EU politics: acrimony is good
Saturday 10 November 2012
 The BBC piece tells us that the EU parliament and the council are having difficulty in establishing an "agreed position", where the EU commission is after another €9 billion (approx) in "emergency funding" to add to the already agreed €129.1 billion for 2012. The problem here is that this brings the 2013 budget up to just over €137 billion – representing a 6.8 percent increase on the previous year. That is all fine and dandy except that the Council has already decided on its "common position" and it has gone for €132 billion – a 2.79 percent increase. The need for this was flagged up a little while ago and what we are looking at here is a continuation of the budget procedure – where the EU parliament has the final say. As it stands, with two different "common positions" - the EU parliament supporting the commission - the two parties have gone to conciliation. But these talks have now stalled. If the parties do not agree, or the EU parliament as a whole does not agree the final deal, then the budget falls. The commission has to start over, with a new proposal. In the meantime, the "colleagues" are running to the wire – it is November and the new budget must be in place by the end of the year. If it isn't, the EU goes onto a fixed formula, which is basically this year's budget, paid in equal parts a month at a time. What makes this doubly interesting is that the annual budget procedure is time-limited and, according to Süddeutsche, the consiliation procedure must be concluded by Tuesday. The standard allowance is 14 days. Reuters seems to be enjoying the drama and it tells us that the commission is not getting a lot of sympathy from member states. This, then, is really about which institution is going to blink first, the EU parliament or the council. The commission is just a spectator in this particular process. Anything which adds dissent and confusion to our enemies, however, is all good fun, especially as a second report from Reuters refers to the talks collapsing "in acrimony". This I like, although I suspect the "colleagues" may not be too happy. When it comes to the EU, acrimony is good. COMMENT THREAD Richard North 10/11/2012 |
Energy: coal in decline
Friday 9 November 2012
It is a measure of the decline of a once-great industry that a colleague of mine, on hearing that one of the last pits in Yorkshire is to close, remarked that he was not aware that we still had any pits in God's own country.
But first the BBC and then The Independent remind us of the presence of Maltby colliery near Rotherham in South Yorkshire – Dennis MacShane country – only to tell us that it is indeed going to close. Hargreaves Services, which operates the pit - the scene of some of the biggest pickets in the 1980s strikes - says the it is no longer viable on safety, geological and financial grounds after producing coal for 104 years. About 540 staff were issued with redundancy notices last month. This announcement adds to what is already considered a gloomy week for the mining industry, coming just two days after the Daw Mill mine in Warwickshire had its owners, UK Coal, take a move towards mothballing this operation. At an emergency meeting on Monday, the Independent tells us, K Coal's shareholders voted through a range of measures in an attempt to rescue the struggling group, including splitting off the Saw Mill mine into a separate legal entity, which means it can no longer be subsidised by the group's other mines or its profitable property arm. Once the country's most productive pit, Daw Mill, has been plagued by geological problems, and will now close by 2014 unless production rises and costs come down, putting 800 jobs at risk. The fate of Maltby and Saw Mill are setting the seal on an industry that has been terminal decline since the Thatcher years. In 1913, it delivered 292 million ton of coal and, although by the time of its nationalisation in 1947, annual production had declined to 200 million tons from 1,038 mines, by 1983 its output was aleady down to 120.8 million tons from 308 mines. Last year, we are told, the industry, which was reprivatised in 1994, produced just 17.8 million tonnes of coal at 52 mines and employed just 6,419 people – a monumental decline from the 470,000 workers in the industry in 1947. However, that is by no means the whole picture as, according to government statistics, in 2011 UK coal production increased by 1.1 per cent on 2010. The increase, though, came from open cast mining of 2.6 per cent, which counteracting a decline indeep mined production of 1.1 per cent. On the other hand, coal imports have exceeded UK coal production since 2003. In 2011 UK imports were 33 million tons, an increase of 23 percent on 2010 (27 million tonnes) but a decrease of 36 percent on the 2006 record of 51 million tons. Since 2005, nearly half of the UK's coal imports (mainly steam coal) have come from Russia, with Colombia, Australia, the USA and the Republic of South Africa being the other main suppliers. Russian alone supplied 9.8 million tons in 2010. Demand for coal in 2011 was 52 million tonnes, showing little change on 2010 and, during the last ten years, over 