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!

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!

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?

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?