Organisations | Politicus - UK Politics News, Views and Commentary

Report on the pilot project on implementation of FoodEx2 as part of the Standard Sample Description for the electronic transmission of harmonised chemical occurrence data to EFSA – NP/EFSA/DCM/2013/01/03

Sat, 25 May 2013 22:15:02 CDT

Source: Albion Alliance - Published on: Report on the pilot project on implementation of FoodEx2 as part of the Standard Sample Description for the electronic transmission of harmonised chemical occurrence data to EFSA – NP/EFSA/DCM/2013/01/03 Go to Source

Pilot Project on the implementation of FoodEx2 as part of the Standard Sample Description for the electronic transmission of harmonised chemical occurrence data to EFSA

Sat, 25 May 2013 22:15:02 CDT

Source: Albion Alliance - The present document has been produced and adopted by the bodies identified above as author(s). This task has been carried out exclusively by the author(s) in the context of a contract between the European Food Safety Authority and the author(s), awarded following a tender procedure. The present document is published complying with the transparency principle [...]

On the implementation of FoodEx2 as part of the Standard Sample Description for the electronic transmission of harmonised chemical occurrence data to EFSA

Sat, 25 May 2013 22:15:02 CDT

Source: Albion Alliance - Published on: On the implementation of FoodEx2 as part of the Standard Sample Description for the electronic transmission of harmonised chemical occurrence data to EFSA Go to Source

Tory backbenchers warn “Cameron may have to break up the coalition to remain leader”

Sat, 25 May 2013 19:15:02 CDT

Source: Political Betting - The Sunday Times is reporting that (££) “A growing number of the talented 2010 intake of MPs, who could play a key role in deciding Cameron’s fate, now believe their party should withdraw from the coalition at least a year before the next general election in 2015. They believe Cameron may have to lead a [...]

Booker: an interesting mix

Sat, 25 May 2013 18:00:01 CDT

Source: EU Referendum - An interesting mix from Booker this week with a lead story on how the Scottish Parliament is processing a Bill to every child from birth will be given a "named person", charged with keeping an eye on that child's interests until it reaches adulthood.

For anyone familiar with how our "child protection" system, this state-imposed "godfather" has sinister overtones, even if no one has any idea of how this hugely ambitious scheme, estimated to cost Scotland’s local authorities up to £138 million a year, will work in practice.

Unfortunately, we have a better idea of what will happen with Booker's second story - on gay marriage. This is something he has previously rehearsed and which we raised on the blog in February and again shortly thereafter, plus when UKIP intervened.

Then we have Mr Cameron going to Brussels for a Damascene conversion on the vexed subject of energy. After last week's European Council, David Cameron told journalists in Brussels that, with the US now deriving 30 percent of its energy from shale, and Europeans now having "to pay twice what Americans pay for wholesale gas", Britain and Europe must now work flat-out to exploit their own vast shale gas reserves. "Unnecessary regulation", he insisted, "must not stand in the way".

Tectonic plates are at last beginning to shift under an EU energy policy that for too long has imprisoned us on a course that could only land Europe's economies in an even more disastrous and uncompetitive mess than they are in already.

What happened last week could prove to be a unique example in the EU's history of it recognising that it has made such a catastrophic blunder that its policy must change.

COMMENT THREAD

Law enforcement out of balance?

Sat, 25 May 2013 16:15:02 CDT

Source: Albion Alliance - SkyNews reports that a 22-year-old man from Lincoln has been charged with making malicious comments on Facebook, was remanded in custody and due to appear in court this morning. It also reports that two men from Bristol have been been arrested after making alleged offensive comments on Twitter, a 23-year-old and a 22-year-old, who were held under the [...]

Do we care? Really care?

Sat, 25 May 2013 16:15:02 CDT

Source: Albion Alliance - In his customary Sunday Telegraph column Christopher Booker writes about a subject on which I commented, following a H/T from Ian Parker-Joseph, just three days previously. The reason for the heading to this post is that my article brought forth not one comment – not one! Booker raises questions about this policy being adopted in [...]

The Harrogate Agenda: new blog section

Sat, 25 May 2013 15:30:02 CDT

Source: EU Referendum - Courtesy of North Jnr, The Harrogate Agenda now has its own dedicated blog section. I have copied all the main THA posts from this blog (about 30 so far) and placed them there all under one roof, for easy access.

We will make further changes to the page in due course, to give it its own identity. It can be accessed routinely from the menu under the masthead - click "Harrogate Agenda".

COMMENT THREAD

Ordinary residence, extraordinary mess

Sat, 25 May 2013 14:45:02 CDT

Source: Guerilla Policy - “Disabled people in residential care who want to live more independently are being prevented from doing so by funding wrangles between local authorities” – that’s taken from a piece I wrote three years ago, but since then little has changed. The original piece is on the Guardian website: “Caught in a trap: disabled people can’t move out [...]

Closing the enquiry centres: the final response

Sat, 25 May 2013 14:45:02 CDT

Source: Guerilla Policy - Don’t forget that today is the last day to make your feelings known about the proposal to close HMRC’s face to face enquiry centres. Here’s what I sent: This is an individual response and is also published online, with commentary, on my blog http://tiintax.com. There were four earlier blog posts on this issue which you might [...]

Sex, Lords, and Church Weddings: The Legal Labyrinth of Gay Marriage

Sat, 25 May 2013 13:45:01 CDT

Source: Thomas More Institute - From a Guest Blogger: In the midst of the ongoing gay marriage debate, the Government has faced calls to extend civil partnerships to heterosexual couples. After all, isn’t banning heterosexual couples from civil partnerships just as discriminatory as banning gay couples from marrying? The Guardian reports that one minister was confronted about the situation of [...]

