Category Archives: Politics

May 27, 2013 · 10:46

The Data Intelligence bill

GCHQ_StampBThe events that occurred in Woolwich have sparked more than just one debate. The new debate is involving the additional powers that Home Secretary May wants to hand to the intelligence branch. It involves a data bill that was vetoed by the Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg. He stated that it was too much of an invasion of privacy.

Is he correct?

Initially I would side with that part. Yet, you cannot have it both ways. There is a plain and simple need to keep England’s citizens safe from radicalised attacks. The issue of Home grown terrorism had been an issue going back to Sir Jonathan Evans reign of MI-5. He was more than just a little concerned with outside influences on the British way of life. This now falls firmly on the shoulders of both Andrew Parker, who is well aware of the issues as well as the needed response and Sir Iain Robert Lobban of GCHQ. As this is Signal intelligence and as such it falls in his lap as the data would be needed for MI-5, MI-6 and some parts of local law enforcements.

I would think that part of this bill will start with Lord Carlile. His involvement in this goes back to the Terrorism Act of 2000. Current issues are ‘tainted’ by two reports and as such they both are important. First there is the National council of Civil Liberties that drafted a response to the definition of terrorism, which seems to have been the work of Gareth Crossman and Jago Russel. You should take a look at it (source: http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/pdfs/policy06/response-to-carlile-review-of-terrorism-definition.pdf). It is an interesting work, and important to read is how they see this all. Part of the weakness is the approach on page 3 where they state: “It is vital that the definition of ‘terrorism’ is drawn as tightly as possible“. It is a decent stance to have, yet in the light of fear against home grown/lone wolf terrorism it is actually counterproductive. Terrorism is a shifty acre of quicksand and the strict approach is not only going to fail, it will get the people involved stopping this drowned. Not a good thing me thinks!

I feel uncertain to the point 6 they make on page 5. Yes, they do state that it is outside of the scope of the document, and as such they only raise the comments made that Terrorism should be dealt with under Criminal law. Here is where I might be the dissenting voice. The law should cover all, I do believe in that, however, what part of law? We are dealing with a group that does not seem to be categorised as such. These people are not transgressing in a way where we approach a normal person, or even the average person. Whilst we approach these transgressors in one way or another, even when if possible their defence starts going into the Mental Health act we will see a case where the court is drawn into years of litigation and dealing with a case that as such should be seen as a non-combatant involved in hostile military actions against civilians with no allegiance to any nation and as such it becomes a mess where each case locks down the justice system more and more. Consider the American situation (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance act). This comes from a special report by their Justice department stated in June 2005.

“This allowed the use of FISA information in a criminal case provided that the ‘primary purpose’ of the FISA surveillance or search was to collect foreign intelligence information rather than to conduct a criminal investigation or prosecution. The seminal court decision applying this standard to information collected in intelligence cases was issued in 1980. See United States v. Truong Dinh Hung, 629 F.2d 908 (4th Cir. 1980). In this case, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled the government did not have to obtain a criminal warrant when ‘the object of the search or the surveillance is a foreign power, its agents or collaborators,’ and ‘the surveillance is conducted primarily for foreign intelligence purposes.’ Id. at 915. However, the court ruled that the government’s primary purpose in conducting an intelligence investigation could be called into question when prosecutors had begun to assemble a prosecution and had led or taken on a central role in the investigation.”

This shows that the narrowness of the scope would be the obstacle we should be trying to prevent. The issue is NOT our privacy at that point; it is all about them having access to go after the right people. This requires them to blanket us with collection of data. Even though the data is all collected, it will turn out that 99.9% might never be accessed. Having it is however essential for their success of stopping terrorist attacks. So when the Sky News UK reporter Stephen Douglas mentioned “are they playing politics with fear” then he is in my humble opinion incorrect. This data bill has been needed for a long time. It can even be safely speculated that MI-5 could have intervened with the Kenyan involved in the Woolwich murder at an earlier stage as more flags would have been raised. Their interview with him would have led to other questions, confirmations of danger. That seems to not have happened at this stage.

So from the civil liberty document we move to document cm7058 from June 2007 which holds “The Government Reply to the Report by Lord Carlile of Berriew Q.C. Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation The Definition of Terrorism“. (Source: http://www.official-documents.gov.uk/document/cm70/7058/7058.pdf). My issue is with point 5 on page 5. Idiosyncratic terrorism imitators should generally be dealt with under non-terrorism criminal law. This is the point that shows the need of the data bill. Especially when we consider Lone wolf or Home grown terrorists there will be the issue whether the person was a mental health wannabe, or a more intelligent individual being allowed a second go at harming groups of people, after civil rights protected him the first time.

