THE E.U. BUDGET
The E.U. Budget is both small and big. Small, since it represents just over 1% of Member States' collective national income. Because Government spending in most of the respective countries is up around 50%, European contributions are only around 2% of the public purse, much less than (say) health, education or pensions. Against that background, it's hard to see why everyone gets so excited. On the other hand, since the E.U. has a funny way of doing budgets, agreeing them for seven years at a time instead of the more usual one, the 2014-20 proposals add up to just over Euros1 trillion (there's that trillion word again), which is more than quite a lot of money.
Adding to the complications are three twists. The first is that 80% of the money is earmarked for agriculture and cohesion funds (i.e. support for poorer parts of the union), an outcome which reflects the E.U.'s historic priorities and the arrival of poorer members from Eastern and Southern Europe more than the needs of a 21st century international political grouping. The second is that ever since Margaret Thatcher famously banged the table at a 1984 summit and demanded "her" money back, an otherwise straightforward calculation (Member States pay in money to a central pot and agree on how it should be used) is now bedevilled by a complex system of rebates for certain countries, all of whom cling tenaciously to their "rights". Even Denmark has joined this game, having just noisily demanded a rebate of Dkr.1 billion, an arbitrary figure which is nevertheless already included in Government revenue plans for the next few years, making it difficult for the Danish Prime Minister to compromise.
Thirdly, the 7-year framework must be agreed unanimously by all 27 Member States and the European Parliament, all of whom have different priorities and all of whom can use a veto to gum up the works if they so choose. Some countries in the midst of big deficit reductions (eg the U.K.) want big cuts in the proposals, which are bigger (there is disagreement as to how much) than the numbers in the 2007-13 framework. Poorer countries, and the Parliament, want the exact opposite. Member States with farmers and poor people want to preserve the agriculture and cohesion elements, economic liberals and federalists want more for other things, such as cross-border research and transport networks. Rebate beneficiaries want to keep their goodies, net payers want to pay less.
If that sounds like a recipe for gridlock, then it is. A summit on 22 and 23 November is supposed to find a solution, but my hunch is that it will end without an agreement and in a welter of recriminations and bad blood, not least from the Brits. In which case, the 2013 Budget will be rolled over into 2014, with an increase of 2% to take account of inflation. Since that end result would satisfy some of the parties just fine, it makes it more likely that it will come about.
UPDATE: Late this evening the British Government lost a vote in the House of Commons on the E.U.Budget, when 53 Conservatives joined the Labour opposition in backing an amendment calling for a real terms cut in the 2014-20 framework instead of a real terms freeze, which was the Coalition Government's position. Although the vote is non-binding, it does tie Prime Minister David Cameron's hands a bit in advance of November's crucial summit and make gridlock at bit more likely.
Walter Blotscher
Wednesday, 31 October 2012
Tuesday, 30 October 2012
BRANSTON PICKLE (2)
Branston pickle is one of my favourites. I sometimes have dreams that if I ever bought a major company, it would be them (or Roses, makers of lime marmalade, or something like that, you get my drift). I suppose that's the point of dreams, that they're dreams.
Anyway, I have today read that Branston's has been sold. The current owners, Premier Foods, have too much debt, and need to reduce it. The £92.5million in proceeds will go some way to achieving that.
The only thing I find a bit surprising is that the business has been sold to a Japanese company, Mizkan, who are apparently big in vinegar. I was surprised since I had thought that Branston's pickle was a peculiarly British thing that didn't travel well. Apparently not.
Walter Blotscher
Branston pickle is one of my favourites. I sometimes have dreams that if I ever bought a major company, it would be them (or Roses, makers of lime marmalade, or something like that, you get my drift). I suppose that's the point of dreams, that they're dreams.
Anyway, I have today read that Branston's has been sold. The current owners, Premier Foods, have too much debt, and need to reduce it. The £92.5million in proceeds will go some way to achieving that.
