Europe in Union

With Britain's involvement with the European Court of Human Rights seemingly assured for this parliament at least, one major reason for European discord has been removed. But don't be fooled into thinking this will mean Europe in Union.

You see, Europe has many reasons yet to squabble with itself. The first are the so called 'P.I.G.S', the geographical European fringe states that are embroiled in a sovereign debt crisis. In particular Portugal, Ireland & Greece. Between them these nations have taxpayers and sovereigntists up in arms about the fortunes being spent on bailing these nations out of their financial difficulties.

Furthermore, the EU continues to limp on with a puzzle of treaties, agreements and legislative chambers that overlap and confuse, a lot of this thanks to the constitution that never was. With different nations signing up to different groups and legal structures and borders and currencies, Europe has become a series of alliances within alliances; borders and disputes, and nations within nation-states.

And each of these are caught in the struggle between the nation-states, who have found themselves to be emerging as a middle-man, and the local-continental separatist struggles. Nation-states are struggling to make their case for the continuance of sovereignty of the kind that has lasted for more than a century.

In Scotland the Scottish National Party have gained a majority in their devolved parliament (Carrell, 2011) and in the Basque Country Bildu, a coalition of Basque separatists have gained an impressive 25% of the vote in recent regional elections (Tremlett, 2011). These results are symptomatic of a recent turn towards localism and continentalism over the traditional broader nationalism that brought about conglomerate nation-states. Nation-states such as Britain & Spain who hold within their borders a number of distinct ethnic & cultural identities with a common past.

However, populist politics is driving wedges into countries and forcing these internal nations into the arms of the European community. Austerity measures are being felt by the poorest and the poorest have been out in force opposing them, in Britain, in Spain, in Greece and in France. The governing parties where comprehensively rejected in Scotland, with independentists the preferred choice.

Between the stringent economic policies of nation-states and the possibilities for a small national community as a sovereign state within Europe, it is unsurprising that separatism is making strides. The European Union's sheer size offers a broad jurisdiction within which financial regulation can act, that has struggled to be effective and been unsatisfying to the public in states such as the UK. When combined with localised self-governance it can be seen that the EU has the potential to offer self-determination as well as solidarity to members.

So what are nation-states to do? It seems that:

+ Firstly, nation-states need to find an effective means of enforcing regulations and the ensuing penalties on globalised institutions, such as big business & high finance; all that within their extremely limited jurisdictions.

+ And secondly they need to find a way to answer calls for greater local involvement in the running of countries, in order to manage the localised calls for sovereignty are an expression of a wish for greater powers of self-determination.

If nation-states are going to compete with the advantages that the European Union could be able to offer in time, for local self-determination & a jurisdiction wide enough to enforce regulations; they need to start making their case now.

==========
References:
==========
+ European Court of Human Rights
 Le Rouge Journal's 'Are British Rights worth more than Human Rights?'; May 2011;

+ Severin Carrell's 'Salmond hails 'historic' victory as SNP secures Holyrood's first ever majority'; May 2011;

+ Giles Tremlett's 'Spanish voters head to the polls, as city square protests continue'; May 2011;

Are British rights worth more than human rights?

One of the aims of the Conservative government has been the repeal of the Human Rights Act of 1998 and to replace it with a British Bill of Rights. This move has caused much consternation.

I think it is worth considering the impact of the repeal of the human rights act and what it means for our democracy & our freedoms. The HRA '98 offers the people a higher authority, the European Court of Human Rights, to whom we can appeal unjust decisions that can't be resolved in our own state.

An issue readily at hand is that of prisoner voting rights. A particular aspect raised by the European Courts has been the 'arbitrariness' of the blanket ban in the UK on prisoner voting. As Lord Mackay of Clashfern put it:

'Now, there is a point mentioned... it says that a person convicted of an offence, could be sentenced either to prison or to community service... it depends on circumstances other than the actual crime for which a penalty is imposed. And of course if the person is sentenced to community service this blanket ban wouldn't apply. So there was an arbitrariness about convicted prisoners being disenfranchised in that area... The ultimate decision of the court in Hirst was that the blanket ban was unlawful.'
-Lord Mackay's evidence to Commons Select Committee, 2011

The concern of the ECHR has not been disenfranchisement per se, but rather how unfair disenfranchisement can be; an unfairness that risks trivialising the very serious matter of our right to vote. It is a matter that is unlikely to be improved under a bill of rights that seeks to replace the HRA '98.

