Issue 9 by Incite

NEWS | TITLE

T S E T O R SP T N E D TU S Y E R SUR TRUMP m Ban” usli M “ s ’ p m all t Tru n s e n d o i i t s a e r r t P mons e d d e t i n our o n e has inc v e orld w Incite e . h s t u r p m ove rey ca r u S n larger w e h t d ver y o n it, a o t g n o some l k o o t d went a st, an e t o r p n Londo . photos..

INCITE | ISSUE 9

CONTENTS

Contents 4

Surrey Decides Promo

The Incite View: NSS Boycott

RECOMMENDED ARTICLES

Recommended Articles The best articles from the past month - in one place.

Photo: Getty

Bargaining with Silicon Valley “The defining feature of the gig economy isn’t really that workers accept jobs through an app on their phone: it’s that they work with no benefits, no job security, and no unions. And it’s this model of the future, in which workers are fully fungible, that is being embraced not only by tech acolytes, but also by traditional employers and the broader right. Under the guise of inevitability, a host of tech, business, and anti-union groups appear eager to use the gig economy as a Trojan horse for changes that affect far more workers: privatizing what remains of the social safety net, “modernizing” (read: gutting) key labour laws, and further hobbling unions.” - Rebecca Burns, Dissent Magazine

Image: John Christie

John Berger (1926 - 2017) “Berger’s vision was explosive, not simply for the generation of art students who occupied their colleges in Britain in 1968, but for those of us who were actively in search of a philosophy of liberation, a politics that was both anticapitalist and also held the promise of a more human, more creative future.What we had until then was a Stalinist vision of art, in which art simply “reflected” (i.e. mirrored) reality or enacted ideological formulas. For Berger, art was subversive, questioning — it made the spectator explore how they made sense of the world, why they saw some things and were blind to others. The implication was always that reality could be seen differently, and altered by our intervention. And that was revolutionary, because, as he put it, “the relations between what we see and what we know is never settled.” - Mike Gonzales, Jacobin Magazine

Image: Reuters/ Lucas Jackson

Fake news is thriving – but history shows it’s nothing new

“Fake news abounded in Orwell’s time just as it did as far back as you wish to look. It still thrives today. We are forever on the cusp of a ‘post-truth’ society, just as every generation is supposedly more self-centred/miserable/ dishonest etc., than the previous one. Treating the internet age with caution is probably wise... But don’t fall for the fashionable conceit that we are living in an unprecedented age of dishonesty.” - James Bloodworth, International Business Times INCITE | ISSUE 9

Illustration: Laurene Boglio

There is no secret motive: Trump is as shambolic and as racist as he seems

The shock-and-awe style of [Trump’s] orders has spurred a cottage industry in purported ‘explainers’ of Team Trump’s real strategy. Circulated breathlessly on Twitter and Facebook, these pieces claim to discern a hidden motive behind the volley of executive orders, as a ‘headfake’ or a ‘trial balloon for a coup’. [...] But in politics, one of the most serious errors is to fail to see what’s right in front of you. Throughout his rise and since the inauguration, the worst instinct has been to treat Trump as if he’s a conventional politician merely wearing the mask of a grotesque; as if he’s some rubber horror, maybe frightening in the half-light but ridiculous in the light of day. But the mask is the face: Trump really does want to ban Muslims from coming to the country; he really does want to build a wall; he really does want to fire or sideline those elements of the state that get in his way; he really does have the political instincts of a dictator in a way largely unprecedented in U.S. politics.” - James Butler, HUCK Magazine

Using footballers’ wages as an example of excess is patronising and lazy

Photo: LNP

“What is it that they so detest about top-flight football, with its remorseless habit of creating working-class millionaires? And so many black workingclass millionaires, at that. I mean, really – of all the possible professions to pick, football would be one of my last ones, not least because it entertains so many people (however much they moan about it). It’s odd how you never hear politicians banging on about movie actors getting paid too much. Perhaps it’s because the working-class actor is a more endangered species than it was even decades ago, so that branch of entertainment is not regarded as such a pressingly uppity problem.” - Marina Hyde, The Guardian

How James O’Brien became the conscience of liberal Britain

INCITE | ISSUE 9

Photo: New Statesman

“Brexit was the turning point for O’Brien, who prefers the label “liberal” to “left-wing”. It made him necessary. For liberals, it was a colossal psychological trauma that was later compounded by Donald Trump’s election victory, so there was an opening in 2016 for someone who could express this angst without being paralysed by despair or tongue-tied by rage. O’Brien’s long, eloquent monologues strike a perfect balance between humour, knowledge, emotion, exacting logic, moral indignation, and exasperated incredulity. Nobody else can articulate the values and anxieties of this shellshocked sector... with such power and consistency.” - Dorian Lynskey, New Statesman

FEATURE | TITLE

FEATURE

STRUGGLING IN THE

L A R E B I L O NE UNIVERSI

INCITE | ISSUE 9

Since the 1980s, neoliberalism has changed the university for the worse â&#x20AC;&#x201C; and students and academics have been the victims. Under increasing financial and academic pressures, both groups have suffered rising mental health problems and higher education has become a commodity that secures employment, rather than a value in itself. Deputy Editor Jake Roberts traces the origins and effects of these developments and asks: what can we do about it? Photo: University of Surrey

INCITE | ISSUE 9

FEATURE | THE NEOLIBERAL UNIVERSITY

Image: Cardiff University

n the wake of exam season, one wonders what exactly the point of the whole exercise was. At best, the experience feels meaningless and frustrating, if manageable. At worst, it can be anxietyinducing and sleep-depriving, making us question our own abilities and feel wholly out of control. And yet, despite this, it all feels natural at this point. We have been examined in education for years now; this is how it is. Perhaps it is just us, too, inside our minds. As the late cultural theorist Mark Fisher wrote, who devastatingly took his own life last month, stress in our society has been ‘privatised’1. In tracing the roots of our unhappiness, instead of looking outward to deteriorating social and political conditions, we are increasingly inclined to look inward, towards brain chemistry or personal history. The deteriorating conditions we operate under, which may include precarious work, constant monitoring (via workplace appraisals, target setting, or university examinations) are deemed unfortunate yet ‘natural’, depoliticised. Fisher’s analysis is no doubt pertinent in reference to the university. Our very own Students’ Union has not agitated for less assessments or a less intensive exam season, but rather released a saccharine Facebook video entitled ‘You Can Do It Surrey!’, aiming to motivate students to put themselves through “late nights and early mornings” with the promise that it “will definitely be worth it”. Simultaneously, it has offered events to help exam stress such as “Therapy Dog Session” and “Happiness Café”. The message is clear – exams are natural, unavoidable and worth it. Either distract yourself from them or look inwards, in futility. Structural change is unimaginable. But contra the Students’ Union, we should resist such narratives, and connect our distresses to the broader structures of neoliberalism. Indeed, the pressure, stress and general malaise of exam season functions as a highly visual spectacle of how neoliberalism, mediated by the institution of the university, is oppressing students. For what fuels such anxiety in exam season is the fear of failure, precisely constituted by a fear of becoming less ‘employable’. During exam season, our relationship to the labour market as students is even more

exposed than usual. Most (but not all) students come to university to help with their future careers in some way; the expectation is that, devoid of much other choice, getting a degree will secure a certain level of income, security and perhaps ‘success’. Exam season pushes this logic to the limit, as exams are the very conditionalities we need to meet in order to pass our degree, and thus achieve that certain level of income, security and ‘success’. Exams thus come to function as unnaturally distilled and measurable indicators of our future income, security and status. With such distillation and measurability comes heightened anxiety for all, to varying degrees. A lot comes to depend on very little. I should note that I am not arguing for the removal of assessment in education. Assessment, reducing it to the very verb to assess, is an integral part of social life. We assess when we debate with a friend, relative or coworker – we judge their arguments against what we know of the subject under discussion, retort accordingly, and then they repeat the same process themselves. Knowledge is exchanged; education takes place. Hence, what I am arguing instead is that the particular form of assessment we are exposed to as students operates under a neoliberal framework that, through commodification and grading, serves to create unnecessary stress and divisions, as well as undermine the value of education as an end in itself. For assessments do not have to come in the form of time-restricted exams in silent teaching rooms that take place in an intense two-week period. Nor

“Education need not be given a ‘score’ that inevitably becomes a symbol for our value, understood in terms of ‘employability’ or market viability.” do they need to be numerically reduced to certain grades that hierarchically rank students and implicitly ascribe higher scoring students higher value. Rather, one can imagine education as radically egalitarian and cooperative – we may write essays, and then discuss them with our tutors, without the need for arbitrary grading, ranking or disciplining. Students of the natural sciences may be numerically tested, but not have their degree depend upon passing, nor be tested in the form of hours-long examinations that occur twice a year. Education need not be given a ‘score’ that inevitably becomes a symbol for our value, understood in terms of ‘employability’ or market viability. The focus of this essay is not, however, solely on assessments. Rather, they serve as a portal into a wider topic of discussion: the neoliberal university. If exam season is noticeably distressing in part because of neoliberal logic, what other parts of university life in 2017 are too, perhaps less noticeably? How else is market logic corrupting education? And more broadly, what purpose have universities come to serve under neoliberalism? Assessing these questions, and the interplay between INCITE | ISSUE 9

