| |
New
Living Diary
Index
New participatory democracy
Taming
the Corporations
My Welsh socialism
My New Socialist
Settlement
Globalise the left!
Bevan re-visited
|
|
|
item0024D 546,547
546 2 December 2002
The Deal
You have
picked up on my suggestion that the Government should be seeking a
New Deal
with the corporate sector, with both sides seeking to strike
a
hard bargain.
Am I going soft on the big corporations? I say,
No:
this issue is of critical importance to the
future of socialism,
as well as to the corporate sector. This is a massive subject, but
somebody must get the ball rolling...
Let me
first set the negotiating scene,
which I envisage as as a process within the United Nations, with enforcement
in the hands of a special UN Tribunal at the Hague. Because although
the corporate sector would be a primary negotiating party to this Deal, "it"
could not sit down directly at the negotiating table - it does not exist, in
that sense, as a negotiating party.
This Deal will have
to be done between the Governments of nation states, just like the World
Trade Round - the Corporations will be the spectres at the dealing table,
standing behind every nation-state shoulder. For each Government, the
task will be to fashion a new civic order, for statutory delivery within its
national boundaries, conditioned upon compliance by all the other
contracting states.
The aim would be
to forge a new, global
Concordat of Civic Governance,
to regulate the conduct of world trading relations and the conduct of all
trading corporations. The
CCG
would also entrench the rights of the contracting states to regulate
their own internal affairs, spelling out Each contracting state would
be required to deliver, within a transitional period of say ten
years, internal regimes consistent with their
CCG
obligations, including a new regime for the regulation of all trading
corporations. Corporations in their turn would (so far as their
internal governance were concerned) simply have to comply with the statute
law of their state
of registration.
- NB For each
nation-state, there would thus be two dealing levels. First, the
CCG
would spell out the overall
framework within which each state would have to operate. Second,
each nation-state would make its own judgment, through its own
institutions, about the specific national deal that it wishes to make,
while respecting the
CCG
parameters.
In the
day-to-day operation
of the new system, the
CCG Tribunal would determine
whether or not a nation-state was complying with the Concordat (i.e. a
state-in-compliance, or
SiC),
and whether a trader was in compliance (a
TiC).
The Concordat would spell out the entitlements both of a
SiCs
and
TiCs.
All traders, if
in compliance, could rely globally on the recognition of their trading and
proprietary rights, and States in compliance would be entitled to regulate
their affairs within the framework of the Concordat. Thus both
"interests" would be accommodated, even though both "parties" had not played
a matching role in the negotiating process.
The
negotiating focus
would at all times be the overall trading process - not merely
the role of "corporations". That is partly because the Wealth of Nations
lies in trade, and many trading transactions are still in practice
undertaken by natural persons (sole traders, partners) - and partly
because it is entirely conceivable that in future wealthy individuals will
trade globally in their own right, without intermediary artificial persons
(i.e. corporations). Globalisation means the generalisation of
trading transactions throughout the entire globe, and the conflict of
interests between non-territorial "traders" and territorial "Governments".
What would the
traders seek to achieve? Traders in compliance should be accorded -
- Equal access
to the trading sectors of all Concordat States, on the same terms as all
other
CCG
traders, including home
traders;
- Access for all
TiC
staff, on visa terms without naturalisation, to facilitate global trading
operations;
- Transferability
of financial resources throughout Concordat territory, without Exchange
controls;
- Exchange rates
to be determined by market forces, rather than Governmental fiat;
- Enforceability of
Court judgements,
throughout Concordat territory, without secondary judgment, coupled with
effective legal system for the recovery of commercial debts;
- No nationalisation without
compensation
(already accorded by treaty)
What would the Concordat States
seek to achieve?
-
Right to designate any internal
economic sector as a "public service" sector, to be served without
participation by traders of any kind; if traders were to be admitted at all,
however, access should be on equal terms for all
TiCs;
- Right to favour
incipient trading
sectors, within each national economy, for an initial ten-year period;
- Right to favour
new-firm foundation during establishment period (say, five years);
-
Proper regulation
of the creation of artificial trading persons (i..e. "corporations")
in accordance with Concordat principles,
to achieve
proper transparency, effective internal checks and balances, limiting the scope of
limited liability, and other public policy objectives (see Tame the
Corporations);
- Right to regulate
the activities of all traders trading within national territorial limits
9e.b. for health and safety reasons, worker protection, environmental
protection) provided there were no discrimination between
TiCs;
- Positive compliance
by all
TiCs
with tax
legislation, including the voluntary elimination of fraudulent
transfer-pricing and other tax-evasion measures; a commitment to the
attribution to each nation-State of a fair tax-contribution, relating to
the trading functions actually undertaken in its territory.
