UK Labour opts for softest Brexit; EU, Japan cold shoulder Britain

 Britain’s Opposition Labour party has decided to go for continued membership of the European Union single market beyond March 2019, when Britain leaves the EU. The party decision follows marathon discussions led by Labour Shadow Brexit Scretary, Keir Starmer, and party chief Jeremy Corbyn late last week.

The move has sparked an  all-out  intra party fierce debate and even split in both Labour and Tory ranks and is sure to dominate the national scene in the coming days and weeks.

Meanwhile Britian’s ongoing Brexit talks with the European Union seem to be going nowhere with EU negotiators ridiculing British stand as “non-serious. ” Further afield the UK’s upcoming talks with Japan for enhanced trade relations appear to be heading for a cold response with Japan giving priority to talks with EU before anything else.

In its clearest stand yet on the Brexit issue, Labour  would not only continue to accept the EU’s free movement rules, accept the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice on trade and economic issues, and pay into the EU budget for a period of years after Brexit, it  even leaves the door open for continued EU membership with some leeway for immigration control, if accepted by the EU.

The Liberal party under its new leader Vince Cable has already called for a fresh referendum  to reverse the earlier decision. The Scottish and Welsh First ministers have long favoured to keep Britain in the EU. The former Labour leader  Ed Milliband and the mayor  of London, Sadiq Khan, have also made their position clear in favour  of a fresh referendum or remaining in the EU.

Meanwhile the uncertainty created by Britain’s internal voices against immigration  has led to outflow of European immigrants who feel unwelcome in the UK. Already nearly 50,000 have gone back to their homelands in the recent few months. Liberal leader Cable has even  described the return of the much needed European workers as “brain drain.”

  

Labour’s  policy shift , first revealed in the Observer newspaper on Sunday, aims at softening the impact of  hard exit on the UK economy. The move  comes as music to the ears of not only  pro-EU Labour backers, but could sway a sizeable faction within the Tory ranks who have already raised voices against any hard Brexit. It  could virtually pave the way for Labour leader   Jeremy Corbyn’s  party  leaving  open the option of the UK remaining a member of the customs union and single market for good, beyond the end of the transitional period.

 In the new scenario voters will have a clear choice between the two main parties on the UK’s future relations with the EU. Till now,   since last year’s referendum, Labour’s approach has been criticised for lacking clarity and looked no different from that of the Tories.

The scene is set for a highly charged national debate when the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill returns to the House of Commons for its second reading on 7 September.

The upheaval triggered by Labour’s policy shift inevitably will lead  to an internal shake-out  within the Tory party. Pro-EU Tory MPs, who also support remaining in the single market, will come under intense pressure to come out and declare their stand clearly. The Tory Remainers or anti- Brexiters have a sizeable strength within the party and could make the position  of Prime Minister Theresa May even shakier that it already is.

Immigration has been the long obsession of the UK and remains so till this day, though opposition voices have begun to surface now after decades of a virtual xenophobia. Foreign students , especially from the Commonwealth countries and parts of Africa, have been special targets of Tory governments who have for long declared their resolve to cut immigration to tens of thousands from hundreds of thousands, including overseas students said to be  overstaying in huge numbers.

 A new government survey has just revealed that 97 per cent students actually return home after completing their studies. Barely three per cent students overstay compared with the government’s widely circulated fears of nearly “40 per cent overstayers,”  Prime Minister Theresa May, who previously had been Home Secretary for six long years,  has  been one of the chief hardliners against immigrants.

Tailpiece.  A top ranking nationalist party leader of UKIP, the anti-immigrant  party, John Rees-Evans, has said immigrants should be offered grants of up to pounds 9,000 plus health insurance other benefits to return home permanently.

