Yes, I am returning to the Strasbourg question. My British colleagues from all parties , as far as know without exception, want the European Parliament to meet in one place. That place should obviously be Brussels.
There is at present a Written Declaration (similar to an Early Day Motion in the House of Commons) before the European Parliament as follows::
1. Calls on the Member States to amend the Protocol on the location of the seat of the institution, in order to allow the Parliament to hold all its sessions in Brussels
2. Instructs its President to forward this declaration, together with the names of the signatories, to the other EU institutions and to Member States and to actively promote this solution.
Written declarations have to be submitted by five MEPs. This one was put forward by Catherine Stihler, my Labour colleague from Scotland, Alexander Alvaro and Frederique Ries, Liberals from Germany and Belgium respectively, Finnish MEP Pia-Noora Kauppi who is a member of the EPP centre-right group and Helga Trupel, a Green also from Germany.
If you would like to know more about this and related issues, please go to: http://www.ep-reform.eu/
I’s high time we ended the Strasbourg nonsense. It would be very helpful if you would sign the online petition to have the European Parliament located in Brussels: http://www.oneseat.eu
Friday, 31 October 2008
Thursday, 30 October 2008
CYPRUS INDEPENDENCE DAY DINNER
The National Federation of Cypriots in the UK and the Greek Cypriot Brotherhood held their annual dinner to celebrate Cyprus Independence Day yesterday. In the delightful Atrium Restaurant in Westminster we were privileged to hear Cyprus Foreign Minister Markos Kyprianou tell us about the current position in the Cyprus talks.
He was cautiously optimistic, as we all are, but felt that Mehmet Ali Talat, the Leader in the north was far less positive that Mr Christofias, the President of the Republic of Cyprus. He briefed us all on the main issues: property rights, missing persons and foreign troops, and said that the discussions so far had been only preliminary talks. The real meat has yet to come to the table .
It was very good to hear from a member of the government in the Republic. It was also a good event in that I was able to catch up with many friends in the Cypriot community in London whom I haven’t seen for a while. My thanks to all those involved in organising the evening.
He was cautiously optimistic, as we all are, but felt that Mehmet Ali Talat, the Leader in the north was far less positive that Mr Christofias, the President of the Republic of Cyprus. He briefed us all on the main issues: property rights, missing persons and foreign troops, and said that the discussions so far had been only preliminary talks. The real meat has yet to come to the table .
It was very good to hear from a member of the government in the Republic. It was also a good event in that I was able to catch up with many friends in the Cypriot community in London whom I haven’t seen for a while. My thanks to all those involved in organising the evening.
GOOD RIDDANCE
Good riddance to both Russell Brand, who at least had the good grace to resign, and Jonathan Ross who has not, though it looks as if his contract is in serious danger
While I am totally on the side of Andrew Sachs and his grand-daughter, I am deeply troubled that this story has become so all-consuming. Two overpaid, naff “comedians”, one aged though thoroughly decent actor and a his showbiz grand-daughter have relegated everything else to the shadows.
Where are we going? What does this show about Britain in the 21st century.
While I am totally on the side of Andrew Sachs and his grand-daughter, I am deeply troubled that this story has become so all-consuming. Two overpaid, naff “comedians”, one aged though thoroughly decent actor and a his showbiz grand-daughter have relegated everything else to the shadows.
Where are we going? What does this show about Britain in the 21st century.
KILLER HEELS
During the past week I have seen half a dozen articles in serious publications about high heels , for women that is. And not just two – three inches, but five to six inches. Celebs such as the absurd Victoria Beckham and Gwyneth Paltrow, a talented actress who seems to be going off the rails, have been photographed in ridiculously silly shoes. Publicity seeking fashion designers, notably Christian Louboutin, intend to bring out five to six inch heel shoes for general consumption, if you can afford £300 upwards for a pair of shoes, that is.
The trend to uncomfortable shoes which are almost impossible to walk in is worrying on at least two levels. Health is one of them. Even moderately high heels cause any number of feet and back problems; five to six inches shouldn’t be contemplated. High heels also restrict women’s mobility. Being six feet tall isn’t much good if you can’t do anything very much.
I do wonder if we are seeing another move to “keep women in their place”. If you feel the need to spend hard earned cash on very silly footwear which you can’t walk in, it’s surely bound to have an effect on your general effectiveness. Killer heels should be strongly resisted by all women (other than mad celebs, of course).
The trend to uncomfortable shoes which are almost impossible to walk in is worrying on at least two levels. Health is one of them. Even moderately high heels cause any number of feet and back problems; five to six inches shouldn’t be contemplated. High heels also restrict women’s mobility. Being six feet tall isn’t much good if you can’t do anything very much.
I do wonder if we are seeing another move to “keep women in their place”. If you feel the need to spend hard earned cash on very silly footwear which you can’t walk in, it’s surely bound to have an effect on your general effectiveness. Killer heels should be strongly resisted by all women (other than mad celebs, of course).
Tuesday, 28 October 2008
THE TORIES' PRETTY LITTLE HEAD
Did you know that the Tories have hired a marketing firm called "Pretty Little Head" to advise Cameron and Co on how to relate to women?
Obviously the Old Etonian Bullingdonites feel women are a bit beyond them. The evidence bears this out. A recent Ipsos Mori poll for the Fawcett Society found that 44 percent of women are satisfied with David Cameron's performance as Tory leader compared with 52 percent of men.
The question is, will "Pretty Little Head" crack it for them? I really don't think an outfit with a name like "Pretty Little Head" stands much chance with the majority of women voters. Patronising or what?
Obviously the Old Etonian Bullingdonites feel women are a bit beyond them. The evidence bears this out. A recent Ipsos Mori poll for the Fawcett Society found that 44 percent of women are satisfied with David Cameron's performance as Tory leader compared with 52 percent of men.
The question is, will "Pretty Little Head" crack it for them? I really don't think an outfit with a name like "Pretty Little Head" stands much chance with the majority of women voters. Patronising or what?
FRIDAY IN LONDON
I don't usually write about my days in London as they are generally taken up with going through work with my staff based in the Region and similar activities.
However, last Friday I met up with Glenys Thornton (Baroness Thornton) who is an old and close friend. She also happens to be a Whip in the Lords with responsibility for health.
She was, in fact, off to Luxembourg for a meeting of European Health Ministers who were to discuss the pharmaceutical industry and social care - all in a weekend's work I guess.
Quite by chance, I had met John Carr, Glenys's husband, or should I say Glenys is John's wife, earlier in the week in Strasbourg. As just about the world leader in combating child abuse on the internet, John was in Strasbourg to attend the Council of Europe who were looking at this issue.
It was good to see both of them. One of the great things about politics is the way you make longstanding friendships.
However, last Friday I met up with Glenys Thornton (Baroness Thornton) who is an old and close friend. She also happens to be a Whip in the Lords with responsibility for health.
She was, in fact, off to Luxembourg for a meeting of European Health Ministers who were to discuss the pharmaceutical industry and social care - all in a weekend's work I guess.
Quite by chance, I had met John Carr, Glenys's husband, or should I say Glenys is John's wife, earlier in the week in Strasbourg. As just about the world leader in combating child abuse on the internet, John was in Strasbourg to attend the Council of Europe who were looking at this issue.
It was good to see both of them. One of the great things about politics is the way you make longstanding friendships.
CANVASSING
Yes we still do it, and more often than many of you may think.
I was out in Kentish Town on Sunday where there is a Council by-election this coming Thursday. As a Camden resident and a member of Holborn and St Pancras Labour Party, which includes Kentish Town, I wanted to make a contribution to the by-election. Added to which, the local campaign is being organised by Hilary Lowe, a long standing friend and stalwart Party activist.
We have an excellent candidate in Awale Olad, a local youth worker who lives in the ward, is a member of Kentish Town's Safer Neighbourhood Panel and is passionate about his area.
The by-election was caused as the sitting Liberal Democrat Councillor, Philip Thompson, secretly moved to Arizona. Unbelievably, the Lib Dem leadership in Camden tried to cover this up while Cllr Thompson continued to claim his £700 month allowance. He only owned up and resigned when he was exposed in the newspapers.
Given this controversy you may have expected the Lib Dems to select a real Kentish Town person. Not a bit of it. Nick Russell, the by-election candidate, lives in West Hampstead. What is more, he only moved there in 2005, following a tour of the United States. What is it about Camden Lib Dems and the USA?
Kentish Town deserves a campaigning local person who will put the interests of the ward and its people first. Awale is the only choice.
I was out in Kentish Town on Sunday where there is a Council by-election this coming Thursday. As a Camden resident and a member of Holborn and St Pancras Labour Party, which includes Kentish Town, I wanted to make a contribution to the by-election. Added to which, the local campaign is being organised by Hilary Lowe, a long standing friend and stalwart Party activist.
We have an excellent candidate in Awale Olad, a local youth worker who lives in the ward, is a member of Kentish Town's Safer Neighbourhood Panel and is passionate about his area.
The by-election was caused as the sitting Liberal Democrat Councillor, Philip Thompson, secretly moved to Arizona. Unbelievably, the Lib Dem leadership in Camden tried to cover this up while Cllr Thompson continued to claim his £700 month allowance. He only owned up and resigned when he was exposed in the newspapers.
Given this controversy you may have expected the Lib Dems to select a real Kentish Town person. Not a bit of it. Nick Russell, the by-election candidate, lives in West Hampstead. What is more, he only moved there in 2005, following a tour of the United States. What is it about Camden Lib Dems and the USA?
Kentish Town deserves a campaigning local person who will put the interests of the ward and its people first. Awale is the only choice.
Monday, 27 October 2008
THE PEER, THE BANKER AND THE OLIGARCH
Jonathan Dimbleby on the "Daily Politics" this morning quoted a former Tory grandee as telling aspiring politicians to avoid invitations to cavort on yachts. What a wise man (they were all men in those days).
The tangled saga of the peer, the oligarch, the banker and the Rt Hon Tory seems set to run and run. I have to say I dislike these kinds of stories. This one, in particular, attempts to tell of some kind of scandal, or even scandals, on the back of tales of the super rich designed, I imagine, to add flavour and spice to what, as far as I can make out, is essentially something of nothing.
