I have faith in the UK - do you?

This isn't a blog on religious belief.  I am sure it wouldn't deter some readers, if it were but some don't follow.

No, this is about having faith in something a bit more tangible - the United Kingdom.

I have lost track of the number of times, I have heard the 'Remainians' (the name given to those who want Britain to remain in the EU) say that a vote for Britain to regain its independence would be a 'leap in the dark'.  If I think of such an important vote as a leap, I prefer to consider it as a leap of faith.

I have faith in the United Kingdom.

I have faith that the UK can regain control of its democracy, which for many years has been constantly undermined by membership of the European Union.  For many European countries, democracy is a relatively new phenomenon but not for the UK.  The largest constituent of the UK, England, has enjoyed differing levels of representative democracy for more than a thousand years.  It is a system, from which other countries have also benefited, particularly those in the so called, Anglosphere.  Countries such as the USA, Canada, Australia, Ireland and India, for example.

I have faith that the UK will be able to enjoy a thriving economy.  The UK has always been a trading nation and we continue to be so.  As the economies of the EU, and particularly the Euro-zone, have stuttered and stagnated over recent years, Britain has been slowly re-connecting with the rest of the world outside the EU.   The Remainians  emphasise that the EU is a market place of 500 million people.  No doubt that is true.  Remember though that there are 6.5 billion people outside of the EU. To save you doing the maths, that is 13 times more people outside the EU, than are in it.

Not that we would automatically lose access to the EU, were the British to leave.

Forget Project Fear with their talk about '3 million UK jobs are dependent on the EU'.  The number of 3 million has been found to be a highly dubious extrapolation from old data but mainly remember that whatever the number of jobs, these are dependent on trade with the EU, not the EU itself.  There is no logical reason why trade between a free UK and the EU, should be reduced.  Yes Britain would need to conclude a trade treaty with the EU and of course this could very easily be concluded within a very short space of time.  The template for this already exists.  It is the way that trade is already conducted between the UK and its EU partners.  All that is needed is for that to be converted into legislation.  However, also don't forget that failing that, the tariff rates that would otherwise prevail would be those from the World Trade Organisation.  These WTO rates are in the range of 2-4% - so hardly likely to lead to a massive change in trade relationships.  I also have faith that EU businessmen will pressure their own political leaders to quickly conclude a trade treaty with a now free United Kingdom.  Given that the rest of the EU enjoys a significant trade surplus with the UK, does anyone seriously believe that these countries would not treat with a free UK so as to retain such a beneficial commercial relationship?

I have faith that those in power in a free UK and those in the EU and in the rest of Europe, will continue to see the benefits of cooperation on security issues.  In this interconnected world, all governments need to cooperate and share information on security issues.  It defies logic and common sense to think that a vote for Brexit, would then mean that Britain doesn't share information that it gathers from GCHQ or other assets, with other members of Europol.  The same applies reciprocally to the security services of other European countries.

I have faith that freed from making a net contribution of at least £10 billion a year to the EU budget (the amount is sometimes quoted as more than £20 billion but I have taken the lowest number, on which there seems to be no dispute), the money can be better and more efficiently spent in the UK.  I am certainly right to have faith that the funds, when they remain in the UK, will be properly accounted for.  The same can never be said of the EU.  To me, the fact that the accounts of the EU have not been signed-off by auditors for the last 19 years speaks to at best, an extremely inefficient organisation and at worst, an organisation that is riven through with corruption and mis-spending.

I have faith that freed from the protectionist policies of the EU, the UK will be able to support developing country economies by buying their agricultural products.  The EU Common Agricultural Policy has a terrible effect on the economies of these developing countries.  One has to wonder just how many of the economic migrants from Africa now flooding into Europe are doing so because they cannot make a living at home, as a result of the trade barriers that the EU puts in front of the exports from their home countries.  This isn't fiction, just because it sounds like it, the  EU imposes trade barriers on agricultural imports from third world countries and then turns around gives aid to those very countries.   Sounds like economic colonialism to me but we hear not a peep from the 'Left' in the EU.

A British actress was recently quoted describing Great Britain as a 'cake-filled, misery laden, grey old island'.  Since I am not a 'lefty' I don't subscribe to the self-loathing to which socialists and communists are prone.  Cake-filled?  Really don't understand that - certainly don't understand how Britain is any more 'cake-filled' than say Austria with its delicious sachertorte or a tredlnik from the Czech republic - such a strange, weird statement.  Misery laden?  Hmm, the actress was speaking in Germany, which ranked at 26th place, according to the 2015 Happiness Index, ranks behind the UK which is in 21st place.  Grey? Maybe she should get out of her tinted-windows limousine and see the colours of Britain.  There are some grim colourless parts of the UK, just as there are, in so many other countries, around the world but look at the variety of colour that extends across the British countryside and call that grey!  Old island - yes, she is right on this.  We are an old island and an old democracy as well but that hasn't stopped our country turning out giants of industry, letters and arts, science and philosophy and politics.  I have faith that we will continue to do so.

