China's Social Credit System

Imagine, dear reader, that you live in a world where everyone of your actions (or inactions) is recorded and judged by your peers. From bad driving, smoking in a non-smoking area, and a failure to visit your parents/grandparents on a regular basis, all can have an effect on your ‘social rating’ and thus ‘social credit’. You may be thinking that these can be harmful to other members of society, but easily rectifiable. However, should one of these infractions prevent and individual from acquiring social services, transport (train and plane), prevent you from getting a job, access to the internet, and many more sanctions that will isolate an individual within modern society[1]. This reality is now being rolled out throughout China (for a more comprehensive list look at image 1). This step for China has implications for the world and the Global Economy.

Why does the CCP want a Social Credit System?

According to the CCP the Social Credit System will be implemented by 2020 with a focus of keeping trust which is ‘glorious’ and breaking trust in society as ‘disgraceful’.

The Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) biggest fear is not being able to control it’s population, 1.4 billion at the time of writing, and thus lose control of the governance of the country. This eventuality has caused the CPC lead government to take drastic steps towards minorities within China[2]. Censorship and economic growth, has been the centrepiece of controlling the Chinese population, with a decline in economic growth (from as high a 10% almost a decade ago, to now 6.5%[3]) and censorship only being able to go so far (it cannot cover the entire population). ‘Self’ and ‘Social’ censorship has now become the order of the day and the future within Chinese Society.

To clarify this point, an example of this would be Uber. If you use Uber taxies to travel to a destination, the five star rating for both the customer and the driver can have an impact on whether 1) you as the customer gets picked up by the driver and 2) customers can scrutinise drivers rating and thus deprive them of work or on a more extreme not the driver could lose his job with Uber.

any rating system has its pros and cons but to have such a system throughout society severely limits what individual will do, thus restricting freedom. However, the CCP has taken this to the next level by placing the rating system, not in their own hands, but that of Chinese citizens therefore creating an level of control that will be unprecedented in human history. We as people judge others, its human nature, we cannot help but say ‘I don’t like what he/she is wearing or saying’ but with the ability to rate another individual can now have serious consequences for the lives of Chinese citizens (e.g. depriving an individual from social services). To take human nature and ‘weaponizes it’ in the way the CCP government is planning to do in China, not only extends the CCP’s control of Chinese Society but will ultimately have implications for those outside China.

How does the Social Credit System in China have implications for the rest of the world?

The first thing the pops into my mind is corporations (most notably Western corporations) would have to 1) adopt the practices of the social credit system in China and 2) prevent any western corporation from entering China (or seize the assets of those who are currently in China) if they do not comply with the Social Credit System. We have already seen this with the tech-giant Google, who recently announced they will be taking on the role of censor when operating in China[4] (in order for the search engine to have access to Chinese customers).

The second implication for the world could be a ‘trickle down’ affect that influences Western Corporations. Corporations could adopt similar methods in their home countries. For instance, Elon Musk plans to create a website that will ‘rate’ journalists[5], thus giving corporation and their owners greater influence in what we consume, read, and watch. This in my opinion is already the case and thus limits the individual to make rational choices in regards to there own utility and thus reducing the freedom of individual to have access to a plethora of consumer goods or media content (if the good or media content is classed as ‘untrustworthy’ it could be in danger of being taken out of circulation or removed from media sites). We should ask ourselves do we really need corporations to tell us what we want or what is best for us?

China’s Social Credit System has an Orwellian overtones to it, which has already started to become the norm for Western Corporations[6]

---

[1] The Independent, China ranks citizens with a social credit system - here's what you can do wrong and how you can be punished: https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/china-social-credit-system-punishments-rewards-explained-a8297486.html

[2] The Geopolitics, Vatican and China Deal: Microcosm of Control: https://thegeopolitics.com/vatican-and-china-deal-a-microcosm-of-control/

[3] The World Bank, The World Bank in China: Overview: https://www.worldbank.org/en/country/china/overview#1

[4] Foreign Policy, Google is Handing the Future of the Internet to China: https://foreignpolicy.com/2018/09/10/google-is-handing-the-future-of-the-internet-to-china/

Silicon, Apple Removes Thousands of Apps from China App Store: https://www.silicon.co.uk/mobility/mobile-apps/apple-removes-apps-china-store-236141

[5] CNBC, Elon Musk may actually be making a website to rate journalists for credibility and ‘core trust’, https://www.cnbc.com/2018/05/25/elon-musk-may-actually-be-making-a-website-to-rate-journalists-for-credibility-and-core-truth.html

[6]  Verdict, Facebook rating score has echoes of China Social Credit System: https://www.verdict.co.uk/facebook-rating-score-china-social-credit/

Contributions for The Geopolitics

You can also find our contributions at The Geopolitics; https://thegeopolitics.com/

Implications for the US Withdrawal from Iran Nuclear Deal -

https://thegeopolitics.com/implications-for-the-us-withdrawal-from-iran-nuclear-deal/

Vatican and China Deal: A Microcosm of Control -

https://thegeopolitics.com/vatican-and-china-deal-a-microcosm-of-control/

Ireland’s Abortion Referendum: So what happens now?

The victory for the ‘Yes’ campaign in the Republic of Ireland’s Referendum on Abortion, does not necessarily mean that the campaign for (and against) abortion is finished. Rather the Referendum is just the start of the process to introduce abortion on the island of Ireland. Legislation, legal challenges, and the possibility of the debate extending to the Republic of Ireland northern neighbour, the debate over whether abortion should be legalised or not has only just begun.

Prior to the referendum I wrote a piece on the arguments for and against repeal of the Eighth Amendment ('Repeal' or 'Keep' the Eighth? Ireland's Referendum Debate), similarly to the last article I will endeavour to be neutral as possible and present the facts as I currently see them.

The ‘Yes’ vote won the referendum by 66.4% too the no campaigns 33.6%. Although the vote to repeal the Eighth Amendment to the Irish Constitution has come to an end, what will happen now to Ireland’s laws regarding abortion? Currently a Bill, Thirty-Sixth Amendment of the Constitutional Bill 2018, has been presented to the Oireachtas (Parliament of Ireland) for consultation, and if the bill is passed (yes, the TDs and Senator’s will get a vote on the issue before it is ratified by the Parliament and sent to the President) this will open the way for an abortion law to be presented to the Irish Parliament. During the referendum campaign the Irish government published a policy proposal, entitled Regulation of Termination of Pregnancy, which will be the bedrock of any abortion law presented to the Irish Parliament.

Although this process is common within a Western styled Democracy, challenges and implication have emerged to the subsequent ‘yes’ vote on the 25^th May referendum result. Three separate challenges, or applications, have been brought to the Irish High Court arguing that the referendum campaign had several illegalities resulting in an unfair advantage give to the ‘yes’/Pro-Choice campaign. The applicants have brought allegation “that student voters were not properly registered, concerns about tallies, balance in RTE’s coverage, the Referendum Commission’s information campaign and booklet and statements by the Taoiseach (Irish Prime Minister) and the Minister for Health during the campaign”. This raises the question of whether the new law regarding abortion will be held up until the cases are heard in the Irish High Court. Furthermore, it may also suggest that irregularities in the conduct of referenda (I have the UK EU Referendum in mind here, as many accusations of irregularity have been brought to light) on such important questions. But such an eventuality will not be discussed in this article, rather it’s just a thought to consider.

