Wow what a year it has been, not many pundits predicted that did they......
Who would have known we'd be on our way out of Europe and the 45th POTUS would be a certain Donald Trump, not many of us.
So let's start with the referendum which decided we leave the European Union. Now I'm not going to go over the arguments for or against that decision, it's been made, the public decided..so we move on.
Of course lets us not forget the real reason David Cameron called the referendum and passed an act of parliament to bring this about - it was not about you or me or Sid down the street, but all about the Tory party and keeping the waring factions within together.
So what do we now know - well it seems no one expected the result, this is clear from the fact no one had a plan, furthermore we decided a complex question; which as the current Prime Minister said was more than a binary choice, on a question that was a binary choice. Go figure!
Moving forward, we now face what...a hard brexit or a soft brexit, or May's Red White and Blue Brexit (she alone decides that apparently, we must trust her).
Put simply...Low growth a gig economy, over reliance on the service sector and a expanding trade deficit does not make for a sustainable future.
We could suppose be like Norway, and yes we could, if it was a second best option, but good old Margaret Thatcher (and subsequent politicians) pissed that all away when she sold our gas and oil revenues down shit creek rather than what Norway did and invest it in the future.
Lets be honest we don't know what the brexit future holds, nothing like this has happened before, the economist have no model to refer to, we can only hope for the better. One thing for sure we need to keep access to the single market, we need to be Norway lite, not an ideal situation, but better that the other nuclear option a hard brexit.....
What does that mean, it means negotiating to have our seat at the WTO back, you know that democratic trade body with neoliberal globlisation at its heart....you remember the last time you voted for the WTO don't you?
It means imports to our country would be more expensive, as well as our exports, we would see less tax from the city as they move some of their operations abroad, we would have less corporation tax as we try and entice inward investment.
And what would those brexiters say when we still need the same level of immigrants to balance an every growing older population to keep our economy running? .... Don't blame the majority of migrants for the minority that are being exploited, blame those who are exploiting them!
The world is growing closer, lets not build false walls and leave ourselves behind.
Showing posts with label EU. Show all posts
Showing posts with label EU. Show all posts
Friday, 23 December 2016
Friday, 25 January 2013
They work for us - MEP Wales
Talking of Europe, ever wondered how hard our Welsh MEP's work:
Attendance or voting record in % terms -Click on above to enlarge
Looking at the above chart, pretty hard I'd say - with Derek Vaughan topping the attendance and voting records. All Welsh MEP's break the 3/4 barrier.
Data from Vote Watch Europe, last updated 17/12/2012 - i.e see Derek Vaughan MEP, and information correct at time post published.
Thursday, 24 January 2013
The Common Market and the EU
Let me start by saying that I think we should remain a strong part of Europe, and that Europe is also stronger if the UK remains part of the European family.
In a 'landmark' speech; which I urge you all to read, the 'State of the Union' address of 1941 President Roosevelt said inter alia:
..there is nothing mysterious about the foundations of a healthy and strong democracy. The basic things expected by our people of their political and economic system are simple:
They are:
Equality of opportunity for youth and for others
Jobs for those who can work
Security for those who need it.
The ending of special privileges for the few.
The preservation of civil liberties for all.
The enjoyment of the fruits of scientific progress in a wider and constantly rising standard of living....
He also set out the four essential human freedoms:
In the future days which we seek to make secure, we look forward to a world founded upon four essential human freedoms.
The first is freedom of speech and expression - everywhere in the world.
The second is freedom of every person to worship God in his own way – everywhere in the world.
The third is freedom from want – which, translated into world terms, means economic understanding which will secure to every nation a healthy peace time life for its inhabitants – everywhere in the world.
The fourth is freedom from fear – which translated into world terms, means a world-wide reduction of armaments to such a point and in such a thorough fashion than no nation will be in a position to commit an act of physical aggression against any neighbour – anywhere in the world.
And in 1946 in another 'landmark' speech made by Sir Churchill at the University of Zurich, that I have posted about previously - The Council of Europe said:
...Yet all the while there is a remedy which, if it were generally and spontaneously adopted by the great majority of people in many lands, would as if by a miracle transform the whole scene, and would in a few years make all Europe, or the greater part of it, as free and as happy as Switzerland is to-day. What is this sovereign remedy? It is to re-create the European Family, or as much of it as we can, and to provide it with a structure under which it can dwell in peace, in safety and in freedom. We must build a kind of United States of Europe....
I am going to say something that will astonish you. The first step in the recreation of the European Family must be a partnership between France and Germany. In this way only can France recover the moral and cultural leadership of Europe. There can be no revival of Europe without a spiritually great France and a spiritually great Germany. The structure of the United States of Europe, if well and truly built, will be such as to make the material strength of a single state less important. Small nations will count as much as large ones and gain their honour by their contribution to the common cause. The ancient states and principalities of Germany, freely joined together for mutual convenience in a federal system, might take their individual places among the United States of Europe. I shall not try to make a detailed programme for hundreds of millions of people who want to be happy and free, prosperous and safe, who wish to enjoy the four freedoms of which the great President Roosevelt spoke, and live in accordance with the principles embodied in the Atlantic Charter...
And in 1949 he said:
Britain is an integral part of Europe, and we mean to play our part in the revival of her prosperity and greatness. But Britain cannot be thought of as a single state in isolation. She is the founder and centre of a world wide Empire and Commonwealth. We shall never do anything to weaken the ties of blood, of sentiment and tradition and common interests which unite us with other members of the British family of nations.
