Thread: UK-what now?

First off, this is a debate about the UK, life, military ect, basically the current state it’s in, while I’m a firm believer in freedom of speech ect, this kind of debate can sometimes stir up for lack of a better term racial issues and similar stuff, while your opinion is respected I ask that anyone posting refrains from using language that would offend others due to reference of race ect, in other words no racist words also respecting other peoples views is also important here.

Also note I won’t address independence movements because frankly after looking at the numbers independence for any part of the UK would not be beneficial to anyone (well maybe bankers)

Right onto the debate

The current state of the UK is quite frankly appalling, and while many of you may think this is to do with the economy it was appalling before that.

10+ years of the labour party and what have we got to show? A budget defect, a debt soon to be (if not already) over 50% of our GDP, a badly over stretched armed forces, overcrowding, a loss of international respect, a joke of a justice system (there another thread on this forum about that) a terrible healthcare system & (yes ill say it) brutal immigration problems.

A simple overreaction you might say? Sorry I really, really wish it was.

The budget defect and debt

The budget defect and debt, two things that really if the government had actually managed properly we wouldn’t be having problems big problems with
Since Labour came into power in 1997 the UK revenues have averaged around $0.97 trillion, now while logic dictates that you really shouldn’t spend more then you earn it hasn’t stopped them spending on average $1.04 trillion a year, further increasing the debt of the UK. What perhaps makes the situation extremely stupid is that this situation of a defect could have been avoided very, very easily, the government could have cut spending in several areas to cover the expenses-the amount of aid the government (note government not privet individuals who give the majority of UK aid) gives could have been slashed to cover the defect and there still would have been money (around 1 billion) left to give, that’s right we could have actually had a surplus and paid over 10 billion of our debt off by now, shame.

Also note Labour policy of "an end to Boom and Bust economics" aka the reason we justify spending all our money and not saving it and using it like responsible people should. For lack of a better term I feel this last bit can only be described with two words EPIC FAIL.

Armed Forces & Relations

Ah the Armed Forces, our brave men and women fighting overseas. For Queen and country? More like whenever the USA feels like it needs some cannon fodder. Now i mean no disrespect to the American people, well maybe the ones who seem to think they own us, but the UK is not the USA we shouldn’t have to run in and wipe the USA's nose every time they sneeze. For the last 12 or so years the US has spit in the face of the UK, it has undermined our rules, lied to us and stepped all over us as it damn well pleases, no surprise the government has just sat back and taken it, come running every time they’ve called.

Now again don’t take it the wrong way there have been battles that have been for the better and it was good for the USA and UK to work together including the Kosovo War, of course the major difference in these was one it wasn’t just the US and UK and the other being the worked as equals on an international scale, something that seems to have been lost.

My point is why is/was the UK in Iraq? Why have we been bearing the brunt of the assault(along with Canada and the Netherlands) in the south of Afghanistan until recently? Why has the government sent more and more of our forces despite numerous warnings of another Rorke's Drift? Why have personnel died because of lack of proper equipment for wars that frankly few (if any) back home support? Why is it we don’t seem to have a foreign policy that looks to help us anymore?

Questions that should be answered, that will probably never have a fitting answer.

In this so called "special" relationship with the USA the UK seems to have been handed the short end of the stick, here are a few recent examples quotes and other such things about the "special" relationship.

"On the eve of the war in Iraq, as Britain prepared to fight alongside America, Tony Blair spoke of the 'blood price' that Britain should be prepared to pay in order to sustain the relationship. In America, it is not nearly so emotionally charged. Indeed, American politicians are promiscuous with the term, trumpeting their 'special relationships' with Israel, Germany and South Korea, among others. 'Mention the special relationship to Americans and they say yes, it's a really special relationship," notes sardonically Sir Christopher Meyer, a former British ambassador to Washington

More British servicemen were killed in the 1991 Gulf War by U.S. fire than by Iraqi soldiers. A public controversy arose after U.S. military authorities refused to allow USAF pilots to give evidence at a 1992 British inquest into the deaths of nine British soldiers killed in a U.S. air strike, saying they had already supplied all the relevant information. The inquest jury returned a verdict of unlawful killing. Families of those killed accused the United States of 'double standards' after three U.S. military officers were reprimanded for negligence after a separate incident involving the similar death of a U.S. soldier. Tammy Groves, solicitor for the families, said: 'We have been denied any inquiry in the U.S.; there have been no reprimands; and the pilots have not been named. The contrast could not be greater.' Anne Leech, whose son was one of the British soldiers killed, said: 'They are supposed to be a friendly country, but it shows it only goes as far as they want it to ... Unless people are made accountable for what they do in these situations it will continue to happen.'