Having said that, I do think the Rt Hon Tory George Osborne's judgement was suspect for two things - leaking his purported conversation with the peer (Baron Mandelson of Foy and Hartlepool as he now is) about the alleged shortcomings of our Prime Minister and seeking money from the oligarch, the richest man in Russia, Oleg Deripaska. It's the second of these which is important in that Osborne was apparently looking to if not circumvent, then at least stretch, British law regarding political donations.
We are told that the banker, Nat Rotschild, didn't much like Osborne's behaviour, which he seemed to view as abusing his hospitality. Fair enough if you ask me. Now, just to add another layer of speculation, we learn that certain shadowy EU officials are having a go at Peter Mandelson because they don't seem to approve of his relationship with the Deripaska. (We never said this story was easy).
The "Times" ran an article today quoting the Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, saying that Lord Mandelson's actions as Trade Commissioner had all been above board. However, this has not stopped concern being expressed about the impact of Peter Mandelson's refusal to give a full breakdown of his activities, which surfaced in Brussels during a top-level conversation late last week, according to EU sources.
Perhaps this slight disagreement between the PM and Brussels bureaucrats is understandable. What is completely mystifying is that the European Commission has also announced that Lord Mandelson's diary is not a public document but a management tool and is therefore exempt from freedom of information rules. It seems that the EU wants to have it both ways by attacking Mandy than refusing to release something which could have provided evidence to back up their case. The end result is confusion all round, which may have been the desired effect.
It is, however, true that standards of transparency are more exacting in the UK that in the EU. This goes for MEPs as well as Commissioners. The strange behaviour on the part of leading figures in Brussels regarding disclosure of information relating to a Commissioner only goes to underline this unfortunate fact. I believe if the EU is to ever become a serious player it needs to put its own house in order by introducing clear rules of behaviour which are fully open to public scrutiny. Such action should be taken sooner rather than later.
The tangled saga of the peer, the oligarch, the banker and the Rt Hon Tory seems set to run and run. I have to say I dislike these kinds of stories. This one, in particular, attempts to tell of some kind of scandal, or even scandals, on the back of tales of the super rich designed, I imagine, to add flavour and spice to what, as far as I can make out, is essentially something of nothing.
Having said that, I do think the Rt Hon Tory George Osborne's judgement was suspect for two things - leaking his purported conversation with the peer (Baron Mandelson of Foy and Hartlepool as he now is) about the alleged shortcomings of our Prime Minister and seeking money from the oligarch, the richest man in Russia, Oleg Deripaska. It's the second of these which is important in that Osborne was apparently looking to if not circumvent, then at least stretch, British law regarding political donations.
We are told that the banker, Nat Rotschild, didn't much like Osborne's behaviour, which he seemed to view as abusing his hospitality. Fair enough if you ask me. Now, just to add another layer of speculation, we learn that certain shadowy EU officials are having a go at Peter Mandelson because they don't seem to approve of his relationship with the Deripaska. (We never said this story was easy).
The "Times" ran an article today quoting the Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, saying that Lord Mandelson's actions as Trade Commissioner had all been above board. However, this has not stopped concern being expressed about the impact of Peter Mandelson's refusal to give a full breakdown of his activities, which surfaced in Brussels during a top-level conversation late last week, according to EU sources.
Perhaps this slight disagreement between the PM and Brussels bureaucrats is understandable. What is completely mystifying is that the European Commission has also announced that Lord Mandelson's diary is not a public document but a management tool and is therefore exempt from freedom of information rules. It seems that the EU wants to have it both ways by attacking Mandy than refusing to release something which could have provided evidence to back up their case. The end result is confusion all round, which may have been the desired effect.
It is, however, true that standards of transparency are more exacting in the UK that in the EU. This goes for MEPs as well as Commissioners. The strange behaviour on the part of leading figures in Brussels regarding disclosure of information relating to a Commissioner only goes to underline this unfortunate fact. I believe if the EU is to ever become a serious player it needs to put its own house in order by introducing clear rules of behaviour which are fully open to public scrutiny. Such action should be taken sooner rather than later.
Friday, 24 October 2008
THIS BATTY BLOG
I, your very own batty blogger, returned from Strasbourg yesterday evening. I must say I am glad to be back in London. The Strasbourg circus takes its toll and it’s always good to get home.
I thought I’d go in for a bit of light relief today. Please see Martin Meenagh’s comments on my blog. I’m glad he is developing a bizarre affection for it, and there are probably worse things to be than batty.
Thank you Martin.
Martin Meenagh said about the Atheist Bus Campaign...
This bus campaign sounds like a bit of fun. When Florence on the Magic roundabout completely lost it, she turned into a 'number 13 to the strand' as I recall. What bus will you be when caricatures of catholicism finally make you pop a vessel Mary?
I completely apologise. It was Ermintrude who went mental, and decided that she was a number 12. My bad.I am developing a bizarre affection for this batty blog. Please do not reciprocate.
22 October 2008 08:23
I thought I’d go in for a bit of light relief today. Please see Martin Meenagh’s comments on my blog. I’m glad he is developing a bizarre affection for it, and there are probably worse things to be than batty.
Thank you Martin.
Martin Meenagh said about the Atheist Bus Campaign...
This bus campaign sounds like a bit of fun. When Florence on the Magic roundabout completely lost it, she turned into a 'number 13 to the strand' as I recall. What bus will you be when caricatures of catholicism finally make you pop a vessel Mary?
I completely apologise. It was Ermintrude who went mental, and decided that she was a number 12. My bad.I am developing a bizarre affection for this batty blog. Please do not reciprocate.
22 October 2008 08:23
Thursday, 23 October 2008
EXTENDING EDUCATION IN EUROPE
On Tuesday we voted on a report by French Liberal Marielle de Sarnez seeking more participation in the new Erasmus Mundus programme.
As a member of the Culture and Education Committee and Labour Spokesperson on the Committee, I watched the fate of this report with great interest. The EU is well placed to extend learning across Europe and further afield. The Erasmus and Erasmus Mundus programmes are an excellent way of doing this. I have first hand experience of the worth of these programmes, having had assistants in my office who have benefited from Erasmus.
Erasmus Mundus is an excellent programme well known to university students. The original Erasmus programme provides scholarships to students allowing them to study in another European country as part of their degree. Students who study abroad gain improved language skills and become more employable both at national and international level.
The Erasmus Mundus programme is similar (if slightly less well known) than the original Erasmus. Erasmus Mundus extends cooperation in the field of higher education to 'third countries' outside the EU. It also helps stimulate intercultural dialogue with these countries.
The Erasmus Mundus programme is used to promote the EU as a worldwide centre of excellence in learning. It helps to attract the best post-graduate students to EU universities - top foreign students have traditionally gone to the USA. This has a big impact on improving research and innovation in the EU.
Erasmus Mundus acts under three areas, providing financial support for:
1) joint masters and doctoral programmes between institutions in different countries - including scholarships to allow students to follow these programmes
2) partnerships and enhanced structural cooperation between institutions - including developing human resources
3) promoting EU higher education throughout the world
Mme de Sarnez's report proposed extending the existing scheme from 2009 - 2013.
I thoroughly agreed with Mme de Sarnez when she said "It is a good programme, and considering the difficult times we are going through this is giving a positive image of Europe in the rest of the world." The new Erasmus Mundus Programme has a budget of about €950. 424 scholarships were granted from 2004-2008 to students from third countries in the previous programme. 323 universities took part, 265 of them in Europe.
What could be wrong with any of this, you may ask? Well British Tory and UKIP MEPs found reasons to vote against the report, which was incidentally passed by 623 votes for, 56 against and 5 abstentions. Once again the Tories are way off beam.
Voting against were Tories:
Ashworth, Atkins, Bradbourn, Bushill-Mathews, Callanan, Chichester, Dover, Harbour, Heaton-Harris, Kamall, Kirkhope, McMillan-Scott, Nicholson (Ulster Unionist) Parish, Stevenson, Sturdy, Tannock and Van Orden
and UKIP: Batten, Bloom, Clark, Farage, Titford and Whittaker.
As a member of the Culture and Education Committee and Labour Spokesperson on the Committee, I watched the fate of this report with great interest. The EU is well placed to extend learning across Europe and further afield. The Erasmus and Erasmus Mundus programmes are an excellent way of doing this. I have first hand experience of the worth of these programmes, having had assistants in my office who have benefited from Erasmus.
Erasmus Mundus is an excellent programme well known to university students. The original Erasmus programme provides scholarships to students allowing them to study in another European country as part of their degree. Students who study abroad gain improved language skills and become more employable both at national and international level.
The Erasmus Mundus programme is similar (if slightly less well known) than the original Erasmus. Erasmus Mundus extends cooperation in the field of higher education to 'third countries' outside the EU. It also helps stimulate intercultural dialogue with these countries.
The Erasmus Mundus programme is used to promote the EU as a worldwide centre of excellence in learning. It helps to attract the best post-graduate students to EU universities - top foreign students have traditionally gone to the USA. This has a big impact on improving research and innovation in the EU.
Erasmus Mundus acts under three areas, providing financial support for:
1) joint masters and doctoral programmes between institutions in different countries - including scholarships to allow students to follow these programmes
2) partnerships and enhanced structural cooperation between institutions - including developing human resources
3) promoting EU higher education throughout the world
Mme de Sarnez's report proposed extending the existing scheme from 2009 - 2013.
I thoroughly agreed with Mme de Sarnez when she said "It is a good programme, and considering the difficult times we are going through this is giving a positive image of Europe in the rest of the world." The new Erasmus Mundus Programme has a budget of about €950. 424 scholarships were granted from 2004-2008 to students from third countries in the previous programme. 323 universities took part, 265 of them in Europe.
What could be wrong with any of this, you may ask? Well British Tory and UKIP MEPs found reasons to vote against the report, which was incidentally passed by 623 votes for, 56 against and 5 abstentions. Once again the Tories are way off beam.
Voting against were Tories:
Ashworth, Atkins, Bradbourn, Bushill-Mathews, Callanan, Chichester, Dover, Harbour, Heaton-Harris, Kamall, Kirkhope, McMillan-Scott, Nicholson (Ulster Unionist) Parish, Stevenson, Sturdy, Tannock and Van Orden
and UKIP: Batten, Bloom, Clark, Farage, Titford and Whittaker.
THE RESULTS IN PLENARY
During this week in Strasbourg we debated measures to clarify the status and rights of temporary workers in the EU, which covers paid leave and rights for pregnant women, amongst other things.
