Christmas - Hope in the Darkness

2016 is not going to be a year that is remembered fondly in the annals of history. This was a year that saw the death of many prominent public figures, political upheaval and humanitarian crises. In the UK, the nation has spent the second half of the year coming to terms with the seismic decision to leave the European Union after 40 years of membership. This event caused division among families and communities, as those who wanted to leave the EU viewed the referendum as an opportunity to reassert UK sovereignty and minimise levels of immigration, those who voted to remain saw the economic benefits of freedom of movement.

The result of the vote cannot be unwound but it is the duty of everyone to ensure that they build bridges with colleagues, friends and family who may have had a different opinion on the issue. From this foundation, we must also make clear to our elected representatives that we want them to engage constructively with our European partners in ensuring as dignified an exit as possible from the EU and build the conditions for a prosperous future relationship.

In the USA, there was the most divisive election campaign in history culminating in the victory of Donald Trump, the flamboyant businessman who had never held any political office. This caused a backlash among supporters of the vanquished Hillary Clinton, some of whom took to the streets protesting with shouts of “we reject the President Elect”. There have been concerns over proposals to build a wall to keep out Mexican migrants and potential to increase investment in weapons of mass destruction.

Similar to the Brexit scenario, it will serve our world better for all sides in the USA to come together and constructively resolve to move forward together in the new era. This healing may not be something that happens overnight but shutting out other citizens over their political viewpoint has historically never been constructive in ensuring national cohesion. Equally for our own nation, we must hope our government demonstrates the discernment to be an able partner for the new President rather than turning our backs and renouncing any influence.

Another pressing issue in the past year has been the bombardment of Aleppo in the Syrian civil war. There has been many heart breaking scenes of pain and oppression from this war torn country. There may not be a single person who can bring the war to an end but the least we can do as citizens of a prosperous country is to do our best in supporting fundraising and humanitarian mission efforts to bring shelter and succour to a besieged people. We must also put pressure on our elected representatives to bring about a constructive end to the war rather than allowing a regional disagreement to potentially escalate into a world war and the biggest humanitarian crisis in world history.

In that first Christmas, we are introduced to young, expectant parents in the Middle East on a journey to register at a census during politically uncertain times and the arrival of a baby who is introduced to us as a gift from God to bring redemption and healing to mankind. We are presented with a story that has resonated through the ages with the qualities of inclusion and mercy, shining a guiding light to the heart of the human condition.

In the famous 1951 Christmas movie based on the 19^th century Charles Dickens novel A Christmas Carol, the miserly Ebenezer Scrooge is taken to task by three spirits, with the spirit of Christmas Present pointedly noting that Scrooge had rejected the gift of the babe of Bethlehem and that we need to keep Christmas in our hearts every day of the year. The movie has a happy ending with Scrooge becoming a changed man by reaching out to the poor and showing a generosity of spirit to all. The closing scene of the movie proclaims that it was said of the newly changed Scrooge that he kept Christmas well.

As we look towards a new year filled with many challenges and apparent instability, it should be our hope that it will be said of us all that we keep Christmas well, demonstrating everyday kindness to all whom we encounter. If we want to create a better future, it doesn’t happen with muttering over big political events, but must start with us all trying to shape the world around us. The demonstration of kindness, mercy and generosity will be the true mark of keeping Christmas well in our own lives and be a reflection of the light that the old Christmas story brings to our lives, offering the opportunity for 2017 to be the antidote to a bitter and divisive year. A very happy Christmas and every blessing for the new year to you all.

USA Election

After a long and acrimonious campaign, it is time for the United States of America to go to the polls once more to elect a President. Following the two term presidency of Barack Obama, the nation will have a new figurehead of either Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton officially taking over the levers of power from January 2017.

Arguably, this has been the most poisonous presidential campaign in living memories featuring two candidates who clearly detest each other and polarise the voters. In many respects both sum up the American dream, Trump is the son of a property developer, who has taken over the business and grown the portfolio substantially, also branching into golf. Clinton is the daughter of a small business owner who became a Yale graduate, became a successful lawyer put her own political career on hold to allow her husband the opportunity to become President and has served as a Senator and Secretary of State. She now stands on the brink of becoming the first female President of the USA.

