The United kingdom and the EU: Sovereignty

Increasingly it seems that the majority of those supporting an exit from Europe are doing so from a thinly veiled position of xenophobic distrust and dislike of immigrants. A BBC Radio Four interview with a London blue-collar worker took me back to my childhood as they talked about the 'foreigners' coming over here and 'taking our jobs, our benefits, houses, health care and other stuff'. Were we to replace the word 'foreigners' with 'darkies' it would have sounded exactly like someone from the post Windrush London I grew up in voicing their views - in fact it could have been my Dad, a man who moved away from his native London to escape all those foreigners!

But to suggest that to people is to have them protest that they aren't racist at all and quickly move the conversation on to the issues of sovereignty and/or corruption.

So let's look at these and try and find the facts rather than the posturing - today we will try sovereignty.

In 1972 our Parliament passed the European Communities Act - an act that implicitly recognised the primacy of EU law over UK law.  We accepted that EU would generally apply but held the position that Parliament could overrule and set aside EU laws from having power here should it be felt to be detrimental to us or to be an area where the EU has exceeded its authority.

The last credible figures I've seen (2010 - House of Commons) regarding EU law says something around 15% of UK law and around half of the laws which influence our economy comes from the EU.

Just over half of the laws have to do with the way we trade outside of the EU, agriculture and fishing  - the remainder (40%) deal with immigration and the like. But sovereignty means that defence and the way we operate as a nation are left pretty much to us to decide and where we think EU laws are not in the public/national interest then we have the power of veto.

Were we to leave the EU but continue to trade within it, we would have to accept and implement the relevant laws without any ability to bring about change or veto - trading from outside would mean we would become significantly disadvantaged and would become a minority nation bending the knee to a greater power! Don't sound that acceptable to me!!! Not only that but an 'outside the EU' UK would find the freedom of travel Changes (we'd be the people in the queues at airports and docks) and would be to make of significantly less interest to the US and other supposed special relationship nations as we love influence internationally.

Waving Union flags and singing 'Rule Brittannia' is all well and good but we'd have to change the words to 'ruled the waves' and celebrate us becoming more like Albania than a player at the world table - but of course we wouldn't have all the foreigners because they would all be off somewhere with a future!

And interesting postscript came in the form of a conversation with a 'leave' campaigner' who volunteered the fact that were we to leave the UK would still need to offer up some of the sovereign power and would need to pay out ," Perhaps as much, perhaps even a little more!' for the reclaiming of our right to rule as we would need to compensate the farmers who would lose their EU subsidies. But that aside they would still need to comply with the EU regulations should they wish to trade with Europe so the only change would be the loss of subsidies - doesn't sound like a 'win' to me if I'm honest! 

Not only that but apparently if we leave we can have Genetically modified crops without 'Europe' interfering!

But it gets to be more fun as we could opt out of the 35 laws the EU has brought in (we used our power of veto to bin the other 100 we didn't consider to be relevant) but since we thought they were worth having perhaps we will decide to hang on to them after we've gone? One of them stops drivers banned in Europe from driving here, can't see why we would want to keep that one; another is about monitoring corruption - but if we leave there wouldn't be any because we all know it's only the foreigners what are dodgy (bird house and pond anyone?) - so that's cool too!

But we could perhaps decide to opt out of the Human rights things, write our own constitution and disband anything we consider to be against the public interest - which will isolate us and make us a worse nation than Zimbabwe if some of the legal stuff I've been reading (which was neither 'stay' or 'leave' relater, it was about human rights) is correct.

You know what - I am coming to a place where I am pretty convinced that we won't gain much in terms of regained sovereignty but will lose much in terms of being an influential member of the world political and economic scene.

And to leave might mean that we have to accept that racism, bigotry, injustice and the like are the values we value most, because that appears the bottom line and the underlying theme from the majority of those with whom I have engaged thus far. How long before we rewrite our constitution to please the lunatics?

Rule Britannia or Fool Britannia?
Ruling the waves or waiving the rules!
YOUR CHOICE

Still, I have corruption and whatever biblical indicators to look at yet - so there's always a chance that I will change I guess. But from my 'haven't a clue' position I am now finding myself as a resounding 'remain' person.

Perhaps I might have a conversation where it doesn't descend into another diatribe about how much we pay for foreigners to rule us - or about how foreigners come and take our homes, jobs, benefits and health service - or about how we are a great nation (which I think we are) whom everyone will want to get into bed with (because I fear they don't).

Still - onwards and upwards I guess ...

Fool Britannia - Britannia waives the rules!