News story: Foreign Secretary congratulates African Union on its 50th anniversary

Sat, 25 May 2013 13:00:01 CDT

Source: Foreign and Commonwealth Office - African Union has made huge strides towards building a safe, integrated and prosperous Africa, with improved governance and less poverty.

The Harrogate Agenda: Chartists revisited

Sat, 25 May 2013 11:30:01 CDT

Source: EU Referendum - "Whether, indeed, the house of commons be in a great measure filled with idle school-boys, insignificant coxcombs, led-captains and toad-eaters, profligates, gamblers, bankrupts, beggars, contractors, commissaries, public plunderers, ministerial dependants, hirelings, and wretches, that would sell their country, or deny their God for a guinea, let every one judge for himself".So said Major John Cartwright in his treatise Take Your Choice published in 1776, a document in which he enunciated the very same six points later to be packaged by the Chartists in 1838 as the People's Charter, some 62 years later. When then is the link between these and the picture of a steam train? Well, the picture was taken yesterday when we were guests of the North Yorkshire Moors Railway who very generously made available their facilities so that I could be filmed talking about the Chartists against such an impressive backdrop – all part of our Harrogate Agenda foundation video. The idea was our producer's, who found that the railway had been established within a couple of years of the publication of the People's Charter, providing good visual cues for the interview, also raising the role of the railways in helping the Chartist message to be spread so widely. Fortified by equally generous hospitality from the delightful refreshment room at Pickering Station, done out in the early British Railway colours, we then moved on Leeds University and the School of History, where we interviewed Professor Malcolm Chase, one of the leading authorities on Chartism, and author of the definitive book on the subject. What followed was a masterclass on Chartism, in which we were also introduced to John Cartwright, all captured on film. The interview will add a powerful dimension to our video, which is slowly taking shape. However, back home, the sheer intensity of the work has left me exhausted, so I will have to do catch-up in the morning after a night's sleep. COMMENT THREAD

The Harrogate Agenda: the EU framework

Sat, 25 May 2013 11:30:01 CDT

Source: EU Referendum - Booker and I have often referred to the establishment of the European Union as a slow-motion coup d'état, a revolution by any other name. And if it is really the case that the EU is the fruit of a revolution, that makes eurosceptics – almost by definition – counter-revolutionaries.It is perhaps better, though, to look forward. Rather than simply seek to undo the damage that has been done, our energies would be better directed at plotting a revolution of our own, seeking a better, more equitable society in which democracy has a chance of thriving. But, if it is revolutionaries we are, then we must behave like them. And that means we must have a plan – a strategic plan. No revolution has ever succeeded without one. And, like the Harrogate Agenda, my suggested plan has six points, which I conveyed to the CIB on Saturday. These are: 1. A credible exit plan 2. Reassurance for business 3. An alternative to the EU 4. A network for dissemination 5. Agitation 6. A coalition of allies1. A credible exit planThe absence of a credible exit plan, agreed by the bulk of the eurosceptic movement, is a major weakness. If we cannot agree on how to extricate ourselves from the EU, how can we expect the electorate to have the confidence to support withdrawal? However, the emphasis must be on credibility. And such a scheme, we would argue, is to invoke Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty, leading to a negotiated exit based on UK membership of the EFTA/EEA as an interim settlement. To ensure short-term continuity, we would have all EU law repatriated, giving time for examination and selective repeal, and the enactment of replacement legislation as necessary – all over a period of some years. In any exit negotiations, we would also go for a "sunset clause" on any agreement, with an option to renegotiate terms at, say, five-year intervals – one aim being to strengthen the role of EFTA. 2. Reassurance for businessAlthough the EU has been characterised as an economic union, it is a political construct with the objective of political integration – the final state being the United States of Europe. It is the means by which we are governed. Continued membership or withdrawal, therefore, is not a matter for business. It has no right to determine, and nor should it have any say in how we as a people are governed. We should not accept any role for business in a referendum campaign. However, business has a right to expect a predictable and stable regulatory and trading environment, the status of which is affected by our membership. Therefore, we need to be able to assure the business community that, should we leave the EU, there would be no adverse effects. In effect, that would mean "protecting" membership of the Single Market – which could be achieved through EEA membership. And, as long as that membership is assured, business has no locus in the broader debate. 3. An alternative to the EUWithdrawal from the EU, simply to hand back power to the Whitehall/Westminster matrix is not an attractive option. But, as much to the point, the EU is a symptom of a greater malaise. Leaving the EU, therefore, may not solve our more deep-seated problems. If one adds to this the general principle enunciated by Richard Stokes MP in October 1940, that it "is no use fighting for a negative object". To attract the broadest constituency, we need to mount a positive campaign, offering an alternative, more attractive vision of society. This is where we believe that The Harrogate Agenda could have a role. This has the added advantage, from a campaigning point of view, of being incompatible with our membership of the EU. 4. A network for disseminationSpreading the message is an essential part of any campaign, but reliance on the media is not going to be sufficient. Formal and informal networks will have to be built, some not dissimilar to direct marketing networks. Activities should include formal training and education, as well as more general propagandising. Many revolutionary organisations have acquired their own newspapers, or news magazines, as a means of better spreading the message. 5. AgitationMajor changes in political systems are rarely achieved without a degree of what might be loosely called "agitation" – action against government through mechanisms outside the normal electoral process. In fact, working within the existing political system is rarely effective as political parties generally serve to create and reinforce the status quo.Non-violent activities might range from street demonstrations of varying size to non-cooperation, passive resistance, and active civil disobedience. The essence it to reflect the withdrawal of consent to being governed under the current system, which has little effect unless it is communicated in very visible ways. The problem which revolutionary groups confront, especially in England, it that we have generally a conformist and obedient society, and one which is often slow to complain, even when there is good cause to do so. Conformity, of course, is learned behaviour, conveyed by parents and schools, and through employers, plus official actions and sanctions. By the same measure, non-conformity and outright disobedience has to be taught, with guidance and active instruction given. Activities can range from the most simple, such as the late-payment of official imposts – such as Council Tax, water bills, BBC license fees and other such fees. Even a low-grade nuisance campaign can have an effect, such as refusing direct debit payments, and sending cheques instead (without official reference numbers). Instead of being sent to payment offices, these can be addressed personally to the private offices of chief executives, stressing their administrative systems. A suggestion which reached me was a small sabotage campaign called "English spoken here". If we are required to provide immigrants with information about how to claim benefits, etc., let it be in English. We visit every agency, every employment office, etc. and remove all information (leaflets, brochures) not in English. Such small actions are the way to go. A lot of littles make a lot.A very wide range of activities is in fact possible, many entirely risk-free and totally within the law. All tend to rely on numbers for their effect, but the range is limited only by the imagination of campaigners, and the extent of any networks, which are needed to spread ideas, techniques and experiences. 6. A coalition of alliesWhen it comes to confronting governments, we have the inherent advantage of numbers – there are always more of "us" that there are of "them". However, that advantage is only manifest if people are prepared to work together, and offer mutual support. For that purpose, we get perennial cries for "umbrella" and "co-ordinating" groups, none of which ever come to anything. Not least, to maintain a fragile unity, compromises have to be made on strategy and objectives, which weaken strength and resolve. Thus, the only real possibility of magnifying the effect of the disparate organisations is to form loose coalitions, willing to share information, occasionally co-ordinate action and to work towards the development of common strategies on certain issues. This will become essential in the event of a referendum campaign, where bids will have to be made for the official "no" campaign funding. ConclusionThis outline does not pretend to be comprehensive, or in any way represent a definitive statement. It aims to make the points that a plan is needed, and then offers some elements which might be included in such a plan. I was grateful to the CIB for inviting me to their meeting, to Edward Spalton for chairing the meeting (pictured in the previous post) and to the members for giving me a friendly and attentive hearing. The vibrant questioning was also very welcome. Whether you agree or disagree with the detail, I would nevertheless aver that we will achieve nothing, and have achieved nothing, without strategic planning, aimed at achieving defined objectives. In my view, we either reconcile ourselves to that or we fail. To me, that certainly is not an attractive option, and one which I intend to avoid. COMMENT THREAD