A peaceful protest at the University of Surrey in the 1970s. // Image: Pinterest

them, requires us first to trace the history of the institution of the university and neoliberalism. The Road to the Neoliberal University Universities have always served certain purposes in society, with these purposes shifting as other factors in society, such as class relations or the dominant modes of production, have shifted. This point may seem abstract, or irrelevant, but it is vital. It reveals how the university has always been situated within a particular social, political and economic context which has shaped its functions. Understanding the university, therefore, requires contextual understanding. This can be appreciated historically. Regarding the UK, before the nineteenth century, universities primarily served as important sites for the socialisation of elites from the ruling classes, immersing them in a certain kind of knowledge and ‘high culture’. For example, late medieval and early modern universities such as Oxford and Cambridge served to educate members of the ruling classes for high positions in the church, the law and government. Thus, as Michael Rustin notes, “their primary function was more to provide a cultural and social formation for elites than to produce useful knowledge”2. This function was enlarged with the onset of industrialisation in the early 1800s, when the rising bourgeoisie of industrial manufacturers contributed to the formation of great city universities INCITE | ISSUE 9

such as Leeds and Sheffield which specialised in engineering and science, and the expanding bureaucratic arm of government led to modernisations in university curricula3. The influence of dominant modes of production and the market on the university become clearer at this stage – as mass capitalist industrial production spread, so did the imperative for technical university education in subjects such as engineering, for example. The context of the aftermath of World War Two saw the next big institutional changes of the university. With the rise of welfare states and new class compromises across Europe, the university came to expand into a ‘mass institution’, emblematic of enhanced opportunities and shared entitlements. Universities no longer came to be seen as primarily the home of the ruling class but became open to all those with the adequate academic qualification, reflecting new class settlements. In the UK this was expressed via the 1963 Robbins Report, whose reforms began a gradual increase in young people attending university; before then the rates had been stuck at 4-5% - now nearly 50% of the 18+ age group attend university. This period saw the university, at least within the UK, at perhaps its most decommodified and egalitarian – grants were issued to all students, and the 1960s-1980s oversaw the birth of exciting, radical new academic disciplines such as sociology and cultural studies. This particular institutional formation, however, soon began to break down. Although more democratic and

egalitarian than previous formations, it was also, unsurprisingly, far more expensive. Removing tuition fees and paying for increasing numbers of young people to study at university, in the name of equal opportunities, was not – and never will be – cheap. Consequently, as the post-war class settlement lost legitimacy amidst the worldwide economic troubles of the 1970s, the university began to be gradually integrated into the emerging dominant political and economic order – neoliberalism. One may then fairly question at this point: what exactly is neoliberalism? There is no concrete definition, but the term generally describes a set of political and economic ideas and policies that emerged internationally (led by states such as the UK, the US and Chile) from the 1980s onwards, influenced by classical liberal economics. Policies related to privatisation, reduced public spending and free trade are all classic examples of neoliberalism in action, all tied together by an unconditional veneration of the market and ethics of individualism and individual choice. A central component of neoliberalism is market creation, in all areas of life. The state’s role, then, thus becomes to create, uphold and ‘regulate’ such markets, rather than provide services. Early UK examples of market creation were in the energy and telecommunications sector under Thatcher, where state owned enterprises were sold off in order to build a market of private providers, following the logic that entrepreneurial competition would drive down prices, increase efficiency and offer consumers more choice. In the UK, neoliberal market-making has gradually ‘spilled over’ into more and more sectors – the Major government oversaw the privatisation of the railways in a crooked attempt to create a transport provider market, reforms under the New Labour and Coalition governments created internal markets inside the NHS, and – most related to this piece – the Blair and Cameron years were instrumental in the creation of markets within the education sector. The Neoliberal University Finally, then, we arrive at the concept of the neoliberal university, the current

FEATURE | THE NEOLIBERAL UNIVERSITY institutional formation of the university under neoliberalism. What does the neoliberal university look like, and what environment does it operate in? As with other historical formations, the answers to these questions can be found by looking at contemporary class relations and dominant modes of production. As multinational companies have come to dominate the sphere of production in evermore areas of the economy, the neoliberal university has come to be an institution that places more emphasis on ‘profitable’ subjects over less profitable, even so-called ‘mickey mouse’ ones. Indeed, the fastest growing subjects by student numbers are universally from the natural sciences (biological sciences, veterinary sciences and mathematics in particular) while the slowest growing or even shrinking subjects tend to be related to history, philosophy and languages4. The reasons for this general trend are twofold. First, in the UK, the government has actively discouraged additional funding for subjects deemed antithetical to ‘enterprise culture’, such as the humanities and social sciences. The Browne Report of 2010 (which raised tuition fees to £9000 – yes, that one), for example, completely removed the teaching grant for arts, humanities and social science subjects, a grant that remains in place for STEM subjects5. Secondly, the logic of neoliberalism makes it more rational for many applicants to choose more ‘scientific’ or ‘proper’ subjects, because the financial burden of tuition fee debt increases the incentive to seek substantial financial return upon graduation. Neoliberalism turns academic degrees into financial investments, and one can hardly blame growing numbers of students for seeking some kind of return on it, however sorry that situation may be. Thus, through this double bind, the neoliberal university represses ‘subversive’ or ‘less profitable’ academic disciplines while encouraging the growth of subjects deemed useful to big business. Another key feature of the neoliberal university is how it operates within an artificial and manufactured higher education market. This is most pronounced in countries such as the US, but successive governments in the UK have made creeping reforms (amidst huge resistance) that are gradually

Universities and Science Minister Jo Johnson. // Image: The Telegraph

constructing a ‘free market’ of higher education. The logic behind these reforms is based upon an erosion of the traditional class settlement in the UK, at least with regards to higher education. No longer is higher education understood in terms of class compromise, where the higher classes primarily fund a higher education system free and open to all; rather, class is factored out of the equation almost completely. Society is instead understood as a collection of atomised individual consumers, and consequently higher education becomes not a universal right based upon dominant notions of equality of opportunity, but a commodity to be purchased. All this was made ever more clear when the responsibility for universities moved from the Department of Education to the Department of Business, Industry and Skills in 20096. Upon these underlying assumptions, markets are being built. The latest attempt at this is the government’s Higher Education and Research Bill, which is slowly making its way through Parliament against various currents of opposition. The 2016 White Paper on higher education preceding the Bill makes it very clear that the government ultimately seeks to create a differentiated, deregulated and competitive market in higher education, and outlines policy proposals to reach this goal7. For example, the White Paper proposes streamlining bureaucratic structures to make it easier for new higher education providers to enter the ‘market’, and

provides provisions for so-called ‘market exit’, where underperforming universities cease to exist. Additionally, the Paper allows better performing universities (as so judged under the controversial Teaching Excellence Framework) to charge slightly higher fees than lesser ones from the 2018-19 year onwards. These are gradual reforms, and we have not seen the creation of a fully unleashed market as of yet. Most significantly, the maximum tuition fee cap remains in the Bill (although it now increases with inflation). Nonetheless, the reforms reflect the continuation of a 25-year old trend in British higher education towards markets and away from good quality higher education for all. The Human Cost The commodifying effects of these market-making reforms may appear abstract or distant, but they have very real consequences. For the transformation of higher education into a commodity bought on a market is not simply a theoretical point – it affects the everyday lives of students, professors, and university administrators. Regarding students, a key way to appreciate this is to think back to the example of exam season I used to open this piece. As noted, exams are so stressful because they reveal in stark terms how exposed our higher education is to the labour market under the neoliberal university. Higher education becomes a means to escape the precarious, lowINCITE | ISSUE 9

“As a Guardian investigation revealed last November, more than half of all academic staff working in UK universities are on insecure ‘atypical’ contracts” wage labour market neoliberalism has created – but only if we do well in our exams. We are thus always under the watchful gaze of ‘employability’ while at university, exposed, and this damaging exposure manifests itself in numerous ways. The inadequacy of maintenance loans/grants for many students is one such way, forcing many students to take up part time casual work in order to keep themselves financially afloat at university. This takes time away from students to properly focus themselves on their degree (causing additional pressures when examinations or assessments are present), and transforms students into a useful pool of casual labour that neoliberalism thrives on. As Jeremy Gilbert notes, exposure in this sense acts to discipline students towards a certain kind of behaviour, making it harder for students to question their place in the world at the exact time they have historically done so. Furthermore, a reliance on parttime work at university pushes students towards the mould of passive consumer, who ‘purchases’ their education through ‘proper’ work. Critical thought is sidelined in the process. What is less apparent to students is how academics, too, are struggling in the neoliberal university. Much of this stems from the erosion of academic freedom that neoliberalism has brought about, as universities in the UK have increasingly come to be managed like businesses or brands. Since the 1988 Education Reform Act universities are a form of ‘corporation’ legally, and governed increasingly hierarchically, marginalising formerly collegial and relatively democratic forms of internal governance. Accordingly, the power of academics over university decision-making has generally decreased, and this goes hand in hand with the growth of managerial roles within INCITE | ISSUE 9

university governance. As neoliberalism has submitted the university increasingly to market logic, occupations with expertise in markets and regulation have blossomed within it – accountants, public relations and human resource practitioners, administrators, and so on8. With these reforms the university increasingly follows a corporate model, embedded within business culture, creating various pressures and incentives for academics. Research begins to be subtly influenced by business interests in order to bring in funding, ‘customer satisfaction’ becomes paramount with academics subject to new regimes of monitoring and assessment, and ultimately academic autonomy suffers. With these pressures, it comes as little surprise mental illness is an increasing problem among academics, as a 2013 University and College Union report found9. Pressures come not just from the content and high expectations of academics’ employment, but also the terms of it. Part-time, fixed term, and zero-hours contracts are on the rise in academia as universities seek to minimise costs and squeeze as much productivity out of their workers as possible. As a Guardian investigation revealed last November, more than half of all academic staff working in UK universities are on insecure ‘atypical’ contracts, with more prestigious Russell Group universities being particularly guilty of this. The results are as you’d expect – low pay, for long hours, on insecure terms. A number interviewed for The Guardian noted yearly pay as often around the extremely low mark of £6000 a year, despite academic success (by contrast, the average yearly wage is £26,500). This is the human cost of the neoliberal university; when education becomes a

“This is the human cost of the neoliberal university; when education becomes a commodity, so do the teachers. The result is dehumanising practices of poor pay, overwork, and insecure employment.” commodity, so do the teachers. The result is dehumanising practices of poor pay, overwork, and insecure employment. Conclusion: What Next? The picture, then, seems bleak. Not only are academics and students suffering under the neoliberal university, but there seems little we can do to change it; as shown, the shift to neoliberalism is a global and historical one, infiltrating and feeding off of every aspect of our lives. What then can we as students do to resist? Is it even possible? The answer is: of course, provided we are pragmatic, organised, well-informed and realistic. While we may not be able to overthrow global neoliberalism by ourselves, what we can do is resist it locally, at every point it impinges upon our lives. The NUS is doing this right now with its planned boycott of the National Student Survey (NSS), and it is a struggle we should wholeheartedly get behind, unlike our students’ union which has disgracefully opposed it. From next year, the NSS will be used by the government as part of the Teaching Excellence Framework (TEF) to grade universities, allowing higher TEF-scoring universities to charge higher fees. The intention behind this, as I wrote above, is to create an artificial higher education market in

