EU = socialists that are out of touch

There is a budget deficit crisis in most EU Member States, which of course is meaning they are no longer particularly keen on funding the European Commission's endless demand for more tax victim money to fund feather-bedding of farmers in western Europe, grand infrastructure projects in eastern Europe, ridiculous projects (such as duplicating GPS and CNN) and the jobs for life in Brussels.

The EU is seeking a 5.9% increase in budgets this year, which is laughable given virtually all EU Member States are cutting their overall budgets, some on a grand scale, to live within their means.

The response from Member States has been to look askance at this, as the EU is acting as if there isn't a recession and isn't a fiscal crisis across Europe. The Eurorats simply want to close their eyes and ears and continue wasting money as usual - bearing in mind that almost all of what the EU spends money on is destructive to economic growth (the only good thing is to police Member States from introducing discriminatory interventionist policies).

So what is proposed? The EU will liberate Member States from this burden, to make them all full of glee that they don't have to worry any more about paying for the EC (the European Commission being the bureauratic arm of the EU).

Instead, the EU will impose a tax on the PEOPLE of the EU. According to the Daily Telegraph, the EC is pushing for the powers to impose pan-European taxes on financial transactions and air travel.

This somehow is meant to be palatable to Member States because it wont be their burden, it will be the EU taxing the public.

You see the EU only thinks of itself and Member States as the legitimate actors here, the long -suffering European taxpayers are merely cogs in the machine of the grand project.

Take this quote:

Janusz Lewandowski, the EU budget commissioner, said: "If the EU had more of its own revenues, then transfers from national budgets could be reduced. I hear from several capitals, including important ones like Berlin, that they would like to reduce their contribution."

Note the euphemism "revenues". Not revenue from selling goods or services to willing buyers, or making investments in commercial businesses that generate dividends or capital gains, no it is revenues taken by force, where the only sliver of accountability will be voting for the European Parliament, where every vote has the fraction of influence of a vote at a national level.

What is astonishing is the bizarre belief that somehow having Member States to reduce their state contributions (but have the people living in the Member States pay new ones), is somehow a great achievement?

The UK Government is thankfully having none of this, with Commercial Secretary, Lord Sassoon (who despite the name doesn't have great hair) saying "The Government is opposed to direct taxes financing the EU budget... The UK believes that taxation is a matter for Member States to determine at a national level and would have a veto over any plans for such taxes". None of the Liberal Democrat wishy washiness about Europe there.

However, it does show how the EC is a funny little world isolated from political and economic reality. It should face budget cuts, which would make Europe far better off as a whole, although the French would object as the biggest beneficiary of the status quo.

The EU's only value today is maintaining open borders and in rules that stop national governments providing assistance to their own businesses or in protecting local businesses, beyond that it is a project of tired old failed Euro-socialists whose own vision of the state has just been demonstrated to be a recipe for stagnation.

CER's last hurdle

The largest barrier to free trade between Australia and NZ looks like it finally has a good chance of being addressed according to the NZ Herald.

For decades now Australia has blocked imports of New Zealand apples on spurious grounds of biosecurity. I participated in a couple of CER bilaterals in the 1990s where this was the key issue (I was fighting for another sector) and Australia would never relent. CER offered no recourse if Australia kept blocking access other than the political ones. Naturally for NZ, access to Australian markets was far more valuable than for Australia to get access to another market the size of Melbourne (if you're generous).

So the WTO, hated by the Greens and the anti-free trade luddites, has proven its worth once again, by showing up the Australians for being protectionist hypocrites - calling for free trade in agriculture through the Cairns Group at the WTO, but unwilling to offer it to its closest trading partner.

It wont be easy, no doubt the socialist Gillard and farmer friendly Abbott will both reassure Australia's cosseted apple industry that they will appeal, but it's simple - you cannot block New Zealand apples under the excuse that they all contain fireblight and will ruin your precious crop.

So good on the WTO, it needs some words of support, especially since neither the President of the United States nor the "President" of the European Union nor the Prime Minister of Japan have any interest in free trade!

The joy of capitalist "exploitation"

"The misery of being exploited by capitalists is nothing compared to the misery of not being exploited at all"

So said economist Joan Robinson writing about underemployment in South-East Asia at the time.

