To BrExit or not to BrExit…

So here it starts again – there’s a new ‘question’ on the table, one deemed important enough to warrant a national referendum.

On Thursday 23 June, every British citizen (as well as Irish and Commonwealth nationals residing in the UK) will have the right to answer the question ‘Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?’ by ticking either 'Remain a member of the European Union', or 'Leave the European Union'.

Politicians (both the more successful, overt ones – and the even less honest ones, who pose as ‘journalists’) fall over themselves to ‘prove’ to voters what an important decision this is and what catastrophes lurk just around the corner, should they make the wrong choice.

David Cameron said that this will be a ‘once-in-a-generation’ choice.  That’s probably the only item on which ‘Remain’ and the ‘Leave’ activists agree.  Well, whenever politicians from both sides of an argument agree on something, smart money should get very, very wary.

Is this really such a crucial issue?

‘Remain’ campaigners will tell you that the UK stands to lose millions of fat jobs and tens of billions of pounds if it dares leave the warm bosom of the European Union.

Playing us for fools...

Ask a ‘Leave’ activist and s/he’ll draw a picture of Britain as the Post-EU Utopia: de-regulated, non-bureaucratic – and therefore wealthier; a proud nation in charge of its laws and borders, free once more to pursue her best-in-the-world way of life.

So who’s right?  Well, actually, neither.  They both very convincingly tell you tall stories.  And they mostly know it.  The truth is that, in actual, objective, tangible terms – it makes little difference whether Britain stays in or leaves the European Union.

The first argument both sides of the remain/leave conundrum roll out is the economy.  True, the European Union is UK’s main trade partner.  If trade with the EU suddenly became more difficult or more expensive, that would negatively affect the British economy.  Only problem is – such a scenario is extremely unlikely.  The fact is that the UK imports more stuff from the EU than it exports: in 2015, British exports into the rest of the EU totalled £133 billion; imports reached £218 billion.  In other words, Germans, French Italians and Spaniards are at least as interested in free trade with the UK, as the latter is in free trade with Europe.  It’s a win-win situation.  True, EU bureaucrats can be amazingly clumsy, but they’re not completely bonkers; European politicians are a thoroughly uninspiring lot – but even they are highly unlikely to shoot themselves in the foot, by choosing the lose-lose option.  I’m sure they’d like to poke David Cameron in the eye with a blunt stick; but the stick has two ends and they’re both rather sharp.  So whatever its results, post-referendum Britain will enjoy free trade with the EU.  In the ‘Leave’ scenario, the situation might be slightly better or slightly worse than the current one, depending on the two sides’ negotiation prowess; but only slightly.  I’m not the only one stating the obvious here; according to the think-tank Open Europe

“[the] realistic range is between a 0.8% permanent loss to GDP in 2030 and a 0.6% permanent gain in GDP in 2030”

Wrong pitch, buddy!

To anyone who understands the intricacies of economic forecasts six months ahead (let alone 15 years from now) “0.8% […] in 2030” is just a posh consultant's way of saying ‘no difference whatsoever’.

The ‘trade’ argument, therefore, fails on both sides – as do all the sub-arguments stemming from it (jobs, investments, the supremacy of the City as Europe’s financial hub, etc. etc.)

And how about the ‘we’ll be in charge of our own laws’ bit?  Will a post-Brexit Britain enjoy complete legislative independence?  Well, yeah… approximately.  To start with, the existing EU legislation has already been incorporated into UK’s laws.  Undoing that will necessitate many years of legislative work – assuming that the Parliaments of the time will want to undo it.  And even if it’s undone, will the pure-bred British replacement laws be that different?  Unlikely: Iceland, Norway and Switzerland are not EU members; yet differences between Norwegian and (say) German law are not significantly wider than those between German and (say) Dutch law.  On great matters of principle, UK is unlikely to ever be completely independent again – no, not because of the EU, but because she is a signatory of a long list of international treaties (mostly concocted under UN, not EU patronage), with which UK’s government is obliged (in theory at least) to comply.  Contrary to popular belief, it is these international treaties, not EU legislation, that have the greatest bearing on – for instance – UK’s obligations towards refugees/migrants/asylum seekers.

