The Common Fisheries Policy and the future of the British fishing industry.

One of the most consistent arguments against Britain's continued membership of the European Union is that the EU's Common Fisheries Policy has led to the decline of the once powerful fishing industry but is this actually the case? Upon first glance it seems quite logical to assume that the declining fish quotas would have a major impact on the profitability of the British fishing fleet and arguably it has but one has to look at the full reasoning behind the establishment of the quota. Decades of overfishing across European waters led to a sharp decline in fish stocks raising concerns that within years commercial fishing would be impossible, the establishment of the Common Fisheries Policy and future reforms of the quota system based more accurately on scientific data and a long awaited ban on discards shall go some way to ensuring that the British fishing industry is sustainable and not lost forever because of irresponsible unregulated levels of fishing.

Exclusive Economic Zone of the EU

Does this drive towards sustainability mean that fish will become more expensive in the future? It will mean that we will get less fish from the sea but recent advancements in sustainable fish farms seen across Europe and the wider world show great potential in providing food security, ensuring the protection of native fish stocks and providing employment for the citizens of Europe. The United Kingdom stands at a crossroads, we can either embrace the Common Fisheries Policy and encourage the fishing industry to diversify into the emerging multi-billion market of fish farms or we can continue complaining and slowly lose our share of the market.

The GCHQ, NSA and Edward Snowden.

Revelations by whistle blower Edward Snowden have awakened the population of several countries to not only the scope of intelligence gathering by the National Intelligence Agency (NSA) but also the extent of cooperation between the NSA and similar intelligence agencies across the world. In the United Kingdom it has been revealed that GSHQ are fully fledged partners of the NSA, utilising them spy on close allies and to disrupt the efforts of privacy activists and journalists that are actively working to expose these intelligence networks.

A healthy stream of newspaper articles and television segments initially led to a large-scale public backlash against intelligence agencies but in recent months the intelligence services have been fighting back in order to maintain as much control of these programs despite the large public backing against such efforts. One method commonly used is to falsely create an illusion that these leaks are are goldmine to terrorist groups or that national security has been damaged in some fashion, a rather ludicrous claim that has been proven to be the opposite of the truth. Journalists and activists covering this story have also been attacked, either directly through the legal system, indirectly via a smear campaign (often attacking the targets patriotism) or through intimidation of loved ones.

So how can we fight against this colossus intelligence agency and its collaborators inside government, media and the apathetic population? Contact your local representative and tell them how concerned you are about the lack of accountability surrounding the intelligence agencies, contact media outlets and share your frustrations or write them down and share them to anyone who will listen and if the politicians you contact won't listen to you campaign for local and national representatives that will fight for reform or if you have the funds and confidence you could run for office yourself. At the moment the challenge of facing a large organisation like the NSA and GCHQ might seem impossible but at the moment multiple paths are available and several organisations are already leading the efforts against these agencies, as long as people work together then we can achieve real change and not the whitewash reform recently offered by President Obama.

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.

The Taxpayers Alliance.

I recently came across an article written in the telegraph that claimed an organisation named the Taxpayers Alliance had identified over one hundred billion pounds worth of government waste, an amount that seems incredibly large at a glance but not when you take into consideration the think-tanks agenda.

1.Who are the Taxpayers Alliance?

The Taxpayers Alliance are a right-wing think tank that seek to lower income taxes for the wealthiest in society and corporation tax whilst simultaneously dismantling public institutions that benefit the working and middle class.

2. Are they linked to any political party?

Yes. Whilst the Taxpayers Alliance claim they are not politically connected they are frequently supported by members of the Conservative Party and UKIP who give public speeches at events held by the organisation.

3. How are they funded?

Wealthy Conservative Party supporters donate a considerably large amount of cash to the organisation to keep the war chest full.

4. Why are they so prevalent in the media?

Outlets like the BBC invite guests from the Taxpayers Alliance because they feel that it fulfils the organisations neutrality requirements whilst right-wing media outlets love hearing from organisations that want to lower-taxes for the rich and lower non-defence related spending.

5. Why are you writing this article against the TPA?

The Taxpayers Alliance frequently portray themselves as an organisation on the side of the working class and small businesses, saving them from oppressive regulation and taxes, when in reality all they care about is funding tax cuts for the wealthiest in society and large corporations by cutting public services that greatly benefit the working and middle classes (NHS and Welfare), implementing idiotic methods of cutting spending and removing regulation that protect the working population from abuse (sick and holiday pay). I'm against the destruction of these noble institutions and as a social democrat I think that the richest in society should pay more in taxes in order to maintain these establishments for the future.

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.

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.