Europe Rising.

Standing in the Commons on Monday, Prime Minster David Cameron was heckled and faced his largest opposition to date: however, these criticisms came largely not from the opposite bench, but from those sat behind him.

Debates regarding the British membership in the EU remain fierce and frantic. Online polls from various websites largely concur that the British public feel it necessary to call a referendum on the issue of European Union membership and there is evidence that large swaths of the voting public are interested in a renegotiation of the terms of membership at the very least.

The backbench motion was defeated by 483 votes to 111.

Cameron and the vast majority of Parliament officials voted against the reformation, after all Tory, Lib Dem and Labour MPs had been instructed to oppose it.

However, that is far from helping define the gravity of the issue.

Proposed by a Conservative MP, David Nutall, the motion was brought forward under the insistence that the vast majority of those eligible to vote had not had their say on the EU. And he said the UK Parliament was becoming "ever more impotent" as the "tentacles" of the European Union "intruded into more and more areas of national life".

Of course, no government can ever assume to be possessed of the right of power over an issue to the end of time. In an almost repetitious manner, the government here are setting up a power by assumption; they appear to cling to laws that are inherited as definitive of the current time.

As the circumstances of the world are constantly changing and we live through a rather volatile and unstable set of political movements, an act of non-repeal is taken for consent on certain issues, presumably to ensure some social stability. Voicing the need for change is the first step.

Yet in the face of this adversity, the Conservative party imposed a three-line whip on backbench motion on their representatives. In short, any that voted in favour of the bill and against the Tory grain were to be forced to leave their posts.

Such almost childish quibbles should not be the resort of a government not only criticised as fragile, but who are managing a country through one of the most difficult financial negotiations of human history. In fact, it ensures Mr Cameron and co have more a look of a totalitarian state: ignoring public feel and punishing those MPs, whose job it is to serve their community – ergo, punishing public opinion.

Whilst I do not consider an exit from Europe a viable move for the UK considering the globalisation of markets and trade, the methods executed to prevent such an event are hindering progression in the main.

Asked whether he regretted the order, Mr Cameron argued, "No I don't: in politics you have to try to confront the big issues, rather than try to sweep them under the carpet and that's what we did yesterday.”

All the same, this appears a rather dubious comment. Considering that his party has a history of infamous relationships and opinions on Europe (looking back to the Thatcher era), this defence could be seen as unique. It is arguable that Cameron is sweeping an issue under the rug in his hard line of action. Instead of allowing an open debate on the issue and gaining an accurate image of the concerns, there has been elected to power a leader whose prerogative on this issue seems against free speech.

Although the current timing may not suit, the motion would certainly give an idea of policies that should be considered for future governments.

Eurosceptics and members of the Conservative party alike remain somewhat bemused by the events of the past week however. Cameron’s public stance since coming to power has been one of a firm hand with Europe: proclaiming efforts to take back powers from Brussels, this was not the dedication many had hoped for last May.

Perhaps these restrictions are more indicative of a wartime government, for we should be under no illusions that the current stand point is that we are in a war on debt. On a global scale.

“Every step closer to the exit sign shakes confidence in the British economy and can hit British jobs.” argued Nick Clegg after the votes had been announced and there is no doubt a truth in his proclamation. With downgrading already occurring and forecasts being realigned, not even the onset of the 2012 Olympic games seems to be aiding a boost to our economy.

Reforms that are still primary concerns are said to be on the agenda still, but approached in much more a softly, softly manner, as Clegg added that “You reform Europe by leading it.”

Nonetheless, with a plethora of problems melting in the mixing point, the next decade will be one that continues to produce turbulence across Europe. Angela Merkel, the Chancellor of Germany, earlier this week predicted the threatening results of a collapse of the Euro: “let us be under no illusion, another decade of peace in Europe cannot be an absolute certainty.” she proclaimed to large scoffs.

Extreme or rational? The idea plays on a great many fundamental truths; if European nations do not pull together over the current climate of Euro debt, then markets and trade suffer, amidst increasing demands for consumer items and supplies in an ever growing world. Add to this countries pulling every which way to suit their own political aim and not that of the majority, then there quickly establishes a tentative web of allegiances and political oppositions that mirrors the outbreak of World War One just a century later. 

Merkel’s comments certainly make for interesting outlooks and should not be skated around.

Cameron need reacquaint himself with public interest: his rash action is certainly done in the best interest to economic growth, but forcing a wedge between parliament and the public is one certain way to have an overspill of riots: and considering continued activism at St Pauls, planned strikes at the end of November and continued student demos from the end of last year, the Conservative party is not one with many activist friends. Now, it alienates its own members in the largest uprising in modern Tory history.

A Helpless Society.

The certain state of moral bankruptcy recently discussed on the blog is only all the more emphasised by the recent disturbing case of Yueyue, the Chinese toddler that was left, ignored by passers-by on a street after having been run over.

