Decoding Brexit

Full disclosure here: I'm currently a British ex-pat living in Spain. For those of you who would like to discredit everything I say because of this fact, stop reading now.

Right that's the idiots out of the way. For the rest of you, I'd just like to say that my current living situation brings with it some bias on the subject of the EU. I acknowledge and accept that, but my opinion on Britain's membership of the EU has remained the same since even before my migration.

The EU Referendum is being relentlessly debated throughout the UK. There is literally nowhere to hide from the looming vote on the 23rd June, and everywhere we turn, reasons for Britain to leave or stay within the European Union are being shoveled down our throats faster than a toilet flush. It's exhausting. Issues such as immigration, the economy, world trade, worker's rights and sovereignty are dominating the debate inside and outside of parliament, but that's not all. There isn't a single aspect of British life that isn't being turned into ammunition for either side of the debate. Benefits, animal welfare, food prices, fishing management, holiday costs and fox hunting are just a handful of points being used to persuade people one way of the other. Often the same points are being used by both sides. I even seen someone pledge a vote to leave for fear of the EU destroying the sport of Airsoft. No wonder people are confused with all the fear-mongering and hysteria. 

When I started writing this piece, I wanted to critically analyse the facts in order to give a balanced review of the arguments being thrown around. The problem is that the facts are constantly being manipulated and misrepresented on both sides to influence the public. The truth is, in order to truly gain understanding of the issue, we need to be analysing the people giving us the information also. We need to understand the underlying motivations for leaving the EU, and remaining within the EU.

Ideologies

Political ideologies are strong motivators for manipulating facts, so I'll start with the ideologies guiding the arguments either side.

Conservatism

Conservatism can mean many things, but as a general principal can apply to those who resist change. In party politics, the conservatives seek to conserve capitalism, and the wealth of the Conservative party is a key factor. This one goal is the driving factor of the decision making process: Will leaving the EU help the capitalist economy? The Tories are divided on this, with recent statistics showing the Remain:Leave ratio at 171:131. (1)

The conservatives have had a history of causing riots and public outrage in the UK. In 1990, Margaret Thatcher resigned in the same year as causing the Poll Tax Riots.(2) Already we can see that there is a section of the working class that lacks confidence and trust in the current UK government led by David Cameron, so staying in power is another key objective. This is a possible cause of the split opinion amongst Tory cabinet members with a populist agenda.

Socialism

The socialist tendency factors into the debate for some of the members of the Labour party. Freedom of movement and multiculturalism are ideals that guide the centre-left, as well as a plan to reform the EU.
Referred to as the 'soft-left' by other left groups, this consists of a large percentage of labour. The wealth of Labour mps is a motivator here, as well as pressures from left groups such as Socialist Fight, who seek to influence Labour with socialist values. It is fair to note that there are many millionaire labour members also, so the comfort of a wealthy lifestyle can tempt individuals to abandon the root anti-capitalist ideals of socialist thought. Nevertheless the Remain:Leave ratio stood at 218:10 (1), so there is clearly more unity in the Labour camp. The furthering of political careers within the EU, has been suggested as a key motivator for decisions within Labour.

The Socialist Worker's Party are voting out with the Left-exit (Lexit) campaign in order for reasons opposing those of the Brexit campaign. The Lexiters are pushing for a stronger UK outside the EU, where worker's rights and public services are key, with an aim to dismantle the EU for being undemocratic and pro-capitalist.

Imperialism

British pro-imperialist ideology doesn't stop at the armed forces, there are large sections of the working class that take great pride in the British Empire, and smaller sections would see it restored to it's prime, so this is an obvious motivation for leaving the 'European superstate'. Though there is no strictly imperialist party, slogans 'Believe in Britain' tie in with imperialist philosophy.

Reformism

Reformists believe that the capitalist system can be reformed to make it fairer and better. In the case of the referendum, the reformists accept the flaws of the EU and seek to change it from within.

