China has been unequivocal in its condemnation of the EU's inclusion of airlines in in its Emissions Trading Scheme from 1st January this year. It will refuse to pay and nor will it pay any resultant unilaterally imposed "fines". Good for the Chinese.
The notion of one area of the world unilaterally imposing its own scheme on any others wishing to fly into or over it is disturbing and extraordinarily arrogant.It does the EU and its standing in the world no good at all but it does show how this massive and barely democratic beaurocracy can behave when it thinks it can get away with it. In short just like any other massive and barely democratic beaurocracy. It also shows a supreme insensitivity to the needs in particular of many poorer non EU states. For decades ICAO, IATA and others have fought for the opening rather than closing of international airways and for the reduction of charges. Russia and China which stand astride the fastest routes from Europe to Asia had been particularly restrictive and only truly opened up in the last 15 or so years. Now all carriers are able to fly these fast routes and recently even more over the North Pole have been opened up, albeit some of the very recent only to selected operators.
The benefits of lower cost air travel in terms of international business travel and the tourism on which many tropical developing countries depend have been enormous. Added to the airlines' and manufacturers efforts to produce ever more efficient aircraft and to operate them more economically, these have made air travel affordable to much larger and more socially diverse markets. The business has boomed to the benefit of all concerned.
Now it's as if all these efforts have been wasted. An unholy alliance of stay-at-home-with-the-lights-out environmentalists and rapacious tax-thirsty governments are doing all they can to bleed the industry dry and leave what is left of it as the preserve of the wealthy, a notion which if they gave it a moment's thought is socially and politically highly objectionable.
Back to the Chinese though. Already by way of retaliation a Hong Kong order for 10 Airbus A 380s has been put on hold. Boeing will be salivating at the prospect of becoming a near monopoly supplier to the world's greatest buyer of new civil aircraft. It is also reasonable to assume that if Chinese aircraft were banned from the EU there would be an immediate response, not only banning EU operated flights between the two areas but also those taking by far the shortest routes between Europe and Asia which of course overfly China. What then? The beneficiaries would be non Chinese Asian airlines and the ever growing Gulf ensemble flying via intermediate points.
Hopefully by creating the possibility of an ever escalating and expensive (mainly to the EU) impasse and crisis ,China has forced an eventual sensible resolution and a Brussels rethink. The USA and others who have objected to the unilateral imposition of the scheme but been less clear about their reaction should now come out from behind their couches and declare quite simply "No",-and then not blink.
Tuesday, 10 January 2012
Sunday, 8 January 2012
12 Days of Christmas Devalued,- Now it's 24,- What you may have missed.
Monday 9th January sees the first fully manned day of working in the UK since probably around midday 21st December,or maybe the previous evening as many now "work at home" on Fridays. Most farewells,long service presentations, end of week office drinks and the like are now on Thursdays rather than Fridays in acknowledgmemt of this fact.Thats' how UK Plc faces the global economic challenge and 24/7 Asia in particular.
There seems to have been an unholy alliance between leading politicians and A list journalists and TV presenters to be on holiday, or at least off all messages, throughout the period. Foreign correspondents also seem to have been away from their seats and are presumably winging their way back to their posts today. An upside is that little has been seen of "The Big Three",- well the Big One plus Nick and Ed. Few would probably mind if they continued off air for a while longer. The result has been that UK viewers and readers have been treated to many B and C listers and a diet of national murders, family wipeouts and other domestic unpleasantnesses. Visiting foreigners scanning the channels and pages for real news will have wondered whether they should be making an early return home from an obviously crime infested country with little interest in the world beyond their bloodstained doorsteps. Hopefully they stayed as ,-like the High Street sales,- the whole economy needs their money.
So what has really been going on away from the turkeyfest, binge drinking and credit card maxing out?
-Europe and the Euro. The credit rating agencies called a sort of armed truce over the holidays, probably so that they too didn't have to come in to work. That will shortly be over and the future of the Euro and the nature and intentions of the EU itself will come under more scrutiny. When last seen the French and Germans were calling the shots and more or less saying what EU policy is/will be. So would you if you could get away with it. Meanwhile, apart from the recalcitrant UK and the odd mutter from Sweden, the rest hid behind the couch. Elsewhere it has emerged that Greece apart from its financial misdeeds is the conduit to most illegal immigration into the EU, much of it drawn right across the continent to the UK not by the magnetism of its culture and opportunities but the excessive generosity of its benefits system and reluctance to send back all but a handful of those who enter it. Hungary has been misbehaving too by bringing in a range of undemocratic measures to edge it back towards the bad old days of authoritanarism. It isn't alone in the latter activity as even the UK is alleged to be cooking up some very old fashioned restrictions on the ability to present in court cases evidence or information which might embarrass the government.
-Iran has been missile rattling and threatening to close the Straits of Hormuz should the EU ban the import of its oil. Logically it's unlikely to do that but there has been illogicality before especially when rallying anti-someone else feeling is useful to paper over problems at home.
-The EU has included aviation in Emissions Trading from January 1st. All flights by anyone traversing EU airspace must pay up or be fined even greater amounts. The EU court has unsurprisingly overruled objections and ruled this to be a legal act. The USA, the Gulf states and China in particular disgree as in reality do many developing countries who depend on aviation for business and tourism. The USA look like paying up for the time being but China has said absolutely not and ordered its airlines to keep their wallets in their pockets. The next stages could be interesting. China, the largest single source of airliner orders by far and a battleground bewteen Airbus and Boeing, has already ordered Hong Kong not to proceed with an order for ten Airbus A380s. In theory the EU could ban Chinese aircraft from their airports but then China, which sits astride the fastest routes from Asia to Europe could ban EU aircraft from its airspace, and then............More on this will appear on Airnthere.