We also discussed steps that will clarify which court has jurisdiction when people of different nationalities divorce.
MEPS BACK TEMPORARY WORKERS
The number of temporary workers is on the increase, but national legislation differs across the EU. A new directive, which received its final vote in favour yesterday, includes guarantees from "day 1" for temporary workers, covering areas like resting times, paid leave and non-discrimination towards pregnant women. French Socialist Harlem Désir, the rapporteur on the proposals to regulate the status and conditions of temporary workers, welcomed the positive vote by saying:
"Adopting this directive will send a signal that Europe's social heart is still beating.."
I couldn't agree more. The Temporary Agency Workers Directive has taken a long time to get through the arcane processes of the European Union, but it will now pass into law in all Member States. It will of special benefit to women and those who may find it more difficult to get permanent jobs. It's a good piece of legislation which Labour MEPs supported all the way through.
FOREIGN DIVORCE MADE FAIRER
A report written by German Socialist Evelyne Gebhardt to set out Europe-wide guidelines making it clearer which country's courts have jurisdiction when couples of different nationalities divorce was voted on Tuesday. The report could help clarify who would get custody of children and property following the 170,000 plus divorces a year across Europe.
Jacques Barrot, Commissioner for Justice, Freedom and Security was keen to get as many member states as possible on board for this significant report.
The voting on Monday demonstrated he had achieved this, at least as far as most of the European Parliament was concerned. There were 522 votes in favour, 89 against and 35 abstentions.
Sadly 19 of the 89 who voted against were British Tories: Ashworth, Bradbourn, Bushill-Mathews, Callanan, Chichester, Deva, Dover, Elles, Jonathan Evans, Harbour, Heaton-Harris, Kamall, Nicholson (Ulster Unionist), Parish, Stevenson, Sturdy, Sumberg, Tannock and Van Orden.
It is quite incredible how often the Tories are out on a limb and unable to support even the most helpful reports which come before the European Parliament. They are still basically a bunch of head-bangers. Don't let anyone try and convince you otherwise.
We also discussed steps that will clarify which court has jurisdiction when people of different nationalities divorce.
MEPS BACK TEMPORARY WORKERS
The number of temporary workers is on the increase, but national legislation differs across the EU. A new directive, which received its final vote in favour yesterday, includes guarantees from "day 1" for temporary workers, covering areas like resting times, paid leave and non-discrimination towards pregnant women. French Socialist Harlem Désir, the rapporteur on the proposals to regulate the status and conditions of temporary workers, welcomed the positive vote by saying:
"Adopting this directive will send a signal that Europe's social heart is still beating.."
I couldn't agree more. The Temporary Agency Workers Directive has taken a long time to get through the arcane processes of the European Union, but it will now pass into law in all Member States. It will of special benefit to women and those who may find it more difficult to get permanent jobs. It's a good piece of legislation which Labour MEPs supported all the way through.
FOREIGN DIVORCE MADE FAIRER
A report written by German Socialist Evelyne Gebhardt to set out Europe-wide guidelines making it clearer which country's courts have jurisdiction when couples of different nationalities divorce was voted on Tuesday. The report could help clarify who would get custody of children and property following the 170,000 plus divorces a year across Europe.
Jacques Barrot, Commissioner for Justice, Freedom and Security was keen to get as many member states as possible on board for this significant report.
The voting on Monday demonstrated he had achieved this, at least as far as most of the European Parliament was concerned. There were 522 votes in favour, 89 against and 35 abstentions.
Sadly 19 of the 89 who voted against were British Tories: Ashworth, Bradbourn, Bushill-Mathews, Callanan, Chichester, Deva, Dover, Elles, Jonathan Evans, Harbour, Heaton-Harris, Kamall, Nicholson (Ulster Unionist), Parish, Stevenson, Sturdy, Sumberg, Tannock and Van Orden.
It is quite incredible how often the Tories are out on a limb and unable to support even the most helpful reports which come before the European Parliament. They are still basically a bunch of head-bangers. Don't let anyone try and convince you otherwise.
Wednesday, 22 October 2008
TORIES VOTE AGAINST THE NEW BRITISH COMMISSIONER
The following British MEPs voted against Baroness Ashton when her nomination was put to the vote in the plenary session of the European Parliament today:
Deva and Callanan (Tory)
Batten, Clark, Farage, Nattrass (UKIP)
Allister (ex-DUP)
Kilroy-Silk, Knapman, Mote, Wise (ex-UKIP)
These abstained:
Hannan, Helmer, Ashworth, Atkins, Beazley, Bowis, Bradbourn, Bushill-Matthews, Chichester, Dover, Elles, Harbour, Kamall, Kirkhope, McMillan-Scott, Parish, Purvis, Stevenson, Sturdy, Sumberg, Van Orden (Tory)
Newton-Dunn (Lib Dems)
For the record the votes cast were as follows:
For Cathy Ashton 538
Against 40
Abstain 63
This means that of the 103 who either voted against or abstained 23 were British Tories.
This is absolutely shameful bahaviour by a Party that claims to have British interests at heart. The Tories in Europe have once again shown their true colours.
Deva and Callanan (Tory)
Batten, Clark, Farage, Nattrass (UKIP)
Allister (ex-DUP)
Kilroy-Silk, Knapman, Mote, Wise (ex-UKIP)
These abstained:
Hannan, Helmer, Ashworth, Atkins, Beazley, Bowis, Bradbourn, Bushill-Matthews, Chichester, Dover, Elles, Harbour, Kamall, Kirkhope, McMillan-Scott, Parish, Purvis, Stevenson, Sturdy, Sumberg, Van Orden (Tory)
Newton-Dunn (Lib Dems)
For the record the votes cast were as follows:
For Cathy Ashton 538
Against 40
Abstain 63
This means that of the 103 who either voted against or abstained 23 were British Tories.
This is absolutely shameful bahaviour by a Party that claims to have British interests at heart. The Tories in Europe have once again shown their true colours.
MEREDITH KERCHER
You may have seen newspaper reports today about the British student Meredith Kercher who was murdered in Italy last November.
I worked hard on getting compensation for her family as this article in the "Guardian" on 21 April 2008 shows.
Kercher family in compensation limbo
Haroon Siddique
guardian.co.uk,
Monday April 21 2008 16.00 BST
The family of the murdered British exchange student Meredith Kercher may be denied compensation because Italy has not implemented an EU-wide scheme to help victims of violent crime, it was revealed today.
Kercher, 21, was found dead last November in the house she shared in Perugia.
In April 2004, the EU introduced a system "to facilitate access to compensation in cases where the crime was committed in a member state other than that of the victim's residence". All states were due to implement the directive by January 1 2006.
The UK has done so, but Italy and at least one other EU country have not, and the London MEP Mary Honeyball has tabled a question in the European parliament asking what can be done. The question is expected to be heard next month.
Meredith's family, who live in Croydon, have not received any compensation. "It all seems grossly unfair," Honeyball said. "They have been through such a lot. If it happened the other way round, an Italian victim would get compensation.
"The thing the EU has got to get to grips with is although there are timetables for disposition, it doesn't always happen."
Jan Downs, the deputy manager of Victim Support Croydon, alerted Honeyball to the Kerchers' case.
"It's a difficult time for them," Downs said. "They've got the added complication that the crime happened abroad and it's a different legal system. They've got all that to deal with apart from the emotional issues."
The European commission can enforce a directive where a member state fails to comply.
In the UK, the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority pays cash to victims of violent crime in England, Scotland and Wales, whether they are British or from elsewhere in the EU. It aims to pay compensation within nine months, although in complex cases it can take longer.
An American student, Amanda Knox, 20, her Italian former boyfriend Raffaele Sollecito, 24, and an Ivorian, Rudy Hermann Guede, 20, are being held on suspicion of Kercher's sexual assault and murder.
I worked hard on getting compensation for her family as this article in the "Guardian" on 21 April 2008 shows.
Kercher family in compensation limbo
Haroon Siddique
guardian.co.uk,
Monday April 21 2008 16.00 BST
The family of the murdered British exchange student Meredith Kercher may be denied compensation because Italy has not implemented an EU-wide scheme to help victims of violent crime, it was revealed today.
Kercher, 21, was found dead last November in the house she shared in Perugia.
In April 2004, the EU introduced a system "to facilitate access to compensation in cases where the crime was committed in a member state other than that of the victim's residence". All states were due to implement the directive by January 1 2006.
The UK has done so, but Italy and at least one other EU country have not, and the London MEP Mary Honeyball has tabled a question in the European parliament asking what can be done. The question is expected to be heard next month.
Meredith's family, who live in Croydon, have not received any compensation. "It all seems grossly unfair," Honeyball said. "They have been through such a lot. If it happened the other way round, an Italian victim would get compensation.
"The thing the EU has got to get to grips with is although there are timetables for disposition, it doesn't always happen."
Jan Downs, the deputy manager of Victim Support Croydon, alerted Honeyball to the Kerchers' case.
"It's a difficult time for them," Downs said. "They've got the added complication that the crime happened abroad and it's a different legal system. They've got all that to deal with apart from the emotional issues."
The European commission can enforce a directive where a member state fails to comply.
In the UK, the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority pays cash to victims of violent crime in England, Scotland and Wales, whether they are British or from elsewhere in the EU. It aims to pay compensation within nine months, although in complex cases it can take longer.
An American student, Amanda Knox, 20, her Italian former boyfriend Raffaele Sollecito, 24, and an Ivorian, Rudy Hermann Guede, 20, are being held on suspicion of Kercher's sexual assault and murder.
ACROSS EUROPE THERE IS A RISK THAT ABORTION LAWS WILL BECOME LESS, NOT MORE FOCUSED ON WOMEN'S HEALTH AND THE RIGHT TO CHOOSE
The Guardian's Comment is Free section has just run this piece by me on abortion in Europe. It is women who are the real losers following the decision to give into those in Northern Ireland who do not want the same abortion rights there as in the rest of the UK.
TURNING BACK THE CLOCK
Today's votes on abortion make the case for a Europe-wide push to decriminalise abortion stronger than ever. It is shameful that the UK government announced yesterday that it was not able to table three amendments to liberalise Britain's abortion laws. One of these amendments sought to extend the rights of abortion to all UK citizens; women in Northern Ireland still face prosecution for aborting even in cases of incest or rape.
