Breaking The Law?

There are in my view two fundamental objections to the European Court of Human Rights’ judgment on the UK’s position on prisoners’ right to vote.

The first is by allowing an unelected and unaccountable court to effectively act as a legislator as well; telling Parliament what laws it can and cannot pass - against the expressed wishes of the UK population. It is with dazzlingly irony that the judgement doesn’t actually give prisoners’ the right to vote but instead removes that very right from the rest of us.

The second is that the right to vote is not a human right, unlike for example access to food, clothes and medicine. It instead is a contract between the government and its taxpaying citizens. Democracy resides on the basis of the rule of law. As responsible adults we have duty to abide by those laws, even ones we disagree with and in return we have the privileges of being able to make or influence those laws. It should, if it worked properly, allow us to have say in how our money is spent.

Thus if we breach our side of the bargain and break a law we should expect to be removed from the process during a period of incarceration as a consequence of not keeping our side of the contract.

Conversely if we have no means of making law – we simply have no choice- as in a dictatorship run by fear via tanks on the streets then we have a moral right to ignore the law and break it by virtue of the government having not kept their side of the bargain. An example of this is the Arab Spring.

And this leads me onto our membership of the European Union. One of the most insidious consequences of EU membership is it encourages UK citizens to demand that their government breaks the law when we have no moral right to do so. The EU - and this is crucial - does not rule by fear, it rules by our consent.

The UK, by due process via Parliament has chosen to be a member, has chosen to implement EU law and in many ways gold plates such laws, and has chosen to accept EU diktats. Thus Parliament remains sovereign because it still has the right to leave. It simply chooses not to. The fault line in our democracy is between us the people and Parliament, not between us the people and the EU.

The EU is a club we as a country chose to join and as a country we can choose to leave. The basic principles of joining any club are as follows:

1. Abide by the rules or laws
   
   
2. Change the laws within the context of membership
   
   
3. Or leave

Public opinion is increasingly saying option a) is not acceptable, option b) which Cameron allegedly advocates is not possible as has been pointed out many times, so that only leaves option c). But option c) remains elusive because the UK population has not yet exercised their peacefully, law-abiding right to demand exit via current electoral processes.

And the establishment cannot cope with option c) so they try to work within option b) with unproductive results. It leads to demands to treat EU membership like an a la carte menu; apparently we abide by the laws we agree with and ignore the ones we don’t. But ironically it becomes a demand that says we wish to remain members - because if we left abiding by EU rules would no longer be a problem.

One can see this a la carte phenomenon by today's Daily Mail article on immigration which made its front page:

 

This from the same paper that has continually argued for membership of the same club i.e. the EU:

Let the Mail lay all its cards on the table. This paper has no desire for Britain to pull out of Europe [EU]...

Richard North rightly takes apart its report on the detail of immigration - immigration is a fiendishly complex issue, yet what also is disturbing is the Daily Mail (who supports EU membership) implying very heavily that the Government should break the law as the paper cannot bring itself to argue that we should leave the club:

But the threat of big fines from the European Court of Justice was brushed off by almost two thirds of the public.

They said that – even if it meant legal sanctions – the Prime Minister should keep the restrictions in place to ‘serve the national interest’. And 80 per cent of voters say Westminster should retain the final say over who enters the country. 

And even Tory MPs agree:

But, under EU rules, the arrangements must be lifted on January 1. Any failure to do so would be considered a breach of the free movement directive – a founding principle of the EU.

Britain would most likely face heavy fines, but the European Court of Justice – the EU’s enforcement arm – is notoriously slow moving.

Tory MPs believe the 2015 general election may even have passed before a verdict is handed down.

I most definitely don't want to encourage the government to break the law - it should be subject to the same laws as the rest of us - otherwise therein lies a very slippery slope indeed. Instead what such position highlights is sovereignty or more accurately the lack of.