So even if we want to give strength to both Nick Clegg and the National council of Civil Liberties. They are there speaking out to protect your rights. Yet, in that process, they are giving strength and freedom to terrorist attacks like the one in Woolwich (not intentionally). This issue is like a seesaw. These two viewpoints are utterly opposing and as we give power to one, we remove it from the other. The interesting part is that the information we surrender will not harm us unless we support terrorism. Should that not convince you then please remember that you have already given away your privacy to most market research and financial institution data centres. They only want your money, or in a product driven way bank you. The intelligence community wants to keep you safe. In my mind, there is no debate. The data bill is likely to come and should be there, if only to prevent a second Woolwich.

Leave a comment

Filed under Law, Media, Politics

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

May 24, 2013 · 22:42

You might soon be sold by the banks!

I have heard often, in many situations the ‘that is not how it works’ was stated. How it was all in my mind. No, this morning issues were not just confirmed, I reckon that things are even worse than you think they are.

You see, for the most I do not trust ‘Financial Institutions’. They came in a time when there was an abundance of all, when people, as they were turned away from banks, they were willing to take a ‘chance’. For one part, this is Capitalism at its best! (Or at least that is how it was in the beginning.) Now they have grown, more margins more abilities and as we saw them grow in many fields they gained perspectives the banks in their conservatives states did not.

So, whenever I can, I stay away from financial institution. The main reason, they do not have the muzzle to keep them in place when needed. You think this is strange? Well, read on and prepare for the rudest awakening in a long time.

In the Netherlands there is a company called Equens. Today they temporary abstained from a plan to sell on their financial information. Equens is a payment provider. It processes pass (credit cards, bank cards and so on) transactions. They do so all over Europe and they are not the smallest. With 15 BILLION transactions they own well over 10% of the market. The plan is indeed decently brilliant, but dangerous as hell. They almost pulled in the banks to take their transaction data to market. It would have been quite the revenue, but it is the most dangerous one you will ever personally experience, and the issue with ‘temporary’ means it remains a danger. The initial report on this matter drew too much criticism, even though RABO and SNS Nationalised were interested, they crawled back when certain legal issues rose. It had been raised by the Dutch consumer society and the Dutch political party Democrats 66. I feel certain that this delay is a temporary one, as the issues involving legalities might be resolved over time. This is exactly the issue with financial institutions. Banks have power, but as such they were limited in freedom of movement (as it should be). Their commercial corporate brother named ‘Financial institution’ does not have these strict limits, which gives many of us the dangers currently at play.

Even so, Equens did make the promise that the sold information could not be tracked to any individual. This is where they are (intentionally) wrong in my mind.

You see, this goes beyond their system (and that is how they ‘focussed’ their view. Let me show you how. You buy an item at your usual store. That store processes your payment. You remain anonymous. Yet, your usual store has given you a discount/loyalty pass. NOW there is a connection between the bank card and your personality. So, as Equens data is sold on and on and on, more information can be added as the shop cash register (and therefor their data) has your bank pass and your personal details in the form of a loyalty card. Two numbers that could be connected with the greatest of ease and these cash registers have been collecting numbers for years and years. Now the link of two numbers separates their claim of anonymity and total financial and personal classification.

So look at those facts, now check your wallet and look at those cards you have. Are any of them for the Cinema? A book store? A game store? A fashion store? Do you get mail to your home from any of them? You’ll likely have at least one, and with every addition, you will get classified more and quicker. Soon you are nothing more than a product number. This is the ultimate marketing move! Availability of products, per person, per location. This is not such a future event; this is about to happen to us all.

I reckon that whatever happens will happen fast, and not just in the EU. If Equens is so willing to make this leap with only +10% market share, then who are the bigger players? This is a mega million market and if the Netherlands with 19 million people are so desired, then what about the UK with 68 million? Consider the meeting Equens had and a document they presented in June 2011 (source: http://www.paymentscouncil.org.uk/files/payments_council/npp2011_-_consultation_docs/22.06.11_equens_se.pdf).

The statements like: “However, the single largest criticism of the NPP is that it lacks an overarching business vision on which to drive a coherent strategy that delivers the various elements of the Plan.”

