Big Society vs. Big Government

Yesterday morning, in what must have been a slow news day, the BBC rehashed the response to this month-old story - 'charities' are worried that government cuts will mean they lack the "resources" (money) to continue.

There's one very simple rule to bear in mind here:

If your 'charity' relies on government 'donations' then you are, by definition, a government agency.

You know, that whole "being given money to do something" Agent-Principal relationship? Fine, you help people and do good things - unlike other parts of government which exist to hurt people and do bad things, naturally. And you don't turn a profit - just like the MoD and the Foreign Office. Just because you can't see the PM on your org chart doesn't mean you're independent, and having to go cap-in-hand to the state means you're certainly not.

The site fakecharities.org (which seems to be down at the moment) has a listing of many organisations which - while putatively charitable - derive >90% of their income from the government. It's amazing how often they appear on the news, lobbying us with our own money, in order to get more of our money.

I'm somewhat concerned about Cameron's "Big Society", though. It's clearly right in some respects - the state has no business inefficiently providing many things that people want. On the other paw, it strikes me as being a progressive, collectivist, left-wing, even fascistic policy - there seems to be no intention to cut back on services provided, only to expect people to do them for free in statolatric devotion.

I do not expect help from others, which apparently makes me some kind of mug, because others expect (nay demand) help from me. The demand is now made with a smile, rather than taken (via tax) under menaces, but it's the same demand.

- KoW

David Cameron on Europe

I thought it was a good speech this afternoon - he made good, pragmatic points in a respectful but forceful way. It really is too late to do anything about Lisbon, and it'll be in force in 26 days' time whether we like it or not. It won't have satisfied the "wets" or the UKIP nutters, but it's the only practical response.

And, yes, it'll be a very hard fight to get those three vetos - we'll need support of our partners in Europe, and undoubtedly some squaring will take place. As is traditional, you'll be able to recognise it because there will be absolutely no connection whatsoever between us supporting their pet policies and them supporting ours.

I started wondering about the Sovereignty Act, though. It seems like a very good idea - basic, straightforward, and in lieu of a constitution. We don't need a constitution, because Common Law is based on the principle that everything is legal unless specifically banned - the opposite of the Napoleonic Code where rights only exist because they're specifically granted.

The most obvious objection is based on the Factortame case, which "confirmed the supremacy of European Union law over national law in the areas where the EU has competence" as granted by the European Communities Act 1972. The ECJ said in 1990 that courts can strike down national laws; Lord Denning suggested that this applies only to accidental contradictions, and that Parliament is still sovereign. There are legal arguments to be made, of course, but there is one fundamental principle that makes them irrelevant: there is nothing the EU can do about it. If we declare our sovereignty, and choose not to follow EU Directives we don't like, what are the ramifications? To quote Sir Humphrey from Yes Minister:

"Well, Minister, in practical terms we have the usual six options: One, do nothing. Two, issue a statement deploring the speech. Three, lodge an official protest. Four, cut off aid. Five, break off diplomatic relations. And six, declare war."

Speeches and protests are, as ever, worthless. We're a net contributor to the EU, so they can't cut off aid. There can be no formal diplomatic relations with the EU before December, so we're hardly going to miss those, and trade sanctions cut both ways - we're a market as well as a supplier. Finally, even with the Lisbon Treaty, the EU doesn't have the power to set military policy or declare war. Basically, if (as a nation) we choose not to follow a Directive - assuming we don't then choose to allow ourselves to be punished for the transgression - there is nothing that can be done about it. Naturally, things wouldn't get that far - as in Italy and Spain and France, we'd just be allowed to get away with it.

I think there are a lot of benefits to close ties with Europe - (almost) free travel and working is good, and integrated continent-wide policies on agriculture/energy/education/healthcare/transport could bring obvious benefits. But that's not the same as having to obey every single law that comes out of Brussels, particularly ones that damage our society or economy. I look forward to the next government rolling back some of the more egregious European laws in the UK.

- KoW

Snippets

So, lots of things happened yesterday, and I don't have time to post on all of them individually.

Václav Klaus, the Czech President, became the 27th and final leader to ratify the Lisbon Treaty. It will now come into effect from December 1st, creating official President and Foreign Secretary roles and changing virtually all EU-wide lawmaking from unanimous to majority decisions. This, in the language of the EU, is "simplification" rather than a ratcheting up of power. I'm anti-Europe, but I don't think this change is as catastrophic as others have made out - in particular, we now only need a majority vote to begin repatriating our sovereignty, and centre-right politics are in ascendance across the continent.

Since this is now unavoidable - unless some kind soul were to cause a general election in the next four weeks - I support David Cameron's decision to drop the referendum calls. As William Hague says, it's pointless - it can't unratify the treaty and it's too late to stop it. The idea of putting it in as a manifesto pledge is much better. Unlike a referendum which might go either way (see Ireland), a Tory victory will guarantee a mandate for action - and, if the polls are to be believed, such a victory is on the cards. I guess we'll see what Cameron has to say today.

There's been another huge bail-out of the banks by the UK government - £40bn more thrown at RBS and Lloyds. Alex was in quickly with the news, and reports on today's FT coverage. "Worlds biggest bank bailout" as Metro's front page shouted. City AM leads with the story as well, but focussing on Neelie Kroes' influence.

GM has pulled out of the Magna/Opel deal, which is probably bad news for the Vauxhall workers - GM is now going cap-in-hand to the UK and German governments. I can't see Lord Mandelson changing his stance, especially as finances are getting ever tighter, and the German promises were for a different deal and were made prior to an election that's now happened - very easy to change.

M&S are now selling other brands - I thought this was nationwide when they started the trial in April, but apparently it is now. Good. I don't buy shoddy own-brand colas. This now makes their lunch deal much more attractive as I can get a bottle of Diet Coke with the much-better-than-Boots' sandwiches.

Toyota has pulled out of F1, with immediate effect. Poor Kamui Kobayashi... I hope he can get another drive after his fantastic performance in the last two races. If not, we should support him by going and eating sushi at his family restaurant! Bridgestone are going, too, which is a shame. I was hoping there'd be tyre choice back on the strategy menu now that fuelling is off.

- KoW