Neil Armstrong

Understandably tomorrow's papers will be full of the death of the first man on the moon, and no doubt also will be much tedious discussions on whether it was all faked. Meanwhile I was intrigued by this from the Telegragh:

Breaching International Law?

I've commented on the case of Assange before, here and here. And the case still rumbles on. Currently Assange is trying to claim asylum in Ecuador via their embassy in London, and in a rather unusual and controversial move, the UK Government is threaten to revoke the status of the Ecuadorean Embassy in order to arrest him - using a little known law passed in 1987 in response to the shooting of Yvonne Fletcher.

Carl Gardner, a former government lawyer, said the law was specifically designed to stop acts of terrorism of other breaches of international law within a foreign embassy, which Ecuador was not guilty of. 

The fallout to Britain's diplomatic reputation should such actions be taken would be enormous and hugely damaging:

Sir Tony Brenton, who served as the United Kingdom's ambassador to Russia between 2004 and 2008, said "arbitrarily" overturning the status of the building where Mr Assange has taken shelter to avoid extradition, would make life 'impossible' for British diplomats overseas.

He told BBC Radio 4's Today Programme: "I think the Foreign Office have slightly overreached themselves here, for both practical and legal reasons.

"The Government itself has no interest in creating a situation where it is possible for governments everywhere to arbitrarily cut off diplomatic immunity. It would be very bad."

So why would they even contemplate creating such a situation? Well a clue can be found in the document presented to Ecuador by British diplomats in Quito (my emphasis):

We are aware, and surprised by media reports in the last 24 hours, that Ecuador is about to take a decision and proposes to grant asylum to Mr. Assange. The reports quote official sources. We note that the (Ecuadorean) President (Rafael Correa) has stated that no decision has yet been made.

We are concerned, if true, that this might undermine our efforts to agree a joint text setting out the positions of both countries, allowing Mr. Assange to leave the Embassy.

As we have previously set out, we must meet our legal obligations under the European Arrest Warrant Framework Decision and the Extradition Act 2003, to arrest Mr. Assange and extradite him to Sweden. We remain committed to working with you amicably to resolve this matter. But we must be absolutely clear this means that should we receive a request for safe passage for Mr. Assange, after granting asylum, this would be refused, in line with our legal obligations.

Thus the priority is we must meet our EU obligations above and beyond our own country's interests even if it means international ridicule, condemnation and isolation. Happy days.

You Really Do Despair...

It speaks for itself:

People Power?

One story that, sadly yet unsurprisingly, has been deemed to be less important to the papers than a load of people running around a track, is the tragic situation of Tia Sharp.

Understandably it raises much emotion, to the extent that there have been reports of copious cars full of young armed men roaming the estate looking for the missing step-grandfather until he was arrested. Also has been much criticism of the Police taking so long to find a body. Now I'm no fan of plod but it's worth noting that, at the time of writing, the facts appear to be as follows:

• A body has been found, but has not yet been identified.
  
  
• No cause for the death has yet been established,
  
  
• How long the body resided where it was found has not yet been confirmed
  
  
• Some family members have been arrested, which is not the same as being charged nor indeed being guilty.
   
• Murder cases of this type normally involve complicated family dynamics which are likely to play a part, rushing in like the Sweeney is counter-productive to say the least.

Yet people power have already made their judgement. Imagine a referendum as part of Direct Democracy under these circumstances. Rather than an informed debate about the pros and cons on what is a very emotive subject - where there are powerful arguments on both sides, instead those opposed on legitimate grounds will be drowned out by a chorus of 'hang the bastard' - in essence policy by the Daily Mail. I would argue that does not make for a healthy democracy.

Thus simply transferring power from Government to the people results in precisely the same outcome we're complaining about now. If referisim is to achieve anything it is to establish a situation where the power of the people and their government cancels each other out. In short we need a balance of power between ourselves and our government.

Interlude

Apologises for the temporary radio silence here at TBF towers...I've been distracted on a personal level which has prevented me from contributing to the Harrogate debate and other matters.

