Part of a series on Organized labour
The labour movement New Unionism · Proletariat Social Movement Unionism · Socialism Syndicalism · Anarcho-syndicalism Timeline
Labour rights Child labour · Eight-hour day Collective bargaining Occupational safety and health
Trade unions Trade unions by country Trade union federations International comparisons ITUC · IWA · WFTU
Labour parties Labour Party (UK) Labour Party (Ireland) Australian Labor Party New Zealand Labour Party List of other Labour parties
Academic disciplines Industrial relations Labour economics Labor history · Labour law
v t e

Working time is the period of time that an individual spends at paid occupational labor. Unpaid labors such as personal housework are not considered part of the working week. Many countries regulate the work week by law, such as stipulating minimum daily rest periods, annual holidays and a maximum number of working hours per week.

Some economists have recommended moving to a 21 hour standard work week to address problems with unemployment, high carbon emissions, low well-being, entrenched inequalities, overworking, family care, and the general lack of free time, though others have pointed to European laws designed to shorten the work week as a failure.^[1][2][3] Actual work week lengths have been falling in the developed world.^[4]

Hunter-gatherer[link]

In the 1960s, the consensus among anthropologists, historians and sociologists has been that early hunter-gatherer societies enjoyed more leisure time than is permitted by capitalist and agrarian societies;^[5][6] For instance, one camp of !Kung Bushmen was estimated to work two-and-a-half days per week, at around 6 hours a day.^[7] Aggregated comparisons show that on average the working day was less than five hours.^[5]

Subsequent studies in 1970s examined the Machiguenga of the Upper Amazon and the Kayapo of Northern Brazil. These studies expanded the definition of work beyond purely hunting-gathering activities, but the overall average across the hunter-gatherer societies he studied was still below 4.86, while the maximum was below 8 hours.^[5] Popular perception is still aligned with the old academic consensus.^[6]

History[link]

The industrial revolution made it possible for a larger segment of the population to work year-round, since this labor was not tied to the season and artificial lighting made it possible to work longer each day. Peasants and farm laborers moved from rural areas to factories, and working time during the year increased significantly.^[8] Before collective bargaining and worker protection laws, there was a financial incentive for a company to maximize the return on expensive machinery by having long hours. Records indicate that work schedules as long as twelve to sixteen hours per day, six to seven days per week were practiced in some industrial sites.^{[citation needed]}

The automobile manufacturer, Henry Ford, was an ardent proponent of shorter work hours, which he introduced unilaterally in his own factories. Ford stated that he pursued this policy for business rather than humanitarian reasons. He believed that workers (who were also the main consumers of products) needed adequate leisure time to consume products and thus perceive a need to purchase them. Over the long term, consumer markets needed to be grown. This view of the economy has become the predominant one since then.

Recent studies^[9][10] supporting a four-day week have shown that reduced work hours not only increase consumption and invigorate the economy, but also improve worker's level of education (due to having extra time to take classes and courses) and worker's health (less work-related stress and extra time for exercise). Reduced hours also save money on day care costs and transportation, which in turn helps the environment with less carbon-related emissions. These benefits increase workforce productivity on a per-hour basis.

Over the 20th century, work hours declined by almost half, mostly due to rising wages brought about by renewed economic growth, with a supporting role from trade unions, collective bargaining, and progressive legislation. The workweek, in most of the industrialized world, dropped steadily, to about forty hours after World War II. The decline continued at a faster pace in Europe: for example, France adopted a 35-hour workweek in 2000. In 1995, China adopted a 40-hour week, eliminating half-day work on Saturdays. Working hours in industrializing economies like South Korea, though still much higher than the leading industrial countries, are also declining steadily.

Technology has also continued to improve worker productivity, permitting standards of living to rise as hours declined.^[11] In developed economies, as the time needed to manufacture goods has declined, more working hours have become available to provide services, resulting in a shift of much of the workforce between sectors.

Economic growth in monetary terms tends to be concentrated in health care, education, government, criminal justice, corrections, and other activities that are regarded as necessary for society rather than those that contribute directly to the production of material goods.^{[citation needed]}

Importance[link]

Working time is a quantity that can be measured for an individual or, in the aggregate, for a society. In the latter case, a 40-hour workweek would imply that employed individuals within the society, on average, worked 40 hours per week.

Some industrialized nations legally mandate a maximum work week length of between 35 and 45 hours per week and require 2 to 5 weeks per year of holiday.

If the work week is too short compared to that society's ideal, then the society suffers from low availability of labor and human capital. All else being equal, this will tend to result in lower real incomes and a lower standard of living than what could be had with a longer work week in the same society.

In contrast, a work week that is too long will result in earning more money at the cost of stress-related health problems as well as a "drought of leisure." Furthermore, children are likely to receive less attention from busy parents, and childrearing is likely to be subjectively worse. The exact ways that long workweeks affect culture, public health, and education are debated.

Several nations have imposed limits on working time in an effort to combat unemployment. The theory is that less work hours per a worker will create a demand for more workers, and give those that are already hired more leisure time. This has been done both on a national level, as in France's 35-hour workweek, and on the company-union level, for example the agreement between Volkswagen and its union to temporarily reduce the workweek to 29 hours to preserve jobs. This policy is controversial among economists.

