Dubai – why the surprise?

The collapse of the Dubai Government’s finances will have a catastrophic knock-on effect in the rest of the world. Already 17% of the Emirate’s population had left during 2009; now South Asian labourers will be left without work but unable to return home; £50bn of European bank loans will not be repaid. Politically, personally and financially, the impact will cause yet another shudder to the global economy – for if Dubai were a bank, it would be one of those deemed “too big to fail”.

Dubai world was an example of fine engineering - and ridiculous excess

However, the most alarming thing about the apparent total collapse of the Dubai economy is not the negative impact on the world economy, it is that apparently sensible people expressed surprise. How long must we wait before governments and economists learn the most obvious lesson of all – if it looks too good to be true, it probably is?

There is a further lesson here, namely about where the blame for all this truly lies. Bankers will always seek to make money; people will always, if offered to have today what they thought they would never get, take the credit on offer; moral scruples will rarely impact on human action. However, Governments can regulate – indeed, it is Governments’ job to regulate. Again, Dubai is a case where excess was left unregulated. Again, we will all pay the penalty.

On Fair Play

Is there no end to Thierry Henry’s talents? Not content with winning every major honour in the game and being widely regarded as one of the most talented sportsmen on the planet, he has now achieved the impossible – he has united Ireland and England, albeit merely in common cause against their foes across the Channel!

I have an unhealthy interest in international affairs, an unhealthy interest in football, and therefore my interest in the World Cup reaches ludicrous levels. Furthermore, as one who broadly supports all the British Isles sides, it would have been good to see “Ireland Republic” (as FIFA officially calls it) join England at next year’s festival. Nevertheless, my reaction to Henry’s misdemeanour was complex.

My first reaction was to feel sorry for the Irish players and officials. I remember being robbed by referees in the University of Newcastle Intramural League Second Division and it was chronically rage-inducing. So to be robbed of the opportunity of a place in the World Cup in such fashion – a genuinely career-defining moment for any player or manager – is the height of anguish. I felt sorry for the Irish fans too, who had travelled despite economic travails to support their team in such huge numbers, and for those watching at home too. To lose a playoff is one thing, but to have the opportunity of a footballing summer in South Africa seized from you in such a way leaves an empty feeling for any fan.

However, then comes the inevitable backlash which does sometimes lead you to wonder about human reason. Former players seriously tried to argue that Henry should have owned up to the referee – as if a single player at any level of the game (far less one who may just have secured 60 million people a team to support at the following year’s World Cup) would do that. Others tried to argue Ireland had been cheated of its place – up to a point, but there is no guarantee the outcome would have been any different had the referee spotted the handball (or, for that matter, the offside which preceded it), and in any case it would likely have made little odds if the referee had given France a clear penalty five minutes earlier. Others have said it denied Ireland what it deserved (i.e. a place at the World Cup) – but this is highly debatable, given the team had stumbled its way through a straighforward group and been well beaten in the first leg. Certainly Henry’s reputation will have been hit by what he did, just as Zinedine Zidane’s was the last time France played extra-time in a World Cup match – but, as in that latter case, this will not ultimately detract from the unquestionable excellence of the player. Meanwhile, we would do well to remember “cheating” is not by any means exclusive to France – after all, the Football Association of Ireland has been known to poach players from outside its boundaries and has even been known to field players who have subsequently admitted they were not even qualified under the “granny rule” (and he even had the cheek to write a long anti-Henry rant in today’s papers)!

“Fair Play” dictates, say some, that the French Football Federation should offer to replay the game. This is a hard one to counter, as there are precedents – Bahrain-Uzbekistan in 2005 and Arsenal-Sheffield United in 1999 spring to mind. Nevertheless, what hope had England of a replay after the original “Hand of God” in 1986? There, in fact, lies the rub. Irish fans had spent 23 years laughing at England’s misfortune that day, and now it has turned out not to be quite so funny. They also know that if you substitute Robbie Keane for Thierry Henry and Richard Dunne for William Gallas, they would have been relatively unconcerned by the means of qualification, as the ends would have justified it. Thus, incidents like these should lead us all to question our sense of “fair play”, not just Thierry Henry.

