Showing posts with label trade. Show all posts
Showing posts with label trade. Show all posts

Monday, June 27, 2016

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...?

Thursday, June 25, 2015

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.

Monday, June 11, 2012

Trade negotiations are stupid

As your humble Devil has pointed out a number of times, the point of trade is imports. No, really—it is.

Look at it this way: you can buy a piece of land, and some wheat seeds; then you can buy some books on how to grow, harvest and mill the resulting crop; then you can buy an oven and some books on making bread, and shell out the energy required to do all of this. Hey presto!—you have some bread.

Some very expensive bread that has taken an awful lot of months and huge amounts of man-hours to create. Well done you!

Alternatively, you can export your labour in return for some imports—usually money. You can then export that money in order to import a ready-sliced loaf from the baker (or supermarket).

Or, if you want to by-pass the money stage, you can export your labour to the baker in return for the loaf of bread import.

It is the imports that we want, and that applies as much to cheap electronic goods as it does to food.

Any restrictions on those imports make us poorer. Which is why, as Timmy points out quite forcefully, restricting free trade is a stupid thing to do...
At which point the absurdity of trade restrictions becomes apparent, because imports should matters to everyone involved in trade. Other countries may even be stupid enough to put up barriers to stop their citizens enjoying the lovely things that we make. But why on earth should our reaction be to put up barriers to stop us enjoying the lovely things that foreigners make?

Yet this is what trade negotiations are all about. The UK will reduce tariffs on electronic tat only if Taiwan will reduce tariffs on whatever we export. If you don't stop making your citizens poorer then gosh darn it we'll just make ours poorer to spite you!

It was the more-Keynesian-than-Keynes Cambridge economist, Joan Robinson, who pointed out that other people putting rocks into their harbours is no justification for putting rocks into your own.

The problem we have with trade and trade negotiations is that our politicians are simply too stupid to realise this. Simply declare free trade unilaterally, so that we can purchase whatever we want from wherever. And if Johnny Foreigner doesn't do the same then more fool Johnny Foreigner.
Quite. Let me illustrate this with an actual example...

Rightly or wrongly*, the EU has decided—because incandescent lightbulbs are inefficient and are killing the planet—that we should all use energy-saving lightbulbs. Now, whilst a couple of large companies in the EU do make such lightbulbs, they are not as cheap as those from China.

"Hooray!", you exclaim. "We can all buy those nice Chinese lightbulbs and everybody's happy."**

Ah, well, not so much. You see, the EU slaps trade tariffs on various goods. And in the case of energy-saving lightbulbs, the EU has slapped on a 66% import tariff. So, an energy-saving lightbulb that should cost £1 now costs you £3.

The Chinese are poorer, because we buy fewer lightbulbs from them. And you are now poorer because you have had to pay 66% more for a lightbulb than you would otherwise do.

Thank you, EU!

* Wrongly. So-called "energy-saving lightbulbs" give poor light, contain mercury vapour and are generally bad for the environment. LEDs are far better on all counts. But this is just another example of governments being shit at picking winners in technology.

** Apart from those people who want a decently bright light. Or, of course, those for whom these crappy lightbulbs induce migraines.

Monday, October 26, 2009

The Tories and immigration

Yes, I know that I have been banging on about this a lot recently but, as is often the case in the blogosphere, a whole set of circumstances has come together in order to create one or two topical... er... topics. Next week it'll probably be carrot cakes or, given my past form, climate change or political corruption.

Anyway, presumably in the light of the recent Question Time appearance of the BNP's Nick Griffin, John Redwood has felt it necessary to restate Conservative immigration policy, as laid out by Damien Green.

As usual, the policy entirely ignores the mass immigration from the EU—which, of course, the Conservatives have absolutely no power to affect—in favour of disproportionately punishing those from non-EU countries, many of which share rather stronger legal, linguistic and cultural bonds with the British people than the EU countries.

Green also repeats the ridiculous canard that immigrants somehow intrinsically put a strain on our public services and general resources.
Controlling legal migration

First, we plan to introduce an explicit annual limit on the numbers of non-EU economic migrants. This means that there should be an annual limit on the numbers allowed to come here to work from outside the European Union, taking into consideration the effects a rising population has on our public services, transport infrastructure and local communities.

What no one seems to appreciate is that whilst non-EU immigrants have to pay the full amount of tax and NICs, they have extremely limited access to public services. Indeed, non-EU immigrants are not allowed to claim benefits at all (and, incidentally, nor are their spouses).

By contrast, EU immigrants have an automatic right of settlement and are entitled to any and all benefits available to the native population.

Regardless of what I might personally feel about this issue, a failure to deal with the unfettered immigration from the EU will fail to address the issues which politicians claim to care about.

Because, totally unlike the BNP, the Conservatives are not objecting to immigrants because they are diluting the British culture—oh no, definitely not. I would like to make it absolutely clear that Britain's mainstream parties are definitely not like the BNP and are definitely not racist in any way at all.

However, if our politicos are worried about the strain on public services, then they need to worry about those who can use said services—and, incidentally, settle indefinitely in Britain—without having paid a penny into the economy of this country. Which means that they need to address the issue of EU immigrants, not non-EU immigrants.

(Of course, it would help if the money that was supposed to go to public services actually went to those frontline services, rather than being pissed away on legions of bureaucrats.)

But hist! Here is the Tory plan for dealing with this...
A further step we can take to control immigration directly is the imposition of transitional controls for new EU entrants. They should be applied here as they are in other countries.

Ahem. Now, I could be wrong, but I do not believe that the EU will let you impose these controls retrospectively, boys. You may be able to impose temporary controls on, say, Turkish immigrants upon the accession of that country to the EU, but I don't think that you can stop or limit anyone from the current 27 EU members.
As well as having a better controlled immigration system we badly need welfare reform and improved skills training so that we are not simply ignoring millions of British workers, which is why Conservatives have launched a plan to Get Britain Working. We need to do better in making British workers competitive.

