The EU and Britain- The simple issues.

For anyone groping for the nub of the problem Britain has always had with the EU, French President Francois Hollande has cone up with a quick reference statement giving absolute clarity.

"Initiatives for Europe must first be agreed between France and Germany".

There it is pure and simple.

The second issue is that whereas France and Germany both aim at an eventual political union into a kind of United States of Europe, initially probably federal and eventually centralised, Britain has never wanted more than a Common Market. That, apart from De Gaules' original veto of British membership is why Britain was much happier for a while to go with the alternative European Free Trade Area (EFTA). Unrealistic fears of exclusion from European markets led to the UK eventually seeking,-and gaining,- membership of the EU. This also resonated well with the British political left who saw it as the way to almost indelibly impose European based socialism on the country's society and economy.

Since joining the EU the question of eventual union has been the largely unspoken of elephant in the British living room. Politicians have left the issue under the carpet and remained in denial that EU legislation and other moves have been moving inexorably in a federalist direction leaving national parliaments increasingly in roles akin to those of large county councils.

Unless it gets to grips openly and publicly with the issues soon , the UK will find itself at the eleventh hour and fifty ninth minute that in its state of denial it has sleep walked it into an imminent political union. That's why the pressure is on for a Referendum. Unfortunately the way the issue has been tacked makes UK calls for renegotiation of treaties make it look isolationist and in conflict with the EU itself. A far better approach would be for it to declare itself pro-EU but a different EU in which a free trade and generally cooperative area and not political union the ultimate objective. Many other European nations, especially the Nordics, would be also be much happier with this than living under Mr Hollande's Franco-German superstate. Even Mrs Merkels and her electorate probably don't fancy living under or even alongside Mr Hollande.

British cancer cure rates low,- we design it that way.

British cancer survival and cure rates are some of the lowest in Europe . They are way below what could reasonably expected in a country whose National Health Service is second only to the Chinese military as the world's largest employer.

Why? No doubt large numbers of people across the NHS and in large government buildings will be looking into this question.

They don't have to look far for one basic fact.

The state's monopoly supplier of free health care has a target of  commencing treatment within 62 days,- that's two months,-of diagnosis. The simple fact is that every day lost in getting it under way can see the cancers grow or spread . This seriously diminishes the chances of a favourable outcome. The patients' chances of survival decrease by the day.

This is nothing to do with "the cuts". It's about processes, a lack of sense of urgency, administrative inefficiency, poor systems and systems management.

There is no non-human reason why the UK should be down there with the worst in Europe. The problem is that humans design and allow it it to be.

Midnight in the Gulf. A British politician's nightmare?

Britain's Foreign Secretary, William Hague, recently transited Dubai on his way home from a conference overseas.

Unfortunately he and his entourage were almost certainly whisked off the aircraft , away from the crowds, and straight into the VVIP lounge, to await their onward flight in opulent isolation. 

Like many politicians and even leading business people who travel the world but see and feel  nothing, they would have benefitted enormously from having instead sat in one of the coffee shops in the impressive, no expense spared glitzy main body of the building and surveyed the scenes around them. They would have found it a lot more interesting than the sterilised world of the lounge. While stirring their lattes they would have found that, even in the middle of the night, they were looking out at an endless stream of the world's population from its business people and professionals, holidaymakers to its contract workers of all descriptions criss-crossing the terminal and the world between flights north, south, east and west. Rich, poor, genders, occupations, nationalities, colours, religions. They are all there with a multitude of purposes. They have come from somewhere but need or want to be somewhere else, to find a job, make money,support or build better futures for their families, go on holiday, attend a family or business gathering, or just go home. Some are elated, some sad, some fresh and ready to go, others tired from long hours already spent en route .The dynamics of the world are on view as people stream and swirl around the terminals, escalators, shops, cafes,information desks. Around it all is energy, determination and a sense of purpose. And it's midnight or later.

Just lifting their eyes to the 24/7/365 departure boards would have been an education for the party too. Flights leaving all day and all night in a steady stream. Lists of destinations unknown to even Europe's busiest airports. The penny/cent might have dropped. You can go from almost anywhere in the world to almost anywhere else with just the one stop and a minimum of hassle via Dubai or increasingly its near neighbours, Abu Dhabi and Doha. And overtaking on the inside track there is fast growing Istanbul now the gateway to more international destinations than any other airport in the world.

Having taken this all in, Mr Hague and party might not have slept so well on the onward flight to London, timed of course so as not to get there during the night curfew. Had they dropped off , nightmares about interminable planning processes, everlasting environmental objections and debates including concerns about bats, newts, anything other than the human need to do business and to travel, all leading to unlikely-to-ever-to-be built 3rd runways at the world's former greatest international hub might have woken them up screaming in frustration and in a cold sweat. But then they might not. The civil servants in particular might have been breathing sighs of relief that nothing was likely to happen in their lifetime. To many of them that's what a successful career looks like.

