Category Archives: Society

Britain, Business, Economic, European Union, Government, Politics, Society

UK firms need direction over EU reform…

EU REFORM

Since the start of the year the row over Europe has intensified.

From speeches to signed letters, the Europhiles and Europhobes have played out and made known their disagreements in front of the press and media.

There is no doubt that renegotiation and reform of the EU is necessary. The majority of businesses are determined to see a revamped relationship.

But it has been a year now since the Prime Minister first announced his intentions on Europe, and UK firms are no clearer as to what this means in practice.

Maintaining the status quo and tinkering with some of the existing bureaucracy might seem attractive for some, but it is simply not realistic.

The eurozone, for one, is rapidly moving off in a direction of its own making. Through inter-governmental agreements – fiscal, banking and ever-greater political union – the single currency bloc is set to leave out other EU countries. Specific trading blocs between EU countries within the eurozone are likely to emerge, dismantling the free market as we understand it.

Such an outcome is hardly desirable for British firms. In a survey of over 3,000 businesses last September, only 7 per cent felt this would offer a positive future. Some 57 per cent said that re-calibrating the UK’s relationship would have the most positive impact on Britain’s business and economic interests.

On this basis, the Prime Minister has a clear mandate from business to try and rebalance Britain’s relationship with the European Union.

Even though companies are trading with the wider world, the cold hard truth is that the EU remains a significant trading partner. EU membership grants Britain advantageous access for the sale of goods and the movement of capital and people across national borders.

Firms want to remain in the single market and see it widened and strengthened, to include, for example, the services sector.

So if the Government is to succeed in reform it is vitally important we seek allies within the EU who have a similar desire for change.

It is equally important, too, that the EU knows that the UK is prepared to leave by taking its chances with faster-growing economies. A cacophony of doom regarding the consequences of exist is both irresponsible and misleading, and would undermine the negotiating position of those seeking to enact reform.

Leaving the EU is certainly not the preferred outcome for most businesses and would be very disruptive, but disruption creates opportunities as well as threats. Our ongoing trading relationship with the EU would be influenced positively by the exist negotiations, not least given the massive current deficit the UK has with the EU.

Regulations from Brussels have long been a millstone round the necks of British firms, in spite of the recent reduction in red tape.

Some will want to see action on areas such as employment law, health and safety, and regional development. Others will be hoping for changes in areas like justice and home affairs.

Whilst the Government has indicated that it is serious in its intentions, what remains in doubt, though, is what will constitute a win for the British people. So long as the Government fails to specifically announce what areas it will seek to renegotiate and what the reforms will look like, the government’s rhetoric will be perceived as an act of political opportunism right through to the 2015 general election.

UK business needs as much certainty as possible to provide the landscape on which to build long-term, sustainable growth. This is needed if a revival of our economic fortunes is to be realised.

Standard
Britain, Foreign Affairs, Government, Intelligence, Military, National Security, Politics, Society, United States

Reconfiguring Defence for reasons of a changed world…

DEFENCE & FUTURE OVERSEAS PARTNERSHIPS

Over the course of the last half-century defence spending has attracted and been a hot issue of contention. This has been brought to the fore in recent times, through government rounds of budget and expenditure reductions. Most notably, the 2010 Strategic Defence and Security Review and the cuts to overall manning levels to the armed services have brought the issue into sharp focus. Critics argue this has seriously skewed our defence posture and capability towards mammoth (and massively expensive) commitments such as upgrading and maintaining Trident and the development of new aircraft carriers.

Last month, former US defence secretary, Robert Gates, asserted that defence cuts in Britain have left the UK unable to be a ‘full partner’ in future military operations with the United States. As a result of defence cuts, Mr Gates believes that the UK no longer has ‘full-spectrum capabilities’. This, he says, will affect the UK’s ability to be a full partner and will change the dynamics of how operations are conducted in the future. His comments came in the wake of remarks by General Sir Nicholas Houghton, the Chief of the Defence Staff, who said that manpower is increasingly being perceived as an ‘overhead’ and that Britain’s defence capabilities have been ‘hollowed out’.

It is right that these cuts have been questioned in the UK. The concerns over the knock-on direct and indirect effects on local economies, and the dangers of global military over-stretch, have been well aired. At the same time, however, many have long queried the need for such a large and over-bloated defence budget, particularly when our appetite for overseas engagements in the wake of Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts has greatly diminished.

