The tricky issue of balance in the media

An interesting take on media balance is to examine how the media has dealt with the MMR vaccine issue. There is almost universal consensus in the scientific community that the MMR vaccine is perfectly safe and that administering it to the children of our country has protected them for measles, mumps and rubella. But on the basis of some "research" (strongly challenged by other scientists and corroborated by none) by one man - Andrew Wakefield - a scare campaign has frightened many parents from allowing their children to be vaccinated. This resulted in a mumps outbreak affecting 42,000 people - yet mumps had previously been eliminated.

In the words of the Government's chief scientific advisor David King, the way that the media handled the issue was that "every time with the issue of the MMR vaccine we had one person, Andrew Wakefield, brought on board to oppose the rest of the scientific community, as if it was one on one". A supposed need to achieve balanced coverage ended up giving disproportionate support to an eccentric and discredited viewpoint with dire consequences for the health of our children, possibly involving some fatalities.

The question of balance always poses the question of around what dividing line. On EU matters, for instance, one could imagine a balanced debate between proponents and opponents of having tougher or looser social and environmental standards for our common market or a debate on whether the EU should take a tougher line with Russia or engage more with it. Yet even those parts of our media that are not signed up to a Eurosceptic agenda find the need to balance debate about Europe simply in terms of pro or anti European, rather than in terms of what policies Europe should follow. It is as if every debate on national politics - be it on the state of the NHS, education, the economy or whatever had to be balanced between a supporter of the existence of the UK and an opponent of its existence with the SNP or other opponents wheeled into every single debate in the name of "balance".

A Danish colleague told me that this used to be a problem in Denmark: whenever the EU was debated there would always be one speaker in favour of Danish membership and one speaker against with the result that EU policy choices as such were never discussed on their own merits. It was only when euroscepticism faded away (and Denmark was the country in which euroscepticism was the strongest in the 1970s and 80s) that discussions on EU affairs became better informed, more interesting and more relevant. Any chance of that happening in Britain?

Integration and fragmentation in Europe

Following on from yesterday, the question of whether Kosovo and South Ossetia should be recognised as sovereign states is only the latest in a trend that has seen the number of sovereign countries in Europe more than double in the space of a century, with every possibility that this trend will continue. But in the living memory of our most senior citizens, there were only 22 states in Europe prior to 1918, (and two of these, Albania and Norway, were only recently independent).

The break up of Austria-Hungary and the Tsarist Empire at the end of the First World War saw this rise to 29, soon reaching 30 with the establishment of an independent Ireland. At the end of the Second World War, however, this had fallen to 28, with the disappearance of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania hardly compensated for by the creation of the GDR. This figures remained stable during the entire Cold War period, increasing only with the independence of Malta and Cyprus, bringing the total to 30.

Since the end of the Cold War, the break ups of the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia, saw this jump, within a decade, to 46. Recognition of the independence of Kosovo, Abkhazia and South Ossetia would bring us to nearly 50 sovereign states on the territory of Europe. And, of course, some would argue that the independence of Flanders, Scotland, the Basque country and Catalonia is not beyond the bounds of the impossible.

So, from a continent of 20 sovereign states in 1900 we could well have one with over 50 in the coming years. Of course, the majority of the states will be in the European Union. Fragmentation will have been balanced by a degree of integration. Indeed, it is this very integration that has made it plausible, in some cases, for smaller units to be viable. Arguing, for independence within Europe sounds far less isolationist when you are simply making the case to upgrade your status rather than go off into the wilderness. But, as I said yesterday, that scenario is not without problems. And what about other parts of the world where there are countless ethnicities and other groups who could seek to aspire to independence?

A world fragmented into several hundred small countries along with just a handful of giants would not necessarily be a better place in terms of getting world level agreement on global issues - not least environmental ones, it might prove even more difficult than now. There could also be an arms race as such countries seek to develop their own armies and defend themselves against real or imaginary threats from their neighbours. Much would depend on the multilateral frameworks created for integration and cooperation. And here Europe certainly remains a model.

Georgia, Ossetia, Kosovo and the principle of self determination

At least since Woodrow Wilson's 14 points, the self determination of peoples has featured as a principle of international affairs. But who has the right to self-determination?

When Yugoslavia broke up, the international community was willing to recognise the right of its internal units that had the status of republic (such as Slovenia and Croatia) to declare themselves independent, but not to recognise such a right for those that had the status of province (namely Kosovo, despite it having a bigger and linguisticly more different poulation than some of the republics). Recently, some of the international community has changed its mind and recognised Kosovo's independence.

