Some thoughts on Europe, migration and economics.

Unless there is economic parity across a 'European State', ( or any state ) there will be a population movement from areas of the lowest economic benefit to those of the highest. That is a global, economic occurrence. Within the EU, the free movement of population between states is one of the fundamental rights. This free movement will lead to increasing pressure on the services, infrastructure and economies of those countries that are seen to be in the higher economic group. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_in_Europe_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita
This, in turn, will lead to a decrease in the standard of living in these areas unless there is a major investment in the infrastructure which has not been happening on a large enough scale since the economic downturn in 2007. Economic migrants following these routes, are less likely to bring with them savings, pensions, higher skill sets, qualifications or experience, all of which would benefit the economies to which they move. http://knoema.com/atlas/maps/GDP-per-capita

Do we therefore have to accept that certain areas will have to take a decline of standard of living as part of a European experiment or a global market? Could the refusal to accept that decline be partly responsible for the rise of anti-Europe, anti-immigration parties in the UK and the EU elections of 2014? After all, it is only by pulling out of the EU that countries can start to control immigration and access to services without breaking EU rules. The UK has not even had a referendum or vote on EU rules since the 1970's.

At the next level up, a global economic model will also lead to such changes. Are we seeing the beginning of a mass movement of population and wealth on a global scale? If so, there are billions of people worldwide that fall well below the average GDP per capita. Do they have the right to move freely to another country or state? Is uncontrolled immigration sustainable within individual states? Discuss.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Asian_countries_by_GDP_per_capita
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_African_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita

There be dragons! ...Lots.

The population of China in 2014 is a staggering 1.355BILLION people. Just to put that in to context, that is more than the populations of the UK (63.7million), USA (319.5million), Russia (136.7million), France (66million), Germany (80.9million), Spain (47.7million), Ethiopia (99.94million), Egypt (86.8million) and Brazil (201.1million) COMBINED!!

With a growing population, a thirst for raw materials, unlimited low-wage labour and a massive export market, the Chinese economy is growing at close to 10% year on year. At some point soon they will overtake the USA as the major global economic force.  Add in the emerging Indian economy (1.23BILLION people!) and it is not difficult to see where the bulk of the worlds raw materials, energy needs, carbon emissions, jobs and business opportunities will be focused. Frightening.

Female Bishops to sit in the House of Lords?. How very modern.

The Question should not be 'Why don't we have female bishops sitting in the House of Lords?', we should be asking 'why do we still need unelected bishops there at all?'. In a move that will no doubt be seen by some  as 'modernising', female bishops are to be fast-tracked in to the House of Lords, the upper level of our, so called, 'democracy'.  Of course, that all depends on the church agreeing that female bishops are a good idea in the first place. These unelected officials will then sit, making laws and choosing the direction of our country's politics, as their male counterparts have done for centuries. It is far from modernising, it smacks of a bygone era when religious people ( CofE ) were consulted by a monarch to help guide lawmaking. It is nothing more than a blatant attempt to make the religious appointment of unelected political leaders more acceptable to an increasingly secular society. The whole system is anachronistic, non-democratic and designed to keep religious and hereditary privilege at the highest political station of the land. There has to be a more representative and modern way of doing things. 26 Lords Spiritual. 88 Hereditary Peers. Over 650 nominated Life Peers. A couple of female bishops will make all the difference, I'm sure. Discuss.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Lords
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/10844909/Women-bishops-to-be-fast-tracked-into-House-of-Lords.html

Low Voter Turn out and contempt for politicians? A solution.

Here's an instant solution to the problem of low voter turn-out, disillusioned voters and lack of respect for politicians of all varieties - a problem that effects the UK and many other democratic nations.

Make each party  MANIFESTO legally binding before an election. A manifesto that they pledge to enforce within SIX MONTHS of being voted in. These manifesto pledges will be spread over a number of political areas ( tax, health care, environment, foreign aid etc ) and they would be legally binding. If they fail to follow up on these pledges, it automatically triggers an immediate election and