-London 2012 (We like many others are not licensed to mention its other title,-one has to pay money for that). During the silly season the UK Government,- aka "Dave",- threw in another £50 or so million to enhance to opening and closing ceremonies. What happened to the heaven sent opportunity sent by the recession/global economic crisis to call a halt and say that the UK would take the opportunity to put some feeling of proportion and common sense into the proceedings and go with a less glitzy but appropriate and tasteful version of the games? Focus on the games and athletes would be a good start. The world does not need to see national squads led around the arena by posses of well fed suited officials. Nor does it need to see said persons flashing down the separate and peasant-free Zil lanes of otherwise traffic clogged London in any one of 3,000 new BMWs espcially bought by UK Plc.for their comfort. Money could also have been saved by better use of existing venues,- eg not digging up Greenwich Park for the equestrians but moving to the existing more than adequate facility at Windsor. If the rowing can be out there why not the horses? Meanwhile more details leak out about the contents of the secret Blair government/IOC agreement covering the games. Many conditions are extraordinary and extravagant and some of the costs to the host country absurd. Restrictions preventing local businesses from deriving any benefit are also neighbour unfriendly and downright greedy. This looks like a secretive and self indulgent circus in urgent need of reform.
-In the USA the Republicans search for a marketable Presidential candidate continues to amaze. One would expect that a country of the size, wealth and expertise of America would be spoiled for choice of excellent candidates. Unfortunately the long drawn out process of selection, the candidates' need for access to vast sums of money and the too-short cycle of Presidential and mid term elections all conspire to make the whole thing a debilitating nightmare and a distraction from the real affairs of state. Currently all candidates are doing Obama's work for him by slagging each other off mightily and demonstrating that none have what the world hopes it takes. Frighteningly all seem to claim to have God on their side.
-William Hague's visit to Burma was well timed. While immediate spectacular results can not be expected ,it was a useful nudge along the long road to ending the military dominated nightmare which has left the country in ever increasing and crumbling poverty and democratic rights deprivation since 1962.
-Somalia. Permission to carry armed guards now granted to UK ships is something long advocated by observers in neighbouring East Africa who are close to the action. The almost impossible restrictions on freedom of action imposed on EU naval vessels renders them unable to do very much in most situations. The UK Parliament's Foreign Affairs Committee is seeking clarification on whether these guards have the right to shoot to kill and if so under what circumstances. Bearing in mind the inevitable EU complications of health and safety and human rights legislation, including no doubt the pirates' rights to a family life, perhaps this would be better left as a question unasked. But it has been. Maybe it would be better to leave the job to the Russian and Chinese navies.
-That's probably about it from these 24 days of Christmas. There have been hyped up gales, no white Christmas, nothing more on the Huhne "who was driving case". The Archbishop has muttered more about inequalities by which he means redistribution of wealth not creation of it for all. There are some things he doesn't get. Arguments about "Don't touch our wonderful NHS have been interspersed with reports of staff getting locked up for possibly speeding the exits of patients in a midland hospital. A union or two have threatened more strikes about goodness knows what but they remain "angry" about almost anything other than the high pay of some of their top people. They remain resolute in the their determination to take the country back to the past and champion the interests (as they see them) of their members in their workplace/delivery roles rather than as consumers and to make sure nobody does anything to fix, change or improve anything especially in health and education.
Welcome to 2012.
Posted by Air 'N There at 15:06
There seems to have been an unholy alliance between leading politicians and A list journalists and TV presenters to be on holiday, or at least off all messages, throughout the period. Foreign correspondents also seem to have been away from their seats and are presumably winging their way back to their posts today. An upside is that little has been seen of "The Big Three",- well the Big One plus Nick and Ed. Few would probably mind if they continued off air for a while longer. The result has been that UK viewers and readers have been treated to many B and C listers and a diet of national murders, family wipeouts and other domestic unpleasantnesses. Visiting foreigners scanning the channels and pages for real news will have wondered whether they should be making an early return home from an obviously crime infested country with little interest in the world beyond their bloodstained doorsteps. Hopefully they stayed as ,-like the High Street sales,- the whole economy needs their money.
So what has really been going on away from the turkeyfest, binge drinking and credit card maxing out?
-Europe and the Euro. The credit rating agencies called a sort of armed truce over the holidays, probably so that they too didn't have to come in to work. That will shortly be over and the future of the Euro and the nature and intentions of the EU itself will come under more scrutiny. When last seen the French and Germans were calling the shots and more or less saying what EU policy is/will be. So would you if you could get away with it. Meanwhile, apart from the recalcitrant UK and the odd mutter from Sweden, the rest hid behind the couch. Elsewhere it has emerged that Greece apart from its financial misdeeds is the conduit to most illegal immigration into the EU, much of it drawn right across the continent to the UK not by the magnetism of its culture and opportunities but the excessive generosity of its benefits system and reluctance to send back all but a handful of those who enter it. Hungary has been misbehaving too by bringing in a range of undemocratic measures to edge it back towards the bad old days of authoritanarism. It isn't alone in the latter activity as even the UK is alleged to be cooking up some very old fashioned restrictions on the ability to present in court cases evidence or information which might embarrass the government.
-Iran has been missile rattling and threatening to close the Straits of Hormuz should the EU ban the import of its oil. Logically it's unlikely to do that but there has been illogicality before especially when rallying anti-someone else feeling is useful to paper over problems at home.
