Ireland offers chance to look at future of EU

The resounding "No" vote for the Lisbon Treaty in the Republic of Ireland is bringing out the very worst in what so many Europeans loathe about the European Union - the complete contempt that those running it have for their opinions.

*

Reports of the likes of Gordon Brown, Sarkozy and the EU Commission president all saying that"ratification" will continue, flies in the face of the fundamental point that without all 27 EU member states ratifying it, the Lisbon Treaty is not meant to proceed.

*

With the exception of Czech President, Vaclav Klaus, most of the EU political establishment is calling for things to continue as usual, as if Ireland is some small irrelevancy - exactly what so many Irish voters no doubt fear.

*

So what IS it that European voters fear? Much has been made of how Ireland has benefited from the EU. It has to some extent, on the one hand for some years Ireland received millions of Euro in subsidies for infrastructure projects as one of the "poor" countries of the 12 of the time, it also had a new open market for its products and services. However, it helped immensely that Ireland cut taxes, especially company tax, and sought to be business friendly. This was not an approach that some EU members (e.g. France, Belgium, Italy) have taken.

*

Irish voters may ask "why" the Lisbon treaty is important. Talk about it making the EU more efficient sounds rather peculiar. However more clear is the removal of the national veto for more issues, in other words evolving the EU from an association of 27 more or less equal member states to one of double majorities. It is very clear that Lisbon Treaty advocates have failed to sell the advantages, if any, of the Treaty.

*

Opposition to the Lisbon Treaty is sometimes seen to be opposition to the EU, opposition to globalisation by those on the left, and a resurgent old fashioned nationalism by those on the right. At the skindeep level I don't particularly mind this, but I embrace globalisation and find nationalism largely knuckle dragging.

*

I like the EU on one level. Let's not forget what it has done. In a generation, countries that were once at war shared open borders, within two generations former Soviet Republics were integrated into a customs union including Ireland, Portugal, Cyprus, Sweden and Germany. The prospect of war among EU member states is unthinkable, which considering the history of Europe is remarkable. A similar union in Latin America or Asia, is difficult to envisage, although Australia and New Zealand (and USA/Canada) could be in such a pairing, albeit both examples would be highly unbalanced.

*

The opening up of borders to trade, investment and movement of people among EU member states is unprecedented on any other continent. It is more liberal than CER between Australia and NZ, especially between Schengen countries. It has undoubtedly contributed to the growth in wealth, diversity and prosperity for member states. However, you could argue the European Free Trade Agreement (EFTA) which today still exists, incorporating Norway, Iceland and Switzerland (none of which are EU members), could have delivered this liberalism.

*

Beyond free trade an argument can be made for the EU harmonising some basic laws of business and creating a customs union. Common approaches to contract law, company law, conflicts of law, land law, personal property law and commercial law can make some sense. Mutual recognition of all sorts of basic licences like driving licences, vehicle roadworthiness and the like makes sense too. Finally, a customs union - so that the EU negotiates as a whole for trade access, also has great advantages. Whether something enters in Sofia, Shannon or Stockholm, it should move freely throughout the EU.

*

As a project for liberalisation of trade in goods and services, it has done wonders. It has forced member states to open up transport, telecommunications, broadcasting, energy and postal markets. However, the EU has become far more than this, it has sought to become another layer of government, bureaucracy and rule-making.

*

The ugliness of the Common Agricultural Policy is perhaps one of the most well known examples of this. The CAP sucks the biggest part of the EU's budget from net contributors such as Germany, the Netherlands and the UK, to prop up inefficient farmers in France, Finland, Belgium and the like, it also pays some farmers to not produce, it uses the customs union to ban imports of some commodities from some countries, impose quotas on others (like dairy products from NZ) and tariffs on yet others, then it subsidises inefficient farmers to dump their goods on world markets. On top of that it isn't ever fair across the EU, as the 12 newest member states only get subsidies at one-third the level of the others, so undoubtedly the most impoverish farmers in the EU, the Polish, Hungarian, Romanian, Bulgarian, Slovak and Baltic ones don't get anywhere near the support of France's inefficient farmers. This monstrosity in itself should give pause for thought about the EU, but it is only part of it.

*

The EU also treats all member state Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZ) as common EU ocean space for fishing, all very well if it weren't for the overfishing subsidised and protected by the EU - one reason why major fishing nations Norway and Iceland have resisted EU membership. It imposes a requirement for a MINIMUM level of fuel tax for all member states - tough if you don't want one. It pursues projects of absurdity, such as the horrendously expensive Galileo satellite navigation system, a competitor for GPS and Glonass (Russia's version), except GPS and Glonass are free for users. It is costing EU taxpayers 3.4 billion euros, but the EU doesn't really care - it just sucks the money from member states.

*

You see it is spending 116 billion Euro in the current (soon to be ended) financial year. Shared among 497 million people that is 233 Euro per man/woman and child. Yes, those in Bulgaria are unlikely to have contributed as much as those from Luxembourg, but you can see the cost per family of the EU - and that doesn't include the compliance costs of business, or the cost to taxpayers for their bureaucracies to service the EU.

