The First Amendment to the US Constitution - A model of free speech for Europe

Many states have introduced legislation to prohibit racist hate speech, but such laws are unconstitutional in the US. In response to the Additional Protocol to the Convention on Cybercrime, the US Government stated that it would be unable to provide prosecutorial or investigative assistance to member states where issues arose concerning Internet content as these would implicate fundamental rights, such as the freedom of expression which is protected by the First Amendment, and could therefore not sign the Protocol. Consequently, US authorities can override this constitutional protection only when race-hate material poses an imminent threat to a specific individual. Whilst this ‘fighting words’ doctrine exists in the US, whereby only the words which incite imminent unlawful action and are likely to produce such action are denied First Amendment protection, the potential for incitement is greatly distorted as there is no captive audience in the case of the Internet and its users can easily avoid websites that publish racist materials.

Regulating hate speech will inevitably remain ineffective as the American policy on free speech currently determines much of what happens in other jurisdictions. Evidence of this can be found in the Zündel case. The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal ordered the closure of the Ernst Zündel’s Holocaust revisionist website, which was hosted on a US server, considering the site to pose a serious threat to society. Despite this judgment however, the site is still hosted on a US server. The blocking of a site is therefore easily circumvented by copying content and establishing a mirror site on one or more servers in different jurisdictions where the content has yet to be blocked. Therefore, as nation-states attempt to enforce domestic legislation prohibiting racist expression in cyberspace, it is evident that the First Amendment presents the greatest obstacle to an effective regime of eradicating or minimising such racist hate. Consequently, racists around the world are taking advantage of the US’ status as a safe haven by using US providers as a relay for xenophobic and racist expression. Furthermore, foreign governments cannot obtain information from US providers regarding the identity of publishers of racist content as such content is not illegal in the US.

It can be argued that any international efforts to harmonise legislation among a group of nations will always be rendered futile by the effects of the US constitution until the US Supreme Court expands the categories of expression which cannot be accorded the protection of the First Amendment. The US has traditionally not regarded racist expression as a crime and therefore the act of upholding its constitutional values cannot readily be construed as tolerance or facilitation of illegal conduct. However, the contemporary problems concerning freedom of expression are not the same as those when the First Amendment was written in the late eighteenth century, when the concept of having a ‘false idea’ was not tolerated. Advocates of legislation argue that prohibiting racist expression is required to ensure that all citizens may enjoy equal participation in society, and therefore that racist speech should be considered of low value as it does not contribute to public discourse in a meaningful manner. It may be seen that the lack of legislation targeting extremist racists has not only failed to prevent the dissemination of racist materials in the US, but has led to a substantial growth in the number of racist groups. Furthermore, by allowing racist speech to continue, the First Amendment is failing to ensure that more speech occurs, as expressions of violent hatred are proven to silence ethnic minorities, thereby preventing them from participating fully in civil society and public discourse.

Nevertheless, the American model can be altered to restrict the freedom of the most extreme beneficiaries of the First Amendment. The government is however rightly reluctant to do so, as this amendment forms the cornerstone of the country’s liberties. In contrast to American situation, the UK constitutes a diametrically opposed example, whereby political correctness has stifled public discourse itself in instances where it addresses themes that may cause offence to certain religious minorities. What emerges is not only an inability to discuss matters of cultural significance, such as the future course of the national identity, but also a paradigm of deliberative democracy which prevails in many African states, whereby the state bases its authority on the placating of minority groups instead of the rule of law. The First Amendment enshrines freedom of expression as an absolute right with far greater scope for application than is offered by the European Convention on Human Rights. Europe as a whole, and especially the UK, must move towards the American appreciation of freedom of expression in order to secure our existences as pluralist, deliberative democracies.

Jacqui Smith's Super Database and War on Democracy

It is imperative that the public be aware of Jacqui Smith's most dangerous plot against democracy. Whilst the government decided to drop plans to include the 'Interception Modernisation Programme' (IMP) from the Communications Data Bill late last year, it has been revealed that officials will still proceed with the project that plans to retain details of phone calls, text messages, emails and websites visited by Internet users for six years, thereby granting law enforcement agencies unprecedented and highly intrusive power.

Despite such a database being completely ineffective and easily circumvented by genuine organisers of major crimes, particularly through the use of encryption and even simpler methods, several billion pounds are to be spent on a system that will amass such a vast quantity of sensitive data that, with the current budget and timescale, any attempt to secure the database from outside interference will fail. Furthermore, recent examples of officials carelessly losing public data on trains should inform us that we cannot trust the current government, or any future government, with such information. The police have over-relied on and misused anti-terror legislation in the past. In 2005, 266 people were arrested under the 2000 Terrorism Act, but only 27 people were charged with offences under anti-terrorist laws. Their constant need for more and more powers will eventually lead to the government granting them the use of the IMP database for investigations concerning less serious crimes. Moreover, the system will be fraught with inaccuracies that will cause hundreds, if not thousands, of innocent people to be wrongly presumed guilty through association.

Evidently, Jacqui Smith is the most oppressive and thoroughly anti-democratic Home Secretary of the modern era. Her subservience to certain minority groups has undermined our freedom of expression and the IMP plans not only attack our human right to privacy, but its evasion of all parliamentary scrutiny and potential opposition is a grave and authoritarian attack on Britain's commitment to deliberative democracy.

Swine Flu - The end is nigh!

“The UK is one of the best prepared countries to deal with swine flu and all action necessary will be taken to stop its spread”, Gordon Brown has said.

These very much unreassuring words were said this morning by PM Gordon Brown. This sounds remarkably similar to Brown's mutterings that Britain is the best prepared country heading into a global downturn. On this matter he speaks as a deluded man, no financial analyst on the planet would agree with his comments, he is completely out of touch with reality.

Going on his previous record, we are all doomed!

A Lesson in Free Universal Healthcare

America beware. Under the stewardship of President Obama, it has been suggested that this may be a route that needs pursuing - free universal healthcare. In Britain, we have the National Health Service (NHS), which was established over 60 years ago in 1948. Before this people were generally forced to pay for their healthcare, although free treatment was available from some teaching and charity hospitals. It was common to pay money into friendly societies that operated insurance schemes and from 1911 onwards, National Insurance contributions paid by employees and employers led covered treatment but not medications, in some ways this is comparable to the NHS now refusing to pay for the most expensive of drugs purely on a cost basis. Furthermore, prescription charges must be paid even if the medicine costs less without a prescription.

