York Politics Review Edition No.1 - May 2016

YORK POLITICSREIVEW

ISSUE NO. 1YORKPOLSOC.COM

A dying sentiment?

Free at the point of use:

By Russ Gardiner

seriously enough?

Do we take politics

By Henry Honeywood

The first edition of York Politics Review is here. This

started out as my idea for a blog that would allow

students to write less formal articles that could

encourage debate and interaction with the

department and academics. However, I then

pursued that idea further which has culminated in

this journal. It has become a magazine style

publication with articles written by students and

academics freely available to everyone.

As the first edition we have contributions from a

few people, however we hope over time this can

grow to become a bi-termly publication that

attracts high quality articles from students and

academics across the university.

As the new committee we have tried to increase

the presence and activity of the Politics Society; we

have created numerous new events and

socials, gained a good relationship with the

department and are continuing to make the

society grow. This publication is another step in

doing just that, and we hope over time this can

really develop and become a well-

established journal.

Henry Honeywood

POLITICS REVIEWPAGE 2

CONTENTS

Editors Word

Page 3 - Free at the point of use: A dyingsentiment - Russ Gardiner

Page 6 - Do we take politics seriously enough -

Henry Honeywood

Page 8 - Rousseau - A discourse on socialmedia - Robert Gordon

Page 11 - Brave New World? Assessing theImpact of Technology in the 21st Century -

Geoff Glover

Page 15 - Disabling the Disabled - RobertGordon

Page 17 - Alienable human rights and nationalsovereignty: the European migrant-crisis

FREE AT THE POINT OFUSE: A DYING SENTIMENT?

RUSS GARD INER

Back in 2015, for example, the only private

company operating an NHS hospital pulled out.

If nothing else, it shows that British healthcare

is fundamentally difficult to make a profit out

of.

The British healthcare system in its current

form is not necessarily conducive to private

operation. This is in many ways best

exemplified through the ongoing junior doctor

strikes. As a public run organisation, workers

can strike much easier than is possible or

conducive in the private sector. NHS policy

from this government is far more liberal than its

policies towards industry, commerce or the

economic sphere more generally. While TATA’s

failed venture into the UK stock market gets

little in terms of government economic

sympathy, the NHS is seeing hordes of public

money ploughed in, albeit not enough if you

listen to our learned friends at the British

Medical Association.

“If you can have full employment bykilling Germans, why can’t we havefull employment by buildinghospitals, building schools?” TonyBenn on the founding of the NHS,2007.

Since the formation of Foundation Hospitals

and Primary Care Trusts through the early

2000s, there have been murmurs that the NHS

is going to become like the American

insurance based healthcare system. I feel that

this is scaremongering, at times deliberate

scaremongering to try and divert the political

debate from more pressing issues. While the

NHS is indeed seeing some levels of increased

competition and private intervention, there are

notable cases to show that this is not quite as

black and white as it seems.

The NHS remains something of a buzz phrase

in the United Kingdom, mostly because of the

sentiment specified in the title of this article:

that it remains an arbiter for free healthcare.

The most recent administrations have made

the most diverse and extensive array of

changes to the NHS since its inception in 1948.

It is the worry of many in the political

academia and in the public that it is going to

see this aspect of ‘free at the point use’

diminished and eventually destroyed. It is not

the point of this piece to try and critique or

support the government, rather, to try and

dispel some myths that the newspapers would

have us believe, and provide a prediction for

the future.

PAGE 3 ARTICLEPOLITICS REVIEW

ARTICLEPOLITICS REVIEW

In many ways the National Health Service is far

more financially insolvent than British steel,

however, it will continue to get exponential

levels of economic injection in the years to

come.

It remains a red-line for a government to be

elected. Supporting the NHS is still a vastly

important area of public opinion that any party

contesting at a general election needs to have a

plan for. Instead, much of Conservative policy in

terms of healthcare and education has been

within the remit of devolving. There has been

more devolution of power to local people in

many important sectors where privatisation is

not an immediate possibility. It retains the ideals

of making sure that hard-working British

families get control, whilst making sure that the

NHS isn’t divided up and fragmented by the kind

of individuals that Mossack Fonseca were

perhaps too tolerant of.

But let’s move on from the obvious notion that

I’m starting to sound like an Ian Hislop wannabe

and return to the issue of pertinence. The free at

the point of use aspect of the NHS in terms of

emergency care and treatment should not be

going anywhere if the party suggesting it wants

to continue being elected to parliament. Too

often, it is my belief, that the public assume

party leaders put forward legislation because of

some emotion-backed ideology. The

Conservatives, to take an example “put forward

nasty legislation simply to economically

appropriate the poorest in society”.