The United Kingdom and the EU - Terrorism and Borders

One of the areas most frequently discussed with me by those I meet has been that of terrorism and borders:

LEAVE
Those who want us to leave the EU are telling us that to leave the EU would be to make our nation a safer place.

Quoting figures from the European Union’s law enforcement agency (Europe) those favouring exit claim that Britain is more at risk from terrorist attacks if it continues as a member of the European Union. The reason for this centres largely on the freedom of movement that the EU apparently forces upon the UK - by admitting 'everyone' we apparently 'import risk' into our nation.

To support this position they claim that there are 'up to' 5,000 people in Europe who have attended training camps run by Islamic State and these people, already being in Europe, are free to travel from nation to nation without any border checks. They look to the Paris attacks to support this claim and point to photographs of one of those engaged in the awful happenings there which show they visited the UK.

If we left the EU and made our borders secure then, they reason, it would be impossible for terrorists to enter the country and that would make us safe from terrorism. Add to this the claim that leaving would free us from European law - and the setting us free from the European Court of Justice (ECJ)(remember them, the ECJ have stopped us deporting people to the US and other places because of perceived breaches of human rights) would mean that we could deport whosoever we wanted and govern ourselves make it increasingly difficult to deal effectively with that risk, in order to protect the public”.

It's the EU and the ECJ that cause us to accept everyone and costs us a fortune in monitoring these people once they are here posing a threat to our nationals and our towns and cities and even when we leave, they claim, the EU would be keen to work with us on policing and intelligence matters, after all  - and I quote Dominic Raab - UK Justice Minister here:
“We return more suspects under European Arrest Warrants than any other EU member state. We have the biggest DNA database in Europe. And we have the best intelligence networks. In law enforcement terms, we are massive net contributors to the EU.”

Obvious then, isn't it? The EU would be foolish not to want to keep us onside once we've left!

But what do those who want us to stay have to say about this self-same subject? Left's have a look:

STAY
Fist and foremost what we need to remember is that the UK is outside Europe’s passport-free Schengen area, which means that we have border controls and checks, and this means that those perceived to be a threat to our country can be refused entry. Those of you who have travelled to and from Europe will recall seeing British Police and Home Office types checking passports at ports (and probably complaining about the delay that causes).

So immediately we have an apparent problem in that those supporting the 'leave' position appear to not be telling it as it really is as we already have in place what they claim would only be ours if we were to exit the EU - Isn't that a little naughty I have task myself?

What makes it more difficult is the fact that those who might be coming to our shores are, in the main, not apparently 'naughty' foreigners but are EU nationals; after all looking at the awfulness that was Paris , the majority of those involved were EU citizens. (Salah Abdeslam, was a Belgian-born French citizen, Najim Laachraoui, was also Belgian citizen)

They weren't 'foreigners' unless you consider their roots - in which case I'm Dutch and ready to be deported!

In fact, dare I say it, the xenophobic, racist, anti-immigrant stance in nations like Belgium alienates and creates the backlash that is terrorism. Perhaps we need to stop the marches and popular wholesale responses against 'immigrant'  so that they aren't isolated and alienated. Perhaps we need some education of our nationals to create a society which is more balanced rather than build a wall around our little island!

Living on the edge of one of the largest places where potential for marginalised people are to be found, it is likely that those who might act against our nation and those on its shores will have British passports! The Charlie Hebdo attacks were done by Said and Cherif Kouachi - French citizens, as was Mohamed Merah, who in 2012 killed seven people in Toulouse.

So which camp do you fancy having read this?

As far as I am concerned, overall, the jury is still out, but I know who I think has won this round of the debate. I have read many articles and tried to distill as much information into a concise format - I don't think I've over-egged either camps views and think it to be a fair assessment. But you are the judge and are free to put your views here and dialogue (something I'm not seeing too much of as I am engaged with - am I the only one they talk to?)

Phobia - supporting rights or removing them?

I don't usually get to read the Spectator much these days (it's a treat I have to save up for!) but a piece (29th August 2013) by Adrian Hilton caught my eye relating to the arrest of Revd Dr Alan Clifford for 'homophobic' activity.

You can read it in full here

What struck me was the final segment of Hilton's:

'I confess I used to view with a degree of discouragement and dismay those Bible-bashing Christians with their ‘end-of-the-world’-type placards, preaching fire and brimstone and hell and damnation. I find myself now feeling not much less than contempt for those gays who persecute and prosecute elderly hotel owners and B&B proprietors, or call in the police when they receive ‘Good News for Gays’ in their inbox. It is deeply and profoundly intolerant. They reduce public moral discourse to crass displays of boorish posturing and infantile ethics. For God’s sake, grow up.'

