Personal Statement is response to Theresa May's Statement

The Prime Minister has just spoken in Downing Street about the status of Brexit after the Salzburg meeting of the EU leaders last night.

This is my personal response and not in connection with my party positions or memberships.

The Prime Minister has continues to ignore the will of the people of Northern Ireland and just now also seems unaware of how the best interests of Northern Ireland people and business can be resolved. She has once again spouted the DUP rhetoric which is the minority opinion both at the time of the referendum and since.


As a result in my opinion Her Majesty's Government does have the concerns of the people of NI to the forefront of their thinking and are listening to a section of little England and not the reality of what her hard Brexit will bring about.

In my opinion now is the time for a poll on the status of Northern Ireland. I call on the Secretary of State to call a poll on the constitution position as set out in the Belfast Agreement before March 2019.

The Impossibility of the Prime Minster's Answers #Brexit #NorthernIreland

Today the Answers given to some of the Prime Minister's Questions did not seem to be logical however they do cast some idea of the shape that Brexit will take.

Basically Jeremy Corbyn, Ian Blackford, David Simpson, Michael Tomlinson Gregory Campbell, Kenneth Clarke and Simon Hoare asked her in various forms about Northern Ireland, Brexit and the Good Friday Agreement.

From the answers we received today we have learnt the following:

1. She is committed to the Good Friday Agreement
2. She is committed to devolution in all parts of the UK
3. She does not want to see a hard border on the island of Island
4. She does not want to see a customs and regulatory border down the Irish Sea
5. She does not want to undermine the UK common market

A lot of this was in relation to the draft proposal to keep Northern Ireland in the customs union and single market. If as Boris said yesterday it would be possible to control the NI border as easily as between Camden and Islington this would be that easy peasy lemon squeezy option. As there would therefore not be that much of a border on that land border and it could be dealt with in a electronic way.

The problem is that you have the Good Friday Agreement that almost 20 years ago was the settled will of the majority of people North and South in Ireland. A lot of that functionality was based on there not being anything different between the two parts. I mean we were both in the largest trading bloc in the world and surely we wouldn't be foolish enough to throw that into jeopardy for the uncertainly of negotiating with the rest of the world including the rest of the EU. 

Now you are trying to make a frictionless border, but in the words used today the UK clearly wants to divert from the requirements of the customs union and single market as to apply this merely to NI would "undermine the UK common market and threaten the constitutional integrity of the UK".

But surely having devolved powers, which have also been recently promised to be increased post-Brexit, means there is already certain differences between the powers. Scotland has only recently used its tax varying power. The DUP are adamant that on certain areas Northern Ireland should be able to make their own decisions (if only someone was actually sitting in the Assembly able to do so). So how can something affecting one part of the UK therefore threaten the UK common market?

Maybe we have seen something about the post-Brexit situation. May's government wants to move away from the regulations that tie us into the customs union and single market. Some of those regulations are so that we produce compatible products that we can then sell to our largest and closest overseas (or in the case of Ireland down the road) markets. Can the plans really be that radical that it will undermine the UK market if NI remained.

Wow!

Has the PM let the cat out of the bag. Will international business pick up on that. What about British business that exports a large proportion. This does not sound like a great economic promise to them of frictionless trade with the EU.

How is it going to be possible to meet all the objections that the PM has clearly outlined multiple times today? From what she has said today it seems impossible. The UK government clearly has no plan for how to deal with the Irish problem after 20 years of having an answer after centuries of not we look like we are being sacrificed once more.  

The EU has been an integral part of my life Mrs May

Yesterday in her Florence speech Theresa May said:

"The UK never felt a part of the European Union.The European Union, never felt to us an integral part of our story"

I beg to differ.

I sitting writing this in the house that my parents moved into in 1979 on the day of the first UK elections to the European Parliament. So even from then I new about Europe and that it was a part of our lives.

