Rejoin is the last, best hope of unionism

The man who brought us Brexit, and is now the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, keeps on telling us he plans to keep the country together.

It is somewhat of a reach to suggest the rather hard (let's call it "medium rare") Brexit he is going for now is compatible with the continuation of our Union.

In 2014 Better Together ran a campaign to keep Scotland in the Union which featured continued EU membership as one of the benefits of voting "No" in that year's independence referendum.

Not only does that make it rather awkward to suggest Scotland shouldn't now re-run that referendum (the entire constitutional basis has, after all, changed) it also seems likely that the Better Together campaign considered this a useful policy in winning over the wavering undecided voters to their side.

Scotland and Northern Ireland both voted to remain in the EU. Northern Ireland will be in a different customs area to Great Britain come Brexit. Scotland's latest polling suggests support of independence outweighs support for the Union and the nationalists are making EU membership a massive issue around which to build momentum for their referendum.

So it really does seem quite outrageous to think you can swivel from Brexiting to keeping the Union together.

Meanwhile a number of English Brexiteers (polling is... lacking) would rather happily see the back of Scotland (leave it a few days for the EU/Scotland love-in to abate then search "bye Scotland" on Twitter for example).

And so it seems clear that unionists, those who value the United Kingdom and who consider themselves British, need to try to find a way to keep our country together. Rejoining the EU is that way.

There's a caveat here: I don't think we will rejoin the EU anytime soon. The point is though that, as a unionist, I see that as the only plan that works. If done quickly enough it will take the wing out of the growing nationalist movements in Scotland and Northern Ireland and possibly swing some voters back to supporting the Union.

This is so unlikely as to be delusional. I'm not here to try to suggest the impossible is possible even though I think the impossible is the only solution.

However rejoin, as a long term goal, is the unionist "insurance plan". If Scotland and Northern Ireland leave the Union it seems almost certain both will end up, relatively quickly, in the EU in some way. If we are to keep our "family of nations" close together we can't do that unless we too are in the EU. We wouldn't be one sovereign nation any more. Yet we'd still be "Better Together" with the structure of the wider European Union. So this unionist, credentials available throughout the many posts on this blog, won't give up on rejoin. No matter how unlikely a goal it is. No matter how distant a goal it is. It'll be worth the fight.

A Sense Of Loss

We lost, that goes without saying (though the victors will keep on saying it of course), so it is reasonable today to have a sense of loss. 

However, it goes much deeper for some of us. Those of us who embraced the EU as part of our identity really do lose something tonight. And it is okay to feel sad about it. Everyone wants those of us feeling a sense of loss to feel better. The Brexiteers tell us that nothing changes (well that's right, not until next year) and EU citizenship wasn't a real thing anyway so can't conceive of why we're sad. Those who aren't all that bothered don't get why we're all that bothered. Meh, they say, it is but a nothing. 

For those of us for whom an ever closer Union was the goal, for whom a shared future within the EU was the plan, this is the end of the dream. Life, politics and culture will move on. Maybe one day we might end up in the EU again. However many of us will be too old to enjoy it. 

So you know what... it is fine to feel sad, fine to feel a loss. Even if the coming brave new future sees an agreement with the EU that gives us all the same rights we have today... it still won't mean that the future some of us wanted is gone. 

I tried to explain it someone confused as to why I felt this sense of loss and I said, "If the United Kingdom split tomorrow and you found yourself no longer officially British living in whatever the new country would be, how would you feel?". 

The lights will still turn on. People will still go to work. The trains will still run. That doesn't mean, emotionally, things haven't changed. 

East Germany. Yugoslavia. It isn't unusual for people to loss the citizenship they valued and have to come to terms with that. 

Tomorrow is another day. There's always a new horror to take our minds off the last. Today, though, today you feel however you like. 

With Friends Like These... The End Of Western Civilization Moves Ever Closer

Nigel Farage, a man unable to win a seat in Parliament after 7 attempts nor able to win Brexit without the help of Boris Johnson, got to spend an hour with Donald Trump this weekend. It is hard to imagine much more of a diplomatic slap in the face to Britain's Government (and to the United Kingdom itself) than this from the man soon to lead the US. Farage actively participated in hurting his own country's reputation, and took time to take holiday snaps.

