Did Boris Johnson and Vote Leave lie about the £350m per week?

Short answer: no.

Slightly longer answer: Vote Leave did play fast and loose with the actual definitions—hey! it's marketing. And in a political campaign at that—but still no. The ONS "Total Debit" figures that they were using at the time were perfectly valid.

Much longer answer follows below...

The generally acknowledged authority on statistics in the UK is the Office for National Statistics (ONS) (the clue, you see, is in the name). Every year, they release a general digest of the UK's trading position, etc., known as the Pink Book. It's quite interesting if you like that sort of thing (which your humble Devil does, from time to time), but the tables of data are usually rather more illuminating—after all, even the ONS is not above a bit of spin (political or otherwise).

Some spiv named Marcus J. Ball has decided specifically to summons Boris Johnson for "misconduct in a public office": the spiv claims that Johnson knowingly lied about the UK paying the EU £350m per week.

Boris Johnson has been summoned to court to face accusations of misconduct in public office over claims that he lied by saying Britain gave £350m a week to the European Union.

The ruling follows a crowdfunded move to launch a private prosecution of the MP, who is the frontrunner in the Tory leadership contest.

Johnson lied and engaged in criminal conduct when he repeatedly claimed during the 2016 EU referendum campaign that the UK handed over the sum to Brussels, Westminster magistrates court was told last week by lawyers for a 29-year-old campaigner who has launched the prosecution bid.

Why the spiv has cited Boris rather than the Vote Leave team (or even Dominic Cummings) who actually came up with the slogan, I shall leave to speculation (clue: it's a publicity stunt because Boris is running for Tory leader).

Regardless, what we want to know is this: did the Vote Leave team knowingly lie about the UK paying £350m per week to the EU? Or could we prove that they lied? Hmmm.

Bear with me here, whilst I look up a definition of "debit"...

debit (noun): (a record of) money taken out of a bank account

Any normal person would, I think, define "debit" as money leaving a bank account. Because that is what the definition is, yes?

Let us now turn to the data tables for the ONS Pink Book for 2016, and turn immediately to Table 9.9: UK official transactions with institutions of the EU.

This table shows that "Total Debits" (to be clear: their phraseology, not mine) to the EU, in 2015, were £19,593,000,000 = £376m per week.

Given our definition of debit, is it reasonable to assume that this money was, in fact, sent to Brussels? Is it reasonable to assume that this money was sent to the EU, and then some given back? Yes, I would say so.

The sin of omission, of course, is the credits. The same table shows that "Total credits" were £9,240,000,000, resulting in a negative "Balance" of £10,353,000,000, i.e. that the net payment to the EU is a paltry £199.1m per week (so I, for one, feel much better).

In any case, as per standard business accounting, that full amount—the £350m per week—is a liability that needs to be accrued for within that financial year and, even if the money does not actually go into an EU bank account, it cannot be spent by the government until the end of the financial period (when all of the accruals are reconciled).

Why? Well, I think that this is illustrated by the Pink Book of 2018—which records wildly different figures for 2015. The "Total debits" are much lower, but so are the "Total credits"—giving a net figure that is actually larger than that recorded in the 2016 Pink Book: £10,553,000,000 (only £202.94m per week, net). The point here being that the figures were not finalised even in 2016—we know this because the 2018 balance is different—and so must be accrued for.

A pertinent question to ask though, is why the figures are so different between the ONS Pink Book 2016 and ONS Pink Book 2018?

Well, you might remember the ONS publishing a clarification about the UK's contribution to the EU, with figures that were wildly different (and lower) than those contained within the Pink Book of 2016. WTF?

As it turns out, before the clarification was published in October 2017, the ONS decided to change the way in which it accounted for the famous rebate—which is in both sets of figures as the "Fontainebleau abatement" line item. Up until 2016, the Fontainebleau abatement appears as a positive credit in the data tables; after
the referendum the ONS's sudden revelation in 2017, the Fontainebleau abatement appears as a negative debit.

Although the overall balance remains (broadly) the same, the Total Debits for 2015 has now dropped: from £19.593bn (in the 2016 edition) to £14.804bn (in the 2018 edition). And, in fact, according to the ONS statement, a "similar presentational change had also been previously introduced within the Public Sector Finances published in September 2016". The timing of which is a lovely coincidence, I think you'll agree.

Anyway, in conclusion, what do we think of this court case? Your humble Devil concludes as follows:

• including the rebate, from the ONS's own figures and phrasing, the Total Debits amounted to £19,593,000,000 = £376m per week;
• a normal person would understand a debit as money leaving a bank account—in this case, leaving the UK's bank account to land in the EU's;
• even if this actual transaction did not happen, basic accrual accounting ensures that the full amount of money liable could not be spent by the government: as such, which actual bank account the money was residing in was not important in terms of, say, wanting to further fund the NHS;
• the clarification from the ONS that such immediate bank-to-banks transfers did not happen was not published until October 2017—around 16 months after the referendum;
• the ONS changed the way that it accounted for the rebate—but not until September 2017;
• is it thus reasonable to believe that the Total Debit of £376m per week was "sent to Brussels"?
• I guess we'll find out, but I would say "yes".

In the view of your humble Devil, however, this court case is a frivolous waste of time and money—and actively dangerous in terms of our democracy.

But—hey!—that's Remainers all over: they don't care what systems they fuck up, as long as they get their own way.

P.S. In case it comes up (and it will) most payments from the EU to the UK (credits) are irrelevant, really. If someone said to you, "give me £20; I'll give you £10 back—plus you have to skip around, from this day forth, whilst whistling the Chicken Song" you wouldn't do it, would you?

Reforming politics (1): the state of play

Whilst all of politics seems to be devoted to Brexit at the moment, your humble Devil has stated repeatedly (both before and after the vote) that the political and economic landscape of the UK needs massive structural reform.

If, as many assert, the vote to leave the European Union was inspired not by the EU itself, but by the many and varied issues facing the country—issues that go way beyond the vaunted “austerity” measures—then, regardless of the outcome of the current (pathetic) negotiations (and regardless of how you voted), it is very much worth looking at what might be done to fix them.

The problems come in two interlinked flavours:

• politically, the UK is hugely centralised—more so in some ways, it has been asserted, than the Soviet Union. This leads to people feeling that their voice is not heard, and to a degradation of democracy;
• economically—outside of London and the South East (and a few scattered cities), the UK economy is moribund at best, and near non-existent at worst.

Combine a massive population of people who believe that they have very little with a demos that feels it has no power, and history tells us that you will always have an irruption of protest, at best; bloody revolution at worst. (It is why democracy is said to be the "least worst” political option that we have found—because people believe that they have power, even when that power is hugely diluted.)

The Leave vote is at the less harmful end of that protest scale—for which we should be grateful. Our tin-eared politicians are, of course, working diligently to prove to population that the UK’s democracy is a sham and that their power is utterly illusory—but let us assume that our lords and masters locate their testicles, and extract us from the EU properly.

And then what?

The internal settlement

What our trade and foreign policy should be (free trade, obviously) is out of the scope of this post: let us focus, instead, on our internal political settlement.

Although I do not necessarily agree with all of the details of the Harrogate Agenda, your humble Devil does agree with many of the principles outlined in it—and including Pete North’s assertions that we need to radically decentralise our political structures.

But, in the spirit of Chesterton’s Fence, let us look at:

• how our governance is currently conducted;
• where we want to get to, and;
• why we might have got to where we are.

