Europe's refugee crisis

This blog is principally addressed to most politicians and those in the West who have been emotionally moved by the TV pictures of the so called ‘refugees’ now invading Europe. 

I must declare an interest.  I too was moved by the pictures of the dead child, lying in the gently lapping surf.   I did though have a slightly different take on this.  Like many people, I was angry.  Such a waste of a young life and what a way to die!  However, my anger was directed towards the child’s father.  Why would this father take his child from the safety of Turkey and risk himself and his family’s lives by taking them on board a flimsy boat, heading in the direction of Greece?  I fully understand why the father took his family out of Syria, though since he apparently came from Kobane, which is now controlled by Syrian Kurds, one has to wonder a little.  

However, this father and his family were in Turkey.  So why did the father take the risk?  Why are all of those politicians who emote so on TV, wringing tears and their hands on rolling news programmes, not asking what caused this man to act, as he did? 

If he was genuinely at risk in Turkey then why is this not being addressed?  He is a Kurd and Turkey has a long-standing and very active antipathy towards Kurds.  Was that his reasoning?  I can’t think of any other.  If Twitter is to be believed though, this family had remained in Turkey, for some considerable time, between fleeing Kobane and then moving on, which raises other questions about the level of fear and its immanency. 

So why then don’t Angela Merkel, Francois Hollande, David Cameron and others punish Turkey for this climate of fear that causes people to flee from a supposedly safe country?    Where are the politicians that are condemning Turkey?   Leave aside for a moment, Turkey using the guise of attacks against Daesh to launch brutal attacks on PKK Kurds and Iraqi Kurds  who themselves are fighting Daesh.  Where is President Obama taking Turkey to task?  Search the internet and see if you can find speeches railing against Turkey’s actions, from any Western leader.

So I come back to why the father took the known risk of moving his family out of Turkey and, let’s assume he thought it best, given the ‘persecution’ in Turkey.  Why then not head towards Armenia or Georgia, or take an overland route to Greece?  Why not throw themselves on the mercy of Saudi Arabia or the UAE or Qatar – why not invade their embassies in Ankara?  These countries share religion and other cultural ties, which would help the family to better assimilate.  Of course, there are far less ‘bleeding hearts’ in those countries, which may have coloured his judgement, but surely the safety of his family would come first?

Moving on from this particular family and the tragic outcome of this man’s decision, we then come to the farce that is the European Union.  I use the word farce, though in truth, there is nothing remotely funny about what is going on – please excuse my use but I cannot think of another that captures the idiocy and hypocrisy that is now on display.

The unelected President of the European Commission – Jean-Claude Juncker thinks that all EU members should take a share of up to 160,000 refugees, this year.  The quotas would be based on GDP  and other criteria.  Britain, Ireland and Denmark would be exempt from these ‘compulsory’ quotas because they have opt-outs under EU treaties.   It is not clear how this number marries up with Angela Merkel’s seeming acceptance of Germany taking in 800,000 refugees, this year. 

Mrs Merkel ‘s decision has been likened on Twitter, to those naïve teenagers who put a note on social media saying ‘party at my house’ and then are shocked to see that in addition to those they want to attend, they find their parent’s house being overrun by ‘gate crashers’ and being trashed by these people.  What seemed at first like a good idea, shows, in the cold light of morning a harsh reality. 

This though is a reality that has far and deep consequences for the whole of Europe. 

These ‘refugees’ are not some kind of homogenous group, fleeing war in Syria.  As others have said, included under this umbrella are economic migrants.  Also, we can clearly expect that Daesh will use this opportunity to infiltrate murderers into our midst.

Worryingly, these ‘refugees’ all seem to seek residency.  That is, they want to become permanent residents.  The assumption must be that were peace to suddenly descend upon Syria, they would not return.  Once they get into Europe, they stay in Europe.  And why wouldn’t they?  It isn’t as if, like with prior migrations, they are obliged to assimilate.  They can maintain, indeed, they are very actively and positively encouraged to maintain, their own separate cultural identity.  So they have many of the ‘benefits’ of their homeland, none of the drawbacks and they enjoy the fruits of a much better economic position.   Why would they ever return? 

