Forest of Dean & Wye Valley

Posts Tagged ‘Europe’


In Editorial, Uncategorized on November 7, 2017 at 5:58 am

Suddenly Theresa May has changed tack in her negotiations with the EU over our departure from the European Union. Gone is the image of a tough Prime Minister, intent on steam-rolling through a “hard Brexit” (and the harder the better). Suddenly we’ve got the conciliatory May, willing to go that extra term in order to iron out our differences with EU leaders.

In so doing she rather flummoxed such hardliners as Boris Johnson (though he had to swallow his bile and give his backing to the PM). But if such newspapers as the Mail and Express were anything to go by, Boris was soon once more stepping out of line. As for Nigel Farage’s reaction – well, let’s not go down that road!


So why did May execute this sudden volte face in her approach to the EU negotiators? Was it because it eventually dawned on her that being tough was getting her absolutely nowhere? That attempts to fix up alternative trade deals were falling apart? And that the only way to ensure markets for the UK was to extend our connections with the European Union as long as possible?

It’s difficult to say exactly what was going on in her mind – but her new approach of slowing down the whole process involved in Brexit certainly seems to have led to dissent in the ranks of the Tory Party. The Express (24th September) headlined Boris’s claim that he masterminded the Brexit campaign.


Of course the Mail, and (particularly) the Express are noted for producing what’s become known as “fake news”. Maybe we need to take their claims about Boris leading the revolt with a pinch of salt – but having said that, there’s no doubt that there’s dissent in the Tory ranks.

But getting back to the facts, Theresa May chose to propose her change in the Brexit programme at a meeting in Florence. She was there with Philip Hammond, Boris Johnson and David Davis ostensibly to present a united front on her new proposals. In Florence there was no public dissent from the UK (Tory) delegation. What Boris’s private thoughts were at this point were kept to himself.

But there will, no doubt, be dissent amongst the Brexit-leaning members of the Tory Party. There could even possibly be a revival in the fortunes of UKIP (though we’re placing no bets). Suffice to say, May has placed her party at yet another cross-roads. Which direction her membership will choose to go (let alone the electorate as a whole) remains to be seen.


Meanwhile the Liberal Democrats have been meeting in conference under their new leader, Vince Cable (back once more in the Commons). They chose another road completely – one that would involve another referendum, to bring the UK back into the European Union. Whether such a move is even possible is questionable. And whether it would achieve the desired effect is not certain. The Lib Dems’ approach seems to be that voters should be told that they made the wrong choice, and they’re being given a second chance to change their minds.

Sadly, Mr. Cable, that’s not quite how it works. Particularly when the Party only has twelve MPs at its disposal!


The Labour Party chose Brighton (again) for its annual conference in September. This time it really seemed like a Party preparing for power.

When the next General Election will be remains to be seen. That depends largely on who’s leading the Tories when the time comes (It might well not be Theresa May). What’s clear is that the Labour Party is united behind Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership – even though there seem to be still significant differences over Brexit.

Even before the referendum there were those in the Party who backed Brexit (though the official party line was to remain part of the EU). Now opinion has become even more fragmented within Labour. There were those who demonstrated outside conference carrying both Labour banners and EU flags. As for Jeremy, he seems to have taken a more idiosyncratic line.

It’s not over the free movement of labour once we actually leave the European Union (there seems to be general agreement over this). It’s over how far we can accept a transitional period of association with the EU (or agreeing to the “market” elements of association with it) if its rules oppose the re-nationalisation of key elements of our infrastructure (such as the railways, for example). Or indulging in public investment projects. This may be a valid point.

Basically, if we follow the Jeremy Corbyn vision then we leave the EU, but accept the right of its citizens to travel to or to live or work in England – but also work for the right to plan and shape our own economy, including the public ownership of key elements within that economy.

Differences were still apparent at Labour’s conference, but it’s likely that such a line will gain general agreement. For one who has spent long and formative years within the EU (and its predecessor, the European Economic Union), it has changed our perceptions. To a certain extent we’ve all become Europeans now. The right to travel or to live and work throughout Europe has become ingrained and (to some extent) is practised even by the most hardened Eurosceptics.

It would be regrettable if that was to change. Maybe Labour’s conference has done something to ensure that it doesn’t. After all we still have links with like-minded European political parties plus the trade union movement.

Of course Labour’s conference debated other, equally important topics. At the end of the day, the “i” newspaper commented that Labour was now looking like “a Government in waiting”.