The only thing I find a bit surprising is that the business has been sold to a Japanese company, Mizkan, who are apparently big in vinegar. I was surprised since I had thought that Branston's pickle was a peculiarly British thing that didn't travel well. Apparently not.
Walter Blotscher
Friday, 26 October 2012
WOLF HALL (2)
Hilary Mantel's book Wolf Hall was a brilliant book that won a lot of prizes, including the Man Booker award. I have just finished the sequel, Bring Up The Bodies, which won this year's Man Booker Prize. While the first book covered the six years from 1529 to 1535, the second deals with the critical year of 1536, the fall and death of Anne Boleyn and the stripping of the monasteries. Sitting in the narrator's chair again is Master Secretary Thomas Cromwell, now the King's undisputed right-hand man, feared by the court because of his power and influence, yet despised by that same court because of his low birth. And not only narrating; Henry wants to be rid of Anne, it is Cromwell's job to find the means.
I have heard some people say that the sequel is not as good as the first book. I disagree. I loved it just as much as the first, and am already looking forward to the final instalment, Cromwell's own rise to become Earl of Essex, and then his spectacular fall and execution in 1540. If you haven't got into the books, do so, they are terrific.
Walter Blotscher
Hilary Mantel's book Wolf Hall was a brilliant book that won a lot of prizes, including the Man Booker award. I have just finished the sequel, Bring Up The Bodies, which won this year's Man Booker Prize. While the first book covered the six years from 1529 to 1535, the second deals with the critical year of 1536, the fall and death of Anne Boleyn and the stripping of the monasteries. Sitting in the narrator's chair again is Master Secretary Thomas Cromwell, now the King's undisputed right-hand man, feared by the court because of his power and influence, yet despised by that same court because of his low birth. And not only narrating; Henry wants to be rid of Anne, it is Cromwell's job to find the means.
I have heard some people say that the sequel is not as good as the first book. I disagree. I loved it just as much as the first, and am already looking forward to the final instalment, Cromwell's own rise to become Earl of Essex, and then his spectacular fall and execution in 1540. If you haven't got into the books, do so, they are terrific.
Walter Blotscher
Thursday, 25 October 2012
ITALIAN PROBABILITY
As a mathematician, I have a pretty good understanding of probability. In particular, I understand that probability is theoretical and relates to the future. It does not say what will happen, it only says what may happen. Even if the chances of getting six sixes in a row are very small, we can't say for sure in advance that it won't happen; it might, though it is unikely.
So this week's decision by an Italian judge to sentence six scientists and an official to six years in prison is extremely worrying. The case arose out of the aftermath of the April 2009 earthquake in L'Aquila, in which 309 people were killed. The seven were all members of the National Commission for the Forecast and Prevention of Major Risks, whose job is to assess the probability of such things as earthquakes. According to the court, they had issued wrongly reassuring statements, which had led (amongst other things) to people staying in the town and being killed, instead of moving to a place of safety. The defendants were convicted of manslaughter and banned from ever holding public office again.
The problem is that earthquakes are inherently unstable, and the world simply does not have the means of predicting when and where they will occur. Like volcanoes, there can be rumbling for a long period of time, yet nothing major happens; conversely all hell can break loose without warning. Those convicted included some of Italy's most internationally respected seismologists and geologists, who undoubtedly gave their considered view. I don't see that they could have done any more.
This being Italy, no sentence is certain until there have been appeals, and it is possible that the verdict will be overturned. More than 5,000 scientists signed an open letter to the Italian President, supporting the defendants. The probability is that the Italian authorities will yet see sense. But as I say, probability does not say what will happen, merely what may happen.
Walter Blotscher
As a mathematician, I have a pretty good understanding of probability. In particular, I understand that probability is theoretical and relates to the future. It does not say what will happen, it only says what may happen. Even if the chances of getting six sixes in a row are very small, we can't say for sure in advance that it won't happen; it might, though it is unikely.
