Category Archives: Government

Government, National Security, Society

Any new anti-terrorist measures must not be rushed

ANTI-TERRORISM LAWS

Intro: Theresa May has called for a review of the UK’s counter-terrorism strategy but she should be wary of pushing through legislation for the sake of being seen to act.

Amid the reaction to the horrific events over the past few weeks in London and Manchester, it has become apparent that there is no simple answer over how best to respond to the serious terrorist threat the UK is facing.

There have been calls for the general election on Thursday to be postponed, which mercifully have not gained much traction. There was also immediate criticism of MI5 and our intelligence agencies for failing to detect the hiring of a van and the possession of widely-available knives by those who have wreaked havoc on our streets.

As public order is restored and the dust settles, some have reverted to a less fevered analysis by revisiting anti-terrorism measures. New legislation might emerge in dealing with the insidious threat we now face. We have, of course, been here before, with the stand-out example being Tony Blair’s response to the London bombings of 2005. The then prime minister swiftly drew up several new measures to help thwart further attacks, but it barely required the benefit of hindsight to reach the conclusion that most of those measures could be described as a knee-jerk reaction. Some of the proposals were enacted into law, others were never heard of again. Mr Blair’s strategy was largely driven by a desire to be seen to be doing something when strong leadership should have been the imperative and priority. Legislation that is rushed, however, is hardly ever appropriate or even practical.

Theresa May’s verdict following the most recent attacks in London that ‘enough is enough’ is an uncomfortable conclusion, but her call for a review of counter-terrorism strategy is correct. We know to our cost that the measures put in place after 2005, and since then, have given the police extensive new powers but have not been able to stop the three terrorist attacks on the UK in 2017.

The Government should now pause before re-writing the statute book, and act only after thorough consultation on what is required, and what is possible. The time that any new laws or amendments to current legislation would take by using such an approach should not be seen as a frustrating delay, because it must be recognised that the threat we face is changing. There is also not an off-the-shelf strategy to counter it. Whatever measures are introduced must be workable and effective, otherwise they become a waste of time and vital resource.

We have to be sure, too, that existing statutory provisions are being used properly – for example, there have been numerous claims after recent attacks that the authorities were alerted previously to the behaviour of those involved.

At a time when the public is being asked to be increasingly vigilant, and to report any suspicious activity, we have to be confident that this kind of intelligence is being fully utilised. It’s vitally important that it is.

Standard
Climate Change, Donald Trump, Economic, Environment, Global warming, Government, Politics, United Nations, United States

Anger as Donald Trump pulls US out of climate deal

PARIS CLIMATE AGREEMENT

US President Donald Trump announces his decision that the United States will withdraw from the Paris Climate Agreement.

The world’s consensus on fighting global warming was shattered this week as Donald Trump said he was pulling the US out of the Paris Climate Agreement.

In an address from the Rose Garden at the White House, the President said he would seek to renegotiate terms that are ‘fair to the United States.’

The move has caused an international outcry, with a string of figures from Barack Obama to EU leaders speaking out against the controversial decision.

Mr Trump said the Paris accord was ‘a self-inflicted major economic wound’ and argued his decision was based on a desire to put America first.

The 2015 deal has killed American jobs, would cost billions of dollars, and put the US at a huge disadvantage to the rest of the world, Mr Trump said.

He said: ‘In order to fulfil my solemn duty to the United States and its citizens, the US will withdraw from the Paris climate accord, but begin negotiations to re-enter either the Paris accord or a really entirely new transaction on terms that are fair to the United States.’

The Paris accord ‘is very unfair at the highest level to the United States,’ the President added.

Signed by 195 countries, the Paris Agreement commits nations to reduce the amount of carbon dioxide to stop the world overheating. By limiting global temperatures to no more than 2C above pre-industrial times, it is hoped it will stop heatwaves, droughts, rising sea levels, crop failures and storms.

But the President questioned the impact of the deal. He said he ‘represents the citizens of Pittsburgh not Paris’, said it was ‘time to make America great again,’ and that he would make full use of America’s ‘abundant energy reserves’.

He said he ‘cares deeply about the environment’ and the US would remain ‘the cleanest country on earth’.

But the Paris Agreement ‘hamstrings’ the US and has led to other countries ‘laughing at the US’.

Mr Trump said: ‘The Paris accord would undermine our economy, hamstring our workers, weaken our sovereignty, impose unacceptable legal risk, and put us at a permanent disadvantage to the other countries of the world.’