But nobody is asking us to make such a desertion. For Britain to enter a European Union from which the Empire and Commonwealth would be excluded would not only be impossible but would, in the eyes of Europe, enormously reduce the value of our participation. The Strasbourg recommendations [that is the first session of the Council of Europe] urged the creation of an economic system which will embrace not only the European States, but all those other States and territories elsewhere which are associated with them. (Source: Churchill by Roy Jenkins)
In 1957 the European Economic Community was formed, which the UK joined much later in 1974. The Treaty of Rome says in Articles 1 to 3:
ARTICLE 1
By this Treaty, the HIGH CONTRACTING PARTIES establish among themselves a EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY.
ARTICLE 2
The Community shall have as its task, by establishing a common market and progressively approximating the economic policies of Member States, to promote throughout the Community a harmonious development of economic activities, a continuous and balanced expansion, an increase in stability, an accelerated raising of the standard of living and closer relations between the States belonging to it.
ARTICLE 3
For the purposes set out in Article 2, the activities of the Community shall include, as provided in this Treaty and in accordance with the timetable set out therein
(a) the elimination, as between Member States, of customs duties and of quantitative restrictions on the import and export of goods, and of all other measures having equivalent effect;
(b) the establishment of a common customs tariff and of a common commercial policy towards third countries;
(c) the abolition, as between Member States, of obstacles to freedom of movement for persons, services and capital;
(d) the adoption of a common policy in the sphere of agriculture;
(e) the adoption of a common policy in the sphere of transport;
(f) the institution of a system ensuring that competition in the common market is not distorted;
(g) the application of procedures by which the economic policies of Member States can he co-ordinated and disequilibria in their balances of payments remedied;
(h) the approximation of the laws of Member States to the extent required for the proper functioning of the common market;
(i) the creation of a European Social Fund in order to improve employment opportunities for workers and to contribute to the raising of their standard of living;
(j) the establishment of a European Investment Bank to facilitate the economic expansion of the Community by opening up fresh resources;
(k) the association of the overseas countries and territories in order to increase trade and to promote jointly economic and social development.
You see the above, I hope, sort of throws a light on this idea that somehow we where tricked into or were lied about the European Union. As you can see what is sometimes conviently forgotten is that many things that people object to, such as movement of people goes hand in hand with an economic union, that for instance the free movement of people came about because of economic union, read Articles 48 to 51.
And let's be clear the economic union did concern itself with social issues see Articles 117 to 122.
Put simply our prosperity and peace depends on common policies with Europe, and we would be worse off outside it, and Europe would be worse off without the UK as part of it.
In a previous post I pointed out why we cant do a Norway... Should the UK leave the EU and do a Norway?
And as for Switzerland this is what the CIA Factbook has to say:
"The Swiss have brought their economic practices largely into conformity with the EU's, to enhance their international competitiveness, but some trade protectionism remains, particularly for its small agricultural sector. The fate of the Swiss economy is tightly linked to that of its neighbors in the euro zone, which purchases half of all Swiss exports."
As for referendums which seems the to be in thing these days, aren't elections where you gain a fresh mandate? - this is what a Commission of the Conduct of Referendums had to say in a report in 1996:
....only 25 years ago referendums were regard as unconstitutional; they had no place in the political process....
The principal message of [their] report was:
"..referendums cannot provide a panacea for major political problems; but they can significantly assist governments before controversial legislation is introduced, and they can give greater legitimacy to new policies after legislation had been enacted..."
And in their lies the horn of dilemma for David Cameron, he knows that the UK should remain an essential part of Europe - but he also knows that his party is divided on the matter. Labour on the other hand should remain firm and say no to a referendum and seek a fresh mandate at the next election, by pledging to remain part of the European Union and grow and strengthen ties with it.
That is why UKIP and others want a referendum, because they know at the election ballot box they can't win.
I fear that in order to save the Conservative Party, they are willing to risk the unity and prosperity of the UK, and what of the consequence of this decision on next years Scottish referendum...you know one argument having being 'don't vote for independence cause that'll mean you'll be out of the EU...if now it has to be amended.... but you needn't worry we might be all out of the EU after 2017.
As the New York Times said recently:
"Domestic politics have regularly trumped broader European concerns throughout the six-decade-long history of the union and its predecessor organizations, to the dismay of those who want to see Europe live up to a commitment in the 1957 Treaty of Rome for an “ever closer union.”
But Mr. Cameron’s pledge to hold a referendum on European Union membership threatens to elevate national political calculations over common interests to an extent that has alarmed even countries that often share British concerns."
In a 'landmark' speech; which I urge you all to read, the 'State of the Union' address of 1941 President Roosevelt said inter alia:
..there is nothing mysterious about the foundations of a healthy and strong democracy. The basic things expected by our people of their political and economic system are simple:
They are:
Equality of opportunity for youth and for others
Jobs for those who can work
Security for those who need it.
The ending of special privileges for the few.
The preservation of civil liberties for all.
The enjoyment of the fruits of scientific progress in a wider and constantly rising standard of living....
He also set out the four essential human freedoms:
In the future days which we seek to make secure, we look forward to a world founded upon four essential human freedoms.
The first is freedom of speech and expression - everywhere in the world.
