The Monarchy may be viewed as a distant elite by some, especially millennials – but the power and purpose of this age-old institution may surprise you.
A glimpse of history
The British Monarchy is one of Britain’s oldest constitutions, tracing back to Britain’s time under the Roman empire. The the first King of England was William the Conqueror, who brought all of the small groups of monarchies in Britain together, under one leader. However, the monarchy as we know it, began with the Tudors.
Queen Elizabeth became Britain’s ruling monarch in 1952, when her father, King George VI, passed away. She is currently Britain’s longest reigning monarch in history, as well as the head of state.
The monarchy is a constitutional monarchy – a form of government, where in Britain, the Prime minister holds the legal power. This means that the role that the reigning monarch occupies is not a political or executive role – only an elected parliament can make and pass legislation. If the government were to legislate the removal of Queen Elizabeth as the head of state, they would have the power to do so.
The Royal Family on the balcony of Buckingham Palace // bbc.co.uk
Why is the Monarch’s role important?
However, Queen Elizabeth’s role is still vital to current structure of Britain -she holds the right to be consulted, encourage and the right to warn. As the Monarch, Queen Elizabeth performs key ceremonial duties, such as appointing the Prime Minister when he/she is elected, and awarding knighthoods. Furthermore, the monarchy contribute extensively a number of charities and causes – the Queen is patron to 510 charities in Britain, including Cancer Research UK.
She formally opens the British Parliament annually, and she must give her stamp of approval (Royal Assent) on a bill before it can become an Act of Parliament. As the reigning monarch, she has never refused to give her Royal Assent, as of yet.
Prime Minister Boris Johnson and Queen Elizabeth II // businessinsider.com
The Queen supports the elected government; she remains politically neutral because the monarch is a separate institution from the reigning government. Members of the royal family tend to refrain from sharing their opinions on current political affairs. Furthermore, if there is a political situation such as a hung parliament, the Queen cannot show any personal discretion over the potential choice of the next Prime Minister. She supports the Prime Minister in office by providing counsel and meeting with them weekly.
The Monarchy is the symbol of Britain – representing Britain at home and abroad through institutions such as the Commonwealth, representing the nation during goodwill trips and hosting the heads of state from foreign nations. This can have an impact on diplomatic relations between Britain and other countries.
The official Royal website says, “the Sovereign acts as a focus for national identity, unity and pride; gives a sense of stability and continuity; officially recognises success and excellence’ and supports the ideal of voluntary service.”
How is the Monarchy funded?
Source: bbc.co.uk
The British public do partly fund the monarchy through an avenue called the Sovereign Grant (which comes from public taxes). The Sovereign Grant is funded by a percentage of the profits of the Crown Estate revenue. According to the government, the grant “meets the central staff costs and running expenses of Her Majesty’s official household. It also covers maintenance of the royal palaces in England and the cost of travel to carry out royal engagements such as opening buildings and other royal visits.”
As a result of the public funding, the Queen surrenders the revenue from the Crown Estate to the government. The Sovereign Grant for 2020-21 will be £85.9 million – this is 25% of the Crown Estate’s revenue surplus in 2018-2019, which was £343.5 million.
Whether you’re an avid supporter of the monarchy or an abolitionist – or somewhere in between, the monarchy has directly impacted your life, from education, finance to politics – and it will stand as an age-old institution for years to come.
In Britain, it is undeniable that national newspapers hold tremendous power; they help to shape national opinion, and even influence elections. The Sun, for example, has backed the winner in every single General Election for almost half a century. As a result, they have played a substantial role in creating the current, overwhelmingly negative discourse surrounding immigration. Only through evaluating both how and why this happens can we hope to bring about change, thus it is necessary to examine the language used by newspapers, the production processes that allow this to fester, and the wider public opinion of migration.
bbc.co.uk
A thorough report by the Migration Observatory gives us a quantitative look at the language used by British newspapers. This report utilised a computer-aided analysis of over 58,000 news stories, consisting of around 43 million words. This found that ‘illegal’ was the most common preceding word to ‘immigrants’, and ‘failed’ was the most common for asylum seekers. The words ‘terrorist’, ‘sham’, and ‘suspected’ occurred with a disturbing frequency, as did ‘thousands’ and ‘millions’ – which we can safely assume were sensationalist stories written to portray migrants as dangerous, and over inflate their numbers (13% of all the analysed articles had some reference to the number of migrants entering the UK). Disgustingly dehumanising language like ‘surge’ ‘wave’ and ‘flood’ are used to reinforce the exaggerated view of migration levels, as too is the usage of ‘invasion’ and ‘plague’. Any media organisation using such language to refer to their fellow human beings should be ashamed, but sadly they are not and this has no doubt fostered a toxic public opinion.
Despite the sheer scale of coverage focused on migrants, there was a noticeable lack of divergence in opinion; 46% outright portrayed migrants and migration as a threat, and played on the trope of migrants as villains. 38% talked of migrants in terms of victimhood, which is more promising, but still not necessarily reassuring on its own; sympathy does not always mean support, and has the potential to perpetuate the dangerous view that Britain is superior, or somewhat of a saviour to migrants. Only 10% presented migration as a benefit, and even then, this was mainly framed in economic rather than human or moral terms. The coverage also had a distinct lack of input from migrants themselves; direct references from migrants were extremely rare, and when they were found they were overwhelmingly presented as victims. While the portrayal of migrants as victims may seem, on the surface, to be relatively supportive, it leads to concerns that not only may this not be useful in the longer term in allowing the public to have an equal relationship with migrants, rather than one that only lends support due to suffering, it also forces those rare voices to relive trauma. Emotional stories can garner support, but they also enforce a harmful narrative that support is only necessary in exceptional circumstances.
To understand better how this situation in the media has been created, it is necessary to look at the process of news production itself. A study by the Reminder Project found that their sample was dominated by men, with 19 men surveyed compared to only seven women, a trend which reflects the media as a whole. A majority of newspaper staff interviewed declared that their publication was right-leaning politically, and those working for tabloid or mid-market newspapers also viewed their publication to be socially conservative. Staff give us an insight into the attitudes towards migrants that make it into publication, and also demonstrate a class-based bias, with one saying “I wouldn’t typically think of someone who is working for [Oxford] university from Spain as a migrant, whereas I would tend to think – and this might be completely wrong – but I would think of someone coming from Romania to pick strawberries as a migrant worker.”
This shows that not only does the nationality of the migrant shape their treatment from the press, but also their class background. In addition, the above quote demonstrates that migrants are arranged hierarchically in relation to immigration status, namely which type of UK Visa they hold. The journalists interviewed also admitted that they believed that the term ‘migrant’ was a negatively loaded term, and some even claimed that they talked about EU migrants when they wanted to promote the ‘Brexit agenda’, showing that they intentionally refer to different groups of migrants depending on what reaction they are seeking.
Immigration and fear mongering headlines // bridge.georgetown.edu
Brexit, and right-wing populism as a whole, is a symptom of an increasingly hostile environment for migrants, but it is important to note that this hostility is racialised, whether they hold British citizenship or not. This demonstrates that not only is anti-immigration sentiment born from prejudice, but it also casts a light on the lack of coherent knowledge surrounding immigration. Surveys show that Brits believe that about 25% of the population is made up of immigrants, when the reality is around half this figure. It is also a popular misconception that immigration leads to a rise in crime and unemployment, and a reduction in the quality of NHS service, when all evidence points towards the fact that this is simply not the case. This is somewhat of a self-reinforcing bias, but it is also heavily influenced by the overwhelmingly negative or misleading coverage of migration from the media.
It is clear that the language used by our media, and the political and social biases of those who own and work for them has created an environment in which migrants are viewed with hostility. While facts and figures will not be enough alone to change the misperception and denigration that migrants face, understanding the role that the media plays gives us a foothold. Migrants must be treated with respect and humanity, and only by taking on the media representation that perpetuates public attitudes can we counter this.
