EU referendum: recognition at last?
Wednesday 12 June 2013
 Richard North 12/06/2013 |
Water: corporate looting gets the Mail treatment
Wednesday 12 June 2013
In a working democracy, there would by now be "questions in the House" and MPs would be agitating on behalf of their constituents, demanding to know why it is that the Secretary of State for the Environment (whose responsibility water pricing is), had allowed such egregious looting by these corporates.
The extent of that looting is difficult to assess but there is at least one reference point – Scottish Water – which remains in public ownership. Its average bill for 2013-14 is about £334 compared withthe average for England and Wales of £388.
With about 28 million households in England and Wales, on domestic charges alone, that represents a differential of about £54 per household, adding up to £1.5 billion. All other factors being equal, it is not unreasonable to project that as a baseline for the overcharge we are paying. And furthermore, the differential is increasing. In 2011, the average Scottish charge was £30 lower, the operation having reduced running costs by almost 40 percent from their historic base. Brummer's "take" on the story, though, focuses of Thames Water, whose board of directors significantly includes Ed Richards, a former member of Tony Blair's policy unit at No 10. It offers, he says, a depressing parable of how the ideals behind the privatisation of Britain's public utilities have been perverted. When Margaret Thatcher embarked on the privatisation of the old post-war nationalised industries three decades ago, the noble intention was to remove the heavy hand of the State, and to impose private-sector discipline on out-of-date and under-funded industries. Instead, Brummer has it that "we consumers" have been betrayed by a terrible combination of boardroom greed, weak regulation, and successive governments which have allowed our public utilities to fall into the hands of foreign owners. The result, he says, is that many of our public services, on which we all depend, are controlled by unaccountable companies based abroad, whose directors and investors seem to show scant interest in the hard-pressed British consumer. In fact, the "betrayal" goes much further. On top of a weak regulatory base, we have the water regulator, Ofwat, which is supposed to control changes. But, through its latest chairman, we find we have been systematically overcharged. It should have been the case that the regulator stepped in earlier, or warned the Secretary of State for the Environment what was happening, but until the advent of Jonson Cox, there has been silence. Then, supposedly representing the consumer interest is the Consumer Council for Water, which tells us that it "strongly represents domestic and business water consumers", but if this is a "watchdog" at work, it goes about its own business with the tenacity of a dying hamster.
Its last critical intervention was in February when, far from calling for reduced charges, amid self-congratulatory bilge, it lamely complained that water companies should be "giving something back" to their customers from higher than expected profits.
But, if there has been a system failure, from top to bottom, perhaps the greatest failure is in ourselves, for tolerating this obscenity, where – as the Mail puts it, largely foreign-owned companies have "ripped off" billions from us. Routinely, we read on our forum pages and elsewhere calls for "action" and complaints that there are no organised activities in which people can partake. But, in this particular instance, there is one obvious and very simple action we can all take against this egregious looting – we simply withhold payment. As we recorded earlier, our more robust forefathers between the wars, tenants in London and Glasgow, faced with predatory landlords, mounted a series of rent strikes, forcing landlords to reduce their charges – but not before huge and prolonged battles with police and bailiffs. Such robust action, however, is not for everyone, but there is graduated action which can be taken at every level, all of which can have a cumulative effect. At the bottom of the rung, one can send a letter to the water company, preferably addressed to the chief executive, complaining about the charges, and demanding a reduction. Those wanting to take the inevitable brush-off further can withhold payments. But that does not necessarily mean refusing to pay. Simply holding off until the final demand makes a statement. Then, paying in odd sums, underpaying by a few pence, and sending the payments to the chief executive's office, without a customer account reference but with a further letter of complaint, all adds to the pressure. In essence, these companies are predators and they will continue to hike their charges until they meet a level of resistance which negates the value of further rises - or until the regulator, buoyed by public protests, finally steps in. This is the "hissing geese" strategy of Colbertian fame. For those with a tougher constitution, there is the option of outright refusal to pay. This takes a steady nerve but, at the end of the process, all the water companies can do is huff and puff. Water disconnections are no longer permitted. This is the route I have taken, and now Yorkshire water asserts that I owe them over £1,500 in back charges and fees. In fact, I owe them no such sum. This is an artificially inflated figure, with court and solicitors' costs, representing