Skip to main content

Better off in!

I see that the more rabid conservative bloggers are advertising a meeting of the Bruges Group over the weekend that intends to discuss policies for "a post EU" Britain.

You might expect to see such immaturity on the amusing Guido Fawkes blog- but I was moderately surprised to see the same event given equal coverage on Iain Dale's blog.

Iain is the Queen Mother of political blogging, especially since he became a Tory "A" Lister- "They can't answer back you know". Although he was on a hiding to nothing trying to unseat Norman Lamb in North Norfolk, there are many people who would certainly like to see him inside the House of Commons. Personally, I enjoy many of his initiatives as a blogger.

Nevertheless the fact that the majority of British Conservatives can no longer have a sensible debate about the costs and benefits of membership of the European Union and have taken the maximalist position of complete withdrawal just reminds me why the party should not be let anywhere near the levers of power.

Either they are fools who do not understand the vast political and economic costs that withdrawal would inflict on the UK, or they are hypocrites who know those costs but like to fantasize about withdrawal in front of the electorate, while all the time knowing that they could not take the final step.

UPDATE: Iain writes- saying that it is MessageSpace that provided the advert on his blog and that he carries adverts from other organisations that he is not associated with. I have therefore modified my post to attack the Bruges Group itself and those in the Conservatives (though not, presumably Iain himself, since he disassociates himself from the Bruges Group) who advocate withdrawal from the EU.

Glad he did not object too much to being compared to the Queen Mum- I expect he will have revenge when I go on his 18 Doughty St show in a couple of weeks


Iain Dale said…
As you know this advert is hosted by MessageSpace. Just because I carry an advert for the Bruges Group does not imply support for it. I also carry adverts for Friends of the Earth and War on Want on the same basis.
Etzel Pangloss said…
We will not be withdrawing from the EU when the Tories win the next election. It's a no brainer and you know it.
Cicero said…
Dr. Pangloss- I agree. The Bruges Group does not- and neither do the many Conservatives who belong to the Bruges Group
RK said…
You advocate a low regulatory burden (and I agree) but the EU produces red tape at an alarming rate. As long as this burden keeps increasing there will be a number of people who see the price as higher than the benefits, and with some justification. The EU abolitionists may be taking this logic too far but it’s a bit of a patronising position to just suggest stupidity and hypocrisy in your opponents, it’s also a position that will not convince many of them to join your cause. If you want to remove support for this position then you need to focus on why they consider the costs so high. A repeal act for Brussels like the one you advocated for Westminster would be a good place to start. Too often the LibDems look like enthusiastic supporters of Europe and the perception is you therefore approve of all the pages and pages of rules and regulations flowing from it.
Cicero said…
RK- while I agree that the system in the EU is flawed, the evidence is strong that British civil servants have tended to a) gold plate EU guidelines and b)to interpret the directives in the most restrictive way. A good example is the question of hygine at abbatoirs. In the UK, but nowhere else, the directive as intepreted has reduced the options of abbatoirs to a small number of very large facilities- which is no benefit to animal welfare.
rk said…
It's not just civil servants. Our courts also seem to adopt much stricter interpretations of EU laws and regulations than the rest of Europe (eg HRA). You suggest we are over interpreting but I'm often left feeling that we’re the only ones playing by the rules.
Cicero said…
Sure, but if 24 countries don't do it that way and 1 does, then who is doing it right, and who wrong?
Etzel Pangloss said…
Dear Marcus,

I do hope you remind us (i'm sure Mr. Dale will) of this promising debate, nearer the time.

And as I recall, 24 wrongs does not necessarily make a right.
chris said…
It's certainly true that most EU regulations get lead plated when they pass through whitehall. But where we not in the EU there would not be this stream of regulation, that is outside democratic oversight, to be lead plated.

Popular posts from this blog

Trump and Brexit are the Pearl Harbor and the Fall of Singapore in Russia's Hybrid war against the West.

In December 1941, Imperial Japan launched a surprise attack on the United States at Pearl Harbor. After the subsequent declaration of war, within three days, the Japanese had sunk the British warships, HMS Prince of Wales and HMS Repulse, and the rapid Japanese attack led to the surrender of Hong Kong on Christmas Day 1941 and the fall of Singapore only two months after Pearl Harbor. These were the opening blows in the long war of the Pacific that cost over 30,000,000 lives and was only ended with the detonations above Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

"History doesn't often repeat itself, but it rhymes" is an aphorism attributed to Mark Twain, and in a way it seems quite appropriate when we survey the current scene. 

In 1941, Imperial Japan, knowing its own weakness, chose a non-conventional form of war, the surprise attack. Since the end of his first Presidential term, Vladimir Putin, knowing Russia's weakness, has also chosen non-conventional ways to promote his domestic powe…

The American National nightmare becomes a global nightmare

It is a basic contention of this blog that Donald J Trump is not fit for office.

A crooked real estate developer with a dubious past and highly questionable finances. he has systematically lied his way into financial or other advantage. His personal qualities include vulgarity, sexual assault allegations and fraudulent statements on almost every subject. 

He lost the popular vote by nearly three million votes.

He has, of course, been under criminal investigation practically since before he took the oath of office. The indictment of some of closest advisers is just the beginning. His track record suggests that in due course there is no action he will not take, whether illegal or unconstitutional in order to derail his own inevitable impeachment and the indictments that must surely follow the successful investigation of Robert Mueller into his connections with Russia.

However, all of that is a matter for the American people. 

It is also a matter for the American people that Trump is cheating…

The rumbling financial markets

Security specialists use a variety of ways to address the risks that they face: and these risk assessments are made in the certain knowledge that the actors in the system hold only incomplete information. Although much mocked at the time, Donald Rumsfeld’s categorization of “known unknowns” and “unknown unknowns”, is now generally recognized as a succinct summery of his strategic quandaries.
By contrast, actors in the financial markets have a more sanguine assessment of the risks they deal with: they divide them into two kinds of risk: quantifiable and unquantifiable. Unquantifiable risk is not generally considered, since there is usually no financial profit that can be made except from pure supposition. Therefore for the purposes of the financial markets, any given event is priced relative to its level of probability, that is to say its quantifiable risk. 
Depending on the market, higher levels of risk generally carry higher prices, lower levels generally lower prices. Clearly such an…