To Brexit or not to Brexit?

The referendum announced last week by the British Prime Minister David Cameron immediately led to lines being drawn and allies being sought in the corridors of power. 23rd June is the date which means we'll have a lot more sniping and political manoeuvring as individual politicians decide which side they want to support and we'll have a lot more 'analysis' from media types who try and explain why so-and-so has decided in what way they have.

Image taken from here

If you're into this sort of thing it makes for fascinatingly great reading/listening as individual and personal ambitions override, get conflated or get confused with national responsibility. Almost like a real-life Game of Thrones except there's an even wider range of characters and plots are even more convoluted. Naturally, it's expected that politicians and business leaders will make noise over the issue but it seems like everyone and their mother will want their view heard. Just today we had some scientists who want to stay in and some who want to get out.

In many respects the arguments for and against are very similar to those we heard in the Scottish Independence referendum. Very simply Leave the Union and it's all either uncertain or a reclamation of our nation or stay in the Union and prosper as you have been or be forever bound to your foreign overlords. In the Scottish referendum the Stay campaign won and life generally continued as before except in a moment of panic the British government proposed to implement a whole raft of policies which would benefit Scotland - though as I write I'm unsure if these have been followed through. I suspect not entirely.

I expect similar for the EU referendum. Up until now David Cameron has been using the threat of Brexit to help in re-negotiating the treaty that keeps the UK in the EU. Having now concluded the negotiations he has to deliver his side of the bargain and keep the country in. So he'll make his case and the Leave campaign will make theirs and with every passing day the arguments will become more and more hyperbolic and doom-mongering and end up confusing most of the populace who will get annoyed and I think will end up voting along two lines:

• Stay in for continued economic security.
• Leave and bravely reclaim your country.

I'm not seeing these are correct claims (we saw them used in the Scottish Referendum as well). We'd probably have just as much continued economic security outside the EU and we'd still have to deal with Europe for trade and politics even if we did leave. But I think it's too much to ask for the average voter to care enough to read every single viewpoint and come up with a reasoned and balanced view. People vote for government (or at least have a government) so we don't have all have to deal with the politics of power and can free up time to be productive instead. Either way, there will be lots of spin on both sides as each attempts to persuade but it's worth remembering that since neither side actually knows what the future holds it's all a lot of bluster and bluff and people saying what they think is best - not what they know is best. I fully expect that after the vote people on different sides will point to events that happen and use them as proof their side was correct - hindsight is a wonderful thing.

So anyway, I'm calling a 65-35 vote in favour of staying in. From what little I've seen and read of the world, I'd say people care more for their perceived economic status than their perceived independence. As yet I'm undecided which one I care more about but certainly I'll be voting!

Make sure you register to vote.

Previous post: Tax and Google

Free English Language lessons are a good thing

Image taken shamelessly from here

A large number of feathers were needlessly ruffled on Monday following David Cameron's announcement of English Language lessons for Muslim women and those arriving in the UK on spousal visas.

My Facebook newsfeed and various WhatsApp groups were full of outrage, vitriol and anger that the Prime Minister was providing money for free English Language lessons. The absolute cheek of it! People were posting their personal accounts of how "my mother/father knew little English and look how successful I turned out" as though their personal experience meant something and generally condemning the idea of free education for those who could benefit from it as a terrible thing.

You might have guessed by now that I think the reaction was ridiculous and misdirected and missed a fundamental point about politics - very rarely does anyone say what they actually mean.

The BBC article on the story (also with audio to an interview where he explains his position) begins as follows:

A £20m fund to teach Muslim women in the UK to speak English will tackle segregation and help them resist the lure of extremism, David Cameron says.

While there was no "causal connection" between poor English and extremism, language lessons would make communities "more resilient", Mr Cameron said.

And later on in the article:

The PM acknowledged cuts had been made to free language classes for immigrants during the last Parliament, but said the new £20m fund was "more targeted". 

As mentioned above, some of the outrage was from people who had personal anecdotes of success despite coming from families with little English. I've used "despite" rather than "while" because I think it'd be detrimental to not speak the language of the land you live in.

Taking pride in not knowing something seriously annoys me. Coming from a mathematical background it's hugely irritating when people are proud of not knowing Maths or being able to do simple arithmetic. I frown upon ignorance in the life skill there and I will frown upon people who take pride in ignorance in essential communication. Pride in ignorance is ridiculous and should be shunned wherever it raises its ugly head.

Other parts of the outrage was directed at the conflation of poor English and extremism. I can understand the outrage here - it's blatantly nonsense to think that poor English leads to extremism. This is explicitly pointed out in the second quoted paragraph by Cameron himself - a point which seems to have been missed by most people.

So why would he say that it's to fight extremism and then contradict himself? Either because he's an idiot or because he's a politician and he knows what he's saying doesn't make sense but also that the media will report the first bit and give the contradiction less air-time. And if it's reported as being an anti-extremist policy he'll have a much easier time of gathering support for an initiative that will help a much maligned group of people.