FEATURE | THE NEOLIBERAL UNIVERSITY

The United for Education demonstration last November, protesting higher education reforms and the NSS // Image: Twitter/ Sorana Vieru

the UK, and as such the NSS functions as a locality where the marketisation of higher education collides directly with students. A co-ordinated national boycott, then, could hugely complicate the government’s neoliberal higher education plans, which we as students should be 100% opposed to in every way. For we should never underestimate the strength of mass collective action, well informed by a broad historical understanding of neoliberalism, in effecting change. Just last year, 1000 UCL students held a rent strike in protest against poor living conditions in expensive student accommodation, and won a rent cut worth £850,000 and a £350,000 bursary for students from lowincome backgrounds. Their demands were carefully linked to an understanding of the neoliberal university, noting how UCL profited £16 million per year from student rent, and student ‘Cut the Rent’ groups are now spreading across the country, aided by the NUS. We should take these rent strikes as inspiration – one thousand coordinated students at UCL have started a national movement and achieved real successes. Think of what one thousand coordinated students at Surrey

could do: not just rent strikes, but also exam strikes, assessment strikes, campus boycotts. So often we are demoralised and apathetic about our struggles when in reality, with organisation and conviction, together we have power. And when we resist, exercising that power, we plant the seeds for a new, better, post-neoliberal future. Only then can we begin to escape the neoliberal university, and all its oppression. Jake Roberts is a second year Politics student at the University of Surrey. He is also Incite’s Deptuty Editor. References

1. Mark Fisher, “The Privatisation of Stress”, New Left Project, 7 September 2011. 2. Michael Rustin, “The Neoliberal University and its Alternatives”, Soundings 63 (2015): 149. 3. Ibid. 4. Universities UK, Patterns and Trends in UK Higher Education 2015 (London: Universities UK, 2015), 22. Accessed 31 January 2017 at http://www. universitiesuk.ac.uk/policy-and-analysis/ reports/Documents/2015/patterns-and-

trends-2015.pdf 5. Rustin, 152. 6. Jeremy Gilbert, “Elitism, Philistinism and Populism: the sorry tale of British Higher Education Policy”, openDemocracy UK, 14 January 2010. Accessed 31 January 2017 at https://www.opendemocracy. net/ourkingdom/jeremy-gilbert/elitismphilistinism-and-populism-sorry-tale-ofbritish-higher-education-p 7. Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, Success as a Knowledge Economy: Teaching Excellence, Social Mobility and Student Choice (London: William Lea Group, 2016). Accessed 5 February 2017 at https://www.gov.uk/government/ uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/ file/523546/bis-16-265-success-as-aknowledge-economy-web.pdf 8. Rustin, 157. 9. Gail Kinman and Siobhan Wray, “Higher Stress: A Survey of Stress and Wellbeing Among Staff in Higher Education”, University and College Union (www.ucu.org. uk), July 2013. Accessed 5 February 2017 at http://www.ucu.org.uk/media/5911/ Higher-stress-a-survey-of-stress-and-wellbeing-among-staff-in-higher-educationJul-13/pdf/HE_stress_report_July_2013. pdf.

INCITE | ISSUE 9

FEATURE

S T N E D U T S Y E R R SU L A C I T I L O P GET ust Labour j n a th e r mo ing in tt i s Politics is s e v ti a onser v ampus, and the C c s s o r c a t. All getting Parliamen e r a ts n e stud individual unique n w o r i e th political in ngrekar a P i t i d A ways. urung G a y h s n to and Aka r of them u o f th i w sat down feminism, s a h c u s es dicuss issu d boycotting an veganism,

INCITE | ISSUE 9

FEATURE | SURREY STUDENTS GET POLITICAL

IPPON K S E IN R E H T A K

oycotting is a form of political resistance, and an expression of protest against a certain brand, person, organisation or even country. By not participating or refraining from association with them, an individual or a group aims to project a clear political or social message across. Iconic examples have included the Montgomery bus boycott, ignited by Rosa Parks, but has manifested into everyday life for many people. No matter how big or small, boycotts are a form of politics that are perhaps unconventional, but nonetheless powerful. With our access to companies and brands increasing, boycotts have grown in popularity. Huge companies like Amazon have been criticised and boycotted for their treatment of workers, while some organisations even called for the boycotting of countries, like China for their human rights abuses. Either way, it is clear that the politics of boycotting can reach out to a number of people for a variety of reasons. Incite sat down with Sociology student Katherine Skippon, who has been vocal about boycotting certain brands. In particular, due to her beliefs about animal cruelty, Katherine has chosen to boycott most of the common cosmetic brands due to animal testing. Which brands do you boycott, and why? Mainly different kinds of cosmetics brands. So, brands like MAC, in particular. The day before I was going to get a MAC foundation, I looked on their website, and realised that they’d have to test on animals to get their products into places like Russia and China where it’s law. So I couldn’t buy from them anymore. More recently, I stopped buying from brands like Urban Decay and NYX. While they are cruelty-free and it is part of their branding, they’re owned by L’Oreal, who do test on animals. And it’s this huge sort of debate, about whether you should boycott brands who are owned by parent

companies that do test on animals, even though those brands specifically are cruelty free. Do you find if you do research on any brand you can trace it back to a way that they’ve been testing on animals? Most—which is sort of a shame. Quite a lot of them are owned by these parent companies like Procter & Gamble or by L’Oreal, which means that quite a lot of brands that I thought were cruelty-free are not. So normally I just try and stick to vegan cruelty-free brands that I know are independent, and definitely vegan and cruelty-free. So animal testing is still legal in Russia and China?

Yeah, as far as I’m aware it is. Here [in the UK], animal testing is illegal but in China and Russia, it’s mandatory for the sale of such products. So what are the brands that are definitely vegan and cruelty-free? From Superdrug, B. Makeup—they’re really good, and fairly cheap as well. Also there’s a brand called Tropic. They’re really good, but they’re really expensive. So I can’t really buy them much. But they’re the two that are like failsafe. Are there any steps you’ve ever taken to raise awareness about these cosmetics companies’ conduct? I talk to my friends about it a little bit—to try and slowly encourage brands INCITE | ISSUE 9

that are cruelty-free. But not in a kind of “You should buy from this brand” way, but just in a “if the product is good” sort of way. I also have a blog, and I’m thinking of blogging about certain brands that people could choose not to buy from and then brands that they might want to choose from that are cruelty free. I’ve been planning that post for a while. Also on that blog, I’ve done a post that’s about vegan make-up, and so all of the products on that are totally vegan makeup. It sounds more positive, instead of saying “you shouldn’t buy from this brand or this brand”, cos that sort of promotes a bit of hopelessness. How would you respond to the argument that boycotting a brand does not make a significant impact on its production? It’s quite a complicated one. I think, in a sense, that’s totally right...that me deciding not to buy from Mac does not make them say “oh we’ll change our ways, you were right”. But, I also think two different things about that. One is that: one of the most important things I read about being vegan, which I think really applies to cosmetics, is that it’s not that I can’t buy from brands like Mac, it’s that I choose not to. So in a way it doesn’t matter that it’s not really productive, it’s about choosing to buy cruelty-free stuff. And the other thing I’d say is that I think if individual people don’t decide to boycott brands, then nothing will ever happen. All this starts from different individuals saying it’s wrong. Even if I’m just one person, if I influence one other person, that does make a difference. So I think, there’s no point in people not doing it, if that makes sense, as much as people might feel like there’s no point in doing anything. We would like to thank Katherine for her time and wise insight. To find out more about cruelty-free cosmetic alternatives and general vegan lifestyle, check out her blog at: https:// katherineskippon.blogspot.co.uk

INCITE | ISSUE 9

& NIKOLINA KUBIAK SARAH THOMPSON

eminism, at its core, corresponds to the belief that both men and women should be regarded and treated as equals in social, economic and political platforms. Feminism as a movement seeks to confront patriarchal societal constructs, and challenges issues that women face today; such issues range from educational to employment opportunities. Historically, feminism has been one of the major driving forces of change for women in social and political spheres. Feminist campaigners have championed reproductive rights for women, the right to property ownership, and equal rights within marriage. A few of the major milestones for feminism have been giving girls equal access to an education, achieving the right to vote for women, and giving women a more prominent role within politics. Incite sat down with the Feminist Society President, Sarah Thompson (on the right in the above picture), and Vice President, Nikolina Kubiak (on the left), to discuss their views on the perceptions people have of feminism, its aims and how it has evolved. What are the most common misconceptions about feminism? Sarah: That we don’t like men. Feminists are all women and they all don’t like men that it’s just man hating Nikolina: I think another common misconception is that we’re aggressive.

We are quite peaceful. We won’t really jump on you unless something happens. Why do you think these misconceptions exist? Sarah: Some of that has come from second wave feminism with the stereotype of the bra burning. There’s a misconception that when women talk aggressively that means they’re gonna act aggressively as well which is quite inaccurate. Nikolina: There will be a few people who are being aggressive and they’ll assume all feminists are that way. Would you say that feminism challenges gender roles? Sarah: Feminism does challenge gender roles and there is a conception that a form of femininity is that they shouldn’t speak about things that are happening to them or be really sweet about it. It kind of takes away from what we’re actually trying to do and distracts from the main aims of feminism. Do you think that that conception is changing? Nikolina: Feminists like Emma Watson are trying to make feminism more mainstream and accessible to the masses. Sarah: Definitely, it’s good when there are celebrities, both men and women, who speak out against inequality. The thing with feminism is that it has to be

FEATURE | SURREY STUDENTS GET POLITICAL

intersectional and she’s definitely an intersectional feminist. Emma Watson has acknowledged her white privilege and she’s not hiding behind it, she’s utilising it.. she’s acknowledging that white media listens to white women a lot more than they listen to other women. Speaking of celebrities, a lot of celebrities identify as feminists but in traditional politics the term feminism is often not directly used by politicians. David Cameron, for example, refused to identify as a feminist. What do you think about the notion that feminism isn’t ingrained in traditional politics? Sarah: It has always run alongside politics but I don’t think it’s directly embedded within politics. It has come up recently with Trump and the antiabortion and “Muslim ban”. As feminist, there is an inherent political streak but you’re also looking at the social side and looking at interactions with everyday people, you’re not always going up and talking to politicians. You need to get legislation through but you also need to be talking to every other normal person because otherwise change doesn’t happen without numbers. Nikolina: If you go too political, you might exclude some people who identify as feminists but have different views on other issues (education etc.).

