An immigrant by any other name is an expat

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

A terrorist by any other name

IT HAS become apparent in recent weeks, if it wasn't already clear enough, that in the fight against international terrorism Turkey is caught between a rock and a hard place.
On one side there is the so called Islamic State (IS), known throughout the world as a terror group which has spread across Syria and Iraq with close ties to groups within Yemen, Nigeria and Somalia, where a terror attack on Sunday by one of its affiliates Al Shabaab destroyed one of the key hotels for journalists, diplomats and expats in the capital of Mogadishu.
On the other is Turkey's long running enemy the Kurdistan Worker's Party (PKK). Since 1984 the campaign for an independent state launched by the PKK has left approximately 40,000 dead, most recently with two Turkish police officers last week.
Where Turkey faces a serious issue however is how these two terrorist groups are perceived beyond its boundaries. Kurdish fighters in Iraq are proving to be the front line of combat operations against IS, while Turkey has repeatedly refused to commit ground forces to the battle. Many believe that the Kurds importance in the battle, and the support for their semi-autonomous state in Iraq, have given a renewed credence among international players to demands for an independent state in Turkey.
In response to this dual threat Turkey called a meeting of NATO allies to discuss operations to protect itself from further attacks.
Ankara may find support limited among its allies though. Accusations have already been levelled at the government for allegedly using airstrikes in Iraq as a cover for also attacking Kurdish units. Recent reports from the area have suggested that Turkish tanks may have deliberately fired across the border into Iraq targeting Kurdish units.
For many Western nations the threat from IS is an overwhelming fear and they are prepared to forge the dirtiest of alliances to combat it, while also keeping their hands as clean as possible by allowing any else to carry out ground offensives on their behalf.
With a startling lack of understanding about the harm which the PKK has caused to Turkey, and the threat it poses to the country's long term security, it seems likely that many NATO countries will prefer to obfuscate and leave Turkey trapped between two evils rather than risking a fighting ally.
Turkey's resistance, not completely unreasonably, to see a difference between two terror groups threatening its sovereignty may place it add odds with the self interests of states looking for an easy end to the IS conflict.

Another final countdown for Greece

AFTER months of wrangling, recriminations and negotiations Greece has being given its final deadline by Eurozone ministers to pay up or get out.
Following Sunday's referendum, which saw millions of Greeks flock to the polls to vote Oxi, or No, to austerity measures demanded by the Eurozone countries it was clear that the long awaited end was nigh. Tuesday's meeting of Eurozone ministers merely confirmed what the markets had already suspected.
Final deadlines for the Greek government have become something akin to a Rolling Stones farewell tour, we have seen them before and stopped believing the flyers. This time, however, it seems almost certain that the Greeks will have to make some drastic decisions or genuinely risk Grexit.
Following the failure in Tuesday of either side of this ongoing saga to reach a conclusion European Union President, and Prime Minister of Poland, Donald Tusk warned that unless Greek officials presented a genuine and workable proposal to stay in the euro by Friday morning it would face bancruptcy.
The deadline comes ahead of am emergency meeting of all EU leaders On Sunday to discuss the possibility of Greece's exit  from the Eurozone. While this exit may not necessarily mean leaving the EU Sunday's meeting shows how seriously its possible exit from the Eurozone is being seen by member states both in and out of the single currency and its potential for Europe as a whole.
A bankrupt country within the EU would pose a risk for the bloc as a whole,  not just the Eurozone. Greek history shows a country where financial insecurity rapidly turns to domestic insecurity. Riots against austerity measures precipitated the rise of Syriza, yet by the standards of Greece's own reasonably recent history these were mild issues compared to Military Juntas and dictatorships. For European Ministers on Sunday the question of a destabilising financial crisis on one of its members and what it will mean for the security of the bloc as a whole will be a real issue.
German Chancellor Angela Merkel has already made it clear that Greek debt will not be forgiven. As the holder of by far the largest single portion of Greek debt, both as a contributor to European bailouts and domestic loans, Germany may hold the balance of Greece's future. France, which holds the second largest portion, wants a solution, however President Hollande is unlikely to push against the formidable Mrs Merkel too hard on this issue if he feels that the stakes become too much.
A possibility may be for a restructuring of Greek debt alowing for a longer period of repayments at lower levels. The International Monetary Fund has pushed for this form of a solution, having already had its debts defaulted on however this seems to be more focused on the IMF desperately wanting any chance of recouping its losses than supporting Greece.
For now the sword of Damacles hangs perilously over Greece. The thread which holds it is the new Greek Finance Minister Euclid Tsakalotos. Already seen as more willing to negotiate than his predecessor and a safer hand on the economy Mr Tsakalotos' first week will be a trying one.

