Tuesday, 19 May 2015

Parish Notice

I will be spending the rest of the week in Scotland for a personal visit, so the opportunity for blog posts may be rather limited although I am taking my laptop with me.

Blogging will resume on my return with a piece on the BBC, an EU Referendum and Ofcom. Meanwhile above is a picture of Ravenscraig Castle in Kirkcaldy, which is near where I will be staying.

Monday, 18 May 2015

EU Referendum: 51%

The cruel clarity of boolean outcomes inherent in referendums means that we need 51% of the vote to win the EU one in 2017. If we don't, we lose. It's as simple as that.

There are 45 million people who are eligible to vote although, 7.5 million of them fail to register by the general election of 2015. We may see a higher figure eligibility figure should there, like Scotland, be a last minute rush to register.

Most of all we have to consider turnout. This is hard to predict. In the 1975 referendum the turnout was 64.5%, the AV referendum was a very low 42.2%. Generally, turnouts for referendums have not been promising. Indeed of all of the twelve referendums which have been held in the UK only two have breached 64% in terms of turnout; Northern Ireland Good Friday Agreement referendum, 1998 at 81.1% and the Scottish referendum even higher at 84.59%.

Assuming therefore, for the sake of argument, a turnout of between 65-70%, this would leaves us with between 29.3 million and 31.5 million potential voters. To achieve the magic 51% we would need to convince around 16 million voters.

Dr Eric Edmond highlights the difficulty of the task in front of us:
To win the in/out Cameron referendum requres [sic]a 51% vote in favour of leaving the EU. Last year in Scotland the SNP under Alex Salmond backed by Nicola Sturgeon and a superb organisation could only get 45% and we all saw how Nicola trounced Cam, Mil and Cleggy in the General Election debate.It shows the  enormity of the task we face to get a leave the EU vote. LibLabCon are not scared of the referndum [sic] vote. As things stand they would win it 2 to 1.

On 7th May UKIP won 12.6% of the national vote. To win the referendum they will have to quadruple that vote. That siimply [sic] cannot be done on UKIP votes. You need to attract millions of voters who voted LibLabCon.

On  7th May. UKIP got 3.8 million votes. LabCon got 20.6 million, the SNP and LibDems who are EU fanatics together got 3.8 million. So the Out campaign has to pick up roughly 10.5 million votes from LabCon to secure an out vote. That's a big ask.and with Farage anywhere near the campaign its impossible.
Eric Edmond, makes a crucial point. In any "out" campaign we need votes from those who have voted for anyone other than UKIP. And therein lies the danger when conducting a campaign which does not have a broad focus. Using the referendum to highlight issues of climate change, NHS, electoral reform, and immigration risks alienating the very voters across the political spectrum we need on board.

As Complete Bastard observers, language like "quislings, traitors and fifth columnists" with sometimes an ill-disguised anti Muslim feeling (who vote too) coupled with language on HIV infected foreigners will mean we comprehensively lose.

Ultimately the referendum will not be decided on the likes of myself who will vote 'out' regardless, nor on the likes of Nick Clegg who will vote 'in' but on the soft middle - the "could-be-persuaded-either-way". And it's here where we must make our case.

Friday, 15 May 2015

EU Referendum: Media Bias

During the 1975 referendum all the newspapers bar one – the communist Morning Star – supported EEC membership. Such positive support in the media for staying in the EU would be almost identical today, liberally sprinkled with FUD, as illustrated above, with possibly the dubious exception of the Daily Express. Even the likes of the supposedly eurosceptic Daily Mail has made it clear, in editorials, that it supports EU membership:
Let the Mail lay all its cards on the table. This paper has no desire for Britain to pull out of Europe — and particularly not at a time like this, when withdrawal would add immeasurably to the uncertainties threatening our recovery and rocking the confidence of the markets.
The economic FUD (Fear Uncertainty and Doubt) has already started in earnest. Courtesy of the BBC across it's broadcasting outlets we have this from Bank of England governor Mark Carney:
[He] has said that the UK should hold its EU referendum "as soon as necessary".

