One hundred people swayed the vote saying no to the import of US chlorinated chicken into UK markets. It was a wise choice for a variety of reasons. First and foremost, the health of those people who would be subjected to such meagre food hygiene rules. Secondly, animal welfare. The use of chlorine to wash chicken is a by-product of mass produced food. Where there is mass-production, animal cruelty and welfare standards fall dramatically meaning that the livestock we do choose to consume will have (if only slightly) better welfare conditions.
The last good reason for the rebuttal of chlorinated chicken onto our markets is purely political. Seeing as how we are leaving the E.U (rightly or wrongly…although we all know it’s wrongly) the UK is beginning to look to U.S interests like a new state from which they can reap huge rewards.
One small victory amid a waterfall of 2020 bad news.
The Spectator’s 10th August, 2019 edition of The Spectator opened up with a piece called Trading places.
The article considers the argument that the UK should look positively on a trade deal with America in place of the trade deal which we already have with the EU.
“The reality is that free trade is almost always on balance a good thing, regardless of which country is it conducted with. That said, there will always be compromises to be made. Vested interests to be tackled. Product standards have to be reviewed…Good trade deals can even destroy native industries – but the overall effect of global trade is to boost the creation of wealth…The important thing is to make the right concessions.”
The U.K already has these concessions with the European Union but with the extra added benefit that, as a democracy, the United Kingdom also has a vote and therefore a voice in the passing of European law. The author of this piece is essentially trying to argue for a position that would make the UK worse off.
“Free trade with the US is opposed by some Remainers for no better reason than because it is advocated by Leavers.”
The author is clearly a hypocrite. What kind of bias does it take to argue that getting away from our closest allies (culturally and by locality) and toward the US would be preferential over the kind of deal we already have? To say that Remainers oppose a deal with America for no other reason than Leavers want it seems exactly what this piece is arguing…only the other way.
‘…the NHS has always outsourced some of its services – which last year accounted for 7 per cent of its budget. There is no reason why US providers should not be allowed to compete for this work on equal terms with British companies.”
That was not the line towed by Leave supporting parties and groups throughout the 2016 referendum and there is also solid reasoning why the US should not be competing on the same terms with British companies: American health care standards are lower than the UK’s. Not only are American health care standards lower, the introduction of more private interests within the NHS goes against public polling which shows that people want private companies kept the at the biggest possible distance from health care system.
The NHS is not the author’s only area of attack. On GM foods:
‘No one can point to ill-effects, and for good reason: GM foods are subject to far more scrutiny than non-GM foods.’
The reason for the GM foods being held to higher scrutiny is because…well…they are genetically modified. A crop created as opposed to one grown is no doubt going to undergo far more scrutiny because it has to pass myriad tests that would decide whether said food was safe for consumption.
The simple truth is that America uses GM crops as it helps mass production which ultimately makes the crop cheaper to make. European food standards are among the highest in the world whilst America have been time and again castigated for packing out their foods with copious amounts of highly addictive and highly fattening corn-syrup.
‘Then there is the practice of washing chicken in chlorine, which has been continuously cited as a reason why we shouldn’t do a trade deal with the US. Even the EU, when it banned chlorine-washed chicken in 1997, came to the conclusion that the practice was perfectly acceptable from a food-standard point of view – but banned it anyway on the flimsy pretext that it might provide farmers with a sense of false security. A better explanation is that it spied the opportunity to snuff out US competition for less efficient European producers.’
The pretext was far from “flimsy”. For instance, the European Commission decided that using chlorine to wash chicken dramatically lowered standards because it allowed farmers to get away with providing poor conditions. As highlighted by Ben Chapman writing for the Independent (Sunday 3 March, 2019) – “Advocates of this approach” (not washing chicken in chlorine) “say that it leads to higher standards of hygiene and animal welfare because farmers must take care at each stage of the process rather than relying on a chemical bath to kill any harmful pathogens after animals are slaughtered.”
The idea that European farms are supposedly “less efficient” is exactly because European standards are higher and do not lower themselves to mass-production quality levels, which results in questionable practices like washing chicken in chlorine. The author also argues that the EU was being protectionist in its endeavours, something which many conservative thinkers is one of the best outcomes of Donald Trump’s America. When the EU tries to put EU farmers and food safety levels first, it is chastised.