Time to crunch some numbers. The NHS employs 1.3 million staff. You probably now have the image of doctors and nurses running around in white coats, but you are sadly mistaken. These are mostly middle managers and administrators. The NHS is the 3rd biggest employer in the entire world. Shockingly, Britain is ranked 55th in the world when it comes to number of people per doctor, with 2.2 per 1000 - even Mongolia has more! It costs the tax payer on average £2000 per year to run the NHS. This is a staggering sum of money. Great, you say, this should comprehensively take care of me. Try getting an NHS dentist; due to the lack of willingness to upgrade equipment and improve working conditions, you have got more chance of witnessing an apology from Gordon Brown for his economic mismanagement than you do of finding an NHS dentist. Since 1997 the current regime has increased NHS spending by 80%. This is massive injection of cash, yet has it honestly gone to the right places? There are now less General Practitioner working hours than before this regime, largely due to the fact they were given a major pay rise (this is not a criticism in any way of GP's, I feel they are underpaid for performing a difficult job) however, due to the large hours they were forced to work they naturally can keep the same money and go part time and have a better lifestyle. This is an inherent problem with socialist principles; simply throwing money at a problem in an uncontrolled manner does not make it go away. If you visit an NHS hospital and compare it to a private hospital the differences are staggering. The private hospital will have private en-suite rooms with three decent (well, maybe not Gordon Ramsay-esque) meals a day. The main difference is the cleanliness. By going into an NHS hospital for a minor procedure you run the risk of catching a super bug, such as MRSA. Even then you have been lucky to have made it that far. The waiting lists for minor procedures are massive. Only if you are seriously ill will NHS treat you quickly. A recent visit to an accident and emergency room showed firsthand how the service is clogged up by dealing with drunkards who are on first name terms with staff that treat everybody with contempt as they are solely concerned with shifting numbers, leading to poor, impersonal service. It was obvious that there was a lack of hygiene at the hospital, and it was surprising to see so many uniformed staff just stood around doing nothing. Strangely the staff was keen for you to choose your ethnicity from a list. Does this really have any bearing on your treatment?

You may think, “Private medical insurance must cost the earth if the service is infinitely better.” You will be pleased and surprised to know that is not the case. For an average person, £1000 a year will get you the top level of cover. This is arguably essential as your health is your most important asset. It is fair to categorise the NHS not as a healthcare system, it never has cared for you when you are in good health, but rather a fairer term would be 'illness care', as that is the time it actually kicks into effect. Even then you may not have access to the latest cutting edge drugs that private cover could get you as they are regarded as too expensive. With the increased funding provided by the Labour regime it is interesting to note that according to a BBC report in March 2008, the average waiting time for treatment on the NHS had risen from 41 days in 1997-1998 to 49 days in 2007, once again proof that a huge injection of cash in the system has not improved matters.

The problems seem to be more deep rooted than simply a lack of funds; it seems there is a complete lack of structure. I believe that the true purpose of the NHS at government level may now be simply to provide even more public sector jobs, which have now swollen to such an incomprehensible size that it would be nearly impossible to streamline in one swoop due to the large increase in unemployment. But is this seriously a good reason to stick with a second rate health system? A better alternative would be to take the control completely out of the incompetent hands of the government and to have compulsory medical insurance either provided by the employer, with a tax break as an incentive, or paid for by the employee, tax free, unlike the present system, whereby you have to pay tax on this cover because you are helping the government by removing a burden – how generous of them! The Institute of Employment Studies in 2001 stated, “The majority of companies are spending between 2% and 16% of their annual budget on sickness absence alone. Private Medical Insurance will probably only cost around 1% of payroll and could save the employer thousands of pounds of down time.” Robertson Cooper Ltd, in conjunction with 87 major companies, in 2001 found, “The full impact of absence costs UK private sector employers about £1,550 per employee per year - or around 9% of their annual payroll.” For those genuinely unable to work as well as the retired the government should pay the cost of the private cover as this would work out more cost effective, while providing much better facilities, equipment and services than are on offer at present. The more people who have the private cover, the cheaper it will become (think of it as bulk buying). It would be necessary to regulate the profit margins allowed by the provider, or maybe better still, to make sure there is genuine competition in order to keep prices low and quality high, which is the inverse of the current system. Who knows, with these savings, maybe the spare money could be used to shorten the 23 years predicted to dig Britain out of its masses of debt or even to provide the workforce with a tax reduction?

America, if you need a lesson in how not to provide universal healthcare, then the NHS is your role model. President Obama is probably aware that free, universal healthcare in America is unlikely to ever be introduced. America is a country where the government is small and thankfully trusts the individual; it is unlikely that the people would trust government to run such an organisation.

Anti-Zionism - Protecting the Jewish People

According to anti-Zionist proponents, the Jews in ancient times were sent into exile from the Holy Land because they had failed to fulfil their obligations to God, a fact which is acknowledged in Jewish prayers (umipnei chatoeinu golinu meartzeinu). They were also expressly told not to bring about their redemption without God’s assistance and not to rebel against their host nations. Instead, Jews are commanded to pray for the wellbeing of their governments. The Torah Devorim (30:1) states that the Jewish people will be gathered by God from around the world and returned to the Holy Land. Further prophetical examples can be found in Zachariah (8:7-8) and Yirmiyah (31:7), amongst others. The Zionist movement therefore contravenes these beliefs and assigns Jews a nationalistic character which had never before existed. The nationalist ideology of the Zionist Jewish immigrants to the British Mandate of Palestine was always rejected by the Orthodox community living in the Holy Land. When the Zionists rose to power in the newly formed State of Israel, the Orthodox community feared an escalating conflict with local Muslims and that Jewish identity would cease to base itself solely upon adherence to the Torah. As such, they were unfortunately confronted with the choice of accepting the Zionist State or fleeing the land on which their ancestors had settled.

With this in mind, I do not contest the legitimacy of the Israeli State but I do question its appropriateness. Firstly, and historically, assigning nationhood to the Jewish people of the world wrongly supposes that these people regulate their collective existence in much the same way as all other nations. Yet the transnational composure of the Jewish population as well as the religious commandment to support their host nations’ governments inevitably refutes the possibility of conventional nationhood existing amongst the various Jewish communities of the world. If nationhood is to be based solely upon religious, cultural or linguistic identities then the international Roma gypsy community would therefore most certainly qualify as a nation and perhaps be entitled to self-determination and the right to a homeland. Secondly, as already stated, the concept of the current Israeli State is inappropriate as Zionism disregards the heavenly redemption mentioned in the Torah. Furthermore, in order to exist and continue flourishing, Israel has relied on a continuous influx of Jewish immigrants from around the globe. Anti-Zionists have recognised that Zionism has aided anti-Semitism in the removal of entire Jewish communities from certain countries to Israel. Theodor Herzl, the founder of Zionism, wrote on page 19 of his diaries, "Anti-Semites will become our surest friends, anti-Semitic countries our allies."

More importantly, however, compelling the Jewish people to seek refuge in Israel must come to an end as it is their international presence which has protected them from complete annihilation throughout history. Amassing this people in the region which is the most hostile and intolerant of religious freedom and human rights in the world is a misguided objective that lacks good judgment, particularly at a time when Israel’s neighbours are becoming increasingly radical. Jewish proposals to reconstruct the Holy Temple in Jerusalem on its original site on Temple Mount will always be impeded by the Muslim community and the presence of two of Islam’s holiest sites, the al-Aqsa Mosque and the Dome of the Rock. Evidently therefore, the Jewish people do not have complete freedom in their homeland. I agree with the anti-Zionists that a Jewish state is largely unnecessary, as the Jewish people have enriched the West in many ways and their presence is something we should actively strive to retain. If a Jewish territory is deemed necessary however, I propose that a new one be found in the Americas, far from uncivilised states that frequently threaten Jewry. The Jewish Autonomous Oblast in Russia is an example of such a territory, albeit one of very limited success. Allocating uninhabited territory to the Jewish cause in the Americas would yield far greater results due to the continents' respect for human rights and the great distance from any menacing cultures and regimes.

You wanted equality! Well done, you've got it!

With the ongoing recession and the Labour policy of continued MASSIVE borrowing in order to cushion the debt rather than simply limit the spending, a brief review of history is needed which shows that under the Labour this would eventually happen. It was only a matter of time for this economic oblivion to occur due to Labour's luck, the economic legacy of the Conservative Party, the endless credit limit and the favourable global economic conditions running out.

