Brexit as identity politics?

Our very favourite Lefty ex-banker economist has had a revelation...

Are we Remainers making a simple mistake about Brexit?

What I mean is that we think of Brexit in consequentialist terms – its effects upon trade, productivity and growth. But many Brexiters instead regard Brexit as an intrinsic good, something desirable in itself in which consequences are of secondary importance.

Well... duh.

I believe that's the sort of phrase that the kids are using these days.

But yes, Chris, that is pretty much correct. Many of us who try to think about such things would prefer that Brexit has as little consequences as possible but, yes, we do view Brexit as a good thing in and of itself. We tend to believe that the European Union should not exist at all but, given that it does, the UK should not be part of it.

From my point of view, this is largely because I want to sack our shitty governments—rather than have the same shit carry on because, actually, our government has no real power to change anything. This is, I'll admit, a very high level view because I simply cannot be arsed to write a detailed response—other than the myriad of posts currently on this blog.

So, yes. Well done.

We won—now stop being a fucking racist cunt

Look at all the fucking sea.

A number of people have been crowdsourcing links about racist incidents following the referendum vote to Leave.

Whilst I suspect that there is a certain amount of finding facts to fit the narrative going on here (these kinds of things are, alas, rather widespread across this country—we are not nearly as progressive as Londoners like to think), I would just like to issue the following message...

If you are one of the cunts who are now telling Polish folk—or anyone else—to "fuck off home", get in the fucking sea.

There's plenty of it, you know. Well, you probably don't because you are a thick-as-shit moron (although that's not entirely your fault given our shitty education system) who lacks—and this is what I really cannot stand—basic manners.

Either engage in a rational, civilised debate or fuck off and become a mercenary for hire in some fucking hell-hole like DR Congo.

Or, as I said, get in the fucking sea.

The EU is not "outward-looking"...

Many Remain campaigners have lashed out, describing the vote to Leave the EU as being somehow "unprogressive". As usual with these types of people, for all that they claim to be progressive, global, and non-racist, their views are hopelessly parochial.

The simple truth is, as anti-EU campaigners have been pointing out for years, that the European Union is itself "fortress Europe"—a inward-looking customs union, designed as a protectionist barrier to trade, in order to protect big businesses based within it.

Anna Racoon helpfully provides some examples of how the EU's tariff barriers do this.

Enjoy your morning coffee today? Kenyan was it? ‘Fairtrade’ even? The EU is quite happy to see Kenyans out in the boiling hot fields harvesting coffee beans, but they are not so happy seeing them do something mechanised and clever with the beans, like roasting and packaging them. Any upstart Kenyan with fancy ideas like that will quickly find that the EU has slapped a 7.5% tax on them – not to protect the EU’s coffee bean growers, we don’t have any, but to protect the mainly German coffee bean processors.
...

How do the cocoa farmers in Nigeria fare? The EU allows them to earn a subsistence living so long as they leave their cocoa beans well alone. We have no plans to set up cocoa farms in Northumbria, so are quite content to let the Nigerians do it for us – but anything easy and profitable, like using machinery to process the beans and turn them into luxury bars of Chocolate…well can’t let them do that. Then the EU fines them 8.30%, and throws in an agricultural tariff of 18.70 % not to mention their latest wonder, the ‘sugar tax’. Why? Well there’s the American owned Cadbury’s for a start.

The Kenyans turned their hands to growing roses, that other European luxury staple. Since it had never occurred to anybody that they would do that – there was no tariff on fresh cut flowers. The industry thrived. Every night plane loads of beautiful roses arrived in Amsterdam and were sent out to flower shops across Europe. The EU demanded the right to flood the Kenyan market with tariff free EU goods in return. Can’t have Kenya developing its own mobile phone manufacturers can we. When the Kenyans refused to agree to this – the EU promptly slapped an 8.5% tax on those cut flowers; they only removed it when the Kenyans agreed not to try to make anything complicated and let the Europeans do it for them.

Back in 2009, the Archbishop of Canterbury was on the fashionable ‘carbon footprint’ bandwagon and urged us all not to buy Kenyan green beans – the following year, the UK’s Department for International Development gave Waitrose, yes Waitrose, £200,000 to swallow their fear of angering the Archbishop – and put Kenyan green beans on their shelves!

The beans are sent to Europe in 5kg boxes; once in Europe, they are repackaged in 120gm cardboard slips, given the names of fictitious farms where they have been grown, and sold onto the supermarket customers. Tescos undertake to send any ‘substandard beans’ onto frozen food manufacturers for inclusion in ready meals – good of them really, ‘cos if the Kenyans had any uppity ideas about canning their beans, the EU is ready with a tax of 12.8% to discourage them.

This is the organisation that we have just voted to leave.

So, now that we are out of this shitty protectionist block, can we start helping the poorest people in the world now?

You know, by promising no tariff barriers against anybody, and thus enhancing the lives of millions of the world's poorest citizens...?

It's Brexit—so what now?

It is very difficult to write about this subject objectively. I have been waiting, and agitating, for a referendum on the EU for more than twenty years now—and I never dared to believe, even once it was achieved, that the UK would actually vote to leave the EU.

But we have. So, please indulge this humble Devil whilst he expresses his considered and thought out opinion on the matter.

YEEEEEEEEEEEES! FUCKING GET IN! HOORAY! FUCKING ACES...

Ahem.

So.

What now? A very good question to raise, and one that will be consuming us for a good few years to come, I suspect. As EU Referendum has consistently stated, Brexit is a process and not an event.

Speaking of which, Pete and Richard North are at times utterly infuriating in terms of messaging—but they are also far better versed in the actual knowledge and understanding of this process than anyone else that I know. As such, their Flexcit document has to be the blueprint for the extraction of the UK from the European Union. I am glad to hear that this document has become required reading for some Civil Service members—they will need it.