Such sentiments are also expressed in the view, often in newspaper comments, that other countries ignore EU laws so why don't we? Such sentiments are not true - we are not the most compliant state and nor is it correct that other EU nations flagrantly ignore EU law. We can see this by the latest report by the EU Commission on application of EU law (click to enlarge):

As becomes apparent the UK has more infringements than France, yet is still 9th on the list. And also regarding infringment procedures the UK comes 9th (again click to enlarge):

The implementation of EU law is actually rather good across all member states and so it should be, we chose to join we can choose to leave. But while we remain members we have a duty to abide by the law - EU law or otherwise - so any demands to ignore EU law while we choose to remain members carries with it no moral weight.

We simply just have to leave...

Oh What A Lovely War!

The people have spoken, the bastards - Dick Tuck.  

Democracy is often a messy old business, which is why politicians tend to dislike it so much...it gives too much opportunity for the "wrong" answer. Last night we had a rare glimpse of a "wrong" answer being given, when Parliament defeated the government on military action against Syria, reflecting the British public's general attitude to intervention in Syria. As Richard North notes, MPs still in their constituencies, closer to members of the public than normal, were left in no doubt at the prevailing mood.

Much has also been made about the shadow of Iraq which hangs over the debate, and it's worth remembering this from Robin Cook's resignation speech in 2003 which still resonances today ten years on:

The longer that I have served in this place, the greater the respect I have for the good sense and collective wisdom of the British people.

On Iraq, I believe that the prevailing mood of the British people is sound. They do not doubt that Saddam is a brutal dictator, but they are not persuaded that he is a clear and present danger to Britain.

They want inspections to be given a chance, and they suspect that they are being pushed too quickly into conflict by a US Administration with an agenda of its own.

Above all, they are uneasy at Britain going out on a limb on a military adventure without a broader international coalition and against the hostility of many of our traditional allies.

It's clear and not for the first time that Cameron has significantly misjudged the mood. We've had plenty of evidence before about Cameron's lack of judgement, yet the scale of how he has made a colossal arse of himself this time is quite something. But depressingly it's been on a subject of utter most importance - the decision on whether to send our country to war - to involve ourselves in a civil war of mind-boggling complexity.

Many see this as a return to the parliamentary democracy that it should be - the legislature keeping the executive in check on behalf of the nation. Douglas Carswell writes in over-excited terms:

Be happy! Parliament works. The House of Commons has made it clear that it will not support UK military action in Syria. And so there will not be UK action in Syria.

For the first time in my adult life, government is being controlled by Parliament, rather than the other way round.

Of course blogs and newpapers [sic] will be full of comment and analysis about what this means for Syria, and David Cameron, and our relations with America. But let us not overlook what this says about our relationship with ourselves – and how we run Britain.

Despite Carswell's optimistic words we should not kid ourselves. Last night was an exception to the rule; an action that firmly resided in the column marked 'broken watches are still right twice a day'. Normal default setting of ignoring one's constituents will certainly resume shortly.

We had some indication of that last night. The British public had made their opposition clear by a margin of over 2:1, yet Parliament defeated the motion by only 13 votes. The government was still able to secure 272 votes for the principle of military intervention - intervention which lacked proof, evidence and was based on a "probability" judgement, hardly a high enough bar to commit British troops to war. Thus while Parliament represented the people by defeating the motion, it did not do so in terms of the scale of public opposition.

Despite the gravity of the situation - a Prime Minster making a case for war - that same gravity was not always reflected in the House of Commons particularly among the leaders of both parties.

Cameron could not in his arguments give compelling reasons why Britain should intervene. Instead of comprehensive details regarding military objectives, military consequences, broader consequences in the region there was instead a statement of belief that we just ought to - topped off with a dash of "think of the children" (Though I cannot confirm whether he was referring to children in Syria or those who surrounded him on the green benches):

The video footage illustrates some of the most sickening human suffering imaginable. Expert video analysis can find no way that this wide array of footage could have been fabricated, particularly the behaviour of small children in those shocking videos.

