I don't really now how this sits with other members of my party but I think the time has come to make some pretty practical decisions on where to go when it comes to diplomacy in the middle east.
Don't get me wrong, I regard my self as a liberal living in a liberal democracy and I value the freedoms we enjoy. But there do come times when situations arise that might put the practice of those very values into jeopardy and I think we are there right now.
The massive migrant crisis we are currently enduring has placed enormous pressures on the governments of the EU trying to handle that.
The sheer scale of it has the potential to produce revolutionary, and not just evolutionary, change. Evolution is a good thing, but revolutions cost lives.
The primary (but not sole) source of refugees in the migrant crisis has been war torn Syria. Our priority must be to end that conflict. Sad though the recent attacks in Paris and over the Sinai desert are, it has opened up an opportunity in Syria which I believe should be seized.
The main opportunity internationally is that it has brought the positions of Russia and the Western nations closer together, and this needs to be grasped.
We all love our liberal democracies in the West, but our insistence on bringing about revolutionary changes in other countries so that the seeds of democracy can be sown in them can not be said to have been very productive. Within the context of recent conflict, people will continue to vote for "their side" and on the basis of fear rather than any particular ideological orientation. It is arguable in such a situation whether it makes sense to have any elections at all in the short term. I believe that generally we have been too focussed on the immoralities of so-called dictatorships, and in fairness recent evidence seem to suggest that at least in Europe governments are also coming around to this opinion. Can we really fault Castro's achievements in bringing about universal (free) health care and literacy in Cuba?, in both Syria and Libya there was never any problem for women to get an education, or for them to be able to freely express themselves. Indeed general religious tolerance was promoted. Of course Assad is fighting a war in his countries and in fairness he has been brutal about it, but the Myanmar dictatorship were brutal to their people, and we are now talking to them. There are many exmaples of other things which we take for granted but which the Syrians and Libyans under Gadaffi also enjoyed. And perhaps the most important thing --- life was never so bad (in non wartime) that they felt they had to leave their country in huge masses. In a sense, we are reaping what we have sown in insisting on democracy where it was never really ready to be installed. That is the Realpolitik of our world today.
So if (and this looks increasingly likely) the Western (and Russian) response is going to involve going after ISIS in Syria and Iraq at full throttle, and in so doing destroy them, then it has to be accompanied with a serious approach to bring about a ceasefire between Assad and his other opponents in Iraq. This means that everyone has to get around the table...i.e. the Western nations, Russia, Assad, and leaders of Syria's opposition.
Insisting on Assad's removal is unhelpful and flexibility has to be shown here...one can change the diplomatic wording for Western nations to something like "our long-term goal is to ensure a democratic and peaceful future for the people of Syria", without making any specifics about who should be involved. This would not preclude Assad's involvement in the future running of the state of course, but perhaps in a revised administration he and his associates would still have a useful role to play. Running a dictatorship isnt just about running a system of objective oppression (which likes to be stressed in the West) ...its also about running schools and hospitals and many other important organs of the state, and I have heard nothing to suggest that these were run erroneously, or not at all in the systems governed by Gaddafi and Assad (the same cant be said of Myanmar by the way...with whom we DO now talk).
To coax Assad and his associates you would have to offer them some legal impunity in exchange for a positive involvement in the future running of that state once a ceasefire has been reached. And for a while the state would probably have to be governed as a UN administration with input from all the major involved nations, and perhaps China as well whose investment role might also prove positive. Syria will have to be ready for democracy, but I believe it has to be brought in slowly, because after wars people vote only on the basis of fear, which is not productive or desirable. In the end though, the most important thing is that they have a government committed to providing generalised peace and prosperity for all its people, and perhaps Assad is more willing to do that than many in the West give him credit for.
Sure he has done some barbaric things in his own country with his military campaigning, but many of us are gearing up to condoning the same kind of actions by bombing ISIS, and much of the "collateral damage" will seem just as barbaric to those affected.
