Labour should stop prevaricating and vote in the Lords for Jenny Jones' 'Fatal Motion' to stop government power grab

 

Damning photographic evidence of reckless asbestos removal at Paddington Cemetery

-->

 'We expect our children to be safe when we send them to school. We do not expect the Council to poison their air'

Cllr John Duffy has written the following email to Brent councillors:

Since I wrote my last email, I have received fresh photographic evidence from a resident that is most disconcerting. On the 1^st of December 2017, the council employed a firm to remove approx 15 tonnes of contaminated soil from the graveyard. This procurement seems to have been done in haste as the company employed are not, as far as I can research, experts in the removal of contaminated and waste and their employment followed no proper procurement rules - as if often the case for Brent. I  also do not know whether they are licensed to carry the contaminated waste.

The company removed the soil by mechanical shovel, which is totally the wrong way to proceed. The way the operation was carried out raised a considerable amount of contaminated dust. The council did not supervise the operation or ensure a risk assessment took place. The operation failed to fulfil the basic H+S standards when dealing with Hazardous /Contaminated waste. The use of the shovel and the removal should be carried out in a more controlled fashion to try and limit making airborne dust. The area was fully open to public while the operation took place ,the waste was then placed in an open lorry rather than a locked skip which is required in guidelines on the Control of substances hazardous to health (COSHH).

However the worst aspect of the operation was that it took place just feet from the children's playground/garden of  Salusbury Road Primary School.  No risk assessment was done and no effort was made to inform the school to keep the children safe inside during the operation.  Furthermore no effort was made to contain the dust clouds.

The CEO, the Leader of the Council and Lead Member for the Environment must now stop trying to impede an Independent Investigation establishing the full facts of how the waste arrived at Paddington Cemetery and the question of whether workers were instructed to work without protection. 

However, the first thing we must do as a priority is to contact the school and find were children and staff present during the operation. This can be done by comparing class timetables against the work schedule.(I have copied in the head of the school) and establish why the school was not informed that the operation was going on.

I am concerned that the Leader and Cabinet’s decision not to insist on an independent investigation and their failure to ensure the workforce be interviewed has brought the council into disrepute and undermined the workforce human rights. 

I will be moving at tonight's meeting that we set up an independent investigation, as set out in my previous email, to reassure, the workers, residents  grave owners and the school we have nothing to hide and there will be no more cover-ups.

Cllr Duffy adds:
 

I would like to thank Baroness Jones for adding her support to the Friends of Paddington Cemetery. Hopefully, we will now see the commission of an Independent Investigation, where all the individuals who were exposed to asbestos will be interviewed.I believe it is the duty of the CEO and the Leader of the Council, along with the Lead Member for the Environment, to cease the prevarication and answer the questions Baroness Jones has raised.

Namely - 

(1)      Did Council officers knowingly send waste contaminated with asbestos to Paddington cemetery in August 2015 in spite of the fact that they understood it would be disturbed during the burial and gardening process and this would lead to the work-force being exposed to the asbestos?

(2)      On the 24^th June 2017, did Council officers instruct workmen to work on the mound without protective overalls and masks and training?  I believe this to be a very serious matter that put both the workmen and public at risk .

(3)      Why are the CEO, Leader and Lead member for the Environment unwilling to contemplate interviewing the workforce who have been exposed to asbestos since August 2015 and including those exposed to the contaminated dust on June 24^th 2017?

On Friday I spoke to ACAS and they told me it is the responsibility of the CEO as the senior officer to ensure the council fulfils its duty of care to the council’s employees.  This means they should take all steps, which are reasonably possible, to ensure their health, safety and wellbeing. Demonstrating concern for the physical and mental health of your workers shouldn’t just be seen as a legal duty. Legally, employers must abide by relevant health & safety and employment law, as well as the common law duty of care, but they also have a moral and ethical duty not to cause, or fail to prevent, physical or psychological injury, and must fulfil their responsibilities.  I am sure everybody is aware that this would include knowingly instructing workers employees to work in an area contaminated by asbestos without protection.

Green peer adds her voice to calls for independent investigation into Paddington Cemetery asbestos dump

Dust at Paddington Cemetery (FPC)

Jenny Jones (Baroness Jones of Moulsecoom) the Green Party member of the House of Lords, has written to Brent Council supporting  the call for an independent investigation into the asbestos contamination in Paddington Cemetery LINK.

