profoundly change the lives of people who, for too long under governments of all colours, have been really struggling and left behind."

Also weighing in to defend his party's leader Former Home Secretary, David Blunkett, was reported in Huffington Post as saying: "He is the only man and he is the only man because he is our leader. Nobody is going to challenge him, he is in a unique position, actually because Tony Blair was bedevilled and in the latter days so was Gordon Brown. Ed is free of that," he said.

Mr Miliband's poor ratings may not be affecting the Labour leader now but as the election draws closer it could start to be a different matter.

According to research conducted by the Centre for Research in Elections and Social Trends: "Leaders have become the human face of election campaigns, while electorates have become dealigned. This has lead to the suggestion that in parliamentary elections many voters now vote for the party leader they like best in much the same way that in presidential elections they vote for the candidate they like best."

With 60 per cent of those polled by YouGov thinking that Mr Miliband would not be up to the job of Prime Minister and 56 per cent believing that he is out of touch with voters he could find that he becomes more of a hindrance than asset for the party in May.

Speaking in Wales on Saturday Mr Miliband told reporters: "I am not only determined, but I am confident that we can win the next election. We need to because the stakes are incredibly high for the country."

If the polls stay as they are though Mr Miliband might be leading the party to a catastrophic defeat in the next General Election. One which Mr Blunkett has warned could see Labour relegated to the political wilderness for the next 15 years.

Europe needs to look to future before it runs out of fuel over Russia

EUROPE faces a looming energy crisis as reserves of fossils fuels reach a critical point. According to research conducted by the Global Sustainability Institute at Anglia Ruskin University the UK has less than five years worth of coal and three years of gas remaining from its domestic supply. The situation is even worse for France and Italy which could run out of fossil fuels within a year.

The United Kingdom is already reaching its highest levels of dependence since 1976. The news is likely to push this figure up as officials attempt to maintain what little resources the country still has. Based the data, however, large areas of Europe will be entirely reliant on foreign sources of fuel within the next five years.

With Russia’s supplies looking set to last for the next 50 years it may be the best source of supply to keep the lights on. While the West pushes for increased sanctions against Russian officials in response to the crisis in Ukraine it seems likely that they will come to nothing. President Putin’s government looks set to hold all the cards in the on-going gamesmanship between nations as Europe looks towards them for their energy needs.

Europe’s dependency on Russian gas and coal is already on a dramatic rise, with its own domestic supply about to run out this rise will only continues. As much as Europe may wish to provide support for Ukraine and demonstrate its condemnation of Russian aggression it may find that its own domestic needs start to take precedence.

Britain is already looking to other sources to prevent Russia having a stranglehold on the country. Having witnessed its gas supply declining over a sustained period it is sourcing the majority of its foreign supply from Norway. If Europe wants to ensure that it is not held over the proverbial fuel barrel then it must also start to find alternative suppliers for its coal supply.

Meanwhile the British government is placing its hope in renewable energy. A spokesman from the Department of Energy and Climate Change stated: “The UK is one of the most energy secure countries in the world thanks to the combination of our own reserves, our diverse sources of imported energy and our focus on increasing clean, home-grown energy in the UK - which includes nuclear, renewables and carbon capture and storage. 

 "As well as attracting record investment into our energy security since 2010, the UK is leading globally on energy security, particularly through the G7 which has agreed to take global action to improve energy security, and in getting a deal in the EU to cut carbon emissions by 40% by 2030."

Based on figures from the same department, however, renewable energy only accounted for 15.5 per cent of overall energy consumption by quarter two in 2013. Despite being a 60 per cent rise from 2012 if Britain is rely on its renewable energy to cover its imminent shortfall then it has a long way to go.

 

A likely source, to ensure security within Europe, could be Germany, which according to statistics has approximately 250 years worth of coal left, five times as much as Russia. With Britain becoming increasing Eurosceptic, however, it must now be looking at the long term consequences of distancing itself from its European neighbours.

 

The rise of the right

AS EUROPE gears up for the May 22^nd European Elections the rise of right wing politics has become increasingly noticeable. This is not isolated to the European Union though.

In America the Tea Party Movement has made inroads into mainstream politics. The United Australia Party may not be seeing the gains of some right wing parties, however, it is starting to have an impact on the political establishment. Despite, or possibly because of, being led by a comedian Beppo Grillo’s Five Star Movement in Italy has surged forward, challenging the old guard of the Democratic Party and Silvio Berlusconi’s Forza Italia. Nowhere seems immune from the politics of fear these groups play upon.

It was only a few short years ago that groups such as the American Tea Party Movement, a group which United Kingdom Independence Leader, Nigel Farage, has revelled in being compared to, were seen as fringe and dismissible. In the current political environment they are starting to pose a problem for the main political parties.

In America and Britain it seems unlikely that the establishment could be overturned by these groups. In 2015 UKIP may gain a couple of seats, this would be a far cry from the number they would need to put them in a position of serious power though. The threat they pose is by splitting the vote of the more moderate parties and diverting the debate away from areas where it needs to be focused.

For countries such as Italy and Germany, where coalition governments are more frequent than in the US and Britain, these parties can have a genuine influence on the way the country is run. For groups such as Tea Party or UKIP, however, they are fighting against an entrenched establishment where it is a near certainty that one of two parties will be in power.

This has not stopped them from shouting their causes from the rooftops, however. It is perhaps even more of incentive to create ever more outrageous and right wing agendas for these groups than ones which know they may have a chance of power, and therefore would have to meet their manifesto pledges.

UKIP has claimed that they will fight back against unlimited immigration from the European Union, while failing to address how they will do this, or exactly how far reaching the levels of immigration will be. In its EU election manifesto for example UKIP claims that the Office of National Statistics estimates from 2010 that the UK population will rise by 3 million by 2020 through immigration. The ONS actually forecasts a growth of 4.9million, of which 56 per cent would be from ‘natural increase’.

Additional figures provided by UKIP also fail to take into account the rate of emigration from Britain by naturalised citizens. The same story is repeated in America with the Tea Party Movement. Statistics are taken out of context, or fabricated. Both groups use volume and self proclaimed righteous anger ahead of genuine debate and solution.

In part this rise of the right wing has come about from the groups themselves. An increase in communications technology has made it easier for them to reach the electorate, and by repeating the same phrases enough they have instilled them into the minds of people as fact.

An increasing level of fear and disillusionment in the system has given them the crack to force themselves into. Membership of the more mainstream political parties has diminished over the years, with approximately only 1 per cent of the UK belonging to a party,  as people lose faith in the process. Fear of terrorism and crime is also on the increase, which gives certain right wing elements the fuel they need to feed the fire of xenophobic attitudes.

On May 22^nd the British electorate, and others across Europe, will have their say for who represents them in the European Union. For right wing groups the world over it will be seen as a test of whether volume and propaganda has swayed the people over debate and solutions.

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.