European Union: with or without you?

Article published in Cafebabel

                         British people are about to decide the future of the UK, on June 23rd. © rubyblossom

Britain has always been a reluctant member within the European Union (EU). In fact, the question of Britain remaining in the EU dates back to the time of the United Kingdom (UK)'s entry in the then European Economic Community (EEC), in 1973.  Edward Heath, then Conservative leader, was the responsible for such a bold move. However, his Labour opponent Harold Wilson had since the very beginning disagreed with the terms of entry of the UK in the Union and thus, after winning the elections in 1974, he called on a referendum to renegotiate the UK's position within the then EEC. The referendum was held on June 1975.

Since 1975 up to this day, the UK had eleven referendums, most of them focusing on the issue of devolution, sovereignty and more independence to the country.  On the 23rd of June, not only the British people, but all Europeans will follow the results of another plebiscite which will command the future of Britain. But how complex is this debate? How informed are British citizens? 

Citizen Involvement 

Yesterday (May 26th), BBC broadcasted the "Question Time" in Ipswich, moderated by David Dimbleby. The debate was alight and British people – including British descendants of immigrants – had the opportunity to expose their questions, their doubts and their fears.

The debate – one of many to go - included personalities such as Conservative MP David Davis, former Labour leader Ed Miliband, former Green leader Caroline Lucas and former adviser to David Cameron, Steve Hilton. Ms Lucas pointed out that the UK needs more the EU than the Union needs the UK. As for Mr David Davis, he considers that this campaign is emerging as a battle between the establishment and the people and he made the case for a Brexit vote by calling on an economic model like in Canada, a country that has free trade deals and a border controls. 

Ed Miliband, son of a Belgian father and a Polish mother, made the case for Britain to remain in the EU by focusing on cooperation in questions such as security, terrorism and climate change. In fact, current Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn and with Ed Miliband are about to make a joint appeal on climate change warning.

Overall, the British people are confuse and mostly apprehensive. Polls, numbers and graphs are flooding the web and puzzling their minds. The arguments for leaving or remaining are very much theoretical and the future – in or out – is very inconclusive. The strongest arguments focus on immigration, security and terrorism and of course, a country's underpinning, the economy and financial stability. 

Leave arguments are blaming the flux of immigrants in the UK, accusing them of "stealing" jobs, increasing insecurity and changing the identity of the country. They also feel that the UK lost its power of negotiation and influence as an international actor within the EU, arguing they would be stronger outside the Union – and still part of the Commonwealth - with more power to decide their future.

On the other hand, remain arguments focus on the economic stability and the symbiotic process existing between the EU and the UK when it comes to trade and investment. The advocates of remain also accuse the leave's defenders of misjudgement, pointing out the net contribution that immigrants (EU and non-EU) bring to the country.  In fact, several studies about the fiscal effects of immigration to the UK consider immigrants to make a positive contribution, even during periods when Britain was running budget deficits.

Game of Power

We are facing a very complex debate and even though some might use Brexit to move their agendas forward – whether to leave or to remain – this is not (or should not be) a political battle. David Cameron pledged to hold an in-out referendum back in 2014, claiming a firm renegotiation over the welfare system in the UK, calling on the real possibility of Britain leaving the Union in the case his requirements would not be met. 

In February 2016, after talks and meetings in Brussels, Cameron managed to strike a deal with the EU where the UK was given a "special status" regarding migrant's benefits. From this moment on, Cameron announced he would campaign his "heart and soul" to remain in the Union. This special treatment conceded to the UK came with its dose of controversy, as the chance of other Member States calling on different types of conditions went up. 

In early February 2016, former mayor of London Boris Johnson surprised David Cameron, announcing his commitment to campaign for the leave vote. This announcement has also caused polemic with some voices accusing Johnson of being driven by the future general elections. Recently during his campaign, he accused the EU of trying to create a "United States of Europe". As for Nigel Farage, the UKIP leader, he claims the Tories might risk losing a considerable amount of members should the British people vote to remain.

Scotland

Concerns have also sprung up in Scotland. If the outcomes of the Scottish people's votes are confronted with a majority for leaving the EU, there is a big chance that it will trigger another referendum to decide Scotland's independence, said Alex Salmond, former Scottish National Party leader. In September 2014, Scotland voted on a referendum to determine its permanence within the United Kingdom and the wish to remain (55.30%) part of the UK surpassed the desire of independence (44.70%).

