1st Round Regional Elections in France

Some places to go to for news about the first round of the Regional Elections in France which took place yesterday. The Second Round takes place next Sunday (June 27th)

Le Monde - national newspaper which has published all the results online on its website 

News pieces on the elections can be accessed by clicking on the name of the news outlet

Reuters

Politico Europe

The Guardian

BBC

France 24

Newseum

I shot this video on a walk across the city last Thursday

History; Law; Diversity & Journalism

Monday afternoon was spent at the People’s History Museum, Left Bank, Spinningfields, Manchester M3 3ER. There’s an excellent permanent exhibition about Labour (in the wider sense of working people). The Peterloo Massacre (which happened on the site of the conference venue) is described, as is the history of the Trade Unions, the Labour Party and other centre-left and left wing political groups. The handwritten minutes of the first ever Parliamentary Labour Party are on show. It’s an excellent place to take children – and many key political concepts are defined – but will keep adults fascinated. It’s only a short distance from Manchester City Centre, and well worth a couple of hours. There is no admission charge. There is a gift and bookshop. I bought a number of fridge magnets, all with notable political quotes.


In the evening I attended a reception organised by the Law Society, the body which regulates solicitors (the more numerous branch of the legal profession) and their training (including qualifying law degrees). I thoroughly enjoyed “Diversity Nite”, a fun evening with excellent food – which most of the key players in the Labour Party attended. The night finished at the Guardian Reception – at which I had some interesting conversations about whips (the parliamentary type).

Tuesday is the day of the Leader’s Speech.

Monday Morning

Timing is everything in politics. My arrival at the entrance to the secure area around conference coincided with that of David Miliband. He went on to make a superb speech - not just a unifying speech from a closely defeated candidate for the party's top job - but but foreign policy and what can and should be achieved. I shall be reading the text carefully - it had great substance.

I've escaped from the conference for a couple of hours. I'm hoping to call in at the Labour History Museum - I used its archives for a paper I presented in the summer on the first Labour Group in the House of Lords (1924 - formed as Labour entered overnment for the first time). They have the original minutes of the PLP (Parliamentary Labour Party); copies of the conference reports (which always include a parliamentary report) and books of memoirs not generally available. I will be depositing a copy of the paper that the staff at the archives were so helpful in assisting me with. [If you are interested in a copy, drop me a line at info@washminster.com. I will email a copy as soon as I return home - where my PC's hard drive has the file.

Tonight I am attending a Law Society reception (which as a law lecturer at a couple of universities, I have a great interest in training which the Law Society oversees) - then Diversity Night at an Indian Restaurant. Finally I'll be going to the Guardian's late night reception.

Don't Confuse Them

I was horrified to read the following headline in last Tuesday's Guardian "Lap-dancing clubs may take cases to EU Court". My objection isn't to taking cases to court (although challenging an Act of Parliament - in this case the Policing and Crime Act 2010 - offends me as a constitutional lawyer - Parliament is sovereign in the UK - and I want decisions made by my elected representatives, rather than by unaccountable judges). The owners of lap-dancing clubs want to challenge the legislation, claiming that their rights under Article 1 of the first protocol of the European Convention on Human Rights to "the peaceful enjoyment of (their) possessions" are infringed by the requirement to apply for new licenses - and potential closure of their premises where they are located near churches or schools.

My horror arises from the fact the a paper I respect, The Guardian, has confused the European Court of Justice (EU Court) with the European Court of Human Rights. Law students who confuse the two tend to see their assignments or examination essays attracting a FAIL grade for such a fundamental error.

The European Court of Justice sits in Luxembourg. It is the Court for matters relating to the European Union - which has a membership of 27 countries. The EU website can be accessed here - and the ECJ website here. The EU began in 1951 with the Paris Treaty which Formed the European Coal and Steel Community. The additional communities of the European Economic Community and Euratom were formed in 1957 - and the three became known first as the European Communities; then the European Community - and now is known as the European Union.

The European Court of Human Rights sits in Strasbourg. It exists to give rulings on the European Convention on Human Rights. It was the product of the Council of Europe - a body now consisted of 47 members (so much larger than the 27 member EU). It includes the Russian Federation; Turkey, Switzerland, the Ukraine, other non-EU members and micro-states such as Andorra and Monaco. It was founded in 1949 - and the European Convention on Human Rights was drafted in 1950. Britain has been a member of the Council of Europe from the start and played a key role in drafting the Convention.

Sadly the British media often makes this basic error of confusing the two. But it is little wonder that euromyths gain such a hold in Britain - when even the serious press can't get their facts straight.

Super-injunctions Debate

Westminster Hall
Wednesday 21st October
2.30 pm - 4.00 pm

Effects of English libel law on the reporting of parliamentary proceedings.

Issues arising from last weeks row about attempts to gag Parliament.

Guardian article on how super-injunctions are used to gag investigative journalism here.
Roy Greenslade article here.
A view from the States (The Nation) here.

Gags

An extraordinary row has gripped Westminster and the online community. This morning the Guardian reported

The Guardian has been prevented from reporting parliamentary proceedings on legal grounds which appear to call into question privileges guaranteeing free speech established under the 1688 Bill of Rights.

Today's published Commons order papers contain a question to be answered by a minister later this week. The Guardian is prevented from identifying the MP who has asked the question, what the question is, which minister might answer it, or where the question is to be found.

The Guardian is also forbidden from telling its readers why the paper is prevented – for the first time in memory – from reporting parliament. Legal obstacles, which cannot be identified, involve proceedings, which cannot be mentioned, on behalf of a client who must remain secret.

The only fact the Guardian can report is that the case involves the London solicitors Carter-Ruck, who specialise in suing the media for clients, who include individuals or global corporations. The Guardian has vowed urgently to go to court to overturn the gag on its reporting. The editor, Alan Rusbridger, said: "The media laws in this country increasingly place newspapers in a kafkaesque world in which we cannot tell the public anything about information which is being suppressed, nor the proceedings which suppress it. It is doubly menacing when those restraints include the reporting of parliament itself."

The media lawyer Geoffrey Robertson QC said Lord Denning ruled in the 1970s that "whatever comments are made in parliament" can be reported in newspapers without fear of contempt. He said: "Four rebel MPs asked questions giving the identity of 'Colonel B', granted anonymity by a judge on grounds of 'national security'. The DPP threatened the press might be prosecuted for contempt, but most published."

The right to report parliament was the subject of many struggles in the 18th century, with the MP and journalist John Wilkes fighting every authority – up to the king – over the right to keep the Public informed. After Wilkes's battle, wrote the historian Robert Hargreaves, "it gradually became accepted that the public had a constitutional right to know what their elected representatives were up to".

The question can be found in today's Order Paper (Question Book) and is Question 61. I hope we will see today's parliamentarians as ready to stand up for freedom of speech as was the aforementioned John Wilkes.

Ducking Taxes

When President Obama was merely a Senator, he introduced the "Stop Tax Haven Abuse" bill with co-sponsors Carl Levin (Democrat) and Norman Coleman (Republican) - saying that "We need to crack down on individuals and businesses that abuse our tax laws so that those who work hard and play by the rules aren't disadvantaged". Sadly the bill ran out of time.

One area for positive transatlantic activity would be for such legislation to be passed both sides of "the pond". The Guardian has today started a series on the "Tax gap" in the UK Ordinary citizens are having to stump up more (and will be required to pay even more in the future) to make up for household name companies who are taking lots out, but increasingly putting less in. It's worth visiting the Guardian site on the issue at http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/series/tax-gap