So, the National Payment Plan was even more in need of a business vision? To consider those consequences we would need to look at Q42 of that document on page 14. Single Euro Payments Area (SEPA) is under scrutiny where it was stated that ”The adoption of SEPA standards and formats should be introduced as quickly as possible. Whilst this will impose a cost on Corporate UK, the benefits of these new standards will take some time to reach fruition if standards migration is done on a phased basis.” So what adoptions exactly, and as such, which ones are less documented but not prohibited? From an IT point of view ‘formats’ reads as changes to interact data on more levels more easily. Why? Costs on Corporate UK! When have they EVER been willing to accept costs without tenfold falling back into their laps? It is simple basic capitalism. I have nothing against it, yet the part where most others get sold is not in those papers, yet it is not prohibited either. Welcome to the open world of financial institutions where we are about to become their product. Even though Equens is now visible, I wonder where a big boy like Schlumberger (Axalto) is at this point, who has a sizeable share.

The NOS reported on their website (www.nos.nl) today that these moves are for now of the table. Quoted was “Aanleiding voor dit besluit is de maatschappelijke onrust die is ontstaan.” (translation: ‘reason for this decision is the social unease that rose‘). I think that they have business concerns which will not allow them to endanger their 10% market at present. Yet, if they thought of it, then so did the other players and as such the next step is only a matter of time, and I reckon that we do not have that much time left before we are part of a sold system.

From there our world of what we need will be transformed into our world as THEY see we need. A small change will become a world of difference for us all.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, IT, Law, Media, Politics

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

May 21, 2013 · 00:54

Values of a debatable side

OK, it is 23:30 at the moment and I am finding out the hard way that life in a hospital as a patient can be different from your daily life in the corporate world with fluent internet and then some, go figure!
So when I initially listened last weekend to a few newscasts in regards to a team of devoted UK MP’s I was not completely on the ball. Yes, they were having a go at the dude from Google, but alas, it was not the price fight we might have seen when some have a go at Lawrence Ellison, and the MP’s go home crying like Charlie Brown after an encounter with Lucy.

So there they are, Amazon, Google and their margins of non-taxation. Those MP’s dressed like bankers and charging like Don Quixote.
It is almost like a new disney ‘fairy-tail’. The pot calling the kettle brokered. Is it not a little on the hypocritical side, that AFTER they bail out RBS, when RBS reports a 2 billion loss, that personal ‘acquaintances’ still go home with a bonus total of almost 400 million? That was not stopped was it?
But Amazon and Google, after they did everything legal (not unlike the bankers of a fat-cat persuasion), and used exactly those correct steps in their order processing that now certain MP’s cry Havoc and slip-up the dog of stores.

This situation does bring back memories of my previous blog where I accuse members of the EU thinking too local in certain cases, this tax front reads the same way. Now, if you think that I will advocate one version of taxation for the EU, then think again. That is just not realistic! That is like putting 22 toddlers in one room, asking them to all select the same piece of chocolate, good luck with that one!
Yet, the idea to streamline certain forms of taxation to ease businesses in an optional situation where web stores will have equal rules, rights and burdens is not that bad. Of course not all EU nations have the same powerful internet, so more issues will arise.

In the end, is it about web stores and taxations? Let’s face it, a political grilling that was senseless and pointless to begin with? And let us not forget, no legal transgressions seem to have been made (if I am incorrect, then this blog WILL be updated). It is also interesting that the chair person of the committee Margaret Hodge, and her family connection to Stemcor seems to be in the same class of fishing pond. How revealing! What was that about a pot and kettle I mentioned earlier? By the way a special thanks to Helia Ibrahimi of the Telegraph who had several of these facts before I did (4G in a hospital is not that realistic, hence my delays).

Yes, it seems that a elevated level of lesser taxation does exist, like an additional income support class for billionaires. Hoo-de-la-lay, as Prince John would say (Copyright: Disney).

So looking at these issues, and these facts, then what is this really about? Will this be the kick-off for a ‘simpler’ tax system? (like billionaires do not get enough deductibles as is). Is this about uniting into one tax system? The latter part would be a nice idea, however with many EU nations in desperate shape to get revenue, not realistic. There is also the slight humorous thought of PM Cameron calling Dublin asking them to do him a favour and not process Google’s non taxable issues there. What are the odds that Irish laughter will reach the shores of Sydney? #JustSaying

Make no mistake, there is more going on here. Do not be fooled to think that this is just visibility. The honourable Margaret Hodge for Barking is one clever cookie. She has been around for a long time and when it comes to the disciples of Machiavelli, she is up there with the league players, which beckons the thought what is this the start of?
The only part that comes to mind is that this is a two edged sword. On one side this is only partially about the tax lessening that Google, Amazon, a few others and the family firm (Stemcor) are enjoying. This might be in one part, a nice little jab to raise the topic of raised taxation during the G8. Consider the issues that the EU needs revenue, now consider that 1% of something remains better then nothing, and that plays nice to the Stemcor business family too, All these EU items play in her/labours favour. If David Cameron does nothing, he will look weak, any act by the PM will economically hit back and gives chance for an overwhelming victory for labour next election. The UKIP issues do not help much either, but at least in that part they are not on the side of labour.