80 percent of demand for coal has been from major power producers for electricity generation with around a further 10 percent used for the manufacture of coke. Now, we look to see a singificant decline, as the EU's Large Combustion Plant Directive kicks in, when by next March, five of our largest coal-fired plants, capable of supplying a fifth of our average power needs, are to be shut down. Yet, UK proven reserves amount to 3.2 billion tons, comprising 2.3 billion underground and 852 million surface reserves. At current rate of consumption, that exceeds 450 years supply. With the hype about shale gas and the propaganda about wind and other renewables, we sometimes forget that Great Britain is still and island of coal and, Common Fisheries Policy notwithstanding, set amid a sea of fish. How remarkable it is that, in a world where 42 percent of electricity is still produced by burning coal, the British industry is in terminal decline. COMMENT THREAD Richard North 09/11/2012 |
EU Referendum: another day, another poll
Friday 9 November 2012
 The actual figures are 49 percent for "out" and 28 percent "in", with 17 percent undecided. That gives an unadjusted majority of 21 percent who want to leave the EU. Of the "decided" vote, we're looking at a 63-37 percent split, giving an overall majority of 26 percent, a considerable improvement on the 48-31 split from the last poll, which gave us that famous 17 percent lead. This latest figure is getting to a level where it just starts to get interesting, not only because it represents a clear shift in sentiment towards leaving, but is almost enough to suggest that we could overcome a status quo effect.
However, this only tells us how the voters might respond to a straight in-out poll, but not how they would react to a rigged poll, where a renegotiation option was offered. On current form, it might be a close-run thing.
Returning to the YouGov poll, this was also carried out in Germany, where the polling went 57 percent in favour of staying in, with only 25 percent saying opting to leave, and nine percent unsure of how they would vote. That is unsurprising, and in the context of Merkel saying she wants "more Europe", gives her something of a boost. Sadly, when it comes to UK polls though, the polsters haven't yet caught up with the reality, seeking to ascertain sentiment should the eurozone go for full political union, leaving the UK in the outer zone. Given a choice between this, and a negotiated exit which kept us in the Single Market, pro temp, I suspect there would be a runaway majority for the negotiated exit. And that is possibly why the pollsters are not asking the question. Instead, YouGov is trying to link the current poll results with the EU budget spat, which is hardly relevant and confuses the issue. But then, that it often the game played, not least because an overwhelming poll in favour of leaving would create its own dynamic. For the time being, though, the poll levels are not enough to get excited about, although, just for once, time is on our side. Mrs Merkel seems to be making sure of that. COMMENT THREAD Richard North 09/11/2012 |
EU politics: Merkel visit – Brussels comes first
Thursday 8 November 2012
 There is one clue in the German media. You can find some details in the broadsheets, such asHandelsblatt, but you have to struggle to find them and most media organs have not updated their stories since yesterday – those few that have them. One concludes that the German media isn't really interested – the story isn't important to them. The Handelsblatt headline, though, is a contradiction in terms. Merkel is going out of her way to create irreconcilable differences – taking the EU places which she knows Cameron can't follow. If we didn't know already, the loss-making Guardian told us all we needed to know of Merkel's pre-visit to the heart of darkness in Brussels, where she addressed the EU parliament, calling for eurozone countries "to surrender key tax-and-spend powers". The Guardian called it a "rare landmark policy speech", in which she voiced Berlin's "absolute determination" to stand by the euro and to strengthen the EU through greater integration of policymaking. When you think that through, and consider the diplomatic implications, for her to reaffirm her commitment to greater integration, immediately before a meeting with David Cameron, whose own party is committed to resisting further integration, is a pretty tactless thing to do. For Merkel then to speak in honeyed words of "overcoming differences" simply doesn't stack up, any more than does her proclaiming that she wants a "strong Britain in the European Union". What European Union? What is Frau Merkel talking about, the Union as it is now, or the Union that she is shaping, the one she knows Britain cannot and will not join? On the other hand, Cameron isn't really taking this seriously either. Having come scooting back, late, from a whirlwind tour of the Middle East, he cannot have been in any fit state to entertain serious talks or make important decisions. What we are seeing, therefore, it not what we're getting. Some papers like the Daily Mail sense, if not understand, the emptiness of the story, and try to jazz it up with pictures of Greece imploding. But that doesn't work. These days, riots and Greece go together like bread and jam – predictable and routine. All that said, the German Chancellor does not come to London for nothing, even if it's via Brussels. Or perhaps she does – perhaps her real purpose was to deliver a message: as far as Germany is concerned, Brussels comes first. And if that is the case, we should have no difficulty framing a suitable response. COMMENT THREAD Richard North 08/11/2012 |
