Spanish
Music: This,
apparently, is not confined to 3 songs most of us recall from 10
years ago. HT to Lenox of Business Over Tapas for the
citation of this site, bringing us up to date and proving that The Spanish music scene is far more than just vintage Latino pop.
Bullfighting:
For those (few?) readers interested in
taking a class on this, here - with another HT to Lenox - is info on
a course down in Berja (Almería) in March. Suerte.
Spanish Property
Values: Following a year in which sales were the least bad since
2007, prices nationally are forecast to rise by about 6% this year.
More in my daughter's barrio in central Madrid. And also, I hope, in
my posh barrio over-looking Pontevedra.
Spanish CO2
Production: Despite La Crisis, this has seen the highest increase
in this gas in the EU – up 4% in 2014, for example. Which reminds
me that I think I read the UK is the only country in Europe which has
complied with the obligations set in the last big get-together. Kyoto?
Spain's biggest polluters are the quasi-monopoly operators we all
love to hate: Endesa, Gas Natural Fenosa, EDP
España, Repsol, ArcelorMittal, Cepsa, Viesgo, Iberdrola, Cemex,
Petronor (a branch of Repsol) and Cementos Portland.
Spanish
Human Rights: Amnesty International reminds us of what we all know –
these went into reverse in the last years of the (outgoing?)
right-wing PP government. Specifically in the areas of: Freedom of
speech; Mistreatment of refugees and immigrants; Violence
against women; Counter-terrorism measures; Abortion laws; and
Evictions. The
depressing details can be found here. Que va!
Oh, yes . . . .
Spanish
(non)Government: In its desperate attempt to form a government
against an early March deadline, the PSOE party has been riding 2
horses - the 'right-of-centre' Ciudadanos party and the
very-left-of-centre Podemos party. Both of these are recent creations
and neither of them has any experience of national government. That
said, Podemos is full of ideas. Some would say dreams. And they
have been obdurate in pushing these in negotiations with the PSOE.
But the latter has finally leapt on to Ciudadanos and let go of the
reins of an angry, rejected Podemos. So a centre-coalition will aim to get
parliamentary support from other parties in the investiture session
next week. Some hope, though. And the betting remains on failure
and a subsequent second general election in June. Those who are
concerned about uncertainty still have a lot to worry about.
Finally
. . . A couple of Funnies:
- The latest Daily Telegraph contribution to global humour and ignorance: Today's PMQs desended into a war of words between the views of the Prime Minister and Leader of the Opposition's own mothers.
- A wonderful Spitting Image video, showcasing the Atheist Tabernacle Choir.
- An even funnier video of an American preacher who believes that the Bible is right on absolutely everything, including slavery. Believe me, it's not a spoof or a parody. He's the real McCoy. A (tamer) cousin of all those Islamic nutters.
Finally .
. . Finally: A Regular feature of the next few months: The Brexit
Page. Where I'll bring you views from both sides.
This time
the knowledgable Outer, Dr Richard North, of the EU Referendum Blog:-
The
EU Referendum: debunking the deal
With Mr Cameron having
lodged his final "deal" and named the date for the
referendum, we're finally entering a phase where the polls begin to
matter. Whether or not they can be relied upon is another matter.
What makes the
difference is the "deal", which is effectively the measure
against which people are expected to make their voting decisions.
This, at least, has always been the expectation, which we saw raised
in 2012 when Andrea Leadsom reported on a YouGov survey from July
2012.
This survey had 48
percent wanting to leave and 31 percent remaining. But, if a new deal
was renegotiated, the poll suggests that people would vote in a
completely different way. Most – 42 as against 34 percent - would
vote to remain.
We then had the poll at
the beginning of February with the leavers 42 percent and the
remainers 38 percent, the "don't knows" standing at 18
percent. But, if Mr Cameron brought home a "good" deal,
support for leaving would drop to 23 percent. The remainers soared to
50 percent, with the "don't knows" at 24 percent.
If, on the other hand,
Mr Cameron failed to secure a deal, leavers took a winning majority
of 46 and the remains dropped to 32 percent. The "don't knows"
were still high, but dropped back to 19 percent.
Thus, the current
YouGov poll, the first since Mr Cameron concluded his deal is of more
than usual interest. As recorded by The Times, it has the leavers
losing four points, dropping back from 42 to 38 percent while the
"remainers" on the other hand drop just one point to come
in at 37 percent. The "don't knows", however, soar to 25
percent, suggesting that there is everything to play for.
However, as The Times
points out, that puts the polling neck and neck, with the paper
suggesting that David Cameron's attempt to focus on the threat that
Brexit may pose to security and the economy "appears to be
working".
Looking at the full
results, though, we come up with some very interesting observations
on the nature of Mr Cameron's "deal", as respondents
address the question: "From what you have seen or heard, do you
think the renegotiation between Britain and the EU is a good or bad
deal for Britain?"
This has those who
think Mr Cameron has gained a "good" deal runs to 26
percent (up from 22 percent in early Feb), while those thinking it a
"bad" deal call in at 35 percent (down from 46 percent).