Daniel Hannan in the Daily Telegraph recently stated “Poverty is not simply an absence of money. Rather, it is bound up with a whole set of other circumstances: lack of qualifications, demoralisation, family break-up, substance abuse, fatherlessness.” If you look at the history of the Labour Party, particularly in the 60's and 70's, it has been based on high taxes to the middle classes, high benefits to the lower classes, business decline due to over-regulation, high corporation taxes and stringent employment regulation, which is a result of the spine of union support running through the Labour Party. These areas could be regarded as the true sources of wealth. The old saying of not 'biting the hand that feeds' has never been learnt by the Labour Party. The givers of wealth are not tied to these shores; they can and WILL leave; they are not going to sit back and let Robin Hood, aka Alistair Darling, take another 10% of their income. There are plenty of other nations that wish to accept these talented individuals. The net gain for the government will be small in the long term. It is another scapegoat for the recession from a government that is only interested in winning votes through their decision making (in this instance by trying to start a class war). I have not seen one economic expert who has complemented the latest budget in any way, shape or form.

Every government since the Second World War that has attempted to throw money at the lower classes on the basis of improving “equality” has failed. They do not deal with the root causes, as highlighted by Daniel Hannan. Again and again, the words of 'a fairer society' and 'narrowing the gap between rich and poor' have been mooted around by Blair, Brown and other members of this regime. For most Labour voters this is arguably their primary reason for voting. At this point I feel I need to congratulate Labour on making this policy come to fruition (which can rarely be said). The gap between rich and poor, middle and lower class has become smaller, however the lower classes are still at the same point that they have always been at. The middle classes have been forced down the ladder and are now worse off than they have been for 30 years and they are the ones who will have to pay heavily over the next 23 years (as predicted) for the mismanagement of this regime. Life is not going to get any better for anybody except the 30,000 public service workers whose jobs were created in March (100,000 were lost in this time). Do we really need any more NHS middle managers, council consultants, community support officers? Over the next 4 years £4 billion is to be spent on extra consultants for the public sector. This is a staggering amount of extra money to spend when every other developed country is cutting back. Worryingly there is another year to go until the financial crimes inflicted by the current regime can start to be undone; however this is going to take decades in order to repair.

Freedom of Expression in the UK - A reply from a Lord

Thank you for your letter of 8th April sent to the House of Lords via writetothem.com.

The views contained in your letter (many with which I agree) should be made known to Labour MPs and peers who have slavishly voted for the authoritarian legislation brought in by this so called Labour Government over the past ten years or so.

If you care to consult my voting and speaking record you will find that I have opposed most, if not all, the oppressive measures forced through by the present government. I believe in individual freedom and freedom of speech which, as you say, have been considerably eroded.

With regard to the banning of Mr. Wilders from entering the United Kingdom to show his DVD to Members of the House of Lords, that decision was both anti-democratic and completely stupid. If Mr. Wilders had been allowed to enter he would have spoken to between thirty and fifty people. Due to the publicity surrounding his exclusion from the UK his DVD was watched by a huge number of people throughout the world. Yet another blunder from a Home Secretary completely unfit for the office she holds or, for that maffer, any other post in Her Majesty's Government.

Freedom of Expression in the UK - A letter to members of Parliament

I am writing to you to express my deep concern regarding the alarming erosion of our country’s commitment to a model of deliberative democracy, of which the freedom of speech is an inalienable part of fundamental importance. The deliberative model of democracy requires all members of society to be considered as equal and to be granted equal rights of participation in the political processes of the state. International treaties, such as the European Convention of Human Rights, to which, as you are aware, the UK is signatory, defend the plurality of political participation which is both essential for the respect of democratic principles and for the representation of the various interests of a society at the governmental level, as a polity may only be considered democratic if it embodies the twin principles of political equality and popular sovereignty. Therefore, the Home Secretary’s decision to deny a democratically elected legislator from another European Union member state, which is signatory to the same human rights instruments as the UK, the right to enter our country would seem excessive and disproportionate for several reasons.

The Dutch MP, Geert Wilders, was invited by the House of Lords to show his short film, Fitna, which juxtaposes video clips of terrorist sympathisers, atrocities and hatred for the West with verses from the Koran, and compares Islam to Nazism. The Home Office refused him entry on the grounds that he would hypothetically threaten community harmony and public security. However several commentators, both from the UK and overseas, have noted that profoundly anti-Christian Islamists have been granted access to our country to preach their unsavoury opinions. On 11th February 2009, Mr. Wilders was deported from the UK. It is true that Mr Wilders’ opinions may have caused offence to many members of the public, regardless of their religion, however denying his right to free speech has disproportionately silenced public debate. Minority groups, including Muslims, should not be permitted to achieve this effect, even when they are the subject and even when the message being conveyed is offensive. This same principle should also apply equally to other religious groups and their leaders. Furthermore, I believe that the Home Secretary’s refusal has inadvertently been detrimental to the public image of the British Muslim community, as it confirms that she believed Mr Wilders’ presence in the UK would have sparked irrational violence and upheaval or even the siege of the Palace of Westminster by a mob of 10,000 angry Muslims, as warned by Baron Ahmed of Rotherham, who himself has hosted a book launch in the House of Lords for the controversial anti-Semitic writer, Israel Shamir.

According to Mr Philip Rumney, lecturer at Bristol Law School, legislation criminalising the incitement of racial and religious hatred in Britain has greatly restricted the dissemination of racist materials in the public, without having a detrimental effect on the freedom of speech, and may also be responsible for an apparent decrease in the support for organised racist groups, as evidenced by the limited number of British prosecutions. However, the Channel 4 documentary ‘Dispatches’, first broadcast on Monday 15th January 2007 and entitled ‘Undercover Mosque’, reported on preachers in mosques nationwide that actively condemn any degree of integration into British society as well as western values of human rights and tolerance. This Saudi Arabian form of Islam, Wahhabism, disseminates a message of hatred, segregation and the will to dismantle British democracy. Evidently therefore, the legislation enacted to prohibit racial and religious hatred inadequately takes into account the issue of the radicalisation of British mosques.

My concerns are further amplified by the overwhelming sense that the current government is insistent on upholding and enshrining political correctness as a core value to the extent that it has become the status quo and allows the minority to dictate what is acceptable for the majority. Respecting diversity and political correctness is therefore deemed to be more essential than asserting national values of tolerance, the rule of law and human rights. It would therefore seem that minority groups are able to exploit the environment created by the secular and politically correct orientation of our society in order to nurture their radical ideologies. Moreover, it is apparent that there is a lack of political will to address the imbalances of free speech rights and positive discrimination brought about by the reluctance to offend cultural, ethnic or religious minorities. An example of this imbalance occurred on 3rd February 2006 outside of the Danish Embassy in London. It is well documented that the Islamist demonstrators staged a protest inciting murder, hatred and intolerance, yet in spite of this, the police failed to immediately put an end to the protests. The failure to arrest anyone also outraged moderate British Muslims who do not wish to be represented by such illegitimate and uncivilised actions.