So this week's decision by an Italian judge to sentence six scientists and an official to six years in prison is extremely worrying. The case arose out of the aftermath of the April 2009 earthquake in L'Aquila, in which 309 people were killed. The seven were all members of the National Commission for the Forecast and Prevention of Major Risks, whose job is to assess the probability of such things as earthquakes. According to the court, they had issued wrongly reassuring statements, which had led (amongst other things) to people staying in the town and being killed, instead of moving to a place of safety. The defendants were convicted of manslaughter and banned from ever holding public office again.
The problem is that earthquakes are inherently unstable, and the world simply does not have the means of predicting when and where they will occur. Like volcanoes, there can be rumbling for a long period of time, yet nothing major happens; conversely all hell can break loose without warning. Those convicted included some of Italy's most internationally respected seismologists and geologists, who undoubtedly gave their considered view. I don't see that they could have done any more.
This being Italy, no sentence is certain until there have been appeals, and it is possible that the verdict will be overturned. More than 5,000 scientists signed an open letter to the Italian President, supporting the defendants. The probability is that the Italian authorities will yet see sense. But as I say, probability does not say what will happen, merely what may happen.
Walter Blotscher
Wednesday, 24 October 2012
DROPBOX
I have admitted that I am not the world's best at using an iPad. And since Apple will soon release a new version, and Microsoft are due to come out with a sort of iPad/computer hybrid, I am likely to fall even further behind the current lot of teenagers. So it is a source of some pride that I have managed to work out how to use a dropbox.
Dropbox is a free product (the company makes its money by charging for extra space, once your dropbox gets over a certain size). Basically, it's a computer storage "thingy", where you can put documents, pictures and other stuff, which other people (though only those you invite) can also look at. So, instead of sending an E-Mail with family holiday photos to all of your children, or putting said photos on Facebook, where everybody can see them, you simply put them in the dropbox. To use a mathematical analogy, it's a bit like a series of overlapping sets, each set being one person's dropbox.
Computer storage? Yawn. But the really cool thing about the dropbox is that you can access it from any electronic device. So, instead of sending things between (say) computer and iPad, or computer and mobile phone, you simply put things in the dropbox and then access them from anywhere. All you need is your E-Mail address and password.
Not only have I set up a dropbox, but I have also put things in it, and managed to invite some other people to join. All in all, I am feeling pretty pleased with myself.
Walter Blotscher
I have admitted that I am not the world's best at using an iPad. And since Apple will soon release a new version, and Microsoft are due to come out with a sort of iPad/computer hybrid, I am likely to fall even further behind the current lot of teenagers. So it is a source of some pride that I have managed to work out how to use a dropbox.
Dropbox is a free product (the company makes its money by charging for extra space, once your dropbox gets over a certain size). Basically, it's a computer storage "thingy", where you can put documents, pictures and other stuff, which other people (though only those you invite) can also look at. So, instead of sending an E-Mail with family holiday photos to all of your children, or putting said photos on Facebook, where everybody can see them, you simply put them in the dropbox. To use a mathematical analogy, it's a bit like a series of overlapping sets, each set being one person's dropbox.
Computer storage? Yawn. But the really cool thing about the dropbox is that you can access it from any electronic device. So, instead of sending things between (say) computer and iPad, or computer and mobile phone, you simply put things in the dropbox and then access them from anywhere. All you need is your E-Mail address and password.
Not only have I set up a dropbox, but I have also put things in it, and managed to invite some other people to join. All in all, I am feeling pretty pleased with myself.
Walter Blotscher
Monday, 22 October 2012
SCOTLAND (2)
In my earlier post on Scotland, I said that there was a tension between the devolved Government in Edinburgh, led by the independence-minded Scottish National Party, and the United Kingdom Government in London, about the terms of any referendum on independence.
Following last week's deal between Prime Minister David Cameron and Scottish First Minister Alex Salmond, that tension has now been resolved, to both parties' satisfaction. The SNP have won, in that the referendum will be held in the autumn of 2014, thereby giving them plenty of time to try and persuade the Scots to go it alone. The franchise will also be widened to include 16- and 17-year olds, who are supposedly less wedded to the idea of a union.
