Actually it was a much cheerier gathering than I expected: usually the Tories have a leader who embarrasses them, but this year they have no leader and everyone’s full of beans.
– Eamonn Butler at the Conservative Party Conference
|
|||||
|
We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people. Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house] Authors
Arts, Tech & CultureCivil LibertiesCommentary
EconomicsSamizdatistas |
Samizdata quote of the dayOctober 5th, 2005 |
 29 comments to Samizdata quote of the day |
Who Are We?The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling. We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe. CategoriesArchivesFeed This PageLink Icons   |
|||
All content on this website (including text, photographs, audio files, and any other original works), unless otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons License. |
|||||
…it was a much cheerier gathering than I expected…
Perhaps they were laughing their heads off at the comedy economics being served up by Butler and Minford.
if you cut taxes by 10 per cent, you add 4 per cent onto the rate of economic growth….the learned prof says it makes the difference of £60bn on the public budget.
Does the ‘learned prof’ have a theory about what damage to liberty and economic growth the government will do when it has an extra £60bn to wreak havoc with?
The people I was with at the Redwood-Richards meeting yesterday were not “full of beans” we were deeply depressed at the increase in the size and scope of E.U. power – making any effort to reduce the size and scope of government here (by winning an election) doomed before we start.
Later in the day I went to a meeting with Bill Cash and others. The simple legal principle (vitally needed to counter the activities of the E.U. Court and others) that the British Parliament can overide the orders of the E.U. (for example the orders of the E.U. court or the orders of E.U. officials) has not been supported by any of the five candidates for leader of the Conservative party.
On Mr Coulam’s point: Yes the best you will get is someone (like Mr Davis) saying “more money is not the answer” when talking about government efforts in health, education and other such.
Unlike Mr Coulam I rather like the “flat tax” idea, but if the point of it is to put MORE money in the hands of government (to be spent on the “public services”) then I am not interested.
On public spending generally all people will say is that they will (quite rightly) try and cut the vast increase in the number of administrators – the key moral point that government should not dominate (by its spending of money it gains from taxing, borrowing and fiat expansion) such areas as health and education at all, is not something that is heard in the Conservative party.
This might not matter if Britain (like so many Western nations) was not heading towards fiscal meltdown, but (partly hidden by Mr Brown’s Enron style book keeping) this is exactly where we are heading.
It’s not as simple as that. Predictably enough.
As long as the various Europe acts remain in force, European law has precedence over British law because that is one of the things explicitly stated in them, and therefore Parliament cannot override the orders of the EU. Parliament CAN, of course, repeal the various Europe acts, and THEN it can override European orders. However, repealing the acts would mean leaving the EU.
So, in order for the candidates to accept the point, they’d have to be saying that they would withdraw from Europe, or at best renegotiate. I think it is somewhat unlikely any of them are going to say this, don’t you?
EG
Hope the smell wasn’t too bad then.
Hope the smell wasn’t too bad then.
Paul and Paul-
Government temorarily having more money as a result of increased growth is not necessarily a bad thing in the short term – especially if it spends the money to do things like pay down debts (rather than, say, prop up welfare programs). What matters, ultimately, is how much of the economy it’s siphoning off. If increased government revenue is the result of a larger economy and government’s cut from that economy has either remained the same or fallen off, then there’s no harm in principle (just, of course, that we’d prefer they not use it as an excuse to start more spending schemes, which they invariably end up doing…). If this is what sells a more equitable tax to the average voter, then let the politicians present it that way.
Unlike Mr Coulam I rather like the “flat tax” idea, but if the point of it is to put MORE money in the hands of government (to be spent on the “public services”) then I am not interested.
Yes, this is the problem. Whenever one hears one of these ASI brainboxes arguing for a ‘flat tax’ it is always to address those who seek power and it is to tell them how much more money they can have if they ‘flatten’ taxes. In so far as ‘flat’ means ‘low’ fine but at some point (no doubt the ‘learned prof’ Minford can tell us exactly when) the lowering of taxes will result in less plunder for the state or ‘a hole in the public budget’ if one prefers the genteel cant of the ASI. At this point the power seekers will no doubt lose interest in the ‘learned prof’s’ arguments. (Those of us who are really ‘sound’ lost interest in them a long time ago.)
