EU?

So . . .

The people of the UK have a big decision to make on June 23rd, probably the biggest political decision of most people's lives, and certainly much more significant than any particular parliamentary election.

I'll vote to leave.

However, I've been deeply disappointed by the quality of debate on both sides of this issue. I feel that, for both Brexit and Bremain (surely the worst pair of abbreviations for a long time), many campaigners are being excessively negative, so I want to offer what I hope is a more balanced perspective.

I think that the UK and the rest of the EU are on different paths and, ultimately, have a different goal in mind. The European Union is explicitly about eventually creating a federal European superstate (see the recently debated phrase "ever closer union" for evidence of this), the exact structure of which is still to be negotiated, and I just don't believe that's what most people in the UK want. We joined an economic free-trade area, but the EU is already way more than that, and it continues to change in that direction. In fact, I'm sure it will have to continue to grow ever more tightly-knit, or fail; the problems with the Euro exemplify this. One currency used by a number of independently-run economies is just not working well, so either multiple currencies will need to be reintroduced, or the economies will have to be more and more centrally run.

Now, I'm not saying that the great European integration project is a bad project, or that it is necessarily doomed to failure. What I am saying is that most citizens of the UK don't feel comfortable with the idea of loyalty to Europe over loyalty to their country. The Stay campaign isn't trying to sell the idea of wholeheartedly committing to the ideal of a big powerful Euro-state, because they know it just won't sell here, so they present a campaign based on fears of what might go wrong if we leave, rather than a positive vision of the end goal towards which the EU is relentlessly heading.

I'm not voting to leave because of concerns over immigration, though the numbers we've seen recently have been quite large. I'm not voting to leave because I hate foreigners; I culturally self-identify as an Englishman, and also recognise value in the many different cultures inside, and outside, the EU . I'm not even voting to leave because of the money we give to the EU. I'm voting to leave because we're part of a club whose central aim we don't share, and whose central aim we're actually obstructing.

I think this is important; we're holding up European integration as long as we stay, because we don't want it. Mr. Cameron's recent negotiations resulted in, among other things, this paragraph:
"It is recognised that the United Kingdom, in the light of the specific situation it has under the Treaties, is not committed to further political integration into the European Union. The substance of this will be incorporated into the Treaties at the time of their next revision in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Treaties and the respective constitutional requirements of the Member States, so as to make it clear that the references to ever closer union do not apply to the United Kingdom."

So, there's official EU-wide recognition that the UK is not really committed to the EU plan. This seems farcical, and counter-productive; we'll be like the whiny teenager who doesn't want to join in the family gathering, and rather spoils it for everyone else. If the EU project can't survive without our money, it's not really worth much anyway. I reckon the European Union would thrive without us, and we outside it, but if it folds because we leave, then it was never really going to work, because we're not at the heart of Europe, and never have been.

There's lots of talk about the EU countries punishing us if we leave by refusing to trade with us, To me, this is either libellous, if false, or if true, is like the argument for not leaving an abusive relationship, "If you leave me, you'll be sorry, I'll make you pay". Once the threat is made, the relationship is already sundered, and needs to be formally ended as quickly as possible.

The UK is one of the 10 biggest economies in the world, do we really believe that companies in France, Germany, Italy and the rest won't want to sell things to us? If they want to sell, then other companies will be willing to buy from us too; high-tariff protectionist trade wars are not inevitable if both sides are just willing to negotiate in good faith. In the short term, the government should allocate most of the money currently sent to the EU to support for export-based companies, as they would undoubtedly face the worst of the economic disruption if we leave, but I don't think short-term difficulties are sufficient reason to avoid dealing with a long-term, ever-worsening problem. It wouldn't be any easier to leave the EU in 30 years time, but I think the desire to do so would then be almost overwhelming.

In conclusion, the UK and the rest of the EU want different things. We should wish each other well, go our separate ways, but remain friends.

Allegory?

There was once an orphanage for girls. It had had many girls housed within it over the years, all without parents, all needing love and reassurance.

This is a story about an argument between two of the girls, Izzy and Tina, about some toys. Tina said that Izzy had taken her toys. Izzy said that Tina had left the toys deliberately, and that it was her turn to play with them, and that they were her toys originally anyway. There had been fighting between the two girls over this for a long time, sometimes resulting in serious injuries, but neither were willing to back down; they both insisted that the toys were theirs, and theirs only. Izzy was stronger than Tina, and usually hurt Tina worse than Tina hurt her when they fought, but Izzy had been bullied before, many times, and didn't want to admit that she was acting in the same way.