In reality, they’ve politically calculated that it is

the best course of action to keep their core

electoral support base on side. Politicians are far

more human than people give them credit for.

The British public will tolerate the privatisation

of industry and the cutting of welfare payments,

most of them wouldn’t sway their voting

opinion upon one of these areas.

The NHS is different, if any of the major political

parties were to advocate a private based system

of healthcare for Britain, they’d get very short

shrift from the electorate, coming back to Tony

Benn’s musings on post-war Britain. To

exemplify this point further let’s take UKIP. A

party who changed their policy on the NHS

overnight after realising that voters didn’t take

too kindly to their original platform of moving

towards an insurance based system.

The NHS is different, if any of the major political

parties were to advocate a private based system

of healthcare for Britain, they’d get very short

shrift from the electorate, coming back to Tony

Benn’s musings on post-war Britain. To

exemplify this point further let’s take UKIP. A

party who changed their policy on the NHS

overnight after realising that voters didn’t take

too kindly to their original platform of moving

towards an insurance based system.

This can be directly synthesised with the 2015

election, in every interview on television, the

amounts that Miliband, Cameron, Bennett,

Clegg etc. were promising for the NHS in terms

of extra investment seemed to grow

exponentially (Farage was a bit busy blaming

immigrants with HIV for NHS overspending).

Of course the most important caveat to keep in

mind with this is the fact much of the NHS in its

current guise is not arbitrarily free at the point of

use. NHS England charge for prescriptions, dental

appointments, and don’t even mention hospital

car parking charges, Heathrow Airport Terminal 5

is actually cheaper on average per hour. But in

terms of A&E, non-emergency treatment and

advice, the NHS remains a powerful, solid and

remarkable organisation which still undoubtedly

sets an example to the rest of the world, in the

way we approach healthcare for the masses.

There have been countless polls to prove this fact

and even more in way of statistics. In terms of

achievements, the NHS has cut diabetes by 66%,

with similar figures for heart attacks and obesity

related illnesses. In terms of polling, the NHS

scores first in terms of state healthcare provision

the world over. “The United Kingdom ranks first

overall, scoring highest on quality and efficiency”.

It remains one of the reasons that immigrants

from all walks of life see Britain as a positive place

to build a new life. Similarly, expatriates often tell

me how much they lament not having the NHS

when living abroad.

POLITICS REVIEW ARTICLEPAGE 5


do. It is because of politics we have the vital

things we need to work and live in modern

society. These things are not a given in society,

they are organised and created through the

vocation of politics.

What is becoming ever more apparent to me,

with the primaries in America and the

increasingly trivialised elections in Britain, is

that citizens are not taking politics seriously

enough. Whilst I could list endless gaffes and

outrageous things Trump has said and done,

that would only serve to trivialise my argument

and therefore I will stick to things that are

actually important and dangerous that he has

said and done. The fact that Donald Trump has

openly and vehemently called for a ‘total and

complete shutdown of Muslims entering the

United States’, yet still attracts such high

support in American is staggering.

It doesn’t get any better when we look at Britain

either, elections here are often characterised by

I neither have qualification to preach, nor do I

ever want to, and I realise that I am now going

to make that infamous ‘I’m not but’ saying, but

politics is important, so please can we take it

more seriously. I am forever being asked by

friends and family why I chose politics, they

often say isn’t it really boring? Or just sigh when

I tell them the degree; whilst I totally

understand and was once very ignorant of

politics before starting to study it, I now

understand its importance. Whilst media focus

is most of the time on something as trivial as

the appearance of our political leaders, for

example whether they look good eating a

bacon sandwich or riding a bike through

crowded central London, politics is actually

about much more important issues. As Harold

Lasswell immortalised so clearly, politics is

about who gets what, when, and how. The

implications of this ranges from whether your

local shop is open beyond 6 on a Sunday, to

whether or not vital medical services are free

upon the point of need.

It is therefore vital that we take it seriously.

Politics is a civic duty, I believe this because

without politics, life would not be something

that we could live as happily and easily as we

DO WE TAKE POLITICS SERIOUSLYENOUGH?

H e n r y H o n e y w o o d

We owe a duty to society itselfto get involved with politicsand be active citizens toensure the maintenance of

these vital things.