There are pictures of bodies with symptoms consistent with that of nerve agent exposure, including muscle spasms and foaming at the nose and mouth. I believe that anyone in this Chamber who has not seen these videos should force themselves to watch them. One can never forget the sight of children’s bodies stored in ice, and young men and women gasping for air and suffering the most agonising deaths—all inflicted by weapons that have been outlawed for nearly a century.

This argument is rather offensive. Not only is it an acknowledgment of the lack of detail in the argument thus requiring the need instead to appeal to emotions, but also a less than veiled implication that those who oppose a strike on Syria are in someway not upset by the death of children in war.

And nor does Ed Miliband come out of this smelling of roses. His actions ultimately defeated the government, but he deserves no credit for doing so. Did Miliband support the war or not? Well we simply don't know. Miliband kept moving the goalposts and playing politics, requesting as he did copious demands from Cameron with assurances of Labour's support. These demands were met, only then for Miliband to vote against the government anyway. No doubt though he will take the credit - projecting himself as someone with principles - at the Labour party conference in the autumn.

And Nick Clegg? Well he's Nick Clegg.

Then when the result was announced, much cheering and gloating from the Labour benches (25 seconds in) amid calls of "resign" from those same benches and anger from the Tory benches of "you're a disgrace". One could almost forget we were talking about this:

Thus Parliament exerting its will was more an undignified accident than a confirmation that the system works. Then as a consequence of Parliament has a say (god-forbid) we get not a few chucking their toys out of the pram.

Toby Young:

Britain has become a nation of crisp-eating surrender monkeys. Gone is the special relationship that meant Britain and America could always count on each other to commit blood and treasure to defending the principles of liberal democracy.

Strange how despite references to democracy one clear example in action has been derided.

Dan Hodges has left the Labour party as a consquence:

for what it’s worth [my view] is it was a catastrophe for the cause of progressive interventionism

Paddy Ashdown:

Lord Ashdown also wrote to his 8,300 followers: “We are a hugely diminished country this am. MPs cheered last night. Assad, Putin this morning. Farage too as we plunge towards isolationism.”

He told the BBC: "Maybe I am just an old war horse from the past but I think it has a profound implication for our country. I think it diminishes our country hugely.

Progressive interventionism? Isolationism? And there was me assuming that on hearing Cameron we were supposed to think of the [Syrian] children, but no it was really all about Britain’s position in the world. Silly me.

Membership Is 'Our' Choice.

Visionary, administrator, public figure, private adviser, Jean Monnet played a leading role in the conception and creation of the European Community. His constructive ideas and tireless activity have been a constant source of inspiration to those engaged on building a new Europe. Our future freedom, peace and prosperity will owe much to his genius. Edward Heath November 1977.

The above quote helps to demonstrate that our membership of the EU, as I've touched on before, is because our own political class wish it. Ted Heath knew what the project was about and still took us in and eagerly 'picked up the soap' on behalf of our country to do so. No Prime Minister since has taken us out, and instead each, ever since, has engaged in a perpetual war of deception to keep us in.

We are members because this country's political class wishes it even against the sentiments of its own people. It chooses to. The EU never used trebuchets to knock down our castle walls, instead we lowered the drawbridge, invited them in and gave them the best rooms whilst telling them that they could stay as long as they like. Here's an example of my point from the European Union (Amendment) Bill and the Lisbon Treaty: Implications for the UK Constitution (page 27) in 2007-8 (my emphasis):

We conclude that the Lisbon Treaty would make no alteration to the current relationship between the principles of primacy of European Union law and parliamentary sovereignty. The introduction of a provision explicitly confirming Member States’ right to withdraw from the European Union underlines the point that the United Kingdom only remains bound by European Union law as long as Parliament chooses to remain in the Union.

