Some say that membership of the Single Market, the ability to export without facing tariffs, is so important that we should accept the freedom of movement. My argument is exactly the opposite. I’m not against freedom of movement, regard it as being economically and morally useful in fact. But then some large percentage of my fellow Britons don’t think that way. My objection though is to the Single Market idea. For it isn’t just a system allowing tariff free exports. It’s an entire system for governing and regulating the participating economies.
Just as an example, one that rather boggled the mind this morning, there’re rules about when a supermarket can offer you free parking (that in itself will boggle the mind of many Americans, that parking must be paid for at a store?). If you go and buy whiskey, diapers and beef they can stamp your ticket, give you a voucher, and you get free parking. If your purchases include formula milk then they cannot stamp your ticket and you cannot get free parking. And yes, this is a result of an EU law. Must do wonders for adoptive mothers, those who simply do not produce enough milk and so on. But the entire ruling system of Europe thought this was important enough that there must be a law about it.
And the final sentence of Tim’s piece is the crunch argument for me as to why the Single Market is a cruel hoax (and Mrs Thatcher, who signed the Single European Act in 1986, kicked herself for not grasping this). We are told that to have access to the Single Market and the supposed benefits of such membership, “We” (Britain) “must” (because it says so, apparently) accept regulation of everything, down to the size of the plug on electric kettles, the rules governing sales of vitamins, the lot. And while no-one should have any illusions as to zeal with which local politicians in the UK might want to regulate these things, it is a million miles easier to resist such nonsense at the national level than at the supranational one, not least because MPs cannot hide behind the “Brussels made us do it and anyway we need to because of the Single Market” line they come out with.
Free of the EU, we are free of a great mass of legislative empire building that has, as such examples show, tiddly-squat to do with trade, commerce and entrepreneurship.
Of course, this debate does not touch on the fact that at the global, not European level, there are all manner of intergovernmental agreements and treaties that will continue to affect us in or out of the European Union. I can think, for example, of a global system coming into force called the Common Reporting Standard, a bland term that describes how scores of governments, ranging from the likes of Singapore to Germany, will swap financial data with one another to hunt down alleged tax evaders. And in one of those beautiful ironies, the US, home to Delaware, one of the most secretive legal jurisdictions on the planet, isn’t a signatory, and under Mr Trump, isn’t likely to be.
That Tim Worstall piece is quite misleading. There is an implication (plausibly deniable but it’s undoubtedly there) that some EU rule stipulates that supermarkets have to charge for parking, which is simply untrue. Many supermarkets offer free parking as a matter of course and you can buy whatever the hell you want and avail of that free parking. But in cases where the normal situation is that parking has to be paid for (a commercial decision on the part of the supermarket, shopping centre or whatever), then offering a refund of the parking fee when a customer spends more than a certain amount in the supermarket (or shopping centre or whatever) is considered to be a promotional offer and there is an EU rule that forbids promotional offers on formula milk. Concretely, that means that if you have to spend let’s say £10 to get the parking fee refund, then formula milk (and a couple of other things including cigarettes I think) can’t count towards the £10. But as long as all the other stuff you’ve bought comes to at least £10, then buying formula milk on top of that doesn’t mean that you won’t get your parking fee back (and if that’s what Tesco are doing it’s because they’ve messed up the programming of their tills).
Now, you can have an entirely separate argument about whether there should be any rules at all determining that promotions cannot be offered on certain categories of products but that argument needs to be conducted honestly and this sort of misleading tabloid-level sensationalism is simply not honest.
This is a report from the Independent on the carparking case and of how EU law affects supermarkets’ pricing policy. It may well be that the EU is not “forcing” such bans on free parking, but it is clearly influencing pricing policy and that its actions can be seen as a burden. So AFT, I am not sure your claim of Worstall being misleading in this case works.
@Jonathan Pearce
I followed your link and I see nothing in that Independent report that contradicts anything I wrote above. If a business offers car parking facilities at a price, then not charging for those facilities where customers meet certain conditions (in this case, a minimum spend) is a promotional offer.
As I said, you can have a debate about the rights and wrongs of rules on what can and cannot be promoted but it has to be conducted honestly. This case has nothing to do with any rules about supermarket car parks.
Well I did.
So Tim Worstall is entirely correct and the reason Tesco could not count the product towards the parking voucher was because of UK law mandated by EU law. It would be hard to overstate the sheer absurdity of the state (or super-state) regulating such minutiae.
AFT, as Perry has pointed out by going to the section of the Indy’s story, the role of the EU in interfering in this way, and having the effect cited, is not in doubt. The person was unable to get free parking on account of a purchase that did not attract special dispensation from the EU.