“In theory we have all the rights.You can go to university, you can study the same things. But there are glitches in the system.You can go to university and study engineering but once you get there, you get comments like “oh you’re a girl doing engineering”.” When you put legislation down, you can’t necessarily control the effects that it’s going to have. Sarah: A lot of what feminism aims to do is not just change legislation but also change the mindset of the society, which is more difficult and takes a lot longer. Nikolina: What happens is that a lot of the people who oppose feminism often do not have actual arguments.

for improvement. Sarah: It’s not healthy when feminists stay stuck in their ways like Germaine Greer, who has the same mindset as the second wave feminists from the 1970s. Feminism has made a lot of strides but we need to acknowledge that things have changed and that what needs to be done is changing. The goals are changing.

What are the primary goals of feminism as a movement? Nikolina: Originally, it was mostly about rights and inequality but I think now that we’ve kind of achieved that, we’re trying to look towards groups of women who are less privileged who need help. Sarah: We’ve got past the first step.. certain rights and ideologies have changed for certain groups and not for others. Nikolina: Right now the goal is to help the least privileged groups and go further than what we have so there’s always room

How would you respond to the argument that “women already have achieved so much, what more do they want?” Nikolina: In theory we have all the rights. You can go to university, you can study the same things. But there are glitches in the system. You can go to university and study engineering but once you get there, you get comments like “oh you’re a girl doing engineering”. Women have all the rights in the West but in probably a lot of non-Western countries that isn’t necessarily the case. INCITE | ISSUE 9

Sarah: Even in the West there are issues, there are certain groups of women that are going to be absolutely fine but then there are others that slip through the system. Nikolina: Women can do things but there’s a lot of social stigma around doing things like engineering or women living independently and choosing not to be married or to settle down. There’s also stigma around how women are expected to dress/look like and other social aspects. Sarah: There’s the perception that women are inherently weaker and this is always offensive to men as well. All these social stigmas around women are also offensive to men because it’s like “oh women are so weak they need to be looked after”, which is implying that all men are inherently brutish and animalistic Nikolina: Also we had this talk in November, where we actually talked about domestic violence and men because they are almost equally affected by it and no one really talks about it because they see it as embarrassing to their masculinity. Does feminism address both men’s and women’s issues? Sarah: Nowadays, you have to be focusing on everyone. That’s not just men and women, that’s also the people in between like the non-binary community and the trans community, it has to be inclusive. The Women’s Marches in the last couple of weeks have been incredible but there is still the issue that there are still a lot of feminists who are very essentialist. And this comes from the school of thought of Germaine Greer, that women who are not born women are not women. Feminism is not just for women, there are individual groups and people who spoil it for the whole community because they’re quite often the ones who are speaking the loudest which is a shame. Nikolina: It’s good that we have a feminist society at University because it’s exposing other people to the movement and showing people that we are not a bunch of crazy people, we’re just your fellow course mates. Sarah: We had a main campaign, it was about reclaiming the F word. Feminism is not a taboo, it’s not something that you should be ashamed of, it should be quite a INCITE | ISSUE 9

normal thing to say. What are your thoughts on the rise of candidates like Trump within politics? Sarah: It’s terrifying, it’s extremely sad that 53% of white women voted for Trump. Nikolina: The people who voted for him won’t really be affected by it. Sarah: It’s xenophobia, it’s blaming a certain group of people for the problems in America. They might agree with him because they’ve been brought up with this mindset so they won’t question what he says. It’s ironic considering the demographic that are most likely to commit terrorist acts in the USA are white men. What are your thoughts on the gender pay gap? Sarah: I read an article in The Guardian that apparently the UK shrunk a lot and I’m going to guess it’s predominantly for middle class white women but it didn’t say a range, it just said the gender pay gap shrunk to about 5% in the UK. How accurate that is, I don’t know. But in the States I think it’s for every dollar a man makes, white women get 79%, black women get 60% and hispanic and latina women get 55% so you cannot generalise among women because it differs between different groups of women. Are there feminists who you are inspired by or who you identify with? Sarah: Judith Butler, she’s a gender and feminist theorist and she’s been working

since the 70s and she’s radically changed the way we perceive gender and sexuality. feminism isn’t just for women and that it needs to be more intersectional. She’s one of those feminists that made some rubbish comments in the 70s but instead of carrying on with those comments, she apologised for them and acknowledged that she’s changed her opinion and shown why she’s changed her opinion which is important because you do get some who stick with the same opinions they had 30 years ago and times have changed. Are there any obstacles for feminism as a movement? Sarah: If it doesn’t affect people directly, then they seem to not care but the thing is that if society listens to you, you should acknowledge that privilege and keep others at risk of being hurt when they speak out. You can support them, stand with them when they’re talking because I noticed there was a lot of talk after the Women’s Marches that people were praising it and saying there was no police violence but a lot of people who were there were white women. Police aren’t going to attack them in the same way they might attack other groups like they did during the Black Lives Matter protests. If you’re a feminist yourself or are interested in learning more about feminism, Sarah and Nikolina hold meetings for the Feminist Society every Thursday at 6pm in room TB20A.

FEATURE | SURRY STUDENTS GET POLITICAL

“Rights could be rolled back with the rise of political figures like Donald Trump, so you do need feminism to ensure that doesn’t happen. Just because you achieve success in some way, doesn’t mean you [can’t] fall back.”

E SEUN ONATAD

t is not just the Feminist Society, however, that are engaging with feminism on campus. Incite also spoke to politically inclined Economics student, Seun Onatade, to engage in discussion about his understanding of feminism and various aspects of the movement. What are common misconceptions about feminism? People attach the worst part of the group to the movement. If they have an interaction with someone who has a warped view of what feminism is, they attach that to the whole movement. It’s like the Black Lives Matter movement. In any protest, there’s usually a small group that might resort to violence and certain parts of the media use that to paint the whole group with the same brush. What does feminism mean to you? Having a level playing field for males and females and having equal opportunities. There’s different feminists obviously (radical, Marxist etc.) Being a male shouldn’t give you an advantage over a female in terms of going for a job or even how... I’m sure as a female you face micro aggressions and I can’t understand it because I’m not a female. As a male, have you noticed any times where you feel like you have a certain privilege over women?

I’ve noticed it in certain family structures where the male gets preference over the females. In some countries it’s the policy. For example, in China with the one child policy. One of the reasons why there are more males born in China is because Chinese society is quite patriarchal, so they prefer males to females. When you have such a huge gender imbalance, there are other issues like rape, and sexual harassment. It’s not good in the long term when you have that much gender imbalance. Would you say that feminism benefits both men and women? Yes, because women are at a disadvantage point and it would help women to get to a place where they have equal rights, and not only legal rights but in terms of just everyday social interaction.. there’s equal respect for men and women. A more equal society is beneficial to everyone. What are the goals of feminism as a movement? Feminists are not a homogenous group so it’s very complex. Some radical feminists believe that women are higher than men so the goal depends on the subgroup and where you fall but I’d say generally, the consensus would be equal rights in terms of law and in terms of practice. If you’re a minority trying to get equal rights, the first steps are usually

legal rights and after that comes the little things. I’m sure you’ve faced micro aggressions on a daily basis or frequently and as a man, I can’t understand that fully so that’s the second part. We need to get to a place where being a woman makes no difference; that’s what I think is the general consensus of what feminism is. I was having a conversation with another student and they said “is feminism still needed in the West?” cause that’s a view a loads of people have. We already have legal rights but that’s very complacent. Rights could be rolled back with the rise of political figures like Donald Trump, so you do need feminism to ensure that doesn’t happen. Just because you achieve success in some way, doesn’t mean you [can’t] fall back. Going back to the previous question, that’s another misconception: that we don’t need feminism anymore. Do you think the situation for women has improved? Are we in a better place than we were 50 years ago? Yes. I believe that as a society, we do progress. Minorities are in a better position than they were 60 years ago but that doesn’t mean from time to time we don’t take a step back. Generally if you look at the whole history of Western societies, it’s a move forward. But there are certain points where we fall back and it’s at those points where we need to stand our ground. We can use Trump as an example. Even though gay rights were already in place, now there’s a threat to that community. At those points where it seems like we’re taking a step back, that’s where we need to step up. What challenges does feminism as a INCITE | ISSUE 9

movement face? Sometimes what happens is sexism can be so deep-rooted within a culture that with movements like feminism, people might feel like you’re attacking them personally if you attack their culture so they shut off to what you have to say. That’s why you find with gay rights, in some religions, being gay is wrong so how do you have a debate with someone whose ideas are are rooted in something so personal? Are there any feminists who you’re inspired by or who you identify with? I don’t think we should look to celebrities for political opinions because it would be like going to a professor and asking him what he thinks about the latest Jay Z album. Cause that’s what they do with celebrities, like Beyonce hasn’t commented on the Black Lives Matter movement that means she’s not down with the movement. What are your thoughts on the gender pay gap? First of all, obviously it’s not right that there’s a gender pay gap. You should do as much as possible to look to ways of making it equal. I don’t know if it’s true but I was reading up on an article which claimed that the gender pay gap is false. There’s argument over the statistics on the gender pay gap. If you’ve heard about intersectionality... if you’re a working class woman, you probably get paid less than a middle class INCITE | ISSUE 9

“How do you beat Trump? He’s the ultimate villain.You win a debate based on facts and logic, but how do you beat someone who doesn’t engage with facts or logic? It’s very hard.” woman because you don’t have access to the same resources. That’s a criticism that you can make, not of feminism as a whole, but of certain people who haven’t paid attention to the plight of working class women or women of various ethnicities. What are your thoughts on the rise of candidates like Trump within politics? To be honest, Trump is a hard one because how do you beat Trump? How do you beat someone who isn’t ashamed of being caught out in a lie? That’s the main thing that people use against politicians like if you catch them out contradicting themselves or lying, they get shamed. He’s the ultimate villain. You win a debate based on facts and logic, but how do you beat someone who doesn’t engage with facts or logic? It’s very hard. Trump has a bunch of supporters that are on his side no matter what. He’s convinced them that the media is lying so even if they find out something true about him, they’re lying. The only way is that maybe if they feel the hurt in their pockets. But Obama has handed him a very good economy so all he has to do is not mess stuff up. Also, he’s so good at exaggerating his achievements so that even if the economy grows slightly, he’s going to take credit

for it. And what happens when he’s controlling the agencies; like he’s stopped the EPA from releasing any evidence about any research? So going into the presidency, how do you when he’s lying or telling the truth? There’s going to be instances where you can’t prove that he’s lying or telling the truth. Steve Bannon, who is this alternative right really racist and homophobic guy, has been appointed by Trump to be on the National Security panel, which you’re not meant to do because he’s such a political person. When it comes to national security, it shouldn’t be based on politics because lives are at stake. So I don’t know how you can beat this guy. We would like to thank Seun for agreeing to be interviewed for this feature. All photographs in this feature were taken by Aditi Pangrekar and Akanshya Gurung with the interviewees consent. If you are a Surrey student who would like to be interviewed on your political activities for a future issue of Incite, please email ussu.politics@surrey.ac.uk or message our Facebook page.