Jones writes:

Cllr Duffy has written to me on behalf of a the Friends Of Paddington Cemetery (FPC), a local residents group. The group have concerns around the issue of the inappropriate use of asbestos contaminated soil to create additional burial sites in the Cemetery. Having read their concerns I am troubled by the lack of transparency being shown by the council and by the secretive way senior officers and leadership of the council are conducting themselves.

Can you tell me how the waste arrived on site and did the council knowingly deliver contaminated (with asbestos) waste to Paddington Cemetery in August 2015?

I am further troubled by the failure of your in-house audit team to interview any residents or member of the workforce who may have been exposed  to the asbestos. NHS guidelines say "While asbestos can be dangerous, it does not present a health risk if left undisturbed, but if material containing asbestos is damaged, it can release a fine dust that contains asbestos fibres. When the dust is breathed in, the asbestos fibres enter the lungs and can gradually damage them over time.” 

The pictures provided by FPC  (above) clearly show a considerable amount of dust being raised by the workman on the mound after the asbestos was discovered. If the council allows those workmen to work on the mound without protective overalls and masks and training, it's a very serious matter that puts both the workmen and public at risk.

Based on the evidence I have seen I should like to add my support to FPC efforts to have an independent investigation. Cllr Duffy has suggested an expert on Health and Safety should oversee this which seems appropriate to me. I hope you agree to an independent investigation.

Schools to face £1.8m business rate bill for solar panels

Research by Jenny Jones, a Green Party member of the House of Lords, suggests that schools could face a business rates bill totalling £1.8 million if the Valuation Office Agency goes ahead with plans to remove the exemption for small non-domestic installations.

Of the 74 education authorities in England and Wales that responded to FOI requests, they were responsible for 821 schools with almost 14,000 kW of solar power capacity installed. Scaling that up to all 174 education authorities suggests a total business rates bill in the region of £1,800,000 per year.
 
Jenny Jones, the Green Party’s voice in the Lords said:

It's utterly absurd to penalise schools for investing in solar panels. Schools obviously face bigger financial challenges than this, but the business rate charges will stop any plans for more solar panels. Schools I have visited see them as a triple investment - in their energy costs, their pupils' education, and their future.

My research shows there is huge scope for schools to install more solar panels. While some schools have installed panels on most of their buildings, many currently have few or none at all. The Government should ditch these plans to charge rates on small solar installations and support more schools to join the clean energy revolution.

Jenny Jones condemns inflammatory 'vile rhetoric' of referendum campaigns

I thought it worth publishing in full the speech made by Green Party peer, Jenny Jones, on the EU Withdrawal Bill, in the House of Lords:

 
My Lords, one of the deep delights for me in your Lordships’ House is the fact that we have such deep divides in opinion and yet we can still stay polite. That was the position that I found myself in during the referendum campaign, when I was campaigning to leave the EU. I found myself in some unsavoury company at times, with some people with whom I share not a single view, apart from the fact that the UK would be better off outside the EU.

I believe passionately that we have made the right decision, but at the same time we have to be absolutely sure that we go about it in the right way. The Bill that the Government have presented to us is simply inadequate. Had there been a decent White Paper with some detail about the things that many of us care about, I would have felt calmer about voting for the Bill as it exists. However, the Prime Minister is approaching these negotiations with a blank sheet of paper. Where are the underlying principles? There are underlying principles in the EU, but where are the underlying principles that we will maintain during negotiations, or are there to be no principles at all?

The Green Party is particularly concerned that the Cabinet will attempt to dump protections for everything from wildlife and the countryside to the social protections that we see as normal in society nowadays. The Government could use a combination of exit negotiations and secondary legislation to do all sorts of things that the majority of people who voted leave would not want to happen. It is wrong to use the referendum result as cover for bypassing proper parliamentary procedure and scrutiny. The Lords has the job of ensuring that a democratic process is followed throughout the different stages of the negotiations.