Brexit claim exposed; Leavers' image dented

Even as Britain’s battle over its EU divorce bill rages amidst confusing claims and counter claims, Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson is attracting fresh attention. Johnson, who  is the chief guest at the London based  Indian Journalists Association dinner on 15th August,  is being accused of telling ‘a lie’ and  misleading the British public in the run-up to last year’s referendum,  over his claim that the EU was costing Britain pounds 350 million a week. That money, he and his fellow Brexiters said, could fund the ailing National Health Service for a full year. Johnson was often pictured  beside the Brexit battle bus during his countrywide campaign tour.

Figures released by the  government’s Treasury department say that Britain’s net payment amounted to about half that or  pounds156m a week, after taking into account the EU’s payments to Britain.  

Labour MP Wes Streeting, a member of the Treasury Select Committee, said:  “It is now plain to see that this claim was a lie, plain and simple... It is time for the leading lights of  Vote Leave to hold their hands up and apologise for misleading the public.

“We do not send  pounds 350m a week to the EU and therefore will not have pounds 350m a week to spend on the NHS or anything else.”  The claim was a central plank of the Brexit drive.

One of the latest divorce bill cost figures doing the rounds which suggests a bill of pounds 36billion. It has been swiftly  attacked by some and downplayed by others. While the Prime Minister Theresa May  herself is still on holiday, her office spokesman plainly said: “I don’t recognise it (figure).”  As other issues like the free movement of workers or the number of years for the transition arrangements remain unresolved, Gunther Oettinger, the European Commissioner for budget and human resources, has insisted that the UK “must honour its obligations” made as a member of the EU. “London will have to transfer funds to Brussels at least until 2020.”  

Striking a note of realism, Sir Simon Fraser, Britain’s former Foreign Office Permanent Secretary, observed that splits within the cabinet were damaging  Brexit talks. “I don’t  think (the negotiations) have begun particularly promising, frankly, on the British side.”    

Media Mogul Rupert Murdoch is seldom away from news headlines. Currently his empire is being investigated over his 11.7 billion pound bid to acquire 100 per cent control over Britain’s Sky news TV network, 39 per cent of which he and his sons already own.

The Department of Digital, Culture, Media and Sport is investigating into Murdoch family’s suitability to buy Sky after allegations of sexual harassment at 21^st Century Fox television owned  by the group in the USA. Labour MPs in the UK and  campaign group Avaaz have criticised an earlier inquiry by media regulator Ofcom which had cleared the family as “fit and proper” for the ownership. The scandal over the hacking of the phone of the murdered school girl Milly Dowler  which led to the closure of Murdoch owned top selling Sunday paper News of the World also led to the dropping of the Sky bid then.

As if that was not enough, the Fox News report on the murder of a Democrat party aide, Seth Rich, in Washington last year has led to allegations of right-wing bias in the presentation of the incident. Right-wing media groups were alleged to have blamed Seth Rich for leaking Democrat emails to Wikileaks. The Fox report was alleged to have implied that Seth Rich  had been killed by Hillary Clinton supporters as revenge..

Wading into this welter of allegations, Britain’s former Labour leader, Ed Miliband, said: “ Six years ago people vowed that the anguish caused to the grieving families like the Dowlers by the Murdoch empire would never be allowed again. Now in 2017 we see another grieving family - the parents of Seth Rich - also suffering deep anguish at the hands of the empire without so much as an apology. If ever an episode showed why the Murdochs  should not be allowed more control of our media, it is this.”    

Critics of the Murdoch bid fear the UK’s Tory government is likely give it green signal.

Murdoch senior has also been drawing attention in the theatre world. His Sun newspaper’s birth and  its circulation battle with the Daily Mirror is the gripping stuff of a play titled Ink which has just finished a short but highly successful run at London’s Almeida theatre. It’s a peep into the mind of not just the paper’s owner but also of his chosen editor and indeed the entire editorial and managerial team.

