Mediaboss Marketing

Jean-Claude Juncker. NurPhoto/SIPA USA/PA Images. All rights reserved.In March this year Jean-Claude Juncker, the President of the European Commission, presented five scenarios for the future of the European Union.

They failed to include ideas about how the future EU could make its citizens happier, healthier or better off. The scenarios were more about reforming European integration and finding ways to make Europeans less frustrated about the European project, as living in a peaceful cooperation without a war for many decades no longer seems to be enough. And for many people, just ask the Brits, it is clearly not enough.

In a response to these five scenarios, European civil society came up with an alternative vision, the 6th scenario. In this paper, inspiring policy goals, with potential to unite Europeans in reinvigorating the European project are put into the spotlight.

In our view, Europe (and the whole world), needs a future with sustainability at its heart. Because it is not progress that economic growth is skyrocketing, if at the same time millions of people cannot afford food or basic services. Equally, it is not progress if we manage to eradicate poverty - for a while at least - if we do this by undermining the ecological preconditions of our wellbeing. We would still end up condemning future generations to dangerous climate change, and the loss of one third of our crop yields due to the disappearance of pollinators.

So all in all, even if we achieve absolute financial and macro-economic stability, improved security and a more efficiently managed EU, if future reform does not achieve a deep socio-economic transition towards sustainability, it is simply good for nothing.

Of course, Junckers paper only presents broad ideas about European integration, and the devil is always in the detail. Following up on the five scenarios, the European Commission has published five reflection papers on different topics, including globalisation, the social dimension of Europe, and most recently on the future of EU finances.

The reflection paper on finances includes a lot of nice language, sometimes even too nice and too optimistic in its assessment of the current situation, but it also proposes some new ideas, which could truly contribute to sustainability and building strong democracies.

As an important innovation, it includes common European values: peace, democracy, the rule of law, freedom, fundamental rights, equality and solidarity as criteria for determining EU value added. Even though EU value added might seem like a small technical detail, it is still the most important criterion in making the decision as to whether a project or investment is worth financing with EU money.

Adding common European values to these criteria is a new idea, explicitly added to the list in response to public pressure. Others include supporting the EU objectives and obligations as enshrined in the Treaty, spill-over effects for instance between regions - as a result of Cohesion Funds payments, and the slippery concept of generating public good at a European level, which noticeably means something totally different for a Budget Commissioner and for a civil society activist.

If the EU budget is to support European values, including peace, maybe it should not start by diverting more and more European money to defence research, or by increasing its present assistance to partner countries in capacity building, as well as in military missions. Europe must remain a peace project.

It is also rather sad that building democracy is an emerging need in Europe, but let us face it: with recent developments in countries like Hungary, Poland or Bulgaria, where NGOs are under increasing state pressure that makes it difficult to operate freely and represent citizens interest, this is a reality.

Many Europeans think that these efforts should go well beyond supporting educational exchange programmes or NGO activism. Making the rule of law and the respect of fundamental rights an ex ante condition in accessing EU funds would be a strong message not only to national governments, but also to European citizens.

Many of us are already tired of turning Brussels into a punching bag for populist politicians. It is high time that the EU stands up for itself and also for its values, because no community of any kind can be successful without holding to common values.

Of course in a strong democracy citizens need to make well informed decisions, and when it comes to the functioning of the EU, the role of national and European decision makers, and particularly to specific European decisions in areas from food security to energy performance of buildings or youth unemployment, people today are surprisingly ill informed.

Especially if it lies in the interest of national governments to keep it that way. Otherwise it would be hard to carry out national consultations when false claims such as: Hungary is committed to reducing taxes. Brussels is attacking our country on this are being made. If you are not aware: tax rules are unanimously decided in the EU, with the consent of each Member State. The EU would be doing itself a big favour if the future budget also supported programmes to improve the EU literacy of the people.

Surely, strong democracies, resilient economies and a fair society need to be founded on a broader basis than just a bit more knowledge and common values. Therefore, within the cross-sectoral alliance of civil society organisations SDG Watch Europe, we have developed a set of sustainability principles, which, if mainstreamed into the future EU budget, hold the potential for meaningful reform.

