A Welsh spanner in the works? Brexit: the story so far

By Rosa Brown 

Today the Supreme Court has revealed that Mrs May’s government will face another hurdle in their quest for Brexit. This comes after Gina Miller and her team won a legal challenge against the government’s formal exit negotiations without the presence of a parliamentary vote.

The national media has only just recovered from the legal development in the Brexit story- attentions were turned further afield and questions were asked whether civilization would even exist under a Trump presidency. But now the Supreme Court has been at it again, with the revelation that both Scottish and Welsh governments will be allowed to have their say over the triggering of Article 50 and its notice period.

Neither Nicola Sturgeon nor the Scottish people have held back on their Brexit opinions. All 32 Scottish councils voted in favour of remaining in the EU, as Sturgeon has promised to do all in her power to ensure the voice of the Scottish people is heard in Westminster.

However the picture in Wales has been slightly more convoluted. Despite receiving an annual net benefit of £245m as a result of the UK’s current relationship with the EU, 52.5% of the Welsh electorate voted to exit the EU. In the aftermath of result, attention was drawn towards the political disillusionment in Wales along with the proximity of the Welsh assembly election to the referendum and the consequent lack of campaigning.

senedd_1

The Debating Chamber of the Senedd. Image: Julian Nitzsche.

The impact of Brexit on the Welsh economy has been made startlingly clear from very early on. The question of Welsh funding and the gaping hole that will be left by that EU support remain unanswered, whilst Welsh universities have also felt the effects of Brexit. Aberystwyth University revealed 100 prospective European students withdrew applications from the university, over half of which occurred the day after the referendum.

A poll conducted by ITV Wales/ Cardiff University YouGov in July 2016 revealed a swing in Welsh opinion, with 53 percent voting to Remain whilst 47 percent voting to Leave. Though we all know that polls should not be overvalued or taken for granted, especially when there is so little in it. Time and time again people have felt unable to share their true voting intentions, which is a problem in itself.

At the time of writing, First Minister for Wales Carwyn Jones has yet to comment on the Welsh involvement in the Supreme Court ruling. The First Minister has implored May’s government to take more of an interest in the Welsh steel industry and securing transitional trade arrangements for Brexit. Whether Mr Jones’ message will ring clear given Wales’ role in the Brexit legal debacle remains to be foreseen. This is an exciting time for Welsh politics and offers an intriguing twist in the Brexit tale.

If you are interested in hearing more about Brexit and its impact for Wales, Cardiff University and the WCIA are hosting the following events:

The Devaluation of European Values After Brexit’, Tuesday 29th November 2016, 1-4.30pm.  

What Does Brexit Mean For…?’, Wednesday 30th November 2016, 7-9pm.

 

 

 

Aid is a moral obligation

By David Hooson 

With globalism and the UK’s place in the world having become extremely hot topics in the wake of the EU referendum, it is of little surprise that debate and media coverage of international development and foreign aid have skyrocketed. The new Prime Minister’s decision to install a leading Brexiteer, Priti Patel, as International Development Secretary, has only served to push the issue up the agenda and fan the flames of controversy.

Ms. Patel has a track record of being outspoken on the area of government policy she now leads, at one point having called for the Department for International Development to be abolished and its work integrated into the Department for Trade and Industry. That theme continued with her recent comments about ‘wasteful’ and ‘superficial’ aid projects, as well as suggesting foreign aid could be used to help negotiate future international trade deals when the UK leaves the EU.

The use of the UK’s aid budget should be based on nothing more than our moral obligation to help those in need around the world. To attach political strings to aid money or to use it as an economic bargaining tool contravenes the point of its existence.

RAF C17 Lands in Nepal with Vital UK Aid

Picture: Sgt Neil Bryden/ RAF

The UN goal of dedicating 0.7% of gross national income to foreign aid was first suggested in 1969, and a succession of British politicians have pledged their commitment to meeting that target, with Ms. Patel the latest to do so. The principle of this goal is for developed countries to work together to tackle poverty around the world and to respond adequately to humanitarian crises – not to further their own economic objectives. The 0.7% pledge is a rare opportunity for a government to be selflessly outward-looking, and it should be relished as such.

Furthermore, the fate of those bearing the brunt of social or economic injustice should not be determined by the ability or whims of politicians and businesspeople, whose actions they have little or no influence upon. Indeed, it may be the failings of those politicians and businesspeople that have led to such injustice. The availability of aid should always be determined by need, not by backroom deals and political expediency.

The direction Ms. Patel proposes for international development policy is part of a worrying wider trend that could see the UK turn its back on our global moral obligations. We in Wales should be pushing against this trend by remaining inclusive and outward-looking, as well as campaigning and raising awareness on global issues like international development.

From war to Olympic glory, the Refugee Olympic Team are competing for tolerance

Rio2016.jpg

By Fflur Jones

“We were the only four who knew how to swim. I had one hand with the rope attached to the boat as I moved my two legs and one arm. It was three and half hours in cold water.” This is 18-year old Syrian refugee Yusra Mardini explaining how her Olympic sport of swimming, saved her life whilst crossing the freezing Aegean Sea as she pushed a sinking dinghy to sanctuary saving 20 other lives.

Among the 200+ countries and territories competing in the Olympic Games in Rio, Mardini’s team stands out: Refugee Olympic Team (or ROT). The International Olympic Committee announced in March the creation of this team, the first of this kind, made up of 10 members who fled from 4 different countries: South Sudan, Ethiopia, Syria and the Democratic Republic of Congo. The IOC’s open minded decision to include these athletes in these games comes at a period when refugees have been breaking records and not Olympic ones. Today, according to the UNHCR 63.5 million people have been displaced by conflict and persecution with 15 million refugees worldwide. 60% of these refugees come from 5 specific countries: Syria, Afghanistan, Somalia, Sudan and South Sudan.

Each member’s road to Rio has been an uphill battle from the start, having to flee persecution whilst at the same time completing the gruelling training needed to secure a spot at the Olympic Games. Yet in the face of rising anti-immigration and xenophobic feelings in many developed countries can this team really change attitudes towards refugees and asylum seekers?

Anti-immigration and racist sentiments have been growing in parts of Europe and the United States. Last year a renovated shelter destined for asylum seekers in the town of Vorra in Germany was subject to an arson attack, and many eastern European countries have used tear gas to prevent groups of refugees from crossing their borders. Time and time again we have heard the growing concerns over the mass of asylum seekers “flooding” the UK. In reality, refugees represent 0.19% of the UK’s population, whilst in Lebanon, a country 23 times smaller, 1 in 5 people are refugees. But despite these relatively low numbers, some British citizens still feel threatened by a mass influx of refugees, with the National Police Chiefs’ Council reporting significant increases in hate crimes nationwide since the Brexit vote. On the other side of the pond, Donald Trump’s angry rhetoric on Muslim communities and immigrants is also spreading like wildfire. This toxic mix of anger, hate and xenophobia has seemed to dominate recent headlines. But the Refugee Olympic team are hoping to challenge people’s views and opinions on the millions of refugees worldwide at this year’s Olympics.

IOC president Thomas Bach said that “By welcoming the team of Refugee Olympic Athletes to the Olympic Games Rio 2016, [he wants] to send a message of hope for all refugees in our world. Having no national team to belong to, having no flag to march behind, having no national anthem to be played, these refugee athletes will be welcomed to the Olympic Games with the Olympic flag and with the Olympic Anthem.”

This message has been embraced by all the team’s members; Popole Misenga, a ROT member from Congo (Judo) said that the team were “fighting for all the refugees in the world”.

Mardini, when asked if her experience of pushing the dinghy was traumatic responded with her trademark positivity: “Not at all. I remember that, without swimming, I would never be alive maybe because of the story of this boat. It’s a positive memory for me.” Very few Olympians can claim that their sport has saved their life.

She’s also stood up in defense of the refugees across the world saying that she “want[s] [Olympic fans] to think that refugees are normal humans that had to leave their homelands. Not because they wanted to, not because they wanted to be refugees or run away or have drama in their lives. They had to leave. To get a new life. Get a better life”.

