Climate Repair

Our house is on fire. I am here to say, our house is on fire. […] I want you to act as you would in a crisis. I want you to act as if our house is on fire. Because it is.

Greta Thunberg

At long last, the public are waking up to the threat of the climate emergency. Greta Thunberg and David Attenborough have grabbed our attention in the Western World and dragged the crisis to the forefront of global media reporting. But what can we actually do?

The IPCCs 2018 SR15 report, which was written by 91 world-leading climate scientists from 40 countries and signed off by the world’s governments, is the most up to date scientific analysis we have about the current nature of the climate crisis and how we can stop it. In the most simple terms, the SR15 gave a stark warning. We must limit global heating to 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels by 2030, or risk hitting a point of no return. This is at the stricter end of the agreement made at the 2015 Paris Climate Summit, at which countries made a non-binding committment to ensuring global heating does not exceed 2 degrees above pre-industrial levels.

In reality, there are very few countries who are even set to meet that target. The UK has recently set a target to reach net-zero emissions by 2050, the first in the world to do so, which is unfortunately going to be 20 years too late to prevent catastrophe. Analysis from the Climate Action Tracker suggests that there are only two countries currently set to meet the SR15’s 1.5 degree target, whilst only five more countries are on track to hit the 2 degrees target from the Paris summit.

It remains the case that a new approach to foreign and public policy is what is required to have the best chance of beating climate change. In terms of public policy, it is my view that all countries need to follow a bespoke plan for their economy. Developed countries must follow something along the lines of a Green New Deal, which in essence is made up of two parts:

The Green New Deal is a policy proposal created by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY-14)
  1. Massive investment in infrastructure and renewable energy, allowing the country to reach net-zero carbon emissions and 100% renewable sourced energy by 2030.
  2. A state jobs guarantee, meaning all those whose jobs are lost from removal of carbon-heavy industries are replaced with unionised state-funded jobs to build and run new infrastructure.

The UK Labour Party has recently passed a conference motion in support of this type of deal, making them the first mainstream political party in the world to do so. Based on the SR 1.5 report, meeting global net-zero by 2030 is the only real chance we have globally of combating the climate crisis and preventing temperature increases of more than 1.5 degrees. It remains to be seen whether anybody in the world will actually implement a Green New Deal. It also remains to be seen whether there are any other effective alternatives.

Sea-spraying vessel to refreeze the earth’s poles.

Countries across the world also need to form an international action plan with regards to climate repair. Climate scientists from the University of Cambridge have come up with a number of ways to ‘repair’ the climate and reverse the effects that climate change has already had. One of the most promising ideas is ‘refreezing the poles’ to restore the ice caps lost due to global heating, and prevent sea level rises. This process involves spraying seawater up tall nozzles, creating salt particles. Injecting clouds with sea salt then ‘brightens’ the clouds, spreading them out and allowing them to cool the area below. When done on a large scale, this could allow the ice retreats of the north and south pole to be reversed.

It is a common belief that the countries with the biggest impact on the global carbon footprint are developed countries, who are also considered by many to be those who will experience the worst impacts of climate change. However, this is not entirely correct. Whilst China, India and the US are the biggest global emitters of carbon dioxide, this is not the full picture. When carbon emissions are adjusted by population, the worlds ten greatest emitters are as follows:

Most, but not all of these countries are part of the global north. Yet, those who will be victim to the greatest impacts will be those in the global south. An increase of 2-3 degrees above pre-industrial levels will displace up to 275 million people, who will need to be moved elsewhere (the 2015 refugee ‘crisis’ only featured 1 million people and was virtually impossible to cope with). Asian cities will be most affected, with Shanghai, Hong Kong and Osaka amongst the most affected. Across the rest of the world, cities like Alexandria, Miami, Rio de Janeiro and the Hague will be the first to fall victim to rising sea levels. As a result, climate repair and climate justice require a foreign policy approach too.

The 2015 Paris agreement was a landmark in the sense that it brought virtually all of the UN member states together in agreeing targets. However, it did not agree on solutions and the agreement reached is not binding on states. Therefore, it has little or no affect. The difficulty of cooperation, conflicting national interests and respecting individual state sovereignty makes a foreign policy approach to climate change very difficult. However, it is not impossible. Most states have vested interests in goods and raw materials created in developing nations. It is therefore in the national interest of all nation states to focus on combating climate change domestically, but also focus on aiding developing and emerging nations in combating the challenges they face.

A 2018 report from the Centre for Climate Finance & Investment at Imperial College Business School and the SOAS Department of Economics commissioned by the UNFCCC suggested that:

Increased risk from vulnerability to climate change is increasing the cost of capital and is projected to cause an additional $168 billion of debt payments over the next ten years among the most climate change vulnerable countries

It is for this reason that the richest countries must step in now to make sure climate change can be properly halted. The idea that $168bn debt is what is required of poorer countries to effectively halt climate change is going to make action impossible without the help of richer countries. The most effective foreign policy solution would be for the nations of the world to create a global climate action network, combining organisations like the IPCC into a charter which is legally binding on states. The hard work is yet to begin, but progress will be possible with global cooperation.

The Rule of Law

Emblazoned across this morning’s Daily Telegraph are these words: “Johnson: I’ll defy law over Brexit extension”. The Prime Minister is actually threatening to disobey the law, in his undying pursuit of Brexit.

