Don't Bite The Hand That Feeds You

When I worked in a retirement home last year, I got to know a carer who was a lawyer back home in Romania. In Britain, she worked 12-hour days, six days a week, and spent her day off learning English. She did this to support her children at home. Romanians say "Nu mușca mâna care te hrănește" - don't bite the hand that feeds you. As Britain ends freedom of movement between the UK and the EU, we would do well to remember our reliance on the 3.6 million EU migrants in the UK.

Several months ago, the British government announced it would be ending freedom of movement between the UK and the EU and implementing a new points-based immigration system. Under this system, distinctions will be made between "skilled" and "unskilled" workers. Carers aren't considered "skilled" - most care jobs don't even pay enough to reach the immigration income threshold of £25,600 - ironic given the amount of training required to work in care. We recently learned that carers won't even benefit from the new Health and Care Visa designed to help healthcare workers come to the UK. The Home Office says that's because they want to focus on recruiting British-born carers. So let's look at that.

In Britain, 17% of care jobs are filled by foreign workers. Home Secretary Priti Patel claims that these jobs could be filled by the 8.5 million inactive workers in Britain. However, this figure includes students, sick and retired people, meaning there are actually under two million potential workers. Would these two million Brits want to work in care?

Well, what incentivises the carers among the 340,000 Romanians in Britain? In 2017, Romanians abroad sent $4.944 billion home: a big reason that Romanian immigrants come to work in the UK is remittance. The average income in Romania is less than $5,000, compared to the UK's $31,000. Carers in Britain are paid around $22,333. That means that Romanians who work some of the poorest paid jobs in the UK can earn over four times as much as they would earn on an average salary in Romania. Any money they send home is worth significantly more than it is to British-born workers. Minister for Romanians Abroad Natalia-Elena Intotero adds that many workers leave Romania because of "day-to-day material shortages, low incomes, lack of decent employment, stability, poor quality of the political class over time, [and] corruption." The British government cannot possibly replicate that incentive to encourage British-born workers to become carers. Not when they are paid a pittance.

This is a problem. Already, one in 11 positions in care is unfilled. As Vic Rayner explains, by making it harder for EU immigrants to work in Britain, "You also may have to get less choosy about who you employ, and that's a dreadful thought. A lot of our EU staff are highly skilled. They are smart, articulate and speak three or four languages. We don't get that quality of applicants from the UK because of the status the profession has."

So, in the middle of a pandemic, as we have stood and clapped for carers, as the Health Secretary has introduced a new "Carer" badge which allows carers to access the same perks as healthcare workers, we are pushing them away.

As the Romanian expression goes, "cine sapă groapa altuia, cade singur în ea" - those who dig a hole for others, fall in it themselves.

This article was originally published by TheLatest.com

Symbols Rule The World

Confucius said that "symbols rule the world." I'm afraid I have to agree.

The Finnish air force has recently revamped its logo, removing the swastika that has featured on it since 1918. The swastika found its way onto the air force logo thanks to Swedish Count Eric von Rosen, who used the swastika as a personal good luck charm (swastika means “well-being” in Sanskrit). If the Swastika had no Nazi connotations when it was adopted by the Finns in 1918, Eric von Rosen did subsequently become a personal friend of Hitler, something which the Finnish air force is concerned may affect young Finns’ attitudes towards the military. There are also fears that the swastika symbol might antagonize their Russian neighbours, or deter support from Finland’s western allies.

Finland was able to use the swastika symbol for so long, despite the fact that in the West it is now synonymous with Nazism, and has even been banned in Germany, because it is a symbol that dates back thousands of years. A museum in Kiev even shows a small ivory figurine marked with swastikas, dating back 15,000 years. In Asia, it has particular significance in Buddhism, Hinduism and Jaism. Some hope that proof of this long history predating Nazism can revive the swastika as a positive symbol, and take it away from fascists.

However, symbols, like words, change their meaning. The word “egregious”, today defined as outstandingly bad, used to mean remarkably good. In the same way, the Nazis hijacked the swastika, relating it to the so-called Aryan lineage from which they claimed to be descended. Holocaust survivor Freddie Knoller says, “For the Jewish people the swastika is a symbol of fear, of suppression, and of extermination.” It seems therefore to simply be the respectful thing to do to recognize that the swastika is no longer seen a symbol of good luck in the West.

I do not expect the swastika to be wiped from Indian culture, because it is a symbol of great cultural and religious significance. But in the same way, it seems bizarre for the Finns to have defended their usage of a symbol for so long that was effectively gifted to them by a Swedish count.

There is an expression we use a lot in Great Britain, which I have recently learned is a taboo in the US. The expression “call a spade a spade” is completed in England with the phrase “not a gardening tool”. However, this expression is avoided in the US for fear it may be confused as a racial slur. Cultural differences are clearly indicative of what is acceptable to say in each country, just as the swastika will continue to be seen as a symbol of Nazism in the Western world.

The question that we ask ourselves today is whether we should remove existing, non-Nazi swastikas from architecture among other things. It definitely seems improbable that we will be applying new swastika designs in the future. 

