Skip to main content

Le vote français plonge l'Europe dans une période d'incertitudes

The vote in France on the Constitution does raise complex issues. Like many of these debates the issues that determined the vote were probably mainly nothing to do with the constitution itself.

Looking at the text it appears to be a bit messy and something generated very much for the convenience of the bureaucracy. The simplistic "pro-European" argument is that "something must be done" - "this is something" - "therefore this must be done".

I do like Graham Allen's approach which is one of revisiting the issue. The failure to agree the constitution has no immediate effect. However, we really do need to understand what we are trying to achieve.

Do we want a "light touch" Europe which maintains a customs union and economic union. Alternatively do we want something that in terms of an "ever closer union" gradually eradicates differences between different parts of the union as they get "ever closer".

I personally go for the first option. I am "pro-European" to the extent that I believe we should remain within the EU. However, that should be a decentralised "light touch" Europe.

The debate over the EU budget whether it should be 1% or 1.09% of GDP highlights the difficulty. The UK Labour MEPs want 1.09%, the UK Labour MPs want 1%. The same applies to other groups. Those people who personally participate in the mechanisms of the European Union take a view that more decisions should be taken at the centre.

To me the issue of "subsidiarity of subsidiarity" is the key issue. It is the question as to who determines the level at which a decision is to be appropriately taken.

Finding people who decide that they should not take a particular decision, but should leave it to someone else is difficult. In the absence of a very clear mechanism for ensuring decentralisation we should resist all attempts to streamline the centralisation of decisions. (eg the EU Constitution).


Popular posts from this blog

Homelessness vs Selling Books

Candidates in elections tend to find themselves very busy with lots of things to do.  It is, therefore, necessary to prioritise things to ensure that the important things are dealt with.

To me the issue of homelessness and rough sleeping is an important issue.  Therefore, when Birmingham's Faith Leaders group contacted me to ask me what I would propose and whether I would work with them to make things better I was pleased to respond with my views and indicate that I would work with them after the election.

The Faith Leaders Group (Bishops and other religious leaders in Birmingham) have now sent out their report.

Sadly, according to their report,  I was the only candidate for Yardley to respond.  The group in their report said:

"Particularly disappointing was the lack of response from some of those candidates seeking re-election as MP for their respective constituencies."
It is worth looking at the priorities of my opponent.
Interestingly today she has decided to be at th…

Millionaires and politics

The Labour Party spent most of the last election criticising me for being a successful businessman (aka millionaire). That is business in the private sector employing over 250 people. It is worth looking at the situation for the Labour Candidate now:

For the year 2016-7 Annual Income from Parliament74,962Specifically for her book51,250Other media income etc5,322.82Total declared income131,534.82

Traditionally anyone with an annual income of over £100,000 has been considered to be a millionaire. I did not use my position in parliament to increase my income.

I have been asked for sources for this. This BBC piece looks at how one should define rich. It was written in 2011 so the figures will be slightly out of date. There are perhaps 2 relevant pieces:
"In 1880 a rich person would have had £100,000 in assets or an income of £10,000 a year, he says. About a hundred people a year died leaving £100,000 and by 1910 this was 250 - "a microscopic fraction of the number of death…

The Labour Candidate's Book Promotion Tour and Why It Matters

In the 2015 General Election the Labour Candidate criticised John Hemming for having an external interest and made a pledge that she would be a "Full Time MP for Yardley and my only other job will be mom & carer ...".  Here is a copy of that pledge:

Since that point she has been working on paid Television Programmes and has also written a book. John Hemming has made no secret of the fact that he chairs the board of the company he founded in 1983. This involves one meeting a month. When he was the MP for Yardley he was a full time MP and the Job of being MP for Yardley came first. The Labour candidate has reported 1,274 hours of work other than being an MP in the two years she has been elected and her income in the last year was over £131,000.

Ignoring the question as to how she reconciles that with her "pledge" the question is raised as to what extent her external activity conflicts with the role of Member of Parliament for Yardley. She is supposed to de…