OPINION | TRUMP’S MUSLIM BAN

OPINION Trump’s Muslim Ban is exactly that - and we should be worried Kundan Sawlani examines the details of President Trump’s executive order, and dispels the notion that it is not targeted at Muslims.

hen describing President Trump’s first two weeks in office, the words ‘terrifying, disgraceful and outright wrong’ come to mind to the writer of this article. We have had more executive orders than speeches in which Theresa May mentions that Brexit means Brexit, and that is worrying. In fact, it is borderline dictatorial. And no, this is not some grandiose statement; he is attempting to individually dictate law and individually control the levers of the state through legal and extralegal mechanisms with no external restraint, which by all definitions of the term, can be construed as dictatorial. The man who once promised an entire Republican convention that he could fix American problems alone is, by the looks of it, attempting to do just that. One way in which he is attempting to do that is through the ban of citizens from seven countries, all of which have one characteristic in common: they are all countries that have a majority Muslim population. However, Donald Trump claims it is not a “Muslim ban”, due to the fact that the Obama administration had

outlined the seven countries as places that required “extra vetting” when citizens had come in from those countries. Finally, the rumour is going around that President Obama had done the exact same thing when “banning citizens coming in from Iraq”. But how much of this is true? And what are the implications of this ban? Firstly, let’s look at the idea that it isn’t a Muslim ban. As the table below shows, these countries tend to have populations that consist of overwhelmingly large proportions of Muslims, the lowest of which, as the table below shows, is Syria. Overall, 97.6% of the people affected by the ban are Muslim. Now when this many

Country Iran Iraq Libya Somalia Sudan Syria Yemen

people share a defining characteristic, one cannot possibly believe that this isn’t a ban based on that defining characteristic. Furthermore, the aim of this ban is to “protect the USA from Islamic terrorism”, a term used by President Trump on multiple occasions. When you label something by religion, and introduce a policy that targets that specific issue, then you are targeting that religion. Finally, President Trump has openly called for a Muslim ban, and has asked advisors for support on how to implement such a thing. One of Trump’s advisors, former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani, mentioned in an interview with Fox

Muslim Population (%) 99.7 98.9 96.6 98.9 97 90 99

Source: The Pew Research Centre

INCITE | ISSUE 9

Protesters gathering outside of JFK airport’s terminal 4 in New York in opposition to Trump’s Muslim ban. // Image: Stephanie Keith/ Getty Images

News that President Trump had asked him for advice on how to implement a Muslim ban, further evidence that this is what the President wants. When a ban is apparently fighting an issue that apparently stems from Islam (a religion that in no way condones the acts undertaken by terrorists), predominantly targets people of a single faith, and is coming from an individual who believes that banning people of those faith from entering the country is the right thing to do, then it is a ban based on that faith. “But the countries chosen for the ban came from President Obama. He banned people coming in from Iraq too, you whiny lefty liberals” Trump supporters may cry, anguished by the fact that people are exercising their right to protest against policies that they don’t agree with. First of all, let’s get one fact distinguished, President Obama did not, at any point, ban citizens from Iraq coming into the country. There was a slowdown of the processing of a specific type of visa from Iraq, which only happened because two Iraqi immigrants were arrested in Kentucky due to ties with INCITE | ISSUE 9

an Iraqi terrorist group. This then led to a slowdown as this was a flaw the US had found in their vetting system, which meant it needed reviewing. Furthermore, President Obama’s administration was ensuring that people coming from these countries went through thorough counter-terrorism checks - at no point did it ban anybody from coming in from the country based on religion. Of course, at a time where the President of the United States and his supporters feel the need to lie in order to justify their policies (such as Nigel Farage at the European Parliament explicitly using the Obama ban lie to justify the ban), outlining the truth is fundamentally important. And is the aim of this ban really safety for all Americans? Research undertaken by the Cato Institute shows that nationals from the seven countries have caused a grand total of zero deaths on US soil as a result of terrorist attacks between 1975 and 2015. Though attempts have been carried out by foreign nationals (six each from Iran and Sudan, two each from Somalia and Iraq, one from Yemen and none from Syria or Libya), they have been

very few. Compare the zero deaths to the numbers that arise as a result of police brutality towards African-Americans, the actions US-born terrorists (most of whom the mainstream media decide to label as ‘psychologically disturbed’, as only Muslims can be terrorists in their eyes), and general gun control issues and you’ll see that if the President cared about the safety of American people, he would be attempting to tackle those issues. The aim of this ban is to take away the basic universal human rights that every human being is born with, in particular from certain human beings due to their religion. And there will never be any justification for that. Anyone who believes that this ban is acceptable is essentially in support of a hierarchical structure of humanity in which an individual is denied specific rights due to their religion, and if history tells us anything, this ban could be the beginning of something a lot larger. Kundan Sawlani is a third year Politics and Economics student. He is also a member of the Incite Editorial Team.

OPINION | STUDENT HOMELESSNESS

Student Homelessness: A Quiet Epidemic? What happens when students have nowhere else to go? Katherine Skippon investigates.

Patrick Mulrenan (et al.) from London Metropolitan University (LMU) shows how homelessness is a hidden problem among students who are too embarrassed to ask for help. The study consisted of interviews and a focus group with students who were homeless. A striking find in itself was that the majority of the sample consisted of mature, female students from BME (black and minority ethnic) communities. The study mainly involved mature students with children, who spoke about how their relationship with their children was a key factor in their determination to complete their degrees; they wanted to be seen as role models. Over the past 25 years, Government policy has aimed at widening the diversity of students who study at university. This policy has been widely

successful in that aim, and as a result, more and more students from minority backgrounds and cultures have entered the university community. However, whilst the university sector has expanded, the amount of socially provided housing has actually contracted, and private renting costs have soared. Accordingly, the students interviewed as part of the LMU research spoke about the cramped conditions they have to live in, often with damp and condensation as particular problems. Although their temporary accommodation is subsidised with housing benefits, rents can be up to ÂŁ500 a week, meaning money concerns are a constant issue. They also felt they could not speak to student services about their situation because they were embarrassed of it. So how do our fellow students get

Image:peopledemandaction.

t the time of writing, it is late January, and in the middle of a very bleak mid-winter. There has been snow, fog and frost for weeks accompanied by freezing temperatures, and the sky is black or blue from 5pm until 8am the next day. For an average student, this means bigger jumpers, more Starbucks and rattling radiators 24 hours a day to keep warm. For others however, namely students without a home to curl up in at night, the cold weather means something much more dangerous. According to Homeless Link, figures published in February 2016 showed that there are roughly 3,569 people sleeping rough in England on any one night; the figures estimated since 2010 have only risen into the present, and can be expected to continue to increase. Obviously, however, not all homeless people sleep rough. When faced with a situation wherein one thinks they may find themselves without a home, they can apply to the Government for help. If they pass this application, they are known as being statutory homeless, and are provided with temporary then permanent accommodation when it becomes available. However, itâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s when they fail this application, or donâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t apply for whatever reason, that people find themselves having to sleep on the streets. Homelessness in students is an issue rarely explored as students are automatically assumed to have shelter in halls or rented space in shared houses. The reality can be quite different. Research by

INCITE | ISSUE 9

Student Sharon Henry and her mother, who were interviewed by The Guardian about their housing problems. // Image: Linda Nylind/The Guardian

INCITE | ISSUE 9

us face. It can feel like there isn’t much we can do as students to help people in this situation, but just creating a space for a friend who is struggling, where they feel like they can talk, is a start. Perhaps starting a society which routinely raises money for homelessness charities, or volunteering a couple of hours per week at a shelter or soup kitchen, would also be beneficial. Unfortunately, as students, we cannot give much to the people who we see suffering on the streets, because most

of us have very little. However, smiling and acknowledging the people sitting shivering on our streets this winter at least helps them know that we know they are human too. Katherine Skippon is a third year Sociology student, currently on placement. She also features in our “Surrey Students Get Political” feature earlier this issue.

“We tend to empathise with homeless people but not fully connect to their situation.They are a problem, but not ‘our’ problem.”

Image: The Guardian

through their degrees faced with such challenges? Pride is the main reason; many of the students interviewed were not the first in their families to go to university, but were the first to go to a British institution. Also, many students have children of their own to support and are proud to go to university, as it shows how hard they work to create a better life for their children in the future. For those of us who have never experienced it, the feeling of total loss of autonomy and freedom which homelessness brings is difficult to understand. We tend to empathise with homeless people but not fully connect to their situation. They are a problem, but not ‘our’ problem. This is why it’s so easy to walk past someone sleeping rough in the streets. But with private sector rents and tuition fees rising seemingly by the year, homelessness may become a terrifying situation that more and more of

OPINION | PODEMOS AND TRUMP

Podemos and Trump: Antagonistic Forces or Political Comrades? Javier Martín Merchán looks at how the two seemingly opposing forces in politics have striking similarities.

