Calais Crisis: The Real Dark Side to This Story

It seems Satan himself has been in cahoots with poor Africans and Asians in an evil plot to swarm the great nation of the United Kingdom and suck on the nectar of its welfare system. How dare they come to our hive? We are the Queen Bee, they are hornets, nothing but shit bees. We are the best. We are the bees.

This sort of attitude is of the typical Brit today. Someone who will work hard, but ultimately suffers from a superiority complex where they think their country is far better than most. It's easy to see why - who wouldn't think that their country is pretty great when it was once the greatest empire in the world? Who wouldn't be proud of the Olympics and the creation of the Commonwealth Games? Who wouldn't be proud of our once booming industry which made us a superpower in the way China is today?

The problem is, the UK (or as it's better known, Britain) is no longer a superpower, yet the people believe they are. Americans suffer from this same superiority complex, one that makes the people unwelcoming to immigrants unless they are of a certain background, quite like the UK. The typical Brit wouldn't bat an eyelid at an American or French immigrant, but as soon as you introduce a Romanian things turn sour. The same can be said across the pond. US citizens seem to welcome Canadians from the north, but Mexicans from the south make people squirm.

In other words, Brits and Americans are welcoming to those like them - prosperous nations who's people will obviously be hard working as they are from successful countries. These people will be labelled interesting, charming, hard working and cultured. On the other hand, those who are not like them and come from less successful/less developed countries will be labelled far more critically: lazy, devious, sinister, job snatchers. There's a reason why people from the USA and Australia aren't jumping fences at Calais.

They don't have to.

In other words, although it would be ideal for people from first world countries to go elsewhere, at the end of the day they live in a decent country where things are moderately stable. You wouldn't be sprinting up the Eurotunnel if you had a cushy job in Melbourne or if you were watching cable TV from your home in California. The people who are trying to enter Britain aren't doing it because they want to make some quick dosh, they're doing it to survive whether that be economically or literally.

Yet many Brits will believe this mass hysteria about immigrants and believe all the misconceptions about them. These non-stories spurred up by the likes of the Daily Mail and The Sun cause panic in society. The newspaper says it's scary, so it must be. More or less, they achieve what they wanted - to separate human beings from each other by giving them a label: "immigrants".

A few facts to those who are outraged at these immigrants who are trying to enter the UK illegally:

1. They can't sponge off our welfare system as they cannot receive benefits if they are unknown to the state. If they become known to the state, they will be deported. 

2. Those illegal immigrants who get a job will be paid cash in hand as they have no legal ID to open a bank account. Therefore whoever is employing them is the one who is a) Not legally employing and b) Taking jobs away from people who are unemployed natives. Immigrants aren't the ones who take the jobs away.

Exactly

3. Illegal immigrants pay taxes if they ever buy a product whilst they're in the UK. In other words, unless an illegal immigrant is some kind of scary mutant immigrant who doesn't eat, drink or use deodorant, then they contribute to society.

4. Illegal immigrants can have all the children in the world whilst in the UK and still get deported with their children, despite the fact they were born here.

5. Those from poor backgrounds with poor education will find it near impossible to get permanent residence in the UK. This may be an obvious point, but it seems ludicrous to expect someone from Rwanda to have the same opportunity as someone from Japan. Pretty much from the day they are born, they are already the underdog. Even a smart child will struggle in education if their nation's education system is struggling.

Also, if you play under a capitalist model, do not complain when those less fortunate turn up. Everything from your shoes to your bananas are under priced at the expense of the poor in third world areas. Don't complain when the woman who makes your new Nike Airs wants to come into the country.

The old phrase "Divide and Conquer" is exactly what these tabloids achieve. To those who are anti-immigration, these immigrants are not people. They are figures, they are a different species. We are the Gazelle and they are the Lion, waiting to pounce on us when our back is turned. The fact that they come from hardship is too convenient an argument for them. To put it simply, they do not trust people from their own nation.

What they don't see is Adrian leaving his family in Burkina Faso to try and achieve the dream of providing consistently for his wife and kids. They don't see Christian donning his Man Utd top and watching the match with his friends. They don't see Martha's escape from persecution in Syria. They don't see Genzebe helping out her neighbours so that they can all live another day. As soon as you humanise an immigrant legal or not, you realise that they are just people. Like me and you. They laugh, they cry, they experience euphoria, but also deep sadness. The sooner that people get closer to reality and realise this, the sooner we can become a more accepting society.

Don't look at these people trying to "break in" to the UK as villains, they simply want a better life. Some of us are lucky that we at least get the bare essentials, don't stop others from living an equal life.

Don't allow paranoia, selfishness and misinformation to run riot. Instead, be human. Be compassionate. Be generous. Be loving. Be caring. Be supportive. Be thoughtful. If the Bible taught us one thing, it was to Love Thy Neighbour. Surely we can all do that?


Feedback is welcome, please comment below with your opinions.