I went to University in Kingston at the end of the 80s and took as one of my options in both 2nd and 3rd year European Economics. It became something of a speciality of mine and my fellow students would often come to me if they needed to know how the mechanics of the European Union, Schengen Area, or then the exchange rate mechanism pre-Euro worked. I even had the horror of listening to parliament on the radio one evening while finalising an essay on our place in the EU on the day of the Maastricht Treaty debate and had to amend my argument slightly and quote from that debate before handing it in at 12 the following day.

I like many others have enjoyed fast access to the EU nations, especially when compared to those non-EU (or now EU) ones that I have also experienced whenever I go to continental Europe, whether for holiday or work. Indeed I have two wallets my every day one which contains Sterling or my other one for days trips to Dublin or Donegal and longer trips to the continent that contain Euros. You see I never change my Euros back into pounds as I know they will be used again at some point.

Indeed my stamp collection of Olympic stamps I base on a Euro price as a lot of the dealers that I purchase from on Ebay are based in Europe so I have to know if I paying a fair price for the items I am purchasing. When you are looking for the remaining 5/6ths of the worlds Olympic stamps that can be important for a Philatelist. With either the Euro, Sterling or US Dollar there are only three currencies I deal in both to buy and sell.

The job that I worked in while I lived on Edinburgh for 10 years would not have existed without us being integral in Europe. When you have working in a multi-lingual, Europe-wide support environment with EU nationals doing skilled work alongside you, you know you are an integral part of Europe. That is why I suspect London voted heavily to remain out of all the areas of England because they like me feel an integral part of Europe in their workplace, leisure time and neighbourhoods.

So Theresa May while you have spent you're working life in the Westminster bubble and maybe therefore think you have not been an integral part of the EU. Remember those times you passed laws to make our law, products, even our currency compatible with the rest of Europe. Europe has been an integral part of my entire life of now 48 years so don't throw it all away because people from your generation don't realise how integral it is. The reason you have yet to come up with creative ways to deal with Brexit is because of how integral Europe has become in our live not because it hasn't.

Your Brexit means Brexit argument that we have to come out of Europe completely is like a heart and lung transplant. The only problem we are facing is that even with your 2 year transition period while the UK is on a ventilator we have no organs yet to replace the European heart and lungs that are in the UK you are about to remove.

Nicola Sturgeon's Second Referendum

I may only have been in from work less than half an hour, but I already know that what I say is going to upset some of my good friends within the Scottish Liberal Democrats.

Nicola Sturgeon is right to call for a second Scottish Referendum after the deal is known and before the UK pulls out. What follows is the reasons why?

Firstly the dynamic of what it means to be part of the UK has changed. Many of those, including myself, while part of the last No campaign said that one of the uncertainties for Scottish Independence was their future having to renegotiate with Europe. That is no longer part of the issue because Theresa May is taking the UK out of Europe while Scotland voted to remain.

That other lady of politics Theresa May today is talking about the tunnel vision of Nicola Sturgeon. But since the Brexit vote and her taking control has failed to acknowledge that the people of Scotland and indeed Northern Ireland whose interaction with Europe is different from a lot of England took a different view from the Brexit result.

Scotland is pro-Europe, but Theresa May is taking us away from Europe, yet somehow she talks of tunnel vision while all her talk of taking the UK out of every aspect of Europe and heading for a hard Brexit is just that.

I myself did say after the last Scottish referendum that Nicola Sturgeon should have stuck to her pledge that this was a once in a generation opportunity. I have however changed my mind, the seismic plates have shifted in UK politics. While I would have vote No last time, I personally would be voting yes next time (if the rumours of what Theresa May is heading for turn out to be true).

Red, White and Blue Brexit bad for Northern Ireland

Here in the land that is base for HBO's Game of Thrones the talk of a Red, White and Blue Brexit as first described by Theresa May and increasingly mentioned by others since is not universally going down well. Let me explain why (in the language that GoT fans will find familiar).