In the UK media and political circles, there has been a groundswell of opinion that a Trump presidency is unthinkable and a disaster waiting to happen. The new London Mayor, Siddiq Khan, had already blasted Donald Trump over his proposed restrictions on Muslims entering the USA and openly said that he is supporting Hillary Clinton. The First Minister of Scotland, Nicola Sturgeon, also made clear that she wants to see a Clinton victory during an interview on ITV’s Peston on Sunday programme.

Both Khan and Sturgeon may have thought that they were capturing the zeitgeist, especially since the ‘America First’ philosophy of the Republican nominee has caused alarm across the world, notably the suggestion of scaling back NATO and a hard line on immigration, however, both were probably better advised to use more diplomatic language in a public forum. Trump has been shrewd enough to speak of a trade deal with the UK in the wake of Brexit and we can’t ignore that he has business interests in Scotland through his golf and hotel empire.

In addition to his hard line policy position, Mr Trump has never been far from personal controversy during the campaign, with his belligerent persona, questions over his tax affairs, alleged past mafia ties, several bankruptcies, allegations of not paying workers appropriately and lurid sexual allegations, including an embarrassing video from 11 years ago discussing women in a degrading manner.

Clinton has adopted a more liberal agenda on the campaign trail, taking an approach that is designed to make the most of America’s soft power and viewing the nation as a force for good in the world. This has included discussion on further healthcare reform, LGBT rights, fast track path to citizenship for immigrants and tighter licencing on guns. She also has President Obama and his wife Michelle assisting in campaigning on her behalf, certainly displaying a more harmonious relationship than when Clinton and Obama were at loggerheads with both trying to secure the Democrat nomination for 2008.

Her campaign has been tainted by a scandal over using a private email server to transmit confidential official correspondence and attempting to delete the email trails. This matter is being investigated by the FBI and has the potential to derail the campaign. There have been other controversies bubbling beneath the surface such as the blurred lines between the charitable work of the Clinton Foundation and the lucrative speeches on the international lecture circuit. There are also questions over conflicts of interest in whether Clinton’s official role was influenced by the Foundation and about tax affairs. From a UK perspective, it is known that Clinton did not like the idea of Brexit and is unlikely to prioritise any application for a trade deal between our nations, following the line set by Obama.

The traditional best of three Presidential debates were also considered to be among the most ill-tempered and embarrassing in history. In spite of the allegations of sleaze that both candidates have faced, there has not been a smoking gun to take out either candidate. Although Clinton has consistently been ahead in the polls, Trump appears to be able to fight back. In a world where strategists like to create a range of voter personalities, Trump has arguably reached out to ‘Detroit Man’, the working class white man who is concerned about the USA losing its’ standing in the world, has seen a decline in job security with manufacturing jobs disappearing and having to compete with skilled immigrants. Clinton has found a core audience among the Frasier Set, the upwardly mobile, liberal, urban professionals.

Earlier polls in the lead up to the election suggested that Clinton had a comfortable lead though more recent polls though this has narrowed as Trump continued to press home his message about the alleged untrustworthiness of his opponent and using his dog whistle to tap into the concerns of ordinary Americans. The election result will boil down to who can mobilise their core vote and persuade the millions of undecided voters who are playing their cards close to their chest. This large constituency of undecided may be genuinely confused when faced with two underwhelming candidates or may not wish to disclose that they are voting for Trump, who is less popular in media circles. If this was the case, there would be the potential for a Brexit style shock result.

It seems unimaginable that a billionaire businessman could assume the role of the anti-establishment candidate but Trump has been occupying this ground, trying to appear as the man of the people. In spite of Clinton potentially becoming the first female to hold the supreme office in the USA, she is very much viewed as part of the establishment though it remains to be seen whether the Clinton brand will be seen as relevant as it was in the freewheeling economy of the 1990’s, during the ‘Great Moderation’ of Alan Greenspan’s imagination.

One of the unofficial accolades attributed to the President of the USA is that they are Leader of the Free World. For those of us who are not US citizens, we can only hope that the new President will maintain the standing of the USA as a beacon of democracy and enterprise. We can hope that they will be positive in their approach to Foreign Policy, facing down Russian grandstanding over Syria and working collaboratively to prevent another Cold War.  They will also have to do their best to reunite the USA as there could be protests following the election.