These principles should work together to ensure that EU spending and lending makes peoples lives better, reduces our unsustainable environmental impact and builds a resilient economy where socio-economic inequalities are reduced.

Within our PeoplesBudget campaign, we will work towards introducing sustainability proofing, a new and innovative approach in the design and implementation of the future EU budget, which can ensure that the budget contributes in the greatest way possible to sustainability and the implementation of the Sustainable Development Goals for the benefit of all Europeans.

More here:
How could we use the EU budget to strengthen democracy? - Open Democracy

The monsoon session of Parliament starts on 17 July. It is almost 70 years since independence. As an institution, Parliament is central to the very idea of democracy and was assigned a pivotal role in our Constitution by the founding fathers of the republic. Yet, so many decades later, it has neither evolved nor matured as it could, might or should have. If anything, slowly but surely, it has diminished in stature and significance. Indeed, it is now more a symbol than the substance of a vibrant democracy that has taken deep roots among our people. The time has come for citizens, whom it represents, to evaluate that performance.

There are three designated roles for Parliament in a democracy. It is responsible for legislationlaws of the landby which people govern themselves. It must ensure accountability of governmentson policies or actionsto the people. It should engage in discourse and debate on issues that concern the nation and the citizens. How has it fared in performing these roles?

The process of legislation is slow and lagged. There are times when it extends from one Parliament to the next. Laws are often passed in a rush through loud voices or large numbers. There is little scrutiny of draft legislation. And there is almost no follow-up on rules when laws are put in place.

It would appear that governments are more accountable to people at election time than they are to Parliament in session. The examination, analysis and evaluation by Parliament, so essential for invoking accountability, are not quite there. The only means, it seems, are questions asked by MPs, many of which are pedantic, unclear or on behest. For searching or probing questions, governments do their best to provide as little information as possible in answers.

Discourse and debate on issues of national importance were an attribute and highlight of Parliament during the first two decades of the republic, until around 1970. But this has eroded and diminished with the passage of time. There is discussion but it is often partisansometimes a dialogue of the deafbetween groups where party lines are sharply drawn. Thus, differences lead to protests in the form of walk-outs or rushing to the well of the house.

There are two reasons for this decline. Parliament does not meet or work long enough. And there are institutional constraints on its performance while working.

The chart (Parliament in India) sets out the number of sittings and the time lost in disruptions, in days per year, for the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha during the period from 2012-2016. This straddles the tenure of two governments in equal parts. The time lost due to disruptions, reported in hours and minutes, has been converted into days on the premise that, as a norm, Parliament meets for 6 hours per day. In these five years, on an average per annum, the Lok Sabha met for 69 days of which 20 days were lost to disruptions, while the Rajya Sabha met for 68 days of which 20 days were lost to disruptions. In the total number of sittings, disruptions took away 30% of the time in the Lok Sabha and 35% of the time in the Rajya Sabha. Both houses did sit for extra hours but that made up for a very small proportion of the time lost. Even when the Parliament sits and meets, there is more noise than debate, more shouting than listening, and more statements than engagement or debate.

The duration for which Parliament meets in India, compared with other democracies, is short. In the UK, both the House of Commons and the House of Lords meet for more than 150 days per year. In the US, both the House of Representatives and the Senate meet for 133 days per year. In Japan, as a norm, the Diet meets for 150 days per year and this is often extended.

It is not as if our members of Parliament (MPs) are not paid enough. The salary, constituency allowance and office expenses paid to each MP are Rs1.4 lakh per month. In addition, there is a daily allowance for presence in Parliament or its committees, plus free housing, furnishing, electricity, water, telephones and healthcare, which taken together add up to Rs1.52 lakh per month. Thus, the cost-to-country of an MP is more than Rs35 lakh per year, which is almost 40 times the per capita income of the nation. In addition, there are lifetime pensions.

