The Unorthodox Website Blog

Open borders between countries are the ideal, but they can only work successfully when wages/prices and standard of living are more or less equal and when they have the same economic and political system.

Freedom is our supreme value and we must remember this truth. Our ancestors have been fighting for it so long — there's no way for us to forget it. We are free in everything: what to watch, whom to love, gods to believe, etc. Of course, some elements of our life tend to impose their own things on us (for example, education), but they do it for the sake of our successful future. So, it may seem that the need to do assignments you don't want to do is a violation of our freedom, but on the other hand, it helps us raise our awareness of the current state of the world. Finally, everyone can use the help of the best writing services and avoid doing complicated and boring tasks. Many students ask for professional assistance when they're out of time, lack knowledge or skills to do something, or need to devote free time to anything that matters more. There's nothing wrong with your desire to make your life easier; quite the opposite, it shows that students have the freedom to set priorities in life and studying.

For example, it could never work in divided Germany or divided Berlin where they had totally different political and economic systems. Take divided Berlin as an example of why the Wall had to be built. People were living in subsidized rented flats in the East and commuting to high paid jobs in the Western part of the city before the Wall went up. While the GDR (East Germany) was paying reparation fees for the Second World War to the Soviet Union for the whole of Germany, West Germany and West Berlin were getting Marshall Aid from the USA. Although the GDR government rebuilt the badly damaged East Berlin, and places like Dresden, all heavily bombed in the War, and while East Germans were among the most affluent and smartly dressed in the Socialist bloc, West Germany and West Berlin was poaching their professional people. Any East German who got to West Berlin or West Germany was automatically entitled to West German citizenship. At the same time, before the Wall went up in Berlin, West Berliners were able to cross freely into the Eastern sector of the city and strip the shops of subsidized foodstuffs. Under Socialism prices for essential goods and wages were controlled and so obviously lower than in the high-priced, high waged inflation-hit Western sectors of the city, so in August 1961 the Wall was erected. I do not approve of the minefields or shootings, and think there were ways visits both ways could have been permitted (a hefty returnable deposit raised by public subscription for GDR citizens to visit the West for example), but the point is the border had to be controlled.

The same is true between all countries where there are large differences in standards of living, wages and prices. Economic migrants tend to be the richest in the impoverished countries who can afford to pay to get to the richer countries. If there is a large flood of economic migrants to the richer countries, they leave the poorer countries even worse off. In divided Ireland it is now obvious the open border only worked when both countries were in the European Union. With UK out of the EU, and the Irish Republic still in the EU, it will be impossible to maintain the open border unless the UK or at least NI stays in the Single Market and Customs Union.

The GDR suffered economically as its professionals fled West, and after Socialism in Eastern and Central Europe collapsed, so many Polish men went abroad to UK and other places that there were not enough left to operate the fire stations.

I believe every country has the right to control both immigration and emigration, based on quotas. Total freedom of movement is only possible when there is a more of less level playing field and immigration/emigration are roughly balanced, rather than a heavy flow of emigrants/immigrants one way.

The GDR regarded mass emigration as tantamount to treachery, as those professionals educated and trained in the GDR fled West. When the flow of economic migrants is large and not balanced by a flow of immigrants, there are serious problems. What is then needed as a long-term solution is to bring the poorer countries up to the level of the richer ones. This is more difficult when so many are leaving, and impossible when there are totally different political and economic systems. If things are heavily subsidized by the State, and prices and wages are controlled, then a neighboring country with a high-wage inflationary capitalist system may seem attractive, even though rents, property prices and everything else are much more expensive.

So fences and walls are regrettably necessary, but shootings, minefields and other inhuman acts like separating children from parents who cross illegally are all unacceptable. A quota system should allow both immigration and emigration. When several countries or the whole world has a similar standard of living and more or less equal wages/prices, then freedom of movement is made easier, though some control will always be needed to apprehend criminals and terrorists.

Something exciting and revolutionary is happening in the world. It has often been misinterpreted as a worldwide clamor for independence by parts of nations, but in reality it is something quite different. I see it as the death-throes of the old nation states as new federations of autonomous regions develop.

