Poornima Manco

Author

Education

The value of self-esteem

by

I’ve often talked about the ill effects of social media – the addiction, the need for outside validation, the mental health issues, the ‘all that glitters isn’t gold’ aspect etc. But recently I stumbled upon yet another disturbing trend. Young girls filming/photographing themselves in their underwear/bikinis purportedly to support a body-positive movement.

Now, I’m a strong advocate of women of all ages and sizes being comfortable in their own skin, and I will shout it from rooftops if need be. I believe that every woman should have the right to wear what she wants, as long as she is comfortable with the sort of attention it attracts. However, flaunting one’s body on a public platform to elicit the approval of strangers, is where I draw the line.

Firstly, there is the safety aspect of it. How can one monitor who is watching/downloading these pictures? Where are these pictures being circulated? How are they being perceived? Secondly, there is the sleaze factor. To a young woman, body acceptance by way of photographing herself may seem to be progressive and life-enhancing, to the two-bit scumbag salivating over them, it’s just another way to jerk off. Sorry about the imagery! But there is no other way to spell it out clearly.

What has happened to our social fabric where it has become perfectly acceptable to derive one’s self-worth from the most shallow of sources? Yes, it’s wonderful to be young and beautiful and to enjoy the spring of one’s lifetime. But if acceptance of one’s self hinges on what other people think, then what happens when that body changes through life, childbirth, disease, accident or ageing?

Isn’t it time that we taught our children that self-worth and self-esteem need stronger roots than just body acceptance? Values such as humility, charity, empathy and forgiveness, character traits such as determination, resilience, patience and fortitude, are purer sources of self-love than any amount of pouting and preening before a camera lens can be.

Healthy self-esteem needs a healthy wellspring, and that can only come from working upon what lies inside. Yes, outside packaging matters, but only up to a point. If you unwrap a beautiful parcel and find it filled with junk, what are you likely to do?

The pitfalls of social media are well documented, but the insidious nature of its erosion of our children’s values and self-worth will have far-reaching consequences unless we start to combat it now. But first, we need to turn that mirror towards ourselves and look at where we are investing our time and teachings. It isn’t too late to steer our children away from conversations about their bodies, to conversations about their minds and souls. Perhaps then, they will realise that the value of self-esteem is far greater than the cost of self-doubt.

Decisions, decisions…

by

Doesn’t life seem to be a series of decisions sometimes? Good ones, bad ones, little and large ones, accidental ones, subconscious ones and well thought out ones too. Yet, at the moment of decision making, we have no way of knowing what the consequences of that decision will be. Sure, you can probably predict that if you don’t take a shower for a week, you’ll stink. So taking a shower will be a kindness to yourself and others. But my point is more about those decisions that may end up having far reaching consequences.

This came home to me quite recently in the conundrum my daughter is facing. The prospect of beginning University has been a daunting one. For the past year or so, she has been banging on about taking a year out before submerging herself in academics again. A gap year is not a huge deal in Europe. Most students take this time out to go travel the world and figure out what they want out of their lives.

However, I won’t lie, it scared the bejesus out of us! What if she decided never to return to studying? What if, in the process of finding herself, she found herself a boyfriend in a different country and settled down there? What if she went completely off piste doing this gap year malarkey? Quelling these doubts and fears has taken the better part of the year with many persuasive tactics from her, and many many chats with colleagues and friends whose kids have done the same.

In the end we decided that it would be no bad thing, as long as the year was structured and productive. Friends came forward with offers of work, we researched ways she could travel and where to, and the prospect of having our daughter not resent us for forcing her to do something she didn’t want to do, suddenly seemed quite pleasant.

Autonomy can have an interesting side effect.

Once the ball was in her court, she started to truly ponder the consequences of taking that year out. The major one being that she would be that much older graduating, and therefore, her work life would also begin that much later. Whilst most of her peers are taking up the various University places being offered to them, she would fall behind by a year. How would that work out?

Even as I write this, no decisions have been made. A part of me feels really sorry that at such a young age, children have to decide the course of their lives, at least academically. But all of us did it. Some well, and others not so much.

Shortly after finishing my GCSE equivalent in India, while I was still prevaricating about which courses to pick for my A levels, I remember my head teacher telling my father that I should do ‘Arts’. I was a natural fit for the Humanities stream, but for some reason, the ‘Arts’ students in my school were considered the dumbest of the lot. (A terrible injustice, but an unconscious bias that was fostered quite strongly). Neither my grades, nor I, were suited for any of the Sciences, so, much to my dismay, my father insisted that I study Commerce and Accountancy, with a side dish of Higher Mathematics.

For all the people who knew me then, and who know me now, can you see a square peg fitting into a round hole? That was me everyday, for two years of my life. If it wasn’t for some good friends and some understanding teachers, I don’t think I would have managed the marks I did, scraping through with B’s and C’s.

When it came to University choices, once again my father deemed that doing a diploma in Travel and Tourism would open up many opportunities for me, career wise. Thank goodness for that kind soul we encountered, a former patient of my father’s, who showed him the light by saying, “Doctor sahib, why are you forcing your daughter to do a diploma when she is getting accepted into a prestigious BA English (Hons) course?” Sometimes it takes someone on the outside to point out the obvious.

Trust me, I am not resentful of my father’s decisions on my behalf. At least not now. I understand that he did what he did, out of love and concern for me. However, it made me doubly sure that I would never force my ideas on my children.

