Brexit: costs of withdrawal are a bargain
Thursday 1 August 2013
 .Nevertheless, one particular piece on the EU from the English media has come my way, this fromAnthony Hilton in the Evening Standard, who looks at the business response to the leaving the EU. His trite comments seem typical of the breed – one of those who is evidently unable to understand the essence of human aspiration. Only thus could he dismiss the arguments for leaving the EU as "emotional rather than economic", with not a mention of the word "democracy" or the idea of self-governance, or even self-determination. It is as if the UN Charter had never existed. This is yet another reason why we cannot allow the other (friend or foe) to frame the debate. Ultimately, this issue is about democracy. Neither economics nor anything else can be allowed to justify continued EU membership, when what is at stake is our ability to govern ourselves. Hilton is telling us, though, that there is an " interesting split" in the City between foreign-owned firms, whose views broadly reflect the opinions of the leaders of the United States, of Japan and even of Australia who have all come out strongly in favour of the UK staying in. This contrasts with "some British firms" where you tend to find UKIP supporters — or the far more numerous Conservatives with views indistinguishable from UKIP. It is there that you get the "emotional rather than economic" views in support of leaving. These people, says Hilton, are far more vocal about why they want to leave the EU than they are about how Britain will earn its living once it has severed its ties with what remains the world’s biggest and richest single market. It is notable to, adds Hilton, that there is a greater willingness among "pro-European" businessmen to air their views. Nine months ago few wanted to stick their head above the parapet, saying it was a political rather than a business issue. But as they have come to realise — with the rise of UKIP — that there is a genuine threat to Britain's continued membership, they and their trade associations seem much more willing to make the case for staying in. This much we have already noticed, with the flow of FUD intensifying, not least in yesterday's Daily Mail, where we see a poll from the British Chambers of Commerce, which has nearly three-quarters of 4,000 "company bosses" in the UK wanting a referendum on EU membership, while a majority - 61.4 percent of respondents - wants Britain to remain in the EU with powers transferred from Brussels to Westminster. But, says Hilton, if there is common ground between those who assume we should stay in and those who want out, it is in the desire to escape from regulation emanating from Brussels. This is getting repetitive to the point of tedium, but the level of ignorance is even more enervating, as Hilton tells us that "those who have looked closely into the matter" conclude that if we did leave we would still have to enact the bulk of EU regulation. This is the case, he says, with Norway — which has a kind of associate status some UK members say we should seek to emulate — and even with Switzerland which, though outside, is quick to enact equivalent laws. Yesterday, in Norway, I was talking to Helle Hagenau, International Officer of the country's "no" campaign, of whom more later today. Quick to point out that Norway was an independent state, not an EYU "associate", sShe told me of her view that the debate on the globalisation of trading regulation had barely started in the UK. Here we have an example of just that, where a commentator is still locked in the "little Europe" of yesteryear, the one in which "Europe" used to make the regulations. Hilton still thinks that, if we left the EU, UK firms would have to comply with all sorts of laws they had no part in drafting, not realising that so much of the regulation we are seeing originates from global standards-setting bodies, in which most of the independent trading nations participate – with the exception, of course, of EU member states, who defer to the commission when it comes to making their laws. One of these days, way behind EU Referendum readers, these gilded hacks will get the point – one also visible to our Norwegian friends. But so far behind the curve are they that it has not yet begun to dawn on them. Yet these are the people who would presume to keep us informed. One point to which Hilton does draw attention, though - which has a little justice - is one made by partners in the big UK law firms. This is, quite simply, that EU and British law have evolved together for the past 40 years and disentangling one from the other now, though not an impossible task, "would be genuinely daunting and hugely costly". Daunting it is, although the costs could be contained if we took a gradual approach. But, says Mr Know-it-all Hilton, this "would deliver no obvious benefit". Once again, there is no mention of democracy. This clearly has no benefit or value - it is just "emotional" baggage. What perhaps this ghastly man needs to understand is that, in the longer term, no form of government other than democracy is sustainable – simply because law made without the consent of the people lacks legitimacy and will, in the fullness of time, be rejected. He and the cohorts need to understand that the cost difference is one between restoring an element of democracy and rebuilding a system that has collapsed entirely. In that context, the costs of disentangling ourselves from the EU would prove to be a bargain. COMMENT THREAD Richard North 01/08/2013 |
FOI: What fun!