Human rights: a court that can
Thursday 8 November 2012
 Working for seven months as a driver's escort and then a driver, taking vulnerable adults and children to schools and day centres in the Bradford City Council district, he was fired by his employer Serco in 2004, shortly after he had won a seat on Bradford Council, representing the Wibsey ward – home of this blog. His then employer, then and now, is nothing if not strong on corporate BS, claiming to "build respect by operating in a safe, socially responsible, consistent and honest manner". "We never compromise on safety", it says, "and we always operate in an ethical and responsible manner". In like vein, it drools on: "We listen. In doing so, we treat others as we would wish to be treated ourselves and challenge when we see something is wrong. We integrate with our communities". When Redfearn took the company to the undustrial tribunal, however, Serco had claimed that their former employee's activities had been disruptive and offensive to Asian employees. These claims rather fell apart, though, when he lined up ranks of Asian colleagues as character witnesses, also proving that there had been no complaints against him. After they had affirmed that Redfearn had done nothing whatsoever to cause offence, the company rather forgot about the "honesty" bit and changed their story midstream. They then claimed it had fired Redfearn on "health and safety grounds", on the basis that his continued employment could cause considerable anxiety among Serco's passengers and their carers, and there was a risk vehicles could come under attack from opponents of the BNP. Accepting the rather bizarre claims that a man should be fired because people (aka criminals) might attack his vehicle, the tribunal found for Serco. In 2005, though, Redfearn successfully appealed against this decision at an appeals tribunal. Then, in a classic demonstration of just how corrupt our justice system has become, the Court of Appeal found for Serco, on the new grounds that Redfearn's complaint was of discrimination on political grounds and not racial grounds, which fell outside of the anti-discrimination laws. He was refused leave to appeal to the House of Lords. That left Redfearn with no other option but to appeal to the ECHR in Strasbourg, and the ruling has now come down that the British Government was in breach of the convention on human rights, by not intervening on the basis of Article 11 - freedom of assembly and association – the seven judges coming to the conclusion, on a 4-3 majority, that Redfearn had been fired solely because of his membership of a political party. It was further declared that: "The court was struck by the fact that he had been summarily dismissed following complaints about problems which had never actually occurred, without any apparent consideration being given to the possibility of transferring him to a non-customer facing role". Prior to his political affiliation becoming public knowledge, neither service users nor colleagues had complained about Redfearn, who had been considered a "first-class employee", the court said. From the local Telegraph & Argus though, little of this bizarre story actually emerges. Yet Labour MP for Bradford South, Gerry Sutcliffe, is allowed to criticise the decision – and Redfearn is not given an opportunity to comment. Our-freedom-loving MP says that the court failed to take into account of the district’s "diverse community" and thinks Serco "did the right thing" in sacking Refearn. He adds: "I'm sad the European Courts have decided to overturn the ruling because it's not reflective of the make-up of our community where we want to have tolerance of all society. It will re-open old wounds that don't need to be opened". So, in the interests of "tolerance of all society", Mr Sutcliffe believes it entirely in order for BS Serco to lie through its teeth, and that there should be no tolerance for Mr Redfearn when he joins an entirely legal political party. Not content with that, the newspapers launches into its own diatribe, declaring that "it cannot be right for the Strasbourg court to be able to cast aside the legal judgements made in this country that ultimately upheld the decision by Serco to dismiss Arthur Redfearn". Note .. not judgements in general - just this one. The British legal system, it says, "decided that the company were within their rights to sack him because of his membership of the Far-Right party and many would rightfully argue that our courts should be sovereign in this matter". But for the paper and its Asian owners, "the real question" is whether the company should have been allowed to dismiss someone for holding