Although I do not consider myself to be Islamophobic in any xenophobic sense, I do fear the restrictions effectively being imposed by this particular minority community on the right to free speech. For this reason, I wish to clarify that the intention of this letter is to address the conflict been democracy and theocracy which is raging at present, with particular focus on the harm being caused to free speech. The British people should have been allowed to make their own assessment of Mr. Wilders’ opinions. His speech also could have allowed extreme views to be vented and subsequently diffused. On 19th February 2009, Mr Wilders was allowed into Italy to deliver a speech in Rome. The Italian government, also a signatory to the same international human rights instruments as the UK, chose not to suppress his civil rights. It is therefore necessary to conclude that the British political system has bestowed grievance-bearing minority groups with unacceptable leverage over itself. The European paradigm of states bases its authority over citizens on the rule of law rather than on the placating of minority groups. In a diverse society the only true common denominator shared by all groups is civil rights. Sacrificing the majority’s right to free speech by invoking justifications for a right’s restriction based on hypothetical public order concerns renders our concept of rights utilitarian rather than liberal.

With these issues in mind, how will your Party counter such erosions in our civil liberties and human rights? Can you ensure that your Party will defend rights in a more balanced and proportionate manner than the current government? Does your Party aim to address the radicalisation of mosques when it comes to power? I would very much appreciate hearing your opinion on the matters discussed above.

Somali Piracy - Part 2: Al-Shabaab as the Solution

Piracy was born as a reaction to the illegal dumping of toxic waste along the Somali coast and to the exploitation of Somali waters by western fishermen. The number of piracy attacks is believed to have escalated due to the actions of the most radically Islamist component of the Islamic Courts, Al-Shabaab. This group, whose name means ‘the youth’, has always been at the forefront of the Islamic Courts’ activity, particularly in a military sense. During the six months of the Islamic Courts’ government in 2006, piracy was greatly diminished, and more recently Al-Shabaab has attacked headquarters of pirate groups, such as those in Bandarbeyla. Despite this however, its attacks are more frequently focusing on the various non-governmental organisations and humanitarian aid agencies, thereby forcing them to leave the country. Yet the effect of reduced inflows of aid, which were needed by locals as well as warlords, who depended on them to finance their militias, has been an intensification of pirate activity.

Three factors are believed to have led to the radicalisation of Al-Shabaab. These are, firstly, the US Department of State’s decision to include it in its blacklist of terrorist organisations, and secondly, the death of Sheikh Adan Hashi Ayro, one of the group’s leaders, during a US bombardment on 1st May 2008. More importantly however, is the international community’s decision, through the UN Development Programme, to support the federal transitional government. Al-Shabaab interpreted this act as prejudiced against its armed guerrillas in favour of an illegitimate transitional government. Therefore, failure of the international community to recognise and support more than one political group made Al-Shabaab averse to all international actors, as doing so effectively relegated its status to that of a mere faction of a much wider political movement.

It is well known that the effects of Somalia’s internal turmoil are felt throughout the Horn of Africa and beyond. Ethiopia, Eritrea, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia have assumed important roles and declared their intentions to provide military and political assistance to the alliance of countries present in the Gulf of Aden. However, the commitments of other countries, such as Yemen, appear more elusive as their preferred contact remains with leaders of the Islamic Courts and Al-Shabaab, particularly for their ability to effectively eradicate piracy. Yet this contact is restricted and not officially pursued due to the presence of Al-Shabaab on the US’ blacklist. The solution is therefore to allow Somalia’s neighbours to handle the crisis in the way that they believe will be successful; by using their local appreciation of the political balance within Somalia. Al-Shabaab can no longer be vilified as it presents the Gulf region with its greatest opportunity for re-establishing stability. To eliminate piracy therefore, the West must accept, support and actively seek help from Al-Shabaab.

Somali Piracy - Part 1: Issues of International Law

Many strategic experts believe that the international anti-piracy fleet operating in the Gulf of Aden would have to number more than 500 ships in order to effectively police the 600,000 square mile Gulf region, a number which others believe would still be insufficient to counter the attacks from smaller fishing boats. Faced with this enormous space, the only viable option is to seek large scale international cooperation and establish coordinated, multinational fleets which form part of broader alliances than those currently operating in the region, thereby engaging the wider community of nations in the task of upholding international maritime law and the peremptory norms of jus cogens. However, international laws of the sea and national civil laws render any proposed military intervention a complex legal issue. In addition to this, the European and NATO coalitions are subject to further stringent rules of engagement, as well as detailed UN Security Council resolutions which establish precisely what sort of action may be taken. Nevertheless, every state is legally eligible to intervene against piracy due to the international nature of the crime and the absence of a state which will grant them protection.

The use of force may be used to interrupt an act of piracy as it is taking place, however international law does not consent to pirate vessels being shot and sunk. The UN Convention on the Law of the Sea only allows for the boarding and confiscation of pirate vessels and for the arrest of crew members. When such action is opposed by pirates, a proportionate use of force may be used whereby the sinking of the vessel is considered an action of last resort, and the use of a disabling fire to stop the motors is preferred. Moreover, a UN Security Council resolution is needed to legitimately attack the pirates’ bases on land unless a single country decides to act unilaterally to defend its national interests, usually by securing the release of hostages. Normally the latter must occur in international waters, as entry into the territorial waters of a sovereign state is prohibited under international law. However, an exception was made following UN Resolution 1851 and the subsequent agreement reached with the Somali transitional government.

One possible solution to the piracy problem would be for the UN to authorise the various naval forces policing the region to block all non-escorted vessels from gaining access to or departing from the Somali coast. However this is impracticable due to the length of the coastline in question. Furthermore, there is no international consensus over how pirates should be tried once they have been captured and detained. The laws of France and Italy, for example, grant jurisdiction for the prosecution of foreign pirates that are captured in international waters. Denmark, on the other hand, whose ship, the Absalon, captured ten men suspected of piracy and detained them for six days, was forced to liberate them on the coast of Puntland on 23rd September 2008 due to the legal impossibility of prosecuting them under Danish law. In contrast, the UK was able to hand over pirates to the Kenyan authorities after detaining them for several days following the conflict involving HMS Cumberland. It is evident therefore, that international bodies such as the UN and EU must aim for legislative harmonisation in this field and place pirates under the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court. Despite this, it is necessary to remember that piracy is merely the most prominent illegal activity currently taking place in Somalia. A host of crimes, which includes human trafficking, arms and drug smuggling and chemical waste dumping is impossible to resolve without restoring law and order to a failed state.

Chinese Investment in Africa

China has decided to increase its China-Africa Development Fund by $2 billion. This state-controlled equity fund has so far invested in 20 projects across Africa since it was established in June 2007. The current global recession, which has caused many Western investors to withdraw their investments from Africa, will provide further encouragement for Chinese businesses to operate on the continent. The official purpose of the fund, according to a speech made by Chinese president Hu Jintao in 2006, was to deepen Chinese aid to Africa through an extensive package of assistance, trade, investment and construction projects. However, it has become increasingly evident that the true reasons behind this extensive investment commitment are, firstly, to secure China’s access to the natural resources it requires to keep its economic expansion progressing, and secondly, to gain support from African states at the United Nations.

The Chinese National Offshore Oil Corporation intended to boost output from 40.3 million tonnes in 2006 to 78 million tonnes in 2007. In order to achieve such a growth rate China has had to continually assist its oil companies to invest in regions where Western firms are extremely reluctant to do so, due to their uncertain political and legal environments and precarious stability. As such, China will fund infrastructure projects in countries subject to Western sanctions, such as Sudan, or where security issues deter Western firms from increasing levels of investment, such as Nigeria. An example of such a strategy can be seen in China’s willingness to enter Somalia's oil industry. Evidently therefore, China would rather secure control of natural resources at their source rather than purchase them on the global markets. This readiness to deal with regions that are considered out of bounds by Western competitors may be explained by the lack of political influence and technical expertise of Chinese oil firms.

