1
History
The official title of the country is: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
Ireland. Great Britain is the largest of the many islands. (The Great was originally
intended to distinguish it from the lesser Britain, Armorica, now Bretagne in
France.) The "United" refers to the union of England and Scotland. Before the
partition of Ireland it was "and Ireland".
The state is composed of four nations: England, Scotland, Northern Ireland and
Wales. Associated with it are the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands (Jersey,
Guernsey and Alderney) not represented in Parliament but with their own
governments. Of the nations, Scotland has an active Nationalist movement which
has not yet gained support of the majority. Northern Ireland has two kinds of
nationalists, opposed to each other. Its independence is possible, though not
likely.
Until 2000 uniquely in Europe there were no federal institutions but only a unitary
government. Scotland had a separate king until 1603 and was a separate
kingdom with its own parliament until 1707 when the Treaty of Union came into
force. It continued to have a separate judiciary, legal system, established Church
and administration and now has an elected assembly (Parliament).
England
is the core of the state, though it has no separate status. The English (Angles and
Saxons) arrived in England, conquering the Romanized native inhabitants from
the 5th century. The descendants of the previous occupants are the Welsh
(Cymri) who still live in Wales. Some say the English can be traced back, as the
Scythians, north of the Black Sea and even as far as Afghanistan 3000 years ago
(Sakai Sun). (But see this article for a discussion of this much disputed idea).
Unlike France and some other mainland countries there was no continuity in
Britain with the Roman Empire. The invading Anglo-Saxons set up their own
kingdoms and did not regard themselves as allies of Rome or dependent in any
way on the institutions of the empire. They did not live in the old cities. The only
institution that may have passed from the old order to the new was the monastery
of Glastonbury (but this is disputable - did it in fact still exist?), which the Saxons
did not reach until the 7th century. Rome's influence, when it came, was via the
Church, but the earliest Christian influence came not from Rome but from Ireland
and Scotland in the form of missionaries of the Celtic Church. The Roman
missionaries, based on Canterbury in the kingdom of Kent gradually brought Latin
and education to the country. Their main task was to set up a Roman type of
church, rather than the Celtic type. This was decided finally at the Synod of
Whitby (663). However, again unlike mainland countries, the most valuable early
chronicles were written in English rather than Latin, and King Alfred translated
many documents into the vernacular. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicles continued until
several decades after the conquest by Normans.
They formed a number of kingdoms which gradually coalesced into one based on
Wessex (whose first king had a Celtic name - Cerdic, which may well have been
Caradoc), while absorbing invaders from Denmark and Scandinavia in general.
These Vikings contributed many words to the language and many place names,
2
especially in northeast England and eastern Scotland.
In 1066 there was an invasion by Normans, who were Vikings who had settled in
France. French remained the language of the king and the rulers for about
another two hundred years (at one time thought to be a parallel with the
Lacustrine states of East Africa). Perhaps it was this invasion which gave the
country its centralized nature - though there were periods of feudal conflict when
the barons tried to overrule the king. The English king has never been as
powerless as the French king was in the 10th century (but never as powerful as
Louis the fourteenth).
The first seed of the post-feudal English state perhaps occurred during the reign
of King John (1199-1216) when the rebelling barons tried to limit the king's power
with the Magna Carta, a statement of rights that the king should agree to respect
- no more unlimited arbitrary power.
Until the 15th century the English kings ruled much of France but were driven out
at the end of a period known as the 100 Years War, followed by a period of
dynastic wars between different branches of the English royal family (Wars of the
Roses). These ended in 1485 when a strong monarchy (Henry the seventh) took
power. However, unlike in France the monarch was never allowed to become
absolute and had to call parliaments to raise money for wars (usually against the
Scots, the French, the Irish or the Welsh) and for government.
British Empire
From the 17th century first England, then Britain, was a power on a world scale. It
is only suitable to call it Britain after the union with Scotland in 1704. The Empire
began by English traders traveling in all continents, moved on to settlement in
North America and military occupation of many parts of Africa and Asia. The
period up to American Independence is sometimes called the First British Empire;
from then until the second world war was the Second British Empire which
included colonies in Africa, India and settlement of Australia, Canada, New
Zealand and South Africa. Most of these are now members of the Commonwealth
. (see main article here)
After a large star explodes in a supernova there remains a neutron star in the
center. Modern Britain in international politics is the remaining neutron star after
the Empire has exploded away. Until 1945 Britain was considered one of the
world's major powers (and still has one of the five permanent seats on the United
Nations Security Council). Since 1945 it has declined to being one of the four
largest European powers but has retained some of the institutions which operated
a worldwide empire.
