The UK vs Europe - let's stand up for both!

Parliament last week saw extraordinary passion and zeal from the Tory Eurosceptics in their bid for a referendum as to whether Britain remains a member of the European Union.  The European question hangs around the Tory party's neck like a permanent noose and day by day the Tory party shows just how right wing many of the party's parliamentarians are as they gradually hang themselves day by day...  Mr Cameron's pragmatism seems to be increasingly drowned out by the young Turks in the party (let's remember, it wasn't just the Mr Redwoods of this world that rebelled), which leads many to question how long Mr Cameron can control them.  I am thankful that the Liberal Democrats are in the Coalition (and I suspect Mr Cameron is also relieved) to inject a high dosage of realism into the Government's policy in Europe.  Mr Clegg's superb article in the Observer today shows that a pro-European stance is a pragmatic stance, because pro-Europeans know that our economic survival rests on a modern innovative European Union with member states working collectively to take on and compete with the future great powers.

In this post, I wish to passionately make the case for Europe.  As someone who has volunteered in Romania and studied in Italy, Europe has not only brought us economic benefits with a common market, but also cultural benefits, which contribute to bringing continued peace to Europe and this should not be underestimated.  Tory little Englanders forget that for thousands of years, Europeans effectively killed each other instead of working collectively.  My grandfather never let me forget this and he was a veteran from World War II.  He played football with German prisoners of war out in Egypt and in his own way he appreciated the importance of interaction between nations and that as a result we understand and not fear each other.   Of course, cultural interaction can still take place without the EU, but it is certainly a lot easier in the context of free movement of people, which is one of the great achievements of Europe.

In some respects I sympathised with the sceptics, to the extent that yes, we should at long last have a debate on Europe and really have the discussion about Britain's place in the world and where the country wants to go, so that the case for the economic and cultural benefits of Europe can be made.  The sceptics hold on to an imperial past and an Atlanticist foreign policy that increasingly looks redundant in an ever changing world.  American is in decline as the top world power - that is apparent.  It will continue to be the supreme military power for the next 25-30 years, but its economic supremacy will be gone within the decade.  Britain experienced this in the 1890s, losing the top slot economically, but maintaining military supremacy for decades after.  However, we have to accept that nation statehood is not the same as it was in the 19th century.  Global groupings will be the future with decisions being taken on an increasingly global scale.  We need to be a full participant shaping events, promoting European ideals of liberty, fairness and human rights, not just as a lonely island sitting on the edge whilst global events overtake.  

However, what is clear is that now is not the time for this debate.  We should not in an economic crisis be distracted by this debate or cynically using this situation to renegotiate our position within Europe.  That is not what a good friend does - we should be supporting our friends in Europe not, not putting our self interest first, which will only result in pushing us further to the periphery.  

As a Liberal I still believe in the single currency as a concept and nations working collectively together (which Keynes also envisaged), but reforms are needed and euro members seem to be working towards that.  We should not rule out future membership and also be leading the charge for a more innovative and Liberal Europe.  The knowledge economy is the key to Europe's survival and development.  Europe should do less of some things, but collectively countries should work together to improve science and innovation, economic development, climate change, defence, cultural investment and foreign policy to benefit all nations.

It's time to stand up for Europe and in doing so, we will stand up for Britain.

Unfair dismissal plans: Blueprint for bias

See an article below I contributed to...

27 October 2011

The suggestion that scrapping unfair dismissal rules would create jobs and promote growth made in a report to Downing Street by the venture capitalist Adrian Beecroft is effectively a further ploy to remove ordinary workers' rights and a blueprint for discrimination, Richard Macmillan, a solicitor in the employment team at law firm Russell Jones and Walker, has told publicservice.co.uk.

It would also be unlikely that the changes would have the desired effect of boosting economic growth, he said, dismissing Beecroft's argument that employment laws impede "the search for efficiency and competitiveness" and that British organisations are deterred from taking on employees due to the labour laws in this country.

"There is no evidence that enhancing employment rights leads to economic decline or higher unemployment," Macmillan said. "For example, the qualifying period for unfair dismissal claims was changed to one year from two in 1999, and unemployment actually fell in the years that followed. Neither is there any evidence that productivity would be increased by doing away with unfair dismissal claims. Germany has wider labour laws than Britain, but productivity levels are higher. The United States' economic problems are also severe, despite lesser levels of regulation governing its labour market in comparison with our own “ suggesting Mr Beecroft's conclusions are misguided."

Macmillan went on: "Public sector employees in particular would be hit hard if this recommendation became law. At a time when job security is at extremely low levels, the removal of employees' dismissal rights would be a further blow to staff who already harbour concerns over the safety of their jobs as cuts are progressed through a whole range of public sector organisations.

"In my experience, cases end up in the tribunal because managers have failed to address performance issues early enough, leaving problems to fester. There is free ACAS guidance available to all employers so lack of guidance is not a reason to avoid a reasonable procedure. This ultimately leads to a breakdown in working relationships and tribunal claims. Employers can already dismiss employees easily in the first year of employment without worrying about possible claims unless discrimination or whistleblowing is involved. Even if an employee has not accrued unfair dismissal rights, all the law requires is for an employer to act reasonably in the circumstances, which does not necessarily mean a lengthy and onerous process. It is right that a duty on employers to act reasonably exists when someone could potentially lose their livelihood and income as a result of the employer's decision.

