Defending Cameron? Well, Just on Same-Sex Marriage

Talk about a rock and a hard place. David Cameron's draft legislation on the legalisation of same-sex marriage ceremonies goes to Parliament on Tuesday, but the proposal seems to be attracting criticism from both sides. On the one hand, some religious groups and some on the political right have criticised the plans because the new law will depart from tradition and, in a somewhat contradictory argument, because there are more pressing things to attend to.

On the other hand, there are those on the other side of the argument who criticise the proposals because of the accommodations which are made for religious groups, and indeed some say that this proposal is really just a ruse on the part of the government to distract the population, either from their anti-equality approach to most policy issues or more broadly from their unpopularity with much of the electorate.

I'm not usually one to defend the PM, but I do wonder whether any of these arguments has any real merit. The new law will depart from tradition, that is obviously true. But then, most new laws depart from the status quo - that's what's new about them. The fact that reform will involve change is more or less inherent, and in itself is not an argument against change. Jim Hacker is right, in Yes, Prime Minister, to be incredulous when Sir Humphrey tells him that he cannot have a cook because that's the way it has been for two and a half centuries. Tradition is not in itself an argument.

At the same time, some Conservative party members seem to have missed the point of the reforms, which have drawn a clear distinction between civil and religious marriage. The former will be allowed, the latter will be left to individual religious groups to determine (except for the Church of England and the Church in Wales - more on that in a moment). Given that, the view of Mr Andrew Kolker, chairman of the Congleton Conservative Association, is a little hard to accept. He was quoted in the Guardian yesterday as saying this:

"We have more important things to do and we should be leaving this to the church to sort out."

I'm sorry, what? We should be leaving this - marriage, I suppose he means - to the church? I have no objection to there being religious marriages which the state accepts (though we might ask why some religious marriages count in the state's eyes and some don't) but, in a secular state, marriage is really not a religious institution. Marriage carries enormous social and legal consequences, and those of any religion or none are entitled to those benefits and burdens if they so chose. The Marriage Act of 1836 made valid marriage ceremonies performed in civil ceremonies by state-employed registrars, and it is extraordinary that, 177 years later, anyone should think that 'the church' (meaning, I presume, the Church of England) should 'sort out' this issue. No thanks. The state shall determine who may and may not enter a marriage.

Then there is the point that 'we have more important things to do'. The difficulty with this is threefold. First, it is always true that there are urgent things to attend to; but focusing only on the urgent can mean losing sight of what is important. A good chunk of Parliamentary business could be dispensed with if only the most important thing were ever attended to, and society would be much diminished by that approach. The second difficulty is that this point undermines the main argument against this legislation. By saying "we're too busy", it has to be conceded that, but that there were more time, this would be a good thing to do. If it's a good thing to do, then stop complaining about it. Finally, I take issue with the idea that same-sex marriage is unimportant. Some of its benefit is symbolic, since the legal benefits are available already through civil partnership - but symbols are important. The commitment to equality, both in our hearts and in our actions, calls for changes to the law to remove unjustified inequalities. This inequality has no justification, and it is important that it be removed.

On the other side, the PM faces criticism for giving too much ground to religious groups. This argument seems to me unhelpful. I am saddened that the Church of England has set its face against same sex marriage, and I think many of its members - including some very senior members - are deeply unhappy with the position adopted. I also think that it will be a relatively short time before the Church changes its collective mind, which makes it all the more disappointing that the message sent out has been so firmly against these proposals.

Nonetheless, just as I do not think that the state should be dictated to by any religion's views, I am also cautious about the state imposing its views on religious organisations. This is, perhaps, a less strong point for me, because there are limits to what a religious organisation can claim exemption from. I also think that there is a respectable argument to be made that any religion that wishes the ceremonies that it performs to be recognised by the state should comply with the state's rules. Nonetheless, for pragmatic reasons if nothing else, I would not choose this moment to start that fight. Let's get this legislation passed and deal with perfecting it later.