corporate bullying by the company as it deliberately seeks to maximise the debt as "punishment" for late payment and as a deterrent to those who might consider taking them on. And all this is in complete breach of the industry code of practice on debt recovery. That the companies ignore. The experience, though, is to be put to good use. My plan is, in due course, is to mount a formal complaint – not to Ofwat or channelled through the consumer patsy, the Consumer Council for Water, but to the Monopolies Commission on the basis of "abuse of monopoly power". There is no hurry on this and our quest might eventually take us to Brussels and the European Commission, which also has powers to carry out investigations. The irony of it all! What would be the best outcome is for the Secretary of State to refer the water industry to the Monopolies Commission, and thus force an investigation, while imposing a moratorium on any further increases. If the so-called "watchdogs" can't do their jobs (and that includes Parliament), then we have to look elsewhere for our remedies. COMMENT: WATER COMBINED THREAD Richard North 12/06/2013 |
EU politics: the avoidance of doubt
Wednesday 12 June 2013
 The measures to which Mr Cameron is prepared to opt-in include the controversial European arrest warrant and measures to share information with countries in the Schengen zone. Apparently, the Conservatives would have preferred that we opted back in to no more than 29 of the 130, giving the an opportunity of claiming an iconic hundred powers had been repatriated. But their Lib-Dem partners wanted to opt in to 70 of the measures, and a compromised has been reached with about 45. Negotiations continue, and ministers hope to drag the overall figure down to about 35 of the measures. Via the Guardian, shadow home secretary Yvette Cooper speaks up for the European arrest warrant. She claims that, "For an 18 year old student, beaten until her eye socket shattered in an attempted rape in Ireland, the European Arrest Warrant helped get justice. Her attacker, Arunas Cervinskas, left Ireland for London, but was returned by the Met three weeks after his Arrest Warrant was issued and is now serving his sentence in an Irish prison". But nothing is said of the arbitrary nature of the warrant, or of the apparent abuses, to say nothing of the fact that there can be no judicial intervention in the UK, even if it is thought that the warrant should not have been issued. However, Britain is expected to press for a "proportionality" test to ensure British citizens cannot be deported to another EU state on relatively minor offences. Polish law, for example, imposes relatively long sentences on offences such as bicycle theft – meaning a UK citizen accused of such a crime could be deported to Poland. Where that gets us is anyone's guess, but we cannot avoid the view that, if Mr Cameron so easily vests powers in the EU when he has no obligation to do so, then the chances of him forcing the issue on more difficult transfers of powers is extremely remote. With his recent "top table" statement, it was already very clear where his sentiments lay and now we seem to be descending deeper into the pit, from which there seems little escape as long as Mr Cameron is in charge. COMMENT THREAD Richard North 12/06/2013 |
EU politics: "Brexit" and trade discrimination
Wednesday 12 June 2013
 This is because, says Global Britain and many more: "Any such discrimination would be illegal under the provisions of the World Trade Organisation (WTO), of whose predecessor the UK was a founder member in 1948". And referring to the WTO website, which can reasonably be taken as an authority on this issue, itdoes tell us that, under the WTO agreements, countries cannot normally discriminate between their trading partners. Grant someone a special favour (such as a lower customs duty rate for one of their products), it says, and you have to do the same for all other WTO members. However, it goes on to say, "some exceptions are allowed". For example, we are told, "countries can set up a free trade agreement that applies only to goods traded within the group — discriminating against goods from outside". This could not be clearer. Countries within a free trade area (for instance) can have preferential arrangements between themselves, which are not available to countries outside the area. This, the WTO site tells us, is accommodated by an updated "understanding" to the original GATT Article XXIV, agreed in 1994, a provision which covers "Regional Trade Unions", of which the EU's customs union is one. What this means is that the EU can – and does – have preferential arrangements which apply only to member states, and which do not apply to countries outside the EU – unless they too have a free trade arrangement with the EU. The meme about the EU and "Brexit" simply isn't true. Should the UK leave the EU, without negotiating a new agreement, perforce we would no longer be part of the customs union, nor part of any free trade agreement. Thus, the UK would no longer benefit from any of the preferential arrangements which applied to members of the respective "clubs". Outside the EU, the UK would be treated exactly the same as any other country which was not part of the customs union, or member of a free trade agreement. Our exports would be subject to stringent controls at the point of entry to the EU (and the EEA generally), tariffs would be payable, where applicable, and non-conforming products would be rejected.