Personally, your humble Devil has never been much good at the detail of things—I prefer to engage in strategy. This is what I do in business, and in the little that I have been involved in politics. So, what follows are a few random comments from that perspective.

• I would have said that Cameron had to go, but he has already fallen on his sword. Unfortunately, because his blade is as soft and shit at its job as he is, it has bent and is only very gently impaling its master over the course of months. Cameron has decided that he will only utter the fatal words when he is too dead to have to bear the shame of capitulation: to that end, he is willing to screw the British people in some desperate attempt to delay the inevitable. He is a cunt—teasing with his lips whilst attempting to prevent the painful penetration of his ego as long as possible—and should be pushed down to full penetration right to the hilt as soon as possible.
• Osborne seems to have disappeared: his promise to wreak revenge on the British people should they have the temerity to vote the wrong way has put him in something of a quandary—or "right in the shit", as we might say. Ludicrously, he is apparently ringing around to gather soundings as to his viability for Tory leadership. Due to the shortness of these conversations, I don't see his phone bill being particularly high this month.
• Michael Gove has always been a canny—and, dare I say it, honourable—politician. As such, he has ruled himself out of running for the leadership. I like to think that it is because he is well aware that, having told some outrageous lies, he cannot in all conscience lead the party to a victory. I sympathise: like Gove, I have accepted that, in this most important of votes, the end does justify the means. But just because we have won, that doesn't mean that we are not tainted.
• Boris. Well, what can one say...? Boris is entertaining, and seems to be able to laugh off any embarrassment. I wouldn't write him off (although I wouldn't endorse him either).
• A lot of people have opined that Farage's mission is now over, and he should fuck off into the middle distance—as should UKIP. Surely, they say, UKIP only existed to drive a referendum on the EU—having won it, that party has no reason to exist.
  
  That is not true: the reason for that is the group of libertarian bloggers—including myself and Tim Worstall (and many others)—who, back in the mid-2000s—persuaded Nigel that UKIP needed to have a truly national manifesto. This manifesto should be a blueprint for what Britain should look like if freed from the EU (and we thought that this event would take decades—not a decade). We then helped to build a libertarian manifesto, and to persuade people that it was a relevant addition to the national conversation. We failed.
  
  UKIP adopted the anti-immigration manifesto that so many of us found... er... problematic. But most of our effort remains at its core and, as a result, UKIP is not now neutered by a successful Leave vote.
  
  Importantly, UKIP has captured huge swathes of the traditionally Labour heartlands—and it won't give up these voters without a fight. And nor will those voters swiftly return to Labour (but more on that later).

There is a huge problem here. The problem is this: vast swathes of Britain are deeply moribund economically, and these people are poor (by a Western way of thinking). Right now, they might blame the EU—but once that excuse has been removed, we are still left with a severely divided country. We need to find a way to fix this.

The great thing about Brexit is that is gives us a strategic decision by, as it were, our shareholders. Now the managers of the company need to be able to work out how to enact that decision in the best interest of the shareholders. And I am far from certain that any of them know how to do it.

Your humble Devil will write more on this—alas, I have to satisfy my own shareholders, and have no more time at this stage. But I shall be back...

Lord Butler is not a very nice man

According to PoliticsHome [is that still going?—Ed], Lord Butler has advised that, in the event of a Brexit vote, Parliament could use its Remain majority to force another referendum.

Former Cabinet Secretary Lord Butler has suggested the House of Commons could use its pro-EU majority to trigger a second referendum if there is a vote for Brexit next week.

Ah, the famous EU-style tactics of "ask them again till they give the right answer" from Lord Butler here.

The crossbench peer warned that any push for a re-run or attempt to stop withdrawal would trigger a “major political crisis”, but said it was “paradoxical” to prevent Parliament acting as it sees fit.

"The referendum is merely advisory, and Parliament and the Government do maintain their sovereignty in law,” he told The House magazine.

Yes, Lord Butler—we know that the referendum is advisory. But Parliament has taken the decision to ask the people what their opinion is on this issue.

If the people vote for Brexit, and Parliament ignores the result, it would be acting explicitly and purposely against the will of the people on a subject that it expressly asked them to decide on.

It would be the final confirmation that this is not a democracy that we live in: it would be a very dangerous and explicit admission of what, currently, we only suspect to be true.

“One argument of the Brexiteers is that they want to restore powers and sovereignty to our Parliament – but all three main UK parties officially favour Remain. So it seems paradoxical to give powers back to Parliament to do something it does not want to. There might be pressure on parties to hold a second referendum.”

My dear Lord Butler, Brexiteers want to restore powers and sovereignty to our Parliament, so that we, the people—not Brussels technocrats—call the shots. We want to repatriate powers so that Parliament has no choice but to listen to us—because it is our power, not yours.

So what if all three parties officially favour Remain? If the people that the parties' MPs represent do not want to remain in the EU, it is not Parliament's place to dictate to the people who elect it. That is the main fucking point about democracy.

I know that you—having smoothly made the transition from civil servant to Lord—have not had to answer to the electorate for anything at all, and that's just fine and dandy for you. However, in this country, we do like our leaders to at least retain the fig leaf of accountability—to, at the very least, pretend that this is a democracy.

I know that you probably don't like the electors very much. In which case, I suggest that you go and work for the EU—that would be right up your street.

The height of naivety

The Very British Dude has, in recent months, written some of the best Remain arguments I have seen—they were not convincing enough to make me change my mind, but they have been eloquent enough to make me, at least, consider my premises.

