Friday, 21 September 2018

The Robbins Plan is dead. Time for a change of course.

We all knew that the Robbins Plan was dead in the water. It was rejected by the EU and Mrs May's own colleagues, by the intelligent press and by grassroots Brexiteers long before Mrs May started packing for her trip to Salzburg. Everyone knew, it seems, except Mrs May herself. Her evident open shock and distress at yesterday's rejection made clear she actually believed beforehand that it had some realistic chance of success.  

And whatever one's regard for Mrs May's intellect or her judgement, it's impossible not to admire her tenacity and resilience. The sheer boorishness and bullying incivility of the EU capos yesterday will have sparked a tiny flame of resentment in the hearts of many non-Brexit Britons; she may be a bloody useless plank, but she's our bloody useless plank. Thank you, gents. 

Likewise, many non-Brexit Brits will also have been irritated at being told that the EU capos want us to vote again, after they've smashed the windows and keyed the car and left a horse's head in blighty's bed. Malta is fast becoming a failed State, run by a criminal cabal with the island's politicians in their pockets, a place where inquisitive journalists can be murdered with impunity. I'd suggest Joseph Muscat would be better employed trying to restore justice and the rule of law to his mafia-fouled little country. And Herr Macron has been listening for too long to his granny's quavering fears.

The Federasts simply don't understand the 'hearts and minds' thing, do they? With every move they alienate more and more Brits, create greater hostility and make a future relationship more difficult. 

Well, I can't tell you what the deal should be, but I'm confident there will be some last-minute accommodation, if we don't blink first. A Federast was quoted yesterday as saying 'don't think it's five minutes to midnight; it's more like half-past eight'. Well, I'd put it at about a quarter past ten myself, but point taken. Now will someone please convince Mrs May that we need a change of plan?

Wednesday, 19 September 2018

EU enables remote customs clearances - no hard borders - in Austria

You will have missed it - it's slipped right off the main news radar - but the EU is just enabling all customs clearances and taxes for all goods entering and leaving the EU through the Italian port of Trieste to be paid, accounted and administered in the small Austrian town of Fürnitz, some 200km away. Yes, that's right. Trieste customs will now be based in Austria. 


During the pilot phase, the organisers wrote
Trieste has a harbor with a space problem due to the narrow coastal area towards the city. Fürnitz is ideally located at the junction of the Baltic-Adriatic axis (Gdansk-Warsaw-Vienna-Villach-Trieste-Venice-Bologna) and the Tauern axis (Munich-Salzburg-Villach-Ljubljana-Zagreb-Belgrade-Sofia-Istanbul). In order to prevent delays in customs clearance and to reduce the burden on the environment, the Interreg project Smartlogi now wants to work on new forms of intelligent logistics, which should, among other things, enable a cross-border customs corridor.

The port of Trieste has a great interest in passing on goods as quickly as possible, since the area is limited by the nearby city of Trieste. Inevitably, loads are loaded onto trucks and transported across the streets. Numerous administrative and technological challenges currently prevent a so-called "modal shift" (shifting traffic from one mode of transport to the other) from road to rail.

In the Smartlogi project, the LCA in Fürnitz, which is perfectly connected to the various main traffic routes, would like to develop into a close cooperation partner of the Port of Trieste. The project is being funded with a total volume of approx. 1.3 million euros from the Interreg program Austria-Italy. In addition, the equity shares of the Carinthian project partners are being co-financed by the Carinthian Economic Development Fund (KWF).
'Intelligent logistics' and 'customs corridors' mean that borders don't actually have to be located at borders, and that queues of trucks and containers can easily be avoided with advance clearances, computer tracking and so on - so that customs clearances are just an information exchange formality, rather than the physical impounding and holding of objects and vehicles at ports and border crossings. 