What it comes down to is facts. Is chlorine washed chicken okay to eat? Looking back on Ben Chapman’s piece for the Independent, the answer is quite clear.
Are we so loathing of the European Union that we would opt for subservience to the US and lower not only our standards but our global standing?
On 8th August, the inhabitants of Moscow were surprised when their televisions flicked from their standard programmes to a blue screen with a single star. It was a weather warning telling the people to find shelter. It then disappeared leaving people wondering just what had happened. At the same time in Severodvinsk, a small town in the North-West not far from the Finnish border was exposed to gamma radiation 3x higher than is permissible for human health after an explosion at the nearby Nyonoksa top-secret testing facility.
The explosion at Nyonoksa facility killed several including nuclear scientists. Russian weather service, Rosgidromet, recorded levels of radiation 16x higher than normal levels within the vicinity of Nyonoksa. In true Cold War style, residents were quick to stockpile iodine, known to stop the Thyroid from absorbing radiation. The explosion killed several including nuclear scientists working on the project.
After more correspondence it was finally let on that the explosion was down to the failure of an “isotope” power source. Russia was testing the infamous Storm Petrel missile at the Nyonoksa site. The Storm Petrel missile – called Skyfall by NATO – was unveiled by Russian president Vladimir Putin at the State of the Union address in 2018 and boasts a propulsion system powered by a miniature nuclear reactor which gives a potential flight time that could be measured in days, weeks or even months.
Having extended range plus cruise-missile capabilities – meaning that it can change direction, move around objects and evade interception – would mean that the missile would be harder to detect and defend against.
Another new and chilling piece of kit that Russia are working on – Poseidon – is an autonomous drone submarine which is programmed to unleash nuclear warheads on key enemy locations on the US west coast should Russia “go dark.”
Due to a series of agreements, Russia and America have not tested nuclear devices for twenty years. However, Russia have breached the Intermediate Nuclear Forces Treaty. Donald Trump responded by removing America from the pact. The New Start agreement which ensures Russia and the US have a limit on how many intercontinental nuclear missiles they can produce, runs out in 2021 and may not be renewed, thus giving America and Russia free reign to progress their arsenals and potentially make another power grab.
The US has been stepping up spending in nuclear warfare infrastructure with former President Barack Obama developing a $1.2tn plan to “maintain US air, sea and land-based nuclear weapons.” Donald Trump has gone much further putting an additional $500bn including $17bn for the production of a “low-yield” tactical nuclear weapon, essentially a mini-nuke that can be used on the battlefront.
It is rumoured that some factions within the Pentagon and within the defence contractor sector believe that Russia’s move away from agreements is a step in the right direction.
America’s nuclear defence capabilities are ageing and therefore, like many wars before, this will drive innovation and strengthen America’s standing.
Tensions are rising not only between the US and Russia (who between them hold little over 90% of the world’s nuclear arsenal) but with China, Iran and North Korea all flexing their muscles, we could be looking at the age of a new Cold War with new frontiers.
The point by point scaling up of nuclear armaments is not the only evidence of a new Cold War. Russia and China flexed their muscles during the Brexit and Presidential election campaigns with industrial scale levels of spreading disinformation. Seeing their success during these campaigns, Vladimir Putin is pushing further. At what cost?
Rail fares are due to rise by 2.8% as of January, 2019, hitting not only people’s pockets, but the environment as well.
The Rail, Maritime and Transport Union (RMT) protested at key locations yesterday in response to the increase in fares which come at a time of slowing inflation. For example:
Rate of inflation: 3.1% Rail fare increase of 3.3%
Rate of inflation: 2.48% Rail fare increase of 2.8%
Rate of inflation in 2019: 1.84% (predicted) Rail fare increase: a 2.8% rail hike due in 2020
The cost of rail travel is the highest in Europe and it is only getting worse. The Trade Union Congress (TUC) has stated that the “cost of train travel had increased by twice as much as wages over the past decade.” Since 2009, wages have grown by 23% whereas the overall cost of train travel has gone up by 46%.
The changes will add more than £100 to many annual season tickets.
There are a few worrying trends in this data. The first is that the rate of inflation over the past years has been sluggish due to uncertainty over Brexit. The second is that prices are exceeding the rise of inflation, therefore putting more people either further out of pocket or else unable to use such methods of transport as stated by Bruce Williamson from campaign group Railfuture that travellers “will either find another job or another form of transport.”
