8 minutes ago
Page always makes for entertaining reading and his experiences as a councillor for South Cambridgeshire District Council strike a chord. Councillors, he says, are more interested in feathering their own nests, wasting money on the trappings of office and imposing politically correct drivel on council taxpayers.
As to democracy and independence, he believes the sheep on his farm have more individuality and freedom of thought than most councillors, who are "merely party hacks obsequiously following thediktats of their political masters in Westminster".
When you've finished the piece, though, you are none the wiser as to what to do about an affront to the very idea of democracy. One comes away with the vague sentiment that it was all somehow better in the 1980s and 90s, when councillors weren't paid, there were no party politics and John Prescott had yet to do his worst.
Completely lacking, though – as so often from this type of lament – is any sense of what precisely is wrong and, more to the point, what ordinary mortals can do about it.
Given that the elections are next week, many of the commenters on the piece are directing readers to vote for UKIP, as if that would make a blind bit of difference. We are looking here at a irretrievably flawed system – changing some of the councillors can have only a marginal impact.
In fact, South Cambridgeshire District Council embodies some classic example of the failure of English local government, not least because, in any democratic system, the council has no reason to exist.
Formed on 1 April 1974 after the Heath/Walker local government reorganisation, by the merger of Chesterton and South Cambridgeshire Rural Districts, it surrounds the city of Cambridge, but is separate from it.
With no town in the area and no single population centre exceeding 10,000, and a hundred separate settlements, it lacks a natural focus, relying on a newly expanded Cambourne for its administrative centre to govern a population of nearly 150,000 and increasing.
In democratic terms, a mixed population of commuters, white collar workers, academics, industrial workers, agriculture it lacks a demos, either in geographical terms, or in the sense of there being a community sharing a common interest.
With a population of 150,000, it is only slightly less than half the size of Iceland, a nation in its own right with 56 municipalities. Whatever South Cambridgeshire District Council might be, it is not localgovernment.
These two defects – the lack of a recognisable demos and the sheer size of the population – means that there cannot be anything approaching democracy. And that is without addressing the "power deficit", the fact that the very structure of local government makes it an agent of central government, excluding mere people from the decision-making process.
All of this renders Page's laments a matter of detail. Even if the issues he raises were resolved, his local authority still would not be democratic.
Therein is our problem. The system is so fundamentally flawed that no amount of trimming round the edges will make any worthwhile difference. With a great deal of effort, it might be possible to achieve marginal improvements, but nothing fundamental will change.
Ironically, though, in 2006, South Cambridgeshire was ranked as the fifth best place to live in 2006 and is one of the least deprived areas in Britain. There is, it appears, life without democracy – but we should stop pretending we have democratic local government or, for that matter, ever did have it.
COMMENT THREAD
The right of every EU citizen to work freely in any country within the European Union, enshrined in the Article 45 of the Treaty, constitutes an essential part of the EU's Single Market, and indeed of the European Union itself, says Andor. Yet, he complains, there is a persistent problem with public and private employers' lack of awareness of EU rules.
This lack of awareness or understanding of the rules, he says, is a major source of discrimination based on nationality. People also consider that they do not know where to turn to in the host Member State when faced with problems concerning their rights to free movement.
Thus, the Commission's proposal aims to overcome these obstacles and to help to prevent discrimination against workers on the basis of nationality by proposing practical solutions.
The press release tells us that the directive, if approved, require member states to create national contact points providing information, assistance and advice so that EU migrant workers, and employers, are better informed about their rights.
It would also require the provision of "appropriate means of redress at national level" and allow labour unions, NGOs and other organisations to launch administrative or judicial procedures on behalf of individual workers in cases of discrimination.
The rationale behind the proposal was demonstrated in an October 2010 public opinion survey conducted by the Commission that found that 67 percent of respondents felt "not well-informed" or not informed at all regarding their rights as EU citizens. This lack of awareness is evident not only among individuals, but also among private as well as public employers.
While EU rules on free movement of workers are long-established, the way in which they are applied in practice can give rise to barriers and discriminatory practices (perceived or real) for EU migrant workers when working or looking for work in another Member State.
Indeed, says the Commission, just three percent of the EU labour force, or 9.5 million people, live and work in another Member State. An additional 1.2 million people live in one EU country but work in another.