ORF reported yesterday
Great opportunity for Fürnitz

This is definitely a great opportunity for Fürnitz, said economic officer Ulrich Zafoschnig (ÖVP). He had received information from the Ministry of Finance that the necessary intergovernmental agreements should be made in September. Theoretically, customs clearance in Fürnitz could start this year, according to Zafoschnig.
If this can be done for Trieste, why not for Ireland? Why can't Ireland's custom clearance point be in Calais, or Hamburg even? Why shouldn't there be a customs corridor from Dublin to Dover?

I rather think this proves that the Irish Border Issue isn't actually an issue. I wonder if anyone's told Mr Robbins that he doesn't have to surrender the UK's sovereignty to Brussels after all?

Tuesday, 18 September 2018

Rocks and hard places - digital regulation

I don't know what the collective term is for Youtube channels, infomercials, newstainment, multi-channel infotainment, e-pinion and the like - 'digital' is too encompassing, 'media' too finely drawn. 'Content' seems to be a useful portmanteau sort of word. There used to be certain checks and standards for those who created and disseminated Content. Newspaper and magazine ownership and distribution, broadcasting bandwidth governance and licencing, professional journalists, barriers to entry including technical complexity, equipment cost and limited capacity. Making a video use to be a matter of  a camera, lighting and sound crew, an offline editor, an online editor and a facility with half a million quids worth of Beta SP machines, editing suites, reference monitors and so on. Then came processing power, software and easy GUIs that meant a video recorded and edited on an Apple laptop could rival in look and feel one costing £2k a broadcast minute to make.  

Regulation has yet to catch up with what has happened. If I want to broadcast a three minute speech, I need a government licence for a digital broadcast radio channel, a transmitter, and a roomful of compliance and diligence stuff and every breath I broadcast is subject to the most minute scrutiny. If I put the same speech on the web as a podcast, there are no restrictions, no standards and no regulation whatsoever bar the criminal law. One can argue that broadcast bandwidth, for the 'push' media, is a limited and valuable resource that must be centrally controlled and rationed, whilst internet bandwidth, for the 'pull' media, is effectively unlimited and use is determined by market forces, i.e. popularity. 

Why should these differences be a problem? Can't we live with the way things are? well, perhaps today we can - but technology and economics mean the boundaries between the transmission mechanisms of exactly the same Content are being increasingly blurred. Established broadcasters want to regulate the Wild West of the internet to replicate the analogue regimes under which they toil. Authoritarians strive to impose their own bigotry. And all the while champions of free speech, Libertarians and democrats are resisting State control, censorship and the economic cudgels of the global corporates all seeking to 'own' the internet. 

Personally, I don't buy the guff that the internet is 'harming millions'. The few sensitive souls getting the vapours because someone was rude to them on Facebook seem the same sort of folks who used to swoon at the sight of a nipple on 'Play for Today'. Yet I also want to take-down ISIS videos of lads from East Ham hacking-off people's heads, sick paedo filth or grainy footage of dogs tearing eachother to pieces. These views are not inconsistent; the latter repulsive Content types are all contrary to existing law. We don't need new laws - we just need a mechanism for we, internet users, to apply the existing law. We don't need need nine-hundred police officers crouched over glowing screens - we need ways in which we, Peel's citizen police, can act ourselves to exclude the already-illegal stuff whilst leaving the hurty words intact.

Saturday, 15 September 2018

Electoral Commission has lost popular trust

It's not the crime that gets 'em, they say, but the cover-up. In an excoriating judgement, the High Court has found in the Vote Leave expenses case that
For the reasons given, we conclude that the Electoral Commission has misinterpreted the definition of “referendum expenses” in section 111(2) of PPERA. The source of its error is a mistaken assumption that an individual or body which makes a donation to a permitted participant cannot thereby incur referendum expenses. As a result of this error, the Electoral Commission has interpreted the definition in a way that is inconsistent with both the language and the purpose of the legislation
The case was brought by 'Remain' on the grounds that the Electoral Commission had given the Leave campaign duff advice based on an inadequate understanding of the law of which they could also have taken advantage had they been given the same duff advice. You will recall that as a consequence of the Commission's misleading Leave and its general incompetence, it crowed like a cock when it itself judged Leave guilty of breaching the regulations and imposed a fine to equal that levied on the LibDems for their breaches. 