-The EU has included aviation in Emissions Trading from January 1st. All flights by anyone traversing EU airspace must pay up or be fined even greater amounts. The EU court has unsurprisingly overruled objections and ruled this to be a legal act. The USA, the Gulf states and China in particular disgree as in reality do many developing countries who depend on aviation for business and tourism. The USA look like paying up for the time being but China has said absolutely not and ordered its airlines to keep their wallets in their pockets. The next stages could be interesting. China, the largest single source of airliner orders by far and a battleground bewteen Airbus and Boeing, has already ordered Hong Kong not to proceed with an order for ten Airbus A380s. In theory the EU could ban Chinese aircraft from their airports but then China, which sits astride the fastest routes from Asia to Europe could ban EU aircraft from its airspace, and then............More on this will appear on Airnthere.
-London 2012 (We like many others are not licensed to mention its other title,-one has to pay money for that). During the silly season the UK Government,- aka "Dave",- threw in another £50 or so million to enhance to opening and closing ceremonies. What happened to the heaven sent opportunity sent by the recession/global economic crisis to call a halt and say that the UK would take the opportunity to put some feeling of proportion and common sense into the proceedings and go with a less glitzy but appropriate and tasteful version of the games? Focus on the games and athletes would be a good start. The world does not need to see national squads led around the arena by posses of well fed suited officials. Nor does it need to see said persons flashing down the separate and peasant-free Zil lanes of otherwise traffic clogged London in any one of 3,000 new BMWs espcially bought by UK Plc.for their comfort. Money could also have been saved by better use of existing venues,- eg not digging up Greenwich Park for the equestrians but moving to the existing more than adequate facility at Windsor. If the rowing can be out there why not the horses? Meanwhile more details leak out about the contents of the secret Blair government/IOC agreement covering the games. Many conditions are extraordinary and extravagant and some of the costs to the host country absurd. Restrictions preventing local businesses from deriving any benefit are also neighbour unfriendly and downright greedy. This looks like a secretive and self indulgent circus in urgent need of reform.
-In the USA the Republicans search for a marketable Presidential candidate continues to amaze. One would expect that a country of the size, wealth and expertise of America would be spoiled for choice of excellent candidates. Unfortunately the long drawn out process of selection, the candidates' need for access to vast sums of money and the too-short cycle of Presidential and mid term elections all conspire to make the whole thing a debilitating nightmare and a distraction from the real affairs of state. Currently all candidates are doing Obama's work for him by slagging each other off mightily and demonstrating that none have what the world hopes it takes. Frighteningly all seem to claim to have God on their side.
-William Hague's visit to Burma was well timed. While immediate spectacular results can not be expected ,it was a useful nudge along the long road to ending the military dominated nightmare which has left the country in ever increasing and crumbling poverty and democratic rights deprivation since 1962.
-Somalia. Permission to carry armed guards now granted to UK ships is something long advocated by observers in neighbouring East Africa who are close to the action. The almost impossible restrictions on freedom of action imposed on EU naval vessels renders them unable to do very much in most situations. The UK Parliament's Foreign Affairs Committee is seeking clarification on whether these guards have the right to shoot to kill and if so under what circumstances. Bearing in mind the inevitable EU complications of health and safety and human rights legislation, including no doubt the pirates' rights to a family life, perhaps this would be better left as a question unasked. But it has been. Maybe it would be better to leave the job to the Russian and Chinese navies.
-That's probably about it from these 24 days of Christmas. There have been hyped up gales, no white Christmas, nothing more on the Huhne "who was driving case". The Archbishop has muttered more about inequalities by which he means redistribution of wealth not creation of it for all. There are some things he doesn't get. Arguments about "Don't touch our wonderful NHS have been interspersed with reports of staff getting locked up for possibly speeding the exits of patients in a midland hospital. A union or two have threatened more strikes about goodness knows what but they remain "angry" about almost anything other than the high pay of some of their top people. They remain resolute in the their determination to take the country back to the past and champion the interests (as they see them) of their members in their workplace/delivery roles rather than as consumers and to make sure nobody does anything to fix, change or improve anything especially in health and education.
Welcome to 2012.
Posted by Air 'N There at 15:06
Wednesday, 4 January 2012
Thames estuary airport for London?-Dream on,- there are bats in the belfry and everywhere.
For those promoting the idea of a quickly built new airport for London in the Thames estuary there is sobering news from the UK rail industry. The notion of a Chep Lap Kok (though that is already capacity limited and needs a third runway) or Incheon built in time to meet unconstrained growth needs looks less likely by the day. In a perfect world an island site close to London with 4 but potentially 6 runways would be ideal but the world itself doesn't live in a perfect world and the UK even less so. In Britain bats and newts and other heavily protected wildlife other than humans stalk the land. Humans collectively aren't reckoned to stack up to much but other creatures certainly are.
Less than 100 miles to the west of the islands of Roberts and Olsen/Moudarri there is a disused railway tunnel, one of 2 parallel ones on a line between Oxford and Bicester. It is proposed to reopen this tunnel to enable the line to be redoubled and become a new route between Oxford and London and to reopen part of the long closed Oxford- Cambridge line which would enable many tavellers to avoid having to travel via London. It is in airport terms a tiny, obvious and low cost project but a good and sensible one.
It has a problem though. Bats and newts. The bats have taken a liking to the disused tunnel and to taking a short cut through it to "commute". Apparently like humans they go to work and have urgent business as well no doubt as leisure travel and also a teenager style propensity to hang about in dark places with their mates. "Today's Railways" tells us that as result the local planning inspector has therefore rejected Chiltern Railways planning application on the basis that the tunnel is used by the bats "for swarming, commuting, foraging and a temporary roost site" and trains running through would damage their environment. An allied proposal to warn bats of approaching trains via a special lighting system is also rejected as unproven. He or she also identifies " a potential threat to a nearby colony of great crested newts". In fairness, the Transport Secretary, Justine Greening, has told Chiltern Railways and Natural England to go away and resolve the issue as quickly as possible, but rather like the judiciary, planning authorities and their officials tend to be very independent minded and stubborn. Such are the dangers of passing democracy down to the lowest level, something about which this government waxes lyrical.
