If you've ever listened to a Ukip supporter argue for long enough you'll notice that they constantly talk about the apparent freedoms we're missing out of as part of the European Union and one of these rights seemingly lost to Brussels is an independent foreign policy, with sceptics claiming that if we left the European Union we could strike our own deals with trading partners and forge closer links with the Commonwealth.
I've always found this particular idea to be completely moronic as it is often based on a romanticised and simplified version of the past. In the days of the British Empire the world was a wildly different place with London able to maintain a strong position in world affairs simply because it was head of the largest empire in the world and could martial together the resources of millions of citizens, today that Empire has long disappeared and the axis of power has shifted. As part of the European Union the United Kingdom can maintain a strong position in trade deals and quickly organise sanctions and humanitarian missions in response to changing events. As an individual nation the UK would have a far weaker position in potential trade deals and sanctions/humanitarian missions would be harder to coordinate.
In response to this i've heard sceptics claim that instead of working with the EU the country should forge closer relations with the Commonwealth but developing a trading union with a Commonwealth nation like Australia (population 22.9m, GDP 18th in the world, 10,000 miles away) would not be preferable to maintaining our trading union with the EU (population 503.5m, GDP 1st in the world, 21 miles away) and would surely require a standardised regulatory structure similar to the current European Union.
As a nation we must stop living in the past and accept the fact that the world is becoming less isolationist and power becoming less concentrated in nature.
Showing posts with label UKIP. Show all posts
Showing posts with label UKIP. Show all posts
Friday, 25 July 2014
Monday, 19 May 2014
Mangoes: An EU adventure.
The European Union is often blamed for a lot of things by eurosceptics whether it is the decline of the British fishing industry, flooding in the South West or a whole host of other myths and half-proven tales, the sceptic is always quick to seek out a story and turn it into a stick to beat the EU with.
I recently became aware that the European Union was being blamed for banning mangoes from entering the UK, a story that was so wild at the time that I actually failed to believe it and assumed it was a hoax, certain eurosceptics however seemingly had no problem with using it as part of their arsenal so I decided to do some basic research on the story and find out it was true or complete and utter tripe. What I found was certainly interesting and actually confirmed the Ukip story that mangoes had been banned across the European Union, what the sceptics conveniently failed to mention was that the EU had imposed the ban after finding several large shipments of the fruit had been contaminated with fruit flies, a threat that not only endangered the health of citizens but also to agriculture across Europe.
While it is understandable for British Asians to be annoyed about a possible problem with obtaining Indian mangoes in the future it is perfectly understandable for the European Union to issue this ban in order to protect EU citizens and agriculture. As an invasive species alien intruders like Asian fruit flies could seriously damage businesses across Europe and biting into a seemingly fresh mango that has been infested with fruit flies is disgusting and certainly not good for consumer confidence. It seems to me that this is another example of sceptics trying to turn a non-story into scandal and another reason to factcheck every ludicrous claim you hear on social media outlets.
I recently became aware that the European Union was being blamed for banning mangoes from entering the UK, a story that was so wild at the time that I actually failed to believe it and assumed it was a hoax, certain eurosceptics however seemingly had no problem with using it as part of their arsenal so I decided to do some basic research on the story and find out it was true or complete and utter tripe. What I found was certainly interesting and actually confirmed the Ukip story that mangoes had been banned across the European Union, what the sceptics conveniently failed to mention was that the EU had imposed the ban after finding several large shipments of the fruit had been contaminated with fruit flies, a threat that not only endangered the health of citizens but also to agriculture across Europe.
While it is understandable for British Asians to be annoyed about a possible problem with obtaining Indian mangoes in the future it is perfectly understandable for the European Union to issue this ban in order to protect EU citizens and agriculture. As an invasive species alien intruders like Asian fruit flies could seriously damage businesses across Europe and biting into a seemingly fresh mango that has been infested with fruit flies is disgusting and certainly not good for consumer confidence. It seems to me that this is another example of sceptics trying to turn a non-story into scandal and another reason to factcheck every ludicrous claim you hear on social media outlets.
Wednesday, 12 February 2014
Why is foreign aid an easy target?
UKIP and the Daily Mail have recently started a campaign to force the government to divert funds currently being used for foreign aid to pay for damages caused by the horrific floods that have devastated our country in recent months, but why is foreign aid seemingly the first to be sent towards the firing squad? The Guardian recently posed this exact question in a comments article I thought it justified a small response.