The main implications from the result of the referendum result may also affect the Republic of Irelands neighbours, Northern Ireland. Like the Republic, Northern Ireland has restrictive laws in regard to abortion (only allowing abortions in cases where the mother’s life is in danger). However, unlike the rest of the UK that allows abortion under the Abortion Act 1967, Northern Ireland is exempt from such an act.

But a question remains, does the UK government and Parliament have the right to change Northern Irelands abortion laws? The issue of abortion, as in the Republic is an emotive one. However, the UK Parliament, after the passing of the Northern Ireland Assembly Act 2010, the right to determine abortion policy was devolved to the Northern Ireland Assembly. Although the UK Parliament remains the central authority, capable of overturning decisions made by dissolved Parliament/Assemblies, it is unlikely Westminster will intervene on such a matter. As the

It is also an established convention that the UK government will not overturn the decisions of a devolved Assembly if that area of legislation which the Assembly has voted on falls into the category of ‘devolved powers’ or none ‘reserved powers’.

According to the UK Supreme Court, the current legislation in Northern Ireland “is incompatible with the human rights law”, However the judges rejected the appeal that had been filled in 2013 stating that “if it was an individual who had brought this case who had been a victim of this law they would have been likely to side with them”. But this raises another question, if a personal case is brought before the Supreme Court with the judges siding with those who brought the case, would that make the clauses in the Northern Ireland Assembly Act 2010 redundant? As both Human Rights and the Northern Ireland Act are both enshrined in UK law?

While pressure for the 1967 Act to be applied in Northern Ireland has been put on Westminster many obstacles still stand in its way. One notable one would be that the UK government currently needs the support of the DUP (who are against extending the 1967 Act to Northern Ireland) in the Commons. What is also notable about Northern Ireland is that there are both Catholics and Protestants (mainly Presbyterians) that are strongly affiliated to their respective faiths, which both reject abortion. Therefore, it is unclear whether a vote in the Northern Ireland Assembly would be in favour of extending the 1967 Act. One final obstacle would be the legality or willingness of the UK Parliament to interfere in, what essentially is a devolved matter, this could create a precedent upon which the UK Parliament could also interfere in other devolved matters (not only in Northern Ireland but also Wales and Scotland). 

I therefore conclude that the debate surrounding abortion has many obstacles upon which the UK government would seek to avoid confronting. With Brexit negotiations and a small majority within the Commons, May’s government would avoid this subject as much as possible if only to preserve her government by not risking the support of the DUP.

Notes;

Balanced Opinion, (2018), ‘’Repeal’ or ‘Keep’ the Eighth?: Ireland’s Referendum Debate’ - http://balanceopinion.blogspot.com/2018/05/repeal-or-keep-eighth-irelands.html  

The Guardian, (2018), ‘Irish abortion referendum: yes wins with 66.4% - as it happened’ - https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2018/may/26/irish-abortion-referendum-result-count-begins-live

Irish Government, (2018), ‘Regulation of Termination of Pregnancy’ - https://health.gov.ie/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Policy-paper-approved-by-Goverment-8-March-2018.pdf

RTE, (2018), ‘ Applications sought to challenge referendum result’, - https://www.rte.ie/news/courts/2018/0611/969737-high-court-referendum-challenge/

HM Government, (2013), ‘Devolution Settlement: Northern Ireland’, - https://www.gov.uk/guidance/devolution-settlement-northern-ireland

Euronews, (2018), ‘UK Supreme Court rules Northern Ireland abortion reformers must bring personal case’, - http://www.euronews.com/2018/06/07/uk-supreme-court-rules-northern-ireland-abortion-reformers-must-bring-personal-cases

http://www.euronews.com/2018/06/07/uk-supreme-court-rules-northern-ireland-abortion-reformers-must-bring-personal-cases

'Repeal' or 'Keep' the Eighth? Ireland's Referendum Debate

This is not your run of the mill story for us here at Balanced Opinion, nevertheless it’s an important topic to discuss. In this article I will present both sides of the debate in Ireland’s Referendum, which is due to be held on the 25^th May. However, unlike previous articles I will not be sharing my own opinion on this topic, rather I will just present both sides of the debate and pose a few questions at the end that you should consider.

Ireland’s abortion law has been defined by the Article 40.3.3 of the Eighth Amendment of the Constitution of Ireland. Article 40.3.3 states;

“The State acknowledges the right to life of the unborn and, with due regard to the equal right to life of the mother, guarantees in its laws to respect, and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate that right”

The Eighth Amendment will be put to a vote on the 25^th May, if a ‘yes’ vote emerges Ireland could see a change in its abortion laws, which some have described as the ‘one of the most restrictive in Europe’. The current law prohibiting abortion in the Republic of Ireland, Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act 2013, stipulates that a women seeking a legal abortion must first be examined by a number of specialists (this can be between 2-5, with cases of the mother feeling suicidal, threatening to commit suicide, or experiencing severe mental health problems, a review by a minimum of 3 specialists is required). But can a law that holds the question of ‘life’ be too restrictive? I will now present both cases in this debate

Pro-choice

The pro-choice argument for the repeal of the Eighth Amendment focuses on the issue of women rights, more importantly that women rights (humans rights) are being denied to the women of Ireland due to this Constitutional provision and 2013 Act. This, together with the experiences of women who have left the country to obtain abortions (of which there are 3,500 a year that do so) and obtained illegal abortions/abortion pills within Ireland, make up the crux of the pro-choice argument.

Many of the pro-choice groups argue, as put forward by Aljazeera’s Ozlem Hangul, “Ireland's current abortion law is a long-standing human rights violation that has been depriving women of their right to life, health, privacy, information, equality and non-discrimination, as well as their right to be free from torture and ill-treatment”. The inability of women to choose what to do with there own bodies and decide what is good for them, is one of the most important factors in the pro-choice case. This further extends to the fact that women, who want an abortion, have to obtain one outside of Island of Ireland (abortion is also illegal in Northern Ireland), placing added pressure on the women and causing more distress.

It is also held that the pregnant women should also have the choice of whether the quality of the child’s life would be of a high standard. This implies that if the financial situation of the parents cannot support a child then abortion is, sometimes the only option available, this ultimately supports the overall argument that it’s the women’s right to choose.

The most important point raised by pro-choice groups, for me this point cannot be brushed aside, is whether a woman could seek an abortion if she is the victim of rape/incest. I don’t know how to put this but here I go, a victim of rape/incest would be unmanageable at best but to then fall pregnant after this attack causes further distress. Thus pro-choice groups argue that the women has already has had one choice taken away from her (meaning giving consent to a sexual encounter) and now she must experience a lack of choice in whether to terminate the pregnancy, due to the 2013 Act and Irish Constitution.