Reading the court's judgement one finds a litany of arse-covering, post hoc rationalisation, weasel reasoning and straw-clutching on the part of the Commission. 
"...The position of the Electoral Commission on this central issue was somewhat elusive. In its summary and detailed grounds of resistance to the claim, the Commission denied that Vote Leave had incurred expenses by making the AIQ Payments but refrained from identifying any criterion which, if met, would signify that these were “expenses incurred” by Vote Leave. The Commission submitted that making a payment is not the same as incurring an expense and that making a donation is not the same as incurring an expense. But counsel for the Commission did not at that stage offer any positive explanation of what does constitute “incurring an expense” within the meaning of the legislation....
 
The Electoral Commission has advanced an argument that, even if (contrary to its primary position) the payments in issue in this case were expenses incurred by Vote Leave, they were not incurred “in respect of” advertising but only in respect of making donations to Mr Grimes....
 
It is not easy to see how, on the Commission’s case in these proceedings, its own guidance can be correct....

Ultimately, the position of the Electoral Commission on what amounts to an “expense incurred” within the meaning of section 111 of PPERA appeared to offer little improvement on the well known elephant test of “I know one when I see one”. That is not a satisfactory approach in circumstances where a person who reports referendum expenses incorrectly is potentially guilty of a criminal offence.
When asked to address these scenarios during oral argument, the initial response of Mr Gordon QC on behalf of the Electoral Commission was to decline to do so on the ground that he did not want to comment on hypothetical examples. That response was unconstructive, as the use of hypothetical examples is a standard method for testing the logic of a legal argument...

It is difficult to resist the conclusion that in seeking to draw this distinction the Electoral Commission was, in Aristotle’s phrase, “maintaining a thesis at all costs” ...
It is as clear as possible a condemnation of both the Commission's failings during the campaign  and its actions subsequently against Vote Leave, which have raised widespread accusations of anti-Leave spite, bias and partiality. 

However, rather than bearing this humiliation in silence with bowed head, the Commission sought to justify its condemnation by the court with a PR offensive -


A democracy needs an authoritative and trusted arbiter of the probity of democratic actions, an unbiased and expert authority vested with moral and legal trust and confidence. Simply, the present Electoral Commission has failed those criteria on every point. It is, as the court found, not fit for purpose as currently constituted and must be reformed. That means both the professional officers, and the appointed Commissioners - who fail utterly to represent the electorate as a whole.



Friday, 14 September 2018

Britain proves its Liberalism in driving licence plans

Yesterday's no-deal Brexit warnings, which set out that UK drivers would in future need either one or two International Driving Permits, at up to £5.50 per year, to drive in the EU, also proved in spades our nation's innate Liberalism. 

We could of course have answered the EU's illiberal and authoritarian spitefulness like for like - requiring EU drivers to be equally inconvenienced when visiting the UK. But on balance I far prefer our superior moral position, proving our natural Liberalism and our position as Europe's most civilised and tolerant nation. Official advice is that:

Don't grouse. On such a trivial matter, it's really far, far better to use the opportunity to demonstrate our moral superiority and the EU's puerile and petulant spite. Martin Selmayr may hide in his Brussels bunker dreaming up nasty little 'punishments' for Britain, but we're really far bigger than that and won't do the same in return.