As the article so splendidly points out, 'phobia' is a fear of something where what people complain of is not a fear but a disagreement. I support the Arsenal - I have no choice for it was part of my nurture and has become part of my nature - my cousins likewise support the Spurs because of where they were born and their own nurturing experiences. I don't like the Spuds because I'm a Gooner but I am not 'Spudophobic' (and will be hoping they beat the other London clubs this season).

Those who who choose to be vegetarian (I'm a vague'n - some days I eat meat - others I don't!) are not 'carnophobic' - they merely, for whatever reason, do not eat meat. And so it continues with just about every lifestyle choice and belief - so what is it that some choose to act such as to permit free will and free speech as long as it agrees with them?

I think it's called 'being selfish'

So that a look at this article - for regardless of your opinions (and I don't find myself agreeing with Alan Clifford having popped over to read some of his writings) regarding it, it's worth a read.

Human Rights, Commonsense and Registrars

Looking at the case of Lillian Ladele, sometime registrar for Islington Council in London who lost her job when she refused to take a civil partnership. Now, as I understand it, this woman did her job well but, because of her beliefs, didn't feel that she could in all good conscience conduct a civil partnership and someone decided to make a complaint about it.

First and foremost we have to ask whether or not anyone who wanted a civil partnership was inconvenienced or refused because of this woman's beliefs. The answer to this is a resounding 'No' for what occurred was that when there was a civil partnership to be conducted the woman merely exchanged that task for another.

The second question is that of asking 'Why'?

Why did someone make a complaint that lead to the eventual dismissal of Ms Ladele?

Well I can't imagine it was someone with a relationship with the woman who was aggrieved that she wouldn't take their service. It surely can't have been someone who had their heart set of having their civil partnership service conducted by a black woman (can it?) or wanted a Christian lay person to do the job!

No M'lud, what I have to say is that the complaint was actually little more that a spiteful and rather malicious act. The intention was to hit out at Ms Ladele and act against her and whilst it might look like it worked, actually she emerges from this as a 'hero of the faith' rather than bigot, homophobe or any of the other comments some (who actually own the rights to those very titles for themselves) have used!

The grown up response was that as long as there was no refusal of service then surely the right to believe and act according to them harmed no one and as long as that situation continued, there was no problem.

I cannot for the life of me believe that someone wishing to take part in any event would wish to have it done by someone who didn't want to do it. The ideal is someone who is keen to provide whatever service is required and if not keen, then at least ambivalent or neutral - I wouldn't want someone who did the thing without being fully engaged (mind you - having dealt with registrars in some places they were rarely engaged or even (apparently) interested in what was going on - it just seemed to be (what it might well be for many) - a job!

So did human rights win here?

No, I don't think so. What we had was someone using the system to exact some sort of revenge rather than stand for anyone's rights and so I think that commonsense, the right to live and act as one's beliefs demand and the law itself all lost out here.

When one person acts and another disagrees then surely each has a right to live as they might and as long as neither demands nor imposes upon the other on the grounds of primacy of rights we find a coexistence and place where respect, however uneasy, is to be found.

This is what society, rights, life choices and faith are all about - we may not agree but that doesn't mean that we have to engage in conflict.

Well, not unless one of us has a different (and wrong) agenda (and that's exactly what I think we have here)

Some might actually call it Christophobic :-)

Pax

Human Rights: Commonsense Lost?

I have to admit that I am struggling a great deal regarding the issue of human rights in that everyone appears to believe that their rights trump those of everyone else around them and to not endorse something is to be 'phobic' (a word meaning 'not agreeing that my rights are supreme and the way I live is the only way').

The Secularists witter on about the wicked, oppressive and awful Christians.

The Homosexuals witter on about those oppressive and cruel Christians.

The Humanists witter on about how you don't need to be a person of faith to be kind and show love and bemoan the fact that the naughty Christians think they have the monopoly on being 'Christian' (which I would have to say that, of course, they do - the hint being in the name rather than the corruption that refers to an act).

The Christians  witter on about how Secularists and Humanists are blinkered and irrational and how Homosexuals run back to 'homophobia' as a defence for what has been for a goodly few years (want to start counting from Jewish roots or merely from the 'Christian' bit) a firm part of their faith. Of course in doing so they also drone endlessly on about 'persecution' and 'anti-Christian bias' and (like the other three groups - do themselves no real good in the process).

Why can't we see some balance, respect and commonsense?

