The people (and Peter Bone's wife) vs. Mr Cameron

On 9th March 2011, Peter Bone MP used Prime Minister's Questions to ask a serious question in an amusing way.

Peter Bone (Wellingborough, Conservative)

Mr Speaker, 373,000 Daily Express readers want it, 80% of Conservative Members support it, the Deputy Prime Minister would love it, and my wife demands it. The British people, Conservative supporters, the leader of the Liberal party and especially Mrs Bone cannot all be wrong. Prime Minister: may we have a referendum on whether the United Kingdom should remain in the European Union?

Note, please, that Peter Bone invoked a number of entities in support of his question. And what was the Prime Minister's answer? [Emphasis mine.]

David Cameron (Prime Minister; Witney, Conservative)

I wish that my wife were as easy to please. I was worried about where that question was going.

I am afraid that I must disappoint my hon. Friend and Mrs Bone. I think that we are better off inside the EU but making changes to it, in the way that we are setting out.

So, whilst Peter Bone pointed out that the majority of the Conservative Party are for a referendum, as are a relatively large number of Daily Express readers (let alone everyone else in the country), Cameron replies purely in the first person.

Obviously, this massively-foreheaded cunt thinks that his opinion trumps that of hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of the people that he is supposed to serve. Could this bastard be any more arrogant and conceited?

Almost certainly, but then he'd be Ed Balls.

The fact is that neither Cameron nor Head of Policy Oliver Letwin have been able to articulate precisely why we are so well off in the European Union; indeed, as regular readers will know, Letwin bunnied out of a debate with your humble Devil, even though he is apparently starting to doubt the wisdom of his opinion.

It is hardly coincidence, then, that both Dan Hannan MEP and Douglas Carswell MP are trailing the launch of The People's Pledge—a campaign to hold a referendum on the EU.

Obviously, I would urge you all to go and sign up but, whilst a campaign probably needs to start now, I do not support a referendum right now—as I have told the Albion Alliance a number of times.

Why?

Quite simply because it would be too close: I want a referendum that we—that is, the EUsceptics—will definitely win. And I do not think that the numbers support that at this present moment.

Especially since the EU is busy amending laws to enable them to pour millions of pounds into the pro-EU side [the link to England Expects seems to be dodgy—firing up tens of windows with "page not found". I shall restore it when the problem—or hack—is fixed].

Today a report was passed in the Constitutional Affairs Committee of the Parliament which now moves up to the plenary. The report, called the the Giannakou Report after its draftswoman Marietta Giannakou... who was on the Convention which drew up the European Constitution, is titled,

A Draft Report [PDF] on the application of Regulation 2004/2003 on the regulations governing political parties at European level and the rules regarding their funding

In it we see this,

30. Points out that since 2008 European political parties have been entitled to use sums received as grants for ‘financing campaigns conducted ... in the context of the elections to the European Parliament ...’ (Article 8, third paragraph, of the Funding Regulation); further points out, however, that they are prohibited from using these sums for financing ‘referenda campaigns’; considers that the reason for this is probably a concern that European parties and foundations could interfere in the domestic affairs of Member States; believes, however that, if European political parties are to play a political role at EU level, they should have the right to participate in such campaigns as long as the subject of the referendum has a direct link with issues concerning the European Union;

Thus they would be able to shovel taxpayers money to the pro-EU side, indeed that would be the express purpose of the change in the law.

What is more this recital was amended as it went through the Committee. Amendment 95 [PDF] by one Andrew Duff, Lib Dem MEP for the Eastern Counties and federast supreme. What did the Duffer succeed in doing, well he removed this sentence,
considers that the reason for this is probably a concern that European parties and foundations could interfere in the domestic affairs of Member States

In other words he whitewashed any suggestion that the EU at one time recognised that there are some aspect of national democracy where it shouldn't interfere.