The problem is that other modes of transport are fossil-fuel intensive meaning raising many concerns that greener methods of transport are being unfairly overpriced making them unacceptable for many members of the public.
With many annual tickets touching four figure sums, cars and buses might very well become the next alternative and whilst this could result in an increase in car-sharing schemes, the amount of cars that would be put on Britain’s, adding to the already congested road transport network, is incalculable.
Criminalising abortion is evidence of Americans moving against their own Constitution.
Article IV of the Constitution:
‘N(o) religions Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.’
‘Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.’
The Constitution is America’s guiding document. A revelled piece of history that is constantly used to link the American people with the foundation of their great country. The Constitution is quoted time and again when protecting the people’s right to “bear arms” but there has been a mass looking of the other way when it comes to upholding the 1st Amendment when it comes to religion having a place in matters of state.
Governor of Alabama, Kay Ivey, recently signed off on the law and followed it by stating that the bill was “a powerful testament to Alabamian’s deeply held belief that every life is precious and that every life is a sacred gift from God.”
As highlighted in the 1st Amendment, whilst the practice of religion is a personal liberty, it has no place as a governing force within the United States and yet this is being ignored. Donald Trump tweeted a response to the motion in Alabama to criminalise abortion by claiming it as a victory for “pro-life” groups. He also tweeted against Doug Jones in Alabama by using the argument that Jones was Pro-Abortion as a smear tactic.
86% of Alabamians identify as Christians.
Why are proud Americans going against the decisions as outlined by their very constitution? Might it have something to do with the Pledge of Allegiance?
“I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which is stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.”
The often used phrase; “one Nation under God” was not part of the Pledge of Allegiance until 1954.
The State is flexible and, though sometimes wavering (nothing is perfect), it is the closest thing that we have to a true representation of the people. The State considers many factors such as protecting the rights of victims of rape and incest and the impact on children born into unsuitable and perhaps unloving environments. It also takes into consideration the stages of foetal development and the safe (and unsafe) periods of termination.
The economic benefits cannot be overlooked either.
The abortion law is going to hit low-income families the hardest. This is because a lack of funds meaning that they cannot afford to go across state lines to undergo the procedure elsewhere, unaffordable contraceptive methods and because people in low income areas are more likely to be subject to attacks such as rape.
Raising a child when finances are tight will also be extremely tricky which could result in myriad problems including depression in parents and children, resentment or malnourishment. School lives could be dramatically affected and quality of life for parents, children or families in general could diminish greatly.
The welfare system would then have to intervene, at great cost. Social care would soar as children face difficult upbringings and inhospitable living conditions. Parents, especially mothers, would have to be given extensive counselling to help come to terms with rape and its repercussions or to simply help manage a stressful life brought around by an overabundance of children.
Hospitals would have to increase staff numbers in order to be able to manage anything from kids coming in with scraped knees to vaccinations and that is before we even consider what physical issues children born through incest might have. And then there is of course the problem that women will lose any anonymity that abortion could have provided. Now, with abortion illegal, women will have to continue within their communities with their children as any evidence of past trauma.
Pro-life groups are overwhelmingly religious and use religious doctrine to dictate their actions in choosing to fight abortion, or end it altogether. When religious beliefs start to infringe upon the liberties of others, it is no longer the practice of religious freedom but the imposition of one’s own belief on others. It becomes what the late Christopher Hitchens called; “theocratic bullying.”
As of the date of release, the following states recognise abortion as illegal (in varying degrees):
Last week scientists provided the starkest report yet warning of a man-made extinction level event.
Also known as Anthropogenic or Holocene extinction, the findings give evidence that we are going to see the eradication of 1m species which will have catastrophic effects on food chains and on levels of biodiversity needed to sustain our environment.
From the images we see on our television screens and social media news feeds of animals suffocated by plastic to the air pollution monitoring systems accessible online, we can see almost in real-time the devastating impact that we are having on the planet.
We are not only polluting the atmosphere through the overuse of fossil-fuel-rich sources but we are reducing ground level carbon sinks such as peat bogs and rainforests as cut down trees for commercial purposes, to build roads and for property development. Our effects on the planet are not slight, but monumental in their brevity as reported by Camilla Cavendish in The Financial Times: “Three quarters of the land, two thirds of our oceans and 85% of wetlands have already been altered or lost.”