Hers is not the only story of survival in the team. James Chiengjiek fled South Sudan at age 13 to avoid being forced into service as a child solider. Popole Misenga’s mother was murdered when he was a child in Democratic Republic of Congo; Yonas Kinde feared for his life in Ethiopia and eventually fled to Luxembourg. Each of member of the team bring their own story, their own culture and their own message to these Olympics. As Yusra Mardini said:  “We don’t have the same language. We’re all from different countries. But the Olympic flag united us together, and now we are representing 60 million [people] around the world. We want to show everyone that we can do anything. Good athletes. Good people.”

The Refugee Olympic Team are not only the flag bearers for millions of refugees across the world but are also carrying a message of hope and tolerance at a time when it is so desperately needed.

North Wales Women’s Peace March 1926

Stephen Thomas
Volunteer – Wales for Peace
Peace March

Following the horrors and destruction of the First World War (1914-1918) many women around the globe became activists in the campaign for arms reduction and for the end of war as a means of settling international disputes. Across Britain a variety of women’s groups came together to organise a peace pilgrimage to London for a mass demonstration in Hyde Park on 19 June 1926. In north Wales, under the leadership of two tireless peace activists, Mrs Gladys Thoday and Mrs Silyn Roberts, a procession of peacemakers travelled for five days through the towns and villages of north Wales to reach Chester. Eventually 28 north Wales’ pilgrims joined the 10,000 women at the Hyde Park demonstration.

World War 1 unleashed unimaginable levels of death and destruction across the whole planet. Millions of people, both military and civilian, were killed or suffered serious injury – estimates for casualties run from 30 million upwards, but the true number will never be known. From Britain alone over 723,000 service personnel were killed in the conflict and over a million more were seriously injured. The war had destroyed the lives of so many young men on the battlefield that by 1921, there were one million more women in Britain than men, aged between 20 and 39. It meant that many women were unable to find partners in life or have children and raise a family. The impact of the war on Britain was devastating both socially and economically.
As early as 1915 there were organisations of women around the world calling for mediation between governments to end the war. By 1919 the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom (WILPF) had become a permanent committee with a headquarters in Geneva, Switzerland. The League called for international disarmament and an end to economic imperialism, supporting the US /France Kellogg-Briand Pact of 1928, as the basis for creating a peaceful world order.
The women of Britain were very much involved in these quests for peace, freedom and equality. (Remember, in Britain, it was only in 1918 that all males over the age of 21 finally won the right to vote. And it wasn’t until 1928, and the Equal Franchise Act, that the same rights were applied to women over 21 for the very first time). In light of this struggle to have their voice heard, under the slogan ‘Law not War’, a variety of women’s groups from across Britain came together in 1926 – as wives, widows, mothers, sisters and friends – to organise a huge peace pilgrimage to London.
The women peacemakers of north Wales began their march in May 1926 with a meeting in the village of Penygroes, just south of Caernarfon. As was reported at the time “To the first meeting at Penygroes in South Carnarvonshire on May 27th came five streams of pilgrims winding their many blue flags down the hill-sides, and over 2000 persons were gathered in the little market square from villages far up in the hills.”
The pilgrimage continued across the towns and villages of north Wales for five days until, some 150 miles later, they reached Chester. At the time, a newspaper reported “There were on the main route 15 meetings and 16 processions besides many meetings on side routes…Through the villages the pilgrims in six cars and charabancs went along the Caernarvon Road, and at one place after another they found crowds across the road which insisted on speakers getting out and addressing them from the steps of the local war memorial… Everywhere they were welcomed, everywhere there was interest and enthusiasm, never once was there a single hand raised against the resolution.”
Without modern ‘social media’ to help, it was a great enterprise to spread the news of the pilgrimage to all the remote villages and hamlets of north Wales in the 1920s. They would rely largely on newspapers and post to carry their message. But it all needed effective organisation and for this the north Wales pilgrimage can be thankful for Mrs Mary Gladys Thoday from Llanfairfechan.
Mrs Thoday (nee Sykes) was born in Chester in 1884. She was a botanist having studied at Girton College Cambridge, which had been established as the first Cambridge college to admit women in 1869. In 1910 she married at Wrexham David Thoday, who later became Professor of Botany at Bangor University. Gladys was an intelligent and determined woman of her time and became a tireless activist for the abolition of war. She wrote in 1926 “We realise that the great success of the pilgrimage is due to the many helpers who in every place had done their part because they believe that it is full time that REASON shall take the place of FORCE and arbitration be tried first in every international dispute before there is resort to WAR.”
Among the 28 north Wales pilgrims who finally took part in the peace demonstration in Hyde Park on 19 June 1926 were Mrs Thoday and Mrs Silyn Roberts. These two women addressed the crowd of 10,000 that day in central London – Mrs Roberts spoke in the Welsh language. Following the peace pilgrimage these two women later became the English speaking and Welsh speaking secretaries of the North Wales Women’s Peace Council (NWWPC).

Cartoon
In 1928, under the professional guidance of Mrs Thoday and Mrs Roberts, the voice of women in north Wales was linked to other parts of Britain and the wider international peace movement when the NWWPC became affiliated to the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom. Although the North Wales Women’s Peace March had ended, a Welsh women’s voice had been added to the international call for disarmament and world peace. Their actions played a part in the eventual signing by 62 nations of the Kellogg-Briand Pact, an agreement in 1928 which hoped to outlaw war between nations and prevent another World War.

What kind of Europe do we want?

By Stephen Thomas

As the intensity of the European Union ‘in/out’ referendum debate increases across the UK, I had the opportunity to visit the European Parliament in Brussels this month for the first time.

MEPs make decisions that impact upon the lives of 500 million citizens in this very room

MEPs make decisions that impact upon the lives of 500 million citizens in this very room

I was invited with a group to visit and explore the institution by the European Free Alliance (EFA), a grouping of elected Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) from stateless nations, regions and minorities. In the 2014-2019 parliamentary term EFA MEPs have been elected from Catalonia, Galicia, Latvia, Scotland, Valencia, Wales and the Basque Country. Within the Parliament, MEPs work in political groups. EFA members have formed a common alliance in the European Parliament with the Green Parties since 1999.

The European Parliament

The largest of the several political groupings within the Parliament are the European People’s Party [Christian Democrats] (EPP) and the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats (S&D).  With a total Parliament of 751 seats the EPP currently hold 219 and the S&D 191. EFA have 50.

Each MEP is chosen by an electorate from each of the 28 member countries of the European Union, representing a constituency of over 500 million people. Seats are also distributed, by and large, according to a Member State’s population. Germany, the largest country in population terms, has 96 MEPs whilst the smallest states of Estonia, Cyprus, Luxembourg and Malta have 6 MEPs each. Of the larger Member States after Germany, France has 74 MEPs and the UK and Italy 73 MEPs each.

As such the European Parliament is the only directly elected body in the EU and plays a key role in electing the President of the European Commission. It shares power over the EU budget and legislation with the Council of the European Union.

Council of the European Union

The Council represents the governments of the individual Member States. The Presidency of the Council is shared by the Member States on a six-month rotating basis. For the six months to December 2015 the Presidency is held by Luxembourg. The Presidency is responsible for driving forward the Council’s work on EU legislation, ensuring the continuity of the EU agenda, orderly legislative processes and cooperation among member states. To do this, the Presidency has to act as an honest and neutral broker.

The European Commission

Another major EU institution is the European Commission, the executive body. The Commission is responsible for proposing and implementing EU laws, monitoring the treaties and the day-to-day running of the EU. It represents the interests of the EU as a whole (not the interests of individual countries).

A new team of 28 Commissioners (one from each EU Member State) is appointed every five years. The politically important post is that of President of the Commission.

The candidate for President is proposed to the European Parliament by the European Council who decide on candidates by qualified majority, taking into account the elections to the European Parliament. The Commission President is then elected by the European Parliament by a majority of its component members (which corresponds to at least 376 out of 751 votes).

Following this election, the President-elect selects the 27 other members of the Commission, on the basis of the suggestions made by Member States. The final list of Commissioners-designate has then to be agreed between the President-elect and the Council. The Commission as a whole needs the Parliament’s consent. Prior to this, Commissioners-designate are assessed by the European Parliament committees.

The current Commission’s term of office runs until 31 October 2019. Its President is Jean-Claude Juncker.

Justice, Financial Management & Banking

The Court of Justice; The Court of Auditors and The European Central Bank are the other influential institutions that make up the European Union.

In defence of Liberty and Democracy?