Starting a tabloid daily in 1969 in England, the colonial journalist Murdoch (played by Bertie Carvel) from Australia, the ‘sheep country’,  hires a northern English journalist aptly named Larry Lamb ( Richard Coyle). Both cut a good hearted on-stage joke of ‘Sheep and Lamb’ joining hands in the new venture. Happily peppering their dialogues with a few F words, the bumptious duo start their show over a lobster dinner and a select bottle. They carry their project of disrupting the street (Fleet Street, London’s historic newspaper hub now reduced to a bankers’ bazaar bereft any trace of news ink). By Jove, they not only disrupted  the street, they have transformed pop tabloids into a new species.

 The battle with the Mirror was rapidly won with the introduction of  Page 3 display of the female body in ever different poses. The picture stories are embellished with big headlines and  sharp, short, sexy captions.   The Mirror tried to fight it off  with the addition of a new free magazine in old, sensitive style. But the Sun won the battle hands down with its  saucy stories or as Editor Larry Lamb winds up the play with  his secret of success formula: “People want stories.”

However, years later  down the line Murdoch’s Sun  has lost the circulation race to The Daily Mail, the ultra-right-wing tabloid. Murdoch’s Sun is now trying to fight back by bringing part of Page 3 to Front Page itself. But the Mail is hitting back  by bringing a slice of its own sexy product to its Front Page. Interesting times ahead, as the Chinese say.     

Tailpiece: Seven Roman Catholic priests, dressed in black robes and dog collars, walked into a pub in Cardiff  but were refused service  by the manager  who took them for a bunch of fancy dress party jokers. Recognising something was amiss, the pub’s  deputy manager stepped in with an apology and a round of drinks - for free – for the holy seven.   

Film review:The Black Prince - A card board production

The theme of the historical and period film The Black Prince  is richly evocative the life and times of Maharaja Duleep Singh, son of Maharaja Ranjit Singh, the Sher-e-Punjab ( Lion of Punjab) is making the rounds across Britain.  The family’s fall from fortune -- from the awe-inspiring rule of Ranjit Singh to the pitiful ascendance of the boy king as a ruler at the age of five -- is a truly touching tale, worth a powerful film.

Duleep Singh’s removal -- abduction – and conversion to Christianity with love and care amid opulence and indulgence is a story of which the empire and the conquered subject could both look back with a sense of pride. Queen Victoria who  affectionately took the boy prince under her wings was more than generous to her Black Prince  when she granted the young prince his wish to see his mother and eventually  brought her to the British shores and  even had tea with her. It was a gesture almost beyond compare – imagine two imperial women  vying for the affection of the same young man!

Alas such a powerful story has simply been lost in the current film showing  all across Britain and the Indian sub-continent, including Pakistan. Writer/Director Kavi  Raz had  the right idea delivered the wrong way . The choice of singer-songwriter Satinder Sartaaj as lead actor  Duleep is simply inappropriate.  The man  does not speak like the Prince. There is no anger, no impatience, no fire in him. The ‘Lion in the  heart of the boy’ promised  early  in the film simply does not roar.

Duleep,  by all historical accounts , was a sturdy young man , fond of hunting and  game shooting at the sprawling Elveden Hall estate in Suffolk, British countryside . Not a weakling, brooding character weighed down by loss and sorrow all the time.

When the film came to the deeply emotional episode of mother and son (Rani Jindan and Duleep) meeting after years of separation, both actors were less than equal to the occasion. Shabana Azmi as  mother Jindan started well by portraying  an old and frail mother unable even to clearly see her son due to poor vision caused by long years of unbearable  separation. But once the two had touched hands, one would have expected them to caress and  hug each other. Yet nothing happened. No all-consuming embrace , no kisses or tears of joy at reunion.  No words like “My put (son), my Lal” -- any Punjabi mother’s utterance from her heart strings. Even  experienced actor Shabana failed.  She should have asked the Director Kavi  Raz to enhance the script with sorely needed additional words and gestures.  

Amanda Root as Queen Victoria was not much more than adequate. Victoria and Rani Jindan’s brief meeting over a cup of tea was too controlled. Here were two women, indeed two Queens, vying for the affection of the young Prince Duleep, yet no eye movement, no vibes.

