International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women

Today, 25th November, has been designated by the UN as an international day for the elimination of violence against women.

“Violence against women and girls is a human rights violation, public health pandemic and serious obstacle to sustainable development. It imposes large-scale costs on families, communities and economies. The world cannot afford to pay this price.” — Ban Ki-moon, UN Secretary-General

In my work in the field of child abuse, I have increasingly become aware of the huge tragedy of violence against women, the awful scars it causes to the women themselves, and to their children. It is also a scar across the whole of humanity – something Elaine Storkey has explored in her powerful book, Scars Across Humanity. We must do more to stop it.

Violence against women harms their children too.

In the three years from April 2011 to March 2014, Local Safeguarding Children Boards in England carried out a total of 293 Serious Case Reviews (SCRs) (1). Each one of these concerned a child or children who had died or been seriously harmed as a result of abuse or neglect. In a review of these SCRs, we found that in 54% of cases, there was documented evidence of domestic violence in the parents’ relationship. This included 70 children who had died within a context of domestic violence in the family.

It is now abundantly clear from research that living with domestic abuse is always harmful to children. This was emphasised in a recent special issue of the journal Child Abuse Review (2). At its extreme, this may result in the death of a child, the risks for which may continue even after separation. However, far more children continue to live in households where domestic violence is a part of ‘normal’ family life. The myth that because the children are in a different room and so don’t witness any actual violence, they aren’t harmed by it, has been very clearly shown to be a myth. Children pick up on the stress their parents feel; they experience the fear and terror when their mother is being hit or shouted at; they suffer from the controlling, threatening behaviour, the isolation and intimidation that are imposed on their mothers (for the reality is that, in most of these cases, it is the mother who is the victim).

Over the past few years, there has been huge progress in how we as a society, and as child welfare professionals, recognise and respond to domestic violence, including a growing recognition of the impact on children of living with domestic violence. However, there is still much to do. In our research we identified the importance of police, health and social care professionals carefully considering the needs of children in a family whenever there is evidence of domestic violence; of recognising that domestic violence should not be seen solely in terms of violent incidents, but also within the context of ongoing coercive control and the impact of this on the parent and children; and that controlling behaviour may continue to pose risks to mothers and children, even following separation.

By recognising these risks, and taking action to protect women and children from domestic violence, perhaps we could prevent some of those 70 deaths and many more of the cases of serious harm and children and women living in fear.

The full research report, Pathways to harm, pathways to protection, is freely available for download from Research in Practice: http://seriouscasereviews.rip.org.uk

The special issue of Child Abuse Review is available via the BASPCAN website: http://www.baspcan.org.uk/child-abuse-review/

Sidebotham P, Brandon M, Bailey S, Belderson P, Dodsworth J, Garstang J, et al. Pathways to harm, pathways to protection: a triennial analysis of serious case reviews 2011 to 2014. London: Department for Education; 2016.
Humphreys C, Bradbury-Jones C. Domestic Abuse and Safeguarding Children: Focus, Response and Intervention. Child Abuse Review. 2015;24(4):231-4.

November 13, 2016November 12, 2016

Re-reading Malachi: a sermon for Remembrance Sunday

We live in a messed up, hurting world.

Remembrance Sunday

Today is Remembrance Sunday on which we give thanks for those who gave their lives for the peace that we have enjoyed for the past 60 years; we remember the horror of war – the pointless loss of innocent lives; we pray for those who live with the ongoing reality of violent conflict; and we strive for greater peace and freedom.

In Bristol, 19,240 shrouded figurines were laid out in memory of the British soldiers who were killed on the first day of the Battle of the Somme, 1^st July 1916.

100 years later: from 9/11 to 11/9

As we commemorate 100 years from the Battle of the Somme, it is patently clear that we continue to live in a messed up, broken world. We just need to think of the events of this week with the US election; or the Brexit vote just 5 months ago; or the terrible reality of the terrorist attacks of 9/11 and all the ongoing terrorism since; or the living reality of the conflicts in Syria and elsewhere.

We seem to be surrounded by violence, intolerance, bigotry and greed: if anything such values seem to be more prominent, and it is easy to lose hope and sink into despondency.

Reading Malachi

The book of the prophet Malachi is the last book in the Old Testament. It was written around the time of Nehemiah and the re-settlement of Jerusalem after the exile.