Wednesday, 12 September 2018

The Electoral Quotient - a big issue with a boring name

The faux outrage of Labour, Welsh or Scots MPs at the publication of the Boundary Commission's final report is theatrical, at least in part. Conformity of constituency boundaries with a uniform number of voters in each - the EQ, or Electoral Quotient - has long been outside developed nation standards. An EQ of +/-5% is just about acceptable, but advanced democracies such as New Zealand achieve +/-3%. For years we have been way outside even the farthest limits, with the vote of an elector in one constituency being worth the votes of two voters in another. Any complaint at correcting this anomaly is an anti-democratic whinge. The threat to democracy is not from having a fair and robust democratic system but in gerrymandering voters equality to pander to the self interest of MPs who don't want to lose their jobs. 

Let's be clear. MPs are expendable; lose one, and there's a thousand more individuals neither less nor more capable ready to take their place. As individuals they are unremarkable and replaceable. It is the form and function of the parliament, the way the Commons works that is important. As Churchill noted, the confrontational layout of the chamber is vital, two sword lengths apart, as is the small size. Churchill opined that a chamber that never had seats sufficient to sit all members at once was an advantage -
... a conversational style of speaking, which has long been held to be the model of English Parliamentary life. How much better this is than foreign assemblies, where they all sit in a semi‐circle, and everyone has a place, or even a desk, which he can bang when he is displeased, and where every speaker goes up to harangue an audience scattered through a large arena. The essential of keen debate is the sense of a crowd, clustering together, craning forward, gathering round the speaker, with the cheers flung back from side to side.
The total number of MPs is also fairly critical. Proposals to reduce the number of seats from 650 to 600 featured in both the 2015 and 2017 Conservative manifestos. The essential elements of the Parliament would be preserved, and representation would not be diminished beyond comparative standards of democracy in the advanced nations.

Two matters however must be addressed. One is the social worker role that has fallen to MPs, who now spend much time intervening in social welfare and immigration disputes between their constituents and the State. This is not a beneficial or useful use of their time and attention, which should be devoted to the business of the legislature. Secondly is the sheer number of government posts, including the scores of junior appointments that bind an ever increasing number of MPs to the government, hobbling the scrutinising function of the House.  

Correcting the EQ is the last of the measures taken by Conservative governments since 2010 to correct the drift of our democratic systems under Labour into crookedness and democratic corruption. We will all be better off for it.

Monday, 10 September 2018

Taxing and regulating the global corporates

I am wholly and utterly committed to low tax and efficient regulation. However, tax and regulation must above all be fair and equitable - that means low tax and light regulation for all. Our complex system has increasingly delivered a system that burdens SMEs, and firms with no significant exports, and favours global corporates. The cost of compliance with EU regulation is a case in point; a multinational can afford an entire department churning out environmental, risk management, human relations and equal opportunities policies, method statements, sustainability assessments and reports on complex systems of internal monitoring. A maker of hand-built sports cars operating out of three small industrial sheds in Suffolk, with one girl on reception and another in the back office, can't hope to churn out the same box files of redundant officiousness. 

Likewise tax. A firm with a plant, a site, skilled workers, resources and substantial investment in the UK will always be at a disadvantage to the tax gypsies - the global corporates - who can pitch up in their generic Richard Rogers corporate HQ, install temporary staff and a few lawyers, and stay just as long as they're not bothered. The EU's senior unelected official was thrown out of office in Luxembourg (a small European nation about the size of Seattle) for encouraging corrupt tax avoidance that allows global corporates to harvest rich profits from one EU nation but pay minimal tax in another. And the scam isn't confined to the EU. 

The advantages enjoyed by the global corporates mean they are crowding out national competition, enjoying supernormal profits and creating global oligopolies. The rest of us, meanwhile, pay taxes to build the transport and communication networks, the courts and legal systems, the schools and universities that they use for free without responsibility or care. 

It may be legal, but it's wrong. And most folk can't console themselves that their pension funds are investing in these rootless and amoral firms and enjoying the profits - and those that can, may care to calculate that the potholed roads, the city centres lost to armed gangs and a generation that can't afford to buy their own homes just aren't worth the return.