The Daily Telegraph – Saturday 07/09/19

This is obviously terrifying and could very quickly set a number of unprecedented moves in motion, which could even result in a prison sentence for Mr Johnson.

Lord MacDonald, the former Director of Public Prosecutions, has today spoken to Sky News’s Rob Powell about the consequences of the PM disobeying the rule of law. He said that legal action would be pursued, and a court would order that “the law should be followed”. He added that “a refusal in the face of [the law] would amount to contempt of court which could find that person in prison”  MacDonald also suggested that this is “not an extreme outcome” as it is”convention” that those who refuse to “purge their contempt” are imprisoned. This view is no doubt shared by his successor, Shadow Brexit Secretary Sir Keir Starmer MP. Contempt of Court carries a jail term of up to two years.

Former Supreme Court Judge Lord Sumption has also spoken to Sky News, and suggested that “[The PM] won’t get any co-operation, apart from the fanatics around him…the Attorney General won’t sit there quietly while this happens”. He also added that “If he was to do something as foolish as [break the law], he would be on his own, maybe accompanied by Dominic Cummings”. Presumably MPs will pursue legal action, should the PM refuse to delay Brexit once the legal deadline has passed, led by three leading MPs who are also lawyers and members of the Queen’s Counsel: Sir Keir Starmer, Dominic Grieve and Joanna Cherry. Some constitutional experts, albeit on Twitter, have also suggested that Mr Johnson could have the courts demand he repays damages caused by a no-deal Brexit. Needless to say, he would not be able to repay 2.5% of GDP ($65.5 billion/approx £55 billion).

David Allen Green even suggested that Mr Johnson could even receive a life sentence for Misconduct in a Public Office: “For any public servant to deliberately seek to breach the law (as opposed to say, creatively comply with it or find a loophole to avoid it) would be (on the face of it) misconduct under this offence. If all the elements are made out of the offence then there would be a criminal conviction and a sentence, which can be up to life imprisonment.” Testing times.

Over the last few weeks, there has been a lot of talk of democracy, the end of democracy and coups. Many have argued that the prorogation of Parliament is a threat to democracy, despite being ruled lawful this week. I happen to agree that it is a threat. However, it is nowhere near as dangerous as a government that is willing to intentionally break the law.

The rule of law is a fundamental principle of a true democracy. Under our constitutional monarchy system, everyone is bound by the law and the constitution, including the executive and the monarch herself. This principle is not only important but long-standing, having been established by the Magna Carta in 1215 and the Bill of Rights of 1689. The rule of law is central to the UK constitution, along with the idea of Habeas Corpus (all are innocent before proven guilty) and the various Parliament Acts of 1911 and 1949. It is deeply troubling to see the PM openly flaunting the idea of acting unlawfully, no matter what the consequences are.

If the government does not comply with the law, Britain simply ceases to be a democratic nation state. The government must be bound by the law, its as simple as that. The law and the constitution affords civil liberties to the public, which must be protected. The rule of law also maintains Parliamentary sovereignty. Fundamentally, their is little point to the law and it’s civil protections if a government and a PM refuse to acknowledge and comply with it. Talk of a coup is premature and inaccurate, but this is one of the greatest threats our democracy has seen in recent times. It must be stopped by whatever legal means necessary.

Proroguing Parliament is a Threat to Democracy

Unless you have spent today under a rock, you will know that the Queen has approved Boris Johnson’s reckless decision to prorogue Parliament for five weeks, as a backdoor mechanism to prevent MPs from legislating to block a no-deal Brexit. I believe this is profoundly anti-democratic and even somewhat authoritarian.

Our constitution is unwritten, and therefore there is largely based on precedents and conventions instead of written statutes (like in the US). As a result, the constitution can be altered by figures in power, like the Prime Minister, acting within the realms of their prerogative powers and setting new precedents. Whilst proroguing is common practice and conventional before a new Queen’s speech, it is virtually unprecedented for the government to suspend Parliament in order to push a policy through against its will.

The last time Parliament was prorogued for policy reasons, according to the Commons Library, was by the Atlee government in 1948. They wished to pass legislation against the wishes of the House of Lords, in accordance with the Parliament Act 1911 which required legislation voted down by the Lords to be passed by the Commons in three successive sessions in order to pass without Lords’ consent. Whilst this is not very democratic, it was acting within the confines of statute law and the will of the House of Commons. John Major also prorogued Parliament for longer than usual before the 1997 election, in order to prevent the Standards and Privileges select committee from publishing a damning report on the ‘Cash for Questions’ scandal until after the election. Again, this was not designed to frustrate the will of Parliament and enact policy against the expressed will of MPs and Lords.

The most famous and dangerous example of Parliamentary prorogation to subvert democracy is the eleven year tyranny, when Charles the first suspended Parliament for eleven years to rule by himself, as he believed in the divine right of kings. This eventually led to the English Civil War, and Charles’ execution in 1649. I don’t believe for one second that Boris Johnson’s decision will end up in any similar shape or form, but it worries me that these are the lengths that this government is willing to go to to prevent MPs from doing their job. Furthermore, this could set further precedence for future radical leaders, who may seek to prorogue Parliament in order to force through any unpopular policy agendas they may have.