President George H. W. Bush responded: 'My heart goes out to their families. But I see no reason in going beyond what we've already done to fully account for this terrible tragedy of war.' Peter Atkinson, whose son was also killed, said: 'We met George Bush. He was trying to slide out of meeting us so I ran after him, collared him and told him what I thought. He said to me "You want the facts? ... Right, you'll get them." Months later they sent us a report. It was rubbish. All the relevant details had been censored out.

Further friendly fire incidents in the 2003 Iraq War brought assurances from officers and politicians that they would not hurt the close alliance: 'A situation like this does not mean anything of harm to the coalition, but in many ways it brings us closer together,' said RAF Group Captain Jon Fynes. However the U.S. government again refused to co-operate with the coroner’s investigations. This culminated in the United States attempting to prevent the release of cockpit videos—later leaked to The Sun—showing events leading to the death of Lance-Corporal Matty Hull of the Household Cavalry, and threatening newspapers that published them with prosecution. The coroner slammed U.S. 'intransigence', and the British press accused the Pentagon of operating 'in a no-fault zone', with the Daily Telegraph commenting: 'This will reaffirm the view of many in the British military that while the U.S. has the best kit, it does not necessarily have the best training ... Uninhibited by the risk of any sanction, is it any wonder that they go about their lethal business with such apparent insouciance?' The Spectator described the British forbearance towards American evasiveness as 'a bleak parable of the flaws at the heart of the U.S.-U.K. "special relationship".'

Following the 2003 invasion of Iraq, senior British figures criticized the refusal of the U.S. Government to heed British advice regarding post-war plans for Iraq, specifically the Coalition Provisional Authority's de-Ba'athification policy and the critical importance of preventing the power vacuum in which the insurgency subsequently developed. British defense secretary Geoff Hoon later stated that the United Kingdom 'lost the argument' with the Bush administration over rebuilding Iraq. Speaking on the same topic, Prince Andrew said there were 'occasions when people in the U.K. would wish that those in responsible positions in the U.S. might listen and learn from our experiences', that there was 'healthy skepticism' in the United Kingdom toward what was said in Washington DC, and a feeling of 'why didn't anyone listen to what was said and the advice that was given'. CNN acknowledged that the Prince's views were widely shared in the U.K

Assurances made by the United States to the United Kingdom that 'extraordinary rendition' flights had never landed on British territory were later shown to be false when official U.S. records proved that such flights had landed at Diego Garcia repeatedly.

Legal and moral doubts also arose over the U.S. government's extraordinary rendition process, which ignored extradition treaties and officially sanctioned the kidnap and extrajudicial transfer of people (some of them British citizens) from one country to another, sometimes to one of their covert CIA-run prisons, known as black sites, other times to Guantanamo Bay detention camp. The United Kingdom's Intelligence and Security Committee stated that America's failure to heed British concerns had 'serious implications' for future intelligence relations.

In 2003 the United States pressed the United Kingdom to agree to an extradition treaty which, proponents claimed, allowed for equal extradition requirements between the two countries. Critics argued that the United Kingdom was obligated to make a strong prima facie case to U.S. courts before extradition would be granted, and that, by contrast, extradition from the United Kingdom to the United States was a matter of administrative decision alone, without prima facie evidence. This had been implemented as an anti-terrorist measure in the wake of the September 11, 2001 attacks. Very soon, however, it was being used by the United States to extradite and prosecute a number of high-profile London businessmen (e.g. the Natwest Three and Ian Norris) on fraud charges. Contrasts have been drawn with the United States' harboring of Provisional IRA terrorists in the 1970s through to the 1990s.

On 30 September 2006 the U.S. Senate unanimously ratified the 2003 treaty. Ratification had been slowed by complaints from some Irish-American groups that the treaty would create new legal jeopardy for U.S. citizens who opposed British policy in Northern Ireland. The Spectator condemned the three-year delay as 'an appalling breach in a long-treasured relationship’.

The United States also refused to accede to another priority of the Blair government, the treaty setting up the International Criminal Court

The United States has been accused of pursuing an aggressive trade policy, using or ignoring WTO rules; the aspects of this causing most difficulty to the United Kingdom have been a successful challenge to the protection of small family banana farmers in the West Indies from large U.S. corporations such as the American Financial Corporation, and high tariffs on British steel products. In 2002 Blair denounced Bush's imposition of tariffs on steel as 'unacceptable, unjustified and wrong', but although Britain's biggest steelmaker Corus called for protection from dumping by developing nations, the Confederation of British Industry urged the government not to start a 'tit-for-tat'.