Perhaps Britain exemplifies the theory of history found in the work of Ibn Khaldun
(Al Muqaddimah - The Introduction to History, 1377) that all human societies and
enterprises have a time of growth and a time of decline caused mainly by the
idleness brought about by riches.
The Anglo-Saxon (meaning invented in Britain) legal and financial systems are
now found in many other countries of the former British Empire, especially in the
United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. In the past most British
3
people believed these systems were superior in every respect to "foreign"
systems. At present they are all under question as the Anglo-Saxon economies
appear to be in decline in comparison with Germany, Japan and other Asian
societies.
Britain has become a member of the European Union but successive
governments (especially 1979-90) have often resisted close co-operation with the
other members. Whereas France and Germany and some of the others appear to
want a Federal State, the British government has resisted this concept and
appears to prefer a free trade area without central institutions. This conflict seems
likely to be the main political theme of the foreseeable future. A rail tunnel opened
to link the main island with the mainland in 1994.
In its present weakened condition there seem to be only two alternative policies:
closer integration with Europe accompanied by adoption of European policies of
investment and education; or closer connection with North America. As the
United States shares some of the industrial methods but also the social problems
there are forces tending that way. However geography suggests it would seem
more sensible to Europeanize. But resistance in the former governing party
prevented Europeanization for three decades. Americanization might force the
final abandonment of the Welfare State, leading to the same kind of urban
violence common in the United States.
It is said that the military forces are so reliant on American equipment that
independent military action is inconceivable. Thus for some purposes Britain is
already part of the American military establishment.
The future of the state is also in doubt with respect to the future of Scotland. If
Scotland were to secede, the remaining state of England and Wales might inherit
the "British" institutions but would clearly be weaker and less important on a world
scale. The Scottish National Party gained support in the most recent elections for
the Scottish Parliament (2007) and forms the government there.
Wales itself has a Nationalist Party (Plaid Cymru) which has a much smaller
support at present than the Scottish National Party and seems unlikely to gain
majority support. Northern Ireland may also break away, but probably not.
Politics
The Evolution of the English state
The early state evolved from the fedual monarchy. The invading Normans
destroyed most of the Anglo-Saxon institutions, except the concept of monarchy.
William the first gave the land to his followers to rule in the form of feudal estates.
Although he created the most complete survey of any state in Europe (Domesday
Book) power was exercised through the feudal hierarchy rather than by a
government bureaucracy. The king required soldiers and taxes. The feudal
landlords had a duty to provide them. Even then the king had a court (curia) of
officials including the Chancellor and Treasurer.
Over the centuries the Chancellor became the most important of the officials - the
4
King's chief minister (servant).
Government reached its weakest point during the time of Stephen/Maud when a
civil war between rival claimants to the throne allowed the feudal lords to act
without restraint, attacking each other and preventing trade by robbing traders behaving like the present day warlords of Somalia.
The rebuilding of the state begins with Henry the second who appointed royal
judges to tour the country and hear cases at Assizes (sittings) and provide a
source of justice different from the private courts of the barons, but the equivalent
of when he heard cases himself. When he was frequently away in his French
lands he appointed a deputy, the Justiciar, to rule the country in his absence.
Thus, the concept of governance separate from the presence of the king was
established.
Magna Carta
The next important step was the revolt of the Barons against king John. (His
personality is much disputed, but they objected to his interfering with their rights
and wanted a return to the good practices, as they saw them, of his father Henry
the second, but perhaps really they wished for the freedom of the time of Stephen
when England was a "failed state".) In 1215 they forced him to agree, unwillingly,
to a charter of grievances, largely drawn up by the head of the English Church,
Stephen Langton. This established the concept that even the king was subject to
law. Magna Carta set out principles that have remained part of English law ever
since, and by succession the law of the United States also. While it is true that the
Charter was concerned only with the rights of the Barons, and had nothing at all
to do with the common people, nevertheless the concept of Law binding even the
powerful eventually (in the 17th century) came to apply to everyone. One aspect
of John's behaviour was that he had asserted the power of the king against the
barons, as his father had done before him. The Great Charter was an assertion of
the idea that reform of the state had to be agreed and could not be the act of the
king alone. (The little Charter was a document of the same time that specified the
law of the Forests - the king's hunting lands).