Which brings me to the next point – control of immigration.  For many on the ‘Leave!’ side, that is the crux of the issue.  Beneath the politically-correct veil, they are greatly annoyed by what they see as the ‘flooding’ of their country by migrants who know little and care even less about ‘the British way of life’.  They see Brexit as a PC way to stop that flooding without – God forbid – running the risk of being labelled ‘racists’ in the process.  They dream of a Britain proudly in control of its borders, keeping out all but a smallish number of ‘acceptable’ foreigners.  The problem is, again, that the migration issue has little to do with UK’s membership of the EU.  UK joined the European Economic Community (EEC) in January 1973; the Maastricht Treaty (which declared the ‘Union’ and the ‘European citizenship’) was enacted in 1993.  Neither event made a difference in terms of immigration: according to census data, in 1971, UK’s ‘foreign born population’ was 3.1 million; by 1981, it had increased only marginally – to 3.2 million.  In 1991, the Office for National Statistics (ONS) reported circa 53,000 immigrants from other EEC countries; in 1994, the number was 50,000.  Contrary to popular belief, the watershed event in terms of immigration was purely British: the rise to power in 1997 of a Labour government led by Tony Blair.  In 1996, ONS reported a total inflow of circa 224,000 immigrants; the annual number climbed steadily after that, reaching 513,000 in 2006; and it has more or less stabilised since then.  In other words, the major issue in terms of immigration is not membership of the EU, but the policies of UK’s government.

‘Leave’ campaigners might claim that Brexit will allow them to reduce the immigration – but that claim does not withstand close scrutiny.  Two thirds of migrants come from outside the EU.  As for the remaining third, it is not clear that the UK economy can do without them: leaving aside the potential penury of those stereotypical Polish plumbers (a most frightening prospect!), who would replace the tens of thousands of East Europeans who work as construction workers, cooks, waiters, barmen, bell-boys and chamber-maids?  Not to mention cleaners, au-pairs and a host of other low-paid, rather unpleasant jobs?

Britain’s ‘immigration flood’ is a common problem among rich countries.  In relative terms, non-EU members Norway and Switzerland are more ‘flooded’ than the UK.  So are USA and Canada.  Australia is currently getting rid of some of the migrants landing on her shores by deporting and detaining them in neighbouring Papua New Guinea, after bribing that country to accept them.  But that policy has recently been ruled illegal by PNG’s Supreme Court.

To sum it up, whether the UK stays in the EU or leaves it makes little difference in practical terms; what makes a difference is which government sits in Westminster.

So why the brouhaha?  Because, just as I’ve written about the Scottish independence referendum this is not really about the economy, or about the laws, or about immigration – although of course these are issues people care about.  It’s about nationalism, stupid!  The only reason why there is a referendum about EU membership is that many people feel that the latter is gradually becoming a kind of super-state (which is what ‘Union’ is supposed to express), potentially superseding the British national sovereignty and clashing with the Britons’ sense of national identity.  There’s nothing wrong with such views; nationalism and patriotism are quintessential human feelings.  Except for a certain category of boneheaded, ideology-intoxicated self-styled ‘progressives’, for whom any expression of pride in one’s particular heritage represents ‘identity politics’ – something that those cultists have decreed ‘taboo’.  It is tragic that so many people succumb to the constant harangue from the ‘priests’ of this modern-day religion; battered into politically-correct submission, we learned to hide our feelings, lest the thought inquisitors accuse us of being ‘racists’, ‘fascists’ and a host of other mortal sins.

Sure, if taken to extreme, nationalism can slip into xenophobia; but then, anything can turn negative if taken to extreme.  In moderation, nationalism is good: it fuels the spirit of competition, which is the engine of human progress; it preserves the beautiful, colourful diversity of mankind and keeps it from turning into that awful, amorphous thing Marxists call ‘masses’ and I call ‘herd’.

My prediction is that the UK will rather overwhelmingly vote to stay in the European Union.  And that’s not just because ‘Brexit’ is such a poorly-chosen brand – it sounds like someone belching; no, it’s mostly because the ‘Leave’ campaign is playing the wrong game, on the wrong pitch.  As long as the discussion focuses on the economy, people will vote to stay.  Bombarded by both sides with tendentious ‘arguments’ and untrustworthy ‘evidence’, they will naturally vote against change: ‘the devil you know’ and all that.  If they really wanted to win, the ‘Leave’ campaigners should unabashedly have talked about nationalism, about British identity, about the independence of an old and proud insular nation.

‘To Brexit or not to Brexit’ is not the question.  What people really want to know is how their country will look like in 10, 20 or 30 years’ time.  Will their children still be able to proudly wear a distinctive British identity – or will they become ‘the masses’?  That is the question.

A tale of two systems: general elections in UK and Israel

A few months ago, I was invited to make a presentation on some ‘hot’ political topic in the West Midlands, in front of an audience made up of local Labour Party activists.  During the Q & A session that followed, I happened to mention the concept of ‘democracy’.  One of the participants intervened: “The question is”, he pompously intoned, gazing down at me along his nose, “what is democracy, actually?  We cannot impose our Western views on other people.  What we see as democracy, other nations may see as something else – and the other way around”.

Whether born of sheer ignorance or moral relativism, such thinking (or lack thereof) is not uncommon among activists, journalists, politicians and even professional diplomats.