Why we are so quiet,-They're all very dull.

Twiga apologises for the gap between this post and the last. One reason is that politics and reactions to them almost everywhere have been predominantly dull. Here in the UK is no exception and the blame must go right to the top. Until the end of the Gordon Brown era comedian Rory Bremner did a great line in takeoffs of our dear leaders and aspirant leaders. He did a superb Tony Blair and Gordon Brown although he struggled with Her Majesty's (loyal?) opposition under David Cameron. He just didn't find enough to work on there. The lights were clearly out. Then came the May 2010 General Election. Brown didn't have a majority,hing on for a weekend and after a weekend's hesitation understood the figures didn't add up in any direction ,- just as the economic ones hadn't for several years -and then did the walk of shame. Cameron rode into Downing Street, accompanied by something less than mass hysteria, having signed up ashen faced Nick Clegg as his LibDem coalition partner . Some weeks later, defying the assumption that David Miliband would square up to them across the dispatch box, New Labour was replaced by New old Labour when his union backed fratricidal younger brother Ed, previously a bag carrier to Brown and allegedly the tea maker for his boss and more senior colleague Ed Balls. None of these three "leaders" is charismatic. In fact all three are definately not so to the extent that they are verydifficult to parody. They themselves do a better job at that than anyone else could. Hence Bremner's self awarded P45.

Against the background of the electorate having basically said "We don't much care for any of you, however good or bad and whatever the past" ,and having therefore voted for a coalition which gave nobody a clear majority, there was a great opportunity for the new trio to figure out that they needed to do something other than shout at each other at the weekly Prime Minister's Questions so as to begin restoring people's in politics and politicians. This needed to go beyond rounding up and booting out fiddlers of expenses and other such miscreants. It needed to encompass new, calmer, more professional, consultative even , ways of doing business. People wanted ,-and still do,- to see cooperation rather than perpetual confrontation. It would have been interesting, a revolution of the sensible even..... and not dull.

Meanwhile dear old limp wristed BBC drones on like an old fashioned maiden aunt, feeding us on a diet of , yes, dullness. Grimy crime, celebrity this and that, everlasting moans about "the cuts", the state of the NHS but it not being the NHS' fault, the state of everything else but it not being anybody's fault other than the government's or anyone with a viewpoint of anything less than a light reddish tinge. As we say, all rather dull. Never mind, it's nearly December and time to crack open the credit cards and get back into a bit of happy debt building. Just like old times. That will cheer everybody up and make them forget what dreary souls vie for the nation's attention with yawn inducing ,almost preaching, monotony. It's not looking good for Rory Bremner this side of the General Election though.

Britain's new Press Charter . Bad for Britain. Bad for everyone, -especially politicians.

Britain has been a beacon of  press freedom for a long time. Constrained only by laws covering libel  and real national security, the papers have been able to publish almost anything about anything or anyone. Comment ranging from high praise (not normally a media thing) to severe criticism has been allowed and encouraged. So has pertinent or even impertinent enquiry.

No more.

Earlier in the year a grubby agreement was hammered out, - strangely at night and in the office of the Leader of the Opposition,- at a meeting of consenting adults representing the three main political parties and a pressure group led by the acting profession. All this used indignation rightly felt about phone hacking to amplify the outrage so as to justify legislation potentially covering anything said parties did not like or want to see in print. Politicians saw it was a wonderful opportunity to obstruct and prevent searching enquiries into duck houses, incorrect interpretation of entitlements to expenses ,inappropriate behaviour and other activities which might undermine their standing in the world of real people. Celebrities saw it as a means of ensuring that they only received the right sort of the publicity they crave to keep the money rolling in. Reports from Sunset Boulevard might become risky or expensive to run. As contrary views might have derailed the night's work non consenting adults,- notably the press,- were not invited or asked to make any submission . They were expected to accept whatever this politically adopted pressure group decided to throw at them,- shut up and stop being nosey. "Don't you know who we are?"

Satisfied with this bonding (for them) and bondage (for the press) evening, the attendees then submitted a draft Royal Charter for press regulation first to a supine Parliament where few, including no Liberals, seriously questioned the measure. They then sent hapless ashen faced Nick scuttling off to stick it under the nose of the monarch and demand/grovel that she sign . Going to the Palace probably gave him a real buzz but is unlikely to have done much for her afternoon. It is not recorded whether tea and Dutchy Originals were offered.  By convention Her Majesty had no option but to exercise the royal ballpoint rather than tell him staight that she didnt think much of politicians hiding behind her rather than doing their own dirty work by passing legislation of their own.