"We talk to a lot of bosses and there has been uncertainty whether it's for the election or the referendum," said Mr Carney on the BBC's Today programme.
Analysts fear businesses may delay making investments while there is uncertainty over Britain's future in the EU.
"FUD, FUD glorious FUD" means that if we are to win a referendum, it is essential to negate it by making it clear that the UK will remain in the Single Market post exit for the time being as to make it economically neutral. It remains our only hope of clearing the first hurdle required to ultimately win.

But it’s certainly obvious that it will be a significant challenge in trying to overturn the message of the establishment, media and FUD, all of which will be heavily funded. Not least because the eurosceptic movement is so divided with no coherent message.

Certainly this was the experience of the early 1970's with our entry into the then EEC where pro-market lobby groups were co-ordinated under the umbrella of the European Movement part funded by the EU Commission to act as an integral part of the government campaign.

Efforts were made, by the Heath government, to bring the media on board particularly the BBC where eurosceptic presenters were dismissed in favour of more sympathetic ones. Less competent or more divisive spokesmen were chosen by the media, and the BBC, to represent the "out" campaign for negative effect.

We are, therefore, in danger of being greatly damaged by FUD, and currently we are losing the FUD war - it's being created faster than can be responded to by various media outlets including blogs. Richard North notes:
Talking yesterday to a senior politician, he observed that the "out" campaign should already have a rapid rebuttal unit up and running, to deal with this sort of thing. To my mind, it is an indictment of Ukip, which should already be equipped to handle false claims.
Thus the "out" campaign is going to have to establish its own permanent rebuttal units to monitor and counter media FUD. This was a tactic very successfully adopted by New Labour in the lead up to their landslide victory in 1997. Peter Oborne's book on Alastair Campbell observes (page 134):
[Campbell] put into effect the new electoral technology which New Labour had imported from the United States: the giant media war-room, the 24 hour monitoring of television, radio and press outlets, a rapid rebutal serivce, a savage clampdown on MPS and Shadow ministers who spoke out of turn...Labour's ferocious internal discipline was the key to its success.

In stark contrast to the [Tories]...Labour MPS were prevailed upon to limit their public utterances to the bland platitudes imposed upon them by the party machine.

...what gave Labour complaints the edge was that they were inevitably well-researched and sensibly focused. The vigilance was extraordinary. Roger Mosey, then the editor of the Today programme, recalls: 'If you had a line that Labour didn't like on the 6.30am bulletin you got called instantly. Often Labour complaints had some substance...if there was a glimmer of an inaccuracy they were onto you.'
This gives an indication of the ruthlessless required to win a referendum, particularly if the odds are stacked against us. The internet and social media becomes the key.

In addition with newspapers we have a complaints procedure, which obviously anyone can use. Post-Leveson what was the Press Complaints Commission (PCC) has now become the Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO) and we will address the significance of this with a subsequent piece.

Here we will concentrate on television broadcasters. The 1975 referendum, being the first nationwide poll of its kind in the UK, presented broadcasters with hitherto unknown dilemmas of balance and responsibility. Up to that point, in general elections, broadcasters used the existing strength of parties in MPs, or in votes, at the last election as a guide in establishing the priorities of the coverage.

The White Paper of February 1975 offered no particular formula or solution, instead its 'advice' was one of hope rather than one born out of regulatory oversight (page 19):
4.9 The Government are confident that the IBA and BBC will exercise editorial discretion designed to ensure that there is a fair balance between the opposing views in news and feature programmes. The broadcasting authorities may also decide to run a series of short "referendum broadcasts" analogous to party political broadcasts. In this way an equal number of short periods of television time would-be"made available to the main campaigning organisations in the two or three weeks before polling day.
The Government would welcome such an initiative.
Whereas in 1975, the government was "confident", hardly an endorsement of rigorous oversight, now we have regulatory authorities in place regarding the impartiality of broadcasters.