Queen Arlene, First of Her Name surveys her Kingdom of the North from her White Keep (Parliament Buildings, Stormont). She was very much in favour of Brexit and her sigil is St. Edward's Crown on a background of Red, White and Blue. However, outside the gates of the keep the people however are not as much in agreement of Brexit as Arlene and her small (well not so small) council.

Prince Martin is meant to be a co-regent with Queen Arlene. His house's ancient sigil was an armalite and a ballot box on a background of Green, White and Gold, but now it is just the ballot box though some banners still show a shadowy figure of the armalite. He is opposed to Brexit and the mention of it as being Red, White and Blue is not going down well with his bannermen who largely were also opposed to Brexit.

Meanwhile in Kings Landing, Queen Theresa, First of Her Name, Queen of the Four Kingdoms and her small council have largely ignored that the Kingdom of the North has a large border with Europeros with which her four Kingdoms are looking to depart. There are many workers from the southern part of the island that the Kingdom of the North shares with Europeros. There leader King Michael, First of his name, also known by some as the Imp, or Leprechaun because of his diminutive stature and his hand Enda are very much in favour of Europeros are a little offended that Queen Theresa is asking them to control movement of Europeros citizens entering their territory as they have not signed up for Brexit but have signed up for the freedom of movement of Europeros citizens both into and out of their nation.

There has been a peace in the Kingdom of the North for only 3 decades and even then at times it has been tense. Talking up Brexit as being an issue that is Red, White and Blue may stir up some of the sleeping armies of the old days. Continuing to wrap this argument is patriotism based on symbols which still cause dispute in the Kingdom of the North contravenes the treaty that the Kingdom of the North was allowed a degree of autonomy over its own affairs. It is a part of the Four Kingdoms that allows civilians to follow in the Red, White and Blue sigil, or the Green, White and Gold one, or both if they chose too. Fealty is not a black and white matter, nor should it be hyped up in full colour.

Be warned those in Kingslanding (Westminster in this tale) not all the people of the Four Kingdom (United Kingdom) want to hear talk of Red, White and Blue Brexit. Here in the Kingdom of the North (Northern Ireland) some of us have been campaigned for safe and open spaces where everyone can gather. Your painting of Brexit as being a matter of Red, White and Blue while talking to little Englanders, is not so great to the fringes Northern Ireland and indeed Scotland.

Baker resignation reveals the difference between Lib Dems and Tories

So Liberal Democrat Norman Baker has announced tonight that he is resigning for his post as a Home Office Minister. His announcement in The Independent as to why is not just a broadside into Theresa May's Home Office but also the denouement of the differences between Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives when it comes to policy.

He says:

"support for 'rational evidence-based policy' was in short supply at the top of her department."

And that it was like "walking through mud".

It probably came to a head with the report on drug use and punishment last week and comes ahead of the vote that could criminalise paying for sex later this week. Yet it has probably been stoked my the whole immigration debate and the jumping at ill-judged, knee-jerk, UKIP-appeasing policy announcements based on emotive exaggeration and not evidence in any shape or form.

So let me repeat that:

If you want evidence-based policy, not knee-jerk, emotive reactionary nonsense to appease party self interests you have to vote Lib Dem.

That is the lesson. Now you can look at the various policies that the coalition have brought in over the past four years you can see the origins of policy. Those that largely based on evidence such as free school meals increase educational success come from Liberal Democrats looking at the evidence. Things like the snooper's charter apart from being illiberal are largely unachievable because of the depths of the dark web.

Why would this be so? Well the way that policy is decided by the parties help. Conference decides Lib Dem policy so no matter what we debate there is some expert able to speak with authority, or even better they have been working on drafting the policy in the first place. As to who comes up with Conservative policy, there are probably a number of envelops floating around Whitehall have that been used for late night discussions to come up with something. But they just get announced, rarely get peer reviewed (if they do not in public before announcement), and if they are peer reviewed are in the words of a former leader "not for turning".

This is the mud into which Norman Baker has found himself. This is the mud that has snared up some of the Liberal Democrats liberalism, because most of all liberalism is often common sense. Why? Because it is evidence-based as to what is the right thing to do for everyone's individual best interests.