And a glaring historical omission. The Punjab of Duleep’s father Maharaja Ranjit Singh was an overwhelmingly Muslim majority area and he was the leader of all communities, not just the Sikhs. Some of Ranjit Singh’s closest ministers, including his personal physician, were Muslims. The court language of  his domain which stretched from Khyber to the banks of Sutlej, if not more in several directions, was Persian – not Gurmukhi, Hindi or Urdu. Sadly his legacy and Duleep’s heritage is shown to be bereft of any Muslim contribution.

Today Punjab’s heritage seekers include the Punjabi diaspora in Britain, including prominent members of parliament. Virendra Sharma,  MP for Ealing Southall and chair of the Indo-British All Party Parliamentary Group, has offered to explore the idea of taking the remains of Duleep Singh from Suffolk where he is buried, back to Punjab. He is hopeful that his parliamentary colleagues in Britain would support the move.    

  Back to the film of the moment. Had the director, producers and actors read the beautifully written and touching little novel, The Exile, by Navtej  Sarna, India’s Ambassador to the USA, or read Khushwant Singh on Punjab’s  history, it could have been a much better film, doing justice to the film makers and filmgoers.

A  pulsating, soulful life story reduced to a card board production.

.........................................................................................................

Brexit Britain going through 'witthdrawal' pains

  

 Badly battered Prime Minister Theresa May whose image suffers daily media blows is finding herself out-manoeuvred at European Union negotiation tables in Brussels by the regional constituents of the United Kingdom. The leaders of Scotland and Wales have been quick to gang up against Mrs May who is increasingly being seen as a leader of England only. Northren Ireland, the other constituent, of course, has managed to have the first bite of the cherry by extracting the one billion pound bung  for its support to the government. 

The First Minsters of Scotland and Wales have revealed their hand by issuing a joint declaration on the “European Union Withdrawal Bill” – the official title of the Brexit or  Repeal Bill -- that their governments  “ cannot recommend that legislative consent is given to the bill as it stands.”  The Scottish First Minister Nicola Sturgeon and the Welsh First Minister Carwyn Jones have both questioned  London government’s authority in Brussels talks and dubbed the bill as a “naked power grab.”  Edinburgh and Cardiff governments want to dictate their own terms to safeguard their regional interests.

Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn was equally swift to pre-empt any deal by Mrs May’s government when he flew to Brussels to hold talks with Michel Barnier, the EU’s chief negotiator. At his flamboyant best, Corbyn presented his football club Arsenal shirt  and a copy of Labour  election manifesto to Barnier.  Corbyn’s  150-minute meeting with Barnier is said to have indicated Labour’s search for a potential compromise on the UK’s access to the EU single market after Brexit. Of course, both Corbyn and Barnier denied that their talks amounted to any parallel negotiations or undermined formal government talks which will continue over the next weeks and months.

The Liberals like Sir Vince Cable, the probable  next party leader who has family connections with India, are asking for a second referendum to reverse the entire Brexit project. “ I’m beginning to think Brexit may never happen,” he told a BBC TV show. The whole question of  EU membership would once again arise if living standards suffered  and unemployment rose, he said. But  after the battering the party received at the June elections its voice doesn’t carry much weight.

Meanwhile, former Prime Minister Tony Blair has jumped into the fray by suggesting a compromise with EU. Himself a pro-European, he believes that Brexit need not be too hard and claims that EU can be persuaded to offer some leeway or concession to Britain over the right of free movement of workers (EU migrants). At the same time  Blair has paid a left-handed compliment to Corbyn for boosting the labour party at the general election while warning that an “unchanged Corbyn programme” would prove disastrous for the country.  

“I pay tribute to Jeremy Corbyn’s temperament in the (election) campaign... and to the enthusiasm it generated.” But his supporters “shouldn’t exaggerate it,” and “ his critics, including me, shouldn’t understate it.” Blair is known for his  opposition to Brexit, which he has previously urged his supporters to overturn.

