Showing posts with label corporations. Show all posts
Showing posts with label corporations. Show all posts

Wednesday, November 03, 2010

US Mid-term elections: The Small State turkeys have voted for Thanksgiving.

^Cartoon HT to the ever-excellent Marc Roberts
So the US in its wisdom has voted for Small Government. What does Small Government mean?

Before we can answer that, we have to ask, what is Government for?

The purpose of Government is to protect the citizens from harm, to protect the vulnerable from being hurt and exploited by the strong. It is a pooling of the power of individual citizens into a common good. It is an insurance policy. Some will get more out of it than they put in, and vice versa. That's the deal.

In more detail, this means:
  1. Protection from hostile states. Which requires a defence strategy and international agreements to prevent war.
  2. Protection against murder, rape, violence, robbery, and fraud. Which requires a police force.
  3. Protection against hunger, thirst, cold and disease. Which requires a sustainable food, water, shelter, energy and sewerage systems, and guidance to the market so that we move to a sustainable economy, away from the cliff of Peak Oil, and Peak Everything.
  4. Protection against poverty for those unable to work, or unable to find work. Which requires social security.
  5. Protection against illness. Which requires a health service.
  6. Protection against ignorance. Which requires an education service, and a healthy, diverse news media.
These are the basic, irreducible functions of  Government. 

There are two main threats to good government:
  1. The powerful will tend to try to capture Government for their own interests, and not those of the people.
  2. The institutions of Government will tend to become sclerotic, hardened, inefficient and useless.
The inefficiency problem should be dealt with by a policy of continual bottom-up reform, whereby workers can put forward suggestions for better ways of working, which will be adopted and promulgated if shown to be valid.

Democracy exists to prevent or ameliorate the tendency of any one Government to stay too long in office, which otherwise leads to complacency, selfishness and megalomania, as happens  in dictatorships. This addresses to some extent the "capture" threat, but there is another threat of capture, from institutions that are outside of Government, and have influence and powerful over Government.

Which is where the Small Government idea comes in.

In essence, it is an antithetical reaction to the Total State of Marxist-Leninist/Maoist/NationalSocialist ideation, where the State controls every aspect of people's lives, including production and trade.

Against the Absolute State, the Small Staters propose the Absolute Market, where individuals are free to band together into companies in order to make money by trade with zero constraint, able to do whatever they can get away with (within the law, which they can bend by using their wealth to buy powerful lawyers  who can bend the law to their own ends). They are Fundamentalists: Free Market Fundamentalists.

It is very clear that this Small Statism is the ideology of powerful interests intent on capturing and dominating the Government. They do this by giving donations to political parties, and by lobbying Government Ministers and officials. They have also captured the democratic process, by controlling the media. The Sun, Mail, Telegraph, Express and Times have a combined readership of 18 million, which is 10 (ten) times the combined readership of the Guardian and the Independent.

In the case of the Tea Party movement, the corporations have acted by "astroturfing" - providing money to facilitate a false grass roots movement, as George Monbiot has shown. The powerful have captured the democratic process in order to capture government. Clever.

So in a nutshell, the US Tea Party movement are useful idiots, tools of the powerful corporations. They have been brainwashed by the propagandists of Murdoch's empire, notably the hysterics who anchor Fox "news" programmes.  Instead of voting for reform, efficiency and sustainability in Government so that it protects them from present and future harm, they have voted to empower the plutocrats whose only interests is to suck ever more wealth to themselves.


The turkeys have, in essence, voted for Thanksgiving.

It's not just me saying this: Here's Ralph Nader on The Road to Corporate Serfdom, with some very arresting quotes from great US leaders.

In fact, they're so arresting, I'mgoing to nick them:

Thomas Jefferson—“I hope that we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country.”

Abraham Lincoln in 1864—“I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. …corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed.” (1864)


Theodore Roosevelt—“The citizens of the United States must control the mighty commercial forces which they themselves call into being.”


