Soap opera time - by Richard... Wednesday, December 21, 2011

Soap opera time - by Richard... Wednesday, December 21, 2011

The UK has clung on to its gold standard credit rating, we are told, but has been warned that developments in the eurozone debt crisis have the potential to trigger a downgrade. This is the credit ratings agency Moody's, which for the time being has confirmed the UK's AAA credit rating, although it said the UK faced "formidable and rising challenges".

Moody's, which recently placed the credit ratings of all eurozone countries under review, said the UK was only "somewhat cushioned" from the crisis and warned no EU country was immune. It added: "The outlook on the rating is likely to be sensitive to future developments in the euro area's debt crisis, even though the UK is not a member of the monetary union".

And The Boy thinks that avoiding an EU treaty amendment, allowing himself to be manoeuvred into legitimising an intergovernmental treaty, is actually going to safeguard the UK from anything? One wonders who it is that is really naïve about what is going on in "Europe".

COMMENT THREAD

Share

Print ready

Virgin hypocrisy - by Richard... Tuesday, December 20, 2011

So says the great patriot Sir Richard Branson, chairman of the Virgin Group, who has found a homeoutside the Single Market for Virgin Enterprises, in order to save taxes.

COMMENT: "PROPAGANDA CONTINUES" THREAD

Share

Print ready

That fantasy veto - by Richard...

It is quite amazing what a judicious bit of editing will do, with a lot of help from one's friends.

COMMENT THREAD

Share

Print ready

A little more optimistic - by Richard...

As well as Booker, the Toronto Star also published a piece on Camp Ashraf (pictured above) on Sunday – to the eternal shame of the media, the only recent reports I can find.

Despite that, and despite the absence of any real pressure from the international community, a report from Reuters seems to indicate that a solution may be close. We are not out of the woods yet, but things look a little more optimistic than they did on Sunday.

COMMENT: "SHAME" THREAD

Share

Print ready

Don't ask an economist for history lessons - by Richard...

Ask an economist for his opinion on why we joined the Common Market and you will get the ill-informed dogma that Roger Bootle delivers in the Failygraph. But then I suppose he feels the same way about bloggers writing about economics, although being so grand it is unlikely that he actually reads anything other than the cloggers of his own newspaper.

That notwithstanding, he offers the usual mantras, arguing as to the reasons which we joined that, from a state of devastation, the countries of continental Europe advanced rapidly. By contrast, he writes, the non–European world, in which we had played out so much of our history, seemed like a backwater. Add in a dose of Britain's imagined cultural inferiority and a smidgeon of Vorsprung Durch Technik and you have the explanation, says the brave Bootle.

This pastiche does not get close. Not least, Heath knew full well what he was doing - that the Common Market was the precursor to political union. He took Britain into the then European Economic Community (EEC) in the full expectation that it would transform itself into a political community. Why he did so is a long and complex story, but not one that Bootle gets near.

The bigger story, however, cannot be complete without recognition of the dominance of the unions in British industry at the time of our entry to the EEC, and the inability of British management to deal with them. It was thought (wrongly) that exposing industry to competition through the Common Market (as only the British insisted on calling it), that this would help check the power of the unions. It didn't ... Thatch eventually had to do that - but that is another story.

Why we remain in the EU is also a much more complex story, one that Bottle addresses, suggesting that this is dictated by three serious economic delusions: "top table syndrome, sizism, and proximity fetishism". In explaining these, he manages to pad out his column, thereby collecting his fee, but I would venture that Bootle's explanation is not only grossly superficial, but largely wrong, not least in neglecting far more important reasons.

Understanding the dynamics of our membership, and the reasons why there are such strong constituencies which continue to support our membership, is an important part of any campaign for our withdrawal. And the one thing you cannot do is attribute the status quo to economic reasons, when we are talking about membership of a political club.

And, of course, the primary (and most powerful) supporters of our continued membership are the politicians themselves, particularly those running the administration, who realise full well the convenience of having a technically competent and highly productive legislature in Brussels. This takes much of the donkey work out of government, freeing the national parliaments to play politics instead of the jobs they used to do. With Brussels producing the bulk of the laws for the member states, that frees up the politicians to go out and play. That is what they do, and they like it that way.