Yes, well done. Marginal deduction rates for those on benefits, for instance, are a fucking scandal. And so your plan for Welfare reform is...? Hello? Anyone? Bueller...?
Preventing illegal migration

To reduce the amount of illegal immigration, Conservatives will ensure our borders are properly policed.

Brilliant. And how, exactly, are you going to do this...? And answer came there none.

Look, it may well be that the Conservatives have a secret plan to deal with all of the problems highlighted. The trouble is that I severely doubt it.

I predict that a Conservative government will, quite unjustly, continue to dole out a fucking inhumane kicking to those highly-skilled, hard-working, tax-paying migrants (whose access to the public purse is, in any case, severely restricted) whilst simultaneously ignoring the elephant in the room that is free immigration from the EU.

As a result, the Tories will not achieve any of their stated aims. They will, however, cause misery to thousands of people through a policy that is driven by political expediency and spite.

P.S. Your humble Devil posted his solution to the problem a few weeks ago.

Friday, October 09, 2009

Barking

Via Timmy, I see that M'Lord Mandelson is interfering in a car company.
In a move that reflects the deep concerns within Government about the threat to UK jobs and the viability of Magna's plans, the Business Secretary hired PwC to scrutinise the arrangements separately from a German study.

PwC, one of the "big four" accountancy firms, is believed to have confirmed Lord Mandelson's fears that Magna's restructuring proposals for General Motors Europe are not the most commercially viable and that a buyer taking a fresh look at the business would pursue a different approach.

So, the NuLabour government—having examined an offer to buy an ailing car company—now believes that someone, anyone, else would be better for the great British worker and the once-great British economy.

You know, there's something really familiar about this situation and I just can't think what it is...

Tuesday, September 01, 2009

Throwing some light on the situation

The latest EU-mandated insanity comes into force today—I speak, of course, of the ban on 100W incandescent light-bulbs.
It is light, bright and has been around for 120 years. But from Tuesday the 100 watt bulb bows out from Britain.

Under new EU rules the manufacture and import of 100 watt bulbs and all frosted bulbs will be banned in favour of the energy-saving variety.

According to the Energy Saving Trust, compact fluorescent lamps (energy-saving bulbs) use 80% less electricity than standard bulbs.

They could also save the average household £590 in energy over their lifetime of between eight and 10 years, and if all traditional bulbs were replaced, the carbon saving would be the equivalent of taking 70,000 cars off the road.

Good reasons.

Well, thank you for those spurious figures, Auntie. Now, tell me, are those your figures or are your English Literature-educated science editors just regurgitating other people's figures unquestioningly again?

And who are the Energy Saving Trust, eh? To find out, let us turn to Charlotte Gore's excellent fisking of this colossal load of crap.
Well they’re a ‘non-profit’ organisation 90% funded by the Government and includes as members The Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, The Secretary of State for Transport, The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and The First Minister for Scotland. It gets 2% of its funding from the private sector, and boasts the membership of most of the utilities and energy producing interests, all of whom seem terrified of being perceived as un-Green by consumers.

So when the BBC reports the views of the Energy Saving Trust like this, they’re not really quoting an independent, reliable source—it’s the Government advising the Government—again.

In short, it's a classic contender for fakecharities.org—I shall go and add it as soon as I can.

Anyway, do read Charlotte's piece in full, as she addresses a number of different points including the quality of the light. However, I shall quote her conclusion here, because there's a little thing that I want to add...
And once again I’m brought back to wondering why. Why do this? Presumably the answer is “because the market has failed! People are still buying cheap bulbs that give off better lighting instead of expensive bulbs that aren’t as good. We must do something!”

Yet the market hasn’t failed. The market’s working perfectly well. People aren’t switching because the new bulbs aren’t better and cheaper than the ones that came before. I mean, even if you decide that 100w bulbs are wasteful and it’s not enough that people simply waste their own money paying to run them, why make it illegal to sell a bulb with diffusion or tinting?

This is purely to rig the competition and deny us the ability to choose for ourselves.

So the EU, a ‘Free Trade Zone’, is deciding that the manufacturers of energy saving bulbs are to be favoured (they’re produced by Great Britain, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Spain) and the manufacturers of incandescent bulbs are to be fought against. It is economic planning, without question—done on an EU wide level, using The Environment as the excuse for restricting yet another personal and economic freedom.

It is worth noting, of course, that one would have thought that the best way to get people to buy these bulbs would be to make them as cheap as possible.

"But surely," I hear you cry, "They already are? It's just that the market cannot supply them any cheaper?"

Um... No. The EU has had, since 2001, an import tariff—of a colossal 66%—on cheap CFL lightbulbs from China. As your humble Devil reported, almost two years ago today, the EU renewed those tariffs in the face of opposition from some of the biggest manufacturers.
Obviously, saving power is one very important way that we should do this and one of the easiest ways to save power is to convert to "green", low-energy light bulbs. These are so beneficial, we are told, that they will save gigawatts of power every year. In fact, so wondrous are they that the EU is banning the sale of bog-standard incandescent light bulbs from 2009.

Naturally, the great EU will encourage all of its citizens to replace all of their evil old bulbs with these near-miraculous low-energy ones, and our EU masters recognise that the best way in which to do this is to make them as cheap as possible, eh? Er, no...
THE European Commission is under fire from green campaigners and retailers for plans to extend duties on energy-efficient light bulbs from China.

The Chinese light bulbs have been subject to import duties since 2001, because the commission says the products are sold in EU markets for less than their true value.

Yesterday, EU commissioners met in Brussels and agreed to keep tariffs of 66 per cent in place, despite calls from green campaigners to bring down the price of energy-efficient light bulbs to encourage consumers to make greener choices.

Oh, jolly well done! The EU has decided to ensure that energy-efficient light bulbs remain 66% more expensive than they should be, thus ensuring a slower take-up and making both us and the Chinese poorer in the process.

What a fucking triumph: quick, go shout it from the roof tops!
Both Philips and General Electric, two electronics giants, wanted restrictions lifted. They argue that Europe needs cheap energy-efficient bulbs from China to meet growing demand. However, Osram, a German company, opposes ending the duties.