Incomes apart, there are assets of MPs. The Association for Democratic Rights (ADR), which analyses the election affidavits filed before the Election Commission, reports that in the 2014 Lok Sabha, as many as 82% of the MPs have assets worth more than Rs1 crore each, as compared with 58% in 2009 and 30% in 2004. In the present Lok Sabha, on an average, a Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) MP is worth Rs11 crore while a Congress MP is worth Rs16 crore. The assets of the 165 MPs from the 2009 Lok Sabha who were re-elected to the 2014 Lok Sabha jumped from Rs5 crore to Rs12.5 crore per MP in just five years. The Rajya Sabha is a similar story. It is reported that two-thirds of its members have declared assets of more than Rs20 crore each.

It is clear that the elected representatives of our people are not representative of the people. Incomes and assets apart, the criminalization of politics is a reality that stares us in the face. ADR reports that 34% of the MPs in the 2014 Lok Sabha faced criminal charges, as compared with 30% in 2009 and 24% in 2004. The ADR data also show that, across parties, candidates facing criminal charges were more than twice as likely to win as compared to those with a clean record.

The story of state legislatures on sittings, disruptions, assets, criminal charges, and what is described as unparliamentary behaviourthat extends to smashing furniture and physical violence in the houseis far worse. This, too, needs exposition.

The factors underlying these developments and deterioration are not rocket science. The barriers to entry in politics are formidable. The only access comes from kinship or money. And muscle power matters as a determinant of success. However, any meaningful analysis of this reality would need another column.

In fairness, there are institutional constraints on the performance of MPs as well. The allocation of time for MPs to speak is proportional to the strength of their political party in the house and its leadership decides who gets to speak and for how long. The speaker of the Lok Sabha or the chairman of the Rajya Sabha have little discretion in the matter. The only other opportunities for MPs are during question hour or zero hour. Answers to unstarred questions are simply laid on the table of the house. Starred questions are too many. Only a few come up for discussion. And these are just not taken up if the concerned MP is not present at the time. In zero hour, the speaker or the chairman have the discretion to invite an MP to speak, but time is too little and speeches are often drowned out in pandemonium.

It is not only time. MPs do not quite have the freedom to speak in our Parliament as in other democracies. For one, they are afraid of what the party leadership might think, which could affect their future. For another, party whips, of three types, are a problem. A one-line whip is non-binding, informing members of the vote. A two-line whip requires attendance in the house for the vote. A three-line whip is a clear-cut directive to be present in the house during the vote and cast their vote in accordance with the party line. Any violation of this whip could lead to an MPs expulsion from the house. In India, the anti-defection law stipulates that a three-line whip can be violated only if more than one-third of a partys MPs do so. This is the unintended consequence of a law that might have mitigated one problem but created another, which is emasculating our Parliament as an institution.

It is not beyond redemption at least yet. The constitutional provisions are impeccable. Yet, these remain unused and are sometimes misused by the political system. There is also a redeeming feature in our parliamentary process. The standing committees and select committees can be diligent and are often not partisan. Alas, these committees are often used in form than substance. Moreover, their recommendations are not binding.

It is essential to recognize the complexity of this problem before we can find or design solutions. The answers lie, inter alia, in electoral reform through public funding of elections, combined with political reform that mandates disclosure on the sources of financing for political parties, and sets rules for elections within political parties to foster intra-party democracy that has been stifled not only by dynasties but also by oligarchies.

In conclusion, I can do no better than invoke R.K. Laxman, the legendary cartoonist who often depicted what ailed India with perception, wit and satire. I recall a wonderful cartoon about Parliament and democracy, in his strip You Said It. The then prime minister, Indira Gandhi, had her arm around the shoulder of a visiting Prince Charles, the monarch in-waiting even now (watched by Laxmans iconic common man with a wistful smile on his face), saying, The difference dear Prince is that, while you are a parliamentary monarchy, we are a hereditary democracy. This syndrome is now much more widespread than it was then. The hereditary principle of dynastic families in politics has spread much beyond the Congress Party, cutting across party lines, to most regional parties in India. The BJP is a little different at present but it is no exception to the rule. And it cannot be immune from what happens in our polity and society.