Our current government structure

Most cursory students of government will understand our current structures rather similar to this diagram:

In the current model:

• people pay the bulk of their taxes to central government;
• central government is lobbied by think-tanks and quasi-automonous non-governmental organisations (QUANGOs) and Non-governmental organisations (NGOs—many of whom are, in fact, fake charities or, if you prefer, sock-puppets);
• central government departments administer some of the policies centrally;
• central government actually offloads the vast bulk of the administration of these centrally dictated policies to local authorities;
• most of the time, policies that the government thinks are going to be hugely unpopular are handed off to QUANGOs;
• which, in turn, offload the administration of these policies to local authorities;
• crucially, local authorities have very little policy-making and minuscule tax-raising power;
• and local authorities must then spend their money on enforcers to ensure that cigarettes are suitably hidden behind shutters rather than doing what voters expect them to do, i.e. collect the bins once a week;

This whole structure is, frankly, crap. Some of the reasons that it doesn’t work:

• central government makes homogenous policies with little to no consideration of operations (or prices) at a local level;
• with central government often divorced from local pressures, government becomes even crappier than it might be;
• local authorities have almost no power: which means that local people do not engage with local politics. One side-effect of this is that those elected tend to be even more shit than national politicians but, most importantly, people feel disenfranchised from politics entirely;
• central politicians generally like this, as political disengagement means that the electorate are disinterested in examining the myriad ways in which politicians line their own pockets and, frankly, fuck things up through their sheer incompetence;
• civil servants love it, because no one knows or cares just how much they, too, are filling their boots and avoiding scrutiny;
• crucially, with central government making most policy decisions, there is almost no scope for competition—except, of course, between countries (and this is being constrained, as we will see);

In short, this is a recipe for unbelievably rubbish politics in the short term, and political disaster in the longer term. But, of course, it just gets worse…

Everything is a remix (of sockpuppetry)

The corruption of local politics was a central reason for the ever-increasing centralisation of government—especially under the Conservatives in the ‘80s. Further, for Thatcher’s government—fighting wars on multiple fronts e.g. the unions) whilst requiring swift, radical change (to bring the economy back from ruin)—centralising power meant that reforms could be made faster and with less local oversight (but I repeat myself).

However, for governments with an internationalist agenda, these reforms also proved fortuitous in other ways.

In we take account of structures outside of the UK, the world works rather more like this:

In this model:

• supranational organisations—such as the United Nations (UN), World Trade Organisation (WTO), World Health Organisation (WHO), and others—make worldwide policies, which are passed down to national governments or other supra-national organisations (such as the EU);
• these supra-national organisations are paid for by national governments, which often lobby these same supra-national organisations to “force” national governments to do things which their populations do not want. As an example, the UK is the biggest funder of the WHO (£168m in 2017) and of their Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (3.5m in 2017) and has advocated some of the strictest anti-smoking measures within those fora—the policies of which filtered down into the EU’s Tobacco Products Directive (which, amongst other things, introduced stricter advertising, banned the sale of ten packs and, shortly, menthol cigarettes). The plain packaging was, of course, our own government taking its cue from Australia’s failed experiment. If you don’t remember voting for any of this, you’d be right—you didn’t. And if you asked the government… well… it’s out of their hands, innit;
• at the behest of member states, supra-national organisations aim to “harmonise” as much of life as possible (state-speak for “remove choice from common people”): if you have got the impression that there is essentially no difference between the political parties, this is why. And you wouldn’t be alone—witness the election results favouring “populist parties” (state-speak for “parties representing the concerns of the ignorant, dirty common people”), in the last few years, in USA, Italy, Brazil, etc.;
• so, supra-national organisations hand down (lobbied for) policies to national governments, who pass some legislation (“terribly sorry, old chap: you may not have voted for it, but it’s out of our hands.” [snigger]), and then (usually) pass enforcement down to the local authorities;
• local authorities must then spend their money on enforcers to ensure that cigarettes are suitably hidden behind shutters rather than doing what voters expect them to do, i.e. collect the bins once a week;
• finally, do remember that all of the funding for these supra-national organisations comes, ultimately, from member states’ taxpayers. If you thought that the UK’s central government was unresponsive to people’s local needs, just how responsive do you think the rarified policy-makers of the Geneva-based WHO are, eh?

I want to break free

In (attempting to) leave the European Union, we are getting rid of one level of supra-national government—and one of the worst. For whilst the policies of the WTO, WHO, etc. depend on countries agreeing to abide by them—and countries can, to an extent, opt out of certain policies—the EU tends to enact those same policies into legal instruments that member states must legally abide by.

And one must acknowledge that these supra-national organisations do have their uses: the WTO tries to standardise rules for trade, and push for more free trade by lowering both tariff and non-tariff barriers.

But the problem is that, sooner or later, such bodies always become corrupted. The WHO, for instance, has moved from its drive to eliminate real diseases such as smallpox (which it was successful in), to attempting to “eliminate non-communicable diseases by 2030” (state-speak for ”anything that might kill you that isn’t a disease” or, in this case, ”eliminating death”!): this latter mission means regulating the day-to-day lifestyles of ordinary people which is, and I cannot emphasise this strongly enough, )not the proper business of government.

Central dictatorship

These organisations love a centralised government because it makes it far easier for them to implement their increasingly deranged policies—with a centralised modern government there is, as it were, one throat to throttle.

And in the UK, central government essentially has all of the power—local people do not really have any representation at all, except for a sham General Election every five years or so. They do not even have the kind of multi-tiered representative structure of states in the USA.

This needs to change—and change soon. My next blog post will examine, at high level, what this change should look like and the systemic implications of doing so.

A paucity of vision

Via Guido, I find this (for some reason) much lauded video of Attorney General Geoffrey Cox making the case for May's subsequently doomed Withdrawal Deal.

It is an extraordinary piece. For, around 25 seconds in, the silly sod says this:

I believe the opportunity for this House [of Commons] to hold the pen on forty percent of our laws—from environment to agriculture and fishing—should excite us.

Really.

Uh huh.

A whole forty fucking percent?

You think that being able to control a whole forty fucking percent of our laws should excite us, you fat fuck?

This...? This is your vision of an exciting Brexit?

For fuck's sake, no wonder our negotiators have done such a fucking shit job—after all, our Attorney General sounds like he would have got a semi at 5%.

Fuck you, you terrible, visionless twat. Fuck you right in your fat face.

Oh yeah? So what has happened for the last ten years, exactly?

Over at the ASI, they are posting some of the winning entries of the Young Writers on Liberty. One does not want to put such keen minds off, but there are some slightly odd assertions being made: let us take, as an example, the essay titled Immigration is key to solving the productivity crisis.

Currently the UK falls significantly behind the levels of productivity in similar countries. Between 1997-2007, average productivity grew by 2.1% each year: only 0.01% behind America. But from 2007-2017, the UK has only experienced an average of 0.2% productivity growth per year, falling behind America, Germany, France and more. The financial crash of 2007 is partly to blame for a decrease in productivity, as experienced by all countries worldwide, however the UK has not recovered as well as other countries and this can be put down to poor policies which do little to boost our productivity.

Well, there is very little to disagree with here—our governments have been spectacularly rubbish, for sure.

Immigration is a key policy area which will need to be addressed to increase productivity.

Oh, rilly? Colour me sceptical...

Many overlook the advantages of skilled migrant workers in an economy as it is argued that they “steal jobs” from UK citizens. It is also claimed that migrants are a burden on our economy and welfare system. In reality, migrants do not crowd out employment (the so-called 'lump of labour' fallacy) and many take up lower-skilled jobs that UK citizens do not want to carry out.

OK, so we have a definition problem here: skilled migrants, by definition, do not take-up "lower-skilled jobs"—and I don't think that you'll find many people objecting to skilled migrants. But, as pointed out by Alex Noble at the Continental Telegraph, we need to define our terms and understand what we want.

So far so good—we need a supply of skilled migrants for the foreseeable future. Hopefully we can all agree on that.

Do we need unskilled migrants?

Because when people with no skills come to the UK, we suffer and so do they. They are either forced into crime, fall into modern slavery, or find themselves exploited working on the black market.

To return to the ASI article, the conclusion is wrapped up as follows:

Therefore it is clear that migrant workers are a vital part of our economy.
[...]
Policies need to be put in place by our government to allow free movement to continue if our economy is to become more productive. Also we need to allow workers to come into our economy to fill occupational shortages. If we have occupational shortages and no migrants fill the places due to government policies creating a barrier to their entry, we will have failed in boosting productivity and becoming a more diverse, rich society.

The bottom line is that a boost in productivity will increase our living standards and immigration is a key factor to helping us along the way. Skilled migrants do contribute to the economy and to a much larger extent than many are willing to accept.