The European Parliament is a unique example of multinational and multilingual democracy at work. The elected members (MEPs) engage in public debates and play a crucial role in shaping the policy of the EU. The principal areas of their work include the following:

Laws

The Parliament decides jointly with the Council of the European Union on laws that affect the daily lives of all EU’s citizens. These include topics such as freedom of travel, food safety and consumer protection, the environment and most sectors of the economy. Member States still have a veto right in areas such as taxation and foreign affairs/defence. Some areas require the Council to obtain the European Parliament’s assent before making a decision.

Budgets

Budgetary powers are the key prerogative of every Parliament — whoever allocates the funds has the power to set political priorities. At EU level, this power is shared between the Parliament and the Council. Together they adopt a multi-annual financial framework every 7 years, and scrutinise and approve the annual budget for the next year, as well as the spending from the previous year. The EU’s multi-annual budget 2014-2020 is €960 billion (yes, billion!).

Control

The European Parliament monitors the correct use of EU funds. The results of parliamentary elections are taken into account in the nomination of the President of the European Commission, but Parliament also has to elect the President and approve the appointment of the Commission and can force it to resign. Commissioners are often asked to defend their policies before the Parliament, and the president of the European Council and the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy regularly appear in Parliament to brief the MEPs and answer their questions.

Over the last couple of years, Parliament has considerably increased the discussions it holds with all leading decision-makers involved with the euro in a bid to shed more light on the way monetary decisions are being taken. In this sense, the Parliament has become one of the only forums acting to improve the transparency of the governance of the euro area.

European Union – why?

Out of the ruins of 1945, there grew an idea amongst Statesmen that, in fostering economic cooperation between countries rather than pursuing imperial and nationalistic rivalries, the risk of another appalling conflict between major sovereign states in Europe would be reduced.  Cooperation based on free trade in several key resource areas (coal, steel and iron ore) was its starting point in a hope that it would build a peaceful and prosperous future for all the peoples of Europe. To a large extent this idea has worked and Europe, indeed the world, has avoided horrors on the scale of the 20th Century’s two world wars.

Few believe however that nirvana has been created with the growth and development of European integration, far from it. The last 70 years since 1945 has continued to witness global tragedies, wars, famine, death and destruction on an appalling human scale. Walking around the European Parliament’s Visitors’ Centre brings these events very much to the mind in a poignant, interactive virtual trip through Europe, its history and its impact on the peoples of the world.

Meeting some MEPs and hearing their ‘stories’ left me feeling that the Parliament does contain elected representatives with strong ideals and a real belief in the concepts of fairness, justice and effective democratic government. They didn’t believe the current European institutions were by any means perfect but were seen rather as a continuing ‘work in progress’ that had evolved far beyond their origins as the European Coal & Steel Community of 1952.  Institutions that continue to engage people and politicians of many persuasions, nationalities and languages in debate, for a peaceful common cause. Controversial topics such as TTIP (the transatlantic trade and investment partnership with the United States); the impact of austerity policies resulting from the 2008 Global Financial Crisis and the democratic predicament raised by the events in Greece pose real challenges for the European Union and its future.

Achieving fairness and justice while maintaining our liberty and freedom is never easy, particularly in our 21st Century multi-layered system of government. It can appear confusing, difficult to understand and sometimes repellent. Yet, as individuals we each carry a responsibility to defend our hard-earned democratic rights and take every opportunity to stand peaceably against the forces of regression who will work to undermine them. An essential first step, surely, is to find out more about how our democracy really works and how we can support it. This has, perhaps, never been more important than right here, and right now.

Learn more about the European Parliament, and the EU in general, here: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/visiting/en/parlamentarium

Between hope and coercion: Greece’s support for the EU and the unforeseen Consequences of the Euro

