tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-217247482024-03-07T23:52:03.017+00:00Conservative Party Reptile"I have often been called a Nazi, and, although it is unfair, I don't let it bother me. I don't let it bother me for one simple reason. No one has ever had a sexual fantasy about being tied to a bed and ravished by a liberal." PJ O'Rourke, Give War a ChanceTim Jhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03705980028580424584noreply@blogger.comBlogger1675125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21724748.post-27836535002322317602021-02-02T14:28:00.001+00:002021-02-02T14:28:08.279+00:00AstraZeneca, the European Commission and Clause 13.1.(e)<p>There are <a href="https://twitter.com/SpinningHugo">better lawyers</a>, and <a href="https://davidallengreen.com/2021/01/what-the-astrazeneca-agreement-actually-says/">more popular blogs</a> to read for the general take on the EU/AstraZeneca stramash. I just wanted to put down on paper what I think are the more egregious misreadings of the <a href="https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_21_302">EU/AZ APA</a> that are out there, why they're wrong, and what the actual position is. Usual disclaimer of not being a Belgian lawyer applies, but with the added proviso that in international <i>contract </i>law this doesn't matter very much. Pacta Sunt Servanda and all that, and generally speaking words mean what they say.</p><p><u>Best Reasonable Endeavours</u></p><p>The previous vaccine procurement contract that had been made public contained a "best reasonable efforts" qualification to the obligation by the company to produce vaccines, and it seemed pretty obvious that the AZ APA would contain the same sort of thing. It was a surprise, therefore, to hear the President of the European Commission <a href="https://www.politico.eu/article/von-der-leyen-astrazeneca-contract-contains-binding-orders/">deny that any such provision existed</a>. </p><p><span style="color: #222222; font-family: "Ivar Text", serif; font-size: 16px;"><i></i></span></p><blockquote><i>Asked whether the quantities were subject to a "best-effort" limitation, von der Leyen responded: "No. There are binding orders and the contract is crystal-clear. AstraZeneca has expressly assured us in this contract that no other obligations will stand in the way of fulfilling the contract."</i></blockquote><p></p><p>It was less of a surprise, on reading the contract to see that exactly that "best reasonable effort" language repeated throughout, from the Recitals through to the active clauses.</p><p><u>AZ's obligations</u></p><p>The two potentially relevant clauses covering AZ's obligation to supply the vaccines were 5.1. and 5.4. as below:</p><p><i></i></p><blockquote><p><i>5.1 <u>Initial Europe Doses</u>. AstraZeneca shall use its Best Reasonable Efforts to manufacture the Initial Europe Doses within the EU for distribution, and to deliver to the Distribution Hubs, following EU marketing authorization... [the redacted schedule of vaccine delivery]/</i></p><p><i>5.4. <u>Manufacturing Sites</u>. AstraZeneca shall use its Best Reasonable Efforts to manufacture the Vaccine at manufacturing sites located within the EU (which, for the purpose of this <u>Section 5.4</u> only shall include the United Kingdom)...</i></p></blockquote><p><i></i></p><p>There has been (and continues to be) a good deal of controversy as to whether manufacturing sites located in the UK can be considered as a part of AZ's obligation to produce the Initial Europe Doses. As a pure matter of construction, I don't think they can be. Where a contract explicitly states that the effect of a specific definition is being varied only for the purposes of one clause, it means just that. When 5.1 states that the obligation is to manufacture within the EU, "the EU" means just that, not "the EU plus the UK", which is only the correct definition for the purposes of clause 5.4.</p><p>All good fun, but I don't think in any way relevant to what AZ's obligations were under this contract. They were, as set out in the Recital, to "use its Best Reasonable Efforts to build capacity to manufacture 300 million doses of the vaccine" and, as set out in 5.1., to "use its Best Reasonable Efforts to manufacture the Initial Europe Doses within the EU for distribution."</p><p><u>Breach?</u></p><p>Did AZ do so? Well, that's a factual question, but the fact that the sites already in production were <i>expected</i> to produce the required number of vaccines on schedule, and that it was unexpectedly low yield from one of the plants that caused AZ to miss its target would strongly suggest that AZ did indeed make its Best Reasonable Efforts to build sufficient capacity, and to make the required number of vaccines, and that it was basically bad luck that has caused the problems. So, any attempt by the EC to sue AZ for damages for breach would, I think, be doomed. </p><p><u>UK vaccines stocks</u></p><p>This then takes us to the main reason that the EC are so furious. Under a separate contract with the UK, AZ has no current issues with supply. The vaccines ordered by the UK are being delivered by AZ. This has made the EC think that the UK is cheating - taking more than its fair share of the total number of vaccines made by AZ. This wasn't helped by <a href="https://www.repubblica.it/cronaca/2021/01/26/news/interview_pascal_soriot_ceo_astrazeneca_coronavirus_covid_vaccines-284349628/">the interview given by the AZ CEO</a>, when he said:</p><p><i></i></p><blockquote><i>The UK agreement was reached in June, three months before the European one. As you could imagine, the UK government said the supply coming out of the UK supply chain would go to the UK first. Basically, that's how it is. In the EU agreement it is mentioned that the manufacturing sites in the UK were an option for Europe, but only later.</i></blockquote><p></p><p>"Aha!" said the EC, "you're saying that the only reason you can't give these vaccines to us is that you promised them to the UK under a previous contract. That's a breach of contract! Look at Clause 13.1.(e)! You need to give the UK vaccines to us instead."</p><p>Clause 13.1.(e) is as follows:</p><p><i><span></span></i></p><blockquote><i>(e) it [</i>AZ<i>] is not under any obligation, contractual or otherwise to any Person or third party in respect of the Initial Europe Doses or that conflicts with or is inconsistent in any material respect with the terms of this Agreement or that would impede the complete fulfillment of its obligations under this Agreement.</i></blockquote><p></p><p>Does the contract signed by AZ and the UK breach this provision? And if so, does that breach entitle the EC to demand delivery of vaccines produced under it?</p><p><u>The UK Contract</u></p><p>Spoiler: no. The first point to look at is about the identity of the parties. The contracting party with the EU is AstraZeneca AB, Az's Swedish registered entity. I would be very surprised if the UK contract was not signed by AstraZeneca UK. There's a reasonable argument to run that contracts entered into by AZUK are irrelevant to the representation made in 13.1.(e). I'm not sure it's one I'd like to pin all my hopes on though.</p><p>The better argument is the factual one: did the contract signed between the UK and AZ impede or conflict with the AZ's obligations under the contract? This gets to the heart of the misunderstanding: the EC are looking at vaccine supplies as a stock: there are so many vaccines and if some are promised to the UK then that means less for us. But really it's a flow: the UK ordered 100 million vaccines, so AZ built up capacity to try to meet that order; then the EU ordered 300 million vaccines, so AZ built additional capacity to try to meet that order.</p><p>AZ were obliged under their EU contract to make best reasonable efforts to build the capacity and to make 300 million doses of vaccine for the EU. These efforts, on one reading, were unaffected by the vaccines being produced for the UK and on another reading benefited from them (in that AZ had experience of producing the vaccines, and some pre-existing capacity).</p><p>Neither the EU nor the UK are buying vaccines off a shelf, where if someone gets in early they can scoop the lot. Both are investing in manufacturing capacity, and it shouldn't be a surprise that if you get your orders in early, you are more likely to get your manufacturing issues dealt with early too.</p>Tim Jhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03705980028580424584noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21724748.post-73072929157065883272020-02-14T14:54:00.001+00:002020-02-14T14:54:30.878+00:00Sound judgement; sound judgment<div style="text-align: justify;">
The last time I was in court, it was for a case where the barrister had declared he could see no way in which we could lose our case. Counsel for the claimants started off, and made the case we knew that he would make, with very limited "I see"s from the judge. Our barrister stood up in return to make the case for the Respondents, and before he had said half a dozen words the judge interrupted him:</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
"When exactly," he said, "would you say that this particular obligation attached?"</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Without going into any of the fascinating details, it was a killer of a question. Literally: the moment he asked it, I knew that we were completely sunk (as, indeed, the vessel in question almost had been). Most judges have a habit of making it very clear which way their thoughts are going very early. It's a habit that is even more pronounced in their judgments. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<a href="https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/1972/8.html">There was once a case</a> about whether some poor chap had been missold a skiing holiday (the "house party" advertised consisted of himself and nobody else, and the skis available for hire were half size). Lord Denning started his judgment like this:</div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="text-align: justify;">
