Tuesday, 12 July 2011

If we have to have a 'field' can we at least have one that levels with us?

The last time I wrote about HS2 was on 12th June, a post in which I extensively linked to the Trans-European Network - Transport (TEN-T), the latter whose brief for their "raison-d'etre" can be found here. For ages I have been attempting to show the link between HS2 and the EU, a factor not mentioned in any government statement or website - at least not one that I have found, until now.

Amongst the TEN-T projects that has recently appeared on the TEN-T website is "Project 14" - the West Coast Main Line, together with a Progress Report on Priority Axes as at May 2010. Page 8 of this document from the government shows the 'Y' shaped route, with this explanatory note, together with this map from the Telegraph, both of the latter corresponding with the map from TEN-T linked to in my post of 12th June.

Conservative Home has an article by Mark Field on the subject of HS2 in which he confesses that the underlying logic of HS2 has always been something of a mystery to him. He also believes that if the government is serious about getting HS2 built, it is high time that they started making a strong public interest argument before Conservative opposition to this £30 billion project becomes overwhelming, continuing that the government should not be surprised Conservative MPs with constituencies along its route take the easy path of least resistance by supporting vocal, hostile, local opinion. One has to question where Conservative opposition to HS2 may come from as Mark Field seems oblivious of the fact that MPs whose constituencies would be affected, which include Cheryl Gillan, David Lidington, Dominic Grieve, Jeremy Wright and Michael Fabricant, are unable to voice dissent due to their holding the positions in government that they do.

Needless to say not once in Field's article does he refer to the EU link so perhaps he needs to 'surf the net' a little more prior to putting fingers to keyboard. Mind you, the lack of any mention of the EU is hardly surprising when one remembers that he was one of those Conservative MPs that supported the Government giving the IMF an additional £9.2billion 'bung' - from which an educated guess can be made as to where his loyalties lie.


PeterCharles said...

This is just one of the ways EU influence or direction is hidden. Brussels apparatchik approaches British apparatchik with a we want to see message. British apparatchik manipulates Minister or committee or quango who then propose we do just that. Brussels apparatchik then inks it in on the master plan.

In this way the British say it is all our own idea, nothing to do with the EU, the EU says it was all a British idea we had nothing to do with it, but of course we are fully in agreement and please make sure you follow the EU procurement procedures so either a French or German company gets the business, and, er, I think it's France's turn for this one.

This method is just a bit more underhand than the "oh, look, there's another proposed directive coming out, lets make sure we get started on it so we can say it was all our idea before it gets noticed" and the "oh well, we know it is an EU directive but we always intended to do that anyway and just to prove it look how much further our proposals have gone" defence.

PeterCharles said...

A quick addendum, I also intended to point out I believe the true horror is very often the fact these Ministers don't even realise they have been manipulated, especially in the first scenario.

WitteringsfromWitney said...

PC: Damn good summation and agreed, natch!