Access to abortion services across Europe is at best varied, at worst oppressive, misogynist and life-threatening. Abortion is in theory available in all of the EU member states except Andorra, Malta, Ireland and Poland. Yet the reality is often tempered by an absence of health facilities, lack of doctors willing to carry out abortions, repeated unnecessary medical consultations and lengthy waiting time for the procedure, all of which make access more difficult, or even impossible.
Abortion in Europe falls under health provision, which is left to member states and something that the EU does not wish to rule on. However, access to healthcare when complications arise from a termination without fear of prosecution of either the patient or the clinician is an issue of European human rights. Women surely enjoy the fundamental freedom to be free from fear, threat and coercion as they deal with the consequences of rape and other grave human rights violations?
These are not only my opinions but also those of the UN, the World Health Organisation, Amnesty International, the Council of Europe and the European parliament women's committee, all of whom have in recent years called for protections on a women's right to an abortion.
This is an issue too important to be continually batted about across Europe in the never-ending game of left versus right, conservative versus liberal and religion versus secularism. Over the past 20 years countries across Europe have reversed, reinstated, liberalised and restricted abortions over and over again, often as a result of changes in government and religious influence, not as a result of scientific analysis.
Poland reinstated some of the strictest abortion laws in Europe in 1993, following the collapse of communism and the resurgence of the powers of the Catholic and Lutheran churches. As a result of this, Polish NGOs estimate some 200,000 women endure backstreet abortions every year.
Meanwhile, under the political radar of many, the government of Lithuania is now seeking to create one of the most restrictive bans in all Europe. This is a country where abortion laws have changed little since independence and which has one of the lowest abortion rates amongst the Baltic nations. But if socially conservative parties win the upcoming election as predicted, Lithuanian women's access to abortion will be limited to only the most extreme cases of threat to life, criminality or severe disability.
On the flip side, the centre-left Portuguese prime minister Jóse Sócrates has recently made moves to liberalise his country's abortion laws, which were previously some of the most restrictive in Europe. But this ruling is only dependent on his political status and could be reversed under a change in government.
Where governments legislate to legalise abortion, women's rights to it are protected under European law. In a test case in March last year, the European court of human rights ruled to oblige all 46 member states of the Council of Europe to ensure that abortions are available where they are legal. An almost blind single mother of three from Warsaw, Alicia Tysiac, was awarded damages by the Strasbourg-based court for being denied an abortion in 2000 when medical testimony said her pregnancy would seriously damage her failing eyesight.
But important and helpful though this ruling is, it only protects European women who live in countries where abortion is legal. It does not apply in member states where abortion is outlawed. Pressure needs to be put on rulers of those countries by the EU to end these discriminatory laws which, incidentally, drive abortion dangerously underground.
Previously, one of the best ways of putting pressure of EU member states' governments to change their laws on abortion was through the women's rights and gender equality committee of the European parliament, a committee on which I have sat since 2000. In 2002, this committee passed a report written by the Belgian Socialist MEP Anne Van Lancker, recommending that in order to safeguard women's health, abortion should be made legal, safe and accessible to all. It also called on member state governments to refrain from prosecuting women who have undergone illegal abortions.
Van Lancker produced a landmark report, which influenced many others, including the parliamentary assembly for the Council of Europe, which earlier this year recommended the decriminalisation of abortion across Europe.
However, the face of the European parliament women's committee changed in 2004 with the election of rightwing, Catholic MEP Anna Záborská to the chair of the committee. Now even small amendments calling for female prisoners to have the same access to abortions as their non-captive counterparts cannot get passed. Gone are the days when the women's committee could give active help to Women on Waves, the floating abortion ship which provides abortion services at sea to women from countries where abortion is not allowed.
While abortion is generally a free vote in the UK, in Europe, parties vote fairly unanimously along party lines. All the rightwing parties in the European parliament, including the UK Conservatives, voted against section 13 of the van Lancker report, which called for the decriminalisation of women who have illegal abortions. They effectively voted to allow women to suffer from prosecution on top of the suffering they may have endured in having an illegal abortion.
I hope those shouting for the rights of women outside the Palace of Westminster will also turn their faces and chants to Europe. Women across the continent are in desperate need of them to shout, protest and vote for their rights in the elections next year.
TURNING BACK THE CLOCK
Today's votes on abortion make the case for a Europe-wide push to decriminalise abortion stronger than ever. It is shameful that the UK government announced yesterday that it was not able to table three amendments to liberalise Britain's abortion laws. One of these amendments sought to extend the rights of abortion to all UK citizens; women in Northern Ireland still face prosecution for aborting even in cases of incest or rape.
Access to abortion services across Europe is at best varied, at worst oppressive, misogynist and life-threatening. Abortion is in theory available in all of the EU member states except Andorra, Malta, Ireland and Poland. Yet the reality is often tempered by an absence of health facilities, lack of doctors willing to carry out abortions, repeated unnecessary medical consultations and lengthy waiting time for the procedure, all of which make access more difficult, or even impossible.
Abortion in Europe falls under health provision, which is left to member states and something that the EU does not wish to rule on. However, access to healthcare when complications arise from a termination without fear of prosecution of either the patient or the clinician is an issue of European human rights. Women surely enjoy the fundamental freedom to be free from fear, threat and coercion as they deal with the consequences of rape and other grave human rights violations?
These are not only my opinions but also those of the UN, the World Health Organisation, Amnesty International, the Council of Europe and the European parliament women's committee, all of whom have in recent years called for protections on a women's right to an abortion.
This is an issue too important to be continually batted about across Europe in the never-ending game of left versus right, conservative versus liberal and religion versus secularism. Over the past 20 years countries across Europe have reversed, reinstated, liberalised and restricted abortions over and over again, often as a result of changes in government and religious influence, not as a result of scientific analysis.
Poland reinstated some of the strictest abortion laws in Europe in 1993, following the collapse of communism and the resurgence of the powers of the Catholic and Lutheran churches. As a result of this, Polish NGOs estimate some 200,000 women endure backstreet abortions every year.
Meanwhile, under the political radar of many, the government of Lithuania is now seeking to create one of the most restrictive bans in all Europe. This is a country where abortion laws have changed little since independence and which has one of the lowest abortion rates amongst the Baltic nations. But if socially conservative parties win the upcoming election as predicted, Lithuanian women's access to abortion will be limited to only the most extreme cases of threat to life, criminality or severe disability.
On the flip side, the centre-left Portuguese prime minister Jóse Sócrates has recently made moves to liberalise his country's abortion laws, which were previously some of the most restrictive in Europe. But this ruling is only dependent on his political status and could be reversed under a change in government.
Where governments legislate to legalise abortion, women's rights to it are protected under European law. In a test case in March last year, the European court of human rights ruled to oblige all 46 member states of the Council of Europe to ensure that abortions are available where they are legal. An almost blind single mother of three from Warsaw, Alicia Tysiac, was awarded damages by the Strasbourg-based court for being denied an abortion in 2000 when medical testimony said her pregnancy would seriously damage her failing eyesight.
But important and helpful though this ruling is, it only protects European women who live in countries where abortion is legal. It does not apply in member states where abortion is outlawed. Pressure needs to be put on rulers of those countries by the EU to end these discriminatory laws which, incidentally, drive abortion dangerously underground.
Previously, one of the best ways of putting pressure of EU member states' governments to change their laws on abortion was through the women's rights and gender equality committee of the European parliament, a committee on which I have sat since 2000. In 2002, this committee passed a report written by the Belgian Socialist MEP Anne Van Lancker, recommending that in order to safeguard women's health, abortion should be made legal, safe and accessible to all. It also called on member state governments to refrain from prosecuting women who have undergone illegal abortions.
Van Lancker produced a landmark report, which influenced many others, including the parliamentary assembly for the Council of Europe, which earlier this year recommended the decriminalisation of abortion across Europe.
However, the face of the European parliament women's committee changed in 2004 with the election of rightwing, Catholic MEP Anna Záborská to the chair of the committee. Now even small amendments calling for female prisoners to have the same access to abortions as their non-captive counterparts cannot get passed. Gone are the days when the women's committee could give active help to Women on Waves, the floating abortion ship which provides abortion services at sea to women from countries where abortion is not allowed.
While abortion is generally a free vote in the UK, in Europe, parties vote fairly unanimously along party lines. All the rightwing parties in the European parliament, including the UK Conservatives, voted against section 13 of the van Lancker report, which called for the decriminalisation of women who have illegal abortions. They effectively voted to allow women to suffer from prosecution on top of the suffering they may have endured in having an illegal abortion.
I hope those shouting for the rights of women outside the Palace of Westminster will also turn their faces and chants to Europe. Women across the continent are in desperate need of them to shout, protest and vote for their rights in the elections next year.
Tuesday, 21 October 2008
THE ATHEIST BUS CAMPAIGN
The following piece recently appeared on the Guardian "Comment is Free" site. I love the idea of the Atheist Bus Campaign. It's good to see those of us who are rationalists and humanists taking positive action.
I hope as many of you who can will donate to this excellent campaign.
Comment is free
All aboard the Atheist Bus Campaign
It's real, it's happening: you can sponsor the first atheist advert on a bus – and Richard Dawkins will match your money
Comments (537)
Ariane Sherine
guardian.co.uk,
Tuesday October 21 2008 07.00 BST
The Atheist Bus Campaign launches today thanks to Comment is free readers. Because of your enthusiastic response to the idea of a reassuring God-free advert being used to counter religious advertising, the slogan "There's probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life" could now become an ad campaign on London buses – and leading secularists have jumped on board to help us raise the money.
The British Humanist Association will be administering all donations to the campaign, and Professor Richard Dawkins, bestselling author of The God Delusion, has generously agreed to match all contributions up to a maximum of £5,500, giving us a total of £11,000 if we raise the full amount. This will be enough to fund two sets of atheist adverts on 30 London buses for four weeks.
If the buses hit the road, this will be the UK's first ever atheist advertising campaign. It's an exciting development, which I never expected when I first proposed the idea on Cif in June. Back then, I was just keen to counter the religious ads running on public transport, which featured a URL to a website telling non-Christians they would spend "all eternity in torment in hell", burning in "a lake of fire". When I suggested the atheist counter-slogan (now shortened for readability), the response was extremely positive, and hundreds of you pledged your support after the follow-up article.
