Europe has chosen the worse of two evils: To have a fiscal aspect to the EU rather than a twenty year plan of dismantling the Euro.

There was a certain inevitability, considering the Federalists inability to go into reverse gear, about the green light for a Fiscal Union for Europe. Having, finally realised the fantasy of having a single currency with a single interest rate, without a combined monetary policy and fiscal control for so many divergent economies, there seems to be a bizarre irrational denial of accepting that the very concept of single currency, where there is significant economic divergence, is not the best currency model for Europe.

What is the best model? It is a Europe of nation states, with competing currencies so that they can control their interest rates, and learn from the success and failures of each others currency models, and currency related macro-economic policy.

Though the fiscal arm to the EU will increase its powers, it will never overcome, the distinct, unnecessary economic waste of the EU regulation. Further the first expenditure of reform should not be here. It should be to alter the EU's working framework to do away with the unnecessarily overreaching of harmonisation measures that drive up costs of cross-border services and goods that has been weakening the economic performance of the EU.

True to any conservative concerns regarding the EU, it is found that federalism is more important to the EU than economic performance. In the end it is quite possible that this is error of priorities will put an end to the federalist vision for the Europe.

Competition, one of the most important factors for a single-market, however, has always taken second preference over harmonisation or uniformity as far as the Federalists are concerned. The Federal model involves a single-market, albeit one that is not free. The single-market has become a tool for Federalism, and not for business. For the sharper and historically aware it is evident that this was always the case, illustrated by the preference for subsidisation that has always pervaded the EU, and its progenitor the EEC.

The intravenous feeding to maintain bad-economic policies is not just seen with CAP and other subsidies, but is now, worryingly, seen on the macro-economic fiscal level as the Euro subsidisation has shown. Last week’s £22 billion spent on Euro bonds by the European Central Bank is just the tip of the ice-berg of what has been going on. It is by no means clear how an increased bureaucracy of the ECB or the EU would be better able to control governmental expenditure centrally.

But this patronising oversight is what the Euro-bailed nations now face, their own fiscal irresponsibility has lured them further into the behemoth of EU control. When, in the not far distant future, provincial transport infrastructure in some small part of Greece is controlled by the EU, the loss of local’s liberty to choice and preference of where their tax money goes could potentially finally come home. Though I somewhat doubt it.

Very few nations have the spirit of freedom that would want to fight for choice for the sake of choice. Very few nations have freedom as so deeply an embodied idea in their make-up to intuitively and viscerally see the absence of choice as vulgar. And even those who do, in that most free and beautiful of Islands off the North Sea are constantly baited by the self-serving media-political machine that puts itself, advertently or inadvertently, above its country.

Britain, however, can guide European States to freedom. That is a Britain with a vision to put a free-market economic vision into the back of Europe, and strip away the self-proclaimed ‘social-democratic’ Lisbon Treaty.

The best working approach to free-markets is embedded in Darwinian economics. The worst companies collapse, not be revived or subsidised, to give way to better structures, administrators, products and services that the markets will enjoy. It is no different for underperforming nation-states, who never balance their books, whose Euro convergence impossibility with the economies of France and Germany has been overlooked for a Federal ideal.

The Federalist concern themselves little with the tax-payers who have to share the burden of bail-outs at a time of economic difficulty, nor those in Greece who have seen inflation related problems decrease their tangible wealth and, for the first time for many, shown the possibility of real impoverishment.

Their end-game is macro-welfarism for Europe brought about by, what is idiosyncratic to that end, spending policy. So if you want to know where this new found Fiscalism is to take Europe- in my view it is over the edge. Look at the Lisbon Treaty, and it is clear that the EU with such a power, with the aims in that Treaty in mind, will never be able to be adequately parsimonious with its use.

What is always vindicated in such follies but, the now lost, traditional Burkean Conservatism? The folly of pursuing an idea to its logical absurdity, irrespective of the destruction it creates, is obvious to all but the mad. But logic, as Burke pointed out over 200 years ago, is the first victim of those who pursue the folly of the absurd. We Brits know this, yet our Government continues to fail to act.

