A Year On, Yemen Still In Agony

A year into the military intervention in Yemen by the Western-backed Saudi army and the war is yet to reach mainstream media headlines. While the dreadful crises of Europe and Syria are afforded great attention (no doubt deservedly), a war of over 3,000 civilian deaths remains largely ignored. Major questions over the western role in perpetuating this humanitarian catastrophe need to be raised. The UK government consciously provides an arms pipeline to the dictatorial Saudi regime. Amnesty International has described some of the facilitated bombing campaigns as “indiscriminate [and]… disproportionate”. Yet the war remains outside mainstream national discourse; hence the tag – ‘silent war’. There is a conversation here that needs to be had.

Five years ago, the Arab Spring uprisings in Tunisia and Egypt overspilled into Yemen. Protests came amid a climate of economic depravity and high levels unemployment. The intifada grew strong enough to topple the President of over 30 years – Ali Abdullah Saleh. Multiple human rights groups had voiced frequent concerns about the record of Saleh’s administration. A coalition of major political parties in Yemen, known as the Joint Meeting Parties and representing political views across the spectrum, backed the protests. With the Revolution coming to a head, a National Council for the Forces of the Peaceful Revolution was declared on 17 August 2011.

During the summer months of 2011, Saleh was recovering from a failed assassination attempt and had left Vice-President Hadi in interim control. Hadi expressed a willingness to co-operate with moderate political opposition but rejected calls to seize power permanently. During this period, The Gulf Co-operation Council (a diplomatic and economic union of Middle-Eastern member states) also pressured Saleh to resign on his return from a trip Saudi Arabia. Saleh accepted a brokered deal just two months after his re-instatement as President and receiving immunity as compensation. Hadi was left to stand, unopposed, for the Presidency in 2012. The Revolution had arguably come full circle.

In asserting its diplomatic influence, the Saudi administration was further exercising its already considerable sectarian support in the southern Yemeni regions. This was seen by many representatives of the Northern, ‘Houthi’ sect as diplomatic over-reach inspired by tribal self-interest. Northern spokesmen strongly criticised the GCC’s agreement for, it is claimed, dividing the country into two regions of unequal geopolitical influence.

Through the Siege of Dammaj, the anti-Saudi and anti-Imperalist Houthi rebels made gains in Salafi towns under the Saada Governorate while the Yemeni military were unsuccessful in restoring order around the country. Reconciliation talks were reached, however, between Hadi’s national government and various opposition groups. In a symbolic move, the Yemeni government returned the remains of the Houthi movement’s founder, Hussein Al-Houthi, to his family having possessed them for 9 years. A month later in July 2013, Hadi made diplomatic inroads with the United States. This led to the US lifting a ban on transferring Guantamo Bay detainees from Cuba to Yemen. Alongisde this, however, Saudi Arabia deported around 300,000 to 400,000 migrant workers back to Northern Yemen –the North now faced a further influx of deprivation and homelessness.

As the Houthis took over Sunni strongholds towards the end of 2014, they successfully assumed broad control of Northern Yemen and her capital, Sana’a. Several deals with the national government followed including the resignation of the Prime Minister. A coup seemed to have been achieved when the Houthis and the incumbent administration agreed to form a Unity Government. The Houthis even gained their own choice of Prime Minister. This only lasted a matter of weeks, however, as the Houthis, along with Saleh who was thought to have co-operated with the tribe during the rebellion, resigned their participation in the Unity Government. Saleh and Houthi officials faced sanctions from the UN Security Council and the US Treasury for their boycott. The following months saw the Houthis escalate tensions by shelling and Hadi’s private residence and, consequently, forcing the Prime Minister to resign. The Houthis went on to successfully take Sana’a. On February 6^th of 2015 the rebel group announced that they had seized total control of the national government, despite the attempts of the UN to resolve the issue and maintain a Unity Government.