Pola Zafra-Davis The Greek referendum of 2015 has been watched eagerly by the world. But essentially critiques of fiscal responsibility to Greece’s future transcend mere economic analysis. The real question is if Greece’s present debacle stems from an ill-guided hope when first entering the European project or if its bailouts are a result of political coercion into an ill-suited currency many decades’ ago. The economic issues and answers to be provided are both explicit and implicit. Explicitly, the referendum vote was on whether Greece should accept the latest in bailout packages from Brussels. This would entail budget cuts and another round of austerity. Implicitly, many media reports murmur that the consequences of the referendum are around Greece’s political standing in the EU and its economic fate of staying or leaving the Euro and the Eurozone. One report is that in anticipation of a “no” vote on consenting to the new bailout terms, the EU will proactively take away Greece’s membership of the euro. Economic analyses of the euro and how Greece was doomed are commonplace on the internet. Essentially, the argument is that the Euro as a single currency relies on a widely varied economies [1]. The economies that make up the EU include the powerhouses such as Germany with an unemployment rate of 5% compared to Greece’s 2015 unemployment rate of around 27%[2]. The inflexibility of a single currency basically impairs a weak state like Greece to be in control of inflation and the purchasing power of its population. The rationale for the Euro is that while countries with a lot of the currency exhibit high stability and low inflation, those that need to earn more (such as Greece with the austerity packages) would actually benefit form a less strong Euro via external international investment through the now cheaper currency.But when investment is low and there is low confidence in an economic system known for its tax evasion (Source) and corrupt finance system[3] as is the case of Greece, the benefits of the euro are lost. Questions of fairness have become apparent. Is Greece being irresponsible or is the EU being unfair? Is the EU under the control of Brussels and/or Germany in its influence and is this influence earned? Is Greece responsible for its own economic destiny and did it have a choice in joining the euro (no)? To help us spectators get to the roots of these questions is to get to the heart of the motives of development of the eurozone. This includes roots of the 1970s economic monetary system (EMS) up to Greece’s 1999 adoption of the euro. The story of the creation and adoption of the euro by non-great power states should be seen as a historically-based experience between political hope and coercion. One that is in a sense European as well as Greek. Hope in a sense that the EMU and the Euro was a European project that promised integration and an increased voice for smaller states as well as much needed regional aide. Coercion in the way that economic terms were agreed upon without immediate consultation for the bargain of immediate, and not future, Greek economic and political entitlements. Hope: Economic Monetary Union and Political Integration Economic crises in the geographic area of the eurozone isn’t new. What is new is Greece’s popular response holding political clout as the EU continues to search for a cohesive identity. This may be due to the history of the EU and Economic Monetary Union (EMU) being a discussion outside of the purview of a majority of its members in a show of high politics. In response to the collapse of the Bretton Woods System due to unstable exchange rates, the 1979 EMS formed the European Currency Union (ECU) as a means to combat inflation. In times where one country may fall too behind or one country would advance too far, a divergence indicator was implemented. The divergence indicator allowed supranational authorities to practice diversified intervention policies. The structure of ECU, while convergent in a sense that it included a multitude of currencies to calculate its value, it was not wholly integrated. The EMS has acknowledged that Germany formed an anchor to the system under the Exchange Rate Mechanism (ERM). All currencies were to be pegged with a fixed exchange rate from the Deutsche-Mark in order to import the Bundesbank’s low-inflation successes[4].  The nature of ERM strengthened domestic political actors to further control their domestic economies with anti-inflationary policies. Yet domestic control of economies was not enough to stem the tide of crisis. The ERM crises of 1992-1993 was a result of political externalities rather than purely economic mismanagement or market-reading-errors. This was indicative of an increased sense of interdependence between economic and political integration. The push for the euro came after the fall of the Berlin Wall and was proposed by Francois Mitterand as a means of deepening German economic integration into Europe[5]. The purpose of EMS to EMU was to cut off domination of the Bundesbank in other states’ economic policies in favor of a more collective sovereignty in steering European wide economic policy. France in wishing to secure political integration in the future, made a proposal during the Intergovernmental Conference that the final Stage III of the Delors plan was to begin in 1999 and Germany would be unable to opt out. This combined the political motivation of EMU with the economic guidance of German low-inflation. As a testament to political factors in determining the structure of the EMU, it was accepted that it would have to satisfy German concerns, meaning that the European Central Bank (ECB) in structure would have to resemble the Bundesbank. The ECB would acquire protection from political interference and concentrating on price stability[6]. The actual imposition of the ECB signaled the coming of true EMU, especially since it would have a single currency to work with. The creation of EMU was economically motivated due to the simplicity of demands as a mode of Regional Integration. Yet, the European project is political in nature since its days of the Economic Coal and Steel Community where the belief of economic integration was a key feature to bringing a lasting peace upon Europe following the devastation of the world wars. EMS and EMU were therefore hopeful in their initial ends despite their high politics means of keeping smaller states out of the bargaining table. Coercion: Political and Economic Bandwagoning for Survival At the time of Greece joining the EU, Greece was experiencing a period of political instability in between 1981-1989. This was paired with a deep economic failure that resulted in the EU Commission President, Jacques Delors to express that Greece’s problems were becoming a serious cause for concern on the development to EMU [7]. Greece entered the EU during the second wave of enlargements in 1981. When the Euro was adopted, Greece along with Ireland, Portugal, Spain and Italy, saw their interest rates immediately drop. Every state that was in the EU by 1999 were obliged to join, except the UK and Denmark whom had special exemptions.  Yet since 1984, Greece’s stance has been pro-European despite their economic difficulties. Greece has viewed the EU as a forum where different discussions and ideas can be brought together[8]. This had led to Greece adopting a pro-European stance on most issues except foreign policy. After its membership into the EU, immediately Greece gained a financial flow from the Community budget topping almost 5% of its GDP[9]. Politically, gains were also felt as its political bargaining power increased and it acquired a regional voice. But in the context of the late-1980s EMU, Greece was and was politically weak and economically dependent[10]. There were thus in no position to make any suggestions to the process. Greece’s acquiescence to the process was based on avoiding isolation as a result of EMU, the allowance of negotiating a cohesion fund for poorer regions and hopes to gain influence in other matters such as foreign policy[11]. Considering how the EU was designed, it is of no surprise that present media analyses of the Greek Referendum have become hairy with Germany’s participation as key. The ECB was designed through political negotiations and entails elements of the Bundesbank being adopted. A sense of betrayal is then evident as for a small state, Greece has been in favor of the European project despite the economic integration difficulties that befell the country during the early years of its admission into the European club. It is an instance of “buying the whole cow” when Greece was not part of the initial EMU talks but rather a state trying to prove its worth to gain membership amidst political and economic turmoil in the 1980s. A Barometer of a Generation Yes and No votes have been cast along generational lines. Those that consent to the package are willing to weather out the storm and delay inevitable economic collapse. Contrast members of the ‘No’ camp who are young voters that feel that they have nothing to lose, are risk taking, and are aware that they will remain as the true consequences of their choices unfold in the next coming decades. However, the hindsight of historical experience may not be what is needed in the latest round of EU financial packages. What is being experienced now in Greece is similar to what Europe has experienced in its long hard road to EMU amidst crisis after crisis from the collapse of the Bretton Woods System tied to the US. Only this time, Greece contents with a block of countries rather than a united country (like the US) that stands at a precipice on if it acts as one voice, or follows on the voice of the “powerful” countries. What we must remember is that the EU and the development of the Eurozone especially was a Franco-German project with considerations of the role of Europe, and not its individual member states, on the world stage. This mismatch in history between scenarios and priorities showcases the problems that occur when Greece and any small country finds itself as part of a unique case that fits unwell with recent history and experience of the EU. The start of Maastricht in 1992 and later EMU in 1999 was a signal that in order to function at an equal level, it was necessary for Europe to take part in political integration with the convergence of state infrastructures not only in cooperation but the recognition of a new supranational entity, the ECB. Experience in the flaws of the ERM further spurned decisions towards a supranational EMU to better coordinate and spread stabilizing economies than relying on exchange rates in the hands of individual state governments. The rise of the euro is a story laced with hope but tempered by the weight of political compromises towards Germany. It is thus not surprising that Greece’s “no camp”, in a globalized economy, is feeling tethered to a plan not of their own making. [1] http://www.vox.com/2015/7/2/8883129/greek-crisis-euro-explained-video [2] http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Unemployment_statistics [3] http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/dec/03/greece-corruption-alive-and-well [4] Artis, Mike and Bladen-Hovell, Robin “European Monetary Union” in Artis, Mike and Nikson, Frederick ed.s The Economics of European Union: Policy and Analysis 3rd ed. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2001)  Pg 299 [5] Apel, Emmanual “European Monetary Integration 1958-2002” (London: Routeledge, 1997) Introduction: An Ever Closer Union, Pg. 15 [6] Verdun, Amy, “The Institutional Design of EMU: A Democratic Deficit?” Journal of Public Policy, 18, 2, 1998, Pg 112 [7] Featherstone, Kevin. “Greece and EMU: Between external empowerment and domestic vulnerability.” JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies 41.5 (2003): 923-940. [8] Hanf, K., & Soetendorp, B. (Eds.). (2014). Adapting to European integration: small states and the European Union. Routledge. Pg.94 [9] Plaskovitis, I. (1994). EC regional policy in Greece: ten years of structural funds intervention. P. Kazakos and PC Ioakimidis, IEF Working Paper, (9). [10] Op. Cit. Featherstone Pg. 925 [11] Ibid.

Pola Zafra-Davis recently received her PhD in International Politics from Aberystwyth University and is based in Aberystwyth, Wales. She currently teaches core modules at University College London’s European Social and Political Studies Department. She can be reached via twitter @PolaZafraDavis or her personal website polazafradavis.co.uk

UK defence policy – under any political party – risks being penny wise and pound foolish

Iwan Benneyworth

For a brief time before the General Election campaign commenced, it seemed that UK defence policy was quietly making its way up the news agenda. What was generally regarded as a lower tier issue crowded out by more pressing concerns such as health, education and the economy, started to gain traction, which will tend to happen when you have Russian nuclear bombers buzzing our airspace.

Continue reading

International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women

By Georgia May

“Violence against women and girls is a human rights violation, public health pandemic and serious obstacle to sustainable development. It imposes large-scale costs on families, communities and economies. The world cannot afford to pay this price.”Ban Ki-moon, UN Secretary-General.

The 25 November marked the International Day for Violence Against Women (White Ribbon Day). The Welsh Centre for International Affairs (WCIA), along with Bawso, Welsh Women’s Aid, Llamau, New Pathways, Safer Wales and Unite the Union organised the ‘Light the Candle’ event in Llandaff, Cardiff. The United Nations made it an official day in 1999, and it marks the start of 16 days of activism against gender based violence, with the aim to raise awareness and invite change. However, a large limitation to the efforts of preventing violence against women is the lack of funding. So, the ‘Light a Candle’ event aimed to raise awareness through a march from Cathedral Road to Llandaff Cathedral, with the Light a Candle Service in the cathedral aiming to promote the cause further with really interesting talks from courageous survivors of violence, as well as speeches from key note speakers who gave us all more insight as to how Wales deals with this issue. Lastly, the fundraiser aimed to raise money for the cause.

The day started early, with the march commencing at 9am from Llandaff offices on Cathedral Road. The turn-out was impressive, with many organisations in attendance, along with members of the public showing their support for the cause. When talking to the participants before the march, the main reason for wanting to get involved seemed to be to show solidarity against violence against women, but also violence as a whole. This displays so much promise, because if there are people willing to put themselves out there and express their opinions then the elimination of such horrendous acts should be a quicker process, as there are more people who will stand together on this issue. Prior to the start of the march, signs were also distributed with strong messages- mine said “Break the Silence” in big, bold writing- which really worked well to promote the cause.

The march began and we were ready with our signs, and our chant “zero tolerance to domestic violence,” which really turned heads as we made our way to the cathedral. Whilst on our march, we were clearly gathering support from the public, with many cars beeping and waving us along on our way. I asked some marchers how this made them feel, and they said that they were quite touched as it showed that there can be collective support among different groups of people. I agree with this, being a part of the march and getting backing from those not participating did motivate me more. This suggests that if we all have the same attitude towards the issue, we will have a stronger way of eliminating violence against women.

Our march came to an end when we arrived at Llandaff Cathedral, where we had a moment of silence to reflect on the women and girls who have lost their lives to violence. This was a surreal moment as it reinforced what we had been marching for.

Once in the cathedral, the Bishop introduced the event and placed importance on working together to eliminate violence against women. This really should be the main idea to take from the day as one of the most important strategies. Then, Aisha Kigwalilo who is a member of Bawso Youth Network, performed to start the service.