Theresa May the DUP heroine of the Century

So with Theresa May pledging to scrap the Human Rights Act and pull Europe out of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) she has suddenly become the DUP's pin up girl (whether in kitten heels or bejeweled loafers). Why?

Well the DUP know that they can only go so long in using petitions of concern to block any further LGBT equality in Northern Ireland. Before too long somebody is going to take a case before the ECHR to be allowed to give blood, or to be able to adopt along with their partner of the same sex or heaven forbid get married, or have their same-sex marriage in the rest of the UK recognised. The pulling out of this across the UK would come as the DUPs salvation, Northern Ireland would be kept in the dark ages and the LGBT community here would end up going elsewhere like they did in the 60s and 70s to seek equality.

The reason I am saying this is that it was only through the ECHR that homosexuality was legalised in Northern Ireland in the Dudgeon v UK case. Civil Partnerships only came to Northern Ireland as the devolved powers were suspended at the time and we were back under direct rule. every other measure since has been blocked by the DUP. Take the UK out of the ECHR and the final level of appeal for Northern Ireland is the Supreme Court who are unlikely to want to dabble in the devolved powers under which equality legislation is determined.

Therefore Theresa may well as well put LGBT rights into suspended animation as far as Northern Ireland is concerned, if the Tories return with a majority in 2015. It is unlikely that a Tory drafted replacement to a Human Rights act will allow for any challenge that may embarrass the DUP in the long term, just in case they ever need to rely on the votes of Northern Ireland's largest party in the future.

So this is definitely one step up with which I shall not put.

Further to my earlier blog post, here is some good news about Lib Dems standing up for civil liberty. In a letter to the Guardian fifteen of our MPs have spoken up for the party. Not just over the last 48 hours but over the last months and indeed the years that I have been a member of supporter, in other words since the Lib Dems were founded.

They say:

It is absolutely vital that the public get a chance to see and debate the details of any proposals to extend state surveillance, not just being presented with a Home Office fait accompli. It is also essential that the initial plans include adequate safeguards – which should be stronger than the current weak controls.

They talk about the "duty … to safeguard basic freedoms against the encroachment of state power" and that at the recent conference (and it was only last month not months ago) conference "called for stronger safeguards on existing surveillance measures to guarantee that the balance of power is firmly in favour of ordinary citizens".

They got it and these are just the sort of firm messages that Nick Clegg and other Lib Dems should have been saying since Sunday when this story reared its head again.

Indeed when the coalition agreement already states  "We will end the storage of internet and email records without good reason." We shouldn't be talking about extending police powers in this area but working out what comes under good reason and how to delete the storage of the rest.

Speaking in The S** today (and I apologise for this link) Theresa May says:

"I'm not willing to risk more terrorist plots succeeding and more paedophiles going free."

Just how does further encroaching on personal freedom achieve this. As Trefor Davies from the Internet Service Providers' Association states these groups will just go ahead and use proxy servers. As he say by doing so

"You could send emails back and forth to al-Qaeda to your heart's content, the Government wouldn't know."

And as for paedophiles:

"There is a danger we are driving people to an underground culture."

As anyone who uses certain websites whether global LGBT ones or other things for certain human rights discussions will tell you, mirror sites to proxy servers exist even for some of these and you would have no clue simply from the traffic that it generates what is going on. If you even could see the traffic report.

So why haven't us Lib Dems been standing up against this as a matter of principle not merely saying we will make sure that any extension of powers is highly safeguarded. The worry is that extension of powers will be given to the police without supervision. We are looking for greater safeguard on the existing powers while Mrs May says that the police cannot afford to lose any of their existing powers.

There is a red line there, one that is marked out in the coalition agreement. If we don't stand firm on this one, what will become of our party? Worryingly although these 15 have now stood firm, why haven't our frontbench team done it already?