"The reality is that a fair balance already exists between the needs of employers and the individual rights of employees. It seems that Mr Beecroft would prefer to limit the rights and empowerment of workers, instead of looking at how we address poor management and other efficiencies within organisations, which could be the real engine for growth and productivity."

And this part came from another author....

However, whether the proposals come to fruition remains to be seen and businesses shouldn't get over excited by them, according to Michael Slade, Managing Director of employment law specialist Bibby Consulting & Support.

"We support any initiative that helps businesses overcome the burden of protracted and costly processes, especially in the current economic climate," Slade said. "But it is wrong to overstate that companies would benefit financially from the unfair dismissal rule being abolished due to reduced compensation levels."

Pointing out that the government had already agreed that from April 2012 the service period for an employee to be able to claim unfair dismissal would be extended to two years, Slade added: "There still remains a substantial amount of anti-discrimination legislation under the Equality Act 2010. So should employees feel their treatment was unfair and attribute it to a 'protected characteristic' under the Act, they would benefit from protection that could attract costly uncapped awards at employment tribunals."

Catgate

Theresa May at the Tory conference raised the subject of an illegal Bolivian migrant, who, according to May, persuaded a British judge to allow him to stay on the basis of his pet cat (or Felis Catus, to use its more formal name...). Her purpose was clear: to undermine the standing of the Human Rights Act as part of a debate within the Coalition with the Liberal Democrats. Conservatives are determined to see its repeal, whilst us Lib Dems want to see its preservation and rightly so!

International Human Rights is a subject close to the hearts of Liberals and is the hallmark of a just society. Maintaining proper provision for human rights within a society ensures the freedom of individuals against the state, which is a fundamental part of Liberalism

It was quite frankly a juvenile speech and May showed painful ignorance of how the HRA operates, perhaps to rouse the Tory audience who seem to view the HRA as a threat to our national security (the usual right wing hyperbole). Theresa, let me be frank - judges do not make decisions on the basis of pet cats - I mean please! The Bolivian individual concerned had to show evidence of domestic life as part of his case on why he should remain, of which his pet cat was one piece of evidence and he was able to demonstrate a domestic life with his British partner and therefore could remain. Her advisors and speech writers were to be frank irresponsible in their analysis. Thank goodness for Ken Clarke at the Ministry of Justice (I think Ms May would struggle in that department).

After World War II, the European Convention of Human Rights was drafted. British lawyers had a significant input in shaping this ground breaking document. Europe had been torn apart by war, death and genocide and the purpose of this document was to ensure that never again would such barbarism return to our continent. Britain is a signatory to the convention and even if the HRA was to be abolished, would remain in that convention.

Under the old system, claimants had to seek redress in Strasbourg on Human Rights cases, It was just such a painful and slow process with claimants having to look to Strasbourg for resolution, which can now happen in our domestic courts. The Human Rights Act merely incorporated that convention into British domestic law but did not invent additional rights that were not already available. If we were to abolish the act, we would merely return to the old system, which was ludicrous. It was a fine achievement of Tony Blair's government that this act was put into law.

We should all be proud of our Liberal tradition in human rights in this country, that we seek to protect the dignity of man by ensuring the basic rights of life for individuals. I am also proud that this country is decent enough to give migrants/refugees or other vulnerable groups respect and protection through the legislation, as that demonstrates to the world the kind of society we want to be. A society that seeks to protect and not abandon. The irresponsible Tory rhetoric mustn't be allowed to undermine this tradition and Liberals must seek to protect it and defend human rights.

The London riots

Most of us have been shocked about the events that have taken place in London and elsewhere in the UK over the past few days. I saw looters here in the East End close to where I live and it was disturbing to see such thuggery and disrespect for the property of others. Those perpetrators should face the full force of the law as a result.

It is even harder to explain what really was the cause. Of course, the press go for simplistic explanations with the usual hyperbole, with people on the right blaming a break down in family values, discipline and Melanie Phillips referencing the failure of the liberal experiment and that as a result the chickens have come home to roost - pretty much blaming the liberal intelligentsia for all Britain's ills. It is as if they think Britain in 1950 was this wonderful idyllic place, where everything was perfect: where there was no violence, gang culture, or vigilantism and that all we need to do is turn the clock back. How naive and clearly wrong.

The left look to social inequality and poverty for an explanation, but some also cite simplistic explanations, such as the Coalition's cuts programme. What is clear from the recent riots is that there is no simple explanation. Riots in the past have had a clear purpose, but this was different as there didn't seem to be any real purpose or cause. As a Liberal I am sympathetic to the argument that social inequality (which has grown during recent Conservative and Labour governments) is partly to blame here as in my view the gap between the haves and the have nots has caused frustration for many, who feel trapped in an endless cycle of poverty, drift and a lack of opportunity. However, it is too simplistic just to blame this - you can look to other places around the world where poverty is more endemic or where unemployment is more prevalent (for example youth unemployment in Spain is around 40%) and such behaviour has not happened.