<i>Mr. Jarvis is a solicitor, employed by a local authority at Barking. In 1969 he was minded to go for Christmas to Switzerland. He was looking forward to a ski-ing holiday. It is his one fortnights holiday in the year.</i></blockquote>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<a href="https://www.casemine.com/judgement/uk/5a8ff8cb60d03e7f57ecd836">In another case,</a> newcomers to a village complained about the nuisance of cricket balls from the village green landing in their garden. Denning (once again) began like this:</div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="text-align: justify;">
<i>In summertime village cricket is the delight of everyone. Nearly every village has its own cricket field where the young men play and the old men watch. In the village of Lintz in County Durham they have their own ground, where they have played these last 70 years. They tend it well. The wicket area is well rolled and mown. The outfield is kept short . . [y]et now after these 70 years a judge of the High Court has ordered that they must not play there anymore . . [h]e has done it at the instance of a newcomer who is no lover of cricket.</i></blockquote>
Denning was in the minority on that one, but even so it's pretty obvious from the opening words of each judgment exactly which way the ruling is going to go.<br />
<br />
So it is with the recent Case of the "Transphobic" Policeman (which is a Sherlock Holmes story <i>manque</i> if ever I heard one). The facts were that a retired copper retweeted a fairly disobliging poem about transwomen, and various other tweets on the same subject that someone found objectionable. They contacted the police, who promptly turned up at Harry Miller's workplace to tell him that they were recording the incident as a "non-crime hate incident". He then sued the police on the basis that they had no right to do any such thing on the basis of what he had tweeted.<br />
<br />
The full (alarming) facts of the case are well set out <a href="https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/miller-v-college-of-police-judgment.pdf">in the judgment</a>, but if you want to know the outcome, you only need to read the first paragraph:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>In his unpublished introduction to Animal Farm (1945) George Orwell wrote:</i></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>“If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell </i><i>people what they do not want to hear.”</i></blockquote>
<div>
In a case about online freedom of speech, you know how the rest is going to go from the first line...</div>
Tim Jhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03705980028580424584noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21724748.post-71318202863349011302020-02-12T11:47:00.001+00:002020-02-12T11:47:47.256+00:00Political nepotism<div style="text-align: justify;">
There's a bit of <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/feb/11/boris-johnson-carrie-symonds">a humdinger</a> in today's <i>Guardian</i> by <a href="http://partyreptile.blogspot.com/2015/01/stuart-broad-is-shit-bloke.html">our</a> <a href="http://partyreptile.blogspot.com/2013/02/mantelpiece.html">old</a> <a href="http://partyreptile.blogspot.com/2007/07/going-too-far.html">friend</a> <a href="http://partyreptile.blogspot.com/2007/09/abortion-and-statistics.html">Zoe Williams</a>.</div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="text-align: justify;">
<i>Thanks to Boris Johnson, political nepotism is making a comeback</i></blockquote>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The hook for this accusation is that Stanley Johnson, Boris's dad, was <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/feb/06/pms-father-stanley-johnson-passed-on-chinese-message-to-minister">invited to a discussion</a> of environmental matters by the Chinese ambassador, and then emailed various bods in Government to pass on a message for Boris. This is embarrassing only because he accidentally copied in a BBC journo.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
It ought to go without saying that there's nothing obviously nepotistic about this - Johnson Sr had no official role, was not there on the Govt's behalf, and is pretty obviously not on the make. Further, as Zoe recognises:</div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="text-align: justify;">
<i>Stanley Johnson does, in fact, have considerable experience negotiating the environmental policies of the EU</i></blockquote>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
But, more widely, has Boris Johnson inspired political nepotism? I can't see that the article even begins to make this case. I mean, this:</div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="text-align: justify;">
<i>Five years ago, it would have been highly unusual to find a leader’s family involved in government. You wouldn’t have expected a prime minister’s dad, for instance, to be anywhere near the political arena.</i></blockquote>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
This may be explained by the fact that in 2015 the PM's dad had been <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-politics-11236453/david-cameron-s-father-ian-dies-in-french-hospital">dead for five years</a>.</div>
<br />
The charge of nepotism clearly, obviously sticks when made against Donald Trump - that's the easiest target imaginable. But it equally obviously fails to land against Boris Johnson. But it's not as if British politics is a target-free environment. On the contrary, we have an example of the son of a party leader getting a billet as <a href="https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/jeremy-corbyns-son-seb-appointed-as-john-mcdonnells-chief-of-staff-a6669996.html">chief of staff for the deputy</a>, the son of a former deputy leader getting <a href="https://metro.co.uk/2017/11/08/john-prescotts-son-suspended-amid-sexual-harassment-allegations-7062320/">protected from extremely serious allegations</a> by virtue of his birth, and the f<a href="https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/karie-murphy-ex-nurse-fixer-smothers-labour-complaints-at-birth-t0vxnwxf8">ormer lover of the most senior Trade Unionist</a> rising to the top of her party.<br />
<br />
Oddly, however, Labour doesn't get a mention.Tim Jhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03705980028580424584noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21724748.post-6877618174426803512020-02-07T11:05:00.003+00:002020-02-07T11:05:59.177+00:00Ladies steaks<div class="separator tr_bq" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiZ-cNg6iRDzG6gRWDEEDujBH3ixvbwDlfE5XYsedYp8-zJRxejtuVh4MuwxvdbFqUN5WPe5EJsSarVjU-cQpQV0m6Bt9VAxArtDNSr-mZbMBpe7ZBVloluhdoefhXSKqTGh39N/s1600/download.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="166" data-original-width="304" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiZ-cNg6iRDzG6gRWDEEDujBH3ixvbwDlfE5XYsedYp8-zJRxejtuVh4MuwxvdbFqUN5WPe5EJsSarVjU-cQpQV0m6Bt9VAxArtDNSr-mZbMBpe7ZBVloluhdoefhXSKqTGh39N/s1600/download.jpg" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<a href="https://www.timworstall.com/2020/02/07/sure-is-sexist-and-whats-it-you-pal/">Via Tim</a>, I'm afraid that <a href="https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/02/06/steaks-raised-battle-sexist-fillet/">this story in the Telegraph</a> triggered (yet) another African reminisce.</div>
<blockquote style="text-align: justify;">
<i>A steak restaurant in Liverpool has launched a ‘ladies fillet’ because they say that their female diners struggle to eat the larger cuts.</i> </blockquote>
<blockquote style="text-align: justify;">
<i>The steak “is for the ladies” boasts the menu of the Manhattan Bar & Grill on Fenwick Street, which offers a cheaper, smaller, fillet for women.</i> </blockquote>
<blockquote style="text-align: justify;">
<i>The restaurant said that they had introduced the 8oz steaks after they received “countless queries” from female visitors and hen parties asking if they had anything smaller than their classic 10oz fat free version.</i></blockquote>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Stax Steakhouse in Mutare (tucked away in a shopping arcade) served about the best steaks I'd ever had up to then (I was 18, so not exactly a <i>gourmand</i>). They were also enormous (standard 12oz, T-bone something ludicrous like 18oz). Tucked away at the bottom of the menu was the 250g "Ladies' steak", the description of which was something like "Not man enough for our steaks? Maybe this one's for you." Put it down with the adverts for <a href="http://www.zigsam.at/l03/Madison-20ZW199.htm">Madison Reds</a>: "Real Men Smoke Madisons".</div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="text-align: justify;">
<i>But some people have criticised the restaurant and said that the gendered menu is sexist.</i></blockquote>
They definitely wouldn't have liked Zimbabwe in the 90's...Tim Jhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03705980028580424584noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21724748.post-27549109881088835762020-02-04T11:30:00.000+00:002020-02-04T11:30:00.373+00:00Mad Mike<a href="https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/d480f02e-46a4-11ea-a5b7-24df8ee7a872">Now there's someone</a> I assumed had died <i>decades</i> ago! He'd be absolutely delighted with his <i>Times</i> obit:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>“Mad Mike” Hoare was perhaps the best-known mercenary since Xenophon. Like the ancient Greek general, he had a remarkable gift for leadership in trying circumstances, notably in the mid-1960s in what became known as the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), where his “Wild Geese” saved thousands of lives during the Simba (Lion) rebellion.</i></blockquote>
