Greece said she could not proceed with a new version of the loan agreement, but seems now to be negotiating over its terms. She has conceded she accepts 70% of the old conditions. Greece refused to sit down with the troika of the EU, the ECB and the IMF, but Greek officials have held exploratory talks with each of those bodies apparently. It appears that Homer nods.

Meanwhile Germany and her allies in the rest of the Eurozone have allowed the European Central Bank to lend more money to Greece. It is being done by the Emergency liquidity assistance scheme, where Greece has now run up a bill of Euro 65 billion. The money has been needed to pay for deposit flight from Greek banks. Those same Greek banks have been buying Greek state Treasury Bills, to allow the Greek state to spend more than it collects in taxes, something it was not meant to do under the rules of the loans. It appears that Germany has given way on the hugely important issue of no more borrowings. Germany bows.

The outgoing Greek government was pleased to announce that after many cuts it was only spending day by day what it was raising in tax revenue, leaving aside debt service. This government seemed to think that would continue and placed it in a stronger position, as it did not need new loans for current spending. Instead in January tax revenues fell, leaving the accounts back in deficit.

There can be no winners in a compromise. The two sides started so far apart that both sides will have to surrender a lot if there is to be an agreement. Greece will have to accept some creditor imposed discipline and controls over both her spending and revenue collection in return for new loans. She will not like all the policies this requires. The rest of Euroland will have to lend Greece yet more money, and probably agree to a cut in the money they will get back for past loans by some new debt deal. Such a compromise will not be the end to the saga, as it is likely to leave Greek finances still precariously placed. All may agree new language about growth and an end to austerity, but when a state is spending more than it earns, and has outlived its creditors’ patience, there do have to be cuts in spending it does not want, and creditors have to come up with more money or demand less back. There is no third way, no win win.

Those who want the UK to stay in the current EU at all costs argue either that there is no alternative, or argue that any kind of trade based relationship outside would be worse. They say we would have no influence over the rest of the EU from outside. They say we would have to accept whatever rules and regulations they set for trade within their area. They conflate this with wider influence in the world.

Most of this is silly nonsense. The UK will never have the same relationship as Switzerland or Norway, the two cases usually trotted out. The UK is a much larger country, a much more important market for the rest of the EU, and above all a global power as a leading member of NATO, the Commonwealth and the UN security Council. The UK is in many global networks. The UK from these positions can both seek to influence and persuade others, and in turn is courted for her support.

The UK should begin its renegotiations with the rest of the EU with two simple propositions. The first is that the UK fully accepts the logic of the single currency. The UK will not stand in the way of Eurozone members completing a political union to complete their currency union, as long as the rest of the EU understands this necessitates a new and looser relationship for the UK. As the one large country that can never join the currency union for democratic and economic reasons, we need an honest analysis and new deal based on that obvious truth.

The second is that the UK wishes to remain or become again a national democracy, where the main decisions are taken by Parliament, and where the voters can change government, policy and the law at a General Election when they cease to please. This means the UK cannot sign up to irreversible EU laws. The UK may by agreement accept joint laws, but it must in important cases reserve the right to change its mind.

Once these two simple propositions are grasped, the rest falls into place. The UK may agree to common foreign policy actions, but we will always have a veto on whether to join in or not. The UK can discuss and see if there can be common cause on laws governing business, energy or whatever, but they will only be common all the time both sides still consent. UK exporters will of course meet EU requirements on all goods and services exported to the rest of the EU, just as they observe all US requirements on exports to the US. In some cases the UK will find it easier and better to have exactly the same rules for EU exports to us. In other cases we will have our own rules. They will all be compliant with World Trade obligations and be designed to promote freer trade.

If we take the one issue usually produced as an attempted show stopper, the 10% external tariff on car exports, I would expect both sides to agree not to impose such a tax in either direction. The UK will be a willing partner in measures which cut tariffs and other barriers to mutual trade.

The UK will have enhanced influence in the rest of the world as it will no longer have to submit to common EU positions in global talks on issues ranging from climate change to trade arrangements. With the EU the UK will have the clout of a major trade partner who imports more than she exports from the rest of the EU, and the status that one of Europe’s large and powerful countries will always have when leading European countries sit down to discuss many global and regional issues.