As somebody who has advocated leaving the EU ever since we joined as a result of the 1975 European Communities membership referendum, I resent people suggesting that I am out to wreck the Bill by seeking to amend it—someone even said that it would be “traitorous”. That is an unpleasant thing to say about people who are trying to improve things. As for threats from the other place to replace the House of Lords with a different sort of Chamber or abolish it altogether, for me, that would be a welcome bonus. I believe that it is time for us to be abolished and replaced by a democratically elected Chamber. For me, therefore, that is no threat at all. However, it is bullying. 

What do we do with bullies? We stand up to them.

I will try to amend this Bill. I have put down five amendments that I feel would definitely improve the Bill and I will support amendments from other Members of your Lordships’ House. It is our job to advise and to reform and improve the sometimes very poor legislation that comes from the other place. My five amendments cover the following areas: transitional arrangements; legal enforcement; environmental regulators; access to justice; and employment and equality protections. These are self-evident. They will ask for detailed plans, lots of preparation and proper funding, which I know this Government have a huge problem with.

I am going to keep my remarks brief because some of what I would like to say is probably best left unsaid. However, before finishing, I would like to add that I also commend the amendment from a recommendation of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which will protect the residence rights of EU citizens legally resident in the UK on the day of the referendum— 23 June 2016. It is a precautionary but self-evident amendment and it would be cruel not to include it. I cannot see why the Government would have any objections to it being in the Bill.

Finally, although the outcome of last year’s vote was what I wanted, I have not taken a moment’s pleasure from it in the intervening time, partly because of the way in which the campaigns on both sides were conducted and partly because of the conduct since. There has been so much hatred and vile rhetoric, which has inflamed people. I am sure that many of us here have had abuse. That is a normal part of any progressive politician’s inbox but it has now reached levels that are just incredible.

We should take pleasure in issues such as immigration, because it is good for our country: it is good for the economy and it is good for our culture. I also believe that if you accept free trade, then why not accept the free movement of people? When we look at the Bill and vote on it next week, I hope that the Government will understand that we must not lower our standards. Whether it is on food, social protection or protecting our countryside, we must not go down the route of making things worse. In a sense, society is already worse because of the referendum and the Government must do everything in their power to heal as much as possible.

Jenny Jones: May wrong to use Brexit to by-pass proper Parliamentary scrutiny

Green Party peer Jenny Jones has come out fighting today against claims that she is out to 'wereck' the Brexit Bill.

She said:

As someone who has advocated leaving the EU for over two decades, I resent people saying I am out to ‘wreck’ the Brexit bill by seeking to amend it Many of us have huge concerns that we will lose environmental and social protections because of the way the Prime Minister is approaching these negotiations.

I am concerned that the Cabinet will attempt to dump protections for everything from wildlife and countryside to workers rights and climate change, by using a combination of exit negotiations and secondary legislation. It is wrong to use the referendum result as cover for by-passing proper Parliamentary scrutiny and the Lords has the job of ensuring that a democratic process is followed throughout the different stages of the negotiations.

 As for abolishing the Lords and replacing it with a democratically elected second chamber, that would be a welcome bonus.

By reducing our freedoms the Government is doing the extremists' job for them - Jenny Jones

This is the text of the speech Jenny Jones, the Green Party member of the House of Lords, gave on Tuesday:

My Lords, I wish to speak about two proposed Bills: the Investigatory Powers Bill and the extremism Bill. I am not sure whether noble Lords know that the States, which has had similar legislation to this in the past, is now rolling it back partly because of privacy concerns but also because it has been found not to be very effective.

I have a little experience of the police and can tell noble Lords that they cannot cope with the data they have at the moment, so giving them vast amounts more data is very counterintuitive and is likely to worsen their work rate. This legislation, if adopted in its current form, would have devastating effects on people’s right to privacy and on other human rights. It seems to me that the surveillance activities proposed in this legislation go way too far, far too fast. Vast powers to monitor communications, access personal information and tamper with computers, phones and software are provided for. These powers are vaguely described, disproportionate and lack critical safeguards, including proper independent judicial scrutiny. I hope this House will examine these proposals carefully, some of which are technical and difficult. I am not very technically minded but I aim to follow the proposals closely, as they could have a serious impact on the privacy of all of us.