*

You see the EU is a synthesis of liberalisation and collectivisation. It has at once been a project of opening up the economies of member states to each other, and at the same time somewhat closing them to the outside world, whilst building up a new top layer of government, over central and local (and provincial) governments. Socialists in Europe have seen the EU become a repositary for funding regional development, in the form of massive infrastructure projects, cultural projects and others that no libertarian would see as a fit reason for the EU. Some have sought the EU having powers to interfere with tax powers of member states, to avoid the inconvenience of competing with the likes of Slovakia, which has a flat rate of income tax.

*

This tension has built within in a kind of arrogance in Brussels, that it represents what people in 27 member states want (and after all its expansion surely shows how great the EU is, doesn't it?), it is what is GOOD for them, and the attitude so many politicians have had to the Irish vote is telling indeed. It has on the one hand the kind of big power dismissive attitude that Ireland is small and shouldn't hold up the "great project", the same attitude that those people would accuse of the USA. Since none of the other member states have been willing to hold referenda on the Lisbon Treaty, it speaks volumes of the fear the EU holds for them politically with the public.

*

So while the Euroskeptics who want to throw away the EU are wrong, so are the EU adventurers who see the project as being an ever greater integration - one which is wholly unnecessary and not advantageous to Europeans. The EU should be a project of liberalisation, open up economies and markets, and letting nation states compete freely, and look outwards. Member states should be free to shrink their governments as they wish, and cut taxes, and cut regulations as they see fit - not be required to regulate because Brussels says so. Some in the east believed this is what it was - a chance to be part of a market larger than the USA (and to be fair, some money to build infrastructure wracked by decades of Soviet imperialism). Some in the west, such as France, see it as a way of cauterising liberalisation by forcing all member states to operate according to similar rules.

So it is time to have a debate - an open and honest one. Not one characterised by the EU aristocracy sighing and bemoaning critics as being narrow minded nationalists or ignorant, but also not one of shouting and EU bashing, justified though some may be. It is one about the role of the state, and what that means for the EU members. It will challenge the conservative right and the statist left to think differently - it offers the EU the chance to have the dynamism of the USA, and set its people free to develop, grow and embrace. As the EU observes Russia grow on the back of oil, the Middle East and Asia grow as economic powerhouses in their own rights, and the USA, despite current setbacks, continuing to be the world's economic superpower for the next decade or so, it might wonder whether its people can hold their own, or whether it should tie itself up in more and more little knots, called for by special interests, who see their main job being seeking favours paid for by other Europeans. Let any dabbling with socialism be a national project, than an EU member state can engage in at its peril - not one that strangles so many countries that spent over 40 years fighting to be unshackled from statist control.

Still want to sacrifice wealth for climate change policy?

Having recently returned from the United Arab Emirates, I have a few observations:

• In the UAE everyone drives, big cars, even short distances because daytime temperatures get between 35 and 43 degrees. That means they use a lot of petrol, per capita, adding the air conditioning that is almost ubiquitous. You see it's highly subsidised there because the country is doing quite well thanks to record oil prices. There is very little public transport.
  
• Buildings are almost all air conditioned, which in that heat isn't cheap. Except all of the electricity is generated from that subsidised oil.
• Water is produced from desalination, the most energy intensive way, and per capita water consumption in the UAE is one of the highest in the world.
  
• New Zealand's per capita GDP is around US$30,000 p.a. UAE's is over US$42,000. Even on a PPP (Purchasing power parity) basis NZ is at US$27,000 and UAE at least US$37,000.
  

The UAE is not doing a jot about reducing CO2 emissions. Indeed, it is making an enormous profit from those who DO emit, it is subsidising its own population burning fuel, and is an economy fueled on emitting CO2.

Now I'm not picking on the UAE, it is just one example - of a so-called "developing country" far wealthier on a per head of population basis that New Zealand. Yet so many New Zealand politicians would rather it lead the way, whilst the likes of the UAE is expected to do nothing. You see, even if you accept that there should be "action on climate change", why are there a fair number of countries that are considered to be "developing" yet have lower per capita GDP than NZ? (Bahrain, Brunei, Kuwait, Qatar,Singapore and Taiwan are others)

Still feel like engaging in austerity measures to save the planet, when many countries basking in oil wealth are doing the exact opposite?

Like you needed another reason to not fly Ryanair

Snobby elitist post...

According to ABTN "Ryanair has fitted 15 Dublin-based aircraft with technology to allow in-flight calls and text messages, with trials to start at the end of July.

By the end of the next fiscal year it wants to extend this to 50 aircraft, and across its fleet within a year and half."

So besides virtually no service groundside, no service in the air, stripping planes to the bare minimum with fixed seats, no windowshades, now you would have to put up with gobby tourists waffling on about how "I'm on the plane" or with the incessant "beep beep .......... beep beep" text messaging notification sound. Though given Michael O'Leary said “The charge you pay will be the international roaming charges" and Ryanair customers are tighter than Mbeki and Mugabe, it might be not that bad.

I say you, because I wont fly Ryanair. With Gold Elite Air NZ status I can fly in the back on short European flights with Star Alliance airlines, use business class checkin, have lounge access and business class baggage, and be with an airline that does provide some sort of service on the ground. Beyond that BA isn't half bad, sometimes has good deals in Club Europe (business class) and I am halfway to being Gold Qantas so I can do the same with OneWorld as I can with Star Alliance. Now I'm not saying flights around Europe in economy class are great, they are not that comfortable, have almost always bad food (though free drinks are appreciatd) are often late and uninspiring - but they are step beyond Ryanair's truly cattle class (and many of the people you travel with are too!). However, if you are willing to travel as freight then you'll pay - and it's the same with flying third (economy) class UK-NZ, especially without a stopover.