<a href="https://www.amazon.co.uk/Congo-Mercenary-Mike-Hoare/dp/1581606397">Congo Mercenary</a> is a great book (although it should probably be taken with a pinch or two of salt - Mike Hoare was definitely not averse to polishing his legend a little). I'll have to drag it out and have another read...Tim Jhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03705980028580424584noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21724748.post-24689690420817966492020-01-31T11:42:00.004+00:002020-01-31T11:43:15.449+00:00HSC<div style="text-align: justify;">
This is <a href="https://www.espncricinfo.com/story/_/id/28604501/liam-brickhill-my-family-love-affair-zimbabwe-harare-sports-club">an absolutely lovely piece</a> about the Harare Sports Club by Liam Brickhill - whose father I am sure appears in my copy of <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diana_Mitchell">Di Mitchell</a>'s <a href="https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B0000EDU9J/ref=dbs_a_def_rwt_hsch_vapi_taft_p1_i1">Gook Book</a> (technically "African nationalist leaders in Zimbabwe: Who's Who 1980", but that was too much of a mouthful for the Rhodies).</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The only time I went to the HSC was to watch an indescribably tedious day of a <a href="https://www.espncricinfo.com/series/16033/scorecard/63764/zimbabwe-vs-new-zealand-1st-test-new-zealand-tour-of-zimbabwe-1997-98">Test between Zimbabwe and New Zealand</a> watching Grant Flower grind out 150 with 8 men out on the boundary as the Kiwis tried to slow things down. The poor girls we'd taken with us tried very hard to keep watching (when not ogling Chris Cairns), while the rest of us got cheerfully smashed in Castle Corner.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Still, second best memory of cricket in Zimbabwe, shortly behind taking a screaming catch in the gully off a chap called Dion at the Mutare Sports Club only to find that the ball had come straight off the side of his head.</div>
Tim Jhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03705980028580424584noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21724748.post-65283512225101555942020-01-31T11:13:00.002+00:002020-01-31T11:13:42.892+00:00Regionalism<div style="text-align: justify;">
<a href="https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/comment/uk-regions-britain-needs-vision-for-its-second-cities-gzgfphjrm">John Kampfner in today's </a><i><a href="https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/comment/uk-regions-britain-needs-vision-for-its-second-cities-gzgfphjrm">Times</a> </i>asks why the UK doesn't have a second city that matches London:</div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>Compare the UK with other equivalent countries. Spain has two major centres: Madrid and Barcelona. Italy’s are Rome and Milan. Russia would cite Moscow and St Petersburg. Australia: Sydney and Melbourne. Germany has several, as has the United States. The only country of similar size and weight that is as over-centralised as Britain is France.</i></blockquote>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
There are perfectly good historical reasons why this should be the case. Spain is the result of the union of the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Aragon#Union_of_the_Crowns_of_Aragon_and_Castile_and_afterwards">kingdoms of Aragon and Castile</a>, with Madrid and Barcelona the respective capitals. Italy only became more than Metternich's <a href="https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/klemens_von_metternich_394048">geographical expression</a> in <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_unification">the mid 19th Century</a>, and unification was only completed in 1870 - Milan and Rome were two of the many principal Italian cities. Russia has moved the capital between Moscow and St Petersburg more than once, and Germany, the USA and Australia all have their origins as unions of more or less independent states. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The UK and France are nation states (England so dominates the UK that the capitals of Scotland. Wales and Northern Ireland are inevitably over-shadowed), without the history of amalgamation that all Kampfner's examples share. It's pretty much inevitable that if a city is a nation's capital for a thousand years it will dominate culturally, politically and economically.</div>
Tim Jhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03705980028580424584noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21724748.post-61218224353836875762020-01-29T12:53:00.001+00:002020-01-29T12:53:05.905+00:00Getting to the heart of the matter<div class="tr_bq" style="text-align: justify;">
<a href="https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/jan/29/heart-attack-brexit-politics">Poor old Raphael Behr</a>. As someone who has hit 40 and is still accelerating, I am naturally sympathetic to anyone struck down while exercising. But there does seem to have been a slight silver lining in that he has put his finger on the biggest problem with the entire Remain referendum campaign, and continuity Remain guerilla campaign:</div>
<blockquote style="text-align: justify;">
<i>Remainers lost the argument with arch, eye-rolling negativity. In 2016 the pro-European case was made exclusively in terms of loss – forfeited growth, shrunken prestige, jettisoned jobs – while the leavers advertised gains. After the referendum, those Brexit promises were assailed by fact-checkers, myth-busters, expert debunkers, but what was the counter offer? What would leavers get in exchange for surrendering a prize for which they had voted, to which they were democratically entitled and which they had not yet received? </i></blockquote>
<blockquote style="text-align: justify;">
<i>On we went, rubbishing the idea that Brexit was a bounty of freedom, sovereignty and control, irritating more than we converted, until Boris Johnson came along to lift the siege. By December, the liberation he could realistically offer voters wasn’t from Europe any more, it was from the argument encircling them. It was from us, the remainers.</i></blockquote>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<a href="http://partyreptile.blogspot.com/2016/06/brexit-blues.html">I was a Remainer</a>, and still think that the wrong decision was made in 2016. But the overwhelming tide of sneering negativity has done more than anything else to change my mind. The lack of any positive message destroyed the pro-European movement. All it has now is <a href="https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7937599/Piers-Morgan-blasts-Remainer-Terry-Christian-controversial-tweet.html">Terry Christian hoping that old people die</a>.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The <a href="http://partyreptile.blogspot.com/2015/02/london-calling.html">persistent</a> <a href="http://partyreptile.blogspot.com/2015/06/political-correctness.html">miserabilism</a> of the left, coupled with <a href="http://partyreptile.blogspot.com/2012/11/the-limits-of-politics.html">their </a><a href="http://partyreptile.blogspot.com/2011/10/boilerplate-lizardry.html">self-righteous</a> <a href="http://partyreptile.blogspot.com/2013/04/i-am-right-you-are-evil.html">sanctimony</a>, has been a real obstacle for them gaining power. If you want to persuade people to support you or your point of view, it's not a great idea to start by whingeing on about how awful they are, and how much you look forward to their death...</div>
Tim Jhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03705980028580424584noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21724748.post-4866598050845826142020-01-28T10:36:00.001+00:002020-01-28T10:36:27.692+00:00Delusions of relevance<div style="text-align: justify;">
British politics has been in a strange state really since 2010. The run of Governments with respectively a coalition, a tiny majority, a confidence and supply arrangement and no majority at all has meant that the role of Parliament has been greatly increased, and the function of the Opposition has been elevated from its traditional ineffectiveness to an influence that almost equates to limited power.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
I think it's probably in that context that you have to read <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/jan/28/labour-deputy-leader-trade-union-equality">Dawn Butler's article in the <i>Guardian</i></a> this morning.</div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="text-align: justify;">
<i>As Labour’s deputy leader, I would repeal draconian anti-trade union laws</i></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>On day one of a Labour government, as deputy leader, my priority would be to ensure the repeal of draconian anti-trade union legislation. The workplace needs to be fit for the 2020s and I would campaign to bring in more flexible working and to ban zero-hours contracts, which often result in lower-income workers being exploited, without holiday, sickness or maternity provision.</i></blockquote>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Let's face it, in the unlikely event that she's ever in a position to follow through on this, the 2020s will long since have faded in the rear-view mirror. The Labour Party needs to adjust to the fact that it's not going to be the story for the next few years - even if the Tories can't maintain their honeymoon period for long (and the <a href="https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1222097829201686530">twenty point lead in today's poll</a> is surely much too good to last) Labour are so far behind that it'll take a world war or a black swan to get them back in less than two elections. Until then, shouting about the legislation they'll introduce is really nothing more than make-believe.</div>