Despite this information there is not enough being done to combat climate change. In certain areas of society climate change is ignored or described as a “hoax.” Donald Trump has time and again shooed the idea of climate change as a threat by claiming that there is evidence on both sides of the argument or else citing jobs as a reason to ignore climate change action.
The same was recently reiterated by Nigel Farage during an interview with Andrew Marr in which Nigel Farage claimed that he would not pursue climate action because of the loss of “hundreds of thousands” of jobs. This statement either highlights the lack of information that Nigel Farage is privy to regarding the vast scale of employment levels that would be achieved through a green energy market, Nigel’s willingness to overlook the signs of looming devastation in a bid to appeal to fossil-fuel companies like his friend Donald Trump, or perhaps just trying to appeal to the older voters of the U.K who remember with fondness the days of coal mining and oil extraction.
We don’t have the time to entertain regressive energy politics when we are seeing the destruction of 1/8th of the species that inhabit and contribute to our planet’s ecosystem.
Labour have recently announced that (if they were in power) they would D-list companies that do not follow strict environmental procedures. This at least provides incentive to work in a cleaner and more environmental way were Labour not facing embarrassing losses through both local elections and through the upcoming European elections.
Another worrying piece of information was put forward yesterday by television icon and environmentalist, David Attenborough: plastic pollution kills up to 1m people a year in developing countries. The awareness of environmental issues has skyrocketed, especially in the last year, but there is still little being done about it, predominantly by corporations whose products are found floating in waters the world over. While people recycle and do their best to limit water usage and take part in local clean-up operations, there needs to be a movement by corporations to become plastic free.
There are over 5 trillion pieces of plastic currently littering the oceans, as mentioned by the The Ocean Cleanup, an Dutch organisation currently leading the world’s largest ocean plastic removal scheme. Corporations and citizens need to work together to come up with innovative new ways to distribute products whilst eliminating plastics. At present, immediate convenience seems to trump full-scale catastrophe.
President Donald J. Trump is a controversial figure. He faces questions about possible collusion with Russia, obstruction of justice, fraud and money laundering. We know for certain that he paid off Stormy Daniels. Bank account transactions and testimony from Trump’s previous confidante are proof to that effect.
The most dangerous aspect of Donald Trump’s presidential cabinet, however, is the absolute refusal to believe that climate change is a danger. Or, in some cases, is even happening.
“Just 24 hours after the United Nations warned that a million species were at risk from environmentap degradation by humans, the United States has refused to sign an agreement on protecting the Arctic.
“Diplomats said the US objected to wording in the deal that stated climate change was a serious threat to the Arctic. The Trump administration has consistently downplayed or even denied climate change.”
The reason for America’s choice is clear; the melting Arctic ice holds a potential 13% of the planet’s untapped oil.
The Trump Whitehouse is overseeing the abolishment of scientific findings and irrefutable fact. Essentially ignoring common sense.
That being said, the world must pick up the slack in the green energy market. Whilst America tinkles with fossil fuels and sits firmly in a residual industrial phase, a new global player can take the leading position of innovative change.
We can only hope that the recent predictions of a decline in fossil fuels within the next five years is accurate.
The photo may not look like much but this is a big achievement. Only two days ago these peas were a third smaller and their vines are now clinging tightly to the trellis. That’s life right there.
When I was younger I tried to go vegetarian. I was studying at the time and the lack of meat sent my energy levels through the floor. This later turned out to be because my diet as a not-very-well-off-sudent was pretty shocking. Predominantly bread, cheese, beans and sausages. Yup.
I read an article recently that one of the most effective ways to combat climate change was to plant more trees and increase green spaces. So growing my own vegetables is a two bird with one stone kind of deal. It will help me go veggie and I can do my bit in going a little greener.
All you conservationists and die hard environmentalists can rest assured by the next half of my plan which is to plant more trees in my local area!
The planet is quickly becoming less inhabitable. When 97% of climate scientists agree that we are seeing a manmade (or anthropogenic) climate change, it is no longer debatable. Words contesting the idea are meaningless and wasted. It is time for change.
And yet, very little is being done about climate change. Especially since Brexit, Donald Trump becoming president of the United States and the rise of populism which has diverted the public’s attention to focus on more provincial matters.
