JP Floru: Defending civil liberties is not the same as setting criminals free

By JP Floru

This morning the BBC was at it again.  Always on the lookout for Tory/Coalition Splits, today’s closure of three prisons was used by BBC journalists to rake up perceived squabbles between Tory Modernisers and Tory Traditionalists.

It's time to put something right here.  A fair number of those of us who feel strongly about our traditional civil liberties (such as fair trial, trial by jury, rights of the defendants, habeas corpus etc.) do NOT want to see criminals on the loose. 

According to John Locke it was to protect our property (that is, the ownership of our own person and of the fruits of our labour), that individuals contracted into the state in the first place.  The first (and some would say the only) reason for the state to exist is to protect property.  Limits on government powers protect the individual  against the greatest criminal of all: arbitrary government.  Civil rights in criminal sphere protect individuals against false accusations and arbitrary rulings.

So philosophically there is no divide between Law and Order Tories and Civil Libertarians.  If there is one thing about which all Tories can agree, it is that the state is there to protect property in the Lockean sense.   This does not mean, of course, that the state needs to actually run prisons or monopolise the judiciary – there is wide scope for outsourced prisons and private arbitration.  What it needs to do is to set the framework and to ensure that this framework is enforced – either directly by the state or independently.

It is when the state apparatus abrogates this prime reason of its very existence that Tories can be remarkably united in their condemnation.  If criminals are set loose prematurely I see not many reasons for the existence of the state itself.

J.P.Floru: European Structural Funds - the socialist utopia we all pay for

In a departure from its persistent obsequiousness to the European Project, the Financial Times has published several investigative articles describing the opaque world of EU Structural Funds.   The series of two page spreads are highly informative and sprinkled with eye-wateringly novel examples of EU waste and fraud.  It is courageous for the FT to publish this first rate journalism: the Wrath of the Mandarins in Brussels is not to be underestimated.  A bad seat at an EU briefing is infinitely worse than sitting behind a pillar in the theatre or next to the loo in a plane.

What the articles do not tackle is the root cause of the scandal: the Smoke and Mirror Economics of John Maynard Keynes.  Structural Funds exist because politicians always prefer doling out other people’s money, rather than to allow people to do it themselves.  The ills described in the FT articles are inherent to state subsidies and cannot be remedied short of abolishing them.

As all readers know, structural funds are the EU subsidies to develop underdeveloped EU regions.  You pay for infrastructure, education and development in Calabria, in the hope that one day it will be economically prosperous.  In view of the amounts poured into the poorer regions, Sillicon Valleys and Hong Kongs should be dotted around Europe by now.  Yet there are none.  Why?  Because state sponsored economic development never works as well as the free market.

State investments always have a worse return than private sector investments, yet politicians persist in them no matter what.  Many will attack waste and fraud in EU subsidies, pleading for greater transparency and better controls.  It’s no use.  Bad returns and state investments are horse and carriage.  Yet politicians persist in Keynesian stimulation of the economy rather than trusting the free market.  Why?

Political success depends upon visible success (Getting Things Done).  This is why the EU is so keen on job creation hyperbole to legitimise structural funds: the last funding phase which ended in 2006 allegedly created 1.4 million jobs. The state’s visible hand doling out money is politically infinitely more useful than the invisible hands of millions of individuals investing money as they think best. 

Have you heard of The Fable of Mr. Smith and Mr. Keynes?  A not-so-long time ago, in a not-so-far away country, the state decided to “invest in job-creation”.  Once the factory was built, Mr. Keynes, a politician, said that 100 new jobs had been created thanks to his intervention.  Once the factory produced goods Mr. Keynes issued a second press release, stating that economic growth had increased thanks to him.   In a modest house within eyesight of the factory lived Mr. Smith, a taxpayer.  His life’s story remained untold until now.  He was unable to build his own factory because his money was taxed away.  In fact Mr. Smith could have built two factories, employing 200 people, for the same money - as the state’s inefficiency and some dodgy characters squandered about half of the tax receipts before the state-subsidised factory was completed.  And the Happy Ending?  Mr. Keynes was re-elected with an increased majority.

The FT’s juicy list of waste and fraud is like a feeding frenzy in the zoo for Euro-realists like you and me.  But let’s not forget that a state subsidy is not bad because the EU is in charge.  State subsidies are bad because they are state subsidies.