Tim Jhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03705980028580424584noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21724748.post-2305857465427127632020-01-24T10:07:00.000+00:002020-01-24T13:00:54.778+00:00Flexible conventions<span style="font-family: inherit;">Bercow sowing: "<span style="background-color: white; color: #3c4043; font-size: 14px;"><a href="https://www.westminster-daily.com/ruling-on-brexit-vote-puts-speaker-in-the-commons-firing-line/">Haha fuck yeah!!! Yes!!</a></span>"</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Bercow reaping: "<span style="background-color: white; color: #3c4043; font-size: 14px;"><a href="https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/jan/23/john-bercow-peer-files-bullying-complaint-against-ex-speaker">Well this fucking sucks. What the fuck.</a>"</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="background-color: white; color: #3c4043; font-size: 14px;"><br /></span>
<span style="background-color: white; color: #3c4043; font-size: 14px;">You'd have to have a heart of stone not to laugh at this one. John Bercow, John actual Bercow, whinging that his non-elevation to the Lords breaks "a centuries old convention". It's hard to improve on the response of the <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/jan/23/john-bercow-peer-files-bullying-complaint-against-ex-speaker">No 10 spokesman</a>:</span></span><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="background-color: white; font-size: 14px;"><span style="color: #3c4043; font-family: inherit;">Asked why Downing Street had ignored the convention that Speakers are elevated to the Lords after they step down, a No 10 source said: “The Speaker was not always a fan of convention.”</span></span></blockquote>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">I'm on the Government's side on this one. The long-standing convention that ex-Speakers are ennobled is enough by itself to brush past the inconvenient fact that Bercow is a self-aggrandising malignant tit of the first water. It's also enough to get past the fact that he scandalously misused a position that has always (both by convention but more importantly be design) had impartiality as its <i>raison d'etre</i> to push one side of the most contentious political debate the UK has seen in decades. It isn't enough, however, to get past the fact that he has been <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/oct/24/vote-may-open-door-to-more-parliamentary-bullying-claims">repeatedly</a> <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1DbbBnWDqe8">accused </a>of <a href="https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/bercow-accused-of-bullying-staff-by-his-former-top-aide-k792fd0lm">bullying </a>his staff, as well as <a href="https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/houses/commons/news/107144/john-bercow-playground-bully-who-made-uk-un-governable-say-mps">observably bullying MPs</a> in <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-49700169">the Chamber itself</a>.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Any question of elevation to the peerage not only can legitimately be put on hold, but actually should be on a moral basis until a proper investigation into all these allegations has been carried out. Personally, I'm looking forward to him being dragged before a Select Committee to answer questions on it without being able to hide behind his status as Speaker.</span>Tim Jhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03705980028580424584noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21724748.post-43711753279084591612020-01-16T15:16:00.001+00:002020-01-16T15:16:27.922+00:00No Cummings, no goin'sBad Al Campbell's rule was always that the adviser should never be the story - something he signally failed to live up to in those last frenetic days of his regime. On that basis, the fixation that most of the press have for Dominic Cummings should be a bit concerning. Whether it's his dress sense, his <a href="https://dominiccummings.com/">book-length blogposts</a> (something I remember <a href="http://partyreptile.blogspot.com/2013/10/pollys-reading-difficulties.html">writing about</a> back in 2013) or his relationship to <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/sep/07/smash-and-grab-dominic-cummings-democracy">nefarious electoral shenanigans</a> there's something about him that fascinates hacks.<br />
<br />
Generally speaking, advisers are less important than their reputation suggests. So long as their instincts and views align with their boss's, they are fine. When, as with Steve Hilton, they get out of synch they are gone. Even when taking this coverage with a pinch of salt, however, there is something about Dominic Cummings that catches the eye. I suspect it's the iconoclasm - in his first talk to special advisers after Boris's leadership win, he led on the excellent advice "<a href="https://www.ft.com/content/21b47aac-af8b-11e9-b3e2-4fdf846f48f5">don't be shit</a>" - and the sense that even if his approach doesn't work, at least it will fail in new and interesting ways.<br />
<br />
The overwhelming impression of the Theresa May Government was of a reactiveness that amounted to <a href="https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2020/01/gavin-barwell-has-shown-why-theresa-may-failed/">total inanition</a>. Reading accounts of that period is like looking at the French army in 1940 - hundreds of reasons why action was impossible, and nobody prepared to <i>do</i> anything about it. Whatever his faults, Boris generates an atmosphere of oomph.<br />
<br />
One of my great frustrations over the last few years was that even where the Tories had a respectable product, no-one seemed interested in selling it. Boris, more than anything else, is a political salesman. Even the best salesmen need proper logistical, administrative and strategic support from the base. Cummings looks very unlikely to tolerate drift.Tim Jhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03705980028580424584noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21724748.post-91432028432445079292020-01-10T13:48:00.000+00:002020-01-10T13:48:35.686+00:00TrumpOne of the many things I couldn't understand over the last couple of years was Donald Trump. What was he trying to do? Was there a plan? Why is he that colour?<br />
<br />
I think it's time to acknowledge that the reason I couldn't understand him was that there isn't anything to understand - there's nothing behind the curtain except an old man who approaches the job of President of the United States with all the restraint and expertise of a toddler with a Patek Phillipe watch and a claw hammer.<br />
<br />
He's basically the political equivalent of a natural disaster - while there's little point examining the causes or reasons, you can still profitably examine the results. Oh, and he'll probably win again in 2020 so there's that.<br />
<br />Tim Jhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03705980028580424584noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21724748.post-77707520099992842092020-01-10T12:17:00.001+00:002020-01-10T12:17:25.725+00:00Bloody HellBlimey. Did I miss much?<br />
<br />
The biggest reason that I stopped posting after the 2017 election was that I had simply stopped understanding politics. Nothing seemed to make any sense anymore, and I couldn't see why people were doing what they were doing, or what they expected to be the result.<br />
<br />
As such, I didn't have much of an incentive to write anything down. Oh, and Twitter has killed blogging anyway.<br />
<br />
But Boris. Boris I understand. I have done ever since I recommended him as the London mayoral candidate <a href="http://partyreptile.blogspot.com/2007/07/cometh-hour-part-ii.html">back in July 2007</a> (Christ I'm old). It's why I would have voted for him as leader back in 2016, and why I did vote for him as leader in 2019. Boris may look chaotic and unplanned, but the unplanned chaos is itself a plan. And as soon as he became leader, I knew what he was trying to achieve.<br />
<br />
This is all old hat now, and after-the-event-wisdom at that so I won't linger on it, but the Tories' only chance of survival at the end of last Summer was if they could, in short order, unify the party, neutralise the Brexit Party and bring Brexit to a head so that an election could be called in circumstances that could be sold as Brexit vs. No Brexit. In the event, he was able to get a Deal, which made the election campaign much much easier (and entirely shafted the Lib Dems into the bargain).<br />
<br />
But everything he did on becoming leader (turfing out the 21 rebels, appointing a wildly pro-Brexit cabinet, proroguing Parliament and making his "die in a ditch" pledge on leaving the EU on 31 October) was predicated on uniting the rest of the Party and killing off Farage. It wasn't all successful, it certainly wasn't guaranteed success, but at least it was coherent, and I could understand what he was doing and why.<br />
<br />
So, now politics has returned to comprehensibility I might even start posting stuff here again!Tim Jhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03705980028580424584noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21724748.post-41975195555343778532017-06-08T11:22:00.001+01:002017-06-08T11:22:23.866+01:00Polling day BluesThis election has been a bit like the Boer War. On paper, it should be bloody easy for the Tories (playing the British): they've got the men, they've got the ships (kinda) and, most importantly, they've got the money too. Jeremy Corbyn's rag-tag band of irregulars should be an absolute pushover.<br />
<br /><br />
And, in the end, the Tories are going to win. Steamrollering their way to an inelegant victory. But, God, it's been unedifying stuff. <br />
<br /><br />