There have been some genuinely bad men running countries, such as Hitler, Polpot and Stalin who were probably all driven by paranoid megalomania, and followed by men they did not trust and would say yes to everything. We can genuinely be thankful that there are not people like that in the positions that matter in the world today. I also do not believe that people like Assad fall into that category, and I was always a believer that Putin is a man who is more aware of his geopolitical responsibilities than the West would give him credit for.
Wednesday, 18 November 2015
Wednesday, 27 May 2015
11 reasons why the UK should stay in Europe
Whatever the outcome of David Cameron's negotiations with other European leaders regarding our future relationship with Europe, I am a firm believer we should stay. Here I list some of my most important reasons.
For an organisation that is touted as being such a waste of money, and aspiring to be a superstate in
the same breath, it really is a bargain. Less than 1% of national spending goes on the European Union. Compare that to the budget for welfare, pensions and the national health service. Eurosceptics will have us believe that the true value is a lot higher, and while it is certainly true that we are legally obliged to hold VAT within certain limits, that does not mean that all the VAT we pay goes to the European Union......far from it. The British government still holds the lion's share of more than 98% of what it raises in taxes from the British people...so please....don't exaggerate the superstate argument.
Multinationals are becoming ever more devious in trying to control out lives...just look at all the fines the likes of Microsoft, Google, banks and others have had to pay out to the EU and others. This can only be effectively done if these organisations are policed and controlled by larger organsiations such as the EU. Britain on its own will find it hard to fight its corner in the face of ever more powerful multinational organisations.
If Britain voted to leave the EU, it will reignite the debate in Scotland about whether they want to stay in the UK. A possible scanario may be that Scotland demands another referendum (which would be justified given a change in the UKs status), and that if the independence campaign succeeds they would be entitled to take the UK mandate with them, thus abrogating any requirement for them to reapply to join the union. This could quite feasibly swing the vote in Scotland towards the majority wanting to leave.
I know a lot of people in the UK couldn't care less about European stability following a UK exit. I'm sure there were a lot of such people back in 1914 and 1939 as well. Britain leaving Europe is likely to cause a ripple effect in the rest of Europe, and ultimately it could threaten the stability of the entire organisation. There will be a power shift within the union towards the south, a situation which Germany, Holland and the Scandinavian countries would find very unpalatable, and that may lead to pressures within Europe towards disintegration. People laugh today at the idea of some kind of neofascism rising in Europe again, but this is exactly what could happen. Think of the success that the Front National is already having in France.
One of the most defining moments for me in the Scottish referendum was George Galloway pleading with the audience about the "merits" of becoming independent, and comparing it to an acrimonious divorce process. I think the same would be true with a UK divorce from Europe. UKIP will tell you that we will have a friendly relationship with the rest of Europe once we leave (see point 4), possibly by remaining within the European Economic Area. In all likelihood, we will have to renogotiate trade relationships with the EU, but this is not likely to be a friendly process. European politicians aggrieved at our attempts to destabilise the rest of the union are not going to give us favourable terms in any trade talks, and we will be one against many being told to take it or leave it.
And as for the man in the picture with the hat...well its a shame he forgot his wise and wonderful words.
How could we maintain our influence going it alone ? (particularly if Scotland decides to leave). The US sees the UK as valuable, specifically because it sees it as a valuable bridge between the the EU and the US. It wants the UK to stay within EU, and sees that as a part of its strategy of maintaing a strong transatlantic relationship to counterweight the rise of China. A rump UK would certainly lose its permanent seat on the security council. Brtain punches above its weight because, and not in spite of, its membership within the EU. In short, Britain would lose its relevancy internationally if it left the EU.
I know, everbody hates bankers and banks, but the fact remains that the UKs financial sector is huge.
It contributes 8% to the UKs gross value added figures, 3.4% of the jobs in the UK, and over 20 billion pounds was raised in tax receipts from financial organisations. Indeed, it constitues a substantial proportion of the UKs trade surplus in services. One of the reasons so many financial organisations are based in the UK is because it is in the EU. True, some companies will remain in the UK because everybody speaks English, but I imagine the main benefactors upon a brexit will be Dublin and Frankfurt as many companies relocate.we will see in the next years how many organisations withh follow Deutsche Bank's lead. Think also of all the foreign car manufacturers that use the UK as a manufacturing or assembling base, by virtue of the fact we are a member of the union.