(hat tip: The Economist Leader, 31 July 2010).

Damn, missed...

Iran's military leader, who runs a regime that executes children who are raped, executes teenagers who have sex outside marriage, has avoided being despatched to the only place he deserves - oblivion.

Bits and pieces

Yes, I do now have broadband internet at home, but this little interregnum of blogging will be brief as I will be away for a couple of weeks sans any sort of electronic communication at all.

So what's been happening?

1. The right concerns but the completely wrong answer. While Nicolas Sarkozy proves there is nothing a French politician likes doing more than regulating the lives of others, Old Holborn makes the point quite succinctly here. After all, plenty would be offended by the scene of a man walking around with a woman on a collar and lead, but why should it be banned? Meanwhile, is one of the key reasons for this issue being raised because the liberal socialist left refuses to confront Islamism directly, and is willfully blind to the oppression of women by most Islamic cultures because it sees any enemy of the West as a friend?

2. The Con-Dem British government is off in several directions, primarily focused on cutting spending it has decided to slash spending on its core responsibility - law and order. Whilst there are undoubtedly efficiencies to be gained in the sector, and undoubtedly many people shouldn't be imprisoned for a whole raft of offences that are more civil (e.g. not meeting child support payments) than criminal, is the question being asked as to whether there should be less criminal offences at all? In other words, if there is no victim, why should it be a criminal matter? Prison is effective at its core role - protecting the public from criminals. One report suggests that replacing prison time with community sentences will increase crime.

3. The Obama Administration is showing how empty headed and vapid it really is, by its continued embrace of xenophobic anti-capitalist rhetoric against BP. Now it is accusing BP of lobbying to release Libyan terrorists from British custody, when Exxon-Mobil and Shell did exactly the same thing. It is accusing the British government of being a party to providing succour to terrorists, when it happened over a year ago under the Gordon Brown regime, and was in fact the devolved Scottish government (albeit with Downing St tacit approval). Quite what the Obama Administration thought would be gained by hassling the newly elected Prime Minister about something he had nothing to do with, is rather curious.

4. Australia is having a Federal election. A choice between a feral unionist and a feral evangelist. Neither are deserving of a vote from a libertarian. Whilst it is tempting to back the "mad monk" Abbott, because of climate change alone, the Liberal Party remains liberal in name only.

A better choice, given the preference/AV based voting system is the Liberal Democratic Party which lists Ayn Rand as one of the great classical liberals of history. It seeks to abolish victimless crimes, significantly cut taxes (income tax would have the first $30,000 tax free then a flat tax of 30%), engage in a major privatisation programme, replace welfare with negative income tax and promote free trade. Think of it as ACT with balls AND a belief in personal individual liberty.

It has more to it than the Secular Party which seems more a reaction to the Christian politics of Abbott and the now defunct Rudd. It is broader based than the Shooters Party, which is essentially just about the freedom of peaceful people to own firearms. It also doesn't have the obsessive believe in anti-discrimination laws of the Australia Sex Party, as tempting as that party may be to some.

4. A city councillor in Wales is suspended for Tweeting "I didn't know the Scientologists had a church on Tottenham Court Road. Just hurried past in case the stupid rubs off." Apparently this is against the local authority code of conduct according to the Public Services Ombudsman. If ever there was a reason to abolish this body or to make those on it undertake training in fundamental individual freedoms, this is it. Britain is a country where expressing your opinion about a religion is restricted, because it might upset the precious little flowers who believe in ghosts.

5. New Zealand's government continues to disappoint. The weak will surrounding mining in national parks, the continued evasion of reality over climate change and the inability to lay down an agenda that directly confronts the anti-human anti-science statism of the Greens, and by default the Labour Party, should cause many more National and ACT voters to weep. Now you're going to vote for an Auckland Mayor who will be more of the same.

UPDATE: Well it would appear the Australian Liberal Democratic Party is more disappointing than it may seem. I have been informed privately that it is largely marketing driven, and that the presence of Ayn Rand on the front page was for marketing purposes. I'd be curious if any Australian libertarians and especially objectivists would interrogate Liberal Democrat politicians as to what they REALLY believe in. A laudable goal would be to return the Liberal Party to its core principles, but the chances of that may be as much as there is in getting the (New Zealand) National Party to do so as well.