With the establishment of the Ofcom under the Communications Act 2003 and the establishment of the Electoral Commission under the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 the broadcasting oversight is more structured which means that crucially it is an avenue where we can complain. Ofcom provided examples of this oversight during the Scottish referendum.

With regard to Ofcom, broadcasters should ensure that they comply with Section Five: (Due Impartiality and Due Accuracy and Undue Prominence of Views and Opinions):
To ensure that news, in whatever form, is reported with due accuracy and presented with due impartiality. To ensure that the special impartiality requirements of the Act are complied with.
And broadcasters also have to comply with Section Six (Elections and Referendums) of the Code:
To ensure that the special impartiality requirements in the Communications Act 2003 and other legislation relating to broadcasting on elections and referendums, are applied at the time of elections and referendums. 
In addition, there is the prohibition of political advertising in Section 321 of the Communications Act 2003:
(2) For the purposes of section 319(2)(g) an advertisement contravenes the prohibition on political advertising if it is:
(a) an advertisement which is inserted by or on behalf of a body whose objects are wholly or mainly of a political nature;

(b) an advertisement which is directed towards a political end; or

(c) an advertisement which has a connection with an industrial dispute.
(3) For the purposes of this section objects of a political nature and political ends include each of the following:
(a) influencing the outcome of elections or referendums, whether in the United Kingdom or elsewhere;
This applies to the multitude of local television and radio outlets with the exception of the BBC which is overseen by the BBC Trust.

In the 1960's JFK embraced the relatively new medium of television to great effect, this in contrast Barack Obama who embraced the new medium of the internet in 2008. His internet campaign was crucial to winning the Presidency.

We can therefore learn the lessons of using a new medium to try to keep the old medium of broadcasters "honest", or by simply by-passing them. Thus in the UK we can embrace the internet in the same effective way and with regulatory bodies in place over the traditional legacy media  the internet allows us as individuals to facilitate a campaign to ensure some resemblance of impartiality. The simple use of Twitter has worked before

Thus unlike 1975 we now have the internet and everything that comes with it; smartphones, Twitter, Facebook and forums. The establishment no longer has a monopoly on information. Scotland revealed the significance of this development. The independence campaign was a dry run of how an EU referendum would be conducted and it showed comprehensively that unofficial campaigns centered on social media was very powerful.

By using the internet to lobby regulatory bodies, each one of us can make a small but significant difference.

Sunday, 10 May 2015

EU Referendum: The Wilson Fudge Part II

 
On May 27th, we fully expect proposals for an EU referendum to be included in the Queen's speech. There are of course some doubters who are convinced that Cameron will renege - an understandable sentiment after his "cast iron" betrayal - but political reality says this time he will have no choice but to follow through with his promise.

Cameron has reiterated his promise publicly and consistently since the election and also to various media outlets. Should he not deliver his credibility would be shot to pieces, he will lose all political authority and his backbenchers would get rid of him sharpish.

So whether we like it or not an EU referendum is what we now face. In ideal world we would like the referendum to be free and fair. The reality is that by their very nature referendums never are. They are crude, blunt instruments which are easily manipulated by governments. It is for very good and obvious reasons that they are banned in Germany under their constitution, Basic Law.

Inevitably, therefore the eurosceptic movement faces a difficult and unfair battle, but it's not unwinnable. In our view, looking back at the lessons of 1975 the greatest threat is actually a lack of coherence from our own side and that is something which can be under our own control.

Another cause for optimism is that the way of manipulating a referendum by framing the question in such a way as to encourage a certain result is far more difficult. Here we have a defence against such manipulation in the form of the Electoral Commission (EC). It advises Parliament on what will be the most neutral referendum question, which it has already done:
The Commission’s recommendations therefore highlight an important decision for Parliament: whether to retain or move away from the UK’s recent experience of  referendum questions using ‘Yes’ and ‘No’ responses.

If Parliament wants to retain the use of ‘Yes’ and ‘No’ as response options to the referendum question, then the Commission has recommended that that the question should be amended to:

'Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union?'

