Home » Britain (Page 6)
Category Archives: Britain
UK-born Children of Foreign parents: UK Citizens, or Not?
by John Brian Shannon | April 17, 2017
It seems logical that when a child is born in a given country that he or she should automatically be awarded citizenship in that country — while the parents obviously continue to be citizens of their own country. But in a surprising number of countries that’s not how it works.
As in Saudi Arabia and other countries, so it is in the United Kingdom — as recently and publicly reaffirmed by the Home Office in the case of a Dutch couple whose child was born in the UK.
Once a baby decides they want to be born, where the Mother and Father happen to be at that point in time is completely irrelevant. Some of you may have had that experience.
It seems counter-intuitive in the extreme to deny a person born in a country… citizenship in that country.
Imagine what it would’ve been over the past 100-years if every British parent had to travel to the appropriate UK government office with reams of paperwork to prove the entire family tree, thereby allowing the child to have the right of British citizenship?
The population of Britain would’ve never reached 65-million. Ever! People would’ve thought twice about having children, some would’ve decided to not have any at all, while other kids would’ve been adopted to foster-parents in other countries. That’s not the way to grow an economy!
You’re either born in the country and therefore automatically a citizen of the country with all the rights and responsibilities thereof, or you’re born outside of the country and are a visitor, student, diplomat, or an invited worker with impressive credentials who was offered citizenship by the government.
But being a citizen isn’t all about the rights and privileges of citizenship, there are also the responsibilities of citizenship.
Citizen Rights and Responsibilities
For one; Every citizen is a potential ‘brand ambassador’ for their country; Whether a tourist in the UK asks for directions from a Briton, or if the British ‘brand ambassador’ is travelling outside the country, they are representing Britain 24/7 to the people around them in every word and every action whether they like it or not. Such words and actions are carefully watched in many countries. And it could occur that they are called upon to verbally discuss or defend a certain policy, or even the distant history of Britain — something at which all UK citizens should be exceptionally skilled. Training for this should begin at a young age and continue throughout their education.
Two; During wartime, able-bodied people are expected to shoulder some amount of burden to defend the country. This can range from flying a warplane as the great flying ace Billy Bishop did for Britain and Canada (he was a Canadian who flew for the RAF in WWI) or, as in the American example, ‘Rosie the Riveter’ who left housewifely duties behind for 8-12 hours per day to rivet aircraft frames together as part of the WWII effort.
If you are willing to fight for Britain during wartime, then unquestionably, you are worthy of British citizenship. If you’re unwilling to fight for the UK, you’re unworthy of UK citizenship. It’s the ultimate citizenship litmus test!
‘Rosie the Riveter’ — Hundreds of thousands of American women assembled aircraft and manufactured weapons 8-12 hours per day during WWII. U.S. government poster.
Third; Able-bodied people are expected to become educated and contribute to the overall economy of the UK. Of course, they’re free to choose their university education and their career. But at the end of the day it’s not unreasonable to expect their choices will result in a net gain for the country, whether a cultural gain (an artist or homeless shelter worker, for example) or a true economic gain (a typical blue-collar or white-collar worker) or a clerical gain. It may be that they choose to serve their country in academia or in government. In any event, citizenship carries with it the obligation to contribute to the country that provided them with relative peace and prosperity, and a good education.
Fourth; The UK government should enact legislation that requires one year of compulsory military service to be served by age 25. If you’re a British citizen enjoying all of the rights and privileges of British society it’s completely reasonable to expect some sort of contribution to the national defense.
Of course, such gap-year military cadets may well find themselves helicoptered into flood ravaged regions to assist local authorities, or they may be learning how to fly a light aircraft, or working on a national infrastructure project where the military corps of engineers are building or rebuilding part of the national motorway system.
Personnel from RAF High Wycombe recreate the iconic Beatles Abbey Road album cover, parading the Armed Forces Day Flag on Armed Forces Day which falls on June 24th in 2017. Image courtesy of AECOM
During their gap-year military service, all of their necessities should be covered including free medical and dental coverage, food and shelter, and many recreational activities could be included.
In short, they should be encouraged to — learn hard, work hard and play hard — which the most successful nations have always done. And the least successful, haven’t.
At the end of their gap-year military service each cadet should receive a generous scholarship to the UK college or university of their choice. For those who wish to continue serving their country in the military, they should receive an equally generous scholarship that leads them toward a higher rank.
By creating a young cohort of military conscripts who can choose when to serve their gap-year military service, every young Briton will emerge from that military training as significantly brighter, bolder and more experienced citizens with skills that the young people of most countries won’t ever have.
That’s the way to build a smarter, stronger and more capable UK society, on the way to Building a Better Britain!
