Wednesday 21 March 2018

SEASON 1 - OWEN

NOTICE: I apologise for the large length of time between this interview and the last. Schoolwork has really been on the rise recently and neither me or my interviewees have found much time to conduct these interviews.

For many years now, Owen has expressed a wide interest in political theory. Through studying politics with him, I have begun to understand his political perspectives a lot more. Considering his well thought out opinions, I thought it would only be fitting for him to be my next interviewee. I interviewed him on only some of his political passions: Brexit, the environment and the UK Labour Party. This interview enabled me to learn some great statistics which should inspire many people to do their research and make informed political decisions.




Photo Credits: @document.it (instagram)

Q: Lets start with the classic question: how did you become interested in politics and what does it mean to you?

A: My first memory of politics would have been when Tony Blair stood down as Prime Minister in 2007. I remember the 2010 election quite vividly because it obviously resulted in no single party gaining a majority which is a rare thing in this country. I first took a real interest during the 2014 Scottish Independence Referendum. I think the period from 2014 to the EU referendum in 2016 was very interesting, obviously there was a general election during that. From this period onwards, politics became a big interest for me. To me, politics means a big debate of which everyone should take an interest in and participate in.

Q: I know you feel very strongly about Brexit, do you feel that a second referendum is necessary or inevitable and could you elaborate on your answer?

A: I think a second referendum is only possible if the public opinion on the European Union changes. This has actually been demonstrated in a few recent polls which suggest there has been a slight swing towards remain, however this is definitely not enough to warrant a second referendum on its own. I personally believe there shouldn’t have been a referendum in the first place as the issue is far too complex for the average Briton to fully understand. Unless you’re an experienced politician, or an expert in the mechanisms of the European Union and the impact it has on this country, then you can’t give a balanced judgement. I think what we really need is a political party to come out in strong support of Britain remaining in the European Union which people can rally behind. The result of one referendum, of which the turnout was less than ¾ of the electorate, should not determine the future of the country. We have general elections every 5 years so we can, after 5 years, reject what we had voted for at the previous election, why shouldn’t we do the same when it comes to our decision to leave the European Union?

Q: One of the key issues surrounding Brexit is of course trade. Do you think we can reach a satisfactory deal which will provide Britain with a strong European trading future? Furthermore, what are the international trading options for Britain after we leave?

A: To start with, and Donald Tusk made this perfect clear, whatever deal Britain has outside of the European Union cannot, by definition, be better than its current deal inside the European Union. If you leave a club or an organisation, you cannot expect to have a better relationship with that club after you leave it. In terms of trade, UK exports of goods and services to the EU was 43% of our total and although that has fallen from 54% in 2006, the value of those exports has risen by 14%. Clearly there’s a huge benefit to being in the single market and the customs union when it comes to trade. Exports to the single market help support 3.1 million jobs in the UK directly and a further 1.1 million indirectly. Leaving the European Union does of course mean Britain is free to negotiate its own trade deals, however according to the IMF, the UK’s GDP is worth 3 trillion dollars compared to the European Union’s which is worth 18.5 trillion, making it the largest economic bloc in the world. Why would China, India, the US, Japan and other established, emerging economies turn to the UK as a trading partner before the European Union? This belief that we are now going to reap all of the benefits of being free to negotiate our own trade deals, and that we will be a more global trading power because of this, is complete nonsense. The European Union has deals with other nations in the world for example: South Korea, with whom Britain has increased its trading with hugely since the EU trade deal was agreed. Almost half of all UK trade is with the EU and a further 12% of trade is with countries with which the EU has deals with. To me, the trading benefits of the European Union far outweigh any trading benefits we would have outside of it. You don’t have to be an expert in international trade to understand it is cheaper to send goods to France rather than China.

Q: You’ve mentioned before that you have an issue with the nationalistic connotations of Brexit and the British opinion on immigration. This breaks down into two questions: Firstly, do you believe Britain is still heavily associated with Patriotism? Secondly, what is your opinion on the immigration crisis and do you believe it was a valid reason to vote leave?

A: Firstly with patriotism, I think Britain isn’t anymore patriotic than any other nation but the form in which that patriotism is expressed in the UK is sometimes dangerous. I think a lot of it is nostalgic feelings and people reminiscing about when Britain led a colonial empire and was a leading military power in the world. However, the world has changed significantly and I believe patriotism is dying, but it is dying slower in the UK. I think patriotism was a big part in people voting leave as they wished to see sovereignty restored to the UK. With regards to immigration, it is absolutely not a valid argument to leave the European Union. The stereotypes of immigrants presented by right-wing populists such as UKIP are just absolutely ridiculous. In terms of employment, 85% of EU migrants are employed compared to 81% of the native population. In terms of benefits, only 1.6% of EU migrants are on benefits compared to 2.3% of the UK population and European immigrants are half as likely as natives to receive state benefits or tax credits. There has also been scaremongering over the crime that European immigrants bring to this nation, again this is false. In terms of the prison population of England and Wales, only 5% of that population were EU nationals. The UK is an island however and obviously we don’t want to be an overpopulated island. I do think however, that this is an argument in favour of curbing birth rate rather than limiting immigration. For the European Union to survive and prosper, there does need to be some form of immigration reform as there is a lot of concern over immigration across the whole of the EU.