0th January 2017. I turned on the television and began to listen to pompous and showy words within a grandiloquent discourse. I heard that what was happening was not a simple shift in power, but one that will mark a milestone; that the government was giving the power back to the people, that the people would be empowered again, that the government would never forget its people again, that there would no longer be a government without its people, that the government would finally serve the people rather than the elites. After listening to this excessively ornate manual of populism, I was certainly impressed by Pablo Iglesias’ ability to improve his English since last year. Then, I turned round and realised that it was not Pablo but Donald Trump who was giving such a grandiose speech while employing the word “people” thirty times per minute. Indeed, Mr. Trump seems to have plagiarised Pablo Iglesias’s general discourse. Having said this, the issue arises of how to compare Donald Trump with a party which has repeatedly been accused of belonging to the extreme left; how to find similarities between a President who has just signed an anti-abortion executive order and a party that defends

minors’ right to abortion without parental consent; how to find something in common between a President who has issued an executive order to roll back Obamacare and a party that stands up for a free universal health care. Indeed, Podemos and Trump are not exactly the same. However, they are certainly two sides of the same coin: the exacerbated wave of populism that inundates societies all around the world.

“However, they are certainly two sides of the same coin: the exacerbated wave of populism that inundates societies all around the world.” The reactionary character of populism is underneath its determinism, its extraordinary capacity to limit, beforehand, the construction of any discourse. There will always be someone responsible, an enemy, when covering any context. This victim complex reaches exaggerated quotas and leads populists to blame others for all the problems of society: banking, immigrants, the power

elite, the ruling class, those who are politically correct, and those who see populism everywhere. Donald Trump and Pablo Iglesias are perfect examples of inciting class hatred and rancour against supposed internal and external enemies that conspire in order to keep society in poverty and underdevelopment. Since we are always victims, we need a saviour who terminates the conspiracy initiated jointly by the domestic oligarchies and the perverse international interests of capitalism. Thus, the adversary is firstly defined and, then, the idea behind all the political movement is modelled, counterclockwise in terms of the general way in which ideologies are created. It is true that, for Trump, it is the Establishment together with immigrants that attempt to corrupt society as a whole, whereas, for Podemos, it is the banking sector and the so-called casta (an original and neo-Marxist way to describe the Establishment) that seem to be responsible for creating such a calamitous society. However, even though the people’s enemy may vary, the pattern remains. It might not matter whether your surname is Trump or Iglesias, you will find an enemy and make every effort to combat it. Such a simple and prefabricated world is a stupendous pretext to decline reasoned INCITE | ISSUE 9

Image: Evan Vucci, AP

INCITE | ISSUE 9

who dare to call themselves Americans while speaking other languages, having diverse origins or working for the malign Establishment. Likewise, who better than Podemos to represent the Spaniards? Obviously no one, even if that implies that bankers, liberals, those belonging to the casta or the electrical industry, and the nearly eight million people voting for the Conservative Party are necessarily antiSpaniards. Podemos and Trump appear to incarnate the real people and, hence, those against their ambitions will also be,

“It might not matter whether your surname is Trump or Iglesias, you will find an enemy and make every effort to combat it. ” by definition, against the people, on the side of the anti-people, which means that they must be marginalised. Further similarities between Podemos and Trump can be analysed. Some years ago, after the boom of the dependency theory, all the blame was put on American imperialism and the deeply rooted international capitalism. Today, Podemos and Trump agree on

depicting neoliberalism (or, at least, the current neoliberal order) as the devil responsible for all our woes. It is the current neoliberal order and economic market that leads to the depressed state of the people and, simultaneously, to social outbursts in the form of great popular demonstrations against neoliberalism; these demonstrations being held by that social majority which ballot boxes tend not to give them (not even Trump won the US Election in terms of the number of votes). The salvation to such a catastrophe may thus only come from protectionism, a magic word for any populist. Nevertheless, Trump, Iglesias and their followers seem to ignore that the sobeloved protectionism has traditionally favoured domestic interest groups that seek to become rich exploiting others, as could be seen for decades in certain countries implementing the import substitution model. The rejection by both leaders of the inconvenient —everything has to be said— TTIP exemplifies nothing but their consolidated rejection of neoliberalism. The most significant characteristic shared by Trump and Iglesias might, nonetheless, still be missing, namely, their democratic ambition. An aspiration that erodes the formal concept of representative democracy as well as the

Image: Periodistadigital.com

motives and thoughts while satisfying our closest ideological instincts. Since people’s own problems are always due to others’ behaviour, the solution to these own problems is expected to come from external actors. This is the widespread logic of receiving without giving anything in return. This is the disposing-of-all-problem culture according to which the government must play the role of the providing. The state is in charge of satisfying all the imaginable human needs. This is, in turn, the underlying logic behind Podemos’ and Trump’s manifestos, speeches and promises. Both Trump and Iglesias are the redeemers that have come to release a suffering nation and to guarantee their compatriots a space of dignity in the new paradise that they will create. They are redeemers because they are the charismatic leaders of the people, of the decent people. Under this remark, the difference between two antagonistic human categories can be perceived: the people and the ‘anti-people’. Following this line of reasoning, who better than Trump to represent the American people? There is an obvious answer: no one. There is also a clear definition for American people, namely, the set of white bluecollar workers, which excludes all those

OPINION | PODEMOS AND TRUMP

Image: Getty Images

Image: Idealista.com

core principles of the liberal revolution. Thus, the question remains of what democracy consists of for great populists of the standing of Trump and Iglesias. Given the formalistic and often superficial understanding of democracy that prevails today, democracy is claimed to be “what the people want” and, therefore, no one can rebut this conception because no one can rebut that the sovereignty resides in the people. Here the problem arises of believing that any decision made by circumstantial governing majorities is sacrosanct and, accordingly, those against that majority are traitors or undemocratic defenders of a coup d’état. Democracy seems to have no limits, which implies that the decision-making spheres of a potential populist government would be infinite. With Trump’s or Iglesias’ governments being held accountable to the people and not to the media, would attacks against the freedom of the press and expression be justified? Following Rousseau’s totalitarian concept of democracy, the answer would be obvious: yes. As the governing force infallibly represents the general will of the people, there cannot be limits for that force. The notion of democracy as a mean to protect individual rights —which constitute the limits of democracy— is simply overlooked. Notwithstanding the similarities between these two sides of the same populist coin, it should not be ignored that, still, they are two different sides. The first difference between these sides is

“Democracy seems to have no limits, which implies that the decision-making spheres of a potential populist government would be infinite.” that Trump seems to have said something that no one from Podemos would say: “We will get our people off of welfare and back to work rebuilding our country with American hands and American labour”. This statement does not contain the sufficient dose of socialism for Podemos. Secondly, and more importantly, although the concepts of political left and right are totally obsolete today, it is strictly necessary to point out that the two sides of our populist coin coincide with some form of right-wing and left-wing populism respectively. The current political moment represents the indignation of the salaried employees damaged by globalisation. This outrage has crystallised into a political phenomenon in which both Pablo Iglesias and Donald Trump have been able to embody what the people want to detest. Having said that, where the economic crisis is the key factor (like in Spain), populism tends to replace the left-wing forces of the system by recovering and updating the communist message. This is the case of Podemos, which, from this perspective, seems to distance itself from

Trump’s populist verbosity. In contrast, where the economy is not the most important factor, although the recovery does not equally cover all the sectors of society, populism dusts off the nationalist message, especially encouraging certain attitudes such as protectionism. Both types of populism seem to take old recipes from the storehouse of history at the risk of waking old demons. To some extent, Podemos and Trump differ from each other; they are two different sides. However, they belong to the same coin. This becomes obvious in their speeches, pep talks, democratic ambitions, tendency to see themselves as being victimised, when they both promise the moon (and why not the stars, too). On the solutions to counter this powerful force that reigns in today’s political arena, I could write yet another article. A good overcoat with which we can protect ourselves from the cold of apocalyptic populists’ irrational sensationalism is the datum. This, nevertheless, forces us to exercise our critical thinking. It would also be advisable that the political forces that made America and Spain (and Europe) great regain the initiative. Javier Martín Merchán studies International Relations at Universidad Pontificia Comillas. He was a Politics exchange student at the University of Surrey during the 2015/16 academic year.

INCITE | ISSUE 9

OPINION | THE LIBERAL DEMOCRATS

The Lib Dems: A Way Back? Fergus Turtle explores whether the Lib Dems can recover from their recent electoral defeats.

’m sure readers are all too familiar with what the results of the 2015 general election meant for the Liberal Democrats. Faced with their lowest number of seats since the 1950s and pushed into fourth place both in vote share and parliament, it seemed that the party of the self styled ‘radical centre’ was all but dead. I wouldn’t be the first to compare the Liberal Democrats to cockroaches. But they, much like the Liberal Party before them, have faced crushing defeats before and yet have always managed to find a way back from the wilderness. Whereas defeat usually makes the Labour Party descend into chaos and deep internal strife, Britain’s liberal parties tend to stand up, brush off the dust and start the long walk back. Whereas defeat usually makes the Labour Party descend into chaos and deep internal strife, Britain’s liberal parties tend to stand up, brush off the dust and start the long walk back. Now, it would seem, is no exception. The party has picked up 28 council seats in local by-elections, while Labour and the Tories have made significant losses. This doesn’t mean all is well by any means, but the signs of life are there and, importantly, it suggests a well oiled ground game. Of course setbacks have continued for the party since May two years ago. Tim Farron, who took over the leadership from Nick Clegg in July 2015, has not reversed the party’s low opinion poll ratings. The referendum on EU membership, in which the the Liberal Democrats were

INCITE | ISSUE 9

vehemently pro-remain, was lost in June. And with American politics held ransom by the ‘alt-right’, and the two main parties deserting moderation in favour of populism in the UK, things look pretty dire for the liberal minded.

“Whereas defeat usually makes the Labour Party descend into chaos and deep internal strife, Britain’s liberal parties tend to stand up, brush off the dust and start the long walk back.” In the midst of difficulty though, comes opportunity. The referendum result has given the Liberal Democrats a new chance to define themselves. Many people may not like the position they have taken but they are now well known as the pro-EU party. Labour’s troubles mean that they have all but given up the job of opposition, focusing instead on themselves. This leaves a large gap perfect for a progressive, socially liberal party like the Liberal Democrats to take up. These events have already shown the effects they can have. The battle for David Cameron’s former seat in the Whitney by-election was far closer than it should have been, for example, with the Liberal Democrats squeezing the Tory and Labour votes. The Richmond Park by-election

could have an article all of its own. But to summarise, a campaign with a clear focus on being anti-Brexit, an almost non-existent Labour vote, and a rigorous ground campaign combined to hand the Liberal Democrats another seat, taken from former candidate for London Mayor Zac Goldsmith. Even the national opinion polls have shown a little improvement in fortune. The road to success for the Liberal Democrats should not be taken for granted. This perfect storm may not last and the consequences of continued defeat look dire, making the stakes are about as high as they can get. The ingredients are all there though - all they need is to use them in the right way. Stick to their positions on the closest possible relationship with Europe, keep up liberal policies around areas like drugs reform and health funding and try to keep their ideas outside the box, relentlessly retain their skill and commitment on the ground, hammer home the idea that Britain is in need of a coherent opposition that is open, tolerant and united (forgive the plug) and they’ll reap the rewards. The party may not be forming a majority government after the next election, but there most certainly is a way back for the Liberal Democrats. Fergus Turtle is a second year Physics student at the University of Surrey.

