In, Out, In, Out, shake it all about
I have to agree with Mr Martin’s assessment in If Nigel Farage leads Leave it looks like curtains for Brexit – 5th February 2016. I hope Nigel Farage will be involved in the campaign in a big way, he is a huge character, but also hugely divisive.
The Grassroots Out campaign has got serious strength in depth with capable representatives from across the party political spectrum and from even wider across the ideological spectrum, from trade unionists to free-marketeers and every stop in between. All of the voices heard on the panel at the campaign’s launch in Manchester delivered well thought-out, clear & concise précis of the options open to the British public come referendum.
None of those voices should be sidelined, they all need to take as central a position in the coming months as each other.
Stephen Morris, Luton, UK | @Storris
I enjoy Bruce Anderson’s articles in The Spectator but have to say I completely disagree with this piece: Now is not the time to gamble with Europe – 5th February. His argument boils down to two points:
1. That now is the wrong time to go ahead with Brexit because there are so many uncertainties
2. That we should not leave Europe to stagnate. On the first point; there will never be a time with no uncertainties and staying in brings as many uncertainties as moving out. Continental Europe has a very different vision of the future to most people in Britain; the sooner we part the easier the parting will be.
Again I completely disagree with the Prime Minister that if we were out we would now want to rejoin on his newly negotiated terms. As The Economist magazine pointed out recently the average trade barrier between countries outside the EU and countries in the Union is 3%; a negligible amount and considerably less than the fees to stay in. We live in a relatively free trade world now compared to when we joined; there could be no serious trade consequences from leaving. Do we need the rest of the EU baggage ?
On his second point, why should the EU stagnate because we leave ? We have very little influence on their policies in any case. Of course it would be better for them and us if the EU was showing vibrant growth but we cannot change that.
Procrastination will solve nothing; we are heading in different directions so the sooner the break comes the better.
Robert Thomas, Dumfries, UK
Who will speak for the sane, well-informed Eurosceptics? – 7th February 2016
I assume the answer will be a sane well-informed eurosceptic(!)
The Leave camp has a problem : the long term leavers like John Redwood have no credibility as a result of their own actions (Welsh National Anthem anyone?). Or zero personality with popular appeal (Hannan, Carswell). The other potential leaders are either not politicians, or are unknowns, or are Nigel Farage who frankly turns off many voters.
It says a lot for the intellectual strength or otherwise of a movement when it chooses a Leader. See Jeremy Corbyn and Labour for example – not the choice of a Party wishing to regain power. When there is no obvious choice as a Leader , you are likely to lose any Referendum.
And when a supporter of Brexit – with a good track record of forecasting suggests that the initial result of leaving may be a fall in GDP of up to 5% – you need a leader able to convince voters of Brexit’s future .
In my view Brexit is likely to fail – badly.
Michael Walker, Staffordshire, UK
Re: The European Union is heading for the dustbin of history – 22nd January 2016. I don’t know much about Poland, but I wouldn’t hold up the current Hungarian government as a model to follow. They may have been elected a large majority, but they are showing some disturbing trends towards anti-Semitism and suppressing legitimate political opposition.
I just don’t buy the suggestion that anyone who disagrees with Orban about anything is “a cultural Marxist with an anti-national, anti-Christian agenda.” And what on earth does the writer of this article mean by “the national interest and will”? That phrase has the whiff of the Third Reich about it. Electorates are made up of millions of individuals, each with their own views, interests and wishes, and there are very few circumstances in which it makes sense to talk about the national will.
And the statues of Miklos Horthy springing up all over Hungary are not a “celebration of proud nations with ancient cultural heritages”. If they are celebrating anything,, they are celebrating cosying up to Hitler.
Maybe the EU is going to collapse, but if it is replaced by a string of governments like that of Viktor Orban, then God help us!
Alex Flegmann, Luton, UK
A brilliant idea. There are, I am sure, many of us who have not made up our minds, who wish to formulate our vote for the long term benefit of the Uk. based on facts and not the many emotive arguments, embellished as they are with the trickery of the smoke and mirrors merchants. Michael is not only effective as a broadcaster and highly skilled in debate, he is also an engaging and re-assuring person face to face. Your scenario of the Touring Portillo has a touch of genius to it. Certainly a far better bet than Mr Fararge will ever be!
Robert, Horsham, West Sussex, UK
Trumped up
I am one of those mysterious Trump voters, who the neocons can’t seem to find (Trump supporters are new and unknown – 25th January 2016) I am a Libertarian minded person, I make $35K per year as a self-employed individual, and I have observed for awhile now that the US federal government is a runaway train. They have accumulated $200 trillion of debt liabilities, and the jokers in Washington just keep chugging along as usual, colluding as they see fit to take home the pork to their respective states.