Fortunately tomorrow I'm flying BA back, and not in fourth, third or second class.

When left is right and down is up - the bizarre world of Sue Kedgley

Sue Kedgley reporting on the food conference she attended says "They argued that the main cause of the crisis was that food production in much of the developing world has been decimated by three decades of globalization and free trade liberalization policies. Previously self sufficient countries had been unable to compete with heavily subsidized, cheap European and American food and so small self sufficient agriculturalsectors collapsed in country after country, leaving developing countries dependent on imports and food aid."

Ok - now read that again. "three decades of globalization and free trade liberalization policies" (sic, what's those AmericaniZations Sue?)? Huh, might have missed that one while the EU Common Agricultural Policy was subsidising domestic production and exports and shutting out imports, the US doing a less protectionist version, Japan doing even worse on rice, and South Korea, EEA zone members all doing anything BUT free trade liberalisation and in most cases resisting efforts at the WTO to encourage multilateral agricultural trade liberalisation.

Then she goes on "New Zealand is seen, thanks to our flag waving for free trade liberalization policies, as ‘an enemy of the third world’ and a slave of America and Europe." which she didn't correct, because she thinks it is true too. If only Europe and the USA were slaves for free trade liberalisation in Agriculture.

Seriously, Sue is either:
1. Stupid.
2. Manipulatively lying or
3. Mentally deranged.

You cannot say something is what it isn't without being one of those. So which one is it?

Perhaps the simplest mistake the Greens make on transport

There are so many, but best seen in this post condemning Labour spending on motorways (which in these two particular cases, I actually agree with the Greens on, because they are well over the top from what is needed):

"they are about to spend $2 billion on a short motorway tunnel in Auckland, and $1 billion on a new motorway in Wellington. Neither of these will be needed in an oil-scarce world, but better public transport and rail will"

Does anyone truly believe that with a history of around eighty years of ever increasing private mobility with the private car, that a change in fuel will see people wanting to plan most of their trips around schedules, waiting, sharing vehicles with others? Public transport will always have a role, for those who can't afford a park, who are travelling on busy corridors where large numbers of people start and finish at similar destinations, and it can offer a speed advantage because it has a good corridor. It works for those without cars. However, it wont replace most trips - it never will.

The idea that more roads or road improvements wont be needed when oil isn't the primary source of motive fuel for road vehicles, is banal. They may be an interruption, a short period of transition if, and it is a big if, the future is not oil - but something else (I wont guess, since so many want to guess and get the government to pick winners). However, people LIKE cars, people LIKE driving, they love the freedom it brings. In busy cities, alternatives make sense because space is precious, putting up the cost of parking and creating congestion (or in the right cities putting up the price for roads) -but that is it. Those alternatives make sense in certain circumstances and at certain times.

Collective transport is chosen as second best, by almost everyone.

One simple question to ask every single National Party candidate

Do you support voluntary student union membership?

Of course they could all publicly indicate what they DO think.

Of course any don't say they will fully support free choice of students to belong or not belong to a student union, don't deserve the vote of freedom loving people. In fact if they prevaricate, just say "fuck off you fascist, I may as well vote Labour".

Of course if they all support it like David Farrar does, then there MIGHT be one step forward for freedom if the Nats win.

State Highway 1 at Mana

Ok, very minority interest item here, but given the Dom Post reported on it.

The high occupancy vehicle lanes through Mana should be converted into standard clearways. Two full lanes in the direction of peak flow. Short high occupancy vehicle lanes are ridiculous.

Meanwhile, congestion at Paremata/Mana continues to be relieved by the upgrade from Paremata to Plimmerton that cost $25 million, instead of what politicians were advocating - Transmission Gully at over $1 billion. See they know so well how to spend your money.

So United Future joins the tax cut game

As a party polling at the same level as Libertarianz, Peter Dunne has to be thinking whether he risks being a one man band after the next election. Don't forget that is exactly what he was after the 1996 election (when none of the Labour and National MPs who defected to what was then United held onto their seats), and the 1999 election when Libertarianz party vote beat United in a number of seats. He doesn't want to go back to that.

So United Future has launched its tax policy, which David Farrar describes. On the face of it he is offering a step forward. Three tax rates, of 10, 20 and 30%. It's far more radical than Labour, and I think more radical than NATIONAL would consider. After all it gets rid of the 39% tax rate, something National has been too scared to talk about because it doesn't have the courage or intellectual robustness to fight it (even though it opposed it in the first place). Give him credit, he has announced a comprehensive policy. ACT has announced half a policy (get rid of 39% and have a tax free threshold), National none.

However, for that you might ask Peter Dunne a few questions:

1. You're the Minister of Revenue. You have kept the current government in power for two terms, indeed you are PART of it. If you have such a radical approach to tax, why haven't you withdrawn providing confidence and supply and helped initiate an early election? (of course the Greens would probably step in). Do you like having it both ways or is the only policy that matters the completely wasteful Families Commission?
2. Would you achieve this with spending cuts? If so, where, given you are responsible for creating an obvious bureaucracy to abolish.
3. Given you're meant to be a party in the centre, should we expect you'll only back National if it implements a version of you're moderately worthwhile tax cuts? If not, why not?

