The EU debate,- remember Cleggmania?

Remember Cleggmania? Those heady days when with an eye on possible post 2010 General Election Glowering Gordon said several times " I agree with Nick" and there was an outburst of political knicker waving in adulation of the young Clegg throughout the land? It really does seem a long, long time ago now.

Unexcited by his senior coalition partner's speech on a less top down, all controlling future for the EU and  not having heard or understood Cameron's dogwhistle to other members disturbed by a seemingly unstoppable march to undemocratic almost totalitarian political union, the habitually ashen faced boy Clegg today denied his colleague anything like a "I agree with Dave" statement. Instead in his new weekly phone-in session he firstly claimed that the UK was tying itself in knots, exactly the opposite to what Cameron was actually doing in his speech which was about clarity rather than the present confusion over where the EU really aims to go. The lad then went on to say "It is wholly implausible to think rules could be written to benefit us and to disadvantage everyone else". Again this is precisely what Cameron was not saying. He was taking a firm and decisive urging that the rules be rewritten to advantage everybody, thereby bringing the issue of the EU's self imposed burden of ever increasing, expensive and restrictive over regulation and centralised control of even the minutiae of life into the open. Nothing could have been clearer.There was no suggestion of disadvantaging everyone.

Charitably we therefore have to conclude that Mr Clegg, exhausted by the weight of his governmental responsibilities, must have nodded off at crucial moments during the 40 minute speech. Fair enough, these things happen. If not, and he was awake and listening carefully throughout, he has much more disturbingly shown a failure to grasp what was actually being said. Surely not for a man of his intellect and public school background ? Alternatively it could just be that to a good LibDem someone must always be being disadvantaged by almost anything done or proposed by anyone so his mind simply went into auto-disadvantage and out came the statement,- just like that. Couldn't help himself.

In shying away from reforms of the vast EU burocracy, of which he was once an enthusiastic part, and of what it does and how it does it and  by opposing a referendum Clegg is in effect saying "We must go with the flow and take what comes even if it is an almost total loss of sovereignty and real democracy." Even worse, he is saying to the electors "You of course are too thick to understand all that is involved so you must leave it to the politicians and officials to decide". In the words of a switch selling expert in a fast talking Hong Kong shop "You like this one" which means of course "This is the one you are going to get".

In another corner of the strange,contrary and even intellectually arrogant and intolerant world of the LibDems, they are supporting a Labour private members' proposal for the lowering of the voting age to 16. "Much more democratic " they say. That is code for "Young people tend to be much more hazily idealistic and therefore likely to vote for us", a belief long shared by the Labour Party which is why they advance it. It honours a LibDem election promise. Those promises look as far away as "I agree with Nick" . Another undertaking at the start of the coalition was to support Conservative moves to action the most recent review of constituency sizes and number by equalising  the numbers of voters in each . Very democratic but since reneged on by the Clegg in pique at the further reform of the House of Lords having been set aside.

One thing new 16 year old voters need to know up front as an intellectual reality check and health warning is that the neither of the words Liberal nor Democrat on the tin necesarily represent what is inside. Now what about some new labelling laws and an overhaul of the Trades Description Act as a new cause Nick? Are you with us?

Snow wipes out wimp out Britain

Yes, it's that time of year. With the exhaustion of the Christmas and New Year holidays behind us, less than three weeks later comes,-with plenty of warning,- a few days of snow, most of it in low or moderate quantities rather than in blowing dix foot drifts.

"No problem" you might say or think ," The indomitable Britsh spirit in the face of adversity honed through centuries of heroic defeats will see the country through".

Well, no actually. A new spirit walks the land. One of risk aversion, taking the safe and boring option. No more heroic fighting on the beaches, struggling to get to work through thick and thin and making sure eveything gets done and nobody is let down. We just don't do that anymore.

Britain's key business airport and alleged global hub, Heathrow , no longer sets out to fly the plan even if it takes into the wee small hours and a waiver of the night jet ban.  It orders the precautionary cancellation of flights regardless of how the weather actually turns out on the day. Then some airlines,- a very big one in particular,- heap on a few more just to be sure/have rear ends covered. "People would  rather know in advance they are going nowhere" says the voice of "We're not even going to try". Actually said people just want to get on with their travels. The airport and airlines' task is to enable that to happen, and safely. It's been done in the past, even at a near saturated airports. It is elsewhere. Why not now? It's all about attitude and the bulldog having become a cosseted poodle.

The disease is not confined to airports. Next step forward the schools and timorous health and safety obsessed head teachers worried about whether a car might skid into the bus queue, the playground gates or heaven forbid, the admin office. Never mind the huge problems posed to parents, working ones especially and the self employed in particular. "We're not babysitters" says one teacher quoted by the Times. "Well amongst other things you actually are" should be the answer of any head with a firm grip, "Whatever your mean minded unions may say. You  have an inalienable responsibility to your customers,- that's parents and children both".

