Category Archives: Society

Britain, Economic, Government, Politics, Society

Britain’s bright future

BREXIT

IT was twenty-five years ago to the day, on September 16, 1992, when Britain crashed out of the European Exchange Rate Mechanism (ERM) – the prelude to the euro. John Major’s government was humiliated, the pound was devalued overnight by 15 per cent and most economists predicted a protracted slump.

Yet, what happened? The lower pound led to a surge in exports and just three years later the economy was booming.

Following the Brexit result, a similar devaluation of pound sterling has happened and all the indicators are that it’s having the same effect, with figures published over the last few days showing that exports have risen by 9 per cent in the last year.

Despite this, not a day goes by that the BBC, Financial Times or Confederation of British Industry don’t paint an apocalyptic picture of Britain’s future outside the EU. These organisations are constantly talking this country down at the very time it’s crucial we should be showing unity.

For people like Sir James Dyson, arguably Britain’s greatest living entrepreneur, and for many other dynamic business leaders, Brexit is not a problem. It’s a massive opportunity.

Standard
Aid, Britain, Government, Politics, Society

Immoral aid rules as restrictions apply to victims of Hurricane Irma

FOREIGN AID

MINISTERS have been frantically trying to change rules that prevent Britain from spending its aid budget to help UK territories hit by Hurricane Irma.

Priti Patel, the International Development Secretary, fired off a letter to the global body which ruled that the UK cannot use its aid cash because the three overseas territories are too wealthy.

She wrote to the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development to demand reforms to end the farce.

But other ministers said she should go ahead anyway and use the aid budget to help the victims of Irma even if that means breaking the law.

A senior source within the Conservative Party said: “It’s a waste of time asking the OECD to change its mind. We’ve been asking them to change this stupid definition for years and they are not interested. We should just get on and do it ourselves.”

“Our law says we have got to spend 0.7 per cent of GDP on aid, which is good, but it also says we have to spend it according to a ridiculous definition, which is bad. The rules do not allow development spending on these islands because they are not considered poor enough. It is immoral and a lot of people are saying we should just ignore the rules and spend the money.”

Charlotte Petri Gornitzka, who chairs the OECD’s development assistance committee (DAC), suggested the door was open to change. “The DAC is always open to discussing issues of concern with its member countries,” she said.

Downing Street has made clear that Theresa May is “frustrated” with the OECD rules which excludes British Overseas Territories like Anguilla, the Turks and Caicos islands and the British Virgin Islands from receiving money from the aid pot.

Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson says Whitehall is working furiously to get the rules changed.

As MPs anger grew, one branded the OECD “out-of-touch morons” while a Conservative backbencher pledged to introduce a bill to change the law, whether or not the OECD gives the green light.

Miss Patel’s letter to the DAC has called for the current rules to be torn up. She said she had asked the committee “as a matter of urgency to develop options to ensure the aid rules reflect the needs of those impacted by natural disasters”.

She added: “We believe that the international rules should take into account the vulnerabilities of small island states.

“These rules were first established over 40 years ago. The world has changed dramatically since then, and we will work constructively with international partners to ensure the rules remain relevant and up to date.”

The UK has pledged £57million towards disaster relief and the public has helped to raise £1.3million. This figure would have been significantly higher without the strict international rules governing the allocation of the £13billion aid budget – but the Government disputes this.

A spokesperson for the prime minister insisted the UK’s aid effort had not been hampered by the OECD rules, saying: “The Prime Minister is frustrated with the rules as they stand. We began detailed work after the election to change the rules to prevent precisely this kind of scenario.”

It was indicated that the UK could be prepared to act alone if there was no agreement on changing the international rules.

Mr Johnson said the hurricane was “absolutely catastrophic” and that anybody with an “ounce of compassion” would want to see government spending to “get these people on their feet”.

“We are looking now across Whitehall at ways we can make sure that our aid budget is used in that way,” he said: “Priti Patel, all my colleagues are looking at how we can do that.”

