|
|
By Steven Baker MP, on 8 September 10
This post originally appeared on stevebaker.info.
Dan Hannan and Ruth Lea have launched the EU Referendum Campaign:
The EURC is an organisation that is determined that every adult in Britain should have the right to choose whether our country should be a politically independent self-governing country or a member of the European Union.
With the EU now making the vast majority of laws we must obey and with new plans to take control over the tax and spend policies of its member countries, the British people must be given the right to decide where ultimate political power lies: In Brussels or with our elected parliament.
Unless we win the right to vote on Britain’s membership of the EU within the near future, our democracy is in danger of falling under the total control of the Brussels elite and disappearing for all time.
For the Telegraph, Dan writes:
The question, these days, is not whether referendums are compatible with representative democracy, but what the next one will be about. If we are allowed a vote on how to elect our MPs, why not a vote on whether those MPs run the country? If we can have a referendum on whether to have a mayor in Hartlepool, what about one on whether the majority of our laws should be handed down from Brussels?
Read more here.
By Toby Baxendale, on 5 July 10
In his latest article for ConservativeHome, Steve Baker responds to comments by the departing Charlemagne columnist of The Economist.
If the outgoing Charlemagne defines nationalism, and it appears he does, as comprising trade and migration barriers, then the EU has merely elevated nationalism to the level of the European continent, has it not?
Although many people associate the EU with free trade, the reality is quite different:
Of course the EU has delivered free trade within its borders – it is a customs union after all – but anyone who thinks the EU genuinely promotes global free trade should look at the TARIC database. TARIC (Integrated Tariff of the European Communities) includes not just tariffs, but also tariff suspensions, tariff quotas and tariff preferences. You might enjoy searching the database for wheat for example. Do click through and survey the subdivisions of each tariff, noting provision for variations according to country of origin or destination.
Richard Cobden might well wonder why he bothered with the Anti-Corn Law League.
Steve puts these protectionist measures in context, with reference to Omnipotent Government, by Ludwig von Mises:
Mises’ thesis, in a nutshell, is that aggressive economic nationalism is the inevitable consequence of increasing government intervention in the economy. For reasons he explains, he calls this ultimate cause “etatism”:
The most important event in the history of the last hundred years is the displacement of liberalism by etatism.
Etatism appears in two forms: socialism and interventionism. Both have in common the goal of subordinating the individual unconditionally to the state, the social apparatus of compulsion and coercion.
Steve concludes:
The Brussels elite certainly have some historic achievements behind them, but I can’t help wondering whether they put their faith in the wrong god. Perhaps their folly has been to choose etatism plus the unification of European government when a better choice would have been a post-war return to unhampered social cooperation, that is, classical liberalism.
I recommend the whole article.
By Toby Baxendale, on 5 May 10
Matthew Elliott has highlighted a post by his TaxPayers’ Alliance colleague Lee Rotherham, who reports that
After weeks of wrangling, it now transpires that the Lisbon Treaty is going to have to be put before Parliament for approval again.
As you’d expect from the EU, the reason is complex.
In order to rush the Treaty through in the first place, the current draft failed to sort out the vexed issue of the distribution of seats in the European Parliament. As a result, there are various imbalances in the number of MEPs held by each country – and there are several “ghost” MEPs who currently work in Brussels but don’t actually have any voting powers. To sort this out, the European Parliament is expected to vote this Thursday in favour of holding a new Inter Governmental Conference on 17th and 18th June. At that conference, part of the Lisbon Treaty will be rewritten – requiring full ratification again by the Parliament of each and every EU member state.
As Elliott rightly identifies, this is a potential game-changer for David Cameron:
As well as being the right thing to do, a referendum pledge now could be dynamite in the last few days of the election. Clegg and Brown would be put on the spot, challenged to make such a pledge themselves. If they did, then it would be good for Britain, we’d get the Lisbon referendum we were all promised and Cameron would have shown himself to be a leader. If they did not, then Cameron would be able to head into the election as only man willing to trust the people by holding the long-desired referendum.
This is a golden opportunity for the Conservatives to do the right thing by Britain and to do themselves a favour. David Cameron should grab it with both hands.
By Chris Neal, on 4 February 10
Chris Neal offers a personal perspective on bloated EU regulation.
I am reading ‘God Stories’, a wonderful book by Andrew Wilson and last night enjoyed the chapter entitled “Concerning His Son”.
In this Andrew unpacks a passage of Scripture that in a “mere 40 Greek words” summarises the entire Gospel.
He compares this “mere 40 words” of highly effective language to the Magna Carta’s 4000 words, the American Declaration of Independence at 1321 words and Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address at 267 words.
Let me add some more examples:
- Pythagoras Theory – 24 words
- The Lords Prayer – 66 words
- Archimedes Principle – 67 words
- The Ten Commandments – 179 words
Andrew’s final example is the EU directive on the sale of cabbages – yes that’s right ‘cabbages’ – which extends to an incredible 26,253 words!
I found this quite amusing in the context of Andrew’s writing last night but this extraordinary fact has played on my mind all day. How did we ever get into the position that we allow the ‘Eurocracy’ to conjure such useless and lengthy pieces of legislation for us to then implement and police? Furthermore, what does this persistent and systemic interference from the EU cost the British tax payer?
Richard Cobden campaigned for the repeal of the Corn Laws: best we set about EU veggie directives sooner rather than later!
By Steven Baker MP, on 29 December 09
 Razeen Sally’s Trade Policy, New Century (PDF) succeeds magnificently in explaining the 21st-century case for free trade and, specifically, unilateral trade liberalisation to the interested, non-specialist reader.
From the IEA home page of the book:
The World Trade Organization (WTO) is failing to deliver the trade liberalisation desperately needed to bring prosperity to developing countries, according to a new study released today by the Institute of Economic Affairs. The WTO is hamstrung by a cumbersome negotiating model and the influence of vocal protectionist lobbies who oppose free markets. At the same time, increasingly popular regional ‘free-trade agreements’ often create as many barriers as they remove by erecting new obstacles to trade with countries outside the blocs concerned.
In the context of policy paralysis at the WTO, the author, LSE trade expert Dr Razeen Sally, argues that governments must take back the initiative from supranational institutions. The priority must be unilateral liberalisation – removing trade barriers to benefit domestic consumers rather than waiting for tortuous international negotiations to be resolved. Governments can also help maximise the benefits of free trade by liberalising their economies and strengthening key institutions.
But what is the imperative for the UK? Surely, European Union citizens enjoy free trade?
The EU is a customs union: we trade ostensibly freely within it, but, as can be seen from the EU’s TARIC database, we find ourselves behind a complex system of tariffs on, for example, wheat, notwithstanding the battle long since won by our inspiration, Richard Cobden, to repeal England’s Corn Laws in the general interest.
And this is the key point: free trade is in the general interest. We may make the political and economic arguments in detail, but the public good is our ultimate aim, and not just at home. Razeen Sally explains (pp179-180, emphasis mine):
Adam Smith fortified his presumption in favour of free trade with an explicit political argument. Protectionism is driven by ‘the clamorous importunity of partial interests’ who capture government and prevent it from having ‘an extensive view of the general good’. Free trade, in contrast, tilts the balance away from rent-seeking producer interests and towards the mass of consumers. It is part of a wider constitutional package to keep government limited, transparent and clean, enabling it to concentrate better on the public good.
As important to Smith and Hume was the moral case for free trade, centred on individual freedom. Individual choice is the engine of free trade, and of progressive commercial society more generally. It sparks what Hume called a ‘spirit of industry’; it results in much better life-chances, not just for the select few but for individuals in the broad mass of society who are able to lead more varied and interesting lives.
To sum up: free trade is of course associated with standard economic efficiency arguments. But the classical-liberal case for free trade is more rounded, taking in the moral imperative of individual freedom and linking it to prosperity. Finally, free trade contributes to, though it does not guarantee, peaceful international relations. Freedom, prosperity, security: this trinity lies at the heart of the case for free trade.
In a short article, I can scarcely do justice to this monograph’s insight in relation to the case for classic liberalism nor to its observations on emerging geopolitics: I heartily recommend the book.
Further reading
By Chris Neal, on 2 November 09
Chris Neal outlines his tax payers’ revolt.
In October 2008 Messrs Brown and Darling assured the British tax payer that we had a reasonable chance of recouping or even making a profit on the £50 billion plus we were pumping into rescuing our banks. Sweden was held up as an example of how this was possible from the state rescue of their banks in 1992. In actuality, Swedish tax payers only recouped about half of their ‘investment’.
The Swedes did not have to deal with an unelected Brussels official able to mete out decrees based on stringent European Commission rules on competition and state aid. Dear Neelie Kroes (pronounced Nelly Crows) has it seems now told Darling that he must sell. Even yesterday Alistair Darling told us that he would take a “longer term view” in selling the state owned banks selling only when “the price is right” and “It’s not going to happen tomorrow morning but it is going to happen over the next three or four years”. He went on to say this “Because the taxpayer had to put a lot of money in to stabilise the system, equally the taxpayer ought to get that money back.”
Quite right Alistair, glad you’ve worked that out.
Nelly last week almost ended the hopes of Lloyds essential capital raising dangling her Damaclesian sword by threatening to impose draconian conditions on UK banks rescued by the government. Nelly has a loud whistle and loves nothing more than to interfere in the game by blowing for penalties and describes herself thus “My job is about acting as referee. If we think of the European economy as a football match, I set and enforce the rules of the game. We make sure it is a fair match and that there is punishment for people and companies that break the rules and spoil the game for others.” I couldn’t but help notice her use of the Royal “we”!
I have no problem with correct controls being in place to protect and encourage competition and can see the justification for a Competition as well as a Monopolies and Mergers Commission. It may well be good for competition to see the British banks split. What is implicitly wrong here is that the timing imposed by this unelected unaccountable Brussels official is likely to cost U.K. tax payers billions by not waiting until the recovery is complete. Why should Nelly have the right to interfere in this way?
The suitors are made up of foreign banking groups, large retailers and I expect Virgin, will we see Spain’s BBA, a Chinese bank, Tesco or maybe Sir Richard smiling broadly as we are forced to sell more of our Crown jewels? They will be buying British tax payer assets at knock down prices and able to make billions out of us going forward.
The Tax Payers’ Revolt
Nelly, Alistair, and Gordon need to be told that they are our banks so please get your hands off!
If you intend to give them away then give them to us, the tax payer, the shareholders and the customers of all the composite parts.
We want a nationwide mutual and by the way we want the Post Office as well!
Our business model would ensure current accounts have 100% deposit cover and savers can choose to lend their money via mutual funds that lend to businesses or individuals within our community responsibly.
We will go to tender to appoint the management of our bank to an operator in exchange for 15% of our net profits, establish a community charity fund with 10% and share the remaining 75% amongst ourselves.
The European Question
New Labour have emasculated Parliament, led us into a federalist interfering European state that preaches democracy but is anything but and betrayed us by denying us the promised referendum and for what purpose? Could it be to elevate Blair and Milliband as European President and Foreign Minister, unelected, unaccountable and even more uncontrollable, or to leave any future British Government and Parliament with no more power than a local authority beholden to top down dictates from Brussels by the same people who have presided over the last twelve years? Neelie Kroes is just one example of how Europe will impose its will.
Tim Montgomerie wrote this weekend on Conservative Home:
I’m told to expect a “muscular” response to Lisbon’s ratification and a manifesto commitment to fight for repatriation of key powers from Brussels. One member of the shadow cabinet told me that ‘we don’t need a mandate to renegotiate from a referendum… A manifesto mandate will be just as good’. CCHQ is worried that a referendum could easily become about issues other than Europe. ‘Imagine,’ said one key official at CCHQ, ‘if we are in the middle of very, very difficult budget cuts. The unions and our political opponents would urge voters to use the referendum to kick the Tory government in the teeth. A manifesto mandate is safer, cleaner, less distracting.
This has to be the correct way to deal with Brussels as once the Constitution/Treaty is ratified then it is indeed a case of stable door, horse bolted. If all else fails then I have found one clause in the treaty to encourage my classic liberal colleagues “the Treaty of Lisbon explicitly recognises for the first time the possibility for a Member State to withdraw from the Union.”
Oh for Cromwell to wander into Parliament and confront this Labour Government with an updated version of his speech from 20th April 1653:
It is high time for me to put an end to your sitting in this place, which you have dishonoured by your contempt of our democracy, and defiled by your practice of top down government; ye are a factious crew, and enemies to all good government; ye are a pack of mercenary wretches, and would like Esau sell your country to the Brussels federalists for a mess of pottage and a title; and like a Judas betray your Queen and country for a few pieces of money; is there a single virtue now remaining amongst you?
Is there one vice you do not possess? Ye have no more sense of democracy than my horse; you have sold our Gold; which of you have not barter’d your conscience for the whips? Is there a man amongst you that has the least care for the good of the Commonwealth? Ye sordid prostitutes have you not defil’d this sacred place, and turn’d Parliament into a den of impotent lickspittles, by your immoral principles and wicked practices?
Ye are grown intolerably odious to the whole nation; you were deputed here by the people to get grievances redress’d, are yourselves become the greatest grievance. Your country therefore calls upon me to cleanse this Augean stable, by putting a final period to your iniquitous proceedings in this House; and which by God’s help, and the strength he has given me, I am now come to do; I command ye therefore, upon the peril of your lives, to depart immediately out of this place; go, get you out! Make haste!
Ye venal slaves be gone, not to Brussels by Eurostar but to your shires to beg the forgiveness of the people you purport to represent! So! Take away that shining bauble there, and lock up the doors. In the name of God, go!
Further Reading
|
|