If he'd come out and said simply "we've cut £45m from the ESOL budget a few months ago but we made a mistake and the government will now allocate £20m funding to give free English language lessons to immigrants and Muslims so they can have greater opportunity" the reaction would have been favourable in the Muslim community but sadly toxic across much of the media and electorate. No politician in their right mind is going to take that approach.

So what has happened?

In a nutshell - what has happened is that Cameron has been quite politically astute. In an era of budget cuts, he has secured £20m of funding aimed at teaching Muslim women and immigrants (who speak other languages) to read and write English. And by claiming it's for anti-extremism purposes the only people who are upset about this is the Muslim community that will end up benefitting the most from the fund - the Muslim community could do with the extra education.

Another interesting observation is that it seems the excuse of extremism cuts two ways. Call a policy anti-extremist and most of the electorate won't bat an eyelid and if no one's paying attention then you can, at least politically, do whatever you like. There's no denying that most of the time the anti-extremism label doesn't help but it seems that in the odd case it can actually lead to a benefit.


Next post: Tax and Google
Previous post: A light and dark perspective

Air Strikes and Politics

Last week saw a flurry of activity, discussion and comment in the run up to the UK government vote on whether we should bomb ISIL in Syria. Once the vote had been announced we saw several days of intense media coverage of the goings on at Parliament and predictions which MP was going to vote which way and what that significance might be for the various party leaders. Outside of the Whitehall circus, everyday folk were talking and forming opinions on which way the vote should go.

In the end, on Wednesday 3rd December, the House of Commons overwhelmingly decided to proceed with an air strikes campaign and the UK rode to war once more.

The situation in and around Syria is ridiculously complex with numerous different groups fighting against each other while sponsored by countries who are working with each other to end the conflict (in theory). Without access to detailed intelligence and awareness of our military capability I just don't know where I stand on the question of should or shouldn't the UK be bombing ISIL. My heart tells me war is never a good thing but my head tells me sometimes war is necessary. Islamically speaking the killing of non-combatants (civilians) is forbidden in war which would make the decision seem easy but it's not quite so simple - bombing an oil field or a road or other piece infrastructure may be a reasonable target that isn't likely to cause any direct death and will degrade the enemy's capability and if you can find . I'm glad I don't have to make the decision.

What I do know though is that Parliament decided that on the back of whatever information they were given the best course for the UK was to begin air strikes. Immediately after the vote there were all kinds of reaction, ranging from celebration to outrage and from sorrow to shock.

I don't think going to war should ever be a cause of celebration and those who would celebrate should read Wilfred Owen's World War One poem Dulce Et Decorum Est (pasted at the bottom of the page in case you don't want to click).

Sorrow is an understandable response - reading the last stanza of the poem will induce sorrow in anyone (and if it doesn't then read it again carefully). The horror of war, especially in its modern form, means the decision to send men to kill and to die should not be taken lightly.

Shock and outrage I can also understand though I think in this case these reactions could be due to a misunderstanding of what the UK government is meant to do. The UK government's (or any other government's) first responsibility is to protect and promote the UK citizens' short and long term interests.
When close allies (in this case France) have been directly attacked and there is a high likelihood the UK is also going to be attacked, that first responsibility means the government has little choice but to join whatever bandwagon has been started to destroy/debilitate the attacker.
Not joining in with the anti-ISIL campaign would leave the UK wilfully damaging its relations with its allies and key trading partners. And if ISIL were then to mount a Paris style attack on the UK the fallout against whoever was in government and "had done nothing" would be the end of that government's credibility with the people and to whom would they look for solidarity when they showed none with their allies when their allies wanted it?

In simple terms - my friend is having a fight with that kid nobody likes - I should help him and join the fight so he stays my friend. It sounds very playground-ish but, except for the obviously far greater stakes when dealing with international geopolitics, I really don't think it's all that far from the truth.


Dulce Et Decorum Est (Wilfred Owen)

Bent double, like old beggars under sacks,
Knock-kneed, coughing like hags, we cursed through sludge,
Till on the haunting flares we turned our backs
And towards our distant rest began to trudge.
Men marched asleep. Many had lost their boots
But limped on, blood-shod. All went lame; all blind;
Drunk with fatigue; deaf even to the hoots
Of tired, outstripped Five-Nines that dropped behind.

Gas! GAS! Quick, boys! – An ecstasy of fumbling,
Fitting the clumsy helmets just in time;
But someone still was yelling out and stumbling,
And flound'ring like a man in fire or lime . . .
Dim, through the misty panes and thick green light,
As under a green sea, I saw him drowning.

In all my dreams, before my helpless sight,
He plunges at me, guttering, choking, drowning.

If in some smothering dreams you too could pace
Behind the wagon that we flung him in,
And watch the white eyes writhing in his face,
His hanging face, like a devil's sick of sin;
If you could hear, at every jolt, the blood
Come gargling from the froth-corrupted lungs,
Obscene as cancer, bitter as the cud
Of vile, incurable sores on innocent tongues, –
My friend, you would not tell with such high zest
To children ardent for some desperate glory,
The old Lie; Dulce et Decorum est
Pro patria mori.