Following a presidency that ushered the first mixed race candidate into the Oval Office, the Obama years will be remembered as symbolic rather than being a future candidate to be carved into Mount Rushmore, though many will point to steadying the economy, the audacious capture of Bin Laden in Pakistan and bringing more healthcare reforms as key achievements. Obama also came across as an agreeable and witty person who was at ease in any social setting, a quality that lacks in either Trump or Clinton. All of those who jumped on the bandwagon of viewing Obama as the President of Africa and hailing him as a Martin Luther King figure are probably feeling short changed today. In light of 8 years that were mainly about steering the USA through the choppy waters in the wake of the financial shock of 2007/8, it is difficult to see either 2016 candidate assuming office for any more than a four year term in a transitional rather than transformational presidency.

In a race where there are two polarizing candidates, it is tempting to question whether the American dream needs to be reimagined. Some of the allegations made against both candidates have been unproven, embellished or historic, however, there are plenty of skeletons in both closets. Naturally, it would be good to see a candidate who is an internationalist with an entrepreneurial spirit and a track record of innovation that is designed to empower citizens in a low carbon, environmentally friendly, inclusive vision of the future assume control of the Presidency. Perhaps it is unfortunate that the name of Elon Musk is not on the ballot paper, but whatever the result on the 8^th November, it is important that the UK seeks to engage the new President of the USA in a manner that will continue the special relationship that has shaped our nations throughout our respective histories.

EU Referendum - In or Out?

June 23rd is set to be a significant day in our nation’s history as we face a referendum on the UK’s membership of the European Union. This edition of The Clog will explore whether we should continue in our membership or steer a new course.

The debate has reopened some of the schisms in the Conservative ranks with Boris Johnson becoming the face of the ‘Leave’ campaign. Johnson has made a career of playing the jovial buffoon but beneath the bumbling exterior, is a man with the fierce ambition to ascend to the highest office in the land. Some commentators have questioned if his campaign for Brexit is a calculated gamble to position himself for a quick transition to 10 Downing Street considering David Cameron’s position would be untenable in the event of a vote to leave.

There has been many spurious claims made from both sides. A poster featuring Nigel Farage in front of hundreds of migrants with the slogan ‘Breaking Point’ caused controversy, especially since the photo was taken in Eastern Europe and none of the migrants came to the UK. The NHS has also become a political football, with both sides suggesting different effects on an organisation that has become a national religion. One of the rare funny and typically British moments in the debate came on the 15th June when a ‘Brexit’ flotilla was intercepted by those supporting the campaign to stay in the EU.

If there is a political slogan that sums up the core of what the debate should be, it would be “It’s the economy, stupid”. We have just came through the largest economic shock since The Great Depression and markets do not like sudden change. Since early June, the value of Sterling has fallen in the markets compared to where it was in the previous month and has recently rallied in the wake of favourable polling news. In the event of a ‘Leave’ vote being returned, it is likely that the trend of a falling currency could continue. A falling currency would mean that our goods and services would be cheaper to export abroad but would mean that the cost of imported products would be higher and potentially lead to inflation. The Bank of England Governor, Mark Carney, has also suggested that a move away from the EU could lead to the economic recovery stalling and a potential recession taking place.

Those who favour the Brexit can point to sleaze at the heart of the EU. There have been many reports of cronyism, fraud and MEPs claiming large amounts of expenses over the last 20 years. There have also been cases where small business has complained about being hampered by unnecessary red tape by EU regulations. There have also been reports the Common Agricultural Policy creating mountains of food and drink produce that goes unused, this is quite shocking when there are nations where people starve. This demonstrates that there is the need for reform within the corridors of power at Brussels.

Leaving the EU could open up political unrest in our own nation as Nicola Sturgeon, leader of the SNP, has not ruled out requesting a second independence referendum if a Brexit takes place. There are some SNP figures such as their former deputy leader, Jim Sillars, who does not think that Scotland should vote to stay in the EU since the organisation was less than accommodating during the 2014 independence campaign. Sillars is now on the fringes of the Nationalist movement and his view may garner some sympathy but most SNP supporters would see the opportunity for a re-run of the 2014 independence contest. It would be a tragedy if we left one alliance and couldn’t hold together the alliance that has held our nation together for over 300 years.

The issue of immigration has become a political football in the course of the EU debate. Sadly, this has not been very well handled by either side, it is not uncommon to find the lines blurred when discussing migration of EU citizens and those migrants coming from international conflict zones fleeing persecution. The Office of National Statistics point out that the latest unemployment rate in the UK has fallen to 5% and the number of people in employment has gone up to 31.6 million, over 460,000 more people than in early 2015. This suggests that there is enough work for everyone and we aren’t seeing our own citizens pushed out in favour of migrants.