The second is freedom of every person to worship God in his own way – everywhere in the world.
The third is freedom from want – which, translated into world terms, means economic understanding which will secure to every nation a healthy peace time life for its inhabitants – everywhere in the world.
The fourth is freedom from fear – which translated into world terms, means a world-wide reduction of armaments to such a point and in such a thorough fashion than no nation will be in a position to commit an act of physical aggression against any neighbour – anywhere in the world.
And in 1946 in another 'landmark' speech made by Sir Churchill at the University of Zurich, that I have posted about previously - The Council of Europe said:
...Yet all the while there is a remedy which, if it were generally and spontaneously adopted by the great majority of people in many lands, would as if by a miracle transform the whole scene, and would in a few years make all Europe, or the greater part of it, as free and as happy as Switzerland is to-day. What is this sovereign remedy? It is to re-create the European Family, or as much of it as we can, and to provide it with a structure under which it can dwell in peace, in safety and in freedom. We must build a kind of United States of Europe....
I am going to say something that will astonish you. The first step in the recreation of the European Family must be a partnership between France and Germany. In this way only can France recover the moral and cultural leadership of Europe. There can be no revival of Europe without a spiritually great France and a spiritually great Germany. The structure of the United States of Europe, if well and truly built, will be such as to make the material strength of a single state less important. Small nations will count as much as large ones and gain their honour by their contribution to the common cause. The ancient states and principalities of Germany, freely joined together for mutual convenience in a federal system, might take their individual places among the United States of Europe. I shall not try to make a detailed programme for hundreds of millions of people who want to be happy and free, prosperous and safe, who wish to enjoy the four freedoms of which the great President Roosevelt spoke, and live in accordance with the principles embodied in the Atlantic Charter...
And in 1949 he said:
Britain is an integral part of Europe, and we mean to play our part in the revival of her prosperity and greatness. But Britain cannot be thought of as a single state in isolation. She is the founder and centre of a world wide Empire and Commonwealth. We shall never do anything to weaken the ties of blood, of sentiment and tradition and common interests which unite us with other members of the British family of nations.
But nobody is asking us to make such a desertion. For Britain to enter a European Union from which the Empire and Commonwealth would be excluded would not only be impossible but would, in the eyes of Europe, enormously reduce the value of our participation. The Strasbourg recommendations [that is the first session of the Council of Europe] urged the creation of an economic system which will embrace not only the European States, but all those other States and territories elsewhere which are associated with them. (Source: Churchill by Roy Jenkins)
In 1957 the European Economic Community was formed, which the UK joined much later in 1974. The Treaty of Rome says in Articles 1 to 3:
ARTICLE 1
By this Treaty, the HIGH CONTRACTING PARTIES establish among themselves a EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY.
ARTICLE 2
The Community shall have as its task, by establishing a common market and progressively approximating the economic policies of Member States, to promote throughout the Community a harmonious development of economic activities, a continuous and balanced expansion, an increase in stability, an accelerated raising of the standard of living and closer relations between the States belonging to it.
ARTICLE 3
For the purposes set out in Article 2, the activities of the Community shall include, as provided in this Treaty and in accordance with the timetable set out therein
(a) the elimination, as between Member States, of customs duties and of quantitative restrictions on the import and export of goods, and of all other measures having equivalent effect;
(b) the establishment of a common customs tariff and of a common commercial policy towards third countries;
(c) the abolition, as between Member States, of obstacles to freedom of movement for persons, services and capital;
(d) the adoption of a common policy in the sphere of agriculture;
(e) the adoption of a common policy in the sphere of transport;
(f) the institution of a system ensuring that competition in the common market is not distorted;
(g) the application of procedures by which the economic policies of Member States can he co-ordinated and disequilibria in their balances of payments remedied;
(h) the approximation of the laws of Member States to the extent required for the proper functioning of the common market;
(i) the creation of a European Social Fund in order to improve employment opportunities for workers and to contribute to the raising of their standard of living;
(j) the establishment of a European Investment Bank to facilitate the economic expansion of the Community by opening up fresh resources;
(k) the association of the overseas countries and territories in order to increase trade and to promote jointly economic and social development.
You see the above, I hope, sort of throws a light on this idea that somehow we where tricked into or were lied about the European Union. As you can see what is sometimes conviently forgotten is that many things that people object to, such as movement of people goes hand in hand with an economic union, that for instance the free movement of people came about because of economic union, read Articles 48 to 51.
And let's be clear the economic union did concern itself with social issues see Articles 117 to 122.
Put simply our prosperity and peace depends on common policies with Europe, and we would be worse off outside it, and Europe would be worse off without the UK as part of it.
In a previous post I pointed out why we cant do a Norway... Should the UK leave the EU and do a Norway?
And as for Switzerland this is what the CIA Factbook has to say:
"The Swiss have brought their economic practices largely into conformity with the EU's, to enhance their international competitiveness, but some trade protectionism remains, particularly for its small agricultural sector. The fate of the Swiss economy is tightly linked to that of its neighbors in the euro zone, which purchases half of all Swiss exports."
As for referendums which seems the to be in thing these days, aren't elections where you gain a fresh mandate? - this is what a Commission of the Conduct of Referendums had to say in a report in 1996:
....only 25 years ago referendums were regard as unconstitutional; they had no place in the political process....
