In Step with Time
Should we or should we not stay in the EU-The debate hots up
By Dr Sathi Ludhianvi
23rd June 2016 is the date set for a decisive IN or Out from the European Union by way of a referendum. A similar referendum was held in 1975 when the then prime minister Harold Wilson organised it. Although Britain joined the European Common Market, as it was then called, in 1973 but the then government thought it better to get the public opinion. Harold Wilson and Edward Heath were strong supporters of joining the EU. Later Margret Thatcher was very much a European. Britain could have joined earlier than 1973 had it not been Charles De Gaulle, the president of France. He was a strong opponent of Britain joining the Union. Anyway holding a referendum in 1975 and now in 2016 is a democratic process for which Britain should be proud of, irrespective of the result it would bring.
Contrary to 1975 referendum, this year in 2016 the country is very much divided. The IN and OUT campaigners are showing bitterness towards each other which was not there in 1975. At that time the country had high hopes. But now the country is much the wiser to assess the advantages and disadvantages of remaining in the EU. In the current climate, there is an atmosphere of bitterness and intimidation but the democratic norm dictates that all the citizens must use their entitlement of speaking up their minds without fear or favour.
There is a strong resentment among the people of Great Britain that a clear agenda has not been put forward by 'IN' and 'OUT' camps. There is no clear cut detail for people to make their mind. The current campaign is much more individualistic and media driven. The danger in this kind of situation is that the general public would not know if the decision they took was one hundred percent correct.
I am afraid the prime minister David Cameron has been found as less tolerant towards the euro sceptics. But then let us give him the credit that he after all, did not prevent anybody deciding for himself/herself to make his/her decision. On the other hand, Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn simply expected that all the Party members and the members of the Parliament including the councillors should tow the Party line. Is that democratic?
The government has spent £9.3 million of taxpayer's money on publicising, promoting and propagating the 'remain' cause. The Brexit are allowed only £7 million for their OUT campaign. The government has partly spent this £9.3 million on a glossy 14-page leaflet which was posted to 27 million homes in Britain. The opponents of this 'wasteful' expenditure are angry that the IN campaigners are scaring the voters by using undemocratic means. The leaflet is appropriately titled, 'Why the Government Believes that Voting to Remain in the EU' is the best decision for the UK which includes Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland. Boris Johnson, the Mayor of London, member of Parliament and a strong and authoritative opponent of IN campaign remarks that the leaflet was crazy and wasteful of tax payer's money. I hasten to add that the points put forward in this leaflet are not new at all. The country already knew about what the government stood for.
The OUT campaigners are of the opinion that David Cameron and his ministers are scaremongering. For example, Philip Hammond, the Foreign Secretary says that getting out of the EU would mean that Britain's power and influence would diminish in the world. He said this without giving out much detail in support of his claim. The global analysts are of the opinion that Britain on its own carry a lot of authority and weight. And its voice is heard loud and clear in the world. But then the OUT campaign got the boost when a group of top Tory donors opted to help their campaign. They diverted their donations to the OUT campaign in answer to David Cameron's £9.3 million spent on leafletting in favour of staying in Europe. The Midlands Industrial Group have been supporting the Conservative Party for the last 20 years. Its secretary, David Hall has said that its members were in 'incandescent with rage' over Mr David Cameron's decision to send the leaflets to 27 million households at such a huge cost to the tax payer. While the Brexit are capped at £7 million, the other OUT campaigners can only spend up to £700,000.
Some analysts are of the opinion that whether we stay IN or OUT, an irreparable damage will be done to the EU as a whole. David Cameron's major argument rests on the fact that if on 23rd June Britain opts to stay in the EU, he will be able to negotiate better terms for Britain. I don't see how he can do that even if the European Union string pullers agree to sit and talk about reforms with Britain, they got to give in to the demands of other members as well. It is a general opinion that the other European countries will certainly start asking for more concessions for themselves. The eventual outcome will be the disintegration of the whole infrastructure of European Union. Already the Schengen Agreement is in trouble. The refugees in their thousands are pouring in from Syria and other war torn countries into Greece and Italy. Germany has already announced that it will strengthen its borders despite the fact that it was its Chancellor Angela Merkel who opened the flood gates for refugees by saying that Germany's doors are open for destitute Syrians. Little did she know that it was an open border invitation to refugees, not only from Syria but from other countries as well. You cannot have such a policy without assessing the mood of your citizens and without checking the facilities you got to provide to the newcomers. The Schengen Agreement immediately came into question because the major fear was that members of extremist and violent groups could get into these countries as there was no effective border control. Turkey was not prepared to prevent Syrian refugees entering into the Schengen areas. Consequently, the EU's rich members including Great Britain dished out £6 billion to 'help' Turkey. The agreement is bit complex but basically each refugee they deport to their homeland has his price and that price is charged by Turkey. The Turkish authorities also successfully negotiated visa waiver policy for its citizens. So we don't know how many Turkish citizens will enter into the EU. In short, it is a real mess. Let me quote Stefan Lofven, the prime minister of Sweden who was talking about the Schengen position," We know that probably when spring comes the number of refugees will increase. If we cannot handle this, the European Union is at risk." Basically what he is saying is that unless external borders of Italy and Greece were secured, the Schengen area might collapse. We know now that it is indeed in deep trouble. The participants of Schengen are seriously regretting to be part of it because they now know that the flood of refugees is never going to end. Some of the Middle Eastern countries are so destabilised that it can be many years before the situation normalises, if that.