Decrease in staff working hours[link]

The New Economics Foundation has recommended moving to a 21 hour standard work week to address problems with unemployment, high carbon emissions, low well-being, entrenched inequalities, overworking, family care, and the general lack of free time.^[1][2][3] Actual work week lengths have been falling in the developed world.^[4]

Many people think that the increased use of ICT has caused a reduction in the number of hours employees are required to work. This is because ICT has allowed people to work from the distance regardless of their location (via the internet). As a result, this leads to a decrease into the time spent in an office or away from the family. A general study also proves that most people (children) desire to spend more time with their family and are deprived of that fact due to the excess time spent at work. Nowadays this has changed and people split their time from the main office. An increase in number of people working part-time is also more evident as people realize that the internet allow people to work from their home and therefore allowing them to spend the desired time with the family, resulting in shorter work hours for the staff. Consequently, in order for this to be successful, a company must be organized in order to allow the employees to work fewer hours at the office but still do the same amount of work if they were to stay full-time.

9-to-5[link]

9-to-5 is a phrase used to describe a conventional and possibly tedious job. Negatively used, it connotes a tedious or unremarkable occupation, the idea being that, because the job is so boring, the workplace shuts down outside of required hours.^{[citation needed]} The phrase also indicates that a person is an employee, usually in a large company, rather than self-employed. More neutrally, it connotes a job with stable hours and low career risk, but still a position of subordinate employment.

The phrase is an expression in the United States originating from the traditional American business hours of 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, representing a workweek of five eight hour days comprising 40 hours in total. The actual time worked, or rather at work, often varies between 35 and 48 hours in practice due to the inclusion, or lack of inclusion, of breaks. In many traditional white collar positions, employees were required to be in the office during these hours in order to take orders from the bosses, hence the relationship between this phrase and subordination. Workplace hours have become more flexible but even still, the phrase is commonly used.

The structure of the work week varies considerably for different professions and cultures. Among salaried workers in the western world, the work week often consists of Monday through Friday or Saturday with the weekend set aside as a time of personal work and leisure. Sunday is set aside in the western world because it is the Christian sabbath.

Several countries have adopted a workweek from Monday morning until Friday noon, either due to religious rules (observation of shabbat in Israel whose workweek is Sunday to Friday afternoon) or the growing predominance of a 35-37.5 hour workweek in continental Europe. Several of the Muslim countries have a standard Sunday through Thursday or Saturday through Wednesday workweek leaving Friday for religious observance, and providing breaks for the daily prayer times.

Day nicknames and expressions[link]

This section needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (June 2009)

Among salaried workers in the western world, Monday through Friday structure of the work week has led to the coining of phrases reflecting shared states of mind or moods among workers as they traverse the week.

'Blue Monday'

'Hump day' is a synonym for Wednesday. The idiom is based on the notion that if a worker has made it half-way through the week, struggling uphill from Monday, that the rest of the week is an easier slide toward Friday and the weekend; the end is in sight from the hump, the top of the hill.

'TGIF' is an acronym meaning "Thank God It's Friday" or "Thank Goodness It's Friday" an expression of relief that the work week is finally over and that even if the weekend is not full of leisure, at least the drudgery of the workplace is temporarily over.

'Pau Hana' (pronounced "pow hana") is a Hawaiian phrase literally meaning "finished work" but generally refers to the practice of leaving work early on Friday to start the weekend.

POETS day is an acronym meaning "Piss Off Early Tomorrow's Saturday", a term for Fridays, used in industries where it is common practice to finish work early at the end of the week. Variations on this are "Punch Out Early Tomorrow's Saturday" (referring to a manual punch time clock), "Push Off Early Tomorrow's Saturday" and "Push Off Early Tomorrow's Sunday" (based on the old 6 day work week). Used in UK^[12] and Australia but appears less popular in the US.

Differences among countries[link]

South Korea and Japan[link]

South Korea's declining working hours is the result of the government's proactive move to lower working hours at all levels in order to increase leisure and relaxation time, which introduced the mandatory forty hours, five-day working week in 2004 for companies with over 1,000 employees. This expanded to companies with 300 employees or more in 2005, 100 employees or more in 2006, 50 or more in 2007, 20 or more in 2008 and a full inclusion to all workers nationwide in July 2011.^[13] Since 2006, all primary and secondary schools have held classes every other Saturday and from 2012, South Korea will enact a five-day school week nationwide.^[14]

Work hours in Japan are decreasing, but many Japanese still work long hours.^{[citation needed]} Recently, Japan's Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare (MHLW) has issued a draft report recommending major changes to regulations that govern working hours. The centerpiece of the proposal is an exemption from overtime pay for white-collar workers.^{[citation needed]}

Western Europe[link]

In most Western European countries, working time is gradually decreasing.^[15] The European Union's working time directive imposes a 48 hour maximum working week that applies to every member state except the United Kingdom (which has an opt-out meaning that UK-based employees may work longer than 48 hours if they wish, but they cannot be forced to do so).^[16] France has enacted a 35-hour workweek by law, and similar results have been produced in other countries such as Germany through collective bargaining.^{[citation needed]} A major reason for the low annual hours worked in Europe is a relatively high amount of paid annual leave. Fixed employment comes with four to six weeks of holiday as standard.

