Category: Uncategorized

Also known as the ‘snoopers’ charter. The government has just finished consulting on some changes to this prompted by a couple of CJEU (EU Court of Justice) rulings (Joined Cases C-203/15 and C-698/15).  So I decided to respond the consultation.  This is my response.

---

I have one general concern and some specific points to make about these proposals.

My general concern is that these recommendations, along with the Investigatory Powers Act 2016, underestimates the dangers to the public, to security and to this country of keeping blanket records of all individuals’ communications data.

While the EU judgements referred to appear to be framed in the context of planned, limited retention and access of data the UK government appears to have envisaged blanket indiscriminate retentions and the tone of the response in these proposals reflects the desire to continue these retentions.

Risks of creating such large repositories of information are well known and well demonstrated in other scenarios (loss of data by banks, NHS, government departments) in spite of the stringent protections now being proposed for this new, much larger repository. Although apparently the security services have been consulted about the Act and these proposals I would suggest their job is to maximize their apparent success which will disregard risks to innocent individuals in favour of intelligence successes.

Just to list a few of the attendant risks again:

• Hacking by criminals, and foreign states or simple theft by rogue employees. This exposes individuals and businesses to blackmail, identify theft, industrial espionage and a host of other interferences which could, at some level, threaten financial systems and state security. This is made worse because many breaches may never be discovered or reported. The weakness of current arrangements could not have been put into starker relief when it transpired that the contractor Carillion, a company under huge pressure and with a poor record for service and governance, was running services in GCHQ itself.
• Oversharing of information with partners. For example as shown in the Snowden leak – the USA was sharing information with over 700,000 individuals (many working for government contractors with very mixed reputations) with full access while the US government provides very little protection for the data of non-US citizens. In this context it is almost inconceivable that the data wasn’t available to numerous malicious entities. Indeed it cannot be ruled out that the US government or its less scrupulous contractors have already used some of this data for industrial espionage.
• Spoofing whereby people are targeted by apparently incriminating communications – as in the recent ‘swatting’ case in the USA. This means the security services may wind up spending large amounts of time and even convict innocent people.
• Temptation for political use and ‘mission creep’.

This lack of concern over risks to individuals I would suggest is partly due to naivety on the part of ministers – most of whom have no experience in these areas.  For example, often quoted is ‘if you have nothing to hide you have no concern’ – completely overlooking the implications for finance, business, leaking of medical information, the potential damage to relationships – a recent episode in BBC of ‘Silent Witness’ painted a very plausible scenario where a small breach of NHS data led to murders and blackmail. I think ministers also seem to have little understanding of how useful a large repository of information can be to malefactors who can simply run scanning software looking for likely targets.

Although some effort has been put into only collection ‘Internet Connection Records’ – these can, nevertheless, contain passwords when, for example, someone accidentally types a password into their browser address bar by mistake. Also it is envisaged that user ids of senders and recipients of email are to be collected.  Since it’s unclear how ISPs will collect all this data quickly it is likely they will ‘retain’ much more than the minimum as a shortcut to compliance. Even if only the intended data is collected malicious parties can both make the same use as security services intend to make of this data (eg by inferring networks of users, plotting movements etc) and can also use any ‘hits’ for further more targeted attacks on individuals and corporations.

The exclusion of security services from the obligations here points to a possible continuation of the practice of sharing this data with foreign powers including the United States and, as described above, thereby exposing uses to indiscriminate access by authorized third parties which is so loose that unauthorized access is certain rather than merely likely. In fact if this blanket indiscriminate sharing continues (or even if it is just allowed) then the retained data should be considered both effectively unprotected both in law and in fact.

Another problem with this blanket collection of innocent parties data is that it may lead to perverse consequences for the internet with responsible corporations trying to avoid the risks identified above.  For example, people (both legitimate and criminal) may flood the internet with bogus communications to disguise real ones.  Terrorists may simply write software to invent thousands of ‘plots’ involving innocent citizens or rival groups – severely degrading the information. The ultimate consequence may a more expensive internet.