And so it is that, while Switzerland is able to exclude EU workers, EU member states are being told that free movement of workers is "good for people and good for the [EU] economy", and that they should encourage more migrant workers to come to them.
In response, a Home Office spokesman tells the BBC that: "We will forcefully resist any attempt from Europe to load additional burdens on to countries like Britain. He adds: "We are already taking tough action to stamp out the abuse of free movement, to protect our benefits system and public services: we will not allow this country to be a soft touch".
However, when it comes to this proposal for a directive, this will pass through the ordinary legislative procedure, which means that it will be approved in Council by qualified majority voting. The UK, on its own, cannot block this new law.
How, precisely, Mr Cameron's government thus plans to "forcibly resist" the directive is not specified. One suspects, though, that this is pre-election rhetoric which will come to nothing. In due course, we will be establishing help lines and drop-in centres for wannabe migrant workers, and penalising employers for not giving them jobs.
COMMENT THREAD
 We need to put aside this cheap shot, suggesting that because Parliament is not in session, MPs are necessarily (or at all) on holiday. Many, to my certain knowledge, are extremely busy during session breaks, on constituency and other political business. It really is childishly silly to characterise such breaks as "holiday". Needless to say, though, in focusing on this point, the assembled journalists miss the substantive issue. It is not as if we are short of new laws pouring onto the statute book. In fact, we see a torrent of new laws and, as we saw earlier, no end of new proposals to debate. The real story, therefore, is the way that our legislation has been outsourced to Brussels and beyond, so much so that MPs have been reduced to discussing policy issues generated elsewhere, over which they have little or no control. Meanwhile, the European Parliament has rarely been busier, listing on its database 1,301 "legislative acts" so far, for its 2009-2014 session. That is where the action is, demonstrating how far the power has drained from Westminster. This, of course, was precisely what Hugh Gaitskell predicted in his "thousand years of history" speech of 1962, with the Westminster parliament being reduced to the status of a county council. And so it has come to pass yet, when it happens, not one journalist reports on the reason why Parliament has so little to do. COMMENT THREAD Richard North 26/04/2013 |
EU politics: white man speak with forked tongue
Friday 26 April 2013
Mr Cameron is the man who, by his own account, seeks to repatriate powers from the European Union, to which effect he wants to negotiate with the "colleagues" at the earliest opportunity.
But, by the same measure, here is a man who was written to Herman Van Rompuy, welcoming his proposals "to discuss tax evasion and fraud at the May European Council". In so doing, he welcomes "the initiative of the Commission's recent Action Plan on Tax Fraud and Tax Evasion, which sets out a range of proposals on which Europe can show leadership". This "initiative" was announced in December 2012, in the form of COM(2012) 722 final, making 34 separate proposals for EU action. We have such things as "an alignment of administrative and criminal sanctions", the use of an EU Tax Identification Number (TIN), reinforced cooperation with EU law enforcement bodies, and a European taxpayer's code – all of which amounts to one of the most significant EU power grabs that we have seen in many a year. But not only is Mr Cameron buying into this, with a degree of enthusiasm that is by no means universal - with Austria prominent amongst the refusniks. He is also offering to implement controls on our Overseas Territories and Crown Dependencies, to bring them into line with EU expectations. Thus, with tax fraud and evasion becoming a major new activity for the EU, taking us down the pathto a common European tax system, Mr Cameron is substantially increasing our involvement in EU affairs. Here then, we have a man speaking with a forked tongue. On the one hand, he says he wants a "managed retreat" from the EU while, on the other, he is second to none in enthusiasm to see the EU take on more powers. As always with politicians, therefore, we need to judge them by what they do, rather than by what they say – although the gushing sentiment from Mr Cameron tells its own story. The UK, he says, looks forward to continuing to work with all Member States and the European Commission on this hugely important agenda and to addressing these global issues with global solutions. He is confident, he adds, "that the upcoming European Council and the G8 Summit will be remembered as the turning point in the battle against tax evasion and avoidance and the restoration of confidence in the fairness and effectiveness of our tax systems". Does this really sound like a man who is committed to reducing the role of the EU in UK affairs? I thought not. COMMENT THREAD |
Mr Cameron is the man who, by his own account, seeks to repatriate powers from the European Union, to which effect he wants to negotiate with the "colleagues" at the earliest opportunity.