Of course, that the government might spend this money on ‘public services’ is the least of our worries, (no doubt there are lots of exciting new wars that can have reasons trumped up to justify them) but even from the ‘learned prof’s’ own purblind frame of reference that extra £60bn will buy a lot of extra growth stifling bureaucracy at home or in the EU and will pay for a lot of extra jobsworths to enforce it.
We are lead to believe that a ‘flat tax’ will mean an end of such ‘unproductive’ occupations as private tax accountancy. But, like a bubble under the kitchen lino, they will just pop up elsewhere as we sack our accountants and instead rehire them as personnel officers and race awareness outreach co-ordinators after they have retrained, of course and no doubt at taxpayers expense, to fit in with the glorious new high growth flat tax future.
It is obvious to all but the cleverclogs at the ASI that government will keep on expanding to soak up all the spare cash available but instead of pushing a radical anti-statist agenda they fill their public utterances with exciting talk of how to raise extra cash for it.
And to keep the less wary libertarians on board they always make sure to add this bit of wishful-thinking sop on the end:
It’s amazing but true: cut taxes and you soak the rich, and pocket more cash – allowing you the leeway to cut the most damaging taxes even more.
Yes, that would be amazing.
Paul, you make a good point. Often the flat-tax or supply side case is made on the grounds that cuts to marginal rates increase revenues, which is – in the eyes of the State – a Good Thing. But of course the proper case is that tax cuts are morally justified in that it reduces the thievery of the State. But like you I suspect none of the Tory leadership candidates is likely to argue such a case.
Euan is probably right on the EU point. I see no chance of serious reduction in the impact of the EU without a willingness by a government to argue and press for renegotiation or outright withdrawal.
A point is being missed with the ASI proposals for a flat tax which involve a tax free allowance of £12,000 and 22% after that. The £60bn is what opponents suggest would have to be cut from public spending to fund such a tax cut and I would suggest that what Minford et al are saying is that the extra economic growth would cover this shortfall so that public spending remains the same in cash terms while as a percentage of gdp it will fall, there will be no immediate “extra”. As the economy grows the amount in cash terms available to the government will increase, but that happens at the moment, do we want 0% economic growth as a means to limit government spending? I personally believe it is a well reasoned and well researched idea by the ASI and certainly not worthy of being dismissed as “comedy economics”.
Getting the former necessitates a readiness to carry out the latter. There’s no sense in any government going to Europe to demand renegotiation without it. What if Brussels calls their bluff? I cannot see any plausible British government any time soon being willing to pull out.
I think it should also be remembered that there are bad as well as good reasons for withdrawal. If the intent is to institute some sort of isolationist autarky, I don’t see how this is preferable. And it’s not a simple thing, either – around half of our trade is with the EU, and being outside we’d suddenly face the need to pay duty, which isn’t going to help that much. These things can be dealt with, but nobody should delude themselves that it’s just a case of “cheerio, Jean Crapaud” and suddenly everything is perfect and wonderful.
EG
I think Mr Gray has missed the point. Declaring that Parliament could repeal the powers granted to the E.U. is not the same thing as actually doing so.
For myself, yes I would support taking the powers back. As the E.U. nations sell us far more than we sell them (sorry for this balance of trade stuff – but silly as it may be it is how people think) there is little force in a threat of trade santions. The agreement of a free trade agreement (and no more) with the E.U. is therefore not difficult (IF politicians have the guts to get one).
However, the point of the E.U. Constitution (which, in spite of being voted down, is being implemented bit by bit) is to declare that E.U. law is superior to “member State” law NOT because of some Act of Parliament (such as the European Communities Act of 1973), but simply because it is superior.
It is the doctrine of the “primacy” of the Constitution of the E.U. and of the judgements of such things as the E.U. court.