OPINION | REFUGEE CRISIS

The Refugee Crisis: A problem of legislation or implementation? Lucy Barnes places the current refugee crisis in the context of international law, and argues that states’ improper practice of it is exacerbating the problems for asylum seekers.

ithin this article, I will try to encourage anyone reading to take more of a legal approach to asylum seekers. I promise that you do not have to be a master of the law to do this. Whilst there are some extremely compelling arguments on the topic, we have lost sight of what is legal into the endless vacuum of opinion. So, before condemning how international laws have been interpreted on a regional scale, and suggesting reform proposals, I’d like to start by stating that opinions surrounding refugees should be formed around the law and the failures of such, because this is the catalyst of true change and reform. I’d also like to note that ideas on solving the crisis at large are subjects for another article. Thus, in this one, I aim to make readers consider that before true reform, we need some kind of consensus of thought. Firstly, I’d like to point out that the facts prove that the refugee crisis is a global humanitarian one, and not such a specific crisis for Europe or America, as is often claimed. If the United Nations Refugee Agency 2016 statistics are to be considered, only 6% of all refugees have migrated to Europe, and of that 6% for Europe, the weightiest burden lies with Greece and Italy. 12% of all refugees to America and 39% go to the neighbouring

host countries, such as Iran and Lebanon. However, we’re often told by the media that they are “coming over here” as if it is easy and because they want to, yet are rarely told that there are numerous laws and regulations that prevent this from being the case. If the refugees’ reason for coming over here was to benefit from our systems, I doubt that 5000 would have lost their lives to such a journey, now lost and forgotten by politics in the Mediterranean. What the 1951 UN internationally binding Geneva Refugee Convention is founded on is the principle of balancing national security with a humanitarian essence of encouraging refugees to be re-settled and integrated into society when their homes become a place of horror. Seems like a perfect balance between the two, right? So then, I ask, why on earth is this not the case in practice? Why are there terror attacks, such as the one in Berlin from paperless migrants which are empowering people to protest refugees? Why is there such a humanitarian crisis which is empowering some to silence the more radical when they try to express national security concerns? There are many reasons for this polarisation of opinion which are rooted in both regional/national interpretation

“The assumption of them “coming over here” when we “know nothing about their background” is manifestly ill-founded, as trained professionals are hired to assess all the facts which are placed onto the EURODAC system.” of international laws, and the systems born from them, which I will address in turn. What is the European system, then? In simplistic terms, refugees are bound by the Dublin Regulation, which states that the country where the individual has their fingerprints taken in and registered onto the European identity database (EURODAC) is the country they should stay in. So, the assumption of them “coming over here” when we “know nothing about their background” is manifestly ill-founded, as INCITE | ISSUE 9

Image: Prazis / Fotolia

trained professionals are hired to assess all the facts which are placed onto the EURODAC system. Thus, the state has a right, subject to the UN vulnerability criteria of refugees, to send refugees back to the country where they were first fingerprinted. In fact, many of them get sent back to Greece and Italy so the system of burden-sharing is not working. With sympathy being afforded to the atrocity at the Berlin Christmas market, I understand how your fears of safety are being compromised. After all, how can we know that these asylum seekers are not radical Islamists? Well, why this fear was created in the first place lies in law, with Article 33 of the Geneva Convention and the principle of non-refoulement whereby to protect an applicant from torture in their fleeing country, they cannot be expelled at any cost. This is an absolute prohibition which is why the situation leading up to Berlin was created. This is where reform is essentially needed. Whilst Article 33(2) states that in matters of imminent national concern, an applicant may be expelled, this in practice is never the case as the human rights of the applicant to not be tortured are favoured by all international and regional courts over national security concerns. As I will INCITE | ISSUE 9

explain later, this is what is causing the fundamental issues which are sparking polarisation of opinion. And with America? What America has allowed for is ‘policies’ of people such as Trump to give a voice to people who fear something they do not properly understand. Why this is the case warrants an entirely separate article, but we only need to consider Trump’s recent ban to understand this in full – he has given Muslim populated states with an economic interest in the US a right of entry and banned the poor humans from war-torn states who need our help. The administration has stopped helping those in need and only wants to help those they have a financial incentive in. Secondly, with regards to Sharia law, Trump says: “we need to understand the problem” when the problem is not with a large proportion of the Muslim community, but rather with the Islamists - so I ask, is that the problem? Or is the real problem rooted in our lack of understanding or worse – our lack of wanting to understand? In essence, a man who has literally no idea what he is talking about with regards to the religion

or asylum laws (UN has declared his ban illegal) has just been elected the man in charge of banning them from entering the US. This moves us onto his “extreeeeme vetting” policy, which he stated like a proud child saying their first word without knowing what it even means. He rationalised this on the basis that America apparently does not know “who we’re letting in.” Again, this is manifestly inaccurate. Whilst it is admittedly difficult to vet people fleeing from war, there is still a 6 stage application process to begin the vetting process which takes 18-24 months before a refugee can even enter the US. They have fingerprints, they have documents, they have health screenings, they know who you are. In the words of John Oliver “no refugee in their right mind would want to apply”, but this is not a matter of choice; they have to flee. As a matter of fact, out of the 784,000 refugees admitted into the US since September 2011, only three have been arrested for planning terrorist activities. There are American people who kill more American people than Muslims and yet we do not round them up into a segregated group of blame. Why? In summary, to use his own phrase against him, the US “has extreme

Image: upnorth.eu

OPINION | THE TITLEREFUGEE CRISIS

problems and we don’t need more” with immigrants. So, how do we fix this? Essentially, what should be proposed is that more people look towards reform of how the law is practiced. With regards to asylum laws, we can only initiate true change if we have a more balanced approach in practice and in interpretation. “By adding new rights we just weaken the pre-existing ones”, to quote Jordan Peterson. By adding new EU regulations and directives, Europe is not solving the problem, and banning refugees is not solving the problem either. What is needed is to create a system whereby Article 33(2) of the Geneva Convention is evoked more frequently in order to protect national security. In cases where the government/lawyers are certain that their country is under threat, then this powerful exception to the first subsection should not just be ignored like it is being now. Whilst I agree that the applicant should never be sent back to a part of a country where they fear persecution, there must be a place in a safer part of that country/neighbouring countries where they can be settled without causing national outcry because

this awful “paperless” situation we have (where an asylum seeker’s claim is rejected but they cannot be sent back) is only brewing tensions and empowering far-right thinkers – which has added gasoline to the fire of people like Donald Trump. If we allow such considerations to bind the courts, then anxiety on the issue may resolve and everyone can work together to share the responsibility of the refugee crisis. It cannot be solved until people are like-minded or similarminded on the issue.

realise that this man truly does not know what he is doing or saying, and that both America and Europe will finally turn to the law and try to begin interpretative reform so we can strike a balance, instead of continuing this self-perpetuating cycle of hatred and blame. Lucy Barnes is a third year Law student at the University of Surrey, currently studying abroad at the University of Turku in Finland.

“this awful “paperless” situation we have (where an asylum seeker’s claim is rejected but they cannot be sent back) is only brewing tensions and empowering farright thinkers” I’d like to conclude this article by stating that although the immigration ‘policies’ of Trump are frightening, the ruling from a federal judge in Seattle of its illegality provides some hope that the law will prevail. I still have some hope that America will rise above the fiction and INCITE | ISSUE 9

OPINION | UK FOREIGN POLICY

Brexit: Lessons From Finland Much like Finland during the Cold War, the UK is now stuck between two great power blocs - Trump’s America and the EU. How should Theresa May navigate this foreign policy dilemma? Ricardo Teixeira-Mendes investigates.

Image: Getty Images

ost-Brexit Britain is in a precarious position: economically and domestically there is plenty at stake in ensuring that Britain transitions smoothly outside of the European Union. However, often overlooked is the effect on foreign policy and international image - what does Brexit say about Britain? How do we frame Britain’s position in the world now that we are leaving the European Union? Britain has proudly played a midAtlantic role in foreign policy for decades. Under Tony Blair, for example,

INCITE | ISSUE 9

the engagement of Britain as both party to the ‘special relationship’ and European integration cemented the UK as a powerful bridge between the two. But now, as Britain loosens ties with the European Union, this balance is appearing to shift, and with it Britain’s national identity on the world stage. Like Donald Trump’s election, Brexit is strongly predicated on the idea of national sovereignty, the idea that Britain ought to stand independently from seemingly arbitrary regulations and obligations.