Balancing the budget – for 2100 years…

With thanks to O’Neill in 2009, and Cicero in 55BC:

“The national budget must be balanced. The public debt must be reduced; the arrogance of the authorities must be moderated and controlled. Payments to foreign governments must be reduced, if the nation doesn’t want to go bankrupt. People must again learn to work, instead of living on public assistance.“

The job of an MP…

Here, just for reference, is a list of today’s Northern Ireland Questions in Parliament.

Oral Questions to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland
1	Mr Robert Goodwill (Scarborough & Whitby): On what date he expects the Saville Inquiry to report.
(296666)
2	David Tredinnick (Bosworth): What recent assessment he has made of the extent of activities of dissident paramilitaries in Northern Ireland.
(296667)
3	Mr Shailesh Vara (North West Cambridgeshire): What recent assessment he has made of the extent of the activities of loyalist paramilitary organisations in Northern Ireland.
(296668)
4	Philip Davies (Shipley): What discussions he has had with the Northern Ireland Executive on proposals for the appointment of new commissioners to the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland.
(296669)
5	Mr Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold): What recent progress has been made on loyalist decommissioning; and if he will make a statement.
(296670)
6	David Taylor (North West Leicestershire): What assessment he has made of the effect of the report of the Consultative Group on the Past on the operation of the historical enquiries team of the Police Service of Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement.
(296672)
7	James Duddridge (Rochford & Southend East): What recent assessment he has made of the level of activity of dissident Republicans in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement.
(296673)
8	Angela Watkinson (Upminster): What progress has been made on reorganisation of local government in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement.
(296674)
9	Mr Julian Brazier (Canterbury): What recent assessment he has made of the progress of devolution of responsibility for criminal justice and policing to the Northern Ireland Assembly; and if he will make a statement.
(296675)
10	Andrew Mackinlay (Thurrock): Whether there will be a residual power for the Government to intervene in relation to a decision by a Northern Ireland Justice Minister to repatriate a foreign prisoner on medical or other grounds following the proposed devolution of responsibility for criminal justice and policing; and if he will make a statement.
(296676)
11	Mr Adrian Bailey (West Bromwich West): What recent steps he has taken to strengthen mechanisms for the supervision of offenders following their release from prisons in Northern Ireland.
(296677)
12	Mr Crispin Blunt (Reigate): What recent assessment he has made of the level of activity of dissident Republicans in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement.
(296678)
13	Robert Neill (Bromley & Chislehurst): What progress has been made on reorganisation of local government in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement.
(296679)
14	Mr Greg Hands (Hammersmith & Fulham): What recent representations he has received on reorganising local government in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement.
(296680)

Something I immediately notice is that they all come from English-based MPs. Not a single Northern Ireland MP was able to think of a single question to ask the Secretary of State before 27 October – despite issues of devolution of justice (and associated issues on the past), rising security threat (and decommissioning), financial pressures on businesses and the voluntary sector, etc etc etc.

Or perhaps our MPs simply weren’t at Westminster to submit the questions…?

Post-ratification referendum would be pointless expense

David Cameron is to announce later this week what a Conservative Government would do in the event that, as seems likely, the Lisbon Treaty is already in effect before the next election. As one who has always supported a referendum and opposed the Treaty in its current form, I would nevertheless urge him to abandon the idea of a post-ratification referendum. It would be a pointless expense, a dangerous constitutional precedent, and unnecessary to delivering the desired outcome.

For those of us seeking a more accountable and transparent EU the Lisbon Treaty is, overall, a step in the wrong direction. It puts in place jobs which do not need to exist (e.g. the “High Representative”), institutional reforms which could do no more than deliver deadlock (e.g. enhanced co-decision), and moves us us decisively away from democracy and towards bureaucracy. However, a post-ratification referendum would be nothing but a glorified opinion poll – and a highly expensive one, at a time when public budgets are tight. A “No” vote would leave a Conservative Government having to re-negotiate with 26 other member states whose Governments would legitimately have no desire to do so – at a time when concentration should surely be on matters related to finance, the economy, and security. There would be no realistic hope of delivering anything better by putting the UK Government in a position where it could negotiate solely on the basis of an already flawed Treaty.