The Harrogate Agenda: workshops

Sat, 25 May 2013 11:30:01 CDT

Source: EU Referendum - My apologies for not following through last week, as I had promised, with an account of our workshop plans. The launch of the AFD took precedence, an event not without relevance to us.What intrigued me more than anything about that launch was that, even with the high powered brains behind this anti-euro party, they still hadn't defined their main objective – whether they should go for the abolition of the single currency or shrink the eurozone to a smaller, northern currency union. A certain lack of direction also seems to apply to the Italian Five Star Movement, where contradictions and tensions seem to be evident and, of course, we have witnessed considerable incoherence with our own UKIP. Yet, an essential preconditions for a successful political movement are clarity of vision and the consistency of the message delivered – the two going hand-in-hand. And it is for lack of these that – most likely – the AFD initiative and others like it will eventually fail. Either that, or they will evolve into something different, and then possibly develop the essentials of success or be absorbed into another movement. With the Harrogate Agenda, though, we feel we have developed a clarity of vision in our six demands, but the delivery of our message cannot be left to chance. Although simple to express in brief, the detail is complex and easily misrepresented, as is the reasoning behind the six demands. Going back through historical examples of successful movements, one of the common attributes is the intensive training programme. Certainly, the Labour movement set great store by education, and other less savoury movements also directed much of their energies to training their supporters. Here, much the same must apply. There is a limit to how much people can absorb through pamphlets, books, web material and even videos. This may be the electronic age, but there is still no substitute for face-to-face contact, and formally structured training sessions. As much to the point, to multiply our capabilities, we need recruits who can learn and spread the message via this medium, so we see the idea of running a series of workshops not only as the best mechanism for teaching people about the Harrogate Agenda, but also as a means of training the teachers. Possible formats encompass half-day, one-day and weekend sessions, with a series of talks, initially comprising an exploration of the background to the Harrogate Agenda, and a detailed examination of the six demands. But we would then move on to sessions on strategy and tactics, teaching people how to take the Agenda forward. Currently, the plan is to trial the first workshop this autumn, and to have a workable product available for roll-out early next year, to local audiences. And once we have a stable format, we will be ready to teach our recruits how to replicate the sessions to their own audiences. This will involve training in public speaking, confidence-building, the use of visual aids such as powerpoint, and pointers on the organisation and marketing of the sessions. With that, we believe workshops will be the best and most effective way of building up a knowledgeable cadre of supporters, going for depth rather than breadth. In the early stages, we would sooner have ten, a hundred and then a thousand trainers with in-depth knowledge of the Agenda, than many thousands with a slight acquaintance of the issues. These will be our advance guard – the multitude will follow. COMMENT: HARROGATE AGENDA THREAD

Impact factors declared unfit for duty

Sat, 25 May 2013 11:00:02 CDT

Source: LSE UK Politics & Policy - Last week the San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment was published. This document aims to address the research community’s problems with evaluating individual outputs, a welcome announcement for those concerned with the mis-use of journal impact factors. Stephen Curry commends the Declaration’s … Continue reading →

You may also be interested in the following posts:

“If a tree falls in a forest…” Why REF impact isn’t the only (or best) reason to engage with social media to make an impact

Millions have benefited from educational shows such as Frozen Planet: there must be more to impact than the REF’s strict definitions

How can we demonstrate ‘negative impact’, that changes are more harmful than the status quo?