The Green Party seeks to protect free movement, and has a 'vision for a better Europe'. Reforming the EU seems to be their long term plan, so they are campaigning for a remain vote. The Green Party have been in power in other countries within the EU, and the EU proportional voting system makes it easier for smaller parties to get elected. Naturally, remaining in the EU would be beneficial to The Greens, who struggle to break the Lab/Con hold over UK votes.

Nationalists and Fascists

The far-right groups like the National Front, British National Party and English Defence League are fuelled by xenophobia and a sense of entitlement, and led by neo-nazi ideology. Needless to say they are voting out. The more socially acceptable nationalist groups like the UK Independence party also want out of the EU, and play on working class attitudes towards immigration to encourage a leave vote.

Anarchists

The anarchist ideology seeks to abolish all governments, so naturally this philosophy would lead to an out vote.

Pragmatics

Ideologies aside, there are practical consequences to the referendum, whichever way it goes. Pragmatism is defined by google as 'dealing with things sensibly and realistically in a way that is based on practical rather than theoretical considerations'. Finding the relevant information to make a pragmatic decision is a task in itself, as ideologists use the information to fit with their own hegemony, and 'floating voters', for want of a better term, can be swayed by a single practical implication of the referendum. I've examined a few of the arguments for either side.

Immigration

UKIP uses immigration to convince voters to vote leave, and mainstream newspapers like The Daily Mail reinforces anti-immigration attitudes by persistently displaying migrants in a negative light. Immigration rarely strays far from the UK media. Concerns that foreign migrants seeking asylum are responsible for unemployment, crime and terrorism are being preyed upon by even the centre-right 'Out' camp. The debate about whether net immigration is good for the economy is another, more complicated factor here.

Net Migration UK

Immigration into the UK has risen this last decade according to the National Office of Statistics, though the latest quarterly report shows a decrease from last year. (1) There is a debate amongst politicians and businesses about whether net immigration is good for the UK economy.

A 2015 Economics Help article used statistics from the ONS to gauge the issue, evaluating the impact of net immigration on the UK economy, though it is somewhat inconclusive in that it raises more questions than answers. (see the article here). It concludes that house prices are pushed up by net immigration, but many variables have to be considered when establishing the impact on the UK economy. (2) The Open Borders Manifesto is made up of practicing economists, and while it's true a minority believe in truly open borders (an ideological belief), many members agree that immigration is key to economic health. (3)

The immigration factor also has a flip side, British emigration. Although the net figure takes Brits living abroad into account, the argument for leaving the EU does little to secure the lives of British expats (760,000 have lives in Spain alone). Mariano Rajoy has stated that Brits in Spain will forfeit rights to live in the EU should Brexit go through. (4) True this could be a scare tactic, but the uncertainty is stark.

In the case of Gibraltar, who thrive due to a relatively open border with Spain, the decision will have very direct consequences. Returning to the days of Franco's closed border might seem unrealistic to some in the UK, but to those Gibraltarians who still remember those days, it is a very real fear. The Chief Minister of Gibraltar Fabian Picardo has expressed his fears that Spain will push for sovereignty should Brexit go ahead. (5) The latest polls in Gibraltar show that many share Picardo's concerns.

Sovereignty

The idea of sovereignty has become more and more emotive as the campaign has started. The idea that unelected bureaucrats run the EU, passing laws that apply to the UK is one of the main arguments against the EU. The nationalists and the fascists are jumping on this band-wagon, as well as the Lexiters and the SWP.
Laws in the European Parliament are proposed by the European Commission, then voted on by the European Parliament. (6) This is very similar to the House of Lords and the process used to implement laws in the UK, so those who are voting against the EU purely on a basis of democracy and not xenophobia, should be protesting the House of Lords also. That's fine for the Lexiters of course, who already oppose the House of Lords for it's unelected membership. (7)

The Brexiters are spreading that 'most of our laws are made in Brussels', but when you look into the facts, the analysis is murky at best, which percentage figures ranging from 10% to 70%. (8)

Trade

Europe is the UK's biggest market, receiving over half of all British exports. (9) The worry here is that if Britain leave the EU, we will lose access to this single common market. The argument is that the EU is restricting our trade opportunities with our countries and continents, though Britain does have trade agreements with North America and Africa.