And it is a book of judgment:

See, the day is coming, burning like an oven, when all the arrogant and all evildoers will be stubble; the day that comes shall burn them up, says the Lord of hosts, so that it will leave them neither root nor branch (Malachi 4:1)

This makes it a really hard book to get to grips with and to reconcile with our understanding of God and the reality of the world we live in. It comes across as a book that incites religious bigotry and division.

A divided world

We like things to be simple, to make sense according to our sense of right and wrong. And so we tend to divide the world into two groups: the righteous and the evildoers; those who are in God’s kingdom and those who are not. And we like to believe that God loves the first group, but hates the others; that God will bless the righteous, but the evildoers will be destroyed.

That was perhaps how the Israelites saw things, and we can read Malachi from that perspective:

‘I have loved you,’ says the Lord. ‘Yet I have loved Jacob but I have hated Esau; I have made his hill country a desolation and his heritage a desert for jackals.’ (Malachi 1:2-3)

We can read Malachi in that light – divide the world into those who are good and those who are evil; those who are in the kingdom and those who are out.

Religious Bigotry

There are a number of problems with that:

It doesn’t match reality. It is not the evil who suffer for their violence and greed, all too often it is their innocent victims: the young men sent to the trenches of WWI; the innocent civilians in Coventry, Dresden, or Hiroshima; the millions of Jews sent to the gas chambers; the families of those killed in action in Afghanistan or Iraq; the millions of refugees fleeing inconceivable horrors under Islamic State…
Rather than leading to peace, it exacerbates the violence that separates. It is the crusader mentality that prompted those in the middle ages to march out against the infidels, and closer to home, was used by George Bush and Tony Blair to justify military action in Iraq – ‘we are right and God is on our side’. Donald Trump and his rhetoric in the election campaign; the racism that we saw in this country post-Brexit
It infiltrates our churches so that we become exclusive and judgmental. Think about how we, as a church treat people who don’t necessarily conform to our beliefs or behaviour: Muslims, gay people…
It blinds us to the reality that we are just as much to blame.

Are we really that different from those who perpetrate violence and injustice? We like to portray them as evildoers: child abusers, wife batterers, paedophiles, corrupt bankers and stock brokers, bigoted white Americans or Daily Mail readers… The reality may be that we are not that different.

An unfolding word: Re-reading Malachi in a different light

Psalm 119 gives a different perspective on how we can read the words of the prophet Malachi:

The unfolding of your words gives light (Psalm 119:130)

Perhaps, then, a crucial part of challenging religious and any other bigotry is being prepared to have our own prejudices and preconceptions challenged.

So perhaps, in the spirit of this ‘unfolding’ of God’s word, what we need to do is re-read Malachi, in a different light: in the light of Jesus, the Messiah, the sun of righteousness who has risen with healing in his wings; the one who came, not to build walls, but to break down the dividing wall of hostility that separates people; the Prince of Peace, who came to overcome violence and evil, not with yet more force and power, or with tactics of shock and awe, but in humility, non-violence and grace.

Perhaps we need to see the prophecy of Malachi, not so much as a condemnation of those who are different, the evildoers, those who are not in God’s kingdom, but rather as a reflection of the cry of God’s heart: God’s longing for justice and healing; God’s longing for all to know that they are loved and accepted; and God’s longing for all to accept the cleansing and healing that he offers.

If we do that, we will find that most of the words of judgment spoken in the book of Malachi are, in fact, spoken against those who are ‘in’: the people of Israel, God’s chosen people; and particularly against those who claimed to be religious.

A message of hope: the sun of righteousness

We will find also that it is a message of hope: of the sun of righteousness coming with healing on its wings – extending healing to all those who are abused, persecuted or oppressed; those who are hurt by the violence and greed of this broken world; those hurt by the judgments of us who claim to be part of God’s kingdom.

For you who revere my name the sun of righteousness shall rise, with healing in its wings. (Malachi 4: 2)

This is not some soft, wishy-washy message of bland acceptance, ignoring the reality of injustice, violence and greed that is in each one of us. God will bring judgment, and it will be like a fire. But it will be like the fire that burns up chaff and stubble in a harvested field, or like the refiner’s fire that burns up impurities in silver or gold. The farmer will only burn up the chaff and stubble in a field that he cares for, the refiner will only put precious metals in the fire. It is not a fire of torment or destruction, it is a purifying fire and one that leads to justice, to healing, to peace, to joy.

