Thursday, 30 June 2016

Democracy


Overnight, President Obama made a speech to the two Houses of the Canadian Parliament. It's worth watching and listening to. (Justin Trudeau's words are also worth listening to - so, if you have time, don't skip the first 9 minutes of this video). I would particularly draw your attention to the following words in the President's speech, very relevant in this week of turmoil  -
"I think we can all agree that our democracies are far from perfect. They can be messy, and they can be slow, and they can leave all sides of a debate unsatisfied.  ... But more than any other system of government, democracy allows our most precious rights to find their fullest expression, enabling us, through the hard, painstaking work of citizenship, to continually make our countries better. To solve new challenges. To right past wrongs.
...
Democracy is not easy. It's hard. Living up to our ideals can be difficult even in the best of times. And it can be harder when the future seems uncertain, or when, in response to legitimate fears and frustrations, there are those who offer a politics of "us" versus "them," a politics that scapegoats others — the immigrant, the refugee, someone who seems different than us. We have to call this mentality what it is — a threat to the values that we profess, the values we seek to defend. "

Monday, 27 June 2016

Interesting times?

As I walked around my local estates in the last few days of the referendum campaign, a number of people said that they were looking forward to the end of this long, long debate. I have to say I was joyfully anticipating a few days off - then the Tsunami hit! Thursday was just the start!!!

There is so much to be concerned about. We've seen the uncertainty about the future - our own personal futures, as the value of our pension funds have been hit; as threats to jobs begin to emerge; as opportunities disappear. It's very easy to feel very depressed about what has happened, and fearful of what is to come.

Yet, as progressives, we have to believe that a better future can be built. There are alternatives that we can choose - that can improve the lives of our fellow citizens - and those around the world. The environment may have changed beyond recognition - but, like reformers through the centuries, we have to look at the realities that face us - and think about the policies and actions which are needed to build that better future.

So let's leave off the grieving - and start thinking, and discussing, and planning to build for the future. We need to remember that politics is about citizens negotiating our collective future. The priorities for Britain (or whatever is left as events run their course) must be articulated. We mustn't let a vacuum exist, which will be filled by those who have ideas and objectives very different to ours.

Politics is not about shouting at each other - it's about thought and discussion. It's about generating ideas and getting things done. The front page from today's Metro has one message



...but today MPs & Peers will return. There will be a lot of noise - but also the more thoughtful work at Westminster will recommence. Committees will consider legislation and policies. There will be lots of discussion as to how to move forward. So too in council buildings; within the political parties at national and local level, within civil society generally. We all have our part to play.

Saturday, 25 June 2016

Brexit Hangover



By the early morning of Friday, Farage was ecstatic - his vision was turning into reality. He'd convinced people to turn their back on the positive side of our history - to embrace parts of his warped ideology. (A key point here - it's not necessary to get people to buy all the ideology - just a taste - and they are in - just like that first cigarette).

Now the hangover has set in. People have begun to realise the enormity of what has been done - what has been destroyed. I won't go on - I've felt it myself - and read the real anguish of many, particularly young people, about what has happened - and what it means.

But I think we should take a lesson from the regressives.

In 1964 Barry Goldwater stood on a right wing platform that was seen as so extreme that he was defeated in one of the biggest landslides in US history. But he & his associates didn't give up. They analysed their strengths and the weaknesses of the progressives. They planned - and with tenacity worked tirelessly to push their agenda. Much went unnoticed at the time. But the organisation and the low key efforts at persuasion began to show fruits. Reagan was elected - Newt Gingrich set about turning Congress rightward. Now neither Goldwater nor Reagan would be selected as a candidate - their successors have pushed things so far rightward.




Moral of this tale - start thinking, planning, taking action - so that your opponents are pushed back - and the values you hold dear are reestablished.

I personally will be doing a lot more reflecting - looking closer at what worked (and considering what is acceptable; unacceptable; effective; do-able). This will be reflected on this blog - and I hope that we can engage in a productive dialogue.

Do bookmark this page - or subscribe to this blog. But most of all - start now to fight back.

Friday, 24 June 2016

Regressives 1 Progressives 0

The Regressives won a significant victory in Britain yesterday. As the day has unfolded we have started to  to see the damage that has been done. It's been painful to read the anguish, particularly amongst young people, on Facebook and Twitter, as they face up to what has been done to their hopes for the future. Britain has started on its path to disengagement from the EU, and the prospect of the UK itself breaking apart is already being discussed.

But we ought to keep in mind one important fact

16,141,241 people voted to "Remain".

Now we have a choice - we can follow the approach taken by those who campaigned for withdrawal, and isolate ourselves from the rest of the world - and look only inwards. Not just as a nation, but as individuals. We can disengage from politics - and leave the field to the regressives.

or we can rise to the challenge.

We won't be the first generation to have to do that. And there are no easy answers. As individuals, and political and social groups - we will need to examine how we better engage with our fellow citizens. We must consider how we can better articulate our values - and how they offer a better future.

Perhaps we need a short rest, a few hours or a day or two, to tend to our sore feet, and our bruised hopes - but then WE must face the key question for any human - how can we leave this world a better place than we found it?

Thursday, 23 June 2016

The Critical Day Arrives....