Immigration Advice Service //iasservices.org.uk
Jack Yates is a content writer for the Immigration Advice Service; an organisation of immigration lawyers.
After the Manchester Arena bombing in 2017, Islamophobic rhetoric was fuelled and religiously aggravated hate crime more than doubled in Greater Manchester.
This discrimination brought about the creation of Blame & Belonging; a performance and workshop exploring the themes of radicalisation and hate crime through the use of forum theatre – an interactive method of performance allowing difficult conversations to be held in a safe space.
When participants are asked who faces the brunt of hatred in Britain, the resounding response is usually a roomful of people answering ‘Muslims’. When dissecting where this hatred and stereotype comes from in our society, there is no hesitation in response. The younger generations are all too aware of the biased coverage woven through all aspects of the media, as well as the hateful language used by people in the public eye to describe minority groups.
Throughout the last few years, the discussions held in our radicalisation workshops have been heavily centred around this kind of normalised hate speech and divisive language; as we delve into the roots and causes for both far-right and religiously-inspired extremism. The hard-hitting language threaded throughout the play is deliberately intended to provoke the audience, as well as being highly-realistic and unfortunately not unusual for them to hear.
It is only through carefully facilitated discussions that we can pull apart stereotypes and offensive hate speech through techniques such as non-violent communication and a restorative approach, which are embedded in all ODD Arts workshops and practices.
On 17th March, we invite you to a FREE two-hour interactive Blame & Belonging workshop comprised of a short performance, interactive learning and facilitated discussions around these themes. Food and refreshments will also be provided.
“I think we send a very clear message to people of colour that you’re not welcome here.”
Joaquin Phoenix, Bafta 2020’s acceptance speech
Representation, or lack thereof, at these award shows has been an ongoing hot topic for a very long time. The latest in the series of unrepresentative award shows comes from the weekend’s BAFTA awards. All 20 acting nominees at the British Academy of Film and Television Arts’s awards were white. Lupita Nyong’o’s astounding performance in Us was completely overlooked, whilst Margot Robbie was nominated twice within the same category. And the ‘best director’ nominations were all male, for the seventh consecutive year – oh, and also, all-white bar Bong Joon-Ho for Parasite.
Lupita Nyong’o as Adelaide Wilson’s doppelgänger Red in “Us,” written, produced and directed by Jordan Peele // Source: variety.com
But one of the notable moments from the weekend’s show followed Joaquin Phoenix’s best actor win, for his reprisal of the iconic DC character ‘Joker’. Phoenix reluctantly stumbled up to the stage, with his hands nestled his pockets and a disgruntled frown. He stepped up to the podium, took a deep inhale and began.
His speech was powerful. It was strong, refreshingly self-aware and above all, spoke truth to power. Phoenix used his privileged position to provide a voice for those who hadn’t been given access to such a platform.
He acknowledged the responsibility of “those who create and perpetuate and benefit from a system of oppression”, to be the ones who make the difference. He eliminated the risk of hypocrisy by addressing his own privilege, “This is not a self-righteous condemnation because I’m ashamed to say that I’m part of the problem.
He didn’t use the opportunity to make a mere suggestion to his peers, but he imposed that this is an obligation: to call out systemic racism when you see it, not prop it up. Powerful stuff.
On countless occasions, he has proved himself to be an incredibly humble man – he’s an outspoken humanitarian, an animal rights activist, he lends his support to a number of charities and he’s vegan. I personally fell in love with his portrayal of the Joker, he embodied vulnerability and the realities of mental health framed in a unique social critique. Joaquin Phoenix is a great guy.
The issue with these types of public declarations, is the fact that they are short lived – and often, rarely create any real change. Undoubtedly, they provoke a viral conversation on social media, and get people talking. That’s about it. Phoenix himself admitted that he has ”not done everything in my power to ensure that the sets I was on are inclusive”. Was he waiting for his BAFTA award to make this change? I’m very curious as to how he will implement his words into the work he produces in the future.
Until there is representation upon the board of trustees, across the chairs, committees and councils – it’s redundant to expect change. The topic has become tiresome. Myself and my peers no longer engage with these awards shows. It’s more effective to boycott them, than to entertain their audiences with a heartfelt speech in your eco-friendly suit condemning the same institution you’re receiving accolades from. He talks of accountability, yet his attendance itself is part of the problem. The lack of diversity was made crystal clear well in advance. Continuing to attend and engage with the platform is ultimately a choice.
Joaquin, you can’t throw stones if you’re stood in the glass house you’re attempting to dismantle.
As Boris Johnson works to shape a post-Brexit Britain, we ask, what could our new trade deal look like?
Post-Brexit talks have commenced and UK Prime minister Boris Johnson has continued to shake political tables this week, after declaring there was “no need” for the UK to simply accept alignment with EU rules in any Brexit trade deal. His statement resulted in the pound falling by more than 1.3%.
Johnson giving his speech on Monday, stating that Britain will not need to choose between rules and regulation and a trade agreement// Source: bbc.co.uk
In a speech this week, Johnson has called for a “Canada-style” free trade deal – Canada’s current deal with the EU came into force in 2017 and is called the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA). Although it has not been signed off by all of the EU member states, CETA will, according to the European Commission, “lower customs tariffs and other barriers to trade between the EU and Canada,” and “uphold Europe’s high standards in areas like food safety, worker’s rights and the environment.”
Michel Barnier stated the EU was ready to offer a “highly ambitious trade deal”, which included zero tariffs and zero quotas. But, he said, this was dependent on the UK agreeing to “specific and effective guarantees to ensure a level playing field”, meaning compliance with EU rules and checks.
CETA, according to the BBC, removes most of the tariffs (tax on imported goods) between the EU and Canada and it also increases quotas (the amount of a product that can be exported without extra charges). However, it does not seem to influence trade within services or financial services such as banking – and these areas are important for the UK currently, yet alone the future.
There have also been concerns over American products coming to the UK as part of a proposed trade with between the UK and the US. This is because of criticisms of American food, hygiene standards and animal welfare. In a recent speech during which he stated his goals for post-Brexit trade, Johnson reportedly said that the UK would be “governed by science, not mumbo-jumbo” and he criticised “America bashers” with a “hysterical” attitude towards American food and view it as “inferior.”
Oh dear. “ the UK needs to embrace chlorinated chicken” if we want US Trade deal. And I thought you told me I was talking nonsense… https://t.co/eEO1hxhuxb
Celebrity Deborah Meaden giving her opinion on social media
However, Johnson has acknowledged the arguments against chlorinated chicken for example, which is sold in the USA. As reported by The Guardian late last year, some experts have warned that the government have “misunderstood” the science aspect of the safety of chlorinated chicken. Erik Millstone, professor of science policy at Sussex University, said: “I am satisfied [by the evidence] that US food poisoning cases are significantly higher than in the UK. A minority of people suffer fatal complications. There will certainly be fatalities, and they typically affect vulnerable people, such as infants, small children and the elderly.”
Protesters campaigning against a US-UK trade deal // Source: Global Justice Now Scotland
If Millstone is indeed correct, this could put an incredible strain on UK services such as the NHS. The question is, is Johnson ready to sacrifice the integrity of goods and services to save or boost the British economy?
"We don't need" a trade deal with the EU.
Chief Secretary to the Treasury @RishiSunak says trade is only "one part" of what will drive the UK's economy in the coming years and a free trade agreement with the EU isn't essential. #KayBurleypic.twitter.com/zZSKyOKbEA
Chief Secretary to the Treasury, Rishi Sunak, discussing trade with Sky journalist Kay Burley
Brussels has threatened to place tariffs on UK goods unless he complies, by government officials such as Chief Secretary to the Treasury Rishi Sunak, have said that “trade is only one part of what’s going to drive our economy forward” and that “we want to have a free trade agreement…but that does not mean we should have to follow all their rules, that’s not what free trade agreements typically involve – it should not be the case here.”