Quote from Worstall over at his blog: Many stores offer free parking, or a parking refund, to customers who spend a minimum amount. This counts as a promotion – something not allowed on formula milk under the Infant Formula and Follow-on Formula Regulations (2007), an EU directive .
Yes, I know that there is no such thing as “free” parking – the point is that the commercial decision of a firm is being influenced by such rules.
AFT, assume you are right and there is just an EU law that forbids promotions on formula milk and it has been misused. Is this at all sensible ? It’s interfering of the highest degree ; both my two were breast fed but some women can’t produce the milk or breast feed, and some want to work and maybe can’t expel.
Formula is only a problem in countries which don’t have easy access to clean water ; it’s the water that’s the problem not the formula.
You can have a debate about the rights and wrongs of rules on what can and cannot be promoted but it has to be conducted honestly.
AFT, the “rules of what can and cannot be promoted” are exactly what we are debating here. The parking issue is purely incidental and no one would even be talking about this story if it was merely a question of how much parking costs.
The point is that EU regulations are actively seeking to punish people who buy baby formula. And if they’ll do that, for a product that is not frivolous, not dangerous to public health, and is certainly “needed” by a not inconsiderable number of people for very good reasons, which of your favorite products will be next on the list?
Hmm, it looks more like an over-zealous jobsworth interpretation of the rules by Tesco, much as rent-a-cop security guards enjoy trying to restrict photography.
What the EU regulation actually says (article 10.2):
“There shall be no point-of-sale advertising, giving of samples or any other promotional device to induce sales of infant formula directly to the consumer at the retail level, such as special displays, discount coupons, premiums, special sales, loss-leaders and tie-in sales.”
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=uriserv%3AOJ.L_.2016.025.01.0001.01.ENG
It’s quite a stretch to interpret a blanket “promotion” covering all goods bought in a store as “a promotional device to induce sales of infant formula”. Tesco are clearly in the wrong here & should apologise and revise forthwith.
I know from this blog’s perspective, the whole “prevent baby formula promotion” probably seems like unwarranted state/superstate intervention in what you think should be a completely free market, but from the perspective of many less doctrinal folk, this is not an unreasonable rule.
As for taking the DoH’s word, they’re clearly scoring political points in the service of glorious brexit.
AFT is just a pedant who has allowed an alleged error (which it isn’t) to obscure the basic issue at stake. In fact, the more I think about this supposedly minor matter, the more fucking annoyed I am about it.
@Jonathan Pearce
You’ve quoted from his blog. I’m talking about the Forbes piece. And I’m talking about how he’s conducting the argument, not about the issue of regulations on baby formula.
btw, the anti-promotion initiatives are presumably in reaction to a long history of formula companies promoting their product in lieu of breast milk:
http://www.nytimes.com/1981/12/06/magazine/the-controversy-over-infant-formula.html?pagewanted=all
I’m not a pedant (well, I can be on occasion but not here). I just think that it’s rarely a good idea to accuse the enemy of eating babies if there’s enough real stuff to accuse them of.
Well we’ve all scoffed the occasional baby, AFT
@AFT… Slaying a Straw Man.
“There is an implication (plausibly deniable but it’s undoubtedly there) that some EU rule stipulates that supermarkets have to charge for parking,”
No there is not. You use the phrase ‘have to’, Mr Worstall says ‘when’, he might also have said ‘if’.
There is nothing implicit that supermarkets ‘have to’ charge for parking: his article has nothing to do with supermarket parking charges, but about EU rules regarding promotions on baby milk formula.
And the issue is the customer bought only milk formula.
AFT – Have you not considered that every time somebody has to read, interpret, think about, see if it applies, see if someone is falsely saying that it applies, all that and a few things I’ve no doubt not included contribute to the cost of this EU regulation including the cost of me, in the US, looking up the underlying facts to try to make sense of it all.
It’s all dead weight loss because there is no benefit to this rule in the first place and even the very discussion we have over this, on both sides, contributes to making us all poorer.
@John B
Let’s take the relevant section bit by bit:
…there’re rules about when a supermarket can offer you free parking…
This is the opener, the attention-grabber, and it’s classic ‘straight banana’ territory.
… (that in itself will boggle the mind of many Americans, that parking must be paid for at a store?…
Note the use of must be when might have to be would be more appropriate.
… If you go and buy whiskey, diapers and beef they can stamp your ticket, give you a voucher, and you get free parking. If your purchases include formula milk then they cannot stamp your ticket and you cannot get free parking.
This is simply not true (unless Tesco have programmed their tills to make it impossible to give the refund/voucher if baby formula is part of the transaction, which has nothing to do with EU regulations). The EU rules mean that the cost of baby formula cannot count towards the minimum spend required to avail of the offer.
For the last time (as I’m in banging-head-against-wall territory here), my issue is with the use of a particular rhetorical technique that, in the long term, is counter-productive because it sets people’s bullshit alarms ringing and devalues the argument being made, however valid that argument may be. Have a nice day all.