We’ll see…


MODERN TIMES: the Dinosaur column

In Dinosaur, Uncategorized on September 22, 2017 at 12:56 pm

dinosaurPOINT TAKEN:

I’ve received a response from one of the quartet of former Labour councillors who’d chosen to resign from the party and sit on the district council as “Independent Labour”.

Bill Osborne puts a somewhat different viewpoint from what seemed to have been agreed by his colleagues.  He tells me that his resignation was in fact motivated more by his suspension from the Labour Party (at national level) which deprived him of his vote in the second leadership election  – when Jeremy Corbyn was confirmed as party leader.

Bill described this as “the straw that broke the camel’s back”.  He also makes the point that the only reason that Labour’s NEC could provide for his suspension was that a comment Bill had made on social media “might have caused offence”.

Which, perhaps, casts a rather different light on Bill’s decision to leave Labour’s ranks. Personally, I take his point!

It’s an opt out:

I’ve always been a fan of the 1950s film, Passport to Pimlico, in which a plucky community in central London decides to opt out and declare itself independent – facing the full wrath of bureaucracy as a result.

It might not be on the same scale, but I was drawn to a piece in the Citizen the other week.  Dr. William Riches, from Newnham, has decided to declare his home an “independent republic”  His wife, Judith, has been declared president, and his children and grandchildren  are citizens.

When the UK finally leaves the EU anyone visiting his home by the Severn, Middlewatch, will have to make sure that they have their passports with them – plus a visa.  And Dr. Riches  and his family will then formally apply for entry to the European Union.

Dr. Riches (a retired university lecturer) is a much-travelled Europhile, and has worked in America, Canada and Northern Ireland.  He’s no “Little Englander”, and sees the world on a different scale than many of those who backed Brexit.  Good luck to him, I say.

Applying for European citizenship?

Of course there are other ways to make the point that you want to remain part of Europe. The kind of “hard Brexit” advocated by many enthusiasts, who believe that we can just go it alone, is bound to create mass upheaval. There are those Brits who’d chosen to make their homes in mainland Europe – as well as  those Europeans who’d chosen to make the UK their home.  Now all this is about to be torn apart.

But a new initiative is now being launched, to try to allow Brits to retain their European citizenship (as shown ou our current passports).  At present we all have “the right to move and reside freely within the territory of Member States under objective conditions of freedom and dignity.”

A new initiative is being launched to allow UK resident citizens to maintain these rights.  So, for more details, email

Go on, give it a try!


ENDPIECE: Where’s the diplomacy?

In Editorial on July 4, 2017 at 12:37 pm

We think it was US President Theodore Roosevelt who coined the phrase “talk softly – but carry a big stick” as he set out to conquer various remaining Spanish colonies off the coast of America. He could be described as the founder of US imperialism.

We won’t dwell on his motives. After all, times change. But as for his famous quote, perhaps there’s something for Theresa May to think about.. She has a habit of speaking very loudly – and to all intents and purposes carries no stick at all. Perhaps she might just run to a handbag.

She has told her cheering followers that “when we say Brexit we mean Brexit!”. It’ s to be a “hard” exit from Europe. And then, with all charm she could muster she sets off to engage EU ministers in talks to try for improved trade deals with Europe. She even embarked on a disastrous election to try to bolster her slim majority in Parliament.  She mistakenly thought that it would impress EU leaders and give her more clout. And we all know what happened with that!

It’s not surprising that European leaders  haven’t been impressed. After all what could May put on the table after her own euphoric utterances to her own supporters?

She’s been told by EU leaders that she must guarantee free movement of European citizens to and from Britain, a point she may find it difficult to concede considering that (possibly) the majority of those who’ve been cheering her on voted for Brexit in order to put up the barriers against Johnny Foreigner. In their terms they might end up with a very soft Brexit indeed. Meanwhile, it’s interesting that an increasing number of UK citizens (both in Britain and in mainland Europe) have been seeking ways and means of gaining European citizenship.  Sometimes this is because they see it as being in their interest. But sometimes it’s because they identify with the soul of Europe, and don’t want to be identified with the “little Englander” mentality of many of the Brexiteers.

At the same time May and her Government have been busy trying to fix up trade deals with countries outside the EU bloc – such as China and Canada. Perhaps even a handout from Trump in the USA.  So far she’s had little luck. After all, these days what do we have to offer? Let’s face it, what industrial assets we might still have can be bought up wholesale by the Chinese etc., without bothering themselves with trade deals.