For a party led by actual Marxists who are literally and verifiably terrorist sympathisers, Labour have proved extremely hard to lay a glove on. My guess here is that the Labour leadership is so very bad that even a dry recitation of their positions on economics, defence and terrorism sounds like a hysterical McCarthyite denunciation. Add to that an impressively disingenuous Labour campaign and you end up with the person accurately describing the Labour leader's views being the bad guy, and the kindly twinkly-eyed old useful idiot looking like everyone's favourite granddad.<br />
<br /><br />
Add to that the incredible, apparently unkillable tribalism of the left, and you end up with a Labour party that is almost certainly going to win more votes than it did last time round. Which is not what I thought would happen, to say the least.Tim Jhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03705980028580424584noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21724748.post-40600833110922199342017-02-16T15:56:00.002+00:002017-02-16T15:56:39.516+00:00More bloody BrexitI'm a bit confused by <a href="https://www.buzzfeed.com/albertonardelli/officials-say-britain-cant-pull-out-of-eu-courts-if-it-wants?utm_term=.dmbl2Yydrp#.iur7AJ5zoQ">this Buzzfeed splash</a>.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<em>The UK will have to stay under the jurisdiction of European courts and in the customs union for the duration of any interim arrangement if it wants to transitionally retain access to the European Union’s trade agreements, senior EU sources have told BuzzFeed News.</em></blockquote>
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<em>Sources suggest the British government is exploring the option of asking to remain a participant in </em><a href="http://ec.europa.eu/trade/policy/countries-and-regions/agreements/index_en.htm"><em>dozens of EU free trade agreements</em></a><em> (FTAs), such as the recently ratified deal with Canada (CETA), as part of a transitional plan it wants to have in place for when it formally leaves the EU in 2019 – whereupon it will attempt to negotiate its own trade agreements with many of the countries involved.</em></blockquote>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
OK. So rather than allow all FTAs with third party nations to lapse when the UK leaves the EU, the proposal is that the UK remain parties <em>as if</em> they were still an EU member state until the treaties can be re-negotiated. That makes a good deal of sense by preventing the cliff-edge scenario much beloved by people who confidently anticipate disaster.</div>
<br /><br />
So what are the EU saying?<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<em>But senior European officials have told BuzzFeed News that continued access to the EU’s FTAs would require Britain to transitionally stay in the customs union – and this would restrict the UK’s ability to conclude its own FTAs. Britain would also need to remain under the jurisdiction of EU courts as part of such interim arrangements.</em></blockquote>
<br />
<br /><br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
There's an element of Mandy Rice-Davies about this, and the unnamed officials rather give the game away by saying “<em>The UK cannot walk away with ‘better than membership terms’ even on an interim basis.</em>” But take a step back, and I'm not sure the EU position makes much sense. As they stand, the FTAs are between the EU and a third party state (the actual list of active FTAs is <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_free_trade_agreements">pretty unimpressive</a>). Let's take <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union%E2%80%93South_Korea_Free_Trade_Agreement">South Korea</a> as a big example.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Post Brexit, the UK's membership of the EU/South Korea FTA would automatically lapse. So the UK says to South Korea, "while we negotiate a new bi-lateral treaty, please could you agree to treat the UK as if she were still an EU member, and thus party to the existing treaty?" Now, South Korea might not agree to this (that's a diplomatic issue), but the EU doesn't have a say. Even though it's shadowing an EU treaty, to all intents and purposes this would be a new transitional bi-lateral agreement. If the EU isn't a party to it, which it wouldn't be, then they wouldn't have the standing to insist that the UK remains inside the Customs Area.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
I assume I'm missing something here, but it looks very much as if the EU is huffing and puffing without much behind it.</div>
Tim Jhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03705980028580424584noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21724748.post-44282733210901284572016-12-06T10:08:00.000+00:002016-12-06T10:08:00.698+00:00Short-circuiting BrexitGod but the endless peregrinations and peseverations about Brexit are trying. Yes, we know that the Government isn't offering a running commentary. Yes, we know that the EU is going to be extra extra hard on the UK to punish us for leaving. Yes yes, all Tory MPs are parochial thickies who've never been east of Dover. Christ. And there's going to be months and months more of this, regardless of the result of the Supreme Court litigation (although that'll be worth it for seeing how Mance and Sumption disagree with each other).<br />
<br /><br />
So let's just cut to the chase. Here's what the shape of the eventual deal will be (and feel free to call me an idiot again in 2019 for getting them all wrong, when we've been flung into outer darkness).<br />
<br /><br />
If there's one thing we're definitely sick of hearing it is that you can't be a member of the single market without accepting freedom of movement of people. Fine. So we won't be a member of the single market. That was pretty bloody obvious on the morning of the 24th. So a deal will be cut: <br />
<br /><br />
Free trade in goods;<br />
Reduced UK budget contributions (notionally towards maintaining common standards regulation);<br />
Access to financial markets governed by Solvency II style regulatory equivalence;<br />
Continued close military & intelligence co-operation;<br />
Free movement of workers.<br />
<br /><br />
That last one? Well, the Treaty of Rome set out the four fundamental freedoms that underpin the EU. Everyone (approximately) now sees the first of these as the "free movement of persons". The actual text of the Treaty, however, refers to the free movement of "workers" and grants the freedom of movement specifically to accept "offers of employment actually made". A reasonable compromise, therefore, would be for the UK to allow immigration into the UK of any EU citizen who has been offered a job in the UK.<br />
<br /><br />
Anyway, that's what should happen. And I think we all know by now how good I am at making these predictions.Tim Jhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03705980028580424584noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21724748.post-86239297243317563672016-11-30T10:14:00.002+00:002016-11-30T10:14:38.636+00:00GotterdammerungWell. I think it's fair to say that, from the perspective of a socially liberal, metropolitan public school Conservative in 2016, political matters have developed not necessarily to our advantage. Having had for a decade a leader of the Conservative Party who had the same sort of childhood, went to the same sort of school, and had the same sort of instincts as I did, it's hard to adjust to the new reality where everything from my accent to my social sogginess is suddenly deeply unfashionable.<br />
<br /><br />
It is also quite hard to adjust to the fact that everything I thought I understood or knew about politics has turned out not to be true (although <a href="http://partyreptile.blogspot.co.uk/2016/06/labour-meltdown.html">my doom-laden predictions for Labour</a> seem to be holding up reasonably well). I never thought that Trump would even get the Republican nomination, let alone the Presidency. The world seems to be coming as a bit of a surprise at present.<br />
<br /><br />
Anyway, it's been hard to think of anything to say from my new perspective as an outsider that wasn't either trite or depressing. I have no idea what Theresa May thinks about anything. I no longer have any confidence in my own views of what will happen. And I find the whole tone of current political debate depressing beyond words. Ho hum.<br />
<br /><br />
I'm therefore going to channel the spirit of Marechal Foch: "<em>My centre is giving way, my right retreating. Situation excellent, I am attacking</em>."<br />
<br /><br />
<br />Tim Jhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03705980028580424584noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21724748.post-40503959289826821052016-06-28T11:47:00.004+01:002016-06-28T11:47:59.330+01:00Labour meltdownIn my last post I put an optimistic spin on what Labour might be able to do in response to Brexit, and I still wasn't desperately positive. But there's a compelling case that it could be much, much worse.<br />
<br />
I started my Labour analysis by assuming that the coup to remove Corbyn would be successful. That in itself throws up all sorts of problems, but it's indescribably worse if the coup is unsuccessful. Here's a version of what might happen next:<br />
<br />
The motion of no confidence (or whatever the technical term is for the vote today) is passed easily. Corbyn refuses to resign. The PLP get 50 or more MP/MEPs to nominate a single challenger (presumably Watson or Eagle) and Corbyn announces that he will contest the election, and that NEC rules mean he is automatically on the ballot.<br />
<br />
The PLP don't agree with that, but the NEC (which is marginally pro-Corbynish) uphold Corbyn's view in the face of massive protests by the membership. Corbyn wins the vote by a reduced margin and is returned as leader.<br />
<br />