The local health centre says its computer system , a scandalously expensive public sector disaster in the first place, should be fixed for this week "if the contractors can get here safely". Who  are these contractors that they havent heard of 4 x 4s, winter tyres, good old fashioned chains or any other means of getting to a comfortable, warm, inside job. Do they not feel a responsibility to get to their customer and meet their obligations unless they are buried under an avalanche. (unlikely on main roads in a flat part of the home counties)? The answer is apparently "No" and their nice succulent taxpayer funded contract can wait another day or two if they'd rather go sledging with the school-less kids instead. Maybe they did turn up. I'd ask the health centre if they could get around to answering their phone. Maybe that's buried under the snow too.

And so it goes on. The really unfortunate part of the saga is that the message to many of the next generations is that going for it is off.

Bring on more Poles.

An easy question for Cameron,- but will he complicate it?

Today's now delayed much trailed and pre-critiqued (pre-whinged in the case of Ed Miliband) speech by David Cameron of his thoughts on Britain's future within or without the EU and whether or not a referendum on the subject will eventually be held should be a simple task.  Unfortunately the Conservative Party's form is to present sensible policies and projects disastrously thereby snatching a PR disasters from what should be easy winners.

The big speech is already being slated by opponents of all sorts as being about Britain alone slagging off the concept of the EU in the face of a united front of all the other members. Cameron should not have allowed himself and Britain to be positioned in this way. It's not what the question is all about and he should say so very clearly.

The fact is that there have always been two separate visions of what the EU is and should be all about. It's become a very old elephant in the room and needs bringing into the open. Unfortunately Europe is not full of leading politicians prepared to surface it although a number clearly do behind closed doors.

Firstly the original concept of the Common Market was a free trade area amongst European nations. This is what British citizens voted for in the orginal referendum and that is the only democratic public mandate any government has ever had. No more no less.

Secondly there is the much more extensive sub plot always espoused by France and Germany, partly as a defensive measure to stop them ever again trying to knock six bells out of each other on the one hand and to jointly dominate wider European politics and economics on the other by the creation of a single European superstate. This was never agreed by the United Kingdom's electors and is unlikely to be. It would probably get the thumbs down from most of the EU's other voters too if they were ever asked. Most of their governments however have no intentionto do that.

For at least the past two decades politicians and Eurocrats have tried to ignore the fact that one day the question of who wanted which ,or neither, of the options would have to be faced.

Cameron should now be saying, not that he is at war with anyone, but the time has come when all European nations must face the the choices and declare what it is that they really truthfully ( a difficut word for politicians and officials alike) want.

The reality is that there are two groupings, possibly with 26 in one and 1 in the other. How many are in which doesn't really matter. Nor does talk of a two tier or two speed EU. There is no reason that the Superstate group should not do their thing and the Common Market people theirs with a bridge of a free trade area linking the two. There is also no reason why either group should out of political pique put up trade and taffiff barriers against the other. Restricting trade does nobody's economy any good .Free trade areas are growing between countries of vastly different political and social character without talk of political alliances so why should a diference within Europe be a problem?

By giving four years notice of a referendum, Cameron is in reality opening a debate in which all EU members should take part about whether from here on they want to go for option 1 or option 2, or again neither. It should not be positioned or positionable as a hostile move of UK v the rest. It should be labelled as a "Let's each take stock and then decide individually which option we want to take" moment with an end date of  2018.

All we need now is for Cameron to seize the initiative by talking in these terms rather than place himself and the UK on the defensive by presenting the debate as a great confrontation. Will he? Past experience is not encouraging. Those of a nervous disposition may have to watch his speech from behind the sofa.

  

"Britain needs to be in the EU" = "USA Needs Someone to Talk to in EU"

That exemplary purveyor of selfless and unbiased advice and "assistance" to the world, the USA, has through its emissary Philip Gordon pronounced that it would be better for Britain, its influence in the world and importance to the USA ,if it helpfully remained in the EU.

His utterances in London were immediately seized upon by Danny Alexander, Labour's shadow minister for deeper integration with loss of sovereignty as living proof that questioning deeper integration and ultimately a democracy-choking federal state with a disastrous single currency is in some way a sign of dementia. Mr Alexander also seized upon an open letters from sundry British businessmen and the CBI urging the government not to risk changing its relationship with the Union. They warn that the business sky would fall in. They, along with the friendly man from America should  be disregarded as vested interests saying what one would expect them to say as is their right. The UK though is a major market for the EU regardless of whether it is in or out of the Union or an assosciate member. Why would Europe risk losing that business by putting up barriers to British exports?  The reality is that Britain has hugely under exploited its exporting potential worldwide for decades. There is plenty more to go for around the world even if Europe did go through a tetchy spell. Even in the colonial days of Hong Kong the UK was usually totally outsold in almost every sector by other European, American, Australian and Asian companies. Its businesses just didn't make the right and consistent efforts. Similar reports come in from all over the world.