Take, for instance, the opinion of Andrew Green, a former British Ambassador who represented his country in Syria and Saudi Arabia.  In a Telegraph article entitled ‘Why Western democracy can never work in the Middle East’, Mr. Green states:

“Democracy is emphatically not the solution for extremely complex societies and Western meddling only makes matters immeasurably worse. The fundamental reason for our failure is that democracy, as we understand it, simply doesn’t work in Middle Eastern countries where family, tribe, sect and personal friendships trump the apparatus of the state. These are certainly not societies governed by the rule of law. On the contrary, they are better described as ‘favour for favour’ societies.”

To paraphrase Mr. Green, I would suggest that “The fundamental reason for our failure is the stupidity of our diplomats”.  To even use the term ‘Western democracy’ denotes ignorance; the rest of Mr. Green’s peroration is suffused with the falsely-tolerant but actually supremacist idea that cultural issues are either immutable or taboo.  Let me suggest to Mr. Green that the reason why in some countries “family, tribe, sect and personal friendships trump the apparatus of the state” is that that “apparatus” represents an artificial state, one that is not based on any true form of identity, such as national or religious identity.  Such artificial ‘states’ have been created by Mr. Green’s ‘imperial’ predecessors and are being ruled (‘oppressed’ may be a better description) by local despots with the ‘benevolent’ complicity of Mr. Green’s colleagues and bosses.

There is no such thing as ‘Western democracy’.  There is liberal democracy – a political system that may have originated in the West (although, unlike democracy, ‘West’ is a relative term), but that is equally suitable to nations vastly dissimilar in terms of society and culture.  Liberal democracy works in Asian Japan just as well as in the United States of America.  It works in European France and Middle Eastern Israel.  Germany’s Western European culture did not stop it from becoming a Nazi state in the 1930s; North and South Korea are home to the same Asian nation, yet one is a liberal democracy – the other an autocratic inferno; China may still be described as a “favour for favour society”, but liberal democracy rules culturally akin Taiwan.

Inane journalists often reduce ‘liberal democracy’ to the much-much narrower concept of ‘free elections’.  The BBC, for instance, informs its audience (‘misinforms’ would be a better description) that

“Mohammed Morsi was Egypt's first democratically elected president…”

Needless to say, while Egypt may have experienced one round of (almost) free elections, Morsi could not have been ‘democratically elected’, because the country does not have the basic infrastructure of a democracy: freedom of press, freedom of speech, expression and dissent, a healthy public debate, etc.

Had the West Midlands Labour Party activist been forced to live for a few months under a dictatorial regime, he would have developed a better understanding of what democracy actually is.  Had BBC journalists been forced out of their five-star hotels and forced to live like most Egyptians, they would have understood that there is nothing ‘democratic’ in that country.

But while politicians, diplomats and journalists wallow in intellectual paucity and moral relativism, the good news is that liberal democracy survives and flourishes.  Because, while people on the street may have difficulty in defining it in academic terms, they understand and appreciate its blessings; honest, down-to-earth street smarts easily beat vacuous Etonian and Oxbridgean arrogance.

It is heartening to see, therefore, that within the space of just a couple of months, truly democratic elections have taken place in two liberal democracies, on two different continents: Israel and the United Kingdom.  And it is not just that elections have taken place; in true democratic fashion, they have taken place after intense – sometimes to the point of stridency – public debate.  And in both countries – again in true democratic fashion – the losers have neither declared a coup, nor have they been imprisoned by the winners; rather, they have more-or-less graciously admitted defeat, while vowing to continue – as democratic opposition – to provide checks and balances on the winners’ power.

Israel and the UK have very different electoral systems: the United Kingdom is divided in electoral wards (constituencies) – each electing a Member of Parliament from among several candidates.  The winner is the recipient of most votes, irrespective of whether s/he achieved an absolute majority (the ‘first past the post’ system).  The Israeli system is a purely proportional one: it views the entire country (Israel is almost exactly the size of Wales) as a single constituency, whose inhabitants vote for one of several political parties.  The number of Members of Parliament elected from each party is in direct proportion to the number of votes received (i.e. a party that received 10% of the votes will have 10% of the seats in Parliament).  Each system has advantages and disadvantages; but whatever the technicalities, both give suitable expression to the collective will of the people.

In both countries, that collective will has this time favoured the incumbents.  In both countries, the winners belong to what I’d call the Sane Right, as opposed to the Sane Left who came out as the main losers.  In both Israel and the UK the media and pollsters (who, in both countries, typically lean left) allowed wishful thinking to taint their professional judgment – and as a result issued erroneous predictions.  The difference between the two electoral systems produced a governing party in the UK, but a coalition government in Israel.  Crucially, however, in both countries democratic rule will continue unabated.