What the actual fuck do Labour do next? Answers on a postcard please.Tim Jhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03705980028580424584noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21724748.post-18281461269836659562016-06-28T10:54:00.002+01:002016-06-28T10:54:55.658+01:00Some predictionsHaving deliberately not written about the Referendum before it happened, because I found almost all the commentary and discourse around it so damn depressing, I am going to stick my neck out about what's going to happen next.<br />
<br />
<u>Tories</u><br />
<u><br /></u>
I think it's hard to see an outcome where Boris does not get onto the members' ballot. So far the only other declared Leaver running is Liam Fox (the Disgraced Liam Fox, as he's formally known), and I can't see him being the final choice for members. If Boris does make it, he'll almost certainly be elected. I'm conflicted about this. I've always liked Boris, and he is (I thought) on exactly the open, liberal, non-ideological wing of the Tories that hits my buttons. Against that, of course, he is a manipulative, treacherous, lying weasel. So, conflicted.<br />
<br />
Anyway, whether it's Boris or Theresa May I think the Tory strategy is pretty much the same. Campaign for leader on a 'compromise' approach whereby details of access to the single market vs. free movement will be negotiated, but the ultimate endpoint is some form of Euro-fudge. Call a General Election for, say, 13 October and set out negotiating details (such as they are) in the manifesto. Win the election and then hope for the best.<br />
<br />
<u>Labour</u><br />
<u><br /></u>
Hoo boy. I'm a lot less clear about what Labour will do next, because I'm not even sure there will be any such thing in a month or so. Let's be optimistic first of all. Let's assume the coup against Corbyn works, he is removed and either Tom Watson or Angela Eagle take over without an election. The PLP should not then be a problem, but there will be a big disconnect with the members. Assuming that can be overcome, Labour then need to come up with a policy on Europe.<br />
<br />
But Labour are in more of a bind than the Tories here. They really can't argue for the full withdrawal/pull up the drawbridge option, because none of them agree with it. But if they don't they expose their northern seats to an obvious attack from UKIP that Labour won't listen to their own voters and members (as already shown by dethroning the High Sparrow). That's such a potent attack line that I can see Labour struggling to defend it. So maybe they have to argue for a more extreme vision. But then, that puts them into conflict with their urban professional vote (that, again, will have been enraged by deCorbynisation). Not a pretty picture.<br />
<br />
<u>UKIP</u><br />
<u><br /></u>
Easy peasy. "Betrayal! Treachery! You, the ordinary decent people of Britain, voted to leave. And what do these Quisling politicians do? They try and weasel in by the back door. Vote UKIP for a proper leave." Nasty, but it's going to be bloody effective.<br />
<br />
<u>Liberal Democrats</u><br />
<u><br /></u>
The first good news for the Lib Dems since 2010. Offer a platform of a second referendum, with a view to remaining in the EU. Impractical and highly unlikely ever to be achieved, but that's what Liberal Democrat political positions have always been. Throw in a couple of contentious bar charts and we're back in business lads! Particularly effective if Labour opt to shore up the north and abandon the cities.<br />
<br />
<u>Scotland</u><br />
<u><br /></u>
Good for the SNP too, but they have to be careful not to overplay their hand. The temptation will be (as Sturgeon showed immediately) to say that Brexit is a material change in circumstances and warrants a second referendum. But (despite the instant opinion polls) I'm not sure that this is a slam dunk. In 2014, Scotland voted to remain when independence was sold as being virtually zero-impact (same currency, same head of state, both members of the EU etc) and when oil was US$100pb. Independence now would mean joining the Euro and setting up a customs barrier at Berwick when oil is US$45pb. If the SNP lose a second referendum that really is it for a generation.<br />
<br />
And there we are. It's Labour's future that looks bleakest, but there;s plenty of scope for bleakness all round.Tim Jhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03705980028580424584noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21724748.post-34182077755775295512016-06-28T10:27:00.003+01:002016-06-28T10:27:25.308+01:00Brexit bluesAnything happen while I was away?<br />
<br />
For what it's worth, I was a Remainer. This was because although I've never been a particular fan of the EU, and would probably not vote to join it if we were not already members, I thought whatever benfits might result were not worth the economic, political and diplomatic pain and trauma of unraveling a 40 year relationship. Still, we are where we are now and there's little point in rehashing all that. The question is, where are we?<br />
<br />
One of the biggest deficiencies of the Leave campaign was a persistent failure to spell out exactly what "Leave" meant. Albanian models, Canadian models, Norwegian models, Serbian models - all of them were raised, but none of them were defended in any depth. So despite the apparent clarity of the question, the answer doesn't actually get us very far.<br />
<br />
By (very sensibly) declining to invoke Article 50 on the morning of the result, David Cameron has ensured that we now have a bit more time to thrash out what answer we are looking for. This really is something you would have expected the Leave campaign to be on top of but there we are.<br />
<br />
There is, in fact, a perfectly good reason the Leave campaign ran on vagueness. The Leave vote was, effectively, won on the back of votes from people who feel left behind by globalisation and want much less immigration. The UKIP campaign deliberately sought these votes out. Many if not most of the Tory leavers, by contrast, stand for an open economy, open borders, and a sort of turbo-charged liberalism. Hey, me too but if this had been the tenor of the Leave campaign they'd have been lucky to get 15-20%. So what they did was hold their nose and pander to the anti-immigration ticket while presumably secretly planning to ignore it if they won. I don't think this shows Boris, Gove et al in a particularly good light.<br />
<br />
What should we do? Fucked if I know, frankly. But the people have spoken, and now it's up to our politicians to try and parse their answer into an outcome that is as un-disastrous as possible. That's going to have pretty serious implications for all the main parties - without even considering the fact that at least two of them are going to be having leadership elections.Tim Jhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03705980028580424584noreply@blogger.com8tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21724748.post-33921254544383126282016-05-04T11:44:00.002+01:002016-05-04T11:44:39.043+01:00Peak GuardianI was trying to think of a clever way to introduce this, <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/may/04/racism-gerry-adams-n-word-fetishise-bloopers-cumberbatch">by Gary Younge</a>, on Gerry Adams's use of the word "nigger" on Twitter. But I can't.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>To judge Adams, who has a life’s work of internationalism and antiracist solidarity, by a single tweet borders on the grotesque. People should be assessed on the body of their work, not just on a single off-colour statement. That doesn’t mean the statement should be ignored. But to fetishise it above a person’s record does a disservice not just to the person but to the issue.</i></blockquote>
"The body of their work". Nope, words fail.<br />
<br />
Danny Finkelstein reminds me (in <a href="http://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/comment/labours-crisis-stems-from-the-west-hating-left-k7l9sv7rw">a piece</a> that references <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/comment/story/0,,1710890,00.html">an article</a> that was the subject of almost the <a href="http://partyreptile.blogspot.co.uk/2006/02/ignorance-and-bigotry.html">first Reptile blogpost</a> all those years ago) that Michael Gove's nickname for the <i>Guardian</i> was the Prada-Meinhof Gang. It is, I suppose, comforting to see that the paper hasn't lost its terrorist sympathies despite Seumas's absence.Tim Jhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03705980028580424584noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21724748.post-8482255710043679172016-04-28T11:22:00.001+01:002016-04-28T11:22:16.729+01:00Tom Hollandest<div class="tr_bq">
Tom Hollander is <a href="http://www.spectator.co.uk/2016/04/wanna-come-to-princes-house/?utm_source=Adestra&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=20160428_Weekly_Highlights_17">the actual best</a>.</div>
<blockquote>
<i>When I met Yoko Ono, it was quite different: I spoke for about 15 minutes while she didn’t say one word in return. Not one word. I’d been sat next to her at dinner because the person doing the placement was drunk. There was nowhere for her to turn. Except to her neighbour, which she did eventually, after I’d been reduced to, ‘That’s a really nice shirt you’re wearing, where did you get it?’ Admittedly my chat had become a bit stilted, because in my head a voice was screaming ‘Why won’t you talk to me you fucking snotty cow you think you’re so special when the only reason anyone’s even heard of you is because you broke up not only the greatest band the world has ever known but also one of the few things this country has had to be proud of since we defeated the Nazis.’<br />But you can’t say that sort of thing, so instead I went quiet.</i></blockquote>
