Monthly Archives: February 2019

Britain, European Union, Government, Politics, Society

The tawdry show of Brexit goes to the brink

BREXIT

The decision by Prime Minister Theresa May to delay the “meaningful” Commons vote on her Brexit deal until March 12 – just 17 days before the UK is due to leave the EU – is, unquestionably, a gamble that takes things to the very brink. It is a colossal gamble, but one in which Mrs May had little option but to take.

MPs on all sides will finally have to choose between Mrs May’s deal, No Deal, or effectively no Brexit. This has removed all bluster and political manoeuvring. It leaves just stark choices.

A rehashed motion from Labour’s Yvette Cooper and Tory Nick Boles which is expected to pass the chamber tomorrow is likely to concentrate minds further. That motion says that if no deal is agreed before March 13, Article 50 – our formal departure from the EU – should be delayed, taking No Deal off the table.

But this has two huge drawbacks. It removes a crucial bargaining chip with Brussels. And while saying what Brexit shouldn’t be, the motion offers no viable plan for what it should be. Those who support Mrs May’s withdrawal agreement will suggest, as they have consistently done, that the only plan that is viable, honours the referendum result and averts No Deal, is the Prime Minister’s plan.

Whilst the odds are daunting, there may still be a way in which she is able to get it through.

First, the EU must offer legally binding assurances over the so-called Irish backstop to satisfy the Democratic Unionist Party that Northern Ireland’s place in the UK is not under threat. Without that, the deal is dead – with potentially calamitous consequences for the whole of Europe.

If the DUP is assuaged, Tory hardliners in the European Research Group (ERG) led by Jacob Rees-Mogg, may be persuaded to back their leader – especially in light of the Cooper-Boles amendment which could stop Brexit altogether.

True, some ERG members appear so implacably opposed to the deal that almost nothing would change their minds.

But with Labour in open rebellion against its leader, some Opposition MPs – especially those from Leave-voting areas – may be prepared to defy the Corbyn whip and make up the numbers needed to push the agreement through.

To be realised, this will require good faith on all sides – something conspicuously lacking so far. No one is totally happy with the deal, but it provides a pragmatic compromise. Tory MPs especially need to rediscover the virtues of party loyalty and service to their constituents if they wish to stay in office and by remaining the ruling party – by backing it.

The clock is ticking louder than ever towards March 29.

Standard
Britain, Government, Internet, Politics, Society

Internet safety: The era of tech self-regulation is ending

SOCIAL MEDIA

THE safety of the internet has been at the forefront of people’s minds in recent weeks. We have all heard the tragic stories of young and vulnerable people being negatively influenced by social media. Whilst the technology has the power to do good, it is clear that things need to change. With power comes responsibility and the time has certainly come for the tech companies to be held properly accountable.

. See also: Probe launched into online giants

The UK Government is serious in wishing to tackle many of the negative aspects associated with social media, and the forthcoming White Paper on online harms is indicative of their concern.

The world’s biggest technology firms, including Facebook, Twitter, Google and Apple are coming under increasing pressure from ministers who have made clear to them that they will not stand by and see people unreasonably and unnecessarily exposed to harm. They insist that if it wouldn’t be acceptable offline then it should not be acceptable online.

Safety is at the forefront of almost every other industry. The online world should be no different. Make no mistake, these firms are here to stay, and, as a result, they have a big role to play as part of the solution. It’s vital that they use their technology to protect the people – their customers – who use it every day.

It’s important not to lose sight of what online harms actually are. Yes, it includes things like cyberbullying, images of self -harm, terrorism and grooming. But disinformation – which challenges our ideas of democracy and truth – must be tackled head on, too.

Disinformation isn’t new. But the rise of tech platforms has meant that it is arguably more prevalent than ever before. It is now possible for a range of players to reach large parts of the population with false information. Tackling harms like disinformation is to be included in the Government’s White Paper. That will set out a new framework for making sure disinformation is tackled effectively, while respecting freedom of expression and promoting innovation.

In the UK, most people who read the news now do so online. When it is read across platforms like Facebook, Google and Twitter and then shared thousands of times, the reach is immense. False information on these platforms has the potential to threaten public safety, harm national security, reduce trust in the media, damage the UK’s global influence and by undermining our democratic processes.

To date, we’re yet to see any evidence of disinformation affecting democratic processes in the UK. However, that is something that the Government is continuing to keep a very close eye on.

Tools exist to enable action to be taken, particularly through the use of Artificial Intelligence (AI). We’ve already seen welcome moves from platforms such as Facebook and Twitter, which have developed initiatives to help users identify the trustworthiness of sources and which have shut down thousands of fake sites. Because voluntary measures have not been enough, the UK Government wants trustworthy information to flourish online and for there to be transparency so that the public are not duped. Parliament is said to care deeply about this, as a recent report from the Select Committee into disinformation shows.

But more needs to be done. One of the main recommendations in the Cairncross report on the future of journalism was to put a “news quality obligation” on the larger online platforms – placing their efforts to improve people’s understanding of the trustworthiness of news articles under regulatory supervision.

Online firms rely on the masses spending time online. Individuals should only really do that if they feel safe there. A safer internet is surely good for business too.

It seems apparent that we can no longer rely on the industry’s goodwill. Around the world governments are facing the challenge of how to keep citizens safe online. As the era of self-regulation comes to an end, it would now seem that the UK can and should lead the way.

 

THE internet is a liberating force, but also potentially a malign one. MPs and ministers have been all too happy to expound upon the undoubted benefits brought by the rapid growth of the digital economy. Yet they have struggled to come up with measures that would address the damage that it can cause – from social media addiction and the abuse of online platforms by child groomers and terrorists, to the links between internet use and poor mental health among children.

