It’s been a long couple of weeks for British republicans as the brouhaha continues unabated. The sycophantic, self-serving idol-worship created by #RoyalBaby would put even the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_3AM_Girls">3am girls</a> to shame, and is more reminiscent of the kind of inculcated demagogue adoration that is expected of North Koreans. I prefer Private Eye’s front page: “<a href="http://privateeyenews.tumblr.com/post/56230207454/eye-1345-on-the-way-to-subscribers-and-shops-now">Woman has baby</a>”. What is even stranger is that 200 years after rebelling against the institutionalised class system of unearned hereditary privilege, even <a href="http://abcnews.go.com/International/video/royal-baby-live-19677616">broadcasters in the USA</a> got caught up in the relentlessly mundane “she’s arrived at hospital” and “the hospital is air conditioned” that only 24-hour news can provide. Somebody pass me a <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RencjDGgZB0">royal sick bag</a> quick.
Fortunately, the insidiously monotonous minutia of #RoyalBaby was enough for BBC to issue a <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/complaint/bbcnewsroyalbabycoverage/">complaint report</a> about their coverage (although it seemed to read more like a “we’re sorry you’re offended stupid republicans” than an actual apology). The only solace offered by the nauseating wall-to-wall TV coverage was the appearance of some great tweets, my favourite being “Prince William’s heir is falling out”, or the one which appeared in various different guises describing Kate Middleton joining the labour party.
The tabloid press, however, failed to see the irony in an unemployed couple in their 30s &#8211; the mother never having worked a full-time job in her life &#8211; having the audacity to pop out a sprog at great taxpayer expense to fund their lavish lifestyle. All this press notwithstanding, it seems to me that there is a criminal lack of debate about the merits of monarchical rule in this country. Those who actively want to replace this system of unearned privilege are labelled as outcasts &#8211; weird out-of-touch academic hacks could spend hours debating whether a reformed political system and written constitution would require wholesale democratic change, and if so, whether that would include <a href="http://www.pearshapedcomedy.com/avdealornodeal.html">AV, STV or FPTP</a> voting systems. The fact that the mass media only seems to register an interest in anti-monarchists through its flag-bearing organisation, <a href="http://www.republic.org.uk/What%20we%20want/index.php">Republic</a>, during large-scale royal events means that all anti-monarchists appear opportunistic and sullen. Conversely, the royal PR machine is a formidable behemoth, adept at coming to Prince Philip’s rescue to interpret what he really meant when making any number of his infamous racist/misogynistic gaffes. It would make even “King of Spin” <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thank_You_For_Smoking_(film)">Nick Naylor</a> proud. Try googling “off the cuff racism” and see who comes top.
The recent resurgence in popularity of the royal family has been cleverly orchestrated to coincide with the rise in celebrity culture. Out with the old-fashioned fuddy-duddies and in with the younger, more aesthetically pleasing ones. At a time when faith in politicians, clergy and bankers is at an all-time low, the royal family seem to offer a route of escapism. Cue royal wedding, self-adulation, extravagant jubilee ceremonies at taxpayer expense, then add in a meticulously planned birth involving old-world easels with new-world emails and you have one great recipe for PR success. Brand Windsor has never had it so good.
But let us examine brand Windsor’s myths which are frequently peddled by Clarence House and its avid consumers in its defence:
Myth 1 – The monarchy has no power 
The royal family is not only a successful brand, but a successful political institution which has vetoed or consented to <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/jan/14/secret-papers-royals-veto-bills">39 different bills</a> in parliament. Merely a ceremonial role? Then there is the fact that the high court rejected the publication of Charles&#8217; “<a href="http://www.ctvnews.ca/world/high-court-refuses-to-disclose-particularly-frank-letters-by-prince-charles-1.1359313">particularly frank</a>” letters to ministers which they feared would “forfeit his position of political neutrality”. The Freedom of Information Act does not apply to our betters it seems.
And what about influence? The Queen meets privately with the prime minister every week. Are we to assume to this well-educated woman never offers her opinion? Not only does the monarch have the right to dissolve parliament, but also judges, police and the armed forces have to pledge their allegiance, not to parliament or anyone democratically elected, but to the crown.
Myth 2 – The monarchy unites the country 
Millions of British subjects disagree. In recent years <a href="http://www.republic.org.uk/What%20we%20want/In%20depth/Public%20Opinion/index.php">support for a republic</a> has fluctuated between 20-40 per cent although it now sits at an all-time low after brand Windsor scored its royal wedding/birth/jubilee hat trick. Millions of British subjects believe in egalitarianism and want an end to this undemocratic dynastic system. Not easy against one of the world’s most successful and well-funded PR machines, especially when the government shields them from genuine scrutiny and oversight. Witnessing the Queen “earning” a <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-23065599">5 per cent pay rise</a> at the same time as £11.5 billion worth of government cuts is disuniting in the extreme. 