Polls are open from 7.00am to 10pm in today's Referendum.


Whatever position you have come to, I would urge you to vote. Democracy can only continue as long as people participate.

With uncertainty as to the result - and its immediate consequences - I won't be blogging again today - but I'm sure that there will be a lot to discuss tomorrow and subsequently.

David



If you have any problems -  The officials at the polling station (who are independent of either campaign) can advise you.

Where is my designated polling station? 

You can find the address of your polling station on your polling card. You can only vote at your designated polling station.  If you can not find your polling card you can contact us and we will be able to provide that information. You do not need your polling card with you to vote because your name will be on the register at the polling station.

How do I vote at the polling station? 

If you are on the register of electors you should have received a poll card a few weeks ago. This will tell you how, where and when to vote.

This card is for information only so don't worry if you lose it or forget it. (You can still vote without the poll card but it is easier if you have it with you).

You will be assigned to a polling station in your area, for example, at a school or village hall. On election day you should go to the polling station during the times it is open - this will be stated on your polling card.

At the polling station you will be given a ballot paper which is stamped with an official mark.

Take the ballot paper to one of the polling booths and put a cross in the box next to the option you are voting for. Do not write anything else on the ballot paper, otherwise your vote might not count. Once you have voted you must fold the ballot paper and show it to the clerk before you put it in the locked ballot box. You don't have to tell anyone what you voted for.

Do I need to take my polling card to the polling station to vote? 

No, you do not need your polling card to vote. This card is for information only so don't worry if you lose it or forget it. (You can still vote without the poll card but it is easier if you have it with you).

How long will polling stations be open on 23 June 

Polling stations will open at 7am and close at 10pm, if you are still queuing at the polling station at 10pm you will still have the opportunity vote, you will be invited into the polling station or given a ticket that will identify you as being eligible to cast your vote. Find out more information about polling stations on the gov.uk website

Can I still register to vote for the EU Referendum?

No, it is now too late to register for the EU Referendum. If you have registered to vote for any other election at your current address then you will automatically be registered to vote for this referendum. You cannot check if you are registered to vote online. If you have a polling card in your name at your address then you are registered to vote.

Monday, 20 June 2016

Things need to change...

I decided not to post in the immediate aftermath of the murder of Jo Cox MP. It's easy to say things in the midst of shock and horror that might not be said after some reflection.

I was shocked, but not - I'm afraid - surprised. The tone of politics has been deteriorating for some time. I've heard some comments from ordinary people that that only a few years ago - people might have thought, but would have been ashamed to utter in public. Some politicians, and they must know what they are doing - are using language which can incite racial hatred - and, though most would not be roused by such talk, some people can be incited to violence. Many of us will be familiar with the story of Henry II - who after had falling out with his former friend, Thomas A Becket - said "Will no one rid me of the turbulent priest?" He didn't directly call for Becket's murder - but (taking the most generous view of Henry) some hotheads saw that comment as a suggestion for them to follow. Yet Henry did not escape condemnation.

I have argued in previous posts that for the last fifty years there has been a determined effort by "regressives" to push politics further and further rightwards. Newt Gingrich has stressed the central importance of language in pushing politics in a particular direction. (Take a look at his 1996 GOPAC memo - available at http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article4443.htm  )You'll see how some pretty strong language is recommended to demonise his opponents. I think he must take some responsibility for the degeneration of political discourse in the United States. When you start talking about your opponents as "traitors" - and throwing the word "corrupt"around - then you risk some extremists feeling embolden to take "direct action".

British people have always taken a sceptical view of their politicians (and that is NOT a bad thing - as Lord Acton said 'power TENDS to corrupt' - and we must scrutinise those who exercise power, and have in place 'checks and balances' - in our own interests!) - but there are some who have sought to undermine any trust to push their own ideology that rests upon the idea that ANY action of government is a bad thing. As Ronald Reagan said "Government is not the solution to our problem; government IS the problem."

Things have moved on since then. Neither Barry Goldwater or Ronald Reagan would be regarded as sufficiently "conservative" (for which "regressive" is the real word meant) for many in the Republican Party. Behind a SIGNIFICANT part of the Brexit movement are people who want to push this 'regressive' agenda.

As 'progressives' we need to consider - as a matter of urgency - how we can effectively push back this movement. Some think that we should adopt the methods of the regressives - and manipulate language to demonise them - that we should encourage 'hatred of the haters'. I fear that path takes us towards the violence that saw the similar battles of the 1930s.

I would argue that we have to redouble our efforts to reach out to fellow citizens. I acknowledge the value of Voter ID (canvassing - or whatever term you feel comfortable with) in enabling election machines to predict the likelihood of individuals to go out and vote, and for whom they are likely to vote. But data-gathering can easily become more important to us, than the more difficult task of engaging with voters. If a person is identified as a non-voter or more likely to vote against our party, we are urged to move on - and records will tell us to avoid those people for perpetuity, lest we stir them up to vote against us.

Targets are important when you have a large district or constituency to cover. Volunteers (and existing activists) can easily be seduced into lots of effort - but isolation from "ordinary" life and activities.

I wish I could present a 10 point plan that, if adopted, would force back the tide of the regressives. But I can't - but I would like to provoke fellow progressives into thought and discussion about how we could change things for there better.



