Politics: another one doesn't get it
Friday 21 September 2012
Lamenting the decline of political parties, a Failygraph hack still believes there is a remedy. "The answer is fairly simple", he writes, "To recover, political leaders need to come up with radical and original ideas that enough people think are worth supporting".
The man simply doesn't get it. If they could have done so, they would already have done so. They cannot, because it is not in their nature. But, if you want radical and original ideas, they are there, in the Harrogate Agenda. And that rather illustrates why political parties must continue declining – together with their cheerleaders in the media. However, not all is lost. The man at least understands that we are now the mainstream. "No matter who wins the next election, it is likely that abstainers will outnumber those voting for the winning party", he writes. But that has been the case for a long time. Why is it taking them so long to realise? COMMENT THREAD Richard North 21/09/2012 |
Eurocrash: banking union could split Europe
Thursday 20 September 2012
 In this case, it is Andrea Enria, chairman of the European Banking Authority (EBA), who warns that forming a united front among eurozone countries to protect their lenders risks seeing one set of rules applied to banks under the ECB's watch and another to those outside. Speaking to MEPs in the EU parliament, he declares that: "We risk a polarisation ... between the euro area, with single rules and supervisory practices, and the rest of the (European) Union, which would operate with a still wide degree of national discretion in ... applying the single rulebook". In fact, though, that is precisely what is intended. Common rules in the eurozone are a precursor to banking union which in turn is a step towards fiscal union and, from there, to political union. And since not all the member states are willing to go down this path, the "colleagues" will go with what they can get and split the EU asunder. This, at least, Minford did understand, noting in his evidence to the foreign affairs committee that, if the UK sought to block this development, the core zone would simply by-pass us. Westerwelle's plan very much takes this on board, arguing for treaty changes without unanimity, which makes you wonder why Andrea Enria is taking the trouble to tell the EU parliament what it already knows. But then, the EBA is London-based and most at risk from the march towards banking union, with plans afoot to close down the London offices and absorb the functions into the ECB in its new offices in Frankfurt. Thus, Andria is reflecting the interests of his institution, and is this likely to be comprehensively ignored. This is more so as, today, the core integration agenda received a huge boost when German opinion polls gave Merkel a massive lead over her SPD rivals in next year's general election. She comes in with 49 percent of voters, compared with Frank-Walter Steinmeier on 26 percent, Peer Steinbrück on 28 percent and SPD leader Sigmar Gabriel on a devastating 16 percent. The Süddeutsche newspaper suggests that, given the numbers, her rivals should not bother to compete. This time next year, Merkel looks set fair to bounce back into power, and by the following spring, the EU commission will have published its proposals for a new treaty. The split is on its way, and Merkel will be in the driving seat. COMMENT THREAD Richard North 20/09/2012 |
EU referendum: strategy is the problem
Thursday 20 September 2012
 So, His Grace tells us, with a referendum on the next EU treaty looming - and, as sure as night follows day, it is coming - please don't expect political coherence or campaigning strategy from the Conservatives, UKIP, the Democracy Movement, the Campaign for United Kingdom Conservatism, Better off Out, Campaign for an Independent Britain, the Freedom Association, or the Liberty League. Frankly, he says, you have more hope of persuading a Wahhabi Sunni to sup with an Ahmadiyyan and plant the cornerstone of a new mosque. If a house be divided against itself, that house cannot stand: the referendum may already be lost. Hesitant as one is to disagree with His Grace, one has to say that he is wrong. This is not a matter of egos, gargantuan or otherwise, but of strategy. Egos we could cope with. The more profound differences over strategy are far more problematical. Courtesy of Witterings from Witney, we see demonstrated precisely the point in the recent adjournment debate led by Tory MP Andrea Leadsom. This is a woman who is determined that we should "renegotiate our EU membership - to remain within the EU but to have our absolutely best attempt at renegotiating a relationship that works for Britain, with full and free access to all EU assets, but