Monthly Archives: November 2016

Britain, European Union, Government, Politics, Society

Brexit and immigration…

BRITAIN

1-1

Immigration was a central argument during the Brexit vote. But now the Government in Britain must make clear to EU nationals resident in the UK what the position will be before Britain departs the European Union.

Intro: The status of around three million EU citizens in the UK when we leave is still uncertain

Since June 23, the day 17.4 million voters in Britain decided that the UK would leave the European Union, the persistent refusal of the UK economy to collapse in ruins following the vote must be rather frustrating to diehard Remainers. For those who advocated Brexit, statistics showing unemployment at an 11-year low must be quite cheering. That more people in Britain have jobs than ever before – almost 32 million – is another indicator of just how successful open markets and labour laws can be when overbearing bureaucracy such as the power of the trade unions are curbed.

No-doubt, some of the rise in employment will be accounted for by people from outside the UK. The number of Eastern European migrants employed in Britain rose by almost 50,000 between July and September. That can only be attributed to the strength of the UK economy, but must raise the question as to whether EU citizens are coming to the UK to qualify for residency before Brexit.

The status of around three million EU citizens in the UK when we leave is still uncertain. Some suggest that any EU national resident in the UK on the day we leave should be entitled to stay; others argue that right should only be conferred on those individuals’ resident in the UK prior to June’s referendum.

The prime minister still holds the line that we must first have assurances about the future status of Britons living elsewhere in the EU before the UK can commit on how Europeans here will be dealt with.

While the British Government is protective of its negotiating hand before Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty is enacted, there is a clear risk of unintended consequences: not just by encouraging migrants to enter the UK before the legal position is decided, but also in causing angst and uncertainty for those people who live and work here legally. Many have families with children at school and are holding down full-time jobs with securities such as mortgages tied to their homes. The distress for such people has become palpable.

Theresa May faces allegations from EU leaders that her Brexit policy lacks clarity, hypocritical insinuations when we consider the political crisis gripping the continent. A recent remark, too, by German Chancellor, Angela Merkel, was also telling. Even as Mrs Merkel hinted at changing EU welfare rules to deny benefits to migrants, she insists that the basic right of free movement cannot be compromised to suit Britain, “because everyone else will then want these exceptions”. But that is an admission that voters across Europe want to end the free movement laws their leaders insist on upholding.

Westminster has held firm to the view that “Brexit means Brexit”, and, despite legal anomalies to still be worked through, such as when and how Article 50 can be triggered, Britain alone has the chance to create an immigration system that allows it to admit and retain the best talent while meeting the public’s demand for better control. Mrs May should prevaricate no longer and should set out the principles that will underpin that system. This should include a clear and unambiguous statement about the status of EU nationals currently resident in the UK.

Standard
Donald Trump, Government, Politics, Society, United States

The election of Donald Trump is a blow for liberal democracy

trump2

President-elect Trump has openly challenged the liberal and democratic openness of government. It’s a stance that will have wide-reaching consequences in the West.

Intro: How democracy can now fix itself, if at all, is a dilemma that will not be easily solved. But, if it is to survive, it must find a way

THE ELECTION of Donald Trump as President of the United States, still so raw for so many people, has repercussions that may well extend beyond the two main candidates and their two parties. The outcome of this bitterly fought contest may even have plunged western systems of government into an existential crisis from which they may not recover.

Mr Trump’s electoral triumph was rooted in his attacks on the ideals, laws and institutions on which his country is based. His contempt for democracy, for that is what it seems to be, is one shared by more than 60 million people who gave him their support.

Since the declaration of Mr Trump’s victory, the sporadic outbreak of demonstrations that have followed across the US would probably have happened no matter the events of recent days. The participants have no-doubt been emboldened by one of Mr Trump’s more recent tweets which has blamed the skirmishes on “professional protestors” who have been “incited by the media”. Such comments contradict the apparent unifying tone Mr Trump gave in his victory speech.

Questioning a free speech and the right to assembly goes against the spirit of the first amendment of the constitution, one which President-elect Trump supposedly prizes so highly. But against the irascible and bad-tempered nature of his campaign it should not come as a surprise.

Despite the protestors having spread from state to state for four nights in a row, with a few isolated incidents of violence, describing them as “revolutionary” would be an overreaction, even though this has been one of the most heated weeks in US political history.

The anger expressed in these demonstrations, however, is indicative of a serious concern facing not just Mr Trump and his administration, but also countries around the world who follow a similar system of government.

Winston Churchill, Britain’s wartime prime minister, famously said that democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others, but even he could not have foreseen the deep fault lines that are now being exposed within western democratic models of government. In the context of the US election, if it can longer prevent a situation as unconscionable as a serial liar, misogynist and racist wrestling control of the most powerful elected office in the world, is democratic governance not failing us?

The obvious consequence is that division will grow more pronounced as the political establishment drifts further apart from an angry and disenfranchised electorate.

The West has long cherished its free and democratic ideals. Yet, the Trump campaign vociferously rejected vast swathes of the supposed liberal order. Mr Trump rallied against globalisation, international security conventions and worldwide trade deals, while he has also openly challenged and questioned the impartiality of judges and the electoral process.

The millions of people who agreed with Donald Trump’s stance have ensured that the core institutions that allow democracy to function are now very much under threat.

How democracy can now fix itself, if at all, is a dilemma that will not be easily solved. But, if it is to survive, it must find a way.

