It was a summer's day a few years ago, and I got a phone call from someone called "Andy" who was so obviously not British.
As much as I was tempted to tell the guy that I was also called Andy, I chose not to.
Instead I just let Andy talk. Apparently he was trying to save money on my energy bill.
Andy asked if I was with British Gas, to which I replied no.
Then the conversation went something like this- Eon? No. EDF Energy? No. Npower? No. Scottish Power? No.
So Andy piped up with the question, "Well who are you a customer of?"
I informed Andy that I was a customer of Quacki Gas!
As I am sure one could imagine, Andy was totally ecstatic and prepared for my answer. In fact he replied, "Erm, sorry what are they called again?"
So I reconfirmed the words Quacki Gas.
At this point Andy sought clarification that I was actually the bill payer. When I confirmed that I was, all Andy could do was say his goodbye. RESULT!
On that note, this is the final post of the WattoTalk Blog. It has been an enjoyable six months. I will now be moving on to new blogging interests. Thanks for reading.
Monday 10 March 2014
Sunday 9 March 2014
Vince Cable wrong on EU Referendum!
Liberal Democrat Leader and British Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg has been critical of the plans by Conservative Premier David Cameron for an in-out EU referendum, should Mr Cameron's party secure an outright majority at next year's general election. That criticism was backed on March 7 by Clegg's cabinet and party colleague, Vince Cable.
I consider myself to have a fair bit of common ground with the Liberal Democrats, especially when it comes to Britain being part of the European Union. However as previously stated in a post on September 30 2013, I do believe that the question of Britain's EU membership will at some point in the foreseeable future need to be put again to the British people! The issue has moved on so many times over a couple of generations, and it is now a minority of the current British electorate who were actually eligible in 1975 to cast their vote in Britain's only previous referendum on Europe. Therefore, I am very disappointed in the line taken a couple of days ago by the Business Secretary Vince Cable.
I feel a particular need to address what Mr Cable says when he speaks of business leaders informing him that referendum talk is deterring large scale investment into the UK. Don't get me wrong, I am just like some ordinary Joe Bloggs on the ground- no Captain of Industry is likely to come and tell me directly that this talk of an EU referendum is deterring investment into the UK. But an ordinary Joe Bloggs I may be, I can still broadly be aware that the British economy is slowly picking up from what has been a very deep recession. Unless the Government in which Mr Cable is a part of is substantially fiddling the figures on various economic data, I believe Mr Cable is exaggerating this point!
The Liberal Democrats may well not be looking over their shoulders in the same way as the Conservatives at the potential threat posed by the United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP). But as an ordinary Joe Bloggs, I can say that some people who support centre-left parties like the Liberal Democrats and Labour, do also want out of Europe! Surely that means it would be desirable to offer the eurosceptic voter the opportunity to have their say on the matter, which would in turn tell that eurosceptic voter that a vote for the Lib Dems will not necessarilly deny them a much needed say on a most crucial national issue.
After all, Mr Clegg and his party had been previously in favour of an in-out referendum. This was ironically at a point prior to the 2010 general election, when both Labour and the Conservatives did not support this position. The biggest hole in not supporting the in-out referendum is the challenge Clegg has made to UKIP Leader Nigel Farage in having a national TV debate on Europe.
ONLY A REFERENDUM CAN ULTIMATELY DETERMINE IF BRITAIN IS TO REMAIN AN EU MEMBER FOR THE FORESEEABLE FUTURE. IF THE MAJORITY DISAGREE WITH THE PRO-EUROPEAN VIEWS OF MYSELF AND MESSRS CLEGG AND CABLE, THEN THAT IS DEMOCRACY! THE REAL UNCERTAINTY IS BY LEAVING THE ISSUE UNRESOLVED IN THE MINDS OF THE BRITISH PEOPLE.
I consider myself to have a fair bit of common ground with the Liberal Democrats, especially when it comes to Britain being part of the European Union. However as previously stated in a post on September 30 2013, I do believe that the question of Britain's EU membership will at some point in the foreseeable future need to be put again to the British people! The issue has moved on so many times over a couple of generations, and it is now a minority of the current British electorate who were actually eligible in 1975 to cast their vote in Britain's only previous referendum on Europe. Therefore, I am very disappointed in the line taken a couple of days ago by the Business Secretary Vince Cable.
I feel a particular need to address what Mr Cable says when he speaks of business leaders informing him that referendum talk is deterring large scale investment into the UK. Don't get me wrong, I am just like some ordinary Joe Bloggs on the ground- no Captain of Industry is likely to come and tell me directly that this talk of an EU referendum is deterring investment into the UK. But an ordinary Joe Bloggs I may be, I can still broadly be aware that the British economy is slowly picking up from what has been a very deep recession. Unless the Government in which Mr Cable is a part of is substantially fiddling the figures on various economic data, I believe Mr Cable is exaggerating this point!
The Liberal Democrats may well not be looking over their shoulders in the same way as the Conservatives at the potential threat posed by the United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP). But as an ordinary Joe Bloggs, I can say that some people who support centre-left parties like the Liberal Democrats and Labour, do also want out of Europe! Surely that means it would be desirable to offer the eurosceptic voter the opportunity to have their say on the matter, which would in turn tell that eurosceptic voter that a vote for the Lib Dems will not necessarilly deny them a much needed say on a most crucial national issue.
After all, Mr Clegg and his party had been previously in favour of an in-out referendum. This was ironically at a point prior to the 2010 general election, when both Labour and the Conservatives did not support this position. The biggest hole in not supporting the in-out referendum is the challenge Clegg has made to UKIP Leader Nigel Farage in having a national TV debate on Europe.
ONLY A REFERENDUM CAN ULTIMATELY DETERMINE IF BRITAIN IS TO REMAIN AN EU MEMBER FOR THE FORESEEABLE FUTURE. IF THE MAJORITY DISAGREE WITH THE PRO-EUROPEAN VIEWS OF MYSELF AND MESSRS CLEGG AND CABLE, THEN THAT IS DEMOCRACY! THE REAL UNCERTAINTY IS BY LEAVING THE ISSUE UNRESOLVED IN THE MINDS OF THE BRITISH PEOPLE.
Saturday 1 March 2014
Manchester biomass incinerator highlights English democratic deficit!