One version of the story of King Canute and his failed attempt to push back the tide - is set at his palace, on the River Thames, at Westminster. He failed to succeed. 

But visit Westminster today -  The Thames is half its width - it is held back by the engineering work within the Palace of Westminster (most of the current palace was in the Thames at the time of Canute (see 'The royal palace, abbey and town of Westminster on Thorney Island' Museum of London Archaeology Service) and on the embankments either side of the river.

Wednesday, 15 June 2016

Fact Checker

The latest claim I've heard about the EU is that - "THE European Court of Justice ruled yesterday that the European Union can lawfully suppress political criticism of its institutions and of leading figures, sweeping aside English Common Law and 50 years of European precedents on civil liberties."

Upon closer examination - this is a 2001 report in the Daily Telegraph. I urge you to read it - as the Brexiters would. It can be found at http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1325398/Euro-court-outlaws-criticism-of-EU.html



But go further, as I did. My response (slightly edited) was

The case itself, Bernard Connolly v Commission of the European Commission, is available in full at http://curia.europa.eu/juris/showPdf.jsf?text=&docid=46230&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=726338http://curia.europa.eu/juris/showPdf.jsf?text=&docid=46230&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=726338...
It is a case worth reading in full - to see the arguments that were put forward and the reasoning for each of the conclusions. 

I wonder whether anyone - on the facts and arguments in that case - would expect the UK Supreme Court (presumably after the European Communities Act 1972 is repealed) or the US Supreme Court to come to a different conclusion? 

Don't the same restrictions apply to Civil Servants the world over? and employees of private companies?



One of the lines of arguments heard in that 2001 case was that the European Commission had violated Connolly's rights under Art 10 of the Convention. The ECJ comes to a reasoned conclusion as to why they didn't accept his claim. That is in the ECJ judgment. I've searched in vain to find any decision by the ECHR which considers whether they accept or reject that reasoning. The Telegraph article mentions - "Mr Connolly now intends to take his case to Europe's other court, the non-EU European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg." - unless I've slipped up in my research (always possible!) no such case has been brought. I'm sure if it had have been, and the ECHR - which the Telegraph acknowledges is not an EU Court - had found that the Commission had been in breach of Mr Connolly's Art 10 right rights - we would have heard about it (& I'd be using it in my teaching!)

Is there a viable alternative?

I argued in my post "Three Competing Views", that within the western democracies (and particularly the UK and USA), the major battle was now between "Regressives" on one side and "progressives" with "traditional conservatives" on the other.

In the two great electoral battles going on this year - the EU Referendum in the UK, and the Presidential Election (but let's not forget the Congressional; State & Local elections - also on November 8th) in the USA - we have seen the approach taken by "Regressives". It is bold, assertive & plays to fears and prejudice. While we might be appalled at that - these tactics work! As well as being active in campaigning - I am at heart an academic. I like to look at the "science" behind elections - and I'm afraid that what works may not be to our taste. I thoroughly recommend Sasha Issenberg's "The Victory Lab". It shows what  techniques research has shown  to be effective - and voter suppression; fear; guilt work.




Does this mean that we are condemned to ape the tactics so powerfully used by the "Regressives"? or consign ourselves to permanent defeat? I wish I could give a confident, easy answer - but it's complicated. Both the Democrats in the USA and the Labour Party in Britain have learned from, and used, what the "science" has shown to be effective. I would urge progressives to refuse to use unethical means of acquiring and holding on to power.

But I'm not advocating surrender. There have always been those who are prepared to use any means,  however foul, to acquire and hold on to power. The twentieth Century is full of horrific examples - yet progressives have won power - and haven't had to sell their souls to do so.

I put forward some suggestions for discussions. Please do send me your comments - we need this debate.

First - we need to expose the grubby techniques that are being used. One of the most insidious aspects of the tactics of the "Regressives" is that they are done 'under the radar'. People can get angry when they see that trickery and deception is being used to try to deceive them. I always remember Bruce George (Labour MP for Walsall South 1974-2010) back in February 1974 using Lewis Carroll's "The Hunting of the Snark" to illustrate these tactics - "What I tell you three times is true". George used it to draw attention to his prospective voters what his opponents were up to. We must not merely 'tut' when we read the "Fact-Checker" we must draw the lies to the attention of the public. We must expose the contradictions in arguments put forward. We must share with each other, and the electorate, what these people are up to.

Second we need to show that there is a better way. Trump and the Brexiters put a lot of emphasis on confrontation and aggressive competition. Yet people don't think that politics carried out in this way is working. We need to stress that the great lessons of history show that confrontation and intransigence achieve little of positive value (but much that can be VERY negative). We need to make a positive case for
- Discussion
- Negotiation and
- Cooperation.
The Labour Party Constitution (Clause IV) - which is printed and highlighted on every members' membership card - states that the Party "believes that by the strength of our common endeavour we achieve more than we achieve alone". We need to be stressing that - and arguing that it is a better approach than division and conflict.

Thirdly we need to work on speaking WITH people - not at them. The current "wisdom" is that door knocking is not for attempting to PERSUADE people, but to get enough information in order to predict their likelihood of voting, and voting for us at forthcoming elections. Actually, we need a dialogue - we need to listen to peoples concerns (and to seek to understand - even if what we hear is unpleasant). This was central to the thinking of Saul Alinsky




and Paul Wellstone



Let US talk about how we can do that more effectively. (This Blog is always welcome to publish guest contributors - please send them directly to me.).