and representing views which could clearly cause offence to his passengers and their families, "particularly as a number of them were Asian". And the answer, the paper says, "must surely be a resounding Yes" - although, presumably, it is happy for white trash to be offended. Fortunately, the Telegraph & Argus is not the law round here, and neither is Jerry Sutcliffe. And those who would wish that UK law was sovereign need also to accept that that, without an updated Bill of Rights and a constitutional court to protect our rights, it would be unsafe to allow British Courts – and even MPs – supreme power. Whatever one might think of the BNP, and however unhappy it is that we are subject to the rulings of the ECHR, the Court found that: "A legal system which allowed dismissal from employment solely on account of an employee's membership of a political party carried with it the potential for abuse and was therefore deficient". That is the issue here, and as long as our courts and political system can't deal with that, then we need an institution that can. COMMENT THREAD Richard North 08/11/2012 |
EU politics: not really trying
Wednesday 7 November 2012
 In what has all the hallmarks of being driven by the Downing Street publicity machine, one sees the emphasis on the multi-annual EU budget negotiations, with Mr Cameron continuing to play to the domestic audience, keeping attention focused on the budget, rather than the broader issues. Tucked in at the end of the BBC report, however, us the short note that, "if no agreement is reached by the end of next year the 2013 budget will be rolled into 2014 with a two percent rise to account for inflation". In other words, come what may, there is going to be an increase … and then there are the supplementary budgets. Reuters, though, does allow for German officials becoming "exasperated" by what they see as "London's slide towards Europe's margins", but it only manages to cite Gunther Krichbaum, head of the German parliament's EU committee. He warns against the island mentality of states like Britain "who want less Europe rather than more". "The European Union is not a multiple choice," he says (which, of course, it is). It is perhaps slightly comforting to learn from this that some of the German commentators are just as dense as their British counterparts, but this time we do get some interesting commentary from this side of the Channel, from Janan Ganesh of the Financial Times who asserts that "Britain and Germany are growing apart". Germany will do almost anything to preserve the euro, he writes, even at its own economic cost. [British] Ministers have long believed that Ms Merkel would sooner turn her back on the eurozone's periphery than underwrite the currency with German money or compromise its view of how the ECB should operate. "Only recently have they shed this delusion", writes Ganesh, although one is not yet sure that the media have entirely caught up. Less helpful is a sub-moronic piece from the Failygraph's favourite crutch, which tells us that "Germany is desperate to ensure that integration does not destroy the single market, which remains an asset". This is golden boy Mats Persson, of the europlastic Open Europe, who confidently tells us that the German "desperation" should include making sure that any eurozone banking union doesn't push the City of London "offshore", which would cut off a facilitator of investment and a gateway to global markets for Germany. There goes the europlastic creed: both London and Berlin support the prudent use of public money, "and oppose the papering over of economic cracks through fast and loose money". Both, we are told, want to boost cross-border trade, in Europe and across the world. And this, if the British Government "stops its misguided lecturing, and advocates that kind of change, it may find it has more friends than it realised". One does enjoy the confidence of such assertions, but only on the basis that one can recognise the "fools rush in" syndrome, where even seasoned and knowledgeable German commentators fear to tread. They fully understand that German sentiment is ridden with factions and there is no such thing as a single, united "Germany", with a single, coherent view. Thus, the problem is misdiagnosed – partly - as Germany and Britain "talking past each other", a viewpoint which ignores the integration dynamics which are driving events in the eurozone. As long as these exist, and the UK is not in the euro, there is never going to be a meeting of minds. But then, Open Europe has its own agenda, which makes it one of the least trustworthy of commentators on the block – but ideally suited for a newspaper which used Janet Daley to forecast the result of the US election. More sanguine analysts will be watching closely to see whether Merkel is prepared to throw Cameron a bone today, which might help him on his domestic crusade. That is the most important issue for him, but Merkel has a general election next year, and she must watch her own domestic audience.
That, possibly to Cameron's discomfort, may help solve the mystery as to why Merkel is really in London later today.
COMMENT THREAD Richard North 07/11/2012 |
Posts