However, overturning Brexit doesn’t seem to be anywhere on the horizon; the die has been cast and Britain  must  grapple with making the best of  the choice of its own making. And a long haul it looks to be.  

The confusion is being further confounded by differing voices within the ruling Tory party. Boris Johnson, the Foreign Secretary, said the other day that the EU could “go whistle” if it demanded too high a price for withdrawing from the bloc. There is talk about the divorce bill costing as high as one hundred billion euro.  Johnson’s remarks drew an immediate retort from Brussels boss Barnier who said, without mentioning any figures, that he was “not hearing any whistling, just a clock ticking.”  

Elaborating the EU stand, Barnier said: “People have used words like ransom... It’s not an exit bill, it’s not a punishment, it’s not revenge, it’s simply settling accounts.”

EU officials have made it clear that failure to acknowledge the principle of continuing budget obligations would prevent talks from proceeding at all and could stop discussions on issues like a free trade deal. “The three priorities for the first phase are indivisible,” declared Barnier. He was referring to the divorce bill, EU citizens’ rights in the UK and issues like the Northern Ireland border.

 The British Chancellor, Philip Hammond, who was being reviled in the Tory press before the election, has suddenly regained listeners in the party for his soft stance on Brexit to retain London’s place as a financial centre and to stop the exodus of  banking sector jobs to Europe. Trade and industry organisations have already voiced their support to the Chancellor’s strategy. Another  sector which has  warned  against any hasty decisions relates to Euratom treaty on the movement of European scientists and materials. Leaving Euratom in haste could see the loss of as many as 5,ooo highly skilled jobs. Other issues, including security and the role of European Court of Justice, are grave cause for concern.

It’s just the start of divorce talks, how it unravels is anybody’s guess.

Private Eye, Britain’s leading satirical magazine which has delighted, informed and alerted its readers for more than 50 years, in its irreverent take on ‘Britain’s Brexit Strategy’  carries in its latest issue a mock-up of two people with food in their hands, one under the sub-heading ‘THEN’ showing ‘Cake and eat it’ and the other under tag line ‘NOW’ telling ‘Eat humble pie.’

Tail-piece: Britain’s dress-down spree, which started with the House of Commons Speaker making tie an optional that can be dispensed with, has moved to broader fields. London Transport’s Tube or metro rail has dropped its centuries old greeting phrase ‘Ladies and Gentlemen.’ From now on it is “Good morning everyone,”  in deference to the gender-neutral campaign of  LGBT groups, supported by Mayor Sadiq Khan. 

Britain:From hung parliament to ‘bung’ parliament...

The talk of the town or rather of the country in the UK since last month’s  election has veered from hung parliament to what is being called ‘bung’ parliament. The word bung is as old as beer kegs or casques and its dictionary meaning is the wooden cork or stopper of the beer or wine barrel to prevent the liquid from overflowing. In the current parliamentary parlance, however, it has acquired a sort of reverse connotation to allow the flow of one billion pounds to Northern Ireland the votes of whose ten, anti-abortion, ultra-Catholic MPs have saved Prime Minister Theresa May’s Tory government, at least for the time being.

A further grant of about one million pounds a year has also been agreed to cover the cost of travel for abortion in mainland Britain required by about 1,000 N. Ireland women every year.

The billion pound allocation to N. Ireland has acquired the sobriquet of  bung or bribe to save Mrs May’s government. The bribe translates into 540 pounds for every person  in N.Ireland. A mega case of cash-for-votes. All too familiar in India !

How long Mrs May’s government or her premiership lasts is anybody’s guess. But the Brexit project of Britain to leave the European Union hasn’t started well. Britain has lost the first round, with Europe demanding issues of its three million migrants in the UK and the UK-EU divorce bill to be discussed first before going further. The British offer of  allowing EU migrants to remain in the UK, subject to completing a five-year residency clause, in return for reciprocal rights for UK migrants in EU, has not enthused the Europeans, in fact quite the reverse.