There was a sense that some were involved just because they wanted to destroy, steal and to engage in lawlessness with little respect for authority. To some degree a more consumerist and materialistic society has led to some to feel a sense of entitlement to material things without a realisation that they have to be worked for. However, many of our inner cities have become almost like ghettos in parts with many people feeling no connection with wider society and have fallen into sub-cultures. This has to be addressed, so that all in our society feel a sense of worth and collective responsibility to our wider community. It is important to address it through education and appropriate employment opportunities. If we don't do this, we are in danger of a more divided society with greater drift.

Finally, we must be careful of not engaging in knee jerk reactions to this. This should not be an excuse for draconian illiberal government measures. Governments are always tempted to legislate in times of crisis - this should be approached with caution.

Why I am voting yes!

I will certainly be voting yes for political reform on the 5th May. I don't know about you, but the shocking tactics and base argument from the reactionary No campaign and its Tory funders have made me more determined than ever to vote for a better system to elect our MPs.

Let me be clear: this election is not about Nick Clegg or even the Liberal Democrats, but is about something far greater. We have the once in a lifetime opportunity to send a message to the political elites that enough is enough and reform has to come, so that this country can seriously begin reforming its political institutions. AV in my view is the first step along that journey. Conservatives seem to think that everything can be preserved and that the British parliament can still go along as if it's still 1930. This is not a surprise. First Past the Post suits the Conservatives and they have a vested interest to preserve it. They do not want to open up our politics to greater choice and freedom. I am a Liberal because I believe in greater choice, transparency and freedom in all spheres of public life. My view is that AV will help with this. Why? Because if there is a yes vote, we will be able to rank the candidates in order of preference, which means candidates will have to work harder for our votes as only the candidate who gains at least 50% of the vote will win.

A helpful analogy was in the Independent today: If you send your friend for a bag of crisps and say you want salt and vinegar, but the shop has none left, you are reliant on your friend to choose a flavour for you. You only had one go at choosing the right flavour for you. However, if you had said to him/her: I would like prefer salt and vinegar, but failing that cheese and onion and failing that ready salted and they come back with cheese and onion, at least you have the best possible outcome for you. AV allows this: ranking candidates in order allows the most preferred candidate for a majority of people in a constituency to win. That is so much fairer than what we have presently, where a candidate with less than 50% support in a constituency can be the winner.

Things have to change, let's begin that pathway to reform, let's vote for AV!

Say yes to AV!

Well the long campaign has begun.... At long last, our country has the opportunity to vote on changing our electoral system and a chance to break the monopoly the Tories and Labour parties have had on our parliament for so many years for good. I must say I am not a fan of referendums, particularly because they encourage misrepresentation and hyperbole. For example I see the No campaign has already started to play the apocalypse card by basically saying that AV will lead to hundreds of millions being spent and naturally a subsequent collapse in public services; and I'm waiting for the Daily Mail to say: "It's all Europe's fault!" or "Damn the Human Rights Act! It's led to AV!" - I mean please. Lets keep things sensible. I hope the Yes campaign rises above such torrid drivel and plays the idealism card for a chance of real reform. They do have King George VI and Queen Elizabeth supporting AKA Colin Firth and Helen Bonam-Carter, so am sure things will be fine for the yes camp.

But on a serious note, it cannot be right that we maintain the first past the post system where 2 parties hold around 90% of the seats but gain less than 2/3s of the vote. How is that remotely democratic? That's not to say FPTP does not have advantages - it does, for example it is easy to understand and also creates a constituency link, which I think is important for regional identity but also to ensure that people feel they have a representative that was chosen by them and not as a result of a party list. I am not a Liberal who advocates full proportional representation for these reasons (party lists are too closed and remote). AV is also not ideal as there is no proportional element; but it's not the system that counts so much, more that finally we have woken up to reforming our politics as hopefully a yes vote will lead to much more reform further down the line. I hope their Lordships are ready to move out soon as they are surely next, although Herbert Asquith probably was thinking the same back in 1910 - still better late than never.

My preferred system for Westminster would be what they have in Scotland - the additional member system or perhaps we should look again at AV +, which Lord Jenkins envisaged back in 1998. These systems propose a happy compromise in my view. However I support AV because it is a step in the right direction and a move away from the past and I urge everyone to vote yes in the campaign! It's not about Nick Clegg and its not about the Coalition, it's about restoring trust in parliament and creating a new beginning.

VOTE YES!

A wave of optimism

The events in the Middle East feel reminiscent of Europe of 1989 - a real chance for liberal democracy to flourish in an area dominated by despotic regimes. Lets hope real democracy comes to bring stability, human rights and civil society. Egypt shows that the neo-conservative view on foreign affairs is now a defunct ideology. It is people, the ordinary citizen of a country that can and should lead the charge for real change, not the tank and missile. Good luck to Egypt and all its people.