Already the E.U. court has ruled (in line with its mission of ever greater union) that under the doctrine of “direct applicability” officers of the E.U. and indeed officers of other E.U. states may enforce E.U. orders within a member state (such as the United Kingdom) without having to act via that member states government.
This is seperate from the doctrine that the E.U. may order a member state government to do things (in terms of domestice policy – not trade) that it does not wish to do – such as the recent E.U. court judgement that the United Kingdom govenment must pay for the medical treatment (in another member state) of anyone who has had to wait “too long” for government medical treatment in the United Kingdom.
To formally declare (by a one page Act of Parliament) that the Parliament of the United Kingdom reserves the right to repeal any Act of Parliament granting powers to the E.U. and that BY SO DOING these powers would no longer exist is, therefore, the absolute minimum one would expect – after all (as Mr Gray points out) it used to be a common place of law that Parliment may revoke any powers granted to the E.U. if it wishes to do so – it is this that the E.U. court (and the rest of the enity) is getting closer and closer (stage by stage) to denying.
However, Mr Gray is correct about my own beliefs. No person who is interested in the constitutional independence of the United Kingdom and therefore (amongst other things) the ability to roll back the state if Parliament can be convinced to do so, can tolerate a position where an enity (such as the E.U.) may tell the Parliment of the United Kingdom what it must spend money on (in health or anything else) or what regulations must be imposed on goods and services sold domestically or to third party nations. Let alone all the other things that the E.U. now declares it has the power to do.
The E.U. as a free trade area – fine. The E.U. as a new government which reduce the Parliament at Westminster to the status of a parish council (as Mr Clarke boasted was the intention) is not fine.
However, simply declaring (formally declaring) that the Parliament in Westminster can (if it wishes) remove any and all power from the E.U. over the United Kingdom is surely something Mr Gray would agree with.
It is odd that none of the five candidates for the leadership of the Conservative party will support this.
Would Mr Gray please state a single power he would take back from the E.U.? A single E.U. regulation (out of the 80 thousand plus pages of them) that he would remove?
If Mr Gray says “I would take no power back at all – as to do so would mean leaving the E.U., which I am not prepared to do” then it would be clear where he stands. As the E.U. is using the power granted by the existing treaties (as interpreted by the E.U. court) to extend its control to all aspects of life, the position will soon be that elections to the Parliament in Westminister are a fraud only held to decieve the people of this country.
It may be that Mr Gray is correct – that it really is “in or out” (in which case, of course, only a rather odd person could support “in” i.e. membership at the price of slavery), however it is rather more likely that the E.U. would back down if faced with spirited opposition.
“No you can not do that. We are quite happy to trade with you, even for the goods and services we sell to people in your nations to come under all the regulations you see fit. But you can not tell us how we shall act in domestic affairs or in our dealings with third party nations”.
Goods and services produced for domestic use or for sale to third party nations (let alone general regulations and government spending in various other aspects of national life) are simply not the E.U.s business.
As for the danger of modern British judges siding with the E.U. – well that is what impeachments are for. A trial in Parliament would be a nice thing to visit, I rather doubt there would be any need to execute any judges (although getting rid of the anti capital punishment “treaty” might be a nice gesture, just to get them a little concerned) – pro E.U. judges tend to be pragmatic types.
On the “flat tax” – which is really the “flat rate tax”. The idea was first that it be “revenue neutral” at least after a few years.
Even this is unfortunate (as a purpose of tax reductions is for the state to have less money), however as simpler taxes are also a gain for the population I would support the move.
It is only if the objective is for the government to gain more money and that this money would be spent on the public services (i.e. the welfare state bottomless pit) that I might move to a more hostile position.
This is because, as “the other Paul” has pointed out, such government spending is a bad thing in its self – creating more dependancy (for healthcare, education and so on) and more government employees.
Oddly enough I might still favour the flat rate tax – just because it would upset the Guardian readers so much (even if it meant that there were even more Guardian readers due to an increase in revenue then spent on further boosting the government payroll).
I suppose the perfect way of dealing with problem is to go for a flat rate of tax that we could be certain would not boost the government revenue.