Mexico[link]

Law in Mexico provides for a maximum of 48 hours of work a week. However, due to loopholes in the law, the precariousness of labor rights in Mexico and its underdevelopment in relation to other OECD member nations, this is rarely observed in the private sector, with workers more often than not working overtime without getting any due compensation for it. Fear of the employees' losing their job or threats by the employer partly explains the reason for these irregularities .^{[citation needed]}

Colombia[link]

Law in Colombia provides for a maximum of 48 hours of work a week.^{[citation needed]}

Australia[link]

In Australia, between 1974 and 1997 no marked change took place in the average amount of time spent at work by Australians of "prime working age" (that is, between 25 and 54 years of age). Throughout this period, the average time spent at work by prime working-age Australians (including those who did not spend any time at work) remained stable at between 27 and 28 hours per week. This unchanging average, however, masks a significant redistribution of work from men to women. Between 1974 and 1997, the average time spent at work by prime working-age Australian men fell from 45 to 36 hours per week, while the average time spent at work by prime working-age Australian women rose from 12 to 19 hours per week. In the period leading up to 1997, the amount of time Australian workers spent at work outside the hours of 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. on weekdays also increased.^[17]

In 2009, a rapid increase in the number of working hours was reported in a study by The Australia Institute. The study found the average Australian worked 1855 hours per year at work. According to Clive Hamilton of The Australia Institute, this surpasses even Japan. The Australia Institute believes that Australians work the highest number of hours in the developed world.^[18]

United States[link]

NSC-68 and labor force size, participation, and the steady growth of working time in the United States from 1950-2007:

By 1946 the federal government had already inaugurated the 40-hour work week for all federal employees.^[19] Beginning in 1950, under the Truman Administration, and continuing with all administrations since, the United States became the first known industrialized nation to explicitly (albeit secretly) and permanently forswear a reduction of working time. Given the military-industrial requirements of the Cold War, the authors of the then secret National Security Council Document 68 ^[20] proposed the US government undertake a massive permanent national economic expansion that would let it “siphon off” a part of the economic activity produced to support an ongoing military buildup to contain the Soviet Union:

… the United States could achieve a substantial absolute increase in output and could thereby increase the allocation of resources to a build-up of the economic and military strength of itself and its allies without suffering a decline in its real standard of living … With a high level of economic activity, the United States could soon attain a gross national product of $300 billion per year, as was pointed out in the President's Economic Report (January 1950). Progress in this direction would permit, and might itself be aided by, a buildup of the economic and military strength of the United States and the free world; furthermore, if a dynamic expansion of the economy were achieved, the necessary build-up could be accomplished without a decrease in the national standard of living because the required resources could be obtained by siphoning off a part of the annual increment in the gross national product. These are facts of fundamental importance in considering the courses of action open to the United States (cf. Ch. IX).http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSC-68

This proposal was adopted by President Truman, who, in his 1951 Annual Message to the Congress, stated:

In terms of manpower, our present defense targets will require an increase of nearly one million men and women in the armed forces within a few months, and probably not less than four million more in defense production by the end of the year. This means that an additional 8 percent of our labor force, and possibly much more, will be required by direct defense needs by the end of the year. These manpower needs will call both for increasing our labor force by reducing unemployment and drawing in women and older workers, and for lengthening hours of work in essential industries. These manpower requirements can be met. There will be manpower shortages, but they can be solved.^[21]

Despite the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1990, working time has remained unchanged by subsequent administrations and Congress. A 2007 C.I.A. estimate of United States labor force participation placed it at approximately 153.1 million individuals.^[22] Assuming each individual worked a 1987 average work week of 1949 hours, working time rose from 121 billion man hours per year to 398 billion man hours per year. This represents an actual extension of the working time by 247 percent over the fifty-seven year period. The United States Bureau of Labor Statistics states that between 1950 and 2000 the number of individuals in the active labor force grew 227 percent from 62 million to 141 million, and was projected to reach 192 million by 2050.

Working time and female labor force participation – 1950-2000:

Most significant, as President Truman’s 1951 message predicted, the share of working women rose from 30 percent of the labor force, in 1950, to 47 percent, by 2000 – growing at a particularly rapid rate from 1970 to 1980.^[23]

“In the 1950–60 period, population growth alone was responsible for the growth of the labor force. During the 1960–70 period, population growth contributed about 94 percent of the growth in the labor force. In the 1970–80 period, when the labor force participation of women underwent rapid growth, 76 percent of the labor force growth was the result of population growth, and the rest was related to the growth of participation rates, mainly of women.”^[23]

The report continues:

“In 1950, the overall participation rate of women was 34 percent. […] The rate rose to 38 percent in 1960, 43 percent in 1970, 52 percent in 1980, and 58 percent in 1990 and reached 60 percent by 2000. The overall labor force participation rate of women is projected to attain its highest level in 2010, at 62 percent.”^[23]

The inclusion of women in the work force is seen as a symbol of social progress, but, since this participation has not been offset by an overall reduction of individual average work time, the net effect, once the vastly improved productivity of the United States labor force is factored in, has been a labor force that is today worked to more extreme lengths than any earlier period in United State history.

The price impact of United States lengthening working time – 1950-2007:

Although it is not yet supported by independent research, one argument states the lengthening of work time in the United States may be implicated in the secular persistence on inflation. Between 1950 and 2007 official price inflation was measured to 861 percent. President Truman, in his 1951 message to Congress, predicted correctly that his military buildup “will cause intense and mounting inflationary pressures.” Yet even he did not appear to sense the permanent and long term price implications of a longer working time.