But the supposed defenders of British values, Brexit supporters chief among them, will see this only as a victory for their fight against the status quo. They do not value Britain's history, institutions or ways of doing things. They don't value our power or reputation. They're revolutionaries intent on disrupting our constitutional arrangements.

The United Kingdom has come to a crossroads. On the left is Corbyn and his Labour party. They are quiet and meek in the face of opposition (see reserved support for Brexit and an attempt to paint Trump's victory as indicative of an up turn in Labour's own fortunes!) and far too friendly with Vladimir Putin (the dodgy leader of Russia who, if you haven't been paying attention, has been engaging in a war of aggression with Ukraine for the last couple of years). Corbyn's attempt to cheer up his troops this morning was to point out that they managed to HOLD a couple of council seats recently.

Meanwhile on the right we have a Tory party determined to take us out of the EU. They are no longer engaging with EU institutions, despite previous promises to keep working as part of the EU until the end. They've got no support in the US from the next administration, have sullied our relationships with our neighbours and aren't even that friendly with Putin. They've isolated us for no good reason.

And then on the far right we have Farage who has placed himself as Britain's unofficial ambassador to Trump alongside Marion Le Pen (of the French FN). Putin and Trump are fluttering their eyelashes at each other. A dark alliance is forming and the characters involved couldn't spell statesmanly, let alone act it.

I've always been a proud Brit. I've none of the usual liberal hang-ups about our imperial history. I fully support our actions in the Second World War and the Falklands War, warts and all. Dresden and the Belgrano were terrible, awful events but we didn't start those conflicts. I like Churchill, respect Thatcher and worship Her Majesty, the Queen. It takes a LOT to make me feel ashamed of our country.

But as we begin to align ourselves against our European friends and neighbours, and send out feelers towards Putin and Trump, I fear that rather than finding ourselves in peril (as I thought we would be after Brexit) we may well BE the peril.

For the first time in my life my loyalties lie outside this country, with the people of continental Europe. The Tories and Labour are weak and morally suspect. UKIP has lost the battle for votes but is winning the battle for hearts. The Lib Dems can mount a small resistance but aren't going to turn the tide. And the nationalists await to help kick us while we're down.

We're probably done for as a serious contender for a leader on the world's stage now. We're at risk of becoming a satellite state of the new Trump/Putin axis. For all their talk of defending Western civilization, the right have happily overseen it's decline. The left would only be too happy to see the back of it too.

I've got no answers. No solutions. This re-alignment seems to be inevitable. Europe has a great many issues to overcome (the rise of the right, the idiocy of the social justice obsessed far-left, uncontrolled immigration, democratic deficit). I'm unsure if it'll be able to survive. But now I'm rooting for it to thrive as the liberal centre of the world. The continuation of our culture may well depend on it.

For The Love Of Europe

"Rather than constituting a model for an ever closer political union or a European state, federalism implies a process of balancing power in a differentiated political order which enables unity while guaranteeing diversity." - Andreas Gross 

Our Guardian reading, Tory-hating, left-leaning friends came to stay over the weekend. I was shocked to discover that they will be voting "No" to remaining in the European Union. I didn't enquire more (I am, after all, trying to get away from political debating especially on a nice sunny Kentish day over some beers). However I was left to ponder how I'd respond to a "No" voter if they asked me why I will be voting "Yes".

My earliest political memory is reading a Tory leaflet about "nationhood" (their term in 1997 for "unionism") and fundamentally agreeing. Ever since, as I moved quickly away from any agreement with the Tory party, unionism has remained a fundamental part of my political make-up. I believe that we are "better together". Humanity must work together if we are ever to change our disagreeable and violent natures. I apply that principle on our country, on our continent and on our planet. That is why I support our membership of the EU. Can things be done better in the EU? Yes. Will leaving the EU give us more opportunities to work with a large number of countries closely? That is very unlikely. 