It is probably old fashioned to say this but I share my faith in the United Kingdom, with previous leaders of this country.  I share it with Winston Churchill who, in 1940, when Britain stood alone against the Nazis, had faith in the British people and had faith that our British values of decency and democracy would prevail against the evil National Socialism of Hitler.
  
Join me, take a leap and have faith in Britain - Vote Leave!

Using language

If you're a liberal, socialist or communist you don't need to read this.  You already know what I am about to say.  You do this all the time.

This message is for conservatives.

We conservatives need to start using language more effectively. 

Consider.  What does the word progressive denote?  Let's skip the dictionary definition.  In political parlance this means someone of the left.  The left has taken a positive word and made it their own.  So policies that increase the encroachment of the state into our lives are said to be progressive.  Policies that infringe more and more on the liberties of people are promoted by progressives.  And, if you oppose such a policy, then you are a reactionary.  You are not forward thinking, you are a throwback to the bad old times.  You don't want the state reading all of your e-mails and listening to your calls?  What have you got to hide?  The state has to do this because the state is your sole protector!

Consider also.  What is a racist?  Or perhaps more accurately, what makes someone eligible to be called a racist? 

Today, you are a racist if you are white and are non-Muslim and you dare to question anyone who isn't white or Muslim.  You are racist if you say that the abomination that is female genital mutilation, which is widely practised in some countries, is wrong.  You are a racist because those countries happen to be Muslim. 

You are a racist if you say that Obamacare is a disaster because its chief architect happens to be non-white.  You might not mention Obama's colour when disparaging Obamacare.  You might try and be clever and restrict your comments to the shortcomings of the internet sign-up process but that won't save you! 

You are racist if you dare to question why the organs of the federal state descend upon Cliven Bundy's Nevada ranch, armed to the teeth, over an unpaid tax bill of $1M but let the hate-monger Al Sharpton prowl the networks spouting his anti-white bile, while owing the IRS somewhere north of $1.7M.

Leftists and liberals close down arguments by throwing labels at  people, watching them stick and then refusing to debate with a racist or a homophobe or a misogynist  or whatever.  In the UK and in the USA, you are a racist if you want to even try and talk about immigration.  Somehow great swathes of the population, who have legitimate concerns, are labeled racists and, quite naturally shrink back from the debate because, who wants to be called a racist?

Who wants to be associated with the Klu Klux Klan or the Nazi party both of which pushed truly racist - as in racial purity type - policies.  Interestingly, the KKK were established by the Democrats (party of the left) in the USA and the name Nazi comes from National Socialists, also of the left!

While we are in a historic moment, think also about how galling it must be for American Republicans to be lectured on racism and called racists by Democrats.  The emancipation of slaves in America,  came about because of a Republican President with the support of the Republican party and against the overwhelming and unanimous opposition of the Democrat party!

I could go on citing numerous examples of where the left ignores its historical association with failed and wrong policies and now takes the moral high ground but that isn't the purpose of this post.

I think it is time that we started 'flipping' the words and change the terms of debate. 

So for example,  anyone that promotes stifling debate on immigration - inflows in the UK and amnesty in the USA, is called a reactionary and a racist and is someone that wants to push a reactionary and racist policy.  Anyone that wants to talk about these issues is progressive.  They want to be seen as thinking of the future.

Low taxes and smallest possible  government - that is progressive!  Ever higher state involvement in all aspects of life? That is regressive and illiberal! 

I hope you get my drift. 

From now on, please start throwing those labels right back at the left.  Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, President Obama, Jay Carney, the Democrat Party or CAIR in the USA and the Labour party, the BBC, UNITE union, the EU and the Lib Dems  in the UK - all rabid racists.  Reactionaries, every single one of them. 
 
In the 'twittersphere' one see lots of tweets from American conservatives concerned at Obama's attack on the 2nd Amendment (right to bear arms).  Some have already got my message.  They post pictures of weapons and to the statement - 'ban guns' - the response is 'it's because I'm black, isn't it!'   I just love how banning guns can be shown to be racist!  More please.


 

The power of Twitter and the Anglosphere

I have been thinking about Twitter recently (apologies if not using the copyright symbol is somehow wrong!) and its power for good.

I am also reading a book called "How we invented freedom", by a UK Member of the European Parliament - Daniel Hannan - highly recommend the book and Dan's tweets and articles - very 'sound' on Europe and the freedoms that 'Anglosphere' democracy brings.