Fourthly, we need to draw attention to ideology. I know that worries some people. I'll be honest with you - I've steered clear of talking ideology with electors (the legacy of many wasted hours in the Young Socialists during the late 1970s). But do we need to put on an intense gaze  as we talk in the language of obscure French  theorists? We need to explain, in ordinary words, the implications of our beliefs and the ideology of the "regressives". Brexit makes perfect sense if you believe in extreme individualism and the superiority of unrestricted competition. People understand the good sense of Sam Rayburn's "If you want to get along, go along." - it applies in families and in work. The Trump approach is ultimately self-defeating. Progressive ideology makes sense to us - we have to learn how to share that with others. We believe that "regressive" ideology is destructive. Let's not think that attacking characters can substitute for explaining the ideological underpinning the differences that exist in politics.

Please do send me your comments.  (Click on the highlighted text at the bottom of this post - on the same line as Posted by J David Morgan at 05:30 - if no one else has sent a comment it will say "No comment" or if they have, "x comments" (x being the number of comments made & published - in order to avoid "spam" posts - I read each comment before I publish them on the blog)

Tuesday, 14 June 2016

The Progressive Case for REMAIN

Yesterday I attended the meeting at which Gordon Brown made the progressive case for Britain remaining within the EU. Sadly, no text appears to be available  (he certainly wasn't speaking from notes or an autocue) - but he has published a paper called "A Positive British Reform Agenda for Europe". It is available here.

A  brief report from ITV can be found at http://www.itv.com/news/2016-06-13/gordon-brown-eu-can-help-tackle-terrorism-and-illegal-immigration/

Whilst searching for a text, I did come across the text of the speech delivered by Hilary Benn. I commend it to you - it is well reasoned, based on a strong foundation of history and fact, and represents the best traditions of the Labour Party and progressive thought.