However, his open letter to Junker is—whilst the sentiment is spot-on—I'm afraid to say, incredibly naive and, worse, just plain silly.

If, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland votes as expected to remain in the European Union, you should not take it as an endorsement.

Britain is a great nation, once the hub of the greatest Empire the world has ever seen, a victor at the centre of alliances, in three centuries of conflict, and the mother of Parliaments.
...

We expect the European Union to realise that we on these islands will not ever be part of some 'United States of Europe', and we don't think France, Poland, Italy or Germany, or any other great nation of Europe should be expected to either.

Why am I irresistibly reminded of this chap...?

Oh yes—it's because the Black Knight shouted out a challenge, lost the fight catastrophically, and then remained shouting impotently from the sidelines.

It's fucking pathetic.

We, if forced to choose, will never choose Europe.

Don't be ridiculous, Dude. We are being forced to choose—you do recall that we're having a referendum, right? And if, as you fucking recommend, we choose to Remain then we will, indeed, be choosing Europe.

We expect the European Union to realise that we on these islands will not ever be part of some 'United States of Europe', and we don't think France, Poland, Italy or Germany, or any other great nation of Europe should be expected to either.

The European Union exists to facilitate trade between free peoples, and to solve problems best dealt with at an international level.

Yes. And you know how you can best solve Europe's current problems?—with a sodding United States of Europe!

As I have recently highlighted, you cannot solve the Euro problem without a unified political policy and a central European Treasury.

If you vote Remain, you are voting to become part of a United States of Europe (USE). Yes, Liar Cameron's fabled "renegotiation" might have slowed the pace of the UK's integration into this entity, but that's all it is—a delay.

In general, the polls show that younger people are far more likely to embrace the Remain side. So all that the political Establishment—both our own, and the EU's—have to do is wait another decade or so, and resistance to the UK being part of this USE will be weakened. If they decide to play the long game—something that the EU political Establishment is very good at—and wait for 20 years, then there will be no criticism whatsoever.

This is the last plausible chance, that I can see, to stick two fingers up at this project. If we don't, then we are shackled to this project for as long as it lasts—and the EU elites have shown us that they will do anything (currently politically possible) to realise this USE vision.

In twenty years, if we vote Remain, Britain's youth will be urging them on.

This is a lie

We learn from the BBC that David Cameron is a filthy liar.

David Cameron has said migration can be managed if the UK remains inside the EU...

No, it can't.

A fundamental part of the Single Market is the free movement of people. You do understand what "free movement" means, you dish-faced bastard?

What it means is that any citizen of the EU can settle in any other country within the EU. One can argue the rights or wrongs of this policy, but it is a central tenet of the EU Single Market.

Equally, it means that you cannot control the influx of people into this country. Therefore, the statement above is a lie.

You fucking lying bastard.

Again, voting Remain is not voting for the status quo

In your humble Devil's last post, I pointed out that a vote to Remain in the EU is, in fact, not a vote for the current situation.

As a swift adjunct to that, I find this July 2015 article, from Andrew Lilico, which neatly reinforces the economic problems within the Euro area.

So when British politicians propose that EU political integration should slow or that the EU should prioritize some other objective (e.g. the Single Market), that is not merely seen as unattractive—it is impossible.

The reasons why are economic. As was widely discussed in the UK debate about the euro in the 1990s and early 2000s, to make a single currency such as the euro work, one needs an adequate combination of trade integration, similarity of economic cycles (so that one size fits all interest rate and exchange rate policies do indeed fit all), capital and labour mobility (to offset any “asymmetries” in economic shocks – that is, economic shocks hitting some parts of the Eurozone harder than others) and fiscal transfers (to compensate for any large or long-term differential performance that is not offset by capital and labour mobility).

The Eurozone has fairly good trade integration, some material differences in economic cycles (though not especially larger than the differences between regions within the UK or US), and fairly high capital mobility. But even when they occur at around the same time (so cycles are not out), economic shocks affect some parts of the Eurozone much worse than others (as we have seen in the Eurozone crisis). And, Ireland excepted, labour mobility is not particularly high (despite all the complaints about immigration in some Member States).
That means—as has been argued all along—that for the Eurozone to work over the longer term there will need to be much more significant fiscal transfers between regions.

Which is precisely what I articulated a few days ago. And, of course, in order for the economic scenario to work, there must be more political union.

If adequate economic mechanisms and political union are not introduced, it is believed that the Eurozone crisis will return and anti-European sentiment will (rightly) increase, ultimately destroying the Eurozone and the EU project as a whole. Banking union and constraints upon Member State budgets have been introduced. Even more political integration is on the way.

So in the Eurozone, the answer to increased Euroscepticism is not seen as any form of rowing back on integration. Quite the opposite — Euroscepticism has arisen because political integration had not proceeded rapidly enough.

For the Eurozone and EU to survive at all, deeper political integration, including Eurozone-level tax and spending decisions and democratic mechanisms to oversee them plus reduced control over tax and spending decisions for Member State, are an existential necessity.

Quite so. Lilico's conclusion implies that the current referendum may be very far from being the last turning point for the UK in its relationship with the EU.

This all means current debates about whether the UK will have a referendum and how folk will vote is of only passing significance. What counts fundamentally to whether the UK stays in the EU after about 2020 is whether there are any non-euro members of the EU at all, given the existential economic necessity of the Eurozone forming into a deeper political union. At present that seems highly unlikely.

It may be that, regardless of the result of the referendum on July 23, the UK will have another chance to choose its destiny within the European Union. That is the optimistic view.

The less optimistic view—at least, for those of us who have no interest in being swallowed up by a European super-state based on Napoleonic Law (rather than the Common Law)—is this: that our leaders will view any vote against leaving the current arrangement as an affirmative decision to enter into this superstate.