Most importantly, a vote for United Future in 2002 and 2005 proved to be a vote for keeping Labour in power. In 2002 many opponents to Labour voted United Future to give Labour an alternative coalition partner to the Greens. In 2005, half of those voters returned to National because it had a chance of winning.

In 2008, you might wonder why anyone who wants a change of government would bother casting a party vote for a party that has helped kept Helen Clark in power for two out of her three terms, and whose most well known achievement has been creating a useless bureaucracy. The people of Ohariu-Belmont might also ask what he has done for them. I certainly don't know.

Zimbabwe now partly a military junta

The Daily Telegraph disturbingly reports that the Joint Operations Command (JOC) committee that looks after national security in Zimbabwe appears to be dominating government in the country - given its suspension of work by overseas aid agencies. The Telegraph claims:

"They ensured Mr Mugabe did not step down after his defeat in the presidential election's first round in March and are now masterminding a campaign of terror to suppress the opposition Movement for Democratic Change and guarantee victory for Mr Mugabe in the June 27 run-off.

The most powerful figures on the JOC are Gen Constantine Chiwenga, the overall military chief; Augustine Chihuri, the national police commissioner, and Gen Paradzai Zimondi, the commander of the prison service."

They are all beneficiaries of Mugabe's confiscation of farms, and his kleptocratic rule. Make no mistake of it, this is not a positive move. It appears Mugabe is useful to them, but he also needs them at least as much as they need him. Apparently the generals convinced him to not concede after the first round.

Tiseke Kasambala, a Zimbabwe specialist at Human Rights Watch, said there was an "increasing militarisation of the state". "The evidence points to an increasing role by the army in state affairs," she said. "The army is no longer just in barracks, waiting to protect the country. The army is out there, taking a role in the day-to-day government of the country."

Make no mistake about it, this is a symbiotic relationship of oppression. The generals get some moral authority from Mugabe, who rallies some support and gets the respect of his felching submissive lickspittle Thabo Mbeki and others. He needs them to maintain power and protect him. However it does not bode well for the upcoming election run off. Assuming the generals and Mugabe seize power from that, the world can look closer at South Africa - which has the greatest influence over the regime. Nevertheless, even a bullet in Mugabe, as proposed by Silent Running, and previously by myself, may not be sufficient now.

Meanwhile, Christopher Hitchens has an insightful article on Slate which describes why Thabo Mbeki fawns to Mugabe. It is linked to Mugabe's disdain for Nelson Mandela, the Maoist connections of Mugabe vs the Soviet connections of the ANC, and African politics more generally. Worth a read.

Maori Party worships at the Obama altar

Tariana Turia has said:

"Obama’s message for change is the same message that the Maori Party carries, and his hope for a brighter future is a message we embrace as well"

Except:

1. He doesn't lead the "African-American Party" but a non-ethnically defined party;
2. He is not a Senator of an ethnically defined constituency (which is not to deny that seriously gerrymandered constituencies exist in the USA, as they do);
3. He hasn't, as far as I know, sought to change the US Federal Government to set aside Congress seats on the basis of ethnicity.

Pita Sharples does say "His success is an inspiration to the Maori Party, and to all people of colour seeking to change the way politics is conducted all over the world".

Change what and how, into what? Robert Mugabe changed the way politics was done in Zimbabwe, from whites only racist democracy to non-racist tyranny. Bokassa changed politics in the Central African Republic by declaring it an Empire, spending 40% of the country's GDP on his coronation where he dressed like Napoleon, and ended up shooting at schoolchildren who protested because they couldn't afford the compulsory French style school uniforms he specified.

"People of colour" are hardly the only bearers of tyranny, but they are not necessarily torchbearers of freedom and prosperity. Besides, who doesn't have colour? I know the Maori Party is leftwing, but it is quite something to endorse Obama. I presume it is not just because of his skin colour, although the implication of the press release is predominantly that.

You can't beat the sick inducing fawning of Hone Harawira though "He’s African-American, he has the appeal of Martin Luther King, the backing of the Kennedy clan, the rapturous support of millions of Black Americans". Yes we know he is African-American, but he is a minnow compared to Martin Luther King and having the backing of the untouchable super wealthy family that raised money to fund terrorism in Northern Ireland is hardly a virtue.

Harawira continues:

"and his oratory continues to soar above the cynical point-scoring of candidates whose rhetoric has exhausted and alienated Americans. In a country torn by division, and wearied by an unwanted war, Barack Obama is fresh, enthusiastic, optimistic, and positive. He has already broken barriers and challenged conventions. He has excited people wherever he has gone, and engaged millions in politics for the first time in their lives. I only wish i could meet the man and say "I love you Mr Obama"" OK I added the last bit. His rhetoric is exhausting, and Pamela Anderson has excited people wherever she has gone.

Come on Hone, go over and campaign for him, loudly and actively - the end result will benefit New Zealand, the USA and the world. Especially since Obama's policy on trade in agriculture is contrary to New Zealand's (except Sue Kedgley's).

Obama has it, now can we look past his colour?

Yes it is historic that an African-American has a major party nomination, particularly given that it was only in his lifetime that African-Americans were subject to racist state oppression. That was a blemish against the USA that has since been well and truly cleaned up. This IS important, but that is all.