Johnson has set a very strident tone going into these negotiations, positioning Britain on the cusp of supposedly global opportunities. Raab echoing his sentiments in the commons, saying it was time to “look ahead with confidence and ambition”. The central problem still remains; moving forward with the best economic interests of the country at heart means sacrificing the ideological idea of breaking away from the European model that so many Brexit voters and of course hard-line Brexiteer politicians champion. The other key difference is between the “goods” and “services” areas of trade deals. The Canada deal gets rid of tariffs (taxes) on the majority of goods traded between the countries – some “sensitive” food items, including eggs and chicken, are not covered by it. However services like banking, which make up 80% of the UK economy, are crucially not really a part of this kind of agreement.
Talks are due to begin in earnest in March. For now the UK remains under EU rules for the rest of the transition period, due to end in December. With the EU making up over half UK total trade in goods in 2018, there is no doubt that future trade deals struck with the bloc will be consequential. Since the Brexit vote in 2016, the Department for International Trade has to date secured trade agreements with countries that cover just 6.8% of total U.K. trade in goods, according to calculations by S&P Global Market Intelligence. There is no doubt that the road that Britain has chosen to take is a difficult one, and whilst there will be many other factors in how Britain is shaped, trade will have a deeply profound effect on most areas in the lives of Britons.
As Brexit day has come and gone, the implications of the UK leaving the EU remain unclear. However, the effect that this momentous decision will have on Britain’s relationship with one of its oldest longstanding allies, will be integral to determining its global position in the future.
The historical significance of the Anglo-American alliance is significant to understanding the dynamic between the UK and the US today. However, it is important to consider why this alliance is changing and how Britain’s independent decisions post-Brexit (such as allowing Huwaei access to its 5G infrastructure) will affect the mutualistic bond that underpins the global market presence of the world’s two most powerful nations. The question therefore remains, should this historical alliance continue to be supported, or should Britain as a nation diverge from its longstanding history of collaboration with the US? What is best for the British people?
History
Diplomatic Anglo-American ties can be traced back to the Monroe Doctrine in 1823 that formalised this special relationship. The doctrine, despite initiating political correspondence between the two nations, was not in any way a friendly or cooperative piece of political legislation. It declared an end to colonial European ventures into the Americas and threatened to use military force if it was contravened.
Shortly after, Britain’s border dispute with Venezuela in 1895, breathed new life into their diplomatic relationship. As America began to grow economically and gain a dominant position globally, it opted to corroborate Britain’s claim and arbitrated on its behalf. Alongside this growing cooperation, Britain began gravitating towards the US and recognising it as a natural ally in the place of its European counterparts that were becoming increasingly powerful and more centrally industrialised.
A more convivial relationship began to emerge at the start of the 20th century as both country’s leaders, Theodore Roosevelt and Robert Cecil, began to mutually distrust Germany. The events that led to the first World War proceeded to consolidate this alliance as the German common enemy became the substructure upon which Anglo-American relations flourished. American economic assistance in the form of war-time loans seemed to add further dimension to the friendship and created an underlying economic tether that tightly fortified the relationship even further.
Throughout the subsequent events that unfolded post World War 1, such as World War 2 and the Cold War, Britain and America’s diplomatic relationship became more renowned and consequently stronger. Trading relationships developed from theses ties and up until today the US was Britain’s largest single-country export market and imported over $110 billion worth of British goods.
As delineated by the history above, the UK and US have developed a good political, economic and military alliance. However, it should also be noted that cultural similarities further bind the two nations from a social standpoint. Although it is a common British punchline to implicitly ‘roll your eyes at the Americans’, it cannot be denied that an overlapping language, faith and belief system as well as media presence and entertainment style, is a point of similarity that enables civilians from both nations to identify and resonate with each other.
An extended explanation of the Anglo-American friendship.
Post-Brexit Instability
Where this alliance stands today and how it could potentially change in the future is dependant on one main event: Brexit. As Britain officially exited the EU on 31st January 2020 – the economic strand of the alliance, in particular, has succumbed to increasing pressure due to a growing sentiment from Britain to spread its risks and maintain cardinal manifesto pledges.
source: guardian.co.uk
As discussed earlier, the economic element of the alliance can be considered the main component that preserves and perpetuates cooperation between the two nations. The UK’s departure from the EU, coupled with other commercial activities, can be seen to greatly increase the strain put on this monetary linkage. The UK has to recultivate its trading partnerships post-Brexit and is, therefore, relying heavily on the US to support it during this limbo period.
This has proved to be a difficult endeavour as the US has threatened to impose tariffs on British motor exports because of Britain’s decision to allow Huawei to construct ‘non-core’ elements of its 5G infrastructure. The US’ concerns regarding this decision revolve around security and the increased risk of espionage from China as Chinese communications organisations are required by law to “support, co-operate with and collaborate in national intelligence work”. It has further pledged to curtail the sharing of official intelligence if Britain goes ahead with the move. Despite extensive lobbying, Britain has finalised Huawei’s access to its 5G network with increased limitations and access over sensitive areas such as military bases across the country.
Despite the potential breakdown of this perennial relationship, the situation can also be construed as a positive development. By taking a contradictory stance against the US (which has typically been the more dominant of the allies) through allowing Huawei to access key telecommunications technology, the UK can be seen to give its domestic goals greater presidency over its international aims. This could potentially help corroborate Boris Johnson’s political reputation as he had initially pledged at the start of his campaign to improve broadband services across the UK. Another potential outcome is that it could herald the emergence of a more homogenised and less polarised national sentiment, which has only continued to rise this year directly fueled by political discourse.
These possible outcomes, however, do not detract from the fact that Britain’s increasingly volatile trading situation and the possible loss of a key ally could be detrimental for the market and ultimately for British citizens. Both Boris Johnson and Donald Trump have been declared ‘transatlantic parallels’ that place an increasingly disproportionate emphasis on national interest, domestic policy and generally hostile international strategies- causing concerns that both nations will regress back to a state of isolationism. If this does happen – Britain, in particular, will suffer the bulk of the blowback.
Summerily, Britain’s friendship with America is entering a new milieu. Changing circumstances and a reallocation of priorities and leadership has reset the course of cooperation between the two. Although the alliance has provided a key web of support in past endeavours, it is unclear whether both country’s aims still correspond, and how they plan on navigating the road ahead.
Mark Cuban says that as long as money flows into passive funds, they will continue to rise. This seems like a truism. Meanwhile Paul Tudor Jones and Dr Michael J Burry are very concerned by the distortions and illiquidity having every last nickle and dime of capital flow into passive tracker funds holding very few stocks versus the wider market, depriving many others of desperately needed capital. Who’s right, and will this cause the next global recession?
How Prepared Are Millennials For the Next Recession?
Most people are never prepared. When things are going well in the economy, the last thing we want to do is prepare for the worst. But the most enduring maxim is to leave the party early when you are having a good time. When the drinks are flowing, the toasting and back slapping become a perverse echo chamber of positive feedback. Those rushes of endorphins and serotonin make it hard to step back and see the bigger picture.
The downturn is happening, slowly but surely for several years now. This time round, the depression will be much quicker as the panic and confusion are propagated much quicker via immediate global coverage and mobile devices. That aside, little really changes.
Survival – Avoid the obvious traps
Finding the centre of gravity where an over-sized portion of the capital is invested into something that will not give nearly enough return to satisfy is a good place to start.
What will collapse the system?
Millennials’ largest concern should be their passive investments they have been pushed toward for several years now. Everyone from Nutmeg, to fintech start-ups like Monese, Revolut, Starling etc. all offer investment propositions now for “invest your spare change” or your savings directly into low-cost, passive Exchange Traded Funds (ETFs ) such as Vanguard to S&P 500 trackers.