I am therefore pleading for everyone just to

take politics a bit more seriously. I really don’t

want to see anymore dangerous false narratives

gain more support. Don’t let the extreme take

over politics through the use of easily relatable

images that hide xenophobic views and

policies that would be detrimental to any

country. This is especially relevant now with the

upcoming EU referendum; please vote and

when doing so, don’t rely on the false narratives

about migration to inform your vote.

negative bashing of candidates, for example

the vilification of Ed Miliband about looking

‘weird’ and ‘non-prime ministerial’. Also some

of the rhetoric and manipulation of facts and

narratives by UKIP and other parties is deeply

concerning especially considering UKIP’s

continued growth, especially amongst the

previous left wing in Britain. This, in my

opinion, is in part due to Farage’s image of

being a ‘normal’ bloke who likes a drink, a

basis on which we should not be electing the

future prime minister. In politics it is so often

all about narrative, we don't go and look into

things because, quite frankly, it's often very

boring and complex. Therefore it is how

politicians present things that influences and

defines debates never mind whether it's true

or not. This is all because we don't take politics

seriously enough, many just look at the

superficial things, that are easy to understand

and catch our eyes in the media, to

make decisions.

It may seem like voting is too complicated and

boring, but it's precisely this thinking and

attitude that makes it all the more easy for

narratives politicians make up, to persuade

voters at the ballot box. This allows deceptive

narratives that are appealing sway people’s

votes. The negative connotations that

surround politics is also worrying. I believe a

vast amount of this is the fault of the new

wave of professional politicians. Whilst it used

to be that you and your local milkman got

involved with politics, now it is left to the new

class of professional politicians who end up in

scandals that taint the profession.



insightful account of inequity in society and the

vain superficiality of modern man. This post will

explore the applicability of his critique with a

modern commentary on social media. Online

platforms are far from perfect and had Rousseau

been alive today, his critique would have

undoubtedly extended to explore the evils of

social media. Common modern criticisms

condemn social networks for enhancing feelings

of loneliness and isolation3, or for facilitating

cyber-bully (think Yik Yak during the YUSU

Elections this year). I suggest, however, that

Rousseau’s critique is perhaps more applicable

to the seemingly harmless, daily functioning of

social media: from writing status updates and

uploading photos, to browsing our news feeds

and following our friends. I will highlight three

areas in which Rousseau’s critique may be

applied to social media.

Social media is contributing to our misery:

Rousseau contended that man is society is

regrettably psychologically dependent upon his

peers as a result of an inflamed amour propre

(self-love, or vanity). Aware of our own strengths

*Disclaimer* I am not the real Jean-Jacques

Rousseau.

Before I’m derided as a massive hypocrite, I am

not trying to exhaustively expound the vices and

virtues of social media.The purpose of this piece

was merely to apply Rousseau’s moral-political

theory to a critique of social media for the sake of

satire and making my revision process slightly less

detestable.

Who the f*ck is he then? Jean-Jacques

Rousseau was an 18th Century Philosopher who

famously wrote ‘On the Social Contract, or

Principles of Political Right’. His legacy inspired

philosophers such as Immanuel Kant, and he is

often associated with the French Revolution. He

was also a music critic and composer.

“Why do we care about what this dead white

dude has to say?” I hear you ask.

Well, not all of us do. Unfortunately, he’s on the

curriculum and I’ll likely be answering an exam

question on him in May. For those of you in a

similar predicament, I hope this short piece

contributes somewhat to your revision process, or

at least makes you feel a little less bad about

procrastinating. (Note: Reading this is probably

not a substitute for revision)

So what does he have to say about social media?

Well, nothing directly. In his Discourse on

Inequality2, however, Rousseau propounded an

Rousseau - A Discourse on Social MediaR o b e r t G o r d o n

PAGE 8

natural virtue. Drawing upon the example of

the development of thought in modern society,

he astutely commented “the question is no

longer whether a man is honest, but whether

he is clever”5. Rather than encouraging virtue,

we are instead more concerned with how we

are perceived. When applied to social media, it

becomes easy to see how our online image

may be a falsely constructed facade. We

perhaps care more about appearing

knowledgeable, cultured,

fun-loving or morally ‘good’ through our posts

than we actually care about attending to

virtuous actions.

Rousseau also suggested that people could

deceive themselves of their own moral

qualities, convincing themselves of their

goodness, for example, by evoking their

natural compassion (pitié) by watching

tragedies in the theatre. A parallel can perhaps

be drawn to politically motivated posts on

social media which satisfy our sense of

compassion but nonetheless seemingly

contribute nothing of worth to the world.

and shortcomings, we compare ourselves with

others. A sense of self-importance coupled

with an inflamed amour propre necessitates

that others recognise our own self-perceived

excellence. The resultant competition for

esteem between equally self-regarding

individuals leaves each and every one of us

unavoidably unhappy and unfulfilled.

Competition has numerous outlets from

artwork to dances, and social media now

provides a modern twist on this enduring tale.

The result is nonetheless the same; social

media is contributing to our misery. We are

increasingly deriving our sense of self from the

opinions of others, seeking validation through

the commodity of Facebook likes, and

constantly striving exact praise and admiration

from our peers through our posts. Similarly,

regarding the success or happiness of others

online may have a detrimental impact upon

self-esteem; devaluing our sense of self-worth.

