Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Topics - Richard Gartside

Pages: [1]

Web Science - If I Ruled The Web / Net Neutrality policy

« on: July 11, 2017, 04:46:24 PM »

[size=12pt]Firstly I will start with a confession - I exceeded the word count, this is something that I accept is a demerit on my assignment, and I would be entitled to be fairly criticised for this on the course.

ok, so this was my submission[/size]

[hr]
[size=12pt]If I ruled the web, I would declare myself First Web Lord.

That accomplished, I would have to justify my position, so my next task would be to introduce a global Net Neutrality policy.

The policy should be simple enough for the average 12 year old to be able to understand, and seek to avoid legal or technical jargon.

The policy aims would be to establish a clear guideline to both users and suppliers to identify what a user can, and can not, expect from suppliers and clarify what the requirements on suppliers are.

Key outlines of the policy:
Access to the web is to be made available to all where practical
Users may not use disproportionate amounts of net resources to the detriment of other users
An international, independent arbitration system would be created to resolve any disputes over policy implementation

By creating a single, universal policy there would be a consistency no matter who was accessing the net, or where they were accessing it from - we call it the "world Wide Web" yet every region has its own rules and approach creating a very fragmented and uneven experience.

One of the biggest implications for the policy would be "mission creep" - the attempt to make it cover too broad a range of objectives.
Another issue would be keeping it from becoming too bureaucratic or cumbersome to implement
By way of example, the EU has 3 separate regulations and directives governing net neutrality and open internet
https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/policies/open-internet-net-neutrality
Also a concern would be ensuring the regulatory bodies had the teeth to enforce the rules against non-compliance. This could actually be a problem when dealing with national governments who may be resistant for political reasons to ensuring net neutrality, as the sanctions available may ultimately prove limited.[/size]

European Culture and Politics - Reflection Blog / My Blog submission

« on: June 15, 2017, 07:46:18 PM »

[size=14pt]
As I complete the final week of the 6 week FutureLearn Course on European Culture and Politics I find myself looking both forwards and backwards. Forwards to the future after the course, and backwards to what I have learned, achieved and what I did not.

The course attempts to give the student an overview of What is Europe, how it defines itself, what the EU sees as being its function and objectives, and how these attempts have succeeded and failed.
I started the course with a basic knowledge of the EU and its functions from previous studies, but soon realised how much I lacked in knowledge of the culture and history of Europe.
It became very clear that any attempt to define Europe on the basis of geography, culture, history or politics was doomed to fail because Europe is a complex and poorly construed idea, even to those who live there. It is greater than the sum of the parts and to attempt to narrow the definition down is to miss the greater picture, to understand Europe we need if anything to be stepping further back rather than peering closer in.
Having moved on from seeing Europe as a physical or cultural entity, we then looked at the EU as a political entity, but even this soon showed a problem, because the EU attempts to define itself as being a socio-cultural-political body and this broadness of its scope results in a perception that it is out of touch with the people it claims to represent.
So given that all the definitions are seemingly inadequate for the task, How does this move the debate on the future of the EU forward? We saw that there have been some promising experiments with micro-democratic structures, where a reduction in size and complexity brought forward engagement and perceived relevance. But this is hard to translate to a larger entity like the EU, unless the EU is to re-invent itself, and see it's future as being united in its desire to be dis-united. This is not quite the tautology it appears at first, by allowing the peoples of the EU countries to celebrate and excel in their unique differences, they can start to realise the dream of unity in diversity - we are all different, and this acceptance of our difference is what we have in common.

So, to go forward, the EU has to look to its past - use the strength of the individuals, and instead of trying to enforce a common standard, the EU should encourage divergence to bring a wider commonality of difference.
[/size]

European Culture and Politics - Write Policy Memorandum / Reform of Referendums

« on: June 12, 2017, 09:26:24 PM »

[size=14pt]Democracy relies on the concept of the people providing the direction for their governance, indeed the origins of the word democracy come from two words - demos meaning 'common people' and kratos meaning 'rule, strength'.

We have adopted this concept in the form of a representative democracy where the people appoint representatives to enact their will, and act on their behalf in parliament, to resolve the difficulty of how to express the opinions of millions of voices in a coherent fashion.

There are certain constitutional issues where the people may hold a strong view that can be hard to express when appointing someone to act as their representative on a range of issues. In such circumstances it may be appropriate for a referendum to be held, to allow the people to express their view clearly without altering their support of their representatives on other issues.

Convention holds that referendums are advisory and non-binding on parliament.
This clearly is contrary to the principle of people directing their representatives governance, and so legislation should be introduced to make the outcomes of referendums binding on parliament as an expression of the will of the public to their elected representatives. This does not reduce or incapacitate parliament from representing the people in matters where there may not be a clear directive from the population at large, or in non-constitutional issues, whilst simultaneously enhancing the legitimacy of parliament as the representation of the people.

There is an argument that by making referendums binding, this undermines the sovereignty of parliament, but parliament derives its authority to make and impose laws from the assent of the people, and referendums should be restricted to a clearly defined constitutional issue.

For referendums to be seen to be a clear and proper expression of the will of the people, there needs to be clarity of this expression. Consequentially a referendum result should satisfy the following requirements:[/size]
[list][li][size=12pt]That there is a clear majority of opinion[/li]
[li][size=12pt]That this opinion is universally held[/size][/li][/list]

[size=14pt]To satisfy this requirement, for a result to be held as the will of the people it must achieve the following:
[list][li][size=12pt]A majority of at least 55% of the votes cast[/li]
[li][size=12pt]Where it transcends national boundaries, the opinion of each nation should express agreement with the majority opinion.[/li][/list]

[size=14pt]Referendums should be restricted to matters of constitutional importance only, and it remains the preserve of parliament to determine if an issue is of sufficient constitutional importance, and if the public interest warrants that a referendum be called.[/size]