Monday 21 November 2016

EU Superpower

Brexit seems to be a difficult thing. Not only because of certain people who voted "Remain" trying to block the way, nor because of the politicians who don't understand that their role in democracy is to deliver what the people ask for, but because what the EU is becoming.

There are suggestions of the UK having to continue paying into the EU for years after leaving. There are talks of an EU army. President Obama wants to keep the links with the EU over the UK.

The EU is becoming like a "United States of Europe". Threats have been made against the UK because of the desire to leave. Some people are working hard to try to stop the leave. In light of the US election, things have heated up.

Why is this?

My suspicion is that the EU is essentially a superpower. It certainly will be if an EU army is given authorisation. They can "bully" the smaller countries into doing what they want (e.g. by imposing payments for years to come), and if there's an EU army, they can go to war with countries who disagree with them. To be in charge of the EU is to have a huge amount of global power.

The EU currently doesn't have the military force to be a dictatorship, and if Brexit proves that leaving the EU is relatively straight-forward, other countries might follow suit, weakening EU power. By imposing financial conditions for leaving, the EU is trying to send out the message that it is better to remain.

The current problem is that President Obama wants to be united with the EU, reinforcing USA's status as a superpower and having global control, but President-elect Trump might prefer to be united with the UK - separate from the EU. The conflict here is whether a US-UK union would be stronger than the EU. Without an EU army, UK remains strong outside of the EU, and the EU is weakened. A problem for the EU.

But if the USA and EU are united, they become the global superpower, far beyond any other country. The UK is then shown to be weakened, which could scare other EU countries into remaining part of the EU. The EU would then be able to push for an EU army which, combined with USA, would far outweigh any other military force on the planet. Waging war would become much easier and could happen over trivial matters.

Global domination is finally achieved.

I wonder if an attempt for dominance is the real motivation behind the current situation.

Wednesday 16 November 2016

Extremism in the educational workplace

It's interesting. On the one hand:
"People cannot be fired for political beliefs"
And yet:
"You can be fired for your political views"

Some schools in the UK have been (and are being) investigated for potential radicalistion of pupils. Teachers can be fired for expressing their religious views (as potential indoctrination). In fact, some teachers can be fired or discriminated against for holding certain views (without even expressing those views in the workplace). Much of this happens without any direct effects on the pupils (other than the loss of a potentially good teacher). In other words, the pupils involved are not actually radicalised: the impact is minimal.

Politics is also an educational workplace.
Think about it.

Politicians are responsible for educating the population regarding national and global circumstances. They are responsible for causing fear of the future with the 'global warming' messages, when much of the information was unproven.

Concerning the EU referendum, people were reduced to tears as they felt their futures were ruined by the "Leave" vote. And the same is true of the US election, as seen by the protests and riots.

And yet, what we have is a clear case of political brainwashing, indoctrination with an irrational fear because the future is unproven. Considering the fear that has been felt by the people who have succumbed to such scaremongering, it could be considered an act of terrorism: making people live in fear unless they adhere to their views.

In fact, I will now be using the term "political terrorism" to describe the process of forcing people to believe a particular viewpoint by exaggerating the opposite position, and causing them to become terrified of a particular outcome of a democratic situation.

Such conduct is not allowed in schools, and is considered acts of extremism, so why is it acceptable in political circles?

Sunday 13 November 2016

Rioting, really?

What does rioting say about a civilised, democratic nation?

Disturbing the peace is usually associated with anti-democratic and anti-social behaviour. And yet, with the result of the US election, there have now been four consecutive nights of protesting - including rioting - in some places.

The irony is that it seems these people feel it is their duty to uphold democracy and the level of progress they see their country having made.

But let's think: democracy is about letting the people have their say. With the current voting system, Trump won the election. And people are upset with that. Put simply, people seem upset with democracy... because it means some people don't get what they want.

Let's also think: how does a civilised person respond to not getting what they want? Well, a child will respond by getting upset and throwing a tantrum: a one-child stand because they want their chocolate bar or a certain toy. If the mark of civilisation is for people to respond to a democratic vote by marching through the streets and (in some places) inciting a riot, then I guess I've misunderstood.

Another irony is that it is precisely these people who talk of 'tolerance', and they will expect everyone to be tolerant of their views... but it is these people who are showing a massive act of intolerance by resisting a democratic outcome and exhibiting riotous behaviour.