Social media is degrading our morals:

In Rousseau’s First Discourse5, he sought to

argue that advancements in the arts and

sciences correlates with a deterioration of our


Outbursts of online emotion subsequent to the

Paris or Brussels terrorist attacks, and perpetual

hollow appeals to the salvation of refugees may

be examples of this, as satisfying and simple

alternatives to physical activism.

Social media is weakening our natural

constitutions:

There is one more possible critique that may be

derived from Rousseau’s political writings and

applied non-exclusively against social media.

Rousseau provides an interesting account of

natural man, the so-called ‘noble savage’, as

inherently strong and robust creatures capable

of fending for themselves in the wild. In society,

however, man’s “effeminate lifestyle completes

the enervation of both his strength and his

courage”2. He uses examples of overeating,

staying up too late, and idleness to

demonstrate how modern ills are of our own

making as we constantly contribute to our own

demise. Excessive use of social media similarly

*depicts this woeful tale as we become less

active, physically weaker, and stay up later on

our electronic devices.


Technology and human societies have shared a

close relationship throughout history. It can be

reasonably argued that social progress and

technological advancement are mutually

reinforcing phenomena. The most obvious

example of this progression is undoubtedly the

Industrial Revolution. The 18th and 19th

centuries saw the most unprecedented

advances prior to the present day. New

handlooms overhauled the textiles industry by

streamlining the production process,

displacing a large number of weavers. The

displaced then revolted in protest of their

unemployment, smashing the handlooms, and

gaining the name “Luddites”; those who resist

technological progress. However, the result of

this overhaul of the production process was the

creation of greater wealth for everyone and a

general increase in the standard of living.

However, this is not an examination into the

nature of social advancement. Rather, the

question is: what cost are we as a society

willing to pay for it? In this article, I’m aiming to

provide an overview of the current state of

emergent technologies, focusing on

automation and Artificial Intelligence (AI), and

then move on to possible policy prescriptions

that we will have to consider in the future as a

response.


Brave New World? Assessing the Impact ofTechnology in the 21st Century

Geoff Glover

We’re seeing in the 21st Century a similar case

to what occurred 200 years ago. However, this

time around the pace of change is arguably

unprecedented. Rapid advances in areas such

as IT, robotics, and AI are giving us cheaper

goods and services. However, they are also

highlighting the new challenges that society

will have to face sooner rather than later. An

Oxford study conducted in 2013 found that

45% of jobs in the United States are vulnerable

to computerisation and automation within the

next 20 years. Jobs such as trucking, an

industry that employs some 800,000 people in

the US, are already seriously under threat due

to the continued improvement of self-driving

vehicles. It would not take a huge leap of faith

to imagine the industry not existing in the

same form in a few years’ time. This is merely

one case study of automation. Robots will in all

likelihood continue to threaten and eventually

replace most forms of manual labour, both

routine and non-routine. Darrel West, in a

paper published by Brookings, argues that as

technology continues to advance and improve,

other industries that employ more cognitive

skills are under threat as well, such as

management and administration. This is in

large part because of the subject matter

discussed below: artificial intelligence.

AI is one field that merits close attention. In

March 2016, Google’s AlphaGo, an AI which

employs a class of machine learning known as

“deep learning”, beat Lee Sedol, the world

champion of Go, an ancient Chinese board

game that is known for its complexity, 4-1 in

one of the greatest upsets of recent memory.

Many believed that an AI that could beat a

professional at Go was 10 or more years away.

The complexity of Go is legendary, with

estimates of the number of possible games

being 10360, with the number of atoms in the

observable universe being estimated at around

1080. Previous victories of computers over

humans --Gasparov vs Deep Blue in 1997

springs to mind-- pale in comparison. When I

talk about deep learning, it should be noted

that this means that the machine in question is

able to make a judgement intuitively. In the

case of Go, this meant “sensing” what the right

move was, a decision derived through

experience. Deep Blue used raw computational

power to calculate the best possible chess

move because the number of possible moves,

ergo the best move, is small enough to

calculate. With Go however, this approach is

impractical due to the sheer volume of possible

combinations. Rather, AlphaGo was “taught”

the rules, and then proceeded to play millions

of games against itself to determine the best

move in any given scenario. Being a computer,

this was easy: it’s hardly any surprise that Sedol

was beaten when the factors involved are

considered. Small wonder that experts

including Stephen Hawking and Bill Gates have

warned of an existential threat to humanity

from AI.


