Chagos and the Law Lords

Witnessing the evidence as the Lord Laws hear the case of the Chagos Islanders - forcibly removed fr

I meet Olivier Bancoult, leader of the Chagos Refugee Group in Mauritius, in the lobby of the House of Lords ahead of the hearing to determine whether the Chagossians will be allowed home.

"A big day," I say by way of a greeting. "Yes, a big day and a good day. Today is my mother's 80th birthday," he replies with a smile. His mother, Rita Issou, sits on a bench along with three other Chagossians a few yards away from where we are standing. She is smartly dressed but looks very frail. It’s understandable - and not just because of her age; she has experienced many sorrows in her long life including the loss of her husband and two sons (one to alcohol and the other to heroin) since the family was exiled to Mauritius from their island home of Peros Banhos in 1968.

Olivier tells me that in all 28 islanders have made the trip from Port Louis to London to witness how their fate will be decided in the highest court of the land. "I am very optimistic - justice will be done. We will return to Chagos very soon," he says confidently.

It has become obvious that there will not be enough space to accommodate all the visitors. A male clerk takes charge and announces that only the people at the front of the queue will be allowed in. This means that a lot of the UK-based Chagossians who have been holding a legal protest on the pavement opposite the House of Lords won't get a seat.

The Law Lords have arrived on time and at 11 o'clock around 70 of us file into the room. Before they enter the male clerk says that if anyone is going to leave the room to let him know whether they are coming back. If not the seat can be allocated to those who are waiting patiently outside in the corridor.

It's a highly ritualised setting. The five Law Lords -- Bingham, Hoffman, Roger, Carswell and Mance -- enter and we all stand up and bow. They sit in a semicircle at the front of the room. Facing them are the respective barristers -- Jonathan Crow QC and Kieron Beal acting for the appellant, British Foreign Secretary, David Miliband, and Sir Sydney Kentridge QC, Anthony Bradley and Maya Lester acting for the respondent, Olivier Bancoult.

Behind them sit other members of the respective legal teams including Richard Gifford of London-based solicitors, Clifford Chance, who has worked tirelessly on this case since the late 1990s.

Jonathan Crow stands up and makes the case for the government invoking the Colonial Laws Validity Act 1865. He chooses not to defend what was done to the Chagos islanders by previous governments -- "the awfulness of what happened in the 60s and 70s" -- but instead focuses on the role and scope of orders in council issued under the royal prerogative -- "the highest level of political judgement" -- as they relate to the defence interests of the UK and US. He extends the argument and says that there would be an "unacceptable risk" to both countries if the islanders returned to the Chagos Archipelago and points out that in any case they have received generous compensation from the British government which amount to "substantial sums at today's prices".

After about 40 minutes some of the journalists from the news agencies have got enough of what they want for a story and leave the room. Their places are taken by some Chagossian women. Some of the Law Lords then start to make interventions. They ask questions or elaborate points of law. When one of the Law Lords says something Crow likes he nods his head a lot.

When Crow gets a difficult question he moves from side to side before giving his reply. And when he gets a really difficult question or one that he doesn't know the answer to as, for example, when he was asked when Mauritius became a republic he raises his left shoulder and goes into a bit of a crouch. But interestingly his voice remains clear at all times even when he is evidently flapping his wings to stay up in the legal air.

Crow’s courteousness even extends to his adversary, South African-born, Sir Sydney Kentridge, who was once a member of Nelson Mandela's defence team. From time to time, Sir Sydney makes an intervention to correct or challenge a point although it is difficult for those in the audience to hear what he says. "My learned friend is not one to jump up and intervene all the time and I thank him for that," says Crow as he turns and bows in the direction of Sir Sydney who is seated next to him. Jonathan Crow QC is a smooth operator.

At one o'clock the case is adjourned and it's time for lunch. I would have liked to have seen Sir Sydney in action but I think it's more important that some of the Chagossians gets a chance to see what's going on. After all, it's their lives that are the subject of legal debate and not mine. I inform the clerk that I won't be returning.

Over lunch in the House of Lords cafeteria I learn that Olivier Bancoult was meant to meet the one-time leader of the Conservative Party and now Shadow Foreign Secretary, William Hague, but he sent his deputy, Keith Simpson, instead. And it wasn't that Hague didn't have time as he was spotted casually chatting to someone in the lobby of the House of Commons. No, this was a deliberate and tactical avoidance. Why? Not too difficult to figure out. Even members of Her Majesty's official opposition find the issue of the right of return of the Chagos islanders a difficult one to handle. No senior member of the Conservative party wants to jeopardise "the special relationship" and antagonise our American friends, after all.

Meanwhile the Lib Dem foreign affairs spokesman, Ed Davey, puts out a statement. It reads: "The government must cease this endless waste of taxpayers’ money and do what is right by the Chagossians. This is what Robin Cook promised when he was foreign secretary.