With only bats and newts to worry about this show stopping short tunnel is very small beer. The Thames estuary is crawling with wildlife including resident and migratory birds. Every attempt to develop it in any way has previously been met with howls of protest. Any notion that a new airport could even get through the planning, objections and appeals processes, UK and EU, within 15 years is fanciful. All this underlines the fact that the coalition's binning of the nearly ready-to-go Heathrow third runway after the May 2010 General Election was a tragic mistake which is set to cost UK Plc billions over many years. Its obstinate refusal to even consider the runway as a possibility in the current review, likely to report in 2012 or 2013, is emotional, illogical and downright bad business.
Less than 100 miles to the west of the islands of Roberts and Olsen/Moudarri there is a disused railway tunnel, one of 2 parallel ones on a line between Oxford and Bicester. It is proposed to reopen this tunnel to enable the line to be redoubled and become a new route between Oxford and London and to reopen part of the long closed Oxford- Cambridge line which would enable many tavellers to avoid having to travel via London. It is in airport terms a tiny, obvious and low cost project but a good and sensible one.
It has a problem though. Bats and newts. The bats have taken a liking to the disused tunnel and to taking a short cut through it to "commute". Apparently like humans they go to work and have urgent business as well no doubt as leisure travel and also a teenager style propensity to hang about in dark places with their mates. "Today's Railways" tells us that as result the local planning inspector has therefore rejected Chiltern Railways planning application on the basis that the tunnel is used by the bats "for swarming, commuting, foraging and a temporary roost site" and trains running through would damage their environment. An allied proposal to warn bats of approaching trains via a special lighting system is also rejected as unproven. He or she also identifies " a potential threat to a nearby colony of great crested newts". In fairness, the Transport Secretary, Justine Greening, has told Chiltern Railways and Natural England to go away and resolve the issue as quickly as possible, but rather like the judiciary, planning authorities and their officials tend to be very independent minded and stubborn. Such are the dangers of passing democracy down to the lowest level, something about which this government waxes lyrical.
With only bats and newts to worry about this show stopping short tunnel is very small beer. The Thames estuary is crawling with wildlife including resident and migratory birds. Every attempt to develop it in any way has previously been met with howls of protest. Any notion that a new airport could even get through the planning, objections and appeals processes, UK and EU, within 15 years is fanciful. All this underlines the fact that the coalition's binning of the nearly ready-to-go Heathrow third runway after the May 2010 General Election was a tragic mistake which is set to cost UK Plc billions over many years. Its obstinate refusal to even consider the runway as a possibility in the current review, likely to report in 2012 or 2013, is emotional, illogical and downright bad business.
Sunday, 18 December 2011
Iraq- It's over by Christmas,- Now for the Audit.
The sight of the last convoy of US troops crossing the Iraqi border into Kuwait and the safety of the US army camp's McDonalds there was greeted with applause by nearly all Americans at home and a fair proportion of Iraqis in what they see as their now liberated home. No public doubts in America though there are likely to be in the Pentagon and other thinking parts of the political machine but a few more in Iraq, particularly amongst the now potentially disadvantaged minority Sunnis.
Nobody has yet dared to attempt a full audit of the war, what Iraq was like before the invasion, what it is like now and what went on and at what cost in lives and money in between. America needs a favourable verdict for domestic consumption especially amongst the relatives of the 4,500 dead military and the much larger number of maimed and irreparably wounded ones. Getting that verdict is going to be extremely difficult especially when the much larger numbers of Iraqis in both catageories is added to the account. Then there is the ruined infrastructure of what was a viable, functioning state , the wrecked hospitals and schools, the lost years of education ..and... and... The bill mounts with each thought and scan of the mental radar. Could it all really have been worth it to topple one man and his cronies when surely cheaper and more clinical remedies were at hand thanks to the state of modern very high tech electronics, drones, smart bombs and the like? Saddam Hussein and the Baath Party were dreadful people and organisations but they posed little or no external threat. Iraq was a secular state, a buffer against Iran's ever present Gulf intentions and had a largely pro western history . Anti Israeli sabre rattling was largely orchestrated and cosmetic and it was doubtful if the country would go to war over it despite macho talk about that bogeyman the weapons of mass destruction. Saddam certainly had no truck with the Al Quaeda franchise, nothing at all to do with 9/11 and made sure that any signs of extremist trouble from out of line clerics were swiftly dealt with.
Now it's all over the academics and historians will come out of hiding and start to really examine the nuts and bolts of it all, hold the entrails up to the light and , along with the accountants and statisticians have a field day. The military and social analysts will be in there too. The origins, objectives, strategy, organisation and conduct of the war and its hideously expensive aftermath will receive the full glare of objectivecase studies at universities, military academies and political interest groups all over the world. Thumbs up or down? The betting has to be largely the latter as the bill in all respects just looks too big for the objective,- or stretching a point,-objectives.
Meanwhile what do the American troops and politicians take home with them and what do they leave behind as their personal legacies? Perhaps the fact that almost to a man or woman , after 9 years they still call the country I-rak says much of it. "We went there to make them do it our way. They can call themselves what they like but to us it's I-rak. They can like it or lump it." They didn't get much new cultural awareness or understanding of the realities and shape of the world for all that expenditure and nor did they successfully sell "The American way" to their hosts. In you go auditors of war. Let's see what's in the accounts and what it all adds up to. A mammoth headache could be coming down the track.