Scott Sansens argues in the Boston Globe that

AlphaGo is a clear indication that advances in

technology are now arriving at an exponential

rate, meaning that certain technologies will be

arriving in months and years rather than

decades. The worry is that advances will

continue to come rapidly, outpacing the labour

market before it can create enough new jobs to

alleviate unemployment. As mentioned,

previous industries such as administration --

jobs that have come to be called “routine

cognitive” occupations -- were thought to be

safe havens from automation. AlphaGo’s

success is building on previous challenges to

that assumption with a credible example of a

machine being able to “learn” how to execute

certain complex tasks, given the proper data. In

summary, robots can operate without

interruption, don’t get sick or distracted, and

cost a fraction of human labour, making them

far more cost-effective and attractive to

industries. This raises one very pertinent

question: how do we provide social benefits

without tying them to employment?

For the sake of brevity, I will focus on one policy

prescription that has been advocated for in

economic thought for decades. As many will

have guessed, I’m, rather predictably, talking

about a Universal Basic Income (also known as

unconditional basic income and UBI).

But where does this leavepeople?

For those seeking a more detailed examination

of other strategies, I encourage you to read the

Brookings article linked below. To clarify, I am

not trying to predict the future. The very nature

of this subject means that predictions of the

effects of this “second machine age”, so dubbed

by two MIT academics, can’t be made with any

certainty. As a result, a number of resulting

scenarios can be argued for aggressively. With

that in mind, let’s proceed with UBI. In essence,

UBI is an income that comes directly from the

government to individuals that isn’t tied to any

other factor, for example income or taxes. I

want to draw attention to the subject because,

broadly speaking, it’s an approach that can

appeal to a number of different people. It’s easy

to see why anyone on the left would be in

favour. A permanent financial safety net

screams socialism. However, the idea in its

many forms has been promoted by both

libertarian Friedrich Hayek, and neo-liberal

godfather, Milton Friedman. In fact, UBI would

be a way of limiting the welfare state and

cutting costs significantly. A system of

guaranteed income would do away with the

byzantine bureaucracy that surrounds the

administration of benefits (factors considered

including income, family, education etc.) and

would wrap them up into a neat and tidy

bundle. Current welfare programs in the US

generally demand that the recipient meet a

number of conditions to receive welfare

payments, a clear contradiction with libertarian

values of freedom from coercion, particularly

from the state. In the British case, the

government has compartmentalised each


benefit (unemployment, housing, disability),

creating a large, unwieldy, and costly

bureaucracy. UBI would be a good system to do

away with these issues. Furthermore, the

administration of a basic income would, in

theory, provide an opportunity for people to

work for pleasure rather than to survive, leaving

time to pursue creative or entrepreneurial

pursuits.

Experiments have been conducted on the

subject in the past. Fear surrounds the notion

with the general line being that it would make

people lazy and not work. One notable study by

Evelyn Forget to come out of the Canadian

example, “MinCome” (Minimum Income) shows

that fears are unfounded. The experiment was

conducted in the 1970’s in a town called

“Dauphin”, near Winnipeg. Forget documents a

general increase in the health of the population

and a longer stay in education. What the data

didn’t show was that adult work hours went

down. One exception to this was with women

who had just given birth. To summarise, a

healthier population, a better educated

workforce, and women who wanted to give

more time to raising their new born children. It’s

no wonder that endorsements for a system of

UBI come from economists all the time, most

recently from Professor Christopher Pissarides,

Nobel prize winning economist and Regius

Professor at the LSE during the World Economic

Forum in January 2016. An open letter to the

American government, signed by over 1000

economists from 125 American universities

echoes these sentiments. With other

experiments being conducted in Finland,

Canada, and Spain, is the time for a new

strategy right?

In conclusion, technology and automation will

continue to affect our daily lives and progress

shows no sign of slowing. In this essay, I’ve

posed this question: what price are we willing

to pay for said progress? The question is

weighted depending on what view one takes

on the nature of technological progress. One

factor is undeniable however: machines are

replacing humans in the workforce. Granted,

the rate which this is taking place and the

depth of true automation is in question.

Furthermore, as with all other economic

upheavals (see globalisation), there are winners

and losers. My question is: are we willing to

leave the losers behind for the sake of material

progress? I would contend that no one reading

this would take pleasure in seeing someone

starve because their skills have become

obsolete. The case for Universal Basic Income

outlined above shouldn’t be applied only to

technological displacement however. The

current economic climate has shown that a

number of full time jobs are not paying enough

for workers to be able to live, regardless of

technology. I would contend that a basic

income would go a long way towards

alleviating the current pressures on the labour

market and would pre-empt a possible scenario

where hundreds and thousands are made

redundant. However, more research on the

subject matter is certainly in order. In any case, I,

as a self-described techno-optimist, am


of the opinion that work should be for

machines, and humans will benefit because of

it.