I use the word 'replace' specifically here since, as the 'Joint Committee on Human Rights' (2008) explained, there are good reasons to want a Bill of Rights & Freedoms in the UK as part of a democratic constitution without needing to abolish the HRA '98.

What I find troubling is the politicisation of rights as part of a sovereignty struggle some see taking place between Brussels and Westminster. That accession to the European Convention on Human Rights is voluntary on the part of member states is a fact that has escaped those who have railed against the latest rulings, seeing them instead as part of their sovereignty narrative.

As with past rulings however, there has failed to be unanimous support for a particular alternate means of assuring the rights of UK citizens. When Mr Cameron, for example, sought for the first time to bring a British Bill of Rights to the table it was branded a 'xenophobic' policy (Chapman, 2006). It is an avenue that has continued to be explored however.

Replacing the HRA '98 with a British Bill of Rights withdraws the United Kingdom from the balancing act of managing two separate sets of judicial structures and in doing so risks inflicting upon the British people a limiting of the Freedom of Speech. The Guardian newspaper sought confirmation several years ago when it came to light that an anachronistic treason law still held a legal foothold today. The particular treason, punishable with life imprisonment, was for the printed advocacy of republicanism (Dyer, 2001). The particular act in question is the 'Treason Felony Act 1848', specifically section 3.

In the course of their investigation, the clearest answer the Guardian received was from Law Lord Steyn (2003):

'The part of section 3 of the 1848 Act which appears to criminalise the advocacy of republicanism is a relic of a bygone age and does not fit into the fabric of our modern legal system. The idea that section 3 could survive scrutiny under the Human Rights Act is unreal'

Baron Steyn makes it very clear that what is protecting the freedom of speech in the UK is the Human Rights Act. But more than that, it protects the freedom of speech elsewhere too, so long as states continue to stand bound to the law. Guardian editor Alan Rusbridger (2001) stressed what a poor example the UK set to the rest of the world by allowing such anti-democratic legislation to remain on the statute book. It would be an error to compound such a poor example by casting off the HRA '98 as well.

As Aiden O'Neill QC (44:21; 2011) put it during the committee hearing:

'What is important... is the example one gives. One of the big issues facing the European Court of Human Rights is teaching newly democratic States about democracy. One of its biggest client cases is Russia. Another one in terms of democracy is Turkey. It is a problem with the Council of Europe mechanisms that some States simply do not fix their systems as they should do and it would be a great pity if a long-established State — the United Kingdom, which was there at the founding and there at the drafting — were to set an example to other States in the Council of Europe that they do not have to abide by the law. This is where politics and international relations come in. It is incredibly important that the rule of law be respected at an international level because if we have law/law then we do not have war/war.'

Others have seconded the opinion that a move away from the European Courts would also be a move away from Europe (BBC, 2011), leaving Britain in a very tricky position.

Back in February we heard from the PM that a review of British Bill of Rights plans would be imminent (Wintour, February 2011), however just a month later came news that the Liberal Democrats had blocked moves to withdraw the HRA '98 (Wintour, March 2011). It is a strong statement of solidarity with human rights campaigners across Europe, one that is certainly much needed and appreciated when you keep in mind the UN vote late last year that managed to strike references to 'sexual orientation' off of a resolution against unlawful & extrajudicial executions (ISHR, 2010).

The European Court of Human Rights is a check against the power of national governments to legislate in a way that infringes upon the liberties of it's citizens. Yet it isn't perfect. Confusion & complication can reign, therefore we must be clear in stance and be careful as to the impression given of this nation's feelings as to the rights of human beings.

==========
References:
==========
- For more on the debate:
  Geoffrey Robertson's 'Cameron was right: We need a Bill of Rights'; April 2011;
  Adam Wagner's 'Stoking Eurosceptic anger may damage human rights'; April 2011;

+ European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms; 1950;

+  Human Rights Act 1998;

+ European Court of Human Rights;

+ Wikipedia's Notable Cases involving European Court of Human Rights;

+ House of Commons Political and Constitutional Reform Committee
   Written - 'Voting by convicted prisoners: summary of evidence' February 2011;
   Video - Tuesday 1 February 2011 at 10.10am ended at 12.07pm;

+ Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights' 'A Bill of Rights for the UK?'; August 2008;

+ James Chapman's 'Ken Clarke brands Cameron's bill of rights 'xenophobic'; June 2006;