Tim Jhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03705980028580424584noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21724748.post-39384176188980039712016-04-27T12:52:00.002+01:002016-04-27T12:52:36.038+01:00Strike!There are a load of op-eds in support of the Doctors' Strike, some <a href="http://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2016/04/27/richard-smith-the-deeper-causes-of-the-doctors-strike-a-thought-experiment/">good </a>and some <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/apr/27/jeremy-hunt-doesnt-understand-junior-doctors-book-dismantle-nhs">not</a>. All of them, however, tend to go big on the difficult and high pressure job that doctors do, and how important the NHS is to us all. A lot of them talk about patient safety, and how <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/john-underwood/junior-doctors-strike-patients-know-strike-is-moral_b_9777466.html">dangerous</a> the proposed new contract is. A lot tug on emotional heartstrings:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>What he meant by all this (we’d sit up at night talking and waiting for trains to go by in the distance) is that this was the first place he’d known any real kindness and he wished to return it. For most of us it will be the last place we know kindness. How sad that we have allowed it to fall into the hands of dreadful people who know no compassion at all, not even for themselves.</i></blockquote>
But since reading <a href="http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/b39896ca-0c59-11e6-b0f1-61f222853ff3.html">the FT on the strike</a> yesterday, I find myself automatically completing these otherwise very convincing articles with "and that's why doctors must be paid slightly more on Saturdays."<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEizF2UmxUTgSDQl9GxjWP_cxnVqoQdKtvOx-C2yQYjt5wD9MWeY9xaOCyVpt7vAoN8qqF5_DmfrHA9rE_h1iY0rQdV2T9-Yxg7dBW7h8YmtC_t533W9aC0N5JkjfXBOi0gBGg01/s1600/Cg9C6jLWIAAoXse.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="277" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEizF2UmxUTgSDQl9GxjWP_cxnVqoQdKtvOx-C2yQYjt5wD9MWeY9xaOCyVpt7vAoN8qqF5_DmfrHA9rE_h1iY0rQdV2T9-Yxg7dBW7h8YmtC_t533W9aC0N5JkjfXBOi0gBGg01/s400/Cg9C6jLWIAAoXse.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
I have to admit that this does slightly detract from the force of the argument.</div>
Tim Jhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03705980028580424584noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21724748.post-214700056092750352016-04-12T15:09:00.002+01:002016-04-12T15:09:18.975+01:00Once more with feelingI suppose in a way it's quite interesting to be in at the birth of a new political meme. This is the story that David Cameron personally intervened to block EU plans to tackle offshore trusts. Let's look at how the story was reported back <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/10624818/EU-to-force-Britons-to-publish-details-of-wills-and-property.html?fb">when it actually happened</a>:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>New legislation planned in Brussels is set to heap fresh costs and paperwork on families’ financial planning, as well as leaving their affairs open to unwanted public scrutiny. </i> </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>British lawyers and tax experts are baffled by the potential implications. Most are bitterly opposed to the costs and intrusion that could result. The use of trusts or what the EU would define as “legal arrangements” is commonplace in Britain and Ireland, but not elsewhere in Europe. As a result many run-of-the-mill transactions between British individuals, or between individuals and financial institutions, would fall within the net of the law if applied to the UK. Similar transactions in Europe would not be affected, lawyers say.</i></blockquote>
Essentially the European Parliament weren't happy with proposed legislation to create a publicly available register of the beneficial owners of EU companies (which pretty much existed in the UK anyway) and broadened the scope to include all trusts as well. This was probably because EU legislators don't really know what trusts are, because they're only used in the UK & Ireland, and they think they sound dodgy.<br />
<br />
The reaction of the British Government (and on the legal sector more widely) was that this was disproportionate and not particularly helpful to the wider aim. This was <a href="http://www.step.org/uk-demands-exemption-eu-trust-registry-plan">set out in the Lords</a> by Lord Newby:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>'The government opposes the mandatory registration requirement for trusts [which] unlike companies are used for a range of purposes, such as benevolence, inheritance, protecting vulnerable people and family support. As such, the implications for privacy are far greater, and trusts therefore warrant different treatment ... We consider registration of trusts to be a disproportionate approach and, in particular, one which undermines the common-law basis of trusts in the UK.'</i></blockquote>
This was what David Cameron had written to the President of the European Council about, and what the UK Government continued to lobby the EU about. Was this an attempt to assist tax avoidance? No.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>The Treasury is now negotiating with the EU Council presidency and other member states to agree a compromise that would limit the scope of obligations on trusts to those holding financial assets, which the UK would satisfy through existing reporting obligations for trusts holding financial assets, domestic reporting requirements and automatic exchange of tax information agreements.</i></blockquote>
So in other words, the UK Government wanted to prevent a measure designed to prevent money laundering being applied so widely that it would affect hundreds of thousands of otherwise private legal arrangements. <a href="http://www.withersworldwide.com/news-publications/eu-approves-4th-anti-money-laundering-directive--2">And it was successful in doing so</a>.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>The publication of details concerning the beneficiaries of trusts gave rise to an intense debate, as beneficiaries of a trust are in a very different position than, say, shareholders of a company. In many circumstances, beneficiaries are not aware of their position and often include minor and vulnerable family members. Accordingly, after intense lobbying by professional bodies, the final version of the 4th Money Laundering Directive has limited the circumstances in which information concerning trusts ought to be published on the new registers. </i></blockquote>
A triumph for British diplomacy in preventing the negative and unintended consequences of a half-baked piece of legislation introduced by ignoramuses. Phew.<br />
<br />
Now let's see what happens to that diplomatic triumph in light of the (entirely unconnected) scandal about offshore companies. <a href="http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/0e7c0a20-fc17-11e5-b5f5-070dca6d0a0d.html#axzz45VRm8SCu">First, the FT</a>.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>David Cameron personally intervened in 2013 to weaken an EU drive to reveal the beneficiaries of trusts, creating a possible loophole that other European nations warned could be exploited by tax evaders.</i></blockquote>
This is where the fun starts. Because the very first line of that is a touch misleading. It gives the impression that David Cameron's intervention was exceptional, or even that it was done in a personal capacity. It wasn't. It was a letter from a Head of Government setting out that Government's position - a position that was re-iterated in Parliament. David Cameron signed a letter written by civil servants explaining the UK's position on proposed legislation. I suspect he does that quite frequently. Anyway, at least the FT got the substance of the intervention right.<br />
<br />
The Guardian, on the other hand, <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/apr/07/david-cameron-offshore-trusts-eu-tax-crackdown-2013">takes this and runs with it</a>.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>David Cameron intervened personally to prevent offshore trusts from being dragged into an EU-wide crackdown on tax avoidance, it has emerged.</i></blockquote>
Again with the personal intervention, but now it's about offshore trusts, and a crackdown on tax avoidance. Taking the first point first, it should go without saying (but apparently doesn't) that a register of beneficiaries of <b>EU-registered trusts</b> couldn't affect <b>offshore trusts</b>. Taking the second point, a directive that was about money laundering is now apparently part of a crackdown on tax avoidance. And, for good measure, "it has emerged" in this case means "a public letter that was reported on at the time, and remains on the Government website". Deep Throat this isn't.<br />
<br />
And it really is as simple as that. A legally-supported UK Government objection to an ill-thought through piece of European heavy-handedness becomes <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-35983222">David Cameron</a> <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/david-cameron-intervened-stop-tax-crackdown-offshore-trusts-panama-papers-eu-a6972311.html">personally intervening</a> to <a href="http://uk.businessinsider.com/david-camerons-offshore-trust-letter-2016-4">prevent the EU</a> from <a href="http://www.itv.com/news/2016-04-07/david-cameron-protected-offshore-trusts-from-eu-tax-crackdown-plans/">cracking down</a> on <a href="http://www.buzzfeed.com/albertonardelli/uk-wont-say-if-it-backs-an-eu-blacklist-of-tax-havens#.weG5Md8GO">offshore trusts</a> and <a href="https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/economy/economic-growth/news/73537/david-cameron-attempted-intervene-over-offshore-accounts">tax avoidance</a>. Sigh.Tim Jhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03705980028580424584noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21724748.post-89442436530165401362016-04-11T14:16:00.002+01:002016-04-11T14:16:59.502+01:00Oh no! More taxChrist on a bike but this tax scandal is depressing. At its most basic, the story (as it actually affects British politics) is this:<br />