Almost 70 years after we began life as a republic, there is a clear and present danger that we could be the worlds most vibrant democracy with the worlds least effective, and perhaps most dormant, Parliament. It is time for MPs in India to reclaim their rights in Parliament as representatives of the people.

Deepak Nayyar is emeritus professor of economics, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi. He served as chief economic adviser, government of India, from 1989-91, and as vice-chancellor, University of Delhi, from 2000-05.

Comments are welcome at views@livemint.com

First Published: Thu, Jul 13 2017. 11 57 PM IST

Go here to see the original:
Vibrant democracy, dormant Parliament - Livemint

vG(L|E6 #ACIMoMJ@I*YFD5 J{m@U1eDdTa#_Y)L9 l*8x;Eu<B[8A3wbxlxzPTc( /cQk,_-wGvkS#5D +{GPXy0_s+4]&x{ A)SZC^okNQoA]J qn +; c7v{fmzyBo;mm`;f*_4 k[Rs!5WT'eTYd7~zb{k8Hz'z,bg1{D}8`x,#+11'!7A~&[=e0:B! 2nxI |:rLFmv;+;2F~PkoYo6rpWQ^A Lsz;u[KSc6oQ?j,X qEWX>yz%LI_XT6(r0f9| +E?!D >YdvH l@)muYonnQSk^(Z8$Y:wA9xqt?^Pxln !l!I)h2IVEq,~Hh(*Zs'#8~ ]`vwwz!4 :7UwVefG$-B146`Qq9Xz V*ZU|DZn$HiHzbw]?D%esP$* `g/./O'$-F|@Davd2H12"RA;**Ds2FJwL7 4jz)`/OP^u6Rrd6$hD'k)>bNP2)"sngnE($pumL0xqyz25mADv8FZR}`k@~kwCTz6Ga@^x4Um6w?~Dr?|@NswwuAa`n ^Nw#]H D;GZQp'7;> Ip[W5(6.YC /:*N Q[m&i6@9 x^F3BZEtn|thpXxx j!0w94 >VegA0=`CE"_8` w' z|K!N^N A ?~1e;7Ch>__p]< 0HTp _: ac~%T004&2,0HfzA3u*~N`QSa1~N9n[=^$11P`L_Zd+XXN~u dc=`ePh 2;b u#2eo+l6W$7.h0z1>+#bPeB~3_87t@n~H$sJ`w^CE!E3^DYkxsPS/ D`"CADf&pA2fPHl9sCQcD9>-y%}ZtEFmiZ~?sq?@/oPyP(Mnl9[2}d<)Y<9#rhr6Pn=A ]aK_@LXL:XE3l6[mPzO;wUkX!*@Ni ^8wYIjA@t*9%c K%l+2;>q]n `x;!3NOBi@FP`9xh/0GK>z'"&i|8BaHPlYVL`0mz<]d|KA5q h^ I/,GF@/n5z3N3c:!'BpY2tN([UjWegC6K>r<@qF$1t$}g4Uj*nW7 pl)hr=e*Q4e/EyIYOqDe?rYxzl`wEgHlBfJN9?]Yo0,9Zc/"'~cGA8zwaL@8ug0~X8O>=zkbim,6}[ |TI|k7X03C [~zzwz%yPLL0f}AZ-=`V1SCV`fL ,rzOW ,rB3=7DQ0N!,a`^[^UR&)}#o-lRUTKa1UhLf=L7M=_f(==P8@gCQm{,I; M1QC(=@^6?qeQ$4 C';.