This is a direct attempt to find extra taxpayer funding for the Yes side in any forthcoming EU referendum in the UK. They are as aware of the liklihood of an In/Out referendum in the UK sooner or later and have every intention of loading the dice with taxpayer's money. As things stand the UK is affected in the sense that of the parties elected to the European Parliament and that have Political Parties at a European Level, that is the Tories, the Greens, the Labour Party and the Lib Dems are all formally partisans of an 'In'.

Think about all this. What this means is that money donated to the Lib Dem Euro political party, by someone living in France, could be used to fund a pro-European referendum campaign in the UK by washing it through the European Poltical Party. Neat eh?

In direct contravension of British electoral law, but so be it.

The EU federasts have been able to do immense damage and to hammer through enormous changes to our laws and constitution in the few decades since the last referendum: we simply cannot afford to lose this one.

As such, I am in favour of waiting a couple of years, until the colossal interference that EU undertakes through laws that we have never voted for becomes so onerous and so obvious that the British people will—for an absolute certainty—vote to leave this piece of shit federal union.

Can we leave yet? Yes.

Will people vote to do so? No.

Not yet.

But soon...

Mission creep

In a rather long post about how governments in general—and the EU in particular—usurp our freedoms, I wrote the following paragraph.

It is a simple fact that the range of EU competencies is astonishingly wide, and are prone to mission creep: an EU competency in "green" issues, for instance, becomes a plausible excuse for EU meddling in energy generation policy.

Today, we come across another example of this mission creep...

As we all know, the Coalition are cracking down on non-EU immigrants: in fact, they have placed a cap on such immigration*. The reason that they have not placed a cap on EU immigration is because, quite simply, they cannot—EU law has primacy over British law ad EU immigration is an EU competence.

But we do have control over non-EU immigration. Or, as England Expects highlights, maybe not: you see, the EU is about to complete a trade deal with India—and trade is solely an EU competence.

"So what?" I hear you cry. "What the hell has that got to do with immigration?"

Well, as Bruno Waterfield points out, quite a lot, as it happens...

A planned "free trade agreement" with India, to be signed this December, will give skilled Indian IT workers, engineers and managers easy passage into Europe in return for European companies gaining access to India's huge domestic market.

Put simply, in return for access to India's domestic markets, the EU will allow thousands of Indians into EU countries. Now, personally, I am all for free trade—in people as well as goods and capital.

But that, of course, is not the point.

The point is that the EU's total control over trade has allowed that organisation to extent its competence into an area over which it is not supposed to have any jurisdiction, i.e. non-EU immigration policy.

Mission creep—do you see? And not a power-ceding treaty in sight...

P.S. Lest someone pop up and accuse me of swallowing the anti-EU Telegraph's evil propaganda, I will let England Expects point you to the following headlines in the Indian newspapers...

Here is The Hindu:

India-EU trade deal may help bypass UK migration cap

Here is The New Kerala:

EU-India 'free trade agreement' will allow flood of Indian skilled workers into Britain

The Times of India Business:

India-EU trade deal may nullify UK migration cap

You get the point.

Indeed we do.

As I say, the point here is not about whether immigration is a good or a bad thing: this is simply an illustration of the way in which the EU co-opts new powers for itself through sleight of hand—and to show how utterly fucking pointless the Tories' "referendum lock" actually is.

The final point to note is that our government is not in control—or, at least, the one in Westminster is not. The only powers that the British government has are those that the EU has not yet taken control of.

UPDATE: EuroGoblin is calling bullshit on this story...

Despite hunting, I can’t actually find a copy of the FTA text anywhere online – so I assume most people are commenting on it without having read the clause in question. However, I really don’t need to read the clause to know this particular story is bullshit. Free Trade Agreements require unanimity in the Council before they can be adopted by the EU, and this will also be the case with the Indian deal. A similar deal was recently passed between the EU and South Korea, and Italy threatened to veto unless the implementation was delayed by six months. Guess what? Italy was given the six month delay and then dropped its veto.

Thus, is it the case – as the Devil argues – that “our government is not in control”? No, that’s obviously rubbish. If the UK government wants to (and it almost certainly does), it will veto the agreement unless an opt-out is secured. It has, after all, secured numerous opt-outs in the past on immigration and trade policy – in fact, the UK has a complete opt-out from the common EU immigration policy and instead “opts-in” to what it wants.