<br />
<ol>
<li>A <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/news/2016/apr/08/mossack-fonseca-law-firm-hide-money-panama-papers">global law firm</a> had its confidential client documents stolen and circulated to the world's media (this is a Good Thing, because everyone hates secrecy when <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/mar/01/snoopers-charter-to-extend-police-access-to-phone-and-internet-data">other people are doing it</a>).</li>
<li>Quite a lot of these documents were about setting up companies in low-tax jurisdictions.</li>
<li>One of these companies was <a href="http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/01f5b790-fd9f-11e5-b5f5-070dca6d0a0d.html">an investment vehicle</a> established by David Cameron's father.</li>
<li>David Cameron <a href="http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/economy/2016/04/david-cameron-admits-i-had-shares-offshore-fund">invested in this fund</a>.</li>
</ol>
<div>
Everyone proceeded to go barking mad.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Let's just see if we can unpick all this and find out whether there's actually any wrongdoing, legal or moral, about all this - starting with Ian Cameron.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<u>Blairmore Holdings is <a href="https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/economy/financial-sector/opinion/73541/top-lawyer-ian-camerons-investment-fund-was-not-tax">totally unexceptional</a></u></div>
<div>
<u><br /></u></div>
<div>
It's a collective investment fund, that distributes all returns to investors annually. It would have been based in the Bahamas both because it was an advantage to be in the dollar area, and because no local taxes were levied, avoiding double taxation for investors. Investors in these funds (provided they declared their income) would have not avoided any UK taxation - in fact, by increasing the returns to investors, Blairmore would have increased the amount of tax paid. There's a <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/news/2016/apr/04/panama-papers-david-cameron-father-tax-bahamas">fabulously daft headline </a>in the <i>Guardian</i> about this:</div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>Fund run by David Cameron’s father avoided paying tax in Britain</i></blockquote>
Which is because "Fund run by David Cameron's father" wasn't in Britain. It's like complaining that a French bakery in Lilles avoids paying tax in Britain. This also makes comments by <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/jess-phillips/david-cameron-taxes_b_9622288.html?1459933878">Jess Phillips</a> that "David Cameron's dad didn't pay his fair share of taxes" stupid at best, and malicious lies at worst.<br />
<br />
<u>David Cameron hasn't avoided any tax</u><br />
<u><br /></u>
Which leads us to the next point. Cameron paid all the tax that was due on his investment in Blairmore - i.e. UK income tax on the dividends he received, and UK Capital Gains Tax when he disinvested. Since the purpose of Blairmore was to increase the income of its investors, a side effect was to increase their tax bill. There is simply not any avoidance going on here.<br />
<br />
<u>But wait! What about inheritance tax? </u><br />
<u><br /></u>
This is a doozy. Once Cameron had opted for the "full disclosure" route, and told everyone about his finances, it was noted that his mother had given him £200k shortly after his father's death. This was described in the Mail on Sunday as a "<a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3531822/Cameron-s-tax-bill-dodge-mother-s-200-000-gift-New-row-historic-decision-publish-PM-s-tax-return-revealed-family-avoided-70-000-bill-father-died.html">tax bill dodge</a>" on the grounds that unless she dies in the next couple of years, Cameron won't pay tax. This is less a "dodge" than "<a href="http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/manuals/ihtmanual/ihtm04057.htm">how the entire fucking IHT system works</a>". What you're left with is "David Cameron is considerably richer than yow", which I suspect most people knew a while back.<br />
<br />
<u>Um, hypocrisy?</u><br />
<br />
So the story is that the Prime Minister invested a relatively small amount of money into an investment fund, and paid all the tax that was due as a result. Which doesn't sound to me like Watergate - or a reason to arrange a demonstration <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-36006447">calling for his resignation</a>. The journalist who organised the demonstration has a quick response if challenged on why a Prime Minister who has manifestly not evaded tax, and actually not even avoided it, is this:<br />
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
<div dir="ltr" lang="en">
Let's stop attacking Cameron for being posh + rich, which everyone already knows, and focus on his intervention against the EU tax crackdown</div>
— Abi Wilkinson (@AbiWilks) <a href="https://twitter.com/AbiWilks/status/719142132427186177">April 10, 2016</a></blockquote>
<script async="" charset="utf-8" src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js"></script>Saying, in other words, that the "real scandal" is that back in 2014 Cameron "<a href="https://twitter.com/AbiWilks/status/717997724663201792">personally interfered to protect offshore trusts from EU tax crackdown</a>" which becomes:<br />
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
<div dir="ltr" lang="en">
David Cameron used his political power to intervene and weaken an EU crackdown on tax avoidance + evasion and money laundering.</div>
— Abi Wilkinson (@AbiWilks) <a href="https://twitter.com/AbiWilks/status/719079464081207296">April 10, 2016</a></blockquote>
<u>Jesus, that sounds bad!</u><br />
<u><br /></u>
Doesn't it? It basically comes from <a href="http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/0e7c0a20-fc17-11e5-b5f5-070dca6d0a0d.html#axzz45VRm8SCu">this FT article</a>, which claims:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>David Cameron’s EU intervention on trusts set up tax loophole</i></blockquote>
From this Abi Wilkinson got the message that Cameron had personally lobbied the EU to "protect offshore trusts from EU tax crackdown", and that this intervention was a barrier to EU action against tax havens.<br />
<br />
The only problem with this interpretation is that its nonsense. What we're talking about is the proposed <a href="https://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/ie/Documents/FinancialServices/investmentmanagement/ie_2015_The_Fourth_EU_Anti_Money_Laundering_Directive_Deloitte_Ireland.pdf">Fourth Money Laundering Directive</a>, that was introduced last year and was widely consulted on beforehand. One of the proposals was that, as well as a publicly available register of corporate beneficial ownership (i.e. who really owns what), there should also be a publicly available register of all trusts.<br />
<br />
Trusts are very uncommon in civil code law jurisdictions, and are basically assumed by most Europeans to be nothing more than a vehicle for nefarious financial schemes (hence the Austrian finance minister calling the UK "the island of the blessed for tax evasion and money laundering" and specifically citing trusts in support). In the UK, however, trusts are pretty common, and most are used for family money management, especially in probate (where inheritances more complicated than "it all goes to my only child" require a trust structure in order to work). It is, in other words, another example of the incompatibility of common law and code law systems.<br />
<br />
Anyway, Abi makes 4 specific claims. That Cameron personally lobbied the EU; that it was about offshore trusts; that it was a tax crackdown; and that it prevented action against tax havens.<br />
<br />
Was it personal? Well, kinda. Cameron wrote a letter to the President of the European Council <a href="http://www.step.org/uk-demands-exemption-eu-trust-registry-plan">in his capacity as leader of the UK Government</a>, setting out the position of the UK Government. I don't really see that as "personal lobbying" but it's not exactly wrong to do so.<br />
<br />
Offshore trusts? Well no. The thing about offshore trusts is that they're based offshore. The thing about a proposed Register of EU Trusts is that it applies to trusts registered in the EU. The one isn't affected, remotely, by the other.<br />
<br />
Was it a tax crackdown? It was billed as a money laundering crackdown and looks more like a privacy crackdown. And what was the <a href="http://www.step.org/uk-demands-exemption-eu-trust-registry-plan">intention of British lobbying</a> in this respect?<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>As a compromise, the UK government intends to get the Fourth Money Laundering Directive obligations restricted to trusts that hold financial assets – which would specifically exclude, for example, will trusts. 'We want to ensure that, as far as possible, information about trusts that could be problematic for money-laundering purposes will be more generally available,' said Newby. 'Our proposals would do that in respect of the UK without having a full mandatory register in the same way as we propose for companies.'</i></blockquote>
And did it prevent action against tax havens? No. How could it? What's the link?<br />
<br />
<u>And the moral of the story is...</u><br />
<u><br /></u>
People know naff all about finance or law. But they sure do hate rich people.Tim Jhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03705980028580424584noreply@blogger.com0