Category Archives: Society

Britain, European Union, Government, Politics, Society

Should Britain leave the EU?

(From the archives) Originally posted on January 17, 2012 by markdowe

THE UK AND THE EU

Argument for the UK to leave the EU… The European Union was sold to the British people as an economic proposition. In exchange for giving up a measure of democratic self-government, it was assumed that the UK would be part of a flourishing trade bloc. The credibility of that argument has been seriously eroded – if not mortally wounded – as most British people associate the EU with a loss of sovereignty and a loss of prosperity. The argument for saying that the UK should leave the EU goes much deeper than the euro crisis – though that has certainly damaged the credibility of those EU pragmatists who, a decade ago, were assuring us that we would be ruined if we kept pound sterling. When Britain joined the European Union in 1973, Western Europe accounted for 40% of world GDP. Today that figure is 25%, and in 2020 it is projected to be just 18%. In retrospect, we could not have picked a worse moment to join. Western Europe had grown spectacularly during the three decades after the Second World War, the years of Germany’s Wirtschaftswunder. But following the OPEC oil crisis in the 1970s, it never properly got going again. Far from joining a dynamic market, we have confined ourselves in a cramped and declining customs union. In doing so, we have stood aside from the parts of the world which are still growing—not least the Anglosphere markets to which we are connected by affinities of habit, outlook and commercial practice. The inauguration in the 1950s of the European Economic Community (EEC) allowed a strong case to be made for regional blocs. Now, though, that case has been undermined and overtaken by technology. With the internet having removed the problem over distance, geographical proximity is not an issue in a globalised market in which Capital can surge around the planet at the mere touch of a button. A company located in the UK can deal as easily with one located within its own shores as it can with a firm located anywhere else. London has the benefit of being English-speaking. Others around the world will have similar accountancy techniques and use compatible common-law arbitration methods. The alternative to EU membership is a free-trade arrangement, along the lines of that enjoyed by Switzerland. Under a series of bilateral accords negotiated in the 1990s, along with the more recent Schengen Agreement, the Swiss participate fully in the four freedoms of movement of the single market – goods, services, people and capital. However, the Swiss are outside the common agricultural and fisheries policies and the EU’s political structures, and pay only a token contribution to the EU budget. Whilst true, of course, that Swiss exporters must meet EU standards when selling to the EU – just as they must meet standards when selling to anybody else – they are not obliged to apply every EU directive or diktat to their domestic economy. But, critically, they are also free in signing trade accords with third countries, and often do so when they feel that the EU is being pedantic or excessively protectionist. Britain, by contrast, is bound by the common external tariff, and is often prevented from adopting a more liberal position by the interest of a cosseted producer elsewhere in the EU. In 2010, the Swiss exported four times as much per head to the EU as the British did. What credibility does that give to the argument that the UK’s exports to the continent depends on its participation in the EU’s political structures? It can hardly be the case that other member states might discriminate against those exports if the UK were to leave the EU. The UK would still be covered by World Trade Organisation (WTO) and European Economic Area (EEA) rules. More to the point, perhaps, is that Britain’s trade with the EU, which was in surplus before it joined, has been in deficit in all but one of the subsequent years. In 2010, the UK ran a deficit of some £52.4 billion with the EU, but a net surplus of £15.7 billion with the rest of the world. Over the period to which Britain has held membership of the EU it has had a cumulative surplus with every continent except Europe. The UK’s trade deficit would not be a reason for leaving the EU. But it gives the lie to any notion that the other members would seek to restrict cross-Channel trade when they are the chief beneficiaries. Some might say that the EU is showing its age. Essentially, it is a 1950s construct, and is falling rapidly behind in a competitive and globalised world. If Britain were to leave there is nothing stopping it from maintaining its trade links with other countries in the EU, its intergovernmental co-operation and its commitment to the military alliance. Argument for the UK to stay in the EU… The pro-Europeans would start this debate against the backdrop of much negative public polling. Nevertheless, for the UK to cut itself off from a market of some 500m people generating in excess of £10 trillion would not just say we had lost faith in Europe, it would say we had lost faith in the ability of British companies to ever out-compete, out-innovate and out-think their European competitors. To consider how the debate has shifted in recent years, we should look no further than in comparing two ICM polls ten years apart. According to one poll, today, 49% of the public would vote to get the UK out of the EU, against just 40% who would prefer that Britain stayed in. When the pollster asked a slightly different worded question in May 2001, some 68% to 19% of the public indicated Britain should remain a member of the EU, a 49 percentage point lead for the pro-Europeans. One might suggest that there is an implicit propensity among some pro-Europeans to blame the media, or even the voters, for the fact that support has been deteriorating. But are pro-European propositions being rejected because they are not being proposed anywhere near enough in a pro-European way? Not that this will help those advocates win the argument as to why Britain should be firmly embedded within the European Union. For those who support the UK as an active member doesn’t necessarily imply that they will be defending the status quo in Europe or saying that Europe does not need to reform and change. By being part of a wider and integrated union gives a member nation within it influence and real power. There are two dominant arguments that resonate in terms of Britain’s continued EU membership. The first is on access to the single market, and being a powerful voice in shaping rules by which it is governed. Only those who want to compete on low-skill, low-value added production could argue that having access to these markets without a voice in shaping the rules would be sufficient for Britain. But that’s lubricious. Clearly, with a market of 500m people, Britain needs its companies to be competitive, innovative and by being in a position to out-think their competitors across the EU. Having a voice means engaging in a pragmatic way that benefits contributory nations. The position of the British Government has become a little difficult to understand. It is now understood that, despite the prime minister’s assurances, the new draft EU treaty does include references to the single market – but, for reasons not yet clear, David Cameron has decided to walk away from the table. Laws on common standards, educational property and competition need to be underwritten – such as those involving the law, business and financial services, medical technology and within creative industries – but if the UK is not in the room when critical decisions are being made on such matters, it will lose the ability to shape them in a way that is most advantageous to British business. The second most pressing argument for the UK remaining part of the EU relates to finding ways in which the British voice can be heard. In an era of billion-person countries and multi trillion-dollar economies, this is most likely to happen if the UK is part of a £10 trillion economy rather than just a £1.5 trillion economy. The only logical way to change the rules of the game with large emerging economies (such as China) is to work closely with our European partners. That’s the only way, surely, that markets will be prised open in these countries. Political and economic leadership is about doing what you think is right rather than what you think might get you short-term popularity. See also:

Standard
Britain, Government, Human Rights, Legal, National Security, Politics, Society

Secret courts: The need to balance security with individual freedom…

(From the archives) Originally posted on April 4, 2012 by markdowe

BALANCING SECURITY AND LIBERTY

Keeping citizens safe and free is the primary role of the state. In attempting to achieve this it must properly balance the requirements of national security with the principles of liberty. In Britain, this tension runs like a thread throughout its history. Over the centuries, the executive has sought to arrogate further powers to itself – usually in the name of protecting the people – while Parliament and the judiciary have acted as a check on its presumption. Invariably, parties in opposition believe the government of the day is acting in an illiberal fashion; yet when they take office, they discover that achieving the right balance is harder than they imagined.

When in opposition, the leaders of the two parties now making up the Coalition were vehemently critical of Labour’s plans for a substantial extension of the state’s surveillance powers. But having flip-flopped, the Conservative-LibDem coalition are now making precisely the same supportive arguments as their predecessors. The problem with this kind of volte-face is that it erodes public trust in government, and makes it harder for ministers to do anything in the name of security without being denounced for their illiberal instincts. This is one reason why the Government’s proposals for ‘secret courts’ have received such a sceptical, if not hostile, reception. In a report published today the joint parliamentary committee on human rights adds its criticism, saying that plans outlined in a Green Paper last year to hear some civil actions involving the security and intelligence services behind closed doors are based on ‘spurious assumptions’ and are ‘inherently unfair’.

The Government is seeking to extend the so-called evidence procedures following the claims for damages brought by Binyam Mohamed and others, who alleged that Britain had ben complicit in their mistreatment whilst in Guantanamo Bay. Rather than disclose information that might damage national security, the Government withdrew from the action and paid substantial compensation. Under plans put forward by the Coalition, a judge would see the evidence and hear arguments from special advocates with appropriate clearance. However, no one else – including the plaintiffs – would be entitled to know what was being discussed. This should go without saying that this is not open justice. The question, though, is whether it is justified.

On balance perhaps it is – so long as these procedures are used only in the most exceptional circumstances and not at all in inquests. There are times when the national interest requires secrecy; it would be naïve to pretend otherwise. But Parliament must ensure that the law is properly framed to balance the requirements of fairness and security.

Standard
Climate Change, Economic, Global warming, Government, Politics, Science, Society, United Nations, United States

US National Climate Assessment…

(From the archives) Originally posted on January 13, 2013 by markdowe

CLIMATE ASSESSMENT

Now no one can deny that the world is getting warmer. Last week’s report by America’s National Climate Assessment reveals the full horror of what’s happening to our planet

The draft version of the US National Climate Assessment, released on Friday, makes remarkable reading – not just for Americans but for all humanity. Put together by a special panel of more than 240 scientists, the federally commissioned report reveals that the US is already reeling under the impact of global warming. Heatwaves, droughts, floods, intense downpours, rising sea levels and melting glaciers are now causing widespread havoc and are having an impact on a wide range of fronts including health services, infrastructure, water supply, agriculture, transport and flood defences.

Nor is there any doubt about the cause of these rising temperatures. “It is due primarily to human activities, predominantly the burning of fossil fuel,” the report states. As carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere soar, temperatures rise and chaos ensues. Air pollution intensifies, wildfires increase, insect-borne diseases spread, confrontations over water rights become more violent and storm surges rise. This is the near future for America and for the rest of the world. Earth is set to become a hotter, drier, unhealthier, more uncomfortable, dangerous and more disaster-prone place in coming years.