Carl Sargeant was the first key note speaker, and with his years of experience in the National Assembly for Wales, he gave an insightful talk on Wales’ stance on violence against women and girls, which particularly linked to his current role as cabinet Secretary of State for Committees and Children. His talk expressed the zero tolerance that Wales has towards violence against women and about the sense of responsibility that citizens have to raise awareness and work together to try and prevent this.

Next, Alimatu Dimonekene, a campaigner against the harmful practice of Female Genital Mutilation, spoke to the audience. As a survivor of the practice, her talk was a privilege to listen to as it showed us the effects of violence against women on those who have been subjected to such horrible acts. She stressed her lack of choice in the matter and how it was something that she did not totally understand at the time. I think that this is something that needs to be tackled. Many girls within the cultures where FGM takes place are not educated as to why this is happening to them or the effects. This is why days such as this are important, as we need to raise awareness so that girls understand that violence happening to them is not okay. The audience clearly had so much respect for Dimonekene, which was lovely to see as it only emphasises the sense of collective that we went to establish.

The next speaker was Rhian Bowen-Davies, who is the National Adviser for Violence against Women, other forms of Gender based Violence, Domestic Abuse and Sexual Violence. This post is innovative as it is the first of its type in the UK, demonstrating that Wales are really committed to The Violence against Women, Domestic Abuse and Sexual Violence (Wales) Act 2015. With Bowen-Davies’ purpose to aid the pursuance of this legislation, she offered real insight into female based issues in Wales in particular. She used her experiences to come to the conclusion that not just women should stand together to fight this issue, but that we should approach this as a collective society.

Afterwards, a number of faith leaders from different religious groups- Buddhism, Judaism, Hinduism and Islam- then took some time to speak on the issue. It was amazing to see a sense of solidarity amongst the groups in wanting to eradicate violence against women. This is promising as it goes to show that it really is becoming a shared opinion among very diverse communities.

The service ended with interactive songs from Laura Bradshaw, which got the audience involved, as well as concluding remarks from the priest.

The next and last part of the day was the lunch at Llandaff Rugby Club to raise money to support women affected by violence with no recourse to public funds. Although I could not stay for this event for long, the atmosphere felt very positive, which certainly motivated people to give to the cause.

Overall, the day was a success, raising both awareness and money for the cause. The main thing that I think everyone took from the day was that we must stand together in order to eliminate not only violence against women, but gender based violence altogether. It seems clear that we have already made massive progress in terms of campaigning efforts, and the fact there is a mutual stance on the issue among various social groups means that efforts will only increase, which is something positive to take from something as awful as gender-based violence.

The Shepherd Family of Ystalyfera and Pontypridd in the First World War

By Maggie

Tevia Rudinsky left behind his wife and baby son in Siemiatycze in Russian Poland when he fled to Britain to escape conscription into the Tsarist army in 1877, at the start of the Russo-Turkish war.

Conscription in 19th century Russia was particularly severe – men could be conscripted for 25 years and Jews were explicitly singled out for harsh treatment with boys as young as 12 potentially liable for military service.  Forced conversion was not unusual. Such historic memories, and the fact that Russia not Germany was associated with the most brutal manifestations of anti-Semitism in the years leading up to the First World War, had a considerable influence on the often hostile attitude of Jews of Russian origin to the idea of compulsory service in the British Army.By 1916, when conscription was first introduced, Tevia Rudinsky, now aged 60, and having meanwhile changed his name to Tobias Shepherd and taken on British nationality, was living in Cambria Villa, 3 Tyfica Road in Pontypridd with his wife and his British-born younger children. He owned a successful shop selling glass, paper and decorating materials in Ystalyfera in the Upper Swansea valley.  Three of his younger sons were liable for conscription and all three became conscientious objectors, as did his daughter, the author Lily Tobias.

The Conscientious Objectors

Isaac Shepherd- the oldest of the three young men, was 24 in 1916, and working as a decorator. He was an active member of the No-Conscription Fellowship (NCF).  However, the Conscientious Objector’s Register notes that his main motivation for his decision to resist conscription was his Jewish faith.

On 2 May 1916, Isaac was arrested in Pontypridd with his brother Joseph, tried in the Magistrates’ Court, fined 40/- (£2) and handed over to be taken to the recruiting office in Cardiff.  He was held in Garrison Artillery Barracks in Dumfries Place and then transferred on 10 May to Kinmel Park Camp, Abergele, near Rhyl.

On 31 May 1916, Isaac was sentenced by a court martial at Kinmel Park to 2 years’ hard labour.  He was held in Walton Prison in Liverpool from 9 June until 1 September 1916.  He was then released on leave pending instructions about his Home Office Scheme placement under the Brace Committee.  In comparison to his brothers, Isaac seems thereafter to have been given a relatively easy time by the authorities.  Llais Llafur, the local radical socialist newspaper in Ystalyfera, reported on 30 September 1916:

“As announced in our column last week, Mr Isaac Shepherd… has been released from prison where he has served time as a conscientious objector.  He has now returned to his home at Ystalyfera and will manage the business at the Wern paper stores”.

Isaac was officially transferred to the army reserve class on 20 December 1916.

Solomon Shepherd was 20 in 1916 and working as a wallpaper and glass salesman in the family firm. He was brought before the Military Service Tribunal in Pontardawe on 28 April 1916 where his claim, based on his Jewish faith and ILP and NCF membership, was dismissed.  A county appeal in May 1916 was similarly dismissed and the following month he was arrested, tried in Swansea Police Court on 21 June 1916, fined 40/- (£2) and handed over to the military authorities.

On 1 July 1916 The Herald of Wales & Monmouthshire Recorder reported his trial thus:

Solomon Shepherd, of Ystalyfera, who was arrested at Ystalyfera by P.C. Cook, was charged with being an absentee under the Military Service Act. When the charge was read to him, he replied, “I object on principle.” The police officer produced two circulars found on defendant, and handed them to the magistrates. Major Jessel said defendant had been notified three times – on May 8, June 1, and on June 10 a reminder to report himself in 24 hours. He had taken no notice. He said he did not intend to serve. He had caused trouble. Defendant: I’ve caused no trouble. Major Jessel: It has been reported to me that you have. Mr. J. H. Rosser: If you don’t obey orders you get into trouble. Defendant: I object to it. Mr. Rosser: A great many object to it – shirkers like yourself. Defendant: I am no shirker. If others had done their duty I would not be where I am now. Mr. Rosser: You will pay 40s. and be handed over to the military. You must do your duty and not try to get out of it.

Solomon was held for a couple of weeks in Cardiff Barracks and then at a court martial on 14 July 1916 was sentenced to 112 days’ hard labour.  After serving his time in Cardiff Prison he was released on 13 October 1916 to the Home Office Scheme.

The high number of conscientious objectors held in prison and scandals arising from the harsh treatment of some COs had led to a government decision to provide an alternative for “absolutists” who refused not only to obey military orders but also to undertake any war-related work. The Brace Committee, named after the eponymous Home Office Under Secretary of State, organised work of ‘national importance’ for men whom a central tribunal found to have a ‘genuine’ conscientious objection.  These work schemes were often poorly organised, with the men living in appalling conditions that amounted to imprisonment and punishment by another name.

Under the Home Office Scheme, Solomon was sent to work at waterworks near Llangadog in Carmarthenshire.  Here his health broke down and he went home to see his doctor.  On 6 January 1917, Llais Llafur reported:

Mr Solomon Shepherd, of the Wern paper stores, who has served four months in a civil prison as a conscientious objector, was home during the early part of the week. He has now accepted alternative service, and is engaged on the Llyn-y-Fan water works. The camp, at which about 80 conscientious objectors are employed, is about a nine mile tramp from the nearest station, Llangadock. 

Solomon was recalled to his unit on 21 January 1917.  He must have ignored the summons as he was arrested again on 23 February 1917.  At a court martial on 24 April 1917 at Kinmel Park Camp near Rhyl he was sentenced to 2 years’ hard labour.

Joseph, the youngest of the three brothers, was an academic high achiever who entered Cardiff University in October 1915 with a John Cory Scholarship worth £25 a year and a Glamorgan Exhibition worth £40 a year. He was arrested in Pontypridd with his brother Isaac on 2 May 1915.  Llais Llafur reported on 6 May 2016:

Isaac Shephard (23) and Joseph Shephard (19), Pontypridd (late of Ystalyfera) were charged at Pontypridd on Tuesday with being absentees under the Military Service Act. Both pleaded not guilty and asked for a remand. Isaac said that he wanted to obtain legal advice, while the younger defendant stated that he held a four years’ scholarship at the University College, Cardiff, and wished to consult the Principal and the Registrar. They were each fined 40s. and ordered to await an escort.