Not everybody accepted the electoral verdict, of course.  In the UK, ‘protesters’ belonging to the extreme-left Socialist Workers Party ‘laid siege on Downing Street’ and clashed with the police, intent on ridding the country of the ‘F*****g Tory scum’.  In Israel, a host of ‘NGOs’ is in continuous ‘protest’ against the country’s democratically expressed will.  Like the British ones, most Israeli ‘protesters’ identify with what I call ‘Red Mad’: the extreme-left communist/anarchist/’just-gimme-a-cause’-ist fringe of the society.  In both countries, the ‘Red Mad’ hope is that ideology will trump democracy; having failed at persuasion, these people attempt coercion.  But that’s where the similarity stops: lame as they may be, the British ‘protesters’ are at least an internal phenomenon, rather than a foreign intervention; far-left extremists are not funded by Israel, nor supported by the United States; Israeli media shows little interest in their ideologically-skewed utterings.  Not so with the Israeli ‘protesters’: these ‘Non-Governmental Organisations’ (Foreign-Sponsored Subversion Agencies or FSSA would be a better descriptor) are typically funded by foreign governments, either directly or through other NGOs; and they are the ‘darlings’ of mainstream media, which showers them with attention massively disproportionate to their weight within the Israeli public opinion.

Unwittingly, undemocratically and unbeknownst to most British taxpayers who foot the bill (but under the advice of Mr. Green’s ilk of Middle East ‘experts’), the United Kingdom is, sadly, among the countries fomenting sedition in a fellow liberal democracy.  In that respect, it is not just the Israeli democracy that is undermined, but also the British one.  After all, democracy implies transparency and majority rule; but in allowing part of its foreign policy to be underhandedly hijacked by a militant minority, the United Kingdom deviates from both those principles.

In a future article, we will analyse the issue in detail.  Watch this space!

Left, right and centre: UK parliamentary elections 2015

While I hope that I express myself clearly enough on the actual subjects I write about, some readers tell me that I leave one issue blurred: what’s my actual political inclination? “In your posts”, they say, “you’ve attacked Cameron, written against Farage, derided Labour and slammed the Liberal Democrats.  So who do you support?  Are you a right winger or a left winger?”

Well, folks, sorry to disappoint you all: I’m neither!  I’m not a centrist, either. And I certainly ain't a fence-sitter!!  But why do I have to be anything?? I am a political animal, of course; but why do I have to align myself with a particular political party and with their doctrine?

In their thirst for success and power, politicians throw mud at each other; the despicable ‘mainstream’ media joins in, attempting to demonise the side they don’t like.  We, the public, are left frustrated, holding them all in contempt.  Political leaders will find it very hard to gain our respect if they seem unable to respect each other.

That does not mean that we should switch off and lose interest in the whole bloody thing; that would be effin’ stupid.  The reality is that a sensible case can be made for both the ‘right-wing’ and the ‘left-wing’ views of the world.  Everything but the political extremes is reasonable and deserves at least consideration – if not always support.  After all, capitalism remains the only system with a track record of delivering economic growth and societal progress; but softening its rougher edges and imparting it a better human interface is a worthy endeavour.  We want the most fortunate of us to contribute more; but we also want to provide them with the incentive to exert their talents, invest and become even more fortunate.  We want a society kind to those less fortunate among us; but we also want them to make a stronger effort, not rely on handouts.  We wish to relentlessly pursue prosperity and success; but not by riding roughshod over our fellow human beings.

There is, somewhere in the middle, a sweet spot, an ideal trajectory we should pursue.  But it is difficult, so difficult, impossible to find.  In our desire to follow that golden path, we elect one party; and then, as we feel that those leaders got it wrong, that they overshot the ideal balance point, we vote their opponents into power.  The upshot is that, instead of following that ideal but impossible path to progress, we meander our way around it; we end up erring at times to the left, then over-correcting  to the right and so on.  We may not follow the shortest, most desirable route; but we are, thankfully, going roughly in the right direction and are never too far away from the Golden Path.  That’s why democracy works.

Our not-so-perfect path to progress

But it can only work if we, the public, are not regimented; if we are sensible enough to understand that no single political doctrine is perfect; that the question is not ‘which philosophy is right and which is wrong’, but rather ‘in which direction our society needs to go at this time’.

That is why I am neither a left-winger, nor a right-winger or a centrist.  Call me a swing vote; deride my fickleness, if you so wish.  I don’t care: I reserve the right to make up my mind each time afresh.  Whether in the UK or in Israel, democracy works because of people like me.  Long live the swing votes!  May they grow and multiply!

At sixes and sevens

In a recent novel entitled ‘I am Pilgrim’, British-born writer Terry Hayes describes a jihadist plot to smuggle deadly pathogens into the United States.  The plot is narrowly foiled by the modern version of super-hero: a brilliant secret agent, who saves the day – and the lives of tens of millions of Americans.

