Wednesday 30 April 2014

If Farage had stood in Newark...

Nigel Farage has today decided that he will not stand for his United Kingdom Independence Party in the forthcoming by-election in Newark, Nottinghamshire.  As I ponder going to a local beer festival this coming Friday in Warrington, it really does hit home that a love for Real Ale is probably just about the only thing I have in common with the UKIP Leader.

Farage believes that most English people consider themselves to be English first rather than a particular affiliation to an English region, and that an English Parliament would be desirable to address constitutional imbalances as a result of Scottish Devolution.  My own devolution perspective could not be more different.  I believe that the economic dominance of London and the South East is one reason why England needs Regional Assemblies to counter balance this dominance.

Nigel Farage has gone on record about his belief that British Overseas Territories should have representation in the House of Commons.  Any regular readers of my blog posts will know very well what I think of this viewpoint.  On the main issue of UKIP's existence, I am a believer on balance that there are more reasons for the UK to stay within the European Union than depart.  Although, I do also support a national referendum at some point in the future to resolve the EU issue.

As much as I hope UKIP does not do as well as they hope in May's European elections, Mr Farage has made the right calculation in not standing in the Nottinghamshire by-election.  It would have distracted his message nationally in relation to the forthcoming European elections.  I would not go as far as saying that to stand would earn him unwanted comparisons with the Monster Raving Loony Party.  But the size of the Conservative majority along with his lack of connections to the East Midlands, would have made him look just a little silly.

So credit has to go where credit is due.  WELL DONE NIG!  IT WAS THE CORRECT CALL.  GIVE YOURSELF A PAT ON THE BACK!







Saturday 26 April 2014

Cornwall to join UEFA?

I have previously stated in various blog posts that Quebec and Catalonia (should the Catalans not secede from Spain) could be considered to become full national members of the world football family, irrespective of being non-sovereign jurisdictions.  Now it could also be time to make a case for Cornwall.

Cornish people have long campaigned for their homeland to be recognised as more than just another English County.  Unlike Lancashire or Norfolk for instance, Cornwall has it's own language, which is of course a classic sign of a distinct identity.  This week Cornwall was granted minority status by Europe.  The decision does in some respects put the Cornish people on a par with the Scots, Welsh, and Northern Irish.

Cornish problems such as high unemployment will not disappear overnight.  One mechanism which could be strategically positioned to address this unfortunate state of affairs is a Cornish Assembly, which is seen as the main aim of Mebyon Kernow (The Party for Cornwall).  Whilst a Cornish Assembly could still be some way off, perhaps the time is right though for the Cornish to explore ways and means to express their distinct identity through sport.

Football is of course the world's most popular sport, and there are countless precedents of non-sovereign jurisdictions being welcomed into the World Football Family, most notably the other Nations of the UK.  European Football's governing body UEFA gave the British Overseas Territory of Gibraltar full membership just under a year ago.  With Gibraltar having a population of just a fraction to that of Cornwall, the case for UEFA welcoming the land of the Cornish Pasty and Clotted Cream is very compelling indeed.


Thursday 17 April 2014

If Australians are so Pro-Monarchy, then why not an Aussie Monarchy?

As two future Kings of England (William and his baby son George) arrived in Australia this week, it appears support for ditching the British Monarchy and replacing it with a Republic, is at a 15 year low.  I know some people may well call me cynical, but surely this pro-monarchy trend can't last can it?

It was in the 1990s when the then Australian Prime Minister Paul Keating set the wheels in motion for a referendum to be held on Australia becoming a republic.  Keating famously said it was time that Australia's next Head of State would be "one of us!"  When that referendum was held in 1999, nearly 55% of the Australian people voted against.

If Australia is still so much against becoming a republic, maybe the time has come to consider a new approach.  Maybe the time has come for Australia to look into creating it's own monarchy?  Perhaps the Aussies could create some once in a lifetime reality tv programme, which would determine who would earn the right to start this new hereditary monarchy.

As much as some people would label monarchies to be anachronisms or unmeritocratic, monarchies do offer a point of political neutrality in which prime ministers of different political persuasions can build trust.  This arguably contributes towards political stability.

What a monarch cannot do is follow the example of Spain's King Juan Carlos, by taking an elephant hunting holiday at a time of economic austerity.  In the 21st Century, the monarch needs to become more of a figure head.

So who could become the first monarch in a new Australian monarchy?  Perhaps Australia could import some hanger-on from the House of Windsor to keep the connection?  Or if they want one of "their own," perhaps none other than Paul Keating himself?