Nobody has yet dared to attempt a full audit of the war, what Iraq was like before the invasion, what it is like now and what went on and at what cost in lives and money in between. America needs a favourable verdict for domestic consumption especially amongst the relatives of the 4,500 dead military and the much larger number of maimed and irreparably wounded ones. Getting that verdict is going to be extremely difficult especially when the much larger numbers of Iraqis in both catageories is added to the account. Then there is the ruined infrastructure of what was a viable, functioning state , the wrecked hospitals and schools, the lost years of education ..and... and... The bill mounts with each thought and scan of the mental radar. Could it all really have been worth it to topple one man and his cronies when surely cheaper and more clinical remedies were at hand thanks to the state of modern very high tech electronics, drones, smart bombs and the like? Saddam Hussein and the Baath Party were dreadful people and organisations but they posed little or no external threat. Iraq was a secular state, a buffer against Iran's ever present Gulf intentions and had a largely pro western history . Anti Israeli sabre rattling was largely orchestrated and cosmetic and it was doubtful if the country would go to war over it despite macho talk about that bogeyman the weapons of mass destruction. Saddam certainly had no truck with the Al Quaeda franchise, nothing at all to do with 9/11 and made sure that any signs of extremist trouble from out of line clerics were swiftly dealt with.
Now it's all over the academics and historians will come out of hiding and start to really examine the nuts and bolts of it all, hold the entrails up to the light and , along with the accountants and statisticians have a field day. The military and social analysts will be in there too. The origins, objectives, strategy, organisation and conduct of the war and its hideously expensive aftermath will receive the full glare of objectivecase studies at universities, military academies and political interest groups all over the world. Thumbs up or down? The betting has to be largely the latter as the bill in all respects just looks too big for the objective,- or stretching a point,-objectives.
Meanwhile what do the American troops and politicians take home with them and what do they leave behind as their personal legacies? Perhaps the fact that almost to a man or woman , after 9 years they still call the country I-rak says much of it. "We went there to make them do it our way. They can call themselves what they like but to us it's I-rak. They can like it or lump it." They didn't get much new cultural awareness or understanding of the realities and shape of the world for all that expenditure and nor did they successfully sell "The American way" to their hosts. In you go auditors of war. Let's see what's in the accounts and what it all adds up to. A mammoth headache could be coming down the track.
Friday, 9 December 2011
Brussells - Cameron presses the button. A new future sprouts.
Clearly David Cameron read Twigaview and went off to the all nighter in Brussells which followed the EU leaders non austerity dinner (banquet in normal parlance ) with a clear head and new vigour.
The hand wringing and whining to the tune of "we are marginalised" by the likes of Labour and the twittering David Owen this morning tell us that the prime Minister has done the right thing. Only on Wednesday were Labour warning against weakness in the face of Euro adversity and here they are out to play again dancing to their inevitable flipside tune.
To many commentators, the UK's stance this morning has been all about simply protecting the financial services industry. That is not true and misses the point entirely.
Ever since the EU was established there has been a barely hidden Franco/German agenda of eventually politically uniting Europe under in effect their dominant leadership. Part of France's motivation, but not Germany's, has been the marginalisation of the politically disliked Britain. For most British the idea of an overarching European superstate reducing national parliaments to the equivalent of county councils has never been acceptable and is unlikely to be for a very long time. All parties have known this and as result the federal powers of the EU have only been introduced very slowly. Stealth has been key and the federalists have always been careful to ensure that has never been quite an important enough issue or proposed single power grab to justify throwing toys out of the pram at any particular moment.
France in particular seen the Euro crisis as a magnificent opportunity to significantly push the extension of EU powers forward. It is the potentially the biggest grab yet,- all in everyone's best interests of course to save the Euro. The UK has had the courage to say "Hey, - Not so fast" and said simply "No,- this isn't where we want to go". It's not that the Merko combine didn't know that. They just didn't believe he would finally stand firm amidst all their moralising about the collective good, this not being the time for discord etc. and declare his answer loudly. They would know that he was faced with all sorts of Foreign Office and other chaff about "loss of influence" and how dreadful that would be, the British Eurocrats wouldn't be invited to the cosiest lunches and dinners in Brussells and calculated that he would buckle. Sarkosy though probably wasn't fussed either way.
Sometimes it is necessary to cause a crisis so as to get a resolution. Cameron, alone amongst his peers has had the vision to see beyond the Euro crisis and the dangers of quick fix substantially changing the nature of the EU. In doing so he has moved a long way from being where we saw him yesterday as not giving the leadership needed to break through from a suffocating one sized fits all solution into the reality that a two tier or two type Europe is the best answer. Those twin but libnked organisations of the 1950s -"The Six" (EU) and "The Seven " (EFTA) look very much the solution for the 2010s. Far from being marginalised as the pundits will howl today, Britain could emerge much stronger as the leader of the more liberal free trade only group. The remainder could continue towards the superstate, though at a high risk of it failing much more disastrously not long hence. The EU core could not afford to put up trade barriers against the others as they need the reciprocal to in particular the UK's very open markets.
The British Prime Minister should therefore return home deserving a pleasant weekend. It's likely that his deluxe festive gift hampers from Europe are at this moment be being downgraded to boxes of crackers. If so he would do well to have them checked out before pulling.
Footnote: On reaching home Mr Cameron may well find Lib Dems on his doorstep. They are much more in favour of Peace in our Time solutions and love and brother/sisterhood in Europe . This could be a coalition problem. More of that later. Let's watch the falling dust first.
The hand wringing and whining to the tune of "we are marginalised" by the likes of Labour and the twittering David Owen this morning tell us that the prime Minister has done the right thing. Only on Wednesday were Labour warning against weakness in the face of Euro adversity and here they are out to play again dancing to their inevitable flipside tune.