I, for one, would advocate the preservation of freedom at any cost, rather the endless pursuit for control. Whether we are familiar with Hayek, or not, we know where to the latter leads. We should find either the vigour for reform or the exit door now and leave, or we will be further bailing an economically doomed entity at the cost of only our own labours.

Copyright Abhijit P.G. Pandya August 2011.

The tragic case of the destruction of Moldavian Orphanages in the crazed pursuit of EU membership.

The Moldavian orphanages closure program is a tragic illustration of the lengths prospective members of the EU are going to in order to secure EU membership.

Like Romania when it sought EU membership, Moldavia is similarly closing down hundreds of orphanages in order to reduce the appearance of poverty to acquire EU membership. Kids are been driven out of the orphanages, as was done with Romania, and literally placed on the streets. Many have been seen finding their way for food in the gutters, as one case-worker told me today.

Ironically, three of the key requirements for EU membership are:

1. Stability of institutions guaranteeing democracy, the rule of law, human rights and respect for and protection of minorities;

2. The existence of a functioning market economy as well as the capacity to cope with competitive pressure and market forces within the Union;
3. The ability to take on the obligations of membership including adherence to the aims of political, economic & monetary union.

It is the second element that frightens prospective applicant states to do such morally repugnant things, in order to become a member of a supposed elite. The question for the EU again is will it acquiesce in such horrid practices in Moldavia with the same ineptness and moral vacuousity and cowardice, as it did with Romania?

Further what to do of the lack of remedy do these children have either their own government or against that supposedly morally superior beast that is the EU? Perhaps it is time for the EU to lighten its coffers reserved for greedy bureaucrats a little to do some public good where these children are concerned, or to provide a new criteria of moral rectitude in the pursuit of membership. If only.

Copyright Abhijit P.G. Pandya July 2011.

Dispelling the illusion of Tory Euroscepticism.

As we know, today only 48 MPs voted to back Mark Reckless’ bill to stop Britain’s participation in the Euro bailout mechanism,

Meaning of course, that the entirety of our public service spending cuts so far, will be gathered up and shovelled to Brussels, to shore up a currency we never participated in; precisely because we feared that this would be the end result if we did.

In Britain libraries and swimming pools close, council workers are sacked, the military is eviscerated, rape crisis centres are closed and flood defence initiatives are cancelled.

We suffer, and put our children into colossal debt, so that our tax money can preserve the Germans their Euro, the Irish their low taxes, the Portuguese their jobs, and the Greeks their pensions.

And how many of the 308 MPs from the supposedly Eurosceptic-at-heart Tory party, voted to oppose this scandal? 30. Compared to 15 from the apparently euro-enthusiastic Labour party.

In percentage terms the difference is even more stark, with 9.7% of Tory MPs voting not to make their constituents pay to prop-up the Euro, versus 5.8% of Labour MPs.

These numbers very adequately expose the pro-European consensus at the heart of Westminster, and the fact that for all their rhetoric, the likes of Bill Cash and Daniel Hannan are merely fig leaves for a fundamentally euro-enthusiastic entity.

You cannot with any credibility pretend to be independent of your neighbour’s affairs, if you go without and indebt your own children, in order to pay your neighbour’s mortgage arrears; arrears which have resulted from their own profligacy.

Author reserves the right to remain anonymous.

Q. The European Court of Human Rights- to whom is it unaccountable for when it behaves illegally? Ans. Member States

Giving prisoners the vote: Q. The European Court of Human Rights- to whom is it unaccountable for when it behaves illegally? Ans. Member States
I have already warned about the European Convention on Human Rights this time last year. Then I said: 'The European Convention on Human Rights is a unique hypocrisy amongst instruments claiming to protect liberty. For all the supposed liberties it grants (which reflect select values of a few lawyers and civil servants and not the people of Europe that its title (Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms) grandiosely seems to claim), it allows the state to define circumstances in which to take them away. But it is more than this, in classic ‘anti-liberal’ spirit, the Convention also defines the limits of the rights it espouses, through the existence of constrictive provisos upon which they can be relied upon.