Whilst initial Chinese activity in Africa was well received, particularly due to the absence of any colonial history between China and the recipients of its investments, China’s practices have caused growing concern across the continent, as its actions are often seen as supporting and prolonging the lives of corrupt or dictatorial regimes. Beijing has attempted to dispel this perception by investing in infrastructure projects in areas where resentment is strongest and by granting local businesses greater access to China's markets in selected industries. Beijing has provided the Angolan government with a total of $2 billion in loans in exchange for continuous oil supplies. This investment has undoubtedly allowed Angola to avoid implementing reforms demanded by Western governments and investors, yet the country has seen its prosperity greatly increase from its large-scale oil production. Angola’s ruling party has also signed an agreement with China which contains a proviso that 70% of all construction projects will be awarded to Chinese companies. Moreover, Angola has since become China’s primary source of oil. Whilst some of this money has been able to fund improvements in infrastructure and healthcare, the endemic corruption has prevented the optimal amount of funds from reaching these projects. Furthermore, China has been criticised for its relationship with Sudan, whose government has been condemned by the international community for the humanitarian crisis in Darfur. Sudan has gradually become the number one recipient of Chinese investments due to its vast oil reserves. However, it cannot be denied that Sudanese workers are acquiring new skills through the availability of Chinese funded work, and that throughout the continent the Chinese are building factories which will allow many other countries to benefit in much the same way.

Zhang Junsai, Chinese ambassador to Australia, has said that Chinese companies investing in Australia and elsewhere are merely seeking long-term, sound and reliable supplies of energy, rather than absolute control of a foreign country’s natural resources. The Chinese government is unlikely to demand compliance with internationally recognised human rights standards, as it often disregards these norms internally. Perhaps with increased prosperity, work opportunities and improved infrastructure, African countries can be stabilised and encouraged to effectuate the necessary institutional reforms by their own people, without the ineffective and often-ignored calls of the international community.

Is the British public more Euro-sceptic than other EU nations?

This post will examine British affinities with Europe and the United States of America, and how the British public sees itself in relation to Europe and other member states, in order to establish the extent of Euro-scepticism in Great Britain. It will also consider the erosion of the fundamental doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty, the ‘special relationship’ with the US, the inability to identify benefits of membership as well as the circumstances of Britain’s accession to the European Union to argue that Euro-scepticism is founded upon a perceived cultural threat. It is important to firstly consider national identity in Britain to establish the extent of Euro-scepticism in relation to other European nations. According to a study conducted by the European Commission into the Europeans and their cultural values, the majority of British participants recognised the existence of a ‘European culture’, however only as a means of distancing themselves from Europe, as integration is perceived as a threat to national identity. Previous Eurobarometer surveys have revealed that 28% of British participants felt their greatest affinity lay with the United States, in contrast to an EU-15 average of 17%. In addition, 20% of British respondents declared that their greatest affinity was with Ireland. Arguably therefore, the British public identifies itself more closely with the English-speaking world than its European neighbours. Moreover, the British are the least likely of all EU nationalities to feel attached to Europe, with only 37% feeling very or fairly attached in 1999. In addition, 67% of Britons declared that they felt British only, with 30% feeling to some extent European. This contrasts with the EU-15 average of 52% of respondents stating that they felt to some extent European. However, the study also shows that 61% of both the Swedish and Finish respondents do not feel European, therefore indicating the strength of the national identities in these countries.

The Scandinavian member states and Britain were also the least satisfied with democracy in the EU. However, it can be argued that this may not provide an accurate explanation for British Euro-scepticism as 65% of Swedish citizens and 67% of Danes believe that democracy is the characteristic which best represents their respective countries, and may therefore feature as a more prominent reason for Euro-scepticism in those nations, rather than in Britain, where a mere 19% of respondents declared democracy as the most important value from a personal perspective; second lowest in the EU in 2003. Instead, the most important value to British citizens was the rule of law, which was selected by 28% of participants. Francis Jacobs defines the rule of law as a fundamental value whereby all acts of public bodies are subject to review by the courts. He acknowledges that prior to EU accession there were no limits to the sovereignty of Parliament as there was no opportunity for judicial review. Furthermore, he argues that the European Community system can improve the domestic legal systems of the member states by providing, or requiring the state to provide additional remedies which may prove effective. The system of dialogue developed between national courts and the European Court of Justice through the preliminary reference procedure under Article 234 EC may also be beneficial as it allows private individuals to influence the development of Community law. However, despite the doctrine of supremacy of EC law requiring Britain to depart from its concept of parliamentary sovereignty, David Baker has argued that the symbols of nation-statehood remain rooted in the old nation-state structures, especially in Britain where parliamentary sovereignty “remains the only widely accepted legitimate source of sovereignty to important sections of the political class, socio-economic elites and citizens alike.” He argues that the strength of belief in sovereignty in Britain is extraordinary by contemporary European standards and that despite it being a factually outdated concept it is still considered to be a symbol of ‘Britishness’ across the political spectrum. It has therefore been to the advantage of the Conservative Party to associate its deregulatory economic and globalist preferences, which often oppose the social market bias of the Single Market, with a strong commitment to British nationalism, thereby allowing them to portray the sovereign British polity as being under threat. Research conducted into hostile attitudes towards European integration indicates that perceived threats to the national identity reduce enthusiasm for the EU by approximately ten percentage points.

Furthermore, it has been said that the European states that had chosen to break from the Roman Catholic Church and adopt Protestantism as the national religion are more opposed to European integration than Catholic member states, due to the strong linkage between their identities and the sovereignty of the nation state and the adoption of a dissenting religion. This may therefore explain why opposition to membership of the EU was most prevalent in Britain and the Scandinavian countries.

It is therefore apparent that Britain and the Scandinavian countries feel less European than any other member states and that this correlates with antipathy towards membership in these nations. Moreover, further confirmation of the British public’s greater affinity with the English-speaking world can be found in the geographic location of citizens’ interests in politics. Only Britain and the Netherlands were more interested in the political affairs of countries beyond Europe than they were in member states of the EU.

However, it has been argued that Euro-scepticism in Britain is unique as it is often characterised by a “cultural wariness to all things European.” Robert Harmsen states that although parallels may be drawn between Britain, the Scandinavian member states and even Switzerland, the cultural sense of otherness in Britain is further amplified by the interactions between the political parties and the press, however neither can be held responsible for creating it. It can be said that the adversarial and confrontational political culture in Britain encourages the fostering of a narrower national interest in which a concept such as sovereignty is regarded indivisible. On the other hand, the coalition governments of many European states, and their necessity to reach compromises to appease a broad spectrum of views, favour an understanding of pooling sovereignty. However, it is not simply a cultural or doctrinal matter, as the conditions surrounding Britain’s accession to the EU must also be considered, as initial experiences often establish the course of subsequent domestic discourse. Britain sought to join the EU in a time of national economic hardship, which some economists believed was due partly to trade patterns which were orientated towards the Commonwealth rather than the industrialised countries of Western Europe. In 1948, 40% of British exports were sent to the Commonwealth. This trade relationship was also considered as one to be maintained and developed as Britain believed that the Commonwealth would provide it with a better opportunity to have its views amplified on the world stage, even following the emergence of the US and the USSR as superpowers. Public opinion was also in favour as many British people had relatives in former dominions and the empire was a basis of national pride. Today, 70% of British citizens are proud of the fact that Britain once had an empire.