How Ed Miliband compares to his predecessors

Sat, 25 May 2013 10:30:02 CDT

Source: Political Betting - Now that we’re just a little under two years from the General Election, I thought it might be useful to see how Dave and Ed compare to the predecessors as Prime Minister and Leader of the Opposition, and used their net approval ratings with Ipsos-Mori In the first of this series, I’m starting with how [...]

The Harrogate Agenda: a franchise affair - Part II

Sat, 25 May 2013 10:15:02 CDT

Source: EU Referendum - Having promised to write a piece on the Harrogate Agenda each week (usually on Sunday), I thought of making my last piece today's subject. This deals with protest groups throughout Europe, reflecting the growing disillusionment with establishment politics.If I was to have focused on that, it would have been to ask how many of the movements we are now seeing have actually achieved anything substantive, and how many of them will still be in place in, say, twenty years time, and will have achieved their objectives – whatever they might be. What probably distinguishes The Harrogate Agenda (THA) from these other groups is that we have avery clear statement of objectives. This has been carefully thought out; it strikes at the very roots of power and, when adopted, will make a very significant change to the way we are governed. That said, we have no illusions about the difficulties involved, and have thus written earlier about being in this for the long haul, and of the need for a foundation year. There are those who would wish us to move faster, but from those, I notice no convincing arguments about how we could speed up the process of getting the Agenda adopted.That, actually, defines our approach. There are many would-be campaigners who define "success" in terms of activity rather than outcomes. They will congratulate themselves on holding a demonstration, on starting up a website, on getting favourable publicity, or even on coming second in an election. For THA, though, there is only one outcome, measure of success – the implementation of all six of our demands. If we achieve that inside twenty years, it will be a miracle. And the only way that "miracle" will happen is through a carefully structured, measured approach, built on solid foundations. Further, it has always been the case that campaigns cost money and, last week, I discussed the idea of creating a form of franchise, which would enable the movement to be structured as a business, to generate an income to cover expenses and to pay those who work for the cause. There are those who disagree with this approach, but unless they can come up with a better idea for funding a long-term campaign, this, as they say, is the only game in town. We would need to be convinced that there was another model which could sustain us over the many years that it will take to fight our corner. Short of any better ideas, we will continue to work on a franchise model, as described last week, to which effect, we have already devoted a considerable amount of time and effort, developing the "product package" which will form the basis of the franchise. So far, what we have in mind is a foundation pamphlet, similar in length to a typical Bruges Group pamphlet, which will describe the basics of the Harrogate Agenda, and the reasoning for it. This, our franchisees can sell for a modest fee. And if the term "franchisee" offends, notwithstanding that our MPs hold our franchise, call them "agents" or some such.In time, we will also produce six further pamphlets, each one describing one of the six demands in greater detail, again produced for sale at a modest fee by our putative franchisees or agents.On top of this, plans are well advanced to produce two broadcast-quality video documentaries, each of about half an hour in length. The first will essentially illustrate the foundation pamphlet. The second will be about the "Norway option", and its application to any forthcoming EU referendum and a "no" campaign. We aim to have short versions on YouTube, but the full-length videos will be available on DVD and download, for a modest fee – more saleable products to form the franchise package. Over time, we will, of course, consider making more. These two are assured, as we have secured the very generous sponsorship to fund their making – about £25,000 in all. With that, we have a busy filming schedule set for the summer, aiming to complete by our annual conference, provisionally set for 19 October. However, the core of the franchise package, and the bulk of our early activity, will be the "workshops". These I will describe in more detail next week, but the essence is a series of talks. When combined, these can form half-day, day or weekend "events" which can be marketed to the public for a fee. The basis of this "product", in the hands of our agents, will be a fully tested series of lecture notes, powerpoint illustrations, and a support package which includes training and marketing assistance. When we get going, therefore, we will have a range of "products" – the workshop series, pamphlets and DVDs, with more to follow. On top of conferences, and other events, we think this will make a good start. But quality products don't come quick, cheap or easy. Which is why we need a foundation year. COMMENT: COMBINED "HARROGATE AGENDA" THREAD