Thursday 1 August 2013
Very often I find myself under-employed at work so I have invented a fun new game. Every lunchtime I dream up an FOI request and pick a council at random.
Last week I put in an FOI request to Lincolnshire County Council asking them to detail all roles with salaries over £70k by year for the last ten years. The results were predictably depressing. In 2005 there were only 5 such roles (totalling £452,958) with the CEO earning £91,422. Fast forward to 2013 and there are 25 roles over £70k with the CEO taking £173,226. The sum of roles over £70k in 2013 is £2,077,998. You can now see why they need to close libraries to save £2m. COMMENT THREAD Peter North 01/08/2013 |
Norway: "We do not need Brussels to tell us what to do"
Wednesday 31 July 2013
Anne Tvinnereim (above) is an unusual politician by any standards. Now state secretary for the Ministry of Local Government and Regional Development, at the age of 15 she was catapulted into politics to fight the "no" campaign on European Union membership. One way or another, she has been in politics ever since.
Her portal into the fray was Norway's Centre Party – a political grouping that could roughly be equated with Britain's Lib-Dems, except that the comparison doesn't even begin to do it justice. From its agrarian base in 1920, as a Farmers' Party, it has transformed itself into a true champion of localism, committed to the decentralisation of the state. Having broken free of its founding ideology, since 2009 it has shared power with the Labour Party, in a Red-Green coalition. From the very first, in 1972, the Centre Party has been opposed to membership of the European Union. And to fight the 1994 referendum, the entire "no" campaign was led by Anne Enger Lahnstein, then leader of the Centre Party. Following the referendum, young Anne Tvinnereim joined the Party's Youth Organisation's Political Committee and has since climbed through the ranks. She became a member of the Party's Central Executive Committee in 2000 and leader of its youth organisation, also becoming a Council member of "No to the EU" in 2001. The year 2003 saw Anne as deputy member of the Party's Central Executive Committee and in 206, she was appointed as political adviser to the Norwegian Ministry of Transport and Communications, becoming state secretary in 2011. With a general election due in September, she is looking forward to the fight against a resurgent Conservative Party. We met in the penthouse conference room of the stylish offices of the Ministry of Local Government, overlooking the very spot where Anders Breivik had detonated his bomb, almost exactly two years ago (below). This provoked a moment of sombre reflection. That he was one of us, a Norwegian, shocked us all, said Anne, in a pause for reflection. Down to business, a confident Anne, radiating warmth and friendliness, instructed us that she was a politician, speaking strictly for her Centre Party. She could not give us a professorial dissertation on the state of Norway and nor could she speak on behalf of the Norwegian government – her answers would be "partial". And indeed they were, direct, to the point, reflecting her strongly-held political values.
Our interest was the intervention of Norwegian politicians in the British debate EU membership debate, and especially the comments of Espen Barth Eide, Norway's current foreign minister in the coalition government, of which Anne Tvinnereim is a member.