"The spectacle of David Miliband’s lawyers invoking 19th century colonial laws to defend the indefensible is frankly sickening.

"This is not a legal matter; it is a matter of principle. The Chaggosians must be allowed to go home.
"Together with the scandal of secret US renditions from Diego Garcia, the abuse of these islands is a shameful stain on Britain’s global reputation."

I couldn't have put it better myself.

Dr Sean Carey is Research Fellow at the Centre for Research on Nationalism, Ethnicity and Multiculturalism (CRONEM), Roehampton University

Jeremy Corbyn. Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

Lexit: the EU is a neoliberal project, so let's do something different when we leave it

Brexit affords the British left a historic opportunity for a decisive break with EU market liberalism.

The Brexit vote to leave the European Union has many parents, but "Lexit" – the argument for exiting the EU from the left – remains an orphan. A third of Labour voters backed Leave, but they did so without any significant leadership from the Labour Party. Left-of-centre votes proved decisive in determining the outcome of a referendum that was otherwise framed, shaped, and presented almost exclusively by the right. A proper left discussion of the issues has been, if not entirely absent, then decidedly marginal – part of a more general malaise when it comes to developing left alternatives that has begun to be corrected only recently, under Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell.

Ceding Brexit to the right was very nearly the most serious strategic mistake by the British left since the ‘70s. Under successive leaders Labour became so incorporated into the ideology of Europeanism as to preclude any clear-eyed critical analysis of the actually existing EU as a regulatory and trade regime pursuing deep economic integration. The same political journey that carried Labour into its technocratic embrace of the EU also resulted in the abandonment of any form of distinctive economics separate from the orthodoxies of market liberalism.

It’s been astounding to witness so many left-wingers, in meltdown over Brexit, resort to parroting liberal economics. Thus we hear that factor mobility isn’t about labour arbitrage, that public services aren’t under pressure, that we must prioritise foreign direct investment and trade. It’s little wonder Labour became so detached from its base. Such claims do not match the lived experience of ordinary people in regions of the country devastated by deindustrialisation and disinvestment.

Nor should concerns about wage stagnation and bargaining power be met with finger-wagging accusations of racism, as if the manner in which capitalism pits workers against each other hasn’t long been understood. Instead, we should be offering real solutions – including a willingness to rethink capital mobility and trade. This places us in direct conflict with the constitutionalised neoliberalism of the EU.

Only the political savvy of the leadership has enabled Labour to recover from its disastrous positioning post-referendum. Incredibly, what seemed an unbeatable electoral bloc around Theresa May has been deftly prized apart in the course of an extraordinary General Election campaign. To consolidate the political project they have initiated, Corbyn and McDonnell must now follow through with a truly radical economic programme. The place to look for inspiration is precisely the range of instruments and policy options discouraged or outright forbidden by the EU.

A neoliberal project

The fact that right-wing arguments for Leave predominated during the referendum says far more about today’s left than it does about the European Union. There has been a great deal of myth-making concerning the latter –much of it funded, directly or indirectly, by the EU itself.

From its inception, the EU has been a top-down project driven by political and administrative elites, "a protected sphere", in the judgment of the late Peter Mair, "in which policy-making can evade the constraints imposed by representative democracy". To complain about the EU’s "democratic deficit" is to have misunderstood its purpose. The main thrust of European economic policy has been to extend and deepen the market through liberalisation, privatisation, and flexiblisation, subordinating employment and social protection to goals of low inflation, debt reduction, and increased competitiveness.

Prospects for Keynesian reflationary policies, or even for pan-European economic planning – never great – soon gave way to more Hayekian conceptions. Hayek’s original insight, in The Economic Conditions of Interstate Federalism, was that free movement of capital, goods, and labour – a "single market" – among a federation of nations would severely and necessarily restrict the economic policy space available to individual members. Pro-European socialists, whose aim had been to acquire new supranational options for the regulation of capital, found themselves surrendering the tools they already possessed at home. The national road to socialism, or even to social democracy, was closed.

The direction of travel has been singular and unrelenting. To take one example, workers’ rights – a supposed EU strength – are steadily being eroded, as can be seen in landmark judgments by the European Court of Justice (ECJ) in the Viking and Laval cases, among others. In both instances, workers attempting to strike in protest at plans to replace workers from one EU country with lower-wage workers from another, were told their right to strike could not infringe upon the "four freedoms" – free movement of capital, labour, goods, and services – established by the treaties.

More broadly, on trade, financial regulation, state aid, government purchasing, public service delivery, and more, any attempt to create a different kind of economy from inside the EU has largely been forestalled by competition policy or single market regulation.

A new political economy

Given that the UK will soon be escaping the EU, what opportunities might this afford? Three policy directions immediately stand out: public ownership, industrial strategy, and procurement. In each case, EU regulation previously stood in the way of promising left strategies. In each case, the political and economic returns from bold departures from neoliberal orthodoxy after Brexit could be substantial.