"We meet here today with just 10 days to go until the referendum.
A referendum not just on our membership of the European Union but also on Britain’s place and influence in the world. Our great country - our astonishing country - is one of the most successful in human history. With less than 1% of the world’s population, we are its fifth biggest economy and generate 4% of its GDP. Our language is spoken by 1.5 billion people worldwide, more than any other. Our literature, our theatre, our films, our actors are loved the world over, from Shakespeare to J K Rowling and from Mark Rylance to Idris Elba.Our universities attract the brightest and the best. We have more Nobel laureates per head of population than the United States, Germany or China.British broadcasters are respected in all four corners of the globe for their impartial reporting. And we have helped to influence and shape the modern world through the power of our ideas and values.
Our system of governance. Parliamentary democracy. The rule of national and international law. A free media. Free trade. And the belief that every human being has rights that are inalienable.
Ideas that have been a beacon of inspiration to people who enjoy none of these things.
This did not come about because we turned our backs on working with others. It transpired because we embraced others, travelled, traded, built alliances, were open to new ideas and welcomed new people.
Britain’s story, our unique history as an island nation, has been shaped by how we have always looked beyond our own shores and engaged with the wider world. And because we did so, Britain is not only successful but is today one of the most influential of all countries.
The building we meet in was an important part of that journey.  Here, 70 years ago on 17 January 1946, the United Nations Security Council met for the very first time with Britain as one of its permanent members. A week earlier in the Central Hall, just across the road, the UN General Assembly held its inaugural meeting. Arising from the ashes of the Second World War, the nations of the world came together to commit to high ideals and human rights and resolved to give them effect through dialogue and negotiation.
The roots of the European Union also took hold in those same ashes and drew upon those same principles. And by the creation of the European Coal and Steel Community - bringing former foes together – its founders resolved to make a return to conflict on the continent of Europe - in the words of the Schuman Declaration - “not merely unthinkable, but materially impossible”.
This vision was the most eloquent and enduring memorial we could have built to the flower of two generations of young Europeans who gave their lives in war and now rest eternal in those immaculately cared-for cemeteries. And it is the inscriptions on their gravestones - their names, their ages, the unknown soldiers - that to this day call upon us, the post war generation, to do everything within our grasp to stop that slaughter from happening again.
These and the other great institutions fashioned in the aftermath of the Second World War were a conscious effort to establish a new world order. And that hope has, on our continent, been fulfilled. Europe is at peace. 
And for more than forty years, Britain has been at the heart of the European Union. A Union of 28 free democracies working together that has proved what human beings can achieve when we replace conflict with cooperation and enmity with dialogue.
A Union that has brought prosperity and founded the world’s largest single economic market. A Union that helps protect our security and has made us among the most stable and safest countries in the world in which to live. Indeed, if all of humankind could cooperate, trade and work together as the nations of the European Union have done, then there would be more peace, more prosperity and more progress on this earth.
And it has given Britain a stronger voice in the world. 
Britain leads in Europe, from trade to climate change, from good governance to debt relief for the poorest nations, and in turn Europe helps to lead the world.
And so I say to those who advocate that Britain should abandon the European Union that they bear a very heavy responsibility to prove their case. Over the past few weeks and months, it has become clear that their argument rests on the economic costs of EU membership, immigration and sovereignty. And I wish directly to address each of these in turn.
Now that the Leave campaign’s claim that EU membership costs us £350 million a week has been utterly discredited, they seek to argue that there will be no cost to Britain’s economy if we leave. They are wrong. They are dangerously wrong. They are playing fast and loose with people’s jobs, their livelihoods and their families’ incomes as they try to lure us onto the rocks.
They recklessly deny the clear benefits to our businesses, workers, consumers and our national wealth from membership of the single market which, let us be clear, Boris Johnson, Nigel Farage and Michael Gove have all said they want to walk away from. And yet it is the benefits of membership of the single market that are precisely why every survey of business opinion, why the Bank of England, the IFS, the Treasury, the IMF, the OECD, the World Bank and 90% of independent economists say that leaving the European Union would damage our economy and end up costing Britain money, not saving us money.
The single market allows British businesses to do business with 500 million consumers, increasing tenfold the number of people to whom we can sell our goods without tariffs, just as if we were selling them here at home.
This open trade benefits the economy. It generates taxes which help pay for our NHS, our schools, our pensions, our housebuilding, our infrastructure and our welfare state. And yet the Leave campaign are prepared to see our economy suffer which would mean that we would have less money to spend on all these things we cherish.
If we leave, we will have just two years in which to negotiate not only a new trading relationship with the European Union, but also with the 53 other countries we currently have trade agreements with because we are members of the European Union.  If we failed to do so, we would then have to fall back on World Trade Organisation terms, as Nigel Farage has himself admitted. 
What would this mean? 
It would mean that every one of the nearly 2,000 cars a day that we currently export to the European Union would face a 10% tariff.  It would mean that our service industries which make up 80% of our GDP would be plunged into uncertainty.How could leaving the single market possibly be good for the British economy? How could Britain leaving the single market possibly encourage inward investment, remembering that we are the most successful country in Europe in doing precisely that - more successful than France and more successful than Germany? How would it help to sustain jobs? 
The simple answer is that it wouldn’t.
And that tells us it is the influence we have as a member of the EU that shapes our economic relationships with others; influence that we would cast aside if we walked away.
And it is not just the economy and trade. 
Let’s talk about immigration. For many people, immigration is the issue in this referendum. They feel our country has become too crowded, that our services are under pressure, that we are losing our identity and that leaving the European Union would restore control over all of these things. It is a feeling that is palpable in this campaign but so too are these truths.
We have an obligation to be honest with one another about the nature of the world in which we live, and about the changes that have happened and will happen whichever way people vote on 23 June.
Immigration into Britain will continue whether we stay or go, as the Leave campaign have now admitted. Indeed Nigel Farage’s contradictory promises, as we saw yesterday, simply don’t add up. And anyone who thinks that voting Leave will bring the numbers down significantly will in time be bitterly disappointed.
Free movement is part of the deal and the reason why so many people have come here from other EU countries is because jobs are available. Jobs that need doing and jobs that, if it had not been for this migration, employers would have been shouting about because of the difficulty they were having in filling them. Vacancies for doctors, nurses, lecturers, factory workers, chefs and waiters, receptionists, scientists and cleaners.
Britain has always welcomed those who wish to come here to work, to live and to contribute.
Just reflect for a moment on the greatest social challenge that confronts us; the demographic time bomb that will see the number of people aged 65 and over rise by nearly five million over the next two decades. Already, one in five of our care workers come from outside the United Kingdom – from Europe and the rest of the world – and we will need more carers as more people need looking after.
When my father came towards the end of his life, most of the people who cared for him with such patience and gentleness had brought their care from abroad to this country. And in the years ahead, it will be our turn to be looked after. And as well as providing that care, we will need to pay for it, which is why it is utterly irresponsible to advocate a course of action that will lead to a weaker, less strong and less prosperous economy. This would damage our public services and make it more difficult to deal with, as we must, the pressures that immigration brings.
The truth is that leaving the EU is not going to stop immigration. Our economy will continue to need its contribution. And, of course, immigration works both ways. Over a million British people have chosen to live and work in other EU countries. This too is part of the deal.
Leaving the EU would make it much harder for them and us to travel, study and work elsewhere in Europe; that right might disappear completely. What a lost opportunity for the next generation that would be.