Stability in Northern Ireland is largely helped by the fact that there is an open border with the Irish republic. If we left the union, there may be pressures to change that rearrangement, which could indeed reignite a whole tinderbox. Indeed, might such probems also start up in Scotland if we leave the EU, given the separatist sentiments up there.
The EU is a unique organisation in the world. It is a family of nations that have come together to relinquish some sovereignty in order to cooperate and do things together, and in this way promote peace accross the continent as a whole. Of course it costs money, many facets of administration are governed transnationally, and if we left the EU these functions would still have to be reproduced in the UK, and that would also cost money. UKIP tells you there is going to be a United States of Europe. The British want to stay British, but the French also want to stay French, the Germans German etc. etc. Our cultural independence is not what is at stake in the EU. Nobody is suggesting we join the Eurozone either. Parties like UKIP definitely have a role in the future of Europe, I think its part of the necessary political dynamic within Europe that there are some forces that may want an integration, and others who prefere a "Europe of Nations" founded on free trade.
In the 80s life in Britain was hard. For many people, the only place to go to make a living was the rest of Europe. British people profited from freedom of movement in those days. Now the tables are turned precisely because our economy is doing good. If our economy turns bad again, people may want to speculate by looking for employment abroad again. If you are unskilled and untrained the prospects for that will be poor, but at least the rest of Europe (currently) has an open door for such people, unlike the US and most of the commonwealth countries. We have to get it in our heads, we have immigration because times are so good here, and when they are not so good, we have somewhere to go too.
Being independent can appeal to the romantic side of us, it seemed to be a major driving force as to why many in Scotland could feel that country could go it alone. While I am a European in the head, in the heart I am much more an Englishman or a Brit, those are my clear allegiances, for example, at sporting events. I think that is true of most continental Europeans.. The whole principle in Europe is based on giving our neighbours support so that their economies are stabilised, and become prosperous, so that the spectre of future instability and warfare becomes much less likely. This is also helped by having relations at many levels. It is unfortunate that many in Britain cant think that way, but if you have any vision at all, it is obvious that working to achieve prosperity accross the whole of Europe is not just a selfless undertaking. In the end, we should all benefit from that. That also of course applies beyond Europe's territories too, and it is the same logic which underpins our entire approach to providing such a generous foreign aid programme. Its true that our country had been exposed to sociological and economic pressures due to mass migration, but EU based migration, large though it is, has been due to people coming into our country to work and pay taxes, and alleviate many of our economic pressures. The problem of benefit fraud mostly arises from non-EU migration, and not from EU migrants. Only yesterday I read an absurd story about bangladeshis coming into the UK to claim housing banefits for one day. The author took pains to point out that they came from Italy, a country with which we have an effective border, this was an obvious attempt to psychologically blame the EU for something it had no role whatsoever in.
For me the issue of EU membership is all about what I think my head thinks is best, and what we need. It would be nice in some ways to go back in time to when the British Empire was great. but for me that time has gone and we have a new future and new challenges. All Empires have one thing in common...they fall, and they rarely if ever recover. We have to get used to that fact and accept it.
Nationalism brings little positive, it creates division and it wrecked our part of the world at the start of the 20th century. It continued wrecking places like Yugoslavia, and it threatens havoc in the former Soviet Union. I think Scottish nationalism is as misguided as UK nationalism. Nationalists use simple arguments about national pride to woo people over, but what they forget is that when you loosen yourself from structures such as the UK and the EU it presents huge risks to the economy, and can lead to acrimonious relationships where new inter-nation deals are being negotiated. In this day and age, it is hard to be independent from someone on the other side of the world, let alone your neighbour.
So if you like what I have written, or want to add to it, let me know, and any good new points I shall add to this little dynamically updateable blog.