The incinerator in question is not actually in Manchester; it in fact lies in Davyhulme in the borough of Trafford, the home of Manchester United FC. But moving away from geographical anomalies, the serious issue here is that an elected council's planning committee had voted unanimously against permitting Peel Energy from building a biomass incinerator in Davyhulme, against a backdrop of strong local feelings. Yet, the unelected Environment Agency took a different view, which subsequently led to a Government Inspector backing the plans. A High Court Judgement on February 24 in support of building the plant has come as a crushing blow to many Trafford residents.
On the other side of the coin, many people will sympathise with the notion that the Country does face future challenges in keeping the lights switched on. But quite clearly balancing any economic benefits the incinerator would bring to the area against environmental risks, needs to have an input from a more locally democratically accountable body, rather than some so-called Central Government expert or an unelected quango like the Environment Agency.
There is another way. It is called Germany. Or perhaps I should say Britain needs to embrace some aspects of the German Devolution Model, taking on board that England is in fact the only nation within the UK not to currently have any form of devolution (London aside). German States or Lander can pass laws across many policy areas, with Defence and Foreign Policy as two notable exceptions which are handled solely by the Federal Government in Berlin.
I have previously stated my views on English Devoultion in my post on 1 November 2013 entitled "An English Devolution Perspective." To summarise my perspective, a dramatic reduction in the number of English MPs at Westminster could pave the way for Regional Parliaments be set up in the English Regions. Following the German model, Westminster could still legislate in policy areas covered by the regions. However, this would only be when it is clearly in the national interest to do so.
A sensitive local issue such as a biomass incinerator needs the accountability of elected politicians. Unfortunately, the High Court decision in backing the position of the Westminster Village is yet another example of the ENGLISH DEMOCRATIC DEFICIT!
On the other side of the coin, many people will sympathise with the notion that the Country does face future challenges in keeping the lights switched on. But quite clearly balancing any economic benefits the incinerator would bring to the area against environmental risks, needs to have an input from a more locally democratically accountable body, rather than some so-called Central Government expert or an unelected quango like the Environment Agency.
There is another way. It is called Germany. Or perhaps I should say Britain needs to embrace some aspects of the German Devolution Model, taking on board that England is in fact the only nation within the UK not to currently have any form of devolution (London aside). German States or Lander can pass laws across many policy areas, with Defence and Foreign Policy as two notable exceptions which are handled solely by the Federal Government in Berlin.
I have previously stated my views on English Devoultion in my post on 1 November 2013 entitled "An English Devolution Perspective." To summarise my perspective, a dramatic reduction in the number of English MPs at Westminster could pave the way for Regional Parliaments be set up in the English Regions. Following the German model, Westminster could still legislate in policy areas covered by the regions. However, this would only be when it is clearly in the national interest to do so.
A sensitive local issue such as a biomass incinerator needs the accountability of elected politicians. Unfortunately, the High Court decision in backing the position of the Westminster Village is yet another example of the ENGLISH DEMOCRATIC DEFICIT!
Recent English flooding strengthens the case for Regional Devolution
Last month's floods saw frightening images for many Brits. Living in the North West of England, I have to say I am a very lucky boy.
Arguments ensued on how politicians on the Conservative side of the Coalition Government were slow to visit affected areas such as the Somerset levels, which happen to have four constituencies held by Liberal Democrat MPs. Other arguments put forward suggested that Prime Minister David Cameron conveniently visited flood affected visits to display his wellies in what happens also to be Tory heartlands.
This is all further evidence that Britain is too densely populated an island not to have further devolution in the English regions. The United Kingdom as a whole has a population in excess of 63 Million. Breaking this down, over two thirds of Brits live outside of either London, Wales, Northern Ireland, or Scotland. In addition to being the seat of Britain's Government, London also has an elected mayor and assembly. Whilst Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland each have a national parliament or assembly with devolved powers, English regions don't have any regional devolution at all presently!
I am not going down the route of claiming that devolution would have altered nature. What I am saying is that had the West Country (which includes the Somerset Levels) had a regional assembly, then arguments over whether Environment Secretary Owen Paterson visited affected areas a month too late, would be less significant.
The British flooding crisis has also seen disagreements between Lord Chris Smith (as Chairman of the unelected quango that is the Environment Agency) and Government ministers, who have been blaming each other. Once again my belief is that Regional Devolution in distributing more power away from central government, would make such disagreements largely irrelevant.
It doesn't make much difference over whether one is scrutinising the decisions made by the British Government or the Environment Agency. Both have come in for much deserved criticism. Whilst Regional Assemblies and Governments won't alter nature, they are better placed to respond to crises of an environmental nature with more local implications. THE WESTMINSTER VILLAGE HAS SHOWN ITSELF ONCE AGAIN TO BE TOO FAR DETACHED!
Arguments ensued on how politicians on the Conservative side of the Coalition Government were slow to visit affected areas such as the Somerset levels, which happen to have four constituencies held by Liberal Democrat MPs. Other arguments put forward suggested that Prime Minister David Cameron conveniently visited flood affected visits to display his wellies in what happens also to be Tory heartlands.
This is all further evidence that Britain is too densely populated an island not to have further devolution in the English regions. The United Kingdom as a whole has a population in excess of 63 Million. Breaking this down, over two thirds of Brits live outside of either London, Wales, Northern Ireland, or Scotland. In addition to being the seat of Britain's Government, London also has an elected mayor and assembly. Whilst Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland each have a national parliament or assembly with devolved powers, English regions don't have any regional devolution at all presently!
I am not going down the route of claiming that devolution would have altered nature. What I am saying is that had the West Country (which includes the Somerset Levels) had a regional assembly, then arguments over whether Environment Secretary Owen Paterson visited affected areas a month too late, would be less significant.
The British flooding crisis has also seen disagreements between Lord Chris Smith (as Chairman of the unelected quango that is the Environment Agency) and Government ministers, who have been blaming each other. Once again my belief is that Regional Devolution in distributing more power away from central government, would make such disagreements largely irrelevant.
It doesn't make much difference over whether one is scrutinising the decisions made by the British Government or the Environment Agency. Both have come in for much deserved criticism. Whilst Regional Assemblies and Governments won't alter nature, they are better placed to respond to crises of an environmental nature with more local implications. THE WESTMINSTER VILLAGE HAS SHOWN ITSELF ONCE AGAIN TO BE TOO FAR DETACHED!
Monday 24 February 2014
Brendan Rodgers contract extension surely now inevitable?
