Why the UK should boycott Euro 2012 in Ukraine

Cameron should join Merkel and take a stand on political repression.

Does Roy Hodgson speak Ukrainian? The question arises as England’s new multilingual manager now faces the horror problem of all sports bureaucracy – namely whether England should play in Ukraine given the alarming reports about political repression there.

Last October, I asked David Cameron about the harsh treatment of the former Ukrainian prime minister, Yulia Tymoshenko. She had been placed on a political show trial by the current Ukrainian president, Viktor Yanokuvych, her deadly life-long rival. The charge was poor administration of the complex energy dossier from the time Ms Tymoshenko was prime minister.

The Prime Minister’s reply was robust. Cameron said “‘We completely agree that the treatment of Mrs Tymoshenko, whom I have met on previous occasions, is absolutely disgraceful. The Ukrainians need to know that if they leave the situation as it is, it will severely affect their relationship not only with the UK but with the European Union.”

So will Cameron now join other European leaders and take a stand on the ill-treatment of Ms Tymoshenko who is now suffering from severe health problems as Yanukovych regime increase pressure on her? Hillary Clinton has now expressed concern about Ms Tymoshenko’s health as well as the continuing prosecution by the Yanukovych clique of the former prime minister’s aides and associates.

Not content with winning power Yanukovich is determined to take revenge on anyone who challenged him in his years of opposition after the Orange Revolution. In Ms Tymoshenko he rightly sees a serious opponent. But the Ukrainian ruler like his friend, Vladimir Putin, whose inauguration as Russian president next Monday will be greeted by protests, refuses to abide by the normal rules of Council of Europe member states and accept that an opposition should exist as part of democratic politics. Politics is personal in Russia and Ukraine and where better to dump a political opponent than in prison.

The question for us is: will Cameron live up to his word? Will the treatment of Ms Tymosenko “severely affect” the UK-Ukraine relationship as he told the Commons six months ago? Many of his fellow centre-right leaders in Europe think so. Angela Merkel has said she will not go to the Euro 2012 contest as long as the Ukrainians continue to hold Ms Tymoshenko in prison in dire conditions. She is joined by the EU Commission President, Jose Manuel Barroso and Cameron’s close political Eurosceptic ally, Vaclav Klaus, the president of the Czech Republic. The presidents of Austria and Germany have also said they will boycott the Ukraine matches.

It is a problem for England as all the first round matches are being played in Ukraine even if the team themselves are going to stay in Poland for the contest. The real responsibility lies with UEFA who should threaten to relocate the matches out of Ukraine if Ms Tymoshenko is not  released and allowed to have proper medical care.

But as with the Bahrain F1 Grand Prix, the wilful blindness of sports organisers to how they can end up boosting repressive regimes should be examined. In 1938 the England football team in Germany were ordered to give the Hitler salute by the Football Association. Whatever their bleating about not getting involved in politics, the 3 Lions will be used by Yanukovich to boost his repressive regime Today, while William Hague and Cameron wallow in their (perfectly correct) denunciations of Syria they are silent on Bahrain. In China, Cameron refused to mention the name of Liu Xiaobo, the Nobel Peace Laureate who is rotting in the Chinese gulag. At least Mrs Thatcher raised the case of Andrei Sakharov and Malcolm Rifkind when a junior FCO minister in the 1980s went to Poland and expressed support for the banned Solidarity trade union.

Today, Britain’s foreign policy has all but given up on human rights. Instead William Hague’s mercantilism -- trade above democracy and human rights -- prevails. Almost certainly the Hague mercantilist wing of the British state regret that Cameron was so forthright in his support for Yulia Tymoshenko in the Commons. But the Prime Minister should stick to his position and join Angela Merkel and other EU leaders in boycotting Euro 2012. It may be too much to ask Hodgson and Wayne Rooney to take a stand. But how wonderful if England’s political-sporting nexus could speak for freedom and decency rather than hiding behind the lie that sport and politics should not mix.

Denis MacShane is MP for Rotherham and former Europe Minister. Follow him at @denismacshane and www.denismacshane.com

A supporter of Ukrainian jailed opposition leader Yulia Tymoshenkoshouts as she holds a picture of her during a rally in front of a court in Kiev. Photograph: Getty Images.
Denis MacShane is MP for Rotherham and was a minister at Foreign and Commonwealth Office
GETTY
Show Hide image

North Yorkshire has approved the UK’s first fracking tests in five years. What does this mean?

Is fracking the answer to the UK's energy future? Or a serious risk to the environment?

Shale gas operation has been approved in North Yorkshire, the first since a ban introduced after two minor earthquakes in 2011 were shown to be caused by fracking in the area. On Tuesday night, after two days of heated debate, North Yorkshire councillors finally granted an application to frack in the North York Moors National Park.

The vote by the Tory-dominated council was passed by seven votes to four, and sets an important precedent for the scores of other applications still awaiting decision across the country. It also gives a much-needed boost to David Cameron’s 2014 promise to “go all out for shale”. But with regional authorities pitted against local communities, and national government in dispute with global NGOs, what is the wider verdict on the industry?

What is fracking?