Even if the possibility of de-ratification exists (and in fact it does within the Treaty), it is a convention and requirement of the UK Constitution that incoming Governments do not un-do constitutional amendments carried out by a previous one. Thus, un-doing the Treaty directly would not only be a dangerous precedent for European relations, but also for UK democracy. The Constitution works precisely because amendments to it, even if not approved, are accepted. Constant reversals of Constitutional change would render the Constitution effectively unworkable. In short, without this convention, a written Constitution would be required – again, an entirely unnecessary diversion in times of great financial, economic and military need.

Most importantly of all, a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty would only serve to enhance the idea that the UK stands apart from the rest of Europe in its attitude towards it. This is entirely misleading. In stating an overall concern about the removal of accountability from the EU institutions and about creeping Euro-federalism, the Conservative Party does not only speak for the UK. The Conservative vision of an EU consisting of a free trading bloc of friendly nation states is not unique to one country, but one shared by the vast majority of citizens right across the continent. An incoming Conservative Government must seek reforms of the EU institutions not just on behalf of the UK, but on behalf of EU citizens everywhere – and it should operate politically with that objective constantly in mind.

This, a referendum would serve no purpose. However, a Conservative Government should seek reform of the institutions, by speaking up for citizens across the whole of the EU, and by a constitutional amendment of its own (announced recently by William Hague in Belfast) that any future treaties be subject to pre-ratification referendum. That is an entirely fair policy which will achieve the objective of a more accountable EU much faster than any glorified opinion poll.

Let us be clear that the failure to have a referendum is the fault of the current Labour Government, not the next Conservative one. The Conservatives’ commitment to one dates from a context where they would have been coming to power before the Treaty was in effect. Not for the first time, it is the Labour Party which has gone back on its word, and the Conservative Party which will need to fix it.

“The Future, not the Past”

The Ulster Unionists once ran with the election slogan “The Future, not the Past”. It does not work well as a slogan, but the message remains entirely apt.

With a General Election due to be called before June, the people of Northern Ireland will be offered two futures: one, where politics remains the usual peripheral and parochial orange/green carve-up; the other, where politics becomes about the issues which really count – defending jobs, raising pensions, protecting security. 

Never has national political influence been more needed than at this moment, given a Labour government which has delivered soaring unemployment, record debt, and ill-equipped security forces; and nowhere has is it more relevant than in Northern Ireland, where unemployment is rising fastest, local businesses are particularly endangered, and security remains the core political issue.

The Conservative/Ulster Unionist link is the route to offer electable candidates who will not only give Northern Ireland a voice on these issues – taking the tough decisions to defend public sector jobs despite necessarily lower spending, to raise pensions despite lower tax revenue, and to equip our security forces and health services properly despite lower budgets – but also play a role in shaping these policies. Even if other candidates had the courage to take such tough decisions on such essential issues – and there is no evidence they do – they would not have the means to deliver on any of it.

Judging by recent media coverage, you would think we could afford for politics to be about personality clashes. Try telling that to the family facing an uncertain future because the main breadwinner’s job is at risk; or to the first-time buyer facing insurmountable debt repayments; or to the concerned parent whose son has just arrived in Afghanistan with insufficient equipment.

Northern Ireland has never needed a strong voice at Westminster as much as it does now – on the economy, on finances, on justice. At the forthcoming General Election, the electorate will give its answer as to who, in their judgement, is best placed to provide it. First, however, we must ask the right question. This is not about replaying irresponsibility of the past, but about promoting responsibility in future.

MPs get glance of real world

Earlier this year I sent payment for tax I owed on 27 February, to meet a deadline of 28 February. Unfortunately, it did not arrive until 1 March. In mid-March, I received notification that, since I had not met the deadline, I would have to pay around £40 interest. I cursed the postal system, but did not find this unreasonable, and paid up by return. At the end of March I received notification that, since I had not met the deadline, I would also have to pay a £300 fine – although I was not directed as to how. I responded with an appeal, but enclosed the £300. In early April I received a formal demand for the £300 fine, which I paid by return assuming the original fine had not been received. I then found that the generous tax man had taken £600 off me by the end of the month – plus the £40 interest. £640 for a delayed postal item! I wrote back demanding not only return of the £300, but also the interest on it since the tax man had missed the deadline – no such luck!