ETFs are stocks that trade reflecting a bundle of assets like stocks within them. They often operate with arbitrage mechanisms to buy and sell their units to keep them trading near their underlying value. But what happens when the value becomes distorted because it fails to reflect the underlying investments or leverage (borrowing) to artificially create more exposure to the ups and downs, lack of buyers of the ETF units or difficulty to liquidate positions?
Rise and Fall of Star Manager Neil Woodford, United Kingdom
Take “Star-studded” fund manager Neil Woodford, who has caused hundreds of thousands of his investors in his flagship fund, Woodford Equity Income, to face large losses. The fund remained closed from last year because the fund portfolio was highly illiquid and selling those unquoted assets in a timely fashion is highly problematic. The first pay-outs from the frozen fund have now begun, with many investors losing more than half their money.
Disgraced fund manager Neil Woodford source: guardian.co.uk
The 4.7 trillion in Exchange Traded Funds and the illiquidity are assets that cannot easily be sold or exchanged for cash without a substantial loss in value. Illiquid assets may also be hard to sell quickly because of a lack of ready and willing investors or speculators to purchase the asset.
This makes it difficult to rebalance the underlying shares, making it impossible to track the performance of the index.
Dr Michael J Burry and the Credit Default Swap
Dr Michael J Burry, who’s story was immortalised in box office hit The Big Short in 2016, bet against the Collateralized Debt Obligations (CDO) mezzanine tranches in 2007-08 to make $2.6 billion for his Scion Capital Hedge Fund. CDO’s are structured financial product that pool together cash flow-generating assets and repackages this asset pool into discrete tranches that can be sold to investors with varying risk profiles – or so we all thought…
The real Dr Burry at premiere of The Big Short, as played by Christian Bale // Paramount Pictures
Dr Burry notes the 52.5% illiquidity of the Russell 2000 index in 2020 and the similarities passive investing has with CDO markets of 2007.
Finding the centre of gravity where an over-sized portion of the capital is invested into something that will not give nearly enough return to satisfy is a good place to start.
Passive investing a bubble cash-strapping small cap companies
It becomes ugly when people sell their ETFs. The ETFs get retired, meaning the underlying stock must be sold. They can only be sold if there is a buyer. The ETFs have buyers on a daily basis, but when there aren’t buyers, the issuing bank or fund is the buyer of last resort. A run on an illiquid fund that cannot sell its underlying assets or is too highly leveraged that they cannot then meet those withdrawal requests, the institution will become insolvent. With more people withdrawing money, they will use up their cash reserves and ultimately end up defaulting.
These indexes are based on market capitalisation (price of stock / shares outstanding), meaning large-cap (market cap) stocks will have a greater weight (presence) in the index, relative to those with smaller market caps. Noteworthy is 1049 of the constituent stocks in the Russell 2000 are very illiquid with under $5 million in volume (traded back and forth) each day. The sponsors of ETFs have purchased futures (bets on future prices) to replicate the index, instead of the actual stocks themselves. This can provide leverage (extra exposure to the underlying prices through borrowing or artificial creation of ETF shares as part of the mechanism). This is what happened with the CDO market in the 2000’s, when the limited supply of new mortgages to bundle up into tranches dried up – they looked elsewhere to create more money out of thin air via synthetic investments not backed by any tangible assets.
Synthetic CDOs 2000s: the ETFs of the 2020s?
CDOs became derivatives or synthetic CDOs when they ceased to be a direct ownership in anything, but rather a contract whose value is derived from another security (CDO that is backed up by a mortgage bundle or tranche). Synthetics are contracts referencing the performance of financial assets.
Credit Default Swaps – Profiting from the downside
Just as the synthetic CDOs in 2007 offered greater profits, the institutions creating them were using credit default swaps (CDS) to short sell the grouped mortgage packages.
The CDSs transferred the risk to the insurer so long as the purchaser of the swaps paid the premiums. In the event the issuer faces a credit event, like AIG did in 2008 with its collapse, those holding the CDSs like Dr Burry and even hedge funds and investment banks, they could profit off the defaulting in the housing market.
ETFs offer the same today through leverage, creation of stock based upon unknown correspondence to contracts referencing the performance of financial assets held within the ETF. This could multiply losses by providing more supply that cannot possibly clear in a downturn.
When expressed in such loosely referential terms, it becomes easier to see how out of whack the ETF market could potentially be. The lack of transparency should be a major cause for concern. What if new ETF stock is being issued based on such illiquid assets while simultaneously distorting asset prices of the small cap stocks, depriving them of funding while artificially inflating the main holdings in the funds. When the house of cards comes crashing down, do we know whether there is a short selling position against the ETFs to protect profits of the large institutions?
Firms creating ETFs could be betting against the clients who purchased into them, setting their clients up to lose billions of dollars if the stock market implodes. Simultaneous selling to customers and shorting them because they believe the market will take a downturn and the ETFs will default is the most cynical use of credit information since the Housing Crisis 2007-08.
When you buy protection against an event that you have a hand in causing, you are buying fire insurance on someone else’s house and then committing arson.
Profit 489% or $2.69 billion dollars Scion Capital shorting CDOs 2007 // Paramount Pictures
Asset Class Bubbles
Large market distortions as money flows into certain stocks at the expense of valuations and ratios in various other asset classes or even in other overlooked stocks themselves becomes problematic for efficient market hypothesis. Bubbles appear, such as tech stocks that feature prominently in ETF holdings due to their market capitalisation and their stellar share price growth for the past decade. And with bubbles come the inevitable corrections. Sometimes they need a poke to pop, other times confidence can simply evaporate as selling gives way to yet more selling.
Another Perspective
This flight to index funds on the passive side of the market has been commented on by Mark Cuban, who sold Broadcast.com to Yahoo in April 1999 for $5.7 billion during the tech bubble. He believes as “as long as those funds keep on growing the market is going to go up”. Trouble is, most of us aren’t eyeball deep in economic data but busy leading our daily lives.
Any variation of factors could tip the balance and be the straw that proverbially breaks the camel’s back. Whether impeachment, coronavirus pandemic, increases in the cost of borrowing should the Federal Reserve try to rein in inflation, a Swedish property collapse, etc. Trying to pinpoint one or another with any degree of certainty is futile. Trust the economists (or not, as you please.) They spotted at least nine of the last three recessions. Buy gold last year – it’s too late now !
A Kind of People is a remarkably composed piece of theatre, providing a relevant commentary on the affairs of race and class in multicultural Britain.
The audience are introduced to the tightly-knit friendship group, concentrated on the lives of the inter-racial relationship of Gary and Nicky, portrayed on stage by Richie Campbell and Claire-Louise Cordwell. Gary is black, and Nicky is white; they are both working-class. We experience their diverse personal community including a British Pakistani couple, Gary’s sister Karen and also his best friend Mark.
As the play progresses, this tightly-knit family is unravelled and unweaved, exposing the complex attitudes to race, class and relationships, prevalent in contemporary Britain. This unravelling begins following Victoria’s, (Gary’s manager) intrusion into his birthday celebrations. After attempting (and failing) to keep up with the group’s dance to Cameo’s classic, Candy, Victoria finds companionship in a bottle of wine, becoming brazenly drunk. She begs Gary to show her how to dance like a black woman, whilst twerking and singing Missy Elliot’s “Get Ur Freak On” – complete with all expletives, the N word inclusive.
Main character couple Gary and Nicky Credit: Royal Court Theatre
There is a real sobering element to this moment, both due to the abrupt halt to a jovial scene, and the fact that this isn’t that far from reality. Head to a hip-hop event on a Saturday night in Clapham Common – and you’ll experience the same comfortable use of the N word under the guise of “it’s the lyrics(!)”. Gurpreet Kaur Bhatti has an incredible ability to capture and convey the outrageously subtle racial microaggressions that people of colour often encounter everyday. Though, not all are as extreme as Amy Morgan blurting out the N word, they arguably carry similar weight.