In the meantime I just thought I'd menschion that one of the most talented Tory MPs ever has called it a day - bored after 2 years - citing that old chestnut family reasons for her resignation:

Louise Mensch, the outspoken Conservative who has gained a huge following on social media, has unexpectedly resigned as MP for Corby and East Northamptonshire. 

I'd also like to point out that it's just not us that has noticed what's gone wrong in this country:

Bolt, who declared his intention to achieve legendary status by winning a third successive Olympic 100 metres final in Rio in 2016, said his normal routine had been disrupted by the myriad rules imposed by organisers of the Games in London.

He said: “There are a lot of rules, oh my God. You can’t do anything. I was coming and wanted to bring my tablets in and they said I couldn’t. I asked why. It is just a rule.

“I had my skipping rope in my bag and they said I can’t bring it in. Why? It is just a rule. What if I need to take a rubber band inside to stretch? I can’t take it inside because it is a rule.

"It is just very small rules that don’t make any sense to me. [Before the 100m final] the guy was telling us to line up. We were about to race and we were being told to stand in a straight line. It is kind of weird.”

And in addition Curiosity has landed safely on Mars:

A £1.6 billion one-ton robot rover the size of a small car landed safely on Mars today after one of the most daring and difficult interplanetary operations attempted. The six-wheeled rover Curiosity was lowered to the Martian surface on three nylon tethers suspended from a hovering "sky crane" kept airborne with retro rockets.

An expected signal confirming that the robot had landed was received on Earth at 6.31am UK time.

A marvel of human ingenuity - at a fraction of the cost of the London Olympics. Make of that what you will...

I'll be right back...

Leading Questions

On our unofficial football forum occasionally we get requests to fill in questionnaires on a variety of subjects but generally related to football in some way, for example this one on the issue of safe standing.

Sometimes we get different requests which are made by universities, such as this one posted last week by Staffordshire University on the subject of 'Barbaric Britain', titled:

In the first phase of this research a third of the people who participated believed Britain was returning to a less civilized, barbaric condition, while the rest thought this was an exaggeration. We’d now like to explore this more deeply.

However despite intentions of 'exploring this more deeply' as an example of leading questions I'm not sure this can be bettered - trying to achieve certain responses couldn't be more obvious, here's an example of the questions (click to enlarge):

And

The questionnaire has such an amateurish feel to it, initial reaction is that it is one designed for a undergraduate's thesis. But no, here's the profiles of the two senior academics involved:

Dr Jamie Cleland, Senior Lecturer in Sport Sociology:

I joined the teaching staff at Staffordshire University in September 2005 and teach on the sport sociology modules. I achieved my PhD from the University of Liverpool in 2008 under the supervision of Dr Roger Levermore and Dr Vic Duke and continue to be research active.

Expertise: Sociological analysis of sport (see research interests below)
Qualitative methods of data collection and analysis

And Professor Ellis Cashmore, Professor of culture, media and sport:

I am professor of culture, media and sport. Previously, I was professor of sociology at the University of Tampa, USA, and, before, that lecturer in sociology at the University of Hong Kong.

Expertise: I have been doing research in race and ethnicity and other aspects of contemporary culture for over thirty years.

Their research findings feature in national publications such as the Guardian, based on an equally suspect questionnaire. Interestingly enough, on Staffordshire Univeristy's Research Funding Opportunities page we have this:

EU Funding is provided by the European Union, the funding involves a partnership of companies and Universities. The University has recently being working with Italian based organisation CE.S.I.E. This company works towards the promotion of cultural, educational, scientific and economic development by using innovative tools and methods. Staffordshire University, CE.S.I.E and other European organisations have secured over €350,000 from the European Commission. They will be working together to produce a more effective way of improving people's skills whilst they are at work.

Anyway you can fill in the questionnaire here, not that I for one moment is suggesting that my readers attempt to skewer the results but...er...knock yourself out.

November 2014 - The End?

One of the dispiriting aspects of the eurosceptic movement is the tendency to indulge in hyperbole the consequence of which often lives up to the stereotype of foaming-at-the-mouth little Englanders.