Woodrow Wilson—“Big business is not dangerous because it is big, but because its bigness is an unwholesome inflation created by privileges and exemptions which it ought not to enjoy.”


Franklin D. Roosevelt—“The first truth is that the liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is Fascism—ownership of Government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power.”

Tuesday, June 22, 2010

CCD: Ban the neo-nicotinoids and fipronil, and see what happens

O dear. With a heavy heart, I dip my toe into the waters of Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD) affecting bees.

Heavy heart, because of the amount of detail and counter-detail that I have to wade through. But someone has to do it.

Every skuleboy kno that bees are vital for our crop fertility. Every skuleboy kno that CCD is an existential  threat to bees and therefore humans. Every skuleboy kno that CCD will be multifactorial, but that pesticides is likely to be one of the factors.

1-2 skuleboys kno that Bayer's neo-nicotinoid pesticide has been linked to CCD. Everybody except Mordorch-influenced, gullible journalists know therefore that Bayer will be spending millions to prevent this link becoming common knowledge.

So what are the scientific paths to be followed to establish the link?
Bradford Hill rolled out a series of hoops that any hypothesis should jump through in order to link an environmental agent with disorder. It is going to take decades to "prove" (i.e. test) the link, by which time the honeybee could be in serious peril globally. This is a challenge, and needs a lot of focused, direct work. Here immediately we come up with a problem. Bayer refuses to have the investigations cover plant protection products to the same extent as other factors.
  Here we go. Tobacco, climate change, bees - the Almighty Corporations are in there, defending their profits, over all other considerations.  As I reluctantly study and write, with the green blue and golden world calling me outside, Bayer has well-paid teams deployed in spinning and lobbying. They have been paying the British Beekeepers Association.

However, science is science. What do we know about Bayer's Imidocloprid? Its effects on termites include apparent failure of the immune system, and disorientation.  And so on. I cannot detail all the evidence today - the sun is shining.

To cut to the chase, the big experiment is - what happens to the bee population if suspect pesticides are withdrawn? Well, France did this experiment, partially, in 1994. They banned Imidacloprid, Bayer's neo-nicotinoid. There was a brief recovery, but to Bayer's relief, CCD began again after a few months. Why? Because the ban was only partial, on sunflowers, and other crops were still offering Bayer's products. Also, another pesticide, Fipronil, was used as a substitute, and that also has a link with CCD.

So, we have a choice. Either we fiddle with the science while the bee colonies collapse, or we have a complete moratorium on use of any pesticide suspected of being complicit in CCD, and see if the bee populations recover.

OK?

I'm off out now.

Monday, May 17, 2010

Should Airlines get compensation for volcanic ash airspace closures?


Branson's Rash Bash at Cash for Ash will not Wash.

"Sir" Richard Branson demands compensation from the taxpayer for the losses caused by the Eyja&c volcano. Well, he can stuff his demands right up his exhaust vent. The airlines have only themselves to blame for the blanket ban, because they have had nearly 30 years to work out tolerable levels of volcanic ash, and they have failed to do so.

The Civil Aviation Authority has a review paper on volcanic ash. In it we learn that in the last 12 years, there have been 60 close encounters with volcaninc ash, resulting in 7 engine failures. All cases restarted when the plane dropped below the ash cloud, but this happy outcome requires that the failure occurs at height. It's only a matter of time.

In 1982 the International Civil Aviation Authority set up a Volcanic Ash Warnings Group. There was a Symposium on Volcanic Ash and Airline Safety in Seattle in July 1991.  How come standards of ash tolerability were not set up by these groups? Did none of the highly-paid and knowledgeable  experts there think to consider what levels of ash were flyable and what were not? Clearly, the assembled company decided against setting up a regulation level, and we can reasonably suppose that this is due to a free market, low-regulation mindset on the part of the industry.