Bhatti’s written prose carries elements of extraordinary depth, both within her characterisation and relationships. Richie Campbell’s portrayal of Gary is complex. He is prideful and the staple of strength within his relationship, even from it’s early days. “Keep watching and one day the city will be ours”, he naively says in their youth. Yet, he is also lost. When he encounters discrimination in the workplace, it is as though he only then develops awareness of the colour of his skin – which is far from the reality that most people of colour experience.Equally, Nicky and Gary’s marriage is written beautifully. It is raw, honest and above all – real. Accompanied with Talawa’s artistic director, Michael Buffong’s direction, their on-stage relationship is a ying-yang inspired balance between hopeful and hopeless, unity and difference.
However, the play falls short in certain places, namely towards the second half. The opening of the play is powerful. It’s like you’ve joined in on this cosy party, and whilst your nodding along unsuspected to Missy Elliot, you’re suddenly slapped round the face by unprovoked racism. After that moment, the play is expected to demonstrate a really poignant take. It doesn’t. You’re so distracted by the shock-factor of previous events, that you don’t really consider how far the conversation really goes. The inclusion of best friend Mark’s sudden infatuation with Nicky is entirely out of place, as though it was thrown in to extend this shock factor
Credit: Royal Court Theatre
Furthermore, the hysterical breakdown which follows the removal of the couple’s kids was a little painful to watch. The initially gut-wrenching scene, quickly turned into a melodramatic ‘wail’-off between Campbell and Cordwell. Also, soon after her outburst, the character of Victoria falls flat. She quickly becomes an infuriating archetype of the white female victim trope. You can’t help but roll your eyes at her convenient tears, used to manipulate the situation and avoid accountability. It could be said this abrupt glossing over of any in-depth reflection on the subject matter is reflective of the way the UK deals with racism. Though, it’s more likely it was slightly overlooked.
In some ways, A Kind of People barely scratched the surface in its exploration of race and relationships. However, in light of recent socio-political events, A Kind of People is needed. The play is a carefully measured antidote aimed directly at ignorance, which is exactly what the UK needs right now.
It also embodies the notion that racism doesn’t always come in expletive, violent and physical outbursts. It doesn’t always scream in the face of it’s victim. Sometimes, it is carefully gift-wrapped in micro-aggressions, entitled ignorance and job rejections. If you blink, you might miss it.
When many of us think of the portmanteau ‘Oxbridge’, it often evokes images of upper-class white elitists, and rarely an ethnically diverse, multi-cultural institution that promotes equality and diversity. It is no secret that Oxford and Cambridge university are incredibly selective when offering places to prospective applicants. Although both universities are taking strides towards enhancing their inclusivity, statistics indicate that this is far from enough, and that people of colour are still being excluded from the opportunities and education that Oxbridge has to offer.
2017 was the first time in recent history that Oxford’s acceptance of black applicants closely matched the general population of black students in England and Wales. Yet despite this news, black applicants are still largely underrepresented at the universities; this year, just 16% of black applicants were accepted, compared to 26% of white students.
The think tank Fullfact discovered that between 2015 and 2017, white applicants were on average twice as likely to be accepted into Oxford than black applicants; during these years, white applicants had an acceptance rate of 24% whilst black applicants had a rate of just 12%. Although the university has expressed desires to diversify in recent years, the shocking correlation between being BAME and having a lower acceptance rate risks deterring people of colour from applying and creating an environment of hostility and intolerance for those from different ethnic backgrounds. Incidents of genuine racism are all too common. Timi Sotire, a student at Cambridge University, told Business Insider about having her afro ‘petted’ and being told that her hair would look better if it was straight.
Offers made by Oxbridge from 2012-2017 // UCAS
Statistics have also discovered that although black applicants are more likely to apply for more ‘competitive’ degree courses such as medicine and law, they are less likely to be accepted than their white counterparts. For degrees in medicine in 2017, black applicants had an offer rate of 9% and 8% were admitted, compared to an offer rate of 22% and an acceptance rate of 20% for white students. Not only are these statistics damaging to the futures and aspirations of black applicants, they also risk creating a deficit of BAME (Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic) workers in these sectors. With the position of General Practitioners being recently added to the Shortage Occupation List (SOL), the exclusion of black applicants from medical degrees could only aggravate predicted staff shortages in future. Mono-ethnicity within higher education leads to mono-ethnicity in the workplace; individuals of all backgrounds need to be given the opportunity to succeed and flourish.
In 2018, the Sutton trust discovered that Oxford and Cambridge accept and recruit more students from eight predominantly private schools, than nearly 3000 state schools combined. Private schools however, are notoriously inaccessible for those without wealthy families and considering that statistically, BAME households are poorer than the average white household, people of colour are again disadvantaged when it comes to applying. A recent UN report discovered that BAME households are twice as likely to live in ‘persistent’ poverty than their white counterparts and additionally, it has been reported that by 2020, the poorest black and Asian families in the UK will be hit by a staggering 20% drop in living standards post-Brexit. The trials and tribulations faced by people of colour at these universities today, including their experiences outside of education, is having a notable impact on their academic achievements too. A 2018 report by the Social Market Foundation discovered that black students are 1.5% more likely to drop out of university than white and Asian students.
The photograph that went viral in May 2017 of the 14 BAME male students that were accepted into Cambridge that year // www.businessinsider.com
With Brexit and its impact imminent, our elite universities are set for even less diverse student bodies. The Higher Education Policy Institute have predicted that Brexit will cause the number of EU students in the UK to decrease by as much as 57%. This unsettling statistic is based on the fact that post-Brexit, EU students will need to pay the same rate of fees that international students do; this rise in cost will likely see many choose to study elsewhere to save money, especially applying for a Tier 4 Student Visa will become compulsory. The Financial Times reports that Cambridge University has already seen a drop of 14% in applications from EU students too. These predictions are bleak and more importantly, the lack of diversity and increase in mono-ethnicity that will result at Oxbridge is likely to deter future students from applying, and risks worsening the prejudice and discrimination that they already face here. Considering the increase in hate crime recorded in the UK since Brexit was announced, it is feared that as our exit from the EU draws closer, these statistics may climb even further.
The impacts of Brexit on the BAME community outside of the academic sphere will also prevent many from applying to Oxbridge. In 2018, the Intersecting Inequalities report discovered that BAME individuals are the most affected by ‘’cuts to public services and austerity changes to tax and benefits’’. With an increasing proportion of BAME families falling on financially testing times, many students living in poverty will continue to be excluded from the opportunities of Oxbridge. Whatever deal we do (or do not) leave the EU with risks exacerbating issues such as the benefit system, austerity and in-work poverty, which could all continue to disadvantage BAME applicants.
The institutions of Oxford and Cambridge, despite their reputations as renowned and elite universities, are far from perfect. There is a very clear, and unsettling, pattern between the two which seems to marginalise and isolate people of colour from accessing an education which should be inclusive and diverse. The stories of BAME students at Oxbridge only serve to cement this, their stories of experiencing racism and prejudice are unfortunately all too common and with factors such as Brexit and austerity thrown in to the mix, their plight risk worsening over time. Although the outcry from students and staff at both universities have helped to launch the treatment of BAME students in to the spotlight, the results are struggling to manifest into real and meaningful change. The opportunity must be taken sooner rather than later to act and include, support and welcome applicants from various ethnic backgrounds if Oxbridge is to shake off its reputation as an inaccessible institution.
Bethany Morris is a content writer for the Immigration Advice Service; an organisation of immigration solicitors which provides legal support for students from overseas looking to study in the UK.
Media coverage has noticeably reduced in the run-up to Brexit – here’s a quick updateon the latest dilemma faced by the current government
Britain is finally set to leave the European Union on Friday 31st January, after years of political upheaval, general elections and division. On Thursday 23rd June 2016, Britain (also known as the UK) voted to leave after having been a part of the union since 1973.
On the 31st January, at 11pm, there will be no reversing our decision as a nation. The British flag will also be removed from EU institutions in Brussells.