As parents, it is our duty to guide our children. If we’ve done our job right and instilled the right values in them from the start, then this is the time we need to loosen those reins and allow them to make their own decisions. Hopefully, they’ll make the right ones, and if, Heaven forbid, they do make the wrong ones, nothing is completely unsalvageable. Their safety and their happiness should be our paramount concern. How they get to their destination, what path they take, linear or circular, is completely up to them.

In the immortal words of Theodore Roosevelt:

“In any moment of decision, the best thing you can do is the right thing, the next best thing is the wrong thing, and the worst thing you can do is nothing.”

 

 

 

The trouble with Brexit (Part 3): Project Fear: non-EU immigration

by

Where were you born?

And what did you do to deserve that?

If you are reading this, there is a pretty good chance that you grew up in a relatively rich country, possibly a Western democracy. It is probably safe to assume that you have never experienced hunger or war. You are likely to be well-educated, well-travelled and well-fed. You have probably never been tortured for your beliefs.

What would life have been like for us if we had been born in Rwanda, Iraq or North Korea? Would we be completely different people now? Or would we still essentially be ‘us’, but just with a different religion or skin colour?

None of us get to choose where we are born. It is all down to luck. For far too many people in the world: bad luck. For some of us: good luck. Our sons are not child soldiers; our daughters have not been raped by intruders coming into our village at night. We are the lucky ones. Tonight, thank God it’s them, instead of you.

Sometimes, it’s good to not only count our blessings, but also to remember that it’s only through a fortunate accident of birth that we ended up in a First World country, and not through any merit of our own. So let’s have some sympathy for those less fortunate than us. Let’s treat other people with a basic level of respect and compassion. Yes, even migrants and refugees.

Unfortunately, some British newspapers seem to disagree with this premise. If you are one of their regular readers – in particular, if you read the Daily Mail, the Daily Express or, to a slightly lesser degree, the Sun – you will be very much used to headlines like these:

  • “EU killers and rapists we’ve failed to deport” (Daily Mail)
  • “Migrants milking Britain’s benefits” (Daily Express)
  • “Fury over plot to let 1.5m Turks into Britain” (Daily Mail)

The first thing you notice is the fact that migrants are usually painted in an extremely one-sided, negative light. Emotive words such as ‘invasion’, ‘flooding in’ and ‘scroungers’ provoke instinctive feelings of fear or anger inside us, and are used again and again. It is ‘us’ – good, decent, law-abiding citizens – versus ‘them’ – the nasty others, who threaten our way of life.

Sometimes, media hostility goes even further than that. In an article in the Sun in 2015, columnist Katie Hopkins compared refugees fleeing war zones to “cockroaches”. And: “Some of our towns are festering sores, plagued by swarms of migrants and asylum seekers, shelling out benefits like Monopoly money.”

In 1930’s Germany, Nazi media also compared Polish people to cockroaches (an ‘East European species of cockroach’, to be precise), and Jewish people to rats. “German Jews pouring into this country” was the headline of an actual Daily Mail article in 1938. It was ‘us’ – good, decent, law-abiding citizens – versus ‘them’ – the nasty others, who threaten our way of life. Years and years of anger and fear towards those ‘others’ eventually led to yellow stars on coats, and piles of human hair in Auschwitz. Sadly, history teaches man that man does not learn from history.

This inflammatory language in the British media has not exactly gone unnoticed. In 2015, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights urged the UK media and regulators to tackle tabloid hate speech, saying “History has shown us time and again the dangers of demonising foreigners and minorities. It is extraordinary and deeply shameful to see these types of tactics being used, simply because racism and xenophobia are so easy to arouse in order to win votes, or sell newspapers.” In 2016, Cambridge University found that “Mainstream media reporting about Muslim communities is contributing to an atmosphere of rising hostility towards Muslims in Britain.” In the same year, Leicester University warned that a wider surge in hate crimes against migrants had been “fuelled and legitimised by the media”. A campaign called Stop Funding Hate urges advertisers and other companies to stop associating themselves with tabloids that spread fear and division.

It was against this background that the EU referendum took place in June 2016. Whether their fear was real or imagined: many British people were so concerned about immigration, that it became the second biggest reason why they voted for Brexit. And who could blame them? ‘Taking back control of our borders’ seemed to make perfect sense, and the right thing to do.

So was their fear real, or had the media really been unfairly ‘demonising foreigners and minorities’ for years? Surely these newspapers just report the facts, and we shouldn’t expect them to NOT write about crimes that have been committed by ‘foreigners or minorities’, just out of a misplaced sense of political correctness?

Sure, that is absolutely true. We shouldn’t censor the news, just because it doesn’t fit in with our own biased point of view. Surely it is not a racist thing to say that there is a strong link between pedophile grooming gangs and men of Pakistani heritage, for example? Isn’t that just a fact? Don’t we have a right to know about high proportions of crimes being committed by certain ethnic groups?

Of course we do – and perhaps it is also perfectly understandable that when we now hear about that particular crime, we tend to make a mental association with certain Pakistani men. That is based on several criminal cases that we’ve read about in the news during the past few years. But it does raise the question why we don’t make the same link with white men. When it comes to child abuse and pedophilia as a whole for instance, nearly 90% of pedophiles are white, and 98% of them are men. Do those crimes get underreported, and do the crimes committed by Pakistani men, Muslims or asylum seekers get over reported? Is that the reason why we don’t have newspaper headlines telling us how dangerous white men actually are?