Overseas

Donald Trump, the controversial GPO candidate running for the White House has publicly expressed the US would not give a different treatment to the UK should the British people vote leave. As a response, PM David Cameron, who has allegedly described Trump as "stupid, divisive and wrong", declared during the recent G7 meeting his belief in the "special relationship" with the US regardless the chosen president.
US president Barack Obama and Canadian PM Justin Trudeau are just a few influential figures who have publicly shared their support for Britain to remain in the EU. The aftermath of the G7 meeting of the world's leader claimed that a Brexit case-scenario would represent a peril to global growth. Moreover, the European press also seems to be giving the push for the permanence in the Union.

The Exploiter

Documentary: "The Crisis of Civilization"

Based on the 2010 book "A User's Guide on the Crisis of Civilization and How to Save It", from Nafeez Mossadeq Ahmed, this dark and instructive documentary attempts to explain the different problems happening at the same time in our world nowadays. 

As a starting point, Ahmed introduces two important figures in the international relations arena - Samuel Huntington and Francis Fukuyama. The first wrote, in 1990, "The Clash of Civilizations" and the latter, wrote in 1992, "The End of History and The Last Man". These two pieces of work have given different forecasts for the future in our society. Today, when we see the direction our world has taken, we see how Huntington's predictions were correct. 

But what went wrong? How did we get here? How can we revert this system?

Climate change, energy, food scarcity and security, free-market economy, terrorism and foreign policy are compromising our future. According to the author, traditional policy responses towards the escalation of these crisis have been inefficient and insufficient because they are largely viewed as separate process rather than an interconnected big bubble.

Terrorism: Why do We Have to Live With It?

Article published in Cafebabel

    Brussels is mourning the victims of the attacks.© Inês Araújo Reis

Brussels, the most recent target

"What we feared has happened,'' Belgian Prime Minister Charles Michel said at a press conference on Tuesday after the attacks in Brussels.

At 8h30 local hour, multiple explosions in the departure hall at the Zaventem Airport killed at least 10 people and injured over 100.  Later on in full rush hour at 9h, a strong blast in Maelbeek metro station, close to the EU institutions, killed at least 20 people and more than 100 were hurt.  The latest aftermath reports an updated death tool of 35 dead and over 250 wounded, some of them in critical state or seriously injured.

As a consequence, the threat level increased to its maximum of 4 and the security increased with the deployment of (more) military and police throughout the city. The borders were closed and the public transports were partially paralysed – including the airport. People were advised to remain inside. Gradually, the city of Brussels is getting back to normality, but the apprehension remains. 

Belgian authorities identified three alleged suspects in a recorded image from the airport’s surveillance cameras. Two of them – suspected of being the suicide bombers Ibrahim El Bakraoui and Najim Laachraoui - were dressed in black, including a black glove on their left hands, what may lead to the existence of a hidden wire connection to an explosive. Najim Laachraoui was also sought in connection with the Paris attacks in November. The third man, wearing white and a black hat was identified as Fayçal Cheffou. Cheffou was arrested after being identified by the taxi driver who drop the attackers off at the Brussels airport and was already released for lack of evidence by the Belgian the authorities.

After the recent arrest of Salah Abdeslam, the wanted man following the Paris attacks, many voices were linking the explosions in Brussels to the November tragedy in Paris. By now, both Financial Times and POLITICO have already confirmed the existence of detonators in an apartment linked to Abdeslam, even though Abdeslam's lawyer claims that his client "was not aware" of the eminence  of the attacks in Brussels. This bloody puzzle is still far away from being entirely completed as some of the men involved are still yet to be identified.

Suis Je Bruxelles?

All of a sudden, Belgium stopped being the victim to become part of the problem. The reason was a  statement from Turkish president's office, where Turkey claims to have deported one of the Brussels' attacks perpetrators in June 2014, from Turkey to The Netherlands. The man, who was apparently able to travel freely within the EU with no control at all, was identified as Ibrahim El Bakraoui. 

The big question here remains: after such increased security following Charlie Hebdo and the Paris attacks (which have extended into a manhunt in Molenbeek, in Brussels), what is the explanation of Belgian authorities not to track this hawkish down? The Israeli Haaretz went further blaming Belgium of ignoring such an important warning.

This recognition of mea culpa came after both Belgian Interior and Justice Ministers, Jan Jambon and Koen Gees presented their resignation, therefore accusing crucial mistakes with regards to the investigation of this terrorist network. However, PM Charles Michel has not accepted it. 

“I offered my resignation. Mister Geens too. They were refused. We continue,” Jambon told Le Soir. “There are two sorts of errors: At the level of justice and the level of the liaison officer in Turkey, which impacts the departments of interior and justice. But now, we continue to do our jobs.”