Prorogation is a royal prerogative power so, to make things worse, there is no clear legal or procedural mechanism available to MPs to prevent it happening. Many MPs, including some in Boris Johnson’s own cabinet have previously come out against the use of prorogation to force through no-deal:

https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

Backbone. It seems unlikely any of these people are willing to challenge the PM, particularly as they have no power to stop it.

Professor Meg Russell, a senior research fellow at the UCL Constitution Unit and one of Britain’s most knowledgeable constitutional scholars went so far as to say that:

“To ask [the Queen] to prorogue in these circumstances is, in effect, an abuse of executive power.”

Professor Meg Russell – UCL Constitution Unit

This is, of course, terrifying and it is unclear to what lengths Boris and his government will go to pursue a no-deal, cliff edge Brexit. Buzzfeed News’ Alex Wickham has got wind of plans to use extreme measures, including filibustering and adding extra bank holidays to prevent Parliament sitting, to frustrate the will of Parliament once more.

Both Houses of Parliament have voted against leaving the EU without a deal on numerous occasions this year, including by passing the EU Withdrawal Act 2019 in March, to prevent a no-deal exit on the 29th of March. It seems likely this may happen again in the two weeks that Parliament will be allowed to sit in the beginning of September, as Oliver Letwin has said on Twitter.

With the planned conference recess unlikely to have been voted through, Boris Johnson is effectively shutting Parliament for five weeks during the biggest crisis this country has seen since the second world war.

It is also entirely possible that this whole initiative is simply part of an incredibly elaborate plan by de facto Chief of Staff Dominic Cummings and No. 10 head of legislative affairs Nikki Da Costa to force an election through a vote of no confidence. This would allow Boris to run a populist, ‘the people vs Parliament’ election campaign, aided by Mr Cummings (who ran the Vote Leave campaign) which would potentially lead to a Conservative majority, unless a ‘remain alliance’ is formed quickly. A successful vote of no confidence would also require ‘remainer’ Tory MPs to vote with opposition and be automatically deselected. In the absence of the Rory Stewarts and Dominic Grieves in the party, the Conservatives could essentially become the Brexit party and win. However, this is very unlikely.

Over the summer, I read ‘How Democracy Ends’ by David Runciman, who details at length how a coup could bring a swift end to democracy in this country. In my naive way, I did not believe this could ever happen in the UK. This is not a coup d’etat and a military takeover, this is a silent coup, a coup d’essai, by the architects of Brexit, who hold the 3 year-old referendum result above all constitutional and legal obligations upon them. They campaigned to ‘take back control’, to ‘restore’ Parliamentary sovereignty, which they now wilfully disregard in the undying pursuit of “the will of the people”. A dark time.

But what are the solutions?

  • The opposition and some Tory MPs are planning to host a sit-in to occupy Parliament and prevent it being shut – Yes, really.
  • There is a plan to host an alternative Parliament across the road in Church House, the location used for the House of Commons when it was destroyed in the second world war. It is unclear what power this would actually have in terms of legislation.
  • John Bercow will probably bend the rules of Parliament if there is any possibility it can prevent a no-deal Brexit and allow MPs to express their will and/or continue to sit.
  • MPs may act to legislate against no-deal next week.
  • I would argue that the time is now right for Britain to create a codified constitution to prevent crises like this happening ever again. This would confirm which powers could be used by the Prime Minister and avoid dragging the Queen into politics again.
  • There will probably, at some point very soon, be an election – You can register to vote here.

Further Reading:

The Danger of No-Deal

Boris Johnson has promised to take the UK out of the EU on October the 31st, come what may, with or without a deal. Whilst the government claims it is intent on securing a new withdrawal agreement before then, in reality this is not going to be possible. The EU has made absolutely clear that it will not be renegotiating the existing withdrawal agreement and, even if it were an available option, there is simply not enough time before the end of October to renegotiate, write and ratify a new 585-page treaty. As a result, it seems almost definite that the UK will leave the EU with no deal. It is the view of virtually all experts and vast swathes of the public (myself included) that this will be a catastrophe.

Firstly, the UK will be erecting trade barriers and have to rely on trading through the World Trade Organisation. Currently, all our trade is done through the EU single market and customs union which allows us to trade freely (or sometimes with low tariffs) with the other 27 member states, as well as non-EU members who have negotiated single market access, including Iceland, Switzerland (through the EEA), Ukraine (through a DCFTA) and Turkey (through the EU-Turkey Customs Union). We are also able to trade with other countries, via the single market via FTAs which have been negotiated by the EU for the benefit of members of the single market and customs union areas. These countries currently include Japan, South Korea and Israel, with countries such as Canada and the vast majority of South America also having provisional FTAs in place. Agreements with West Africa and the Mercosur bloc are also in the process of ratification. This is a lot of trading opportunities and show the great benefit to being a member of the EU trade area. Trade with other EU nations currently makes up 44% of British exports, with the remaining 56% also being done via EU agreements.

If the UK were to leave the EU with no-deal, it would have no free-trade agreements available at all. This would introduce vast tariffs according to WTO schedules, which we have no say over. Under WTO rules, there could be an increase of up to 40% on agricultural tariffs, for example. There are very few countries which trade exclusively under WTO rules, as the UK would in this scenario, although it is unclear absolutely how many. This Medium analysis reckons there is only one country on such basis – Mauritania.