Twitter: @mick_demarco

Why The Monarchy Has No Place in Today's Britain

This old chestnut.

For years, citizens of the UK (and in fact other parts of the world) have debated about the position of the UK's monarchy, arguably the most famous monarchy to ever exist. Today, this debate has started again after Green Party leader, Natalie Bennett, said that if her party had the power, they would scrap the monarchy and build more council houses. She then joked that she would even give the Queen one if it was necessary.

Natalie Bennett's joke was portrayed wrong in the media.

This joke has sparked discussion between those who are pro and anti-Royal. On the pro side people argue that the Royal Family brings in more money than is spent. On the anti-Royal side, they argue that this figure is actually false and costs the taxpayer more than they get back. They also state that it makes the system undemocratic - if it wasn't already.

If we look at it on a personal level, I think the Queen seems like a lovely old lady, William and Kate look great together and are great role models for the Royal Family. Harry is polite enough and down to earth and Philip - well, Philip's a character to say the least. They are fairly interesting people and even if she is a millionaire, you'd feel bad kicking little old Liz out of her house.

She's adorable, but she's costing too much. 

However, the monarchy is an outdated part of our country. We may love it when the Queen visits our town - to this day I can't believe that the Queen came to Greenock - but step back a minute. Forget that she is the Queen and think of what she is: a posh pensioner who gets top security and free holidays because she was born to the right family. It's hard to believe that we respect a woman who was lucky to be born into the most untouchable family in the world. It shows that the title of King or Queen gives you an untouchable reputation for doing nothing. Without going into whether or not that is good role-modelling, let's look at what the monarchy used to mean.

The monarchy was until the 1600s, the ruling body of England. Scotland had its own monarchy too and it was only until James VI of Scotland became King James I of England that England and Scotland had some unity (which would later be part of the creation of the British Parliament). So they used to have some power. The Kings and Queens of England and Scotland for many years were those who won the battles and won the land, therefore Kings and Queens were the best in the land and although I am anti-war that at least justifies why they ran the country. Nowadays the monarchy is pretty much ceremonial and has been since the late 17th century. Therefore, the Royal Family can't even justify their place in the palace. It's the equivalent of being rich and of a higher order because your great great grandfather was a famous footballer. It's ludicrous to think that it's acceptable to ride on the back of your ancestors' achievements.

Some would say that the Queen can veto legislation, but let's be honest, the Royal Family are supposed to be politically neutral or else it can cause controversy. So, even abhorrent bills pushed through by a majority party will get the consent of the Queen. However, I'd like to see whether or not a bill to abolish the monarchy would be approved by the Queen.

The main argument is whether or not the Royal Family makes or wastes our money. Monarchists believe that the reputation of the Royal Family and their fame contributes massively to the tourist industry in the UK. Republicans (not mad 'Muricans, but those who believe in anti-monarchism) believe that it's an outdated system which gives the Royal Family freebies without contributing enough to the country.

We know of the Queen's official expenditure for 2013-14 from the Sovereign Grant who said that the taxpayers paid 56p each a year for the upkeep of the Family - the equivalent of £35.7m. These include approximately £15m spent on wages and £246,160 spent on the Prince of Wales to attend the funeral of Nelson Mandela according to The Guardian. Discovery Finance reported that Prince Charles makes his money from the Duchy of Cornwall (despite it being owned by the state), which are currently $28m a year. The Queen's net worth is more than $500m a year. They are constantly making money and will no doubt continue to have money even if the monarchy is abolished.

Republic, the anti-monarchy website, posted a report that suggests that costs could cost as much as £299m which you can find here. This includes over a third being spent on security from the state (£102m), lost profits (not the band) on Duchies that are owned by the state, but given to monarchs (£90m) and how they live rent-free (£30) or as some call it, living in a fancy council house.

All those fences add up

These costs add up and in fact cost us more than it's worth. Let's say that we even take the extreme articles of Tory papers like The Telegraph who really support the monarchy. They say that the monarchy brings in £500m a year from overseas tourists as they visit the likes of The Tower of London and St Paul's Cathedral because they are linked with the Royal Family. To think that people go to these places because there is currently a monarchy is stupid. Someone tweeted today regarding the abolition of the monarchy saying: "You wouldn't stand atop the Eiffel Tower and think 'Paris would be so much better if it had a monarchy'". Therefore, why do we focus on tourism to keep them? The Palace of Versailles is the third largest tourist attraction in France behind the Louvre Museum and the Eiffel Tower yet France hasn't had a King since the 1840s. I don't see anyone boycotting India despite the fact that they have no monarchy. Especially because the Taj Mahal is one of the most famous buildings in the world. America is known for Hollywood, celebrities and the President. I wouldn't go to America in hope of meeting Obama or bumping into KimYe at a restaurant. Get real.