And fundamental to the strength of the British economy is the freedom to bring in new talent and creative minds from abroad as well as to draw on the huge home-grown reservoir of those same skills and talents to build new businesses that employ workers in Britain and buy goods and services from firms in Britain.
The truth is we are a nation of migrants. From the Romans to the Anglo-Saxons and the Normans. From the Jews fleeing persecution to the Irish fleeing famine. From the Windrush generation and those who came from India, Pakistan and Bangladesh to work in the mills and in manufacturing to their present day equivalents from Poland, Lithuania and Romania. And even some Americans, I would add, being the proud son of an immigrant from Ohio. And one of the greatest things about our country is the way in which over the generations these successive waves of migrants have mixed and melded and married until it is almost impossible to untangle the threads of the journeys that brought them here.
But this does not mean than any of us, whether born in Britain or born abroad, feel any the less who we think ourselves to be. We are proud of who we are - English, Scottish, Welsh, Northern Irish, British, European - and in that very British way, we get along.
The question people ask is this. Will we continue to see these levels of immigration? Is there any limit? Well, we can influence the level, but not in the way the Leave campaigners think they can. The number who come will be determined by the size and strength of our economy and the jobs available. The number can be affected by measures such as preventing rogue employment agencies from only advertising jobs overseas, stopping exploitation and undercutting and ensuring that migrant workers make a fair contribution before they receive in-work benefits. And we have the ability completely to control the terms on which any new EU member state joins because we and every other EU country has a veto. We can set the conditions we want, including on free movement.
When it comes to the separate issue of refugees, as the Syria crisis has taught us, the challenge will be to tackle conflict successfully, prevent dangerous climate change, and play our part in helping developing countries to become more prosperous so that people can see a better life for themselves and their families where they were born rather than somewhere else.
Whether we are in or outside of the EU, when crisis strikes - war, drought, flood, disease - if people cannot survive where they are, they will do what human beings have done since the dawn of time - move in search of a better life.
And how we deal with this brings me finally to sovereignty and to what it means to be sovereign in the modern world. The Leave campaign claim that we have somehow lost absolute sovereignty and can regain it. Here too they are wrong.
We are still a sovereign nation. A sovereign British Parliament joined the Common Market, a sovereign British people voted to stay in 1975, a sovereign House of Commons has agreed every treaty change since and a sovereign House of Commons will abide by the decision of the British people in 10 days’ time. We are not in the Euro. We are not in the Schengen free passport area. We are excluded from ever closer union. And yet we still wield great influence in the European Union.
We led the argument for widening membership to offer a welcome to the former communist states of Eastern Europe who looked to the EU as a wonderful expression of freedom. The single market was our idea, and part of the reason for qualified majority voting was to prevent other member states from continuing to protect their own markets to the disadvantage of our businesses and our exports. We are on the winning side in the Council of Ministers the vast majority of the time. The truth is that pulling up the drawbridge and quitting the EU will not enhance our national sovereignty. All it would do is to weaken it by taking away our power to influence events in an ever more complex and interdependent world. It would hinder us from responding to the changes and the challenges that this century will present us with.
What is the point of absolute sovereignty if you cannot exercise it to achieve what you want? It is a phantom form of sovereignty. An imaginary wall made not of bricks and mortar, but of smoke and mirrors. Smoke that will dissipate the moment it comes into contact with events. Will it help us have a more peaceful and secure world? Will it help us stop dangerous climate change, which unchecked would devastate Britain, an island nation, surrounded on all sides by rising seas that respect no notion of sovereignty? Will it help us to be more secure when we know that it is working together that is the best protection against aggression and is the best means of keeping us safe from terrorism? Will it help us make the most of the wonders that lie ahead as science and technology, industry and ideas change the world in ways that today we can only dream of?
The answer to all these questions is no.
What will - as 21st Century Britain – great and powerful – has shown is being connected to other nations and building relationships with other nations. What will is sharing some of our sovereignty with others to our mutual benefit.
Now of course, as in any relationship, sometimes you get what you want and sometimes you don’t. It’s a bit like families. But it’s not an argument for walking away because together we are better off. But, the Leave side then say: “We can stand alone” and “Britain can be great again.” Well I say Britain never stopped being great and can be greater still in future.
It is the Leave campaign who are doing down our country, even though we lead in the UN, NATO, and the Commonwealth as well as in the EU. They seem to think that we are not capable of continuing to exert our influence in Europe. They seem to mourn for the age in which Britain gained influence through military strength and Empire. But the truth is those days are gone. And what they fail to recognise is the change through which we have continued to be great in the modern world.
In the second half of the 20th Century, we came to realise that it was far better and far more effective to be a global power that achieved its goals through co-operation rather than conquest. The new Elizabethan Age in which we now live has been one in which Britain has succeeded through persuasion, building relationships, proclaiming British values, promoting free trade, and upholding the rule of law and universal human rights. This conscious decision to exchange hard power for soft power was an enormously courageous step to take because it meant giving up the means by which we had prospered in the past. 
But it paid off.
And we took that step in part because of the bitter experience of war and in part because we could hear the inexorable end of the Age of Empire coming in the growing cry for freedom from our colonies. And so it was that their submission gave way to their self-determination as the winds of change blew away the old order and a new world emerged.
It was on 14 August 1941 that Winston Churchill and Franklin D Roosevelt met in Newfoundland to adopt a joint declaration - subsequently known as the Atlantic Charter - that set out the Allied goals for the post-war world which became the basis for the United Nations.
The two most important of these goals were, first, self-determination so that people could be free to shape their own future and, second, global co-operation to secure better economic and social conditions for all. And far from being in contradiction, what bound these two goals together was the dawning realisation that for states to truly determine their future in the modern age they would have to co-operate with their neighbours and with the rest of the world.
And how can we best advance the British national interest today and in the future?
By continuing to do exactly that. By continuing to participate in and lead those very organisations that we helped to create which gave and give us influence.
Influence that can be seen today in so many different ways.
From the European Convention on Human Rights which we helped to draft to British Standards which allow the world to have confidence in the quality of goods and services.
From UK leadership on humanitarian aid - the UN Central Emergency Response Fund was a British idea - to the first climate change legislation in the world.
And for us now, of all countries, to walk away from the European Union and in the process to send a message to the rest of humankind that we are turning our face away from those values, away from that cooperation and away from the influence it gives us, would not only be a catastrophic mistake for our country but would be to diminish ourselves.
It would make us a poorer Britain. A lesser Britain. A less influential Britain. And most damaging of all, it would undermine the life chances of our children and our grandchildren. Why on earth as parents and grandparents would we want to do that? The world I was born into in 1953 - the year of the Queen’s coronation - had a population of 2.7 billion people. Today there are 7.5 billion of us. By the time my grandchildren reach my age, they will be sharing this small and fragile planet of ours with 10 billion men, women and children.
Will walking away from Europe really give them greater control over the world they will be living in? Will it make their future better? Will it help them to manage the changes that they will inevitably see in their lives just as we have seen great changes in ours? Will it help them to make the most of the opportunities that lie ahead in this century?
In our hearts, we know that the answer to all these questions is no.
So we have 10 days left to make sure this does not happen. We have 10 days left to take our case to all four corners of the country. We have 10 days left to proclaim the values of cooperation with our neighbours. We have 10 days left to honour the vision and the courage and the determination of those who brought peace to our continent.
Ours is a vision worth fighting for.
So let’s go out there and win this battle for the future of a great Britain."