Pro-life

In contrast to the pro-choice argument, the pro-life side of the debate, argues that the unborn child has the same rights as the mother (as described in the current 2013 Act and Constitution) and thus the status quo should remain. They cite that the realities of abortion are not fully explained to the mother who want an abortion (this being that life starts at the moment of conception), with the more extreme opponents arguing that abortion is comparable to genocide or murder. Organizations such as the Young Defence, one of the largest pro-life groups in Ireland, supports this line of argument. According to pro-life groups, which don’t have to be religious in nature, if you accept the fact that life begins at conception then it is surly true that if a pregnancy is terminated then a life has ended?

It is furthermore important to highlight the role of contraception’s such as ‘the Pill’ which, according to pro-life groups, acts as an abortive if the egg has been fertilized, the Pill will thus prevent a pregnancy from occurring and thus prevent a life from beginning (at conception). It is further argued that mothers before going to an abortion clinic, if they elect to do so, don’t realise that there are two types of abortion, one medical (medication will terminated the pregnancy) the other surgical (where the doctor will physically remove the foetus from the womb – I have looked into this myself and I do encourage all to look at this to get the full picture of abortions – please not that some images or descriptions are not pleasant to view).

There is also another dimension to the pro-life argument, one of morality and the belief in the social teachings of the Catholic Church. The Catholic Churches position, with 78% of the population of the Republic of Ireland identifying as Catholic (2016 census), is based on the Sixth Commandment ‘Thou shalt not kill’ (Exodus 20:13). The Catechism of the Catholic Church further supports this argument by stating:

“From its conception, the child has the right to life. Direct abortion, that is, abortion willed as an end or as a means, is a ‘criminal’ practice (GS, no. 27, 3), gravely contrary to moral law” (CCC, no. 2322)

This argument, although dismissed by the pro-choice groups holds support amongst many in Ireland. This is not to confuse the pro-life as solely being a religious position,

They also cite the statistics of abortions in England and Wales (where abortion is legal). In 2015 191,014 were carried out, this being 21% of all pregnancies in England and Wales ending in abortions. This amounts to a total increase of 111% since 1969, “and by 2015 98% of abortions were for statutory reasons, rather than to save the life of the mother, for the benefit of already-born children, and fetal anomaly” (cited, abort73), these combined make up 2% of all abortions in England and Wales. The very fact that many abortions occur, not because of a threat to the mother life or fetal anomaly, but to social reasons instead. Pro-life groups see abortions as a form of contraception, a way for individuals to remove themselves from responsibility (you were aware of the consequences of having sex, pregnancy, so you should take responsibility for your actions), and the view that those in financial difficulties see abortion as ‘their only option’.

 Conclusion

With the clear difference between the pro-choice arguments and pro-life arguments being, is the taking of a life (abortion) morally justifiable? This is where the debate, and the groups within the debate, don’t understand this simple question. Although pro-life groups do argue this, they neglect the rights of women to choose, similarly the pro-choice groups do not tackle this question of whether abortion is morally justifiable, as a life is ultimately lost.

I will end on a few questions that you, the reader should or may consider, in this debate. Can a middle ground be reached in this debate that is satisfactory to both sides, without repealing the Eighth Amendment? Perhaps we should not be focusing so much on whether it is morally right or that women’s rights are more important than a life inside the womb? Maybe we should look more at the causes of abortion and society as a whole, we could eliminate economic factors in the decision-making process of abortions (I recognise that this is but one consideration, but a consideration nonetheless), by providing more support for women during and after pregnancy? Or more alternatives to abortions should be presented to women before an abortion is allowed? Does this not help to preserve life and gives women more choice? I hope, dear reader, you will consider some of these questions.

Notes;

Wikipedia - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_the_Republic_of_Ireland#Legislation

The Guardian – ‘Ireland’s abortion referendum: It’s painful and it’s personal’ - https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/may/13/ireland-abortion-referendum-25-may-repeal-campaign-women

Irish Government, Regulation of Termination of Pregnancy - https://health.gov.ie/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Policy-paper-approved-by-Goverment-8-March-2018.pdf

Young Defence - http://www.youthdefence.ie/

The Holy Bible, Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition, (2004), Oxford: Oxford University Press

The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, (2012), United States Catholic Catechism for Adults, Washington D.C

The Irish Catholic Bishops Conference - https://www.catholicbishops.ie/2001/12/12/81-2001/

Aljazeera, ‘Ireland’s abortion referendum: It’s time to say ‘yes’ -  https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/ireland-abortion-referendum-time-180510110138119.html

BBC, ‘Abortion in Ireland: The fight for choice’ - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-39183423

Abort73 - http://www.abort73.com/abortion_facts/uk_abortion_statistics/

Society for the Protection of Unborn Children - https://www.spuc.org.uk/

The Juncker Plan: What does this mean for Europe?

Last Wednesday Jean Claude Juncker  announced to Europe, and the world, his future plans for the EU. What does this mean for Europe and for Brexit? To get a rounded view of Juncker’s plan and the ramifications this may have on Europe, I have looked at several source. However I must confess I am no closer to finding the answers to this questions.

For anything on the EU Nigel Farage is the first port of call. Although a decisive character, Farage has a vast knowledge of the EU and presents many questions and arguments that need to be answered. Farage has present the Juncker Plan as an undemocratic attempt to expand the powers of the EU, and more important for Farage, the EU Commission and the person at its helm. 

Farage’s response to the Juncker’s Plan are expected, as the most well known euroskeptic in the country. Farage has presented the EU as a great monolith similar to that of the Soviet Union during the Cold War. 

But what is the Juncker’s Plan? 

The European Fund for Strategic Investment or the Juncker Plan proposes to join the European Investment Bank and the European Commission with the aim of mobilising €315 billion (increased to €500 billion by 2020) of private investment over the next three years. In his state of the union address Juncker further outlined the future of the EU with further reforms. These reforms include  joining the two presidencies of the Commission and the Council into one. Further reforms such as the European Citizens Initiative, European political party reform,  creation of a European Finance Minister (with various powers over the Eurozone), and the creation of a European Army.

What does this mean for Europe and the Brexit Negotiations? 

The Juncker Plan appears to be a step closer in creating a United States of Europe. With plans to create a single president that will “steer the ship in the right direction”, the visible recognition of domestic political parties European affiliations, and the creation of a European Army. Juncker has taken steps to create a Federalised Europe. 

In relation to Brexit Juncker has made it clear that Brexit will not be an easy ride for all concerned. To this effect The Guardian has stated that the Plan “was an ambitious bid for deeper integration. No more Europe à la carte, special deals and opt-outs. Under Juncker’s vision, joining the Euro currency and passport-free Schengen Zone would be the norm”. Thus making many of the leave campaign arguments (in the referendum) difficult to furfil and the difference between soft and hard Brexit.

