The United Kingdom Should Not Cut and Run from the European Project

With only one month to go, the remain or leave debate has really heated up, with politicians from all parties picking their sides to support, and hitting the campaign trail. (see an earlier post, ‘Decision Time for the United Kingdom: In or Out of Europe’). Many issue have been stated by politicians, campaigners and the general public on both sides of the divide and I will discuss some of these, and argue why the UK should remain in the EU.

Unknown Economic Risks and Instability

In economic terms, figures and statistics have been flying left, right and centre by both sides, with talk of millions of jobs threatened if we left, or money wasted if we stay in. As I am not an economic expert or would be able to access real economic data to support an opinion, I will discuss what I understand of the economic arguments. I feel that most people would be the same as me. So then, I rely on my own research and information provided by the many experts in the field, but I feel that many have their own interests and will only provide some of the detail. Although what I do know is that for me personally and my family, we are not disadvantaged by living and working in a member state of the European Union. I am a recent international relations graduate, so I am looking at gaining employment in international or European organisations in either the UK or Europe, so I see the benefits of remaining part of a reformed EU. In my daily life, I am not disadvantaged, but see the advantages of living in a EU member state, especially when doing my weekly food shopping. Compared to food prices in Australia, where I grew up in, its much cheaper in the UK and Europe. For example, you can buy exotic fruits like bananas from South America or for under 70 pence. This is just one example, but food and prices of other goods are low because of the EU and its ability as the world’s largest trading block to negotiate beneficial free trade agreements with many countries around the world.  

On the issue of the reform package agreed in February, it might not be perfect, but does seem it will protect UK economic interests, and is a good starting point for further reforms. If we left, I think that the UK economy would not necessarily benefit outside of the Union. Talk of if we left would allow the UK to negotiate its own free trade agreements (FTA’s) with other countries may not benefit more than the status quo. I would think that the UK would have to start from scratch and enter long negotiation rounds with countries such as China, India, Russia, United States, Japan, etc. At present the UK as part of the EU have joint FTA’s with many countries and are in the middle of negotiating with others. I wouldn't think that the UK would necessarily get a better deal if we negotiated FTA’s independently with China, India, Russia etc. And talk of looking at the Commonwealth nations as a new source of economic relationships seems a little unlikely, as most of them are small states in economic terms, except for India, and medium size Australia. But these two countries are turning their economic interests towards emerging Asian and African markets, not looking back to the old imperial motherland.

Although the UK are currently the fifth largest economy in the world, how long could this really last. India with the second largest population and aims of copying China’s economic rise, may likely over take the UK , and don’t forget Indonesia’s own ambitions, as well as others. So, if we left the EU we would have to sell our self’s even more to China, India and others. We will most likely not be able to compete with these rising economic giants in the future. Many will disagree with my comments, but the facts are that the UK is better of being part of a reformed trade block that can compete with these rising economic powers, keeping the UK influential and economically powerful, rather than falling behind.

In a World of Globalisation, Sovereignty Has Lost Its Appeal

There has been talk that the UK has lost its sovereignty and its democratic process to Brussels, and that the EU is unaccountable to the UK public. This is untrue, as the EU system is just an extension of the national decision making institutions in the UK. In retrospect, we as voters have as much say or input in decision making over UK laws and policy as we do in the EU, which in reality is not very much. In the case of the EU, we elect a national government to represent our interests in the Council of the European Union and the European Council , same as we elect a Member of Parliament to represent us in the House of  Commons. In the Council of the European Union, each member state governments sends ministers on a regular basis to discuss and agree EU laws and policy, and as a major power in Europe, the UK has a greater say within this institution.  If this is not enough, we are also represented in the Parliament of the European Union, which we can elect for UK Members of the European Parliament (MEPs). Both these EU institutions have equal share and sole powers to legislate on EU laws.

From this perspective the UK have chosen to allow some erosion of sovereignty to elected representatives in Brussels and our own national government, all in the name of closer economic and political cooperation and benefits with our European neighbours. Almost every major EU law must have the agreement of the UK government of the day and our elected MEP’s in the EU Parliament, so we have not fully lost our sovereignty or democratic system.          

Just Scaremongering over Immigration

Migration is one of  the biggest issue in the debate, and is wrapped up in economic terms. Public opinion is steeped in this issue with many wanting the UK to leave the EU, so we can control our borders. Some people think that Eastern Europeans are coming over to the UK and are taking jobs from UK workers, but evidence suggests otherwise . One issue I have with this, is why would British companies want to give jobs to foreign workers if there were enough or willing workers in the UK? The scaremongering tactics of some Eurosceptic campaigners are suggesting that hundreds of thousands, if not millions of Eastern Europeans are coming over to claim benefits, but evidence suggests otherwise. Due to the EU out of work rules, you cannot just arrive in another EU country and claim benefits straight away, but have to prove after 3 months of residency that you have a “genuine chance of getting work”. Although, these rule are not perfect, and can be abused by a minority of people, but majority of Eastern Europeans or other EU nationals are wanting and willing to find good jobs as to provide for their families, like everyone else. Though the UK does attract large amounts of EU migrants, but Germany also deals with this issue and I do not see them protesting in mass or wanting to leave the EU.

