EU politics: out by 2025?
Thursday 25 July 2013
Meanwhile, dwelling on serious politics, I had prepared for yesterday a powerpoint presentation, the last slide of which is illustrated above. That is my best estimate of when we will actually leave the EU.
The tempo will not be dictated by Mr Cameron or domestic politics, but by the "colleagues". By next year, after the German general election and before the European Parliament elections, the Commission has undertaken to give its views on the "future of Europe", which will be the starting pistol for a new treaty.
The timing will pick up for real the following year, when the new parliament will agree to launch a treaty convention which will be set for early 2016. That will last at least a year, bringing us to 2017 when we will be in the midst of an IGC - at the same time Mr Cameron has pencilled-in an "in-out" referendum, following treaty renegotiations. This simply isn't going to happen.
What may happen though is that in 2018 or 2019, there will be a referendum in the new treaty, under the existing "referendum lock" provisions. That will be a "yes-no" referendum and, despite opt-outs agreed for the UK, I confidently expect any referendum to deliver a "no" verdict.
That, effectively, will formalise a "two-tier Europe", putting an end to the somewhat farcical claim that Britain can ever be at the "heart of Europe". And, with a general election in 2020, if all goes to plan, we will be in the "exit lounge" with at least one of the main parties promising a full-blown "in-out" referendum in the next parliamentary term.
I would then expect that "in-out" referendum to be held in 2022 (or possibly even 2021). This will be followed by an Article 50 notification by at least 2022, and an exit treaty agreed two years later. There will then be a very rapid second referendum to approve the terms of the deal, and the ECA will be repealed the following year, 2025. Then we are out.
That gives us less than ten years to prepare for and win an "out" campaign. If we really put our minds to it, that is just enough time. Perhaps we should be grateful that Mr Cameron's ambitions are so limited. While he is frittering away his time, we can concentrate on the main event – out by 2025. COMMENT THREAD Richard North 25/07/2013 |
EU referendum: more gratuitous FUD
Wednesday 24 July 2013
The way it is going, you would think we were already in the grip of a referendum campaign, as the establishment dribbles out its poisonous FUD (fear-uncertainty-doubt) and the legacy media uncritically publishes it.
The latest dose comes from the Daily Mail which has knighted slime pontificating its way onto the pages, with the ignorance and prejudice which is typical of the breed. This is Sir David Manning, former British ambassador in Washington, whose claim to fame is the man who briefed Tony Blair over the Iraq War, and accompanies the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge on overseas tours advising on foreign policy. Not content with the damage he has already caused, he is now sticking his oar in, unasked, where it is particularly unwanted, the unelected ex-FCO official "warning" the elected politician – in this case David Cameron - that leaving the EU would condemn Britain to "irrelevance" on the world stage. His unwanted words come in the FCO's "review of competences" and the shape of the man's profound ignorance comes clear with his claim that, "Outside the EU, our influence in Europe would be sharply diminished – but so it would be in the United States". Thus does he say, "The risk to the UK of leaving the European Union is of a rapid drift into international irrelevance. Compelling economic arguments are made for the UK’s membership of the European Union, not least the importance of the single market in which we do almost half our trade". And there we see the establishment line in all its mendacious glory, the determination to link membership of the Single Market with membership of the EU. As always, projecting this linkage is a key objective of establishment FUD, but the man goes even further than this. "Equally compelling", he says – but in fact not at all - "are the strategic, security and diplomatic interests served by UK membership". The interests, Manning asserts, would be seriously jeopardised were we to leave, as the US to looks to the EU as its "natural partner". How reliable these assertions are can be judged by Manning's track record. It is he that stood by the side of Tony Blair in the run-up to the Iraq War in 2003 as his chief foreign policy adviser, yet now expresses doubts that the war was worth the cost in "blood and treasure". This is the sort of man who, once we leave the EU, will be telling everyone who will listen, how independence has breathed new life into British relations with the US, and has invigorated the economy. But, for the time being, he will support the establishment line, bending with the wind to suit the prevailing mores. This, of course, is entirely fitting for a former diplomat, a man whose trade was lying for his country and has now developed into a regime of lying to himself and everyone else. The pity is that this sort of slime has "prestige", which gets him space in the legacy media. At least, though, we get a