Which is all quite probably true: I guess we'll just have to see how this pans out. If EuroGoblin is correct—and I've no reason to think he's not—and The Coalition does not object, then we'll know that their anti-immigration rhetoric is meaningless (thankfully).

* Anyone know if that applies to people already here, by the way...?

Smoke and mirrors

David Lidington MP, Minister for Europe, is pleased as punch to be deceiving you all...

Our New Coalition Overlords™ have enacted their promise to save us all from the nasty foreigners kow-tow to the European Union through a piece of meaningless legislation.

The Government will announce plans for a “referendum lock” on any future surrendering of British powers to the European Union.

The change has been hailed as one of the most significant attempts to protect the sovereignty of Britain over the EU for nearly 40 years.

Ministers will introduce the right to hold a referendum by amending the original 1972 European Communities Act under which Britain joined the Common Market.

The amendment, which could be law by next year, will allow for a vote if there is “any transfer of powers away from the UK and towards the centre”, according to a Whitehall source.

It would cover any future treaty—successors to the previous Maastricht, Nice and Lisbon treaties—or any large scale transfer of power outside those treaties.

"Oh, Devil!" I hear you cry. "How can you be so negative? This is a significant step in protecting the British people from the predations of the evil EU empire!"

Well, yes, it would be. Except that, as we all know by now, the Lisbon Treaty is self-amending, so there will be no other treaties. It is, if you like, the treaty to end all treaties.

As such, no referendum will ever happen because the "referendum lock" only kicks in if powers are transferred in "any future treaty". This legislation is just smoke and mirrors—the government are playing us for fools.

Go back to bed, Britain—your EU government is in control...

Eggs by the kilo

The poor little Greek boy points me to this piece of idiocy from the EU.

British shoppers will no longer be able to buy eggs by the dozen under new regulations approved by the European Parliament. For the first time, eggs and other products including oranges and bread rolls—will be sold by weight instead of by the number contained in a packet.
...

Eggs have traditionally been sold by the dozen or half-dozen because the old imperial measurements such as inches or pennies were calculated in groups of 12. But the new rules, to be introduced next year, mean that instead of packaging telling shoppers a box contains six eggs, it will show the weight in grams of the eggs inside.
...

An FSA [Food Standards Agency] spokeswoman said: "This proposal would disallow selling by numbers. Retailers would not be allowed to put "Six eggs" on the front of the box. If it was a bag of rolls, it would say "500g" instead of six rolls."

This is utter idiocy: who gives a crap what weight the eggs are? I want six eggs, not the exact bloody weight.

Apart from anything else, this has no benefit to the consumer: does it give me more information about the eggs? Not really—some might have thicker shells than others, thus ensuring that I have no real information about the quality or otherwise of the eggs.

Does it take information away from me? Yes: because now I cannot know, without opening the box, how many eggs are in it.

Does this measure have any benefit to the consumer at all? No. It's just harmonisation for the sake of it.

In fact, it actively harms the consumer because the eggs will cost more. Why?

Well, I would imagine that selling a 500g box of eggs that does not, in fact, contain 500g of produce is illegal under Trading Standards. So now the egg producers are going to have to weigh each and every box, and stamp the exact weight on each box. Not only will they have to buy the stamping equipment (because you can bet your bottom dollar that just writing the weight on is not legal: they even have to stamp each individual egg now, for fuck's sake) but it is also labour-intensive.

To adapt a classic Daily Mail phrase, it's bureaucracy gone mad.

To be fair to that paper (much as I hate to do so), whilst it confirms the Scotsman's story, the Mail does point out that these laws are very far from being decided.

‘It is important that information is provided in a way that is meaningful and beneficial to consumers. This issue is still being considered by EU member states and it will be some time before the regulation is finalised.’

... says the woman from the FSA. However...

Experts say it will be next year before the EU is able to pass the controversial measure, which bureaucrats say is designed to help consumers make an informed choice when buying their food because it will require suppliers to provide more comprehensive information.