The Houthi regime immediately faced wide condemnation, not just from political factions in the South, but also from the US, UN, the Arab League and the GCC. Ban Ki-Moon called for the reinstatement of Hadi as President and the UN envoy to Yemen announced that talks with the Houthis had determined the House of Representatives would remain, despite the coup declaring it to be dissolved. On the 21^st February, Hadi returned to Aden to condemn the Houthi revolution; this paved the way for the most recent Western intervention. ISIL claimed responsibility for attacks on the Shia group but Hadi was unable to stop the rebels from taking Aden. On the 25^th March, Saudi Arabia launched Operation Decisive Storm alongside the UAE, Bahrain, Kuwait, France, the United States, the United Kingdom, Somalia, Jordan, Senegal, Morocco, Sudan, Egypt and Qatar. This conglomeration of nation-states initiated the most brutal intervention on the Houthi and Saleh militia, exacerbating the humanitarian disaster in Yemen with deaths at a rate of 25 people per day.

Saudi officials declared the bombing campaign to be over on 21 April – Operation Restoring Hope was said to be a new diplomatic effort to end the war. Even so, Reuters continued to report of airstrikes being launched frequently over the subsequent months. A further ceasefire signed in late May soon unravelled as patches of fighting were sparked across several southern provinces. The war goes on.

Yemen mentioned in PMQs (20/1/16) – 

Angus Robertson: World attention on the conflict in the middle east is focused on Syria and Iraq, and much less so on the catastrophe in Yemen, which has caused thousands of people to lose their lives and millions of people to flee their homes. Can the Prime Minister tell the House what the UK Government are doing to support peace in Yemen?

The Prime Minister: We are doing everything we can with all the people taking part in this conflict to encourage them to get round a negotiating table, as they have done recently, in order to bring about what is necessary in Yemen, which is a Government who can represent all of the people. We have got to make sure that both Sunni and Shi’a are properly represented in that country. That is the only way that we will meet our key national interest, which is to back a Government in Yemen who will drive the terrorists, including al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula—AQAP—out of Yemen, because they have been, and are, a direct threat to the citizens of Britain.

Angus Robertson: Thousands of civilians have been killed in Yemen, including a large number by the Saudi air force, who have done that using British-built planes with pilots who are trained by British instructors, and who are dropping British-made bombs and are co-ordinated by the Saudis in the presence of British military advisers. Is it not time for the Prime Minister to admit that Britain is effectively taking part in a war in Yemen that is costing thousands of civilian lives, and that he has not sought parliamentary approval to do that?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman started in a serious place but then seriously wandered off. It is in our interest that we back the legitimate Government of Yemen, and it is right to do that. We have some of the most stringent arms control measures of any country anywhere in the world. Just to be absolutely clear about our role, we are not a member of a Saudi-led coalition. British military personnel are not directly involved in the Saudi-led coalition’s operations. Personnel are not involved in carrying out strikes, directing or conducting operations in Yemen, or selecting targets; and we are not involved in the Saudi targeting decision-making process; but do we provide training and advice and help in order to make sure that countries actually obey the norms of humanitarian law? Yes, we do.

MM

Find all of my New Statesman pieces here!

I’ve been trying to get as many articles as possible on this blog from as many different publishers but I can see it taking a while. So until then, for my NS articles please click here: http://www.newstatesman.com/writers/320806

For my writings with the Gibraltar Chronicle, YGTV, Mancunion, etc. I will do my best to get them on this site.

MM

A Gibraltarian Politics Student’s View On The Dilemmas Of GE2015

(First published by the New Statesman)

May 12 – Between A Rock And A Hard Place – A Gibraltarian Politics Student’s View On The Dilemmas Of GE2015

 

by Mark E. Montegriffo

 

2015 is seeing general elections in the United Kingdom, Spain and Gibraltar. It does not take a young politics aficionado like myself to realize the importance of the outcomes of these elections for my 30,000 compatriots in Gibraltar.

 

Last year I had the privilege of representing Gibraltar in delegations at EU and UN level. To my delight, I was able to experience the international diplomacy that the Rock has been engaging in for the purpose of commerce, lobbying and, above all, utilizing our right to defend our political wishes – not just regarding the defence of British sovereignty over Gibraltar versus Spain but also because there is a consensus that a ‘Brexit’ would virtually bring Gibraltar to its knees.

 

However, with cross-border (and cross-water) tensions on an incline ever since the election of the Partido Popular Government in Spain, Gibraltar could take some comfort in the news that the rise of support for parties in Spain such as Podemos and Ciudadanos may damage the chances of a PP re-election.