Donald Trump cannot be underestimated when it comes to the battle against climate change. The man single-handedly decided to take America out of the Paris Agreement which was a unilateral effort to lower emissions whilst putting in place a former coal and fossil fuel lobbyist, Andrew R. Wheeler, as head of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Another problem with climate change is one of scale. People are more prone to react to something that immediately changes within their surroundings whereas climate change is a gradual shift. Because of this, climate change can often go unnoticed against the background of problems that arise because of our more local differences. If London were to flood tomorrow, immediate action would be taken. But, since it is flooding incrementally, the threat feels far less urgent.
There are many things we can do to combat climate change, however, from using public transport or by walking or cycling to and from work. By choosing more environmentally friendly cars or by sourcing food locally which would have a much smaller carbon footprint. Going vegan. Plant more trees. Get better insulation for your house. Switch to a green energy provider. Vote for green initiatives. Use less plastic. Grow your own vegetables. Create or support collectives to put pressure on business to go greener. Fix your own goods. Don’t buy an Urban 4×4. Seriously, don’t. The concept makes no sense, they use diesel and they have wider tread tyres meaning that, should they actually face snow, they are more likely to be immobile. Why even call them Urban 4×4’s?
It was when listening to environmental podcast, Sustainababble that I heard of another initiative which is as much as a way to reduce environmental impact as it is a humane practice. This is done by deciding against having children. This may sound strange to some and it definitely brings with it a level of controversy but take a moment to imagine the following.
Shrinking the climate perspective, imagine the planet is your house and there is a candle burning in the living room. The wax is laced with lead, carbon monoxide, methane and diesel particulates. At the bottom of the candle, where the wick touches the base, is a pool of petrol. You have two children. Two grandparents. A dog. A cat. That flame has yet to burn through the candle but as it gets lower the air becomes harder to breathe as the nitrogen and oxygen mix we need is being replaced by carbon monoxide. The sun coming through the windows is hot and sticky because the methane is creating a greenhouse effect. Your grandparents are finding it harder and harder to string sentences together because the particulates are effecting their cognitive abilities. Children are coughing and spluttering as they develop respiratory problems.
The windows and doors won’t open. You can’t let the pollution out. It’s got nowhere to go. After all, outside the house is just a vacuum of space and you are the only house floating through that vacuum and all other houses you might be able to someday reach are uninhabitable. Too full of gas. Too hot. Too cold. No atmosphere.
The family hasn’t discussed a way that they are going to see without the candle and they have not yet come up with a way to clean the air. But there may be some answer on the horizon. In the future, perhaps. One of the family members says that they think that they want to bring another child into this house. The flame is still strong but the candle is two-thirds down. When the flame hits the petrol…
Would you want your children to grow up in the environment that I have just described?
It’s bleak and there are some people out there who might consider a mother-daughter Fury Road-esque apocalyptic landscape a fun place for themselves and their children, but most people would, I think, not want to bring a child into a future where the very air around them is toxic. To bring a child into that kind of environment would scare many of us.
This is the stance taken by Birthstrike.
Birthstrike are not a movement willing the community not to have children nor is it some kind of release-a-plague-on-the-world-Inferno/Twelve Monkeys-style activist movement. It is a group of people who have decided not to have children as not to subject them to an inhospitable environment. To do so would be to raise a child into the world who could potentially suffer.
During an interview with Sustainababble, Alice Brown makes it absolutely clear that Birthstrike is a support network. This is also echoed by Birtstrike’s founder, Blythe Pepino in the Guardian: “its aim is not to discourage people from having children, or to condemn those who have them already, but to communicate the urgency of the crisis.”
After all, the choice not to have children can be lead to a high degree of emotional damage, not only for advocates of the movement but for partners and, in some cases, the wider family unit.
Many might think the choice to not have children is extreme. But, thinking about it logically and keeping in mind current predictions for the ways in which our planet could change in the next couple of decades, rearing a child may become less sustainable. A recent prediction put before the U.N states that we have only 12 years to make dramatic changes to the way we live our lives and inhabit this planet before we move beyond the tipping point. After that time the changes in climate and weather patterns will be well and truly out of our control and we will become subjects to changes the likes of which we have never seen.
