Ruth Lea (thanks to Perry for pointing this out to me) has what is a pretty good analysis of the upcoming regulatory juggernaut to hit the City out of Brussels. I won’t expand much further other than to say that without the City, the UK economy would be a shadow of what it is now. Of course, in the short run, the UK government has been content to let financiers make their big bucks because it pulls in so much taxable revenue. More fundamentally, however, London’s position as a great finance capital on the planet is not secure; while regulations like Sarbanes-Oxley have driven some US businesses to the UK, Brussels-generated laws could hamper the UK and drive that business outside the EU, although natural inertia and the benefits of London’s accumulated legal and financial expertise are strong assets. Never forget the Swiss. The weather is okay, the trains work, the Swiss mountains are great for skiing in the winter and although I am happily married, I have always rather admired their women. If you are a 30-something banker with no ties, London is not necessarily superior.
Of course, if the Scottish nationalists were not such lefties, they’d be playing the Adam Smith card and campaign to turn Edinburgh into a sort of tartan low-tax paradise, and take a leaf out of the Irish book on how to revive an economy (no, the Irish economy is not all about EU grants, in case anyone brings that one up).
Yes.
The former leader of the Scottish Nationalist Party tried to move them away from their statism – sadly he failed.
However, even he clung to the absurd contradicton of “independence in Europe” – which makes as much sense as being “dry, wet”.
Either Scotland is indepedent or it is ruled by the European Union. If the latter it is no more independent of European Union regulations than London is.
No doubt we will get the standard stuff about how it depends on how E.U. directives (and other such) are interpreted by British civil servants (I heard some of this from Mr Osborne this morning on the radio), but in the end it does NOT depend on this.
If one accepts membership of the E.U. and the jurisdiction of its “court” and other such, in the end they have the whip hand.
Lastly I hope that no one thinks that just because I am an Austrian school man, that I welcome regulations on City of London out of some perverse desire to see City people “punished” for the fiat money credit bubble.
Two wrongs do not make a right – in fact regulations just add another wrong to the existing wrong (i.e. they make things worse).
As for Switzerland.
You would not need to go so far if the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands were to make a formal declaration of independence.
It would go something like this (in the case of Guernsey):
“We fully accept Elizabeth as the rightful successor of Duke William – but we are not part of the United Kingdom (any more than Australia, New Zealand or Canada are) and we will have nothing to do with the United Kingdom government Home Office or any other department of state – you can take your demands for Human Rights Acts and other such and shove them where the Sun does not shine”.
This would also hold not just for the European Union (of which the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands are not members, but get hit over the head by because the British government acts as the E.U.s boy), but also for the European Declaration on Human Rights (which is older than the E.U.) and its “court” as well.
“But this means that the Isle of Man could have violent criminals whipped”.
Oh dear, how sad, never mind.
The Bailiwick of Guernsey used to be attacked (many years ago) for printing fiat money, but as the United Kingdom Pound is just fiat currency these days, this attack is no longer an argument against independence.
It would not be a wildly difficult matter to just (for example) declare the Guernsey Pound a totally seperate currency from the British Pound.
Shop keepers and so on could stil accept British Pounds as payment if they wished.
“But if the Channel Islands were independent their fish would plundered”.
The fishing grounds are already hit and the British government does nothing – so that is no argument against independence.
“But what about invasion”.
1940 – the Channel Islands were invaded and the British government did not defend them.
The connection with the United Kingdom is just a lead weight round the necks of both the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands.
They should keep Elizabeth as Head of State (as Australia, Canada and New Zealand do) but have nothing to do with the United Kingdom government – in financial services or anything else.
Then you would not have to go so far as Switzerland or speak German.
I would probably move there, if they’d take a long-haired radical libertarian computer programmer.
I would seriously consider Switzerland if I had enough $. Sadly, I do not, so, though I would like to, it is just a pipe dream for now, but no less an ambition!
I’d get my shooting skills in place and volunteer for civil defence if necessary.
Rich Paul,
Well, if they’d take a tech-support guy (who dabbles in HTML and a bit of programming) then why not. I’ll support your app if you do the same with me. Deal? Oh, I need a haircut too.
Paul Marks,
Oh, dear, oh dear. It’s come to this has it? Why can’t we live free in England? Oh why am I even saying something so foolish. I once read a book by a bloke called John Locke. He was English. Oh, Lordy Miss Claudy… Recall the BBC greatest Briton competion. Now I have nothing against the students of Brunel Uni bigging up their guy but Princess Diana – that is having a giraffe. I’m not sure Locke made the top 100 let alone the top ten. Yet he should have been second because for number one there is only one choice and he was from Lincolnshire.
What have we become when it is even a debatable issue whether some tart who once held a kid with AIDS is more important than the most significant human who ever drew breath. And Locke was pretty important too.
Yet, obviously it is vastly more important to be a photogenic princess than found empirical philosophy and liberalism.
Or even science.
If anyone has an argument against Newton please bring it on. I will fight it to the death.