Turning to the extremism Bill, as others have said, the definition of “extremism” will be very difficult to pin down. This has caused problems in the past. Noble Lords may or may not know—I have mentioned it before—that I am an accredited domestic extremist as far as the police are concerned. It seems to me that if they can judge me an extremist, they are experiencing some mission creep. The minute you give powers to people, they will abuse them. They may not mean to. Indeed, they may think that they are doing their job properly. However, the fact is that I and several other senior Green Party people have been described as domestic extremists. That is absolutely ludicrous. We are elected and obey the law. I very much hope that at some point I may get an apology from the police, but none has been given so far.

I have some specific questions about the Bill and the proposal. I do not expect an answer today but they may inform the debate later as I shall certainly raise them again. Will I and other people on the domestic extremism database be banned from talking to schools, for example, under the new counterterrorism and safeguarding Bill, because that is one of the proposals? Will the list of banned people be separate from the list of those monitored on the domestic extremism database? Will there be categories? Will the proposed definition of an extremist be legally binding, or will it merely provide the police with “guidance” and thus enable them to include whoever they like on whatever list they like? Again, I refer to my comments about mission creep. Will the Bill allow the Home Office to include categories of people on the list in the way that the police currently include elected Greens? Will the definition of extremism be restricted in any way to those advocating violence—as I feel it should—or to those convicted of a serious crime, or will it bear absolutely no relation to whether the person is innocent of any crime, or even under investigation for a specific crime? How will a person appeal against being on the list and challenge the Government’s view that they are an extremist? I have tried to get to the bottom of who originally labelled me a domestic extremist and who decided that it was worth monitoring me. It has been impossible to get that information out of the police. They decline to talk about specific cases, even when they involve the person asking for the information.

If the Government reduce our freedoms, they are doing the extremists’ job for them. They are doing the terrorists’ job of changing our culture and our society. That is extremely damaging.

Greens among supporters of 'Dine in the Dark' fundraiser for Centrepoint

On Wednesday, 9 March 2016, Dans le Noir? the celebrated dining in the dark restaurant staffed by blind people, and the youth homelessness charity Centrepoint, will be collaborating to host a gastronomic dinner.

The dinner will be held for Centrepoint’s vulnerable 16-25 year-olds to celebrate Dans le Noir?’s 10^th Anniversary and decade of successful charitable ventures.

Homeless young people will experience heightened flavours by enjoying a gastro dinner in the dark. The menu at Dans le Noir? has evolved over the past 10 years and in November 2015, Michelin star chef, Julien Machet, was hired to consult and help John Houel, the London Head Chef, create the four eclectic menus. Chef Julien will be present to assist with the creation of this spectacular dinner.

Dans le Noir? and Centrepoint support those furthest from the jobline to help them get into work. The two companies are joining forces to maximise awareness of the difficulties that blind, and homeless young people, face when trying to get into employment.

Dining in the dark challenges people’s preconceptions of other people. Mind-blowing Gov.uk statistics estimate that 16% of working age adults are disabled. Recent statistics show that only 46.3% of disabled people are in employment compared to 76.4% of non-disabled people, making it a significant social issue. Additionally, disabled people are significantly more likely to experience unfair treatment in work.

Caroline Pidgeon, Lib Dem London Mayoral Candidate 2016, says: "Given that the level of homelessness in London has - sadly - grown over the past 4 years, it’s fantastic to see initiatives like this from Dans le Noir? aimed at helping young homeless people. I would encourage other employers across London to explore if they could help develop schemes like this which offer a route to support people in furthering their skills through training and employment and a way in to permanent housing."

Shahrar Ali, No 3 on the Green Party London Assembly, says: "One of the remarkable things about Dans le Noir? is that it turns the tables on the sighted, who are rendered virtually helpless by the blackout conditions and are entirely dependent on blind people to guide them. It’s a great experience for diners but by creating these rare conditions where blind people are better off, it also brings home just how hard it can be to find work if you have any kind of disadvantage. That’s something that young homeless people also know all about, and this is a fantastic joint initiative by Dans le Noir? and Centrepoint to draw attention to those difficulties. It’s my privilege to be a part of it and to find out what practical things I can do to help if I’m elected to City Hall in May."

Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb, Green Party, says: “I commend the work of Dans le Noir? and the way they have helped blind people to gain employment; and with so many homeless people on the streets it would be wonderful if more companies could support those who are furthest from the job-line to help them to get back into employment.”