Make no mistake, this migration is an invasion.  An alien culture is being foisted upon Europe’s peoples.   And this does affect all of the EU countries.  Once these ‘refugees’ become citizens of Germany, they have completely free movement and can go and work and live in any member state.  They can also claim welfare benefits just as if they were a local national resident.

Europeans, including countries like the UK, should not be relaxed about this.  Just because they are not opening their flood gates to a new wave of immigrants (some would say they are already wide open, anyway!), does not mean they will not be affected.  They will.  Denmark can close it’s rail links with Germany, in an effort to stop the tide but like that old Viking, King Cnut, they are wasting their time. 

Europe’s people need to stop and think.  It is no good depending upon politicians to solve this.  Do that and you get fools like Merkel and Juncker making their statements and other politicians sucking up to the liberal left and luvvies in the media.  People that never have to live with or be exposed to the consequences of their actions, on a day to day basis. 

I have a proposal for any of those media people or fools who say that they will take in a refugee family.  Will you do so, on the basis that you personally accept full economic responsibility for these people and all of their offspring, in perpetuity?   You will continue to house them, feed them, pay for schooling for them, pay for medical care for them and so on and on?  Not just today or tomorrow but for ever?  If not, why should any tax payer accept such responsibility so that you can salve your conscience and feel good at the next meeting of friends.  Can you look your children in the eye and convince them that their economic future will not be threatened by you taking on the economic burden of another family?

Of course, the reality is that caring for these refugees is about more than just passing over last season’s coats or putting a temporary roof over the head of a refugee family.  This is a long term undertaking.  Individual people doing this are grossly irresponsible.  They know that their involvement will always be short term.  They know that the burden, the true burden will be borne by the tax payer and society at large. 

What is there to suggest that these refugees have the economic resources to house and feed  themselves in the host country?  What is there to suggest that these people, many coming from an agricultural background, will find work?  Indeed, in a Europe that has very poor or non-existent economic growth,  where are the jobs to come from?  Juncker’s afore-mentioned plan calls for Spain to take a large part of the 160,000 compulsory quota.  Spain with youth unemployment at almost 50%! What is there to suggest that these people can pay for healthcare for themselves and their family? Or for education?

Consdider Britain (though most other countries would be equally applicable).  Does anyone believe that Britain has spare social housing?  Has, even with a growing economy, many spare jobs (particularly in the agricultural sector).  That the NHS isn’t already stretched and that schools have lots of free places? 

The reality is that any housing for these refugees will come from the private sector and will be funded by the tax payer.  The reality is that these refugees will not be able to find work or, if they do, will displace local nationals and so welfare payments will increase.  The reality is that the NHS will become more and more of a failure because it simply can’t cope.  The reality is that school class sizes will be increased and education outcomes will suffer.  And all of this with a further erosion of cultural traditions.  Trust me, it is not in the British tradition, to execute a serving British soldier on the streets of the country’s capital, by seeking to cut off his head.  Nor is it to mutilate young women or to blow-up fellow citizens (the murderous IRA, notwithstanding).

So I ask my readers, when you see the heart-string tugging pictures on TV or hear people prattling on about ‘we need to do something’ ask them  how much they are prepared to pay and how much they are prepared to give-up – not just money or material goods but also long-held freedoms and traditions. 

There was a very successful campaign against people giving a dog as a Christmas present.  The tag line was ‘A dog is for life not just for Christmas’  The way we now act, the phrase could be changed to ‘A refugee is for life not just for Christmas!’

Changing views on EU

They say that a week is a long time in politics, so the time I have had to reflect since my blog on May 4  - here -  http://bit.ly/15fBz73  should be ample to overcome any claims of hypocrisy.

Here goes.

Not just in the above blog but also in earlier ones, I have strongly suggested that David Cameron needs to have a referendum on Britain's membership of the EU and to have it in this parliament.  In some ways that would still be my preference but considering the politics of the matter - and the mathematics - I am coming around to seeing why that isn't possible and perhaps maybe not even desirable.  Don't worry, the Europhiles have got to me and compromised me into changing my fundamental opinion of the flawed state that is Europe.

The Lib Dems are wedded to Europe.  As a party, this is probably the only unifying policy for them.  On other issues the leadership gets pulled between leftist policies and loony leftist policies but Europe?  No, they all row in the same direction.  To be clear that is row as in a boat not as in an argument!