Parliament
The first formal Parliament is considered to have been called by Simon de
Montfort in the time of Henry the third, a rather weak king (1258). Before that the
king had regularly consulted with his big men: Barons, Earls, Bishops and Abbots,
but this was the first time he had also called on representatives of the Knights
(two from each county) and burgesses from the towns.
From the beginning it was established that if the king wanted money he had to
consult these people - the interest groups who had money - and they had to
agree. This established the principle of government by consent, if only in embryo.
The English king never acquired the power of the French king to demand taxes
without consent. Charles the first tried it, and look what happened to him. (It has
been argued that the French kings imposed a state of emergency during the wars
with the English invaders during the 100 years war when no assembly could be
called, and never gave up the emergerncy).
5
Prime Minister
As in most European countries the executive head of government is a Prime
Minister who is a member of the elected assembly (House of Commons).
Elections must be held after five years, but the Prime Minister can call one at any
time he or she thinks victory is likely. This is also roughly the case in Australia,
Canada and New Zealand.
Monarch
Britain is the first of the constitutional monarchies in which the absolute power of a
monarch has been modified until all the political power is exercised by a
government responsible to an elected assembly. There are signs that the ritual
functions of the monarch are being questioned and it is not impossible that the
present holder of the office will be the last, to be replaced by an elected president.
The Monarch now has mainly ceremonial and symbolic functions. The only well
defined political functions are exercised if it is not clear who has the confidence of
parliament. These powers to invite someone to form a government have not been
required since the 1930s (though they may have been used in 1963 when
Douglas Home followed Harold Macmillan). The original absolute powers of the
monarch - the Prerogative - can in some situations be exercised by the Prime
Minister without reference to Parliament. A former Lord Chancellor (Speaker of
the House of Lords and administrator of the Judiciary), Lord Hailsham, described
this system as an Elective Dictatorship - his party was not in power at the time.
Some argue that the Prerogative Powers contain the possibility of an
unconstitutional dictatorship. If the 1992 election had resulted in a "hung"
parliament (no party having a majority of seats, the monarch's duties would have
been to ask the different leaders to form a government that could obtain a vote of
confidence in the House of Commons.
These functions could be exercised by an elected president, as in Ireland and
other European countries.
Privy Council
The Prerogative powers are exercised through the monarch's PC (as Orders in
Council - what in other countries is called a Decree or an Executive order), the
organization out of which grew the cabinet. Opposition politicians can be
members, which allows them to be briefed with secret information.
Parliament (House of Commons)
The electoral system remains First Past the Post FPTP (similar to the system
used in the United States, but without run-offs) and without Primary elections. The
actual members are chosen by local party caucuses (sometimes with a vote by
the small number of party members). This forces political opinion into two main
electoral vehicles, the Conservative Party (often called Tory) and the Labour
Party. There is usually a third party, at present called Liberal Democratic.
Regional parties: in Scotland, Scottish National; Wales, Plaid Cymru; and
Northern Ireland, Ulster Unionist, Democratic Unionist, Social Democratic and
Labour (SDLP) also hold seats in the House of Commons (the elected chamber).
The electoral system tends to exaggerate small changes in voting strength and in
practice the voting in a small number of "marginal" voting districts determines the
results of general elections. Thus governments can have a large majority of seats
6
without a majority of votes, as is the case with the present government.
New electoral systems have been introduced for elections to the European
Parliament (Party List), the Scottish Parliament (Additional members system, as in
Germany) and the Welsh Assembly. In Northern Ireland a party list system has
been used for the NI Assembly.
The Labour Party in opposition proposed constitutional changes including
separate assemblies for Scotland, Wales as well as the English regions something proposed at the beginning of the 20th century by the Liberal Party. If
carried out this might give Britain a government structure similar to Germany, Italy
or France. At present local governments, Counties and Districts, have few powers
other than to act as agents of central government. Their powers are only
delegated by Parliament and can be revoked at the will of Parliament. So far there
have been no regional assemblies in England, except for London which now has
an elected Mayor and local Assembly.
Lords
Uniquely in modern industrial states there is an unelected chamber of parliament,
the House of Lords. Until 2001 the majority of members were hereditary, their
right to sit being inherited from their fathers. (But most of these did not usually
attend). There were also non-hereditary members (Life Peers) nominated by the
Prime Minister; some of the Bishops of the Church of England (also nominated by
the Prime Minister) sit in the Lords. So did some of the judges. By convention the
Prime Minister also appoints Life Peers nominated by the Opposition. In the
United States such appointments would be voted on by the Senate; in the United
Kingdom no vote takes place.