After being held in Garrison Artillery Barracks in Dumfries Place in Cardiff, Joseph was transferred on 10 May 1916 to Kinmel Park Camp. From here, next day, he wrote a letter on behalf of himself and his brother, appealing for help, particularly with respect to the provision of kosher food.

My brother Isaac and I are being kept in the above hut owing to our conscientious objection to all forms – combatant and non-combatant – of military service.  We are the sons of extremely orthodox Jewish parents. Our upbringing has always tended to uncompromising hostility to military service, and we intend, Sir, to be faithful to the Jewish atmosphere which we have always breathed.

After describing their arrest and sentencing in Pontypridd, the letter continues:

The armed escort […] took us to Castle Arcade Recruiting Office, Cardiff. Here in addition to the jeers and abuse that always assail the conscientious objector, we had sneers and threats of a very anti-semitic flavour. Despite all attempts at intimidation (threats to be shot, tortured etc.) we refused to sign anything or be medically examined.

During their nine days of incarceration in the Dumfries Place barracks:

[…] we had no complaints to make about our treatment or our food. We expected to suffer hardship and we must not complain whilst suffering it.  At Cardiff our friends and relatives kept us well supplied with food, a hot kosher dinner being sent in every day. Here we don’t know what to do about dinner; we shall probably have to go without any unless arrangements can be made with the commanding officer […]

 At a court martial in Kinmel Park on 25 May 1916, Joseph was sentenced him to 2 years’ hard labour in Wormwood Scrubs. Alongside his Jewish faith, he also emphasised ILP and NCF membership as his motivation for refusing military service.

The Merthyr Pioneer reported on 10 June 1916 that nine South Walians had been sent from Kinmel Park to Wormwood Scrubs on the same day.

Comrades Percy Pope, Albert Rudall, Arthur J. Hewinson, G. Reynolds, Dorian Herbert, J. H. Davies, Trevor C. Griffiths (all of Newport ILP and NCF Branches), Joseph Shepherd (Pontypridd), and W. T. Jones (Treforest) were on Friday removed from Kinmel Park to Wormwood Scrubbs (sic) to commence their period of two years’ hard labour for “disobeying in such a manner as to show wilful defiance of authority a lawful command given personally by his superior officer in the execution of his office.”

Joseph’s case was eventually reviewed by tribunal on 1 September 1916 and he was released to the Home Office Scheme, which in his case took the form of road mending at Clare in West Suffolk.

The Reluctant Soldiers

Meanwhile Tobias Shepherd’s older sons Moses and Barnet followed a rather different path in their attempts to avoid conscription.  Both had been born in Russia, Moses/Moshe, also known as Moss, in 1877 and Barnet in 1884.  They were not included in Tobias’ British citizenship application in 1904, so technically were ‘aliens’.

When conscription was introduced in 1916 the question arose of what to do with ‘friendly aliens’, especially Russian Jews of military age.  It was first agreed that they would be allowed to join the British Army voluntarily; their failure to do so in any great numbers led to a decision in June 1916, finally implemented in summer 1917, to conscript them on the same terms as British citizens or offer them the chance to return to Russia and join the army there.

Barnet seems to have been first conscripted in 1917 and attempted an appeal on the grounds that he had people dependent on him who would not be able to maintain themselves if he were forced to enlist in the army.  On 12 July 1917, the Amman Valley Chronicle and East Carmarthen News reported a second unsuccessful tribunal hearing.

A meeting of the Carmarthenshire Appeals Tribunal was held at Llandilo (sic) on Thursday… Barnet Shepherd, 24, College Street, Ammanford, came up for a re-hearing, supported by Mr. E. Harries, solicitor, Swansea, who said one of the grounds of application, that he was a Russian subject, would not be gone into, as it was laid down that had nothing to do with the Tribunal.

The Clerk said the applicant was 34 years of age, and Class A. The application was dismissed at the first hearing, and a re- hearing granted.’ He claimed in the first instance that he was not liable for military service, being a Russian subject; secondly, he had a wife and five children, the eldest being nine years old. He had been in his present business twelve years, and had a large stock worth £12,000, which would take a considerable time to dispose of… He was only left himself in the business, and it would be impossible for his wife, being ill, or anyone else to manage the business. […] He was practically the only glazier left in the district. He formerly employed five men, and all were in the Army except one. Three of them were glaziers, and he did the glazing now, besides carrying on the shop. His wife was in a delicate condition of health, and had been suffering for two or three years past. If he were called away his business would have to be closed down, and it would not be possible to re-build it after he came back from the Army. He claimed that this was a case within the decision of the Central Tribunal, being a one-man business, and it was a case of serious domestic hardship. […] 

The appeal was dismissed, applicant not to be called up for a month. 

Barnet did then join the army but at some point, probably after the end of the war, he deserted.  On 21 February 1919 the Carmarthen Journal and South Wales Weekly Advertiser reported:

Bertha Shepherd, wife of Pte. Barnet Shepherd, formerly in business in College Street, Ammanford, was charged under D.O.R.A. (Defence of the Realm Act) with withholding information as to the whereabouts of her husband, who is a deserter from the forces; and further with being an alien she changed her residence without giving notice to the registration officer […] Inspector Davies gave evidence and stated that defendant was a Russian subject. Cross-examined he had nothing direct to prove that the wife’s statements were incorrect. Re-examined he understood from her that she was in touch with her husband. Mr. Griffith, addressing the Bench, said the husband was a Welsh-speaking Jew, while the defendant came from some part of Germany or Russia, and had no friends here, and was not conversant with British law. The Bench found the defendant guilty of a technical offence in changing her residence without notification, and she would be fined the costs, with half-a-guinea advocate’s fee. As regards withholding information there was not sufficient evidence to justify a fine.

Moses/Moshe/Moss Shepherd was also called up in 1917 and again tried to avoid military service, in his case (falsely) on grounds of age.  On 20 April 1918, the Herald of Wales and Monmouthshire Recorder noted:

On 26 January of this year Alfred Moses Shepherd (sic), of Grove Place, Swansea, described as a Russian subject, was sentenced to six months’ imprisonment at Swansea Police Court for making a false declaration in order to evade military service. Shepherd appealed against this sentence, and the appeal came on for hearing before the Recorder at the Swansea Quarter Sessions on Thursday.

Mr. Marlay Samson […] for the respondents […] dealt with the various sections of the Military Service Act. When war broke out Shepherd registered as an alien (Russian), and later in 1917 a Proclamation was made by the King calling upon all Russians of military age to join the Colours. These men could either return to Russia for that purpose or remain in this country and join the British Army. Shepherd, on registering in 1914, had said he was born in January 1879, but on his form of appeal for exemption sent to the Tribunal he said he was 44.  In view of that fact (the army) did not oppose the application, and the Tribunal decided that as he was 44 he was ineligible.

Enquiries were (later) instituted and proceedings were taken as the result of which Shepherd was convicted and sentenced. Evidence was then called. Mr. Llewelyn Williams submitted that when Shepherd stated his age to be 44, any doubt cast on that was a matter for a Court of Summary Jurisdiction to decide. The man had not been called before the Tribunal, and in any case the Tribunal could not decide the question of age. Shepherd adhered today to his statement that he was 44.

The Recorder upheld the conviction, but reduced the sentence from six months to one month.

After serving his sentence, Moses joined the army, serving latterly in the 9th Labour Battalion, which was formed in April 1918 from non-naturalised Russians domiciled in UK.  By that stage, following the October Revolution, Russia was out of the war and considered to be an enemy power. As a result the Russians were kept segregated; probably for fear that they might spread the revolution to Great Britain, with the 9th Battalion being stationed at Fort Scoveston, near Neyland in Pembrokeshire.