Q: Moving on, another one of your passions is the environmental crisis. Do you feel that Britain is doing enough to help the planet and how could the government improve/implement their green policy more efficiently?

A: I don’t think we are doing enough, however the Paris agreement was an encouraging step in the right direction. I think we need to take it more seriously and I don’t think that the government has realised that there are other benefits to renewable energy besides the fact that it is non pollutant. For example: renewables mean we don’t have to rely on other nations for our energy, obviously given the current diplomatic situation with Russia, it may well be beneficial to look for alternatives to the natural gas that a lot of Europe obtains from Russia. In the UK I think there needs to be more subsidies to those who build renewable power plants and I think the idea of a carbon tax is a strong one that will help push us towards a cleaner future. I think there needs to be more government intervention in markets which are especially damaging, such as agriculture. I don’t think it’s that hard for the country to become a leading light in the global green movement.

Q: Regardless of what the government do, we as people must also contribute to saving the planet. How can an average working citizen amend their lifestyle and work to prevent the ecological crisis on a local level?

A: Firstly, people need to stop being lazy. I think that’s key to solving the ecological crisis because if everyone does something, that can go a long way. Local governments can encourage the building of renewable energy power plants in the local area and the general public can support this more than they currently do. There needs to be an understanding at all levels, not only in government but also among the public, the best way to solve the ecological crisis is to work together. This is not the sort of issue that a government can solve on its own, government needs cooperation. On the other hand, there are still those who believe climate change to either be exaggerated or entirely fake, and thus do not believe that we need such environmental reforms. Nevertheless, there can be no doubt that higher levels of CO2 in the atmosphere is a health risk to humans, so I think that regardless of where each of us individually stands on this issue, we need to come together for the sake of human well being.

Q: Do you think that MPs are pushing the government enough to prevent climate change and how can MPs use their position to improve the ecological situation?

A: Caroline Lucas is doing what should be done. But, I doubt many other MPs are doing enough for the environment which is a great shame. It is widely accepted in the scientific community, and now in the political community, that climate change is having a negative impact on the planet and is at least somewhat caused by human activity. There needs to be more parliamentary pressure from MPs to work towards resolving the issue. In our constituency, I have never seen a candidate, other than a green, put forward the environmental crisis as a major issue for our country, when they really should. I would encourage not just MPs, but all representatives to put more of an emphasis on climate change.

Q: Another issue I know you’re ardent about is the Labour Party. While being generally left leaning, I’m aware that you don’t necessarily support Jeremy Corbyn or Momentum. Could you expand on your opinion on Corbyn and Momentum and do you agree with their aims?

A: Corbyn surprised us all at the last election but I think he’s a genius because he’s managed to seduce an entire generation and has got everyone talking about Labour again. He still lost the election but he has gained considerable support from young people. I don’t agree with everything he says and I’m especially opposed to the way in which momentum are effectively running the Labour party. They have swung the party back to the far left and don’t seem to be tolerant of the more moderate side of the Labour party. I don’t think they are particularly strong believers of diversity within the party, which I think is a great mistake of theirs because if you look at post-war Labour governments, the most successful was New Labour. Economically, you cannot argue with Tony Blair’s government and Gordon Brown’s tenure as chancellor of the exchequer. They had the highest budget surplus on record in 2001 and at that time, had the lowest monthly record of government debt since records began. When momentum and other left leaning members of the party denounce New Labour and their policies, I massively disagree with them. The reforms that New Labour implemented were a great step in the right direction and I personally believe they presided over this country’s greatest period of success post-war. Corbyn on the other hand evidently does not see eye to eye with the centrist approach of New Labour and I think it’s a mistake of his to reject those members, particularly on the right of the party, such as Chuka Umunna. I think the Labour Party’s biggest mistake was not electing David Miliband as their leader in 2010 as I think he was a more credible candidate than his brother.

Q: Many have criticised organisations like Momentum and other groups/individuals for preaching tolerance yet being intolerant themselves. Do you feel that lack of tolerance is becoming more of an issue within the left?

A: I think it is a problem. It is a big contradiction, but the same can be said of all political ideologies. When Jacob Rees-Mogg came out and said on Good Morning Britain that he doesn’t believe gay marriage should be legal, he was heavily criticised for holding this view and was subject to a lot of abuse, which I think is completely wrong. I disagree with him heavily on this issue, but he shouldn’t be heckled for holding that view. This represents the problem of people being intolerant. I think tolerance is key to our democracy and it should be applied whenever possible. I think it’s very important to understand opposing views to your own and accepting those who disagree with you is a key part of life. Political debates should not be personal, someone’s politics should not be a measure by which you judge their personality.

Q: In light of everything we’ve just spoken about, do you think the direction the world is going in is a positive one or a negative one and can you expand on that answer?

A: I think generally, the world has been going in the right direction, however the alt-right represents a regression. I think Brexit and Trump’s ideas about trade are very isolationist which I am firmly against as I believe it can lead to unhealthy competition between nations and even conflict, should it escalate. I’d say it’s pretty obvious to everyone that Trump has taken the world closer to nuclear war, however despite this swing to the right, I am a firm believer that this is merely a hesitation of globalisation and the world will persevere through the rough political climate.

2 comments:

  1. Absolutely cracking interview! Really interesting read. Thanks Tom and Owen!

    ReplyDelete