The Alternative Guide to the EU Referendum: 4 things you should know about Britain's influence, peace and security in the EU

In 2012, the European Union won the Nobel Peace Prize. The EU was cited for its work in uniting a continent that, until 1945, had been consumed by interminable war and for it's work advancing the cause of "peace and reconciliation, democracy and human rights in Europe".

The role of the EU in that peace has been questioned in this referendum campaign by those who believe that this particular pedestal belongs rather to NATO. So it is important to consider the difference between the EU and NATO, their roles and the difference between building a peace and mounting a defence.

Here is our four things you should know about Britain's influence, peace and security beyond its borders, whether in or out of the European Union.

I: NATO is a military alliance, assembled for security not peace

NATO has roots in the Allies of the two world wars. But it was founded as the military alliance of the West - a treaty bound agreement for collective defence against an aggressor - that was sought out as a counter-balancing power to Stalin's Soviet Union, which was casting a large shadow over Western Europe at the end of the 1940s.

NATO, from its inception under American leadership, has undoubtedly been at the forefront of many of Europe's major conflicts and disputes. In the South and East of Europe, beyond its borders, NATO where heavily involved in the former Yugoslavia, intervening and providing peacekeepers after and today in Syria.

Despite far reaching influence, NATO remains a military alliance. By contrast, as the Cold War went on a third group emerged between the Communist East and the Capitalist West, whose structure was instead an economic alliance.

II: The EU began by using economics to bring lasting peace to Europe

The European Union is the result of civil, rather than military, efforts to bring the people of Europe together. From the start, its methods have been classically liberal - a pillar of free trade economics to prevent war, by materially binding countries by mutual dependence, and a pillar of human rights, that guarantees respect for all of Europe's immensely diverse people, whether as groups or as individuals.

In its time the EU has seen the reconciliation of France and Germany, making war between them unthinkable, and the introduction of democracy to Greece, Spain and Portugal - expanding the EU, and European values and standards as they have become members.

The successes of Europe speak to a different approach to security. By building a peace than brings together a group of people, resolved on a set of principles that stretches beyond nations and borders - beyond tribes and their territories - and encouraging people to recognise their commonality, accept their differences, and choose cooperation, there can be the security that rises from peace and friendship.

III: Europe is threatened by a battle of values, not by force of arms

A military alliance can only offer so much influence on these matters. It cannot address matters of domestic politics without wading in very dark waters. Those who would choose the military alliance over the economic would be literally choosing security over peace, rather than trying to develop both.
A military alliance such as NATO may offer some surety against, for example, the rising militarist authoritarianism of Vladimir Putin's Russia. But what about those countries, in Europe, admiring of his example, who have begun to emulate him at home and come under Putin's sway internationally?

From France, with its Front National, Hungary, with Jobbik, and Poland, with the Law and Justice Party, these countries are members of both the European Union and NATO. Would these parties face expulsion from NATO if they embrace the very authoritarianism that it was set up to oppose? What can NATO do, with all its military power, to influence this struggle for the soul of Europe?

Like the threat of Islamic extremism, this isn't a battle being fought by great powers - gigantic monoliths possessing overwhelming kill power. Influence in such a contest is won, not by arms on a battlefield, but through thousands of civic debates, through effective public services, through the positive opportunity for integration and in millions of small acts of tolerance, decency and welcome.

With integration over nationalism, open borders over closed, in dozens of policy areas, the EU has tried to promote a set of values that stands markedly apart from those of Putin's national authoritarianism or the fanatic totalitarian religious extremism for Islamic fundamentalism.

IV: In the EU, influence is not restricted to states

The European Union exists to bring Europe peacefully together and comes packaged with a commitment therein to human rights, and to democracy. Europe's incomplete integration ensures that how the politics of these values plays out is advertised usually in the crude terms of British, or French, or German interests, or those of two dozen other nation-state members.

Yet, as the movements offering the greatest source of hope for progressives right now show, influence can be exercised in Europe beyond that controlled by the state governments themselves.

The citizens movements of Spain, governing cities and provinces on the principles of municipalism, pushing the municipal cause have a taken a larger view, one more outward looking than might be expected from local politics. They look to help their communities by building alliances between municipalities, between cities, across the entire continent, to bring democracy closer to the people and to bring those citizens together in solidarity.