So, if the prophet Malachi were to come to our churches today, what do you think he might see? What might he be challenging us to? Where might he be confronting some of our bigotry, complacency or preconceptions?

September 7, 2016

The violence of the motorcar

Last night I ran over a cat.

There was nothing I could do as it dashed into the road and under the wheels of my car.

I pulled over, shaken and upset, and was relieved to find that the poor thing was at least alive and limping off the road to hide in a doorway. We managed to locate the neighbour and I just hope that the vet has been able to set her to rights, fix any broken bones and relieve some of the pain and shock.

I may not be a great cat-lover, but I really wouldn’t wish such suffering on any innocent creature. So it was somewhat pertinent that my meditations this morning brought me to Psalm 73:

‘All in vain I have kept my heart clean

and washed my hands in innocence.’

Over recent years I have found myself increasingly trying to walk a road of non-violence – to embrace Gandhi’s principles of Satyagraha; to embed the values of Jesus’ Beatitudes; striving to be meek, to be merciful, to be pure in heart; longing for justice; seeking to be a peacemaker.

And then I run over a cat.

So is it all in vain? My blogging on justice issues, voting to remain in the EU, urging my MP to speak out against the Trident programme, joining the Green party?

It seems to me that, no matter how hard we try, the reality is that we live in a culture of violence and greed. And I, too, have bought into that. I try to live simply, but the reality is that my lifestyle is extravagant, even by the standards of many in my own country. I speak out against injustice, and yet the luxuries I enjoy are bought on the back of oppression.

Even the car, on which I am so dependent, is itself a tool of violence: guzzling up fossil fuels with every mile I travel; pouring forth its CO₂ and other pollutants into our atmosphere; disrupting the peace of my evening with its penetrating background noise; luring me into an ever-more frantic pace of life; and harming innocent felines as it goes.

August 8, 2016

Time to call for a maximum wage?

A report from the High Pay Centre this morning told us that the bosses of Britain’s biggest companies take home an average of £5.5 million, having seen their incomes rise by 10% during 2015.

This is a travesty that should have us all shouting for justice every bit as much as the travesty of people sleeping on our streets, queuing at food banks or struggling to live on a minimum wage that doesn’t even cover the basics of life.

The median pay of the chief executives of London’s FTSE index 100 firms rose to £4 million, 144 times the median wage of the average British worker (£27,600).

It is obscene, and as George Monbiot put it, ‘high pay is both counterproductive and unnecessary.’[1] To be earning 7 figure salaries cannot count as anything other than greed.

‘The successful bank robber no longer covers his face and leaps over the counter with a sawn-off shotgun. He arrives in a chauffeur-driven car, glides into the lift then saunters into an office at the top of the building. No one stops him.’ – George Monbiot, Guardian 23.1.12

But does it really matter?

The answer to this has to be a resounding yes.

Last week I reviewed a paper for a journal which, once again, pointed out the links between income inequality and child mortality. This is not just an issue for developing countries – it is a reality in our own, Western bloc.

The impact of income inequality (as measured by the GINI coefficient) on infant mortality in high income countries, has been highlighted in many scientific papers, and is neatly summarised in this figure from The spirit level[2]: those Western countries with the highest income inequality (USA, Portugal, UK, New Zealand) have the highest infant mortality rates, while the Nordic countries and Japan, with far more egalitarian societies have the lowest infant mortality rates. The only exception to this rule seems to be Singapore.

‘a 43 per cent increase in income inequality, which was observed in the UK over the period 1975–2006, would correspond to a 10.6 per cent increase in child mortality for boys and a 12.6 per cent increase for girls.’[3]

And the effects are not just in life expectancy. Income inequalities have been shown to be correlated with measures of child wellbeing, mental illness, drug use, obesity, teenage pregnancy, and much more.

So perhaps the time has come to speak out and make it clear that we don’t want to live in this kind of society. The idea of a maximum wage is not new, but perhaps it is starting to gain momentum and to be seen as a credible policy that could, perhaps, do as much for restoring justice as the minimum and living wages.

[1] https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/jan/23/george-monbiot-executive-pay-robbery

[2] Wilkinson R, Pickett K. The spirit level. London: Allen Lane; 2009.