Liverpool Football Club will kick off Saturday evening's Barclays Premier League match at Southampton in need of just two more victories from their remaining eleven matches to surpass last season's points total of 61. Although Brendan Rodgers walked into the Anfield hotseat twenty one months ago with some question marks over his credentials, being the genuine choice of Fenway Sports Group was always going to mean that Rodgers would be in a much stronger position than Roy Hodgson (who was inherited from the disgraceful previous American Owners) and Kop favourite Kenny Dalglish, whom Rodgers succeeded.
Although Liverpool finished the 2012/13 season in seventh place, the Reds' average league position over the previous three seasons had also averaged seventh place. The 2012/13 campaign did see the disappointments of domestic cup exits at the hands of Rodgers' former club Swansea City, as well as lower league Oldham Althletic. But more crucially, the campaign also saw the Reds cut the gap to the top four by five points from the previous campaign under Dalglish.
When I was travelling on the train to Liverpool's opening match of this season against Stoke, I expressed my hope to a fellow supporter that we would be in the mix for a top four position come the final few games of the season, and that our points total would break through the 70 point barrier. It would be so easy now to get carried away and say that nothing less than a top three or top four position would do. Against a backdrop that the Reds can now break through the 70 point barrier by winning less than half of their remaining games, missing out on Champions League qualification this season may prove to be a missed opportunity.
Going beyond the statistical talk of points tallies increasing year on year, the football enjoyed by the Anfield faithful has at times been a delight during the current campaign. In the SAS, Liverpool have arguably the most feared partnership in the league. They can clearly play together. From a personal point of view, being at Anfield this season to see both Suarez's four goal haul against Norwich and Sturridge's double strike in the space of a couple of minutes against the Toffees, has been a top top feeling.
Prior to Rodgers' signing of Sturridge, Suarez was at times carrying a struggling team. That said, there can be little doubt Rodgers is now getting more out of the iconic Uruguayan, in part due to the acquisition of Sturridge. Having not delivered at Man City or Chelsea, Sturridge was viewed in some quarters to be a big gamble. It is surely right now that with that gamble reaping dividends, and with only a little over a year remaining on his current contract, Fenway Sports Group must surely recognise that Rodgers has to be rewarded himself?
Although Liverpool finished the 2012/13 season in seventh place, the Reds' average league position over the previous three seasons had also averaged seventh place. The 2012/13 campaign did see the disappointments of domestic cup exits at the hands of Rodgers' former club Swansea City, as well as lower league Oldham Althletic. But more crucially, the campaign also saw the Reds cut the gap to the top four by five points from the previous campaign under Dalglish.
When I was travelling on the train to Liverpool's opening match of this season against Stoke, I expressed my hope to a fellow supporter that we would be in the mix for a top four position come the final few games of the season, and that our points total would break through the 70 point barrier. It would be so easy now to get carried away and say that nothing less than a top three or top four position would do. Against a backdrop that the Reds can now break through the 70 point barrier by winning less than half of their remaining games, missing out on Champions League qualification this season may prove to be a missed opportunity.
Going beyond the statistical talk of points tallies increasing year on year, the football enjoyed by the Anfield faithful has at times been a delight during the current campaign. In the SAS, Liverpool have arguably the most feared partnership in the league. They can clearly play together. From a personal point of view, being at Anfield this season to see both Suarez's four goal haul against Norwich and Sturridge's double strike in the space of a couple of minutes against the Toffees, has been a top top feeling.
Prior to Rodgers' signing of Sturridge, Suarez was at times carrying a struggling team. That said, there can be little doubt Rodgers is now getting more out of the iconic Uruguayan, in part due to the acquisition of Sturridge. Having not delivered at Man City or Chelsea, Sturridge was viewed in some quarters to be a big gamble. It is surely right now that with that gamble reaping dividends, and with only a little over a year remaining on his current contract, Fenway Sports Group must surely recognise that Rodgers has to be rewarded himself?
Wednesday 12 February 2014
Is Spain a failed state?
Ten years ago, Spain's economy was seen to be outperforming many other EU economies. The then conservative Prime Minister Jose-Maria Aznar was considered in some quarters to have led several key reforms. With Aznar set to depart the scene at the 2004 General Election, his conservative Popular Party looked set to be on course for a third successive election victory, such was the positive outlook for the Spanish economy. Mariano Rajoy (his successor) in fact lost that election.
Ten years on, Spain has another conservative government led by Rajoy, following two successive terms of socialist government. As part of a eurozone trying to recover from the financial crisis of 2008, the Spanish economic outlook is not currently looking so rosy. Not only does Spain have high unemployment, we now hear talk about autonomous regions with separatist tendencies looking to break away. We also now hear about the odd royal scandal. There is the chink of light provided by the national football team, which is considered by some to be one of world football's greatest of all time. What could all this mean Spain will look like in a decade's time?
I would not be surprised if Spain became a republic, and one with much reduced influence on the back of successful breakaways in both Catalonia and the Basque Country. For all the official statements coming out of Madrid indicating that an independence referendum in Catalonia later this year is illegal, the reality is that Madrid will have no choice at some point in accepting that the people in Catalonia do in fact have the right to self-determination.
If the people of Catalonia don't have the right to self-determination, then why on earth has Catalonia President Artur Mas's Democratic Convergence of Catalonia not been banned, along with other pro-independence parties? As I indicated in my post on January 1 2014 entitled "Spain blocking Catalan Independence Vote could be a test of the EU's democratic values," prospective EU member states must be seen to be democratic as stipulated by the Treaty of European Union, just like existing EU Member States! Indeed Mr Mas agreed in a BBC TV interview last month that Spain and the EU itself would have a constitutional crisis in the event of Madrid rejecting a referendum in support of Catalonian independence.
Comparisons are often made between Catalonia and Scotland. There are though a few differences between Scotland and Catalonia. The main one is that the UK Government has acknowledged the Scottish Government's right to hold an independence referendum. Madrid needs to correct this mistake quickly, and follow the UK example. After all, support for Scottish independence has been generally perceived to be around the 30% mark for decades, whereas current support for Catalan independence of around the 50% mark has only really come about due to the euro financial crisis of recent years.
Who knows what the Catalan people would decide after a considered process with all the arguments for and against. However, for any Nation State to deprive a constituent part of the right to self-determination as the government of Mariano Rajoy appears to be doing, it can only prove to be counterproductive in the long term as the deprivation of democracy will merely strengthen the Catalan resolve.