If Parliament decides not to retain a ‘Yes’ and ‘No’ question, the Commission has recommended the following referendum question:

'Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?'

The responses would be ‘Remain a member of the European Union’ / ‘Leave the European Union’.

Research participants found this the most neutral of all the versions tested. 
Interestingly when we look at its full report, the EC would have had concerns over the question (and possibly the preamble) used in 1975 (pictured above). Referring to the proposed question in the European Union (Referendum) Bill during the last Parliament which was:
“Do you think that the United Kingdom should be a member of the European Union?”
The EC concluded on page 12, that "there were issues with the [phrase] ‘Do you think…?"
Use of ‘Do you think…?’
2.20 Views from participants on the opening phrase ‘Do you think…’ in the proposed question were split. Those who liked the wording thought it was neutral and personal, as if it was inviting someone’s considered opinion and encouraging them to think about the question. Younger people were slightly more likely than older participants to express a preference for this phrasing, because it made them feel that their vote was important.

2.21 Other participants, however, did not like the use of this opening phrase because they thought it was too informal, and likened it to a question that would be asked in an opinion poll survey. Some participants thought that the phrase ‘Do you think…’ implied that no action would be taken as a result of the referendum vote.

Use of ‘Should…’ instead of ‘Do you think…’
2.28 Four of the alternative questions included in the research (versions 2, 3, 4 and 6) included the use of the word ‘Should…’ in place of ‘Do you think…’. This alternative question introduction did not affect people’s ability to understand or answer the question according to their intentions, but some research participants preferred it because they felt it was asking them to state their choice or a decision about the issue, rather than their simply their opinion. These participants felt that the use of ‘Should…’ was more decisive and binding, and that the Government would take it more seriously, with action taken as a result.
While the EC settled on the word "remain", should the proposed question contain the word "stay", as it did in 1975 this would be subject to further assessment:
...the iterative nature of the research meant that it was not possible in the time available to fully explore and user test the impact of any variations to the wording (such as using alternative answer responses such ‘continue’ or ‘stay’ instead of ‘remain’, or using shorter versions of the response options).

If the Bill is amended to include this version of the referendum question, we would therefore undertake a further assessment of the intelligibility of this wording, including research, consultation and further testing in Welsh. We would also seek evidence from potential referendum campaigners about the impact of this approach.
Even the preamble on the ballot paper used in 1975 would cause problems. The phrase "the government have announced the results of renegotiation..." is likely to influence possible positive responses for staying in, as well as being too broad and vague. What results? What was renegotiated? As the EC states the preamble must be clear and neutral. Certainly if Cameron tried to add a preamble similar to the one used in 1975 onto the ballot paper we have the opportunity to challenge and seek clarification from the EC over its neutrality.

This time therefore we can have far more confidence in the neutrality of the question. However this won't prevent Cameron trying to repeat the Wilson renegotiation sham during the campaign.

This time we do have some advantages; experience informs us this will happen so we can be better prepared, we have two years to define Cameron's sham treaty before he can. In addition, while we accept that there will significant amount of "incoming" Cameron has helpfully informed us where the shells are going to land. With limited room for manoeuvre, he has already laid out his strategy of concentrating on 'small changes' under Article 48 regarding free movement of workers. Thus we are forewarned of the nature of the fudge to come. So by broadening out the eurosceptic case away from the very narrow focus on immigration reduces greatly the danger of us being outflanked.

Interestingly though there was a crucial impact the 1975 renegotiation, what Brussels dubbed "the so-called renegotiation", tactic had which no longer will have the same effect.

It wasn't so much the content (or lack of it) that mattered swaying opinion towards staying in but the delay that the protracted discussions caused. Negotiations took up a considerable amount of time...and time was on the side of continued membership.

The longer Britain remained a member, the more it reinforced the status quo effect. The delay from March 1974 when negotiations began through to the referendum in June 1975 virtually doubled the period over which Britain had actually been a member of the EEC. Over this period, Britain was progressively adopting EEC rules and adapting customs duties and other measures in accordance with the provisions for the transitional period. By the time the referendum came, Britain was getting used to being a Community member, thus swinging the status quo effect significantly in favour of remaining in.