It’s fiction, of course; but it’s not far-fetched.  In fact, it's very likely that, somewhere in the Middle East, jihadists are busy plotting some version of a chemical or biological attack.  After all, 9/11 has proven that for jihadists mass murder is a worthy deed; and that they are capable of careful planning and executing complex operations.

Well, I guess we should not worry too much.  Bond-like secret agents may be fictional; but Her Majesty’s Government is diligently dealing with the challenge posed by jihadists.  Isn't it?

Six days of political wheeling and dealing; six hours of speech-making; six Tornado warplanes to attack ISIL in Iraq.  The other side of the equation is not known yet: will it be 600 dead civilians?  6,000?  60,000?

In a press statement, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu re-affirmed his support for UK’s right to defend itself against incessant rocket attacks coming from Iraq.  However, Mr. Netanyahu also expressed ‘deep concern’ for the large number of Iraqi casualties and called on the British government to do more to protect civilians.  The Israeli Prime Minister asked Britain to act in a proportional way, in strict compliance with International Law.  He called on both sides – UK and ISIL – to show restraint, avoid further escalation and negotiate an immediate ceasefire.  The Israeli leader has also expressed support for the mediation efforts by North Korea.  A British delegation is expected to arrive in Pyongyang, for indirect talks with a joint delegation of ISIL, Al-Nusra and the Mahdi Army.

One can and should joke.  But the only laughable thing is yesterday’s decision itself.

Firstly, because it is so ineffective as to merit the description ‘much ado about nothing’.  What exactly are six warplanes supposed to achieve??  How will they make a difference – ANY difference – against guerrilla fighters spread over a large territory and able to easily ‘hide in plain view’, being indistinguishable from the general population?

Secondly, because of the pathetic efforts to portray the decision as ‘ethical’ and ‘legal’.  Of course, nobody (not even Al-Qaeda!) disputes that ISIL are a bunch of berserk murderers and that the world would be a more habitable place without them.  Yet, to a weak leadership and a political class plagued by moral relativism, that’s not reason enough.

Hence, the pathetic efforts to ‘engineer’ a bit of ‘moral high ground’:

Like the ‘request for assistance’ issued by the ‘Iraqi government’.  Of course, that ‘government’ represents at most one religious and political faction in an artificial (and failed, and in practice non-existent) state.  The ‘government’ of the ‘People’s Republic of Donetsk’ has issued a similar request for Russian assistance against ‘Ukrainian aggression’.

Like the attempt to hide behind a ‘local coalition’ of Arab states which (nominally, at least) oppose ISIL.  Of course, those ‘states’ are in reality disgusting dictatorial regimes, some even more skilled in the ‘art’ of beheading than ISIL itself.  Not to mention that, even assuming those regimes were representative (they aren’t) and Iraq was a real state (it isn’t), it would still remain unclear exactly what right the former have to intervene in the internal affairs of the latter.

Like the ridiculous pretence of operating only in Iraq, not in Syria – ‘for now’.  This, surely, has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that Iraq (like Libya) has oil, while Syria has not.  Nah, it can’t be that!  It’s only because, you see, the (factional) ‘government’ of the (artificial) ‘state’ of Iraq has ‘requested assistance’; while the (factional) ‘government’ of (the equally artificial, fellow colonial contraption) ‘Syria’ has not.  So, just out of curiosity, I ask: will the six warplanes taking off from bases in former British colony Cyprus make a long detour in order to ‘respect the sovereignty’ of former French colony Syria, before dropping their bombs somewhere in the former British Mandate of Mesopotamia?  Sweet ‘moral high ground’!!!

Thirdly, because of the way this decision has been taken.  What a display of weak leadership when a party in government – one elected by an uncontested majority in a democratic process – seeks to cover its quivering hinds by making a ‘deal’ with the opposition!

But fourthly – and most tragically – because the symbolic ‘gesture’ of six warplanes (or, rather, the larger operation that gesture is meant to ‘support’) is yet another short-term tactic reaction devoid of any long term, proactive strategy.  Throughout six hours of clueless ‘debate’, none of the six hundred and fifty MPs asked the six-million-dollar-question: ‘WHERE ARE YOU GOING WITH THIS?’  What’s the strategy?  How do you want ‘Iraq’ – and indeed the entire Middle East – to look like in ten or twenty years?  And how are you going to achieve that vision?  And please don’t bother answering ‘it’s none of our business, it’s for them people to decide’; why is tactical bombing ‘our business’, but political strategizing isn’t??