Take the United Kingdom for example. It is in imminent danger of breaking up because of the result of the EU Referendum, with some countries and regions voting to stay in the EU and others, mainly rural areas of England and Wales, voting to leave. Scotland and Northern Ireland, also some cities in England like London, do not want total independence; they want to be member states of the European Union which is moving ever closer to a federation – a United States of Europe.

Catalonia is the latest region to desire to break away from the nation state, in this case Spain, but would probably wish to remain in the European Union. Those voting for Brexit in parts of the UK are going against the general trend, those in Scotland voting to remain in the EU are going with it.

This process of regions and smaller countries breaking away from the nation state and desiring to become autonomous states of a much larger federation could lead to a much more democratic European Union. Devolution has already taken place in the UK, with separate parliaments and assemblies in three of the four nations which make up the country. It therefore makes no sense for the Westminster Parliament and government to insist that two of these devolved nations, namely Scotland and Northern Ireland, should be dragged out of the European Union against the expressed will of their people.

Nation states have throughout history led to wars, as have aspirations for independence. It is high time we forsook the idea that nation states are inviolable and sought new ways of ruling ourselves. Since I was born many countries have ceased to exist, and others have come into being. What does seem to be the case, however, is when federations or unions of states break up into individual states, wars and genocide take place. Not only that, but many smaller parts of larger federations find it difficult to exist on their own, so apply to join another union. Such as some of the former republics of the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia who have joined or applied to join the European Union.

I have long favored a federal United States of Europe with legislatures in each member state, but not necessarily the member states as they are now constituted. Before the Referendum I envisaged England, Scotland and Wales becoming member states of a federal EU in their own right, and Northern Ireland united with the Eire as a member state. Now this is complicated by the fact that large areas of England and Wales voted, albeit by a small majority, to leave the EU.

Nevertheless the general trend is, I believe, towards larger federations or unions of states, and also for these member states to be smaller and more democratically accountable to their people than the often diverse nation states with their often remote governments. While the federal government of these unions will be even more remote, the member states will have their own legislatures with enhanced powers. Much as the individual states of the USA have great autonomy from Washington D.C. on a whole range of issues.

Already it is happening. Several states have been accepted into the European Union which broke away from former nation states – Slovenia, Croatia, Slovakia, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania. Also the Republic of Cyprus, which only has actual authority over part of the island. There is therefore no reason why Scotland or Catalonia should not be accepted as member states of the EU in their own right.

Where this process goes next remains to be seen. Will Bavaria, for instance, go for separate EU membership from the rest of Germany?

There is also, of course, the possibility of groups of states breaking away from one federation and joining another. This is what happened with the former Soviet Baltic republics and the two of the republics of former Yugoslavia. In the future there is always the possibility of the EU splitting to form two or more federations.

The world is in a constant state of flux. There is nothing to be alarmed about countries and regions re-grouping in different formats. What is perhaps more recent is the idea of newly independent regions then applying, voluntarily, to join a larger federation. Ultimately these federations could be linked in a confederation under a World Government.

Despite what the opinion polls say, and even they show Labour reducing the Tory lead, Labour can win the General Election, and Jeremy Corbyn is immensely popular, in fact more popular than any other current Party leader judging by the huge crowds which greet him everywhere. However if you read the Main Stream Media, or listen to it via TV, you would get the opposite impression, that Corbyn is the most unpopular leader, and the opinion polls give the same message. It all depends, of course, on who is asked the questions and what newspapers they read.

The problem is that entrenched in Parliament are so many Labour MPs who got there in the New Labour era, and they have done everything in their power from the moment Corbyn was first elected leader to stab him in the back. He picked a Shadow Cabinet from all sections of the Parliamentary Labour Party, and the Blairites then promptly resigned saying he was ‘incompetent’. For heaven’s sake, the man had been a backbencher for decades, a bit of help and support would have been nice, and patience. Blairite MPs constantly ran him down in the rightwing media, then 172 voted ‘no confidence’ in him. Had Corbyn then resigned as leader, he would have been kept off the ballot paper along with all other leftwingers.

They put up Owen Smith, who nobody had ever heard of, to challenge Corbyn for the leadership, spouting a left-sounding agenda, but the membership did not fall for it and re-elected Corbyn with an even bigger majority.

