Hysteria in the Tory Party

Immigration has been at the centre of British politics for years now. On one side you have cries to close the border totally and on the other to actively increasing immigration. In 2012 517,000 people immigrated to the UK whilst 349,000 emigrated from it, resulting in a net migration of +168,000. Preliminary estimates for 2013 show this rising slightly to 183,000 with 320,000 people leaving and 503,000 arriving. Considering that David Cameron and the Tories promised to curb immigration, this reflects poorly on them with their base.

Part of the problem for the Conservative Party is that they legally cannot do anything to stop people coming from the EU. The only countries that can face restrictions are Bulgaria and Romania who joined the EU in 2007. Unfortunately for the Tories, these restrictions must be lifted following the end of 2013. This is predicted to cause a mild spike in immigration next year. Rising immigration could prove disastrous for the Tories leading into the 2015 election. They are extremely fearful of UKIP whose twin issues are immigration and the EU. The Tories fear that if they do not appear conservative enough on the EU and immigration then UKIP will pull enough votes from them to guarantee a 2015 electoral defeat.

Cue hysteria in the Conservative Party!

David Cameron has announced support for a cap on EU migrants at 75,000 per year! The proposed cap is blatantly illegal and would destroy Britain’s relationship with Europe. Cameron has also proposed changes to benefits which are much more sensible (not to mention legal). New immigrants will not be able to claim benefits for the first three months and benefits will stop after six months if they cannot find a job and have no hope of finding one. 

MPs' Shocking Pay Rise!

When the British people get asked, which profession is the least trustworthy, the answer is nearly always politicians. Politicians’ have had a continual decline in popularity since the scandals of the 1960’s and the 1970’s. Their popularity took a huge hit in 2009 when the expenses scandal broke, it turned out many politicians had cheated the system. MPs turned out to be claiming for all sorts of ridiculous things such as duck houses (no seriously, one MP did claim money for a duck house). After this scandal MPs decided to take the decision of their pay and expenses out of the hands of parliament and into a totally independent body.

This action certainly seemed like a good idea at the time, but now it has turned around to bite them. At the moment MPs get paid £66,396 per annum, which is more than double what the average Brit ears at £26,500. The Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority has decided that MPs need to get paid more! IPSA has revealed that it will increase the salary of MPs to £74,000, a rise of 11%! This is more than five times inflation and much higher than the 1% rise cap being experienced by everyone else in the public sector. All three leaders of the main political parties are opposed to the rise as they find it politically embarrassing. At a time when most ordinary people are struggling, a pay rise seems offensive. Yet due to IPSA’s independence, they are powerless to do anything about it.

What I believe is that the pay of MPs should be capped at double the median wage of the country. This would give them more of an incentive to raise the wages of ordinary people, plus still give them a healthy salary. If that were to be implemented right now it would mean MPs would get an annual salary of £53,000.  

Ukraine Should Remind us that the EU is Still Important

The EU has not had a great few years, the Euro currency has been in constant pain since the economic crisis of 2007-2009. The wealthier Euro nations such as Germany, Netherlands and Finland have had to support the appropriately named ‘PIIGS’ countries. All across the EU euro-scepticism is rising with the likes of the National Front in France and UKIP in the UK. You might think that with all that pain on the inside, non-EU nations would be hesitant about creating closer ties with the organisation. Especially when there is a viable alternative.

It will then come as a surprise to you to learn that there is a country in which pro-EU sentiment is strong enough to spark a revolution! That country is Ukraine.

The EU has eyed Ukraine as a country that it wishes to create closer bonds with. As part of the European Neighbourhood Policy it was trying to get Ukraine to sign an Association Agreement, so long as it implements certain reforms. The major problem was that the agreement is opposed by Ukraine’s ally, Russia. The President of Russia, Vladimir Putin, really hates the deal as he wants Ukraine to join the Eurasian Economic Community of five former Soviet States and eventually the customs union that includes only Russia, Belarus and Kazakhstan. The strong opposition from Putin caused Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych to refuse to sign the Agreement on the 29^th of November as he was supposed to. This sparked fury in Ukraine.

For the past ten days people have protested in cities all across Ukraine, but particularly in the capital, Kiev. The Ukrainian people have grown fed up with the historic influence of Russia and the Kremlin. They wish to leave its bitter embrace and join with Western Europe, in the hopes of some fresh air. The statue of Lenin in Kiev was torn down yesterday, as it was seen as a symbol of Russian oppression. It was replaced with the European Union’s flag – now a symbol of hope and democracy in the poor Eastern European country.

This is not the first time Ukrainians have taken to the streets to protest against Yanukovych. In 2004 he won a highly disputed election that resulted in mass demonstrations and the election being annulled. In the second election Yanukovych was easily beaten by his opponent, Viktor Yushchenko. The Orange Revolution, as it was later called, should have served as a warning to Yanukovych that if he messed with the Ukrainian people, then he would pay a high price.

It is difficult to say whether these demonstrations will actually cause a change in government, but they nonetheless show that the European Union is still important. To many people living in well-established democracies like the United Kingdom and France, the EU has outlived its usefulness. Founding it was meant to make war impossible amongst the ‘Great Powers’ of Europe, and in that it has succeeded. Yet to those who live in fledgling democracies, which could fail at any given moment, the EU is a beacon of light. It is something that they can work towards and will help stabilise their countries. It is something that has proven to bring economic well-being to the less advantaged nations. Ireland, Greece and Portugal may seem to be in a bad economic situation now, but it is still better than what it was in their pre-EU days. If the countries that did not ‘need’ the EU were to leave, you would find a significantly weaker EU, one that could not help the nations that need it.