Like his younger brother Barnet, Moses also deserted at the end of the war.  On 4 January 1919 Llais Llafur reported:

At Swansea on Monday, Mrs Fanny Shepherd (35) of Grove Place, Swansea, was charged with withholding information in her possession which might reasonably be required to furnish particulars concerning Pte. Moses Alfred Shepherd, “he being a deserter from the Russian Labour Company at Fort Scoveston”, from Detective-Sergt. Gubb on 28 November. Defendant refused to inform Detective-Sergt. Gubb of the whereabouts of her husband, Pte. Moses A. Shepherd. Mr. Edward Harris, for the defence submitted that defendant did not know where her husband was, and that she only had a vague idea of the town in which he was staying. She had stated to the detective, when asked, that she would make inquiries. Pte. Shepherd was granted special Jewish leave in September last, and had never returned. A fine of 40/- was imposed.

The Author

Lily Tobias (née Shepherd) was Tobias Shepherd’s oldest daughter and his first child to be born in Wales. Lily was a committed socialist and began to write short pieces for the influential local socialist newspaper, Llais Llafur, in 1904 when she was in her late teens. She and her sister Kate (mother of the poet Dannie Abse) were both active supporters of the Independent Labour Party.  With her husband Philip (they married in 1911) she was also very involved in the Jewish literary and debating society movement in South Wales.

As a political activist and a writer, Lily fought for female suffrage, the rights of working people and a Jewish national homeland in Palestine.  She, like her younger brother Joseph in particular, held a strong socialist pacifist belief that the First World War was being fought for imperialist interests against the interests of the workers.  Fenner Brockway, editor of the Labour Elector (the newspaper of the ILP) and co-founder of the No-Conscription Fellowship, knew her well. He remembered her in conversation with Leo Abse as “an active and belligerent pacifist… showing great resourcefulness and courage in defying the authorities and assisting draft dodgers, and those in prison”.

Lily’s second novel Eunice Fleet drew on her brothers’ experiences as conscientious objectors to draw a picture of a middle-aged  businesswoman trying to live with the negative reactions of herself and others to her late husband’s stand as a conscientious objector in the First World War.  First published in 1933, it was considered radical at the time, making the suffering of pacifists, rather than the suffering of soldiers, its central concern.

Sources

Details of the tribunals and sentences of the three younger Shepherd brothers are taken from the Conscientious Objector Register to be found at https://livesofthefirstworldwar.org/

All newspaper sources quoted can be found in the National Library of Wales digitised database http://newspapers.library.wales/home

Information about Lily Tobias, as well as Joseph Shepherd’s letter to his family from May 1916, is taken from Jasmine Donahaye: The Greatest Need: the creative life and troubled times of Lily Tobias, a Welsh Jew in Palestine  (Honno, Dinas Powys, 2015).

The story of E. P. Jones, Pontypridd

By Aled Eurig 

From a Pontypridd family, E.P. Jones objected to war on religious grounds. As a Christian, he believed that war of any kind was wrong, and that no-one had the right to kill their fellow human beings just because they were of a different nationality, or because your government told you to do so. He belonged to the No-Conscription Fellowship (an organisation that encouraged men to refuse war service) and the Fellowship of Reconciliation (a peace group) – but stressed that his stance as a conscientious objector was taken as an individual.

After refusing to serve (in 1915, at the age of 25) E.P. Jones’ story follows a pattern that was typical of conscientious objectors in World War 1: they would appear before a tribunal, then be sent to prison when they refused to serve, then back in front of a tribunal, and back to prison. This was called the ‘cat and mouse’ treatment. He served terms in Caernarfon, Wormwood Scrubs and Walton (Liverpool).

Eventually E.P. Jones was released to do ‘work of national importance’. This involved building a reservoir above the village of Llannon (Carmarthenshire). The work camp was in a very remote location, and the Llanelly Chronicle reported that the men spent their time ‘up on the bleak top of the hill’. E.P. Jones himself described the work as hard, fit for a ‘qualified navvy’. Some of the camp guards were cruel and unjust: one objector, Frank Davenport, was sent back to prison for refusing to go to work in a snowstorm, whilst another fled back to prison because of the ‘callous neglect’ he had suffered in the camp.

This contrasted sharply to the welcome that the COs received from the local community. In the words of E. P. Jones:

The Tumble was special like that. You would go for tea with them on Sunday, and everyone, every denomination, was kind with everything; they let us borrow books from the library. You could not get more kindness.”

Once a month E.P. Jones was allowed home for the weekend. He was disappointed by the way he was treated by the ‘important people’ (the elders and the deacons) in his chapel: they were very cold towards him, some refused to look at him or speak to him.

Annual Law Lecture: How global trading rules are contributing to Africa’s deindustrialization and what we can do about it

By Georgia Marks

On the 21st November 2016, the WCIA, in partnership with Centre for Law and Society/ Law and Global Justice Programme, Cardiff University, held the fifth annual law lecture by Professor James Thuo Gathii at the Temple of Peace in Cardiff. John Harrington, the chairman of the Board of Justice for the WCIA, chaired the event. He introduced the speaker and the discussant, Celine Tan. Overall, the event was insightful and gave the audience a range of solutions to think about in terms of global trade.

Professor Gathii began by defining deindustrialization as the movement of workers from industry and then went on to give a brief context. He stated that Africa’s economy has been growing, but this has brought deindustrialization. In the 1970s, the governments had policies focusing on agriculture, but wanted to be like the West so produced industrialised economies, with structural adjustment programmes set up to reduce the role of the state in the economy. In 1990, the World Bank and the IMF drove for reform which the speaker says had a debilitating effect on industries. For example, in Senegal, the manufacturing and processing of sugar decreased in the past 20 years.

Next, Gathii highlighted the problems behind deindustrialization. He said that bad economic governments contributed. Many governments are corrupt, as well as the fact that the African elite have been able to source products, that can be made in Africa, outside of the continent at the expense of local producers. He then went on to use the supply of palm oil to reinforce his point. He then went on to talk about the phenomenon of consumption cities where workers are moving from manufacturing as there is less work. This is exacerbated by the lack of sustainable effort to create work in industry, and thus the problem grows. This seems to be a valid problem in these countries which in turn create a variety of different problems, particularly to local businesses.

The speaker continued by proposing solutions which he referred to as ‘big ideas.’ Firstly, he suggested making technology transfers a key component of the trade system, for example with Japan and China. Emphasis was placed on Africa’s need to go for innovation seeking investments and utilise other countries’ need for resources. He also gave importance to the fact that the availability of these contracts allows the transfer of knowledge between countries. I think that this is important as it allows for African countries to develop which will hopefully enhance their position within trade. Gathii stated that there is a lot of potential in this idea as exemplified in South Korea doing business with Britain over the manufacturing of rail cars. Countries can gain leverage in order to get what they want instead of just selling off resources. In his belief, African countries have the capacity to do this. This idea is a good one as it encourages African countries to be more assertive in trade which appeared to be one of the main themes in the talk, but it is also interactive for Western countries as they will participate in this trade.

The next proposed solution was improved regional trade among African countries. This is perhaps one of the strongest solutions as it promotes self-sufficiency in Africa. Gathii expressed that there is currently an unequal system in international trade as the ways trading rules are interpreted are consistent with bias because big countries will make sure that their view prevails. This solution is within Africa itself, so does not address part of the talk which askes what we can do about it, but despite this, it is still a strong solution. The speaker gave the shocking statistic that inter-African trade is only 9% of their overall trade, with Africa importing $35 billion worth of food each year. What is worse, according to Gathii, is that it is the sort of food that Africa grows! He went on to say that famines in African countries were because of no trade, not because of lack of food. This stresses the importance of inter-African trade. He stated that commitments to reduce the trade barriers are all there. If there have been things put in place for this solution then there is no reason why it should not be successful. A member of the audience from Cardiff University asked how we could focus on south-south cooperation to reduce dependence on the western world. In response, Gathii expressed that southern countries were doing a bad job of trading with themselves. In order to improve this we could make evident these blind spots as there is a possibility to build a vibrant market in rural Africa with the right policies. How we could make them see the blind spots was not made clear, however the speaker is right in the fact that good policy making will help to boost trade.

Third, Gathii suggests productivity enhancing initiatives, which could be done without the other two proposals. He goes on to recommend basic processing of natural produce and simple but critical farming technology. All of this centres on product development, but also ensures that the changes are realistic and work for regionalists. Whilst this proposal is the simplest of all the solutions, it is a positive that it can work independently of the others given, and may also be the most realistic recommendation.