Whilst searching for information on the floods and opinions on the governments handling of the disaster on social media I came across multiple opinions on why foreign aid should be diverted to pay for the cost of repairing infrastructure and housing and I shall respond to some of the most common arguments I saw posted. Foreign Aid is often attacked by self-confessed nationalists as putting foreigners ahead of our own citizens, an attack that is completely nonsensical as it seems to negate the fact that the remaining majority of our budget is spent on our own population, it seems to be nothing more than failed nationalist dogma that quickly falls apart under scrutiny, another attack more commonly seen and supported by a portion of the mainstream media is that money is being spent on countries that don't deserve it, a great example of this being India who currently have a minor space program. The justification for cuts being that if the Indian government can afford a national space program then it can afford for the welfare of its own citizens and whilst that might be true in a perfect world the reality is that British efforts in India have had a visible benefit to the country and this argument will soon disappear as funding for India is cut in 2015
Lastly one of most misinformative but sadly frequent arguments against foreign aid is that it does not do anything worthwhile. Decades worth of depressing images from the African continent by the mainstream media have given the British public the misconception that nothing has changed when that is opposite from the truth, with everything from infant mortality, malaria infection rates and deaths from preventable illnesses like diarrhoea reduced significantly in recent years thanks to the contribution of foreign aid. In conclusion misinformation and misguided nationalist rhetoric has led to the call for foreign aid to be scrapped and the mainstream media should address this concern instead of feeding into it, as for funding flood relief efforts? Clamping down on tax avoidance, cutting trident or short-term borrowing would provide the funds without cutting an invaluable service.
Whilst searching for information on the floods and opinions on the governments handling of the disaster on social media I came across multiple opinions on why foreign aid should be diverted to pay for the cost of repairing infrastructure and housing and I shall respond to some of the most common arguments I saw posted. Foreign Aid is often attacked by self-confessed nationalists as putting foreigners ahead of our own citizens, an attack that is completely nonsensical as it seems to negate the fact that the remaining majority of our budget is spent on our own population, it seems to be nothing more than failed nationalist dogma that quickly falls apart under scrutiny, another attack more commonly seen and supported by a portion of the mainstream media is that money is being spent on countries that don't deserve it, a great example of this being India who currently have a minor space program. The justification for cuts being that if the Indian government can afford a national space program then it can afford for the welfare of its own citizens and whilst that might be true in a perfect world the reality is that British efforts in India have had a visible benefit to the country and this argument will soon disappear as funding for India is cut in 2015
Lastly one of most misinformative but sadly frequent arguments against foreign aid is that it does not do anything worthwhile. Decades worth of depressing images from the African continent by the mainstream media have given the British public the misconception that nothing has changed when that is opposite from the truth, with everything from infant mortality, malaria infection rates and deaths from preventable illnesses like diarrhoea reduced significantly in recent years thanks to the contribution of foreign aid. In conclusion misinformation and misguided nationalist rhetoric has led to the call for foreign aid to be scrapped and the mainstream media should address this concern instead of feeding into it, as for funding flood relief efforts? Clamping down on tax avoidance, cutting trident or short-term borrowing would provide the funds without cutting an invaluable service.
Friday, 7 February 2014
5 Common Arguments against the EU.
I decided to write this article after debating with several people and organisations that seemed incredibly happy to purposely spread misinformation about the European Union. I don't have a problem with a proper debate on the UK's future in the European Union and future reform but I do have a strong issue with people spreading lies.
1. The European Union is so full of corruption and fraud that the Auditors have not passed the budget in over ten years!
The European Court of Auditors have deemed successive EU budgets to be free from major fraud and corruption with a majority of wrongful spending being blamed on a poor understanding of current legislation rather then fraud or waste. In addition to highlighting mispent funds the Court of Auditors also make valuable recommendations on how to reduce this erroneous spending in the future.
2. So why do people think that the Auditors have not passed a budget?
Whilst the European Court of Auditors have reviewed and passed successive EU budgets they have not been able to issue a declaration of assurance, why? Well this is because the auditors need to account for 100 percent of the EU's budget. An impossible task when you consider that a simple mistake on the part of a member state results in a failure of assurance.