He said that there are millions of citizens out of work in the US, ‘yet under the Paris accord billions of dollars that ought to be invested right here in America will be sent to the very countries that have taken our factories and jobs away from us’. Under the terms of the accord, a deal could take at least three years – lasting until November 2020 – the same month Mr Trump is up for re-election.

Only Nicaragua and Syria have failed to sign up to the agreement and all the major industrialised nations, except for Russia, have ratified it. China and the EU have also affirmed their commitment to deeper action.

Former president Mr Obama, who signed the US up to the deal, said in a statement: ‘Even in the absence of American leadership, even as this administration joins a small handful of nations that reject the future, I’m confident that our states, cities and businesses will step up and do even more to lead the way, and help to protect for future generations the one planet we’ve got.’

The EU’s commissioner for climate change, Miguel Arias Canete, said: ‘Today is a sad day for the global community, as a key partner turns its back on the fight against climate change. The EU deeply regrets the unilateral decision by the Trump administration.’

UN spokesman Stephane Dujarric said the decision was a ‘disappointment for global efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and promote global security’.

French President Emmanuel Macron made a five-minute phone call to Mr Trump following his announcement. Mr Macron is believed to have said nothing was renegotiable with regard to the Paris accord. The United States and France will continue to work together, but not on the subject of the climate.

Italy, France and Germany dismissed the President’s suggestion that the global pact could be revised. In a joint statement, they said: ‘We firmly believe that the Paris Agreement cannot be renegotiated, since it is a vital instrument for our planet.’

Greenpeace UK has reacted with anger. The environmental organisation said: ‘The government that launched the Apollo space programme and help found the UN has turned its back on science and international co-operation.’

Continue reading →

Standard
Government, Politics, Scotland

General Election: Jeremy Corbyn, pragmatism and progressive politics

LABOUR PARTY

Jeremy Corvyn

Jeremy Corbyn has ruled out an alliance with the Scottish National Party if there is a hung parliament following the general election. His stance could change if he finds himself in the position of forming a government.

Intro: Jeremy Corbyn insists he will not do a deal with the Scottish National Party at Westminster. But, if there is a hung parliament, circumstances should dictate that he reconsiders. Pragmatism may have to override principle.

Politics has a habit of delivering the unexpected. But sometimes, particularly in the current political climate, we should be ready to apply pragmatism as a means of moving forward.

Anyone who has followed the long political career of Jeremy Corbyn will not have been overly surprised at his remarks concerning the possibility of striking a deal at Westminster with the Scottish National Party following the general election.

Mr Corbyn reiterated that there will be ‘no deals’ and ‘no alliance’. He has given an almost steadfast pledge that he is not willing to consider Nicola Sturgeon’s overtures.

Politically, of course, it is perfectly understandable why the Labour leader has maintained his position. By ruling out any alliance with the SNP, he is giving potential Labour voters in Scotland good reason to back his own party. Were he to have signalled the possibility of doing a deal, that proportion of the electorate would likely go against their instincts. Politics is not about giving rivals an advantage to your own detriment.

Mr Corbyn, a hard left-leaning socialist, is a man of principle who has remained true to his ideals for decades. Some within his party perceive that as damaging stubbornness, but it remains universally fundamental to his vision of politics.

But waging election battles and governing are worlds apart. With all opinion polls cutting Theresa May’s lead, there is every chance that Mr Corbyn could find himself in a position where he could be required to form a government with the support of the SNP. If that scenario did come to pass, he would be invited to take a different path to the one he has been advocating up until now.

If he were to reject that, the Conservatives would be returned to power and Labour voters would never forgive him for not removing a government that has caused them great hardship. Austerity has reduced many to seek desperate help from food banks, with many unable to make ends meet. Idealism during the election campaign is fine and well, but he has not been in this position before. If the Labour leader wishes to take the mantle of power, he will likely have to adopt a much more pragmatic approach.

Such an alliance with the SNP would raise other issues. A second independence referendum in Scotland would become a prerequisite and condition of agreeing to do a deal with Labour. The SNP would be expected to pursue progressive policies in any alliance, so it wouldn’t just be a dilemma for Mr Corbyn. Any reversal of promises made by Ms Sturgeon would likely lead to the SNP facing a torrent of criticism.

Political history matters, too, particularly in relation to the mistakes of the past. The SNP have surely learnt the lessons of what transpired after it failed to back Labour in 1979.

Standard