The plans set forth by Juncker are of no surprise to many due to the sluggish growth within the the Eurozone. In fact according to the German Finance Minister Schaeuble, the plans are in line with current German policy toward the EU and the Eurozone. The need for a single president, a Eurozone wide finance minister, and a single budge are, in my in my mind, a plan to save the Eurozone and reverse the effects of slow growth and huge debts throughout the Eurozone and the periphery. 

By further integrating Europe into a full fledged political and economic union, Juncker’s Plan gives Europe an opportunity to reinvigorate European economies. However it is still clear that Southern Europe still has massive debts (especially Italy and Greece), the unification of the Eurozone budget gives the ECB breathing space and presents the EU with new ways of combating the duel problems of growth and debt (not to mention the equally important problems of unemployment and decline in real wages especially in Southern Europe). 

The bold plans sent out by Juncker, in my opinion, will not solve Europe’s economic problems or prevent the collapse of the Euro. Rather it will just prolong its demise and the eventual collapse of the EU as a political and economic project. Whatever you political persuasion recognition of the continual economic challenges facing Europe are too big to overcome within the current frame work and with the plans set forth by Juncker. With the continued rise of euroskeptism within Europe, there may not be the political will of the member states to follow this plan and thus save the Eurozone. For a pessimist I’m quite optimistic about Europe solving its economic problems. However I question whether such solutions will arise from an ever deepening of the political and economic union that is the EU. 

Exporting Democracy: Britain and Saudi Arabia

The key to the United Kingdom’s economy (like the rest of the world) is energy, and in particular oil or as it has been termed ‘Black Gold’. Oil is the most prominent natural resource used in modern society from energy generation, to vehicles, and tooth paste - oil rules. If this is true then those producing ‘Black Gold’ have a unique position within the global community, with Saudi Arabia one of these unique countries. We all know this but yet we are reluctant to confront the reality of using oil and its implications in the countries where it is produced. Just like the raw materials, gold, diamonds, private and public capital, within apartheid South Africa in the 1960s, the British government knowingly and willingly supports an authoritarian regime (Saudi Arabia) for the procurement of oil and the profits generated from this.     

When we consider Britain’s relationship with the Middle East we assume that it is one of spreading democracy or combating radicalization and terrorism. However this may not be the entire case. Consider the vast amount of oil purchased from Saudi Arabia (and other Gulf States) in exchange for lucrative arms deals for the Wests military-industrial complex? With Saudi Arabia supporting Wahhabism (also known as Salafi Islam) and with many of these terrorist groups either fully endorsing this ideology or affiliating with a similar conservative strain of Islam, would it not be appropriate for the British government to take a step back and stop supporting Saudi Arabia? The possible connections of the Saudi Kingdom to terrorist or affiliated groups, makes one think whether the British government is supporting democracy and combating the spread of terrorism throughout the Middle East.
   

The Telegraph stated in an article in May 2017 that “the US State Department has estimated that over the past four decades Riyadh has invested more the $10bn (£6bn) into charitable foundations in an attempt to replace mainstream Sunni Islam with the harsh intolerance of Wahhabism. EU intelligence experts estimated that 15 to 20 per cent of this has been diverted to al-Qaida and other violent jihadists”. Thus Saudi Arabia is at least suspect when supporting radical Islam. Therefore, how can the British government be sure that the Saudis are not supporting terrorism (given the fact that they both follow strict forms or interpretations of Islam) or as The Telegraph article state “members of the Saudi ruling class have applauses Wahhabism for its Salafi piety and the movement’s vehement opposition to the Shia branch of Islam”.

Britain supports Saudi Arabia to the tune of £3.3billion since 2015. At the same time the Saudi lead coalition has been engaged in a bombing campaign in Yemen. With one of the worst preventable humanitarian disasters on the rise in Yemen, is it morally right that a democracy should be supporting both a suspect supporter of terrorism and a country engaged in conflict? For clearance on this question I believe it is not acceptable that the UK government should be actively seeking financial gain (or financial gain for those in the arms industry) at the expense of democracy and human lives. For example BAE Systems website states that they work “in partnership with its customers and Saudi industry, it delivers cost-effective solutions supported by in-country management and technical capabilities”, with no mention or reference as to how these weapons are being used. This is simply a diversion from the truth that BAE Systems, through the sale of arms is directly helping Saudi Arabia persecute a war in Yemen for financial gain. With the latest batch of Typhoon Jets being delivered, to Saudi Arabia, on the 6^th June 2017 after one of the largest arms deal worth £20 billion.  

Is the British government and the politicians in Westminster aware of their actions and the implications this has for innocent people in the Arabian Peninsula and the Middle East? Of course this question is rhetorical, it is clear that they are fully aware of the implications but choice to look the other way. Is the British government thus supporting democracy in the Middle East or continuing to contribute to conflict in the region that appears to have no end in sight, unfortunately it appears to be the latter.

Notes;

The British government supported the apartheid regime in South Africa throughout the 1960s, 1970s, and to a lesser extend the 1980s. Although vocal in their criticism of human rights abuses, the British government was reluctant to interfere in the trade and investment flowing into South Africa in this period, and thus preventing the profits generated from this trade flowing to the shareholders and board members facilitating this trade. This policy of British ‘non-intervention’ contributed to the continuation of apartheid. For more information on Britain’s relationship with South Africa (during the apartheid regime) contact the author of this post.

Recommended reading;

Read Parliament Ltd by Martin Williams for a more in-depth study of politicians’ financial dealings especially, but not exclusively, with the arms trade. 

For a discussion of South Africa’s relationship with Britain during the apartheid era, I recommend Uneasy Relationship: Britain and South Africa by James Barber.

A Green New Deal?

Am I causing climate change? If I’m honest I don’t know the answer to this but the likelihood is I am. It sounds like I am denying the existence of climate change, but the truth of the matter is it’s hard to comprehend such a change due to my own actions.  If we agree that climate is changing what can we, and more importantly government, do about it? I propose that we and the government can do a lot to mitigate and reverse the effects of climate change.

We are told consistently by politician, scientists, and the media that to prevent climate change we need to radically alter and change our way of life now! However, despite these warnings, little changes that will be radical enough to reverse the effects of climate change that have already taken place. To me all this sounds like a big undertaking and a direct challenge to our current consumer society. However, can this radical change be beneficial not just to the planet but to our economy and indeed our lives? I believe that this can be the case.

I came across a book Environmental Debt by Amy Larkin. This book (although written in 2013) has, in my opinion, presented a clear and consistent argument of how we as citizens and the business community can change the way we consume and in effect create an economic system that will create sustainability. As Larkin illustrates, the business community can be a force for good and bad change in the economy. Larkin sights the CEO Paul Polman stating “we cannot choose between economic growth and sustainability – we must have both”. Although this book may seem out of date, it highlights the fact that business have been aware of the damage of climate change but as a whole the world continues to consume and extract natural resources at an alarming rate. Convincing me that economies have to change in order to create sustainability will little impact on the natural world.     