Although EU migration, and the ’freedom of movement,’ is an issue not just for the UK, but also Germany and other member states, I do think that the EU should look into how to better manage the migration flows. I think that the UK should remain in the Union and work with its European partners to find a working solution. I agree that the migration of mainly Eastern Europeans to other EU member states looking for work can affect the receiving countries in terms of pressure on social and health services, and on the home countries in terms of ‘brain drain.’ But I do think that leaving the EU and closing our borders to this inflow of EU migrants is not the answer. Instead the UK should work with the EU to find a solution to persuading more Eastern Europeans to remain in their home countries to work. The problem is that although many nationals from Eastern Europe are well educated, but are unable to find jobs due to their countries weaker economy compared to the UK and Germany. The EU, with the UK still a member, should find ways to persuade nationals from states with higher emigration to remain in their home countries, by investing more in helping with job growth.   

      

Why Leave, When It’s not that Bad

We know what the scenario would be if we remained in the EU and can predict a future path if we stay in, but know one from the leave campaign has really said what the UK would be like if we left. Would we sign up to unifiable deals with the EU in a rush to limit the damage done by exiting, or even worse quickly try to push through FTA’s with China or even Russia, that would disadvantage us. What about the security arrangements we have with our European partners? Could leaving bring friction with EU members within NATO, especially at a time of joint threats from Russia and international terrorism. Also what about working with our European partners in tackling issues if immigration, the problems are not just UK ones, every country in the EU share the same burden of trying to resolve the issue. At this moment, the French, Belgium and Dutch authorities stop the tens of thousands of migrants waiting in their sea ports, and in Calais, French from trying to make the journey across to the UK. Do you think that these EU members will even bother to continue with this policy, if the UK leave the EU? From what I understand, these countries are not legally bound to prevent these refugees from coming across to the UK, and undertake this policy because of bilateral agreements. They are also burdened by resolving the situation.           

In the end, I think it would not be progressive to turn our backs to the European Project, especially when the UK and the rest of the world are facing new and renewed challengers of climate change and threats of terrorism. If the UK leaves the EU we will likely be this small isolated island nation on the edge of Europe, at a time of a globalised, interdependent and interconnected world. Personally, I think that the UK should not cut and run, instead remain as a vital member of the EU, and work with the rest of the Europeans to reform and rebuild the Union.

Decision Time for the United Kingdom: In or Out of Europe

Decision time for the UK public is only four months away, with the announcement by Prime Minister David Cameron, that the referendum will take place on the 23^rd June, giving the UK public the decision to either stay in the European Union or leave. So the next few months will be spent campaigning from both sites to gather support from the public. As it’s not a general election, politicians to not have to be united under party lines, instead they can choose either the in or out groups to support. The campaigns have already begun months, if not years ago, and now that the referendum date has been announced, both groups will be hitting the streets. 

Not A Bad UK-EU Reform Deal

Over last few months David Cameron has been jetting around European capitals, especially in Eastern Europe, trying to gain support for his planned reforms of the EU and the UK relationship with the Union. All that effort was to get leaders from member states to agree to a package of reforms from the EU, to take back to the UK public, before a planned in or out referendum. Last year the PM wanted a better deal for the UK, and outlined a number of measures that he thought may persuade the UK people to vote to stay in the EU. Some of these included, restricting access to in-work-benefits for nationals from other EU countries until after 4 years’ residency; safeguarding rights of non-Euro members from closer financial integration and material disadvantage from Euro zone members; reduce excessive regulations; Allow the UK to opt out of an “ever closer union,” and give more powers back to the national parliaments.

Cameron took these measures to the European Council leaders’ summit last Thursday, and after two long days, got an agreement with the EU, although not exactly what he wanted, instead one that seems to be agreeable between all of the leaders. From the start of the negotiations, the package presented by Cameron was never going to be fully agreed by all member states, especially the ‘benefit measures,’ with Poland and other Eastern European states disagreeing on this issue. Instead Cameron left Brussels on Friday night with an agreed package including, allowing the UK to put a “ emergency break” on other EU nationals from claiming in-work-benefits for a maximum of 7 years (Cameron wanted 13 years), only in extreme circumstances of high immigration; blocking child benefits claimed by EU working migrants from been sent to children overseas; economic protection for non-Euro members from Euro zone states, and reimbursing bailout funds given by the UK; protection for the City of London’s service industry  from Eurozone regulations; A treaty change to allow for the UK to opt out of a closer union with other member states; a mechanism to allow national Parliaments the power to block EU legislation; make the EU more competitive, by creating better regulations and cutting red tape, and strengthen the internal market; and limits to ‘freedom of movement’ rights for EU national marrying non-EU spouses, and excluding other EU national who are seen as a security risk from entering the UK.