Yesterday I was particularly busy – speaking to a local business seminar in the morning, attending a lunch meeting, then dealing with constituents’ queries and on to the Wokingham Conservative AGM to speak.
If people send in very long submissions, and include allegations about named individuals or companies, there will be a delay in posting. I do not have the time to check out all the allegations about named people and companies and cannot publish them without a clear factual basis to support them. Your contributions will get posted more quickly if you take this into account.
I also delete some which are offensive to others as I do not always have the time to edit them. As you know I do not edit from a party perspective.

A tired Mrs Merkel this week had to fly beyond the eastern borders of the Union she leads to deal with the revolt of Ukraine, and then fly back to the heart of her Europe to deal with the revolt of the Greeks. In a way they are the same problem. In Ukraine the people of Donbas do not wish their country to join the European Union and have rebelled against the pro EU government in Kiev. In Greece the electorate have rejected the usual parties that accept EU control and leadership, and have chosen a new challenger party which rejects the authority of the troika and wishes to renounce EU monetary and economic policy. The European Union looks overstretched.

It is true that the Ukraine problem is exacerbated by Russia. I will repeat again I in agreement with most western commentators condemn any arming of rebels or military intervention by the European Union’s neighbour to the east. The European Union is deluding itself, however, if it thinks the entire Ukrainian revolt is a put up job by Russia. There are many local people in the east of Ukraine who so dislike their government they will take up arms against it. The European Union, as Mrs Merkel showed this week, has to find a way of living with Russia to the east, as Russia will stay there as a geographical certainty and a well armed power that could be friend but might become a worse foe.

Mrs Merkel has rightly decided that a peaceful settlement in Ukraine is the best option. I wish her peace initiative well. The trouble is that for whatever reason the Ukrainian government finds itself in the position where a significant minority of its people will not accept its authority and have taken up arms against it. Now that the Kiev regime in its turn has shelled and bombed those it wishes to be its obedient citizens in the east it will find it very difficult to reassure and resettle the country. Without control of its borders it cannot be sure there are no military personnel and equipment coming in from outside. Without offering guarantees and home rule to its eastern citizens, it will be difficult to control its eastern borders. Meanwhile the European Union has to answer critics who ask why has it given so much support to the Kiev government, without condemning its excessive use of violence?

The Greek financial problems are but the most extreme of a set of problems that have emerged in much of the Eurozone. Ignoring those of us who warned that a single currency could not work well without first creating a single state to back it, Germany with her inner circle of supporting countries rushed into an arrangement which was bound to break. There has to be a transfer union, an agreed system of sending money from rich to poor, from more successful to less successful, in any flourishing currency union. There has to be a banking union where all stand behind the banks of all. Places in deficit have to be easily financed by places in surplus. We do not have cities or counties in England unable to finance their public deficits or their balance of payments deficits with the rest of the country. Nor should they have such problems in Greece or Spain or Ireland.

Could this be mended? Yes it could. The European Union could call a halt to expansion beyond its current borders. It could let the odd country leave as it moves towards political union, with trade and association agreements replacing membership. A smaller Union would have more chance of success. For the core in the currency has to embark rapidly and decisively on moves to full banking and social union, where each country is submerged in the greater whole and each part of the union pays according to its means and receives according to its needs. Germany wants to lead Europe on the cheap. Modern advanced states expect complex and expensive welfare systems, and economic policies which deliver growth and prosperity. The Euro area does neither at the moment.

There has been much discussion about whether government treats benefit cheats relative to tax cheats fairly.

Both set out to worsen the public finances by deception – the one by withholding money due, the other by taking money they are not entitled to. Most of us think they should both be traced and dealt with by the authorities. I see no moral superiority or inferiority in the tax evader over the benefit thief.

For both categories of criminal I think the penalties should usually be financial. Their crime is financial. The reason we do not like their crime is because it leaves the rest of us worse off, as we have to pay for the falsely claimed benefit and make good the shortfall on tax from the evaders. Putting them in prison would mean we will be even worse off, as we will then have to pay to maintain them in prison, and they will not be able to earn to make a contribution. Prison would only be appropriate if there were aggravating factors, like using threats of violence or repeat offences.