The official inflation statistics may actually understate the real impact of the lengthening work week on prices. To give a closer estimate, it is necessary to correct for productivity increase during the same period. Using the data provided by the United State Bureau of Labor Statistics, Erik Rauch has estimated productivity to have increased by nearly 400%.^[24] Says, Rauch:

“… if productivity means anything at all, a worker should be able to earn the same standard of living as a 1950 worker in only 11 hours per week.”

The increase in productivity since 1950, ideally, should have had the effect of lowering prices of material goods. Given this, a truer measure of inflation during this period might be as much as four times higher than government figures.

In the United States, the working time for upper-income professionals has increased compared to 1965, while total annual working time for low-skill, low-income workers has decreased.^[25] This effect is sometimes called the "leisure gap".

Social impact[link]

Because of the pressure of working, time is increasingly viewed as a commodity.^[26] This trend, as well as the amount of working time being found to affect gender roles, has been notably researched by Sociology professor Dr. Stephen C. Smith.^[27] In 2006, the average man employed full-time worked 8.4 hours per work day, and the average woman employed full-time worked 7.7 hours per work day.^[28]

There is no mandatory minimum amount of paid time off for sickness or holiday. However, regular, full-time workers often have the opportunity to take about nine days off for various holidays, two weeks of sick leave and two weeks of paid holiday time, with some workers receiving additional time after several years.^[29]

Overtime rules[link]

Many professional workers put in longer hours than the forty-hour standard. In professional industries like investment banking and large law firms, a forty-hour workweek is considered inadequate and may result in job loss or failure to be promoted.^[30][31] Medical residents in the United States routinely work long hours as part of their training.

Workweek policies are not uniform in the U.S. Many compensation arrangements are legal, and three of the most common are wage, commission, and salary payment schemes. Wage earners are compensated on a per-hour basis, whereas salaried workers are compensated on a per-week or per-job basis, and commission workers get paid according to how much they produce or sell.

Under most circumstances, wage earners and lower-level employees may be legally required by an employer to work more than forty hours in a week; however, they are paid extra for the additional work. Many salaried workers and commission-paid sales staff are not covered by overtime laws. These are generally called "exempt" positions, because they are exempt from federal and state laws that mandate extra pay for extra time worked.^[32] The rules are complex, but generally exempt workers are executives, professionals, or sales staff.^[33] For example, school teachers are not paid extra for working extra hours. Business owners and independent contractors are considered self-employed, and none of these laws apply to them.

Generally, workers are paid time-and-a-half, or 1.5 times the worker's base wage, for each hour of work past forty. California also applies this rule to work in excess of eight hours per day.^[34]

In some states, firms are required to pay double-time, or twice the base rate, for each hour of work past 60, or each hour of work past 12 in one day in California.^[34] This provides an incentive for companies to limit working time, but makes these additional hours more desirable for the worker. It is not uncommon for overtime hours to be accepted voluntarily by wage-earning workers. Unions often treat overtime as a desirable commodity when negotiating how these opportunities shall be partitioned among union members.

Other countries[link]

The Kapauku people of Papua think it is bad luck to work two consecutive days. The !Kung Bushmen work just two-and-a-half days per week, rarely more than six hours per day.^[35]

The work week in Samoa is approximately 30 hours,^[36] and though average annual Samoan cash income is relatively low, by some measures, the Samoan standard of living is quite good.

In India at the managerial level, particularly in smaller Indian companies, a person generally works for 11 hours a day and 6 days a week. A typical office will open at 09:00 or 09:30 and officially end the work day at about 19:00. However, many workers and especially managers will stay later in the office due to additional work load. However, large Indian companies and MNC offices located in India tend to follow a 5-day, 8-9h-hour per day working schedule. The Government of India in some of its offices also follows a 5-day week schedule^{[citation needed]}.

Nigeria has public servants work 35 hours per week.

The work time in Brazil is 44 hours per week, usually 8 hours per day and 4 hours on Saturday or 8.8 hours per day, on duty jobs are 6 hours per day.

Recent trends[link]

Many modern workplaces are experimenting with accommodating changes in the workforce and the basic structure of scheduled work. Flextime allows office workers to shift their working time away from rush-hour traffic; for example, arriving at 10:00 am and leaving at 6:00 pm. Telecommuting permits employees to work from their homes or in satellite locations (not owned by the employer), eliminating or reducing long commute times in heavily-populated areas. Zero-hour contracts establish work contracts without minimum-hour guarantees; workers are paid only for the hours they work.

