2012: A year of isolation

As I watched the New Year’s celebrations from cities around the world being broadcast on the BBC, I felt a strange sadness, sensing that 2012 would be a year of increasing isolation for Britain. During a time when the importance of ‘Britishness’ is in headlong decline, and when national interests are becoming ever more interdependent with world interests, it seems strange that our Prime Minister should pursue a policy of isolation from the rest of Europe – and indeed the world.

Mr. Cameron’s recent EU veto sent a clear signal that Britain would be the pariah state of the Union in 2012. Germany is now undoubtedly in control of Europe. It is only our tenuous ‘special relationship’ with the United States that sets Britain out as possibly superior to other European countries. But that relationship has yielded little of value in past years and much more of detriment – among them, the needless deaths of hundreds of our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. Britain needs to focus on the European Union, for despite the current financial turmoil, once Europe gets itself back on its feet it is going to view Britain as less of a friend and more of an awkward acquaintance: the guest at the dinner party whom you wish you hadn’t invited. More cooperative dialogue with Europe does not mean, as some claim, a relinquishment of sovereignty or putting British jobs at risk. Mr. Cameron should have looked at the long-term situation and worked harder to come to an acceptable compromise – rather than stubbornly exercising his veto the moment his beloved City and the interests of his wealthy friends appeared threatened.

The planned abolition of the Tier 1 Post-study work visa in April 2012 is another step in the wrong direction by Mr. Cameron. Many current international students at Warwick and other universities must be furious that their chances of finding a job in the UK will be severely curtailed. It would possibly have been acceptable to abolish the visa for all international students who have not yet begun studying and who do not have places at a UK university, but to turn to current international students – who are paying incredibly high fees – and say, “Sorry, thanks for contributing to our university system, but we’d like you to go home after your studies”, is an insult of the highest degree (no pun intended). Mr. Cameron disregarded the fact that many international students chose to study in the UK (as opposed to, say, the US, Canada or Australia) out of an interest in our country and perhaps a desire to work here and become valuable members of our community after graduation. To promise so much and then take away that promise half-way through their degree course is unfair and disrespectful.

And let’s not forget his comment that the UK is a Christian country. What a way to unnecessarily reinstate the old divide between the Christian and Muslim worlds, as well as to antagonise the 28% of the population who did not register as Christians in the most recently available census data. At a time of increasing tension with Iran, as well the potential for the creation of new democracies as a result of the Arab Spring, do we really want to be encouraging polarisation between Europe and the Middle East?

On a further note, Mr. Cameron declined our invitation to speak at Warwick Economics Summit. Maybe he’s afraid of something.