A committee of the Lords (Judges only) used to act as the highest court of appeal,
the equivalent of the United States's Supreme Court (but judgments can be
overruled by the European Court of Human Rights or by the Court of the
European Communities). However, in June 2003 it was announced that there
would be a new Supreme Court, separate from the Lords. The Office of Lord
Chancellor, dating back to 605 is to be abolished. (By 2005 none of these
changes had occurred, though a Supreme Court was established in 2008.)
The powers of the Lords to veto legislation were removed in 1910 after they had
foolishly failed to pass the Lloyd George budget of 1909. Since then they have
been limited to delaying legislation and offering amendments. Amendments can
be overruled by the Commons. The Lords have no power over Finance measures.
In its favor it is said that the Lords contains people nominated because they are at
the head of their profession or business and therefore possess expertise to put at
the disposal of the state. An equivalent in the United States would include the
heads of companies like Ford Motors, the top Physicians, the Presidents of
Harvard or Berkeley, the heads of some of the most important churches and other
voluntary societies. The hereditary members perhaps add a chance element of
people, like a jury. They are not necessarily rich as the original estates have often
been lost.
In 2001 most of the hereditary peers were removed and an appointments
commission selected new Life Peers, ostensibly to remove this power from the
7
Prime Minister. When one of the 92 remaining hereditary peers dies a
replacement is chosen by an election by the the whole body of former
hereditaries.
The main opposition party (Tories) has now proposed the replacement of the
Lords by an elected chamber.
Politics
The political system is considered very stable as unconstitutional political action is
extremely unlikely. Is it a democracy? That depends on the definition of
democracy. Some have described it as an oligarchy - power remaining within a
limited political class. Government is very secretive and the unwritten constitution
is difficult to define. However, in 2005 a Freedom of Information Act has become
effective and some of the secrecy is being opened up. In favor it can be argued
that it can evolve more easily than those countries with written constitutions.
Against, it is argued that the executive is not really controlled by the elected
element and that the real government consists of a tribe of people who all know
each other after attending the prestigious private schools. Moreover evolution
could be towards dictatorship rather than more democracy.
In 2000 devolved assemblies were introduced for Scotland, Wales and Northern
Ireland, with different powers for each. That for Scotland has the powers to make
laws that affect only Scotland. That for Wales has no powers to change the laws
but appoints an executive that can decide how to spend the revenue allocated it
by the Westminster Parliament.
Because of Scottish devolution the powers of the British Parliament have been
called in question. Should there be a state of England and Wales with its own
institutions? The idea of federation is in the air.
Until 1997 the recent government was formed by the Conservative or Tory Party,
in practice an informal coalition, as a group of right wing Conservative MPs were
in revolt against the government's European policy. It had a working arrangement
with the Ulster Unionist Party.
It was replaced by the Labour Party who won a large majority on first May 1997
and renewed it in June 2001. An election occurred in May 2005. The Labour Party
was returned with a reduced majority and a much smaller proportion of the vote.
Prime Minister Tony Blair resigned in June 2007 after becoming unpopular
because of his support for the Iraq war and was replaced by Gordon Brown.
A new election was held on 6 May 2010. In June 2009, it looked unlikely that
Labour would gain a majority of seats, and might even be reduced to a small
number, considering the very low vote in the European elections of June 2009,
and the elections for County Councils. No-one knows what a Conservative
government would do, but in the European parliament it is trying to ally itself with
very far right parties in other European states, rather than with the Christian
Democrats and UMP of France.
8
If no party has a majority of seats there are several possibilities:
•
•
Minority government - the largest party forms a government but has to
negotiate each legislative action with the other parties
A coalition of two or more parties
A second election would probably follow.
The result of the election held on 6 May 2010 was ambiguous. The Labour Party
lost 91 seats while the Conservative party won a similar number. The Liberal
Democrats lost five seats (aggregating some losses and some gains).
None of these parties have enough seats to form a government with a majority in
the House of Commons. The result was that the Conservative Party formed a
coalition with the Liberal Democrats.
Economics
Britain is the country where the Industrial revolution began and from the late 18th century until the mid19th century was the dominant industrial power in the world. During this period there was a high rate
of innovation and increasing productivity. From 1851 Germany began to catch up and overtake and
following the American Civil War the United States also overtook British manufacturing capacity.
However, innovations continued to come from British researchers and engineers. One handicap may
have been that much of Britain's exports went to Britain's colonies which did not require the most
sophisticated goods. Some historians have suggested this insulated British industry from competition
until the 1950s.