Myth 3 – The monarchy is good for tourism 
This is the most ludicrous of all arguments when debating the inherent unfairness in a constitutional system. There is no data to support the hypothesis that the royal family consistently brings huge amounts of money to the country. Tourism directly accounts for <a href="http://www.wttc.org/site_media/uploads/downloads/united_kingdom2013.pdf">2.4 per cent GDP</a> in UK, compared to 2.8 per cent in monarchless USA and 3.8 per cent in similarly royal-free France. Royal residences account for less than 1 per cent of total UK tourist revenue. Out of the 20 most visited tourist attractions in UK only one is a royal residence, Windsor Castle in 17thplace, embarrassingly ten places behind Legoland, Windsor.
France receives significantly more visitors to royal residences than the UK does. Far from stopping people visiting, take brand Windsor out of Buckingham Palace and visitors could enjoy the opulent grandeur of all the rooms and courtyards all year round. Are any tourists actually sitting down and having tea with the Queen? Now if she were to <a href="http://matadornetwork.com/trips/icelands-prime-minister-wants-to-make-pancakes-for-you/">make pancakes at home for tourists</a>, like the Icelandic president, then we might be on to something.
But let’s get right to the crux of it here: the monarchy is nothing more than a deeply discriminatory caste system of unearned hereditary privilege. If we accept the monarchy, we are rejecting meritocracy in favour of nepotism.  Shouldn’t all children be able to dream about being head of state? Shouldn’t all children be born equal? I wish baby George and family well but I object to the institutionally-racist class system they are a part of. How can we still accept being subjects and not citizens in the 21st century? Why should one child alone be destined to rule due to the lottery of hereditary privilege as opposed to his own merits and capabilities? Isn’t an acceptance of monarchy a tacit approval of an unjust class-based society and a rejection of egalitarian principles altogether? Surely, every child should be born equal.
<pre>Photo Credit: <a href="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c2/Royal_family_on_the_balcony.JPG/1024px-Royal_family_on_the_balcony.JPG">Wikimedia Commons</a></pre>

1024px-Royal_family_on_the_balcony

The resurgence in popularity of the royal family coincides with the rise in celebrity culture, and several myths continue unchallenged.