The language used in this exhaustive, carefully researched investigation is also worthy of comment. It includes the word “threat” or variations 198 times and versions of the word “disrupt” another 120 times. After poring over the 1,146 pages of the assessment, readers will be under no illusions about what is happening to our planet. The robustness of its rhetoric is especially striking because it contrasts so noticeably with the debate – or to be precise, lack of debate – on climate change that occurred during last year’s presidential campaigning.

Neither President Obama nor his opponent, Mitt Romney, made more than a cursory mention of the issue, despite the fact that it now affects just about every aspect of existence on our planet today. As the assessment makes clear, global warming is not just about polar bears. It is about the lives of people today and about those of future generations.

A three-month period for public comment will now follow last week’s publication of the draft assessment. The US National Academy of Sciences will also review the document before a final version is published later this year. The ensuing debate promises to be an intriguing and important one. The US is the world’s greatest economy and a massive emitter of greenhouse gases. Until its political masters act, the planet has no chance of halting global warming or curtailing rising sea levels or dealing with the increasing acidification of our oceans or coping with the melting of Earth’s icecaps.

Given the vehemence of opposition in the US to the suggestion that climate change is manmade, we should not be too hopeful of immediate action. Most of the Republican Party believes the concept is a liberal hoax – along with an array of rich and powerful industrial foundations and corporations. A bitter struggle lies ahead.

From this perspective, it might be tempting to sneer at the US over its response to the challenge of climate change. Britain has little to be smug about, however, a point that was demonstrated last week by media coverage of the Met Office’s updated forecast of likely global warming over the next five years. In revising downwards, albeit slightly, its previous expectation for temperature rises from now until 2017, the Met Office found itself at the midst of a PR shambles. In their dozens, climate change sceptics charged forwards to claim this data showed that global warming has stopped, a completely misleading suggestion that was not properly challenged by journalists.

In fact, the Met Office’s figures indicate that most of the years between 2013 and 2017 will be hotter than those of the hottest year on record. More to the point, British forecasters still stand by their longer-term projections that anticipate there will be significant warming over the course of the century.

The fact that this message was lost on the public suggests climate change denial is becoming entrenched in the UK, or that our media have become complacent about the issue, or both. Whatever the answer, there is little cause for cheer. Both sides of the Atlantic are dithering over global warming. Yet the issue is real, as the US climate assessment emphasises. In making that clear, the report should be welcomed.

The unaffordable cost of climate change delay…

If there was ever a case of fiddling while Rome burns, then the sadly dilatory global response to the threat from climate change is surely it. Even as weather patterns become measurably more extreme the world over; even as the polar ice caps melt back ever further each summer, opening up newly navigable shipping lanes; even as average global temperatures continue their inexorable rise; still, attempts to forge an international consensus make only glacially slow progress. Yet, the longer we take to act, the more unaffordable remedial action becomes.

The most recent foot-dragging was at the UN talks in Doha, which concluded last month. The hope was that the 18th conference on the Convention on Climate Change, attended by nearly 200 countries, would agree rules for an updated treaty – to be signed by 2015 and come into force in 2020 – to impose legally-binding cuts in greenhouse gas emissions on all countries of the world for the first time. But for all the blustering commendations from politicians accompanying the 11th-hour “Doha Climate Gateway”, the outcome was disappointing.

In fairness, there was some progress. The existing Kyoto protocol was extended and discussions about the technicalities of the future treaty’s negotiating procedure were determined. But the thorniest issues – how, for example, to share the cost of mitigating climate change between developed and developing countries – are no nearer to resolution.

If there were any remaining doubts as to the need for concerted and swift action, however, the latest draft US National Climate Assessment, published on Friday, puts paid to them. The Washington-commissioned analysis makes clear that America is already feeling the impact of global warming; infrastructure, water supplies, crops and coastal geographies are being noticeably affected, it says, while heatwaves, downpours, floods and droughts are all both more common and more extreme. The 240-strong panel of experts also explicitly state, contrary to Republican lore, that rising temperatures are “due primarily to human activities”.

It can only be hoped that the findings will galvanise the world’s second-largest carbon emitter into action at last. But although President Obama has brought in a smattering of regulations on greenhouse gases, and his energy strategy ultimately aims to wean the US off foreign oil, explicit references to climate change are still few and far between in Washington, and most Republicans refuse to acknowledge any link between human activity and a changing climate. With America central to any meaningful follow-up UN treaty, the tone of the three-month consultation on the Climate Assessment has far-reaching implications.

Evidence is growing, however, that the UN timetable is insufficiently ambitious. Waiting until 2020 rather than pressing ahead now will add £3 trillion to the price tag for corrective measures such as renewable power sources, according to leading climate scientist Dr Keywan Riahi. Seven more years of delay also steadily erodes the probability that the rise in global temperature can be kept below the 2C level at which the consequences become devastatingly destabilising.

As economic malaise leaves the case for environmental policies harder to make, and international efforts lose their gloss, climate change is slipping off the agenda. We cannot afford for it to do so. As the US report says: “Climate change, once considered an issue for a distant future, has moved firmly into the present.” There is, then, no more time to waste.

Standard