In 1945 Britain had the largest intact manufacturing capacity in Europe, but paradoxically this proved a
disadvantage in comparison to Germany. German industry had been largely destroyed by bombing
and confiscations at the end of the second world war. Thus, Germany built new factories to the latest,
American, design. British factories were rather outdated and remained so for several years after.
British factory owners could sell all they made and had no incentive to modernize.
During the 1980s manufacturing declined as a proportion of the economy, partly as a result of
continuing failure to invest and modernize. Economists argue about whether this is inevitable or a
serious disadvantage. As with the United States it has been accompanied by a growing trade deficit
which the more pessimistic economists see as an absolute decline leading to future falls in the
standard of living. More manufactured products are now imported than exported (since 1987).
In the 1970s first gas and then oil were discovered in the North Sea. Britain became a major oil
producer which gave it a balance of payments advantage over other industrial economies. However,
there have been no obvious benefits from the oil, whose production is now declining. The profits were
not invested in industry and were used to import goods from abroad, or to pay unemployment benefits.
Perhaps this is similar to the effect on 16th century Spain of the gold from the Americas.
Some economists believe Britain has invested too much in military research and has as a result
invested too little in consumer products; whereas Japan has done the reverse and become rather
successful. In addition there are the moral effects of relying on selling weapons to such countries as
Iraq and Indonesia engaged in wars against their own people, and sometimes against British troops
(as in Iraq and the Falklands).
9
The recent (1979-90) government had a policy of not directing or interfering with industry. Almost all
other successful economies, such as Japan and Germany, have government consultation or direction
of industry. As did the United States it concentrated on monetary policy, which proved inadequate to
direct the economy. Conversion from a mixed economy to a privatized system does not seem to have
reversed the decline and it has since accelerated.
Britain has agreed with the other members of the European Union to remove all trade barriers with
other member states. There is uncertainty about the economic effect this is having. Some believe the
increased competition will make British industry more efficient. Others think the more efficient and
farsighted German and French companies will take over even more of British industry and that
possibly the Japanese branch factories will migrate towards Europe.
The Conservative Government policy appeared to have been to try to attract overseas investors by
lowering wages and reducing social security charges: much as Mexico attracts US companies. This
may be the reason for that government's refusal to accept the Social Chapter of the Maastricht Treaty
on European Union. But low wages seem to go with poor training and lack of skills.
Another view is that the British and American financial structures are designed to extract profits from
industry, not to encourage investment. Thus some of the best brains (but also some rather mediocre
people) go into banking where they devise interesting financial instruments, such as "junk" bonds. It
might be better if they became production engineers and devised better ways of generating the
wealth. In both Britain and America investment bankers are paid more and valued more than
engineers, though they cannot be shown to increase wealth at all. The financial system is sensitive to
short term stimuli but not as efficient as the Japanese and German systems at planning and investing
for the distant future.
Some economists criticize the poor transport system in Britain which even with the Channel Tunnel
may impede access to the European market. A formerly extensive rail network has been allowed to
run down through lack of investment and planning. Economists also criticize the British education and
training systems which, while educating a minority to a high standard, fail to teach the majority, leaving
Britain with a poorly trained work force which discourages investment. Generally the outlook is poor
unless changes are made to these, but government policy is to spend even less.
Some believe that a major change in the political system is needed, including proportional
representation to prevent extremists of the right and left from alternating in office (though left wing
extremists have not in fact ever succeeded). A change of government has in the past led to major
changes of economic policy, especially over industrial investment. In other European countries
changes have not been so radical.
An accelerating decline in manufacturing industry during 1992 led to fears of radical economic
collapse unless an abandonment of the laisser faire industrial policy could be persuaded on an
ideologically committed government.
The New Labour government elected in 1997, and re-elected in 2001 seems to have had little more
success. The pound rose against the euro (or the euro fell against the pound) and manufacturing
industry continued to shrink, although Services boomed, keeping unemployment low. Manufacturing
migrated to countries with a lower wage level: Eastern Europe, Malaysia, China. Since 1997 the
Labour government has adopted European legislation on employment, introduced a minimum wage
and has achieved very low unemployment, now (2009) rising rapidly towards 3 million.
Will Britain adopt the euro as currency? The government has promised that the change would not be
10
made without a referendum. It seems unlikely that Britain will adopt the euro as its currency as opinion
polls show that voters are likely to vote against, if asked. The troubles of the euro in Greece and other
countries in 2010 make it even less likely that Britain would ever join.