For those of you not familiar with Mauritania, it’s GDP is $4,714million (0.2% of the UK’s), 50% of its exports consist of Iron Ore, and between 1% and 17% of the population still live in slavery.

Not quite what we were promised. It is unlikely to be this catastrophic, as the government has signed a small number of ‘continuity agreements’ to ensure that we can still trade after a no-deal Brexit. However, these nations will never make up anything like what we require – Liechenstein, the Faroe Islands and the Palestinian Authority will never replicate our current status. Sky News’ Lewis Goodall echoed this today:

https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

Some, including the Prime Minister, have argued this would not be an issue as we could continue to trade under the terms of GATT Article 24 Paragraph 5B, which allows nations who have a FTA agreed in principle to trade on a no-tariff basis during the process of writing and ratification of the FTA. However, this relies on the EU’s approval which is certainly not guaranteed in a no-deal scenario. Furthermore, this would not allow trade to continue with ‘third-countries’ who we are also reliant on for certain goods.

In terms of real world impacts on our daily lives, a no-deal could have wide-ranging consequences, including:

  • A reduction in the amount and variety of food available in supermarkets. Almost 30% of all our food products come from the EU. If there is no trade agreement, this will prevent these goods from getting to the UK on time and reduce the amount of choice for consumers, as well as the quantity available. There would be a particularly significant impact on fresh fruit and veg, which can’t be stockpiled. The British Retail Consortium argued this in January. The Bank of England also reckons shopping bills could rise by 10% with new tariffs.
  • Trips to Europe lasting longer than 90 days in 6 months, or for any period of work or study will require visas. This could potentially infringe on student’s opportunities to study abroad, including in sandwich courses. It will also have a significant impact on business trips and be incredibly detrimental to small and medium size businesses (SMEs). A visa to the Schengen area costs 60 euros for 90 days, and each country will also require a similar fee for work and residence permits.
  • EHIC cards, which allow access to free healthcare for EU citizen’s in all member states will no longer be valid. As a result, visitors will be required to buy private health and travel insurance, adding yet another cost to visiting Europe. Again, this will be particularly detrimental to students and SMEs.
  • There is likely to be a shortage of medicine. This may even include simple and common over-the-counter medicines like paracetamol. The Health Secretary Matt Hancock even refused to rule out deaths in the event of a no-deal. I have no idea why it is still being aimed for.
  • The 1.3 millions UK citizens living in EU member states may lose their rights to live and work in the places they have settled in to, and could be forced to return to the UK in extreme circumstances. The same may well be true of EU citizens in the UK who do not have ‘settled status’.
  • House prices could drop by up to 30%, potentially leaving homeowners in negative equity. This would leave people in debt through no fault or choice of their own.
  • Ports will have severe delays and traffic will pile up, particularly in the South East around the Dover port. Every vehicle trying to cross the channel with goods will have to have customs checks, potentially adding days onto travel and trade time between Dover and Calais. This will cause shortages of products, and also add a significant burden on SMEs which trade with the EU. They will all need to hire a customs specialist, adding an additional running cost that could make small businesses unsustainable.
  • There will be a significant hit to the economy, which could result in up to 2.5 million job losses, according to leaked treasury reports. Nobody voted for this.

In the worst circumstances, Government Ministers will be empowered by the Civil Contingencies Act 2004 to impose curfews and make temporary law changes without Parliamentary consent in the event of widespread civil disobedience. I think this is unlikely, but even the thought of it is terrifying.

There is one more key point that I haven’t mentioned yet, which is probably the most important of all: Northern Ireland.

A no-deal Brexit would probably lead to the creation of a hard border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. This would be purely because the UK would no longer be a part of the single market/customs union, and therefore will not have regulatory alignment with the Republic. As a result, customs checkpoints will be required.

One of the key principles of the Good Friday Agreement was for all parties to work towards the maintenance of an open and free border between NI and ROI as it balanced the requests of nationalists and unionists. Put simply, it allowed unionists to stay as part of the UK whilst allowing nationalists to feel that they were part of a united Ireland. When there were border checks previously, customs guards had to be flown in to work by the army as they were at a serious threat from dissident republican groups like the IRA. The greatest achievement of the Good Friday Agreement was bringing relative peace to Ireland and largely stopping dissident republican violence, which claimed lives across the UK. Returning to a hard border across the island would give dissident groups an excuse to return to full-scale violence that hasn’t been seen since the GFA. The murder of the journalist Lyra Mckee has already shown us what terrible tragedies these groups are willing to inflict, and it would be an act of complete and total stupidity to allow this to happen.

Technology to help avoid this situation in any scenario could be up to a decade away, according to leaked Home Office reports. This was the objective of the backstop section of the Withdrawal Agreement which seems to have been the main concern of hard-brexiteers. As it stands, I cannot see a good solution to this problem that permits Brexit to happen.

There are of course other considerations about the union that are also brought up by a no-deal Brexit. Scotland voted heavily to remain, and the fallout caused by a hard exit could tip the balance and cause Scotland to vote to leave the UK and re-join the UK in a future referendum. This would be catastrophic for the rest of the UK, but most of all for the economy of Scotland. It cannot be allowed to happen.