The problem mainly lies with the interpretation and reporting of facts. When a small proportion of ethnic minorities (‘they’) commit certain crimes, we hear about it everywhere. As a consequence, we tend to associate the entire group with that crime. But when a small proportion of ‘regular white folk’ (’we’) also commit certain crimes, we don’t hear about it as much – and if we do, we are sensible enough to keep things in perspective, and not blame the whole group. We just don’t generalise as much. Most Pakistani men are law-abiding citizens, and so are most white men, so we are talking about very small percentages of both groups that commit crimes. But public perception is totally different in both cases, and so is the language that we use.

There seem to be completely separate standards for separate groups of people. Foreigners who settle in the UK are immigrants, for instance, whereas British people who move abroad are expats. ‘Auf Wiedersehen, Pet’ was a series about British guys in Germany, who work hard to support their families back home – but Polish builders doing the same thing in the UK nowadays are stealing local people’s jobs. What’s the difference, really? Where are the headlines about British expats stealing local people’s jobs whilst living abroad?

And when it comes to Brexit and ‘those foreigners’: did we really need to take back control, and from whom exactly? Did the UK ever even lose control of its borders in the first place?

In order to answer these questions, we first need to make a distinction between two different terms within the EU immigration debate: freedom of movement within the Single Market, and free movement of people within the Schengen area.

As we saw in part one, the Single Market is the biggest and most prosperous free trading area on earth – so much so, that out of only 35 wealthy countries  (or ‘advanced economies’) in the world, 27 are inside the EU. Freedom of movement is an integral part of the success and prosperity of the Single Market, along with freedom of goods, services and capital. It is also one of the reasons why the US economy is so successful, as workers can go wherever they are needed at any given time.

These so-called four freedoms make trading within the Single Market that much more efficient and frictionless, by radically reducing red tape and border queues. At the moment, an EU driver who arrives in Dover with a truck full of goods only has to show his passport and a CMR form, and off he goes – he doesn’t need a visa, and the contents of the truck do not need to be checked if they originated in an EU country. Contrary to popular belief, freedom of movement is not unlimited though. It is just that the UK, for reasons best known to itself, has chosen not to enforce any EU-recommended limits to it (more about that next time).

The Schengen area may greatly overlap the Single Market/freedom of movement area, but it is not the same thing. This is particularly true for the UK, which is part of the Single Market, but negotiated an opt-out from the Schengen area along with the Republic of Ireland. Schengen, named after a small town in Luxembourg where the treaty was signed, is basically an area where you can move freely from country to country without having to show your passport. Imagine driving from Germany to Spain, for instance: you would drive through several countries, but there are either no checks at all or just minimal checks –  which is particularly helpful for the 1.7 million people who commute to work across a European border every day. Incidentally, those internal borders can be restored on a temporary basis during special circumstances.

At the same time, Schengen countries do have strong controls on their common external border, and have established a European Border and Coast Guard Agency called Frontex. They also have a joint Schengen visa. Apart from that, the Schengen Information System (SIS) allows them to share data on criminals, missing people or stolen property. Even though the UK is not part of Schengen, it still enjoys close police cooperation with Schengen countries, and it uses the SIS to exchange information on law enforcement.

Now that we understand both freedom of movement within the Single Market and the Schengen zone a bit better, let’s have a look at some groups of immigrants on whom the Brexit vote will have absolutely no effect, but who often get mixed into the whole debate anyway.

Let’s start with regular non-EU migrants. This one is easy: the UK has complete control over anyone who enters the UK from a country that is not in the EU.

Next: refugees. A refugee is defined as someone who is officially recognised as a person who is unable to live in his or her own country because of war or natural disaster, or owing to a well-founded fear of persecution – for instance because of their race, religion or sexual orientation. I would highly recommend that you read the harrowing poem Home by Warsan Shire, a young British woman of Somali origin. In it, she explains that “You have to understand, that no one puts their children in a boat, unless the water is safer than the land.” About 85% of the world’s refugees live in poor, developing countries, often in camps. The country hosting the most refugees is Turkey, followed by Pakistan, Uganda and Lebanon. Around 4.4 million Syrian refugees are being hosted by just two countries: Turkey and Lebanon. Famous refugees include Gloria Estefan (who fled Cuba with her family when she was a toddler), Albert Einstein (who fled Nazi persecution), Freddy Mercury (whose family fled to the UK from Zanzibar in 1964) and Rita Ora (who came to the UK as a refugee from Kosovo). Once a refugee is in a particular Schengen country, it is illegal for him or her to travel to another one, and it reflects negatively on their asylum application if they get found out.

An asylum seeker is someone who is still awaiting a decision on whether or not they will be granted refugee status. In the UK, around 32% of asylum seekers’ claims are successful, going up to about 47% on appeal. It is not illegal or ‘bogus’ to be refused asylum; it just means that you haven’t been able to meet the very strict criteria to prove that you are a refugee. The number of asylum seekers in the UK is relatively small compared to some other European countries: there were only around 26,000 applications for asylum made to the UK in 2017, whereas Germany had around 198,000, and Italy had 126,000. They formed only about 5% of total immigrants in 2018.

It may be worth noting that according to the Association of Chief Police Officers, there is no evidence that asylum seekers commit more crime than anyone else. They are actually more likely to be victims of crime because of who they are; getting threatened and spat at on a regular basis. In fact, islamophobia, anti-semitism and hate crimes in general have all been on the rise in the UK since the Brexit referendum.