However, the Prime Minister has also won. First, the agreement makes it crystal clear that the Union Government is devolving power (on a one-off basis) to Scotland, so that it has the legal mandate in order to be able to hold a referendum. Secondly, the question to be put to voters will be a simple "in-or-out?". Mr. Salmond had wanted a second question; in the event of a no on full independence, might the Scots get further devolved powers? That idea has now been firmly booted into touch.
And so, in two years' time, the Scots will have the chance to decide if they want to end a 300-year union with their southern neighbour. I have no idea how this will pan out, but at least the result will be clear-cut. Not being Scottish, it will be interesting to watch from the sidelines.
Walter Blotscher
In my earlier post on Scotland, I said that there was a tension between the devolved Government in Edinburgh, led by the independence-minded Scottish National Party, and the United Kingdom Government in London, about the terms of any referendum on independence.
Following last week's deal between Prime Minister David Cameron and Scottish First Minister Alex Salmond, that tension has now been resolved, to both parties' satisfaction. The SNP have won, in that the referendum will be held in the autumn of 2014, thereby giving them plenty of time to try and persuade the Scots to go it alone. The franchise will also be widened to include 16- and 17-year olds, who are supposedly less wedded to the idea of a union.
However, the Prime Minister has also won. First, the agreement makes it crystal clear that the Union Government is devolving power (on a one-off basis) to Scotland, so that it has the legal mandate in order to be able to hold a referendum. Secondly, the question to be put to voters will be a simple "in-or-out?". Mr. Salmond had wanted a second question; in the event of a no on full independence, might the Scots get further devolved powers? That idea has now been firmly booted into touch.
And so, in two years' time, the Scots will have the chance to decide if they want to end a 300-year union with their southern neighbour. I have no idea how this will pan out, but at least the result will be clear-cut. Not being Scottish, it will be interesting to watch from the sidelines.
Walter Blotscher
Sunday, 21 October 2012
ISLAM AND EUROPE
At a time when many Europeans are suspicious of, if not downright hostile to, Muslims, it is worth remembering how much the development of Europe is down to Islam.
The new religion swept out of the Arabian peninsula during the 7th century. At the time, the prevailing civilisation in this part of the world was Roman, geographically centred on and around the Mediterranean (which means "middle of the land"). True, the Romans' hold on this territory was in places rather fragile, not least because the Western part of it had collapsed at the end of the fifth century. Nevertheless, it was something to which many people aspired, whereas the idea of Europe would have met with blank stares.
Islam changed all of that. Within a century, Muslims had conquered a huge crescent of territory, from Spain in the west, round through North Africa and Egypt, and up through the Middle East as far as Afghanistan. In 732, they were stopped by the Franks' Charles Martel at the Battle of Poitiers, a couple of days' march from Paris. Retreating across the Pyrenees, they formed an Arab kingdom in Spain that lasted for a further 750 years. For most of the Middle Ages, the biggest building in Europe was the Great Mosque in Cordoba.
The conquests had two consequences. The first was that it cut off European Christians from those outside Europe. There is evidence that Christianity had reached China in the early first centuries; not only was that link broken, but so too were contacts with Christian communities in Egypt, Ethiopia, Armenia and Georgia. Thereafter, Christians of both the Eastern and Western churches were forced to go north and east; to Germany, Scandinavia, Poland, and finally Russia. Since Christianity was the glue that held mediæval society together, this inevitably led over time to a Christian Europe surrounded to the south and east by Islamic societies. The Crusades, in aiming to reconquer Jerusalem, were a long-lasting attempt to change this pattern, but they ended in failure. And to the extent that there were changes in the boundaries between the two faiths, they went the other way, as the Muslim Turks got a toehold in Anatolia after the Battle of Manzikert in 1071, took Constantinople in 1453, and spread into the Balkans thereafter.
