Europe. Confusing, or what?

With the date set for the in, out referendum  it seems fitting to try and give a brief explanation of our relationship with Europe. The EU is forged together by four major bodies: The European Commission(A), The European Parliament (B), The Council of the European Union (C), and The Court of Justice(D). It would be beyond this paper to try and detail what is the function, and role, of each. But briefly, A is the driving force behind the union, "responsible for proposing legislation, implementing decisions, upholding the EU treaties and managing the day-to-day business of the EU" [1]; B directly elected people, representing the union, The Parliament is composed of 751 members [2]. C comprising member states/national governments,  "While the European Council has no formal legislative power, it is a strategic (and crisis-solving) body that provides the union with general political directions and priorities" [3]. D "is the highest court in the European Union in matters of European Union law. As a part of the Court of Justice of the European Union it is tasked with interpreting EU law and ensuring its equal application across all EU member states"[4]
As you can see, a complex set of institutions, all with a multitude of functions, and many overlaps. To my mind, this is one of the biggest turn offs (knowing what is done, by who, and for what reason) for the EU project.

Where we are today. As it stands, make no mistake, the EU is a body wishing to progress down a path of integration, full integration encompassing: economic, social and military. In fact, many of Europe's problems are blamed solely on a 'lack of integration'. As such, further integration is seen as the answer to many of the EU problems. Only recently, Jean-Claude Junker
called for the formation of a European Army Such a bad thing? with the rise of China, and Russia once again flexing her muscles.

But where does this leave the UK. Cameron has returned from many months of negotiations, initially promising the  world but ending with something less than watered down. On his promise of no further treaty integration for the UK, has he delivered?  Cameron has secured, "Sovereignty - There is an explicit commitment that the UK will not be part of an "ever closer union" with other EU member states. This will be incorporated in an EU treaty change" [5] In essence, this ensures (by signing into a treaty) the UK will not integrate further. Intuitively, it looks impressive, but it does absolutely zero for everything we're already signed up to! So draw your own conclusion on what has actually been delivered. To my mind, it does two things: if you're already a Eurosceptic you have won nothing back, and can only hope our situation within Europe does not get worse. And, if you're a Europhile you'll be left wanting, in the sense that there will be no more prospect of  treaty driven integration. Thus, for some, our half baked 'not properly in Europe,  or not totally severed' relationship remains. As such, who will in-fact be satisfied.

Now for that vexed topic, immigration! or refugees!, or asylum seekers!, Because no longer do we differentiate between categories of people. Not wanting to go off on a tangent, world events have turned the movement of people (for a multitude of reasons) into a toxic, maelstrom of invective discourse. We have those on the left  or should I say 'authoritarian left' wishing to supplant national borders with a policy (I use the word policy, very loosely) of let everyone who wishes, enter into any country of their pleasing. The response, often knee jerk, is for the right to invoke feelings of 'mass panic' amongst the population. In truth, amidst this confusion and 'moral panic' there is room for sensible policy, and discussion. It is not 'racist' to be concerned about: public services, finite resources, job insecurity, hospital care, school places etc. Moreover, it is not 'bigoted' or 'ethnocentric' to question the motive, religion or ethnicity of certain groups, where a track record proves next to no integration, in the normative sense. YES, I've digressed.

  
So Cameron's answer to all this, is curb in-work benefits for those who are legally allowed to work in this country; Underwhelmed? You should be. To be fair, should those working here be allowed to send home child benefit if the child does not reside in the UK? No. So what have we secured,  "Child benefit payments to migrant workers for children living overseas to be recalculated to reflect the cost of living in their home countries" [5] Obviously, this will mean a reduction in the amount we pay.

All-in-all, when you join a club, you expect to pay for that privilege; and that's the basics of the EU. You're in a club, you have to pay. Now you can argue all day long that we pay to much, no different to all the other national governments. As one of the 'richer nations' of course we pay more than some; and that money is redistributed to poorer regions. Don't think for one minute, leaving the EU will suddenly make the UK a utopia, not a chance. Like I've said previously, if immigration is your beef, then why has in-ward migration to the UK from outside of the EU, gone up? This has nothing to do with the EU, suggesting we cannot get to grips with our own border policy. Conversely, if we leave the EU it puts those Brits who've moved to the EU in a precarious position. Because of course, immigration works both ways. To my mind, the strongest reason for voting to leave, is the lack of accountability and the diluting of sovereign power. To date, I'm undecided.




[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Commission
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Parliament
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Council
[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Court_of_Justice
[5] http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-32810887

Je Suis Charlie

Upwards of 3 million people have marched in unity  against the barbaric attacks, in Paris, this week. With around 50 leaders from around the world, French president Francois Hollande said "we are the capital of the world today". Looking at the array of flags, making a Kaleidoscope scene on the streets of France, says condemnation is being widely expressed.