Time for the final Grexit

Grexit, Grisis, Great news for eurozone; whatever your want to call it the time for a decision on Greece's future is rapidly approaching.
At time of writing there are still some hopes that a deal can be struck, however, even these are slim. The concessions proposed by the Greek government may buy them some time with their creditors but it will only be  a stop gap measure and likely to anger their own electorate.
Having campaigned on a platform of standing up to the European Union, preserving pension rights and combating austerity Greek Prime Minister Alex Tsipras and his ruling Syriza party will find it uncomfortable to explain why they are now making such a dramatic U-turn. On Tuesday it looked questionable whether he would be able to get the support in parliament to follow through on any agreement which included a concession on pensions making the plans even more unrealistic.
While the  proposal to combat Greece's mounting  debt has been greeted with cautious approval by some, including EU President Jean-Claude Juncker, others, including head of the International Monetary Fund Christine Lagarde and European Central Bank President Mario Draghi, are not even this optimistic of a solution.
Greece is hedging its bets on the idea that other eurozone countries will see Grexit as too much of a risk and therefore so long as they put on a good show of trying to compromise they will they will get what they want. Even if a bailout is agreed upon this time though it will only be a temporary measure. Unless Greece dramatically cuts its spending, raises the retirement age and curbs its more excessive tendencies then this will be just one round of a never ending fiscal game between the eurozone nations.
The issue for Germany et al though is  that having shown that they will bend over backwards to keep Greece in the zone they will have lost a key bargaining chip and created an inevitability for any future negotiations.
At this stage it could prove to be a greater risk to actually keep Greece in the eurozone. What critics of this opinion are quick to point out is that the zone was created with the specific concept that once joined it could not be left. To allow for Grexit would therefore create a dilemma for the bloc as member nations face an uncertain future, with any member potentially leaving and avoiding its responsibilities should the going get tough, examples of Spain and Portugal are thrown around considerably with this argument.
Such future exits would undoubtedly be painful and costly for the zone in the short term. If the eurozone is to survive in any format however this will be its only chance. By reducing the number of nations the remaining members will be able to create a more secure sustainable regime likely to increase productivity.
It would also not necessarily mean to collapse of the financial systems of leaving countries and the subsequent decent into anarchy and autocracy which has been predicted. The outflow from a prosperous regenerated eurozone is likely to bleed into these countries through trade and treaties, which with their new found ability to manage their own capital and current accounts more effectively is likely to help boost economies over the long term.
On a practical level the argument that should countries be allowed to leave the eurozone it would create some form of mass exodus must surely if true, which is unlikely, prove a decisive reason why it should be allowed. An economic regime which everyone wants to leave by definition has been proven to have failed and should be discarded in favour of a more effective one.
Without a real threat of exit there is no genuine means by which eurozone members can force others to acquiescence. Any negotiations will therefore prove pointless with a predetermined policy of paying an inevitability. An exit will without any question be painful, the rebuilding costly and many would sufferin the short term  Failing to allow it though would be catastrophic in the long run with the long term effects precipating a global financial crash to make the last decade seem a minor inconvenience.

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.

So much for predictions

POLITICS is always likely to throw up some surprises, however, the twists and turns of the General Election would have confused the writers of Broadchurch.

For months the polls showed the same picture, well the ones which were published that is. The election was supposed to be too close to call. The Conservatives and Labour were running neck and neck, the Liberal Democrats would take a mauling, but only just enough to teach them a lesson, the United Kingdom Independence Party would become a key player and the Scottish National Party would rise from the ashes of the referendum to be a greater threat to the union than ever. Something was meant to happen with the Green Party but to be honest no-one was really paying that much attention.