If that prediction turns out to be correct we could see countries suffering from droughts leading to potential food shortages. Storms and floods. Cuts in supplies of pharmaceuticals. Air littered with particulates which (as alluded to above) causes breathing problems, dementia and have even recently been found in placenta which means the damage could already be taking place before birth. A rise in temperature and fresh water run-off making large portions of the planet both on land and in our oceans uninhabitable.
Is this a place in which you would your child to grow?
A study correlates Birthstrike’s position by concluding that one of the most effective methods to combat climate change is, in fact, to have one fewer children. The average human has a carbon footprint of roughly 10 tonnes. The equivalent of 24 million balloons of carbon dioxide. However, other studies have pointed out that, even if the world universally adopted a one-child policy, we would still see the dramatic changes that have been predicted. What is actually needed is a vast overhaul of our infrastructure and living habits to make any realistic change.
This gives hope for potential families. For those wanting to become parents. For those wanting to raise a child in a clean and prosperous world. But it also means that we need to see those dramatic changes being made. We need to completely rethink our ways of going about our day to day lives whilst simultaneously doing everything we can to reverse the damage that has already been done.
This is what we need and it is what Birthstrikers want. For that great change to happen. But in the meantime, maybe caution is best.
Never before have we seen so many advances and changes to our world as we are seeing today. Climate change, the rise of biotech and infotech. The proliferation of automation and the move toward artificial-intelligence which could either improve our wayso of life, or challenge who we are as humans. The mainstreaming of electric cars and the growing awareness of plastic pollution. Widespread movements to give previously overlooked or unrepresented factions of society equal rights. The rise of Asian economies which may soon rival our own in strength, and may even become superior which could change the ways we conduct business and alter long-standing loyalties. I was even shocked recently to find out that China even has plans to build a base on the moon and mine our little white dot in the sky for hydrogen.
This is the stuff of science-fiction!
The point is: we are in a transitional phase and are suffering the existential question of how to cope with the challenges we read about in our papers and see on our television screens and social media feeds. When faced with an uncertain future, people often look to their past. To “traditional values” to guide them through the turbulence. But what exactly are traditional values and do they offer us any guidance for the future?
Nationalism seems to be on the rise in the West and has led to two of the most significant changes that we have seen in our lifetimes: the U.K’s vote to leave the European Union and the vote in America for Donald Trump as President. As an answer to perceived outside threats, two major powers have turned to isolationism.
Globalisation was a worn out word by the end of the referendum of 2016. As was elites. Sometimes we heard “global elites”. The European Union, as pushed by Nigel Farage, Boris Johnson, Michael Gove and sundry others, was a product of globalisation.
Leavers pointed to levels of immigration and told the people that it was the European Union’s open border policy that was to blame. Leavers pointed out the disenfranchised peoples of towns that had been left behind when the U.K turned from a material and production economy to a service driven economy. The European Union was blamed again for moving production facilities abroad. The decline of U.K fisheries, blame the E.U. Red passports, blame the E.U. Curved bananas, blame the E.U. Hospital waiting times, blame the E.U. Rise in crime rates, blame immigration, thus blaming the E.U.
So, can the problems listed above be solved by a move toward nationalism as was what happened in 2016?
In regards to immigration, yes, technically nationalism has the potential to cut numbers of immigrants or stop them altogether.
But is that really in the national interest? Or is it in the interest of nationalist groups? For instance, whilst the cutting might benefit those who just want see less faces of colour or to hear different languages on their streets (the nationalists) the nationalist approach itself does not do much for our economy, our public services or for our reputation as “global players” which was a phrase championed by Leavers during the referendum campaign and even now.
Whilst the phrase “global player” was used extensively throughout the referendum, the truth is that the actual action of leaving the biggest and most successful trading bloc in the world was seen by many around the globe as an act of closing one’s own doors on trade.
The NHS is dependent on nurses and doctors from the E.U and further abroad but since the Brexit vote we have seen a dramatic decrease in the amount of people applying for university courses in nursing and a drop in job applications from outside the U.K. This is indicative of the trend that those from within Europe and outside the Union were no longer interested in investing in the U.K.
Nationalists might see this drop in foreign applications as a good thing as there is potential for British citizens to take the jobs. The problem however is that it takes years to train doctors and nurses and, in the meantime, care within the NHS would have plummeted. Ironically, it would be those older voters which chose leave who would suffer the most. With around 100,000 vacancies already within the NHS, this further reduction could potentially cripple certain elements of patient care.