Labour faces the biggest dilemma over Europe and I sense that David Cameron understands this and is in fact, banking on it.   The dilemma is that many voters are opposed to continuing as a member of the EU, as it is currently constructed.  Maybe they don't all want to leave but many want the rules re-written.  UKIP and the BNP both inhabit the ground where that is most vitriolically espoused - anti-immigration.  Possibly the psephologists and focus group handlers would dispute this but I don't believe that it is only white and blue collar Tories where UKIP's policies resonate.  My life experience suggests that 'natural' Labour supporters would be as anti-immigration as these Tories sometimes appear.  One piece of evidence to mull over - in spite of the economic situation (more on that in a moment), Labour supporters didn't exactly come out in their droves to vote in the recent elections.  Nor, in the national opinion polls, can Labour get to a reasonable level of lead or votes.  Getting around 35 to 38% isn't what anyone would call a massive mandate for change!

The BBC and some other media would have it that the 'Europe question' will do for Cameron and that the Tories are split.  I am coming around to the view (and not just because the BBC is usually wrong on most things) that Europe offers an opportunity for the Tories.

The political system in the UK doesn't favour parties like UKIP.  Their local election showing of mid 20%  will most likely not be sustained in the 2015 General Election (my guess is somewhere around 7-8%) but whatever they get the first past the post system just doesn't work for them or for any small party.  UKIP will have some impact in marginal seats but I think this will equally affect all three parties with perhaps just a bit more impact on Lib Dem marginals!.

So how an opportunity?  Well, consider (and I am sure that David Cameron has), at the next election, voters would be faced with a choice between Labour and the Lib Dems - both pushing policies that say, 'we don't believe the people need to be asked about our country's future and its relations with the EU' - and the Tories saying - 'we think that the EU project needs fixing and, if it can't be fixed in a manner that we believe is acceptable, Britain should leave the EU, however, this is far too important a decision for politicians, the choice needs to be made by the people of Britain'.  I know which policy would get my vote. 

Forget anything else about this but remember this - the British have an instinctive dislike of things non-democratic.  They may not bother to vote, but just try taking away their right to vote.  The British look at the EU and see gaping holes where democracy should be representing them and instead they see elsewhere a fat and corrupt elite, lording it over them.  The European way of dealing with tyrannies and out of touch elites is often through revolution, the British way is through the ballot box. 


For the Tories then, keep Europe on the agenda, push and support the Private Member's Bill that enshrines a 2017 referendum and then push the 'we trust the people' line, time after time.  It is a very simple but no less powerful message and one which will find the Labour and Lib Dems, wanting and struggling to say why they do not trust the people.

So, keep that one bubbling away - be thankful that UKIP will also keep it on the boil - but then focus, focus, focus on the economy in a holistic way (sorry Roberto!).  Taxes, welfare education and spending.  Get these under control and keep banging on about the inherited mess.  On the latter the Tories are pushing against an open door.  Any sane person can see that the Brown-inspired and debt-funded party was unsustainable. 

Oh, and on the NHS - go for Labour.  Mid Staffs is the symptom of all that is wrong with the NHS.  Every time Andy Burnham speaks - every time - ask him why he hasn't resigned over the 1,200 deaths - every time.  Fix Labour's central mis-management as the core issue around the NHS.

Not quite a convert to Cameron's coalition but now facing in the same direction, I suppose.

And Mr Cameron, if you read this, a bit more muscular with the Lib Dems, please.  The occasional slap-down won't hurt them or you.  Finally, suggest you start to distance yourself from Obama, he is tainted by Benghazi and the IRS scandals, as will be his second term.

2012 blogging

I have just passed the 12 month anniversary of my first blog and, since we are approaching the year-end thought I would look back over the past year.  Don't worry, there will be no slow-motion clips, a la BBC Sports Personality of the Year!

First though a thank you to the more than 12,000 people who took the time to look through this.  Even if you didn't agree with what you read I appreciate your participation in the dialogue!

So...