 Back in December last, Eide (pronounced eider, as in the duck) had told the BBC that UK should assess the advantages of staying in the European Union, rather than consider leaving. Oslo, said Eide, had "limited scope for influence", telling BBC Radio 4's The World This Weekend that, "We are not at the table when decisions are made". "We are a coalition government", Anne explained. Eide could say such things in his capacity as a party politician, but that did not mean the Centre Party agreed with this position. It did not. His comments and the many like them from EU supporters, had caused much debate in Norway. His was not the majority position of the people. Anne hotly disputed the claim that the Norway had no influence over EU law. "It is true that we are not there when they vote", she said, "but we do get to influence the position". Explaining the simple facts of international relations, she told us, "Most of the politics is done long before it [a new law] gets to the voting stage". The Norwegian government, Anne said, tries to influence legislation at an early stage, so we "totally disagree" with Eide's position. "He does not represent the Norwegian debate". Asked why Eide should make such statements, Anne explained at length, clarifying an often confusing position. People like Eide, who support the EU, she said, haven't given up. There may be no chance of Norway joining in the near future, but they are looking ahead, perhaps to twenty years, when they hope that the situation will change. Not only do they want the EU to succeed, they need the UK to continue with its membership of the EU. If the UK did leave, it would weaken the Norwegian europhile position and vastly strengthen the "no" campaign, especially if Britain joined EFTA. They are protecting their own position. "Would Norway want Britain in EFTA?", I asked. After all, Norway was the biggest, most powerful current member of this trading bloc. Wouldn't it lose out if a much bigger, more powerful UK joined? "Of course not", Anne exclaimed, looking at me as if I had uttered something about the Pope not being a Catholic. "It would be in the Norwegian interest to have Britain in EFTA". If one could speak in capitals, she just did. Britain would be very welcome on EFTA. In fact, if Britain left the EU and joined EFTA, "that would be fantastic". The point was that Norway had joined the EEA, in order to be part of the Single Market. This had brought many economic advantages. But there were disadvantages – no one disputed that. And there were concerns about democracy and the "democratic deficit" in the relationship with the EU. But Anne and her colleagues did not regard the current EFTA/EEA agreement as the end state. With Britain alongside, she said, we would be that much more powerful, and would be able to negotiate a better deal. She was very conscious that Norway already had a veto and was able to block EU law, the so called "right to reservation", but she wanted to go further. She would like to see the EEA agreement changed, so that EU proposals no not automatically become law. Would she like a situation where the whole EEA, including EFTA members, decided on what became law, I asked. "Yes", she said, but it would need Britain to help get such a change. We need Britain in EFTA. As to joining the EU, this is not even a question worth entertaining. Anne Tvinnereim, Minister and a politician who is going places, would not hear of it. She was very, very conscious of Norway's heft on the international stage. She had had dealings with foreign affairs as Senior Executive Officer in the WTO Section at the Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs for a tear in 2005-6 and became First Secretary at the Royal Norwegian Embassy in Maputo, from 2007 to 2011. Norway's weight at the United Nations, we would not want to give up she says.
Already, they find that Sweden, which as a member of the EU, has to vote with the common position, informally asks Norway to represent a different position, because it no longer has a voice. And to lose our independent voice over the Arctic, she says, would be a disaster.
And there was the "d" word. Our politicians tells us that leaving the EU and becoming like Norway would be a "disaster". Anne Tvinnereim thinks not. For her, joining the EU would be a disaster. Britain leaving, and joining in EFTA would be "fantastic". This, we like to feel, is the authentic voice of Norway. Young, fresh, vibrant and forward-looking, this is a country that knows what it is and where it wants to be. Outside the EU, it is looking for equal partners. "We do not need Brussels to tell us what to do", says Anne. And how could we disagree? COMMENT: OSLO THREAD Richard North 31/07/2013 |
Norway: the survival of a working farm
Wednesday 31 July 2013