Edouard de Broglie, who founded Dans le Noir? in Paris in 2004, says “50% of our staff have a high disability, yet we still operate an efficient and profitable company. We have an incredibly low staff turnover which shows the dedication of our long standing team. We want to show big companies that those with disabilities shouldn’t be limited to performing only menial jobs. Our guides are incredibly skilled and challenge the perception that blind or visually impaired can serve in a restaurant. Who could have said that 10 years ago?”.

Sadie Odeogberin, Head of Skills and Employment, at Centrepoint, says: “The number of young people rough sleeping in London has more than doubled in the last four years, but providing a safe place to stay isn’t enough to solve the youth homelessness crisis. That’s why Centrepoint supports each young person staying with us to find a job or a route into education or training. Like Dans Le Noir?, we’re committed to helping those furthest from the world of work achieve their ambitions. It’s not an easy journey for a homeless young person to make and thanks to the generosity of Dans Le Noir?, we can reward them an experience they will never have had before. Homeless young people are every bit as talented as their peers and with the right support and hard work they can fulfil their potential.”

Open Letter: Greens support the Junior Doctors' Strike

WE support the junior doctors’ action because they deserve to be treated decently and because a rested and fairly paid NHS workforce is essential to sustain high clinical standards and patient safety.

The threat of strike first came about because the Government refused to drop their imposition of these contracts. Now ministers are failing to address doctors’ serious concerns surrounding safe working conditions, and aren’t offering proper recognition for those working unsocial hours.

We know that doctors take the Hippocratic Oath extremely seriously. They have, reluctantly, been forced to strike because they are not being heard. They have been telling the Health Secretary that this contract change is not just unfair on them but potentially unsafe for patients too. That’s why many consultants are backing the junior doctors too.

If this unfair contract is imposed, we risk more NHS trained doctors leaving for places like Australia where they feel more valued.

Today’s junior doctors are tomorrow’s leaders of the NHS, yet this Government’s intransigence – and their campaign of misinformation- has left junior doctors at the end of their tether. Sadly doctors aren’t unique in suffering because of this Government actions – our health service as a whole is under attack. Student nurses have had their grants snatched away – and the costly marketisation of our health service is continuing at speed.

The Government must rethink the way they’re treating our NHS. As a start they should negotiate with the doctors in good faith, and put forward the offer of a contract that is fair and works for staff and patients alike. Until then we’ll continue to stand in solidarity with the junior doctors as they fight for what’s right. 

Natalie Bennett, Green Party Leader
Caroline Lucas MP
Baroness Jenny Jones AM
Sian Berry, Green Party Candidate for Mayor of London

Jenny Jones refuses to support the GLA report on Prevent: 'Prevent is failing to reach the hearts and minds of many people it needs to reach'

Jenny Jones, Green London Assembly Member, has decided not to support the GLA Police and Crime Committee report on Prevent. This is an unusual move but indicates the seriousness of the issue.

The full report plus Jenny's statement is available HERE

I am concerned that no upfront definition of what is meant by extremism is made for the purposes of the report. However, I recognise that, along with the Government's definition of 'radicalisation', these are very contested words and not all Members of the Committee would be able to agree a common definition. Flexibility is obviously required when professionals seek to define what is and isn't 'extremism', just as flexibility is required when debating what is 'Britishness', and the interpretation will often vary according to local circumstances. But there are obvious dangers to this. For example, the Met Police have previously included at least one member of the London Assembly and several journalists in their database of 'domestic extremists'. This shows how words such as 'extremism' can be interpreted in a surprisingly broad brush way.

I am also unhappy that while the report references the concerns raised about the Government's focus on non-violent extremism, this is not reflected in the recommendations. There is academic evidence that the 'conveyor belt' idea, which underpins the Government's new approach to Prevent, is not a valid one. These academics argue that violent terrorists do not grow out of a culture of non-violent extremist ideas. If these academics are right, then I believe there are three ways in which Prevent could be counter-productive. First, it could alienate people who have 'extremist' ideas but would be potential allies in the fight against violent extremism. Second, it may hinder the development of the counter-narrative in classrooms and colleges as communities withdraw from discussions in those controlled spaces. Finally, I believe the larger the number of people being monitored as 'extremists', the thinner the spread of Met Police resources becomes. I believe there should be consultation about whether the emphasis in Prevent on linking violent and non-violent extremism is having a detrimental effect on the work of those trying to engage in their communities and develop a counter-narrative.