Tuesday 15 April 2014

NO to cameras in British Courts!

By just taking a passing interest in the news of the last few weeks, it would be impossible not to notice a high profile trial which has been taking place in South Africa.  The case involves a high profile athlete accused of murdering his girlfriend, who was a model.

I am not going to offer my view as to whether I believe the defendent to be guilty or otherwise.  What I will state is how difficult these reports are to watch.  I really do feel for the dead girl's parents, whom have had to endure the indignity of being viewed by the cameras, as evidence has been played out.  I also believe that the evidence being played out for public consumption is not helpful towards the ultimate judicial aim of a fair trial.

Prior to this high profile trial getting underway, I was moving towards an acceptance that some kind of limited use of cameras in the British Courtroom would now be inevitable.  One example cited was to show the judge's summing up of the case.  With the coverage I have seen of this high profile South African case, I have now moved the other way.

I don't particularly see the point of a courtroom camera purely showing a judge summing up, when a reporter can adequately highlight the important points of the summing up outside the court building as he or she would do now?  What I definitely don't want is to see such limited televised coverage becoming a stepping stone towards televised trials.  SO NO TO TV CAMERAS IN UK COURTROOMS FOR ME!

Sunday 13 April 2014

No turning back for US Falklands/Malvinas Neutrality!

An inquiry by British MPs into the health of the so-called special relationship has declared it's disappointment that the United States will not back Britain's stance of self-determination for the remote Falklands/Malvinas archipeleago in the South Atlantic Ocean.  Argentina's firebrand President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner may well have been more than a little annoying to many in the international community, not just for the British.  But that said, she will no longer Argentine President in 18 months time.

Whilst America may have reluctantly backed Britain during the brief war of 1982, any change in their consistent neutrality on this issue would only serve a short term purpose. I believe the reality is that the US considers the long term positions of both Governments involved in the Falklands/Malvinas dispute to be unsustainable in the long term.

Noises have been made throughout the presidencies of both Kirchner presidents (Nestor and Cristina) suggesting the wishes of those who inhabit the islands are irrelevant.  Although we may be talking about a tiny population, many amongst that tiny population have had descendents on the islands that can be traced back to an earlier time before some descendents of the current Argentine population first arrived in Argentina!

Surely if Argentina is serious about trying to resolve this issue in the long term, the penny will drop that it's attitude to the Falklanders will need to moderate.  After all, in a world in which regional trading blocks are becoming the norm, Argentina can offer obvious trading advantages which Britain cannot due to geographical proximity.

It is on the point though of just how tiny that population is that the British case is also unsustainable.  The tiny population is often explained in a lazy way by suggestions the weather is so unbearable that not many people would wish to live there.

How do you define "not many people?"  The Falklands/Malvinas has a population of around the 3,000 mark.  Pick any British village of a similar population size, and then ask if we are talking about an archipelago of a similar area size to that small British village?  No, we are in fact talking about an area of land comparable in size to Northern Ireland!

On the point of how you define "not many people," lets examine the population of an archipelago in the North Atlantic with what is acknowledged to have a similar climate to the Falklands/Malvinas.  The Faroe Islands have a population of about 50,000 on a land area size which is a fraction to that of the Falklands/Malvinas land area size.  If the Falklands/Malvinas had a similar population density to the Faroes, the South Atlantic archipelago would have a population closer to the 400,000 mark!

The Falklands/Malvinas being underpopulated as opposed to sparsely populated is not the sole reason which undermines Britain's argument of self-determination.  How many Brits have even heard of South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands?  Well I have asked a few intelligent people regarding the territory which is situated about 900 miles east of the Falklands/Malvinas, and can confirm there are indeed few Brits aware of this territory's existence.

South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands is also claimed by Argentina as a part of it's national territory.  Unlike the Falklands/Malvinas, this territory has no native population at all.  In fact it has a rotational population of 30, who are based in a scientific research centre.  Whilst the geographical proximity of this territory is not that close to Argentina, one fact which cannot be ignored is that Argentina is the closest sovereign state.

The Falkland Islands Government held a referendum just over a year ago in an attempt to demonstrate their self-determination to the world.  Just how successful that message has been with a 99.8% yes vote, time will no doubt tell.  What the referendum did no doubt achieve was to highlight other issues such as potential mineral wealth which may well become more significant in the years that lie ahead.