Illegal immigrants are people who enter the UK unlawfully, or who stay longer than they are allowed to. They are likely to be removed if their immigration status is discovered by the authorities. A report by The Migration Advisory Committee estimates that the numbers are very small: around 2,366 in 2016-2017, and around 1,832 in 2017-2018. This include people who arrive by boat, as well as those who stow away on ferries and lorries. Generally speaking though, illegal immigrants will only come to the UK if there are employers (often British) who are willing to illegally employ them.

Contrary to some reports, the UK asylum system is actually pretty tough. Asylum seekers do not have the same rights as refugees or British people: they are not allowed to work or claim benefits for instance. If they have no other means of supporting themselves, they can receive asylum support of around £5.39 a day, which is less than £2,000 a year. Illegal immigrants and asylum seekers are not entitled to, and do not get, benefits from the UK’s welfare system.

It is ironic that a hard No Deal Brexit will probably have some side effects that its supporters may not be aware of. When the UK leaves the European Union, all treaties between the two parties will cease to apply. This includes something called the Dublin Regulations, which basically allows European countries to return asylum seekers to the country where they first entered the EU. There, their fingerprints would have been taken (determining the country of first entry), and these fingerprints would then have been entered into an EU database called Eurodac. In a No Deal scenario, UK will lose the right to return asylum seekers to other EU member states because the Dublin Regulations will no longer apply. It will lose access to Eurodac as well. Apart from that, it also means that the UK’s rule-making power in the EU’s Common European Asylum System (CEAS) will end.

Even though we have all learned an awful lot more about the EU during the past few years, it is amazing how much misinformation is still out there. Also, in a country where ‘stranger danger’ stories are so prevalent and persuasive, it is easy to see the similarities between certain elements of the British press and the Leave campaign. Both rely heavily on the fear factor, and both have also been getting the facts wrong or distorted on a regular basis. Cue Nigel Farage’s infamous Breaking Point poster, and the fact that the Daily Mail has been banned as a source by Wikipedia due to its “poor fact checking, sensationalism and flat-out fabrication”.

It is also quite remarkable that both the popular press and the Leave campaign have focused so much on non- EU immigrants, who don’t have anything to do with Brexit. As we have seen, the UK has complete control over its borders when it comes to non-EU migration – and the numbers of refugees, asylum seekers and illegal immigrants are really pretty small. And crucially: the UK is an island, that is not part of the Schengen area. There is an actual, physical border with border checks, where everyone gets stopped and has to show their passports.

So yes, it may well be understandable that Mrs Outraged of Peterborough is extremely scared of foreign criminals. But we really should tell her that not only are the monsters under her bed not as big as she might imagine, Brexit is also not going to help her get rid of ‘those Pakistanis’ in her town. They probably have British passports – and besides, Pakistan is not in the EU, so it is totally irrelevant in this debate. And maybe, just maybe, she should try actually talking to some of those monsters. She might find out that that ‘they’ are actually not that different to her after all, and that The Others are really just human beings too.

Let’s end with the words of Michael Palin, who says: “I’ve actually been very reassured by travelling. It has made me feel the world is safer than you think it is, if you just read the news. Most people want to bring up their children, build their houses and live peacefully with their neighbours. They don’t want to kill anybody. Travelling is a very good way of confirming that the world is not a beastly place at all, but a place full of opportunity and great people.” Amen to that, Mr Palin.

Next time, let’s have a look at something that actually does matter in the Brexit debate: EU migration, and whether or not Turkey really is set to join the EU. Still a lot more Project Fear to come.

IMG_0848

Johanna Brunt was born and raised in The Netherlands. She has spent half her life there on the continent, and half her life in the UK. After studying English and European Studies at the University of Amsterdam, she moved to London where she started working for an international airline. She is married to a Brit, and they have three children together.

The ubiquity of abuse

by

I was having coffee with a bunch of ladies I didn’t really know. A common hobby had brought us together and as we met (some, for the first time) and chatted and ordered coffee and cake, the conversation veered off course as it inevitably does when you put women together. This wasn’t a business luncheon, it was very much a ‘getting to know you’ do. Our common hobby had brought us together, but we wanted to know if there was something else, beyond that, which could connect us.

As we talked backgrounds, languages, cultures, careers, husbands and children, we delved into each other’s lives, hesitantly at first, and then boldly, asking forthright questions and receiving some compelling and often hilarious answers. A sisterhood was emerging right there in that little coffee shop.

Interestingly, because we were, in effect, strangers to one another, there was a frankness and a candour to our conversation. There was no previous baggage nor was there any judgement. Each one was free to divulge as much or as little as they wished. Which is perhaps why some shocking truths emerged.

I have thought long and hard about writing this blog post. Am I betraying these ladies’ confidences if I do? Is this a kind of treachery to the very sisterhood I espouse? Am I worthy of being a confidante if I am unable to zip my lip?

However, upon reflection, I decided that yes, I would indeed write about it. No names or details of the women in question will be revealed here. That is not the purpose of this post. The purpose is to highlight the vulnerability of young children and how, it is so important for us as adults – parents and carers, to be vigilant about any possible signs and symptoms of abuse.

70% of the ladies at that table had been subject to some kind of sexual abuse as children. This ranged from an elderly relative using his trustworthy position in the family to inappropriately touch a child, to older children molesting a young girl in their midst, to a cousin leveraging his way into his sister’s affections to try and rape her.

Where were the adults when all this happened? Oblivious, too trusting or incapable of translating the traumatised child’s words and actions as a symptom of their ordeal.

Following on the heels of the #MeToo movement, the awareness of society’s ability to use and discard vulnerable adults has emerged strongly into the forefront. Yet, child abuse is so much more rampant and ubiquitous than anyone of us could have imagined.