The Royal Baby: Not Every Child Is Born Equal

As David Cameron promises an in/out referendum on Europe, it remains to be seen if this is a decision made in the national interests or for parochial party political interests 
&nbsp; 
A lot has changed since Britain joined the European Economic Community (EEC) in 1973. The <a href="http://europa.eu/index_en.htm">European Union</a> (EU), as it has now become, is far from the thriving economic hub it once was. Back then Britain was still coming to terms with having lost its empire and status as a global superpower, seeking solace with its neighbours across The Channel to help bolster its transition to economic superpower.  A mere seven countries (<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G7">G7</a>) accounted for well over half of the world’s economic output and a majority of those members were European. 
Things look a bleaker for the UK in 2013, heading into the fifth year since the ‘Economic Recession’ took hold. Unemployment is high, economic growth is almost as low as faith in our politicians and there is a general malaise and negativity not felt in the country since WW2. Unfortunately things in continental Europe are no better; the failure by its current leaders to resolve the gravest existential and economic crisis in the EU’s 56 year history was not enough to stop another European institution, The Nobel Committee, from lavishing them with back-slapping adulation. Just days after Nazi flags were burnt in the streets of Athens during Angela Merkel’s visit, it was announced, with almost perfect comedy timing, that the <a href="http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/2012/">EU had won the 2012 Nobel Peace Prize</a>. At least it wasn’t the Nobel Prize for Economics. 
However if austerity, unemployment and the drab prospects of the single currency weren’t enough to entice the Brits into a loathing of all things European, then we could always rely on the good ol’ British press. In recent years the EU has become synonymous with <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6481969.stm">straight bananas</a> and Eastern European immigrants, who in oxymoronic terms, manage to pass themselves off as both ‘<a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1362451/100k-Eastern-European-migrants-free-claim-UK-benefits-EU-ruling.html">benefit scroungers</a>’ and those horrible Jonny foreigner types “coming over ‘ere stealing our jobs” &#8211; Those strange continentals with their café culture and moderate alcohol consumption who would say; “sacrebleu, mais oui!” at the prospect of a horse burger for under 12 pence per unit. 
Consequentially this Eurosceptism is reflected in constituents’ views of EU, where Britons consistently poll as the least enthusiastic members. It seems there are many more Europhobes than Europhiles. The single-issue party United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP) has seen an unprecedented rise from the extremities of the political fringe to moving ahead of coalition partners the Liberal democrats in many polls, even coming <a href="http://www.theweek.co.uk/politics/50353/labour-triumph-ukip-claim-be-second-party-north">second to Labour</a> in a pair of by-elections. The conservative vote dropped while the UKIP vote soared. 
In a nod to this rising Eurosceptism, both inside and outside his party, David Cameron gave his now infamous <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newsvideo/uk-politics-video/9820375/David-Camerons-Europe-speech-in-full.html">‘Europe speech’</a> on 23rd January and indicated that the British public will have ‘their say on Europe’ in an IN/OUT referendum of British membership to the European Union. Those in Scotland will certainly see the hilarious irony of Cameron stating that their IN/OUT referendum in 2 years’ time would lead to “<a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/uncertainty-harming-scotlands-economy-6287163.html">uncertainty harming Scotland’s economy and EU membership</a>” only to announce an IN/OUT UK referendum five years down the road. The even more cynical might suggest that this is all a deflection from problems the electorate are facing at home; a failing economy, national debt, the deficit, cuts to public services &amp; education, inflation, property deflation, fuel prices and corporate tax evasion among others, most certainly a  very shrewd move by a weakened PM who has presided over the worst economic performance in over half a century and is facing re-election in 2015. 
The only constituent group less popular than politicians in the country at the moment are European politicians. And for the Conservative party, the only way to alleviate UKIP’s popularity with their promise of a referendum would be to promise one themselves. Therefore, at least in this instance the Conservatives are using UKIP tactics to win back voters lost to them. 
There are however inherent problems with a ‘negotiate-then-validate’ policy, which many in Europe view as a form of blackmail. In spite of the horrendously underreported issue of Britain being at its weakest European influence point in 40 years, Cameron’s gamble is that he can negotiate looser ties with Europe during the tighter integration of the Eurozone economies. Many would like Britain to stay but would not be willing to give up hard-fought regulations on social and labour-market regulation. There is already annoyance by many in Europe who see the EU has having moved decidedly in a free-trading ‘Anglo-Saxon’ direction over the past few years. Germany will probably be willing to give a little, depending on how negotiations go and if they are particularly ill-tempered France may welcome the departure of EU’s most petulant member. It appears that French men are <a href="http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5gMrrTYQ6zZ3DVSdiVexGLbUOBXxw?docId=CNG.2db637d24ebee83fd5492c38258e4caf.191">already in favour</a> of Britain leaving. As Cameron will inevitably find out from the majority of Europe; EU membership is not available á la carte. 
This act of British blackmail was not lost on MEP and former Belgian Prime Minister Guy Verhofstadt either, who denied that Cameron was ‘holding a gun to the heads of the other 26 nations’ instead comparing PM’s negotiating style to a suicide bomber “<a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/guy-verhofstadt/uk-is-sleepwalking-to-the-eu-exit_b_2495939.html?utm_hp_ref=uk">threatening to blow himself up unless he gets his own way</a>”. It also leaves the Labour party in somewhat of a quandary; it was this coalition government that put in place the criteria for which a referendum  on Europe would be triggered after the <a href="http://europa.eu/lisbon_treaty/full_text/index_en.htm">Lisbon Treaty</a>, however this all went out of the window with a combination of Tory backbench rebellion and UKIP’s favourable polling. Europe is not the same gargantuan divisive issue for Labour that it is within the Conservative party. However if Labour don’t similarly sign up to an IN/OUT referendum they’ll be seen as elitist and anti-democratic, not trusting the voters to know what’s best for them. Unfortunately a ‘wait and see’ policy may be sensible diplomacy, but it’s terrible politics and Cameron’s announcement is a real game-changer. 
Fortunately for Europhiles, as has happened in various referenda across the world, the initial enthusiasm for leaving a union soon diminishes when it is no longer a protest vote but instead a stark reality. This is reflected in <a href="http://yougov.co.uk/news/2013/01/21/eu-vote-stay-40-leave-34/">this latest poll by Yougov</a> which shows that for the first time during this parliament more people would vote to stay in the EU than leave. It is of course much too early to call ‘what would happen if’ a downtrodden nation still writhing in a ‘lost decade’ of poor economic conditions in 2017 could very well use a referendum to slap its government (then suffering an inevitable mid-term slump) to expel the nation from the EU. And of course there is the small matter of a Scotland Independence vote beforehand with both referenda having the potential to affect the other. What we can be sure of, is that in the next few weeks, months and years we’re going to hear a lot of arguments both in favour and against UK leaving the EU and its anyone’s guess whether Britons say oui or non. 
&nbsp;
<pre>Image from: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/conservative/9595656/David-Cameron-referendum-on-EU-is-the-cleanest-neatest-simplest-way.html</pre>