My views on climate change are not from an entirely environmental standpoint but also an economic standpoint. We all know that in the near future natural resources (e.g. oil, natural gas, metallic ores, and water) will become scarce, so it is my opinion that we should make changes now so that we can live for tomorrow and still enjoy some of the highest standards of living in the world. We as individuals can change and reduce our carbon footprint. But to make effective and long lasting change, across society, government needs to step in and support and implement policies that can see these changes happen.

It is discouraging to hear that solar panels could face an 800% tax increase and that the good work of the UK Green Investment Bank could be sold to a private corporation; meaning the UK government has passed the responsibility onto someone else. Government should take a leadership in this fight against climate change by creating a Green New Deal. This New Deal in renewable energy transformation has the potential to rejuvenate the economy and propel Britain into creating sustainable economic growth.

Over the past decade renewable energy has become the cheapest form of energy. For instance, over ten years ago, solar energy cost $600 per MWh now it only costs $100 for solar and $50 for wind power. This reduction in the cost of producing green energy has advantages in reducing energy cost for both ordinary consumers and businesses across Britain. Although this may seem like a logical way for the UK to satisfy its energy requirements, the UK government has followed a policy of trying to ‘Kill off the UK solar industry before it becomes the cheapest form of electricity’.

This has been demonstrated in Germany where the policy of Energiewende has produced remarkable results in the production of renewable energy. Other countries such as the United States and China have also followed a policy of producing cost-effective renewable energy. It is my belief that the UK government, when confronted with this logical solution to energy, will not challenge the Big Six monopoly on energy. Energy has become an integrated part of our lives and to separate the two, in the modern world, will be catastrophic. Thus the UK government should confront the Big Six, invest heavily in renewables, and in return should take a share of the profit (which can then be reinvested in producing new renewable power sources). This can produce sustainable energy at a lower cost to all that use it in the UK.

Moving away from fossil fuels as a way of producing our energy can, in the long term, make us less reliant on oil, natural gas, uranium and from repressive and authoritarian regimes from across the world. Although I recognise the importance of these resources it is increasingly clear that in the future these resources are becoming more scare.  

Larkin effectively sums up my argument: “today, it seems, there finally may be enough financial self-interest and environmental awareness that traditionally antagonistic groups are motivated to work in tandem to solve entrenched problems”.

I recommend you read this book for more information of how business and financial self-interest can still function and make money, but in an environmentally friendly and sustainable way - A. Larkin, (2013), Environmental Debt: The Hidden Cost of a Changing Global Economy, New York, Palgrave MacMillan.       

General Election 2017: Final thoughts and analysis on the campaign

The election campaign enters its final few days with the polls (well most of them) consistently showing a small percentage point lead for the Conservatives. In most elections of the past, that would be considered a fairly good position for the incumbent government to be in, heading into the final few days of campaigning. However, when Mrs May called the election, she did so on the back of a 20 point plus lead in the polls. Now with Mr Corbyn and Labour closing in with only a few days remaining, could Labour really snatch power from the Tories?

I think firstly the reasons behind the tightening of the polls should be considered if we are using them to attempt to predict the result. Mrs May went in to the election on the wave of triggering article 50, being credited with a good standing within her own party and looking every inch a PM in waiting. Mr Corbyn on the other hand waved through article 50 (much to the disgust of many in his own party), had a vote of no confidence in him by the majority of Labour MPs only the previous year and looked every inch a sitting duck ready to be fed to the lions. That just shows how quickly things can change in politics.

Fast forward a few weeks and Mrs May now certainly looks more weak and wobbly than strong and stable and it is clear that Mr Corbyn has come into his own on the campaign trail. Add to that a fairly uninspiring Tory manifesto against a bold Labour one and compounded by several policy u-turns already by the Tories; as much as Mrs May says she isn’t, she probably is regretting actually calling this election.

All that will change, of course, if she secures a majority of 30 plus and has a mandate for a hard Brexit. But even a few weeks ago, a 30 plus majority would have been considered a poor result for the Tories – that would only be a small increase on the majority of 17 she enjoyed in the previous parliament.

Whatever people think of Mr Corbyn (and let’s be completely frank expectations were very low going into the election) he has performed admirably well. He has arguably had the better of the televised Q&A’s against Mrs May and has looked assured on the domestic policy front. However, he has repeatedly been tripped up over his views on trident, security and defence and his past views on the IRA and Hamas. Add to that past comments made by John McDonnell and Diane Abbott and suddenly his leadership team takes on a different look. But his domestic policies have certainly given the electorate food for thought and even if they do not break through completely this time around, he may have brought himself some time to form the opposition and have a go again.

On the other hand Mrs May has struggled on the campaign trail and has refused to take part in the head to head debates with the other party leaders. Personally, I haven’t gained too much from the other party leaders during the debates and most have descended into an out-of-control slanging match but it doesn’t look great that the PM wasn’t there. It wasn’t a good look for her and made it seem like she was hiding from the debate. But perhaps more worrying for Mrs May is the way her manifesto has gone down with many of her core voters. The dementia tax, more cuts to public services and a potential free vote on fox hunting have all left a sour taste in the mouths of voters who only a few months ago would have certainly voted for her. Alongside this, I think the Tories have been surprised by the apathy towards Brexit and the fact people also want to talk about other policies. That certainly wasn’t in the script. Whatever happens on Thursday, the campaign has dented Mrs May’s standing within her own party and with the electorate. The Tories have been forced to abandon their quest for Labour-held seats to concentrate on making sure they hang on to their own. Unlike Mr Corbyn, Mrs May will almost certainly see her political career ended by defeat on Thursday.

With all that said, the next question to consider is how will the campaign affect the result of the election and the gut feeling of most is Mrs May’s gamble will probably pay off. Looking at it on simple maths alone, Labour would need to secure big wins in Scotland, Wales, the North-East and West of England whilst ensuring they maintain seats in the traditional big cities. They’d also need the Lib Dems to take seats off the Tories in the South-West. It does seem somewhat unlikely all of that will happen. It is almost impossible for Labour to win the election without those things happening as the maths just doesn’t add up for them. When you add to that the fact the West Midlands elected a Conservative metro major in May and the Tories did very well in last month’s council elections, the picture doesn't look great for Labour. Yes, there has been an undeniable backlash to the Tory manifesto and that has damaged the Tories and probably stopped them winning by a landslide. But the feeling is Labour were just too far behind to catch the Tories this time around.

So we can assume Mrs May will be given the keys to Number 10 once again on Friday morning for the next five years. But she will be walking in there knowing full well her personal reputation has been dented both within her party and with the electorate and knowing she faces a Labour opposition riding a wave of support. It will certainly make PMQs a different proposition this time around...

The eyes of the UK, the EU and the world will be on Mrs May once again. Let’s hope she doesn’t continue to buckle as this next five years is so important for our country. Will the seemingly u-turn queen begin to channel her inner Iron lady and lead us to greater things? Or will she crash and burn under a leadership contest after more weak leadership? The Tory backbenchers will certainly begin to smell blood very quickly if her administration gets off to a shaky start.