As we all know the refugees and EU migrants are two separate issues. Last year we ended up having 350,000 migrants from EU and the flow shows no sign of ending. You can work out the pressures this kind of annual figure could put on housing, National Health Service, transport, welfare, schools, roads and hospitals etc. Realistically it is not feasible to carry on letting in so many people in a country which is already overcrowded and lacks resources. Immigration of that type is worrying for the people of Great Britain. Hence some of them want to get out of the Union. Under the new agreement with Turkey which costs Britain millions of pounds, the processing of migrants to be deported has begun. Mixed among thousands of Syrians were found to be mainly Pakistanis and other safe countries nationals. The refugee camps in the islands of Lesbos and Chios were overcrowded from migrants from Pakistan, Iraq, Afghanistan and Egypt. The EU collectively decided that these countries are safe and that there was no reason that EU should give asylum to these migrants. The Union has committed itself to give refugee status to genuine Syrian refugees.
The IN campaign are in advantage. David Cameron, with full government machinery behind him is managing to create an atmosphere of fear by saying that if we were to leave the Union the consequences could be enormous and the economy would collapse. He also put the fear of security in people's minds. What he is trying to say is that if we were to come out of the Union, the security of our country is at risk. He very conveniently forgets the existence of North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO). It must be noted that we went to Iraq, Libya, Syria and Afghanistan along with other NATO countries and we were not alone.
The security fear created by our government which is now named 'Project Fear' seems to be working. In a poll conducted in April indicated that 50% British citizens are in favour of staying in the European Union while 44% want to come out of it. This is a decrease of 5% in the case of Brexit. The 'Remain' campaign have gained by 4 percentage points. Writing in the Daily Telegraph David Cameron insisted that getting out of Europe will be "an act of economic and political self-harm." He further points out that by getting out we will harm car manufacturing, airlines and financial services institutions. He conveniently forgot to mention that Britain was the biggest market for German cars, among other things from other EU countries.
Cabinet member Priti Patel who is Eurosceptic said," It is not racist to talk about immigration". She pointed out that the pressures of uncontrolled migration have resulted in shortage of primary school places. One in four primary schools is now full. Britain's only Asian woman minister is of the opinion that the immigration got to be organised, limited and controlled. But then the problem with EU is that it cannot be controlled as free movement rule applies. The 'REMAIN' campaigners are at an advantage as the government machinery is backing them. The Education Secretary Nicky Morgan made a direct appeal to the parents of OUT campaigners that their children's future will be at risk if the OUT campaigners succeed on 23 June. She plainly says," Brexit would damage the ability of young people to get on in life."
The biggest coup the IN campaigners have pulled is the visit in April, of the president of the United States of America, Barack Obama who he came here to congratulate Her Majesty the Queen on her 90th birthday but ended up making a very controversial speech in favour of Britain staying in the EU. The OUT campaigners were furious. 'Obama would not tolerate us meddling with America's affairs and he has dared to do that to Britain' was the general comments. Barack Obama urged Britain to stay in the EU by saying that America has made huge sacrifices to protect Britain and the rest of Europe in both world wars. Therefore 'we have a stake in the referendum debate.' He further said, "Tens and thousands of Americans who rest in Europe's cemeteries are silent testament to just how our prosperity and security is intertwined." The OUT campaigners were amazed at this argument. What if India and some other commonwealth countries start saying the same? After all their soldiers also gave lives in both the wars. Ian Duncan Smith, the former Works and Pensions Secretary was furious," President Obama and every one of his predecessors of the USA have furiously protected the sovereignty of their country and now he does not like us doing the same". Janet Daley simply says," Yes, Brexit would be risky-but it would also bring freedom and self- belief. We all know now that Barak Obama is supporting pro-European lobby but then the out campaigners are simply saying that America must not meddle in the democratic process of another country. America is the champion of freedom of speech and choice and Obama should have known be better."