I am concerned that the recommendations in the report avoid questioning the Prevent Strategy adopted by the Government. I believe the most significant barriers which the professionals and organisations are facing all stem from the way Prevent is being framed. If we believe that counter terrorism increasingly relies on information gathered from communities, and less on intelligence services at home and abroad, then we need to radically overhaul programmes like 'Prevent'. If decent, law-abiding people view these programmes as counter-productive and we wish Prevent to be more successful on the ground, then it needs to address any fundamental problems in its approach which are creating barriers to implementation. Prevent is failing to win the hearts and minds of many people it needs to reach.

For these reasons I am unable to support this report.

Green councillors call for end to 'destructive', 'ideologically driven' local government cuts

-->

Green Councillors, Jenny Jones and Carline Lucas at Dopwning Street today

Six Green councillors will hand in a joint letter LINK to Number 10 Downing Street today November 18th on behalf of all 168 Green councillors to call on the Conservative government to end the destructive cuts to local government. 

Ahead of the Comprehensive Spending review (CSR) the Green Party are calling for an end to the government’s ideologically-driven austerity programme. 

Natalie Bennett, Green Party Leader, Caroline Lucas, Green MP for Brighton Pavilion, and Baroness Jones of Moulscomb, will all attend the event.

Bennett said:

The Green Party calls on the Prime Minister to not make any further cuts to local authority spending in the Comprehensive Spending Review on 25^th November.

Green councillors up and down the country tell me on a daily basis how this government’s cuts are wrecking essential services and damaging communities.

The Green Party is calling for a genuine review of economic policy in this Spending Review. Rather than Chancellor George Osborne continuing with his austerity agenda for the next three years, we must invest in people, in secure energy, and in vital welfare support.

Caroline Lucas MP said:

Proposed cuts to local authority grants will unleash further devastation to communities across Britain. In Brighton my constituents are facing the hollowing out of council services – included the proposed closure of up to five children’s centres.

Enough is enough. The Government must rethink its callous and counterproductive austerity programme and give local authorities the resources they need to deliver service to the people they work for.

Jenny Jones said:

The government’s austerity agenda is derailing the provision of services for all of us, all over the UK. Local government cuts strike at many of the things we have come to rely on, such as litter collection and services for children and old people, but also the things which enrich and improve lives, including parks, leisure, sports, libraries and museums.

The Prime Minister and his government must be made to acknowledge the damage they have already caused and we demand that rather than making it worse, they commit to repairing the damage they have done.

Green's Lucas and Jones take opposing positions on EU Referendum

It was announced yesterday that Green MP Caroline Lucas is joining the board of the EU 'In' campaign. This came shortly after it was reported on Friday that  Green peer and retiring London Assembly member Jenny Jones was supporting the 'Leave' campaign.  Jones' position is not new as she wrote an article on the case for withdrawal back in July LINK

The Green Party's current official position is the 'Three Yeses' : Yes to a referendum, yes to reform, yes to staying in the EU with more detail in an Emergency Motion passed at Autumn Conference (added at end of article). The crux of the matter for some Green Party members is whether a failure to reform (or a worsening of the social benefits after Cameron's negotiations) should convert into a 'No to the EU'.  The treatment of Greece, TTIP and perceived failures over the refugee issue are key elements in the current debate.

As with the last EU referendum and the Scottish referendum people on either side of the debate can find themselves with some strange bedfellows - agreeing the ultimate aim of staying in or withdrawal but for very different reasons.

This is an extract from Jones' article in the Ecologist:

A pro-TTIP European Union, eager to impose the imperatives of capital against people, determined to evacuate democracy in Greece and other member states of its meaning, is not an EU we should wish to be part of.

Just in case you hadn't noticed: something is rotten in the state of Europe.

The EU is becoming a dictatorial imposer of austerity and deregulation, uncaring about its impacts on the wellbeing of people and planet, and determined to derail any elected government that dares dissent from its neoliberal ideology.

I write as a Green who has stood for the European Parliament on a mission of EU reform. I acknowledge that the EU can be and has been a powerful force for good - for example, in keeping the peace among member states, and in its impressive role in social and environmental regulation - now tragically at risk from the drive to 'deregulate'.