+ Clare Dyer's 'Guardian takes royal treason law to court'; February 2001;

+ Lord Steyn in the Guardian's 'Lords halt challenge to treason law'; June 2003;

+ Alan Rusbridger in the Guardian's 'Guardian loses legal challenge to monarchy'; June 2001;

+ BBC's 'UK "should cut links to European Court of Human Rights"'; February 2011;

+ Patrick Wintour's 'British bill of rights review imminent, says David Cameron'; February 2011;

+ Patrick Wintour's 'Lib Dems thwart Tory hopes of human rights convention withdrawal'; March 2011;

+ ISHR's 'GA Third Committee deletes "sexual orientation" from resolution on extrajudicial executions'; November 2010;

Rights, Users & Curators

I am a firm believer that with rights comes responsibility. Let me give you an example. In America you are not just at Liberty to own a gun. It is your Constitutional Right to do so. It is my belief, however, that tied up with your rights to hold said firearm, are your responsibilities to ensure that ownership and use is managed in a responsible way.

The current centrepiece of legal debates in the western world these days is the internet. It is a great purveyor of community and free information. The problem is that it is also a bureaucratic nightmare.

The internet appears to me as an intricate mess, one that looks likely to collapse under its own weight. I think many who fight for the classic Internet freedoms are missing a key issue. The classic Internet freedoms do not appear to be that profitable.

Sooner or later the companies that are making losses will quit the business. Or go bust. Or be taken over by major corporations that care about their profits and not the free sharing of information. As the independent owners of websites, forums & the other niche personalities are priced out of the internet market, their dark corners will go with them.

It is not an impossible situation to overcome though. But the process must contain compromises to encourage continued investment by companies. It is a market world we live in, so market arguments must be considered. A process something like the following is what I could see in the future of the internet, if it is to survive:

First of all there would set up a primary hub. This hub will contain the highest traffic and most important information access points, for example:

Primary:   News Networks; Facebook; YouTube; Digital Radio; Government, School & College Areas etc.

This area would be fully monitored, fully regulated & fully accountable to the law. A basic, safe package for all internet users, at a cheap basic rate of lets say £10/month, or some affordable equivalent. This area would be covered with advertising, which would have a chance at being a sound investment because of the amount of traffic the centrally monitored hubs would process.

Shopping and other profit making organisations however would exist in one of several secondary hub areas. This would act to separate the basic access needs areas (i.e. education, news, networking etc) from the leisure areas. It would also mean a steady if small return for an investment for advertisers and online shops from the extra fee for secondary access. These secondary forms would look like such:

Shopping:  Amazon; Play; iTunes; Online Stores; Subscribed Online Gaming etc.

Community: Home Pages; Blogs; Wikipedia; Journals; Secondary Networking etc

These secondary areas would cost an additional fee, lets say £5/month in addition to the basic package. This area would be far less monitored, to allow for a continuation of free intellectual and commercial enterprise on the internet. They'd still be subject to certain in practice regulations designed for those areas however, for instance the consumer rights laws of the country they are selling to.

A tertiary set of hubs would include niche markets. These would be the smaller sites with less traffic, or at least less consistently high traffic. These would cost more to gain access to because of their higher running costs. However packages could be created to sell access to these small niche areas that are regularly used by specific users.

This is only a very rough sketch. But I think ISPs and the Telecom giants will find them increasingly necessary steps to make the process more efficient. If we are to continue to enjoy the benefits we must be part of the discussions and be active in coming up with the best compromise solutions.

As I see it, acceptance of your rights is also an acceptance of the responsibilities that come with them. A responsible citizen that accepts their rights there-in becomes a defender of them also. As for the internet, by claiming their right to the freedom of access, a user becomes a curator of the internet, responsible for the maintenance & protection of their rights.

We must give consideration to these issues:

+ Firstly as responsible users we must present solutions ourselves to a serious logistical problem with our collective information sharing network.

+ Secondly that things that I have mentioned above need to be discussed in open forum to find the most appropriate and safe solution to a problem that is only getting worse with each new internet page.

In all I believe that as responsible users of the internet, it is our duty, not that of any government or other body, to ensure the Internet's fragile freedoms. If the internet is to be prevented from being just another finance driven market place, as its curators we must act now to find safeguards for its future.

