"Nation states" - not perfect but can anybody can come up with anything better?

Two people with whom I usually agree tweeted recently as follows:

Paul from Fintona @paulfmuldoon
"I can't wait for the concept of the nation state to be relegated to the pages of history where it belongs"

Duncan Stott @DuncanStott
"Guy Verhofstadt: 'We are suffering from having invented nation states and the nationalism that goes with them in the 18th Century'"

That's all well and good, nobody says they are perfect, any more than democracy is. They just appear to be the end result of lots of other forces, the desire to 'belong' (on the part of the masses), the desire to expand the area under their control (on the part of the ruling class - people like Guy Verhofstadt, for example) and the desire to feel 'sovereign' on the part of both masses and ruling class.

I don't see any realistic alternative, anarchy doesn't work; micro-states work but only if they are surrounded by larger countries; empires always collapse, even if they worked in the first place; most people resist the idea of supra-national government (UN, EU, TTIP etc).

As has been said before, democracy only works if there is a sense of a single national identity (however artificial, it cannot be denied there is such a thing) and tends to flourish more in economically developed countries.

Wiki says:

A nation state is a type of state that conjoins the political entity of a state to the cultural entity of a nation, from which it aims to derive its political legitimacy to rule and potentially its status as a sovereign state…

A state is specifically a political and geopolitical entity, whilst a nation is a cultural and ethnic one. The term "nation state" implies that the two coincide, in that a state has chosen to adopt and endorse a specific cultural group as associated with it. "Nation state" formation can take place at different times in different parts of the world.

So in the same way as land-ownership and the state are synonymous, I suppose we just have to accept that democracy, the nation-state and capitalism go hand in hand and are the least bad ways of organising things. Nothing which LVT and a Citizen's Income won't sort out.

Unless somebody has any better ideas?

This House of Lords/Working Tax Credit thing...

... reminds me of something that happened three years ago.

From the BBC:

MPs have overturned a series of defeats inflicted on the government's welfare reform bill in the House of Lords.

The coalition won seven key votes in the Commons, rejecting amendments made by peers and reinstating their original proposals into the legislation. These include plans for a £26,000 annual limit on total household benefits, including child benefit.

Ministers say they will use a rule known as "financial privilege" to ensure Parliament approves the cap... The measure, which the government says it will also apply to Lords amendments on employment and support allowance (ESA), relates to the principle that the Lords cannot oppose tax and spending decisions agreed by the Commons.

So surely the same principle applies to the reductions in Working Tax Credits..?

Simon Schama on The Magna Carta

In the relevant episode of his TV series, he sums up The Magna Carta as follows:

"Anybody expecting to find in it some sort of primitive constitution is going to be in for a bit of a shock when they read the details, because the liberties enumerated here boil down largely to tax reliefs for the armoured and land classes"

How very dashed un-European of her!

From City AM

The pressure is telling on the region’s leaders, with Luxembourg Prime Minister Jean-Claude Juncker lashing out at German chancellor Angela Merkel for what he called her "un-European manner".

Regarding Merkel’s comments that issuing single, region-wide Eurozone bonds (or "E-bonds") would not be legal under current treaties, he retorted: “The proposal is being rejected before it has been studied. Germany’s thinking is a bit simple on that."

As it happens, Germans take their constitution (Grundgesetz, a very fine constitution it is too) very seriously. If it says that the German government isn't allowed to do certain things, then they don't do them. They apply the same logic to the EU Treaties, either something's allowed or it isn't.

Where it gets really complicated is when the Grundgesetz prevents the German government from doing something that is legal or even required under an EU Treaty, but apparently the simple fact that something is illegal under an EU Treaty is irrelevant, and refusing to do it is "un-European".

Another good idea they pinched off my 'blog

From The Budapest Times:

Fidesz [the ruling party] initiated an unprecedented effort last Tuesday to strip the Constitutional Court – the nation’s final authority on legislative questions – of a number of powers. Parliamentary caucus leader János Lázár submitted the Constitutional Court Amendment after the court struck down several laws as unconstitutional, including a 98 per cent tax on public-sector severance-pay packages worth more than HUF 2 million (EUR 7,275).

The point is that public employees' terms and conditions are a matter of private law. If their contract says they'll get a pension of £x or a redundancy payment of £y, then the government can't wriggle out of it very easily.

However, taxation is a matter of public law. The government can set tax rates as it likes. This is subject to something called 'judicial review' (a UK court acting as a 'constitutional court') but the burden of proof is quite high.