My specific concerns are:

1. 1. There is no clarity describing what may be retained vs what may be accessed. I suspect this ambiguity is to allow the blanket retention envisaged.  It should be clarified whether the retained data may contain more than the absolutely required information and clearly laid out that the overwhelming number of individuals subject to retention will have no connection with the actual object of the retention.
   2. The reliance of ISPs to retain, store and protect data provides a further weakness while at the same time allowing the government to disavow responsibility for leaks of data it itself instigated the collection of.  This seems wrong, especially when it comes to data being collect for the security services. To this extent this type of collect may be considered to fall under EU competencies for example.
   3. The proposals (‘significance of communications data in prevention and detection’) fail to analyse where targeted data collection would have been successful vs blanket collection.
   4. Penalties and redress for breaches etc aren’t laid out here (maybe they are in the Act?) beyond a rather weak right to go to a Tribunal to contest the retention (which presumably is pointless under blanket retentions). This area again seems problematic if ISPs have to take out insurance against claims.
   5. It seems perverse to remove tax evasion from the list of reasons for collection of data and suggests political motivation.
   6. It is asserted that going through the Officer for Communication Data Authorizations is to be the main route for data to be retained / acquired. For blanket retention this is clearly vacuous but for authorizations there appears to be no indication why the various authorities would prefer this to the ‘urgent’ requires where an ‘officer’ can authorize it. At the very least all urgent requests should be scrutinized after the fact.
   7. Because in many cases government employees or employees of companies will make requests and consequently they are unlikely to be too concerned about penalties for incorrect use (because they won’t personally be liable) – so the only recourse seems to be to make any unauthorized access a criminal offence.
   8. I would suggest that only government employed authorized officials are ever given direct access to private data except in the normal circumstances where it is released for public interest reasons.
   9. I was not convinced by the argument to disregard the obligation to notify people their data was being retained ‘once the danger had passed’.

So to reiterate – in my opinion:

Government significantly underestimates the risk to personal privacy in this regard.

The general effect of this blanket data gathering will be to expose honest citizens while criminals will take action to protect themselves and exploit the data of honest citizens.

 

Last week the Great Repeal Bill, now officially titled European Union (Withdrawal) Bill, passed its second reading in the House of Commons. Having completed ‘Introduction to Law’ at the Open University last year I feel qualified to comment on this legislation and this is an ideal opportunity for some course revision! The legislation has a two-fold purpose – firstly to repeal the European Communities Act 1972 (ECA) that took us into the EU, and secondly to create the process of moving EU laws onto the UK law book so that we have a complete and consistent set of legislation on the day we leave.

Note that legislation is introduced as a ‘Bill’, and becomes an ‘Act’ when it passes all the relevant stages in each House and receives Royal Assent. Also, if you want to pass any legal qualification you have to know that certain words such as ‘Bill’, ‘House’, ‘Parliament’ etc. must start with a capital letter!

You can monitor progress of the Bill on the government web site. Fortunately you can also read a far more authoritative commentary than mine here.

What is the purpose of the legislation?

As described in the White Paper the task of moving (relevant) EU legislation into UK domestic law is enormously complex due to the large amount of legislation involved and the need to match the changed circumstances after Brexit. For example, references to EU institutions, such as those that regulate EU standards will need to be adapted and possibly new UK institutions established as the old institutions cease to have jurisdiction in the UK.

The White Paper describes how there are a number of ways in which EU laws (treaties, directives and regulations) currently apply. Some apply directly (‘directly applicable’) while others are implemented in UK laws and secondary instruments.  Finally there are rulings by the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU). EU directives were often implemented using delegated legislation (usually under the authority of section 2(2) of the ECA) and these will  cease to apply once the controlling act (the ECA) is repealed.

The Bill ensures directly applicable EU law, as it stands on exit day, will continue to apply and take precedence over UK domestic law enacted before exit day. An example given is the protection of workers’ rights including Article 157 Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) (equal pay) and some CJEU case law, as well as derived UK domestic law – the Equality Act 2006 and the Equality Act 2010. However, new legislation will take precedence. Similarly CJEU judgements made prior to exit day will have the same force as UK Supreme Court judgements but, as with normal Supreme Court judgements, can be over-ridden by subsequent UK Supreme Court judgements and are subject to the sovereignty of the UK Parliament.

In practical terms one can immediately see many complexities in the path plotted by the White Paper – especially if you’ve worked on complex projects in the past – for example revisiting large bodies of software. The fact that directly applicable EU legislation is to apply directly in a non-EU environment means new UK legislation will be required to amend existing EU legislation – presumably consisting of a mixture of generic rules (eg substitution of UK bodies for EU bodies) and specific changes. It remains to be seen how easily such a hotchpotch of legislation can be interpreted and how, for examples, deficiencies in the amending process will be handled if companies find loopholes to exploit.