James Duddridge, a former Foreign Office minister and now member of the Commons international development committee, said he would introduce a ten-minute rule bill to rewrite the law on the 0.7 per cent target.

“The Government should change development assistance rules, and if they don’t, they bring forward legislation to change the International Development Act,” he said.

“If they don’t, I will bring a bill to Parliament to redefine what our excellent 0.7 per cent commitment should cover.”

His colleague Philip Davis, who called the OECD “out-of-touch morons”, told the Commons: “It’s bad enough that we have a bloated and wasteful and unaffordable overseas aid budget but it’s even more ridiculous that we now learn that we cannot spend it on our overseas territories.”

Conservative MP Nigel Evans said: “These rules are grotesque if they prevent us from giving the right amount of money that is needed. If we can’t bend the rules then we have to go outside those rules.”

. Why we can’t spend it how we want

BRITAIN is free to spend its aid wherever it wants – what is at issue is whether it counts towards the Government’s 0.7 per cent of national income on international development. But aid money only counts towards the target if it meets rules set by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development.

So under current rules, any money we give to the three overseas territories cannot count towards this total. Cash is only eligible if it goes towards a country on the OECD’s list of states which are deemed poor enough.

Countries are ranked according to need, which is intended to ensure the poorest countries take priority. While some UK territories are on this list, the three affected by Irma are not.

Britain has sent £57million to Turks and Caicos, Anguilla and the British Virgin Islands. But it cannot count towards “official development assistance”, the name for the total eligible under the rules.

COMMENT

AFTER inexorable stories of waste, mismanagement and corruption, it seemed as if there was nothing about Britain’s bloated foreign aid budget which had the capacity to shock.

Now we have learned that not one penny of the £13billion (and rising) which is earmarked for development can be used to help those small island states which were devastated by Hurricane Irma.

The reason? When David Cameron put the target of spending 0.7 per cent of national income into law, he signed Britain up to a Byzantine set of rules laid down by the OECD.

Perversely, this global body has decided that these British Overseas Territories do not qualify as recipients for aid because… they are too rich. To the thousands of people left without power or water, whose communities have been decimated by 180mph winds, will feel that the rules are nothing more than a sick joke.

They might not have been in dire poverty before the storm hit, but surely they are now, after losing everything?

It is bad enough that Britain hurls taxpayers’ money at economic powerhouses such as China, at corrupt regimes where money just disappears, while many public services in the UK are starved of cash.

But it is immeasurably worse that when a truly deserving cause comes along, ministers are forced to scrabble around to raid cash from other budgets or by further inflating our country’s debts.

Whilst it is true that Downing Street is promising to change these mindless rules, that could take months or years and depends on approval from other countries.

Far better would be for ministers to damn the consequences, tear up the rules and do the right thing: spend the money on our people who are – without doubt – in desperate need. The OECD might not applaud, but the public surely would.

Standard
Britain, European Union, Government, Politics, Society

UK firms alarmed over Government crackdown on migrants

IMMIGRATION/BREXIT

BUSINESS leaders have clashed with the Government over Brexit following the pledge by Theresa May to curb the flow of cheap, low-skilled labour from Europe.

Business lobby groups reacted with fury to leaked Government proposals outlining a tough new immigration system after Britain leaves the EU.

Downing Street hit back, saying business needs to end its reliance on cheap migrant labour and do more to train British workers. Mrs May said ministers had a duty to curb immigration after last year’s EU referendum, and restated her pledge to slash net immigration to the “tens of thousands”.

But the Government was in disarray as Cabinet ministers, including Home Secretary Amber Rudd, Chancellor Philip Hammond and Business Secretary Greg Clark are understood to have concerns about slashing immigration from the EU too quickly.

Damian Green, the First Secretary of State and one of Mrs May’s closest allies, is also thought to have misgivings, and believes the plan can be toned down.

It has also emerged that FTSE 100 leaders have refused to sign a letter backing the Government’s Brexit strategy. Downing Street quietly asked executives to sign an open letter saying they wanted to “make a success of Brexit”, and welcoming the Government’s push for a transitional deal.