UK Leads G7 in the Combined Metric of Economic Growth + Carbon Cuts
A new Energy & Climate Intelligence Unit report confirms that Britain has been the most successful G7 nation over the last 25 years on the combined metric of growing its economy and reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
In the 25-years since 1992 when clean air and the corresponding lowering of healthcare spending became an important policy for the United Kingdom, the country grew its per capita GDP by 130% while lowering GHG emissions 33% — proving that a country can simultaneously grow their economy AND lower greenhouse gas emissions.
In the same timeframe, Japan grew its per-capita GDP by 83% while increasing its per-capita emissions by 10.5% — making it the worst performer of all the G7 nations. (Not to pick on Japan which has the most difficult population pyramid demographic problem of any nation on the planet)
“It’s really time to slay once and for all the old canard that cutting carbon emissions means economic harm.
As this report shows, if you have consistent policymaking and cross-party consensus, it’s perfectly possible to get richer and cleaner at the same time. Britain isn’t the only country that’s done it – it’s true for most of the G7 – but we’ve clearly been the best of the bunch.
There are signs that these successes are now transferring to the rest of the world. Globally, emissions have been flat for three years while world GDP has grown by 8%. But science indicates this isn’t enough to fulfil the objective of the UN Convention and prevent ‘dangerous’ climate change – for that, emissions need to start falling soon. This study should give confidence that with good policies, it’s achievable.” — Richard Black, director of the Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit
And in the United Kingdom, Scotland has led the way on the switch from coal to renewable energy and it rightly deserves much of the praise handed to the UK over the ongoing clean air success story, while England and Wales deserve much of the credit for growing the UK economy. As usual, Northern Ireland is ‘holding its own’ and although it is presently caught in the middle of an election cycle it seems that it might ramp-up to follow Scotland’s environmental success, post-election.
Scotland sets 50% renewable energy target (BBC)
Pre-Brexit, UK Leads G7 In ‘Conscious Decoupling’ Of Economic Growth & Carbon Cuts (CleanTechnica)
The Road to Decoupling: 21 Countries Are Reducing Carbon Emissions While Growing GDP (World Resources Institute)
By far, the biggest reason UK emissions have dropped in every decade since WWII is a HUGE shift away from coal. At one time almost 100% of Britain’s electricity was sourced by brown or black coal. Some of which was replaced by hydro-power, and later, by nuclear. Eventually, even more coal-fired capacity was replaced by natural gas, and most recently, by renewables.
The inexorable march away from coal-fired generation in the UK has resulted in cleaner air. It is by far the biggest factor in Britain’s ongoing clean air success story.
Still, it’s not enough progress. Scotland has set the standard that the rest of the UK should follow — which will take strong leadership in the House of Commons.
The Way Forward for Clean Air, Lower Healthcare Spending, and a Thriving Economy for Britain
There are many ways to accomplish those goals and everything has its own particular cost. But two pathways jump out as the most beneficial per pound sterling.
ONE: Continue to replace coal-fired power generation with any other power generator. Yes, everything else burns cleaner than coal! Burning home heating fuel is cleaner than coal. Natural gas-fired power generation can be up to 1-million times cleaner than burning some grades of brown coal. Even upgrading coal-fired power generation from brown coal ‘lignite’ fuel to black coal ‘anthracite’ fuel results in astonishing improvements in air quality.
Fortunately, this is the (unevenly applied) default in the United Kingdom, which, when combined with the solid and thoughtful policies of Scotland and Wales, results in cleaner air, lower healthcare costs, and boosts economic growth via lower energy prices.
Record UK wind generation lowers electricity prices (Power Engineering)
TWO: In addition to everything mentioned above, the other low-hanging fruit leading towards cleaner air, to lower healthcare spending, and to boost economic output (by lowering energy costs) is via energy-efficiency.
Prime Minister Theresa May should recognize that no matter how cleanly we can generate one GigaWatt of electricity — energy-efficiency savings (demand reduction) that are equal to one GigaWatt are many times cleaner — and energy-efficiency improvements are typically simple and cost-effective.
Imagine a UK government policy that lowers primary energy consumption (demand) by 30% across-the-board over the next 5-years.
That’s possible with the right policy, and infinitely cheaper than adding the exact same amount of energy production capacity to the grid.
Cheaper, by orders of magnitude. In fact, the Hinkley Point C nuclear power plant construction could be cancelled AND other proposed power plant projects could be shelved for at least a decade with that much efficiency added to the grid.
Simple programmes get the best results
If the UK government added an energy-efficiency programme shared between three government entities, costs and (importantly) accolades would be shared.
The Department of Energy & Climate Change, the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, and the Department for Communities and Local Government, would gain support from voters and expats by supporting a national energy-efficiency programme consisting of a £100 per capita credit on energy-saving electronics and materials.