========
References:
========
+ Amy Shatz & Shayndi Rice's 'Internet gets new rules of the road'; December 2010;

+ Adam Carolla's 'Adam Carolla on Net Neutrality'; February 2011;

More useful lessons from Canada

The dust has begun to settle after a tense season of elections and political intrigue within the Westminster system on both sides of the Atlantic.

The major outcome of the political silly season has been the squeezing of Liberalism, or rather Liberalism being stretched thin by the polemics of the parties to the left and right.

In Canada the Conservatives were victorious at the 2011 Canadian Federal Elections. In spite of Mr Harper's victory, the Canadian Liberals, NDP and Bloc Québécois showed that coalitions of parties representing the full left spectrum can get together over the issues in common and achieve things without losing their separate identities.

In spite of this the Liberals suffered at the ballot box, with the party's support being pulled apart and drawn off by the groups to left and right. The NDP on the other hand found itself in the role of official opposition. It is a role the New Statesman suggests could foster strong international cooperation beneficial to both the NDP and the British Labour Party (Fox, 2011).

As Labour have something to gain from Mr Jack Layton's party, they also have something to learn. Liberals too may have lessons to learn from their sister-party on the other side of the Atlantic.

Mr Layton's New Democrats and the formerly Mr Ignatieff-led Liberals spent their time in office up to the federal election fostering a spirit of cooperation. On numerous occasions they presented a 'United Left' to oppose Mr Harper's policies and to eventually pass a no-confidence motion after finding him in contempt of parliament (BBC, March 2011). The diversity and fragmented nature of the left has often been its weakness but the Canadian parties showed how it can also be its strength.

John Stuart Mill wrote in On Liberty (Mill, 1859) about truth and its divided nature:

'Conflicting doctrines, instead of being one true and the other false, share the truth between them, and the nonconforming opinion is needed to supply the remainder of the truth.'

The divided left parties appeal between them to a wider core support than one single united left could on its own. Being divided allows these parties to put at their core something specific to them and key to their followers. This allowed the Liberal Party and the NDP to maintain their separate identities while cooperating for a common cause.

And such politics are central to coalition governments. For the Liberal Democrats their two truths are broken promises & compromise. The popular opinion of broken promises is not untrue but lacks the definition of the heretical opinion: that compromise demands tough choices.

But how can these two truths be reconciled? That is the question the Liberal Democrats face and the seemingly diametric division of the opposed ideas links to Liberalism's greater problem, that of overcoming the polemic discourse of politics. Lord Mandelson suggested that the Yes to AV Campaign, supported by Lib Dems, had picked the wrong fights and fought them badly, saying that:

'The groundwork was not done... and I think [the public] didn't see why AV... was really the solution to many of the problems they feel are in our political system.'
                (Mandelson, 2011)

Could it be that Liberals need to be more cynical in fighting their corner? The party has already begun to attempt a reforging of its separate identity and to make clearer what its fighting for (BBC, May 2011; Brogan, 2011).

Labour can certainly be considered guilty of some cynicism in their approach. At these most recent elections they adopted a tack of treating voters much like Mr Denis Healey once treated the party members that subsequently broke away to form the SDP (Crewe & King, 1995). They smeared their opponents and turned to their supporters with a 'You've got nowhere else to go'.

Those tactics split Labour then and in Scotland, where they were faced by a seemingly credible left alternative, Labour were ditched. The SNP, as the Lib Dems before them, picked up support by being (as Lib Dem Deputy Leader Mr Simon Hughes put it) a radical left alternative to Labour. The Lib Dems were the alternative until the coalition made that no longer appear to be true, driving voters away. Mr Clegg failed to understand his followers and Labour underestimated theirs.

Both have had a hard lesson in these elections. But have they learned anything? The Lib Dems where certainly punished harshly enough to not forget the past year in a long time, but Labour where strangely fortunate in their timing to have only been punished in Scotland. When presented with a credible alternative the Labour vote fragments as voters from across the left flock to the it. First the Lib Dems and now the SNP. Mr Clegg didn't understand his following, but the SNP's Mr Salmond appears to be wiser to the matter. While he continues to play the credible alternative those votes will be hard for Labour to recover.

To do so Labour must change. Its problems lie at the same core as those of Liberalism. Its own determination to drive home its polarising message breaks the support of fellow left parties through fear that it might monopolise those numbers itself. However this breeds resentment amongst its growing following creating numbers willing to jump ship at the first sight of something better. It also robs Labour of political allies when the chips are down.