Scotland and the independence vote was a much-written about topic for me and for those that comment on my musings/rants.  As Hogmanay looms, the people of Scotland know that they will have a vote and it will be a yes or no type of vote and in late 2014 but that's about it.  They have stories and counter-stories about whether they will remain in the EU or not and thus use the Euro or £ Sterling.  They have still heard little to nothing about how Scotland's economy and public spending will manage without the UK subsidy (making the EU membership question that much more important).  Hopefully, 2013 will bring some reasoned arguments to the debate.  I am encouraged by Alistair Darling leading the anti-independence side of the discussion.  I get the sense that he will also pick-up sympathy votes for having had to live and work with Gordon Brown for so long!

The topic that brought the most comments was the Government's plans for so called 'gay marriage'.  Many of the comments accused me of being homophobic.  I don't believe I am but I do recognize that that is the way that debate gets stifled.  Mention immigration and you are suddenly a racist BNP supporter, for example.  The Government conducted a sham public consultation exercise, where their view was already made-up and they will now push ahead with legislation and it will include certain safeguards including not allowing such 'marriages' to be conducted in Anglican churches  This is a meaningless sop to try and buy-off disgruntled and bemused Tory MPs and voters.  The government know that that part of the legislation will be challenged by homosexuals under Human Rights legislation.  Commenting on pro-homosexual  legislation that was passed in California, back in the 1970's, the comedian Bob Hope, said that he would soon have to leave that state, before they made homosexuality, compulsory.  I often wonder if that is the goal of the so called charity  Stonewall and the whole host of media that champion 'gay rights' to the detriment of the non-homosexuals in society?   The question I repeatedly posed - what does this legislation give homosexuals that they do not already have under the Civil Union act - remains unanswered.

Europe and the Euro were popular.  Time to confess that my predictions of  Greek exit from the Euro have been premature though I do believe that the whole project is still very precariously balanced and in jeopardy.  The big question though, is will David Cameron recognize the need for getting off of the fence and offering the electorate a clear In/Out vote on continued membership of the EU?  If he doesn't and Labour beats him to the punch then those people who have defected to UKIP can be counted on staying away from the Tories in 2015.

Then there is the UK political scene and particularly the pussy-footing way that the Tories deal with their supposedly junior coalition partner.  From dithering on Europe to pandering on 'gay marriage' to sparing the knife on public spending cuts, the Tories have bowed and scraped to the Lib Dems , time after time.   Taxes still remain high - Income, VAT, National Insurance and the phoney Green Taxes - and so does Public Spending - welfare payments still make low paid work uneconomic to take-up and many middle class receive tax credits and other stipends back from the State,  that they have just paid over in taxes!  And then there is the poor management of news!  The March Budget became focused on pasties and grannies just at a time when we needed the hard questions to be addressed.  It seems that can-kicking is not only done by the Left!

If you ignore rank hypocrisy and pure political opportunism (just for the sake of politicking) then Labour has had not too bad a year.  They were aided by the ineptitude of the Tories (see budget above) but Ed Miliband has come into his own this year.  He still grates when he talks and then there is what he says but, he has done better than I expected.  Fortunately, the other Ed, Balls that is, has had a bad year.  One senses that his heart isn't in it anymore.

I don't want to get on to Leveson as that comes back to Tory stupidity - we have a problem with the press, let's appoint a judge and commission a report for some time in the future!  Why would we expect anything less than a restrictive response from a British judge?  At the end of the day, judges, like politicians, think they know better than us, what is best for us!  Think not?  Think of how many times you have heard of a ruling and thought - No way, that's just crazy (Abu Qatada ring any bells??)

So to close out - I wish you and yours a blessed Christmas and hope that 2013 brings health and happiness to you. 

Liberal Democrats and Democracy

The depths of hypocrisy within politics never ceases to amaze me.  At my age I should be past surprises but ....  then there's the Lib Dems.

This is the most pro of pro-Europe and EU parties.  To the art of 'bending over backwards and kow-towing' , they have brought such artistry as to make the Cirque Du Soleil seem like amateurs or at best bungling novices.

And yet, their chosen 'line in the sand' , their Yellow (?) line seems to be drawn not on the long overdue reform of the EU and all of its un and anti-democratic institutions but instead on the so called reform of the House of Lords.

Ask yourself or your family or friends - Of these two which body is most in need of 'reform'  the European project or the House of Lords.