At the same time I've adopted the federalist spirit of my chosen party, the Liberal Democrats. I believe that decisions should be made at the most appropriate level. Decisions about who collects my bins, what they collect and when should be made at the most local level possible. Decisions about defence should be made at the highest sensible level to reap the benefits of the largest resource base possible. I believe we should have a supranational body within which decisions at the highest levels can be made on matters of foreign policy, defence, international trade etc. I believe that the EU contains a large number of countries whose foreign policy interests and defence plans largely overlap. I think it is better we all work together on these issues on which we broadly agree than separately and risk misunderstandings and miss opportunities for collective defence against threats such as Putin's Russia. 

I also believe that if powers deserve to sit at different levels then most powers deserve to sit with the individual. I strongly support individual freedom. Thanks to European co-operation (though not necessarily the the EU) we have not just got the greatest freedom of association and movement since before the First World War but we also have the European Convention on Human Rights which gives European human rights some of the strongest protections to ever exist. We lucky EU citizens get to choose where we live, where we study and where we work. That is good for individual freedom, good for business and good for inter-cultural understanding. 

Working collectively with our European neighbours protects us from the dreadful calamities of the past. Europe is not yet at peace. But we are closer to that prospect now than we ever have been. The EU has helped support that process. It boggles my mind that within the lifetime of my grandparents there was a hostile military force just a few miles away from my home town. Bombs by the thousands fell on our villages, towns and cities. It is inconceivable now to imagine Germany or France threatening us. My ancestors would've been truly astonished at the peace we have managed to achieve. I don't believe that if we left the EU we'd suddenly find ourselves at risk of some military attack, of course not, but why should we not do everything we can to ensure communication, goodwill and peace continue unabated within our European community. I think the EU is an important part of helping with that. 

The EU has a great many problems; above all sits the need for greater democracy. Reform is absolutely needed (though I'm not sure the needed reform is of the "David Cameron's gets some opt-outs for the UK" variety). In order to reform it our country must throw itself into the fray and get its hands a bit dirtier. No more holding back and moaning from the sidelines. We have been a great European power for centuries. It is time we started acting like one and got on with the hard work of making things better. A "Yes" is constructive. A "No" is a leap into the darkness.

That's why I'll be voting Yes. 

Will Religious Organisations Be Forced To Perform Same-Sex Marriages? No.

Below I address several similar questions regarding whether churches and other religious organisations will be forced to carry out same-sex marriages against their conscience.

Will the ECHR force religious bodies to conduct same-sex marriages?

During the recent Government consultation on introducing civil equal marriage the Church of England and the campaigning group Liberty gave responses. Given one was against and one was for, I thought it'd be interesting to look at what the legal opinions they relied upon in their decision actually said about the ECHR. Let us start with the Church of England, whose response and legal opinion can be found in full here.

If the proposal to redefine marriage were to be implemented, it must be very doubtful whether limiting same-sex couples to non-religious forms and ceremonies could withstand a challenge under the European Convention on Human Rights. Page 10

I feel this paragraph is the cause of a great deal of confusion. It is clarified in depth on the link above. The Church has quite a problem, and I very much share their concerns, with the Government proposing to create two-tiers of marriage in separating the legal concept of religious and civil marriages. Their concern shown above relates to this problem and what they are suggesting is that IF the Government only legislates on civil marriage equality they will leave that law open to challenge (the success of the challenge remains questionable).

If opposite-sex couples were able to enter into the (newly-defined) legal institution of marriage in accordance with either religious or civil forms and ceremonies but same-sex couples were able to enter into that institution only in accordance with civil forms and ceremonies that, of itself, would be unlikely to amount to a breach of article 12 because such an arrangement would not deprive same-sex couples of the substance of the right to marry.   

But there would be a serious prospect of a successful challenge to that arrangement under article 14 taken in conjunction with article 12, on the basis that same-sex couples were being discriminated against in relation to matter that was within the ambit of article 12.

No, they don't provide much evidence for the "serious prospect of a successful challenge" but I think their legal reasoning is pretty good here. Clearly the Government should pursue full equal marriage (religious and civil) rather than focus on civil marriage alone. I hope their legal opinion has influenced the Government into expanding its proposals accordingly.