Which is the background to my suggestion number 2 back in October 2009:

2. We (still) have a schedular tax system in the UK, and different types of income are taxed at different rates. Although I favour a flat tax system that taxes all income of whatever type - corporate or personal - at a single rate with as few exemptions and tax breaks as possible (not only is that more economically efficient, at least it's honest) but for people like this I'm prepared to make an exception.

So I'll introduce a sixty per cent higher rate tax on any salary, pension or redundancy payment paid by the taxpayer above the amount of £35,000 per year, which will claw back most of the cost, as well as encouraging more to move to the private sector where the flat tax rate will be thirty per cent and hopefully falling.

That's probably a lot simpler than renegotiating loads of individual employment contracts and getting bogged down in private law disputes. The tax system is up to legislation and is not open to legal challenges (well, no doubt somebody will go for judicial review but they can f*** off).

Things you didn't know you didn't know

I did three units of property law* on my law degree (LLB Hons with First Class), and either they didn't tell us this or I wasn't paying attention. I stumbled across a lengthy and fairly technical article, the upshot of which appears to be:

In England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, the land is held from the sovereign in right of her Crown. As we have seen from the operation of bona vacantia, this particular aspect of land law does not apply to Cornwall. This is because the whole of Cornwall is legally the soil and territorial possession of the Duke of Cornwall in right of the Duchy of Cornwall and people hold their land not from the Queen as sovereign, but from the Duke as sovereign. Therefore, and in accordance with the terms of the 1st Duchy Charter, people in Cornwall hold their land not from the UK Government, but from a legally extant but now denied and hidden Duchy Government.

Known today as the Prince’s Council, it is an institution of governance that, whilst reaping the financial benefits and other rewards of this constitutional settlement, abdicates its reciprocal duties and responsibilities towards the territory and people from which it derives its powers, rights and status...**

I have explained in my books, on the ‘Status of Duchy’ entry on this weblog and also on the Duchy of Cornwall.eu website, that although laws passed by the Westminster Parliament today always extend to England and Wales, they do not extend to the Duchy of Cornwall unless the text expressly states that they do, and then only with the prior express approval of the Duke in his capacity as the de jure sovereign of Cornwall. As with other sovereigns, when considering new laws the Duke acts on advice from his officers of state sitting as the Princes Council.

The author may be exaggerating, but it stacks up as far as I can see.

* They refer to land law rather disingenuously as 'property law' - the other forms of property, such as employment [income], goods, copyrights are all dealt with separately as 'employment law', 'sale of goods', 'copyright law' etc.

** In other words, Cornwall has Land Value Tax (often referred to as 'ground rents'), it's just that it's collected privately by Prince Charles and his mates. IMHO, it would be far better to collect it publicly and use the proceeds to cut other taxes, repay the national debt or dish out as a Citizen's Income.

Loophole Of The Week

From Allister Heath's editorial in CityAM:

The EU is caught between two provisions of its constitution.

Article 125 rules out bail-outs in ordinary circumstances: "The union shall not be liable for or assume the commitments of central governments, regional, local or other public authorities, other bodies governed by public law, or public undertakings of any Member State".

However, Article 122 provides a loophole: when "a member state is in difficulties or is seriously threatened with severe difficulties caused by natural disasters or exceptional occurrences beyond its control, the council, on a proposal from the commission, may grant, under certain conditions, union financial assistance."

See also here.

Good work, Mandy!

Continuing my occasional series on Peter Mandelson keeping his options open, from today's Queen's Speech:

Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill

Creates basis in law for Parliament to scrutinise treaties ("scrutinise" - not actually "vote on" or "reject" or anything). Ends the by-election of hereditary peers to sit in House of Lords. Provides for disqualification of peers convicted of serious offences or subject to a bankruptcy order. Allows peers to resign peerages. Repeals legislation limiting protests around Parliament. Generally extends to whole UK.

Nine years? Really?

From TheParliament.com:

Pöttering,who was president [of the EU Parliament] for two-and-a-half years until June, added, "Some may suggest the EU went too far to placate Klaus but, let us remember that this is a treaty some of us have been fighting nine years for."

Denis Cooper's comment (via email):

Oh, surely not? Surely this is a new and different treaty, one which didn't need the UK referendum promised for the previous treaty?

Power Grab Of The Week

Condensed version of email from Denis Cooper (with kind permission):

"An EU official has told The Times of Malta that one item in the draft conclusions of the two day EU summit which starts today, will be to extend the term of the EU Commission for an extra six months.