&(%@{RhLQ ^iNBIh/B]?a5<,mk; 6}fbLPJ1bL(!g.:rRWhON_|vrj%=pMc?zrc:7=@U^q'9D[$>I+/f)8uaXE.K]FLE x7qwRZo;TjCkGU*V+* f*PT!2mX8.Evqpsx,ec`W [=za6M|"?rzs|~;d!NEG3gV"|ewTH@cqBh?YdnZAEW}*.BQ:=LD?IQF/gR9v2%SN~uASKv@YG "oTU#i~AtVdRxscGVNG#5S?Mz8secBO9zgj`m^0: +/C;6>%@cSrjI_f%;[:xAm7j%,-FfRP6Ut?'4 1Q4RGK3,&^wEM^!k z G) x2Rj*sF5u^)79)/#N,.1?WKr8*n Pp4c1xZx(PE TdR1A1prmI "3E{Es$rCoP3*,6b(eVN`LKk.RUn]9K'WYxGv)oJZ( 1WPT#WI{ tLNKs*UH?M%Y{ o?aIO jDUZ F-WT+wMq2^Bn%=%[uU_ovzNTiu2zXRaR?7P>3VkwkqOQWIJDg'~sWeGRDK':K_NAE`gWdH!$45-k&||En_*rlT:Zm)RkD3CYWD|qqKy!K!Wjw^6"ajA78ea+Wd+~#m[yN -Rt9,:qFxTZu,ny~e,$XpQEj&dn5v3v&oN7FhwZ~wG+=~5lKunk??~p2YcaHlkz~S|u{RSr_jnm&)yVF6~)@bA`o W,JznQgTQ(rYU.U$!~GcWkw*"[MssiMP&VO]stbk-$z%]k:~)Z=r,r')NtZkC@h^{&w,dtig>nJW,.OxR1j/lB<rQb[s[oS*_mc7 >UW&RnS|D8c 7.T1n@K.0 6!Z4$M<1J&!XviF5<;519;Bo.S>|_Usf zds=_m'CdO $hs)b4r)@EE%CGwUa#Km5;H0+c.>"b~"`gm`#|#[w8G}2.m6J3&1X__C=fLMin(Xvz1((p,V+T+|A;RlgwV|S:NvpTC54(my%f"71Y(R:K]JoFWZr5EdoBcX T!bi DE[wc{[`sOqIboruA:vsm3D~.8g&v9y #o3BI|mtZvh1& FSQN07F!5E} m:PWLEhpsMUuinXm4M'H sVS0b(JSBY/3-N @FV!G"e0 O&72}3S9>#x'S@WQy4xvJK)x?tvzhjh)+e~]nq/+w!f:{ {x3h"_*CAqjf^b -+m&_4H,+GD)ZZ@J_Q4Sb/5r`6|^<#PYsNzlYu dy5TjFSk`z 7 jx,hrdom4 ]-Ry)ifYr+D3I~rhK.Qh"Ry(4}HZ>{JHq^7EGe#%2f~j^tL4,'"#)Dj0YqIN8^SktzY+i_&Ph 4~6v sp)7;1HQu0qdF-LJ4Cnj~P><52X1&] =Z?9Qvt JHDS4!yc=pkOQkkOiZ)ew4n,uZE,f4bFxX2Qm6Sq/k3qsCtZb!Uu5.|OYqP6NS'M1G*slv"+:r^Ya Qn1ER"kSFsAOTfDHUjXwJg>/o0$t`E)OzrRz$v{vh43wm?tr YnNv1n1e5UIP`p^epZuW4}cgQwP$~nVH+bqat|ug-b[sm[K(Z=KT{+JCtR)mQ2e/ETuM!dTUY,JLJQ`)?MqsE,Z&V`j ^K=f6sY'jW2ra/++}e1fp amoE~D"P@5LN+{'+k{7*VLO!lJ_WjG!Iflql oGb"mn}U0,dIo:X=({?7jFsdbro>9/y)L;qEyCY v}uZ>p|JF7|?DA)ZM(TH""Ue9kB;x7[d64xxk Lz 4a2W5p.83L IX=e$Vk$KA.v{vka?1 Q"Rfu}~9O}Ghf*4&Hv1:21;fEpO=x"McsAIa(-@kM k[Qdk<7<3V5%rlMre% Lk0CV|ifgrvvReSe.p!g~82Jnak(NtL!tF; $)//VDUg2pkNgy^2d`Q|Lwm+yZ*f{HxR9{mAsnw[wzg0hy%Cr*[N5`?t>UaGxDW(One?