Some of the older girls had tried to intervene in the fight. Britney had been chosen by the Orphanage Council (which supposedly represented all the girls in the orphanage) to be in charge of the disputed toys, but it hadn't worked. Sam, maybe the most influential girl in the orphanage, had tried to get Izzy and Tina to agree to share the toys, but no agreement could be found that satisfied everyone.

Some of the girls, when thinking about this ongoing battle for the toys, remembered a girl that had once lived in the orphanage, called Jess. She had been kind, gentle, and sensible, not afraid to tell off other girls if they were acting wrongly, but always wanting the best for everyone. Her willingness to speak out had made her unpopular, and had even led to a serious assault on her, but those who remembered her thought that if anyone could have solved this dispute, it would have been Jess. No-one was sure where she was these days, as she seemed to have left the orphanage.

What the girls didn't know, or had allowed themselves to forget, was that Jess wasn't an orphan, as they were. Her father owned the orphanage; he was the one who provided the meals that turned up every day, the clean bed linen, the heating, the lighting. He and Jess had agreed that Jess should visit the orphanage, so that she could be an example of how someone can behave if they know that they have a father who loves them. Her actions had indeed led to hostility from some, but others remembered her with fondness and admiration, even considered her to be their role model.

It was her father's plan all along to offer adoption to all of these girls, if they were willing, so that they would truly become his daughters, and know that he was a father to them as he was to Jess.

Of course, the solution to the dispute between Izzy and Tina would most likely be that they should forgive each other for the hurts they had caused, agree to share the toys fairly, and ask the owner of the orphanage if they could both be adopted, becoming true sisters.

Adoption?

So . . .

As I hinted at in a previous post, I have a few things to say about adoption, most of them really positive. I think adoption is a great idea, and applaud the government for trying to make the process a bit faster and easier for all concerned. Some friends of mine are seeking to adopt a little girl that they are currently fostering, and I admire them hugely; they already have loads of children, so to take in another is a real gift, both to the child and the local authority that currently supports her. I won't mention them by name, if there's even a chance it could affect the adoption process negatively, but if you know who they are, you probably admire them too :) .

I know there have to be careful assessments of the prospective adopters, but the thing that keeps coming back to me is how demonstrably harmful it is for children to not be living in a family. Some children simply have to be taken out of a dangerous home environment, I recognise that too, and fostering is a good short-term solution to keep a child from significant harm, but nothing replaces the knowledge that they're in the family for good.

I think adoption is such a good idea that I hold a belief which will seem obvious to most "on the left", but is unusual for an evangelical Christian like myself. I believe that gay couples should be actively encouraged to adopt, just as much as straight ones, and that sexuality should play no part in the assessment for suitability for adoption. The improvement in the life outcomes for a child who is successfully adopted (and yes, I know that adoptions can and do break down sometimes) is so great that any of my issues with homosexuality as a lifestyle, whether my concerns are legitimate or just prejudice, are trivial compared to the thought of a child being welcomed by loving, committed, sensible parents.

Fellow Christians will probably be aware that Paul, in several of his letters in the New Testament, uses the concept of adoption as a picture of our being accepted by God, our heavenly Father. The sense of acceptance and security, of joining a new family and truly belonging there, makes the analogy very appropriate.

In short, yay adoption!

Prison reform?

So . . .

Prison reform has been on my mind for a while now. It seems to me that our current system of custodial sentencing is very good at achieving some objectives, and pretty poor indeed at achieving some others.

Prisons are excellent at preventing prisoners from committing crimes outside the prison for the duration of their custodial sentence; escapes are rare, and mostly from "open" prisons when they do occur. Prisons are usually a punishment, unless the prisoner's life conditions before incarceration were so terrible that prison represents a definite improvement. Prisons can be a deterrent, but again, the level of deterrence depends on the quality of life "on the outside" of which the potential criminal would be deprived by a prison sentence. Rehabilitation is pretty hit-and-miss, as the reoffending rates are worryingly high; this is another indication of a failure in deterrence. All of this is done at a pretty staggering cost per prisoner per year.

I believe that one big factor which leads to many of these failings is the acclimatization effect. The longer someone spends incarcerated, the more that life inside prison will feel "normal", while departing that environment will feel abnormal, perhaps intolerably so. The one released will, consciously or subconsciously, engage in behaviour that will lead to a return to "normality", i.e. commit crime so that they may return to prison. This effect will be more pronounced for younger inmates, with less experience of outside society, and more pronounced the longer the sentence.

