The EU flag blows at Reichstag building is on October 01, 2013 in Berlin. Photograph: Getty Images.
Show Hide image

How Labour will work for real change in Europe

We need to boost Europe’s competitiveness, avoid a race to the bottom on skills and wages and ensure EU migrants contribute to our economy and our society.

This week Ed Miliband made clear that a Labour government will be as bold in defending membership of the EU as we are in pushing for real change in Europe. Because being willing to speak up for our place in Europe, does not mean being deaf to the concerns that some people have about our membership.

Securing Britain’s future in Europe means the UK needs to work for change within Europe: setting out how the EU can be made to work better for Britain. That is why Labour has set out a reform agenda focused on boosting Europe’s competitiveness, avoiding a race to the bottom on skills and wages and ensuring people coming to the UK from other EU countries seeking work contribute to our economy and our society.

First, on the economy, our reforms will help deliver a Europe focused on jobs and growth, not more austerity and rising unemployment.  An EU Commissioner for growth, and an independent audit of the impact of any new piece of legislation on growth, would be key to helping re-focusing Europe towards this key task. Ed Miliband also announced that Labour is working with British businesses – through the CBI – to agree a plan for the completion of the Single Market in key sectors like digital and services, helping create new jobs and expand our economy in the years ahead.

Second, we will put in place reforms to help do more to ensure that EU migrants contribute to our economy, and to our society. We will work for greater flexibility on transitional arrangements for new member states, including extending the period of time that people from them have to wait before being able to come to the UK to look for work. But EU migration is not just about who should be able to come to the UK, it is also about what those already here should be entitled to. That is why Ed Miliband announced that we will address the payment of benefits to those not resident in this country, and will look again at the rules on deporting EU citizens who receive a prison sentence for committing a crime after arriving in the UK.

Labour has made clear that we do not think it is right that EU migrants should have access to all UK benefits from day one of entering the country, which is why we have called on the government to double the time that people coming to the UK from other EU countries seeking work have to wait before being able to claim Jobseeker's Allowance. None of us want to see a race to the bottom on wages and skills between EU workers and local workers. That is why we will take action to ensure the minimum wage is properly enforced, close loopholes in rules for agency workers, and look at EU Directives designed to prevent undercutting.

Finally, we recognise that any agenda for change in Europe must also address people’s concerns about how power is exercised at a European level. Labour does not support a drive towards an "ever closer union". EU cooperation is important but so too is the role of the UK Parliament. To uphold this principle, national parliaments must have a greater role in EU decision making, and we should be prepared to work to bring powers back to Britain where EU cooperation hinders rather than advances our interests.

No one is today calling for more powers to be transferred from Britain to Brussels. But given the uncertainty about precisely what a changing Europe and further integration in the eurozone might involve, Ed Miliband has acknowledged that a further transfer of powers remains unlikely, but possible. That is why he announced that a Labour government will legislate for a new lock: there would be no transfer of powers from the UK to the EU without a referendum. This would not just be a referendum to ratify a decision on powers, because as we saw in other countries, referendums of this kind are too easy for governments to ignore. Instead, it would have to be an in/out referendum, with a clear choice for the public to make on our membership of the EU.

After Ed Miliband’s speech this week, it is clear that the dividing line on the EU is not status quo vs change. The choice in 2015 is between a Conservative Party fast unravelling over Europe, and a Labour Party committed to working to make the EU work better for Britain. Ed Miliband leads a Labour Party united on what is best for Britain – and committed to delivering real change in Europe.

Douglas Alexander is the shadow foreign secretary and Labour MP for Paisley and Renfrewshire South.

Show Hide image

7 problems with the Snooper’s Charter, according to the experts

In short: it was written by people who "do not know how the internet works".