We would, in effect, be treated exactly like, say, North Korea. And that would not be actionable discrimination.
COMMENT THREAD Richard North 12/06/2013 |
Climate change: a world of contrasts
Wednesday 12 June 2013
Temperatures over central Alaska have been 4 to 5ºC colder than usual, making this one of the coldest springs on record for cities like Fairbanks, reports the Alaska Despatch, using NSIDC data.
The low temperatures have been linked to slack winds over central Alaska that have resulted in very little mixing to get rid of the cold air. Subsequently, Alaska's Bering, Chukchi and Beaufort seas have remained largely locked in ice. Yet, on the Atlantic side of the Arctic Ocean, the ice has thawed at a faster-than normal rate so far in 2013, while on the Pacific side, including the waters of eastern Siberia, things are a little behind schedule. Thus, while we get record fishing in the Barents Sea, in Alaska they get the "spring from hell". Closer to home, last year we were inundated by rain, with the "summer that never was". This year, after untypically late snow, we are enjoying something close to summer, while Germany and Hungary get the floods. But, as a possible harbinger, New Zealand is looking forward to a bumper winter with plenty of early-season snow, while some regions have been hit with heavy snowfalls and bitter conditions. And then, for all the hyperventilation about ice loss, Arctic sea ice extent declined at a near-average rate through May, but overall it remained below average compared with the 1979 to 2000 average. May 2013, horror of horrors, was the tenth lowest May for ice cover in the satellite record, coming in at 390,000 square kilometres above the record low of 12.81 million sq km in 2011. Through the month of May this year, extent declined at an average rate of 36,400 sq km per day, slower than the 1979 to 2000 average of 44,100 sq km per day. So, if you can make any sense out of that, you are very brave. Some might venture that it's climate change. But then, doesn't climate always change? COMMENT THREAD Richard North 12/06/2013 |
EU politics: report on "reform" policy
Tuesday 11 June 2013
 While there is a considerable amount of press coverage, not least in the BBC and the Independent, for example, this will not necessarily reflect accurately the content and emphases of the report. Therefore, what I am doing is lodging this as a holding post - thus opening up the forum for comment - while I read the documents and associated press coverage, whence I will write during the course of the day one of my online essays, taking account of comments here and on facebook. The first thing to take from this report, though, is that the inquiry – on which the report is based - was (according to the summary on pg 3) "triggered by the Prime Minister's veto of EU Treaty change at the December 2011 meeting of the European Council". The Committee "felt that the episode might mark a defining moment in the UK's EU policy and place in the EU". However, as readers of this blog know, the Prime Minister did not veto any EU Treaty change, and especially not at the 2011 European Council. There was no treaty to veto, and there had been no IGC convened, at which a veto could have been exercised. Although this error is not fatal to the inquiry – the report is intended to inform the public debate on the UK's EU policy in coming years – it does go to the assessment of the knowledge and competence of the Committee, and thus the value of their report. And when the MPs, from the very start, get something so fundamentally wrong, one is entitled to reserve judgement as to the whether their offerings are worth anything at all. Sticking with the summary (pg 3), the immediate reservations are quickly confirmed, when one sees the Committee "commend the Prime Minister for launching an ambitious agenda for EU reform". Unless someone knows different, it is the case that Mr Cameron has been remarkably reticent about providing any detail of his "agenda", in which context it is very difficult – if not impossible – to ascertain whether it is "ambitious". Thus, while the MPs go on to assert that there some support for some of Mr Cameron's reform ideas around the EU, and there is significant scope for further progress on some of them, they seem to contradict their own statement by acknowledging that the Prime Minister "has not spelled out in any detail the content of the 'new settlement' he might seek". Very quickly, therefore, do we get to a – if not "the" – bottom line, where the Committee concludes that it is "impossible to assess" the likelihood of Mr Cameron securing the kind of "new settlement" for the UK in the EU that he might seek. If we stop there, for a moment, and savour the implications of what has been said, we have to accept that the situation is such that we have no knowledge of what settlement Mr Cameron actually wants, and it is impossible to assess whether he can obtain it. Against that, it is pretty reasonable for the MPs to conclude that "proposals for pan-EU reforms are likely to find a more favourable reception than requests for further 'special treatment' for the UK". As a general principle, this either comes from the Janet & John book on negotiating EU treaties – obviously intended