It’s not just the economy, stupid.
It’s everything, stupid.

In their haste to use ever greater state power to solve the problems caused by excess state power, the European nations intend, it appears, to use an EU institution, the ECJ, to arbitrate disputes under a non-EU treaty.

This may seem arcane, but EU matters always are. It’s one of the reasons democrats and lovers of liberty keep losing. The world long since ought to have learned that politicians must obey the law, in crisis as in routine. And yet it suits our masters to bend their own rules.

I look forward to the PM’s statement today.

If the Bank of England today decides on more Quantitative Easing, I’ll produce an article explaining why they are wrong, why QE is a grave source of injustice and how it will fail to revive the economy. In the meantime, here’s a flavour from James Tyler at The Cobden Centre:

Governments achieve rising prices by encouraging the supply of new money.  This new money comes from the central bank via its control of the banking system.  The first users of this new money are invariably politicians, finance capitalism and big business. These guys get to use the newly minted money first, and thus spend it first.  This process bids up prices, leaving everyone else chasing behind, and poor old Mr Smith last in the queue.

What an evil system it is then, when government can control money in such a way as to give it a first user advantage that penalises all those in the general population whose wealth is being rapidly diluted.  A process that systematically violates and loots pensions, savings, fixed incomes and the actions of prudent, and rewards the profligate, the speculative borrowers and above all, rewards the biggest borrower of all: Government.

Via The Australian:

Lord Lawson, 79, has long been an outspoken critic of the direction of climate change politics, doubting the ability of world leaders to agree on co-ordinated action, instead favouring adaptation and development of new technologies to replace carbon-intensive power generation.

Comments in Australia about Baroness Thatcher’s position as one of the pioneers of action against climate change were “not an accurate portrayal”, he said.

“I was as close to Margaret Thatcher as anybody at the time. The fact is initially she felt this issue needed to be looked into, but she was agnostic as to whether it was a serious problem or not.

“She was instrumental in having the IPCC set up, but it has changed greatly from what she intended as a fact finding organisation to become a lobby group.”

Lord Lawson said Baroness Thatcher made her position clear in her memoirs and her later book Statecraft.

“She did have reason for highlighting the possibility of global warming because the biggest threat to the UK energy security at the time was the stranglehold the Marxist National Union of Mine Workers had on the coal industry.

“She felt Britain should not be so dependent on coal. She was in favour of building up nuclear energy to break the dependence on coal and the main opposition to nuclear came from the environment movement. Mrs Thatcher thought she could trap them with the carbon emissions argument.”

Via Libya and the War Powers Act – NYTimes.com, comment on Obama’s conflict with Congress over whether US participation is within his authority:

It would be hugely costly — for this country’s credibility, for the future of NATO and for the people of Libya — if Congress were to force President Obama to abandon military operations over Libya. However, Mr. Obama cannot evade his responsibility, under the War Powers Act, to seek Congressional approval to continue the operation.

…

But the 1973 act does not apply solely to boots-on-the-ground, full-out shooting wars. It says that 60 or 90 days after notifying Congress of the introduction of armed forces “into hostilities or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated,” the president must receive Congressional authorization or terminate the mission.

The subject came up in Foreign Office questions on 7 June, when Richard Fuller pipped me to it:

Richard Fuller (Bedford, Conservative)

The good work of our armed forces, the Department for International Development and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in Libya depends on the support of the United States. Does the Foreign Secretary have any comment to make on moves in the US Congress to review President Obama’s decision on his commitment to our efforts in Libya?

William Hague (Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs; Richmond (Yorks), Conservative)

This has been a long-running constitutional issue in the United States of America between various Presidents and Congress, and I probably have enough on without wading into American constitutional theory. We are assured by the US Administration that—[Interruption.] No, I really am not going to wade into that. We are assured by the US Administration that they are entirely satisfied with the powers they have to undertake the operations that they are undertaking and that those operations will continue.

So there we have it. For my own part, the US War Powers Resolution seems simple enough and the NY Times is right: President Obama cannot evade his responsibility to secure Congressional approval. He should do so.

Via Mail Online:

A Tory Euro rebel MP was reportedly reduced to tears after being caught in the crossfire between his millionaire father and a furious David Cameron over a vote to stop Brussels gaining more power over Britain.

I wonder who reported that. I was with Chris, the subject of the article, in the Chamber after we voted and he was as supremely relaxed and self-assured as usual.

Fun and games perhaps, but perpetrated by whom?