The House of Lords Constitution Committee decided that Lisbon was not unconstitutional because ultimately Parliament could decide to reverse the process should it choose. That we remain members against the wishes of the British people means, in conclusion, the actual fault line lies between us the people and Parliament, not between us the people and Brussels. The need for the Harrogate Agenda hopes to address this fault line.

The EU does not force us to be members and nor will it force us to remain members if we want to leave. They don't force rule upon us, instead our establishment chose to be ruled by Brussels. A crucial difference.

In many ways the signs are that the EU has had enough of us being the awkward partner. The impending treaty designed to try to fix the Eurozone crisis, by virtue of making the next step towards European unity, will essentially exclude us from the inner core. We will be left on the sidelines whether we like it or not. The Independent (a Europhile paper) emphases this point the EU is fed up of us:

Germany and France don’t want a “Brexit”. But, talking to their officials in the margins of yesterday’s failed EU summit, I was struck how increasingly fed up they are with what they see as the UK’s self-centered, peripheral demands as they struggle with an existential crisis. The chances of Britain securing big wins like opting out of the social chapter of workers’ rights are described as “less than zero”. The days when Germany and France will go an extra mile to help Britain may be coming to an end. That is a dangerous moment. Mr Cameron insists he does not want the UK to leave the EU. 

So they'll be glad to see the back of us. And it's with this in mind that we come to EU exit. As Christopher Booker says (my emphasis):

The belief that we can repatriate powers we have given away to the EU is a sure sign that whoever voices it hasn’t really got a clue as to what the EU is about. The most sacred rule of the “European project”, ever since it was launched in 1950, is that once a nation state has handed powers of governance to the centre they can never be given back. The last thing our European colleagues would be prepared to do at present, when all their attention is focused on driving on to ever greater union in a bid to save the doomed euro, is to discuss Britain’s wish to defy that rule by allowing us to opt out of treaty commitments we legally entered into. 

And this leads me on to Article 50 - the exit clause of the Lisbon Treaty. If we are to leave the EU we have no choice but to invoke it. To leave the EU, invoking it is first and foremost our international legal obligation under the Vienna Convention, because the Lisbon Treaty is an international treaty. It also means that the EU is bound by the same international laws as we are when negotiating an exit.

Just repealing the ECA 1972 (which took us in), and hoping it simply takes us out is no longer possible. In the 40 years hence, much integration has taken place - in the form of many treaties passed subsequently, such as notoriously Maastricht. Clearly then repealing an act of Parliament 40 years ago, based on a so-called 'Common Market' is no longer relevant to us now, too much water (and EU law) has passed under the bridge.

It's precisely because the EU is all encompassing and makes most of our laws that we have to negotiate with the EU an orderly exit. Because if we get rid of one set of terms and conditions by leaving, then clearly we need another set of t's & c's in order to trade from outside, for example; trade, mobile phone roaming, telecommunciations, postage, cashpoint machines, bank transactions, landing slots for aircraft - all of which currently come under EU law. Come out without agreeing essentially a new contract and all of these will cease to happen between us and the EU from day one of our exit. A wonderful situation to be in the current economic crisis!

Yet some still see Article 50 as a trap - a way of keeping us in forever. But not possible, because of Section 3 of Article 50 (page 46) which states quite clearly (my emphasis):

3. The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period.

This in short makes clear that either we agree a settlement with the EU or, regardless of the changes in EU voting in November 2014, in absence of such an agreement we exit by default. The only price to pay is a wait of 2 years. In my view after 40 years, another two years as members with a definite exit date is a small price to pay, rather than the false promises of 'sometime in the future but really never' situation we have now.

As such because there's an arbitrary 2 year deadline in invoking Article 50 we actually shift the balance of power towards us. As an example, the US President. Limited to 2 terms in effect Obama will only serve 2 years de facto now he's been re-elected. Power is intangible; it strolls towards us but runs away. By imposing such an artificial arbituarty line restricting the President to be elected again, via the American constitution, it removes on his behalf the threat of another re-election which drains him of power towards the end of his term - rendering him a lame duck.