All the toothsucking and head nodding by various pundits including  courtesy of the Europhile and Toryphobe BBC over the past 24 hours along the lines of the UK must not risk not being at the centre of Europe (it isn't in it anyway) or losing its influence (it has none,- all the important discussions and decisions are taken when it's out of the room) is predicable politicised nonsense.

Four things re key in the "debate" or whinging and handwringing of the past 24 hours.

Firstly America finds it difficult to genuinely get along with anyone else in Europe. They don't speak the same language in any respect. There is mutually little trust. That's why they need the UK in there as someone they can talk to, who can tell them what's going on and bat for them. From their point of view that's fair enough.

Secondly, Socialists and therefore the Labour Party will always love Europe warts and all .The continent is fundamentally socialist with a culture of welfare dependency which favours socialist voting at elections.

Thirdly, Europe is deeply suspicious of the perfidious British always being driven by their own interests rather than the warm, fuzzy, democracy stifling illusion of "solidarity".

Fourthly the real agenda of the "European Project" has always been a united federal state with individual countries, the maverick UK in particular, rendered virtually powerless.  That has never been an agenda accepted by the British people and probably never will be. The UK has always wanted a trading, not a political union. That is the real difference between British and European views and is what politicians have always been afraid to say/admit.

It would be much healthier for all if the elephant were honestly indentified and new agreements and treaties put in place to recognise the truth, stop agonising over it and get on with trading and creating wealth ( screams from the left,- they don't like wealth or prosperity especially for everyone. What appeal would they have if there wasn't enough misery about?). Britain should courteously but determinedly steer its own political course and the core of the EU do the same while both remain open to free trade between the two. Happiness and lack of aggro all round. All too simple?

UK's Railways,- HS 2. More Conservatives across the line.

Today's Sunday Times has published what it claims will be the twin Y shaped routes of Britain's proposed high speed line north of the first London-Birmingham stage. The official government announcement is expected shortly.

Just as stage one continues to face highly emotional and state funded opposition from the mainly (very) Conservative and conservative constituencies lying along its route, the essential northern extensions are facing the same sort of noise wherever faced with similar well heeled constituencies and constituents further north. This is despite different "we want it here" clamouring from points further north . The divergence of approach illuminates well the north/south divide. In the affluent Chilterns any talk of the national interest or the needs of the north cuts little ice. There is simply little interest in anywhere much further up the country than the fashionable Cotswolds. Even the wealthy rural Cheshire enclave, the home of much northern brass and pretty much the furthest outpost of the Tory party, is considered not quite "one of us".

No surprise then that the Sunday Times reports the Conservative Mayor of Cheshire East as declaring "We don't want HS 2 coming through our part of Cheshire. We would very strongly resist it". No doubt they will but  hopefully for the future of British rail capacity and ease of travel to, through and within the midlands and north and ultimately Scotland, the robust Transport Secretary Patrick McLoughlin will listen but continue to hold his course and drive his bulldozer forwards so that actual construction can begin. Ideally that should be earlier than the currently planned 2016 date.

The UK's air, rail and road transport systems have suffered from political paralysis for decades .Wasted opportunities (expansion of London airport capacity) and road and rail congestion pile up by the year. Air traffic diverts away to Amsterdam and Paris and, more distantly, to the newly dynamic Gulf. Labour's Lord Adonis, ironically a former Liberal Democrat, had at last got a grip on things between 2008 and the 2010 General Election.  Unusually enthusiastic about his portfolio, something seldom appreciated in a Minister, he was firmly pushing ahead on Heathrow's third runway. He  had also launched HS 2 as well as kicking off the beginnings of what is now a major programme of rail electrification. The latter is the easiest to deliver as with few exceptions it can be done without the laborious process of getting planning permission. Building work and hardware are already beginning to appear.

There is much to be done to make all areas of UK's transport infrastructure fit for at least the 25-50 year timescale future, a thing itself may well be beyond the lifetime of many of the "Say No To...." campaigners. Sadly this may explain their lack of interest in it.  "Localism" and the devolution of the ability to stop anything down to the level of a local coffee shop happening is all very well but there are times when it has to be put and even pushed aside. Fortunately by the look of it, Mr McLouglin will listen to everyone , make a few costly alterations, and then drive on.