EU’ve Gone Too Far!

It’s very hard at the moment not to be Eurosceptic, and is it any wonder, in simple terms the EU is a mess.  There is no need to spend time talking of its woes and the problems it is causing for itself and also for us in the UK, these are acknowledged.  In light of this there is a part of me, along with much of the country that would like to metaphorically stick two fingers up at the EU establishment and leave with a parting shot of, “we told you so.”

In reality we must, for our own good, refrain from taking such drastic steps.  The EU is undoubtedly eroding the UK’s sovereignty, but leaving would remove any influence we as a country have in what is a global player.  The worry the whole world has at the EU going under shows what a massive player in the global arena it is.

However, I talk of staying in, in the very loosest terms.  Staying in the EU in the same capacity of which the British people voted for back in 1975, and no more than that.  What the British people voted for back in 1975 was beneficial to Britain and beneficial to our European neighbours.  What has been implemented since then has nothing to do with benefits, it is purely ideological.

David Cameron is right when he when he says now is not a good time and he believes we are better off in Europe.  The problem is that the EU has pushed Britain to the limit and the people have had enough of it.  They have gone past the point of listening to Politicians saying we will renegotiate and get powers back, as far as they are concerned all they are seeing is the EU dictating to them even more, and therefore in retaliation they see their only option of stopping this has leaving altogether.

David Cameron needs to understand this.  He and the Conservatives must be seen to be taking a no nonsense straight talking hard line with the EU.  In effect, if it benefits us then we are interested, if it doesn’t then it is a ‘no’ and there is no negotiation on that.  Fundamentally we must be in the EU fighting to shape this influential institute to suit us, for us being outside and it wielding such global power of which we have no say in its direction is dangerous.

Had our relationship with the EU been carefully managed since 1975 then this would not have boiled over into a major problem.

Educate, Educate, Educate…. But in What?

RightBlueView has previously criticised our education system as being too exam focused and not teaching pupils skills they so desperately need in their life.  A previous post last week expressed how positive David Cameron’s National Citizen Service would be for young people by allowing them to develop skills beyond passing exams.

This week Martin Lewis who runs the popular MoneySavingExpert website, and is regularly in the media giving advice on all money related matters, is petitioning the Government on making financial education in schools compulsory.  He rightly says:

“It’s a national disgrace that in the 20 years since introducing student loans, we’ve educated our youth into debt when they go to university, but never about debt. We’re a financially illiterate nation, with millions caught by misselling, overborrowing and being ripped off.”

Like National Citizen Service this would be incredible beneficial to the country as a whole, in some respects even more so than National Citizen Service.  Martin Lewis is correct when he says it is a ‘national disgrace’, it’s a fundamental flaw in our education system.

Unfortunately, the lack of financial education in our education system is symptomatic of the appalling incomplete curriculum currently failing pupils.  It is a shameful fact that many young people come out of school nowadays knowing how to pass an exam in the core subjects, but have little knowledge of the political and financial systems which dominate their life so much.  The education system is far too narrow and too dominated by grades, with little regard for actual teaching.

This view is not based on Party ideology, what it is based upon is the principle that giving young people a well rounded education allows them to participate fully in society, be as free as possible, and a contributor as opposed to a dependent of the state.

On top of the obvious academic subjects, schools should be preparing pupils for everyday life.  Pupils should be taught about loans, interest rates, mortgages and other financial matters which are part of everyday life but are poorly understood by many.  It is incomprehensible why a leading democratic country invites its people to take part in elections, yet fails to teach them about political institutions in schools.  Subjects such as basic First Aid would benefit society enormously, but are ignored by the current system.

At present the education system almost entirely ignores vocational skills, leaving those that do not excel in the academic arena to be deemed failures when they may have potential in this sector.  A system which actually fails some young people is totally unacceptable in 21st century Britain.  Britain is in one of the worst economic crisis in living memory, and we are creating more financial dependants of the already overstretched state, simply because the education system fails to recognise and improve some skill areas.

