|
|
|
|
|
|
International
development is not just about alleviating poverty, it's about providing
security and stability for poor and fragile communities, so that they stop
marching across Africa and Asia to come as refugees to Europe and the UK. Either
we help to create jobs in developing countries so that people can
stay and prosper there or they will march across even if we put up fences and
boundaries as we have now seen in Eastern Europe and across the English
Channel.
The fundamentalist terror
campaign started in 2001 in the Middle East is destabilising us, progressively eroding
our personal freedoms while changing the very nature and norms of our society
and creating daily security tensions. At the same time, millions are making perilous
journeys across the Mediterranean Sea in search of a better life in Europe and
the UK. Far from turning our backs on
them, as some would advise, we must tackle this problem head on because their
problem is also our problem.
The Syrian humanitarian
crisis has generated some five million displaced migrants, some of whom are
clamouring to come over to Europe and the UK. It may be laudable to some and
foolish to others for Angela Merkel to
agree to a million refugees, but suppose the same situation were to happen in
Egypt, are we prepared to accept twenty million refugees? Of course not, but
unless we start the long process of stabilizing this region, it could happen.
It’s sensible and correct to say that refugees should stay in the first safe
country, but has anyone told them not to continue marching towards the English
Channel? And when they do, how are we to stop them?
There is only one way.
That is to eliminate the causes which impel them to march. What are these
causes? In no particular order they are terrorism, hunger, disease, oppression,
and lack of drinking water, no jobs, no economic prospects and lowering rather
than rising standards of living. International development then becomes a
matter of mutual survival. If they don’t develop, neither do we. If they march, we will be overwhelmed; but if they stay in their own
countries, we will, in time, find new markets and new business opportunities and
new partnerships.
Readers of my updates will be aware of my campaign over the
last four years to bring private sector investment to the forefront of
international development. I am pleased to report that last week at the
Strasbourg Plenary, the European Commission threw
its support behind my plan. After sixty
years of seeing international development as merely signing away a cheque of
state aid, the logic behind development policies is finally beginning to adapt.
Through public-private partnerships and blending the use of public, private and
charitable money to upscale the total amount, we could maximise the annual €20
billion of the EU development funding into €300 billion of capital for the
developing world; invested under the rigours and standards set by the private
sector and not the profligate corrupt practises of the public sector who often
treat the tax payers' money with contempt..
An initiative of this
kind, by the Parliament and Commission, could transform the lives of millions of
people in the developing world. Such blended finance vehicles, though in their
infancy, have already been shown to work elsewhere in the world. A World Economic
Forum survey found that within such initiatives, every $1 of public money
invested attracted a further $1-20 of private investment. Furthermore, when we
bring the private sector in we also bring the disciplines of the private
sector. Proper accounting, tendering and reporting procedures all follow.
Given the sluggish growth seen across most European nations,
the appetite to increase or even sustain public spending on international aid
is understandably scarce. Only three other EU member-states have matched the UK
in meeting the global pledge for 0.7% of GNI to be spent on aid. Therefore, in acknowledging the difficulty on
the public purse, we must pursue other forms of investment that have not yet
been explored and utilising private finance will - I hope - play a major factor
in the future of alleviating global poverty.
In addition to tackling
poverty, we must get to the underlying reasons as to why are people coming to
Europe. They want better opportunities, better income, better lives. They don't
stay in their countries because those countries are underdeveloped, so they
march to the borders of Europe. Although the Commission
has now adopted my report, I intend to
stay fully engaged with the project to make sure momentum is not lost. We will
look to arrange a conference early in the New Year and hopefully the Commission
will begin to engage with the private sector and business communities. It is
now time to put these words into action. The private sector provides 90%
of jobs in developing countries. Therefore, its potential to generate inclusive
growth and thereby tackle these issues is unlike anything the combined
international aid budgets could ever amount to.
|
|
Juncker’s State of the
Union Address
Across Europe there are
emerging warning signs for the future stability of the EU. Britain has voted to
leave, similar independence movements are gaining ground in Italy, Sweden,
Denmark, Greece and even France and Germany have Eurosceptic candidates increasing
their support. The Southern European member-states continue to struggle
economically and the migrant crisis has boiled over into border protection
disputes. And bizarrely, in the midst of all this, the Luxembourg Foreign
Minister called for Hungary to be suspended or even expelled from the EU.
With this in mind, one
might have expected the President of the European Commission Jean Claude
Juncker to accept that the system is not working and a change in course is
urgently required. Instead, the President fell back onto the same old solution
of more integration, more power to the central institutions, more money from
the member states and an aggressive push towards military integration. In a
speech that wandered wildly from broad statements of principle to policy
minutiae, President Juncker announced the creation of an EU youth wing and
a completely unrealistic promise of free wifi for every town and village by
2020 (as laudable a goal as that might be). I’m still not sure quite what legal powers the European Commission believes
it has to force municipalities to install free wireless internet at public
places. In addition to which, the fund earmarked for this project consists of
merely €120 million. That works out roughly at €100 per municipality,
which doesn’t really sound like quite enough.
Though Britain will
leave the EU, we must still be concerned for its future stability. As my
colleague Syed Kamall MEP said on behalf our ECR group; “the more Europe
you build, the more detached our citizens feel. The more you propagate EU
supranationalism, the more nationalism has arisen in our Member States. The
more you condemn or ignore scepticism, the more likely the prospect of a
President Le Pen or a Prime Minister Wilders. I know that scares most of us,
but dismissing people’s legitimate concerns will simply drive voters into their
arms.” |
| The creation of an EU
Army
Considering that the
British public was assured before the referendum that there would be no plans
for a fully integrated EU military, they certainly seem to have come up with
these proposals very fast. National sovereignty over defence matters was swept
aside in President Juncker’s State of the Union address in favour of a permanent
defence union, with integrated military forces and an EU command structure.