There are promising signs that action may be imminent, however. A new report recently released by the House of Commons Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee calls for technology companies to be required to adhere to a Code of Ethics overseen by an independent regulator. The code would set down in writing what is and is not acceptable on social media, and the regulator, crucially, would have teeth: the power to launch legal action against firms that breach the code.

This is, undoubtedly, a welcome proposal. Much of the trouble that children and their parents have experienced online in recent years has been a consequence of a failure by the technology companies to take responsibility for the damage that their products and services can cause. They have continued to host harmful and sometimes illegal material, for example, and it is still too easy for young children to access their sites despite age limits.

As we can no longer rely on the industry’s goodwill, self-regulation has evidently failed. The photo sharing site Instagram, for instance, committed recently to banning all images of self-harm on its platform, but only after the outcry following the tragic death of a young and vulnerable person. Without legally-enforceable penalties, such companies – with their ‘move fast and break things’ cultures – face little incentive to prioritise the safety of their users, particularly young people and the vulnerable.

The Committee’s proposal currently remains just that, and the Government has pledged to produce a White Paper setting out how it intends to take the regulation of social media forward.

Half-measures will not be enough. Ministers must impose a statutory duty of care on the social media giants.

Standard
Britain, Government, Islamic State, National Security, Politics, Society, Syria, United States

Victory against ISIL can’t mask the incoherent approach in Syria

THE DEFEAT OF ISIL

Intro: The defeat of ISIL has become a cause for celebration, but there are hard security lessons to be learnt as well

FOR those who have participated in the challenging mission to destroy Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) deserve richly awarded plaudits. In the summer of 2014, when ISIL seized control of vast swathes of territory in northern Syria and Iraq to establish its so-called caliphate, removing the fanatical zealots from well-entrenched positions in places like Mosul and Raqqa looked to be a nigh impossible task. At its zenith, ISIL’s caliphate occupied an area approximately the same size as Portugal and controlled the fate of around 10 million people.

Thanks to the relentless efforts of the US-led coalition, ISIL’s empire now consists of little more than a square kilometre of desert scrub on the Syria-Iraq border. ISIL’s barbarous reign of terror is effectively over.

In strictly military terms, the coalition has achieved its stated objectives. With ISIL no longer able to terrorise those living under its control, nor in a position to spread the twisted propaganda that persuaded so many young impressionable Muslims (in Britain and elsewhere) to join the jihadi cause, there is genuine cause for celebration that this brutal death cult is on the verge of annihilation.

It can even be argued, as the former defence secretary Sir Michael Fallon has said, that in prosecuting the ISIL campaign the Western powers have finally found a workable paradigm for implementing military interventions in the Muslim world.

In this instance, the coalition has relied more on the judicious use of air power and special forces to achieve its goal, rather than resorting to the deployment of large-scale, and politically controversial, ground forces, as was the case in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Yet, before becoming too carried away with the success of the anti-ISIL mission, it is worth remembering that our initial involvement in the Syrian conflict was aimed at destroying an entirely different foe.

Back in 2011, the primary aim of the US and Britain, the two Western powers that have been most heavily invested in the Syrian tragedy, was the overthrow of tyrant and dictator President Bashar al-Assad, whose minority Alawite clan has run the country since 1971.

It is hard to believe now, but former prime minister David Cameron even signed a joint declaration with the then US president Barack Obama in the summer of 2011 calling for Assad to step aside, arguing that he should “face the reality of the complete rejection of his regime by the Syrian people”.

Mr Cameron’s briefly held enthusiasm for securing regime change in Damascus ended when he lost the 2013 Commons vote to launch military action against Assad over accusations the regime has used chemical weapons on civilians.

And, pertinently, given the way the conflict subsequently developed, Cameron and his anti-Assad acolytes had a fortuitous and lucky escape. For, had they succeeded in overthrowing Assad, the fall of the Syrian government might well have resulted in ISIL taking control of the entire country, rather than confining their Islamo-fascist creed to the less populous northern districts.

It was, after all, the very real prospect of ISIL and its Islamist allies seizing control of Syria in the summer of 2014 that persuaded Iran and Russia to come to the aid of the Assad regime, thereby helping to turn the tide of the war decisively in the dictator’s favour.

So much so that these days the British and American governments accept Assad’s survival as a fait accompli, to the extent that neither country has shown the slightest interest in attending the talks aimed at deciding Syria’s post-conflict future.

Hence, the lesson of the West’s inchoate handling of the Syrian conflict is that, rather than celebrating the demise of ISIL’s caliphate, politicians would be better advised to reflect on their incoherent and muddled approach over the past decade, one that, had events taken a different course, could easily have resulted in the establishment of an uncompromising Islamist regime in Damascus.

That is certainly not the outcome Britain and its allies imagined at the start of the conflict, when they manged to convince themselves that the overthrow of Assad’s regime would result in its replacement by a secular-orientated, Western-style democracy.

Given that Islamist extremists have been Assad’s most committed opponents since the early 1980s, this was wishful thinking in the extreme, and the reason why, when considering any future military intervention in the Middle East (or anywhere else for that matter), it is vital that our parliamentarians properly examine the likely consequences of their actions.

All too often in the recent past we have got ourselves involved in conflicts without fully grasping the possible outcomes. A good benchmark would be to give priority to those threats that directly impinge on our own national security.

On that basis, destroying ISIL – a movement committed to carrying out terror attacks in Britain – always made much more sense than seeking to overthrow the Assad regime.

Standard