Although, I assume we will find out the answers to these questions with Mrs May in Number 10, rather than opposition.

General Election 2017: The Leaders (Part 2) – The Contenders for Coalition?

Following on from 'The Leaders (Part 1) – The Contenders for PM' the five ‘smaller’ parties took part in the ITV leaders debate on Thursday 18^th May which, at the time, seemed a fairly pointless exercise. As usual, none of them will be fighting for the keys to Number 10 but it also seemed that none of the parties had a chance of being a potential coalition partner in waiting. Also, added to this, the fact that the polls in the build up to the debate showed the Tories to be on course for a huge win and therefore in no need of a coalition partner; there was a fairly sombre mood around the whole thing.

However, a YouGov poll published in the Sunday Times on Sunday (21^st May) may actually show that the debate was an important part of the campaign. The poll puts the Conservatives on 44% and Labour now on 35% after both parties released their manifestos. Whilst it is still clear the Greens, Plaid Cymru and UKIP will not be coalition partners to either the Tories or Labour after the election, rather interestingly the SNP or the Liberal Democrats could be. Therefore, what seemed like a fairly pointless debate, featuring both the SNP leader Nicola Sturgeon and the Liberal Democrats leader Tim Farron, could actually turn out to be very important. It has given the electorate an insight into both party’s policies that may become part of government policy after 8^th June.

From a personal point of view, I thought it was refreshing to see Sturgeon talk about policies other than Scottish independence. I was surprised that at times during the debate she seemed to be talking as much to the UK wide electorate as to the Scottish electorate. Her performance showed how successfully the SNP have transitioned from a one-party issue into a party capable of leading a government and delivering an agenda that spans from domestic to foreign policies. Putting aside views on a potential second independence referendum, if the SNP do form part of a coalition government after the election, it will be interesting to see if they continue along the same path in Westminster as they have in Scotland and of what benefit that will be to the UK as a whole. If they are deemed as successful partners in any potential coalition, then it may well help soften resistance in other parts of the UK towards Scottish independence. A point we have already discussed in a previous article on Scottish independence.

In contrast, Sturgeon’s polished performance demonstrated just how far UKIP and its leader Paul Nuttall have to come. Forgetting the fact he called Plaid’s leader Leanne Wood ‘Natalie’ TWICE, he struggled to successfully advocate UKIP’s domestic and foreign policies. He repeatedly talked about Brexit and issues surrounding the UK’s withdrawal from the bloc. He repeatedly fell back on the negatives of immigration, especially free ‘uncontrolled’ movement from the EU. Whilst these are issues that are undoubtedly important to the UK electorate and a big reason why the Leave campaign won, UKIP seem to be forgetting that we had a referendum last June on the single issue of EU membership and that a general election is not a one issue vote (it hasn’t been since arguably the two elections of 1910). With May increasingly adopting UKIP’s tough stance on the EU and with performances like the one witnessed last Thursday evening, it is difficult to see UKIP retaining anywhere near the 4 million plus votes it got in 2015. Nuttall states that UKIP will have been successful if they are ‘still on the pitch’ after the election. It remains to be seen whether there will still be a Party after June 8^th.

Tim Farron’s performance was steady. He would have been relieved to have not been questioned on the personal views he holds due to his religious beliefs. However, as arguably the biggest UK wide party leader at the debate, he struggled to convey a consistent message on anything but Brexit. The Liberals have argued pretty much since the EU referendum for a second vote and that message was very clear once again; you would expect that the Liberals would only enter into any potential coalition on the promise of a second referendum. However, other than many personal stories, there wasn’t many other individual Liberal policies that could give an insight into what policies Farron and the Liberals would attempt to take into what would be a second coalition government in just 7 years.

The leaders of Plaid and the Greens had a fantastic platform to advocate their policies and both performed fairly well. However, they were very much the junior players between the other leaders and probably wouldn’t have recruited many new voters to their respective parties after the debate.

So, from what initially seemed like a fairly pointless exercise has now provided the electorate with an insight into both SNP and Liberal policies. Either one, or indeed both, may be part of a coalition government after June 8^th. You’d expect that the Tories would not enter into a coalition with either due to fundamental disagreements on the EU and the future of the Union and would therefore prefer to run either a minority government or be a large and vocal opposition. But it may be that Labour and its voters have been impressed with the performances of both leaders and are now more comfortable with the idea of a coalition headed by Labour.

The last week has shown that nothing can ever be taken for granted in politics. Maybe Theresa May is now regretting calling a general election after all…

General Election 2017: The Economic Arguments Considered (Part II)

Following on from the previous article the general election of 2017 offers a clear choice for the electorate. However it is still not clear what party can offer the best economic policies and whether the criticism levied against the Conservatives or Labour is valid or not.  

The Manifesto released by the Conservative Party makes repeated references to the Northern Power House, the HS2 railway linking the North and Midlands with the South, and the rebranding of the party for the ‘working man’. Although this rebranding has been used by the Conservatives to appeal to an otherwise unsupportive part of the electorate, this has also been a strategy to further reduce the image of the Conservative party being the ‘nasty party’. The election on the 8th June will determine whether this rebranding has worked. 

The Conservative government’s austerity measures have appeared to lower the UK budget deficit but has not been successful at lowering the UK’s overall national debt. If we look at the debt to GDP ratio in 2008, before the financial crash, the debt to GDP ratio stood at 50.2 percent. In 2016 this debt to GDP ratio has increased to 89.3 percent. The vote to leave the EU and the subsequent Brexit negotiations has given the Conservatives an opportunity to deflect criticism from their economic policies, by stating the reduction of the national debt and the budget deficit cannot be achieved due to Brexit. But has this given Labour an opportunity to exploit the Conservatives inability to improve both people’s lives and reduce the national debt?

Far more interesting than the Conservatives will be how the Labour Party and in particular how its leader will fight this election. Labour under Corbyn and John McDonnell have, in my opinion, recognised the divide in politics and the discontent amongst the working classes of the UK and especially England. With this they have presented policies that will appeal to this section of the electorate and radically alter the face of Britain.

Many have commented on the £500 billion that Labour wishes to invest in the economy. For example, in 2016 The Telegraph published an article stating “Labour’s main economic policies would ruin Britain”, stating Labour’s economic policies “would be a recipe for calamity, a financial and social catastrophe, a negative productivity shock”. Although many have taken this view of Labour’s economic policies, they are in its core principles not calamitous or catastrophic. Instead, they are presenting a new way of obtaining economic growth through investing, instead of cutting your way to economic growth, as the Conservative government has attempted to do.  This approach by Labour in my mind has a Keynesian feel to it.

The leaked Labour manifesto indicates that Labour plan to intervene more in the running of the economy. The railways and energy market are set to be brought back under public ownership with a cash injection for investment of up to £250 billion over 10 years. Furthermore Labour plans to build 1 million new homes by the end of the next parliament, create a 20:1 limit on the gap between the lowest and highest paid workers, and a possible rise in taxes for those earning above £80,000. This may seem radical, and to be completely honest it is if you consider we have been in a climate of austerity since 2010. Labour’s policies, even before being leaked, have been criticised on many points with most criticism being levelled at more state intervention. However I would like to point out that since 2008 government has embarked on a £350 billion injection of money into the financial system otherwise known as Quantitative Easing. Some questions arise, such as where did the government find all that money? And what have been the benefits of it? These same questions can be levelled at Labour's economic policies too.