Her Majesty’s Government (along with the rest of the ‘political class’) has just wasted many thousands of taxpayer-funded men-hours to choreograph a ‘debate’ on sending six warplanes to ‘precision bomb’ (LOL!!) shadows, in the hope of hitting a few of the tens of thousands of operatives belonging to one terrorist organisation in one small corner of the Middle East; can we please have a debate on long-term strategies aimed at tackling that problem-region as a whole?  Can we please do so without much regard to ‘borders’ drawn decades ago by colonial interests?  Can we please aim to achieve not just selfish oil-enabling ‘political stability’, but also a bit of welfare, happiness and freedom to the hapless inhabitants of said problem-region?  And can we please have that debate sooner rather than later, preferably before the problem really rears its ugly head and kicks us in the nuts??  Thank you!

State of dis-Union

David Cameron wants to renegotiate the European Union ‘free-movement’ rules, in an effort to stem a potential deluge of Bulgarian and Romanian immigrants. Now, I have to admit: I hold a strong antipathy towards attempts to ‘renegotiate’ anything.  What those intent on ‘renegotiating’ commitments actually say is: ‘having willingly pocketed the benefits of a deal, I am now reluctant to pay the agreed price’.

Mr. Cameron’s position is no different.  Both Romania and Bulgaria joined the European Union under a given set of terms – as indeed did the UK.  Accession to the EU is voluntary and the decisions were not taken under duress; all parties involved believed that they were signing a mutually beneficial deal.  For the 25 countries already in the EU, the accession of Romania and Bulgaria opened new markets for their products, as well as enhancing their international political standing, by adding two new voices to the ‘Union’.  Those benefits have – partially, at least – already accrued; which is why attempting to change the terms of the deal now is, in my view, dishonest.

Close that door, will you?

But let’s leave the ‘procedural’ issues (though they are very relevant!) and look at Mr. Cameron’s grievances regarding EU rules.  It’s not that Mr. Cameron necessarily dislikes Bulgarians and Romanians; indeed, numerous persons of both nationalities are already employed in the UK – performing jobs that are unattractive to Brits, offering skills that are unavailable in the UK or simply because they are willing to do those job for lower wages.  Mr. Cameron says he is not concerned about them (had he said otherwise, people might call him David N. Farage); he is concerned about the so-called ‘benefit tourism’; that is, significant numbers of Bulgarians and Romanians who might decide to come and live in the UK for the sole purpose of enjoying UK social benefits – housing, living allowance, etc.

On the face of it, this sounds like a valid concern: why should the British tax-payer foot the bill for the upkeep of people who are not even British?  And Mr. Cameron’s concern is focused on Bulgarians and Romanians (rather than on French, Germans, Spaniards or Czechs) presumably because – being by far the poorest countries in the EU – Romania and Bulgaria fail to provide decent benefits (or any benefits) to that part of their citizenry who needs them.  So, nothing wrong with Mr. Cameron’s concern, is there?

Average wages, in US dollars per month.
Most people earn below the average wage,
more so in under-developed countries where social gaps tend to be broader.

Well, the fact that Mr. Cameron is not so concerned with potential ‘benefit tourists’ originating from elsewhere in Europe helps highlight an important fact: people don’t move from one country to another in search of ‘the best deal’ in terms of benefits. UK benefits may be more valuable than those provided – for instance – in Portugal; yet by-and-large Portugal’s unemployed (currently about 16% of the country’s labour force) stay in Portugal.  Nobody likes to live among strangers, particularly in times of need.  No, people engage in ‘benefit tourism’ not in order to ‘get a better deal’, but only when their backs are against the wall, when they actually struggle to survive.

The question is: why are there so numerous people in this situation (numerous enough to justify Mr. Cameron’s concern) in two countries that joined the European Union no less than 7 years ago?  Sure, Europe – like other parts of the world – still grapples with an economic crisis.  But let’s keep things in proportion: the European Union is rich!!  We hear and read daily about the crisis in Europe and about China’s fast economic development; that may cause some to forget that, even adjusted for purchasing-power parity, EU’s per capita GDP is three times higher than China’s.  The European Union accounts for circa one-fifth of the global economic output; with a population two-and-a-half times larger, China only produces 15%.

Percentage of population below poverty line.
Needless to say, the 'poverty line' is much lower in
Romania and Bulgaria, compared to France, Germany or UK.

So, I’m sorry: no ‘economic crisis’ justifies the fact that there are so many dirt-poor people in this stinking-rich ‘Union’.  And shutting the door in their face is certainly not the right thing to do.

Don’t get me wrong: I’m not saying that the solution is ‘adopting’ Europe’s poor as perpetual recipients of UK (or German, or French) benefits.  That’s not what I suggest at all!  Their situation needs to be resolved (should have been resolved!) in their own countries – with the generous assistance of the more fortunate members of the ‘Union’.  I'm saying ‘should have been resolved’, because that was the very purpose of the 7-year ‘transition period’ imposed on those new member states.  Wasn’t it??  Having had 7 years to prepare (a period of time agreed in advance, including by the UK), nobody is entitled to suddenly ‘discover’ today that the arrangement won’t actually work; and to decide that, in consequence, the ‘solution’ is… not to keep their end of the bargain.  Err... to 'renegotiate' it.  And please don’t give me the line that this was the responsibility of the Romanian and Bulgarian governments.  The idea that the poor have only themselves to blame for being poor belongs to Victorian times, not to the 21^st century.