To many commentators, the UK's stance this morning has been all about simply protecting the financial services industry. That is not true and misses the point entirely.
Ever since the EU was established there has been a barely hidden Franco/German agenda of eventually politically uniting Europe under in effect their dominant leadership. Part of France's motivation, but not Germany's, has been the marginalisation of the politically disliked Britain. For most British the idea of an overarching European superstate reducing national parliaments to the equivalent of county councils has never been acceptable and is unlikely to be for a very long time. All parties have known this and as result the federal powers of the EU have only been introduced very slowly. Stealth has been key and the federalists have always been careful to ensure that has never been quite an important enough issue or proposed single power grab to justify throwing toys out of the pram at any particular moment.
France in particular seen the Euro crisis as a magnificent opportunity to significantly push the extension of EU powers forward. It is the potentially the biggest grab yet,- all in everyone's best interests of course to save the Euro. The UK has had the courage to say "Hey, - Not so fast" and said simply "No,- this isn't where we want to go". It's not that the Merko combine didn't know that. They just didn't believe he would finally stand firm amidst all their moralising about the collective good, this not being the time for discord etc. and declare his answer loudly. They would know that he was faced with all sorts of Foreign Office and other chaff about "loss of influence" and how dreadful that would be, the British Eurocrats wouldn't be invited to the cosiest lunches and dinners in Brussells and calculated that he would buckle. Sarkosy though probably wasn't fussed either way.
Sometimes it is necessary to cause a crisis so as to get a resolution. Cameron, alone amongst his peers has had the vision to see beyond the Euro crisis and the dangers of quick fix substantially changing the nature of the EU. In doing so he has moved a long way from being where we saw him yesterday as not giving the leadership needed to break through from a suffocating one sized fits all solution into the reality that a two tier or two type Europe is the best answer. Those twin but libnked organisations of the 1950s -"The Six" (EU) and "The Seven " (EFTA) look very much the solution for the 2010s. Far from being marginalised as the pundits will howl today, Britain could emerge much stronger as the leader of the more liberal free trade only group. The remainder could continue towards the superstate, though at a high risk of it failing much more disastrously not long hence. The EU core could not afford to put up trade barriers against the others as they need the reciprocal to in particular the UK's very open markets.
The British Prime Minister should therefore return home deserving a pleasant weekend. It's likely that his deluxe festive gift hampers from Europe are at this moment be being downgraded to boxes of crackers. If so he would do well to have them checked out before pulling.
Footnote: On reaching home Mr Cameron may well find Lib Dems on his doorstep. They are much more in favour of Peace in our Time solutions and love and brother/sisterhood in Europe . This could be a coalition problem. More of that later. Let's watch the falling dust first.
Wednesday, 7 December 2011
A Simple Guide to EU and Euro Pains and Strains- and a simple solution.
There is a lot of rushing about and huffing and puffing going on around the EU, the Eurozone, the Euro and where the UK stands. The is also much shouting and breast beating about "The Euro mustn't be allowed to fail","The UK will lose influence if it stays out of the melee/doesn't at some time join the Euro/Eurozone/sign up to this and that". For the UK itself there is the sight of Leader Dave, one moment resolute that some powers ,particularly those over City regulation and employment law, must remain totally in UK hands and promising that he will stand firm on these demands. The next moment he is off again to see Merkozy and saying that the return of powers isn't that important and he must do what it takes to stay at the table,- even if maybe well below the salt. Today's performance in the Commons was robust as it had to be amongst the baying hounds of Prime Ministers' Question Time on all sides. How though will he handle tomorrow's EU summit and the ever mounting list of controls being floated out from the Merkozy camp?
It's all very confusing and often irritating. One can not guarantee always being able to avoid throwing a shoe through the TV screen.
So, just to untangle the apparent complexity and make it all simple, what's really going on, who is up to what, can the Euro or even the EU, stay in business and would it really be a disaster for the UK or anyone else if it didn't or both changed their form? Some of it is a bit murky but let's have a go and see if we can sleep any easier. To do that we will have to go back a bit,- right to the 1950s in fact.
With everyone exhausted and well nigh bancrupt after World War 2, maybe the last of the old legacy wars originally fought on horseback with legions of supporting "poor bloody infantry" but just moved along a bit with smarter land kit, new aircraft and less leaky ships, it was time to take stock. It was quite clear that a succession of massive slaughterfests had historically achieved nothing and everyone would have been more prosperous without them. That's even without considering the effect of the decimation of the best of two generations of young men. In 1939 there had evetually been little option but for "the Allies" to go to war with Germany to prevent a rolling genocide by a rogue regime (as opposed to the German people per se) but the cost in lives and money was appalling and everyone other than maybe Stalin recognised that this sort of conflict had to be avoided ever again.
The result was a rise of interest in some kind of unity in Europe on the basis more or less of the Chinese philosophy of constraining potential enemies by "embracing the bear", the basis of many alliances in business, politics and other human interactions. You don't like the school bully? Neutralise him either by force (tried and proven too dangerous) or by smothering him with mateyness. It had to be the latter.
There was some disagreement about what degree of embrace was necessary to do the trick. France and Germany favoured political union from the start although they recognised that the process would have to be gradual, reasonably well disguised, and never put starkly to their citizens who would be scared stiff of the idea. This group became the founders of the EEC, later the EU and were known as "The Six". It would have been seven but France's General de Gaulle, no lover of the British despite their leadership of the efforts to give him back what he saw as his country in 1944, made sure that they didn't get in. The other European grouping, which now included Britain and was a much more natural home for it was The European Free Trade Area, EFTA. They became "The Seven" and favoured a looser, less smothering form of cooperation,- simply a free trade area.