Given that the House of Lords is composed of British members who only vote measures affecting Britain and the British, I am more comfortable leaving them as they are.  Democratically elected, no.  Appointed - yes.  Hereditary - yes.  The appearance of democracy is not there at the first glance but for all that, they do represent strands of British society.

Contrast that with any of the European organisations - European Parliament?  A toothless, talking shop that can't even decide on a permanent home.  European Commission - not just undemocratic but now increasingly anti-democratic whose blind devotion to the 'project' is enslaving many Europeans, particularly in Spain, Italy and Greece to severe hardship simply so that they can push the belief that the Euro and the whole project of European integration is needed to avert the wars that have historically ravaged Europe and it's people.   

Consider also the President of Europe - Herman van Rompuy - think back to when you were given the chance to vote for this non-entity.  OK, stop racking your brains, you weren't asked.  His appointment (because that is how things are done in Euro-lalaLand) is the typical product of the power process.  Couldn't be a German - think about  the headlines! - Couldn't be a Brit - seen as on the edge and not always fully committed to the 'project' (though this fails to appreciate how quickly Brits 'go native') .  Couldn't be French - they basically run (or is that mis-run) the administration anyway plus, they're French!  Couldn't be Italian - come on, it just couldn't.  So we then trawl around the small countries and end up with Herman!

So think about the forgoing and ask yourself why is this not the burning issue for the Lib Dems.  The one that causes them to nail their colours to the mast and tell the Conservatives 'either we have root and branch reform of the EU or we bring down the coalition'.

My view?   The Lib Dems are anti-British (look at the' out of proportion' support they get from the BBC) and are quite happy for the Euro shambles to continue because like the unattractive people at a party, they think that at the 'Euro party' they will get picked up and someone will admire them, whereas, at a 'UK party', they are seen for what they are.  In the UK people just leave the party rather than go home with an ugly Lib Dem.  Hopefully you get my drift!?

So as they face political oblivion, the Lib Dems, instead of trying to address issues that affect the people of Britain (those by the way, who currently still have the power to elect MPs), proceed to prattle on about democracy and the democratic deficit while all the time being the most ardent supporters of the most undemocratic of all the institutions.

It would be as laughable as Labour's claim to economic competency and probity or the supposed savagery of the austerity measures, if it wasn't so sad.

Oh!  By the way, their unquestioned support of the EU is in spite of the fact that this organisation has been unable to produce a set of audited accounts for more than 15 years. 



 

So what now, for the Coalition?

Firstly, both the Conservatives and the Lib Dems should understand that there is a message and it isn't n opportunity to put some kind of spin on things.

Yes, the last time that these seats were contested, these parties did well and so, the 'pendelum' effect means that this time they were almost bound to lose seats.  But, why both parties?  Why so heavily?  And, why, at a time when the public have moved towards understanding the need for austerity, (to at least varying degrees) would they move to ever higher spending Labour?  This is the same Labour that have never apologised for their economic incompetence!

It seems obvious to say, but the only answer is that the electorate that voted, wanted to punish the Coalition.  I don't believe it is because of the alleged cuts (check out the actual level of 'cuts' and you will see that public expenditure is being reduced at a far too low rate, if at all.)

No, I believe it's because the Coalition is fundamentally flawed.

Cameron and Clegg are committed to trying to do what is right for the country. 

• Cameron thinks this requires being magnanimous and a 'gentleman' - so he doesn't push Conservative policies down Clegg's throat - it's not the 'done thing'.
• Clegg was the photo-genic candidate for leader that could add votes for the Lib Dems and not scare the voters, while at the same time not getting in the way of the unruly Lib Dem MPs and party activists who wanted to continue to pursue their 'student' politics approach to life at Westminster or in local town halls.

So we have Cameron, bending over backwards to be nice to Clegg and Clegg unable to control his party.

Result?  The electorate see through this and see that the majority Coalition partner (the Conservatives, in case you have forgotten) are fumbling and have no coherent policy.  They have, to use the spin-meister phrase, no narrative. 

What do they stand for?