The delay also had another benefit. In Spring 1974, the EEC was in disarray, notably over energy questions and Britain's rising prices were attributed to Community membership. If a referendum had taken place in March 1974, Britain would very likely have decided to leave. Wilson therefore needed time so that the decision could be made in more favourable circumstances.

After 40 years of membership, the status quo effect is fully established so this major impact of a Cameron fudge in this regard will be negligible. Even more so given that unlike 1975 we have an exit plan in the form of Flexcit.

So with one crucial advantage gone, being forewarned and with time to define Cameron's treaty early we can help nullify the damage that the so-called "reform" option presents us with.

Saturday, 9 May 2015

EU Referendum: A UKIP Free Zone

It's does seem rather incredulous that as the starting gun has been fired on an EU referendum, UKIP - supposedly an anti-EU party - vacates the debate completely. Their website's "very latest" reduces mention of the impending referendum down to a footnote without being a main piece, Farage its leader decides to take four months off on vacation, setting up the party for civil war in the form of a leadership challenge. And with no exit plan, the party now seems more interested in electoral reform than actually taking any interest in trying to win a referendum.

With this in mind, this blog will now become largely a UKIP free zone. Regarding exit from the EU they have become an irrelevance. Ancient history. Instead, for the rest of us, we have a "out" campaign to organise - to do the job that UKIP was set up to do.

Instead we will now concentrate on issues that will be relevant to the forthcoming referendum campaign. And to relect the slight change in emphasis, this blog has undergone somewhat of a makeover. One major change is that I've embedded Disqus for comments. However by doing so it has removed from public view all previous comments. We will try to upload them to Disqus in due course.

There will be further changes to come and any observations, suggestions or criticisms of the new look are most welcome.

More importantly though we now have a referendum to try to win.

Friday, 8 May 2015

Two Years To An EU Referendum

It's been quite a while since I've enjoyed an election like I did last night. There were many highlights; the complete collapse of the unprincipled Lib Dems, Ed Davey losing his seat, Ed Balls losing his, the collapse of Labour in Scotland, that we will lose three party leaders in just one day, and that the pollsters got it completely wrong. For them it's a rerun of 1992. Against all predictions, bar the exception of a couple of bloggers, the Tories have won an outright majority.

The real significance is with a Tory majority Cameron will have to come good on his promise of an EU referendum in 2017. With a tiny majority which give his backbenchers a lot of power there can be no question of him reneging on this promise.

When I began this blog I never dreamed that the opportunity of actually leaving the EU would happen so soon. Thus among all the recriminations from various parties, including from UKIP who managed to lose a seat despite increasing its share of the vote, this for genuine eurosceptics is the real winner from the election results.

We have two years to prepare, the real hard work starts now.

Thursday, 7 May 2015

Polling Day: Spoiling The Ballot Paper

We arrive at polling day after what has to be one of the most lacklustre and uneventful election campaigns in recent memory despite that the result is too close to call. Here we agree with Scribblings From Seaham that it has "felt to be an interminable farce of a general election".

With a deep reluctance to deal with issues which matter to voters, a lack of policies of any substance and a largely staged television campaign with a reliance on pointless stupid gimmicks is it any wonder that 1 in 4 voters have yet to make up their minds by polling day.

I'm one of those 1 in 4 and when I began to write this blog piece on why, I realised I was repeating many of the points I had made 5 months ago. Here I wrote:
Voting for the Tories - a party that has consistently betrayed its country, its members and its voters - is somewhat nauseating and is something I've never done before. This blog has never really forgiven the Tories for Maastricht and particularly the membership of the ERM. To vote for them would take a Herculean effort and the intake of industrial quantities of intoxicating substances.
And
Then there's UKIP. Yet it has been increasingly this blog's view that under its current leadership UKIP is detrimental to Eurosceptic cause - a party which has also performed copious u-turns within a very short space of time on the whim of its leader.
More damaging is UKIP remains largely a single issue party but instead of being anti-EU it is now anti-immigrant and is being described as such. By reducing EU membership solely down to an aggressive stance on immigration, toxifies the debate, limits itself to dismissing an exit strategy which could actually win us a referendum and leaves itself very exposed to being outflanked by Cameron on Article 48.  
Perhaps if I lived in a marginal Tory seat then I would have to grit my teeth and vote Tory for the first time to ensure a referendum. But I don't. I live in a seat where Tory PPC/MP "Lazy Vaizey" has his votes weighed not counted. How I vote won't make any difference to the outcome, a situation common among many voters.