If the Falklands/Malvinas does indeed become a magnet for wealth, immigration trends will no doubt follow to possibly start to reverse the archipelago's under-population.  One reality Britain will need to accept is that if there is a significant influx of further immigration from the British mainland, it will only further play into an argument used by Argentina from time to time.

Argentina has argued that the Falklands/Malvinas is an implanted population.  I don't believe a potential future scenario with only a minority of the Falklands/Malvinas population as non-immigrants, would win support for the Self-Determination argument in the wider world at all.

The current British Prime Minister David Cameron has consistently taken an uncompromising line with Argentina in terms of suggesting there can never be any negotiations with Argentina, unless it is the wishes of the Falklanders.  If Cameron wins next year's general election and then goes on to serve a full second term as PM, I would believe the current British policy to be sustainable probably for as long as Cameron remains in office.

After Cameron though, nothing is impossible.  Many UK political observers would say any talk of a Falklands compromise would be electoral suicide for any governing party.  But that said, an opinion poll taken two years ago for the Guardian newspaper predictably showing most Brits in support of defending British Sovereignty, also detected a potential shift in opinion amongst younger generations.  Any impetus towards compromise will of course also require a more concilatory tone from future Argentine governments towards the Falklanders.

Taking on board all the factors that are relevant to the Falklands/Malvinas dispute, it seems more logical to me that the US will indeed be sensible to remain on the fence.

Saturday 5 April 2014

Is Nick Clegg now living on borrowed time?

The British Liberal Democrat Leader Nick Clegg was riding the crest of a wave approximately 4 years ago, as Britons were preparing to go to the polls for a general election.  The election campaign comprised of a series of televised debates involving the then Prime Minister Gordon Brown, David Cameron, and Clegg himself.  In fact Clegg was seen by many to be the stronger performer.

The 2010 General Election ended 13 years of Labour rule, and the coalition negotiations which followed between the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats saw Clegg become the Deputy Prime Minister in what has been commonly referred to as the Con-Dem Government.  For some political commentators, the scene of PM Dave and Deputy PM Nick in the Downing Street Rose Garden was very touching indeed.

Four years later and Nick Clegg's fortunes could very well be on the wane.  It was the pro-EU Clegg who decided to challenge United Kingdom Independence Party Leader Nigel Farage to a series of debates on Britain's membership of the European Union.  This was after alienating some Liberal Democrat voters by jumping into bed with the Tories in the first place, breaking his electoral promise on free tuition fees, and insisting on what some people would consider an inappropriate referendum on changing the UK's electoral system.

On the point of electoral reform, I do make no apologies for stating that I am a supporter of changing the UK's discredited First Past the Post Electoral System.  But I don't think it is purely the lack of hindsight, that would suggest having the Alternative Vote Referendum just a year into the life of the Con-Dem Government, which would explain bad timing.  At the time, Britain was in need of addressing probably the worst recession in generations!

Most Britons will only take an active interest in Politics at the time of the General Election.  Other important events such as the Local Government Elections and European Elections are notorious for low turnout.  It is a very unfortunate state of affairs, but that is the way it is.  The AV referendum only produced a turnout of 42%.

Whilst I believe it would be desirable to see the UK electoral system reformed one day, I do also know it is not an issue that features prominently among many voters' priorities.  Even if it had meant the Liberal Democrats fighting possibly one more election under the First Past the Post System, I believe there would have been significantly more interest had the referendum been held close to the same date as the 2015 General Election instead.

In this week's televised EU debate with Farage, Clegg did make some very good points concerning the co-operation of European nations on crime and terrorism, in addition to the point that Norway and Switzerland are not having any say in the regulations for the trading region in which most of their goods and services are sold.  But he then let himself down on the final question from the audience, by declaring his view that the EU would be quite similar in 10 years time.  It was hardly the smartest thing to say in attempting to woo people to his way of thinking.

The various polls of the British public in the aftermath of the Clegg v Farage debate have indeed suggested a clear victory to Farage.  But these polls are hardly a Presidential Election.  It is also reasonable to conclude that had Farage been in the Government instead of Clegg, then it may have been different.  But that is not the point.  It was Clegg who challenged Farage to these debates, not the other way round.

It should also be noted that in Farage, the man in which Clegg has come off second best against, we are hardly talking about some political heavyweight.  We are in fact talking about a man who described himself in the televised debate as not being a career politician.  Yet Farage favours giving British Overseas Territories representation in the House of Commons.  With British subjects in other parts of the world being detached somewhat from the mainland British national interest, could it be possible that Farage sees these people as his best hope of winning a House of Commons seat?  Even if this was not the case, it is hardly progressive 21st Century politics is it?