Thus, I have a hint of sympathy for the MPs being asked to return money they felt they had claimed legitimately. Yet I feel the whole experience will bring them a healthy dose of reality. This is a glance at life in a country where the authorities seek not to assist, but to catch out. Is it fair? No. Is it typical? Absolutely. What is more, unlike me, the MPs can do something to ensure it does not happen again – not just to them, but to anyone out there.

I was not entirely innocent – I had, after all, left it to the very last day. Still, £640 (or even the final £340) seems a little harsh. Likewise MPs are not entirely innocent – they were not entitled to make “excessive” claims beyond the line of duty, and many of their claims were “excessive”. Some of the demands for repayment also seem a little harsh. Harsh, but again typical of the type of nonsense your average self-employed worker faces while trying to do the right thing and making ends meet.

At the end of this all, it is not just a new parliamentary expenses system we need. It is an understanding on behalf of those developing policies and passing laws of what it is like to be faced, constantly, by authorities which set out to catch you out even when your every action is honest and legitimate. This taste of real life will do our legislatores and our legislature no harm whatsoever in the long run.

Post-conference, we have work to do

David Cameron addresses Conference

My first Conservative Party Conference was remarkable not just for the scale of the event, but more so for the tone – one of quiet determination, one of building legitimacy, and one of seeking a mandate from every corner of the country.

The tone was summed up in David Cameron’s speech, which oozed not eager anticipation about the coming election on behalf of the Conservatives, but rather quiet determination on behalf of the whole country. To me, this was a party which is keenly aware of the Zeitgeist, and which thus seeks at this inauspicious time not to gain adulation, but to give assurance.

It was a Conference also in which electoral risks were taken so as to ensure legitimacy of action once in government. George Osborne’s speech, and later debates about the economy and business, established that this was a party prepared to do what was necessary, as it has done before. Announcements on health, housing and education demonstrated that the issue was not just clarity of policy, but also of priority. Finally, David Cameron delivered the essential statement of values: “A Conservative government will reward those who take responsibility, and care for those who can’t.“

From my personal point of view, the work on social justice and on Northern Ireland which brought me into the party carries on apace. The Centre for Social Justice ran 24 fringe meetings, as well as an impromptu informal meeting with delegations from Northern Ireland’s children’s sector. Work in Northern Ireland will focus on many areas where trends are sadly even worse than in Great Britain – such as rising debt levels and stubbornly high economic dependency. The fact that such interest is being shown in Northern Ireland by the Conservative Leadership is evidence once again of a party which, for the first time perhaps ever, wishes to view Northern Ireland not as an “issue” but as part of the country to be governed – as an equal part, with equal rights and responsibilities. That level of influence will be to the benefit of everyone in Northern Ireland, whatever their background.

At this time, Northern Ireland particularly has much not just to learn but also to teach. Public debate about reversing dependency on the state and on the public sector has gone on longer here, because it has been more marked and was apparent even during the boom. Under Labour, public spending here was cranked up 60% and the subvention reached £4,000 per annum for every man, woman and child – almost double the revenue from taxes, a position which self-evidently could not last. Communities all over Northern Ireland became more and more state-dependent and less and less self-reliant, while there was no marked improvement in public service delivery. Too many of the fancy offices in the centre of the new Belfast do not belong to professional businesses or restaurants, but to hugely subsidised Commissions and quangos. Hence, Owen Paterson’s commitment to a 25-year plan to reduce dependency on public spending and to enhance the private sector in a managed way - a plan which includes “enterprise zones” to encourage indigenous industry and which, yes, encourages public pay freezes as the best means to protect jobs. Such a plan could make Northern Ireland the model UK region to follow – this time, for the right reasons.

In the end, it was all summed up by Ken Clarke: “Labour schemes its schemes; the Liberal Democrats dream their dreams; but we have work to do“. That includes in Northern Ireland, where we can and must play our part in securing a vote for change.

Lisbon Treaty and EU reform

Micky asks for my views on the Lisbon Treaty and whether there should be a referendum in the UK.