 The machine pictured is being used to screen topsoil delivered from building sites and elsewhere in Norway. It will provide clean material to cover backfill being used to turn a derelict area into a productive part of the farm. This is but one of the activities in this picturesque corner of Norway, where Odd-Einar Hjordnes, a 40-year-old organic farmer, is running a 22-cow dairy unit, and 70 beef cattle on 50 hectares, 35 of which is forest and 15 grazing land. The farm has been in his family's hands for over a hundred years, and he has been farming since he was a child, so Odd-Einar cheerfully admits he is a "novice". He leaves his father to thunder up the narrow lane to the farm in a giant, six-wheel tipper truck, delivering the next load for the reclamation project. The reasons this makes sense is that farmland, as opposed to forestry, comprises less than three percent of the land area in Norway. Every scrap of land is needed, and there is none to waste in a country which is less than forty percent self-sufficient in food.  But for the decision by the Norwegian nation in 1994, however, when there was an overwhelming vote against joining the European Union, Odd-Einar believes that the work would not have been worth doing. In fact, it could not have been done at all. His farm would no longer exist, and many of the 5,000 small farmers in the region would not exist either. Odd-Einar knows most of these farmers well. He is the regional chairman of his county's farming union. Many of their farms are of a similar size to his, and they are typical of the farms around the capital in a land where, as late as 2007, 60 percent of farms comprised less than 20 hectares. Without the protection and the support from the Norwegian agricultural system, he believes they would not be economic. And, despite relatively high food prices locally, he and his colleagues simply would not be able to compete against the more "efficient", low cost producers in the EU. One of the major problems for Norwegian farmers is the very economic success of the country, which has benefitted from the oil and gas bonanza. But that has driven up wages and prices, at a far faster rate than food prices, forcing small units like his to struggle to survive. To keep the countryside populated and the widely scattered farms working, therefore, Norway has to tailor its farm support system specifically to the special conditions in the country. It is no use expecting their farmers to amalgamate their lands, creating the large farms that are the bedrock of profitable agriculture elsewhere on the EU. As you can see when flying over the country, even in the southern parts around the capital, fertile land only comes in penny packets, narrow fields in tiny clefts. Most land, capable only of supporting the ever-present pines, is scraped almost to the bare rock by historic ice, leaving only the random deposits of fertile soil to sustain the nation's agriculture. In a proudly independent country, though, there is no reluctance to support the agricultural base. The farming union carries out an annual poll to assess public attitudes to farming, and the support regime remains consistently popular. There is no suggestion that farmers are featherbedded. Odd-Einar certainly could not be accused of having it easy. He enjoys his lifestyle and the freedom - and the beautiful surroundings. But there are few material rewards. He estimates his income at £11,500 a year, where the average national wage is in the region of £37,000 per annum. 
As county chairman, he concedes that keeping in touch with politicians is a vital part of his role. There, he is most grateful that Norway never joined the EU. Although the country is part of the European Economic Area (EEA) and thus takes part in the Single Market, the Norwegians have no part of the Common Agricultural Policy.
"Most people in Norway", he says – and not just the famers – "think it is far enough to go to Oslo to see their government in action. They don't want to have to go to Brussels to talk to their politicians". Then confirming that the level of support from Brussels is a crucial issue, reminding us that, with just EU levels of support, "this farm would not exist", he goes on to rail at the Norwegian politicians who continue to advocate membership of the EU. These politicians are different from people who work, Odd-Einar declares. We have very practical views of the world, but the elites are not concerned with the needs of the people. It would have been very strange, he adds, if the referendum result had been the other way around: it would have been "very rude" of us to have raised the question again, but they don't seem to feel any restraint at bringing up membership again and again. Those politicians, he tells us, often claim that Norway has "no say" in the making of the rules that we get from the EU. But, says Odd-Einar, "many of the rules are not made in Europe at all. They are global". And thus is was, nearly 20 years from the last Norwegian referendum on joining the EU, farmers are as firmly against joining now as they were then. A small band of politicians does not change. But the EU membership is not on the agenda. Odd-Einar is convinced that there will not be another EU referendum in the foreseeable future. They would not win, he says flatly, and as long as we want to survive as farmers, we cannot let them. But the last word must go to former Foreign Minister Jonas Gahr Støre. "While our agriculture may be small in its economic share", he said, "agriculture is vital in many other respects beyond food production, employment, economics and environment, not the least by constituting the spinal cord of our rural communities". This is why, the Norwegian minister said, "we need a result that is not tailored along the red lines of somebody else, but a package that will enable us to maintain a viable agricultural sector all throughout our long-stretched country". COMMENT: OSLO THREAD Richard North 31/07/2013 |
The pain of austerity
Wednesday 31 July 2013
 I'm certainly not going to lose any sleep over today's announcement that Bristol Council is to shed up to 1800 jobs over three years. That is more housekeeping than "austerity". Though it is good to see they have their priorities right. Worry ye not. They have your best interests at heart. COMMENT THREAD Peter North 31/07/2013 |
Posts