The Harrogate Agenda: a franchise affair

Sat, 25 May 2013 10:15:02 CDT

Source: EU Referendum - In the months following the first meeting of what we have come to call The Harrogate Agenda (THA), I have been careful not to push it too often on the grounds that over-exposure will simply invoke an adverse reaction. We are under no illusions that, when it comes to constitutional affairs, attention spans tend to be somewhat limited.Probably, though, I have erred on the side of caution, in that there is a greater demand for information than I anticipated. I also tend to make the mistake of assuming that because I know something and have discussed an issue with a few people, everybody in the group miraculously becomes aware of it. This, of course, is never the case. Communication, therefore, needs to be improved, to which effect Niall Warry is working up to produce a newssheet at regular and what I hope will become frequent intervals. As a matching initiative, I have agreed to produce at least one piece dedicated to the Harrogate Agenda on this blog, which I will generally post on a Sunday, unless good reasons suggest another day. There is also the option of using our dedicated website and there has been a commendable initiative in populating the site with our basic demands. However, I do not want to go down the route of promoting another website yet, until we have the resources properly to administer it and publish new material at least daily. The enthusiasm of those involved is much appreciated, but we do not want to repeat the mistakes of other campaigning groups, in starting something when we can't keep up the momentum. To service a website properly we need people who have the time, skills and commitment and, if we are going to demand all three, our view is that they have to be rewarded for their effort. They must be paid. This brings me to the main subject of this post – the problematical issue of how we fund THA. Very broadly speaking, there are two models on which we can rely – the voluntary/donation and the business models. In other words, we can either seek to build the organisation on the back of voluntary labour, with the injection of cash donations, or we can set ourselves up as a "business", funding our activities through the sale of goods and services. In fact, any successful (and even half-successful) campaigning group tends to be a combination of both – a hybrid. The Bruges Group is a good example. It invites subscribers and donations, and it also sells its products, mainly pamphlets and meetings. From its profits, it manages to employ its director, Robert Oulds, and to finance its activities. The essence of this "business model" is that there should be saleable products and services, and it is here that a great deal of work has been going on behind the scenes. The aim is to produce a starter "package" by September, which will spearhead our fundraising activities. Before discussing this in detail – which I will do in next week's piece – I want to explore how we actually go about marketing this package, and it is here that the word "franchise" rears its head, inviting unflattering comparisons with well-known commercial operations. However, one should not get hung up on the word. Very often in literature we see it combined with another word, as in "political franchise", meaning – effectively – the mandate we give via our votes, to elected MPs. We chose to mean by "franchise" a mandate given to individuals and groups to go out and spread the word about THA, in a way that will ensure continuity and secure adequate funding. In short, at the "centre", we will develop a marketable "package" (of which more next week). But, instead of adopting a "top-down" marketing structure, where everything is managed and controlled from the centre (thereby limiting growth), we aim to make this available to volunteers (or franchisees) who will undertake to develop particular territories. By this means, the franchisees will be able to fund their own activities, with relative freedom as to how they go about their tasks. Those who wish to do so may be able to earn a modest living as well. We see every advantage in this. If people working for the cause are properly paid, they can keep up the momentum. Going back in history, there are plenty of precedents for using commercial activities to find political activism, not least the Cooperative Movement (illustrated top), which used the proceeds from its merchandising operations to fund a wide range of political activities, as well as supporting Labour MPs in parliament (in the days before they were paid a living wage). Although not exactly commercial organisations (when they were formed, although they have become so now), the trades unions were also a major source of political funds, while many political groupings and movements developed commercial arms (such as publishing newspapers and books), in order to fund their political activities. The Daily Worker and the Left Book Club are examples. Interestingly, it has been the Left which has been at the forefront in creating inventive funding solutions. This may be because the political activism starts with the grassroots, and cannot rely on wealthy backers. It seems sensible that we should do the same, and copy the best of what went before.

The Harrogate Agenda: a vision of democracy

Sat, 25 May 2013 10:15:02 CDT

Source: EU Referendum - My tolerance for fools is a tad limited these days, so it took Boiling Frog to pick up the ultimate stupidity from David Davis in his speech yesterday on the EU, the "money quote" being: "If we do not like a new law, Parliament should be able to reject it".Davis calls in aid the corpus of law on justice and home affairs, where variously we have opt-ins and opt-outs, allowing something of an à la carte approach to the European Union. But that is the exception rather than the rule – the "colleagues" could hardly permit this to apply to the broad sweep of EU competences. On this basis, Davis denies, as we would aver, that an à la carte approach is impossible. All he will concede is that " negotiations will be difficult", the ultimate arrogance of a man who refuses to deal with the realities of the EU treaties. Time and time again, we have to point out that, if the "colleagues" decide that they do not want to negotiate treaty changes, there is no mechanism by which we can force them so to do. Futher, should they actually agree to negotiate, any changes proposed could be vetoed by any one member, leaving the situation extremely tenuous. What Davis says he wants, though, is "to get as close as possible to the trading alliance, the common market we all voted for in 1975" – which maybe what he voted for, but I and many others didn't. But if that is what we wants, the only way he can achieve it is to invoke Article 50 of the TFEU.However, in Davis lifting the lid on the EU in the way that he has done, he unwittingly lifts a lid on the British system of governance as well. Extolling the virtues of "democracy", he says, "If we do not like a new law, Parliament should be able to reject it".If the "we" that Davis so casually uses is the people, this begs the question of what happens if we do not like a new (or any) law, and Parliament does not reject it? The traditional answer here is that, if the government of the day does something to which we object (or refuses to do something we want), we kick it out at the general election and vote for a new government. In reality, though, the general election is far too blunt a weapon to allow a focus on one specific piece of legislation. In his speech, though, Davis asserts that, "If a democracy cannot change its mind, it ceases to be a democracy", yet by inference he reserves the right to change minds to the political classes, leaving the people out of the loop. By his own definition, that is not a democracy. Thus did Autonomous Mind rather succinctly sum up my view expressed at our last Harrogate Agenda meeting: "I do not want to leave the EU … if all it means is handing power from one bunch of unaccountable morons in Brussels to another group of unaccountable morons in Westminster".It makes no sense to focus all energies on exiting the EU unless there is something that serves the interest of the people to move to. Without real democracy and a positive vision of the future first it would be out of the frying pan and into the fire. Here then really is the crunch. When MPs consistently show themselves to be untrustworthy and wholly unresponsive to the will of the people, where is the value in taking power from one part of the political elite if all that means is handing it to another part? Therein lies our battle, and the great divide. There are those who talk about democracy, and those who want to practice it. We cannot simply leave the EU and revert to the status quo of the representative democracy we once knew. Too much water has passed under the bridge. COMMENT THREAD

The Woolwich attack: should the British feel terrorised?