See also[link]

Organized labour portal

• Leisure
• Paul Lafargue
• Eight-hour day
• Business hours
• Soviet calendar
• Waiting for the Weekend
• Workweek
• Labour market flexibility
• Work-life balance

References[link]

Further reading[link]

• Deirdre McCann (2005), Working Time Laws: A global perspective, ILO, ISBN 92-2-117323-2
• Madeleine Bunting (2004), Willing Slaves: How the Overwork Culture is Ruling Our Lives, HarperCollins
• John de Graaf (2003), Take Back Your Time, Berrett-Koehler, ISBN 1-57675-245-3
• Eugene J. McCarthy and William McGaughey (1989), "Nonfinancial Economics: The Case for Shorter Hours of Work", Praeger
• William McGaughey (1981), "A Shorter Workweek in the 1980s", Thistlerose
• Heejung Chung, Marcel Kerkhofs and Peter Ester "Working Time Flexibility in European Companies", European Foundation.
• Colette Fagan, Ariane Hegewisch and Jane Pillinger "Out of Time: why Britain needs a new approach to working time flexibility", TUC
• Ute Klammer, Ton Wilthagen, Heejung Chung, Anke Thiel (2008) "Take it or leave it: flexible working-time arrangements and the synchronization of business cycle and life cycle" (as part of the European Foundation project "Flexibility and Security over the lifecourse")
• Thirsk, Joan (1967) (editor) The agrarian history of England and Wales vol. IV

External links[link]

• Hours of Work in U.S. History from EH.NET by Robert Whaples
• The Guardian, August 20, 2005, "Work until you drop: how the long-hours culture is killing us" (UK focus)
• Evans, J., D. Lippoldt and P. Marianna(2001), Trends in Working Hours in OECD Countries, OECD Labour Market and Social Policy Occasional Papers n° 45, OECD, Paris.
• Hart, Bob 'Working time and employment' Routledge Revivals, 2010.
• Explanation of Working Time Limits (48 hour week) in the UK and how the opt-out works
• Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD) resources on the UK Working Time Regulations
• OECD Average annual hours actually worked per worker

Daniel Hannan MEP
Member of the European Parliament for South East England
Incumbent
Assumed office 14 July 1999
Personal details
Born	(1971-09-01) 1 September 1971 (age 40) Lima, Peru
Nationality	British
Political party	Conservative
Spouse(s)	Sara Hannan (née Maynard)
Children	2 [1]
Alma mater	Oriel College, Oxford
Profession	Journalist Politician
Religion	Christian
Website	www.hannan.co.uk Conservative Party website

Daniel John Hannan (born 1 September 1971)^[2] is a British journalist, author and politician who is a Member of the European Parliament, representing South East England for the Conservative Party. He is also the Secretary-General of the Alliance of European Conservatives and Reformists (AECR). An advocate of localism and a Eurosceptic, Hannan earned worldwide fame for a speech in the European Parliament criticising Gordon Brown.^[3]

After stints as a speech-writer for Michael Howard and William Hague, Hannan was elected to the European Parliament at the 1999 election. He led the campaign to withdraw the Conservative Party from the EPP–ED, and was expelled from the group in 2008. Hannan joined the European Conservatives and Reformists (ECR) with his Conservative colleagues when it was formed in 2009 and became Secretary-General of its sister Europarty, the AECR. He currently serves on the Committee on Constitutional Affairs and the delegation to the ACP–EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly.^[2] He is also President of the Young Britons' Foundation.

Hannan's ideology is localism, and he has written several books arguing for democratic reform. He is a Eurosceptic and is strongly critical of European integration. Besides politics, Hannan is a journalist, having written leaders and currently authoring a blog for The Daily Telegraph and several books on both the EU and localism. Having been born in Peru, Hannan speaks Spanish, as well as French, fluently.^[4]

Early life[link]

Upbringing[link]

Hannan was born on his parents' farm near Lima, Peru.^[5] Hannan's father served in Italy during the Second World War with the North Irish Horse. Hannan has indicated that his father's Irish Catholic origins made him more sensitive to issues related to Northern Ireland and The Troubles.^[6]

Growing up, he made regular trips to the family's cotton farm in Santa Cruz, Bolivia.^[5] After spending his childhood in Peru, Hannan was educated at Marlborough College, and Oriel College, Oxford, where he studied Modern History.^[5] He speaks English, French and Spanish.^[4]

Early political career[link]

Hannan was President of the Oxford University Conservative Association (OUCA) in 1992. When standing in OUCA's committee elections for Michaelmas 1991, his strongly Eurosceptic views prompted accusations of "xenophobia" in the Oxford student paper Cherwell, prompting Hannan to threaten them with legal action.^[7] He also served as national vice-chairman of Conservative Students from 1992-3, and then chairman of Conservative Graduates from 1994.^[8] He had earlier established the Oxford Campaign for an Independent Britain, and on 12 September 1992 led a members' protest at a European financial summit held in Bath, which was widely televised and, he has since light-heartedly claimed, led to the withdrawal of the Pound Sterling from the European Exchange Rate Mechanism a few days later.^[9]

Through the CIB he became involved with the Bruges Group, and after he graduated he became, in 1994, director of a Eurosceptic political think-tank, the European Research Group. In 1996 he was hired by the Daily Telegraph as a leader-writer,^[8] and has since contributed to The Spectator and many other newspapers and magazines around the world. In 1997 he became an adviser and speechwriter to Michael Howard, then Shadow Foreign Secretary,^[10] and in 1998 he was given a place on the Conservative candidates' list for the following year's European Parliament election. He later became a speechwriter for party leader William Hague.^[5] In 1999 he stood down from his posts at the European Research Group and Conservative Graduates.^[8]

Member of the European Parliament[link]

Hannan speaking to a conservative group in Washington, D.C. in February 2012.

Hannan was first elected to the European Parliament in 1999.