Skilled migrants might do—but it is not clear that all migrants do. And I am very far from convinced that becoming a "more diverse" society is necessarily what the British people want: some large proportion of them do not—there are many memes mocking the "cultural enrichment" of this country.

But leaving aside the potential damage that "diversity" does to a demos, this argument ignores the progress of the last ten years: a decade during which, apparently, our productivity has fallen off a cliff.

Has the last decade seen a notable drop-off in immigration? No, it has not: in fact, net migration has pretty consistently increased over the last decade.

So, I am confused: if immigrants are so good for productivity, then why has the last decade seen so little improvement in said productivity?

There are a number of possible answers to this question—with the idea that we are counting wrong being one of the more credible. However, let's be clear: productivity is, essentially, a function of output and the hours that go into producing said output. And whilst high-skilled migrants—your computer programmers, etc.—might well boost this measure, a great number of migrants are doing low-skilled, low productivity jobs.

Indeed, a number of skilled migrants are doing low productivity jobs—such as nursing. Yes, we need nurses but working in our health service—prone, as it is, to Baumol's Cost Disease—does not increase productivity by any significant amount. In fact, needing to recruit more nurses from abroad is a symptom of the very problem that we are examining—if productivity were increasing in the NHS, we would not need so many nurses.

Regardless, I am not convinced—on the evidence of the last decade—that immigration (skilled or unskilled) are the secret sauce to an increase in productivity.

A rubbish fairytale

Inspired by this photo, delivered to your humble Devil's Facebook timeline...

And the government of 500 million of those 8 billion people decided that they didn't like all of the rubbish being buried near them. So they imposed a colossal rubbish burial tax onto the waste disposal people, who wept and wailed.

"Fear not," said the government of the 500 million. "Just ship it off to some poorer countries with lax standards of disposal, and get them and their children to sort through and to dispose of it."

And lo! it came to pass, and everyone was happy.

But then the biggest of the poorer countries (which had now become moderately rich) said, "we do not want your rubbish anymore; and we will not take it." So, the rubbish went to countries with even laxer standards of disposal.

And, yea, a few years later, the 500 million were terribly surprised that the oceans were full of their rubbish! It was almost as though all the countries with lax standards of disposal had just chucked it all into the sea.

What was the government of the 500 million to do? Should they realise that their mining operations created holes more than big enough to take all of their rubbish, and lift the tax on chucking the rubbish into them?

But how would they then fund their exotic travel, and high salaries, and gold-plated pensions?—after all, there was barely enough money to pay for those as it was. But then, with the help of some very large environmental organisations, the government of the 500 million realised that they could have their cake and eat it...

The government of the 500 million decided that they could keep their tax on chucking rubbish into big holes—but get more money by also putting a tax on the rubbish that wasn't chucked into big holes!

And everyone lived happily ever after.<sup>*

*</sup> Apart from the poorest amongst the 500 million, who were made poorer—especially the disabled poor people who needed straws to drink through. But then these poor people didn't much like the government of the 500 million, and since the government of the 500 million wasn't elected anyway, the views of these poor people didn't really matter.

The Cuban Health System

The Cuban Medical system.

Over at the ASI blog, Tim Worstall asks if the Cuban Health statistics are true.

I can't comment as to the statistical verisimilitude, but I can provide some perspective on the standard of care—via a junior doctor friend who was sent on elective in Cuba, in the first quarter of this year.

People may get treatment, but it is (to be understated) not good: my friend used phrases like "torture", "gynaecological violence", and "shocking filth".

Births are often "'induced' by violently finger-banging the mother"; she describes seeing a doctor "up to his elbow in a woman's vagina"; "c-sections performed, and sewn up, without any anaesthetic at all*"; and women "left in agony without even a paracetamol".

There are, really, no drugs at all beyond basic opiates, paracetamol, etc.—and doctors prefer to "wait and see" for days before prescribing even those: the preferred option is to see if the (literally) screaming patient has any family who will bring them painkillers first.

Many of the medical procedures and practices that we take for granted in civilised societies are dismissed as "Western propaganda" or "unproven lies".

So, having heard from someone first-hand about the Cuban medical system, I would say that the statistics are highly dubious: and, even if they are true, they hardly paint the whole picture—which would look like something painted by Hieronymus Bosch.

Incredibly, I have had arguments with stupid fucking socialists who extol the virtues of Cuba's medical system—useful idiots who uncritically cite WHO statistics whilst having no idea about the reality. These people are either ignorant or lying.

Be in no doubt that the Cuban medical system is—like everything else in that poverty-stricken shit-hole—an absolute fucking nightmare. But most enraging of all—as in the rather more recent cautionary tale of Venezuela—it is a nightmare built and maintained by precisely the kind of evil socialist shitbag who refuses to believe that hard socialism always and everywhere leads to poverty and oppression.

In other words, the kind of arsehole that supports that monkey Corbyn, and his organ-grinder McDonnell.

*EDIT: my junior doctor correspondent would like to add the following corrections and additions...

The reason the consultant had his arm inside the woman, as referenced above, was that he was scraping the placenta out.

Caesarean sections are performed with anaesthetic. What I saw was some episiotomies [essentially, cutting of the perineum to facilitate birth—Ed] without anaesthetic and no pain relief for their subsequent suturing. In this particular case, I had to hold a torch over the woman’s genitals whilst she writhed in pain and begged them to stop...

I mentioned paracetamol, not aspirin. I was told that paracetamol would give the patients liver failure. I argued that, at the prescribed dose, it would not: but they still do not use it.

The other case I found deeply disturbing was that of a woman, post Caesarean-section, who was lying prone in bed unable to move due to the agony of her surgical wound. She was the “let’s wait a day and see” patient. The doctors said that they would, after a day, “maybe consider tramadol.” She was crying and punching the wall with the pain. She had no TED stockings on and was unlikely to move due to the pain. This increased her risk of post operative blood clots! The medical students told me they were helpless and hated that they couldn’t give her anything. It was therefore up to her family to provide painkillers...

Oh, and BTW, you can have as much pain relief if you want. As long as you pay.

Finally, to quote a Cuban medical student: “we can do whatever we want. What are they going to do—sue us? It’s free heath care!”

So much for the socialist model the Cubans say is so fucking great...

I would point out that my junior doctor friend is very far from being the rabid anti-state healthcare libertarian that I am. But, after two months in Cuba, I think that I detect some slight disillusionment with the wonders of socialised medicine. This is, and particularly from a woman's perspective, the reality of healthcare in this benighted country.

Of course, if one is sent to Cuba on an elective shortly before starting a job in the UK (and one of her other options was Uganda), the NHS must seem like the best system in the entire fucking world. A fact that is, I am sure, entirely coincidental...

Why can't the Tories PR?

Though they are not a party that your humble Devil whole-heartedly endorses, the various Tory governments since 2010 have not been entirely shit. They have, on the whole, taken actions that support their aims supporting people into work—and that allow more low-paid people to keep more of their own money.

Philip Hammond's recent article in the Telegraph spells some of this out very clearly—especially as regards income tax.

Today’s increase in the personal allowance means that everyone will pay less income tax. A basic rate taxpayer will pay £1,075 less income tax than they did in 2010.

And the benefits aren’t just for those of working age: from today, pensioners on the full basic state pension will receive an extra £180 a year; the threshold at which young adults start paying back their student loan will increase to £25,000.

And we are taking the next step to deliver our commitment that by 2020 parents will be able to pass on a home worth up to £1 million to their children without paying any inheritance tax.

But part of the problem that the Tories have had—not least in gaining a majority in the Commons—is that they are utterly crap at PR. They simply do not seem to be able to trumpet their achievements, whilst they encourage certain media outlets to focus only on perceived failures.

The cause of this is very easily understood once you have read Hammond's full article: three of last four paragraphs (in an article of only 19—that's nearly 16%) are dedicated to bashing Labour.

What idiot decided that was a good idea?

One assumes that it is someone who has never worked in the private sector. Let me explain why this approach is so stupid...

In the private sector, you never bash your competitors by name. Why?