The principal message of [their] report was:
"..referendums cannot provide a panacea for major political problems; but they can significantly assist governments before controversial legislation is introduced, and they can give greater legitimacy to new policies after legislation had been enacted..."
And in their lies the horn of dilemma for David Cameron, he knows that the UK should remain an essential part of Europe - but he also knows that his party is divided on the matter. Labour on the other hand should remain firm and say no to a referendum and seek a fresh mandate at the next election, by pledging to remain part of the European Union and grow and strengthen ties with it.
That is why UKIP and others want a referendum, because they know at the election ballot box they can't win.
I fear that in order to save the Conservative Party, they are willing to risk the unity and prosperity of the UK, and what of the consequence of this decision on next years Scottish referendum...you know one argument having being 'don't vote for independence cause that'll mean you'll be out of the EU...if now it has to be amended.... but you needn't worry we might be all out of the EU after 2017.
As the New York Times said recently:
"Domestic politics have regularly trumped broader European concerns throughout the six-decade-long history of the union and its predecessor organizations, to the dismay of those who want to see Europe live up to a commitment in the 1957 Treaty of Rome for an “ever closer union.”
But Mr. Cameron’s pledge to hold a referendum on European Union membership threatens to elevate national political calculations over common interests to an extent that has alarmed even countries that often share British concerns."
Friday, 12 October 2012
UKIP and jam jars.
I see UKIP are at it again, making a mountain out of a molehill.
The Daily Post today has a letter from John Buffon and MEP for Wales claiming that the EU has banned "the reuse of containers such as jam jars" he explains further the EU rule is "to prevent 'dangerous' chemicals leaching out of pre used containers". Anyone who breaches the rules could be fined £5000 or even go to jail he writes.
What a load of utter crap!!!!!
An article in the Northern Echo says "Church organisations and the Women’s Institute are warning members that selling produce in re-used bottles for public events breaches a European rule preventing containers being re-used unless designed for that purpose."
The Northern Echo further explains "A spokesman for the Food Standards Agency (FSA) said local authority environmental health officers were allowed to use their discretion in enforcing the rule.
He said: “The EU rules state that anyone selling commercially must use a container that is designed for that, so, technically, the rule means people selling products cannot reuse a container that was not designed for re-use."
I suppose if you were looking for the ideal container designed for re-use that does not leach out dangerous chemicals I suppose the ideal candidate would be a jam jar. After all we use glass 'cause it doesn't leach out dangerous chemicals.
Mr Buffon talks of common sense but sadly; in the world as it is today, there are many out there who would for profit, sell you food in reused containers knowing that it could through leaching damage your health.
As ever UKIP are trying to make a mountain out of a molehill, there are very good reasons behind the legislation, but that wont stop UKIP going for the headlines......have you heard EU have banned reuse of jam jars, gosh...what will cook do now....what a bunch of right wing idiots and no mistake.
The Daily Post today has a letter from John Buffon and MEP for Wales claiming that the EU has banned "the reuse of containers such as jam jars" he explains further the EU rule is "to prevent 'dangerous' chemicals leaching out of pre used containers". Anyone who breaches the rules could be fined £5000 or even go to jail he writes.
What a load of utter crap!!!!!
An article in the Northern Echo says "Church organisations and the Women’s Institute are warning members that selling produce in re-used bottles for public events breaches a European rule preventing containers being re-used unless designed for that purpose."
The Northern Echo further explains "A spokesman for the Food Standards Agency (FSA) said local authority environmental health officers were allowed to use their discretion in enforcing the rule.
He said: “The EU rules state that anyone selling commercially must use a container that is designed for that, so, technically, the rule means people selling products cannot reuse a container that was not designed for re-use."
I suppose if you were looking for the ideal container designed for re-use that does not leach out dangerous chemicals I suppose the ideal candidate would be a jam jar. After all we use glass 'cause it doesn't leach out dangerous chemicals.
Mr Buffon talks of common sense but sadly; in the world as it is today, there are many out there who would for profit, sell you food in reused containers knowing that it could through leaching damage your health.
As ever UKIP are trying to make a mountain out of a molehill, there are very good reasons behind the legislation, but that wont stop UKIP going for the headlines......have you heard EU have banned reuse of jam jars, gosh...what will cook do now....what a bunch of right wing idiots and no mistake.
Thursday, 12 July 2012
Should the UK leave the EU and do a Norway?
Norwegian oil field
There is a growing call for a referendum on whether the UK remains an integral part of the European Union, or leave but remain part of the European Economic Area (the YES/NO question). In a recent article in The Telegraph Harriet Alexander reported that Last week, writing in The Sunday Telegraph, David Cameron raised the possibility of a referendum on Britain's membership. And Norway is often cited as a perfect example of how to leave the EU, yet still thrive.
Also "People worry that if Britain left we would lose access to the Single Market and not be able to travel freely," said Robert Oulds, director of the Bruges Group think tank. “But that is not the case. Britain can cancel its membership of the EU and retain the trade benefits, following Norway’s example. The only thing we will lose is the bureaucracy and expense."
But is Norway a perfect example for the UK to follow? - for a start take it's population of around 4.7 million which is more akin to the population of Scotland.