Over the Christmas break I wrote an essay

questioning the extent to which the rights of

people with disabilities are protected in the

United Kingdom. I argued that the British

government were failing in their moral and

practical responsibility to over 19% of the UK

population (12 million) living with one or more

disabilities1. This conclusion has been rendered

alarmingly relevant in light of the recent, yet

admittedly failed, provisions of the 2016

Conservative budget which threatened to make

cuts of £4.4bn to disability benefits. Reportedly,

under this budget more than 600,000 disabled

people would be affected3, with 370,000 people

losing out on an average of £3,500 a year. Why

then, did the Government think they could get

away with passing an atrociously unjust budget

that further alienates an already underprivileged

group in society? I would assert, quite simply,

that it’s because we’ve allowed the Government

to relentlessly and unreservedly evaded their

responsibilities to the disabled population in the

United Kingdom for years, and in doing so we’re

as much to blame for their increasing plight. Our

political authority is both a right and privilege

too often taken for granted at the expense of the

underrepresented and voiceless; the

marginalised and oppressed. This has to change,

and the Conservative budgetary U-Turn

represents a step in the right direction as the


Disabling the Disabled Robert Gordon

population of Great Britain rallied behind their

disabled kin in opposing the budget’s

horrifically regressive proposals.

The rights of disabled people in the UK are

protected under the legal framework of the

2010 Equality Act 6. Briefly, my argument from

December1 was that the Act fails to respond

effectively to the needs and aspirations of

disabled people. Moreover, the current

national legislation fails to measure up to the

UK’s international commitment to the

standards outlined in the Convention on the

Rights of People with Disabilities (CRPD)

which we as a nation ratified in 2009.

Worryingly, where the UK’s legal framework is

notably failing to protect the disabled

population, there is an equally concerning

dichotomy between the protection of their

rights de jure and de facto. The inadequate

implementation of the Act’s measures has

further enabled the perpetuation of

inequalities, harassment, and exclusionary

barriers which disadvantage the disabled

community.

The exclusionary nature of society is mirrored

in the UK’s political establishment. Reportedly,

physical barriers at two-thirds of 1,000 polling

stations surveyed in the 2010 General

Elections significantly inhibited disabled people

exercising their political right to vote. Moreover, a

study8 revealed that disabled people feel less

confident of their ability to influence politics.

Perhaps this is no surprise considering their

distinct underrepresentation in parliament,

where only two MPs currently self-describe as

having a disability. This is far from representative

of the 19% of the UK population identified with a

disability.

Evidently, the plight of disabled people in the UK

is truly a sorry story. They wouldn’t, however, want

us feeling sorry for them. It is not our place to pity

those who, through no fault of their own, are

disabled by the society they are born into. As we

strive to empower women in overcoming the

institutional inequalities which inhibit their

potential, we should similarly seek to maintain

the dignity of those with physical or mental

impairments that prevent their full participation

in a fundamentally exclusionary society.

The government’s U-Turn on the disability cuts in

the 2016 budget was a huge success for humanity

in the UK, but the problems faced daily by this

marginalised group will persist. Indeed, the

Conservative Party’s austerity measures have

been disproportionately and relentlessly

impacting the disabled community for the last 6

years, and will inevitably continue to do so. If

there was any doubt before, it can no longer be

contested that the British government are

deliberately and knowingly neglecting the

legitimate needs of a large, yet unfortunately

ostracised, portion of society. It is now as


important as ever to remember the claim that

economic considerations must never be

allowed to prevail over human rights, ever.

How alienable are universal human rights? In a

state of exception such as an ‘unprecedented

refugee crisis’: quite so. The response of the

European Union (EU) and its Member States (MS)

to the humanitarian crisis at the doorsteps of

Europe is a story of exclusion, of forcing people

fleeing death and torture into illegality, and

subsequently branding them ‘illegal’ or ‘irregular’

migrants to justify policies that contradict the very

core-values the EU is built upon.

To make sense of these above accusations, one

has to start with the current EU-Turkey deal, and

learn about the principle of ‘non-refoulement’.

The principle itself is a central tenet of

international refugee law, meaning asylum

seekers cannot be sent back to a country deemed

unsafe. The EU-Turkey deal aims at alleviating the

stream of migrants reaching Greece by having

refugees arriving in Greece from Turkey sent back

to Turkey to apply for asylum there. This, however,

is problematic for a number of reasons. The first

lies with how many EU MS consider Turkey a safe

country of origin. Currently, it is only one: Bulgaria.

How does EU law define a safe country of origin?

Without going into too many technicalities: the

country has to fulfil a set of criteria, one being to

adhere to the Geneva Convention. Turkey only

partially adheres to the Convention, with non-

European asylum seekers being limited to


‘temporary asylum’, ie: a Syrian, Iraqi or Afghani

person cannot receive full refugee status in

Turkey.