Levels of ash must be set with a wide margin of error. Within areas that have been declared within the limits of toleration, there will be areas of higher density, and an aircraft with the misfortune of hitting such a stratum might exceed tolerable levels. Present in-flight radar cannot detect such layers. So it would seem sensible to design and fit a small device, maybe using laser-back-scatter, as an ash density detector on all aircraft in these troubled times.

There is a striking parallel with what is happening at the Deepwater rig right now. Oil companies know that blowouts occur, but they treat each new blow-out as a one-off surprise. "Blimey! We're leaking! Quick, someone design a coffer dam to try to cope with it. No, damn, that doesn't work. Let's put a pipe in and suck it out!"

Industry has got to learn to think ahead, and it will only do that if it learns some painful lessons. I like anyone who smiles a lot, and Richard Branson has a ready smile. I believe he has a genuine if rudimentary concern about the environment, but he is mad to expect any compensation for the no-fly rule.  "Lord" Adonis, the Labour transport man, said at the height of his powers that he would be inclined to compensate. Let's hope this is one Labour spending decision that falls to the cutting room floor. It will be a test of the new Government's commitment to fiscal prudence to see whether they can resist the temptation to rob from the poor and give to the Rich.

Saturday, May 01, 2010

Oil companies, Gas flaring, sociopathy

While BP's oil creeps slowly towards the coast of Louisiana, another crime committed by the oil industry on a daily basis should be flagged up. Gas flaring.

Pressure variations require release of gas. Instead of compressing and processing this gas, it is flared off. This is a waste of energy, and produces toxic air pollution, as well as 0.5% of world CO2 emissions. That is 150 billion cubic metres of natural gas are flared or vented annually, an amount worth approximately 30.6 billion dollars, equivalent to 25 percent of the United States’ gas consumption or 30 percent of the European Union’s gas consumption per year. If steam is added to reduce the pollution, it produces noise pollution.

Flaring is not necessary. It has been reduced by three quarters since the 1970s by technological improvements.

It is time now to stop gas flaring totally. Why is the oil industry dragging its feet? Because the increase in supply of natural gas to the market would reduce the value of its product.

Corporations are persons in law, persons who often show a number of sociopathic traits.

Friday, April 30, 2010

BP negligent in Gulf Coast Oil spill

Dave Martin/AP

[Update: if you have come here from a search, you will see that this was posted when the spill first happened. I hope you will find that the opinions given - that the oil companies need to have a far better proactive approach to oil spills - was accurate, and that the various investigations that will be carried out will confirm this first impression from a Green blogger. Indeed, the official report, published 8 months later, does bear my first impressions out. I would add that if Deepwater had occurred in Arctic or Antarctic waters, the difficulties in capping it would have been multiplied many times over. Deepwater drilling in hostile, iceberg laden environments is foolish in the extreme. It is simply wrong.]

11 humans dead, and a slow brown WMD on its way to an ecologically sensitive coastline. The BP oil spill  in the Gulf Coast shows the oil industry doing what it does best: maximising profits to the exclusion of other considerations.

Sure, accidents happen. They can be predicted, and effective emergency response plans can be laid down, ready to go into action. BP, and the oil industry generally, have negligently failed to do this.

There is evidence that BP was drilling deeper than licensed, and refused to put in a deep-water valve that might have prevented this spill.

The present disaster happened while the well head at the sea bed was being cemented in.
18 out of 39 oil blowouts between 1992 and 2006 were associated with this operation. Therefore BP was negligent in not being on the alert for a blowout during this operation.

What to do now?  There are many responses. I have put the ones with particular potential in bold.
  • Booms &c; Standard necessary procedure
  • Burn it off. It may have a role.
  • Skim it off.
  • Use booms to contain the slick.
  • Capture the oil at its points of escape.
  • Counter drill. This will take weeks.
  • Attach a pump to the end of the pipeline (the part that was attached to the rig) and lower the pressure in the pipe, thus reducing the leakage from the three fractures in the pipe.
  • Site funnels over the leaks to collect the oil.
  • Finally, cap it.
 All of these options should be implemented right now. It is a damned shame, and s sign of systemic negligence, that they were not put in place ten days ago, on April 20th when the disaster happened.