A Spanish Republic is possible but monarchies can also mean stability due to the Monarch's political neutrality, and the lack of political power which would be concentrated towards one political office. But in the twenty first century, monarchies must now embark on a journey to being a mere figurehead. Lavish and ill-judged holidays as King Juan Carlos has embarked upon in recent years, along with accusations of corruption (as faced by Princess Cristina) will not go down well in any modern western society, irrespective of the era of austerity. The Spanish Monarchy has possibly entered a period in which it has no room for further error.
Madrid's current approach to the Catalan situation is not the only example of Spain's A La Carte approach to democracy. The British Overseas Territory of Gibraltar can provide more than the occasional episode of tension between London and Madrid. The consistent position from London has been that it is for the people of Gibraltar to decide on Gibraltar's future, much to Madrid's displeasure.
That is not to say there aren't holes in British arguments when it comes to the self-determination of British Overseas Territories. On the one hand, Britain continues to argue it's right to administer the Falkland Islands in the South Atlantic Ocean, on the basis of the Falkland Islanders' right to self-determination. Yet, there is other British Territory in the South Atlantic such as South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands, where there is actually no native population. Both of these territories are claimed by Argentina as part of it's own national territory.
Whilst Madrid does from time to time have genuine cause for grievance in cases of cigarette smuggling for instance, Spain's claim on Gibraltar is no more rightful than Morocco's claim on the Spanish enclaves of Ceuta and Melilla, which are located on Morocco's North African Coast. Spanish politicians have stated that the situation of Ceuta and Melilla is different to that of Gibraltar on the basis of Gibraltar being a British Overseas Territory, as opposed to being a constituent part of the United Kingdom. Such an argument is merely colonial waffle.
HOWEVER THE NEXT DECADE OR SO DEFINES SPAIN, THIS A LA CARTE APPROACH TO THE PRECIOUS COMMODITY THAT IS DEMOCRACY WILL NEED TO CHANGE!
Ten years on, Spain has another conservative government led by Rajoy, following two successive terms of socialist government. As part of a eurozone trying to recover from the financial crisis of 2008, the Spanish economic outlook is not currently looking so rosy. Not only does Spain have high unemployment, we now hear talk about autonomous regions with separatist tendencies looking to break away. We also now hear about the odd royal scandal. There is the chink of light provided by the national football team, which is considered by some to be one of world football's greatest of all time. What could all this mean Spain will look like in a decade's time?
I would not be surprised if Spain became a republic, and one with much reduced influence on the back of successful breakaways in both Catalonia and the Basque Country. For all the official statements coming out of Madrid indicating that an independence referendum in Catalonia later this year is illegal, the reality is that Madrid will have no choice at some point in accepting that the people in Catalonia do in fact have the right to self-determination.
If the people of Catalonia don't have the right to self-determination, then why on earth has Catalonia President Artur Mas's Democratic Convergence of Catalonia not been banned, along with other pro-independence parties? As I indicated in my post on January 1 2014 entitled "Spain blocking Catalan Independence Vote could be a test of the EU's democratic values," prospective EU member states must be seen to be democratic as stipulated by the Treaty of European Union, just like existing EU Member States! Indeed Mr Mas agreed in a BBC TV interview last month that Spain and the EU itself would have a constitutional crisis in the event of Madrid rejecting a referendum in support of Catalonian independence.
Comparisons are often made between Catalonia and Scotland. There are though a few differences between Scotland and Catalonia. The main one is that the UK Government has acknowledged the Scottish Government's right to hold an independence referendum. Madrid needs to correct this mistake quickly, and follow the UK example. After all, support for Scottish independence has been generally perceived to be around the 30% mark for decades, whereas current support for Catalan independence of around the 50% mark has only really come about due to the euro financial crisis of recent years.
Who knows what the Catalan people would decide after a considered process with all the arguments for and against. However, for any Nation State to deprive a constituent part of the right to self-determination as the government of Mariano Rajoy appears to be doing, it can only prove to be counterproductive in the long term as the deprivation of democracy will merely strengthen the Catalan resolve.
A Spanish Republic is possible but monarchies can also mean stability due to the Monarch's political neutrality, and the lack of political power which would be concentrated towards one political office. But in the twenty first century, monarchies must now embark on a journey to being a mere figurehead. Lavish and ill-judged holidays as King Juan Carlos has embarked upon in recent years, along with accusations of corruption (as faced by Princess Cristina) will not go down well in any modern western society, irrespective of the era of austerity. The Spanish Monarchy has possibly entered a period in which it has no room for further error.
Madrid's current approach to the Catalan situation is not the only example of Spain's A La Carte approach to democracy. The British Overseas Territory of Gibraltar can provide more than the occasional episode of tension between London and Madrid. The consistent position from London has been that it is for the people of Gibraltar to decide on Gibraltar's future, much to Madrid's displeasure.
That is not to say there aren't holes in British arguments when it comes to the self-determination of British Overseas Territories. On the one hand, Britain continues to argue it's right to administer the Falkland Islands in the South Atlantic Ocean, on the basis of the Falkland Islanders' right to self-determination. Yet, there is other British Territory in the South Atlantic such as South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands, where there is actually no native population. Both of these territories are claimed by Argentina as part of it's own national territory.
Whilst Madrid does from time to time have genuine cause for grievance in cases of cigarette smuggling for instance, Spain's claim on Gibraltar is no more rightful than Morocco's claim on the Spanish enclaves of Ceuta and Melilla, which are located on Morocco's North African Coast. Spanish politicians have stated that the situation of Ceuta and Melilla is different to that of Gibraltar on the basis of Gibraltar being a British Overseas Territory, as opposed to being a constituent part of the United Kingdom. Such an argument is merely colonial waffle.
HOWEVER THE NEXT DECADE OR SO DEFINES SPAIN, THIS A LA CARTE APPROACH TO THE PRECIOUS COMMODITY THAT IS DEMOCRACY WILL NEED TO CHANGE!
Saturday 1 February 2014
ConDem Fifty Pence tax reversal was premature!
The final weekend of January saw the so-called big horror emerge that Labour will reinstate the 50p in the pound tax rate for those highest earners!
By getting to the heart of the issue, there will be those people who will instinctively be for the highest earners probably paying even more than 50p; there will also be those who consider such a move to be the road to uncompetitiveness. Ultimately, the main reality a government of any colour must reconcile is what level of taxation will produce an optimum level of revenue for the exchequer. It is a very similar pressure to a business on setting it's unit sales price, whilst taking on board it's costs to maximise profit. The main difference here for a government is not just a question of financial cost, but also one of public perception.