The following is from the CIA World Factbook (my emphasis):
The Norwegian economy is a prosperous mixed economy, with a vibrant private sector, a large state sector and an extensive social safety net. The government controls key areas, such as the vital petroleum sector, through extensive regulation and large-scale state-majority-owned enterprises. The country is richly endowed with natural resources - petroleum, hydropower, fish, forests, and minerals - and is highly dependent on the petroleum sector, which accounts for the largest portion of export revenue and about 20% of government revenue. Norway is the world's second-largest gas exporter; and seventh largest oil exporter, making one of its largest offshore oil finds in 2011. Norway opted to stay out of the EU during a referendum in November 1994; nonetheless, as a member of the European Economic Area, it contributes sizably to the EU budget. In anticipation of eventual declines in oil and gas production, Norway saves state revenue from the petroleum sector in the world's second largest sovereign wealth fund, valued at over $500 billion in 2011 and uses the fund's return to help finance public expenses. After solid GDP growth in 2004-07, the economy slowed in 2008, and contracted in 2009, before returning to positive growth in 2010-11, however, the government budget is set to remain in surplus.
It has around 5.7 billion gallons of oil in proven reserves compared to UK of around 2.9 billion. And it has has around 2 trillion cubic meters of gas in proven reserves, compared to 256 billion in the UK.
Norway has prospered well, by careful management of its natural resources. Robert Oulds said above "The only thing we will lose is the bureaucracy and expense." but Norway still contributes sizably to the EU budget and the government controls key areas, such as the vital petroleum sector, through extensive regulation and large-scale state-majority-owned enterprises.
Possibly not what the neoliberals and free-marketers of the right had in mind exactly.
No I don't think the UK could use Norway as an example to follow, although it could be a model for Scotland? - after all Scotland with a population of around 5 million and some oil left, with it's close links to Norway through the oil industry, are already practically neighbours.
Also "People worry that if Britain left we would lose access to the Single Market and not be able to travel freely," said Robert Oulds, director of the Bruges Group think tank. “But that is not the case. Britain can cancel its membership of the EU and retain the trade benefits, following Norway’s example. The only thing we will lose is the bureaucracy and expense."
But is Norway a perfect example for the UK to follow? - for a start take it's population of around 4.7 million which is more akin to the population of Scotland.
The following is from the CIA World Factbook (my emphasis):
The Norwegian economy is a prosperous mixed economy, with a vibrant private sector, a large state sector and an extensive social safety net. The government controls key areas, such as the vital petroleum sector, through extensive regulation and large-scale state-majority-owned enterprises. The country is richly endowed with natural resources - petroleum, hydropower, fish, forests, and minerals - and is highly dependent on the petroleum sector, which accounts for the largest portion of export revenue and about 20% of government revenue. Norway is the world's second-largest gas exporter; and seventh largest oil exporter, making one of its largest offshore oil finds in 2011. Norway opted to stay out of the EU during a referendum in November 1994; nonetheless, as a member of the European Economic Area, it contributes sizably to the EU budget. In anticipation of eventual declines in oil and gas production, Norway saves state revenue from the petroleum sector in the world's second largest sovereign wealth fund, valued at over $500 billion in 2011 and uses the fund's return to help finance public expenses. After solid GDP growth in 2004-07, the economy slowed in 2008, and contracted in 2009, before returning to positive growth in 2010-11, however, the government budget is set to remain in surplus.
It has around 5.7 billion gallons of oil in proven reserves compared to UK of around 2.9 billion. And it has has around 2 trillion cubic meters of gas in proven reserves, compared to 256 billion in the UK.
Norway has prospered well, by careful management of its natural resources. Robert Oulds said above "The only thing we will lose is the bureaucracy and expense." but Norway still contributes sizably to the EU budget and the government controls key areas, such as the vital petroleum sector, through extensive regulation and large-scale state-majority-owned enterprises.
Possibly not what the neoliberals and free-marketers of the right had in mind exactly.
No I don't think the UK could use Norway as an example to follow, although it could be a model for Scotland? - after all Scotland with a population of around 5 million and some oil left, with it's close links to Norway through the oil industry, are already practically neighbours.
Saturday, 21 April 2012
A bit more Abu Qatada & human rights
It concerns me, that there appears to be a growing call for the UK to 'withdraw' from the European Convention on Human Rights, and also the European Court of Human Rights.
It is claimed by some that the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) is 'interfering' with UK law; or that the Human Rights Act (1989) has made English law poorer. Back in August 2005 David Cameron said [...]that if Britain wanted to be able to deport terror suspects, the government should amend the human rights laws "or, if necessary, leave - perhaps temporarily - the ECHR". - BBC News.
This matter has been brought to sharp focus by the case of the 'radical' cleric Abu Qatada.
Sadly, this issue is also confused by those saying we should leave the European Union, as if they were one and the same. There follows therefore a short and brief lesson in history.
In December 1948 the UN General Assembly proclaimed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
In May 1949 the Council Of Europe was founded by 10 countries. Sir Winston Churchill was one of the founding fathers. You can read a transcipt of the speech he made about the Council of Europe at the Winston Churchill Centre Website.
In November 1950 the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms came into being. The UK was one of the original countries to sign, with the convention coming into force in the UK in September 1953.
Under Article 19 of the above convention the ECHR was founded:
To ensure the observance of the engagements undertaken by the High Contracting Parties in the Convention and the Protocols thereto, there shall be set up a European Court of Human Rights, hereinafter referred to as “the Court”. It shall function on a permanent basis.
Also in June 1987 the UN Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (UNCAT) came into force.
