The road to peace

As we approach the date set by the British Prime Minister for a UK referendum on EU membership it is perhaps easy to loose track of the big picture. Both sides if the in/out argument seem to focus on the business and work reasons for staying in or getting out. But is this everything?

Are we purely mercantile egoists calculating our immediate gain without any regard to history or destiny? Britain did not become a prosperous liberal democracy through ignoring what was the right thing to do. Take the slaver trade for instance,  in 1807 and 1833 respectively  the slave trade and slavery were abolished. This was undoubtedly against the economy interests of the economy at the time, but was the right thing to do.

Taking this argument forward a bit; Britain's declaration of war against Germany in September 1939 made little economic sense. We were well-prepared for such an endeavour as the following 'phoney war' proved.  That said, morally it was the right thing to do. It was also the right strategic decision in the long term. Sometimes we must bite the bullet and take the mediate hardships in order to obtain some great prize.

That said, the economic arguments for or or against a British EU exit are far from a foregone conclusion. The one thing that economists do agree on is that it is impossible to predict the full repercussions of such a withdrawal. We should therefore perhaps refocus the argument, away from business and back to people's lives.

What do people gain from being in the EU and what do they loose? The average voter is not affected by the regulations regarding the city if London and has in fact more in common with a factory worker in Germany or Slovakia than they do with a stockbroker in London. Whereas the UK government is increasingly under the influence of big business it is in fact the EU'S labour laws that are the best protector of workers' rights in the UK.

The EU offers a path to integration and interdependency which acts as a deterrent for aggressive and destabilising national policies. Outside of the EU Britain would undoubtedly be forced into protectionist policies as its work and business market would be proportionately disadvantaged with regards its much large neighbour. Without the UK the EU would undoubtedly forge ahead towards deeper integration resulting in an insurmountable gap between the UK and the rest of Europe.

An independent UK standing alone against a federal Europe in say 50 years time would be in a very poor situation. By 2060 it is easy to forecast that China will have completed its ascendancy and be truly regarded as a global power, whilst the rest of the BRIC  countries will be on a similar level to that of many Western Europe  countries today. The one difference being population. Brazil,India and Russia all have population potential that far outstrips the most likely growth of any EU country. Once there economy has been developed enough then their greater population will be their true asset providing a workforce that we will be unable to match.

Whilst the USA and EU would be in a position to compete with the BRIC countries, the UK would be in  a marginalised position with perhaps only it's banking industry providing any rest-bite. However, as seen by the 2011 London Riots, the gulf between the haves and have-nots is already creating social problems and these would only be exasperated by an increasingly isolated UK.

As fuels decrease in abundancy the chances of conflict increase still further. We are already seeing the effects of a changing economy on our military.  The cuts announced by the Conservative government were met with warnings by seasoned generals on both sides of the Atlantic. A UK standing alone would have little chance of securing increasingly scarce resources or having an affect on international policy. The USA would be forced to deal with the EU over the UK as this would represent the best economic and thus strategic partner.

Returning to the opening argument, the EU grew out of the Coal and Steel Community which had a primary aim of integrating the industries of France and Germany in order to decrease the chance of war.  Although the industries of war have perhaps changed, the need for integration has not.  If you value peace and prosperity then you have but one choice: Vote no to a British exit.

Guns, Guns, Guns

If you ever have that double-take moment when you stop and check whether you truly saw/understood something correctly; then this will undoubtedly be reminiscent of such an occasion. I logged on to BBC News today and read a headline entitled 'US pastor tells flock to bring handguns to church'. Ok, I thought, this looks like some kind of amnesty/social reach-out thing. I was a little bemused to read the title 'US pastor opens church to guns'. The pastor was not trying to combat street crime, but defending the rights of people to carry guns. He fears, along with some of his flock, that the Obama administration will clamp-down on gun laws and the pastor is trying to advertise the fact that not all gun owners are homicidal maniacs and that as Mr Pagano told the congregation, "... there are legal, civil, intelligent and law-abiding citizens who also own guns,"

Being an ex-soldier and having spend half my life playing with guns, I appreciate the old adage (/NRA slogan) that 'it's not guns that kill people; it's people' but I also think Eddie Izzard was right when he commented
” but I think the gun helps, you know? I think it helps. I just think just standing there going, "Bang!" That's not going to kill too many people, is it? You'd have to be really dodgy on the heart to have that…”

I truly don't understand the US's fascination with guns in the modern 21st century world. I appreciate that back in the wild-west , having a gun was a real important issue. However, those days are long gone. The pastor claimed "If it were not for a deep-seated belief in the right to bear arms, this country would not be here today," errr how excatly???
Gun ownership was important in the revolutionary period, as it allowed for the raising of a well trained militia, however at this time the whole world was packing. The US was not anything special.

Also many Americans promote bearing weapons as their constitutional right. Granted the 2nd Amendment does claim that : A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. However, the same is true of the UK: That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law; Granted, the English law was a bit selective in terms of the religious credentials of those it granted the right to bear arms to. However, while the US law grants the people the right, the English law granted subjects said right. The term the people can of course be understood in two ways: 1) all individuals within a society or 2) the free members of the society as a whole. Given the reference to organised militias, it can be postulated that the meaning was in fact the later. Further to this, the punctuation suggests that the two are in fact connected as they are not separated by and but rather a comma. The English law, on the other hand, uses subject which does not have such a duality. It can only be understood in the individual sense. There is also no conditionality to the law such as in the US version (ok maybe the bit about protestants). Yet, modern Britons do not go around quoting 17th century laws. When the Hungerford or Dumblane massacres happened; gun control was tightened and the people rested peacefully in the knowledge that maniacs could not use the constitution to justify homicidal tenancies. Alas the same can not be said of the USA, where umpteen massacres have resulted in very little legislative action.

If anyone can give an answer to the quandary, then I'd be delighted to here it.


English 1689 Bill of Rights
(Incorporated in to and part of current UK law)

Equivalent to US 1st Amendment:
That the freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament;

Equivalent to US 2nd Amendment:
That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law;

Source: http://www.constitution.org/eng/eng_bor.htm accessed 28/6/09