Three key reforms are needed: intensive use of skimming, preparedness of funnel technology, and use of pumping.

Skimming

Oil can be removed from the surface using devices that suck off the slick. This is established technology, having been around since 1960. One form is the SLURP (Self-Levelling Unit for Removing Pollution) whose .pdf manual is here.

The oil industry is negligent in failing to provide large stocks of SLURPs in the vicinity of all oil operations. They could then be mobilised in bulk to deal with an emergency.  This is a simple, logical, practical physical form of insurance.


Funnel or Dome
This plan is similar to the design outlined on this blog a few weeks ago to contain the methane rising from the seabed.
This is not new - it was tried in 1979 but destroyed in high seas. It has never been used at this depth. The oil industry has had 30 years to develop and roll out the technology, but BP engineers are starting from scratch, cobbling one together on an ad hoc basis. More institutional negligence. 

The oil industry should have these domes, with ancillary equipment, laid up in strategic depots, in modular form so that they can be transported by air if necessary, to use in this kind of emergency.

Reduce the pressure in the pipe
It would be relatively easy to fit a pump to the end of the pipe, and pump the oil out at increasing rates until the oil is admixed with water. At that stage, the application of a membrane to the fractures will form an effective pressure seal.
In summary, the oil industry is systemically negligent in being unprepared for this predictable event.

Governments should now compel them to get their act together. Immediately.  What is the problem? The problem is that oil corporations regard themselves, and the Free Market that is their religion, as superior to governments. Remember that it is the oil industry that is behind the Climate Change Denial movement. They are adding the insult of denial to the injury they are doing to our beautiful, fragile environment.

One thing is for sure:
Multinational Corporations need to be brought under a legal framework.

We the people have a right to feel angry with BP and the oil industry. We should express our anger in peaceful but persistent demonstrations outside BP offices and even forecourt outlets, across the world.

Related issues


BP has lost $27billion in falling share prices. Total share price drop has wiped $44billion off value of associate companies.  Halliburton has lost $2.9 billion. Good.

[Update May 6th: I have sent this to BP on their site.   You might like to back it up so they notice.


I read that you have found and closed a valve on the pipe that was leaking. Is this the valve that would have been at or close to the rig? If so, is it possible to lock a pipe onto the valve? If so, oil could be pumped out of the pipe. This would lower pressure in the pipe, so that the fractures could be wrapped one after the other (beginning with the fracture closest to the said valve).

I would be grateful if you would consider this plan in case the coffer plan fails for whatever reason.

It is regrettable that the coffer has had to be assembled from scratch, after the event. In future, the oil industry should have coffers ready in the region of each well, especially while the well head is being cemented in.

Please acknowledge receipt of this communication.

[Update 13 May. They have received  a few thousand of these suggestions, and have made up a form. I have filled out their form. It looks as if the dome/coffer idea is stalled. Pity.]
[Update 22 May: detailed info on the Oil Drum here]

Want more?
Here's what we need to do about mega-corporations.
Expert Report: “BP was reckless, negligent” in Gulf oil spill
BP’s ‘Nightmare’ Well: Internal Documents Uncover Negligence

Wednesday, February 17, 2010

Bee Blog Day: Bayer Buys BBKA

I have just learned from the estimable Ruscombe Green that today is Bee Blogging Day.
Here's my 2b worth:

Every skuleboy kno that we would all die of starvation if no bees.
Every skuleboy kno that CCD is killing bees seriously.


Bayer's neo-nicotinoids are implicated in Colony Collapse Disorder CCD.
Bayer supports the British Bee Keepers Association.
Therefore the BBKA has no position on whether neo-nicotinoids are implicated in CCD.