Now with a negotiated agreement in place, two official campaigns can begin debating the issues of why the UK should either leave or stay in the EU. For months, even years, Eurosceptics have argued that the UK would be better off leaving, conjuring up statements of unaccountable bureaucrats in Brussels, take back control of our borders, get sovereignty back, the UK share of the EU budget would be better spent on services here, leaving the EU will allow the UK to take back control over our own trade policy, and so on. Some of these statements or issue do have some merit, and there is a need for reform for a better EU, but perhaps abandoning the project could be an ill-advised path. With so many different opinions and information presented by both sides of the argument, much of it misleading, one feels that much of the public are been misguided and may make an informed chose, with the loudest campaign gaining the most support.

For me anyway, I have taken the time to do some research into the arguments and information presented by both groups, trying to find fact rather than fiction. As I have said above, the EU structure and processes are not perfect and many areas need to be reformed, and as the past few decades have shown, the EU and its member states have and still want to make the Union better, with major changers have taken place, some more welcome then others.  

The Workings of the United Nations System

The United Nations System (UN) was founded in 1945 in the aftermath of two world wars, and was the brainchild of the three victories nations of WW2,  the US, UK and Soviet Union (Russia), aimed at saving future generations from the scourges of war. The objectives of the newly formed organisation of states are to protect international peace and security by preventing the need for war, through a notion of cooperation and collective security. To achieve these objectives, the UN has two main organs (institutions), the United Nations Security council (UNSC) and the General Assembly (GA), along with a number of departments and agencies that deal with a range of issues from human rights to providing aid and development across the globe. The GA is in a way a world parliament, with almost all nations represented. Each member state has one vote, with a two-thirds majority required for any decisions on key issues such as admission of new members and UN budgets. Also decisions are non-binding.

The UNSC on the other hand does bind all member states to any decisions made by the council, and is the main organ given the powers to achieve the objectives of international peace and security. The UNSC is made up of 15 member states of which 5 are permanent, known as the P-5 (US, UK, French, Russia and China) and 10 non-permanent members who serve for two year terms. The UNSC is the main decision making body in the UN and has the role of deciding if the international community will intervene in certain conflicts by either adopting sanctions or deploying peacekeepers. For any resolution to be adopted requires 9 council members agreeing, although the P-5 can veto any decisions made in the council.

Finally there is the Secretary-General (SG) who is elected by the General Assembly on the advice from the Security Council. Their main role is mostly as the chief administrator of the organisation, although the charter does give the power of the SG  to bring to the attention of the UNSC of any issue that he or she thinks is of concern relating to international peace and security. The SG and his office also play the role of chief diplomat promoting international peace and security.        

How peace can be achieved in Afghanistan?

Image source: WikiCommons, Photo credit: Sergeant Brandon Aird US Army 

As the date for the withdrawal of foreign forces from Afghanistan gets nearer, peace and stability still seems a long way off. By the end of 2014, less than two years away, most international combat troops are planning to leave, handing over the responsibility of securing the country to the Afghan National Army (ANA).

Although foreign forces hope to have further weakened the Taliban by the time they depart, reality on the ground seems to suggest that the Taliban will still have the capability to wage war against the Afghan government, who they view as puppets to the United States (US) and are corrupting the country.

Over the last few years their has been an international effort to bring both the Taliban and Afghan government to the negotiating table to discuss how to bring peace and stability, but on every occasion, disagreement or outright rejection by both sides has lead to a stalemate.

The most recent attempt to bring stability to the region was in early February this year when the British Prime Minister David Cameron held peace talks between leaders of Britain, Afghanistan and Pakistan, in a bid to bring stability to the region. Although many issues were discussed, but with out representatives of the Taliban not been present, the future peace and security were not solved.

Unfortunately, I don't think the objectives of the US and NATO to bring stability to Afghanistan and its people will be achieved, especially when any signs of peace talks by both sides seem unlikely in the near future. The Taliban are a disbanded force hiding out in Pakistan waiting to attack foreign and Afghan forces, and when international troops leave, they are likely to regroup and return to Afghanistan in a bid to either remove the Karzai government or take control over some areas of the country.