Overall, the proposals made by Professor Gathii were good as they would be effective if carried out properly. However, the emphasis is not on what the West can do about it. Yet, I do not think that is a bad thing, as a lot of discussions have the tendency to be too focussed on the West, which can sometimes mean that the issue at hand can get forgotten. So I think the fact that the main subjects are the African countries strengthens the proposals given by the speaker, but also gives a more innovative perspective to these solutions.

The discussant, Celine Tan, then analysed the proposals made by Professor Gathii, stating that they were excellent. This I totally agree with. She took on an Asian perspective as a child of Malaysian industrialisation. She spoke of the lack of regulation which made industrialisation problematic in Malaysia, however despite this it is undeniable that industrialisation was the driver in the country’s economic growth. The discussant claimed that in Africa, external factors are constraining the continent’s industrial development, and expressed that Gathii was too generous to the external sources. The main question surrounding Tan’s talk was how much of Gathii’s proposals does he think is achievable? Particularly in terms of current constraints. She went on to say that external factors were not barriers to other countries such as Malaysia, particularly that they did not have pressures from external places to get funds. Malaysia’s transition from agriculture to industry was gradual because they had the policy space to do so. However, according to Tan, African countries have lost their autonomy of the constraints, whereas Malaysia maintains their scope for determining what to do with their economy. I think this highlights one of the key constraints on Africa which is unique to them, and emphasizes that as a continent they need to try and address these limits. Also, bringing in a different perspective on industrialisation made for a really effective comparison, so that the audience could see the realistic limits on African countries.

Tan highlights three key issues that Gathii’s proposals may encounter. Firstly, there is the issue of Africa’s dependence on external finance, as some of the speakers’ proposals were predicated on public finance. But where is this finance going to come from? I think that this is a really crucial question to ask, as how can we see any of these solutions put into place if there is nothing to fund them. Secondly, there is a question of international regulation as it hinders the finance available. She stated that multi-national firms threaten countries’ revenue. This is the downside to processes with foreign investors as how can we ensure that African countries keep onto the revenue. Again, I think that this is a point worth addressing as there is a risk of exploitation here. In the Q&A session after the talks, a representative from Fair Trade Wales asked what the solutions can be provided to support farmers and ensure that they have a choice a choice on a global scale. Gathii responded by saying that we shouldn’t leave things the way they are if they are corrupt. Investment programmes are the solution. The speaker acknowledged the limits as inevitable, but everyone says that this is the right thing to do. On basic necessities trade could be improved, but the time scales need to be more visible. There are interesting policies already existing. He went on to express that if trade does not benefit the people then there is no point. Western ideas do not truly know about African issues, so aid is not going to help as much as trade. I think this makes a good point in that instead of the West attempting to help, we should be taking a step back and let Africa retain control of their own policies so that they have more influence in trade as Africa knows what will benefit them the most.

Lastly, Tan emphasised the constraints of investment rules in global trade. These trade rules mean that countries like the UK generate value from raw materials. Additionally, the discussant also highlighted the constraints that treaties bring to African countries, such limits are not faced by countries in south-east Asia. She continued by saying that the rules are so stacked against African countries, it is doubtful as to whether the proposals given by Gathii will work. This is point is very valid as it shows the problems as exclusive to African countries, which only emphasizes the problems of trade in these countries. It is also an important aspect to consider when asking whether the proposals would realistically work.

Ms Tan concluded by saying that a more holistic outlook was needed. Overall, her rebuttals to Professor Gathii’s proposals were all persuasive and acted for a good academic discussion. These proposals appear to be an ideal, but more thought needs to go into how these could be developed in practice, linking to the context of the current situation in African countries.

Gathii then summarised his stance, addressing the points made by Tan. In terms of the last point, he stated that the discussant was right in that there were huge barriers imposed by the West that prevent many of his proposals. He claimed that this problem was escalated by the fact that African countries fail to negotiate and end up settling with deals that do not benefit them. This is reinforced by the point that the Southern African Customs Union is the only region to reject a template for trade. He continued by stating that the systems often favour developed countries and that he wishes that African leaders were more proactive in deciding not to participate in trade with challenging affluent countries. In the Q&A session, a practicing lawyer in the audience questioned the retaliation system in terms of compensation. Gathii responded with the statement that the treaties are a reflection of interests of the people who wrote them which is unfair as it is favour of developed countries. Developing countries as a collective have the opportunity to take trade into a different direction. This, again focuses on what Africa can do rather than how the West can contribute. Yet the point made that African countries should take power into their own hands is still a strong one and promotes self-sufficiency.

John Harrington concluded with the idea of ‘aid vs trade.’ The current Secretary of State suggested that we should increase aid to promote trade, but this is only to improve British trade. From a Welsh context, Wales is to act in a globally responsible manner. This is a strong conclusion as to be responsible and aware of how are actions affect other countries in terms of global trade is significant in order to ensure that we do not hinder Africa’s development by rigid rules and bias policies. So, a sense of being conscious about the problems of non-western countries is one of the most important things that we can do in order to improve industry in Africa.

The future of international development?

By Rosa Brown

The International Development Secretary Priti Patel is not one to shy away from controversy. However, last month Patel appears to have outdone herself as she revealed her desire to use the UK’s aid budget for post-Brexit trade deals. In an interview with the BBC, Patel asserted that “We have to make sure that our aid works in our national interest and also that it works for our taxpayers – much more openness, much more transparency and much more accountability.” priti_patel_20161

Patel’s vision for the Department for International Development (DfID) would be concerning had it belonged to any public official. But coming from the current International Development Secretary, it sounds ill-conceived at best. To insert the taxpayer at the heart of DfID’s objectives completely neglects the countries, communities and individuals reliant on UK funding. These are the people Patel should be talking about, many of whom have been empowered by the inter-governmental organisations supported by the aid budget.

The UK’s position on the world’s stage is recognised by Patel but used to justify her take on aid, “we have a strong footprint overseas and it is right that we use that footprint in the national interest”.

Whether the UK will have such a ‘strong footprint overseas’ if Patel gets her way is questionable to say the least. Patel’s crackdown on inefficient use of public money has also inspired the MP to claim that her department should no longer support the UN’s cultural body, UNESCO. This recent move earnt the MP a ‘major rap on the knuckles’ from No 10, according to a senior government official who spoke to The Sun newspaper last week.

Whilst some have wondered whether Patel’s sole objective is to make the UK appear greedy and cruel, I think she is genuinely convinced that free trade agreements are the answer to economic prosperity for the UK. But for poor countries, free trade agreements have been found to drive economies into deeper poverty. It has been over twenty years since the Northern American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) was enacted between the United States, Canada and Mexico. Since the agreement, Mexico’s annual per capital growth flat-lined to an average of 1.2 percent, which happens to be one of the lowest rates in the hemisphere. Twenty million Mexicans currently live in ‘food poverty’, with twenty five percent of the population unable to access basic food. This increase in poverty in the country has helped nurture organised crime recruitment and the breakdown of local communities.

Not all of Mexico’s problems can be blamed on NAFTA. But it is possible to trace a direct link between the agreement and the country’s declining economy; as NAFTA was responsible for closing alternative development paths for the economy in its prohibition of protective tariffs. The impact of NAFTA upon Mexico’s economy indicates the dangers caused by the removal of such tariffs, along with the fact that these agreements are rarely ever ‘free’.6624096043_60551c99cb_o

The implications of Patel’s comments on the international aid budget cannot be detached from its post-Brexit context. These comments have come at a time when many political agreements relating to the EU are riddled with uncertainty. Now Patel has used the topic of Brexit trade agreements as a topical soundbite to deliver her stress on ‘value for money’ for the ‘good, hardworking, British taxpayer’. But this is a time when it is more important than ever to look outward rather than in, to work with others, to help others, rather than simply act upon British vested interests.

International development is not currently devolved in Wales. However the National Assembly has asserted its desire to engage in international issues, one shining example of which is the Wales for Africa Programme, launched to work in line with the United Nation’s Millennium Development Goals. Now on the tenth anniversary of the programme, is an opportunity for the nation to celebrate Wales for Africa’s successes, but also look to the future to the work that can be done.

On the subject of the Wales for African Programme, Archbishop Desmond Tutu said that the “people in Wales have big hearts. They belong in a small country but, oh man, they really have the kick of a mule!”. Now is the time to nurture our country’s commitment to international development and continue to empower those in poverty. Not for the sake of ‘strong footprints overseas’ but because it is simply the right thing to do.