I disagree with Trump’s economic protectionism, his over-the-top nationalism, and find his personality grating and boorish. But he is the only candidate that I feel certain can unseat the far worse presidential alternatives in the Democratic party, who are strong race baiting, class hating socialists, and who would escalate our financial ruin far more dramatically than I perceive Trump as doing. We are already losing our incentives to work hard, with overall taxes approaching 50% on the average American. Push us much further, and that 90 million figure of people in the U.S. already choosing not to work will rise exponentially. Then, when production grinds to a halt, GDP plummets, and the burden on already broke social programs escalates, the meltdown of what was once the greatest bastion of freedom and prosperity the world has ever seen will be realized. The economic reverberations throughout the world will be devastating.
Trump may not be the answer to getting the U.S. back on track. But the alternatives offer far worse odds than Trump.
William Davis, Wisconsin, USA
Mean, median and mode
Tim Montgomerie is of course correct when he states that nice does not mean left, and his article lucidly explains why. However, he is mistaken in his hope that this truth will percolate trough to academia.
The academic world is stuffed full of ‘progressives’, and in their world-view, anyone who disagrees with their sanctimonious moralising is not merely wrong, but evil. Perhaps some day they may wake up and smell the coffee, but I for one will not hold my breath awaiting it.
Alan G Melville, Edinburgh, UK
“The centre right inclination to see businesses as a more important generator of wealth and progress than government can decay into a defence of everything business does.”
That’s a great way of putting it. I have been guilty of this many times, for fear that giving ground to anyone on the left is to open the door another crack and letting socialism flood in. Because this is a fate worse than death as far as I am concerned I may correctly be accused of being over defensive here.
So fair enough, even Hayek was OK with some government regulation so I’ll try and be more emollient to left-wing calls for government intervention and regulation in future – but only a bit. Give those socialists an inch and we’ll have a siege economy before you know it…
Ross BW, Sussex, UK
Uniform Background Income
In response to Guy Sorman’s Finland’s universal income idea could transform economics and politics – 27th January 2016
This program, like any other state-run welfare program, may work for a while in some countries whose citizens share a more or less uniform background and culture. From what I’ve read, many Scandinavians don’t mind paying high taxes for the benefit of their countrymen because they share with them a relatively similar work ethic and outlook on life.
The program, I believe, will not be as popular in countries with more diverse populations and capitalist traditions, especially the United States.
At any rate, over time it would prove to be as destructive of wealth and real progress as any other welfare system, perhaps even more destructive because of its especially illusory nature and ubiquitous influence. Its hopes for success would rest on the flawed notions that wealth can be created out of nothing, that a system which simply puts money in people’s hands will allow them to attain well-being and security while it simultaneously undermines the very institutions that create and provide well-being and security.
The UBI may at first glance seem revolutionary or transformative, but it’s just another attempt at squeezing success from an economic scheme that has proven itself to be burdensome at best and disastrous at worst.
Willie Smith, Husser, Louisiana, USA
Guy Sorman praised a ‘new economic model from Finland’ and promoted it as a brilliant measure to remove bureaucracy and boost growth that should be followed abroad.
The idea that it would be in any way fair or progressive is entirely wrong.
If we assume Britain were to provide a UBI similar to that of Finland’s; 612 pounds a month, then it takes no more than a calculator to see that things don’t add up.
Firstly, the yearly allowance would be £7344, hardly enough for an unemployed person to live off, let alone support children.
Secondly, the costs would be astronomical: 612 a month for 64 million people would cost the state over 470 Billion! That’s far more than the £251 Billion spent on the entire welfare budget during 2013/14, and it would be unlikely to ever replace the whole budget in the first place.
The right economic models for the future are likely to be far more complex and will require hard thinking across the political spectrum.
Alexander Brindle, Bristol, UK | @Brindle_Alex
Election fever
I was interested to see that Tim Montgomerie expects an election in 2019 (George Osborne probably won’t even stand to be the next Tory leader – 1st February 2016). As he will know, we are now subject to the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 and there are only two ways under this statute for the now fixed five-year term to be shortened. Does Mr. Montgomerie believe that more than two thirds of all MPs will vote to call an election before 2020, or that a motion of no confidence will be passed in the government?
Royston D, London UK
Iain Martin | @iainmartin1
Not very difficult to imagine the scenario involving an early election. New Tory leader chosen in 2019. Labour calls him/her unelected. Tory leader says ok, let’s have a general election. No opposition party can vote against it without looking deeply stupid and afraid of the voters. Result? MPs vote for an election. Election in 2019.
That loophole has always been there in the fixed-term parliaments act.
Best regards,
Iain Martin,
Editor,
CapX