An inherent feature of the concept of 'rights' is to have an unlimited number of claims against the state. That it is the duty of the state to provide for them, irrespective of the merit of the individual bringing forward the claim.'

This has now been show by the absurd issue of prisoner's votes. Bentham, one of the great 19th Century Liberals, reflected on the history of liberty in England and noted that abuse of power occurs when power is in a few hands. Though the tyranny of monarchy had gone, what he feared then was a tyranny of unelected judges. That it was vital that Parliament develop itself constitutionally to have clear supremacy, under positive law, to protect democracy from hyperactive judges. No one would have thought we would have signed up to a treaty that did exactly the opposite: to gave a clear licence to judges to be politicians. Alas, only if the Government in the 1950s had consulted that expert on treaties (the world expert), the British lawyer, Lord McNair. He would have pointed out how the text was open to abuse. This possible expansive approach to treaty interpretation is superbly expostulated in his masterly work on the law of treaties. (Oddly McNair was later the President of the Strasbourg court, though a very refrained and thoughtful judge).

This was not done. What we now have is foreign elected judges, from significantly diverse legal backgrounds (many from states that have no rule of law)making political decisions, for our country, through legal means. There is little to suggest that David Cameron will do anything but voice a meager, and quiet, personal opinion on this.

What then is to hold this unelected court to account? Or are we seeing a new era of divine law, as in medieval times, that we cannot question or subject to reason? And does anyone get the more damning point, that European Court of Human Rights is making sentencing and criminal justice policy by making such a decision- thus clearly violating the text of the treaty?

Wake up Mr. Cameron, and wake up Britain.

Abhijit P.G. Pandya Copyright 2011
Birkenhead Society Copyright 2011.

The danger of the EU hedge fund directive, is to enervate the hedge fund market itself.

The danger of regulation is that it can destroy the very market it is trying to regulate. Please indulge me in using a hypothetical. Imagine that you are a regulator who wishes to regulate haulage companies for the emissions of their vehicles. You use scientific data on pollution to construct an ideal quanta requirement. You then pass regulation to deal with this. You are not too bothered, sadly, that there will be some haulage companies that will go bust as they will not be able to afford the appropriate vehicles. What you are further, and in some ways more worryingly, blind to is that haulage companies have a specific range of vehicles for the needs of their customers. Further that maintenance of a specific range is directly related to their profitability, growth, and to meet rising costs such as fuel. This is only discovered years later, when it is only shown that unemployment (a more interesting thing for politicians to throw around) in the haulage industry is serious.


Now have a look at the arbitrary way the capital adequacy requirements in the hedge funds directive were formed. The very notion of regulation here is designed to militate against the products themselves. The difference between the hypothetical, above, and the hedge-fund market makes an even stronger case for non-regulation. This is that the hedge-fund market is itself a risk based market, thus profitability is entirely based on the allocation of risks itself. This must depend, as my hypothetical suggests, on the knowledge of the market agent, who is best able to assess it. Thus to regulate a base line of capital adequacy does not, in itself, obviate risk as the real risk is the choice of investment, not the absence of collateral. The regulation of the collateral may only slow down transactions, thus increasing their costs, but will not eviscerate risk itself. Further, these requirements may make transactions costs so high that viable investing may no longer be on the cards. This may harm certain sectors of the economy who depend on high risk investment, and play an important role in the economy such as the provision of infrastructure. Further this regulation may not be a solution. For some it was only the off-shore banks that were largely unregulated that kept better capital adequacy requirements. Perhaps it is time to reiterate that old adage that the market knows best.