Still, whatever pressure is applied to increase the billionaires tax bill, Westminster must be careful not to be too harsh with their ‘scare’ tactics. Scotland is only 725 km to the North and Stemcor already has an office there.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Media, Politics

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , ,

May 10, 2013 · 16:09

Got Milk?

This has been an interesting week for some. This news actually started last week where more and more visibility was given to the fact that shops were running low on baby milk. We are talking about the powder tins that are processed into yummiest milk that babies are supposed to like, love and make them grow healthy.

The UK articles and newscasts showed that shops had limited the baby milk limit to one tin per customer per day. France was already dealing with this issue for some time. The reasoning behind this was the fact that shoppers were buying them on mass to sell them on eBay for staggering profit margins. The interesting part now is that this group has grown into the Netherlands as well, and they now have an issue too.

There the story becomes slightly hilarious. This is what the Dutch Minister Ploumen of foreign trade had to say “Het is natuurlijk prachtig om te horen dat Nederlandse producten geliefd zijn in China, dat is goed voor de werkgelegenheid in ons land. Buitenlandse handel biedt binnenlandse banen. Maar daarentegen kan dit niet ten koste gaan van de Nederlandse moeders en vaders die tegen lege schappen aanlopen” [translation: “It is excellent to hear that Dutch products are desired in China, this is good for Dutch labour opportunities. However, this should not go at the expense of Dutch fathers and mothers who see the empty shelves“]. (Source: http://www.NOS.nl).

So, we have an issue that had been sweeping the market in general for several months. Which is interesting as Nutricia, the Dutch producer who has a world famous reputation for chocolate milk is one of them. They currently have a growing market with spiking needs in excess of 50%. In a time with low economy and overall downsized retails. The minister of foreign trade is talking about empty shelves. But I do agree that this is both a fact and an issue, but is it his?

This hilarious part is that when researching this I found that the Dutch laws have been focussing on different sides of import, especially grey import. This is however an export issue, and so far it seems that the Dutch trade is only outspoken (in a slightly complex way) when it comes to the export of medicines. I did find statements in regards to anti-dumping, that dumping is not an illegal act, which is a discussion for another day.

The interesting side is the lack (as seen at present) on the rules for export. As other nations all have their own rules for import, the export seems to be open to promote trade as much as possible, which makes perfect sense. So it seems that the Minister Ploumen speech of empty shelves is limited to this as there as limitations of export seems to be missing. (There are exceptions as there are clear rules for exporting weapons and medicine).

Except for the few who were quick enough to use the eBay option to sell these packages quickly, this rage of exports is set to people (especially Chinese), who buy these products and mail them to relatives and friends in China. All this based on the baby milk issues within China when their milk was contaminated with the deadly substance Melamine. This initial issue had been reported in 2008 and that had resulted in large numbers of sick baby’s with some fatalities. It is interesting that these levels of mistrust are still an issue now in 2013. Even though there was a call for censorship to prevent larger issues of emerging unrest, I did not find any clear evidence that new baby milk issues emerged, other than the still existing waves of lack of confidence in the local created products.

So considering the facts that these issues have been plaguing the EU since last October, there are two issues to consider.

The first is the question is why the producers did not raise quota needed to fill the shop shelves? It seems extremely unlikely that the producers over 3 nations cannot meet the additional amounts. As I never had to consider this food group, it took a little while to get into the brands. Interesting is that as part of the dozens of brands a sizeable amount refers to: Nestle, Nutricia, Nutripharm and Farleys. Yet, I am not aware of the processes and the amounts that can be produced. So consider that these are the EU’s big four, what is stopping them to increase production? I know that it is unlikely that we just increase the speed of the production line. This is depending on a lot more factors. It is however interesting that these big boys cannot meet demands. It is not certain whether they are working on 24 hour shift solutions, yet three nations, all plagued with employment rate issues and in times of a downsized economy the one product everybody wants, no one can get. So why are we concerned with export legislation at present? (at least in the Netherlands).