Whilst it is true trade agreements can be reached without EU membership, there is a degree of uncertainty for what's to come. Both sides of the debate are using Norway as an example, the leave camp are using Norway as an example of how a trade deal can be reached without EU membership, whilst the remain camp are pointing out that Norway a contribution for permission to trade with the EU, without receiving the benefits of membership. (10)
NHS

The NHS is an issue close to many people's hearts, though it is unclear what effect the vote will have, considering current Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt co-authored a book calling for privatisation of the NHS. (11) Private healthcare is rife throughout Europe, so the question is, who will privatise the NHS quicker? The UK Government or the EU Parliament. (12) The same applies for the TTIP, it is unclear whether a 'leave' will actually help fight the TTIP, or whether it will be easier to implement.

Opinion

Calling it Lexit instead of Brexit and saying it's for different reasons, will still have the same result. Lexiters argue leaving now will dismantle the EU, yet ignore claims that it will legitimise right wing ideas and make life worse for Britain's working classes. Denouncing 'fortress Europe' by abandoning it will only serve to distance the British working class from European struggle, and the gap is already quite huge. It may even lead to a 'fortress Britain' scenario.

I've seen individuals from far left groups launching diatribes against left-wingers who are voting to remain. It's ironic that the same people who constantly call for unity and solidarity are dividing the left with their inability to hold a constructive debate without resorting to name calling and intellectual snobbery.

The right-wing Brexiters want out of the EU to stop immigration primarily. The left-wing Lexiters wish to dismantle the EU. The common denominator here is that both are approaching the referendum from an emotional or ideological perspective. Just like suggesting that all governments are abolished overnight, there are practical considerations being ignored. Putting the working class standard of living at risk just to take a stand against the EU is irresponsible, meanwhile the far-right are waiting in the wings, ready to reverse or amend certain worker's rights legislations to benefit business.

Fear is a big motivation throughout this campaign. The far-right fear 'Islamification' and terrorism, peddled by mainstream media and political agendas, while the far-left fear 'Fortress Europe'. Ideologically, a self-governing nation is a goal to strive for, but the cost would outweigh the benefit at this time. Waves of strikes across the EU are being brandished by Lexiters to reinforce their Eurosceptism, though on the contrary it shows that political movement is possible and current within the EU. The same comrades who applaud Podemos are suggesting a move that distances the UK working class further from EU struggle. It's almost like certain sections of the revolutionary left are looking for a working class victory, any victory, even if it means aligning with the far right. A Brexit victory, even if we call it Lexit, will still legitimise xenophobia amongst the working class.

With the uncertainty that a Brexit victory would bring, I think that it would be better to have influence on both institutions, the UK government and the EU Parliament.

Information is being manipulated to buy votes from both camps, trying to adapt to working class hegemony. On the 23rd of June, we shouldn't be making an ideological choice, but a pragmatic one. I believe that remaining within the EU will benefit the working class more than leaving.






1. http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-35616946
2. https://libcom.org/files/poll-tax-rebellion.pdf
3. http://www.economicshelp.org/blog/6399/economics/impact-of-immigration-on-uk-economy/
4. http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jun/02/brexit-vote-could-affect-brits-right-live-in-spain-spanish-pm-mariano-rajoy
5. http://www.politico.eu/article/brexit-would-destroy-gilbraltar/
6. http://europa.eu/eu-law/decision-making/procedures/index_en.htm
7. http://www.parliament.uk/about/mps-and-lords/about-lords/lords-appointment/
8. https://fullfact.org/europe/uk-law-what-proportion-influenced-eu/
9. http://www.worldstopexports.com/united-kingdoms-top-exports/
10. http://www.eu-norway.org/eu/Financial-contribution/#.V2PPl7srLIU
11. https://whatwouldvirchowdo.wordpress.com/2015/09/24/weve-found-jeremy-hunts-book-and-yes-he-does-want-to-privatise-the-nhs/
12. http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/how-the-nhs-is-being-dismantled-in-10-easy-steps-10474075.html

Congratulations to Lorna Rider

Like most people, I have my school friends on Facebook.