 

Though I am writing to talk about the shock election of the Conservative majority Government in the UK – I follow British politics far closer than I do Spanish politics. This is due to several reasons, one of them being that I am studying modern Britain’s Political History for my A-levels. I was certainly not the only one with a keen eye on the developments in the May election, as Gibraltarians know that the governing parties in the UK have not always lived up to our expectations. Gibraltarians are growing weary of empty ‘robust’ rhetoric from the Foreign and Commonwealth office and would appreciate a more proactive UK government.

 

But Gibraltarians have not been particularly pleased with the UK Labour Party during their recent years in Governement – especially under Blair. New Labour’s attitude to Gibraltar effectively ignored the democratic freedoms of Gibraltar and attempted to seek a joint sovereignty solution whereby the Rock would be half-owned by the Spanish state, this is known as the infamous ‘Andorra Solution’. This started the new millennium on the wrong foot with regards to Gibraltar’s relationship with Straw, Hain and Blair. Locally they are considered as traitors for trying to ‘sell us down the river’.

 

Naturally, the general feeling seems to be that Gibraltar is safer under a Conservative government in the UK. Though if we are judging by 2014’s EU election result, Gibraltarians voted overwhelmingly for the UK Liberal Democrats; this is in great part thanks to the dedication of Sir Graham Watson to Gibraltar’s cause. Despite this, no Liberal Democrat represents Gibraltar at EU level because it is part of the South West region of the UK who voted in a different range of politicians. Indeed, Europe is an issue for Gibraltarians at this election. We are overwhelmingly in favour of remaining in the EU and perhaps that might have persuaded some that a Labour-led Government would be safer for Gibraltar. Though the party did not do itself any favours when they allegedly recognized Gibraltar as a tax haven – a claim which Gibraltarians and Europeans will prove to you is wholly untrue.

 

I find this very unfortunate as I was able to find some good common ground with Miliband’s Labour. Abolishing the bedroom tax and enforcing non-dom tax seemed to be ethical and agreeable, despite claims that GDP will plummet. The coalition oversaw tuition fee hikes and a surge in foodbanks, which the Labour party has rightly spoken out against. Then again, a Conservative Government promising a referendum may put to bed the appeal of UKIP for many UK voters if the result was in favour of remaining in the EU – an issue that has haunted the stability of UK Governments since their first application was rejected in 1961 under Macmillan’s Tory Government.

 

I predicted last week that we will see a government that is, in some form or other, Labour-led. In any case, the Rock would stand strong against any falsehoods or hints of indifference towards her sea and land. The general consensus in Gibraltar is that Cameron’s Conservative Government will protect Gibraltar’s interests, whereas a Labour government would have had a lot to make up for to the Gibraltarian people.

Given the outcome of the election, my prediction was fatally wrong. But at least I was not the only one. Pre-election polls and UK journalists predicted that we would see a hung parliament and possibly a Labour minority Government – with the aid of the SNP bloc. Speaking to locals in Gibraltar, you will find a sense of relief regarding this election. Despite Len McCluskey, leader of Unite the Union, telling the Gibraltar Chronicle that Gibraltar would not see a repetition of the dubbed treachery that occurred during the previous Labour Government, there is a feeling that ‘there is something of the night’ about a Labour Government’s attitude to Gibraltar. This is purely to do with the actions of Labour rather than left-wing politics. Of course, Gibraltar’s Governing party is currently the Gibraltar Socialist Labour/Liberal Party Alliance. But what does ideology mean nowadays anyway?

This distrust in Labour is contrasted to a feeling of security under the Conservatives that arguably goes back to the handling of the Falklands Crisis by Thatcher in 1982 – a symbol that the Tories will never break British Commonwealth ties, whatever the cost. It is fair to say that since then, the Tories have not put their foot in it. They have supported Gibraltar’s autonomy under the 2006 Gibraltar Constitution and have not got in the way of the success of the Rock’s economy in the financial sector, when economies have been failing in every other direction around the Mediterranean. With Hammond as Foreign Secretary, described by Gibraltar’s Chief Minister Fabian Picardo as ‘a good friend of Gibraltar’, I would agree with the Gibraltar Chronicle’s comments that the Tory party remains ‘a staunch supporter of the Rock’s British Sovereignty and its right to self-determination’. After all, the Conservative manifesto exclaimed that Gibraltar will remain British for ‘as long as they wish’ – Labour’s manifesto did not mention Gibraltar at all.