But last night, food industry experts said the EU plan was ‘bonkers’ and ‘absolute madness’.

Federation of Bakers director Gordon Polson warned that it may be too late to change the rules, even though they will be debated further in the European Parliament.

He revealed that lobbyists had already tried to rectify the regulations, discovered in the 174 pages of amendments to the initial 75-page proposal, but there was not enough time to convince MEPs before the crucial vote.

The fact that one would need to lobby MEPs in order to convince them of the idiocy of this law is, in itself, a damning indictment of the sheer, brutal stupidity of our representatives. However, the EU voting system—in which legislation is voted on in "blocks"—also won't help. This law will go through.

Unless, of course, this is all a cunning plan by the Tories, to feed newspapers a story about an utterly ridiculous EU law which was never going to pass anyway, and then paint themselves as "tough on the EU" when it is voted down. Or am I crediting Dave with too Machiavellian a mind?

Probably not.

In any case, there is a wider point to be emphasised here, and we may as well use a snippet from The Mail's article to lead us into it.

The move could cost retailers millions of pounds because of changes they will have to make to packaging and labelling, as well as the extra burden of weighing each box of food before it is put on sale.

The cost is likely to be passed on to shoppers through higher grocery bills.

The cost is "likely" to be passed on through higher bills? No, the cost will be passed on through higher bills, just as all of the costs of EU regulations are passed onto consumers through higher bills.

And this is, of course, the problem—a problem which I have decided to illustrate pictorially.

1. The first graph shows the proportion of our exports that go to the EU, and to the rest of the world. Whoa! 50% of our exports are to the EU? That's a pretty big chunk.
   
   
   
   
2. The next graph shows the proportion of UK businesses that must abide by all EU laws, whether they trade with the EU or not.
   
   
   
   All of these regulations cost time, money and effort to implement—and so the costs are passed onto the consumer. Not only that, the costs of ensuring that these regulations are being followed—all of those inspectors and suchlike—are undertaken by the UK government, so we consumers pay again in tax.
   
   But why should 100% of businesses have to obey these EU regulations—after all, only 50% of British businesses actually deal with the EU. Isn't that right?


3. Well, no—that's wrong. Only 50% of our exports are to the EU: the vast majority of trade within the UK is internal. In other words, the vast majority of businesses never trade abroad at all.
   
   
   
   This final graph shows the rough breakdown of the UK economy. As you can see, trade to the EU accounts for only 10% of the total, 80% of the trade is internal and trade to the rest of the world is another 10%.
   
   And yet, as you'll remember from the pretty graphs, 100% of businesses must comply with EU rules—with all of the associated regulatory costs that that entails.

Now, to be fair to the EU, our own Ministries are very good at "gold-plating" (that is, adding in their own little madnesses to) EU Directives. But, if the EU did not force this crap on us, then our snivelling, cowardly civil servants wouldn't be able to hide behind the EU fig-leaf: their own pusillanimous, interfering, cost-inducing evil would be plain to see.

I believe that this, as much as anything, is one of the reasons why government is so pro-EU: it allows them to conceal their own petty vindictiveness and mismanagement by pointing the finger at the EU.

Anyway, all of this has a cost—it's difficult to know how much of a cost, but it is certainly in the range of tens of billions of pounds. All of which gets passed onto us in the form of higher prices and higher taxes.

Not only that, of course, but the EU stops us doing more trade with the rest of the world—through two main mechanisms.

First, the EU controls all trade beyond its borders and it has a tendency to put tariff barriers up against other nations—usually to protect EU-based firms (the big firms, the ones that can afford to lobby the EU bureaucrats). A classic example of this is the fact that there is a 66% import tax on energy-saving lightbulbs from China: this was imposed (and renewed last year) after heavy lobbying by German Siemens and Dutch Philips.

Now, this makes us poorer again—we are having to pay 66% more for an energy-saving lightbulb than we might.