The "don't knows" on the other hand climb from 32 to 39
percent, again indicating that there is everything to play for.
In more detail, we then
see that 22 percent of respondents expected Cameron to have done a
good deal, up one point, while 23 percent thought he did better than
expected, up three points. Again, the "don't knows" are up,
rising six points to 29 percent.
Offsetting that, 51
percent of respondent felt that the changes did not go far enough, as
opposed to 15 that thought the Prime Minister has got it "about
right", and only four percent felt he had gone too far. But
again, sentiment is drifting in Mr Cameron's favour. At the beginning
of the month, 56 percent thought he had not gone far enough.
What all this and more
suggests is that it is imperative for the "leave" campaign
to stop the drift, and reverse the movement of sentiment towards Mr
Cameron's position. And, insofar as there seems to be a correlation
between views on the deal and voting intentions, the more the deal
can be trashed, the better it is for us.
Yesterday's
intervention by Mr Gove, therefore, was quite helpful, although his
focus on the potential part of the ECJ in challenging the deal was
actually less so. The specific issue about this deal is not that it
might or might not withstand a challenge on the detail, but whether
it is a valid treaty.
While the deal, does in
fact cover different areas, those parts which require treaty change
for their implementation cannot be valid, in that they breach
fundamental principles of treaty law (Articles 34 and 61 of the
Vienna Convention), in seeking to impose obligations on third
parties, and being made dependent on actions over which the
signatories have no control, the execution of which they cannot
guarantee.
The result of the Gove
intervention, therefore, has led to a squabble over detail, with
interjections from Joshua Rozenberg in the Guardian and an opaque
piece from the BBC.
This even has Clive
Coleman, legal correspondent, calling in aid the Vienna Convention to
allow him to argue that: "If it walks, talks and smells like a
treaty, then it is a treaty". This, he says, calling in aid
Michael Gove, "is a 'deal between 28 nations all of whom believe
it'. In other words, all of whom intend to be bound by it".
And there, egregiously,
is the point missed. The Heads of State or Government (or HSG as we
must now call them), constituted themselves as an intergovernmental
forum – distinct and separate from the European Council.
Since the Lisbon Treaty
came into force, the European Council has been a formal EU
institution, having never previously had formal recognition in the
treaties. Therefore, even though the HSG may be the same people who
comprise the European Council, as bodies they have distinct and
separate legal identities. The one may not instruct the other, and
nor can either commit the other to binding action.
Furthermore, while it
is acknowledged that a decision by the European Council can on
occasions clarify EU law, the HSG's "decision" was not made
by a body constituted as the European Council. According to the Legal
Counsel of the European Council, "it is … a Decision of the
Member States of the European Union, of an intergovernmental nature".
As to the addition of
the phrase "meeting within the European Council", this
"aims only at clarifying that the Heads of State or Government
took the opportunity of their participation in a meeting of the
European Council, of which they are all members, to adopt their
decision".
It may be the case by
reference to Janko Rottmann v Freistaat Bayern that such a meeting
within the European Council may clarify a question of particular
importance to the Member States, which that has to be "taken
into consideration" as being instruments for the interpretation
of the EC [EU] Treaty, but that does not give this body any powers to
create obligations which are binding on the European Council or any
other institution of the EU.
Yet, as we see written
into the HSG "decision" in respect of both economic
governance and ever closer union: "The substance of this Section
will be incorporated into the Treaties at the time of their next
revision …".
There can be little
doubt that the context and the use of the word "will" not
only implies but unequivocally commits to treaty revision, thus
establishing an obligation which the HSG is in no position to make,
and which cannot be imposed on EU institutions – or even successor
governments to those currently represented by the HSG.
Technically, the
instrument may be a "treaty" in terms of its construction.
It may be irreversible in that the text cannot be changed, but the
elements identified invalidate it. It may be a treaty, but that does
not make it a valid treaty. As such, those elements cannot be legally
binding.
As such, therefore,
this matter has neither been properly addressed nor resolved by the
many commentators who have discussed it. Not even a note by Arnold
Ridout Counsel for European Legislation, acting for the EU Scrutiny
Committee, has been of much help.
Asserting as it does:
"This international law agreement does not purport to change the
Treaties, only clarify or supplement them", it is plainly wrong.
The phrasing in the agreement, stating: "The substance of this
Section will be incorporated into the Treaties at the time of their
next revision …" is clear evidence of it purporting to change
the treaties.
Ridout, however, does
say that the areas of future Treaty change "are … conditional,
as they must be, on the approval/ratification of the Member States".
He then adds: "This makes any future Treaty change vulnerable to
a change in government or an adverse referendum result in another
Member State".
On that basis alone,
the commitment to the treaty change cannot possibly be binding, as
falling within Article 61 of the Vienna Convention.
Thus, we
are in a bind. As long as this issue is officially unresolved, it is
not possible for us lowly creatures to express a definitive opinion.
But, given how much Mr Cameron wants it buried – and how important
that it is that it should not be – we must keep this alive until
the deal is fully debunked, and seen to be dead in the water.
Young Blue Eyes . . .
Young Blue Eyes . . .
No comments:
Post a Comment