There is then the difficult issue of the size of the fine or financial penalty. Clearly the fine a rich tax evader can pay could be a lot larger than the fine a benefit cheat could pay. The benefit cheat should not be expected to pay such a sum that it removed their incentive to go to work and get themselves sorted out financially. The fine a tax evader has to pay should be a penalty rate so that it hurts financially.

The benefit cheat may need assistance to go to work and to pay more of his or her own bills. Getting the balance right is difficult. There should be a penalty for theft, but success surely is getting them to eschew benefit theft in future and to provide more for themselves. We want the taxpayer to pay less for them, not to end up paying more. The tax evader needs a strong warning that cheats do not prosper.Making him pay say twice the amount of tax evaded as a penalty on top of the original bill should hurt. Putting him on to tougher and tighter financial reporting requirements in future would also be a good idea.

Whenever I have been responsible for managing a government department or a company, I have wanted my staff to be honest. All the best organisations are transparent, reporting accurate and relevant information in a timely way. They pour over cases where quality falls short or harm is done, both to compensate the customer or client and to make sure such an error cannot occur again. Remedy begins with honest reporting of the incident. Management does not normally penalise the employee who reports the mistake, but works with them to put it right. It is a bigger offence to suppress the error or seek to cover up the damage, than to make the mistake in the first place.

We see how well honesty and transparency can work by looking at good airlines. An airline knows having a 100% safe flying record is crucial to the health of the business and to the wellbeing of the passengers. Pilots and flight crew are required to report near misses, flight errors, and malfunctions in the aircraft. Each one is investigated thoroughly. Where the error could repeat a generic remedy is inserted in the manuals or programmed into the aircraft systems where this can work.

It is good news to see that Jeremy Hunt, the Secretary of State for Health, is seeking to bring this culture of good management into the NHS. The NHS has great power to do good, but it can also do harm. Serious conditions can be missed by sloppy diagnosis. Individuals can be harmed or even killed by giving them the wrong drugs or the wrong quantities of drugs. Operations can miscarry, leaving a person in pain and difficulty. Recent enquiries have shown examples of very bad care and treatment which are now coming to light.

Mr Hunt is right to carry a torch for greater transparency and honesty. He is right to demand that all medical and surgical errors are reported and properly considered. He is right to demand high standards of cleanliness, infection control and quality through our hospitals and surgeries.

Tax evasion is bad and a criminal offence. Tax avoidance is something different.

When most people in politics seem to  agree about something, it is often a good idea to ask a few questions.

Currently many politicians  seem to agree that the government should crack down on tax avoidance. It is a popular policy, as people assume it is their neighbour that is the tax avoider and they are the taxpayer. It comes “free”, offering lots of extra revenue to spend with no apparent increase in taxes.It gets them through the interview which asks how are they going to spend more and get the deficit down.

If it were that simple, wouldn’t it have happened by now? Can you remember a government that did not want to cut tax avoidance? So why is it so difficult?

It is difficult if not impossible because the self same parties and governments which want to end tax avoidance, also want to continue and expand the number of policies which allow tax relief for good things they wish to reward and identify. Most of those who condemn tax avoidance save for their retirement through pension funds. This allows them to save tax free, and to accumulate capital gains free of capital gains tax and income free of income tax in the pension fund.

Many of them with money to save also buy ISAs, to shield savings from both taxes. So why do people who so strongly condemn tax avoidance do this? Why don’t they see they are doing exactly the same as the avoiders they condemn. They are taking advantage of tax policy decisions which allow people to pay less tax. If they really believed their own rhetoric they would refuse to tax shelter their savings, and put money by for a rainy day and for retirement in tax paying funds with no tax relief.

They need to understand that just as they decide to use these “loopholes” or legitimate tax breaks to increase their own savings and wealth, so companies use tax loopholes or legitimate breaks to increase the amount of money they earn which they can spend on the company rather than sending to the taxman. If the Treasury offers companies tax offsets for investing in certain ways, companies will invest to get the break. If the government allows tax privileges if you operate in certain parts of the country, a business would be remiss not to see if it could do so.