One increasingly prevalent recent example are claims via some blogs but mostly by newspaper comments (2nd one down) that after 1st November 2014 the UK cannot leave the EU:

David Cameron, has adopted the Distraction Game, a system of calculated plodding over taking action over our membership (unlawful membership) of the EU.

If he can successfully put off giving us a say on the EU, until, 1 November 2014, he will have won, because from that date, QMV (Quality Majority Voting) come into force.

No country will be allowed to make any meaningful decision, including leaving the EU, unless it is approved by the majority vote in the EU Parliament.

And:

It is outrageous that we have not been informed that in just two years time individual national withdrawal from the EU will be banned, unless agreed by a majority vote in the self serving EU Parliament [sic]. 

Now it's true that voting method will change for the Council under Lisbon regarding withdrawal, as noted in Article 50 - the exit clause - page 45 (my emphasis):

[the negotiations of exit] shall be concluded on behalf of the Union by the Council, acting by a qualified majority...a qualified majority shall be defined in accordance with Article 238(3)(b) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

Article 238(3)(b) says (page 156):

As from 1 November 2014 and subject to the provisions laid down in the Protocol on transitional provisions, in cases where, under the Treaties, not all the members of the Council participate in voting, a qualified majority shall be defined as follows:

• (b) By way of derogation from point (a), where the Council does not act on a proposal from the Commission or from the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, the qualified majority shall be defined as at least 72 % of the members of the Council representing the participating Member States, comprising at least 65 % of the population of these States.

But, but, but...the method the Council uses to vote is largely irrelevant. That they vote by absolute majority, simple majority, QMV, or indeed whilst standing on their heads, stuffing their faces with doughnuts wearing clown suits matters not. Because of Section 3 of Article 50 (page 46) which states quite clearly (my emphasis):

3. The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period.

In other words, if there's no agreement and the Council votes against us, we're still out in 2 years by default....even after 1st November 2014.

Cash In Hand

It was just over four weeks ago when the coalition, namely Cameron, walked straight into a perfectly avoidable tax bear trap, regarding that time Jimmy Carr.

One would think lessons would have been learned but oh no. David Gauke, the Exchequer Secretary decides to take on (probably) the majority of the British public at a time of economic uncertainty and accuse them of being morally wrong by paying plumbers etc cash in hand. Leaving aside that most of us are certainly not going to take any lectures from MPs on morals when they quite happily rip off expenses and spend hard-earned taxpayers' money on a whim such as here...

Commons Speaker John Bercow charged taxpayers £624 to have his chauffeur rush him to Devon for a ‘dirty weekend’ with wife Sally before she entered Celebrity Big Brother.

....such sanctimonious pontification from an MP is obviously going to lead to papers asking awkward questions. And so it proves:

People who pay plumbers and cleaners cash in hand are doing nothing illegal or immoral, a cabinet minister insisted on Tuesday, as senior members of the Government were forced to admit engaging in the practice themselves. 

David Cameron and other senior cabinet ministers including Nick Clegg and George Osborne admitted that they had paid traders cash in hand in the past. And an analysis of expenses claims by The Daily Telegraph showed that two other members of the government — Jeremy Hunt, the Culture Secretary and Sir George Young, Leader of the House of Commons — paid suppliers hundreds of pounds in cash, and claimed back the money from the taxpayer. 

One is tempted yet again to accuse the coalition of being amateurs but I do wonder if that is too much of a compliment.

And So It Rumbles On...

I haven't done a Eurozone post for a while largely because it consists of soporific repetition, however rumble on it still does:

And:

And:

It all reminds me of this post by the FT in 2010 regarding the sterling devaluation crisis in the 1960's:

To some who went through the unsuccessful struggle from 1961 to 1967 to stave off sterling devaluation, the series of crises surrounding the euro will be drearily familiar. First there is a surprise loss of confidence. Then there is a series of rescue operations, usually taking the form of international guarantees of one kind or another. These are backed up by domestic restrictive measures leading to a domestic recession of sorts. In time the financial pressures ease and near-normality is seen to return. But then, when few are looking, there is another crisis, another set of international rescues and another set of domestic restrictions. And so on. Eventually the struggle is abandoned, and political and financial leaders work to pick up the pieces.