Another psychological and cultural barrier to accession is the special relationship between Britain and the US. Prior to accession, the political class was eager not to jeopardise the strong ties Britain shared with the dominant world power, and was therefore convinced that membership of a European grouping was unnecessary. It is therefore apparent that the European project required Britain not only to depart from its traditional institutional doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty, which was considered to be part of national identity, but also to disregard historical pride and re-orientate its trade to countries with which it does not share a common language or ancestry, as would be the case if it had continued to trade predominantly with countries such as Canada or Australia. Britain’s emotional affinity to the US and the Commonwealth lead Charles de Gaulle to refuse British accession to the Union on two occasions, as he feared that Britain and the US together would displace French domination of the European project. Britain too was concerned that the success of the EU without Britain as a member would lead to the Union eventually replacing it as the main trade partner of the US. Stephen George acknowledges that the attitude of British policy makers to the European project was often arrogant due to the perception that European countries were politically and economically unstable. Furthermore, he states that the government was pragmatic in its reasons for membership, unlike the leaders of other member states, and that following accession, a strong commitment to national identity “remained the basis for the electoral appeals of politicians in all parties”, and that moreover, the special relationship with the US was in no way compromised.

In addition to these cultural and historic factors, the British public cannot easily identify the benefits of membership. Both Swedish and British citizens feel their countries have benefited least from EU membership. This also correlates with distrust in the EU, with merely 20% of British and 21% of Swedish respondents saying they trust the Union, which may be due to Britons having the lowest perceived knowledge of the Union than any other EU nationality. Inevitably, the consequences of this lack of understanding and trust may fuel apathy, which in turn may prove detrimental to the country’s participation in the EU, as in the latest recruitment round for European Commission jobs a mere 2% of applicants were British, whilst only one hundred applications for an internship at the Commission were from British graduates, in contrast to 483 French applicants and 890 Italian applicants.

In conclusion, it can be said that the British public is amongst the most Euro-sceptic in the EU, with the Swedish public often matching or surpassing its Euro-sceptic attitude. However, the fact that the British public declares its greatest affinity with the US, whereas Swedish citizens declare theirs with other Scandinavian countries, reflects a Euro-scepticism deeply rooted in the political and cultural identity of the nation which rejects continental Europe for something which may seem culturally more familiar. Aware of such a strong belief among the public, Tony Blair has argued that patriotism should be reflected in recognising the interdependence of the modern world, rather than retreating into isolationism, and that moreover, there was no inconsistency between patriotism and being pro-European. However, although Gordon Brown acknowledges and advocates the creation of “a truly global society”, he has not stated that such an internationally interdependent community requires a redefinition of patriotism, unlike Blair, who adopted a similar rhetoric in an attempt to convert Euro-sceptics, claiming “the patriotic national interest is to be engaged in alliances of which we are a member.” Furthermore, Queen Elizabeth II on a state visit to the US declared, “We can celebrate the close and enduring associations which thrive between the United States and the United Kingdom at every level: be it government or corporate, institutional or personal.” However in reality, the same is more visibly true in relation to the EU, as the national concepts of sovereignty, government, law and even human rights have been moulded by the EU institutions, the supremacy of Community law, the judicial activism of the European Court of Justice and the process of Europeanisation. Furthermore, the Four Freedoms grant British citizens many rights in Europe which they would not readily enjoy in the US. Nevertheless, Euro-scepticism is likely to prevail in the British public due to the cultural similarities it shares with the English-speaking world, and in particular the US, whose influence through the special relationship and role as a cultural hegemon can only direct the national identity away from the continent, and thereby strengthen the exceptionalist consciousness in relation to other member states.

The validity of UKIP’s argument that Britain should leave the EU and become “independent”

Today's post will focus on the definition of ‘independence’, as provided in a speech delivered by David Bannerman Campbell,[1] deputy leader of the United Kingdom Independence Party, as well as debates in the House of Lords surrounding the European Union (Implications of Withdrawal) Bill.[2] The argument presented in favour of independence from the EU by the UKIP peers, Lord Pearson of Rannoch and Lord Willoughby de Broke, focuses predominantly on the democratic deficit inherent in the EU, overregulation, the possibility of applying the Swiss model to Britain, the potential conflict between NATO and the European Security and Defence Policy, the economy and the costs associated with membership. It is therefore necessary to assess each argument in turn in order to appropriately assess the feasibility of British independence from the EU.

The Democratic Deficit
Lord Pearson has argued that British democracy has stealthily been removed from domestic control and surrendered to the European Court of Justice and the EU legislature. Lord Willoughby de Broke has elaborated this point by stressing that because Community regulations simply pass through Parliament without the need for transposition into the legal system or prior debate in either House, the 2,100 regulations adopted in 2006 constitute a part of the destruction of British parliamentary democracy. Furthermore, Lord Vinson argues that “the mechanism which enables change” is effectively being handed over to Brussels, as the electorate’s power to directly influence the legislative process or to seek redress from a local Member of Parliament has been eroded. However, these arguments suggest that the only way to ensure the legitimacy of the EU is through processes at the supranational level which are equal to those found within the nation-state. This alone may invalidate the argument as the EU deals disproportionately with issues which modern democratic states often delegate to other national bodies in order to efficiently achieve more effective outcomes. Furthermore, it can be argued that the democratic deficit exists at the level of the member states, as any country would normally regulate its internal market without taking into account the preferences or concerns of the millions of potential consumers beyond its national boundaries. As such, the EU’s free movement rules coordinate the laws of all member states by integrating the concerns of non-nationals into the national regulatory framework, as they oblige host-states, the recipients of imports from other member states, to justify their regulatory preferences against a background “which includes appreciation of their impact on affected constituencies who are not otherwise represented in domestic political processes.” The creation of a transnational economy therefore requires a form of governance which restricts harmful regulation at the national level, to prevent the partitioning or fragmentation the Common Market, but also supplements the democratic activity of the member states at the European level to accommodate the entire market. Therefore, as members of a transnational economy of scale, the parliaments of all member states must accept regulations and directives, yet they still retain the ability to justify barriers to free trade in terms of meeting a public interest requirement, as stated in Article 30 EC. It is therefore apparent that UKIP’s arguments concerning the democratic deficit and the dismantling of British parliamentary democracy are largely exaggerated.