 Many of the EU migrants are young, have come from Eastern Europe and can be seen often in lower paid service industry, trades and retail jobs. There are also many who stay for a shorter time and go back to their own countries, a decision that is understandable when we see hi-tech automotive industry manufacturing and supply chain jobs having been created in Slovakia by VW, Peugeot-Citroen and Kia. They will be joined by the British icon, Jaguar Land Rover, who are making a £1bn investment in a factory which opens in 2018.

Citizens of our country have also taken advantage of the freedom of movement laws through buying a second home in some of the sunnier parts of Europe. Arguably, some of our citizens moving abroad have been less good at integrating than those EU migrants coming to our own nation.

The UK is the world’s 5th largest economy and a country which has been a major influence in the world. Our collection of islands sitting on the fringes of the Atlantic Ocean has achieved its status in the world by forming alliances with other countries rather than aiming for isolation. We are a member of all the top clubs such as NATO, G8, G20, the cornerstone of the Commonwealth, a major pillar of the European Union and possess special status as a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council. We are involved in all of these organisations because we are a nation that matters, always at the forefront of international diplomacy, talking quietly but wielding a big stick.

Critics of the EU have pointed out that Norway and Switzerland have their own trading arrangements to gain access to the Single Market without being members. What is often forgotten is that Norway is paying a substantial price for this privilege and doesn’t have a say in how the organisation is run. We can’t expect reform if we want to leave the club. It would also be naïve to assume that we would avoid contributing a nominal amount to any future bailout of Greece if we do achieve a competitive trade deal in a post-Brexit world as we can’t expect to take all the benefits from the relationship and not be expected to give something back. Ultimately, with previous Greek bailouts, the German taxpayers and other larger Eurozone nations did the heavy lifting in comparison to ourselves.

It is unlikely that the EU will be overly accommodating in helping us to achieve trade terms as favourable as those offered to other nations who haven’t been members as there would be concerns that the entire institution could unravel as other nations follow our lead. This would be quite concerning as we have had over 70 years of peace with former enemies now standing together as partners. In order to counter the prospect of an EU breakup, the remaining nations could also try and seek closer union much more quickly, which could destabilise the organisation.

The News International publication, The Sun, has come out in favour of Brexit. They point out the dangers of the UK becoming engulfed by a German dominated federal state. This does not seem likely as we have a two speed EU, with some states being part of the Eurozone and Schengen agreement and others, like the UK, who are not part of these treaties but still a full member of the European Economic Area and contributor to Defence.

There was a greater chance of the UK signing up for the Euro project back in the days of New Labour when figures like Peter Mandelson were close to the levers of power. Gordon Brown, then Chancellor of the Exchequer, famously introduced 5 economic tests for adopting the Euro:

1. Economic Harmonisation
2. Flexibility
3. Effect on Investment
4. Effect on Financial Services
5. Effect on growth and jobs

The first of these tests would require the UK economy to be moving in harmony with the Eurozone and economic cycles to follow a very close pattern. Scrapping Sterling would be a major blow for UK sovereignty and since the days of the New Labour project, the ship appears to have sailed on the issue of the UK adopting the Euro, especially in light of the recent global financial crisis. Maintaining the status quo of EU membership and our own currency has also encouraged inward investment and our Financial Services industry is still a major motor of our economy.

It is fair to say that the European Union is not a universally popular institution in the UK. For many of us, we would only ever identify ourselves as European whenever the Ryder Cup is being contested and do not feel the same pride at seeing the European Union flag. During the debate, neither side can claim to have covered themselves in glory, with many scare stories drowning out positivity. The UK leaving the EU and a subsequent weakening or crumbling of the organisation would be greeted with glee in Russia, as the Kremlin would view it as an opportunity to exploit divisions among each nation state and seek to regain influence in their “near abroad”.

There seems to be an unnerving push to leave the EU without a real understanding of the implications, almost as if there is a determination to deliver a vote that says “a plague on all of your houses”. Perhaps it would’ve been easier to have phrased the question as whether we should break our ties to our largest trading partner where there is freedom of movement of people, goods and capital. Our status as a major world economy affords us the opportunity to help shape this organisation in a better direction for the future. The EU is not what makes Britain great, but it is a major contributing factor to our global standing, leaving is likely to make us look more diminished in the eyes of other global trading partners.