Because if you name your competitors you not only acknowledge that you have competitors (rather than being the absolute best), but you also give your potential customers a name to search for—to see if they have a better offer.

Yes, you can downplay concepts: I work for a company that makes proprietary software, so we happily point out the downsides of Open Source—but we never cite specific companies who are deploying those solutions.*

So, the last four offending paragraphs are as follows:

In this way, we will build an economy that works for everyone – but it would all be at risk under Labour.

Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell, the shadow chancellor, have announced plans that would see debt spiral to more than 100 per cent of GDP, leaving our economy vulnerable to shocks, forcing us to waste billions more on debt interest and handing the next generation an unmanageable burden.

Taxes on families and businesses would rise to their highest level in peacetime history – with ordinary working families left to pay the price.

Contrast that with the Conservative commitment to building an economy fit for the future based on sustainably rising living standards, low taxes, falling debt and investment in a future we can be proud of.

The last paragraph is fine, but the preceding ones are terrible. So, in the spirit of Open Source, let me rewrite these sections as I would do it and give it to any Conservatives reading...

In this way, we will build an economy that works for everyone—but not every political party takes the same view that we do.

It is a sad fact that previous governments’ over-spending means that simply paying the interest on our National Debt costs over £40 billion per year. This is more than the entire Defence budget, and almost as much as it costs to educate every child in the country.

We know that this debt has to be paid off. But there are many ways in which we can find the money to do so.

As Conservatives, we have chosen to concentrate on our core belief that hard work should be rewarded: that is why we have targeted our tax cuts to benefit the most needy and deserving in our society.

Many argue that recent Conservative governments do not care about the poor, but the actions that we have taken at the Treasury simply do not bear this out.

The simple fact is that this Conservative government is committed to building an economy fit for the future based on sustainably rising living standards, low taxes, falling debt and investment in the type of society that you have told us you want to see.

All of the main issues are addressed: the government strategy, the emphasis on work rather than benefits, the achievements of the government in taking less money from the poor, and addressing the democratic issue—brought into sharp focus by Brexit—that it is the voters' issues that matter.

At the same time, the phrase "previous governments" allows this government to take issue not only with Labour, but also the Coalition and the Cameron/Osborne government if it wished to do so.

And, I believe, that fundamentally the article is more positive—without mentioning the Labour Party once.

But, hey—I have no professional degree or qualification in PR: I would be interested in your thoughts...

* This is not dirty tricks: if we didn't believe that our own software was better, we wouldn't bother with the expense of a development team.

A certain degree of value

A student is suing her university, alleging that the course was crap. Quelle surprise!

But here is a lovely comment on the situation...

Amatey Doku, National Union of Students vice president for higher education, said the fact student complaints are becoming “increasingly common” proves the current system is not working.

“With fees now so high, and students accruing such unsustainable levels of debt, it is no wonder that some students feel they have no choice but to demand more from their courses, and to seek recourse if those standards are not met.

“This is an obvious consequence of government policy to transform Higher Education into a market, with students pushed into the role of consumers.”

Students have been "pushed into the role of consumers", eh? And they have "no choice but to demand more from their courses"?

So, what is the implication here?

It's pretty clear, I think: students were entirely happy to put up with crappy, "mickey mouse" degrees as long as someone else* was paying for it.

* i.e. the taxpayer.

Gunz! Shootz!

As usual, after the latest school-based mass murder, there are lots of people screaming about Americans and guns, American love of guns, and general gun fun.

However.

Gun ownership per capita in the USA has remained consistent over the last 45 years.

On the other hand, the frequency of mass shootings has significantly increased—especially in the last 10–15 years [information about two thirds of the way down that article: graph reproduced below].

Instead of screaming about gun ownership, perhaps we should be asking what has changed to increase the prevalence of people who want to carry out these mass shootings...?*

Crazy idea, I know.

^* And no, I don't have an answer. I have a few suspicions but, in the meantime, I look forward to opprobrium and the occasional sensible comment.

UPDATE: Squander Two was saying something similar some time ago. Do go and read the whole thing...

NGOs are learning from the master

As more NGOs—including Save the Children (for later) and the Dave Milipede-fronted International Rescue Committee—are embroiled in sex and corruption scandals in the wake of the Oxfam allegations, it is worth reminding ourselves that these organisations are simply learning from the true masters of pimping and child sex—the United Nations.

And the wonderful thing about the UN, you see, if that they are a pan-global organisation so that their staff pimping, blackmailing and fucking kids is not confined to any one area; they get to run their protitution rings on every continent (from May '06).
...

So, there you go: if you are a paedophile, just go and work for the UN and you too can not only fuck kids but actually get them to bring in a bit of cash too.

It's simply a case of "everyone else is doing it, so why can't we...?"

And, thanks to our government's funding, through taxation, of fake charities such as Oxfam, we can go to bed with the warm, fuzzy feeling that comes with having paid for child prostitutes.

On the bright side, Oxfam has said that it will stop bidding for government funding (for a bit).

Oxfam has said it will stop bids for Government funding until ministers are satisfied it can meet the “high standards” they expect.

The charity received £176m in government support last year.

International Development Secretary Penny Mordaunt said on Friday: “Oxfam has agreed to withdraw from bidding for any new UK Government funding until [the Department for International Development] is satisfied that they can meet the high standards we expect of our partners.”*

If we defund all of these thieving, child-fucking bastards, the government would probably be able to cut the deficit to zero within months.

Stop funding fake charities with our tax money—now!

^* No, not sexual partners. Stop sniggering at the back there...

Justice for Grenfell

In order to try to keep up the general hysteria around the Grenfell Tower fire, a pointless group called Justice4Grenfell has pissed away well-meaning members' donations on a great big publicity stunt.

Group Justice 4 Grenfell hired three vans with adverts which read: "71 dead. And still no arrests? How come?"

Au contraire, there have been a number of arrests—and, indeed, convictions. How about this lady...?

A woman who made fraudulent claims for support offered to people affected by the Grenfell fire, has been charged with fraud.

Joyce Msokeri, 46 (17.02.71), of Ambleside Gardens, Sutton, will appear in custody at Westminster Magistrates, Court, today, Tuesday, 5 September charged with six counts of fraud.

Msokeri was arrested on 25 July after making fraudulent claims for support being provided to the survivors of the Grenfell Tower fire. She was charged on 4 September.

Or this gentleman...?

A serial fraudster has been jailed for 21 months after he pretended his wife and son were killed in the Grenfell Tower fire in a “despicable” attempt to pocket £12,500 set aside for victims of the disaster.

I grant you that more arrests should have been made...

People who were unlawfully subletting flats in Grenfell Tower will not be prosecuted if they come forward with information about who was in their properties at the time of the deadly fire, the government has said.

The guidance has been issued amid fears that the threat of prosecution has prevented tenants coming forward to help identify people who were there on the night of the blaze but may not yet have been reported as missing.

Still, you can't have everything, eh...?

Tottenham MP David Lammy, whose friend, the artist Khadija Saye, died in the fire, has repeatedly questioned the official number of dead as “far, far too low” and said that “failure to provide updates of the true number that died is feeding suspicion of a cover-up”.

How would David Lammy know? This is a man so stupid that he can't count higher than ten without taking his socks off.

Given how much the public enquiry will inevitably cost the taxpayer, perhaps Justice4Grenfell should just shut the hell up and let the vastly overpaid panel get on with the enquiry.

Or, if they genuinely give a crap about "justice for Grenfell" use the donated monies to actually help people—rather than concocting pathetic publicity stunts.

The art of being wrong: Alison Saunders edition

Alison Saunders—Director of Public Prosecutions and unpleasant, incompetent fool.

After a string of collapsed rape trials caused by the police failing to properly examine the evidence, it is hardly surprising that the DPP and CPS are coming under a bit of pressure.

As such, it is only right that the DPP should pop out from under her rock, and reassure the public that the criminal justice system isn't completely fucked. Unfortunately, this is Alison Saunders that we're talking about so [for it is she—Ed], naturally, she completely screwed it up in a January 18th interview.