This decision to move towards a fully integrated military
did not come off the back of any well-thought through strategic defence review,
but was billed as an opportunity for the EU to ‘relaunch’ itself, and herein
lies the problem. This is not about the territorial defence of Europe, it is
about the defence of the political project of the EU. It cares little for
military efficiency and more for promoting the concept of a single European
super-state. The EU’s central defence policy is nothing more than a political
tool; one which will do nothing to add to the military capability or manpower available.
If EU nations were truly serious about defence, they would
spend the NATO recommended two per cent of GDP on their defence budgets. At
present, only the UK, Greece, Poland and Estonia do
so. This ties into another political motive; the excluding of the US-led NATO from
European defence. Rather than appreciating and backing NATO, a historic
alliance with a proven record, bolstered by the overwhelming military capabilities
of the United States, a French led coalition within the EU wishes to expunge
American ties from Europe.
As with many federalist
European projects, the practicalities cannot live up to the dreams of the
ideology. Without the UK or US support, the EU militaries do not have the
capability to be a credible force in the world. And at a time when defence
budgets are so low, how is creating an entirely new command structure based in
Brussels going to help? What language will be used to issue orders throughout
the various national contingents of troops? Within the NATO alliance each job
assignment is given a level of English proficiency required for that position.
I assume English would not be the official language for an EU military, despite
the fact that it is the most common language throughout the continent and most
member-state militaries already have experience of using English to some degree,
within NATO. And what of the decision to deploy these forces? Hypothetically, if
France and some member-states are in favour of using this military within an interventionist
campaign, but Germany and others were not, how would a decision be reached?
Would troops from Germany have to abide a majority decision and participate
despite their own opposition to that particular conflict?
In such uncertain times,
it seems both short-sighted and dangerous to be playing politics with defence
policy. In the same
way their economic union has weakened, not strengthened Europe; their dreams of
French, German and Italian brigades marching under an EU flag would diminish,
not enhance European security. |
| EU-Turkey Migrant Deal
in Jeopardy
Though there were great
hopes that the migrant deal that began in March could alleviate the issue of
mass economic migration - while at the same time provide safe and fair access
for genuine asylum seekers - the plan now appears at risk of falling apart. The
ambitious proposal was for Turkey to prevent migrants travelling through their
territory into Europe whilst accepting those deported from Greece. The EU would
pay €3bn in aid as well as accepting one genuine accredited asylum
seeker in return for each migrant deported back to Turkey. The continuation of
this agreement was based on numerous clauses that were expected to have been
fulfilled by now.
Chief among Turkey’s demands is for the EU to open its
borders to visa-free travel for Turkish citizens, a requirement that has not
yet been met. In contrast, the EU remains reluctant to grant this provision
until Turkey complies with all seventy-two conditions stipulated in the
original agreement. The primary concern remaining Turkey’s refusal to reform
its draconian ‘anti-terror’ laws. Indeed, since the failed coup against
President Erdogan we have witnessed truly appalling scenes of arbitrary
crackdowns, with almost 19,000 people detained and tens of thousands of state
sector workers indefinitely suspended. The treatment of these prisoners has
also been called into question by human rights observers.
Given this new hardline stance of President Erdogan, the
prospect of Turkey now acceding to the required reforms seems bleak. Since the
failed coup, Turkey has recalled its officers from Greece that were meant to
facilitate deportations, effectively putting the process on hold indefinitely.
Only 468 migrants returned to Turkey from Greece through this system, somewhat
less than the one million that arrived into Greece. This week, President Erdogan ramped up the
rhetoric, accusing the EU of “contradicting the values it is defending….If our
demands are not satisfied then the readmissions will no longer be
possible." It therefore seems that the entire deal is now at stake. Unless
either the EU or Turkey climb-down from their original demands, the system will
fall apart. And President Erdogan does not seem in the mood for compromise.
|
| Keep Calm and Carry On
The portrayal of post-referendum life one reads in the
papers and on social media is in stark contrast to the day in a life I see here
in the South East. According to the
histrionics on Twitter or within the opinion pieces of the left-leaning papers,
the nation is paralysed in fear and confusion of what is now happening, a
people made dumbstruck by a sudden crippling blow. However the melodrama of the
press does not seem to resonate with the reality. The immediate economic
horrors that were promised if the nation voted for Brexit have failed to
materialise. Indeed, the major banks have since u-turned on their warnings that
an out vote would herald an immediate recession; unemployment is at its lowest
since 2005, employment at its highest ever, the UK GDP growth has been revised
up to 1.8 per cent for 2016, manufacturing is at a ten month high, consumer
spending is up, and we see a boost in demand for British goods and services
from overseas.
With regard to the Brexit negotiations, the commentariat
demand to know why the entirety of the negotiations is not already done and
dusted, eager to portray this as a catastrophic failure for the new Government. Nothing could be further from the case. It is
entirely sensible to approach these negotiations in a methodical, rational way
without resorting to knee-jerk reactions. It is well-known that the previous
administration banned the civil service from preparing for the possibility of a
vote for Brexit, hence the necessity of Theresa May to set up a new government
department for this purpose. In addition, the summer recess of both the British
and European parliaments prevented anything substantial from beginning until now.
With the recess out of the way and Theresa May’s new government established,
things can now begin in earnest. Getting the best possible deal for Britain may
take some time, but this is time well spent. And in the meantime, the sky will
not fall. |
| | I will be back in touch with you again very soon. In the meantime you can check my website www.nirjdeva.com for regular updates and if I can be of any assistance to you on anything raised here or anything else for that matter, please do not hesitate to contact me at nirj.deva@europarl.europa.eu.
|
|
|