Dr. Julian P. Keogh
www.dr-julian-keogh.de
11. Its a bargain
For an organisation that is touted as being such a waste of money, and aspiring to be a superstate in
the same breath, it really is a bargain. Less than 1% of national spending goes on the European Union. Compare that to the budget for welfare, pensions and the national health service. Eurosceptics will have us believe that the true value is a lot higher, and while it is certainly true that we are legally obliged to hold VAT within certain limits, that does not mean that all the VAT we pay goes to the European Union......far from it. The British government still holds the lion's share of more than 98% of what it raises in taxes from the British people...so please....don't exaggerate the superstate argument. 10. Multinationals
Multinationals are becoming ever more devious in trying to control out lives...just look at all the fines the likes of Microsoft, Google, banks and others have had to pay out to the EU and others. This can only be effectively done if these organisations are policed and controlled by larger organsiations such as the EU. Britain on its own will find it hard to fight its corner in the face of ever more powerful multinational organisations.
9. Internal stability
If Britain voted to leave the EU, it will reignite the debate in Scotland about whether they want to stay in the UK. A possible scanario may be that Scotland demands another referendum (which would be justified given a change in the UKs status), and that if the independence campaign succeeds they would be entitled to take the UK mandate with them, thus abrogating any requirement for them to reapply to join the union. This could quite feasibly swing the vote in Scotland towards the majority wanting to leave.
8. European stability
I know a lot of people in the UK couldn't care less about European stability following a UK exit. I'm sure there were a lot of such people back in 1914 and 1939 as well. Britain leaving Europe is likely to cause a ripple effect in the rest of Europe, and ultimately it could threaten the stability of the entire organisation. There will be a power shift within the union towards the south, a situation which Germany, Holland and the Scandinavian countries would find very unpalatable, and that may lead to pressures within Europe towards disintegration. People laugh today at the idea of some kind of neofascism rising in Europe again, but this is exactly what could happen. Think of the success that the Front National is already having in France.
7. Divorce is an acrimonious and nasty business
One of the most defining moments for me in the Scottish referendum was George Galloway pleading with the audience about the "merits" of becoming independent, and comparing it to an acrimonious divorce process. I think the same would be true with a UK divorce from Europe. UKIP will tell you that we will have a friendly relationship with the rest of Europe once we leave (see point 4), possibly by remaining within the European Economic Area. In all likelihood, we will have to renogotiate trade relationships with the EU, but this is not likely to be a friendly process. European politicians aggrieved at our attempts to destabilise the rest of the union are not going to give us favourable terms in any trade talks, and we will be one against many being told to take it or leave it.
And as for the man in the picture with the hat...well its a shame he forgot his wise and wonderful words.
6. An independent UK would be unimportant
How could we maintain our influence going it alone ? (particularly if Scotland decides to leave). The US sees the UK as valuable, specifically because it sees it as a valuable bridge between the the EU and the US. It wants the UK to stay within EU, and sees that as a part of its strategy of maintaing a strong transatlantic relationship to counterweight the rise of China. A rump UK would certainly lose its permanent seat on the security council. Brtain punches above its weight because, and not in spite of, its membership within the EU. In short, Britain would lose its relevancy internationally if it left the EU.
5. The banks will go (and probably a lot of other investment and companies)
I know, everbody hates bankers and banks, but the fact remains that the UKs financial sector is huge.
It contributes 8% to the UKs gross value added figures, 3.4% of the jobs in the UK, and over 20 billion pounds was raised in tax receipts from financial organisations. Indeed, it constitues a substantial proportion of the UKs trade surplus in services. One of the reasons so many financial organisations are based in the UK is because it is in the EU. True, some companies will remain in the UK because everybody speaks English, but I imagine the main benefactors upon a brexit will be Dublin and Frankfurt as many companies relocate.we will see in the next years how many organisations withh follow Deutsche Bank's lead. Think also of all the foreign car manufacturers that use the UK as a manufacturing or assembling base, by virtue of the fact we are a member of the union.
4. The troubles may flare up
Stability in Northern Ireland is largely helped by the fact that there is an open border with the Irish republic. If we left the union, there may be pressures to change that rearrangement, which could indeed reignite a whole tinderbox. Indeed, might such probems also start up in Scotland if we leave the EU, given the separatist sentiments up there.