So far, all that May hasn’t tried is diplomacy. It can sometimes go a long way.


In Editorial, Uncategorized on April 25, 2017 at 12:44 pm

It’s interesting how quickly memories of Cameron’s premiership fade away, Now that Theresa May is at the helm, Cameron has become well and truly yesterday’s man.

So, what do we make of May’s reign so far? It’s been less than a year – but we can’t complain that it’s been uneventful. We’ve had her attempts to woo Donald Trump (the US president that most of us love to hate). There’s been her decision to opt for a “hard brexit” from the European Union. And there’s been her attempt to drive Nicola Sturgeon and the SNP into a corner which threaten to produce further divisions between England and Scotland – perhaps irreparable ones.

One of May’s major flaws as Prime Minister (or indeed as a politician) is her acerbic style. She’s like a bull terrier, constantly on attack mode. In her view, political opponents are there to be put down, their faces ground into the mud. But it may be that she’s taken on more than she can chew when she decided to take on Nicola Sturgeon.


Another flaw with Theresa May is a marked lack of judgement. What on earth led her to invite Trump over on a state visit to the UK when he’d hardly got himself settled into the White House? Her haste flouted all existing protocols as well as offending millions of people.

Another example of bad judgement was her decision to go for a “hard brexit” from Europe. If we look at the overall figures, the referendum results showed deep divisions between those who wished to stay and those who voted to leave. Those who voted to leave won – but by a slender margin. In the circumstances might it have been better to aim for a course that respected the majority without trampling on the concerns of the minority? Let alone upsetting the European Union – the bloc that one way or another we will have to do business with.


Meanwhile, on the domestic front, she has chosen to take on the education establishment with her persistence in ploughing scarce resources into the setting up of new grammar schools. Selective education was phased out over fifty years ago. Most rational folk regard it as dead as a dodo, and in Parliament a cross-party alliance, including Nicky Morgan (former education Minister), Lucy Powell (Labour’s shadow minister) and Nick Clegg for the Lib Dems, has emerged to rally opposition to grammar schools.   So, the question is, why has May chosen to revive the whole controversy now, to the point where she’s even divided her own party?

The opposition to May’s plans led by Morgan, Powell and Clegg were spelled out in The Observer on 19th March. Whilst making the point that whilst they had their differences, they were all agreed that selection was bad for schools, and bad for societies that they served. Selection failed to tackle inequality or to boost social mobility.


Another blot on the horizon that has rocked the Tory Party is the electoral expenses scandal in a dozen or so “key” constituencies (including the Thanet seat, where Nigel Farage made his bid for election). Inflated expenses involving the Tory electoral machine were not declared in these seats, possibly having an impact on the results.

Of course, May wasn’t guilty of involvement in this. It happened on Cameron’s watch. But it’s been an episode in which she’s chosen to take a low profile approach, despite the fact that it could have repercussions on her Parliamentary Party – possibly even a loss of a few of her MPs (a factor that should concentrate May’s mind considering the limited size of her majority).

Basically Theresa May seems to be riding high in the polls, with no overall opposition from within the Tory Party faithful – but it may well be that this degree of support is based on shaky ground. There are plenty of challenges ahead, starting off with how she manages to handle our exit from the European Union.

We’re indebted to Joy Johnson, in her Tribune column for these last words on Theresa May:

“It’s a Prime Minister that masquerades as the champion of ordinary working people as she sidles up to Donald Trump after racing over the Atlantic to be his first foreign visitor (after his election as president).

“It’s a government that has all the hallmarks of a harsh, hard right administration. Nothing that has been done so far can illustrate this approach so well as their policy to ignore Alfred Dubs’ amendment to the Immigration Act. Out of the thousands of unaccompanied refugee children who made it to Europe the UK was going to take in 3,000. Yet even this figure was too high for May’s administration. They pulled the plug at 350 children. Shameful.”

The brutal Indifference of Deportation

And it’s happening on May’s watch

from a Clarion correspondent

Are we suffering from an obsession? Or is someone at the Home Office just trawling through files to see who can be deported from Britain next?

Certainly there seems to be both a lack of any sign of compassion in the way that deportation is being used against those who are seen as “breaking the rules”. It almost seems to qualify as a vigilante approach.