small antidote from favoured eurosceptic renta-quote Peter Bone, who urges Prince William to seek advice from a broader range of advisers. Says Bone: "Sir David has provided the establishment view, which is palpable nonsense and totally out of touch with what ordinary people think". He adds, "They want us to be a small part of a European superstate, but we'll be a more important country in the world if we are an independent country with our own foreign policy", then declaring, "I hope royalty from the Queen down will listen to a range of views and realise what ordinary people are saying". Frankly, I don't think we need care what royalty thinks. Mrs Elizabeth Windsor gave up any right to special consideration when she allowed herself and her brood to become citizens of the European Union. If they want us to note their views, Mrs Windsor could start by upholding her coronation oath. COMMENT THREAD Richard North 24/07/2013 |
Local politics: an Orwellian inversion
Wednesday 24 July 2013
Brought to our notice recently, though, was the especially Orwellian press release from East Hampshire District Council (EHDC), congratulating itself on its high level of collection, recovering 98.8 percent of its tax due, putting it in the top ten percent of councils in England for collection performance. Says Council Leader Ferris Cowper, "A high collection rate is excellent for the council's overall finances and also great news for council taxpayers and businesses. He goes on to say: "It means that the council does not have to use large sums of money to pay for bad debts and this helps to reduce the pressure to increase Council Tax in the future. When it comes to Council Tax, if everyone pays, then everyone pays less". However, throughout the land, there is absolutely no evidence to support this statement. In this case, as elsewhere, EHDC's tax levels are set within the parameters mandated by central government. Being a two-tier district, it depends hugely on the activity of the County Council, which provides the bulk of local services. Thus, in the short-term, Council Tax levels entirely unrelated to recovery rates, and they certainly do not drop because of the collection performances. Over the longer term though, there is at work a dynamic which is exactly the opposite to which Councillor Cowper asserts. In the absence of restraint, there are no natural limits to the level of tax governments will impose, other than the limits set by people's ability to pay and willingness to pay – the former, to an extent, governing the latter. On the other hand, the more resistance to taxation there is, and the more difficult (and expensive) the authorities find collecting any specific tax, the less inclined they are to pursue it. Every Councillor and official should be imbued with the idea that their taxpayers are on the verge of rebellion. And where this is reflected across the board, overall taxation levels will be lower. As Hampshire County Council Leader Roy Perry readily acknowledges, when there is national pressure to avoid council tax rises, politicians seek to contain increases. The increasing difficulty councils are having in collecting that tax is part of that pressure. That is one signal – and a very effective one – that tells the authorities that tax levels are too high. Elected politicians and – especially - officials and would prefer that their revenue-providers (aka citizens) confined their signals to approved channels, such as voting, which can be safely ignored, or funnelled into areas where the signal is so blurred that the message can be discounted. This means they tend to single out those who send non-approved signals, such as deliberate late-payers, imposing often illegal "fines" disguised as court fees incurred in recovery (for summonses and liability orders), and allowing their own recovery contractors (aka bailiffs) to impose punitive, and very often illegal collection fees. By this means, the system is able to levy "fines" at a level higher than most courts would apply for quite serious criminal offences, and also impose custodial sentences more severe than would be imposed on violent criminals. And, most often, the "fines" are directed at those least able to pay, or those less equipped to handle their financial affairs. On this basis, the Orwellian Council Leader, Mr Ferris Cowper is wholly wrong. The more people there are who resist council tax, and who make it difficult for councils to collect, the lower overall tax levels will remain. This is the hissing geese theory of taxation, and there is no better one. Thus does, of course, marginally increase local authority costs, but that is part of the cost of democracy. Just as there is a cost involved in holding elections – and increasingly popular "consultation" exercises, to legitimise that which the authorities intended to do anyway – so there will be a necessary cost to tax collection, the expense of which is part of the democratic process, in restraining the excesses of our rulers. To assert. therefore, that willing taxpayers reduce bills, is an establishment myth – it is a classic "Orwellian inversion", the exact opposite of the truth. COMMENT THREAD Richard North 24/07/2013 |
Thursday, 25 July 2013
Posted by Britannia Radio at 07:06