But, by the same measure, here is a man who was written to Herman Van Rompuy, welcoming his proposals "to discuss tax evasion and fraud at the May European Council".
In so doing, he welcomes "the initiative of the Commission's recent Action Plan on Tax Fraud and Tax Evasion, which sets out a range of proposals on which Europe can show leadership".
This "initiative" was announced in December 2012, in the form of COM(2012) 722 final, making 34 separate proposals for EU action.
We have such things as "an alignment of administrative and criminal sanctions", the use of an EU Tax Identification Number (TIN), reinforced cooperation with EU law enforcement bodies, and a European taxpayer's code – all of which amounts to one of the most significant EU power grabs that we have seen in many a year.
But not only is Mr Cameron buying into this, with a degree of enthusiasm that is by no means universal - with Austria prominent amongst the refusniks. He is also offering to implement controls on our Overseas Territories and Crown Dependencies, to bring them into line with EU expectations.
Thus, with tax fraud and evasion becoming a major new activity for the EU, taking us down the pathto a common European tax system, Mr Cameron is substantially increasing our involvement in EU affairs.
Here then, we have a man speaking with a forked tongue. On the one hand, he says he wants a "managed retreat" from the EU while, on the other, he is second to none in enthusiasm to see the EU take on more powers. As always with politicians, therefore, we need to judge them by what they do, rather than by what they say – although the gushing sentiment from Mr Cameron tells its own story.
The UK, he says, looks forward to continuing to work with all Member States and the European Commission on this hugely important agenda and to addressing these global issues with global solutions.
He is confident, he adds, "that the upcoming European Council and the G8 Summit will be remembered as the turning point in the battle against tax evasion and avoidance and the restoration of confidence in the fairness and effectiveness of our tax systems".
Does this really sound like a man who is committed to reducing the role of the EU in UK affairs? I thought not.
COMMENT THREAD
The decision, we are told, is in response to calls from the "far right" Swiss People's Party, and comes despite the opposition of the left and the country's powerful financial sector.
The sudden announcement may also have something to do with the fact that Switzerland is a democracy and that there are two referendums pending, aimed at limiting immigration. One is from the Swiss People's Party and other from the right-wing ecological group Ecopop. Predictably, the federal government is anxious to head them off at the pass.
The trigger for the new restrictions is a recent surge in the number of southern Europeans taking up residence, especially from Portugal and Spain, with up to 80,000 extra arrivals each year. These are settling in the country as the eurozone debt crisis bites in their home countries.
And what enables the Swiss government to put up the barriers is a clause in the bilateral agreementon migration with the European Union, of 21 June 1999. This permits temporary quotas on residency permits for EU residents wishing to work in Switzerland.
In its decision, Switzerland is applying to the EU as a whole limits already in effect to newer EU entrants Estonia, Hungary, Lithuania, Latvia, Poland, Slovakia, Slovenia and the Czech Republic. Bulgaria and Romania are covered by a separate migration regime until 2016.
In a belated attempt at damage limitation, Social Democratic justice minister Simonetta Sommarugatells a rather unhappy Brussels, "the EU is and will remain our most important partner". But, she says, "It's a fact that there is unease among the population, and it's necessary to take this unease seriously". Can one imagine a British minister using such words?
Catherine Ashton responds by saying she "regrets" the move and underlining the "great benefits" of EU-Swiss work mobility. She also notes that the split in permit quotas between the EU8 and EU17 groups is contrary to the 1999 agreement, which did not permit differentiation between EU member states.
With blissful insouciance, the Swiss government has limited to 2,180 the number of workers from the new entrant EU nations that could work in the country, at the same time holding the 17 older EU states to 53,700 for 12 months.
However, all good things come to an end, and the limiting clause is set to expire in 2014. Between then and now, though, there are those pesky referendums which could force new negotiations.
Then, perhaps we will see a clash of wills, as the people assert their rights to control their own borders – in a way that only independent status will allow.