You see, this is all about the Chinese import issue. If they start stopping this import then they might be one step away from some serious civil war issues (as most people get REAL cranky when their children are being endangered). If they decide to stop this on quality reasoning, why are they doing this? Their own producers seemed to have endangered their own children. To their defence, at present this seems to be linked to low consumer confidence, not linked to any actual issues at present.

The second issue is about the future. I can agree that the Chinese would prefer joint-venture solutions, yet at present that solution seems unlikely to do anything short term considering the Chinese low confidence in their own products. I agree with any nation that it does not like to depend its future generation on an import issue. That solution reads like little Hans Brinker putting his finger in a dyke whilst 200 meters downwards the dyke is gone, it is very counter-productive. If we care about the population then the Chinese are much better up opening the borders for the next 6 months and avoid optional additional issues with some clever criminal repackaging high end used tins with low end materials. Releasing the pressured need of baby milk, and then get those 4 big boys (or any of them) across the borders, each signing up to address the issues that plagued the factories and get them back on-line with confidence levels that will get the Chinese population back to their local brands. Let us be fair, opening that market seems to be a win for all and basically no one loses there.

What are the additional issues?

To me it seems that export issues are less and less arranged, and I do not think that this is a bad thing. If over regulations hurts trade, then proper actions should be taken, and most nations have decent import regulations in place, so export issues are less likely.

For the UK this is a better arranged side as they are gifted with the UK Export Control Act 2002.

Here we see a few clear options. In S4(2)(b) we read that “(2) For this purpose ‘trade controls’, in relation to any goods, means the prohibition or regulation of their movement;” So this point makes it clear that export can be ‘stopped’ to some effect.

However (there is always a however) Section 1 speaks of Export controls. This states for S1(2) “For this purpose ‘export controls’, in relation to any goods, means the prohibition or regulation of their exportation from the United Kingdom or their shipment as stores.“. And in S4(4) we read that this is linked to S1, which seems to give individuals a clear pass. (Yay for individuality!)

So it seems that the UK companies have clear legislation (which might not be an issue), yet the Dutch and French legislation only seem to have stated rules and limitations when it concerns arms and medicine, beyond that if they were allowed to make it, it can basically be shipped anywhere.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Law, Politics

Tagged as , , , , ,

May 6, 2013 · 15:59

Shalom Syria!

There have been several issues in the last two years that give reasoning to ponder our collective futures as we see issues flame over the Middle East. It has been clear in several ways that Israel is constantly under attack, it has been under attack pretty much after the state of Israel was founded.

So in a highly pressurised area, the Civil War in Syria was not the additional pressure anyone was waiting for. This civil war has now passed the two year mark. So, we can honestly say that this is a ‘grievance’ that goes high with the entire population of Syria (no matter which side they are on).

Yet, there are still other sides. At present President Bashar al-Assad has seen an expected short term issue into a long term consequence. Even if (however unlikely), he would be victorious against the opposition, there will be a massive amount of repairs to be done all over Syria. In addition, with the currently shown evidence, which gives us enough evidence that Syria employed methods of chemical warfare against its own citizens, there is every chance that nations of the League of Arab states will not invite him to the negotiation table as an equal any day soon. This means that whatever support he hopes to have needs to come from other ways and means.

So, what about Hezbollah?

They proclaimed their support for the Syrian state and President Bashar al-Assad. Here is where the plot became confusing for many. Hezbollah currently seen and should remain to be regarded as a terrorist organisation. Yet, their open support for a sovereign state is a valid question mark for many.

This is where the issue of yesterday and the issue last January exploded quite literally. Israel finds it utterly unacceptable that advanced missile systems are delivered to Hezbollah via Beirut. This is the reason Syrian got to watch a bright orange sky as a ‘research-building’ (as the Syrian government calls it) was turned into the main component of a snow globe.

Israel is quite right to be concerned with advanced weaponry seemingly given to Hezbollah. The note here is the ‘advanced’ part as Israel seems to remain eager to stay out of the internal struggle of Syria as much as possible. There is the side that the press at present seems to lack ‘illuminating’ to all.