Although things could have seemed a lot worse for Gibraltar with a different election result, there are still some concerns. Albert Poggio, Gibraltar’s Representative in London, says ‘we’ve lost 12 of our friends in Parliament’. Brian Reyes from the Gibraltar Chronicle acknowledged this and stated that: ‘Gibraltar’s support base was dented in Thursday’s election’. Additionally, the more perilous issue is that of the promised EU referendum by 2017, which is widely accepted to have potentially disastrous consequences for Gibraltar in the result of an ‘OUT’ vote – arguably one of the only qualms about the election of a majority Conservative Government, but it has the ability to diminish confidence in the Tories and pose a threat to the economic and diplomatic survival as Gibraltar as we know it. For this reason, the position that Gibraltar would ‘sleep easier’ with Labour is just about understandable. In fact, the esteemed Dr. Grocott of the University of Leicester has argued that, ‘for all of Labour’s baggage’, a Labour victory would have been the better outcome.

In consideration of all the arguments presented, I would disagree with Grocott’s assessment and contend that Gibraltar can be happy with a Conservative Government. Gibraltar has been part of the European trade bloc for as long as the UK, thanks to Heath’s successful negotiation in 1973. Perhaps I can be accused of youthful idealism or naivety, but I just don’t see a Brexit coming. It seems to be a non sequitur that Britain can thrive outside of the EU and I can’t see it happening. I will take reassurance in the dismal failure of UKIP in this election and in the apparent minority group of anti-Europeans in the House of Commons and the British public. I know that whatever happens, Gibraltar will do her all to keep its ties with the EU.

Mark also has a blog at www.yourgibraltartv.com. His latest piece was a precursor to this piece for the New Statesman.

Why one should vote

(First published by the New Statesman)

“When we vote, we can make government better or worse. In turn, our votes can make people’s lives better or worse”. Visit http://press.princeton.edu/chapters/i9464.pdf to read about voting as a moral issue and the importance of good voting.

The Gibraltar general election on the 26^th November 2015 promises to be one of the most interesting the Rock has seen. For the first time, 2 rival parties will contest the election; offering opposing directions for Gibraltar’s future. However, the lack of diversity and option when it comes to political parties has lead to a large portion of ‘undecideds’ in local polls, consistently making up over half of the poll result.

While it is highly unlikely that this will remain through until the day of the election, there is a worry that this election might break Gibraltar’s incredible record of voter turnout. Therefore it is important to discuss what it would mean to refrain from voting, especially in such a decisive election.

The election is decisive simply because of the competing policies of the two political hegemons as well as the developments since the last election. The most notable policy difference comes from the area of national energy supply and the bunkering of liquified natural gas, which has been subject to various contradictory safety reports.

The GSD oppose LNG at the North Mole, so close and such a potentially fatal danger to thousands of residents on the west side of the Rock and the town area, in favour of a previous deal that was later cancelled by the GSLP/Liberal Government that would have installed a diesel power facility at Lathbury Barracks to fuel Gibraltar’s energy.

On the other hand, the party in Government reject the health and safety hazards raised by the GSD. While they accept that nothing would be completely safe, the chances of a fatal accident occurring are so small that it is worth taking the risk so that Gibraltar can have an energy source. In a strange twist, the GSLP/Liberals have recently supported a GSD position to consider an energy deal with Morocco.

These debates also take the shape of the future of education, public finances and training for employment. Access to each party’s views on each of these issues can be found online. The party that the electorate chooses will have a great effect on the direction of Gibraltar, one way or the other. This is why your vote becomes more vital than ever.

Additionally, the development of both parties since the last election has been riveting. The GSLP/Liberal Alliance has opted for a very similar candidate sheet as last time out, with the exception of the late Charles Bruzon, with Albert Isola winning his seat at the 2013 by-election. Indeed, Joe Bossano, Chief Minister from 1988-1996 and self-proclaimed ‘father of my party’, will once again seek re-election. He remarked earlier in the year that he ‘won’t pursue a new career until I’m 90’.

Whereas the GSD have opted for a very different line-up. Only 2 of the 10 candidates presented at this election have stood for the GSD previously in a general election. The party has highlighted its concern over public finances and has opted for candidates who have had successful careers in the broader area of finance such as Roy Clinton and Chris White, and the parliamentary reform campaigner, Robert Vazquez. Trevor Hammond and Marlene Hassan Nahon have also settled in quickly to the party, tackling the Government on a range of issues.