3. Our government has surrendered control of our flood defences to the EU.
Somehow the European Union has managed to receive flak for the recent poor response to the horrific floods in the South West. EU Directive 2007/60/EC is blamed for this however it just requires all member states to assess rivers/coastal areas to determine if they are at risk of flooding and take appropriate action to ensure that does not happen. In the case of the United Kingdom it should ensure that flood risks are reduced across the country whilst allowing coordination between countries inside the European Union that share rivers at risk of overflowing like Germany and The Netherlands.
4. EU quotas have killed the British fishing industry.
It is true that the British fishing industry has declined steadily over the past few years but decades of over-fishing are to blame for the decline. EU quotas are an attempt to reverse damage inflicted upon European fish stocks from years of overfishing and future reforms aim to ensure the continued survival of several key species and the long-term prosperity of the industry.
5. The United Kingdom should leave the European Union and join EFTA. We'd get the benefits of free trade without having to follow regulation.
As a member of EFTA the United Kingdom would still have to pay a fee and follow a majority of EU regulation, it would just have no say on the make-up of these regulations. EFTA membership is considerably less democratic then EU membership.
1. The European Union is so full of corruption and fraud that the Auditors have not passed the budget in over ten years!
The European Court of Auditors have deemed successive EU budgets to be free from major fraud and corruption with a majority of wrongful spending being blamed on a poor understanding of current legislation rather then fraud or waste. In addition to highlighting mispent funds the Court of Auditors also make valuable recommendations on how to reduce this erroneous spending in the future.
2. So why do people think that the Auditors have not passed a budget?
Whilst the European Court of Auditors have reviewed and passed successive EU budgets they have not been able to issue a declaration of assurance, why? Well this is because the auditors need to account for 100 percent of the EU's budget. An impossible task when you consider that a simple mistake on the part of a member state results in a failure of assurance.
3. Our government has surrendered control of our flood defences to the EU.
Somehow the European Union has managed to receive flak for the recent poor response to the horrific floods in the South West. EU Directive 2007/60/EC is blamed for this however it just requires all member states to assess rivers/coastal areas to determine if they are at risk of flooding and take appropriate action to ensure that does not happen. In the case of the United Kingdom it should ensure that flood risks are reduced across the country whilst allowing coordination between countries inside the European Union that share rivers at risk of overflowing like Germany and The Netherlands.
4. EU quotas have killed the British fishing industry.
It is true that the British fishing industry has declined steadily over the past few years but decades of over-fishing are to blame for the decline. EU quotas are an attempt to reverse damage inflicted upon European fish stocks from years of overfishing and future reforms aim to ensure the continued survival of several key species and the long-term prosperity of the industry.
5. The United Kingdom should leave the European Union and join EFTA. We'd get the benefits of free trade without having to follow regulation.
As a member of EFTA the United Kingdom would still have to pay a fee and follow a majority of EU regulation, it would just have no say on the make-up of these regulations. EFTA membership is considerably less democratic then EU membership.
Saturday, 1 February 2014
Immigration in the UK
The removal of immigration restrictions from Romania and Bulgaria following both countries full ascension to the European Union has reignited the political debate over immigration with supporters of UKIP and more rebellious parts of the Conservative Party targeting the amounts of immigrants that come into the UK from the European Union as part of a strong anti-EU campaign, seemingly blaming them from everything to a lack of employment, the poor state of local government services, infrastructures and the current state of our educational and health service, but is this conservative rhetoric supported by data? Are they an unfair burden to the taxpayer that should be clamped down upon or are they a welcome reprieve to our governments treasury balance? Research recently carried out by the Centre of Research and Analysis of Migration partly answers that question and seems to completely disprove this anti-immigration rhetoric with the university study concluding that on average from 2000-2011 EU immigrants actually provided the UK treasury with more in taxes then they take in return for welfare payments and social housing, the report even going as far to say that non-EU immigrants contributed slightly more in taxes for the amount of benefits they received with recent numbers showing an equality with British workers during the same time period.
So then why is current public opinion seemingly weighted against immigration even from the European Union? The answer to that question lies with our nations mainstream media with right-wing outlets like the Daily Mail and the Daily Star frequently running articles that severely demonize the immigrant community and help spread a false perception that immigrants rely on benefits and get access to superior social housing before anyone else when the reality is quite the opposite. If Pro-EU institutions wish to see our country remain inside the EU then they must win the propaganda battle against their opposite numbers and counter these ingrained beliefs with energetic enthusiasm and the confident use of current data.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)