Politically, I'm very revolutionary. Coming from a Catholic school I have never taken much interest in the posts that my old school 'friends' decide to share. That's not to say that all my old school attendees are particularly conservative, I'm sure many of them have opened their eyes to the world we live in. It's just that I never see it. Perhaps they never share their anguish at the system we live under. Perhaps it is because most do not care.

Either way, it is always refreshing when I see someone from my school life actively participate in political situations. Unfortunately it rarely happens.

So I want to take this opportunity to congratulate someone I was at school with.

Lorna Rider, to me was just a 'goth girl' that I went to school with. You know the type, black hair, lots of make-up and generally on the outside of the 'norm'. Being somewhat esoteric myself, I never judged.

She grew up to be a nurse, a dedicated one at that. I've seen lately many posts in support of the junior doctors strike, fighting to save the NHS, but never from my old school friends, not until I started seeing Lorna's posts.

So I commend Lorna, for standing up to the current Tory goverment's plans to privatise the NHS. I commend her for having the courage to stand up in public and say what is on the mind of most NHS staff. It makes me proud to see that others care, and it gives me hope for the next generation.

Well done Lorna, good for you. 

I hope you can all see this link, Lorna standing up for all of us

https://www.facebook.com/truthrecords87/posts/1132459526784708

Today's good deed

I've been casually learning Spanish now for about a year. By casually I mean I've been doing a Spanish lesson daily for nearly three months (The smartphone app named Duolingo) During my whole journey of learning, I've always told people I can't speak Spanish. Anyone who's tried learning a foreign language for the first time can testify that a large part of it is confidence. Confidence in speaking the language being learnt.

I've tried throwing myself into Spanish speaking situations, which mainly involved asking for things in shops; asking for directions; trying to listen to Spanish conversations; but when you live in a mostly English speaking area, it is easy to fall back on English and not bother with Spanish. I have met so many people who have lived in Spain for decades without speaking a word of Spanish.

I never wanted to be one of those people. I wanted to be able to communicate with the locals. I wanted to show that I was in fact making an effort.

So today, in Gibraltar, I walked past an elder Spanish lady who was struggling with two big, wheeled carriers, and two shopping bags. I walked past normally as most people did, then I turned back and asked her if she wanted some help, in Spanish. She was thrilled and took me up on the offer.

This was at Eroski, which is a few minutes from the border. I got to practice my Spanish, and as I'd had a bit to drink, I was quite confident. I managed to have a few conversations and I worked out where the lady was going. I deduced that she was 66 years old (because she told me in Spanish) and I even told her my age. I ended up walking her to the bus station in La Linea, for which she was very grateful. I spent about half an hour with this Spanish stranger, and not a minute of it felt awkward.

Anyway, I wanted to share this in case I ever forget. There have been times in my life where I have struggled to carry a weight. (quite literally), and to a certain degree I believe that one 'reaps what they sow' in life, and if I was in this lady's situation, I would certainly appreciate help, regardless of whether they spoke perfect Spanish or not. That is why I wanted to help. I guess in a way I wanted to prove that language barriers aren't as much of an issue when it comes to human goodness.

I feel good about my deed. Maybe it will come back to me one day, maybe not. Either way, I am happy with the way I feel about it, and I'd gladly do it again.

Modern Poets

I haven't always been a fan of poetry, and for many years, I didn't see the appeal in either reading or writing poetry. Mostly because I didn't understand, and partly because my scepticism led me to thinking that the non-fiction side of arts was a pretentious con. I would see paintings and arrangements that made no sense to me, and I would wonder if there really was any meaning behind the work, or whether the artist merely threw colours at a canvas, letting the audience choose the meaning.