Britain’s most senior prosecutor has claimed that no innocent people are in prison because of failures to disclose vital evidence, despite admitting there is a “systemic issue”.

As the article points out in the very next paragraph, there was at least one innocent person in prison because of these failures.

One man had his rape conviction overturned last month after serving four years in prison. Judges said Danny Kay would not have been found guilty if previously unseen Facebook conversations were shown to jurors.

But let's be generous to Saunders and assume that she meant, since this chap has been released, there are no innocent people in prison because of these failures right at this very moment.

Critics dismissed Alison Saunders’ assurance as “impossible” as they follow the collapse of several high-profile rape cases which were undermined by phone messages and pictures uncovered by lawyers.

Well, indeed—as yesterday's Daily Mail highlighted.

A teenager suspected of rape spent three months in custody because police did not disclose text messages that proved his innocence, he has claimed.

BT engineer Connor Fitzgerald, 19, was arrested last year after a complaint was made against him.

But charges were dropped only last week when it emerged that the complainant, who is entitled to lifelong anonymity, had sent texts threatening to destroy him.

But what can Alison say in her defence?

Samson Makele's legal team said police had downloaded the entire contents of the 28-year-old's phone but failed to fully examine it.

Ms Saunders appeared to lay part of the blame on his defence team.

"The suspect must have known he took photographs, that could have been raised very early," she said.

She added: "How would anyone have known there were photographs there until the defence told us that they were there?”

How indeed, Alison. And, of course, this being such an important point, it does seem really very unlikely that the defendant wouldn't have raised this with the arresting police force. So one is led to wonder what the police force did with this information. Well, we know the answer: they did bugger all.

The trouble is that Alison has form on this issue, issuing guidelines—and publishing opinion pieces—which are aimed (as far as is practicable in a civilised country) at reversing the burden of proof in rape cases. And we are now seeing the disastrous fruits of her labour—women making false or malicious rape claims with, in the vast majority of cases, absolutely no repercussions.

One of the few legitimate roles of the state is to provide a functioning criminal justice system. It is becoming rather obvious that these unsafe rape trials are severely undermining public confidence in said justice system.

So, here is your humble Devil's recipe to rectify the problem:

1. in every single case (such as the one below), where the accusation is malicious or obviously false, the accuser must be prosecuted for perjury and, if convicted, given the maximum appropriate sentence (but a minimum of imprisonment);
2. the head of the CPS, Alison Saunders, must be summarily sacked (and preferably prosecuted for Misconduct in Public Office);
3. every police officer who has failed to disclose evidence should be named, publicly sacked, and prosecuted;
the lawyers who failed their clients in not insisting on full evidential disclosure should be severely, and publicly, censured;
4. for a limited period, and where perjury has been proven, provide Legal Aid for civil cases of slander, so that the accused can take the accuser to the fucking cleaners;
5. the current imbalance in anonymity policy in rape cases must be removed: justice must be done, and be seen to be done.

Do this urgently, so that we can restore faith in the criminal justice system.

John Sentamu: a bit of an embarrassment to an omniscient god, frankly

John Sentamu, the Archbishop of York: the kind of man who illustrates why a god might rain death and destruction upon the Earth.

The main problem with the Church of England—other than the fact that no one actually attends the services, donates money, or gives a fuck about whatever say-fairy bollocks it is wittering on about today—is that its representatives are so fucking stupid and pig-ignorant that they make the Middle Ages look like the Enlightenment. I mean, what institution could possibly preserve its reputation when chiefly represented by arch-beta Justin Welby...?

However, prat though Welby might be, he has been eclipsed this week by the barn-storming ignorance of John Sentamu, the Archbishop of York. Now, generally, if one is completely ignorant, one might avoid the press in general: unfortunately, there are none so blind to their own stupidity as the truly ignorant, as evidenced by Sentamu indulging in a Grauniad interview (via Longrider).

“Income inequality is the cause of all our trouble. Inequality leads to huge social problems,” he said.
...

Referring to a 2009 book, The Spirit Level: Why Equality is Better for Everyone, by Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett, Sentamu said: “You can only build a wall if the spirit level is absolutely straight. At the moment, our spirit level is going the other way, so our walls aren’t straight, and all our attitudes, our behaviours, our cultures are warped. The book says we should not concentrate too much on growth at the expense of equality. More equal societies are happier societies.”

There is absolutely no evidence for this assertion at all. This book, that purported to "prove" this kind of assertion, has been comprehensively debunked—not least by Christopher Snowdon in The Spirit Level Delusion.

People were pretty equal under Communism: so tell me, Archbishop, were people frolicking and dancing in the sunlit fields of the USSR, Communist China, and Cambodia? No. I mean, lots of people were in fields under those regimes: there were plenty of people above, enslaved in a subsistence lifestyle on collective farms; the others were mainly below ground, in mass graves.

Leaving aside the evils of Communism for a second, part of the problem is that, in surveys, most people don't really care about inequality: well, they might say that they do, but they don't care enough to actually do anything about it.

Which is a bit of a problem for the dear Archbishop's next nugget.

People who are willing to pay more tax towards health, education and social care should be able to do so through voluntary, hypothecated payments, John Sentamu told the Guardian.
...

Sentamu also pointed to a 2017 British Social Attitudes survey, which found 48% of respondents favoured higher taxes to pay for more spending on health, education and social benefits. Only 4% said they wanted taxes to be cut, and 44% said tax rates should stay the same.

“If citizens are willing to pay more, there needs to be a mechanism to do so. I call it top-up,” said Sentamu.

People were worried that higher taxes would be absorbed into general government spending. “The government should say it would guarantee that these tax increases will go towards health, education and social care. There’s no reason why it can’t be done.”

Here's the thing, Johnnie-boy: there already is a mechanism for doing this. You simply write a cheque to HMRC, and post it to: The Treasury, 1 Horseguard's Road, London. And yes: you can specify what you wish your donation to be spent on.

And via Tim Worstall, the government's Debt Management Office even publish a report on how many people actually donate every year. Despite the many thousands of people clamouring for more tax—and assuring us sceptics that they themselves would just luuuurve to hand over more to the state—the numbers are not very impressive.

It's almost as though Revealed Preference was a real thing, eh...?

On other topics, it is implied that Sentamu also praises Oxfam's recent click-bait wealth report.

An Oxfam report showed that 42 individuals in the world hold as much wealth as the 3.7 billion people who make up the poorest half of the global population. Nearly three-quarters of people in the UK want the government to urgently address the income gap, a survey for the charity found.

It's a pity, then, that this report contains such basic—or mendacious—definitions as to render it wrong at best (and both wrong and deeply dishonest at worst). After all, Oxfam is the fake charity that declared, in a 2010 blog post, that:

"... Venezuela certainly seems to be getting something right on inequality."

Yes, indeed. Venezuela is, indeed, far more equal than it used to be (although it's not ideal if you are a pet rabbit—although eating nothing but rabbit carries its own problems)—and for the same reasons as in Communist Russia, China's Great Leap Forward, etc. See above.

Sentamu is doing pretty badly here; but wait—he has some medical wisdom to dispense!

A resurgence in cases of scarlet fever, which recently hit a 50-year high, illustrated growing inequality and malnutrition. The disease, which was a common cause of death in children in Victorian times, “had been wiped out and is now re-emerging in poor communities. Hello, what is going on here?”

Well, let's ask the NHS, shall we?—by referencing their summary of the relevant report:

The researchers conclude: “England is experiencing an unprecedented rise in scarlet fever with the highest incidence for nearly 50 years. Reasons for this escalation are unclear and identifying these remains a public health priority.”
...

Therefore, though this is a definite rise in cases we don't currently know the reasons.

The reason that scarlet fever was "a common cause of death in children in Victorian times"—although far less common than a very great number of other things—is quite simple: the Victorians did not have antibiotics.

Now look: I have to assume that John Sentamu believes in a sky-fairy (although this is not actually a given with religious officers these days—especially in the Church of England) so I am not expecting great powers of reasoning from him. However, I think that he has really excelled himself here: the blinkered worldview, philosophical and economic ineptitude, rank stupidity, and screaming ignorance displayed in this interview are almost supernatural—perhaps, indeed, he has been possessed by a three-day-old cowpat.