However, in retaliation, non-EU countries then tend to put up tariff barriers against EU goods (and point out to their workers that the reason that they aren't selling more light-bulbs in the Eu is because the EU has erected tariff barriers).

The result? Everyone is poorer.

Second, of course, the high costs of regulation mean that British (and EU) businesses cannot compete so well abroad, as our products have an even higher cost than they otherwise would.

Now, Timmy would maintain that it is the imports that make us rich, and that exporting is just the tedious stuff we need to do in order to be able to afford the imports. And he'd be right.

But the point is that we do still need to export of we cannot afford the imports. If we export less, we end up owing other people a lot of money.

Plus, of course, all of this crap offends the sensibilities of a man like myself, who maintains that it is free trade that makes us rich and, as a result, that tariff-wielding organisations like the EU make everyone poorer—and ensuring that people are poorer means that you ensure that more people die unnecessarily.

So, whether or not this eggs and rolls story is true or not, can I join both my peripatetic Athenian friend and Timmy in saying "can we fucking well leave yet"?

Unio Europaea delenda est.

UPDATE: John Band has a good comment on this, as usual. It doesn't alter the main thrust of my argument though, which is that this is not free trade and the EU should be dismantled.

UPDATE 2: Nosemonkey also debunks some of the myths surrounding this matter, illustrating how this particular measure is actually about deregulation.

As a matter of fact, it is a result of reading Nosemonkey for some years that made me express some scepticism about this law; however, I believe that my wider points still stand.

The illusion of sovereignty

Rowan Atkinson Zapatero tells it like it is. But he's gonna get told...

Well, well... The EU finally decided that it is in a strong enough position to shed the sheep's clothing and show us just exactly what they have planned.

Commission president Jose Barroso unveiled plans for EU control over national budgets, including an incendiary demand that Brussels should vet budgets before their first reading in Westminster, the Bundestag, and other parliaments.

There you have it, ladies and gentlemen: the iron fist inside the velvet glove.

Such a plan would greatly improve the working of the EMU system, but it would also entail a drastic erosion of sovereignty.

No shit.

This is interesting from anyone's perspective but most pertinently from that of our Super Coalition of Doom—as Timmy points out.

Essentially, the end of any fiscal or economic independence.

Going to be interesting in that coalition government really….the most eurosceptic of the large parties in alliance with the most federast of them...

How much fun is this going to be, eh? Mind you, the exciting agreement between these two delightful parties does deal with the whole EU bug-bear...

We agree that the British Government will be a positive participant in the European Union, playing a strong and positive role with our partners, with the goal of ensuring that all the nations of Europe are equipped to face the challenges of the 21st century: global competitiveness, global warming and global poverty.

We agree that there should be no further transfer of sovereignty or powers over the course of the next Parliament. We will examine the balance of the EU’s existing competences and will, in particular, work to limit the application of the Working Time Directive in the United Kingdom.

We agree that we will amend the 1972 European Communities Act so that any proposed future Treaty that transferred areas of power, or competences, would be subject to a referendum on that Treaty – a ‘referendum lock’. We will amend the 1972 European Communities Act so that the use of any passerelle would require primary legislation.

We will examine the case for a United Kingdom Sovereignty Bill to make it clear that ultimate authority remains with Parliament.

We agree that Britain will not join or prepare to join the Euro in this Parliament.

We agree that we will strongly defend the UK’s national interests in the forthcoming EU budget negotiations and that the EU budget should only focus on those areas where the EU can add value.

We agree that we will press for the European Parliament only to have one seat, in Brussels.

We agree that we will approach forthcoming legislation in the area of criminal justice on a case by case basis, with a view to maximising our country’s security, protecting Britain’s civil liberties and preserving the integrity of our criminal justice system. Britain will not participate in the establishment of any European Public Prosecutor.

Well, that seems pretty clear. Obviously it isn't stated explicitly, but I would assume that the EU taking control of our economy would count as a "further transfer of sovereignty or powers" to Brussels...?

But then again, as far as most people were concerned, the Lisbon Treaty was the same as the EU Constitution—but the politicians disagreed.