However, while international media coverage shows saturation interest in that (partly of course because the US Presidency is so important globally), it is time to start the real debate - which is what does Barack Obama stand for?

I have blogged before about this. Once people get over Obamamania, once the "yes he's black isn't that great" hype has slipped into the background, the substance behind the hype needs to be looked at.

I believe he may be the most leftwing major party nominee since George McGovern.

Americans will have a stark choice, not that John McCain is faultless, but Obama needs real scrutiny. I'm afraid the word "change" without more of the "what and how and for what ends" isn't going to wash. He is already is a supporter of billions of dollars of agricultural subsidy pork that McCain opposed. He is already a supporter of "cut and run" from Iraq, leaving it to murdering Islamists. Let's have a real debate, and look past his groupies.

Vile "ancient virtues"

The Briefing Room is the blog of Investigate Magazine, the magazine that would prefer digging up dirt about Helen Clark's sexuality than investigating the real truth behind the Urewera 17, or the scaremongering nonsense politics of Jeanette Fitzsimons, or the promoters of violence within the Maori Party is - no. It has a Christian bent, and my attention was brought to this post - digging up the old vacuous claim that atheism isn't enough, and the reason why reason evading dictators kill millions.

.

It has a point. It is why I am an objectivist. Nobody can credibly claim atheism is a comprehensive philosophy, it simply is the denial of the supernatural. The post is full of absolute nonsense, implying that atheists are devoid of morality, and that somehow Nietzsche and hedonism are the alternative to ghost worshipping. The truth is that there are umpteen ideologies that have nothing to do with ghost worshipping, much like there are umpteen that include ghost worshipping. It is tired and ludicrous to claim atheists share one set of views, anymore than damning all religions for all the trouble in the world.

.

However, the post continues saying "The ancient virtues of poverty, chastity, and obedience are universally despised".

.

I'm so disgusted beyond words. Poverty is a virtue. The same repulsive ideology propagated by Mother Theresa of Calcutta, who received succour from the murderous Duvalier's in Haiti and the Hoxha atheist communist dictatorship in Albania. The suffering of the poor is glorious, the sick sadistic life-destroying face of Christianity. Sacrificing people to poverty as a virtue. Of course nobody who actually IS in true poverty believes that.

.

Chastity is the least offensive. At least it is a choice if you wish to deny sexuality from your life. However a virtue? A virtue to deny from your life the pleasure of touching and enjoying touch from someone you feel intimately close with? The implication that it is filthy and disgusting, like your body, like the "original sin" that conceives children. The ideology that sex is tolerated only to breed within marriage, but the most virtuous are priests and nuns - and we all know the universally virtuous record they all have.

.

Obedience is a virtue? Yes just blindly follow what others tell you do. "I was only following orders" says the concentration camp commandante, says the Khmer Rouge cadre, says the Red Guard, says the inquisitor in the Middle Ages, says the slave owner, says the husband whose wife swore to "love honour and obey", says the Police who hounded Alan Turing to suicide by enforcing the hideous criminal laws on homosexuality.

.

This post continues thinking Christianity is "the great Faith that set Europe free from the superstitious fear of pagan deities, that converted Rome and Byzantium, that today brings hope and joy to millions in Asia and Africa". What were the Dark Ages but a time of superstitious fear? In fact what is most of Western history before the Enlightenment and the rebirth of reason? It was superstition, fear, murder and destruction.

Anderton is right

No I haven't gone mad, Jim's learnt something.

.

He once would have been a part of the lunatic left, now he's damning the Green Party's silly call for Fonterra to charge people less than the international market price for milk according to the NZ Herald.

.

Check this quote "It might make the handwringing Greens feel good to say this sort of banal statement but what are they really asking for?" ..."The only sustainable way to price goods is by international markets. Anything less and you are on a slippery and unsustainable slope."

.

Bloody hell. How can you disagree with that? That was Jim Anderton, the man who fought Rogernomics, who set up the New Labour Party and the Alliance.

.

Then he says "The only sustainable and sensible way to help Kiwi households meet their food bills is to grow the economy and provide better pay, more jobs and tax relief such as Working for Families."

.

Besides Working for Families (which isn't tax relief, it's middle class welfare), he's right again, a growing economy and tax relief is the best way to help Kiwi households. We'd disagree on the government's role in that obviously, but it shows how distant the Greens are from mainstream politics and reason.

UN Secretary General demands free trade in food

According to the NZ Herald UN Secretary General Ban-Ki Moon has come out at the UN's Food and Agriculture Organisation conference on the right side of the argument about world trade in food.

.

He has argued forcefully for:

- An end to export restrictions (so that producers can sell freely to willing buyers, incentivising them to produce more);

- An end to import tariffs and restrictions on food imports (so that consumers in importing countries do not have their prices inflated by protectionism);

- An end to subsidies for biofuels, so that agricultural production for food isn't disadvantaged relative to biofuels;

- Eliminations of taxes that discriminate against farming.

.

It's not everything (subsidies for agriculture should go too), but it would go a long way towards easing the problems in world food trade. Even solidly leftwing Brazilian President Lula da Silva has called for the end to agricultural subsidies he said the world would not be facing the food crisis "if developing countries had been stimulated in a free-market context". "The solution - Lula went on - is not protectionism which would slow down demand. The solution is to increase food supply, open up markets and wipe out subsidies in order to meet increasing demand. And for this a radical change in ways of thinking and acting is required".