But I believe that the general support of the EU by the Green Party, and the Left, and bien-pensant intellectuals, and 'progressives', needs to come to an end, to be replaced by a more honest willingness to face up to the very serious flaws besetting the EU.

The two key events of the last few days that have made starkly clear that something is rotten at the top of our continent are first, the EU moving a big step closer to backing TTIP, the starkly anti-democratic and pro-corporatocratic 'TransAtlantic Trade and Investment Partnership'.

And second, last night's imposition on Athens of a programme for privatisation and savage cuts even worse than that rejected by the Greek people in the referendum last week onto Greece with its decisive 'NO' vote.

Secret corporate lobbying over the heads of the people

The TTIP is the EU-US 'free trade' agreement currently being negotiated, to which the European Parliament, tragically, gave its provisional approval last week.

The Green Party is united against TTIP. And the Green Party argues strongly in favour of the EU. Is there any tension between these two facts? We think that there is. The TTIP

• enables the democratic will of the people to be struck down by big business;
• is in its very essence a project of secretive lobbying;
• is about gigantic corporations being able to break open and gobble up public procurement and public services.

My case is simple: this should not be viewed as some kind of aberration from EU standard practice. It is EU standard practice.

The EU has been from the beginning (but also increasingly, the key examples here being the Lisbon Treaty and the 'Stability and Growth pact') a pro-business front, a vehicle for organisations such as the European Roundtable of Industrialists to get their way.

There is far too little democracy in the EU: for example, the Council of Ministers operates almost entirely in secrecy and holds the whip hand over the Parliament on most issues; Brussels is dominated by corporate lobbyists who outnumber NGO lobbyists by about 15:1, while wielding immense powers of hospitality and patronage. EU rules would make it very difficult for (e.g.) the railways to be brought back into full public ownership in this country.

It is an illusion to think that TTIP is anything other than a natural extension of the logic of the EU as it is currently. Greens, being serious about our outright opposition to TTIP, need to be serious also about radically reforming the EU.

Anything less than truly radical reform - democratisation, an end to the culture of lobbying and secrecy, prioritisation of public service over private profit, prioritisation of one-planet ecological sanity over business profit - would leave the EU more of a hindrance than a help to Green objectives.

Greece - you call this 'negotiation'?

The imposition on Greece of harsh and unwanted measures that eliminate its sovereignty and strip the people of the democratic power they exercised last week in the referendum is not a departure from business as usual for the EU.

It is, on the contrary, a manifestation of the EU's long-standing disrespect for democracy and the sovereignty of its member states, and the determination among EU elites to impose a business-friendly vision onto any recalcitrant government and people.

This deal forced onto Athens - on pain of a forced crash out of the Euro - is a massive wake-up call to democrats everywhere. It is increasingly clear that the EU, far from standing up for Europe's people against overweening corporate power, are doing the exact opposite: ganging up with corporate and finance capital to suppress democracy and popular aspirations.

Above all, the huge power of business lobbyists in the EU - who can usually get what they want, unless the European public puts its foot down (as happened, thankfully, over ACTA -  but that is a very rare event) - simply must end.

Moreover, systemic problems are caused by the 'four freedoms' that are at the core of the Treaty of Rome: the freedom to move capital, products, services and labour all over the EU. The four freedoms add up to a 'bosses charter' giving capital one great supranational freedom - that to exploit labour anywhere in Europe on the most favourable possible terms. There is no Leftist case for an unreformed EU.

That referendum - in or out?

There are tremendous structural difficulties in the way of reforming the EU to address these problems and recreate it in a Green image. But unless they can be achieved we may have to support withdrawal in the UK's 'in or out' EU referendum.

Just as Syriza's negotiating position has been fatally undermined by its refusal (in my view deeply mistaken) to countenance leaving the Euro, so we - Green and progressive voters - will lack any leverage so long as we tolerate a bad EU, for fear of something even worse.

Meanwhile we have to contend with David Cameron's own campaign to 'reform' the EU, backed by other right-wing governments like Poland's: for them, the EU's main problem is that it is not pro-business enough, and imposes intolerable shackles on the pursuit of corporate profit as a result of its social and environmental legislation.