I see a parallel in the recent tearing down of statues around the world. In London for example, the statue of former Prime Minister Winston Churchill was graffitied with the words "was a racist." (However, few people spoke out when said Prime Minister appeared on the new design for five-pound notes, or when the British government encouraged President Trump to reinstall a bust of Churchill in the Oval Office. This raises many questions, one of which is of course why it took an international civil rights movement for people to care about whether we celebrate the life of Winston Churchill – but that’s a story for another day.) That statue is decades old, but people took more issue with its existence than with the homage to Churchill in their wallets and in the White House. The statue in London's Parliament Square was vandalized because attacking statues was the watchword — but symbols are not just confined to statues.

Flags are another example of controversial symbols remaining in existence today. Just last month, Mississippi became the last state to remove the Confederate battle emblem from its flag. While for some, the Confederate flag symbolises racism and slavery, defenders of the flag argue that it represents wartime sacrifice and Southern heritage.

Regardless of how we read its symbolism when it was adopted by Mississippi in 1894, the Confederate flag has undeniably been adopted by white supremacists over the years. It was the same flag that was used by supporters of segregation laws, flown by the KKK at lynching parties, and waved by Dylan Roof during a racially motivated mass shooting. So now the new governor or Mississippi is looking to design a new flag, one he says will unite the State. 

All this goes to show how the cultural significance of symbols evolves. In my opinion, their current meaning should be what justifies or condemns their existence in modern society.

This is an extended article, originally published by TheLatest.com

The Infection in European Democracy

As far as dictators go, the leaders of the Eastern Bloc always tried to appear democratic. What most people would consider as one-party rule and centralised power was known in Soviet Russia as “democratic centralism”. Russia and the former Eastern Bloc played the democracy game – article 134 of the 1936 constitution proclaimed elections by “on the basis of universal, direct and equal suffrage by secret ballot”, whether this happened or not.

Even when the USSR invaded Czechoslovakia in 1968, they Russians didn’t remove “progressive” President Dubček from power, as this would delegitimise the regime. Instead, they allowed him to lose credibility all by himself, so that a Russian puppet could then be installed in the country.

When it comes to Central and Eastern Europe today, it is unsurprising that many of these countries are following in this tradition. Many of the countries formerly behind the Iron Curtain never fully managed to democratise. Witold Szabłowski's book "Dancing Bears," tells of how, just as animals who have been kept in captivity return to dancing for an audience after being freed, societies that have become accustomed to tyranny over many years often return to illiberal practices. For example, after the 1989 revolution in Bulgaria, the former leaders of the Communist Party were re-elected under a new name, in free elections. That being said, the mauvais élèves of Europe, and certainly the European Union, are undoubtedly Hungary and Poland. These two countries function as unimaginatively named “illiberal democracies”.

The Polish government has faced backlash over plans to hold Presidential elections on the 20^th of May, in which the current President Andrzej Duda was a candidate. Faced with claims that these elections could not possibly be free and fair, the government suggested that the President remain in power for another two years. The government then attempted to organise elections entirely based upon postal voting, an entirely unconstitutional move. Eventually, the government agreed to postpone the elections until June. The Polish government is simultaneously preparing changes to the justice system which have been repeatedly criticised by the EU. Not to mention Poland’s treatment of LGBT+ rights – not only is marriage prescribed as heterosexual in the Konstytucja, but citizens’ treatment of the LGBT+ community has reached what my Polish friend called a “pogrom”. Meanwhile, Hungarian premier Viktor Orban has gained the right to rule by decree, to detain his critics and reduce party funding. This power only adds to the immense control he already has from his parliamentary supermajority.

However, it’s not just Poland and Hungary becoming more illiberal by the minute. In a recent history lecture, my professor brought up the issue of rights and liberties during lockdown. Whilst my French peers complained about the government curbing their freedoms in the name of public health, my Bulgarian friend commented that her government was taking advantage of the situation to gain emergency powers. Although the Bulgarian President used his one and only veto to limit the most extreme parts of his Prime Minister’s bill, the powers would have allowed police to detain patients who left quarantine early. Meanwhile, Slovaks fear that test and trace plans might give the government uncontrolled access to personal information. In Romania, the state of emergency threatens to curb freedom of speech by allowing the government to shut down websites publishing fake news and exempts public figures from answers journalists’ questions.

Faced with these violations of the rule of law, the EU is caught in a double-bind. The EU relies on the strength of the democracy of its members to remain democratic itself. The Treaty on European Union even states that the EU is founded on respect for democracy and the rule of law. On this basis, the EU has grounds to expel Poland and Hungary from the institution. But it won’t. The European Parliament can pass all the resolutions it likes, but is European leaders have learned one thing from history, it’s to keep your friends close and your enemies closer. In the lead up to World War Two, Germany, Italy and Japan's abandoning of the League of Nations left Britain and France with no way of keeping these aggressive powers in check. What’s more, although the European Parliament is calling for Hungary and Poland to be stripped of their voting rights, such a decision required unanimity in the European Council, which is impossible since the guilty parties have promised to block any motions aimed at each other.

So instead of sanctioning these countries, on the very day Orbán obtained the right to rule by decree, the EU increased funding to held countries respond to the pandemic. Whilst Italy received €2.3 billion, Hungary got €5.6 billion, and Poland €7.4 billion.

My university campus specialises in Central and Eastern Europe. On campus, students sell stickers marked "EUSSR." As time passes, this joke is becoming less and less funny.

This is an extended article, originally published by the Latest.com