As you read this, a new advertising campaign for Alpha Courses is running on London buses. If you attend an Alpha Course, you will again be told that failing to believe in Jesus will condemn you to hell. There's no doubt that advertising can be effective, and religious advertising works particularly well on those who are vulnerable, frightening them into believing. Religious organisations' jobs are made easier because there's no publicly visible counter-view to refute their threats of eternal damnation.
The Atheist Bus Campaign aims to change this. In addition to the slogan, the adverts will feature the URLs of secular, humanist and atheist websites, so that readers can find out more about atheism as a positive and liberating alternative to religion. We've also set up an interactive campaign website and Facebook group, so that questions raised by the adverts can be publicly debated.
CBS Outdoor, the bus advertising company, will run the atheist adverts in January if the funds are raised – but we need your help to make this happen.
Your donations will give atheism a more visible presence in the UK, generate debate, brighten people's day on the way to work, and hopefully encourage more people to come out as atheists. As Richard Dawkins says: "This campaign to put alternative slogans on London buses will make people think – and thinking is anathema to religion."
To donate to the Atheist Bus Campaign, please visit here.
I hope as many of you who can will donate to this excellent campaign.
Comment is free
All aboard the Atheist Bus Campaign
It's real, it's happening: you can sponsor the first atheist advert on a bus – and Richard Dawkins will match your money
Comments (537)
Ariane Sherine
guardian.co.uk,
Tuesday October 21 2008 07.00 BST
The Atheist Bus Campaign launches today thanks to Comment is free readers. Because of your enthusiastic response to the idea of a reassuring God-free advert being used to counter religious advertising, the slogan "There's probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life" could now become an ad campaign on London buses – and leading secularists have jumped on board to help us raise the money.
The British Humanist Association will be administering all donations to the campaign, and Professor Richard Dawkins, bestselling author of The God Delusion, has generously agreed to match all contributions up to a maximum of £5,500, giving us a total of £11,000 if we raise the full amount. This will be enough to fund two sets of atheist adverts on 30 London buses for four weeks.
If the buses hit the road, this will be the UK's first ever atheist advertising campaign. It's an exciting development, which I never expected when I first proposed the idea on Cif in June. Back then, I was just keen to counter the religious ads running on public transport, which featured a URL to a website telling non-Christians they would spend "all eternity in torment in hell", burning in "a lake of fire". When I suggested the atheist counter-slogan (now shortened for readability), the response was extremely positive, and hundreds of you pledged your support after the follow-up article.
As you read this, a new advertising campaign for Alpha Courses is running on London buses. If you attend an Alpha Course, you will again be told that failing to believe in Jesus will condemn you to hell. There's no doubt that advertising can be effective, and religious advertising works particularly well on those who are vulnerable, frightening them into believing. Religious organisations' jobs are made easier because there's no publicly visible counter-view to refute their threats of eternal damnation.
The Atheist Bus Campaign aims to change this. In addition to the slogan, the adverts will feature the URLs of secular, humanist and atheist websites, so that readers can find out more about atheism as a positive and liberating alternative to religion. We've also set up an interactive campaign website and Facebook group, so that questions raised by the adverts can be publicly debated.
CBS Outdoor, the bus advertising company, will run the atheist adverts in January if the funds are raised – but we need your help to make this happen.
Your donations will give atheism a more visible presence in the UK, generate debate, brighten people's day on the way to work, and hopefully encourage more people to come out as atheists. As Richard Dawkins says: "This campaign to put alternative slogans on London buses will make people think – and thinking is anathema to religion."
To donate to the Atheist Bus Campaign, please visit here.
BARONESS ASHTON ARRIVES IN EUROPE
A very warm welcome to Cathy Ashton who was confirmed as Commissioner by the Trade Committee yesterday evening, subject to a vote in the European Parliament plenary session today.
It's very good to have Cathy on board, though no thanks are due to the British Tories who have consistently undermined her. It has recently become clear that the Tories worked within their own political group, the centre right EPP-ED, to stop Cathy Ashton being confirmed as Commissioner. Apparently the decision to support Baroness Ashton in the EPP Group on the Trade Committee prior to the hearing was won by only one vote. My source tells me that Martin Schulz, Leader of the Socialist Group, threatened Joseph Daul, EPP Leader, with outright war if his Group voted against Baroness Ashton.
Cathy performed well at the Committee meeting, as we knew she would, being competent, self assured and, contrary to Tory propaganda, knowledgeable about her subject. You may have read Daniel Hannan's vitriolic blog in the "Daily Telegraph". Perhaps it was only to be expected, though you may have thought that those who claim to be so patriotic and keen to maintain British sovereignty would support a British Commission nominee.
It is a very good to have another woman Commissioner and for that woman to be British. Despite a larger proportion of female MEPs than MPs in Westminster (33 percent compared to fewer than 20 percent) women are severely under represented in the EU institutions. Angela Merkel is the only female head of state while there are no women heading up a Commission Department (D-G).
Yet you cannot help thinking that a male Commissioner nominee would not have faced the allegations of inexperience and not being up to the job that Cathy Ashton has so roundly seen off. All in all we still have a long way to go.
It's very good to have Cathy on board, though no thanks are due to the British Tories who have consistently undermined her. It has recently become clear that the Tories worked within their own political group, the centre right EPP-ED, to stop Cathy Ashton being confirmed as Commissioner. Apparently the decision to support Baroness Ashton in the EPP Group on the Trade Committee prior to the hearing was won by only one vote. My source tells me that Martin Schulz, Leader of the Socialist Group, threatened Joseph Daul, EPP Leader, with outright war if his Group voted against Baroness Ashton.
Cathy performed well at the Committee meeting, as we knew she would, being competent, self assured and, contrary to Tory propaganda, knowledgeable about her subject. You may have read Daniel Hannan's vitriolic blog in the "Daily Telegraph". Perhaps it was only to be expected, though you may have thought that those who claim to be so patriotic and keen to maintain British sovereignty would support a British Commission nominee.
It is a very good to have another woman Commissioner and for that woman to be British. Despite a larger proportion of female MEPs than MPs in Westminster (33 percent compared to fewer than 20 percent) women are severely under represented in the EU institutions. Angela Merkel is the only female head of state while there are no women heading up a Commission Department (D-G).
Yet you cannot help thinking that a male Commissioner nominee would not have faced the allegations of inexperience and not being up to the job that Cathy Ashton has so roundly seen off. All in all we still have a long way to go.
Monday, 20 October 2008
HOW I HATE STRASBOURG
That title isn’t quite correct. I don’t hate Strasbourg the place at all. I do, however, hate being here as I am now.
In point of fact Strasbourg is a very beautiful medieval city with a centre dating back hundreds of years largely because the canny burghers of this border town sided with the victors in the many conflicts which raged in this area.
What I and my British colleagues object to is the European Parliament travelling circus. It feels worse this time as we have had the last two plenary sessions originally scheduled for Strasbourg in Brussels thanks to the roof of the Hemicycle (Chamber) falling in, interestingly over the seats reserved for UKIP.
We might have known it wouldn’t last. A little thing like the state of the Parliament building could never overcome French pride, the real reason why £30 million is spent every year to allow the European Parliament to come to Strasbourg.
I heard my Labour yet Eurosceptic colleague Austin Mitchell on the Daily Politics programme earlier today talking about the proposed refurbishment to the House of Commons and specifically where to house MPs while the work is carried out. He suggested holding House of Commons sessions around Britain in “the same way as the European Parliament”.
Ignoring the fact that Austin Mitchell does not seem to understand that the European Parliament only meets in two places – Brussels and Strasbourg – I would not wish our dual site system on anyone, let alone those who have serious and responsible jobs to do.
In point of fact Strasbourg is a very beautiful medieval city with a centre dating back hundreds of years largely because the canny burghers of this border town sided with the victors in the many conflicts which raged in this area.
What I and my British colleagues object to is the European Parliament travelling circus. It feels worse this time as we have had the last two plenary sessions originally scheduled for Strasbourg in Brussels thanks to the roof of the Hemicycle (Chamber) falling in, interestingly over the seats reserved for UKIP.
We might have known it wouldn’t last. A little thing like the state of the Parliament building could never overcome French pride, the real reason why £30 million is spent every year to allow the European Parliament to come to Strasbourg.
I heard my Labour yet Eurosceptic colleague Austin Mitchell on the Daily Politics programme earlier today talking about the proposed refurbishment to the House of Commons and specifically where to house MPs while the work is carried out. He suggested holding House of Commons sessions around Britain in “the same way as the European Parliament”.
Ignoring the fact that Austin Mitchell does not seem to understand that the European Parliament only meets in two places – Brussels and Strasbourg – I would not wish our dual site system on anyone, let alone those who have serious and responsible jobs to do.
Friday, 17 October 2008
NEW EUROPEAN COMMISSIONER
I was very pleased to see that Baroness Catherine Ashton has been appointed as Britain's new EU Commissioner.
I have known Cathy Ashton for a number of years. She has excellent credentials for her new position, being an experienced EU negotiator with the Rome I and Rome II civil law regulations in her repertoire. Prior to her nomination as Commissioner designate (her hearing before the Trade Committee is on 20 October) she was Leader of the House of Lords where she piloted 18 Bills through the Upper House.
Sadly, though predictably, the British Tories and UKIP are waging a campaign against Baroness Ashton. Their agenda is twofold: a) to do anything they can to disrupt the functioning of the European Union and b) to undermine Gordon Brown's government. Their game plan seems to consist of unfounded and disagreeable attacks Cathy Ashton, which are unpleasant to say the least. Baroness Ashton is well qualified for the job with far more relevant experience than those Tories who are leading the campaign against her such as the arch Eurosceptic MEP Daniel Hannan.
Baroness Ashton deserves the support of all British MEPs. Commissioners of whatever Party have always received cross Party backing. I very much hope the same will be true this time. Don't let a few diehards ruin it for the majority who understand how Europe works and wish our Commissioner well.
I have known Cathy Ashton for a number of years. She has excellent credentials for her new position, being an experienced EU negotiator with the Rome I and Rome II civil law regulations in her repertoire. Prior to her nomination as Commissioner designate (her hearing before the Trade Committee is on 20 October) she was Leader of the House of Lords where she piloted 18 Bills through the Upper House.
