The shame is that everyone is running scared

Today's Guardian ran advertisements from both Save the Children and The Red Cross seeking aid for those suffering from the Syrian civil war. In the same edition there is the horrific story of Syrians and other refugees desperately crossing the river marking the border between Greece and Macedonia.

It is dreadful that the major NGOs do not appear to be active in Greece, MSN seemingly a shining exception. They are doing good work, but we are not hearing about it in the press. There seems almost a conspiracy of silence.

We understood from our time on Lesvos that the major NGOs were finding barriers to registering to offer aid to refugees in Greece. It seemed tied up with political gesturing with Brussels. If this is the case, then shame on the EU.

Without question the very large number of refugees now making their way slowly to Germany is a massive political problem, not least in the light of the recent elections in Germany. Nevertheless, it is even more shameful that governments cannot man up and take action, rather than leaving defenceless men, women and children to suffer.

Have we earned it, our life as free people?

A reflection on the book, A God in Ruins, by Kate Atkinson might inform the referendum debate

The grandson of the hero of the story, who had piloted Halifax bombers in WW2, at one point has this thought:

‘They were his own age, doing something noble, something heroic. They were lucky. They’d been given history. It wasn’t going to happen to him. He was never going to be given the chance to be noble and heroic.’

This is something that haunts the post war generation; OK it haunts me: we have never played our part. It is perhaps the same as those dreadful lines said to Private Ryan at the end that film, ‘now earn it’. 

Have we earned it: our life as free people? Is there something we can do to go at least part of the way? 

I suggest that the Referendum gives us an opportunity. 

The European Union, the connection between previously warring European countries is at the heart. I freely accept that the EU is not perfect; it comes out with nonsense too often, but that is our fault for letting it; members states must take a greater say. Let none of this though hide the fact that it is a union of nations, of peoples with a common heritage, peoples who face the same questions. Surely it makes sense to face the questions together. 

As peoples and nations we can move on from our history of war and conflict. We can remember with pride those things we have done which have selflessly benefitted mankind, not least in the way we together tackled the massive refugee crisis left behind by WW2. 

The current refugee crisis is perhaps an acid test. Do we individually close our doors? This would run counter to our history and any claim we may have to a place on the world stage, let alone to reflect our national belief in fairness. 

If we vote ‘no’, with the objective of keeping the refugee out, we deny much that is good about Britain. If we vote ‘no’, because the current institution falls short, we are terminally short of imagination.

The horrors those Bomber Boys and so many others went through need not be in front of us every day, but they do matter. Some might say it is old and past and we should no longer dwell on it. To fly over enemy territory in a Halifax, Stirling or Lancaster is more fear in a single night than most of us have had to face in a lifetime, not to mention the Atlantic convoys, the leading vehicle in an armoured column, making it ashore on D Day or enduring years in captivity. 

Let us grasp this opportunity to do our bit to make the world a better place and move forward together with our neighbours.

Philip Hamlyn Williams - Lincoln - 7 March 2016

Positive reasons for remaining in the EU

Migration will be one of the biggest issues of the 21st century. If we want to add a British voice with a long tradition of welcome, we can do it so much better when joined with our neighbours.

For the USA it is the single issue of Mexico and Trump's horrific suggestion of a wall. For Europe, we have had our walls, or iron curtains, let us work together to find a new sustainable way.

How debate may proceed

This was the first full day and began with disappointment that Boris Johnson decided not to follow his great hero Winston Churchill in working for the great European project. For it is a project, not yet complete, probably never complete.

The disappointment was dispelled as the Twitter accounts supporting staying in began to multiply. So many young voices demanding a future in an EU which it will be for them to nurture. Young voices that demand, amongst other things, proper treatment for refugees.

Moria Camp on Lesvos

Ken Clarke and why we should stay in

'Being in the European Union gives us a much stronger voice in the great world problems of today.'

Zoe Williams' interview with Ken Clarke in Saturday's Guardian (13 February 2016) unearthed this key quote but also other important points that I set out here.

Talking of those who in 1975 would have left the EEC, he says, 'they were wrong. This country has benefitted enormously from joining the modern world.'

This to me holds the key, by being part of a body such as the EU, we are part of the modern world rather than a small country ploughing its own selfish way.