+d#x9+Gdo.96Y= +L_[;"T^cv2OjIYTH Mx@7}^T;SEq-vEV~COY]TNv/=,#eSyP8~U*i7Ef|10?)pf?~ !:|c,r#0oN~X(}j5'DF?w/HaME#BT=-F)~A@wopu!2 r#3,Ts Y@SF^)Q!q5[Ir/MZ?mKs^4~V kKzgyKR],mA):3k3;N :mqK4dIZHThWcfoXME0/Y=y=kMaO3'1sMn`T!x"`!ET`qqkMw|_PNGt'9{|c2"& |Q#,nDGl""bI>,bS_ nE6KrlU;2L+qrC!lv8gb&x0aw LC9(]GpxG_0yQi"U#m@`~o1-I"6CH]_z]?&](-h@``vcbL`0#[pKA9NLxq>8Dg1Xk&n%(SZ#F[;XU?oUHS/ gT'CL@xL{S6~ 3_"51:QL|9T_ja2;`Y@0T TME7H " &nDTZtN3TWL=lo I%e ;!HK8 Hx1#x:DI"URCL&AVF}T*i br?/v'5DW XI&PGM|<*U5Te}=b0~% +oL";OR|Jca229g70uAHzw`mamhk1VP$ /YI `ed?tV) (lEj$.E?bU22)e= $1!-lt3'"T7QAh%Aq nu`ry3BTj4N* BWT H !x,%c9J,.eGN>l)y_R}.x @%9 J zz;#^5Ci @WmQAt Cg$2%.NLD:ie&YT=71">IJ@%'TO&bJ.1gA"5=U#-]$FYFxhk"u4ukuGat4kh*]Bj't,B".taX{h*'sMB=1QX"O( 0fag[4!<)Jz&QrN"785/VbIEYFE+)"E{'=H4(q#sM{={4e/nyGP4Y9h'l:ze-?>(CEX[Y*>o? ms)T!tFC}I:+EX ~K3mMd&m~>E{Ixr36"?p"f1n`OQ3G]KR,QTH_?=J2!(8;@IJFWI$nL")7N[X~P2gP*:|c&+9`oZX(+l/3|k] 7xZh("g:apjW`Q*B4f=ZXtH|&SgiR4J%XQ%Yx1YP)-_H (Vv,Hn)PVtAx0% N@9|c])VV.O"'J:=a)F,^ %8T/oR ^M1@+4LK F.}Pu|]"&T:M'J }KmBXYh4T*9VkH.(1~BS}NnTrCe'F~?G8ZJ~*eFz,<&AyjEs9_P4F6zj43Ms[B:Q|vD.)YCYR*#cDHyB+K2I`W;n jnf/tK2oCpK z>ADd[$Ye7Js+F @(>dTG(qb TZv:CX Crq3~29@Y[iH8k"3AWs&Ig m5 l~P25@[:d1$}LFrv,Sob&cXM'`=i<<}8I fSg4y0L ewWF_58 uMM5/;{^J&9qGW(:Y>$KA(e)T5c4wt>ol6M]q=" hr`4kNCj[N#8653F& tB'$Fe;"?0jT%$_~f'tc(zUI#v&]M ^11O5$0`'~-%Hc:79K`RoQ)N709A>=a9qSOFYFp0 M]sA@]|TCpd"x((^rp%o1+(,Y 1zr>OudLJHRWU-r{VBIY{#wcHvh&w,A}+-w^S`|F8] V6iYoN88eeLM@8(3 hMtl&JAN IXY5[]sj"E I5ygg*!o"@F=^%yFw<) h]ILb!BJRz"uZP|7q*rIube.fx$PX 3t{4?J|"h8Z6?RL<_|@*2"B03cZ *D} :}(1[J# GEQx}45(Ca fR NFQ +QS(_m/Bb`Ty*agl ;eP$B8i$M:h_XBbLPvb6f<*q=#3E.,"e>10mZLHS<|p,`^R-V&Y]=o5WJ4&NI8( i@9#x"MJkMX:f&?