When a piece of art is released to the world, the artist has a message or a story to tell. It means something, as intended by the creator of said art work. When the audience admires the work, because the meaning behind the piece has not been explained, the audience gives the work a meaning, by analysing and studying the piece. This means the same work of art can in fact be interpreted different ways, and can invoke conflicting emotions in different members of the audience.



I had the wonderful privilege of attending an Arts By Offenders exhibit, hosted by the Koestler Awards at Southbank in London a few years back. One of the pieces, was an A5 piece of paper with a formula on it.

Z + Y = X

x = horse in formaldehyde

y = a gullible idiot 

z = lots of money

It was sold for around £50, and I can only imagine the convict sitting in his cell, chuckling to himself.

Though it was somewhat of a satirical art piece, in my opinion it was more valid than some works I've seen over the years. First of all it had a clear meaning and message from the artist. There was something of his/her personality that shone through this piece vividly, a kind of narcissistic personality with a disdain for pretentious art, a sceptical, even suspicious mind. Secondly, it clearly struck a chord with the buyer. Perhaps the wit of the piece impressed an art lover, or perhaps the buyer agreed with the message it contained.




Getting back to poetry, it's similar to visual art in the sense that it requires a certain level of decoding or analysing. So I've always found rap an interesting creative art. The way an mc or rapper (I don't know the difference) collates words into an aural art piece takes skill, creativity and a seasoned vocabulary. Having the confidence to shorten, lengthen or even amalgamate words is also a must. The content within rap tends to be much darker than other forms of poetry, and the contemporary issues speak to a wide range or audiences. NWA spread the bitter tune of police brutality throughout America. Immortal Technique acknowledged worldwide struggle from an urban angle. Eminem has powerful poetic lyrics up there with the greats.

So I'll say it, there are rappers out there who are modern poets, worthy of the same respect as the likes of Whitman, Poe and Browning.

Anyway, in true traditional rant style I've wandered from one point to the next, so I'll end by mentioning one of the rising stars of modern rap. Head over to my poetry page for a listen (because he is a poet), or click the link below.

Spit-E-Zen

PDSA Promote Animal Slavery

Lucca, a US. Marine Corps. German Shepard, has been awarded the PDSA Dickin Medal after losing his leg in an explosion and being forced into early retirement, after being forced into war zones for over a decade. The news report that I saw recently showed Lucca 'proudly' displaying his medal. Personally I'm not convinced that dogs feel pride, but that is besides the point here.

Lucca may have lost a leg, but at least he got a medal. That'll keep him occupied when he's rotting in a kennel.

What is more concerning is that an 'animal welfare' charity, PDSA, would promote and encourage the exploitation of animals for military purposes and thus furthering the suffering of animals. From looking at their website, it is difficult to see any mission statement other than 'help a vet help a pet', so the PDSA seems to lack any real long-term goals. 'Encouraging responsible pet ownership' doesn't quite cut it if they aren't actively discouraging the pet industry. It leads me to believe that these kind of charities are merely around to legitimize abhorrent practices such as using animals for war and promoting pet ownership for the purpose of aiding the veterinary industry.

PDSA had this to say on their website and Twitter: "Lucca has become a symbol of hope for many, meeting the public at military outreach events."

Perhaps, I'm being ignorant here, but what symbol of hope? Hope that by sending animals to their death in a foreign country will somehow protect domestic innocents? We are told that no US soldier was killed whilst Lucca was on tour, so the service dog gets to live the rest of his days out in retirement, likely in a kennel if he can't be re-homed. That's if they don't kill him.

Brus wasn't so lucky:

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/540010/Military-Dogs-Destroyed-MOD


Still it's no surprise that an army would destroy an animal once it's outlived it's usefulness, they are just as bad with their humans, sacking people hours before their pensions and failing to help soldiers adjust to society. Just ask any one of the numerous ex-soldiers that end up sleeping rough on park benches in Civvie Street, who are usually bullied away by the police.