The plan was set. The Tories would be forced to enter a second coalition with the Lib Dems, who having suffered at the hands of the electorate and able to manipulate the threat of an SNP/Labour opposition would be firmer and stand by their principles. It was meant to be a coalition which would see the growing far right of the Conservative party mitigated by the left of the Libs. Nick Clegg would step down and Vince Cable or Danny Alexander would step to the fore.

Of course there was a risk of a Labour/SNP coalition but it was unlikely, particularly after the categorical statements of Ed Milliband. Clearly the main threat was just fear mongering on the part of the Conservatives in what turned out to be an incredibly divisive move who has put the Union at greater risk than the SNP ever could have.

Of course Labour and Conservatives both claimed that they would win a majority but no-one really took them seriously, queue much eye rolling from Dimbleby, Robinson, Marr et al whenever they said it. 

Well that was the plan. There was however one slight flaw, no-one followed it. From the minute Big Ben struck 10 it was obvious something had gone drastically wrong, possibly not entirely obvious to former Lib Dem Leaders Paddy Ashdown comment that he would eat his hat if his party lost 47 seats, as it was they lost 49. Political commentators who had been gearing themselves up for days, possibly weeks, of coalition negotiations now faced the prospect that the Conservatives may do far better than expected, and that the Lib Dems and Labour would do far far worse. As the night wore on and it became clear that there would be a Tory majority government without the restraint of the Liberals people started to realise what a hideous mistake they had made. 

By the morning people woke up to a new, far righter wing, Britain. Big names had fallen, Cable, Balls and many more had been thrown unceremoniously out on their ears. Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg and Labour chief Ed Milliband both stood down in the wake of the results, as did technically UKIP leader Nigel Farage only to spring back a few days later into the role. The Scottish National Party had swept Labour from Scotland to become the official third party. 

Simply put the political map of Britain changed and not necessarily for the better. It wasn't all bad though. The turn out was far higher than expected which just goes to show that the one safe bet I made on the election was just as wrong as every other prediction.    

Money talks, politicians lie

AS THE General Election campaigns continue to roll on in Britain it is become clear that politicians are willing to forgo economic sense in favour of votes.

Even the simplest concept, don't spend money you don't have, seems to have been forgotten as the number of unfunded manifesto pledges increases.

It is common knowledge that manifestos are wish lists which should be viewed with a sceptical lense. This doesn't mean however that parties can put anything in them in the hope that no-one notices that it is fiscally irresponsible.

Governments do have the option to borrow if necessary to fund policies if they feel it is worth increasing the national debt to push them through, so perhaps it is unfair to write off policies which appear unsustainable at this point.

What is most worrying is the way in which policies appear so focused on grabbing votes that they have ignored the potential long term harm that they will cause. Possibly the most noticeable of these is the minimum wage. For many people seeing that a party is prepared to offer a £10 minimum wage sounds like a winning idea, after all who doesn't like the idea of more money in their pocket. The problem is that it won't actually mean more money for individuals. 

Firstly many small businesses already struggle with minimum wages as it is. An increase, particularly such a dramatic one, does not mean the companies sales will increase so income is unlikely to change immediately. This means that to pay the new wage the business needs to increase prices, or lay off staff. 

Where prices stay static, lack of willingness by customers to pay increased prices for example, then unemployment will rise. As unemployment rises there are less people willing to pay increased prices, and so the cycle goes on. The argument that minimum wages should meet cost of living is likewise limiting the scope. If minimum wages are increased then people earning above the minimum wage, quite logically, will want an increase in pay, after all why work in one job if you can earn the same money doing something which requires less skill or stress. As these wages increase the cycle begins again driving up prices as larger and larger firms raise prices to meet the new wage costs and maintain profit margins.

Then there is the toxic issue of the foreign age budget. One party in particular seems to determined to develop the argument of "why are we giving money to foreigners?"  The simple answer is that you spend money to make money.

No matter how it is wrapped up and packaged foreign aid is aimed at stabilising the international system, allowing for development, and gradually through many steps leading to a flowing import export market. It is not a purely philanthropic matter no matter what some people may think. Quite simply the foreign aid budget brings more money into the country than goes out, it just does it in a roundabout and not always clear manner.

When parties try and explain how they are going to fund a policy they think only of the short five year effects on the treasury. The danger is that they forget that in a market economy the knock on effect for inflows and outflows will linger for many more years than this.