without being hampered in a global world by EU regulation". What she wants, she tells us, is "fundamental reform". No red-blooded eurosceptic could begin to agree with such a europlastic view, but within the debate there was also David Nuttall, Tory MP for Bury North. As chairman of the Lords and Commons "Better Off Out" group, he wants us to repatriate all powers from the EU. We would have no difficulty in accepting this desirable objective, except that Nuttall does not think we are likely to be given the choice of an in-out referendum. He thinks we are more likely to get an in/in referendum: the choice of the status quo - staying in as we are now or staying in with 17/20, 18/20 or 19/20 of the status quo and repatriating a few powers. The trouble is, as Leadsom points out, while a July 2012 YouGov survey had 48 percent wanting to pull out and 31 percent wanting to stay in the EU, if a new deal was renegotiated, the poll suggests that people would vote in a completely different way. Most - 42-34 percent - would vote to stay in the EU. This is the eurosceptic nightmare: a referendum offering not the in-out option but the "reform-out" option. This would be very hard to win. Strategy becomes absolutely vital. Then, as WfW reminds us, there is the Lilley point: during a referendum campaign, on average there is a 17 percent swing back in favour of the status quo. This means it is necessary to start with a 34 percent lead for change to have a 50 percent chance of winning. Starting with roughly half of people being in favour of leaving and a third in favour of staying would result in a vote to remain in the EU. Problematically, though, our people are not thinking strategically. Under these circumstances, theMinford idea of unilateral withdrawal, followed by negotiation, would be a disaster. The uncertainties would drive voters into the EU camp. Yet, despite the potential for disaster, this is the preferred UKIP option, and the guardians of the message are quick to stamp on dissident thought. There is no debate in this "outer" fraternity. You either conform with the approved message or you are consigned to outer darkness as a "traitor".
Nor is there any recognition of the "Stokes precept", from Richard Stokes, the Labour MP for Ipswich, who on 15 October 1940 told the House of Commons in a debate on war aims that it "... is no use fighting for a negative object. You must have a positive one, and the sooner that [is] stated the better".
To gain a broader acceptance from the majority of the population that we should leave the EU, we must be able to offer a positive object. Simply to fight on the negative one of leaving the EU is not enough. And just to argue for a referendum, without the first idea of how you would win it, is suicide. Those who refuse to accept this, who robustly argue simply for unilateral withdrawal and expect the nation to rally to that cause, are part of the problem – as much as those like Leadsom, who are arguing for "fundamental reform". Egos really don't matter. It cannot be emphasised enough that what counts is strategy. Sadly, while the old saw, "divided we fall" may be true, uniting behind the wrong strategy could be just as fatal. We thus face the prospect of "united we fall, divided we fall". Even so, there is time yet to mend our ways. We should take the opportunity while we can, if we can. COMMENT THREAD Richard North 20/09/2012 |
EU debate: Minford gives evidence
Wednesday 19 September 2012
The House of Commons foreign affairs committee interviews "one of the most prominent economists advocating Britain's withdrawal from the EU". This is professor Patrick Minford CBE, Professor of Applied Economics, Cardiff Business School, contributing to an inquiry on: "The future of the European Union: UK Government policy".
The egregious professor then regales the LSE blog with his arguments as to why the UK must leave the EU. "The institutional evolution triggered by the euro crisis", he says, "threatens to make the economic costs of EU membership higher than ever, in a highly visible way. The case for leaving the EU has become overwhelming".
Sadly, in his oral evidence to the HoC committee, Minford argues that we should engineer a unilateral departure, whence we could then ask the "colleagues" to sit down and negotiate with us. And, if they don't, then we can compensate our industries (such as the car industry) for their losses. The man does not seem to have heard of Article 50.
Listening to all this, one again gets the sense of a debate that has not developed. Prof. Minford seems to have very little new to say, with a very limited idea of how regulation is made, and its sources. The world has moved on but, it seems, Minford, hasn't.
COMMENT THREAD Richard North 19/09/2012 |
Posts