To that end, the municipal movement governments of cities in Spain have begun meeting directly with the administrations of other cities in Europe. Therein can be found the beginnings of the next great progressive movement - and it has been made possible in the present by the work of decades within the EU.

What do progressives want to influence?

For progressives, the future, the path to their aims - for justice, liberty, equality, progress - still runs the international road. In Europe, that still means looking outward, looking at politics on a continental scale. To that end, the European Union remains the infrastructure that we have.

The EU certainly isn't perfect, but exiting one continental system without another supporting progressive values to join, when so much for the Left depends on international cooperation, is reckless and wasteful. Between voting to remain and voting to exit, voting to remain is the only option that chimes the broad vision.

But for progressives, matters don't rest there. The EU is incomplete. It is under the control of a austere conservative political consensus and under threat from a set of nationalist authoritarian parties who want to regress politics by a century.

Pulling away will do nothing for the peace and security of those who cherish values like openness and tolerance, who believe in standing for solidarity, standing for common values and standing for the common good, need to stay and engage even as other hearts turn colder.

This is Part 3 of  a multi-part series, "The Alternative Guide to the EU Referendum" - click here to go to the introductory hub

Leonard Nimoy and Star Trek's lasting legacy of hope

The sad passing of Leonard Nimoy (Lambie, 2015), gives cause to consider the actor's legacy. Of the performances and contributions left behind, the by far most well-remembered will be his role in Star Trek.

Star Trek, before it received a flashy reboot, had long since become a lazy shorthand. When a scriptwriter wanted to let the audience know a character was "geek" or a "nerd" in the most rudimentary stereotypical way possible, they were always a Star Trek fan. However, underneath that simplistic surface impression, there was a show with a virtually unmatched optimism. Through the medium of science-fiction, it celebrated science, peace and reason.

The show was set in an aspirational far future where humanity had finally gotten beyond its penchant for violence and destruction. At the centre of it all was Leonard Nimoy's Spock, a near-human alien from a people who abhorred violence and cherished logic. Regardless the danger, the threat or the crisis, he always remained an island of calm and reason.

Nimoy's character, and the crew of the USS Enterprise around him, were frequently cast as heroes. Yet, in contrast to so many others shows, the mission of the protagonists was one of exploration and diplomacy. The stories still stand apart today for the positivity of its outlook (with the possible exception of Parks and Recreation).

The crew of the USS Enterprise were often faced with impossible choices, and their heroism was in their willingness to stand for up for peaceful resolutions. They were great for their skills, for their knowledge, for their humanity, and for their diplomacy.

In a pop cultural field that, at times, seems only to revel in darker and grittier stories, and in cynicism lightened only by beautiful aesthetics, those geeky, nerdy, stories championed a peaceful humanity exploring space, and trying to uphold noble ideals. A TV show that finds room for hope can be like a beacon in the dark, and Leonard Nimoy will remain a part of that legacy.

==========
References:
==========
+ Ryan Lambie's 'In memoriam: Leonard Nimoy'; on Den of Geek; 27 February 2015.

Charlie Hebdo, John Stuart Mill and the Harm Principle

The events in Paris have put freedom of speech at the front and centre of political debate around the world. Governments are discussing their response, including expansion of surveillance powers particularly in the domestic sphere (Watt, 2015).

In the light of the attack upon the offices of Charlie Hebdo, which has been defended as a satirical publication, conservative voices are arguing that some things are sacred, and cannot be ridiculed (Topping, 2015). In response, others have accused conservatives of blaming victims for 'provocation', rather than condemning those who wield violence to achieve their ends (Toynbee, 2015).

The question is, what is free speech? What does it look like? Why is it important? How can we use it?

John Stuart Mill, an influential figure in liberal political philosophy and contributor to utilitarianism, argued that free thought and expression were key to the discovery of the truth, and to keeping honest the establishment that is supposed to embody that truth. Out of these ideas, Mill developed his harm principle:

"The sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant... Over himself, over his body and mind, the individual is sovereign."

The point of individual freedom is that you may do as you will freely, but only where you do not impose upon the freedoms of others. The question raised by recent events, and by the opinions thrown out by public figures, is what happens in the grey area?