A year after his first election, Hannan courted controversy when he appeared to be using the Conservative Party's central office as headquarters for a campaign to persuade Danish voters to block the introduction of the European Single Currency; however, he was able to show that the campaign was actually being run from his Westminster flat.^[11]

In his first term, he served on the Committee on Fisheries and the Delegation for Relations with Afghanistan.^[2]

He was re-elected at the top of his party's list for the South East England constituency in 2004.

Hannan led the campaign to withdraw the Conservatives from the European People's Party–European Democrats (EPP–ED) group in the European Parliament and form a new anti-federalist group.^[12] Hannan welcomed David Cameron's promise during Cameron's successful 2005 leadership campaign to withdraw: even promising to leave the EPP–ED unilaterally if the party didn't.^[13]

In April 2009, he criticised an EC Directive that would end the exemption in British law for religious groups to discriminate on grounds on conscience.^[14]

In April 2008, Daniel Hannan was elected to the top position of the Conservative list for the 2009 European elections in the constituency of South East England, and in June 2009 he was re-elected to the European Parliament.^[15]

Campaign against the Lisbon Treaty[link]

Hannan opposed ratification of the Lisbon Treaty in the European Parliament, and was one of several MEPs who took part in a demonstration in the chamber after Parliament voted to endorse the Treaty. He has continued to speak against the Treaty, and in the manner of Cato the Elder's famous call, Carthago delenda est, he ended every speech, whatever its subject, with a call for the Lisbon Treaty to be put to a referendum: "Pactio Olisipiensis censenda est".^[16][17]

Expulsion from the EPP-ED[link]

Hannan at the 20th anniversary of the Bruges Group in October 2008, which commemorated Margaret Thatcher's eurosceptic Bruges Speech.

Attempts by several MEPs to disrupt the work of the Parliament caused sufficient annoyance for a majority of Members to endorse a rule change giving the Speaker/President the discretion to limit the use of filibustering procedures where he "is convinced that these are manifestly intended to cause, and will result in, a prolonged and serious obstruction of the procedures of the House or the rights of other Members" (Rule 20, para 1). In the parliamentary session just before the new rule was to be presented by the President of the European Parliament Hans-Gert Pöttering,^{[citation needed]}

Hannan criticised what he termed a deviation from the rule of law. He continued speaking after his allocated time had ended by quoting Edmund Burke, but was interrupted mid-quote and had his microphone cut off by Luigi Cocilovo, one of the 14 Vice-Presidents.^[18] He then responded by damning, without vocal amplification, what he claimed were Parliament’s deviations from its own rules:^[19][20]

An absolute majority is not the same as the rule of law. I accept that there is a minority in this house in favour of a referendum. That there is a minority in this house against the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty. But this house must nonetheless follow its own rulebooks. And by popular acclamation to discard the rules under which we operate is indeed an act of arbitrary and despotic rule. It is only my regard for you Mr. Chairman and my personal affection for you that prevents me from likening it to the Ermächtigungsgesetz of 1933 which was also voted through by a parliamentary majority.

Pöttering is a German national and a member of the same political group (EPP-ED) as Hannan. Hannan's remarks were attacked by other MEPs from the EPP-ED. The head of EPP-ED, Joseph Daul, responded by initiating proceedings to expel Hannan immediately from their Group. Daniel Hannan left the EPP-ED on 19 February 2008. He sat, for the remainder of the five-year term as a Conservative without pan-European affiliation (Non-Inscrit).^{[citation needed]} Following his 2009 re-election, he sits with the new eurosceptic European Conservatives and Reformists along with his Conservative Party colleagues.

YouTube hit[link]

On 24 March 2009, after Gordon Brown had given a short speech to the European Parliament in Strasbourg in advance of the G20 London summit, Hannan followed up by delivering a 3-minute speech criticising in very strong terms the response by Gordon Brown to the global financial crisis.^[21] He finished the speech:

You cannot spend your way out of recession or borrow your way out of debt. And when you repeat, in that wooden and perfunctory way, that our situation is better than others', that we are well placed to weather the storm, I have to tell you, you sound like a Brezhnev-era apparatchik giving the party line. You know, and we know, and you know that we know that it's nonsense. Everyone knows that Britain is worse off than any other country as we go into these hard times. The IMF has said so. The European Commission has said so. The markets have said so, which is why our currency has devalued by thirty percent. And soon, the voters too will get their chance to say so. They can see what the markets have already seen: that you are the devalued Prime Minister of a devalued government.^[22]

The final phrase, "the devalued Prime Minister of a devalued government", was a quote from a speech by Labour Party leader John Smith criticising then-Prime Minister John Major in 1992.^[23]

A video clip of the speech went viral on YouTube that evening,^[24][25] attracting more than 630,000 views in 24 hours.^[21][26] It became the 'most viewed today' YouTube video worldwide two consecutive days.^[26] Hannan was invited to appear on several shows on American cable news channels, including Fox News and MSNBC: he appeared on television program Hannity via video link at 9pm EST on the same day,^[27] and on the Glenn Beck Program the following day.^[28][29] He also appeared on Your World with Neil Cavuto, where he stated he would have voted for Ron Paul in the 2008 presidential election had he been an American citizen.^[30] The main British television channels, particularly the BBC and ITV, gave the speech fairly limited coverage, for which they faced some criticism from Conservative MPs and "a handful of viewers";^[31] Conservative MP Nigel Evans stated that their lack of coverage rendered YouTube the 'ultimate in public service broadcasting'. As of July 2010, there have been 2.7 million views of the clip. Nearly all of the hits are from the UK and US.