The fact that there are so few people who would see their tax rate increase, I would suggest the 50p tax rate will influence the voting intentions of very few based on how the policy would actually impact their wallets and purses. If there were to be a likelihood though that this tax increase could scare business off from inward investment into the UK, then all ordinary citizens should be concerned. INWARD INVESTMENT ULTIMATELY MEANS JOBS!
The aftermath of this announcement by Labour's Shadow Chancellor Ed Balls, has seen the predictable responses from the Conservatives and some sections of the UK Business Community, including the Confederation of British Industry's Policy Director who referred to the policy as one which could put off talented people from coming to the UK to invest.
Let us not forget though that the decision by the ConDem Government to scrap the 50p rate was not universally popular amongst the UK Business Community in the first place. Former Marks and Spencers Boss, Sir Stuart Rose indicated in September 2011 that there was no credible case in scrapping the 50p rate, against the backdrop of difficult economic times we were living in. IN FACT SIR STUART ALSO INDICATED A WILLINGNESS TO DEBATE WHETHER HIGH EARNERS LIKE HIMSELF SHOULD IN FACT PAY MORE TAX!
With the UK economic outlook now generally looking more positive, is the case really credible to now put the rate back to 50p? Sir Stuart Rose appears to have now changed his tune on the 50p tax rate, whereas both main UK Political Parties have been quick to highlight opposing sets of data in support of each other's case. Reading between the lines, it is probable that the policy won't raise a huge amount; it also won't see any reduction in the amount of taxation that will be collected in a worse case scenario.
The case for re-instating the 50p tax rate comes down to the cost which all governments of different colours must weigh up in terms of the cost of public perception. Most ordinary hard working Britons knew all too well that an era of austerity was on the horizon in 2010, whatever the make up of the next government. WHAT RANKLES SO MANY PEOPLE THOUGH IS THAT THERE IS A GOVERNMENT FILLED WITH PEOPLE WHO ARE EDUCATED IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS, WHO SIMPLY CANNOT UNDERSTAND WHAT IT IS LIKE TO HAVE TO STRUGGLE AND FIND THAT EXTRA MONEY WHEN A BASIC LIVING COST INCREASES!
In a series of interviews in which Ed Balls has given in the aftermath of the 50p announcement, it is quite clear to me that the policy is not a return to Labour policies of a bygone era which clearly did make a compelling case of delivering uncompetitive tax policies. It is particularly important to highlight Balls has a preference for taxes to be lower not higher. However, the UK still has a budget deficit to address in the here and now.
Ed Balls will no doubt need to do much more on the run up to next year's general election in spelling out other specifics of how Labour's economic policy will be different to that of both the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats. What a prospective return to a 50p tax rate will offer is a symbolic recognition that the Government of the Day does have a sense of understanding of what ordinary folk are going through. THE CONDEM COALITION DECISION TO REDUCE THE 50P TAX RATE WAS FAR TOO PREMATURE!
By getting to the heart of the issue, there will be those people who will instinctively be for the highest earners probably paying even more than 50p; there will also be those who consider such a move to be the road to uncompetitiveness. Ultimately, the main reality a government of any colour must reconcile is what level of taxation will produce an optimum level of revenue for the exchequer. It is a very similar pressure to a business on setting it's unit sales price, whilst taking on board it's costs to maximise profit. The main difference here for a government is not just a question of financial cost, but also one of public perception.
The fact that there are so few people who would see their tax rate increase, I would suggest the 50p tax rate will influence the voting intentions of very few based on how the policy would actually impact their wallets and purses. If there were to be a likelihood though that this tax increase could scare business off from inward investment into the UK, then all ordinary citizens should be concerned. INWARD INVESTMENT ULTIMATELY MEANS JOBS!
The aftermath of this announcement by Labour's Shadow Chancellor Ed Balls, has seen the predictable responses from the Conservatives and some sections of the UK Business Community, including the Confederation of British Industry's Policy Director who referred to the policy as one which could put off talented people from coming to the UK to invest.
Let us not forget though that the decision by the ConDem Government to scrap the 50p rate was not universally popular amongst the UK Business Community in the first place. Former Marks and Spencers Boss, Sir Stuart Rose indicated in September 2011 that there was no credible case in scrapping the 50p rate, against the backdrop of difficult economic times we were living in. IN FACT SIR STUART ALSO INDICATED A WILLINGNESS TO DEBATE WHETHER HIGH EARNERS LIKE HIMSELF SHOULD IN FACT PAY MORE TAX!
With the UK economic outlook now generally looking more positive, is the case really credible to now put the rate back to 50p? Sir Stuart Rose appears to have now changed his tune on the 50p tax rate, whereas both main UK Political Parties have been quick to highlight opposing sets of data in support of each other's case. Reading between the lines, it is probable that the policy won't raise a huge amount; it also won't see any reduction in the amount of taxation that will be collected in a worse case scenario.
The case for re-instating the 50p tax rate comes down to the cost which all governments of different colours must weigh up in terms of the cost of public perception. Most ordinary hard working Britons knew all too well that an era of austerity was on the horizon in 2010, whatever the make up of the next government. WHAT RANKLES SO MANY PEOPLE THOUGH IS THAT THERE IS A GOVERNMENT FILLED WITH PEOPLE WHO ARE EDUCATED IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS, WHO SIMPLY CANNOT UNDERSTAND WHAT IT IS LIKE TO HAVE TO STRUGGLE AND FIND THAT EXTRA MONEY WHEN A BASIC LIVING COST INCREASES!
In a series of interviews in which Ed Balls has given in the aftermath of the 50p announcement, it is quite clear to me that the policy is not a return to Labour policies of a bygone era which clearly did make a compelling case of delivering uncompetitive tax policies. It is particularly important to highlight Balls has a preference for taxes to be lower not higher. However, the UK still has a budget deficit to address in the here and now.
Ed Balls will no doubt need to do much more on the run up to next year's general election in spelling out other specifics of how Labour's economic policy will be different to that of both the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats. What a prospective return to a 50p tax rate will offer is a symbolic recognition that the Government of the Day does have a sense of understanding of what ordinary folk are going through. THE CONDEM COALITION DECISION TO REDUCE THE 50P TAX RATE WAS FAR TOO PREMATURE!
Three reasons why I just can't take UKIP seriously!