If I'm wrong, Bayer can Carter-Ruck me.

PS
My local Tory MP, John Penrose, is a beekeeper and he just looked shifty when I raised the neo-nicotinoid question when I met him at Winscombe fete. He is a decent enough guy as a person, but naive in terms of corporate influence, no understanding of the realities of corporate influence.

I am standing against him in the General Election.

Sunday, February 07, 2010

Avatar: the Corporate Message

Went to see Avatar in 3D last night. Visually stunning, and engaging to the extent that I went along with the decision to resort to violence against the Corporation. The mawkish bits were just a bit mawkish, and there was next to no solemn cod philosophy.

However, there is a lot of criticism of a thin plot on Twitter. What do people expect from Hollywood? Complexity? Come on, Hollywood only has 2 plots, #1 boy meets girl, and#2 hero saves world from calamity. Avatar was #2. The similarity to Dances with Wolves has been noticed. It has Matrix like themes. And Star Wars, and Lord of the Rings and, and...

The plot criticism is as meaningless as saying that James Bond is predictable.

What amazes me is that Corporate interests did not strangle Avatar at birth. It is a clear allegory of what Shell did to the Ogoni, what Union Carbide/Dow Chemical Co. did to the people of Bhopal and what Trafigura did to the people of Abidjan.

Human history in a nutshell: tribes, clans, kingdoms, empires, corporations. All politics is in one way completely beside the point. We struggle to develop and defend democracy, trying to make our political leaders accountable for their actions (with notable lack of success; think Tony Blair), but the real power has passed on beyond Presidents and Prime Ministers into the fat hands of the corporate overlords.

Avatar is a call to revolution. It contains the line that says something like "There is one thing that shareholders like less than bad press, and that is a bad quarterly return". Simple as that.
The sole legal responsibility of company directors is to stuff their shareholders' pockets with gold.

Corporations are all about Profit before People.

Maybe the Twitter thread about Avatar's thin plot is a bit of corporate astroturfing.

In spite of hugely successful films like Avatar, and the common cynical view of the machinations of "Big Business", corporations continue to dominate our world, with very little criticism apart from campaigning organisations like Corporate Watch. There is no journalistic criticism of corporations for the obvious reason that journalists work for corporations. Duh!

Do these films help or hinder public perception of what is going on? Probably neither. They just get filed away under "Entertainment". Although they must affect our cognitive constructs of the world.

Where the plot does come unstuck is in the violent rebellion bit. The violence was provoked, and the threat of cultural and religious annihilation produces a union of Na'avi tribes, who come and do battle. Any Marxists out there who think that they might like to try this at home, please think again. Humanity is no way ready for this kind of thing. Violence is the problem, not the solution, and in any confrontation, the Right, backed by the police and the army are going to win hands down. Sure, the people, united, will never be defeated, but the people are not united. They may or may not follow United, but mainly they are controlled by a daily dose of corporate journalism and telly.

In the absence of any possibility of a James Bond resolution of the problem by blowing it up, what can we do about the corporate dominance of our world?

That is a long journey, but the first step is to sketch out the kind of laws that we need our political representatives to bring in to constrain the corporations.

We have made a start on this project here. Please read, bookmark and forward.

At this stage in the journey, we just have to spread the meme that corporations need to be brought within a framework of law. That's the easy bit. Once your lollipop lady agrees that this is a Good Idea, the next stage is to start lobbying your government.

Meanwhile, enjoy the film.

Monday, February 01, 2010

TransNational Corporation Law Reform

This document is evolved, and is still evolving, with the collaboration of a number of NGOs in the UK whose work is affected by the activities transnational corporations. These gargantuan economic actors are at present substantially unregulated, and can and do use their economic power to circumvent such regulations as to apply to them.

The document is a brief overview of some of the regulations that might be applied to bring them within the rule of law.