I'm not sure about rioting, but there was certainly resistance to the result of the EU referendum too, even calling for a re-vote!

It's a nice display of hypocrisy from those who stand for 'progress'.

Friday 11 November 2016

Freedom takes another hit

Another article: https://www.theguardian.com/education/2016/nov/04/re-teacher-who-posted-islamophobic-comments-struck-off

Despite Britain being proud of its democratic governance - and I've even had people tell me that it is my 'duty' to vote because people fought and died for me to have that right - it seems that such democratic freedoms are limited to certain parties and view points.

What baffles me about the article is that it seems to indicate that the man wasn't 'struck off' due to showing an 18-certified film to 12- and 13-year-olds, nor for accessing pornography on a school laptop, nor for failing to take appropriate action when a pupil acknowledged taking drugs, nor for taking sick leave in order to work as a security guard.

No, the article seems to indicate that he was struck off due to his involvement with a certain political group. Apparently he was undermining "fundamental British values, including democracy". The article also says: "A number of teachers have also been suspended or struck off as a consequence of their links with another far-right group, the British National Party (BNP)."

What baffles me is that the UK is now so concerned with 'extremism' that it is undermining the very fabric of democracy by discriminating based on a person's political views. The anger this creates is governmental 'shooting oneself in the foot' as people will become disillusioned with so-called 'democratic freedoms' and want something to be done about it. The result? More people will be joining those 'extremist' groups.

But the question on my mind is: why aren't Britons allowed to care about their own country anymore? So many other countries have laws whereby a foreigner isn't allowed to engage in paid work until they become a citizen, or isn't allowed to do any work (paid or voluntary) if there is a born-and-bred national capable of doing it. But not in the UK. Apparently this makes us such a 'tolerant' society.

The result is that the government are not looking after their own. Britons are being neglected and discriminated against due to 'tolerance'... is it really a wonder why there are groups such as the BNP or Britain First? Is it a wonder why Nigel Farage has such strong opinions about caring for Britons before immigrants?

But no. Apparently 'tolerance' must prevail and anyone concerned with making sure Britons are looked after is clearly intolerant, against freedom and against democracy.

Another excuse for accusations of racism

I recently read this article: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/2016/11/10/will-britain-ever-have-a-black-prime-minister-the-answer-starts/

The point to ponder in the title is: will Britain ever have a black Prime Minister?

I can see it coming: the results of a future general election where the party with a black leader comes in second, and suddenly everyone who didn't vote for that party is labelled a racist.

As the EU referendum showed me, a large number of people seem to think that votes are about one thing: our view of minorities. Voting "Leave" on the EU issue led to accusations of racism because of what it would mean for immigrants... despite there being many other reasons for people voting "Leave".

Due to the political correctness of the UK, it is only a matter of time before a black party leader rises up and, if that party doesn't win the election, accusations will fly again. The idea that people might vote because of what the party stands for, and the impact on the country, will become alien.

Equality will have been missed again... and hence the phrase 'positive discrimination' which makes minorities have a more than fair chance.

Don't get me wrong, I believe in equality. But I believe in the 'equal' part of it, not swinging in the opposite favour. I have no problem with foreigners. As long as they are able to do the job they are meant to be doing. Yet, in the past, I have felt bad for being annoyed with a foreigner who was not pulling his weight with a project we were working on together. Why did I feel bad? Because I felt I would be accused of being a racist when in actual fact I just wanted our project to be done effectively and I felt that not turning up to scheduled meetings was unacceptable. I would not have felt bad for being annoyed if the person was white British. Thank you, UK society, for your politically correct contribution to my life.

Lessons to learn from recent votes

The US election, much like the UK vote on the European Union, shows a nation divided. But there are some similarities that I find interesting, especially in these times.

1. Democracy
Voting is meant to be a process whereby the people have their say. For the EU referendum, the majority of voters voted to leave the EU. The result? Backlash. People unhappy and calls for a second referendum. These people couldn't cope with democracy. For the US election, the way the voting system works, Donald Trump won. The result? Backlash. Rioting, protests, even calls for California to leave the United States! It's much like a child throwing a tantrum when it doesn't get its own way.

2. Tolerance
People are always rattling on about 'tolerance' and how we must accept people who have opposing views to our own. But where is the tolerance from the people who voted on the losing side? The UK referendum resulted in the Leavers being branded racists. The Trump supporters have been labelled bigots and misogynists. It seems that tolerance only works when everyone is agreeing with you.