"What do you mean nobody lives here?" - Palace of Versailles

So as I've said, if it doesn't even make financial sense to you, at least think that tourism will not be affected as part of abolishment of the monarchy. People visit countries for their landmarks, their history, their culture, their natural beauty. People don't go to the Louvre to see the artists who made the art, but the art itself and the history of it. Therefore, tourism will not suffer through the abolishment of the monarchy, it will only encourage those to come and see the history and the wonders of the once forbidden spots in the UK.

If this still doesn't convince you, just think for a second why you think the Queen is a better person than you. The Queen is no different from any of us, she was just lucky to come from the untouchable family.

Independence Referendum: Where Yes and No Have Gone Wrong

It's a two horse race and it's neck and neck (sorry)

So on the eve of one of the biggest political votes we will ever have to make, I've reflected on the past two years of campaigning from the Yes Scotland and Better Together campaigns. I think it is safe to say that both sides have their pros and cons and neither should be ridiculed for what they want from this referendum.

However, there has been incidents that have pushed me away from both of these campaigns and I'll list three faults that I see in them.

Yes #1: Mindless Propaganda

Both sides can be accused of this, but for all of Yes' good points they raise, they also use scaremongering tactics that questions the motives of a well-ran campaign. We'll take two over-used pieces of propaganda: "A government we didn't vote for" and a "Tory/UKIP coalition". Deputy First Minister, Nicola Sturgeon, said in an article published today that "we have a Tory government we didn't vote for". As a United Kingdom, unfortunately we did - but you can't always get what you want out of democracy. If we had a Labour government in power at this moment in time, this quote would seen stupid. You could argue that every Labour voter in the UK didn't get a government they voted for. Fair enough, if we go independent we're more likely to have a socialist state, but this quote is a bit silly. As for the Tory/UKIP argument, if you really think that enough left-centre voters will change a vote to a right-wing party, then I don't think you have faith in the people of Britain. UKIP are nothing more than a phase in my opinion.

Yes #2: Keep Quiet, Figure Out Later

Of course, if we go independent it will not be so straight-forward. We technically still don't know what will happen in an independent Scotland. A number of talks will still have to take place to iron out key issues such as the currency and peace agreements. After reading Ewan Morrison's blog post "Why I Joined Yes and Why I Changed To No" I realised that the Yes campaign politicians are no different from any other politicians. They are evasive and will work things out after they win the referendum and confrontation won't be tolerated as the campaign has to keep happy and keep voters - meaning no negative talk in the Yes camp so that voters wouldn't turn to No. The Nazis used a similar bloody method: albeit to some incomparable extremes.  

Yes #3: The Utopia That Yes Are Creating

I'm not dismissing the campaign and what they want in an independent Scotland, but the yes campaign are talking about making a fairer, greener Scotland whilst relying on oil. They are talking about making a welfare state that gives everyone opportunity, whilst talking about becoming a country like Luxembourg and Switzerland - notorious tax havens. You can't please everyone.

No #1:  The Out-of-Touch Better Together Campaign

You would think that to reach out to voters, you would try and get a genuinely left-wing politician to mirror the left-wing Yes politicians, but instead Better Together pick Alistair Darling - a man who is a controversial figure in the UK. You would think that a campaign trying to get people to vote no for Devo Max would find someone who they can trust. Hell, I'd have preferred Gordon Brown or even the occasionally-batshit George Galloway to Darling. On top of that the campaign seems to look ever-so-patronising. *WOMEN! HEALTH! TOGETHER! COMMUNITY! FIGHT POVERTY!* Remind you of something?

German: Health, child protection, fighting poverty, aiding travellers, community, helping mothers.Again, not as extreme as this but you get the gist.

No #2: The BBC Bias

Seriously, even if every man and his dog that worked at BBC was strongly no - why couldn't they just keep it as impartial as possible? You could argue that some Yes campaigners were just being paranoid at first - and in some cases they have been - about the BBC, but Nick Robinson getting a little personal with Salmond the other day was surely enough to show that the BBC have been unnecessarily biased towards the no campaign. If they had kept the reporting so neutral that yes voters could have nothing to complain about, the no campaign may have had more voters at the moment.

No #3: Using So Many English People to Back up the Campaign

I have nothing against the English. I was born in England myself. My mum's English, I'm English, my little brother's English. Half my family are from England. However, if you are wanting people to vote for a union, you should be using Scottish people. It will make voters feel like they can relate to the person more in my opinion. There isn't an anti-English thing going on, but I feel there's a certain distrust towards our neighbours at this point in the referendum. 

To sum up, vote however you feel is correct. If you feel you are doing the right thing - do it. However, if you don't care - don't just vote for one side for the banter. For example, my mate Ryan has never been interested in politics and he's more pro-union than nationalist, but he isn't voting because he feels he doesn't know enough and he doesn't care enough to vote. And that is fair enough. 

Thanks if you have given this a read and I hope, like me, you support the country no matter what way it goes tomorrow.