And so it proves with Article 50. It puts the EU on the back foot...because the deadline renders them powerless not us. For example (Article 50 (4) page 46)

4. For the purposes of paragraphs 2 and 3, the member of the European Council or of the Council representing the withdrawing Member State shall not participate in the discussions of the European Council or Council or in decisions concerning it.

In other words during the exit process we are banned from further interaction with EU processes. So what? We'll continue to be subject to all EU directives, regulations and decisions with no input, which makes very little difference to what happens now, but crucially we can now ignore them. Due to the time limit - the power drains away from the EU - because there's no way they can enforce any breach. By the time a breach by us, in terms of us ignoring them, is brought before the European Court of Justice, we'll be long gone and outside their jurisdiction.

Thus article 50 allows Cameron to renegotiate our relationship with the EU, allows him to maintain our trade with the EU with minimal disruption, and by nationalising all EU laws into British ones (with a view to unpicking them later) from day one make the transition from EU member to non-EU member seamless.

That he doesn't is his choice...but it's not ours.

Power!

"History repeats itself" is one of those clichés that resonates with truth but its lessons are often ignored in practice, akin to "never believe what you read in newspapers" - people still largely always do precisely the opposite.

Conversely many myths are believed as gospel, for example that the line "play it again Sam" was said in the film Casablanca, "Bambi was shot" in the Disney film and that the Tories are Eurosceptic. Thus we have the ungainly sight of Tories tonight getting themselves worked up into a lather by claiming that freezing or cutting the EU budget is some kind of victory for Euroscepticism. Paying the EU billions instead of 'billions plus a bit extra' is a victory it perversely seems.

The other enduring myth is that politics is divided vertically - left & right - whereas in truth it is divided more horizontally - us & them. Politics, a point that is self-evident, is ultimately about power not ideology - who has it and who controls it. In theory democracy is supposed to give power to the people in the form of a threat - the threat to remove those from office if they fail to listen to us so in effect concentrating those who govern us minds. What is apparent is that 'threat' has now become impotent, if ever it indeed existed. And nowhere is it more obvious than tonight's vote on the increase of the EU's budget.

Parliament's historical and ultimate purpose is to control the King's spending - control the money and you control the King. Parliament is supposed to do that on behalf of us; after all it's our money not the Government's. It was on this very toxic issue of power we had a civil war - over control of the King's purse. Yet over time Parliament has morphed from a controller of the King's purse into the King itself with no adequate control on it, apart from a paltry election every 5 years where we the electorate get ignored on the very day after a General Election.

Thus we have had MPs' expenses scandal with the ill-disguised contempt for our money that ensured and the utter failure of Parliament to do its primary job...to scrutinise the budget. The abolition of the 10p tax band was a classic example. A nasty little trick by Gordon Brown that effectively taxed the poorest in society to give a tax break to those better off to win an election. And despite it adversely affecting Labour MP's constituents (and the tax con being picked up within in an hour of the announcement), Labour MP after Labour MP walked through the aye lobby approving the budget without a murmur. Parliament thus failed in its job spectacularly.

Tonight will be yet another example. Despite Parliament's vote we will still pay huge amounts to Brussels, the taxpayer will still be ignored and should Cameron wish it he can ignore Parliament's vote anyway. It's no longer fit for purpose, a film set is all it's useful for.

The Harrogate Agenda is more important than ever. There is a tendency (almost an arrogant one) with modern technology to feel superior to those that have gone before. But the same fundamental issues have always been present - we had a civil war once we can have one again...all it takes is an arrogant disdain for us by those who govern and the old age question of money.

History has a nasty habit of repeating itself.

I'm Not Sure Whether To Laugh Or Cry

"MP's have little to do" wails Jack Straw (my emphasis):

"The government is running dry of legislation from its programme to put before MPs.

"So desperate have they been to manufacture activity that ordinary bills that could and should go into a public bill committee where they can properly be examined line-by-line are now to have all their stages on the floor - a procedure normally reserved for bills of great constitutional importance.