When the Soviet Union broke up, the 15 internal units that had the status of SSR (Soviet Socialist Republic) were recognised as sovereign states, but not the "autonomous republics". Some of the SSRs (such as the Baltic republics) had previously existed as independent countries, but others were based on somewhat arbitrary boundaries, many of which were drawn up by Stalin when he was Commissar for Nationalities. Stalin also determined the hierarchy of which groups were to have their own SSR, which an autonomous republic and which merely an autonomous Oblast.

It is not surprising that the legacy of Stalin's frontiers is now causing problems. The South Ossetians do not want to be part of Georgia, for instance, and don't see why they can't be independent.

The Ossetians were bound to see Kosovo as a precedent. And if Serbia had sent its troops back into Kosovo last month, the western countries with troops there would certainly have reacted, as Russia did in Ossetia - but hopefully not over-reacted which the Russian's seem to have done.

The situation is complex and there is no simple right and wrong. More like two wrongs, which of course don't make a right. Georgia was wrong to attack Southern Ossetia, triggering the tragic events of the last few weeks. Russia is wrong to react disproportionately and unilaterally.

But a due recognition by the west of this complexity of the issue would go a long way to avoiding an escalation. As would some more consistent thought on the principles at stake.

It is not that such questions are new. Even in our part of the world, when Ireland opted out of the UK, its right to self determination was contested by some, while others did not accept the right of Northern Ireland to opt out of Ireland. One can safely bet a tidy sum that there would also be different views on the rights of Scotland to leave the UK (and the Shetlands to leave Scotland?), Transdnestria to leave Moldavia, Flanders to leave Belgium, the Basque country to leave Spain or Corsica to leave France.

Some of these would be strongly contested, others less so - but what are the criteria? Is it possible to have objective criteria? If so, who should define them? If not, should any group that so wishes be able to constitute its own state? Should Yorkshire (it's far bigger than Luxembourg!)? Should Gibraltar? Should the Aland islands? What about the Channel Islands?

(By the way, any area opting out from an EU countrty would not automatically become a separate Member State of the Union. It would require either an accession treaty or a treaty amendment, duly ratified by every Member State, some of whom would be reluctant to do so, lest they create a precedent).

Clearly, the right to self determination raises many questions. It is not a subject on which simple assertions of such a right can be made or denied without due thought and consideration.

Olympics & Boris Johnson

Am I the only one to think that Boris Johnson's performance at the closing ceremony for the Olympics was an embarrassment? In a solemn part of the ceremony - the handing over of the Olympic flag from the Mayor of Beijing to the Mayor of London, where all the other dignatories involved were, at that point, solemnly walking in a line with their hands by their sides - Boris, uniquely, was periodically waving to the crowd (without much response) as if he was the star of the show. Unlike the other representatives, he (alone) did not even button up his jacket. He never knew what to do with his hands (hence his periodic incongruous waving), and altogethr gave the appearance of a buffoon.

Fortunately, the British actors and dancers, in their 8 minutes introducing London, gave a memorable performance which will linger in people’s minds far longer that the hopefully forgotten antics of the new Conservative Mayor.

As to the Olympics as a whole, who can fail to have been impressed by the Chinese organisation and performance? The jury is, of course, still out as to whether the holding of the Games in Beijing will have helped open up China. Will they be more at ease in the world after their impressive performance? Will they be less reluctant to allow discordant internal voices? Will they relax and allow a more distinctive role for minorities? But the modern glimpses of China, the welcoming attitude of so many Chinese citizens and the encounter with the rest of the world augur well, at least for optimists.

All talk and little action from UKIP and Tories on workers' safety

Surprising news from Personnel Today, who report that UKIP’s Derek Clark and the Conservatives’ Chris Heaton Harris have joined a campaign to reduce the amount of youngsters injured at work.

All very laudable of course, though Derek Clark and the rest of his UKIP colleagues have never been too concerned about the safety of workers before, consistently voting against measures which protect workers.

Less than 12 months ago my colleague Glenis Wilmott’s report on Health and Safety at Work expressed concern at the "excessively high rate of accidents among temporary, short-term and low-qualified workers" and suggested measures that should be taken to prevent workers from exposure to dangerous and carcinogenic chemicals. UKIP voted against it.

And while Heaton Harris did support this measure he has previously criticised legislation which seeked to protect workers from hearing damage. He might also choose to have a word with some of his fellow Tories over their attitude to safety at work. A fellow member of the Conservatives’ right-wing H block, Dan Hannan, voted with UKIP on the Health and Safety at Work report, while Struan Stevenson mocked Labour MEPs for our avid support of the Working at Heights Directive, legislation which has and will continue to save workers’ lives.