Clegg's current position is not to offer the British people a referendum on EU membership.  With opinion polls on membership suggesting that British public opinion is split, the momentum towards a referendum may well be gathering.  Although I am on balance on the same side of the fence as Clegg when it comes to arguing for Britain's membership of the EU, I believe Clegg is misjudging the mood of the Country in his refusal to endorse an in-out referendum.

My own personal support for an in-out referendum is not on the basis of believing the British people will ultimately vote to stay in Europe at all.  The truth is I don't know how the British people will ultimately vote.  I believe irrespective of what Britain would ultimately decide on it's EU future, that Europe is and will continue to be Britain's most important external relationship.  Europe is after all the market in which most British products and services are sold.  But with the British public divided, the UK needs clarity of where that most important relationship is to be managed from in the future.  Should it be from within the EU's institutions or outside those institutions?

I have already voted the same way as the Liberal Democrats in one referendum, and voted on the losing side.  It is now possible I may at some point be voting in a second referendum in the same direction as this largely pro-European party.  I don't so much fear backing the losing horse in a second referendum.  Ultimately there is nothing to fear in democracy.  However if Nick Clegg is still Liberal Democrat Leader whenever an EU in-out referendum does finally arrive, the best possible case for Britain staying in the EU may not be made.  That would be a tragedy for British democracy.

Clegg's judgement in firstly challenging Farage to the EU debates, and his subsequent performance in those debates, does not breed confidence.  If the Liberal Democrats do perform very badly in May's European Elections,  I would not be surprised if it is Clegg's very own leadership of the Liberal Democrats that becomes his next serious debate!







Tuesday 1 April 2014

Alex Salmond is so misunderstood by the English!

I will make the point that I would prefer Scotland to reject the Scottish First Minister's vision of an independent Scotland.  

The main reason I take this position is to echo the views expressed by the former British Conservative Premier Sir John Major.  Sir John has spoken of the prospect of a much diminished UK losing global influence, and maybe even losing it's permanent seat on the UN Security Council!  I would like to think that Scotland as a whole would recognise that a weaker UK with less global influence would not be spiffing for them also.  Plus Scottish Devolution has delivered more decision making closer to the Scottish citizen, and that distinct Scottish identity continues to thrive on the international stage through Scotland's various sporting teams.

Despite my preference for the Scots to say No, I would warn against jumping on an anti-Salmond bandwagon.  Just because someone feels Scotland is better outside the framework of the Union, it does not necessarily mean they are intrinsically anti-English!  In fact I personally don't think that either the man himself nor Nicola Sturgeon (his Scottish Nationalist Party Deputy) are anti-English at all.  In the event of a Yes vote it would almost certainly be in the rest of the UK's interest to have cordial relations with whoever forms the first Government of an independent Scotland.

As much as some English Politicians like UKIP's Nigel Farage are quick to make the point of how Salmond is good at goading the English, Salmond is correct when he speaks of how Britain is imbalanced economically due to London dominance.  One point in support of this imbalance is the transport spending per head for London residents being far superior to the spending per head in the north of England.  Whether an independent Scotland is the answer to this imbalance is debatable.

I personally favour Regional Devolution in the English Regions as a means to correct this imbalance.  The people of the North East had the opportunity to bring more powers closer to the people in the 2004 devolution referendum.  I am not saying the rejected North East Assembly could have assumed powers to give the people in that region free prescriptions, as Salmond has been able to.  But it is important to realise that the decision of the North East electorate (had it been to embrace devolution) could have gone some way to challenge the dominance of London and the South-East.

In getting to the unbalanced point some people try to make about Salmond being anti-English, it is important to remember that this particular referendum in the North-East was not one in which Mr Salmond had any influence over.  Salmond is also correct when he refers to an independent Scotland being no more a foreign country to the remainder of the UK than the Republic of Ireland is.  Is anybody seriously saying that the current Irish Premier Enda Kenny and his Government are anti-British?  But perhaps more crucially, do the majority of Brits see the Irish as foreigners?  Of course not!

When arguments were made recently made along the lines of how absurd it would be for an independent Scotland to share the pound, Salmond looked on the back foot.  His fightback in terms of suggesting how high the currency exchange costs would be on English Business, has perhaps turned this fascinating debate on it's head.  That is not to say Salmond may be exaggerating the extent to which English industry would be at a loss.  But let's face it- exaggeration of the facts is something all politicians of all colours engage in, for better or for worse!