Saturday 10 December 2011

EURO IS THE ULTIMATE 'LIVING DEAD'.

So David Cameron has finally halted the advance of European domination of Britain .................. or has he ? Has he, instead, sidelined the UK from future major European economic decisions ? Has he sidelined the UK from the EU ? Has he created a '2 speed Europe' ?

Cameron vetoed whatever it was that France and Germany wanted to do to save the Euro, supposedly because he was unable to gain sufficient safeguards for Britain's financial services industry. In truth, he was, of course, more interested in satisfying his Party and other active supporters, and also avoiding the catastrophe of a UK Referendum on continued membership of the mess that is the European Community, Union or whatever it currently calls itself. Anything that would trigger a referendum would also spell the end of the current coalition government, something which he had to avoid at all cost, so he did. The fact that it was almost certainly the right thing to do is rather irrelevant in political terms.

The whole idea of the European Union goes back to the immediate post-WW2 years, when European politicians were looking for ways to ensure that there could never be another major european war. Bringing countries together in an economic union was then seen as the way to achieve this, and it has since blossomed into the stinkwort that is the 'European Community' of today. Of course, the politicians never let the people know of their ultimate ambitions and thought they could arrive at their destination, of a single European state, by stealth; to a significant extent, they were correct, until now.

The invention of the 'Euro' as a single currency was clearly designed as a way of bringing about further integration between countries; rules that were necessary to ensure that the system could work were, however, avoided, circumvented or simply ignored. The result is the shocking mess that exists today. 17 countries have converted to using the 'Euro', at least several of them never having met the required criteria in any sense that any accountant could accept; of course, governments tend to avoid using accountants and, instead, rely on the vague prognostications of economists to support their often insane ambitions, and this is what happened.

Now we have a political crisis to add to the pre-existing financial and economic ones, but the politicians would rather suffer the torments of 'Dante's Inferno' than admit that the original concept was flawed and needs to be re-assessed. Instead, they continue to discuss ways of shoring-up the impossible structure that is the 'Euro'; those countries already in hock to the 'Euro' see little choice but to stick with it, even if it means eventual meltdown, while the paymaster, Germany, has already committed so much politcal kudos, not to mention money, to trying to maintain this ludicrous enterprise, that a voluntary withdrawal is now politically impossible. The other main player, France is in the invidious position of being a prime architect of the system, and can't possibly contemplate its failure, but is also likely to be its next major casualty; the French political elite also hates the British, so putting 'Boy Dave' in an awkward spot is seen as being an earner of serious 'brownie points' for President (for the moment) Sarkozy. This was done at the recent gathering and has been pounced upon by the French press.

The 'Euro' is dead and Cameron did the right thing, for all the wrong reasons. The largely political solution now being cobbled together by the 17 'Euro' countries will achieve little as, for countries such as Greece, remaining within whatever new rules are produced, will eventually prove as unpalatable as remaining within the old. Addiionally, German electors will eventually decide that they have had enough of paying the debts of Greece, Portugal, Italy, Ireland, Spain and the rest; the whole project will collapse.

Britain is, whether 'Merkozy' likes it or not, a major power in both finanical and political terms, at least in the small pond that is Europe; we cannot be ignored, nor sidelined. The EU cannot make major decisions without Britain's involvement; it can, of course, develop agreements between different groups of member nations but no such agreements can be made outside of existing treaty arrangements. The 17 'Euro' nations can huff and puff all they like but they cannot develop arrangements that contravene any existing treaty obligations; equally, they upset the UK at their peril.

There could be the creation of a '2 speed Europe' but what would that mean ? How would it work ? If the UK was forced into a referendum and the people decided to leave the Union, what then ? The UK has places to go; the Commonwealth is the largest block of nations in the world, outside of the United Nations. The UK is still one of the world's largest economies and cannot be ignored; the EU is an agglomeration of disparate nations with vastly different, and largely incompatible, economies. Where would Italy, Greece and Portugal, not to mention Hungary, Croatia and Poland, look if the UK borders were to be closed, or restricted, to them ? Germany cannot save them all.

Which would you choose to ally yourself with ?


Sunday 4 December 2011

EXECUTIVE PAY : CLEGG WRONG AGAIN.