A group of representatives from the UK Internet Service Provider’s Association (ISPA) headed to the Home Office on Tuesday to point out a long list of problems they had with the proposed Investigatory Powers Bill (that’s Snooper’s Charter to you and me). Below are simplified summaries of their main points, taken from the written evidence submitted by Adrian Kennard, of Andrews and Arnold, a small ISP, to the department after the meeting. 

The crucial thing to note is that these people know what they're talking about - the run the providers which would need to completely change their practices to comply with the bill if it passed into law. And their objections aren't based on cost or fiddliness - they're about how unworkable many of the bill's stipulations actually are. 

1. The types of records the government wants collected aren’t that useful

The IP Bill places a lot of emphasis on “Internet Connection Records”; i.e. a list of domains you’ve visited, but not the specific pages visited or messages sent.

But in an age of apps and social media, where we view vast amounts of information through single domains like Twitter or Facebook, this information might not even help investigators much, as connections can last for days, or even months. Kennard gives the example of a missing girl, used as a hypothetical case by the security services to argue for greater powers:

 "If the mobile provider was even able to tell that she had used twitter at all (which is not as easy as it sounds), it would show that the phone had been connected to twitter 24 hours a day, and probably Facebook as well… this emotive example is seriously flawed”

And these connection records are only going to get less relevant over time - an increasing number of websites including Facebook and Google encrypt their website under "https", which would make finding the name of the website visited far more difficult.

2. …but they’re still a massive invasion of privacy

Even though these records may be useless when someone needs to be found or monitored, the retention of Internet Connection Records (IRCs) is still very invasive – and can actually yield more information than call records, which Theresa May has repeatedly claimed are the non-digital equivalent of ICRs. 

Kennard notes: “[These records] can be used to profile them and identify preferences, political views, sexual orientation, spending habits and much more. It is useful to criminals as it would easily confirm the bank used, and the time people leave the house, and so on”. 

This information might not help find a missing girl, but could build a profile of her which could be used by criminals, or for over-invasive state surveillance. 

3. "Internet Connection Records" aren’t actually a thing

The concept of a list of domain names visited by a user referred to in the bill is actually a new term, derived from “Call Data Record”. Compiling them is possible, but won't be an easy or automatic process.

Again, this strongly implies that those writing the bill are using their knowledge of telecommunications surveillance, not internet era-appropriate information. Kennard calls for the term to be removed, or at least its “vague and nondescript nature” made clear in the bill.

4. The surveillance won’t be consistent and could be easy to dodge

In its meeting with the ISPA, the Home Office implied that smaller Internet service providers won't be forced to collect these ICR records, as it would use up a lot of their resources. But this means those seeking to avoid surveillance could simply move over to a smaller provider.

5. Conservative spin is dictating the way we view the bill 

May and the Home Office are keen for us to see the surveillance in the bill as passive: internet service providers must simply log the domains we visit, which will be looked at in the event that we are the subject of an investigation. But as Kennard notes, “I am quite sure the same argument would not work if, for example, the law required a camera in every room in your house”. This is a vast new power the government is asking for – we shouldn’t allow it to play it down.

6. The bill would allow our devices to be bugged

Or, in the jargon, used in the draft bill, subjected to “equipment interference”. This could include surveillance of everything on a phone or laptop, or even turning on its camera or webcam to watch someone. The bill actually calls for “bulk equipment interference” – when surely, as Kennard notes, “this power…should only be targeted at the most serious of criminal suspects" at most.

7. The ability to bug devices would make them less secure

Devices can only be subject to “equipment interference” if they have existing vulnerabilities, which could also be exploited by criminals and hackers. If security services know about these vulnerabilities, they should tell the manufacturer about them. As Kennard writes, allowing equipment interference "encourages the intelligence services to keep vulnerabilities secret” so they don't lose surveillance methods. Meanwhile, though, they're laying the population open to hacks from cyber criminals. 


So there you have it  – a compelling soup of misused and made up terms, and ethically concerning new powers. Great stuff. 

Barbara Speed is a technology and digital culture writer at the New Statesman and a staff writer at CityMetric.