During the period when sterling devaluation was known as “the great unmentionable” a tiny band of Treasury officials kept “a war book” on how to deal with the unmentionable if it nevertheless happened. Harold Wilson, the prime minister, ordered that the “war book” be physically burned, which it was of course not. It is difficult to believe that such a manual does not exist in Athens, Frankfurt and perhaps other European centres.

Can we put it out of its misery yet...?

Impotent

With recent dramatic developments in Syria, one is interested in the BBC profiles of Syrian leaders linked to prominently on its front page. There are a number of ways of interpreting how the BBC reports this, that what it reports is true, or it's a consequence of its inherent prejudice or it's a mixture of both. (My emphasis throughout):

First up on the two killed ministers. Assef Shawkat, deputy defence minister:

The US and EU imposed sanctions on Gen Shawkat in 2011, accusing him of playing a key role in suppressing demonstrations.

Then a profile of the other, Daoud Rajiha, defence minister:

The EU also added him to its list of designated officials, saying he was responsible for the military's involvement in the crackdown on protesters.

Then also prominent on the BBC website are profiles of others within the Syrian regime.

First up a profile of Maher al-Assad, Republican Guard chief:

The EU also imposed sanctions on Maher, describing him as the "principal overseer of violence against demonstrators".

Then a profile of Rami Makhlouf:

In May 2011, the EU imposed sanctions against Mr Makhlouf, saying he was an "associate of Maher al-Assad" who "bankrolls the regime allowing violence against demonstrators".

And a profile of Abdul Fatah Qudsiya, head of Military Intelligence:

In May 2011, Gen Qudsiya was included in a list of Syrian officials subjected to EU sanctions for their roles in violence against protesters.

Then Ali Mamluk, head of the General Security Directorate:

The next month, the EU also imposed sanctions on Gen Mamluk, saying he had been involved in efforts to crush anti-government protesters.

Then Jamil Hassan, head of Air Force Intelligence

The next month, the EU said Gen Hassan was "involved in the repression against the civilian population" during the recent anti-government unrest, and imposed a travel ban and asset freeze on him.

And Mohammed Dib Zaitoun, head of the Political Security Directorate:

In May 2011, the EU accused Gen Zaitoun of involvement in violence against demonstrators, and announced a travel ban and asset freeze. The US also imposed sanctions on him later that month, accusing him of human rights abuses.

And Zuhair Hamad, deputy head of the General Security Directorate:

In November 2011, the EU accused Gen Hamad of responsibility "for the use of violence across Syria and for intimidation and torture of protesters" and imposed sanctions on him.

Then Hafez Makhlouf, head of General Security Directorate in Damascus:

In May 2011, the EU imposed sanctions on Col Makhlouf, saying he was "close to Maher al-Assad" had been "involved in violence against demonstrators" as head of the GSD's Damascus branch. 

A profile of Mohammed Nasif Kheirbek, deputy vice-president for security affairs:

In May 2011, the EU imposed sanctions on Gen Kheirbek, saying he had been "involved in violence against the civilian population".

Then a profile of Hisham Ikhtiar, director of the National Security Bureau (NSB):

Gen Shalish is Bashar's first cousin and head of Presidential Security. In June 2011, the EU imposed sanctions of him, saying he had been "involved in violence against demonstrators".

And finally Rustum Ghazali, head of Military Intelligence in Damascus Countryside:

In May 2011, the EU said Gen Ghazali was head of Military Intelligence in Damascus Countryside (Rif Dimashq) governorate, which borders Deraa governorate, and was involved in "violence against the civilian population".

Throughout note what information is missing, as reported elsewhere:

LONDON — Foreign Secretary William Hague said a suicide bombing that killed two top Syrian security officials on Wednesday showed the need for a UN resolution to end the crisis.