I’d go to the Isle of Man or Guernsey, possibly, on the off chance that libertarian-leaning plods are needed. (Or on the even-more-off chance that I learn an honest trade when the question actually becomes for-real)
However, I have no desire to learn a fourth language, and so Switzerland is out. Never mind having no desire to live under Swiss gun laws, and does Switzerland have a national ID card or a requirement to register one’s address with police? So many countries on the continent do.
The Cantons of Switzerland vary Sunfish – Geneva (French speaking rather than German speaking) has all sorts of irritating regulations.
The best bits of Switzerland (from a small government point of view) tend to be German speaking and Roman Catholic.
Zug is most likely the most limted government Canton of all. Zug was always good, it did not plunder church property (as some Catholic as well as Protestant Cantons did) and even in the 18th century there was no serfdom in Zug or plundering of the farmers to make the price of food cheap in town – a common European practice at the time (although there was a nasty witch trial).
Sadly small government Cantons have to (under Swiss federal, sorry “confederal” [an example of why a name really does not make a difference] law) subsidize the big government Cantons (to avoid this nonsense one must go to Liechtenstein). And the Federal-Confederal government has been growing since 1874 (I am not wildly in favour of the 1848 Constitution either – but its defenders do point out that it established internal free trade).
The central government has grown in stages – 1848, 1874, early years of the 20th century (when they finally gained control of the railways and then gained control of civil law – and set up a central bank) then there were the gradaul introduction of so called “insurance programs” (although less than in most other European nations).
And of course World War II (Switzerland was not directly involved but the war had a big effect) – the war tax was a de facto central income tax (and it has never really gone away).
However, up to 1959 I would still say that Switzerland was a more libertarian place than the United States. Then the Social Democrats came into the ruling alliance of political parties – and government spending has grown a lot since then.
These days government spending in Switzerland is most likely about the same as it is in the United States (Federal, State and local), if not higher (as a percentage of G.D.P.).
However, I still like what I have heard of the place. It is less of a credit bubble for a start (and things like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are not part of the Swiss environment). Also law seems to make more sense – Swiss commercial law is not as good as it once was (such nonsense “crimes” as “insider trading” and “competition policy – anti trust” are starting to get a toe hold) but Swiss law is still better than American, English, or E.U. law (not that this is difficult).
There is even a Swiss gun control movement – the usual suspects (media, academics).
Rich Paul how dare you have long hair when I have to suffer baldness – this is a violation of social justice!
Of course, as neither of us believe in the absurd perversion that is “social justice” I do not really have a case against you.
It reminds me of Hartley’s novel “Facial Justice” (back in the 1950’s I think). Now if everyone who was better looking than me had to pay me compensation (or have their face smashed in) then I would be a wealthy man.
Since the comments seem to mostly be about where to move to get a libertarian society within Europe, (with English as the main language), has anybody seen 3ws europeanfreestate dot net? Seems like an interesting idea for anyone who is keen on liberty without having to move to New Hampshire.
I’m like the USA but I love Europe as a place to live but can the EFP actually work? It would need a hell of a lot more members than it has right now.
It had to happen sooner or later. The Government will be forced to fight this. The economy Labour’s built is entirely dependent on the City.
On the New Hampshire free State project I remember 2004 when Craig Benson lost “limited government people still hold the State Legislature” – and then came 2006.
And, no, I am not going to accept “it was all the Iraq war” or “New Hampshire Democrats are different”.
Remember the court judgement when it was ruled that a State wide property tax had to be imposed to hand more money to the government schools.
“No taxation without representation” (the John Locke point Nick M. would point to – i.e. even if you can have your money stolen without your individual consent, there still should be consent from someone the majority of people have elected) had been pissed on.
And what did the people of New Hampshire do? NOTHING.
Once the judges would have been dragged from their beds and covered in tar and feathers – but in these “civilized” days people just submitted.
That is when I lost faith in the citizens of New Hampshire (and this was long before Iraq).
As for the greatest Englisman:
I am old school – to me it is Alfred the Great (although his warrior Queen daughter – “the Lady of the Mercians” runs him close).
There can be no liberty if the population are plundered and enslaved by invaders – and Alfred saved England more than Winston Churchill did (at times Alfred was almost a “one man band” holding out in remote mashes).
Nor was Alfred an Anglo Saxon purist. His tutor was Welsh and he (unlike his grandson) always regarded Britions as the equals of the English.
He even held out his hand to the Norse – including to enemies he had defeated in battle (when the normal behavour for the time, for both Pagan and Christain, was to torture your enemies to death).
Alfred refused to play by the rules of his time. He did not see why a King should not read and write books (or translate from Latin), he did not see why family members should betray each other (there was none of the brother against brother, father against son, that was common in other Royal families), and he did not see why he should not show honour to all (regardless of ethnic group, sex, or wealth). Indeed if the P.C. types knew any history they would honour him (or perhaps they would not).
Perhaps only such a person could get folk to follow him when all seemed lost.