Two cases have been highlighted in the media recently. The first was that of Irene Clennel. She had lived in Britain for over thirty years. She has a UK husband, two children born in this country – and even a grandchild. But this didn’t stop her from being seized by the authorities taken to a detention centre in Lanarkshire where she was transported to Singapore and left with the grand sum of £12 in her pocket.

Back home she’d acted as her sick husband’s carer. But earlier, it seems, she’d had to return to Singapore for lengthy periods of time to care for her dying parents. Because of this she lost her rights to remain in Britain. Now she’s back in Singapore, where (since the death of her parents) she knows nobody.


The other case concerns Sophia Kamba, from Kettering. She has been held in the notorious Yarl’s Wood detention centre for some five months.

Now she has learned that her 13-year old son Joel has sickle cell anaemia. With his condition deteriorating he has been admitted to hospital twice in the past few months.

Sophia Kamba (who has lived and worked in the UK for 27 years) has applied for leave from Yarl’s Wood to be with her son. Incidentally, Sophia was born in Britain, as was her mother, but she failed to get naturalised.

In response to her plea for temporary release to see her son, she was told: “you can Skype him from Jamaica.”

As this issue is being prepared, her appeal for temporary leave from detention is still under consideration.


MODERN TIMES: The Dinosaur Column

In Dinosaur, Uncategorized on April 24, 2017 at 12:12 pm

So, what’s a “clean break”?

dinosaurTheresa May, our new “iron lady” Prime Minister, has declared that she’s aiming for a “clean break” from the European Union when we have to surrender our membership and leave (by the back door maybe?).

A “clean” break?  When it comes to an exit of this sort there’s no such thing as a “clean” break. Mark my words, it’s going to be messy for an awful lot of people.  We’ve been members of the European Union for a long time now. Many folk were born into it. Whether we liked it or not we grew up as Europeans. We may have grumbled about the EU but many folk moved to mainland Europe, made their homes there, whilst other Europeans moved here. Now, it seems, according to May’s dictat, they’ll no longer be a right of automatic entry to this country for our fellow Europeans on the other side of the channel.    Or, perhaps, no right to stay here if some petty bureaucrat decides otherwise.

If May wants to take it to her “logical” conclusion, she should cancel the Eurostar and fill in the Channel Tunnel. That would help to make a clean break. It wouldn’t have kept the Normans out of course (don’t forget, they were Europeans), or indeed previous waves of Europeans who came here to settle. But who cares these days?

Meanwhile there are plenty of folk both sides of the Channel who’re now working to re-define their nationalities to their best advantage. All because May has decided to make a “clean break”.

Scots wha-hey?

And what of our Scottish neighbours, where the voters decided by a clear majority that they wanted to remain part of Europe?  Scotland has a clear, historically-based sense of separate nationhood, and they don’t want to be bulldosed into a “clean break” with the EU, thank you very much.

What the Scots would be happy to accept it seems would be some kind of “associate status” with the EU – rather similar to that enjoyed by our friends in Norway.  But Theresa May has made it clear that she wants nothing to do with that.

So, if you live in Scotland, where do you go from here?  Hold another referendum?  In which case would May accept a result in favour of Scottish independence?  I wouldn’t know, but then I’m only an old Dinosaur, who enjoys his trips north of the border. Whenever I can. But it’s worth mulling over.

Crossing the river:

I’m afraid I never managed to cross the Severn by way of the old ferry.  It ceased to run in the 1960s – the day before the gleaming new bridge that replaced it was royally opened.

And so the ferry became the stuff of legend, whilst the bridge became something to wonder over.  It was a thing of beauty – and it only cost half a crown (two shillings and sixpence in old money) to motor across.

This was fine – for all except nostalgic thrill seekers who looked back the days of the old ferry.  But then came the craze for privatising everything in sight, and the bridge was franchised out to a French company. Inevitably the cost of crossing started to go up, and up. Not only that, when the new bridge (which bypasses us in the Forest altogether) was built, they threatened to close it down.

It’s now well over six quid. But here’s some good news. It seems the franchise is due to run out in 2018 when it should revert to public ownership. And the estimated cost to cross should fall to three pounds.  I don’t know how this compares to two shillings and sixpence in old money, but it could be worse.

Of course some years back all bridge tolls in Scotland were scrapped completely. But then they’ve never suffered from a Tory government.