For a business that employs 5 people, that’s a one-time credit of (up to) £500 towards energy-efficiency at that business, which will buy A TON of efficiency and thereby lower energy consumption/energy bills for that company.
All else being equal; Are those business owners more likely to vote Conservative in the next election? I would have to say, Yes.
Obviously, those 5 employees also live near their workplace and use electricity at home. Therefore, they too should receive a one-time (up to) £100 per capita credit at the hardware store for the purchase of LED or other energy-saving lights, smart thermostats, weather-stripping, insulation, receptacle gaskets and other energy-saving electronics or materials.
Each of those 5 people will now save significant amounts on their monthly electricity bill.
Again, all else being equal; Are those homeowners or tenants more likely to vote Conservative in the next election? The answer is likely to be affirmative if the present government decides to save each one of them, tens or hundreds of pounds per year on their annual electricity bill.
It sounds expensive until you consider the cost of adding 30 GigaWatts to the UK grid to cover wasted energy vs. spending a much smaller amount to conserve the same amount of energy.
There is simply no comparison. Energy-efficiency wins every time, and is dirt cheap in relation to the costs of building new power generation capacity.
A £100 per capita energy-efficiency credit is the way forward for clean air, lower healthcare spending, and a thriving economy for Britain (via lower energy costs) and pound for pound, nothing else comes close to accomplishing those goals at such a comparatively low spend.
No Taxation Without Representation!
“No Taxation Without Representation!” was a term coined by Reverend Jonathan Mayhew in a sermon in Boston in 1750.
By 1761 the terminology was changed by James Otis who said; “Taxation without representation is tyranny!” referring to the level of resentment felt by American colonists at being taxed by a British Parliament where the colonists elected no representatives and received no tangible benefit.
It became an anti-British slogan in the years leading up to the American Revolution. Eventually Britain lost control of its colony, and after a dreadful war that colony became known as the United States of America.
They say the only two certainties in life are Death and Taxes. But surely not far behind is the Negative Fallout of taxation without representation.
And in the 1700’s Britain made a costly error. After all, how many can say they once owned the territory we now call North America and lost it?
Some 250 years later, the EU Parliament having failed to learn one of the most important lessons of modern history, is now doing a similar thing.
The EU Parliament wants to tax Britons, but not allow them representation in the European Union Parliament from March 29, 2017 through March 29, 2019 — even though Britain will remain a dues-paying European Union member during that time.
The un-democrats in Brussels think it’s fine to continue taxing Britons £30 million (net) per day but won’t allow them a seat at the table! That totals £22 billion from March 2017 to March 2019, in exchange for exactly zero decision-making ability during that time.
British MEP’s (Member of the European Parliament) can make statements, answer questions and challenge EU MEP’s on their assertions, but they can’t enter any room where actual EU decisions are made, nor will they be allowed to vote on legislation in the EU Parliament.
Which isn’t democratic! No public relations agency on Earth could spin that situation into an example of democracy.
When British taxpayers are paying £22 billion over two years with no political representation, it’s a textbook case of taxation without representation.
The question to ask yourself is; Could Britain spend that £22 billion ‘better’ than the EU?
Were I Prime Minister Theresa May, I wouldn’t unilaterally pull out of the EU via the WTO route, because this situation hasn’t begun to gather momentum!
Once British taxpayers realize that they are (and have been for a long time!) sending £30 million per day to the EU and now British MEP’s can’t vote on EU legislation, they’ll realize how badly they’ve been used.
The longer this goes on, the better for the Brexit camp as it shows what the European Union is all about. And in Britain’s case, it was always about using Britain as a cash cow to fund EU priorities while flying under the media radar.
“Fool me once, it’s your fault. Fool me twice, and it’s my fault.”
Not only does the EU Parliament want Britain to continue to subsidize the European Union to the tune of £30 million per day until March 29, 2019 — it also wants Britain to pay a £52 billion ‘divorce payment’ now and in full — before Brexit negotiations begin.
The question to ask yourself is; Could Britain spend that £52 billion ‘better’ than the EU?
Nigel Farage called it the EU ‘Mafia’ racket (which he later retracted) while others having come to the realization of what it represents to the British taxpayer will rightfully conclude it’s a case of taxation without representation via extortion — because the EU won’t allow Brexit negotiations to proceed until the payola is received.
The European Union wants 74 billion pounds (in total) before Brexit negotiations begin
The EU wants Britain to pay £74 billion before Brexit negotiations begin but won’t allow Britain a seat at the EU decision-making table even as Britain remains a dues-paying member of the European Union.
And that isn’t democracy, that’s tyranny mixed with kleptocracy.
Letter to Britain 