How to repatriate 130 EU laws

This week Open Europe published a new report that shows how the Government could repatriate 130 EU laws on crime and policing, including the controversial European Arrest Warrant.

The Government must decide before June 2014 whether a whole raft of EU police and justice laws, adopted before the Lisbon Treaty took force, will continue to apply in the UK beyond December 2014. Under Lisbon, if the Government opts out of any one of the existing laws, it has to opt out of the entire lot.

If it decides to keep these laws as they currently stand, ultimate and full jurisdiction over them will for the first time be irreversibly transferred from the UK courts to the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg. For example, it would give EU judges the final say over the mechanisms for extraditing British citizens to other member states, on the basis of a case brought against the UK by the European Commission.

The EU document relating to these powers was debated on the Floor of the House on 25th January, during which the Justice Minister, Crispin Blunt, said that:

It is clear that the Government and the European Scrutiny Committee are of the same view: we consider that European legislation in the field of criminal law should be contemplated only as the last resort and only where action at the European level is absolutely necessary.

However, words of caution were given by my colleague, Dominic Raab:

The document before us has all the hallmarks of a massive and substantial power grab from Brussels in the area of EU criminal law. We might have ad hoc opt-outs, but the direction of travel has very serious implications for this country. The clear ambition in the document is for a pan-European code on what the Commission calls “Euro-crimes”, backed by EU penalties and jurisdiction… This is a fork in the road: it is time to decide whether Britain will retain our unique justice system and common-law tradition. This is one of the most serious constitutional challenges the House will face in this Parliament.

Commenting on Open Europe’s report, their Research Director, Stephen Booth, said:

As much as the Government would like to put this crucial decision off until 2014, this is neither politically nor practically tenable. The body of law to which the 2014 block opt-out applies is reduced every time the UK opts in to a new EU law which either amends, repeals or replaces a law on the list. To date, the Government has chosen to opt in on every occasion it has had to make such a decision and has not required Parliament’s approval. No matter where one stands in the debate, this clearly marks a failure of democratic scrutiny.

Finally, the wording of the Europe Commission’s official communication on this issue is of particular concern:

In cases where the enforcement choices in the Member States do not yield the desired result and levels of enforcement remain uneven, the Union itself may set common rules on how to ensure implementation, if necessary, the requirement for criminal sanctions for breaches of EU law.

Regarding sanctions, “minimum rules” can be requirements of certain sanction types (e.g. fines, imprisonment, disqualification), levels or the EU-wide definition of what are to be considered aggravating or mitigating circumstances.

Poster of the week – 1909, “Socialism Throttling the Country”

From the Conservative Poster Archive, poster 1909/10-14, which seems apt with the Government still spending about half of national income:

Conservative campaign poster - socialism throttling the country

Who will make a speech like this for our time?

You and I have a rendezvous with destiny. We will preserve for our children this, the last best hope of man on Earth, or we will sentence them to take the last step into a thousand years of darkness.

We will keep in mind and remember that Barry Goldwater has faith in us. He has faith that you and I have the ability and the dignity and the right to make our own decisions and determine our own destiny.

And from this speech:

From the joy and the good feeling of this conference, I go to a political reception. [Laughter] Now, I don’t know why, but that bit of scheduling reminds me of a story which I’ll share with you.

An evangelical minister and a politician arrived at Heaven’s gate one day together. And St. Peter, after doing all the necessary formalities, took them in hand to show them where their quarters would be. And he took them to a small, single room with a bed, a chair, and a table and said this was for the clergyman. And the politician was a little worried about what might be in store for him. And he couldn’t believe it then when St. Peter stopped in front of a beautiful mansion with lovely grounds, many servants, and told him that these would be his quarters.

And he couldn’t help but ask, he said, “But wait, how — there’s something wrong — how do I get this mansion while that good and holy man only gets a single room?” And St. Peter said, “You have to understand how things are up here. We’ve got thousands and thousands of clergy. You’re the first politician who ever made it.”

Did Andy Duncan steal my reading list?

I just finished Jesús Huerta de Soto’s Socialism, Economic Calculation and Entrepreneurship, only to find that the Cobden Centre’s Andy Duncan has already produced a review. Since his review explains how he went from Marxist to Austrian-school free-marketeer, I shall let him do all the hard work, in his own inimitable style:

Although my self-education had kicked socialism back into the envious schoolyard nursery where it belongs, all the books I had read had never clarified one last question, which had nagged at me for years. Why does socialism keep taking so long to fail, with the Soviet Union surviving for 70 years and the fiat currency union of the west surviving for 40 years, since 1971? Yes, there is economic calculation, the short-sightedness of fools, and the system of organised criminal lies which we name government, but what is the essential mechanism that separates the free market from the jackboot of socialism and how does a typical rancid and rotten bloom of socialism survive for decades, when from my previous readings such a malodourous bloom ought to fail within years or even months, once the hideous mask of its hateful spiteful envy is revealed?

Andy’s review is rather more brutal in its dissection of socialism than I usually prefer — after all, socialists mean well — but it is well worth a read for that style, not despite it.