CLARION COMMENT: The Cameron Legacy

In Editorial, Uncategorized on November 18, 2016 at 1:54 pm

So, with the Brexit vote over, Cameron decided to fall on his sword and abruptly resign from his post as Prime Minister (and of course as leader of the Conservative Party) – Indeed, he went further. He stood down as an MP.  For us, the electorate, whether we like it or not, it’s now welcome to Theresa May’s new regime!

How quickly he’s become yesterday’s man. Yet Cameron’s going was typical of him. After declaring that he would remain as a backbencher he then resigns his Parliamentary seat of Witney (in the lush, true blue pastures of the Cotswolds) and walks off into the proverbial sunset.

It’s difficult to assess how he’ll be remembered. There was always a certain chameleon quality about him. Certainly, despite his early promises, his legacy will be, to say the least, controversial. His years at number 10 were marked by austerity (cuts in welfare and in job security for ordinary families), and even his forays into foreign policy were less than auspicious. His downfall was of course the European Union.

Whether it’s helpful to look back at his background when considering the Cameron legacy is difficult to say. He was born into a wealthy stockbroking family, attended an elite independent school, moving on to Eton before ending up at Brasenose College, Oxford. Here, it’s been noted, he joined the “Bullingdon Club”.  This outfit was noted for grand banquets and such boisterous activities as trashing restaurants and college rooms (they always paid for the damage, incidentally). Fellow club members included George Osborne and Boris Johnson.

After taking a year out, Cameron went on to work amidst the tangled web of Tory internal politics at the Conservative Research Department. But by this time he was developing Parliamentary ambitions. And in 2000 he was chosen as Prospective Parliamentary Candidate for Witney. From here he worked his way up through the ranks of the Parliamentary Party – though he did succeed in making enemies on the way. He was branded by one fellow MP as “superficial, unreliable and with an apparent lack of convictions”, whilst Guardian columnist, Charlie Brooker, described him as a “boiled egg with no sweets inside”.


By this time Cameron had re-branded himself as a “modern compassionate Conservative”. He promoted green politics, announced the launch of “the Big Society” and then came out with a speech which became encapsulated by the media as a declaration that we should all “hug a hoody”.  It was no wonder that some of his fellow Tories accused him of betraying Thatcher’s legacy!

When Cameron became Prime Minister in 2010, the reality was to be something very different.  Lacking an overall majority he was forced into coalition with Clegg’s Liberal Democrats, pledging that together they would “work hard for the common good and the national interest.”  And then came the spending cuts. The age of austerity had begun.

The cuts started with a vengeance in June 2010, masterminded by Cameron’s old Bullingdon Club mate, George Osborne.  Welfare was sliced, pensions were diced – and there were cuts in spending, too. Cameron even claimed that “we were all in it together,” whilst the banks and the City continued to play fast and loose with the economy as if there’d been no yesterday.

Despite slashing cuts the Tories failed in their objective to balance the books.  Instead they gave us the “bedroom tax” whilst growing poverty in our society created the need for food banks.

Yet, on a completely different policy front, he promoted the legalisation of gay marriage. Few surely could fault him on that.

On so many fronts, Cameron has been inconsistent. And his treatment of his former Liberal Democrat partners at the last election was ruthless (though it could be said that through their co-operation with so many of the Tories’ policies, they deserved it). But it was Cameron’s gamble over membership of the European Union that was to be his downfall.


Cameron had decided to re-negotiate our terms of membership of the EU, and then claim any deal as a great victory for the UK. It was obvious that any such deal was to be limited. After all, there has to be some consistency in the rules that govern the EU, otherwise the whole concept on which the Union is based breaks down.

And then, after claiming a spurious victory, Cameron launched us all into a referendum on whether we should stay in the EU or leave.

After the result was announced of course Cameron’s downfall was inevitable. He has left us with the uncertainties of life outside the EU, and arguably with rather fewer friends than we had before he entered Downing Street.

What Theresa May has to offer of course still remains to be seen – though her opening gambits haven’t been promising. Apart from her decision to re-introduce grammar schools, plus her “stop go” stance on nuclear power we have had very little to go on – yet.  No doubt we’ll have plenty more to say on that over the coming months.