But the biggest question of all is – Can it be stopped? The simple answer is nobody knows. These are unknown constitutional paths, that even leading scholars of the constitution do not have the answers to. We will have to wait and see what Parliament’s return in September brings for us.

Further Reading:

The Importance of Pride in 2019



Every year, the global queer community comes together in June to celebrate pride. Pride is defined as: “confidence and self-respect as expressed by members of a group, typically one that has been socially marginalized, on the basis of their shared identity, culture, and experience“. Pride is also about protest, and celebrating on behalf of those who can’t.

I felt compelled to write about its importance this year, and my personal feelings towards it as I am unlikely to be able to go to a pride event this year. Celebrating pride over the summer each year show the strength and the power of my community. It sends a message – we exist. As a group that has been marginalised and oppressed for centuries upon centuries, it is great to celebrate progress and ultimately how lucky we are to live as largely free and accepted queer people in 2019. We mustn’t let this change the meaning of pride from what it is supposed to be – a protest.

One of the key moments in the history of pride and the queer civil rights movement was the Stonewall Riots of the 28th and 29th of June 1969. These occurred as a result of police raids on the Stonewall Inn, a bar in Greenwich Village which openly welcomed queer people as patrons. Police raided it on June 28th, as both homosexuality and being trans were illegal at the time – the FBI kept lists of those deemed to be ‘known homosexuals’ and the US Post Office would scan mail and track the addresses of anyone receiving ‘gay post’. As a result, violence and rioting broke out between the queer community. A year later, the world’s first pride marches were held in solidarity with the American queer community. From then on, the pride movement has grown and the lives for many members of our community (in the Western world) have improved significantly. This month marks 50 years since the riots took place.

It is worth looking at the progress we have made over the last 50 years, with same-sex marriage slowly becoming legal across the globe, including Taiwan becoming the first Asian country to legalise it at the end of last month. Homophobia and transphobia are now criminal offences in a number of countries, including in Brazil as of today, and trans people are (very) slowly becoming accepted into society. This is great, but sadly is not the full picture. There are 72 countries across the world where being gay is a criminal offence. In some of these countries this only applies to men, but the vast majority of these countries also criminalise the existence of queer women too. Around 10 of these countries still use the death penalty for homosexuality. Looking at a map, it would seem that these issues are largely restricted to Africa, Asia and the Middle East. However, we still face equally as significant struggles here in the UK. Last week, we heard of a surge in hate crimes against LGBT people. The week before, we heard the story of Chris and Melania being beaten up on a bus by male teenagers for refusing to perform their sexuality. The week before that, we saw the NSPCC immediately cutting all it’s ties with trans activist Munroe Bergdorf after transphobic media smears with no legitimate basis in fact. The week before that, we continued to hear the stories of parental protests outside primary schools, objecting to them teaching that gay people exist. On top of this, non-binary and intersex people have no legal recognition at all, and many queer people still face violence, bigotry and barriers to work and to happiness.

The Guardian’s Owen Jones speaks to Munroe Bergdorf

This is why Pride is still just as important now as it was 50 years ago. We have to keep pushing forward, for the sake of others if not for ourselves. We should and can have a truly equal society free from discrimination, and we should strive to do that in our lifetime.

I want to talk about myself now. I came out as bisexual on July 15th, 2015, when I was 13 years old. If I’m blatantly honest, I regret doing it so early but I just couldn’t bottle it up any longer. I’m still uncomfortable and self-conscious about it, and I think that stems from a number of environmental factors. I am writing these out because I want to be honest, and because I don’t want the world to be like this anymore. I do not want or need anybodies sympathy – this is not what this is about. In primary school, and the earlier years of secondary school, I heard constant homophobia, biphobia and transphobia. It is mostly as a result of this that I feel a sense of discomfort with myself and my identity. I also place blame on aggressive masculinity, which actively works to ridicule and shame anybody who does not fulfil the sole purpose of life: pleasing and serving straight men. Maybe this will change. We still have work to do on biphobia, and there are many myths around about our likelihood to cheat or being confused. Of course, none of this is true – we are just like everybody else. Society is just jealous of how cool we are. I accept that, having never been in a relationship with anybody (shock!), many people may not realise my bisexuality even exists. Indeed, many people would probably not have seen that if I was in a relationship with a woman. Nevertheless, nothing will change and I am proud to be who I am.

I need to share this, because I am on a road to fully accepting myself and embracing my identity, finally. I want to be unapologetically queer, I want to be open, I want to be honest, and most of all I want to be happy with myself. Pride month makes me strive for this. I know this will continue to be challenging, but I know that those close to me will be accepting. I am also conscious that I am only able to say and do this because of white privilege – you can read more about that in this article. Thank you for reading this far, and most of all – Happy Pride!

Protecting Foreign Aid Budgets

Today, former Work and Pensions Secretary Esther McVey has launched her campaign to become the next leader of the Conservative Party, and the next prime minister. Whilst launching the new ‘Blue Collar Conservatism’ group, she made her first policy pledge – to cut the UK’s foreign aid budget by £7bn. In her announcement, she argued that this should then be spent on education and health budgets, in a move to seem compassionate to those viewing from afar. However, reducing the foreign aid budget by any amount is anything but compassionate.