Mark Blyth has argued as much. In his book Austerity: History of a Dangerous Idea; Blyth argues that, in order for economies to grow and not remain in a state of deflation and economic stagnation, investment in the real economy must take president over austerity measures. For instance the large scale borrowing suggested by the Labour Party can be done due to the low levels of interest on the UK government 10 year Gilts (at the time of writing 1.11%). Furthermore Blyth argues that if investment in the economy would produce economic growth, the debt to GDP ratio would not increase but decrease due to the fact the baseline GDP of the economy has grown. With that being said, it is hard to see how Labour's economic policies are ‘crazy’, ‘dangerous’ or even ‘calamitous’ for the economy. However I will concede that they are not common in this current economic environment, from Europe, the United States, or Asia.     

It has become clear to me that both the Conservatives and Labour have recognised the need to create economic growth through investment in the economy, not through budget cuts. The Conservatives are proposing to do this with the Northern Powerhouse Policy and on the opposite side Labour are proposing the Regional Investment Banks. However, one clear divide still remains, will the free market play a key role in this or will government intervention (not always a bad thing - look at education and the NHS for example) on a bigger scale be the best way to help and encourage economic growth?

It is clear that uncertainty will still be present, due to Brexit negotiations, but to ignore the key principles upon which the Conservative or Labour Parties form economic policies would be a grave mistake indeed. It is my hope that those reading this article will not just look at what either Party is saying about Brexit but look at the domestic economic policies also and how it will affect your lives. Surely this will also determine how Britain will confront a post-Brexit world and how you will vote on the 8th June.   

General Election 2017: The Leaders (Part 1) – The Contenders for PM

The battle lines have been drawn. On 8^th June, Britain will decide between ‘strong and stable leadership in the national interest’ or ‘for the many, not the few’. Either Theresa May or Jeremy Corbyn will be PM.

Firstly, voters can already be forgiven for being bored of these slogans. The party machines churn them out at such regular intervals in every newspaper article and TV appearance; it’s almost as if May, Corbyn and their teams have been turned into robots! They seem to be in competition with each other to see who can bore the electorate into submission first. But in all seriousness, the slogans do give an insight into the approaches of the two leading parties going into the election.

For Theresa May and the Tories, this election is very much about securing a mandate for the forthcoming Brexit negotiations. Therefore, they are focusing on the big national issue of the day. There has been criticism of May’s decision to call a general election on the grounds of securing a mandate for Brexit. Some would argue that if this is the case, then what on earth was 23^rd June 2016 all about? However, despite this criticism, May has clearly positioned the Tories as the party of leave and has even drawn compliments on her Brexit approach from Mr Brexit himself, Nigel Farage.

May is arguing that only her and her team are strong enough to go into the negotiations and secure Britain the very best deal for leaving the EU. She argues that Corbyn and Labour, propped up by a ‘coalition of chaos’, would derail the Brexit process. She explains this is for several reasons – 1) Corbyn is not a strong leader 2) in return for the SNP’s support, they would demand a second independence referendum which would put the Union in greater risk and weaken Britain’s negotiating position and 3) in return for the Liberal Democrats support, they would demand a second referendum on the final deal. Therefore, in May’s eyes, only the Tories can provide the leadership required to take the UK through Brexit and beyond. So, in summary the Tories seem keen to win the national issue of Brexit and are convinced that will see them to victory. It is clear their slogan conveys this approach.

On the other hand, Corbyn and Labour have used their slogan to make their pitch on the key domestic and local issues. Corbyn has argued that due to the public spending cuts since 2010, sectors such as Education, the NHS and access to justice have all suffered. This in turn, according to Corbyn, has meant that people have been ‘held back’ by the Conservatives. He argues that if the Tories win a landslide on 8^th June, Britain and its people can expect more cuts to the public sector, whilst the ‘privileged few’ receive further tax cuts. This analysis has given birth to Labour’s election slogan.

What is interesting is that Labour, as of yet, have not really adopted a clear, consistent or concrete position on Brexit. They have stated that there would be no second referendum and that they would get on with negotiating the best deal for Britain, however they have given very few details of what Brexit Britain would look like under Labour. Whether you agree with May or not, Brexit Britain under the Tories is quite clear. However, the Conservatives, despite the Energy cap promise, have not really ventured into the domestic policy debates as of yet. Therefore, it is still unclear on what funding for the public sector would look like under the Tories.

Therefore, it seems that the Conservatives are keen to win the national issue and their slogan highlights this. They clearly feel they are ahead on that important battleground. Moreover, it seems that Labour are keen to focus the electorate’s minds on domestic and local issues and the record of the Tories since they came to power in 2010. Again, they clearly feel they can win on that important battleground. Therefore, their slogan reflects this.

So, the choice that seems to be facing Britain on 8^th June is a government that is pre-occupied on the national issues, with domestic and local policy playing second fiddle or a government that is pre-occupied with domestic and local policy, with the national issues playing second fiddle. It is a tricky decision for voters. I’m sure voters would expect both the main parties to have a clear position on both national issues such as Brexit and domestic and local policy that will affect people differently in different regions. But, judging by the slogans, this seems unlikely.

To conclude, despite the monotonous and constant churning out of the main party’s election slogans, they do reflect the main priorities of the parties heading into the forthcoming election. Will it be the ‘strong and stable’ Conservative Party, concentrating predominately on Brexit? Or will it be the ‘for the many, not the few’ Labour Party, concentrating predominately on domestic and local policies? What is clear is that we will know the electorate’s answer to this question shortly. May the best slogan win…

General Election 2017: The Economic Arguments Considered (Part I)

When we talk of a divide within society, we usually assume it’s between rich and poor. But can a geographical divide, as well as a rich and poor, exist in Britain?

From the rise of UKIP, to the victory of the SNP in 2015 and the ‘Yes’ vote in the EU referendum, we as a country have experienced a radical change in the political landscape. At the beginning of the century, we would never have contemplated such radical changes. Now we have the delights of potentially another radical change, due to the calling of another general election by Prime Minister Theresa May.

With such radical changes happening over the past few years, the people of the UK, and it may appear the rest of the Western World, feel marginalised and tired of the status quo. For this election, an appeal to the ‘ordinary working man’ will be the sole focus of the competing political parties. However, a feeling of marginalisation and the apparent differences between the North and South of England, has potentially become the unofficial campaign slogans.

   

The difference between the North and South of England has become a key aspect in past elections. The difference in terms of living standards, income distribution, allocation of state funds, and public services has created a divide or ‘two countries’. Although, of course, Brexit will loom like a large shadow over the election, the causes of the dissatisfaction of many throughout the UK will still be present. Therefore, the political parties will have to take this into consideration on the campaign trail.