With UKIP, despite that my local candidate is very good, I cannot endorse a party which is helping us to lose the eurosceptic argument with YouGov now reporting a 12-point lead for the "inners", up two points since April.

So unable to vote for any of the options available it's for the first time in a General Election that I have spoiled my ballot paper (see above) and I'm not the only one.

I simply can't wait for the whole charade to be out of the way to see if the Tories will win an overall majority. If so we get an EU referendum and then the real work starts.

Thursday, 9 April 2015

The EU And Telecoms (Part 2)

Following from part 1 we continue with part 2 where we explore more fully EU telecoms regulations and its current situation especially regarding Flexcit.

As happens in other areas of EU competence, laid down by the treaties, member states must adhere to the telecommunications chapter of the EU acquis and are bound together by network governance and by harmonisation measures as a consequence. These span shared policies and legislation, implementation and regulation, standards and the accreditation of qualifications.

It's interesting that what is often overlooked is the EU is a project not yet finished. It currently remains a work in progress following the engrenage (gearing) principle - the well established method to engineer another leap forward in integration, the slow, salami-slicing approach adopted by Jean Monnet.

This principle has the consequence that
while it continues a process of hollowing out member states competences and trying to move them up to EU level that there often occurs a period of absence of any competence at all. In this we are reminded of Booker's comment on a criticism of evolution:
Years ago...Attenborough himself [claimed] to 'prove’ Darwin’s theory by showing us a mouse and a bat, explaining how one evolved into the other. He seemed oblivious to the obvious point that, as the mouse’s forelegs evolved by minute variations to wings, there must have been a long period when the creature, no longer with properly functioning legs but as yet unable to fly, was much less 'adapted to survive’ than it had been before.
For the regulation of network industries there have been delegations of powers by governments of the member states to EU institutions, notably to the European Commission (EC), but also to their own domestic National Regulatory Authorities (NRAs). This was somewhat ad hoc and piecemeal in the 1980s and 1990s, however from the 1999 Electronic Communications Services review (COM(1999) 539 final, 10.11.1999) the intentions and the outcomes increasingly concentrated on a more systematic approach.

Yet there continues to be considerable variations between member states which the European Commission and the European Parliament sought to reduce the disorder and to complete the single market for telecommunications.

As we previously noted the UK regulator Ofcom - determined to breakup BT's monopoly further - used competition law powers under the Enterprise Act 2002 - itself a result of EU Directives - to come to an agreement with BT over a separate network access division called Openreach which would offer its wholesale products on an equivalent basis to both external customers and itself.

The establishment of Openreach and its relationship to external customers at the time was unique to the UK within the EU and its experience was studied by regulators in other European countries who experienced similar competition problems arising from the presence of a large incumbent telecommunications operator, such as France Telecom.

Viviane Reding, the European Commissioner who in 2006 was in charge of telecommunications regulation, took inspiration from the UK in forcing the "structural separation" of incumbent telecom operators into service and infrastructure divisions across the European Union.