Handed in my notice today - Hope my boss has a sense of humour

Quick Update

Some months have passed since I last posted anything, not for lack of enthusiasm, just lack of time. This year so far has been very productive and there are many exciting things in the pipeline which will go live very soon. The copyright agreements with some of my old material has now expired, so I’ll be uploading them shortly too.

In the meantime, if you’re craving a fix of whatever my mind spits out, sign up to my page on the Channillo writing platform. I have a comic-esque short story series, The Heroes of New Rec, that is really taking off now, but don’t threat if you feel you’ve been missing out, just sign up today and you’ll get all back issues of the series as part of the subscription. So if you fancy supporting your favourite writer (that’s me by the way), get over to www.channillo.com

Alternatively, click the link below for a cheesy picture of me with my Channillo biography.

 http://channillo.com/user/1631/

Until next time…

London - Sydney in Four Hours: What the Media Missed

At the beginning of November, the papers were reporting that a plane capable to reaching Sydney, Australia from London, UK in just four hours. This was too exciting not to look into. So here's what happened.

The UK government recently promised £60million to Reaction Engines in order to build the Synergetic Air-Breathing Rocket Engine, also known as SABRE, a plane that can theoretically travel from London to Sydney in four hours. The hybrid engine will be able to function in both in space and within the Earth's atmosphere and can reach just under 4,000mph. Reaction Engines have been designing this for twenty years, so why is this big news? And what does it mean for the rest of us?

According to the media, a full ground based test is planned for 2020. This is good news. We'll probably have to add another decade onto that before we see them in public use. Even 15 years will fly by. This has great potential for global tourism and commerce, making those long gruelling 24-hour flights to Australia a thing of the past. Maybe.

Passenger Flights

When it comes to passenger flights, I suspect one of two things will happen:

Prices will be astronomically high, standard flight prices will be roughly the same.

This will be true if these new planes are only sold to a select few airliners. Reaction Engines is a British company, so it is possible that the UK will have a monopoly over this product and service, which would explain why the £60mil investment has been granted in a 'debt-ridden' country. 

Prices will be reasonably high, but will push standard flight prices down.

If Reaction Engines open their business to other countries, we should hopefully see competition and government policy keep prices reasonable. With such short journeys to anywhere in the world, every government of a developed country will want a piece of the action. Trade and tourism are major financiers of large cities, which are a huge proportion of the economy. 

Space Flight

Looking a bit further forward, here is a great opportunity for public space flight.

The hybrid engine brings commercial space flight that little bit closer. Richard Branson's Virgin Galactic has encountered a few pitfalls in its plan to get the public to space, with the original deadline passing 8 years ago. With governments paying attention and investing in this technology, I may theoretically be able to see the Earth from the Moon in my lifetime, though I doubt I'd be able to pay for it in my lifetime. 

Skepticism

Sounding too good to be true, I couldn't resist digging a little deeper to find that... actually, no-one beyond the media has mentioned space flight. In fact not much of the intention of this investment has been released at all. We all seem to be assuming that this will be used primarily as a tourism and therefore economical boost, but it seems the 'London to Sydney in four hours' statement it merely just a comparison showing how fast the place will be able to fly. So all of this excitement about boarding a UK flight in the morning and stepping off the plane in Australia in the afternoon may be for nothing. Reaction Engines are open about what they can achieve with this project, and on one news item on their site tells us that the UK are investing in order to 'investigate it's application for space access vehicles', so there is a shred of hope for public space flight. However, the same news item also shows us a red flag, something we should really be talking about rather than fantasizing about short flights down under.