That must not be allowed to happen. For all that the Leave campaign have been incompetent in being able to articulate this unpleasant future, the Remain campaign have expressly avoided telling the British people the inevitable future of political and economic integration.

If the British do not vote to Leave the status quo, only the extremely dishonest would take that to mean that they have signed up to a federalist future.

Mr Hollande can fuck right off, frankly

France's wildly successful President^*, Mr Hollande has issued a stark warning that Britain must back and integrated EU or quit.

To quote Mr Hollande:

“There is no other way. It's a horrible path, but it's a logical path. Leave Europe, leave Schengen and leave democracy. Do you really want to participate in a common state? That's the question."

That's a really good point, you know? I hadn't realised that you could only be a democracy if you were in the EU. I'd thought that there were democracies outside of—and, indeed, before the formation of—the EU. Apparently this is not the case.

Of course, this neatly highlights one of the arguments that Remain have kept rather quiet about: the fact that remaining within the EU is not to maintain the status quo. The Eurozone, in particular, must have a central government, or it will fall apart—particularly economically and fiscally.

But to maintain, practically, the social and Welfare aspects of the EU, there requires further integration too, e.g. the proposed EU Tax Identification Numbers.

That nice Mr Cameron maintains that he has negotiated an opt out from all^** of this malarkey but, frankly, I don't believe him—partly because he is a proven liar (especially on the topic of the EU). So the UK will have to look forward to more integration too.

Now, you may think that all of this is a good thing—and that's your prerogative. I, of course, think that you are completely fucking wrong^***—and I will vote Leave, regardless of the scare stories—but at least we can have a proper debate the issue in an adult fashion.

^*I may have deployed some sarcasm here.
^**Or is it only some? I'm not clear. Because there's no documentation.
^***The scary clown sums up my feelings on the matter rather well.

Labour's fixed that for you

According to the Daily Wail, George Osborne (amongst others) lobbied hard against the Tories' EU referendum pledge.

George Osborne pleaded with David Cameron not to hold an in/out referendum on the European Union, it emerged last night.
Senior Tory sources revealed the Chancellor had repeatedly warned against the move in the run-up to the Prime Minister’s referendum pledge in 2013.

He is said to have warned Mr Cameron that a referendum would not resolve the tensions within the Tory party over the issue, and risked an accidental British exit from the EU.

If we exit the EU, Georgie-boy, it won't be "accidental": it will be the quite deliberate will of the British people—a people who would rather make their own laws and articulate their own priorities (for better or for worse).

But why, George? Why would you do this thing: why campaign against an EU referendum...?

[Osborne] also warned that holding an in/out vote risked putting the Conservatives on the wrong side of mainstream business opinion…

Well, if by "mainstream business" you mean big corporates, yes: if, on the other hand, you mean "the vast majority of British businesses that have to implement a bunch of regulations even though they don't actually trade abroad"—the ones that make up 80% of our trade and commerce—then not so much.

But Georgie is a sneaky little tyke: surely he can just be cuddling up to businesses? Is there, perhaps, some kind of political side to this?

... handing a political gift to Labour.

Ah. I did wonder.

Still, that shouldn't be a problem after September 12.

The Tories will have to worry far less about the opinion of businesses (or, indeed, voters) when the main opposition party is about to elect a terrorist-appeasing Communist, pushing a generally fascist manifesto—the financials of which are cobbled together by an economic illiterate.

George & Co. must be delighted.

Trading lies

Now, one could be charitable and say that it's an editing issue. However, I choose to believe that Lucy Thomas is, in fact, telling a deliberate untruth in today's City AM debate. [Emphasis mine—DK]

Nearly half of our trade is with other EU countries, and the “outers” cannot say how British businesses would be affected by any of their scenarios for exit.

No, Lucy: "nearly half of our trade" is not with other EU countries, actually.

At any time, around 80% of "our trade" is internal. Our actual trade with EU countries is, in fact, about 10%—very far from "half" (and it is more like 8% when the Rotterdam effect is taken into account).

This might seem like nit-picking, but Lucy Thomas is the campaign director of pro-EU Business for New Europe organisation: we can expect organisations like this to step up the peddling of these subtle lies as the EU referendum approaches.

We need to be aware of them, call out those asserting them, and debunk them on a regular basis.

Satire is dead

The European Union has been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.

So, a non-democratic institution that has lasted for about twenty years—not 60—and led to riots and appointed heads of state is...

No. Do you know what—this is why I've quit. The world is beyond comment or satire.

How soon can I get off this fucking planet...?

Consultations—who gives a fuck?

A great number of bloggers are getting terribly worked up about the plain packaging consultation.

It is inevitable, of course, that because the government have not got the answer that they wanted from the "consultation" that they should "extend" the timescale to let all "stakeholders" respond.

None of this matters.

The power to "dictate the colour of cigarette packs, their shape, the trademarks displayed on them and any labelling" was handed to the Health Secretary solely back in 2009.

And you poor fucks think that we live in a democracy.

The consultation on this matter—just like the "consultation" on the display ban—is simply a democratic fig-leaf: the government simply wants to pretend that it is, in any way, answerable to the people.

Anyone who believes that our democracy is in any way "representative" is an idiot.

Successive governments have passed what your humble Devil called "mini-Enabling Acts" for years: the NuLabour government may have been the greatest transgressors, but that hasn't stopped the Freedom Coalition making full use of those functions.

When you are a disgusting authoritarian bastard, why would you not?

So, here is a prediction: plain packaging will be enacted. And it may or may not go through Parliamentary scrutiny. Regardless, it does not need to.