Monday, 13 June 2016

Three competing views

In western democracies, certainly in my lifetime, it has been usual to see Politics as a struggle between two opposing camps - I might refer to them as "progressives" and "conservatives" - but in Electoral terms they roughly equate to Labour/Conservative (UK), Democrat/Republican (USA), and the parties of 'the Left' (France - Parti socialiste with Mitterrand & Hollande : Germany - SPD, or 'social democrats) and 'the Right' (France - De Gaulle, Pompidou, VGE, Chirac, Sarkozy : Germany & others - the Christian Democrats).

Of course, there is some blurring at the edges - but for most of my lifetime (b 1960) the two groups had distinct policy preferences, but shared common values. Progressives preferred greater state involvement in industry and the provision of services such as health and housing, while conservatives preferred a higher level of private provision.

But as we look back over the last half century, changes begin to set in. The shared values become contested. The self-proclaimed "conservatives" within the American Republican party, move that party towards a more aggressive approach. We now see a Congress in which any taxation is seen as unacceptable, in which state involvement in services is vehemently opposed. This is not the party Eisenhower or even Nixon would recognise or feel comfortable within. Similarly, in the UK, Harold Macmillan & Ted Heath wouldn't recognise or sympathise the ideology of Gove, Johnson or Iain Duncan Smith.

It is not inconceivable that in the next few days the UK might vote for Brexit, and later this year Donald Trump is elected as the American President. Already governments in Poland and Hungary are giving concern - and Austria just escaped having a far right President.

I put forward this thesis for you to discuss -

In the last 50 years a "third camp" has developed. It has largely taken over the Republican Party; in the UK it is very powerful within the Conservative Party, and its ideology lies behind the Brexit Movement. For all its claims to be 'conservative', It is actually very radical - which explains why it has attracted some support from those who had previously identified with Democrats and the Labour Party. Let's call this camp the 'regressives'.

Unlike progressives and 'old style' conservatives - it is insular (more nationalistic, less minded towards international cooperation); it puts the emphasis on the 'costs' and threats of immigration, rather than recognising the contribution made by immigrants (a real irony in that nation of immigrants, the USA - but also in the UK). It is hostile to any role for the State and regulation - hence its opposition to the EU & the insistence - once common to progressives (Labour) and old fashioned Conservatives (Conservative Party; Christian Democrats & gaullists) - that consumers and workers are entitled to Rights which the State should enforce)

This is not intended as a mere description. It is a call to progressives and true conservatives to tackle this regressive movement.

Republicans need to wrest control from that wing of their party which has foisted Trump on the GOP. They need to challenge the ideology behind the so-called conservative movement. In the UK we need to fight Brexit. We need to talk about ideology. We need to recognise that the thinking which underlies this ideology has spread beyond single parties - and can be found everywhere. It is not just the success of of the 'regressives' - but our failures to recognise and deliver for our fellow citizens which have contributed to the present situation.

We need to expose how this regressive movement has got to the point where it stands on the verge of imposing dramatic damage to our nations. Most of all we need to better articulate the values that WE hold.

I look forward to your comments - and in future posts I shall propose steps that we can take as individuals, and as members of political and other organisations, to turn back the advances of the 'regressives'.

Thursday, 9 June 2016

The Referendum

I have to admit it - like many people, I'm really turned off by the way this referendum is being conducted. There is a relentless bombardment of the public by "information" (some of which is HIGHLY dubious) - endless "discussion" and attempts to look at the referendum from innovative angles.

I fear many people are now so switched off, that they won't vote. That would be a pity, because this is potentially one of the most important votes in recent British history. Its repercussions may be felt for decades. The consequences could be immense (yes there is some exaggeration - from both sides) but the result will leave a lasting impact (and that would be true even if there was a comfortable 'Remain' win).

The 1975 referendum did not end the debate once and for all, as was suggested at the time - and that had a large majority. A close result is likely to ensure that the losing side carries on the debate.