Number One- Godfrey Bloom
Godfrey Bloom MEP is very simply a ridiculous specimen of a man! Why? Because he had to be ejected from the European Parliament for directing a Nazi slogan at a German MEP. In the Twenty First Century, this is simply unacceptable!
And if that is not enough, there was the incident in which he heckled the then Financial Services Authority Chief, that has subsequently given Bloom the honour of being the first person to be ejected from the Mansion House since the late eighteenth century. Of course, who could forget his "Bongo Bongo Land" remark concerning countries who receive overseas aid!
Number Two- The other weirdos crawling out of the UKIP Cupboard!
Although Mr Bloom's many indiscretions may have led to him no longer sitting in the European Parliament as a member of the United Kingdom Independence Party, enter David Silvester. The Henley-On-Thames Councillor, who had just under a year ago defected to UKIP from the Conservatives, made national headlines last month for his views that recent floods were a consequence of David Cameron legalising Gay Marriage!
Whilst some people may be quick to acknowledge the decisiveness of the UKIP leadership in suspending Mr Silvester, it is also worth remembering that UKIP were fully aware of Mr Silvester's general viewpoint on the subject of gay marriage, which of course prompted his defection from the Conservative Party in the first place. The question now will concern who else is waiting to crawl out of the UKIP cupboard?
Number Three- Nigel Farage has Colonial Tendencies!
UKIP Leader Nigel Farage does generally speak very very well and I heartily commend him for the prompt manner in which he has dealt with Mr Silvester. Farage has also though suggested that the British Overseas Territories (those relics from the once all powerful empire) should be allowed representation at Westminster. What Farage suggests is a detachment from the reality that the only UK policy areas which apply to these self-governing territories are Defence and Foreign Policy.
Therefore, for these territories to gain Westminster representation would surely be more unbalanced than what is referred to as the West Lothian Question, which has emerged as a consequence of Scottish Devolution. How can it be right for these territories to have an elected representative who can vote on English health matters for instance? Does Farage also consider it to be a spiffing idea for Mainland UK residents to gain electoral representation for the Legislative bodies of British Overseas Territories?
Of course, how workable would such an arrangement be of having an Overseas Territory MP? Would the Overseas Territories MP have a surgery in Pitcairn Island one weekend, then another surgery in the Falklands the next? Or would the MP simply conduct his surgery by Skype? I believe the main reason Farage raised this issue is not so much that he feels these territories have a dangerously muted voice, but more along the lines that he sees the British Overseas Territories as his best hope of UKIP winning a seat at Westminster!
Godfrey Bloom MEP is very simply a ridiculous specimen of a man! Why? Because he had to be ejected from the European Parliament for directing a Nazi slogan at a German MEP. In the Twenty First Century, this is simply unacceptable!
And if that is not enough, there was the incident in which he heckled the then Financial Services Authority Chief, that has subsequently given Bloom the honour of being the first person to be ejected from the Mansion House since the late eighteenth century. Of course, who could forget his "Bongo Bongo Land" remark concerning countries who receive overseas aid!
Number Two- The other weirdos crawling out of the UKIP Cupboard!
Although Mr Bloom's many indiscretions may have led to him no longer sitting in the European Parliament as a member of the United Kingdom Independence Party, enter David Silvester. The Henley-On-Thames Councillor, who had just under a year ago defected to UKIP from the Conservatives, made national headlines last month for his views that recent floods were a consequence of David Cameron legalising Gay Marriage!
Whilst some people may be quick to acknowledge the decisiveness of the UKIP leadership in suspending Mr Silvester, it is also worth remembering that UKIP were fully aware of Mr Silvester's general viewpoint on the subject of gay marriage, which of course prompted his defection from the Conservative Party in the first place. The question now will concern who else is waiting to crawl out of the UKIP cupboard?
Number Three- Nigel Farage has Colonial Tendencies!
UKIP Leader Nigel Farage does generally speak very very well and I heartily commend him for the prompt manner in which he has dealt with Mr Silvester. Farage has also though suggested that the British Overseas Territories (those relics from the once all powerful empire) should be allowed representation at Westminster. What Farage suggests is a detachment from the reality that the only UK policy areas which apply to these self-governing territories are Defence and Foreign Policy.
Therefore, for these territories to gain Westminster representation would surely be more unbalanced than what is referred to as the West Lothian Question, which has emerged as a consequence of Scottish Devolution. How can it be right for these territories to have an elected representative who can vote on English health matters for instance? Does Farage also consider it to be a spiffing idea for Mainland UK residents to gain electoral representation for the Legislative bodies of British Overseas Territories?
Of course, how workable would such an arrangement be of having an Overseas Territory MP? Would the Overseas Territories MP have a surgery in Pitcairn Island one weekend, then another surgery in the Falklands the next? Or would the MP simply conduct his surgery by Skype? I believe the main reason Farage raised this issue is not so much that he feels these territories have a dangerously muted voice, but more along the lines that he sees the British Overseas Territories as his best hope of UKIP winning a seat at Westminster!
Thursday 16 January 2014
Fracking is a classic reason why England needs Regional Devolution (Part 3)
My devolution vision states that there should be a dramatic reduction in the number of MPs sitting in Westminster, in return for the creation of Regional Parliaments in English Regions. There are a number of issues which would be better regulated regionally, and not by a National Government that is too far detached from those citizens most affected. One such issue is Fracking.
Despite Spain battling a deep recession, the Northern Region of Cantabria was able to pass a law in April 2013 which banned Fracking. Although a mechanism does exist for the Spanish National Government to appeal or overturn Cantabria's ban, the point is that a very small region has a legislative voice that carries some weight. So far, Spain's National Government would appear to have made few moves towards reversing the law passed by Cantabria's Regional Parliament. One reason for that could be that the conservative Popular Party controls both the National Parliament at present, as well as the Cantabria Regional Parliament. Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy may feel against this backdrop that fracking could be too much of a divisive issue within his own party.
In May 2012, Vermont became the first US State to Ban Fracking. In signing the law, Vermont's Governor referred to the science behind fracking being "uncertain at best." Environmentalists in Vermont have seized on the momentum of the fracking ban, with objections to a pipeline going through the State which would transport shale gas from Canada to New York. Vermont (which is also known as the Green Mountain State) is the second least populous state in the US, and is a state that is highly dependent on tourism. In fact some of the largest ski areas of New England are located in Vermont.
I have previously indicated that on balance fracking may be a good thing if regulated regionally; but I also have full respect for the lawmakers in Cantabria and Vermont alike, who seem to be in tune with their respective regional electorates. Comparing the voice of the citizen in these regions, with the voice in the English Regions, is very worrying to say the least.