Sadly, though predictably, the British Tories and UKIP are waging a campaign against Baroness Ashton. Their agenda is twofold: a) to do anything they can to disrupt the functioning of the European Union and b) to undermine Gordon Brown's government. Their game plan seems to consist of unfounded and disagreeable attacks Cathy Ashton, which are unpleasant to say the least. Baroness Ashton is well qualified for the job with far more relevant experience than those Tories who are leading the campaign against her such as the arch Eurosceptic MEP Daniel Hannan.
Baroness Ashton deserves the support of all British MEPs. Commissioners of whatever Party have always received cross Party backing. I very much hope the same will be true this time. Don't let a few diehards ruin it for the majority who understand how Europe works and wish our Commissioner well.
Thursday, 16 October 2008
ICELAND APPOINTS TWO WOMEN BANK CHIEF EXECUTIVES
You may like to read this link. It gives another interesting point of view on the financial crisis.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/6107e59c-9988-11dd-9d48-000077b07658.html
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/6107e59c-9988-11dd-9d48-000077b07658.html
Wednesday, 15 October 2008
HONOURED WITH STAMPS
The first stamp issue devoted to women has just been issued honouring Millicent Garrett Fawcett, Elizabeth Garrett Anderson, Eleanor Rathbone, Claudia Jones, Marie Stopes and Barbara Castle.
For photos of the stamps, please see
http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2008/oct/14/women-post
This is a wonderful thing to do. Marking the achievements of pioneering women in this way provides us all with inspiration.
Well done to the Royal Mail.
For photos of the stamps, please see
http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2008/oct/14/women-post
This is a wonderful thing to do. Marking the achievements of pioneering women in this way provides us all with inspiration.
Well done to the Royal Mail.
THE ABSENCE OF WOMEN IN THE FINANCIAL INDUSTRY
You may like to read this article by Alice Miles in this week's "New Statesman". She makes some telling points about the way the financial system is run.
http://www.newstatesman.com/business/2008/10/male-dominated-women-woman
http://www.newstatesman.com/business/2008/10/male-dominated-women-woman
Tuesday, 14 October 2008
THE ABORTION PILL
Most pro-lifers and pro-choice people agree on one thing; that if a woman decides to have a termination then the earlier it is carried out in the pregnancy the better for all involved.
But current government legislation on the abortion pill, taken in the first four to nine weeks of gestation, is forcing some women to terminate later in the pregnancy. And others, to suffer traumatic and unnecessary inconveniences such as bleeding on public transport on the way home and being forced to find childcare for two days.
The abortion pill is taken in two parts, two to three days apart from each other. The law insists that both parts are taken in a clinic and then the woman is free to leave. The pills are not fast acting and take a while to effect; therefore there is no perceivable benefit to the woman to take the second part in the clinic.
Forcing women to come into the clinic twice is clinically unnecessary. Women in full time jobs, with full time caring commitments, or who live in rural areas far away from clinics, may be forced to wait until they are past the 9 week gestation stage, when an abortion requires just one clinic visit. As the induced miscarriage can start an hour or so after the second pill, those with a long journey home could suffer the pain and public humiliation of bleeding whilst travelling home.
This is one of the only laws in health that works against the interests of the patient and is yet a further example of how abortion regulations severely patronise women.
Chris McCafferty MP is tabling an amendment that will remove the requirement for two clinic visits. This will have a two-fold benefit of increasing capacity for early abortion treatment appointments and helping to reduce distressing delays for women.
Please email or write to your MP today to ask them to support this amendment.
But current government legislation on the abortion pill, taken in the first four to nine weeks of gestation, is forcing some women to terminate later in the pregnancy. And others, to suffer traumatic and unnecessary inconveniences such as bleeding on public transport on the way home and being forced to find childcare for two days.
The abortion pill is taken in two parts, two to three days apart from each other. The law insists that both parts are taken in a clinic and then the woman is free to leave. The pills are not fast acting and take a while to effect; therefore there is no perceivable benefit to the woman to take the second part in the clinic.
Forcing women to come into the clinic twice is clinically unnecessary. Women in full time jobs, with full time caring commitments, or who live in rural areas far away from clinics, may be forced to wait until they are past the 9 week gestation stage, when an abortion requires just one clinic visit. As the induced miscarriage can start an hour or so after the second pill, those with a long journey home could suffer the pain and public humiliation of bleeding whilst travelling home.
This is one of the only laws in health that works against the interests of the patient and is yet a further example of how abortion regulations severely patronise women.
Chris McCafferty MP is tabling an amendment that will remove the requirement for two clinic visits. This will have a two-fold benefit of increasing capacity for early abortion treatment appointments and helping to reduce distressing delays for women.
Please email or write to your MP today to ask them to support this amendment.
Monday, 13 October 2008
Letter to Marie Claire Magazine
Why are teenage girls becoming so violent?
http://www.marieclaire.co.uk/advertisers/275710/why-are-teenage-girls-becoming-so-violent.html
You may be interested in this letter I wrote to the editor of Marie Claire Magazine, as well as the editor's reply.
Dear Editor,
You raised a very troubling and loaded issue in your article ‘Why are teenage girls becoming so violent’. Disturbingly, when this story was first reported many tabloid papers waded into the debate blaming the feminist revolution for the changes in young women's behaviour.
Whilst there is no doubt that there has been a convergence between male and female behaviour over recent years, with young women now outperforming young men at school, it is grossly misleading to portray female violence as a downside of this.
Thank you for your article, which explored the issue much deeper. I hope the catalysts for violence that you drew out; family breakdown; increasing availability of alcohol and drugs; and ‘happy slapping’ internet displays, will help women become more aware of the idiocy of chucking the blame on feminism next time such an issue is reported.
Yours sincerely,
Mary Honeyball MEP
Labour representative for women’s rights in Europe
---
Dear Ms Honeyball,
Thank you for your email. It is very gratifying when someone in power such as yourself, takes the time to support those who are sincerely trying to raise the level of debate from sensationalist reporting to something more considered. We shall continue in our endeavours to bring clarity to such complex issues in the hope that they will eventually contribute to more mainstream intelligent debate.
Thanks again for your time and support.
Yours sincerely,
Marie O’Riordan
http://www.marieclaire.co.uk/advertisers/275710/why-are-teenage-girls-becoming-so-violent.html
You may be interested in this letter I wrote to the editor of Marie Claire Magazine, as well as the editor's reply.
Dear Editor,
You raised a very troubling and loaded issue in your article ‘Why are teenage girls becoming so violent’. Disturbingly, when this story was first reported many tabloid papers waded into the debate blaming the feminist revolution for the changes in young women's behaviour.
Whilst there is no doubt that there has been a convergence between male and female behaviour over recent years, with young women now outperforming young men at school, it is grossly misleading to portray female violence as a downside of this.
Thank you for your article, which explored the issue much deeper. I hope the catalysts for violence that you drew out; family breakdown; increasing availability of alcohol and drugs; and ‘happy slapping’ internet displays, will help women become more aware of the idiocy of chucking the blame on feminism next time such an issue is reported.
Yours sincerely,
Mary Honeyball MEP
Labour representative for women’s rights in Europe
---
Dear Ms Honeyball,
Thank you for your email. It is very gratifying when someone in power such as yourself, takes the time to support those who are sincerely trying to raise the level of debate from sensationalist reporting to something more considered. We shall continue in our endeavours to bring clarity to such complex issues in the hope that they will eventually contribute to more mainstream intelligent debate.
Thanks again for your time and support.
Yours sincerely,
Marie O’Riordan
Friday, 10 October 2008
ABORTION IN NORTHERN IRELAND
The government’s official line on the abortion vote on 22 October is that it is neutral on all of the amendments; they think that the law is working as intended and they have no proposals to change the law themselves.
But it will advise members to vote against the amendment to extend safe, legal abortion to women in Northern Ireland.
The government’s position on the New Clause 30, tabled under the amendments to the Embryology Bill, was first bought to my attention at the Abortion Rights meeting this week.
The Government is arguing that this is a matter for the Northern Ireland Assembly to deal with. They have reached this view mainly as a result of strong lobbying from NI assembly members who have threatened that if legislation is passed on abortion in NI it will upset the peace process.
Obviously no one wishes to do this, but as Annie Campbell from the NI Alliance for Choice so passionately put it at Tuesday's Abortion Rights meeting, “What about the women who put blood sweat and tears into this process. How long do we have to wait for our basic human rights?”
She went on to compare the threat waged by the Assembly, that an extension of abortion rights to NI will threaten the peace process, as a “bold lie” and likened it to "chicken liken" saying the “sky is going to fall in”.
In three years 80,000 women have travelled from NI to England for an abortion. A massive amount when you take into account the whole population of NI only totals 1.7 million and if you include all the families, friends and colleagues who have supported those women in making that choice.
To make the journey from NI to the UK each of those women has to really suffer. Women who have been raped, suffered incest, whose pregnancy puts their health at risk or whose baby may be predicted to suffer from a painful disability are all denied an abortion on their home territory. The only route these women have to a termination is to travel to the UK, where they have no choice but to pay privately from £600 to £2000, depending on the stage of their pregnancy.
This is where abortion becomes a class issue in Ireland. To go on a plane or to England women have to have either a driving licence or a passport, not something that a large number of women living in poverty in NI have.
Frightened and concerned Northern Irish women who seek out advice on how to access abortion services currently meet a barrage of abuse. At Tuesday's meeting Dr Audrey Simpson from the Family Planning Association in NI described how her offices are picketed every minute that they are open. Women seeking advice have to first pass through protestors shouting “Murderer!” And “Whore!” Those that make it past this barrage of abuse into the clinic are then followed out, to the bus stop or taxi or their walk home and shown pictures of dead foetuses and publicly jeered at in the street.
Dr Simpson was very clear in her advice to those English MPs who fear they may be overstepping their line of rule in voting for an extension of abortion rights to NI:
“ In the 1967 vote on abortion, all 17 Northern Irish MPs turned up to vote. Despite the fact it was on a Friday, when they would usually be home, and despite the fact it had absolutely nothing to do with Northern Ireland.”
Dr Simpson reasoned that Northern Irish MPs are more than happy to legislate against abortion in England, so English MPs should have no qualms in doing the reverse. Especially on such a fundamental position of human rights, in a country where it is still enshrined in legislation, that the punishment for a women who takes control of her own body and has an abortion is a lifetime in prison.