Abhijit P.G. Pandya Copyright 2011

Abhijit P.G. Pandya Copyright Birkenhead Society

Monnet, Schuman and the myth that it was the avoidance of war that motivated the founding fathers of Europe

A significant fallacy that surrounds theories as to the founding of Europe is that it was done by its chief architects to avoid war. Quite on the contrary, Monet (left) was an amateur economic theorist who, for most of his life, believed that co-operation led to a more effective production capacity at the time of war, not peace. He learned, during his time as a traveling salesman, of benefits of getting access to resources of other states for the benefit of France. Robert Schuman, the other key figure in the founding of the European project, was an analyst of corruption and efficiency in the French steel industry. Both men, particularly Schuman, would have been aware of the lagging of French industrial growth in comparison to both Britain and Germany by the start of the 20th C. Hence economic co-operation for the mutual benefit of both Germany and France, but particularly the latter, seemed like an interesting concept and one worth pursuing. The benefits of raw materials for the production of steel, and steel itself are useful in the stimulation of a manufacturing center to provide economic growth and employment. This was particularly so in an era where developed economies were not significantly service industry driven.

The Second World War gave the opportunity, and the catalyst, to realise these nascent ideas of economic co-operation to re-engage manufacture based industrial growth. The sentiment of avoiding war, was a useful political and rhetorical device for selling the project. Neither man would have been daft enough to believe that the mere signing of a treaty (of co-operation) would avoid war, in fact everything that had occurred during their lives would have lead to the opposite being true. Political support from other capitalist states was extant to avoid the spread of communism.

The reversal of purpose by pro-European integrationists, that political integration in Europe has been designed to avoid war, is one of the greatest lies both in our times and in the times of our recent forefathers. Those economic integrationists who also wish for a Federal system, must look at the U.S. Civil War for an example of conflict that can arise. The biggest admonition here comes from the fact that the U.S. Civil War occurred despite a common constitutional settlement existing, one that does not exist for Europe. Common consensus of political values is still a lie propagated at the start of each successive re-drafting of European Treaties.

So why do pro-integrationists and Federalists continue to propagate the lie of the avoidance of war? It is not immediately clear. There was no war in Europe from 1945 to set-up of the European Economic Community in 1957. Thus the existence of peace cannot be co-dependent on the existence of a political Union or a common market. Yet this simple fact is ignored on so many European politics courses at Universities, for the sake of furthering ideology based on personal sentiment of the course convener. Many of these are quasi-socialists, who understand that if the all the states of Europe were to shift to significantly to the left, the possibility of a quasi-socialist overlord based on redistributionist economics would be possible. The supposed virtue of this is based on an economically blind belief that the best way for a society or person to become wealthy is to be given the wealth of others rather than to create it for itself or himself. This is why there was the creation of the social chapter for the European Union, and the welfare competence granted to the EU under Lisbon. This is to pave the way for control of EU law-making by a redistributive consensus, being very feasible considering that this is the predominant political ideal in most European states.

The usefulness of this lie of avoidance of war is clear. It engages one of the worst parts of our psyche: fear. We have to stay in the project for the fear of our lives, and the numerous emotionally susceptible and politically misled fall for it. It is also a common currency for lazy thinking, amongst both undergraduates and post-graduates, at Universities I have taught in. A broader reading of history suggests that what really is to fear is continued integration without consent. To realise that the entering into of Lisbon with a false second referendum in Ireland, and the absence of one in the UK, is an affront to democratic decency. In 1648 a political device was created to free men from the tyranny of a supra-national overlord, constituted primarily by the diet regime of the Papacy. This device was the nation-state, a vehicle for expression of identity, which is not only linked to but as important as individual liberty. Three-hundred and fifty years later it is at threat from disingenuous machinations of those in search for power and control based on their personal ideology as much as that which dogged the Catholic church and the Hapsburgs in their lust for European power centuries earlier. Those political machinations, including lack of local representation and closed door decision-making, led to the bloodiest war in human history (the Thirty Years War) through which almost 70% of the population of Europe was wiped out.

Copyright Abhijit P.G. Pandya 2011
Copyright Birkenhead Society 2011.

Has the European Court of Human Rights breached its mandate as a court on Prisoner's votes?

This is a classic example of matters of national polity being decided by international courts and institutions using open language in treaties to their advantage. Surely this is something that should go to elected domestic legislatures for a vote? There is nothing in the European Convention of Human Rights that could have made this a predictable for States entering into the treaty. This surely renders the courts judgment illegitimate according to treaty law. (See Article 31 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, which states that only literal interpretations are permitted I.E. Non ideological ones).

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11671164