The White Paper goes on to consider the need for delegated powers – i.e. powers given to ministers to achieve the aims of the Bill. These delegated powers will allow creation delegated legislation (also known as secondary or subordinate legislation), in the form of Statutory Instruments (governed by the Statutory Instruments Act 1946), which have the same authority as laws created by Parliament. Statutory Instruments and other types of delegated legislation are very common – as for example as set up in s2(2) ECA where they are often used to implement EU directives. The White Paper gives three ‘case studies’ on how these could be needed. For example Offshore Petroleum Activities (Conservation of Habitats) Regulations 2001 requires permission from the EU Commission for some projects, and this reference will need changing either to require permission from some UK body or to remove the requirement.

The White Paper also states the need for delegated powers to ‘correct the statute book’, thus ministers will be able to change UK law without further primary legislation. It is also envisaged that aspects of the Brexit divorce settlement will be implemented using delegated powers.

Aside from the division in the country over Brexit there is controversy surrounding this Bill because the ability to create delegated legislation is thought to be too broad and will result in implementation of laws without adequate oversight. Furthermore the actual draft Bill appears to envisage making substantive changes to the legislation as it is brought over, something that the white paper does not make clear. A further issue is that devolved legislations in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland will not get a say in how legislation relating to them are handled in the changeover.

What’s actually in the draft Bill?

Acts of Parliament are divided into sections which may contain subsections (sometimes with paragraphs and sub-paragraphs), possibly followed by a number of schedules (appendices) which are referenced by the main body. The draft Bill can be accessed here.

The first section of the Bill is a single sentence repealing the ECA.

Sections 2 to 6 of the Bill goes on to describe how various categories of legislation will be handled after ‘exit day’.

Section 2 talks about ‘saving’ UK legislation that implements EU legislation – i.e. making sure it still applies meaningfully after exit day. It defines ‘EU derived domestic legislation’ which includes delegated legislation (statutory instruments) made under the ECA but excludes the ECA itself.

Section 3 talks about direct EU legislation (legislation that wasn’t enacted through UK domestic law). This excludes legislation that is already implemented in UK law and legislation only relevant to other countries. Although these are sensible rules, it would be interesting to know how the judgement is made that something is already implemented in UK law.

Section 4 deals with some rights included in the ECA itself (noting the exclusion of the ECA in section 2).

Sections 7 to 9 describe the powers (i.e. the ability to create delegated legislation). Section 7 is a key section defining how delegated legislation to handle ‘deficiencies arising from withdrawal’. Subsection 4 ominously states ‘Regulations under this section may make any provision that could be made by an act of Parliament’ although this is somewhat mitigated by subsection 6 – similar to part of the ECA (sub-paragraph 1(1) of schedule 2) – including, for example, not creating new criminal offences.

Sections 8 and 9 have similar provisions to section 7 to handle international obligations and the withdrawal agreement.

Sections 10 and 11 are about devolved legislation. Section 10 brings in schedule 2 which describes how the UK government can make regulations applying to devolved authorities (I guess rather than the devolved legislations doing this themselves). Section 11 is about retaining restrictions on devolved legislations that come from EU law.

Sections 12 to 17 are described as ‘Financial provision and other matters’ but seem very relevant – for example section 16 (‘Regulations’) brings in the important schedule 7. Schedule 7 is about how Parliament will have the ability to scrutinize delegated legislation.

Of the schedules, Schedule 7 is important because it covers how much control (‘scrutiny’) delegated legislation will be subject to. Normally statutory instruments are subject to one of two types of scrutiny procedure – affirmative and negative as described in a very informative briefing paper here. In the affirmative case both houses debate the legislation and can reject it. In the negative procedure case there is no prior scrutiny – in this case the instrument can be struck down (disapproved) if a motion to annul (a ‘prayer’) is passed within 40 days  of the instrument being submitted. Disapproval is extremely rare and relies on gaining time for a motion to be heard – as discussed in the briefing paper.

Paragraph 3 of schedule 7 (‘Scrutiny procedure in certain urgent cases’) is particularly interesting because it allows for statutory instruments to be brought into action in advance of being put before Parliament – allowing a month to be brought before Parliament. While failing to bring these instruments before Parliament within a month causes them to lapse (sub-paragraphs 4 and 5), subsection 6 says that anything enacted under this ‘urgent’ delegated legislation before the month elapses remains in force and this does not prevent making more instruments. This seems to open the door for creating just about any law to do just about anything – only constrained by the 1946 controlling statutory instruments and any limitations imposed by the Bill itself. Of course this seems like a technicality if the odd thing gets through – but suppose a minister decided to create hundreds (or thousands) of rolling monthly instruments to effectively implement something like an arbitrary deportation regime.