As opportunities to purchase the abortion pill over the internet increase and more women self medicate, the threat of this penal system is seriously jeopardising women’s health. Many women are taking this pill then not seeking help when things go wrong, as they fear legal reprisal.
I will discuss the details of this on my next blog.
But it will advise members to vote against the amendment to extend safe, legal abortion to women in Northern Ireland.
The government’s position on the New Clause 30, tabled under the amendments to the Embryology Bill, was first bought to my attention at the Abortion Rights meeting this week.
The Government is arguing that this is a matter for the Northern Ireland Assembly to deal with. They have reached this view mainly as a result of strong lobbying from NI assembly members who have threatened that if legislation is passed on abortion in NI it will upset the peace process.
Obviously no one wishes to do this, but as Annie Campbell from the NI Alliance for Choice so passionately put it at Tuesday's Abortion Rights meeting, “What about the women who put blood sweat and tears into this process. How long do we have to wait for our basic human rights?”
She went on to compare the threat waged by the Assembly, that an extension of abortion rights to NI will threaten the peace process, as a “bold lie” and likened it to "chicken liken" saying the “sky is going to fall in”.
In three years 80,000 women have travelled from NI to England for an abortion. A massive amount when you take into account the whole population of NI only totals 1.7 million and if you include all the families, friends and colleagues who have supported those women in making that choice.
To make the journey from NI to the UK each of those women has to really suffer. Women who have been raped, suffered incest, whose pregnancy puts their health at risk or whose baby may be predicted to suffer from a painful disability are all denied an abortion on their home territory. The only route these women have to a termination is to travel to the UK, where they have no choice but to pay privately from £600 to £2000, depending on the stage of their pregnancy.
This is where abortion becomes a class issue in Ireland. To go on a plane or to England women have to have either a driving licence or a passport, not something that a large number of women living in poverty in NI have.
Frightened and concerned Northern Irish women who seek out advice on how to access abortion services currently meet a barrage of abuse. At Tuesday's meeting Dr Audrey Simpson from the Family Planning Association in NI described how her offices are picketed every minute that they are open. Women seeking advice have to first pass through protestors shouting “Murderer!” And “Whore!” Those that make it past this barrage of abuse into the clinic are then followed out, to the bus stop or taxi or their walk home and shown pictures of dead foetuses and publicly jeered at in the street.
Dr Simpson was very clear in her advice to those English MPs who fear they may be overstepping their line of rule in voting for an extension of abortion rights to NI:
“ In the 1967 vote on abortion, all 17 Northern Irish MPs turned up to vote. Despite the fact it was on a Friday, when they would usually be home, and despite the fact it had absolutely nothing to do with Northern Ireland.”
Dr Simpson reasoned that Northern Irish MPs are more than happy to legislate against abortion in England, so English MPs should have no qualms in doing the reverse. Especially on such a fundamental position of human rights, in a country where it is still enshrined in legislation, that the punishment for a women who takes control of her own body and has an abortion is a lifetime in prison.
As opportunities to purchase the abortion pill over the internet increase and more women self medicate, the threat of this penal system is seriously jeopardising women’s health. Many women are taking this pill then not seeking help when things go wrong, as they fear legal reprisal.
I will discuss the details of this on my next blog.
Thursday, 9 October 2008
ABORTION RIGHTS
On the 22 October, on the back of a Bill on Human Fertilisation and Embryology, MPs will have a free vote on a series of amendments to restrict women’s abortion rights as well as others to modernise them.
Evan Harris MP stressed, “This is a once in a generation opportunity” at an Abortion Rights meeting this week. Rarely will the chance arise again, of a pro-choice majority in Parliament and a neutral House of Lords, to take the opportunity to remove the penalties on women’s bodies and extend fundamental human rights across the UK. “It would be crazy to miss out on this opportunity!” Evan Harris added.
The Abortion Rights meeting joined together cross party MPs, trade union officials and leading campaigners from both the UK and Northern Ireland. Changing the venue for the third time that week proved worthwhile. The committee room was packed with Lords, Baronesses, MPs, campaigners and general public perched on steps, sitting in aisles and hanging at the back.
Support to improve the rights of women in such an important Bill was clear in this room. But MPs painted a bleak picture of constituency offices where the letters and emails they receive from anti-abortion campaigners out number those from pro-choice people almost 1,000 to one. “Do not underestimate those against us”, said Katy Clarke MP said. Religious campaigners are highly organised; they have a pre-organised meeting each Sunday and are very organised.
There are 22 amendments tabled for a maximum three-hour debate on the 22 October and the majority of them won’t have time to be discussed. But the future of this generation of women’s health and freedom to equality lies within these amendments so it is important that both the public and politicians understand them.
A full list of all the amendments, explained in layman’s terms are here: http://www.abortionrights.org.uk/images/stories/0809briefinglores.pdf Please read through them and find the ones that are important to you. Then, as a matter of urgency, email or write to your MP today and explain why it is so vital for to you that they vote a certain way. Information on how your MP voted in previous votes on abortion and model letters to send to them are available here: http://www.abortionrights.org.uk/content/view/264/1/
Bills on abortion rarely arise; the last time women were awarded more freedoms on abortion was in 1967. Since then, in 1990 the abortion limit was reduced from 28 to 24 weeks. Various anti-abortion Private Members Bills have been attempted but have never got through.
I plan to continue blogging on abortion leading up to the Bill. In my next blog on the issue, I want to raise the plight of our sisters in Northern Ireland who have no real options to terminate a pregnancy, despite the fact they are UK citizens and are taxed to the same extent as those of us in mainland Britain.
Evan Harris MP stressed, “This is a once in a generation opportunity” at an Abortion Rights meeting this week. Rarely will the chance arise again, of a pro-choice majority in Parliament and a neutral House of Lords, to take the opportunity to remove the penalties on women’s bodies and extend fundamental human rights across the UK. “It would be crazy to miss out on this opportunity!” Evan Harris added.
The Abortion Rights meeting joined together cross party MPs, trade union officials and leading campaigners from both the UK and Northern Ireland. Changing the venue for the third time that week proved worthwhile. The committee room was packed with Lords, Baronesses, MPs, campaigners and general public perched on steps, sitting in aisles and hanging at the back.
Support to improve the rights of women in such an important Bill was clear in this room. But MPs painted a bleak picture of constituency offices where the letters and emails they receive from anti-abortion campaigners out number those from pro-choice people almost 1,000 to one. “Do not underestimate those against us”, said Katy Clarke MP said. Religious campaigners are highly organised; they have a pre-organised meeting each Sunday and are very organised.
There are 22 amendments tabled for a maximum three-hour debate on the 22 October and the majority of them won’t have time to be discussed. But the future of this generation of women’s health and freedom to equality lies within these amendments so it is important that both the public and politicians understand them.
A full list of all the amendments, explained in layman’s terms are here: http://www.abortionrights.org.uk/images/stories/0809briefinglores.pdf Please read through them and find the ones that are important to you. Then, as a matter of urgency, email or write to your MP today and explain why it is so vital for to you that they vote a certain way. Information on how your MP voted in previous votes on abortion and model letters to send to them are available here: http://www.abortionrights.org.uk/content/view/264/1/
Bills on abortion rarely arise; the last time women were awarded more freedoms on abortion was in 1967. Since then, in 1990 the abortion limit was reduced from 28 to 24 weeks. Various anti-abortion Private Members Bills have been attempted but have never got through.
I plan to continue blogging on abortion leading up to the Bill. In my next blog on the issue, I want to raise the plight of our sisters in Northern Ireland who have no real options to terminate a pregnancy, despite the fact they are UK citizens and are taxed to the same extent as those of us in mainland Britain.
DAVID MILIBAND
The Foreign Secretary David Miliband addressed Socialist MEPs in the European Parliament yesterday.
Uderlining that Europe is a key part of the solution to many of today's problems, David Miliband praised the record of the European Parliament in taking an important lead in tackling climate change, stating: “Far reaching decisions were taken to tackle Climate Change on a European level this week. MEPs have voted into place ambitious new targets. The European Parliament and the EU have taken the lead on environmental policy in the EU.”
David went on to emphasise the importance of the June 2009 Euro elections and stressed that a strong Labour presence in the European Parliament is vital to enable the EU to better deliver policies to create jobs and prosperity, defend our consumers and take action on climate change
He concluded by saying, "We need a strong Labour group in the European Parliament to work for our citizens in all those areas where we can achieve more by acting together than in isolation."
Uderlining that Europe is a key part of the solution to many of today's problems, David Miliband praised the record of the European Parliament in taking an important lead in tackling climate change, stating: “Far reaching decisions were taken to tackle Climate Change on a European level this week. MEPs have voted into place ambitious new targets. The European Parliament and the EU have taken the lead on environmental policy in the EU.”
David went on to emphasise the importance of the June 2009 Euro elections and stressed that a strong Labour presence in the European Parliament is vital to enable the EU to better deliver policies to create jobs and prosperity, defend our consumers and take action on climate change
He concluded by saying, "We need a strong Labour group in the European Parliament to work for our citizens in all those areas where we can achieve more by acting together than in isolation."
Wednesday, 8 October 2008
EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT COMMITTEES
Today and tomorrow are taken up with plenary meetings of the European Parliament. At lunch time tomorrow we will vote on reports which have been discussed during the past two days.
In addition to the report on equal pay I have been particularly interested in two others which went through committee yesterday.
An Opinion (comment on a report from another Committee) combating sexual exploitation of children and child pornography was agreed by the Women's Committee with a large majority.
The Opinion called on Member States to support the victims of sexual exploitation and child pornography and inform the European Commission of the measures taken to facilitate cross border co-operation. It also asked EUROPOL to set up a dedicated unit for child pornography and child prostitution.
I am sure we all very much hope progress will be made on this important subject.
The other report I followed closely was another Opinion on the vexed question of European copyright law which went through the Industry and Energy Committee. The Opinion focused on protection of digital content, something which does not stop at national borders.
In addition to the report on equal pay I have been particularly interested in two others which went through committee yesterday.
An Opinion (comment on a report from another Committee) combating sexual exploitation of children and child pornography was agreed by the Women's Committee with a large majority.
The Opinion called on Member States to support the victims of sexual exploitation and child pornography and inform the European Commission of the measures taken to facilitate cross border co-operation. It also asked EUROPOL to set up a dedicated unit for child pornography and child prostitution.