COMMENT THREAD
With a degree of profound weariness, one also observes this newspaper telling us that the survey result raises "fundamental questions about its (the EU's) democratic legitimacy", as if it had any democratic legitimacy to start with – which it doesn't.
Strangely, though, we also have a situation where this Eurobarometer survey does not seem to have been published, with the Guardian, in collaboration with other leading newspapers in the other five countries, claiming exclusive rights – even though none of the others give the story the same prominence as the British counterpart.
Thus we have to trust the europhile Guardian accurately to inform us of a survey which is about – oddly – trust of the European Union, with the further handicap of the data having been analysed by the European Council on Foreign Relations (ECFR), which also has not published any details.
With that, we are led to believe that, "Euroscepticism is soaring to a degree that is likely to feed populist anti-EU politics and frustrate European leaders' efforts to arrest the collapse in support for their project".
As to the detail (above), in Spain, trust in the EU – however measured and analysed - fell from 65 to 20 percent over the five-year period while mistrust soared to 72 from 23 percent. In five of the six countries, including Britain, mistrust prevailed over trust by sizeable margins, whereas in 2007 – with the exception of the UK – the opposite was the case.
Five years ago, 56 percent of Germans "tended to trust" the EU, whereas 59 percent now "tend to mistrust". In France, mistrust has risen from 41 to 56 percent. In Italy, where public confidence in Europe has traditionally been higher than in the national political class, mistrust of the EU has almost doubled from 28 to 53 percent.
Even in Poland, which enthusiastically joined the EU less than a decade ago and is the single biggest beneficiary from the transfers of tens of billions of euros from Brussels, support has plummeted from 68 to 48 percent, although it remains the sole country surveyed where more people trust than mistrust the union.
In Britain, the mistrust grew from 49 to 69 percent, the highest level with the exception of the extraordinary turnaround in Spain.
Citing José Ignacio Torreblanca, head of the ECFR's Madrid office, the Guardian goes on to tell us that, "The damage is so deep that it does not matter whether you come from a creditor, debtor country, euro would-be member or the UK: everybody is worse off". And thus we learn that: "Citizens now think that their national democracy is being subverted by the way the euro crisis is conducted".
And now we get input from José Manuel Barroso, who said on Tuesday that the European "dream" was under threat from a "resurgence of populism and nationalism" across the EU. "At a time when so many Europeans are faced with unemployment, uncertainty and growing inequality, a sort of 'European fatigue' has set in", he complains, "coupled with a lack of understanding".
What is then rather worrying is that Mr Barroso then asks, "Who does what, who decides what, who controls whom and what? And where are we heading to?" Frankly, if he doesn't know, who on earth does?
All of this, though, is enough to get Raedwald's juices flowing, as he notes – from the tenor of theGuardian's comments - a more serious malaise, in that the Left seems to have fallen out of love with the EU.
The problem, however, is even greater than it at first seems, judging from the ideas offered by the writers from the six leading newspapers to help redefine the union.
What strikes one from these is the poverty of ambition, as the ideas range from stopping the Strasbourg shuttle, to providing a Eur-app to having a Europe FC United. Then we have a suggestion that the launch of a European Army is a good idea (a plan dating from the 1950s), and the invention of "a new division of power", to deal with the "democratic deficit".
Startlingly, from Adam Leszczyński, of Gazeta Wyborcza, in Warsaw, all we get is that, "Europe needs a leading idea that could provide Europeans with symbols and aims evoking emotions, attachment and solidarity". But, adly for the poor dear, he does not know what such an idea could be. But "if we do not find it, every crisis will threaten this impressive building with destruction", he says.
It's time to move in the demolition contractors, methinks.
COMMENT THREAD
In this case, though, the Mail brings something new to the table – a study commissioned by the trade union Unison which finds that almost a third of an average water bill – more than £100 a year – goes on profit, compared with nine percent in the energy sector.
The research, conducted by the New Policy Institute (NPI), finds that water bills have risen more than twice as fast as pay over the past decade in an industry which is now "out of control". And a 3.5 percent increase in the average annual bill this year – a hike of £13 bringing the total to £388 a year – has brought charges to treble the level since privatisation in 1989, well above increases in the rate of inflation.