Over time, 3 of the 7 ,including Britain, have moved across to become EU members, leaving just 4 small states as the remnants of EFTA which lives on as, funnily enough a sort of tier 2 EU. There is a great opportunity for this to enlarge again as this concept of a 2speed EU becomes more and more likely in the form of the 17 Eurozone countries remaining in a deadening, inflexible embrace and the other 10 gravitating to a much less rigid and free wheeling free trade area. This would be ideal so long as the centralisers of the 17 didn't pull up the trade drawbridge. They would be very unwise to do so as Britain in particular with its genuinely very open markets is a big buyer of their industrial products. Cutting off noses to spite faces not impossible though when there is an underlying desire to punish Britain for its non conformist behaviour. Given the right links between the 17 and the 10, business would flow across the 27 borders but centralist political and fiscal control would not. That would remain the preserve of the 17 who seem to like that sort of thing. Cameron's best move now would be to come out openly and declare that the UK can not live within the straitjacket of a European superstate and lead the split in a constructive way. The more states he could take with him the better. The bigger "New EFTA" is the less the core EU can do without its business so the stronger would be the free trading bridge.
The main reason for the fractured EU and worse, the Euro problems, is that the two concepts of a United States of Europe and the single Euro currency are fundamentally flawed. Europe is not the USA. Each country has a long history and deep culture of its own. Most have been at war with, invaded by or occupied at least temporarily by all sorts of combinations of each other. The early settlers in America were different. They had the unifying feature that they were fleeing the suffocation of Europe with oppression, persecution of just lack of opportunities at home and wanted a completely fresh start. Even then it wasn't all plain sailing and the collision between two rival groupings had to be broadly resolved by the Civil War. Subsequently the federal structure of the USA has preserved some independence for each state and not all love each other too much. The overall single nation relationship has through been close enough to demand a strong common federal currency and the US dollar has been extremely successful.
The European Union is nothing like the USA. It is not a natural single political entity to which all its citizens have at one time escaped and therefore willingly signed up . As result it is even less a natural single currency union. The laws of dynamics mean that efforts to tighten it produce more strains and stresses than strengths. Any structural engineer will tell you what naturally and unavoidably happens to such edifices. There is a period when they can be kept up by strengthening, adding a bit here and a bit there but each of these adds weight and diminishes the efficiencies of the whole and generally just transfers the potential break point to somewhere else. The reinforcement patches also mean ever increasing costs and higher and higher maintainence, so that more and more good money is poured after bad. People say things like "It must be kept up at all costs" rather than "Let's design a new one to replace it and once in place we will let the original fall down or be blown up".
It is the "It must be kept up" line about both the EU and the Euro that is being shouted by not only the Merkosy core but also by the UK's David Cameron. Cameron is missing the biggest and most revolutionary trick of all. He should be trying to keep it all simple and easily understood by all and saying "It's not working so let's replace it with version 2.0 and start again recognising historic, current and future realities." The clarity of a return to a separate high cost beaurocracy driven EU and a lower cost, more free wheeling EFTA would be ideal and give the component nations the oppirtunity to decide which model they really want rather than being swept along with the creaking one size fits all EU superstate and all its attendant costs and limits on individual sovereignties. The UK should go for that without further ado and ignore Foreign Office hand and other parts wringing about "loss of influence in Europe". Leadership of the EFTA group would give the country a much more significant role in European politics than its alternative sidelining within an unreconstituted EU.
Any odds on Mr Cameron going that? Not good we suspect. As a manager rather than a leader, he isn't strong on vision and isn't driven by a passionate political philosophy. He is more inclined to back away from the conflict and settle for a wordy fudge in Brussells today. If he does though he should beware the assorted rotteweiler pack awaiting him back home. Hello Boris,the Eds and the rest.
It's all very confusing and often irritating. One can not guarantee always being able to avoid throwing a shoe through the TV screen.
So, just to untangle the apparent complexity and make it all simple, what's really going on, who is up to what, can the Euro or even the EU, stay in business and would it really be a disaster for the UK or anyone else if it didn't or both changed their form? Some of it is a bit murky but let's have a go and see if we can sleep any easier. To do that we will have to go back a bit,- right to the 1950s in fact.
With everyone exhausted and well nigh bancrupt after World War 2, maybe the last of the old legacy wars originally fought on horseback with legions of supporting "poor bloody infantry" but just moved along a bit with smarter land kit, new aircraft and less leaky ships, it was time to take stock. It was quite clear that a succession of massive slaughterfests had historically achieved nothing and everyone would have been more prosperous without them. That's even without considering the effect of the decimation of the best of two generations of young men. In 1939 there had evetually been little option but for "the Allies" to go to war with Germany to prevent a rolling genocide by a rogue regime (as opposed to the German people per se) but the cost in lives and money was appalling and everyone other than maybe Stalin recognised that this sort of conflict had to be avoided ever again.
The result was a rise of interest in some kind of unity in Europe on the basis more or less of the Chinese philosophy of constraining potential enemies by "embracing the bear", the basis of many alliances in business, politics and other human interactions. You don't like the school bully? Neutralise him either by force (tried and proven too dangerous) or by smothering him with mateyness. It had to be the latter.
There was some disagreement about what degree of embrace was necessary to do the trick. France and Germany favoured political union from the start although they recognised that the process would have to be gradual, reasonably well disguised, and never put starkly to their citizens who would be scared stiff of the idea. This group became the founders of the EEC, later the EU and were known as "The Six". It would have been seven but France's General de Gaulle, no lover of the British despite their leadership of the efforts to give him back what he saw as his country in 1944, made sure that they didn't get in. The other European grouping, which now included Britain and was a much more natural home for it was The European Free Trade Area, EFTA. They became "The Seven" and favoured a looser, less smothering form of cooperation,- simply a free trade area.
