Turkish Forum

Tag: David Cameron

  • PM threat to Brown’s IMF job

    PM threat to Brown’s IMF job

    cameron brownKATE DEVLIN UK POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT

    A senior economist accused David Cameron of being vindictive yesterday after the Prime Minister suggested he would block Gordon Brown from getting a top international job.

    David Blanchflower, a former member of the Bank of England’s Monetary Policy Committee, described the PM’s stance as “small minded”.

    It follows speculation that Mr Brown might be put forward to head the International Monetary Fund (IMF). Crucial for any nomination would be the endorsement of the individual’s home country.

    However, Mr Cameron indicated he would block a potential bid by his predecessor as Prime Minister. He said Mr Brown “might not be the most appropriate person” for the job, because of his record in office.

    In a deliberate jibe at the former Labour leader, he added that he thought the job should go to “someone who understands the danger of excessive debt”.

    The Tories and the LibDems have been highly critical of Labour’s economic record since entering Coalition last year, blaming the party for leaving them with a record deficit.

    Labour have defended their time in office, and claim the problems we caused by the global banking crisis.

    Mr Brown gave a speech on economics to students at Edinburgh University last night, based on his book, Beyond The Crash. He was defended by current Labour leader Ed Miliband, who said he was “eminently qualified” for the job.

    Mr Miliband also attacked Mr Cameron’s comments saying: “To rule someone out even before the vacancy has arisen seems to be going some, even for him.”

    Asked about the PM’s remarks, Mr Blanchflower said: “This is the most vindictive thing I’ve heard from a Prime Minister in 50 years. It looks to me to be extremely small-minded.”

    The role of managing director of the IMF carried a salary of around £270,000, as well as a crucial position in world finance. Countries currently in receipt of IMF aid include Greece and the Republic of Ireland.

    It is expected the job could become free if current head Dominique Strauss-Kahn stands down this summer to mount a bid for the French presidency. There has also been speculation his replacement would come from countries with emerging world markets.

    It is not the first time Mr Brown’s name has been linked with the job. In 2004, when he was chancellor, Downing Street was forced to shrug off rumours about him joining the IMF.

    In recent months the IMF has repeatedly backed the Coalition austerity drive, including cuts of £81m in public spending.

    Ironically, the Tories have also been vocally critical of Mr Brown’s workload in recent weeks.

    The former PM did not speak in the Budget debate last month and has voted only a handful of times in the House of Commons since leaving Downing Street.

    His office says he has concentrated on constituency work as well as writing his book.

    heraldscotland.com, 20 Apr 2011

  • Immigration is neither good nor bad

    Immigration is neither good nor bad

    o Zrinka Bralo

    o guardian.co.uk, Friday 15 April 2011 10.17 BST

    David Cameron immigration speech

    David Cameron talked of wanting ‘good immigration’ not ‘mass immigration’ in his speech this week. Photograph: Ben Birchall/PA

    camoronDavid Cameron’s speech on Thursday was a perfect example of everything that is wrong with the debate on immigration. He starts off by identifying “concerns on the doorstep”, “myths have crept in”, pays a bit of lip service to “benefits of immigration” and then launches into “controls”, “cuts” and “abuses”. He, of course, leans into lazy Brits on welfare who do not want to do dirty jobs and his speech is full of anecdotes about immigrants abusing the system.

    These are all very familiar arguments about the phenomenon of migration. But one thing that most politicians miss is that migration is neither good nor bad. It just is. Adding value judgments becomes problematic because when we talk about immigration, we are in fact talking about immigrants. When the prime minister, or others in power, talk about immigration as bad, abusive, criminal and threatening, they pass judgment on every person that migrated to this country. They are undercutting the work of every migrant that has made this country great. Is it a surprise that people are so afraid of the other?

    So if you have a foreign-sounding name (like me), look and sound a bit different (like me), the message is: you will never belong here no matter how hard you try to integrate, because you should not have been here in the first place. While you were cheating your way into our country, our universities, our marriages and taking away our benefits, you were also too hard working, and willing to do our dirty jobs, and making our poor British-born welfare claimants lazy.

    The truth is, like everything that has to do with human beings, migration is complicated. Migration is an experience, and most people once they reach their destination just want to get on with their lives, work, study and raise their families.

    This government has fallen into the same trap as the previous one – it is making policies based on negative perceptions and fears rather than addressing immigration as a neutral social phenomenon that can be as beneficial or as damaging as we make it. Sadly our government has a fantasy that if it can prevent people from coming and staying here, it will solve all our social problems.