Whilst the deal foresees for each Syrian

returned to Turkey there being one registered

Syrian (temporary-)refugee from Turkey to be

sent back to the EU, what happens to the other

55% of refugees arriving at Europe’s shores,

namely Iraqi and Afghani ones that make up

the bulk of them? Whilst the chances of an Iraqi

receiving refugee status in the EU hover around

80%, it is less than 3% in Turkey. Moreover,

there are reports trickling in of mass-returns of

asylum seekers back to Syria and Iraq, despite

the EU and Turkey’s pledges against such

practices. Ultimately, what this means is that

the EU is effectively sentencing, and complicit

in, (non-)Syrians to face expulsion back into the

conditions they escaped from: persecution,

torture, and death.

If that sounds overly dramatic, it helps looking

at research emerging from the EU’s handling of

the Mediterranean refugee route. Following the

end of the search & rescue mission of the Italian

navy, and a lack of MS willing to support the

Italian efforts, the EU initiated Operation Triton.

In contrast to the previous mission, this one was

explicitly not concerned with search &

Alienable human rights and nationalsovereignty: the European migrant-crisis

Mathieu Lohr

rescue, but instead about border security. The

‘Death by Rescue’ report’ finds that lawmakers

knew about the impact this new mission would

have on death at sea, “creat[ing] the conditions

that led to massive loss of life” through

“institutionalised wilful neglect”, that the report

concludes can be called “killing by omission”.

This runs in parallel to policy decisions that make

access to the European asylum system quasi-

impossible in legal ways: Hungary and others are

closing their borders and erecting walls that make

land-routes impossible or highly dangerous to use,

and the EU focuses on closing sea-routes by

destroying smugglers’ boats, replacing ‘search and

rescue’ missions with border security ones, and

NATO being called in to destroy human traffickers’

vessels. At the same time, there exist barely any

‘legal’ alternatives due to it being virtually

impossible to claim asylum unless one touches EU

ground - its own and sponsored ‘hotspots’ in third

countries are chronically understaffed,

underfunded, and reportedly breaching human

rights on multiple counts. With northern MS

unwilling to share the burden facing Europe’s

periphery, Greece and Italy are turned into what

are essentially country-sized detention centres.

Meanwhile, the Charter of Fundamental Rights

that is legally binding on all MS is reduced to ink

on paper.

Giorgio Agamben calls this “the separation

between humanitarianism and politics, (...) the

separation of the rights of man from the rights of

the citizen.” The state’s power, and the

manifestation of national sovereignty, is to define

whose life is worth bearing rights, and whose isn’t.


In this context, the EU and its members are

intent on not allowing access to basic human

rights for those fleeing towards our borders.

Instead, both material and amaterial borders

are enforced or erected that leave asylum

seekers with no other choice than to resort to

‘illegal’ means, creating a political narrative of

‘irregular’ and ‘illegal’ migrants reaching us.

Branded as such, their ‘unprecedented

numbers’ allow for the declaration of a state of

exception that sanctions policies which

suspend their most basic rights, be that the

right to seeking asylum, non-refoulement,

being implicit in forcing asylum seekers into

slave-labour (see reports from Turkey, Libya and

Syria), detention centres that ramped up the

‘legal’ length of detention from months to years

to quasi indefinite detention, and so on and so

forth. In short, the rule of law as such is

suspended and rendered void, at least for non-

citizens. To Agamben, the faith of refugees,

non-citizens, is to be reduced to ‘bare life’, a

term speaking for itself. The camps, or centres,

we see sprawling on the other hand are to him

the byproduct of when the state of exception

becomes the rule, where they exist outside the

jurisdiction of law. Given the length of the current

crisis, and there being no short-term change in

sight to the EU’s response to it, this state of

exception and its exclusionary practices are

cementing themselves as the new ‘normal’.

What brought us here? Hannah Arendt identifies

the exclusionary character of modern nation-states

as being fundamentally incompatible with human

rights, specifically those of minorities and the

stateless. She draws her conclusions from the

persecution of Jews in the lead-up to the second

world war. By 1938, Jews were denied citizenship

and rendered stateless in Germany , prosecuted in

most other states as ‘unwanted elements’

threatening social cohesion, and the resulting

refugee streams were unable to find safe harbour in

third countries. Meanwhile, the international

community limited itself to condemning Germany’s

treatment of its Jewish population, and internal

political pressure forced the US to eventually

convene a conference of 32 countries to find a

solution to the issue. However, the Evian

Conference neither included Jewish

representatives at the negotiation table, nor did it

yield results. The attending countries limited

themselves to declaring sympathy with the

persecuted, but being unable to take in any more

refugees.