But, if the rhetoric of leave campaigners and the Prime Minister is to be believed, it also strongly carried a sense of global ambition – a Britain which does not limit its horizons to the European continent but re-engages with the Commonwealth and beyond. Yet, in the aftermath of the referendum, as Britain finds itself forging closer trade and foreign policy ties with President Trump’s United States while simultaneously conducting an orderly divorce from the EU, it appears that

OPINION | UK FOREIGN POLICY

Image: Cracktwo.com

the United Kingdom faces the political pressure of what is termed Finlandisation from both. Finlandisation is defined as “the process by which one powerful country strongly influences the policies of a smaller neighbouring country, while allowing it to keep its independence and its own political system. The term literally means “to become like Finland” referring to the influence of the Soviet Union on Finland’s policies during the Cold War.” Cold War era Finland found itself playing a neutral conduit between the Soviet bloc and NATO, but that was then and this is now. How can 21st century Britain compare? Firstly, the dynamics of a second Cold War are beginning to unfold, at least foreseeable during Trump’s presidency, between nationalistic authoritarian administrations such as Putin’s Russia and Trump’s America versus the liberal, humanitarian-oriented administrations of Merkel’s Germany and Hollande’s France. While not a pervasive 45 year long split, the situation is tense, especially as Donald Tusk (President of the European Council) termed Donald Trump an external threat to the European Union in the same sentence as the threats of ISIS and climate change. For the time being Britain will be that conduit and, like late 20th century Finland, it will use this as an opportunity to gain favourable trade deals with both blocs and thus theoretically gain the best of both worlds. Finland, however, did not obtain the best of both worlds - it missed out on the Marshall Plan, and it did not have the benefit of collective security from either the Warsaw Pact nor NATO. But it stayed sovereign, and to many Finns that was a price worth paying to preserve parliamentary democracy. It appears Theresa May is seeking to combat Finlandisation in two ways: 1) By maintaining the NATO alliance, despite ideological differences between the US, UK and EU. This binds them all in practice even if ideology creates some conflict of interest. 2) Love-bombing both the US and the EU, thus playing an equally strong role across both the channel and the Atlantic. For instance, in a speech to Republican leaders prior to meeting the President, Theresa May praised common values

Finnish President Urho Kekkonen, left, maintained a close stance with the USSR during the Cold War

between British conservatives and the Republican Party. Similarly, the Prime Minister has felt it necessary to stress she wants the maximum possible market access to the EU and incredible amounts of continued cooperation. However, no matter how much Theresa May attempts to keep the West united under the NATO banner, and how much she attempts to be equally friendly to both the US and EU there is one more risk that arose out of Finlandisation - censorship (or more specifically, self-censorship). In effect, in order to maintain close ties to the USA and not upset the

“many figures [...] have felt the need to normalise Trump and see close ties as important to the national interest, even if that comes with swallowing unsavoury politics [...]. After all, you wouldn’t want to put a big juicy trade deal on the line, would you?” relationship, many (especially supporters of Theresa May’s government) will start to defend Trump and his ideas. For prior to the general election, many British Conservatives came out in ambivalence at best and opposition at worst to Donald Trump’s candidacy. But now, many figures such as Tory MP Jacob Rees-Mogg and much of the right leaning press have felt

the need to normalise Trump and see close ties as important to the national interest, even if that comes with swallowing unsavoury politics across the pond such as Trump’s executive order banning citizens of seven Muslim-majority countries. After all, you wouldn’t want to put a big juicy trade deal on the line, would you? This logic was pervasive in relation to Finland and the Soviet Union, particularly after the 1960s as left-wing social democratic governments took power. In this environment, editors of Finnish mass media begun strong forms of self-control, self-censorship and proSoviet attitudes. This was done not only to secure the national interest but also align more closely ideologically than to the right-leaning US dominated NATO, which was presented as a threat to world peace and thus Finnish security. Most of the elite of media and politics shifted their attitudes to match the values that the Soviets were thought to favour and approve. It now appears that a similar phenomenon is developing for media outlets on the right of British politics, as Trump’s presidency comes to be seen as in the national interest and a natural counter balance to the European Union, seen as the age old threat to British sovereignty. Whether this will filter beyond to electoral politics depends entirely on the length of Trump’s presidency, changes in the EU and the willingness of the British government to strike a balance of favours between the US and the EU. More frighteningly in the days of Cold War Finland, literal censorship to appease the Soviets was prevalent. INCITE | ISSUE 9

Image: BBC.co.uk

In the years immediately after the war (1944–1946), the Soviet part of the Allied Control Commission demanded that public libraries should remove from circulation more than 1,700 books that were deemed anti-Soviet, and book shops were given catalogues of banned books. The Finnish Board of Film Classification likewise banned films that it considered to be anti-Soviet. Banned films even included The Manchurian Candidate, a 1962 political drama concerning the brainwashing of the son of a prominent right-wing political family, who becomes an unwitting assassin in an international communist conspiracy. I don’t think such direct clandestine politics is ever likely in the UK, not least in an era of diversified mass media (particularly new media and social media), but it raises to the forefront quite prominently the extent that many are willing to go for the sake of peace, bandwagoning and ideological preservation. What I hope will come out of this is that Finlandisation, particularly of the UK by the US, will be thoroughly avoided. Britain should remain firm but fair towards the US, especially if recent actions are likely to affect British people directly, as the executive order colloquially termed the “Muslim ban” or “extreme vetting” has done for British people with second passports from the affected countries. Importantly, Britain must not remain INCITE | ISSUE 9

“The United Kingdom, in order to avoid Finlandisation of either the EU or the US, needs to forge an identity and role for itself that may not entirely agree with Trump’s isolationist protectionist nationalism, nor the centralisation and bureaucracy of the EU.”

from both must always be remembered lest we repeat the same mistakes Finland did during the Cold War. Ricardo Teixeira-Mendes is a second year Politics student at the University of Surrey.

Finlandised by the European Union either - cooperation and mutual respect is needed, but if Brexit is to be stable and a success then we cannot risk sovereignty being eroded by self-censorship and abandonment of British values. The United Kingdom, in order to avoid Finlandisation of either the EU or the US, needs to forge an identity and role for itself that may not entirely agree with Trump’s isolationist protectionist nationalism, nor the centralisation and bureaucracy of the EU. Instead, it should truly attempt Theresa May’s spoken vision of “global Britain”: free trading but not locked in union, nationalist but in a civic and open sense, pro-globalisation but weary of the erosion of sovereignty. Only then can we avoid Finlandisation, but as the UK remains much smaller and less powerful than the EU or US, the threat

OPINION | THE EUROPEAN UNION

Image: AFP

A Boy in Brussels Nabil Rastani details how his trip to the European Union institutions in Brussels strengthened his belief in the Union.

rom 30 January until the 3 February, I was fortunate enough to visit the various institutions of the European Union on behalf of Lilly UK, the company I am currently working for as part of my placement. The experience was a fascinating one, not just from a political perspective - but also from a cultural and even sociological perspective. Throughout my time in Brussels I frequently visited the European Parliament and Commission - on the first day I attended a series of votes on European medicine regulations and reforms on workersâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; rights. What was incredibly interesting about this was how the whole process was a very organic one: one might think that in gathering voters from across the bloc, each with their own linguistic heritage and cultural stance, it might be impossible to get people to cooperate. On the contrary,

national allegiances seem to play little part within European parliamentary affairs; instead, it seems that MEPs find differences more with each other based on ideology (for example, I witnessed a particularly humourous feud between social democrats and nationalists at one point). The voting is done by MEPs who raise their right hand either in favour or against a particular motion. The biggest issue I saw was that the entire process is far from seamless and swift. The EU certainly earnt its reputation as a clunky and inefficient bureaucracy when I was there: they would vote on every amendment within a particular bill, and sometimes this would number over 500! In addition to attending some of these votes, I had the pleasure of taking part in a series of talks about a variety of topics. These included water security and the increased prospect of water wars within

South Asia and how the European Union, in coordination with various IGOs, is attempting to dampen these tensions. This was really interesting, and gave me a more rounded perspective of the European Union as it showed the bloc was clearly not just working together to secure peace in Europe but also the wider world. The issue of water conflict is certainly one that will become more pertinent as climate change takes its toll. Another debate I attended was on the proliferation of artificial intelligence and its impact on labour and workersâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; rights. This debate highlighted issues that I had never thought to think of, such as how robots may significantly increase the gender gap as more pressure will be placed upon people going into the STEM subjects to produce the software and robots - a sector that employs substantially more men than women. INCITE | ISSUE 9

a well-established, grass-roots federalist movement within the EU, particularly driven by youths. By far the most interesting part of my visit was attending a debate within the

“What seems obvious to me and a minority of proEuropeans is that coherence is not enough; unity is necessary to overcome the various issues that face the Union.The only way this can be achieved is for the full federalisation of the EU into a democratic federal bloc a United States of Europe.” main legislative chamber. Now, this piece would be incomplete without something on Brexit. While I sadly did not attend the main debate, where Mr. Farage was berated by a paper sign behind him, I did attend a debate the next day on the issue of Georgia and giving their citizens European visas and greater opportunities to visit the Union. One could clearly see that the progressives within the legislature (the social democrats, centrists and Christian Democrats) were clearly in favour of Georgia getting visas; after all, the Georgian government has

significantly improved its human rights record, has increased its commitment to democracy, and boasts a very proEuropean population. But, to my disbelief, UKIP MEPs attempted to derail the entire negotiation process. They were essentially suggesting that because of Brexit the entire bloc is doomed to fail and in addition, that ISIS would use Georgia as a launch pad to Europe. What frustrated me the most was the fact that these regressive rather than progressive MEPs were simply trying to delay the process simply because of a personal enmity they held towards the Union, not because of solid empirical fact or logic. I did, however, take pleasure in seeing the other MEPs (and many of us viewing) boo that particular MEP after he finished talking. I end my piece here by saying that, despite its many faults, the European Union is an incredibly admirable project, but has reached an impasse. The EU does not know what it represents: is it for “ever closer union” to the point of federalisation? Or is it merely a loose confederation of states merely motivated by economic gain? For the sake of the world, I hope it is the former. Nabil Rastani is a third year International Politics student at the University of Surrey, currently on placement at Future Foreign Policy UK.

Image: anneliesedoddsmep.uk

The talk also spoke about the increase in drones within warfare, something that could reshape combat significantly. The next and probably most engaging talk I attended was about the future of the European Union. This debate was conducted by an Oxford University professor, who spoke about how the Union needs to reshape itself. Before the talk I spoke to a Flemish chap who, like myself, shares a common vision of seeing world governance rather than regional or national governance as a key to solving the world’s issues (a vision that is espoused by my religion, the Baha’i Faith). Finding and talking to someone else who also shared this vision was incredibly refreshing. What was key about this talk was that we are entering a new and dangerous phase of human history; a new norm has developed around populism (Trump was frequently mentioned), economic malaise, refugee crises and despotisms. Our speaker’s answer was to develop a coherent vision within Europe. But while the talk was engaging, I felt the speaker’s solutions were vague at best, lacking any bold action. What seems obvious to me and a minority of pro-Europeans is that coherence is not enough; unity is necessary to overcome the various issues that face the Union. The only way this can be achieved is for the full federalisation of the EU into a democratic federal bloc - a United States of Europe. To my surprise and great relief, there is indeed

INCITE | ISSUE 9

Printed in Guildford by IJ Graphics www.ijgraphics.co.uk