NPI also says that water bills have soared by 64 percent in the past ten years compared with 28 percent for average earnings – although in some cases the increase has been higher. In ten years, we've experienced a near-doubling in charges from Yorkshire Water – presumably to fund the CEO's million-pound salary and pension fund.
If the average bill had done no more than keep up with earnings, and the rise had been confined to a "mere" 64 percent, it would now be an £71 a year lower. For some it would mean we would be nearly £100 better off.
Assessing why this situation has arisen, NPI reckons that the high prices are due to a lack of competition in the industry. But, given that all price hikes have to approved by the water regulator, Offwat, its role must also be explored.
Nevertheless, the facts alone give Dave Prentis, Unison's general secretary, something of a platform. He says: "This private monopoly is the worst of both worlds. Since privatisation, private equity firms have swooped in to grab a lucrative slice of the water industry pie, but households, taxpayers and employees are losing out".
Unsurprisingly, Prentis then says, "The time has come to think again, with all options on the table. We need a root and branch review to make sure the industry is run in the interests of consumers not profits". But that, of course, is precisely what the regulator is supposed to be doing, which again suggests that Offwat should be looked at.
Turning to the actual report, it brands the water companies "a very odd industry indeed", one "whose ownership is opaque, whose consumers are powerless and whose profits are high yet which is also unable to finance key investment without government help".
And there's the rub. This is an industry which has been starved of capital investment but, after 24 years of rising prices, we are no better off. Instead, this "very odd industry" celebrates "stable cash-flows and sizeable dividends", to say nothing of their captive consumer base which it has no hesitation in milking.
Strange it is that this should have been another part of the Thatcher legacy – selling us back our own property, only to make us pay three times more for the end product.
COMMENT THREAD
In fighting for her father, Wanda found herself convicted and sentenced to jail in her absence, and without even the benefit of legal representation – only for the fact of the imprisonment to be kept secret on the order of Judge Martin Cardinal. He would not even allow Wanda to be named.
Whatever the rights and wrongs of the case, this is wrong. There is never in what passes for a free society for an individual to be convicted in absentia and then jailed. It is even worse when this is done secretly.
Furthermore, this is by no means the only case. Booker, who adds a commentary to this news report, has been trying to place on the record another egregious case where a son is trying to protect his father from the depredations of the social services. Again, judges are imposing gagging orders, using powers they do not appear to have.
Thus, the Mail does right to publicise this case, adding to the continuing toll of cases going through the families courts, where unnecessary and unhealthy secrecy is being imposed – for no better reason, it seems, to protect officials from deserved criticism.
But while one applauds the Mail, there is also a sense of the fatuity of media campaigns. There was a time when even Booker and this lowly author, writing of some outrage, would receive a ministerial call the day following publication, and things would get done.
These days, officials and politicians appear immune to all but the most strident and intensive campaigns – where virtually the whole press corps joins in and goes into hysteria mode until the issue is sorted. And clearly, this can only happen on a very limited number of occasions.
As for judges, the arrogance of office is now such that these appointed officials seem to have lost sight of the reason they are appointed – to serve the interest of justice. They are placing themselves above the law, and we are all at risk.
Thus, it seems to me, that somehow we need to redress the balance. Further, it is self-evident that we cannot rely on the establishment to respond. Ministers have been approached many times, and have yet to act. It is unlikely that they will act.
Having given this a great deal of thought, it seems we are back in Harrogate Agenda territory, for the second time in two consecutive posts.
When it comes to our six demands, readers will recall demand four, which states this:
4. no legislation or treaty shall take effect without the direct consent of the majority of the people, by positive vote if so demanded, and that no legislation or treaty shall continue to have effect when that consent is withdrawn by the majority of the people.This, in itself it not a great deal of use to us, but I have been mulling over an amendment, and have come up with this new text:.
4.no legislation or treaty shall take effect without the direct consent of the majority of the people, by positive vote if so demanded, and that no legislation, treaty or decision shall continue to have effect when that consent is withdrawn by the majority of the people.The key difference here is the addition of the word "decision", creating a situation where any official decision can be challenged by way of a referendum – a sort of people's judicial review.
In the Maddox case, this power could perhaps have been used in several different ways, but the one that would appeal most (to me) is the power to challenge decision to appoint Martin Cardinal as a judge. In effect, the power gives people to right to fire officials when they go off the rails.