As to the General Election which all the polls predict the Tories will win, in these uncertain times nothing can be predicted with any reliability. So many factors come into play in this Election. Brexit will feature prominently. How will Remainers vote? How will Leavers vote? So far it seems most UKIP votes will go to the Tories, but this is not necessarily so. Many could go to Labour. Then there will be tactical voting to confuse things. What happens in Scotland could be crucial, but a post-election alliance of Labour and the SNP could stop the Tories if together they could form a majority of MPs.

One thing is certain. To achieve a Labour victory people must vote Labour. That may seen obvious, but when so many of the potential electorate do not register or register but then do not vote, then they cannot complain if they end up with a government they do not like. In the past many have not bothered to vote as they saw little difference between the main political parties or just did not trust politicians. This time it is different, as Labour under Corbyn has inspired many people that we now have a real alternative and a new kind of politics.

If young people, many of whom were denied a vote in the EU Referendum or were too young to vote in the 2015 General Election, register and vote Labour, and if sufficient numbers of people who do not usually vote do the same, Labour could not only win, but even win by a landslide. That is a lot of ‘ifs’, but it is perfectly possible.

The big fly in the ointment is the Main Stream Media, which includes the BBC and most other TV news outlets, and most of the Press. The tabloids are the worst. In Soviet-style Socialist Democracy the government told the people how to vote; in our own version of democracy Rupert Murdoch, George Osborne and company tell the people how to vote. Thank goodness for social media!

There are two possibilities in this Election. Either young people and previous non-voters come out in their millions and vote, in which case Labour could form the next government, or they leave it to the older generation and readers of the tabloids in which case the Tories will be returned with a bigger majority.

There are consistent reports coming out of Russia about gay men being arrested, kept in prisons or concentration camps, tortured, made to reveal names of other gay men, and sometimes killed by the Chechen authorities. Chechnya is an extremist Islamic autonomous republic within the Russian Federation, and honor killings of gay man by their families is also a common practice, so many gay men there are forced to marry a woman and keep their sexuality secret. The current purge of gay men is truly horrific, and there have been demonstrations outside Russian embassies and petitions to the Russian government.

The difficulty is short of sending in the tanks again, or threatening to do so, the Russian federal government is powerless to do much apart from tell the Chechen authorities to stop this persecution of gay men. The Russian Federation itself is riddled with homophobia due largely to the influence of the Russian Orthodox Church, though in Chechnya and some other Russian republics it is extremist Islam which is homophobic. Russia has a law, similar to Thatcher’s Section 28, which prohibits the promotion of ‘unnatural’ sexual relations to minors. This has encouraged violent homophobia, and causes Gay Pride marches to be banned and broken up. Any kind of promotion of the gay lifestyle is illegal.

This is in stark contrast to Lenin’s decriminalization of homosexuality soon after the Bolshevik Revolution, though there was a clamp down later under Stalin and later leaders. It is also in marked contrast to the legalization of homosexuality in Soviet-bloc countries like Czechoslovakia and East Germany in the 1960s. However the homophobia in Russia seems to have got much worse since the disintegration of the Soviet Union, an officially atheist state, and the rising influence of organized religion in the form of the Christian Orthodox church and extreme Islam.

Homophobia is also rampant in Saudi Arabia, Qata, the ISIS held areas and other extremist Islamic areas, also in other Christian Orthodox countries like Greece and the Republic of Cyprus. Also in areas where fundamentalist Christianity is prevalent, such as the Southern states of America, especially in rural areas. However it is in the extreme Islamic republics that killing and torture of gay men, and lesbians, is official government policy.

While Russia must do its utmost to halt the pogrom of gay men in Chechnya, the West has a duty to put pressure on countries like Saudi Arabia which it supplies with arms and torture equipment. These supplies should be stopped immediately, as they also find their way from these extremist Islamic states to ISIS where gays are also being murdered.