What sort of questions should people be asking in the next fortnight? [Unless it is too late - as it soon will be if you haven't registered yet; or, like me - you've already voted]

I suggest the following

* How CREDIBLE are the predictions? No one can foresee the future - the best anyone can do is to make predictions. What are those predictions based on? Are they blind faith (which I fear is the case for those who HOPE that Britain will enjoy exactly the same terms of trade as it currently enjoys); or are they based on a detailed analysis? What are the assumptions behind the predictions?

* Why did Britain join in the first place? (and what did it think it was joining?) There's been a lot of nonsense spouted about our expectations. We did NOT think we were merely joining a free trade area. In fact, we set up the European Free Trade Area as an ALTERNATIVE to membership of the EEC. When we did apply, some opponents proposed a North Atlantic Free Trade Area (then known by initials subsequently used for another project - NAFTA). Sadly, while many Brits thought this was a good idea, it fell embarrassingly flat in the USA. The 1957 Treaty of Rome (we announced we would apply to join in 1961) lists the objectives, the first being

"DETERMINED to establish the foundations of an ever closer union among the European peoples,"

An ever closer union was not slipped in later, while we weren't looking - it was there before we applied.

Similarly, we knew that EEC Law (now EU Law) took precedence over conflicting national legislation - because the principle had been stated in the earliest caselaw of the European Court of Justice (see the leading case of Costa v ENEL (1964)

"BY CONTRAST WITH ORDINARY INTERNATIONAL TREATIES, THE EEC TREATY HAS CREATED ITS OWN LEGAL SYSTEM WHICH, ON THE ENTRY INTO FORCE OF THE TREATY, BECAME AN INTEGRAL PART OF THE LEGAL SYSTEMS OF THE MEMBER STATES AND WHICH THEIR COURTS ARE BOUND TO APPLY .

BY CREATING A COMMUNITY OF UNLIMITED DURATION, HAVING ITS OWN INSTITUTIONS, ITS OWN PERSONALITY, ITS OWN LEGAL CAPACITY AND CAPACITY OF REPRESENTATION ON THE INTERNATIONAL PLANE AND, MORE PARTICULARLY, REAL POWERS STEMMING FROM A LIMITATION OF SOVEREIGNTY OR A TRANSFER OF POWERS FROM THE STATES TO THE COMMUNITY, THE MEMBER STATES HAVE LIMITED THEIR SOVEREIGN RIGHTS AND HAVE THUS CREATED A BODY OF LAW WHICH BINDS BOTH THEIR NATIONALS AND THEMSELVES .

THE INTEGRATION INTO THE LAWS OF EACH MEMBER STATE OF PROVISIONS WHICH DERIVE FROM THE COMMUNITY AND MORE GENERALLY THE TERMS AND THE SPIRIT OF THE TREATY, MAKE IT IMPOSSIBLE FOR THE STATES, AS A COROLLARY, TO ACCORD PRECEDENCE TO A UNILATERAL AND SUBSEQUENT MEASURE OVER A LEGAL SYSTEM ACCEPTED BY THEM ON A BASIS OF RECIPROCITY . SUCH A MEASURE CANNOT THEREFORE BE INCONSISTENT WITH THAT LEGAL SYSTEM . THE LAW STEMMING FROM THE TREATY, AN INDEPENDENT SOURCE OF LAW, COULD NOT BECAUSE OF ITS SPECIAL AND ORIGINAL NATURE, BE OVERRIDDEN BY DOMESTIC LEGAL PROVISIONS, HOWEVER FRAMED, WITHOUT BEING DEPRIVED OF ITS CHARACTER AS COMMUNITY LAW AND WITHOUT THE LEGAL BASIS OF THE COMMUNITY ITSELF BEING CALLED INTO QUESTION .

THE TRANSFER BY THE STATES FROM THEIR DOMESTIC LEGAL SYSTEM TO THE COMMUNITY LEGAL SYSTEM OF THE RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS ARISING UNDER THE TREATY CARRIES WITH IT A PERMANENT LIMITATION OF THEIR SOVEREIGN RIGHTS ."

There are some excellent histories available about the debate in the UK from 1950 to 1973.


* What ideology lies behind the arguments? We tend in Britain to ignore the ideological framework behind political arguments. While both sides take support from across the political spectrum - there are in both camps a dominant ideological position.

The "Remain" camp does represent the mainstream range of ideologies represented in British political parties in the period from 1945 to date. There are differences in the extent of the role of the State - but most believe that the State should be involved in regulating the market, and limiting what Heath described as "the unacceptable face of capitalism"

A major driver within the "Leave" campaign is a belief, like Ronald Reagan's, that
"Government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem". Regulation, except in the most extreme situation, should not be used to grant protections to workers or consumers, the 'free market' should determine how the market operates. It is this which lies behind their crusade "to free us from the shackles of Europe." There are left wing supporters of Brexit - and they hope that the present protections will remain should we withdraw - but do the leading lights of the Leave campaign share their hope? The ultra-conservative momentum within the Republican Party, which has left Goldwater and Reagan far behind, is powerful within the Farage-IDS-Gove wing of the Leave campaign.


Just a few thoughts - I'd welcome any comments.