Fracking, or “hydraulic fracturing”, is the extraction of shale gas from deep underground. A mixture of water, sand and chemicals is pumped into the earth at such high pressure that it literally fractures the rocks and releases the gas trapped inside.

Opponents claim that the side effects include earthquakes, polluted ground water, and noise and traffic pollution. The image the industry would least like you to associate with the process is this clip of a man setting fire to a running tap, from the 2010 US documentary Gasland

Advocates dispute the above criticisms, and instead argue that shale gas extraction will create jobs, help the UK transition to a carbon-neutral world, reduce reliance on imports and boost tax revenues.

So do these claims stands up? Let’s take each in turn...

Will it create jobs? Yes, but mostly in the short-term.

Industry experts imply that job creation in the UK could reflect that seen in the US, while the medium-sized production company Cuadrilla claims that shale gas production would create 1,700 jobs in Lancashire alone.

But claims about employment may be exaggerated. A US study overseen by Penn State University showed that only one in seven of the jobs projected in an industry forecast actually materialised. In the UK, a Friends of the Earth report contends that the majority of jobs to be created by fracking in Lancashire would only be short-term – with under 200 surviving the initial construction burst.

Environmentalists, in contrast, point to evidence that green energy creates more jobs than similar-sized fossil fuel investments.  And it’s not just climate campaigners who don’t buy the employment promise. Trade union members also have their doubts. Ian Gallagher, Secretary of Blackburn and District Trade Unions Council, told Friends of the Earth that: “Investment in the areas identified by the Million Climate Jobs Campaign [...] is a far more certain way of addressing both climate change and economic growth than drilling for shale gas.”

Will it deliver cleaner energy? Not as completely as renewables would.

America’s “shale revolution” has been credited with reversing the country’s reliance on dirty coal and helping them lead the world in carbon-emissions reduction. Thanks to the relatively low carbon dioxide content of natural gas (emitting half the amount of coal to generate the same amount of electricity), fracking helped the US reduce its annual emissions of carbon dioxide by 556 million metric tons between 2007 and 2014. Banning it, advocates argue, would “immediately increase the use of coal”.

Yet a new report from the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (previously known for its opposition to wind farm applications), has laid out a number of ways that the UK government can meet its target of 80 per cent emissions reduction by 2050 without necessarily introducing fracking and without harming the natural world. Renewable, home-produced, energy, they argue, could in theory cover the UK’s energy needs three times over. They’ve even included some handy maps:


Map of UK land available for renewable technologies. Source: RSPB’s 2050 Energy Vision.

Will it deliver secure energy? Yes, up to a point.

For energy to be “sustainable” it also has to be secure; it has to be available on demand and not threatened by international upheaval. Gas-fired “peaking” plants can be used to even-out input into the electricity grid when the sun doesn’t shine or the wind is not so blowy. The government thus claims that natural gas is an essential part of the UK’s future “energy mix”, which, if produced domestically through fracking, will also free us from reliance on imports tarnished by volatile Russian politics.

But, time is running out. Recent analysis by Carbon Brief suggests that we only have five years left of current CO2 emission levels before we blow the carbon budget and risk breaching the climate’s crucial 1.5°C tipping point. Whichever energy choices we make now need to starting brining down the carbon over-spend immediately.

Will it help stablise the wider economy? Yes, but not forever.

With so many “Yes, buts...” in the above list, you might wonder why the government is still pressing so hard for fracking’s expansion? Part of the answer may lie in their vested interest in supporting the wider industry.

Tax revenues from UK oil and gas generate a large portion of the government’s income. In 2013-14, the revenue from license fees, petroleum revenue tax, corporation tax and the supplementary charge accounted for nearly £5bn of UK exchequer receipts. The Treasury cannot afford to lose these, as evidenced in the last budget when George Osborne further subsidied North Sea oil operations through increased tax breaks.

The more that the Conservatives support the industry, the more they can tax it. In 2012 DECC said it wanted to “guarantee... every last economic drop of oil and gas is produced for the benefit of the UK”. This sentiment was repeated yesterday by energy minister Andrea Leadsom, when she welcomed the North Yorkshire decision and described fracking as a “fantastic opportunity”.

Dependence on finite domestic fuel reserves, however, is not a long-term economic solution. Not least because they will either run out or force us to exceed international emissions treaties: “Pensions already have enough stranded assets as they are,” says Danielle Pafford from 350.org.

Is it worth it? Most European countries have decided it’s not.

There is currently no commercial shale-gas drilling in Europe. Sustained protests against the industry in Romania, combined with poor exploration results, have already caused energy giant Chevron to pull out of the country. Total has also abandonned explorations in Denmark, Poland is being referred to the European Court of Justice for failing to adequately assess fracking’s impact, and, in Germany, brewers have launched special bottle-caps with the slogan “Nein! Zu Fracking” to warn against the threat to their water supply.

Back in the UK, the government's latest survey of public attitudes to fracking found that 44 per cent neither supported nor opposed the practice, but also that opinion is gradually shifting out of favour. If the government doesn't come up with arguments that hold water soon, it seems likely that the UK's fracking future could still be blasted apart.

India Bourke is the New Statesman's editorial assistant.