Schedule 8 contains some changes to existing UK legislation. Part I contains general changes to be applied across the board while Part 2 contains some specific changes to some Acts. For example paragraph 6:

“In section 56 of the Finance Act 1973 (charges for services etc. by Government departments), in subsection (1), omit “any EU obligation or”.”

To make any real sense of this legislation requires reading the very complex schedules – here’s a challenging sub paragraph (1) of paragraph 20 from schedule 7:

“An instrument to which paragraph 1(1) or (3), 1(4) or (5), 1(6) or (7), 1(8) or (9), 2(3) or (4), 2(5) or (6), 2(10) or (11), 2(12) or (13), 3(2), 5(1) or (3), 6(1) or (3), 7(1) or (3), 10(2) or (4) or 11(2) applies which revokes, amends or reenacts any such instrument may (in spite of section 14 of the Interpretation Act 1978) be subject to a different procedure under this Schedule from the procedure to which the instrument containing the original regulations was subject or, in the case of regulations under section 17(5), no procedure.”

Where does this leave us?

As recognized by the government, this process is extremely complex and challenging and it follows that there is no way all the legislation can be converted using Parliamentary debates. However, it does not necessarily follow that either the approach or procedures proposed will produce a good result, even if all Ministers act in good faith – something which many currently in place have shown very little of in recent history.

It has been argued that there are precedents for the kinds of powers in this Bill. For example, the ECA itself imported a large amount of EU law paved the way for EU legislation to take precedence over UK legislation and to be implemented via delegated legislation. However, in that case scrutiny occurs at the EU level both through the Parliament and the member governments and the law that was being imported or enabled by delegated legislation was not being modified or repurposed for a new context.

Time will eventually tell what comes of all this, but there is the potential for litigation to drag on for years as the result of a botched changeover. Issues could retrospectively be raised either due to particular errors or ambiguities of drafting – or even contesting the whole regime of how law is meant to be interpreted.

At the very least the government has gone far out on a limb with promises and assurances over Brexit, and the temptation to use the sweeping powers they are about to award themselves to paper over the cracks and hide their deficiencies will be very strong.

There are many things to look at in this draft legislation so I encourage you to go and look at it!

 

Like many I’m sure the result of the US election seems to be catastrophic both for America and for the world and nowhere less than in the area of climate change

How can it be understood?  Obviously one can point to mistakes by the Democrats who failed to mobilize their vote amongst Women, Latinos, the block population and Hilary who at times seemed not to be the actual candidate.

On the other side I’d like to suggest this all starts with Climate Change.  What I’ll call the ‘post truth’ bubble which now envelops much of the American congress, most American republicans and much of ‘middle America’ in addition to increasing swathes of the UK media including parts of the BBC (see for example how the head of Editorial policy is pushing for a post-truth treatment of climate change). This bubble was constructed based on earlier work to hide the dangers of things like smoking by oil and coal company lobbyists such as the Koch brothers and many more.  The goal could be argued to be subvert government policy by effectively surrounding policy makers with a web of untruths. The shameful participation of people from the UK was documented, for example, in Paul Nurse’s Horizon programme where the shameful antics of the likes of James Delingpole are laid bare.

Using this pre-prepared bubble and it’s techniques for undermining truth (by simply having apparently respectable people like Nigel Lawson- himself a prominent disseminator of non-truths about climate change through his web site) spread the misleading information) it was easy to disseminate the untruths propagated by the Trump campaign (and of course the Brexit used the same post-truth structures  and techniques campaign and coincidentally Ukip’s policy is climate change denial).

Climate change deniers also have fall-back argument here when confronted with real scientists – namely the Neoliberal ‘growth’ argument.  This argument essentially says we can ‘grow’ ourselves out of any problem – using theories such as discounted cash flow (DCF).  In these theories the idea is that if your actions today might cause problems in the future – for example carbon emissions might cause climate change, or a nuclear power station might need cleaning up at some point – you can invest a relatively small sum of money now (or some similar financial device) and it will grow (say at 5%) – becoming sufficient to pay off the cost of any mitigation of this problem.  Obviously I don’t need to tell anyone how preposterous this theory is – from the simple maths of a finite planet, the risks involved in such an ‘endowment policy’, and the fact that it’s about cleaning up, not avoiding problems.