• If it's the 'Granny Tax' or 'Pasty Tax' why can't these be clearly enunciated?
• Why aren't we seeing power being reclaimed from Europe?
• Why is the UK supporting the failed Euro project?  Don't bother trying to say it's because they are a major trading partner and the rest of that.  We are throwing good money after bad and trying to deny the inevitable - the tide has turned and it's time to get off of the beach!
• Why is time being wasted on changing the definition of marriage?  Where is the groundswell of public clamour for this?
• Why are we funding and keeping our UK armed forces in Afghanistan?
• Why is parliamentary time to be wasted on reform of the House of Lords - I understand the Lib Dems want this but why can't the Conservatives adopt the Nancy Reagan response and 'Just say No!'

I could go on (and on and on) but you get the idea.

We have a Conservative led Coalition that seems to want to do everything that is un-Conservative, to kowtow to their junior partner and seems to have no idea, other than the retention of power, exactly what it is trying to do, in Government.

When will Conservative MPs understand that their complete acquiescence and obeisance to the Lib Dems means that they will pay the price at the ballot box, for their lack of a spine?

UKIP anyone?

Agency workers

The Agency Workers Directive comes into force in the UK, shortly.  This effectively extends the same rights to 'temporary' workers as those enjoyed by permanent employees.

Why not go the whole hog and ban temporary workers?  Then we could move on to banning private businesses and have everyone working for the state!

Europe, including the UK, is in the midst of a recession and what is the response of governments?  To impose further costs and regulatory burdens on struggling businesses.  If you took such a script to Hollywood they would throw it out as 'too fanciful and too unbelievable'.

If you were the owner of a small business and had the potential to pick-up some extra work but it required you to take on agency/temporary staff, would you now do so?

This smacks to me of yet more fiddling while Rome and of course Athens, burns.

Is there any chance, do you think, that the politicos will ever get around to addressing the real and pressing issues that face all of the economies in the EU?  Re-arranging the deck-chairs on the Titanic, comes to mind.

Energy - Make your mind up

What do you want?  Access to energy sources that provide a cheap (cash terms) solution such as natural gas and ultimately nuclear power or a return to some kind of green Utopia, where we all work within two miles of where we live, plough the fields and enjoy subsistence farming?  If you are a 'Green' you don't need to respond, I am sure I know your answer!

There is much debate about 'fracking' and the seismic and possible water-table contamination effects of this.  I must declare an interest as I work for an oilfield services company, though not on the technical side.  The seismic activity is very minor if and when it occurs.  Since the drill bore is lined with a cement casing, the possibility of fracking chemicals leaking into the water table are somewhere between zero and non-existent.  Those are facts but don't let that stop you from disputing them!

Consider the 'green' energy alternatives.

Wind Power?  I read a piece once, which concluded that the energy required to build and install a wind turbine would take 15-20 years at nominal turbine capacity, to be generated.  So 15 to 20 years just to stand still.  Consider also, that for all wind power capacity, standby generating capacity must be kept in place and kept running for when the wind reduces.

Solar Power?  I looked into this earlier in the year, before the changes in FiT came into place and the generating capacity of my roof, which is for a large 4 bedroom house, wouldn't be sufficient for my 4 person family.  So, fill the fields with solar panel arrays?  That might boost capacity at the expense of agriculture!?!?  Again though, we would need standby capacity to supplement those non-sunny hours.

Wave Power?  Can't see this being viable and strongly suspect that the transmission loss would make this unsustainable over distances.

Nuclear Power? Seems to me that this is where we will end-up, though the journey there is going to be difficult and made even more so by spineless politicians who know the answer but are in thrall to the media and don't want to risk any public backlash by telling people the truth.

Natural Gas?  Must be part of the shortish term answer.  Gas is very low-priced in the US because they use fracking to get at the gas and can thereby reduce their dependence on foreign sources of energy.  People in Ukraine have seen what happens when they try to assert themselves towards a big supplier (Russia).  How long before Europe kowtows?

In truth, all of these energy sources can play a part in meeting our needs but you are deluding yourself if you think there is a 'silver bullet' out there which means we wouldn't have to use natural gas and nuclear power.

Incidentally, why are we spending vast amounts of money which we don't have) on CERN and the Large Hadron Collider?  Why don't these scientists devote their time and efforts to finding sustainable sources of energy (preferably clean)?  Surely that is more important than the Higgs Boson?