The book (is that the right phrase for a Kindle version?  I dislike putting e in front of everything!) brings to the fore all those things which many of us almost take for granted - the primacy of the rule of law, no one being above it,  property rights and the importance of contracts and above all, freedom of speech, religion and assembly.   The book tracks the establishment of common law and the basic principles of same, from the pre-Norman invasion of England  through to the Magna Carta and the Bill of Rights and onto the US Constitution and eloquently shows, the flow of these basic principles runs common to all of these documents and to those ideals that the Anglosphere hold dear.

It seems to me that those basic rights are under threat as never before.  Now the threat isn't National Socialism from the German Nazis or Communism from the Soviet Union, no the threat comes from within.

Part of the threat comes from a comfortable place called complacency - long established rights are taken for granted by 'indigenous' Anglosphere peoples and the slow erosion of these isn't noticed or widely remarked upon.  Arbitrary punishment is meted out by governments , especially the US's, via drone attacks, for example, and people move past that news item or, if they stop to think, justify it on the grounds of national security.  Similarly, people are stopped and searched at airports around the world and have various petty restrictions put upon them, in the name of security.

People are finding that freedom of speech or religion is being curtailed, except that most politicians and main stream media shy away from negatively commenting on Islam and it's adherents.  Look at what happened to Phil Robertson.  He is a reality TV personality on an American TV show called Duck Dynasty.  In an interview he stated, amongst other things, that he wasn't attracted to men and he likened homosexuality to sin.  Cue outrage from the homosexual lobby in the USA and their supporters in the media at his 'hate crime'.  Now, Phil espouses Christian values and for those that believe in the right of free speech - something on which America was founded - his freedom to say such things is exactly that - a right.

A right as in something that he inherently has - not something that he (or you or I) is given. 

I have never seen the Duck Dynasty show but all I have read about Phil Robertson and his espousal of deeply held Christian beliefs suggest to me that nothing that he said, in the magazine interview, could be construed as being in any way surprising or controversial.  Similarly if Ayatollah Khameni, the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Republic of Iran, said the same things I wouldn't be surprised.  In fact the only thing that would surprise me is if the media actually reported or in any way commented upon Khameni's speech.  The teachings of both Christianity and Islam consider homosexuality a sin.  Whether you agree with that or not, is your opinion and I for one am happy to support your right to hold such an opinion - that's what free speech is about!   What free speech isn't about is stifling the saying of things with which you or I disagree. Period as they say in the US!

So back to Twitter and its power for good.  The A&E TV channel that broadcast Robertson's show, suspended him for a period, after disassociating itself from his comments.  Normally, that would be the end of Phil's TV show and fame.  However, right-thinking people got to work on Twitter and brought the story to a far wider audience than would have normally been the case.  A petition was raised and boycotts of A&E and its advertisers and sponsors were organized and, low and behold, Phil's suspension was lifted.  Encouragingly, he did not have to refute his beliefs or sayings, in order to achieve this.  The right to his free expression of speech was met.  In my humble view, Twitter played a great part in spreading the message and generating the climb-down by A&E.  Now I do not think for one single minute that the war is over and the 'powers that be' have seen the light and will 'allow' free expression.  I think that this is a battle won but this will need to be continuously fought for these cherished freedoms to be retained.  Incidentally, the 'allow' with is because I am uncomfortable in considering that someone allows another person to exercise a right.  No one can give you something which you already have!

Problem is though, that Twitter and other social media are under attack.  There are the overt attacks, where those that would deny freedom, talk-up so called trolls and make the attacks from these people, a justification for the curtailment of the liberties of all.  Then there are also the less obvious methods of attack - such as the USA's Internal Revenue Service using social media to identify groups and individuals from the Tea Party or other anti-Obama administration tweets, and then subject them to special attention from their audit teams. 

Dan Hannan, in his book, rightly confronts the facade of rights that some countries have or had and posits that it is the historical depth of these rights, within the Anglosphere, that gives them meaning.  He talks about the constitution of the former Soviet Union granting it's citizens all sorts of rights but no means for the citizen to actually exercise them.  I hope though that he is wrong in suggesting (I haven't yet finished the book, so maybe he does change his view later) that the places where the fundamental human rights can survive are restricted to those places that have historical links back to England and it's Magna Carta and older common law antecedents.  Hope, because these places (and this isn't meant to show an anti-immigration stance) are fast becoming a cosmopolitan mix, where the inhabitants do not all share the historical connection with England.  Hope, because I want those people who look to the UK, America, Canada and Australia and want to emigrate to those countries, look not just at the material benefits that settling in those countries will bring, but also at the traditions of individual freedoms, that have made these countries, what they are!