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.