Say 10% – a big boost to the economy (but not enough to make up for the loss of revenue). And no excuse to “take the poor out of taxation”.
If the poor (who include me) can vote for how income tax is spent they can pay a 10% income tax the same as anyone else.
“We want the vote” ought to be matched by “we will pay for the results of the vote”. After all the tax is still a percentage – there is no question of a “poll tax” here.
Mr Gray claims that “over half our trade is with the E.U.” actually far less than half of our exports go to E.U. nations (a common mistake is to include stuff that goes to E.U. ports only to be shipped somewhere else).
Nor does this explain why the E.U. should be allowed to control goods and services produced for domestic consumption or for sale to people in third party nations.
Nor (of course) does this explain why the E.U. should be allowed to control so many other aspects of people’s lives (as it is now seeking to do).
“They will hit our trade if we put up any resistance” does not stand up, as (to use the common language) “they sell us more than we sell them” (so they are hardly likely to play the trade sanctions game).
And it is a disgustingly cowardly argument anyway.
Paul Marks writes:
“And it is a disgustingly cowardly argument anyway.”
It is. And it’s deeply telling that even after Europhile propaganda has been rebutted time and again, the same tired old arguments continue to be trotted out at every opportunity.
I suspect that the theory is, if they keep on repeating the same untruths and distortions, people will eventually believe them.
It’s not necessary. Parliament is legally supreme and cannot be bound by the decision of an earlier Parliament. A treaty is another matter, though, since Parliament does not ratify treaties – the power to do this lies with the Crown, exercised by the PM. However, the power to abrogate treaties similarly lies with the Crown.
I think if we surrender power by Act of Parliament, we can recover it by repealing the Act. If we surrender power by treaty, then we can recover it by asking Brenda to say that one has changed one’s mind.
I don’t think it is technically possible, at least in law, for the British (read English) system of government to permanently and irrevocably cede authority to someone else. Pragmatically it’s different, of course, but I think the law is clear enough.
And let’s make sure the EU constitution, if we ever have one, has a secession clause in it, just to be sure.
Not really, when you consider the past decade of internecine warfare over the question of Europe.
Perhaps thankfully, I am not intimately acquainted with the 80,000 pages of rules and regulations so I am unable to specify a particular one. I don’t believe, though, that it is possible to pick and choose the powers in question.
I don’t see that there’s a half-way house that really means anything. Norway, for example, is not a member of the EU but is part of EFTA – but to enjoy those benefits, it has to implement almost all the EU regulations anyway, so I don’t see the advantage.
I think there are two possible courses of action that would be in the British interest:
1. Remain in the EU and ensure it enlarges as rapidly as possible. The larger the EU gets the more difficult it is to have complex detailed rules that apply all over it, and we can see this in the recent debacle over the constitution, questions on tax harmonisation, etc. AIUI, enlargement has been British state policy since we joined, pretty much for that reason.
2. Withdraw completely from the EU and EFTA and negotiate a mutual free trade agreement with the EU as a sovereign state.
However appealing the second option sounds, it depends on Britain maintaining a sound economic policy. Without the pressure from the EU, this is not so certain. If we could be sure of having appropriate governments, I’d say 2 is best. But we can’t, and this makes it difficult. I suppose you have to take a chance, and on balance I’d say the POTENTIAL rewards of exit are higher than those of remaining within. But that can change.
True enough as long as we’re outside EFTA as well as the EU. Otherwise, that’s simply not on the table.
British judges apply the law that runs in Britain. Today, quite a bit of that is EU law. It’s hardly treason to apply the law.
I actually said AROUND half. And I meant imports as well as exports. A quick Google to verify shows that most say somewhere around 50% includes imports, exports and services.
I didn’t mean to imply that, and in any case don’t believe it. The point is that a very large proportion of our trade is with the EU – well over twice the proportion that is with NAFTA states, BTW – and so the matter requires careful consideration.
