You are in the company of 
Roger Warren Evans
    
  Part of   www.LivePolitics.net                                 < Back to Home Page  
 
New
Living Diary
Index

New  participatory democracy

Taming the Corporations

My Welsh socialism

My New Socialist Settlement

Globalise the left!

Bevan  re-visited

RWE Biography

 

   

item0068A  986, 987

986   21 April 2004  

There will be
No Referendum

"Let the people have the final say".  That's what the man said, in the Commons.  And that's all the man said.  He did not promise a "referendum".   He is keeping open the possibility of calling a General Election, on our place in Europe. And for good measure, he used precisely the same words in his letter to loyal Labour Party members like myself - which I give you in full, word for word.

I am, of course, biased.  I said the same thing, right here on this website, in January 2002. 

I have been saying for the last three years that there will be no referendum on Europe, tho' until now the question has been limited to adopting the Euro currency.  My forecast has always been for an integrated General Election, with full European adhesion placed on the manifesto agenda, for all Parties.   I now confirm that forecast, for an Election which will sweep up both the Euro and the renegotiated "Constitution".

I concede the possibility that there might formally be two separate events.  There might indeed even be a Referendum on the same day as a General Election - why not?  It is in any event clear that there could be no Referendum until Spring 2005, given the negotiating timetable, and the requirements for statutory and administrative groundwork.  And that is also the date pencilled-in by pundits for the next General Election. 

I give you a further possible twist to think about. Today's speculation indicates a "pencilled-in" Referendum for November 2005.  But that will leave both Gerhard Schroeder and Jacques Chirac hopelessly kebabbed on their respective skewers for a very long time.  Blair could agree to bring his combined Grand Election forward to Spring 2005, with every prospect of winning - and that would make things infinitely easier for both Schroeder and Chirac.  After all, Blair is the only one with the constitutional freedom to decide the date of his own General Election: both Schroeder and Chirac are skewered on fixed-term Parliaments.  But what would Blair's price be, for his helpfulness?  That they supported him in his move to the first European Presidency, later in 2005...

And even if Labour were to lose its outright majority, it is impossible to imagine a working Tory majority.  That would mean a pro-European Lab-Lib coalition, led by Blair – which is what he has really wanted all along.   He could then graciously leave the coalition leadership to Brown, and move on to the European Presidency…

  • It could be, for Blair, a win-win option.

What do you think?  What is your take on this fascinating situation?  Drop me a line

 < Back to Home Page

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

987  23 April  2004  

Whistleblower Pensions

I sympathise with good people, public servants and potential whistleblowers, who are gripped by the fear of losing their pension.  For senior public servants (like Dr David Kelly) that fear must be crippling.  They deserve to be protected, by sympathetic Pensions Regulations 

One of the primal human fears, which grips us all subliminally, is the fear of impoverishment in our old age: see my essay, Multiple Differential Uncertainty...  And UK public service state pensions are the best on offer, in an increasingly uncertain world. 

For every whistleblower, there must be the risk of dismissal, of being forced to leave the public service.  That sense of risk cannot be eliminated. “Employment” is an ephemeral relationship for all of us, and whistle-blowing necessarily risks the destruction of mutual confidence, without which common employment cannot subsist.  That is bad enough, and it is unavoidable.  Further, such severance necessarily carries with it a “loss of opportunity” – the opportunity to continue to accumulate pension rights, in a favourable, assured environment.  That is inevitable too, a factor to be weighed in the mind of every whistleblower. 

But no whistleblower should be asked to risk throwing away pension rights already secured.  I suspect that many fear the terms on which their pension-contributions would be rendered portable, if severance followed.  Under the present Pensions Regulations, Ministers retain threatening discretionary powers to forfeit the pensions of those caught in breach of the Official Secrets Act.  That must be a powerful deterrent to blowing any whistle at all. 

I say that every whistleblower, forced to leave public service following “disclosure”, should be entitled to retain the value of any pension entitlement accrued to date.  Ministers should have no discretion to withdraw pension rights.  Even if the whistleblower is convicted of an Official Secrets Act offence, pensions rights should be sacrosanct.  Otherwise, "whistle-blowing rights" in the public service will remain a dead letter.

What do you think?  Drop me a line

 < Back to Home Page

 

  
 
 		  
   

Created by GMID Design & Communication

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
The originating content of this website is my own work, and subject to my copyright. But on one condition only, I hereby give my consent to its unrestricted reproduction for any purpose: the condition is that its source is subject to proper acknowledgment, giving my name, my assertion of copyright, and the name of this website as its source, namely: www.warrenevans.net - is that a deal?  Roger WE