[3] Roberta Torre & Mikko Myrskylä (2014) Income inequality and population health: An analysis of panel data for 21 developed countries, 1975–2006, Population Studies,68:1, 1-13, DOI: 10.1080/00324728.2013.856457

[4] http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/11/bernie-sanders-used-to-think-there-should-be-a-maximum-wage/416790/

July 17, 2016July 17, 2016

Investment, divestment, and the myths of personal and national security

In the course of my working life I must have contributed tens of thousands of pounds to savings plans, insurance schemes, and other financial investments designed to fool me into thinking that I and my family would somehow be happier, healthier, and immune from personal economic tragedy.

Only a fraction of that cumulative investment ever has benefited me, my family, or the countless other needy people in our world who could potentially benefit from the security, health and wellbeing those thousands could provide.

As far as I am aware, none of that money has gone directly to finance arms dealers, drug dealers, people traffickers or corrupt governments. However, I cannot with absolute certainty rule that out. What I do know is that at least some of the money I have handed over to these banks, building societies, pension and insurance funds has been invested in tobacco, fossil fuels, and big corporations who apparently care little about the conditions or welfare of the people who work for them. And I am sure the rewards of those investments have gone, almost exclusively, into the pockets of the rich.

I am not, in principle, opposed to all savings and investments, nor to all insurance programmes. I have, after all, benefited from them, not just through the ease of mind they have brought, but also, in kind, when things have gone wrong. However, it does trouble me that so much money, which could do so much good, is channelled away from where it is most needed, and all driven – or so it would appear – by irrational fears and anxieties. And that, it seems to me, gets escalated at a national scale.

Tomorrow the British Parliament will vote on whether to go ahead with the renewal of the trident nuclear programme at an estimated cost of at least £41 billion (or a total lifetime cost of up to £205 billion). I struggle to understand why we are even contemplating this as a country. As Caroline Lucas, Nicola Sturgeon and others pointed out in a letter to the Guardian yesterday, the Government’s national security strategy has identified terrorism, climate change, pandemics and cyber warfare as the tier-one threats we face today. Nuclear weapons can do nothing to tackle any of those threats.

“This government’s national security strategy has identified terrorism, climate change, pandemics and cyber warfare as the tier-one threats we face today. Not only does Trident have nothing to offer in countering those threats, it sucks vast amounts of money away from dealing with them. Expert evidence indicates that the huge submarines that carry the nuclear weapons can be rendered redundant by cyber-attack and detected and targeted via new underwater drone technology.”

Caroline Lucas, Diane Abbott, Leanne Wood, Nicola Sturgeon, Mark Serwotka, Major General Patrick Cordingley

So what can I, or anyone else do about this pointless squandering of resources in chasing a myth of improved personal and national security?

As I reflect on how I have used my own resources, I feel ashamed that I, too, am a part of the problem. Over the past few years, I have worked hard to divest of my insurance policies and savings plans, particularly those I know to invest in areas that are damaging to health, welfare or our environment. I have striven to give more away and to live more simply, and have shifted my savings to ethical savings schemes. At the same time, I have written to my MP, my pension scheme and to some of the beneficiaries of the money I have invested. But I confess I haven’t found that easy. Perhaps I could do more.

We will find out tomorrow how our MPs vote on Trident. I fear that they, like me, may succumb to the irrationality of investing our money in a fear-based policy that really seems to miss the point.

June 26, 2016

Brexited

After the initial shock of the EU referendum result, I find myself, along with many others, numbed by a deep disappointment and a sense of grief. Like any grief, this brings up different emotions: emotions I have seen echoed in Facebook posts and in the words and faces of friends.

Grief – as I explored in a previous blog, “What’s natural about a healthy person dying” – combines three core processes: saying goodbye; moving forward; and making sense. So how do I, having voted to remain, turn my grief to something positive, rather than sinking into despondency, or bitterness and blame?

Making Sense

Much as I espoused the values of the European Union, and what seemed to me the benefits of remaining a part of that, I have done so within the privileged context of a democratic society – something my ancestors fought hard to attain, and something that I cannot take for granted. And that democracy has voted to leave.

While it may seem to me that some of those who voted to leave did so for selfish or small-minded motives, while others were driven by fear, or misled by false threats and promises, to taint all Leave-voters with that brush would be to succumb to the same prejudices and generalisations that I objected to in some of the more extreme Leave campaigners. It seems to me that the reality is far more nuanced and varied. There are, undoubtedly, passionate and thoughtful people who voted to leave for much the same reasons as I voted to remain: seeing an exit from the EU as a move to greater justice, freedom and wellbeing. I may disagree with their appraisal, but I hope I may be given the grace to respect and listen to them. And I hope that in the inevitable leadership vacuum which seems now to have imploded into our country, it will be people such as that who rise to fill the gaps and take our country forward into this next phase.