To Arendt, this exemplifies the logic of national

sovereignty as being inherently exclusionary: only

on a federal level outside the confines of a ‘national’

context and its national narratives could the

interests of minorities be given proper expression.

Whilst Arendt wrote on the exclusion of groups

within nation-states, today’s crisis is much more


about the exclusion of people from outside of it.

Nonetheless, Arendt’s conclusion still holds true:

with the inside and outside inherently linked,

the EU itself, more a union of states than a

federal one, exhibits the same exclusionary

practices than we’d expect from a traditional

nation-state. Moreover, the parallels between the

Evian Conference and today’s response to the

migrant crisis are glaring. Specifically, it is the

reluctance of MS to reforming the Common

European Asylum System to include burden-

sharing in whatever form that supports this view.

Despite early predictions of dramatic rises in

numbers of refugees in coming months and

years early on, and a need for either a quota

system or at the very least a dramatic increase in

support to border-countries, reform attempts by

the European Commission got repeatedly

vetoed by MS. No substantial support in the

form of financial or human resources was

provided. This fits a pattern of policy decision

that, as the Death by Rescue report shows, make

MS implicit in the humanitarian disaster that has

been unfolding over the past few years.

This begs another question: what are the internal

processes within nations that lead to these

decisions being taken? We concluded earlier

that the rule of law is not sovereign during a

declared state of emergency, but neither are the

politicians who declared it. Above all, it is short-

term electoral cycles and a shift in the political

narrative towards the right that explain the

current state of affairs. The fallout from the

financial crisis, rising islamophobia, and the

attacks in Paris and Brussels, have had profound

impacts on

national politics across the EU. For once, established

parties’ grasp on power has been seriously

contested or overthrown by right-wing populist

parties. Their answer to voters flocking to populist

parties offering simple nativist answers to complex

problems was adopting similar stances, essentially

pushing the mainstream political narrative further

towards the right. Obvious examples are France’s

President Hollande adapting extreme right-wing

policies of questionable effectivity in response to the

Paris attacks, the recent Danish, Austrian, Swedish,

and Polish elections radically dethroning the

establishment of those countries, not to speak of

most Eastern European countries’ views on refugees

and Islam. The inability of the establishment to

connect to their voters, and making a case for the

values they claimed to defend, reduced them to

being paraded around by the very parties and

policies they sought to ward off in the first place. In

brief: whoever controls the political narrative is

sovereign. The crucial question at hand then is how

autonomous and self-reinforcing the current

narrative is, and what is to be done about it.

This is specifically problematic to all those seeking

to uphold the idea of public deliberation. With the

rise of populist parties we are also observing the

fragmentation of society into distinct echo-

chambers that barely communicate between each

other. What does this say about the state and

quality of our democracies? If we are in favour of

translating human rights values into practice, are we

in need of a strong leader who sways the masses,

instead of the masses swaying weak politicians? Do

people simply seek an illiberal form of societal

organisation, and isn’t it all too simple to


call the masses scared and ignorant? What about

the long-term? Surely, an open-doors policy

cannot be the sole answer to today’s and future

refugee crises: what about long-term solutions

needed to bring sustained stability to the

countries from which refugee streams originate

from? All of this has a distinct totalitarian and

neocolonial ring to it.

The abundance of questions at hand resemble a

Gordian knot. The linkages between citizenship,

rights, and nation-states, and the

inclusion/exclusion dichotomy that comes along

with them remain unbroken since the Evian

Conference. Arendt’s call for a truly federal

solution remains valid, but is also a call for

something the people of Europe are clearly not

ready for. More worrying still is Agamben’s

assessment of the state of exception allowing to

define whose life is worth protecting, and whose

isn’t. Agamben builds his own work on Carl

Schmitt’s statement of "sovereign is he who

decides on the exception.” Yet within the context

of the current crisis, this ‘sovereign’ is diffuse, it is

not a single leader, nor is it an identifiable

independent body of individuals.

The solutions then are limited by their maximalist

utopian character: anything short of a benevolent

dictatorship, or a truly cosmopolitan democratic

response to the issues at hand will be unable to go

beyond existing limitations. Only by redefining the

organisation of society from the ground up

outside traditional concepts such as citizenship

and nation can this crisis be overcome and

universal values become more than ink on paper.

These are neither revolutionary new proposals,

, nor are they realistic. Yet the only viable alternative

seems to be that of a cynic: accept the limitations of

our current political organisation for radical change,

accept our complicity in the migrant crisis, and

accept that illiberalism will once more define the

trajectory of history. Fukuyama’s owl of Minerva has

yet to find rest.


York Politics Review Edition No.1 - May 2016

Documents

Transcript of York Politics Review Edition No.1 - May 2016