The idea that blank voting will have more of an effect on the political system than voting is a falsity, especially in Gibraltar where electoral margins are not actually that large – the GSLP Liberal alliance won the previous election by some 200 votes. Furthermore, it is extremely unlikely that a blank vote or a low turnout will influence politicians to adopt more desirable policies because these opt-out ‘votes’ only solidify the political consensus that exists by preserving the incumbent government. Even if it is a case of the lesser evil, your vote is vital at this election. After all, a lesser evil is the first step to a greater good, and you are more likely to influence a lesser evil than a zealous beast.

If you do not vote for a preferred vision, the politicians who win will govern you as if you did not exist. This should not have to be the case but it is one of the few tragedies that exist in representative democracies. Politicians will take non-voters as those without an opinion. Have an effect on Gibraltar’s future at vote this November 26^th.

MM

Unite(d) with Workers or with the Party?

(First published by the Gibraltar Politics site)

The Gibraltar branch of the Unite trade union organisation has declared official alignment with the GSLP/Liberals for the upcoming Gibraltar election on the 26^th November, with some top officers publicly signing on as members of the party.

This announcement was preceded by a majority vote in the Unite executive, omitting the views of ordinary members. As a Unite Youth Committee member (though probably not for long), this news came as a surprise, as it was to many others who were not notified of this vote.

The public declaration occurred on the 19^th November with GBC covering the event, commenting ‘this is the first time in living memory that Unite, or any union in Gibraltar, has openly declared themselves in favour of a political party’.

It was met with an almost instant backlash on social media by disappointed members of the Unite branch, as well as election candidates themselves. First-time candidate for the GSD Lawrence Llamas called the partnership between Unite and the GSLP as ‘incestuous to say the least! Political parties and unions should have a healthy yet independent relationship’.

One of the two female candidates in the GSD lineup (which make two of the three females in both parties combined) has also expressed her concern: ‘The Union has decided to prioritise and cosy up to a political party over keeping neutral for its supposed purpose – that of representing its workers! What an irony and what a shame and how pathetic for the members. And how disgraceful on the political party in question to cook this up! Sad day for Gibraltar’s politics’.

John Linares, son of the late Bernard Linares who disaffiliated the AACR (Association for the Advancement of Civil Rights) Party with the TGWU (Trade and General Workers Union) during his time in politics, is critical of this move because: ‘it becomes a struggle against a political party rather than a struggle against capitalism. The role of the union is to win the best deal for its members within a capitalist or socialist outfit or whoever is the government of the day and they can’t if there are political or careerist interests at play’.

The news raises the subject of the interactions between trade unions, usually impartial bodies representing the interests of workers and members, and political parties. In democracies where large trade unions have aligned themselves with parties, the end result tends to lead to a politicisation of the movement which has had a dangerous effect on not just the economy, but the progress of democracy in the country concerned – for example, as in the UK in the 1960s and 1970s. Therefore, this not only raises questions of legitimacy but also about the state of the democratic process in Gibraltar.

This comes a day after the GSD and the GTA (Gibraltar Teachers Association) agreed to enter into a ‘Social Partnership in order to work together for the good of teachers and the education system in general’.

MM

What the Gibraltar 2015 Election really means.

(First published by the New Statesman)

As the dust begins to settle on a thumping victory for the GSLP/Liberal Alliance that has granted them their second term in office, many are speculating on the reasons for their victory, as well as, for the defeat of the Gibraltar Social Democrats. The result has given a mandate for the Liquified Natural Gas power station and bunkering facility that was heavily criticised by the Opposition and other lobby groups such as the ESG. The result arguably legitimises, in the eyes of the majority of voters at least, the borrowing practices of the Government including the funding of projects via Government loan companies like Credit Finance. It also paves the way for a possible football stadium at the Europa Point or Lathbury Barracks site which has also come under great scrutiny.

However, this does not necessarily mean that the electorate voted with these issues in mind. The vote may have been proof of the success of the GSLP/Liberal Alliance machinery that accused the GSD of scaremongering. Perhaps the electorate rejected the GSD on a different basis – it could have been the radical change in candidates from the previous election, a disagreement on policy, or the GSD’s campaign and manifesto. Whatever the reason, the Opposition will be forced to having an internal dialogue about all of the above in order to stand in better stead in four years’ time thanks to the heavy defeat. Indeed, you can see a featured debate on the implications of the election at this level on the Gibraltar Politics website.