I've looked carefully, and there is definitely no specific legal basis for extending the term of the Commission under these circumstances, not even in a "caretaker format". And over two weeks ago I emailed the office of Commissioner Neelie Kroes about it, and the bloke (one Jonathan Todd) broke off the exchange when I posed the question: "But on what legal basis could the Council of Ministers authorise the present Commissioners to remain in post beyond the end of their five year term, which expires on October 31st?"

Anyway, they think they can do whatever they please by invoking the catch-all Article 308 TEC, on pdf page 179 here:

"If action by the Community should prove necessary to attain, in the course of the operation of the common market, one of the objectives of the Community, and this Treaty has not provided the necessary powers, the Council shall, acting unanimously on a proposal from the Commission and after consulting the European Parliament, take the appropriate measures."

Although in this case they might have a problem consulting the European Parliament before midnight on Saturday."

More free publicity for the BNP

From The Metro:

The British National Party will amend its constitution so its rules on membership do not discriminate on the grounds of race or religion, a court was told. The Equality and Human Rights Commission issued County Court proceedings against the far-right party on August 24 after voicing concerns its membership criteria were restrictive to those within certain ethnic groups.

Robin Allen QC, counsel for the Commission, said party leader Nick Griffin had agreed to present party members with a revised constitution at its general meeting next month and that the party had agreed not to accept any new members until the new constitution was in place.

In an order issued at the Central London County Court, the BNP agreed to use "all reasonable endeavours" to revise its constitution so it did not discriminate on what are termed "protected characteristics" in clause four of the Equality Bill*. These include race, gender and religious belief**.

John Wadham, of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, said: "We are pleased the party has conceded this case and agreed to all of the Commission requirements. Political parties, like any other organisation, are obliged to respect the law and not discriminate against people. It is unfortunate the BNP spent several months before conceding and dealing properly with our legal requirements. We will be monitoring the BNP's compliance with this court order on membership, and its other legal obligations, including to its constituents."

* Ahem. It appears that it is indeed still a Bill, that means a draft law thich has not yet been enacted/given Royal Assent. Ergo, it's not the law, ergo nobody needs to comply with it. Twats.

** I wasn't aware that the BNP didn't allow women to become members, although I can imagine them harbouring prejudices against transexuals. And isn't "sexual orientation" missing from that list?

Ten reasons to hate the Tories (3)

Point 3 from Cameron's Blueprint for Britain was this:

"We will replace the Human Rights Act with a new British Bill of Rights to strengthen Britain's traditional liberties."

Agreed that the HRA should be scrapped, but there's no need to dream up something new, which is a crackpot idea that Labour have already touted. For a start they should dust down and re-read the Bill Of Rights 1688 aka Bill Of Rights 1689, which:

a) Is still in force - it's called a "Bill" rather than an "Act" because it did not require Royal Assent. The corresponding Bill in Scotland is slightly different, but they can sort that out for themselves.

b) Is not so much an exhaustive list of individuals' rights (i.e. if it's not on the list, you can't do it), but a list of restrictions on what "The Crown" (which in those days meant the King, but nowadays means "The Government") can and cannot do. Individual "rights" in the modern parlance are thus neither guaranteed nor restricted in any way.

c) Reminds you that many of the things that modern governments do are quite clearly "unconstitutional", for example

i) "That levying Money for or to the Use of the Crowne by pretence of Prerogative without Grant of Parlyament for longer time or in other manner then the same is or shall be granted is Illegall." Which would render all Statutory Instruments relating to taxation that are sneaked through without being approved by Parliament void.

ii) "That Election of Members of Parlyament ought to be free". Postal votes, need I say more?

iii) "That excessive Baile ought not to be required nor excessive Fines imposed..". Now, about those people who've had their vehicles confiscated for bringing over fags and booze from France...

iv) "That Jurors ought to be duely impannelled and returned..." OK, that bit appears to have been repealed, but ought to be reinstated forthwith, rather than further eroded.

And so on.

d) Needs to be updated a bit (the language is very old-fashioned; the sideswipes at Papists are probably otiose; and whether it should be the right of all Protestants to bear arms is something on which we'll have to have a public debate).

There. Job done.

[Bonus/final round] Victimhood Poker: The World Series

In case of a tie-break (see earlier post), the bonus/final round will be based on a very finely balanced snippet, such as this.

The president of Mali has announced that he is not going to sign the country's new family law, instead returning it to parliament for review. Muslim groups have been protesting against the law, which gives greater rights to women, ever since parliament adopted it at the start of the month. President Amadou Toumani Toure said he was sending the law back for the sake of national unity.