Sat, 25 May 2013 10:15:02 CDT

Source: Open Democracy - The fact is the perpetrators want this to be perceived as an

act of terrorism. Doing so would put them in a league with the Al Qaeda

aficionados they have idealised.

In the aftermath of the brutal murder of soldier Lee Rigby in

London's Woolwich yesterday, questions have surfaced on how best to describe the events -

are labels such as “terrorism” either warranted or even accurate? While the

facts are still emerging, it is now clear the attackers were both British of

Nigerian heritage, with one named as 28-year-old Michael Adebolajo who, prior

to adopting radical Islamist views, is alleged to have dabbled in petty crime.

The men attacked Lee Rigby in South East London with a range of knives before being

shot by police officers, as they attempted to turn on them.

Many have questioned why the murder has received such

unprecedented coverage, with some pointing out that the equally brutal murder

of 75 year old Mohammed

Saleem, stabbed to death as he returned home from his local mosque in Birmingham

earlier this month, received comparatively little attention. In both cases, a

violent minority may be implicated in a murder with political dimensions, in

one case politically radicalised Muslims, in the other, the Far-Right. Both

could be dubbed a form of ‘terrorism’ and yet, only one has been.

It is a rather trite observation to state that the term

‘terrorism’ has become eminently politicised, used much more readily and easily

to refer to violence by certain types of political dissidents, such as those

whose violence targets the majority, than to refer, as it was originally devised,

to states, or groups targeting minorities.

And yet, there are significant aspects of this case which

appear to fit the ‘terrorism’ label. Amongst these, the nature of the target - a British soldier - and the identity of

the perpetrators - radical young Muslims - as well as the stated motivation. When

asked about his motive by an eyewitness, one of the men responded,

“because he has killed Muslim people in Muslim countries”, “I killed him

because he killed Muslims and I am fed up with people killing Muslims in

Afghanistan”. He added: "You will never be safe.

Remove your government". What’s more, the style of the attack, undertaken and

filmed in full public view with the objective of publicising the actions to a

wider audience, is reminiscent of a strategy employed by the media-savvy loose

network, often referred to as Al Qaeda. While there is evidence to suggest Michael

Adebolajo became radicalised through the now-banned al-Muhijaroun, the group is

well known to security services who monitor it closely and it treads a fine

line between espousing hate and undertaking violent actions. Though the group

may have laid the foundations for a binary and simplistic worldview, it is

likely that further motivating factors were involved in the move to action.

"We swear

by almighty Allah we will never stop fighting you. We must fight them as they

fight us. An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth," one of the attackers

told onlookers. To those familiar with Al Qaeda’s discourse, this is all too

familiar. A veneer of Islamist rhetoric dressing up opposition to the presence

of western troops in Muslim majority countries. The perpetrators need never

have met anyone vaguely even affiliated to Al Qaeda, they may have simply

imbibed the rhetoric, easily accessible online and in the pamphlets and clips

of extremists distributed in a murky underground network.

In a posting

on a jihadist website in January this year, Al Qaeda said 'coming strikes'

would target the 'heart of the land of non-belief' and that attacks would be

'group, lone-wolf operations and booby-trapped vehicles'. If indeed the men

turn out to be self radicalised Al Qaeda groupies, the attack would seem to

suggest that the security services have become efficient in countering more

elaborate plots and that extremists are now left with the “last resort” tactic

advocated by Al Qaeda and its satellites - rogue attacks by individual foot

soldiers – basic and simple to undertake, requiring little planning or

logistics and hence less likely to be foiled. The most recent "lone

wolf", self-radicalising extremist was Frenchman Mohamed Merah, who killed

three soldiers as well as three Jewish schoolchildren and a teacher in March

2012. If this is indeed the trend in the latest Al Qaeda attacks, they indicate

just how weakened the network’s reach in Europe has become.

So should the Woolwich attack be dubbed terrorism? Yes, it

appears to fit into the evolving pattern of Al Qaeda inspired attacks. But

should we be worried? Not really. Al Qaeda-style terrorism in Europe peaked

with the coordinated attacks in Madrid in 2004 and London on 7/7. The most

recent plots, from a foiled crude bomb plot at Glasgow airport in 2007, to yesterday’s

knife attack on a soldier, are an indication of just how limited their scope

now is in Europe.

The fact is the perpetrators want this to be perceived as an

act of terrorism. Doing so would put them in a league with the Al Qaeda

aficionados they have idealised. Ultimately, it vindicates their sense of

purpose, having “succeeded” in etching their names on the wall of terror,

alongside the Bin Ladens and Mohammad Sidique Khans of this world. That’s

precisely why they requested that the public film their actions and why they

appeared to relish a dramatic confrontation with the police. Like all Al Qaida

attacks, the force of the attack lies in the ripples of fear and division

created as a consequence. A successful attack against European targets is

measured not in victims but in the pandemonium and fear fostered.

Thankfully, the British “keep calm and carry on” attitude

has largely prevailed. Despite a worrying

spike in attacks on Muslims centres in the immediate aftermath, the message

from the political class has been broadly reassuring. Cameron was right not to

return too promptly from Paris and to advise

soldiers to keep wearing their uniform in public. Muslim organisations have

vocally condemned

the attack and stood united with their fellow citizens, a blow to the intended

wedge Al Qaeda seeks to put in place in order to attract its recruits.