    Constantly talking about immigrants as the problem detracts from the real reasons behind the shortage of social housing, unemployment and cuts in public services. As long as we think that immigrants can somehow be stopped before they reach our shores, we will be stuck in this circular debate of numbers, controls and blame.

    The citizens of Britain, including migrants, are caught in a crossfire of mixed messages that does not increase understanding about the issues most important to them. Migrants are left to deal with the backlash that has serious consequences for our treatment and rights and we are left with no voice, regardless of how well we speak English.

    A true debate will be possible when we all accept that immigration is an inescapable global phenomenon. For this to happen, we need visionary leadership to distil and address other serious issues that fuel emotions behind the smokescreen of the tough immigration debate.

    via Immigration is neither good nor bad | Zrinka Bralo | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk.

  • David Cameron says that immigrants should learn English

    David Cameron says that immigrants should learn English

    The prime minister warns in a speech that an unwillingness to integrate has created a disjointed Britain

    David Cameron immigration 007

    Full text of David Cameron’s speech

    Comments (964)

    • Nicholas Watt, chief political correspondent
    • The Guardian, Thursday 14 April 2011
    • Article history
      • David Cameron blames Labour for allowing immigration to become ‘too high’ Link to this videoDavid Cameron will warn that immigrants unable to speak English or unwilling to integrate have created a “kind of discomfort and disjointedness” which has disrupted communities across Britain.

      In his most outspoken speech on immigration since becoming prime minister, Cameron will blame Labour for allowing immigration to become “too high” and for adopting an approach that allowed the British National party to flourish.

      The prime minister will open his speech, in Hampshire, by saying that immigration is a hugely emotive subject that must be handled with sensitivity. But he will then say that Labour presided over the “largest influx” of immigration in British history, which saw 2.2 million more people settling in Britain between 1997 and 2009 than leaving to live abroad.

      Cameron will say this has placed serious pressure on schools, housing and the NHS, and has also created social pressures.

      “Real communities are bound by common experiences forged by friendship and conversation, knitted together by all the rituals of the neighbourhood, from the school run to the chat down the pub. And these bonds can take time,” he will say.

      “So real integration takes time. That’s why, when there have been significant numbers of new people arriving in neighbourhoods, perhaps not able to speak the same language as those living there, on occasions not really wanting or even willing to integrate, that has created a kind of discomfort and disjointedness in some neighbourhoods. This has been the experience for many people in our country – and I believe it is untruthful and unfair not to speak about it and address it.”

      The prime minister will stride into sensitive political territory when he accuses Labour of helping to stoke an uncertain climate over immigration. Cameron believes Labour inflamed the issue by accusing critics of racism while at the same time pandering to the hard right. He will say: “I believe the role of politicians is to cut through the extremes of this debate and approach the subject sensibly and reasonably. The last government, in contrast, actually helped to inflame the debate. On the one hand, there were Labour ministers who closed down discussion, giving the impression that concerns about immigration were somehow racist. On the other, there were ministers hell-bent on burnishing their hardline credentials by talking tough but doing nothing to bring the numbers down.

      “This had damaging consequences in terms of controlling immigration and in terms of public debate. It created the space for extremist parties to flourish, as they could tell people that mainstream politicians weren’t listening to their concerns or doing anything about them.”

      The speech may add to coalition tensions after the Liberal Democrats distanced themselves from the prime minister’s language. Nick Clegg saw the speech which he “noted rather than approved”.

      One Lib Dem source said: “We use different language. But we all work in government to strike a balance to ensure Britain has a system people have confidence in.”

      No 10 insisted that the speech does not mark a return to the era of William Hague as Tory leader when he used the issue as part of a “core votes” strategy. On the eve of the 2001 election, Hague warned that Britain was in danger of turning into a “foreign land” in remarks that technically referred to the EU. Cameron will say that Britain has benefited hugely from immigration. “Go into any hospital and you’ll find people from Uganda, India and Pakistan who are caring for our sick and vulnerable. Go into schools and universities and you’ll find teachers from all over the world, inspiring our young people.”

      But the prime minister will use his speech to challenge those who say:

      • Immigration cannot be controlled because Britain is a member of the EU. Cameron will say that future EU member states will be subject to tougher transitional controls and the UK can address immigration from outside the EU through the cap on non-EU immigration.