I am no supporter of the executives of companies who are paid vast amounts of money for questionable levels of performance. The arguments for and against the inroduction of controls have been well aired in the media, but the reported measures to be be put forward by the Government are a nonsense.

The pay of senior executives is determined by the Remuneration Committee of each company; these committees are composed of non-executive members of the Boards, these member aften being executive members of other Boards. Inevitably, there is the risk of an incestuous relationship developing which leads to a "You scratch my back and I'll scratch yours" approach to pay determiniation. This is fundamentally wrong and should be stopped, the question is "How ?"

Ultimately, every publicly quoted company is owned by its shareholders and it is for them to decide whether of not they are satisfied with the companies' management. It should not be for the Government to interfere; have we not seen enough of the consequences of Government involvement in major industries in the past ? It is also not for the workers to decide who gets paid what, as is now being proposed by Nick Clegg; the suggestion that there should be worker representation on Remuneration Committees is farcical. In essence, this would mean union officers sitting alongside Board members, being made privvy to highly confidential personal information and being asked to make determinations for which they are ill-suited and inappropriately positioned. The whole idea is a muddle-headed piece of socialist nonsense and why David Cameron should agree to it is a mystery, unless it's as a trade-off for Liberal Democrat acquiescence to more Conservative policies.

To my mind, the answer to Boardroom pay inflation is simple and doesn't require any grand political gestures. Firstly, anyone serving as an executive in one company should be barred from serving as a non-executive for any other or, at the very least, from serving on its Remuneration Committee; secondly, the objectives by which senior executives are assessed should be clear, concise, easily understood and easily measurable. There should be no woolly wording capable of a range of interpretations and the level of performance should be assessed by a body separate from the Remuneration Committee; this body could, indeed, include representatives of the workforce and, even, other interested parties. Finally, ordinary shareholders have to be strongly encouraged to become much more involved in the determination of the extent to which executives have, or have not, achieved their objectives and in the determination of the appropriate level of remuneration. Companies should be required to make it much easier for shareholders to access the necessary information and to express their views, in full knowledge of the relevant facts.

Clegg's proposals are unnecessary and wrong. Workers do not own their companies, except in a few specific instances, and should have no role in determining the pay of their managers; if they are given such power, the result will, inevitably, be anarchy and chaos.

Friday 2 December 2011

CLARKSON'S TIME IS UP; BBC ON FINAL WARNING.

The furore over Jeremy Clarkson's recent comments is yet another indictment of the BBC and its management.

Clarkson is a character of little talent, but who has made a career out of playing the fool. His 'Top Gear' programme is nothing more than an opportunity for him and his colleagues to behave like spoilt children, being alternately puerile, rude and offensive. No vaguely intelligent person can possibly enjoy watching this drivel, nor will actually do so.

Regardless of the inanity of Clarkson's performances, many people do watch and, apparently, enjoy, his efforts;.no doubt, these are the same people who are addicted to 'Soaps' and 'Reality' shows. Consequently, he has a substantial following of people who have made him very wealthy; he now believes that he can do and say pretty much anything he likes, and get away with it.

Sadly for him, his recent comments have come to the attention of more intelligent voices, people who probably don't hang on his every word and don't giggle at his schoolboy antics and humour. These people have complained in large numbers about his words and both he and the BBC have been forced to issue apologies. For the BBC, this is another embarrassment and for Clarkson it should be terminal.

Not long ago, the BBC was forced to take action after two other morons, Ross and Brand, offended decency on the radio, and Clarkson has been in hot water over his remarks more than once before. It seems, however, that the Corporation has failed to learn from these events, as it's said that the producers of the programme, 'The One Show' (a stupid title, indeed), were well aware of what Clarkson was going to say. Some now argue that all the man did was to behave like himself and what is the problem in that ? In answer, I would say "Everything !", and that, knowing what he's like, he should be sat upon, heavily.

Apparently, Clarkson is a close friend of the Prime Minister; if this is true, I genuinely despair. We all know that Cameron is not exactly the brightest tool in the box, but for him to associate closely with a committed moron like Clarkson would surely be beyond the pale.

The BBC has got it wrong, again, and someone should be fired. Clarkson being Clarkson, is a shocking waste of tax-payers money and he should be exiled to some commercial channel where his puerile drivel is more suited. If Cameron and Clarkson are, indeed, close friends, one has to have serious doubts about the Prime Ministers judgement, again.