The Lisbon Treaty, as it stands, is bad for Northern Ireland and for the United Kingdom. There is some good within it – enhanced areas of “co-decision”, for example, mean our representatives in the European Parliament get a decisive say on more issues than previously. However, by and large it is a deliberately missed opportunity to give European citizens a greater say over decisions which affect their daily lives but which are made far too distantly from them – yet another frustrating victory for bureaucracy over democracy.

There should have been a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty before the UK ratified it – if only because that was a manifesto pledge by the Labour Party which was blatantly broken. There is still time, if the Lisbon Treaty is not in effect by the next General Election, to give the people of the UK their say. However, if the Lisbon Treaty is in effect by then, a referendum would amount to no more than a glorified (and expensive) opinion poll.

It is an established and necessary convention of the UK Constitution that Governments do not overturn constitutional amendments made by previous Governments (of whatever colour). Thus, for example, the utterly pointless and unnecessarily expensive UK Supreme Court, whose members were sworn in on Thursday, will remain in place under the next Government. The same will apply to the Lisbon Treaty, if it is in effect by then.

Nevertheless, the European Union should not and cannot be left unreformed by a new UK Government. It has been unable to respond to the political crisis because it has removed power to too great a distance from the people. It has been unable to respond to the economic crisis because it has been obsessed with petty regulation rather than fostering entrepreneurship and flexibility in the employment market. It has been unable to respond to the climate crisis as it has been too content to engage in posturing with the United States rather than agreeing concrete action. Insofar as the Lisbon Treaty deals with any of these, it only makes them worse.

Thus, a new UK Government will seek to reform the EU – this time in a direction which gives its people a greater say, which focuses on removing regulations, and which deals with real action rather than grand talk. It will do so knowing that, in so doing, it not only speaks for most citizens of the UK, but also for most citizens of the EU, much though the bureaucrats and political class might like to deny it. There is, after all, a reason so few Governments dared ask their citizens for their opinion on the Lisbon Treaty…

Brown proves next election is not “Left versus Right”…

… but “Authoritarian versus Liberal”.

Already New Labour has seen fit to demand security checks of people entering schools to talk to children, to brand criminals women who make their own arrangements for childminding, to force people in the security industry to pay £245 to register nationally for a system which when delivered locally cost just £80 – the list goes on.

Yesterday Gordon Brown clarified that it is far from complete. The next Labour Government would indeed introduce ID cards with biometric data to check up on us all; force young mothers to live in glorified orphanages; take home care away from the community and allocate it too to the State. Matrons must not be left to run hospital wards, nor principals schools, nor civic-minded individuals charities without reporting to the State through the massed ranks of bureaucrats paid for by the already debt-riven taxpayer. Whatever happens, no one in the UK should be able to make their own choices, participate in their own communities, or deliver what is apt for their own localities – no, this must all be left to the State. ”Education, Education, Education” has become “Centralisation, Centralisation, Centralisation”.

This ongoing assault on our individual liberties – and indeed on the liberties of professionals in hospitals, schools, voluntary sector bodies and elsewhere who might just know how to run their organisations without the helpful intervention of some Whitehall mandarin –  must and will be the defining issue of this election. For ultimately it is this which impacts most greatly on our quality of life, and it is this which is the very reason we have seen barely any improvement in public services for all the debt-causing finance-savaging ”investment” they received.

As always, of course, these great State interventions come entirely without a price tag. Indeed, they come with an assurance that levels of public spending will be retained on hospitals, schools and lovely giveaways like universal child benefit, while at the same time our soldiers will remain in Afghanistan and Iraq - and we’ll even introduce free personal care for nearly all older people. The fact that nearly 10p in every pound we give the Government now goes purely on servicing the debt Labour has accumulated to pay for this bureaucratic invasion seems to have passed them by.

To those of us living real lives in the real world, it is evident immediate change is needed. A State which tries to intervene in every aspect of our lives is something we simply cannot afford – not just financially, but also socially and morally. It is time we took back control of our own lives, of our own decisions, and of our own communities. It is time we replaced the “authoritarian” with the “liberal”, before all our worst Orwellian nightmares are realised.