Of course, it may seem premature to worry about this because McVey is considered by most commentators to be an outsider to the race for PM. However, there is precedent in the Conservative Party for outsiders to win leadership contests. Indeed, in 1997, 2001 and 2005, the candidate who was considered to be the ‘outsider’ won the campaign. It is also worth noting that other candidates in this contest have also previously endorsed the idea of adapting the foreign aid budget. Priti Patel, the former international development secretary who was sacked for holding undisclosed meetings with Israeli government officials, suggested that the spending rules should be tightened and that the UK alone should be able to decide what aid should be spent on, potentially risking a future PM having total control over aid spending. Boris Johnson, the former foreign secretary who is widely viewed as the front-runner to be the next prime minister, went even further. In February 2019, he suggested completely abolishing the Department for International Development (DfID) and making a multibillion pound cut to the aid budget.

Currently, the UK is obliged in law to meet the United Nations aid target under the International Development (Official Development Assistance Target) Act 2015. This means that the UK must spend 0.7% of its GDP on foreign aid each year – in 2016 this was worth £13.4bn. This is spent across the world on a number of excellent projects designed to boost living standards and quality of life for those less fortunate than us. 64% of aid is spent directly in other countries by the UK government (bilateral aid), whilst 36% is paid through NGOs and institutions like the UN (multilateral aid).

Where UK aid is spent. Source: DfID

I think it is vitally important that we maintain this spending target in the future and continue to support these countries. We have a moral responsibility, just like every other country, to support others around the planet as much as we can.

I believe that the UK has an additional responsibility due to the legacy of the British Empire. Many of the countries which receive our help through foreign aid schemes are poor and deprived as a result of colonialism. When the British took over, they stripped these countries of many of their natural resources. As a result, these countries did not possess enough potential for their own economic development once the British pulled out, because of our previous actions. I firmly believe that we have a moral duty to assist these countries to try to right some of these previous wrongs.

Here is an example of a recent project funded by UKAID through the World Health Organisation, helping to vaccinate against and prevent the spread of the Ebola virus in the Democratic Republic of Congo.

This is just one small example of a brilliant project being undertaken with UK foreign aid. Other recent examples include helping coffee farmers in Ethiopia, planting trees across Mali, working to end violence against women and girls across 32 different countries and additional funding for research into HIV/AIDS prevention. This report from the charity Global Citizen details 12 personal stories about the positive effects of UK aid.

Each of these examples show the absolute importance of maintaining and protecting the 0.7% foreign aid budget to help fund both small and large scale projects around the developing world. If it is cut at all, some of these excellent initiatives are bound to suffer. We cannot let that happen. It is our moral duty as one of the richest and most powerful nations in the world to support the rest of the planet to live a more prosperous life. We should challenge anybody who believes otherwise. It is vitally important that the livelihoods and prosperity of those who live in the many countries we support are not threatened by potential prime minister’s nationalist dog-whistles to appease the Conservative Party membership.

Brexit: Whatever Next?

The swiftly unravelling process of attempting to leave the European Union is plunging Britain into a political and constitutional crisis. In the last few days, MPs have decisively rejected Theresa May’s proposed withdrawal agreement for the second time. Whilst the majority against the agreement this time was less than it was the first time, the government’s loss by 149 represented the fourth largest government defeat since records began. A large number of Conservatives MPs rebelled against their party despite a three-line whip being in place. This is uncharted territory for the UK.

The chaos did not stop there. On Wednesday, MPs voted against a ‘no-deal’ Brexit twice. The government had conceded that this vote needed to take place after members of the cabinet, as well as a large group of junior ministers, threatened to resign unless this was taken of the table. Theresa May had promised on Tuesday that this vote would be a ‘free vote’, allowing members of the government to vote with their conscience rather than along the party line. Seems ok so far.

Two amendments to the motion were moved and put to a vote. The first one was where the chaos began. Known as the Spellman/Dromey amendment, this vote seeked to rule out ‘no-deal’ permanently. The government had whipped against the amendment which was moved by co-signatory Yvette Cooper and it was widely expected to lose. However, the government was defeated by a majority of 4. As a result, government whips had to scramble to impose a three-line whip on Conservative MPs to vote against the final motion in its amended form. That’s right, the government whipped against it’s own motion. So this put some members in the awkward position of either voting against their conscience or resigning. Despite this, 13 members of the government abstained from the vote. In any times of remote normality, this would be a sackable offence as it is a breach of the ministerial code. The idea of collective responsibility is a constitutional convention which requires government ministers to vote with the party whip and accept all government decisions regardless of their personal views. However, the PM (at time of writing) has decided not to sack any of abstaining members of the government, which included four cabinet ministers. Most of the cabinet obeyed the whip despite the fact that some of them, including the Chancellor of the Exchequer, had stood at the despatch box and argued against no deal just hours before.

It is absolutely unprecedented for members of the government, particularly those from the cabinet to abstain or vote against the government whip. It is even more unprecedented for the government to have to whip against their motion. What becomes even crazier is the fact that members of the government, including the PM, had no idea what was going on. The Whip’s Office and Number 10 were at odds with each other, with whips trying to force Conservative MPs to vote against the main motion, but a senior aide to the Prime Minister had told ministers they would not be sacked for abstaining.