The consequence of the Neoliberal argument is that it leads to short-termism because it gives a theory (if not actually put into practice) about how any activity, however harmful, now can be ‘handled’ by growth.  And of course these don’t need to be particularly efficient activity – for example North Dakota looked like a major population centre recently due to the flaring off of extremely useful natural gas in order to exploit fracked on faster.  So fabulous waste as well as ruinous destruction is fully acceptable for Neoliberals.

This leads to the second part of why Trump was able to win.  Because he doesn’t believe in climate change (thinks it’s a hoax created by China to slow the US economy) and subscribes to Neoliberal arguments he has no problem of proposing how to create new jobs and wealth – simply burn more fossil fuels – open up more domestic coal mines – this actually makes sense if we don’t care about our children’s future.

Personally I seriously doubt Trump cares about American workers – but maybe despearate people will clutch at any straw.

Like many others over the years I have blamed the EU for many dumb things – for example the excesses of wine lakes and food mountains, the apparent lining of French coffers due to the Common Agricultural Policy etc, dismay over the huge, virtually undebated, expansion in 2004 and even for closed lanes at the local swimming pool. And of course the large amount of immigration in the past 10 years.

Set against this is the fact that geographically we are part of Europe, Europe has been a stable and peaceful entity since the second world war and we have a generally good relationship with most Europeans who, I believe, regard us as their friends and allies.

I’m pessimistic that the older generation is about to seriously impoverish our children’s future out of a misplaced sense of grievance so I’d like at least to record my thoughts at this time.

So what are my arguments for remaining in the EU?

Risk

This is not my reason for staying but if you are undecided it seems obvious.

While the Brexiters would have you believe this is an equal choice it is not so. We can always leave if it becomes obvious we should do so. On the other hand if we do leave we can never go back – at the very least we wouldn’t have any more control than Turkey has today. So if, for example, unlike me, you think we probably should leave but, like me, you are worried that the Brexiters have no plan, you can wait.

In a nutshell leaving carries a high risk so at a rational level one would need a good reason to leave while voting to remain is low risk and keeps one’s options open.

Why stay?

For me it’s about sticking with our friends, being in the mainstream of culture and science and working with others on shared solutions. My experience of EU nationals at a personal level has always been positive. They bring education, culture, skills and enthusiasm. Personally I don’t recognise the grasping rapists Nigel Farage would have us believe in.

Today our institutions can work across the EU without having to negotiate their legitimacy while if we leave we will have to fight to avoid being left in the slow lane. It’s also about security since I think along with economic weakness will come instability and compromise on sovereignty and political independence as the likes of China, India and Russia exact a price for their investment. We’ve already had a taste of this with the supine pose George Osborne struck when trying to position China as a kind of post-EU ally (before he was slapped down by his new Chinese bosses and told to remain) and the way Tata was able to hold the UK government to ransom over its steel investments.

Economy

Obviously this a central part of what will change if we leave. Brexiters claim we are strong enough to withstand leaving because we are claimed to be the world’s 5’th largest economy while at the same time claiming our economy will boom outside the EU.

Of course nobody knows exactly what the impact will be but to me the risks are all on the side of leaving. When the Japanese invested in the UK car industry during the Thatcher era my recollection is that this was soley to beat EU quotas, there would have been no business case if we had been outside. Similarly today it seems many businesses are here because the UK is in the EU. Even China has stated a preference for us to stay.

Unfortunately apart from the fantasy claim by Michael Gove that the EU would rush to offer us a better trade deal without any of the current obligations such paying or accepting free movement the Brexit side don’t seem to have any plan beyond ‘trading with everyone else’. As I said above I fear this will result in many compromises. Britain is a peculiarly weak position to go it alone thanks to successive governments being so relaxed about our major industries and institutions being handed over to foreign ownership making self-determination difficult.

While our economy is dangerously skewed towards ‘financial services’ where connectivity, communication and regulatory frameworks are key we risk losing unfettered access to EU financial markets and a consequent migration of institutions to Frankfurt as we lose automatic rights to be ‘inside’ Europe.