All of these women were educated, erudite professionals who had carved out amazing careers and on the outside looked as put together as anyone else. Yet, fragments of their abusive past still lingered, making them feel ‘less than’ and handicapped in ways that even they could not articulate. If our pasts are the foundations to our future, it must have been doubly hard to build their future on the quicksands of trauma, betrayal and abuse.

I have spoken freely about the kind of sexual harassment I encountered growing up in India. Thankfully, because my mother was a very forward thinking individual, she was particularly circumspect about the adults who had access to me as a child. I had been told time and again to tell her if anything inappropriate was said or done to me. I was amongst the lucky few.

How many others had to stay ‘schtum’ because of the joint families they were growing up in wouldn’t tolerate any rent in its fabric, even if the casualty was a child’s innocence? How many parents believed that shrouding the truth or simply disbelieving the child were the only ways forward? How many ‘uncles’ or manservants got away scot-free because the ‘good name’ of the family was far more important than offering the victim love, support, understanding and challenging the perpetrator’s dirty deeds?

Too many.

Which is why it is so important that we talk about childhood sexual abuse. Children have nothing to be ashamed of. They are completely innocent of any wrong doing. It is the sick and depraved adults who choose and groom their victims alongside their families, that need to be brought to task.

I hope there comes a day when that coffee table conversation will not be limited to the tales of abuse suffered by young children, but will go on to elaborate the punishment society accorded to the abuser, and the counselling that was offered to the child to overcome that early trauma. As things stand right now, most children have to find their own coping mechanisms and unlike my ladies, can and do, spiral into self destructive behaviours.

I am not naive enough to believe that we will eradicate child sexual abuse completely. Wherever there is a power imbalance, abuse will exist and thrive. Sadly, there will also always be individuals with a sexual predilection for children. A multi-pronged approach that includes awareness, education, therapy, counselling, stricter laws and most importantly, a gradual erosion of patriarchy, may bring about the much needed change that will protect our children and ensure a safer future for them.

 

 

The trouble with Brexit (Part 2)

by

2. The ‘unique’ British media

When I first moved to London from The Netherlands in 1990, there were quite a few things that struck me as more than a little odd about the UK. Carpet in the bathroom? What was that all about? Separate hot and cold water taps? Weird…Why did some people leave a little bit of tea at the bottom of their cup? Who was Del Boy? And what exactly were Yorkshire puddings?

I also soon realised that, unlike The Netherlands, the UK didn’t really see itself as being part of Europe. If you were going to the continent from the UK, you were ‘going to Europe’ – as if you weren’t already in it! I reminded my English friends that London was not in Asia or South America, much to their amusement. It was also a long-standing British joke that Germans were Krauts, Italians were Wops and the French were Frogs. Even if there was no malice in these terms and it was meant to be funny, it still underpinned an underlying feeling of ‘us’ versus ‘them’. 

In spite of (or perhaps because of?) all of its eccentricities, I did fall head over heels in love with this beautiful country though. I loved the language, the “hello mate!” and “alright, darling?” greetings, the wit, the banter – and pretty much everything else! I even found myself an English boyfriend, and asked him what the British, in general, think about the Dutch. “We tolerate you”, my boyfriend answered with typically dry British humour.

His father read several British tabloid newspapers every day: the Sun (with its famous Page 3 Girl), the Daily Mail and the Daily Express. It was my first brush with something I found even more puzzling than anything I had seen before: anti-EU sentiment on a massive scale.

I couldn’t believe just how many hostile articles there were in these newspapers, and that pretty much all of them were blatant lies. Where I came from, nobody really talked about the EU – most people didn’t really have an opinion about it. But in London, they most certainly did – and it was all extremely negative! “Oh, it’s just a bit of a joke”, I was told, “these silly stories are not meant to be taken too seriously”.

Interestingly enough, I later found out that the origins of some of these so-called “Euromyths” – funny but completely fake news stories about the EU – could be traced back to none other than good old Boris Johnson. He had been hired by The Times during the 1980s (a job he got through family connections), was fired for making up two stories, and was hired by The Daily Telegraph almost immediately afterwards to become its Brussels correspondent between 1989 and 1994.

Boris loved ridiculing the EU for his own amusement, and invented plenty of stories about it. His Euromyths always followed the same pattern: they started off with a tiny element of truth, but soon turned into completely made-up conspiracy theories – ones that were so crazy that it was almost funny! There was supposed to be an EU plot to ban prawn cocktail flavoured crisps, Brussels bureaucrats wanted to standardise condom sizes, and one of his most memorable headlines was “Snails are fish, says EU”. Years later, Boris was quite happy to admit that he enjoyed telling complete porkies about the EU: “I was sort of chucking these rocks over the garden wall, and I listened to this amazing crash from the greenhouse next door over in England, as everything I wrote from Brussels was having this amazing, explosive ­effect on the Tory party. It really gave me this, I suppose, rather weird sense of power.”