Overregulation
However, whilst it may be said that directives and regulations affecting issues such as the evaluation of statistics or the access of poultry to open-air runs have a relatively low salience in relation to domestic issues for the majority of the public, the overall effect of overregulation may be detrimental to the competitiveness of the British economy. Lord Howell of Guildford has said that the cost of compliance with regulations to British businesses since 1997 has risen by £55billion, three-quarters of which originate from the EU. Furthermore, David Campbell Bannerman has stated that the EU has imposed over 120,000 directives and regulations on the UK, with a further 3,500 added each year. He argues that the EU Financial Services Action Plan currently costs the City of London £23billion annually, and risks burdening the financial market to the extent that it may become unattractive for companies to invest in Britain. The Lord Mayor of London also agrees that convergence with Europe will increase prosperity nation-wide, but only if over-regulation is avoided. The changes to be enacted through the EU reform treaty, such as extending qualified majority voting to new areas, reducing the number of commissioners and empowering the European Parliament, may prove detrimental to the City, as unlike other major sectors such as telecommunications, manufacturing or chemicals production, which are evenly distributed across the Union, the European financial sector is heavily concentrated in the UK. Inevitably therefore, the changes brought about by the reform treaty will make it more difficult in the future for the British government to ensure that the financial market remains loosely-regulated by forming a blocking minority, due to the fact that 55% of Europe’s wholesale financial markets are located in only two member states; the UK and Germany. As such, it is in the British national interest to ensure that the economic reform agenda adopted by the EU remains the UK-backed agenda which is designed to produce a more dynamic, liberalised and competitive market. Baroness Rawlings has argued that Britain aims for the EU to become an open, outward-looking and internationalist organisation, which should focus on building an alliance with the members of the North American Free Trade Agreement in order to tackle global free trade by 2020. Furthermore, she states that Britain must lead the EU to develop a programme of deregulation to become a flexible market, with low tax and free enterprise. However, Britain would lose all ability to influence the evolution of the Union if it were to leave and follow the example of either Norway or Switzerland, as advocated by UKIP.

The Swiss Model
In response to a recent interpellation, the Swiss government revealed that as a non-member of the EU, it is restricted to merely seeking to influence formation of new Community legislation which affects the sectors involving Swiss bilateral agreements with the Union. However, when legislation affects Switzerland, experts from the Swiss government may participate, in a limited manner, in certain working groups and committees of the Council of Ministers. On the other hand, in areas where the participation of Swiss experts is not allowed, the Commission pledges to consult them before the legislative act is created. Nevertheless, in both cases, even though Switzerland contributes financially to the EU budget, Swiss government officials are denied any voting rights.

According to Baroness Ludford, having realised that they have no say in the development of policies affecting immigration, asylum, internal security and foreign policy, as well as the single market, Switzerland is likely to join the EU by 2010. However, recent disputes between the Commission and the Swiss government are likely to prevent Switzerland from seeking accession to the Union. The Swiss Federal Council has declared itself opposed to any laws which may damage the country’s appeal as a location for businesses. A low tax burden, simple tax system and special fiscal status have allowed Switzerland to attract over 20,000 holding companies, which employ approximately 150,000 people. This advantageous system has lead to concerns from the Commission about capital flight, as the constitutional right of each Swiss canton to set its own corporate tax rate has triggered intense competition at the cantonal level, causing cantons such as Obwalden to lower their corporate tax rates to 6.6%, and thereby attract 376 new companies in 2006. One such company was Kraft, the world’s second largest food manufacturer, who relocated its European headquarters from London and Vienna to Zurich. It is therefore apparent that the Swiss economy is highly dependent on niche markets, as well as its highly competitive tax system, which is regulated by the cantons and is not subject to the free trade accord established in 1972. Switzerland also argues that its low corporate taxes cannot infringe EC competition laws as it is not a member of the Union. Arguably therefore, comparisons with Switzerland are misguided as they would simply not benefit from membership of the Union. Consequently, this scenario of independence applied to the British case would suggest that, with extremely limited British influence and no voting power, the City of London would risk becoming subject to “the more heavy-handed regulatory style of continental countries and... greater political influence.” Moreover, it has been acknowledged by eurosceptics that if the City were to become unattractive to foreign investors, jobs would migrate out of London. As such, it can be said that withdrawal from the EU would not only greatly reduce the ability of Britain to govern itself, but could be detrimental to the British financial sector; a sector worth 10% of the national economy, which has been “responsible for 30% of overall GDP growth over the past three years.” It has also been said that the City of London’s importance as a major global financial centre has allowed British politicians to “punch beyond Britain’s weight.” Clearly therefore, membership of the EU is the most effective way to protect the UK economy from the adverse effects of regulations designed by member states with a far smaller portion of the European financial sector than Britain. Moreover, Swiss citizens may be deterred from voting against core EU measures in national referenda, such as extending the freedom of movement of persons to citizens of the newly recently member states, due to the so-called ‘guillotine clause’, which would force either party to terminate all seven bilateral agreements if core provisions are not incorporated into domestic law. Therefore, Campbell Bannerman’s intention for the UK to become like Switzerland and then begin removing the 120,000 directives and regulations which originate from the EU would inevitably mean mimicking Switzerland, or even maintaining any trading relationship with the EU, would be impossible. Arguably, lower competitiveness would also cause a decline in Britain’s role in the world.

The Enlarged Union
Lord Triesman acknowledges that the EU is the world’s largest trade bloc, and therefore a driving force in World Trade Organisation negotiations, as the member states act with a single voice, thereby amplifying their collective preferences on the world stage. He also states that working in collaboration with the other EU members greatly improves the efficacy of measures aimed at tackling international problems, such as climate change, terrorism and energy security. Lord Dykes also noted that the EU is a regional manifestation of globalisation, in which the members gain strength internationally through collective action, and thereby actually gain sovereignty. However, eurosceptics have argued that following the recent rounds of enlargement, as a member of the EU of 27 states, the UK’s votes have been reduced to 8.5% of the total voting strength. Whilst this is true, the UK has gained both politically and economically from the enlarged Union. It can be said that enlargement has reduced the dominance of the Franco-German axis and may therefore allow the UK to steer the course of the EU more towards its national interests. Furthermore, perhaps as a result of the few restrictions applied on migrant workers from new member states, the UK received more migrants than any other member state. As a direct consequence, there was a negative impact on GDP per capita in Britain for the first four years following enlargement. However, this trend is expected to reverse in the long term, with the greatest GDP increases expected in the British and Irish economies.

In economic terms therefore, enlargement was expected to boost the British economy by approximately £1.75billion. In contrast to the UKIP argument, commentators such as Timothy Garton Ash have observed that enlargement also eliminated any possibility of the EU ever becoming a federal superstate, and that following the rejection of the Treaty Establishing a Constitution for Europe, a more British Europe has emerged whose new preferences call for a deregulated, looser and free-trading Union. Moreover, the EU does not have the administrative capacity or legal mandate to undertake the fiscally demanding competences of the nation state, which remain the areas of greatest public concern and therefore national competences. The argument delivered by Lord Pearson of Rannoch that the process of integration will most likely result in the EU becoming a totalitarian state, should therefore be discounted as it is highly improbable that 27 sovereign states would wish, and agree, to relinquish all forms of self-determination in favour of supranational governance, especially as no common demos exists across the continent. Furthermore, it can be said that the twelve new member states also favour a more flexible Union, and that Poland and the Czech Republic in particular are opposed to any desire of France and Germany to continue to dominate the Union as they did before enlargement. Moreover, Baroness Symons has recognised that a lack of British influence in negotiating reforms concerning the common agricultural policy would lead to consequences felt not only domestically, but around the world. In addition, a lack of influence within the EU would arguably reduce the value of Britain as an ally to the United States of America.