But there are wider issues beyond party politics that this election should raise in the consciousness of the electorate to do with representation and participation. This does not necessarily indicate a sense of apathy, rather a systemic failure of the political sphere of Gibraltar to open up to the wider population who are not always obligated with party affiliation. For instance, there has been no progress whatsoever in terms of the number of women in Parliament. Two out of the seventeen honourable members are women, just as was the case after the 2011 election. Out of the twenty candidates overall, 3 were women. This is not to say that parties are inherently sexist in Gibraltar, but that there is an issue with the way Parliament is configured, traditionally being made up of a majority of white male lawyers.

Furthermore, there is no Muslim or Hindu representation. Religious and cultural affiliations are hard to define, especially when there are no publicised surveys which can tell us which honourable members consider themselves Atheists/Secularists (another group who should be represented more) or Theists of whatever kind. But it should not undermine the issue of the lack of Muslims in Gibraltar Parliament. Once again, this is not to accuse anybody of islamophobia or xenophobia, but to highlight that the attitude of politics in Gibraltar needs to open up so people from all kinds of backgrounds can be embraced and nurtures to eventually become honourable members in their own right.

There is still scant representation of the Jewish community. Considering that the first Chief Minister of Gibraltar was Jewish, it is disheartening that there is only one Jewish honourable member in 2015, ironically being the daughter of the late Sir Joshua Hassan. Gibraltar has always been a safe haven for Jews in desperate times, yet there seems to be an unwillingness in the political system to encourage the talent in the community.

Disappointingly, the working-class is under-represented in Parliament. As aforementioned, the legal profession consistently makes up a sizeable bulk of honourable members, including party leaders and Chief Ministers. While a career in areas of law and the court can be extremely beneficial during Parliamentary procedure and debates, there is no identifiably strong voice that has experienced the struggles of dead end jobs or caring for a low-income young family, which raises another group that is not widely represented in Parliament – the youth; every honourable member is at least in their 30s.

The percentage of the electorate that voted should also be a concern. The number dropped from 81.4% to 70.7% – the lowest turnout for decades. Among these votes were a relatively high number of a combined figure of spoiled votes, blank votes and illegitimate votes. While this does not usually have a noticeable practical effect on a change in attitude in part of the Government of the day, it does show that there is a section of the electorate that ultimately rejects the parties on offer as they feel they do not represent them or their views.

Understanding Gibraltar are an organization which aims to “Understand Gibraltar’s multi-cultural society and make it Understood” told me that “although minorities are often poorly represented in Parliaments all over Europe it would be another achievement for Gibraltar to encourage and promote political representation to every citizen no matter their background”. This is an extremely agreeable view and the idea that Gibraltar can become “an example to the world” by having political representation that is more encouraging to all different backgrounds, be those cultural, religious, sexual identification or socio-economic.

MM

Showing them how it’s done

(First published by the Gibraltar Chronicle)

The election campaign debates were, barring only a couple, infantile and adversarial. Of course, we expect an adversarial debate between a panel of politicians – it is a sign of a healthy democracy. But it was not adversarial in terms of a discussion and friction of ideas, rather more a game of one-upmanship. And we still wonder why the political system fails to attract a wider and diverse portion of the population.

However, once again, the youth have shown the politicians how it is done. Jonathan Scott ran a GBC discussion on education featuring students from the secondary schools and college, not awfully dissimilar to the one I participated in last summer. The debate was conducted in a far more mature and civilised manner that we have seen at times during election campaigns. Like the debate last summer, it was idea-driven and looked to establish agreements as well as disagreements.

One thing the entire panel agreed on was the need for a move to co-education in Gibraltar – just as was the case in last summer’s debate. This was welcomed with much satisfaction from the panellist Aaron Santos who told me that “participating in the debate was an incredible experience. We debated several topics regarding education. One being co-education! I was thrilled to see that everyone in the panel, including myself, were for co-education when asked by the host”.

The innovative ideas discussed were centred in education and methods to improve it, which included an update in technology and flip classrooms and a review of the level of support and pastoral care students receive, while rude interruptions from the panel remained minimal – ironically unlike some classrooms.