The UK, unlike the USA for example, must trade to survive while other countries don’t need to trade with us and will only do so when it’s to their advantage. In our weakened state after leaving the EU with higher tariffs to Europe we will be at a disadvantage and have to lower wages and relax standards.

Cut off from much European technological cooperation and from free access to European financial markets we will need to form new relationships but it’s unclear who will sign up to those without extracting something in return. The problem for us would be that what most non-EU partners value most is access to the EU market which we would no longer be able to offer.

Immigration

This still seems to be the heart of the issue people have with the EU. Of course being a citizen of an EU country, while giving you the right to live and work in the UK does not grant you UK citizenship – see this page  for some discussion of this and related matters if we leave. On the other, for example, hand EU citizens working in the UK do build up UK pension rights up UK pension rights.

Because opposition to immigration is often (and sometimes correctly) perceived as racially motivated the Brexit campaign have been reluctant to make this their central theme, much to Ukip’s annoyance. However, this still seems like the main argument for leaving, though not so much has a reason for postponing until the Brexiters come up with a credible plan.

While leaving the EU would appear to be a good way to reduce immigration there could be difficulties. The first difficulty is that it seems like any agreement to reconstitute our trading relationship with the EU would come with a free movement of labour requirement. Secondly, given that there is just as much immigration from non-EU countries it seems like there is an appetite among UK (mainly foreign owned) employers for non-UK workers.

The campaigns

Obviously voting to leave or remain does not mean endorsing the associated campaign or its leaders. However, for me the uniformly extreme right-wing pedigree of the Leave campaign leaders does cause me concern.

Boris Johnson has a long record of making up false stories about the EU and publishing them in the Daily Telegraph. Nigel Lawson has devoted decades to spreading misinformation about climate change despite being corrected many times by bodies such as the Royal Society. Michael Gove pretty much wrecked the UK education system while Chris Grayling had a disastrous tenure at the justice department and Ian Duncan Smith proved completely incompetent at managing the project to introduce Universal Credit while also presiding over the nasty bedroom tax. Then you have the lesser-Thatcherites like John Redwood who, in spite of planning Brexit for the last 25 years appear to be completely clueless about any kind of plan.

What appears to be a common trait of these right-wing Brexiters -along with Ukip – is their anti-science stance on climate change – making it hard to trust their judgement on less-clearcut issues such as Brexit.

Of course there’s not a lot to like about George Osborne or Jeremy Hunt but I believe the likes of John Major and Michael Heseltine have a strong record for integrity.

TTIP

This is the trade treaty being negotiated by the EU with the USA. Much of the negotiation is being  carried out in secret and much of the text is being dictated by large corporations, again in secrecy and anonymity. The treaty is also in danger of being enforced by (secretive) courts which are not accountable to individual countries. This treaty therefore risks being anti-democratic and effectively will hand over a considerable degree of sovereignty and control. One specific area that has been highlighted is loss of control of NHS privatization but the treaty effectively embraces all goods and services that are not specifically exempted at inception.

Therefore it would seem that leaving the EU could at least avoid getting sucked into TTIP. However, since most Brexit leaders are the self-same neo-liberals who support such arrangements and the UK government has actually been at the forefront of lobbying to keep such things as the secret unelected courts (ISDS) in the treaty, these is no reason to suppose that outside the EU an even less democratic treaty wouldn’t be negotiated, especially as our bargaining position will be that much weaker.

Friends and enemies

Barak Obama, many EU leaders and leaders of other trading partners have urged the UK to remain in the EU. In contrast Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump are hoping for a Brexit. While Brexit campaigners have characteristically dismissed all of this as cynical self-interest it seems plain to me who are friends are and that we should listen to them.  Outside of the information vacuum the Brexiters would have us inhabit (reinforced by the Mail and the Telegraph) most other European countries want to stay, or get in.

Sovereignty

While the UK has to abide by laws it negotiated along with other EU countries it also abides by numerous other rules such as WTO trade rules. Over the years the UK has successfully opted out of or vetoed EU rules it didn’t like. The mere fact that we could leave at any time without penalty should give us confidence that we are in control.

When we leave …

So what will actually happen? It’s clear the Brexiters have no idea. A stock market crash seems certain and possibly a run on the pound. Large companies will put their contingency plans into operation, possibly with a move to another EU country and investment will dry up. Political instability also seems likely for a long time with extreme right-wingers holding sway and truth taking a back seat.