At present English communities are expected to be offered £100,000 for a well used for exploratory drilling, plus 1% of eventual profits which are generated. The UK's Coalition Government appear to be making noises towards acknowledging the feelings of communities affected by possible fracking proposals, in particular the possibility that the Government may be willing to increase the amount paid to residents near fracking operations. The English and Welsh Local Government Association (LGA) are believed to be looking for ministers to match the 5-10 per cent which is paid to affected communities in other countries. Whilst this would be a step in the right direction, IT IS REGIONAL DEVOLUTION WHICH IS ULTIMATELY REQUIRED TO ADDRESS AN EMERGING DEMOCRATIC DEFICIT!
Despite Spain battling a deep recession, the Northern Region of Cantabria was able to pass a law in April 2013 which banned Fracking. Although a mechanism does exist for the Spanish National Government to appeal or overturn Cantabria's ban, the point is that a very small region has a legislative voice that carries some weight. So far, Spain's National Government would appear to have made few moves towards reversing the law passed by Cantabria's Regional Parliament. One reason for that could be that the conservative Popular Party controls both the National Parliament at present, as well as the Cantabria Regional Parliament. Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy may feel against this backdrop that fracking could be too much of a divisive issue within his own party.
In May 2012, Vermont became the first US State to Ban Fracking. In signing the law, Vermont's Governor referred to the science behind fracking being "uncertain at best." Environmentalists in Vermont have seized on the momentum of the fracking ban, with objections to a pipeline going through the State which would transport shale gas from Canada to New York. Vermont (which is also known as the Green Mountain State) is the second least populous state in the US, and is a state that is highly dependent on tourism. In fact some of the largest ski areas of New England are located in Vermont.
I have previously indicated that on balance fracking may be a good thing if regulated regionally; but I also have full respect for the lawmakers in Cantabria and Vermont alike, who seem to be in tune with their respective regional electorates. Comparing the voice of the citizen in these regions, with the voice in the English Regions, is very worrying to say the least.
At present English communities are expected to be offered £100,000 for a well used for exploratory drilling, plus 1% of eventual profits which are generated. The UK's Coalition Government appear to be making noises towards acknowledging the feelings of communities affected by possible fracking proposals, in particular the possibility that the Government may be willing to increase the amount paid to residents near fracking operations. The English and Welsh Local Government Association (LGA) are believed to be looking for ministers to match the 5-10 per cent which is paid to affected communities in other countries. Whilst this would be a step in the right direction, IT IS REGIONAL DEVOLUTION WHICH IS ULTIMATELY REQUIRED TO ADDRESS AN EMERGING DEMOCRATIC DEFICIT!
Friday 3 January 2014
Hundred year jail terms are merely a dangerous Cameron Gimmick!
As 2014 started to get into gear, UK Prime Minister David Cameron appeared to be moving towards an advocation of US-style 100 year prison tariffs for the most serious murderers. The backdrop to this was a judgement made by the European Court of Human Rights in July 2013. It is particularly important to point out that this judgement never made a statement to rule that some of Britain's most abominable murderers should be released; the judgement merely stated that there had there had to be a review of sentences, with the possibility that a serious offender could at some point be released.
If someone came up to me and asked if person X convicted of the notorious murder of person Y should ever be released, I will admit that I would probably state my preference that person X should stay inside at this moment in time. But there is a bigger picture here which cannot be ignored. A small hope of being released after committing a most heinous crime, gives the offender some sort of incentive to work within the prison system to be rehabilitated. Do we really wish to condemn prison staff to work with an ever increasingly elderly population with no hope?
It is possible that such sentencing inflation could also move towards other areas of crime. Looking at the US Justice System, we have seen a few high profile cases in recent years of British citizens extradited to America in relation to White Collar Crimes. The cases of both the Nat West Three Bankers and of the retired Businessman Christopher Tappin, saw the defendants face the prospect of sentences in excess of twenty years, had they been found guilty after a trial! To many British people, this prospect was viewed as excessive, in comparison to the likely sentence a British Court would pass.
As it was, both of these cases saw the defendants strike a deal with prosecutors to plead guilty, in return for sentences of around the three year mark. It is believed that over 90% of such cases in the United States are in fact settled by such guilty plea agreements. I don't believe that I am alone when I express my own view that I don't really know whether the Nat West Three or Mr Tappin were really guilty or otherwise. If Mr Cameron's dangerous gimmick were to become reality, a snowball effect could very easily see such plea bargains creep into the British Justice System!
Mr Cameron and his Conservative colleagues may well feel they have a cheap soundbite that will help endear his Party to some gullible voters. THE REALITY COULD BE THAT BRITISH JUSTICE DOES IN FACT BECOME ROUGH JUSTICE!
If someone came up to me and asked if person X convicted of the notorious murder of person Y should ever be released, I will admit that I would probably state my preference that person X should stay inside at this moment in time. But there is a bigger picture here which cannot be ignored. A small hope of being released after committing a most heinous crime, gives the offender some sort of incentive to work within the prison system to be rehabilitated. Do we really wish to condemn prison staff to work with an ever increasingly elderly population with no hope?
It is possible that such sentencing inflation could also move towards other areas of crime. Looking at the US Justice System, we have seen a few high profile cases in recent years of British citizens extradited to America in relation to White Collar Crimes. The cases of both the Nat West Three Bankers and of the retired Businessman Christopher Tappin, saw the defendants face the prospect of sentences in excess of twenty years, had they been found guilty after a trial! To many British people, this prospect was viewed as excessive, in comparison to the likely sentence a British Court would pass.
As it was, both of these cases saw the defendants strike a deal with prosecutors to plead guilty, in return for sentences of around the three year mark. It is believed that over 90% of such cases in the United States are in fact settled by such guilty plea agreements. I don't believe that I am alone when I express my own view that I don't really know whether the Nat West Three or Mr Tappin were really guilty or otherwise. If Mr Cameron's dangerous gimmick were to become reality, a snowball effect could very easily see such plea bargains creep into the British Justice System!
Mr Cameron and his Conservative colleagues may well feel they have a cheap soundbite that will help endear his Party to some gullible voters. THE REALITY COULD BE THAT BRITISH JUSTICE DOES IN FACT BECOME ROUGH JUSTICE!
Wednesday 1 January 2014
Can Catalonian Football have it's cake and eat it?