I'd start getting ready for another general election if I were you.

Either that, or bloody revolution...

Election 2010 fall-out

Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and the North of England wait for mummy South East to get home.

Your humble Devil wandered along to the Election Night Party at the Sports Café on Haymarket on Thursday night—the only time that I would ever enter a bar called "The Sports Café". There were a number of amusing people there—it was excellent to catch up with old friends, including (but not limited to) various fine members of the TPA, Dizzy, Tory Bear, Guido, Gawain, Trixy and others—but I was seized by a certain ennui throughout the night.

You see, whilst the Tories and LibDems (I met no Labour people) were thrilled when their parties took their respective seats, all that I could think was "they're all crap: I don't want any of them to win". For although I was happy when Labour got kicked—and was most especially pleased when Jackie Smith and that jug-eared thug, The Safety Elephant, lost their seats—simply being against something produces remarkably little pleasure, even to a perverse little git like myself.

As the course of the night continued, and the result looked ever less decisive, I could barely be bothered to continue watching. Only the continuing supply of half-decent booze (and it was only half-decent) could keep me on my feet.

The next morning, I wandered along to the post-election drinks reception hosted by Julia Hobsbawn's Editorial Intelligence, at which the drinks were at least free—and I was introduced as a "blogger extraordinaire" (I think that I have mentioned before that I am a vain man). There were also a collection of entertaining people there—covering the cross-section of business from finance, media, PR, as well as other Involveds—and there was a general consensus that no one quite knew what was going to happen. Most thought that my opinion—that the LibDems would ally with the Tories—was probably mistaken, many of then believing that the Lefty aspects of that party would block any coalition.

They may, of course, yet be right. Still, I enjoy these events since I am usually asked, and able quickly to articulate, what Libertarianism is all about (something that I was, of course, not given the opportunity to do when subjected to our "impartial" national broadcaster's tender attentions). Although most seemed astonished that I ascribed my party to neither the Left nor the Right, but a described it as the best of all options.

In any case, I stayed until the end came at about 2pm, then wandered out onto the sunny streets of London. Strolling along Regent Street, I met a member of the cricket team that I play for and suborned him into joining me in a pub for a swifty. I am very much looking forward to our first match of the season tomorrow. Anyway, this last has little to do with the election, so I shall move on...

The question is, of course, what happens now. Charlotte Gore, amongst others, is excited by the possibilities of combining the most libertarian bits of both the Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties: indeed, your humble Devil would—and did—hope for just this kind of combination.

For some of us it’s all about that Freedom Bill, or some Great Repeal Act, rolling back 13 years of odious authoritarian legislation. The Conservatives have the biggest mandate, but not a comprehensive one. The Lib Dems can hold the Conservatives to their pre-election noises about civil liberties, ensuring the Digital Economy Bill gets thrown out, ID cards get scrapped etc.

It’s also about being practical about the desirability for a majority Government if we’re going to deal with the deficit properly.

I’ve just finished writing a pro-Lib/Con piece for the Guardian’s Comment Is Free and rumours abound of an open “Do the Deal” letter going around that I’ll hopefully get to sign. We might not be a very strong or big voice, but from outside tribal bubbles, with no particular attachment to any one party and as someone who agonised over whether to vote Tory or Liberal (and, in the event, I feel pretty good about my choice), this is almost a dream outcome.

All the usual caveats about neither party being especially libertarian apply, but the two together? That’s a leap into the unknown and one that could, if the Lib Dems play it right, show the British People a very different and radical flavour of Government to the one we thought we’d be stuck with.

Maybe the outcome will be of benefit to the libertarians of this country. Perhaps we would get the LibDems' £10,000 Personal Tax Allowance combined with the Tories' educational reforms. Or maybe we'd just get a mish-mash of half-way-house policies combined out of ideas that were, in any case, merely tinkering at the edges of the problems facing us today.

I most certainly reject the idea that Britain voted for a "progressive coalition of the left". Quite apart from anything else, I am of the same view as Longrider—that anyone who describes themselves as "a progressive" is an odious little shit who should not be trusted with a pari of scissors, let alone control of an entire society.