3. It's a great organisation to be in
The EU is a unique organisation in the world. It is a family of nations that have come together to relinquish some sovereignty in order to cooperate and do things together, and in this way promote peace accross the continent as a whole. Of course it costs money, many facets of administration are governed transnationally, and if we left the EU these functions would still have to be reproduced in the UK, and that would also cost money. UKIP tells you there is going to be a United States of Europe. The British want to stay British, but the French also want to stay French, the Germans German etc. etc. Our cultural independence is not what is at stake in the EU. Nobody is suggesting we join the Eurozone either. Parties like UKIP definitely have a role in the future of Europe, I think its part of the necessary political dynamic within Europe that there are some forces that may want an integration, and others who prefere a "Europe of Nations" founded on free trade.
2. Freedom of movement
In the 80s life in Britain was hard. For many people, the only place to go to make a living was the rest of Europe. British people profited from freedom of movement in those days. Now the tables are turned precisely because our economy is doing good. If our economy turns bad again, people may want to speculate by looking for employment abroad again. If you are unskilled and untrained the prospects for that will be poor, but at least the rest of Europe (currently) has an open door for such people, unlike the US and most of the commonwealth countries. We have to get it in our heads, we have immigration because times are so good here, and when they are not so good, we have somewhere to go too.
1. The future
China and India are set to become even more economically powerful. The world is multipolar and its important that Europe stays united in such a world to face any new challenges we might face. This is not going to happen if the EU is destabilised by countries seceding from the union. The old commonwealth countries are joining their own regional economic unions, and the commonwealth will never realistically be revived as a meaningful organisation. Europe has to stay united to face the challenges of the future, and should not flirt with disintegration. Only our potential enemies will profit from that.You can't always get what you want...but if you try some times, you just might find, you get what you need...
Being independent can appeal to the romantic side of us, it seemed to be a major driving force as to why many in Scotland could feel that country could go it alone. While I am a European in the head, in the heart I am much more an Englishman or a Brit, those are my clear allegiances, for example, at sporting events. I think that is true of most continental Europeans.. The whole principle in Europe is based on giving our neighbours support so that their economies are stabilised, and become prosperous, so that the spectre of future instability and warfare becomes much less likely. This is also helped by having relations at many levels. It is unfortunate that many in Britain cant think that way, but if you have any vision at all, it is obvious that working to achieve prosperity accross the whole of Europe is not just a selfless undertaking. In the end, we should all benefit from that. That also of course applies beyond Europe's territories too, and it is the same logic which underpins our entire approach to providing such a generous foreign aid programme. Its true that our country had been exposed to sociological and economic pressures due to mass migration, but EU based migration, large though it is, has been due to people coming into our country to work and pay taxes, and alleviate many of our economic pressures. The problem of benefit fraud mostly arises from non-EU migration, and not from EU migrants. Only yesterday I read an absurd story about bangladeshis coming into the UK to claim housing banefits for one day. The author took pains to point out that they came from Italy, a country with which we have an effective border, this was an obvious attempt to psychologically blame the EU for something it had no role whatsoever in.
For me the issue of EU membership is all about what I think my head thinks is best, and what we need. It would be nice in some ways to go back in time to when the British Empire was great. but for me that time has gone and we have a new future and new challenges. All Empires have one thing in common...they fall, and they rarely if ever recover. We have to get used to that fact and accept it.
Nationalism brings little positive, it creates division and it wrecked our part of the world at the start of the 20th century. It continued wrecking places like Yugoslavia, and it threatens havoc in the former Soviet Union. I think Scottish nationalism is as misguided as UK nationalism. Nationalists use simple arguments about national pride to woo people over, but what they forget is that when you loosen yourself from structures such as the UK and the EU it presents huge risks to the economy, and can lead to acrimonious relationships where new inter-nation deals are being negotiated. In this day and age, it is hard to be independent from someone on the other side of the world, let alone your neighbour.
So if you like what I have written, or want to add to it, let me know, and any good new points I shall add to this little dynamically updateable blog.
Dr. Julian P. Keogh
www.dr-julian-keogh.de
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)