Many people—including MPs—whinge about how the EU is making our Parliament irrelevant. But, as I wrote some time ago, our Parliament does not need the EU to make it irrelevant: they are doing that themselves.

Once again, our MPs—either through malice or the usual fucking laziness—have voted to abdicate another part of the power that we lend them.

And there are hundreds of pieces of legislation with similar clauses. Parliament is reaching the point where it is simply irrelevant: the government could use these clauses to enact pretty much anything that it wants.

The government could suspend Parliament and carry on ruling as an oligarchy but it simply doesn't need to: why go to the bother of suspending Parliament and risking a revolution when you can simply by-pass the institution altogether?
...

Our jumped-up chicken Parliament is still running around and around—desperately pretending that it is somehow important—when, in fact, it has had its head cut off.

This is why—though there are a couple of decent MPs in the House—every single one of our lords and masters needs to be hanged.

For those who have not actively colluded in this state of affairs are, nevertheless, complicit in our enslavement.

Related posts:

• A jumped-up chicken of a Parliament
• Quietly, quietly, the illiberal creeps in
• Farewell freedom—it was nice knowing you
• Flattening the laws of England
• We need fewer MPs
• Eternal truths: the other and you
• Divide et impera

UPDATE: contrary to what Dick Puddlecote may think, this post was not intended to have a pop at him or any of the other folks who are throughly annoying the government on this matter.

The intention was to highlight the fact that successive governments have quite deliberately attempted to neuter Parliament, and remove themselves from democratic oversight.

But, surely, we have the right to throw these bastards out—that's the point of democracy, is it not?

Well, yes and no. As you might have noticed—if you have taken an interest in politics over the last few decades—the ratchet only seems to go one way, i.e. in the removal of our freedoms. And I don't give two shits about the colour of the rosette worn by the scum who do so.

So, if Lansley has the power to impose plain packaging on tobacco, then he will do so. And the next government will not remove that power.

If you doubt what I say about the freedom ratchet, simply compare the Coalition's liberties-championing rhetoric immediately after the election with their actual record in government.

All of this, of course, means that making your feelings known in the so-called consultation is extremely important. But it is also no shock that the government have changed the rules of the game because they didn't get the answer they wanted: and if they continue to get the wrong answer, then they will simply press ahead regardless.

After all, if the government does not intend to use these mini-Enabling Acts—and really wants to restore our freedoms and the relevance of Parliament (as the Coalition claimed)—then why do they not repeal them?

Farage and UKIP...

Looking and sounding credible. And Nigel is right: as I have said for many years, all of the things that people are concerned about involve the EU in one way or another. Whilst "the EU" per se might be low on the electoral agenda, the EU touches just about everything on that agenda.

If you want to change the way in which our country is governed, then you need to vote for people who want us to govern our own country.

Which means not only leaving the EU, but also sacking at least the top three grades of civil servant.

Whilst I have little time for politicians, I have even less time for the technocrats of Whitehall and Brussels—they are scum and they need to be removed before any kind of change is possible.

When the people rise up, the politicians will hang from the lamp-posts as a symbol: the hanging of the civil servants, technocrats and advisors will herald real change.

Yes. But no...

Young Master Hannan is complaining that UKIP split the "eurosceptic" vote, through a comparison with Canada's recent political history...

In 1993, Canada’s Conservatives were wiped out. The governing party lost all but two of its 156 MPs, and began a 23-year period in opposition. Defeat on such a scale doesn’t happen for just one reason, of course, but the Tories’ single biggest disadvantage is easily identified: the Right-wing vote was split.

The Progressive Conservatives, the established party of Diefenbaker and Mulroney, had been challenged by a younger movement, the Reform Party. Led by Preston Manning, one of the greatest conservative leaders of our age, Reform spilled out from the western prairies, demanding radical decentralisation, tax cuts, a crackdown on crime and an end to multiculturalism.

Dan then argues that when the two parties merged, they made a stronger electoral proposition, and the Conservatives have consequently gone from strength to strength.

You can probably guess where I’m going with this argument.

Yup.

The latest YouGov poll has my party on 32 per cent, and UKIP on 9 per cent. Together, that’s a Conservative government; separately, it’s a Labour government.

Which would scare us all, Danny, if the recent actions of your party—in sharp contrast to the rhetoric of both members of the Coalition—hadn't more than adequately revealed that there is (as Nigel Farage would say) not a cigarette paper between your lot and NuLabour. Apart, possibly, from a basic honesty on the part of NuLabour about their authoritarian agenda.

It’s true, of course, that not every UKIP voter is a former Tory. Then again, the relevant question is not ‘how did they vote before?’ but ‘if UKIP didn’t exist, how would they vote today?’ It seems not unreasonable to assume that the majority would support the most convincingly Eurosceptic party on offer.

Sorry, Dan, but remind me which one that is again...?

So let’s ask the question. Are there any circumstances in which UKIP and the Conservatives might combine? UKIP leaders keep saying that they’d gladly fold themselves into the Conservative Party if it became our policy to leave the EU, but such an eventuality seems unlikely, at least in the short term. It’s true that most Conservative voters would withdraw from the EU tomorrow. So would most party members. And so, I suspect, would most Tory MPs in a secret ballot. That, though, is not party policy.

Which is a round-about way of saying that the Conservative leadership does not represent the views of Tory MPs, Tory Party members or the rest of the country.

[Cameron] made two commitments to Eurosceptics before he became leader: first, that he would allow individual Conservatives, provided they were not frontbenchers, to campaign against EU membership...

Or, rather, that anyone who joined Better Off Out would not get any kind of Cabinet job. It's all a matter of perspective, eh?

... second, that he would withdraw his MEPs from the federalist EPP.