The murders of 17 people in France this week comes on the backdrop of an unsettled world. With recent atrocities in Australia, and protests in Germany the rhetoric and vitriol is pervasive. What left for rationality? Some, initially on the fringe, would suggest we have reached the point of   a Clash of Civilizations where the author suggested (in 1996) the future would be "dominated by conflicts between civilizations". If nothing else, it was prophetic in its prediction. A scary thought for some.

BUT less apocalyptic, there are serious issues for Western and democratic societies to tackle. Again, the Jewish community  are in receipt of a disproportionate level of violence, with a Kosher supermarket being targeted by Islamic terrorists. With over a billion followers, Islam must be on shaky footings to continually view the Jewish state as such a threat. Israel, with all its faults, has an unchallengeable right to exist.

What now? Je Suis Charlie shows the world, by unity of action, that barbaric terrorists will not supplant 'free' and 'democratic' societies. That a one system (Sharia) will not rule over millions upon millions of 'free' people. For this to happen the Muslim community must wrestle the narrative from the radical elements from within their community. This is integral to combating the extremists, otherwise, the cycle of violence will continue....     

Brandism implodes!

In my previous Blog on Russell Brand, I suggested, Brand was at least "tackling political issues" in his own unique style. A style that in the very least raised the profile of an issue and looked at it from a counterintuitive perspective. I like that. Unfortunately, as is often the case, these views are left wanting when pressed with some vigour. But that is not wholly the case here. No, Brand went that much further, and not content with being 'controversial' decided to be plain and simple whacky, aligning himself with    conspiracy theorist on the subject of 9/11.

What a complete klutz. But should we be surprised by Brands total foolishness? Not at all. As recovering addicts like all addicts, he is, and will be, prone to relapse. Unfortunately, this is more than a 'relapse' this is shooting yourself in both feet, body and head! Moreover, it is undoubtedly more evidence of once you 'scratch' the surface--of pseudo middle class intellectuals--there is very little actual substance. Hence, the need for 'shock' statements and 'contrary' positions to keep the public interested. A contrarian such as  Christopher Hitchens, he is not.

Of course, not all is lost for Brand  with a reported 15 million fortune he is immune to cataclysmic fuck ups of everyday folk! He could just disappear from public view (highly doubtful considering his egotistical craving personality) rather, he'll just brush it off, or offer some caveat, as is the case   with his spat with John Lydon. Brands romantic view of 'revolution' (I've not read his book) is in keeping with a long line of such misguided 'romance'. I mean, it would be interesting to know how many students could actually explain the story of the much idealised  Che Guevare?  appearing on those obligatory t-shirts forming part of student dress.

At the end of the day, is it not just another celeb wanting to reinvent himself to continually stay in the public eye? To continually crave that attention of the addict he so wishes to leave behind? Or is there more.....

Parliament will vote for intervention

Well, it's the eve of Parliament voting for intervention in Iraq, but not Syria (yet?). Of course, not intervening in Syria will give those 'war weary' MPs a sense of victory per se against intervention. As the US has made clear,  its near on impossible now, to actually make any sort of discernible distinction between radical groups. The US have  with some gulf states assistance  stepped up its air campaign. It would be right and proper, that any need for ground troops (highly probable), would most definitely come from Arab states. Will the Arab states step up? If history is anything to go by, most unlikely. I say this simultaneously suggesting it is 'the Arab states' that have much to lose, considering ISIL gains.

As I suggested in my previous blog (13-8-14) I fully support intervention, on this occasion. My only concern, is why it's took us so long to get to this point, but considering 'the Scottish question' our MPs can be forgiven, if not excused, for being otherwise occupied (I wouldn't go as-far-as saying they were actually 'busy').

But what for the future? Again, we hear very little on what political intentions have been drawn and mapped out, other than Iraq forming a government what else? How are we going to include Assad? Questions that will eventually need answering.

Russell Brandism

Russell Brand has become quite the political commentator of late. With his new youtube channel 'Trews' like some modern day polymath, uploading opinion pieces on topics as- diverse- as the food industry, to the present terrorist threat of IS. Good on him, I say. Whether you're a 'fan' of Brand, or not, should in no way detract you from at least giving his 'Trews' channel a sneaky view. It is his latest assessment of British Asians (I use that term with caution) going of to fight for the barbaric movement IS, that interests me. Brand suggests "  "we are to blame for young Asian joining IS" Going on to suggest someone has to "feel so alienated" from society, that it makes them run off and join IS.