The toddler appears to have been trying to cross the road without parental or guardian supervision when a van hit her. The busy and narrow market streets of the Foshan district where the accident occurred only serve to emphasise how close all pedestrians were at hand that failed to act.

CCTV that has emerged of the incident shows many people walk or cycle past the lifeless body of the two year old; the girl was only at last aided when blocking a cleaner from her routine.

With a certain vivacity and tumultuous uproar, the peoples of nations worldwide have called out against such harsh and seemingly inhumane actions as to abandon the girl in such a fashion. Within China itself opinion on the matter is actually divided: while some praise the cleaner for her actions, others have decided it to be a selfish act, for spotlight and attention and the hope of reward.

Here comes into play the global pandemic of Samaritans worldwide.

More frequently than ever before, these helpful bystanders are targeted themselves: in the streets of metropolitan cities, some accidents are staged so as to rob or abuse the helpful person. Elsewhere, strangers are looked on with suspicion and so their help is refused. At worse, their help is considered to be a declaration of culpable guilt of having harmed the victim in the first place.

From Chuck Asay

Humanity has grown so introverted and self-centred that it is a difficult time to be charitable just for being charitable.

Regarding the instance in China, within hours of the story breaking, it had trended to the top of Sina Weibo, a Chinese version of Twitter. Commenters argued that “This society is seriously ill. Even cats and dogs shouldn’t be treated so heartlessly,” whilst another poster, named Johnny Yao wrote to establish the defining paradox of our modern lives: “Everyone is praising the rubbish-collecting granny for helping, but isn’t it normal to help someone who is wounded or dying? This just shows how abnormal is the moral situation in this society!”

Questions regarding the place of helpful citizens remain a key priority: in China particularly, there have been recent cases where the Samaritan is wrongly held accountable for various problems. A bus driver that stopped to help a woman on the street was accused of having run her over, and the story went national. The elderly lady had to make a statement in the defence of her rescuer.

More importantly, a man that took a fallen woman to hospital was brought back and made to pay expenses for her treatment, as he could have been a part of her incident. Mr Peng Yu’s decidedly unjust case has become infamous within the country and due to various coined phrases, Chinese citizens now live in the shadow of the sequel of the Peng Yu case.

If we are to continue to blame, abuse and mistreat our do-gooders, our morally valuable citizens, then we promote and champion a system by which we continue to downgrade and attack each other in the hope of material or worldly gain.

The front cover of a Chinese newspaper, featuring the parents of the toddler.

Mounting disrespect, maltreatment and set-up scenarios have left the number of willing citizens dwindling. 

Who could blame them for doing so? Whilst we all hope that someone would come to our own aid in any such terrible situation as being run over, we all know and fleetingly accept that our own decision as a bystander is often to continue with ignorance.

Hypocritical to the last, a growing number of citizens want help, but do not deliver it themselves.

Other cynics condemn those that help to be merely searching for a spotlight. However, maybe there need be a spotlight on those values that have been lost in an age of technological, medical and lifestyle advancement. Otherwise, humanity will be regressing already.

Addicted to Clubs!

Dirty, stinking, overhyped clubs packed with students are the current trend amongst youngsters just having left home for the first time. However, what draws them to these small boxes where they are shepherded from bar to bar and squashed and beat against the backs of other equally miserable young adults? Could it be the overwhelming sweat? The deafening and monotonously similar beat to every song? The deal breaker of cheap alcohol on an incomprehensible scale? Together, this hellish mix are a catalyst to ephemeral transcendence. Clubs are a new breed of escapist addiction.

In the brief four hours spent partying, there is an intermittent life where the youth can forget the chronic illnesses of the world they are about to inherit.

Nowhere is this more evident than the front pages of newspapers: where the woes of X Factor contestants are splashed across the cover, whilst stories of worth and importance are to be found below page 6.

Sensationalisation of newspaper content is to the detriment of society. Once the reserve of learned persons, and later a symbol of the truths of the day, the papers are now harbingers of doom in their own right. 

Content invariably swings from Z list celebrities of Big Brother or pre-millennium dwindling fame, to the morbid and insipid reporting of global events.

Not that the focus on worldwide news is a symbol of the right direction for these papers: far too often, the stories are run without checking of fact, with rumour thrown in for good measure and with no proffer of future activity. Doom and gloom personified.

Unfortunately, the addiction to this type of throwaway news is a reflection of deeper issues with society and these trends themselves can be traced in the prioritising of paper print. Primarily, we are bombarded with the live problems of stars that may appear relevant to our miserable lives: yet since their lavish or outlandish behaviours are something only quantifiable in their own spectrums, we are left to wonder in bewilderment at how far these fame hungry few abuse their limelight and depict the moral bankruptcy of a generation.

Subsequent items will be of little value: a local event here, a trivial piece on a local person there.

Where moments of true journalism shine are in their ability to relate the stories to the modern day life of many: the daily grind, how such a feature impacts our lives, how these events could develop.