Other legitimate negotiating
objectives will no doubt occur to you, as the concept develops. This
Concordat would replace the World Trade Organisation Treaty, and would
represent a more balanced view of future relations between the democratic
authority of the nation-State and the undemocratic functions of trading
enterprises.
So much for my view of the
international framework for the conduct of national politics. I have
even more radical proposals for the socialist deal which we should seek to
strike, within that
framework...
Watch this space..
What do you think? Drop me a line
<
Back to Home Page
547
2 December 2002
Network Rail reject me..
I was one of hundreds who responded to public advertisements, seeking to
play a role in the governance of Network Rail. The legal structure is
that of a "company limited by guarantee", with an arbitrary
number of "Public Members", and they are handpicked by the Company itself.
This is the letter I have just received -
27 November 2002
Following the selection process conducted by the Membership Selection
Panel ("MSP"), I am writing to advise you that unfortunately your
application for membership as a Public Member of Network Rail has not been
successful on this occasion.
All 1,241 applications have received very careful consideration, but with
only a limited number of members' available and the wish of the MSP to
achieve a balance in terms of stakeholder interests, it has not been
possible to appoint all those who applied. The high quality of
applicants made the task for the MSP in recommending Public Members to the
Board of Network Rail particularly challenging.
On 26 November 2002, the Network Rail Directors accepted the MSP's
recommendations. In total, 84 Public Members were appointed, with
effect from that date. Combined with the 30 Industry Members that have
been appointed, and the Strategic Rail Authority's membership, there are now
115 members of Network Rail.
Although you were not successful on this occasion, we would ask you to
note that it is likely that Network Rail will be seeking new members again
in the future. The precise timing of this is difficult to predict, as
it depends largely on when vacancies for members arise. It is likely,
however, that another advertising campaign will be announced on Network
Rail's website - www.networkrail.com
- and in the press at that time. Should you be interested in
membership, you are most welcome to apply again.
The Board of Network Rail has asked me to add their thanks to those of
the MSP for the interest you have shown in Network Rail, and the future of
the railway network. We are most grateful for your support.
Yours sincerely
Malcolm Field
Sir Malcolm Field Chairman, Membership Selection Panel
Editorial Note: the Website has not yet been updated to reflect these
appointments - as of Saturday evening 30 November...
Just consider the implications of what is being done .
- The selection panel is not independent - it is a creature of the new
Board, serving its interests - the paraphernalia of independence is
sheer pantomime.
Note that the Board took its decision in secret on 26 November - there
was no advance publicity, no opportunity to "appeal" - none of this
transparency or democracy malarkey - everything was conducted with the
obsessive secrecy
which characterises the corporate sector. By the time anything is
made public, the deed has been legally done - that device lies at the very
heart of all corporate power...
The numbers are rigged to ensure that the Public Members could never
upset the apple-cart, for which a 75% majority would be required in
General Meeting - the maths is rigged, so that the 84 "Public Members" -
even if voting all together - could never muster more than 73%...
Do the sums yourself
That means that the industry insiders will always remain in control.
In order to get a 51% working majority, it is true that the 31 insiders
would need the support of 27 of the public members, to muster 58 votes
(even if all the Public Members turned up) - we were not sent a copy
of the actual Members selected, but I would bet my bottom dollar that the
MSP selection has ensured a clutch of (say)
25 "Friends of the Board" planted
among the Public Members - I will be trying to get a copy of the actual
membership, to check that out... But why was the list of
Appointments set to everyone? And why was the List of Rejections not
published, so that the public could make up their mind about the
correctness of the selection?
What have "They" got to hide?
I was refused a copy of the Memorandum & Articles of the Company, when
I wrote to ask for one, before submitting my Application - I was told that
I could, at my own expense, find it at Companies House...
Old habits die hard.
What do you think? Drop me a line
<
Back to Home Page
|
|