 

Standard
Donald Trump, Government, Politics, Society, United States

President-elect Donald Trump…

president-elect-donald-trump

Donald Trump, the controversial businessman with no political experience, wins the White House.

UNITED STATES

Intro: Donald Trump has risen to the highest public office in America against all the odds. A man with no political experience he is now the leader of the biggest democracy in the world. His election as President is truly historic.

But what will it mean for America and for the rest of the world?

SOME have suggested that Donald J. Trump becoming President will now mean a deeply divided America. But such an enormous protest vote that has seen Mr Trump being returned as America’s next president is a symptom of a country that is already profoundly fractured.

There are some people who believe his narrative that by removing the corrupt political elite and media will herald a new dawn, one which will be a return to the America of the past – by putting power back into the hands of its citizens, and by nurturing a return of its industrial might and economic supremacy.

From those who supported Mr Trump a strong and consistent message of confidence and belief emerged that he could fix what they regard as a failing country. They were as equally as strong in their view that Hillary Clinton and the liberal establishment she is part of had done nothing to help in 30 years. Interestingly, Mr Trump’s support was strong among working class white men, but also among white women.

Mr Trump is a man who ran a venomous and ruthlessly vicious campaign that exploited division. He openly slandered his opponent, and some have said that he has lied his way to power. This is hardly the basis that will instil many with a belief that the divisions will soon be removed.

Mr Trump is also a man that many Muslims and African Americans will have no confidence in, a man notoriously described as a misogynist, and one who is not given to consideration or compassion.

But when the fight of the election was over, the worst in US history, he said all the right things. He made a speech promising unity, and even reached out to those who did not support him for their help and guidance. He was certainly gracious about his opponent, thanking Mrs Clinton for her long dedication to public service. For many, though, the lasting impression of the true Trump will be that of an aggressive and no-holds-barred fighter.

Mr Trump gave his supporters heightened hope and expectations of a changed and better world, but some of the promises he made will never make the light of day.

But what isn’t in doubt is that Mr Trump stands a far better chance than Barack Obama ever did of exercising true and real power. Mr Trump’s Republican colleagues have retained control of both Houses on Capitol Hill.

For the people of the rust belt – those working class white men who have felt ignored and dismissed as being irrelevant – have seen industry decline in their towns, shattering prosperity and any future opportunities. Perhaps the appeal for them in voting for Mr Trump was the pledge of policies in restoring economic might. Whilst he intends to pursue more protectionist trade policies to safeguard and grow American jobs, such policies can create a backlash from countries the US exports to. Putting money into infrastructure to help that economic growth will also be a major issue; Mr Trump will struggle to fund the $1 trillion (£800bn) plan he unveiled in the last days of the campaign.

One of the biggest differences between the two candidates was in energy policy. Mrs Clinton had worn the more environmental and green label and Mr Trump was in favour of coal mining, fracking and oil extraction, again a policy attractive to the working classes in poverty-hit states. President-elect Trump has already promised the cancellation of all payments to UN climate change programmes. The Paris climate-change agreement which took some 20-years to produce must now be in danger of collapse. Without U.S. cooperation climate change treaties face a monumental struggle in dealing with the precipitous levels of carbon dioxide and greenhouse gases emitted by industry and large companies.

And, as with Brexit in Britain, a major policy area important for many voters is the linked issues of immigration and security. Mr Trump’s chances of fulfilling a pledge to remove two million criminal illegal immigrants would seem to be doomed to failure from the outset, given that there are only around 178,000 illegal immigrants with criminal records currently in the US. It seems unlikely, too, that the famous wall Mr Trump will build on the country’s southern border, the one that Mexico will pay for, will ever come to fruition.

While countries around the world will have to do business with Trump’s America, a necessarily pragmatic approach will be taken by Washington. This is hardly likely to herald a move towards better global openness and cooperation. Mr Trump’s fastidious stance that European nations should pull their weight and pay more money towards NATO is another indication of what could mark America as becoming increasingly isolationist. True, the U.S. does contribute significant resources to NATO, but without America the military alliance would soon crumble. It exists to protect Europe and the American homeland with Article 5 rendering an attack on one NATO country as an attack on them all. Russia’s belligerence in Crimea, the Ukraine and continued posturing around the Baltic States suggests that NATO is very much needed in helping to provide world peace and stability.

Yet, bizarrely, the country that could see the biggest boost in relations with the U.S. is Russia. Mr Trump and Vladimir Putin have been equally complimentary about each other.

Aside from the so-called special relationship with Britain, which will almost certainly go on in name, for the trading relationship is too important for it not to, and even though Theresa May has been far more measured in her remarks about Mr Trump than her predecessor, it is unlikely that deep bonds will be formed.

And as for the rest of Europe, President Francois Hollande of France has probably set the tone by saying Mr Trump’s victory “opens a period of uncertainty”. Many far-right groups in Europe are expected to surge in the coming months following Britain’s decision to exit the EU and with America’s decision now to pursue similar right-wing policies. European leaders are anxious and concerned at how the transatlantic trading partnership and agreements will now pan out. It would not be unreasonable to claim that the impending Trump administration is another body blow to the continuity of the fragile European Union.

But make no mistake, Donald Trump has pulled off one of the biggest political coups of all time. In doing so he has given millions of people both a means of expressing protest and hope that change is possible. That, at least, has to be worthy of a little respect. We should all hope that Mr Trump can build on that.

Standard