Then there are the progressives themselves – a term that is becoming increasingly bandied about. When someone declares themselves a progressive, my hackles rise. What they mean in reality is that everyone else must be forced to bend to their vision of society, to conform to the socialist utopia they espouse, to be a good little prole. Progressives have no place for independently minded individuals. Progressives are the enemy of individualism, and are, therefore, the very essence of misanthropy. They choose to forget that society is composed of individuals. Progressives are to be despised utterly and completely. Perhaps, most of all is their mangling of the language. Progressives do not want progress, but regression to the dark days of the cold war eastern bloc style of living – the tractor stats will always be going up, despite the enslavement of the population and the collapse of the economy. There is nothing progressive about a progressive, just as there is nothing liberal about a liberal.

These people are, quite frankly, the worst people on earth and—as I have opined before—they are the ones who expect to be giving the orders: trust them at your peril, but do not ever ask me to approve your choice. But then, were you minded to support them, you would not be asking for my approval and would barely mind my opprobrium.

The other "grand narrative" that has come out of this "unholy mess" is the fact that, once again, England has been denied a Conservative government by the troublesome Celtic fringes—and cries have gone up again for those provinces—and most particularly Scotland—to be cut loose.

"The answer to our woes, is a devolved English Parliament. Let the four constituent nations go their own separate way. let Scotland have independence, let Salmond have his way. Lets the Welsh & the Welsh and Northern Irish go. We moan on this site about the Internal Aid department, well how about we look a bit closer to home. England again has voted overwhelming Conservative, except this morning we are still governed by a party that is led and draws its legitimacy from the huge client state that is Scotland. All the usual suspects will whitter on about the unfairness of the FpTP system, whilst ignoring the biggest unfairness of all."

Written by a character called Paul B, over at the Spectator's Coffee House blog.

I happen increasingly to agree. While I yield to no-one in my admiration for much of what Scotland has brought to Britain and to the wider world - this book is a wonderful description - the brutal fact is that Scotland is now exerting an outrageously one-sided, and disproportionate, influence on British affairs. Its politicians have carefully natured a client state in the big cities such as Glasgow, where a huge proportion of the locals subsist on state benefits. If, as the Coffee House commenter suggests, we were to make it possible for Scotland to operate as an independent nation, then the Scottish Labour Party machine, a profoundly corrupt one and similar to the Chicago Democrat machine that gave the US Barack Obama would no longer exert its malign influence on England's affairs.

It is time to cut Scotland loose, both for its interest, and more to the point, for those who want to see the back of the Scottish Labour Party and its arm-lock on UK affairs for the past decade and a half.

I remember similar arguments after the 2005 election, when more people voted for the Conservatives in England than voted Labour and, once again, the Scots saved the Labour Party's hide. At the time, I was living in Edinburgh and, even so, had some sympathy for the argument (perhaps I am, at heart, an Englishman even though I have never felt so at home anywhere as Edinburgh. Mind you, most Scots would be of the opinion that this confirms me as an Englishman!).

In any case, my argument now is the same as it was then—Scotland should be cut free. But I also believe that this is not nearly enough. For, in most cases (with the notable exception of London), the Labour strongholds are mostly located in Wales, Scotland and the North. This would be of little import, except that these places—indeed, the whole of the UK—are essentially subsidised by the South East. As such, these areas continue to vote themselves more and more state money—money which is only provided by the hard work and profitability of the over-whelmingly Tory South East.

Consider, if you will, these maps of the constituencies of the UK (provided by the BBC).



As we know, Labour's heartlands are in the inner cities which, due to the population densities, also provide numerous small constituencies. As we can also see—most notably in the proportional map—Labour is most popular in Scotland and the North and, of course, in London.

As regular readers will know, I support none of the main parties, believing them to be statist, authoritarians with few redeeming features. I remind you all of this, only because—having couched my argument in terms of the election results—you might believe me to support any one of them in what follows. I do not.