So far so bad , even if the newspapers continue to ignore the Charter and set up their own regulator not paid for from the (empty) public purse. What we have seen is potentially the most repressive move against the freedom of the press in any major western country.

The international by product is that Britain can no longer take less liberal countries and regimes to task when they muzzle the press or make it impossible for investigative journalists to function.

Silence from Britain is the best Commonwealth Kenya's citizens can  now expect when they protest against  the passing of the Information and Communications (Amendment) Bill by their National Assembly. The country's press is lively and vibrant . It has boldly shined torches on corruption, malpractice and greed ,particularly amongst MPs. The Standard newspaper has recently labelled them as MPigs. It has since carried headlines including  "Democracy under Attack",- and so it is just as it is here. Publishers of  anything MPs don't like could be rewarded with heavy corporate and personal fines. No prizes for guessing where those ideas came from.

That's Kenya which despite everything is one of the brighter stars on the African scene. What can Britain, the orginal upholder of good governance and virtue now say to other recalcitrants? Zimbabwe, Sri Lanka, even China are now beyond our rebuke or even friendly word in the ear from the Ambassador.  Until now the answer has been "Quite a lot". Now it's "Nothing."

Perhaps even more sobering and damaging both to ourselves and the world, the same goes for anything we might have said about other countries' greedy, self interested and self serving politicians. Previously we could have said quite a lot. Now, nothing without being accused of gross hypocrisy. Haven't we done well? 

US drone attack ill-considered and ill-timed? Unlikely.

On the face of it, the US removal of the Pakistan Taliban's leader via a drone attack looks like a masterpiece of bad timing, coming as it did just as seven week old contacts about possible peace talks between the Pakistan Government and the Taliban were said to be making some tentative progress. Leading government officials and an assortment of Taliban leaders were due to meet in the north tomorrow.

On timing, the Americans, although at times diplomatically clumsy, don't make mistakes that big. This looks in all respects like a carefully considered tactical act based on strategic policy. The betting has to be that it was specifically aimed to derail the talks as the US feared possible aspects of or concessions granted in any eventual agreements. In other words the discussions looked dangerous and not all the players could be trusted not to go for a "Peace in our time" settlement.

The Taliban had already been already talking as if from a position of strength about the outcome depending on the Pakistan Government's willingness to agree to their "conditions". This was the thin edge of the wedge. Any deal would inevitably have involved officially recognising, Taliban influence, in however small a way initially, in a country which , away from its mountainous rural areas substantially rejects its extremist philosophy and fears its murderous activity. It is very likely that the US is simply saying "Enough is enough" and telling the Pakistan Government not to go there. Any deal would have to involve the Taliban dropping both its violence and moderating its stance on human rights, especially those of women or people who did not agree with it.

Apart from these obvious immediate issues of mass brutality and repression of opposition and religious moderates, the even greater and long term fear in the west has to be that any emergence of the Taliban on the Pakistan political stage would take it closer to its eventual aim of controlling the country. The nightmare end scenario then becomes the Taliban eventually taking over Pakistan. The prospect of the Taliban in control of a nuclear power is too frightening to contemplate.

No mistake then, this had in the last few weeks become a "Must do".   

This week...............

- With just 19 months to go our two great political parties are still shouting "Buy us and get x, y or z free or at least cheaper than you would with the other lot". This taps into the national psyche, carefully genetically modified ever since the welfare state was created in 1948, that everyone is really entitled to everything free and anyone trying to make a living, pay for research, be rewarded for effort or anything like that by making a profit must be a bloodsucker on the faces of the poor or hard working families (nobody has expressed a concern about hard working singles) or the disadvantaged or pensioners or whichever group tends to be the hard done by choice of the day. Generally it's pretty much all of us. Commuters, even those who choose to live far away from workplaces, are entitled to subsidised trains says David Cameron ,everybody is entitled to cheaper power although ours are some of the lowest rates in Europe says Ed Miliband. "Government will pay" (for someone has to,-unmentioned) say both and the LibDems. This is just the start. We can expect more goodies before the election. As result, sooner of later many of us will have to pay more taxes. We've probably pretty much run out of evil bankers and wealth creators to squeeze more out of and any left will likely soon follow the man from Virgin in moving their tax domicile to somewhere more welcoming. Why wouldn't they?