Some multinationals get too clever at minimising their tax bills, and find they incur reputational damage when this becomes a matter of general dislike. Whilst few have any sympathy for multinationals, they do have to seek to satisfy the often competing tax jurisdictions of their various countries of operation. The UK after all sets a lower rate of corporation tax than the other advanced countries deliberately to attract more activity and cost here amongst those multinationals. UK policy is to encourage businesses to do more here to have a lower tax rate.

We can all unite to condemn tax evasion, the refusal to pay taxes due and deceit in telling the tax authorities what your profits or earnings were. That is a different mater. The present debate is in danger of confusing legitimate tax avoidance, something most people and companies do with the encouragement of government, with the criminal offence of evasion. You can  avoid all tobacco duties by the simple approach of not smoking. That I thought makes you a loyal follower of government health advice, not a tobacco tax avoider who should get on with buying some cigarettes for the greater good of the budget.

On Wednesday Mrs Merkel takes a few hours off from the Euro crisis to appear in Minsk with France, Ukraine and Russia to see if they can reach a diplomatic solution to the Ukraine crisis.

Russia will want the west to put on hold any ideas of arming the Kiev government, and will ask about recent NATO deployments. Russia will also want to know when and how the Ukrainian government will stop shelling its own citizens in East Ukraine. The Ukraine government will want guarantees of no further Russian support for UKrainian citizens in armed revolt against the Kiev government, and will argue that much of the violence has come from rebels armed by Russia. France and Germany will presumably urge caution and peace on both sides, and will seek to reach an agreement based loosely on the positions the two sides currently occupy. There is talk of a demilitarised zone around the present front line between the two forces.

It is difficult to know how the Ukraine government can pick up the pieces and offer fair and peaceful government to the whole country after what it has done to some of its civilians. The Kiev government will not want to trust the armed rebels, or forgive them their attacks. Similarly the rebels will not easily accept Kiev sovereignty, and will distrust the Kiev government. It may be possible to draw up new lines, allowing parts of East Ukraine a large measure of self government based on the territories the two sides have now established. The longer a peaceful solution takes, the more likely the rebels will want full independence and the less likely Kiev will wish to give it to them.

This is a huge test for the politicians and officials and involved. Most of the west does not want a war with Russia, but nor does it wish to see an easy Russian victory. Condemning Russian military intervention is the easy part of the response. Finding a way to resolve the conflict on acceptable terms is altogether more difficult. Delay in finding a diplomatic solution both sides can accept makes a prolonged war in Ukraine more likely, and increases the risk of a wider flare up in violence. It is a great pity the EU started out on its expansionist course with the Ukraine without properly considering the likely reaction of pro Russian people inside Ukraine, and the ability of Russia to give them support.

Ever since she conceded over setting up the Euro to France, Germany has been a semi detached member. Germany has willed the end, a common currency. She has refused the means, a political, monetary and banking union. Germany has wanted a relatively weak currency which helps her export and build up large surpluses. She has not wanted to share her wealth with the other members of the zone who are struggling financially.

Germany has been adamant that she will not pay for any weak country’s balance of payments deficit. They need to export more and import less. She has refused to prop up weak banks in other countries, saying that they need to lend less and raise more share capital. She has refused to grant or lend money to weak states that spend too much and need to borrow. She has told them to cut spending and raise taxes. All this has been called Germany’s austerity policy for the Euro. Most people think it has been followed, that Germany is in charge, and Greece will have to submit again.

It is true that all these approaches are formally Germany’s policy. It is also true that other countries in the Euro have been forced to cut spending, cut wages, recapitalise banks and do other prudent but deflationary things to try to live within the Euro. These policies will not allow the Euro to be backed by a successful, growing and prosperous area. In some co0untries they had led to mass unemployment, big cuts in wages, and a generation of young people unable to join the workforce.

However, it has not gone all Germany’s way. If Germany had kept them all on these policies all the time the Euro would have broken up by now. Just as Germany requires more cuts and more austerity, so behind the scenes step by step the rest force Germany to accept more responsibility for the communal debts, and to offer more money to the laggard economies. Germany has lost a series of crucial battles for prudence. In 2011 when the currency was near collapse Germany accepted large lines of credit being granted by the ECB to commercial banks in the zone. In 2014 Germany was forced to accept quantitative easing to bid up the bond prices of other states in the union and create more Euro cash.
Today Germany has to accept that the ECB will finance the Greek commercial banks, offering them as much cash as they need. These banks in turn can finance the Greek state.