For Mill, there exists, between the clear freedoms of any two parties and the clear infringements of those freedoms, a grey area of debate. It is in that space that governance takes place - and it requires two voices: one liberal and one conservative, one for progress and one for the status quo. Freedom of speech plays an integral role in the relationship between the two. It is part of the encouragement of individuality, and protection of it. It is part of our defence against powerful establishments that reinforce their own opinions against criticism, tyrannies both of government and of the majority.

Something that the events in Paris brought into particular focus are the tools that those without institutional power use within that grey area. Protest, terror and satire.

Protest and terror are two sides of the same coin. They seek to create an alternative form of power to that of the establishment, in order to project their views and challenge the authority of the established position. One of them is about peaceful civil action or disobedience designed to persuade, and the other is about using force, fear and violence in order to coerce.

Satire follows a different path. Rather than creating a source of power, it instead seeks to undermine power with humour - ostensibly in order to hold it to account. It is meant to be the tool of those who want to challenge a powerful establishment, from a position of relative weakness or powerlessness. The humour of satire aims to dispel the seriousness with which ritual and adherence are followed, to create a dehallowed critical space.

That is, of course, a difficult task. It means walking a line between irreverence towards the things that people hold dear, and a fall into racism, homophobia and sexism, the cheap tools of cheap victories. How do we go about challenging the presumptions of others, or basis of their power, without falling into those traps? How can we safely disrespect the taboos of others, in order to shine a light on the unquestioned, unchallenged or corrupt?

On the matter of how we express ourselves through free speech, and the idea that we ought only to be 'temperate' in that speech, Mill's answer was pragmatic. He argued that while law and government could not, and probably should not, shut down sophistic, 'invective' or 'intemperate discussion', they were none the less tools best not used.

"The gravest of [the principal offences] is, to argue sophistically, to suppress facts or arguments, to misstate the elements of the case, or misrepresent the opposite opinion. But all this, even to the most aggravated degree, is so continually done in perfect good faith by persons who are not considered, and in many other respects may not deserve to be considered, ignorant or incompetent, that it is rarely possible, on adequate grounds, conscientiously to stamp the misrepresentation as morally culpable, and still less could law presume to interfere with this kind of controversial misconduct."

While those methods - like lying about your opponent and their views or using generalised slurs to sully your opponent and therefore anything they say - are effective at shutting down debate, these tools serve only to sully the causes connected to their use, and to damage our chances of understanding truth by distorting or stopping the contributions of free voices.

"It is, however, obvious that law and authority have no business with restraining either [intemperate argument professing the prevailing or contrary positions], while opinion ought, in every instance, to determine its verdict by the circumstances of the individual case - condemning everyone, on whichever side of the argument he places himself, in whose mode of advocacy either want of candor, or malignity, bigotry, or intolerance of feeling manifest themselves; but not inferring these vices from the side which a person takes, though it be the contrary side of the question to our own; and giving merited honor to everyone, whatever opinion he may hold, who has calmness to see and honesty to state what his opponents and their opinions really are, exaggerating nothing to their discredit, keeping nothing back which tells, or can be supposed to tell, in their favor."

Conservatism seeks to argue that some things are sacred, and cannot be made fun of. To build up dogmas, religious and ideological, to be adhered to. The whole point of satire is to the contrary - to poke fun at, and so undermine, the things people hold sacred when they become corrupt and despotic. To call into question those things that people fail to think about, to critique, for themselves and instead follow blindly.

That aim is at the heart of free speech. We are to be free in our opinions so that truth will not be lost or suppressed, and so that the powerful may be held to account. Those who seek to shut down free speech likely have a vested interest in the prevailing opinions, regardless of whether they are right or wrong. Those who fall into racism, homophobia, sexism and other kinds of chauvinistic bigotry also wish to protect a vested interest in an opinion, but through the use of such methods only mark themselves and their cause.

Free speech for Mill was about peaceful, calm and reasoned debate, a process necessary for the discovery of truth and for the advancement of good governance. In the everyday sense, it translates to thinking and expressing yourself freely, but that those thoughts and expressions are not free of criticism, from being challenged and proved false, and that this is the very point of free speech. It is how we move forward, how we learn, how we discover the truth. Ad hominem attacks, bigotry and violence contribute nothing.