Over the next few days I will be attempting to bring my views to the fore as I tinker internally with some of the issues that others are challenging me with (and it's funny that so many people are applauding one BA worker for wearing a cross up here in the Midlands) and hopefully might find some commonsense and dialogue from others too.

I have also posted this as a thread here: http://bit.ly/SJghcu in the hope it will attract and start something worthwhile. If you're not a member, then sigh un (proper names please - contact details are not available unless you opt to have such).

Pax

Discrimination and Blasphemy - strange bedfellows

Just noticed some comments from someone I rather enjoy reading and from them realised that there is a blog entry missing. Not only that but it's not even saved as an edit so I can't repost it (now ehere and how did it go I wonder?) Still, here's a bit of late night food for thought (and a bit of a regurg' of former, now lost, post.

I was rather interested in the case of the four Brit's who recently (4th Sept I think) went to the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) with claims of discrimination against them causing them to lose their jobs.

The four were:
Nadia Eweida - British Airways and the banning of her wearing of a cross
Shirley Chaplin - acted against by an NHS trust for the same reason
Gary McFarlane - sacked by Relate because he had problems giving sex therapy advice to homosexual couples, and
Lilian Ladele - a Registrar who faced disciplinary action over her refusal to conduct same-sex civil partnerships.

What we have here is a mixed bag and the reality is that there is an obvious inconsistency in the way that people react to situations. I heard of a person who said they couldn't work in a shop's meat department because they were vegetarians and so, they were moved. Transpose this into Ms Ladele's situation and immediately the responses change and attitudes harden and this demonstrates that some are more equal than others!

The real issue is the situation when rights clash. That moment when one person's equality renders someone less equal and the reality is that my right to believe as I do has to remain a right and that which I understand to be right (or wrong) in terms of lifestyle is something I should be allowed to have as a basic right. The problem comes when that right I have acts against another's right and this is where the facile, "Let's agree to differ," crashes and burns. This is what makes the case before the ECHR so interesting and potentially important (and law-changing too!).

But (always a 'but' isn't there) what gives me more than just a little concern is those who are seeing in the ECHR cases an opportunity to make that which should be protection (let use the word 'defensive') more proactive (and here the word 'offensive' springs to mind in more contexts than one) and this leads us to a situation where abuse of that hitherto 'defence' makes it something it wasn't and shouldn't be (an example being Rimsha Masih's 'blasphemy case - this law being used to silence critics and be used as a weapon against those who think or believe differently, which is exactly where we're going with the ECHR cases).

I think it was Keith Porteus who spoke about the cases saying that if they (the Christians) won their case there would be a hierarchy established where the Christians would find themselves at the apex with the others (homosexuals) somewhere below. The problem is that blasphemy laws, like those which seek to prevent persecution and discrimination are excellent until there is a (often thinly) veiled self-interest and then we're in that place where rights clash - and all see their particular lifestyle (with or without belief) as the overarching rights.

Would that we could live in a tolerant society where we could hold our views and practice our beliefs without turning everything into a fight for supremacy. I work to dialogue and engage with people, even though we differ, and try to understand their side of the equation and put mine - the problem is that being in a faith group here puts us on the same unsafe ground as being in a different faith group in Pakistan - both are sad and both are wrong.

Zionism - What is it?

In order to have a sensible dialogue we need to make sure that we all have the same understanding of the terms used. So let's make sure we are all meaning the same things when we use the same words.

From the many mails I have received, I have come to the baseline definition that Zionism is:

+ 'The belief in a Jewish homeland for THE Jewish people, in the geographic location that is Israel',

+ 'The possession the the human right of self determination, for the Jewish people' and

+ Concerned with the nation state of Israel, a modern secular nation where Judaism is to be found, but where nation and religious belief are separate.

+ It is about the return of the territory to the people who once occupied it as a God-given right.

I was also told that the label 'antisemitism' * applies to:

+ Those who oppose Jewish human rights,

+ Those who oppose the existance of a homeland for the Jewish people, and

+ Those who support and/or spread hate about Israel

(* Apparently this is the European Union's definition of antisemitism.)

I am taking myself off to watch 'The Promise' (and visit the gadget Show Live) and as I do, I wonder if there are any additions, modifications or subtractions that need to be made to the elements above to ensure that we have an agreed datum from which to work.

As it stands, I don't think I'm a zionist and I'm definitely not antisemitic (unless being critical of the nation's behaviour is to be considered antisemitic).

Thank you for those who have offered their views on zionism and antisemitism, the elements of which have been reduced to the lowest common denominator here.

So, are the definitions right?

If not, tell me where and why and we can move on.

Pax

ps. Thought I'd posted this before I left for Gadget Show (excellent) - apologies.