Over time, 3 of the 7 ,including Britain, have moved across to become EU members, leaving just 4 small states as the remnants of EFTA which lives on as, funnily enough a sort of tier 2 EU. There is a great opportunity for this to enlarge again as this concept of a 2speed EU becomes more and more likely in the form of the 17 Eurozone countries remaining in a deadening, inflexible embrace and the other 10 gravitating to a much less rigid and free wheeling free trade area. This would be ideal so long as the centralisers of the 17 didn't pull up the trade drawbridge. They would be very unwise to do so as Britain in particular with its genuinely very open markets is a big buyer of their industrial products. Cutting off noses to spite faces not impossible though when there is an underlying desire to punish Britain for its non conformist behaviour. Given the right links between the 17 and the 10, business would flow across the 27 borders but centralist political and fiscal control would not. That would remain the preserve of the 17 who seem to like that sort of thing. Cameron's best move now would be to come out openly and declare that the UK can not live within the straitjacket of a European superstate and lead the split in a constructive way. The more states he could take with him the better. The bigger "New EFTA" is the less the core EU can do without its business so the stronger would be the free trading bridge.
The main reason for the fractured EU and worse, the Euro problems, is that the two concepts of a United States of Europe and the single Euro currency are fundamentally flawed. Europe is not the USA. Each country has a long history and deep culture of its own. Most have been at war with, invaded by or occupied at least temporarily by all sorts of combinations of each other. The early settlers in America were different. They had the unifying feature that they were fleeing the suffocation of Europe with oppression, persecution of just lack of opportunities at home and wanted a completely fresh start. Even then it wasn't all plain sailing and the collision between two rival groupings had to be broadly resolved by the Civil War. Subsequently the federal structure of the USA has preserved some independence for each state and not all love each other too much. The overall single nation relationship has through been close enough to demand a strong common federal currency and the US dollar has been extremely successful.
The European Union is nothing like the USA. It is not a natural single political entity to which all its citizens have at one time escaped and therefore willingly signed up . As result it is even less a natural single currency union. The laws of dynamics mean that efforts to tighten it produce more strains and stresses than strengths. Any structural engineer will tell you what naturally and unavoidably happens to such edifices. There is a period when they can be kept up by strengthening, adding a bit here and a bit there but each of these adds weight and diminishes the efficiencies of the whole and generally just transfers the potential break point to somewhere else. The reinforcement patches also mean ever increasing costs and higher and higher maintainence, so that more and more good money is poured after bad. People say things like "It must be kept up at all costs" rather than "Let's design a new one to replace it and once in place we will let the original fall down or be blown up".
It is the "It must be kept up" line about both the EU and the Euro that is being shouted by not only the Merkosy core but also by the UK's David Cameron. Cameron is missing the biggest and most revolutionary trick of all. He should be trying to keep it all simple and easily understood by all and saying "It's not working so let's replace it with version 2.0 and start again recognising historic, current and future realities." The clarity of a return to a separate high cost beaurocracy driven EU and a lower cost, more free wheeling EFTA would be ideal and give the component nations the oppirtunity to decide which model they really want rather than being swept along with the creaking one size fits all EU superstate and all its attendant costs and limits on individual sovereignties. The UK should go for that without further ado and ignore Foreign Office hand and other parts wringing about "loss of influence in Europe". Leadership of the EFTA group would give the country a much more significant role in European politics than its alternative sidelining within an unreconstituted EU.
Any odds on Mr Cameron going that? Not good we suspect. As a manager rather than a leader, he isn't strong on vision and isn't driven by a passionate political philosophy. He is more inclined to back away from the conflict and settle for a wordy fudge in Brussells today. If he does though he should beware the assorted rotteweiler pack awaiting him back home. Hello Boris,the Eds and the rest.
Thursday, 1 December 2011
Reaction to Clarkson's Comments,- Get a Grip everyone.
Jeremy Clarkson's comments on BBC's "The One Show" last night that he would take the day's public servants pension strikers outside and shoot them in front of their families drew 4,700 protests to the broadcaster and has sent the unions, ever up for expressing "anger" or other indignation, scurrying for legal advice.
Some free advice in a moment. Everyone, including the BBC, knows Clarkson and could have pretty well predicted what he would say. That is his signature and, like it or not, it is entertaining to many or maybe even most. To get worked up about it requires taking oneself dangerously seriously and veering towards an attraction to unsmiling, slab faced police states. The fact that young Ed has "felt their pain" and expressed disgust or something like that says all you need to know about what a fun place would exist under his unsmiling, grimacing premiership. Even Dave has felt obliged to say the remark was "silly". In the p.c world Britain inhabits it probably was,but it hardly merits a Prime Minister and Leader of Her Majesty's Opposition to even comment other than maybe to remark "Clarkson is Clarkson". Both would though have been better advised to say nowt.
The advice then: Get a grip folks. It was a J-O-K-E.
Some free advice in a moment. Everyone, including the BBC, knows Clarkson and could have pretty well predicted what he would say. That is his signature and, like it or not, it is entertaining to many or maybe even most. To get worked up about it requires taking oneself dangerously seriously and veering towards an attraction to unsmiling, slab faced police states. The fact that young Ed has "felt their pain" and expressed disgust or something like that says all you need to know about what a fun place would exist under his unsmiling, grimacing premiership. Even Dave has felt obliged to say the remark was "silly". In the p.c world Britain inhabits it probably was,but it hardly merits a Prime Minister and Leader of Her Majesty's Opposition to even comment other than maybe to remark "Clarkson is Clarkson". Both would though have been better advised to say nowt.
The advice then: Get a grip folks. It was a J-O-K-E.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)