🙂
I believe AFT’s premise–you can have a debate about the rights and wrongs of rules on what can and cannot be promoted but it has to be conducted honestly–is fundamentally wrong yet it is representative of how many people reason about regulation.
AFT desires that we view the supermarket parking charge/refund as a particular instance of the general category “regulation of promotion,” and suggests (implies) that the honest debate he wants us to have center on the legitimacy of that category. I assume AFT’s position would be that if we decide the category is not per se illegitimate, then we can’t find this particular occurrence of it illegitimate, because it has as its essence the quality of that category which we have just (it is assumed) agreed is legitimate. And if we attempt to deny the entire category, it is just too easy to find examples of egregious or fraudulent misbehavior that he would argue we are somehow justifying if we deny the category.
This kind of argument is more frequently (by me, anyway) seen in the form of: Me: I object to the EPA defining the puddles in my yard after a rain as “bodies of water” subject to their regulatory regime. Other person: Oh, so you want to go back to the days where companies could dump toxic waste anywhere they wanted to with impunity?!
Within any accepted category of regulation there comes a point where further ramification of the regulatory regime exacts a toll on human liberty and initiative that exceeds the marginal benefit from further densification of the regime. That point cannot be defined mathematically but requires human judgment and restraint. Yet institutions established for the purpose of regulating an area of activity cannot be expected to exercise that sort of restraint for the same reason that a man cannot be expected to screw his own pelvis to a cake stand.
If you want to know why there aren’t more libertarians – this thread is a good exemplar.
Debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin instead of pointing out that the angels are actually demons and the pin is inserted somewhere sensitive. Although I guess, I’ve fallen into the same trap. Oh.
I think that I get where AFT is coming from. If we want to condemn the EU for petty interference in our lives, it is important that we have the facts straight and are not accusing them of stuff that, when you pick the story apart, isn’t actually true. Others are saying that the fine detail is less important than the fact that such a petty rule is even there at all, especially as they seem to have decided that formula baby milk is unsuitable for the proles to use without some kind of sanction. I think it is possible that both positions are correct.
@Stonyground
Thank you. You indeed get where I’m coming from.
I think AFT only counters the misleading part in Tim Worstall piece.
In Portugal most if not all supermarkets have free parking. I personally have not seen one that is paid but it is possible that it exists.
Hate to say this, but AFT is correct in his (unwilling) defence of the EU – they did not say what Tim Worstall says they said, but instead what AFT points out is correct. That is, that you can get free parking if you buy formula so long as you buy other things.
None of which is to say that this sort of insance government interference in free commerce is not immoral and stupid.
Jon,
Is more libertarians a good thing anyway? Surely the aim of libertarians is to promote freedom, not become a popular movement (which tends to imply compliance with an ideal). Although I am in favour of a society that spends all of its time arguing over minor points because it means no-one can do real damage to others, so maybe we should be encouraging more libertarians after all…
“I am in favour of a society that spends all of its time arguing over minor points”
Indeed, Watchman, that is essentially what I mean when I aver that “gridlock is good”. Getting nothing accomplished (in a political setting, anyway) is usually preferable to getting anything accomplished. I like divided, fractious, contentious government.
And that is because most less doctrinal people are credulous. Once you accept a “this choice is better for you than that choice” regulation, then anything, really anything, is up for grabs.
I like divided, fractious, contentious government.
Maybe. But culture precedes politics and having a twat like Obama in power, even if severely limited, still has significant negative effects. Anyone notice any racial healing recently? e.g. “Whitelash”
AFT, I also get where you were coming from (what Stonyground said), and I agree – I happened to read that quote the same way. Problem was that you overstated your case, and called the statement misleading (as if on the heart of the matter), rather than calling it what it was: technically imprecise. Having so overstated, you invited an over-impassioned response, and as a result your minor (but important) point got lost.
Everyone seems to be a bit on edge since Hitler reincarnated in the US, sporting a dead animal on top of his head instead of the proper comb-over and the tiny mustache. Oh well.
Johnnydub: severely limited?…
Well, no. That’s rather simplifying it. For instance most people will accept that they have to wear seat belts whilst in a car (or a helmet whilst riding a motorcycle), but would rise up against the government if it suggested banning alcohol. To portray it as an all or nothing situation is a tad melodramatic.
Doctrine often dictates that you have to adopt a philosophical position and follow it through regardless. That doesn’t seem to be the way this country has muddled through for the last x centuries, and whilst I will happily agree it’s very flawed, I don’t think a dose of absolutism would have improved anything. Other countries tried that. Overall, the muddle seems to have kept us much more stable.
