Blog 2023 Malcolm Blair-Robinson

This new development is even more historically interesting than the Wikileaks themselves. It may have the same profound impact as the rise of trade unions in the Victorian era. The U.S. and its allies has deplored Wikileaks activities and rejoices in his arrest, on sex charges prompting an extradition request from Sweden.

This Blog has no idea whether there is linkage here or not. Is this the same as banging up Al Capone for tax evasion which was trivial, when his real crimes were murder and bootlegging which were not? Mr Assange did not steal the data from the U.S. One of its own officials, who in turn was one of the three million who had access to this data was responsible for that. Wikileaks put it on the Internet. A clutch of distinguished and highly respected newspapers round the world are jointly publishing extracts from these disclosures. It may be annoying, it may be harmful, it may be an outrage, but it may not be, indeed it likely is not, a crime. If it is alleged to be, by whom in the chain of disclosure, apart from the original thief?  How can it be proved, under which statute and in what jurisdiction?

Sexual crime may look easier. It is less complicated. A man, two girls, no condoms. It is certainly sordid. There may be evidence, or it may be one word against another or two others. The Swedes insist it has nothing to do with Wikileaks. Very large numbers of people across the world smell a rat. Some of them, not organised in the conventional sense, but loosely based on anonymous volunteers of the moment like a modern terrorist grouping, have decided to work together to interdict against the commercial activities of those who in turn have acted against Wikileaks. They appear to be acquiring the power to close down internet shopping.

The internet has indeed change the world. Very much more than the world knows. If there are not  headaches today in a good number of capitals, there should be. The rules of the game have changed. Not the way capitals direct, but as the people of the world define. This will be very intersting.

There are reports that while a good number of Lib Dem MPs may abstain in the  vote  today on tuition fees, some, maybe many, will vote against. They may include two former party leaders, the Deputy Leader and the President. This unfortunate party shambles is being played out without personal attacks or rancour common in political drama. It is because this is more than a drama. It is an agony. This Blog will now define an honourable and acceptable position.

Members of the Coalition Government, who are also Liberal Democrats, are properly and constitutionally entitled to vote for an increase against their pledge, because their pledge was given as prospective M.Ps. It is not Parliament’s government, under our Constitution it is the Queen’s. Her government looks at the matter, then decides and agrees on policy. Having done so, all its ministers are bound by that decision and have to vote for it if challenged by a Division in Parliament. It is their Constitutional duty. The only way out is to resign from the government.

Members of Parliament have a different role entirely. It is their duty to challenge the Executive. They also have a duty to their constituents and to their supporters to honour what, to gain votes, they promised. Otherwise they become con men and women. Thus those Lib Dem MPs not in government who signed the pledge (which I think is all of them) must vote against. Remember the pledge was to vote against any increase. It was not a pledge which was conditional upon winning the election, nor losing it, nor joining with other parties to form a coalition. Once elected on this promise, no agreement signed with other political parties can supersede that pledge, nor entitle any member not in the government to change their mind.

Under our unwritten constitution these points are open to interpretation. However one point is not. The whole thing depends on people who engage in its various institutions being open and honest and doing what they promise. This is what the agony is about. The pledge should never have been signed. But it was. It must be honoured.