No matter what the Syrian statement is, as they complained validly that they lost a building, yet no one upgraded it to a hotel as the rules of the Monopoly game states. The issue I have is that a convoy of weapons, not once, but twice would make its way to Beirut. Take into consideration the following report by Reuters last year. ( at http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/19/us-lebanon-explosion-idUSBRE89I0N620121019)

So, slowly the question could become, is Israel not already in a war with ‘Syrian’ elements as such, considering that the new name of Lebanon might be “West Syria”, or what in the US might in future be known as West Side Syria. There had been issues all over the news in the last year that Syrian intelligence had the run of Lebanon. As such Israel’s strike makes even more sense. It also is given additional strength if we consider Reuters article at http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/04/05/us-israel-lebanon-hezbollah-un-idUSBRE93311920130405

 All this gives reason for worry. Should this escalate even further, an option that is at present unlikely but not impossible will change to “likely” if the Syrian government keeps on updating Hezbollah the way it currently seems. The consequence will seem far-fetched at present, yet uncomfortably logical.

Should the issues with Hezbollah/Syria escalate, then that would give Israel two new frontiers to worry about. First the people of Lebanon might enter their own moment of Civil war for the simple reason that one air-strike lit up the sky more brightly then the combined effort of an entire year of Syrian explosions. That and the fact that it’s citizens might even end up having to look at a levelled Beirut because Hezbollah violated UN Security council resolution 1701 for some time, as well as the issue that at present elements from Syrian Intelligence seems to be a ruling voice in Lebanon, might make the population angry enough to clean up their government.

These escalating issues will be a clear sign to Hamas to start their fireworks barrage (read S.C.U.D/Qassam/Fajr-5) on Israel. This will push Israel into a state of utter defence, which means that their attacks can no longer be proportionate. They would have little other option then to change both the West-Bank and Beirut into an ash pile. There are plenty of people claiming that Israel will not do this and how this should be resolved diplomatically. To them I say “Talk is cheap!” Syria crossed a red line according to the NATO Intelligence, yet at present nothing is done. Any talk is only a factor of delay. I do understand that the US is not happy, willing or able to just enter a new war zone. I am also not stating that they should consider it, yet if they do not, when (‘should’ is a better word) things escalate they will remain outside the zone discussing and not being able to direct the theatre of war, something they prefer as it will always be better to direct the game then just run with the other players.

For all who claim that THIS time (the Sarin evidence discussions) it is not a delaying tactic, I state “By whose standard?” Let me guess; only at some point AFTER missiles hit Tel Aviv, THEN they will agree to talk? Then there would be a suddenly (temporary) agreed seize fire? There is at present enough evidence for Israel to seize proportional responses and do whatever they can to secure the state of Israel.

For anyone thinking that this is an option Israel would never consider, and then consider that Lebanon is giving Hezbollah and Syrian Intelligence pretty much Carte Blanche in Beirut. Even though Lebanon does not currently have a dangerous striking force, and in addition, the Lebanese government has at present no intent of open hostile acts against Israel (as far as I know), then consider that when (not if) the Syrian establishment falls, a massive amount of military and intelligence personnel will move into Lebanon and Iran trying to escape prosecution from the people they prosecuted. As the victor of this encounter will be prosecuting (read hunting and lynching those who did the atrocities). I am not saying it did not happen on both sides, I am stating that the victorious side will end up giving blanket immunities to their people. Both Iran and Syria will be getting an added group of people happy to start open hostilities with Israel.

So a solution must be found. I personally believe it is not just about the Syrian Civil War. No matter what people shout, that ‘party’ is not going anywhere for many months after the civil war have been resolved. The issue on how Lebanon seems to have been compromised into a puppet state that is run by Terrorist and hostile Intelligence organisations seems to miss the news regularly, and that is a matter that has a much higher priority then people think, as that part has the ability to remain a destabilising factor long after the Civil War is done with. The reason should be obvious. Two groups that should reasonably be isolated, now end up having access to Banks, Media and a sizeable harbour. Two groups with too much access to all kinds of resources, both living with the premise that their values is based upon their ability to wage terrorist assaults on Israel.

Leave a comment

Filed under Military, Politics

Tagged as , , , , , , ,

May 4, 2013 · 15:59

UKIP or U.K.I.P? (Ur Kiddin’ I Presume?)

First let me start by stating my ‘allegiance’. I for the most am a conservative in mind. I used to be Labour/Liberal Democrat in past, but like all people, over time my thoughts and ideas changed like they change with most people. And as most, we want to support the team that looks out for us, and is closest to our ideals. We often keep it in that order of importance.

The issues are not with the parties, they, for the most did nothing wrong to make me change my mind. They had priorities as any good party would have, and as they change I felt less with one and more with the other party.