German Interior Minister Thomas de Maizière said that there is an "urgent" need for Europe to better share intelligence between countries. Interviewed for the Portuguese national channel RTP, Commissioner Carlos Moedas said that we are living in a “war of information” and that “part of the information is not shared.”  Moedas made the point towards more transparency in the way intelligence is shared.  

Terrorism expert at the Egmont Institute, Thomas Renard, said there had clearly been a "major failure" in Belgium's security services.  As for Edward Snowden, speaking at the University of Arizona under the theme of "A Conversation on Privacy", has argued that the attacks in Brussels were fully preventable. 

The president of the European Commission, Jean-Claude Juncker, has called on a SecurityUnion for the whole EU. But what does this mean in practical terms - considering the failure of surveillance measures just during the past year? French PM Manuel Valls advanced that “the future of Schengen… is at stake." Moreover, Valls has also focused on the necessity of sharing intelligence amongst countries as a main substructure to keep the EU alive.

                                   March 22th, the day Brussels will never forget. Dr Les (Leszek - Leslie) Sachs © Flickr

Terrorism knocking at our doors

The terror attacks in Brussels struck Europe once again, after four months of the horrific carnage in Paris, as in a way of telling the Western people "we are alive". London, Oslo, Boston, Madrid, Sydney, Ottawa, Paris, and now Brussels. What is it going to be next? The EU is now confronted with the fear of the next attack and preparing its armoury for a possible future surprise. But one thing is certain, terrorism is unpredictable and on the other hand 100% security is simply not possible. Unless, of course, we are living in some kind of authoritarian society. 

Since terrorists attacked the premises of Charlie Hebdo in Paris, in January 2015, it would be automatically expected an increase in security throughout the EU, but that alarming attack was not enough, we still had Paris, we still had Brussels. Now, European leaders consider the total end of Schengen, one of the basic pillars of the EU, as a way of tackling terrorism. 

Important also to note, is the existence of different kinds of terrorism, amongst them, the separatist terrorism, such as IRA, ETA, the Chechen terrorist in Chechnya, the PKK in Turkey, and religious terrorism, such as all the activities of al-Qaeda and also the so-called Islamic State, the attacks in Charlie Hebdo, Paris, Brussels and very recently Lahore, in Pakistan. What we witness today in Europe is a clear religious terrorism in which the attackers consider us, the western people, as faithless and corrupted. The seriousness of this particular dimension of terrorism is the fanaticism of those who practice it and their readiness to explode themselves for the cause they believe.

Why in the first place are they killing innocent civilians in the West? As this question seems to be illogic to many people, the answer dates back to some years ago. While during the past week I have seen many debates on TV, be it Belgian, Portuguese, British or French channels, I find that the mainstream media does not focus the real root of the problem. As Felicity Arbuthnot blatantly put on her recent article "Iraq Invasion- the Anniversary of the Biggest Terrorist Attack in History", all this anger and fury we are witnessing today against us is a consequence of "legit" (bypassing the UN Security Council) terrorist attacks perpetrated by former Western leaders, namely George W. Bush and Tony Blair, with a hand from some other western countries. Afghanistan, Libya, Syria are the sequels of this horrific slaughter in the Middle East...

We as Western citizens do not have to pay for the errors committed by our leaders - leaders whom many of us haven't even voted for - we as Western citizens must not be afraid of going to work in the morning or going to a concert at night. We mourn the pain of our brothers and sisters in the West as much as we mourn for our fellow human beings in the Middle East.

Documentary: "How Capitalism is Killing Itself"

In this short documentary released early in 2016, Professor Richard D. Wolff, Marxist economist and Professor Emeritus of Economics at University of Massachusetts, gives a concise and captivating overview over the origins of our capitalist society and its impact in the world.  North America, western Europe and Japan were the center of capitalism where industries and factories were concentrated and high wages were paid to its employees. But while growth was getting bigger, workers demanded rising standards of living. As a result, by the 1970's developing countries seemed very attractive for production, as the return on investment would soar given the cheap work force in countries like China, India or Brazil. 

Nonetheless, the Professor interprets the strong support for socialist Bernie Sanders, Democrat candidate to the White House, as a sign of rejection to the capitalism system that is said to have been part of the origins of the financial crisis.

Wolff argues that we should reorganise society instead of dealing individually with problems such as homelessness and inequalities. "The society as a whole should own the means of production, the factories so that its production is distributed roughly equally," he argues defending a collective system of ownership. 

An accurate image of life?

"School is the advertising agency which makes you believe that you need the society as it is" .... Ivan Illich...