3. Controlling the world is a difficult job
It's hard enough for leaders of small countries to do their job. The EU is a massive area of the world and to keep everyone happy is difficult. The US is also a large area of the world, with people having widely varying opinions. Is it really a surprise that not everyone is in agreement? The calls for breaking down the land into smaller chunks might not be a step backwards. The UK might be better off being four separate countries again. The US might be better off with more control being given at the state level. Smaller areas are much easier to govern. In times gone by, kings would go to war to expand their kingdoms. Nowadays, people run for president or try to set up an organisation to ally different lands and then become ruler of that organisation.

4. Voting systems need work.
The EU referendum was done by 'popular vote', which most people consider the fairest method. But UK general elections are not. In the most recent general election, I didn't know how to vote. The local MP was doing a good job and I would be happy for him to remain in place. Plus, he was the most popular by far (he had previously won with 64% of the votes) so it was pretty much guaranteed that he would stay. But I didn't want to vote for the party he stood for. A vote based on his character would mean a vote for a party I disagreed with. A vote for the party I wanted running the country would just be a wasted vote, as that party's representative had no chance of getting in (only 10% of the votes). Although the MP remained in his position, it was only with 35% of the votes, but it only goes to show that the votes were more split: the nation was divided, and; with more choice there is more uncertainty.

If we look at the 2015 UK general election, we find that the Conservatives won with only 36.9% of the votes. This means that 63.1% of the country didn't want them in.

For the US election, the Electoral College has a similar system to the UK constituencies, but with each state having a differing number of Electoral College Votes, based on various factors. It's not entirely fair and, as the 2016 presidential election revealed, it is possible to be elected without having the highest numbers of votes. But then, the same was true in 2000 (and also in 1888).

But look on the bright side: a greater percentage of the US population wanted Donald Trump for president (47.5%) than the UK population wanting David Cameron for Prime Minister (36.9%).

5. Campaigns need to build up rather than pull down
Every campaign I've seen in recent years has been more about pulling the opposing parties/views down rather than talking about the benefits of their own standpoint. In the UK, political parties slag each other off. For the EU referendum, much of the campaign was aimed at how much worse the country would be if you voted against their campaign, not to mention the amount of lies that was presented. For the US election, there were insults and police investigations. Does anyone believe in what they stand for? The result of the EU referendum and the US election is about how bad things have become. Even the people who voted in favour seem to talk about it being better than the alternative. For all elections, including the EU referendum, there is hope with every option. The hope may be different, but there is still hope. It seems the story of Pandora's Box has more reality than we think: people focus on the evils that come out and forget about the hope that's mixed in there too.

6. Votes are a reflection of the times
The world changes: sometimes for the better, sometimes for the worse. But whatever our own opinions, the world does change. Some people call it 'progress' whilst others think it's a step backwards. Many people felt the UK vote to leave the EU was a step backwards, but also many people felt that the EU was an interesting experiment that had run its course. Either way, the vote was a reflection that with all the multiculturalism of the UK, there are now so many different views it is even more difficult to remain united.

The US has a reputation of being the 'world police', trying to dictate to other countries how they should be run (which is not always agreed by other nations). Although this is a generalisation, it is a prevailing theme. Is it a wonder, then, that the person elected as leader has views about how his own country should be run?

7. Strength is found in independence
Whilst for individuals, there is 'strength in numbers', it doesn't work when the numbers are so large due to multiple countries being involved. Many people in the UK feel that we are stronger being independent than being with the EU. A prevailing theme is that we need to regain control of our own country again. The US have elected a leader who wishes to regain control of his own country too. There doesn't have to be unity or alliances for there to be peace, just the allowance for other nations to do things their own way. We used to call this 'tolerance'.

8. Stock markets
With both the EU referendum and the US election, stock markets took a hit immediately after. Why? Because the large companies are not being responsible with their wealth. So focused on money, they take bets on the vote. Commentators for the EU referendum said it was going to be a win for the Remainers, so the companies took bets that way. When the result was different, a huge sum was wiped off the stock market immediately. For the US election, commentators said Hillary Clinton was going to win, so the companies took bets that way. When the result was different, again, a huge sum was wiped off the stock market. The good thing about the stock market response to the US election is that it might have helped stabilise the UK economy after the EU referendum. But the question remains: when are the big companies going to stop being so money-focused and start to take their responsibilities to the world seriously?