Muslim leaders have called the law the work of the devil and against Islam. More than 90% of Mali's population is Muslim. Some of the provisions that have proved controversial give more rights to women. For example, under the new law women are no longer required to obey their husbands, instead husbands and wives owe each other loyalty and protection.

One side holds the cards for 'African traditional culture', 'Islam' and 'group rights'; the other holds the cards for 'Feminism/women's rights', 'Modernity/Rule of Law', 'International Human Rights' and 'Oppressed Minority'. I reckon even Joseph Harker would struggle here.

Bloody Hell, that was quick ...

From an interview in the FT, 29 June 2009:

FT: That’s touching. Have you ever considered renouncing your life peerage and standing again for the House of Commons?
Peter Mandelson: It’s not possible legally to do that.
FT: There’s no way you can do it?
PM: Nor have I made any inquiry. [Laughter]. Therefore, I’m trapped.
FT: Is it really not possible?
PM: I believe. I believe it is for life. That is what a life peerage is.
FT: Does it feel like a life sentence now you’ve got the taste for British politics back again?
PM: Of course, you could always change the law.
FT [Laughs]: Part of the next Labour manifesto?
PM: You may see it on Monday.
FT: Really? That is a joke, I presume.
PM: We’re not allowed ...

From the BBC, 18 July 2009:

Life peers are to be given the right to resign from the House of Lords - something hereditary peers have been able to do since 1963.

The measure will be included in a Constitutional Reform Bill, due to go before Parliament on Monday. The bill will also bring an end to the hereditary principle. The changes would mean peers, such as Lord Mandelson, would be free to give up titles, stand as MPs and possibly take up more senior government posts. Although Lord Mandelson is the government's first secretary, the jobs of foreign secretary, chancellor of the exchequer or prime minister would pose constitutional difficulties for an unelected peer.

"Ireland risks splitting EU, says adviser to Sarkozy"

I said back in March that an Irish "No" might be The Beginning Of The End. Going by the tone of this article*, perhaps history will prove me right.**

I like this paragraph best:

He said it was a mistake for the Government to hold a referendum on Lisbon and described such plebiscites as "tools for dictators" as evidenced by European history. "If you hold 10 or 12 referendums and in every state there is 80 per cent support for an idea there is still only a less than 1 per cent probability that the measure will pass everywhere," he said.

Wot?

"Dictatorships"? Like Switzerland, Norway, Ireland ...?

The maths is out. What he means is "if there is an 80 per cent probability of each referendum resulting in a 'yes'", in which case, the probability of all 12 referenda resulting in a 'yes' is just under 7% (+0.8^12).

And where does this "80 per cent" come from? IIRC we've had three referenda so far*** (France, Netherlands, Ireland) and all three have resulted in a 'no'.

* Via Denis Cooper.

**^TMSigue Sigue Sputnik

*** Update, oops, I forgot about referenda in Luxembourg and Spain, who both voted 'Yes'

"Poland in new blow to EU treaty"

Thank you, Mr Kaczynski!

Productivity gains in the Civil Service

Two short days ago, the gummint's line was ... In relation to ratification, there were all sorts of procedures that needed to be gone through, involving the Great Wafer Seal, and it always took several weeks for these procedures to be completed.

According to a PA report of today, as quoted by Open Europe, finishing off ratification is now only going to take "days or weeks"!

Did they stumble across the how-to guide on this 'blog?

Via Denis Cooper.

Damn and blast

Per the BBC website "Stuart Wheeler has lost court attempt to force referendum on EU treaty. More soon".

Now let's see if it really takes the f***ers "weeks or even months" to sort out a couple of pages of paperwork.

Instruments of ratification

There was much huffing and puffing last week, when the judge in the Stuart Wheeler case told the gummint it ought to stay ratification of the Lisbon Treaty until he had delivered his ruling (which ought to be any day now!).

Our Sub-Prime Minister then "told a Brussels press conference that the court ruling fitted the government's ratification timetable, which could take weeks or even months to complete."

Denis Cooper did a bit of digging on this; it turns out that 'Any lie will do, if they think they can get away with it':

The FCO's internal procedures (see part 5 of this) could probably be sorted out in a day or two, bearing in mind that these people all work within a few hundred yards of each other and have e-mail and telephone and stuff. If they need a steer on Step 5b) "Treaty section to draft Instrument of Ratification", they can just cut and paste from this handy two-page template for an 'Instrument of ratification'.

"Czech threat looms for EU treaty"

Chuckle, snortle, splutter! Stop it, stop it!