(I can see the boiling a frog type argument, where you slowly remove liberties & eventually the placid people accept that they are no longer permitted to quaff pints, but I don’t think it’s a realistic possibility. You, I assume, feel otherwise)
No, it is to understand that it is best to keep the camel from getting its nose under the edge tent, or it is only a matter of time before you get a camel in your tent.
It is demonstrably true. If thirty years ago you suggested a widespread habit like smoking might be banned not just in privately owned restaurants but even in pubs, nightclubs and private membership clubs, most would have scoffed and said you as being an alarmist. How did that work out I wonder? It is now the new normal so that frog was utterly and completely boiled. Look also at the oil-slick like expansion of occupational licensing. God save us from sensible non-doctrinaire folk like you 😉
This is the point.
The so called “Single Market” is a con – it is not about Free Trade, it is about imposing external (and ever increasing) laws upon the British people, without their consent, controlling every aspect of economic life.
Independence means not accepting the laws of an external power in your internal affairs and in trade with third parties.
I reckon this was a trolling opening post.
Look at the discussion.
EU is good!
No! EU is bad!
Yes it is.
No it isn’t. (etc.)
One might as well debate the number of angels one can get on the head of a pin., or the state of the Emperor’s new clothes (both absurd propositions).
This seems to be becoming a tedious thread, but maybe Laird is right in suggesting that arguing over minor/inconsequential points might be a good/useful brake on undemocratic imbecility in the long run.
Essentially, it seems that Leavers value democracy, sovereignty and self-governance, whereas Remainers do not, and (thankfully for democracy) were in the minority and lost the Brexit Referedum vote. End of.
Get over it.
As we’re in the weeds and arguing minutiae, I’ll offer this:
With respect, that’s a little parochial. Here in Texas, while we are required to wear seat belts in our trucks, riders are free to ride their motorcycles without a helmet, if they so choose and many do. Personally, I wouldn’t, but for my own reasons and not because of any law. Although that’s somewhat academic – it’s been decades since I rode a bike and, despite advancing age, the mid-life crisis stubbornly refuses to kick in.
Single Market like heck.
The EU simply wants to replicate the United States Federal Government’s current position vis-a-vis the individual states.
Speaking from experience, I can say this with vigor and confidence: Run Away.
Another nitpick. Is it not the case that Norway is in the Single Market, but does not enjoy tarriff-free access to the EU, and vice-versa?
Heh, fair point. I suppose there was a case to be made (re occupational hazard) vis-a-vis the smoking and how it affected others who were not smoking, which does not apply to drinking, but I’ve no doubt the puritans and busybodies have their eyes on that target too. I’m not however convinced that being outside the EU will have much effect at all on such things; most of the restrictions on drinking and generally having a good time which we see in this country are very much home grown, and one can observe other parts of the EU where such puritanism & restrictive behaviour are not in vogue (vis: Berlin, or pretty much any major city in Western Europe for that matter).
There is always a case to be made for anything – both pro and contra. That’s not the point, though.
There was a case to be made…..
I’ve been led to understand that a scorpion needing a lift across the pond made a PERFECTLY good case to a frog that was …you know…going that way ANYWAY…
AN extra fee (tax) if you DON’T purchase the RIGHT kind of product?
Sounds almost like an Affordable Health Care Payment Insurance Plan!
That’s OK, somehow, “It’s for the children.”
By the way, the only time I’ve ever seen supermarkets giving out discounts for parking is when *someone else* owns and operates the car park, so it’s not that the supermarket has chosen to charge for parking.
“it is best to keep the camel from getting its nose under the edge”
Don’t I know it. I have learned that a three-year-old boy (even one breastfed as a baby), once given a sweet as a treat, will *never fucking stop* demanding sweets *all the time*.
I need to remember the camel proverb.
Martin,
Norway has tariff free access to the EU market, so long as they apply stupid rules like this one…
You will get no argument on that from me! The difference is we only have one tier of the state to fight now, one that remains within knife range of domestic political pressures, whereas once something gets locked in at EU level & the ratchet turns, typically there is zero chance of seeing it every rolled back.
Watchman, I can get the tariffs payable on goods I export from the UK to Norway, from the Post Office website.
Are you telling me the UK doesn’t impose reciprocal tariffs on Norwegian exports to us?!
Here’s hoping! I’m not sure there are currently many domestic political forces aligned in that direction though, but it would certainly be nice to see some bonus liberty emerge from the probable economic mess.
Martin,
No idea on the implementation of the tariffs – Norway has the option is all I’m saying (I had thought they were exercising it, but clearly not).
Watchman, the single market is not the customs union.
The campaign group Lawyers for Britain have today been given permission to intervene in the appeal to the Supreme Court over the Article 50 case.
Excellent news, Mr Ed!
Lawyers for Britain have published their submissions for the Supreme Court hearing.