To bring peace and stability in Afghanistan will involve spending more resources to developing the countries non-existent infrastructure and helping the people, who many are drawn to the Taliban due to the corrupt and incompetent government. The international community also needs to end their interference into Afghan politics which feeds the corruption. Finally, all sides of the conflict, including the Taliban need to meet as equals to discuss how Afghanistan and the wider region can achieve long term peace and stability, if not this conflict could spread into regional civil war.

Another unfortunate truth is that all these solutions are unlikely in the current situation.

Politicians Finally Wake Up to Same Sex Marriage

Image source: WikiCommons, photo by: Beatrice Much

In recent days politicians in Britain have voted in support of legislation allowing gay men and women the right to legally marry. Politicians in the Commons voted 400 to 175, giving a large majority for such a controversial Bill. Although almost half of the Conservative party and a number of Labour members voted against or abstained, progress for further equality in Britain has won a landmark result. All that needs to happen now is for a majority agreement in the House of Lords for the Bill to pass into law, but this is predicted as unlikely as most members are against such legislation.

Although the legislation has a tough road ahead to pass through the House of Lords, at least large sections from all major parties agree that same sex couples have the right to marry. This vote in the Commons will also promote further debate in Parliament and in our society on an issue that affects thousands of people.

Such support by British politicians for gay marriage rights and recent meaningful debates in Australia would have not been heard of over 20 years ago. Today, many countries including France and the United States are also talking about it and bringing the same sex marriage issue to society. Let’s hope this effort can stay on course and that countries such as Britain, Australia, French and the US will follow Canada, in legally allowing same sex marriages. 

Who has Sovereign Rights over the Falkland Islands?

The Falkland Islands, a self-governing British Overseas Territory just off the coast of Argentina does not get a mention much in geopolitics, but this small island with more sheep then people has been a contested piece of land for almost 300 years. 

Ever since Britain colonised the uninhabited islands in the early 19 century, Argentina has claimed sovereign rights over the Falklands and has even gone to war over this fact.

Back in 1982 Argentinean forces invaded the islands and occupied them for 74 days until a British task force reclaimed the Falklands with over 200 British and 700 Argentinean soldiers killed.

For many years after the war, relations between Britain and Argentina were strained with either nation willing to discuss the issue over the islands. But since the early 1990’s relations have improved, although there has been no formal negotiation over the future of the Falklands.

The problem with solving the sovereignty issue of the Falklands, is the reality that most of the 2563 inhabitants have British ancestry and view themselves as firstly Falkland Islanders and secondly British. The Argentineans on the other hand argue that the islands are historically and geographically part of their territory and should be given back. The British government has clearly stated that as the majority of the Falklands population wants to stay as part of Britain, they will not abandon the islands. The issue is further complicated with oil and gas reserves been found around the islands, which the British would be keen to keep hold of.

In the last few days the relationship between the two nations has been further strained, with the Argentinean Foreign minister HectorTimerman rejecting his British counterpart William Hague’s invitation tomeet Falkland Islandgovernment representatives in London next week. This snub, along with renewed calls from Argentine President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner for Britain to agree with the 1965 United Nations Resolution, calling for a negotiated solution to the dispute, has increased tensions over the last few years.

I think that the best way to solve the issue of the future of the Falkland Islands is not on bringing up the past, but for all parties involved including the elected Falkland Islands government to begin formal discussions, leading to a long term agreement. From what a know of the situation, majority of the Inhabitants on the Falklands want to remain as part of Britain, and in March this year they will have the chance to vote in a referendum on if they will remain a British Overseas Territory or not. What ever is decided by the people, both Britain and Argentina should respect the wishes of the Falkland Islanders. 

Will Britain be Part of the European Union in 2017?

British Prime Minister David Cameron in a speech last week disused his conservative party plans for the future of Britain’s membership in the European Union (EU).

He has told the British voters, and put other European countries on notice that if his government is elected for a second term, he will ask the British people to decide in a referendum by 2017 if Britain should stay in the EU or leave.

This decision by Cameron comes after disagreement on reforms being discussed by member states on how to solve the Euro crises and improve the workings of the EU system.

After much criticism from both the Labor party and Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg, who opposes any such referendum on the issue, Cameron argued that the British people should be given the change to decided once and for all, if they the people should agree to the European settlement, which they had not much say on, or should Britain abandon the relationship with Europe.

I have to agree with Nick Clegg who said that putting a referendum to the people would cause "years of uncertainty" and would not be in the national interest. Britain would be better off sticking with the EU during these tough times and show the rest of Europe that they will not abandon them. In the long run, Europe will probably come out stronger after the Euro crises as they have done in the past.

Also, staying a member of the EU will benefit Britain in the future because in economic or political crises, Britain may need the help of other European countries, who would turn their backs if snubbed by Britain at a time of renewed cooperation.

I hope that for Britain’s sake that either Cameron comes to his sensors or the people vote to stay in the EU.