While a majority of member states were amenable to scrapping anti-dumping measures, Germany has lobbied hard to keep the restrictions in place for longer.

Speaking on behalf of the British Retail Consortium, Alisdair Gray said the proposal to extend anti-dumping measures was unjustified.

"We are really disappointed in it, because it has no basis in law; it's just caving in to one company, Osram," he said.

Wow! Y'know, it's that cross-border spirit of unity that's going to stop us all frying, ain't it just!

Or, if you were overtly cynical, you might think that it illustrated how the EU operates as a protectionist entity and block on global free trade (helping to keep everyone poorer) and that all this horseshit about how only the EU can save us from ourselves is just so much fucking bollocks.

So, thanks to the lobbying of one particular big business and the willingness of the institutionally corrupt and fascist EU, we already pay 66% more than we might for these wonderful "green" lightbulbs. And now they are legislating to ensure that we cannot buy anything other than CLRs.

Not only does this protect Osram—giving them a competitive advantage against Philips and General Electric (both of whom manufacture their bulbs in China and are thus subject to duties)—but it also substantially benefits the European Union institution itself—because the tariffs on imports go straight into EU coffers.

The only people who lose out are the Chinese and us, the citizens of the European Union countries—but neither of these entities are important, of course. The only thing that is important is that the corporatist EU has managed to appease the powerful companies who spend millions of pounds lobbying for protectionist measures.

There is an economic argument called "revealed preferences", which can be summed up by the old adage, "by their actions shall ye know them".

So, European Union Commissioner Margot Wallstrom says...
It is frustrating that so many people still either deny that climate change is happening or that we can do anything about it. (Also frustrating that some people still regard climate change as some kind of conspiracy theory or a quasi religious belief). The scientists are unanimous: It is happening. Can we do something about it? We must at least try. Mankind has more means at its disposal than ever before and needs to apply its collective wisdom to this problem. Otherwise future generations will not enjoy this earth that we enjoy.

But you need to look at the EU Commission's actions to see whether Margot is being sincere or whether she is lying like the corrupt, dishonest little bitch that she is.

So, the EU's action is to make CFLs more expensive through 66% import tariffs, when the best way to get people to adopt these "low-energy lightbulbs" would be to ensure that they are as cheap as possible.

Conclusions?
  • Margot Wallstrom is a liar, and

  • the EU doesn't believe in climate change or,

  • if it does, it is not going to sacrifice its own revenue or put "future generations" before immediate corporate interest, and thus

  • anyone who argues that one of the virtues of the EU is that it addresses cross-border environmental problems is sadly deluded.

However, anyone who thinks that the EU is a corporatist entity which has the ultimate aim of a planned economy whilst using the evironment as a smokescreen might just be onto something. As Charlotte says...
Is there any wonder that Green is the new Red?

The only word that I would question in that sentence is "new": the Green movement is and always has been about technological regression through legislatory oppression.

The EU is broadly aligned with this authoritarian, planned economy agenda (although that entity is less interested in Green issues and more focused on power for its own sake).

So, can we fucking well leave yet?

Monday, August 31, 2009

More booze bollocks

Yes, the Scottish Parliament is continuing with its insane policies regarding drink.
The Scottish government wants to end cut-price alcohol deals in supermarkets in an attempt to tackle the country’s booze culture.

The alcohol Bill is expected to set out a minimum price of 40p per unit — a controversial proposal that has drawn protests from the drinks industry.

The Scottish Conservatives are opposed to minimum pricing, but Labour has softened its position in recent months and is now expected to back the idea.

A spokesman for the SNP administration said: “The UK’s four Chief Medical Officers all back minimum pricing, and the BMA, Royal College of Nursing, the police, the British Liver Trust, and indeed the licensed trade association, all support the Scottish government’s proposals — which would stop high-strength beers and ciders being sold for pocket-money prices, while not affecting premium and quality products such as Scotch whisky.”

Look, it doesn't really matter how many scum civil servants or filthy fake charities back this idea: it is illegal under EU law—as Timmy points out.
Having a minimum price per alcohol unit goes against the Single Market rules. For it could potentially discriminate against low cost alcohol from outside Scotland in favour of high priced from within.

In fact, both The Times and The Grauniad reported that this was the case back in March.

So, given that this is common knowledge, how much taxpayers' money has the SNP deliberately poured down the fucking pan-hole in researching (poorly) and drafting (no doubt even more poorly) this piece of crap legislation?

And, as Nigel Farage points out in The Groan, just how can so-called "progressive" parties possibly support this shit?
Minimum sales prices for alcohol are a startlingly bad idea. As with excise duties, the effects are regressive. The poor would be forced to pay more for one of life's simple pleasures while the rich would not notice: they are already imbibing the good stuff that costs far more per unit than these suggested 40 or 50 pence per unit minimums.

It's difficult to see that this idea passes any sort of test for being progressive: or even fair come to that. As to the suggestion that alcohol costs the NHS £3bn a year, given that excise duties on the stuff already raise far more than that I think we've got that covered as well.

If one is a subscriber to the economic idea of "revealed preferences" then I think that we can most definitely say that the SNP, LibDems and Labour hate the poor, don't you?

You stupid fucking cunts: it is none of your business how much I fucking drink, OK? If you are worried about people getting punchy when drunk, arrest those people—do some proper fucking policing. And stop punishing the innocent for the crimes of the guilty, you disgusting totalitarians: just stop it.

The only good bit of this debacle is that the whole incident might highlight the power of EU law to ordinary people; the downside to this, of course, is that the silly sods might embrace the EU as being a good thing.

In fact, if I credited the SNP with that much intelligence, I might think that this was the entire point of this ridiculous exercise...

More nannying crap

Via Strange Stuff, here is yet more absolute barking insanity that is both stupid and offensively patronising.


You can click the image for a larger representation but, just in case you can't be arsed, the picture shows some cutlery sets for sale in a shop—these cutlery sets include your basic table knife (not even a vaguely sharp steak knife). The sign below them says:
Sale of Knives & Bladed Articles

The sale of these products is regulated by the Offensive Weapons Act 1996
(as amended by the Violent Crime Reduction Act 2006)

It is a criminal offence to sell these articles to any person under the age of 18 years.

For fuck's sake...

Sunday, March 08, 2009

A fresh attack on drivers

And whilst our economy crashes around us and the government carries on bankrupting the country, the state has unveiled a fresh bit of interference.
THE government is to cut the national speed limit from 60mph to 50mph on most of Britain’s roads, enforced by a new generation of average speed cameras.

The reduction , to be imposed as early as next year, will affect two thirds of the country’s road network. Drivers will still be able to reach 70mph on motorways and dual carriageways and 60mph on the safest A roads.

Oh for fuck's sake...

As The Englishman points out, this is the government believing that they know better than I do about how to drive.
Yes, you statist bastard I do think it is "a further attack and a restriction on people’s freedom", the problem is specific drivers driving dangerously in specific places. But your answer is a blanket ban on everyone everywhere enforced by surveillance technology which will alienate large numbers of ordinary people, because you don't trust ordinary people to make any decision. You think that sitting in Whitehall you know better than I do what the appropriate speed is for the road in front of my eyes is.

Those on the public payroll are happy to dawdle around, but those actually trying to earn their living need to get a move on. Are you actually trying to provoke the middle classes to riot, because if they do I hope your scrawny neck gets to have a set of jump leads wrapped around it.

Yes. And yes, they are trying to provoke the middle classes to riot...
Jim Fitzpatrick, the roads minister, defended the plan, which will be the most dramatic cut since 1978, when the national speed limit was reduced from 70mph to 60mph.

“There will be some in the driving lobby who think this is a further attack and a restriction on people’s freedom,” he said.

It is, you hideous cunt: of course it is. And these average speed cameras are fucking disgusting: how dare you attempt to monitor my every mile driven?
“But when you compare that to the fact we are killing 3,000 people a year on our roads, it would be irresponsible not to do something about it. I’m sure that the vast majority of motorists would support the proposals.”

Really? In that case, Jim, why don't you have a referendum on it? Or, at the very least, why not put it in your manifesto for the next election, eh?

Because you know very well that the "vast majority of motorists" would not support these proprosals, you lying bastard.
Fitzpatrick said: “If you look at the figures on rural roads, there are disproportionately more people dying there than on any other roads. The nature of some rural roads, with dips and bends and difficult conditions, means that the 60mph limit is not enough.”

Look, you disgusting little shit, I know that you are used to being driven around by a fucking chauffeur at our expense, but what happens when normal people drive on a road that is too winding for 60mph is to fucking well slow the fuck down.

Why do we do this? Because we do not want to be involved in an accident because we might be killed, or total our car. Do you see, you fucking twat?
The 50mph proposal will be laid out in a consultation document to be published in the early summer.

Oh, right. Yes, I think that we know what kind fucking consultation document that will be, don't we? Yes, it will be like the recent smoking one, highlighted by my colleague, in which the opinions of those who oppose the proposals will disappear into thin air whilst the responses that will count will be those of fake charities—such as Brake (£70,991 from taxpayers) and Living Streets (67% state-funded)—who support the government proposals.

When will the revolution come? And perhaps we should storm Westminster: after all, the government will find it difficult to enact the Civil Contingencies Act if they are swinging from lamp-posts...

Thursday, February 05, 2009

An erroneous train of thought

Whilst discussing the question of whether or not the BNP are left or right wing, Shuggy says this:
But anyone with even the most superficial knowledge of history understands that this was never - and it not now - the only reason a national government ever took anything into state ownership. Apart from anything else, the huge range of polities that have done this should be enough for the idea that nationalisation equals left-wing to be laughed out of court. Didn't just about every country in the world have a larger role for the government in the development of their railway networks? Nothing to do with them being more or less 'socialist' and everything to do with them following the lead from the world's first industrial nation.

Building rail networks was obviously essential for servicing the needs of developing capitalist economies.

Can we stop this revisionism? The vast, vast majority of the British railway network was built by private companies—not the state.
The first public railways were built as local rail links operated by small private railway companies. With increasing rapidity, more and more lines were built, often with scant regard for their potential for traffic. The 1840s were by far the biggest decade for railway growth. In 1840, when the decade began, railway lines in Britain were few and scattered, but within ten years a virtually complete network had been laid down, and the vast majority of towns and villages had a rail connection, and sometimes two or three.

What the state did do was to completely and comprehensively fuck up the railway companies, almost from the get-go. The state enforced a maximum price for freight carriage, then it ran the railways in WWI, then forced the railways companies to effectively run services for free during WWII. And then, even after nationalisation, the government continued to screw the network. [Emphasis mine.]
Traffic on the railways remained fairly steady during the 1950s[5], however the economics of the railway network steadily deteriorated. This was largely due to costs such as labour rising faster than income. Fares and freight charges were repeatedly frozen by the government in an attempt to control inflation and please the electorate.

The Beeching Axe was then instituted and was, by any standards, a massive failure. Beeching assumed that, if unprofitable branch lines were closed, people would simply drive to the next nearest station and use the mainline. They didn't.
The closures failed in their main purpose of trying to restore the railways to profitability, with the promised savings failing to materialise. By closing almost a third of the rail network, Beeching managed to achieve a saving of just £30 million, whilst overall losses were running in excess of £100 million.[3] These losses were mainly because the branch lines acted as feeders to the main lines and this feeder traffic was lost when the branches closed. This in turn meant less traffic and less income for the increasingly vulnerable main lines. The assumption at the time was that car owners would drive to the nearest railhead (which was usually the junction where the closed branch line would otherwise have taken them) and continue their journey onwards by train, but in practice, having once left home in their cars, they used them for the whole journey. The same problem occurred with the movement of goods and freight—without branch lines, the railways lost a great deal of their ability to transport goods 'door to door.' Like the passenger model, it was assumed that lorries would pick up goods, transport them to the nearest railhead, where they would be taken across the country by train, unloaded onto another lorry and taken to their destination. However, the development of the motorway network, the advent of containerisation and the sheer economic costs of having two break-of-bulk points made long-distance road transport a more viable alternative.
...

At its peak in 1950, British Railway's system was around 21,000 miles (33 800 km) and 6,000 stations. By 1975, the system had shrunk to 12,000 miles (19 300 km) of track and 2,000 stations; it has remained roughly this size thereafter.

To try to pretend that the state was responsbible for building the British rail network is absolutely laughable. In fact, the state was responsible for screwing the rail companies and hindering the growth of rail—when they weren't actively closing vast swathes of it down, that is.

Sunday, November 23, 2008

When "free trade" doesn't mean "free trade"...

One of the greatest benefits of the EU—or, rather, the only benefit—is the Single Market, the concept of the EU being one massive free trade area.

Of course, via a comment at Tom "coward" Harris's blog, there are some instances when free trade doesn't actually mean "free trade" and that is when we want to buy things that our fucking government disagrees with. Or, at least, makes money off.
The European Parliament is clamping down on the 'booze cruise' trade.

Euro MPs want to cut the amounts of cigarettes and alcohol that can legally be brought into Britain tax-free by imposing stricter guidelines on what constitutes personal consumption.

The new definition of personal consumption would halve the amount of booze and cut the current permitted legal level of cigarettes by almost 90 per cent.

Following a knife-edge vote, the parliament approved guidelines on personal consumption of just 400 cigarettes, 200 cigarillos and 100 cigars.

This compares to guidance from UK Customs for returning travellers of 3200 cigarettes, 400 cigarillos and 200 cigars.

The parliament's position now goes forward to national governments, who need to agree it before it can become law.

Well, that won't take too fucking long as far as our government is concerned, will it? Especially since Gordon's coffers are looking a little bare, right now.
For alcohol, the European parliament says personal consumption means just five litres of spirits, 45 litres of wine and 55 litres of beer.

UK Customs defines personal consumption as ten litres of spirits, 90 litres of wine and and 110 litres of beer.

The parliament said guidelines on personal consumption were needed to avoid 'legal uncertainty and confusion' and to make sure shoppers did not use booze cruises to avoid paying excise duties.

Look, why not just be honest? This is not about avoiding 'legal uncertainty and confusion' because there is none: either we have a free trade area and we can buy what we want, from where we want within that area, or we cannot.
'Free movement in the single market cannot serve as a pretext for avoiding the payment of excise duties, particularly when these respond to public health requirements,' the parliament said by way of justification.

Translation: despite drinking and smoking being perfectly legal, we don't like you doing it so we are going to circumvent the only decent thing about this massive pile of shit that is the EU and fuck you punters roughly up the arse, lube-free, whilst we are about it.

No: I definitely hate the politicians more than the populace...

Friday, October 10, 2008

The Left and trade

This comment on international trade and the Left by Shuggy is absolutely spot-on: I highly recommend it.
You didn't ask but you're getting it anyway: my advice? The left - or at least some of it should a) calm down a bit b) stop conflating issues. I won't link them all because no doubt you've come across the sort of thing I'm referring to: this bank crisis is the end of "kamikaze capitalism", "the end of the neo-liberal world order", the refutation of the "unbridled free-market", it represents the nadir of the "Hayekian/Friedman axis of evil"...
...

I'm concerned about the conflation of concepts and institutions - these being collapsed into lazy cliches about "unfettered free-markets", "the neo-liberal world order" and the like. It's being done with capitalism and markets, for example. But they are two different things. The former has to do with the form of ownership under which goods and services are produced, the latter is a means of allocating these. Obviously historically these have been closely related and how the latter works is very much determined by the former. But damn it all, they are two different things. I'm very concerned that the failure to distinguish between the two, along with the apparent revival of the notion that state intervention is a Good Thing, will result in the people and the parties of the left advocating, and perhaps if they are in power, implementing ideas that would be a complete disaster.

I'm referring to trade here. I simply don't understand some people on the left and their attitude to international trade. In the 19th century, the 'liberal-left' in this country, including sections of what we would now probably describe as the 'hard-left', campaigned for free trade and against the Corn Laws on the grounds that it meant cheaper bread for hard-pressed working class families. Can someone explain to me what the hell happened? You might think, for example, that some might welcome trade with China on the grounds that this means cheap T-shirts for children in low-income families as well as recognising that the expansion of trade in this context forms part of the reason why we have seen in the East the largest rise in material welfare ever recoded in human history.

Of course, I have sampled the bits that are generally critical of the Left, but Shuggy and his degree in economic history are pretty good on the ideologues of the Right too.
Simon Heffer and his ilk may equate state intervention with socialism but anyone with even a passing acquaintance with economic history understands that capitalism has since 1945 co-existed with large scale nationalisation, credit controls, exchange rate controls, price and income controls.

It's worth noting, though, that such controls were, generally speaking, something of a fucking disaster, culminating in the near-bankruptcy of the British economy in the 1970s.

However, Shuggy is quite correct to point out this worrying conflation of markets and capitalism, and the knee-jerk reaction against international trade. Free trade makes both parties better off or they wouldn't do it.
This morning I was driving along behind a van for London Extensions Ltd, a firm of builders specialising, presumably, in house extensions. Their tagline?
Because everybody needs a little bit on the side...

Well, it amused me...

Sunday, September 21, 2008

People make mistakes...

... but for really fucking colossal mistakes, well, you can nearly always look to the state for those. Let us take the Credit Crunch...

Now, this was partially caused by greedy bankers, it is true; but it wasn't entirely their fault. Y'see, what is at the heart of the Credit Crunch is a loss of faith in the value of mortgage loans. One of the reasons—or, rather, the main reason—for this loss of faith was that the bankers had been doling out mortgages to people who would probably not be able to make the payments. These people were not optimal borrowers because they had a high risk of default: in fact, they were not prime borrowers, but sub-prime.

As a result, because the risk of sub-prime borrowers defaulting, their mortgages cost more than those of prime borrowers. These higher-cost mortgages were known as "sub-prime mortgages", for obvious reasons.

(I realise the irony of this system: after all, if their mortgages were not more expensive than prime mortgages, then the chances of these people defaulting would be a little less. However, that is not how risk works.)

Now, a large number of defaulters in the US led to a couple of small banks going bust. This then started something of a panic which escalated into the shit-storm that we see today.

Now, the real question that needs to be asked is "why were so many sub-prime mortgages dealt out?" The risk assessors in banks are generally pretty smart guys, and they have teams of researchers and reams of reports to help them to control their banks' exposure to such problems.

Via Alex Singleton, I have rediscovered a Forbes article, which I saw some time ago, which may go some way to answering the above question and may also provide a counter to those who are lining up to blame the eeeeeevil "free market". [It's worth reading the whole article, but here is the meat of it, with emphasis by me—DK]
All this overlooks a crucial fact: There has been no free market in housing or finance. Government has long exercised massive control over the housing and financial markets—including its creation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (which have now amassed $5 trillion in liabilities)—leading to many of the problems being blamed on the free market today.

Consider the low lending standards that were a significant component of the mortgage crisis. Lenders made millions of loans to borrowers who, under normal market conditions, weren't able to pay them off. These decisions have cost lenders, especially leading financial institutions, tens of billions of dollars.

It is popular to take low lending standards as proof that the free market has failed, that the system that is supposed to reward productive behavior and punish unproductive behavior has failed to do so. Yet this claim ignores that for years irrational lending standards have been forced on lenders by the federal Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) and rewarded (at taxpayers' expense) by multiple government bodies.

The CRA forces banks to make loans in poor communities, loans that banks may otherwise reject as financially unsound. Under the CRA, banks must convince a set of bureaucracies that they are not engaging in discrimination, a charge that the act encourages any CRA-recognized community group to bring forward. Otherwise, any merger or expansion the banks attempt will likely be denied. But what counts as discrimination?

According to one enforcement agency, "discrimination exists when a lender's underwriting policies contain arbitrary or outdated criteria that effectively disqualify many urban or lower-income minority applicants." Note that these "arbitrary or outdated criteria" include most of the essentials of responsible lending: income level, income verification, credit history and savings history—the very factors lenders are now being criticized for ignoring.

The government has promoted bad loans not just through the stick of the CRA but through the carrot of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which purchase, securitize and guarantee loans made by lenders and whose debt is itself implicitly guaranteed by the federal government. This setup created an easy, artificial profit opportunity for lenders to wrap up bundles of subprime loans and sell them to a government-backed buyer whose primary mandate was to "promote homeownership," not to apply sound lending standards.

Of course, lenders not only sold billions of dollars in suspect loans to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, contributing to their present debacle, they also retained some subprime loans themselves and sold others to Wall Street—leading to the huge banking losses we have been witnessing for months. Is this, then, a free market failure? Again, no.

In a free market, lending large amounts of money to low-income, low-credit borrowers with no down payment would quickly prove disastrous. But the Federal Reserve Board's inflationary policy of artificially low interest rates made investing in subprime loans extraordinarily profitable. Subprime borrowers who would normally not be able to pay off their expensive houses could do so, thanks to payments that plummeted along with Fed rates. And the inflationary housing boom meant homeowners rarely defaulted; so long as housing prices went up, even the worst-credit borrowers could always sell or refinance.

Thus, Fed policy turned dubious investments into fabulous successes. Bankers who made the deals lured investors and were showered with bonuses. Concerns about the possibility of mass defaults and foreclosures were assuaged by an administration whose president declared: "We want everybody in America to own their own home."

Further promoting a sense of security, every major financial institution in America—both commercial banks and investment banks—was implicitly protected by the quasi-official policy of "too big to fail." The "too big to fail" doctrine holds that, when they risk insolvency, large financial institutions (like Countrywide or Bear Stearns) must be bailed out through a network of government bodies including the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the Federal Home Loan Banks and the Federal Reserve.

All of these government factors contributed to creating a situation in which millions of people were buying homes they could not afford, in which the participants experienced the illusion of prosperity, in which billions upon billions of dollars were going into bad investments. Eventually the bubble burst; the rest is history.

Given that our government was behind the wheel, influencing every aspect of the mortgage crisis, it is absurd to call today's situation the result of insufficient regulation.

Having read a similar article a long time ago, your humble Devil put forward this idea at a lunchtime meeting of a certain think-tank, and was derided. It seems to me, however, a perfectly logical argument.

As usual, the state made a bunch of laws in order to fulfill a political objective and failed to consider the unintended consequences of said laws. These unintended consequences more often than not come about because politicians—despite being some of the most selfish and corrupt people on the planet—usually fail, wilfully, to recognise that humans are intrinsically self-interested. It is particularly stupid as this is something that Adam Smith recognised many years ago.
It is not from the benevolence of the butcher the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity, but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities, but of their advantages.

One of the things that is really pissing me off at the moment is the glee and self-righteous venom with which comedians, in particular, are seizing upon the misfortunes of bankers; not only are they spouting, in the main, tediously obvious material but comedians are, let's face it, one of the most self-regarding and self-loving strains of human being on this fucking planet. But the comedians' rantings are only the most obvious and pointed manifestation of the equally distasteful tendency towards self-righteousness in everyone else.

Yeah, right: because you guys definitely would not have seized upon the chance to stuff your pockets with money were you in the same situation, eh? You would have protested, wouldn't you? You would have held your hands up and said, "no! I don't want this massive, million pound bonus."

Unless you can look into yourself and absolutely, honestly tell yourself that you wouldn't have done precisely the same thing as these bankers were you in the same position (and I reckon that there are pretty fucking few of us) then I really suggest that you shut the fuck up.

Now, as for the fucking politicians...

Saturday, September 20, 2008

Every penny don't fit the slot...*

Now, your humble Devil has never used a prostitute (although he knows several people who have)—I wouldn't know where to start and, besides, I'm far too mean.

However, as he is a believer in free trade, he does believe that if a man wishes to buy sex and a woman wishes to sell it, then these too people should be allowed to fulfill the contract that they have agreed to without the state sticking its fucking oar in.

Unfortunately, our lords and masters do not appear to agree, evil little fucks that they are.
Men who buy sex from women who have been coerced into prostitution or trafficked for sexual exploitation would be prosecuted under proposals to be announced by the Home Secretary tomorrow.

Right. And how are the clients supposed to know, exactly?

Look, you can only prosecute someone for breaking the law if they know that they are breaking the law. I don't mean that ignorance of the law is a defence—it isn't. But if you allow that buying sex is legal, unless you've bought it from a certain person, then you should surely have to prove that the punter knew that that contract was illegal.

It would be totally unfair to prosecute a man from buying sex from a prostitute if he didn't know that she was trafficked, surely? So, the court is going to have to prove that the punter knew that the girl was trafficked, and I can see an awful lot of problems with that.

One of the biggest problems, of course, is that it will be almost impossible to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that the punter was aware and therefore conviction rates will be derisory. And then, a whole bunch of special interest groups will start complaining about the low conviction rate—as with rape—and the laws will start becoming more draconian.

The first measure to be enacted at this stage, of course, is that the prsumption of innocence will go out of the fucking window; in other words, the punter will be presumed to be guilty unless he can prove that he didn't know that he was committing an offence.

The second measure will be yet more laws against the buying or selling of sex. And that will put people like Lara on the breadline.
It would be an offence in England and Wales to pay for sex if the woman was being controlled by a pimp, had been coerced into the sex trade or was trafficked into Britain for sexual exploitation.

As Timmy points out, that rather depends on your definition of "trafficked", doesn't it?
That there are some who are literal slaves I have no doubt. That there are some who are "trafficked" under the UN definition who are so trafficked by their own free will I also have no doubt.

The problem is that the number of the former is tiny, miniscule, while the number of the latter is large (by comparison at least).

Quite.

Now, it is wrong that women are kidnapped and brought to this country and forced into prostitution; however, the correct response in this situation would be to fucking well enforce the laws that we already have! How many times have I had to write those words over the last (nearly) four years?

We have laws: fucking well enforce them, you totalitarian cunts. If you cannot enforce the laws that we already have, then how the living fuck do think that you can enforce the thousands more that you have enacted?

Seriously, what the FUCK?
Last year Jacqui Smith said: “We recognise that there is considerable support for us to do more to tackle the demand for prostitution and to prevent the trafficking of people for sexual exploitation.”

Why don't you detect such crimes and then prosecute the perpetrators for kidnapping, slavery, violence, etc.? It's because you do not actually give a fuck, you hideous Gorgon.

And you can't tackle the "demand for prostitution" unless you fucking brainwash everyone into not desiring sex. You can criminalise acting on said "demand" but you cannot get rid of the demand, you thick cunts—although I believe that The Party of 1984 were working on abolishing the orgasm. Perhaps you should take a leaf out of that book—well, yet another leaf out of that book—and get working on that?

Oh, and while I am about it, one measure that might help these poor bitches who have been enslaved is to promise not to deport them if they come forward. Why don't you do that, Jacqui, you silly bitch?

God's balls, but I hate Jacqui cocking Smith.
Gordon Brown recently indicated his determination to legislate in this area, when his spokesman said that he believed it was wrong for men to pay for sex.

Well, I am very happy that Gordon has some morals, but that is all that they are—his personal fucking morals. And as I have argued many times before, neither the Gobblin' King nor anybody else has the right to impose his Puritanical, miserable and—I shall say this again—entirely personal morality onto everyone else.

This is why I have no time for politicians—even those who "mean well" and "genuinely want to make the country a better place" only want to do so according to their own personal morality. And what that means in practice is punishing those who do not share said politician's personal morals—or, at least, their professed morals (for we know from bitter experience that what a politicians says that he believes in is all to often rather a long way from what they actually do).

And given that, in general, every law that a politician passes makes the people of this country less free, that means that we are all forced into images of said politician on pain of state violence against us.

The Home Secretary will make clear that the measure will not affect sole traders or women selling sex of their own free will.

Oh, well that's fucking generous of them, isn't it? The state's going to let you keep your chosen livelihood: now, I hope that all of you prostitutes are going to write a nice, long thank-you letter to the government, effusively and humbly telling them how grateful you are that you will be allowed to continue living your life as you choose.
The move represents a compromise solution to demands from some senior members of the Government to criminalise the purchase of all sex.

An oblique reference to Harriet fucking Harperson, I suppose...
Police were concerned about the practicalities of a law banning any payment for sex.

Well, quite: it could be rather tricky. After all, the state taxes some bonuses and certain expenses as a "benefit in kind"—an attempt to conceal a salary boost—and certain actions might be so construed.

After all, if your humble Devil were to take a young lady out for dinner**, pay for the bill in full, then accompany her back to her flat and spend all night having wild and highly enjoyable sex with her (a situation that has occasionally happened, believe it or not), might that not be construed as "paying for sex"? I think that it could.
Exact details of the new offence and the penalties to be imposed are yet to be worked out.

What? You mean that the government has announced a new law but hasn't actually bothered to go into the details? Well, who'da thunk it?
Ministers believe that the measure will act as a deterrent to international human trafficking.

In which case, they are fucking idiots.
During a visit to Amsterdam as part of a government review of prostitution laws, Vernon Coaker, a Home Office minister, was told that the city was being used as a transit post for girls waiting to come to Britain to work as prostitutes.

Willingly or unwillingly? Perhaps Mr Coker actually undertook some scientific polling and research and would like to publish said report?
The Government has toughened its stance on prostitution in recent years, after initially considering “tolerance zones”.

The tolerance zone in Edinburgh worked rather well. Needless to say, once they abolished it, assaults on protitutes rose significantly. Nice one: way to go protecting women, you daft bastards.
Plans to permit small brothels, with two prostitutes and a maid, to operate legally remain under review.

Well, that would be a step in the right direction but, given the fact that the government "has toughened its stance on prostitution in recent years", what are the chances of that happening, eh?
In Britain, Harriet Harman, the Minister for Women and Equality, was among those in the Government pressing for tough measures to tackle the demand for paid sex and to give greater protection for women. She wanted to make it illegal to pay for all sex. Under existing laws in Britain, prostitution is not illegal but keeping a brothel is a criminal offence. Kerb crawling and soliciting for sex are also illegal.

Harriet Harperson is one of the most ignorant and poisonous evil fucks in the entire House of Commons and that is really saying something. That she is in any position of power says an awful lot, not only about the moral corruption of NuLabour but also the stupidity of the population and the flawed nature of our democracy. May she die in pain.

Why doesn't the state fuck off and stop trying to impose its morality on those who do not share said Victorian fucking values? Fuck off. Fuck off and die, you evil bastards.

* From this.

** It needn't be dinner. A couple of Bacardi Breezers might do the job.

Monday, April 14, 2008

Is it Worth it?

Oh, dear fucking god—the sky is falling and... brrrr... hell is freezing over! That's right, I have agreed with something that Jon Worth has said on the subject of politics. As Jon Points out, not only does the Common Agricultural Policy eat up 40% of the EU's budget (and it's responsible for a great deal of the fraud in that budget too), but it also screws up farmers in Developing Nations.
CAP means it’s still viable to grow sugar beet in Denmark rather than import sugar cane from sub-Saharan African countries.

Indeed. In fact, let's go a step further and point out that the CAP kills Africans.
France, together with others such as Finland and Ireland, have always sought to protect the CAP system. So what an irony today that French agricultural minister Michel Barnier (a former Commissioner in the Prodi Commission) stated that it’s necessary
“to bring together the efforts of various member states to help developing countries rebuild their agriculture” and that “we cannot, and we must not leave food for people… to the mercy of the rule of the market alone and to international speculation.”

See all the quotes in this BBC article.

Yes, unchecked market forces can lead to unintended consequences, but planned markets like that for agricultural products in the EU can have very dire consequences indeed, and the irony that France thinks it now help developing countries after CAP has screwed up their chances of exporting for decades?

Jon is a little too kind in calling this an irony; it is stinking fucking hypocrisy. Especially as you may remember that the French scuppered the Doha Round trade negotiations by defending their share of the CAP.
French Agriculture Minister Dominique Bussereau ruled out changes on Monday to the European Union's system of farm subsidies, saying he would prefer that the Doha trade talks fail instead.

"I would prefer that the negotiations fail rather than negotiations that would raise questions about the CAP (Common Agricultural Policy) and its future," he told reporters in Austria.

Does anyone really think that the French are going to change their tune on this? No, I don't either.

So, what is it that the French Agriculture Minister is proposing?
Mr Barnier told French radio on Monday: "We cannot, and we must not leave food for people... to the mercy of the rule of the market alone and to international speculation."

He is proposing four ideas:
  • Production of more and better food to enable Europe to respond to the food challenge

  • To bring together the efforts of various member states to help developing countries rebuild their agriculture

  • To redirect public development aid towards the agriculture sector

  • To ensure that poorer countries do not become the victims of the World Trade Organization's Doha round of negotations.

OK. Now, here's a swift translation for you all.
  • Production of more and better food to enable Europe to respond to the food challenge

The best way in which to get more food is, obviously, to subsidise farmers even more. This will also stop them being subject to "the rule of the market alone and to international speculation". Plus, of course, French food is, as we all know, the best in the world.

So, obviously, we need to send more subsidy money to French farmers.
  • To bring together the efforts of various member states to help developing countries rebuild their agriculture

And, obviously, the best way in which to do this is to send lots of money and food aid. This food aid will need to be grown in Europe and, as we want the Africans to have the very best food aid, that means that we need to give lots more subsidies to French farmers.

Oh, yes, and we should also subsidise French farmers to go and train the Africans to grow food as well as France does.
  • To redirect public development aid towards the agriculture sector

Particularly the French agriculture sector. In other words, we need to give more subsidies to French farmers.
  • To ensure that poorer countries do not become the victims of the World Trade Organization's Doha round of negotations.

We need more price-fixing of essential goods, to ensure that the Africans get a good price for their agricultural produce. We also need this price-fixing to ensure that French farmers are not undercut by the cheap African produce.

However, since food prices are already on the up and French farmers cannot compete with the African famers on price, we need to send more subsidies to French farmers as compensation.

So, the solution to the massive price rises and the fact that the CAP is fucking over Developing Nations is to subsidise French farmers even more.

Yup, that sounds about right...

Free our trade

Via Bishop Hill, I see that India and Australia are to negotiate a free trade deal.
India and Australia will launch talks on a ''high quality" free trade agreement (FTA) next week and have agreed on a joint feasibility study to remove impediments to bilateral trade. Officials of both countries are expected to meet in New Delhi next week.

''The FTA study will consider the feasibility of a comprehensive WTO-consistent agreement covering trade in goods, services and investment," Australian trade minister Simon Crean said, adding, the study on tariff liberalisation and removal of other impediments to trade is expected to be completed next year.

The study is aimed at bringing the FTA to a stronger level of economic partnership between the two countries. FTAs, he said, can be used to bring considerable mutual economic benefits as increased trade creates more jobs and investment and enhances the pace of growth-creating economic reform.

Cool! We could do the same, eh?

Oh, no; we can't.

Because, of course, we do not control our own trade policy: it is an EU competence. So, no matter how much we may want free trade with India, we can't get it unless the European Commission thinks it's a good idea.

Then, of course, they will send twice-disgraced Peter Mandelson—the EU Trade Commissioner—to India to negotiate on behalf of all of the EU countries. And if one of the 27 countries—France, for instance—doesn't like it, then we're fucked.

Can we leave yet?