As is being witnessed, the idea of being both nationalist and a “global player” is not compatible.
The main problem of the referendum, however, was that it focused anger outward toward the largely neutral E.U, when the truth was that the problems that the U.K faced were actually born and bred within its own borders.
Austerity due to bailing out the banks that had lead us into the financial crash of 2008. The rise in crime as a result of Conservative initiative to cut policing numbers so that there were fewer bobbies on the beat. (Remember Theresa May telling the police federation to stop “crying wolf” in 2015 regarding police cuts). Disenfranchisement of communities as the economy changed toward services and offices were centralised toward London. Those who were workers within communities who worked within extraction and production were never provided the means to retrain, and were instead left to become outdated.
A lethal combination occurred when the finger was pointed at immigrants for pushing wages down. The fact that immigrants were benign agents in the entire mess of things was rarely pointed out and the fact that it was actually exploitative practices being undertaken by business owners. Business owners have been largely left alone by the most recent governments, after all, it is good practice to be the party of business.
This goes to show that the so-called “global-elites” were actually the people within our own borders. Our very own Prime Minster of the day, David Cameron found to be putting money into offshore Panamanian accounts. For years we watched as the government refused to impose proper tax initiatives that would have seen large companies paying their fair share of tax which could have put toward social ventures for our children, thus keeping them out of gangs and preventing such a sharp increase in knife-crime. Not only were companies doing so, but the Conservatives were helping them maintain the status quo.
Britain has for years now been deeply entrenched in off-shore bank account activity that it the global master on managing assets and transferring money to keep it from the hands of nations. It is estimated that half of all global wealth could be locked up in off-shore accounts.
In the face of problems that originated within our own national system, people turned to nationalism to sort out the problem. That is a new one for me.
In 2013, the E.U offered to give a £22million cash injection into food banks in order to make sure that they were stocked and operational. This was turned down by David Cameron. Whilst our own government strangled the country, the E.U at least offered some kind of help. But that’s not all. The E.U has also been funnelling money into community projects including social groups and buildings, but this is rarely mentioned. The E.U is also a propagator of worker’s rights and is constantly moving to improve pay throughout its jurisdictions. When we are faced with military or cyber warfare, as we have seen from Russia during the referendum campaign and which the U.S witnessed during the presidential campaign, the E.U has close proximity to share information and make sure that each of its member states has the necessary tools to help fight back.
So, nationalism does not actually offer any real solutions to our national problems. Does it offer solutions to wider world issues? In an age of transnationalism, could countries learn from nationalist ideals?
Climate change is not an issue, it is the issue which will determine the very future of human civilisation. And climate change does not recognise borders drawn by man. A tropical storm does not stop when it hits the American coast. It ploughs through and wreaks untold damage. Plastic does not stop at the English Channel. It sweeps in and becomes part of our ecosystem. Just as much as melted ice does not stay in the Arctic Circle but raises water levels around the world.
And when islands start submerging and already challenged countries face drought and famine, we are going to see mass exodus unlike anything witnessed in documented history.
Unfortunately, nationalist interests have often disregard climate change in order to focus on more provincial initiatives such as kick-starting coal mining operations or doubling down on fuel extraction efforts. In the United States, nationalism is often synonymous with climate change denial as is evidential with Donald Trump’s repeated claims that climate change is a “hoax” perpetrated by the Chinese.
In regards to solutions to the climate crisis, nationalist approaches fall short. If nationalists really wanted to make a difference, they would join the global effort to battle climate change which would in turn mean that they are less likely to experience such a high influx of immigrants to their borders. Instead of becoming isolationist, it is within nationalist’s best interests to take part in a multi-national approach in order to combat the effects of climate change.
But then what would be the point in being nationalist when all we are going to do is have to work with countries around the globe and put measures in place which, whether we like it or not, would see the adoption of plans to take in refugees fleeing the effects of an unstable and changing climate?
Throughout history, civilisations have moved and shifted as the cattle migrates or as the living conditions change. After all, if the U.K were to become a dessert wasteland, would we not seek refuge in other countries? But we are the beginning of the catastrophic change where the decisions we make today will effect the next generation. We have the ability to make positive differences to the ways we tackle this threat. But are we capable of doing this as nationalists? Surely we are better prepared against the challenges if we work on an international scale?