In my view, any judge who can go about jailing someone without a hearing, and who sees nothing wrong with keeping his action secret, deserves to be fired. For many reasons, there are many other public officials who deserve to be fired.
And the very fact that the people, their paymasters, are able to fire them, would be a powerful tool to keep them in check. All of a sudden, an appearance in the Daily Mail would mean something again. At the very least, it would remind them who their masters were.
COMMENT THREAD
The occasion was the anniversary of the Greek military coup, which started on 21 April 1967 – a mere 46 years ago and thus within the living memory of many. Thirty percent of respondents wanted the Colonels back, 59 percent thought the streets were safer with them, and 46 percent said the dictatorship had provided a higher quality of life.
This, of course, was a regime characterised by random arrests, torture and arbitrary justice, yet a significant number of people are prepared to accept that in return for stability, personal safety and prosperity. It goes without saying that. a military dictatorship would be incompatible with EU membership.
But, if this survey is presented as a choice between democracy and dictatorship, the retort from one respondent, an unemployed 45-year-old, makes the appropriate point. "We have no democracy anyway", he says.
A choice, therefore, between a dysfunction government and one that works – neither of them democracies – is entirely rational, especially as the current crop of politicians are regarded as crooks, as indeed many are.
What is sad is that there seems no aspiration to replace the current system with anything which approaches a true democracy. One can only suppose that the word has been so debased, and the concept so tarnished, that few people have any faith in the idea.
But what we are actually seeing is the effects of a lack of democracy. For too long, people have tolerated corrupt and incompetent politicians, within the framework of a system that denies people power, and thus bears only a passing resemblance to a democracy.
That, in turn, has led to a widescale retreat from politics, where the political class of "professional" politicians have taken over the running of the government, and the people have allowed themselves to be excluded from decision-making. The trouble is, as we have observed before, if you don't take an interest in politics, it will take an interest in you.
That, really, is what the Harrogate Agenda is all about. For too long, we have allowed the political classes to define what they mean by democracy, and have accepted what they tell us at its face value. But democracy is actually about people power. One hoped that the Greeks might understand this and start to re-assert their own power.
Whether they do or not, though, there is a lesson for us. If we follow on the same path trodden by the Greeks, we now have a very clear view of the eventual destination. And it ain't pretty.
COMMENT THREAD
An exclusive interview of German defence minister Thomas de Maizière, for the Guardian highlights an apparent inconsistency, as the minister suggests that a UK outside the European Union would "jeopardise military standing".
Ostensibly, this is an absurd assertion, as the UK would continue to participate in joint military ventures through its membership of NATO, the activities of which are increasingly duplicating EU military initiatives.
Unwittingly, though, de Maizière is revealing a mindset now prevalent amongst European defence ministers, who are sharing the view offered by this article, effectively conceding that the days of NATO are numbered.
With the EU Foreign Affairs council just concluded in Luxembourg, with defence ministers present, one can see the writing on the wall, as ministers grapple with plans to reactivate the battlegroup concept – effectively moribund since 2007 – prior to a major defence council in December, when we expect to see significant developments in the EU's Common Security and Defence Policy.
On the other hand, with NATO operations in Afghanistan winding down, the glue that binds the North Atlantic Alliance is melting away. The United States is looking east, with North Korea currently dictating defence priorities, drawing further away from NATO and reducing its European presence.
Behind the scenes, what we are also seeing is a gradual insitutional merger between the EU and NATO. So deep is the "strategic partnership" that the European components of NATO are becoming completely integrated with the EU military structures, to the point where they are inseparable.
In the fullness of time – and now not very far distant – we will witness a restructuring of NATO, comprising EU elements, the non-EU European elements and the North American elements (US and Canada). But the heart of the NATO will become its 21 EU members, who will be the driving force.
It is in that context that de Maizière's comments must be seen. He asserts that, "If Great Britain leaves the EU, it would be a great disappointment to us. It would weaken Nato, it would weaken the British influence within Nato. I think from a military point of view the disadvantages for Great Britain would be bigger than the advantages".
De Maizière is effectively saying that full participation in NATO (as it is about to become) will be dependent on membership of the EU, the latter having engineered a reverse takeover. NATO, at a European level, becomes "EUNATO".