==========
References:
==========
+ The Guardian's World News section devoted to the Charlie Hebdo attack.

+ Nicholas Watt's 'Ed Miliband rejects calls for revival of snooper’s charter after Paris attacks'; in The Guardian; 11 January 2015.

+ Alexandra Topping's 'Pope Francis: freedom of expression has limits'; in The Guardian; 15 January 2015.

+ Polly Toynbee's 'On Charlie Hebdo Pope Francis is using the wife-beater’s defence'; in The Guardian; 16 January 2015.

+ John Stuart Mill's 'On Liberty'; 1859. [Buy Now]

Recognition: The People's Filibuster

I hope that many of you were fortunate enough to witness Independent US Senator, and self-avowed Socialist, Bernie Sanders' filibuster on Friday evening (GMT). While the attempts of Mr Sanders, a staggering 8 hours and 34 minutes on the floor at the age of 69; in the end were unable to derail the bi-partisan tax cut extension plans of the US Government and Republicans in the house, he has most certainly earned himself much respect and probably a fervent following.

Mr Sanders demonstrated great fortitude in embarking on what he knew would be a doomed venture. It is a testament to how much he cares about the wellbeing of his Vermont constituents, and all Americans, that he would make this stand.

I feel that protesters in this country could learn something from this stand. So far each subsequent protest has been mired by violence perpetuated by some minority groups that have infiltrated the larger peaceful protests. It comes to mind that maybe those organising such marches in future need to think very hard before continuing with protesting tactics that are allowing their ranks to be so easily infiltrated by violent troublemakers.

Mr Sanders has set a very good example. Oratory still has the power to move, especially when you speak so passionately for almost 9 hours uninterrupted. If protests are to continue in Westminster, why not set up a small podium and see if you can talk for near 9 hours in support of University fee reform.

Better yet, why not gather together every book, academic paper and speech made in Parliament in favour of truly progressive University reform; every willing speaker you can find; every leader, academic and personality who is able; and see how long you can keep a people's filibuster going.

While people are talking and everyone is listening, it makes it much harder for infiltrators to stir up violence without being more conspicuous than they have so far been brave enough to be. I think it would be a far more civilised and resonant way to make your elected members understand your feelings than smashing up things that the Taxpayer has to pay to repair.

==========
References:
==========
+ The Beginning of Mr Sanders' nine hour filibuster speech;

+ Michael Tomasky's 'The significance of Bernie Sanders' filibuster';

+ James Rainey's 'Why Sen. Bernie Sanders can single-handedly filibuster tax cuts for rich';

+ Craig Howie's 'Bernie Sanders filibuster turns Twitter-buster';

- For more from Mr Sanders:
Bernie Sanders' Wikipedia Profile;
http://twitter.com/senatorsanders
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5OtB298fHY; December 1st 2010;

At Liberty to Object

As we remember today all those who have given their lives in the name of freedom and peace, let us not forget those who risked their lives by refusing utterly the order to kill.

As we remember the unequivocal resolve of the Partisan Guerrilla Fighters of Spain during the Napoleonic Invasion or the French Maquis & Polish Post Office Workers in the face of the Nazi occupation; or the many lives of people of all nationalities of all wars who fought in defence of their homes and their freedom, let us not forget the powerful volitions of the conscientious objectors, who chose a hard path in the face anger, fear and accusations of cowardice.

As we remember those who choose to give their lives for our safety, liberty and peace, let us not forget that still in this world their are men, women and children who still do not have a choice.

In this world there still exists conscription, national service and groups putting guns into the hands of children.

In this world there still exists tribunals to whom you must justify your unwillingness to kill.

In this world there still exists punishments for soldiers who hold conscientious objections to wars their nations wage.

In this world, are we still not past Kennedy's 'What you can do for your country' speech? Are we yet mere peasant subjects, commodities to be traded by medieval institutions? It certainly seemed to be a sentiment John Lennon believed.

In a decade when there are serious moves towards multi-lateral nuclear disarmament; with no more cold war; when the death of soldiers on foreign soil is front-page tabloid scandal; with no great war to fight; the human right not to kill has never been more relevant to the world stage.