Europe &#8211; To Be or Not To Be: That Is the Question

Barely a week goes by without immigration being on the front page of one newspaper or another. In little over a week we have seen Ed Miliband and David Cameron <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b006nldz">slog it out</a> over who is the toughest on immigration. Home Secretary Theresa May sent the <a href="http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/politics/3925906/Home-Sec-Theresa-May-lost-control-on-borders.html">tabloids into overload</a> when she admitted she didn’t know the number of illegal immigrants who had entered the country this summer. There was also an <a href="http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/19658">e-petition</a> calling for tighter immigration, which reached 100,000 signatories in just a few days and caused the resignation of UK border chief Brodie Clark, who is now suing the government for <a href="http://www.deferolaw.com/profiles/blogs/mr-brodie-clark-to-claim-constructive-dismissal">‘constructive dismissal’.</a> 
I want to talk about the e-petition. There are so many holes in the concept of a petition that calls for the population not to reach 70 million that it’s hard to know where to begin. Firstly, and most importantly, the petition is based on a false premise. It says that according to official figures the population is predicted to reach 70 million by 2029. However the <a href="http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/index.html">Office for National Statistics</a> does not make predictions for the future; it makes projections based on current trends. Why is this small nuanced difference important? Well, because previous population predictions, using then current trends, have proved wildly inaccurate. For example, in 1965 the <a href="http://www.gad.gov.uk/Documents/Demography/Population%20Trends/Population_Trends_128.pdf">official projection</a> was that the UK would possess a population of 75 million by 2000 when it in fact it was just under 60 million, a not-so-small difference. 
Daily Mail readers were spitting out their cornflakes up and down the country back in August when they read the headline <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2029948/575-000-come-UK-year-despite-Government-pledge-curb-immigration-cash-strapped-Britons-abandon-dreams-retirement-abroad.html">“Immigration up 20 %”,</a> with Sky News adopting a similar line. However on <a href="http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/migration1/migration-statistics-quarterly-report/august-2011/index.html">closer inspection</a> it becomes apparent that this statistic was patently wrong. In 2010, the number of immigrants coming to the UK was 575,000 and in 2009 it was 567,000 – a measly 1.4 per cent rise which would barely make page 23 of the Daily Express. But why let the truth get in the way of a good headline? And where does this mythical 20 per cent figure come from? As the graph from the ONS illustrates, the level of immigration has been relatively stable since 2004. It was net migration (the number of immigrants minus emigrants) that increased by 20 per cent in 2010. 
This is a hugely important difference as the government has direct control over the number of people entering the country but little influence over the number of people leaving. The fact of the matter is, the rise in net migration is more to do with a fall in emigration, not a rise in immigration. So, really, if David Cameron and the coalition want to lower net migration then they should probably try and encourage more people to leave the country (although with the current economic conditions and austerity measures you’d be forgiven for thinking that that was exactly what they are trying to do!). 
This negative press attention contributes to a growing resentment towards immigration. We often read that immigrants are a drain on our resources – ironically, accused of being lazy benefit scroungers and, simultaneously, “coming over here, taking our jobs”. From an economist’s perspective it’s worth pointing out that there is no finite number of jobs in our economy and our economic system is fluid, governed by the laws of supply and demand. One job for an immigrant does not equal one less job for a Briton. That particular migrant is going to pump his or her wages into the economy every month whether to buy food, clothes, pay for dentists or any number of things that people spend money on. A <a href="http://www.cream-migration.org/publ_uploads/CDP_18_09.pdf">research piece</a> by UCL shows that newcomers from Eastern Europe paid 37 per cent more taxes than they received from public services, compared to the average Briton who paid in 20 per cent less than they received. To put it into simpler terms, immigrants are not a drain on the welfare state – they are helping to pay for it. Not to mention all the migrants who help provide public services be they doctors, nurses, cleaners or other service provider. In a country with such a rapidly ageing population like Britain, we need to grow our workforce to help pay for those who have retired and are living increasingly longer lives. If we stop letting immigrants in, then who is going to make up the numbers? 
The UK is undoubtedly one of the richest countries in the world. With every additional worker we will become richer still. If the prediction of 70 million is realised we may well surpass Germany as the largest economy in Europe. Yes, there are certain infrastructure issues with a growing population &#8211; more houses have to be built, more schools, hospitals, and so on &#8211; but with an increase in working population, there is also an increase in tax revenue to help pay for it. That is the intrinsic nature of development. Surely, we’d prefer building more schools to meet local needs, rather than closing down current ones because there are not enough children being born. 
Instead of focusing on an arbitrary population figure, or legislating against  factors that really can’t be controlled without strict birth planning policies, a much more constructive debate would be about what criteria we should set for those entering the country. 
There are many reasons why I will not sign the <a href="http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/19658">No to 70 Million</a> e-petition. Chiefly because I believe that we’re in a much better position as a country, economy and society with immigration than we would be without it. I don’t know what Britain, as a country, would be like with no outside influence and hopefully, I’ll never find out.
<pre>Photo Credits: Andy Rain/EPA</pre>

Martin Near