Your humble Devil is sure that we must all be in hell—because having to endure the witterings of this fucking fool are, truly, torturous.

Trump tax

So, Trump and the Republicans enacted the "most drastic changes to US tax code in 30 years". Inevitably, some Leftard protesters made themselves look completely loopy through the use of ludicrous hyperbole.

As the vote occurred, activists in the press gallery shouted “Kill the bill, don’t kill us”.

Idiots.

Anyway, so what has actually happened? Well, it's a big and complicated law but one of the main features is the reduction of Federal Corporation Tax—from around 35% to 21%. So, some companies have already started offering pay awards to their workers a a result.

Further, Apple is now repatriating a massive amount of their overseas cash, leading to the largest tax bill payment ever—a cool $38 billion. In reporting this, The Grauniad makes a very bold assertion... [Emphasis mine—DK]

The company, which has faced international criticism for its tax evasion policies, also said it would spend $30bn in the US over the next five years, creating 20,000 new jobs.

Tax evasion? Apple is deliberately and illegally evading paying tax?

As Sir Humphrey might say, that's a very brave assertion.

Anyway, so far, I think that we can chalk up these tax reforms as a win for Trump.

The stupid—it hurts (just don't smuggle controlled substances to solve it)

The trouble with relying on harsh prison sentences as a deterrent for idiots undertaking criminal actions is that idiots are idiots. Your humble Devil is forcefully reminded of this fact by a recent BBC story about a prize idiot called Laura Plummer.

A British woman has been convicted of smuggling 300 painkiller tablets into Egypt and jailed for three years.

Laura Plummer, 33, was arrested after she was found with the Tramadol tablets in her suitcase, on 9 October.

Uh huh. Why on earth would Ms Plummer be trying to smuggle 300 Tramadols into a hell-hole like Egypt, I wonder...?

Plummer, from Hull, claimed the painkiller, legal on prescription in the UK but banned in Egypt, was to treat her Egyptian partner's back pain.

Riiiiiight.

Her family said her lawyers had lodged an appeal. Plummer previously said she had "no idea" the tablets were illegal.

As it happens, I had no idea that Tramadol was banned in Egypt; but, hang on—Tramadol is pretty strong stuff, right? In fact, it is an opioid that can cause some pretty bloody side effects, as well as opioid dependency. As it happens, this is the very reason that Tramadol, and many other opioid analgesics, have been banned in Egypt (and other countries).

Gosh. But it's legal in the UK—how lax are we...?

Well, when the article describes this drug as "legal" in the UK, it does qualify that with "on prescription".

It is a class C drug and is only available in the UK with a prescription from a doctor or other qualified healthcare professional.

As a class C drug, it is illegal for anyone else to supply Tramadol, to have it or to give it away, even to friends.

Uh huh. So, when the Beeb says that Tramadol is "legal on prescription", what it actually means is 'in the UK, Tramadol is illegal to possess or supply unless via a prescription issued by a medical professional.'

In other words, as a class C drug, Tramadol is not legal in the UK—except in that one very specific circumstance.

And Ms Plummer somehow managed to get hold of 300 of these Tramadol tablets—how? Did she go along to her doctor and pretend that she had pain back enough to warrant their prescription? Because that would, of course, be fraudulent (and illegal).

Or did she gain them from some other source? Where did Laura Plummer obtain 300 tablets of a class C controlled substance—a substance that is illegal to possess, and most certainly illegal to sell or give away? It's not as though she stumbled on a party-pack in Boots now, is it?

Perhaps she encouraged a whip-round from family and friends (also illegal)?

I put it to you, m'lud, that Laura Plummer knew that Tramadol was a controlled substance since she would have had to go to some lengths to obtain 300 tablets of the bloody stuff.

And, as such, might have had some inkling that maybe, just maybe, trying to smuggle 300 tablets of a substance controlled in the UK into an unstable but socially strict place like Egypt might not be the best idea.

The family has previously said Plummer had no idea that what she was doing was illegal and was just "daft".

She may well be "daft" for trying to smuggle drugs into a third-world hell-hole, but I really don't think that she was innocent. Did Ms Plummer not even ask her beau why he couldn't get suitable painkillers in his native country?

According to Ms Plummer's sister, Jayne Synclair (relation), the Egyptian boyfriend "did not even know she was bringing them."

Riiiight. Of course. The wonderfully-named Omar Caboo had absolutely no idea, did he? He hadn't got an earthly that his "girlfriend" might try to smuggle a bunch of opioid drugs into a country with something of an opioid addiction problem. Definitely not.

As I said above, idiot is idiot.^*

UPDATE: the UK government's Ask Frank website outlines the legal issues if you are caught with Tramadol in the UK [emphasis mine—Ed]:

If the Police arrest you in possession of tramadol unlawfully, they'll always take some action. This could be a formal caution or arrest and possible conviction.

Having tramadol that is not prescribed for you for your own use (called illegal possession) could result in up to two years in prison and/or an unlimited fine. While selling or giving tramadol away for free, even to friends (called supplying) could result in up to fourteen years in prison and/or an unlimited fine.

The three years imprisonment that the Egyptian legal system doled out to Ms Plummer isn't starting to look so bad, is it...?

^* See, also, Tim Newman's amusing digression on the subject of gullible white women and their attraction to swarthy Middle Eastern men.

From the archives: a polemic

I found this across the web whilst researching recently. I wrote it when I first became leader of the Libertarian Party and it was, apparently, posted on the now defunct LPUK website. I rather like it, so I thought I'd reproduce it here, for posterity...

----

My friends,

We are broke. Our country—whatever it may once have been—is now laden with debt. And this isn't "the government's debt": it is our debt.

The government has no money but what it takes—what it extorts—from us.

We have gone beyond consensus politics: if a man were to come to your door, with a gun, and demand half of everything that you earned—on pain of severe punishment, on pain of the total ruination of your life—would you not protest?

For a moment, lay aside those dutiful thoughts of those starving millions beyond your gate, and think, instead, of those within your own household—within your own family: would you not rather protect them first?

Of course you would: they are your kith and kin and you would expect—would you not?—that everyone, like you, would defend theirs against you were you the one holding the gun.

The government has now utterly removed from you the means of protecting yourself and your family against the man with the gun: indeed, you dare not defend yourself because you fear that it is you, not the mugger, who would end up in the dock.

For the government is the man with the gun, demanding tithes from you: the government is here, at your door. But not randomly.

No.

The government has gone out and bought itself nice things—plasma TVs, second homes, duckhouses, moats. And jobs, and votes. All of those things that you could not afford—because it has been here before: at your door, with a gun.

Five years ago, it was here—threatening you with prison if you did not pay up—for the sake of all of those children who were not yours. You paid, because you had no option.

Four years ago, it was here—threatening you with prison if you did not pay up—for the sake of all of those unhealthy who were not yours. You paid, because you had no option.

Three years ago, it was here—threatening you with prison if you did not pay up—for the sake of all of those uneducated who were not yours. You paid, because you had no option.

Two years ago, it was here—threatening you with prison if you did not pay up—for the sake of all of those feckless bankers who were not yours. You paid, because you had no option.

One year ago, it was here—threatening you with prison if you did not pay up—for the sake of all of those MPs who had no duck-houses or second homes or moats. You paid, because you had no option.

And now the government has spent everything that you had to give, and more, on its pet projects—on buying its second homes, on buying its duckhouses, on buying its votes—and none of it benefited you and yours. Not even by one iota.

The government didn't care that you couldn't afford to give any more: it didn't care that you had no money.

The government didn't care that you had lost your job: the government didn't care that all of those thousands of pounds it took in National Insurance payments translated into a few hundred when you were in need.

And now, when you are getting back on your feet—back in a job that is not as good as the one the government destroyed, back struggling to look after your family on the pittance you are paid, back paying off your debts—the government, too, is back: it's back with the gun.

