Leaving Europe is a bad breakup we don't need

The future of Europe is one of those great discussions where it doesn't appear to actually matter if someone knows what is going on for them to make a contribution.
This is a good thing otherwise I would obviously be unable to wrIte about it.
In recent weeks the call from Conservative MP's to leave the EU, or at least calling for such unacceptable changes to the treaty agreement that they leave little other choice, has grown to more than 100. The Conservatives' For Britain group has appeared in a ghastly parliamentary parody of a bad boyfriend deliberately making unreasonable demand in the hopes that his girlfriend will break up with him and leave him looking like the injured party.
At the time of writing British MP's are debating the European Union Referendum Bill, the legislation required for the much heralded in out referendum to take place in 2017. As forgone conclusions go this was a safe bet. Everyone knows that it will pass. There is just too much pressure for a referendum to take place for it not to. It isn't whether we have a referendum now which matters, it is how we vote in that referendum.
The EU is far from perfect and in many ways could do with significant reform. This won't happen just because Britain stamps it's feet and cries though. It won't happen quickly and it most certainly won't happen in one go. The eurosceptics pushing for a renegotiation of the UK membership, supported by a number of disgruntled failed cabinet ministers looking to put the boot in,  know this. If they don't then they have either deluded  themselves or they really should not be allowed close to the debate. They know that the EU cannot change just because Britain says so. Likewise it won't even consider changing when there is a chance that the UK could leave anyway. International politics is a game and relies on states playing it in order to maximise their own preferences and gains.
The question which should be being debated in parliament is what is in it for everyone else. If we were serious about requesting reforms which would ensure that we stayed in the EU then we should be looking at how other states perceive their positions and what the relative gains will be. At the moment Britain had offered nothing in return for getting everything it wants.
An additional issue, and one which seems to be lost on many eurosceptics, is that leaving the EU will diminish Britain's absolute gains on the international stage. At present the United States sees the UK as a gateway into dealing with the rest of Europe. With its exit Britain's special relationship will sour quickly. This is of course something which will please the more nationalistic elements of the debate and what they are hoping for. The problem is that as the UK loses a great deal of support from America's declining hegemony it will lose its importance on the international stage.
This split will lead to a loss of trade which on its own could have been absorbed. Combined with the loss of trade and resources from Europe however it will prove crippling. Trade with China, based in no small measure with an understanding of Britain's ties to the US and its access to the EU economy, will not take long to dry up.
Britain is no longer an empire and it seems that too many people have forgotten this. We live and work in a globalised networked society. An EU exit has only one possible outcome for the UK, economic isolation and collapse. Better the long crawl to reform than the short sprint to crisis.

Security is preferable to liberty for the majority

DESPITE being widely publicised and beset by criticism people just don't seem that concerned about the level of government surveillance on their lives.

While civic rights groups have condemned proposals for an increase in official monitoring of phone calls and social media figures showing people's opposition to the concept reflect a lack of interest by the majority of those polled.

Last week former Defence Secretary Liam Fox called for an increase in the level of surveillance to protect against British nationals fighting in Syria returning and causing problems in the UK.

 There are those who say if we don't get involved, if we hunker down then we will be fine. There will be no backlash. That is utterly, utterly wrong because the jihadists don't hate us because of what we do. They hate us because of who we are. We can't change that. It is our values and our history that they detest more than anything else," said Mr Fox.

"The whole area of intercept needs to be looked at. We have got a real debate, and it is a genuine debate in a democracy, between the libertarians who say the state must not get too powerful and pretty much the rest of us who say the state must protect itself.

"If required it is the first duty of the state to protect its citizens … it is a real worry and it is a problem that is going to be with us for a very long time. At heart it is an ideological battle and we have to realise that we have to win the ideological battle as well."

Civil liberties groups immediately hit back at the idea, calling for more transparency and an independent review of current legislation.

Emma Carr, acting director of Big Brother Watch, said: “It would be reckless to attempt to to legislate on further surveillance powers before a comprehensive, independent review of the existing legal framework has taken place.

“A broad political consensus has emerged in support of a review, with the Deputy Prime Minister, the Shadow Home Secretary and the Home Affairs Committee all recognising that the public should know more about how our surveillance laws are being used and whether the current oversight mechanisms are adequate.

“We know from examples in the US that there is far more information that could be published without jeopardising security. Greater transparency would build trust and improve accountability yet the data being recorded by the police and agencies is seriously inadequate. This does not require legislation and should be addressed by the Home Secretary without delay.”

Instead of backing the calls as wished by Ms Carr Home Secretary Theresa May has made it clear that she wants to see changes to the law making it easier for the government to carry out surveillance on individuals.

"I know some people like the thought that the internet should become a libertarian paradise, but that will entail complete freedom not just for law-abiding people but for terrorists and criminals," she told the attendees at the Lord Mayor's Defence and Security Lecture at Mansion House, in the City of London.

“I do not believe that is what the public wants. Loss of capability, not mass surveillance nor illegal and unaccountable behaviour, is the great danger we face.

“The real problem is not that we have built an over-mighty state, but that the state is finding it harder to fulfil its most basic duty, which is to protect the public,” she said.

With a YouGov poll carried out late last year showing a majority stating that the current level of surveillance was either just right or not enough it seems as though Mrs May could have her supporters.

The poll, released long after the revelations from former NSA analyst Edward Snowden as to the level of government intrusion into people's lives, had 42 per cent agreeing with the current balance and 22 per cent wanting more surveillance. Only 19 per cent of those polled actually said that they supported a reduction in monitoring.

With scare stories hitting the press on an increasingly regular basis those fighting for civil liberty at find out the they are in a losing battle as people opt for security.  

Threat to US and Britain on doorstep following Iraq escalation

WITH America and Britain unwilling to become involved in the escalating conflict in Iraq fears have arisen of home-grown terrorists joining the fighting in the Middle East.

Concerns have started to grow that British and American nationals have been recruited by fundamentalist groups to fight in Iraq and Syria.

The American Federal Bureau of Investigation is currently investigating allegations that approximately 15 men travelled to Syria to join up with groups against the hardline forces of President Bashar A-Assad. On Thursday a spokesman from  the FBI’s Minneapolis office, Kyle Loven, was reported as saying that the bureau had received information indicating that 10 to 15 men from the region's large Somali community had travelled from the Minneapolis-St Paul area to Syria.

While it has been known for some time that both British and American nationals have been joining with terrorist groups in the Middle East fears that some may have linked up with the ultra-radical group the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIS) have added a new dimension to the nature of international interference in the region.

According to a statement from the office of British Prime Minister the insurgency in Iraq is part of an “arc of extremism” which is starting to engulf the Middle East. The British Secret Intelligence Service, commonly known as MI6, suspects that approximately 500 British citizens have travelled to Syria to take part in the campaign, and may now have joined up with ISIS in Iraq.

The Prime Minister’s Official Spokesman was reported as saying: “Our Security Services and all the relevant agencies will be monitoring those types of risks very closely. Clearly there is a very porous border between parts of Syria and parts of Iraq.

“As the PM has said, the greatest extremist activity and jihadist threats to the international community are in Syria. We need to keep these things under very close watch.”

While America and Britain have claimed that they have no intention of re-engaging in Iraq to combat the growing insurgent threat both countries may find that the conflict is brought to their doors.