With this in mind Reding unveiled proposals aimed at not only extending competition among telecom operators, but also the the idea of one single EU wide telecom regulator, to act as an umbrella organization for Member States' national regulators. Reding's proposals became the "review of EU Telecom rules: Strengthening Competition and Completing the Internal Market" which argued that:
"The most effective way to achieve a real level playing field for telecom operators across the EU would of course be to create an independent European telecom regulator that would work together with national regulators in a system, similar to the European System of Central Banks. In such a system, national regulators would continue to act as direct contact points with operators and could directly analyse the market. At the same time, a light European agency, independent from the Commission and from national governments, could ensure by guidelines and, if necessary, instructions that EU rules are applied consistently in all Member States."
Here Reding sought to achieve "a real level playing field" by tackling what she called the three issues; Firstly the need for more internal market integration for a more effective use of radio spectrum. Falling back on the traditional EEC/EU arguments of fish, pollution or 'climate change' which knows no country boundaries as a reason for extending EU competences Reding relies on this regarding spectrum:
Radio spectrum itself knows no borders, but it is managed at national level, normally in an administrative, bureaucratic way that creates scarcity by prescribing in detail what every part of the spectrum may be used for in that Member State.
I also believe that we need to put the idea of a European spectrum agency on the table...we have to recognise the competitive disadvantage the EU faces because, instead of having one single regime for spectrum management and spectrum licensing, as they do in the US, we have 25 different ones.
Reding also argued that with the "switch from analogue to digital TV there is a one off opportunity to re-use the analogue frequencies for new technologies". The second issue she addressed was better regulation:
"...a more consistent application of the EU telecom rules". In the telecom sector, where neither technology nor economic interest nor consumer behaviour know national borders any more, I see a clear, long overdue need to make the internal market a reality also in regulatory terms".
The third proposal was that there should be no "regulatory holidays" in the face of technological advances and with the liberalisation of the telecoms market should come “structural separation”:
Structural separation means that telecom regulators could require a dominant operator to provide non-discriminatory access to all operators by separating infrastructure provision from service provision to a greater or lesser extent. Today, the EU rules in force do not foresee structural separation as a regulatory remedy on the telecom markets. But I see that the United Kingdom, which has opted for a form of structural separation at national level, has made good experiences with this remedy. 
Her legislative proposal was for a European Electronic Communications Market Authority (EECMA) in which the EC sought a formal cooperation structure to remedy the lack of coherence within the internal market, which included “a fragmentation of European markets” and the absence of mechanisms for authorising cross-border services (e.g., mobile and IP-based services).

This proposal was significantly reshaped by the Parliament (which increased its own influence as a consequence) and the Council and, via Regulation (EC) No 1211/2009, became the Body of European Regulators of Electronic Communications (BEREC):
The main objective of this body is to enhance cooperation among national regulatory authorities (NRAs) and to strengthen the internal market in electronic communications networks.
BEREC consists of NRAs members where each is nominated per Member State. (NRAs from the European Economic Area (EEA) States only have observer status and are represented "at an appropriate level"). Thus BEREC consolidated the “official” status of NRAs despite having no democratic credentials.

BEREC itself conducts its business in secret and it attempts to justify this by claiming that there is often a special requirement to avoid public scrutiny and stakeholder involvement. We can see this secrecy, or 'independence' officially laid out under Regulation (EC) No 1211/2009 Article 4: Composition and organisation of BEREC:
The members of the Board of Regulators shall neither seek nor accept any instruction from any government, from the Commission, or from any other public or private entity.
In addition, there is a lack of clarity whether its decisions and opinions can be challenged in the EU courts alongside that it is unaccountable before the EU parliament, giving it a democratic and judicial deficit. Even the mechanism for engagement with BEREC is through consultations on terms determined by the organisation itself.

Aside from BEREC, further complications in European telecoms governance arise from earlier attempts at European harmonisation mechanisms via European Regulatory Networks (ERNs).

ERNs were established particularly with network sectors in mind; designed to respond to the multiplication of regulators and their uneven development. ERNs were an attempt to address by the need for greater co-ordination in implementing  regulation by member states. 