ECR and AECR[link]

Hannan was re-elected in the 2009 European election, having been voted by party members to top the Conservatives' list in South East England. After the election, the Conservatives united with other anti-federalist, centre-right parties to form the European Conservatives and Reformists, for which Hannan had campaigned. Hannan was appointed the group's legal spokesperson. He resigned this position on 5 November 2009, after David Cameron announced that he wouldn't hold a referendum on the Treaty of Lisbon,^[32] saying that he wanted to concentrate on campaigning for a referendum.^[33] However, he accepted Cameron's decision, provided that a referendum on European integration was held.^[34]

Hannan became the first Secretary-General of the ECR-affiliated European political party – the Alliance of European Conservatives and Reformists (AECR) – when it was founded on 1 October 2009.

He criticised a ban on blood donation by people who had visited the United States less than one month previously, a measure instituted due to the risk posed by West Nile fever following the 2003 US epidemic.^[14]

Political positions[link]

Localism[link]

Hannan's main idea is the promotion of localism.^[5] He believes that local government independence is impossible without giving local government self-financing.^[35] To that end, he supports replacing Value Added Tax with a local sales tax, set by local councils.^[5]

Electoral reform[link]

Hannan argues in his writings and in the media (for example, during an appearance on Question Time on BBC television on 28 May 2009) for ballot initiatives (whereby electors can directly enact legislation as happens in Switzerland), a power of recall (whereby a sitting Member of Parliament can be forced to submit to re-election if enough of his local electorate support this), fixed term parliaments, local and national referendums, open primaries and the abolition of party lists.

Economic policy[link]

Hannan wrote in March 2011 criticizing anti-austerity protesters, stating that that they "have decided to indulge their penchant for empty, futile, self-righteous indignation." He remarked, "After “No Cuts!” the marchers’ favourite slogan was "Fairness!" Alright, then... How about being fair to our children, whom we have freighted with a debt unprecedented in peacetime?"^[36]

Foreign policy[link]

Hannan has a 'deep admiration' of the United States,^[37] and describes himself as an Atlanticist with inherently positive views of the United States as well as other English-speaking nations.

Hannan supports the British efforts in the Afghanistan war after the September 11th attacks, pointing out that "more British subjects died in the Twin Towers than in any terrorist atrocity in our history – more than at Lockerbie or Omagh" (see Pan Am Flight 103 and Omagh bombing). He also supports a timetable for set military withdrawal from the country. He wrote in June 2010, "there comes a point when our presence is doing more harm than good, serving to destabilise Pakistan rather than to stabilise Afghanistan. We are reaching that point now."^[38] He opposed the 2003 invasion of Iraq undertaken during the premiership of Tony Blair.^[39] He was one of few British politicians that opposed British intervention in Libya.^[37]

He endorsed then-Democratic candidate Barack Obama for President on 18 October 2008. He stated that a McCain presidency would mean an "imperial overstretch", particularly arguing that the U.S. should have been preparing to leave Iraq immediately. He labeled Obama's opponents as symbolic of "big federal budgets, protectionism, crony capitalism and, for that matter, the socialisation of failing banks."^[40] On 14 June 2010, Hannan took back his endorsement, which he called his "single most unpopular post" in his blogging career. He argued, "Any American reader who wants to know where Obamification will lead should spend a week with me in the European Parliament. I’m working in your future and, believe me, you won’t like it." He also accused the Obama administration of straining the special relationship between the U.S. and the U.K., particularly over the Falkland Islands.^[41]

Social policy[link]

Hannan is opposed to the concept of "victimless crimes", and he favours drug decriminalisation: "I'd start with cannabis, and if that worked I wouldn't in principle be against decriminalising heroin."^[5]

Healthcare[link]

In April 2009, he criticised claims that the National Health Service was the greatest British invention, saying that it is clearly eclipsed by the inventions of parliamentary democracy, penicillin, and common law, the discovery of DNA, or the abolition of slavery.^[42] He also argued that the NHS has left Britain with low survival rates for cancers, strokes, high chances of becoming iller in hospital, and constant waiting lists. David Cameron, who had said that his priorities were "three letters: NHS", distanced himself from Hannan's remarks, saying that Hannan has "some rather eccentric points of view".^[43][44]

Writing in The Telegraph, Mr Hannan said of the media storm around his comments:

On a visit to the US, I was asked by an interviewer whether I would recommend a British-style health-care model, paid for out of general taxation. I replied that all three parties were devoted to the NHS, and that it had public support (although I added that this was at least partly the result of the inaccurate belief that free health care for the poor is a unique attribute of the British system). But I didn't want to dissemble: I have for years argued that Britain would be better off with a Singapore-style system of personal health-care accounts. So I cautioned against nationalisation, citing international league tables on survival rates and waiting times.^[45]

Also making the wider point that: "we seem to have lost the notion that a backbencher speaks for himself. I like David Cameron, and want him to be Prime Minister, not least so that Britain stops racking up debt. But the idea that I therefore agree with him on every issue is, when you think about it, silly."^[45]

Enoch Powell[link]

It was reported in August 2009 that Hannan had praised the anti-immigrant Conservative politician Enoch Powell as "somebody who understood the importance of national democracy, who understood why you need to live in an independent country and what that meant, as well as being a free marketeer and a small-government Conservative."^[46][47]