But above all, it seems to me that many of those who voted to leave did so precisely because they felt disenfranchised, marginalised or pushed aside by those in power. People voted because they wanted a change. While there has been a lot of vitriol and blame in the wake of the referendum, there have also been those who have pointed out just how important it is that we take time to listen to those from both sides who used this vote to speak out: those who normally don’t get a voice or any opportunity to influence what happens in our nation.

Whoever shuts their ears to the cry of the poor will also cry out and not be answered.

Proverbs 21: 13

Saying Goodbye

Regardless of how we voted, things will no longer be the same. It seems to me that now is a time for grieving by those who voted to remain, and a time for sombre reflection by those who voted to leave. It is right to express our grief: the sense of shock, the disbelief, the feelings of numbness, loss, uncertainty. So the outpourings of emotion that we have seen on Facebook, in our newspapers and on our news channels, and from many of our pulpits, are right and proper.

I have found myself wanting to apologise – to our children, to all those who will be affected by the inevitable economic turmoil, to the many wonderful people from other European countries and elsewhere in the world who have blessed us by coming to our land, to my friends and colleagues in Europe.

And I think it is right that so many have called for a second referendum: right for them to call for it, expressing their anger and disappointment. But much as those feelings need to be expressed, I do not feel it would be at all right to hold a second referendum. That could only lead to even more bitterness and division. No – we need to accept the results and live with the consequences. So while we in the UK will still be part of Europe, we will no longer be a part of the European Union, and we need to go through the process of breaking those ties and saying goodbye.

Moving Forward

And so, as we go through the next few weeks, months and years, and move out of the Union, as we face the turbulence of further economic and political upheaval, we need to also move forward in hope.

And my biggest hope is that somehow, through all this, we will find a way in a post-EU Britain, to maintain and uphold even more strongly the values for which the EU stands: for peace, for justice, care for our neighbour and our world.

“The Union is founded on the values of respect for human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law and respect for human rights, including the rights of persons belonging to minorities. These values are common to the Member States in a society in which pluralism, non-discrimination, tolerance, justice, solidarity and equality between women and men prevail…

It shall combat social exclusion and discrimination, and shall promote social justice and protection, equality between women and men, solidarity between generations and protection of the rights of the child…

It shall contribute to peace, security, the sustainable development of the Earth, solidarity and mutual respect among peoples, free and fair trade, eradication of poverty and the protection of human rights, in particular the rights of the child” – Treaty on the European Union

Holding onto that, it seems to me that we all need to strive even harder to support and hold to account those who represent us in the corridors of Westminster. To put pressure on our MPs to uphold those values, and to lend our support to those who strive for these values.

I will continue to grieve. Perhaps this blog is part of that: expressing something of the disappointment I feel; trying to make sense of what has happened; hoping that we may somehow, in time, recover some of what we have lost; and above all, longing for a Britain and a Europe where peace, justice, and respect and care for our neighbours and our planet prevail.

June 4, 2016June 4, 2016

Seeking peace, justice and wellbeing: why I believe we should stay in the EU

I have just returned from an inspiring 3 days at the Soria Moria conference centre in the hills above Oslo. Over more than ten years now I have had the privilege of joining a supportive and pioneering group of practitioners, academics, bereaved parents and support groups from Scandinavia, Europe and further afield for this conference on sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS). I always come away with new ideas and fresh enthusiasm, having heard from others about some of the latest research, discussed challenging cases, and considered how we can best work to support families and prevent the horror of unexpected child deaths. There is a spirit of collaboration, humility and learning that pervades the conference and I have no doubt this has led to some major advances in our understanding and direct benefits to children and families around the world.

The conference centre at Soria Moria takes its name and logo from Theodor Kittelsen’s dramatic painting of the poor boy, Halvor, knapsack on his back, gazing off into the distance, far, far away where Soria Moria Palace shimmered like gold: a vision of a brighter, better future.