But these are NOT arguments stating churches will be forced to perform equal marriage. The Church then moves on to arguing over if the Government allows religious marriage how this might affect them but that is more an issue of domestic legislation and I'll look at it in its own section below.

So the Church of England's legal opinion seems to be that the ECHR may well not be amenable to denying same-sex couples, and the religious organisations that support them, religious equal marriage. But nowhere do they suggest the ECHR might force religious organisations opposed to equal marriage to perform same-sex marriages.

Liberty, fairly predictably, offer a robust defence of the proposals here. Karon Monaghan QC summarises her opinion here:

In my view, therefore, any requirement upon a church or religious organisation to conduct same-sex marriages, contrary to the religious convictions of its members’, would violate their Article 9 rights (and those of any person compelled to take part, for example a minister).  

Merely permitting the solemnisation of same-sex marriages on religious premises, as with opposite–sex marriages, would not, of course, intrude upon the Article 9 rights of any religious organisation.

Ergo, the European Convention on Human Rights should protect the rights of those who oppose equal marriage rather than force them to do things against their will.

The ECHR covers many countries that offer marriage equality and some of those have established churches. I've done lengthy searches through sources in both English and in the native tongues of the countries concerned, but have yet to find one case of the ECHR becoming involved with this question once equal marriage has been legislated for by a national Government. 

Will domestic laws force churches to carry out equal marriage?

It is extremely difficult to argue one way or another on this as the relevant legislation has not even been proposed yet. However some have raised this as a concern as well. My main argument would be that any domestic law can be amended by the new marriage equality bill so as long as this is dealt with properly there should be nothing for opponents to worry about.

Karon Monaghan QC, on behalf of Liberty, looked at this in some detail.

In particular, I am asked to consider the following questions:  

a. Were Parliament to enact provisions that would allow religious bodies willing to do so to conduct legally binding marriages in the same way that they can currently conduct marriages under Part III, Marriage Act 1949, would the decision of a body opposed to same-sex marriage not to do so, or the refusal of an individual minister not to conduct such a ceremony, be challengeable under the Equality Act 2010, under another antidiscrimination provision or on human rights grounds?  

b. If so, would a provision similar to section 6A(3A) Civil Partnership Act 2004 be sufficient to protect a religious body and/or individual members of the clergy from such legal challenges?  

c. Are there any additional safeguards that could be built into the legislation to forestall such a risk?  

d. Would provisions similar to those in the Marriages and Civil Partnerships (Approved Premises) Regulations 2005 be adequate to prevent a maverick clergy member conducting a same-sex marriage that might arguably be legally binding?  

e. Again, are there any additional safeguards that could be built into the legislation to mitigate the risk?  

f. Would the Article 9 rights of religious bodies that do not wish to conduct same-sex marriages on doctrinal grounds reinforce any safeguards built into the legislation?

She then summarises her responses here:

a. A refusal by a minister or a body opposed to same-sex marriage to conduct same - sex marriages would not violate the Equality Act 2010 so long as they could demonstrate that to do so would be in conflict with the strongly held convictions of a significant number of the religion’s followers. Further, it is very unlikely that a refusal to conduct a same-sex marriage in such circumstances would unjustifiably violate the Convention rights of any other person, in particular those of a same-sex couple seeking to marry. 

b. For the avoidance of doubt, provision could be made in any legislation (permitting same-sex marriage) analogous to that seen in s6A(3A), Civil Partnership Act 2004. 

c. Again for the absolute avoidance of any doubt, the Equality Act 2010 could be amended so as to add a clause to Schedule 23 (paragraph 2(14)) making it clear that nothing in the Equality Act 2010 “should be taken to require a religious organisation or minister to solemnise a same-sex marriage if they do not wish to do” or similar. 

d. Provisions similar to those in the Marriages and Civil Partnerships (Approved Premises) Regulations 2005 would be adequate to prevent a maverick clergy member conducting a legally sanctioned same-sex marriage. 

e. No further safeguards are required to address the “maverick clergyman” other than those described above (requiring or dispensing with consent in each case at the behest of the governing authority) and those that are ordinarily and already found in this context. 

f. The Article 9 protection afforded religious organisations is strong. This too would provide real safeguards to a religious organisation that did not wish to conduct same-sex marriages on doctrinal grounds.