Doesn't the term ‘Union’ imply a level of social solidarity similar if not identical to that extended to the less fortunate members of the British society – which is the very reason why UK has ‘social benefits’??  Aren't the poorer members of the ‘Union’ entitled to at least a modest corner of that generous social safety net – such ‘corner’ to be provided not in the form of benefits paid to those ‘migrants’ who happen to make it to the UK, but as economic and social assistance to the countries which struggle to provide similar safety nets themselves?

Because if that’s not so, then please: don’t call it a 'Union'; be honest and call it what it is: a ‘fair-weather association’.

BDS'ers: explain!

On 6 October 1950, the Chinese army invaded Tibet – an independent state that never threatened China.  The small and ill-equipped Tibetan army was quickly overpowered.  Rendered defenceless, the country was incorporated wholesale as an ‘autonomous region’ within China.  The Tibetan government complained to the United Nations, but – acting in accordance with their own political interests – India and UK prevented the issue from being debated.  Not that debating it would have helped: the Soviet Union – at the time ally and patron of Communist China – had the right of veto, enabling it to prevent any actionable UN resolution from being adopted.

Chinese soldiers patrolling Occupied Tibet

After just six years of Chinese occupation, Tibetans revolted; between 1956 and 1962, a veritable war took place between Tibetan guerilla fighters and the Chinese Army.  It is estimated that circa 87,000 Tibetans were killed during this rebellion.  It is more difficult to assess how many Tibetans died because of Mao’s 'Great Leap Forward' policies; according to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, estimates vary between 200, 000 and 1,000,000.  Circa 6,000 monasteries were destroyed during the Chinese 'Cultural Revolution'.

 
 

Chinese crack troops 'dealing' with Tibetan protester

In 1962 China and India fought a war over the disputed South Tibet and Aksai Chin regions.  Tensions continue between the two nuclear powers to this day; India hosts the Tibetan government in exile in a town near the border. There are numerous reports of human rights abuses committed by the Chinese authorities against Tibetans.  According to Friends of Tibet (an organisation which militates for Tibetan independence):

“More than a million Tibetans have died as a direct result of the Chinese invasion and occupation of Tibet. Today, it is hard to come across a Tibetan family that has not had at least one member imprisoned or killed by the Chinese regime.”

Tibetans who dare demand their rights are systematically
persecuted, jailed, tortured and even executed.

Chinese human rights breaches in Tibet included unlawful detention, extra-judicial punishments including execution, 'judicial' punishments with no due process, police violence and torture, coercive birth control policies, economic and political discriminations, attempts to marginalise Tibetan culture and blur Tibetan national identity, etc.  There are numerous and well-documented cases of infringement of religious freedoms, freedom of speech, assembly, movement, etc.

According to Amnesty International, the Chinese authorities blatantly repress the 'Tibetan ethnic minority'.  The Tibetans did not respond with suicide bombings; but since March 2011, more than 120 people are known to have set themselves on fire inside Tibet in protest against the repressive Chinese occupation.  Amnesty International concludes:

“The Chinese government must put an end to repressive policies that infringe on the fundamental freedoms of ethnic Tibetans.  The Chinese authorities have not heeded the demands of Tibetans, but have instead resorted to heavy-handed tactics that can only deepen and further fuel resentments. They must respect the right of Tibetans to practice their religion and to enjoy their culture.”

Tibetans don't suicide bomb anyone.
But they do protest by self-immolating...

The Chinese authorities practice a policy of transfer of Han Chinese settlers into Tibet.  According to the Tibetan government in exile, there are at least 7.5 million Chinese settlers in Tibet; their numbers continue to grow due to policies which grant economic advantages to the settlers, while denying them to Tibetans:

“The continued population transfer of Chinese to Tibet in recent years has seen the Tibetans become a minority in their own land. Today the six million Tibetans are vastly outnumbered by Chinese immigrants, who are given preferential treatment in education, jobs and private enterprises. Tibetans, on the other hand, are treated as second-class citizens in their own country”.

According to Dalai Lama:

“The new Chinese settlers have created an alternate society: a Chinese apartheid which, denying Tibetans equal social and economic status in our own land, threatens to finally overwhelm and absorb us.”