The world has changed, too. Britain is certainly not the global power she once was. There is perhaps room for debate on the reasons for this relative decline, but some truths are incontrovertible. The growing focus of global power and wealth from West to East, the profound change in the nature and structure of armed conflict and the threats that we face to our national security are all factors that must enter the equation if we are to explain and account for how the world has changed and how, as a consequence, our influence has declined. Our reduced military capabilities reflect in large part the need to bear down and address our massive budget deficit and public debt. Such considerations have, as Gates himself stated, also forced spending reductions in the US.

But what is also true is that Britain is less committed in performing the role of being an acquiescent subordinate to the United States in international affairs. Widespread disquiet has also stemmed from the ubiquitous relationship that US intelligence has with Britain’s intelligence services and the close links that have existed between America’s National Security Agency (NSA) and Britain’s communications and listening posts at GCHQ in Cheltenham. In light of these considerations, it is only right and proper that the UK’s military relationship with the US be subject to re-examination.

Public ambivalence is not likely to stop there, either. It should also lead in due course to a more searching examination of Britain’s future commitment to Trident and what justifications there are in keeping a nuclear deterrent. Particularly so, given the changing political landscape in the UK and the very real prospect of Scotland (where Trident and the nuclear deterrent is housed against its will) becoming an independent nation. The referendum for Scottish independence is to be held this year in September.

It may be tempting to compare our defence capacity with what the country was able to sustain in the past and no-doubt some will rue Britain’s reduced capabilities. But the fact remains that the world has changed and with it the shifting balance of global power. It is to the future, not the past, which we should now look in how our overseas partnerships are formed. Britain’s defence arrangements will become a reflection of these changed requirements.

 

Standard
Britain, Government, Human Rights, Intelligence, National Security, Politics, Scotland, Society

Protecting privacy requires Government action…

SURVEILLANCE

In the early 1990s a Scottish newspaper exposed the details of a routine police practice known as ‘metering’. This involved a senior detective and police officer requesting from British Telecom (BT) one of their customer’s phone records. Such records detailed the telephone numbers that person was calling, when the call took place, and the call’s duration. British Telecom handed these details over under a ‘private agreement’ it had formulated between itself and the police.

Not only did the newspaper reveal this practice, but divulged how little political or judicial oversight there was of it. Later, the Secretary of State for Scotland at the time, Ian Lang, announced new guidelines on metering for Scotland’s police forces, and a new reporting system was introduced to keep track of the practice. Details came to light following the theft of metering surveillance documents from the Headquarters of Lothian and Borders police in Edinburgh, in a saga that came to be known as Fettesgate.

More than two decades on one could be tempted to change the word ‘metering’ to ‘metadata’. In recent months, Edward Snowden, a former US intelligence officer with the National Security Agency (NSA), revealed the phenomenal scale of surveillance of the public’s phone, text, e-mail and social network communications, carried out by the NSA in joint collaboration with Britain’s GCHQ in Cheltenham. Matters arising now are the same issues that applied in 1992. Unlike the actual listening into telephone conversations, much of this surveillance focusses around metadata in the reading of e-mails and electronic texts but does not require ministerial permission and oversight.

The Scottish Government appears to accept the current democratic oversight may be insufficient. It suggests the scope of the practices used in surveillance may need to be reviewed in the event of Scotland becoming an independent country.

Some may say, however, that this is not good enough – arguing, that if the legislation needs to be reviewed then it should be done now: issues of public accountability, improved oversight and privacy apply regardless of Scotland’s constitutional future.

Privacy, of course, is one of the biggest issues of the day. Electronic and digital communications have opened up channels for people in a way that would have been hard to imagine just a generation ago. Undoubtedly, though, this has been achieved at a price. One of the biggest challenges facing our parliamentarians is to balance the needs of the police and security services with the personal liberties and rights of law-abiding citizens who are entitled to enjoy a private life. Of particular concern is the apparent comfortable relationship that has evolved between the authorities and some of the large telecommunication companies, many of whom are already under intense criticism for being condescending with their customers’ privacy.

Scotland’s Justice Secretary, Kenny MacAskill MSP, must accept that his task is not only facilitating Police Scotland in their fight against crime, but also involves protecting ordinary citizens in Scotland from undue and unwelcome scrutiny of their private lives by the authorities. Mr MacAskill has remained silent on this issue despite surveillance being a major issue in the current era. The Justice Secretary must speak up and demonstrate that he has this balance right.

Standard