Next up in Andy’s queue was The Ethics of Money Production by Jörg Guido Hülsmann, which, as it happens, I began dipping into a week or two ago. You can find his review here. However, I begin to wonder, did Andy Duncan steal my reading list?

Rousseau’s Form of Socialism – Alexander Gray – Mises Daily

A fascinating article on Rousseau’s Form of Socialism, discovered today, which reproduces this quote:

The first man who, having enclosed a piece of land, took it into his head to say: “This belongs to me,” and found people simple enough to believe him, was the true founder of civil society. What crimes, wars, murders, what miseries and horrors would have been spared the human race by him who, snatching out the stakes or filling in the ditch, should have cried to his fellows, “Beware of listening to this impostor; you are lost if you forget that the fruits belong to all and that the earth belongs to none.”

When a supposed intellectual has matters so very wrong, what is to be said? Read on…

Blast from the Past: A Warning about Socialism – Gene Epstein – Mises Daily

Last week, I had occasion to attend a meeting with some proper old-fashioned Marxists. They should be reminded where full-blooded state socialism leads:

Pictures of the Socialistic Future tells an engrossing story about a socialist paradise that swiftly degenerates into a societal dungeon. Originally published in an English translation back in 1893 — which adds immeasurably to its resonance — it has been reissued recently in paperback by the Ludwig von Mises Institute, a research center on free-market economics.

The story is narrated by a middle-aged bookbinder named Schmidt, who initially welcomes the “entirely new and glorious times … in store for us” as socialism takes over Germany. As events unfold, he grows increasingly troubled, providing reasoned analysis suffused with denial that borders on the comic. Vowing to “set down, in a humble way, some little account of the beginning of this new reign of brotherhood and universal philanthropy,” he never reveals his first name. But we hear about his son, Franz, daughter, Annie, daughter-in-law, Agnes, and his “better half, Paula,” while experiencing his pain as he recounts their reversals at the hands of the new socialist order, climaxing in his own tragic end.

This is not a socialism of Stalinist murderers, but of social engineers who unhesitantly subordinate freedom to their egalitarian ideals, a path that leads inevitably to totalitarianism, material impoverishment, and violence. When the government’s plan to confiscate all financial assets leaves the narrator’s daughter-in-law, Agnes, “inconsolable,” Schmidt sympathizes, explaining that “for a long time past she has been industriously saving up.”

Read more: Blast from the Past: A Warning about Socialism – Gene Epstein – Mises Daily.

HS2 meeting with Rt Hon Philip Hammond

I attended an HS2 meeting with Philip Hammond in Amersham tonight.

My impression is that the consultation is sincere and that the Secretary of State is willing to engage meaningfully. However, I believe the government is also sincerely committed to the programme.

My main point was that rational economic calculation is not possible without the unhampered formation of prices and that prices in transport today are subject to a range of interventions. That is, far from knowing that HS2 would revitalise the north, we do not even know whether we over-produce transport infrastructure. This is the socialist calculation problem. More on the theory here.

And congratulations to the HS2 Action Alliance for their superb work!

More anon when the papers report the meeting.

On the anniversary of Imjin River

Today is the anniversary of one of the most extraordinary battles fought during the Cold War.

The battle by the (Glorious) Gloucester Regiment against an entire Chinese army at the Imjin River was one of the most exceptional moments of the war against totalitarian socialism. So, please, if you are minded, do join me to remember what price people paid on all sides in the battle between freedom and state control.

You can find a related video here. I will be helping in another constituency today, while reflecting on this quote:

I see now more clearly than ever before that even our greatest troubles spring from something that is as admirable and sound as it is dangerous — from our impatience to better the lot of our fellows.

– Karl Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies: Volume 1 (Volume 2).

Soviet Britain

Via the Institute for Economic Affairs, we discover the state devouring the economy – ie, the cooperative actions of free people – for over a century:

See also The Times Online, ‘Soviet’ Britain swells amid the recession:

The state now looms far larger in many parts of Britain than it did in former Soviet satellite states such as Hungary and Slovakia as they emerged from communism in the 1990s, when state spending accounted for about 60% of their economies.

And Mises in Planning for Freedom:

The middle-of-the-road policy is not an economic system that can last. It is a method for the realization of socialism by installments.

And so it is coming to pass: a pity socialism means despotism and ruin, not utopia. There is another way.

See also

Credit – Frederic Bastiat – Mises Institute

Via the Mises Institute, a little Bastiat demonstrating how little is new under the sun:

In all times, but more especially of late years, attempts have been made to extend wealth by the extension of credit.

I believe it is no exaggeration to say, that since the revolution of February, the Parisian presses have issued more than 10,000 pamphlets, crying up this solution of the social problem.

The only basis, alas, of this solution, is an optical delusion — if, indeed, an optical delusion can be called a basis at all.

The first thing done is to confuse cash with produce, then paper money with cash; and from these two confusions it is pretended that a reality can be drawn.

Read on…