We don't give the police blanket warrants

Generated via RedKid
Based on characters by Charles M. Schulz

Should the police be able to gain internet records of terrorists or criminals in order to help them with their job, bring about justice and keep us safe?

Of course they should.

Should they be able to do this carte blanche on their own say so without making the case to either a judge or a Home Office minister?

Of course not and therein lies the problem with the current draft legislation that has been proposed. That is why only last month the Liberal Democrats at conference did call to ensure "that there shall be no interception of telephone calls, SMS messages, social media, internet or any other communications without named, specific and time-limited warrants".

The current scheme apparently under consideration removes the power for police to have that authority to take action. They can do it on their own judgement. This is the same police that take pictures of me on parades and marches of various types in case I might be a terrorist or potential looter. This is the same police that take pictures of me going towards football matches because of course Livingston Football Club has a long history of violence, not!

We don't give the police a blanket warrant to enter home that they wish to do so, nor do we allow them blanket access to any phone line. Yet Theresa May is saying that extending just such a right to social media and email brings it in line with powers that that police already have with phone records. No! It crosses over that line. Retrospectively convincing somebody of the right to access is not the same as acquiring a warrant up front, a warrant is for a specific person, reason and time.

Of course if the police can persuade a judge or minister of the need to intercept someone's communications that is different matter. But they have to persuade them of the need and gain the specific warrant before taking action. They should not have the right to act as judge, arbitrator of need, surveillance officer and arresting officer should the need arise for the latter.

The coalition agreement even upholds this principle that "We will end the storage of internet and email records without good reason." We need a better reason that simply because the police think so to extend that right to them. It needs to be backed up by the case by an independent arbitrator of the law. Protecting not only those doing the surveillance but also the right of those the surveillance is carried out on to be assumed innocent until proven otherwise. Mrs May may not like the right of people to be presumed innocent, yet as Home Secretary she has to uphold that pinnacle of UK law or else we all have failed.


I do hope that this illiberal extension of power does not get passed by our Liberal Democrat MPs. If it does I will seriously have to work out how to stand by the words of someone that if our liberties were taken away that we should consider civil disobedience to ensure they are returned, yes those words were from Nick Clegg.

Cat on a HRA Tin Roof?

Did you hear the one about Theresa May, the Human Right's Act and the Cat?

Well earlier today the Conservative Home Secretary said in her speech to the Tory faithful.

We all know the stories about the Human Rights Act. The violent drug dealer who cannot be sent home because his daughter – for whom he pays no maintenance – lives here. The robber who cannot be removed because he has a girlfriend. The illegal immigrant who cannot be deported because – and I am not making this up – he had pet a cat.

Only she was kidding them somewhat.

The cat wasn't the reason that the immigrant couldn't be deported but was merely evidence that the immigrant had a relationship of some time standing. Indeed as the Telegraph at the time reported.

As part of the application and as part of the appeal, the couple gave detailed statements of the life they had built together in the UK to show the genuine nature and duration of their relationship. One detail provided, among many, was that they had owned a cat together for some time.

The appeal was successful and when giving the reasons for the success the judge did comment on the couple's cat. It was taken into account as part of the couple's life together. The Home Office asked for the decision to be reconsidered. They argued it should be reconsidered because the decision was wrong in law, and one error they cited was that too much consideration was given to the couple's cat. 

The home secretary mentioned the case in the context of her plans to change the rules to stop convicted criminals resisting deportations on the basis of article 8 – family ties. But the Bolivian man – who has never been named – was not even a convicted criminal.

So not only was the cat only part of circumstantial evidence that the man was in a relationship with another human being, not a feline, but also he wasn't a criminal as the Home Secretary, whose remit includes policing and immigration, almost seemed to imply by adding him to this list.

Indeed the Home Office had failed to carry out its own procedures regarding unmarried partners which is why the cat and the other factors were brought up to show that the relationship status was that of partners not housemates. So British authorities had failed to acknowledge their own procedures in bringing this man before  British judges seeking to expel him.