Increasingly, we can also see the United States channelling its initiatives via the European Union, quite deliberately in an attempt to keep Britain within the EU, with the United Nations also dealing with the EU as the partner of record.
All this will be (and is being) designed to convey precisely the impression de Maizière has given theGuardian. This is more that the usual FUD, and represents a structured attempt to undermine UK independence.
When it gets to the stage that even military co-operation with the United States is channelled through the EUNATO complex, Britain will no longer have the option of bilateral relations with the US. The UK will be locked in to the EU, whether it likes it or not.
However, what de Maizière omits to tell us is that there is provision for actors to take part in EU institutions without being members of the EU. This is typified by Norway being a participant in European Defence Agency initiatives. Thus, the UK outside the EU could still elect to take part in EU defence ventures, on an ad hoc basis, losing nothing by being outside the fold.
But then, you do not expect the "colleagues" to tell the whole story. It would spoil their game and reduce the impact of their message.
COMMENT THREAD
COMMENT THREAD
That was the Directive which required that a distinction be made between provision of transport services and the operation of infrastructure, with separate management and accounts for each of the two activities. The Directive also required railway undertakings and their groupings to pay for the use of railway infrastructure.
It was this Directive which led to the John Major's bodged privatisation in 1992, and the separation of the running of the railtrack from the train companies which used it, described by Simon Jenkins - asBooker later recorded - as "the stupidest act of John Major's government".
With that, though, the EU had not finished. It produced additional directives and, after the publication of its "Roadmap to a Single European Transport Area" in March 2011, it followed through, culminating with the publication of its "Fourth Railway Package" in January of this year. This was aimed at "completing the Single European Railway Area to Foster European Competitiveness and Growth".
It is now a sign of the times that the House of Commons Transport Committee is brought into play to comment, but not on Whitehall's plans for the railway system – we have ceded the power to determine strategic legislation on transport to the EU. Thus, we get the Committee examining and reporting on the plans of our supreme government in Brussels - in particular the fourth railway package.
And it is from its report that we learn of MPs' disquiet over the EU's plans. Far from learning from its "mistakes" over the separation of infrastructure from operations management, the Commission is repeating them, seeking to increase the degree of separation. To that effect, it is proposing "common rules for a governance structure", in an attempt to make sure systems are completely separate.
Having already split our system, though, these additional requirements will have relatively little impact on the UK, but there are other changes tucked away in the current "package". Not least of these is extending the powers of the European Railway Agency, changes which are also intended to speed up the introduction of the European Rail Traffic Management System (ERTMS).
Little has been said of this enormously ambitious system, the implementation of which extends into 2024, about which there is a UK implementation plan but very little reliable cost information, with estimates of up to £6 billion.
Unsurprisingly, there is only one mention of ERTMS in the Transport Committee report, and that under "interoperability", with a reference to the "costly" standards. These are the subject of ongoing EU legislation, dated as recently as January 2012.
The devil is in the detail here, and that is not what you will find in the legacy media. In fact, apart from one report - by the BBC, and that at an incredibly superficial level (illustrated above) – the national media seems to have ignored the Transport Committee report.
Thereby is illustrated the harm done by ceding power to the EU. Because strategic planning of rail systems is now an EU competence, there is scarcely any UK political input and next to no public debate.
No one but a few specialists really know what is going on, and a whole tranche of government has become invisible to the media and the general public. Because the anonymous officials in Brussels are dealing with it, it is no longer our concern.
COMMENT THREAD
It was this Directive which led to the John Major's bodged privatisation in 1992, and the separation of the running of the railtrack from the train companies which used it, described by Simon Jenkins - asBooker later recorded - as "the stupidest act of John Major's government".
With that, though, the EU had not finished. It produced additional directives and, after the publication of its "Roadmap to a Single European Transport Area" in March 2011, it followed through, culminating with the publication of its "Fourth Railway Package" in January of this year. This was aimed at "completing the Single European Railway Area to Foster European Competitiveness and Growth".