The 'alienation' of minority groups is not a new phenomena. It has been widely covered in academia, particularly from a sociological perspective, for many, many years. Without getting side tracked, I will simply say, the effects, policy and doctrine of 'multiculturalism' is the place for that debate. What I want to concentrate on is Brands comments on why he feels they are flocking to IS.

I presume, many of the Asian living in the UK came initially for a 'better life' a 'higher standard of living' they liked the appeal of a stable nation with 'prospects for their family'. Of course, on the face of it, very idealistic sentiments but plausible all the same.    Poverty in places like Pakistan tells its own story. Fast forward to where we are now, and we have second and third generation Muslims wanting to fight for a cause so 'barbaric' and 'hideous' (look at my intervention blog) that AQ want very little to do with them. That alone should send shivers down the spine of any normal thinking (not conditioned, as Brand may suggest) but 'normal' thinking person. The promise of some utopian 'Caliphate' is definitely NO Brave New World.

I say it's wrongheaded to suggest it is wholly the fault of a host nation, for the actions of upwards of 500 Muslims now fighting in the ME region. Totally wrongheaded. We only need to look at the 7/7 bombers and see it has to be more than an intergration problem. They had jobs, went to university, were fully functioning members of society (bar one who was reportedly unsettled) an 'unsettled' teenager WOW! that must be the justification. Not to trivialise, or make light of  the sickening act, but who doesn't know a unsettled, troubled teenager?

It has to be more. The one 'constant' in all this is 'Religion'. Good old religion (was religion ever good?) has much to answer for. I'm not going into the eternal debate around religion, but the facts remains all these 'Jihadist' have flocked under the banner of Islam. Whether it's a 'misrepresented', 'misinterpreted' or  damn right 'fallacious' it does not matter. These Muslims are flocking to the call. So I say, Brands wrongheadedness  needs to realign. It is the persuasive and pervasive nature of Islam for within the Muslim community. It seems that in all but one area of their life have they left the 'old ways' behind (of course the overwhelming majority are born in the UK) but because of the culturally staunch conservative nature of their society, they drag with them their religion.

To Brands opinions, sometimes trying to hard to be 'different' actually only makes us lockstep in tune with just another 'groupthink' position.    

INTERVENTION?

Intervention in the ME has a less than impressive track record. Look at the chaos in Libya as the most recent of interventionist policy. Arguably, creating an even more unstable country since military intervention. But is it fair to lambast and judge those countries that intervened, even before the dust has had chance to settle from coalition ordnance? Obviously, I'm begging the question.

Recent events in Iraq show  11yrs on total carnage and disarray still prevails. Before the advance of IS (formerly ISIS) it seemed not a day went by without  a suicide bomber or some form of retaliatory violent action. Not to get bogged down with history, other than to ask, should we be surprised? You need not be some 'polymath' or ME expert, or be in possession of countless facts, to reach a logical and plausible conclusion on the complexities of Iraq.

Iraq under the Sunni despot Saddam Hussein was a brutal and oppressive state. Undoubtedly a megalomaniac, Saddam brutally oppressed all those outside his inner circle, and all the differing factions, although predominantly the Kurds and Shi'a majority. Fast forward to the  2003 coalition invasion and the subsequent total destabilization of Iraq left a massive power vacuum. A power vacuum    is rarely a desirable situation.

So here we are again, contemplating military action over Iraq! I think we need to ask some important questions on whose behalf-- and for what reason-- are we intending to 'intervene'? For me, initially, it is right to ask: what are the major Gulf players (Saudi Arabia for example) doing to stem the flow of IS? Why should it be the WEST? Very valid questions, in my opinion. Rumours over     Saudi involvement seem to point towards loyalties elsewhere. Even though  the US supply massive amounts of military hardware to the Saudi's, can they truly rely on their support? Who really knows. What I would say, is, the  Sunni Shia schism is prevalent and pervasive in equal measure. It is not to overstate the point, if I say, it's hard to find Such deep rooted hatred anywhere else on the planet.

To the question. The possible lack of stopping an IS advance would be a disaster on the scale of something rarely seen, even in conflicts of old. When reports suggest AQ want nothing to do with IS, you should be under no illusion over their 'make up'. Recent reports of IS Jihadists burying people alive should repulse every sane and moral person. So I'm for air strikes in protection of the Kurds and displaced Christian Yazidis people. Not for religious reasons, not for political reasons, not for furthering our own interests, no, simply for 'good' old protection of the oppressed from a fanatical ideology. I say, that should be more than enough of a reason.

PASSION POLITICS: The confused Left!

PASSION POLITICS: The confused Left!: It is not a new phenomena the 'Stop the war coalition' for the invasion of Iraq, and more recently  the American opposition to inter...