'I actually formed my political views, decided what I was in favour of, chose my party loyalty, quite quickly during my time as a student politician. Most of my views became settled:

Free markets with a social conscience, an internationalist approach to the world, welcoming globalisation and the opening up of trade. 

I've always thought one of the problems for Britain was how to persuade the country to cope with the ever-accelerating rate of change. I have never gone through periods of guilt or doubt that the EC was going wrong.'

I can't help thinking how much better the direction may have been had Clarke had a great hand in it all.

There can be few British politicians more committed to the European project, yet Clarke is clear that it is the voice of the younger generation that must argue the case before the British public. It would be sad, though, if he remained silent.

His conclusion is, 'being in the European Union gives us a much stronger voice in the great world problems of today. Given that we have to earn our living in a globalised and competitive economy, the best base for our economy is the biggest single open market in the world, which happens to be the major place [to] which we we sell our exports and the major place from which we get our inward investment.'

EU Referendum - forget the renegotiation; it is not what matters

'A place at the table where the rules of the world's largest single market are made'...'that is a seat no rational prime minster would vacate'.

'If Britain were to leave, Mr Cameron (or his successor) will promptly have to negotiate a way back into the single market, but from the diminished position of a supplicant to the very same leaders whose efforts at friendly compromise will just have been spurned.'

These extracts from the leading article in the Guardian of 6 February 2016 say it all, or nearly all.

The EU is a single market and that is where its true value lies. Nevertheless it is also a group of nations with a common bond who can, if they have the will, speak with a common and loud voice on the world stage. This stage is dominated by the USA whose future leadership is worrying, by Russia whose current leadership is terrifying (you might like to look at Natalie Nougayrede's article) and by China whose leadership for some time will be focused on massive internal issues.

British politicians have never since Edward Heath played a full part at the European table. If they fail to do so,  they have only themselves to blame if the direction in which the Union moves is not to their liking. Britain could and should have very strong voice.

If the British people are worried about immigration and the 'threat' of refugees, leaving the EU will not make a bean of difference unless they also wish for Britain to leave the world stage. Britain has much to offer the 21st century world but will be able to play its part immeasurably more effectively if it does so as a full and committed member of an EU run by the politicians of member countries and not by bureaucrats.

In relation to the renegotiation, Martin Kettle suggests that Prime Minister Cameron has achieved a good deal

Between Debt and the Devil - Adair Turner

Money, Credit and Fixing Global Finance

Don't be put off - this really matters.

Adair Turner was appointed Chairman of the Financial Services Authority following the 2008 crash. He authored a report on the reasons for it and spent the next four years engaging with finance leaders seeking ways to avoid the same problems happening again. He knows his stuff.

His recent book, Between Debt and the Devil, is chilling. I read it in between working with refugees on Lesvos and it is all connected.

He sees a healthy economy as a prerequisite to successful life. It is the lack of this, and the tyranny of oppressive regimes that is sending millions seeking refuge elsewhere.

Inequality is highlighted as a major reason for the problems we face. In the last thirty years the rich have got so much richer and the poor so much poorer; many middle earning jobs have disappeared. Rich people are less likely to buy goods and services, which fuel an economy, and more likely to invest in property which benefits only them and the person who sold it to them. A better distribution of income enables more people to consume goods and services and so make the economy healthy and likely to grow.

Turner's main concern though is the level of debt, both personal and governmental, in the world. It is at an all time high. The UK accumulated massive debt during WWII for reasons we can all understand. This borrowing was not effectively repaid until 1970 and it was only possible to repay it because the UK economy grew strongly with the benefit if technical innovation. The debt now is even higher mainly because of the recession caused by the credit crunch which made people reluctant to spend which reduced government's revenues and so made them borrow more.

He has some revolutionary suggestions for reducing the debt burden and for avoiding it going forward. I will leave it to the Guardian to explain more and to give more detail, but in essence he is suggesting that governments should simply print more money - a one off exercise in effect to wipe the slate clean, or at least to reduce the debt to manageable levels. He is clear that it must not be ongoing as it was in pre war German and which lead to hyper inflation.

I shall follow the debate with huge interest. It really does matter.