But let me return to the case of Abu Qatada. He arrived in the United Kingdom in September 1993, having previously fled Jordan and gone to Pakistan.
You can read a detailed account of his history in the UK in the judgement of the ECHR at Strasbourg dated 17 January 2012. (see ECHR Application no. 8139/09)
This is the judgement that has led to the recent 'confusion' about when the three month deadline came to an end.
In respect of the judgement it needs to be recognised that in the majority of the arguments put forward, the ECHR found in favour of the UK Government.
For reasons contained within the judgement the Court unanimously:
In the present case, the situation is different. Extensive evidence was presented by the parties in respect of the applicant’s re-trial in Jordan and thoroughly examined by the domestic courts. Moreover, in the course of the proceedings before this Court, the applicant has presented further concrete and compelling evidence that his co-defendants were tortured into providing the case against him. He has also shown that the Jordanian State Security Court has proved itself to be incapable of properly investigating allegations of torture and excluding torture evidence, as Article 15 of UNCAT requires it to do. His is not the general and unspecific complaint that was made in Mamatkulov and Askarov; instead, it is a sustained and well-founded attack on a State Security Court system that will try him in breach of one of the most fundamental norms of international criminal justice, the prohibition on the use of evidence obtained by torture. In those circumstances, and contrary to the applicants in Mamatkulov and Askarov, the present applicant has met the burden of proof required to demonstrate a real risk of a flagrant denial of justice if he were deported to Jordan.
Article 15 of UNCAT says:
Each State Party shall ensure that any statement which is established to have been made as a result of torture shall not be invoked as evidence in any proceedings, except against a person accused of torture as evidence that the statement was made.
Paragraph 266 of the ECHR judgement says: ....It imposes a clear obligation on States. As the United Nations Committee Against Torture has made clear, Article 15 is broad in scope. It has been interpreted as applying to any proceedings, including, for instance, extradition proceedings...
Therefore in this respect of the burden of proof; that Abu Qatadar would not stand trial in Jordan on the basis of evidence obtained by torture, it was now up to the UK Government to demonstrate that they had received such assurances from the Government of Jordan.
The Home Secretary Theresa May is satisfied that she has received such assurances from the Government of Jordan. This was confirmed by the Special Immigration Appeal Commission (SIAC) on April 17, 2012.
SIAC said in judgement that ...in the light of existing and new factors produced by negotiations at the highest level with the Government of Jordan over the last two months, the risk that caused the Strasbourg Court to block, in so far as it could, the deportation of the appellant to Jordan has now been satisfactorily removed. Consequently, the Secretary of State has announced her intention to deport the appellant "on or about 30 th April 2012".
Meanwhile or subsequently, Abu Qatada's lawyers where preparing an appeal against the part of the ECHR's ruling that stated it was satisfied that he would not face torture if he was deported.
This is in relation to Article 3 of European Convention on Human Rights:
Prohibition of torture - No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
In their judgement of 17 January ECHR said on this matter in Paragraph 205. For the foregoing reasons the Court concludes that, on the basis of the evidence before it, the applicant’s return to Jordan would not expose him to a real risk of ill-treatment.
It is now up to the Panel of the Grand Chamber to decide as to whether the appeal was made within the 3 months time-limit, and whether to accept the request for final determination by the Grand Chamber.
Article 43 of the Convention says:
But not only our rights, but everybody's human rights. Irrespective of what we know, or what we feel about a person, they shouldn't be treated worse than what we would expect and demand for ourselves.
And what would we expect and demand?
We would expect and demand to be treated in accordance with national and international laws, that our basic and fundamental human rights are respected and protected.
We would expect due process to be followed, which if inconvenient to the agenda of some politicians could not be changed at their whim.
Over 60 years ago great leaders including Sir Winston Churchill founded the Council of Europe, and set in law the European Convention on Human Rights.
I can see no reason that could be reasonably argued that we should now; in haste and desire for political advantage, disengage ourself from these well established international safeguards of all our human rights.
It is claimed by some that the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) is 'interfering' with UK law; or that the Human Rights Act (1989) has made English law poorer. Back in August 2005 David Cameron said [...]that if Britain wanted to be able to deport terror suspects, the government should amend the human rights laws "or, if necessary, leave - perhaps temporarily - the ECHR". - BBC News.
This matter has been brought to sharp focus by the case of the 'radical' cleric Abu Qatada.
Sadly, this issue is also confused by those saying we should leave the European Union, as if they were one and the same. There follows therefore a short and brief lesson in history.
In December 1948 the UN General Assembly proclaimed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
In May 1949 the Council Of Europe was founded by 10 countries. Sir Winston Churchill was one of the founding fathers. You can read a transcipt of the speech he made about the Council of Europe at the Winston Churchill Centre Website.
In November 1950 the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms came into being. The UK was one of the original countries to sign, with the convention coming into force in the UK in September 1953.
Under Article 19 of the above convention the ECHR was founded:
To ensure the observance of the engagements undertaken by the High Contracting Parties in the Convention and the Protocols thereto, there shall be set up a European Court of Human Rights, hereinafter referred to as “the Court”. It shall function on a permanent basis.
Also in June 1987 the UN Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (UNCAT) came into force.
But let me return to the case of Abu Qatada. He arrived in the United Kingdom in September 1993, having previously fled Jordan and gone to Pakistan.