The people in favour of getting out of the European Union are also concerned about the security issue but from a different perspective. It is alleged that the terrorists are getting into the EU countries by telling the authorities that they are the genuine refugees. To give credibility to this fear the European border authorities admitted that they simply do not know as to how many terrorists could have entered into the various EU countries as refugees. The most worrying situation is that in 2015, nearly 2 million illegal entries were recorded into the EU countries. This figure is six times higher than that of 2014. It is expected that 2016 figure could be much higher. It is also alleged that a number of EU citizens have left for Syria to fight for Isil. Some of them re-enter Europe pretending to be refugees. Some of the alleged terrorists who committed crimes in Brussels and Paris indeed entered Europe as refugees. Frontex, the European border control authorities said," It is difficult for EU member states to ensure an efficient, high and uniform level of control at their external borders." In reaction to this statement Dominic Raab, the Eurosceptic justice minister said," This is a damning indictment by the very EU body which manages Europe's external borders." He also said that irrespective of which European countries these refugee land, their ultimate goal is Britain. One must not forget that there could be gangs of people and drug smugglers among the mass exodus of refugees. It has also come out that the migrants coming from other countries through Europe to enter into Britain are finding other routes which are less secure. According to The Daily Telegraph, people smugglers are charging up to £10,000 each from illegal immigrants to smuggle them into Britain in their private boats. These boats anchor at an unsuspecting area on English Channel on the British side. British Border Agency are blamed for their incompetence.
The free movement of EU citizens have resulted in massive problems for National Health Service. With the addition of thousands of migrants and refugees, the system is under huge pressure. According to a report, general practitioners across the United Kingdom have reached unsustainable and saturation point. A study by Oxford University states that the population increase continuing at alarming level while the recruitment of doctors and nurses remain low. Nuffield Department of Primary Care and Health Sciences Say," Recruitment of new GPs and nurses remain low while the population in England steadily increases. As currently delivered, the system seems to be approaching saturation point." The study also shows that an average inflow of people from the rest of the EU into Britain will be at least 200,000 people per annum nett for the next 25 years.
Many grassroots voters in the United Kingdom are strong opponents of us staying in the EU. One of the arguments they are putting forward is that if we were to stay in the EU, we will have no control over rules and regulations passed by the euro crats in Brussels. This is very much true. Literally thousands of rules have been passed there which in many ways are absolutely unnecessary. Some opponents of IN campaign are of the opinion that as at this present time London is economically vibrant city and is the major centre of the world to generate more wealth, therefore the rules passed by Brussels could strangle this activity, thus hurting the GDP of the UK. They also think that the EU is in financial decline. Therefore, we are better off in dealing with the rest of the world of our own. The United Kingdom is the fifth largest economy in the world. We are entitled to sit at the world's top table. The Brexit also warn that the negotiations secured by David Cameron can be revoked once the referendum is over and one must not forget that there will be no second referendum. The very viable and strong argument put forward by OUT campaign is that the EU is a highly inefficient organisation. It wastes lot of taxpayer's money on wasteful plans. There is also a considerable mismanagement of the funds. It is a gravy train for EU autocrats. The salary and perks paid to officials and the MEPs is over the top. As I said before the OUT campaign argues that by getting out, we can secure our borders better thus prevent more people coming into our country who could eventually deprive the British people of deserving employment.
Then on the other hand the 'remain' campaigners try to convince the voters by saying that getting out of the EU would mean that there will less UK growth. The Monetary Fund says that the exit will do serious and severe global damage. The chief economist of Monetary Fund Maurice Obstfeld says," At present the British economy is strong and vibrant and the country can hurt itself by getting out of the EU. The planned June referendum on European Union membership has already created uncertainty for investors," George Osbourne was quick to cease the opportunity to make a point," IMF's warning is a taste of bad things to come if we were to come out of the EU". As recently as mid-April Stephen Crabb, the Works and Pension Secretary said," Lost jobs and livelihoods take an enormous, indelible toll on families and communities. No one should be complacent about the potential consequences for working people and their families if Britain votes to exit from the EU on 23 June. This is not a theoretical debate". But then the pro-Brexit cabinet ministers urged voters not to trust the scaremongering and doomsday predictions of 'remain' campaigners. Cardinal Vincent Nichols is concerned and says that getting out of the EU will leave the UK 'isolated and facing more complex problems'. George Osbourne, the chancellor is proving more and more a prophet of doom when he says that leaving EU will result in families worst off in the tune of £4,300pa and will lead to huge NHS cuts.
Whatever your convictions are about 'IN' or 'OUT', to demonstrate that please use your vote on 23 June 2016.
Whatever is the outcome we should all strive to unite the nation as from 24 June 2016.
(Note: This article is published in the India Link International, UK magazine of June-July 2016 issue. where I write a regular column by the name of IN STEP WITH TIME)