But this was not welcomed by some, with one executive reportedly saying: “There is no way we could sign this given the current state of chaos surrounding the talks.”

It is understood the letter, drafted by No. 10, was due to be made public as Mrs May tries to create support for the legislation going through Parliament about our EU withdrawal.

The row followed the leak of a Home Office document setting out plans to curb immigration from the EU after Brexit.

The Prime Minister said: “Immigration has been good for the UK, but people want to see it controlled as a result of our leaving the EU.

“The Government continues to believe it is important to have net migration at sustainable levels, particularly given the impact it has on people at the lower end of the income scale in depressing their wages.”

Defence Secretary Sir Michael Fallon said: “We have always welcomed to this country those who can make a contribution to our economy, people with high skills.

“On the other hand, we want British companies to do more to train up British workers, to do more to improve skills of those who leave our colleges. So, there’s always a balance to be struck. We’re not closing the door on all future immigration but it has to be managed properly and people do expect to see the numbers coming down.”

The document, which has caused uneasiness among some ministers, suggests low-skilled workers from the EU would only be allowed to stay for a year or two, and EU citizens would be barred from moving to the UK to look for a job. Ministers are also considering a ‘direct numerical cap’ on the numbers who come here from Europe after the UK leaves in March 2019.

Big businesses reacted angrily to the proposals. The chief executive of the British Hospitality Association said the proposals would be “catastrophic” for the industry, one which relies heavily on cheap EU labour.

The executive said: “We understand the wish to reduce immigration but we need to tread carefully and be aware of the unintended consequences – some businesses will fail, taking UK jobs with them.”

A spokesperson for the Confederation of British Industry, said: “An open approach to our closest trading partners is vital for business, as it attracts investment to the UK. It also helps keep our economy moving by addressing key labour shortages.”

The Institute of Directors said business leaders would not welcome the proposals and its members would be hoping for changes in the Government’s final position.

The National Farmers’ Union said a cut in migrant workers could cause “massive disruption” for the industry. Its deputy president said 80,000 seasonal workers a year are needed “to plant, pick, grade and pack over 9 million tonnes of fruit, vegetable and flower crops”.

But Migration Watch, a think-tank, said ministers were right to pressure businesses to wean themselves off cheap foreign labour.

In a statement, it said: “We want to encourage employers to train local people and make more of an effort to prepare for a time when there won’t be all these people coming in with readymade skills prepared to work for lower wages.”

The leaked document was a draft of proposals due to be published this autumn.

Sources said a further six drafts have since been produced and it has not yet gone to ministers for approval. Senior figures in Brussels raised concerns about the document.

Gianni Pittella, leader of a large group within the European Parliament, said it revealed the “nasty side of Theresa May’s Government”, adding: “Should the British Government follow the position outlined, it will certainly not help the negotiations. It adds uncertainty and confusion.”

German MEP Elmar Brok, an ally of Angela Merkel, said he was “shocked by the language and content of this paper”, adding: “I think we are in a situation that EU citizens are seen as an enemy for the UK. This is not an atmosphere where you can find solutions.”

. How other countries control their borders

In the United States immigration law provides for an annual worldwide limit of 675,000 newcomers, with certain exceptions for close family members.

The Immigration and Naturalisation Act allows a foreign national to work and live lawfully and permanently in the States.

Each year it admits foreign citizens on a temporary basis. Annually, Congress and the president also determine a separate number for admitting refugees.

Immigration to the States is based upon the following principles: the reunification of families, admitting immigrants with skills that are valuable to the US economy, protecting refugees and promoting diversity. In Australia, a tough immigration points system is credited with keeping numbers under control while ensuring the economy has the skills it needs.

Extra points are given for factors such as experience, qualifications and age. But critics argue there is no guarantee it would bring numbers down, pointing out that Australia has proportionately higher immigration than the UK.

Since 1967, most immigrants to Canada have been admitted on purely economic grounds. Each applicant is evaluated on a nine-point system that ignores their race, religion and ethnicity and instead looks at age, education, skills, language ability and other attributes.

Standard