The 2008 financial collapse in the United States also affected Britain where people and businesses
also relied on very high levels of debt, often unsecured on real assets. A rapid decline in the value of
the pound against the dollar and euro once again raised the question of whether successive British
governments had been wise to resist joining the euro zone. The crisis also revealed the extent to
which governments had been relying on the financial services "industry" to replace the manufacturing
industry that disappeared in the 1990s. As in the US there is now the question of whether the
government can borrow enough from China and the Arab states to maintain a modern economy. And
also, if the Chinese lend money, what they will want in exchange. (Recognition of their rights in Tibet
seems to be the first demand - achieved in November 2008 with British recognition of Chinese rights
in Tibet).
Many of the large remaining businesses, such as electricity generation and steel are now owned by
foreign companies (including state owned French companies - Electricité de France). Steel and
Landrover are owned by companies from India.
Perhaps Britain's economic history could be described as follows:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Medieval period - sale of wool for cloth
Piracy period (the British Empire). The wealth from the plantations built the country houses
Industrial period - the wealth came from coal and industry
Oil period - exploiting the North Sea oil propped up the economy while manufacturing industry
shrank. The oil is nearly all pumped out now
The financial period - the banks and hedge funds flourished, then collapsed in 2009
How will Britain make a living after all these resources have ended?
Green/Ecology
The 1979-97 government did not cooperate with world attempts to stabilize and reduce carbon dioxide
emissions and had a history of resisting European demands for reduction in sea, river and beach
pollution, control of automobile exhausts and waste disposal.
British industry has been more reluctant than most to undertake research into non-polluting
technologies, thus abandoning the industry to the Germans.
The current government may be trying harder, but such measures as reducing carbon output are not
making much progress, except by the accident of closing down the heavy industries.
Population continues to rise. Present trends suggest that Britain will become one of the most populous
countries in Europe. Does that mean that British people will use the freedom of movement of the
European Union to settle in other states?ÊAlready many go to live in Spain and France. There is also
a high rate of immigration from eastern Europe and the rest of the world.
Human Rights
Britain has a reputation for a high standard of human rights. Torture is very rare, (except that
allegations were made a few years back about army behavior in Northern Ireland), imprisonment
without court order was also unknown (except in Northern Ireland until the 1970s, and for other
11
terrorists under the Prevention of Terrorism Act). Individual rights are respected by governments.
However, there have been cases in which people have served terms of imprisonment for offenses of
which the courts have later found them innocent. These suggest that even in systems with a good
reputation there is room for vigilance and improvement. A number of Irish cases have caused doubts
about the functioning of the justice system.
However, these standards seem to have slipped with the "War on Terror". See Torture.
Until 2005 there was no Freedom of Information Act and the government had a reputation for secrecy
and news manipulation by "voluntary advice" (known as the D Notice system) which amounted in
practice to press censorship. There is an Official Secrets Act which forbids all government employees
from revealing information to the media. Members of designated guerrilla groups from Northern Ireland
were forbidden to be heard on the media for some years. Media can be intimidated by the government
in various ways. The BBC is dependent on government which sets the license fee; commercial
stations are dependent also for their franchises and the conditions of awarding them. Nevertheless the
BBC has a reputation for impartiality, which may be recovering now after the end of the 1979-90
government.
The prisons have a reputation for overcrowding as Britain has a larger population of prisoners than
most European states.
1994 Laws on protest, travel and trespass may contravene the UN Declaration of Human Rights by
making freedom of assembly difficult. 2001 laws on terrorism are admitted to breach European
Declaration on Human Rights.
Since the events in New York of 11 September 2001 Britain has cooperated closely with the United
States. The British government seems to have acquiesced in the torture at the various US camps, as
at Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, Bagram and others, and has been reluctant to intervene on behalf of
British citizens in these camps. Some foreign nationals have been held without trial in British prisons though the House of Lords (Supreme Court) has ruled these detentions as illegal. The outlook for
human rights seems uncertain with a rather authoritarian minded government in power.
In March 2005 Parliament gave the Home Secretary the power to order detention of terrorist suspects,
supervised by a judge.
Climate effects
Climate Change is likely to see low lying land inundated and lost to cultivation, and probably the loss
of large parts of several important cities, including London and Liverpool. Southern England is
believed likely to change to something closer a Mediterranean climate. There may be population
movement northward, and probable refugees from southern Europe demanding entry.
12