Yet, more often, reporters shy away from such a style of reporting in case any person should take offence at any inferences made in composition. Instead, it is substituted for rather more an impersonal approach, wherein events are recalled in stagnant fashion so as to appear factual, but in reality tell us little of the surrounding circumstances and reactions.

However, this epitomises a society who are more concerned about their technologies than their society; we want the details in as short a fashion as possible, without any care for the deeper underlying issues. When we continue to ignore the mounting tensions in various elements of the world, they always, inevitably, return to bite. Example in point, the recent London riots.

How does a heat wave merit front page news?

But this lifestyle is addictive: we can tune out from the main and plug into our own microcosm without having to suffer the incredulities and consequences of other people.

Nightclubs are a cry from youngsters to avoid this world. They come together to celebrate in music and alcohol, but never engage in meaningful conversation in such an establishment. In attempts to escape the very social dynamic and social wrongs that characterise their times, these teenagers only serve to emphasise how together we are in our individuality and ignorance.

Because surrounded by the flashing lights and the pumping music, it is easy to forget the details of deaths in Africa and corrupt leaders in the Middle east; the few moments in the club are your own moments of spotlight in the public eye, on the dancefloor.

The Decline of University?: Applicants down 10%

Emerging statistics suggest that university applications for the forthcoming 2012-2013 academic calendar are down 10% on the number made for the previous year group.

Without hesitation, one is able to point blame at the impending introduction of the 9k fees, whose first term coincides with the prospective intake. The controversial decision to triple the amount universities are allowed to charge has seen an overwhelming number of institutions charges of the top level, despite promises that this would only be permitted in rare circumstances.

Of course, there was no method by which to implement an effective graded scale of pay across universities: as more money raised at any one institution elevates it significantly above its competitors in dispensable income and no faculty would want to suffer as a consequence.

Indeed, chair of the UCU lecturers’ union, Sally Hunt, advocated that “The government's fees policy has been a disaster from the start and it is clearly having a serious impact on the choices young people make.”

Levying the fees in such an unprecedented fashion makes a great many potential applicants look twice at 

their future prospects.

Consequently, the current trend of a 10% decrease in uptake can come as no real surprise, but an affirmation that the domain of academia could ocne again slowly become the reserve of the rich and priviledged.

Whilst deadlines for the vast majority of applications is not until January 2012, these early figures fo provide a forecasted outlook. UCAS admissions services monitors the activity and is set to give updates should there be any significant changes as have so far been seen.

Overall, there has been a 9% reduction in comparison to this time last year; but this figure adds a third when considering just UK students, with a 12% decrease at present.

Universities UK however has warned these are not necessarily the figures that will be seen come the New Year, since Oxbridge has witnessed only a 0.8% fall in hopeful students.

However, this could in fact be testament to the social demographic which chooses the elite pair amongst their five choices. Whilst the two oldest institutions have claimed to be making headway in ensuring equal accessibility opportunities over the past years, there is no doubt that this has caused a great deal of unrest with a number of staff, who have publically stated their grievances.

Could the small drop actually be reflective of the number of wealthier families that still plague the hallways of the revered grounds? Moreover, there is suggestion that since these numbers are not broken down for comparison of social area, there could indeed have been a reduction in state school hopefuls and a surge in private interest with the prospect of fewer places awarded to their mainstream counterparts.

A recent Guardian article review a similar issue and looked both at social economic and social ethnicity factors at Oxbridge.

As such, the discrepancy between Oxbridge figures and those on a nationwide level leave a great deal to ponder on.

Despite being against the rise in fees, this downturn in possible students gives rise to a number of unforeseen potential circumstances that may help in the long-run.

For example, in the midst of a global economic crisis, the streamlining of university functions is essential. In changing the number of students applying year on year, the colleges would be able to ensure lower costs and lower state dependencies, whilst producing graduates and continued research.

Furthermore, the job market is currently saturated with graduates who all boast a degree at a top ranking university in their field. Already, the worth and merit of study is deteriorating and ensuring that an undergraduate diploma is essentially of little consequence. To limit the number of persons who continually apply with such qualifications will allow a greater percentage of university leavers to find employ in their chosen area (should the financial troubles subside and growth resume).

In addition, many who would have gone to university simply because their friends, relatives or pets were applying will now reconsider. Perhaps this will give a boost to apprenticeships and skilled trades who often lost out to the luring prospects of University. Perhaps this will see a unique boom in industry that, if sustained correctly, would produce economic benefits.

This is not to campaign for or provide a late exoneration of the government policy however. Restricting the paths of a number of citizens is quite potentially the equivalent of a 21^st century disenfranchisement. Abusing students as a scapegoat for market difficulties only emphasises the moral bankruptcy of the government in addition to their financial bankruptcy.

Come January, a clearer picture of numbers and their heritages will emerge: but until then, the dream of graduation appears slimmer for a large number, who will have to consider alternative outlets, while oppressed by high inflation, stagnant job opportunities and now elitist education academies.