Here is a handy flowchart I put together showing a variety of possible next steps:

Tonight, MPs will vote on a motion relating to extending article 50 of the Lisbon treaty, the process by which the UK is using to leave the EU. The main motion makes three points:

  1. The House of Commons requests the government to ask the EU for an extension to article 50
  2. If a withdrawal deal is passed by March 20th, the government will seek a technical extension to pass legislation and leave the EU on June 30th 2019
  3. If a deal has not been passed, the EU Council will offer a longer extension (potentially until 2021) providing that the UK sets out a clear intention for this extension and takes part in the European Elections in May this year

The ‘intention’ of a long extension will be particularly important in the coming weeks. If the Hillary Benn amendment to tonight’s motion passes, the government will be forced to hold a series of indicative votes to determine the way forward. I expect this to happen. A set of indicative votes would give MPs the chance to vote on a series of proposals to see what could command a majority in the House of Commons. However, as has been the case throughout this process, any proposals brought forward are dependent on the EU27 accepting them – so we still may not find a way out of this crisis.

Standing in the European elections could also cause significant issues. Members of the European Commission and the European Parliament have voiced their concerns that Brexit could overshadow these elections across Europe and lead to the Eurosceptic EFDD group in the European parliament making gains. Guy Verhofstadt, the European Parliament’s representative in the Brexit Negotiations, was one of the most vocal members expressing his concerns:

The only thing we will do, we will give a new mandate to [Nigel] Farage. That’s exactly what he wants. […] He can continue to do his dirty work in the European Union, that is to try to destroy the European Union from within.

Guy Verhofstadt, March 13th 2019

However, it is not entirely impossible for us to remain in the EU for a period without taking part in the EU elections. Eleanor Sharpston, a senior judge in the European Court of Justice, suggested this instead:

https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

However, this suggestion may well face criticism and/or rejection from the EU as well.

There is also another serious point to be made which could scupper proceedings. The government is expecting to hold a third ‘meaningful vote’ to attempt to ratify it’s withdrawal agreement by March 20th. However, the parliamentary practice handbook, published by the House of Commons Clerks, states that something that has been rejected by the house cannot be brought back to the house within the same parliamentary session. If amendment (j) passes tonight, or John Bercow makes a ruling in a similar way, the government will not be able to bring back its withdrawal agreement for another vote.

This is uncharted territory. What will happen next is anyone’s guess.

Justice for Grenfell

It was just before 1am on June 14th 2017 when the emergency services were informed of a fire in a North London tower block. What came next shocked the world.

Grenfell Tower was a high-rise block of social housing in the North of the London Borough of Kensington. It was home to around 600 people, many of whom had lived in the same flats for decades. The tower had a multicultural community with residents representing over 20 different nationalities. The vast majority of flats were managed by KCTMO and rented out by the local council to those at the very bottom of society. Those who could not afford to pay for their own home.

The fire ripped the tower apart, burning for around 60 hours. It left 71 people dead and many more with life-changing injuries and trauma.

The victims of the Grenfell Tower disaster. The Guardian Newspaper frontpage, 14th May 2018

The fire was started by an electrical fault in one of the flats. So how could it be that this tiny spark created an inferno which engulfed a 24-storey building? The truthful answer is the reckless contempt for the working class by this government.

It is beyond scandalous that this tragedy could happen in 21st century Britain.

The fire spread because the local council had cut financial corners during a renovation of the tower’s exterior during 2014. The cynical side of me would suggest that this renovation was only undertaken in order to improve the view from neighbouring rich people’s properties. During the renovation, the tower was covered in a cheap, flammable cladding which produced cyanide fumes when burnt. Testing by the University of Central Lancashire for the BBC indicated this cladding had the same flammability as four tankers of petrol. The worst part of all of this is that installing safe cladding would have only cost £5,000 more. The Kensington and Chelsea council (RBKCC) has a reserve cash supply of £274m. It is within reason to expect them to spend a tiny portion of this on protecting the lives of their residents. It was also revealed that RBKCC handed out a £100 tax rebate to all top-band taxpayers at the time of the refurbishment. This also would have covered the use of safe cladding.

All of these decisions show a complete sense of disregard by those in power for the poorest in society. The government was even warned about the fire risk of cheap cladding two years before the fire. Yet no action was taken. Even after the fire, the contempt continues. Theresa May promised on the day of the tragedy that all survivors would be rehoused within three weeks. Over a year later, many survivors remain in hotels or temporary accommodation. Plans to make combustible cladding illegal were not introduced until October 2018, and even then this is only a partial ban. Hundreds of tower blocks across the country continue to be covered in the dangerous cladding and this is taking its toll on their residents. Some tenancy organisations are even charging tenants to replace the materials. This is a massive failure.

A 2017 billboard campaign by the lobby group Justice4Grenfell

Over 600 days have passed since the Grenfell tragedy took place, but it seems that virtually nothing has changed since. Phase 1 of the public inquiry has concluded and we are no closer to justice for the victims than we were on June 14th 2017. It has even been reported that the second phase could be delayed, as survivors continue to live in fear and those responsible roam free. The mistakes made with Grenfell Tower must not be repeated, but until a legal conclusion is reached, they will continue to occur.