Then there's the 'ruse' argument. I've heard a number of people make this point, but I just don't see it. If it's true, and Cameron is trying to kid us, or distract us, into thinking he's a nice guy, I don't think anyone's buying it. I'm happy to support this measure, as is most of the Labour Party and many others who disagree with most of this government's agenda - but it doesn't make me any more likely to vote Conservative at the next election. At the same time, swathes of the Tory party's core membership is jumping ship, so it's hard to see this as a nifty political manoeuvre.

Moreover, for those hundreds of thousands of people whose welfare benefits are being cut, or who can no longer access local services or legal advice for their problems, or who are forced to remain on waiting lists longer for medical treatment as waiting times rise again, I hardly think that gay marriage legislation is going to make them forget the overall agenda of this government. There's plenty to hate about Cameron's government, so let's stop attacking him over the one thing he's doing that we agree with.

Britain and the EU - A Pointless Debate

The British Prime Minister, David Cameron, declared in the Sunday Telegraph this week that we need to be 'absolutely clear about what we really want, what we now have and the best way of getting what is best for Britain' regarding our relationship with the European Union. By nightfall, the predictable fallout from this newspaper article was in full flow. Euro-sceptic Conservative backbench MPs were saying that it didn't go far enough; pro-Europeans were saying that it was a distraction when the Euro crisis was still in full swing.

In practical terms, this debate is simply pointless. While it is true that there is, since the Lisbon Treaty in 2009, technically a mechanism in place to allow a Member State to leave the EU, in practical terms that isn't an option. The economic and political consequences of even attempting to do so would be extraordinary.

Britain's trade relations within the EU are central to British economic wellbeing (as evidenced by the current effects of the Euro crisis on the British economy, at least in the government's explanation of our own lacklustre economic performance). The unpredictable consequences for the British economy -- unpredictable, but inevitably negative in the short to medium term -- would likely cause prolonged chaos in the international financial markets, both for the UK and everyone else. The Pound, currently seen as a relative safe haven for international investors in a time of global financial crisis, would plummet as investors fled. No amount of confident rhetoric from the government would convince the world's markets that a single nation could extricate itself from something as politically, legally and financially complex as the EU and do well in anything less than a decade.

Leaving the economic turmoil aside, the legal implications of an EU withdrawal are hard to overstate. Almost every aspect of domestic law is influenced by EU law to some extent. Some of those effects come directly from Brussels by virtue of EU Regulations which are part of our law in the same way as an Act of Parliament from Westminster. Others are indirect, affecting the ways in which domestic law is interpreted and understood because of the influence of EU law and the rulings of the Court of the European Union.

There would also be huge international legal consequences. Vast swathes of international law, both to do with Britain's relationship with other countries (and the EU itself, of course, which is not going to go away just because Britain leaves it) and to do with business and personal relationships involving an international element, are currently determined by EU law. To give just one example from my area of research, child maintenance and contact arrangements for families whose members move within the 27 EU countries are all governed by EU law in the guise of the Brussels II revised Regulation. Withdrawing from the EU would mean that that legal mechanism for allowing the enforcement of maintenance and contact arrangements would disappear.

And then there are the political consequences. When Britain joined the EU, along with Denmark and Ireland, in 1973, there were only 6 existing Member States, and even so the economic and political reasons for joining were compelling. Now, with 26 other Members and numerous candidate countries wanting to join, the political exclusion that would flow from a departure from the EU would be immense.

The idea that Britain would retain any meaningful influence in European politics in the wake of our departure from the EU is laughable, while our relations with countries beyond the EU would likely be weakened by our new-found international isolation. We would no longer benefit from the international might of the EU, negotiating on behalf of 27 countries, and would instead be struggling to make our lone voice heard on the international stage. The elevated view of Britain's importance in the international community held by Britons is, some will be surprised to find, not generally shared by people in other countries.

In short, regardless of whether you love the EU or hate it, the consequences of leaving now are so great that they would outweigh even the most optimistic benefits promised by the most optimistic Euro-sceptic for decades to come. Given that, there is no realistic prospect of Britain leaving the EU, and it weakens Britain's position internationally to have a Prime Minister pandering to the isolationist right wing of his party by even discussing the possibility.