EG
The point is that a very large proportion of our trade is with the EU – well over twice the proportion that is with NAFTA states
Yes, this is inevitable when imports from the EU are free of duty and those from outside have tariffs slapped on them, EU produced goods gain an advantage and trade patterns are distorted. Our membership of the EU creates the situation where the EU becomes all important to our trade, the importance of the EU in this regard can never be fairly assessed unless we have free trade with everyone, at which point we may find factors such as culture and language prevailing over distance as drivers of trade. Until that time I don’t consider this particular Europhile arguement to be valid.
Aprt from during the Second World War I would expect that Britian’s trade with Europe has always been about twice that with the US. Having no internal trade barriers within the EU is unreservedly a good thing. Of course, leaving the EU would not mean that we had to errect trade barriers with the EU and would give us the freedom to end tariffs on all imports.
Yes, that’s true. But it is not a one-sided question and one does have to consider how the EU would react and how this would affect the British economy. I don’t for a moment think we would immediately get into a trade war with Europe, but it does need a little deeper thought. Leaving the EU would be a significant change for the British economy, in both good and bad ways. Ensuring that the effect of the good outweighs that of the bad requires reflection.
EG
Euan
Not true. Less than 50% of our foreign trade is with the EU. As Paul Marks says, the figure is distorted by trade with non-EU countries being counted as trade with the EU when goods are moved via (say) Rotterdam. In any case, this counts for less than a half of one per cent of our trade. Some 99% of our trade is internal, within Great Britain.
That tariffs will will be placed on our goods if we leave the EU is an old canard. The free trade cat has well and truly ascaped the bag. Last year some 2.5million new cars were sold in Great Britain, many of which were imported from EU countries. Those manufacturers, to name just a few, will not sit by idly and watch a bunch of politicians on both sides of the Channel bash each other around in a trade war.
What the hell does that mean?! You surely aren’t serious that we need the EU to maintain sound economic policies in the UK? What spineless drivel is this?
This morning is was reported that a European Court (I neither know or care which court it was – and it could also be, these days, a British court ruling in line with Euro doctrines) has declared that convicted criminals may not have their “right to vote” removed.
It is not just a British practice to not allow convicted felons to vote of course (otherwise a certain election in the United States in 2000 might have gone the other way), but it is a British practice.
Is Mr Gray really saying that we must submit to be being told who can and who can not vote here because “they will hurt our trade” or (to use his own words) “it must be a matter of serious consideration”?
I know that Mr Gray is not a fanatical supporter of human freedom and (of course) many great philosophers (from Plato onwards) would support Mr Gray’s doubts about such things – but surely you have some national pride?
How can it be “a matter of serious consideration” which we both know is code for “we must fall on our faces before our masters”.
This is not libertarianism, it is about standing up for Britain.
As you have been told many times (to use common language) “they sell us more than we sell them” so trade sanctions are hardly likely. But even if they were, this should have nothing to do with the matter.
On Norway – no being a member of the E.E.A. does not mean that they have to obey E.U. regulations dealing with goods and services produced for domestic consumption or for sale to people in third party nations.
And what has the “right to vote” for convicted felons (and all the rest of it) got to do with trade anyway?
The various international entities (from the E.U. to the U.N. and including the various international courts) are trying the take power after power over people’s lives and they must be told to go jump in the lake.
I meant around 50% of our FOREIGN trade goes to or comes from the EU. I would have thought it blindingly obvious that I meant foreign trade since it’s hard to have internal trade with foreign states.
As for the 50%, this seems to be a commonly accepted figure. It seems that in 1997, for example, the split actually was about 50:50. Eurofacts apparently stated in 1998 that 7% of UK trade going to the EU was in transit to destinations outside the EU. This would represent 7% of the 50% of our FOREIGN trade, or 3.5% of the total FOREIGN trade. Therefore, the proportion of British foreign trade going to the EU and NOT simply in transit would be 46.5%. Close enough to say “around half.”
Then again, one might also ask how much of the American trade coming into Britain is in transit to other EU states.
I agree. What part of “I don’t for a moment think we would immediately get into a trade war with Europe” is giving you difficulty?