It is now a sign of the times that the House of Commons Transport Committee is brought into play to comment, but not on Whitehall's plans for the railway system – we have ceded the power to determine strategic legislation on transport to the EU. Thus, we get the Committee examining and reporting on the plans of our supreme government in Brussels - in particular the fourth railway package.
And it is from its report that we learn of MPs' disquiet over the EU's plans. Far from learning from its "mistakes" over the separation of infrastructure from operations management, the Commission is repeating them, seeking to increase the degree of separation. To that effect, it is proposing "common rules for a governance structure", in an attempt to make sure systems are completely separate.
Having already split our system, though, these additional requirements will have relatively little impact on the UK, but there are other changes tucked away in the current "package". Not least of these is extending the powers of the European Railway Agency, changes which are also intended to speed up the introduction of the European Rail Traffic Management System (ERTMS).
Little has been said of this enormously ambitious system, the implementation of which extends into 2024, about which there is a UK implementation plan but very little reliable cost information, with estimates of up to £6 billion.
Unsurprisingly, there is only one mention of ERTMS in the Transport Committee report, and that under "interoperability", with a reference to the "costly" standards. These are the subject of ongoing EU legislation, dated as recently as January 2012.
The devil is in the detail here, and that is not what you will find in the legacy media. In fact, apart from one report - by the BBC, and that at an incredibly superficial level (illustrated above) – the national media seems to have ignored the Transport Committee report.
Thereby is illustrated the harm done by ceding power to the EU. Because strategic planning of rail systems is now an EU competence, there is scarcely any UK political input and next to no public debate.
No one but a few specialists really know what is going on, and a whole tranche of government has become invisible to the media and the general public. Because the anonymous officials in Brussels are dealing with it, it is no longer our concern.
COMMENT THREAD
The CDU, on the other hand, had lost a point to hit 38 percent, with its coalition partner the FDP unchanged at five percent. The opposition SPD stood at 26 percent, the Greens were on 15 percent and the Left Party was on six percent.
This means that neither grouping could form a government and all parties are keen to neutralise the AFD threat. Enter, therefore, the CDU-affiliated Konrad Adenauer Foundation, which has issued a detailed report, taking a closer look at the party, making recommendations on how to deal with it.
Above all, the Foundation says, it is very important not to underestimate the AFD, as the party had quickly gained significant media attention and a great deal of interest. This also shows that "new populist movements" can have a considerable impact and can quite quickly record political success.
In the view of the Foundation, therefore, concerns of citizens about the future of the euro should be addressed more fully in the policies of the federal government and there should be "extensive efforts to explain the policy towards the indebted euro countries, the guarantees given by Germany and the development of European institutions".
On the other hand, the Foundation warns that "single-issue parties such as the AFD benefit from ongoing public debate. But many of the supposedly alternative political demands have long been debated between the parties in the Bundestag and it is questionable whether many voters really share the "pessimistic analysis" of the AFD about the situation in Germany.
According to research carried out by the Konrad Adenauer Foundation, citizens are more satisfied with their personal material situation, even if they are starting to worry about the overall situation".
No one should shy away from a substantive discussion about the AFD, the Foundation then counsels, especially as the party had no more to offer than a "mini-programme and seemingly simple solutions". Moreover, the AFD competes over their single issue with other parties such as the liberals.
But there is also advice about accelerate the disenchantment with the new party. Its founding congress has clearly shown that it has failed to implements its own self-proclaimed goal of "more democracy". Its rigid process of dealing with nearly 200 applicants who had registered for the election of its Board was very far from ideal.
Thus does Handelsblatt put the boot in, but you would not think so from the coverage ofSuddeutsche. It actually rails against Handelsblatt pushing the AFD, overstating its share of the polls.
The 19 percent support, reported, it says, was based on a flawed question which flattered the party, making the survey "unfortunate" and "suggestive", blatantly violating the rules governing survey institutes.
Whether exaggerated or not, though, the AFD – for the moment – is punching above its weight. Says columnist Wolfram Weimar, the Left-right insults them as reactionary. The Liberals vilify them as nationalistic. The Union ostracises them as irresponsible, the Greens joke about " protest professors" and the Pirates brand them the "D-Mark grandpas". They have provoked the partisan establishment, and have shaken the political scene within a few weeks.
And, for the time being, you can't ask more than that.
COMMENT THREAD