Over the next 30 years, EU bashing became a staple of most British tabloids, and Fake News became fashionable long before the expression was even invented. Here’s just a small selection of some newspaper headlines over the years:

  • “Bureaucrats declare Britain is ‘not an island'” (The Guardian)
  • “Eurocrats say Santa must be a woman” (The Sun)
  • “Scotch whisky rebranded ‘a dangerous chemical’ by EU” (Daily Telegraph)
  • “Domain names – .uk to be replaced by .eu” (Daily Mail)
  • “EU plot to rename Trafalgar Square and Waterloo Station” (Daily Express)
  • “EU to ban zipper trousers” (The Sun)
  • “2-for-1 bargains to be scrapped by EU” (Daily Mirror)
  • “New EU map makes Kent part of France” (Daily Telegraph)
  • “Corgis to be banned by EU” (Daily Mail)
  • “EU forcing cows to wear nappies” (Daily Mail)
  • “Brussels ban on pints of shandy” (The Times)
  • “Now EU crackpots demand gypsy MPs” (Daily Express)

This is just a tiny, tiny part of it – and these are just the headlines, so you can only imagine what the accompanying stories are like! Sadly, deliberate misinformation, half-truths and outright lies are still the order of the day in some newspapers. It is no wonder that the British press has been amongst the least trusted in Europe for years.

Hardly any British politicians challenged this negative portrayal of the EU in the media. Nobody said: “Hey, hang on a minute! How come we still have playgrounds, corgis and bendy bananas, if we’re constantly being told that they have been banned?” It probably suited them that the EU could be used as a convenient scapegoat for their own unpopular policies.

At first glance, all of this anti EU-ism may seem quite harmless, and even a bit of a laugh. However, it is probably fair to say that after many years and decades, the ‘drip, drip’ effect of this narrative did start to influence British opinions. And not just those of tabloid readers, but, as you can see above, also readers of more respectable newspapers like The Times, The Daily Telegraph and The Guardian. A persuasive portrayal of an EU full of spoilsports getting rid of British playgrounds, double-decker buses and truckers’ fry-ups became a powerful ‘alternative fact’ in the UK: surely everybody knew what those patronising busybodies in Brussels were like? They were the enemies of common sense and the British way of life, so it was high time that the UK started fighting back against these oppressors. And this is exactly how some very influential Eurosceptic newspapers portray themselves: as noble representatives of the man on the street, fighting against those nasty elites in Westminster and Brussels.

You might therefore be surprised to learn that most of the UK media is owned by just a handful of extremely wealthy men with very strong ties to Westminster and the political establishment. One of them, Ukip donor Richard Desmond, sold the Daily Express not long ago – but that still leaves four billionaires with a huge amount of power and influence.

Media mogul Rupert Murdoch owns The Sun, The Times, the now-defunct News of the World (shut down after the phone hacking scandal), and also pro-Trump Fox News in the US. His company News Corporation has subsidiaries in the Bahamas, the Cayman Islands, the Channel Islands and the Virgin Islands. From 1986, News Corporation’s annual tax bill averaged around 7% of its profits. Anthony Hilton, columnist for the Evening Standard wrote during the referendum campaign: “I once asked Rupert Murdoch why he was so opposed to the European Union. “That’s easy,” he replied. “When I go into Downing Street they do what I say; when I go to Brussels they take no notice.”

Identical twins the Barclay brothers are the owners of the five-star Ritz hotel in London, as well as pro-Brexit publications The Daily Telegraph and the Spectator. Currently number 17 on the Sunday Times Rich List, they have houses in both the Channel Islands and Monaco. In 2012, BBC’s Panorama reported that they had paid no corporation tax for the Ritz, and in 2017 the Barclay Brothers lost a £1.25 billion tax case against HMRC.

The Daily Mail is owned by the 4th Viscount Rothermere. His great-grandfather was a friend of Adolf Hitler, and supported the Nazis when he owned the newspaper in the 1930’s. He also wrote an interesting article entitled ‘Hurrah for the blackshirts’, supporting Oswald Mosley and the facist movement in Great Britain. The current Viscount Rothermere is said to be richer than the queen, he has non-domicile tax status and owns his media businesses through a complex structure of offshore holdings and trusts.

So, not exactly ‘men in the street’, but billionaires with direct access to Downing Street, influencing opinions all over the country through their newspapers.

Regardless of their owners, does this mean that we should not have any critical Eurosceptic newspapers at all? Is the EU, in reality, just a perfect club of countries happily working together, holding hands and singing Kumbaya, that shouldn’t be questioned?

No, of course not.

There is nothing wrong with a healthy dose of scepticism towards the European Union. The Eurozone crisis, the migration crisis, the banking crisis, problems in Eastern Europe: it has plenty of problems – some outside of the EU’s control, some within it. But this is about fairness and balance. The world is not black or white – there are always fifty shades of grey in the middle. So let’s be sceptical of both sides. Let’s look at the pros and cons of the EU, without painting it as some kind of one-dimensional monster.

Why, for instance, do British newspapers never write about the good things the EU has achieved: clean beaches, no roaming charges, the protection of children that is enshrined into EU law? Why does nobody mention that the British film industry has received nearly £300 million in funding from the EU in the past 10 years? And why do you never hear about about all the money the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and European Social Fund (ESF) have spent in poorer regions within the UK?

How about the £640 million it has paid to save old buildings in  Birmingham city centre? A £2 billion investment for Wales? £1 billion for South Yorkshire? €60 million to help repair flood damage in the UK, and a similar amount for Cornwall over the last ten years? Not a peep about any of this in the British media.

And while we’re at it: apart from some more balance, can we also have a discussion that is based on evidence-based facts please? I know that it it is not always easy to separate fact from fiction, but there are plenty of fact-checking websites out there these days. Take the famous fake Lisbon Treaty post doing the rounds on Facebook: “OMG!!! WHY IS NO ONE TALKING ABOUT THE LISBON TREATY THAT COMES INTO FORCE IN 2020??” Because it’s fake news, that’s why. And it is not just the Brexiteer side that makes things up, by the way. A recent claim that Nigel Farage was involved in the far-right National Front as a teenager is based on an old photograph, that is almost certainly not him.