But not, of course, before ensuring that he could get enough MEPs to ensure that the new group would be big enough to get the EU funding accorded to those of a certain size.

Could there, then, be a Conservative-UKIP alliance while the Tories remain in favour of EU membership? Yes.

It's actually vanishingly unlikely.

Full independence is unlikely to be in the next manifesto; but an In/Out referendum might well be. And such a referendum ought to be enough.

Why? We all know that referendums have a tendency to be thoroughly ignored—or re-held until the "right" answer is given.

UKIP’s raison d’être is secession. Sure, it has other policies: tax cuts, selection in schools and so forth. But it exists, essentially, to restore British sovereignty. A referendum would take that issue off the agenda whichever way it went.

But UKIP's raison d'être is, as you say, not about a referendum, Dan: it's about leaving the EU.

And, let's face it, Dan, your claim that the Conservatives are "the most convincingly Eurosceptic party on offer" is on shaky ground. Should you doubt me, perhaps you can tell me who said this back in January?

So now we know: no repatriation, no renegotiation, business as usual. December's 'veto' turns out to be nothing of the kind; at best, it is a partial opt-out. Britain had asked for concessions in return for allowing the other member states to use EU institutions and structures for their fiscal compact. No such concessions were forthcoming, but we have given our permission anyway. The only difference is that, because the deal was done in a separate treaty structure, the PM doesn't have to put anything through the House of Commons. We had a generational opportunity to improve our relationship with the EU. That opportunity has passed.

Yes, Danny: it was you.

Some say that actions speak louder than words. Me? I believe that without actions your words are at best suspect and most certainly meaningless—all mouth and no trousers.

And the Buttered New Potato and his acolytes—who have a strangle-hold on your party and, alas, this country—have said many fine words (remember the Freedom Bill, the "veto", the promises to restore our freedoms?) but have, in fact, only cracked down even harder on our personal and civil liberties.

The other thing that you fail to appreciate, Dan, is encapsulated in these fragments of your own article...

... Reform spilled out from the western prairies, demanding radical decentralisation, tax cuts, a crackdown on crime and an end to multiculturalism...

... and...

Sure, [UKIP] has other policies: tax cuts, selection in schools and so forth.

UKIP has a highly active and enthusiastic youth wing—headed by highly intelligent libertarian businessman Harry Aldridge.

UKIP is not solely about withdrawal from the EU anymore: it was when I first joined back in 2006, but a number of us campaigned for—and contributed to—a fuller manifesto. And that manifesto is, with a few idiotic mistakes, largely libertarian in flavour. Just as Canada's Reform party wanted more than a desired outcome on a single issue, UKIP is now a party "demanding radical decentralisation, tax cuts, a crackdown on crime".

Further, UKIP is the party that understands that people want to have fun: Nigel Farage's well-known affiliation for a pint and a fag is a draw for those of us in this country who are sick and fucking tired of being lectured at by worthy, worthless, miserable fucking puritans.

So, whilst many UKIP members might be persuaded by your party's weasel-tongued promises on a referendum—will this be a "cast-iron" one again, Dan?—those who are developing UKIP's current and future direction are not interested: they are libertarians and lovers of freedom. They will not be conned by the Conservatives' lies and platitudes—because they are not conservatives.

There's a backlash coming, Dan: why do you think that the whole idea of state funding has reared its ugly head again...? The Big Three simply want to shut out the nimbler competitors—rather like the multi-nationals that your party's corporatist policies favour, in fact.

The Big Three parties are all morally bankrupt: this has become increasingly obvious and some of us have principles, Dan. The Conservatives will never have my backing ever again—and I think that most of the young UKIPpers feel the same way.

The previous generations have screwed up: it is time for you all to step aside and let the libertarian youth build a better, happier world.

UPDATE & DISCLAIMER: I rejoined UKIP in January. It just made sense—apart from their immigration policy.

Greece is like...

... according to John Redwood, another effectively bankrupt state... [Emphasis mine.]

If those countries are to have some hope of prosperity, they need to solve the two underlying problems. It is obvious to most external observers that the way to solve the problem of competitiveness quickly is to devalue. Normally, an IMF programme for a country in trouble not only asks it to cut its budget deficit and reduce its excess public spending, but suggests that it devalue its currency and move to a looser monetary policy domestically, so that there can be private sector-led growth, export-led growth—the kind of thing it needs to get out of its disastrous position. That is exactly what those countries are unable to do. That is why the IMF should not lend a country like Greece a single euro or a single dollar. Greece is to the euro area as California is to the dollar area: it is not an independent sovereign state, and it cannot do two of the three things that a country needs to do to get back into growth and prosperity, because it cannot devalue and it cannot create enough credit and money within its own system.

Exactly so.

Except that California is more like a quack doctor bleeding a perfectly healthy person—that patient is weakened, but still able to work and produce, to innovate and generate wealth.

Whereas the Greek situation is rather more akin to flogging a dead horse...

A sinner repenteth?

It seems that Jon Worth is having a crisis of faith, engendered by a dose of harsh reality.

What do you do when one of the fundamental things you’ve believed in for years, have spent ages working towards, is actually not anywhere near as desirable as you previously thought?

Why, rethink your position, of course.

The old federalist argument, repeated ad infinitum at Ventotene, drawing on Spinelli’s manifesto, is that the nation state is broken and only supranational democratic structures in Europe (a European federation) can fix it.

This is the essentially the same argument that Nosemonkey has used in my discussions with him (over many years now).

That’s all very well if your systems of representative democracy work OK, but what if they don’t? What if political parties are tired and hollowed out, and beholden to narrow interests and are in awe of the power of the markets? With election turnouts decreasing? With messy multi-party compromises, and leaders ready to ditch the few principles they once had? Why should we expect leadership to be any more enlightened at EU level than is the case nationally just now?