Prime Minister Boris Johnson
Key decisions
The British government have said that, “the current rules on trade, travel, and business for the UK and EU will continue to apply during the transition period.” This means that we will remain in the customs union, but outside of political institutions.
Johnson’s majority government resulted in the withdrawal bill for Brexit being voted into law by Parliament. The bill stipulates many things, including the areas in which the European Court of Justice (ECJ) will still play a role in UK law. It also stops the transition period being extended beyond the end of 2020 – this stipulation makes things more difficult because it outlaws the current possibility of receiving a further extension of 1 or 2 years, which could be applied for by July 1st.
Huawei
There are complex decisions to be made and some of Boris Johnson’s have been viewed as dangerous and controversial. For example, he has recently considered chosen the Chinese multinational technology firm Huawei to build the UK’s 5G network. Huawei’s success transcends nations- they are the second most popular brand for phones. However, some have feared that the firm will just become an arm of the Beijing government and use their technology to spy if instructed.
The logo of Chinese technology firm Huawei
These fears are not entirely unfounded; Huawei’s founder is Ren Zhengfei, and he was an engineer for the Chinese People’s Liberation Army in the early 1980’s. The BBC describe this army as the “armed force of the Communist Party of China” – they have ruled the People’s Republic of China since 1949.
'we are letting the fox in to the henhouse when we should be guarding the wire' and 'we will be nesting the dragon' says @TomTugendhat if ministers approve #Huawei's role in 5G – govt has confirmed National Security Council meets to discuss this tomorrow
The government has designated Huawei a “high-risk vendor” and has put a cap at 35% on it’s involvement in the UK’s 5G networks. Decisions like this will play an essential part in the UK’s future without the EU – it raises questions regarding infrastructure, foreign relations and national security.
As result, Johnson has faced a tirade of criticism from backbenchers, the UK and fellow Conservatives because of the prospect of letting China into the Uk’s infrastructure and has been advised it is a major security issue. President Trump’s administration blocked the firm from their own 5G networks for national security reasons, however UK spy agencies have called this reaction disproportionate. Johnson not totally following suit in the UK mean relations and trade deals could be affected at the point he may need them most. Johnson faced a choice between trade conflict and rising costs implementing 5G.
However angry the US may be about the decision, sources said the ‘special relationship’ between the two countries was too important to jeopardise.
Former Brexit secretary David Davis, as reported by The Independent, claimed that potential vulnerabilities may be exploited by Beijing in the future, posing a long-term surveillance risk.
He said “The problem with this is that it is irreversible. Once you have done it, the technology is not designed to be ‘plug and play’ – where you can pull out a Huawei unit and put in a Samsung one – it’s effectively proprietary, a bit like having an Apple plug.
“So it’s quite close to an irreversible mistake, and it’s also close to a mistake you wouldn’t know if you’d made it.”
The Chinese firm has always denied spying allegations and separates itself from the Chinese government. Republican senator Tom Cotton said of the deal: “I fear London has freed itself from Brussels only to cede sovereignty to Beijing.” Whether this leads to fresh problems and questions over our independence with regards to technologies whose full impact are quite unknown, as we hurtle towards Brexit remains to be seen.
Johnson has not shied away from controversy. Like Trump, his bold, brassy decisions, his way or the high-way, played a huge factor in the public voting him into leadership. However Johnson will now have to perfect the art of being focused on international relations with the US, and weighing up the cost of national security versus the role that the UK’s infrastructure could play in keeping the country competitive. The decision definitely comes at a critical moment so close to Brexit with US trade deals looming. Johnson’s action here seems to be one of standing his ground as a strong national leader still fresh in the role. But with trigger happy Trump his key to claims of post-Brexit prosperity, his main priority always had to be keeping the peace.
There is no end to situations where ethnic minorities in the UK will have to address racist behaviour. Be it at work, school, in the community, we can’t run from racism in the UK: it’s alive and well.
However, the recent debate around racism in the media, specifically toward Meghan Markle, has negatively impacted not only the discussion around it but even the questioning the fact of its existence.
A disaster from the beginning
Over the last two weeks, breakfast shows have staged as battlegrounds for fierce debate around whether Britain’s racist media forced Harry and Meghan to step down as full time royals. We’ve seen several leading black and Asian politics/race commentators flock to shows such as Good Morning Britain and This Morning to trade blows with hosts as they explained why they believe Meghan Markle’s negative press was racially fuelled.
Among these commentators was bestselling author, Afua Hirsch, and activist and lecturer, Dr Shola Mos-Shogbamimu. Now the issue for our black and Asian guest panellists is that the format of breakfast shows like GMB are not built to effectively answer questions like, “Was Meghan’s media coverage racist?”
Attempting to unpack issues as deep-rooted and complex as racism in the UK during a five-to-ten minute slot whilst Piers Morgan shouts you down does a serious disservice to a very important and extensive discussion. How do we have an honest discourse whilst Morgan shouts over, gas lights and shuts down guests before the convenient “that’s all we’ve got time for.” A few interjections of “let him/her finish,” from Susanna Reid do very little after Morgan has brutally dismissed guest panellists.
Author Afua Hirsch appears on Good Morning Britain to discuss Meghan Markle’s media coverage. Source: Good Morning Britain
As a result, you end up with a less than half-baked discussion, a pleased Piers Morgan and a very frustrated guest panellist. And that’s not to say hosts such as Piers Morgan and others shouldn’t have and share their own opinion with conviction. My point is, will a ten-minute “debate” with a bullish, self-proclaimed royalist, who definitely has some gripe against Harry and Meghan, really breed any fruitful and progressive discussions on race in the media? No, it, in fact, does the opposite.
Possible racism cannot be overlooked
Whether Meghan Markle’s media coverage in the last 18-months has been completely racist is a whole article in itself, but we can’t ignore that the press has inappropriately racialised her at points.
An example is Mail Online’s headline linking Meghan to “gang scarred Compton,” where they reported 47 crimes were committed there in a week. What exactly does this have to do with Meghan who at the time based was in Toronto? If Meghan was white, would she have been associated with Compton’s gang violence? Of all the things that happen in Los Angeles, why is that specifically mentioned in Meghan’s case? Another example would be leading BBC radio host, Danny Baker, comparing Harry and Meghan’s baby to a chimp. Outright cruel and disrespectful from an influential figure in British media.
Mail Online headline linking Meghan to violence in LA. Source: Twitter
Granted, some would argue people dislike Harry and Meghan’s proposed hypocritical virtue signalling, but racially charged media coverage should never for a moment be swept under the carpet as a non-issue.
An example of this was seen on last week’s Question Time featuring actor Laurence Fox. In response to an audience member who called Meghan’s media coverage racist, Fox quickly dismissed her point saying, “Britain is the most tolerant and lovely country in the world.”
This response was met with applause which is where the pinnacle of my concern lies. To many viewers of these discussions, high profile celebrities like Piers Morgan and Laurence Fox dismissing accusations of media racism against Meghan Markle, creates an illusion that Britain has no issues with race. One look at a few tweets in response to Stormzy saying there’s racism in Britain will show you this couldn’t be farther from the truth.
The issue with breakfast shows is that for the most part, the best sound bite wins the discussion. And in the case of Piers Morgan, for example, he is the king of quick quips that herald his experience of race as true and completely invalidate the experiences of black and Asian people as illogical.
We need better platforms for discussion
But the key issue here is that people believing this illusion will feel dangerously less inclined to even consider racism in the country and potentially their own lives.
If I was born and raised in Ghana yet considered it racist, I would move to the UK. If @stormzy considers us racist despite the welfare/education/housing he received, why doesn't he take a one-way flight to Accra? He can swap the UK record sales for a bowl of jollof rice. ? https://t.co/I5I7kLVDbr
Racism in the UK, at an institutional level especially, is not easy to explain, so making this attempt in seven minutes whilst being shouted at is a sure recipe for disaster. Time shouldn’t be given to morning shows where the aim isn’t genuinely seeking to understand someone you don’t agree with.