Although it is highly improbable that we would face immediate high duty if we were outside the EU and EFTA, it is equally not a given that we would not face any duties. Other countries have negotiated free trade agreements with the EU, so we could too. But I don’t think you can say that we’d be given it automatically. Negotiation would be required, for sure.
No, but if we are in the EU, we do, whether you think so or not, have legal obligations under the treaties of Maastricht and Amsterdam to operate our economy in the wider interests of the EU and on a free and open market basis. Consult the treaties yourself if you doubt it.
If we left, naturally we wouldn’t face these obligations. However, the record of the past 60 years indicates that Britain is by no means immune to economic insanity amongst its governors, and a glance at the economic preferences of much of the current Labour and LibDem parties shows the danger is far from over. The assumption that an independent Britain would inevitably conduct state fiscal and macroeconomic policy on a sensible basis is, whilst hardly lunacy, not exactly guaranteed to be accurate.
You may be sanguine about this, I’m not. I concede I may be making too much of it, but I have serious doubts.
No, for goodness’ sake. But as I said above, I don’t think there’s a third option and it is in or out. If we’re in, we have to accept the whole deal. That means, in this case, their diktat about who can vote.
Nice to be in distinguished company 🙂
Yes, but I don’t go for the “my country, right or wrong” stuff. I prefer “standing up for British interests” to “standing up for Britain,” which are not quite the same things.
It may be for you, but for me I mean what I say – which is that we must think about it and not simply follow the jerk of our knee.
Not quite as simple as that: membership of EEA (and my mistake, I meant EEA and not EFTA, I do know they are different things) does entail the incorporation of much of EU regulation. An extract from the Europa website on the EEA:
So a fair amount of EU regulation is still going to be needed if the country wants to join EEA, and some of it does relate to domestic concerns.
Does anyone, anywhere still pretend that the EU is just a trade agreement?
EG
I may well have totally misunderstood Mr Gray’s position here (if I have I apologize).
If he is saying “I would not bother talking to the E.U. I would simply get out” then I do apologize.
I would say “we accept your power to levy regulations on goods and services sold to people in your member nations (although we wish you would not do this), and we will even pay our share of your staff’s pay and pensions (as a gesture of good will), but we will not accept any other power you may now have over us – if you wish to call this “associate membership”, a “free trade agreement” or anything else you wish, that is fine by us”.
Of course this would involve putting the existing treaties to the flames (I would add some of the treaties we have signed with the U.N. and U.N. agencies). But I would prefer to do this by polite talks – there is not need to upset anyone.
If Mr Gray is saying “no, I will not accept the indignity of talking to these people – we must simply leave at once” then I have some sympathy for his position (I feel like that some of the time myself).
However, if Mr Gray is saying we must accept all 80, 000 pages of regulations from the E.U. plus the new orders (on all aspects of life) that they are issuing every day, well that is not acceptable.
Sorry, this is a matter of “knee jerk” – there is nothing worth “considering” when dealing with people who wish to enslave this country.
I do not care that many of the European officals are cultured people – so were Philip II and Louis XIV (Louis offered us “free trade but” as well – if only we would accept all Colbert’s regulations all would be well).
If they were ten times as cultured they would still have no right to rule this nation.
Free trade and civil relations with all people overseas, rule over us by none.
Paul Marks
No need to apologise to anyone. Euan Gray is up to his old tricks of flip-flopping about and changing his argument after you’ve rebutted his. It’s not possible to have a discussion with him.
Hey, guess what, everybody: Euan Gray’s initials are EG. He’s been trying to keep it secret but he just can’t help typing them at the end of every comment, and I spotted them!
Paul,
I fear you *have* misunderstood.
I say there is no half-way house. We are either in the EU as at present or we withdraw completely, including EEA. This is the choice.
If we are out, we still need to deal with the EU. We cannot ignore it. Because the EU forbids member nations making their own sovereign trade agreements, we have to deal with it on trade as if it were a sovereign power. We would then say to them, effectively, “we acknowledge your competence to levy duty on imports but you must acknowledge that you have no authority over our internal arrangements just as we have none over yours. Now let’s talk about whether or not you’re going to levy duty.” We cannot just walk away in a snot and demand that the EU treat us as a sensible sovereign state and gives us what we want. They simply won’t, and I don’t expect you’d argue that any country should treat Britain like that.