Germany- and others – have also had to accept major debt write offs by both Greece and Cyprus in their respective past bankruptcies. Both were allowed to stay in the Euro despite their poor financial conduct.

The battle between Greece and Germany will prove once again that Germany has to lose if she wants to keep the Euro. Germany has to turn a blind eye to some new fix, some extend and pretend approach to Greek debt and continued cash supply to Greek banks. Alternatively Germans along with others will have to accept a major write down of Greek debt from another bankruptcy of the state along with possible losses in commercial banks if Germany prevents further ECB support. This morning the Greek Prime Minister has made a fighting speech implying he either wins or he declares bankruptcy and leaves the Euro. Germany and other states will take a big hit on Greek bonds if that happens.

Germany needs to wake up to the shocking reality. All the time she stays in the Euro she will be forced one way or an other to pay more of its bills. She has but a minority share of the votes (18%) and decision making, in a zone now dominated by states who believe they should be able to spend more of Germany’s money for her. So it will be, unless Germany has decided to move from semi detached to outside the zone. If she stays in she will discover she is in a terrace with shared walls she needs to pay to repair.

On Thursday afternoon I visited the exhibition of the four remaining copies of Magna Carta in the House of Lords. There was a sense of reverence in the Robing Room as we peered through the glass cabinets at the small and powerful writing of the scribes 800 years before. I felt pride that our country had expressed and fought over such powerful ideas of liberty so long ago. I also felt a sense of how fragile freedom and honest government can be, recalling the many arguments, Parliamentary battles and wars that were fought in the centuries that followed to develop and cherish some of the ideals embodied in the Charter. King John, after all, overthrew Magna Carta not long after signing it.

The most enduring core of Magna Carta revolves around two big ideas. The first was that those who paid the taxes had the right to be consulted and have their grievances taken seriously before approving a new tax levy.

* (12) No ‘scutage’ or ‘aid’ may be levied in our kingdom without its general consent, unless it is for the ransom of our person, to make our eldest son a knight, and (once) to marry our eldest daughter. For these purposes only a reasonable ‘aid’ may be levied. ‘Aids’ from the city of London are to be treated similarly.

* (14) To obtain the general consent of the realm for the assessment of an ‘aid’ – except in the three cases specified above – or a ‘scutage’, we will cause the archbishops, bishops, abbots, earls, and greater barons to be summoned individually by letter. To those who hold lands directly of us we will cause a general summons to be issued, through the sheriffs and other officials, to come together on a fixed day (of which at least forty days notice shall be given) and at a fixed place. In all letters of summons, the cause of the summons will be stated. etc

This fundamental principle was taken up by successive Parliaments, which prized highly their right to be consulted, and later their right to decide, what taxes would be levied.

The second big idea was that everyone should be free of guilt and free from arrest or detention by government, unless good reason was shown and they were afforded a fair trial of their case. People today mainly praise clauses 39 and 40, but 38 is also central.

(38) In future no official shall place a man on trial upon his own unsupported statement, without producing credible witnesses to the truth of it.

+ (39) No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in any way, nor will we proceed with force against him, or send others to do so, except by the lawful judgment of his equals or by the law of the land.

+ (40) To no one will we sell, to no one deny or delay right or justice. -( See more at: http://www.bl.uk/magna-carta/articles/magna-carta-english-translation)

Today the threat to our ancient liberties comes not from a tyrannical monarch or even from a power hungry UK government, but from our entanglements with the EU. The principle that we have redress before approving taxes is damaged or broken by the levies made on us by the EU. These are often retrospective and are required whether we are happy or not with EU policy. No change of government can unilaterally abate the EU taxes.

The principle that people cannot be detained without trial could also be damaged by the different justice systems of parts of the EU, where innocent UK citizens could be detained under a European Arrest Warrant and not treated as the heirs to Magna Carta would expect.

In these respects Je suis Magna Carta.