Taming the Tiger: TransNational Corporation Legislation

Introduction
Corporations, whether Trans-National, (a.k.a. Multinational) or large national corporations have as much if not more economic power than half of the nations on earth. They frequently use their economic power either directly or indirectly to influence decisions made by politicians.

Democracy means that the bedrock of political power lies with the people, who commonly delegate their power to Governments to act on their behalf. The de facto existence of commercial organisations with power to influence politicians for their own benefit runs counter to the core principle of democracy.

Corporations have acquired for themselves in law the status of “corporate personhood”, which has given them powerful leverage.

This has resulted in many instances where the activities of Corporations have caused damage, sometimes severe, to human rights, human health, and the environment where they operate. In some instances they have used their political, financial and legal power to escape the consequences of such activities, and it is generally difficult to obtain information about their workings, especially in relation to their subsidiary companies and sub-contractors.

Voluntary Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) initiatives have had very little real effect on corporate behaviour.

There is a need for governmental bodies at national and international level to create a legislative framework designed to prevent TNCs from causing harm to the society and the natural environment in which they operate. The problem is that governments are often financially beholden to corporations, and are reluctant to offend them. This means that the initiative for constraining corporations must come from civil society.
Many non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and individuals are campaigning against various aspects of corporate abuse.
The aim of this document aims to provide an overview of the legal changes required to bring TNCs under the rule of law, as a guide to legislators, politicians, political parties and NGOs.

Legal Status of TNCs

TNCs have obtained for themselves the status of corporate personhood or legal personality, which allows them to act as persons for certain limited purposes—most commonly lawsuits, property ownership, and contracts. This has given them certain legal rights which are not balanced with legal responsibilities, since their central legal responsibility is to maximise the profit of their shareholders.
The aim is to establish in law the principle that Human Rights (HR) are superior to rights and interests of Private Corporations.

Reforms to Legal Status of TNCs


1. The Council of Europe should revise the European Convention on Human Rights in order to make it clear that the Convention only applies to human beings. An exception would be made in respect of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which relates to the right to a fair trial.

2. English law should rule invalid future reliance on any precedent set by assuming that Corporations are persons, changing their status to that of “artificial persons in law”.

3. Amend UK law to prevent courts in the UK from enforcing judgments in US courts which rely on corporations being granted 'Human Rights'.

Corporate Social Responsibility
Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) as a voluntary undertaking has proved ineffective in the majority of cases. There is a clear need to for legally enforceable obligations and standards.
In particular, there is a need to hold Corporations responsible for subsidiary companies and sub-contractors, since at present they can shed responsibility for harm onto subsidiary companies.
There is also a need to ensure that States will guarantee that TNCs will work to the same standards in third countries as in their base country, or in the country of origin of materials with which they are dealing.

Reforms to create effective CSR

1. Establish a Commission for Business, Human Rights and the Environment (CBHRE)
This new agency would incorporate some of the powers of the US Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, which is charged with overseeing, regulating, inspecting and disciplining accounting firms in their roles as auditors of public companies. It would also help guide UK companies towards best practice when operating at home and overseas and prevent harmful impacts to people and the environment.

The Commission should help resolve disputes between companies and those affected by the companies’ activities, promoting solutions when harm had been done. This body would have the remit of reducing violations of environmental and human rights standards related to UK companies’ operations abroad, and help those companies improve their corporate conduct globally.

Key objectives of a UK CBHRE would be to:
Provide redress for overseas victims of human rights abuses involving UK companies when local redress channels had been exhausted
promote appropriate environmental and human rights standards for UK companies operating overseas and promulgate best practice
work with other human rights commissions and relevant bodies to share learning and build their collective capacity to strengthen the effectiveness of redress in developing countries.

2. Establish Responsibility for subsidiaries and sub-contractors
To establish in law a principle that Corporations must publish details of “Beneficial Ownership”, and to enshrine in law the principle that that responsibilities follow the flow of profit.

3. Protect third party states

To establish in law the principle that a corporation must apply the same environmental and social standards in a third party state as apply in the state where the company is based, registered, or from whence it acquired materials which it wishes to dispose of.