The second consequence was that it altered the balance of powers within the Christian world. Prior to the arrival of Islam, there were five patriarchs of Christianity; in Rome, Constantinople, Antioch, Jerusalem and Alexandria. The latter three were lost to Christian influence, leaving two, speaking two different languages (Latin and Greek), and living in two different worlds. When the Eastern Emperor at Constantinople failed to help the Papacy in its struggles against the Lombards, the Pope crossed the Alps in 753 and begged for help from Peppin, Charles Martel's grandson. Thus was forged the long-lasting link between France and the Papacy, reflected in the crowning in Rome of Peppin's son Charlemagne as Emperor on Christmas Day, 800 and much else.
Today, we take Europe for granted, but for centuries, it didn't really exist. By fixing its eastern and southern boundaries, Islam forced it to look inward. For much of the intervening period, that introspection was culturally inferior to (say) Muslim Spain. However, eventually it led to the Renaissance, the Enlightenment, and the European world domination of the 19th century. It's quite a debt.
Walter Blotscher
At a time when many Europeans are suspicious of, if not downright hostile to, Muslims, it is worth remembering how much the development of Europe is down to Islam.
The new religion swept out of the Arabian peninsula during the 7th century. At the time, the prevailing civilisation in this part of the world was Roman, geographically centred on and around the Mediterranean (which means "middle of the land"). True, the Romans' hold on this territory was in places rather fragile, not least because the Western part of it had collapsed at the end of the fifth century. Nevertheless, it was something to which many people aspired, whereas the idea of Europe would have met with blank stares.
Islam changed all of that. Within a century, Muslims had conquered a huge crescent of territory, from Spain in the west, round through North Africa and Egypt, and up through the Middle East as far as Afghanistan. In 732, they were stopped by the Franks' Charles Martel at the Battle of Poitiers, a couple of days' march from Paris. Retreating across the Pyrenees, they formed an Arab kingdom in Spain that lasted for a further 750 years. For most of the Middle Ages, the biggest building in Europe was the Great Mosque in Cordoba.
The conquests had two consequences. The first was that it cut off European Christians from those outside Europe. There is evidence that Christianity had reached China in the early first centuries; not only was that link broken, but so too were contacts with Christian communities in Egypt, Ethiopia, Armenia and Georgia. Thereafter, Christians of both the Eastern and Western churches were forced to go north and east; to Germany, Scandinavia, Poland, and finally Russia. Since Christianity was the glue that held mediæval society together, this inevitably led over time to a Christian Europe surrounded to the south and east by Islamic societies. The Crusades, in aiming to reconquer Jerusalem, were a long-lasting attempt to change this pattern, but they ended in failure. And to the extent that there were changes in the boundaries between the two faiths, they went the other way, as the Muslim Turks got a toehold in Anatolia after the Battle of Manzikert in 1071, took Constantinople in 1453, and spread into the Balkans thereafter.
The second consequence was that it altered the balance of powers within the Christian world. Prior to the arrival of Islam, there were five patriarchs of Christianity; in Rome, Constantinople, Antioch, Jerusalem and Alexandria. The latter three were lost to Christian influence, leaving two, speaking two different languages (Latin and Greek), and living in two different worlds. When the Eastern Emperor at Constantinople failed to help the Papacy in its struggles against the Lombards, the Pope crossed the Alps in 753 and begged for help from Peppin, Charles Martel's grandson. Thus was forged the long-lasting link between France and the Papacy, reflected in the crowning in Rome of Peppin's son Charlemagne as Emperor on Christmas Day, 800 and much else.
Today, we take Europe for granted, but for centuries, it didn't really exist. By fixing its eastern and southern boundaries, Islam forced it to look inward. For much of the intervening period, that introspection was culturally inferior to (say) Muslim Spain. However, eventually it led to the Renaissance, the Enlightenment, and the European world domination of the 19th century. It's quite a debt.
Walter Blotscher
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