The main problem with this idea is that those who are leading the European Union (and other supranational organisations) are those same people who are elected by this tired, worn-out and ultimately corrupt democracy that Jon has decried above.

Make the EU a representative democracy in the classical sense (government contingent on a majority in parliament, executive proposes legislation that the legislature approves and amends, parties run in elections etc.) tomorrow, and we’re just going to replicate all the disfunction on a continent wide scale.

Actually, what Jon has described there is not "classical democracy"—it is representative democracy. And representative democracy is part of the problem.

Because the problem is disengagement—people don't bother voting because they don't believe that it will make any difference. "They're all the same"; "whoever you vote for the government always gets in"—these sentiments are common-place in the British electorate, at least.

And, as Jon also points out, "the illegitimate technocracy of the past that has lacked citizen involvement and democratic control" is not the answer either: first, because technocratic planners are never as good at planning as they think they are and, second, because people feel even more disenfranchised (and that usually ends with blood in the streets).

My objection—put to both Nosemonkey and Jon (over a pint or two)—have always, actually, been much the same as those raised above, i.e. if nation states' governments are tired and corrupt, how does a supranational government differ? And, of course, quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

For what it is worth, I have argued for a long time that national governments are too centralised—hence the electorate's feeling of powerlessness and thus inevitable disengagement.

My argument is that there this centralised model should be replaced by far smaller, more local units of government—with far more power (especially as regards tax-raising) than our local authorities currently have.

The electorate would be able to see the changes that they have voted for—for better or for worse—much more immediately and, as such, would be far more inclined to vote and otherwise engage with the political process.

So, having identified the problems that Jon did, my answer was smaller, more local democracy—not bigger, more remote, supranational governments. And, if those issues that transcend borders are so important—pollution or, if you enjoy that particular scientific perversion, climate change—are so important, then countries can get together to make international treaties (which is more or less how the EU operates anyway).

The difference is that the West is becoming more and more irrelevant in these debates, and increasingly we are hamstrung in these deals by the EU.

Time for a change!

Michael O'Leary on innovation

I am, I know, a little late on this—having seen it at numerous places, including Old Holborn's—but I very much enjoyed RyanAir's Michael O'Leary roundly insulting the European Commission, repeatedly, whilst speaking at the laughable European Union Innovation Conference.



Do watch it—and I only wish that our government would heed O'Leary's advice to "get the hell out of Brussels as fast as you can"...

A EUsceptic?

The Buttered New Potato has come out with a line designed to quiet the increasingly vocal EUsceptics in his party today.

David Cameron has said he will not sign any reworked EU treaty designed to solve the eurozone crisis if it does not contain safeguards to protect British interests.

The prime minister said there must be protection for the single market and the UK financial services sector.

The EU treaty may be rewritten to achieve greater fiscal integration within the eurozone.

But that would require the agreement of all 27 members, including the UK.

Unfortunately, as EUReferendum has repeatedly pointed out, this is a complete and utter lie.

Unfortunately, this Janet & John appreciation is somewhat at variance with the political realities of the European Union. Specifically, they lack any knowledge of the history of the Union, they are unaware of the "Craxi doctrine" which emerged from the 1985 Milan European Council, where Thatcher was ambushed, with the "colleagues" agreeing to an IGC against her will...

At the time, the rules for convening an IGC dictated that there should be consensus amongst member states, but what Craxi established was that, in the case of dispute, this meant simple majority voting by the leaders of the member states.

What has since emerged also, honed and refined during the shenanigans over the EU constitution and the Lisbon treaty, is that the agenda is also determined by "consensus", with the EU commission holding the pen. Thus, whether the UK would even be able to put her demands on the agenda would be a matter for the rest of the "colleagues".

Now, given that any forthcoming IGC will be convened to deal with the needs of the 17 eurozone members, which comprise the majority of the 27 states, it is unlikely that they will want the distraction of The Boy's political demands. Thus, the likelihood is that these will not even get onto the agenda. They will be blocked by a majority vote of the eurozone members, if need be.

This, of course, will leave The Boy stranded, with but one option – then to veto the conclusions of the IGC, blocking any new treaty. That would make him about as popular as an Israeli ambassador at a Hamas convention. Cameron would have to decide whether to incur the wrath of the entire collective, or cave in. And we know exactly what the result would be.

Thus, whatever the political motivation of The Boy is pursuing the current line – and we'll explore that in another post - it is not going to happen. As always, the only real options are two-fold: all in, or all out. Repatriation is not an option … not through negotiation, anyway. It is smoke and mirrors, not political reality.

So, we are forced to apply the Polly Conundrum—is Cameron totally fucking ignorant, or is he an unscrupulous, lying shit?

I'd vote* for both personally...

* A figure of speech. I would never vote for that massively-foreheaded spiv...

Time to look to the future

It is time to face some hard facts.

Whether Greece holds a referendum, and whether or not its people vote yes or no, is irrelevant: the country is bust.

The Eurozone countries are pledging €1 trillion, €2 trillion... It doesn't matter: none of them have the money in the bank—or, indeed, the credit line—to pony up on their fantasy. No, not even Germany—which will soon struggle to service its own colossal debts.

The last hope of Merkel and Sarkozy was the Chinese—and they, sensibly, declined. The governments of the EU must attempt to recapitalise the European banks when they themselves have no capital.

Only the other week, several governments had to bail out three European banks who have almost all, as yet, failed to write down their EU state debts.

I have said it before and I will say it again: the social democratic model is bust—it is time for this country to cut its losses and look forwards—to prevent bankruptcy in the short term, and to promote prosperity and freedom in the long to medium term.