Within Britain, the talk among almost all parties is about how to enjoy the trading benefits of EU’s single market without remaining in the EU. To have the cake and eat it too !

Britain’s Brexit decision, after 44 years of EU membership, is its own and has its costs too. During all those years Britain extracted a fair amount of flexibility  or ‘independence’ while remaining a full member and exercising veto on various issues. It opted out of  euro, the EU’s common currency, and also out of Schengen travel arrangements which make a single visa good for all EU countries. Thus Britain retains its own sterling pound, besides keeping its own separate visa which makes Schengen visa non-applicable for UK travel.

Reminding Britain of such major concessions, former Southern Ireland Prime Minister John Burton has said that time has come for the UK to realise what it will be giving up. “ It will lose common arrangements on everything from flights taking off and landing, lorries on the toad, the safety of food, the movement of workers and many more matters on which agreed standards have been built up over the past 44 years. It will lose the benefits of hundreds of treaties the EU has negotiated with other countries.”  

“The UK will have to negotiate a new deal on every topic, then agree a procedure for subsequently amending, enforcing, and interpreting each one.”

And that’s not all. Major issues like that of  security and intelligence cooperation to fight the new menace of terrorist attacks will have to be dealt with, besides the much larger issues of  defence and technological cooperation.

 In common with other mega cities, London, like Indian metros, is grappling with the menace of air pollution. The British capital’s mayor, Sadiq Khan, is proposing  a 12.50 pound (Rs 1,000) charge on most polluting vehicles entering congestion zones of the city from April 2019.  The announcement coincides with a report which reveals that seven in ten hospitals and health centres in inner London areas are blighted by illegal levels of toxic air.

Marking the National Clean Air day, the report found that as many as 577 hospitals and medical facilities were in areas where nitrogen dioxide (NO2) levels breached EU guidelines. Additionally, all 800 health facilities were in areas where PM-10 particulates level was above WHO limit. Nitrogen dioxide and PM-2.5, identified as major pollutants, are both found in diesel  emissions and linked with the deaths of nearly 9,500 people every year in the British capital, according to a King’s College, London, study.

Greenpeace campaigner Baroness Jenny Jones called for local government action to encourage people to drive less and use public transport to reduce pollution in hotspot areas. Already in 15 London boroughs or municipalities, parents who keep their car engines running while waiting outside school gates face crackdown by ‘ant-idling’ patrols. Drivers who refuse to turn off their engines can face penalties of up to 20 pounds per each offence.

The conditions in Indian cities like Delhi, with ever burgeoning population, are more acute and more complex due to a dismal lack of buses and over-use of cars as a status symbol by the urban elites. Badly maintained diesel or petrol cars and failure to switch to electric or  hybrid vehicles are challenges that must be faced for a modicum of healthy living in Indian cities.

Tailpiece: To tie or not to tie has become a parliamentary question. The Speaker of the House of Commons, John Bercow, has allowed MPs to dispense with the ties, if they so wish. Comment from angry quarters was swift. “Are you going to wear tracksuits next?” If put to a vote, the issue might end in a tie !   

............................................................................................

Britain on the edge – from hard to soft Brexit

I am not a gambling man, certainly not given to putting money on political bets in spite of being a journalist all my working years. But don’t know why, I made an exception to the unwritten rule this month. Reading newspapers and watching television for about a month since my arrival in London, like so many others I was intrigued to make a guess who might win the 8^th June  British general election. Most newspapers and television channels seemed to swallow Prime Minister Theresa May and her ruling Tory party line that she was headed for a comfortable majority, probably a landslide victory.

So, a couple of days before the election I put a ten pound bet, not on any party’s straight victory, but on a hung parliament.