What we desperately need for these conversations around race are platforms where civil discourse can take place openly, honestly and extensively. A platform where participants who disagree genuinely want to understand the perspective of the other is the first requirement. And a platform where there is adequate time given for peers to flesh serious issues. Pitting two opposing sides against each other when the whole point is for neither to listen or give up in any ground only promotes the idea that this is how these issues are to be discussed.
With topics as complex as racism in the media, there may not be a final agreement on all points, but a move toward understanding will help will resolve deep-rooted issues.
If the Prince has nothing to hide, why is he failing to cooperate?
Prince Andrew recently stepped down from royal engagements following the scandal surrounding his relationship with the convicted Jeffrey Epstein, as well as facing the accusation of rape from Virginia Giuffre. However, despite saying that he would co-operate with American law enforcement during his BBC interview with Emily Maitlis – he has allegedly not done so.
Jeffery Epstein mugshot
Epstein was a convicted US sex offender, awaiting trial on sex trafficking and conspiracy charges in 2019. He had already been convicted and jailed for soliciting prostitution from a minor in 2008, but in 2019 he faced fresh accusations of running a “vast network” of underage girls for sex. He had pleaded not guilty, but he died in his cell in August 2019 and his death was ruled a suicide.
Prince Andrew had socialised with the US financier several times, including after his conviction. He faced heavy criticism for this, as well as an on-going accusation from Virginia Giuffre, who said that Epstein forced her to sleep with him when she was 17-years-old (a minor in US law). Prince Andrew had said he never remembered meeting her.
In an attempt to quash this, Prince Andrew agreed to an interview with journalist Emily Maitlis for the BBC’s programme Newsnight. The interview did not improve the prince’s optics – and upon official advise from his mother Her Majesty the Queen, he officially stepped back from royal duties.
Prince Andrew on 19th January 2020 // www.guardian.co.uk
According to The BBC, during his interview with BBC Newsnight, the Prince said that he did not regret his friendship with Epstein because it had “some seriously beneficial outcomes.” He also admitted that he was in the wrong for visiting Epstein at his home in 2010, after his first conviction. He also said that he was “willing to help any appropriate law enforcement agency”.
Now, in a recent update, US attorney Geoffrey Berman recently spoke at a news conference. He said that the FBI and Southern District of New York had asked to interview Prince Andrew as part of their inquiry into Epstein’s crimes, but “to date, Prince Andrew has provided zero cooperation”. He also reportedly said: “Jeffrey Epstein couldn’t have done what he did without the assistance of others, and I can assure you that the investigation is moving forward,” he said. Berman also stated Prince Andrew had been contacted for an interview but had so far not agreed to provide one.
Prince Andrew could be subpoenaed – legally summoned by the US attorney. However, what impact would this have on the Royal family, if it were to get that far? The inquiry has turned the focus more on the “conspirators” around Epstein, as he operated within a very influential circle of friends. Scandal is nothing new to the Royal Family, but they are often notoriously quiet in the face of controversy, only saying what they deem to be necessary. Buckingham Palace has said they will not be commenting and the matter will be dealt with solely by Andrew’s legal team.
Andrew will supposedly not be forced to testify, so many questions about his relationship with Epstein may never be properly answered. He attests he never saw any questionable behaviour or criminality at his many visits to Epstein’s homes around the world. Did his power and position mean he could actively turn the other cheek to abuse? The world is truly watching for the Prince’s next move.
On today’s Holocaust Memorial Day, we can remember so many incredible and heart-breaking stories from across Europe of suffering, brutality and liberation. Some of those who were saved from the horrors of the Nazi concentration camps were thousands of Jewish children who made their homes in Britain.
Kindertransport children arrive in London from Germany in 1939 // www.thejc.com
In 1939, the Kindertransport program gave homes to nearly 10,000 mostly Jewish children in the months before the start of World War II as Hitler rose to power. Unaccompanied children travelled hundreds of miles away from home, boarding trains and boats to England to stay with families of strangers all over the UK. Some, of course, would eventually become the only surviving members of their families.
When I was 18, I travelled to Poland and walked beneath the iron sign reading ‘Arbeit macht frei’ – work sets you free – to see the horrors of Auschwitz-Birkenau and hear the story of a Holocaust survivor who had been only a child when they themselves had been imprisoned at the death camp. Displays of piles of every-day objects is the visual that stays with me. Hundreds of thousands of pairs of glasses, razors, suitcases and even hair piled up confronted you. Where there is such silent absence of life, their inanimate-ness shouted with humanity through the glass.
Perhaps people don’t know much about the Jewish faith. Perhaps they don’t know what’s in the Torah or what the Shabat is. I know I don’t. But you know possibly your dad, your grandad, your brother uses a razor to shave each day and possibly glasses to read. You know they hold these objects in their hands, an extension of their humanity. I remember being unable to stop myself crying when I saw a tobacco tin that looked exactly like my great uncles, that I have kept since his death. I understood and felt a connection to an anonymous person who owned a similar object some 75+ years ago. I could never imagine what it was to die in circumstances he had, but imagining their fingers rolling a cigarette in exactly the same way haunted me.
Similarly, it is really hard to understand what a person currently trying to seek asylum and claim refugee status is experiencing. But what each of us can understand in some way shape or form is the idea of family – whether by blood or by choice – people you are connected to and share your life with.
More than 80 years on, children in refugee camps in Europe are a similar sight // www.guardian.com
Last week, after years of agonizing by the government and campaigning by Lord Alf Dubs, a Labour peer was himself a Kindertransport child in 1939, the House of Lords passed amendments to the Brexit Withdrawal bill that enshrines the UK’s exit from the European Union into law. They voted to restore the safeguards for unaccompanied children 300 to 220.
However the very next day, the government overturned the decision to block the amendment from Brexit legislation, meaning protections and rights to reunification for these children was taken out of legislation completely. Some of the worlds most vulnerable children will now have no access to one of the last legal routes to safety, stuck in dire conditions they could have escaped. In just 9 months from 1938-9, Britons took in close to 10,000 unaccompanied children after a plea to then prime minister Neville Chamberlain by Jewish and British leaders. The legislation was passed almost at once.
Hannah Green, a field manager in the Greek islands for Help Refugees states there are an estimated 2000 refugee children across Europe that have family in the UK. At the end of 2018, it was revealed only 220 children in total had been transferred to the UK, even lower than the government limit of 480 down from the 3000 resettlements originally called for. This is lower even than the estimated 300 children that have died attempting to cross the Mediterranean in 2017.
Current UK law allows adult refugees to sponsor immediate family members to join them to rebuild their lives together. Child refugees however cannot. In 2018, MP’s across the political spectrum voted overwhelmingly to make changes to these rules. However, the government has been blocking and delaying these changes citing the “pull factor theory”, arguing that permitting children to sponsor immediate family members could result in putting more at risk, as they are encouraged to make the hazardous journey, despite lack of real evidence of this in action.
It is bitterly disappointing that after a victory in the Lords the government have voted down my amendment in the Commons. What could be more humane than asking that unaccompanied child refugees stranded in Europe be able to join relatives in this country? https://t.co/XiwoY0FIiz
Lord Alf Dubs reacts to the news of the commons voting down the Lords amendment on protections for child refugees
Maurice Wren, Chief Executive of Refugee Council described reunification as “Indisputably in [refugee children’s] best interests” and the government’s choice to keep them apart as “inhumane”.
‘Without My Family’, a report commissioned by Amnesty International UK, Refugee Council and Save the Children details the horrific effects of family separation on these children, on top of the trauma of fleeing from war, torture and imprisonment and the journey itself. Habib, who’s first-hand testimony was included in the report, has been separated from his family for three years after fleeing torture and imprisonment in Sudan and Libya at just 15. He stated “Being without your family, it is like you have a body without a soul.”