Limited Liability
At present, shareholders in limited liability companies are protected from losses cannot lose value of their shares if the company is successfully sued. The externalisation of risk through Corporate Limited Liability is a privilege providing wealth to shareholders without liability for the impact of the way that wealth is obtained. If shareholders stood to lose financially from any harmful actions of the company, there would be a powerful internal motivation to inhibit any such actions.

Reforms to Liability Law

Company Law is to be amended so as to remove shareholders’ immunity to losses incurred as a result of human rights abuses or environmental pollution caused by the company.
Libel Law
Corporations have used Libel Law, particularly the draconian English libel law, to silence any criticism of their actions. The principle of Free Speech should be enshrined in law, as it is in the First amendment of the Constitution of the USA.

Reforms to Libel Law

The following changes to English Libel Law are required:
1. Capping libel damages at, say, £10,000 and making an apology the chief remedy
2. Shifting the burden of proof so claimants have to demonstrate damage
3. Preventing cases from being heard in London unless, say, 10% of copies of the offending publication are circulated in England
4. Stopping large and medium-sized companies from being able to launch libel actions unless they can prove malicious falsehood
5. Making some internet comments exempt as part of efforts to reflect the arrival of the world wide web
6. Establishing a libel tribunal, along the lines of employment tribunals, as an alternative to expensive full court trials
7. Reducing the prohibitive cost of defending libel actions by capping base costs and making success fees non-recoverable
8. Strengthening the public interest defence and expanding the definition of fair comment.
9. Parliament shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech


In the EU, the Council of Europe should secure an amendment to Article 6, to ensure that any party in a civil dispute is able to mount a defence or response, and that effective sanctions are applied to any vexatious or intimidating litigant. This amendment would be brought into English law whether or not the convention was so amended.

Political Influence of Corporations
At present, politicians and political parties can benefit greatly from corporate donations, which militates against their core responsibility to act on behalf of the welfare of the people who have entrusted them with their power. Politicians are also unduly affected by corporate lobbying.

Reforms to political donations

A cap is to be set on donations to political parties, both direct donations and loans and other indirect forms of aid.

Donations of over, say, £5000 to main political party offices must be reported to and published by the Electoral Commission, and donations of over, say, £200 must be recorded by the party, though not reported.

Political parties must be funded by tax-raised subsidies in proportion to their share of the vote in elections.

Tax Haven Reform
At present, corporations can avoid paying tax by sophisticated avoidance devices involving locating aspects of their operations in different countries, particularly in tax havens. This represents a leaching of wealth away from the societies in which they operate, and results in a heavier burden on ordinary taxpayers.

International agreements will reform Tax Law so as to close down tax havens, and ensure that corporations pay tax to any country in which they are operating.

(Tax havens are pretty unpleasant places for their citizens as well as being bad for nations).

Tax transparency
Require all corporations to publish complete accounts in order to avoid hiding their profit flows and tax liabilities.

Additions
This document is not complete. Suggestions for further additions (for example, on land acquisition rights of corporations, and on ownership of news corporations) and amendments are welcome.

Conclusion
Mega-corporations have arrogated to themselves legal, and economic power that has often been exercised against the interests of people and environment. Voluntary measures have proved ineffective. A legal framework to constrain the activities of corporations is necessary, but politicians are often pliable to the wishes of powerful corporations. It is therefore necessary for civil society organisations to initiate action, and to exert pressure on politicians to legislate.



Remit
This document was commissioned by the Campaigns committee of the Green Party of England and Wales, prepared by Dr Richard Lawson with the assistance of a group of NGO representatives who convened in London on 27.1.2010. Any errors in the document are entirely the responsibility of Richard Lawson.
rlawson@gn.apc.org

30 January 2010

Update: an event similar to this will be held in the European Parliament.
We were 3.5 years ahead.