You can read a detailed account of his history in the UK in the judgement of the ECHR at Strasbourg dated 17 January 2012. (see ECHR Application no. 8139/09)
This is the judgement that has led to the recent 'confusion' about when the three month deadline came to an end.
In respect of the judgement it needs to be recognised that in the majority of the arguments put forward, the ECHR found in favour of the UK Government.
For reasons contained within the judgement the Court unanimously:
- Declares the application admissible;
- Holds that the applicant’s deportation to Jordan would not be in violation of Article 3 of the Convention;
- Holds that there has been no violation of Article 3 taken in conjunction with Article 13 of the Convention;
- Holds that the applicant’s deportation to Jordan would not be in violation of Article 5 of the Convention;
- Holds that the applicant’s deportation to Jordan would be in violation of Article 6 of the Convention on account of the real risk of the admission of evidence at the applicant’s retrial of obtained by torture of third persons.
In the present case, the situation is different. Extensive evidence was presented by the parties in respect of the applicant’s re-trial in Jordan and thoroughly examined by the domestic courts. Moreover, in the course of the proceedings before this Court, the applicant has presented further concrete and compelling evidence that his co-defendants were tortured into providing the case against him. He has also shown that the Jordanian State Security Court has proved itself to be incapable of properly investigating allegations of torture and excluding torture evidence, as Article 15 of UNCAT requires it to do. His is not the general and unspecific complaint that was made in Mamatkulov and Askarov; instead, it is a sustained and well-founded attack on a State Security Court system that will try him in breach of one of the most fundamental norms of international criminal justice, the prohibition on the use of evidence obtained by torture. In those circumstances, and contrary to the applicants in Mamatkulov and Askarov, the present applicant has met the burden of proof required to demonstrate a real risk of a flagrant denial of justice if he were deported to Jordan.
Article 15 of UNCAT says:
Each State Party shall ensure that any statement which is established to have been made as a result of torture shall not be invoked as evidence in any proceedings, except against a person accused of torture as evidence that the statement was made.
Paragraph 266 of the ECHR judgement says: ....It imposes a clear obligation on States. As the United Nations Committee Against Torture has made clear, Article 15 is broad in scope. It has been interpreted as applying to any proceedings, including, for instance, extradition proceedings...
Therefore in this respect of the burden of proof; that Abu Qatadar would not stand trial in Jordan on the basis of evidence obtained by torture, it was now up to the UK Government to demonstrate that they had received such assurances from the Government of Jordan.
The Home Secretary Theresa May is satisfied that she has received such assurances from the Government of Jordan. This was confirmed by the Special Immigration Appeal Commission (SIAC) on April 17, 2012.
SIAC said in judgement that ...in the light of existing and new factors produced by negotiations at the highest level with the Government of Jordan over the last two months, the risk that caused the Strasbourg Court to block, in so far as it could, the deportation of the appellant to Jordan has now been satisfactorily removed. Consequently, the Secretary of State has announced her intention to deport the appellant "on or about 30 th April 2012".
Meanwhile or subsequently, Abu Qatada's lawyers where preparing an appeal against the part of the ECHR's ruling that stated it was satisfied that he would not face torture if he was deported.
This is in relation to Article 3 of European Convention on Human Rights:
Prohibition of torture - No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
In their judgement of 17 January ECHR said on this matter in Paragraph 205. For the foregoing reasons the Court concludes that, on the basis of the evidence before it, the applicant’s return to Jordan would not expose him to a real risk of ill-treatment.
It is now up to the Panel of the Grand Chamber to decide as to whether the appeal was made within the 3 months time-limit, and whether to accept the request for final determination by the Grand Chamber.
Article 43 of the Convention says:
- Within a period of three months from the date of the judgment of the Chamber, any party to the case may, in exceptional cases, request that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber.
- A panel of five judges of the Grand Chamber shall accept the request if the case raises a serious question affecting the interpretation or application of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, or a serious issue of general importance.
- If the panel accepts the request, the Grand Chamber shall decide the case by means of a judgment.
But not only our rights, but everybody's human rights. Irrespective of what we know, or what we feel about a person, they shouldn't be treated worse than what we would expect and demand for ourselves.
And what would we expect and demand?
We would expect and demand to be treated in accordance with national and international laws, that our basic and fundamental human rights are respected and protected.
We would expect due process to be followed, which if inconvenient to the agenda of some politicians could not be changed at their whim.
Over 60 years ago great leaders including Sir Winston Churchill founded the Council of Europe, and set in law the European Convention on Human Rights.
I can see no reason that could be reasonably argued that we should now; in haste and desire for political advantage, disengage ourself from these well established international safeguards of all our human rights.
Friday, 7 January 2011
It’s not just Halal it’s Kosher as well!!
On Radio Cymru Taro’r Post the Rev Geraint Morse called for all Halal meat to be labelled clearly. Now there's no problem with that as such, but I take issue with the argument he put forward, which was that he objected to the actual prayer said during the killing? - as if that was the most important thing to the welfare of the animal.
Absolute claptrap and utter rubbish. In the first instance lets get some facts straight, Halal meat is killed in a very similar way to Kosher meat. But I don’t think he mentioned the Jewish community.
Absolute claptrap and utter rubbish. In the first instance lets get some facts straight, Halal meat is killed in a very similar way to Kosher meat. But I don’t think he mentioned the Jewish community.