      • Immigration can be controlled – but to do so would inflict serious damage on the economy. Cameron will say the government is thinking “incredibly carefully” about which workers should come.

      But the prime minister will make clear that immigration cannot be controlled until Britain’s welfare system is reformed. “Put simply, we will never control immigration properly unless we tackle welfare dependency. That’s another powerful reason why this government is undertaking the biggest shake-up of the welfare system for generations making sure that work will always pay and ending the option of living a life on the dole when a life in work is possible.”

      The prime minister will also condemn forced marriages and those who say they should be tolerated. “There are forced marriages taking place in our country, and overseas as a means of gaining entry to the UK. This is the practice where some young British girls are bullied and threatened into marrying someone they don’t want to.

      “I’ve got no time for those who say this is a culturally relative issue – it is wrong, full stop, and we’ve got to stamp it out. Then there are just the straightforward sham marriages.”In February, the prime minister gave a speech in Munich condemning “state multiculturalism” which had “tolerated these segregated communities behaving in ways that run counter to our values”.

  • Joint article on Libya: The pathway to peace

    Joint article on Libya: The pathway to peace

    Friday 15 April 2011

    number10logo

    Prime Minister David Cameron, President Barack Obama and President Nicolas Sarkozy have written a joint article on Libya underlining their determination that Qadhafi must “go and go for good”.

     

    Read the article

    Together with our NATO allies and coalition partners, the United States, France and Britain have been united at the UN Security Council, as well as the following Paris Conference, in building a broad-based coalition to respond to  the crisis in Libya. We are equally united on what needs to happen in order to end it.

    Even as we continue military operations today to protect civilians in Libya, we are determined to look to the future. We are convinced that better times lie ahead for the people of Libya, and a pathway can be forged to achieve just that.

    We must never forget the reasons why the international community was obliged to act in the first place. As Libya descended into chaos with Colonel Qadhafi attacking his own people, the Arab League called for action. The Libyan opposition called for help. And the people of Libya looked to the world in their hour of need. In an historic Resolution, the United Nations Security Council authorised all necessary measures to protect the people of Libya from the attacks upon them.  By responding immediately, our countries  halted the advance of Qadhafi’s forces. The bloodbath that he had promised to inflict upon the citizens of the besieged city of Benghazi has been prevented.

    Tens of thousands of lives have been protected.  But the people of Libya are suffering terrible horrors at Qadhafi’s hands each and every day. His rockets and his shells rained down on defenceless civilians in Ajdabiya. The city of Misrata is enduring a mediaeval siege, as Qadhafi tries to strangle its population into submission.   The evidence of disappearances and abuses grows daily.

    Our duty and our mandate under UN Security Council Resolution 1973 is to protect civilians, and we are doing that. It is not to remove Qadhafi by force.  But it is impossible to imagine a future for Libya with Qadhafi in power.  The International Criminal Court is rightly investigating the crimes committed against civilians and the grievous violations of international law.  It is unthinkable that someone who has tried to massacre his own people can play a part in their future government. The brave citizens of those towns that have held out against forces that have been mercilessly targeting them would face a fearful vengeance if the world accepted such an arrangement.  It would be an unconscionable betrayal.

    Furthermore, it would condemn Libya to being not only a pariah state, but a failed state too.  Qadhafi has promised to carry out terrorist attacks against civilian ships and airliners.  And because he has lost the consent of his people any deal that leaves him in power would lead to further chaos and lawlessness.  We know from bitter experience what that would mean.  Neither Europe, the region, or the world can afford a new safe haven for extremists.

    There is a pathway to peace that promises new hope for the people of Libya.  A future without Qadhafi that preserves Libya’s integrity and sovereignty, and restores her economy and the prosperity and security of her people.  This needs to begin with a genuine end to violence, marked by deeds not words.  The regime has to pull back from the cities it is besieging, including Ajdabiya, Misrata and Zintan, and their forces return to their barracks. However, so long as Qadhafi is in power, NATO and its coalition partners must maintain their operations so that civilians remain protected and the pressure on the regime builds.  Then a genuine transition from dictatorship to an inclusive constitutional process can really begin, led by a new generation of leaders.  In order for that transition to succeed, Colonel Qadhafi must go and go for good.  At that point, the United Nations and its members should help the Libyan people as they rebuild where Qadhafi has destroyed – to repair homes and hospitals, to restore basic utilities, and to assist Libyans as they develop the institutions to underpin a prosperous and open society.