Far from lamenting our prospects for a better way of doing politics in Gibraltar, we should take heart in these discussions for the future. If the next couple of generations are encouraged and nurtured, Gibraltar could see a parliament that is not only less juvenile in display, but also better reflects her people – with more women and increased representation for the various minority groups that mirror Gibraltar’s multiculturalism.

MM

Viva Europa

(First published by YGTV)

Europe is disintegrating. The EU establishment have failed in maintaining the Plan A “cartel structure”, as Yannis Varoufakis puts it. While it is a lie that the EU lacks democracy, we have seen very recently with regards to the crisis in Greece that they are abound with Plan Bs that appears to back up the argument that there is a democratic deficit in Europe. The Eurozone now resorts to threatening governments in to following a pre-determined economic regime know to some as austerity. Fear has been spread in Portugal, Ireland, Greece and Spain. Myths like the Spanish recovery have come about in order to sustain this dying economic authoritarianism. Even Germany is witnessing its slowest growth than at any time since the war. The Eurozone is an abject failure whichever way you look at it.

However, it is in movements like Podemos that we can see that there is a will for a new Europe to emerge. An EU that is democratised and breaks the shackles of austerity is waiting to be born. Certainly, it can be hard to be optimistic about the prospects of a stronger European Union at a time when the continent is in turmoil over a refugee crisis and right-wing populism is appealing for a growing number in several member states. Indeed, the cause for positivity is further pierced by some of the reaction to the coming UK referendum – which Gibraltarian citizens will be eligible to vote for. But this represents an opportunity for a watershed moment in European history. If the economic sphere is brought back into politics rather than being seen as a spectre that haunts international relations, radical change will occur. If the EU is a self-critical organism open to transparency, radical change will occur. If the political decision can be made to end austerity, radical change will occur. But ironically, it can only occur within a body like the union of European nations.

For residents of the Rock, the reasons to the remain in the EU in whatever form possible is self-evident. Unfortunately, Gibraltar has very little bargaining power in global politics despite being in a political conflict zone. This is why it is a worthwhile exercise to have a dedicated lobby group in Brussels to build relations. The Rock is unlikely to turn the tide of European politics as a single force. Quite simply, Gibraltar is a small but determined plankton in a vast ocean of various Lovecraftian behemoths. The micro-state that continues to exceed expectations in the financial sector requires the political representation of a supra-national entity like the EU. Without even having to mention the purely practical benefits, the links to these entities guarantee us by de facto the many things that we hold dear as concepts such as self-determination. Gibraltar’s recognition at this level means that the conflict with Spain is never likely to descend into an incorrigibly violent scenario. It acts as a political lock even if the UK decides, as it nearly did in 2002, to bypass Gibraltar’s rights of sovereignty.

From speaking to the likes of Andy Burnham MP and Mary Creagh MP at the Fabian Society conference ‘Europe for us all’, it is clear that team ‘remain’ have accepted that they (and the Left generally) must make the patriotic case for Britain to stay before it is too late. Director of North East Stronger In, Jessie Joe Jacobs, impressed upon the broad and historic association of Leftists that “we need to give disenchanted communities a new narrative and undo the story they have been fed for 20 years.” Eurosceptics have too long monopolised the media to encourage anti-migrant sentiment among many working-class families across the UK. If the referendum is to be won “on the doorstep”, the remain campaign must appeal to the heart as well as the head of the voters. The IN crew might have the facts on their side about the benefits of the EU but in order to reel voters to the polling stations, the case must be made that British involvement in Europe has played a big part in maintaining peace and co-operation on the continent last century and should continue to in the coming decades.

Alan Johnson was succinct in his recent description of the pro-Europe argument: “we have the lyrics but we lack the tune.” It is high time, as a struggling Europe’s patience grows thin with Britain, that the ensemble gathered as a united front to perform a positive and coherent vision to be part of a changing EU. Proud nations like Gibraltar and Scotland who will get a chance to vote in this referendum are expected to vote in large numbers to remain. If these ‘patriotic’ jurisdictions see Europe as part of their national identity, then perhaps there is gravitas in the argument that appealing to Britishness in a Eurocentric way could be vital in securing a ‘remain’ vote on June 23^rd.

MM