Terrorism it might be, but the critical concern now should

be to avoid the politicisation of public fear, further unnecessarily impingeing

on our civil liberties. In 2009, former head of MI5 Dame Stella Rimington denounced

the exploitation of public fear of terrorism to restrict civil liberties, while

campaign group Liberty repeatedly warned

that, “the risk of terrorism has been used as the basis for eroding our human

rights and civil liberties”. Several peers have already pushed for the

government to resurrect the communications data bill, rebranding it a tool to

fight terrorism. John Reid has reappeared to call

for the total observation of all our data communications. So although Cameron has

said he wants to avoid “kneejerk responses”, we must remain vigilant. For our

security, yes, but also even more crucially, for our freedoms.

Country or region:

UK

EU

Topics:

Conflict

Democracy and government

International politics

The Harrogate Agenda: the people don't decide

Sat, 25 May 2013 10:15:02 CDT

Source: EU Referendum - While the EU takes the high ground on Bankers' bonuses, stealing a march on national governments over a populist issue, the Swiss people are exercising their own sovereignty, demanding a new law allowing shareholders to veto executive pay proposals as well as banning excessive bonuses for new and departing managers.This is the result of the latest referendum where 67.9 percent of Swiss voters coming out in favour of the so-called "Minder initiative", the brainchild of entrepreneur and independent MP Thomas Minder. Also called the "rip-off initiative", it prohibits managers (or remuneration committees) deciding their own wages. Shareholders will have to the right to vote on the total of all remuneration of Directors, the Executive Board and the Advisory Board. This also extends to base salaries as well as bonus payments. During the voting, supporters had the upper hand in all language regions and both in urban and rural areas, in what was the third highest approval rate ever for a popular initiative. It was driven partly by big bonuses blamed for fuelling risky investments that nearly felled Swiss bank UBS, as well as outrage over a proposed $78 million (£51 million) payment to outgoing Novartis chairman Daniel Vasella. Judging from responses to the news of the EU attempt to curtail bonuses, such a move in the UK would be highly popular, where corporate greed has taken on a life of its own, in both the public and private sectors. Certainly, that is the case in Germany where 79 percent of respondents to a Handelsblatt Onlinesurvey opted for shareholder control of salaries and bonuses. An almost identical majority voted in a poll held by an online market research company. Few things, therefore, better illustrate the parlous lack of democracy in this country where our own politicians oppose mandatory restraint in the private sector and have no plans whatsoever to control the "thieves in suits" in the public sector. Whether you approve of the Swiss initiative or not, in that country the people can make the decision as to whether to clamp down on the "fat cats", as opposed to British citizens relying on the "undemocratic" intervention of the European Union in the teeth of the opposition from our own "democratically elected" politicians. Of course, if the Harrogate Agenda was in place, we could make our own decisions on this and many other issues, without having to wait for politicians – in Brussels or London – to make up their minds, or not. In Switzerland, the Business Federation Economiesuisse fought the initiative with a million dollar campaign, and now regrets the referendum decision. At the same time, however, the Federation has issued an assurance the will of "of course" be respected. When we the people can tell our corporates what to do, and get the same response, we can start to claim that we have elements of a democracy. As it stand though, the idea that the UK is a working democracy is a pretence to which we should not subscribe. In the meantime, we can expect the "rip-off" to continue, a standing testament to where the power really lies in this country, a country where the people don't decide and the political classes have no intentions of letting us anywhere near the reins of power.