Media bias, alternative facts, Russian bots, fake Twitter accounts: they are all a threat to democracy and our ability to separate truth from fiction.  Apparently, it will soon be possible  to make photo-realistic HD video, audio and document forgeries, even for amateurs, and some of these forgeries will be good enough to fool even some types of forensic analysis. Imagine what damage a Fake News story can do, when it’s accompanied by a very convincing Fake Video?

And whilst talking about media bias towards the EU, we haven’t even touched upon newspaper stories regarding some other groups of foreigners: immigrants, asylum seekers and refugees. More about that next time.

IMG_0848

Johanna Brunt was born and raised in The Netherlands. She has spent half her life there on the continent, and half her life in the UK. After studying English and European Studies at the University of Amsterdam, she moved to London where she started working for an international airline. She is married to a Brit, and they have three children together.

The trouble with Brexit – Johanna Brunt

by

It is the beginning of May, 2019 – nearly three years after the UK’s 2016 referendum, during which it decided to leave the European Union. Even at this late stage in the game, nobody knows if Brexit is going to be hard, soft or sunny side up – or whether it will even happen at all! The UK has just been given a Halloween extension, and some much-needed breathing space. The entire country is confused about backstops, trade deals and tariffs, and thoroughly fed up with the way everything has been handled in Westminster. It is high time for a progress report: how did we get here, and where do we go from now?

cherry-pie-2364372_960_720

  1. The Single Market and the Cherry Picking Myth

Brexit. A subject that has divided the country, parliament and political parties in the UK for three years now, and shows no signs of becoming any less polarising. With a difference of only 3.8%, the Leave campaign won the June 2016 referendum. Why did so many people think that Britain going its own way would be the best course of action?

There were two main reasons why people voted Leave in 2016. The first one was sovereignty. Many people were happy for the UK to cooperate with other European countries on trade and other issues, but they felt that over the years, the EU had grown too big for its boots. They were sick of being bossed around by unelected politicians in Brussels, and wanted to take back control.

The second biggest issue was immigration. A lot of British people didn’t like the European idea of unlimited Freedom of Movement. In their eyes, it meant that any Juan, Jan or Janusz could just enter the country, settle in, and undercut local workers or claim benefits.

So let’s have a look at this big European bully, that seems to feel entitled to impose its rules on the UK. What exactly is the European Union, what are the pros and cons of membership, and is leaving the EU the right thing to do for the UK?

The EU was originally set up with the aim of ending the frequent and bloody wars between neighbours, which culminated in WWII. It is based on the idea that when countries trade together, and have a close working relationship, they are less likely to wage war against each other. The founding values of the European Union still form the core of European policy: freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law and respect for human rights.

Today, the EU is incredibly big and powerful – probably a lot bigger, and a lot more powerful than most people in the UK realise! It accounts for almost a quarter of the world’s GDP (23%), meaning that it is also very rich, compared to most of the rest of the world. In fact, out of 193 countries in the United Nations, only 35 are considered ‘advanced economies’ according to the IMF – and out of these 35 countries, 27 are inside the EU.

So how did the EU become so big, powerful and rich? The answer lies in just three little words: The Single Market. This is when things get pretty boring – but please bear with me, as it is absolutely central to the whole Brexit debate!

The Single Market is by far the biggest, and most advanced single trading area on the planet. It is an ongoing process of harmonisation and standardisation, designed to make it as easy as possible for people, goods, services and money to move around those countries that are a part of it: the 28 members of the EU, plus 4 non-EU countries: Norway, Iceland, Liechtenstein (EEA countries), and Switzerland. It does not only cover free trade, meaning that the countries within the Single Market don’t charge each other tariffs (import taxes). It also covers something much more advanced than that, and something that is quite unique: frictionless trade.

Frictionless trade means that countries within the Single Market have decided to not only eliminate tariffs and customs barriers between themselves. They have also made it as easy as possible to trade and allow free access to each other’s markets, by having the same standards and regulations for goods and services. That means the same safety regulations, environmentally friendly packaging, food labelling, consumer guarantees etc, to create a fair and level playing field between countries. Kind of as if the Single Market was a single country, really! This way, manufacturers don’t have to set up different production lines, to make different goods for different countries. Essentially, it gets rid of trade barriers and internal borders, making it easier for companies to operate internationally, and enlarge their markets.

Imagine, for instance, that you are a British manufacturer of hairdryers. If you want to sell those hairdryers to other countries, you would normally have to deal with different regulations that other countries have, because of their different legal systems. Spain may have certain laws regarding particular hairdryer components, or they may have completely different safety standards to the ones that you have in your country. And Austria, Malta and Sweden may also have slightly different rules and regulations. That would make cross-border trade much harder for you – those countries wouldn’t allow you to sell your hairdryers in their countries, because you don’t comply with their standards. Setting up different production lines for different countries you want to sell to would increase costs for you, leading to higher prices for your products, and reduced competitiveness. You would probably just end up staying in your own country, and lose out on the opportunity to become a big company that trades internationally.

The Single Market has removed those regulatory barriers by allowing frictionless trade between Single Market countries, both in goods and in services. Incidentally, services are things like banking, insurance and telecommunications which make up about 80% of the economy, so it’s quite important to the UK (fishing is less than 0.5%, by the way..). This way, it is now as easy for you to sell your hairdryers from London to Lisbon, as it is to sell them from London to Leeds.