MODERN TIMES: the Dinosaur column

In Dinosaur, Uncategorized on October 4, 2016 at 12:16 pm
dinosaurBecoming a Corbynista
It doesn’t take much to transform a plodding old dinosaur into a raving “Corbynista”.  An attempted Parliamentary coup is just the ticket. For that was what the vote of “no confidence” in Jeremy effectively was.
After all, you don’t suddenly decide to take a vote on the spur of the moment. No siree. This was a case of secret meetings in Parliamentary committee rooms (though no longer smoke filled these days). How many were involved in setting it all up is difficult to say – but once the plot was hatched, it was time to get the bandwagon rolling.
Why this time was chosen I haven’t the faintest idea. Or whether any thought was given to such folk as the the Party members out in the sticks, and their reaction. But then if you live in a Westminster bubble, cocooned  from your membership back at constituency level then maybe you don’t.
As this is being written, the matter is far from resolved. It will probably have moved on apace by the time this issue of the Clarion appears in print.  In which case all these words should be regarded as a merely an initial reaction. Watch this space, as they say!
Challenging times, post-brexit:
It seems to be all change, following the result of the EU referendum. Cameron has taken his bat home – and, incredible though it may seem, so has Nigel Farage. One might think that he’d be happy basking in his achievement of being on the winning side when it came to the vote. But no.
Farage claims he wants to relax, and get his life back. Take a holiday, perhaps. Prop up a few bars with the odd pint in his hand. According to the Daily Express though, one factor in his resignation was the death threats that he’d received during the campaign.
Death threats, I’m sure, can be scary. At the very least they’re unsettling and unpleasant.  But in the longer term, it’ll be interesting to see what impact his resignation will have on Ukip nationally. Will any contest for the leadership lead to fall out?  Will the Ukip momentum stutter and grind to a halt?  Or even slip into reverse gear?  Already one  councillor here in the Forest has resigned from Ukip, prophesying that more will follow.
Ukip has had a chequered  history since it was founded several decades ago. After all, the one point that united its disparate membership was opposition to the EU. In its early years, it faced competition from the better-funded “Referendum Party” set up by James Goldsmith.  Later, just when it was getting going,  it suffered a split  in its ranks. Those were the Robert Kilroy-Silk years – when he failed to get his own way he walked out, forming a new party called “Veritas”, taking some of Ukip’s membership with him.
Now, without Farage at the helm, where will it be going next?  Mind you, it isn’t the first time he’s resigned – but I assume  that this time he means it.!
Threat to our buses:
The Forest’s doughty bus campaigner, Sue Dubois, is continuing her campaign to save the Dean’s network of bus services from being decimated.
One of the problems, of course, is that the bulk of them are run by that monolithic company Stagecoach – whose watch word is profit, and more of it. But the planned cuts in this case actually come from the County Council, that dishes out the odd subsidy.
Councillors (all no doubt with cars at their disposal) have come up with proposals to axe evening and weekend services in our neck of the woods. Under threat is the number 23, Gloucester, Lydney, Coleford route, the number 30, Gloucester, Cinderford, Coleford, and the 24, Gloucester, Mitcheldean to Joys Green bus. Other local shopping services are under threat.
Bus users are being given a number of options, all of which come under the general heading of “which cuts do you prefer?” In other words, leaving the council to decide who’re really going to be the losers when it comes to dishing out the subsidies.


In Guest Feature on June 23, 2016 at 12:17 pm


On June 23rd, Clarion readers will have the opportunity to have their say on Europe. Tory PM David Cameron went off both to Brussels and on a parallel peregrination around Europe to negotiate a series of “reforms” that would enable him to recommend that Britain votes to remain in the European Union (EU). Now he’s telling us all that if we don’t vote to “Remain” Britain will be bankrupt, friendless and impotent with the world facing a new world war. One wonders when someone will point out to him that he was solely responsible for getting the UK into this mess, when as part of a squalid deal with Tory fundamentalists he gambled the country’s future for the rabid right’s votes for the Tory leadership.


There is bad news and good news for those on the left. The bad news is that Cameron was asking for the wrong (and reactionary) reforms. But the good news is that most of what he got was window dressing, not worth the paper it wasn’t written on – although the few real things he did get are dangerous. The Tories got a totally meaningless opt-out on an “ever closer union” as an EU objective and a verbal promise that the other 27 member states would turn a blind eye to discrimination against their citizens as regards to in and out of work benefits when living in the UK. A provision that he knows all too well will be promptly and rightly ruled illegal and overturned as soon as the first case taken by an aggrieved EU citizen reaches the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg. Nevertheless it’s a convenient fiction until well after the votes in the referendum are cast and counted.