    This vision for the future of Libya has the support of a broad coalition of countries, including many from the Arab world.  These countries came together in London on 29 March and founded a Contact Group which met this week in Doha to support a solution to the crisis that respects the will of the Libyan people.

    Today, NATO and its coalition partners are acting in the name of the United Nations with an unprecedented international legal mandate.  But it will be the people of Libya, not the UN, that choose their new constitution, elect their new leaders, and write the next chapter in their history.

    Britain, France and the United States will not rest until the United Nations Security Council resolutions have been implemented and the Libyan people can choose their own future.

    The Prime Ministers Office

    Number 10

  • Hillary Clinton’s warning to Britain over cuts in defence budget

    Hillary Clinton’s warning to Britain over cuts in defence budget

    Barack Obama’s government has delivered a stark public warning against major cuts in the British defence budget, suggesting that they would undermine Nato and strain the Special Relationship.

    By James Kirkup, Political Correspondent

    HillaryClintonWarnsBritain
    Hillary Clinton: 'I think we do have to have an alliance where there is a commitment to the common defence' Photo: AFP/GETTY

    Hillary Clinton, the US secretary of state, and Robert Gates, the secretary of defence, both said they were worried about deep reductions in Britain’s Armed Forces and the consequences for international security.

    The unusual public intervention came as talks on the defence budget went down to the wire, with defence chiefs making 11th-hour personal appeals to David Cameron against cuts last night.

    The Daily Telegraph disclosed last month that US officials were privately concerned that British defence spending was about to fall below 2 per cent of gross domestic product, the minimum standard expected of Nato members. Mrs Clinton and Mr Gates, America’s two most senior figures on international relations and security, made those fears public in separate remarks.

    In a BBC interview to be broadcast today, Mrs Clinton was asked whether defence cuts being made in Europe, and specifically in Britain, worried the US administration.

    She replied: “It does. The reason it does is because I think we do have to have an alliance where there is a commitment to the common defence.“

    Nato has been the most successful alliance for defensive purposes in the history of the world, I guess, but it has to be maintained. Now each country has to be able to make its appropriate contributions.”

    Mr Gates attended a meeting of Nato defence ministers in Brussels yesterday, where he delivered his own warning. “My worry is that the more our allies cut their capabilities, the more people will look to the US to cover whatever gaps are created,” he told reporters on his flight to Belgium. “At a time when we are facing stringencies of our own, that’s a concern for me.”

    Later, he told the Nato meeting: “As nations deal with their economic problems, we must guard against the hollowing out of alliance military capability by spending reductions that cut too far into muscle.”

    The American intervention will increase tensions within Whitehall over the scale of the defence cuts to be announced next week.

    Britain is one of a handful of European Nato members that meets the 2 per cent standard. Officials believe that defence spending could fall as low as 1.7 per cent of GDP.

    George Osborne, the Chancellor, is pressing for a 10 per cent cut in the defence budget, which Dr Liam Fox, the Defence Secretary, is resisting fiercely. Sources said the two sides were discussing a “midpoint” compromise of around 6 per cent. That would represent a political victory for Dr Fox but would still leave the Services facing painful losses.

    The Royal Navy could lose its amphibious landing capability, meaning Britain would be unable to mount another campaign like that in the Falklands. The future of Harrier and Tornado jets also hangs in the balance. Navy insiders said cutting the Harriers would mean that Britain’s first new aircraft carrier would enter service in 2016 with no British aircraft to fly from it.

    The heads of the Navy, Army and RAF went to No 10 last night for private meetings with the Prime Minister to warn of the “serious consequences” of the Treasury plan.

    “The PM should be aware that the cuts the Treasury is looking for are ridiculous,” said a senior military source. William Hague, the Foreign Secretary, tried to play down US fears, insisting: “We will remain a very serious country in defence matters.”

    The National Audit Office today will disclose that the “black hole” in the order book for defence equipment grew by £3.3 billion in Labour’s final year in office. The decision to delay construction work on the new carriers will add £650 million to their final cost, taking the eventual bill to £5.9  billion, the watchdog will say.

    A £2.7 billion increase in the cost of Typhoon jets was caused by a decision to buy 16 additional aircraft, in order to meet international obligations to Germany, Italy and Spain.