BAE Systems invests over £20million in Reaction Engines

That's right, back in November, the giant Defence company BAE Systems invested £20.6million and agreed to a working collaboration in order to speed up development. Oh and they also now have a 20% stake in Reaction Engines. Take one look at the BAE Systems 'What We Do' page and tell me what this new technology will be used for. Services include: Design, manufacture, upgrade and support combat aircraft, land combat vehicles, ships, military electronics, oh and of course HR and IT. Looking at their website, it's hard to find any service that doesn't contain the word 'military'. Though under the 'Future Technologies' tab, we see the statement:

"Partnering with academic and industrial leaders we develop new technologies to support our future product strategies."

Future product strategies eh? Unless BAE Systems is planning on entering the commercial travel industry, I think we can put our 4-hour dream flights to Australia on the back burner.

History has taught us, unfortunately, that technological advances aren't always used for the good of everyone. I have yet to see a constructive use for nuclear weapons (though this article gives a few ideas). The military-industrial complex will inevitably have big plans for this technology. 

We can only hope for (and work towards) a day where military and security companies do not hold such influence over the technologies that come to pass.

To Bomb or not to Bomb

Two days ago the UK government carried out airstrikes on Daesh targets in Syria, sparking mass debate across Europe. With phrases like 'terrorist sympathiser', 'Iraq all over again' and 'Western hypocrisy' being banded around, this is an issue that has divided a nation. A survey conducted by Survation showed that 48% of people backed the decision, which is only a slight minority. So what are people saying?

Tory politicians and certain sections of the working class are both calling for action, arguing that inaction is a threat to security. We'll cover that later. People that lean against the airstrikes argue that thousands of innocent people will die as a result of the decision made in parliament. While Western governments claim that modern laser-guided missiles reduce civilian casualties, they aren't entirely sure how many targets have been killed, as they aren't any ground troops counting the dead. US estimates vary by source, so in actual fact, they do not know who they are killing, but yet they claim to be killing them more accurately. Innocents will die and while no-one is denying that, pro-war advocates unempathetically state it is necessary, caring not for the lives of the innocent. Either that or they have the grave prejudice that all Syrians are terrorists. Let's look at that.

Daesh is a Sunni Muslim extremist organisation, and 70% of the Syrian population is made up of Sunni Muslims, though not necessarily Daesh supporters. In fact latest estimates put the strength of Daesh at 200,000 soldiers. When compared with the 20 million citizens in Syria, that tells us that 1% of Syria is a Daesh militant. According to this statistic, it follows that for every thousand Daesh extremists killed, 99 thousand innocent lives will be lost. In reality this figure would of course be subject to many variables, but simplistically, a lot more innocents will die. A poll from the Pew Research Centre has shown that there is an overwhelmingly negative view of Daesh within their countries of operation. Considering that Daesh has support from a minority of people, a relentless attack on Syria by the western alliance is nothing short of genocide.

The less politically-aware pro-war supporters seem to be under the impression that Daesh has come out of no-where, a problem that needs to be nipped in the bud, but it's no secret that the US has been funding Daesh for years to destabilise middle eastern governments. Tony Blair even admitted that he believes that the Iraq war contributed to the rise of Daesh, in an interview recently. This is where the Western hypocrisy element comes in, for the same nations fighting extremism are the same ones that have fanned the flames that led to this inferno.

Far from watching events unfold from a distance, Western governments are an active contributor to the terror attacks.

Politicians congratulated each other and declared the UK a safer place now thanks to the decision, which is a declaration of ignorance more than anything. After the collateral damage that the bombs will inevitably cause, Daesh recruitment will sore as mentioned in my previous blog post (The Fake Passport: Theories and Ideas Surrounding the Recent Co-ordinated Terror Attacks), by giving the Daesh struggle legitimacy. The moderates won't be so moderate once their families are massacred by Tornado jets. When we consider the influx of Syrian refugees, it isn't hard to imagine that bombing Syria will make the UK a far more dangerous place. Ask yourself this, if the UK is now safer because the government bombed Syria, why is the current UK threat level 'severe'? The Survation survey mentioned earlier also showed that 59% of people believe that sending planes to Syria would increase the risk of a terrorist attack in the UK

Another question of note, where is all the money coming from? When the UK's debt is used as an excuse for the stifled NHS, why is this not a factor when considering acts of war? War is an expensive business, and while profit can be made it takes a big investment. It seems the UK government can magic up some funds when it comes to killing foreigners, but not to house it's own citizens and cover healthcare.