I would therefore propose a different model of incarceration, in which the focus of the sentence is not on duration, but on intensity. If certain categories of prison sentences were much shorter (weeks rather than months, months rather than years), then acclimatization would be much reduced, as it always takes time to acclimatize. If the sentences were also much tougher to experience (e.g. limited entertainment facilities, nutritious but bland food), then punishment would be still be served, with deterrence maintained. The prisoner should be left with a memory of an experience that they actively wish never to repeat, but which didn't become familiar enough to feel like the new "normal". If these "short, sharp sentences" were combined with thorough psychological evaluation, then the causes of each prisoner's offending might be determined, with the possibility of targeted support (court-appointed therapy, educational opportunities, drug rehabilitation, etc.) reducing the reoffending rate.

Obviously, this approach would not be a panacea; if there is not to be capital punishment, there will remain a need for long custodial sentences; in some cases, lifelong sentences. The evaluation procedures would be real costs, as would the post-sentence support, although not, I believe, as much as the costs of repeated long-term incarceration, not to mention the social costs of crime between custodial periods. One benefit of this new approach is that it could be tested on a trial basis first, in just one or two prisons, with assessment of results such as reoffending rates in just a few years (due to the shorter sentences).

The other fairly obvious point is that any adjustment to the prison system would need to be carried out in conjunction with both social services, and the care system, as there is a statistically significant correlation between children growing up in care of the state, and then going on to be imprisoned. Social services, although politically unexciting, need more funding, and alternatives to institutional care of children need to be sought wherever possible; I may well blog more on this point in the future.

Finally, I feel compelled to say that, in one sense, all of this would only be applying a more effective sticking-plaster to the ailments of modern society. The true cause of almost all crime is the selfishness and lack of self-control of individual humans, living in an unjust society, and as a Christian, I believe that Jesus Christ is the only true solution to the problem of the human heart, and the oppressive structures that humans have created.

Islamic State?

So . . .

Islamic State / IS / ISIS / ISIL / Daesh are big in the news after the attacks in Paris on Friday. The slightly bewildering list of names for this murderous organization may be symbolic; the great powers of the world can't even decide what to call them, let alone what to do about them. Daesh (a name based on the acronym for "Islamic State in Iraq and Syria" in Arabic) is the name the group itself likes the least, so from here on, I'll refer to them as that :) .

They're callously violent, but clearly not all stupid; some are experts at online recruitment, and France's security services can't have been slack after the Charlie Hebdo attacks, so Daesh clearly have members who are effective at planning and operational execution (a regrettable grisly play on words here, I know). They define themselves as Muslims, but have mostly killed other Muslims so far, Muslims who don't share their love of killing or enslaving everyone who disagrees with them. They distribute an apocalyptic vision that is drawing in disaffected Muslim twenty-somethings in their hundreds and thousands; they say, "The end of the world is nigh, and we're the winning side, so you'd better join up, or else."

Daesh specialise in creating atrocities so horrific that the Western press apparently cannot help but report on them in graphic detail. This serves several purposes for them; it spreads fear through the populations of their enemies, it functions as free advertising for them as an aid to their recruitment, and it creates anger in the minds of opposing political and military leaders, potentially clouding their judgment, and possibly leading to ill-considered reprisals that fuel Daesh recruitment rates even more.

Daesh are selling oil from the oil wells they've captured on the black market in Turkey. They sell antiquities and artifacts (when they don't blow them up for publicity). They extort money from local citizens in the areas in which they have a military presence. They do a little heroin trafficking from Afghanistan. They also get direct donations, through various phony charities. They are, therefore, extremely rich, which enables all of their activities.

So, solutions? Ground forces in Iraq AGAIN are not a popular concept in the US and UK, and I don't think any other European democracies are keen either. The Counter-DAESH Coalition drops some bombs and provides some humanitarian support, but that doesn't seem to have a decisive effect. The states appearing to have most success against them are Iran (not popular with the West), what remains of Syria's "official" government (even less popular with the West), Russia (are we seeing a pattern here?), and Iraqi Kurdistan (not technically a sovereign state); the official Iraqi government and military are doing what they can, and Turkey has started to get more involved, but the situation grinds on.

Perhaps the only plausible resolution, and I know many won't feel this is plausible either, is if the members of Daesh decide they don't want to continue as part of a murderous organization, and if Daesh are no longer successful in recruitment. This is where Christians have an advantage over sovereign states, as the power of prayer can change hearts and minds in a way that military power simply cannot. I humbly suggest to all who claim faith in Jesus Christ that we pray that all members of Daesh start frequently having doubts about the rightness of their actions, and that they start to listen to their doubts, and that those considering joining would have the same doubts, and decide not to join as a result. Repentence is what these people need, beyond all else.