J P Floru: Putin is thrilled with EU foreign policy

JP Floru is a City of Westminster Councillor and Prospective European Parliamentary Candidate for London 2009.

On 7 August Russia invaded Georgia.  Within 5 days it looked as if the whole country would be overrun.  Sarkozy, holder of the six month rotating presidency of the EU, brokered a peace deal.  In Le Figaro he boasted how the EU rose to the occasion.  His success “showed how much the EU could do with enough political will”. 

President Saakashvili of Georgia had no option but to sign the deal.  But it quickly transpired that emperor Sarkozy had no clothes – the peace deal did not guarantee the territorial integrity of Georgia and allowed Russia to keep “peace keeping troops” in the country.

Today Russia continues to occupy Abkhazia, South Ossetia, and other chunks of Georgia.  Georgia gets 200 civilian observers and humanitarian help (including 35,000 bandages) from the EU.  The EU gets Sarkozy’s promise of “Peace in our Time”. 

Most people in the world probably don’t care much about Georgia.  It’s far away.  It’s unknown.  It has no oil.  But Georgia shows us something else.  This is what EU foreign policy would look like: heaps of verbose diplomacy and no solutions.

J P Floru: Abolish trade union privilege

JP Floru is a City of Westminster Councillor and Prospective European Parliamentary Candidate for London 2009.

The aim of Bob Crow’s latest political tube strike is to bring about the re-nationalisation of the tube network.  The financial damage to the company Tube Lines will be substantial.  Why is it that trade unions are exempt from normal liability laws?  Should we not abolish trade union privilege so we are equal before the law?

Once again the RMT union is going to hold all Londoners to ransom.  About 300 of its members voted in favour of a tube strike of unreasonable length this week.  Is it acceptable that 300 people decide to bring London to a standstill?

The official reason for the strike is that the workers want a pay increase above the inflation beating 4.85% on offer.  According to Bob Crow, their staff are treated as second class citizens.  In fact, it’s precisely the opposite: the 4.85% is higher than the average pay increase of 2.7% in the public sector and 3.8% in the private sector between April and June 2008.  The pay and conditions offered are amongst the best in the industry.

Why would the RMT make these unreasonable demands?  This is of course nothing new: even Livingstone expressed surprise on a previous occasion when the RMT went on strike when all their demands had been met.  Then as now the answer as to why is simple: this strike is political.  RMT union boss Bob Crow -  a card-carrying communist until 1997 when he joined Scargill’s Socialist Labour Party - said last year on London Tonight news that he would organise strikes until the whole of the Tube was re-nationalised.  He already achieved part of his goal: the private company Metronet was re-nationalised when it was taken over by Transport for London last year.  Now it’s the turn of the still privately owned maintenance firm Tube Lines, next week’s target.  The financial loss resulting from strikes may very well trigger re-nationalisation.

J P Floru: Prime Minister Miliband and the end of the UK

J P Floru is a Westminster councillor and a Prospective European Parliamentary Candidate for the London region.

Those who want to ditch the UK for the EU should support Prospective Prime Minister Miliband, the most Europhile member of the Cabinet.  We are going through seismic changes in Europe and if Miliband becomes Prime Minister it may all be over for the UK.

The next two years are crucial for our independence.  The ratchet clause in the Lisbon Treaty will make it self-amending - Westminster’s approval will never again be needed for Europe to extend its powers.  This, and the possibility of being outvoted in the EU on virtually every issue, signifies the end of our self-determination. 

For the time being the Irish No stops the Lisbon Treaty from taking effect. Most of the other countries are ratifying it anyway and trying to bully the Irish into submission.  The Conservatives will hold a referendum if the Treaty has not yet been adopted by all 27 countries when they win power – but the likely 2010 election may come after Ireland concedes and the Treaty becomes law.  Prime Minister Miliband may be succeded by Governor Cameron.

Miliband’s utterances on Europe show that he has inherited Tony Blair’s cynicism.  He rejects the European superstate but accepts the Lisbon Treaty which creates it.  He was also the apologist-in-chief for Labour’s breach of its referendum promise.

In October 2007 Miliband wrote Global Europe, in which he set out the EU’s future strategy.  The UK is rarely mentioned, and Miliband speaks as if he represents Europe.   “We” means “We, Europeans”, not “We, Brits”.  He muses that institutional reform is now behind us, so “We” can tackle new challenges.