 The final ten days of the campaign before election day witnessed many television debates featuring party political leaders, but a head-to-head debate between Prime Minister May and her chief rival Jeremy Corbyn of the Labour party had been declined by Mrs May who offered instead to be interviewed separately, though sitting in the same studio, by the same anchors. Her reluctance for a face to face debate with Labour leader Corbyn gave chance to the headline writer of Metro, a free  news daily with about a million circulation across the country, for its splash headline: “THE LADY IS NOT FOR TURNING...UP.”  (The headline was a throwback to former Tory Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher who is still remembered for refusing to change any of her policies by declaring on her own behalf that The  Lady is Not for Turning.)  Theresa May, who didn’t turn up for a head to head debate and who unlike Mrs Thatcher, had in fact at least partly reversed her decisions on old age care benefits (dubbed dementia tax) and pensions.

As election day came nearer , Mrs May’s image began looking slightly shakier from “strong and stable”, in her own words, to wobble and stumble as humorously critiqued by sketch writer John Crace of the Guardian newspaper.

Election day and night came, and by the following morning, a hung parliament was clear as daylight. I had won my ten-pound bet with a net gain of 40 pounds. Labour party rank and file and leader Jeremy Corbyn, who had been shown thumbs down by nearly two-thirds of the sitting Labour MPs,  have been cock-a-hoop ever since, ready for the next general election expected sooner than later. 

As expected, Prime Minister May remains under open and unspoken attacks from within her own party for her election gamble which has badly backfired. She is now compelled to seek the help of 10 MPs from Northern Ireland to stay in power, with  a wafer thin majority. Former Tory Chancellor (finance minister) George Osborne, now the editor of  Evening Standard , London’s  free newspaper, called her a ‘Dead Woman Walking.’ On her own part she has apologised to her party and MPs who lost their seats. Truly contrite, she has admitted that she got the party and the country into the mess and she would stay to ge it out of the mess. But in brutal politics that is never enough. Her days are clearly numbered. 

Meanwhile, Her Majesty the Queen and her fans in the racing community and the bookies are not amused as all this mess has cast a shadow over her scheduled attendance at the opening of the Royal Ascot racing session. An event, perhaps no less important than the opening of the Parliament iself. Incidentally, till recently, the Queen opening speech had to be ready three clear days before the delivery as it was written on vellum – calf, goat or sheep skin – which required three days to dry. A hoary tradition going back 500 years, stopped earlier this year only. 

Simultaneously, the great British debate over Brexit – leaving European Union – is unremittingly urgent. The hard Brexit idea, which Prime minister May had dangled before the election when she described herself  as “ a bloody difficult woman” vis-a-vis EU, seems to be wilting fast. A much softer Brexit is on the cards after the PM’s landslide from hubris to humiliation. The shape of things to come could take two years or more to clear. The new French President Emmanuel Macron, however, has made  a kiss-and make-up offer to Mrs May during  her one-day visit to Paris by keeping the EU door open should Britain rethink.

Sadly amid all these political goings-on of historic importance, Britain has been hit by a series of tragic events. Three terrorist suicide bomber blows – Westminster Bridge/ Parliament House attack by a lone suicide wolf, Manchester Arena carnage killing children at a music evening, and another attack by three suicide bombers at London Bridge/Borough market– within three months before the general election.  Then, hard on the heels, a 24-storey tower block going up in flames in London less than a week after the election, the dead and the missing still being counted.

Britain’s cup of woe is overflowing. Nothing but prayers and sympathies all round! 

..................................................

        

         

India:Stop hiding poll funders, start PR democracy

India’s Election Commission’s call to reveal the names of corporations and individuals funding political parties for electioneering has come not too soon. It should have been made nearly three months ago, immediately after the government’s amendment of the Representation of the People Act (RP) and Companies Act during the Budget session in February this year. The two Acts work like a Rogue’s Charter exempting political parties from disclosing donations received through electoral bonds and without any cap on corporate contributions to parties.