So why, from Australia is this part on UKIP coming? Well, I grew up in Europe and I spend most of my life there. Perhaps at times I still miss being in London, but that would apply to anyone who has been to London. Only the dead do not miss London and even that might be debatable. So as I saw the news this morning on how UKIP made some staggering victories from the conservatives I started to ponder it all. So this is where I am at present.

What do most know about UKIP? We saw some people lash out against them as they lash out against most opponents they are worried about. Then there was (too) little from UKIP and of course the votes and those who flocked towards them in droves.

When you look online, there are heaps of reviews. The Australian wrote ‘Send in the UKIP Clowns’, ‘the anti-immigration UK independence party’ and a few other less than flattering headers.

So taking a look at their site at http://www.UKIP.org had several papers that could be read, downloaded and or printed. It seems that they have information that is ready for all. One of the quotes that was on page 2 of their manifesto was “On January 1st 2014, The UK will open its door to unlimited numbers of people from Romania and Bulgaria”.

In the current economic and financial climate that makes entire Europe suffer, this message would scare plenty of people in the UK. There is even a quote from Ed Miliband MP, leader of the labour party in there. Yes, there is a simple message. So, why am I interested?

From my view many Commonwealth nations are connected. Even if Australia has a strong mining community (a force our own PM seems to be happy to break into suffering little parts), we are connected with the UK. If your mother was in danger, would you NOT come to her rescue? I think that we will always come to the aid of England, even when they lack Cricket skills ;-).

The message from UKIP remains simple, yet life is not that simple, but it ought to be. This is why Mr Cameron is now in a situation where he has to pick up the pieces. I will go one step further, even if the press was not willing (or able) to make it. If the current standing is not rectified fast, the conservatives might find themselves in less than a minority position, they will end in a position that will take multiple government terms to rectify.

So let us take a look at these issues that gave strength to the UKIP.

Open immigration from Romania and Bulgaria. Open immigration is always an issue for any nation that is in a much better place than the nations where immigrants come from. Yet, these two are not in any good state, so if those people have a chance of a much better life they will come. Yet, in support, the Netherlands has been dealing with massive scaled rental allowance fraud from Bulgarian gangs. The Dutch information program ‘Brandpunt’ (= flashpoint) even showed how organised bus trips from Bulgaria exist, just to start this method of fraud. One website even mentioned “Bulgaarse televise zendt cursussen ‘Hoe misbruik te maken van het Nederlandse systeem'” (=Bulgarian television transmits courses on ‘how to abuse the Dutch system’).

In the current climate this is what the UK might have to look forward to in one way or another. So, when we see UKIP announcing that they want to get out of the EU in the current climate, many people listen.

Is UKIP correct? This is where my shoes become a little tight for comfort. Life and politics are not that simple. No matter how much we would like it to be, the UK is currently in a 1 trillion deficit issue. It needs an increased economy and it needs export to keep it all real, yet the prospect of losing a 0.3% economical increase (achieved by the conservatives) is not likely to survive after the open border policy starts next January. There is another reality that does not bode well for Mr Cameron either. Many Nations in Europe have no real grip on their budgets at present. Germany seems to be the only one on par for now. Even the UK has a problem, but that is an UK issue. As they remain in the EU, they also inherit the issues of Italy, Greece, Spain and Cyprus. Each of these 4 are now loudly protesting in a state of anti-Austerity and as such, should their governments be overturned, then the chance of them cleaning up their own mess is not likely to happen any day soon. UKIP wants to be away from the EU when that happens. The reality is that the brunt of those blows would push the Netherlands, Belgium and France on their financial knees as well. Then what?

So even though Mr Cameron is right that life is complex, the appeal that Nigel Farage wants to do an Alexander the Great and cut the Gordian knot is not that far-fetched and is starting to appeal to a much wider audience. There is even additional support as the Netherlands did not get their budget in order and now gets a one year extension. In addition, their own labour party is entering a state of possible disarray as its members oppose a plan earlier approved in a coalition deal with the VVD (Dutch Liberal party). In this situation to get certain deals, the Dutch Labour party had to accept the standing that the Dutch Liberals want a harsher expulsion policy for illegal and criminal immigrants. To make this coalition work Labour had to go along with this to get some of their own agenda points to work. Now the party members want to move away from the Liberal stance on immigration (as the Labour mindset was never on par with that) and MP Samson was unwilling to do this. He had a standing agreement and he wants to keep his word. He also warned that pushing this would come at a cost for labour. Labour would have to hand over something else and even in the short run this would be likely an expensive change for the Labour agenda. So even though this is currently being talked about, it is clear that a crises point could come. In addition, there is no indication that the Dutch economy is changing for the better. There was mention of 0.6% of shrinking of the Dutch economy. In case you were wondering why this issue matters, it does! (Read on to learn why)
You see, if the Dutch economy gets any worse it will soon go towards a situation France and Italy are in (with a lot less deficit). Consider these nations nearly all with an overall average unemployment rate of 12.1%. These people will seek solutions and are very willing to cross borders for a better option. So, the fear that UKIP propagates is a real one.