What I would like to propose is simply this: that the entire United Kingdom be broken up into almost completely autonomous federal regions, with the Westminster Parliament handling only defence and a few other "federal" competencies (as the national government in the US was supposed to).

The motivation is primarily economic, of course, but there are vaguely libertarian reasons too. The former is, at first glance, easy to see: the entirety of the United Kingdom is propped up by the tax revenues from the only profitable region—the South East.

But there are other advantages to doing this. Whilst the first, and most obvious, is that the rest of the country would cease to be a drain on the South East, there should be benefits to the rest of the country too. It is to no one's advantage that, in some regions, government spending amounts to more than 70% of the economy: the "free" state services crowd out profitable businesses and thus causes a lack of profitability.

Those "poor" areas of the country which—instead of adapting as heavy industry died, took the option of suckling on the state teat—would find that there was no more state money. They would have to build a viable economy or die—in their thousands. Humans are incredibly ingenious creatures and, of course, extremely industrious when their livelihood is threatened—the people of these areas would have to progress or find themselves in ever dire straits.

Further, these areas would not have a meaningful government centre. Look at the main centres of business in each of the provinces of the UK—London, Edinburgh, Cardiff. All of these places are traditional centres of government, and attract business because of that: more government centres would build more centres of business (much though I would wish it were not so).

These areas might also continue to vote Labour—but the people would soon cease to do so once they found that that party was unable to deliver the free money that they promised, simply because there was none.

There has been a narrative of localism recently—the concept of the devolution of power closer to the people. This is a good thing from a libertarian viewpoint, but also from an economic viewpoint. But it has been rendered pointless in practice, simply because it is the central government that has the power to raise taxes and to disburse said monies.

Let's stop this insane state of affairs and, instead, break the UK up into fiscally autonomous areas—mapped vaguely on the old kingdoms—that contribute small amounts to the central government's defence budget, and see how our prosperity rises.

Anyway, it is late and I am not making the most forceful argument: I should be interested in your comments and then shall return to the fray tomorrow evening—after I have played some cricket...

EU rulz OK!

A number of people—especially in UKIP—have maintained that some 75% of laws are no longer made in this country, but in the EU. My esteemed blogging colleague Nosemonkey has always dismissed this as utter rubbish—quoting a figure of nearer 10%–30%.

I am looking forward to Nosemonkey's erudite post informing Hans-Gert Pöttering that he is utterly wrong, for poor, deluded Hans-Gert seems to believe otherwise. Via Witterings From Witney, I have found Hans-Gert pontificating whilst still President of the EU Parliament.

"If we were not that influential today, then we would not be the legislator of 75% of all laws in Europe and, with the Lisbon treaty, in nearly 100% of all cases."

You go get 'im, Nosemonkey! You bring him down to size and you tell him that he's talking bollocks!

Oh, and for those of you who don't believe that darling Mr Pöttering could ever have said such a thing, here's the video evidence...



Really, how can one EU Parliament President be so deluded...?

UPDATE: as MattM (as well as numerous other commenters) points out, Nosemonkey did, in fact, critique this in the very Nosemonkey post that I linked to.

But where it suits UKIP’s purpose to interpret this as literally meaning that, EU-wide, 75% of ALL laws stem from the EU, had they included more of Pottering’s speech the context – and therefore the meaning – would have become far more apparent. For what Pottering was actually saying was that the European Parliament (not the EU) legislates on 75% of laws *passed by the European Union*. Not passed by EU member states – just by the EU itself, at EU level. Because the European Parliament has little say in something like 20-25% of EU legislation (something the Lisbon Treaty would rectify, but that’s for another day). German speakers will also be able to confirm that the subtitles on UKIP’s video of Pottering are not 100% accurate.

So the 75% figure does not apply to the percentage of laws in individual member states that stem from the EU, but the percentage of laws that stem from the EU that the European Parliament has a say in. That’s an entirely different kettle of fish – and so the 75% figure can safely be dismissed as based on a (deliberate?) misunderstanding.

Nosemonkey wins again, damn him! I'll have to buy him a beer next time, as reparations...