I have read countless heart-wrenching stories from survivors of the tragedy. Not one person in that building deserved to go through this. Many of them had their whole lives ahead of them. One of the victims of the fire was just 6 months old. One of the victims was yet to be born. I am ashamed and disgusted that this was allowed to happen in my country. The UK is the fifth richest country in the world. It should not be the case that money is being saved when that money is essential to ensuring the continuation of life. This story is heartbreaking. Today, I am just as heartbroken by this tragedy as I was when I woke up on the day it started. I dream of a society where your chances are not affected by where your roots are but I fear we will never get there in my lifetime. Here’s to hope, and to justice.

Human Rights: Our Greatest Asset

This week, it’s been reported that Theresa May is considering repealing the Human Rights Act 1998 after Brexit. I consider this to be one of the greatest threats to our country of the last decade.

First, some background to the act. This piece of legislation enshrines the European Convention on Human Right 1953 in UK law. It allows UK courts to hear human rights challenges, as previously this would have only really been possible at the European Court of Human Rights. This was an issue as it previously took five years and upwards of £30,000 to fight in this court. It also allowed the UK courts to make a ‘declaration of incompatibility’ to encourage the government to repeal/amend primary legislation, thus protecting the rights of every person on British soil.

The original convention was produced by the Council of Europe as a move to prevent a replay of the atrocities of WWII and under the influence of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948.


The 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights

Repealing this act would instantly remove a large number of liberty protections, prevent the courts from holding the government to account and in turn give the government of the day free reign to enact any policy or legislation without opposition. This is a threat to democracy and prosperity and I sincerely hope it will not happen.

This reform has been tried before. David Cameron pledged to replace the act with an unentrenched, unenforced ‘British Bill of Rights’ but failed miserably. Hopefully this attempt will fail too, as any change will be regressive, rather than progressive. Theresa May also argued that we should repeal the act as it would allow her to deport foreign terror suspects more easily. However, it is not right for us to risk the rights of the general public in order to fast-track deportations of a small handful of people.

There are also much wider-ranging implications. Former attorney general Dominic Grieve QC MP suggested “that repeal would force British people to head to the human rights court in Strasbourg for justice, where hundreds of cases would ‘pile up'”. Additionally, the Human Rights Hub, part of the University of Oxford Law Department suggested repeal would cause constitutional and legal chaos. Its report suggested that this reform could come into conflict with the Sewell Convention, which requires central government to have legislative consent from devolved powers to make changes and reforms. The human rights act also forms part of our obligations under the British-Irish agreement, which was written and agreed as part of the Good Friday Agreement (which ensures peace in Northern Ireland). We don’t want to risk breaking that.

If the act were to be repealed without a replacement, citizens would only be protected by the EU fundamental charter of rights and certain common/case laws. We will lose most of these protections if/when we leave the European Union, as they form part of its constitution and/or courts. This is dangerous territory which should not be entered at any cost.

Lets hope that the act is not repealed, and we all keep our hard-earned rights for the rest of our lives.

The Importance of Intersectionality

It is no secret that I am a feminist, and proud to be one too. It is my firm belief that all feminism should be entirely intersectional, otherwise there is actually little point to it at all. For those who are unaware:

Intersectionality is an analytic framework that attempts to identify how interlocking systems of power impact those who are most marginalized in society

Definition of intersectionality

In simpler terms, intersectional feminism is all about appreciating and recognising the different individual experiences of women due to their social characteristics, such as class, ethnicity and sexuality. Recognising and understanding these disparities is crucial in fighting for equality and bringing it about. This is the single most important thing. Recognition that life is harder for some women than others for all manner of reasons is the only way that this will happen.

I noticed that throwing off the shackles of white feminism is presumed to be easier for someone like me who is fortunate enough that I don’t have to deal with misogyny. However, I believe (and I know) that all women are stronger and have more willpower than men so this assumption is both incorrect and opposite to the truth. 

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

I find that effective intersectionality relies on listening to the voices of all kinds of women all of the time, even when they are criticising your own group. There are millions of these voices out there. Use your privilege to amplify minority voices. Trans model/activist Munroe Bergdorf, author of ‘Why I’m No Longer Talking to White People about Race’ Reni Eddo-Lodge, actor/presenter Jameela Jamil, author/activist The Slumflower, American congresswoman-elect Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Instagram artist/activist Florence Given are all great people and excellent examples of how to conduct yourself (in short: make a noise). This is how I woke up to feminism when I was younger. I continue to learn from all the incredible women that I am lucky enough to have in my life and those who raise their voices and share their thoughts around the world every day.

Intersectional feminism is all about inclusivity, through lifestyle, actions and language. Using trans and queer-inclusive (including respecting people’s pronouns!) and disability-inclusive language (not using words like retard!), supporting sex-workers and recognising that there is more to gender than just genitals. Holding supportive, positive and inclusionary discourse surrounding these (sometimes) taboo issues and discouraging unnecessary moral panic about them will help to normalise them in the wider society. I would hope that, as a result, this would reduce explicit forms of bias (EG: shouting abuse in the street etc.). I don’t think this would help to reduce structural and institutional biases but it would nevertheless be a positive step in the right direction. 

Nobody is perfect, we all learn as we go on. It is really important that all us feminists recognise previous mistakes and listen to criticism. I feel like a bit of an idiot saying this from my male perspective, but this is not about me or improving the lives of men – this is about the end goal of destroying the patriarchy. I believe that our society thrives on diversity and as a result, our feminism should help to foster that and continue to work on improving the lives of all of the wonderful women around the world.

Design a site like this with WordPress.com
Get started