The Church of England looks at this area too, being that it is important to them due to the complex legislation covering our established church and its duties.

These assurances are all based on the position being as proposed in the consultation paper: i.e. the limitation of same-sex couples to non-religious forms and ceremonies. If, however, that position were not upheld – either because it was held to be unlawful by the courts or as a result of changes to the applicable legislation during its passage through Parliament or by way of subsequent amendment – the basis for those assurances would fall away.  

In that scenario a considerable amount of further legislative provision would be required in order to protect the position of the Church of England and other religious bodies. In particular the whole range of rights and duties that exist in relation to marriage and the Church of England would have to be reexamined. 

Even if a mutually acceptable legislative solution could be found by way of limiting such rights and duties, it cannot be assumed that any such solution would itself withstand subsequent challenge, whether in our domestic courts or in Strasbourg. The ultimate outcome for both Church and State would be quite uncertain.

The Church of England's considered response to this then is that it'll be a difficult process in ensuring their rights are protected but possible. 

Doesn't the Church of England have a legal responsibility to marry any eligible couple in their own parish?

Much has been made of this responsibility by those opposed to equal marriage and the Church of England's legal opinion mentions it too.

Anyone who is resident in England has a legal right to marry in his or her parish church irrespective of his or her religious affiliation and the minister of the parish (the rector, vicar or priest in charge) is under a legal duty to conduct the marriage. 2 The existence of this right is recognised by the Marriage Act 1949 (which governs the procedure for all marriages in England and Wales).

I have a question regarding this however. If they have a legal right, how can the Church of England legally turn away divorcees (at the discretion of the minister involved)? I feel the situation is a little more complex than is being presented and that the pertinent laws covering the Church of England in this regard can be amended if necessary.

Feel free to fire back examples that show I'm wrong. I've written this post mainly out of a sense of frustration with opponents failing to provide proof for their claims. I decided to seek out the evidence myself and, after so doing, feel a lot more confident that they are wrong. However, I will be very happy to hear considered opposition to what I've presented here!

If you feel benevolent and particularly generous, this writer always appreciates things bought for him from his wishlist

Why I Voted Lib Dem

The European elections may still be two weeks away but my ballot paper is completed and posted already. And, quelle surprise you might think, as paid up member of the Lib Dems I placed my cross loyally in the box next to our candidates. But why?

The 2004 European election was the first time I had a chance to vote, and despite helping leaflet and door knock for the Lib Dems I placed my mark in the Green Party box (hopes no one from the party back home reads this!). Why? Because I had seen Dr. Caroline Lucas (who was MEP and head of the Green Party list) speak a couple of times before and had found her to be intelligent and persuasive, and her parties policies are hardly a million miles away from my own beliefs. This time I am now in the London region and completely without any information on any of the candidates beyond their names and party positions. Logically I just had to vote for the party that I felt would represent us best in Europe. And thankfully it was easy!

The Liberal Democrats are a pro European party. Personally I think Britain's future lies with Europe. Many seem to think that we are better off with America, but history and current events prove the Americans are 1) not as politically close to us as our European friends and 2) not interested! But the Lib Dems aren't blind to the faults of our current European Union. They want to reform it, make it more democratic, less centralised and more financially prudent. And the Liberal Democrats fully support a referendum on Britain's continued membership of the EU. So really they are a bit like me... they are optimistically pro Europe, hoping that the EU can be made better for the benefit of all Europe (which includes our benefit for the selfish folks out there!).

So there's my main reason for voting for them, given this is for our European representation. But also, domestically, I think they have the best policies on a whole range of subjects.