But, without doubt, the primary driver is inertia. With anything up to 80 percent of our economic and administrative law made in Brussels, and many of the administrative systems run from there, the sheer enormity of re-writing 90,000-plus pages of legislation, and rebuilding all the administrative structures that have been outsourced to Brussels, is not something that any sensible civil service would embrace with enthusiasm.

As far as industry goes, it is not surprising that corporatists such as Richard Branson love the EU. The regulatory ramp is one big business loves, and can deal with. It disadvantages small and medium-sized enterprises which find it harder and relatively more expensive to comply. Big corporate business loves red tape, and Brussels provides it by the ton.

Then, of course, there are the legions of administrators, NGOs and other parasites, who gain their living from the corporist state represented and supported by the EU, and which can be manipulated to provide a never-ending torrent of legislation (and enforcement fees), to keep any number of idle mouths fully stuffed.

This means, unfortunately, that the EU can boast a huge payroll vote, leaving only a relatively small (and disorganised) constituency that actually wants to leave the EU – as opposed to renegotiation, changing slightly the balance of power.

If we are to prevail in a campaign to rid ourselves of this incubus, then we must understand what makes it tick, and how to address the "dog-whistle" issues that will build a majority for withdrawal. But don't look to Bootle – even if he seems well-motivated. All he and his colleagues are really interested in is filling space and taking home their fees.

If the wind changes, they will change. They are fickle friends who cannot be trusted. More to the point in this context, don't ask an economist for history lessons. You will get what you deserve.

COMMENT THREAD

3Share

Print ready

The propaganda continues - by Richard...

Right on cue, as the forces of evil move in to protect their interests, Roland Rudd leads the ranks of euroslime in a letter to the Failygraph. Second on the list of these "20 British businessmen", incidentally, is Richard Branson, a man who founded his business empire on the basis of VAT fraud, and has been living on the edge ever since. But if there was ever a reason for shunning his goods and services, this is it.

Anyhow, this dire crew are reverting to the "same old, same old", but that does not mean the message does not have traction. It is a taste of things to come, should we get into a referendum campaign for real, with the Failygraph playing its usual ambiguous role, running with the hares and the hounds.

At the heart of the message, however – as might be expected – is a lie. For sure, if trade ceased completely with the EU-26, we might lose up to three million jobs, but since we have a balance of trade deficit, we could repatriate up to four million, leaving us with a net gain of a million – or perhaps more.

Then, having left the EU, the "guest workers" go home. Ours come back, of course, but I don't think anyone is under any illusion that, in employment terms, we would be a net beneficiary. Once we have left the EU, therefore, restrictions on EU trade and immigration could eliminate our unemployment.

The central lie, though, is not what it seems. What this self-interest group seeks to portray is that trade with the EU through the Single Market is necessarily dependent on membership of the EU. That is not the case, and therein resides the lie. According to the treaty, EFTA members of the EEA, including Norway, fully participate in the Single Market without being EU members.

We are the first to acknowledge that leaving the EU, without making alternative arrangements for trade – such as membership of the EEA – could be enormously disruptive. But no sane person is going to argue that we should leave the EU without first negotiating transitional agreements.

And nor is the much-touted "fax machine diplomacy" issue a serious problem. Much of the Single Market harmonising legislation has global application, applying to Chinese exporters and well as British enterprises. And – as we have pointed out - this is negotiated through a wide variety of international bodies, at which the UK would still retain seats. In many respects, the EU is only the "middle man", processing laws based on principles agreed at a higher level by global players.

Nevertheless, this is the sort of propaganda we can expect – and it will have an effect. Cameron and his administration, and all three major political parties, will support it. So will the BBC andChannel 4 (with considerable enthusiasm). Most of the major newspapers will go for it as well. Remember, neither the Failygraph nor the Daily Mail support our leaving the EU. (Note, it is theFailygraph which is publishing this letter with a high-profile news piece to boost it ... not theGrauniad or Indy.)

To counter it, we need to get our act together, rehearse our arguments and get them right. Polemics and showy statements won't cut it. We are in a fight to the death here, with no quarter given.