However, Cameron did get a promise on “better regulation” at EU level. One does wonder who was supposedly in favour of “worse regulation”? It rather depends on what you mean – for Cameron and the Tory Government “better regulation” are in reality weasel words for less regulation protecting workers and consumers from the gentle ministrations of capital determined to maximise profit and minimise costs. It’s less regulation controlling the bankers and Hedge Funds as they continue to grow like a cancer at the heart of the British economy, and in reward throw their millions in small change into Tory Party coffers. It’s less regulation of Britain’s tax havens as canny millionaire fathers squirrel away the money for Eton education at the expense of public services for the poor and needy. All hardly designed to drive voters out in their droves to support “Remain”, even if “Leave” would in contrast put Dracula in charge of the blood bank with all the EU restraint on their savaging of public services and the poor removed.


But that’s the wrong answer to the wrong question. The Left and Labour’s argument for voting to “remain” is not because of Cameron but despite him. Our argument is not the “red Tory” one of the Scottish Referendum when Labour was suckered into endorsing the Tory case for Union. In an increasingly global economy the future lies together not separately. The EU is currently bigger and richer than the US. The EU can set global standards – whether social or political – on trade and on the environment, human rights and equality, in a way no medium sized nation state could ever contemplate. We want to stay in Europe to change it, but in entirely the opposite direction from where Cameron wants to take us.


We need a European Economic Strategy that rejects the neo-liberal austerity programme, a commitment to fighting climate change and a rapid drive towards a “green economy”, a trade policy that puts people first, paralleled by a foreign policy underpinned by multilateralism, human rights and democracy accompanied by security and defence policy that has the EU prepared to tackle today’s – and tomorrow’s – threats rather than yesterday’s.

Today’s Europe wears its social democratic cloth all too lightly, all progressives would agree. Yet while it would be wonderful if we could build Socialism in one country, if it was ever possible it isn’t any more. What miracle of English exceptionalism, what fantasy, allows us to think we can go it alone when our Socialist sister parties across Europe whether in Italy or Germany or France, all believe their future is inside the Union? The Greek Left, despite all the harsh indignities visited upon it by the World and Europe’s Bankers know that their best future is in Europe – and the Euro – not outside.

The Marx and Spencer of the “Leave” campaign – Groucho and Frank that is Boris and Farage – offer nothing that we want. These “Dell Boys” of politics are selling xenophobic right-wing populism wrapped up in a flag of St. George and a nostalgia for a past that never was for Britain’s poor and needy. Another Europe is possible but the only way to get there is to vote to “remain” on June 23rd – despite Cameron not because of him – and go on from there.


Glyn is the editor (with Julian Priestley) of a collection of essays, “Our Europe, Not Theirs”; a second edition of which has been published by Lawrence and Wishart.

DEBATE: A view on how to vote in the EU referendum

In M. Davies on May 5, 2016 at 12:41 pm

A viewpoint piece by Mat Davies.

There are many reasons to stay in or to leave the European Union. Economic arguments from both camps provide valid and inconclusive evidence. The truth is that either outcome is a gamble. It is equally true that migration could be more carefully regulated. However, there is evidence that suggests that migration adds to our tax intake. The same contradictions permeate most policy areas from health and safety, to security. Nonetheless, I have been engaged in EU politics since my teens. The core concerns of the “leave” campaigners is old hat.


“If we leave the EU won’t we be able to make our own laws” ? Not really. Yet that is the overwhelming argument sprinkled with words like “sovereignty”. Externally, we will still be bound by the trade regulations decided at the World Trade Organisation, and our banking standards will be set through the Bank of International Settlements. There are scores of institutions and treaties that limit our “sovereignty” including laws regarding torture, safeguarding refugees, and engaging in military action. The “out” campaign effectively argues against them all.

Moreover, the limits to the “state” of the UK are internal and external. There are three relatively recently devolved nations that have law-making powers. Plaid Cymru in Wales and SNP in Scotland, among local governments, all point to the negative outcomes of centralised power in Westminster. Supra-nationality and devolution has clearly undermined the role of a “centralised state”. Indeed, governance, rather than governing has become the norm, not the exception.


The European Union has enshrined democratic principles into the Treaty of Lisbon, and more power has been granted to national parliaments. Moreover, subsidiarity is solidified through the Committee of the Regions that responds to regional interests within member states. Power is fragmented across across political and legal institutions in a federal manner. What is all the fuss about?