The government is back—demanding half of what you broke your back to earn—because it has more grand schemes, more votes to buy, more trinkets to deliver to its favoured ones.

Will you so willingly hand over the sweat of your brow? Will you so willingly condemn you and yours to penury? Will you capitulate again?

Or will you fight?

Join us—and help us to stop the extortion.

Join us—and understand that providing for you and yours is not a sin.

Join us—and realise that a society that pulls together is a society that stays together.

Join us—and help us fight for a future in which people help each other voluntarily, because it is right and fitting to do so.

Join us—and help to build a future in which men, women and children take back their work, their birthrights, their dignity and their compassion from a government that cares nothing for you.

Join us.

Because—whether the government is Tory, Labour or LibDem—soon you will have nothing left to lose.

The UK's EU negotiating position

Right, fuck this waiting around bollocks. Does the EU really think that the legendary British tendency to enjoy queuing means that we are just going to sit about and wait for these fucking cultural and economic pygmies to dictate our future? They do—so, something must be done.

Pace Pete, for he does understand the issues, but he and others are approaching the whole Brexit issue as technocrats—in, essentially, the same mentality that characterises the EU itself.

I say "fuck this shit". I want this done—and done now. So, here's how we should address this issue...

"Fuck you, ladies and gentlemen of the EU: fuck you very much. We are tired of you dicking us around, and our patience is at an end.

"Yes: we understand the trade problems inherent in customs barriers: but, unless you are stupider than we thought, so do you—and so do your businesses.

"You may not understand the pressures of a democracy, but the Council of Ministers very much does: so we recommend that you ask them how they—and their citizens—feel about cutting off trade with the fifth largest economy in the world.

"Either you will listen, which is fine by us; or you will not listen, which will simply justify our own citizens' decision to leave an undemocratic institution.

"The UK is the first and best democratic government in the world, and our people are irritated by your prevarications, and tired of our failure to enact the path that they voted for.

"With this in mind, we are immediately ending this shambolic pretence at a 'negotiation'. Instead, we will refocus our time and resources on building the systems that we will need to continue trade.

"So, we will immediately sign free trade deals with any countries that want to engage with the UK: what are you going to do—go to war with us? Really? The only vaguely capable military power in the EU is German—and how do you think the world will react to yet another German army mustering outside its borders?

"Yes: that's what I thought. Now get back in your fucking box, you twats.

"Our trade philosophy is simple. Today, we will register a '0% tariff' trade plan with the WTO. Why, when the British people want to buy foreign imports, would we make them poorer? We're not idiots, you know.

"Next, we will examine all of the standards espoused by UNESCO, etc. and, if we agree, adopt them. And we shall once again take our place (and our own votes) at these tables, to influence regulation.

"We shall use our foreign aid budget to influence these standards in our favour. Most importantly, we shall spend considerable amounts of money and influence to ensure that Developing Countries have the governance and infrastructure also to comply—and then we shall do our best to open their trade to our products. With the main point that, with this power, we shall become favoured trading partners with these hugely populous countries.

"But you ladies and gentlemen of the EU need to understand one very crucial thing: we are doing this as of tomorrow.

"Fuck these negotiations: and fuck you all up the arse. The people of the UK voted to leave behind your undemocratic, technocratic bullshit—these farcical negotiations are simply prolonging your entirely unjustified power over the people of this country.

"So, let me say it again, fuck you into the middle of next week. We're done here.

"We leave it to you to go back to the peoples and businesses of your countries and tell them that you fucked up the negotiations with the fifth largest economy in the world. We leave it to you to tell them why there is now a massive customs barrier to their goods coming to the UK.

"Good luck with that.

"The people of the UK have tolerated your bullshit for six months and, let's face it, they are as fucking bored with it as we are.

"So, get tæ fuck, you cunts: you aren't even worthy of being called 'snake-oil salesmen'.

"Fuck you: we've left, as of this moment. So, once more, get tæ fuck—we're done here."

As an MEP, shouldn't you know this...?

At least one German MEP is not happy with Jean-Claude Junker's vision of a united states of Europe.

Speaking to Express.co.uk in Strasbourg, Ms von Storch, deputy leader of the far-right Alternative for Deutschland party, which is part of the Europe for Freedom and Democracy group in the EU parliament, labelled the speech “frightening”.
[...]

“The European Union which has been presented to us today is not the one we want to be members of."

Well, fair enough—your humble Devil can understand this position. After all, it's just one of the reasons that the UK voted to Leave. But another comment does rather show how staggering ignorant some politicians can be...

Asked how long the EU could survive in its current form, she added: “It has to be reformed immediately.

“They will change the European Union to the United States of Europe without treaty change. Without the change of the treaties. This is incredible what we have heard today."

Um, yes. Quite so. I don't know why you should be so surprised at this, Ms von Storch.

The ability to change the EU without having to change the treaties was inserted into the Lisbon Treaty—which the Germans politicians were thoroughly happy to sign up to. The clauses concerned are one of the reasons that this author was so outraged that our own politicos pushed ahead with signing the EU Constitution Lisbon Treaty—especially after both that nice Mr Brown and that dish-faced arse, Cameron, promised us a referendum on it.

These "passerelle clauses" are referenced by Mr Junker in his speech:

When it comes to important single market questions, I want decisions in the Council to be taken more often and more easily by qualified majority – with the equal involvement of the European Parliament. We do not need to change the Treaties for this. There are so-called “passerelle clauses” in the current Treaties which allow us to move from unanimity to qualified majority voting in certain areas – if all Heads of State or Government agree to do so.

I am also strongly in favour of moving to qualified majority voting for decisions on the common consolidated corporate tax base, on VAT, on fair taxes for the digital industry and on the financial transaction tax. Europe has to be able to act quicker and more decisively.

Well, isn't that a surprise? Who would have thought that it might be dangerous to give politicians huge powers, or that they might use them in a way that you don't like eventually?

How naive are you, Ms von Storch?

There is a certain amusing irony to this, of course: Germany has been happily pushing the EU along, enjoying it's dominance for decades. And now, the Germans are being hoist by their own petard. And they can't say that they weren't warned, you know.

If only there were some kind of German word for this...

Beales of laughter: rank feminist rancour in the Grauniad*

Zoe Williams: a very silly woman.

Your humble Devil notes that Zoe Williams has decided that serial perjurer Gemma Beale is, in fact, a victim—a victim of the justice system...

... a system in which men are the norm and women the deviants.

And how has darling Zoe come to this conclusion? Why, because this serial perjurer is not just a serial perjurer but also a woman—and it is for this latter reason (rather than the serial perjury) that she was sentenced to 10 years.

These three ideas – a woman as ambassador for all women, a woman as a threat not to the individual but to the system, and a woman as a dishonesty time-bomb, waiting for the right sentencing conditions before she unleashes her falsehoods – all spring from the same well: a system in which men are the norm and women the deviants. However far any given woman has deviated from honourable, law-abiding behaviour – and unquestionably, Jemma Beale deviated a long way – she wears shackles of cultural expectation that are punitive indeed.

Well, no, Zoe. Jemma Beale was locked up because she lied, in court, repeatedly. And, as Timmy pointed out, the system just doesn't work if witnesses lie in court—that is why we have the crime of perjury. And, as he points out...

And yes, we do go after rich white men too. Both Jeffrey Archer and Jonathan Aitken served time for it.

To make this story all about women lying about rape—rather than the wider crime of perjury—is to deliberately and wilfully miss the point. But that's Zoe for you, eh?

What a little scamp she is.

There lingers this question over the length of sentence: 10 years is atypical; recent, similar cases have resulted in two-year sentences.

Really, Zoe? What "similar cases" were those—I mean, I notice that you neither link to them, nor give any other details...? In those cases, did a women report "four separate incidents [...], claiming [they] had been sexually assaulted by six men and raped by nine"; were they found guilty of "four counts of perjury and four counts of perverting the course of justice" and did an innocent man serve at least five years in prison as a result of those false claims?

Did these "similar cases" actually exist, Zoe—or did you just make them up? I fear that it might be the latter, you know.

You wee scamp, you.