"I can rarely recall a time when the business of the Commons has been so light..."

There's, obviously, a very good reason why this is the case but neither, unsurprisingly, Jack Straw nor the BBC are willing to highlight it.

How Apt

According to the Telegraph, Parliament could be sold off as part of radical proposals to tackle the building's subsidence:

Radical proposals are being considered as to how to tackle the long-term problem of the Palace of Westminster’s subsidence, which has already caused Big Ben’s clock tower to lean 18ins from the vertical.

Among the ideas is one for Parliament to be sold off to developers, possibly from foreign countries such as Russia or China, which could raise an estimated £500million.

There's nothing more apt for the building that's no longer fit for purpose in every sense than to sell it off to foreigners

Protect Yourself First

From the Parliament:

Three Belgian Liberal MPs have called for "significantly" increased security around the European quarter in Brussels.

They say feelings of "insecurity" in the area have reached such a scale that higher-profile policing is "vitally" necessary.

One of the parliamentarians, Denis Ducarme, said many people who live and work in the area, roughly stretching from Place Luxembourg to Schuman, had complained about a lack of police presence and a "feeling of insecurity".

He said many of the problems reported to police related to relatively minor incidents, such as pick pocketing and car crime but there had also been cases of muggings and threats of violence.

He said that if Belgium wants to keep the EU institutions, including parliament, and other related bodies in the city "it must provide adequate security".

Dutch MEP Wim van de Camp has criticised security arrangements at parliament, saying more staff are needed to deal with the increasing number of visitors.

Lack of police presence? Petty Crime? Of course they're different they need protecting, us mortals just have to suffer. How things never change!

That Toy Parliament

If anyone is in any doubt at how impotent our parliament has become, here's the list of debates from yesterday's Hansard, on the topic of Environment, Food And Rural Affairs:

• Pitt Review
• Fish Quotas (Thanet)
• Farm Animal Welfare
• Circuses (Wild Animals)
• Food Procurement (Public Sector)
• Flood Defences
• Regulatory Burden
• Mackerel Quota
• Food Labelling
• Non-departmental Public Bodies
• Waste And Resources Action Programme
• Laying Hens
• Supermarkets (Food Sourcing)
• Unsold Food
• Topical Questions

Out of the above list the following were dominated in Parliament by references to EU legislation or policies such as the Common Fisheries Policy:

• Fish Quotas (Thanet) CFP
• Food Labelling
• Mackerel Quota
• Regulatory Burden
• Topical Questions

Then these below are constrained by EU competences, which was not acknowledged in the House:

• Supermarkets (Food Sourcing); 'Origin Labeling' is an EU competence. Also Tory MP Mark Menzies asked the following question:
  
  "I thank the Minister for her answer, but if small food producers are to be able to grow and supply the big supermarkets they must be able to develop their business, and one factor that holds them back is regulation and bureaucracy. What steps is the Department taking to strip out regulation in order to make it easier for such producers to grow?"
  
  Regulation and bureaucracy also comes under the EU where food production is concerned
  
  
• Farm Animal Welfare; This is an EU competence also, the question of de-beak or not de-beak ultimately lies with them.
  
  
• Laying Hens; See above.
  
  
• Circuses (Wild Animals); Banning wild animals in circuses could be challenged under free movement EU rules.
  
  
• Waste And Resources Action Programme; This is part of the Courtauld commitment, aimed at reducing supermarket packaging waste and encouraging recycling, in part fueled by the Landfill Directive.
  

So that leaves these 5 (mostly) short questions, which do have some EU element about them but are not relevant to the specific questions asked:

• Pitt Review
• Food Procurement (Public Sector)
• Flood Defences
• Non-departmental Public Bodies
• Unsold Food

So 2/3rds of all questions and the vast majority of Parliamentary time was dominated by our membership of the EU. It's now nothing more than a living museum.