You are in the company of 
Roger Warren Evans
   

  Part of   www.LivePolitics.net                                 < Back to Home Page  
 


New
Living Diary
Index


New  participatory democracy

Taming the Corporations

My Welsh socialism

My New Socialist Settlement

Globalise the left!

Bevan  re-visited


RWE Biography

 

   

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

  • Dear Mr Evans,

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

 

 
 


 

 
 

 

Created by GMID Design & Communication

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
The originating content of this website is my own work, and subject to my copyright. But on one condition only, I hereby give my consent to its unrestricted reproduction for any purpose: the condition is that its source is subject to proper acknowledgment, giving my name, my assertion of copyright, and the name of this website as its source, namely: www.warrenevans.net
- is that a deal?  Roger WE