.

He's quite right.

.

Far better than the ravings of Sue Kedgley who has gone to argue the opposite at the same conference. Will the mainstream NZ media question her as to why she went to an international conference to argue for policies that hurt the NZ economy and which developing country governments oppose? What credibility does this raving lunatic have?

.

Meanwhile Mugabe has gone to spread lies, and has been snubbed by the Italian government and the US (but will NZ do it?). Iranian President and homophobic Islamist nutcase Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has used the FAO meeting to say Israel will disappear and claimed some conspiracy on food and oil prices. I continue to wonder if Jim Anderton, leading the NZ delegation and Sue Kedgley will speak out against these two tyrants.

Maori Party wants more welfare

It's supporting taxpayers funding both sides in the Child Poverty Inaction Group case.

.

Pita Sharples has the audacity to say "Of course, I believe every taxpayer in this land would prefer that this case hadn’t needed to come to court, to involve the international experts and the expenses that no doubt the Crown will incur in presenting their defence". Indeed, had the taxpayer not funded the socialist CPAG, it wouldn't. Furthermore if Working for Families is abolished (as Lindsay Mitchell rightfully advocates) and the proceeds used to cut taxes, then there wouldn't be any case, and then there would be no discrimination - except of course the tax system.

.

You see for some reason (if I was in NZ, but it applies also in the UK), when I earn an extra dollar I lose 39c of it, but when most people do, they lose only 15c or 19.5c, some lose 33c. It's quite discriminatory, and I don't impose any greater cost on taxpayers, I don't live an unhealthy lifestyle, I don't have children, I don't interact with the criminal justice system, I don't own share in any businesses that receive subsidies. Yet I would pay a lot more than those who DO have a lot of children, who are beneficiaries, who interact with the criminal justice system (or whose kids do), and who live unhealthy lifestyles, and depend on others to pay for their housing.

.

That's discriminatory.

Subsidised music swapping, youtube, gaming

Don't have high speed internet access? You fool - you are being made to pay grants to help subsidise the business of those supplying it.

You could just like books, but tough because the government wont make other people pay for those. You might like foreign films, but again, tough. You might like painting, but no, the state wont pay for that. This is a special bribe.

It's just another part of the advance auction of stolen goods. Your taxes being taken to pay for something Labour thinks you'll like. Well many of you will. Grants to broadband providers will make it a bit cheaper for you to download music for your ipod, watch youtube, listen to internet radio, download porn videos, engage in internet gaming. Yes of course it also will enable some businesses, but cheaper broadband benefits all such users - except it's only cheaper to the user. The taxpayer is screwed, and David Cuntliffe gets the credit, for his great plan to spend your money.

See he produces nothing. He didn't invent the internet, use his own money to set up a business to supply it, he just advocated to take more of your money and spend it on this little bribe. He says "his model provides better value for taxpayers, encourages more service providers into the market and drives competition.” Of course taxpayers never had a say did they David? You couldn't convince them to fund it voluntarily could you? Wasn't your money to spend was it?

.

Oh and of course, National promises even more.

Libertarianz principled on NOT spending your money

The law prevents political parties from spending their own money on broadcasting advertising, and forces you to pay for them to do so, that's whether or not you agree with any of them. The Electoral Commission has released how it will be spending your money to advertise political parties most of you probably wouldn't have given a cent to. The results are here.

.

Libertarianz is refusing this year to take the money, on principle. It believes that you shouldn't be forced to pay for it to advertise to you, at all. However, clearly every other political party is content with its hand in your bank account taking your money to make ads for you to hear or watch, without your consent.

.

Of course that leaves it at a disadvantage compared with all other political parties, but then again it was at a disadvantage anyway. You see Labour and National both get just over $3.2 million to spend on advertising to you. How democratic is that? How fair is that? Why should the two dominant parties both get substantial amounts of money to advertise to you?

.

While I fundamentally oppose taxpayer funding of political party advertising, I happen to agree with Idiot Savant at No Right Turn that if the parties are not going to get equal funding, those that get less funding should at least be legally allowed to spend their own money up to the amount Labour and National have got. Why not? Why shouldn't at the very least, ACT, the Greens, Libertarianz, Maori Party or Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party spend as much of their own money as they like, up to the $3.1 million?

.

Why are Labour and National so special? Where are the MMP advocates pushing for breaking this duopoly? Perhaps they fear ACT could raise the money more readily than parties on the left, though I'm not so sure - the Greens are good at fundraising. National says it is fair, well they would wouldn't they? Happily protecting the state enforced duopoly on broadcasting.

.

So if you object to being forced to pay for political parties campaigning for your vote, only one party qualified for funding and refused to spend your money - Libertarianz.

.

You should be able to choose whether you fund a political party - forcing you to do so is undemocratic and nothing to do with political freedom.

The blood spilt at Tiananmen

19 years ago it was, and I was 19 years old when it happened. I wrote much about it a couple of years ago, and that is all still valid.

.

I visited the very place myself, and paused for a moment to remember. I was, after all, a university student at the time, and it could have been me gunned down, or arrested, for arguing for free speech. China has moved on in many ways since then, but it still keeps a tight rein on free speech. It has incorporated Hong Kong, a beautiful vibrant world city of trade, freedom, commerce and culture - look there China, spread what Hong Kong has to all of China. Look at Taiwan, it has much the same and thrives.