So, how do we do that?

The first step that this government needs to take is to announce immediate withdrawal from the EU—with the first step the immediate cessation of any payments to the EU (including MEPs salaries, etc.). This is a process that will take some time in any case—so better sooner than later.

There are three main drivers for this course of action:

1. to ensure that we are not on the hook for any more Euro bailouts—we are going to need every single penny that we can possibly save for the next steps;


2. to enable this government to take immediate and radical steps to reduce regulations on business—those that trade with Europe will need to continue abiding by the EU's rules, of course. However, since only 10% of our trade is done with the EU, that will considerably lighten burdens on businesses—especially the SMEs that create the most jobs and growth in the economy.


3. to be able to open dialogue with every other country in the world in order to gain advantage in uni- and multi-lateral trade agreements—something that we cannot do whilst part of the EU (which has total control over trade policy). Britain already has an advantage in being part of the loose network of countries known as the Commonwealth—a band of national states that roughly share the Common Law legal system and, in many cases, the same language.
   
   The aim should be to promote totally free trade throughout the world. Even if other countries will not acquiesce, then we should immediately declare the free movement of goods and capital through this country.

All of these measures will take time—so the best time to start is now.

The EU

Our erstwhile partners in the EU will not take too many steps against us—with the balance of trade in our favour (as far as negotiation is concerned), we can ensure that the 10% of trade that we do with them is not adversely affected. However, the medium term aim is to reduce that proportion.

The simple fact is this: we have placed far too many of our export eggs in one basket: now the bottom is falling out of that basket and we are about to loose an awful lot of cash. In negotiating uni-lateral deals with the other 150-odd countries around the world, we can minimise any future disruption.

Foreign Aid

The next step will be to reduce any foreign aid—unless used as a bargaining chip with solid economic gains attached.

Our money must be made to work for the monetary interests of the British taxpayers—not for the vanity projects of MPs. And nor can we afford to hand over colossal amounts of cash in order to insulate other people from the disastrous decisions of their own governments. That may sounds harsh, but we simply cannot.

The only way in which these various tyrannical governments around the world will be brought to heel—and brought to heel they must be—is if we make it extraordinarily clear that we will help their citizens to trade with us, and that's all.

I think that we will find that this will bring about property rights and free trade in some of the more backwards parts of the world far more swiftly than any "humanitarian" or "debt-foregiveness" interventions will.

The IMF

We should also withdraw from or severely renegotiate our relationship with the IMF. As with many other supranational organisations of which we are part, our presence at the "top table" seems merely to mean that we hand over huge chunks of money with absolutely no return (other than enabling our puffed-up peacocks of politicians to strut about like they own the fucking world).

Further, since the appeal to the Chinese has failed, it is now inevitable that the Eurozone will now appeal for funds from the IMF: this will mean, despite Osborne's blandishments, that we will suddenly be indirectly bailing out the Euro.

If we are to help out other countries, it will be on our terms and for our own advantage—neither for theirs nor that of the corrupt technocrats and bureaucrats of the IMF, UNESCO and all those other unaccountable world government structures.

On the home front

So, we need to boost business—especially SMEs—in this country. The simplest way to do this is to drop taxes on business, and on capital investment.

So, as I stated earlier, we are going to need some cash and a very sound business plan. Because we are almost certainly going to have to borrow some money ourselves. And we'll have to tread very carefully.

The first step will be the immediate sacking of the top three grades of civil servants (at least), and the voluntary retirement of anyone who would like to get out before the real cuts happen.

The next step is to cut National Insurance by 1% for employees and 8% for employers. Why this difference? Simple—there are far fewer employers creating jobs than there are employees looking to fill vacancies.

VAT (or its post-EU equivalent) can stay where it is—we need some income and, as I have said before, I believe consumption taxes (with the exemptions for "necessities") are the closest to voluntary that you can get.

Capital Gains taxes—for returns on money invested in businesses within the next three years—should be cut to 15%, with the expectation that they will rise thereafter. This should stimulate capital investment now, when we most need it.

Corporation Tax for businesses turning over less than £5 million should be reduced to 15% also. R&D; tax relief at the current level will continue to apply.

Plans to introduce a universal Flat Tax, with high Personal Tax Allowance, will be set in motion with a legislation to be moved at the end of three years.

The National Minimum Wage will be reduced to £2.50 per hour, with Local Authorities empowered to set a suitable top-up precent for their own area. In other words, Westminster Council might decide to bring that up to £8 per hour, whilst East Yorkshire might maintain it at the national rate. This will start to prepare Local Authorities for more autonomy over the next few years.

As far as energy policy goes, government backing for fracking for the production of gas will be immediately granted, ensuring Britain's supply of cheap, low(ish)-carbon energy. Planning permission for gas-fired power stations will be fast-tracked through the process, to ensure that we can take advantage of this wonderful new energy source.

Finally, the NHS will be reserved for essential medical work only, with all funding for non-essential treatments and "preventative" advertising campaigns, etc. slashed to nothing. The government will also start renegotiation of PFI contracts, with the backers involved quite openly threatened with default if concessions are not made.

Conclusion

The above measures are designed to provide a quick kick up the arse to the economy, and to help businesses in the short term. In the medium to long term, a number of other radical steps will be taken (which I shall expand on in a following post)—the above, however, should buy us some breathing space.

Much of it requires the state to act in a ruthless, devious and occasionally downright dishonest manner—however, I believe that both the short-term crisis and the medium-term gains merit it. And reparations—in the form of higher growth and productivity—will be made apparent, eventually.

I'm sure that I've not covered everything, but it's a start—and I commend the measures outlined above to the House.