Quote from Habib from the Without My Family report // www.imix.org.uk
The government counters these claims of inhumanity by assuring protecting child refugee rights will be a top priority after Brexit and will be a part of many fundamental changes with their Immigration bill. Including it in the Brexit withdrawal bill apparently would tie their hands in EU negotiations. There seems to be no justification for actively choosing to weaken these fundamental protections, if it is something you supposedly support? The idea is not novel or radical; it is an entitlement in article 10 of the EU Directive on Family Reunion. The UK however, along with Denmark, was the only EU country that did not opt-in to the clause.
MYTILENE, GREECE – OCTOBER 14: Migrants settle down for the night in their tent in the unofficial camp which has evolved in the olive groves outside the Moria Refugee Camp, Greece. Moria migrant camp was built for 3,000 people but is now believed to contain up to 14,000. (Photo by Christopher Furlong/Getty Images) // www.theatlantic.com
Properly understanding what is it to be a refugee and flee from a war-torn environment is almost impossible for the vast majority of British people. The refugee status that is so important can also other them, separating them apart from people as a whole. Humanising these people’s stories are so important, to see them as what they are; people and families just like yours.
Without safe legal routes, these children are much more likely to fall directly into the hands of smugglers and traffickers and will only serve to further inflame the right-wing ‘us v. them’ narrative. The context now compared to 1939 is very different. With one-fifth of the UK population now in poverty, including four million children in the UK, right-wing commentators will use it to pit these innocent children living below the poverty line, with refugee children displaced and desperate all across Europe. In 1939, the common enemy was the surging power of Nazi Germany, a simple story of standing up to evil.
In 2020, our common enemy is not and cannot be the refugee, especially not a child. It is so easy to see this issue as abstract, a product of people’s plight being refracted through political partisanship. But I think back to the razor and the glasses. The tobacco tins of my great uncle, and of Auschwitz and the very different stories they tell of the men that owned them. Without any words, there is a collective story that we must tell, or promote the words of others to tell it themselves. With important debates on immigration policy coming in spring, they are needed now more than ever.
There are so many incredible charities doing frontline work to help make the lives of people trapped in refugee camps that little bit easier to bear. Supporting them in some small way is something tangible everyone can do. I have been running a marathon across the month of January (not all at once!) in aid of Phone Credit for Refugees, an incredible organisation started merely from a Facebook group by James Pearce in 2016.
Strangers from all across the world give small donations which are directly allocated to people who need them to find local information and legal advice, translate languages, use maps and let their family and friends know they’re alive. The group has so far given over 30,000 top ups. People from all walks of life interact on the page often with thank you messages posted to let fellow strangers how much difference a £10 top-up has made and knowing that someone, somewhere, cares. This is true humanity in action, empowering and connecting people just purely because they are human. You can find out more about them and their work here.
A quick look at what led up to President Donald Trump’s impeachment trial, and the effects it could have on people and politics, no matter the results.
The case of Donald Trump’s impeachment has already made history, even if it has not reached its conclusion. The House Judiciary Committee, a branch of the United States’ government, impeached the President of the United last month, on December 18. They did so on two charges – abuse of power and obstruction.
Impeachment is a “charge of misconduct made against the holder of a public office.” This process has a few stages, and The House recently reached its final stage, called the engrossment, when Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, signed the resolution required to deliver the articles of impeachment against Trump. These articles are legal documents, and Trump’s trial will take place in the Senate next week.
The Democratic party hold the House, but the Senate is currently a Republican majority, sparking arguments that impeachment may be less likely. The US governmental system is designed to keep “checks and balances”, ensuring every part of the government can be held accountable.
According to The Guardian, Pelosi spoke at the said: “Today, we will make history. When the managers walk down the hall, we will cross a threshold in history. Delivering articles of impeachment against the president of the United States for abuse of power and obstruction of the House.”
Speaker of The House, Nancy Pelosi, speaking at Capitol Hill
Trump is the third US president in history to be impeached – the first was President Andrew Johnson who was impeached in 1868 for “undermining the cause of racial equality.” He pardoned confederate leaders, and vetoed civil rights legislation. The second was President Bill Clinton impeachment articles were brought against him in 1998, for perjury and obstruction of justice.
What is Trump getting impeached for?
AP News reports that Trump is accused of pressuring Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden – his Democratic rival, and used military aid to the country as leverage. He has also been charged with obstructing Congress’ probe into the situation. The Government Accountability office also reportedly said that the White House violated federal law in withholding the security assistance to Ukraine to gain electoral advantage.
What are the possible outcomes?
“We demand fairness” shouts Pelosi and the Do Nothing Democrats, yet the Dems in the House wouldn’t let us have 1 witness, no lawyers or even ask questions. It was the most unfair witch-hunt in the history of Congress!
Recent news has, expectedly focused on how the impeachment could shape American politics and the effect on Trump himself. This is important – Trump is arguably one of the most vocal presidents in history, especially on social media. Trump is an extremely popular President in America, despite being accused of sexism, racism and other discriminatory behaviour – however his approval rating has remained steady around 43%. This is generally less popular than other presidents at this stage, but considering the circumstances does not evidence a big drop.
I JUST GOT IMPEACHED FOR MAKING A PERFECT PHONE CALL!
If Trump is impeached, it could certainly have an impact on the trust of the people – even here in the UK, a key finding of a study by British Social Attitudes stated: “In truth, Britain has never had much trust in politicians and the political process, but trust has fall further over the last 30 years.”
Furthermore, this impeachment trial, no matter its conclusion, has already revealed the division in American politics with hashtags such as #Russiahoax being thrown around by political figures in reference to the meddling by Russia in the 2016 election. If Trump is not removed from the office of President of the United States, the proceedings could simply serve to further Trump’s claims against the Democratic party and, what he calls, the “fake news media.” Constitutional lawyer and US Senator Josh Hawley took to twitter to express his thoughts. Senate Republicans have also showed support for Trump on social media.
So far in #impeachment this much is clear: 1. Dems not ready to try their case. Totally unprepared. 2. This is STILL all about the #RussiaHoax. Dems repeatedly refer to Trump “cheating” to win in 2016. Memo to Dems: He was elected by the people! That’s called democracy
Whilst Trump’s impeachment had to have come on the basis of his morality and actions being questioned – it is absolutely possible that his very trial could cause the American public to mistrust the entire political system. This will certainly impact Trump’s election campaign in the future, but it is difficult to judge whether it will have a negative or positive impact.
What’s happening next?
The current leaders of the Senate are Republican majority leader Mitch McConnell and Democratic minority leader Chuck Schumer. McConnell has effectively shown his support for Trump by stating that he wants the trial to go ahead with “unprecedented speed”. Over 13 hours on the first day of trial, senators rejected 11 amendments to bring forward documents and witnesses. Voting along party lines, Republicans pushed through all trial rules for how it would be conducted, with each side having three days to make their case. House Judiciary chair Jerrold Nadler, one of the impeachment managers, accused Republicans of “voting for a coverup” by rejecting attempts to acquire more evidence. Democrats hopes for a fairer trial, and for Republicans to divorce themselves from their leader and rise above party have been dealt a big blow.
Over 100 senators taking their seats for the beginning of the impeachment trial Source: guardian.co.uk
Trump’s lawyers had previously called the proceedings an “affront to the constitution” and “invalid”, as he has not broken a particular law. However, constitutional experts have said this interpretation of “high crimes and misdemeanors” is wrong at a previous impeachment inquiry hearing with four legal scholars. All three witnesses that were called by the Democratic party testified that Trump’s interactions with Ukraine constituted clear impeachable offenses. The trial will continue on Wednesday 1pm ET, when the House will make it’s case.
As this trial unfolds, hard questions are raised – with Trump’s team working so hard to prevent witness testimony, and utilising social media to rally the public – is President Trump simply an innocent man, or does he have something to hide?