for FCO mandarins – or it might come from the "EU for dummies" volume. Having obviously read the accompanying volume ("EU for complete idiots"), the MPs then confess to being "sceptical" that other Member States would renegotiate existing EU law so as to allow the UK alone to reduce its degree of integration, particularly where this could be seen as undermining the integrity of the Single Market". If it was not for the fact that the Prime Minister has asserted otherwise, we would wonder why such a basic point should be included. But, as a counter to prime ministerial propaganda, it is very helpful, especially when the MPs say: The Government must reckon with the fact that the body of existing EU law is a collective product in which 27 countries have invested. Our sense is that other Member States want the UK to remain an EU Member. However, we do not think that a UK Government could successfully demand "any price" from other Member States for promising to try to keep the UK in the Union.With that out of the way, we are then told that any UK decision as to whether the country should remain in the EU would "to a significant extent be a decision about whether it should remain in the Single Market". And here, the Committee goes badly awry. It agrees with the Government that the current arrangements for relations with the Single Market and the EU that are maintained by Norway or Switzerland would not be appropriate for the UK if it were to leave the EU. If it is in the UK's interest to remain in the Single Market, the MPs say, the UK should either remain in the EU, or launch an effort for radical institutional change in Europe to give decision-making rights in the Single Market to all its participating states. The reasons why this is so wrong are partly rehearsed here, in that the MPs, like the Government, are falling onto the trap (as so many do) of believing that decision-making relating to the Single Market is necessarily conducted at EU level. As we are well aware, much of the standards-setting which comprises the Single Market acquis originates at regional or global level, negotiated upstream of the EU. Secondly, the MPs seem to be working on the assumption that the Norwegian and Swiss models are the same – when they are not. There are very significant differences between the two and the arguments against one would not necessarily apply to the other. Thirdly, the MPs do not seem to have considered the merits of either option as an interim solution, renegotiable at a later stage. Nor do they recognise that, if the UK joined EFTA, this would change the dynamics and balance of the organisation, facilitating precisely the "radical institutional change" that the Committee argues is desirable. Once you go wrong, however, there is a tendency to stay wrong. "Inside the EU, in the face of more far-reaching Eurozone integration", the Committee says, "it could be difficult for the UK and other non-Eurozone Member States to preserve their capacity to shape decisions affecting the Single Market". The point here, of course, is that, since so much of the standards setting occurs outside the EU, the UK might be better placed to shape decisions outside the EU, better indeed than if it remained a member. And if that is the case, then – contrary to the Committee's assertions. the Government has not correctly identified risks, and its strategy of seeking to mitigate it by protecting the rights of non-Eurozone states is ultimately flawed. In concluding its summary, though, the Committee tells us that arguments about the extent of UK influence in the EU, and how it might best be maintained and strengthened, "ran throughout our inquiry". Indeed that is the case, and we have so far read some, but not all of the evidence. As is so often the case with Select Committees, though, the list of witnesses too narrowly cast, and to a very great extent partisan, or limited in scope. The Committee thus came to it conclusions manifestly through having a limited grasp of the fundamentals of EU politics and procedures, and by selecting witnesses (especially those who gave oral evidence) who would give them the answers they wanted to hear, or which would not be challenging to them. This then allows a conclusion that the Government's tone, language and overall approach can have a major impact in sustaining UK influence in the EU – a not untoward finding. But it then tells the Government that it should "frame its approach and language in pan-EU rather than UK only terms, and should remain constructive, positive and engaged". With the former part of that sentence, we would most profoundly disagree. It is no part of the national interest that we should subsume the British interest for the sake of facilitating EU "reforms" that are agreeable to all the other member states. If the UK cannot by any means negotiate a position which the UK would argue is necessary – which is the conclusion of the committee - then the real option is to negotiate our complete withdrawal, and to develop an entirely new relationship. That concludes the essay for now. I will return to the themes raised, in a new post, when I have had a chance to look more deeply at the evidence. COMMENT THREAD Richard North 11/06/2013 |
Wednesday, 12 June 2013
Posts