When comparing the funding for the North and South, it’s clear that this effects not only the feelings, but also the per capita income of the people living in the regions. According to the Office of National Statistics (ONS), London was the highest preforming region with an on average £42,666 being contributed per person. By contrast the North of England and the West Midlands contributed under £21,000 on average per person.  It is clear from these statistics that the underfunding of the North and Midlands has created an ‘income gap’ between the North and South. To further illustrate my point the South-East England contributed just over £27,000 on average per person. 

The disparity between the funding of the North and South has been developed under the previous Conservative government’s flagship policy ‘The Northern Powerhouse’. Although this policy seeks to address the divide, it has fallen short of producing real change for the vast populations of Northern England. According to the Northern Powerhouse website, £3.4 billion has been allocated to North growth deals, £70 million for school strategy and £13 billion on transport. But has this figure done enough to satisfy the Northern electorate?

It is difficult to determine whether this has. However according to former Treasury Minister Lord O’Neill (ex-Goldman Sachs banker and recruited by the former Chancellor George Osbourne to help with the project), May’s government has not “embraced” the project; rather Mrs May’s stance towards the project has been “disappointing”, stating “they seem to be tolerating, rather than embracing it”.

Although this may appear to be the case, the current government has pledged £556 million of new funding into the project. New funding, although welcome by politicians of the North, doesn’t necessarily mean it will be distributed fairly. According to the Guardian, Greater Manchester will receive £130.2 million whilst Liverpool and the surrounding areas will only be receiving £72 million in new investment. It concludes “Greater Manchester, which has a population of 2.6 million people, will benefit from nearly twice as much funding as Liverpool, which will receive £67.5m for its population of 3 million people”. Funding for the North of England, although a good thing, can still put the Conservatives at an electoral disadvantage if it is done unevenly. Not only will a deprived or underfunded region of England still be funded less, in comparison to the South, but unequal distribution of fund can lead to still lead to the electorate feeling marginalized, within a region that already is.

If May’s government does not appeal to these voters she could potentially find it difficult to take seats from Labour in the North, or prevent those seats from switching to the Liberal Democrats or turning Green. It is further clear (and this will be the subject of my next article) that Labour too must present policies in the general election that will present a clear and coherent industrial strategy to the Northern electorate, which not only encapsulates the growing desire for change but also for secure economic futures. 

Brexit: Are we about to return to a ‘hard’ Irish Border?

On the question of the border between the Republic and Northern Ireland, Mr Tusk said: "We will seek flexible and creative solutions aiming at avoiding a hard border between Northern Ireland and Ireland. It is of crucial importance to support the peace process in Northern Ireland”. Remember this? A lot has happened since then but Mr Tusk’s comments were reported by the Guardian during their analysis of the EU’s draft negotiation guidelines.

His comments sound very straightforward, logical, and reasonable. Surely no one wants to see a return to the Troubles of the twentieth century in Ireland. However, can it (and more importantly will it) be so easy to continue with the frictionless border that Irishmen enjoy today?

The main issue in my eyes is the EU. Not because of the age-old arguments advocated by leave supporters, but because of the history of Ireland and its relationship with Britain. Why should the EU know every detail of the relationship’s checkered past? Do we know every detail of Spain’s internal disputes with Catalonia for example?

But the difference is that Spain isn’t leaving the EU and leaving an independent Catalonia inside. But the UK will be leaving the EU and leaving an independent Ireland inside. Therein lies the problem.

It wasn’t until 1998 that relative peace was finally brought to Northern Ireland. It can be argued the troubles started well over a century before that. But for almost 20 years now, Northern Ireland has enjoyed relative peace and stability. The Good Friday agreement was the product of years of inching forward and de-escalating tensions that had risen to such great heights over previous decades that they seemed insurmountable. The power-sharing executive gave a lesson to the whole Western world in institutionalised brinkmanship, where even the bitterest rivals could sit around the table and make decisions for the common good of the country which, unfortunately, is a rare commodity in modern day politics.

However, the vote on June 23^rd has put that progress in serious danger. Yes, the collapse of the executive in Northern Ireland in January was not directly down to Brexit. But it is undeniable that it played a part in Sinn Fein pulling the plug on the executive, as it sensed the potential opportunity to push for a united Ireland inside the EU.

But having said all that, do the EU really understand what’s at stake? Do they understand the raw emotion that will be stirred up in Irishmen at the sight of a return to border checks? These checkpoints epitomise the fact that Ireland is not united. They are a constant and stark physical reminder that the country is divided. It will almost feel as if the country has been divided all over again and it’s hard to disagree with that feeling. But it won’t just be the raw emotion that is stirred, it will be the religious, social and historical feelings and arguments coming to the fore once again.

The physical division of Catholics and Protestants will once again be shown, through the fact that it will be predominately Catholics south of the physical border, whilst predominately Protestants north of it. Not only this, but the social issues will again come to the fore. It may be that living on the current ‘soft’ border means that the closest shop is over the border. Imagine the sheer impracticality of waiting to be allowed across the border in order to do the weekly shop. It will be the small things like this that will infuriate ordinary Irishmen both sides of the border into potentially considering the lure of Sinn Fein’s united Ireland dream.

Both perhaps the most important factor of a return to a ‘hard’ border will be the historical significance. Both Unionists and Nationalists have made great strides over the previous decades in making Ireland work under political division. The co-operation between the Unionists and Nationalists in Stormont, as well as the London and Dublin Governments is sensational when you consider the events of around a century ago. But all this is at risk if the EU do not understand exactly what a return to a ‘hard’ border would mean for Ireland.

To return to my original point, the reason I say I am most concerned about the EU’ s response to the issue is because I would hope that history has taught whatever party that wins the election on June 8^th that Ireland is not a playground in which to play politics in and that the slightest mis-placed comment could cause serious social disorder.  Therefore, I am hoping that whoever is PM will embark on attempting to find creative and concrete solutions to avoid a return to a ‘hard’ border in Ireland.

My concern is that the Governments of the remaining 27 nations may not understand or worse, may not care for the peace in Ireland. It may just be regarded as one more barrier in the negotiations; just one more thing that the remaining states and the UK do not agree on. But Ireland is more than that. Not only for the UK and the EU but for Ireland itself.

The Irish question has come so far in recent history; almost to an extent where it seemed both sides were finally content with the status quo. However, Brexit has thrown a real spanner in the works.

If Brexit is to be successful in my eyes, it won’t only have provided the UK with the ability to fully regain its sovereignty whilst building towards a brighter economic future, it will have also maintained a very precious and hard fought peace in a seemingly and increasingly marginalised part of the UK. It is sometimes forgotten that Northern Ireland remains part of the UK and that the Republic played such a key part in shaping modern British political history.

Let’s hope we aren’t given a history lesson in Ireland in the coming years because whatever new freedoms are won from Brexit, the potential chaos in Ireland will make them look like a drop in the ocean and unfortunately, not worth it.