Why So Hesitant?

Before we proceed, I will not attempt to bore you with details on reasons why I have not published since April, for excuses I believe are meaningless to the recipient. Instead I will endeavour to regain your audience by covering quite a contentious issue, which I have I tried to approach with both empathy and objectivity.

IF the migrant crisis has shown us one thing, it is that the democratic process does work. I say this because despite the Tories best efforts to ignore the direct humanitarian crisis and focus on “finding a solution to Syria’s problems” (politician speak for washing their hands of a situation) a decision arguably driven by the political cloud looming above. -The European Union referendum. Following the circulation of a petition calling for Britain to accept more migrants (which got more than three times the 100,000 signatures necessary to conduct a Parliamentary debate), the media’s publication of the young boy, Aylan Kurdi’s body being lifted ashore, the millions of migrants arriving on European member states borders and human rights activists lobbying Parliament for long over two years, Cameron has decided to accept more migrants.

We must ask ourselves however why it took such efforts to begin with. Surely in the plight of a humanitarian crisis we assume a moral obligation to assist those fleeing civil war? Well, it appears not.  Of course the situation is not totally devoid of any de jure reality, Article 13(2) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights provides: ‘everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to country.’ There is therefore a right to leave one’s own country. A right exercised by the 350,000 Syrian migrants to have been detected by EU Border force agencies between January and August 2015.  

However, as Professor Pecoud’s highlights, there is no corresponding right to enter another country. Rights, he notes do not derive from universal norms like the convention, but rather from the supply and demand mechanism that determines migrants’ value on the labour market.’ To illustrate Antoine Pecoud’s theory is simple. The reluctance to accept more Syrian migrant is largely due to the fact that they do not have the benefit of market forces, which favour migrants endowed with bargaining power such as a skilled profession. The Syrian migrants are not highly skilled professionals seeking employment. They are instead, undertaking treacherous voyages across the Middle East to flee a government which has violated UN Resolutions prohibiting the use of chemical weapons at least 87 times. As Pecoud’s observes, the lack of bargaining power prompts migrants to accept whatever conditions, as these are likely to already constitute an improvement compared to that of their home state. The United Nations Human Rights Commission suggests migrants are often a victim of the three D’s found to be working in dirty, degrading and dangerous jobs. Can we conclude therefore that unfavourable market forces are the reasons behind the government’s unwillingness to accept more migrants?

Even if, migrants are, as Times journalist James Bloodworth writes‘doing what politicians are usually quick to encourage us to do: they are striving for something better; they are being aspirational. The difference between a refugee and the member of the British middle classes is that for the former the stakes are often a matter of life and death.’ The haunting and distressing images published by the media of the many migrants drowning at sea, reaffirm their courage and desperation. However for many, economically sound states such as Germany and Britain are attracting these ‘aspirational migrants’ due to their welfare systems. A notion Bloodworth contests wholeheartedly writing ‘refugees are not coming because Britain’s soft touch welfare system is drawing them here like wasps to a jam jar; they are coming to Europe in search of a decent and secure life that is free from poverty and war.’

Fear may also be attributable to the general reluctance to assist more migrants. Going back to Pecoud's theory, he notes migration is often viewed as a THREAT. Migration is said to jeopardize the social cohesion, employment opportunities, welfare systems and cultural and religious homogeneity. Such fears arguably, are evident if one is to look to the approach taken by Hungary’s nationalist PM Viktor Orbán.  Who was reported saying ‘those arriving have been raised in another religion, and represent a radically different culture. Most of them are not Christian, but Muslims... This is an important question because Europe and European identity is rooted in Christianity.’ Perhaps, Orbán will do well to take note of Thatcher’s address to the Royal Society ‘No generation has a freehold on this earth. All we have is a life tenancy- with a full repairing lease.’  

Whatever the solution, it is not to be found in fear, prejudice or any form of discrimination based on religious grounds. Equally, measures should ensure the protection of human rights whilst respecting the values of the host state. A balancing act not easily achieved. 

Parallel Universe of Politicians

It is a well-known observation that an elephant simply cannot understand the daily struggles of an ant. The difference in size will never allow an elephant to empathise with the ant. The ant is required daily to move swiftly from wall to wall in order to avoid feeling the wrath of a newspaper adapted by its reader to squish the life out of it to ensure its destruction. The elephant faces no such threat. In a similar manner, the ant will never be able to understand fully the struggles of an Asian elephant tamed in captivity and used for wholly unnatural purposes. The example of which appears to me analogous to the state of politics at present.

Put simply according to the definition given by the fountain of all knowledge in the 21 century, ‘Google,’ democracy is ‘a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives.’ If you’re a Google sceptic then the definition given by Aristotle in 1995 is also sound. Aristotle notes in a democratic society, ‘the people [demos] are sovereign. . . .(it is) when the masses govern the city with a view to the common interest.’  What we must draw on here is that, in both definitions the people are sovereign.  Either through the medium of direct democracy whereby the whole population governs or indirectly through ‘elected representatives.’ Focusing on the latter in the case of the UK, democracy works by the people electing representatives who share the common interests of the people. However, it is becoming increasingly apparent that the elected representatives and the people seem to be much like the elephant and the ant. Neither seems to share an understanding of the other’s lives and those that believe they do, seem to be grossly misinformed.  

There has been a surge in the popularity of UKIP which could be a consequence of the party’s anti-immigration rhetoric and the failure of Prime Minister David Cameron’s election promise to cut immigration down to ‘tens of thousands.’ According to YouGov poll the electorate’s main priorities are immigration and the economy with 52 per cent of respondents listing it as a priority. However, many of UKIPs most recent supporters should understand that UKIPS members are, like all the party members, POLITICIANS. They are politicians who appear no different to their Conservative and Labour counter-parts who are much like ants unable to understand the grievance of the elephants.

Recently, I attended a talk by former Conservative MP turned UKIPPER Douglas Carswell, at the Oxford and Cambridge Club in Pall Mall. The event took place at the clubs opulent Princess Marie Louise Room with other UKIP members, politicians, journalists and the odd student in attendance. Once I had eventually snapped out of being bewitched by the enormous chandelier hanging above and the aloof feeling of being in a scene from one of Charlotte Bronte’s novels had left me. It dawned on me how grossly out of touch the speaker and indeed some of the guests were with the rest of society. The grandeur of this elite club and the discussion was a complete parallel to that of the realities of life in Britain today.

Rather ironically, Douglas Carswell spoke of how unrepresentative Parliament was today and advocated re-calling MPs which would allow the people to vote in a by-election whenever an issue such as ‘Cash for Access’ arose and MPs where found to be acting contrary to their code of practice. Whilst this sounds great it is the same spiel Conservative MP Zac Goldsmith has been advocating since 2010, the result of which was an idea MPs rejected by 340 to 166 following a free vote in the Commons. When Carswell was questioned by journalist about his party leader blaming immigrants for causing traffic on the M4, his cheeks flushed red and the embarrassment on his face said more than his response, which was like all good politicians, simply avoiding the direct the question and move swiftly on to a topic more suited to his own agenda.

Thus far, it is no wonder Russell Brand is calling for society to abstain from voting in the 2015 general election altogether, politicians are seriously out of touch with the people. Labour rather patronisingly feel as though pink buses are what female voters want.  While, David Cameron and his cronies have decided to dangle an election carrot in the form of pledging to build 200,000 cut price homes in order to help first time buyers under 40 who are plagued with masses of student debt, extortionate travel fares and increased living expenses. The proposals of which critics argue are incredibly ambitious. -A euphemism for a load of sh*t.