NATO
An area which is of great importance to Britain’s international role is the European Security and Defence Policy. Members of UKIP have argued this policy will lead to the duplication or undermining of NATO. However, duplication is not entirely counter-productive and would in fact be beneficial to the whole alliance in areas such as air transport, in-flight refuelling, global positioning system guided ordnance, or conventional air launch cruise missiles. Nevertheless, concerns of a possible clash grew on both sides of the Atlantic following the rift between the US and France in relation to the Iraq War. The governments of France, Germany, Belgium and Luxembourg were in favour of establishing a core European Defence Organisation which appeared to both exclude Britain, who had played a leading role in this area, and undermine NATO. The EU mission to Bunia in the Democratic Republic of Congo raised further concerns that the NATO alliance was being weakened, as EU ministers acted without holding discussions with NATO to establish which organisation was better equipped to deploy troops. Although American opinion had turned against the common defence programme, the compromise established between Britain, France and Germany was able to alleviate concerns about a developing rivalry to NATO. Alterations made to the draft constitution ensured that ‘structured cooperation’ could not be construed in a way which may allow a group of states to establish new institutions or headquarters. Furthermore, the mutual defence clause was substantially watered down and re-drafted to refer to NATO as “the foundation of members’ collective defence and the forum for its implementation.” Charles Grant, director of the Centre for European Reform, considers that the role of Tony Blair in the revival of the European common defence programme was vital, as he was able to reassure the US that the defence programme would not harm NATO or US interests. He states that in the area of European defence, British participation in the EU policy making process can steer member states onto a pro-NATO course in order to avoid the creation of a new multinational defence organisation which may rival NATO. It is therefore apparent that rather than jeopardising the UK’s ‘special relationship’ with the US, the British role of leadership in the area of the common defence policy, as revived by Tony Blair, ensures strong cooperation with the US by upholding Europe’s commitment to NATO.

Costs of Membership
The most sensationalised of UKIP’s arguments are perhaps those regarding the costs of membership of the EU. According to David Campbell Bannerman, the EU costs Britain a total of £52billion each year, of which £14.2billion is the membership contribution. Lord Pearson however states that the overall annual cost may be as high as £160billion, taking into account the CAP, transatlantic trade barriers and overregulation. He later claims that leaving the EU would create millions of jobs and allow the British economy to flourish. Furthermore, he has denied that 60% of British trade and 3million jobs depend on membership of the Union.[ However, according to the Treasury, the UK’s net contribution in 2006 was £3.9billion, which is estimated to rise to £4.7billion in 2007. Furthermore, for the first time, the current Financial Perspective provides the UK with an abatement which rises in value while the size of the budget decreases, thereby ensuring that the UK’s net contributions are approximately equal to those of France and Italy. It is therefore apparent that UKIP’s estimations, for example, that the CAP costs the UK £15bn a year, are exaggerated.

The Treasury has also stated that 40% of the EC budget is spent on CAP every year. This suggests that the 2007 EC budget of £85billion will allocate £34billion to the policy’s budget. This therefore, further demonstrates that UKIP’s figures are exaggerated, as they calculate the annual UK contribution to CAP as £15billion, which alone is over three times the actual net contribution of the UK to the EC budget. Furthermore, by 2013 the proportion of the EC budget to be spent on agriculture could rise to 55%, which according to the Treasury would prevent the Union from addressing the challenges associated with globalisation. Lord Pearson has argued that the EU’s share of world GDP is expected to halve from 22% in 2000 to 12% in 2050, while NAFTA will maintain its share. The Treasury also confirms that the share will decrease.

Lord Pearson attributes this decline to a technology deficit in relation to the US and demographic decline in continental Europe. In contrast, the Treasury believes it is due to the rapid growth of the Chinese and Indian markets and the outsourcing of goods and services from Europe and America to Asia. Whilst it is true that the eurozone’s workforce is ageing more quickly than elsewhere in the world, the Economist reports that the overall population will fall by seven million people, as opposed to Lord Pearson’s estimate of “the entire present working-age population of Germany.” Nevertheless, it is believed that the fall in the workforce will hamper the eurozone economy and “add to its fiscal pressures”, but this may not lead to a decline in wealth, as UKIP would suggest. However, withdrawal from the Union would, as Baroness Ludford has commented, lead to a 2.25% decline in GDP, which would force wages to fall in order to avoid a surge in unemployment. According to the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform, the EU GDP is 1.8% higher than it would have been without the common market, boosting the EU economy by £588billion over the period of ten years. This has lead to increased foreign direct investment (FDI), rising from £15.4billion in 1992, to £106.5billion in 2005. It has been said that Britain received approximately 30% of the total FDI in the EU, thereby creating two million jobs in the UK. By the end of 2003, the UK attracted 19% of the total FDI in the EU. Furthermore, around seven thousand American and Japanese companies have taken advantage of the UK’s access to the common market by establishing firms in the UK.

Furthermore, the investment made by British companies in the EU has also risen from £11.5billion in 2004 to £17.3billion in the EU in 2005. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office has stated that 57% of total British trade is with the EU, which equates to 62% of British exports. The intention of David Campbell Bannerman to remove all EU directives and regulations, re-establish the primacy of Westminster and review all cases judged by the ECJ, apart from being extremely costly and time-consuming, would risk jeopardising not only the economic benefits, but also benefits to private citizens which are founded upon the four freedoms. Liberalisation policies, such as the EU’s air transport liberalisation programme, have removed restrictions to national markets, opening them up to enhance competition and thereby equip them to avert crises and global challenges. David Miliband has also noted that the UK can respond better to global challenges for its citizens by collaborating with the EU. Whilst criticised by UKIP, the European Arrest Warrant is an example of such beneficial collaboration. According to the European Commission Justice, Freedom and Security Department, seven thousand arrests have been made under the warrant during the past year, which clearly demonstrates the increased ability of the EU member states to respond to threats facing their citizens. Cooperation with single member states will also allow Britain to suggest important themes for discussion at EU summits. Such an example of this collaboration can been seen in the recent joint letter written by Gordon Brown and Romano Prodi, calling on all EU leaders to increase cross-border cooperation on issues such as terrorism, global warming and immigration. This also suggests that if the UK were to leave the EU, it would deprive itself of any significant input into an effective forum for determining international responses to global threats facing itself and its allies.

In conclusion, ‘independence’, as defined by David Campbell Bannerman, would most likely make any trading relationship with the EU impossible. Adopting the Swiss model, as advocated by UKIP peers, would on the other hand allow trade to continue between Britain and the EU, but would expose the UK to regulations which, as a result of having no say on their content, may prove detrimental to the City of London and the UK economy as a whole. The removal of all regulations and reviewing the judgments of the ECJ would inevitably eliminate the possibility of trading with the Union. Furthermore, as a member, the UK benefits politically, from the Union’s collective voice, as well as economically, as it consistently receives the largest portion of FDI in the EU. Leaving the EU would jeopardise these benefits and hinder deregulatory reforms which would work in favour of the country. Britain should continue to contribute positively by leading EU-level reforms to create the outward-facing, flexible Europe that Europeans require to face the challenges of globalisation, as advocated by Gordon Brown, rather than leaving and thereby surrendering its economy to regulations and directives in which it has had no input. It is therefore apparent that, in today’s interdependent world, the UKIP argument is outdated and unrealistic.

[1] Campbell Bannerman, D, ‘Britain’s Relationship with the European Union’, Speech to the International Affairs Forum, Leeds University, 22nd February 2007

[2] UK HL, Parliamentary Debates, European Union (Implications of Withdrawal) Bill, vol. 692, col. 1359, 2.27pm – 5.22pm (8 June 2007) and vol. 650, col. 535 – 590 (27 June 2003)