It is true that the EU is obscure, complicated, and requires education at all levels. Instead, many politicians have outsourced policy failure and invoked innate nationalism during many domestic hurdles. The only news programme on the BBC that shared what happens in Strasbourg and Brussels was cancelled a few years ago. Nonetheless, negative stories have tended to make the headlines, and the lack of EU information has added to EU misunderstanding and scepticism.

Furthermore, a broad turn towards nationalism is a partial consequence of the undermining of international law, noticeably during the Bush/Blair administrations. That was extremely harmful policy hypocrisy. For example regarding torture and environmental agreements. The post-war consensus effectively lost its legitimacy in the eyes of many . Internationalism appeared as a tool to colonise by exporting policies that benefited the US and UK.


At the precipice of the referendum, we should reflect on the following. The undermining of the Concert of Europe ushered in World War 1. The dissolution of the League of Nations witnessed the rise of fascism and World War 2. The arguments presented by the “leave” campaign, although often valid, fail to present a vision for the future. I believe that even with its shortcomings, we are better in the EU . History has proved internationalism as wise and nationalism vile.

Mat Davies.


1951: France and West Germany formed the European Coal and Steel Community.

MARCH 1957: France, West Germany, Italy,Netherlands, Belgium and Luxemburg sign the Treaty of Rome setting up the European Economic Community (EEC). The EEC formally came into being in January 1958.

JANUARY 1973: Britain, Ireland and Denmark joined the European Community.

1993: The European Community (EC) becomes the European Union (EU).

By 2007 there were 27 member states in the European Union.


‘City of Thorns: Nine Lives in the World’s Largest Refugee Camp’ by B. Rawlence

In R.Richardson, Reviews on May 3, 2016 at 4:51 pm


‘City of Thorns: Nine Lives in the World’s Largest Refugee Camp’ by Ben Rawlence. Published by Portobello Books.


Ben Rawlence, the author of this remarkable book, is a human rights watch observer. Over the course of four years he was a first-hand witness of life in Dadaab, Kenya, home to half a million refugees. Dadaab is deep in the desert where only thorn bushes grow, hundreds of miles from any other settlement. Aid is provided by the UN and channeled through an army of charities and aid workers, and the city runs on a grey economy.

Most of the refugees are Somali fleeing from the consequences of the civil war of 2008, when control of most of the country was seized by al-Shabaab, an al-Qaida-linked organisation. Others are from Sudan, Ethiopia, or Darfur. Many of them walked for days, often in family groups, to reach the comparative safety of the camp.



Rawlence interleaves the stories of nine individuals – and touches on many more – into his account of life in the camp. There is Guled, taken as a child soldier, who manages to escape and hitch a lift to Dabaab.  Through his story we learn the hugely protracted process of registering in the camp for aid.

Other characters include Kheyro, a dedicated student pinning her hopes on escaping the camp by means of one of the very few available scholarships. There is Tawane, a youth leader, who organises distribution for the newcomers to the camp and does his best to stay out of trouble.

With so many different nationalities in such an environment, unsurprisingly conflicts arise. And there’s always the risk of infiltration by al-Shabaab.  Indeed, terrorist activity erupts more than once, resulting in the temporary withdrawal of aid workers, so that refugees like Tawane with a measure of responsibility have to ensure that basic services keep running.


The inhabitants of Dadaab are in limbo. No-one wants to acknowledge that it has become permanent, but some have been there for over twenty years.  A few decide to return to their homes and are given a resettlement package, though war in Somalia is by no means over.  A very few are given papers  for a new life in the western world. And some decide to strike out on the long and dangerous journey to Europe by way of the Mediterranean or Turkey.


City of Thorns came to my notice through an article by Ian Birrell in the “i” newspaper, entitled “Exposing the refugee camp myths”. Clearly, says Birrell,  these camps are not a humanitarian answer, though it is a convenient one for politicians.

Sir Alan Duncan, then Minister of State for International Development,  said in 2014: “You know where they are  when they are in camps.”  Birrell writes, “What human being wants life trapped in limbo dependent on others for everything?”  What they need, says Birrell, is the right to work legitimately so they can build a fresh start.


There needs to be a proper resettlement plan in which all first-world countries play their part. At present the West is considering a deal with Turkey to contain up to two million refugees within their borders, housed in huge UN funded camps. Anyone who thinks that this is an acceptable solution should read ‘City of Thorns’.  We need investigative journalists like Ben Rawlence to tell it like it is.