Maybe he had missed the following report in the Independent, 21 June 2010 by Martin Hickman, Consumer Affairs Correspondent
“New EU rules require compulsory labelling of halal meat.
Millions of cows, goats and chickens are slaughtered without stunning each year in the UK under Muslim and Jewish practices, which enjoy an exemption from animal welfare laws.
The RSPCA, other welfare organisations and the Government's veterinary experts say the practice is cruel and should be ended, but another concern is that the meat re-enters the general food chain where it is unwittingly consumed by the general population.
In a series of votes on food labelling this week, which also backed compulsory country-of-origin labelling on all meat, MEPs voted by 559 to 54 for compulsory labelling of the religious slaughter of meat without stunning. While kosher and halal meat is well labelled in specialist butchers and food outlets, the regulation would alert general consumers to supplies entering the mainstream food system.
EU member states will have to approve the legislation and it is likely to return to the European Parliament for a second reading. Once adopted, food business will have three years to adapt to the rules. Smaller operators, with fewer than 100 employees and an annual turnover under €5m (£4.2m), will have five years to comply.
Animal welfare groups welcomed the move. Dr Marc Cooper, a farm animal welfare scientist at the RSPCA, said: "Clear labelling is something we have been calling for, so that the welfare-conscious consumer can be informed about the method of slaughter. From a welfare point of view, it's an unnecessary practice. It causes pain and distress."
The British Veterinary Association (BVA) said: "The BVA believes that all animals should be effectively stunned before slaughter to improve the welfare of these animals at slaughter. However, as long as slaughter without stunning is permitted, the BVA has argued for any meat from this source to be clearly labelled to enable all consumers to fully understand the choice they are making."
Religious slaughter is banned in Switzerland, Sweden, Norway and Iceland. The UK has stopped keeping statistics, but Meat Hygiene Service figures from 2004 suggest that 114 million halal animals and 2.1 million kosher animals are killed annually.
One Muslim organisation, the Halal Food Authority, insists that slaughterhouses stun the animals to render them insensible to pain, but in other halal and almost all kosher slaughterhouses, animals bleed to death without stunning.
Religious groups say that doing so would be against their interpretation of religious texts, and they are exempted from the terms of the Welfare of Animals (Slaughter or Killing) Regulations 1995.
In a report last year, the Farm Animal Welfare Council said chicken and turkeys were likely to be conscious for up to 20 seconds after a transverse incision is made across their neck."Such a large cut will inevitably trigger sensory input to pain centres in the brain," the council said. "Such an injury would result in significant pain and distress before insensibility supervenes."
Professor Bill Reilly, president of the BVA, said: "This is a huge step forward in improving the welfare of animals at slaughter. The more consumers understand these issues, the more consumer power can make a difference."
Halal and kosher
*Each year more than £2bn is spent on Halal meat by British Muslims. The Arabic word means "lawful" or "permitted". The opposite of halal is haram. Meat can only be called Halal if the animal is blessed before it is slaughtered.
*Kosher slaughter is predicated on the principle of "tsa'ar ba'alei chayim" (not causing unnecessary suffering to animals). Historically, the kosher killing technique was one of the more humane methods available.
*Traditional halal meat is killed by hand and must be blessed by the slaughterman. More than 70 per cent of animals whose meat is sold as halal are electrically stunned before they are killed.
*Islam has strict laws on the proper method of slaughtering an animal. One, called dhabihah consists of a swift, deep incision with a sharp knife on the neck that cuts the jugular vein.
*Madonna and Jerry Hall are among celebrities who are reportedly fans of a strict orthodox Jewish diet, while a number of US clinics offer kosher diet therapy.
*KFC is among a growing number of fast-food retailers that have trialled Halal meat in communities where demand is strong. It has 85 stores with an all-halal menu.
*Up to three-quarters of poultry sold as halal in the UK is falsely labelled, a representative from the English Beef and Lamb Executive's halal steering group said. Most is slaughtered by a machine, not an individual.”
In Rev Geraint Morse own words in welsh:
“Fel Cristion, dydw i ddim am fwyta cig sydd wedi ei baratoi o dan reolau Islamaidd, gyda gweddi Arabaidd, boed yn gig wedi ei brynu o'r archfarchnad neu ei fwyta allan mewn pryd bwyd.
Labeli clir
Gofyn am labeli clir ydw i er mwyn sicrhau bod pawb ohonom yn deall beth yr ydym yn ei fwyta. Os ydy'r label yn dweud "Halal", gall Mwslemiaid ei fwyta'n dawel eu cydwybod. Ond os nad yw'n dweud "Halal" gall eraill ohonom fwyta'n dawel ein cydwybod hefyd.
Does dim angen i chi dagu ar eich cig moch bore 'ma, oherwydd does dim y fath beth i gael a chig moch "Halal". Dydi Mwslemiaid ddim yn bwyta porc.
Ond beth am y frechdan cyw iâr ichi wedi paratoi ar gyfer amser cinio, neu'r cig oen ar gyfer swper heno?
Efallai'r peth gorau i'w wneud yw prynu cyw-iâr a chig oen Cymreig. Bydd hyn yn ateb y broblem - efallai!"
or in part translated
"As a Christian, I do not want to eat meat that has been prepared under Islamic rules, with an Arabic prayer, whether meat has been bought from the supermarket or eaten out in a meal. "
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)