I quite accept that it is very unlikely that the EU would instantly impose the full rate of duty on us, and I am quite sure we could easily negotiate a mutual free trade deal. But to do that, we have to be civilised and we have to talk. We have to recognise that Europe COULD levy duty. As a sovereign entity it is empowered by its founding treaties to do so, and whether or not we like those treaties, whether or not we think the EU members states are sensible for remaining inside, we have to accept that they ARE inside and they HAVE granted the EU the authority. We cannot negotiate individually with France, Germany at al., because they are legally prohibited from doing that as long as they are members of the EU.
Now, as for the regulations. If we leave the EU/EEA there is no need whatsoever for us to apply any of them, irrespective of whether or not we have a free trade deal with the EU. Mexico and Israel have free trade deals with the EU, but do not apply the regulations. The regulations ONLY apply if we are a member of the EU or the EEA.
OF COURSE this would mean putting the existing treaties (and the 80,000 pages of regulations) to the flames, as you put it. We would hardly leave the EU but still observe the treaties, now would we?
That’s if we leave. My main point was that before deciding whether we should leave, we should think about it seriously. Is that such an awfully difficult or strange concept – that before we make a fundamental change to the position of our country we should spend a moment in reflection?
I find it impossible to answer this egregious point without resorting to what would be wilfully taken as, but not meant to be, ad hominem. All I can say with civility is that (a) I think you get your definition of rebuttal from a different dictionary than I do and (b) this is far from the first time.
EG
Mr Gray if you do not understand (or pretend not to understand) that there is nothing to “consider deeply” concerning accepting 80,000 pages of regulations PLUS whatever else the Euro powers-that-be think up to control people’s lives (a lot of which has nothing to do with trade) then there is no point in talking to you.
For a man not to know what is going on is one thing, but a man who knows what is going on and still suggests doing nothing (which is what is meant by “consider deeply” – “no when I say consider deeply I mean consider deeply” – pull the other one, it has got bells on) is not acceptable.
I do not know whether you really believe what you write or not, but I no longer care.
There you are, now you can boast that you won the argument by making your opponent angry – bully for you.
I could add some ad hominem points and some nasty words – but I do not see the point.
Paul, why must you insist on wilfully misinterpreting my comments to suit the position you’d like to take? That’s a serious question.
I have NOT said we should consider carefully whether or not we should adopt 80,000 pages of regulations. I HAVE said we should consider whether or not we should remain in the EU – that is NOT the same thing. NOR have I proposed doing nothing – in fact I have said exactly what I think we should do, and is is NOT nothing.
Please show me where I stated directly that we should consider whether or not to adopt 80,000 pages of regulations? You can’t, because I have not said this. The fact that 80,000 pages of regulation is the price to be paid for EU membership, and that I advocate thinking about leaving before doing it DOES NOT MEAN that I am advocating that we think about adopting or not the regulations, although that is one of the results of the decision (although not the only one). The way you rephrase my argument for me puts an altogether different construction on it, one that was not meant and would not be put upon it by a reasonable person reading it, and that sort of intentional misrepresentation is plain wrong.
Please show me where I have suggested doing nothing. You can’t because again I have not said it. What on earth gives you the right to say that “consider carefully” means “do nothing?”
It is disingenuous and frankly dishonest of you to selectively bend my comments so that you can make your objection to a different thing that I am commenting on. It is EXTREMELY bad form.
EG
I would add that when you say:
you’re basically saying that we can only debate if I accept your point of view.
I invite you to consider most seriously whether that is a reasonable position to take.
EG
I often debate with people who do not share my point of view (and have learned much from them).
I am not interested in debating with YOU Euan.
You may consider that this is because of your deep honesty and great knowledge if you wish.
I often debate with people who do not share my point of view (and have learned much from them).
I am not interested in debating with YOU Euan.
You may consider that this is because of your deep honesty and great knowledge if you wish.