However, he is also on record as saying "For what it’s worth, I think Enoch Powell was wrong on immigration. The civil unrest that he forecast, and that many feared in 1968, didn’t materialise. Britain assimilated a large population with an ease that few countries have matched. Being an immigrant myself, I have particular cause to be grateful for Britain’s understated cosmopolitanism."^[48]

Writing in on The Telegraph website, Mr Hannan said: "I’m surprised that no one has picked up on the thing that I most admire about Enoch Powell, namely his tendency to ignore conventional wisdom and think things through from first principles. Like Rowan Williams, he always did his hearers the courtesy of addressing them as intelligent adults. Both men regularly got into trouble in consequence, either because they were genuinely misunderstood or because their detractors affected to misunderstand them. Neither responded by dumbing down. That, in politics, takes a special kind of integrity."^[49]

UKIP[link]

In spring 2012, Hannan suggested that an accommodation be made between the Conservative Party and UKIP. The fielding of candidates by the Eurosceptic minority party against Conservatives has effectively led to both losing elections to Europhile left-wing candidates. Indeed, had UKIP backed the Conservatives at the 2010 General Election, David Cameron would have been Prime Minister of a majority Conservative Government, rather than in a coalition with Europhile Liberal Democrats. In 2010, UKIP endorsed four Conservative candidates, all of whom secured swings well above the national average.^[50]

Publications[link]

Hannan has been a leader writer for the Daily Telegraph since 1996.^[51] He has also written for various other newspapers, including The Wall Street Journal, the German daily Die Welt, the Swiss weekly Weltwoche, The Sunday Telegraph, The Catholic Herald, Freedom Today, the Brussels Journal and The Spectator.

He is the author of Time for a Fresh Start in Europe (1993) A Guide to the Amsterdam Treaty (1997), The Euro: Bad for Business (1998), The Challenge of the East (1999), What if Britain Votes No? (2002), The Case for EFTA (2004), and The New Road to Serfdom: A Letter of Warning to America (2010) and contributed to Treason at Maastricht (1994), by Rodney Atkinson and Norris McWhirter.^[52]

He was the co-founder of Direct Democracy and co-author, along with 27 Conservative MPs elected in 2005, of Direct Democracy: An Agenda for a New Model Party, which proposes the wholesale devolution of power and the direct election of decision-makers. These ideas were developed further in a series of six pamphlets, The Localist Papers, serialised in The Daily Telegraph in 2007. In 2008, he published the book The Plan: Twelve Months to Renew Britain together with Douglas Carswell.

Awards and prizes[link]

In 2009, Hannan was awarded the Bastiat Prize for Online Journalism for his Telegraph blog.^[53] He was shortlisted for the Orwell Prize in blogging in 2011.^[54]

He won Speech of the Year at the 2009 Spectator Awards, for his Gordon Brown speech in the European Parliament.^[55]

He has been named by The Telegraph as one of the 100 most-influential people on the centre-right in the United Kingdom for the last four years: peaking as the tenth-most influential in 2009.^[56] This was up from 86th in 2008.^[57] He fell to 33rd in 2010,^[58] followed by 38th in 2011.^[59]

Bibliography[link]

• Daniel, Hannan (1993). Time for a Fresh Start in Europe. London: Bow Publications. ISBN 978-0-86129-073-4. http://books.google.co.uk/books/about/Time_for_a_Fresh_Start_in_Europe.html?id=qscZAAAACAAJ. 
• Daniel, Hannan (1994). Towards 1996: Britain in a Multi-Speed Europe. London: Institute for European Defence & Strategic Studies. ISBN 978-0-907967-54-5. http://books.google.co.uk/books/about/Towards_1996.html?id=U1AKAQAAMAAJ. 
• Daniel, Hannan (1996). The Challenge of the East. 
• Daniel, Hannan (1997). A Guide to the Amsterdam Treaty. London: European Research Group. http://books.google.co.uk/books/about/A_guide_to_the_Amsterdam_treaty.html?id=x1qeQwAACAAJ. 
• Daniel, Hannan (1998). The Euro: Bad for Business. London: European Research Group. 
• Daniel, Hannan (2002). What if Britain Votes No?. 
• Daniel, Hannan (2004). The Case for EFTA. London: Bruges Group. ISBN 978-0-9547087-3-3. http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=AXBmAAAAMAAJ. 
• Carswell, Douglas, et al (2005). Direct Democracy: An Agenda for a New Model Party. ISBN 978-0-9550598-0-3. 
• Daniel, Hannan; Carswell, Douglas (2008). The Plan: Twelve Months to Renew Britain. ISBN 978-0-9559799-0-3. http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=LJ5aYhMYRCsC. 
• Daniel, Hannan (2010). The New Road to Serfdom: A Letter of Warning to America. London: HarperCollins. ISBN 978-0-06-195694-2. http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=WY_XtgAACAAJ. 
• Daniel, Hannan (2011). Why America Must Not Follow Europe. New York: Encounter Books. ISBN 978-1-59403-560-9. http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=MHeKOSJucOMC. 

References[link]

External links[link]

Wikiquote has a collection of quotations related to: Daniel Hannan

• Daniel Hannan's Blog
• Profile at European Parliament website
• Video of his attack on Gordon Brown