    , 14 Oct 2010

  • End the hypocrisy and talk Turkey

    End the hypocrisy and talk Turkey

    By Gideon Rachman

    ErdoganAtCastle

    You can gauge the importance of Turkey to the western world by the fact that both Barack Obama and David Cameron gave speeches to the Turkish parliament in Ankara within months of taking office.

    The west cares about Turkey because it is a hinge state between east and west and a rare example of a majority Muslim state that is also a secular democracy. Turkey is a neighbour of both Russia and Iran, and is also a member of Nato. It has a rapidly growing and dynamic economy. And yet these days Turkey is also increasingly a source of anxiety to the west.

    The country voted against new UN sanctions on Iran and has a dangerously antagonistic relationship with Israel. But it is Turkey’s faltering effort to join the European Union that has come to symbolise the country’s uncertain relationship with the west.

    “Talking Turkey” is meant to mean speaking frankly and getting to the heart of the matter. But, in the European Union, “talking Turkey” has become a synonym for double-talk and evasiveness.

    Since 2005, the EU and Turkey have been negotiating a treaty that is meant to get Turkey into the EU – a prospect that was first dangled in front of the Turks in 1963. But Angela Merkel, the chancellor of Germany, and President Nicolas Sarkozy of France, have made it clear that they oppose Turkish membership. The Turkish government says it still wants to “join Europe”, yet its foreign policy betrays understandable impatience.

    So perhaps it is time really to “talk Turkey” – and to be frank. It would indeed be a wonderful thing if Turkey were to join the EU. But if that is to happen, Turkish membership has to be agreed on a new basis. It cannot involve total free movement of people between Turkey and the rest of the EU.

    At present, citizens of all the current 27 members of the EU enjoy visa-free travel around the union – and can move to any other country to work. There are transition arrangements for recent members such as Bulgaria and Romania, which mean that complete free movement of people will not kick in until they have been in the club for seven years. But the rules are clear. Eventually, all citizens of the EU have to enjoy equal rights.

    It is those rules that will have to change if Turkish accession to the EU is ever to become a reality. Creating special rules for the Turks would be denounced as unfair, and even racist. But, as long as Turkish membership raises the prospect of mass emigration to the rest of the EU, it will be impossible to sell it to western European voters.

    This stark fact has been pretty clear since the enlargement of the EU to central Europe triggered large-scale migration westwards. The British government infamously suggested that about 13,000 Poles would move to Britain to work after Poland joined the union. The real number was well over half a million. The French government is currently controversially deporting gypsies who have moved to France, following Romanian accession to the EU. The surge in the vote for the radical, anti-immigration right in the recent Dutch elections demonstrated that mass migration, particularly from Muslim countries such as Turkey, is unpopular enough to transform domestic politics in some western European countries.

    In the face of all this evidence, European politicians would simply be irresponsible to press ahead with negotiations to bring Turkey into the European Union without addressing the issue of immigration. In the long run, they will not do it. In the short run, they take refuge in double-talk and hypocrisy.

    On his recent trip to Ankara, Mr Cameron carefully positioned himself as a champion of Turkish membership of the EU, claiming that he was “angry” that Turkey was being so badly treated. The very next day, Mr Cameron re-iterated his determination that the number of immigrants coming into Britain should be sharply reduced. Logically, he cannot have it both ways.

    Western European leaders would doubtless argue that now is not the time to deal with these contradictions and hypocrisies. Even on the best-case scenario, Turkish membership is still many years off. The difficult issues can be dealt with later.

    But that is far too complacent. The fact is that Turkey is an important country whose relations with the west are deteriorating fast.

    It would be a gamble to try to revive the Turkish-EU conversation by finally facing up to the question of immigration. The Turks might walk away in a huff. But even without complete free movement of people, Turkey would still have a great deal to gain from joining the EU.

    As the second most populous nation in the union – and perhaps soon the largest – it would have a huge weight in the framing of European law, and a big delegation at the European Parliament. Turkey would also get the financial and structural aid that the EU lavishes on poorer, new members. It would have unfettered access to the European single market, a big say in the framing of EU foreign policy and the legal and diplomatic protections that come with EU membership. Under the new deal Turkish citizens would not get the automatic right to work anywhere in the EU; but they could expect travel to become significantly easier.

    Membership of the EU, without complete free movement of people, is a deal Turkey might choose to reject or accept. But, at least it is an offer that could be made in good faith.

    gideon.rachman@ft.com

    , August 23 2010