But, just to put the icing on the cake, Zoe then decides that Jemma Beale must, poor dear, suffer from mental health issues.

If this were fiction, one’s next question would be about Beale’s mental health: plainly, no one turns their life into a construct of bogus victimhood for fun. But there is no place for that question...

No, Zoe—there is not. Because it doesn't really matter, you see—Jemma Beale lied repeatedly and did so (in one case, at least) with malice aforethought.

But in the days before the alleged assault, Mr McCormack said Beal had threatened to get him into trouble with the police.
...

Prosecutor John Price QC told Beale: 'You were already planning out what you were about to do – accuse him of attacking you.'

'It was the opportunity to do what you had been threatening to do which was to get Steven McCormack in trouble with the police...'

The problem with writing all of this behaviour off to "mental health issues", Zoe, is that we are constantly being told that people with mental health issues are just like us. Indeed, apparently, we all have mental health issues at some stage in our lives (your humble Devil's are largely measured in how many bottles of wine he drinks a night).

But if all women who make false rape allegations are, actually, suffering from mental health issues and thus should not be treated like the criminals that they so obviously are, then the perception is that anyone with mental health issues might do something similar. And so we start to wonder if people with admitted mental health issues might not bear a close watch on their behaviour; indeed, perhaps they should not be on the streets at all; perhaps, indeed, it might be better to lock them up—in some sort of camp. You know, a nice camp where they can work to free themselves from their troubles.

But I digress, and Zoe has more treats for us—as she demonstrates that she does not understand how the law works...

Arguably, a stiff sentence for a false allegation in itself compromises women’s access to justice: any reported rape, if it fails to secure a conviction, has the potential to be turned into a counter-accusation of perjury.

Hmmm. Well, no, not really.

Let me explain this concept to you, Zoe: in our courts, the prosecution has to convince the jury that the accused is "guilty beyond all reasonable doubt". So, if the accused is acquitted, that does not mean that the accuser lied—it just means that there was not enough evidence to persuade the jury that the accused was guilty beyond all reasonable doubt.

And, given the nature of rape, this is why—whilst not every trial leads to a conviction—the accuser is not done for perjury all the time. And this applies across the board—to every accuser and every witness, in every trial for every type of crime.

Come on, Zoe—this is pretty basic fucking stuff.

But wait—Zoe has another feminist complaint to make!

By this rationale, a mendacious woman has undermined the access to justice of all women, since she has made them less likely to be believed. There is common sense to this – rape defences hinge on the possibility that the putative victim is lying, which is made more plausible every time a woman lies. Yet it’s not something ever levelled at rapists, that they’ve made it more likely for other, innocent men to be convicted. Men never have to act as ambassadors for one another in a court of law.

Yes, they fucking do. There have been endless bloody changes to the way in which rape and sexual assault trials are conducted—including the accused no longer being able to cross-examine the victim. The law has been changed, so that men (not women) are compelled to demonstrate—through some kind of fucking voodoo, presumably—that the woman explicitly consented; and women cannot consent if they are intoxicated (the opposite does not apply, of course).

There were, at one point, proposals to reverse the Magna Carta-enshrined presumption of innocence for rape trials; and the MoJ was even rapped on the knuckles for issuing guidance that, essentially, told people that they had to show that they were not guilty—rather than the prosecution having to demonstrate that they were.

So, your statement, Zoe, is demonstrably fucking false. Your entire article, Zoe, is a tissue of lies, stupidity, and blinkered feminist mendacity.

J'accuse!

And, were the above actual crimes, Zoe, you'd be going down for 10 years too. And not in a good way.

^*I know, I know—not exactly news.

Trade: no easy answers

Warning: this post contains detail for grown-ups. Again I find I am having to repeat the same basic points. As you should know by now, Britain cannot stay in the customs union. The customs union is one of the founding frameworks of the EU. It is the amalgamation of all customs rules, practices and tariffs - where all tariff revenues go to the EU under a single customs code. The EU has a Common External Tariff regime which varies according to product types.

Though we cannot stay in the customs union we can have an agreement on customs harmonisation. Tory Brexiteers have it that we cannot make our own trade deals if we have such an agreement. This is only partially true. It prevents us from diverging from the common external tariff rate. That though does not preclude new deals on removing non-tariff barriers, which are more significant.

The reason we would seek a customs agreement is to avoid Rules of Origin (ROO). If we have a zero tariff agreement with the EU but then started to give preferential access to third countries, goods could be re-exported to the EU at a rate less than the EU's own common external tariff. The EU does not allow this so it has a system of rules where exporters have to prove true origin and where there is a disparity a top up tariff must be paid in order to stop us undercutting member states.

This is condemned widely as bureaucratic and protectionist - which it is, and would lead to tariffs being applied to UK car exports - which could kill tens of thousands of jobs. The workaround for this is to unilaterally mirror the EU's rules of origin and to keep our regime of tariffs the same as the EU's. There is then no lawful basis for the EU to apply ROO.

That means any tariff agreements we look at will effectively have to be cleared with Brussels - which will in all likelihood say no. So here we have to do a value assessment as to whether a truly independent customs regime can provide sufficient economic progress so as to offset the loss of the UK automotive sector. Given that tariffs are complex and difficult to remove politically, there is no guarantee of that - therefore an accord must be struck with the EU. That means the Toryboys don't get to tinker with tariffs. Tory "free trade" ideas have no basis in fact.

This does not stop Toryboys bleating about tariffs on coffee but that little nugget of received wisdom is sufficient proof for them to gamble the entire UK automotive and pharmaceuticals sector. They are never going to grow up - nor are they going to crack open any books on the subject any time soon. This is what it means to be a Tory. Why would you crack open a book when you already know everything?

The hard reality of Brexit is that there are no sweeping unilateral measures the UK can take. UK consumption of goods alone is not sufficient to make an impact on global trade thus any issues we seek to resolve will have to be done on a multilateral basis with patience and skill. The process of reaching these such agreements is time consuming, politically contentious and very often sabotaged by the French looking after their former colonial interests. This is why we have to seek a number of allies across a number of sectors outside of the EU. That means we are going to have to find ways of securing goodwill which will be difficult when we don't have the ability to unilaterally open our markets.

This is why international development must be at the core of our trade policy because it is pretty much the only means at our disposal to enhance market access. We have to invest to ensure that LDCs can overcome the regulatory barriers. This is why our aid budget is so critical. It is an arm of our foreign policy.

As mentioned before, we could diverge from the EU regulatory regime but this would have consequences for EU trade as our risk assessment rating increases. This could lead to more costly border inspections - and it's not something we want to do anyway. Now you can bleat til the cows come home that the EU is protectionist - but it is a fact of life and something with which we must contend simply because we are not the trade superpower in this equation.

It would seem that Brexiteers are imbued with the idea that leaving the EU gives us an entirely free hand in trade. That was never likely. The only means of leaving the EU that will give us complete control of regulation and tariffs is to leave unilaterally - which comes at the expense of most of our trade. It is not a good idea.

This does not mean that we don't have considerable freedoms The UK could still negotiate its own trade agreements with other countries on services, investments, e-commerce, food, and agriculture – i.e. on all the areas that the UK disagrees with the rest of the EU - but again, any policy will have to be made with due consideration for its potential impact on existing trade and our general relations with the EU.

What we need to see is effects based trade policy, seeking to resolve political objectives, not least stemming the flow of counterfeit goods and migration. For that to happen we need multilateral solutions and some innovative thinking. One of the chief benefits of leaving the EU is regaining our right of initiative at the top tables - and that is something we can use to our advantage - not having to clear every decision with Brussels.

The short of it is, we have a very limited toolset at our disposal and no free hand in an ever globalised world of trade. It is going to take time to rebuild our trade instincts and we must pick our battles wisely. Brexit most certainly does open up doors - but we should not walk through those doors just because they are open - and we must not deceive ourselves into thinking there are shortcuts. We cannot expect miracles and we can expect no real progress for a decade or more. That is why safeguarding our trade with the EU is a paramount consideration for Article 50 talks. Too much is at stake to gamble it all on Tory free trade fantasies.