Cash for Canapés

So it turns out that the Tory party's former treasurer, Peter Cruddas, offered to give people access to David Cameron in exchange for large gifts. Cameron's initial response was to say that this was unacceptable, but that he would not publish a list of people that he had met at private dinners - only his public agenda would be available to the public. Now he has agreed that the list will, after all, be published.

There are echos of Horse Gate here. The Cameron response to any political problem seems to be the same: (1) deny the problem, then (2) admit there is a problem, but refuse to release anything publicly about it because it's a 'private matter', and then (3) realise that it's not going to go away and decide to make it public after all. Are there no PR people working at No 10 any more? Surely anyone can see that looking both incompent and corrupt at the same time is a bad strategy.

Anyway, there are two important things here about so-called 'cash for access' (though I think 'cash for canapés' is a better name). The first is the PM's complete misunderstanding of his role. The very idea that he can have 'private' meetings with people while in the Office of the Prime Minister is wrong. The PM does not get to have personal or private meetings with people which do or might have any bearing on the work of the government. And to be clear, anything that 'the party' is interested in is, while that party is in government, connected to the work of the government.

But in a way, the more interesting thing about this scandal is that people seem surprised. The Tory party is completely up-front about the fact that a big donation will get you access to senior MPs and party officials, including the Prime Minister. As their website says, a £50,000 donation gets you membership of the Leader's Group, including:

"[being] invited to join David Cameron and other senior figures from the Conservative Party at dinners, post-PMQ lunches, drinks receptions, election result events and important campaign launches."

Similarly, for the bargain price of £25,000, one can join the Treasurers' Group, which:

"is aimed at substantial financial supporters with a keen interest in politics. Members are invited to join senior figures from the Conservative Party at dinners, lunches, drinks receptions, election result events and important campaign launches."

Now, it's fair to say that these elite 'clubs' are a feature of many organisations that seek to raise money from private individuals and organisations. The University of Oxford does it too - we have the Vice-Chancellor's Circle and the Chancellor's Court of Benefactors, for example. Individual Colleges within Oxford sometimes make major donors Honorary Fellows, or invite them to attend College functions. But there is a difference.

When an organisation like the University of Oxford sets up these circles, there is very little quid pro quo. People are thanked for their donations, and in return they are invited to occasional dinners and kept informed of what the University is doing with their money. (We usually invest it in buildings, research or student scholarships, if you were wondering.) Look at the description of what you get for being in the Chancellor's Court of Benefactors:

"This provides an opportunity for benefactors to engage with the Chancellor, Vice-Chancellor, Heads of Colleges and senior academics, and to meet with other members of the Court, and to gain a greater understanding of the life and work of the University and the Colleges."

Engage with? Yes. Understand the life and work of? Yes. But influence future work? No, not really.  Influence the University so that you benefit in some way? Again, no.

So what's the difference between an organisation like the University of Oxford having this club and the Tory party doing it? Well, mainly that the University has no ability to change the law or set national government agendas. We do not have direct control over anyone other than the people who work or study here. People who make donations to Oxford are entitled to know what we do with the money, but that money does not buy influence over things that can directly benefit the donor.

The reason that this matters is that having or not having money does not make a practical difference to the benefits that you can get from Oxford. The University and its Colleges are grateful for donations big and small to cover the costs of our buildings and to fund our research, teaching and student scholarships. But you can't buy a place to study here, and you can't influence what the University does as a result of your donation.

None of that's not true of the Tory party. Surely the only reason for giving them money is precisely that you think you will benefit from it. Some people benefit indirectly - they want a Tory government, so they give money to help with election campaigns. But those who want direct access to the PM or the Chancellor surely want it because they hope to influence government policy - and that means that the rich buy influence for themselves that the rest of us can't possibly afford.

So don't forget - we're all in it together, but some of us are more in it than others.