Leave the reform agenda to Cameron and friends, and the EU will only become an even more anti-democratic, anti-ecological, pro-growth, pro-big business centralising organisation than it already is. We must be forceful in opposing and denouncing that dystopian vision of a corporate Europe.

And make no mistake: a pro-TTIP European Union, eager to impose the imperatives of capital against people, determined to evacuate democracy in Greece and other member states of its meaning, is not an EU we should wish to be part of.

As if to underline the point about strange bedfellows despite Jones' stricture on the 'pro business front' the  'Vote Leave' campaign she is supporting is also supported by 'Business for Britain' , former Chairman of Dixons Lord Kalms, former Channel 4 Chairman Luke Johnson and millionaire donors to the Conservatives, Labour and UKIP LINK

Caroline Lucas made the case for staying in the EU strongly at the recent Green Party conference and released the following statement yesterday on her website about her decision to join the board of the 'In' Campaign:

I’ve joined the board of the ‘In’ campaign because I believe we are stronger when we work across borders on the challenges we face.

In particular I want to give young people a reason to engage with a referendum that will shape their futures, both in terms of protecting our shared environment and our basic rights, and by helping define the kind of country we want to be. 

Britain in the EU is open and forward looking. It's about our identity: confident, vibrant, inquiring, open minded. A community that welcomes opportunity, celebrates diversity and is passionate about the power of collective action."

Though I don’t see eye to eye with every member on the board on every issue we all share a commitment to Britain remaining in the EU. I will make a truly progressive case for a more democratic and accountable European Union. 

A different kind of EU is possible: one where power is held locally whenever it can be, where citizens have a real say in decisions made in Brussels and where corporate lobbyists are banished from the halls of power.

This referendum campaign is a chance to reimagine what democracy looks like, reshape what having a say really means and reinvigorate our politics. 

I look forward to working with people across the political spectrum and across our communities to make a positive case for our continued membership of the European Union.

As the debate develops inside the Green Party and on the left it is clear that the issue of the party's position may need to be revisited at the 2016 Spring Conference.  The Emergency Motion called for a 'run a distinct Green campaign in favour of the EU in addition to cross-party campaigning.' Whatever positions leading members take on the EU it is the members who eventually decide. There may well be arguments put forward that a vote at conference is not enough as people's attendance is limited, by both time and money, and that a vote of the whole membership is needed. There is also a difficulty that the Green Party has a two year limit on discussion of motions that have been passed or lost at Conference if the new motion reverses principles of the original. A motion modifying the Green Party's position could be ruled out of order on that basis so would need to be subtly worded.

Watch this space. 

AUTUMN 2015 EMERGENCY MOTION TEXT

-->

Emergency motion on Green EU campaign

Conference notes:

·      That the Queen's Speech in May announced that a Referendum will take place by the end of 2017.

·      That the EU Referendum Bill is currently being debated in Parliament.

·      The Green Party has a long standing policy of wanting a referendum on EU membership, remaining in the EU, and pushing for major reforms.

·      The European Union is in urgent need of reform to make it more democratic, sustainable and accountable.  

·      The Green Party is an internationalist party. We believe in working across borders to solve the shared challenges we face.

·      The recent members survey stated that 78% of members consider the UK’s membership of the EU ‘a good thing’ while only 6% think it ‘a bad thing’.

·      That Green MEPS use their position in the European Parliament to make EU institutions more democratic and accountable – and to vote against damaging policies which harm workers and the environment.

·      That the Green Party has been at the forefront of the fight against damaging free trade deals – including TTIP.

Conference instructs:

·      The Green Party to run a distinct Green campaign in favour of the EU in addition to cross-party campaigning. The Green campaign should highlight our support for an EU which, among other things, helps protect workers’ rights, tackles climate change and promotes peace.

·      GPEX and elected representatives to use the referendum campaign to highlight the major reforms we need to the EU, and to bring about a better understanding and engagement among members of the public of how the EU works and how they can influence it, including through the election of MEPs

·      GPEX and elected representatives to work together with Green Parties in other EU countries and other partners to build the campaign for real reform in the EU both during the referendum campaign and after.

·      GPEX and elected representatives to look at forming campaigning partnerships with grassroots organisations, like-minded politicians and others.