The Regional Politicians of the Catalonian Parliament in Barcelona are making noises in the hope that a referendum later this year will herald the birth of Europe's newest nation. However, the Spanish Political Establishment in Madrid has a rather different perspective on the very legitimacy of such a referendum. But where does this debate leave the future of Catalonian Football and that of one of World Football's most prestigious club contests- El Classico (Barcelona v Real Madrid)?
Last year's accession of Gibraltar to UEFA membership, could in theory mean that Catalonia does not even need to become independent of Spain to join UEFA itself. As things stand currently, the Catalans do have their own football team who play an annual friendly game, normally during La Liga Christmas break. Although UEFA rules may now appear to suggest that UEFA membership could only now be available to Sovereign Jurisdictions, a high profile debate on Catalonian membership (as a non-sovereign country) could be very testing for UEFA. How can it be possible for a territory with a population of just thirty thousand people (in the case of Gibraltar) be allowed membership, yet another territory with a population of over seven million people be denied?
The current President of FC Barcelona appears to be of the view that Barca will be able to remain in Spanish Football, regardless of what happens to Catalonia politically. There are precedents to suggest this may happen: AS Monaco compete in the French League, FC Andorra play in the Spanish League System, and several Welsh sides compete in the English League Structure. It is true that there are differences between each of these cases mentioned. Also, recent manoeuvring between the French Socialist Government and AS Monaco on taxation matters will serve a warning to the Spanish FA of permitting membership to a club from a neighbouring jurisdiction, particularly if there is a sharp contrast in tax arrangements.
So ultimately can Catalonian Football have it's cake and eat it? Ultimately the answer can only be yes. Barcelona will continue to play in Spain whether Catalonia remains as it is, whether a non-sovereign Catalonian UEFA membership scenario ensues, or whether Catalonia does indeed emerge from November's referendum as an independent country. In the case of a Catalonian non-sovereign UEFA membership scenario, the case of FC Barcelona will be in many cases similar to that of the Welsh clubs; all UEFA membership would stipulate is that Catalonia needs to set up it's own national league. Should Catalonia become independent, it is highly unlikely that Catalonia would become a tax haven like Monaco is. But the main reason why Barca would remain in La Liga is the rest of Spanish Football. The financial implications for the majority of La Liga (including Real Madrid) would surely be too significant, wouldn't they?
Last year's accession of Gibraltar to UEFA membership, could in theory mean that Catalonia does not even need to become independent of Spain to join UEFA itself. As things stand currently, the Catalans do have their own football team who play an annual friendly game, normally during La Liga Christmas break. Although UEFA rules may now appear to suggest that UEFA membership could only now be available to Sovereign Jurisdictions, a high profile debate on Catalonian membership (as a non-sovereign country) could be very testing for UEFA. How can it be possible for a territory with a population of just thirty thousand people (in the case of Gibraltar) be allowed membership, yet another territory with a population of over seven million people be denied?
The current President of FC Barcelona appears to be of the view that Barca will be able to remain in Spanish Football, regardless of what happens to Catalonia politically. There are precedents to suggest this may happen: AS Monaco compete in the French League, FC Andorra play in the Spanish League System, and several Welsh sides compete in the English League Structure. It is true that there are differences between each of these cases mentioned. Also, recent manoeuvring between the French Socialist Government and AS Monaco on taxation matters will serve a warning to the Spanish FA of permitting membership to a club from a neighbouring jurisdiction, particularly if there is a sharp contrast in tax arrangements.
So ultimately can Catalonian Football have it's cake and eat it? Ultimately the answer can only be yes. Barcelona will continue to play in Spain whether Catalonia remains as it is, whether a non-sovereign Catalonian UEFA membership scenario ensues, or whether Catalonia does indeed emerge from November's referendum as an independent country. In the case of a Catalonian non-sovereign UEFA membership scenario, the case of FC Barcelona will be in many cases similar to that of the Welsh clubs; all UEFA membership would stipulate is that Catalonia needs to set up it's own national league. Should Catalonia become independent, it is highly unlikely that Catalonia would become a tax haven like Monaco is. But the main reason why Barca would remain in La Liga is the rest of Spanish Football. The financial implications for the majority of La Liga (including Real Madrid) would surely be too significant, wouldn't they?
Spain blocking Catalan Independence Vote could be a test of the EU's democratic values!
A date was set last month by Regional Parties in Catalonia on a date for a referendum poll to decide on whether Catalonia should leave Spain to become an independent country. Popular Party (conservative) Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy's Government are stating the poll is unconstitutional. Noises are even being made to suggest that the Spanish Constitution (of which Catalonia has been part of for centuries) requires Spanish Citizens in the rest of Spain to have a say. With initial momentum appearing to be with the Separatists, Madrid has been clearly trying every trick in the book to thwart the separatists' aspirations.
The European Union has been generally supportive to the Spanish cause, suggesting that an independent Catalonia (as in the case of a prospective independent Scotland) will have to re-apply for full European Union membership, and membership of the Euro. Voting on Member States joining the EU is one area in which National Governments of existing EU Member Nations can still operate a veto: in fact Madrid has suggested it may veto Scotland's accession.
Let us not forget though that article 6 (1) on the Treaty of European Union states that a prospective EU Member State must abide by certain principles in which existing EU Members subscribe to. Amongst those very princples is democracy itself. If Madrid continues to take this position on vetoing Scotland's EU Membership (should they vote for independence), and also continues to suggest the Catalonian Referendum is unconstitutional, then that could be interpreted as an example of an existing EU Member State not abiding by article 6 (1). Would the EU as a whole wish to be associated with such a suppression of democracy?
The European Union has been generally supportive to the Spanish cause, suggesting that an independent Catalonia (as in the case of a prospective independent Scotland) will have to re-apply for full European Union membership, and membership of the Euro. Voting on Member States joining the EU is one area in which National Governments of existing EU Member Nations can still operate a veto: in fact Madrid has suggested it may veto Scotland's accession.
Let us not forget though that article 6 (1) on the Treaty of European Union states that a prospective EU Member State must abide by certain principles in which existing EU Members subscribe to. Amongst those very princples is democracy itself. If Madrid continues to take this position on vetoing Scotland's EU Membership (should they vote for independence), and also continues to suggest the Catalonian Referendum is unconstitutional, then that could be interpreted as an example of an existing EU Member State not abiding by article 6 (1). Would the EU as a whole wish to be associated with such a suppression of democracy?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)