The Harrogate Agenda: a foundation year

Sat, 25 May 2013 10:15:02 CDT

Source: EU Referendum - After launching the idea of the Harrogate Agenda last year, with the publication and subsequent approval of our six demands, things on the surface have been quiet – and deliberately so. We are in for the long haul and have decided to make this our foundation year, setting up the structures and refining the message, ready for a modest launch in September.We could, of course, go faster, and some of our supporters argue passionately that we should. But the worst thing we could possibly do, in my estimation, is run before we can walk. History is littered with examples of campaigns that rise out of nowhere, achieve a degree of fame and then disappear as fast as they have risen, achieving nothing of consequence. Here, one must remember that the Chartist Movement, on which we are loosely based, published its demands in 1838. A petition was presented to Parliament in July 1839, and in November 1839 came the "Newport Rising", a premature event which was a disaster for the movement. Arguably, far from the cause being advanced, it was set back by the early activism to such a great degree that it was not until 1918 – eighty years after the first publication of the demands – that all but one were met, with the advent of universal suffrage. One is conscious, therefore, of the Bastiat dictum that, "the worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skilfully attacked, but ineptly defended". The worst thing that can happen to the Harrogate Agenda is a premature launch and a misdirected or under-resourced campaign. The crucial point, from which we can take comfort, is that the tide of history is with us. As Witterings from Witney never tires of pointing out, the "representative democracy" on which our government relies for its legitimacy is increasingly seen as an anachronism, totally unsuited to the needs of the time. In that context, despite the ephemeral fluff which is the obsession of our own media, what may be two of the most significant political events to emerge in recent years have occurred abroad – one in Switzerland, the other in Germany. The first – barely mentioned in the UK – was the Swiss referendum on executive pay, followed by the considerable interest shown by the German media and political classes, which continues today with a major feature in Welt am Sonntag, where they are looking enviously at the Swiss (below). At the core of the Harrogate Agenda, or course, is the principle of "direct democracy", very much on the lines of Swiss democracy, borrowing from that country but not entirely copying it. But what is significant about the recent Swiss referendum is that the mood is catching. As we noted yesterday, the new opposition group in Germany, the Alternative für Deutschland (AFD), has embraced the idea of direct democracy. It demands referendums on fundamental social issues. "Blatant bad decisions by our elected officials", it says. "need to be corrected. This especially applies to the assignment of important powers to the EU".And here, an important theme begins to emerge. The AFD is the first specifically eurosceptic party to emerge in Germany. With a commitment to direct democracy, it confronts one of the core principles of the European Union, as specified in Article 10. This states that: "The functioning of the Union shall be founded on representative democracy" and that: "Citizens are directly represented at Union level in the European Parliament".In other words, the AFD commitment to direct democracy, and indeed the Harrogate Agenda commitment, are incompatible with continued membership of the European Union. Direct democracy and the European Union cannot exist side-by-side. With unintended irony, the Treaty says that, "Every citizen shall have the right to participate in the democratic life of the Union", then telling us that, "Decisions shall be taken as openly and as closely as possible to the citizen". What it does not allow for is that decisions should be taken by the citizens. Given that the European Union is our supreme government, this necessarily requires for the Harrogate Agenda to succeed that we first remove ourselves from membership of the European Union. This means that, in terms of any future "in-out" EU referendum, we very much have a dog in the fight. In fact, not only does pursuit of the Harrogate Agenda require departure from the EU, it also gives us the reason for leaving. Direct democracy is an objective worth pursuing in its own right. If the price of gaining this objective is leaving the EU, that is extremely good value. However, linkage between the EU withdrawal and the Harrogate Agenda also tends to influence the timing and the strategy of the latter. What we must bear in mind is that, sooner or later, there will be an "in-out" referendum. At its earliest, it will be 2017, but then only in the event that the Conservatives win the next election – which looks increasingly unlikely. This notwithstanding, we must assume that, at some time in the future, there will be a referendum. In any such contest, it will be necessary that THA (as we are beginning to call ourselves) is an active player. We would expect to be a key member of any coalition which formed to the official "no" campaign, and to promote the Harrogate Agenda as one of the positive reasons for leaving the EU. Thus, in our view, the immediate objectives of THA are best served by forging an alliance with putative "no" campaigners, and ensuring that we have a seat at the table in any discussions about building a fighting coalition. All of that suggests that we pace ourselves carefully, focusing initially on EU issues, and using them – and any "no" campaign - as a springboard for a full-blown Harrogate Agenda campaign. Through this, leaving the EU ceases to become an end in itself (thereby ensuring the failure of any campaign) but a means to an end. On that basis, our target for a modest launch, with the infrastructure in place, by September, is a measured response to the need to mount a long-term campaign. And if UKIP, after 20 years and the expenditure of millions has yet to gain its first MP, for us to spend a year or so building our structures hardly seems extravagant.

Curran interview exposes lack of basic knowledge

Sat, 25 May 2013 09:30:01 CDT

Source: Scottish National Party - Interview on Good Morning Scotland exposes lack of basic knowledge at heart of 'No' campaign

The Harrogate Agenda: direct democracy - Part IV

Sat, 25 May 2013 08:45:01 CDT

Source: EU Referendum - Coming to another milestone on our journey of discovery, we reach yet another facet of direct democracy, the idea of Referism, the central tenet of which is the annual referendum on the budget.The deeper issue, though, is one of power at its most fundamental. Power is an indivisible part of sovereignty and, in modern governance, power is money. As long as government controls the purse-strings and can call off cash without democratic restraint, the people cannot be sovereign. When I first introduced the concept in May 2011, though, many people exposed to it reacted with horror. Some, manifestly, were opposed to the very idea that ordinary people should control or decide on taxation and levels of government spending. Others were concerned that the majority would always vote for increased spending – despite thelimited evidence to the contrary. Still others expressed their worries that, if the people did vote against a budget, government would be left without essential funds – even though there could be transitional arrangements to ensure that spending commitments were honoured. In practical terms, there should be no problem in having a fixed date for a referendum well before the financial year for which each budget applied. If a budget was then rejected, there should be enough time for governments to resubmit, and again seek approval. If a budget was again rejected, and it was too late to resubmit before the start of a financial year, there could – for example – be a system where permitted income stood at eighty percent of the previous year's figure, with adjustments made once a budget was approved. All sorts of variations are then possible, with even a provision for mandatory resignation of any government which fails to gain approval of its budget after three attempts. As to the mechanics of budget referendums, it was our own Sandy Rham who suggested that the software on current lottery terminals could be adapted to allow their use as voting terminals. A system that handles £6.5 billion in annual sales could very easily handle 40 million or so votes. Add an online facility and you have a quick, cheap system of conducting referendums. Such a system is not only desirable but also necessary. If one looks the current situation, it is hard to accept that we have anything that approaches democracy. As it stands, both at local and central level, the politicians decide how much they are going to spend, and how much we are to pay them. We are never consulted, and have no means directly of affecting their decisions. The way the system is supposed to work is that, if we disagree with the decisions taken, we hold our elected representatives to account at elections – i.e., after the event. But can anyone really assert that the election process is any barrier to the ever-increasing government expenditure and control? Thus does Witterings from Witneyremind us that we need a form of restraint, a mechanism we can apply before the event. Slapping the politicians' wrists after they have wasted our money really isn't good enough. The key, though, is that phrase "our money", and therein lies one of the most important aspects of referism. The government does not have any money of its own. It spends our money. And, if it wants our money, it should tell us how much it needs and why it needs it. Then, not only should government (local and central) be required to ask for our money, we should have the ability to say "no". Anything short of that simply isn't democracy.