You may ask yourself: “That’s all very nice, but that’s all about trade and stuff. How does that affect me?” Well, having a healthy economy means high employment (jobs), more people spending their well-earned money and keeping the economy going, and more money for the government’s coffers. Companies have to pay corporation taxes, its workers pay National Insurance Contributions and income taxes, and all of that money goes into HMRC. With that pot of money, governments can then pay for schools, hospitals, housing, the police and other public services. It’s a win-win situation, because your country has high employment and more money to spend. Membership of the EU and the Single Market has undoubtedly been of great benefit for the UK, which used to be known as the ‘sick man of Europe’ in the 1960’s. In fact, it has been so successful that it has made the UK the fifth biggest economy in the entire world (although it dropped to sixth soon after the 2016 referendum).

In order to prevent the member states from engaging in unfair competition, and to keep a level playing field, the Single Market also involves countries having certain baseline standards regarding workers’ rights, health and safety regulations, consumer protections, environmental rules, food and animal welfare standards etc. A great number of these kinds of regulations and laws have been written by the UK, which is seen as one of the ‘Big Three’: the three largest and most important countries within the EU (along with Germany and France).

The famous European CE mark, for example, originated from the old British Kitemark. If you see it on a toy that you bought for your children, you can be confident that it is not going to have any tiny components that your baby may choke on, or that he or she is not going to get ill because the toy is covered in toxic paint. All countries within the Single Market have agreed that they will not compete with each other by trying to lower basic standards that exist to protect workers, consumers and the environment, and that they certainly won’t try to get rid of them altogether.

Some of these regulatory rules and standards apply to more than just the 28 EU countries plus those 4 non-EU countries. The Single Market has essentially turned the EU into a huge global powerhouse – one that negotiates its own trade deals with other countries and trading blocs, on behalf of its member states. As an EU member, the UK is part of about 40 trade agreements that the EU has with about 70 other countries, which have taken decades to negotiate. And because it is so big and powerful, the EU has a lot of clout. For instance, if you now buy a toy from China it will have to have a CE mark on it, because the EU has forced China to comply with European safety standards – thus protecting European consumers.

Having these basic common standards is also good news for ordinary citizens, as many EU laws protect them from being exploited by unscrupulous employers. For instance, it means that you can’t be forced to work more than 48 hours a week – you can if you want to, but your employer can’t sack you if you don’t. Things like paid holidays, a ban on age discrimination, LGBT rights, paid maternity leave etc are also enshrined in EU law. It is therefore no coincidence that pretty much all UK unions, as well as the vast majority of economists, campaigned against Brexit during the 2016 referendum campaign.

As you can imagine, the EU has been very keen to protect the integrity of the Single Market during the Brexit negotiations. This consist of four pillars, also known as the ‘four freedoms’:

  1. Freedom of goods
  2. Freedom of services
  3. Freedom of capital (money)
  4. Freedom of people (labour)

EU negotiators set out their strategy from the beginning, and they have been very clear all along: “Anything can be discussed, but we can’t separate these four freedoms, that the success of our Single Market is based on.”

Unfortunately though, the UK spent the next few years trying to cherry-pick bits out of the Single Market cake. Take the Chequers proposal: “We’ll have that freedom of goods part, thank you very much – but you can keep the freedom of movement part that we don’t want.” When the EU explained that you’re either in the Single Market or you’re out of it, and you can’t have it both ways, the UK press were outraged: how dare the EU humiliate our prime minister by refusing our cherry-picking proposals? Surely they should give us what we want?

This rather one-sided British point of view shows a really basic misunderstanding about the importance of the Single Market to the EU, and its role in the prosperity of all EU countries. The EU sticking to its guns is not about it being vindictive, or about punishing the UK. It is about the EU being strong and stable. Its main aim is, of course, to protect the interests of its 27 remaining member states, not that of 1 soon-to-be ex-member. After all, there is not a single organisation in the world that will give better terms to non-members than to members. So why would it be reasonable to expect the EU to change a winning formula, that has taken decades to develop?

When you look back at old footage of pro-Brexit politicians being interviewed before the referendum, you notice how many of them expected the EU to cave in to the UK’s demands. They talk about the UK wanting complete and full access to the Single Market after Brexit, without it having to adhere to the rules on its four freedoms – particularly the freedom of movement part. Or they talk about keeping access to ‘a’ Single Market, rather than ‘the’ Single Market (as if there are two).

It took a little while before it dawned on these Brexiteers that they couldn’t have their cake and eat it. That that unspecified, magical ‘deal’ that they had promised their voters was, in fact, unavailable – and that it had never existed in the first place. It is as if they had decided to cancel their Netflix subscription, but were then completely taken by surprise when they switched on the tv on a Saturday night, and couldn’t watch any movies anymore. And what’s more: they had a go at a rather baffled Netflix afterwards – an organisation that had always been quite clear about its rules.

So where does this odd mix of pie-in-the-sky thinking (“the German car industry will give in to our demands because we are too important to them; we hold all the cards”), victim mentality (“the bullies in the EU want to punish us”) and anti-EU hostility (“it is an elite conspiracy against the public”) come from? And how did we get to a situation where so many British people genuinely believe that the EU is evil, vindictive, and out to get them? Look no further than the British media, and several decades of Project Fear. More of that coming up next week, in part 2.

IMG_0848

Johanna Brunt was born and raised in The Netherlands. She has spent half her life there on the continent, and half her life in the UK. After studying English and European Studies at the University of Amsterdam, she moved to London where she started working for an international airline. She is married to a Brit, and they have three children together.