Ken Clarke has even challenged her that nobody has even been refused deportation purely because they owned a cat. However, May has been back pedaling since she left the stage saying that the fact checking of her speech was done from the press, maybe she puts too much trust in the Daily Mail's reporting of this story. Why not the court papers themselves to which she would have access?

May got a knee jerk reaction to her speech from the conference faithful, just as Nick Clegg gained a great cheer for saying we would not be scrapping the Human Rights Act in his speech at Lib Dem Conference. The difference is that Nick Clegg knows the history of the Human Rights Act, as he demonstrated in his speech, Theresa May was just playing to the crowd.

We are right to stand up for civil liberties. No retreat to the illiberal populism of the Labour years. We are right to insist on keeping the tax system fair. Asking the most of the people who have the most. And we will always defend human rights, at home as well as abroad. The European Convention on Human Rights and the Human Rights Act are not, as some would have you believe, foreign impositions. These are British rights, drafted by British lawyers. Forged in the aftermath of the atrocities of the Second World War. Fought for by Winston Churchill. So let me say something really clear about the Human Rights Act. In fact I'll do it in words of one syllable: It is here to stay. Nick Clegg in Birmingham 21 September 

Update The BBC have made it possible download the original judgement here

Notes:

The European Court of Human Rights came into being21 January 1959 by virtue of Article 19 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

The Convention was founded out of the Council of Europe at the end of World War II.

The Council and what it were seen as required to do were laid out by a speech from Winston Churchill on (fortuitously for my memory my birthday) 19 September, 1946.

In the meantime some cats.

May's Own Private IDAHO

Today is International Day Against Homophobia and Transphobia(IDAHO)* it is the 20th Anniversary of the World Health Organisation de-listing homosexuality as a mental illness. Some people who think there is still a cure should get with the 1990s and realise it isn't a disease.

So our Home Secretary and Equality Minister Theresa May issued this statement:

"This government is committed to creating a society that is fair for everyone and supports equal rights for lesbian, gay, bisexual and trans people.

"This means supporting civil partnerships, tackling homophobic bullying wherever it occurs, changing the law regarding historic convictions for consensual gay sex and using our international influence to put pressure on countries where LGB&T people are persecuted.

"These commitments show our determination to tear down the barriers that continue to hold people back."

Considering May's own voting record on gay rights and that most of her party's predecessors the lifting of historic convictions for consensual gay sex is a start of the great repeal act against some of the Conservative's policies.

However, the statement is welcome. Especially in light of the reaction earlier this year of one of their MEPs to the situation in Uganda. I hope the UK under a Tory and Lib Dem government does bring pressure internationally for gay rights.


* Look I know the T has been dropped altogether don't look at me.

How Gay Friendly is the Home Office?

A gay couple may be able to spend the night at the Home Office as Chris Grayling has not ended up taking the Shadow Post he held when he uttered the word that B&B owners had the right to deny a service to same sex couples. However, just how gay friendly is his replacement Theresa May.

In 1998 she voted against equalising the age of consent and in 2000, she voted against the repeal of Section 28, legislation that banned the 'promotion' of homosexuality by local government and schools.

In 2001 and 2002 she voted against gay couples jointly adopting children.

In 2004, like much of the Conservative front bench, Mrs May did vote in favour of civil partnerships. But in the same year, Mrs May didn't attend Parliament for any of the four votes that led to the Gender Recognition Act.

In 2008 she voted in favour of a defeated bill which said that IVF rights should require a male role model- effectively discriminating against lesbian fertility rights.

So while none of the great offices of state have gone to the Lib Dems (Osborne at Treasury, Hague at Foreign Office, Fox at Defence, along with Cameron and May) we have ended up with someone whose record on gay rights does not bode well at the Home Office. Someone whose approach to Europe does not bode well at the Foreign Office and someone whose grasp of Economics leads to despair at the Treasury (thankfully David Laws is there to back him up). Look I know the policy concessions were good, but what happened in dealing with the great offices.