Of course this could all be a road to Damascus-styles conversion, or Clark and Heaton Harris merely adding their name to a list. The next time a vote on health and safety comes round we shall see if they back up their talk with actions. I hope they do because Derek Clark in particular certainly hasn’t ever before.

The right, the north, and the south

It’s difficult to know what to say (without being rude)about the paper from the conservative think tank, Policy Exchange, that essentially declared the death of northern England by stating that cities like Bradford, Liverpool and Hull (all of which I have represented either in the past or currently) were “beyond revival” and their citizens should head south.

It’s quite clear that they are not and have in fact been revived to an incredible degree since Labour came into power back in 1997. Indeed, the improvements in some cities are so impressive, you wonder whether any of the authors of the report actually visited the north since it was left to rot in the 1980s by the Tories.

There is plenty of work still to do but the paper shows the inherent difficulty the Conservatives have in understanding the north, as their record in many northern cities illustrates.

John Prescott described the paper as “the most insulting and ignorant policy I've ever heard” while also making the important point that the Tories still see “people as economic units to be moved around.” It is indeed a policy that would be a disaster for the south as well, implying as it does that several million people, needing homes, schools, hospitals, transport and so on, converge on the congested south.

This Policy Exchange paper has justified many people’s concerns about the Conservatives and their relationship with the north so it was no surprise to see David Cameron trying his best to distance himself from the policy, and to play down the close and very real links between Policy Exchange and the Tories.

After all, from its infancy up until 2007, the director of Policy Exchange was Nicholas Boles, a key figure in the modern Conservative Party. Only this year he was appointed Chief of Staff to London Mayor Boris Johnson, while he is also he prospective parliamentary candidate for Grantham and Stamford. Before entering parliament, shadow secretary of state for education, Michael Gove, was the chair of Policy Exchange. It has also published papers written by Tory MEPs.

Since its creation Policy Exchange has essentially served as an academy for future Tory MPs, and influential ones at that, which suggests Cameron’s Conservatives still have a long way to go before they are seen as credible in much of the north of England.

The European Arrest Warrant should be supported

UKIP and the Tories are now arguing that suspected criminals should be immune from prosecution in other European countries for crimes committed there, if they are British.

A young British lad, Jonny Hiles, died just over a year ago after being punched in a nightclub in Greece. Under the European Arrest Warrant, which Britain and its European partners agreed a few years ago, Greek police spent a year putting together their case, presented it to magistrates in Athens, obtained their approval and asked British police to arrest their suspect, one Andrew Symeou of London, so that he can face trial.

Yet UKIP MEPs and disgraced former Tory MP Neil Hamilton have come out against it, much to the dismay of the friends and family of the victim in Wales. Both Hamilton and UKIP argue that a case should be presented in a British court first (although the crime was committed in Greece, where most evidence and witnesses are located).

I wonder what they would have said if the suspected London bomber, sent back from Italy under a European Arrest Warrant to face prosecution in Britain, could not have been sent back without first going through the lengthy process of an Italian court hearing plus appeal (by which time he would have been held for years on remand or, more likely, scarpered)

Government confirms it wants a solution to Strasbourg

Many of you will have supported the One Seat campaign which seeks an end to Parliament sessions in Strasbourg.

Our Labour government, in response to a Downing Street petition, has essentially backed the campaign stating that having two seats for the parliament is "far from ideal" and that want to find "the most cost-effective solution for the conduct of business in the European Parliament".

This is good news but of course the decision on where the Parliament sits is made by all national governments and must be unanimous. There is still little sign that Sarkozy would be willing to end Strasbourg sessions. And there won’t be unless there is a concerted effort to pressure the French government into accepting a compromise. It is encouraging that our government has promised to continue to "press for progress". We should all press the Foreign Office and Number 10 to keep doing so at every opportunity.

A big hello to the silly season

As always, the coming of August brings the arrival of the silly season and like the first daffodil of spring, a Daily Express journalist has been in contact with me asking me whether there is anyone in the European Parliament campaigning to make the UK change its road signs to kilometres.

Now the journalist was quick to mention the permanent derogation Britain has been granted on the use of imperial measurements for road signs and as such knew any change would be solely up to the British government and parliament. Yet the journalist still wanted to know if there was anyone in the European parliament who wanted Britain to ditch miles, even though this would be entirely irrelevant to the current situation.

So, sometime in the next month expect some ridiculous "save our mile" campaign in the Express suggesting there is a plot to force Britain to use the kilometre - even though the newspaper fully understands there is absolutely no threat whatsoever to the British mile.