I am sure we all very much hope progress will be made on this important subject.
The other report I followed closely was another Opinion on the vexed question of European copyright law which went through the Industry and Energy Committee. The Opinion focused on protection of digital content, something which does not stop at national borders.
EUROPEAN ELECTIONS 4 JUNE 2009
You may be interested to read about the service Google is running for the European elections on 4 June next year.
http://euobserver.com/9/26883
http://euobserver.com/9/26883
Tuesday, 7 October 2008
ABORTION RIGHTS
There is a very important meeting on Abortion Rights at the Houses of Commons tonight at 7pm in committee room 11. Anyone with an interest in the reproductive rights and who believes it is important for women to retain the current rights that they have over their own bodies should attend. The more people that go to the meeting, the more the importance of this issue will be stressed to the attending MPs. Confirmed attendees for the event include Polly Tonybee, Diane Abbot MP, Katy Clark MP and Evan Harris MP amongst many more leading members of the Abortion Rights campaign.
EQUAL PAY
I have just returned from voting in the Women's Committee where a report on equal pay was passed with a large majority.
There remains a persistent gap between pay of men and women with the latest figures showing a 15% difference between gross hourly pay of men and women across Europe.
The gender pay gap (GPG) often used to be explained by individual differences such as age, education and experience. The evidence, however, suggests that these differences play a relatively minor part in the persistence of the GPG and that they are diminishing throughout the EU. In some countries individual factors are not at all important.
The GPG appears more related to occupational segregation and the consequent impact on wage structure.
There is general agreement that the open direct pay discrimination based on sex is diminished by existing legislation. Indirect discrimination seems to be an issue resulting from the pay gap in segregated sectors.
The own initiative report before the Women's Committee recommended policy responses organised under the following three headings:
1) equal pay policy, tackling direct and indirect discrimination
2) equal opportunities policy, aiming for the reconciliation of family and working life, resulting in continuous employment patterns
3) wage-policies designed to reduce wage inequalities and improve the remuneration of low-paid jobs which are often dominated by women.
I very much hope the British Government will take note of this report. The gender pay gap in the UK was 20% in 2005, above the European average but below Cyprus, Germany and Finland. We can do better than that.
There remains a persistent gap between pay of men and women with the latest figures showing a 15% difference between gross hourly pay of men and women across Europe.
The gender pay gap (GPG) often used to be explained by individual differences such as age, education and experience. The evidence, however, suggests that these differences play a relatively minor part in the persistence of the GPG and that they are diminishing throughout the EU. In some countries individual factors are not at all important.
The GPG appears more related to occupational segregation and the consequent impact on wage structure.
There is general agreement that the open direct pay discrimination based on sex is diminished by existing legislation. Indirect discrimination seems to be an issue resulting from the pay gap in segregated sectors.
The own initiative report before the Women's Committee recommended policy responses organised under the following three headings:
1) equal pay policy, tackling direct and indirect discrimination
2) equal opportunities policy, aiming for the reconciliation of family and working life, resulting in continuous employment patterns
3) wage-policies designed to reduce wage inequalities and improve the remuneration of low-paid jobs which are often dominated by women.
I very much hope the British Government will take note of this report. The gender pay gap in the UK was 20% in 2005, above the European average but below Cyprus, Germany and Finland. We can do better than that.
Monday, 6 October 2008
TORY CONFUSION ON EUROPE
You may like to look at this revealing link
http://news.scotsman.com/politics/Inside-Westminster--Tory-MEPs.4555203.jp
http://news.scotsman.com/politics/Inside-Westminster--Tory-MEPs.4555203.jp
Friday, 3 October 2008
BLOGGING
Last week MEPs voted through a report by my Estonian MEP colleague Marianne Mikko. The report was on the importance of media pluralism. The report covered problems with the concentration of media ownership into a small number of companies. It also called for more transparency about media ownership as well as encouraging use of the 'digital dividend' spectrum to promote media plurality.
These are important issues, but as often happens with Parliamentary reports, the main issues were overshadowed at the last moment by other concerns. The report turned into a debate about proposals to register bloggers.
Marcel Berlins wrote about this in the Guardian last week, although he may have slightly misrepresented Marianne Mikko's position.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/sep/24/blogging.internet
I was one of a number of MEPs who strongly argued that the blogosphere should be kept open. There are already existing legal measures to deal with illegal content online. We should not be restricting or registering bloggers who play a vital role in our democracy.
Of course those who express concern that bloggers have hidden agendas and can hide behind anonymity are right to be concerned. But the solution is for us to improve media literacy in the public at large, not to demand registration of bloggers.
A compromise was made on the report before the final vote. The report, as adopted, simply encourages an open debate about clarifying the legal status of blogs.
Surely we can all agree to that. I'm sure much of that debate will take place on blogs themselves.
You can read the final report here:
http://www.europarl.europa.eu//sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+TA+P6-TA-2008-0459+0+DOC+XML+V0//EN&language=EN
There's also more on the position of other MEPs here:
http://www.europarl.europa.eu//news/public/story_page/058-31021-161-06-24-909-20080605STO30955-2008-09-06-2008/default_en.htm
These are important issues, but as often happens with Parliamentary reports, the main issues were overshadowed at the last moment by other concerns. The report turned into a debate about proposals to register bloggers.
Marcel Berlins wrote about this in the Guardian last week, although he may have slightly misrepresented Marianne Mikko's position.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/sep/24/blogging.internet
I was one of a number of MEPs who strongly argued that the blogosphere should be kept open. There are already existing legal measures to deal with illegal content online. We should not be restricting or registering bloggers who play a vital role in our democracy.
Of course those who express concern that bloggers have hidden agendas and can hide behind anonymity are right to be concerned. But the solution is for us to improve media literacy in the public at large, not to demand registration of bloggers.
A compromise was made on the report before the final vote. The report, as adopted, simply encourages an open debate about clarifying the legal status of blogs.
Surely we can all agree to that. I'm sure much of that debate will take place on blogs themselves.
You can read the final report here:
http://www.europarl.europa.eu//sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+TA+P6-TA-2008-0459+0+DOC+XML+V0//EN&language=EN
There's also more on the position of other MEPs here:
http://www.europarl.europa.eu//news/public/story_page/058-31021-161-06-24-909-20080605STO30955-2008-09-06-2008/default_en.htm
Thursday, 2 October 2008
EMBRYOLOGY & BLOGGING
The blog I wrote earlier last week commenting on Ruth Kelly's resignation from Government has been picked up by the Catholic newspaper, The Universe. I am disapointed by the quotes in that article by Jim Dobbin MP and Stephen Pound MP.
Kelly critic should sacked by Labour - MP
It is a real shame that The Universe did not research or report their story accurately enough to include the contents of the blog I wrote just a few days later, which congratulated Downing Street for their excellent plans to end the 300 year old exclusion of Catholics from the throne.
I strongly repeat that I am not anti-Catholic, prejudiced against any religion or have in anyway ever sought to intentionally offend anyone.
The Embryology Bill is an extremely important piece of legislation, to women and their families. It is contained in the Labour manifesto on which the party was elected this term.
Kelly critic should sacked by Labour - MP
It is a real shame that The Universe did not research or report their story accurately enough to include the contents of the blog I wrote just a few days later, which congratulated Downing Street for their excellent plans to end the 300 year old exclusion of Catholics from the throne.
I strongly repeat that I am not anti-Catholic, prejudiced against any religion or have in anyway ever sought to intentionally offend anyone.
The Embryology Bill is an extremely important piece of legislation, to women and their families. It is contained in the Labour manifesto on which the party was elected this term.
Wednesday, 1 October 2008
LIVERPOOL 2
Despite the vile weather which has, if anything, got worse, the Culture Committee visit continued to be interesting and enjoyable.
A trip to the Le Corbusier exhibition in the crypt of Liverpool’s stunning Metropolitan Cathedral provided our first taster today. It was probably too informative in that its architectural pictures and models showed just how influential le Corbusier was on later catastrophic designs for council housing, especially tower blocks.
The final session was a round up by Liverpool City Council, including useful in-depth research by Liverpool University on the impact, including the economic impact, of the European Capital of Culture year on the city. I very much hope this study will be used by the European Commission and others to promote the idea of the European Capital of Culture and let European citizens know just how cultural activities can be used to boost regeneration.
Liverpool prides itself on being a “city on the edge”, so much so that it has got together with similar cities across Europe to celebrate their self styled status. The other ones are: Istanbul, Gdansk, Marseille, Naples and Bremen. So there you are.
And finally….one last word about the buildings in Liverpool. The Town Hall where we had our last meeting is a splendid example of 19th century municipal architecture, and is also very well looked after. The Liverpool Philharmonic Hall where we met the cultural organisations yesterday is a simple and striking art deco building while the Tate Liverpool gallery is located in a Victorian dock warehouse. A built environment to treasure.
As ever thanks to everyone who organised the visit: Stephen Salter and Caroline Boyle from the European Parliament, Geoff Brown from Euclid, the Liverpool based cultural contact organisation and all those who took time out to talk to us.
A trip to the Le Corbusier exhibition in the crypt of Liverpool’s stunning Metropolitan Cathedral provided our first taster today. It was probably too informative in that its architectural pictures and models showed just how influential le Corbusier was on later catastrophic designs for council housing, especially tower blocks.
The final session was a round up by Liverpool City Council, including useful in-depth research by Liverpool University on the impact, including the economic impact, of the European Capital of Culture year on the city. I very much hope this study will be used by the European Commission and others to promote the idea of the European Capital of Culture and let European citizens know just how cultural activities can be used to boost regeneration.
Liverpool prides itself on being a “city on the edge”, so much so that it has got together with similar cities across Europe to celebrate their self styled status. The other ones are: Istanbul, Gdansk, Marseille, Naples and Bremen. So there you are.
And finally….one last word about the buildings in Liverpool. The Town Hall where we had our last meeting is a splendid example of 19th century municipal architecture, and is also very well looked after. The Liverpool Philharmonic Hall where we met the cultural organisations yesterday is a simple and striking art deco building while the Tate Liverpool gallery is located in a Victorian dock warehouse. A built environment to treasure.
As ever thanks to everyone who organised the visit: Stephen Salter and Caroline Boyle from the European Parliament, Geoff Brown from Euclid, the Liverpool based cultural contact organisation and all those who took time out to talk to us.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