Although not a subject in the traditional sense, discipline needs to be upheld and ingrained in pupils from an early age.  Amongst the numerous reasons being cited for the disgusting behaviour by some in the recent riots, a lack of discipline in schools should resonates most strongly.  Education should not just involve teaching subjects to create job opportunities for Britain’s young people, it needs to cover many more aspects.  Education must shape young people into pleasant, polite and respectful adults who understand the world around them and how they make up what we call ‘Society’.  It must teach the merits of hard work and how one must take pride in the work they do, it must teach morals, the rule of law and the consequences of disobeying it.  Education is not just about passing exams, it is about nurturing young people into adults.

To the credit of the Coalition Government it has recognised schools need changing, but Free Schools, as good as they may be are slightly missing the point.  We must look at what is taught and how it is taught in schools before we focus on something which is essentially aesthetic.

Martin Lewis’ campaign to make financial education compulsory in schools is an excellent start, but it must not stop there if we are to build as David Cameron says, ‘a better Britain’.

Of course this takes money, but most of all it takes a change in the approach to education, and a reassessment of why we educate.  Investment must come in the form of money, but also mentality.

Read Martin Lewis’ arguments here on why we need financial education in our schools:  http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/latesttip/

Sign the petition here:  http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/8903

RightBlueView’s post on National Citizen Service can be read here:  https://rightblueview.wordpress.com/2011/08/05/national-citizen-service-benefiting-an-entire-generation/

The Current Situation

There has been much analysis recently over the riots, the causes and the solutions, which will and should carry on long after this is over.  This would be best done however with a clear head when it is finished.  Looking directly at the current situation, I would like to very briefly make three points.

Firstly, David Cameron’s speech today was what we had all been waiting to hear. He finally got a grip, and shook off the watery talk which got us in this mess in the first place.  Of course we need to look at why this happened, but while people live in fear and businesses are being destroyed, our priority is to restore order before anything else.

Secondly, Looking directly at the current situation, there is another particular issue that appears to be rising.  Whilst I admire the ‘vigilantes’ or whatever they would like to call themselves, as I believe it shows the community coming together, it does also concern me for a number of reasons.  Firstly, that people feel it has come to this. Secondly, with emotions running high they may not show the restraint professional law enforcement does.  And thirdly, and most worryingly, is the escalation this can lead to, depending on how they perceive they are being treated by the Police.  These people need to understand that the Police are in a difficult situation and bringing more people onto the street can lead to confusion.  They have to understand the Police need to be over cautious, and that this does not mean an ‘attack’ on them; it is after all for their own good.  At the same time the Police need to make sure they maintain a firm but good understanding relationship with these people, and that by working with these people this hideous chapter can be brought to an end.

Thirdly, I hope it does not get to the stage of having to use water cannon, rubber bullets, tear gas etc, but if it does then we should support its use.  A clear message has to be sent out, that if you decide to go out terrorising towns, looting, vandalising, attacking Police, and you get hurt in the process then that is entirely your own fault.  Quite simply, if you don’t want to get hurt then don’t go out rioting, you cannot complain about Police heavy handedness when you act like feral thugs.

The Death Penalty

My last post pointed out how out of touch Members of our Parliament are by spending vast amounts over the retail price for items.  At the end of this week, in an attempt to connect with the public, the government launches it’s e-petition website, where petitions with 100,000 voters signing up will be discussed in the Commons.

Political blogger Guido Fawkes has used this opportunity to petition the Government on restoring the Death Penalty, “the Ministry of Justice should map out the necessary legislative steps which will be required to restore the death penalty for the murder of children and police officers when killed in the line of duty.”

The death penalty in the UK was abolished in 1969, with the last execution by hanging taking place a few years earlier in 1964.  However, since then polls have consistently shown that there is majority public support for reinstating it, while in Parliament the issue has always been heavily defeated when it has been voted on.  The most recent polls done in September and November 2010 by YouGov show strong that there is still strong support for its reintroduction.  The September poll found 51% supported the death penalty for murder, while the November poll found 74% supported it for murder in ‘certain circumstances’.