Equally urgent is the need to bring in the system of Proportional Representation (PR) and replace the current first past the post election system which ignores the strength or number of votes won by a party’s candidates and awards almost absolute victory to a single party even though it has failed to win any commanding share of the total vote. The PR system, as practised in countries like Germany, enables even smaller parties to have their say in the governance of the country. The winner doesn’t take all in the PR system.

But first the need to root out the corrupt system of hidden money bags funding political parties without fear of public scrutiny. The Election Commission has rightly, if tamely, asked the government to “reconsider” and “modify” the RP and Companies Acts as they discourage transparency in political donations. The two Acts rushed by Parliament through a Money Bill blatantly and brazenly bypass the need for transparency of political donations which have been a hallmark of national, state and even local elections throughout the country in recent years.

Under the existing rules befor the amendment of the RP Act, political parties had to file contribution reports of donors and donations above Rs 20,000. This was amended in the Budget session with anew provision that exempts political parties from disclosing donations received as electoral bonds, even  above the prescribed limit, from government companies and even foreign sources.

The devil in the detail of the amendments lies in the provision that the donor can by electoral bonds and gift to a political party without the receiver knowing where the gift came from. How innocent and gullible!

On top of all this, the new rules also remove any limit on corporate donations to political parties. Earlier, a company could contribute not more than 7.5 per cent of its net profit over the last three years.Under this change, the EC rather boldly points out: “This opens up the possibility of shell companies being set up for the sole purpose of making donations to  political parties ...”

The Commission, in its call or recommendation in a letter just days ago,  has asked for the restoration of  the earlier provisions which ensured that only profitable companies with proven track record could provide donations to political parties.

The need for transparency and  some control on poll funding for parties favoured by a few industry houses or corporations is too obvious. The influence of money power in elections – to the detriment of real democratic choice --  has always been apparent, but never so starkly overpowering as since India’s 2014 general election. For months before the polling day newspapers and television channels had swung their loyalties behind particular groups or alliances. Full page advertisements in papers in a variety of languages across the country were a common occurrence day after day and week after week. The buying of private television channel time, which was much more costly, was no less common.

So who was funding – indeed has been funding for the last three years and more – all this activity?  Party political expense reports to the election commission are just a minor fraction of the lakhs of crores or billions of rupees actually spent. You don’t have to be a genius in accountancy to sus out that! Nor have you to be a genius to guess which party got most funding from which industrial house or a group of companies.

Something has to be done here and now before democracy becomes capital-o-cracy and one-party, nay one-man,  rule. It’s already late but perhaps not too late before this system gets firmly entrenched. And it won’t be a lasting victory for the current beneficiary of ‘nameless’ corporate funders. A day will soon follow when the beneficiary giant itself would be toppled by the industrial funders themselves as has happened in so many other lands. After all it’s always the piper who calls the tune.

The other vital element of  democracy, besides the funding challenge, is the choice of the voting system to elect representative leaders. The "winner takes all" model of Britain and  other  Anglo-Saxon or Western countries doesn’t fit all.  Such a system as adopted and adapted in India may well allow each constituency to send a representative to parliament with a simple plurality of votes. But it also means that votes for the losing candidates and parties are, well, lost. Such a loss, affecting large number of  voters , quite often in  neck-and-neck  contests, is clearly unrepresentative of democratic spirit. Surely, the losers’ voice  can’t  be and shouln’t be dismissed as of no importance. Some way must be found to hear their voice in the legislatures.

  The proportional-representation system is the answer where no votes are lost, because all parties and candidates are represented according to their share of the votes. The PR system operative in Germany, Austria, Ireland and in many states  in the USA is certainly and urgently worth our search. It need not be a copy cat of any single country’s  system. It can be a hybrid choice as is our existing parliamentary system which has the best elements from many other countries added to a solid foundation based on our own traditions and ethos.

No time to lose on both fronts.

...................................................................................................................................................