Chinese policies have generated severe tensions, leading to periodic outbursts of violence.  In one such outburst, which erupted in 2008 between Tibetan population and Han settlers, eyewitnesses quoted by BBC reported:

“The street is pretty much in flames. I saw a huge amount of military in the town. It went crazy all of a sudden. All the Chinese shops were put on fire by Tibetans. Tanks in the street.  Tear gas. I saw people being carried away on stretchers and ordinary Tibetans going crazy. […] As the monks ran down, suddenly people, policemen just appeared almost as if out of nowhere and started beating, pulling and kicking them as they streamed down towards the main entrance of the temple.”

Chinese police beating Tibetans in the capital Lhasa

Following these clashes the Chinese government is reported to have increased the level of control and repression.  Between March 2008 and March 2010, Tibetan sources in exile have documented that 228 Tibetans have died under the crackdown, 1,294 have been injured, 4,657 arbitrarily detained, 371 sentenced and 990 disappeared.  Four Tibetans were executed in Lhasa on 20 October 2009, while the Chinese authorities confirmed only two.  11 Tibetans were sentenced to life imprisonment.  In the majority of cases the defendants had no independent legal counsel and when a lawyer of choice represented the defendants, the authorities blocked representations either through intimidation or on procedural grounds.

The central Chinese authorities are well aware of the human rights situation in Tibet.  To try and hide it from international scrutiny, they have restricted movement of people and information.  Foreign nationals need a special permit to visit Tibet – and such permits are very often refused (see official advice by UK Foreign Office).  No such permits are necessary to visit other areas in China.  Mentioning Tibet as destination on a Chinese visa application typically results in the applicant being denied visa.  Possession of Western literature concerning Tibet has resulted in foreigners being refused entry to China, even when they were in possession of a valid visa.  Access to Internet information on Tibet is blocked throughout China.

Negotiations between the Chinese government and Dalai Lama/Tibetan Government in Exile have failed to produce any progress.  Each side has accused the other of lack of desire to achieve a peaceful solution.

All this did not prevent UK Prime Minister David Cameron to conduct an official visit to China, heading what is officially called "the largest British trade mission ever to go to China".  Mr. Cameron will not take this opportunity to visit Occupied Tibet. UK Prime Minister’s approach to dealing with China is nothing if not enthusiastic:

"Some in Europe and elsewhere see the world changing and want to shut China off behind a bamboo curtain of trade barriers. Britain wants to tear those barriers down."

"No country in Europe is more open to Chinese investment than the United Kingdom."

"I will champion an EU-China trade deal with as much determination as I am championing an EU-US trade deal."

And actions certainly follow words, in this case: no less than 10 Sino-UK cooperation agreements have already been signed. Now, I am not surprised by Mr. Cameron’s eagerness to cooperate with China: I have always claimed that most politicians are driven by perceptions of interest (national, at best, political or personal, at worst) – and to hell with ethics.

But there is a cohort of activists who claim to be driven entirely by ethical considerations.  They say they seek ‘justice’ and vociferously call for boycotting Israel for sins like ‘occupation of Palestinian land’, ‘illegal settlements’, ‘oppression of Palestinians’, etc.  They want to boycott Israeli companies, Israeli products, Israeli academics, Israeli dance groups, Israeli theatre troops, etc. etc. etc.  They even call for boycotts against companies doing business in Israel and demand from famous singers not to perform in Israel.  All this because, they say, what Israel is doing is not just immoral, but also contrary to ‘international law’.

BDS'ers protested vociferously when the UEFA
Under-21 Football Championship was hosted by
Israel. Not a peep about the Olympics in China, though.
Why?

Therefore, unless ‘morals’ and ‘international law’ are in their view only applicable to Jews, it is hard to understand why the BDS militants had absolutely nothing to say against their Prime Minister’s visit to and appetite for cooperation with the Chinese Occupiers.  Where are the calls for boycott??  After all, BDS’ers even staged a campaign against Tom Jones for merely singing in Tel Aviv; imagine what they’d do if David Cameron were to say something like "I will champion an EU-Israel trade deal with as much determination as I am championing an EU-US trade deal!"

Of course, boycotting China is more difficult than boycotting tiny Israel.  But surely this should not be a deterrent to people animated by such lofty ideals; ethics, after all, is about ‘speaking truth to power’, not ‘ganging up against the weak’.  Innit??

BDS’ers have some explaining to do: in which way are Palestinian Arabs more worthy of ‘justice‘ than Tibetans?  Why should Israel be boycotted for allowing Jews to ‘settle’ in Jerusalem, while no such calls are made against China, which settled millions of Han Chinese in Tibet?  Why the campaign against Israeli tomatoes and avocados, but complete indifference towards massive imports of Chinese goods?  Why the berserk ‘protests’ against everything remotely connected to democratic Israel, but not a peep against Tibet-occupying, autocratic, massive human rights-abusing China?

I am eagerly looking forward to receiving their cogent explanation.  And promise to thoroughly analyse it :-)!