Since launching his campaign Guido has received widespread support amongst his readers and also from MPs.  Currently MPs Philip Davis, Priti Patel, Andrew Turner, David Nuttall, Chris Kelly, Roger Gale and Julian Brazier have all shown their support for Guido and his campaign.  David Cameron however, in a past statement in Cameron on Cameron by Dylan Jones says:

“If someone murdered one of my children then emotionally, obviously I would want to kill them. How could you not? But there have been too many cases of things going wrong, of the wrong people being executed, of evidence coming to light after the execution, and sometimes there is just too much of an element of doubt. And I just don’t honestly think that in a civilised society like ours that you can have the death penalty any more.”

One of the strongest supporters of capital punishment was Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher.  According to Richard Vinen in his book, Thatcher’s Britain, Mrs Thatcher favoured the restoration of the death penalty and regretted corporal punishment for young offenders was no longer realistic.  Mrs Thatcher was so strong on her support for its reinstatement, he goes on to say, “her Liberal opponent in Finchley believed it was her only strong conviction.”  Most recently, David Davis in 2003, while Shadow Home Secretary said he would bring back capital punishment for serial killers, due to the premeditated nature of these crimes.  However, despite strong public support and backing from a small number of influential politicians, the death penalty remains off the statute books, the last attempt at repealing this decision was in 1994 where it was solidly defeated in Parliament.

Reintroducing the death penalty in the UK is a very serious road to take, and one which should not be taken lightly, you are after all handing the state the right to kill someone, all be it in exceptional circumstances.  But this should not put us off, we are not living in an abusive dictatorial state like those experiencing uprisings at the moment, we are as pointed out by David Cameron, a mature and civilised society.  The benefit of being such a society is that we can administer such strong policies properly, being able to handle something as potent as the death penalty shows we have moved on greatly.

David Cameron is also right when he says there have been too many cases where things have gone wrong.  Again, that maybe the case in less advanced countries, but I reiterate, the United Kingdom is an advanced country.  The science behind evidence has improved greatly due to technologies such as DNA, meaning evidence is becoming more and more reliable and unquestionable.  As the quality of evidence improves, so does the justification for the death penalty.

The idea of prison is to punish and reform.  However, crimes such as child murder and serial murder are so abhorrent, these people cannot be reformed and keeping them locked away is simply not a heavy enough punishment.  Very often in these criminals are locked away to protect them from the victims and the public, as well as the public from them, who would carry out vigilante justice because of the nature of the crimes they have committed.  No sentence for such crimes should offer any benefit to the convicted.

There is of course an emotional element in such sentencing, but there is nothing wrong with this, such punishment would at least offer some closure to victims of these crimes, these after all are extremely serious crimes and a different approach needs to be taken.  It would also send out a clear message that such crimes are not tolerated, and that the state will severely punish those who commit such atrocities.  Reintroducing the death penalty would of course need a complete overhaul of the justice system to deal with such a powerful sentence, as the current system is, as those who oppose it point out, not up to the job.

RightBlueView backs and supports Guido Fawkes’ campaign to restore the death penalty.  This does need a serious approach and there are a lot of unanswered questions and issues, and a lot would need to be changed, but this should not be used as an argument to oppose it.

You can sign the petition here:  http://order-order.com/restore-justice/

Are You Taking the Human Rights?

From being set up with good intentions, the Human Rights Act is now constantly in the news about how it is being used as a loophole for criminals.  This is a shame, as such a bill of rights in theory is beneficial for everyone.  The problem is, in reality, (and I agree there is a large overemphasis by the press), that many do not actually care about the Human Rights they are claiming, it is just a way of getting around the law – they would claim whatever article of the Human Right Act which gives them the desired result.

This causes two outcomes:  Firstly, it completely undermines the rule of law.  Secondly, it stigmatises those genuine cases where the Human Rights Act is used by those it was meant to protect.

This week Vali Chapti an Indian national, and his wife Rashia Chapti a British national, are using Article 8, (the right to family life), Article 12, (the right to marry) and Article 14, (to be free from discrimination) of the Human Rights Act, in an attempt to revoke the decision that Mr Chapti cannot stay in the UK.

Under new immigration rules announced by the Home Secretary Theresa May in June 2010, English is now a basic requirement for all immigrants coming into the United Kingdom, and unfortunately for Mr Chapti he can neither speak, write, or read English, and thus cannot move permanently to the country.