- While on economics, Ed with Dad's bit between his teeth, has been saying that yes indeed , a Labour government might do a lot more to keep the cost of living down by controlling prices .This will ensure that nobody can make more than a few quid profit regardless of how much they invest or risk. These are the joys of socialism and its fantasy world which has left the country broke after every Labour government. Prices and/or incomes policies have been tried ever since the French Revolution. Then execution had to be used to deal with the unconvinced. Effective but a bit short term. There was another Labour attempt after World War 2 when UK Plc was short of money and needed some to repay all it had borrowed from the USA to help keep the conflict away from American shores. Then there was Jim Callaghan's dab at it in 1972 accompanied by the Social Contract, a deal with the unions not to be as bloody minded as they might be. Nature took its course . All of these market and gravity defying efforts inevitably fell to earth with a thud. Margaret Thatcher killed off that last one, no doubt with a few choice words. Maybe she asked "Will they ever learn?". Unfortunately the answer is "Probably not".

-Other political flavours of the week include the LibDems swerving all over the road.Nothing new there. Nick was for a moment in "I agree with Dave " mode and said the Guardian shouldn't have published the leaked intelligence documents showing how and what GCHQ and others do, together with others containing information which could seriously threaten the lives of security operatives and their families. His colleague, the ever unpredictable Vince Cable, was , as so often, in "I don't agree with Nick"  mode. He said that the Guardian was right to publish.
In another neck of the woods two 14 year old schoolboys were told to shave off the new beards they had grown in line with their personal interpretation of religious requirements or to go home Nick was back to normal "I don't agree with Dave"setting." Anyone can do what they want at school" . Oh the joys of being in coalition even with colleagues nominally in the your own party.
Footnote: Why does Cable go off on these frolics of his own? Probably because he has always bitterly regretted his decision not to stand against Clegg in the party leadership election. He thought that his age ruled him out. He realised too late that his Commons performances when he was the standin during the interegnum went down very well (he was even intelligently funny about Gordon Brown) and he could have landed the job.  The electorate thought he was good. Age didn't matter .He still wants it.

-Press censorship is on the way,- or would be if all three party leaders and a pressure group, Hacked Off, gets its way. The latter has been hijacked by celeb actors and others who have been inconvenienced by such things as being reported in the back of a car at an awkward moment. Zips are such unreliable things. These are well off people who relish and thrive upon press attention when the news is good but bristle at the common peoples' right to know when it is ,shall we say, less good or convenient.  One can understand anger at some of the media's more intrusive and sometimes downright insulting and untuthful lies and speculation but these are already well covered by laws on libel and slander. Politicians in particular are though keen to be get their hands on the ability to control the press for potentially much more insidious purposes as well as to cover any personal mishaps such as the odd "moment of madness" or  inappropriate use of Westminster premesis or furniture.
Whether or not we like the press and how some elements of it do their job and the slants they put on their outpourings, the dangers of state or political sensorship are enormous. Already Mr Mugabe and others must be delighted to see that the British are "getting " true democracy at last. We have already seen some pretty dodgy elections of various kinds thanks to misused postal votes filled in by "community leaders", husbands and others, block votes and other devices. Further incursions on free speech or choice should not be welcome by anyone. The UK has been seen as a model of press and individual freedom of speech across the world.  It is something its politicians,- and even celebs,- should value.

- Africa's friends and those who contribute to or cheer on its progress wherever they see it will have said "Oh no!" once more this week. This time the miscreant was the news that the Organisation of African Unity at it conference in Addis Ababa has supported a demand that the continent's Presidents should be immune for prosecution while in office. No act of corruption, violence or even genocide would be bad enough to get them into the ICC's dock before the damage had been done. It would also be a good incentive to stay in power by whatever means might be required. President Kenyatta and others resorted to some good old fashioned anti-colonialist rhetoric , specifically accusing the ICC of being anti-African. It is a dismal picture of peddling backwards. Many Africans, tiring of the misguided notion that "the big man" can do whatever he likes, feel betrayed yet again by the leaders, some of whom they elected. Western international investors also say "Oh no!" and look elsewhere. Chinese investors,- mainly the Chinese government in one guise or another,- aren't too bothered and beckon towards their doorways. That's bad news for Africa's citizens whose new roads, railways, shopping malls will come with some unwelcome hooks, especially if western competitors back off. Ask the continent's elephants for a start.

-Talking of elephants, Tanzania's Minister responsible for wildlife is proposing a shoot to kill policy to deal with ivory poachers. At present their greatly increased rate of activity will wipe out the country's elephant herds by 2025. With that, Tanzania's tourism industry, earner of large amounts of foreign currency and provider of thousands of jobs, would also be largely wiped out, leaving the country even more dependent and tied to the Chinese RMb. Kenya employed the same policy very successfully in the 1990s. In response to the Minister there have been howls of protest from human rights groups. The elephants and those who depend on them to feed their families and secure a future will hope that he will put his ear plugs in.