As to the Chechen situation in Russia, there have already been two wars between Russia and the largely uncontrollable Chechen republic since the fall of the Soviet Union, as Chechnya declared independence in 1991. Chechen terrorists have set off bombs in the Moscow Metro system. The current Chechen leader, approved by Moscow, is guilty of causing this progrom and by publicizing what is going on and showing the world is watching, the Amnesty International tactic for decades, we can only hope the authorities will take notice and stop the persecution. As there are no Chechen embassies to protest outside people have no option other than to demand the Russian Federation itself puts pressure on this semi-independent republic. The fact that Russia is heavily involved in Syria, has a divided Ukraine on its doorstep with a large Russian-speaking population and a hostile rightwing government in Kiev due to a coup, and has also had to build up troops on its Western borders because of a NATO build-up does not exactly help, nor does the fact that Russia itself is increasingly homophobic.

A thoroughly depressing situation to which I can see no easy short-term solution. The MSM giving maximum publicity to the Chechen pogrom and similar persecution in other areas of the world is probably the only thing we can do.

Brexit, especially the Hard Brexit being pursued by the government, has shaken the United Kingdom to its very foundations and it may not even survive.

It is somewhat ironic that many Leave voters are very patriotic, but all they may achieve is consigning the Union Flag to the dustbin of history and a new flag may have to be designed for what remains of the UK, possibly just England and Wales.

The SNP in Scotland and Sinn Fein in Northern Ireland have called for referenda on the status of their regions. The Scottish one would be on independence so Scotland can remain in or re-join the EU, and the Northern Ireland one would be to unite with the Republic of Ireland, which is already an EU member.

Had Theresa May gone for soft Brexit and continued membership of the single market it would have been a compromise which would have avoided these upheavals, but would also probably be far from ideal in that we would still be bound by EU rules and regulations but have no vote or say in forming them.

However life outside the EU and single market altogether, which nobody voted for because it was not on the Referendum paper, is an as yet unknown territory depending on what deal, and it is unlikely to be a good one, May can get from the 27 remaining EU members. If they gave UK a good deal, then other EU countries might be encouraged to leave and negotiate similar terms.

Whatever happens in the referenda in Scotland and Northern Ireland, if they happen, UK leaving the EU will cause immense problems which I am sure people voting Leave in the EU Referendum never even considered: the status of the border in Ireland and the Good Friday Agreement, the status of British nationals in other EU countries are just two of these uncertainties. If there is ANY sort of control of the border in Ireland the Good Friday Agreement will collapse, risking the Troubles with the IRA starting again. If the border is left uncontrolled, then there will be an open border with an EU country where EU nationals many Leave voters are so anxious to keep out can stream in. If Scotland leaves the UK there will be another border with an EU country which either has to be controlled or again, an entry point for immigrants to stream in uncontrolled. We will have completely lost control of one or two borders whichever way the referenda go, except in the unlikely event Northern Ireland unites with the Republic but Scotland remains in the UK. The open border(s) would be easy entry points not just for EU immigrants. Anyone who gains entry to the Republic of Ireland could cross the border into the UK and similarly with an independent Scotland. Net result of Brexit: no control whatsoever over immigration from any country because of the open land border(s).

All this is just the beginning of the Pandora’s Box which Leave voters have opened, but for which David Cameron and Parliament are entirely to blame. Thresholds are usually required for Constitutional referenda like this. A two-thirds majority to change the status quo is not an uncommon requirement. It would have also have been sensible, in order to keep the UK intact, to require all four countries of the UK to have a majority vote to change the status quo for it to be effective. Plus the fact that those who will be most affected by leaving the EU were barred from voting yet 16/17 year olds were allowed to vote in other referenda. The end result is just 27% of the British population are dragging the remaining 73%, many of whom although they will be most affected were not allowed a vote, out of the EU. This is hardly democracy, it is a travesty of democracy. Even of the eligible electorate only 37% voted to Leave the UK. I can think of no other Constitutional change anywhere where such a low margin of voters have altered the status quo with unforeseeable consequences.

Finally, at a General Election the electorate get a chance to vote again in 5 years. With the EU referendum anyone demanding a second one to confirm the biggest Constitutional change in recent years once it is known what it will actually mean is greeted with accusations of being undemocratic because Brexit is the ‘will of the people’. Correction: it was the expressed will, apparently, of 27% of the people on one day in June 2016. Some were just registering protest votes against the government, some may have changed their minds since, and the other 73% either were not given a vote or might like to vote when the actual terms and consequences of Brexit are known. How can that be undemocratic? You might as well say once we’ve had a General Election the party who got the most seats in Parliament rules forever!