While it may seem to contradict David Cameron’s view of marriage as an important institute, and his push to recognise it in places such as the tax system, this ultimately is a fair and coherent decision.  This is once again another example of abuse of the Human Rights Act.  Most likely not personally by Mr and Mrs Chapti, it is in fact quite understandable that they have challenged the decision, but by the Human Rights lawyers.  These lawyers do not protect Human Rights like some institutions and charities, rather they specialise in how to use the Human Rights Act to win cases and line their pockets.

It is not unfair for an English speaking country, where everything from shopping, to going to the doctors is done in the English language, to insist that those who wish to come and live and be part of the society speak the language.  The most basic requirement for good integration is the ability for everyone to be able to communicate with each other.  Recently, the London Evening Standard has been highlighting how many children in London cannot read and write, and how detrimental it is for them in life.  Take this further, and imagine being unable to read, write and even speak, and the serious limitations this puts on your ability to do achieve your best.

This decision is also completely coherent with other countries such as Australia, where unless a passport from an English speaking country is held, an English test must be taken to prove a certain level of English language competence.  Many non English speaking European countries have the same requirement, the Netherlands for example requires a basic level of the Dutch language, and France has had a basic level language requirement since 2007.  Many countries such as Australia and Canada take this further, and will not allow immigration into the country unless certain skills are held and immigrants are below a certain age, even if the basic English requirement is met.

It is sad fact that many racialise such arguments as these when they have absolutely no interest in the colour of ones skin.  The point of immigration policies such as these, whatever the language, is to allow both parties involved (immigrant and country) to achieve the best from the situation.  The simple fact is, language is the basis of good integration, and good integration benefits everyone.

David Cameron in his many election promises said he would bring immigration levels down into “the tens of thousands”, and reassess the Human Rights Act, with the view of implementing a British Bill of Rights.  It is becoming increasingly clear that to achieve his promise on immigration, Cameron must carry out his promise of a reassessment of the Human Rights Act, for the former relies heavily on the latter.

The Empire Steps Back

Under the rule of Queen Victoria Britain ruled an Empire where ‘the sun never set’, was the worlds Policeman, led the world in technology, industry and sheer power, in what was named Britain’s Imperial Century.

Now in 2011 Britain is sovereign over 14 measly territories, many of which are not even inhabited, has flat growth, is governed by Brussels, is having to drastically reduce its defence ability, and is branded as a “crude colonial power in decline”, by the Argentine President.  Is it therefore any wonder why David Cameron says there is a general feeling the country thinks the best days are behind it and lacks confidence?

Since the end of World War One, Britain has spent its time apologising for its Empire, and rather then standing up as a world power, it has been the job of the government, with the exception of the Thatcher administration, to manage the decline of Britain.

Of course their were dark elements of the British Empire, the appalling atrocities towards the end of the Empire during the Mau Mau uprising being an example of just one.  This aside, for Britain these were our best days.  Look at Victorian architecture for example, it’s bold, extravagant and proud.  Compare this to the modest buildings of the 1950s, and the high rise monolithic slabs of concrete which disease our city skylines now, and you will get a sense of what I mean.

There are many reasons why 70 years after Queen Victoria’s reign Britain was coined, “the sick man of Europe”.  For one, Britain had fought two costly wars, which had wrecked it economically and physically, meaning it could no longer sustain its vast Empire.  On top of this, as the world entered the Nuclear era, Britain was pushed aside as the United States and Russia emerged as the worlds undisputed superpowers.

However, what really changed was Britain’s attitude.  In an attempt to distance itself from Nazi Germany’s quest for Lebensraum (living space and raw materials) and belief in German superiority, Britain shunned its pursuit of a global Empire.

Now in the 21st Century this humble approach has gone too far, countries such as China and India are not embarrassed of their goals to become great powerful nations, and why should they?

We have become so scared by our experiences of what Eric Hobsbawn, describes as an ‘age of extremes’, that Britain is afraid of pursuing self interests.

The irony is, if we are to create a better, more stable world, we must not be afraid of pursuing goals which will benefit us.  In the words of Margaret Thatcher, “No-one would remember the Good Samaritan if he’d only had good intentions; he had money as well.”