I believe society can only reach its individual & collective potential through cooperation. But for that to happen, we need new kinds of sense and some old kinds of courage.

'There is one thing that nobody can deny them: and that is courage. The most difficult form of courage in the world. The courage of the individual against the crowd.'
(Capt Stephen Gwynn MP, on Conscientious Objectors)

==========
References:
==========
+Ian Hislop's 'Not Forgotten: The Men who Wouldn't Fight';

Bystanders Affect

On taking up the Presidency of the United States of America the Obama Administration (unlike the Bush Administration), decided it was time to return to the table of international politics and take part in the UN Human Rights Council.

On the international stage, the entrance of the United States into the UN Human Rights Council is a big step for the United Nations. As part of its commitment the US recently submitted its first Universal Periodical Review (UPR), taking a step towards multi-lateral decision making. It is also the first sign of a possible shift in the United States' historical stance to events not American.

Back in 2003 Ms Samantha Power, Director of Multilateral Affairs for the National Security Council, wrote a detailed piece on the history of United States foreign policy towards genocide. Ms Power showed a consistent invocation of isolationist stances by the US, even where lives were very likely to be lost. There is even a suggestion that the resolve of the aggressors was strengthened by American inactivity (Power, 2003). I find it worrying to see resolve can be strengthened by an inactive vigilance.

Particularly so since, as individuals, studies have often shown us to be no more disposed towards intervention. Studies show our chances to help are often dependent upon a whole variety of factors and tripping over any of them can trigger a non-responsive behaviour (Latané & Darley, 1970; Davidio & Penner, 2004).

Some studies also show that self-perceptions of our own competence and qualifications when dealing with situations can affect our response (Baron & Byrne, 1991). This all provokes some questions:

+ Can some combination of cost-reward analysis and a perceived lack of authority go some way to explain US bystander disinterest in all things not American?

+ Is a standing policy of intervention necessary to counter those who would use violence or intimidation and other abusive threats to get what they want?

+ And finally does intervention in a situation always mean physical or violent counter-threats? Is it ever enough to make those who threaten aware they are being watched?

Whatever the explanations, with one gesture the United States has changed things. In joining the council it has thrown its not inconsiderable power behind United Nations led, peaceful, diplomatic resolutions. This act gives hope to individuals the world over in their struggles. The task before the US and the world now is to determine how effective these resolutions can be.

I'd like to think it could be enough to make the world aware that we're watching, but I am wary lest I let the Bystander Effect transform into 'Bystanders Affect'. Some examples of organisations I can think of in Britain today that are promoting active watchfulness are Bridlington's Community Wardens, the Met Police & CSOs on the beat and of course cameras. It has been said that the price we pay for democracy is our vigilance. But how effective can our vigilance be?

===========

References:

===========

+ Report of the United States of America... In Conjunction with the Universal Periodic Review

For more on United States participation in the UN HRC:

- United States Elected to Human Rights Council for First Time...

- United States Wins Seat on U.N. Human Rights Council

- State, Arizona and the UN , The Guardian

+ Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR)

+ Wikipedia page on the United Nations Human Rights Council

+ Samantha Power's '"A problem from hell": America and the Age of Genocide'; Harper Perennial; 2003. See an extract at http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2003/05/b228409.html

+ Bibb Latané & John Darley's 'The Unresponsive Bystander: Why does he not help?'; Apple-Century-Croft; 1970.

+ J.F.Davidio & L.A.Penner's 'Helping and Altruism'; in M.B.Brewer & M.Hewstone's 'Emotion and Motivation'; Blackwell Publishing; 2004.

+ R.A.Baron & D.Byrne's 'Social Psychology (6th ed); Allyn & Bacon; 1991.

+ The work of Bridlington's Community Wardens:

+ Jon Stewart discusses Safety; Daily Show clip from March 9 2010 with Marc Thiessen

+ Jon Stewart discusses Safety; Funny Guy Jon Stewart Makes Deadly Serious Points, Newsweek

+ John Philpot Curran, "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance" from the speech 'Right of Election', 1790; Published in 'Speeches on the late very interesting State trials', 1808.