Is mankind's highest ideal to live without
incident or adventure? And if so,
when did this begin?

What would they have done about this “new fiscal compact” agreed at the recent European Council:

• General government budgets shall be balanced or in surplus; this principle shall be deemed respected if, as a rule, the annual structural deficit does not exceed 0.5% of nominal GDP.
• Such a rule will also be introduced in Member States’ national legal systems at constitutional or equivalent level. The rule will contain an automatic correction mechanism that shall be triggered in the event of deviation. It will be defined by each Member State on the basis of principles proposed by the Commission. We recognise the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice to verify the transposition of this rule at national level.
• Member States shall converge towards their specific reference level, according to a calendar proposed by the Commission.
• Member States in Excessive Deficit Procedure shall submit to the Commission and the Council for endorsement, an economic partnership programme detailing the necessary structural reforms to ensure an effectively durable correction of excessive deficits. The implementation of the programme, and the yearly budgetary plans consistent with it, will be monitored by the Commission and the Council.
• A mechanism will be put in place for the ex ante reporting by Member States of their national debt issuance plans.

The requirement that government budgets shall be balanced or in surplus is eminently sensible, but by when would the PM’s critics have achieved it? Given that measure is combined with further surrenders of sovereignty to the Commission, no wonder the EU attracts criticism from both Left and Right.

The PM made a good decision, but far more remains to be done if we are to achieve lasting prosperity and bring European political power under democratic control, perhaps by excluding it from this country.

Via Future Conservatism | Conservative Home.

The three economic dragons: Britain faces much more than a debt challenge. Through no fault of their own Cameron and Osborne have inherited three historic economic challenges: massive levels of personal and government debt; the Eurozone crisis; and the long-term rise of China, India and other emerging economies. Taken together these challenges threaten to make the British economy dangerously uncompetitive in the years ahead.

Meanwhile, for the FT (£), the Prime Minister writes:

Over at ConservativeHome’s Platform, I have set out a view on loans to Ireland:

Yesterday, the Commons passed the Loans to Ireland Bill using an emergency procedure which saw all stages taken in the House in an afternoon. I supported the allocation of time, on the basis that if it needs doing at all, it is an emergency. I abstained on second reading – for I didn’t have the heart to rebel – and then supported Douglas Carswell’s amendment to decide the rate of interest democratically.

Now of course I support setting interest rates using the ultimate economic democracy which is the unhampered market, but since that wasn’t on the table, Douglas’s amendment would have been a step forward. It was defeated.

I would have spoken in the committee stage, had the timing been different. I would have expressed four concerns:

Read those concerns and the rest of the article at ConservativeHome.

Peter Bone made an interesting speech on democracy during the debate on the allocation of time, on which I intervened. Here’s the relevant section:

Mr Bone: In concluding my opening remarks, I want to say a few words about what I think is wrong. Let me state to the House how this mother of Parliaments should work in relation to timings of debates. The driving principle of reform should be the redistribution of power-from the powerful to the powerless. That means boosting Parliament’s power to hold the Government of the day to account. The House of Commons’ historic functions were to vote money for Governments to spend, and to scrutinise laws. It now barely bothers with the first, and does the second extremely badly. There was a time when legislation that had been formulated after months of civil service and ministerial deliberation was sent to the House of Commons which would pore over it, shape it and send it back, get it back, look at it again and improve it some more-Bill by Bill, clause by clause, line by line. Every piece of legislation would be put under intense scrutiny. Is it legally sound? Will it be effective? Is it worth the cost?

Let us compare that with today. Let me take Members on the journey of a piece of legislation as it passes through the modern House of Commons. It is likely to have been dreamt up on the sofa of No. 10. A Bill is drafted and it is sent to the House for a couple of hours of routine debate among a few MPs. Then the bells ring, the whips are cracked and suddenly, out of nowhere, all the Members turn up to vote. More often than not, they do not even know what they are voting for. The Bill limps through. Then it goes into Committee. The Committee’s duty is to look at the detail clause by clause, but it is packed full of people that the Whips have put there. So, surprise, surprise, the Government rarely lose a vote on any of the individual points of detailed scrutiny. Then it is back to the House to do it all again-debate, bell and then vote to wave the legislation through.

Every Bill now has a programme motion setting out how much time can be spent scrutinising and debating each part. There are automatic guillotines, and the time allowed for scrutiny is set in advance, before anyone can see whether or not a particular issue is contentious or complex. Watching a Minister in the Commons drawing out one point for an hour to fill the time, to an audience of dozing Back Benchers-that is not accountability. How can the mother of all Parliaments turn itself into such a pliant child?

Unfortunately, I cannot claim credit for that last section of my speech. It was in fact from a speech on fixing broken promises delivered on 26 May 2009 by my right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr Cameron). I do not think that Ministers on the Front Bench today want to upset the Prime Minister. So they have an opportunity, before the conclusion of the debate, to say that they will withdraw the allocation of time motion, and that we will have proper debate.

For many years I have sat on the Back Benches imploring others to give more time for Parliament to scrutinise legislation. I believe that to be the fundamental role, not only of the Back Bencher, but of Parliament itself.

Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con): I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for giving me the opportunity to say just how much I stand behind the Prime Minister in his remarks, which my hon. Friend has so generously shared with the House. However, does my hon. Friend agree that if this bail-out is necessary at all, it is an emergency?

Well, the Bill was carried through as if for an emergency. We shall now find out the result.

Via The Conservative Party | Policy | The Conservative Manifesto 2010, an invitation from David Cameron to join the government of Britain:

The Conservative Manifesto 2010

A country is at its best when the bonds between people are strong and when the sense of national purpose is clear. Today the challenges facing Britain are immense. Our economy is overwhelmed by debt, our social fabric is frayed and our political system has betrayed the people. But these problems can be overcome if we pull together and work together. If we remember that we are all in this together.

Some politicians say: ‘give us your vote and we will sort out all your problems’. We say: real change comes not from government alone. Real change comes when the people are inspired and mobilised, when millions of us are fired up to play a part in the nation’s future.

Yes this is ambitious. Yes it is optimistic. But in the end all the Acts of Parliament, all the new measures, all the new policy initiatives, are just politicians’ words without you and your involvement.

How will we deal with the debt crisis unless we understand that we are all in this together? How will we raise responsible children unless every adult plays their part? How will we revitalise communities unless people stop asking ‘who will fix this?’ and start asking ‘what can I do?’ Britain will change for the better when we all elect to take part, to take responsibility – if we all come together. Collective strength will overpower our problems.

Only together can we can get rid of this government and, eventually, its debt. Only together can we get the economy moving. Only together can we protect the NHS. Improve our schools. Mend our broken society. Together we can even make politics and politicians work better. And if we can do that, we can do anything. Yes, together we can do anything.

So my invitation today is this: join us, to form a new kind of government for Britain.