When it comes down to it, despite resistance from the public, including a Stop the War Coalition protest outside the debate at the House of Commons, the UK government have proved again that they will go to war as and when they please with or without consent of the public. In 2003 it was Labour with Iraq, now it is Conservative with Syria. Members of both parties voted for both wars, showing just how out of touch with each other these politicians are, let alone the public. That and the media's treatment of Jeremy Corbyn shows just how low this Demockery has stooped. With the mainstream media spreading fear on a daily basis, legitimising the decision for war, it's no wonder there are many people backing the decision. If Iraq is anything to go by however, public backing will only decline as the death and misery ensues. My thoughts are with the victims in Syria in their dark times.

Stop the War Coalition are holding a national demonstration. Click here for more details.

Football Fans and Facebook French Flag Filters

In the wake of the Paris attack, French flags are popping up all over Facebook as a symbol of solidarity with the French people who suffered at the hands of ISIS. Social pressure to include the Facebook encouraged red, white and blue filter on profile pictures mounted exponentially within hours, which is all well and good right? There's certainly nothing wrong with a little show of solidarity.

So why all the controversy? Why were Turkish football fans allegedly booing during a memorial minute's silence at a Turkey – Greece friendly football match?

The answer to this has been reconstructed by the right wing media to demonize Muslims, as per usual. The Daily Mail and The Sun have shone a dim light on a foreign culture they don't understand and used it to promote more hatred.

So that's the story they spin, Muslims everywhere are evil, but what's the flip side? What happens when we turn the light on?

As with most religions, there are various degrees of participants amongst the individual. It would be naive to think that there were no pro-ISIS members in the crowd, but it would be more so to believe that every one supported ISIS. Remember two bombs were detonated in Ankara on October 10th, so they have a recent reminder of the horrors of terrorism.

Explanations have now started to surface as to why this happened. Mustafa Ozsari, a Masters student, has given a thorough breakdown.

In short, it all comes down to culture. In Turkish culture, minute silences are rarely silent. Chanting can be heard throughout the crowd, a chant that respects the deceased and denounces the terrorists responsible. There's a funny irony that the people who claim that everyday Muslims should come out and denounce terrorism, yet when they do, it is misinterpreted thanks to an ignorant or conniving press. The chant 'Alluhu Akbar' was allegedly heard as The Daily Mail claims. In the video you can hear 'Şehitler ölmez, vatan bölünmez ', in English: 'Martyrs, they do not die (they are immortal), homeland (land, our land) is indivisible.'

There is another explanation. Turkish fans are upset with the hypocrisy of the Western world's ignorance towards similar attacks, specifically the attack in Ankara mentioned previously. This brings us back to the Facebook French Flag filter. There have been 298 terrorist attacks in 2015 so far. The highest death toll in a single attack has been over 2000, which happened between January 3rd and 7th in Nigeria. There weren't any Nigerian flags appearing on my news-feed then. In fact the Paris attack was the only attack that received this special attention.

When it comes down to it, these explanations seem contradictory, but in reality, people vary. It is probably that elements of both of these theories combine in the truth. Political views are different from person to person as much in Islamic countries as much as in Western civilizations, as does commitment to faith.

It is important to acknowledge that the Facebook French Flag filter users are not at fault here. Yes it is nice for the global stage to show this symbolic solidarity, the fault lies with Facebook. When the designer of the filter published this work, he was either horrendously ignorant to think that the Paris attack was an isolated incident, or he made a conscious decision and put a higher value on the lives of French people than people of other cultures. It is a starkly clear symbol that the world only cares when white westerners are murdered in the street.