.

So today spare a moment to remember the last moment some Chinese people stood up for the simple right of freedom of expression, when China looked like it might make the step of separating party and state - an essential prerequisite to fight corruption and establish rule of law. It's not anti-China, it's as pro-China as one can be - it believes the Chinese people can make choices to rule their own lives and express themselves, without fear of saying as they wish, and without fear of what they may say. Go on China, the USA and Japan can do it, South Korea can do it, Hong Kong, Macau and Taiwan can do it. The only people who should be afraid are those who fear criticism and cannot respond creditably. Even people in Hong Kong can march against what happened in Tiananmen Square.

.

Meanwhile, China Radio International (the successor to Radio Beijing) wont be repeating this broadcast today. This was what was said, before freedom was snuffed out in the Chinese state media:

"Please remember June the Third, 1989. The most tragic event happened in the Chinese Capital, Beijing. Thousands of people, most of them innocent civilians, were killed by fully-armed soldiers when they forced their way into city. Among the killed are our colleagues at Radio Beijing. The soldiers were riding on armored vehicles and used machine guns against thousands of local residents and students who tried to block their way. When the army conveys made the breakthrough, soldiers continued to spray their bullets indiscriminately at crowds in the street. Eyewitnesses saysome armored vehicles even crushed foot soldiers who hesitated in front ofthe resisting civilians. [The] Radio Beijing English Department deeply mourns those who died in the tragic incident and appeals to all its listeners to join our protest for the gross violation of human rights and the most barbarous suppression of the people.”

.

China seems more open to debate nowadays, so I call you to go here, to China Radio International's website and ask why it doesn't discuss the events of 3 June 1989. Do so politely, there is a form in the bottom right hand corner. Sadly I expect it will go into this sort of denial, but go on - someone will be reading it.

CPAG - how chardonnay socialists fight poverty

It should be no surprise that I find the so called "Child Poverty Action Group" disgusting. The one thing it doesn't do is take action against child poverty, it doesn't spend a dollar on helping kids in poor families. No. It lobbies the state to take more money off of others by force.

.

You see it doesn't actually want to alleviate child poverty directly. It says "The core objectives of the Child Poverty Action Group are: To promote better policies for children and young people; To promote awareness of the causes and consequences of child poverty"

.

This is how it achieves its goals "CPAG publishes reports, makes submissions and conducts small-scale research projects to achieve its goals." Yep, don't look for breakfast kids, don't hope that CPAG might get you a new mattress, CPAG is "publishing a report" instead.

.

Pricks. Not getting their clean little academic hands dirty actually helping people, they lobby for socialists answers - high minimum wages, compulsory taxpayer funded health and education and higher welfare benefits. You see they don't really care that people who are poor breeding isn't a good idea, they want you to pay for that. They don't promote birth control, they promote more welfare, other families and those wise enough to not breed paying for those who do. They milk stories of poverty, feeding off it for their agenda and doing absolutely fuck all themselves. Of those listed on the website, most will certainly be earning above average wages.

.

According to the NZ Herald the court case they are taking claiming Labour's middle class welfare Working for Families is "discriminatory" because it doesn't spend even more compulsorily taken money to give welfare beneficiaries something for nothing. Think how much the court case is costing CPAG, and the state - think how that could have been spent on poverty, and you'll see how much CPAG really gives a damn. It's mainly costing you according to the NZ Herald:

.

"Both sides of the legal argument are being financed by taxpayers - the action group's case through the Office of Human Rights Proceedings and the Government's defence through the Crown Law Office."

.

Nice, so you - the taxpayers (oh it's the cost of civilisation) are forced to pay for a pack of socialists lobbying to make you pay more welfare benefits, and you're also forced to pay to defend against it. Too hard for CPAG to pay for advertising to run a charity to actually help the poor of course, they couldn't screw people who actually plan their lives, look after their own kids.

.

It is one thing to give a damn about poverty and do something about it actively, like the Salvation Army actually does (regardless of any judgment of its religious agenda), but another to claim you are undertaking "action on poverty" and doing nothing but lobbying to make others pay money to help people through the state.

and that's not even dealing with the issue of welfarism as raised by No Minister. Theodore Dalrymple in his excellent book "Life at the Bottom" describes graphically the world view and culture of the "underclass" that traps so many in poverty, violence and an existence of spiritual depravation. By spirit I don't mean religion, but sense of life - sense of being and esteem. His book makes for sobering reading as someone who HAS been directly on the frontline of poverty. Comparing England's welfare state to Africa "nothing I saw... ever had the same devastating effect on the human personality as the undiscriminating welfare state. I never saw the loss of dignity, the self-centeredness, the spiritual and emotional vacuity, or the sheer ignorance of how to live that I see daily in England".

.

CPAG offers nothing to combat that, but to feed it - make it worse, to perpetuate the culture of "not my fault, not my responsibility" and "it's my right" to something by making others pay for it. It is morally bankrupt in deed and philosophy.

Just one more chance

to keep Jeanette Fitzsimons out of Cabinet and away from implementing eco-faith based initiatives. She's long been the nice warm fuzzy face of the party, and although she means well, it is an enormous relief she hasn't had the reigns of power. I wont miss her for one moment.

.