While not banned outright by EU law, public ownership is severely discouraged and disadvantaged by it. ECJ interpretation of Article 106 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) has steadily eroded public ownership options. "The ECJ", argues law professor Danny Nicol, "appears to have constructed a one-way street in favour of private-sector provision: nationalised services are prima facie suspect and must be analysed for their necessity". Sure enough, the EU has been a significant driver of privatisation, functioning like a ratchet. It’s much easier for a member state to pursue the liberalisation of sectors than to secure their (re)nationalisation. Article 59 (TFEU) specifically allows the European Council and Parliament to liberalise services. Since the ‘80s, there have been single market programmes in energy, transport, postal services, telecommunications, education, and health.

Britain has long been an extreme outlier on privatisation, responsible for 40 per cent of the total assets privatised across the OECD between 1980 and 1996. Today, however, increasing inequality, poverty, environmental degradation and the general sense of an impoverished public sphere are leading to growing calls for renewed public ownership (albeit in new, more democratic forms). Soon to be free of EU constraints, it’s time to explore an expanded and fundamentally reimagined UK public sector.

Next, Britain’s industrial production has been virtually flat since the late 1990s, with a yawning trade deficit in industrial goods. Any serious industrial strategy to address the structural weaknesses of UK manufacturing will rely on "state aid" – the nurturing of a next generation of companies through grants, interest and tax relief, guarantees, government holdings, and the provision of goods and services on a preferential basis.

Article 107 TFEU allows for state aid only if it is compatible with the internal market and does not distort competition, laying out the specific circumstances in which it could be lawful. Whether or not state aid meets these criteria is at the sole discretion of the Commission – and courts in member states are obligated to enforce the commission’s decisions. The Commission has adopted an approach that considers, among other things, the existence of market failure, the effectiveness of other options, and the impact on the market and competition, thereby allowing state aid only in exceptional circumstances.

For many parts of the UK, the challenges of industrial decline remain starkly present – entire communities are thrown on the scrap heap, with all the associated capital and carbon costs and wasted lives. It’s high time the left returned to the possibilities inherent in a proactive industrial strategy. A true community-sustaining industrial strategy would consist of the deliberate direction of capital to sectors, localities, and regions, so as to balance out market trends and prevent communities from falling into decay, while also ensuring the investment in research and development necessary to maintain a highly productive economy. Policy, in this vision, would function to re-deploy infrastructure, production facilities, and workers left unemployed because of a shutdown or increased automation.

In some cases, this might mean assistance to workers or localities to buy up facilities and keep them running under worker or community ownership. In other cases it might involve re-training workers for new skills and re-fitting facilities. A regional approach might help launch new enterprises that would eventually be spun off as worker or local community-owned firms, supporting the development of strong and vibrant network economies, perhaps on the basis of a Green New Deal. All of this will be possible post-Brexit, under a Corbyn government.

Lastly, there is procurement. Under EU law, explicitly linking public procurement to local entities or social needs is difficult. The ECJ has ruled that, even if there is no specific legislation, procurement activity must "comply with the fundamental rules of the Treaty, in particular the principle of non-discrimination on grounds of nationality". This means that all procurement contracts must be open to all bidders across the EU, and public authorities must advertise contracts widely in other EU countries. In 2004, the European Parliament and Council issued two directives establishing the criteria governing such contracts: "lowest price only" and "most economically advantageous tender".

Unleashed from EU constraints, there are major opportunities for targeting large-scale public procurement to rebuild and transform communities, cities, and regions. The vision behind the celebrated Preston Model of community wealth building – inspired by the work of our own organisation, The Democracy Collaborative, in Cleveland, Ohio – leverages public procurement and the stabilising power of place-based anchor institutions (governments, hospitals, universities) to support rooted, participatory, democratic local economies built around multipliers. In this way, public funds can be made to do "double duty"; anchoring jobs and building community wealth, reversing long-term economic decline. This suggests the viability of a very different economic approach and potential for a winning political coalition, building support for a new socialist economics from the ground up.

With the prospect of a Corbyn government now tantalisingly close, it’s imperative that Labour reconciles its policy objectives in the Brexit negotiations with its plans for a radical economic transformation and redistribution of power and wealth. Only by pursuing strategies capable of re-establishing broad control over the national economy can Labour hope to manage the coming period of pain and dislocation following Brexit. Based on new institutions and approaches and the centrality of ownership and control, democracy, and participation, we should be busy assembling the tools and strategies that will allow departure from the EU to open up new political-economic horizons in Britain and bring about the profound transformation the country so desperately wants and needs.

Joe Guinan is executive director of the Next System Project at The Democracy Collaborative. Thomas M. Hanna is research director at The Democracy Collaborative.

This is an extract from a longer essay which appears in the inaugural edition of the IPPR Progressive Review.