The Football Association and Trident

So what on earth is the link between the English Football Association (or perhaps FIFA) and Trident? The answer is simple....well not that simple. The issue about Trident renewal often boils down to the apparently contradictory principle that Trident is a weapon that can never be used but which nevertheless is believed to be a deterrent. ..and some of its supporters actually state that they would never use it. How can this be? Perhaps a way of solving this apparent conundrum is to consider the case of the Football Association (FA) and the practice of many top footballers of removing their shirts when they score a goal. Some wave them about, some throw them into the crowd and some just put them on again when they have emerged from the heap of players who fall on top of them. Why do they do this? They never used to ‘in the old days’ after all. I suspect it is because they are anxious to show off their impressive torsos in search of a lucrative underwear modelling contract. It cannot be to attract women as their humungously large salaries should do that for them...but I digress. I have not gone mad – there is a link with the Trident issue. The FA do not approve of the practice of shirt removal and want it stopped ( can’t imagine why, it seems rather harmless, but that’s the FA for you – killjoys). To demonstrate their disapproval referees are instructed to issue a yellow card when it happens. Sadly this has not proved a deterrent (ah a glimmer of light). Players do not especially fear yellow cards unless they get two in a match in which case they will be sent off (one player once did remove his shirt twice in a game and was thus dismissed – his manager was less than pleased to say the least). Now, if the FA are serious about stopping shirt removals they can do so at a stroke. Simply instruct referees to issue a red card if a player takes off his shirt after scoring ( a goal, that is, not with his WAG). The practice will immediately stop. No player would risk the ire of his manager and team mates by getting himself sent off for something so trivial. So the red card would be an effective deterrent just as the yellow is not. Thing is, the red card sounds very harsh, but IT WOULD NEVER BE USED. However, the red card will have to continue as a threat or the shirts will start coming off again. I can leave you to figure the rest. I rest my case.

Is the EU more democratic than the UK?

It is almost a pronouncement of faith that the EU is less democratic than, for example, the UK, but does this common assertion stand up to scrutiny? Not necessarily so and the current round of talks on reform instituted by the British government informs us a great deal on this issue. To begin with the criticism that the EU’s policy and decision making bodies, the Commission and the Council, are unelected and unaccountable. This is undeniably true, though the ministers are accountable to their own parliaments and ultimately their people. In the UK the executive operates with a large army of unelected civil servants and advisers while the government itself was elected by only a little over 20% of the qualified electorate (taking into account a turnout of little over 65%). It will not be accountable to the electorate until 2020 and Parliament is showing itself remarkably ineffective in this regard. While on the subject of elections, half the UK Parliament is not elected at all. If we look at regional politics, in the UK the Conservative government can hardly be said to represent the national and sub central regions. The government has no seats in Northern Ireland, one in Scotland and a handful in Wales. Similarly it is in a minority in London seats and has about a third of the seats north of Birmingham. By contrast the EU has mechanisms in place – majority or unanimous voting – that ensure that all the nations of Europe can have their say and can influence final decisions. The current deal being negotiated will require the unanimous approval of all member states. Unlike Scotland, no member country will be forced to accept a change it does not like. In a few months Scotland and Wales might be forced to leave the EU against their will. How democratic is that? Turning to the two parliaments, the EU parliament (Increasingly influential incidentally) lacks a majority for the electorate. Different political groupings can influence in the Parliament by joining alliances with others on specific issues. The European executive cannot bulldoze measures through the parliament by using a secure majority. No such thing exists. The result is that consensus politics rules in the EU Parliament. In the UK, by contrast, as long as government has a Commons majority (based on a popular minority) it can almost guarantee that all its legislation will pass virtually unhindered. So the assumption that, if all the UK’s powers are repatriated we will enjoy greater democracy, cannot be sustained. EU democracy remains highly imperfect, but set against the UK’s democratic deficit, it looks rather more attractive.