However within the institutional design of ERNs lies their genesis. Their design reflects acutely the difficultly of trying to move from national governance to one of supranational governance. Having been given grandiose tasks, the European Commission and national governments still maintained many powers. Here then we see the creation of double delegation, with powers "delegated up" from the NRAs and "delegated" down from the EU with the inevitable result of dissatisfaction:
The EU’s ‘double delegation’ to IRAs and the EU Commission has led to major and as yet unresolved problems of coordination and implementation.
Thus this means that ERNs can be seen as a ‘second best’ method of dealing with implementation of EU regulation; a compromise between EU 'colleagues' pressing for greater European integration and those member states, especially national governments, reluctant to endorse it fully. The compromise inevitably means that while more uniform regulation by coordinating approaches and functions was the intention, there has been little evidence of success in harmonisation and no attempts even to measure the effectiveness of the measures.

But within ERNs remains legacy EU regulatory telecoms governance that sits alongside and is distinct from BEREC, and this is apparent in the various EU bodies such as the Radio Spectrum Committee (RSC);
The Radio Spectrum Committee (RSC) is responsible for specific technical measures required to implement the broader Radio Spectrum Policy. The RSC is composed of Member State representatives and chaired by the European Commission.

Established by the 2002 Radio Spectrum Decision (676/2002/EC), the Radio Spectrum Committee (RSC) is assisting the Commission for the development of technical implementing decisions to ensure harmonised conditions across Europe for the availability and efficient use of radio spectrum.
...and the Radio Spectrum Policy Group (RSPG) which enables Member States, the Commission and stakeholders to coordinate the use of radio spectrum.

Here we can see that unlike the secret nature of BEREC, bodies such as the RSC and the RSPG within ERNs involve extensive consultation amongst all stakeholders, which include "regulatory authorities and the ministries having responsibility for radio spectrum related matters in each Member State", manufacturers, network operators and users.

RSC and RSPG are also part of the comitology process which allows the Commission to discuss its proposals with national administrations before implementation in order to ensure that any measure is optimised to the various national situations. Thus under these rules the following associations are permitted to be consulted:
Consumers:
The European Consumer Organisation (BEUC) - which brings together 40 European consumer organisations from 31 countries (EU, EEA and applicant countries). 
International Telecommunications Users Group INTUG - an international association of business users of telecommunication.
Operators:
European Communities Trade Mark Association ECTA - which in addition to having close links with the European Commission and the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM), ECTA is recognised by WIPO as a non-Government Organisation (NGO).
European Telecommunications Network Operators' Association  ETNO - who are pan-European operators and has been the voice of Europe’s telecommunications network operators since 1992

GSM Association GSMA- is an association of mobile operators and related companies devoted to supporting the standardising, deployment and promotion of the GSM mobile telephone system.

Manufacturers:
Digital Europe
We can see therefore that even under EU telecoms governance and the comitology process there is extensive consultation with international associations. A further example can be seen with the European Conference on Posts and Telecoms (CEPT). CEPT extends far beyond the EU, including the countries of the former USSR and currently includes 48 countries in its membership.

And it is with international relationships with the EU we will examine further in part three. But first we will look at the EEA agreement where although there is commitment to adhering to the EU telecommunications acquis there is more flexibility with regard to the implementation as per the EEA agreement.

And it's with the EEA's relationship regarding telecoms and the EU where we turn our attention to next.

Saturday, 4 April 2015

Comment Moderation

Rather tediously I've managed to attract an anonymous troll who seems to have been prompted by my previous post. 

With blogger, there's an option to ban anonymous posts - some kind of registration is required instead. However I refrain from that, largely because I want to allow comments to be as hassle free as possible and I very much welcome feedback even if it is critical.

But it is with some reluctance I've had to turn on comment moderation. This means that while all genuine posts will be published, there may be a slight delay in publication.

I apologise for the inconvenience.

Friday, 3 April 2015

Quote Of The Day

I thought the following quote rather wonderfully summed up the current mood on the general election campaign and the leaders' debates. This from a fellow Swindon Town fan:
Well, this leaders debate hasn't really helped much in revealing the best candidate has it.

You've got the self serving rich boy party, the racist party, the liar party, the tree hugging party, the hi-de-hi party, the braveheart party, and the 'not even the best Milliband' party.

Meh.
Quite.