Far, far away Soria Moria Palace shimmered like gold - by Theodor Kittelsen — Far, far away Soria Moria Palace shimmered like gold – by Theodor Kittelsen

The EU referendum

So what has all that got to do with the forthcoming referendum? Perhaps because the spirit of collaboration, humility and learning I have experienced at Soria Moria captures so much of how I think we should be living together in our increasingly globalised society, and that the vision of a brighter, better future captured in the fairy tale of Soria Moria embraces some of the key values that I believe should underlie our considerations of whether to leave or remain in the EU: values of peace, justice and wellbeing.

“The Union’s aim is to promote peace, its values and the well-being of its peoples.” – Treaty on the European Union

Peace

Since the end of the Second World War in 1945, we have experienced an unprecedented 70 years of peace in Europe. While that peace clearly cannot be attributed solely to the presence of the European Union, it seems to me that the formal agreements forged between the constituent countries have at least contributed to that peace, and certainly have done nothing to undermine it. We are blessed by an incredible level of security and safety in our countries, and I am grateful to all those who contribute to this. And there are very real threats to that security, not least the ongoing threats of terrorist groups who operate across all borders, as well as potential threats from nearby countries. It seems to me that a united Europe is a much stronger counter to those threats, with all the advantages of shared security, information transfer, and collaborative rather than competitive security forces.

“The Union shall offer its citizens an area of freedom, security and justice without internal frontiers, in which the free movement of persons is ensured in conjunction with appropriate measures with respect to external border controls, asylum, immigration and the prevention and combating of crime.” – Treaty on the European Union

Justice

The very basis of the EU, as stated up-front in the Treaty on the European Union, is respect for human dignity, freedom, democracy, the rule of law and respect for human rights. These are values to which all of us should aspire. It worries me when our government talks of opting out of the European Convention on Human Rights, as though we are somehow above respecting such rights. It seems to me that our membership of the EU has helped promote rights for children, women, workers, minority groups, and those who are most vulnerable. We need to continue to fight for justice and equality and should welcome and work with all those who share such values.

Justice extends too to our planet, and care for the environment. Here, too, it seems that the EU has been a significant driving force in promoting environmental sustainability, green energy, and care for creation. Once again it seems that we are in a stronger position to promote that in a united way.

“The Union is founded on the values of respect for human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law and respect for human rights, including the rights of persons belonging to minorities. These values are common to the Member States in a society in which pluralism, non-discrimination, tolerance, justice, solidarity and equality between women and men prevail.” – Treaty on the European Union

Wellbeing

Much of the debate between the two sides in the referendum seems to have focused on the economy, with both sides promoting scare-mongering predictions, based on rather tenuous speculation. I think this is a great shame, as economic wellbeing is just one part of wellbeing, and so much is uncertain either way. It seems to me that the only certainty is that if we leave the EU there will be a period of economic and political instability during which fresh treaties and agreements will need to be made with each of the other member states. The only people likely to benefit from this seem to be the already wealthy bankers, stockbrokers and lawyers.

Nevertheless, economic stability is a component of the EU treaty promoting a social market economy, employment, social progress, and free trade. Again, these seem to be worthwhile goals.

But there is so much more to wellbeing: healthcare, education, research, diversity, culture. All of these are promoted within the EU treaty, and it is hard for me to see why we should argue against them.

“The Union shall establish an internal market. It shall work for the sustainable development of Europe based on balanced economic growth and price stability, a highly competitive social market economy, aiming at full employment and social progress, and a high level of protection and improvement of the quality of the environment. It shall promote scientific and technological advance.

It shall combat social exclusion and discrimination, and shall promote social justice and protection, equality between women and men, solidarity between generations and protection of the rights of the child.

It shall promote economic, social and territorial cohesion, and solidarity among Member States.

It shall respect its rich cultural and linguistic diversity, and shall ensure that Europe’s cultural heritage is safeguarded and enhanced.” – Treaty on the European Union

So, motivated by what I consider to be basic values of justice, peace and seeking the common good, for ourselves and for our neighbours, I will be voting to remain on the 23^rd June.

“In its relations with the wider world, the Union shall uphold and promote its values and interests and contribute to the protection of its citizens. It shall contribute to peace, security, the sustainable development of the Earth, solidarity and mutual respect among peoples, free and fair trade, eradication of poverty and the protection of human rights, in particular the rights of the child, as well as to the strict observance and the development of international law, including respect for the principles of the United Nations Charter.” – Treaty on the European Union