Given the Green Party belief that leadership should be shared by sex, it means fascist Sue Kedgley, racist Metiria Turei or serious fruitloop Catherine Delahunty (if the Green vote holds ups in the polls) will be the replacement. None will be as warm and fuzzy as Fitzsimons who was polite enough to keep quiet in debates (better to be thought of as foolish than prove it).

.

However Jeanette isn't that warm and fuzzy, she has spread fear, irrationality and ignorance as part of her career. You only need look back at the history of her press releases,which goes back ten years. Furthermore she manufactures her own version of what others say or advocate. The mainstream media have let her get away with it for far too long.

.

She has long opposed world trade, not getting her non-business like brain around the concept of comparative advantage. After all, she'd argue why ship aluminium from New Zealand to the USA to make into planes flown in New Zealand. She worships at the altar of rail, pouring other people's money down this obsession. Selectively quoting a report to say rail looks better than road, yet ignoring the parts of the report that say the marginal environmental costs of road and rail freight are similar. However, it is too easy for me to rip to shreds this complete nonsense, better to focus on the rest of the evidence.

.

She's been substantially responsible for spreading the unscientific scaremongering about genetic engineering, calling it "anti-environment and anti-health", with no objective evidence to prove it. In fact much of the 2002 election campaign was based on fear spread by her and her colleagues that GE hadn't been proved safe, much like electricity, flying, fire and the wheel (all of which have killed thousands of course). In 1999 she proclaimed it was the last christmas to enjoy "potatoes you can trust", what nonsense. She said free trade with the USA would allow irradiated food into the country, because anything with the word "radiation" is bad. In fact I lost count of the bizarre GE press releases by her.

.

She spreads the anti-nuclear scaremongering as well, opposing a shipment of nuclear fuel to Japan, saying it could be used for making bombs, which a power company is unlikely to be interested in. Yet she has not yet ever protested outside the Iranian embassy in Wellington against its failure to be fully transparent with the IAEA. Nuclear bad, though she hasn't told the Japanese or the French how their economies and environments will be destroyed by nuclear power, maybe because they haven't been.

.

She treats the country as if land is owned by everyone, not property owners - she has little concept of property rights at all.

.

She has supported wholeheartedly the confiscation of Telecom's property rights on grounds of "promoting competition", but completely opposed splitting the then dominant government electricity company ECNZ, because apparently it's ok for the government to control three-quarters of the country's electricity market.

.

She claimed the Wellington Inner City Bypass would see heritage buildings destroyed (it didn't) and people would be forced from their homes (no private property was destroyed), and that a community was "fighting for its survival". Of course the community still exists and congestion has been eased.

.

She makes the bizarre assertion that US foreign policy is a "programme of bombing the poor of the developing world in order to feed its oil habit". As if the US seeks to target poor civilians, and has attacked more than one major oil producer. Slanderous nonsense. She says "War is a violation of the UN Charter, unless a country is a proven aggressor" apparently Iran, Kuwait and their own Kurds and marsh Arabs didn't count for Jeanette.

.

She digs the filthy dregs of lies further by saying Don Brash's call for the state to be racially neutral is some sort of sexist racist plot "Like the Victorian imperialists he’s emulating, Dr Brash’s vanilla vision is of a patriarchal, middle-class society where all women bake scones, all men are bankers – and the only brown faces are products of the tanning clinic". So vile. There being nothing about Brash which is sexist, there being nothing about decrying people of different careers and nothing about removing other races from society. She further said "National would deny what will soon be a quarter of our children the chance to grow up understanding and celebrating their own heritage". When did Don Brash or National say it would ban Maori culture, or engage in neo-Nazi policies? Doesn't matter, smear smear smear. She then said "he essentially wants Maori to be brown Pakeha", more utter lies. This illiberal identity politics based liar.

.

She said "Ms Fitzsimons said Te Puni Kokiri, Te Mangai Paho and other Maori agencies set for the chopping block under National had done wonderful work in emboldening and supporting Maori New Zealanders" Yes, though mainly those working for them, Jeanette loves bureaucracies and spending taxpayers' money, because you see, that is about "support".

.

She might get credit for sort of living the Green lifestyle to some extent, with an eco-friendly house, and she is into biking and public transport (although I don't think she always gets the train to and from Wellington). She has supported legalising possession of cannabis by adults for personal use, but has shown no interest in people being accountable for their health costs. However, overwhelmingly her political career has been one of simpering scaremongering, predominantly about GE, more recently spreading utter lies about what was once National party policy on having colourblind government, and perpetuating the nuclear"bad" nonsense, along with cheerleading on unilateral action on "climate change", with a dash of exagerrated anti-Americanism thrown in.

.

If she was just silly, like she is on most issues, she could be laughed away. However she's not, she's a deliberate distorter and scaremongerer. She has led a fight against science and reason that, to its credit, Labour has partially resisted. It is like a dangerous dogmatic religion against genetic engineering, and that is her legacy. Meanwhile, her campaign against Don Brash, which was a vile distortion of what he DID say and what WAS his policy was the sort of filthy fictional politicking that she accused the Nats and Brethrens of applying to the Greens.

.

Whichever party is dominant after the next election, let's hope the Greens are not part of that government. Labour almost certainly would need the Greens, National shouldn't - it should ignore the Greens, and it is about time the media turned its eyes on Jeanette Fitzsimons and what she really is about.