So if Labour can gain a real ally in NDP leader Mr Jack Layton, so too can they learn something from him. The left is a diverse house and Cooperation is its strength. And with it comes more room for the constructive debate that Liberalism thrives upon.

==========
References:
==========
- Canadian 2011 Federal Elections:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-13259484
http://www.elections.ca/home.aspx
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-13264580
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-13271083

+ Benjamin Fox's 'Canada’s realignment of the left'; May 2011;

+ BBC's 'Canadian government falls after no-confidence vote'; March 2011;

+ John Stuart Mill's 'On Liberty'; 1859.

+ BBC's Peter Mandelson on AV; May 2011;

+ BBC's 'Clegg fights back with NHS pledge'; May 2011;

+ Benedict Brogan's 'Forget AV – Nick Clegg is winning the big battle'; May 2011;

+ Ivor Crewe & Anthony King's 'SDP: The Birth, Life and Death of the Social Democratic Party';
 Oxford Uni. Press, 1995.

AV Referendum - Why vote yes

Regardless of your feelings towards the Liberal Democrats, it is worth considering them as an example of how unfair our electoral system can be.

In the 2010 UK General Election the Lib Dems received 23% of the popular vote, almost a quarter of all votes cast. However the party received merely 8.8% of the seats in parliament. That's less than a tenth of parliament representing almost 7 million voters.

In UK today we are still using an electoral system designed for a two-party politics which has long since ceased to be representative of the nature of Britain. First-past-the-post now only serves to reinforce the old fashioned views of politics as the struggle between two diametrically-opposed forces.

This is no new problem.

FPTP is unrepresentative and unfair.

It seems that the proponents of continuing with FPTP think that people might be catching on to that. The NO2AV tactics are filled with scaremongering & false dichotomy; they are an insult to the people and pressing to the very limit of what is decent.

It may be that these tactics are used because their own arguments don't make any sense. There are two particular examples:

+ Some people get more than one vote. This is a laughable claim. Rather than one round of voting as we have now, where you can win with the support of  as the largest minority, you have a competition that eliminates candidates  round by round. And everyone votes in every round. Have you ever seen the X-Factor? 

In AV, if no candidate can get a majority of votes, whoever comes last is knocked out of the competition. Here is where the NO2AV idea comes into play. They suggest that a vote for an extreme party counts more because you get a second vote when that candidate is eliminated. What they ignore is that if your first preference candidate has not been eliminated, you vote for them again in the second round or the third round for as long as they are still in the competition. All voters get the same amount of votes regardless of how many rounds of voting it takes to get a candidate who better represents the voters of a constituency.

+ That the BNP will get in. Nonsense. It is FPTP that creates opportunities for smaller (and more extreme parties) to get elected. AV weeds out extreme or divisive candidates for ones who can represent the face of a whole constituency, not just the loudest minority in it. Our democracy is about electing one person to represent fifty thousand; one person to represent fifty thousand in debate and vote; it is not about who 'wins' since winning here means the success of a powerful minority in forcing their view at the exclusion of others.

Now AV is not the perfect solution. But it is the first step in the right direction. It means a move towards greater accountability and a more constitutional politics. Right now we have informal ways of holding members to account. It is to Labour's credit that they chose to kick out a candidate adjudged to be corrupt. However it is often the case that voters must go against their tribal or ideological loyalties to punish a corrupt candidate. AV formalises high expectations of candidates. They must appeal to more than just core votes. Parties must back candidates that can appeal to a broad spectrum, something the known to be corrupt or untruthful can't do.

==========
References:
==========
+ Peter Tatchell's 'Democracy: we've never had it so bad'; May 2010;

+ Johann Hari's 'If you get the X Factor you'll get AV'; April 2011;

+ John Cleese on PR, from YouTube;

+ The AV Debate with Andrew Neil; April 2011;

- Supporters of YestoAV:
Tim Farron, President of the Liberal Democrat; Simon Hughes, Lib Dem Deputy Leader; Charles Kennedy, Former Lib Dem Leader; Paddy Ashdown, Former Lib Dem Leader; Ed Miliband, Labour Leader; Eddie Izzard; Tony Robinson; Dan Snow; Stephen Fry; Colin Firth, Helena Bonham Carter, Stephen Fry, Joanna Lumley, John Cleese, Billy Bragg, Eddie Izzard, John O’Farrell, Tony Robinson & Richard Wilson.