The Liberal Democrats are very much in favour of protecting and restoring our civil liberties. They are very much in favour of democratic reform (hello Proportional Representation!). One Lib Dem MP has been doggedly pursuing the matter of MPs expenses and freedom of information long before it became popular (hello Norman Baker) and have been a little less blatant with their expenses than other MPs (hello Sinn Fein!!!!). Nick Clegg has been trying to see beyond the current crisis and is very much pushing for change in the Parliament.

And best of all, the Lib Dems are not a "nasty party". On a local level things can be a bit different (until a 2003 "revolution" back home our Lib Dem local administration was somewhat insane), but nationally the party and it's policies portray optimism, hope, and a positivity that has been sadly lacking in politics.

You might not think these cogent arguments, or agree with me at all, but that is why I cast my vote for the Lib Dems. Because I think they offer the best hope of a happier, brighter future.

This blogger works for nothing but the joy of writing but always appreciates things bought from his wishlist

First Lib Dem Euro Election Broadcast

Feels refreshingly unspun and direct. Of course that means it's really very well spun but still... I like! Fingers crossed for next months elections.



This blogger works for nothing but the joy of writing but always appreciates things bought from his wishlist

The Next Big Election

On June 4th 2009 there will be an election to a body that represents 515 000 000 people. No it's not another drawn out US Presidential Election campaign. This one, especially in this country, will be quiet and reserved because it is of course nearly time for the elections for the European Parliament. 

The last election had a turn out of 37.6% in the United Kingdom, a figure that should disgust both European Unionist (federalists is such an American word, let's try and use more British words) and Eurosceptics alike. 

The European Union is a grand project that needs a good kick up the backside. The Union right now is not a marriage of love but one of convenience and it's time someone changed this. Where are the visionaries screaming for a democratic revolution within the EU, where is the EU's Barack Obama to stir up feelings of hope and a sense of a future with purpose. 

Here in the UK the EU elections are often a boon for the smaller parties. The Tories do well usually and it'd be nice to give that populalist toff David Cameron a bloody nose with a surprisingly poor showing in June. Labour could also do with a swift kicking but we must all be wary of the rise of UKIP and, worse, the BNP. Perhaps it is time for some vote swapping between regions between Greens, Lib Dems and Labourites in an attempt to ensure the Tories, UKIP and the BNP do not make gains and perhaps suffer some reverses in their fortunes. Certainly keeping the BNP out of Europe should be a goal we all desire. 

I have always voted Green at the EU elections but may well switch my vote to Lib Dem this year (especially as I'm no longer in Dr Caroline Luca's constituency, as she was my number one reason to vote for a Green MEP) to help shore up the vote here in London against encroachment from the right wing. 

And liberals and libertarians, whatever their feelings on the EU, need to help get out the vote so we get the right people into the EU parliament to ensure the British contingent is there to reform and fight for greater democracy. I'll do my bit, door knocking here I come!

Sidenote: Why do we refer to UKIP (the United Kingdom Independence Party) as just UKIP but the BNP (the British National Party) is always THE BNP. Hmm... 

Further Reading 

The United States of Europe (Federal Trust) by Guy Verhofstadt

The Great Deception: Can the European Union Survive? by Christopher Booker and Richard North

Whats Wrong with the Europe Union and How to Fix it by Simon Hix

EU Cuts Roaming Mobile Charges

Well basically they have, they've decided made a decision to cut charges for those traveling across borders and using their mobiles but this still has a few more legal hoops to go through. It's not something I'm too comfortable with but cross-border mobile competition is not strong so it's doubtful the market would have corrected this issue on it's own without a little push.

But my reason for bringing this up is because whilst watching Working Lunch (not something I make a habit of, but it's party conference season and I'm waiting for Gordon Brown's speech) and they had a guy from the GSM Association (a mobile phone lobbying group) on who basically said that one of the reasons behind this was simply that the EU parliamentarians were often traveling across borders so they had an interest in lowering costs for mobile calls and this is why they put it through!!!

You know they haven't really got a good argument, or even a leg to stand on, when they start bringing out arguments like that.

Now I've just heard Alastair Campbell will be on the BBC conference coverage in a minute so I need to go grab a bucket, so I'll leave it there.