In October 2007 The United Kingdom's first Muslim government minister, Shahid Malik, rebuked U.S. authorities after having been detained and searched for explosives at a Washington airport on his way home from a meeting with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. This was the second occasion on which this Member of Parliament had been detained and searched, having received the same treatment at JFK airport during a visit to the United States in November 2006. Mr Malik remarked: 'The abusive attitude I endured last November I forgot about and I forgave, but I really do believe that British ministers and parliamentarians should be afforded the same respect and dignity at USA airports that we would bestow upon our colleagues in the Senate and Congress.

The ongoing refusal of the U.S. embassy in Grosvenor Square to pay the London congestion charge has also been a minor source of controversy. Embassy officials claimed they did not have to pay the congestion charge because it was a tax, from which diplomats were exempt. London officials asserted that the congestion charge was no different from the toll charges paid by drivers to travel into U.S. cities such as Manhattan via bridges and roads. U.S. embassies paid similar congestion charges in Singapore and Oslo.

See why I’m not very confident in this so called "special" relationship


The Justice system

As a said before there is another thread on this so check that out as well. The UK justice system full of overcrowded prisons short sentences early releases and easily times. its a joke. Thousands released early, the results of which have been over 1,000 violent crimes and at least 1 murder caused by those who were released early, not that they had long sentences to begin with, for example I read a story what must have been about 2 years back now of a case. A teenager snuck up on another after a verbal fight the previous day as the boy walked home from school and beat him, attacked him from behind kicking and punching leaving the boy bloody and lying in the street, according to witnesses the teen was smiling as he walked away. The boy died were the teen left him from his injuries. What did the teen get? a 3 year sentence, he laughed as he walked out of the courtroom.

That should give you an idea of our "justice system", well that and terrorists getting 1 year in prison for planning to blow people up. oh and most of the time they take away time they served in prison as the trial went on. disgrace.

Let not go into the laws, over 9,000 laws introduced by Tiny Blair government alone-more red tape for us to wade through I suppose

Healthcare

It’s been in decline for years now it’s gotten to the point where people have died from infections that came from the hospital they were staying in, happens once in a while you might say, wrong however. over 3,000 people (roughly the equivalent of those killed in the troubles) died in hospital in 2007 from preventable infections and negligence and what has the Government done to stop this? Nothing. What a big surprise.


Immigration

Something many seem to want to tip-toe around, though I’ve no idea why, issues don’t go away if you ignore them. Now I’m not saying immigration as a whole is bad, but there are problems that are/have been arising that the government has failed to combat or simply refuses to.

Lets start with the immigration cap, a good idea really, the UK has a population of 61 million, already to big for a small country like the UK, there are even predictions it could reach over 100 million by 2050, and that’s just retarded. The place is crowed enough, yet people still flock in and all it does is cause hate and intolerance to stir. A cap on none EU immigration will solve a lot of problems, not least easing the pressure off of the taxpayers and government services.

Having proper immigration rules would also be a bonus, until recently it wasn’t required for people to know English to immigrate to the UK which again ignores common sense-if you’re going to immigrate to a country you should at least know the language of that country plan and simple. People who don’t put a strain on the taxpayers and on the government- more wasted money that could be used elsewhere.

I’m also for revoking citizenships, there have been many cases of people who have immigrated not respecting the UK's laws (like force marriage, equality for women ect) personally I feel that if you can’t respect & adapt to the laws of the country then you shouldn’t be a citizen but it looks unlikely that that will be enforced, ever.



so rounded up I’ve highlighted some major (though not all) problems facing the UK that the Labour government has royally screwed up on.

My suggestions for the next government?
-save more money
-get out of the defect
-get rid of all the needless spending
-Get a constitution guaranteeing British peoples the basic rights and freedoms they deserve, and actually have them numbered in terms of importance. Right to life and equality should be number 1 followed by freedom of speech.
-Get a foreign policy separate from that of the USA
-Work more closely with the EU and commonwealth
-Learn to say No to the USA and stand up against the USA when the need arises.
-Get better healthcare
-improve the immigration system, put a cap on it and get some decent requirements in there.
-Equip the armed forces properly
-Don’t overstretch the armed forces one war at a time is enough
-make sure the wars are legal
-make sure there a better reason for going into a war other than "the USA says so"
-re-introduce the death penalty give the prisoners something to be scared of.
-get more prisons and get harsher sentences.


Well free to comment or ask questions,you can also ask for me to explain something in greater detail if you wish.