 

 

 

The title of this post harks back to an article by Will Hutton in the Observer on the occasion of a previous visit to China by Chancellor of the exchequer George Osborne. The article reflected on the naivety of Osborne’s approach to China.

This week Osborne is back showering the Chinese with more begging and blank cheques for any partner he can sign up in a ‘deal’ – notable amongst them being £2 billion in guarantees for Chinese investment in the Hinckley C nuclear power station.  This comes on the heels of the ideologically motivated rejection of the Navitas Bay wind farm which promised significant green energy generation on the South Coast with no apparent downside and in a much shorter time frame with far lower risk.

This infatuation with China seems to make no sense and appears to be motivated by a deep disdain of all things British or European combined with a huge naivety when it comes to dealing with the Chinese.  Not, of course,  to mention a lack of caution when giving access to crucial infrastructure to a country that has no interest in our welfare, openly flouts international law, has little respect for human rights or intellectual property and openly despises us in its state-controlled press, which is launching an illegal territory grab in the South China sea and seeking to extinguish Tibetan aspiration, while at the same time undergoing a huge military build-up and indulging in regular cyber attacks including UK targets.

This appears to be a theme with Osborne. He appears to be mesmerised by the combination of power and corruption – witness the unseemly incidents involving himself and Peter Mandelson on Oleg Derepaska’s yacht before the 2010 election, or his dangerous failures to correct abuses in the financial system.

Many who have dealt with the Chinese at first hand commercially will tell you it is a risky business. There is, for example, no real recourse to law when trading in China, but anyone dealing there can be subject to draconian laws designed to advantage Chinese interests.  Contrast this with the UK where foreign interests often enjoy huge advantages thanks to ruinous trade treaties such as the upcoming TTIP agreement which the Tories are pushing for so aggressively even though much of it is secret.

So what is driving Osborne here?  Is he perhaps hoping to emulate his predecessor Nigel Lawson (who today devotes much of his energy using the influence bestowed on him by public office to doing real harm with his mischief-making on climate change)?  Under Thatcher many hopes were pinned on a combination of exploiting a fossil-fuel resource along with seeking help from an eastern industrial partner (Japan).  This has parallels with today’s headlong rush for fracking for gas and a partnership with China, although it does seem like both these modern prospects seem far more uncertain and risky than their historic counterparts.  Ironically the partnership with Japan was only possible because our EU membership meant that Japan could benefit from circumventing EU car quotas. Today where the Tories seemed determined to leave the EU with the help of their UKIP partners, completely misunderstanding the only remaining reason why anyone would want to work with us. Similarly fracking is a far less certain proposition than north sea oil and gas, with huge consequences for both our landscape and climate change.

There are of course similarities .  Lawson sold off North Sea oil far too cheaply under pressure from US oil interests he rushed to sell the rights to and failed to get a decent return for the UK or to save for the future as, for example, Norway has done.  Part of North Sea revenues were then needed to compensate for the dismantling of UK industry motivated by political dogma, but of course now the oil and gas have gone in less than a generation and we have no industry.  Contrast this with Denmark which had no oil or gas but now has warm homes, a strong industrial base and thriving renewables.  Similarly Osborne has rushed to sell off mineral rights cheaply while painting himself into a corner by trashing renewables for ideological reasons.  This means that frackers can extract pretty much any concession they want including weakening already weak regulation under threat of dragging their feet.  Both chancellors, by placing blind faith in the market over proper long-term strategic planning have or will have squandered a large part of the asset to get a short-term boost to the budget and consequently their reputation.

The relationship with Japan arguably brought in some much-needed production expertise but failed to halt the demise of our manufacturing base with just about all our manufacturing companies in auto and other industries sold off – Land Rover is now Tata, BP is now at least 50% American, Cadburys is part of Kraft with the classic recipes already quietly being made nastier and cheaper, our railways are now mainly foreign owned –  many by European state enterprises.

There are many things to deplore about this latest Osborne wheeze.  One irony is that while touting this one-sided relationship Osborne and his government as busy tearing down much that might be saleable about Britain.  Assets such as the NHS, the BBC and our top universities are being belittled and stripped of investment ready to be privatized and consumed by rapacious foreign interests at bargain-basement prices to cut the deficit by a few million pounds while robbing the country of the ability to benefit from our investment in these unique institutions.  It is of course a nonsense for a major partner to be so far away – the air miles alone will clock up massive carbon emissions.  And of course our business community, while probably not being as ignorant of Osborne of Chinese language and culture, is hugely disadvantaged in any such partnership by being completely open on our side and completely closed on the Chinese side.  Simply on the subject of the nuclear power deal – why isn’t this fantastically profitable deal being offered to UK taxpayers first?