~h&p/e]r=^?n8oTv}t;FmcRMLssZGtjB: e&n(N.;PTNw1'K Z,{ %_3^>-(Dy@G >p'hMe%z >oVn(` u2y(M~/~rj(KB)Um*4gL)L3;AwHF?HSFLIz`hYrdje2I&X7^0?'@)d# hOhOR1HwFqE>#qOE9bVm,gH"(> rXm$Dp`mpkSB>8-]2(qQ?ItZtq1z0FDn2l6yr_KS)YJ@>1!K8?HM6G*B"FCn7NA5 )DXS $F%v;"5 `RFod$=2.s%Ys"u5.*L=p4kE8Fg~xcPHHA*aE~tFZ%94Gitj:rs_,h~s'C"vRdChM6%)dJcJeM(dDQ|E&kqo9 )c 2Jo ]gj'id)t7hT!bc- ^SPH8VC Bl4WO(8BAJ inT9D/SKi!/H#s gLM{QLv{3KfYDD$t%_KJB )JSwSl &ot(Xb2}SViRa.b)Gb{JdrT|Wa:iv.4]Nxe`]GxBDqU6*CG]NC=GGY6jCJ.(:&HAee `%3GuP.GYgQBSow9wIkL0scPo[Q4EAzG{zG4HNlp.{[Bz!`+iamB-MSr4 ^wFYj]i.5|XO#t_zNM[Q^3[3J%T@+Nd9(`(xH#u.!: &ekkHqYF5zv"x`$VtpV:m+K2X?$bIe)3 ]{}a_15"#}1cC/Bqtukfr6eerL ~Ir2R^*0sDA['ey<}uVt|D;e""n}AI-4bV!]V-1VLGW~i7T~Lz[$`5=3.;B;kT> jMbi m/j&I jf Kfrhzb@7 k!-xv4O-Tp8 1'fJ,3l2Zo~aZIj>)`7''&n d70!++Hoy+e~h7)%^3$!83X!2%t2pA!h"7lZ~s]lc96WY6(2hV{V"FoSU5(IoCsksO2?/Djclx2H|0 q!,F'iwrxU'UB>`ta)c2-;U*n(?^Fm1J7,6LT4aV4Z4;u(|4>qc`su`C-`]SkJ!K~a1?cxn)zr[fM/Z9h]s/A.q1I4m90&LAeI`<&FER#>?(E0[c5ir#l"K`CL'WmwDzT~/1+jvs'O{e}Yx#/W/%;H3?mJcfYva~gP Kk]kQMA7N/NCXv1.9,2Tyx}~Uo;7U$UJY~~/G;-3+E fH ldodkhQjHUNT<{t~(>XE4,J,#P%DhZB $c"1gA b4I9+N,GoYwKq~xl-+:oeHfo_O45 nlk/_ttE ;7 HN eknso/PRf{s(F@:8i8,}]]BnUSqVOe_qQZBm^~'OR<5;WM+,(sIt;ah*='`Q:>nd '/mMy7.bBhl[*wuc|}l~VQkze^'&<*rSRjRX:P{quAMCL>p5Cze( L#AScY@yUv{k?=/nNu$Kwil0*^ P?T[1@}2s = fS:Q0=Jv98lzA']x!ODDK ,JL)~D5}^CB:5qEMa1'De4R)!LI?>~rrycIY&6IA6 3~aY7cpjnvG x^_"-_U">4#nk[MHUXYqC;D0T(5aFt940Kkr#(~ItZa1E$auji`?3;H/u(*wH-b~8QNY s5e'Z H6@d|hJ@8TGT[Z&xwZ#Xgi]+PvI:$wZL%)iR/uRzj}X!=Rty@S=f;a*<^CA#/=j?i;nj5R~;PI]|GIL?~JFY98s rLm SLdz %S~"8wx$Iparv949iJTd(40t?hGIIKeOxc(`}V5q:iT?.|U(]R'R" !3*xrlXut<|oSdkqEn:Pb-4lku4xt2y|V*t=?w66H>Z]=EIf.P~sR['{5j_Z;7|#7i(}+AG;Fz:SfLAK4f9T'dl|[cpg60+rLYul}zUe Gsx emM+7o_PuBs p+v"ZItQSQ30?)^(TsH;psd%Fl sPSq-$Y yhiRldPRrV#sLTjC#GlstP#r/-X:ehn)3u`Qbs94ssIFa"k.Vk4LK!V

