The Dangerous Waters of Immigration

One of the founding principles of the European Union was the free movement of people within the Union.  This was strengthened even more with the creation of the Schengen zone which essentially stopped border controls between signatories of the Schengen Agreement.

One of the goals in this was to allow workers in a country with a less robust economy to move to another country where their chances for employment would be greater.

This was always going to be somewhat contentious as unemployed workers would possibly take jobs at less favourable terms than many local workers, especially in those countries where the social welfare net was relatively attractive in comparison to the lower paid more onerous jobs often sought out by immigrants.

That being said that this would be the case is more a reflection of the mismatch between unemployment benefits and compensation at the lower end of the range as well as the "entitlement" mind-set of some sections of the unemployed.

For that reason I am a strong proponent of minimum wages which, despite their cost at source to employers actually can help move people off welfare lists into employment.

This was behind the German Social Democrat (SPD) party's demands in the coalition negotiations which were recently approved by the SPD membership.

What was not intended by the free movement of people within the European Union was that people from high unemployment countries with poor social welfare systems would move to countries with strong social welfare systems thus providing them with health coverage, housing and unemployment benefits.

It does not matter if the numbers involved in this sort of "welfare" tourism are low or not.  What they do is put the whole structure of the EU at risk.

I am not promoting an anti-immigration policy.  I am suggesting that there have to be controls and regulations governing the movement of people even if they make it more difficult. That does not mean that intra-EU immigration should stop.  It does mean that there should be stronger controls as to who is eligible for health, housing and unemployment benefits.

It cannot be the case that host countries suddenly are responsible for "internal" immigrants.  No system can withstand this economically, and perhaps more importantly, it opens the door to right-wing nationalist groups long on rhetoric and short on substance, whose populist slogans find resonance in the population at large.

But clever, and more importantly, ethical politicians should not use such controls merely as a means of garnering support predicated on populist propaganda. 

They should not only be rigorous regarding EU immigrants; they should also be relentless in pursuing their own "domestic" tourists who have become ingrained in a benefits culture with no intention of assuming responsibility for their own well-being, and happy to blame someone else for their predicament.

I am a strong believer in the benefits of the EU but recognise it can only be as strong as its' member states.  It all starts with the social contract between the state and the electorate at large.

Champerty and Betting and Who's to Blame

It is interesting upon reflection how connected at the hip, or perhaps the head, Mrs Thatcher and Mr Reagan actually were and how the some of the changes they brought in had far-reaching repercussions which they may or may not have appreciated. 

Mr Reagan was responsible for removing the Fairness Doctrine in media which had been created in the 1930's and supported by the media moguls of the time who, strange but true, felt a responsibility to report the news in an even and fair-handed manner using the editorial pages for their personal diatribes.

The result of Mr Reagan's intervention:Fox News, polarisation of society and in the end a somewhat stymied political system.

Mrs Thatcher had a few tricks up her sleeve as well.  The first was to remove the Common Law prohibiton on Champerty, and its' cousin Barraty  which essentially allowed for the promotion of or the incitement to bring legal proceedings.  Mrs Thatcher felt that this was restraint of trade thereby opening the door to allowing uninvolved third parties (i.e. lawyers) to take a case on simply to gain in the winnings if the successfully prosecuted or defended the case. 

Now one might find that less onerous than I do, but it basically opened the door to litigation "chasing" which I believe was instrumental in creating  a culture which takes no responsibility and is always looking to blame someone else.

Moving on, another serious intrusion into the fabric of society perpetrated by Mrs Thatcher was to remove laws banning the "incitement" to bet.

When I first came to Britain in 1987 there were many professional football (soccer) teams sponsored by contraceptive manufactures.  Now despite the fact that there was never any indication as to the wares a sponsor's name brazened across the shirts of a football team was actually advertising, the product was considered to be morally unacceptable and potentially damaging to the nation's youth. 

So, on the shirttails of Mrs Thatcher's decision to promote betting there suddenly appeared a host of football teams sponsored by betting companies.  To add insult to injury, after one has already paid for the pleasure of watching football on a private television station, views are then subjected to a barrage of advertisements before and during the games from the same betting companies suggesting that you should be betting on everything and anything to do with the game "live".

And what is the result?

A game-fixing scandal has burst onto the scene reaching up to just below the Premier League and England has the highest incidence of (unwanted) teenage pregnancies in Europe and in the developed world are second only to the USA.

Funny that.

I think the saying goes along the lines of  "your reap what you sow....."

Grassroots Democracy-Pro and Con

After the German elections there was no majority winner despite the fact that the CDU/CSU (Christian Democratic Union and Christian Social Union (centre-right parties) garnered approximately 42% of the vote.  Their more normal coalition partner, the FDP (Free Democratic Party-also centre-right) failed to make it past the 5% hurdle which is there to ensure that there are not a myriad of splinter parties that allow the tail to wag the proverbial dog.

Instead, the CDU/CSU was faced with either joining up with the Left-highly unlikely- who had 8.6% or with the Greens-my choice-who had 8.4%.  In the event they decided to create what is called a Grand Coalition consisting of the two main blocs- the CDU/CSU and the SPD (Social Democrats- centre-left) who won 26%.

They grappled with one another for weeks to hammer out an agreement on what basis the government would go forward given that the campaign platforms of the two groups had a bit of blue water between them.

Last weekend they managed to come to agreement including contentious issues like the introduction of a national minimum wage and no new taxes.

So far so good.

With a voter turnout of over 70% one could call the election a successful grassroots affair.

In most instances where a coalition government has to be formed the leadership of the two parties sit down together and work out an agreement..Then, as part of executing their electoral mandate they go  tell their constituents what they have agreed.

Not this time.

The SPD, after negotiating with the CDU/CSU is now going to put the agreement to a vote of the party membership.  Over 44 million Germans voted, some 11 million of whom voted for the SPD.  Now, the 475,000 party members will vote on the coalition agreement. 

So the fate of the coalition is in the hands of 1% of the population.

Seems like a good example of shirking responsibility on the part of the SPD leadership and potentially allowing a splinter group within the party to block a national agreement.

The result will be revealed December 14th so stay tuned.