China quite justifiably doesn’t think it owes the UK anything for sure given our history.  One wonders if Chinese leaders tasked with devising a plan to economically dominate and ruin Britain they would change a thing in Osborne’s plans.

So today it looks like, by voting Conservative, the UK electorate voted for:

– Accepting and accelerating climate change and its consequences on behalf of future generations. This will be beefed up with airport expansion, fracking and subsidies for oil exploration.

– Privatization and breakup of the NHS with a bonanza for consultants, lawyers and accountants.

– UK exit from the EU, further facilitating the sell-off of UK assets and isolating us from our natural allies.

– Dismantling our system of justice and replacing it with justice for those who can afford it, with a privatized and unaccountable forensic service conducted in secrecy. Probation services will be privatized with real criminals unlikely to face justice and public servants under continued reassure to massage crime figures.

– Continued non-evidence-based tampering with our education system with relentless bullying of teachers and more free schools (which appear to have catapulted Sweden down the academic league tables).

– A massive devolution of our rights to the United States without any referendum through TTIP.

– Further degradation of our natural environment at the behest of rich landowners with destruction of soil through poor land management practices and shipping valuable fresh rain water out to sea as fast as possible through dredging of rivers.

– Huge prestige infrastructure projects without a proper evidence base.

– A civil service where business sectors are invited in to write their own regulations and do their own oversight.

– A naïve and fawning relationship with China.

– and a whole lot more …

I guess these are the new ‘British values’.

So Sir Malcolm Rifkind and Jack Straw have been caught out apparently making incautious statements in a sting operation by Channel 4 and The Daily Telegraph. They thought they were talking to a Chinese company wanting to further their interests.

And as seems common these days the press and politicians seem unable to take the obvious lesson from this, instead focussing on the strictly legal aspects or arguing about the exact words used (I call this ‘the Nick Robinson bubble’), rather than stepping back and looking at the more obvious aspects.

With the phone hacking enquiry where David Cameron (aided by hacked off) misdirected is to a fabulously expensive enquiry (run by Lord Leveson) designed to find wrongdoing by the press and recommend convenient limitations to press freedom, whereas in fact the hacking was already illegal but had not been prosecuted by the police (arguably because they had been told to prioritize terrorism).

Similarly in this case surely the real story is that two supposedly immensely talented politicians who have had power and honours showered on them are apparently prepared to peddle their influence, betraying their principles, their former colleagues and arguably their country along the way. Some argued that it is important for MPs to have outside jobs to bring their experience to their job as an MP.  But this kind of job, which doesn’t appear to be a real job at all?  Isn’t it just selling the sacred trust and access bestowed on senior ministers without apparently doing any real work at all.

Surely these ‘multi-talented’ individuals could do better than this?  Is there nothing constructive they could do?

I the end I suppose we reap what we sow.  If we vote for people without real principles maybe this is what we should expect – but to me that’s the story – that they even thought this the kind of thing they should be doing at all.  It goes some way to expose how cheaply some politicians have sold out to lobbies like the fossil fuel lobby.

Apparently someone has just woken up and realized the Foreign Office and MOD have been asleep on the job.  We’ve been told how GCHQ has been ‘protecting us’ by spying on us.  Yet it turned out that self-same organization apparently didn’t notice a huge military build-up on the Russian border with Ukraine.

We have real cause for concern with such a lacklustre crew in charge – the hugely complacent Malcolm Rifkind apparently completely out of his depth overseeing intelligence and Philip Hammond as foreign secretary fresh from his triumphs of sacking around 20,000 trained troops (simultaneously losing a significant resource and creating a social problem) as defence minister and fighting emission controls on vans at the EU. At the same time, rather than being smart about our defences, the MOD seems sometimes to be driven by the revenue requirements of organizations as BAE systems, paying out huge sums for enormously expensive, likely unusable units such as carriers and planes that could be taken out by a single missile or torpedo.

At every stage I think most people had assumed that ‘smart things’ were being done behind the scenes, that Russian troops would be caught red-handed etc.  Instead we repeatedly see David Cameron bumbling around outflanking himself with ridiculous posturing designed to reveal his hand at the earliest opportunity.

Doesn’t anyone play chess any more?