Read the original:
Is It Possible to Meld the Best of Capitalism and Socialism? - teleSUR English

By Press Gazette contributor

PACE "The Mad Tea Party,"a play written by Brian D. Taylor, will comprise a 14-member, all-kid cast ages 7 through 15.

"Mad Hatter, Dormouse, and March Hare meet for a tea party to honor Time, who has forgiven the Hatter and set time right once again," the play's website states. "When the Jabberwock comes and wreaks havoc, the tea party guests including the Caterpillar, the Duchess, the Frog Footman, and Tweedledee and Tweedledum decide that something must be done."

The show dates are July 20-23 and July 27-30 at 4646 Woodbine Road, Pace.Tickets are $15 (adult) and $12 (children under 12), except for Thursday shows, which are $12 (adult) and $10 (children under 12).

Dave Cook directs the play with assistance from Rebekkah Solinsky, and Kathy Beckham made the costumes.While most of the children are from the Pace and Milton areas,some have come from as far as Pensacola and Gulf Breeze.

It has been a unique experience for many as they have been included not only in the production but also with helping with parts of set creation, Tiair Champlin, a parent of children in the play, said.

Visit briandtaylorplays.wordpress.com/the-mad-tea-party/for more information on the production.

Read the rest here:
Panhandle Community Theatre in Pace presents 'The Mad Tea Party' - Santa Rosa Press Gazette

Critics across the pond are steaming about a recent exclusive tea party David Beckhamparticipated in at Buckingham Palace, ABC News reported Tuesday.

Lucky Harper meeting a real life princess at the Palace, read the caption for the Instagram photo, which shows Mr. Beckhams daughter posing in costume as a Disney princess, joined by other young girls and Princess Eugenie, daughter of Prince Andrew and granddaughter of Queen Elizabeth.

Funded by the British taxpayer, Buckingham Palace is designed for official royal business and state occasions, but, [f]rom time to time members of the Royal Family who reside at royal residences invite guests to visit privately, a palace spokesperson said, ABC News reported.

Prince Andrew will reimburse the British government for expenses related to the event, ABC News said.

For his part, Mr. Beckham took to Instagram to explain his side of the story and to note that the event was not a birthday party for Harper.

Just to be clear this wasnt the palace opening the gates for Harpers birthday party, this was a tea party where us and other guests were invited so it was a beautiful thing to do with My mum, Harper plus a few school friends, the retired soccer superstar said on Instagram, ABC News reported. We were honored to be able to there.

Earlier this year, it was revealed that Mr. Beckhams controversial tax-avoidance arrangements had scuttled a knighthood that was all but approved a few years ago for the former Manchester United player.

Mr. Beckhams paperwork was subject to a red flag by revenue officers after they discovered an investment of his that they considered a tax-avoidance scheme, the Evening Standard reported.

Government officials came under fire for subsequently working privately with Mr. Beckham to sort out the row, the Evening Standard reportedin February.

Football supporters are expected to pay their full share and so should football players, the Evening Standard quoted Liberal Democrat MP John Pugh as saying at the time. No one should be above the law and everyone should pay everything they owe, but we shouldnt create a new bend it for Beckham rule for certain people.

See the original post here:
David Beckham in hot water over private tea party at Buckingham ... - Washington Times