In addition, the Gordian knot will have several benefits in these regards, but what is the downfall? There is the reality that the response from the Eurozone might lean towards a preference choice in business partners and removing the UK from the top of that list as/if they move out of the EU. It comes with the ‘we take care of our own and ours first’ taking the UK out of that equation. That is a reality to face too.

Does one outweigh the other? I feel certain that UKIP made no real investigation into that part at present. The question becomes what is done after they get the votes, and when they grow large(r), will they be able to provide not just ‘answers’ but also come up with solutions? The latter might be an issue as Nigel Farage stated on Sky News on May 3rd that a reshuffle was needed as they grew more than anticipated. That statement is fair enough when we see that thus far they gained 139 seats. It is a massive victory indeed.

Yet if there is another side then it can be found in their manifesto on page 4.

  • Protecting the greenbelt – opposing wind farms and HS2.

If the UK is to move forward then a proper energy policy is needed. They could consider more nuclear power, yet in the end, alternative fuel will be the future. Considering that the UK gets more wind daily then an average flying jet turbine, wind farms need to remain an option. In addition, if the UK will opt out of the EU, things will get more expensive in the short run, perhaps in the long run too. A strong energy policy would be paramount to keep the cost for the average citizen down and moving away from wind farms as an option seems less like a good idea.

Next on the list are 4 of the points mentioned.

  • Tax should be as low as possible.
  • Cracking down on crime and anti-social behaviour.
  • More police on the streets.
  • Cutting council executives and managers, not front-line services.

These issues are nice to hear, just like the quote we see in a fortune cookie. The tax statement is nice, but will it change? As ‘low as possible’ is just like ‘as soon as possible’, if the second one could mean ‘never’ then the first one could remain ‘too high’. There is actually more to this. Cracking down on crime is something the police have always done. Could more be done? Sure! There is however the issue that a budget needs to be kept and the UK has its own Austerity measures to consider as the 1 trillion deficits is not going away any day soon. This is where the third statement comes. Sure more police on the street sounds nice, but there is an infrastructure. Adding to the police force is nice, but with what money? The police forces have been bled dry and cut to ‘too little’ and not only in the UK. So if they tamper with the infrastructure to keep the promise of more police in the street the result is likely to be counter-productive down the line, then what will UKIP do?

So you see, they talk to the public, and tell them what to hear, but will it solve anything? This part is the debatable one. Yet, down the line, we must admit to govern one must be in office, and they did get into the office and now they must prove it.

I will not join the queue where they are labelled as fruit cakes and such. Mr Cameron is right that they will become a party to be reckoned with. The interesting part is how this will play out. The old duo Clegg-Miliband is now a lot less likely to survive, that part Mr Nigel Farage did achieve. What will Labour do next is the question. They are still the biggest for now. If they are to survive then they must align. It is unlikely they will find themselves with the Tories, yet it is either that, or their new option UKIP.

And here is where we see exactly the issue that Dutch Labour and Liberals are having (PVDA/VVD). What items are given and what are taken and what happens when the MP’s strike deals their constituents will not agree with? A British political sciences student in the late 90’s once told me “Coalition cabinets are the most entertaining, volatile and corrupt forms of governments”. I thought that his point of view made a lot of sense. The UK is about to join those ranks as they need to form coalitions at both sides of the isles. Will it be about the people or the MP’s and their futures? Time will tell but there is clarity in no uncertain terms. Those who did not give clear explanations of the why (as it was too complex) are now in a state where they must redraw lines and re-educate the masses as they figure out what to do next to get their seats back.

So the title ‘You’re Kidding I presume?’ Is very correct, yet who is stating that line, and whom are they stating it to is left in the open as both sides could claim that title and both side should be able to answer it.

 

1 Comment

Filed under Media, Politics

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , ,