A problem

Friday, October 17, 2008

A problem

This blog has a problem – well, many. But our big problem is that we are trying to do three things: reporting on events, particularly but not exclusively those with an EU slant; trying to understand those events and publishing our analyses of them; drawing broader conclusions about the way we are governed, and thereby offering suggestions for improvement – which usually require us to leave the EU.

Our real problem is that we can't do all three properly. Hell, we can't even do justice to any one of them – there just are not enough hours in the day. So we have to pick and chose, dropping things we would like to do, in favour of dealing with more pressing issues. One of those, we think is Cameron's speech, so we're going to devote a little time and a few posts to it. 

And why is this so important? Well, the previous post gives you the clue. Here is a man who would be leader of our government. With a fair wind, at the next election, he will become leader. Yet this is a man who has just offered his prospectus – an outline of what he and his colleagues would do if they were elected. It is a false prospectus. If the Conservative Party was a company, it could be prosecuted under trading standards or company law, so grossly false is the prospectus on offer.

This will probably cost me my day job but somebody has to say it, and it looks like we will be the only one to do so. Thus we have to do what we have to do – as they say - and set out in some detail the nature of these lies and deceit. We'll try and catch up on other issues later.

COMMENT THREAD

An "Enron" speech

Mr David Cameron has delivered a speech, heralding The Conservative plan for a responsible economy. Parts of it are good – some of it is very good, very good indeed.

However, good or bad, in 4,956 words, there are two words missing: "European Union". Nowhere in this wide-ranging speech can those two words be found.

Oddly enough, the speech opens with this stirring passage:

Politics is about many things – the words you speak, the understanding you have of the problems we face, the vision you have, the policies you draw up and your ability to implement them.

With this, of course, we could hardly disagree. But we would add a small rejoinder of our own. Politics is also about the words you don't speak. And in this case, the silence speaks volumes – it screams out and attacks, nay destroys the last part of the sentence: "…the policies you draw up and your ability to implement them".

Mr Cameron, you need to be aware of a few facts of life – although I guess you must know them already, but they need restating:

The regulation of financial services is an exclusive European Union competence – it comes under the Single Market provisions and is touched by other aspects of the treaties, such as the "freedom of movement of capital" and "right of establishment".

Not only is this an exclusive competence, it is also what is known as an "occupied field", an area in which the European Union has chosen to legislate.

This means that member states have very limited powers. They may not legislate in areas which are already covered by EU law and which will interfere with or in any way contradict EU law. And EU law, as you well know, is supreme and cannot be changed unilaterally.

As a general rule, the member states may only legislate in this field in order to implement EU law, to clarify it or to ensure its proper enforcement.

A member state may, however, go further than EU law, but only if it does not contradict EU law and does not impinge upon treaty provisions, such as "freedom of movement of capital", and then only with the express permission of the EU commission.

The scope for any British government to legislate and control financial services is, therefore, extremely limited. Many of your proposals thus, while excellent on their own account, would – if you tried to implement them – impinge on EU law. In short, you could not implement them – at least, not without confronting the EU, which you have no intention of doing.

In my school days, we were taught the meaning, the definition of a lie. It is not simply the utterance of an untruth. In full, it is the "act, default or sufferance". You can also tell a lie by not saying something, which conveys thereby an untruth.

In omitting the words "European Union," you seek to convey that you, as leader of a Conservative government, could and would do certain things which you must know – you cannot avoid knowing – you cannot do. You seek to convey the impression that you are in control when you must know that you are not.

This, Mr Cameron, is an "Enron" speech. In the US, they put the Enron directors in jail. What should we do with you?

Other posts on the financial crisis here.